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. Sheff

    Sheff Resident of Nat Pres

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Messages:
    7,568
    Likes Received:
    2,345
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired Engineer & Heritage Volunteer
    Location:
    N Warks
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Is there a thread left on here that has yet to be hijacked by irrelevant HS2 references?
     
  2. 46118

    46118 Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,043
    Likes Received:
    212
    Irrelevant or not, the GCR and GCRN need to hope that when HS2 is extended from Birmingham to Leeds (in our children's lifetime maybe...) that someone in London doesn't get out the big red crayon and incorporate yet more of the ex-GCR main line into the route.

    As an aside though, didn't that circa £600k report from consultants suggest that there was a case for a "modern transport corridor" or somesuch technospeak, between Leicester and Nottingham utilising the GCR and GCRN, with Heritage services at weekends?
     
  3. Kinghambranch

    Kinghambranch Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,868
    Likes Received:
    1,588
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    White Rose County
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Indeed. As someone who became anoraksic regarding railways from an historic rather than an engineering context (although the latter also fascinates me) my visits to the current GCR and my research on its illustrious predecessor - the last main line to London - lead me to opine that the GCR route is anything but irrelevant. Sir Edward Watkin (1819-1901) planned and oversaw the contruction of a real Edwardian high-speed route which was, in many cases, better built and engineered than its LNWR and MR competitors. The UK has changed since the GCR route was closed and the populations of Sheffield, Leicester, Nottingham et al have grown even more. If I had the red crayon I'd use as much of the old GCR route as I could and I'd offer the public more opportunity to use it. How I'd reconcile that with the current time capsule that is the wonderful GCR I don't know! Your last paragraph might be the only way our heritage lifestyle will survive in future.
     
  4. Christopher125

    Christopher125 Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,839
    Likes Received:
    558
    Location:
    Isle of Wight
    Both the GCR and GCRN are too far east to be considered for HS2, and even if they werent a new alignment would almost certainly be cheaper and simpler. I suspect the only section of the old Great Central that might be used between Lichfield and Leeds is around Sheffield, especially the old station site.

    Chris
     
  5. Random_User

    Random_User New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2010
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    Going back to the idea of approaching this project in stages, how much of it could be carried out largely by volunteers? How bad is the condition of the canal bridge? I appreciate they have may have a lot going on behind the scenes but seeing some physical work could really kick start the project and raise its profile somewhat. The fact the website is offline does not help the cause, just a simple mission statement would be better than nothing.
     
  6. Kinghambranch

    Kinghambranch Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,868
    Likes Received:
    1,588
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    White Rose County
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Given the nature of the gap that has to be bridged, including a canal with, I presume, a public right of way and a very busy Network Rail main line, I would guess that the vast majority of the gap filling work would have to be undertaken by professionally qualified contractors working to a pre-determined project plan (PRINCE2 or similar). Any physical work undertaken by volunteers, however, experienced, would probably not be countenanced as it would not meet current insurance and health & safety legislation (that is not a criticism of either voluteer work or regulations). I know a great deal of planning work has been done so far and that work has not been wasted unless there is a specific time limit involved (for example, surveys would need to be regularly updated I would imagine). I am sure others out there have experience of such civil engineering works as I do not. However, I have learned, from reading threads on this forum and from other rail projects, that bridging the gap will not be possible without considerable financial investment - something which probably won't happen, at least for the next 5 years. Sad, but understandable given the current climate.
     
  7. Farlington Edward

    Farlington Edward New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2013
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rather a set-back for the GCR that their bid for £2.5 million RGF (round 3) towards 'bridging the gap' at Loughborough was turned down - but if you look at the winners, you can see they are virtually all mainstream companies, rather than 'heritage' or 'volunteer run'. There is more than one way to do this fundraising and I would suggest they take a gradual approach, whereby they close the gap bit by bit, starting (probably) with the restoration of the canal bridge, and then (perhaps) advancing rails towards the A60 where a new bridge is a necessity (maybe the two 70' spans donated by NR). By doing it this way, work would be seen to be done, and hence there would be more interest from the public at large and public organisations in supporting the final and most expensive stages of the project.
     
  8. Corbs

    Corbs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,713
    Likes Received:
    727
    Would it not be beneficial to start from the opposite direction and build Loughborough Interchange at the southern end of the GCR (N), so the railway can benefit from a national network connection and the line can be brought into use as a preserved route sooner?

    Or would this be a bad move as it could cause the GCR (N) to be the 'other' railway in town and thus bring the two lines into competition with each other?
     
  9. Farlington Edward

    Farlington Edward New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2013
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, it's an interesting thought, Corbs. Judging by the very united approach of GCR(L) and GCR(N) to achieve this objective, I doubt that rivalry would be an issue. As you say, there would be immediate advantages to an interchange on the north side, and also as you say there is a physical railway connection to NR there, which would help with the transference of infrastructure items as well as visiting trains.

    I should imagine before work starts on the interchange, they would have to excavate and build or rebuild the abutments for the new bridge over the main line so that all positioning would be correct.
     
  10. Corbs

    Corbs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,713
    Likes Received:
    727
    That makes sense, as otherwise the presence of the station could hinder the development of the bridge.
     
  11. Corbs

    Corbs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,713
    Likes Received:
    727
    On the topic of the GCR's project, I understand that the proposed site for the new locomotive shed (On the refuse facility) was found to be unsuitable as the ground would require substantial work to underpin the foundations?

    Is there a big reason not to use the North-East area of Swithland, as seen in this picture? It's not in a residential area and does not obstruct the main line. There looks to be enough room for the required facilities, plus it is already a hotbed of restoration in the double track, mountsorrel branch and various c & w projects.
    [​IMG]
     
  12. Corbs

    Corbs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,713
    Likes Received:
    727
  13. Kinghambranch

    Kinghambranch Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,868
    Likes Received:
    1,588
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    White Rose County
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Never mind! We've all done it!
     
  14. Corbs

    Corbs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,713
    Likes Received:
    727
    Yeah all part of the learning process I guess.

    It was suggested that in another thread that Ruddington could be a good location to rebuild the Workington Junction shed, I have to say it does seem a good idea as there are already well-established workshop facilites and they could be consolidated with Loughborough MPD in the long term. There's also the attraction of having the sheds and yard adjacent to platforms 1 and 2, the road access is good, and the site fairly secure.
    If that were the case, and if it were up to me (and it certainly isn't) I'd be looking at eventually installing a turntable in the station yard - it's a huge draw as shown at Minehead.
     
  15. pmh_74

    pmh_74 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    2,217
    Likes Received:
    1,456
    The shed - or a running shed anyway - wants to be as near to the centre of the line (i.e. Loughborough) as possible, for two very obvious reasons, (1) to make sure the first train from one end of the line isn't unreasonably late in the day, and the last one from the other end unreasonably early, and (2) as it's where the main line connection is/will be, which makes the shed attractive as a potential servicing point for incoming main line engines.

    I would imagine that some restoration work will continue to take place at both Loughborough and Ruddington whatever happens, as there are groups established on both sites who seem happy to be based there. You also have to consider the distances that volunteers would have to travel, which becomes significant over the course of a year.
     
  16. TonyMay

    TonyMay Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2010
    Messages:
    559
    Likes Received:
    76
    There is another site which is slightly to the south of there, to the west of the cutting at Rothley. Now, there's a big mass of land there at the minute, and it would take some excavation, (you know like Bluebell), and you think "Oh no, what are you going to do with all that soil?" and then you answer your own question again because if the geology of the cutting continues to the west, it's SAND. And sand can be sold to make concrete, etc. The link can come off the down loop at Swithland. The available site is slightly constrained by a pilon to the west but there should still be enough room. It'd also be mostly hidden from the surrounding areas (bear in mind that the people of Rothley tend to be a bit posh and don't want satanic mills blighting their locality). That's my plan anyways.
     
  17. Corbs

    Corbs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,713
    Likes Received:
    727
    That makes sense, as with one longer line you would have the first train start from each end and work towards the middle, maybe the first working of the day would be an ECS from Swithland to Leicester, and the existing MPD at Ruddington would be able to cater for the other end. Would the proximity to the houses at Rothley present a problem?
    Making the shed next to the main line connection does make sense though.
     
  18. Legrandanglais

    Legrandanglais New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2011
    Messages:
    170
    Likes Received:
    218
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Leicestershire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    A lot of Water under the bridge since the last posting...

    Atkins have completed the Survey, floodwater, ecology, review of possible interference with the Preci-spark building etc and there is now a fully worked out plan in place for a single track link.

    Network Rail have donated 2 single track bridges (ex Reading re-modeling) these can be seen from Loughborough Station Platform - on the building site to the west... they will have to be moved as Jelson are building houses on that site - with a 3m high wall to hide the railway (or is it the houses?) NR have intimated that the central pier (demolished with old bridge) can be replaced enabling the MML to be crossed in 2 spans.


    Big meeting with network rail bosses last year, indicates that there are sufficient good reasons for the project to proceed, one being the strong possibility of bringing stone from Mountsorrel Quarry via the newly re-laid branch (indeed there are published plans lodged with Charnwood Borough Council for such a stone loading terminal). This might enable Lafarge to remove the conveyor system to Barrow on Soar, to remove the loading terminal, and for NR to remove the ladder crossings - thus raising the speed restriction. Also makes the revised signalling and electrification a good deal easier - a very big win for NR and for Lafarge.

    The announcement that the NRM has formed a partnership with Leicester City Council and GCR to construct a satellite Museum at Leicester North, requires a rail connection to NR to be fully viable (stock movement).

    The BIG ASK does remain raising the cash, but there are many irons in the fire that GCR are not revealing until all parties are in agreement - so things may start to happen (in stages) sooner than later....
     
    jnc and TommyD like this.
  19. 46118

    46118 Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,043
    Likes Received:
    212
    The fact that two presumably suitable bridge spans are now available would appear to be a good step foreward. These no doubt will need to allow for OHL height when electrification of the MML takes place, which in turn will require some adjustment to the embankments either side.

    Still, a positive move..

    46118
     
  20. oddsocks

    oddsocks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,813
    Likes Received:
    289
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired / Dodging a Coffin for as long as I can.
    Location:
    Half a mile east of Snells Nook Halt. (1883-1931)
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    When the two ex Reading bridge spans were delivered to Loughborough we were informed that they would be used to replace the bridge over the A60 road near the Brush works. Has there been a change of plan?
     
    louis.pole likes this.

Share This Page