6023

Of course if Didcot wanted to, they could still put it on the mainline. They could take money out of the general fund to pay for some new slim cylinders, use the paid staff and take people off other projects to carry out the work, if there's a shortfall in support crew then perhaps they could cut back on the number of operating days and redeploy the footplate staff in this role.

Or, perhaps, having tried to put it on the mainline, and then kept on trying to put it on the mainline, it could just be accepted that much has changed since the project was launched in 1990, and that it just isn't reasonable to keep throwing resources at something which is but one part of a much bigger picture.

I would agree that some of the pronouncements made in the past were somewhat naïve, but as the poster above rightly says, there's always an element of risk in this sort of thing, and as I say, it's not like they haven't tried.

 

Running a loco on the mainline takes an awful lot of resources that I would suggest Didcot don't have. When 6023 visited the NYMR they couldn't provide the support crew that both parties agreed was needed. The further away from base that you get, the harder it gets. not just in manpower but the technical backup required. If a loco (say) breaks a spring on home territory, you hopefully have the alternative of another loco to relieve the pressure to replace it. Away from home and with a contractual commitment, you don't have that luxury.

 

These are exactly the reasons that some mainline loco owning groups do not "go on tour" for weeks at a time. If they do stay away from their home shed, they are based at one location where they have a good understanding with the local operator/ preservation group.

Cheers, Neil

 

Of course, it's obvious. Everything about mainline steam is a risk. I spend thousands every year on mainline excursions and I'm often disappointed. More so recently. That doesn't mean that I shouldn't begrudge the money I gave for 6023. I could have given it to 60007!

 

Absolutely. When I was working there fulltime, I would say there were three or four people regularly involved with the engine, of which I'd say the 'core' was really just two people. That's not to say that other people didn't help out from time to time, but you could see there just wasn't enough. In that situation, if you try to make up the shortfall with hangers-on, you'll just come unstuck.

 

I understand how upsetting it must be for those of you who contributed to put 6023 back onto the mainline. I'm afraid we win some, we lose some. At least we have a third King saved from the scrapyard, restored and operational -ish. On the positive side, we will be able to see a King in original profile steaming, presumably in GWR livery. Hopefully they will retain the modern bits that were produced to enable it to fit on the mainline. The potential will still be there if someone with deep pockets turns up in the future.

 

Instead of being so salty, Why don't you read what I said again,

Imagine how upset you would be if I demanded the money I put in back.

You think you know it all going back through your posts , why don't you fix it for them if you know so much.

 

An interesting question is the 4709 project, which has been planning a cut down version of the big beast. There was to my uninformed opinion always a very big question mark over whether she would be suitable for mainline operation anyway, what with the historic speed restrictions on the class as well as gauging. I wonder if they are too far down the cut down route now, or if they could revise the project and build a full size 47?

 

Exactly.

 

Deleted

 

Not going to be immediately overhauled when she comes out of ticket later this year due to a shortage of space and volunteers (This months SR)

 

......... and County!

 

Lets be honest it doesn't need to be, No need for a class 8 loco just to trundle up and down a demo line,

 

I think you are missing the point of having a demonstration line. . . i.e. it is to demonstrate locomotives regardless of any functional need for such large motive power.

 

I realise I'm a bit late to comment on this topic, but better late then never I always say!

While personally I was saddened to hear 6023 wouldn't be going on the mainline after all, I can't say I'm all that surprised. This has been a long time coming I feel honestly, as Didcot seemed to have been spreading itself too thin on so many projects, most being ambitious new builds more often then not.

So despite having the largest collection of GWR locomotives in it's care, a vase majority of them have spent a long protracted period out of service, simply because they just didn't have the time or resources to do so. And all the while instead they focused their effort on these new build project which in themselves take SO long to make any progress, that quite frankly I feel many had lost interest in the Centre due to lack of anything generally progressing or happening.

With this all in mind then, I feel this is a good opportunity for the centre to refocus itself now, certainly the fact they let one of their new build projects go independent (Churchward County) and they've also given up on mainline aspirations is a solid step forward I feel. What they intend to do with their remaining in house new build projects however, I'm not so sure. The Hawksworth County seems not far off from completion I'd say, and therefore will mist likely remain at the centre, most likely fitting in as a prime candidate for loaning off to another railway elsewhere.

The 4709 project I feel is less clear, and personally think it should be allowed to go independent much like the Churchward County, as it's power and size could make it quite useful on the mainline I feel, with the right modifications.

Overall though, I do hope this is a new beginning for the centre, one that means they can rethink their strategy and perhaps refocus themselves. All being well it could even lead them to perhaps looking at returning to steam some of their old favourites that have long since been gathering dust in the shed. That's my hope anyway.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again - I see no real point in restoring locos to hire them out. It would be far better to divert the effort into improving the offering there - get the two broad gauge locos overhauled so that one is always available - the broad gauge demo line is a unique attraction that cannot really be exploited at the moment, and a selection of locos for the standard gauge demo line would make for far better open days, particularly if each loco was paired with an appropriate train.

 

This is a great pity, if the SR information is accurate. 6023 has attracted great interest on the Mid Norfolk, SVR, GlosWarks, Torbay and Dartmouth and NYMR. Regardless of apparent high water and coal consumption, she has proved a terrific performer. She should be returned to traffic as soon as possible after her ticket expires.

 

But which locomotive do you want resources taken off in order to put them on the King instead? Personally I'd rather see a push on finishing 7202 rather than steaming the King again. Loads of people have had the chance to see the King running... I wouldn't be surprised if the dedicated King people wouldn't mind a break anyway, but I shouldn't speak for them.

And of course only the small number of paid staff can be moved from project to project with little regard for their feelings: if you decide to move volunteers from one task to another and they don't agree then you don't have any volunteers.

Of course if a whole bunch of you decide its imperative the King should be returned to steam as soon as possible you simply need to volunteer *your* time and *your* money.

 

Other than re-tubing, how much work is required? It has not run a lot of miles.

 

GWS locomotives in steam or under work (to the best of my knowledge):



If this table is reasonably correct I cannot see that there is any valid case to adding anything else to the restoration or rebuild column; even when a locomotive comes out of service. It is far better to finish what is in hand before dismantling anything else. Without the labour and finance in place all projects will extend into the mist. Speaking from experience, both locomotive and vintage cars, I suggest that current projects should be completed before starting something else.

Best regards

Julian