Thornbury Castle Sold to 4709 Group.

[Morello Cherry]

17 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. 

 

In response to the first paragraph, I'd suggest that within railway circles there are some people who have a very high profile, are very good at self publicity and who always have a quote for the railway press, but when you dig a little bit deeper at the track record (pun intended) there is very little to back up the profile. There is a lot of 'Emperor's New Clothes' when it comes to railways.

 

And of course, just as the Thornbury Castle could be upped and sold without a by your leave to the 4709 group, so it is that the 4709 group could be asking for a completely ridiculous price for the engine making it impossible for anyone but a hedgefund owner to buy.

 

All and all though, I won't be donating to 4709 because of the way they have behaved and frankly, if you can afford to buy a Castle then you clearly don't need my donations. And it makes a mockery of Didcot as the custodians of all things GWR - when you consider that they have locos that haven't steamed since the 1970s sitting in the shed, the Broad Gauge track sitting idle.

 

Anyone want to bet when we will see the Railmotor in steam again?

 

The irony of the announcement in the same month Didcot has it's 4 castles events.

[rogerzilla]

The GWS does a lot of good stuff but is hampered by its location, which means running locos is always a bit of a minor interest.  People would probably like them to become an owner/hire company for proper lengths of preserved line, but I don't think they're interested in using their stock for that and the fees would be unlikely to cover 10-year overhauls.

 

Main line running is not Didcot policy now.  I think the 6023 debacle saw to that; they spent a fortune making it main line compliant but it took so long to sort out the springing and steaming issues* that the boiler ticket ran out.

 

*it was a reversion to single chimney, and the draughting was terrible until they had a new exhaust designed and made

[jjb1970]

I accept I am almost certainly a small minority and others don't agree, but I have zero interest in new facsimile copies of locomotive designs that missed preservation, or trying to rebuild locomotives into other types for the same reason. I admire the dedication and skills that made Tornado but I really can't get enthusiastic about it. Ditto with making a nightowl out of bits of Castle. I'd much rather see one of these groups build something like the 5AT.

[adb968008]

The sad part about 4709 is the number of locos that have been consumed to make it..

 5227,4115,2861 and now 7027.

 

We lost an 8f for a firebox on the county.

 

Then weve lost a volunteer funded Hall for a theme park in Japan, another is just a celebrity in a theme park here, two Halls for a Grange.. and another for a county.

 

Then theres 9351.

 

GWR preservation is a bit like a modellers toolbox.

 

Somewhere in the Swindon archives someone found a proposed high speed 4-6-2T Castle tank… perhaps time for a bit of what-iffery with 7027’s wheels/frames,cylinders and the rest of 4115/5227 ?

 

Edited April 4, 2023 by adb968008

[melmerby]

On 02/04/2023 at 15:06, Morello Cherry said:

And of course, just as the Thornbury Castle could be upped and sold without a by your leave to the 4709 group, so it is that the 4709 group could be asking for a completely ridiculous price for the engine making it impossible for anyone but a hedgefund owner to buy.

 

Considering they reckon that by using 7027's boiler, they will be saving £0.5 million, I guess that could be their starting point.

[Morello Cherry]

I am trying to work out what and where 4709 will work once it is built? I can see it being a 'novelty' piece at gala's for a couple of years - much as the Saint is, but then what? I can't see too many lines with so much demand for a 2-8-0 that don't already have suitable locomotives already. It would be too heavy for the WSR for example (and given that Jones-Pratt tried and failed to buy back Thornbury Castle I am not sure it would be welcome). Likewise, I can't see it heading to the GCR either after what has gone down. If there was a big need for 2-8-0+ locos then there would surely be more lines restoring their 28xx, 9Fs, 8Fs etc.

 

If it isn't going mainline then what? Pottering up and down at Didcot until the boiler ticket expires and then to the back of the shed for 30 years? If it is going mainline then I am not sure what kind of work it will find or where - especially as most of the rail tour operators seem to be in house and/or large organisations (ie A1SLT, 60103, WCR, Tyseley)

 

I find it hard understand the approach at the GWS when for example they have locos with a local connection such as Cookham Manor, or the former Oxford based Burton Agnes Hall, unique locos such as the 61xx, common but useful locos such as Hinderton Hall, various tanks from Prairies down to dock tanks all of which would be much more suitable to hire out to other preserved lines than a 2-8-0. I mean if the GWS were so keen to get a unique loco back into steam then why not plough funds into their 7202, which spent 38 years working, 10 years at Barry and the last 49 years at Didcot unrestored (none of the three survivors have steamed in preservation).

 

Of all the new build steam projects this is the one that makes the least historical sense and the least sense in terms of preservation. The G5, 82xxx, 84xxx make sound sense as locos for preserved lines - tank engines to trundle up and down with half a dozen coaches. The F5, Beachy Head make sense as they are engines that worked the line where they are intended to be respectively based. The Clan, B17, County and Patriot projects will almost certainly be able to find lines to run on. GSN I think is a genuinely innovative project  even if it is a bit high days and holidays - and I really like the improvements that they are trying to make, to me that is a very Bulleid in spirit project because I find it hard to imagine that Bulleid wouldn't have tried to embrace new technology to improve his engines. But the 4709 - a small bunch of freight locos that worked the odd bit of holiday traffic, I'm sorry (but not sorry) but I am just not seeing i) the rational for the project other than wanting one of everything and why ii) it has to come at the cost of 4 other locomotives. (I am not hard and fast against cannibalising unrestored and unlikely to be restored locos but there needs to be a very good justification for it - there isn't in this case).

[rodent279]

Reading all the foregoing posts, I come away with the impression that someone, or some persons, at the GWS, have badly lost the plot in the last few years. Sometime those chickens are going to come home to roost.

[adb968008]

14 hours ago, melmerby said:

Considering they reckon that by using 7027's boiler, they will be saving £0.5 million, I guess that could be their starting point.

Minus 7027’s purchase cost, and add to that the cost of overhauling and converting 7027’s boiler.

 

it was those economics that saw off 48518, and its boiler, meaning a whole loco was lost for want of a firebox.

 

5952 was lost to economics, for a Grange also for bits, despite using 7927 as well.

Edited April 4, 2023 by adb968008

[7802]

The GWS decision to not certify their locomotives for main line use does somewhat reduce the appeal of bringing main line locomotives such as the 47xx and Hawksworth county back from the dead. As has been noted very few preserved lines have the need for such large locos and with all the issues with the availability of coal I can’t imagine any railway clamouring to use them regularly. The only preserved line I can think of where these locomotives might seem at home is the Paignton and Dartmouth. I would much rather, if they go to the effort of creating these locomotives from scratch, they allow them to run on the national network. Although that I imagine brings even more challenges to authenticity due to problems with gauging.

[Morello Cherry]

I am not even sure about the PDSR as they are a professional (ie non-volunteer) line and have their own in house fleet of locos. They bought (and are restoring) 51xx 4110 (which was bought/sold under controversial circumstances from the WSR).

 

The PDSR has the S160, a 2884, 42xx, 52xx, 51xx, a Manor and a Standard 4. I think the most they run is a two set service in high summer. Are they really likely to be in the market for a 47xx?

 

I can see it ending up like the King, plodding up and down the demonstration line before the boiler ticket expires, by which time the GWS will probably moved onto the next shiny 'must have project' having decided to convert 5051 into Great Bear or build the Hawksworth pacific, and it will go the way of the Broad Gauge stock.

[rodent279]

Has the GWS perhaps got too much money, and not enough wise heads?

[MPR]

37 minutes ago, Morello Cherry said:

I am not even sure about the PDSR as they are a professional (ie non-volunteer) line and have their own in house fleet of locos. They bought (and are restoring) 51xx 4110 (which was bought/sold under controversial circumstances from the WSR).

It is now completed and in steam at the ESR - it arrived unrestored in Jan 2020. First moves 11th Feb 2023. https://youtu.be/KV2g8ZFgemA 

The Cranmore team are working on 4247 next - also destined for the DSR.

 

 

[7802]

1 hour ago, Morello Cherry said:

The PDSR has the S160, a 2884, 42xx, 52xx, 51xx, a Manor and a Standard 4. I think the most they run is a two set service in high summer. Are they really likely to be in the market for a 47xx?

I agree, the PDSR don’t need a 47xx with their fleet, arguably no one does. My point was more that it was the only line I can think of where one would not look completely out of place i.e. home territory and a route where they would actually have been seen in steam days. Also the gradients do warrant larger engines. Pacific hauled rail tours have been known to stall on the banks.

[Mike_Walker]

Sadly, I have to agree with much of what is being said here.  As a regular volunteer at Didcot (albeit with Swindon Panel) I'm often left in despair at the way things are going.  There seems to be a lack of direction and it saddens me to see so many locos out of use.  At least they are under cover.  A recent example of the woolly thinking has been the purchase of an operational industrial tank loco to operate services when it would have been better to restore one of the smaller GWR locos to operation.  At least both 1363 and 1466 are being overhauled (the latter off site) which should help things

 

Attendance at the site is in a slow but steady decline (March 4 excepted!) and regularly there are more "staff" on site than visitors on weekends even when trains are running although they are too often worked by an 08 or 14 rather than steam.  The Sunday after the Four Castles event the admissions totalled around 40 which is not unusual.  Visitors want to see steam - they pay a large sum to get in - not a diesel.  A comment made to us regularly in the Signalling Centre is that we are the only place on the whole site where something is actually happening and they can try something themselves.

 

I've heard that one issue is the age of many of the stalwart volunteers who are no longer able to devote the time and energy they once did and a lack of new, younger recruits.

 

As for 7202 is is not languishing unrestored; it has been in the main works for many years and is rapidly reaching completion.  I understand the same applies to 7200 at Quainton Road and that some friendly rivalry has developed between the two groups to see who finishes first.

[didcot]

2 hours ago, rodent279 said:

Has the GWS perhaps got too much money, and not enough wise heads

Certainly not enough wise heads. The site looks tired. The repairs to the Coaling Stage were long overdue.

 

I know a couple of long standing volunteers that have given it up in the last 12 months due to politics and in fighting. 

 

I've just received my membership renewal and I'm inclined not too. 

[Morello Cherry]

1 hour ago, Mike_Walker said:

As for 7202 is is not languishing unrestored; it has been in the main works for many years and is rapidly reaching completion.  I understand the same applies to 7200 at Quainton Road and that some friendly rivalry has developed between the two groups to see who finishes first.

 

 

I wanted to mention 7202 because I look at it (and other locos at Didcot) and think to myself 'what if they had been given the effort and resources ploughed into 2999, 4709, the County'. There is no dedicated page to the restoration, I think I found a facebook post from 2016. Restoring a loco after almost 50 years at Didcot and 60 years since withdrawal ought to be a source of pride.

[toby_tl10]

5 hours ago, 7802 said:

The GWS decision to not certify their locomotives for main line use does somewhat reduce the appeal of bringing main line locomotives such as the 47xx and Hawksworth county back from the dead.

...

I would much rather, if they go to the effort of creating these locomotives from scratch, they allow them to run on the national network. Although that I imagine brings even more challenges to authenticity due to problems with gauging.

I can't speak for others, but I think modifications made to allow the locomotives to run on the national network is an acceptable compromise, while "we've found a similar-sized (aka wrong-sized) part from another preserved loco" is less acceptable.

[melmerby]

3 hours ago, toby_tl10 said:

I can't speak for others, but I think modifications made to allow the locomotives to run on the national network is an acceptable compromise, while "we've found a similar-sized (aka wrong-sized) part from another preserved loco" is less acceptable.

I agree with the compromises, only a purist would spot most of them.

IIRC one of the Kings got slightly smaller cylinders to reduce the width, several GWR locos as well as a Princess (+ other locos?) have been cut down to meet the current height limit.

[Dava]

On 02/04/2023 at 11:56, Chris M said:

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.

JJP sold because he was fully committed to sorting out the West Somerset Railway, a container of costly to replace parts was stolen, and Michael Gregory, President of the GCR offered to buy and restore it at Loughborough. The rebuild got well under way with a committed team at Loughborough doing what the boss wanted. Then health and family issues changed, Gregory withdrew from the GCR and his trains were offered for sale, including 7027. JJP intervened after the sale was announced, but nothing came of the initiative to acquire and restore the loco.

 

Dava

[OnTheBranchline]

5 hours ago, didcot said:

Certainly not enough wise heads. The site looks tired. The repairs to the Coaling Stage were long overdue.

 

I know a couple of long standing volunteers that have given it up in the last 12 months due to politics and in fighting. 

 

I've just received my membership renewal and I'm inclined not too. 

 

Even from my visit from 6 years ago now (blimey!), I was surprised at the state of some of the rolling stock on display (albeit they were outside and of course exposed to the elements every day). 

[adb968008]

8 hours ago, 7802 said:

I agree, the PDSR don’t need a 47xx with their fleet, arguably no one does. My point was more that it was the only line I can think of where one would not look completely out of place i.e. home territory and a route where they would actually have been seen in steam days. Also the gradients do warrant larger engines. Pacific hauled rail tours have been known to stall on the banks.

Might sound good on churnet valley..

That said GWR locos are lazy climbers, and make a lot of noise on the flat anyway.

 

GCR, GWSR, WSR even Midhants could all give it a good run.

 

Going backwards though a 47xx would look odd.

[rodent279]

2 hours ago, OnTheBranchline said:

 

Even from my visit from 6 years ago now (blimey!), I was surprised at the state of some of the rolling stock on display (albeit they were outside and of course exposed to the elements every day). 

I last went in 2018, it just felt like it had not changed much since my previous visit in 2003. Stuck in a timewarp, not much to attract me back. Why go to Didcot to see 2999 when I can see it on a real railway, not a glorified run round loop?

[FraserClarke]

7 hours ago, Mike_Walker said:

.  A recent example of the woolly thinking has been the purchase of an operational industrial tank loco to operate services when it would have been better to restore one of the smaller GWR locos to operation

 

I assume you mean King George? -- that was bought (non operational) nearly ten years ago with the specific purpose of making a 'Thomas' for hiring out.  The business case changed in the intervening time, and Thomas isn't viewed as viable any more (due to licensing costs). So it's now 'King George' (original name from before didcot days) and making the best of it.  It certainly wasn't bought as an operational industrial tank loco recently... 

[LaScala]

There seems to be a great deal of what's the point in recreating a one off on the basis there is no work to be found for a large loco.

I can see the point but the logic falls over immediately if TC was just another Castle with guess what?  No meaningful work.

Does it suddenly become interesting as the eighth example?  Half a century of next to no progress on TC and (almost guaranteed) little if any donations or volunteering from the loudest GWS critics, shouts white elephant.

If TC was so special, it would surely not have rotted for decades.

Fifteen Halls are good reasons Burton Ag and Hinderton are rightly well down the list at Didcot.  Is the anybody still lamenting Maindy Hall when enjoying Lady of Legend?  And let's not mention the thousands of tons of idle Bulleid pacifics.

I do agree the King story reflects badly on the GWS, but it's not a reason to deny it a serious customer magnet in 4709.

When looking for mistakes in preservation, there are many more egregious than KE2.

[cctransuk]

2 minutes ago, LaScala said:

There seems to be a great deal of what's the point in recreating a one off on the basis there is no work to be found for a large loco.

I can see the point but the logic falls over immediately if TC was just another Castle with guess what?  No meaningful work.

Does it suddenly become interesting as the eighth example?  Half a century of next to no progress on TC and (almost guaranteed) little if any donations or volunteering from the loudest GWS critics, shouts white elephant.

If TC was so special, it would surely not have rotted for decades.

Fifteen Halls are good reasons Burton Ag and Hinderton are rightly well down the list at Didcot.  Is the anybody still lamenting Maindy Hall when enjoying Lady of Legend?  And let's not mention the thousands of tons of idle Bulleid pacifics.

I do agree the King story reflects badly on the GWS, but it's not a reason to deny it a serious customer magnet in 4709.

When looking for mistakes in preservation, there are many more egregious than KE2.

 

'Lady of Legend' is not a 'Star', any more than 4709 would be a 'Night Owl'. History dictates that no example of these classes was preserved - end of!

 

I seriously doubt whether 'L of L' or 4709 will be a 'serious customer magnet' by the time that the latter is running - your customer base by then will not know one steam loco from another!

 

Let's face it, building 'replicas' is 1:1 kitbashing by sentimental old men; there can never be a sensible business case for it.

 

CJI.