Bridge that Gap: Great Central Railway News

I acknowledge the rationale for having two single tracks for some distance north of the junction with the curve to the Midland line; but might it be worth including a crossover near the junction for the sake of flexibility, for example to able to pass two GC trains there when nothing is going to or from the Midland line?

 

I had a scan through the video again, I couldn't spot (no audio) if the new plan is to have the two lines converge before or after the canal bridge now, but on face value if you write it off then becomes all the the more difficult to put back in the future when it is decided it is useful. Keeping the double line over the canal bridge might give you enough room to hold a train on the Loughborough side of the single line without it blocking the platform?

 

I understood that the convergence would be on the embankment after the canal bridge but before the concrete viaduct. Which would give a loop to hold a train. I may be mistaken, but that seems a logical solution.

 

Yes, I believe that is the idea, to maximise operational flexibility (northbound train can clear the platform while still awaiting the single line; indeed if only one platform is available it might have to, to let the southbound in, otherwise the northbound could be sitting south of Loughborough for a long time if the southbound is late!)

For what it's worth I agree with you... I think there is still a debate to be had about the precise track layout north of the MML spur. Different height off the new MML bridge compared with the old may account for some of this, though.

 

Having a long loop on the approach to the station makes sense, because it would enable a train to be held awaiting either a platform, or to head out over the viaduct, and enable either platform to be used. Or even to clear the road if you're running a demonstration freight , The design of viaduct looks like it could be precast in sections away from the site, and delivered to site and joined up, most of the sections, do look identical so the casting of each one could be done re using the same shuttering and formers, reducing the overall cost.

 

Apologies if this has been answered elsewhere, what will happen to the engine shed at Loughborough? Will it be narrowed to allow the main line to go north past it, or be moved to another site, and if so, where will it go?

 

It’s been announced it’ll be removed, but it’s not been announced when or where the replacement(s)‘ll be. P’haps a number of options’re under consideration. I reckon it’ll be a few years yet before it goes.

 

Was working just outside Loughborough last week, I noted that both sides of the refurbished road bridge on the way to Cotes have already been struck by vehicles- never ceases to amaze me that folk don't know their height.

Chris

 

It used to average a strike about every 1-2 months, generally curtain siders which damage the paint but do nothing to the structure, I doubt its changed a great deal.

Just a pain as you then need to get it inspected followed by the rigmarole of claiming the cost back from the insurer

 

Is there any prospect for installing bash beams, like the GWSR have had done at Broadway?

 

That is what has been done:

https://www.gcrn.co.uk/node/71

I suppose even once the beams have done their job of reshaping the offending vehicle, there is probably a lot of scraping of the under deck?

 

You are right Ricky, the new plan is to double over the Canal Bridge and then single onto the viaduct (from what I understood at least).

 

As Hando says, there will be a short double track embankment (80m ish) from the canal bridge. This will go down to a single track over a short steel bridge over the Severn Trent Combined Sewer Outlet. This has to allow vehicle access beneath. Then it is along the long single track Urban viaduct, about 10 x 20m spans of concrete bridge decks. This then leads onto the bridge across the Railway Terrace, access road to the council tip site (which needs a 5.3m clearance height). There is then the section across the Preci-Spark car park and onto the MML bridge. There is then a short new embankment to be rebuilt to join the existing embankment with the Chord line to the MML. There will be twin tracks along to and over the A60 bridge and for about 400m, then they will go to a single track to Rushcliffe/East Leake and GCR(N).
In the latest re unification video there is a more detailed explanation. In essence though, a new rebuilt embankment would need to be taller and thinner on a flood plane and so would have needed about 400 piles and be very carefully constructed....very expensive! The new design of urban viaduct requires about 200 piles and modular construction with less intrusion on the flood plane/wildlife/environment. Also there will be Continuously Welded Rail on the viaduct which will be quieter and have less vibration for the (Precision!) machining operations at Preci-Spark.
It will be slightly cheaper and better in many respects so Win Win.
There is then plenty of space to the North of Lbro station to have a full length train awaiting entry, when coming South. This will also require much less track/signalling alteration than having to put new track around the West of the shed.
Obviously there is much discussion about the existing loco shed but I suspect a smaller shed might remain on the East side incorporating the existing machining workshop? A two road running shed might fit onto the West side a bit further North, up to the canal?

 

Got to disagree with you there Phil. When Loughborough was remodelled in the late 90s leading up to the double track commissioning, the 'box was re-locked and a lot of the locking was 'designed in' for what then looked like a single track scheme northwards. Changing it to double track up to just north of the canal, although clearly a much better idea, will mean rather more work for the S&T. I'll also be surprised if any of the pointwork north of Loughborough ends up in the same place - the crossover north of the platforms might, but it has been a constant source of trouble for many years so I suspect the temptation to relay will be too strong. The hand-worked points are going to be in the middle of the main line, so that's no good. There are also two loco shed pits to fill in when the shed moves (and new ones to dig out, wherever). Quite a lot to think about, really.

I'd suggest that any shed which ends up on the east side will be storage only, since it will be the wrong side of the running lines for any meaningful road access. It would be a nice place for a DMU shed.

 

As ever I am grateful for a more detailed and reasoned reply, whatever happens, we are in for an even greater Great Central!
I'm sure many people are spending many many hours looking at alternatives and implications. Many more people are making contributions, large and small, to make sure it happens.

 

Another rather nicely-produced glossy pamphlet arrived in the mail today. I'm seriously considering re-starting my standing order now that the project management has undergone a transformation and the emphasis has shifted firmly back to the 18-mile heritage railway outcome.

 

Hot off the press - planning application submitted:

 

I'm enjoying seeing the planning and management processes that go into Reunification getting some publicity of late. All of the background 'stuff' that needs to be sorted out before the orange army and their tonka toys come out to play, is where the project is made or broken.

 

I am really impressed that the GCR is sticking closely to the timescale that was outlined some time ago. Obviously, it is based upon fundraising rate, so a huge "Thank You" to those who are supporting this project - world wide!

 

Will be interesting to see what is said about Reunification at tomorrows GCR AGM.