Churnet Valley Railway General Discussion

The only time a run round will be needed if the sand trains started to run again, or trains from the main line want to go onto Churnet Valley section.

Yes the full track bed should be left intact, and the boundary fences should be the correct distance away and remember the embankments will have to be wider these days if two tracks are relaid.

 

Sand trains will never run again.The quarry is closed and proposed to be a holiday village.

 

What sidings are planned at the cement works? I don't think anyone knows yet. Could well include full length sidings.

 

Interesting to note that Leekbrook to Endon used to be double track, with single track from Endon to Milton Junction. If MCR wishes to increase capacity for the line, a suitable length of double track from Leekbrook towards Endon could be re-instated, with Leekbrook box controlling the section. The length of the track required would only have to be enough to accommodate one train.

 

I understand quite a lot, especially when I am dealing with an inveterate pessimist. There are no sidings / run round extant at Cauldon so any new ones would be built long enough for the trains likely to use them. Building another 200m on a loop is a lot cheaper than splitting trains in perpetuity at Leekbrook.

 

Credit where credit's due, trains to Cauldon will more than likely be split as was done in BR days due to the gradients and curvature of the branch. I'm sure I've seen somewhere 66s are banned from the line due to something to do with the front axle of their bogies, so finding a Type 5 may prove difficult meaning we have to use weaker locos (Type 3 / 4). Time will tell though, we need an agreement to run the service before making any decision on how to do it!

The rest though, of this major junction being needed, is boxed thinking of someone simply remembering things as they once were. Stoke - Milton was doubletrack, so passing points can be installed wherever it's felt is needed along here, as was Endon - LBJ. And anyway, even if it was to be restored 'as was', the track needed replacing anyway so would have to have been removed in any case!

As for not running north of LBJ, why would Dom Hughes includes provision of station at Barnfields in his plans if trains weren't proposed?
And how does removing sidings provides reason for lack of services to Endon? The new CVR Tea room is opening at Endon Station in January FYI, and there are reasons for us not being able to re-open this section yet but they are not disclosable in public. As you've never been part of any meetings stop trying to second guess what has been said behind closed doors.
And the wagons at LBJ are not scrap, they are the vehicles more resilient to any vandal attacks, which seeing as the signal box was smashed up before it's restoration seems a pretty logical thing to do.

 

Getting back to the point of this thread, since myself and a couple of other MPD lads have been given admin rights for the CVR Facebook every month we have provided pictorial updates from around the railway. November's is now uploaded, can non-fbk users view them all though?

Steam Gala
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.699509893403856.1073741833.419469178074597&type=3

March
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.719179734770205.1073741837.419469178074597&type=3

April
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.732181920136653.1073741838.419469178074597&type=3

May
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.749113511776827.1073741840.419469178074597&type=3

June
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.763973223624189.1073741843.419469178074597&type=3

"Anything Goes"
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.761633230524855.1073741842.419469178074597&type=3

"Knotty Coach Visit"
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.761623320525846.1073741841.419469178074597&type=3

July
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.780428441978667.1073741845.419469178074597&type=3

August
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.797687656919412.1073741847.419469178074597&type=3

September
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.815187125169465.1073741849.419469178074597&type=3

October
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.832291620125682.1073741851.419469178074597&type=3

November
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.847859868568857.1073741852.419469178074597&type=3

 

I am not a pessimist, more a realist, and the loop at Cauldon will not be extended by another 200 yards because it is constrained by two bridges. I have been right four of the last four years and I will be right for the next four years or more.

 

I would be surprised if 66s are banned from the branch - a branch that was mothballed four years before they arrived in this country. There are no tight curves other than the turnout curves on the points but then these locos pass over similar p&c all over the country, and they do have steerable bogies which I would have thought would only enhance their go anywhere ability.

 

LOL

Having followed this thread since I joined NP and endured your "contributions" for over a year now I have to say I cannot remember a single occasion when any of your comments have been factually correct. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Clog & Knocker, NP's answer to David Icke.

 

Oh forgot to mention. N7 69621 out on Wednesday (tomorrow).
Unsure what's out at the weekend yet, but will advise Friday evening as I'm the rostered night turn keeping everything warm.

 

Evening all,

Photographs from yesterdays Santa Trains now online at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/frank47524/sets/72157647280593203/

2 shots attached show off the recent clearance work under taken by P-Way and CVR Volunteers.

 

read this months steam railway, which says bizarrely that that a paperwork error with it's boiler ticket means 69621 can keep on running ??

How does that happen ? - a boilers a bit of a safety critical piece of equipment to have having documentation errors ?

 

Pleased our efforts have produced a new viewing point.

 

I suppose it depends on the nature of the error. Perhaps simply a date mistyped?

 

It happens all the time, usually due to typos by the boiler inspector and especially with dates. That is why it is necessary to read the piece of paper that you receive and get it corrected if you know that it is wrong.
At Middleton, we bought a crane (No.12) from Corus several years ago. All the paperwork for this crane, including insurance inspections, repairs, etc., all from day one of its life, stated crane No.12 makers no.23812. However, some time after purchase, I noticed that, although the cab fleet number was a definite No.12, the worksplate (welded to the frame) actually read 24379. Is the paperwork actually for our crane? Did Corus sell us the wrong crane? Do I now change all documentation to the 'new' works no? Or what? Sort this one out!
(P.S. I might actually have got the two works numbers wrong here as I'm doing it from memory.)

 

Yep. Simple typo that had 2014 on instead of 2015. Only when we went through the original paperwork was the typo noticed.

 

Dunno. The works no. refers to the whole crane when built. It had a new engine and a new jib during its Corus/British Steel life. Or, at least, one crane did. According to the paperwork, that is!