THE COLOUR PURPLE: ROYAL OR WRONG?
OUR INDUSTRY INSIDER TACKLES THE MATTERS AFFECTING PRESERVATION
THE RELATIONSHIP between the commercial requirements of a heritage railway, and the desire to achieve perfect heritage, has always been a strained one. This was never more brought into focus than when the SVR took the decision to paint a locomotive in a colour that many would regard as challenging. It was done for very clear reasons that went beyond the obvious joy they had in celebrating the Queen’s jubilee. There is no doubting that the SVR did the sector proud on that front, and I am sure many railways felt that trying to compete would have been futile. It shone a light of achievement, and the rest of us were blinded by the beam – well done, I say. However, let’s not for one second kid ourselves that this was anything other than a very professionally delivered piece of marketing and PR – again, well done!
How brilliantly it played the card of controversy, and once played it didn’t hide – in fact, it turned it around and used it to heighten the effect of the initiative. This isn’t a new thing, but this event may well be a watershed which indicates very clearly that we are entering a new phase of commercial development for heritage railways. The other stand‑out project of this nature was the ice rink at the Bluebell engine shed. However, I would argue that these events have real and clear support functions to heritage, and they are the enablers that bring the heritage to life.
Here’s controversy: heritage with which nobody interacts is pointless. More to the point, heritage with which only people in the know interact is selfish. So, one could clearly argue that commercial initiatives that diversify and increase the interaction are a clear initiative that heightens the relevance of heritage.
Therefore, is the painting of Taw Valley in purple paint a real and tangible act of heritage?
Is a heritage railway movement that has a pure desire for authenticity a flawed (post‑Covid) business model? Is it not better to make compromises in certain areas to boost our ability to support heritage and open the field of view to more people? The question people should be asking is not why the SVR painted a steam engine, but what does it intend to do with the attention it’s brought? Is this the platform to open the railway’s great heritage work to more people, or a simple act of PR?
Knowing the team at the SVR, I am sure this is not a skin‑deep exercise. This has a place in a strategy to heighten engagement and bring longer term stability. We should not judge this initiative using our own personal prejudices but with a much more holistic view.
Post Covid, the heritage sector is struggling to find its new position, hard decisions on long‑term projects are being made simply because the sector is having to investigate its real core values. Money is a dirty word but without it heritage becomes impotent. The need to be financially sustainable is going to force us to debate the balance of commercial against heritage and bring it into sharp focus over the next few years. We need to smarten up our railways to the new market and be brave enough to confront the Chinese walls of tradition. We must be less selfish and more prepared to accept that recreating a railway that we remember is less important than delivering a railway that future generations want to see. The future likes purple engines, and because of these initiatives we will be able to tell people about the heritage. However, I fear there are many more arguments to have.
HOW BRILLIANTLY [THE SVR] PLAYED THE CARD OF CONTROVERSY