If you register, you can do a lot more. And become an active part of our growing community. You'll have access to hidden forums, and enjoy the ability of replying and starting conversations.

Bridge that Gap: Great Central Railway News

Discussion in 'Heritage Railways & Centres in the UK' started by Gav106, May 8, 2010.

  1. JMJR1000

    JMJR1000 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    843
    Likes Received:
    698
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cleethorpes
    A pity then it would seem that saving Workington Steam Shed will quite possible come to nothing, but as the site they were hoping to build turned out not to be ideal it can't be helped.

    We can only hope then this new building will be just as big if not bigger and better equipped then the shed it currently has, though judging being the size of the potential plot of land they are looking to build on, that shouldn't be too much a problem apart from the financial side of things obviously.
     
  2. It's not a case of it 'quite possibly' coming to nothing, I believe it came to nothing quite a long time ago, because:
    It makes sense that landfill is nothing like natural topography, making building large structures on it problematic
     
  3. Drop_Shunt

    Drop_Shunt New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    74
    Workington Shed was never “saved”, it was demolished on site and (partially) dumped in Leicestershire. There never was anything resembling a kit of parts awaiting reassembly.
     
  4. Johann Marsbar

    Johann Marsbar Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2016
    Messages:
    1,588
    Likes Received:
    1,998
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Suffolk
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Just noticed that they have updated the website to state they have raised £155,000 for the canal bridge work as at 20th June. That's a third of the way there.
     
    TommyD, jnc and J Rob't Harrison like this.
  5. Johann Marsbar

    Johann Marsbar Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2016
    Messages:
    1,588
    Likes Received:
    1,998
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Suffolk
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
  6. Legrandanglais

    Legrandanglais New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2011
    Messages:
    170
    Likes Received:
    218
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Leicestershire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    I think that £250+K should just about cover the Canal Bridge repair... It is scheduled to be lifted out later this year (with an expensive big crane) so that the bridge can be repaired on land and the Abutments revealed so they can be re-built. The Canal and Rivers Trust require the canal to remain open, so it will be like the roadworks we are all familiar with - single file operation, whilst those abutments are repaired. The balance of the target amount is to cover completion of the Engineering Design for the remainder of 'The Gap' so that GCR are in a position to put in for Planning Permission.
     
  7. W.Williams

    W.Williams Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2015
    Messages:
    1,585
    Likes Received:
    1,465
    Occupation:
    Mechanical Engineer
    Location:
    Aberdeenshire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Does no one else feel the Government should be contributing in a very substantial way to this and other rail reinstatement projects? Or am I alone in that cynical position?
     
  8. SpudUk

    SpudUk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    Messages:
    1,732
    Likes Received:
    593
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Project Manager
    Location:
    Wales
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    I certainly don't - as much as I want to see this reinstated it's not for the Government to pay for, especially as it's wouldn't form a strategic rail link. I think we forget sometimes that whilst this is our hobby and close to our hearts, it's not for other people and why should tax payers thus have to contribute. Let's sort out schools, hospitals, the police and public transport before the Government starts thinking about paying to help extend heritage attractions*



    * with the caveat that there are some instances where it is appropriate for the Government to contribute toward some heritage infrastructure, especially where there is a sound economic case for it
     
    mgl, W.Williams, Bluenosejohn and 9 others like this.
  9. Added to the fact that for 'the Government' to fund it, they have to find the money from somewhere, there's not a magic money pot and what is there is going to be even more depleted by the time the complete futtock-up that is Brexit has come, gone and calmed down, one way or the other.

    So how would 'the Government' fund such projects? By raising taxes. And if 'the Government' is going to raise taxes, personally I'd much rather my money was spent on pumping money into local councils to fund things like reversing cost-saving measures, for example the much more limited hours of council-run waste disposal sites, which have resulted in (1) long queues to get in when they are open and (2), worse, a considerable increase in fly tipping.

    I think W Williams is coming from a rather naive point of view if he thinks Government funding is anything like the pot of honey that some people seem to believe. (Plus, in his/our neck of the woods, the A9 dualling will see that any 'spare' funding north of the border will be tied up for years to come!)
     
    mgl likes this.
  10. mikechant

    mikechant Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Messages:
    203
    Likes Received:
    233
    This project? No, not directly, as it's not intended to or indeed ever likely to serve a full** public transport function, but to be a local attraction. And I say that as a supporter, donor and user of the GCR. This sort of project should be able to (and probably does in various ways) be able to benefit indirectly by such things as gift aid and VAT relief where applicable. However, there is certainly a case for local council financial support when this is considered beneficial for local tourism - and in this case this has happened, the local council has made a substatial contribution (£3 Million of similar if I remember correctly) on the grounds that this will create a 'First Class' heritage railway.

    Other rail reinstatement projects? Yes, certainly, but only where they serve a full** public transport function.

    ** My suggested defintion for a railway serving a 'full public transport function' would be probably at least a Mon-Sat service, running all year from 'early' to 'late' in the day and from/to places where significant numbers wish to travel regularly - as opposed to a seasonal/occasional use for public transport, which I personally use some heritage railways for.

    There are a number of reopenings which are 'no-brainers', like Portishead to Bristol which have been on/off/delayed for years which seem to have excellent business cases. Any central goverment money for rail reopenings should go to these.

    Of course there is the whole issue of local government funding from central goverment; the cuts to this support have naturally made it less and less likely that local councils will be able to contribute in this way *even if they think it will ultimately bring significant tourism benefits etc.*. But that's a whole other can of worms...

    Anyhow, the GCR is already progressing well towards its reunification objective without central goverment funding.
     
  11. Greenway

    Greenway Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2008
    Messages:
    3,906
    Likes Received:
    3,704
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    South Hams
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Indirectly I believe NR is being encouraged to provide/maintain infrastructure in some areas where a useful service - somewhere in size to somewhere else in size - might be justified. The Swanage and forthcoming trials on WSR are two other ways support might be maintained other than taking back lines into public ownership. Changes of government and current government thinking can, of course, easily alter the status quo and when governments are determined to do something then money usually becomes available. Roads are getting quite congested in many areas and new roads are very expensive and attract a lot of opposition. There are some busy heritage/tourist lines that might be of government interest in the future, beyond what is presently known.
     
  12. MellishR

    MellishR Resident of Nat Pres Friend

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,068
    Likes Received:
    5,165
    That link says "We are working with two main contractors to assess the best pricing to repair the existing bridge in situ ..."

    Those statements seem to conflict.
     
  13. W.Williams

    W.Williams Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2015
    Messages:
    1,585
    Likes Received:
    1,465
    Occupation:
    Mechanical Engineer
    Location:
    Aberdeenshire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Well, you might call that viewpoint naive but the policy of destroying national infrastructure was pretty naive in itself wasn’t it? Especially considering it was bought and paid for.

    I’m glad you raise the topic of money. Yes, it is tight, but it’s always a sparse commodity, so let’s think about how we could get some.

    I am not alone in observing the low interest rates. There is nothing, at all, whatsoever stopping the government from issuing long dated infrastructure bonds. Think of this as a new take on war bonds. Give them 50/75/100 year durations and pay fixed 1 or 2% coupon.

    Now that that is solved, we could invest seriously in our infrastructure freeing up some cash for other things.

    If my position is naive, then it is born of this fact. When the government makes a decision to destroy national infrastructure, it is creating a long term liability. In finance, and in life in general, it’s good practice to cover liabilities with contingent capital or insurance.

    This was not done. In many cases lines were destroyed knowing full well they may well be needed in future. These liabilities were not accounted for. And so the government is as derelict in its duty to facilitate infrastructure as much of that infrastructure remains today.
    It is my opinion the government pick up some of the burden of that liability because at the moment it is resting squarely on the shoulders of the citizens. That is deeply unfair.

    I’m sure Iv said it before on here, but being in Aberdeenshire, it’s a personal issue. Public transport here is a disgrace. It takes twice the time it did 70 years ago to do the commute I endure, all because of the policy of destroying infrastructure.

    I’m going to stop, Iv dragged this badly off topic.

    Im very happy the GCR are making good progress, it’s evident it’s going to have a significant impact on the region.
     
  14. W.Williams

    W.Williams Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2015
    Messages:
    1,585
    Likes Received:
    1,465
    Occupation:
    Mechanical Engineer
    Location:
    Aberdeenshire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Indeed. Following the collapse of carillon, Balfour beatty now have the full contract for all of the British rail residuary property maintainence throughout the U.K.

    I’m aware this is slightly in conflict to my above statement, this is clearly the government shouldering some liability, but it is more a case of the government indemnifying itself against claims than putting its weight behind righting the wrongs of many closures.
     
  15. W.Williams

    W.Williams Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2015
    Messages:
    1,585
    Likes Received:
    1,465
    Occupation:
    Mechanical Engineer
    Location:
    Aberdeenshire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    I’m glad to hear there has been council funding, that is good.

    I think we broadly agree. To be in no doubt I’m not suggesting government make cash available for every single closure, but your Bristol portishead example, and many others, needs to make it via a proposal on to the statute book. There is a great need for public transport investment and the railways are an obvious place to start.

    It is a can of worms. The American municipal bond system is worth consideration, but that really is a bucket of worms. There are ways to raise funding, but I’m not sure central government are particularly concerned.
     
  16. MellishR

    MellishR Resident of Nat Pres Friend

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,068
    Likes Received:
    5,165
    The idea that today's Government should pay (some of) the cost of reinstating infrastructure that was destroyed by a previous Government makes ethical sense; but Governments and ethics are rare bedfellows. It's a bit like the situation when a company takes people's money for poor or no service or goods then goes into liquidation, then next day the same individuals set up a new company offering the same service or goods from the same premises, with no legal responsibility for the previous company's sins. With UK Governments it's also often possible for the party currently in power to blame the other party -- which they delight in doing whenever they can't think of anything positive to do themselves.

    Concerning the specific case of the Loughborough bridges; the one over the canal, which is the subject of the current appeal, has stayed in place, like many disused bridges all over the country, and only needs refurbishment; whereas the bridge over the MML was removed and has been replaced.
     
  17. jnc

    jnc Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,511
    Likes Received:
    2,706
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Western Atlantic
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    That caught my eye too; perhaps the 'in situ' was meant broadly, as in 'on site'? Or perhaps when they started looking in detail into what needed doing (e.g. abutment repairs) it became clear that lifting the span out temporarily would be cheaper, overall?

    Noel
     
  18. Johann Marsbar

    Johann Marsbar Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2016
    Messages:
    1,588
    Likes Received:
    1,998
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Suffolk
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    As at the last edition of Main Line (beginning of June) they had decided it would be easier to lift the bridge out and restore it on the (cleared) land behind the loco shed - hence the desire to dispose of items stored/dumped there like the AC Cars Railbus.
    That was 3 months ago, so, with the next edition of ML imminent, it will be interesting to see what that has to say about what is going on.........
     
  19. huochemi

    huochemi Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,751
    Likes Received:
    1,393
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    UK
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Why are railways an obvious place to start? Surely you would get a bigger and cheaper bang for a buck spent on improving (or reinstating) bus services in most areas. This seems to be the same point being made re the WSR viability of extending to Taunton thread. Also, Loughborough - Nottingham is comparatively well served by the Midland Mainline and by Kinchbus.
     
  20. SpudUk

    SpudUk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    Messages:
    1,732
    Likes Received:
    593
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Project Manager
    Location:
    Wales
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    I think there was a pretty large scale study done which showed that even though cost for buses is low, in pure ROI terms it doesn't make sense because people don't use them in numbers compared to rail - either trams or railways
     

Share This Page