Moorlands and City Railway

It is highly likely that the two MCR directors who are also directors of the CVR have a much larger shareholding in the CVR than Mr Kerr states. The shareholders list for the CVR is readily available at Companies House.

 

But that statement only adds to the confusion. The simple point is that (1) the MCR has shares in the CVR (2) the 2 directors of the MCR who sit on the board of the CVR will represent 100% of the shares held by MCR but (3) the MCR directors will only represent the percentage of CVR that their shares represent.

Note that also means (1) The shares owned by MCR are owned by the company NOT the director(s) who represent the MCR on the CVR Board (2) the MCR Directors can only act as the majority of the MCR shareholders ( or whatever % is decreed by the MCR's Articles of Association ) agree they can as the Directors represent the Company but do not necessarily own it.

Note the figure of 1o% which I used was to demonstrate a legal principle which will apply irrespective of what % of CVR shares are held by MCR unless MCR holds the majority of the CVR shares - which I doubt - and not to indicate the actual percentages of CVR shares held by MCR.

As I noted that information is not my concern as I was seeking to explain a principle to someone who appears not to be able to understand the complexities of business structures and finance.

 

Having looked at the top twenty shareholders list for the CVR, the MCR is not even mentioned. This means that the MCR has less than a 0.4% shareholding in the CVR. As for the two directors concerned, it is not down to me to give out personal details on a public forum, but their individual percentage shareholding in the CVR is quite small.

 

I thought it was the case that CVR has shares in MCR- not the other way round ?

Jon

 

Correct. MCR as a company have no shares in CVR, though individuals within MCR do have shares themselves. Though you're all now getting side-tracked by C&K personal vendetta against individuals at the CVR by questioning the commitment of CVR Directors.

The 2 Directors concerned have each been on the board for over 10years each. If they weren't there for CVR then I very much doubt the Shareholders would have allowed them to stay in position, as something would have been said at the AGM. Having attended the last 3x AGMs myself, no-one has ever questioned their commitment on any of these occasions. Also as a side-note, Mr Adams hasn't listed ALL the Directors as there are 2 names missing. But hey why use Facts when there's the opportunity for another bash at the CVR?

Without MCR the Cauldon Branch would still not have been opened. End of. Period. Since the re-opening, CVR variety of services have been greatly enhanced. Dining train / Driver Experience bookings are up, Revenue from the additional supplements are up, gala numbers have increased year upon year and CVR is in a much better state for this. Enthusiast Galas were nearly stopped at CVR as the costs of putting them on were not being covered. Chris Meadowcroft took them on in 2012, starting small with 45379 and each year things have improved so much so this year we had 2x enthusiast events. 2015 is going to see things go to another level too but at the moment all I can say is watch this space.

As for the directors Mr Adams is questioning, even excluding MCR we would be a much poorer railway without them. There would be no S160s or 8F. No in-house engineering facilities that served us so well with the TKh overhaul. Instead of taking the words of a ex-member of CVR with a grudge, why not come down for yourself and see what they do for CVR? There are two sides to every story, and Mr Adams will only ever let you hear one of them as he has so consistently proved time and time again on here.

There is so much more to this latest appeal than CVR simply buying rails from MCR. All of it though leads to the CVR achieving its original long term target of running trains into Leek, which is surely what all supporters of CVR want to see? But it's not going to happen overnight, and it's not going to happen without the support of those who want to see it happen. It will also require patience and faith, but its much easier to sit behind a pc and look for problems isn't it?

 

Once again Clogger has managed to drag everyone (except those wise souls who have chosen to ignore him) into another pointless discussion about things he only half knows about and understands even less.

Maybe he'll now go back and hide under his bridge for a bit (That's what Trolls usually do when the sun comes out).

With patience and persistence the link to Leek will be made and the line to Endon opened and then, no doubt, Clogger will find something else to moan about.

 

If you look at my postings and like's in this thread, you'll see that I support the CVR and MCR even though I only visit perhaps once per year.

There is however a fundamental issue here which is almost impossible for the CVR and MCR supporters to address. Nothing anyone can say, no argument anyone can give will make lifting track feel right. It's one of those heart vs head things. It just plain feels wrong emotionally, sufficiently wrong that no amount of logic will make a difference.

JP

 

CVR have only lifted a little under 2 miles. However look at it realistically. This section could only be used for 12 public services a year, and whilst we did use it for storing stock the vandals were costing use more money than these 12 days would ever pay.

Now though we are securing the future of 5 miles that DOES earn its keep, significantly enhances the CVR and more importantly is available for services all year round. Yes its sad to lose Oakamoor, but between Ipstones & Oakamoor there is only 1 choice. One day we'll return to Oakamoor, we own the land afterall but at present it was more of a hinderance than an attraction.

 

As I see it, if CVR purchase the Leekbrook to Ipstones track it would become redundant once the MCR achieve their primary objective of running freight services between Stoke and Cauldon quarries. At this time CVR could either sell the track for scrap or if still serviceable use it to re-lay the track to Oakamoor and beyond.

 

At least the penny has dropped for someone!

 

Better still, the CVR could have obtained the lease and paid nowt. Re using track isn't like rolling up your living room carpet and laying it in a bedroom. It just isn't economic in the long

 

But if the logic is there to do the lift, can you see that for some people, that means they will do it, even if they too share your emotional unhappiness at so doing? I.e. are you OK with some people putting logic ahead of heart?

Noel

 

Yes to your assumption, I struggle to use this site with timeouts, crashes and such like. No I have no figures - I don't need them, obviously CVR agree with me because they have scrapped the Cauldon track and the Froghall to Oakamoor line instead of re using it between Leekbrook and Barnfields as the planning application said they would. Network Rail rarely do it - preferring instead to use brand new jointed bullhead track even in tamper sidings, although they do have a standard for reusing rail. I don't know of any other heritage line that moves track around, it just isn't worth it because lifting and moving heavy components is expensive in time and labour.

 

You have no figures, and no clue as once again you've confused the issue in order to try and justify yet another dismissal of a CVR project.

CVR have not scrapped any track along the Cauldon Branch. The only track they have scrapped is Oakamoor, which was a siding to nowhere, had a limit on the number of operating days it could be used, and was becoming a huge drain on the CVR due to the countless vandal attacks made on the stock stored there. You just have to look at the RMB to see what damage was being done down there, withdrawn for running repairs yet now in-need of a full ground up restoration.

The CVR is now attempting to buy the trackwork from Leek Brook to Ipstones in order to preserve the commercially succesful services along the remnants of the Cauldon Branch, on which the CVR has unlimited access at no additional cost. As pointed out before, when the day comes for this section to be replaced itself the CVR will receive the 5 miles worht of trackwork to use as they desire. This could be restoring the 2 miles to Oakamoor, help with Cheddleton Loop re-instatement, or trackwork anywhere else, or it could all be scrapped and the financial value used for another CVR project (Cheddleton Shed / Signal Box / Tearooms are 3x projects that could all benefit from such a financial boost).

Those of us actively involved with the CVR fully support this decision, as we realise some sacrifices and difficult decisions need to be made in order to ensure the CVR survives in the short term but is then also able to achieve its long term targets. With MCR looking to progress Leek, things are actually quite positive despite you yourself being so keen to say otherwise.

If you're so intereste in learning the facts, get down to Cheddleton and ask the people involved. The door is always open, but if you can't make it down then send an e-mail. You've always claimed to have never been banned, despite reports to the contrary, so what's stopping you?

 

Not trying to enter the arguement above, but more just something im curious of.

You keep saying the Ipstones operation is more successful and profitable than just the CVR operation. What's the sorts of figures for it? More passengers, charging a higher fare etc? Does the difference cover the extra coal and consumables used along with extra wear and tare on locos and stock?

No matter how you look at it there is going to be serious cost differences between a gentle plod along the relatively straight and flat CVR line against a thrash up a 1 in 30 something hill with some sharp curves on it. Brake block wear for the return from Ipstones is one thing that springs to mind!

 

It's not so odd when you note that the track would need uplifting anyway before new track can be laid - as will be done once the return of trains becomes imminent. Once you appreciate that the track will be removed at some time do you spend money on any measure of security - and if so will it be cheaper than (a) removing the track but leaving the trackbed free until you are ready to relay (b) leaving the track in situ and risk it being removed by "others" with the consequent loss of realisable value whether as scrap or in use as sidings.
As an economist I would suggest option (a) but that is purely on monetary values whereas other options considered / taken may have emotional values that may take priority to those taking the decisions. It may be a truism but sometimes you have to accept that something costs more money than it generates at which point it is time to give it up; Oakamoor at the present time is one such consideration.