The Organ

The organ at St Mark’s was built in 1915 by J.W Walker & Sons for the new church. It is generally accepted to be a fine example of an instrument in the turn-of-the-century ‘Romantic’ style. Unusually it has remained as originally built, with only the most minor changes over the years. It is a three manual instrument with 42 ranks including good reeds and mixtures.

Although an instrument of this size was aimed at enhancing devotional worship, it appears that its primary purpose was to encourage (and improve) congregational singing. The Parish Magazine reports in August 1915 that “the powerful tones of the organ stimulated the desire to sing. No longer that cold and lonely sensation as of an incompetent soloist before an army of expert critics”!

However, over and above its week-to-week use, it is also respected as a fine recital and recording instrument. In the preface for a recording ‘Grand Chorus’ for the Royal Academy of Music, Harry Bramma (former diocesan organ adviser) explains that:

“The Edwardian work of J.W. Walker is not well represented in the Diocese; the organ in St Mark's, Woodcote in Purley, dating from 1915, is therefore all the more interesting. Immediately apparent is the huge dynamic range of the organ, from its barely audible Choir Gamba to the tutti, which is crowned with a substantial free-toned Trumpet.”

The basic construction of the organ is extremely robust, as was typical of Walker’s work at the turn of the last century. However, as organ consultant John Norman explained in a letter to St Mark’s in 1993:


“it is a characteristic of the romantic organ that the larger the organ (i.e. the more stops there are) the more rewarding it is to play. As a result, the organ fully occupies the chamber allocated to it and the space available for the mechanism is relatively restricted, with consequent difficulties of access for adjustment or repair.” Certainly these access difficulties appear to have hampered and restricted the scale of repair work over the years.

Interestingly, the final quotation for the cost of the church building was £9,500 in June 1909. The cost of the organ was astounding in comparison. In her book ‘It’s up the Ladder to Heaven’ (1985), Celia Barker quotes Bernard Ramsey, the then organist and choirmaster in 1908, as saying:

“...if the singing in the church is thought to be poor, this is because an organ was required of such power to not only lead the congregational singing, but to disguise the poor choir work. He realised that an organ was an expensive item, but if the Catholics were prepared to spend £3,000 in Wimbledon, were the good people of Purley that much less devoted to their church? ” The eventual cost of the organ was £2,400!

By 1969, despite a thorough clean in 1962, it was apparent that the instrument was beginning to fail after 55 years of service. The tubular pneumatic action was leaking significantly which meant that many of the notes were simply not sounding or were, at best, slow to respond. The need to undertake some fairly dramatic renovations was clear although opinions divided as to exactly which course of action to take.

It is interesting to review the correspondence between organ builders, advisers, vicars and organists at the time, and to share a degree of sympathy for the officers and members of the PCC who wrestled with the options facing them at the time. The full rebuild in 1962 had been shelved due to the cost (between £8-16K). After much discussion and debate, a revised specification was agreed 10 years later and the organ was cleaned and rebuilt in 1973 at a cost of around £6K. The main objective of the rebuild was to recover many of the leather motors in the organ action with new leather and to overhaul the mechanical connections. Interestingly the work was carried out by Harrison and Harrison but presided over by Mr Peter Walker, related to but independent of the firm of original builders!

It is also interesting to note the differing views as to the value of the pneumatic action. Some commentators felt it was an inherent part of the instrument and should be preserved. Others, including Henry Willis (writing in 1991 to the Church Finance Committee) who currently maintain the instrument felt that:

“the real problem is that the organ has never been restored. It was overhauled and partially re-leathered in c.1973 ...when really it should have been electrified to be rid of the bulky, cumbersome, obsolescent, inaccessible, external pneumatic action which has no intrinsic advantages over a properly applied electric action. It is anyway overdue for complete overhaul again.”

A comparatively minor scheme of improvement work was carried out in the early 2000s, in order to lessen the continued problems arising from leakage from this system. But it was just after Christmas 2007 (when lead was stolen from the roof to south of the chancel and immediately above the organ loft) that torrential rain caused major water damage to the instrument. After 6 months, during which the instrument dried out (and which left the congregation in the care of an electric organ), running repairs were undertaken to the organ in a ‘holding operation’ until the fuller scheme of repair work could be undertaken covered by insurance. Perhaps it is a quirk of fate, or sheer good fortune, that the work has necessitated a fairly major ‘strip-down’ which has allowed access to some of the areas not renovated 35 years ago in 1973.

This work is due for completion in 2010, the church’s centenary. We have every hope that, despite maintaining the current pneumatic action, the organ will be restored to something very close to its former glory. Writing to Revd. Canon R.H. Gibbs in 1992, Harry Bramma (Organ Adviser to the Diocese of Southwark) made some unreserved judgements on the organ:

“I have no hesitation in saying that this is a very remarkable organ – one of the finest in the Diocese of Southwark. To build the instrument new today (1992) would cost approximately £350,000. It is, therefore, a precious asset which should be cherished. It is not only a large organ – it is also an extremely good one. Indeed I would go as far as to say that it is probably one of the best examples of Walker’s work of this period.”

We are all indeed very fortunate at St Marks!