Churnet Valley Railway General Discussion

The CVR has sprayed coaches in the fairly recent past (Most notably the dining train), but the latest offerings have used rollers (possibly finished off with a brush?) rather than spray. BR had coaches with both black and maroon ends, I think the maroon ends were an economy measure (as they eliminated the join between coach end and side) but I may stand corrected on this.

I agree the maroon ends are quite different when ex-works, but like all these things they weather down nicely. The current running rake has a mix of black and maroon ends and when briefly glancing you wouldn't really notice the difference.

 

Desperate is not the impression I get. Cheddleton houses all locomotives, all operational passenger rolling stock, all current restoration projects and several stored items of stock. Yes its a cosy yard, but it adequately houses everything the railway needs to operate in its current form.

Oakamoor was a massive vandal/theft problem for the railway, and major attempts to clear it have been pushed these past 10 years. It really was a hole of a place to work in or try and maintain! Now these sidings are gone, the stock that is left continues to reduce, departing the railway for pastures new if it does not have a sensible future on the railway.

 

I expect the cars were finished using a brush after roller application. If not they could have an 'orange peel' finish.

 

According to the HMRS Mk1 book the maroon ends came in when the painters changed from brush to spray painting. 1966 IIRC. Ray.

 

Unless you want to spend days buffing it!

 

Don't let sense and reasoning get in the way of another knocking of us Chris. Remember anything regarding CVR on here is for those who don't do anything at CVR to tell those of us who do, how everything should be done. Like why Leek Brook needs to be returned to how it was in the 80s is beyond me. BR operated as they did, as that was how the NSR / LMS set it all up there originally. Now we have a clean slate so to speak, and therefore can come up with a more efficient method of operation for the 21st Century (when the time comes obviously). Don't let the doubters think we know what we're doing whatever you do!

 

(edit) Leek Brook Jnc totally agree - why do MCR need double-tracked curves and loops? Modern air-braked block freight trains are a whole different matter to a Type 2 with a string of mineral wagons.

 

Never said Chris' post was negative. Just highlighting that no matter what we as CVR volunteers do / say, it's always going to be wrong for certain people.

And yet when we defend our railway, and our efforts, we are then accused of being unfair and not allowing criticism. As said previously, I'm all for positive criticism and agreed not everything is perfect at CVR all the time. But certain posters seem intent on raising the same "issues" every few months as only they know best. The fact there's more than 1-way to skin a cat, and equally more than 1 method to operate a railway, seemingly by-passes these individuals.

 

That's how I read the 3 posts in question.

 

Now you put it that way ...

As Robert Louis Stevenson wrote: "Do not write merely to be understood. Write so that you cannot possibly be misunderstood." Very difficult in the machine-gun atmosphere of a lot of internet communication, but an ideal to aspire to, even if sometimes one falls short.

(Lil Bear's post is one comma away from being easily comprehensible in the sense Corbs suggests!)

Tom

 

Just spotted an article in the Leek Post online that Barnfield Hughes have submitted a revised application for the Barnfields area in Leek, including the marina and station. It's expected that the revised application should go before the planning application committee in "about three months".

That's pretty much all the article says though apart from a comment that "due to the nature of the current and likely economic climate, the redevelopment of the site for speculative employment uses is not viable proposition".

The previous application was of course turned down because the council wanted more provision for jobs so watch this space.

 

This is pure rumor on my part - and readers please take it as such - but word on the ground is that this application is little different to the first one, so speculation would suggest has little chance of getting through planning either...

 

There is no point in being so pessimistic. My experience is that it is quite frequent that a Local Planning Authority (LPA) begins by sticking to its desire that certain land (usually so allocated in an Adopted Local Plan) is kept for employment purposes. Gradually it sinks in that such an outcome is unrealistic and the LPA becomes more amenable to residential. I have seen it happen both where I once earned a crust (in one of my previous lives) and where I live. Sometimes the passage of time, small modifications to a proposal and blunter professional advice turns the tide. The revised advice is often given privately because it can be of the "You'll lose an appeal and might get caught for costs" variety.

 

More work in the morning today on the tree removal near Consall by a select group. We had a train running in the afternoon so the bonfire will have to wait for the next time we are there.

 

They would need double track curves for the same reason that BR did back in the 80s, so that more than one train a day could leave Stoke. Why would they need loops? Well, to run round of course, and you never know, but one day somebody might even want to run a train to/from the Churnet Valley to Stoke and the outside world. They have removed all the track north of the junction with the Cauldon line because they obviously don't envisage trains running north of Leekbrook. This explains why the promised trains to Endon have not happened. Another reason why trains can't be run to Endon is the fact that they are using the Stoke line as a siding to store all their scrap wagons now that Oakamoor has been sold off
Modern air braked block freight trains are no different to the vacuum fitted rafts of the 80s, they still need to run round at Cauldon or maybe even Waterhouses where space is limited hence the need to split the train at Leekbrook using the sidings which are to have houses built on them. More than one train per day requires fixed signalling all of which has been all stripped out for some reason so I don't understand what Lil Bear means when he talks about a more efficient operation for the twenty first century, maybe he can elaborate. They are still barring over points and clipping and scotching, even after all these years.
The collective noun for wagons is 'raft' by the way - not 'string'.

 

I read "Clog and Knocker's" comments with consistent disbelief. For traffic from Cauldon a run-round would be required at the quarry and nothing else between there and Stoke. For traffic between the CR and Leek two turnouts and a short stretch of joint line is needed at Leekbrook with signalling to control the potential conflict. Everything else is extra to provide easier / quicker working or greater capacity Freight trains will not be split at Leekbrook; Perhaps C&K hasn't noticed that train-splitting is hardly ever practised these days because it is totally inefficient. Houses are not to be built "on the sidings" because there aren't any. Should any train re-formation be needed at Leekbrook it would be done n the flat main CVR line, not on the steeply-graded curves towards Cauldon (for which I can see no need for other than single track). The triangle could be used for turning locomotives but I would think that turning a complete train might be viewed as hazardous.

So, can I see any need for double track at Leekbrook? I can but not perhaps in the way that other commentators do because I think that the long-term aim should be to relay both tracks to Leek with the old down line being used bi-directionally for Stoke to Leek commuter services and the old up line similarly for CVR heritage services. This entire Leekbrook complex could be achieved with just five turnouts, although some linkage at Leek would be desirable.

 

^^^ That's pretty much it, in a nutshell, John.

 

I can see that I've left C&K speechless.

 

Perhaps you need to read the post again as you do not seem to understand anything. Train splitting is necessary because there isn't room at Cauldon to run round a modern full length freight train, they are quite long nowadays you know - especially with pathing requirements being so tight. That means the Park needs to be reinstated for the loaded and also a new siding on the Stoke branch for the empties - as before. Stoke to Cauldon would be a very long 25mph single line with three level crossings so that if there was to be more than one traffic: i.e. coal in, cement and limestone out or even more than one train per day you need to pass trains at Leekbrook. That would mean the layout would have to be as before with a short length of double track on the western end of the cauldron branch which makes that and the Stoke line junctions double. The alternative would be a double slip on or near the Churnet bridge which would cost more and probably damage the bridge. You say that there are no sidings at Leekbrook? Where is the disagreement there? The MCR ripped them all out. BR knew what was necessary and tailored the track layout accordingly. Where did you get the idea from that trains were ever shunted on the 1:45 gradient at Leekbrook? If MCR intended trains to or from the CVR they wouldn't have removed the loop and if they didn't intend any development or encroachment onto the trackbed itself then I would have expected that they would have put a railway boundary fence up by now at least 15' from where the nearest rail will go to segregate the proposed development from the railway - but they haven't.