Bridge that Gap: Great Central Railway News

And the fact that the Government has curtailed the availability of the most suitable types by banning them.

 

As is not ensuring key infrastructure which allows said commercial freight to run....

 

There has to be a will on both sides of the gap to merge, or even work together. I seems the primary goal of the South is to gain access to the National network, it seems there’s even less “big family” statements than before, there was a reason why the North set up their site all those years ago vice joining the South.

 

When has that ever stopped people kicking up a fuss, and getting the ear of a local councillor or MP who is looking for re-election?

 

There we have a prime example of why two groups can’t merge fully, and successfully. You define a comment as daft, which someone else sees as a genuine concern/question.

 

I believe the GCR(N) was set up because the Ex MoD site at Ruddington became available. As that is about 10 miles and not rail connected to Loughborough, it made sense to have a separate organisation. There is a lot more detail about this in the new Reunification book.

 

How long ago was that? I’m just wondering how long they’ve had to achieve the set up they have.

 

I described your comment as daft, because it is daft. You are not describing a merger, you are saying the south should cherry-pick the commercially lucrative bits (with half of the track mileage and all but one of the stations on it, by the way, as well as the main line connection), which would leave the north with essentially a 2 mile out-and-back siding. This, very obviously, is not what the guys up there have been working towards for the last 30 years, even allowing for the doldrums that they find themselves in at the present moment.

It should be blindingly obvious that the northern group are going to say it's "all or nothing", i.e. you want the main line connection, you need to invest in the other bits like better station facilities, signalling, locos, rolling stock and so on. Otherwise, what's in it for them? I do agree that there is a lot to do on the northern section, but chopping it off half-way up is not the way to achieve it!

While we're at it:

Clearly, bridges need to be regularly inspected and sometimes the inspector is going to find nasties. Only this year the GCR (south bit) has had to replace a bridge between Loughborough and Quorn which itself had a 10mph speed restriction on it for a year or two beforehand; I don't see you criticising them for allowing exactly the same kind of deterioration on that bridge which, by the way, they have been responsible for maintaining for the last 44 years. It's obvious to everyone that the A60 bridge was already known to be in a poor state (hence why it was included in the 'gap' project) but equally it's disingenuous to suggest that the GCRN was somehow standing back "allowing" it to fall apart. Clearly they weren't expecting a "stop traffic" order to be slapped on it and I'm sure they are working flat out on a solution.

 

It’s not cherry picking, it’s a liability if anything probably something the railway had to take on as part of the lease.

The commercial freight traffic needs the bottom of the line including the Mainline connection, GCR south have / would have no choice in the matter.

 

You haven't read that properly. That T&WAO covers from the Nottingham Transport Heritage Centre to the junction at 50 steps bridge, and south from there on the GC Main Line as far as just short of the current northern limit of commercial freight operations. Also whilst there is a clause that the northern company *may* grant a lease to the southern company, there doesn't seem to be any obligation to do so nor any mention of a reciprocal agreement.

The bit from there down to the main line connection at Loughborough has a separate T&WAO: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/2585/contents/made

I don't see any similar provision in there for a lease to the 1976 company; there is talk that it can be leased to anyone with government approval, but that looks like a standard clause.
Curiously, this T&WAO authorises the junction near the 'gap' and construction of railway as far as just short of the MML bridge*. [*I never knew this!]

The 'gap' over the MML bridge to a point 44m south of there has no T&WAO or equivalent in place at the present time (what has been built, has been done only on the basis of planning permission).

The preserved bit south of the 'gap' is covered by two separate Light Railway Orders (these predate the T&WAO process):
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1978/471/contents/made
This covers from 44m south of the MML bridge** (somewhere near the refuse tip access road) to the middle of the former Belgrave & Birstall platform. [**I never knew this either!]

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1991/1965/contents/made
This covers the extra bit from the middle of the former Belgrave & Birstall platform to the end of the line at Leicester North.

 

You can just see a WSR MK2 kicking off,

 

As a seasoned WSR spectator I think there's a long way to go before you get to that stage, the WSR's problems in part stem back many decades. But there's certainly potential for it to get messy and uncivil.

I think as far as continuing support for the bridge, if I wanted to see trains between the north and south I wouldn't let the current management view stop me donating. I'd make lots of noise persuading them of the merits beyond the mainline connection, but ultimately, everyone needs the connection reinstated whatever your aim is, so I'd carry on donating towards that. You can't have an argument over whether to run connected services or not if you don't have a bridge in the first place.

Just an outsider's view, and we know how well they go down in Somerset!...

 

Agree that there are other ways of obtaining the desired effect but all of them involve legal agreements and contracts between the two parties to achieve, leaving the way open for expensive legal disputes and disagreements in the future. A simple amalgamation of the two GCR entities into one (the GCR) without any need to establish who owned, or developed, what does away with the potential for a "North/South divide". Why would anybody object ?

 

Charnwood Borough Council maybe?

 

It is good to see the Santa Specials are running and it is the "Winter Wonderlights" tomorrow night.

 

Are you sure about that ? My understanding was that when the opportunity arose to obtain the land and line at Ruddington it was felt, by the GCR, too good to miss but that, given the disconnect from Leicester / Loughborough, it made more sense to establish a separate operation based on Nottingham to maintain and develop the site until such time as the two sections could be joined. Once the "gap" is bridged that object is achieved and there is no more need for two disparate entities.

 

Not understood. Why and how ?

 

I was responding to your statement that handing over traffic would be commercial suicide. Perhaps I misunderstood you but that did not appear to be supportive of a merger.
Glad we are in agreement on that score.

 

Sorry for not being clear but it’s the council that own the trackbed for the GCR so anything involving the 2 GCR’s they might have a say in what goes on.