Churchward County Project

"Preservation" in its strictest form went out of the window the moment that the ex-Corris stock arrived at Towyn Wharf in 1951. The inclusion of the word in the Talyllyn Railway Preservation Society title has caused much debate ever since.
Keeping the TR "preserved in aspic" was never a viable option and the same is true of all other "preserved", "heritage","tourist" or "pleasure" railways.

 

What the heritage railways do is give an impression of the steam railway, they don’t recreate it exactly as it was. The services are probably more frequent than they would have been back in the day, the stations have more facilities, and the trains are longer.

 

The staff are friendlier, the food is better, everything is cleaner...

 

i think that the idea of "preserving stock and railways" is slowly slipping away. I doubt many railways regard their Mk1 rolling stock as any more than a means to an end.

 

Meanwhile, dragging us back on thread, I wonder how the funding is progressing for this County? After all, without that, it will not progress far. Financial support is essential and we have seen what happens, when combined with good management and good PR, it leads to amazing progress, as in the case of a rather attractive LNER 2-8-2 appearing almost overnight! (I'll admit that the team building it have good form!)

 

In my defence, I did say 'at least' since the 60's!

Was there anything on the TR in 1951 which wasn't clapped out? .... and in my books, unlit tallow dips don't count!

Even if we take "heritage" or "preservation" (or whatever!) to mean "after end of commercial operations" we're in muddy waters. In the case of the Talyllyn, you could reasonably argue for that being when the last slate train ran in the mid 1940's or even the purchase of the line (and quarry) before WWI, by Sir Henry Haydn Jones, who certainly didn't shell out on either make a financial killing!

Ditto La'al Ratty, which was scarcely commuter territory after the demise of it's 3'-0" gauge predecessor, 'Owd Ratty ..... and before anyone on Mona's Isle or in Cwm Rheidol gets on their high horse, neither were the IMR or VoR after winter services went tits up!

Whilst we're not 'playing trains' (you don't need DfT permission or public liability insurance to do that!), we're hardly serious transport either (except where covering for road services on rare occasions here and there). "Steam Railway" isn't 100% accurate either these days, even if diesels are confined gala days, PW work and 'Thunderbird' duties, they're there. The Bluebell might have been the last to make that claim with any degree of justification, even if Adams Radials, Dukedogs, North London Tanks, Spam Cans and Harry's Best weren't exactly archetypical motive power on Sussex secondary routes.

So ..... tourist operations on a heritage formation (nobody mention the Dduallt Spiral), with heritage traction (except when it's been built new), calling at heritage stations (many of which retain running in boards, frequently having been added at some random point during commercial days). Into this mix, add a generous pich of educational function ..... et voilà!

Perhaps we'd all be better off just saying "We do what we do", call it "Our Thing" and hope not too many Italian speaking visitors translate the phrase.

 

Maybe take the Funkadelic's approach?



If a railway wants to go all in on Peppa Pig, Thomas etc, then good luck to them if it pulls in the punters, if a railway wants to go all in trying to recreate an imagined 'golden era' then good luck to them.

So back to the County project - it isn't the first project I'd go for, and I'd rather locos that are either unrestored or in more imminent danger of deteriorating beyond repair get attention first, but on the other hand, if this brings in volunteers who may go onto work on future projects then good luck to them.

 

I’m sure there will be a coventors scheme similar to that of the A1 Trust.

 

I rather suspect that a two coach push-pull or two car DMU would provide more than sufficient capacity

 

Personally I think this scheme is fantastic, rather than another umpteenth large passenger engine from the 1930's-40's not overly dissimilar to types already in preservation it's something very different, preserved railways aren't overflowing with operational 4-4-0's and best of all it's a type that can't authentically be painted in BR livery

 

Neither can 2999, but I believe there is a plan for it to carry BR livery for a photo charter! ;-)

Chris

 

Betton Grange seems to have been well supported, and its just another GW 4-6-0, barely distinguishable from a Hall. 4-4-0s are invariably handsome enginesand I hope that this will prove just as support-worthy as the Grange. There's no doubt that it will be able to do useful work at the GWSR. I just wish there were some NER/LNER boilers available to allow a V3 and an A8 to be recreated for the NYMR!

 

2999 can wear BR livery as the class lasted past 1947. The Counties were long gone by then and therefore can't.

 

She has straight frames and inside steam pipe though.

chris

 

well I'm no expert but an awful lot of Saints passed to BR, just maybe one with straight frames did..I can live with that, so long as it's temporarily black

 

I did go through RCTS earlier this evening and as far as I cam tell no Saints with straight frames and inside steampipes passed to BR. I think about 4 with curved frames and inside steampipes got to BR, but only 2981 survived beyond the middle of 1948, and that only as far as Mar 1951. She's not recorded in GWW as having been painted in the godawful lined black livery.

 

Monkey Magic, here's one for sale soon.

https://www.shannons.com.au/auction...-auction-rare-number-plates/UA6A0YQQ7IAA2C37/

 

Which says to me that some photographers don't give a damn about historical accuracy. Their choice though.

 

You won't see the loco for all the reenactors anyway.