Flipper

Do you have to preserve the entirity of something for it to be valid then ? How many heritage lines encompass the whole length of the pre-closure route ? P.S. Controversially, the southern terminus of the preserved GCR is inside the city boundary, not a few miles outside.

I suspect the the public are capable of deciding what looks and feels like a main line to them, I am not convinced that some of the examples above would feature in their thoughts . . .

Hi Andy, It is not the case that the GCR’s extension to London was built to a much more generous loading gauge than the normal UK one (notwithstanding that there was no such thing as a normal UK loading gauge when the line opened). The LE was constructed to exactly the same loading gauge as the rest of the GCR’s network, a gauge that was demonstrably smaller than that used by several contemporary companies such as the GWR and the GNR. The myth that it was otherwise appears to have arisen in the 1960s, when campaigners were seeking reasons to justify their position that the line should not be closed. One pamphlet contained this statement regarding loading gauges and others picked it up. The loading gauge used during construction is a matter of public record as the 1895 drawings detailing it, signed by Alexander Ross, survive in the National Archives. Apologies for the thread revival, but worth challenging this one when it appears . . .

Zombie thread alert . . . I do not know about your memory, but your sources have certainly not served you right. From the moment the first mineral trains ran in 1898, until the moment the last track was lifted in the 70s, the GCR’s London Extension was Up to London. Both official GCR documentation, and contemporary newspaper reports, from the opening to mineral traffic in 1898, and passenger traffic in 1899, explicitly mention that up trains ran to London, and Down trains to Manchester, &c. What you have heard is one of the big 3 “Great Central Myths”. It is a partner to: 1. “The London Extension was built to a particularly large loading gauge to accommodate future traffic from the Channel Tunnel”. It wasn’t, it was built to exactly the same gauge as the remainder of the GCR’s network, which was smaller than several other contemporary British lines. This myth appears to have started in the 1960s, and the first recorded instances are in literature produced to campaign against the closure. The actual, distinctly average, structure gauge of the LE is both a matter of public record, and preserved in surviving structures. 2. “Swithland Reservoir was drained to build the London Extension”. It wasn’t. When the Corporation of Leicester learned that the proposed new line would cross their proposed new reservoir, they went to considerable trouble to ensure that the construction of the former would not be permitted to disrupt the desperately needed supply of water from the latter. Consequently the viaducts and embankment across the reservoir were one of the first pieces of work on the contract, and were in fact built by the same contractors who were simultaneously constructing the reservoir, as a sub-contract to Henry Lovatt. The work was completed before the reservoir began to fill. This myth appears to have originated as a misunderstanding in the 1970s when an author had to write a caption for a S.W.A.Newton photograph which showed the empty reservoir with the newly completed viaduct, and wrongly guessed at the reason behind it. If you will take my advice, you will treat with caution any book or publication which states any of the above myths as fact.

As I understand it, it is more accurate to say that several approaches have been made to the owners of the vehicle, none of which have yet been taken up. This crowd funding appeal is on behalf of one of the proposals on order to have the necessary funds at hand should their proposal be considered viable.

Hi Gaz, Firstly, may I just say congratulations on a very fine looking model indeed ! Secondly, for the record, Aylesbury South was exactly 35' over the corner posts, not 60'. Thirdly, I hope you have not based too much on the Bachmann model, as not only is it inaccurate in places, but it is of an RSCo-built Type 4, whereas Aylesbury South was an RSCo-built Type 5. They appear superficially quite similar, but there is little in common between them. I am assuming you noticed this yourself, as the model appears to be a very good representation of a Type 5. Fourthly, it is a bit late now, but we hold a full set of plans, sections and elevations for the upper part of Aylesbury South. You must let me know if you have any further questions. Regards Shawn Sanders