Moorlands and City Railway

Fred, as far as I am aware the track is not the MCR's to sell. It is leased from Network Rail.
I feel that the public, ourselves, have been told a lot of porkies about what is going on. It is about time that the MCR/CVR managements put out a public statement to clarify the situation. They should not rely on CVR volunteers to try and inform people what is, supposedly, happening.

 

MCR never has and never will spend a single penny on building/relaying/maintaining any railway because it is a property development company and not a railway company.

 

CVR has scrapped a railway line it owns to try to buy some track on a line it will never own, that doesn't sound like a clever idea does it?

 

As usual a member of the Kerr family on here makes no sense whatsoever:
MCR shareholders - if there are any, would not complain about an asset being unused because
1. they never had to pay for it
2. we are told they don't charge CVR for track access
3. CVR and it's volunteers do what little maintenance as is done anyway

 

Oh good, 14 posts about a complete non-article where a local councillor has decided not to support a CVR Appeal. Must be a quiet Friday for everyone!

An Appeal has been launched amongst CVR Shareholders where the CVR will buy the trackwork (rails / sleepers / chairs etc) from Leek Brook to Ipstones in order to ensure that Ipstones services can continue for the medium term. When the day comes for this section to be relaid, CVR will be given all this trackwork to re-use where they desire (or even scrap to utilise its financial value elsewhere, £100k could do an awful lot). At present though Ipstones services are our most profitable services, so makes sense to secure its future.

MCR need to replace the entire trackwork between Leek Brook and Cauldon, and first part of replacement is removal. Due to the merging of Tarmac & LaFarge though, the Government Monopolies Commission (or whatever they are called) have become involved so talks with MCR over rail access have had to be put on hold. Nothing CVR / MCR can do about this, and until its resolved nothing can be progressed so there is no need to continue with the replacement program. MCR though have costs for "Reconnect Leek" to meet, so whilst Cauldon Project is onhold they are utilising their assets to progress Leek. This does not mean Cauldon has been forgotten about mind, once a decision has been made made with the Monopolies Commission I'm sure talks will re-commence between MCR and the Quarry Owners. We are lucky though that MCR have a lot more patience over this than some of Nat-Pres keyboard warriors!

All the above is known as Project Management, and is not something I'd expect some people to understand. Especially when it's all so easy to look for ways of knocking CVR instead of trying to learn the facts!

And to answer Std Tank question, MCR have a 150yr lease on the line starting from end 2009 / start 2010 (I don't know the exact date). Plenty of time to replace the track I would say, as we're only 5ish Years into said agreement.

 

But you obviously have the mistaken belief that you do....

 

Yes, that is known as "Asset stripping". If we can believe JJ Kerr when he says that the dmu specials to Oakamoor were unprofitable yet the steam runs up the steeply graded cauldron line to Ipstones (sometimes using hired in motive power) are profitable then I doubt they would make any money running trains up to the level crossing gates at Endon. They can't run trains any further than that because they do not have a T.W.O. and they won't get one of those because it will mean MCR will have to take on all the liabilities on the structures back to Stoke. Me thinks they would much prefer to keep them in NR's hands. Also, how would they run round at Leekbrook now that they have scrapped the run round loop and all the associated signalling? There still is no point control for the junction after four years of ownership. Poor show.

 

You remind me of a member who I think was banned some time ago, regular poster, knew all the answers, knew everybody else was wrong???????

 

No, C&K ain't him.

 

Oakamoor
Restricted to 12 public running days a year, lightweight vehicles only (as per ORR dispensation).
Scenic 2(ish) miles, but relatively flat and hidden in a tunnel of trees for large parts.

Ipstones
Restricted to 365 days of the year, no limit on size of loco along line (though you wouldn't take the Beyer).
5x Miles of intense climbing through Staffordshire Moorlands, with a variety of cuttings / tunnels / open moorland.
Also available for Driver Experience Courses, for which we charge a higher fee due to the difference in the experience compared to a CVR Driver Exp.

Not hard to see which one has more potential for earning money, and why a number of Shareholders & Volunteers are fully behind this latest appeal.

Also will you give up on this idea Leek Brook needs to fully signalled this very moment? It covers what we need it to, for if it didn't I'm sure the ORR would have been touch. One day it will see full signalling return, but there's other more pressing projects to be getting on with at the minute.

 

As a modest shareholder of CVR I am deeply sceptical about what is happening. When I got the appeal letter it just didn't make sense to me.

In a nutshell the argument is that the MCR needs to rip up the track as the first part of relaying it. But they won't if CVR pays them for the track. Well either they need to rip it up or they don't. So which one is it?

I suspect they don't at the moment as no sensible business will invest in developing a facility when there is so much uncertainty as to whether it will be used (until the competition issues are resolved). And if and when a contract is signed then it would be a relatively quick process to relay the track.

If they "need" to make a return on the asset in the meantime then a more commercial arrangement for use of the line in the meantime without the threat of tearing it up could surely be negotiated. If track access charges to MCR equivalent to the return on capital required for an asset equal to the scrap value make the venture of running trains to Ipstone uneconomic then I'd question whether it's a good use of CVR funds to be attempting to buy the track anyway.

In the beginning I was excited at the prospect of what the MCR could achieve, but as time has gone on I am becoming more concerned as to its relationship with the CVR (am I right in thinking there are some common Directors), and the potential it has for an adverse and long term impact on the CVR. I really do hope I'm wrong, and will be delighted to be proved so, but I do worry that to date it seems more interested in developing land than reopening lines.

 

If you read my post, all of your questions are answered. It's not MCR need to rip up the track, but use the financial value to help progress Reconnect Leek.
CVR buying the trackwork allows MCR to utilise its financial value, whilst keeping the track in place to allow the Heritage services to continue.
This means that when the track does come to be replaced, CVR will be given this trackwork to either use on the CVR or scrap to recoup its financial value themselves (and £100k could do an awful lot!). So the CVR isn't physically losing any money whatsoever, it is merely "investing" it into Ipstones Trackwork to secure its medium term future.

And as CVR have already purchased shares in MCR using funds from Share Issue 4, part of this agreement was CVR get charges no access fees to use track on MCR owned lines. So no need for any commercial agreements as something more beneficial to the CVR is in place.

 

Since I have business qualifications (including a degree) and experience of running my own business I think your response to my post suggests that you have neither. If you insist on disagreeing with those who have rather more knowledge and experience I can only ask how conversant you are with CVR / MCR matters; what is your knowledge of the persons and policies involved and what are your qualifications to justify the stand that you are taking in respect of the current CVR / MCR modus operandi.

 

y

My understanding gleaned from the Knotty magazine is that the CVR directors are:
David Kemp, Greg Wilson, A. Brough and Chairman Antony Handcock.
MCR directors - as far as I know are:
David Kemp and Greg Wilson. Now, to my reckoning that means MCR has 50% control over CVR affairs and if that isn't a conflict of interest I don't know what is.
Most heritage railways appear to have much bigger boards and more democratic governance than CVR and I am quite sure there would be uproar if any of them decided to rip up nearly a third of their own lines just to help out a property company.
Were the shareholders given any say in the matter of ripping up the most scenic part of the Churnet Valley line south of Froghall?
There was some talk a while ago of building a house on the land locked site of an old railway cottage on the downside of the line in an isolated stretch south of Froghall. The only problem was that the only vehicular access to such a house would be via the railway track bed.
Is there any reason why the CVR could not have obtained the 150 year lease for peppercorn rent on the line from Stoke to Cauldon itself? If that had happened it wouldn't then have had to buy the Cauldon track from itself at great expense. Did half of the board not think that was not a good idea? But which half?

 

Having travelled the CVR many times myself, I would rather go along the 5x Miles to Ipstones than the 2x miles to Oakamoor.
I did travel on the Railmotor Day earlier this year to Oakamoor, and whilst different to be perfectly honest all I really saw was trees. Not exactly scenic in my book!

Looking at the information provided above, if I was in the same situation where I had the option of using Line A for 12 days, or Line B for 365 days, surely there really is only 1 sensible answer?

 

A couple of points here. Firstly, the letter I received didn't mention that the MCR need the funds for their property development. It said what I precised about the need to lift the track and then relay it. So, as a CVR shareholder, that's what I've got to go on in coming to my view as to what is going on. Though you confirm my immediate suspicion that MCR needed funds for their project in Leek.

Secondly, the Share Issue 4 agreement doesn't appear worth very much if the MCR can then turn around and say " buy the track or we rip it up".

So as a shareholder I concluded that I would indirectly be helping to fund the commercial interests of the MCR Directors, and the potential conflict of interest in Directors makes me feel deeply uncomfortable.

 

But who's going to benefit from Leek?

With a "no access fee" agreement in place, CVR can run to/from Leek at will. The CVR will then finally go from/to somewhere, as whilst Cheddleton - Froghall is very nice alongside the Canal/River it is rather in the middle of nowhere. Plus with all the planned developments around Barnfields, Leek should become a tourism honeypot with a new railway station, marina, shops etc all planned as part of it. This should see our passenger figures from around the 70,000/yr mark to the 100,000/yr mark. It'll see the railway achieve its long term aim of reaching Leek, pushing the CVR upto it's next league.

 

For those with a Facebook account, Heritage Railway Magazine have included the Leek Post and Times article from two days ago as one of the many items of news they post on their page.

 

Which is where your understanding leads you into a siding !

Yes - you are correct that 2 of the CVR directors are directors of the MCR but that does not mean that they have a 50% control over CVR affairs. What is does mean is that they have the right to use 100% of the shares held by MCR in CVR so if - for argument's sake - MCR has a 10% share in CVR then those 2 directors can only have 10% of the shareholder interest in CVR - even although they represent 100% of the MCR interest. That means that there are 90% worth of shareholders also with interest in the CVR - and they may vote against the 10% held by MCR directors.

Since I am not party to the %s held by each railway in the other's shareholding I cannot say how this will "play out" but I can say that your statement that "MCR has 50% control over CVR affairs" does NOT indicate a conflict of interest - it simply reinforces the extent of your (mis) understanding !