Great Central Railway General Matters

I agree it is a rather strange situation, but, I suppose, running just a skeleton dinning service keeps from having to cancel pre-booked tickets and retains the profitable running. There will also be more time to do the bridge work.

 

Perhaps they are taking the opportunity to do some other work on the line at the same time as the bridge work?
There are likely to be more volunteers around over a weekend to assist as well.

 

These are strange new times though. Makes sense to get it in before the main season kicks off with Easter just peeping round the corner. The underlying subtext seems to be that this work needing sorting relatively quickly but is more of a daytime activity.

 

Good news about the shed being refurbished of course , however it leaves me questioning the intentions regarding eventual use of the bridged Gap.
1) I'm struggling to think of any instance on 'the big railway' where the main running lines were slewed around a shed, so it's just not going to look right (I'd suggest having it look right is a large part of the preservation movement, look at the whinging when a GWR 4-6-0/ LMS 2-8-0 is painted red....)
2) It's not going to enhance the steam-age mainline look that the GCR otherwise takes great pains to recreate
3) The idea of a through line delicately having to pick its way around the loco depot gives the impression that the only reason the gap is being bridged is to get that mainline connection, it's got the air about it of a solution acceptable only if used for occasional traffic.

I think it's high time we're told exactly how the GCR see the link with the north being utilised. Every three months a copy of Mainline lands on my doormat and when I read the editorial and Gap updates it appears as though the authors of each are of differing understandings about how it will be used. "It will give us an 18-mile heritage railway, and a mainline connection". "It will give us a mainline connection, and an 18-mile railway." "It will give us a mainline connection, and, eventually, an 18-mile railway." (This last, see Mainline 190, page 3). In my experience, that word 'eventually' is a sugar coated way of saying 'no/ maybe later (by which I mean, 'no')/ we'll see (again, 'no')/ not going to happen'. Bluntly, the shift over the last 18 months toward emphasising the mainline connection- something I don't care two sticks about- has resulted in my firstly questioning what the GCR's goal is, and secondly, stopping contributions to the project because I don't know what I am paying for. An 18-mile intercity steam railway is the sort of project I will support as far as I can. A £10-million 500 yard mainline connection I won't.

 

Repeat of above

 

Hi J Rob't
It is certainly a disappointment that the engine shed is to remain in its present location, but obviously there has been a huge amount of effort to try to get a better solution to a very complex problem. Not least is the planning permissions needed for any changes in what is an increasingly residential area.
However the shed was positioned there with the potential for track to go past it for any Northward extension. Not quite slewing track round...Remember, decisions were taken almost 50 years ago, when the very existence of a preserved GC was regarded as dubious by many people. Only a single line from Loughborough to Rothley could be afforded (only just) then!
The new bridges for the gap project (MML and Factory flyover) will only be single track and so the track alongside the shed will not significantly alter the "feel" of the railway I would suggest. There are many many instances of preserved and "Big Railway" tracks going alongside sheds.
I am slightly puzzled by your further comments re the mainline connection. In all the articles I have read, the Aim of the project is "Re-unification to join the two halves and create an 18 mile railway".....which you say you will support as far as you can. But, because there is an additional, huge benefit for all concerned, that there will be increased access to the main line (Via the existing chord link only to the North at present) you question what "the GCR's gaol is" .......
You also are concerned about the use of "Eventually", does that not reflect the reality that - at present, there are no services running in the North and the "Gap" is still to be completed?
In justifying this multi million pound project you surely look at all the potential benefits to build the case and this has been done. Hence the fact that thousands of supporters are digging deep into their pockets to get this work completed and create an even better Great Central Railway.

 

I'm not so much disappointed with the location of the shed- that's a matter that is to a large degree outside of the Railway's control and I'm quite certain that if a viable alternative location were possible, it would have been moved. My concern is the impression that is given in announcing it in the way it has been done- a casual throwaway line or two. I would have preferred to have seen it given an article fully discussing what needs to be done, how it will be achieved, what the end result will be (we all agree that that 'artists impression' from a few years ago is almost laughable) and what impact it will have on the Gap project. If the Plc say there's room to get double track around the shed without it looking like a trainset- excellent!- can we see it on a diagram please?

Now, my uncertainty is, of the two stated aims, namely
1. 18-mile heritage railway
2. mainline connection
which one does the Plc give the priority to? I'm not out to sow discontent around the project- quite converse I'm a vocal supporter of it on my own terms (my terms happen to be that the link is used primarily for regular Ruddington-Leicester heritage services, if that condition cannot/ will not/ is not going to be met then that support will be withdrawn). Obviously the alignment needs total reconstruction for either of those goals and now that two items of that (I'm hoping for a third later this year and a fourth next year/ 2024) are complete, I think the conversation needs to be moving on toward how we hammer the two railways into one, how working 10 miles of single track can intermesh with 5 miles with double, and how (because although it's only about 500 yards long there's a lot going on here) we get from double track, down to single, then back out to an arrangement that allows (simultaneous?) freight and heritage services onto the north.

It's not as exciting as announcements of fundraising totals met or orange coveralls on the ground but let's not lose sight that the whole reason it's being built is for use- and personally I'd like to read something official (as in, penned by an official of the Plc) in Mainline as to how the extension will be used, how the two Railways will merge their operations, and matters of that sort.

My concern could very easily be cleared up by an official statement from the Railway along lines of 'the 18-mile heritage railway is our primary goal, we're in discussions with the NHR to ensure our operating procedures tally with a view to (eventual merger/ joint working with income sharing/ another arrangement), there will be regular heritage workings from Loughborough to Ruddington'. That, and sustained downplaying of the mainline connection, would see me reinstating my standing order.

What would also see my reinstating that order would be articles in Mainline about bringing the Loughborough- Rushcliffe section up to the standard of the rest of the GCR, that too would give me confidence that the Gap isn't just about a mainline connection.

 

I agree with J Rob't about the importance of conveying information to supporters and I'm sure there are many many discussions going on in the background. However, with the recent changes at board level to the GCR(N), the people now involved are all experienced and have a long term involvement in progressing the "18 mile railway" aim. P8, 9 and 10 in "Main Line" #190 outline the steps taken so far and what needs to be done - together with the proposed changes to facilitate this. Remembering that those board changes only took place around Christmas and the lead time for the magazine means that much more will have already happened.
I am confident that the A 60 bridge (326) will be renovated this year and that the factory flyover work will start next year....that will be a fantastic way to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the start of the preserved GCR running. When the bridge work is complete there will "only" be the long and short embankments to be built.......(and the track, ballast, signals etc etc!).

 

I agree Phil, naturally what we're told is going to be only the tip of the iceberg in terms of what is happening. There are doubtless many 'now it can told' stories that will come out in the future. I look forward with interest to developments on the GCR(N) with their new board in place and am genuinely hopeful that in the not-too-distant future we'll see the back of the heavy lifting well and truly broken.

 

The more I look at that piece in the magazine about the shed, the more I wonder what is actually being done at this time.
Whilst it mentions the wooden roof purlins being replaced by steel ones, the only mention of new cladding material actually only relates to a new roof - with 50% more glazed area - and the article says that new roof + drainage equipment have been ordered.
It mentions new front doors - to the same 3 section format as the existing ones, plus some roller shutter doors for the rear. There is also the rewiring exercise, including new LED lighting
However, whilst mention is made is made of "new wall cladding rails for both East and West elevations", it doesn't actually mention any new cladding material for any of the building walls being ordered.

I don't know what state the existing roof is in, but looking at some of the recent interior photos of locos being worked on, its certainly not insulated and presumably lets a lot of draughts in from the outsite - the same possibly applying to the front shed doors. I'm wonering if this is some short to medium term "fix" to provide a better working environment until the format/location of a replacement shed is decided upon. With energy costs increasing at the rate they are currently, any improvements to prevent heat loss could recoup a fair bit of savings over time. Planned correctly, the new roofing and door arrangements could be re-useable on the replacement buildng, which, TBH, I would think is still 4-5 years in the future, as funding is going to be affected by the Cost of Living rises we are now experiencing.

I know our museum building here - a former bus/trolleybus depot - was transformed radically when the entire building was reclad with insulated material, replacing the old corrugated iron cladding/Crittal Windows/Asbestos roof panels. We now have Solar panels on the roof as well...

 

I agree with Johann's analysis about the shed possibly being a medium term "fix" and it could be started in the near future. I also appreciate the desire to get jobs "done right" but sometimes you have to be pragmatic and seek to get an improvement based on the resources available at the time.
The C & W shed at Rothley had a significant refurb about 5 years ago and it has been a huge improvement.

Another intriguing possibility in the more distant future may, of course, be to use part of the Brush site for an engine /overhaul shed....after reunification could there be a connection built to the GCR?
Obviously there is already a direct line from the site to the Midland line and access via the existing chord line, but that is not realistic for any regular use by the GCR.

 

Re-use of a part of the Brush site would be a nice tie-in with its history of railway engineering.

 

There is a nice "Railways at Work" You Tube video on the GCR website. It certainly does have a very busy timetable that weekend, so lots to see.

 

I do wonder if the opportunity to buy land from LE Jackson's will ever arise. That would be the ideal position to relocate the shed to, though I suspect it won't come cheap!

 

Pretty sure several approaches have been made to lease /purchase all or part but nothing came out of these approaches.

The works being carried out seem to a pragmatic approach to the shed problem. The present shed is really getting past it sell by date and needs updating , even if only for the next few years. Although I do have serious reservations about the access to the shed with a through line to the west. Perhaps there is another cunning plan yet to be revealed!

It would be nice if the GLC Plc was a little more communicative!

 

The latest Rail Mail e-newsletter has a piece regarding the works on the bridge at Swithland and the track is due to be lifted after the passage on the dining train on Sunday 27th, with work on the bridge continuing until the following weekend.
Presumably other preliminary works are being carried out prior to the lift on 27th, which is why only the Dining Services are running that weekend.

 

I believe the GCR have been burning some "E Coal" as a trial last weekend. There was a large pile of uniform ovoid looking lumps in the coal area outside Lbro shed. It was being used in 46251, the Ivatt class 2 engine.

 

I've no idea what the stuff was but some of the loco crews were complaining quite vocally about it on FB afterwards...

 

I know somebody who had Trevithick Ovoids at GWSR last weekend and had a lot of negative things to say about them! Sounds like still some development to be done!

 

That sounds like ovoids, which is not the same as what is referred to as e-coal.

Ovoids - at least those doing the rounds of heritage railways at the moment, the "Trevethicks ovoids" - are compressed Welsh anthracite, with what I believe is cement as a binder. The "E-coal" on trial at the Tal-y-llyn, KWVR and other places, is a mix of coal dust, bio-mass (from olive pips, I believe) and some kind of process to bind it together.

The E-coal is response to lowering carbon footprint. The ovoids don't really address that issue, but are a response to the difficulty in the supply chain of lump coal. I still haven't had much experience with them, but general feedback is that they take some getting used to. They certainly seem to produce a lot of ash which chokes the fire - I prepped the O1 (Victorian 0-6-0) the other day which had done just 22 miles the day before on Ovoids, and got three barrows of ash out of the smokebox and the ashpan was full.

Tom