If you register, you can do a lot more. And become an active part of our growing community. You'll have access to hidden forums, and enjoy the ability of replying and starting conversations.

Bridge that Gap: Great Central Railway News

Discussion in 'Heritage Railways & Centres in the UK' started by Gav106, May 8, 2010.

  1. Flying Phil

    Flying Phil Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2018
    Messages:
    2,696
    Likes Received:
    5,500
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Leicestershire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Hi Misspentyouth
    As you say lots of options, but having much more at Quorn is Very unlikely as it is a residential area (Very Des Res!), similarly Rothley which is tightly regulated for the Carriage and Wagon works. Loughborough is constrained by the size and shape of its site but is industrial use. Of course, there is still very much on the cards, development of "Plan B" for a museum complex at Leicester North......
     
    misspentyouth62 likes this.
  2. 35B

    35B Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    25,490
    Likes Received:
    23,721
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Grantham
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Leaving aside the practicalities of these proposals relative to the sites, your comments imply a single combined operation. All the materials I've seen imply the (N) and (S) operations will retain a level of independence, with timetables still to be sorted. As an armchair member, living slightly nearer Ruddington than any of the other stations, I find it noteworthy that I've visited GCR(S) many times, but GCR(N) just once, and then for a very specific reason. There's much to do yet beyond the engineering.
     
  3. pmh_74

    pmh_74 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    2,217
    Likes Received:
    1,456
    I can imagine "a level of independence" on day 1, but I can't imagine the same being true 20 years down the line. Clearly there needs to be some unification in terms of rules, training, maintenance regimes, record keeping, rostering and so on, otherwise it won't work. However I can imagine that for example loco groups based at one or other site will wish to continue where they are, for example. So with that in mind, my thoughts are that on a typical day Loughborough might provide 2 trains and Ruddington might provide 1, and instead of Loughborough's second one going south it will head north when Ruddington's one arrives to pick up the southbound path. But I must stress, this is purely speculation on my part; I think we are some way from drawing up fantasy timetables.

    It's quite clear to anyone with any knowledge of railways that the drawing on the appeal leaflet which puts the running line through the shed is utter nonsense. The notion of having staff doing noisy work surrounded by live running lines is as fanciful as the counter-notion of putting remotely operated points and signals inside a workshop. Unless the sketch was intended to demonstrate why the shed needed to move, I'm not sure what it was for. But beyond that... lots of ideas being thrown about, but I haven't seen a firm proposal yet.
     
    misspentyouth62 likes this.
  4. Johann Marsbar

    Johann Marsbar Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2016
    Messages:
    1,588
    Likes Received:
    1,998
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Suffolk
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    I thought it was significant that page 3 of the last copy of Main Line was basically a "Hello, we are EMRT and are vital for the GCR's reunited future" full page statement, which was coupled with a 3 page article inside the magazine by EMRT (ie GCR(N)) on traffic implications/track layouts for the two rejoined sections. They generally don't seem to do much promotion of the site (Ruddington) as a destination in itself, though the, to me, fragmented, nature of the activities there lack the coherence of GCR(S)

    Likewise, I haven't been to the Ruddington end that many times, but given 3 groups I am interested in are based there, they have generally been the reason for my visits. As regards the site itself, they have quite a long way to go, though money (or lack of...) seems to be the deciding factor there.
     
  5. misspentyouth62

    misspentyouth62 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2017
    Messages:
    1,381
    Likes Received:
    1,739
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    34D, now flexible
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Indeed so - what must I have been thinking :)
     
  6. misspentyouth62

    misspentyouth62 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2017
    Messages:
    1,381
    Likes Received:
    1,739
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    34D, now flexible
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    That's true if the space allows. I don't necessarily see why you would have to restore and overhaul your stock in the same site as your running shed though, assuming of course join-up increases your opportunities to choose?
     
  7. misspentyouth62

    misspentyouth62 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2017
    Messages:
    1,381
    Likes Received:
    1,739
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    34D, now flexible
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Fair enough Phil although I've also felt that the shed area of LO does seem to encroach residential, more so than I'd really noticed at the other two stations tbh. The museum option for LEN had I thought been dropped but good news that options still remains.
     
  8. misspentyouth62

    misspentyouth62 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2017
    Messages:
    1,381
    Likes Received:
    1,739
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    34D, now flexible
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    I have always worked to an assumption that joining the gap means extending the line North or South depending on your starting preference. I make no assumptions however to the challenges that will be faced in making this happen other than to say that running two independent GCRs with the potential for cross-over doesn't feel to me what Bridge the Gap is all about.

    I've been to GCR South hundreds of times since 1970s and often would just call in or peer over the bridge when frequently passing on business into the mid 1990s when I had a team based in Loughborough. In contrast I've only taken the trouble to visit GCR North the once and not on a running day at that! One of the reasons is that GCR North just didn't exist as a Heritage railway when I was about. My 1970's Baker shows it as another line on the BR Network to Hotchley Hill which I confess to knowing nothing about.

    I think we can agree that there is much to do, yes.
     
  9. Flying Phil

    Flying Phil Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2018
    Messages:
    2,696
    Likes Received:
    5,500
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Leicestershire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    It is easy to forget that the GCR had been in operation for about 20 years before the GCR(N) really got started so it is not surprising that there is a fair difference between the two halves. There is also the complication of having the "live" NR gypsum trains running. Thus I agree with pmh_74 about the likely degree of independence....with a lot of co-operative interdependence.
    Re the housing around Loughborough Station and shed - yes it is a lot more noticeable now....largely because much of it has been recently built on what was industrial land...but the shed/station was there first and so is allowed to continue. This is not the case at Quorn and Rothley.
     
  10. MellishR

    MellishR Resident of Nat Pres Friend

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,068
    Likes Received:
    5,164
    The GWSR seems to find having its main depot in the middle far from optimum.
     
  11. flying scotsman123

    flying scotsman123 Resident of Nat Pres

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    10,440
    Likes Received:
    17,940
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cheltenham
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Locomotives not so much of a problem, but being unable to stable a set of carriages overnight at Cheltenham is the real irritant.
     
  12. Gareth

    Gareth New Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2013
    Messages:
    89
    Likes Received:
    65
    Gender:
    Male
    Is there a reason as to why Hunting Butts tunnel couldn't be used to store a rake overnight ?
     
  13. flying scotsman123

    flying scotsman123 Resident of Nat Pres

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    10,440
    Likes Received:
    17,940
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cheltenham
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Too short, poor access for staff, it's full of stuff, and I'm unsure about the suitability of tunnels for storing running rakes (damp etc.)?
     
    Paul42, Sawdust, 2392 and 1 other person like this.
  14. Johann Marsbar

    Johann Marsbar Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2016
    Messages:
    1,588
    Likes Received:
    1,998
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Suffolk
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Further to what I posted earlier about the EMRT, I discovered that they do have their own website...
    https://emrtrust.co.uk/
    As the photographs used are the ones that appeared in the June Main Line, it would appear to be a new website or a completely rebuilt one.
    If you click on "The Future, find out more here" tab, you can read the article from the June Main Line about linking with the GCR(S) if you are not a FoGCML Member!

    I had previously been confused by the disappearance of the LNER(GC) Heritage Trust website and any references to that body (other than in Companies House records) as the charitable organisation dealing with fundraising for projects on the GCR(N), so perhaps the EMRT is now going to become the main "North" charity? Seems pointless to have two bodes of that type, but no announcement seems to have been made about it, if that is the case.
     
    J Rob't Harrison likes this.
  15. Flying Phil

    Flying Phil Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2018
    Messages:
    2,696
    Likes Received:
    5,500
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Leicestershire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Up early Johann!
    As you say, the EMRT does seem to now be the main North charity, but perhaps it is for infrastructure and the old LNER(GC) is for rolling stock??
    What is an interesting possibility- and to my mind a very positive step, would be for the EMRT to get that Southern point in from the chord line onto the embankment. Then put back that small embankment section to the MML bridge, lay, what 100m of track, onto and over the bridge. That would keep the momentum of the project going whilst the large cost of the "Factory Flyover" is being raised. It would give fantastic photo opportunities of steam engines above the MML and really show that the EMRT can play a big part in the reunification. I'm sure the costs for this are not too great, provided that the extra height of the embankment and position a few metres closer to the brook, are not major constraints/problems.
    Then of course they could continue with that A6o bridge refurb and longer second track loop line as per their plan.
     
    Ploughman likes this.
  16. Johann Marsbar

    Johann Marsbar Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2016
    Messages:
    1,588
    Likes Received:
    1,998
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Suffolk
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    No, the old LNER(GC) Heritage Trust was concerned with infrastructure items like Hotchley Hill signal box and the proposed reinstatement of the footbridge at Rushcliffe Halt which now seem to have vanished into oblivion as far as any information goes !
    The Heritage Trust vanished from an online presence sometime last year, when I was looking at suitable possible "projects" to donate to, so, needless to say, the money in question (quite a few bob...) is now earmarked for other Preservation related schemes elsewhere....(albeit mainly "Greater GCR" related).
    Rolling stock wise, the GCR Rolling stock trust are the organisation to deal with, and they are a Charity in their own right. They are after money to match fund the "Barnum" coach bogie refurbishment programme, if anyone feels like donating....
     
  17. Drop_Shunt

    Drop_Shunt New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    74
    This is an old, old argument, which is often trotted out to explain the differences in development, and it is an extremely specious one. To follow it through to its conclusion, GCR (Nottingham) should be in broadly the same position now as was the GCR in the year 2000, and this is very clearly not the case.

    Even making allowances for the benevolence of David Clarke in funding the double track, the GCR at the turn of the millenium was an established, well-organised, well-funded operation, with a stud of operational locomotives and rolling stock. extensive signalling, a sizeable customer base, and regular operations.

    Hardly comparable, for whatever reasons.

    As for management cooperation, I see no sign it is even wanted, much less sought. Those in power to the north seem not to relish any threat to their empire, and those to the south give the impression that they care about little more than obtaining rail access to the Midland Main Line. The staff on both sides generally seem to share a common desire for meaningful unification- but who cares what they want?
     
  18. Mark Thompson

    Mark Thompson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2017
    Messages:
    1,429
    Likes Received:
    3,559
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    E sussex
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
     
  19. J Rob't Harrison

    J Rob't Harrison Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2016
    Messages:
    222
    Likes Received:
    316
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Stafford
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    If the guys at Loughborough had had to rebuild their base of operations from a flattened site, and then lay a half mile or so of track to reach the head of surviving rail, I daresay they wouldn't have been so advanced by 2000 as they were, benefactors or no. The section from Rothley to Leicester North, which of course they have had to rebuild from bare trackbed, remains single track and largely unsignalled- much like, oh, let us say, the GCRN.

    The impression I get as a member of both groups is that the GCR is a railway with a workshop attached. The GCRN is the other way around.
     
    Mark Thompson likes this.
  20. Johann Marsbar

    Johann Marsbar Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2016
    Messages:
    1,588
    Likes Received:
    1,998
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Suffolk
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Just in case anyone wants to compare the "View from the bridge" at Ruddington.......

    2000
    00-771a.JPG

    2019
    19-868.JPG

    The foliage has certainly sprouted......
     
    mdewell and 2392 like this.

Share This Page