7027 Thornbury Castle

the VoB say it will be nearby, which probably means Tyesley anyway

 

Is there no end to the amusement this forum provides with such wild speculation??

 

Ok, will shut up as requested.


N

 

Think you read that a bit quick Nick! I did splutter when I read your post though...

Definitely good news that 7027 has a future now though, and hope it'll pay a visit to the GWSR at some point when it's done.

 

The first Castle with a double chimney was 7018 which had a 3 row superheater at the time. All other double chimney Castles had 4 row superheater boilers. Only one of these had an extended smokebox (no 4090), although the chimney was moved forwards to clear the superheater on all of them. The boiler on 7018 was also changed to a 4 row type within a year or so.

 

Someone from Tys came to have a look it seems. Really hope it keeps the attached, double chimney Castles look ungainly to me, however more efficient they may be.

Dave

 

Ta for the clarification. Just have to see what the new owner decides, stick or twist.

 

I can't understand all this speculation that 7027 could be upgraded to a double-chimney Castle. The three-row superheat single chimney Castles were pretty potent machines. Even more so in later years when, I believe, the oil feed from the mechanical lubricator s was increased which made them freer running. 7027 is unique as a three-row superheat '5098" class Castle. No need to change it. There are already two double-chimney four-row Castles.

 

I'm convinced this double chimney garb is some crossed wires, changing 7027 from its 3 row state makes about as much sense as rebuilding a hypothetical sole surviving unrebuilt Merchant Navy, why the destroy the only one of that type left ?.

 

5043 has set the bar pretty high in the heritage era. Anyone restoring 7027 with the intention of it being optimised for the main line would sensibly take account of how 5043 is set up. Safe to assume 7029 will be a stellar performer too. Plus there is the small matter of the recently published loading restrictions which now distinguish between single and double chimney variants.
Whilst historically incorrect for the loco during its working life it is a fair bet it would have been upgraded had steam lasted longer. Totally down to the owner of course though and depends on his ideals.

 

It would be madness to make 7027 a clone of 5043 and 7029 just for a slightly higher load hauling abilty. If the new owner wanted to improve the performance of 7027, while keeping to single chimney form, maybe he should follow closely the draughting developments on 6023 and talk to Jos Koopmans. I can't see any need though. 7027 should be a stronger engine than the single chimney low superheat Castles like 5029.

 

David
Not quite so. 5043 was also fitted with a 3 row boiler at the time of getting a double chimney. 4090 was the first DC 4 row engine. No one has ever explained why 4090 had an extended smokebox, but we believe that it was made so to give more clearance for the self cleaning screens at the front of the box. 7018 was fitted with a self cleaning smokebox when double chimneyed and whilst there are no drawings for that arrangement there are various lugs cast on the blastpipe and petticoat which give clues as to fixings and it is very similar to the arrangement on the Kings. We found that the volume in front of the screen was very tight and the horizontal door crossbar caused problems by accelerating the gas flow to the point where char particles were being wedged into the screen gradually reducing the free area through it as a run progressed. We cured the problem by changing the door crossbar to a vertical one in line with the gas flow. The western region never got as far as this because the decision was made to remove the SC apparatus from the Kings, and to not fit any further Castles at much the same time as 7018's tests, and consequently 4090 (as the second DC engine never got the self cleaning screens, and 7018's gear was removed along with the plate on the door. Certainly the extra 4 inches of 4090's longer smokebox were just about what would have been required to solve the problem, but 5043's works perfectly well, as it has demonstrated on a number of occasions, and steaming is not affected by the screen.

With regard to headers the 4 row is several inches longer than the 3 row and the chimney was moved forward to clear both varieties as you suggest. What is not so apparent is that the brake ejector exhaust elbow is also a few inches further forward on the DC engines. As a point of interest the 4 row header was first fitted to 5049 very late in GWR days at much the same time as the 5098 series Castles were introduced. As a single chimney engine it was at the time judged to be not much better than 5098 which had a great reputation and so no more four row boilers were fitted until the advent of double chimneys in the fifties with their ability to move more flue gas and achieve some benefit from the larger superheater.

Regards
Bob

 

Thanks Bob - always good to hear from someone who actually knows what he is talking about!

 

It is worth pointing out that at present there is no evidence that the "draughting developments" on 6023 actually work. Until such time as some brave individual takes 23 out on the main line and proves it works better than the original Ell single chimney, I can't see anyone rushing to modify anything else.

 

Three Castle's under the same roof again? Beautiful

 

Not if Steam Railway is right - they report it as going to the former Westland Factory at Yeovil for restoration.

 

Agreed. Hence my comment that maybe the new owner should closely follow the draughting developments on 6023. If the new blast pipe doesn't live up to expectations under a full load test, then it can be discounted with regards to 7027. Also, original Ell sleeved single chimney on 6023 works at full height, but not 4" lower, that has been proved at Didcot. My impression is that 7027 will not need a 4" shorter chimney for main line running, so a new draughting arrangement will be unnecessary anyway.

 

Surely more likely to be the former Westland factory in Weston-s-Mare, given the reported new owners links to the site? There's already a sentinel steam bus there, and a few old rails embedded in the concrete, although perhaps not strong enough for a castle!

 

And Railway Mag having interviewed the new owner report that in early 2017 the boiler will be transferred to Tyseley, to be followed later in the year by the rest of the locomotive when 7029 has moved out of the workshop.

 

Wait and see