7027 Thornbury Castle

If the NRM had to lose one of their GWR tender engines to make space they had a hard decision. Caerphilly wouldn't make any difference as not with them anway. Truro just too big a name. Lode Star too original. King or 28? Swindon is much better balanced with Castle and 28, maybe that was the factor.

 

I am going to be contrary (as I am wont to do!). Do you need to showcase the whole development of Churchward development, or indeed, GWR development? In the NRM, which is a national institution with examples of locomotives and rolling stock from across the country?

Or would it be better and desirable to have some good examples of other GWR development, of which one arguably more important specimen would be a GWR diesel powered railcar? (Now on display in the NRM)

Curatorship is a balance and I don't envy those in charge of doing it. I'd love to have a go myself one day, because to my mind, the story of railways in this country does not begin and end with having to showcase every single locomotive in a specific development, but showcasing a broad range and showing how railways themselves have developed over the centuries. That means rolling stock, signalling equipment, infrastructure such as bridges and stations, electrification, digital railway, and more.

If we want huge collections of steam locomotives on display then perhaps we need a National Locomotive Museum, not a National Railway Museum...!

It's why in years past I would have been indignant at Green Arrow being based anywhere other than York, now I recognise its value as an ambassador for the museum and also for its new role in Doncaster's regeneration. Do you need more than one Gresley locomotive in the NRM to showcase Gresley's work?

The balancing act is difficult and the world is forever changing.

 

There are limits, and I for one don't believe all the main line locomotives in existence now will still be in existence in 100 years. But the introduction and development of 97 and 98 - the 4-6-0 and 2-8-0 - was arguably the point at which steam locomotives in Britain reached their final form, and 2818 was the nearest available locomotive to that crucial pair. On the other hand transfer from NRM collection to Swindon collection is hardly a big deal, at least so long as the Swindon museum exists.

 

Worth remembering that the NRM has two GNR C1s, and a Bulleid Light Pacific of which 20 are preserved, 9 specifically Battle of Britain class, and they've also got a Merchant Navy (albeit in significantly undressed form…).

It's complicated, I get it, and 34051 has merit beyond its class/type. But a GWR 2-8-0 is very different to its glam cousins, both in form, evolution, and purpose, so it seems a bit odd to not reflect that part of the story.

Simon

 

I'd agree with you that the Railway Museums should encompass more than just locomotives. But it is also possible to swing too far to the other extreme. When all is said and done, Churchward introduced (and Maunsell / Holcroft perfected ) the locomotive design that served as the template in this country up to the end of steam; and 2818 was as close as is still available to be an early exemplar of that development. So we could all make cases for locos that could be deaccessioned, but I think if your criteria are historical and engineering significance, 2818 would be somewhere near the top. By contrast, I think with 4472 and 4468 in the national collection, you could make a much better case that 4771 serves no real story-telling significance that isn't already covered by other locos.

And before you throw up your arms in horror at that thought: let's have a little game (maybe for a different thread). Suppose the National Collection had space for only 10 steam locomotives. You can choose from any currently extant British steam locomotive, not just those that are currently part of the national collection. I haven't thought it all through but with only 10 choices and 200 years of history to cover you certainly wouldn't have three big Gresley engines, but I bet you'd have one 2 cylinder Churchward design. I'm not even sure you'd have even one Gresley loco ...

Tom

 

For clarity gentlemen, I would be in full favour of the 2-8-0 being at the museum. But I was playing devil's advocate.

Re 4771 - Tom, that's precisely my view. We agree!

 

Do we have a similar thread already? If not - this would be a great exercise and probably quite fun (so long as it does not fall into arguments).

 

And on that one, let’s just remember that there have been diesel and electric locomotives in traffic for most of the time since Churchwards death…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I started the thread...

 

Good man. I responded. Shots fired!

 

In many ways I agree, but I'm sure that in practice, historical significance is not the only criterion. No doubt the NRM's curators are thinking (as Simon has hinted) not just about locomotive history, but railway history. They'll be thinking about future displays at York/Shildon and which locos are likely to be most appropriate for these; bearing in mind that they will want to tell the wider technical and social history of the railway, rather than just the locos. Say they wanted to have a big display on railways in WWI, for example - in that case it would make more sense to keep the O4, even though the 2800 is arguably more significant in terms of loco evolution.

There's also the practical consideration of whether there are institutions available who are willing and able to take on the deaccessioned items. If Swindon were particularly keen to have the 2800, for example, then that may have been a factor in deaccessioning her rather than the Castle, Star or King.

Sent from my SM-A125F using Tapatalk

 

It's also worth bearing in mind that you don't necessarily need a full size loco in the collection to "represent" a particular technical development. In museum display terms, drawings, photos and models can sometimes tell those stories just as well, if not better.

Sent from my SM-A125F using Tapatalk

 

Good point, though I'd perhaps include the wider aspect of 'documentation'. Thinking here of current newbuilds, where, for instance, a particular grade of material is no longer available, with or without some modern direct equivalent/ improvement e.g. gaphite steel in cylinder castings .... trapezoidal section spring steel

 

Trapezoidal section spring steel. You make alternatives from round section spring steel, just like the 82045 team have done. B.R. were, in fact, starting to do this in the 1950s, with at least two types of trapezoidal section springs replaced by round section.

 

Sorry, but after months of discussions between those infinitely more qualified than me .... deffo one best saved for the Clan Project thread!

 

2818 was not only transferred to Swindon, it's ownership moved there too.

 

Yes, as outlined here: https://www.railwaymuseum.org.uk/about-us/press-office/national-railway-museum-transfers-2818-steam

 

As regards the 4709/ 7027 saga, a thought hit me, If the prototype was fitted with a number 1 boiler why not build the 47 as a replica of the first engine, with the number 1 boiler, long smokebox etc, Assuming the former 28 boiler is in fair shape, at least that way, the costs would be roughly the same, as using the number7 boiler, it would allow the 47 to be completed, and the castle to be sold onto someone who hopefully can finish the restoration, unless Didcot, can somehow do a U turn, and set up a group to restore 7027, with the aim of hiring it out for much of its working life, as a way to earn money, and as a ambassador for the GWS,

 

IIRC that was the 4709 group's "Plan A" as they could use both the boiler and cylinders from 2861 (and be within the NR loading gauge). It was only later that they decided to go with the No.7 boiler and new cylinder block/smokebox saddle to suit.
Ray.

 

The Std 1 boiler was a stopgap and it ran like that for under two years. Might as well not bother as build that in my opinion.