FraserClarke

We loaded the last our Welsh coal into the tubs in the Didcot coal stage yesterday - so about 4-5 ton left. With limited running in March, that might just get us to Easter; though I suspect that long weekend may see us onto the next lot, which is Polish... We've saved a big lump of Welsh for the museum!

Here are few views of the driver's position in a large prairie. As you can see, the view forward is not too bad (by steam engine standards), but the view going backwards is non-existant! The seat is on rear wall of the cab, so the regulator, brake, ejector etc are out of reach. Best place to perch when running backwards is on the reverser rack - view out the back, and controls easily to right hand.

Yep - I think where there can be big differences in implementation is understanding *why* you are a business. I suspect the railways with long term success remember they are business *because* they want to be a heritage railway, not the other way around! You see something very similar in the modern academic world, where universities need to be effective businesses to survive - but if they start treating the teaching and research side as the means to a commercial end, then they have rather missed the point! That though is the difference between leadership and management; both are necessary, complimentary, and quite different -- but often confused!

I'm sure there is a specific address, but I can't find it... email info@didcotrailwaycentre.org.uk and I'm sure they will put you in touch with the right person...

I had someone on a footplate experience who seemed genuinely shocked that the injectors were not automatic... I'd never thought about it before -- but he was quite right; why on earth would anyone with the slightest bit of common sense design a system where the "failsafe condition" is that it might try to scald you to death before it blows you up...

I'm not sure what you would say is acceptable, but in between 2020 and this year; 2999: SVR (twice), NYMR, MHR, ELR, WSR 4079: SVR, MHR, GWSR 4144: KESR (twice I think), CPR (all year this year) That is quite a lot of 'getting out' isn't it? I do think Didcot are trying to find the right balance between sending engines out to be seen and used on heritage railways, and maintaining enough on site to both operate (hence the focus over the past five years on overhauling small engines) and keep the feeling of a mainline steam shed with a big engine rumbling past you in a yard -- not something you can see or experience at many heritage railways.

My point was more the fraction of the total fleet in steam, but you're completely correct that not all overhauls are equal. As someone pointed out 7202 has been under overhaul for longer than it was in service! A better way of looking at it though might be that Didcot has brought an engine into steam on average once every 18 months over the last 10-15 years. One of those (2999) was a 'new build'. I don't think that is a bad record for a mostly volunteer organisation? Didcot has a few paid staff, but far less I think than somewhere like the SVR.

I'm pretty sure it runs until end of February the following year (i.e. a card issued in June will be valid until 28 Feb 2024). However, given there are a good number of railways where you save the entire cost of the card in a single visit -- I'd say it was a massive bargain even if you got it in December! Presumably you'll also hope to volunteer for more than one year? And next year you'd get the full 365 days...

An interesting analysis! A comparison for Didcot is that there are also currently 5 streamable locomotives 4079 2999 (new build) 4144 1340 (Trojan) 2409 (King George, a kind of new build/conversion) Two recently out of ticket, and at least looking at overhaul; 6023 SRM (a new build) Four - Seven under active overhaul/ construction, depending on how you count 1466 1363 3650 7202 1014 (county - new build) 4709 (new build, but not being done at Didcot) 5227 (parts donor - now privately owned, but owner is working on it with an intention to restore it) Three where an overhaul is planned once there is space in the works (including firefly, but that's also dependent on being able to do some pretty significant work in the broad gauge track) A further 12 are on static display, and realistically quite a way down any overhaul queue - despite what we might like. So the Didcot fleet has pretty comparable statistics to the SVR. 5/29 steamable, 2 recently withdrawn, 1 soon to return. ~5 under active overhaul or construction... The view that Didcot is obsessed with new builds and just leaves everything else in the shed doesn't really hold up to the numbers...

I assume you mean King George? -- that was bought (non operational) nearly ten years ago with the specific purpose of making a 'Thomas' for hiring out. The business case changed in the intervening time, and Thomas isn't viewed as viable any more (due to licensing costs). So it's now 'King George' (original name from before didcot days) and making the best of it. It certainly wasn't bought as an operational industrial tank loco recently...

I think you've picked up the wrong end of the stick there. 7027's boiler is a standard 8 as used on Castles. The std 8 is much closer to a std 7 than a std 1. You're quite right the early 4700 prototype used a smaller standard 1 boiler for a few years, and indeed I understand that was the original plan for 4709 (there is a std 1 boiler sat a didcot) -- but I guess the project felt it would be better use a bigger boiler to better represent the next 44 years of their lives; presumably for the same reasons you list... It's a shame no-one stood up and was willing to make an offer for restoring 7027 as a castle -- but I guess the reality is there just weren't people willing to make the commitment...

It doesn't "manage a number of railways" - but the Heritage Railway Association (www.hra.uk.com) already exists and provides overarching lobbying, guidance, and support for most heritage railways in the UK. You can join as private individual (for a bit more than NT/EH membership), and get a priv card to visit member railways at a reduced rate... (though this is mainly intended as an in-kind benefit for active volunteers I think)

My understanding (which may be wrong!) is that the meeting has had a positive outcome. They did I believe agree a plan to fund at least cosmetic restoration work on 18000, and that has now started. There is I think a subtlety that although 18000 is on display at Didcot, it's not necessarily easy for GWS to spend money or do work on it, as it doesn't belong to the society. It presumably comes down to the details of the agreement, which I have no clue about. Anyway, it seems there is now a way and will to help it, and hopefully it will start looking better soon!

I always really want to like the Caledonian sleeper -- but I just don't. I get it once or twice a year when I need to be in Edinburgh early, but can't leave 'daan sarf' before tea time. It's always fun getting on -- but I never actually sleep!! It leaves too late and gets in too early -- it would be "better" if it took more time. The trouble with the 'travelling hotel' image is that no-one would book a hotel which gave you a check in time of 10 pm and a check out of 7 am... The Highland sleeper makes more sense in terms of journey time, but I suspect is even less economically viable than the Lowland.

The whole thing hasn't been presented well - but I don't think there is any attempt to deceive people. I'll try to explain my understanding to the situation - as a working volunteer at Didcot and GWS member of short standing (i.e. I'm basing this off the statements and chatting to a few people, but I don't have much of the history of the organisation or any involvement with the management, so I might be misunderstanding some bits!). This is just my understanding of course. The GWS has many different project groups, 4709 being one. These groups are given a good degree of autonomy, and whilst GWS is an umbrella organisation, the project groups are responsible for their own day-to-day running. As I understand it the discussion to buy Thornbury was between the then owner (who it seems was looking to 'disinvest' from the on-going restoration project with some rapidity) and a few key members of the 4709 group. I imagine they (4709) may have felt the need to act quickly to secure what they saw as a good opportunity to progress their project. The offer to buy from 4709 wasn't known to the wider GWS organisation before it was announced, and hence the August statement saying "GWS doesn't know anything about this". Since then, there has of course a lot of discussion (internally and externally) as to what it actually means, where are the funds coming from, what the ownership would be, is this a good thing to do from a wider viewpoint than just the 4709 project, etc. I believe there has been a lot of 'feedback' from within GWS/Didcot that the 4709/7027 plan is not supported by many of the members. It seems the outcome of these discussions is that the GWS board now believes it does have responsibility and authority over this purchase, and has decided to take the route of offering Thornbury for onward sale to a 'viable group' for restoration if one can be formed. Let's hope one can - but Thornbury is a big job and will likely need an experienced group with a proper funding stream to do it. If it doesn't look like that is going to happen, then I guess the boiler goes to 4709 and the frames... ?? If in the future a group wanted to propose building a Star within the GWS, that would I imagine need to get approval from the GWS board and be set up as a specific project. I am quite sure the GWS AGM in two weeks will have many questions about this all!