Bridge that Gap: Great Central Railway News

There is still time (just) to put comments - hopefully in support, to the Charnwood Council Planning website......I'm sure a helpful person reading this can post a correct link, as my IT skills are limited!!

 

This should work: https://portal.charnwood.gov.uk/Nor...tion Details&PUBLIC=Y&XMLSIDE=&DAURI=PLANNING

 

Great to see so many positive comments of support, but I see that the Environment Agency (EA) has objected on flood risk issues. I don't think Charnwood BC will overrule such an important agency as the EA, so I hope the GC team is able to revise the plans to overcome the objections.

Sadly it's like to to cause a delay - and more costs :-(

 

There is such a wealth of information in that application. It does seem a bit strange that the Flood Risk Assessment seemed to use documentation supplied by the EA, who then seem to feel that a later document/model should be used?? I'm sure though that the GCR and EA are actually in close dialogue and the fine details will get dealt with without too much delay. The otters and water voles will also be well looked after.

 

Shades of proposed Bala extension ?

 

The EA do not supply the models to the team doing the study, it is the responsibility of the team to ensure they are using the latest available models and the study submitted lists the 2012 one as source data, a bit of a 'faux pas' on the part of BWB!

 

Thanks for that correction Mark.
I did wonder if an argument could be made that the urban viaduct and restored rail link actually could provide an important "safe" route across the flooded East of Loughborough in the event of a "100 Year" flood? The BWB report does seem to be impressive though and 80+ pages provides a wealth of detail.

 

They are something I used to have to get regularly in a previous job (including sea bed impact occasionally which is a whole different world of pain!), they are mostly regurgitated with the odd bit of interesting data.

I suspect the major concerns will be impact on the adjacent river bank, during flood conditions, as a result of the piling (flowing water tends to erode areas around the base of piers) and where the water is going off the now impervious deck (as much of it would have soaked into the ground with it being exposed), there must be some changes to flows etc in the later model (not unusual as river loadings are going up as the land upstream gets concreted over).

We shall see when it gets revised but, its not anything that cannot be solved

 

That bit of the Soar floods in winter if a horse in a field sneezes in it. Hardly a '100 year' event. Having grown up in the area I know (as I'm sure do most of the locals) which routes in and out of town are the last to flood, and plan accordingly. I certainly wouldn't resort to walking along a railway line to get in or out of town!

The EA objection is unfortunate but it's usually expected that the statutory authorities will have certain requirements to be met for any application like this, so hardly unexpected or a problem. I gave up reading after the first 10 pages of responses but the neighbour responses (both from local residents and people from further afield) all seem to be overwhelmingly positive, which bodes well.

 

The EA are highly risk-averse and are encouraged to focus on the negatives. They usually object, sometimes on very flimsy grounds. Given that they have allowed millions of tons of sewage to be pumped into our rivers and sea and (for example) the river Wye has been significantly affected by nitrates runoff, their opinion is open to question. However, they are the statutory authority and the railway company will need to deal with it.

 

There should be a lot of data available for the Soar and Surrounding catchments, Im certainly aware of a lot of modelling done on the Soar in fairly recent times to model the catchment regime.

There has been massive amounts of work done lower down on the Soar round Leicester to try to alleviate the flood risk there in 2015-17ish, so I would expect that they are going to be very cautious to ensure that whatever is done up catchment is going to have minimal effect elsewhere.

I would challenge ikcdab opinion on the EA regarding what they do, I have worked with them extensively over the years in various roles and they do a good job given how they are resourced.

The issue when it comes to discharges is that the evidence is very, very difficult to gather evidence and very easy to challenge the evidence.

Chris

 

Am I the only one who is surprised that the Railway and their agents had not resolved things with the EA beforehand so the EA didn't need to object? Or is that not the way things are done?

 

In my experience very little information and advice is given for 'free' these days by statutory bodies - they want you to put your application in so they can collect their fee - then conversations can then start. The days of 'off the record' chats with friendly planning officials are long gone
This is where architects and designers should earn their money, as their knowledge and experience of regulations should smooth the road a little and avoid most objections. However, it is very rare for an application of this size to go through first time, with no issues.

 

As a Leics based Environmental Consultant with a love of steam trains (yes I know) and a card carrying member of the FoGCML, I'd very much agree with this.

 

It was pleasing to see that the Urban Viaduct has been finished......well the "N" scale "Bridge" model that is used by the FoGCR has been updated!
Hopefully we will get an indication about the planning progress soon.

 

A test train (DMU two coach 107) has been run the length of the GCR(N). There will be Santa style weekend services between Ruddington and Rushcliffe Halt. So the North is getting back into operation!

The Planning Application Consultation period finishes on 9th December for the Urban Viaduct and Factory Flyover sections.

 

Couple of pieces as we head into the New Year.

GCR(N) this weekend for the first time in 4 years ran passenger services right up to the boundary of the line at Loughborough, and the services were reportedly very well patronised - taken the attached picture from a post on one of the combined GCR FB groups of the DMU at the boundary marker.


An 8minute reunification update/forward look video has also been uploaded to YouTube, with positive news on the warchest!


Very pleased to see GCR(N) moving forwards well, and the support from the public it's receiving.

Fingers crossed on the planning application now!

Happy New Year!

 

As an infrastructure project manager for a utility company I must praise the project team. This is a well considered video and a professional approach to a major civil engineering task with tricky stakeholder issues. I don’t think some folks appreciate the sheer ambition and complexity of this project. I’ve thrown a few pennies in to the donation hat

 

The new video is very positive with news of £2.4M raised for construction work of the Urban Viaduct and Factory Flyover. Test drilling to start when planning approval given - hopefully in the next couple of months - and pile drilling by the middle of the year.....Exciting times ahead.

 

From street view it looks like Railway Terrace will give a good view of some of the work when it starts. Just outside the entrance to the recycling facility (at the point where the viaduct will eventually cross this road) looks like a good place, there's a pavement so you don't have to stand in the road to gawk!