class"66" Posted December 2, 2014 Author Share Posted December 2, 2014 Yer theres talk of GB rail freight making use of it too, sub letting from Network rail or something like that.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold 4630 Posted December 2, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 2, 2014 Yer theres talk of GB rail freight making use of it too, sub letting from Network rail or something like that.. That's quite believable as I understand that there is shortly to be a regular flow of biomass from Liverpool to Drax crossing the Pennines, which would take them this way. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
class"66" Posted December 2, 2014 Author Share Posted December 2, 2014 GB rail freight are looking for area for running round trains,and swop overs.. :locomotive: 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
class"66" Posted December 2, 2014 Author Share Posted December 2, 2014 Its like whats happening at "Barnetby" they've started re using the sidings at the station for running locos round and dropping freight wagons off... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Storey Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 Thanks Neil here is a few more, including a couple of those 37s being taken to there end DSC00604 by mosherlad, on Flickr DSC00603 by mosherlad, on Flickr DSC00459 by mosherlad, on Flickr DSC00460 by mosherlad, on Flickr DSC00461 by mosherlad, on Flickr DSC00458 by mosherlad, on Flickr DSC00455 by mosherlad, on Flickr David 6th picture down - looks like they have used Peco points! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Storey Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 Yer theres talk of GB rail freight making use of it too, sub letting from Network rail or something like that.. Without checking the list, is this one of the yards where NR have recently taken over responsibility? If so, that kind of sub-leasing to different operators makes sense and will allow much more intensive use of the yard over time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
class"66" Posted December 3, 2014 Author Share Posted December 3, 2014 My frend at Network rail planning,gave me the heads up on this.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold 4630 Posted December 19, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 19, 2014 As I was passing Healey Mills today and had the camera with me, I thought I'd take a few photos to show the current state of dereliction and that nature continues to reclaim the site. Photos taken from the Storrs Hill Road bridge that crosses the east of the yard, and from a public footpath that runs along the north side of the site. https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.6623453,-1.575645,16z 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
d winpenny Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 Good pictures taken in some of my regular spotting places just wish I'd taken pictures back then David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
class"66" Posted December 21, 2014 Author Share Posted December 21, 2014 Nice upto date pictures... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Dava Posted December 21, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 21, 2014 That's quite believable as I understand that there is shortly to be a regular flow of biomass from Liverpool to Drax crossing the Pennines, which would take them this way. Just wonder how importing biomass from Canada or wherever to Drax is more environmentally sustainable than burning coal? Which is what kept Healey Mills in business. Dava Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Storey Posted December 21, 2014 Share Posted December 21, 2014 Just wonder how importing biomass from Canada or wherever to Drax is more environmentally sustainable than burning coal? Which is what kept Healey Mills in business. Dava On sustainability, it is pretty hard to grow more coal. I would also guess that the much lower carbon and negligible sulphur and NO2 emissions from biomass combustion outweigh the additional oil used to transport it long distances. Furthermore, as an ever greater proportion of coal needs were being imported through the east coast docks (from Poland mainly), rather than being mined in the UK, HM and other yards, were becoming less useful anyway. So I wouldn't blame biomass in particular. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phill Dyson (onslaught832) Posted December 21, 2014 Share Posted December 21, 2014 (edited) Looked a lot better in my spotting days I suppose the loss of coal traffic made Healy Mills redundant? Very Sad Phill Edited December 21, 2014 by Phill Dyson (onslaught832) 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony_S Posted December 21, 2014 Share Posted December 21, 2014 Just wonder how importing biomass from Canada or wherever to Drax is more environmentally sustainable than burning coal? Which is what kept Healey Mills in business. Dava I would argue that it isn't, and go further and say it is scandalous. I posted on another thread on this subject something along these lines; mature woodland in the US is cut down and pelletised (using fossil fuels), transported to a port and loaded onto a ship (using more fossil fuels) and then transported thousands of miles across the Atlantic and making a return journey also using fossil fuels. The pellets are unloaded at a UK port and loaded onto a train making further use fossil fuels. The train then uses even more fossil fuels to transport it to a power station such as Drax to then burn it far less efficiently than coal and at greater expense to us consumers. I agree that Healey Mills as well as many other marshalling yards were becoming much less useful regardless of the coal traffic.They were designed to handle large amounts of wagon-load traffic which had largely disappeared by the 1980s and then then later with the demise of Speedlink. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold 4630 Posted December 21, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 21, 2014 Just wonder how importing biomass from Canada or wherever to Drax is more environmentally sustainable than burning coal? Which is what kept Healey Mills in business. Dava I agree with the inference in your question. The cynic in me feels that the use of biomass is more about generating subsidy (as opposed to generating electricity) and hence a greater financial return. But I'd better stop there before I stray too far off topic and wander into forbidden political territory. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
APOLLO Posted December 21, 2014 Share Posted December 21, 2014 Yes Anthony_S, the (green) lunatics are running the asylum these days. Have a read at the Didcot power station thread - more stupidity on a mega scale. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/69666-the-end-of-didcot-power-station-a-look-at-the-trains-that-served-it/page-1 Yes the need for the large marshalling yards died when wagonload freight died, yet more short sightedness from our "leaders". Good news to revive at least part of the yard. At least we (Britain) still have a lot of coal "down there". Whether it will become economically / socially / etc viable to mine it again is anyone's guess. By the way, the cheap oil we are currently "enjoying" may well go cheaper - for a time - but it will rise again to over $100 / barrel (and higher) within time - couple of years or so in my opinion. It's all political. But that is a different story indeed. Enjoy cheap oil while you can. Brit15 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob D2 Posted December 21, 2014 Share Posted December 21, 2014 Isn't it just an illusion of being green ? If you repeat the word ' sustainable ' over and over eventually people will believe it means something Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
APOLLO Posted December 22, 2014 Share Posted December 22, 2014 And Goebbles had no balls at all !!! Brit15 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon47603 Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Sooner or later people will realise that the trees that are being cut down for bio-mass fuel are the same trees that convert Co2 into Oxygen! Co2 is Plant Food! Nothing more, nothing less. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Storey Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Actually, for all you climate-change deniers, saplings absorb far more CO2 and generate far more O2 than mature trees, so cutting and replanting is far more effective, and the environmental cost of shipping large amounts of biomass over long distances is nothing compared to the continuing much higher rate of discharge of carbon monoxide, suphurous gases and nitrous oxide from coal fired power stations, where hugely expensive de-suphurisation cannot be economically justified (it has been done at Drax for example). It is currently very fashionable to bash environmental improvements, thanks largely to the insane right wing of the Republican Party in the USA, but it is now a fact that more children die from air pollution in the UK than from most other causes. It is also a fact that the scientific evidence that accelerated climate change has been and continues to be man-made, and not naturally occurring, which has now been accepted by the UN, i.e. a majority of all nations on Earth. The same unfounded comments some of you have been making were also made in the 1950's when the Clean Air Act was being promoted. Is anyone arguing we should go back to that? If you bemoan the passing of some marshalling and stabling yards, just say so, but don't jump on a largely discredited bandwagon to find someone to blame for it. Freight is growing fast, in the UK, thank goodness,but not in the way we remember it. If you want to see what happens when the dinosaurs really do rule the earth, come and look at all the French freight yards absolutely choking with empty wagons with nowhere to go...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Dava Posted December 23, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 23, 2014 Please....questioning the environmental & economic sustainability of long-distance biomass transport, when there may be insufficient to meet demand, is not the same as climate change denial. Scrubbing emissions from coal fired power stations with good life expectancy makes sense and anhydrite (gypsum) into the bargain, as the rail freight to Rushcliffe on the GCR(N) shows. Dava Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ess1uk Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 I was in the signal box a while back and couldn't believe the state of the tracks/yard. I know it doesn't take long for plants to reclaim the area, but they must have been there for years in some cases. I would be good to see it all clear and back in use. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony_S Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Actually, for all you climate-change deniers, saplings absorb far more CO2 and generate far more O2 than mature trees, so cutting and replanting is far more effective, and the environmental cost of shipping large amounts of biomass over long distances is nothing compared to the continuing much higher rate of discharge of carbon monoxide, suphurous gases and nitrous oxide from coal fired power stations, where hugely expensive de-suphurisation cannot be economically justified (it has been done at Drax for example). It is currently very fashionable to bash environmental improvements, thanks largely to the insane right wing of the Republican Party in the USA, but it is now a fact that more children die from air pollution in the UK than from most other causes. It is also a fact that the scientific evidence that accelerated climate change has been and continues to be man-made, and not naturally occurring, which has now been accepted by the UN, i.e. a majority of all nations on Earth. The same unfounded comments some of you have been making were also made in the 1950's when the Clean Air Act was being promoted. Is anyone arguing we should go back to that? If you bemoan the passing of some marshalling and stabling yards, just say so, but don't jump on a largely discredited bandwagon to find someone to blame for it. Freight is growing fast, in the UK, thank goodness,but not in the way we remember it. If you want to see what happens when the dinosaurs really do rule the earth, come and look at all the French freight yards absolutely choking with empty wagons with nowhere to go...... At risk of going toof far off topic, I really feel the need to respond to this. So am I (and others) a climate change denier in the same way that someone can be a holocaust denier? Ad hominem seems to be the default setting of some environmental fanatics. Like many others I agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, is increasing in the atmosphere and should cause some warming, so that puts me in the same category as the 97% of scientists agree consensus. I disagree that it will be catastrophic and refer to increasingly lower estimates of climate sensitivity, climate-gate and the huge uncertainties that are in the IPCC reports but never in the summary for policy makers. I bemoan the policy-based evidence-making that has allowed the madness of energy policy in this country to take the path it has. Our increasingly expensive and unreliable energy is making our industry uncompetitive on the global market. We have seen the closure of aluminium smelters and the associated loss of freight traffic as a result and merely displaced the CO2 emissions to somewhere else in the world. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
APOLLO Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 The current (ever) cheaper price of oil will do our "climate" little good, and will contribute no doubt to it's "change". Why I can now afford a few trips out in my 1973 Rover V8 (at 18mpg) !!!!!!!!!!!!! Let's face it, we have all lost the plot in this ever so tangled politically correct, "green" world, you, me, our "leaders", our "masters". Having worked over 40 years in the Gas industry (gas distribution & planning) all I can see these days is the fog of propaganda and unknown motives, usually political. I never thought I would read this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30585538 Speaking to the Middle East Economic Survey, Mr al-Naimi said: "As a policy for Opec - and I convinced Opec of this, even Mr al-Badri [Opec secretary general] is now convinced - it is not in the interest of Opec producers to cut their production, whatever the price is. "Whether it goes down to $20, $40, $50, $60, it is irrelevant," he said. The world might not see the oil price back at $100 a barrel again, he added. Something wrong with that last statement my gut feeling tells me (peak oil). If it's true, and it happens, then look forward to 30 degree summers and London (etc) under the sea next century or so, if the Climate change brigade are correct.. As for Tar sands, Fracking etc, Google EROEI (energy returned over energy invested). We are not being told he truth Brit15 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Storey Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 I bemoan the policy-based evidence-making that has allowed the madness of energy policy in this country to take the path it has. Our increasingly expensive and unreliable energy is making our industry uncompetitive on the global market. We have seen the closure of aluminium smelters and the associated loss of freight traffic as a result and merely displaced the CO2 emissions to somewhere else in the world. What energy policy? I have yet to discern one. Just a series of knee-jerks. However, one good trend has been to reduce greenhouse gases and gases more immediately harmful to human life. To blame energy policy and cost in the UK for uncompetitiveness is bizarre. Germany has had the most expensive energy in Europe for many years now and is 50% reliant on non-carbon energy sources, but remains the most robust economy, albeit with emerging problems, for heavy industry. France, where a substantial amount of ex-UK steel making and processing went, is now suffering from exponential rises in energy costs. Whilst I may have been over-the-top in citing climate-change deniers, I would still implore people not to intone simplistic green-bashing in support of maintaining an argument to keep some redundant railway yards open! The issues are complex and the economic reactions to it keep changing. In many respects, the green argument is significantly helping the continuing expansion of rail investment in the UK. It would be ironic to jump on the very bus that would argue against this? That said, of course it is sad to see a place like Healey Mills decline. I felt much the same thing when the very hump-marshalling yard there that I had trained on, shut only a few years later. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now