Bridge that Gap: Great Central Railway News

Although excellent news, after looking through the information published there seems a gap in what I understood the project would deliver. The focus is on creating the 18 mile heritage railway with somewhat vague references to other economic benefits.

A key part of the project once upon a time was the ability to divert the stone traffic via the GC. Currently it goes via conveyor (which was claimed to need replacing) to Mountsorrel Sidings on the MML. Because these sidings are to the west of MML i.e. can only be reached via the fast lines, the stone traffic seriously compromises development of the MML - getting a 2000 tonne stone train on the move, along the fast lines before it can be diverted to the slow really gobbles up paths. This is doubly important now with electrification of MML, so we need to understand just what traffic the MML needs to being catering for in future years.

I support the heritage angle, but equally I want to see the MML maximise its potential and the GC option for the stone trains seemed a brilliant solution. The lack of any detail on this suggests the idea has fallen by the wayside, which is sad if true.

David

 

Articles in the latest Main Line give considerable more detail. But Lafarge are not proceeding at this stage to use the branch for stone trains.Due to the recession in the construction industry, hence demand for stone has decreased at present,and possible takeovers of the company. There is then no need for a new curve to the north at Swithland and the line north would not need upgrading. I am sure the GCR will make sure , when demand for stone increases again, that all the new works will be future proofed to allow for this. In the mean time considerable expenditure has been saved.

Hopefully the GCR can raise the necessary finance to press ahead with the whole project. My contribution is already in the post!

 

Indeed. Whatever the reasons, the fact is that stone traffic, and the revenue from same, will play no part in this project, although it is to be noted that Lafarge remain supportive and friendly towards the GCR and their aims.

Although this removes a sizeable potential source of funding from the pot, it does - as mogulb points out - also remove a sizeable portion of the originally envisioned works which would have been necessary to accomodate a potential 1,000,000 tons per annum of freight traffic - including the purchase of quite a lot of land for any "northern chord" at Swithland - and thus represents a significant cost saving ! Yes, it means that the money will now have to be provided by the railway and it's supporters, but on the other hand there is now quite a lot less of it to find !

The economic benefits which are "vaguely" referrred to will include increasing tourism to the local area (the GCR is one of the biggest tourist attractions in the East Midlands) and in the knock-on effect this will have on local businesses (hotels, restaurants, bars, &c.). There is also the prospect of a considerable boon to the already significant commercial abnd testing work which the line carries out, and from that an increase in local jobs and perhaps even industry. The locomotive works already supports a thriving independent contracting operation, employing more than a few local residents, and the main line link surely will not harm that !

Speaking strictly for myself, I'm rather glad that the heritage aspects of the line will not have to compete with the realities of intensive commercial traffic. There is usually only one winner in any battle for resources between heritage ideals and contractual obligations.

Forward !

Flip

 

While this is super news, it should be noted that

``In their new life, they’ll be placed ‘end to end’ to create a new single track line above the Midland Main Line.''

I can't help feeling that such a move will make the doubling between Loughborough and Rothley a pointless exercise?

 

What makes you think that the double track between Loughborough and Rothley (and, hopefully one day, Birstall) will be any less use after the single-line link bridge a has been erected ? The existing GCR will still function as a perfectly sound 8 mile long double-track railway, with a bit of an operational bottleneck for those services which continue on to the North.

After all, it seems to work quite well with the existing single-line section between Rothley and Birstall constraining traffic South of Rothley, and it is not as if the GCR(N) is in imminent danger of being double tracked either ! It will enhance the existing railway, not detract from it, and I certainly do not see that it makes the only meaningful stretch of double-track, absolute-block, heritage railway in the country pointless !

Finally, it should be noted that decades-old encroachment onto the footprint of the original embankment, and various requirements from such bodies as the Environment Agency and Leicester County Council, mean that it would now not be possible to get a double-track formation back to the Southern end of the bridge site in any event.

I also would have loved to have seen a double track bridge reinstated, and the Up and Down lines run straight through to Ruddington in the fullness of time, but it is apparently simply not possible.

 

I understand the plan is to double the section from "Loughborough North Junction" with the spur northwards.

Presumably until then the GCR on galas will run a combination of All line trains and Loughborough-Rothley extras

Another question is how to terminate at the northern end, because everything now reverses at 50 steps bridge into the heritage centre. Is this practical? Should a south-facing chord be built into the heritage centre? Should Rushcliffe Halt be used as a northern terminus? Should Ruddington be rebuilt? There are lots of questions like this! (probably without a completely satisfactory answer).

 

Was there not the intention as one point for the GCR(N) to extend slightly further north into the former Ruddington station and also incorporate an interchange with expanded Nottingham Express Transit (NET) ?

 

Really ? Redoubling a railway is neither a small, quick nor cheap undertaking. In fact, without a specific purpose it is probably not even a very sensible undertaking - otherwise everyone would be at it ! The GCR(N) will probably require another million pounds to accomplish it, especialy as the state of their infrastructure is considerably behind that of the GCR when they commenced the process, and they have far fewer resources available to them than the other line did.

IMHO, if the GCR(N) have any genuine interest in the main line north of Loughborough, other than as a very long demonstration line, then those interests would be much better served - certainly in the medium term - by making the most of the infrastructure they already have. Operationally, 9 miles of double track is not much more use than 9 miles of single track without a great deal of other infrastructure - it certainly wouldn't justify the significant capital investment. Unless another friendly, generous millionaire comes along with a clear personal vision of double track - and that doesn't happen very often - then the money would be better spent on signalling, stations, drainage, maintenance, &c.

I should be interested to learn how official this understanding that you have is.

Flip

 

Double track is always something that can be worked toward in the future though, and it has been pointed out elsewhere that single track sections on main line bridges are not new (Saltash for example), and the volume of traffic even if north and south sections were doubled probably would not create that much of a bottleneck, especially if a proposed interchange with Loughborough Midland station is built.

 

Is there going to be any problems with the GCR volunteers merging with the GCR(N) volunteers, or are they mostly made up of the same faces? I wonder if they both share the same vision, and if they'll want to make changes to the North section etc...

 

Well, the tram extension should be built by the time the gap is bridged. However, there's a nature reserve (SSSI) in the old cutting, which I'm not sure they'd be too happy about running trains through, so that means deviating around it on a new alignment...

 

Without ambition, the GCR wouldn't have advanced from where it was in the early 1980s. Quite what that future vision is exactly with regards to specific developments at the northern end is still to be determined. Also, bear in mind that the costs are going to be signalling and the interface with the national railway network, and they're going to need that anyway. If track and ballast can be obtained at beneficial conditions, and possibly labour too (i.e. training), then putting back in teh double track is an achievable objective.

 

I see. Would it be fair to say that this "understanding" you have regarding plans for the double tracking of the GCML north of Loughborough is rather more conjecture and idle rumour than it is strategic plan ?

Flip

 

Very effective video on the GCR website under unify latest news.
If you can help with the GCRs appeal, however small I am sure they will be most appreciative.

 

Well, who knows in another 50-odd years, maybe?

 

Thats quite a good professional looking video. Perhaps not to everyones taste but effective.

 

Well, the bridge over the MML by 2015, full gap gapped by 2020, expect double track all the way up by 2030 at the latest. The GCR management have strategic plans that will of course be subject to revision, but one of the key aspects of that is reinforcing the USP.

 

At 25 mph tops with a half a dozen station stops a 36mile full line return will be quite a lengthy affair ( 3 hours ?) perhaps using the double track section to put in a fast non-stopper to reduce this time, and be an attraction in itself..

 

I see someone has built a house in the old goods yard at East Leake that is within touching distance of the track. Idiot for building so close to a working railway. I take it there is a speed restriction on the line through East Leake because of this?

 

AFAIK It's a massive problem and there is a very slow speed limit in place.