Back Of The Shed

Was Betton Grange ever a GWS initiative? Not a project I have closely followed, but I understood it emerged from a core of people who had been involved with 5199, and as such always had strong links with Llangollen rather than Didcot?

Tom

 

i might be wrong but I thought that didcot were originally going to build a Grange, Llangollen's gain is Didcot's loss anyway, in terms of engineering reputation

 

I think one of the things that probably puts people off becoming volunteers at Didcot is just the lack of people already there. Sometimes when I have been it is just so quiet, nobody about much. There will be someone at the entrance to sell tickets, someone in the shop, cafe and museum but that is about it. Last time I went mid week there was a Hungarian lady looking after the museum who I chatted to for a while and she was being paid to work there.

I remember looking at a board for the County 4-6-0. It showed pictures of some of the people working on it. Most were in their 70s with the project leader it said had died and the new project leader looked about the same age.

The 3822/72xx group seem to be quite active, have often bought books from their shop and the lady in the shop is quite proactive in getting sales

If there is already volunteers there beavering away on something you often get chatting to them and it encourages others to join, but if there is nobody about then that doesn't happen.
The Swindon and Cricklade is having a new members weekend this coming weekend (12/13th may), because it is seen we need to get more people involved. Has Didcot considered doing the same thing ?

 

At least there is some chance of that as both are being worked on. Whilst I’m looking forward to that pair too, I’ll personally be most pleased to see HC ‘Julia’ in steam - GCRN’s first steam loco way back when, and at one time looked like a no-hoper (it has needed new cylinders casting).

PS: Maybe the Didcot stuff belongs in another thread?

 

Maybe the whole model off the steam museum based around just a shed is the problem as didcot is one off the only wo left do volunteers want to see the items they restore running at least a few miles. There is also a lot more competition than in the 80s beside Swindon and cricklade the is chinnor which is making progress.

 

both relatively small fry, Toddington is more of competitor, just a short hop across the Cotswolds.

 

The Grange always has been a 5199 group initiative. The 47xx is a Didcot project; the GWS chairman was involved in creating it and it was approved by the GWS board. Except it's not at Didcot. I don't pretend to understand what's going on with the Churchward County.

Regarding the locomotive side of things, the big issue, in my opinion, is the amount of self-justification for newbuilds. They are promoted over everything else, both in terms of fundraising, and volunteer recruitment. The GWS then claims that they can't get money/people for existing engines, and so must go down the newbuild route. Look how much physical promotion there is for the County and 47xx, compared to say 1466 and 1363. In my opinion, within Didcot's locomotive works, things have become too democratic, believe it or not. Rather than it being a case of 'this is the priority, this is what we need people to work on,' instead it has become something of a free-for-all, with the result that the workforce is too thinly spread. It's all well and good saying that 'people will only work on what they want...' but if it jeopardises the centre's ability to run trains, and if other places manage to overhaul 'mundane' engines, then you should probably look at changing tact.

To give a real world example; the team who worked on 5322 were in theory meant to move onto 1363. They did in fact begin pulling 1363 apart. But then they were told they had to finish the Saint off, so 1363 fell by the wayside. Then some of the group started working on 4144... The Saint was given an overdraft to help 'finish it off'. Will 1363 be given an overdraft? When was the last time a leaflet was produced for 1363? When was the last time a magazine article was produced for 1363? A recent GWS Echo asked for volunteers to help with the 47xx. Where is the similar request for help with 1363? Is the 47xx a priority over 1363? Who decides what is a priority?

 

Perhaps the most damning indictment- so little activity that there isn’t even a didcot thread, or maybe there is but like didcot no one goes there anymore.

 

Indeed. I refrained from adding to the Didcot musings in my previous post but I will say that, I took my wife and then 2-year-old child there a couple of years ago, mainly because the Railmotor was advertised as running and I really wanted to see it. So I was very disappointed that it was not only not running that day, but nowhere to be seen. That disappointment aside, the whole place had an air of neglect and sadness about it, whereas on my previous (solo) visit many years previously it had been buzzing. Whether the problem is the endless stream of new-builds or something else, I don't know, but I can say that the new-builds don't interest me in the slightest; the existing locos all have a story to tell, a big part of which (and the part which is relevant to my generation, being too young to remember UK main line steam) is the story of survival against the odds, whereas the story of the Saint, Grange, County, 47xx or whatever other long-extinct type you care to mention could adequately be told with a model in a display case. The fact that a series of perfectly restorable (at least cosmetically, for display purposes!) GWR engines have been pulled apart to create these various replicas just makes me even less inclined to support them. I daresay they will look nice all lined up when (if?) they're built but if the place has gone bust in the meantime due to lack of visitors, that won't be much consolation will it?

 

Error in the inputting as I suspected.
Irrelevant text now removed.

 

Was there today, some gloriously finished carriages basking in the sun, and a reasonable number of volunteers on that side of things sitting down having their lunch. Seems to me that's a good team doing great work.

 

Why the side chains in addition to the screw coupling?

 

Safety chains - I think the idea is that they would hold to an adjacent vehicle if the main coupling broke.

Quite a few preserved locos of that era have them - the Bluebell's C class is one; GNR Single No. 1 another; the LSWR T3 a third.

Tom

 

I assume a legacy from the days before continuous brakes ie Armagh

 

Yes, a well organised bunch. Hopefully 933 will join the above pair in the not too distant future. I'm not sure exactly when safety chains were phased out on the GWR, but I would've thought that 1941 (above, 1901 build) would've been one of the last so fitted. Offhand I can't remember if 290 or 975 (both 1902) have the appropriate holes.

 

the carriages are gorgeous, what a shame they have no locos of that era, are building replicas from a later era and what locos they do have that work are mostly painted in BR colours.

 

I agree, I think if they were going to build new build locos at Didcot something like a Dean Single would have been the one to go for as the GWR 4-6-0 is already well represented. This non working one was built

 

even a metro 2-4-0T would be welcome, there are so many locos of that era that should be represented, it's like a black hole between the Broad Gauge and Churchward

 

The Didcot locomotive collection, as it has evolved has a distinct 1930s and later bias. The Saint, therefore is redressing the balance, as indeed is the 47. Both are, don't forget, pre grouping classes. A lot of that is simply because the GWR replaced or updated almost all their old locomotives in the 30s and 50s, and by the 60s the older stock was simply gone. My 1950 Observers book reports 3 pre-Churchward GWR built locomotives left (plus 3440). No, not 3 classes, 3 locomotives. There are ~15 classes listed for the SR, ~19 classes for the LMS and about ~20 classes for the LNER.

So if you want pre Churchward standard locomotives the stock is very thin. The Dean goods, the City and the Dukedog were all in preservation before the GWS was really up and running, and I don't think there were any real GWR types missed from industry. So what should have been done? Another new build project? There's enough criticism already about unfinished projects. Time enough for that when the Saint, Pendennis and the 72 are finished, all of which are making progress.

Some, I suppose, might criticise for taking on Pendennis when there was already a Castle in the collection, but how can one turn down that one? So we are just left with the renewal of the modified Hall as a County for criticism.

Incidentally the Non-operational Locomotives group at Didcot seem to be making a real difference, there was a definite cheering up of the museum fleet when I was there yesterday, another low profile bunch that deserve credit.

 

Well 1363 is a pre-grouping loco and was steam heat fitted for working passenger trains so they do have a loco in the fleet that would look at home hauling the coaches.

I seem to recall a push to get 1466 going but not much seemed to come of it, but yes, I don't recall that many appeals to restore existing stock, everything seemed to be geared towards new builds.

But 1363 you would have thought would be a prime candidate to restore - not only for Didcot but also for hire (thinking about how 813 is a frequent visitor for galas etc)

A couple of final points didcot must surely have the largest number of eyeballs see the site every day with the number of people who go past it on the train (albeit at 70-125mph). If you only got a handful of people a day to decide to visit then this would help. Do you even get a change at didcot for the didcot railway centre announcement?

I also wonder if didcot suffers from the fact that didcot is not a lovely place to visit. If you go on the gwsr, mhr, svr, bluebell, etc they are in nice places where you can break the journey and go for a nice walk and lunch. I am not sure what didcot has to offer apart from the railway centre.