7027 Thornbury Castle

For the GWR at least the identity was the entry in the locomotive register, not any particular component.

We seem to be going past mere speculation to a new extreme flight of fancy, but my uninformed guess is that if some fatal flaw were found that forced the abandonment of the 4709 project it wouldn't result in the project team taking on a Castle instead. From everything that's been said I reckon the GWS head office would veto anything of the sort.

I imagine the most likely destination of 7027s components is as spares to keep the Tyseley fleet on the mainline, and personally I wouldn't have a problem with that.

 

Further considering the trail that the 47xx project has left in its wake, were any parts of 2861 ever actually used after it was specifically dismantled to provide its cylinders which they subsequently decided they didn't want to use?

 

The answer is in the post I made directly above yours, and have repeated throughout this thread.

 

So splitting up these parts again to add to separate locos shouldn't be a problem then?

 

The “gotcha” line of attack only really works if you have an actual “gotcha”, gents. Otherwise it just looks like you’re not reading the thread or selectively quoting.

 

I was just making the point that the loco (like many others) is already made up from parts of different locos. But this only appears to be acceptable in its working life, and not in preservation.

 

But you’re ignoring the context of why parts have been removed and what parts would need to be renewed. That’s an important part of understanding the wider frustrations with this story.

Context is key.

 

I think the (often made) points are well made about "Tigger's broom" and the fact that, during their working lives, most locos were built from an assembly and reassembly of different parts. I see the case of Thornbury as s0mewhat different. This particular set of parts, however decayed and incomplete it may be, has been together with the name of Thornbury Castle for around 60 years. In my mind this gives it an identity, albeit a sad one, which is much older than any castle achieved in service. After so long it seems to me tragic to treat it once again as just a conglomeration of parts that can be broken up without a second thought.

Of course, there has been plenty of time over decades for saviours to come forward. Several have done so but never carried it through. As long as the parts were kept together there was always just a glimmer of a chance that it might be restored one day. It is the apparently casual and thoughtless way that chance has been killed off that I find most upsetting.

 

I have checked back in to this thread after afew months just in case there are any new valuable insights or facts emerging. Sadly it is all more of the same. It seems to be a ludicrously extended version of " crying over spilt milk " . The restoration of 7027 was sadly abandoned more than a year ago now and I wish Didcot well in trying to make something good from that disaster. Moving on.

 

Not a lot has moved on though has it? As you say it’s been nearly a year and what’s changed?
It’s still at the GC, and there’s no clear plans regarding ownership, destination or what the plan is for it. I’d hardly say that’s ‘moving on’

 

I think that is the point that can't be reconciled between the two sides though. The part(s) haven't been separated and scattered forever necessarily. One (albeit quite large) piece has been removed (only in writing so far), for use somewhere else for someone else's plans in the immediate future.

This isn't like the Doncaster 8f or 2861 because nothing has actually been cut up or thrown away to provide it, yet. There is still 'a glimmer of chance' that one day someone could continue the process and reunite those particular parts. If that changes fundamentally and the 4709 project announce they're going to weigh the rest in for scrap to top up the coffers, I would be more inclined to agree that the situation has in fact become hopeless.

 

I suggest you go back to the start of this thread and have a read of it.
I don’t want to sound condescending but have you spent any time in Britain or France giving your time up and putting the effort in to a heritage project?
Whilst I appreciate it might be difficult for you to make a contribution I really think this might be useful viewing for you.

 

It did seem casual and thoughtless to begin with. The GWS then put the project on hold for six months to allow anyone with a viable plan to rescue Thornbury Castle. Unfortunately it's not at all clear what might have qualified as viable. Did the GWS really demand that someone must have all the money available already to complete the restoration? Did anyone actually come forward with any plan at all, which the GWS rejected?

Now more months have passed with no visible sign of progress towards using the boiler for 4709, nor towards any use for the bottom half. We know you can't please all the people all the time, but the present state of affairs doesn't seem likely to please anyone.

 

I think we can all agree that 7027 is probably now the "no hoper" of no hopers, Castle wise, and is probably not going to be around much longer. I do agree with Hyboy on one thing: it is time to let the GWS and 4709 group get on with it.

The time to do anything about it has passed and preservation has been wanting.

 

The 45 015 of steam?

 

I was almost tempted to buy 45015 and keep it as it was for the entertainment it has provided me with over the years.

 

No.

 

That's like saying a Stilton will never be blue - you have to give these things time to mature.

 

What about White Stilton?

(which is really rather lovely)

 

Having just had a ride on the GCR I can confirm that the boiler and tender tank for Thornbury are now back in the headshunt at Quorn.