East Midlands Railway Trust/GCR (Nottingham)

I'm sure I mentioned my theory for the link was for the GCR to gain mainline access, not to unite with the GCRN. Seems this has at last been officially confirmed if not in full. At least their being open about their real intentions now which is what i for one wanted to enable me to donate.

 

That's not at all what was being confirmed. The GCR are agreeing to take on responsibility for maintaining a 5.5 mile section of railway they won't have use of for several years. The main parties that stand to gain from this in the short to medium term are British Gypsum and whichever mainline provider they choose to work with when Gypsum freight trains resume, and the NHR once terms are agreed to allow resumption of passenger services to Loughborough Junction. The GCR is taking on responsibility for a section of track they will not be able to run trains over until, at least, towards the end of this decade. Yeas, they'll get some money for it, but arguably a smaller benefit than those that are going to be able to run trains over it.
The conspiracy theory that the GCR only wants the bridge in place for the main line connection is not helpful, on the contrary, it has done a huge amount of damage to the aim of joining the two railways as one intercity mainline heritage railway in past years, damage that has only recently begun healing. It is also completely against everything that has been said recently by the leadership bodies of all relevant parties. I and many others would appreciate it if you stopped spreading such myths

 

The GCR are agreeing a lease of 5 1/2 miles of track which is currently on the GCRN, granted they wont be able to use it for many years to come but theyll have the rights to operate and gain revenue (I assume) from the commercial freight traffic (if it isnt lost forever thanks to the lack of maintenance which has no put the traffic at risk).

For me personally this is a step forward, and will push me to donate once the lease has been agreed as I see it as an acknowledgment of the real link project - the mainline link. There is no shame in this at all, it make sense.

The GCRN are open it seems that they can not operate a full line up to 10 miles in length so lease the majority to someone who can, it good to see the GCR teams helping the North with securing their site as well.

Lets be honest, and realistic there will never be a proper mainline heritage link between Leicester and Nottingham (from the current limits North and South), best bet is the GCR extended over the new link to Rushcliff halt as a Northern terminus with the branch OOU until such a time the North can open it to connect. The sooner we admit this is the only real way forward the sooner the realists will get onboard with their cash and make it happen.

 

I think you're probably alone in thinking that a multi-million pound investment for simply a mainline connection is a worthwhile investment or 'makes sense'. If there was no aim to create a 20 mile heritage railway, I think sensible leadership would have abandoned the idea long ago and resolved themselves to road-only deliveries (which have served them well so far - for example they're one of the few places the A1SLT are willing to take Tornado on a low loader). In no way does spending millions upon millions of pounds on a decade-long project to enable a few extra locos and the odd railtour to come in from the national network 'make sense'.

Plus, if they did want to make it just about the mainline lease, why act now? Why not let the NHR die a slow, painful death and wait until we're closer to the rest of the infrastructure being completed until 'pouncing' to take on responsibility of just enough of a stretch of line to allow a railtour to arrive and reverse down to Leicester at a reduced cost? Or then take over the whole of the NHR to enable it to be run under entirely their own entity? The cooperative working proves that the GCR intends to support the NHR in re-establishing itself to enable the two lines to work together towards and beyond a physical rail link reuniting Loughborough Central with Loughborough North.

Given that the various projects associated with 'Bridging the Gap' (all of which are publicised as part of the greater vision of a 20 mile intercity mainline heritage railway) have probably been the best supported heritage railway-related fundraising projects since the start of the pandemic (a period where people's ability to financially support these types of project has been, in some cases, significantly reduced) and if anything the railway has gathered MORE financial support during the last two years for these projects than over comparable pre-COVID periods, I think the projects are working just fine without these 'realists' you speak of.

I fully believe that, one way or another, the NHR will be integrated into the existing GCR, or the two will merge to form a new company, either way, we're not going to end up with two railways sharing Rushcliffe Halt (a station which is in no way capable of being the meeting point of two railways). That isn't realistic any more than spending an extortionate fortune on a mainline connection. What makes sense is for the result of a multi million pound, decades long project to be a unified railway running services between the outskirts of two cities on a former piece of mainline railway. I think you are one of a very tiny minority who believe otherwise.

If you don't want to get on board, you don't have to. Recent evidence proves that the railway can get on very well without you, and is indeed doing so.

 

This donor with a standing order in place does so because the project is a link between the two halves of the GCR, not because of the possibility of a mainline link to the southern part of the line. Unrealists like me who have been donating for several years are how the project has got as far as it has.

If the project degenerates (as it once looked like it might) into just the lesser part, this donor will be looking very closely at his bank instructions, and also the basis on which he was encouraged to donate to the reunification appeal.

 

I am just excited that the dream of a preserved main line railway between Nottingham and Leicester is being achieved...and I am pleased to help make it happen sooner by contributing my modest amounts.......and there are obviously many hundreds (thousands?) of people who think the same way.

 

This donor already has... this time last year. A year on, things look a bit more positive and I'm more minded to re-open the purse strings.

 

It has been good to read the updates (26 Feb, 12 March and 19March) on the GCR(N) S and T page - There was a link posted earlier in the thread (Post #216). I'm sure more must be happening and it would be good if the information could be shared - via the GCR(N)/NHR website at least?

 

Latest Reunification Update... £1,000,000 Order released for A60 Bridge to be replaced in October this year.

 

The new A 60 bridge is good news indeed for the NHR/GCR(N). However is there any indication yet, as to when train services will be restarting at Ruddington. Obviously many people are working very hard to resolve the issues, but, is there a suggested timescale?
It is good to see that the GCR(N)/NHR website is being kept up to date now.

 

Latest email communication to volunteers (a week or two ago) was that getting trains restarted was a main priority for the board. Key things that need to happen include finishing off work in No.1 shed to make it possible to work in there again, and sorting out competencies again. All these seem to be underway, although no definite time scale or target date was given

 

Earlier in this thread it was suggested that there were also problems with Bridge 307 at Bunny Lane, which could preclude running between Ruddington and Rushcliffe Halt; and the running round movements needed for the Gypsum traffic too. Does anyone know if these have been resolved?

 

Thanks Ruddingtonrsh - it is also good to know that the volunteers are being kept up to date.

 

From the Grid 56097's Facebook page, posted without comment:

 

Tbh it hardly got any use in the couple of years prior to COVID. Not really my cuppa tea as far as diesels go and I won't miss it, but I recognize some will.

 

There are two more updates on the S & T blog which are good to see, work on maintaining the insulated track joins and painting of parts of Hotchley Hill Signal box.

 

So once again a railway allows its assets to get into an unserviceable state only for people to dip into their even shallow pockets to bail them out. WSR, Llangollen, GCRN, when will the consequences of poor asset and financial management bite with a terminal wound?

I still think the state of the North falls nicely into the real concept of a GCR with a mainline connection not a united railway.

 

If you're talking about the 56, it was barely an asset. The owner was very choosey about who he would allow to pass out on it (basically nobody), and, coupled with the fact that it was only ever air braked, not dual braked (so of no use during, for example, Santa Specials) it maybe got, at best, 5 weekends' use per year? Plus a big loco like that would use more fuel than a 20 or the like. Also, maintenance and servicing was never the responsibility of the railway, it was always done by the owner out of their own pocket, so if it got into a bad state, that's the owner's fault. Far better in my opinion to free up the siding space it's taking up for something the railway will get more use out of - a dual braked, smaller, more economical diesel? A new coach?

If you're talking about the Bridge, it's a 120 year old bridge, it was never going to last forever, and its replacement has always been down as one of the things that would be required at some point around the time of reunification. The NYMR replaced two bridges over the last winter and had some fundraising (as well as a grant from local authorities or similar) to be able to afford it, are you going to accuse them of allowing their assets to get into an unserviceable state and having to rely on people getting into shallow pockets? Plus, the fact that the money has been raised so quickly evidences the fact that people are happy to dip their hands into potentially shrinking pockets because they believe that an 18 mile reunified intercity railway is one that is worth supporting.

Yes, the previous NHR board didn't do the best of jobs looking after it. But it's a completely different board now, including many people of GCR heritage. It will be different.

You clearly have an axe to grind against the NHR and a delusional idea (which I have not seen anybody else share) that a mainline connection is a more worthwhile result of a decades-long, multi-million pound fundraising effort than a heritage railway to rival the very best in the country. Feel free to keep convincing yourself that you're right but you won't find any support from me and I suspect you will find little other support on this forum or elsewhere in the world of railway preservation

 

I wasn't referring to the 56, and was referring to the bridge - I seek no support for my theory the link project is purely about a mainline connection its my personal view I expect no one to share or support it.

 

Good. Because there are a lot of people donating to the reunification project for whom stopping at the junction will be a failure. And if that failure is deliberate, then donations will dry up.

The GCR doesn't need a mainline connection, and certainly not at the cost that is involved. It will be a desirable addition, but will never justify that time, effort and expenditure.