GCR (North) - Double Track?

[whhistle]

I guess when the bridge connects them both, the whole lot will just be known as GCR; especially after a few years of merging things together.

I understand the northern section isn't double tracked.

Is this a possibility (space wise)?

I guess the bridge won't be double tracked?

 

[John Webb]

The whole of the GC was built as a double-track main line, so there should be the space. But the new bridge over the MML is only single track as the expense of making it two-track would have been too much, I understand. There are also constraints on the space available on the Loughborough side of the bridge. Flying Phil's thread on the GCR Bridge project gives much of the detail.

 

[Mogulb]

Quite possible to redouble all of the route from north of MML to Ruddington, no obstructions at all. From an engineering point of view it would be very simple just need loads of track, ballast and signalling. Of course the minor matter of money will determine wether it ever happens!

 

[Worf]

Quite possible to redouble all of the route from north of MML to Ruddington, no obstructions at all. From an engineering point of view it would be very simple just need loads of track, ballast and signalling. Of course the minor matter of money will determine wether it ever happens!

How about the bit near East Leake where a developer "pinched" some of the trackbed and it is now NIMBYs gardens? Only just wide enough for single track.

 

[duffield]

How about the bit near East Leake where a developer "pinched" some of the trackbed and it is now NIMBYs gardens? Only just wide enough for single track.

Build the railway right through the end of the garden and challenge them to take you to court and show the deeds proving ownership of the land.

(Yes, I know it's not that simple, 'adverse possesion' possible or some such thing).

 

[Mogulb]

How about the bit near East Leake where a developer "pinched" some of the trackbed and it is now NIMBYs gardens? Only just wide enough for single track.

You sure? Houses in East Leake were built on the old goods yard, the track is insitu and in use on the east side of the formation.

I suspect you are confusing East Leake with the old station site at Ruddington where the houses are very close to the formation. There is room if the GCR is ever extended to the tram line for a single track to the west side.

 

[Cowley]

I guess when the bridge connects them both, the whole lot will just be known as GCR; especially after a few years of merging things together.

I understand the northern section isn't double tracked.

Is this a possibility (space wise)?

I guess the bridge won't be double tracked?

Don’t make the same mistake that I did a couple of years ago by presuming that both railways will become one single entity after a few years.
They are both very much separate operations that have worked extremely hard to build up what they have.
The GCR has obviously had a couple of decades head start and the David Clarke legacy (amongst other things) to get it the point it currently is.
Having visited the GCRN this year though I was very impressed by how much it had moved on since I last went on it about ten years earlier.
The track looks in really good shape as well as the lineside etc.
There’s loads of work going at Ruddington too. But they are very different railways despite sharing different parts of the same route.

 

[alexl92]

On the note of Cowley’s post, is there a plan in place to integrate the two railways and operate as one, or will they continue to run separately with occasional joint events in the short-medium term?

 

[Flying Phil]

I'm sure that the two railways will be co operating closely but continue as two separate entities playing to their different strengths. Time will tell! Great that they are both making good progress.

 

[E50019]

As someone involved in the GCR for over 25 years this very much seems a GCR extending north project, how that's received by the north I don't know, may be I'm wrong but that's how I understand this to be. Also remembering in recent history the GCR lost quite a lot of people for various reasons to the north, I think its going to be a big political issue to resolve who operates what to where and when, and I wish the management of both parties all the luck in the world.

I can see a double track section north of Loughborough being created but that needs infrastructure at the end, reversal of trains into Ruddington won't permit intensive timetables so the value of the double track is questioned unless significant capacity improvements are done to facilitate it, I think the GCR needs to improve the Leicester north section first, second platform and signalling to permit 2 trains at the station, this being the bottle neck at present when operating intensive timetables, it takes 30-35 mins rothley - LN - Rothley, working absolute block could potentially halve that with double track...

 

[Peter Kelford]

I'd love to see double track on the entire line from Leicester to Nottingham. Whilst I realise that we are more than edging into 'speculative ideas', I would go as far as suggesting a 60-minute morning/evening commuter service with ex-mainline Mk3s and diesels. If the full potential of the GCR's 75mph clearance and were to be used in conjunction with GCR(N) upgrades, it might be a matter of 40 minutes instead of 60 to 70, with a single stop a Loughbrough. If the GCR were to become a regular passenger carrying line, it would certainly allow the GCR to recoup some of its costs. A season ticket on EMT costs £2000. If GCR charged £1500>, perhaps passengers might take the train.

 

[AndyW33]

I'd love to see double track on the entire line from Leicester to Nottingham. Whilst I realise that we are more than edging into 'speculative ideas', I would go as far as suggesting a 60-minute morning/evening commuter service with ex-mainline Mk3s and diesels. If the full potential of the GCR's 75mph clearance and were to be used in conjunction with GCR(N) upgrades, it might be a matter of 40 minutes instead of 60 to 70, with a single stop a Loughbrough. If the GCR were to become a regular passenger carrying line, it would certainly allow the GCR to recoup some of its costs. A season ticket on EMT costs £2000. If GCR charged £1500>, perhaps passengers might take the train.

Sounds great, but the "entire line from Leicester to Nottingham" won't ever be that. At the southern end the line terminates at Leicester North, aka Belgrave and Birstall, about 3 miles from the city centre. Can't get any further south as the infrastructure has effectively been destroyed between there and the site of Leicester Central Station.
At the northern end the line terminates at Ruddington, via a reversal into the heritage centre site. This is about 6 miles from the city centre by road. Now surviving alignments north of Ruddington are used in sections by the NET tram services, and the nearest tram stop at Ruddington Lane is only about a mile as the crow flies from the Heritage Centre. Unfortunately there's no direct road or footpath.

 

[Peter Kelford]

Sounds great, but the "entire line from Leicester to Nottingham" won't ever be that. At the southern end the line terminates at Leicester North, aka Belgrave and Birstall, about 3 miles from the city centre. Can't get any further south as the infrastructure has effectively been destroyed between there and the site of Leicester Central Station.
At the northern end the line terminates at Ruddington, via a reversal into the heritage centre site. This is about 6 miles from the city centre by road. Now surviving alignments north of Ruddington are used in sections by the NET tram services, and the nearest tram stop at Ruddington Lane is only about a mile as the crow flies from the Heritage Centre. Unfortunately there's no direct road or footpath.

I realise that, just a good dose of wishful thinking...

 

[Roast Veg]

I really do wish there were a better pedestrian connection to the NET at Ruddingto, hopefully it's not too far in the future plans.

 

[Neen Sollars]

Build the railway right through the end of the garden and challenge them to take you to court and show the deeds proving ownership of the land.

(Yes, I know it's not that simple, 'adverse possesion' possible or some such thing).

I think adverse possession is common law. Railways were built after obtaining an Act of Parliament, no adverse possession when someone is trespassing on railway land. So your statement is not far off if the developer used land to which they were not entitled. The dispute in the circs you outline would be between the developer and the householders after the land had been reclaimed. Are you sure the railway did not sell the land to the developer? However I am not a lawyer so would not know the absolute legal position.

 

[Up Main]

You sure? Houses in East Leake were built on the old goods yard, the track is insitu and in use on the east side of the formation.

I suspect you are confusing East Leake with the old station site at Ruddington where the houses are very close to the formation. There is room if the GCR is ever extended to the tram line for a single track to the west side.

Pictures from 2018 at East Leake Station illustrate the topic.

 

[Flying Phil]

Thanks for those pictures Up Main.
They would seem to show that a second line could be put in, as the house gardens are next to the existing running line and the old double track is on the un-used side?

 

[Up Main]

Thanks for those pictures Up Main.
They would seem to show that a second line could be put in, as the house gardens are next to the existing running line and the old double track is on the un-used side?

There is no physical impediment to reintsating the former down line formation, anywhere, from the new GCR MML bridge at Loughborough, through to Ruddington, other than clearing the vegetation and of course all the bridge structures being of sufficent standards.