Bridge that Gap: Great Central Railway News

Oh dear......

 

Agreed, but is not the line leased to GCR(N) ?

 

It appears not according to the GCR(N) website, unless they are being economically with the description “owned”.

 

Not sure what the operating structure is, though mention of "EMRT" seems to have been a fairly recent development, with GCR(N) tending to be used as the lines "owners" prior to about 18 months ago. Isn't GCR(N) the operating company for the "north" with EMRT being a charitable body that is custodian of the route infastructure?
I found EMRT had "appeared", with a fairly bare (and therefore new) website when I was searching online last year for the LNER(GC) Heritage Trust that used to have a website requesting donations for projects on the "north" operation, but which had completely vanished by then other than references to them on the Companies House site .

 

Would a GCR station on the north be an acceptable solution to bridge the gap trust of actually linking with the north ?
As in a the GCR drive the gap project, complete it obviously, the build a new northern “terminus” south of the freight terminal the GCR taking on the lease or liabilities to that point.

I really can’t see the full North and South linking as a fully united organisation ever, I think there probably is a very outlook and aim at each end of the former mainline.

 

The positive being regards the North, a future cord onto the mainline appears to cross wasteland and should be fairly easy (funds and permission permitting) job.

I can’t see the good people of Ruddington being to happy with big steam locos running round their trains more frequently than now.

 

Why on earth would the north agree to hand over its commercial traffic, main line connection and half of its railway to another organisation? That would be commercial suicide.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Of course it could be possible that all the groups are working together to achieve a common aim......Most people do co-operate most of the time.

 

What is it that some of you don't understand about the word "merge" ? Combine the two organisations and nobody loses out "commercially". The combined railway will be able to produce more business than the two parts separately and nobody will be out of pocket.

 

There is one Transport and Works order to cover both lines. The TWO contains a clause to potentially allow both lines to run on each others tracks (subject to agreement). To not amalgamate both bodies into one joint affair together would simply be daft.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1995/2143/made#f00001

 

Steam locomotives and their emissions are exempt from nuisance legislation within the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The residents of Ruddington would have limited ability to complain any further about big steam locos running round their trains more frequently.

 

While I also prefer organisational unity, I think we need to let time tell over the question of amalgamation - it may be better and perfectly reasonable to exist in partnership rather than committing to full marriage.

 

For now, at least. Our movement really needs to stay ahead of the curve in this respect, examining any and all measures possible to forestall any with designs on ammendments to legislation which could spell the end, for both steam and diesel traction in the heritage sector.

Before anyone claims this is an unfounded concern, I'd remind everyone that the generation now leaving tertiary education (i.e. the most likely to start finding their way into government) are likely to be a lot less accommodating concerning exemptions to matters environmental than those we've come to know.

As always, complacency will be our greatest liability, most especially whilst we still have a window within which to address those matters which can be improved with some of that flexible thinking of which our movement has consistently shown over the past 70 years.

 

I'm sorry, I don't see the logic in that. To my mind it would only lead to the sort of petty nit-picking that some posters here have already been demonstrating.
Can you expand on your reasoning, please ?

 

With respect, "merge" or "merger" is not an unequivocal term in respect of a combination of corporate entities. The substance of the intention could be achieved by a contractual agreement between the parties. If however it is deemed essential that some sort of legal combination of entities, absent an act of parliament, the amalgamation/combination/merger/fusion (the last a term which was popular at the Grouping) is normally achieved by one body acquiring the other, or a new entity acquiring both bodies, with or without the winding up of the previous entity or entities (or wait until one goes belly up and acquire the assets you want).

 

I’m not sure why you quoted my post in yours, as I was replying to someone else’s daft suggestion. I fully concur that a merger is necessary to achieve a cohesive whole.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I tend to agree. However, I can also see circumstances in which getting a resolution that would support a full merger will be disproportionately harder than agreeing a partnership arrangement, and that the extra value of a full merger won't justify that extra work.

 

Forget about the EPA and look to the Clean Air Act 1993. in particular, Section 43 which states:
Railway engines.
(1)Section 1 (prohibition of emissions of dark smoke) shall apply in relation to railway locomotive engines as it applies in relation to buildings.
(2)In the application of section 1 to such engines, for the reference in subsection (1) of that section to the occupier of the building there shall be substituted a reference to the owner of the engine.
(3)The owner of any railway locomotive engine shall use any practicable means there may be for minimising the emission of smoke from the chimney on the engine and, if he fails to do so, he shall, if smoke is emitted from that chimney, be guilty of an offence.
(4)A person guilty of an offence under subsection (3) shall be liable on summary conviction—
(a)to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale; or
(b)to cumulative penalties on continuance in accordance with section 50.
(5)Except as provided in this section, nothing in Parts I to III applies to smoke, grit or dust from any railway locomotive engine.

And, if you want to know what Section 1 says:
Prohibition of dark smoke from chimneys.
(1)Dark smoke shall not be emitted from a chimney of any building, and if, on any day, dark smoke is so emitted, the occupier of the building shall be guilty of an offence.
(2)Dark smoke shall not be emitted from a chimney (not being a chimney of a building) which serves the furnace of any fixed boiler or industrial plant, and if, on any day, dark smoke is so emitted, the person having possession of the boiler or plant shall be guilty of an offence.
(3)This section does not apply to emissions of smoke from any chimney, in such classes of case and subject to such limitations as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State, lasting for not longer than such periods as may be so prescribed.
(4)In any proceedings for an offence under this section, it shall be a defence to prove—
(a)that the alleged emission was solely due to the lighting up of a furnace which was cold and that all practicable steps had been taken to prevent or minimise the emission of dark smoke;
(b)that the alleged emission was solely due to some failure of a furnace, or of apparatus used in connection with a furnace, and that—
(i)the failure could not reasonably have been foreseen, or, if foreseen, could not reasonably have been provided against; and
(ii)the alleged emission could not reasonably have been prevented by action taken after the failure occurred; or
(c)that the alleged emission was solely due to the use of unsuitable fuel and that—
(i)suitable fuel was unobtainable and the least unsuitable fuel which was available was used; and
(ii)all practicable steps had been taken to prevent or minimise the emission of dark smoke as the result of the use of that fuel;
or that the alleged emission was due to the combination of two or more of the causes specified in paragraphs (a) to (c) and that the other conditions specified in those paragraphs are satisfied in relation to those causes respectively.
(5)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction—
(a)in the case of a contravention of subsection (1) as respects a chimney of a private dwelling, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale; and
(b)in any other case, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
(6)This section has effect subject to section 51 (duty to notify offences to occupier or other person liable).

'Dark smoke' is smoke darker than Ringelmann shade 2

 

So the TWO allows them to run on each others' lines by agreement - so there is no legal reason to require merger
Operationally - joint railways and shared sections and specific rulebooks for shared sections go back to the dawn of the railways - again, no operating necessity to merge
Commercially? Who knows? where does it say merger will guarantee more income? Reduction in costs seems very limited, as the stuff you'd strip out is the stuff people come to see. If it was just run as an operational railway you'd have bus shelters for stations and a dogbox to run it. Worst case scenario you'd have less farebox income as everybody rides both lines as one and the fare is less than the cost of riding both (and there isn't double the discretionary spend)
The reason to have a merger is if there is a positive benefit in doing so.

 

4(c)(i) might be a fruitful defence if you can take the magistrate through the intricacies of firebox technology and coal types