7027 Thornbury Castle

You are reading more into my posting than is there. I agree that (the proposed) rebuilding of Thornbury Castle into something(s) else is a different matter from what commercial railway works did. I was only challenging the terminology; whether such rebuilding constitutes "destruction". It is certainly very different from simple scrapping.

 

It possibly wouldn't have raised so much protest if Thornbury had the correct boiler! Why is running 4709 on the main line a nonsense? It's just a Grange/4300 with one more set of drivers and a larger boiler. As for routes it was single red, the same as a Hall! Less restricted than a King.

 

And 4709 will have (already has?) modified cylinders to suit today's loading gauge. In BR days the 4700s were classified 7F but they were surely much more powerful and much faster than S&DJR 7F 2-8-0s or LMS 7F 0-8-0s, so 7MT or 6P7F would seem more accurate (even if 4709 does only get the Castle's No.8 boiler rather than the correct, larger, No.7).

 

The limited mileage that engines based at Didcot would normally do during the duration of their boiler certificates, must mean that they must be still quite good mechanical order, not needing much work to overhaul them, as they not exactly be worn out, possibly needing limited re staying, and a new set off tubes, each time, so why is it that engines that are complete, have not steamed for many years, and the focus appears to be on building extinct classes rather than on restoring what they already have?

 

Does Network Rail still use Yellow, Blue and Red for its routes?

 

Irrelevant.

No more than a Grange or any other locomotive with 5' 8" drivers.

Like all ex-GWR locomotives.

Why? There are other locomotives running on the main line with 4,000g tenders.

Irrelevant. In principle, it's no different to any other two cylinder GWR locomotive.

None of Tyseley's locomotives are fitted for air braking.

I'm not sure that you are at all familiar with main line running!

 

You would have to ask the GWS hierarchy. If your volunteer labour resources are limited, there's only so much you can do. That's why a lot of the work on new projects has been done externally.

 

To add to post 1788; a Grange is different enough from a Hall that it will be good to have one, but similar enough to be equally suitable for the main line, or possibly better if something is being done about the width across the cylinders. Power will be about the same as a Hall or a Black 5. But this is the wrong thread for any further discussion of the virtues or vices of the Grange project.

 

Only used because a Grange and a 4700 have the same driving wheel size. I haven't seen any comments that 6880 is unsuitable for main line use because of the size of its wheels.

 

Tyseley is finding it harder to find routes where the halls now have clearance, modern railway clearances are now making it very hard to run them, even on the routes they used to run on, that's possibly why more often than not, Vintage trains seem to be running the Castles more now, plus the increased route availability, allows more flexibility when planning .

 

That's because of the width of the cylinders of a Hall. 4709's new cylinders have been designed to avoid this problem.

 

Yes. Yes it is. Because it survived, and is original, and the 47xxs as a class did not. I think though your question needs to be posed instead Al as:

For which, if railway preservation is the aim, then yes it clearly is.

 

Once the Hawksworth County is completed I can't see any large 4-6-0s being overhauled at Didcot for a long time. 4709's base is Tyseley. Earlier this year a decision was made to start the overhaul of the Churchward 0-6-0ST 1363 before the King. The current overhaul of 1466 is taking so long because it is worn out.

 

But if your going to the trouble of redesigning cylinders then it’s not going to be that much trouble to have a draughtsman draw you a boiler?

 

Overhauling 1363 before the King seems an entirely reasonable and rational decision- Didcot needs steam on site and the smaller members of the fleet are better suited to running there.

I wonder if there is a similar aspiration to have a certain number of each size of loco in operation at one time (the Bluebell I seem to recall have quite a robust plan for this).

Having some of the fleet operating at home and one or two out on tour each year strikes me as a good strategy in terms of promoting Didcot- the operational opportunities are limited on site but the facilities and atmosphere is unsurpassed.

In terms of Thornbury Castle, a few folk have mentioned there hasn't been the interest to restore it prior to now.

For people to buy it, one has to assume its for sale- if its not for sale, or the owner is not known to be willing to part with it then how is anyone else able to restore it- it spent a long time under PW.

How many seemingly abandoned semi-classic cars do you see outside houses that the owner doesn't want to let go of because they will 'get round to it one day'........would you restore one on their behalf?

7027 seemed to finally be getting a chance to be restored in her own right- and folk were clearly interested so it's a crying shame she is potentially about to be broken up.

As I said further up the thread, the suggestion of building a 'Star' is a red herring, I'm not convinced I'll see 4709 run in my lifetime......I'm 100% confident I won't see a star.

I hope that something positive can come of this situation, I'd love for 7027 to be resold and perhaps end up at one of the lines with a smaller home fleet and become a flagship for them.

I also hope that maybe it leads to the GWS refocusing their efforts into rotating some of the home fleet through the workshops- 7808 in particular looked really sad when I visited just before the covid stuff happened- its a shame too that 5322 came out of ticket so early and was not repaired.

 

Who said it was. Didcot are using the copper firebox issue to justify their use of 7027. Making a copper firebox is not a problem, 45551 already has one. It's probably easier than a steel one, but more expensive.

 

But if your doing a job, why not do it properly from the start? For example 82045 isn’t borrowing any major parts from 4566 5164 or 4150 is it?

 

5322 has a cracked backhead I believe so that's not a quick and cheap repair.