GCR 'Cromwell Pullman'

grid56126 · 1 Dec 2014

I just don't get this thread. Like all the fall out out at the WSR, the Ffestiniog, the Mid Hants and many more. It really is quite sad.

So what if the "Pullman" is not a Pullman? So what if the coaches are not to enthusiasts tastes? So what if a coach has been butchered with a veranda?

I attended the diesel gala and paid a few quid for my ticket and a few quid more for some breakfast. I paid nowhere near as much as the FULLY BOOKED Pullman passengers did. I really could not give a flying fig what the Pullman is named if it brings in the revenue to allow me to come back for more diesel galas.

I have used a few dining trains on preserved lines over the last few years and I have not had a bad experience and that includes a fair few MK 1 experiences. Should the Bluebell Pullman not be called a Pullman because it uses a "Stove" for storage / service and a MK1 for some customers?

Do people really - i mean REALLY believe that the loss of cash from these operations across the country is more acceptable ?

RailUK Forums

Tomnick · 1 Dec 2014

Have you read the whole thread? It's really not about the livery of the Pullman set (other than the insensitive sponsorship), and no-one's suggesting that the dining services should be curtailed - they are indeed a valuable source of revenue for the railway. It's about far more than just a ridiculous veranda on a coach. That theme is running through the whole of the GCR, destroying the heritage that so many have worked so hard to recreate, and for which we owe so much to the memory of David Clarke. Destroying that heritage means that we've failed in that ultimate aim of recreating the experience, and leaves us with little more than a theme park running steam locos. With no atmosphere to speak of, there'll be no more spectacular steam galas, too few volunteers to run even a diesel gala and, ultimately, no railway.

bunnahabhain · 1 Dec 2014

Bearing in mind that a comment from the President of the Railway made to the Operations Manager was "What are we running that thing for?" in reference to D8098. It was overheard by the loco crew who considered shutting the loco down and going home.

grid56126 · 2 Dec 2014

I have read the whole thread and more besides.

the simple answer is for everyone who has an issue with this to DO something. Moaning on an internet forum is not going to solve the problem. Is ousting this gentleman going to solve all of the problems? If so DO IT.

Move your loco's, move your stock, give up volunteering.

if it is such a big issue why is the railway still one of the better ones for a day out, still the only decent "main line" pres line with superb commercial opportunities for investing more and more cash in it's future.

Sometimes when you get what you want it's not the panacea you thought it would be.

ainsworth74 · 2 Dec 2014

Tracky said:
Royal Scotsman is far more in proportion...

That's much more like what I had in mind! The other looks awful but that doesn't look to bad.

Tomnick · 2 Dec 2014

grid56126 said:
I have read the whole thread and more besides.

the simple answer is for everyone who has an issue with this to DO something. Moaning on an internet forum is not going to solve the problem. Is ousting this gentleman going to solve all of the problems? If so DO IT.

Move your loco's, move your stock, give up volunteering.

if it is such a big issue why is the railway still one of the better ones for a day out, still the only decent "main line" pres line with superb commercial opportunities for investing more and more cash in it's future.

Sometimes when you get what you want it's not the panacea you thought it would be.

I'm glad that you, and hopefully many others, do enjoy a visit to the railway - ultimately, that's what it's all about! It's worth remembering, though, that the people responsible for organising the big events and running the railway on a day-to-day basis aren't the same ones making these bizarre decisions at a senior level, and I think that a lot more is owed to the former than the latter. Without the volunteers, after all, there'd be no railway! I certainly have no intention of giving up volunteering, because I enjoy what I do and care immensely about the railway and its future - indeed, that's exactly why so many of us are so concerned about the way things are at present. I've had a similar conversation with a loco owner, who has seriously considered relocating.

Given the strength of feeling at the moment, I think it's inevitable that 'something' will occur sooner or later, just as it has on so many other railways - the SVR, as detailed upthread, and more recently the WSR, to name just two that have had quite forceful uprisings. As with (hopefully) everyone else, though, the protection of the railway and its heritage is first and foremost in my mind, and I wouldn't want to do anything to potentially harm that.

Investing more and more cash is, undoubtedly, a good thing if invested appropriately - but not if it merely hastens the decline towards a glorified theme park. Once we get there, and the heritage atmosphere has been largely destroyed, it's too late.

Yew · 2 Dec 2014

With the way some people are reacting, its like it is impossible to repaint coaching stock. And even if it wasn't, its just a rake of Mk1's, not really a rare type of coaching stock. Its hardly like they've painted the only APT up like a pendolino, or put rocket into firsts 'dynamic lines' livery.

Jonfun · 2 Dec 2014

From this thread (and personal experience), in my view, the GC suffers from both a lack of effective management and a seriously low morale amongst volunteers, which I can't help thinking is quite depressing. Management and front line staff should be working towards the same goals, which ultimately should be whatever is in the best interests of the railway.

If the management's idea of bringing the railway into the black is "oh, well, we'll just open another cafe" then they really need to bring in someone experienced in the commercial side of things. Yes, you need to be sympathetic to heritage, but you can't let it run the railway - what was acceptable practice in the 1930s jist won't stand now. When I was involved there, I got the impression a significant minority of members of frontline staff - not all, I hasten to add - were more concerned about things like the colour of buttons on a jacket or minute details in building designs than helping to develop a top-class tourist attraction. Or, in one or two cases, operating the railway safely.

Tomnick · 2 Dec 2014

As always, it's important to find a sensible compromise between preservation and commercial needs. It's clearly impossible to exactly recreate every aspect of years gone by, for lots of reasons. Equally, though, if it's reasonable to do something, at least in the public eye, in an historically sympathetic manner, then it's irresponsible not to do so - the carriage shed at Swithland being an excellent example of a modern monstrosity, when some relatively small changes would have resulting in something altogether more fitting. Incidentally, that's one case where volunteers have already done as 56126 suggests, and done something about it - all that could be done, after the plans had been drawn up and submitted quietly, with apparently no consultation at all, was to formally object to the planning application. That's exactly what some did, concerned about the effect that it'd have on the fantastic - and atmospheric - signalling installation at Swithland.

At the moment, though, we seem to have the worst of both worlds - an excessively commercial approach that's threatening the heritage of the place and destroying volunteer morale, yet we seem to be offering a pretty poor product to the all-important visitors.

Yew - hopefully it's clear, by now, that the livery on the Cromwell rake is the thin end of the wedge. On its own, it's not the end of the world. It's symptomatic of a much wider problem though.

Tracky · 2 Dec 2014

Having read all the above I get the impression that the comercial managers are commercialising the railway without making money! Spending all that loaned cash on another dining train, even with a dining train and a buffet car...

As for the cafes, I left this TripAdvisor review...

I visited the GCR for their winter warmer gala in January. In the hope of something warming I opted to try the bistro at Quorn. This wasn't great as I found the staff didn't know the menu or the prices, my order of soup and a roll was placed, I was handed a raffle ticket and awaited the call.

Numbers were screeched out in order and mine was called. I expected a hot bowl of soup and a warm crusty roll and boy was I disappointed. I was handed one of Bookers finest cash and carry white baps in a paper napkin - good for very little. It was spread with spread of some kind and then I looked into my paper cup at the soup. Watery stock with lumps of winter veg...

I'm don't like to seem dismissive, and don't post bad reviews lightly. So, it was the May gala weekend and another chance seemed appropriate. This time a bacon roll, what could possibly go wrong! Well, it was brought over to me, so that's a step in the right direction. Still no plate though just a paper serviette wrapped around. And a cheap roll and "spread" for £3.

My feeling is they need to drop the prices to reflect "cafeteria" food, or increase quality to reflect restaurant or bistro dining.

Tomnick · 2 Dec 2014

Tracky said:
Having read all the above I get the impression that the comercial managers are commercialising the railway without making money! Spending all that loaned cash on another dining train, even with a dining train and a buffet car...

As for the cafes, I left this TripAdvisor review...

It's deeply embarrassing, but I really can't disagree with your review! I've only been in there a couple of times (signalmen are usually self-sufficient anyway!), and on both occasions the service was terrible and the food well overpriced for what it is. At least (across the road) the Manor House's fear of competition quickly proved to be unfounded!

Going back to the heritage theme, I've found the links toa summary of the Leicester North museum proposal that the GCR has just submitted for funding (here) and an alternative proposal put forward by one of our S&T - volunteer - colleagues (here). You can get a measure of the research that's gone into the latter, but I can assure you that it's only scratching the surface - there's an enormous pool of knowledge and experience that the railway has failed to consult.

I've also tried to copy below an image from each proposal, giving an overview. I'm not sure whether that'll work though! If not, both can be found on the GCR's official Facebook page, the latter hidden away in the comments on the GCR's post.

Any thoughts on either proposal?

L+Y · 2 Dec 2014

Tomnick said:
Any thoughts on either proposal?

The alternative proposal really is beautiful: although, wouldn't it be considerably more expensive? Or is the designer of the alternative idea proposing a very basic concrete building that would then be clad in brick to give the appearance of a Victorian GCR structure? If money were no object, then I wouldn't question for a moment that the alternative proposal is much the better: but unfortunately, it is.

As for the GC: in some regards, I have sympathy, in others, less so. The Swithland carriage shed is perhaps not ideal for ambience, but I have little doubt that it is preferable to the scourge of every preserved line: long rakes of unrestored and rotting coaching stock. If the Swithland shed also frees up space at the Rothley shed to allow the GCR's operational carriages and diesel locomotives to see more frequent attention from the paintbrush to keep them looking smart, then all the better. I also fully understand the need for a single track bridge over the MML: yes, it's not ideal, but it's preferable to the realistic alternative of no bridge at all.

The Cromwell Pullman, and multicoloured locomotives do strike me as going too far, though, and it definitely adds to the idea of the line being the plaything of one rich donor.

Tomnick · 2 Dec 2014

The construction details of the alternative proposal are (as with all others aspects of it) open for discussion and suggestion, but a steel framed structure with brick cladding to give the heritage appearance (broadly as you suggest) would seem to be a sensible compromise. I don't doubt that it'd cost more, but not necessarily a huge amount so. That'd be, hopefully, balanced by greater benefits both to the operational railway and the museum itself though!

Again, I fully appreciate the need for an additional carriage shed, for the reasons stated. It's a shame that the plan to provide such a facility at Nunckley Hill, accessed from the new Mountsorrel branch, fell through, but the Swithland site would have been a fair compromise had it not been for the hideously intrusive design! A more sympathetic outline proposal is, I think, contained within that same Facebook discussion - broadly similar in principle and cost, but rather more fitting in appearance. It's a shame, again, that those volunteers who have spent so much time researching the architecture and construction details of the London Extension weren't consulted...

Finally, the Gap! That's rather different - the proposal for the single track bridge has been made public at various stages and a greater level of consultation carried out, and the decision to go for single track explained and justified. As a result, the vast majority accept that it's the right choice. It's a far more desirable approach than deliberately keeping it under the radar!

Tracky · 2 Dec 2014

You know, I'm going to go completely off track here and say something completely unexpected. I dont like either version.

I don't like mock heritage, as it can look a little too much like the Disneyland castle. I don't like the modern one either as it is trying too hard to be cutting edge.

I do like the SVR Kidderminster carraige shed. It is simple, basic, relatively unobtrusive for its size and very functional.

My honest opinion. Rebuild Belgrave & Birstall following the original design and consider building a straight three road building of simple, Shildon/Kidderminster design, on the land occupied by the current Leicester North.

Priorities should then be bridging the gap, combining the railways, and double tracking Rothley - Leicester.

On an unrelated note. I love the 1960s modernism of the WCML stations. I find the vision the architects had for Birmingham International and others oddly beautiful.

Tomnick · 2 Dec 2014

It's a fair point, but what do you mean by "mock heritage"? A reconstruction of the original Belgrave & Birstall station would be no different to a new-build terminus inspired by Marylebone and, architecturally, based very closely on Nottingham Vic. Operationally and commercially, a proper terminus would be more appropriate than trying to make what was essentially a through station (with minimal facilities) function as the southern terminus, and cosmetically I'm not sure that it'd have the required effect. I'd still much rather see that, though, than the proposal which seems to, as I understand it, include a passenger station wedged along one side (the east) of the site, on a formation substantially slewed from the original!

Tracky · 2 Dec 2014

A grand city centre terminus would be completely out of place on the outskirts of Leicester and would be out of proportion with less than 4 full length platforms behind.

Again, a typically incorrect suggestion (but one often found on 15 inch lines) would be to run straight onto a turntable at the South end. Turning locos would be an attraction in itself and would add to the realism when services are running to Nottingham South on a full length double track (less bridge) mainline railway.

Tomnick · 3 Dec 2014

Yes, a grand terminus would be out of place there, but would that matter if it could be (somehow!) integrated into its surroundings so that it at least 'looks right' from the train and the station approach road? I've not given that much thought, but the fact that both are in a cutting should make that easier by masking most of the surroundings. Although only three of the platforms could really be described as full length, the remaining three (all of which would form part of the museum space) would still be convincingly long.

On the other hand, of course, a reconstructed Belgrave & Birstall (as much as I'd like to see such a thing!) would look out of place with the pattern of traffic serving it, and - more importantly - wouldn't offer much in the way of facilities. I know that it'd probably still be an improvement over the current station, but a station with full facilities would have so much more potential - the opportunity to start some dining trains at Leicester instead, for example, tapping into a whole new market. Access from an island platform to the museum would be less than ideal too, still leaving the passenger station as a separate entity rather than being properly integrated with the museum.

Flipper · 3 Dec 2014

To be fair, in 1895 much of the site of Marylebone station didnt look massively dissimilar to Birstall today.

This alternative proposal keeps the operational station of the GCR at the heart of the new museum, not shunted off to the East. Visitors to the museum will be able to stand on one of the museum platforms and see service trains (and with 12 coach platforms, fairly significant trains) arriving and departing at the opposite platform face. Better experience for the visitors, and better also for the railway, who can continue to run trains in and out of their terminus quickly and easily.

In the interests of informing the debate, and hopefully answering a few questions, I include below a brief design statement from the chap who has worked on this alternative proposal.

I also include a link to a public DropBox site containing a large number of drawings and sketches relating to the proposal. Whilst it was only a proposal to stimulate discussion, and remind GCR plc that there are ways of designing new buildings which complement and enhance the lines character, rather than clashing with and degrading it, you will still find a lot more in the way of design details for this proposal than you will with the plcs preferred Ice Rink design ! Some of the sketches contain variations on the theme, and may hark back to earlier iterations of the proposal.

The designer is a career railwayman, and a respected student of the GCRs history and architecture.

The link to the drawings:

Leicester Station Drawings

The proposal, in the designers own words . . .

About two years ago I produced a set of outline drawings for a combined museum and station at Birstall, based loosely on the architecture found at London Marylebone and Nottingham Victoria.

The station part was to consist of two 10-13 coach platforms and a 6 coach bay (platforms 5-7) to the west of the station.

The museum part was to occupy the four platforms to the East (platforms 1-4)
Platforms 1-6 would be covered by a three span overall roof allowing 6 vehicles (BR Mk1 in length) to be kept undercover in each platform. The four museum platforms would be sealed with glass doors at the north end.

The main station building would be at the south end of the station and contain a large booking hall to the west with the museum entrance to the East.

The first floor would be occupied by a large restaurant with views across the concourse and the city.

The building would be surmounted by a clock tower similar to that found in Nottingham.

The main building would be flanked by two wings extending the length of the overall roof with the usual station facilities being found on the ground floor of the west wing with the east wing being given over to smaller exhibition and museum spaces for small artefacts an archive and research facility could occupy the first floor of the west wing.

To the north of the station canopies would extend from the end of the overall roof along the platforms.

Rail access to the passenger station would be through the western portal of Station Road bridge with access to the museum through the eastern portal. This would require some earthworks widening the cutting to the north of Station Road bridge with retaining walls.

The track layout shown is designed to allow the whole of the station to be operated as a main line terminus but many of the signals would be fixed with only shunting moves in use.

As the station would require substantial foundations it would be possible to construct a car park beneath the station.

In its fullest development a further building resembling a parcels station could be added to the west end extending the museum and facilities for turning locomotives at the north end of the site.

GCR 'Cromwell Pullman'

grid56126

Member

RailUK Forums

Tomnick

Established Member

bunnahabhain

Established Member

grid56126

Member

ainsworth74

Forum Staff

Tomnick

Established Member

Yew

Established Member

Jonfun

Established Member

Tomnick

Established Member

Tracky

Member

Tomnick

Established Member

L+Y

Member

Tomnick

Established Member

Tracky

Member

Tomnick

Established Member

Tracky

Member

Tomnick

Established Member

Flipper

Member