Double Track Heritage Railways

And indeed with the Swanage Railway - Corfe Common is an SSSI, as is much of the area around Blue Pool etc on the extension.

 

The other point of the northern new extension is that realignment would bring the terminus into Nottingham City, whereas keeping it on the old alignment keeps it in Nottinghamshire. Thus, you'd be able to travel from Leicester (the very outskirts thereof) to Nottingham (the very outskirts thereof), producing the UK's first intercity heritage railway(?)

Meanwhile the Loughborough Meadows SSSI could be a problem for another suggestion that is if Brush want a connection from the GCR(N) straight into their compound as they would need to cut the south-eastern corner of the Meadows in order to bend the line round to meet their track.

 

I dont see why Brush would need a direct link, the mainline connection is only a few hundred yards away up the mainline and if there's anything not NR approved they can always move it under a night time possesion - should save the cost of low-loaders.

Btw, has anyone read the article in Heritage Railway about granite trains possibly funding the bridge? Any chance of a summary?

Chris

 

I have. It's in issue 141 which should still be on sale now.

Yes: Someone said to HR that GCR and Lafarge have discussed if the spur from Swithland sidings to Mountsorrel quarry which is currently being relaid by volunteers could be used for granite trains from the quarry to the main line using the GCR and the bridge which is to be built. Money for the bridge is said to have been part of the discussions. Plenty of "a source revealed", "HR understands", "it is understood" and "if" in the article.

Christoph

 

Yes, that's very wishful thinking. Lafarge already have a railhead onto the MML, so why do they need another that involves 2 reversals before taking you back onto the MML?

 

Hello,

Looking at the layout of the present Lafarge facility on the MML on Google maps I am not sure how it can be accessed. It is connected to what I believe is the northbound (is that up or down, I never come to terms with that) fast line and maybe there is no option to leave southbound. The alternative route via the GCR would provide easier access onto the MML southbound and directly onto what I belive is the slow line. That might be a good reason for an alternative loading facility. But remember, we are looking at a report based on possibly vague information in one of the railway tabloids!

Christoph

 

Without wishing to speculate, Lafarge's mainline connections come out onto the Down Fast. Trains heading southwards (as I believe many do) must travel in the wrong direction over the Down Fast for some distance before crossing the Up Fast and Down Slow to gain the Up Slow line. That's surely quite a challenge to plan during the day, and I understand that Mountsorrel's capacity to turn trains out at night is limited by (noise related) restrictions on operating the conveyor belt overnight. Not sure how much traffic goes north from Mountsorrel, but I'm not sure how the return (empty) workings would access the sidings from the north - there's no direct access from either Up line. Whether a lengthy propelling move from Sileby Jn is authorised, I don't know - the (more likely?) alternative is to run round at Humberstone Road.

 

Before the recession the GCR said that there was a company lined up to help pay for the bridge, and looking at the project's website it does indeed look like that money is back on the table. While it was denied at the time that Lafarge were involved, its hard to see who else it could be...

Chris

 

HR magazine is, unfortunately, the sort of publication the term "gutter press" was invented for. If the story IS true and by publishing their supposed 'scoop' they completely scupper any deal which may or may not exist, then I hope the GCR sues them for the full cost of bridging 'the gap' and gets it built that way instead. If nothing else this should at least put this hopeless magazine out of business and its idiotic editor out of a job.

These views are, of course, entirely my own. Though they are influenced by past events, unconnected to this story, in which my words (on a web forum) were copied and published without my permission as "a GCR spokesman said", when I am nothing of the sort. That, unfortunately, is the sort of people we're dealing with at HR, and will ensure that when I actually do have some newsworthy scoop to report, it will be exclusively in any publication other than that one.

Phil

 

You are forgetting the Romney Hythe & Dymchurch Railway (RHDR) in kent. It has about 8 miles of full double track mainline running, although only on 15inch track. it is truley a mailine in miniature and is well worth a visit.

 

In case it's not already been covered on Nat Pres, the Minehead Branch had two double track sections when the present WSR took over. The first was from Norton Fitzwarren to Bishops Lydeard (about three miles) and the second from Dunster to Minehead (about a mile and a half). The recently re-released "Flockton Flyer" DVD shows an "engine race" on the then double track Norton section. In both cases, the second track was removed early in the preservation era. And in both cases, in theory, the second track could be replaced as the trackbed is still intact and mostly available. Although not part of future plans, there is some merit in considering a second track on the Dunster to Minehead section to improve traffic capacity. Some of you may be aware just how an extra train or two (esp if the train is from or to Network Rail) can prove quite difficult to plan for. However, to improve capacity, the re-instatement of the ex-GWR loops at Kentsford and at Leigh would figure at the top of the list.

Good luck to the other heritage railways with, or planning, double track. It adds greatly to the preservation of our railway heritage.

Steve