Churnet Valley Railway General Discussion

As the cabsides are flush with the tank sides as built (and were tapered in slightly above the tank top), presumably the alterations were needed to the height? The corners of the new cab roof are noticeably lower than as built. Perhaps it was easier just to re-design the whole thing, together with re-designed bunker, and less need for an enclosed "cold weather" cab.

 

it amazes me that nowadays councils still look at allowing building on old railway lines the benefits of reopening this line should obvious to all giving the traffic going into Stoke reopening the line from Leek to Stoke really is a no brainer.

 

We had a neighbour who essentially broke all the planning rules but got away with it because they put their planning application in during the summer when ever one was away and put the notice in a very obscure place where no one could see it. The first we found out about it was when the builders appeared in their garden.

If we had known about it we would have objected and because it broke various rules it would have been scrutinised and probably thrown out.

Essentially, if there are no objections councils will often just put them through on the nod it seems. So for example the builders claim the line is abandoned, claim that it is inside the village etc, and hope that no one objects and forces the council to look at whether the claims are true.

 

I'm by no means an expert, but AFAICS, the Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan says:

"Continue to safeguard all existing disused railway lines within the District and support the reuse of these for public or commercial/tourism use. To this end the Council will refuse any development which would impede or truncate these routes. However proposals for recreational routes, cycleways, bridleways etc will generally be acceptable."
​

(Policy T2 - https://www.staffsmoorlands.gov.uk/...Core_Strategy_March_2014_with_front_cover.pdf).

So on the face of it, a housing development on railway land ought to be refused, though I guess you might argue whether ex-good yards count; nonetheless if the access road requires the main trackbed, it should be refused.

Disclaimer: consult a planning expert. This advice is worth what you paid for it...

Tom

 

She has none lol

 

And there's a typical reaction. Read the facts and you'll realise just how laughable this post is, instead of reading what you want.

Not picking on you as an individual, but where has it been stated that the Council are looking to allow this planning application?
Mr Redfern is chancing it, but it will backfire just like it did with Wendy.
As for the Stoke - Leek no brainer, hmm yeah maybe if the loop line connection with Hanley was still in place. As it's not then Stoke - Leek isn't actually going to be of too great a benefit, which is what ATOC concluded in their review. However, that's not to say a Crewe - Stoke - Leek, Macclesfield - Stoke - Leek etc wouldn't work. Similar to how the Oxenholme branch is run with the Manc Airport service. But that's a whole different question, and nothing to do with CVR General Discussion.

 

The chap who ran the cafe was told by the CVR, and in turn told his customers that they were going to be running trains to Endon. Mind you that was in 2015 and nothing has happened yet so I would guess they at least have a desire to run trains to Endon.

 

Yes but Cheddleton station was bought up by C.V.R. off one of the local councils so I think to go ahead with any such schemes the C.V.R. are cash strapped with buying Cheddleton station for now.

 

Cheddleton station was bought at short notice because the opportunity arose within a short tome frame; it was also bought using monies received from a share issue specifically issued for the sole purpose of buying it. If you look at the railway's finances you cannot claim it to be "cash-strapped" because it clearly operates finances at 2 levels; it earns monies to keep its day-to-day operations secure and issues shares to finance specific projects (e.g. the purchase of Cheddleton station). It is a successful railway, despite appearances, because it separates day to day operation from long term plans rather than the "normal" use of day to day operations to fund long term plans.

Based on past experience I think you will find that there are future plans based on a reality that may not be obvious to many outside the railway but which are bound by lengthy negotiations with land-owners and Network Rail hence remain confidential until negotiations have been completed.

 

CVR offered to run a Heritage service in 2015 if an agreement with Network Rail could be made. This hasn’t happened, so we are continuing with our project to re-open to Leek. Should the situation with Endon/Stoke change then the offer is still there, but we have more than enough on our plate re-opening to Leek / Oakamoor / Cauldon in the next few years.

 

That will change when hell freezes over: there is absolutely no chance of NR taking responsibility for a heritage service even if ORR would let you run trains over the level crossing.

 

That's not what I said... I said if the infrastructure was set up to permit passenger services, then CVR have always said they would be happy to operate such. But as it is not currently in such a state, then we are concentrating on our other projects.

 

But surely a railway that generates enough funds from its day-to-day operations to fund long term plans is the very definition of a more sustainable and successful operation?

Any railway that spends 100% of day to day income on day to day bills will face big challenges in the decades to come, as bridges rot away, rail wears out and rolling stock wheels have their last turns and require retyring. Lots of appeals and grant funding required in those circumstances, luckily for preservation we have lots of examples where such initiatives have been successful.

Sent from my HTC U Play using Tapatalk

 

If you read my posting carefully you will note that I stated "separates day to day operation from long term plans"; you have assumed that "day to day operation" excludes the long term maintenance of assets that form part of the operation whereas I assume that the management of the railway has accounted for such by the creation of the necessary reserves. Since this is an internal matter I have no knowledge of what the management includes in its definition of "day to day" but the operation of the current network is clearly separated from the progression of long term plans. This may be because the railway will fund "long term plans" through further share issues dedicated to funding specific projects (e.g the purchase of Cheddleton Station) hence the separation of operations and future plans. IMHO this is pedantry given that the current operation continues apace and future plans are kept separate to avoid the threat of one element affecting the other.

 

I know exactly what you said - it is just a bit higher up the screen. The cafe tenant was told that trains would be running to Endon later that year (2015) and they didn't and now there is a new tenant running the cafe. As I said there is absolutely no chance of CVR trains running over that level crossing as long as NR are responsible for the line. To reinstate that crossing would cost tens of thousands of pounds just in legal fees because ORR doesn't want closed level crossings to reopen.

 

Well, one step at a time as they say...….

https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/new...hR3cbpRBcwiNfgSUC4iwP21A09UveaheqjpZDF-tWNlJM

 

Looks promising: watch this space as they say.

 

What about the other 2 projects to Cauldon Low and Oakamoor, is there anything in the pipeline about that fact the track is in need of relaying if Cauldon Low is to be reached in the near future.

 

I think Oakamoor is once the moneystone quarry project goes ahead. Until then there is no point in going that direction as there isn't a destination. Leek will be great, as long as it is done correctly, and once that is done I would suggest some time to consolidate before massive expansion. More coaching stock and engines are needed, then money income from secondary spend in shops/catering etc.

Once those are done, then I would say Cauldon could be done.

 

Sad state of affairs where getting back to Cauldon or Oakamoor are considered a long term projects in the future which will probably never happen when they started off running to Cauldon from day one in 2009 and had the track to Oakamoor in good condition back in 1992 when the CVR started!