Moorlands and City Railway

Photographs of 44767 today on the first Wednesday Santa trains of this year! Black 5 on the 7th Dec 2011 - a set on Flickr

 

Back to MCR plans - if MCR cannot run into Stoke station and have to build a platform on their own line (presumably before the network rail connection) how far would it be for passengers to walk from the MCR Stoke station to Stoke station?

 

Its about 400 yards roughly.

 

Is this the new platform to be used for the Towers park-and-ride?

 

I didn't ask the question in regard to the "Towers" park-n-ride" possibility - didn't think of that! I was thinking more of people in Leek using the line as a transport option. When choosing options there could be a big difference in a passenger's mind between arriving at a station, possibly with baggage, and making a cross-platform change onto a main line service (easy!) and arriving some distance from the station and having to make one's way a considerable distance in all weathers to get to the big railway (not so easy). This might not be such an issue for those travelling light or if using the "Towers" park-n-ride, but it would be a shame if MCR cannot run straight into the big railway's station. Just my opinion of course, and lest there be any doubt I really want this project to succeed!

 

It was a wild and windy day on the moors of Staffordshire today,when we had a jolly boys outing on the Permequipe. As one gets older one realizes the comfort of a heater blowing up the hi vis trousers instead of trying to dodge the soaking rain under a dripping tree. We were on a mission to check the drainage system on the Cauldon line and see if any trees and branches were blocking the track. No one fell down the drainage sumps although rodding some of them, you had to be a contortionist. Had to have a head count to make sure we had not left anyone down one before heading back to Cheddleton.

 

I think the question of connectivity to Stoke station is still subject to negotiation. There are many interesting possibilities. I understand that Network Rail has difficulties with the trains terminating, rather than stopping, at Platform 1. There is no reason why trains should not continue westbound after stopping at the station on the "spare" line, to a re-opened Etruria station, which is actually more convenient for the town centres of Hanley and Newcastle-under-Lyme. MCR has also stated its long term objective to get trains back into Hanley, via the very busy "Festival Park". Platform 1 is, I understand, already signalled both ways. The beauty of this proposal is that it does not cause any conflicting traffic movement with other services, and will take some pressure off the very busy station at Stoke.
As yet, nothing is cast in stone, and it's worth remembering that the other rail companies have nothing to loose, and very much to gain, from a successful Moorlands link. I hope there will be some movement to revive the idea of a third platform face at Stoke, so that Platform 1 can be dedicated to local services.

 

Hilarious Jeff! Always pleased to read of the 'hands-on' exploits the P/W gang get up to. Thanks for publishing them.

 

Yes. was a good day out, first time I've been past Apesford Crossing. Some of the gradients will make for quite a test when freight returns. Should make a fine sight seeing the Black 5 up there too. Would've been a cold wet and long day without the Permaquip.

 

Its really essential to have MCR trains running into Stoke station; a station down by the junction with the network wouldnt be sufficient. There is plenty of spare land behind Stoke station where the yard once was to open a 3rd platform up, and also reinstate a through line now the middle road has been taken out of Stoke. As for Etruria, thats one for the future.

 

Yes, Neil, if people think we're dreaming, remember that many of us saw this project as a dream 15 years ago, and that dream is coming true. I look forward to the day when the station announcer at Hanley will be announcing trains to Leek, and, who knows, Cheadle and Derby as well! As for Etruria, all the evidence at the closure inquiry indicated the potential for a station there, and since then there have been many housing developments.

 

And its also by the festival park.

 

Some pictures of our expedition to Cauldon Lowe yesterday:

 

It will be interesting to see how excursion trains would run taking in all the lines when the Stoke line is reopened. Would it run from Stoke to Cauldon, then to Froghall then Leek Siding and back to Stoke, or Stoke to Leek Siding down to Froghall, up to Cauldon then back to Stoke. The former would be the most spectacular as the engines would be working hard uphill from Endon to Ipstones summit.

 

I looked up Etruria (not being from around them thar parts) and read that the platforms were demolished so that the track could be realigned for faster line speeds. How would a station be reinstated there? Surely a non-starter?

 

There are 2 slow line loops at Etruria, a platform built on both would be ample.

 

Taking "p/wayman's" comments a little further, I am surprised that no mention has been made of the possibility of relaying the third side of the triangle at Leekbrook. This would provide a locomotive turning facility, a whole-train turning facility and a run-round facility with the train being parked on the fairly level main Churnet Valley line. I know that it makes political sense to complete firstly all the works that do not require planning permission but the extension to Leek will require such and the north-to-east chord could be included. It wouldn't matter if it were not immediately carried out as carrying out part of the development would preserve the permission for the remainder in perpetuity.

I haven't researched whether the Leek line could be achieved by an application to the Local Planning Authority or whether the Infrastructure Planning Commission would be involved. For a scheme with local political support, the former route would be preferable if there seemed a grey area in terms of responsibility. On a related matter, the IPC issued a screening opinion that the Redditch branch doubling was not an Environmental Impact Assessment proposal. That was quite refreshing as there has been too much "EIA creep" as applicants and planning authorities have chosen to play safe rather than face a Court challenge at an embarrassingly late stage.

When EIA was introduced the Government thought that there might be around 20 projects a year in the UK. Now there are hundreds because it is easy to argue that a proposal should be subject to EIA because of the wide-ranging definitions in the Regulations.

 

Yes, Neil, and the proposal to use the up slow line loop all the way from Stoke (not used at the moment) could easily provide for a level platform access. The impossibility of providing DDA accessibility to the island platform was used by Network Rail as of the many spurious arguments for closing the station at the Inquiry in 2002. This also fits in very nicely for a future extension to Festival Park, and then Hanley. There would be no movement conflicts with "main line" trains.

 

Instead of re-instating the triangle at Leekbrook, why not construct a turntable? Plenty of room for it and surely would be less hassle/running cost? A novel attraction for the railway too.

 

From the map at the bottom of this page any extension to Hanley would appear to be a challenge.
Hanley & Etruria on the Potteries Loop Line