Tyseley Single Wheeler.

Would it? Would the Tyseley team instantly have the extra people necessary to carry out contract work as well? Funding doesn't seem the biggest issue here.

Simon

 

Ben's post from some time back suggested that £150,000 would see the job finished in a year.

 

Looking at both Ben and Bob's earlier posts funding would appear to be the only issue, although obviously timing would depend on the time when the money was made available.

 

I interpreted Bob Meanley's post back in 2012 slightly differently… I thought the comment about doing it the way we want it done said more than the bald numbers (it's a brave person that puts a fixed figure on the cost of completing something like this, hence I took the £150k with a bit of a pinch of salt…).

Just an interpretation. May well be completely wrong.

Simon

 

It's a bit of a moot point anyway with no apparent desire to finish it any time soon or even recommence the work.

 

It is already substantially complete, wheeled frames, boiler placed in frames, tender finished , but obviously a long way still to go.

 

That's what happens when the thread goes off on tangents - the GWS Dean Single project is what I was commenting on in answer to the post I quoted - admittedly easily confused with the proper topic of this thread.

 

The Bloomer design is of wider historical importance, among those actually interested in locomotive history, than merely some 'LNWR fans'. It was an enlarged copy of a very successful Bury, Curtis & Kennedy design of 1848. At least one engine of this type, and perhaps five, belonged to the GWR in the period up to the early 1870s. They were on other railways too.

The Bury-designed cylinder and steam-chest layout of these was still in use on BR locos as recently as 1955.

 

[repost, OT snipped]

But this isn't getting the Bloomer progressing. Are there no LNWR fans out there with spare time and organisational ability? All this project really needs, as far as I can see, is a retired or newly sold out company owner or director who needs something to stop his brain rotting and can lead two or three others in a publicity/money drive. Can there be a better opportunity for someone like that to make a name for themselves in the preservation world? What's needed are people skills, the engineering ones are available.

 

I expect such people are probably busy with the George the Fifth project. As someone who works full-time in the heritage sector, believe me: the biggest challenge we face right now is finding volunteers, and there's no sign that it's going to get any easier!

 

Yes it's a worry. Got to say a 'George' is a lot more useful than a Bloomer, although I'd love to see the latter.
Dave

 

Eh? Bob's post implies funding is the only issue, and Ben has alluded to it! If someone where to provide the £150k, 670 could jump the queue and be worked on as a contract job. Until then though it has to wait until Bob and his team can find the "spare" time to do it.

EDIT - Your second post just loaded, apologies!

 

Whatever. But it seems that this thread, reactivated after a year by message 261 on 7th August, can now die again. The "active fund-raising" mentioned there does not exist. That's a relief.

 

To be fair, no-one had posted for four weeks until you just did...

 

So what? I don't understand your point.

I was told of this reactivated thread, so I had a look. On 7th August P. Stanton asked about "active fund raising under way right now" for the Bloomer project, which he'd read about in a recent magazine. The only reply from Tyseley was nine words on 10th August from a Mr Vintage-Trains, saying he wants £150,000.

The same day Miff asked for details about where to send his cheque and that he'd like to be sure it went to the Bloomer project and not to some general donations fund. To which there has been no reply at all.

When such wrong information appears in a magazine it might persuade people to send money to a defunct project. Putting some disclaimer on this board would have been the decent thing to do, and would have reached many.

But it is obvious, from Tyseley's silence, that the working Bloomer project is quite dead, and there is no fund to which to send donations.

As I said before, that's a relief. We can keep our money.

 

Seriously, give it a rest. You're like a broken record, and your grudge with tyseley for not doing things how you want them done is getting to the point of obsession.


Keith

 

Keith -

You misunderstand me completely. I have no obsession with Tyseley, and my interest in their defunct working Bloomer project also died a long time ago. But I think it was finally killed off when reading on here that it was "part of their souls". (!)

My only concern is that people might be deluded into parting with money because of this absurd magazine article, or because of anything I said or wrote, long ago, when I was very enthusiastic about this project.

Anyway, if you are bored by the subject, why bother to read about it? And why bother to send in replies such as yours? Many threads on this board hold absolutely no interest for me, so I leave them alone. Verb. sap.

Harry.

 

Your postings on here say otherwise, as observed by myself and others.

I have no doubt that any money given to the Bloomer project will be used to advance the engine. It might not be used right now and the engine may still be some way down Tyseley's priority list, but I have no doubt that it will get done. Therefore people are not being misled about their donations.

I am not bored by the subject, I remember reading about the project when it first started. What I am bored by is new postings to the thread which are merely an excuse to rant at Tyseley.

Keith

 

For someone who claims to have lost interest a long time ago, why is it that over half of all of your posts since you joined this forum have been on this thread?