Great Central Railway (North Notts)

[Greybeard33]

Hmm, I think giving the GC to LMR in 1958 was a bit like putting the fox in charge of the hen house - LMS-LNER competition on the London - Nottingham - Sheffield corridor was still alive and kicking 10 years after nationalisation! But I doubt that the BRB intent was to close the GC at that stage, just to co-ordinate operations and cut costs - this was several years before Beeching.

I think the rationale for concentrating operations on Nottingham Midland in the 1960s, rather than diverting Midland line trains on to the GC at Loughborough, was the Midland station's better connectivity westwards, to Derby and the W Midlands. Nottingham Victoria was 3/4 mile away on the other side of the city centre, making connections difficult, and redeveloping the Victoria station site as a shopping centre no doubt brought in some welcome cash. I suppose it would have been possible to build some high level platforms on the GC above the Midland station, but expensive. And while the Nottingham Midland - Melton line was still open, St Pancras - Nottingham Midland - Sheffield Midland was not much slower than Marylebone - Nottingham Victoria - Sheffield Victoria. Sheffield trains did not have to reverse in Nottingham Midland. Also the GC through Nottingham was mainly in cuttings and tunnels or on viaducts, so relatively expensive to maintain.

 

[edwin_m]

I think the rationale for concentrating operations on Nottingham Midland in the 1960s, rather than diverting Midland line trains on to the GC at Loughborough, was the Midland station's better connectivity westwards, to Derby and the W Midlands. Nottingham Victoria was 3/4 mile away on the other side of the city centre, making connections difficult, and redeveloping the Victoria station site as a shopping centre no doubt brought in some welcome cash. I suppose it would have been possible to build some high level platforms on the GC above the Midland station, but expensive. And while the Nottingham Midland - Melton line was still open, St Pancras - Nottingham Midland - Sheffield Midland was not much slower than Marylebone - Nottingham Victoria - Sheffield Victoria. Sheffield trains did not have to reverse in Nottingham Midland. Also the GC through Nottingham was mainly in cuttings and tunnels or on viaducts, so relatively expensive to maintain.

I agree with all that, although it would have been possible to integrate the nearby Arkwright Street station with Midland if the will had been there.

I think the connectivity issue is a bit broader though, especially considering Derby. Had the Midland network have been closed instead of the GC and associated routes, then Derby would have been left with only an east-west route with London trains making a roundabout journey through Nottingham and no obvious route northwards. Birmingham could still have been reached (from Nottingham or Derby) via a link to the Midland in Burton, but to maintain reasonable connectivity to Derby would have involved keeping most of the Midland routes in the area as well as the GC routes. Of course with much of the relevant management being based in Derby this factor might have carried a bit more weight than it strictly should have...

 

[Greybeard33]

I agree with all that, although it would have been possible to integrate the nearby Arkwright Street station with Midland if the will had been there.

I think the connectivity issue is a bit broader though, especially considering Derby. Had the Midland network have been closed instead of the GC and associated routes, then Derby would have been left with only an east-west route with London trains making a roundabout journey through Nottingham and no obvious route northwards. Birmingham could still have been reached (from Nottingham or Derby) via a link to the Midland in Burton, but to maintain reasonable connectivity to Derby would have involved keeping most of the Midland routes in the area as well as the GC routes. Of course with much of the relevant management being based in Derby this factor might have carried a bit more weight than it strictly should have...

Indeed Arkwright Street was the terminus for a couple of years, between closure of Nottingham Victoria and final withdrawal of GC services to Rugby. However, it had only two platforms atop a viaduct, and the entrance was on the other side of (what was then) a busy main road from the Midland station. In the '60s there was very little will to invest in infrastructure improvements that might have averted closures.

I think the second Beeching report of 1965 (thankfully never implemented) proposed closure of the MML south of Leicester in addition to the GC closure. Derby/Leicester - London services would have been rerouted via Nuneaton and the WCML to Euston, presumably with a reversal at Nuneaton. Nottingham - London services would have used the GN route via Grantham to Kings Cross. I can still remember the cries of outrage in the E Midlands when the map appeared in the press and on TV!

 

[Tomnick]

The "first sod" ceremony is tomorrow.

Currently there's no plan to move the loco shed, as there's enough room to run a single track past the side of it if the present selection of grounded vans alongside the shed are relocated. As the bridge itself is to be single track, and this puts the start of the single track section roughly opposite the signal box, there are operational advantages.

A single line commencing immediately north of the station will, I think, be an operating nightmare, especially if the single line junction were to be so close to the station that Down arrivals would be affected by moves to and from the single line. It'd work as a very untidy interim solution, but the plan in the medium term surely has to be something that gets double track as far north as possible (hopefully well beyond the canal bridge) for both operational and visual benefit.

 

[edwin_m]

A single line commencing immediately north of the station will, I think, be an operating nightmare, especially if the single line junction were to be so close to the station that Down arrivals would be affected by moves to and from the single line. It'd work as a very untidy interim solution, but the plan in the medium term surely has to be something that gets double track as far north as possible (hopefully well beyond the canal bridge) for both operational and visual benefit.

I don't think there is any requirement for an overlap here under Absolute Block rules, as the clearing point applies to the first stop signal. So the convergence to single line could be right at the platform ends and Down arrivals could run in at the same time as Up arrivals - but would have to be brought nearly to a stand at each stop signal on the approach. They could avoid this by timetabling trains to pass on the double track south of Loughborough instead of in the station.

 

[mr_jrt]

Is there any merit in building the new abutments (and central support) suitable for double track in the distant future (or at least suitable for adding a second set of bridges adjacent to them)? Seems very short-sighted to build in a bottleneck after all this time.

 

[IKBrunel]

From your mention of central support you're referring to the MML bridge not the canal bridge?

The route immediately south of the MML bridge site is constrained between a waterway/floodplain and a factory & it's carpark.

Between the two bridges, there is some Severn Trent infrastructure associated with a flood bank which also encroaches on your double track alignment

So you're not just talking about the extra cost of some bridge supports, you're talking about major increases in cost and complexity which could increase the project risks.

It's a now or never project & they're right to focus on the essential requirements. Is continuous double track really likely to be needed for the whole length of the GCR given the amount of traffic...?

A benefit of the single track would be the option to put in a parallel walking/cycling route linking the MML & GCR stations, since the current route is long & meandering. Given this is the nearest GCR station to a mainline station, that could help increase much needed ticket box revenue.
But I dont suppose it will happen due to safety concerns about people hopping the fence for better photos etc.

 

[Flying Phil]

As it happens..

I spotted a construction compound started in the triangle of land between the GCR, MML and A60 today (behind the brush works). It appears work has commenced on the GCR overbridge.

www.loughboroughecho.net/news/local-news/ceremony-mark-start-work-gcr-10864250

I suspect even once this bridge is in place it will be some time before the two lines are completely connected, presumably the Loughborough canal bridge still needs work, embankment extending and loco shed removing.

The loco shed has space on the western side for a single line to go past it (there has been mention of two tracks there as well?) When the shed was built in the 1970's the future through route was allowed for!
Also the latest information is that it will be a new single span bridge over the MML so the construction risk with the old central support has gone. There has been an assessment of the canal bridge and it is not in "too bad" condition.