Building an LNWR Prince of Wales

Cheers for the explanation Gary. Does the 'Strategic Vision' as published allow for project specific donations?

It may be that the IWSR Oldburys will come to represent precisely the sort of dedicated project I'm banging on about .... especially if it ends with a BP 2-4-0t at the head of a complete IWR train.

I honestly dunno if my ramblings on this are making any kind of sense to anyone else .... or to me either, for that matter!

 

Their is one current C&W appeal for £200,000 the overhaul of the SECR bogie coaches, this appeal currently stands at £150,000. I am sure that further appeals for future project will be in the pipeline.

A Beyer Peacock 2-4-0t does appeal to me.

Yes your ramblings do make sense to me, I must suffer from whatever you are suffering from

 

But doesn’t this point to the key issue in a successful new build - namely having the critical mass of resources and skills and projects to keep rolling rather than just be one off projects. When you look at the FR, they’ve been new building, experimenting with Porta’s ideas, rebuilding and new building over then best part of 40 years. There is a huge accumulation of skills. Also, like the A1slt they make use of full time staff in key positions, where as some other new builds rely exclusively on a handful volunteers. This last point has a knock on effect, namely that there isn’t that roll on effect because people feel once the project is completed that they have done their time (which is fair enough) - the skills that they have gained and the lessons learnt are not passed onto future projects and so future projects could/can end up repeating the mistakes again.

Co-incidentally the mhr has a series of videos made by students from Southampton Solent uni, one of which is with a guy from c& w and he estimates a restoration takes 2-3 years, so I guess the time it would take to build a 6coach rake from scratch could be the best part of 20+ years.

 

Co-incidentally the mhr has a series of videos made by students from Southampton Solent uni, one of which is with a guy from c& w and he estimates a restoration takes 2-3 years, so I guess the time it would take to build a 6coach rake from scratch could be the best part of 20+ years.

The MHR has had very little to do with vintage coach restoration and this just goes to show it. It's just not possible to generalise in any way because the state of each coach when it is embarked upon is different and the standard to which it is done is an important factor, while the available workforce and their skills differing and funding are crucial issues too. In the LNERCA's case, Gresley buffet 641, reconstructed with an entirely new interior was paid for by its owners and took over 10 years to finish; in contrast BTO 43567, which was largely completed but very dilapidated took around 2 years with the benefit of lottery funding and several paid staff (and virtually everything needed in stock and not having to be made from new). The norm lies somewhere between those, but I'd say that anyone who can restore a largely gutted ex-departmental bogie coach to a high standard of authenticity in less than 6 years is doing very well indeed.

 

I think you are kind of missing my point. It was simply that it would take a very long time to restore or build a rake to run behind a Victorian/Edwardian loco.

If we take the mhr number which is with a professional staff as 2-3 years, then it is obviously going to be longer if it is one person or a group of volunteers working a few days a month. That goes without saying.

I’m not going to get into whether the mhr does vintage carriages or not because that strikes me as an inane argument.

Here is the video if anyone is interested

 

My point is that you can only hold the MHR experience up as a valid example if you believe it to be valid - and I don't. As for your point about it taking a long time to build a set of coaches, I am in general agreement, but if the money was available that time could be cut considerably.

 

Another complete train scheme is the 'Welsh Train' project at the Gwili Railway.

 

It is a valid example because it is an example based on evidence and not a random figure plucked out of the air by me. SSS and all that but still a valid example, just as your examples were valid examples. Belief has nothing to do with it. This is coach restoration/new building not the existence of unicorns.

The quad-arts for example took 5 years to restore but that was done at carnforth, fully funded by professional staff and cost over £500,000. So call it 15 months per carriage.

No one is denying that rebuilding a hen house is going to take longer than rebuilding a mk1, and rebuilding a rake of hen houses will take longer.

If you have the space, labour and money to work on 3 or 4 carriages at once then the restorations and rake will appear more quickly than if you have the space and labour to just work on a single example.

But this goes back to the wider issue - the p2 is a valid example of a project that is going quickly, the clan is an example of a stop start project, beachy head is an example of a project going slowly but steadily, the hawksworth County an example of the setbacks a group can have (ie death of their engineer) and so on and so forth. All different experiences.

All projects boil down to money, space and labour available. Again, a case in point, in the Urie blog they went to fit some new castings, only to find the castings were flawed, but because they had the castings made such a long time ago they can no longer go back to the foundry and complain. Had the project been better funded, had there been more labour, space available etc then it is likely that the castings would have been fitted sooner and the flaws noted and rectified. Money lost, time wasted on a project that is not time or cash rich.

But back to the issue in hand, it would be nice if there were more appropriate rakes to go behind pre-grouping new builds. Hopefully there will be.

 

@Monkey Magic's statements seem a fair enough representation of the situation as it is, so I'll leave the notion of pure recreations to one side for now and try to address the valid point made about manpower. Though the same considerations apply to every aspect of heitage operations, I propose sticking to the example of C&W for now.

We've stock lying around in desparate need of tlc. I'm emphatically not making any criticism of the typical restoration model, which has served well for donkey's years and produced some truly stunning results, but at the same time, we've got to be approaching a point where, in many cases, the unavoidable gradual disintegration of long stored carriage bodies is going to outstrip the resources to reintegrate 'em. Stabilisation from as-found condition of stored kit isn't entirely a case of a one off effort and even once restored from stabilised condition to operational (or display) condition, maintenance presents ongoing challenges and it's stating the obvious that the larger the operating fleet, the more hands will be needed to keep it all running, which bodes ill for those grounded bodies at the back of the restoration queue.

A while back, some fool suggested a degree of centralisation to keep the supply of restored MKI's secure into the future. Predictably, there were protests that nowt over and above the existing needed to be done. Much posted in the interim suggests there may just be the odd resource issues which, at best means carriages OOT for years, at worst, losing carriages to scrap. My conclusion (as that fool) is that, as good as individual restorations are, some carriages are slipping through the net. The techniques required to restore timber bodied stock are very different of course, but the underlying problems remain the same .... manpower and funds.

Although ad-hoc cooperation between lines has existed since Fairbourne staff pitched up at Tywyn ahead of the TRPS's inaugural season at the helm, we've persisted with the notion that each line has it's own departments, staffed by it's own volunteers to the exclusion of almost all other possibilities. I'm not about to suggest any earthquake here, but it strikes me that although the existing model serves well (and has done for nearly 70 years), there's a general acceptance of a 20+ year gap between yer young, carefree and single commited volunteer and the return of same, with remaining hair greying and eyes not quite as bright as they once were, following the almost invariable pattern of career/mortgage/kids. What if some input, on an as-and-when basis, was an option?

There is an existing heritage model we could look to in the inland waterways sector which may allow some to stay in touch during those years often lost to the movement as a whole. The canal restoration movement includes occasional mob-handed descents here and there to bolster a restoration project (IIRC, these are run by the IWA). What if we took a leaf from their book?

The thing which stops many from getting involved during the hiatus of daily life is the regular time commitment to a particular line. What if that could be partially addressed, allowing folks to pitch in / keep their hand in during those times when it's a case of getting away from the job/other half/kids for a few days, now and then, as a socially acceptable alternative to homicide?

The canal method could be adopted to some form of umbrella organisation / register available to those unable to undertake any more regular commitment. Whether this happens under the ægis of the HRA or perhaps the VCT depends on how useful the notion proves, but there must be many like me who spent years moving from town to town, with no real roots anywhere along that road. As a movement, we don't really have anything much to offer such transients and collectively, years of active support are lost .... 'coz it doesn't fit our idea of going to a specific line, year in and year out, to support it.

For Bob's sake, please don't assume I'm suggesting diluting the structures which have served so well for so long, it's more a case of extending what's on offer in order to allow those who can't make that sort of regular commitment to still be engaged for the odd day/ weekend / week as and when possible. I always recall a comment reportedly made on that first volunteer train to Tan-y-Grisiau after all the speeches and celebrations: "I didn't enjoy that bit at all ...... let's go and build another railway somewhere else". The point here being that, for some, it's a specific task or project which attracts, rather than any specific location. Do we cater for such folks as things stand? Do we even know so much as roughly how many there may be in that category?

I can see objections that folks parachuting onto a line from outside won't know the ropes or have local knowledge, but there are plenty of those time consuming jobs during any restoration which could benefit from more hands on deck at certain stages (and how many times does, for example, erecting covered accomodation need to happen?). Many of the safety basics are the same everywhere (and a mortice and tenon is the same whether you're in Bodmin or Bo'ness), so evolving means of fine tuning specific requirements should be possible. The reason I suggest some formal scheme (though not any specific commitment, be it noted) is to enable issues like certification, insurance etc. to be undertaken to a common set of standards known to and accepted by any participating locations. The transient volunteer effectively lodges their CV / skillset and the lines register those projects where it's felt that manpower pinch-points are largely what's preventing progress. Get enough of either on board and the lines could advertise projects and dates, or volunteers notify dates when they're available, with a website to marry the two sides up. The additional grunt provided by any scheme has the potential to overcome certain of those sticking points which prevent much progress, without detracting from the efforts of the 'home volunteer' base.

Any thoughts folks? Mine is that this ought to be somewhere in the Heritage Rolling Stock thread!

 

Actually, as someone who manages volunteers in my day job, I can say emphatically that the current model isn't working. The problem is that the demographics are changing. The retirement age is rising (as it has to; life expectancy has risen, to keep pensions sustainable the retirement age has to rise with it). But it means people retire later; and because more and more families now have to send both parents out to work, even when grandparents do retire they are devoting more and more time to childcare.

And as for young, single, carefree and committed volunteers...they barely exist any more. The vast majority of young people aren't interested in the heritage on their doorstep; they'd rather go backpacking round Burma or wherever. When they do volunteer, they usually just want to gain experience to get a foot on the career ladder; when they've got the job they want, they no longer have the time to devote to volunteering.

It's a problem with no easy answers, but I think you are right to suggest that we need to find ways to make volunteering more flexible to suit people who have less time to offer. That is a bit tricky, though, for railways which have to run to a timetable, and whose peak service requirements will be at holidays and weekends - the hardest times to recruit for! (I call that Murray's Second Law of heritage management: availability of volunteers is always inversely proportional to your need for them. Murray's First Law, by the way, is that you can never predict how many visitors you will get in a day!)

My other suggestion is that, as businesses automate and people start to talk about "basic income"; the idea of taxing businesses more as they automate is a sound one, but rather than doling it out as "basic income", why not use it to subsidise the heritage sector, where no shortage of meaningful jobs could be created if only the money were available!

Sorry, going seriously OT but since you brought up the subject...!

 

OT? Only whilst on the thread for a PoW class loco ...... but as digressions go, the subject has to be right up there, as it goes to the heart of the future of the whole heritage railway sector.

Perhaps I've been 'wowed' by propaganda .... sorry .... upbeat reports from several lines concerning efforts to engage the younger age groups. I guess the key thing here is to identify how widespread the problem is, what's being done and where and with what degree of success.

Even as a fully paid-up cynical old git, I'd reckon the bleak assessment doesn't actually reflect anything unduly recent, as the overwhelming majority of any random age group you could name haven't ever had the slightest interest in [insert just about any subject, from royalty to railways or aircraft to zoology here] .. and that's before you consider what percentage of that minority have ever extended any interest to active support.

So far as seeing voluntry efforts as a career development goes, to a certain degree, that's nothing new either. The sort of social connections which can develop with any group activity have been a by-product of pretty much any voluntary effort since the year dot. Ditto a degree of cross-pollination between heritage railways and the rest of the universe. These are statements of the obvious, but no less relevant for all that.

Sailing into choppy waters here! That's not to say I neccessarily disagree with the aim, though I'd be remiss in not applying my own 'life experiences' with the observation that this would involve engaging with politicians. Even when approaching these creatures with a well considered plan and from a position of strength, the 'body politic' has a marked tendancy to warp and mould anything to it's own ends.

Does the heritage railway sector, even if it can be considered to exist as an entity, have any such plan? Is it in a position of strength? I honestly doubt there's a long enough forked stick anywhere with which to approach politicians with any proposals and certainly not without any clear idea of where they may lead in the wider scheme of things. As a nation, we've done that once fairly recently, to less than universal acclaim.

The heritage movement is unquestionably a product of it's time. If the luxury of any meaningful life outside work is something which, in reality, is passing into history along with those postwar generations who've enjoyed it, then the future of the whole leisure sector, voluntary or otherwise, is in dire peril. If that's the case, nothing we could conceive would be capable of sustaining our heritage lines in their present form and any efforts to resist the inevitable would become yet another tool in the hands of those who would dismantle anything standing between them and their bank balances ..... which would take us straight back to the asset stripping of the Marples / Beeching years, with no sentimental attachments having the slightest bearing on anything. Howzat for a logical worst case extrapolation?

I'm not attempting to deny there are serious problems ahead, but do feel the first step in solving anything is to accurately identify and quantify it. All our preserved lines come with their own unique set of characteristics. If one thing on NP is glaringly obvious, it's that what might be a lifeline to one railway can just as easily be a millstone to another.

S'pose I'd better apologise for going off-piste too .... and I'll edit this this bit out if the subject warrants it's own thread!

 

Younger volunteers have never existed in droves, railways have been an uncool hobby since the 60s, and it is fanciful to think they ever will. Indeed, most lines are short of volunteers regardless of age, but the conclusion must be that there are just about enough to keep things going, and I believe there will always be enough attraction to railways for that to be the case. It's one reason why I view the attempts to open yet more lines with disfavour as the contents of the pot get spread thinner. One ray of hope, though, is that we are seeing more volunteers coming through from a relatively new source - women. Most railways now have female guards, drivers and firemen (OK, firepersons for the PC among you!) and that was rare 25 years ago. I think there's a good chance of them finding their life partners from among the ranks of their fellow volunteers and going on to create families/dynasties of volunteers.

 

Nowt much to disagree with there..... and if you add minorities (of either sex) to recruitment strategies, that's a still bigger number of potential volunteers.

Here's a random selection of questions to consider .......

Why did the railway preservation movement come into being in the first place?

What exactly have our preserved lines evolved into today?

Do preserved lines serve purposes beyond the gratification of those intimately involved in their creation and maintenance?

If the above is a 'yes', does the voluntary movement which spawned the lines, as they now exist, still represent the best model to ensure their secure future?

What exactly is threatened? The lines themselves, or the manner in which the non-commercially led ones currently operate?

Thee, @MuzTrem and me all have touched on the subject from the standpoint of continuing with 'business as normal' and making that work. What if it can't be made to continue to work in it's present form? Note that's a very different question from whether the lines themselves can survive under some alternative methodology .... or not. Some probably would continue quite nicely with things as they are. Is it remotely likely one solution should (or even could) be applied across the board?

..... and btw .... you forgot the obligatory thread drift apology!

 

I hate to say it, but I think that an awful lot of railway preservation is more about nostalgia than it is about trains! How else can one explain the constant pressure to paint locos in drab BR liveries rather than beautiful pre-grouping ones?

Seriously though...the movement is currently heavily dependent on the "trainspotter" generation of the 1960s...when they are gone, how to attract young blood? @61264, you are right that railways have never been 'cool' but I think the problem is now becoming even deeper...young people today are so fixated on digital technology that anything involving real engineering has become completely alien to them. My school dropped Design Technology from the curriculum altogether when I was there about fifteen years ago! So even if you can get them interested, where do we get the skills from? After BR steam ended, the priority for many lines was to develop their own engineering facilities, and they have largely succeeded; but the next challenge will be to become self-sufficient in skills and training.

 

Not sure I 100% agree with that - look at the way CAD has become widely used in the heritage world for drawings, and allowing direct manufacture of components, pattern making etc. It’s the way of the modern engineering world, so pretty well essential if you want to contract manufacturing of any component to an external company, but it involves a mix of engineering and IT knowledge. (Even woodworking - watch the Channel 4 programme about the Isle of Wight carriage, and by appearances, the underframe was designed on CAD and the components were returned as pre-machined wooden components ready for assembly).

Tom

 

It`s great to hear and see that more females are included in the presevation activity. Hopefully many more will follow!

 

There's evidence to support both the pessimistic and optimistic outlooks. On one side, 'the way we've always done things' is dependent on a continuing supply of volunteers and on t'other, modern technology has unarguably opened doors which the pioneers of six decades ago could scarcely have dreamt of.

There's a world of difference between - for example - the Leighton Buzard and Weardale operations. Then again, owning a mainline capable loco, with or without associated train, is something else again. At some locations, a train ride is merely one component of a location's attractions at others, a nationalised asset. Suggesting just one single solution can be applied to vastly differing sets of circumstances across the board is ..... (what's the most charitable term?).

The world has moved on since that legendary meeting on Tom Rolt's Cressy and in so many ways, the heritage movement has developed in response. We tend to forget that even back in 1951, although the General Manager's job on the Talyllyn mightn't have been salaried, it did come with an expenses allowance. Christopher White's 1991 publication "Forty Years of the Talyllyn Railway" gives a figure of £30/month, noting that was the equivalent of 240 return trips from Wharf to Abergynolwyn. Would anyone care to rework that figure based on 2018 fares (then we can all have a good ol' ding-dong on how relevant that is to anything!)?

There are challenges ahead, but that's always been the case. No one person is any more likely to have all the answers now than then.

I'm going to stand by my questions a few posts back [currently #33]

 

A recent steam tour that I went on was very well represented across most roles by women volunteers. I witnessed a quite amusing exchange between my wife and the ladies in charge of the tea and cake stall on the platform:

Wife: "Do you do this for the railway?"
Ladies: "Oh yes, we raise all the money so the men can go and spend it on silly rusty things!"

 

Ha,ha
I remember my dad asked a female conductor at a heritage railway if she was appointed by NSB (norwegian government railways) No, she said, I`m working as a nurse!

regards,
Knut

 

Is another issue the we waste years and years of time and effort working in poor conditions only to have to do all the hard work all over again? What a waste of the volunteers efforts.

Should we focus on building more under cover storage, then vehicles can be in a safer location from vandalism, change in weather (both hot and cold temperatures) which can damage or reduce the life of paintwork as well. Plus there are many many vehicles around the UK that are currently used as a storage facility, so that also means they are not being restored so sheds etc can be built with this in mind and have space to keep the spares?

Surely this would reduce the work load on coach restoration and maintenance meaning we have more stock available?