Thornbury Castle Sold to 4709 Group.

[didcot]

https://www.railadvent.co.uk/2022/08/4709-group-purchases-great-central-railway-based-steam-locomotive-7027-thornbury-castle.html

 

If this is actually the case and the loco is to be dismantled for other projects then its a step too far. That just my personal opinion.  

[didcot]

https://didcotrailwaycentre.org.uk/article.php/519/7027-thonbury-castle

 

[Miss Prism]

I like a 'Big Churchward' as much as anyone, but it is an unfortunate reality that to get one of these compatible with the current NR loading gauge would require considerable compromise, and the 4709 Project's blurb of "slightly smaller dimensioned no.8 boiler from the Castle would not be possible to spot, being a matter of a only few inches in the barrel diameter." is worrying.

 

Not possible to spot? Really? It's the 'only a few inches' that differentiates so many of the Churchward classes. I take my hat off to the preservationists, but a 47 with a non-47 boiler isn't really a 47 for me.

 

Sounds like the GWS has distinctly mixed feelings toward the project!

 

[didcot]

I seem to remember reading that when Pete Waterman sold it, he had actually collected a lot of the missing motion. That and the efforts to restore it at the GCR makes you wonder what the thinking process was.

It's a sorry state of affairs that it's potentially being reduced to component parts.

 

[MPR]

11 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

I like a 'Big Churchward' as much as anyone, but it is an unfortunate reality that to get one of these compatible with the current NR loading gauge would require considerable compromise, and the 4709 Project's blurb of "slightly smaller dimensioned no.8 boiler from the Castle would not be possible to spot, being a matter of a only few inches in the barrel diameter." is worrying.

 

Not possible to spot? Really? It's the 'only a few inches' that differentiates so many of the Churchward classes. I take my hat off to the preservationists, but a 47 with a non-47 boiler isn't really a 47 for me.

 

Sounds like the GWS has distinctly mixed feelings toward the project!

 

Statement from GWS: https://didcotrailwaycentre.org.uk/article.php/519/7027-thornbury-castle

[Clearwater]

15 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

I like a 'Big Churchward' as much as anyone, but it is an unfortunate reality that to get one of these compatible with the current NR loading gauge would require considerable compromise, and the 4709 Project's blurb of "slightly smaller dimensioned no.8 boiler from the Castle would not be possible to spot, being a matter of a only few inches in the barrel diameter." is worrying.

 

Not possible to spot? Really? It's the 'only a few inches' that differentiates so many of the Churchward classes. I take my hat off to the preservationists, but a 47 with a non-47 boiler isn't really a 47 for me.

 

Sounds like the GWS has distinctly mixed feelings toward the project!

 

 

It's like debates about the King loading gauge.  I think the changes to 6023 are noticeable relative to the unaltered 6000.

[toby_tl10]

6 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

I like a 'Big Churchward' as much as anyone, but it is an unfortunate reality that to get one of these compatible with the current NR loading gauge would require considerable compromise, and the 4709 Project's blurb of "slightly smaller dimensioned no.8 boiler from the Castle would not be possible to spot, being a matter of a only few inches in the barrel diameter." is worrying.

I tend to believe it's more of a money issue than a loading gauge issue.

 

I guess it will come out like 9351. If people can tell 9351 from a 43XX, then people can tell 4709 to how a 47XX should look like.

[MPR]

47 minutes ago, Clearwater said:

 

It's like debates about the King loading gauge.  I think the changes to 6023 are noticeable relative to the unaltered 6000.

 The chimney/safety valve cover/cab roof changes to the mainline Kings are minor, cosmetic and fairly easily reversible in a few hours when required. This is a whole order of magnitude different.

Edited August 12, 2022 by MPR

[didcot]

The points regarding 6023 and 9351 are interesting. I guess you can include the Saint as well. I guess the original loco is still substantially there. Not sure on the Saint.

To sacrifice a loco for multiple projects just doesn't seem right, especially one that has had a restoration started. Especially a class with so few survivors.

Whilst I am looking forward to seeing a 4-4-0 County I would rather see the 52xx that will donate its parts restored as it is unique. 

 

Edited August 12, 2022 by didcot

[TEAMYAKIMA]

I personally have no particular interest in this, except to say that it seems to me that there are several restored castles already ( AFAIK ) and what is the point of having another one, but on the other side of the coin, for me at least, a castle is a passenger train loco and as most revenue for large 'preserved' locos is from running passenger trains, that makes sense.

 

What doesn't make sense to me is running a passenger train with a freight loco on the front and the 47XX class was purely a freight loco - maybe the ultimate GWR freight loco - I await photos of 47xx on passenger services.

 

[rovex]

12 minutes ago, TEAMYAKIMA said:

 

What doesn't make sense to me is running a passenger train with a freight loco on the front and the 47XX class was purely a freight loco - maybe the ultimate GWR freight loco - I await photos of 47xx on passenger services.

 

 

I thought 47's were sometimes used on holiday specials?

Edited August 12, 2022 by rovex
To add photo

[Tim Hall]

12 minutes ago, TEAMYAKIMA said:

I personally have no particular interest in this, except to say that it seems to me that there are several restored castles already ( AFAIK ) and what is the point of having another one, but on the other side of the coin, for me at least, a castle is a passenger train loco and as most revenue for large 'preserved' locos is from running passenger trains, that makes sense.

 

What doesn't make sense to me is running a passenger train with a freight loco on the front and the 47XX class was purely a freight loco - maybe the ultimate GWR freight loco - I await photos of 47xx on passenger services.

 

Weren't 47xxs regularly used on Summer Saturday extras? Also, they were painted in BR lined green, suggesting a mixed traffic role.

[Dava]

The crew who have been working very hard on 7027 at Loughborough will be pretty hacked off by this decision as the restoration is very well advanced and the loco, as one of the final build of Castles, which has never run since being rescued from Barry many years ago, is far too good just to be cannibalised for its parts.

 

The loco has been a victim of being owned by several rather wealthy gents who seem to give up when the full costs and reality of restoration become apparent. Hopefully this fourth attempt will be more successful and it will not just become a boiler donor. There are already two elderly Castles at Didcot and 7027 probably has much more potential life in it than they do. But the GWR is a rule unto itself.

 

Dava

[Phil Bullock]

Perhaps Anyone starting a new build steam loco project in the current climate …. Both financial and meteorological…. Should think very carefully as to where the future of their project lies. 
 

 

[JimC]

2 hours ago, toby_tl10 said:

I tend to believe it's more of a money issue than a loading gauge issue.

To be frank I don't see how it can be loading gauge at all. The Castle boiler was a 47 boiler with a smaller diameter barrel, and the King boiler was a 47 boiler with longer barrel and firebox. The King and 47 boilers were on the same pitch. So I would need it very carefully explained to me, with drawings,  why the solutions found for Kings would not work for a 47 boiler. In any case the only need is to get the locomotive in and out of Didcot - a 47 would never have been a suitable locomotive for running on the 21stC mainline, so as long as the high bits can be removed for transit there really ought not be an issue.

 

 

Edited August 12, 2022 by JimC

[G-BOAF]

Shocked to hear this. Shame on the GWS and its associates (I know the GWS has tried to distance itself from the purchase, but the fact is that the 47 group comes under its umbrella)

Didcot won praise when it repatriated 4079, yet it is now willing to facilitate effectively the scrapping of a unique castle (4079 was basically identical mechanically and cosmetically to 4073, while 7027 is unique in the only 3-row superheater castle, and the only remaining BR built single-chimney machine)

 

The fact that serious progress on the restoration had been made is a real kick in the teeth for everyone involved I'm sure. What on earth in the owner thinking. Were there seriously no other offers to buy and complete the restoration? Why did the GCR issue a statement recently saying it was not for sale.

 

This is, IMHO akin  to taking an A4 and using the boiler to build an Gresley A1 (it looks similar at a distance). You won't end up with the new built you set out to achieve, and you have trashed a historic artifact.

 

This is a dark day for preservation. It is materially different from the Saint project, as the Hall was purchased form Barry with that conversion in mind. It is worse than the sacrifice of the 8F for the county as this was not an active restoration and was a poor condition loco (although the scrapping of a rare Doncaster built loco is a real shame for its own reasons).

 

This has to be stopped. It seems that writing to the GWS won't achieve anything as they have said 'nothing to do with us', but maybe if it is unpopular enough, the 47 group will be persuaded to change tack.

[didcot]

@G-BOAF Whole heartedly agree.

 

Didn't Tony Marchington fit an A4 boiler to Scotsman and tried to increase the output by boring the middle cylinder out. Look what happened there.

 

 

Edited August 12, 2022 by didcot

[G-BOAF]

19 minutes ago, didcot said:

@G-BOAF Whole heartedly agree.

 

Didn't Tony Marchington fit an A4 boiler to Scotsman and tried to increase the output by boring the middle cylinder out. Look what happened there.

 

 

Yes he did although there is some nuance there. A4 boilers were routinely fitted to A3s in BR days, just with a 220psi pressure (as per the A3 boiler and design of the loco as a whole). Marchington's team increased the pressure to the 250psi that the boiler was designed for (on an A4), despite the fact that the rest of the loco mechanically was not designed for that power output. Remember the A4 boiler was quite happily used on Scotsman from the 1980s onwards, and only caused problems when the pressure was raised.

 

The reason I believe for the use of the A4 boilers by BR was that they stopped building new A3 boilers, while continuing to build new A4 boilers until the 1960s (all the preserved A4s have early 1960s built boilers fitted)

[didcot]

Thanks for that.

[didcot]

Someone has set up a petition. See lik below.

 

https://chng.it/tmk6SNHC

[Bucoops]

I'm rather indifferent to GWR stuff, but this really seems, frankly, stupid. What kind of reaction did they expect? Are they really that naïve? 

[sir douglas]

preserved locos have already been scrapped as donors in the past 30 years but there wasnt much fuss then, so why now? its not like its the sole survivor of its class

[TEAMYAKIMA]

4 hours ago, rovex said:

 

I thought 47's were sometimes used on holiday specials?

 

4 hours ago, Tim Hall said:

Weren't 47xxs regularly used on Summer Saturday extras? Also, they were painted in BR lined green, suggesting a mixed traffic role.

 

I knew I'd be proven wrong and I accept that I was. However, in the middle of the 21st century, if my wife and I decided to go on an expensive luxury steam-hauled  trip in the UK, I know that I would rather be hauled by a Castle than a 47xx.

[Miss Prism]

What was the King chimney and safety valve casing cut down to - 13'3"?

 

[melmerby]

51 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

What was the King chimney and safety valve casing cut down to - 13'3"?

 

Isn't one of them fitted with smaller cylinders for extra clearance?