Great Central Railway should scale back and abandon reunification

[STINT47]

Moderator note: Split from

Great Central Railway News and Updates

http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/310-000-deal-to-secure-allotment-land-for-new-gcr-main-line-railway-musem/story-29729494-detail/story.html A deal is to be done to secure a small strip of land needed to build a major new £15 million railway museum in Leicester.

www.railforums.co.uk

The Great Central Railway in Leicestershire has announced a voluntary redundancy scheme in order to save around £250,000.

Whilst most of the railway is run by volunteers, those positions that are filled by paid staff have been offered the chance to apply for redundancy.

Along with the redundancy programme, the railway has sold its 50% share in an 8F steam locomotive to the David Clarke Railway Trust, which is the official supporting charity of the GCR, and the railway says other assets may be disposed of in the coming weeks.


Staff have been notified of the programme today (15th January), and the railway says that compulsory redundancies may be necessary if there are not enough expressions of interest.

It's not looking good for the GCR.

I think they suffer from the cost of running large engines, having so much infrastructure and being in an area that just isn't big with tourists. The cost of living must also be reducing passenger numbers and their spending whilst driving up costs.

It's a great line for enthusiasts but probably not a line that is ever going to be financially sound. Linking up with the northern section will only increase these issues as it will add extra costs but is unlikely to bring in much extra revenue.

Perhaps it's best to abandon reunification, scale down operations, engine sizes and number of trains, except at galas and have a much smaller and simpler operation.

They could also reduce costs by cutting back on the track and signalling. It all looks good but would anyone really miss it if Switherlsnd and Quotn lost their sidings and signalling? These changes may not have so much appeal to enthusiasts but would give the line a long term future.

 

[mike57]

Because of their infrastructure GCR are able to take on testing and training tasks that other heritage railways couldn't entertain, does this actually bring in much revenue, and would the suggested changes affect this.

A lot of time and money has already been spent on joining the two sections, would these plans be abandonded for good or just put on hold awaiting better times.

How much money would be saved if sidings and signalling were reduced? It would be interesting to see a breakdown of costs.

 

[duffield]

Abandoning re-unification would generate quite a lot of ill-will among regulars who often chip in whatever they can afford to the project (there are regular collections for this purpose on board, and funds matching appeals). I get the impression that because the GCR is not in a 'holiday' area, a significant proportion of customers are fairly local repeat visitors, many of whom are supporting the project. Also, again because of it not being a holiday area, a larger proportion of its revenue may come from enthusiasts than is typical and "simplifying" the line and its operation might affect its revenue more than would be the case for more tourist-oriented lines.

If the project was permanently abandoned, the new MML bridge would still be an ongoing liability for maintenance, and eventual removal.

I believe the local council is financially involved and would not be happy if their contribution was wasted, that could rebound badly.

Volunteer morale would probably be seriously affected, with the possible loss of a number of volunteers.

Delay if really necessary. Abandon? No.

 

[fgwrich]

Abandoning re-unification would generate quite a lot of ill-will among regulars who often chip in whatever they can afford to the project (there are regular collections for this purpose on board, and funds matching appeals). I get the impression that because the GCR is not in a 'holiday' area, a significant proportion of customers are fairly local repeat visitors, many of whom are supporting the project. Also, again because of it not being a holiday area, a larger proportion of its revenue may come from enthusiasts than is typical and "simplifying" the line and its operation might affect its revenue more than would be the case for more tourist-oriented lines.

If the project was permanently abandoned, the new MML bridge would still be an ongoing liability for maintenance, and eventual removal.

I believe the local council is financially involved and would not be happy if their contribution was wasted, that could rebound badly.

Volunteer morale would probably be seriously affected, with the possible loss of a number of volunteers.

Delay if really necessary. Abandon? No.

Not only that but, one of the advantages for the GCR south is the mainline connection - which allows rolling stock for testing to be bought in by mainline rail rather than road, and opens up more financial advantage for the GCR.

 

[DCSA]

They could also reduce costs by cutting back on the track and signalling. It all looks good but would anyone really miss it if Switherlsnd and Quotn lost their sidings and signalling? These changes may not have so much appeal to enthusiasts but would give the line a long term future.

Really? You believe that “if Switherlsnd [sic] and Quotn [also sic] lost their sidings and signalling” […] it “would give the line a long term future”. Do you have any knowledge or experience on which to base this extraordinary assertion?

How much do you believe it costs to run and maintain the signalling at Swithland and Quorn?

 

[43096]

Not only that but, one of the advantages for the GCR south is the mainline connection - which allows rolling stock for testing to be bought in by mainline rail rather than road, and opens up more financial advantage for the GCR.

“One of” the advantages? I’d say it is the entire reason for it. All the PR puffery about the through line from nearly Leicester to nearly Nottingham is just that. The main line connection was what they wanted.

 

[Teaboy1]

Bad idea.
We are still reeling from HS2 Birmingham to Manchester being abandoned, so it would be disasterous for the Heritage movement to suffer the GCR unification to be equally abandoned. Too much time, effort and indeed lives [those who have make a bequest / commitment in their last Will & Testament etc] plus Council funding towards unification.
So come folks, its only some 100m to reconnect and sort out the running line past Loughborough shed that is needed.
Admitedly, GCR seeking redunacies is not good either so everything has to be done to keep GCR viable and out of administration etc.
Lets not loose the plot for the last 100m !!

 

[A0]

It's not looking good for the GCR.

And what is your qualification for making that statement ?

I think they suffer from the cost of running large engines, having so much infrastructure and being in an area that just isn't big with tourists. The cost of living must also be reducing passenger numbers and their spending whilst driving up costs.

Equally small engines cost alot to run and on a long line will incur higher maintenance costs.

No the area isn't a tourist hotspot - but that's a mixed blessing. The GCR has been running in January (I've been there once this year already), whereas most of the lines in the "tourist" areas have shut up shop, because the tourists don't go to those places off-season. The GCR was busy over the Christmas / New Year period.

The cost of living issue and cost increases are affecting all Heritage Railways.

It's a great line for enthusiasts but probably not a line that is ever going to be financially sound. Linking up with the northern section will only increase these issues as it will add extra costs but is unlikely to bring in much extra revenue.

Looking at the accounts available online the profit / loss position was as follows year ending 31st Jan:

2023 = Loss £ 685k
2022 = Profit £ 101k
2021 = Loss £ 639k
2020 = Profit £ 49k
2019 = Profit £ 33k
2018 = Profit £ 27k
2017 = Profit £ 323k
2016 = Profit £ 53k

So if you look pre Covid the railway was consistently profitable and has grown itself quite steadily.

I suspect they'll run the two lines as 'separate' entities - with the Northern section running being more limited in the way the Mountsorrel branch is run. The thing the northern section will benefit from is actually being able to run into Loughborough, rather than terminating on an embankment behind a factory. At the moment the northern section is only an 'out and back' ride with no way to break the journey. Running into Loughborough will change that.

Perhaps it's best to abandon reunification, scale down operations, engine sizes and number of trains, except at galas and have a much smaller and simpler operation.

They could also reduce costs by cutting back on the track and signalling. It all looks good but would anyone really miss it if Switherlsnd and Quotn lost their sidings and signalling? These changes may not have so much appeal to enthusiasts but would give the line a long term future.

Abandoning reunification will cost them more than it will save.

Downsizing the locos won't necessarily help them nor save cost. Higher maintenance / wear and tear on a smaller loco being one element. The fact that 'smaller' locos are popular for other, shorter lines means the GCR would have to source such locos and there's only a finite number of them available.

And removing the sidings would remove the storage it offers the line - decommissioning or simplifying the signalling in those areas would save peanuts.

 

[Halifaxlad]

This thread got me thinking about the whole plan to connect up to Ruddington, thinking about it I don't think it goes far enough. I reckon they should go 1.37 mile further to just before the A52 that way you could have an interchange with the Nottingham tram.

 

[duffield]

This thread got me thinking about the whole plan to connect up to Ruddington, thinking about it I don't think it goes far enough. I reckon they should go 1.37 mile further to just before the A52 that way you could have an interchange with the Nottingham tram.

The trackbed as far as where the tram track takes it over seems pretty much clear, but there's a nature reserve in the way at the north end (although that can theoretically be diverted around to the west). There's also the land ownership question. It would be nice but it's probably not even likely to be considered for the next 10-15 years, if ever, given the priority is reunification and then double track to Leicester North, and also (I would guess) getting a south to east curve at Ruddington to make it less operationally awkward.

The current northern terminus is two miles from the nearest tram stop, and takes a long time to get to by bus (starting from the northern part of Nottingham city, I could probably just about get to Loughborough Central via bus/train/walk from Loughborough Midland in around the same time it takes to get two buses to Ruddington). So extending as close as possible to the Ruddington Lane tram stop *seems* attractive on the face of it.

However, it appears that most people travel to most heritage railways by car. The current Ruddington terminus has lots of parking, a country park and other facilities, and any new northern terminus would be unlikely to be nearly so attractive for motorists. Also, Ruddington has the railway maintenance and storage facilities. So there's no way a new northern terminus could replace Ruddington, it would be additional. But with Ruddington not being on the "main line", running via Ruddington to and from a new terminus would be messy. The whole project begins to sound like a lot of expense both capital and operational, for relatively little gain.

So keen as I am (particularly as a non-motorist myself!) to see the GCR get as close to the respective centres of Leicester and Nottingham as possible, I'd reluctantly conclude that both ends are probably as far North and South as they are ever likely to go, barring some probably eight digit bequest which would allow a new northern terminus to be built and operated in addition to Ruddington.

 

[Russel]

2023 = Loss £ 685k
2022 = Profit £ 101k
2021 = Loss £ 639k
2020 = Profit £ 49k
2019 = Profit £ 33k
2018 = Profit £ 27k
2017 = Profit £ 323k
2016 = Profit £ 53k

What is the reason for the £600k + loss in 2021 and 2023?

Initially, one would assume 2021 to be as a result of Covid and 2023 to be inflation, but if that was the case, 2020 and 2022 should have also been a loss, one would have thought?

Seems to be a lot of fluctuation.

 

[A0]

What is the reason for the £600k + loss in 2021 and 2023?

Initially, one would assume 2021 to be as a result of Covid and 2023 to be inflation, but if that was the case, 2020 and 2022 should have also been a loss, one would have thought?

Seems to be a lot of fluctuation.

2021's is Covid because they appear to run their Financial Year from Feb > Jan, so Jan 2021's accounts would be for 11 months of 2020.

 

[Russel]

2021's is Covid because they appear to run their Financial Year from Feb > Jan, so Jan 2021's accounts would be for 11 months of 2020.

Makes sense.

Strange that 2022 is showing as profit then, give it would have included 11 months of 2021 which still have Covid measures in place well into the year.

 

[James H]

Covid recovery funding received during 2021?