Didcot Railway Centre

Also of course the DRC official Facebook page disappeared between the 22nd and 30th January "due to technical issues", which would have been around the time all this was happening.

 

Just to clarify from experience of such matters there are normally actually 3 sides to such stories side 1' s version, side 2's version and version 3 - what actually happened.

FWIW from the whole family angle from personal experience (and from the comments of several friends with steam interest and kids) I'm not sure it is that much of a family experience, when we went whilst I was in my element(ish) both Mrs GWR4707 and GWR4707 junior (F10 at the time), who will both stand at the mainline side and see a train through and happily ride on something like the GWSR or KWVR were very quickly pretty bored with the whole shooting match.

Possibly so, IIRC it all got pretty active politically on there when the whole 7027 debacle kicked off so possibly prevented further dirty laundry in public.

 

Meant to post last week but forgot, the most recent GWS Echo landed last Friday and included (within a longer piece from the new (I think) chair, not as a stop press of anything) mention of the CEO's departure, which considering the lead time of such publication would suggest that possible his departure was confirmed sometime in advance of it actually being released into the public domain.

Pleasingly there was also, for once, some discussion of the locomotive collection including updates on the 72xx and 6023, along with confirmation that the new build Churchward County is to become part of the GWS collection on completion.

 

Surely "part of the GWS collection" doesn't preclude having a long-term base away from Didcot, if that is felt to offer the best return for the locomotive?

(FWIW, 2999 is part of the GWS collection, but spending the back end of 2025 and all of 2026 where it can admire locos of a better shade of green ...)

Tom

 

Is that a surprise? I mean, surely you just look at the accounts and see which organisation has an asset accruing value at the rate at which money is being spent?

I was always somewhat amused when people would ask, about Beachy Head, "who owned it" or somehow thought that the group who had coalesced to fund and build it would somehow become its owners. Just look at where the money was being spent: it was funded by the Bluebell Railway to create an asset owned by the Bluebell Railway, not as some independent project that just happened to be based there. Isn't it the same for the County?

Tom

 

Maybe not a surprise, but it is news I think. From the County project website "The Churchward County Trust Ltd (CCT) was set up in January 2018 as a wholly independent, not-for-profit company (Limited by Guarantee), and was awarded Charitable Status in 2019." - https://www.churchwardcounty.org.uk/about-us/

 

I too thought it was supposed be based at the GWSR (although the project, or an earlier incarnation, was originally a Didcot one I think), but then a Didcot resident has contributed a number of parts towards it's construction and Didcot has various patterns and castings that can be used, so makes sense to base it there in the future and it compliments the Saint.

I did see on Facebook, that apparently 1466 is receiving attention and has had it's side tanks removed.

 

Perhaps two counties in one place was considered confusing...

 

Forgive me if I am wrong or got wires crossed but Didn't GWSR have first refusal of the 4-4-0 County anyway when one or the other announced a few years ago?

 

Most of the stock at Didcot is actually owned by Great Western Preservations, basically just to protect the collection in the event the Society went under.

So, it’s quite simple. You have the Hawksworth County at Didcot, which is owned by GWP and managed by the GWS, and which appeals for money through the GWS. Then there’s the 47xx, which is not at Didcot, and which is owned by the GWS, not GWP, but is not managed by the GWS, except when it is, and is funded separately from the GWS, except when it’s not. Then there’s the Churchward County, also not at Didcot, which isn’t owned by either GWP or the GWS, but sometimes appeals through the GWS for money. And then there’s the County Tank, definitely not at Didcot, which also isn’t owned by either the GWS or GWP, and which doesn’t appeal for money because it doesn’t exist.

As I’m sure you’ll agree, a perfectly clear and logical set of arrangements.

 

Richard Croucher has been involved with the Churchward County for some time and listed as a trustee, as well as David Bradshaw who I think is the person who came up with the idea to recreate all the lost classes from the Barry 10 , so not really a surprise.

 

All very clear.

I do miss the late Paul Hitchcock sometimes. He had his monomanias, and one was on Railway structures, but at times you feel he did have a point about simplicity and clarity. Certainly in the case of major appeals, I'd want to know (1) to what entity am I donating and (2) what is the end goal? I put a fair amount of money into the Atlantic but there was at least a bit of an ulterior motive, which is I wanted to drive and fire the thing once complete! I think I'd have found other uses for my money had it been structured in a way that it was an independent group and they had the intention of just moving the loco around the country rather than basing it at the location where it was built and (primarily) funded.

Which is not to say that building a jobbing loco for hire can't be an objective - the mainline new builds are all in that category - but it really ought to be clear from the outset why you are doing something, and that includes who will own it and where it is intended to be based and run.

Tom

 

It will be interesting to see any effect on the funding stream if the loco is to be brought into the Didcot fold, and if this is seen as a restrictive move with the loco potentially becoming a static exhibit after its' first boiler cycle.

I would assume that the trustees have voted for this move, as the Churchward County Trust's website makes it clear that the Trust is independent from Didcot, and that Didcot has donated the substantial parts required for the loco from the Barry locos (boiler, bogie wheels, tender chassis, horn guides, spring hangers etc). If this is the case then Didcot cannot make any decisions about the future of the loco - only the trustees.

 

One would hope that the website is consistent with the Trust's articles/constitution - and that if that has changed, the website has been kept up to date.

 

I wonder whether injecting some clarity is linked to the pickle the GWS got themselves into regarding the 47xx/7027, going almost seamlessly during the furore from it being an entirely independent project, to being a project showing up within the GWS accounts to the GWS actually having funded buying a castle without apparently being aware that they had?

I see that the most recent GWS Christmas raffle was explicitly to the benefit of the 47xx project which again seems to be clarifying matters.

 

Every time I re-read this post, I start laughing again! Very well done!

Well, the important point is that they all have-been/are-being built, and the unfished ones seem to be making steady progress (including my favourite, 4709, although I don't see much news about that one).

Noel