Moorlands and City Railway

But you still come back to the cost / benefit analysis. Is the cost of retaining the line with its additional cost of security measures and potential risk of loss justified by any derived from it. If there is lesser income than expenditure then surely better to reduce the expense and move the resources to a safer place.

In simple terms you have £10:00 in bags (i.e. line to Oakamoor); do you leave it on your doorstep (i.e leave the rail in situ) with a CCTV camera secured on your premises and focused on the bags (i.e. your proposed security measures) or do you bring it indoors (i.e. adopt the CVR policy of lifting the track) to save the expense and have the resource available for something else ?

CVR / MCR have done their sums and made the best use of their limited resources; I understand their income figures confirm the rightness of those decisions.

 

The development at Barnfields is on the far and most unpleasant outskirts of the town next to Bestwicks scrap yard and passengers will get an excellent view of the sewage works as they pass by. This "development is nothing more than a bog standard modern housing estate surrounded by an industrial

 

The line south of Froghall didn't cost CVR a single penny to leave in situ because they effectively abandoned it many years ago, that was why they could only run on it for twelve days a year, what with flooding and general neglect. Do you really think there was a danger that somebody was going to nick two miles of track which was so isolated from any vehicular access? Presumably, if you think they would, then if the line was in regular use for Alton Towers trains, the risk of rail theft would be just as great.
If you knew anything about railway economics you would know that it is much more difficult - and expensive to lay new track on an empty overgrown trackbed than if there was something for road railers and engineers trains to run on. But then, you don't, do you?

 

Economics are short term, medium term and long term; railway planning is identical plus an element of contingency. I have sufficient knowledge to sense the framework within which CVR / MCR is operating but do not presume to know the figures on which CVR / MCR have based their decisions and - irrespective of your experiences - I presume you don't either so I suggest your comments are basically like "p*****g in the wind"; could I advise you might find a better position with your back - rather than your face - to the wind.

 

Ipstones services we charge an additional £6 supplement per person (no concessions).
There is a considerable higher number of passengers each day, with 2014 seeing 3x return trips offered compared to the previous 2x. We only run 1x weekend a month in order to maintain its popularity and prevent the service from losing its attraction
Driver Exp we charge £900 compared to £499 for CVR only. We wont use £400 of consumables doing the additional 10miles to Ipstones and back.
Footplate Pass £225 compared to £125 for CVR Only. These cost us nothing, as the train will still run with/without a footplate rider.
Dining Trains £40 Sunday Lunch / £45 Evening Diner. We used to run these along CVR as well, but the Cauldon Diners always proved more popular so we've now reduced CVR dining trains to the cheaper supper trains only (£20).

Enthusiast Galas have also increased profits since Chris took them on, with Cauldon Branch providing the big attraction. This year saw us add a summer event to the our normal Winter Steam Gala, and both events made healthy returns. Nothing spectacular, but as some previous Enthusiast Galas had lost money it's a very good turnaround for the events fortunes.

 

It's an industrial unit at present, but the Barnfields development will change it all with a Marina / Shops / Station all planned.
http://www.staffsmoorlands.gov.uk/sm/council-services/area-action-plans/churnet-valley-masterplan

Leaflet -> http://www.staffsmoorlands.gov.uk/s...Churnet Valley Masterplan Summary Leaflet.pdf

 

I have been following this thread with interest and until now I have not been moved to comment, but the comment that track into Leek would be into the "most unpleasant outskirts of the town" a little objectionable. I guess that almost all the members of Leek golf club would also agree as there would be excellent views of their golf course, Birchall and Ballington Woods to the right of the extension into Leek. I live in the outskirts and I for one can't wait for the railway to come back!

 

You make no mention of the cost of excessive wear and tear on the locos travelling up to Ipstones. The Lickey bankers had to have heavy general overhauls far more frequently than other members of the Classes used.

 

Out of interest I had walk down the churnet valley to oakamoor the other day and noticed from one of the farm bridges that a couple of coaches had been grounded and just left stranded in the middle of nowhere. Are these for scrap.
Ps I used public footpaths.

 

I'm not sure running a few passenger trains a day up an (albeit steep) branch is the same as continuously shoving heavy goods trains up the Lickey.
In fact, as a more general point, I think preservation use (often a lot of on/off use and hence heating/cooling, slow speeds, etc.) doesn't lead to the same type of wear and tear as daily mainline service did.

 

What Std Tank and myself were getting at is the difference in cost of repairs and overhauls between running for 10 years on the CVR against 10 years of running on the MCR to Ipstones.

It's obviously not going to be the same as the mainline work, but working on a flattish line against working up a steep hill is going to have differences i'd have thought? Just look at the NYMR loco fleets servicability.

 

I know the point that you're making, and at times recently the NYMRs steam fleet has been thin on the ground, but I think in some ways the issue is the same as with the Lickey point above.

On the NYMR locos will be hauling up that 1 in 49 several times a day, several days a week, year in year out. Locos on the CVR go up to Ipstones a couple of times a day, a couple of days a month. Yes the wear and tear would be greater than in the valley, but I don't think it is really comparable to the NYMR.

As for the point about sewage works above. I'll resist the temptation to say something about the poster and verbal diarrhoea, instead I'll point out that lots of preserved railways go past them. I watched a DVD on the South Devon Railway a while ago and the commentator said (jokingly) "no matter which preserved railway you go, there's always a sewage works" - and ever since I've been noticing them!

I for one can't wait to ride into Leek, or even down to St*ke.

 

Ok, so the journey to Leek wouldn't be that that because you do at least go past Birchall Golf Course, but at the end of the day the site is still surrounded on three sides by a scrap yard, industrial units/housing estate and Croda Chemicals. This hardly compares with a ride into Oakamoor Station, in a village that tourists would actually want to visit. A short extension of the line into Oakamoor Station would have been a lot less risky than going to Barnfields. proposed Leek Station will not attract the numbers of people that Lil Bear claims for the simple reason that nobody will be able to park their car there and there will be nothing to see when they get off the train. The shops he talks about are pie in the sky because of the Morrisons very close by and because this is not a touristy part of the world. I suppose you may get some boaters going for ride but that is it.
The other station about 1/4 mile to the south that they are proposing is really just a convenience store with a platform, this has only been included in the plans to try to wriggle out of providing 33% affordable housing, so absolutely nobody will ever use that, not even if they did provide a parking space.
Yes it would be wonderfull to get the train to Stoke, but don't hold your breath.

 

Well, that's certainly a valid point. One wonders if the lady who made a big stink about the line to Stoke (which she claimed had become a footpath) would have been able to do so had it been in occasional use. (I know, I know, her objection failed in the end - but it still was a big distraction while it lasted.)

But the objective data that the railway makes more money running to Ipstones than it did at Oakamoor does lend some weight to the idea that the CVR was better off using its rail at Ipstones than at Oakamoor. Yes, it would be nice to have both, but if one has to choose....

Noel

 

Can I ask if there is a published long term plan for the Churnet Valley Railway?

If so, this would surely provide considerable reassurance for those with understandable concerns at preservationists lifting track that it isn't a knee-jerk reaction to an associated business appearing to need cash but rather something which doesn't affect the long term plan, and that plan says when it is intended to replace the track and how this action it fits with that overall plan.

The MCR/CVR relationship is probably unique in UK preservation, so CVR members should not be surprised if at times those who are not reassured by what they know from working "at the coal face" can be concerned by actions undertaken, especially when viewed through the lens of the comments of somebody who has clearly had issues with the direction of the Railway in the past.

Steven

 

I'd agree.

As an outside observer who has visited the CVR once (for the Cauldon reopening gala), I'd also add that these actions don't FEEL like preservation. Meanwhile the history of railway preservation and property development isn't always happy - see also threads elsewhere on here on the WSR & SVR...

Given Lil Bear's posts, I'm willing to give this the benefit of the doubt (for what that's worth), but only just.

 

There is a handy map and brief description here: http://www.brcw.co.uk/#/the-line/4522865824 (Map is handy for those of us unfamiliar with the area!)

If I have understood things correctly (far from guaranteed...) my understanding of the long-term vision is:

1) Regular CVR heritage service running from Leek to Alton Towers, via Leekbrook Junction
2) MCR freight operation running from Cauldon Lowe to Stoke-on-Trent and beyond, via Leekbrook Junction
3) Permission / ability for CVR heritage services to use the Cauldon Lowe - Leekbrook Junction and Leekbrook Junction - Stoke-on-Trent lines for occasional heritage services.
4) MCR to be able to run Stoke-on-Trent to Leek or Alton Towers commuter services, over CVR metals.

But I may have got that wrong ...

Tom

 

What is there at Oakamoor that these tourists will want to go for? It's a nice village, but there isn't much to do once you get there. Plus the locals have made it clear they will object to any proposal of the railway returning, and whilst we may still be successful in reopening to here, any objections will add considerable time and money to any attempt. We just have to look at what Wendy did with Endon to see that! Add to that, Oakamoor is still not a start/end point. Look at all the big railways around, and they all connect into somewhere. CVR at present does not, but Leek WILL change this.

Oakamoor is by far the bigger risk as we'd still need a T&WO to go across the bridge and through the tunnel, all at high costs, with the conclusion being we go further into nowhere. Also the tunnel is a protected site for bats, and so there are negotiations needed to allow the trains to return. Again more time and money, which at present is better spent getting back into Leek.

The Barnfield redevelopment is not pie in the sky, and just because Morrisons is nearby does not mean no-one else is allowed a shop there. It's all in the link provided above, and your dismissal of the plans shows a clear short-sightedness. The Council wants to increase Tourism in the area, with Barnfields seen as a major part of this. The industrial units wont remain as they are today, as the whole area will undergo a complete facelift. Mock if you want (though you haven't exactly been positive in the previous 104pages) 100,000 is achievable and Leek will play a major role in this. If you want I'll write a chalked message on the smokebox to remind you of this, when I'm firing one of the first services to depart from Leek since 1965?

 

In response to the first line of your question, no. Or not a recent document at least, as I have read something somewhere but it was roughly a decade old, and I can't remember where it was either.

However there is a collection of "projects" that are either proposed / being planned / in execution, and I presume these get reviewed periodically by the PLC. What this entails though I'm unsure, suppose it's a good question for the AGM!

As for your second point, those of us at CVR realise that the MCR relationship is unique and understand that those not there all the time will undoubtedly question many of the going-ons. It's why myself / Jeff etc try to answer any questions people have and clear any confusions up. As you rightly point out though, when you've got someone who's determined to stir the pot no matter what and dismisses near enough everything those of us on the ground tell them, it certainly makes us question what's the point.

On the flip side though, it makes our success' all the more sweeter as there something rather satisfying about proving critics wrong. People laughed when it proposed Cauldon was to be reopened in 9 months, but I was on the footplate of 8F 8624 as it banked the first train up the bank on 13th November 2010. I'm more than looking forward to repeating this for both Leek & Endon as well as Oakamoor.

 

Go to the top of the class, you have full marks...

Only item you have missed is possible re-opening of Waterhouses Branch, as it's a better destination than Cauldon (there used to be a station for one!). Bt this is very much in the Long term category. Got enough on our plates with Leek / Endon.