7027 Thornbury Castle

What would preclude after using the boiler on a Castle as it is: either doing a heavy repair as it is and it continues with a three row superheater, or if a higher superheat really does make some difference critical to a Castle on the main line and should there be no alternative boiler then making it a four row?

The only rational for turning the boiler into a different number of flue tubes - wether two or four rows would be if you needed to replace the superheater header and it would unavoidably have to be made as a one off. But this assumes it was not possible to use a four row header with fewer elements attached and if there was any reasonable life in and around the inner firebox given the probable relative costs and time of a new header versus making, attaching and then restaying to get a new tubeplate....... I would doubt any plausible economy.

Never mind any other considerations - a sound boiler won't go for ever but it is not a short life disposable like a worn brake block or a burnt fire bar.

 

Me too, the standard of reporting is so poor now.

 

I agree its very poor now and I shall not be renewing my subscription.

 

How many other original large steam locos have had complete replacement boilers? Yes, I know there have been inner and probably outer fireboxes and new barrel sections, but a complete new boiler? Some of them may begin to resemble Grandad's axe over time, but I don't see any reason why this particular boiler should not continue almost indefinitely on that basis. And this one is said to be in pretty good condition.

And that could just as easily be an argument for getting rid of all eight of the things completely. Maybe just keep one and replace the internals with a battery pack and a smoke generator? Maybe bin the lot and have an O-gauge model in a glass case and some drawings on a CD-ROM?

Just because your average punter won't see or understand the finer workings of a superheater, doesn't mean that somewhere there isn't someone who will appreciate that sort of detail. I actually think there is something to be said for being able to show the engineering development from Star to late BR Castle via both of the intermediate versions, which is currently possible. (And I don't care a jot that the Star won't be in steam, either.)

I would argue that based on the progress made until very recently by the team at Loughborough, it would have a very good long-term prospects where it is, subject to sorting out the ownership and alternative funding sources. I would further argue that the GCR has shown that it can raise large sums for big projects when it needs to (see 'the gap') and that they also have many skilled volunteers who can, and have, restored other locos on a budget (47406, for example, was very much the archetypal 'boiler on wheels' when it arrived, and didn't cost a 7-figure sum to restore. Granted it's a much smaller loco but the principle is the same). Granted with this model 7027 might take a bit longer, but that hardly matters at this point.

 

Using a boiler with unoccupied flue tubes is a poor option, given that flue gases will take the path of least resistance.

 

The GCR has indeed been very good at raising funds towards closing the gap and doing essential repairs on the existing infrastructure; but restoring a GWR Castle is a very different kettle of fish. I don't for a moment claim that it could not possibly happen, but it does seem to me unlikely, considering the competition for funds for all sorts of other purposes, not least maintaining all the other Castles. Would completing the restoration, to produce one more working Castle, really be better than putting the same resource into overhauling two or three other locos and keeping a supply of Castle spares?

 

Agreed, and on the other hand why on earth would anyone fit a four row superheater when there are only enough flue tubes for three lots of elements? If Thornbury's boiler is to be used at all (whether on 4709, Thornbury itself or another Castle) surely the tube layout will stay the same as it is now.

 

This is a very flimsy argument and could be aimed at any locomotive in preservation history with multiple examples, and that hasn't stopped multiple Bulleid Pacifics, Black Fives, 8Fs, Halls, Manors, Jinties, Pannier Tanks, the list goes on...

Besides which - given the popularity of the Castle Class in preservation and the great fondness and support the others have had - Thornbury Castle only requires a genuine group to come forward to take over fundraising and overhauling: which unsurprisingly is what was happening at the GCR, sans the fundraising as its (third) owner had the funds to take it on.

The lengths that we see some of the arguments going to, to justify Thornbury's predicament is rather incredible tbh.

 

Agreed, unless both tube plates required replacement.

 

My subscription (which must have bee in force for a good 15 years) expired with the last edition and it appears I haven't missed much with the latest edition, given the comments made!
Sound like someone may have"an agenda"......

 

Just to pick up on this and the idea that there are funds competing against each other specifically relating to Castles.

4073 - never going to be restored and safe in a museum.
4079 - Just been finished and likely to steam for c.7 years and safe in a museum.
5029 - Owned by a multimillionaire with no opportunity for joe public to fund.
5043 - Owned by VT and due to return to steam shortly, seems to be generally funded by mainline work by an organisation with its own in house engineering ultimately safe in a museum.
5051 - No specific fund raising, unlikely to steam for years and safe in a museum.
5080 - A specific fund raising opportunity exists, engine is complete and open to overhaul and ultimately safe in a museum.
7027 - In danger of being scrapped unless funding is secured to ultimately purchase and longer term term restore (obviously all is subject to the owner being prepared to sell and a group being able to get option to buy and set up structures).
7029 - Owned by VT and in mainline order, seems to be generally funded by mainline work by an organisation with its own in house engineering ultimately safe in a museum.

So of those only 5080 is actually subject to an active fund rasing campaign, and of those all are entirely safe in museums, its hardly a straight battle for funds.

 

I have no problem in theory with the implication of @MellishR about the loss of "preserved" locomotives to help sustain others, though in practice pure reason may be displaced by other factors. I could even, at a pinch, be persuaded that the sacrifice of one preserved locomotive for a recreation might be reasonable.

However, for that to be viable, that has to be based on a coherent preservation strategy that joins the dots. What we see around 7027 and 4709 is far from coherent, and is deficient even in it's own terms.

 

Hang on! I've already said that I'm not in favour of Thornbury being broken up for the 4709 and Star projects. I am only casting doubt on its prospects for restoration, given the withdrawal of funding and all the competition for other projects. Granted the work on Thornbury had started, but it had a long way still to go, so the remaining cost of restoration would surely cover overhauls of two other locos.
This is all theoretical unless and until (a) the 4709 people agree in principle to re-sell Thornbury and (b) the money to buy it is found. Admittedly the latter is more likely if in support of a plan for full restoration than for keeping it as a set of spare parts.
We all have our personal ideas of what we might like to happen but I suspect we will all be disappointed.

 

Perhaps I should state my own ideal outcome. 4709 completed with a brand new boiler, the same shape and size as the original Swindon No.7 but working at 250 psi to make up for the reduced cylinder diameter. Either Thornbury Castle restored to working order or, preferably, at similar cost, two other Castles that are complete but out of service fully overhauled and equipped for main line operation, perhaps using a few spare parts from Thornbury. But I honestly can't see the money for all of that being found.

 

Pretty much, although the quotes attributed to the 4709 project in SR this month seem to take the incoherence to a new level and suggest that any suggestion of back of fag packet is perhaps being kind.

I may have missed it, are the new 47xx cylinders of a reduced diameter, I had always kind of assumed that the casting had just been redesigned to be narrower overall (much as has been done with 6024). I know a guy who claimed to have done the design work for the revised cylinders was posting on Facebook about it and was not backwards in coming forward about his unhappiness about how he had been treated and his general disdain for the management of the project (albeit obviously there are two sides and no idea who is/was in the right).

 

You make the oft-made mistake of assuming that money given to a 7027 fund would be available to other locos if the 7027 fund was never setup or ceased to exist at some point.
I would suggest that 7027 will draw a level of funding from people who simply don't want to see it scrapped, or who remember it from BR days. Those people may not wish to contribute to the fund for 5080 (or any other loco) because 1) it's not at risk of scrapping and 2) they may not remember 5080/A.N.Other loco from BR days.

 

It seems to me that Thornbury Castle and the GCR - Medium sized express loco & double track main line (OK, not all of it) are a pretty good combination if the money can be found to restore her.

 

Yes. You seem rather keen to reduce 7027 to a kit of parts.