Network Rail consultation - railway enhancements Dore/Grindleford

[Hinzy9 10]

no - the platform will serve the manchester "line" there and wont serve the chesterfield "line" like it probably did back in the glory days of the station

 

[Andy C 86]

Brilliant! I get the train to Nottingham every day and it always has to stop at Dore to let a train through. Hopefully this will help trains coming from the south as well.

 

there will be marginal benefit. It won't change the fact there is a junction where the line from Derby/Nottingham meets the line from Manchester, however delays caused by a Manchester bound train waiting at a signal there because there is a train coming the other way over the single track will no longer happen

[Annie Bynnol 613]

Grindleford - about half the land needed belongs to the National Trust - who's property is inalienable (held in trust and can't be sold) and can't be taken by a CPO either. Some delicacy will be required there!.

 

National Trust does not own most of the land needed - as it already belongs to Network Rail/ BRB Residuary. It is mostly on the PW yard and tip.

If any realignment is needed at Rough Wood then it will be included in the submission to Parliament under the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 as has been done recently at Pont Briwet for the new railway bridge.

If the NT and the National Park are clever they can extract from NR a promise to clear and restore the 120 year waste and spoil tips at Grindleford for every ones benefit.

[darylslinn 10]

Should have - there are 5 "through" platforms and 2 bay platforms to the western side (one of which the stopper currently uses) and the through platforms can easily take two trains each, some resignaling may be required to do this though but shouldn't take any extra rebuilding.

 

Platform 1 has split signalling and can be used for trains in either direction at both ends of the platform. Which gives them 3 platforms available from the south/west without using the other through platforms.

 

My question is why haven't they thought about redoubling the whole section into Sheffield from Dore and Totley as it used to be with up and down fast and slow lines ?

[kel83 10]

there will be marginal benefit. It won't change the fact there is a junction where the line from Derby/Nottingham meets the line from Manchester, however delays caused by a Manchester bound train waiting at a signal there because there is a train coming the other way over the single track will no longer happen

 

Exactly what I meant. We're often sat waiting for a train that's nothing to do with the southbound line, I was just wondering if improving the junction to Manchester would reduce the delays.

[1978 14]

National Trust does not own most of the land needed - as it already belongs to Network Rail/ BRB Residuary. It is mostly on the PW yard and tip.

If any realignment is needed at Rough Wood then it will be included in the submission to Parliament under the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 as has been done recently at Pont Briwet for the new railway bridge.

If the NT and the National Park are clever they can extract from NR a promise to clear and restore the 120 year waste and spoil tips at Grindleford for every ones benefit.

 

Incorrect. The land required to construct the passing loop is substantially on National Trust land. After construction the land taken for the haul road will be released back to the Trust. The actual track will be on land currently owned by Network Rail, but the embankment needs substantially extending at Corsey Bank Wood and Rough Wood to accommodate it. That is NT land.

 

The old station yard at Grindleford will be used as a temporary works compound. This area is what remains of spoil dumped when the Totley Tunnel was constructed. Grindleford residents have already expressed their view that this area should be tidied up and possibly landscaped around a new car parking facility.

 

There are some overgrown sidings to the north side of the track, just west of Grindleford station. These are reminders from the days when Bolehill Quarry provided all the stone for the Derwent and Howden dams being constructed for the Derwent Valley Water Board. I asked why this land was not being used for the loop. Essentially it's because it would require taking part of domestic gardens, is nowhere near long enough to accommodate the freight trains they need to hold, and is on a curve near Padley Chapel. Old goods trains were much shorter than are now proposed. (This old picture from about 1912 may interest some; )

 

The planned alignment is very reasonable if done in accordance with the very full plans. Go to the following page and download all the material linked to it; http://www.networkrail.co.uk/improvements/northern-hub/doregrindleford/

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

Nobody knows for certain who owns Poynton Wood! The council think they do but can't adequately prove it. It goes back to the days when Dore and Poynton Woods were in Derbyshire, and the Midland Railway carved a path though the grounds of Abbeydale Park. The house itself became an adult education centre before being sold for development about 20 years ago.

This sounds very odd. Annie Bynnol comments on ownership at Grindleford.

Someone- somewhere- must have the title deeds, assuming that the land remains unregistered at HM Land Registry.

[1978 14]

This sounds very odd. Annie Bynnol comments on ownership at Grindleford.

Someone- somewhere- must have the title deeds, assuming that the land remains unregistered at HM Land Registry.

 

Grindleford ownership is not in dispute. National Trust own a large part of the area needed to complete the job and preliminary discussions are already in hand to resolve how the job can be done. The new trackbed utilises existing Network Rail owned land, but a substantial area of new embankment is needed on land it doesn't own. The plans make this point very clear.

 

Poynton Wood is probably resolvable relatively easily. The council think they own it, but may not have found the proof. The land in question belonged to Abbeydale Park, based on viewing the 1:2,500 map of 1890. Their land was bisected by the Midland Railway so that by 1898 part of that land to the south side of the Sheaf is isolated - the bit Network Rail now wants to use. A footbridge then existed to allow passage across the railway. The remains of the stone summer house in the grounds are still buried in the undergrowth. (In 1891 Ebenezer Hall owned Abbeydale Park and died there in 1911 aged 90, a retired silver plate manufacturer.)

 

In the 1970/80's Abbeydale Park was operated as an Adult Education Centre, latterly an outpost of Norton College. The council became owner at a determinable point. The answer probably lies somewhere in those deeds.

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

Another good example of why all owners of large landholdings should seriously consider voluntarily registering everything!

[1978 14]

Another good example of why all owners of large landholdings should seriously consider voluntarily registering everything!

 

Vast tracts of land are owned by government organisations and large companies, much of it owned for many decades, if not centuries. I wonder how many will have voluntarily embarked upon a programme to register all those long held pieces of land? The costs to do so won't be small when budgets are tight. It's at times like this that the matter becomes important.

 

I believe there's still a lot of land left unregistered, probably as much as 20%, but that's a subject for another thread and another forum! Probably on a legal website.

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

The costs are surprisingly low: e.g. £680 to register voluntarily a landholding worth over £1m.

[1978 14]

The costs are surprisingly low: e.g. £680 to register voluntarily a landholding worth over £1m.

 

That's the cost to actually register at the Land Registry. It will be a small part of the total cost to the organisation involved.

 

There's probably a much bigger cost to track down and prepare all the deeds from dusty archives and prepare them for registration. Properties passed down lengthy legal chains as authorities and companies changed names, merged, split, and responsible offices moved. Until a sale is required there's little incentive to do it, competing with more pressing priorities for time and resources. If it were as simple as implied there wouldn't still be 20% of land unregistered.

 

As I said, this is a subject for a legal forum, not this thread on SF.