East Midlands Railway Trust/GCR (Nottingham)

The Hotchley Hill signal box now has a completed new floor according to the S&T website (Link posted earlier in this thread).
Also, given the poor condition of some of the bridges/track on the GCR(N) would a railcar service be allowed whilst the infrastructure is steadily upgraded?

 

My information may be out of date, but approx 10 years ago there were arrangements in place elsewhere that allowed for passenger trains on degraded infrastructure. IIRC there were limits such as 15mph line speed, 8T axle load (a.k.a. railcar only) and an agreed number of limited running days. So it would appear that in the right circumstances it can be done.

(Caveat: I have no idea if the NHR would meet the criteria!)

Sent from my moto g(8) power using Tapatalk

 

Perhaps a railcar shuttle north from Loughborough as far as the line is safe, similar to that provided south from Quorn whilst the double track works were going on? I believe the GWSR also ran a DMU service along the extension to Broadway from Winchcombe/Toddington, before it was completed.

 

I would imagine, there would be a desire to run something, otherwise all you will have is a mainline connection, short term, a dmu would make most sence, whilst the track is upgraded in order to be able to run heavier trains, and then theres the signalling etc to install, Bridging the gap, is only the first step, after that, theres the rest of the section to Ruddington to think about, where to install passing loops, rebuilding, or building new stations, installing watering facilities, all this will be needed, if the plan is to reunite both halves

 

My understanding is that the 2 physical bits of pway that need replacing we're the A60 bridge and the bridge just to the north (ruddington end) of Rushcliffe halt. The issues stopping trains running from the heritage centre at ruddington to just before Rushcliffe (i.e. over Gotham Moor) are largely paperwork.

Realistically any train coming from Loughborough Central northbound is still many years away. In that time you would imagine if untouched, the infrastructure and track would either be in such a state you may not want even a railcar going over it, or had some time and effort spent on it so suitable for all traffic...

I'd suggest anyone yearning to take a pacer between Loughborough North and Rushcliffe Halt is more likely to be able to catch it from ruddington rather than Loughborough.

 

GCRN have already publicly (in their magazine) stated that they hope to resume operations around Easter 2023. I guess this is an aspiration rather than a firm commitment and will depend on various things being ready, but even if that date slips I can't imagine anything from the Loughborough end getting there first!

Initial operation may just be an out-and-back shuttle from the Ruddington end, presumably to as far as the infrastructure has been brought back up to a suitable standard.

 

Reportedly an outbreak of common sense from north of ‘the gap’.

http://ruddington.info/big-trains-c...sOoYL7vMIUQuYQv6bS96hvqfacR9oAOFfPl5IklwiL6BI

 

Excellent news! Thanks for posting pmh_74.

 

Tremendous news. Bad experiences elsewhere show that you've got to get the governance and structure right if you want to succeed!

 

Have those changed, or is it just that the different entities have stopped pulling in different directions?

 

Hi MellishR, there was a big change in the directors of the GCR(N)/NHR just over a year ago so I think it has taken this long to get the new regime settled in and able to effect change. Also they must have been very heavily occupied with the A60 bridge renewal.

 

At least as importantly there was also major shakeup in the leadership (both overt and covert) of the GCR. The malign influence which the previous regime exerted and particularly their antagonism to the GCR(N) has been expelled.

 

If you read the article, the change is that GCRN's shareholders will now allow a single entity (the trust) to own >10% of the company, this allows the paper debt on the books to be converted to a shareholding so that the GCRN appears solvent and the EMRT gains control. Whatever the power struggles which were going on a year or two ago, this does seem like a more sensible structure going forward. I notice that there is also talk of trains returning to Rushcliffe Halt - at one point the EMRT were only offering GCRN a lease which stopped short of there. So it all seems rather harmonious compared with where things were a year or two back. Given the people now involved in both EMRT and GCRN, I think we can safely say they are all aligned on reunification as well.

As I understand it GCRN's board have also been dealing with multiple other issues preventing them from operating, such as updating rule books and so on, and of course there will need to be some sort of re-training and re-assessment of people and re-certification of vehicles after not operating for three years.

 

Thank you. On reflection, I agree that the removal of the restriction on shareholding does constitute a significant change to the structure, but the changes of personnel seem to have been equally important. Forward!

 

Having some knowledge of both, do not underestimate the structural challenges which have faced the GCRN in recent years; the myriad of different companies and trusts is very confusing and one might almost dare to suggest that the person who set them up that way had some sort of agenda to deliberately obfuscate. Certainly both previous GCRN boards seem to have been able to pinpoint the source of the problem without actually figuring out how to fix it. So a big pat on the back from me to both current boards (EMRT, GCRN) for navigating their way through to what appears to be a sensible outcome.

 

Clicking on the GCR(N) website (which has not been updated for many months ) shows this....
"Following the decommissioning the Gridhost platform which the GCR(N)'s previously used as it's web service provider, we are working on setting up new content. There has been a hold up getting the DNS transferred but this has finally be resolved. Replacement content should appear soon."
Which is another sign of progress!

 

Hopefully the volunteers will also see some progress soon to!

An email communication, action plan, even a visit by those in 'control' would be a good start as none of this has happened yet!

 

A new GCR(N) website seems to have appeared, but there is nothing on it as yet other than a home page and a few links.....
https://gcrn.co.uk/

Still nothing updated on the EMRT website since August 2021, though they have recently burst into life on their FB page with a couple of items.

 

A bit more has appeared on the new GCR(N) website and there is a link from that to their Twitter feed which seems to have gained a new lease of life since the beginning of this month.

 

It was good to see in the latest Quorn Transport Film a section showing the work being done on the GCR(N) as well as the GCR.