Churnet Valley Railway General Discussion

I'd say they are more adamant than that. They insist their land must be removed from the application, also that no works interfere or intrude on their land and they have concerns with the drainage proposals. No suggestion they might sell the land or give any permissions.

Plenty of other potential obstacles and difficulties mentioned too.

 

Ile inquire about if the C.V.R. are going to protest this proposal of the signing a petition form is going to happen, at the C.V.R. Gala. Who owns the trackbed past leek brook jct N.R. Or C.V.R.?

 

What the councils round the area where the mothballed stoke to leek brook line runs through is get local people to have a vote on who wants to see the railway reopened 4 public service trains to leek again or if people would prefer the land be built on with houses not careing about their heritage and then see where they stand on this matter

 

I don't think anyone would be organising a petition at this stage. If you feel strongly about it, just write/email the council and object to the planning application.

Keith

 

I would imagine that NR's objections should be enough to put a stop to this; they'll surely find it easier to resubmit a proposal with no railway encroachment than to fight NR.

 

If the application is thrown out it leaves open the option for CVR to one day run trains to Endon and beyond. Every comment or objection increases the chances of this happening.

 

NR own it but the lease allows CVR to run trains. The agreement was that nothing should be done to preclude the line to Cauldon being used for freight.

 

You only have until 4th March.

 

Is the lease held by CVR or Moorlands & City Railways?

Jon

 

Well all i can say on this score about the stoke to leekbrook line how keen are C.V.R. willing to hold on to this line 1 its a mainline connection 4 C.V.R. 2it could open potential 4 a new service to leek town, 3 it could also serve as a freight line to cauldon low. 3 very good reasons i see to keep it from been built on why dont the property developers allow room 4 the line to remain useable 4 future use.

 

Property developers don't make money out of railways, they make money out of buildings and developments and if they haven't had to buy the land in the first place, like on this site they can make even more profit. £££££££££££££££££££

 

Evening,

Just a few shots from many taken this weekend during the Winter Steam Gala... https://www.flickr.com/photos/frank47524/

 

Great pictures indeed

 

Yeh well if the community think alot about the future of the leekbrook to stoke line having a future to keep the C.V.R. connected to the main line you should all band together and fight thease land developers off b4 u lot dont have a way of linking up the C.V.R. to stoke. Money talks and if u lot dont want the property developers get there wicked way to block u having access to stoke on that branch line petition it and deny them.planning permission to build on the alignment of the trackbed if ever a chance a stoke to leek town service will prevail after all network rail were granted a 150 year lease on the line unless they have been bribed to sell it off.

 

I have a question about TKh 'Hotspur' which is based at the CVR. This example seems to differ from most I have seen, it has a single large dome rather than two, and the cab and bunker are noticeably different, with a large cut-out instead of side window, curved roof, extended bunker and step-up in the running plate to the tank.
Was this a preservation era rebuild? If so, was it done at the CVR and is the intention to do the same to the other TKh?
Many thanks.

 

Can't answer the dome question off the top of my head.
But the cab and bunker were scratch built at CVR to conform to British Loading Gauge. When the time comes for 2871 restoration she too will receive similar mods.

 

Thank you for the prompt response Lil Bear, I think I may have seen Polish examples with the single dome (maybe the secondary one is a sand dome)?
I think the loco looks rather handsome with the modifications.

 

A petition will do nothing in comparison to Network Rail voicing themselves. There is a legal framework protecting the trackbed, as Wendy whatever-her-name-was found out when she tried to have the land designated as a village green. This group at Endon are going to discover the exact same truth in this instance too. Patience is just needed to let due process fall into place. The line is classified as a "Strategic Freight Route", and is legally mothballed. Just because some chancers are claiming its abandoned does not make their views true.

And how have NR got a 150 year lease on their own line??? You are confusing the facts. Leekbrook to Cauldon was provided to MCR on a 150 Year lease. Stoke to Leek was proposed for similar but never actually followed through with, hence no trains have run to Endon (exc the annual inspections).

 

See post 1154 about the 150 year leasehold i got my wires crossed.

 

The rear dome was a sand dome on the locos as built, as you suggest. It is not clear what the sanding arrangements are on Hotspur. At least two of the Chinese locos (XK13) were converted to tender locos, with ballast added to the running plates.