Bridge that Gap: Great Central Railway News

Which is not the same thing as they bring little to the party.

 

I'd prefer to see it as mutually beneficial. Yes, things will likely change on both sides, but each has their merits and can help the other.

Having the transport heritage centre at the end of the line will surely be a winner, something to go and look at in between trains. Likewise the planned NRM outstation at the other end.

 

An interesting one, this! As has been said, the two organisations, or at least the people, don't exactly see eye-to-eye. The Southern GCR may have the experience and seemingly be the key players but it looks like the Northern GCR hold all the aces. They have a reasonably long enough length of operational railway and the main line connection so they don't really need the Southerly neighbours. I can see a lovely re-instated bridge over Network Rail with track laid to a buffer stop on the northern side.
Is there any legal tie-up between the two organisations?

 

An interesting one, as you say.

The GCR(N) do, indeed, have a reasonably long length of track, but it appears they lack the infrastructure to make anything more than very basic use of it. With the best will in the world, and even if they had appreciable quantities of motive power, the service they could run is no more than a very minimal one. And this is after over 20 years of operation - if you draw comparisons to the GCR after a similar period of time in operation, c. the early 1990s, there are significant differences in operational capabilities.

In short, they possess reasonable engineering facilities, but are very short on operational ones. And I may be doing them a disservice (if so, I apologise), but they do not seem to have sufficient resources, especially people with an interest in operations, to provide such facilities. To this observer, the organisation seems to be particularly heavily weighted towards members who are predominantly, or solely, interested in a particular form of motive power.

Without people to maintain and staff stations, install and fault signalling and telecommunications systems, operate signal boxes, pack joints and dig out wet-beds, cut back vegetation, carry out basic maintenance on structures, dig out catch pits, rod drains, &c., &c. they will surely struggle to progress to a point where they can do justice to the magnificent formation they own.

The GCR bring all that to the party, and are backed with a very sizeable membership organisation, as well as the administratitive personnel which are necessary to run such a considerable operation.

As I said, the GCR will indeed gain from access to the main line connection, as well as the 9 miles of main line, but the GCR(N) also stand to gain considerably from the merger, and by no means just materially. I would submit that the GCR(N) will have little to complain about when the scales are balanced . . . I would certainly not say that all the aces were in any one hand !

Flip

 

I'm inclined to agree, internal politics in railways and societies makes me lose interest in them quicker than anything else, there's enough challenges in preservation without any infighting.

That said if the FR and WHHR are slowly starting to warm to each other, there has to be hope for others.

 

That's what 20 years of being a freight only line does - which incidentally also brings in a useful amount of revenue. Imagine what would have been left of the southern section had the preservationists not moved in until the 1990s

 

Genuine question, the gypsum traffic certainly brings in revenue, but does it make a meaningful profit ? I'd been given to understand that wear-and-tear on the track and formation associated with the freight was appreciable, and that the intensive maintenance required as a result is largely carried out by contractors on commercial terms.

To address the point regarding the development of the two sections, I'm not sure that it is fair to imply that either had a significant advantage over the other. When considering what the GCR(N) started with in the 1990's, vs. what the GCR purchased in the 1970's, is there much in it ? I'll grant you that the intact (albeit derelict and dry-rot riddled) stations on the GCR represented a significant heritage asset, and were of undoubted operational benefit to the nascent railway, but otherwise the assets at appropriation seem about equal:

6 miles of neglected single line (GCR) vs 9 miles of same (GCR(N))
1 derelict signal box (with no lever frame) each. Draw.
No signals, ground frames, or related infrastructure. Draw.
Intact buildings suitable for engineering functions - advantage GCR(N).
Intact stations - advantage GCR.

I'm quite happy to be corrected if I have missed some significant advantage in the respective starting positions, vis-a-vis infrastructure.

Notwithstanding the above, probably the biggest asset of the GCR(N) is, of course, the fact that they own their formation, where the GCR only have the leasehold.

I still remain to be convinced by this suggestion that all of the advantages in the merger will be enjoyed by the GCR, or that the GCR(N) would lose nothing if it did not proceed. Both sections stand to gain a great deal.

Flip

 

I can't disagree with your last sentence. Although I remain to be convinced there is a sound economic case to joining the two lines

 

The GCR started with Double track L'boro-Quorn-Rothley. Onwards to Birstall Had been ripped up. The track was then singled by BR all the way Loughborough-Rothley.

 

I would tend to agree that it is little to do with economics Simon, although these days you will need to be able to point to an at least slightly credible business case in order to attract investors and grants. This matter is much more to do with emotions than economics, exactly as it was when the two lines were first saved for preservation.

Flip

 

Agreed, although of course at the start the track was continuous throughout, from Abbey Lane to Weekday Cross, albeit largely out-of-bounds to the preservationists. However they ultimately enjoyed no advantage from it. What the GCR bought was six odd miles of single line, and that's what they've had to work with.

 

Because of course there is a sound economic reason for them to exist in the first place!

 

Precisely so. You must run it prudently. That is to say good governance, and show how (from all the sources of funding) you can carry out the plan and keep it going afterwards, but it has nothing to do with economics. They aren't out to profit by it, and they won't in financial terms, but it will be a very emotionally profitable endeavour if completed.

 

Perhaps my wording could have been better. To be more explicit there needs to be in place a detailed plan designed to ensure that the joining of the two can be accomplished without jeopardising the economics of the current two separate organisation; one of which it is claimed in this month's Steam Railway has been running operating losses in 6 figures for a number of years.

 

Must be true then.

 

Possibly true, possibly not. If anyone is a member or shareholder perhaps they can let us know.

 

As a registered company, the annual accounts of the GCR's supporting company are a matter of public record.

 

I realise that, but I'm not a shareholder and I don't have an account with Companies house. I would imagine several people on here and can confirm or deny the quote attributed to the GM.

 

Once the gap is bridged, do we think the future is looking good for East Leake Station?

From;



To;



I can't wait to see how the rolling stock will be merged. Will we be seeing Austerities passing on double track?

As for the 'North' vs 'South' assets debate, GCR and GCR(N) both have viaducts, but GCR(N) has a tunnel

 

I think generally both tunnels and viaducts would go down in the "liabilities" side of the balance sheet, not the "assets" side - just ask your finance manager or infrastructure manager for an opinion!

Tom