7027 Thornbury Castle

Tl;DR version - the whole Thornbury saga is a complicated story with many different issues and not everyone is going to agree on its fate, but we do have to accept it now. Same for the 8F.

---

Too long version - I think there's quite a few camps here with different interests and red lines (and that's life, the world would be boring if we didn't have different points of view).

Thornbury and the LNER built 8F are not one and the same, and part of why we look at them differently is that the railway isn't the same everywhere. The frustration surrounding Thornbury was very specific: it was the subject of a restoration attempt, it has been sitting around with private owners for a very long time not doing much, and there's still elements of fait accompli where its final outcome is concerned, I feel.

The 8F was not a no-hoper: we've seen worse locomotives restored from less. Having one of each of the Big Four's 8Fs isn't a necessity for curating the build and development for the Stanier 8Fs, but with so few LNER built locomotives surviving in comparison to the rest of the Big Four, and the potential for comparative studies of the locomotive's origins, there was an opportunity missed.

Moreover, one thing seems to have been the same with the County and the Night Owl that isn't the same for, for example, Maindy Hall to Lady of Legend. There's a significant divergence from the original source material to produce something that is not the same design as that actually fitted. Saints became Hals, converting one back to a Saint uses almost identical components without compromising the overall historical integrity of the Swindon built bits (e.g. the boiler effectively being restored without major modification, retaining its as built pressure).

The use of the 8F boiler and the Castle boiler (which will undoubtedly require some alteration to be used on the Night Owl) were compromises in the historical side of the locomotives, and frankly are the big questionable decisions we will likely argue over for many years to come. Some will accept them, and that's fine, I disagree and I hope that's also fine.

The bigger question is whether a new build boiler would have been better for both of those locomotives and my answer, glancing over at three diagram 118 boilers built for a certain Pacific and Mikado probably indicate the answer to that is yes, particularly where boiler pressure is concerned. The use of the 8F firebox hasn't gained anything in my view, particularly if the County were to ever be modified for the mainline beyond the shortening of certain bits as it has at the minute. 225lb from 280lb is potentially a big performance inhibitor.

At the end of the day, I certainly don't wish the county or night owl groups any ill, they are passionate for their projects and if they succeed, well that's great, we will be able to see more GWR locomotives running. Do I wish it had been done differently? Yes, but I can't change it.

So there's my last contribution which I am sure many will be grateful for!

 

I think it's about time that everyone realised that their opinion is not RIGHT. It's just their opinion. What's right to one person will be wrong to another, and vice versa. To be fair, the only reason for telling someone else that we think their opinion is wrong is because we believe our own to be right. So it's probably best to accept that we are never going to reach a consensus on this, relax the vitriol and wait to see what develops.

 

First post on here I can relate to.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

To be fair a Castle being slighted seems pretty appropriate. Didn't Corfe Castle donate quite a bit to some new buildings?

 

Doesn’t it get a bit tedious to repeat the same arguments that have been going on for years?

 

A pile of scrap is how most locos in preservation were until somebody came along and rescued them.

 

With my apologies Jim.

 

I don't think there is any evidence that Sir Keith Park or Taw Valley produce or produced any extra income in long term regular SVR service. The effect is different for occasional gala appearances "elsewhere" though. What has to be realised is the now significant extra cost in coal just to get these wide firebox locos to the shed exit signal each morning compared to more modest but perfectly capable ex Big 4/BR types

 

And to which a good number that have run are returning. I have no great amount of time for new builds given the fact that so many engines that once run are rusting in the open air. I cannot change it, but I would rather see the money going on more roofs.

 

I seem to recall the SpVR seeing a sustained increase in passengers. Perhaps @Jonnie could confirm or deny?

 

A very fair summary, but I'm a bit confused by the bit I've put in bold. I don't see much difference. Both locos sat around for a very long while. One just sat AFAIK, the other had some changes of ownership and false starts on restoration. Both in the end are suffering similar fates, and there has been wailing and gnashing of teeth over both. Both were unique in some details but mostly very similar to others that survive.

The most significant difference IMO (though still not very significant) is the practical effect of the "wrong" boilers. The No.8 is only slightly smaller than the correct No.7 for the 4700, it will make minimal difference in operation on heritage lines and (it has been claimed) a No.7 would have needed a reduction in height anyway (altering the external appearance) just to be allowed in and out of Didcot over a short length of NR. On the other hand, the lower pressure on the not-quite-County will make a significant difference to its available power output. That probably won't matter on heritage lines, but with the correct boiler it would have been potentially suitable for main line operation (subject to some ifs and buts). With the lower pressure boiler it will be pretty much equivalent to a Hall, and there are several of those with limited scope for main line operation.

 

My comment there was to highlight the different curatorial aspects of an express passenger locomotive versus a wartime built freight locomotive. They tell different stories from different parts of our railway history, and therefore we tend to appraise their relative worth differently.

The way they've been treated in the preservation era is of course different too, but sadly very likely ending with similar outcomes.

 

Again very fair comment, but don't we have at least one wartime-built 8f to tell that part of the story?

 

Will it, AFAIK both 4079 and 2999 are 'standard' GWR height and mange OK, a heck of a lot has been claimed by those supporting this scheme and the cynic takes very little at face value any more.

FWIW its probably time to move on, the 47xx group have got what they desire and whilst the dark cloud will hang over the GWS for a long while they don't really seem to care that much (its quite the step from 4 young boys fundraising to save a 14xx, to becoming the 'national collection for the GWR to breaking up a express passenger locomotive to create some sort of bastardised 47xx), but there is nothing that keeping talking on here can do about it. If people are upset just keep your hands tightly in your pockets when asked, they have alienated a fair few via the 8F and now even more through this so ultimately that's the way to show your feelings, will be interesting to see how the 47xx project does for funds moving forward (and also what financial transactions show up in the Annual Report 22-23 to suggest how the thing was paid for), taking note of the similar origins between the 47xx and the Patriot one wonders whether the boiler may not be the only area where they may need some cash, albeit no doubt they can use the frames and wheels from somewhere else to achieve their aims, set of 28xx frames and wheels from 5322 would be a start.

 

I would not call over 4" difference in boiler diameters at the front, minimal. Also the smokebox on 4709 would have to be to drawing to fit correctly onto the cylinder/saddle castings. What about boiler centre line to rail heights. Are they different?

 

Given their apparent approach to accuracy it may well be close enough for the GWS, but the coupled wheelbase of a 47xx is four foot longer than that of a 28xx

 

Looking at some of the replies and thinking things over. I think/feel the biggest [underlying] issue is not necessarily the dismantling for parts of Thornbury for it's [mainly] boiler, for other projects. But the dismantling of a partly restored/worked on locomotive. Granted as I've previously mentioned she was I believe originally bought as a source of spares.......

 

That certainly is a major reason for the anguish. But can someone put a rough figure on what fraction of the total work of restoration had actually been done before it stopped? Had any work been done on the boiler or is that all still for the 4709 people to do?

 

I still think there is still some more to come from this yet, 4709, could hit problems with funding, and what options are there then? going on whats befallen the patriot group, there will need , if the gws, don't want more adverse publicity to be a full engineering survey on what was done to the frames at Llangollen, for example is there the same frame scale problem, are stretchers correctly inserted, Imagine the effect if say the people behind the 4709 group decide to press on regardless, because someone is determined to see their dream happen in their lifespan, so they cut corners, 4709 steams, but gets failed at the first preserved railwayit visits, because of concerns, that the engine isn't in a fit state to run, who gets the blame? the GWS,