Jump to content
RMweb
 

Thornbury Castle Sold to 4709 Group.


didcot

Recommended Posts

The GWS board have announced they are open to viable offers to buy 7027 for at least the next six months.  In any event, the GWS has no plans to use the frames to build a star.

 

https://didcotrailwaycentre.org.uk/article.php/523/7027-thornbury-castle-26-sep-22

 

(re: earlier statements on who actually offered-to-buy/is-buying/bought/will-own 7027,  I think the various 'senior stakeholders' within GWS/4709-project have been working to understand all the details and implications over the past six weeks; something which I suspect is best done properly rather than quickly.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, FraserClarke said:

The GWS board have announced they are open to viable offers to buy 7027 for at least the next six months.  In any event, the GWS has no plans to use the frames to build a star.

After previously distancing themselves from the 4709 group, the GWS now speaks on behalf of them. How funny :p

 

When the GWS says it has no plans to use the frames for a new Star, does it speak for itself only or does it speak for the 4709 group as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Phil Bullock said:

Yes but does this include the boiler? I suspect not…. But hope to be proved wrong.

 

I believe it does. The statement refers to offers "for all or parts of 7027", so I would assume that includes the boiler if a group can get together enough funding. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 26/09/2022 at 18:06, toby_tl10 said:

After previously distancing themselves from the 4709 group, the GWS now speaks on behalf of them. How funny :p

 

When the GWS says it has no plans to use the frames for a new Star, does it speak for itself only or does it speak for the 4709 group as well?

 

The whole thing hasn't been presented well - but I don't think there is any attempt to deceive people.  I'll try to explain my understanding to the situation - as a working volunteer at Didcot and GWS member of short standing (i.e. I'm basing this off the statements and chatting to a few people, but I don't have much of the history of the organisation or any involvement with the management,  so I might be misunderstanding some bits!).  This is just my understanding of course.  

 

The GWS has many different project groups, 4709 being one. These groups are given a good degree of autonomy, and whilst GWS is an umbrella organisation, the project groups are responsible for their own day-to-day running.  As I understand it the discussion to buy Thornbury was between the then owner (who it seems was looking to 'disinvest' from the on-going restoration project with some rapidity) and a few key members of the 4709 group.  I imagine they (4709) may have felt the need to act quickly to secure what they saw as a good opportunity to progress their project. The offer to buy from 4709 wasn't known to the wider GWS organisation before it was announced, and hence the August statement saying "GWS doesn't know anything about this".

 

Since then, there has of course a lot of discussion (internally and externally) as to what it actually means, where are the funds coming from, what the ownership would be, is this a good thing to do from a wider viewpoint than just the 4709 project, etc. I believe there has been a lot of 'feedback' from within GWS/Didcot that the 4709/7027 plan is not supported by many of the members.  It seems the outcome of these discussions is that the GWS board now believes it does have responsibility and authority over this purchase, and has decided to take the route of offering Thornbury for onward sale to a 'viable group' for restoration if one can be formed.   Let's hope one can - but Thornbury is a big job and will likely need an experienced group with a proper funding stream to do it.  If it doesn't look like that is going to happen, then I guess the boiler goes to 4709 and the frames... ??

 

If in the future a group wanted to propose building a Star within the GWS, that would I imagine need to get approval from the GWS board and be set up as a specific project. 

 

I am quite sure the GWS AGM in two weeks will have many questions about this all! 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tbe Night Owl would never run on the main line (GWS policy after they got burned with 6023, and the 2-8-0 isn't very suitable for charters anyway due to the wheel configuration and size).  Thornbury Castle certainly could, if rebuilt to the right standard.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, didcot said:

As 4709!

As a compound Castle, to demonstrate what might have been if GJC hadn't decided compounding was not for the GW?

Or as a red Castle, devoid of brass & copper bling, and with a narrow Fowler tender, to demonstrate what might have been if the GW had allowed the LMS to build 50 Castles?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The update is here.

https://www.railadvent.co.uk/2023/03/future-clear-for-steam-locomotive-7027-thornbury-castle.html

 

Thornbury Castle will be cannibalised, dismembered by the 4709 Group to build a 47XX with a small No. 1 boiler.

 

I originally wanted to say 4709 will not be a 47XX just as 9351 is not a 43XX, but after a bit of reading it's not 100% unprototypical. Apparently 4700 existed with a small boiler between May 1919 and May 1921.

 

So it presents the 4709 Group with the perfect opportunity to recreate 4700 as it was during that time. I'm sure everyone has extremely fond memories of that particular locomotive during those 2 years. Absolutely no one remembers the class of 9 locomotives with large No. 7 boilers from May 1921 all the way up to May 1964. And there is absolutely no photograph that illustrates those 9 locomotives with large boilers during those 40 years. What an amazing idea!

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what I feared would happen and is what I was told when I added my post earlier.

It's rather convenient that no one has come forward, although there was a rumour of a buyer but a deal couldn't be reached over parts or spares.

I have become somewhat disenchanted the the GWS. I've been a member for 40 years and volunteered in the 80s/90s. Some of what I helped with is rotting away. There is a shed full of locomotives, Infrastructure and the Broad Gauge locomotives that need attention. 

  • Like 1
  • Friendly/supportive 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Preservation is eating itself. So GWR Castles are just commodity parts donors for 1:1 scale kitbash projects.

 

Didcot fills its shed with locos that mostly run for just one boiler ticket. There won’t be the coal to run most of them anyway. Good luck 4709, hard luck 7027.

 

Dava

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, toby_tl10 said:

The update is here.

https://www.railadvent.co.uk/2023/03/future-clear-for-steam-locomotive-7027-thornbury-castle.html

 

Thornbury Castle will be cannibalised, dismembered by the 4709 Group to build a 47XX with a small No. 1 boiler.

 

I originally wanted to say 4709 will not be a 47XX just as 9351 is not a 43XX, but after a bit of reading it's not 100% unprototypical. Apparently 4700 existed with a small boiler between May 1919 and May 1921.

 

So it presents the 4709 Group with the perfect opportunity to recreate 4700 as it was during that time. I'm sure everyone has extremely fond memories of that particular locomotive during those 2 years. Absolutely no one remembers the class of 9 locomotives with large No. 7 boilers from May 1921 all the way up to May 1964. And there is absolutely no photograph that illustrates those 9 locomotives with large boilers during those 40 years. What an amazing idea!

 

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...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just personally - I can't say I'm a big fan of all these new builds - they do nothing for me - especially because as a result other genuine locos get pushed further back in the queue for restoration or back into service if the boiler ticket has expired etc.

Each to their own though....

  • Agree 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Exactly what does a Castle have in common with a 47XX (apart from the obvious - it's GWR)?

Different frames, Boiler, Wheels, Cylinders, Cab.

 

Oooer the whistles are the same, we'll break a Castle for them.😁

I could understand breaking a 5' 8"wheeled 2 cylinder loco, but a Castle?

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I think it is making good use of a loco that had no prospect of being restored to working order.  Unfortunately there are quite a number of “rescued” locos slowly rotting away in the open (and also some that are kept under cover) that have zero prospect of ever running again. Having the funding and volunteers to keep the existing “live” Castles in good order is far more important that trying, and failing, to restore every rescued loco. 
Yes I will happily pay to see this approximation of a 47xx when it is running. I wish the project every success. I also wish the owners of all the other Castles every success, long may they continue.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't mind Lady of Legend but these rebuilds will always be a bit "fake" in my eyes.  The total new builds, like Tornado, are at least bringing something new to the movement.

 

9351 is probably the weirdest example: a kitbash of a prototype that never existed!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...