Nottingham Heritage Centre, formerly GC North.

[t-b-g]

It seems to me that both ends of the line have a great deal to gain from working together to achieve the goal of a "joined up" line and yet they seem more interested in some sort of power struggle.

 

There were several comments I heard when I have visited both sites which made it clear, going back quite a few years, that the politics of the through route were always going to be tricky to resolve. People at each end of the line were quick to point out their own successes and the problems encountered by "the other lot". It made me wonder back then if the two organisations could work together.

 

It seems to me that there are now so many different groups, each with their own agenda, that unless they learn to work together, the whole thing will suffer.

 

Pointing fingers, blaming and making threats while trying to grab a bigger share of the pie isn't the way to make good progress. It never was and never will be.

 

 

[009 micro modeller]

50 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

It seems to me that both ends of the line have a great deal to gain from working together to achieve the goal of a "joined up" line and yet they seem more interested in some sort of power struggle.

 

There were several comments I heard when I have visited both sites which made it clear, going back quite a few years, that the politics of the through route were always going to be tricky to resolve. People at each end of the line were quick to point out their own successes and the problems encountered by "the other lot". It made me wonder back then if the two organisations could work together.

 

It seems to me that there are now so many different groups, each with their own agenda, that unless they learn to work together, the whole thing will suffer.

 

Pointing fingers, blaming and making threats while trying to grab a bigger share of the pie isn't the way to make good progress. It never was and never will be.

 

 

 

From briefly reading the Nat Pres thread I got the impression that there is some bad feeling towards EMRT because of previous decisions made. As a complete outsider I don't know how reasonable this is. What I can't understand is the apparent new commitment to being a Nottingham-centred heritage railway, yet at the same time a commitment to through-running to Leicester. Is the issue essentially that some NHR people are worried their group will not be seen as an equal partner with the southern GCR when the reunified line is ready?

 

I would be interested to know how the Mountsorrel Railway fits into this. They seem to be partly independent, community-based and doing their own thing to a certain extent, yet the line seems to complement the main GCR nicely. I haven't managed to visit either of the GCRs yet (they're on my list but life gets in the way), but it would be lovely to one day be able to travel by GCR from Leicester, stopping on the way for a trip on the Mountsorrel line and eventually reaching the Nottingham heritage site.

 

Edit: if the gypsum trains continue, will that mean that the two halves of the GCR sometimes have to operate separately anyway?

Edited August 31, 2021 by 009 micro modeller

[Northmoor]

9 hours ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

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. 

We should always be suspicious when new groups form to rebuild/operate part of a line where an existing organisation already has a stated intention to rebuild/operate that section in future.  It is nearly always an attempt by a few disgruntled individuals who have no power at Scheme A, to create a Scheme B where they have all the power.

 

I have never visited the Ruddington site - no particular reason, just never been in the area - but it does sound very much like a New Generation Line (huge amounts of stock in relation to its length, much of it unrestored and goes from nowhere to nowhere through nowhere in particular).  My only experience of GCR(N) was about 20 years ago when the AC Loco Group was considering alternative locations to Barrow Hill, where could build our own base.  We approached several schemes to discuss possible options; GCR(N) were asked about using a site adjacent to them (which we would have acquired) and outside their boundary, to which we could install a connection.  Their official response was in almost as many words, "Ruddington is full", which showed (a) they clearly hadn't read the proposal properly and/or (b) the person or persons responding weren't interested personally in electric locos so gave us the brush-off.  FWIW, numerous locos and rolling stock arrived at the "full" Ruddington site within the next 2-3 years.

[009 micro modeller]

12 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

We should always be suspicious when new groups form to rebuild/operate part of a line where an existing organisation already has a stated intention to rebuild/operate that section in future.  It is nearly always an attempt by a few disgruntled individuals who have no power at Scheme A, to create a Scheme B where they have all the power.

 

I’m trying to think what other examples of this there have been (the WHR doesn’t really count as that was a slightly different and more complex situation). I know there are groups which have split and ended up forming two groups at sites very close to each other but I’m struggling to think of places where this has actually involved both of them going for the same bit of trackbed. Aren’t there two Glyn Valley groups?

 

I suppose in some cases people could also set up a scheme B because they think that scheme A is going wrong or is fundamentally flawed, though obviously that isn’t the case here.

 

One interesting example of competition by two groups for the same route was covered in an article I once read in an old issue of The Narrow Gauge (NGRS publication) that I picked up at a model railway show. I think it’s in Issue 162, and the article is ‘A Tale of Preservation’ - see here: https://www.ngrs.org/downloads/tng-index-2018.htm

 

The article was largely about the author’s experience of preserving and transporting some old Ashover ex-WDLR bogie wagons, but the interesting part was that these were originally to have been used on a narrow gauge line on the route of what is now the Battlefield Line, prior to any preservation scheme becoming established there, the NG scheme apparently losing out in the end partly because it had not ‘gone public’ quite as early so had less support, and because the extant nature of some of the standard gauge track made standard gauge more viable. It’s off topic but I’d be interested to know more about this, as apart from the TNG article I’ve never seen any references to it, not even online on railway forum threads.

[Northmoor]

31 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

I’m trying to think what other examples of this there have been (the WHR doesn’t really count as that was a slightly different and more complex situation). I know there are groups which have split and ended up forming two groups at sites very close to each other but I’m struggling to think of places where this has actually involved both of them going for the same bit of trackbed.

 

1. Eden Valley / Kirkby Stephen East

2. Gloucestershire Warwickshire / Stratford & Broadway RS (which has now relocated) 

[Johann Marsbar]

I think the North was set up as a seperate body at the beginning as the GCR didn't have the resources back in the early 1990's to take a second operation on, particularly when any rejoining of the two sections was just a dream at that stage.  Don't forget the GCR did go through a fairly rocky financial situation in the late 1990's/early 2000's, which, thankfully, now seem to be a distant memory.

[009 micro modeller]

1 hour ago, Johann Marsbar said:

 

I think the North was set up as a seperate body at the beginning as the GCR didn't have the resources back in the early 1990's to take a second operation on, particularly when any rejoining of the two sections was just a dream at that stage.

 

 

So assuming that when set up the two groups had good relations with each other, was there a reason why there needed to be a presence at both ends of the line rather than just one railway extending northwards?

[sir douglas]

rother Valley and K&ESR seem to be getting along with each other with their plans for reconnection

[Johann Marsbar]

2 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

So assuming that when set up the two groups had good relations with each other, was there a reason why there needed to be a presence at both ends of the line rather than just one railway extending northwards?

No physical link between the two lines in the Loughborough area, something that has only started to be addressed in the last 5 years or so.

Ruddington was established to ensure a presence on the northern section after the freight traffic ceased and to stop the line being lifted and infrastructure abandoned.

There is no way that the equivalent of £12-15 million in todays pounds - or whatever the eventual Reunification construction costs are likely to be - would have been available in the early 1990's to "just extend north"

Edited September 1, 2021 by Johann Marsbar

[009 micro modeller]

4 minutes ago, Johann Marsbar said:

No physical link between the two lines in the Loughborough area, something that has only started to be addressed in the last 5 years or so.

Ruddington was established to ensure a presence on the northern section after the freight traffic ceased and to stop the line being lifted and infrastructure abandoned.

There is no way that the equivalent of £12-15 million in todays pounds - or whatever the eventual Reunification construction costs are likely to be - would have been available in the early 1990's to "just extend north"

 

OK - so it was essentially to ensure the section to Ruddington remained in place. But how much did the two groups originally have to do with each other?

[Johann Marsbar]

25 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

OK - so it was essentially to ensure the section to Ruddington remained in place. But how much did the two groups originally have to do with each other?

 

That I don't know, as I didn't become a member of the GCR until 1996 (now FoGCML, MLST before then) and have never had any involvement with "the north" other than as a visitor on odd occasions, which have become more frequent in the last couple of years having become a financial supporter of two of the groups based there.

[Oldddudders]

Everyone wants to be Fat Controller (no slight intended to an honourable member of that name!), it seems. 

 

Having had the good fortune to work closely with some of the most senior managers on BR (I do not pretend I was one of them!) dignity and status were often much less conspicuous than in some a few rungs further down the ladder. Vision and ability to see a bigger picture are far more valuable than a tendency to swagger. 

[adb968008]

On 01/09/2021 at 12:22, Oldddudders said:

Everyone wants to be Fat Controller (no slight intended to an honourable member of that name!), it seems. 

 

Having had the good fortune to work closely with some of the most senior managers on BR (I do not pretend I was one of them!) dignity and status were often much less conspicuous than in some a few rungs further down the ladder. Vision and ability to see a bigger picture are far more valuable than a tendency to swagger. 

Sounds like any typical organisation…

There are Gods, Preachers and the rest are Sinners.

[009 micro modeller]

Might have changed now as this is from 2012 but I’m surprised at the amount of propelling going on. Can they not run round at Rushcliffe Halt either?

 

Edited September 3, 2021 by 009 micro modeller

[Michael Hodgson]

2 hours ago, 009 micro modeller said:

Might have changed now as this is from 2012 but I’m surprised at the amount of propelling going on. Can they not run round at Rushcliffe Halt either?

I would be a lot happier with trains topped and tailed if they've got those sort of limitations on what they can physically do.  nVarious other lines have done that over the years.  It's a good many years since I visited that line and my main recollection was a dislike for the arrangements at their northern end and assumed it was a work in progress.  I rather hoped with the southern section being so positive in recent years about uniting the two lines that the situation on the northern section had been improved somewhat.  If they've been shut done by the authorities, sadly it seems the opposite is the case.

[009 micro modeller]

8 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

I would be a lot happier with trains topped and tailed if they've got those sort of limitations on what they can physically do.  nVarious other lines have done that over the years.  It's a good many years since I visited that line and my main recollection was a dislike for the arrangements at their northern end and assumed it was a work in progress.  I rather hoped with the southern section being so positive in recent years about uniting the two lines that the situation on the northern section had been improved somewhat.  If they've been shut done by the authorities, sadly it seems the opposite is the case.

 

But presumably there is a run round loop near Rushcliffe anyway, for the gypsum trains?

 

The potential plans for after the lines are joined up seem to involve a south chord into Ruddington Fields. I don’t know how likely this is as it seems to involve entirely new, non-railway land which currently has two farms/businesses on it, but it seems that it would eventually be necessary - surely the need to reverse into the terminus will become more inconvenient to operate when it has to happen at the beginning or end of an 18-mile run, possibly as part of a two or three train service?

 

The other option they mention is building a station on the main line for Ruddington (on the original Ruddington station site?) but wouldn’t this then require a separate shuttle to and from the heritage centre (unless you reverse anyway)?

Edited September 3, 2021 by 009 micro modeller

[Denbridge]

17 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

I would be a lot happier with trains topped and tailed if they've got those sort of limitations on what they can physically do.  nVarious other lines have done that over the years.  It's a good many years since I visited that line and my main recollection was a dislike for the arrangements at their northern end and assumed it was a work in progress.  I rather hoped with the southern section being so positive in recent years about uniting the two lines that the situation on the northern section had been improved somewhat.  If they've been shut done by the authorities, sadly it seems the opposite is the case.

The ultimate aim is to build a new chord so that trains can run direct into Ruddington without reversing as at present.

[009 micro modeller]

1 hour ago, Denbridge said:

The ultimate aim is to build a new chord so that trains can run direct into Ruddington without reversing as at present.

 

https://emrtrust.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Forward-Fund-Brochure.pdf

 

So is the 'Ruddington Victoria' proposal here meant to be at the Ruddington Fields site itself? Having re-read this I think it is, which would make sense, but I thought there was also an idea floating around for some sort of terminus on the main line, close to the current reversing point at Ruddington. It seems there's also a vague idea of extending up to meet the NET trams in future (slightly difficult as the SSSI and nature reserve on part of the trackbed limits how close they can get to the tramway, and thus its effectiveness as an interchange), but would this not have to operate as a separate shuttle if running into a terminus that's off the main line?

[Johann Marsbar]

1 hour ago, 009 micro modeller said:

 

https://emrtrust.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Forward-Fund-Brochure.pdf

 

So is the 'Ruddington Victoria' proposal here meant to be at the Ruddington Fields site itself? Having re-read this I think it is, which would make sense, but I thought there was also an idea floating around for some sort of terminus on the main line, close to the current reversing point at Ruddington. It seems there's also a vague idea of extending up to meet the NET trams in future (slightly difficult as the SSSI and nature reserve on part of the trackbed limits how close they can get to the tramway, and thus its effectiveness as an interchange), but would this not have to operate as a separate shuttle if running into a terminus that's off the main line?

 

Do a search on the Rushcliffe planning portal for "Mere Way"......

 

https://planningon-line.rushcliffe.gov.uk/online-applications/

 

And you will come up with the full plans of the proposed terminus building - to be sited at the Heritage Centre - amongst all the planning applications.  It does appear on the first page, as does the 125 Group HST shed, from memory.

[009 micro modeller]

1 hour ago, Johann Marsbar said:

 

Do a search on the Rushcliffe planning portal for "Mere Way"......

 

https://planningon-line.rushcliffe.gov.uk/online-applications/

 

And you will come up with the full plans of the proposed terminus building - to be sited at the Heritage Centre - amongst all the planning applications.  It does appear on the first page, as does the 125 Group HST shed, from memory.

 

There's a few different ones related to the heritage centre, though presumably the relevant one in this case is 'Erection of a two storey steel portal station building.' Is there anything pertaining to a south curve?

 

I'm still not sure how this fits in with any possible future northward extension towards the trams, unless that would be operated as a separate shuttle. I can't imagine that in future, having hopefully eliminated the need to reverse into Ruddington Fields by building a south curve, they'd want to introduce a requirement for trains to reverse at Ruddington Fields itself.

 

Also relating to the current situation (or at least the situation as shown in that video from 2012), with the train reversing all the way from Loughborough to Fifty Steps Bridge, I was surprised as I thought that routinely propelling over long distances on standard gauge isn't really allowed now unless a proper driving trailer is used (I think the coach shown in the video just has a guard's lookout window added in the end, rather than a driving position?). For instance, the IoWSR says that their restored Ryde Pier tram has to have a driving position in its trailer car now (which it didn't originally have) to be allowed to run in reverse in service. Must be slightly different on demonstration lines (e.g. Quainton Road) but they're a lot shorter. This isn't meant as a criticism of the Ruddington operation, I just wondered what the rules are now.

Edited September 3, 2021 by 009 micro modeller

[Edwin_m]

I think the "driving trailer" has a brake valve and it certainly has a horn.  

[Northmoor]

23 minutes ago, Edwin_m said:

I think the "driving trailer" has a brake valve and it certainly has a horn.  

I'm pretty sure it would illegal to operate with passengers without them, as it would be classed as shunting which is limited to very slow speed.