Tyseley Single Wheeler.

Finally, a post worth reading in this thread. Bob said in his post that no-one had come forward offering to run an appeal, and as we haven't seen anything public since I'd hazard a guess that is still true.

If the individual concerned had spent as much time of the last 4 years assisting with such, rather than bleating on here, the active fund-raising might have been nearing it's end instead of waiting for the beginning.

 

I think it's unrealistic for a fundraising officer to step out of the blue unless they were previously involved in the project, or at least involved in Tyesley, othewise how on earth would it work? It seems like enthusiasts as a whole are being blamed for nothing happening rather than the original team, who stopped for perfectly reasonable reasons. The only realistic chance this has is if one of the original team decide they want to restart and get on with it, and if they want it to happen enough they shouldn't just be hoping someone else will do the fundraising for them.

 

Indeed, if only there was a member of the original team around?

 

Like any other project that embraces fresh blood. Bob's post said there was 8x core individuals, all of whom now have other priorities. So unless there is someone prepared to pick the proverbial baton up, then we'll just have to wait for TLW/VT to find a way themselves.

Same as any project on every railway up/down the country. All the projects that have been completed within heritage railways, have not done so with the exact same individuals throughout the respective group's lifetime. Times change, and people move on.

 

I agreen that projects are always gainignrw people and losing old, I was just saying in this particular situation it seems to me unrealistic to be asking for someone completely new to take up a senior role within the project.

Now I don't know much about fundraising so apologies if I'm talking out of turn here, but these days, with the internet at everyone's fingertips, I wouldnt have thought it would take too much to at least get the ball rolling by one if the "originals", as I really think it's got to be someone previously involved initially, to set up an easyfundraising page or whatever, and put a couple of posts on here, Facebook, and perhaps ask for a mention in the railway mags?

If even Stuart reader can manage it, surely it shouldn't be that difficult?

 

As unrealistic as people who are not involved demanding on here that Tyseley crack on with it, Tyseley have indicated that they would talk to people who had an interest but despite much written on here no one seems to have picked up the blower?

I do think that the final sentence is unnecessary, especially as naming someone who is not on the thread to defend themselves seems a little below the belt.

 

I'm not demanding that they crack on, merely suggesting that asking for someone external to kickstart it again is unlikely, not because no one can be bothered, but because it's probably quite difficult going into it cold as has been suggested by Tyelsey folk.

As for Mr Reeder, fair enough, @stuartreeder, defend yourself!

 

Why should he defend himself and against what, you have, for whatever reason mentioned him in a derogatory way in a thread that he has not contributed to

 

Alright, scratch the Stuart Reeder comment then. :/

 

Who? Me? I've never seen this magazine and have no intention of spending money on it.

I haven't berated them for not responding - their lack of interest is just what I expected. I've had a look at their website: nothing on this topic that I can see, and no mention at all of the late Bloomer scheme.

Yes, years ago, apart from Ben's brief one-line answer to a question asked fourteen months previously.

So it would appear: all we've had is Ben's one-liner on 10th August.

The last thing he said to me on the subject was: "It's a tragedy!" And it seemed tragic to me at the time, but now I have no further interest. It's dead & gone, whatever Bob said in the past about it being "part of their souls" (!)

Harry.

 

Dead and gone? Seems to have risen from the grave. Just give it a rest...

 

The bloomer seems to be a victim of Tyseley's sucess, and the staff dont have the time to complete it, i wonder how about an appeal on VT's brouchers etc to raise the funds, say ask passengers add £1 to ticket prices to go into a fund to complete it, does tyseley have apprentices? or plans to employ any, some limited time under bobs supervision as classroom work on the bloomer could spark interest in a younger generation, without effecting the day to day work, plus long term, tyseley gets fresh blood, its only an idea

 

Apologies Spamcan81, I was being a bit cheeky. Also sorry for taking a while to reply, however while I was just going to reiterate my earlier response that I was told Tyseley preferred GWR, a couple of my diminishing number of grey cells must have collided and I recalled that I had clipped a 2009 Heritage Railway article by Michael Whitehouse that might hint at the answer.

The article was entitled “Less is More” and was a long, wide ranging and well-argued case (as you would expect from a lawyer) that if organisations would be willing to sell or loan some of their acquisitions to other bodies there could be an overall benefit for the preservation movement. As an example he cited the West Somerset Railway's scheme to restore a set of GWR coaches – why do this when the Great Western Society at Didcot had already restored coaches they could no longer use to any extent – the sale of these could fund improvements or loco overhauls at Didcot and would enable the WSR to realise its ambition? Michael admitted this might be a bridge too far!

Looking at his own organisation Tyseley he wrote “…the collection has ended up with three GWR Castle 4-6-0s, one Hall, three GWR pannier tanks, some industrial locos (largely on loan) a train of carriages, workshop equipment, spares and drawings and lastly, an LMS Jubilee 4-6-0. When written that way, it is fairly clear that the Jubilee does not necessarily fit with the GWR brand and, now, the Vintage Trains ‘Shakespeare Express’ operation. Saying so to several of the volunteers and supporters at Tyseley, does, of course raise surprise and some question marks in their eyes. Quite understandably.

However, applying the Duke of Devonshire and watch collector’s tests (two case studies mentioned previously in the article) No 5593 must be on the ‘edge’ in the collection at least in the eyes of the trustee shareholders. Consequently, they have two options. First to dispose of the locomotive for somebody else to repair and operate it or, second, to permit a group of volunteers to launch an appeal and raise money and gradually repair it so that it can be used among the Tyseley collection at some future date.

The commercial price tag for acquisition and repair to first class main line condition for No 5593 would be something in the region of £1.2m. This is not a made-up figure as the trustees have undertaken an examination of the engine and costed, in commercial terms, what would be required to return the engine to NR main line condition together with an appropriate valuation for the sale price. Looking at it this way the disposal of No 5593 would provide a useful capital injection to continue to develop the Vintage Trains GWR brand. Just a thought?”

So perhaps Spamcan81, just perhaps, is the reason there is a Jubilee at Tyseley because no-one has come along with the right offer?

Oh, and on the subject of the Bloomer he said "The sight of a 19th century single wheeler gliding along is something I have to live to see!" Mr Whitehouse is about 63 years of age, and I trust in good health, so plenty of time yet.

Cheers
Dave

 

Big Four bias aside, in these days of NR's ever expanding "tube" loading gauge, parting with a narrower Jubilee is foolish, seems appears to be a struggle to find a workable itinary for 4965 away from Stratford currently.

 

It would be a real shame to see 5593 leave Tyseley as she was an integral part of their early open days and could be seen and heard working trains up and down the BR goods loop between the shed and the station.
But if the shareholders wish to be a GWR only operation, that is their choice.

 

Not saying that it is leaving, just saying it would be a shame if it did.

 

If the Gauge issues get any tighter, it may well end up being the only gauge friendly engine on the Tyseley stable

 

The people at Tyseley clearly have both the expertise and the wish to finish the project but they can't afford to work on it unless someone else pays. I see no reason why the person(s) to organise the fund raising need to be members of the Tyseley team. Obviously they would need some liaison with the team and friendly relations, but the main qualifications are sufficient interest in seeing the loco finished and skill in fundraising.

 

The brief nine-word reply, a month ago from Mr Vintage-Trains of Tyseley (to a question asked 14 months previously) could not be a clearer demonstration of Tyseley's complete lack of interest in this defunct project. If anything, probably even mentioning it is simply an embarrassment to them.

So, my apologies to them (and to those who find this subject boring - although they don't have to read about it and then be driven to send "witty" responses, do they?)

More importantly I also owe apologies to anyone who was led to give money to this project - and to the heirs of those who made bequests - because of anything I did, said or wrote, back before 1990, when so much work was being done.

The scheme got under way when I was approached by a person from Tyseley in May 1986, so I spent years of time and effort on research for it, and (without bragging) can say that I made a big improvement on their original ideas. But it was all a complete waste of my time - so perhaps Tyseley owes me an apology.

Forget it. The working Bloomer scheme is quite dead.

I'm grateful to Li'l Bear (above) who reprinted that piece about it being part of Tyseley's "souls". When I saw it originally, my inbuilt b.s. detector gave a little flicker, but L.B's reprint gave me my best laugh this year.

Harry Jack.
('Locomotives of the LNWR Southern Division' RCTS 2001, etc.)