Great Central Railway News and Updates

[merry]

From what I have read, the single track section is a bottle-neck which defines the capacity of the whole line.

Oh yes, definitely is.
On busy days, such as galas, you will note many trains terminate and reverse at Rothley. This is to avoid the Leicester section bottleneck, and in the process adds operational interest. The Leicester section takes ~10 mins each way plus turnround of anything from 2 to 15 mins minimum, depending on service ( dmu to loco hauled with too/rail and loco stepping back in between!). So service interval of 22 to 35 mins at Leicester. Rest of the line can support 10 min intervals with all boxes open.
Adding double track to Leicester gives same interval, and trains can pass on section. Effectively quadruples capacity!

It is now apparently proposed to double to Leicester as part of bridging the gap. It will allow the new line to be timetabled most effectively. Which makes sense!

 

[satisnek]

If you double tracked to Leicester you could then have Rothley signal box open only as required. So on quieter days you would not need any extra staff to operate the service.

Or, as I previously suggested, have Leicester North remotely signalled from Rothley, in keeping with its 1960s theme.

Doubling to Leicester will add more operational interest than it removes. As I have also suggested the GCR could offer a combination of 'fast' and 'stopping' services - perhaps the through trains from GCR(N) could run non-stop between Loughborough and Leicester?

 

[Belperpete]

Oh yes, definitely is.
On busy days, such as galas, you will note many trains terminate and reverse at Rothley. This is to avoid the Leicester section bottleneck, and in the process adds operational interest. The Leicester section takes ~10 mins each way plus turnround of anything from 2 to 15 mins minimum, depending on service ( dmu to loco hauled with too/rail and loco stepping back in between!). So service interval of 22 to 35 mins at Leicester. Rest of the line can support 10 min intervals with all boxes open.
Adding double track to Leicester gives same interval, and trains can pass on section. Effectively quadruples capacity!

It is now apparently proposed to double to Leicester as part of bridging the gap. It will allow the new line to be timetabled most effectively. Which makes sense!

What with building a new loco shed and double tracking to Leicester, this bridging the gap project seems to be mounting in cost!

Or, as I previously suggested, have Leicester North remotely signalled from Rothley, in keeping with its 1960s theme.

Wouldn't that involve track circuiting all the way between Rothley and Leicester, on both tracks? A significant maintenance overhead.

I don't recall us going over any double slip? The flagman was having to clip the facing end of the crossover as we set back, and we continued setting back beyond the crossover past a single lead giving access to the sidings. I didn't spot him clipping those when we set back again over that point in the facing direction into the sidings, presumably because they are motor operated with a built-in FPL? But he did have to dash back from unclipping the crossover to flag us into the sidings.

 

[Flying Phil]

Well the GCR has been very successful in raising the funds so far to maintain and enhance its infrastructure. Not only has the Gap project seen three of the 7 phases completed, but there have been three bridges replaced either side of Quorn over the past 7 years. There has always been the aim to have a preserved main line between Leicester and Nottingham and that is steadily being brought to fruition. True it will not be all double track, but we do have a one mile branch line, and the quadruple track Swithland siding complex. It takes time and hard work by many hundreds of people, but we are still going "Forward"!

 

[Belperpete]

If there is going to be a significant stretch of single line at the Northern end of the line, once the GCRN is incorporated, will having a stretch of single line at the southern end be that much of a drawback? Won't the northern end then be a worse bottleneck? Or will the northern end be kept separate operationally?

I am glad to see that common sense has been seen, and the idea of running the mainlines around the existing loco shed has been dropped. I was going to suggest running the mainlines through the loco shed, Stonebridge Park style!

 

[satisnek]

Wouldn't that involve track circuiting all the way between Rothley and Leicester, on both tracks? A significant maintenance overhead.

Maybe, but would it be a higher maintenance overhead than a fifth signal box? I don't know, I'm not an expert.

 

[74A]

Wouldn't that involve track circuiting all the way between Rothley and Leicester, on both tracks? A significant overhead.

There is no requirement to have track circuits on double track. Absolute block only need track circuits in the station area.

 

[Falcon1200]

There is no requirement to have track circuits on double track. Absolute block only need track circuits in the station area.

@Belperpete was referring to there being no signalbox at Leicester North with the line controlled from Rothley?

 

[74A]

@Belperpete was referring to there being no signalbox at Leicester North with the line controlled from Rothley?

You would have to have a signal box at Leicester if you doubled tracked

 

[Ashley Hill]

I was told many years ago that an LNER ARP type box was being considered for Leicester. This type being more robust against vandalism.

 

[Tomnick]

Or, as I previously suggested, have Leicester North remotely signalled from Rothley, in keeping with its 1960s theme.

Doubling to Leicester will add more operational interest than it removes. As I have also suggested the GCR could offer a combination of 'fast' and 'stopping' services - perhaps the through trains from GCR(N) could run non-stop between Loughborough and Leicester?

Rothley is very much 1920s/1930s themed (right down to the gas lighting in the signal box) and a new box, on the site of the original, gives a brilliant opportunity to continue that theme – which really rules out controlling Leicester from it!

I don't recall us going over any double slip? The flagman was having to clip the facing end of the crossover as we set back, and we continued setting back beyond the crossover past a single lead giving access to the sidings. I didn't spot him clipping those when we set back again over that point in the facing direction into the sidings, presumably because they are motor operated with a built-in FPL? But he did have to dash back from unclipping the crossover to flag us into the sidings.

You did go over a double slip, in the south end of the Up Loop, permitting access to the sidings. 14pts would've been able to be left secured unless access was required to the sidings. 10pts are motor-worked so don't need securing, so it's just the crossover that'd need securing each time for the move back across from the Down Main.

 

[Falcon1200]

You would have to have a signal box at Leicester if you doubled tracked

Not necessarily, the line south of Rothley could be controlled remotely from a panel, just as many locations on the national network are. Whether that would be affordable or suitable for the GCR's ethos is another thing!

 

[Belperpete]

Rothley is very much 1920s/1930s themed (right down to the gas lighting in the signal box) and a new box, on the site of the original, gives a brilliant opportunity to continue that theme – which really rules out controlling Leicester from it!

You did go over a double slip, in the south end of the Up Loop, permitting access to the sidings. 14pts would've been able to be left secured unless access was required to the sidings. 10pts are motor-worked so don't need securing, so it's just the crossover that'd need securing each time for the move back across from the Down Main.

Thanks for that. I don't recall seeing the flagman clipping 14a, so could they have been left permanently clipped for the day?

You would have to have a signal box at Leicester if you doubled tracked

You would have to have a signalbox if you wanted absolute block.

With a signalbox at Leicester, you could work the points and signals manually from a frame, and you could have absolute block to Rothley. Leicester would have to be manned, but Rothley would be able to switch out at quiet times.

Alternatively, Leicester could be remotely controlled from Rothley. While it would save having to provide a signalbox at Leicester, it would mean the points and signals would have to be electrically operated from an interlocking at Leicester (which would likely need a building at the station throat). This would be remotely controlled from a panel (or computer!) at Rothley. The Rothley signalman couldn't work absolute block to himself (visions here of the signalman belling to himself!) so it would also need track circuits (or axle counters) between Rothley and Leicester (as well as full track circuiting at Leicester itself). While it would save a signalman at Leicester, it would mean Rothley couldn't switch out and would have to be manned.

I know which option I would prefer.

An ARP type signalbox at Leicester North would be good IMHO, as it would fit with the somewhat brutal and minimalist feel of the place.

 

[Flying Phil]

Another argument for a signal box at Leicester is that - hopefully - there will be more trackwork for a museum complex....eventually.

 

[satisnek]

Rothley is very much 1920s/1930s themed (right down to the gas lighting in the signal box) and a new box, on the site of the original, gives a brilliant opportunity to continue that theme – which really rules out controlling Leicester from it!

Ooooh, that's a new one on me! Sounds good!

 

[Flying Phil]

Despite the obvious enthusiasm for getting on with double track etc to Leicester North - first we must get the Urban embankment built...then the Factory Flyover.....then the missing embankment North of the MML bridge....then get the track laid and signalling done...and shed moved!....but it will be done..."Forward" the GCR.

 

[Ashley Hill]

Putting Rothley box back on its original site has been talked about for a while. I remember being shown the foundations of the original box some years ago.