Talk:Great Central Railway (heritage railway)

Cleanup
This article seems to be written in a rather friendly tone - nothing wrong with that, but it's not very professional! Perchance we could clear up the exclamation marks an 'magazine' feel? HawkerTyphoon 12:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe it is formal, the first paragraph is written in the same format as the rest, and after reading the whole article, I deem it acceptable to Wikipedia's standards. Did you read the whole article HawkerTyphoon? Footballexpert 16:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that lack of formality is the main problem. I think the article is far too long and written in a manner more to promote the GCR rather than inform the reader. I suggest much of the detail would be referred to by hyperlinks. This also has the benefit that only one repository of information needs to be kept up to date.--7severn7 10:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Although it's a good article and puts across the history, current activities and possible future of the GCR it does come across as an advertsing pamphlet rather than an encyclopaedic entry. It could definitely do with a clean-up such as condensing the material into something with the facts and only facts. (Stuey 182 01:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC))


 * I think the article is fine in terms of tone but perhaps is a little too big in terms of length. Perhaps a slimming down of information such as "Supporting Bodies". Or alternatively move the Rolling Stock information to a new page e.g "Great_Central_Railway_Preserved_Rolling_Stock". - Chaz247 20:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Definately a bit of an advertising tone rather than neutral - although I wouldn't expect much less of the GCR! ;-) Maybe worth revamping the stocklist into something like that on the Midland Railway Butterley and East Lancashire Railway sites? David Martin 13 December 2006

Proposed Merge
The page Nottingham Transport Heritage Centre is little more than a stock-list, which is repeated under "Ruddington MPD" on this page. I know, because I had to edit incorrect links on both pages for the same engines!!!!

NTHC is only linked-to from this page, so I think it could safely be merged across and replaced with a redirect.

EdJogg 16:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, let's do it 194.106.44.129 19:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Matt

A very wise suggestion, I feel. Although I think to be honest the whole article could do with a bit of restructuring - the history section could probably do with its own article. Since someone had recently created individual articles for most of the stations of the preserved bits of the GCR (and I added the missing one), maybe a way 'forward' (damn that slogan) is to split the article as follows:

Outline description

 * The GCR and NTHC are preserved railways in... etc.

Description of route
(Each item below having its own page)
 * Leicester North
 * Rothley (inc. Swithland)
 * Quorn and Woodhouse
 * Loughborough Central (inc. Stanford)
 * East Leake (inc. Barnstone, exc. Rushcliffe)
 * Rushcliffe Halt (inc. Gotham)
 * Ruddington (inc. Abandoned station, 50 steps junction)
 * NTHC

History

 * "Please see separate article 'here'" thingy

All the other stuff that's hanging on at the bottom of the page
Any thoughts? Ronstar308 15:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Concluded

 * Having not looked at the page for some months, it is now in much better shape.
 * There is no longer a need to merge Nottingham Transport Heritage Centre to here, as that is a clearly separate thing, however there is scope for combining its stock list with Great Central Railway locomotives, to simplify maintenance and avoid duplication.
 * I will do the necessary to suggest that instead.
 * NOTE - at present there are no direct links between the two pages, which would seem an obvious thing to provide.
 * EdJogg 10:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Merge (2) - Stocklists
The result was merge into Nottingham Transport Heritage Centre -- Quackdave 22:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

There is considerable overlap between the lists of locomotives on the Nottingham Transport Heritage Centre page and the section labelled Ruddington Motive Power Depot on the Great Central Railway locomotives page. This is unnecessary duplication and requires updates applied in two places rather than one.

Since Great Central Railway locomotives is clearly intended to fulfil the role of a stocklist for both parts of the railway, it would make sense to move the loco list from Nottingham Transport Heritage Centre.

At present, the information on the two pages is out-of-sync, so it would be helpful for an editor familiar with the subject to apply the merge, rather than leaving it to an outsider, such as me.

Thoughts, please?

EdJogg 12:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that maintaining the same list in two places is not sensible, and that one should be replaced with a wikilink to the other. However I'd suggest merging in the opposite direction, i.e. keeping the list at Nottingham Transport Heritage Centre and linking to it from Great Central Railway locomotives; certainly at present the NTHC article is of manageable size even with the list in place. My reasoning is that until such time as there's a bridge over the Midland Main Line, they remain perforce separate entities, much as we'd like it to be otherwise! And when they finally are connected, it will be a simple matter to change.


 * Quackdave 19:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Your suggestion seems fine to me: still solves basic problem yet maintains adequate 'volume' in the NTHC article.
 * As you'll see from earlier on this page, I was drawn here by the need to fix some links to industrial loco manufacturers. The likes of 'Ruston', 'RSH', 'Simplex' cannot be linked directly, the manufacturer names are much longer. As a result of fixing a number of these bad links, I have seen many heritage railway articles where there is poor-quality (ie lazy) linking, such as mentioned, and far too much detail concerning the current restoration progress of every loco -- that belongs on the railway's own website, not here (except perhaps to say which are usable). It really annoyed me having to change basically identical laziness errors on two pages! (BTW -- thanks for sorting out the buses. Sorry I didn't link them -- lack of time.)


 * EdJogg 23:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that as I've already started working on making the stock page a much more interesting and tidy place to look for rolling stock details, I will put NTHC stuff at the very bottom of the page, but if this Gap is ever bridged and the two Plcs merger or nationalise, I'd like the thought of rolling the two seperate details of similar information together, bit like Marble cake. I'm just sorry for being a bit slow on the uptake.


 * DuchessofSutherland 22:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Tags
Is someone having a laugh, so may tags, lets have more.... 62.190.128.210 (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed extension ?
I'm intrigued with the string of edits over the last couple of days. Who is proposing the extension of the preserved line south from Leicester to Quainton Road? Where are the references for this proposal? David Biddulph (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I`m with you - was going to revert edits but was waiting to see what others thought. --palmiped | Talk  22:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * see Great Central Main Line for full route of original railway --palmiped | Talk  21:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just been wondering the same. I would recommend removing edits that fail to cite any sources and that read more as an armchair enthusiasts fantasy than anything physically possible in the manner they describe. --jek (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Have edited Route in Details and removed/adjusted edits to show only stations/sidings that are in use. Looking on the NTHC web site they link the following ROAD TRANSPORT, LOCOMOTIVES, and ROLLING STOCK  to this article which I find a bit strange as anyone can edit wiki articles so how do we know they are correct. --palmiped |  Talk  17:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The complete fantasy on this page about Leicester Central
There is a huge and  problems with this article, specifically regarding an extension to Leicester Central. This is complete fantasy; there has been nothing in Main Line about this at all. There are simply far too many bridges and sections of viaduct which have been removed and which would need reinstating to do this, not to mention buildings blocking the route.

There are tentative very long-term proposals to bridge the A563 Red Hill Way and create a "Leicester Museums railway station" at approximately 52.65791°N, -1.13427°W to link up with the UK National Space Centre and the Abbey Pumping Station, but these are a very tentative, and it's still miles from Leicester Central.

Locomotives and rolling stock
"Locomotives generally face south as that is the better way round for photography of them travelling smokebox-first." So all trains travel south?

This requires re writing as its poor grammar and makes no sense as train direction depends on rails. 144.87.143.3 (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It makes perfect sense. Most locomotives face south. Let me explain.  There are currently no turntables or triangles on the line, which runs generally North-South.  For railway photography, (or generally any other photography) you want the principal light source behind you, and that's the sun.  Since England is in the Northern Hemisphere, the sun is in the south.  Therefore you take photographs generally in a northwards direction.  The alternative is backlighting, which can be dramatic but digital cameras tend to overexpose if pointed at the sun.


 * Furthermore, locomotives work when travelling uphill and produce exhaust, and tend to drift downhill down/northwards producing little exhaust. More exhaust leads to better photographs.  The GCR is generally uphill from Loughborough southwards (in the up direction), towards London. (the Up designation simply means "towards London" and doesn't refer to the grades).  I think the summit is somewhere just beyond the A46 bridge).


 * Finally, Steam locomotives look better on photographs travelling forwards. That's smokebox-first (the smokebox is the bit at the front of the engine).


 * So the GCR's steam locomotives face south - in the up direction - which means that photographs can be taken with (1) photographer looking north (2) steam locomotives working uphill (3) steam locomotive facing the right way. The GCR gets considerably money from organised photo charters -- this is why they face this way round.


 * What is wrong with this article is that is merges two as yet unconnected railways; Great Central Railway (Nottingham), and mostly consists of crystal ball gazing and original research most of it about future extensions. The article should concentrate on existing achievements. Tony May (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Top Gear segment removal
I have removed the following, as it appears to have been given undue weight by comparison to the rest of the article. I don't see this as detail about the railway, but merely an unreferenced retelling of what happened in a 20 minute segment of television. Perhaps if there was something about the railway's involvement it could be used? Bob talk 18:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * @Bob Castle agreed 86.30.170.50 (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)


 * "In 2011 BBC's Top Gear featured a challenge: find a cheaper alternative to trains. Clarkson buys a Jaguar convertible, and it is fitted with rail track wheels. Carriages were built from caravans, each representing a different carriage: First Class, Buffet Car, Second Class and "Scum Class". The Jaguar did not generate enough traction. so Clarkson suggested that they build a "Sports Train", with only one carriage. May and Hammond, arguing with him that it wouldn't be a "train", return with a new "locomotive" a 4WD Audi S8. Clarkson has built a four-man carriage for the Jaguar. The trio decide to race each other's trains from Rothley to Loughborough. Both teams encounter problems, when Clarkson finds himself stuck behind the others, who find their train burning. Clarkson makes it to Loughborough and awaits the others, who have given up and extinguish the flames on the buffet car. While they talk about how their "train" was a success the "Scum Class" car is destroyed by an oncoming locomotive."

This article needs to be split
This article also needs to be split;


 * Great Central Railway (Nottingham) and Great Central Railway (heritage railway) are two separate concerns for the time being.

While Bridging the gap is a project that should be supported, at this time, it isn't progressing, and won't be complete for at least 10 years.

As and when the two are combined, then we can merge have one article. Until then, any combination of the two is original research, producing the mess that you see here. Tony May (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I would tend to agree with that. The way the present article's written makes it somewhat more complex to split than it should really be, but it would be worth the effort. Alzarian16 (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

12 May 2014 accident
There was an accident on the GCR on 12 May in which a Class 37 locomotive ran away crewless from Quorn & Woodhouse and collided with carriages at Loughborough. Surprisingly, this seems not to have been picked up by the media. It will be covered by Heritage Railway magazine in due course, and the RAIB are investigating. Pending a better reference, could we use the post on Facebook by Heritage Railway magazine as a reference. The GCR haven't mentioned the accident on their website or facebook page. Mjroots (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say not. If something is not verifiable in reliable sources (and a Facebook page of a reliable source is not itself a reliable source) then it is not notable enough for inclusion in an article. Obviously if it subsequently becomes verifiable then the notability can be reassessed at that point. Thryduulf (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Now covered by a RS. Mjroots (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Engineering projects?
In the Major engineering projects section it says that four such projects are underway, though only two are detailed. There's vague mention of both northward and southward extensions but no detail and no citation. Can someone with the knowledge please clarify and tidy as it's very misleading as it stands. Are any of these projects actually underway yet? 83.104.249.240 (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The Main Line Preservation Group
I have created a page about the Main Line Preservation Group for two reasons: Firstly, because I believe the establishment of this group, with aims that many contemporary experts considered impossible, was historically significant - especially in the light of the subsequent achievements by the group's successors. Secondly, because I have access to a wealth of contemporary material that enables me to assemble historically accurate accounts of the group's formation and development. As may be obvious, I am a Wikipedia novice, so any help will be gratefully apreciated. I plan to add more information to the page as time permits. --Graham J Oliver (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Great Central Railway (heritage railway). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20121205134522/http://217.158.157.207/railways/GCRN/index.htm to http://217.158.157.207/railways/GCRN/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Great Central Railway (heritage railway). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719234341/http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Gear-trio-pull-latest-stunt-Great-Central-Railway/story-12781689-detail/story.html to http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Gear-trio-pull-latest-stunt-Great-Central-Railway/story-12781689-detail/story.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081010193653/http://www.mlst.org/index.htm to http://www.mlst.org/index.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090825121254/http://martinpaling.com/category/railway-sounds-sounds/great-central-railway-sounds/ to http://martinpaling.com/category/railway-sounds-sounds/great-central-railway-sounds/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Infobox Image
The lead image is always tricky. MOS:LEADIMAGE has some details. The key feature of the GCR is it is a mainline heritage railway; including a significantly double tracked that is 60mph rated for test train testing (not for heritage thats still 25mph). So the lead image ideally ideally should be a little striking; ideally giving an impression of the double track, and having some detail beside the train. A steam train is probably preferable. We've now had 3 choices in the infoxbox today (Please remember I am colour defective and sometimes poor at spotting over-exposure etc etc): If people want this off (fair enough) please revert to (71000 "Duke of Gloucester" Quorn straight.jpg) in the interim and create a respectful polite consensus discussion here as to the preferred replacement. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * : (71000 "Duke of Gloucester" Quorn straight.jpg) Was the first to use the infobox (16 June 2019). Photo implies straight double track mainline with heritage locomotive/train to suit that impression with a fair amount of ambience.  Although added by user who took the photo that was by no means inappropriate and has the advantage if not too broke don't fix it.  I think this one is appropriate for this railway.  The user adding this photo is slightly out of favour due to gallery reversions however in my opinion that should not affect image choice.
 * 1)  (Loughborough Central Railway Station - geograph.org.uk - 2150956.jpg): This photo just doesn't seem suitable for the lead image to me.  Somehow a bit shadowy and untidy.
 * 2)  (70013 Great Central Railway (5).jpg) : The up semaphone signal, a good head of steam, the Great Central Railway sign and a mainline railway feel all seem good positives (but we don't evidence the double track). It might benefit from a careful slight crop to top, right and bottom ... and it might not. The bottom left of this image is a little boring.  So I'd like to see how people feel over this one.

Electrification?
In April 2016 the GCR announced they planned to install 3rd rail electrification between Leicester North and Rothley but it seems nobody mentioned it in the article so I’m guessing it never happened or was planned. Source that I am reffering to: https://www.gcrailway.co.uk/2016/04/3rd-rail-electrification/ Slender (talk) 12:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you notice the publication date of that article...? EdJogg (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

City of Leicester - Steam Engine
just where is she now, I saw her 2022 Christmas pulling the Christmas light train / Santa's express, where is she?? 86.30.170.50 (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)