Network Rail (NR) gives Great Central Railway (GCR) "Bridging the gap" go-ahead

[fsmr]

In our local press

Great Central Railway to 'bridge' the gap between Leicester and Nottingham within five years

GREAT Central Railway is hoping to ‘bridge’ the gap between the Loughborough heritage line and the Nottingham section to the north with the news a connection is to be built over the Midland Mainline.
GCR has launched a £1m Bridge To The Future fund-raising appeal after forming a parnership with Network Rail to build a bridge over the Midland Main Line at Loughborough.
Design work is underway and the new structure made up of two reclaimed rail bridges from Reading is expected to be in place running over the four tracks of the Midland Mainline by mid-2015 - allowing the demolished 500m link between the two sections, rejoining Leicester to Nottingham via an 18 mile heritage railway.
GCR managing director Bill Ford said: “We are delighted to announce this incredible step forward.
“Building this bridge unlocks the rest of the re-unification project which will create an attraction with truly international appeal.”
Following the bridge’s construction, other elements of the overall project include repairing an existing canal bridge, building a new bridge over Railway Terrace Road in Loughborough and replacing a missing embankment.
The estimated cost for the complete scheme is £8m, and it is hoped trains will be running within five years.
Mark Fowler, of Great Central Railway Nottingham, said: “There is huge interest and excitement amongst both railway enthusiasts and the general public in seeing this project succeed.
“It is vitally important to us that the local communities join us in this vision too. It will drive economic benefit during construction and in the longer term too.”
Phil Verster, route managing director for Network Rail, said: “Our electrification teams are already making significant changes to the infrastructure in this area so it’s the ideal opportunity to get the bridge in place, with minimal disruption and cost.
“Once the full scheme is complete it will bring significant economic benefits to the region as well as reinstating a piece of our railway heritage.”
Loughborough MP Nicky Morgan has worked to bring about reunification. She said: “This is an incredibly exciting project for Loughborough, Leicestershire and beyond and I am delighted to give it my whole-hearted support.
“We have all seen the bridges lying next to the GCR station in Loughborough. To realise that, with the support of Network Rail and other key parties, their re-use to bring together the two parts of the Great Central Railway is now within sight, is a thrilling prospect.
“I am convinced that reunification will bring big benefits to our local economy and I do hope everyone locally will support this important first step.”Nigel Harris, chairman of Great Central Railway Development, said: “This agreement is the start of the Great Central’s most exciting adventure yet; the delivery of a vision of an intercity heritage railway.
“It’s been a very long haul to get to this point, especially over the last 20 years, but what has unlocked the problem has been Network Rail’s willingness to work in partnership with GCR, Charnwood Borough Council, Loughborough MP Nicky Morgan and other stakeholders.
"The whole community is invited to participate. If you’ve ever wanted to see this happen, now is the time to act!”
To support the appeal, or for more information about building the bridge and the rest of the reunification project, visit www.gcrailway.co.uk/unify

Also video on on tonight's BBC EMT

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b020s83h/East_Midlands_Today_31_05_2013/
at 9:30 into the clip

 

[matt]

Excellent news for the Great Central Railways

 

[Bedpan]

Yes, wonderful news. Nice to see that there is still co-operation between the "big" railway and preservation projects.

The clip starts at 09:30 on East Midlands today.

Also good to see that 46521 is back in use again - I was getting a bit worried having not heard anything.

 

[fsmr]

Excellent news for the Great Central Railways

Yes be an interesting power struggle LOL
Great as I was born and brought up next to the GC at Birstall in 1962 in the last throes of 9F steam freights

I personally think they should concentrate the MPD repairs up at Ruddington and forget about any extra cost involved in a new location off track at Loughborough with perhaps Diesel and Steam locos in service based at Rothley or what land is left at Loughborough once the new mainline alignment goes in where the current MPD is based.

Be great for testing new stock, especially with Wabtec Brush able to get direct access rather than convoluted road trip to the 60 mph (outside of public running) southern section, not to mention rail tours and potential for development both ends in terms of Nottingham Leicester commuter traffic.
And to think, in the late 60s, when my late father was on the council at Birstall, there was a real danger of the line becoming a bypass for the A6, or even worse, landfill in the deep cutting. Now where have we seen that done before!!
He thankfully voted against any scheme to destroy the redundant route and the rest is history

 

[Tomnick]

I personally think they should concentrate the MPD repairs up at Ruddington

It'd be a cracking idea, but for the fact that the local firestarters (and other assorted vandals) seem to have a bit of an attraction to the place!

Hopefully both sections of the GCR will be able to work together to operate as a single railway anyway, with both sections bringing something to the party.

 

[E50019]

excellent news, but its going to cost £8m and trains will be running in 5 years.

Where is all that money going to come from? Do they think they can raise more than a million pounds a year every year for the next 5 years in addition to the railways normal activities.

Cant see that happening.

I can also see plenty of political issues upon joining up, but its years away.

I wonder how the GCR diesel policy will go down at Ruddington...

 

[steevp]

I wonder how the GCR diesel policy will go down at Ruddington...

Not knowing the background I was wondering what the issue was - please could you elaborate? Thanks

 

[Chris125]

excellent news, but its going to cost £8m and trains will be running in 5 years.

It should be noted that's £8m at commercial rates, they should be able to make some healthy inroads into that especially if Lafarge help as they've done with the Mountsorrel branch.

Chris

 

[E50019]

Not knowing the background I was wondering what the issue was - please could you elaborate? Thanks

GCR diesel policy was quite significant, i dont know if its still as restrictive. All the home fleet are in hertiage liveries pre BR blue, no 'modern' locomotives that came after steam. i know there are exceptions 33 (NRM) 37 (pway department use) etc

In recent times visiting engines have fallen into these areas but the the home fleet remain in the most part green, including the DMUs Difficult to see a 56 being painted green.

The GCR (N) has a very diiferent set up.

 

[steevp]

Thanks E50019 - that explains the situation (and your comment) well. It does seem that the reconnection will be about far more than just putting the infrastructure in. It would be nice to think that they are already thinking about things like this

 

[Jonfun]

I would be very genuinely concerned about the state of matters if the colour that the trains are painted caused any problems whatsoever, quite honestly.

 

[gordonthemoron]

what are GCR intending on doing about the train shed in Loughborough? AFAIR it blocks the track to Ruddington.

 

[E50019]

I would be very genuinely concerned about the state of matters if the colour that the trains are painted caused any problems whatsoever, quite honestly.

Then clearly you are not as informed as others. Many people at the GCRN ended up there due to being fed up/hacked off etc with the GCR.

The reunion could be a very interesting bun fight!

Its well known that certain people believe the livery of an engine is far more important than anything else:roll:

 

[Jonfun]

I never said it wouldn't happen. I said I'd be very worried if it did, as it would add a lot of weight to some peoples argument that some of these places just set out to play on a standard gauge train set rather than operate a quality visitor attraction. And I'm glad you think you're qualified to say how informed or otherwise I am... :roll:

This has the potential to become a real boost for Leicestershire's (and indeed Nottinghamshire) tourism. If they end up squabbling over petty things like the colour of trains then there isn't any point building a bridge in the first place, although I admit it would be quite comical to watch.

 

[MCW]

Then clearly you are not as informed as others. Many people at the GCRN ended up there due to being fed up/hacked off etc with the GCR.

The reunion could be a very interesting bun fight!

Its well known that certain people believe the livery of an engine is far more important than anything else:roll:

i know volunteers from both sections and the attitudes are completely different.

i think that gCR(south) need to realise that diesels are not all green and ochre with some blue. rail preservation is about things as a whole and hopefully both groups will recognise this and accept that everyone has varying tastes. it is nice to see more modern but now obsolete liveries on heritage lines, it attracts more people and brings out more memories. the older generations may remember the Green and blue well but we need to think beyond that, younger enthusiasts and the general visitor would like to see more colour.

anyway despite this, it is all good news, its about time this damn bridge happened...

 

[ChilternHenry]

All these silly little squables, they should just build a bridge and get over it!

 

[DXMachina]

........Difficult to see a 56 being painted green.

Except this one anyway

 

[ACE1888]

Good luck to all Parties involved, when it's built it will be the making of the reborn GCR (both halves)

 

[EWS 58038]

Well if the colour is an issue then I thank the good lads at Great Western for tackling the GCR's problems.

TBH I think an HST+5 would fit the bill for the combined GCR.


Great Western HST in Derbyshire [Explore]. by neilh156, on Flickr

 

[fsmr]

Update posted yesterday on their site with details
http://www.gcrailway.co.uk/news/#8190

 

[L+Y]

I look forward to hearing how much the railways have raised so far, so hopefully they'll release that soon!

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

It should be noted that's £8m at commercial rates, they should be able to make some healthy inroads into that especially if Lafarge help as they've done with the Mountsorrel branch.

Chris

This is good news indeed, linking the two parts of the GCR over Loughborough.

By the way, do GCR passenger services go along the Mountsorrel Branch?

I presume that at the Ruddington end, the train will have to reverse into the platform there?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It'd be a cracking idea, but for the fact that the local firestarters (and other assorted vandals) seem to have a bit of an attraction to the place!

Hopefully both sections of the GCR will be able to work together to operate as a single railway anyway, with both sections bringing something to the party.

Shame to hear about the vandals etc causing problems. (As this is an old fashioned railway, could they not have old fashioned penalties imposed?)

 

[Chris125]

By the way, do GCR passenger services go along the Mountsorrel Branch?

Not at present, though it's an aim of the group who restored it.

I presume that at the Ruddington end, the train will have to reverse into the platform there?

Some kind of reversal would indeed be inevitable unless they terminate at the former GCR station or a south facing chord is constructed.

Chris

 

[Tomnick]

Not at present, though it's an aim of the group who restored it.

The moves onto and off the branch at Swithland, however, aren't signalled to passenger standards - and I can't see any sensible way of providing any such signalled moves without extensive (and expensive) resignalling and, if used on a regular basis, a significant loss of capacity between Swith and Rothley.

 

[mr_jrt]

The moves onto and off the branch at Swithland, however, aren't signalled to passenger standards - and I can't see any sensible way of providing any such signalled moves without extensive (and expensive) resignalling and, if used on a regular basis, a significant loss of capacity between Swith and Rothley.

Fortunately the forward-thinking GCR blessed its stations with expansion room, so I guess, if the Mountsorrel organisation wanted to raise the funds for extending the 3rd track from Swithland back to Rothley and having a platform of their own there, it's probably quite doable. Worthwhile? That's another matter...

 

[MK Tom]

Not sure about that, wouldn't that create a line totally different to how it was originally? I thought their intention was to use the two-axle railcar on Mountsorrel services.

I'd be interested to know what they spent making the video about bridging the gap... http://www.gcrailway.co.uk/news/#8190

 

[Tomnick]

I'd say that raising enough money for an additional running line between Swithland and Rothley, and additional platform at the latter, would be rather a challenge (and would ruin the image of a typical GC island platform) - it'd require a huge amount of resignalling at Swithland, and would still interfere with the operation there!

 

[bunnahabhain]

Not sure about that, wouldn't that create a line totally different to how it was originally? I thought their intention was to use the two-axle railcar on Mountsorrel services.

I'd be interested to know what they spent making the video about bridging the gap... http://www.gcrailway.co.uk/news/#8190

Nothing, it was done in house by a supporter of the railway who is also heavily involved in a national broadcaster, he does these things in his spare time.

 

[mr_jrt]

...just saying, if there's no capacity on the main line to run services to Rothley from the junction, the best they'll be able to offer is a trip from the halts along their branch to the sidings and back without letting anyone off as there isn't a platform nor any access at the GCR end (unless of course they do something with the whole Swithland Station idea). All fine and well, but then it's largely pointless from a visitor point of view in being connected to the GCR aside from a through train on rare occasions and a pretty bit of scenery at one end

Besides, if you're concerned about it not being as-was, then surely you'd have to rebuild the entire goods yard as well Ultimately the GCR wanted a full 4-track mainline railway. Laying a bit more track through the arches they provided and a new platform would not detract from the aesthetics. There are many faults with the idea but that isn't one of them

 

[Tomnick]

The aesthetics are a relatively trivial issue anyway, compared to the practicalities of resignalling Swithland to get another running line off the end of, presumably, the Up Loop whilst maintaining a headshunt of sorts for the sidings themselves. Even if that was achieved, it'd be difficult to use during a special event as trains now recess in the Up Loop for anything up to an hour at a time.

Personally, not speaking on behalf of anyone else, I think the only realistic way to run a passenger service over the branch connection in the short- or medium-term is, on an occasional basis, to pick up at Quorn, reverse in the Up Loop and onto the branch, then run to Rothley afterwards. A shuttle service of sorts, 'shut in' the branch all day (and thus, as you say, offering no connection with the rest of the GCR so largely pointless!), is about all that can realistically be achieved on a regular basis.