Moorlands and City Railway

But that was settled in November 12, so I don't think it can now be blamed for the continuing delays on that route.

The lack of information on both the CVR and MCR websites doesn't sit comfortably with the comment about open communication. As an example, the MCR website has only two news items, both dating from Jan 14. One refers to a website (englishrailway.co.uk) which doesn't appear to exist. All previous news items, including those referring to potential government grants, appointment of a senior industry figure (was it Adrian Shooter?) have long disappeared, whatever happened to both of those?

Of course, it has to be said that the future ownership status of Cauldon quarry and its parent company has stymied any long term contracts being signed. Though with a clear statement now that the UK business is to be sold by Q1 15, hopefully the longer term position will become clear in the next 12 months.

If the new owners turn out not to be interested in the quarry, or a rail connection, I suspect MCR will end up being a property development in Leek that provides an extension to the CVR and a nice profit to the shareholders of MCR, which will include both the CVR and whoever else owns shares in MCR.

 

We must have heard you were coming and hid the N7 out of sight, oh or is that not British[/QUOTE]

 

I for one want to see that in action!

As for the rest of it - give them a chance......... just like your line wasn't given a hope in hell when it first started out........ give these guys a chance, I remember when this project was first mooted over 20 years ago. that just like the A1 project - hadn't got a chance of succeeding - and lo, there's an A1 in existence!

Give these guys a chance - what they're trying to achieve is pretty unique in preservation (just like Swanage isn't your typical preserved line in terms of operation) - so what if the motive power isn't protypical and the rolling stock "up to standard" - BTW when I went to your gala this year, I was sat in a compartment with the rain p_ssing in through the roof! - so before you start, look to your own short comings first before critising others...........

As for loco's and rolling stock, there's pretty much plenty of both out there, BUT you have the problem of trying to persuade owners to relocate, AND have the manpower to restore/renovate......... and as for your rolling stock...... I hear from a very reliable source, the reason the GWSR is loosing its dining trains, is because the owner is pulling his coach's out of there because the GWSR hasn't kept up its part of the agreement to use and maintain them...... more like use & abuse........ hence the owner of said stock wishing to vacate......... SO before slinging stones - look in your own backyard first!

 

On the subject of British Steam locos at the CVR am I right in thinking that once work on the "other" S160 (5197?) in the works is completed then work will start on 48173?

 

@Dutydruid, thank you for your response, it was more or less exactly the same as the unsatisfactory one I had last time about why it currently is, and nothing about the future, but with some criticism of the gwsr added in as well for fun. In essence, you answered nothing other than about a British steam loco next on the agenda which is good.

I know it was some time ago now, but can you remember if the coach with the leaky roof was in the third rake? It may have been difficult to tell as our scratch rake is now getting on to the standard of our other two (I have mentioned elsewhere the projected timescale for the maroon set to be completely repainted - not long). If you had reported it to the guard or TTI I'm sure we would have dealt with it quickly, if we hear of a problem in a running coach as it goes past Winchcombe we're often waiting on the platform as it goes the other way to fix it on the same round trip. Our third rake IMHO is in better shape than the CVR's only rake.

This is not intended to be a slur upon the c+w lads there, by the sounds of it they have a tough job. What I was hoping for was evidence of a plan to tackle the perceived problem from higher up.

As for EE, I'm of course not privy to the contract we had, but I do know that the coaches required significant mechanical restoration on top of what we'd normally consider a long job on pretty much all of them. It was simply impossible to do it ourselves, although right up to the end we were still helping out painting ceilings and refitting interiors even though the gwsr will now get nothing from it (I will admit I don't know who paid for those repairs).

There are some complex reasons as to why EE. Certainly not a lot to do with us. As a side note there are plans to replace it with something similar, although not sure if I ought to say, as it was only murmurings and speculation.

So a little disappointed that pointing out flaws only got a rebuttal, especially as they were aimed at (1) a rake of coaches that doesn't belong to us and (2) in all likelihood our THIRD rake of coaches hastily put together after much hard work over the winter (dis you see it the year before - such a difference! Not our first or second.

Surely someone else must have noticed that there will be plenty of track to run on but not an awful lot to run?

Edit - bugger, I appear to have written war and peace on this, sorry

 

For what we run at present, we have enough coaches. To expand our fleet though we need further accommodation, which has been mooted to be built at Froghall, but to-date nothing concrete has been set. When the time comes it will be looked at, but we don't need to do everything in one go!

Locos we have 2x TKh, 2x S160 (plus a 3rd boiler), and 1x 8F we count as our home fleet with 2x 33s, a 47 and a 25 plus 2x 37s that are decent enough to make 1x runner as our diesels (not forgetting the DMU Group, who have 1x serviceable set and 1x stored set). Again, it's enough to meet what we require, and you underestimate the appeal of the foreign locos. The S160s in particular have a niche following who turn up quite regularly when they are rostered. There a nice mix for us to play with, plus we have regular guests locos too like the N7. The 48173 will feed this desire for a British loco but it is not fundamental in the grand scheme of things, more a nicety that many lines/people take for granted.

Your next set of questions were all answered the last time you asked, though it's disappointing to see you write it was a "unsatisfactory" response as you never stated this when I replied previously. Things have developed since I last replied though, the coaches have undergone a makeover since the steam gala, as can be seen in the latest news item and I will guarantee they are far superior to your third set now. Unlike GWSR though we don't have a decent sized C&W works, we have a shed that we can only fit 1x coach in at a time.
http://www.churnet-valley-railway.co.uk/news/cvr-latest-carriage-and-wagon-news

To continue answering your questions, the CVR primary aim is to run services Leek - Froghall and then Oakamoor / Alton as they are reached respectively, with the Cauldon Branch and Stoke line being used for selected dates as per the current situation where we basically run to Ipstones every first weekend of each month plus the enthusiast galas.

What MCR choose to run their services with on their lines is their choice, and as far as we know is still to be decided. Need to get the track operational though before deciding what's going to run what!

 

Thanks Lil bear, more helpful that dutydruid's response. I suppose unsatisfactory was not what I meant, more the fact that I was only told the the reasons for the current situation (perfectly reasonable, we were all there once) but with no plans regarding the future.

Are you sure your current amount of coaches are sufficient in the long term? How long will the line be from say Oakamoor to leek? And it's all very well saying you'll only do the extra MCR extensions occasionally, but you'll still need an extra set for that or else trains will be very sparse on what will be likely to be a busier day. Seeing as dutydruid was quite keen to bring up the gwsr (not that I'm particularly averse to that!) we currently have 2 operational rakes plus one extra for galas etc. on a line about 11 miles long (not including the Laverton bit which is usually DMU. Once we get to broadway (14 miles) add a whole extra set to find. So on a normal day once we get to broadway potentially 4 trains if the DMU will run too, that makes a train for every 3.5 miles. That makes it just about work on CVR section, but when doing Ipstones and the length doubles, and I imagine this is quite an attraction, the services are pretty sparse looking at the timetable (having eventually found it on the mobile website - was this just me)

I'd like to reinforce the fact I'm not criticising the rolling stock position st the moment per se, just the fact that novthought seems to have been put into what's going to run on all this nice new track.

 

Where's your idea that there been no thought come from? The CVR knows the day will come when we need more coaches, but at present that day is not today. We have enough on our plate with what we already have on the line, as I said last time you asked on the Winter Gala thread(?). We still have 2x coaches waiting their turn in the restoration queue but our small department can only do so much. Our running rake has undergone a major refurbishment and so whilst these are being worked on the others have to continue to wait. Having a spare set for galas is luxury and should not be taken for granted. Also we only ran our first train in 1996. Compared to other railways, what were they like after 18yrs of operations? Many were growing in a time when BR was selling off Mk1s. No such luxury in 2014...

The Leek extension is only 3/4mile, so this will have no major impact on the number of sets needed immediately though it would hopefully see us required to increase our standard rake from 4 to 6/7. Oakamoor is another 2x miles and whilst t may then become feasible to run more than 1x rake then this can be looked at as part of that project. ATM though saving the track to Ipstones is CVR priority as with no track what's the pint in all these extra coaches?

 

My idea that there is no thought has come from here where nothing such has been forthcoming, other than something at Froghall, maybe...

When I was talking about a similar subject in the winter gala thread, I was more interested in current circumstances rather than future ones. All of the major requirements for Broadway have been planned some time ago, say 5 years before the extension is completed at least probably. At your current rate of extension it appeared to me that you were getting ahead of yourself, that's all.

On a more operational matter, how often do the trains operate at full capacity? IMHO it would be better to have two shorter rakes operating a more frequent service rather than a single longer rake at the current timetable.

Is there a proper projected timescale for all of the planned extensions anywhere? Perhaps this would enhance my understanding.

You mention difficulties in getting coaches in 2014, fair enough, I know what you mean, but I'd have thought that given the relative imminence of some of these extensions that someone ought to be thinking about how to tackle this problem, also your small department, again they have my sympathies, it must be hard, but surely someone higher up ought to be thinking about this and wondering what to do?

 

The "answer" for the CVR/MCR or whatever is the same as for any other place i.e. "be sensible". Do one thing at a time decently and not two or more half (or less) so. Railway preservation's besetting sin is starting new projects before existing ones are properly completed. This criticism is not specific to any one scheme but it is a commonplace situation, although not universal.

PH

 

I seem to recall a thread somewhere on NP where someone (I think Lil Bear) listed the coaching stock available to CVR - (I think it was in the Heritage Rolling Stock section). I wonder if someone could provide an update on that, I seem to recall there were quite a few coaches in store awaiting work.

I'm sure that CVR and MCR are only too aware of the challenges they face in growing, as ever a huge list of to dos and not much resource to work with. My abiding impression is of a (relatively) small number of people moving mountains on a regular basis. No wonder they get fed up when they have to clean up after Clogger....

 

One of the flawed assumptions one often sees bandied about is that as this or that railway expands and develops then locomotives and rolling stock will move there, but I see little real evidence of that happening. On the contrary, it seems to be more a case of the rich getting richer (in recent times the NYMR with 76079 and 44806 times, the NNR with 76084, 44767, 92203 and 61306, the Great Central with 78018, 92214 for example) with the poor staying the same. Coaching stock moves around less, but at the moment Jeremy Hosking's company seems to be hoovering up any surplus stock, and most railways will cling on to whatever they have, knowing that nowadays it is virtually irreplaceable. The CVR did get the TkHs it is true, but that was largely because no-one else wanted them. I o wonder, therefore, that there is a risk that the CVR may on day become a railway with a shortage of rolling stock.

 

Yet another reason for seeking unification of ownership of equipment and keeping extension plans under strict control. Having lots of different real estate, operation and stock ownership organisations may have seemed to produce quick progress in the early years but nowadays all sorts of problems are beginning to arise.

PH

 

On the longer established lines, I think there is quite an element of this happening. The Bluebell probably leads the way, but the NYMR owns a high proportion of the Mk1 coaching stock and quite a high proportion of the locos, and other lines like the Mid Hants also own a sizable number of locos, securing them for their respective lines. Others will gradually do the same. It's a myth to think that there is a big pool of locos just waiting to be attracted. The majority of owners have links to existing lines for whatever reasons and are unlikely to move on.

 

Why is Swanage not a typical line in preservation in terms of operation?

 

You're involved with Swanage, are you not?

Maybe, I should've said "the way I see it".......... in peak season, the railway is running well into the evening, where as most lines finish late afternoon, and run the odd dinner or ale train on a Saturday evening, and there is soon to be the commuter service to Wareham, is there not - which I hope proves to be a success..........

Is that a fair enough answer?..........................

 

MCR/CVR commuter service from Leek to Stoke - probably just a distant vision

 

Oh the joys of reading from a different angle that it was written.
I wouldnt hold your breath re a "commuter service". I think thats rather a pie in the sky wish from certain local counsellers.

Yes we run into the evening and even run a timetabled evening service during the summer months.
No other railway does this. It sometimes is irritating that Swanage does not get the credit that it deserves...

And all things being equal it will take preservation to a new level (no disrespect to NYMR and the Whitby branch) when we start to run onto a busy mainline (2 track railway, 3rd rail).......oh and that will mean that we will need more crews..etc...so if you fancy working on a busy line drop me a line...you will be made more than welcome

 

See, I told ya unique.......

And as for different angle......I visited for the first time this year along with a mate from the MHR - and the generosity extended to us was something else ( You ask Rumpole - I Pm'd him - and now his reponse has made sense......)

As for the commuter service, it may take a bit of time, but I think it will succeed........

Right, that's enough thread drift.............. and to get back to the MCR - to reply to NeilL......... I'm not expecting you to run some "clapped out" DMU (if you can get one) from Leek to Stoke any time soon, but you never know.... if the councils get behind it a la Swanage..... but what's happening - I for one thought never would...... and the announcement all them years ago came just as I moved out of the area!

So. from an outsiders view, reading what's been posted on here........ unique like Swanage is what you are doing - every line has its "knockers", inc the MHR, for whatever reason, and you as a supporter/volunteer - (and yes FS123 this is directed at you...... defend "your line" regardless. FS123, you're only young, but you are part of the future of preservation - I'm noy sorry if my post hit home and hurt, it was meant to - it was a wake up call to the fact that the "real world" is a lot different to what you live in - when you get there you'll know, hence my comments about the GWSR, and your lack of xyz and the reason for it...... it hurts I know, but get over it, you keep pushing for answers on here , time and again - concentrate on the GWSR for that & give these guys a break...... hell why not PM Lil Bear & arrange a guided tour....... it might just open your eyes!)

Right rant/lesson over!

BACK to the MCR.........