Moorlands and City Railway

At the risk of pouring petrol on the flames, Ralph, I think your dismissing the objections of some people who don't happen to be keen on the M&CR idea as mere 'waffling on' does neither yourself or railway preservationists/reinstationists any favours whatsoever. It just shows blinkered intolerance at those who don't happen to share your passion.

Most of us are here because we have an inherent interest in railways, in some form or other. By the nature of this forum, that interest inevitably involves the reinstatement of disused or mothballed routes. However, what Paul Hitch said a page ago is absolutely right, viz:

In your opinion, as a ralway enthusiast, the CVR/MCR 'needs people to support it'. But that's because you have an inherent interest in it and believe in the economic benefits, etc. However, you would do well to recognise that there are people to whom it is an anaethema, that - horror of horrors - they might not actually want the railway reinsted. And they will feel that their reasons are every bit as valid as you believe yours are for its reinstatement.

You need to engage with these people, to bring them onside, to work with them - not accuse them of 'waffling on', just because they don't happen to share your passion. And certainly not berating other people on this forum for not writing to the local rag in support of your interest!

How would you feel if, for example, a new development was planned right next to your house which in your opinion was undesirable, would bring disruption, etc. And the people who were in favour of it dismissed your concerns as 'waffling on'?

Yes, you can argue until the cows come home about all the old chestnuts of prior use and 'if people don't want to live next to a disused railway they shouldn't move next to one and complain when it's reinstated'. The fact remains, however, that these people do exist, they are objecting and the sooner you lose your prejudices (which are evidently every bit as entrenched as theirs) and to engage with these people, rather than criticising them, the sooner you will be a much more effective and useful force for the development which you want to see succeed.

I live many miles from the area in question but, if it were a disused railway at the bottom of my garden, I would have mixed feelings. The nostalgist in me would love to see a steam loco and a few vintage carriages bowling along a few times a day, so I would actively support that. If it was to be class 66s and rakes of wagons, or modern DMUs, then I wouldn't have any interest whatsoever and would probably neither support nor oppose it.

However, I have even more of a passion for nature than steam trains and nostalgia. Knowing what wonderful oases for wildlife old railway cuttings are, it would swing my opinion against reinstatement. That opinion would be based on long and firmly held beliefs and passions, not mere 'waffling on' or being an obstructive tree-hugger who doesn't understand the train brigade.

So how would you go about trying to change my mind?

 

Interesting post, but you are forgetting one important fact. The lines from Stoke to Leekbrook and Leekbrook to Caldon have never been closed. They were only mothballed. Any resident who lives next to the line who sees fit to complain about the re-introduction of services has not got a leg to stand on. If they have recently moved into a house adjacent to the line and are complaining, I would say "Sue your solicitor, because the search he carried out was not thorough enough and he failed to inform you that the line was still live."

 

Given the choice between more road congestion and a class 66 or even a 70 (ugly beast) at the bottom of my garden I would choose the 66. Do I live near a railway? Not exactly at the bottom of my garden but it is only 300yds away and there are proposals I support to re open the line as a through route which I support

 

I think that, quite unwittingly, Std tank has justified every point made by Disused Branch!

PH

 

Perhaps the overall thinking should be 'destroy your enemies by making peace with them'?

 

Is this being anknowledged by anyone, I don't necessarily men here, but in general, presumably people have filed complaints, or is it being treated planning permission style, as if it was being rebuilt? cos if this is true, surely it sounds good for the MCR, not having to deal (legally) with complaints, although as others have pointed out, it would still do well to get them onside.

 

Eh? Sorry don't understand fully what you're trying to say here?

The Stoke line is currently classified as Mothballed. A resident of Endon tried to claim the land was a Village Green, but this was thrown out by the Council last year as it was proven the line does not yet qualify as such. It is still an operating railway in the eyes of the law, though it does need upgrading before the operation of trains can be achieved. It also requires permission from Network Rail, as they are the owners of the track here and MCR are doing their best to take out a lease. Hopefully progress will be made with this in 2014.

The Leek extension though does require planning permission as the track is no longer there and the Council owns the land. It is presently used as a footpath, though officially it has never been made such, but as it provides a direct shortcut to Morrisons you can see why people do use it. With Staffordshire Council though keen to develop the Cornhill area of Leek, re-instating the railway is central to this so I can't see much difficulties with them. Those who don't want to lose their shortcut are most likely to object, but as the last round of consultations ends December 9 they don't have much longer left to raise their concerns. Plus Cornhill is a major investment in the area and seen as a huge development for encouraging tourism, which is a high priority for the Council. So stopping the railway extending into Leek will hamper their own plans.

The biggest issue is whether they will grant planning permission for the proposed housing estate at Leek Brook, which is vital for generating funds to help with the construction of the new Station at Leek and also a new station at Leek Brook itself. All we can do is wait and see on this one, but so far it all seems rather promising with regards to Leek.

 

Fair comment, Ralph - but it neatly illustrates how careful you need to be. The moment people feel they're being belittled or that their opinions are unimportant, they will dig their heels in and make your task a great deal harder. People like to feel listened to, not ignored.

Unfortunately a confrontational mentality like this...

... helps nobody. It's not about 'destroying' anything, it's about delicate negotiation and compromise to reach a situation which is the least worst for everyone involved, not steaming in talking about 'destroying' what you see as the 'opposition'.

Corbs, you may claim that this was just a figure of speech, but it only proves my point above - the way to go about winning friends and influencing people is having the right mental approach from the start and seeing a situation from a truly objective, emotionless and non-confrontational viewpoint.

Wow, now that is a whole different matter! Is this housing estate to be on a green or brownfield site?

 

Eh? That's not what the phrase meant. It means that they cease to be your enemies when you make peace - I was trying to remember an Abraham Lincoln quote:

“Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?”

I was agreeing with you. One of the best ways to reduce animosity is to talk to the people who oppose you and hear them out. People hate to feel ignored.
I think you may have taken the first part of the phrase out of context. The point is that the first part sounds violent and confrontational, but all is made clear in the second part that the aim is to be as peaceful and co-operative as possible in order to avoid making enemies.
Of course, that only works if you read the whole sentence. Maybe I should have written 'Make love, not war'?

Have you ever seen a documentary called 'The Fog of War'? The first point it makes is to empathise with your opponent, see things from their point of view, with their motivations, and understand them better. The example it cites to make the point arguably prevented all-out nuclear war, but I digress....

 

Slightly different tack now! Did anyone spot this on the BBC Stoke and Staffordshire website this week about proposals to redevelop Cornhill - including a new Leek Station?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-25190915
The article states that the plans are available for consultation between 3 December and 9 December at Trinity Church, Derby Street, Leek. I tried to have a look at the yesterday lunchtime but the building was locked - does anyone know whether the information is correct, or has anyone had a gander?

 

It was definitely only open on Tuesday so I'm not sure where the Beeb got that information from. You can view and comment on the proposals here:
http://www.howplanning.com/ourservi...rentconsultations/consultation/index.php?c=32
Personally I was disappointed. Having been told it was a major tourism hub for Leek, it is actually a housing estate with a small canal basin in one part of the site and the railway terminus right on the edge (next to the scrap yard which will not be moving.)

 

That canal basin is pretty small isn't it, and I don't see the kind of craft/retail outlets I'd expect either, cf Barton Turn say?

 

It's only for visitors not permanent mooring but even so, yes it is very small. I know everything is indicative at the moment but I would have hoped that they could have found a way to bring canal and railway together. Also very frustrating that the "tourist destinations" are at either end of the scrap yard. Love the overall concept of Leek as a destination but I sense there is lots still to talk about

 

Agreed.


The thing I can't see is provision for a car park serving the railway - unless that could be the area marked for 'potential future development'?

Jon

 

Many thanks for the link - much appreciated - I've provided some feedback already.

It seems the plans do include the possibility of a small retail outlet in the same building as the proposed railway museum, though whether it will be of a suitable size isn't clear - if there's 211 family homes that suggests up to 1,000 people, and not all would want to trek up to Morrisons for milk and bread.

I agree, it would be better if the canal could be extended closer to the railway, and as for the scrapyard it does say on the plan that there's the potential for development there - maybe the owners could be included in any discussions, though there would be the matter as to where they would relocate - not everyone would want to live next door to one!

 

The draft indicative aerial view does show some cars parked in the public square where the station, museum and pub/restaurant are, so maybe that could be utilised for railway users?

 

What's the scenery like on the proposed line? And are there any viaducts or tunnels that would make good photo opportunities?

 

The plans concerned are what we were discussing on pg84. Officially it's brownfield being the location for the former LBJ Loco Shed and former Exchange Sidings, though with the amount of trees currently there you wouldn't believe it.

 

That's what I've taken that area as, for if you look at the roads the one into the public square doesn't really go to anything else (except the scrapyard).