Churnet Valley Railway General Discussion

Great news on the carriage front, definitely sounds like massive improvement from previous times.

 

What's the thinking behind that?

 

Moving from a railway where it is the sole operational DMU vehicle getting all the turns the railway throws at it, to a railway that has a fleet of (according to their stock list) 3 operational units, and 2 units under overhaul. Having a quick look on the website it looks like they had 25 DMU days this year.

 

Interesting story in the Leek Post and Times to the effect that Cauldon quarry is no longer up for sale.

If you recall Lafarge (Owners of the old Tarmac and Blue Circle businesses) are merging with Holcim and one of the terms for the deal to go through was that Lafarge would have to sell their Lafarge Tarmac business, with the exception of either Cauldon or Tunstead quarries (or to put it another way Lafarge could retain one of its UK quarries). They have chosen to retain Cauldon and therefore sell Tunstead.

The deal still awaits formal approval but at least there's a little more light in the murk. Hopefully since Lafarge were interested in rail haulage before the deal then the enlarged group would still be interested afterwards.

Fingers crossed.

 

Thinking behind what sorry?

 

Heating coaches for 24 hours.

 

So that there are no delays to our Santa trains. Back in 2010(?) when we had all the snow, a selection of our trains were late because everything froze overnight. Passengers on the earlier trains also complained about how cold the coaches were etc etc.

So to prevent such a scenario from arising again, we as MPD volunteers stop overnight to keep the locos in steam and heat the coaches through. The restored heating van though should bring an end to this for us, which will be a welcome relief for the Roster Clark as with only 5x drivers and 10x fireman to pick from it's a big commitment from us all.

 

Interesting, thanks.

 

Far too much attention has been paid to this idea that the DMU group are not happy with 20 turns a year so are moving on. This is not the case. In fact the opposite is true, we are a small group and 20-25 days a year was a nice number to have in terms of our commitment to maintenance & exams.

Far more critical to the decision to move has in fact been the CVR's introduction of storage charges on the DMU group this year. I will not discuss figures on here but the sad fact is that to keep the group's assets at the CVR at the new rates would require upwards of 40 operating dates just to break even and that is simply not sustainable when we're talking in the region of 20 days per year. Funds are low as it is and we have bodywork and a repaint to undertake/fund. I'm an enthusiastic volunteer but one has to draw the line when one discovers it is costing money just to stand still.

The maths has been done and we worked out that we have the disappointing situation that in 2015 we would be paying several thousand pounds a year for the privilege of giving up our spare time to provide a DMU for the CVR. Don't get me wrong, there are other reasons as well for moving, but this one is arguably the most crucial and one of the easiest to understand.

I hope this clears a few queries up. As the press release states, we are still very interested in running DMU's at Churnet on a sustainable basis, and we are positively in talks to progress this. Having volunteered on the DMU's for many years, I for one would like this to happen!

 

There are over 50 DMU diagrams per year at the ELR, at least 19 of them require for capacity reasons a 4 car DMU to be provided so in excess of equivalent 70 x 2 car DMU requirement.

 

I thought increased charges may have had something to do with it. It is a shame though that so much motive power, traction and now dmus have had to leave the railway.

 

Unfortunately it was Lafarge that stopped the railway from reopening last time as they obviously didn't want to spend any money on rail facilities having just bought the business. Now that so much of the track is missing and that the Stoke line needs complete renewal and that the level crossings need modernising I can't see them spending even more money now.

 

MCR announced long ago that any investment would have to come from them for both upgrading the line and provision of facilities, so your presumption is not stating something new.
David Kemp confirmed at the CVR AGM though that money is not a problem for MCR, just at present there is no point to any investment as they have no reason for operations with the quarry currently in "limbo". Once the re-shuffle in ownership has settled down though, he confirmed discussions would resume between all the relevant parties.

 

Thing is, when you are a 'big railway' company and you can justify getting contractors and companies in to relay track etc, it doesn't take anywhere near the same amount of time as with small but dedicated groups of volunteers. Just look at how quickly the Portishead line was rebuilt or the Borders Railway at the moment.

 

L

L.o.L. Yeah, right! I suppose our man Mr Kemp is going to rebuild the Stoke to Cauldon line after he has finished reopening the Cheadle branch which he said two years ago would be in four years time.

 

Cheadle needs a decision of where to build a new station. Seeing as certain individuals still can't decide where to put Leek Station even though a planning application that includes one has been submitted, I don't hold much hope for Cheadle happening any time soon.

Though your last point is where I feel MCR have shot themselves. Back in 2010 when this was all first announced we were told everything would be up & running by November 2014. Obviously this hasn't happened as no-one was prepared for the amount of legal issues that has been experienced (Village Green / Monopolies Commission / Network Rail etcetc ). They tried to promise too much, too soon. I have no doubt we will see trains run to both Leek & Stoke, and I see no reason why the Cauldon line will never be reopened either. It's just going to happen though over a much longer period than first envisaged.

 

3x coaches restored, with a 4th repainted and a 5th started all within 9 months roughly. Not bad for half a dozen regular volunteers, and there also the running maintenance they've had to do during the running season.

Roll on 2015!

 

As I've said before, Cheadle is a non starter unless the owners of the cottages at Cresswell can be persuaded to sell their back gardens.

 

The railway route from Cresswell to Cheadle is protected in Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan so planning permission should not have been given for the incorporation of railway land into residential curtilages. I would suggest that someone on the spot should look into this.