Nottingham Heritage Centre, formerly GC North.

[Andrea506]

While looking at possible trips out on Bank Holiday Monday I had a look at their website to see if there was an event I could combine with walking around the nature reserve. They don't appear to be open on the bank holiday and all future events show "no trains running". Have I missed something? Are they in serious trouble?

[Bomag]

The latest info I saw was that they were prohibited from running the whole line due to a dodgy bridge and P/W issues; I am not certain if they have any usable locos as well. Also the on going tussle between the the three groups (railway, bus, model engineers) is still ongoing. Happy to be corrected but there seems to be a consistent message.

[Andrea506]

Right, I do think it odd though that they are apparently not open at all on an August Bank Holiday.

[Michael Hodgson]

Bomag's rght.  There's an article about them in the current issue of Steam Railway, issue 522.

 

GCR asked the GCR(N) to make the name change because of an improvement notice from ORR over the state of infrastructure, including bridge 326 over the A60.  Presumably they don't want to be associated with safety concerns appearing to apply to them.  East Midland Railway Trust who own the Ruddington headquarters and the trackbed who are raising funds want the operating company to give up its tenancy of the bridge so that this section can be repaired and is apparently threatening to put the NHR into bankruptcy.

 

Al sounds like the good old days when the Festiniog and the Welsh Highland weren't speaking to one another, not even in Welsh.

[Johann Marsbar]

The site at Ruddington is open today (B Hol Mon) as the 125 Group are having an open house event there ......

 

https://www.125group.org.uk/

 

https://twitter.com/emrailtrust?lang=en

 

Ruddington is open at weekends now, though only things like the cafe, Model Engineers minature line and the bus collection are available for viewing.  The workshops are still off limits until approval is given for them to reopen.

The A60 bridge at Loughborough has certainly been condemned in the eyes of the ORR and the last I heard (or rather, anyone said...) that Bunny Lane bridge just to the north of the Gypsum plant needed a survey/inspection before it could be used again, both of these precluding any rail operations, though some limited stock movements have taken place around the Ruddington site as part of a "tidy up" operation.

[Andrea506]

Thank you for the information guys. The A60 bridge sounds quite serious because the gypsum trains for Rushcliffe use it, if it gets condemned that would stop the freight flow and the resultant revenue.

[Johann Marsbar]

1 hour ago, Andrea506 said:

Thank you for the information guys. The A60 bridge sounds quite serious because the gypsum trains for Rushcliffe use it, if it gets condemned that would stop the freight flow and the resultant revenue.

 

That traffic stopped the day that ORR found problems with the bridge and hasn't run since, and the Bunny Lane bridge problem seems to impact on the operation of the Gypsum trains as well.

 

Net result that there is no Commercial revenue from those trains coming in to EMRT and figures of £1 Million have been banded around for major repairs and a replacement bridge deck for the A60 bridge alone.  EMRT have supposedly got some form of "deal" to get the repairs done waiting in the wings, but NHR are stopping this proceeding by refusing to give up their tennancy of the Rushcliffe Halt to Loughborough (MML junction) section, so at the moment, there are no winners and everybody is losing ....

 

The local MP for Ruddington is supposed to be hosting a meeting between EMRT & NHR to try and sort things out, but how long that is going to take is anyones guess!

 

NHR (prior to their name change) were supposed to be responsible for maintenance of the line, according to the EMRT statements, and obviously failed miserably at that, so they don't, in my view, hold much moral high-ground over the whole episode.

[sir douglas]

it doesnt bode well for the future relations and co-operation with the GCR when the connection is finished

[woodenhead]

13 minutes ago, sir douglas said:

it doesnt bode well for the future relations and co-operation with the GCR when the connection is finished

I suspect the GCR will take on responsibility for the track and infrastructure once their trains can bridge the gap, they will not want their hard work sullied.  What may happen is that the NHR finds itself with just the locoyard and the GCR the rest.

[phil-b259]

This sort of thing is a stark reminder that running a running a Heritage railway is an expensive undertaking - gone are the days where it could be 'assumed' that the infrastructure inherited from British Rail was still fit for purpose and required minimal / no attention.

 

Quite rightly the ORR have been paying particular attention to 'boring' things like p-way and staff training / competency regimes. Groups who treat their railway as a personal trainset are not welcome...

[adb968008]

So NHR have responsibility for maintaining the bridge.

The bridge needs £1mn

And in the future the GCR would take the lot.

 

So I could understand why the NHR might not want to pony up £1mn, if they are going to lose it all anyway.

It seems to me that maybe GCR North has run its course and its time to get out, hanging on is just straining the future and wont change the inevitable.

Why dont they want to give up tennancy which comes with a significant liability ?

[Johann Marsbar]

26 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

So NHR have responsibility for maintaining the bridge.

The bridge needs £1mn

And in the future the GCR would take the lot.

 

So I could understand why the NHR might not want to pony up £1mn, if they are going to lose it all anyway.

It seems to me that maybe GCR North has run its course and its time to get out, hanging on is just straining the future and wont change the inevitable.

Why dont they want to give up tennancy which comes with a significant liability ?

 

From what I've heard over the years the "Politics" of the Ruddington operation have been fairly contentious for its entire existence, and I've heard some rather interesting statements/comments made about the place from volunteers based there - particularly in the last 5 years or so.

 

I've been rather wary of the statements coming out of NHR which seem to be aiming along the "We're innocent Guv.." line, and the "Nottinghamshires own preserved railway" statements, which, as somone pointed out on another Forum, seems to indicate they don't really want finacncial donations or volunteers from anywhere else in the Country!

 

The place is going to have to sort themselves out, as nobody else can do it for them......

[Michael Hodgson]

I suspect the ultimate outcome will be the building of the missing link between the two lines and replacement of the defective infrastructure on the northern section by the southern group, with losing individuals leaving or being forced out, but we will have to wait and see the way that happens and the timescale involved.  It will be down to personalities and politicking,  I just hope it doesn#t take as long the Welsh Highland/Festiniog groups took to sort out their differences and achieve the unification which both lots really want.

 

I'm not sure how unification will work out financially.  Running right through from Leciester to Nottingham will cost more, but fares might not be sufficiently elastic to cover that increase.  Will Mum, Dad and 2 kids be willing to fork out quite a bit more for their afternoon's entertainment?   Will the larger catchment area bring in many more customers?

[Andrea506]

Interesting thoughts. I've always felt, maybe unfairly, that the Ruddington operation was a bit of a "cowboy" outfit, certainly nothing like as well run as the GC.

 

One particular gripe I had was their criminal neglect of one of the earliest Nottingham Atlantean buses which was just left outside to rot until it was saved by another group. 

 

I guess time will tell about the future.

[MrSimon]

It’s not really much of an enlarged catchment area - it’s a short drive to Loughborough/Quorn from Nottingham, from north of the city it’s probably easier to get to the GCR than to Ruddington

[Dava]

There is a plan to reopen the line from Loughborough MML junction up to Rushcliffe Halt and then Ruddington.
One hopes for an outbreak of common sense so that all parties will get behind the plan.

 

The 125 Group had a display of their Class 43s & Mk 3 stock this BH weekend. The Nottingham Transport Heritage Centre Facebook page or Nottingham Heritage Railway webpage shows upcoming events at the Centre.

 

Dava

[adb968008]

I always understood the aim was for 1 GCR running the entire length.

That would imply, 1 of the current operators was only ever going to be short term.

 

Agree any resident groups should keep their parts below the parapet whilst the fighting goes on.

[009 micro modeller]

3 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

I always understood the aim was for 1 GCR running the entire length.

That would imply, 1 of the current operators was only ever going to be short term.

 

Agree any resident groups should keep their parts below the parapet whilst the fighting goes on.

 

I am surprised by this thread as I was under the impression that, originally at least, the two groups were linked (so quite different to the WHR situation where they were completely separate). The Mountsorrel Railway shows that a smaller group can work quite well with the GCR, although they seem to be doing everything to a very high standard.

[Zomboid]

Railway preservation politics... 

 

Wouldn't it be nice if everyone could just get along?

[009 micro modeller]

Also, out of interest, can somebody explain point 1 in this statement?

 

http://www.gcrn.co.uk/news/statement-2/

 

I can’t quite work out how this would work based on the railway geography involved but possibly I’m not quite understanding what they mean by ‘the Mountsorrel quarry sidings’?

[Paul.Uni]

25 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

Also, out of interest, can somebody explain point 1 in this statement?

 

http://www.gcrn.co.uk/news/statement-2/

 

I can’t quite work out how this would work based on the railway geography involved but possibly I’m not quite understanding what they mean by ‘the Mountsorrel quarry sidings’?

Material from the Mountsorrel Quarry travels by conveyor belt to sidings next to the Midland MainLine were it's transferred to train. It's those sidings the NHR are referring to.

[009 micro modeller]

9 minutes ago, Paul.Uni said:

Material from the Mountsorrel Quarry travels by conveyor belt to sidings next to the Midland MainLine were it's transferred to train. It's those sidings the NHR are referring to.

 

OK. So is the scenario in the statement based on using the Mountsorrel Railway, the southern bit of the GCR once the gap is bridged and the extreme southern end of the GCR (N) instead of the conveyors? That’s the impression I’m getting from information on the National Preservation forum but it still seems a bit of a strange concern to raise.

 

https://www.national-preservation.com/threads/east-midlands-railway-trust-nhr-north-gcr.1419162/page-8

[pete_mcfarlane]

22 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

OK. So is the scenario in the statement based on using the Mountsorrel Railway, the southern bit of the GCR once the gap is bridged and the extreme southern end of the GCR (N) instead of the conveyors? That’s the impression I’m getting from information on the National Preservation forum but it still seems a bit of a strange concern to raise.

 

https://www.national-preservation.com/threads/east-midlands-railway-trust-nhr-north-gcr.1419162/page-8

 

My reading of that allegation is that there is a (possibly imaginary) dastardly plot for Tarmac to turn the sidings into housing, and route the quarry traffic via the GCR, and onto Network Rail through the GCR(N)'s mainline connection. And that the people behind this dastardly plot want to get control of the GCR(N) in order to do this. 

 

I'd have thought the value of the sidings for developers is probably less than the cost of the infrastructure work to replace them with an alternative link. 

[pete_mcfarlane]

I've always been a little underwhelmed by the GCR(N) site at Ruddington. I first went there in about 2002, and excused the slightly chaotic feel as it was a new start-up, but it seems pretty much the same 20 years on. 

[Johann Marsbar]

37 minutes ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

 

My reading of that allegation is that there is a (possibly imaginary) dastardly plot for Tarmac to turn the sidings into housing, and route the quarry traffic via the GCR, and onto Network Rail through the GCR(N)'s mainline connection. And that the people behind this dastardly plot want to get control of the GCR(N) in order to do this. 

 

I'd have thought the value of the sidings for developers is probably less than the cost of the infrastructure work to replace them with an alternative link. 

 

 

That Mountsorrel branch suggestion surfaced many years ago - long before the line from Swithland Sidings was even rebuilt by the Heritage Centre volunteers.

There are conflicting movements on the MML into the stone sidings that affected track capacity for other services on that stretch of the line and it was suggested rerouting the stone traffic onto the GC via a reconstructed link to the MML  would solve those pathing problems.  It was rejected at the time so what the motives are digging it out and presenting it as some sort of dastardly plot is anyones guess.....