Thornbury Castle Sold to 4709 Group.

[toby_tl10]

3 hours ago, FraserClarke said:

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...

Thank you. I stand corrected - Thornbury Castle will be cannibalised, dismembered by the 4709 Group to build a 47XX with a small No. 8 boiler. So 4709 isn't a No. 7 boilered 47XX (1921-1964), nor is it a No. 1 boilered 47XX (1919-1921), it's another 9351. If there are people who like 9351, I s'ppose there'll be people who like 4709 too.

[toby_tl10]

1 hour ago, Chris M said:

Well I think it is making good use of a loco that had no prospect of being restored to working order.

7027 was being restored by volunteers at Loughborough GCR before it was sold to the 4709 group. Not sure how you define "no prospect of being restored to working order".

[Bucoops]

18 minutes ago, toby_tl10 said:

7027 was being restored by volunteers at Loughborough GCR before it was sold to the 4709 group. Not sure how you define "no prospect of being restored to working order".

 

This is the bit that grates on me. It was being actively worked on. Legal it may be, but morally it utterly stinks.

[Chris M]

52 minutes ago, toby_tl10 said:

7027 was being restored by volunteers at Loughborough GCR before it was sold to the 4709 group. Not sure how you define "no prospect of being restored to working order".

7027 has been kept on hold for six months in order to allow anyone who wishes to buy it and restore it. If the previous owner could see there was a good chance getting this loco running in a reasonable time (and the finance) I very much doubt he would have sold it.  I do feel for the volunteers who gave their time to this project and can understand their disappointment. The fact remains that nobody has come forward with the finance to buy and restore 7027 over the last six months. 

[melmerby]

I think the problem with Castles is there are 8 (soon to be 7) Castles from the first (4073 at NRM) to a very late example (7029 Tyseley) surviving, so not considered sufficiently rare to get another restored example.

Edited March 31, 2023 by melmerby

[rodent279]

5 hours ago, FraserClarke said:

 

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...

 

 

If there's a spare no.1 boiler Sat at Didcot,  why not do another "Lady of Leg-End" conversion, and reverse engineer 7027 into a Star?

 

Yes, I know there is a genuine example sat in York, or wherever it is now, but there is no prospect of that even steaming, let alone going mainline.

Edited March 31, 2023 by rodent279

[melmerby]

1 minute ago, rodent279 said:

If there's a spare no.1 boiler Sat at Didcot,  why not do another "Lady of Leg-End" conversion, and reverse engineer 7027 into a Star?

 

Yes, I know there is a genuine example sat in York, or wherever it is now, but there is no prospect of that even steaming, let alone going mainline.

Not so diificult as reversing a Hall as much of the gubbins is pretty close.

 

How about number 40 as a 4-4-2?😄

[rodent279]

I was thinking number it 4067, Tintern Abbey, probably the closest of the Abbey series to Thornbury. Rather appropriate,  as the original 4067 was rebuilt into Castle class as 5087 in 1940.

What's not to like?

.

[MPR]

31 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

If there's a spare no.1 boiler Sat at Didcot,  why not do another "Lady of Leg-End" conversion, and reverse engineer 7027 into a Star?

Apart from the driving wheels, the coupling rods, the front frame extensions,  the inside and outside cylinders and the cab…

Great Western engines were famous for their standardisation, but the standards did evolve over the years. A post-war Castle is far removed from even an Abbey-series Star. It would probably be better to clothe up the spare std.1  boiler to look like a std.8 and restore 7027 with that. But that begs another question.

[Michael Hodgson]

1 hour ago, Chris M said:

7027 has been kept on hold for six months in order to allow anyone who wishes to buy it and restore it. If the previous owner could see there was a good chance getting this loco running in a reasonable time (and the finance) I very much doubt he would have sold it.  I do feel for the volunteers who gave their time to this project and can understand their disappointment. The fact remains that nobody has come forward with the finance to buy and restore 7027 over the last six months. 

I agree it is very disappointing to volunteers who have given their time freely in what would appear to have been an abortive effort at restoration, and also to those whose financial donations have been not borne fruit.

 

It may be sad but I rather think we will see more of this sort of thing in years to come, and to be honest I am surprised that hasn't more already.  We have seen several preserved lines run into financial difficulties as a result of covid.  There is a limit to the number of preserved railways than the country can support and a limited supply of volunteers with the necessary skills or youngster wishing to learn an obsolete trade which will not enable them to earn a living, and there can't be that many people with enough spare cash and an interest to fund increasingly expensive restorations.   When locos become unserviceable for whatever reason, even the big railway has always had to take a decision as to whether it is economic to repair a loco or scrap it, replacing with something else if the traffic demand is there.  Why would preservation not have to face the same questions?

[rodent279]

22 minutes ago, MPR said:

Apart from the driving wheels, the coupling rods, the front frame extensions,  the inside and outside cylinders and the cab…

Great Western engines were famous for their standardisation, but the standards did evolve over the years. A post-war Castle is far removed from even an Abbey-series Star. It would probably be better to clothe up the spare std.1  boiler to look like a std.8 and restore 7027 with that. But that begs another question.

Wheels & rods? I thought Stars & Castles share the same wheel dia & wheelbase?

[298]

1 hour ago, toby_tl10 said:

7027 was being restored by volunteers at Loughborough GCR before it was sold to the 4709 group. Not sure how you define "no prospect of being restored to working order".

 

Unfortunately that's volunteering for you. Unless you have enough of a share to have voting rights over a future sale, it's ultimately up to the owner to do as they see fit.

[Clearwater]

There are three castles in steam at present.  Not sure about 5029 and whether it will steam again but if you’re GWS, surely you’d think it was less time and effort to steam 5051 again.  The “best’ 7027 could hope for is a cosmetic restoration.  Much as I like castles, I fear 7027 is in the same category at the merchant navies that remain pretty much in Barry condition.  I doubt they’ll ever steam again either.

[MPR]

3 hours ago, rodent279 said:

Wheels & rods? I thought Stars & Castles share the same wheel dia & wheelbase?

Wheel diameter is the same, but there was a change to the design from crank-on-spoke to crank-between-spoke. The wheel spacings are the same, but the articulation between the rods was forward of the middle wheel on Stars and early Castles, rearward later. (To be fair components did move around between locos, though). 
 

[JimC]

9 hours ago, MPR said:

The wheel spacings are the same, but the articulation between the rods was forward of the middle wheel on Stars and early Castles, 

The coupling rod bearing on the Castle driving wheel was larger too.

[G-BOAF]

I don't understand why this has happened. Wasn't the previous owner (John Jones-Pratt) looking to re-acquire the engine and support a volunteer lead restoration. I even pledged funds to this proposal. How can Didcot say there wasn't a realistic offer? There was a very public one

 

The reality is that this loco was a few years off steaming, was certainly not a no-hoper, and was a unique 3-row superheat, single chimney BR built castle, of which none survive (Clun is now double chimney, and Nunney may be restored with a 3-row but was not built that way).

 

Very sad, and I hope between now and any actual progress made on the weird freight Frankenstein, common sense prevails. 

[rogerzilla]

The Night Owl wasn't even a particularly successful design.  As 2-8-0 freight engines go, the 28xx was more widely used and very long-lived (GWR men preferred them to the 8Fs they were given in wartime).

[didcot]

12 hours ago, G-BOAF said:

How can Didcot say there wasn't a realistic offer? There was a very public one

I was told they kept moving the goal posts. I don't think there was ever any intention to sell 7027. The announcement didn't come as any surprise to any of my GWS member friends. 

The irony of losing a Castle in the classes 100 year is obviously lost on the Didcot hierarchy. 

 

[rodent279]

12 hours ago, rogerzilla said:

The Night Owl wasn't even a particularly successful design.  As 2-8-0 freight engines go, the 28xx was more widely used and very long-lived (GWR men preferred them to the 8Fs they were given in wartime).

That does rather depend on how you measure "successful ".

 

Just because only 9 were built does not mean they were not successful.  As for longevity,  I don't think a class introduced in 1919 and lasting until 1964 makes them unsuccessful. 

[Mike_Walker]

They were built for a specific purpose, principally fast overnight fitted goods trains where as the 28xx were designed for slow mostly mineral trains.  There were only 9 47xx's because that was all that was needed.  Both types were very successful and even got pressed into passenger service on summer Saturdays - with preference given to the 47s.

[melmerby]

10 minutes ago, Mike_Walker said:

Both types were very successful and even got pressed into passenger service on summer Saturdays

The 47XX even got passenger livery under BR.

There's no doubt it was a successful engine.

 

According to Wiki, the running dept actually wanted something bigger than a 43XX and envisaged a Saint with 5' 8" wheels (Later produced by Collett as the Grange class) but Churchward peferred a 2-8-0 to do the job.

[JimC]

1 hour ago, Mike_Walker said:

They were built for a specific purpose, principally fast overnight fitted goods trains where as the 28xx were designed for slow mostly mineral trains.  There were only 9 47xx's because that was all that was needed.  Both types were very successful and even got pressed into passenger service on summer Saturdays - with preference given to the 47s.

Its maybe a little ironic to note that Cook tells us the running department put in a request for more 47s, but Collett elected to build a batch of Castles instead as being more versatile even though more expensive. The other thing to note is that WR thought it justified to build a new set of boilers for them in 1955-7 which suggests it was thought they would run for many more years. One might observe that fitting Castle boilers instead of a new batch of Std 7s might well have been a cheaper option since one fewer would have been needed.  There was also a plan to fit screw reverse to them in the 1950s, although this went no further than the drawing board.

Edited April 2, 2023 by JimC

[rodent279]

Now building a new no.7 boiler and fitting it to Thornbury Castle would be something original and worthwhile, as that's what Castles would have had, had it not been for the infamous weight limits imposed by the CCE.

As it turned out, these restrictions were nearly all resolved, which is why a mere 4 years later, the larger, heavier Kings were able to be built.

[Chris M]

14 hours ago, G-BOAF said:

I don't understand why this has happened. Wasn't the previous owner (John Jones-Pratt) looking to re-acquire the engine and support a volunteer lead restoration. I even pledged funds to this proposal. How can Didcot say there wasn't a realistic offer? There was a very public one

 

The reality is that this loco was a few years off steaming, was certainly not a no-hoper, and was a unique 3-row superheat, single chimney BR built castle, of which none survive (Clun is now double chimney, and Nunney may be restored with a 3-row but was not built that way).

 

Very sad, and I hope between now and any actual progress made on the weird freight Frankenstein, common sense prevails. 

I have to ask - why did he decide to sell it in the first place? Especially if the loco was "a few years of steaming" and there were plenty of folk offering finance.

[rogerzilla]

26 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

Now building a new no.7 boiler and fitting it to Thornbury Castle would be something original and worthwhile, as that's what Castles would have had, had it not been for the infamous weight limits imposed by the CCE.

As it turned out, these restrictions were nearly all resolved, which is why a mere 4 years later, the larger, heavier Kings were able to be built.

The Brudge Stress Committee (I think it was called) rightly determined that 4-cylinder engines had very little hammer blow - the reciprocating masses are mostly self-cancelling depending on the drive arrangements.

Edited April 2, 2023 by rogerzilla