7027 Thornbury Castle

I would suggest that after the events on the last 4 days or so even that is optimistic, the 4709 group seem to have managed the rather laudable task of not only holing their own project below the waterline but also striking a pretty substantial hit on the overall credibility of the GWS as a whole. I note that the GWs statement makes much of the autonomous nature of the 4709 group, if so who are they then, I note the website is entirely silent on any manner structure or management, someone must have signed the cheque for the suggested £300k purchase price who was it then?

Moving forward as and when 7027 leaves the GCR where is she going and who is going facilitate the demise of her, I recall suggestion that 4709's frames are presently at Tyseley, would they want their reputation dragged into this shambles by allowing a part restored locomotive to be stripped on their premises, likewise it would be brave to do it on site at Didcot?

I suspect this has a fair old way to go and those who are the coalface of it are not helping their case with, as its stands, unconfined suggestions that the previous owner is dead/ill etc, just again sounds like they are making it up as they go along.

 

AIUI 7027 has not been bought with the intention of stripping its frames - what is there on it that the 4709 needs and doesn't already have? It's the boiler that they want.

 

OK, but the same applies to the stripping of the boiler, which will ultimately be the act which seals the fate of 7027. Plus they will need to find somewhere to store the frames which will remain to be a matter of great contention for a lot of people.

 

The boiler will need a considerable amount of work before it can be steamed, whatever loco it is going on. If the 4709 project does still use it (which is now looking less and less likely) it will need much the same amount of work as if it is eventually to go back on 7027's frames; at most perhaps some modification of mounting points.

 

They should go and build a new one a la A1 and P2 projects rather than butcher a Castle that seemed to have a decent future.

 

All of which begs an interesting question:

If you were previously enticed into being a donor to the 4709 project should you now be given the opportunity to have your contribution refunded given the now expedient, half cocked, off piste direction being taken regarding the boiler in particular?

There is off course a solution to all this which involves a helping of humble pie, clear resumption of the plan to provide a new No 7 boiler and either withdrawal from the purchase of 7027 or onward sale, at cost, intact to a group formed specifically for the Castle ownership should the sale have actually already taken place.

If that was done I strongly suspect that many would then contribute to the 4709 project seeing that it had become a proper scheme to produce a 47xx and that the folk steering the project were not in fact a bunch of untrustworthy wide boys who will stop at nothing for their own dream/nightmare.

There is though limited time to sort this - say by the end of this week if the damage done to both this project and the GWS as a whole is to be minimised (and reversible).

To the project leaders - Do you have the balls to do it? - many are waiting to see your next move and you must surely by now realise that you are in a mess and at a crossroads with this.

To the GWS Management - you simply cannot distance yourselves from the actions of those involved in this. It is taking place on your watch involving a scheme under your umbrella. You too have a choice - leadership which results in the suggested course above or dithering and tacit acceptance which will stain your reputation indelibly and indefinitely. (Said as a GWS life member).

 

That's really not an interesting question. It's absolute pie in the sky.

The only choice donors have is to donate in the future or not. It's not like buying clothes that don't fit at M&S, taking them back and getting a refund.

Simon

 

Yes, a nice coat of paint, which gives a quick visual difference.

What serious mechanical work has been carried out to date?

 

Not entirely true, though I suspect most would get the answer that their donation had been spent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Do you understand the concept of misrepresentation?

 

Over the years, I've tended to spread my relative insignificant contributions evenly & thinly across many projects and many Barry wrecks that I've seen reborn. In terms of the new builds, I'll be first to announce that I was very sceptical when many of these projects were first muted and probably didn't want to contribute for any white elephants. On the other hand I have developed a liking for visionaries and have enjoyed being found wrong in my early scepticism. Not forgetting that many of what we have and are in-build, were being talked about multiple decades ago and most haven't yet steamed. I would be reluctant to contribute in any significant terms for something that I don't think will come to fruition and if they do, it probably won't be in my lifetime. I think the HR sector as a whole is unrealistic to what it can collectively achieve with the challenges faced and resources that will be available. Just my opinion of course. If we really want Didcot to become a site full of locos many in steam, we either need to roll our sleeves up or reset our expectations I would say. It isn't 1975 any more, just as it isn't 2015 or 1955 ;-)

In terms of the point made in bold, what would p*** me off the most would be if I had donated any parts or monies towards the 7027 restoration at Loughborough. Facebook shows a plethora of parts collected and manufactured for both loco and it's tender which at this point, seems to have been wasted.

 

Beware of emotive language. Misrepresentation would imply that the statements made were false at the time that they were made; it does not mean that they precluded a future change of approach.

For example, I signed up to a project to support 35022's unrebuilding. That project morphed into takeover by SLL and then sale of the locomotive to Jeremy Hosking. Those were both significant changes of tack, but there is no question that those changes meant that the original prospectus was in some way a misrepresentation.

 

Precisely. Bitching about what's gone before achieves nothing except sending good money after bad. By all means register in the strongest possible terms, including withholding future money from the project, objections to the actions of the organisers. But going after gifts already given will only harm the sector, not recover your money.

Simon

 

So the group that wants to build 4709 is not building a 47xx. Not one that is true to the original anyway. So was the creation of the next locomotive in the series a viable exercise from the outset?

It would be, like much else, given sufficient funding. Whether the outcome could justify that funding is another matter.

The locomotive is too restricted to see much if any use on the national network. There are preserved lines which might be able to make use of it but 7808 (last steamed in 1983) would be far more useful.

The A1 Steam Locomotive Trust assembled the boiler cladding on 2007 and it looked fairly complete, so maybe a mock-up Number 7 boiler would allow the engine to be displayed at Didcot while funding was raised to build a real boiler. The fact that the engine would not work is neither here or there. Didcot has many engines which have not worked in quite a few years adding another one would have no impact though in a way it might be useful as a fund raising tool with regard to the actual boiler needed.

Was the exercise really viable? It could produce a very expensive display piece for Didcot but without the necessary money, something will have to be sacrificed.

 

If the 4709 group do change their stance and offer the locomotive for sale, how long should they be expected to keep that offer open while the prospective owning group gets the money together to do it?

I see that one of the previous owners has offered to get involved and help, but is this fronting the heavy end of the lump of cash or just organising? If it really is £300K's worth of engine, is that money out there right now to get the job done and realistically if not; why should the new owners bear the burden of storing 7027 for a group who might one day get the cash together?

Just as a over-simplified statistic assuming the above price, all the people who have signed the petition as of now would need to donate a little over £550 each to buy it.

 

I'd image a few folks will have an eye on how the 'newbuilds' fare, come the end of a 10 year ticket?

Don't get me wrong, I'm never one to criticise ambition and I recognise there are always going to compromises involved in keeping things jogging along, but I've a nagging suspicion the existing Didcot collection is being allowed to wither while the spotlight is on the headline grabbers. I do hope I'm wrong .....

 

That wasn't the case in the late 80's, early 90's when I last worked at Didcot, but overhauling a privately owned locomotive is a means by which the GWS can increase their share of ownership in the loco concerned. That's why, I suspect, 4144 got the vote over 6106, especially given, that at the time, 6106 was a running engine and 4144 an ex-Barry hulk.

 

For what reason and in what way?