4079 Pendennis Castle Overhaul

I would have thought stronger candidates (at least in my opinion) for those kind of arrangements would be locos like 6106 or 5322 which represent classes that are scarce / non-existent away from Didcot. We do have quite a few 56xxs in preservation. Even 1466 is one of only 4 survivors of its class. Then again Didcot may wish to hold on to 6106/5322 as they represent more unusual (for preservation) GW motive power. Especially as 6106 was actually based at Didcot in the 1940s

 

but perhaps the 56xx tank, which does seem a trifle unloved?

I would hesitate to say never but 6697 dropped a flue tube which put someone in hospital for an extended period and it never worked again0. Therefore there is something of a reluctance to retore it to working order.

 

If I remember correctly, one of the footplate crew was killed, the other was seriously injured (but fully recovered now).

 

Think you could say the same about quite a few of the fleet at Didcot, this isn’t to knock what the GWS have done in the past, but I do wonder how much work it would take to put say 7808 or 5900 through a major overhaul?
You look at what the SVR’s doing with 4930, the days of the GWS being able of sending stuff up to Swindon to be worked on are well and truly long gone.

 

If I remember correctly, one of the footplate crew was killed

No, No, No. I already bitterly regret my post. No one died. I worked at Didcot at the time and no one died. You must provide evidence if you make such statements.

 

What do you want them to stop working on so they can do those instead? Can't wave a magic wand and get money and skilled volunteers out of thin air.

Its also worth remembering that the USP of Didcot is that nowhere where else can you see so many GWR locomotives in a pure GWR setting. Scatter the locomotives to the winds and what happens to ticket sales?

 

I only joined GWS in 1979 (a few years after the accident) so I may have been misinformed but thought that was what I had been told at the time. If I am completely wrong then I apologise.

PS. I did say 'If I remember correctly', so was not making a definative statement.

 

Whoa! I’m not saying work should stop on other projects and there should be work on these two loco’s in particular, all I’m saying is how much work would it take to restore something like 5900 or 7808, bearing in mind they haven’t been touched for near enough
40 odd years and how much of the residual life was used from BR left over?
I’m also not saying you split the collection up.

I do wonder though with Didcot’s collection are we just going to see the same old same old’s going through an overhaul and run cycle because certain loco’s are more of a known quantity than others.

I’m the grand old age of 37, whilst I vaguely remember seeing 6106 at the WSR in the late 1980’s early 1990’s am I going to see that run again in my lifetime?

 

It's worth remembering that Didcot Railway Centre is not a preserved line. It's a fully accredited museum. A living, working, museum, but never-the-less a museum. Long-term loans of locos (or any other artefact) is loaning a museum artefact, and thus not a trivial undertaking. Whilst operating locos is a key part of the museum approach to educating anyone who is interested, lending out locos "just to be used" is not. (Not to confuse Loans with Visits, of course.)

 

I think it was more a speculation of 'what will be next when they have capacity'. Isn't that kind of speculation a key element of Nat Pres?

 

That's kind of my point. Didcot seemed to view it as something of a cursed child. However, with a thorough overhaul, there is no reason why it couldn't be used at another line. I agree that there are plenty in preservation, but there are also lines crying out for motive power, who would be only too grateful for one.

 

There are lines crying out for motive power - but are there lines crying out for non-functional motive power (and, subsidiary, which also have the capability - skills, people, space, money etc - to restore such items)?

The lack of operational locos on heritage lines is real, but it isn't in my view due to a shortage of locos: it is due to a shortage of capacity to overhaul them.

Tom

 

Another factor that determines which locomotives are used/overhauled at Didcot is ownership. 4144 is (or at least was) privately owned. 6106 is society owned. It is cheaper for the GWS for the owner to pay for 4144's overhaul than the society pay for 6106's!

As regards 6697, one member of the crew spent the best part of a year in hospital. At the request of his parents, he never returned to the footplate.

 

I'm sorry to hear @RabthreeL . I've been fairly regular visiting Didcot since the mid 70s and I think I only saw 6697 in steam the once?
Is the fact that such a serious incident occurred with this particular locomotive, that GWS deem never to return it to running order again? (forgive me for not looking up when it last ran which must be 40+ years hence?)

 

I wouldn't say never. There's no doubt a few people still at Didcot who remember the event. Once that's not the case, things will probably change. For instance, the current Chairman of the GWS was the driver on the day.

 

Whilst I cannot comment on either its worth noting that whilst 7808 came straight from BR, Hinderton Hall spent 7 years at Barry (leaving in 1971) so one would imagine needed a fair bit of work before running for the GWS, actually steaming again in 1976.

 

In the early days of Barry, locomotives left by rail nearly complete. For instance, 5322 left with an exhaust steam injector - which was later stolen while at Caerphilly!

 

I know that I'm continuing drift from 4079.... but,

Given 6697 & 7808 came directly from BR, would their boilers have been lifted and/or retubed prior to initial steaming at Didcot?