Moorlands and City Railway

Having cycled from Endon to Stoke on the adjoining canal path this is utter nonsense

 

And wasnt she behind the village green proposal?

 

Yes the same Birk.

 

Has anything happened with the Village Green proposal?

 

Monsoon season was upon us today at Endon where we fettled the chairs, (Good grief those felt and tar pads take some getting off) and replaced the sleepers we took out 2 weeks ago. Fishplates were taken off regreased and replaced, siezed bolts in them replaced after a struggle to get them off. I think we tested our waterproofs today and most of us found them wanting but a good day and good company, thanks lads.

 

How much is left to do to get the section from Leekbrook to Endon in a state suitable for something - anything! - to traverse the line?

 

The weedkiller train with the 04 has been down to Endon on several occausions, hopefully when the Permequipe is remotored it will give us access to parts of the line so we can carry on re sleepering.

 

In the absence of the Permaquip p/way personnel carrier, I've arranged to hire this in ......... [video=youtube;N9X4vtrpr9g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9X4vtrpr9g&list=PL5E7E848F2473429D&index=2&feature=plpp_video[/video]

 

Haha. I swear you can go faster than that on the p/way trolley rolling down the hill from ipstones

 

Glorious day up the Cauldon line today, nice hot day, great scenery and lovely Autumn colours. What with good company, a 33 haulage and a guards van full of bits and pieces to fettle the track, isn't great to be a p/wayman. We did some outstanding jobs to get it ready for the diesel gala later this month. Took some photos of the work and views.

 

And you call a 33-hauled brake-van ride work.... :lol:

 

Yes, but I must admit it's very enjoyable work in this weather but come Winter, Brrr.

 

A letter is published in this weeks Leek Post & Times. 05/09
I would hope that a suitable reply from the MCR board will be published.

 

For those of us not in the area, what does the letter say?

Thanks,
Nigel

 

Just pondering... I'm wondering to what extent MCR's ability to raise investment/loans/whatever is being hampered by Ms. Birks' village green application. I suspect if I was a bank I wouldn't lend money to the project if there was any possibility of Ms. Birks' application being successful. I cannot see how a mothballed railway line - not closed, not dismantled, just sleeping and waiting for possible reactivation - could ever fall within the intention of the legislation, but we are where we are and it is to some extent a tickbox operation. Even if trains were running to Endon now, and notwithstanding the ongoing work on the line, it could all be stopped overnight if the specified conditions for the application were met on the date Ms. Birks submitted her application. Beggars belief I know, but apparently this is so. What do you think?

 

I wonder if same said Birk whinges about the amount of Lorries taking stone around the area and convoys of coaches going to Alton Towers ?, the fact is the economy needs resources like this.

It should be put to local people which method they prefer of taking stone from Cauldon:

A) 50 plus Lorries hogging and wearing out country roads they were never designed for, creating noise and traffic through villages with all the inherent risk of kids being run over.

B) A freight train a couple of times a week at most, carrying a few hundred tons in one go, taking this continous, heavy traffic off the local roads in one swoop.

I think anyone who lives on the current route of the Lorries, or is constantly stuck behind them, would be hugely in favour of option B

Pretty **** poor Green Campaigner who can't recognise 2/3 freight trains is considerably greener than 50 plus lorries, you can walk you dog anywhere dear, stop being a hypocritical busybody throwing the toys out because it's happening in your area, and let people who actually have a a clue, do what's best for the local people and economy.

 

This is the crazy thing - because of the way the legislation is drafted the panel considering the application is not allowed to take into account the benefits to the community of *disallowing* the application if the conditions are met. If they were met on the date of the application, status has to be granted regardless. I wonder how much this is all costing in time and legal fees and if the ratepayers are happy for their hard-earned cash to be used in this way.

 

I have commented before on this situation but it seems that now is the time to repeat some of what I said.

Understanding applications for registration as village (or town) greens under the Commons Act 2006 is not for the fainthearted. The legislation is very much modelled on the long-established process for registering rights of way under the Highways Act. It requires the applicant to demonstrate that land has been used by a significant number of people in the locality for the purposes of lawful sport or recreation for a period of 20 years up to the date of the application and that such use has been "by custom", that is not with the permission of the landowner. The claim for registration cannot be succesful if the landowner has displayed notices that either prohibit access to the land or give permission for it to be used. This latter situation is often misunderstood because the giving of permission shows that the use is not as of right.

For railways there is the statutory offence of trespass, which will be set out in the Act that authorised the railway and will be taken from the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act. As it is a criminal offence to be on the land it is therefore impossible for anyone to have used it for lawful sport or recreation. Whilst Moorland and City Railways will have limited experience in this field, Network Rail, who I believe remain the freeholders, should have ample legal resources to clarify this matter. Also, NR will have other lines in a similar physical condition but not leased to anyone so it has a clear interest in defending the ability to fend off applications of this sort.

As for the County Council, I have to say, as someone who has been involved in these applications before I reached my sell-by date, that I am totally puzzled as to why it cannot make a determination on the straightforward basis set out above, that is that the criminal trespass position prevents lawful use.

 

Hear hear. It seems to me the council are playing a game of 'sitting on the fence;' on this matter and leaving all the worrying (and expense) to MCR to sort it out for them.

 

The trucks running out of cauldon Lowe quarry only carry Tarmac for roads so this can't be done by the railway so why's everyone keeping on about this? There maybe a deal to move stone out ov there by rail in the future and also out ov the cement works if a rail head is put in but the cost of that surely would take some years to get back if ever but I wish mcr luck