Great Central... Nottingham?

[CosherB]

Just enjoyed a great 2 days at the GCR 'Oldies' festival. But I have a question. On looking at the railway's Loughborough terminus on Google Earth one can easily trace how it used to run north from Loughborough Great Central station to cross the present NR main line. But the GCR formation appears to continue, with single track, north from there to the outskirts of Nottingham.

At Nottingham, a further single line comes in from the right that seems to origante at a substantial engine shed a short distance away.

Is all this single-line formation north from Loughborough part of the NR main line, or is it another preserved railway?

 

[Spagnoletti]

The substantial engine shed is Ruddington at GCR North, I think.

 

[mumrar]

Yes, what you have seen is the GCR(N) line, which has an NR connection. Thankfully, although a long way off, with sufficient stuck in the mud idiots off respective boards, the lines are planning to become one single joined entity. There is, to this end, a fund being run by the GCR (I'm not sure about their GCR(N) counterparts) to erect a bridge over the MML at Lougborough. All eyes in the preservation world are on this merger, and in particular how all parties will conduct themselves. If there's any stupidity, it will do nothing to dispell the myth that enthusiasts merely play with a full scale trainset. I've never travelled on GCR(N), and I've made my mind up to wait patiently until the two lines have become joined. It would make a truly spectacular length of preserved line, particularly if they can restore the double track on GCR(N). One very real obstacle to overcome is the need for a new engine shed for the GCR, which currently sits on the earthworks for the bridge approach.

 

[CosherB]

Thanks guys. Lets hope sense prevails and the two railways link up (unlike the Ffestinog and Welsh Highland debacle!). That opens up the possibility of preserved double track from Nottingham to Leicester!

Regarding the GCR shed at Loughborough, it might be possible to either bypass it (one line either side of the shed) or sacrafice the western side of the shed, and perhaps extend the shed's eastern side to compensate? I don't know if there's land available for that, though.

Or could Ruddington become the main shed for the combined line, with perhaps a smaller shed retained at Loghborough?

 

[bangor-toad]

Or could Ruddington become the main shed for the combined line, with perhaps a smaller shed retained at Loghborough?

Hi there,
Nah, there are plans for a big "new" shed at Loughborough. It's on the old rubbish tip next to the MML. Here's a Linky to the "Top Shed" project website.

I have no idea if this is still going ahead, but the website seems to have been updated in 2010.

Cheers,
Jason

 

[Multiple Unit]

As far as funding goes I think if both GCR (N) and GCR (L) sold off all of the scrap they have lying arround then they could raisde quite a susbstacial ammont of money towards the Bridge.

 

[455driver]

But some of that "scrap" is spare parts or may even be historic items needing a lot of tlc. All a lot of people see is a yard full of cr#p but most of it will just need a bloody good clean, bit of welding and some paint. Oh and a few hundred hours from the volunteers

 

[Spagnoletti]

If there's any stupidity, it will do nothing to dispell the myth that enthusiasts merely play with a full scale trainset.

We do, don't we?

 

[Tomnick]

Regarding the GCR shed at Loughborough, it might be possible to either bypass it (one line either side of the shed) or sacrafice the western side of the shed, and perhaps extend the shed's eastern side to compensate? I don't know if there's land available for that, though.

There is sufficient space for a single line to pass down the western side of the shed.

 

[j0hn0]

Thanks guys. Lets hope sense prevails and the two railways link up (unlike the Ffestinog and Welsh Highland debacle!).

please describe this "debacle" as I am unaware of anything that needs tobe labelled as such

 

[CosherB]

please describe this "debacle" as I am unaware of anything that needs tobe labelled as such

You don't real 'Railway Magazine' (and no doubt others who also describe the debacle), then? Someone needs to take the top brass of both railways and bang their silly little heads together!

 

[Mvann]

If you read what I put in the whr opens to pont croser thread, it might put this debicale into perspective

 

[Daimler]

With double track restored from Leicester North all the way to Nottingham, and the Workington Shed built at Loughborough, the GCR will be absolutely beyond belief - not that it isn't fantastic already, but the very prospect of close to 20 miles of double track mainline with steam hauled trains is phenomenal.

I can't wait (though, alas, a lot of waiting is called for...).

 

[The Decapod]

With double track restored from Leicester North all the way to Nottingham, and the Workington Shed built at Loughborough, the GCR will be absolutely beyond belief - not that it isn't fantastic already, but the very prospect of close to 20 miles of double track mainline with steam hauled trains is phenomenal.

I can't wait (though, alas, a lot of waiting is called for...).

Not forgetting that it will also have a branch line too, from Swithland to Mountsorrel, although I'm not sure if that's owned by the GCR or a separate group.

 

[Shrub Hill]

i think the biggest hurdle is that one is a registered charity and one is a registered business, i believe both sides would like to see it happen but its not as straight forward as building a bridge

 

[Tomnick]

In common with many of the larger heritage railways, the railway is operated as a business but supported by a (registered) charity - in our case FoGCML. I don't know how the GCR(N) fits into that though. In any case, I don't see why that should be a significant barrier to joining the two halves - anything at an operating level won't concern FoGCML (such matters will obviously be handled by the operating sections of each railway).

 

[Teaboy1]

All though I have never visited the northern Nottm section, I have to admit it looks a stunning proposal and hope it will eventually happen. However I see that both parties may make uncomfortable bed partners with the conflict of aims between charity and company status they each qualify as.
Another hurdle would be the running rights .....and we immediately see we are right back to the early days of pre-grouping railways with potentially hostile manoeuvrings by rival companies. It really would be history repeating itself!!

It would make sense to form a single company but how likely that is depends on the membership and who becomes the MD.
These are just my ramblings but it will certainly make for interesting reading in the years to come.

Share's listing anyone.......?

 

[Tomnick]

The two halves do work closely together at a strategic level, under the GCML banner. I don't think there'd be much option but to operate the whole lot as a single railway, not two operations with running rights over each other. With decent integration of operating standards and procedures, that shouldn't be a problem?