46235 City of Birmingham

And where is the money supposed to come from? That looks like a way to find a charity that is interested in spending money on railway preservation, and instead using that same money to bail out a city council. Which might be a good deal for the citizens of Birmingham, but hardly represents a good deal for the general cause of railway preservation!

CoB is safe and secure and under cover where it is, and whatever their financial woes, Birmingham City Council have a duty of care to keep it that way. So why do anything with it and waste money that could be better spent protecting some other heritage asset elsewhere that is under genuine threat?

Tom

 

I think we will find increasingly little money out there to fund projects. This week we've seen the news about cuts to Snibston, Llechweed trying to improve and diversify and now Brum selling off the NEC. Heritage is not going to attract the cash unless it really is special, lord knows we've tried with TVR 28. Lots of people in magazines and on fora told us what to do with it, and when we launched an appeal - yes, some very generous people, but none of those who'd written letters... I'm not trying to tar anyone with any brush, but there is a world of difference between perception and reality, and the reality is that it's not going to get any better.

 

Sound like your experience is identical to mine!

"Everybody" is very vocal, keen and generous right up to the point there is an actual appeal to which they can contribute, and then they decide that it is the wrong appeal and they would only contribute to something different, right up to the point where that too has an appeal......

[As my old boss used to say, "so cynical for one so young" (I am still cynical....)]

As you say, there are plenty of genuine and generous people out there, so this by no means applies to everybody, but seems to apply proportionately more to those with lots to say about what MUST be restored and what "they" should be doing than those who keep pretty quite but help generously when asked. Thankfully, the later are pretty numerous but are not found by examining letters pages or, all too often, the internet.

Steven

(Apols to Sheff who put a like on the original version of this and would then find it changed!)

 

Now that I'm retired, I have fixed my annual spend on subscriptions and donations etc. So each year they all get appraised, and occasionally one gets 'relegated' in favour of another that I consider to be a more worthy cause.

 

This whole thread is really just another skirmish in the ongoing "why can't the "they" department put my favourite loco back into service?" war. Post 1 speculated about the condition of CoB and whether it could run again, and the idea has come up at regular intervals ever since.

After London, Birmingham probably has the best transport connections of any city on the country, and CoB is in a major museum in that city. For anyone interested in seeing the loco, it is very hard to imagine anywhere else in the country where it could be more accessible than it is now. Certainly not on the mainline - if I want to see "Rood Ashton Hall", or "Bitterne" or their like, how easy is it for the average person to see them - especially during the 95% of the year when they are not operating and are instead tucked away in some private shed? Whereas I can easily see CoB on probably 364 days of the year if I so desire.

I'm not totally against mainline running. There is clearly a spectacle in seeing a loco at speed. But it is a very limited spectacle - very few people can actually witness a mainline loco at speed, either line side or riding the coaches, and for many of them, it will be an occasional fleeting view. Whereas right now, CoB is easy to see for nearly everyone in the country, whenever they want. Probably 1/3 of the population are within an easy day trip of the loco, if they wish to see it. And, dare I say it, if anyone goes to Birmingham with that in mind, the income they attract to the city will help that city in its current financial situation.

Given the above - leave where it is! If anyone has money burning a hole in their pocket (rather than wanting to spend someone else's money!) then there is a huge amount of railway heritage that is far less accessible and / or at greater risk. Just go to the vintage carriage database and look for carriages "at risk" - or even those nominally not at risk, but currently sitting unrestored under tarpaulins up and down the country. And you can add significant locos, wagons, buildings … to that list.

Given the above, steaming a loco in which others of the type exist in operational condition, and which is itself in good condition and accessible to all in secure undercover accommodation looks to me like a very low priority.

Tom

 

^^^^ my nomination for post of the year so far!

 

Now you're just being silly.

 

Very, very true.

 

Are we beginning to see railway preservation peaking out now? The rate of expansion was unsustainable and is beginning to slow down. There is very little unpreserved steam/1st generation diesel era rolling stock left on the network and almost none that is unique. Try as I might I find it hard to believe that more modern rolling stock will command the same level of interest from preservationists (anyone for multiple pacers?) and it would sit uneasily on a steam era line spoiling the atmosphere of even a 1960s era operation. I personally can't see a heritage line based on 1970s or later stock being a great success either, so hopefully we'll now see a wave of consolidation and more emphasis on what we already have. I see that happening already with coaches, where more and more pre-BR examples under restoration and in service.

 

Re. Taff Vale 28. - I would be happy to put my hand in my pocket to support the project but a point of principle stops me from doing so. In a situation where the NRM/SMG can justify spending yet another £3/4m on the latest attempt in the saga to get 4472 back into service, it rather concerns me that they have been unable over many years to find maybe £10k to put No.28 back together in some sort of displayable condition. I'm sure you will say this is all about different pots of money, but I have to question how the NRM allocates money for different projects. We hear that the museum has generated a considerable profit from the Mallard 75 events, couldn't even a few quid from that be spent on TVR 28? It is something of a disgrace that a national collection loco was allowed to end up in such a state in the first place (and I know that happened before your time so it isn't a personal criticism). But if I help fund TVR 28, what guarantee is there that it won't end up as a rusting pile of bits again a few years down the road, as its owners consider it unworthy of any funding?

 

Yes, sorry - I was only replying to the point Anthony made - it would have been more approriate on another thread.

More on topic, CoB is currently well preserved, on display and easily accessible. Trying to raise a huge amount of money to put is back into steam seems pointless to me when there is a another Coronation class loco operational - it would be better to keep that one running. If someone wants to fund the restoration of another member of the class that is currently on museum display, 6229 is the obvious candidate - and the NRM would probably be more approachable than Birmingham Council IF the funding could be provided.

 

Hear, hear, hear!

 

At the risk of being shouted at for being off topic, 4472 and 28 can't be compared - it's different pots of money and different purposes.

28 is in the works at Llangollen for reassembly, after that, it is subject of a 3 part project between ourselves, Llangollen and Gwili to create a Welsh train which will see it in steam and cared for long-term. I understand your concerns, but the way the organisation works is not as simple as that - and 28's future is with a partnership. We have had positive talks re. her future in steam over the last 2 days, and I will personally say that your support would be valued and well received. We have to have partnerships to make things happen, because like it or not, we just don't have the cash ourselves I'm afraid. I've been talking this morning to another group for another vehicle to have a more positive future for that very reason.

If you seriously want to discuss how we fund projects, come and have a natter - it's easier than writing it all down. Thanks for your concern too.

 

A very short-sighted view, in my opinion. People said the same about first generation diesels as steam was dying out. Then more people said the same when those were gradually phased out to be replaced by Class 47s and 37s. If a class 56 can be preserved and have an owning group then I don't see why in future the same won't be said of the class 60, 59, 66, 67 and 70 as they eventually get replaced.

 

You may well be right and I'm sure examples of individulal loco classes will enter preservation, but probably not the the same extent as the older generations. I think there are a number of factors for that - one is the diminishing variety of modern stock, another is the increasing proportion of electrified vehicles (where's the preserved section of overhead line to run them?) yet another is the diminishing proportion of loco hauled stock, and then there's the increasing sophistication of modern, with features like air conditioning to maintain. You can also add the fact that very little modern stock gets an extra lease of life from entering departmental service, which is the reason many of our older stock got saved.

 

quite what you would use an air-braked freight loco for I don't know. FWIW I used to despise the Class 117 Pfressed Steel bog-units and I think they are quite cute now, but then again they are useful self-contained trains in the case of a lot of them