Bridge that Gap: Great Central Railway News

Deleted

 

There's an interesting piece in the latest copy of Driving Wheels about some of the behind-the-scenes work involved with unification, with regards to the organisational setup at Ruddington. The two supporting trusts there are to be merged into one, which is going to concentrate on the development of the transport heritage centre and the GCRN.

Meanwhile the human resources and communications duties of the LNER (GC) Trust are to be merged into the Friends of the Great Central Mainline.

So there's going to be one unified membership system for both the GCR and the GCRN. Similarly, Driving Wheels itself is proposed to be retired in 2025 and Mainline will become the membership journal for both railways. Mainline already carries updates from the North and it is stated 'A Ruddington correspondent or member of the editorial team would be most welcome'.

The article notes that as the railways move toward unification there's an increasing tendency for volunteers on one to also lend a hand at the other, which shares best practices and means large projects which the North wouldn't be able to achieve alone can be completed.

 

<Gets on hobby horse> For me that video is unwatchable because of the added "music". Why do they spend time adding something that is at best superfluous and at worst discourages viewing?

 

Because to the majority of people music isn't an issue?

Sent from my CPH2173 using Tapatalk

 

Do you mean that the majority don't care? If they don't care, what's the point of doing the work to add it?

 

It probably requires no work- more than likely the corporo-funk backing is already part of the template. It annoys the hell out of me too, because apart from being cheesy, the volume is so intrusive. Be it film, broadcast TV, or corporate videos like these, the art of sound mixing seems to be a lost one these days, where we often have to rely on subtitles to understand what is being said. (Not quite the case here, I hasten to add).
Anyway, rant over, as you were.

 

How to tell us you've never edited video without saying 'I've never edited video, but...'

The video has various sections with talking, various sections with sound effect and various sections without anything.
The sound track unifies the various parts of the video. Without it, it would likely sound unprofessional.

I can kind of understand your usual complaint, that the sound track distracts from the sounds eminating from the loco or rolling stock, but in this case it is simply sound effects.

 

I hadn't given much thought to music on railway videos until I realised that I don't watch them! As soon as music appears, I switch it off! This sort of thing also occurs on videos of other genres. I occasionally view some about car repairs, and one of the more technically interesting is nearly spoiled by a backbeat, but is fortunately low key enough for me to suffer it. Others with a backbeat are not!

 

On the contrary I have edited videos, mostly of dancing, sometimes of trains or other things. The sound track is whatever comes in with the raw video, adjusted if necessary in such respects as equalisation and sound level. The editing software allows insertion of a "music" track as an extra step if one wishes, but I most definitely do not wish.

As for sounding professional or unprofessional, that is a value judgement. Some YouTubers routinely add music throughout, some add it in gaps in the commentary (which must involve substantial extra work) and some mercifully leave it out entirely.

Anyway enough of my rant distracting from what this thread should be about. I look forward to more good news that I can enjoy uncorrupted by music.

 

I watched it on mute (my Chromebook's sound is always muted by default), and it's fine with no music or commentary, it still gives you a good picture of what's planned, particularly if you've already been following the project.

Not saying this is the case here (because I didn't listen to it) but I find that in many cases commentary is just pointing out the bleedin' obvious and telling you what you're already seeing.

 

Just been having a conversation on Reunification with someone, and decided to check the planning portal to see if there had been any movement/update on the planning permission submission - and the ink is still wet with permission granted subject to conditions on the 16th June!

This is all a long way from my area of expertise, so having had a brief look at the decision notice I have no idea of the conditions imposed are onerous, expected etc. but very good news indeed, and no doubt something from the Reunification team explaining next steps will be forthcoming shortly!

For those interested in reading the Decision Notice, Officer's Report or other material, hopefully the below link works.

https://planningexplorer.charnwood....anningOverview?applicationNumber=P/24/1078/2#

 

This is very much a Good News item. Huge congratulations to the Reunification Board on securing planning permission.

 

On a quick scan, the conditions really seem to consist of the Environment Agency's capacity to create much out of not very much. Buried somewhere in that schpiel are some perfectly reasonable requirements, however, and I'm sure this will prove unpopular with some, the EA seem to have created their own, almost impenetrable form of beaurocratic language, to which adherence must be absolute, even though you know that the likelihood of EA inspectors actually appearing on site to check every last detail of compliance is virtually zero.
The RVR have had similarly onerous conditions imposed, with the added burden of 2 hostile neighbours, who are willing to "rat" at any perceived transgression, however misguided.
AFAIK, at least the reunification project does not have that additional burden, although I'm quite OK with being shown to be wrong about that.

 

Was anyone wondering why HS2 is running late?

 

I wasn't aware HS2 has even started running yet!

 

Looks pretty reasonable to comply with to me- also, I think that it's a bit unfair on the EA- I work with multiple staff members, from multiple departments pretty regularly and have had some interesting chats regarding the issues with enforcement.

Basically summarised,

Do the preparatory and survey work properly including checking if additional mitigation is needed for potential to cause problems with groundwater, sedimentation and wildlife.

If the flood defenses are affected, they must be reinstated to the spec provided.


If you are wondering why it's written the way it is- look at how housing and industrial developers ride rough-shod over a lot of this, the EA have to be very prescriptive to try and ensure action can be taken when folk don't do the basics.

The problem with a lot of the breaches with stuff like this is it's hard to prove, so they have to make the conditions very clear in order to prove a breach-were it to occur.

 

As far as neighbours of the GCR are concerned, I think the relevant one is Preci-Spark Engineering (the route goes partly over their car park if I remember correctly). I've got the impression that they have been at least cooperative and maybe even enthusiastic about the project.

Anyhow, excellent news, I wonder how long after the ground investigations the actual works are supposed to commence (assuming nothing really nasty is found!)?

 

There needs to be a tender drawn up, then wait for contractors to respond to the tender/possibly raise queries which need dealt with, then consideration of the tender prices/experience/contract time, then fund raising to pay for it.
I would think it's a while off yet.