7027 Thornbury Castle

As far as I can see, the only statement that has been made about it being fully funded is that quoted in
https://national-preservation.com/threads/7027-thornbury-castle.421075/page-96#post-2763245
which I think is clearly not stating that it is "fully funded" in the sense of "has sufficient money sitting in a bank account".

 

The fact that 7027 survived BR, survived Barry, survived at least 3 failed ownership restorations is more than enough reason not to scrap her. It doesn't matter if she has a 2,3 or 23 row superheater or is fitted with a turbo thruster, she's still a historic loco worthy of preservation, even if that is a static preservation in a nice museum somewhere.

 

Looking at it from a practical point of view, leaving aside all the misplaced emotion, the best use of 7027 would be to do as the A1 Trust have done and use the boiler as a spare for the other Castles ti minimise the time out of traffic under overhaul. The same could be done with some of the unrestored Bulleids

 

The only problem with that is going to be ownership, unless you have some sort of repository of central ownership for the boilers why is group 'x' going to let group 'y' use their boiler. The GWS have already made clear to JJP (way way before this whole palarva kicked off) that they don't want another Castle they being offered first dibs before she went to the GCR, plus it appears that the ego's involved with the 4709 project want to push ahead whatever.

 

An outright sale to Tyseley would be ideal

 

Surviving BR and surviving Barry was a start, even if the initial rescue was as a source of spares. However I'd say that the fact of three successive ownership restorations failing is a consideration in the opposite direction. And of course, as has been said repeatedly, we can't preserve everything. Regardless of recent events and whether or not the 4709 people continue with their plans for her, full restoration of Thornbury Castle to working order without input from someone with a large bank balance seems more of a WIBN than a realistic prospect, and cosmetic restoration for display even less realistic.

Tyseley already have three Castles. Why on earth would they want this one back after they decided they didn't even need it for spares?

 

Possibly so, but hardly likely after they recently sold a load of their castle bits to the GCR to facilitate the restoration of 7027.

As noted several times of this thread 7027 was purchase from Barry to be restored.

 

Read what I put, I said the boiler as a spare to overhaul to reduce the time out of service of the operational Castles. It was the practice at railway workshops to do just that, the reason why Mallard was on its eighth boiler at the time of its withdrawal

 

That was what your suggestion in post #2103, which was answered in post #2104. My post #2106 was responding to your post #2105 where you suggested selling 7027 back to Tyseley.

But we all get confused ....

Sorry, I stand corrected on that.
Nevertheless Tyseley eventually decided they didn't want it at all. They do have three others.

 

But who would own the boiler and how would you coordinate overhauls between different owning groups to ensure there wouldn’t be two overhauls needing that boiler at the same time?

 

In regards to how the loco is being regarded by the Railway Press (Steam Railway in particular it seems), it's possibly worth noting that another GWR new build project, using components sourced from another Didcot based loco, as well as using wheel patterns created from another of their new build projects, is lead by a former editor of Steam Railway Magazine.

 

I was thinking of them selling the boiler to one of the owners, Tyseley would be ideal

 

No, how can you say such a thing about our beloved Bulleid Pacific’s.

 

The obvious point though is that as far as I am aware the boilers fitted to the Merchant Navies are identical, ditto the Light Pacifics, which isnt the case with the Castles, hence the significance of Thornbury Castle.

 

That’s not quite true if you want to get nerdy: the first series of Merchant Navy boilers were tapered on the ring next to the smokebox; thereafter they were tapered on the ring next to the firebox, which saved weight while making essentially no difference to heating surface. Subsequently both types were interchangeable so at times the early boilers could end up on later locos and vice versa.

Tom

 

Once again: Pete Waterman did not attempt to restore 7027. It sat on a siding at Crewe while other projects were being restored.
JJP did not have the funds to do attempt a restoration. It was moved to his bus garage in Weston, got him a bit of publicity- which may have been his sole intention, some important bits got nicked, and he sold it to Mr Gregory.
Gregory began a restoration at Loughborough. The project did not fail, it was not too difficult, it was not beyond the engineering resources of Loughborough. The restoration was halted and the locomotive sold because of a tantrum.
Please stop repeating this twaddle that "the fact of three successive ownership restorations failing" which is simply untrue. The 4709 mob are peddling this lie that 7027 is somehow a locomotive that is beyond restoration, but no matter how many people repeat it, it is still a lie

 

One point - Waterman did have a new tender body built (Hawksworth style) which is part of the overall work done on it over the last few decades.

The arguments against Thornbury are and continue to be flimsy at best.

 

I hesitate to "like" this, or to agree that what is being said is a lie. It is however certainly a form of misdirection.

 

I do find it surprising that there are people who wish to destroy a loco in the name of "preservation". I've said it before and I'll say it again, the 4709 group* should do it the proper way a la A1 and P2 etc.
*other GWS splinter groups are available.

 

Whilst I agree with you, I don't think the 4709 group are capable of raising the funds. They and some of the other funds, issue an initial appeal and hope the money comes in, and there is very little follow up. They do not appear to have tried to sort this by getting someone to manage the fund raising , and now want a by quick fix, because the penny has dropped that based on the current rate of progress, two of the leading members will not be around to see it completed.