Churnet Valley Railway General Discussion

Yup, just remember to scroll down! I think people have become accustomed to having a sort of banner across the top of the home page and being able to drill down from there - so having a home page in, sort of Portrait alignment, with stuff down below fooled me quite a few times. Ooooooppppsss.

 

One thing I saw there which was very good news to me is that they will be putting back the chord, giving them a triangle which will enable things to be turned. Too many heritage lines don't have that capability.

Noel

 

Good point although I suspect all journies up to Ipstones would be smokebox first. So maybe, maybe because I don't know, they would start from Leek smokebox first up to Ipstones, then tender first to Froghall then smokebox first to Leek and another loco comes on at the back to go smokebox first up to Ipstones.

 

It would take time in the schedule but what would be better is the triangle at Leekbrook and a turntable at Froghall - or even better at Oakamoor.

 

https://www.railadvent.co.uk/2018/0...ng-permission-granted-for-leek-extension.html

 

It'd be better to run Leek > Ipstones > Froghall and return via Ipstones trip one, then trip two operate Leek > Ipstones > Froghall and return direct.
3x trips up the bank, and keeps a pattern to our current "Blue" timetable. The complication will come when we reopen to Cauldon/Waterhouses, as the journey time becomes too long for a simple 1x train service.

 

But what would be the pattern when Leekbrook - Stoke opens?

 

Never ending drainage work. OAPway in wellies digging holes trying to find a blockage

 

Ah Bradnop. site of so many hours of work on the drains! Part of the problem is that at that point the Moorlands are pretty level and hold a lot of water, there are few routes down off the top for that water but then the Knotty built the line to Caldon Low and all of a sudden there's a big ditch running down at a steep angle. Hey Presto! There's then a route for water to drain off a large section of moorland... I guess that's the price we have to pay for having such a dramatic climb up to Bradnop....

Besides. it's all good exercise!

 

CVR have never said they intend to run a regular service to Stoke themselves. They offered to run a heritage service to Endon when discussions first started, but it has always been stated the main reason for opening the Stoke line was to access the quarry and provide a commuter service to Leek.

CVR will have enough to play with between Leek and Moneystone, and Cauldon/Waterhouses. That's nearly 20x miles offering 2x very different routes. Having a third route to play with at galas will be nice, but would be stretching ourselves too far to be anything regular with the resources we have at present.

 

No, I think that is why the NSR built the syphons at Ipstones and Brandop so the natural streams and water courses could pass underneath the railway cuttings without flooding the railway.

 

I always thought that a Syphon was a Great Western Wagon! Actually I assume you mean the kind that James Brindley (who grew up on a farm that overlooks the bottom end of Bradnop Cutting) used at Wet Earth Colliery (if I remember) to drain a coal mine.

They may well work for the streams you mention but there's a lot more moorland around the line and if you dig a ditch it'll soon be full of water, especially up there. Bradnop Cutting is a plenty big ditch and it's plenty long and it's always plenty wet. Part of the problem may be the age of the drains but another part is the simple geography of where the line is. The fields around Four Fields Crossing and the fields further up top always seem to be wet and that water naturally drains downhill and the easiest route for it seems to be our cutting.

 

I used to know an old bloke who lived in the railway cottages called Jack Ratcliffe who worked on the pway through there in the 50s, apparently there was a flume pipe that ran from the top of the embankment near the houses along the top of the slope and then intersected with the downside cess drain further down the line. There was a drain in the upside cess alongside the old loop but some/most of those catch-pit's got buried when they took the loop out, there was supposed to be a catch pit at approx 30 yard intervals for rodding. There was an invert down the middle of the tunnel which discharged water into cess drains on both sides of the track and these in turn had an outfall into an open culvert further down the line towards Leekbrook. If there is flooding now maybe the pits have been covered over and lost or just blocked up.

 

I recognise quite a few of the points you make there, particularly the catch pits (though I think we now call them inspection chambers) and the culvert downhill from the tunnel. Oh, and the rodding, oh yes, we've done quite a bit of that! One problem we had a year or so ago was that a tree's roots had got into part of the drain and caused a partial blockage which meant water backing up. I know we also renewed some sections of the drains the other year. I suspect old age (on the part of the drains!) is a major factor here.

 

Returning to some of the posts slightly further up the thread regarding future service patterns, that is something that a lot of us have mulled over through the years in a rather "pie in the sky" fashion!

Starting with the "traditional CVR" route - one can't deny that a core regular Leek-Oakamoor (Moneystone) service would be operationally extremely neat. It ticks most boxes; about 8.5 miles which is an optimal length, it includes Leek which from a commerce point of view is essential to the sustainable future of the CVR, and the half way point almost exactly is Consall station which has existing infrastructure for passing trains. The timings would be such that I estimate a 2 hourly single train service and one hourly two train service could be operated allowing for 15 minute run rounds at each end, giving a very neat "clockface" timetable. To achieve the above requires the extension to Leek (in full) plus the relaying of the 2 miles to Oakamoor (Moneystone) with associated run round and single platform. Without the future leisure development at Moneystone the second bit to Oakamoor is rather pointless, there would be no need to operate further than a Leek-Froghall service, which would give a long layover at Froghall much the same way as the current timetable. I personally regard the above as possible, although it would be many years ahead with hard work and fund raising. 8.5 miles is also, arguably, close to the maximum mileage that a railway the size of the CVR is realistically going to be in a position to renew and maintain in the very long term (I elaborate on this below).

Cauldon Lowe branch? I'm personally less convinced for its long term sustainability. There is no destination up there unless Waterhouses is reached, which is something like a four mile extension from the current railhead. I won't deny it is the most beautiful section scenically, but the cost/benefit ratio per mile is much lower than the original CVR section. Over 8 miles of track through wilderness, and over 40 structures, would have to be maintained to connect Leek and the CVR with Waterhouses, which is a single attraction/destination. Anyone who has been along the Cauldon branch and seen the likes of Bradnop, Ipstones etc will agree there really is nothing up there other than very pretty views! A certain other heritage line I'm associated with has been running on its rails for over 40 years is now having to budget tens of thousands of pounds each year to create a "nest egg" for replacement rail to renew a three mile section which will become life expired over the next 20 years. Rail wear is a future hidden "killer" which will strike every railway in the decades ahead. It's all very well proposing five and eight mile extensions now, but will it be too much to renew in 30 years time? I feel the Cauldon branch is a great asset in its current form, but given Staffordshire is not the greatest tourist area would the CVR have the passenger numbers and turnover in the future to renew an 8 mile Cauldon branch 30 years from now, in addition to the renewal commitment to maintain the existing 5.5 mile plus CVR route?

Regardless of any of the above, I'm very pleased to see that the current direction is to push hard in the direction of Leek, which was an original core CVR aim, which has been somewhat overshadowed in the press given that the MCR/Cauldon/Stoke concept came along ten years ago. (before anyone jumps back at me, this is not an anti MCR comment, and I am aware of how the current success of the Leek project is intrinsically linked with MCR's progress/achievements, particularly with regards to crossing Leekbrook Junction northwards). When the CVR opened to Froghall in 2001, the then chairmain stated firmly that the next main area of attention/extension was from that point forward to be Leek. A lot of directors and volunteers have put a hell of a lot of work into perusing Leek since 2001, with many false starts, so it's fantastic to see the serious progress recently in this area. There is a certain positivity about it that I hope leads to both the success of that particular aim, but also the continued development of the railway, regardless of what that may be (consolidation/Cauldon/Moneystione etc etc).

 

Sad day for CVR today, Jeff Higginson's last journey, many of you will remember Jeff as PWayman of this parish. Jeff is the man who got me into OAPWay so all the more meaningful to me. Farewell Jeff, thanks for the advice and support. I'll think of him every time I see a glove lost at the lineside....

 

JonJon Kerr (of this parish) was interviewed the other day on BBC Radio Stoke which included a short bit about the extension to Leek, fast forward to 54m20 on this link.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0698h5x

(PS sorry JonJon if you were meaning to post this here, I'm not trying to steal your thunder matey ).

 

Well I have now officially ticked off the CVR from my bucket list after a long time! I went yesterday on the "Blue" timetable to see the Ipstones branchline.

Class 33 Sophie was the motive power as, unfortunately the dry weather and tall grass on the moorland meant that steam was too risky, but I did appreciate the steam engines being pulled out for display as our train went past at Cheddleton.

I can understand @M59137's comments above on the Ipstones/Cauldron Lowe branchline as I felt this line was less "interesting" from the point of view of the other passengers as we travelled up there. After the "drama" of the main CVR line of sheep escaping their fields, things to see in both things railway and non-railway related, the Ipstones branch sort of peters out after the drama of storming the bank, the scenery is rather pretty but that's pretty much all there is for it. The Valley itself felt far more interesting with other more frequent stations nearby as a possible means of expansion (Oakamoor, Alton Towers, even possibly Denstone) after Leek is regained. There were also pubs and eateries nearby which encourage people to stick about, while there's really not much at all available once you head towards Ipstones.

All in all though a very impressive line!

 

There is a very nice pub in Cauldon Low called the Yew Tree quite near to the old Cauldron Low Halt and not very far either from the Yard at Cauldon Low.

 

Their homemade pork pies are something to savour!