Lottery turns down funding for GCR Museum

No good news from the planned museum in Leicester...
http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/plans-new-railway-museum-leicester-925697

 

Not good news - and a cautionary tale for all involved with big lottery bids. I am trying to recall - I presume there was a 'Stage 1' pass, but now the project has been dropped at stage 2 level.

I am surprised that the HLF didn't give the GCR and NRM chance to address the areas concern (clearly quite a bit of this has been going on) and keep doing so until they were happy. That they haven't may suggest some pretty fundamental concerns about the project, so perhaps the GCR/NRM need to try and learn from this.

I wonder if the HLF would entertain an amended application?

Steven

 

I also notice recent publicity about the availability of funding from Camelot to good causes, and some of Peter Soulsby's charges. That makes me wonder if this is actually about the quality of the bid, or something else.

 

See this which shows there is less money available and they are promising more money than they are getting in so this could be one of many like this.

https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/u...l-Lottery-funding-for-good-causes-Summary.pdf

 

Perhaps they did? The article quotes "[Sir Peter] claimed every time the GCR had answered their questions the HLF had invented new concerns", which sounds a bit one-sided, not to say petulant.

 

Would the cost of a Lottery ticket price going up, and the number of people playing going down have something to do this?

 

This has nothing to do with Bridging the Gap. How about a seperate thread for Museum topics?

Andy

 

Those of us impatient at delays with the L&B application would do well to pay attention to events at the GC. Different application going to a different body of course, but it's indicative of what's essential to achieve a successful outcome, however frustrating the delays resulting from the slow and steady approach.

 

HLF will tell you that one of the golden rules of applying to the HLF is that you never say that the project will still go ahead if the HLF turns you down. It is basically saying that you don't need the HLF funding. Sir Peter is quoted as saying" “This is not the end of the project. We remain committed to it, and the challenge now is for us to find a Plan B and an alternative source of finance." and, in saying this has effectively just done that. Perhaps that was also said in one of their answering submissions.

 

It is a shame that they lost the money for this and I expect it now wont go ahead, but having said that from the picture of the proposed museum it looks a really ugly design. Nothing remotely railway looking about it, just the absolute worst of ugly modern architecture.

Surely would it not be better for the railway to build something more akin to a new shed. They were going to rebuild the one they acquired from Workington at Loughborough and at least it would be something original that was being rebuilt and more useful for a working Steam GCR too and in the middle of the proposed linked up 18 mile future railway.

The whole point of the GCR should be to see stuff running, not static.

 

Whilst "The whole point of the GCR should be to see stuff running, not static", there's a lot of railway history and the artifacts that go with it which can only be shown to visitors in the context of a museum. I'm sure I don't need to itemise the different categories, but just have a look in the small museum at Loughborough. How many of these items could be displayed om a purely working railway? The passenger only sees the 'tip of the iceberg'. So I'm very much in favour of a museum. Which doesn't say I also wouldn't be happier with a building which looks the part. And the Leicester station site certainly needs something extra to turn it into a 'destination' rather than everybody simply go back on the train they've just arrived on.
Andy

 

Surely this doenst necessarily preclude the GCR building museum anyway? Perhaps a less expensive building incorporating parts of the shed that they acquired a few years ago- would certainly get my vote.

Chris

 

Was the planned museum going to cost the GCR anything (other than people's time), or was the funding all hoped to come from the Lottery, the NRM and the council?
Cetainly I think the GCR's own finances should be spent on 'Bridging the Gap' in preference.

Andy

 

I apologise for my awful spelling/punctuation. Fat fingers trying to type in a phone screen.

Chris

 

I hate to say this but I think the GCR has completely screwed up on the whole Site at Leicester North, its terrible. The station was originally Belgrave and Birstall and it was in exactly the same style as Rothley and Quorn ( ie nice) . The buildings itself survived until 1977 when they were demolished and the final part demolished in 1985 and then the island platform around 1990.

Then there seemed to be crazy ideas to build some giant terminus, now the museum etc

It would have been far far better to have kept what was there and rebuild the station exactly as it was (ie same as Rothley etc) and just put in some run around loops. You can see some pictures here of what was and what was destroyed.

The fact that it seemed to last so late and then get destroyed is particularly sad. You can see the blocked up entrance to the staircase on the bridge which looks stupid.

Whoever made the decisions about it all really failed. Better to just miss out visiting Leicester North completely and concentrate on proper GCR at Rothley, Quorn, Loughborough etc.

See lots of photos here.

http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/b/belgrave_and_birstall/index.shtml

 

There was a plan to make Lecister North a minature Marylebone station back in the early 1990's, but a high pressure gas pipe put paid to that. I have to to to say the GC have always wanted to make Lecister North something more than what it is, they just seem to be a bit unlucky when they have the chance to.

 

I assumed that the original building wasn't used because access from an overbridge is not ideal in every case.

 

I must admit to agreeing with you. I am aware also of the increased risk of vandalism at the site, certainly a few years ago. I am somewhat relieved also that the "Olympic Swimming Pool" lookalike museum building probably won't now be built. All the designs put forward appeared gopping to me.