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. Drop_Shunt

    Drop_Shunt New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    74
    All of which I recall have mutiple platforms, with one or more in use by national rail, and another in use by the relevant heritage railway, each approached from their own track, and signalled by their own signalling, I don’t believe that there is any instance of platform sharing, or of national rail trains being signalled by heritage rail signallers/signals, or vice versa, but am happy to be put right.

    If that is the case, then a similar arrangement would see GCR cede one platform of Loughborough Central to the GCRN, as well as control of all of the running lines to the north of the station. I can’t see that having less impact on the railway than meaningful unification, and I certainly can’t see the GCR management being happy to leave control of, and access to, the main line connection solely in the hands of the GCRN. And who pays for repairs to the station?

    Who is responsible for unblocking the pan in trap 2 of the gents toilet? GCR? GCRN? And does the other have to pay half the costs? Or do you label individual cubicles and urinals “GCR use only”, “GCRNuse only”?

    Where does the GCR(N) signaller work, and where is his interlocking? Or will the GCR signaller control GCRN trains over GCRN infrastructure? Does he have to use two rulebooks, and two sets of Signalling Regulations, two safety management systems, have two sets of competency examinations, and report to two different Signalling Inspectors?

    How do GCR locos access the water tower, which will be on the GCRN side of the station? And how do they ensure that they pay for only the water they use?

    Are there two sets of skips, for GCR and GCRN waste?

    Who runs the refreshments room, and shop? What arrangements will have to be made for ensuring that GCRN get a cut of any money spent by their passengers, and vice versa?

    Can GCR porters shut the doors on GCRN trains? Do they need another set of competencies to do so, and sign another rulebook extract? Are they subject to GCR(N) policies and procedures when doing so?

    These may seem like silly, petty, questions, but they - and a great many more - would have to be addressed if two separate railways are to share one single station. Far, far, far simpler to have one railway operating the station.
     
  2. John Petley

    John Petley Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,849
    Likes Received:
    2,362
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Researcher/writer and composer of classical music
    Location:
    Between LBSCR 221 and LBSCR 227
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Yes
     
    30854 likes this.
  3. 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
    At the risk of creating massive thread drift, there must be many more examples? Keighley immediately springs to mind. Bodmin Parkway? Paignton maybe? Etc etc
     
  4. 35B

    35B Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    25,493
    Likes Received:
    23,733
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Grantham
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    You are right that the time and effort in sorting those out might better be handled working on a merger. However, it's perfectly possible to come up with genuine joint working arrangements, which wasn't unknown pre-nationalisation, without the sort of severing that is implied in your scenario. Two options that immediately occur would be to create a joint operating body for the station area, with the two companies contributing to it on a revenue share basis, or a running agreement where "north" have access to a station that is owned and run by "south", and subject to the SMS of "south".

    The key feature of both is that they lift the debate above the level of micro-detail and focus on principles of making it work.
     
  5. daveb

    daveb Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2005
    Messages:
    943
    Likes Received:
    484
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Wimborne, Dorset
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Grosmont - do the platforms connect at the north end? Smallbrook Junction? I suppose even Blaenau Ffestiniog?

    For a time, what is now the South Devon Railway ran into Totnes mainline station before their own station was completed. Late 1980's?
     
    2392 likes this.
  6. 30854

    30854 Resident of Nat Pres

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2017
    Messages:
    12,172
    Likes Received:
    11,493
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Brighton&Hove
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    BF (like Aberystwyth until a couple of years ago) is surely two seperate adjacent stations. I s'pose the analogy would be pre-grouping Victoria, with it's 'Brighton Side' and 'South Eastern Side' ... just a wee bit smaller!

    Barnstaple Town and Waterhouses were both constructed as cross-platform interchanges, whereas BF involves a yomp across a footbridge and timetabling there seems to reflect the seperation.

    Perhaps on a smaller scale, given gauge compatability, Wisbech (GER) would be a more fitting comparison?
     
  7. Miff

    Miff Part of the furniture Friend

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,857
    Likes Received:
    2,793
    One of the reasons they stopped doing that was they could only use mainline registered locos.
     
  8. daveb

    daveb Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2005
    Messages:
    943
    Likes Received:
    484
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Wimborne, Dorset
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    True, and mainline passed crews. I think the other reason was cost.
     
    Miff likes this.
  9. Flying Phil

    Flying Phil Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2018
    Messages:
    2,696
    Likes Received:
    5,502
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Leicestershire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Drop_Shunt
    I fear that you have not read my post carefully and have put in assumptions which are not intended. I wrote of "an 18 mile railway" and The "present, two heritage railways"...
    I am sure that the many thousands of supporters want to see this succeed - after all they are backing it with their cash. There will be difficulties, there will be differing options put forward, but with common sense, a common purpose and a "Can Do" attitude, I am confident that the gap will be bridged, the various organisations working together, and we will be able to savour an 18 mile run from Leicester (N) to Nottingham(S)........and vice versa!
    In fact I think we are both agreed - as you later said " Far, far, far simpler to have one railway operating the station.".......and I think most people would extend that to say "far simpler to have one 18 mile Railway, operating as one".
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2021
  10. pmh_74

    pmh_74 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    2,217
    Likes Received:
    1,456
    I’m sure your contribution is greatly appreciated but you are not a DCRT member, it isn’t a membership organisation. Most likely you are a FOGCML member; it’s basically a glorified mailing list which belongs to the PLC. One of the sad results of the demise of the MLST a few years ago.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  11. 35B

    35B Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    25,493
    Likes Received:
    23,733
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Grantham
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Correction noted and agreed.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  12. meeee

    meeee Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    864
    Likes Received:
    1,319
    Ultimately there will need be to be some alignment of the rule book and SMS for this to work. Otherwise it will be an unwieldy mess that creates a load of extra admin and safety issues. A bit like brexit.

    On the F&WHR there are two separate routes that are joined together. There is an advantage that they are all run by one company of course. The loco crews however only have to learn and be assessed on the rules and route of the line that they work on. Some sections are obviously applicable for both routes and are applied in the same way. Others are not. For example an FR only crew doesn't have to learn about staff and ticket operation. All crews have to learn the Porthmadog-Boston Lodge section as this is a frontier much like Loughborough would be. So these things are possible and it doesn't have to be messy or over complicated if you don't want it to be.

    I expect a bigger bun fight will happen over who pays for what. One railway spends a fortune rebuilding and maintaining a new bit of line. The other wants to run trains over it too but didn't pay a penny.

    Tim
     
    Sheff, MellishR, Jamessquared and 3 others like this.
  13. Ploughman

    Ploughman Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    5,806
    Likes Received:
    2,649
    Occupation:
    Ex a lot of things.
    Location:
    Near where the 3 Ridings meet
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Just wondering who would get the income from Ticket sales and car park receipts?

    Who looks after the track?
     
  14. 35B

    35B Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    25,493
    Likes Received:
    23,733
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Grantham
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    That would depend on the nature of the agreements between the companies. I think the scenario envisaged by @Drop_Shunt vanishingly unlikely, and that any competent managements would be able to strike practical agreements that would avoid those sorts of nonsenses.
     
    Flying Phil likes this.
  15. Steve

    Steve Resident of Nat Pres Friend

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2006
    Messages:
    11,930
    Likes Received:
    10,088
    Occupation:
    Gentleman of leisure, nowadays
    Location:
    Near Leeds
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    The only people who will find problems to put in the way are those that want there to be problems. The others will find solutions.
     
  16. M59137

    M59137 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,330
    Likes Received:
    2,113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Carriage & Wagon
    Location:
    Sheringham
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Most comments RE joint working seem to come from the perspective of the two parties being equals, which to my mind is not the case. (Unpopular opinion alert which I hope doesn't offend Northern volunteers) I visit the South regularly, have only been to the North once and it was a "mixed" experience, probably as a result of lacking volunteers and funds.

    Once the physical connection is made, hypothetically I could quite easily envisage the South being dominant in the arrangement, Loughborough Central being theirs after all. Adapt the Northern rulebook/timetable to mirror the South's and run Northern trains in/out of the South's station at Loughborough, signalled by the South.

    I think a closer comparison than shared stations (Keighley, Alton etc) would be something like the NNR's running to Cromer on Network Rail. NR are the dominant player in that situation with NNR being the smaller. NNR request paths and occupancy of Cromer platform, which are accepted and NNR run in/out of there because they want to, but on NR's terms. If there are delays on NR system, NNR waits. The relevance to this topic is that NNR is not resentful to NR for being the dominant player, even though NNR reinstated the connection. Rather, NNR is grateful to NR for allowing the use of their station.

    For those who would counter all that with "it's not worth the North bothering if they're not in equal control", then I'd suggest any chores or problems with the arrangement would be offset by the clear advantages to their overall product/offering above running nine miles to a dead end and going back again.

    I'm not sure of I'm completely on my own with this view, and await flack, but for the record I am pro reunification and have contributed.

    Sent from my moto g(8) power using Tapatalk
     
    MellishR, Bluenosejohn, ianh and 4 others like this.
  17. ruddingtonrsh56

    ruddingtonrsh56 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2009
    Messages:
    979
    Likes Received:
    1,470
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Nottinghamshire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    As an NHR (ex GCRN) volunteer (although admittedly it has been too long since I have actually gone down and volunteered, for many reasons which are not worth going into here but I'm sure we can all guess at least one) I am of the opinion that the best option is for the NHR to become part of the GCR. That will allow smoother operations, an 18 mile line rather than 2 shorter lines sharing a middle station, it will be a greater experience for crews, passengers, everybody involved, for reasons others have detailed already.

    HOWEVER
    there are multiple ways that one company can be absorbed (or however you wish to describe it) into another. Not talking about practical and legal aspects but about how that absorbtion is perceived by those outside and those within the two organisations. The two railways need to strive for an amicable integration, not a hostile takeover. I am confident there is a way for the new company to look like an enlarged GCR operation but with the NHR volunteers still feeling like the time and energy they have put in to running 'their' railway is honoured and built upon well - things like honouring competencies of crews and integrating them into the GCR operation for route learning at the competency they are at, rather than making every driver start again at the bottom of the ladder. Things like honouring the leadership of the small but excellent teams that look after things like S&T or the Cutting Edge team who maintain the lineside and allowing them to continue to input into how these are managed going forward.

    Disclaimer, of course, this is my own opinion as a volunteer but not a director who has any say in how things are actually done, so should not be taken as how they will actually done. Please also don't get mad at the directors if this doesn't happen exactly as I have outlined.

    Also, to clarify things some people have said - the NHR has had 2 years, with plenty of interruptions by COVID, to update site and lineside to ORR specifications, but with a much smaller workforce than any other railway of its length. It is not crippled and on the point of collapse as some people have claimed. It has just taken a longer while than might be expected to get the railway back to a point of operation because when COVID has allowed things to happen, there has been an unfortunately small workforce who can only get so much done with the people they have.
     
  18. flying scotsman123

    flying scotsman123 Resident of Nat Pres

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    10,440
    Likes Received:
    17,941
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cheltenham
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    That is the crucial point, just as important, and probably just as hard work, to get that right, as all the legal and regulatory stuff that comes with such a merger. Even railways that have always been one like the SVR have multiple distinct gangs who are nominally in the same department, I know for instance they have (or had) a "bridgnorth P'way" and "Bewdley P'way" so there seems no reason to me you can't have that sort of arrangement across the board where applicable. Footplate crew could possibly still be allocated to their own shed, as long as it's all the same rule book etc. In fact that notion might be quite appealing, makes it feel more like a proper railway network. :)
     
  19. Matt37401

    Matt37401 Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2014
    Messages:
    15,330
    Likes Received:
    11,666
    Occupation:
    Nosy aren’t you?
    Location:
    Nowhere
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Well said Alex, a ‘Them and Us’ situation is never going to end well, I think we only have to take a little look in Cider Country…
     
    desperado likes this.
  20. gwralatea

    gwralatea Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2014
    Messages:
    469
    Likes Received:
    929
    Gender:
    Male
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    I think the prize for most bizarre situation is the Chinnor and Princes Risborough. They have their own metals Chinnor - Thame Junction, and their own metals and platform at Princes Risborough, but between Thame Junction and Princes Risborough throat you're on NR track, and very much the junior partner if NR need to use it.
     
    Matt37401 likes this.

Share This Page