Heritage Railway Magazine- Didcot to build 47xx class

What about cutting all those bulleid hulks - there are enough much better Jarvis locos around:smt026

 

Yep add 7202 to my list of more deserving GWR projects. Please paint it in BR black so it can look fab on the windcutters! Mind you GWR green on the SVR freight rake may be better....

 

Just when did you get that nasty blow on the head Michael? Whenever it was it has made you delirious.
Anyway you can rest easy knowing that eventually all GW locos will be melted down to be reincarnated as Spamcans.

 

You had to take the bait, didn't you! At the risk of being partisan, there is but one tongue-in-cheek response: there's only one Bulleid 'hulk' left to restore, 34073 '249 Squadron'. Otherwise, 80% of the preserved unrebuilts have steamed, illustrating their enduring popularity. The 'much better' Jarvis examples only boast an average of 49% steamed in preservation out of a total of 21, with 36% of MNs and 60% of 'Light Pacifics'. Even so, out of a total of 32 Bulleids (counting Q1 33001, 34051 and 35029), the restoration statistic increases to an impressive 66% of the numerous total preserved locomotives restored to working order or display standard. This is set to increase with the forthcoming additions of 35006 and 34053 to the list of restored locomotives.

Add to this the economies made on not using so much Brasso, spit and poor shed cleaners, we therefore make a bit of a saving!

Anyway, back to the topic, anyone?!?

 

Not if the number of Barry wrecks keeps being increased, as is currently the case. This is the issue; I feel that at this point of time, with the back-catalogue that exists, we should be moving away from these sorts of projects, not running after them. Being faced with overhauls rather than restorations is obviously the preferred situation, though as it stands some of the engines in the shed need enough work as it is, even though they never saw Barry.

Nowhere to run them? Shame nobody realised this was an issue before, just think of all the wasted effort that went into restoring all the engines in the shed! Anyway, that argument could apply to any engine at Didcot, new or old.

The argument that there are already members of the same class running has been used before, although it’s funny how this doesn’t seem to apply outside of Didcot. The West Somerset, and those involved with them, don’t seem to worry about this as far as Manors are concerned, and neither does the SVR. The fact is, it’s unlikely that there will ever be a time where there are very few Manors, or Halls, or other such engines running. So from that perspective, you either accept that there'll be duplication, or you give up on the idea of ever running these engines again. I believe the fact that certain classes are already numerous in terms of working examples, speaks for itself.

Building new engines as a means to bring in more customers would be pretty poor business management, in my view. Just take 6023, do you think that the £650,000 outlay will directly result in the same, or greater return? Or will we have a couple of years of slightly increased visitor numbers, before it tails back off to the usual level? In general, the people who pay to get in don’t come to see a King, or a County, they come to see steam engines, and they don’t care whether they have 6’ 8” or 6’ 3” wheels, although it may help if there’s a name. Enthusiasts do not pay for heritage railways, and managing a locomotive fleet solely around that part of the market is pure folly. If you want to bring more people in through the gate, and keep them coming, you need to improve the overall experience, not just the niche areas that appeal to a select few.

Btw, anyone wanting to see 7202 in BR black may have rather a long wait….

 

Good - After all it is the Great Western Society not BR(WR) Society.

 

You do have to wonder if they make money at it, though. I return to 6412 - it was a loco that never seemed to be out of work but was ultimately sold because the cost of overhauling it wasn't being match by the income it was generating, so the WSRA were effectively subsidising other lines.

 

It is possible that this was the case, I suppose, but equally maintenance cost would be higher for the bigger engine, so I'm not sue it would make much of a difference.

I'm just not convinced, from all I've heard, that there is money to be made in hiring out engines, it's perhaps more a question of minimising your losses having decided that you want to run your engine. It just doesn't seem to me that there is an economic case for restoring an engine to hire out as people have been suggesting - at best it means running hard to stand still, at worst losing money, in either case for other people's benefit. Why would the GWS want to do either of those things when it has unfinished projects and plenty of unstarted ones?

 

Disagree. I've only been to Didcot once but what I enjoyed about it was the atmosphere and 'authenticity' of the place - what engines were there (other than the fact that they were all from the same 'family') was really secondary. I daresay I'll go back again in due course but it will be for this same atmosphere and 'authenticity', not for specific engines - and if the collection is stuffed full of replicas and cut'n'shut jobs that actually damages the 'authenticity' of the collection and if anything makes it less likely I'll bother going.

The broad gauge replica setup is good as it serves a specific educational purpose, the railmotor likewise (and anyway is a restoration rather than a replica), but I just can't see that these other proposals have any real purpose other than allowing a few ageing trainspotters to relive their youth. And who will carry these projects forward when they're gone, if they're not finished by then? People are of course entitled to spend their money how they like, but please don't try to argue that there is a business case for building all of these replicas.

And besides, this forum is called "national preservation", dismantling existing historic relics (however poor their present condition) flies completely in the face of what this forum is about. So I make no apologies for being against the idea.

Phil

 

But by becomming entirely Didcot centred the GWS has missed a trick for encouraging a wider active membership across GW teritory. When the society first started it had a number of area groups which were quite active with some locos/stock in local areas. Had this continued (or if it was restarted) then, for example members in the midlands could support a loco & small amount of stock on the SVR, members in the south west could do similar on the WSR/SDR/B&W etc. By rotating a few active exhibits like this the GWS need not detract from its comprehensive central collection at Didcot but could become much stronger in a more national way. It must be very frustrating spending loads of time on a loco/coach restoration just to see it used on a few hundred yards of track.

 

I have to say that personally, I'm not too fussed, if I was I'd go somewhere else. If the engines were being properly worked, then fair enough, but some lines are just longer versions of Didcot, and after 10 minutes of the same thing, with no public interaction, it starts to become a bit tedious. At least at Didcot the public are able to appreciate your work a bit more, rather than having it stuck at the front of the train, to be seen only when running round at a station. But then some railway/stock combinations would be more suitable than others.

The issue of area groups is interesting, as it stands both the Bristol and Taunton groups are still very active. I'm not sure how practicle rotation of stock would be, if a group commits itself to overhauling an item, I can't seem them being very willing to let it go to someone else. In order to function the groups would need to be part of a propper railway... would it really still be the GWS, or just 'The Cookham Manor Group' etc?

The GWS started out as a nationwide society, lacking a base from which to concentrate and consolidate all its activites. When that base was found, they did what I would consider the natural thing. Even after 30 years though, there are still those who seem unable to accept this, and move on.

It's food for thought though.

 

I think that the biggest problem with hiring out locos is that most lines only operate at weekends for most of the year, with perhaps a few full weeks in the summer. There are obviously exceptions, such as the WSR & NYMR but most lines that hire in locos fit this scenario. If a loco can get regular full hire for 12 months of the year, it can easily pay its way but, if it is only getting 8-9 steamings a month, the cash isn't going to come in fast enough.

 

Surely the issue isn't should the GWS (or anybody else with a loco collection) restore a loco purely to hire out - this isn't the "business" that heritage railways or centres are in (although it probably the "business" some loco owning organisations are in). They have locos to provide the service they operate.

There is also no single answer on whether locos hire is "worthwhile". The cost of every overhaul is different and depends not only on the actual work required but also who is going to do it - volunteer, paid staff or external contractors (or mixture).

If the GWS consider they need more workable locos, or more variety in working locos, for what they do at Didcot, then it can may be a means of justifying the expenditure to say that they will seek to hire out locos from the fleet from time to time. Steve is spot on to identify the limited number of hire opportunities and that most lines what locos at the same time but hire opportunities still exist much of the year round. Whether many lines pay a realistic hire fee is another question - which also goes back to the cost and method not just of current or the latest overhauls but also the next one and planning future work and present work to minimise future cost. That is a big subject!

Steven

 

Another new build?!....

I think 4115 and possibily the taff tank should be donated to the Gwili line, rather than being butchered.

They would be going to a appropriate line being welsh. Hopefully then a campaign could get started to set up a restoration fund...

Didcot have got loads on there plate as it is!!!...

 

I think Didcot is stuck in a time warp - the other "Steam Centres" - Tyseley and Carnforth have moved on - Didcot should stop trying to be the ultimate Great Western location and stop trying to to do everything and achieve nothing. How long has the "Saint" project been around?

 

Can't agree with you on that one, I'm afraid! Carnforth is effectively now just another modern depot that just happns to have steam engines based there and Tyseley is much the same. The shed, coaling tower and ash plant at Carnforth, the latter two of which are the sole surviving examples of their type and ought to be Grade I listed, are just being allowed to fall to bits. Didcot is a rare example of a shed complex still doing more or less what it was built for - housing the egines of the company that built both. It is a working museum and perhaps the best example of the genre.

People on this forum seem to be obsessed with having everything finished or working so they can take pictures, without considering that there are plenty of people who actually like restoring things and taking their time to do the job properly. Lighten up and stop telling others what they should and shouldn't be doing with their engines and stock!

This thread has strayed from its roots regarding the possibility of building a 47xx replica, so I'll try to steer it back in that direction. It would appear that some of the bits are available to do the job, that they would come from engines that are unlikely to have a future in preservation, and that there are those at Didcot willing to both carry out the work and (just as importantly) the fundraising. The outcome would be a representation of a loco that whilst not of great historical significance is of some interest and looked rather impressive. It might not be suitable for the main line but that is not the be all and end all. After all, if you aren't interested you don't have to support it!

It's not my cup of tea, but it is one of the few GWR locomotive types I'd be interested to see visit the NYMR

 

Fair comment - but you've not addressed the question I asked about the Saint project - I think that its been around for about 35 years now