RailUK Forums
RailUK Forums > UK Railway Forums > Railtours & Preservation


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 6th May 2016, 14:13   #16
Flying Phil
Member
 
Join Date: 18 Apr 2016
Posts: 193
Default

Re the GC locomotive shed - there is space to the West side of the shed for a single track and that was always planned for when the shed was erected back in the 70's. At present there are containers and other locomotive/railway parts there but nothing is fixed. Here are three photographs showing the situation last month.
Sorry for thumbnails - click on to enlarge.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg DSCF7217.jpg (111.3 KB, 176 views)
File Type: jpg DSCF7226.jpg (139.9 KB, 167 views)
File Type: jpg DSCF7227.jpg (173.6 KB, 167 views)
Flying Phil is online now   Reply With Quote
Registered users do not see these banners - join today!
Old 10th May 2016, 11:32   #17
L+Y
Member
 
Join Date: 4 Jul 2011
Posts: 163
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying Phil View Post
Re the GC locomotive shed - there is space to the West side of the shed for a single track and that was always planned for when the shed was erected back in the 70's. At present there are containers and other locomotive/railway parts there but nothing is fixed. Here are three photographs showing the situation last month.
Sorry for thumbnails - click on to enlarge.
There's been a write-up in this month's Railway Magazine from (as I recall) Dennis Wilcock of the GCR, who talks about the route around the shed and onto the canal bridge as being double track! I'd be interested to see diagrams of how this is planned to be done, given you'd assume it would involve quite a kink to get round the shed at both ends.
L+Y is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th May 2016, 07:32   #18
Flying Phil
Member
 
Join Date: 18 Apr 2016
Posts: 193
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by L+Y View Post
There's been a write-up in this month's Railway Magazine from (as I recall) Dennis Wilcock of the GCR, who talks about the route around the shed and onto the canal bridge as being double track! I'd be interested to see diagrams of how this is planned to be done, given you'd assume it would involve quite a kink to get round the shed at both ends.
Hi
You are quite right about the article - I think the double track round the shed is relatively easy to attain from the station end as there is space for two tracks under the bridge (Empress Road??) but that would make foot/car/van access to the shed very difficult. At the North end there is a pinch point at the corner of the shed......but why put two tracks in, as there would have to be only a single track over the MML ?? It would be nice to have an "official" indication of the current plans in detail.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

From a post in another thread, this is a useful step forward I'm sure.
..more GCR love.....

http://www.loughboroughecho.net/news...ampaign=buffer

Quote:
The council says that without its involvement in the massive Bridging the Gap project, Network Rail would not let the bridge go ahead.

Last edited by Flying Phil; 28th May 2016 at 07:33. Reason: Double post prevention system
Flying Phil is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 28th May 2016, 17:14   #19
Ploughman
Established Member
 
Join Date: 15 Jan 2010
Posts: 1,699
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying Phil View Post
Hi
You are quite right about the article - I think the double track round the shed is relatively easy to attain from the station end as there is space for two tracks under the bridge (Empress Road??) but that would make foot/car/van access to the shed very difficult. At the North end there is a pinch point at the corner of the shed......but why put two tracks in, as there would have to be only a single track over the MML ?? It would be nice to have an "official" indication of the current plans in detail.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

From a post in another thread, this is a useful step forward I'm sure.
..more GCR love.....

http://www.loughboroughecho.net/news...ampaign=buffer

Quote:
The council says that without its involvement in the massive Bridging the Gap project, Network Rail would not let the bridge go ahead.

Link not available.
__________________
Bryan
http://www.yorkareagroup.co.uk/
Ploughman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 28th May 2016, 17:22   #20
scott118
Member
 
scott118's Avatar
 
Join Date: 24 Feb 2015
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 866
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ploughman View Post
Link not available.
http://www.loughboroughecho.net/news...ridge-11343277

Quote:
The council says that without its involvement in the massive Bridging the Gap project, Network Rail would not let the bridge go ahead.
__________________
Democracy falls down at the point where you have to persuade stupid people to vote for you..
scott118 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st June 2016, 17:10   #21
Flying Phil
Member
 
Join Date: 18 Apr 2016
Posts: 193
Default

Thanks Scott for sorting the link.
It is interesting that NR are not sure about the long term sustainability of the GCR - In fact the GCR have run the railway for longer than the GC/LNER/BR individually did!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
There is now a much more detailed and up to date section on the GCR Website of this project. This is from that source.

Latest News

27th May, 2016
At the completion of the tendering process a preferred bidder has been selected to build the bridge abutments and construct and install the new all steel bridge. After further formalities are completed, particularly with Network Rail, the contract will be awarded with construction due to start by the end of the summer.

Last edited by Flying Phil; 1st June 2016 at 17:10. Reason: Double post prevention system
Flying Phil is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 7th June 2016, 17:34   #22
Flipper
Member
 
Join Date: 13 Feb 2009
Posts: 15
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying Phil View Post
Hi
You are quite right about the article - I think the double track round the shed is relatively easy to attain from the station end as there is space for two tracks under the bridge (Empress Road??) but that would make foot/car/van access to the shed very difficult. At the North end there is a pinch point at the corner of the shed......but why put two tracks in, as there would have to be only a single track over the MML ?? It would be nice to have an "official" indication of the current plans in detail.
With the MPD unable / unwilling to relocate they will ultimately have to accept some significant curtailment of their freedom of movement to and from the shed - once the tracks are in then the end of uncontrolled movement of vehicles and plant across an open passenger line is inevitable. Expect to see a gated crossing interlocked with the signalling. It will also result in the almost complete, if not total, loss of the space currently used for staff parking.

As for why it is advantageous to extend the double track as for North as possible, I shall try to explain. Yes, it has been determined that the formation will be single track by the time it reaches the new Bridges 328 (over the Midland route) and 329 (Railway Terrace). However there is still a quarter-of-a-mile of formation between there and the current location of the loco shed, and, from an operational point of view, there is a great deal of advantage to be had extending the double track as far to the north of Loughborough Central as is possible - and certainly beyond the current location of the loco shed.

In order to get a single track through the westernmost span of Bridge 332, which it would have to go through to clear the shed, the junction would of necessity be some way to the south of that bridge - barely 200 yards past the current Down Platform Starting signals.

There is very little impediment to the double track extending 100-150 yards north of Bridge 331 over the canal. The quarter-of-a-mile of extra double track between these two possible locations for the junction would make a massive amount of difference to the operational capability of the remodelled Loughborough.

The cost of restoring both sides of Bridge 331 is not a great deal more than restoring only the Down side. There would have to be some remodelling of the layout immediately north of the station, as the Up and Down mains would have to be slewed appreciably to the west (there goes the shed's parking) in order to get them under the western span and past the shed, but I am assured this is achieveable.

The reason for this desire to have the double / single junction as far north as possible ? Well . . .

The line south of Loughborough is, operationally, extremely well equipped, with the ability to handle a considerable number of trains, and the flexibility to permit degraded working to be not too degraded. To the north, however, it is essentially a single track with little or no signalling and, with the best will in the world, this situation is unlikely to change significantly before through services become a possibility. Being brutally realistic - it will take decades before the line to the north can operate with anything approaching the flexibility of that to the south, and longer still before it has comparable capacity.

Having the junction south of the existing shed is tantamount to an open invitation for operational mayhem on any day when more than one or two trains are run as a through service to the north of Loughborough. There is plenty of scope for a train delayed "down the Ruddington branch" to bring Loughborough to a total standstill, and taking some scenarios, for example significant delays during one of the GCR's famously intensive gala timetables, to the extreme, to gridlock the entire line.

The GCR already has an operational pinch point to the south of Rothley, where the current single line to Birstall commences. By necessity it appears they will end up with another, with this one at the single busiest point of the line. To fail now to ensure that everything possible is done to mitigate the risk to services that this future restriction poses may well see generations of railwaymen, yet to be born, banging their heads against the cab wall / handbrake wheel / lever frame / operations desk and cursing their forebears !
Flipper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th June 2016, 20:20   #23
Flying Phil
Member
 
Join Date: 18 Apr 2016
Posts: 193
Default

Thank you Flipper - that now makes a lot more sense and it is good that these aspects are being properly planned in advance - we/I just wanted a bit more explanation....
Flying Phil is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 16th June 2016, 07:31   #24
Flying Phil
Member
 
Join Date: 18 Apr 2016
Posts: 193
Default

From this month's issue of "Steam Railway"
Managing Director Bill Ford has confirmed "The end of year target has been agreed with the contractors who will build the embankments and bridge, with a handover date of December 29th.
With all the necessary funds (just over £1.8 million) in place, work is planned to commence in August.
The bridge across the four-track MML will be installed during an engineering possession over the festive period".
Flying Phil is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 16th June 2016, 09:13   #25
Tempest3K
Member
 
Join Date: 16 Feb 2015
Location: York
Posts: 54
Default

Great news
Tempest3K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd June 2016, 17:15   #26
Flying Phil
Member
 
Join Date: 18 Apr 2016
Posts: 193
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempest3K View Post
Great news
.... and in the latest issue of "Mainline", the preferred contractor has been selected - MPB of Corby. "It is currently envisaged that work will start on building the abutments in late Summer"
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
From the GCR Website!!

Investment Gives Boost to the GCR’s Projects
Dennis Wilcock : June 20, 2016 5:52 pm : Main Line, Main Line Xtra, News Banner

Leicestershire County Council has announced an investment of £250,000 in one million shares in GCR plc. This gives a major boost to the Reunification project part of which is to Bridge the Gap across the Midland Main Line and to the new museum to be built at Leicester North.

Last edited by Flying Phil; 23rd June 2016 at 17:15. Reason: Double post prevention system
Flying Phil is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd June 2016, 18:56   #27
Cowley
I'm only here to relax
Established Member
 
Cowley's Avatar
 
Join Date: 14 Apr 2016
Location: Devon
Posts: 1,774
Default

Excellent news. Fantastic railway, I've got family living in Quorn so whenever I get up there I try and have a day on it. First went in 1987 and to see how it's developed since is incredible. Well done to all.
Cowley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th August 2016, 16:17   #28
Flying Phil
Member
 
Join Date: 18 Apr 2016
Posts: 193
Default

I was in Loughborough yesterday and went to see if any start has been made. There is some building work being done at the Preci Spark unit which is next to the South end of the GC bridge but no sign of any work on the GC bridge abutment sites........Also a large refuse lorry was going to the council tip and the embankment/viaduct/Reading bridge deck will have to be quite high to give the clearance needed.
Flying Phil is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 27th August 2016, 06:52   #29
Flying Phil
Member
 
Join Date: 18 Apr 2016
Posts: 193
Default

In the latest issue of Mainline magazine (168) there are details of more Gap/Bridge progress.
The bridge over the MML will be built by the GCR, subject to full NR approval. Then it will become NR property with GCR right of way. But that means NR have full responsibility for future maintenance and replacement.
There is a Severn Trent Water Combined Sewer Overflow which needs diversion , but there are several options and STW needs to select the best one.
The main Fibre-optic cable, that runs under the link route, is to be diverted away from the work so the canal bridge can be repaired.
Work on the North abutment is due to start ......now!....?
Flying Phil is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 29th August 2016, 10:59   #30
Pinza-C55
Member
 
Join Date: 23 May 2015
Posts: 289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flipper View Post
The line south of Loughborough is, operationally, extremely well equipped, with the ability to handle a considerable number of trains, and the flexibility to permit degraded working to be not too degraded. To the north, however, it is essentially a single track with little or no signalling and, with the best will in the world, this situation is unlikely to change significantly before through services become a possibility. Being brutally realistic - it will take decades before the line to the north can operate with anything approaching the flexibility of that to the south, and longer still before it has comparable capacity.
I wonder if the S&T department are looking forward to this ?
Pinza-C55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT. The time now is 18:48.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8
© RailUK Forums 2005 - 2017