7027 Thornbury Castle

In the case of the Atlantic, a GNR BOILER was aquired, that's 'All' It's aquisation and use in the Beachy Head project has not resulted in any existing locomotive ceasing to exist in it's own right, neither has anything existing been irreversibly altered or modified, It is a genuine case of using a spare component. Obviously If the 4709 project intend to use only boiler, and secure the future of the rest of 'Thornbury' then the only 'Issue' is that of 'Historical Accuracy'.

Just as a 'What If', just give a thought of how 'You' would feel had the recent Mission Impossible film used a genuine existing locomotive.

 

With respect Al, the G.N.R. Atlantic boiler is a special case. What is being suggested with the Night Owl is a different kettle of fish.

The G.N.R. boiler is almost identical to the Marsh built one on the L.B.S.C.R. They used the G.N.R. Atlantic drawings as a basis for the Marsh Atlantics, after all. We have No.251 in preservation and the boiler being used for Beachy Head hasn't been massively changed from its original format.

In fact the reality is, if you really wanted to take that boiler and put it on No.251, chances are it would fit with minimal fuss. That's why the boiler was bought for the recreation of the Marsh Atlantic in the first place: it's virtually identical.

In any event, the G.N.R. boiler didn't come with a locomotive frames, wheelsets or tender, so it was just the boiler. There was no working relationship, there had been no prior restoration. It was a single, admittedly large, spare component that was waiting for something to do. That is massively different from the Night Owl.

With respect, I don't think comparing the Night Owl and 7027 to the Bluebell's Atlantic is fair. Sorry.

That's true, but it doesn't mean the ends justify the means. Which has been part of the problem with this all along really.

 

I did start a thread on significance of locomotives, which didn't really go anywhere at the time: https://www.national-preservation.c...hats-significant-and-what-is-at-risk.1421381/ If you start from the premise that there is a hierarchy, i.e. not everything is equally significant and worthy of preservation, then I think somewhat inevitably you end up at the proposition that this particular loco is of rather marginal importance. Grade II listed rather than Grade I, in building terms, if you like.

What I would draw attention to though is the paper on carriage significance that I listed in my original post. In it, there was a discussion about using the "at risk" category as a lever to unlock funds from funding agencies. The pithy comment was made:

[] other issues have troubled us in compiling our draft list from the individual recommendations of our assessors. The first is the question of a vehicle being recognised as being “at risk”. Should we say that funding applications should be confined to only those historic vehicles that are “at risk”? Clearly that would be a nonsense! It would be a great incentive for those who were carefully cherishing significant historic vehicles under cover but who have no resources to restore them, to decide to put them outside in all weathers so they qualified as “at risk”!

(My emphasis. Source: http://www.rhrp.org.uk/papers/significance.htm)
​

In other words, we perhaps need to be careful what we wish for in terms of listing processes!

It is worth noting that accredited museums do need to have, as part of their accreditation, disposals policies in place, which I believe should include disposal to other museums as the first option. The issue here though is that 7027 was not owned by a museum, but rather by a private individual. In fact, I suspect that the number of nominally preserved locos in the country that would come under that policy is actually rather small, particularly amongst those owned by heritage railways, or by groups associated with such railways, since in the majority of cases, those organisations aren't accredited museums. Inasmuch as many heritage railways have attached museums, they tend to primarily concerned with small artefacts relevant to the locale, and the major items of rolling stock are generally owned outside the museum part of the organisation.

Tom

 

I'm assuming that this is a trick question
but if not
a lot sooner than if they had to fund and build a boiler from scratch and hopefully before I shuffle of this mortal coil so I can get to see and ride behind it

Colin[/QUOTE]

No, not a trick question. As you say there is a limited amount of skill and labour in the movement, and prioritising one project over another leads to something else being 'bumped' down the queue. Accepting that you're right and that Thornbury Castle might need another ten years' work to return to steam, if 4709 is going to take longer than ten years to be ready then the argument you use about Thornbury Castle bumping something else own the queue quite equally applies to 4709.

 

I couldn't disagree with you more Alan. The group at the Bluebell took a boiler that was headed for scrap to construct 32424 around it. No viable locomotive was destroyed in the process, let alone one that was under active restoration.

And for what? There is something about this 4709 project to me that has white elephant written all over it. What possible use is there for such a loco in mid 21st century Britain? Its not needed on any heritage line and it certainly won't be plodding about on the national network (it would need to be a Castle to have any realistic prospect of main line accreditation). It seems to me that the best prospects for its use are to operate along the Didcot demonstration line. Wow! Surely a 72XX heavy 2-8-2T would be more appropriate there - now why not build one of them instead from the remains of one that already exists and has been on site for several decades?

And a realistic timescale for this 4709? I'm more likely to see my centenary in 2051 than this project has of being complete by then.

Peter

 

Apparently, the 72XX has had quite a bit of work done on it.

 

It'll be a lot longer than 10 years before anyone sees the faux 4700 in steam as well.

 

A question Al - do you think this approach stands for other classes where the appetite to restore the previously unrestored still proceeds within the HR movement?

Numerous Bulleids and Black Fives 45491 / 45163 / 45293 under restoration might otherwise direct funds and resources to more New Builds? Imagine how many locos could be dispensed with if there is only an appetite for 2 or 3 of any type/class?

 

Again, there's no point following this argument ab absurdum - . there are very few classes where there are sufficient preserved examples to justify sacrificing one for a new build creation of something else, and even fewer classes that could be used in this way - it's a peculiarity of GWR standardisation(ish) that has brought this one example into focus. We've already seen two of the Barry 10 partly broken for spares (the Black and 9F have both lost their boilers) and the Spam Can at Carnforth may well go the same way - and there has been far less of an outcry over those.

 

Thornbury Castle hasn't been "destroyed" either. Its boiler has been "borrowed". What will happen to the rest of it remains to be seen.
And please don't pretend that it was "under active restoration". It had been, but the work had stopped with no short-term prospect of resumption and little prospect of resumption ever.

 

The banner at the top of the Didcot Railway Centre website says Didcot Railway Centre Living Museum of the Great Western Railway" and on the centre map the main running line is labelled "Main demonstration line". Anyone who thinks the GWS is anything else has a bit of a problem with reality. Of course it's not a full on heritage railway, and if it were there's no way the public would be able to have the freedom of access they do at Didcot. The whole point of the place is that you can wander unsupervised through a GWR shed full of GWR locomotives. If you want to go to a full on working site as opposed to a museum go to Carnforth - except you can't.

 

This thread has been quiet for a few weeks but there is now new information from the 4709 Project / GWS. It turns out that only a deposit was paid for the boiler, so they are now appealing for the rest of the price. That suggests that the frames have still not been sold to the GWS or anyone else; or does anyone know different?

 

Its difficult to imagine why the current owner would want to sell the boiler without the frames, although I suppose half a buyer is better than none. What's your source? Can't see anything on obvious 4709 web presence.

GWS proper has been *very* quiet about the 4709 project. Not a word in the last two GWS newsletters for instance, and very de-emphasised on the GWS website.

 

That has been essentially my understanding for some time now, though I'm not going to divulge where I got that from.
And what if this appeal fails to raise the rest? Does the sale of the boiler fall through?
It also rather begs the question of why the GWS seems to have been able to determine the onward sale criteria for the whole loco, unless they were never really that serious about relinquishing the boiler (unless the re-sale raised sufficient £££ for a new one, which obviously was never going to happen). Was the whole 6-month 'pause' a charade while they figured out whether and how they would pay for the thing they've agreed to buy?

 

Simple really. You buy the engine off them at Engine + Boiler price, then they hand Engine price over to the former owner....

 

I've also been told pretty much the same thing, by a reliable source. In my case, it was said that the 4709 group went ahead and placed the deposit on 7027, on the assumption that the GWS would cover the shortfall from its own General Fund. I don't know whether or not this payment has happened, although I think the implication was that it had.

Having previously spent many years working at Didcot, none of this surprises me in the slightest.

 

This whole saga gets more and more bonkers every time I see an update.