Bridge that Gap: Great Central Railway News

That's a fair assessment I would say, and is the basis of my comment that the South has just as much to offer the North as the other way round.

Yes, the North has the main line connection, and this does seem strangely attractive to the plc*, but they're considerably more limited in the scope of their operation, and becoming part of of the Greater Great Central will hopefully provide them with more opportunity, as well as access to significant resources to help develop their infrastructure. I find it hard to give much credence to statements that this proposal is of no benefit to those North of the gap.

*Interestingly, amongst the railwaymen of the GCR (as distinct from the plc,) the major attraction seems to be the extra 9 miles of infrastructure more than the connection.

 

I don't think one should necessarily assume that, once the bridge goes in, there will be a regular service from Leicester North to Ruddington any time soon thereafter. It is true the connection at Ruddington would need fixing at some stage, and looking at Google Earth, there is room to put the connection the other way, but I suspect the timescales are going to be lengthy, constrained by finance and labour. There are also other big and perhaps more immediate issues such as the shed/works at Loughborough, the general infrastructure etc apart from everything else involved in running the existing line (and ignoring the possible museum). I also wonder whether the station at Loughborough is suited to being the centre of the expanded railway operationally. On the face of it, it would make sense to service the northern section with a DMU, but with only two platforms the station does not provide much flexibility for handling north and south section services simultaneously, bearing in mind the dining train seems to spend much of its life in one of the platforms being victualled. Perhaps the northern section service could run into a bay at the northern end of the station.

 

Of course a really handy thing to have hand in hand with a mainline connection is a turntable or a triangle, at 1st Glance this is 2 thirds of the way there at ruddington but on investigation its a more complex picture with land and outbuildings buy. Swithland seems an easier proposition.

 

What about the tt already at Quorn?

 

Doh

 

There's no room for owt at Swithland, all the useful space is now taken up with an enormous and awful thing of a mushroom hue.

The turntable at Quorn is effectively for show only. It's never gone round properly, and now that one of the larger castings is broken I doubt that it will move at all :-(

 

One could ask why they were built in a location that precludes easy restoration of the route. It wasn't just BR that put buildings on "trackbeds that would never again be wanted".

 

Perhaps the answer is to extend north to where the NET joins the ex-GCR alignment and have an exchange station there: "Change here for NET to City Centre".

 

That is very different though. The engine shed belongs to the GCR, so they can demolish it / move it 'relatively' easily.
Whereas when BRB sell trackbeds for development, it pretty much precludes any further usage as a railway without a CPO, which whilst the Big railways can do this if needed, is going to be beyond the means of Heritage Railways.

 

Isn't Quorn table only something like 55-60ft as well ?, certainly doesn't seem long enough for the biggest items.

 

If it's the one from Ribby (ex Steamport ex York) it's 60' and will turn a Jubilee (and maybe a Scot) but not a Pacific. Ray.

 

From the Vintage Carriages Trust pages:

Quorn - 60ft built 1909


Quorn - 60ft built 1909


Present Location Quorn
Length in feet 60
Built by Cowans Sheldon
Year Built 1909
Type Outer Race
Power Hand
Gauge 4ft 8 1/2in
Operating No
Owner Great Central Railway
Notes Originally ordered by the NER in 1908 for installation at the former York Queen Street Works. Outriggers fitted in 1932. Ex York No.2 Roundhouse. Previously stored at Steamport, Southport, and Preston Docks. Now installed and commissioned in Quorn Yard.
Date of Inspection 01/01/2010
Inspected by David Wright
Photo date 06/10/2013
Photo by Paul Abell
Date Record Last Updated 03/11/2013


Mike Haddon 27/04/2013


Mike Haddon 27/04/2013



Start Another Search - Vintage Carriages Trust Web Site

Use or publication of this data must acknowledge the Turntable Survey as the source. Information from Railway

Heritage Register web sites must not be used in a commercial context without the written permission of the

Railway Heritage Register.

 

Can I ask what the casting was that has broken?

 

This turntable was in use at Steamport , not stored. I was one of the team that installed it. Being of the undergirder type it was too deep for the original pit & we had to build the wall up to suit , as well as a ramped access track.

Bob.

 

A couple of points:-
Has the broken component been assessed to see if it can be repaired? Perhaps by Metalocking.
If not repairable, I'd suggest it simply needs the will to raise the money to replace the broken component.

 

In addition to Bob's correction to the Turntable Survey record I should like to point out that this table never was in York No2 roundhouse. It had always been at Queen St (adjacent to the old museum) until we dismantled it for transfer by rail to Steamport. Wasn't the one removed from NRM in more recent years a 70' vac operated table? I'm puzzled why the table hasn't gone round properly since it was re-installed at Quorn as we turned locos up to Jubilees and Black 5's without a problem. Interesting that the outriggers weren't re-installed this time. Ray.

 

I wasn't going to comment, but I have had a photo provided showing the broken casting is one of the outer carrying wheels...I don't know the technical term, but the actual part that holds one of the wheels has completely sheared off, and was, at the time of the photo, in the pit. Given the amount of rust on the break, it looked to be an old fracture, but that's just conjecture on my part. The outriggers weren't fitted as the GCR's expert (At the time) Tony Sparks decreed they were not needed. He left the railway a short while later under a cloud, and to my knowledge has never been back. And no, he was not a formally trained engineer. That said, nor am I, but I did speak to people who were, and the opinion was that the outriggers should have been fitted. In my opinion, this latest incident, that of the broken casting, would seem to bear that out. Having some experience of the way the GCR operates, this was very much 'the new toy', same as the 4-BIG unit they had. Big celebration, local press invited etc, then forgotten about. I don't doubt it'll be sold or scrapped shortly. Apologies for being negative, please don't accuse me of being down on the GCR, as I am not. The volunteers and staff are fantastic people, but the management do need to take a hearty dose of reality. Sorry again,

Tom

 

This is the photo I received, which may be of some interest.

Tom

 

Hard to tell, even when I've blown it up, but the rust seems fairly light coloured right across the break, indicating it is all relatively new. Without a proper examination, that can't be a conclusive statement, though.

I'm sure Brian could soon knock up a pattern!

 

I'm sure if the GCR think that is the appropriate way forward they would make contact.