Thornbury Castle Sold to 4709 Group.

[Hal Nail]

21 minutes ago, Phil Bullock said:

and a brass nameplate to please the public. 

 

Not factors that would work in 4709s favour….

How about "Mammoth" on the smokebox (or Elephant if its not quite that big?)

 

Coat, shovel, gone....

Edited April 6, 2023 by Hal Nail

[Phil Bullock]

4 hours ago, Hal Nail said:

How about "Mammoth" on the smokebox (or Elephant if its not quite that big?)

 

Coat, shovel, gone....

Only for main line running…. On trunk routes!

[MPR]

6 hours ago, Hal Nail said:

How about "Mammoth" on the smokebox (or Elephant if its not quite that big?)

 

Coat, shovel, gone....

Wasn’t there a (vetoed) proposal in the 1930s to give them early Broad gauge names?

[rogerzilla]

Stating the obvious, the economics of steam changed when BR closed its last steam shop.  They used to be cheap to build and maintain using the heavy equipment and spares stocks available, so you could drive a loco into Swindon for a heavy overhaul and drive it out 2 weeks later, good as new.

 

Now it takes years, everything is bought in small quantities, the skills are rare (I think there are fewer than 10 copper welders in the country) and it costs half a million pounds each go.

 

 

[Morello Cherry]

On 05/04/2023 at 12:25, 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.

 

You are playing fast and loose with the objections to 4709.

 

As far as I can tell the primary objection to 4709 using TC are fourfold. No one is claiming that it is a special case. In fact I'd suggest the reverse but the basic principle of cannibalisation - that once gone it is gone and you won't get it back.  And the point here is that value is not in uniqueness, all locos are historical artefacts and should be valued as such, whether there are 15 or 1 of them.

 

The second argument is moral and the way in which the group running 4709 have basically f-ed over another group of volunteers who have given their efforts to restoring the loco. (How much meaningful work had been done on TC vs how much meaningful work has been done on 4709?). The argument here is fundamentally one 'there but for the grace of god go I'. As a volunteer I would not want to see that happen to a project I was involved in and moreover, I would not want the projects or railways I am involved in to behave in the way in which 4709 and GWS have behaved. In the words of Werner Herzog 'You just don't do it.'

 

Moreover, I struggle to workout what percentage of Didcot visitors are drawn by the prospect of a unique GWR locomotive compared to seeing 'just another Hall'. I find it ironic that the argument is 'just another hall/castle' well when was the last time Didcot had a working Hall and prior to 4079 when was the last time it had a working Castle?

Finally the objection is financial practical - given the struggle for visitor numbers and the need for revenue streams - I'd have thought the money from loco hire would have been welcome and a loco with good suitability for a wide range of lines would have been better and a niche loco with low practicality. And so this project is a poor use of resources.

 

18 hours ago, LaScala said:

100% agree.  There will be line closures, scrapping of hulks and new engineering solutions, new fuels maybe.  Nostalgia for the 1980's will abound.

Vanity projects like backdating Merchant Navy 35011 and building a Churchward County will look foolish and a distant memory.

Dare I say the preservation pioneers in N Wales were successful pioneers because:

• Genuinely historic
• Spectacular locations
• Manageable
• Established tourist destinations
• Fascinating machinery
• Locos work hard doing the job they were designed for, not poodling up a siding in the middle of nowhere with a fibreglass Thomas face

How many preserved lines attractions go anywhere near this appeal? 

 

Is the Ffestiniog wrong for running a 1879 Fairlie with a 1960's Hunslet boiler and piston valves and even oil firing?  Does anyone care Moelwyn has a 1950's bus engine and not a dreadful thirsty WW1 petrol lump?  These are practical solutions keeping the past alive.

 

In what way is the new build Mountaineer any different to a Churchward County? I find it weird that you rail against the MN project but defend 4709? I suppose at least you aren't even trying to be consistent. Other than if you like a project then it is fine and if you don't then it isn't.

 

It is ironic because 4709 meets none of your criteria for major USP.

 

And guess what - no one on the Ffestiniog in the past has said 'you know what there are four England locomotives, who cares about the unrestored Palmerstan or Welsh Pony, let's cannibalise one to make Snowdon Ranger'. No locomotives were harmed in the creation of Taliesin, David Lloyd George, James Spooner, Lyd. The most damaged loco was Livingston Thompson/Tal/EoM losing its bogies to 1979 EoM.

 

So if the Ffestiniog can (re) create locos without having to destroy other locos then why is it so hard for Didcot?

 

22 hours ago, Phil Bullock said:

I know the SVR best so let’s look at that…

 

Current status of ex BR and new build locos :

 

4930

7714*

34027

43106*

75069

 

Recently in traffic, Boiler ticket now expired

 

1501*

2857

 

Under restoration for first time/new build

 

4150

82045*
 

Undergoing overhaul

 

7802

7812

42968

 

Stored pending overhaul 

 

4566

5164

5764*

7325

7819

46443*

45110*
47383*
48773*

80079
 

* Not a Barry refugee
 

Have only included those locos that are stable long term residents but that might change in the current climate.

 

9/22 are not Barry refugees… as an early starter the SVR was lucky to get 4 locos directly from BR , 4 from colliery service and 1 from LT. 

 

Currently steamable are 5/22 although that should increase very soon with the return of 7812. It is hoped that 4150 7802 42968 and 82045 will follow in the next couple of years but 7714 34027 and 43106 will probably be out of traffic by then.

 

Of the Barry refugees 3/13 are in traffic with 7812 shortly to join them. So is the figure of 25-30% representative of the movement as a whole? The SVR does have a high proportion of non Barry locos and then there’s also the influence of the diesel stud ….

 

5 locos to cover the one steam turn in the current weekly timetable probably isn’t a shortage although a spare and a loco for footplate experience turns soon racks up the demand.

 

 

 

18 hours ago, FraserClarke said:

 

An interesting analysis!  A comparison for Didcot is that there are also currently 5 streamable locomotives

 

4079

2999 (new build)

4144

1340 (Trojan)

2409 (King George, a kind of new build/conversion)

 

Two recently out of ticket, and at least looking at overhaul;

 

6023

SRM (a new build)

 

Four - Seven under active overhaul/ construction, depending on how you count

 

1466

1363

3650

7202

1014 (county - new build)

4709 (new build, but not being done at Didcot)

5227 (parts donor - now privately owned, but owner is working on it with an intention to restore it)

 

Three where an overhaul is planned once there is space in the works (including firefly, but that's also dependent on being able to do some pretty significant work in the broad gauge track)

 

A further 12 are on static display, and realistically quite a way down any overhaul queue - despite what we might like. 

 

So the Didcot fleet has pretty comparable statistics to the SVR. 5/29 steamable, 2 recently withdrawn, 1 soon to return. ~5 under active overhaul or construction... 

 

The view that Didcot is obsessed with new builds and just leaves everything else in the shed doesn't really hold up to the numbers... 

 

 

 

 

I would caution here that not all restorations are the same and the numbers are a bit context free. A restoration is 'how long is a piece of string'. What are the ETAs for the restoration? Likewise, how many are railway funded and how many are volunteer funded? There is a big difference between a project that is using permanent staff on it and a project that is half a dozen people meeting twice a month on saturdays. Lots of railways may have several locos under restoration overhaul but there is a world of difference between a 25 month project and a 25 year project.

Edited April 6, 2023 by Morello Cherry

[Dava]

I will just add that if the 7027 rebuild had been completed on the GCR, the intention was to run it as much as the other similarly sized locos. The GCR is a good main line to run GWR 4-6-0s on, as the visit by 6023 some years ago and 7029 long before demonstrated. This is rather different from the denizens of Didcot which don’t get out much any more. You could argue 7027s  boiler would have been better used on the original loco. But that ship has sailed.

 

Whether the GCR needs all the locos the excellent works team can produce, around two each year, is another matter, with high coal prices and other issues. There are usually one or two away on hire, which points to there being a demand for them. Some railways such as the Battlefield and Ecclesbourne Valley routinely hire in steam locos (not necessarily from the GCR) as they don’t have large ones of their own.
 

Dava

[cctransuk]

1 hour ago, Morello Cherry said:

 

You are playing fast and loose with the objections to 4709.

 

As far as I can tell the primary objection to 4709 using TC are fourfold. No one is claiming that it is a special case. In fact I'd suggest the reverse but the basic principle of cannibalisation - that once gone it is gone and you won't get it back.  And the point here is that value is not in uniqueness, all locos are historical artefacts and should be valued as such, whether there are 15 or 1 of them.

 

The second argument is moral and the way in which the group running 4709 have basically f-ed over another group of volunteers who have given their efforts to restoring the loco. (How much meaningful work had been done on TC vs how much meaningful work has been done on 4709?). The argument here is fundamentally one 'there but for the grace of god go I'. As a volunteer I would not want to see that happen to a project I was involved in and moreover, I would not want the projects or railways I am involved in to behave in the way in which 4709 and GWS have behaved. In the words of Werner Herzog 'You just don't do it.'

 

Moreover, I struggle to workout what percentage of Didcot visitors are drawn by the prospect of a unique GWR locomotive compared to seeing 'just another Hall'. I find it ironic that the argument is 'just another hall/castle' well when was the last time Didcot had a working Hall and prior to 4079 when was the last time it had a working Castle?

Finally the objection is financial practical - given the struggle for visitor numbers and the need for revenue streams - I'd have thought the money from loco hire would have been welcome and a loco with good suitability for a wide range of lines would have been better and a niche loco with low practicality. And so this project is a poor use of resources.

 

 

In what way is the new build Mountaineer any different to a Churchward County? I find it weird that you rail against the MN project but defend 4709? I suppose at least you aren't even trying to be consistent. Other than if you like a project then it is fine and if you don't then it isn't.

 

It is ironic because 4709 meets none of your criteria for major USP.

 

And guess what - no one on the Ffestiniog in the past has said 'you know what there are four England locomotives, who cares about the unrestored Palmerstan or Welsh Pony, let's cannibalise one to make Snowdon Ranger'. No locomotives were harmed in the creation of Taliesin, David Lloyd George, James Spooner, Lyd. The most damaged loco was Livingston Thompson/Tal/EoM losing its bogies to 1979 EoM.

 

So if the Ffestiniog can (re) create locos without having to destroy other locos then why is it so hard for Didcot?

 

 

 

I would caution here that not all restorations are the same and the numbers are a bit context free. A restoration is 'how long is a piece of string'. What are the ETAs for the restoration? Likewise, how many are railway funded and how many are volunteer funded? There is a big difference between a project that is using permanent staff on it and a project that is half a dozen people meeting twice a month on saturdays. Lots of railways may have several locos under restoration overhaul but there is a world of difference between a 25 month project and a 25 year project.

 

The difference, I think, is that the FR / WHR hardly qualify as 'preserved' nowadays.

 

The FR / WHR build / rebuild locos to meet a genuine, commercial traffic demand; how many preserved railways can - hand on heart - say that?

 

As I have said, preservation has little appeal for me - but the FR / WHR operation thrills me as only a 'real railway' can.

 

CJI.

 

 

[rogerzilla]

In answer to a post above, Didcot had Earl Bathurst/Drysllwyn Castle running fairly recently (2008).

[melmerby]

6 hours ago, rogerzilla said:

so you could drive a loco into Swindon for a heavy overhaul and drive it out 2 weeks later, good as new.

It might have the same number but it wasn't necessarily the same loco..........😄

[rodent279]

Playing devil's advocate, who owns Clun Castle? I wonder if they could be persuaded to temporarily allow it to assume the identity of its sister Thornbury Castle, sometime around when 4709 first steams.....? 👹

Edited April 7, 2023 by rodent279

[FraserClarke]

17 hours ago, Morello Cherry said:

I would caution here that not all restorations are the same and the numbers are a bit context free. A restoration is 'how long is a piece of string'. What are the ETAs for the restoration

 

My point was more the fraction of the total fleet in steam, but you're completely correct that not all overhauls are equal. As someone pointed out 7202 has been under overhaul for longer than it was in service!   A better way of looking at it though might be that Didcot has brought an engine into steam on average once every 18 months over the last 10-15 years. One of those (2999) was a 'new build'.  I don't think that is a bad record for a mostly volunteer organisation?  Didcot has a few paid staff, but far less I think than somewhere like the SVR.

[FraserClarke]

16 hours ago, Dava said:

This is rather different from the denizens of Didcot which don’t get out much any more.

 

I'm not sure what you would say is acceptable, but in between 2020 and this year;

 

2999:  SVR (twice), NYMR, MHR, ELR, WSR
4079: SVR, MHR, GWSR
4144: KESR (twice I think), CPR (all year this year)

 

That is quite a lot of 'getting out' isn't it?

 

I do think Didcot are trying to find the right balance between sending engines out to be seen and used on heritage railways, and maintaining enough on site to both operate (hence the focus over the past five years on overhauling small engines) and keep the feeling of a mainline steam shed with a big engine rumbling past you in a yard -- not something you can see or experience at many heritage railways. 

[Dava]

Fair point and I’d be happy to see 4079 or 2999 visit the GCR to run on a real double track mainline.

 

Dava

[caradoc]

On 05/04/2023 at 13:48, Steamport Southport said:

Hands up those that have spent money on a visit this year or paid a few quid into the coffers of a preservation scheme. Thought not.

 

Strathspey Railway yesterday (Friday 7th April), plans for several more railways now the weather is better and trains are running, including my annual visit to Didcot (to see a lot more than just steam engines).

 

 

[Michael Hodgson]

On 07/04/2023 at 09:17, rodent279 said:

Playing devil's advocate, who owns Clun Castle? I wonder if they could be persuaded to temporarily allow it to assume the identity of its sister Thornbury Castle, sometime around when 4709 first steams.....? 👹

Or you could ask the owner of Balmoral Castle if it could be renamed temporarily. 

After all, he's not planning to use it next month.

[adb968008]

On 05/04/2023 at 13:48, Steamport Southport said:

 

 

With two others being restored by professional restorers. 35009 has just been moved up the queue at Rileys after 60103s overhaul. 35022 is in the queue at Crewe after 35027s overhaul. Pretty good rate for 8P engines that cost a lot of money and were very heavily stripped of parts.

 

Ive been hearing of the above 3 MN locomotives overhauls for nigh on upto 25 years now.

Its not as if their owners are shy on finance, skill and knowledge either.

 

On 05/04/2023 at 13:48, Steamport Southport said:

 

 

Hands up those that have spent money on a visit this year or paid a few quid into the coffers of a preservation scheme. Thought not.

 

 

Jason

Ive done a bit this year, more than ive done modelling.

 

 

Edited April 8, 2023 by adb968008

[cctransuk]

On 05/04/2023 at 13:48, Steamport Southport said:

Hands up those that have spent money on a visit this year or paid a few quid into the coffers of a preservation scheme. Thought not.

 

It's not compulsory, you know - just like golf, fishing or theatre-going.

 

Just because we model railways doesn't mean that railway preservation has any appeal - it's the hobby of a certain sector of railway enthusiasts.

 

I don't expect railway preservation volunteers to contribute to the cost of my model railway!

 

CJI.

[rovex]

On 07/04/2023 at 09:17, rodent279 said:

Playing devil's advocate, who owns Clun Castle? I wonder if they could be persuaded to temporarily allow it to assume the identity of its sister Thornbury Castle, sometime around when 4709 first steams.....? 👹

 

Rather like Banquo's ghost in Macbeth!

[298]

I can understand Volunteers emotions, having myself been part of a group that sold most of it's assets with no guarantee of future use or a say in where those finances were spent, or financially supported a line in the US that still hasn't got a full length of trolley wire 15 years after it was stolen for drugs money, or raised awareness through my modelling of the Hershey in Cuba that has all but closed and won't ever return as the electrified Interurban that many tourists have ridden, but maybe we're past the point where those who remember mainline steam ending want to recreate lost types and onto a phase of total preservation where nothing can go for scrap and everything has to be kept on an ongoing restore/ten yr ticket/overhaul cycle, and 7027 is seen as a part project instead of the Barry wreck that seemed to get the better of many owners. 

 

I last went to Didcot with the family for a Teddy Bear's Picnic a few years ago so can agree with the points raised that it would struggle to attract general visitors outside of themed events and probably relies on more enthusiasts than tourist railways, but the number of those who remember mainline steam are being overtaken by those in their middle age who were teens in the 1980s and went to Didcot to see the real 1466 and  longed to see a recreation of a Hornby County 4-4-0 and other types even before the concept of building replica locos was a thing.