7027 Thornbury Castle

Make no mistake about it, the “current” owner is perfectly capable of following through on the restoration. He just doesn’t want to.

He appears to have lost his interest in preserved railways since last December, when the GCR’s Board of Directors reasserted their control over the company and the railway.

I would certainly hesitate to suggest that disposing of the loco in this way was a spiteful act. However it is, I suspect, indicative of the level of his actual interest in railway preservation.

It is, as you say, his property, and he is entirely free to dispose of it in whatever way he feels fit.

 

I agree that it's reasonable to sell it, but not for spares.

Like most people, I can't think of anyone who might be wanting to buy a Castle and who has the money to restore it, but individuals do come out of the woodwork which most of us have never heard of - the buyer of No. 2859, for instance. Maybe the 4709 group was the only buyer to come forward thus far, but had the current owner hung on, who knows? When the Maunsell Locomotive Society wished to sell the unrestored S15 No. 30830, they waited for some time to find a suitable buyer which would make a commitment to restoring the engine rather than butchering it (Admittedly, the group in question hasn't done very much to it yet, to my knowledge, but the commitment is still there)

There is actually a gap which 7027 could readily fill. At the moment, I don't think there is any (G)WR loco at all registered with West Coast and given WC's reluctance to allow the Carnforth fleet to be outstationed at Southall for any length of time, if 7027 were to have a base somewhere in the South of England it would be ideal for RTC's regular Cotswold Venturer and West Somerset Express trains. Those of us based in the south are very grateful to the support crew of 45596 over the last two years who have been willing to spend long nights in the support coach next to the busy GWML at Southall as most of them live in the North of England, Clan Line is now on WCRC's books and we have the exciting spectacle of 34007 on the main line to look forward to, but there aren't many other main line locos whose base is anywhere south of Birmingham. Still, to repeat my earlier point, it does need someone with a lot of money, but if the 4709 group starts to have second thoughts who knows?

 

Get yourselves a sense of proportion, folks! There are eight Castles in existence and they all look very much like one another.

Whilst I'm in broad agreement that the GWS in their collection it really needs a better plan for getting more of its exhibits (particularly the broad gauge ones) up and running I also applaud their plans to fill in the gaps. It might be argued that they're doing it in a highly skewed way by focusing on the big tender engines but these are the ones that capture the broadest interest and best demonstrate the Churchward vision that prevailed for the GWR's 20th century existence.

 

That's a reasonable position, if you also accept the quid pro quo that if it is not sold, and restoration does not proceed, it will deteriorate further - possibly past the point of no return. Use for spares is preferable to weighing in.

The difference between "can't" and "won't" is often fine. I'm aware that there have been changes at Loughborough that have not necessarily been to his advantage, though I'm deep enough in my GCR armchair that I only know what's been said on this forum. One side effect of those changes may actually have been to tip the balance from "won't" to "can't", depending on what the business plan was for 7027 - other possible motives, as you suggest, also exist.

 

Is there any prospect of the loco being restored in its own right at Didcot, is there any interest at Didcot in a third castle?
I assume the 4709 group are wholly 'owned' by a faction of the GWS, so there is a remote possibility of a rethink.

Maybe this opens up the question, what is the GWS about ? is it about recreating lost GWR locos for one time steaming tickets then mounting them for decades or is it about restoring their collection in a cycling order based on longest out of ticket first?
But the reality is Didcot is restricted by its 'death by the demo line' fast flogged acceleration, or the painful crawl on the branch.
They really don't need large locos, their small 0-4-0s can provide the steam train trips that the paying public want, a overhaul and operate with a period of return throughout could be an option for the larger locos to be operated by longer lines, like the SVR loan of 2999 etc but on a overhaul and operate basis, 5051 to the SVR over the ticket with 3 months back at the GWS per year etc.

 

Admittedly a couple of months from a rumour of sale, to an announcement on the completion does appear very quick compared to how long it usually seems to take for these transactions, but how long would you have to wait? Maybe there's an individual sat now kicking themselves that they hesitated on sending through their expression of interest. Maybe it would have sat at Loughborough for years waiting for someone suitable to put the cash up. My gut tells me if you own one of these beasts and you need to move it on, the wise move would be to take the earliest good offer, than to sit around waiting for the 'right' one.

 

To be fair though, it was never advertised for sale. Any talk of a sale was only rumours, so it's not surprising that there wasn't another group ready to purchase.

 

They don't seem to have any interest in 5051. I won't be surprised if 4079 goes the same way once its ticket is up.

 

I'm pretty sure the 4709 group is basically a ring fenced fund within the GWS, I know when the AGM papers come out there is a line in income and expenditure which relate to the fund, this is where my query regarding where the money for this purchase has suddenly appeared from as I don't recall their funds being noticeably high and I cannot imagine that a partially restored Castle comes cheap (I have seen £300k quoted elsewhere??).

As has been raised elsewhere the aims of the GWS are noted as being

"The Great Western Society exists to preserve, restore and operate, as a permanent public exhibition and museum, locomotives, rolling stock, equipment machinery and relics of historical operational and general interest and educational value with particular reference to the former Great Western Railway and its successors following the nationalisation of the railways in 1948 and also to collect, make available for public reference and publish information concerning the history, equipment and operation of the former Great Western and other railways"

Not sure how new builds sit within this, let alone stripping locomotives of historic importance. I will say again the backlash seems to be growing already elsewhere and I suspect this will not include the vociferous critics of the direction of the GWS who seem to engage more in writing with them.

Interesting times ahead.

 

Presumably there isn't anyone out there with both the resources and the interest.

There's one right here! The particular combination of chimney and superheater seems to me not enormously significant. And there are insufficient resources to overhaul and operate all the surviving intact Castles (as evidenced by this sale and by Didcot having one languishing in the queue).

One at Didcot would fill a very important gap in their collection and (like the Lady) would be available to pull trains on heritage railways.

 

Especially if you consider the eye watering costs of just storage of something so large. Unless you just happen to own a locomotive shed of your own that has no better use it's going to cost you thousands per year at a minimum just to do nothing. Consider the fate of the Binbrook Crab.

 

On the contrary, the small difference in size between No.7 and No.8 would be barely noticeable even if not disguised by thicker cladding, and a small decrease in steaming capacity will be of minimal importance on preserved lines. The partly-8F boiler for the County, on the other hand, will make it substantially less powerful than an original (280 psi) County and, as someone has said up thread, little different from a Modified Hall.
Was there ever an appeal to raise funds for restoring Thornbury? How many of the people who are now whingeing on here would have chipped in for Thornbury rather than for one of the other Castles, such as Tyseley's Defiant, that only need overhauls rather than restoration from scrap condition?

 

Perhaps such an individual was discouraged from making an expression of their interest by the (presumably) official statement made in the Jul/Aug edition of Steam Railway magazine, by a “GCR Spokesman” who “dismissed rumours” and stated that there was no “‘for sale’ board up at the moment”.

 

Long term, the 47 group could decide not to scrap, the rest of 7027, Could they put the chassis and tender, into storeage, and continue the overhaul, unless of course the tender is needed for 4707 and either once the boiler ticket is up, either by using another boiler, if one can be acquired, or made, during the ten years, then restore 7027 to take it's place, so giving the fund a working engine, earning money from both preserved and mainline work, funding another, to take over, when one come due for overhaul.

 

It is pretty unusual for an appeal to be made for funds if a loco is privately owned.

 

Which "preserved" lines? This project too far will be unsuitable/unusable on 90% of them. This really is no more than a vanity project which will effectively produce a botched 2-8-0 of low RA with absolutely no more power than a Manor. There is at least one potential purchaser willing to take on 7027 as a whole loco. To loose 7027 in this way will be a very big turn off indeed for those hitherto supporting one rather static outfit in Oxfordshire.

 

A WC-operated Castle based at Southall would indeed be good, but it would be much easier to equip Pendennis with the main line gear, or even to overhaul and equip 5051, than to do a full restoration of Thornbury and still have to install the main line gubbins.

 

True, but even if there had been an appeal how would it have fared relative to Defiant?

 

Questioning rationale and whingeing aren't remotely the same thing. Are we concerned with faithful recrearltion, or.satisfied with looky-likey? My only boggle hangs on whatever is done being done with integrity. I had no issue with the WSR 'Mogul'. Livery aside (and it's unmistakably of GW pedigree) it doesn't pretend to be anything other than what it is, which is a loco well suited to WSR operations ..... like the reason GJC specified such a design in the first place.

No siree .... where I do take issue is with elliptical arguments which effectively come down to the dewy eyed doing their own thing. Nowt wrong with that unless you're trying to convince folks that's not what you're doing. Questions over the remainder of the GWS collection exist too and that point has been made by others, just today. I note they're going unanswered.

 

I was quite sad at the scrapping of the only LNER built 8F but accepted that it likely had no future as a locomotive in and of itself. The boiler/firebox being used for the county project always rankled with me though, so much wastage when a new boiler was built for Tornado around the same time they were discussing this.

Thornbury though has an awful lot more parts going for it, despite some theft of motion parts, including a tender.

This feels rather firmly to me like something that is distinctly not preservation, and actually is taking something that with will and funds could produce a very good locomotive for a railway or the mainline.

The use of the boiler to the 4709 project has its own logic but it’s also not building a 47xx by using this boiler type. It’s a “never was”.

I see both sides but ultimately I think this is going to be one of those moments in preservation where we find more heat generated than light. The debate over what preservation is - that’s not up for debate at the GWS I feel, it’s for us on the outside to convince them that our feelings on this matter.

I’ve no particular stake in this other than it feels wrong to me, as someone who likes to think of himself as a preservationist.