Thornbury Castle Sold to 4709 Group.

[Bucoops]

3 hours ago, sir douglas said:

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

 

My thoughts on this are many of those were bought specifically to be s source of spares, whereas the intention with this one was restoration - which is viable (unlike 45015). Add in that the boiler is wrong for the loco they intend to fit it too, and whilst expensive a new build boilet would last significantly longer and they could ensure it is the correct design.

[Hilux5972]

Sorry but this is a bit ridiculous. 7027 is not the first of its class, it’s not the last, its not  a sole survivor, it’s not historically important, and it’s basically sat around for the last 60-ish years with nothing being done to it. Sacrificing one loco from a class that has 7 others around to bring back a class of loco that has no survivors seems fine to me. 

[toby_tl10]

12 hours ago, JimC said:

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.

Why do you think it's not suitable for mainline running? How does a 47XX differ from other mainline steam locos that we have today?

[toby_tl10]

3 hours ago, Hilux5972 said:

and it’s basically sat around for the last 60-ish years with nothing being done to it

I believe the folks above are saying that serious progress has been made to the restoration of 7027 i.e. the loco is not in "Barry condition".

[JimC]

1 hour ago, toby_tl10 said:

Why do you think it's not suitable for mainline running? How does a 47XX differ from other mainline steam locos that we have today?

The 47s were not the best at speed.  Back in the day they were limited to a maximum of 60mph.  Submit its by no means impossible that a lower limit would be imposed,  especially as they are on the cusp of the 50mph by wheel size anyway. They were also noted for clearance limitations and were much more restricted in the routes they could traverse than Halls and the like. 

If you put those two factors together how easy do you think it would be to find paths for one to run today? 

 

I hope one day to be able to go to Didcot and see a 47 lined up with the rest of the fleet. If I could see one flattening the gradients on some of the longer preserved lines that would be even better. As a contribution to the project I did a deal of volunteer IT support for one of the key technical people. 

 

But it seems to me there has been much muddled thinking on the management,  half-baked ideas,  wishful thinking promoted to strategy and the like.  Taking a Standard 8 firebox and using it as the basis for a Std 7 boiler is not in itself a bad idea,  but in Public Relations terms breaking 7027 right now is a disaster,  and worse a PR disaster that harms the GWS as a whole,  not just the 4709 project. And for the heritage sector PR needs to be top priority,  because that's what brings in the money. If 7027 were to be abandoned in a headshunt to rust again for another 5 years then maybe a half respectable case could be made,  but right now,  when it has apparently been progressing? I don't think foolish is by any means too strong a word. 

 

 

Edited August 13, 2022 by JimC

[toby_tl10]

2 hours ago, JimC said:

The 47s were not the best at speed.  Back in the day they were limited to a maximum of 60mph.  Submit its by no means impossible that a lower limit would be imposed,  especially as they are on the cusp of the 50mph by wheel size anyway. They were also noted for clearance limitations and were much more restricted in the routes they could traverse than Halls and the like. 

If you put those two factors together how easy do you think it would be to find paths for one to run today?

I'm not sure about the "small wheels" situation.

47XX - 5 ft 8

Black Five - 6 ft - a regular mainline loco

8F - 4 ft 8 1/2 - 48151 was withdrawn from mainline in 2019

A 47XX would definitely do the job better than an 8F.

 

As for clearance, I would've thought it's similar to a King or Castle, but am happy to be corrected.

[Morello Cherry]

This also comes on the back of the loss of Dumbleton Hall as well.

 

It seems like a massive slap in the face for the people who have been working hard on Thornbury Castle at the GCR and for what - so the loco can be robbed for what? So a box can be ticked on the GWR Pokemon got to collect them all.

 

I have supported the 4709 project in the past. I won't be supporting it in future.

 

It is ironic that Didcot already has very many engines what haven't run for a number of years and with little interest in returning them to working order ie Cookham Manor, Hinderton Hall, Burton Agnes Hall to name but three, or the Broad Gauge which hasn't run in years. But hey, we must have a 47xx...

 

[JimC]

1 hour ago, toby_tl10 said:

As for clearance, I would've thought it's similar to a King or Castle, 

Unfortunately not. 19.5 in cylinders as opposed to 16.25 on a King, set lower, and on a longer fixed wheelbase (= more throwover on curves) . The working timetables in BR days barred them from quite a number of routes that were open to other classes.

[melmerby]

2 hours ago, toby_tl10 said:

As for clearance, I would've thought it's similar to a King or Castle, but am happy to be corrected.

The same height as a King, with the same diameter boiler but shorter, at the same pitch. It's the same width as many GWR locos.

The long coupled wheelbase could cause clearance issues due to overthrow that something like a Grange wouldn't have.

Unmodified Kings are already foul of some platforms.

 

As to mainline speed.

Why would it be limited to 60mph back in the day?

Granges with the same size wheels regularly did 80mph.

[JimC]

1 minute ago, melmerby said:

Why would it be limited to 60mph back in the day?

Its well documented. Apparently "they did tend to nose about a bit above 60mph which appeared to be due to the increased sideplay provided at the trailing axleboxes" (Cook, Swindon Steam).

[Morello Cherry]

21 hours ago, sir douglas said:

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

 

Because Thornbury Castle has been something of a poster child for promises made by PR hungry people who have not delivered.  When it moved to the GCR it seemed like its chequered preservation history was about to turn the corner. Good progress seemed to be being made based on what was posted online. This progress was being made in the face of the restrictions imposed by covid.

 

Now all of that is being undone - and why? So the wrong boiler can sit on a loco which is going to struggle to run on the mainline, and is going to be severely limited in its usefulness on preserved lines, all the meanwhile, numerous locomotives sit in the sheds in Didcot having not run for nearly 40 years.

 

This is what makes it different to some of the other locos which have been lost.

 

Finally, the way in which it has been announced leaves a very nasty taste in the mouth.

You can see from the Facebook page how much progress had been done.

 

https://www.facebook.com/people/7027-Thornbury-Castle/100036159102918/

[chris p bacon]

Whoever owns it, is probably like many others having to re-evaluate what their priorities are. Costs are spiralling and this wouldn't have been a cheap rebuild at the start. ( I'm currently working on a project where material costs in late 2019 were costed at £188,000, 2 weeks ago those same costs are £247,000)    As well as the rebuild costs there would be rent to pay at the GCR, and it could be that the owner just cannot fund it anymore.

 

I'm sure there will be many that bemoan the loss of yet another GW engine but will interested to see 'Beachy Head' when it steams, although will most likely overlook the fact it carries a GN Atlantic boiler. A company that has precious few locomotives in active preservation.

[didcot]

35 minutes ago, Morello Cherry said:

You can see from the Facebook page how much progress had been done.

Wow, hadn't fully appreciated the amount of work gone into it already. 

[Morello Cherry]

2 minutes ago, didcot said:

Wow, hadn't fully appreciated the amount of work gone into it already. 

 

Which is one of the reasons why I am unhappy about this news and also why it is different to say the case of the Barry Ten.

 

There is a lot of whataboutery about from people trying to justify this.

 

What I do find odd is where the 4709 group has got the money from to buy Thornberry Castle since such locos aren't cheap and these projects have been sending round begging letters for donations since the project began. (Clearly they don't need our donations anymore).

[russ p]

I think the main problem here is a recreation 47xx won't look like a real 47xx with a smaller boiler 

I know the baby deltic has different internal arrangements to an original one but it will look exactly like one.

No point in recreating a lost locomotive if it doesn't look the same as the original 8

[G-BOAF]

23 hours ago, sir douglas said:

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

Sole survivor if the 3-row superheater castle, ultimate development of the single chimney variety. As part of the mechanical development of a long lived xlass it is an important part of history, ecen if externally similar to others (although due to 3-row, chimney further forward than the 2-row machines, so a unique outline in fact

[Dava]

1 hour ago, chris p bacon said:

Whoever owns it, is probably like many others having to re-evaluate what their priorities are. Costs are spiralling and this wouldn't have been a cheap rebuild at the start. ( I'm currently working on a project where material costs in late 2019 were costed at £188,000, 2 weeks ago those same costs are £247,000)    As well as the rebuild costs there would be rent to pay at the GCR, and it could be that the owner just cannot fund it anymore.

 

I'm sure there will be many that bemoan the loss of yet another GW engine but will interested to see 'Beachy Head' when it steams, although will most likely overlook the fact it carries a GN Atlantic boiler. A company that has precious few locomotives in active preservation.

I don’t think the 7027 project paid rent at the GCR. It was owned and sponsored by a former major benefactor whose priorities have changed after he committed to the overhaul. It was within a couple of years of returning to service. It’s routine service on the GCR as a 4 cylinder express loco would have put it into a different category from the other, Mainline-only or static Castles. Sadly it’s not to be and there are quite a number of disappointed people, including those who worked on it for the last two years with nothing to show. 
 

Didcot has become a mausoleum of static locos which ran just one boiler ticket. They don’t need many to run their demonstration line. This acquisition has brought little credit or goodwill to the GWS or 4709 project.

 

Dava

[Cowley 47521]

Is there a ballpark figure on what 7027 is costing the 4709 Group available anywhere?

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, G-BOAF said:

Sole survivor if the 3-row superheater castle, ultimate development of the single chimney variety. As part of the mechanical development of a long lived xlass it is an important part of history, ecen if externally similar to others (although due to 3-row, chimney further forward than the 2-row machines, so a unique outline in fact

Maybe so.

But most people will view it as 'just another' GWR Castle, the subleties are not obvious unless you are in the know.

Edited August 13, 2022 by melmerby

[G-BOAF]

54 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Maybe so.

But most people will view it as 'just another' GWR Castle, the subleties are not obvious unless you are in the know.

 But isnt preservation all about subtleties. Afterall Didcot went to the trouble of restoring a single chimney king, and also went to pains to ensure both collett and hawksworth halls are in its collection (heck they basically look the same). Yet they are prepared to sanction the scrapping of a unique castle.

Edited August 13, 2022 by G-BOAF

[Bon Accord]

1 hour ago, melmerby said:

Maybe so.

But most people will view it as 'just another' GWR Castle, the subleties are not obvious unless you are in the know.

 

You mean in much the same way that many will view a quasi-replica 47XX as "just another Western 2-8-0"?

[sir douglas]

8 hours ago, melmerby said:

Maybe so.

But most people will view it as 'just another' GWR Castle, the subleties are not obvious unless you are in the know.

 

i know, i cant tell the difference between the GW 4-6-0 classes except for the kings because of the obviously different cylinder position, same with the LMS 4-6-0's i cant tell the difference between a Black 5 and a Jubilee

[JimC]

9 hours ago, Dava said:

Didcot has become a mausoleum of static locos which ran just one boiler ticket. 

Simply not true.  Read the locomotive histories on their website. 

[russ p]

Rather large spanner appears to have been dropped in

 

https://www.railadvent.co.uk/2022/08/could-steam-locomotive-7027-thornbury-castle-return-to-steam-after-all.html

[Morello Cherry]

Out of the frying pan and into the fire.