Churnet Valley Railway General Discussion

The Directors of MCR (a private company) are also directors of CVR (a PLC, supported by the well-meaning general public). Indeed one of these directors is now the Managing Director of CVR.

However you try to disguise it, money is being transferred from the CVR to MCR for them to use as they please. The 2009 CVR AGM allowed these directors to do this after "the benefits" were explained by the Chairman, and these were to include free use by CVR trains on all existing and future MCR metals. If MCR wished to operate trains on the CVR, they would have to pay fees.

If you wish to support the MCR, by all means buy CVR shares.

These are the simple facts. I will not be responding to any comments.

 

Please don't bite my head off (again) for posting on this subject - I do wonder if some of the answers have been lost in the "clean-up operation" after the last unpleasantness!

What appears to be asked is that people donate money to buy track so the CVR can continue a popular service - so far, so good and very understandable.

The concern I, and I detect others, can see is that the CVR is buying the track from a leaseholder. If that leaseholder were to loose the lease, what rights would the CVR have and hence would the key operation be safeguarded?

If I recall correctly previous answers, the MCR pays a true peppercorn rent, so is unlikely to is the lease cut short due to non-payment of rent, and hence the only circumstance under which MCR may have the lease removed would seem to be if it ceased to exist - but, as the CVR volunteers have said, they don't know the terms of the Network Rail/MCR lease.

As a final point of clarification, I believe that the CVR is a PLC and that the appeal is to buy shares? I presume no charity is involved at all? I ask as I am aware of the restrictions this can place on appeals and donated funds (see West Somerset Develops for example!)

Steven

 

Has anyone mentioned the phrase "asset stripping" yet?

 

You're saying that you are just the messengers and don't shoot the messenger, but messages can , and should, travel in both directions. If you are asked a pertinent question, is it unreasonable to suggest that you try to seek an answer? If you have asked that question and been denied an answer, that would raise grave concerns to me.

 

If the CVR has been offered opportunity to purchase some redundant track (ok all fine and good) and MCR is the leaseholder of the land the track sits on (ok all fine and good), and CVR is allowed to run trains on it (ok all fine and good,plus bonus.. it's a ready made railway to use)...

If MCR becomes insolvent, returns the lease or whatever else, I would assume as owner of the track asset, the CVR would be a creditor and need to apply to the new landowner/leaseholder to remove it's property from the land ?
(unless of course any other party would claim to own the track also)

But what happens if MCR want to rebuild the line to Cauldon Low and use the line between Ipstones / Leekbrook... ?
- will MCR ask them to remove it ?
- will MCR pay CVR to use it ?
- will MCR add a 2nd line next to it ??

1. If CVR owns the track to Ipstone, (just like any other railway buying track, lifting it and bringing it to their own railway)...I would assume there is no restriction on CVR ripping up that track and moving it to, say Oakamoor if they desired to replace the track there ?

2. Which maybe I could pose a question... how much did they get for ripping up the Oakamoor section (are those funds being used to buy this track at Ipstones) and does buying this track to Ipstones represent a good deal for purchasing scrap redundant rail - ok it comes with the ability to use it as is without moving it.

if the answer to 1 is Yes, and the answer to 2 is more favourable then bonus and why not do it.
If the answer to 1 is No and the answer to is less favourable.. well....

I guess the issue is clouded because their are two related entities next to each other, if the CVR was buying track from some redundant private sidings somewhere miles away and set up a 2nd operation there, or lifted/shifted the track back to the CVR the issue would be more clear cut to understand.

 

As far as I am aware (from several posts on this thread and the MCR thread which have now been removed) if / when MCR want to use the track bed up to Cauldon then they will replace the existing track, which CVR can then use elsewhere. CVR will continue to have running rights up to Ipstones or on to Waterhouses. Pretty straightforward to me, (unless I'm wrong).

Maybe the posts containing this information should be restored?

 

Please accept my apology as I cant find the answer to the following question:
Why was the track removed from the Cauldon Low branch to start off with?

I ask as it seems rather odd that track is removed by owners "A" and replaced by track owned by "B"

 

Sorry, but no. We just pass on what we know, if we are sure it's fact, or otherwise give an opinion. I'm afraid we aren't some kind of message service and we don't rub shoulders with those who do know, and don't have time to seek them out either - often on the p/way we don't go anywhere near the office. It's a just a hobby - turn up one day mid- week, hit things with hammers as directed, eat, repeat and go home. Sum total of my involvement.

 

Yes, I was speaking for those of us on the p/way gang, who have been asked before to post progress reports on here. Jon is in the MPD and has different sources to us.

 

That was also answered in one of the posts that has now been removed - unfortunately now the CVR / MCR people will have to reply to the same question yet again.

No wonder they are losing the will to deal with NP.

 

I don't see how this thread is ever going to work. People ask questions we can't answer, and those that can don't post on NP. If it's all about buying shares then it's up to people to make their own judgement. Presumably there's a prospectus that can be viewed or downloaded from the CVR website? I'll have a look. http://www.churnet-valley-railway.co.uk/support-us

 

I suppose thats a good enough statement to draw a line under it again.

lets move on.

 

For those of you like me who are struggling to understand what is going, herewith what I think the position is:
The CVR March 2011 prospectus for up to £450,000 of shares (i.e. 450,000 shares of £1 each nominal value) (in summary) states that the purpose of the issue was to:
1. acquire shares in MCR. The prospectus does mention “provision of capital to MCR” so this would imply that these were new shares issued by MCR rather than existing shares sold by the MCR shareholders. The investment by CVR seems to have been £150,000, based on CVR’s financial statements.
MCR also subscribed for £50,000 worth of shares in CVR, and CVR were given the right to appoint a director to MCR’s board. MCR also gave CVR the right to run trains over its lines without charge.
2. assist with financing a catering facility at Cheddleton.
3. keep any surplus as “working capital”.
Between the March 2011 Prospectus being issued and 31 December 2013, the share capital of CVR grew by just under £370,000. As at 31 December 2013 there was also a loan of just over £100,000 made by CVR to MCR (the “CVR Loan”) and the intention seems to have been this would not be repaid but converted into shares of MCR.
The links for material for the current appeal are in post #250. The basis of the current appeal for funds was not contemplated at the time of the March 2011 Prospectus. The “Chairman’s Letter”, undated but presumably issued around July this year, explains the purpose for the current appeal. This appeal was apparently made first to existing CVR shareholders who showed “strong support” by subscribing £40,000. The balance required of around £36,000 is now being sought. Track to the value of £86,250 has already been purchased by CVR using the proceeds of sale of track south of Froghall and “converting” (I assume this means forgiving) part of(?) what I assume is the CVR Loan.
The comment in the Chairman’s Letter “As a result, MCR would normally remove the track…” seems a bit of a non sequitur to me, and I am inclined to think that the greater reason was that it suited both parties to conclude this agreement now. The Chairman’s Letter also refers to purchasing the track in three phases but it is not clear what those phases are. I assume the current appeal is intended to complete the whole process. Notwithstanding post #250, it is not entirely clear, to me at least, from the official material what benefits are available to shares purchased now, as the Chairman’s Letter refers to an appeal period of four weeks ended 15 August 2014 and the 2 October website entry only refers to “a range of benefits”.
If anyone disagrees with this analysis, feel free to correct me.

 

3 phases - Use of an Outstanding Loan / Removal of Oakamoor / Appeal to cover the remainder.

The Chairman's letter was issued as part of the internal appeal in July. Now it's gone public, the original "Double" benefits which was valid only until August 15th has been extended until the end of 2014.

As you say, all the information for this latest appeal is in one of my previous posts (#250).

To clarify another question, the NSRC (Charitable Trust for CVR) are not involved in this deal. The purchase of track is an arrangement between the CVR PLC (operating company) and MCR (Private Ltd Company).

 

Just a normal day on the Pway this week just a few broken chairs and sleepers dealt with, so took a couple of photos of the progress in the C + W on the Southern S4393 coach for a change.

 

To be honest I much prefer seeing updates from the relevant departments as they are much more interesting!

 

At he beginning of the year, shortly after MCR lifted the track from Cauldon Low to Ipstones and, at the time we were installing the Ipstones loop, I posted on the old MCR thread that I thought bit would be a good idea for CVR to buy the track from Leekbrook Jnct to Ipstones to avoid the possibility of any more of the MCR track being lifted.
I must have spent more than 1000 hours with the CVR Pway gang over the last few years and I think the section up the bank from Leekbrook junction is one of the best bits of the line and well worth doing what is possible to ensure that heritage services continue to run as far as Ipstones, if not further for as long as possible. I have now contributed to the appeal to buy the track and hope that we reach the target quickly.