Crewe Heritage Centre for Sale

I feel for Mr Jordan and all the other volunteers who put time money and effort into the CHC, but the honest truth (as many others have posted) is that not enough people care what happens to the centre to make a difference.

Money and support is forthcoming for numerous projects from building an A1 to rebuilding the SVR or the G&WR to name three recent and very expensive examples, because those groups have proven that they can deliver something worth caring about. Sadly CHC has not proven this. It has lacked vision and leadership. CHC faces the need to develop a worthwhile attraction (good enough for people to care about) but, because they are not well regarded now, they may struggle to get the support they need. It may be that LNWR is unfairly affecting CHC, but LNWR has achieved quite a lot, so people care what happens to them.

I think the situation is analagous to WHR (1964) Ltd and the FR. The 64 co. spent a long time proving that they couldn't rebuild the WHR, so whilst it seemed harsh at the time, when the FR came along with a plan (having proven that they knew how to restore and operate a railway - including building a very difficult deviation) the support went to them. CHC has little credibility (sorry if you think that is harsh). LNWR does have credibility. Which one do you expect councils and others to support?

My advice (which you won't want, but this is a forum so I get to give it anyhow) start raising the money to relocate the signal boxes somewhere they could be useful.

 

All of which completely and utterly misses Peter's point.

How many times does he have to tell you legal illiterates that CHC is the rightful and charitable occupier of the centre for the next twenty nine years, and not a for profit company backed by a multi millionaire.

It is for the incomer to make his peace with the rightful occupier and current head lessee, and not the other way round, as whilst that company remains in undocumented occupation everything it has done, and is doing is built on foundations of sand.

Stars in your eyes does not mean that everything done the way it has been is tenable.

 

If it were as simple as that Frank then why doesn't CHC evict LNWR?

 

This is probably the most realistic comment that has appeared in this thread.

 

Wasn't Crewe just a "convenient site" for the Exeter West Signal Box - didn't it end up there because the more appropriate places like Didcot & the SVR turned it down?

 

Please do not believe that there may not come a point where Crewe Heritage Trust issue an eviction notice to LNWRHCo. That remains a distinct possibility.

And for those of you who are (apparently) admirers of LNWRHCo. I simply ask you this - do you believe that the way they and their owner have behaved is the way all business should be conducted in this country? If you do, then there is little hope for any of us.

Peter Jordan

Chairman, Exeter West Group

 

In reply to Michael, I can tell you exactly why Exeter West ended up at Crewe.

We have always known that Exeter West was far too 'specialised' to exist anywhere as an exhibit in its own right. But it seemed to us that its preservation, as part of a railway centre or preserved railway, would ensure that an important part of the railway story would survive for the education and enjoyment of future generations.

Those of us who started the project were all volunteers on the SVR - that is where we wanted the box to go, and initially that railway were very encouraging of the project (see page 7, 'Steam World,' April 1983.) However, after we had agreed purchase of the box from BR the SVR Board allowed themselves to be influenced by one director who more or less intimated that we didn't really know what we were doing and that the box would probably collapse as we were dismantling it. Naturally the SVR wouldn't have wanted to be associated with any such scenario and so they rejected it.

Following this we negotiated for a site at Bristol Temple Meads where a small 'heritage' feature was to be created, by the Brunel Engineeering Centre Trust, based around our box and restored 'King' 6023. Unfortunately the site to be used was to be leased from BR and, despite the many reassurances we were given, they could not be persuaded to consent to the planning application.

We were then offered a site at the new museum proposed for Swindon and moved the box there in 1988. By 1990 we had it all ready to start the rebuilding. but when we approached Tarmac Properties to talk about where the box was to be sited we were told that they were not (at that time) making enough money from the site (remember the 1990's recession) and that any investment in a new museum would be put 'on hold' until better times came along. With a box all ready to rebuild, an indefinite wait was not an option for us.

We then approached the GWS at Didcot and the initial response was very encouraging. A site meeting was arranged at which two of us met with Graham Perry and another chap whose name escapes me. They told us that another chap, who had responsibilty for their signalling, would be joining us later.

The response from Graham and his colleague was very positive and we identified a number of possible sites for the box. But when the other chap arrived the whole situation changed, because his hostility to us was obvious. Graham and his colleague then began to backtrack and, as we came away, I said to my friend that there was now no prospect of the box going to Didcot. A few days later the expected letter of rejection arrived.

That is when we opened negotiations at Crewe. As they arlready had two signal boxes on the site it seemed clear that there was an emphasis on signalling there and that West Box might fit in very well. We moved the box there at Easter 1991, began rebuilding in May 1991 and opened to the public in May 1993. Since that time we have opened and demonstrated the box every weekend and Bank Holiday (barring unforeseen circumstances) from Easter to the end of September, and we believe this to be far more often than any similarly preserved signal box anywhere.

We have a very committed group of supporters at Crewe, and new members join our ranks every year. If the Council of Management can encourage similarlty dedicated groups to come and be based at the Centre then there would seem to be no reason why it shouldn't become a popular attraction again.

Peter Jordan

Chairman, Exeter West Group

 

SVR, Bristol, Swindon, Didcot and now Crewe - I can't help feeling that there might be an underlying issue there somewhere

 

So what exactly are you saying here, Michael? Can you not understand the explanations that I have given to you (and which are also published in the book about the signal box that we produced in 2005) or are you calling me a liar? If it is the latter, then I resent that very deeply.

If there was an 'underlying issue' regarding Exeter West, then perhaps you can explain how we have been a successful part of Crewe Heritage Centre since 1993, how we managed to win a major railway heritage award in 1995 and how we managed to have a successful contract with Railtrack, and then Network Rail, for them to use the box as part of their training for signalmen. This arrangement was only curtailed when Network Rail moved the training facility away from Crewe.

Trying to sling mud at us, and infer that there must be more to this than has been explained to you, adds nothing to the debate about the current situation, and does little for your own credibility.

Peter Jordan

Chairman, Exeter West Group

 

Judging the rhetoric you've employed in this thread I'm surprised that this option hasn't already been used. What's stopping you from doing so?

 

I don't understand what you mean when you say, 'What's stopping you from doing so?' I am the Chairman of the 'Exeter West Group,' not 'Crewe Heritage Trust.' If you want to know why they do or do not do something you must ask them.

Peter Jordan

Chairman, Exeter West Group

 

I thought you had been speaking on behalf of the CHT? If it's only the Exeter West group who are kicking off about LNWR then it puts things in a different perspective.

 

Here's a quote from 31st March. Here it's clear to me that you aren't just speaking for yourself or Exeter West. Who are you speaking on behalf of?

 

What I have said in the past broadly reflects the stance being taken by Crewe Heritage Trist and the views of the Exeter West Group. But I am not privvy to all the minutiae of decision-making within Crewe Heritage Trust so, as I said before, if you want a detailed response as to why they do or don't do something you will need to ask them. I can only tell you what I know.

Peter Jordan

Chairman, Exeter West hroup

 

Thanks for clarifying that Peter, makes more sense now.

 

And don't forget what it says here:

THE 125 YEAR LEASE - Heritage Centre Site | CVS Cheshire East

Peter Jordan

Chairman, Exeter West Group

 

Actually I think you're missing the point, which is that CHC isn't successful and LNWR is. Different spheres and different purposes, but one has a track record and the other does not. Whether CHC have a legal right over LNWR or not isn't relevant to the point I was making about why people support LNWR regardless of their behaviour which may or may not have been unfair to CHC. It is, and always was, up to CHC not to be the victim in this situation, and that they allowed the situation that causes them discomfort to persist is further evidence of their lack of vision.

Foundations of sand eh? Well how long have LNWR been on the site? I think you'll find that CHC have allowed a very messy legal situation to build up, and that LNWR have probably established a right to be on the site that is more difficult to extinguish than it would be had there been documented sub-lease in place. If the CHC believes that LNWR is holding it back, it should evict them and have done with the problem.....but, do they have the resolve and the resources to make that decision stick? Nothing in the past history suggests that they do, or more importantly that "released from the burden of LNWR" they would make any greater success of the heritage centre than they have already. It isn't LNWR holding the centre back it was (and might still be) leadership and vision.

My personal opinion is that no amount of vision now will rescue the CHC, it has been irrelevant for too long to bounce back (I'd like to be wrong). Rather than make LNWR move, CHC should slim down to a smaller museum (perhaps incoporating the signal boxes) and a tea room and shop. Eliminate all the big exhibits and sub-lease more of the space to LNWR.

 

I think LNWR Co have a big problem elsewhere. It is called Tesco. Justifiable complaints about smoke first. It'll be the noise next. Mark my words.

 

Then let LNWR do the honourable thing and make a move towards CHC to buy out their interest - or is it their intention to - like a parasite - to slowly strangle the host to death to take over its assets without actually incurring any costs?

Yes - the charity trustees could have taken a stronger line hitherto, and perhaps should have done so - but there is nothing to stop them doing so, even now, in extremis, and then you would find that LNWR is indeed built on foundations of sand so far as its unauthorised incursions onto CHC property go.

Jaw Jaw is better than war war - but it takes two parties whichever way is chosen.