Moorlands and City Railway

I wasn't worried about you posting criticism, even if it was of my favourite railway, what I objected to was you spewing it forth as a reason for me not being able to ask about what I perceived (rightly or wrongly) as a problem. I'd love to have a guided tour of the CVR but it is a bit of a trek, I probably won't be back for a while. I "defended" my line as I had answers to your criticism, I would have stopped at my first post if I'd have had a reply something along the lines of "Yes we know, we have XYZ planned." Instead it was all a rather vague "we'll get to that when we get there" sort of thing. IMO you need to plan the whole thing at once. If that means doing shorter extension sections at a time then so be it. As an example if the GWR stopped restoring new locomotives and stopped extending it's carriage fleet, and instead of building a wonderful new station at broadway got some scaffolding I imagine we could probably get to Honeybourne a lot sooner, but what would be the point? Of course the extension would be great, but there wouldn't be a lot to run on it. That was obviously a more extreme example, but I still feel that rolling stock ought to be thought about more.

The point about foreign locos has been duly noted and accepted, I was letting personal preferences get in the way.

Not really sure what you men about getting to "the real world" DutyDruid, I fully accept all lines including the GWSR has areas it could be improved, what's wrong with pointing those problems out, it bears no connection to whether or not my local line is perfect or not. I really just don't understand why it precludes me from criticising the CVR (or indeed anywhere else) on a matter I think isn't being addressed. You don't have to be perfect or even better than someone to criticize them, one of my Sportier friends used the exmple of Johnny Wilkinson and his coach. of course Wilkinson is better at Rugby than his coach, but that doesn't stop his coach from criticising him.

 

It's what were trying to be. We've always said at the moment we are concentrating on sustaining what we've got and getting the extensions sorted. Once this is done we'll expand everything else as required. But if we're not being commented on for having "Pie in the Sky" projects we're being commented on for not doing Project Y now.

Just because there is no published documentation does not mean there is no plan. Where's the GWSR published document regarding this extra set for Broadway you keep bringing up? And it's not just our workforce that is small, our C&W workshop can only hold 1x coach so in order to do a thorough job we are forced to only do 1x coach at a time. If you can magic the 6-figure sum we need to build a new and larger C&W I'm sure I wont be the only one at CVR eagerly awaiting your cheque.

I've just been firing today, and we had a 4x coach set with the dining coach on. There was that many people we had to use the dining coach for non-dining passengers for a couple of our 4x return trips. This has occurred on a couple of occasions this year, and is good news for us. However, the demand is not presently there for us to run 2x trains week-in week-out as it would double our running costs (loco hire, coal etc) but would not double our takings. Plus we simply haven't got the crews to do 2x trains a day having only 6x steam drivers for instance. There are reasons we operate as we do, but it isn't all obvious. If you're that interested come on down, we don't bite. Please though stop with this CVR must do X because it's what the GWSR do. Their circumstances are very different to us, and they have had an extra decade to develop than us.

 

I'm not trying to compare to the GWSR Lil Bear (although it's inevitable I will to an extent as it's the one I know best, I apologise for that). The published document is several posts dotted around the Boardroom blog plus what I know from being in the department, although neither are particularly different from each other. I know you have a small workforce and workshop, and I have said time and time again they have my every sympathy. So is there a plan just because there is no published documentation? I realise that much of what I've said ought to be happening is based on either what the WSR does or I think would make it better personally, so maybe some research needs to be undertaken, as to whether shorter more frequent trains might be a good idea at the weekends? I agree there would be little point in running an extra train week in week out as it would cost a lot on coal and time in crews etc. When I went to the gala the pace was pretty good train wise (excluding Wadebridge disintegrating) as there was an extra "train" in the GWR railmotor. On days running just the CVR section it would be unnecessay but when running to Ipstones I still feel that it is rather sparse. I'm off now to read through CVR's tripadvisor to see what other people think, if I come back empty handed you can all call me a self centred opinionated fool!

 

I think Lil Bear's just answered your post, though not directly..... and all I will say is this........ look in your own backyard before pushing/critising others........ I said in my original post - just like the "world" is giving your lot the chance to get to Broadway - and no I haven't read that thread because I cant be ar_ed, but I wish your lot luck all the same - so stop banging on with exuberance of youth, and give these guys a chance - I'm sure you wouldn't like it if someone kept banging on about the GWSR for no reason, other than they cant comprehend the replies by those in the "know"......... be grateful for that - they don't have to come on here and impart info, but they do - and I for one am grateful.

As for the bit that hurts in my original post that hurts your dining set........ if a certain person on my "line" cant be believed, then I'm a "monkey's uncle".......... like you, I'm not privvy to most of what goes on on the railway - but I put myself about and ask questions...... you maybe surprised....... as I said be grateful & give these guys a chance to achieve their goal!

 

OK, am I alone in thinking this is all getting a bit heated, and not in a good way? Public willy-waving between railways rarely does either much credit!

It's not rocket science to take an arbitrary railway and, with knowledge of its length and location of passing stations, work out what would be a plausible timetable and therefore what sort of future carriage requirement you have (or loco requirement, for that matter). The fact that the powers-that-be haven't published their thinking on a public website isn't evidence that they haven't done that thinking: I'm sure they have.

Of more import is how you get there. More cash and more volunteers are part of the answer, though as 61624 notes, even getting hold of carriages to restore will become increasingly difficult in the future. In the meantime, if you crack the first two parts, I'm sure almost every heritage attraction in the country will be asking for your secret!

Tom

 

I think I understand most of what you've been saying now, and I accept that, but I still don't understand the bit above. Why can't I pick a fault if I happen to have a fault as well? I do know more about our late dining dining train than I've said but I'm not sure how much I ought to be posting here, better safe than sorry. Sufficed to say, I satisfied my own curiosity and thirst for knowledge, which I'm sure you can appreciate, must be a fair amount! I agree with Tom, enough willy-waving (although I did try to make than not the case, it has ended up so, so sorry for that). I was just interested in how the CVR planned to do everything else other than the bare track. I blame my coursework, it's taking up too much of my time, so let's draw a line under it, and here's to the CVR running Alton to Stoke (with something) - Hurrah!

 

I'm not doing that!

I'm just trying to wake up a young man to the rigours of life.......

 

You've just said it yourself.......... look at what you have and what you are trying to achieve BEFORE trying to ask questions of others................. Lil Bear and others, seem to me patient people who are prepared to answer questions as to whats happening, but if someone keeps repeatedly banging on with more or less the same question - wouldn't you get frustrated?...... put the shoe on the other foot and see how it feels............................

 

I apologise for repeating my question, it was either because I didn't understand the answer fully or my question wasn't understood very well. Either way, put it down to communication errors. I'd perfectly welcome people to voice concerns over the gwsr, if only so that it meant I could talk in full knowledge of the facts, maybe I should have done more research before pressuring the same here. I still don't see you point about the real world or looking at your own backyard before criticising others, but I won't draw out the point, we'll only clog up the thread with (more) argument than we have already.

 

This thread's been clogged up, one way or another quite enough.

FS123 gets the benefit of the doubt from me because, based on many previous posts, I believe his heart is in the right place (and he's a fan of the Leek and Manifold Light Railway, and it's a scientific fact that fans of that railway can't be bad).

If anything recent activity here shows the need to tread carefully when commenting on preserved railways because, when all's said and done, people who are involved with preserved railways may start because of an interest but sooner or later it turns into a passion. Criticising a preserved railway is a bit like criticising someone's child - tread carefully.....

I look forward to riding a train into Broadway station as much as I do riding into Leek (well almost, if I'm really honest, I used to work in Britannia House just the other side of Birchall fields so as the train rolls into Leek station I'll probably be able to spot the window I used to sit by. That's when Britannia was worth working at, of course ).

 

".......Plus we simply haven't got the crews to do 2x trains a day having only 6x steam drivers for instance.........."

Across preservation there are probably many passed drivers, firemen, guards, and I dare say rolling stock owners, who have simply fallen foul of political manouverings on the railways they have been involved with, and just simply walked away.

If someone could take the politics out of preservation......

Frank N. (previously restoring DMU's, coaches, driving steam and DMU's...., )

 

Take the politics out of people

 

It would be nice to get this thread back to MCR matters, rather than CVR.

 

Well said Neil,

For those that have lost track of the situation, Latest update is the Barnfields development has been recommended for acceptance, which includes the plans for a station at Leek.
http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/21-m...lway-station/story-22916285-detail/story.html

MCR are progressing the Leek extension under the "Re-Connect Leek" title, and as their planning application for Leek Brook Junction was submitted around the same time as Barnfields you'd expect this wouldn't be far behind. As the Council meets monthly, one would hope MCR plans are to be discussed at October's meeting.
http://www.mcrailways.co.uk/page/reconnect-leek

Cauldon Branch is on hold whilst discussions are ongoing between the Government and LaFarge following the merging of LaFarge and Tarmac and the resultant advertising for sale of the Tarmac Business.

Talks with Network Rail are ongoing for extending heritage service to Endon, and re-opening the Stoke section.

And then as stated previoulsy, CVR are running an internal appeal amongst it's shareholders to secure the trackwork for the LBJ - Ipstones section from MCR in order to maintain the present heritage service that is operated.

Plenty of things ongoing, and all rather positive in the grand scheme of things.

 

I must say I find it disappointing that somebody not even connected with the MCR/CVR decided that attacking a young and enthusiastic member of this forum for daring to ask what was a perfectly reasonable question was in itself a reasonable thing to do.

We wonder why our movements struggles to attract youngsters - dare I suggest "miserable old git" syndrome. flying scotsman123 has frequently shown wisdom beyond his years on these pages and I have to say has done so here, coming out with considerable greater credit at his willingness and ability to engage in sensible discussion than some of those he has been trying to engage with.

Coaching stock is all too often the "Cinderella" of preservation, despite being what passengers travel in and often see first. Too many lines don't have enough actually in working order and/or struggle to keep it in the sort of condition visitors use to commercial attractions might expect. I would actually see asking what thought had been given to ensuring that there are trains to run on an expanded network was a very wise and sensible question to ask.

I have actually lost the will to read every single brickbat that was thrown in response so may have missed an answer (and "let's get a Railway first and then we will address that" would be an answer!) but one can only comment that aggression as the response to reasonable questions (and well as more understandably unreasonable ones) will do nothing to ease any sense of unease people may feel about the unique MCR/CVR set up. At the end of the day, its got nothing to do with those not involved - but I suspect this Forum will become a "ghost town" if we were only allowed to comment on our own Railways or ask questions about others after ensuring our own were perfect in the areas under discussion. It is a discussion forum and whilst we may often not like the way discussions go, they are the reason d'etre of us being here and no-one should expect "well, you place is no better and you shut up until it is" as an answer to a perfect sensible question!

I shall now sit back and wait for the detailed critique of the NYMR and it's coaching stock!

Steven

 

Can I like that twice Steven? I have yet to visit the NYMR, but I shall have a notebook and pen for note taking for when I do

 

As an active p/way volunteer on the CVR (and yes, the MCR, but it's all just rail and sleepers to me ) I welcome sensible questions on here as to what's going on with the MCR plans. If the plans are well-founded then there's nothing to fear is there? But there's nothing like a bit of peer scrutiny by way of a sanity check I'd say. Of course, in common with most lines, those who really know don't post on here, but they may well keep a watching brief.

Personally, I don't have the time nor the inclination to constantly respond to all the posts on here, (fortunately Jon does though), and like most volunteers I'm more than happy to just turn up once a week to enjoy a day out in the fresh air with a great gang of blokes (no regular female p/way'men' at the mo), and take the small wins along the way as a bonus.

Of course none of us like to see track lifted, but if that's what it takes to get to Leek, then we'll accept it. There's a whole bunch of smaller projects going on to enhance the CVR - maybe Jon could provide a list on the CVR thread if he hasn't already done so?

 

No-one from CVR has responded in an "aggresive" manner, I've tried to give reasoned replies and provide a source to back up my information where I can. Sheff / pwayman have also not been aggresive in any posts they've made too. We can't control what other posters post though! We accept the CVR/MCR relationship is unique, but it's quite tedious repeating yourself when people simply ignore our reply. As I said above what's the point in asking questions on this thread if you're not prepared to listen to our answers?

To answer the original question, your reply is what I said! We have enough for what we are running at present (just) and with 2x coaches waiting restoration, 2x in need of repair and 1x in the workshop there enough for us to be kept busy with.

I only reply when there's confusion posted and I have an answer that can clear the situation up. If I answered every post I wouldn't get much else done. Your last sentance sums it up though. Oakamoor is a very scenic section (when you aren't in a tunnel of trees) but we need a destination/start point. If losing the Southern section for a couple of years means we extend into Leek sooner then so be it. Returning to Oakamoor is not impossible, we still hold ownership of the trackbed and the Council has plans for Moneystone Quarry that would encourage us to return here. So as long as the desire to return remains amongst the CVR members / volunteers, we WILL return. I'll certainly lead one of my works parties to help with the return of rails when the day comes, but for now we have other priorities.

 

"Bean-counter" is one of the most perceptive posters on NP and if he needs to listen to you it would be a good thing for you to listen to him as well. Impressions count for quite a lot. My own impression is that the CVR/MCR alliance is spreading itself too thinly. The way to dispel this impression would be either to concentrate solely on the CVR section or demonstrate real, substantial, onsite progress.

Announcements of the "jam tomorrow" kind just make things worse

PH

 

As I've been a member of this forum since 2007 I kind of know who's worth listening to and who isn't. We are making progress, but as our main item concerning this project (Leek) is waiting for other people to make a decision there only so much we can say or do. And what "jam" are you referring to? In our eyes we are using what little resources we have availble to their best possible means in order to help us develop as soon as we can.