Great Central Railway General Matters

I dont see why the 18.25 mile railway will put off people from doing the whole length. The SVR seems to do ok @16 miles with 8 station stops (including the halts). The GCR would have 6 and take about as much time i would imagine from end to end.

 

In any merger there will be casualties and upheaval. However, it is usually a question of necessity. I can't see this being the case in this instance and, as a consequence, a happy marriage. The GCR wants the GCR(N) because of the access it will give to the big railway. The GCR(N) doesn't really need the GCR. Just my perception of things.

 

The briefings in "Main Line" suggest that loose coupling will be the model, at least initially - the project seems very focused on getting the civil engineering sorted, and then working out the operating model. I'd normally disagree, but in the circumstances, think it wise.

 

The GCR doesn't seem to publicize the double track much any more. I remember the excitement in all the railway magazines when it first opened and it was my first ever trip along the line to see it. It is probably forgotten also that the big chunk of it was funded by a wealthy individual called David Clarke who spent some millions on it, but he has since died, (actually on one of the trains on the finished line). I think it was him approaching them and offering the cash that pushed them to do it. The GCR did produce a very nice colour booklet with many interesting photos, below at the time which I have a copy of somewhere and it really showed all the effort that was put into doing it, not sure if they still sell this ?

 

Rather presumptious of you to imagine that you understand the motivations and desires of several hundred individuals. For myself, I don’t give a fig for the main line connection. The opportunity to assist in restoring and operating a further piece of the GCML, however, is a most exciting possibility.

 

I'm not sure I agree, the first sentence on their website is "The Great Central Railway is the UK's only double track, main line heritage railway. It’s the only place in the world where full size steam engines can be seen passing each other – just as it was when steam ruled the rails."

Andy

 

I see. Have you had this from a official source, or is this based on hearsay / presumption ?

 

The information on the ORR's website makes it very clear that line speed is one of the factors used to determine whether or not a railway can be excluded from main line regulation.

 

I do wonder if eventually secondary door locking may become a requirement for all heritage railways, even with the 25mph limit. I'm pretty sure falling out of a train moving at 25mph could be fatal, it might only take one high-profile incident for such a requirement to be introduced.

Going back to the main topic, I would have thought the even if the railway is run largely as two separate halves, as long as Loughborough Central can be shared it would surely benefit GCRN considerably that the entire population of Loughborough (60,000 approx) would have easy access to it, particularly if you promote the kid-friendly attractions (mentioned above) at Ruddington.
You can even imagine a family going to Loughborough Central and splitting up, one parent plus younger child go to Ruddinton and one parent plus older child with railway interest going to Leicester North and the museum. Something for everyone?

 

Have a look at the Railway Safety Regulations 1999 and then decide whether it is hearsay or from an official source. Whilst you're at it, you might like to read the Railway and Other Guided Systems Regulations 2006. I'm told that even the GCR has to comply with them. And that's not hearsay, it came from one of Her Majesty's Railway Inspectors.

 

This has been done (ad infinitum) in other threads. There is plenty of scope in the regulations for exceptions. Which is not to say that the GCR is seeking any, or that if they did they would be granted, but nobody can say what the future may hold.

 

I see, so, as anticipated, you have not been party to any official discussions or pronouncements regarding what requirements may be placed on a particular line in repsonse to a particular request. You are extrapolating from assumptions. Thanks for the confirmation.

Extract from RSR99, below, makes it quite clear that exemptions from any prohibitive part of the regulations may be granted completely at the discretion of the regulatory authority. That is not to say that they would be in any way minded to do so, of course, but nothing there prevents them from using that discretion if they were so minded. Your implication that compliance with all parts is somehow utterly unavoidable once passing some undefined line in the sand is, therefore, confusing.

Exemption certificates
6.—(1) The Executive may, by certificate in writing, exempt any person or class of persons, railway, part of a railway or class of railways, train or rolling stock, or class of train or rolling stock from any prohibition imposed by these Regulations and any such exemption may be granted subject to conditions and to a limit of time and may be revoked by a certificate in writing at any time.

 

It has, yet there are still those who believe it might happen.

 

One very important phrase in the above "subject to conditions". Are you aware of what these conditions would be?

 

The power of exemption exists for practical purposes where it is deemed safe and sensible to do so. Have you been party to official discussions with the ORR on the matter? My discussion may not have been official but it has certainly taken place.
The GCR doesn't have an enviable safety record.

 

Not at all, that would be subject to discussions between the authorities and any railway proposing to vary their operating conditions. I could well believe that no exemptions would be granted, even if asked for, but the scope is there for the authorities to use their discretion and judgement on a case by case basis, and that is rather my point.

Any correspondent who insists that there is simply no alternative other than that railway XYZ absolutely have to comply with every single prohibition and requirement as a 125mph railway to run at, say, 40mph, is quite possibly as deluded as the correspondent who insists that railway XYZ would not have to comply with any of those prohibitions and requirements.

Railway regulators and Inspectors have always used their judgement and discretion.

 

Agreed.

Not at all, but then neither have you to be fair, and I am not the one authoritatively asserting absolutes as though I had.

It is by no means perfect, but I suspect more than a few would wish theirs was comparable.

 

Just left shaking my head.

 

Presuming that that particular section is pretty flat, Lets hope that the response to concerns is not to impose a speed limit on that section, which only results in more noise as the train leaves the section and accelerates, which results in the speed restricted section being made longer
Guidelines to crews to keep hard working / blowing off etc to a minimum and a complete absence of jointed track and any features that require a whistle would be more effective at keeping noise down...

 

I think the problem is shake/vibration. Some houses are very close to the line at East Leake. Surprising, really, that they were built. I don't think that this section of the GC was ever shut.