GCR - Workington Steam Shed and bridge?

On the GCR, is there any news on the Workington steam shed project and bridge over the MML as all seam's quiet on the western front.

 

its all gone quiet down here, ill ask tomorrow when im in

 

There's been some discussion about the various projects on the GCR e-group which you might be interested in, but i doubt there'll be any news announced until after the study into the whole 'Greater Great Central Railway' project is finished.

Chris

 

I'd be suprised if there any news for quite a while, it takes quite a few years to secure the kind of funds required for the project, massive undertaking afterall.

 

I thought that there had been an initial feasibility study a few months back that confirmed the bridge was feasible but raised some doubts about ground conditions on the proposed shed site.

Am I correct that the dismantled shed is already stored on or near the GCR?

Steven

 

I believe that was a preliminary finding from the full report. I think im correct in saying the shed is currently stored at Swithland sidings.

Chris

 

Certainly nothing left of the shed at Workington now, was there a couple of months ago and all thats left is a hoist.

 

It is a bit ominous when the website for the project is unavailable ( www.llwp.org.uk) and also the website for the "Bridging the Gap" project (www.bridgingthegap.org.uk) is likewise unavailable. (or just coincidental!)

46118

 

The remains of Workington shed are indeed stored at Swithland, though how much is re-usable and how much would be replaced upon rebuilding is a matter for debate.

Phil

 

I have a memory, a confused memory it is true, that the report had been published - or perhaps leaked - and it said that the joining of the Loughborough and Ruddington sections was impractical and that the proposed site of the engine shed, because of the ground conditions - it being a former dump - would be difficult.

At the time I remember thinking that this made good sense. Can anybody confirm or rebutt my memory?

Regards

 

There has been an article in the GCR's magazine which casts doubt on the 'tip site' for the shed, but it is the personal view of one director, I don't think it reflects the Atkins report (which in any case, if I recall correctly, was not supposed to be a technical report). I haven't seen anything to suggest that 'the gap' project isn't feasible; indeed some of the whispering I've heard over the last year or two has been quite positive.

We always knew the 'tip site', as reclaimed land, would have some stability issues if it was going to be built on, probably requiring piling; it makes the project more expensive but that isn't new news.

 

I have read the report and whilst it does not opine on the full structural state of the land it infers that:-

1) the site of the Workington shed has complications given the previous use as a land fill site and would require expensive work so to be able to take the load bearing of the new shed.
2) the access points to the shed are limited by road and for this and other reasons obtaining planning permission to re-erect would not be straight forward
3) When you weigh up the issues above and associated costs (not least that every bit of extra costs an engine shed consumes would mean more money effectively having to be raised to bridge the gap).
4) In light of the above alternatives have been considered and some discounted (Quorn, Rothley.......)- the most viable alternative option is to move the shed to the "left" as you look at it from the South (i.e from lboro station) with a longer 3 road shed; potentially with access from either side;- the room vacated by the current shed would effectively become the through line to the bridge.
5) the provision of the alternative (4) may be a "stop-gap" until Workington can be afforded with the new temporary structure potentially converted to store engines out of ticket or carriages akin to the severn valley kiddeminster carriage storage.

I dont believe any final decision has been taken at all indeed the members magazine states that all options are being considered and the wider findings of the Atkins report have yet to be fully considered.

I personally would prefer to see the old Workington shed resurrected but equally can understand that in the context of what is probably an 8 figure project to run trains from Birstall to Ruddington costs (and the benefits of spending those costs) have to be prioritised.

The whole project is very complex and costly but from what I read and see options are being properly evaluated and I can see traction being made to reconnecting the bridge and joining the railways. It is also important to note that securing the invetable funding required to contribute to such a mammoth project is most likely predicated on a very professional planning approach (hence Atkins cost £300k plus) to support any bid from heritage funding.

The real shame is the bridge having been disconnected in the first place; (having happened after the trust formed in 1969)- seems a real real shame that someone will have to forfeit over £5m to rebuild it.
Hope this is helpful

 

I see that if the Tories win the election, they've said they will restore Heritage Lottery funding to proper causes , & not to the bl@@dy 2012 olympic games!! Sense at last!

 

Thats good news indeed, it would be interesting to see how much the HLF would be willing to give to such an ambitious scheme.

 

However, I recall reading about the Atkins Report that it was to look in part at the issue of how the GCR and GCRN fitted into the "wider transport context" in the East Midlands, or something on those lines.
So the bridge might be reinstated, but the price might be the GCR and GCRN incorporated into a modern transport link. I stress "might", so dont panic.

However, given the lack of public sector spending money over the next few years--when reality finally dawns--I would imagine that there will be no grand plan as I have mentioned. Simply no money for it.

I'll dig out the back issue of "Main Line" that explains all this and check. There was an issue a while back that explained exactly what this £300k Atkins report was all about.

 

46118 has summed it up nicely above. (Well, not nicely but truthfully as the truth is not nice!) I will be disappointed but not at all surprised if the plan to connect the 2 great centrals is consigned to the archives - at least for a while. The chance should have been seized years ago before development nibbled at the GCR but if we all could do what we wished we had have done then we would all be very happy! The only way that the GCR could attract sufficient funding in my view would be for investment as a public transport link. There is little "private" money for investment at present (share purchases in heritage railways have been affected by the current climate) and the situation with public money is far worse - indeed, I'm not sure that the great British Public realise yet just how bad the situation is with the public purse - when they do they will notice a distinct lack of any public sector improvements coupled with a tax hike. I will shortly retire from over 30 years serive in the Armed Forces and I've never known such an absolute nightmare with funding and long term costings that I've seen this last 2 years and I'm probably sheltered from most of it - I hope I'm wrong but Happy New Year!

 

Not wanting this to descend into a political argument but what a party says to the media while in opposition and what it does once it has secured power and is constrained by dealing with actual money and actual civil servants can be two different things. Remember Labour criticising the Tories for the dome pre-1997?