Heavy local opposition to Moorland & City Railways plans!

As I have said before. The gentleman owned the house before the line closed in the past. He remembers the trains last time.

 

Not correct. The line was mothballed in1988. He bought the house in 1993. As I have said previously, his problem is with his solicitor's search, if one was done, not MCR.
However, I think MCR have made a bad mistake in quoting a line speed of 60mph. When the line was mothballed the line speed was 45mph. Any increase is open to challenge and could well result in a much lower line speed being allowed.

 

well they guy i spoke to on facebook who says he lives 18yrds from the line said he remembers the trains last time

 

What's the FB page Gav?

 

Sheff
http://www.facebook.com/pages/MCR-C...Trent-Leekbrook-Junction-Page/143086255721946

That be David Martin, who wants to keep the Churnet Valley's countryside Green. Presently ranting that because there was a lineside fire at the weekend this shows the rly is bad for the area and needs to be "prevented from spreading it octopus like tentacles throughout the Churnet Valley.

 

How 'green' will the Churnet Valley be with HGVs instead of trains?

 

If he bought the house in 1993 I suppose he would not have remembered the regular sand and stone trains but would have had his foundations shaken by the four 31's that went down in 1994 for a railtour.

I imagine at the time of purchasing his house the line would have resembled the current track south of Froghall on the CVR: i.e. rusty rails but a clear formation clearly capable of taking trains. I would speculate that he would have been living there for several years before the track resembled the impassible wilderness it does today.

 

ah but not for much longer haha. ill get my loppers and chainsaw out

 

If these crossings are on the mothballed sections why would planning consent be needed? I can see revised Level Crossing Orders might be needed if the method of operating the crossing has changed but Level Crossing Orders are only concerned with the detailed operation of the crossing, they do not change or revoke the existing statutory authority for the railway to cross the road at that point.

 

The crossing at Station Road in Endon no longer exists. Indeed, the railway has been infilled with tarmac. Surely any reinstatement of this crossing would have to satisfy the local council requirements. The crossing at Birches Head Road consists of two rickety steel gates. I would have thought that these would have had to be replaced with modern barriers, especially as the pedestrian part is totally ungated.

 

If I may repeat what has already been said before

The railway is not closed, but mothballed, therefore the statutory powers to build, maintain, and operate the line are still in place, and effective.

ORR consent to new practices may be required, but no new consents involving planners are needed at all.

Thats it.

 

So long as the railway was never dismantled or legally abandoned the crossing still exists. The rails are probably still there, buried under the tarmac with Network Rail's permission since this would reduce the cost of maintaining the road surface (Network Rail's responsibility within the crossing limits) whilst the railway was mothballed. Modern barriers and associated signals may require a Level Crossing Order/ORR approval, but not planning permission.

 

If I understand right, its basically what Miff says. As the line has never been shut, the crossings will merely require upgrading not installing hence no Planning Permission required, just authority from the ORR to confirm they meet all requirements for operation. The crossing at Endon has not been removed just tarmacced over if I remember, the rails are still underneath!

 

Thanks for the info. Things are clearer now.

 

All this talk of 'heavy local opposition' is very reminiscent of the Welsh Highland saga. A small vociforous who complain about disfiguring the landscape, noise pollution and a danger to walkers etc.etc., not to mention the fate of blind cyclists who fail to see warning signs. I recall the instance of one particular farmer complaining, to a company representative, that the reinstated railway would be a blot on the landscape. When asked to point out which particular section of the railway he was concerned about, he indicated a spot across the valley. The company representative's replied that that part of the railway had already been completed. The farmer, quite sensibly, withdrew his opposition.

It is also worth pointing out that the WHR has a parallel cycle path from Caernarfon to Dinas.

There will always be people who wish to make a name for themselves by being the self-appointed guardians of something or other and sometimes they are right. The problem, it would seem, is that the general public, which includes many on this forum, do not understand the laws that apply to railways. Why should they, you may ask? It is up to the railway company to explain and enlighten.

Meic

 

Yes. Some kinds of objections just need to be 'weathered' whilst the works are professionally executed and the scheme put into operation. The opposition melts away once it becomes obvious that the despoilation of the countryside/traffic tailbacks to Aberdeen/plagues of dead budgerigars on signal wires or whatever it was that was predicted has not occurred.

Then, one day, you have a little lineside fire and ........