7027 Thornbury Castle

Sensical or not, the intention is clear:

Feb 2020:

"We needed to ensure the cylinders met Network Rail’s most recent loading gauge specifications for main line running"


May 2021:

"Understandably, many of these sections are no longer available and so, renovation for mainline use involves a detailed and thorough assessment of each and every component."


Even the latest press release says...

"There will always be a few surprises which won’t be discovered until work starts, but early indications suggest that the boiler will need:

• A repositioning of the boiler supports at the side of the firebox to comply with the 47 and NR Loading Gauge"


I wouldn't underestimate the naivety of these people.

 

I don’t know JJP or his circumstances but did he sell it due to the cost of rebuilding it, or due to its unsuitability for the WSR (the line he is mainly associated with)? If the latter then, assuming he came to acquire it, leaving it where it is, under the care of those already well into its rebuild, would seem eminently sensible. And allowing others to buy shares in it may go some way to allaying any fears of a repeat performance under new, private ownership. The devil would be in the detail of course, and the GCR has past experience of a majority shareholder forcing a loco sale after restoration.

Anyway, a prolonged spell in limbo would be better than having its useful parts scattered to the four winds. And I say that as someone with no particular interest in GWR Castles.

I also suspect that there would be plenty of people willing to contribute to its restoration under new ownership, who would not contribute a penny towards purchasing it to the benefit of the previous owner, especially after this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

As someone who re-stayed 6106 back in the 80's over about eighteen months, I can only agree. I removed all the steel side stays, made new ones (in Monel) and even made new stay nuts, along with four rows of crown stays. It has not worked since its boiler certificate expired.

As for 4709, why is it any more likely to run on the mainline than 6023 and 2999? If I had paid good money for the latter two to be restored, I would not be happy. Why not use the No. 1 boiler available, if they are in a hurry and take their time to build the No. 7? If it's not going on the mainline, it won't need the No. 7 anyway.

Also, why is a copper firebox suddenly a problem? Doesn't 45551 have a copper firebox? Just another attempt to justify their actions.

 

Not sure how Michael Gregory can feel anything when he’s dead! That’s according to the CEO of the GWS but can’t find his obituary!

 

Sounds to me that the 4709 group are just trying to justify the unjustifiable.
Ray.

 

A real shame that locos such as 6106 and 1363 are not higher up the priority list (if there is one). Having been able to work with the similar 1369 this year, I have no doubt that 1363 would be a very useful loco both at Didcot and away from home, and would be of interest to the public and enthusiasts.

 

1363 is in the early stage of restoration. Just need to see King George (not Thomas) in steam and then 1363 will receive much more attention.

 

I'm sure with the help of their Client Journalist friends at Trackside Magazine helping to justify the 4709 groups intentions in subsequent issues they will hope the furore will die down.
Indeed a prolonged spell of pressure will be needed.

 

Or work until it’s first “to difficult / we’ve lost interest” failure then never steam again.

 

Might he have sold it to help pay for 9466?

 

There have been rumours of a forthcoming announcement of plans to build a Dean single at Didcot ..... I hope that's not why 1363 is being dismantled!

 

Don't be daft. They'll be increasing 7027's driver diameter to build that, leaving the spare coupled wheels for Churchward's unrealised express 4-10-0 .... which'll them immediately be walled up in Box Tunnel.

 

1363 has a good loyal following and will fit in well with 1340 at sharing branch line duties in due course. Other rumour is very wide of the mark - think 7 foot wide

 

Two members of the protagonists side by side:

 

There have been apprently conflicting messages about 4709 going on the main line. If it is only ever to run at Didcot and on heritage lines, a significant amount of the design effort will have been wasted. But possibly the intention is for it to run on NR under the auspices of an outfit with the necessary expertise and resources rather than the GWS. That is perfectly possible in principle, as for example with SNG being operated by LSL.

 

There's been a very considerable changing of the guard at Didcot in recent years. At the moment the top priorities seem to be infrastructure. Rebuilding Heyford station on site is well under way, major refurbishment of the water tank is in progress, there are noises about having to replace the shed roof in the not too distant future, they've got planning for a decent access ramp, and are in the early days of plans for a new visitor centre. Whilst I believe preparatory research work has been done for a Dean Single, and has been going on for a good number of years, I wouldn't expect to see metal cut soon.

 

As already said, 4700s were nominally limited to 60mph back in the day, but of course they didn't have speedos fitted, and I suspect that while running their fast freights and summer Saturday passengers that 60mph was easily surpassed. I don't personally see any limiting below that though as previously suggested, if 48151 can get around on it's 4ft8" wheels at 45 to 50mph, I doubt 4709 will fall into the same category as the 8F.

Last I knew (aka - current impression), 4709 was to be mainline capable, with modifications like pitching the boiler a few inches lower and the modified cylinder blocks so that it could be fitted for mainline running. Whether the plan is to still attempt mainline running immediately, I don't know. I suspect if it was to be achieved, it would have to be through an agreement with VT or LSL or so. I'd be more concerned about route availability than speed restrictions in any case, as with all WR designs, even with some of the reasonable design modifications to 4709. I must stress 'reasonable' in my view is to find a compromise between having a 4700 to it's in service design and one that can fulfill duties on the mainline. A No.8 boiler isn't much a reasonable compromise so much as a bodge to get things done faster.


Also, points about 4709 being not popular enough are a waste of digital server space. It's popular enough to have got this far throughout the last decade, even if it has a head-start from the donated wheelsets. It will be completed within the next decade I imagine, and it fills one of the last holes in major GWR types from 1910 onward. But after the 4700, Saint, Grange, County and other County, I would suggest limiting the new build addiction, and focusing on medium to smaller locos from the Armstrong-Dean era if you must (partial to a Bulldog, Aberdare or Metro Tank myself). There aren't any major holes otherwise from the Churchward-Hawksworth eras, unless someone is suitably insane to make The Great Bear II.

Bringing up the GWS home fleet feels like a bit of a non-issue in the 4709-7027 situation. I don't know how well Didcot loco group is doing for manpower (I believe progress on 7202 slowed to a crawl because the heavy freight mob has basically ceased to exist), and I doubt any clique issues would help that matter on the other projects (1363, 3650, 1014 + 1466 and 4709 offsite). Certainly as @Jimc has mentioned, there is increased focus on infrastructure, my Didcot correspondent is only too happy to tell me his progress on Heyford.

But I don't see the same income flowing in to restore 5900 or 6106 as opposed to recreating an extinct class (it would likely be 6998 over 5900 anyway). Didcot is always going to feel like a mausoleum since the days of being able to pick your engine to fire up are long gone, to paraphrase Mr. James (I think it was you), so most of the home fleet will always either be inaccessible in the works or lined up dead on shed. It's more realistic to just cycle through some of the locomotives that are suitable to bring in hire fees (6023 and 4144 being the most recent examples), and smaller locomotives that are better suited to operation on the demo and branch lines. I'm inclined to say that even in a timeline without 1014, 4709, 3840 and any future comers, the majority of the GWS fleet would be in the same position.


Getting back to 7027, I'm of the opinion that the best course of action for those leading 4709 would be to offer 7027 for sale at it's purchase price + at least a 5 figure sum towards the boiler of 4709, which should be a No.7. That should be an opportunity to see if there really is enough support out there for the 8th castle to sink or swim. Should it sink, best case would be for 7027 to end up in the same situation as 5227, boiler-less but receiving attention from a new owner nonetheless. I can't say I'm enthused at the prospect of having a No.8 fitted 4709 and another large new-build commitment to a Star, even if the pieces are there for it. Additionally, some of the excuses and statements from 4709 group are tone deaf, and that doesn't help the justification for their case, nor their image.

Enough rambling from me though, I should take a break and not get too hyper-focused on this one situation.

 

I'm not sure about 5900 but 6106 wouldn't need a great deal of money. It had had a new firebox fitted not long before withdrawal - the original side stays were 1/2". The only reason it was re-stayed was that it had been left too long with water inside and the stays had corroded away at the copper end. However 4144 always gets priority because it is privately owned (or was) whereas 6106 is society owned; the owner at Didcot always pays for the overhaul (or loses a share in ownership). 6106 was also overhauled to BR running standard at its last overhaul.