Vale of Berkeley Railway

Ah, didn't know that, thought it was just Mike Hoskin. Makes sense now.

 

Rings a vague bell now you mention it.

 

Ah I see, and presumably the NRM weren't too pleased.

 

I seem to recall that much work has been done on the 4F at the GWSR over the past few years. So why the apparent dismissiveness with the current "custodian"? (I'm not au fait with the detailed politics at the GWSR so this is a genuine question, not a criticism)

 

It does look like there has been some form off falling out or they decided they want to be GWR or Western region based motive power in the vast majority.

 

The main reason is simply that we have too many locos! The 8F left as, bar 2807 which was deemed to be a cornerstone of the railway, it had the least time left on its boiler certificate, so made most economic sense to to rid of. At one point it looked likely that the 4F would be completed here, stay for a little bit of testing etc. then also leave for the same reason - too many locos.

 

I admit I do not know in detail what has been happening with the 4F but I do know in more detail what has been happening with some of his rolling stock on the railway.

 

One might argue that one cannot have too many locos! I guess the crux of the matter is whether those locos are operational and ready for duty or under restoration or in "Barry" condition. A shed full of "runners" can soon be decimated by firebar repairs (5542) or broken springs (4270) to cite 2 recent occurrences at Toddington. "Routine" issues of course and quickly fixed but the standby loco (2807) suddenly finds itself in demand. (All taken from a recent GWSR loco Dept Blog - which I enjoy reading immensely btw.)

Heck, I can't believe that I've actually done 1000 posts on this site - time for bed!

 

Whilst it's true you can't have too many steam locos all the groups want minimum steaming fees, and if we can't provide enough steaming days it's a financial liability. Hence why 7820 went on holiday, so more steaming days to pay the steaming fees.

You're right though, if one or two locos suddenly fail it can get a bit sticky and I was surprised that the powers that be were content to only have three locos all summer. As it is, the most unreliable thing on the railway at the moment is the DMU, broken down about 4 times in the past couple of months or so!

 

A hypothetical question maybe at this stage (and apologies for continuing the discussion on GWSR motive power which is somewhat off-topic), how is opening to Broadway likely to impact on the number of steaming days up for grabs? Presumably, they will increase or if not the demands on the locos will increase with the 25% increase in miles per journey so more than three locos available would be prudent.

 

Mention of said former director and his relationship with the NRM will I am sure see make me even less welcome at York. On my last visit I was apprehended by security staff for making notes of the position of the rolling stock exhibits! However, it has always concerned me that after certain items were accessioned from the National Collection / deemed surplus by the NRM, he was deemed to be the best future custodian. 'flying scotsman123' will I am sure be able to enlighten us on how ADM707111 http://www.ws.vintagecarriagestrust.org/ws/WagonInfo.asp?Ref=6345 and http://www.ws.vintagecarriagestrust.org/ws/WagonInfo.asp?Ref=12552 currently at the GWSR have benefitted. In addition their is GWR Inspection Saloon 80970 http://www.cs.vintagecarriagestrust.org/se/CarriageInfo.asp?Ref=266 (presumably now sold on), Chlorine Tank http://www.ws.vintagecarriagestrust.org/ws/WagonInfo.asp?Ref=9940 and the now aborted transfer of GWR Royal Saloon 9006 http://www.cs.vintagecarriagestrust.org/se/CarriageInfo.asp?Ref=242 discussed at length in another thread. It would also now appear that he was also the one deemed suitable to be the custodian of the 4F.

Yes, before anyone asks, I have discussed this with a Senior Curator at the NRM and know their line. All this is though in the past and lets hope lessons have been learnt. My fear now though is that with the 4F, this is heading to be another 'loan gone sour' for the NRM and despite work have being done on it, it will become another 'Taffy Tank'. I hope to be proved wrong on that. Although it might have stood dismantled at Butterley for years I recall that this was not due to a lack of will in Derbyshire but more to do with a souring of relationships elsewhere. It would be interesting to know the detail of the current loan agreement, does it for example stipulate an involvement with the GWSR? Perhaps a joint statement from the NRM and GWSR is needed to clear the air and give the facts rather than leaving in to rumours emanating from volunteers.

 

I can verify that 7820 is having a wonderful holiday here in South Devon - well, that is what the area specializes in. She looks great, particularly when running with her sister 7827.

 

Also what happened to this one http://www.cs.vintagecarriagestrust.org/se/CarriageInfo.asp?Ref=257 but not in the same hands I think.

 

An element of thread drift creeping in, however I believe many are not aware of what happened with GWR RCK 9605 so worth a few sentences.

Back in the 1980s the NRM appear to have been very focused on bringing rolling stock in the collection into a condition were it could be displayed in the various different themed exhibitions it mounted at York. This was identified as a very important vehicle in the evolution of train catering and passenger accommodation containing as it did a kitchen and composite seating reflected pre-war trends - several different stories al in one place. Thus, in 1981 it was despatched to Resco at Woolwich for an overhaul which would make it suitable for future display. Unfortunately it was discovered to be in a far worse condition than had been realised once work got underway. It became clear that the budget available was insufficient and a halt was called. In fact, I have a letter concerning it on file written by T. J. Edgington in 1990 were he says "GWR 9605 was found to be in too poor a condition for restoration so its future is problematic". It was thus moved into secure storage at Wroughton pending a decision on its future. Eventually the decision was taken to de-accession it from the collection and this is how it ended up at Blaenavon pretty much in the same condition as it was when work was halted. With this I do not believe the NRM realistically believed anyone would be able to do anything with it but no harm in letting them try. Clearly a significant loss to the collection but I suspect that if its true condition had been known in 1978 it would never have been acquired.

Clearly lessons were learnt which subsequently appear to have been forgotten when it came to a certain locomotive now at Bury. 1) Do not accession anything into the collection until you have a full understanding of its condition. 2) If the overhaul/restoration reveals problems you were not aware call a halt until the implications are fully understood and costed.

With 9605, I have to say the NRM took the correct actions in the circumstances.

 

We've sort of already done that. The original (well, you know what I mean) aim for Broadway was 2015, and I think it's a testament to the steam loco planning guys that in 2015 we'd have had the right number of engines for Broadway. Unfortunately, obviously we're not at Broadway due to various reasons, not least all our landslip problems. As a result our forward planning in respect of locos has had to be changed. Hence why we're getting 3850. It first needs an overhaul first which is a handy time-filler between now and Broadway, as it won't be ready for a while.