£15m GCR reunification plan announced

http://rail-news.com/2010/10/16/great-central-railways-15m-reunification-plan/

 

"Atkins not only firmly recommended reconnecting the two railways as the most important potential development for the GCR rail corridor (closed by British Railways as a through route in 1969) but also confirmed that it is both technically feasible and has a healthy Benefit-to-Cost ratio (BCR) of 2.8. This comfortably exceeds the minimum strict BCR of 2.0 normally demanded by the Treasury for national infrastructure projects pursued by Government. This requires that £2 in value is delivered for every £1 spent on a project."This is excellent news and I hope that the statement above is recognised by those who intend to fund it. £15 million is eye watering at the best of times (in heritage railways terms) and, at present, times are hard. I really do hope that this plan can turn into embankment, bridge, ballast and track etc but there is something in me that says it just won't happen. I really hope I'm wrong. It should have been left intact of course but we always have to do things the hard way!

 

235 grand just to do a study? what do these people spend the money on? I wish GCR and GCR(N) all the best in this venture but 235k on a study? I could have told you it was a cracking idea for a tenna LOL! I wish somebody would give us that much money to finnish D8233 and D5705!

 

Tbh im not sure your opinion would carry much weight, it could be said your a little biased! Its worth noting btw that the GCR received signficant aid to help pay for the study, and from what people have said since its results were known it hasnt just been a rubber stamping exercise, providing some food for thought especially regarding the loco works site.

Chris

 

secondly it required for investors in the project, loans and related grants. I agree, it sounds like a lot of money but then again if you thing about what is required to do the job, then possibly not.

 

The new site for the locomotive maintainence department is not mentioned. The tip site, where the ex-Workington shed was to be erected, is out of the equation. I cannot see any other land adjacent to the railway that is available. Anyone got any ideas?

 

I 've never really though of the GCR as being short of space - there seems to be oodles of it at Rothley, for example. What about other stations?

 

It also begs the question that, if they get to Nottingham, is Loughborough the best place for a loco shed/works?

 

tbh, the only land that is of a suitable size for the workington shed and next to the railway line is the field between Woodthorpe bridge and the A6006 bridge. Think that's green belt though, so planning permission might be difficult.

Other options might include the British Gypsum works (should BG close their plant), or the Brush works (but again, probably only if it closes, and if they can put a link in). The most realistic option however is probably a longer, maybe 2-road, shed approximately on the same site.

Don't you mean Quorn? There's little space at Rothley; the car park fills up quickly, and the carriage works are not particularly large (there was talk of GCR wanting to move the carriage works too and "return Rothley to more of a country station feel" which I think was code for "we need a bigger car park"). As for Quorn, there's more space there yes but not as much as you think, and less certainly when the new turntable and museum siding go in.

 

Any room up the mountsorrel branch?

 

So where do I send my fiver ?

 

Seems sound to me, with a good rate or return. Hurry up and build it then

 

What about Ruddington, once the link is back in? It can stay where it is until then.

 

I have been in Leicester 3 weeks now and can say it isn't the dump I had been told it was, a very nice city. Although to be fair I havn't explored the northern end!
Should take my first trip on the line within the next few weeks.

 

I was also surprised how nice Leicester was too, had never been until last year!

Check out the old Leicester Central station if you haven't already, much of it is still there and remarkably intact (complete with 'GCR' motifs on the windows and 'Parcels Depot' lettering), although the building is sadly run down. About 10 mins walk from DMU or Highcross Centre. It's also fun to trace the route up to Leicester North, this is a few miles but a walkable distance. Fascinating (although the demolition pictures are very sad) website here: http://www.gcrleicester.info/ What a waste.

 

'Once the link is back in' ... I thought the new engine shed was being promoted as an urgent task. £15 million is an awful lot of money as is £235k spent just on a document. Edwin Watkin would be impressed.

Sorry, but this 'link' is a waste, and I'd be surprised, post Osborne, if any public body has the money to contribute. Perhaps somebody at Loughborough can talk to the recipients of the latest round of banking bonuses.

Sorry if this offends

Regards

 

If it's a 'waste', then I'm sure the feasibility study (without which I doubt any funding would be forthcoming!) would have said so. If, instead, there's the potential for the bridging of the gap to bring more visitors to the combined GCR and in turn local shops and services, increase the opportunities for commercial traffic for the railway and relieve some of Lafarge's operational constraints, then any potential sources of funding perhaps wouldn't consider it a 'waste'.

But then what do they know.

 

No offence taken, I agree with you. I was surprised by the amount of optimism in the reporting of the £15M plan. Unless they already have a reasonable percentage of that promised/contracted, or they've got a cheque from the last Euromillions mega-winner, I don't think anything will happen soon, although I would love to be proved wrong. My use of "once" wasn't meant to indicate that I thought it would be quick!!

Back to the shed. I would have thought that the only reason that they NEED to move the shed would be because it would be in the way of the link. There are probably a hundred and one reasons why they would like to move it, but the railway as a whole no doubt has a million and one alternative uses for the money. Having been on the trains at the recent Gala, I would put having more standard passenger rolling stock available for such events as a high priority, but I digress. Until the link exists, the shed isn't in the way. If/when/once the link is built, the number of available sites increases with the addition of all of GCR(N), and there looks (on Googlemaps, at least) to be more space available at Ruddington than elsewhere.

Of course, if the GCR view moving the shed as urgent, it may be simply for PR reasons. The link project has been talked about for years, but there are few signs of any physical progress having been made.

 

I thought moving the Loughborough shed was in part to remove it from what is now a more residential area compared to when it was first built. Even though it "was there first", that doesn't appear to carry much weight in the "smoke and noise nuisance" stakes nowadays.
Having briefly glanced at the Steam Railway piece on the Atkins Report, if "unification" goes ahead, the combined GCR looks as though it will be a different animal to what is there now, with commercial freight and commuter services "alongside" Heritage operations, and doing that successfully will I suspect take some imaginative thinking.

 

£15m is a lot of money and I do wonder if it is well on the top side of what it could be done for. Heritage railways do seem to be moving away from the original ethos of volunteer labour and doing things at minimal cost. OK, I readily accept that there are many things in the project that couldn't be done by volunteers but there are a lot that could be. Where would the Festiniog be if the deviation had been put out to contract rather than done by volunteers?
There are several bridges to be replaced/renovated and they are obviously not going to be cheap. However, the NYMR has just replaced its bridge 30 for about £700k. With bridge beams of about 26m,this isn't as long as the likely 31m over the MML but, it is in the same ball park. The NYMR bridge works required the removal of the existing bridge - a substantial portion of the overall works - and had no road access for machinery and materials except in small vans, something that probably wouldn't be a problem with the GC bridges and which would reduce comparitive costs. Dropping a 31m bridge into place would be childs play if a suitable road crane can be got to site. The existing bridge 30 abutments were re-used, after repair, so the need for new ones for the GC bridge would be an additional cost but these shouldn't be huge in the overall scheme of things.
I believe that the Atkins report says 'up to £15m' In my experience, if £15m becomes the talked about price, it will cost that, even if it can be done for much less, simply because people will accept costs that bring it in within that figure and don't look at how it can be done for less.