Churnet Valley Railway General Discussion

I would have thought that relevant dates would have to be looked at first.

 

But did they just buy the land and took it into their gardens without planning permission, and in this case it will be very easy to avoid their gardens by going slightly to the south east of the old track bed.

 

Looking at google maps, the gardens back on to fields, surely thats not that insurmountable if a splice of the field could be used instead ?
The entire street of houses built over the track bed at Cheadle looks a bit more of an interesting challenge though.. ? unless the line is going to end at the back of a housing estate in the outskirts ?

 

I don't believe that MCR ever intended to reopen the Cheadle branch. Rails and sleepers are strippable assets.

 

John, I live locally and know people who live in those properties. There was no "local plan" when they bought the land from BR about 30 years ago. Stupid I know, but thats how it was.

 

Hasn't history in the past 20 years or so proven that in the modern world with all its increased costs only the largest areas of population (which I would guess represent less than 5% of all the reopening schemes proposed) actually succeed in seeing a rail revival through to fruition? With due respect to the residents who may want a rail connection, surely Cheadle is way down the list and therefore a very improbable prospect?

 

Just like at Caldon Lowe and Oakamoor..

(Joking...I beat a hasty retreat)


Standing by with a fire extinguisher..

 

That's what I was hinting at! Land Registry and SMDC map register are the places to enquire of.

 

Comments keep getting removed what's that all about? Thought this was a forum for discussion?

 

Well, if you've read the comments, then surely you understand why they were removed..........

 

I don't understand as the west somerset railway get slated on here and so do wcrc and many other threads but them comments don't get removed and I don't think the cvr have been slated in this thread it was just questions and me personally just having a laugh with Jon as he seems to have a go at other railways for instance the svr autumn gala timetable but when someone has a question about the cvr that isn't good news it gets removed seems a little unfair to me

I use to be involved with cvr as people may no I'm not now but still interested in the railway but I personally see it going downhill so any questions that are answered truthfully are nice to here not just pictures of a bit of line side clearance as all I see at the moment is track being ripped up and no progress then the dmu leaves the line which I think is bad news as I have fond memories of it and it's first runs along the line and I get told the reasons from the owning group which were completely different to jons comment so all it does is make me think anything jon puts on is a load of crap so is everything else he puts on just a load of crap just my thoughts And will probably get deleted as we aren't allowed to have a say on Nat pres these days

Anyway best of luck to cvr/mcr in the future lets just hope we see progress in the future and no bu****it from jon saying it's all going to plan when it isn't and that's not having a go it's seeing it with my own eyes

 

Given that at least one of the posts was potentially libelous, and the forum has been caught up in wrangles in the past through no fault of its own, it makes perfect sense to remove anything that could be deemed thus.....

Lets leave it there shall we?......

 

Time is a flat circle.

 

My comments have not been personal, nor attacked any individual. I'm all for debating, and will happily admit CVR is far from perfect. There are some things going on that I don't agree with, loss of the DMU being one but it's not my "battle" to fight. I gave a reason why it was necessary for the DMU to move on (lack of turns to pay for DMU), the fact there is issues elsewhere that has lead to that scenario arising was not for me to disclose. The fact Chris has (with him being a member of the DMU Group) should be taken as a bonus, not a reason to knock me.

Despite all the "bad" things, there are plenty of positives also around the railway. The TKh Group has been a huge success, as has the C&W efforts in improving all of our Mk1s. There are some big plans waiting in the wings for 2015, including news on the running shed, landslip and signalling system. Just at present we are not in a position to make everything public. Despite the railways flaws, I also see all the good work that is going on day in - day out with volunteer projects. I'm sorry a lot of our published pictures mainly depict Lineside vegetation, but those that are involved in other projects choose not to carry cameras. We can only publish photos that are taken, and carrying such equipment is not a requirement for volunteering on any given project.

No matter which railway you visit they all have their politics, and we've seen that with SVR Bridgnorth developments / WSR WSR(A) falling out to name but two high profile incidents that have reached this forum. But even on those threads, the personal attacks on individuals are removed as has been the case here.

I'll agree though it would be helpful if when posts are removed the mods state why they've been removed instead of deleting them then acting like nothing has been said at all. Just a simple post from whoever, 3x posts removed for breaching Forum Rules --. I've had some of my posts removed which I've questioned and I'm still waiting for a satisfactory answer to their removal - however there are more important things in life to worry about so I've not made too big a fuss post my initial complaints to the admins on here.

 

Realise you sometimes have to remove some resultant posts, but they are are still removed because the original post is in breach of whatever rule.

So saying "3x posts removed following breaches in accordance with Forum Rules 1a" isn't lying, but neither is it hiding moderation which is what tends to happen. Know it's a little more work, but this thread isn't the only thread where such comments have been raised.

 

Can somebody please explain (without rancour ) the reference to rebuilding the Cresswell to Cheadle branch. On the face of it this would seem to have nothing to do with the CVR as it would not connect (unless there are realistic plans to put in a completely new extension to Oakamoor !!). It would also seem counter-productive in that, if established, it would draw passengers and, possibly, volunteers away from both the CVR and the Foxfield. Is there a valid business case for the proposal ?

Mike

 

The moderators are quite right. In a previous life I once received an objection to a planning application on the grounds that: "You shouldn't give permission to [name] because he owes money all round the district". Needless to say, that letter never reached the publicly accessible website.

 

A post was removed which was referring to the state of the CVR / MCR's internal affairs (finances, legal agreements, liabilities etc).

As there was no evidence to back up the alleged comments, and that they were in all likely hood unable to be proven and therefore open to legal challenge they were removed.
He said / She said comments etc are very different from statements about a companies financial dealings, and as forum moderators to protect the forum we were not having any of it and so they were removed as soon as discovered.

The poster has also been asked not to post on this thread (unless they have actual documentation / fact to validate their statements).
That said, if he does have actual legal docs to prove it... then that really changes the story, however in our opinion it is doubtful we ever will see such from the poster.

One other post was removed, which quoted it, and pretty much stated the obvious legal challenge that could be mounted by such a statement.

I hope this clears it up.