Bridge that Gap: Great Central Railway News

The electrification has been 'paused' whatever that means - 2 years, 5 years, 20+ years? How long do we wait?

Lets suppose it was a delay of up to 5 years, this would give time to focus on other parts of the 'gap' thus maintaining momentum and presumably the savings could still happen. Now suppose it was 10-15 years and everything else was finished, do we get to a point when we *only* need the bridge but we can't run a train because we want to save a bit on the NR posessions, or do we push on and raise more funds?

All speculation at this point as I don't think anyone knows how long electrification is "paused" for, or if they do this has not been made public.

 

If it were 5 - 10 - 15 years how much could the cost increase over that period from £6.5m to ?? . What is the value of nine hundred thousand pounds (and £1m original quote for just the bridge) in say 10-15 years time compared with today if the bridge was delayed. I may be wrong but in all honesty the project sounds overly ambitious with delusions of reality at times. I remember a volunteers meeting a few years ago where an S+T volunteer asked Nigel Harris if the company had considered who was going to maintain 18 miles of railway line when reunification was completed (..2018 back then) and the answer was "yes we have thought about it" ..... What about the work and expenditure required with maintaining every other infrastructure aspect of the GCR plc in the process, for example the Swithland viaduct? Are the true costs of operating and maintaining a very expensive form of transport when used primarily for hobbies and heritage reasons considered and really accounted for?

 

Could the bridge be made and stored on the embankment on the north side until it is wanted so the price doesn't go up. Also could the pillars for the bridge be built and a start on rebuilding the missing embankment and other bridges, when they are waiting for a slot to get the bridge in place even if a few years.

 

Oh, one definitely wouldn't want to delay opening the link, when all the other bits were completed, in a potentially vain attempt to save the incremental money; that would indeed be contraindicated. And someone else had a good point about how the cost would go up over time (although available money might, too). But as you point out, one could re-order the works, and perhaps one would get lucky on the electrification at some point, allowing the savings.

So perhaps there's something about how all the planning/arranging has been done, and changing the ordering would upset all that, and potentially cost more than one might hope to save, etc, etc.

Noel

 

If you have the opportunity, agreements with all parties, the finance and the materials ready then get the bridge built as soon as possible. I assume possessions would still be in place so make use of them.
The added complication at a later date of slotting in around OHLE works could be a major problem.

On a similar sort of topic, some bridge works on the Trans Pennine are still going ahead even though that project is also "Paused" The possessions were in, the materials ready and all planning in place.

Get the job done now and its one less problem in the future.

 

Derby Midland has still got the go ahead for station layout improvements as well as Market Harborough as far as I know, other work involving bridges along the route also seem to be going ahead as part of the original electrification plans, so if the A60 road bridge works at Loughborough Midland are still on the cards(which im not sure of) then the combined works of that and the GCR bridge may still be a possibility.

 

One thing is certain costs always go up they very rarely go down! Keep the momentum up, get the bridge in while you can. From reading certain posts from above this also gives the chance for both railways to get round the table and have the chance to formulate a cohesive plan of attack. I have to say I havent heard to much about how GCR(N) will benefit from this. All we seem to get is how the GCR will be more attractive to run more big engines. I'm not knocking this project, Im not knocking either railway, but there is a little voice in my head saying 'The GC just wants a mainline connection' I really dont want to rock the boat but again I feel certain Journo in Peterborough could do with being pressed a bit more. And not with questions from mags from the same publishing group he works for

 

Do you see no benefit to the staff in having the opportunity to volunteer in new grades and departments on the line ?

Not many opportunities for Signalmen north of the gap right now, but there are four fully commissioned boxes to the south, working Absolute Block.

Might Ruddington-based Guards not occasionally enjoy the possibility of working a freight train during one of the GCR's massively intensive galas, being looped whilst an express passenger goes through, shunting in the sidings to chop out a wagon, running the engine round the train ? May make a nice change from top-and-tailed, one-engine-in-steam passenger workings, surely ?

Do you allow that there is a possibility that some within the various operating, engineering and traffic departments might benefit from association with their long established and relatively well resourced cousins to the south, including the various training programmes ?

Perhaps some of Ruddington's footplate crew would enjoy working some of the GCR's stable of steam locomotives in addition to their own extensive collection of diesel locomotives. Some of them might enjoy working loose-coupled freights, or dining trains at night, or working on filming contracts, &c.

They may even relish having 8 miles of track added to their current single line, 6 miles of the new territory being fully signalled double-track with a speed limit (under certain conditions) of 75 mph ? Might be slightly more interesting at times, don't you think ?

Finally, I suspect you do the vast majority of staff south of the MML a great disservice if you think they are primarily interested in the reunification in order to acquire a mainline connection. There may be some commercial benefit from the connection that the plc covet, but by far the greatest driver for the many staff I have discussed the matter with is the emotional business of rejoining the two halves . . .

 

So basically its being done so that the train set can become bigger?

I see no mention of how this is going to be paid for, where the target market is to help pay for it all.
Dare I even ask if there is a business case? Probably not.
My comments are towards the project and not either railway.

 

True but not just so that people can "play trains" on a bigger set.

 

What's the alternative? Two competing heritage railways with a terminus in the same town? Didn't work wonders for the Welsh Highland (1964 company) did it?

Is anyone similarly questioning why the KESR are interested in joining up with the RVR?

Keep in mind that the GCR(N) was basically formed in a similar manner, as a breakaway group with the aim of promoting the northern extension and ultimately joining up. Had they failed to become established the GCR (which at that time had quite enough on it's plate) would have been protected. Fortunately for everyone they did not fail, and now the joint goal can be pursued safe in the knowledge that it is not a 'bridge to nowhere', which was always one of the concerns 25 years ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I don't believe the KESR is able to make a business case for the cost of extending to Robertsbridge. Most of the membership want to see it happen, but the company cannot afford to finance the extension. It cost a great deal to extend to Norhtiam and then Bodiam.

The line is being built by the RVR from Robertsbridge to connect with the KESR at Bodiam, financed by RVR, at no direct cost to KESR. This is welcomed by the KESR, who will operate the extended line when completed.

Many KESR volunteers (especially P/W dept) have worked on the RVR's behalf, but at no financial risk to KESR. There will obviously be increased operating costs for the longer line, and changes to procedures will probably be needed, but the bulk of the cost and risk is taken away from KESR.

 

It's being done because ever since the embankment was first taken away the staff and supporters of the railway, along with a considerable number of more general enthusiasts, have had an ambition to put it back and rejoin the two halves of the line. The GCR(N) was originally created principally to acquire, develop and protect the formation and infrastructure until the time that such a reunion could be effected.

No true heritage railway operation was created with the intention of running a commercial operation. The groups were formed by their members in order to run a railway, for their enjoyment and the enjoyment of others. The business of making money to pay for it all was usually incidental and resulted in the bolting-on of a commercial company to the original charity.

The joint company which was formed to see the dream to reality is responsible for making sure that the project is feasible, and the production of a business case is the remit of the link company and the two railway operating companies. I imagine they have done a good job as they appear to have convinced a great number of agencies and businesses of its merit, none of whom are in the habit of "following the heart".

Furthermore, I have no doubt that neither the GCR plc, nor GCR(N) plc, nor indeed the preservation operations they were set up to pay for, would be proceeding with the project if they thought it would not pay its way. It would be tantamount to suicide and would destroy not only their businesses, but also put at considerable risk the lines themselves.

However, the ability to make the reunified line "pay its way", both initially and going onwards, is the justification, not the motivation behind the scheme. That is, and has always been, to "make the train set bigger" - as you so disparagingly refer to it.

 

I don't think they have a clue as to how to make it pay, or even what "it" is. However. I agree that it is difficult to pass up the opportunity to reinstate the bridge, and I don't think they should be criticised for this.

 

Well, heritage railways (with a very few exceptions) aren't purely business (i.e. an activity undertaken to make money), like, say, a fast-food place. There seems to always be a (usually strong) element of preserving a past which had some appeal, and things like that.

Yes, the lines have to be 'financially viable' (which seems to mean, in the heritage rail context, not depending on sugar daddies to pay their ordinary operational costs), but I sense your question goes beyond that - when you ask 'how is this to be paid for'. Well, the same way most capital investments in heritage rail are done - by contributions. Those people aren't putting money into clearing the Bluebell's tip, or rebuilding Broadway Station, because they think they'll get a good return on their money.

Or were you in fact simply asking 'is there a plan for how to earn enough money to pay for the maintainence on a larger physical plant'? That's not the sense I get from your post, but maybe I'm mis-reading the overall tone of it.

Got it; thanks for making that clear.

Noel

 

I don't have the time to go dig up a link, but there was a report done some years back (as part of an application for funding which failed, IIRC) which indicated that the overall benefit to the local economy would be many multiples of the cost. I reckon that had a lot to do with the enthusiasm of local entities for the project. So, in that sense at least, it has been looked into in detail, and shown (as much as such things can be, in advance) to be a paying proposition.

Noel

 

Which is precisely why I drew the very obvious parallel with the GCRs north & south. It's a very similar story. I (and many others) have volunteered on both "halves", particularly in the early days of the GCR(N) when they were finding their feet.

By the way if the question is about the cost of maintaining this increased infrastructure, remember that the two companies are already maintaining most of it today, and the 'missing bit' will be both relatively short and brand new with only very minimal maintenance required in the next 50 years. Operational cost increases are going to come from future developments elsewhere on the line, I would suggest, but will be at least partially in response to future demand (e.g. if passenger numbers demand more carriages, for example) so it is not as simple as saying the expanded railway is going to "cost more to run".

 

I note that the Electrification of the MML is back on, with a date of 2023 for the Leicester Area. Does this revise the cost back down again for the Gap bridge, or are the additional costs caused by the original "pause" still there?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34402592