7027 Thornbury Castle

I agree that it would be good to have seen her on the main line, but I am just pleased that it looks like poor old 7027 will finally have a working future. Let's face it, the prospect of four main line Castles and another two working on heritage lines is infinitely better than anyone could have expected when GW steam came to an end. Furthermore, thinking of the public reaction to another large loco which now earns its keep running at 25mph on a fairly flat line - 35006 on the GWSR - I'm sure that 7027 will still prove a popular loco at the GCR when it is restored.

 

Not to mention that between now and completion situations and plans could change any number of times.

 

7027 is far more likely to go main line in future if it’s first restored to pootle at 25mph, than if it isn’t.

Be realistic though, other main line Castles are available, how much benefit would there be in the new owner diluting that market in exchange for wearing out his loco faster?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Wasn't there a plan, at one time, to increase the GCR line speed to 40mph? and won't this make sense when the gap is bridged?

 

I think that might have been a bit of WIBN rather than a serious aspiration. Of course the GCR has been passed in certain sections for higher speed running (up to 75mph??) on testing contracts. Even when the gap is bridged I suspect many passengers will be happy with the prospect of 25mph, North or South from Loughborough.

 

If the GCR wished to carry fare-paying passengers at speeds in excess of 25MPH they would lose all the ROGS derogations that they currently enjoy. The cost implications would be enormous.

 

I'm pretty sure it was talked about ... many years ago.

IMO 25mph is too slow for a Ruddington to Leicester Round trip, especially for families with children. But I don't know the implications of increasing the allowed speed.

Apologies for potential thread drift.

 

Of course families can choose which parts of the line to travel between to suit their own preference....However I am quite sure many of the "visitors of a certain age"....including me will be very happy to trundle behind "Thornbury" all the way from Rudd to Leicester North and return.

 

Nearly forty years ago there was an article in "Steam Railway" that the Mid Hants wanted to increase their speed to 40mph as trundling along at 25mph was causing problems to their Bulleids. It was stated at the time that preserved lines can operate at faster than 25mph IF the stock is capable and the staff are competent.

 

I think @Andy Williams is correct and that above 25mph means the railway loses certain exemptions such as having to fit CDL. At 18 miles the railway won't be the longest in the preservation world and visitors don't have to do it all in one go!

Keith

 

It’s a very different regulatory regime now though....I agree that to operate at above 25mph any heritage line will have to dramatically change their processes and it isn’t worth the hassle.

Regards

Matt

 

Let us not forget the Gcr can operate up to 60mph under test conditions (75mph for diesel) and operates the TPO at higher speeds (35mph?) too. Of all the preserved railways she could have ended up at the Gcr offers more opportunities than most for her to stretch her legs.

 

I hear this a few times and I don't understand this. I see no lack of passengers travelling Pickering to Whitby, Portmadog to Caernarfon or even Fort William to Maillaig - all longer timewise. There are also a myriad of intermediate journey opportunities. What is important is that stations continue to develop to make the journeys worthwhile - currently there is little attraction at Leicester North now the museum idea is in trouble.

 

If you wish to run passenger trains faster than 25mph it is a legal requirement to have TPWS and that would apply to all locos, including visitors, not just ones that you want to run faster. That’s just one of the things you would have to do.

 

There’s no law mandating TPWS. There may be laws specifying ‘something’ but they don’t say what to use. I don’t think it’s as clear-cut as people are making out, but I do agree it would be a regulatory headache and can see why most heritage railways would put it in the ‘too difficult’ pile.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I believe there is still progress on the proposal, it was the HLF funded scheme that did not get second stage approval. The City Council, GCR and NRM are still very serious about so called "Plan B" for a museum at Leicester North.

 

Pleased to hear that, it is an ideal location.

 

Hopefully the LN museum will look nothing like the proposals originally published. It felt like the Bridgnorth fiasco of a few years ago all over again...

BTW if there's a public appeal to fund 7027 going main line, I'll happily bung a few quid its way whenever I can afford to.

Re the GCR Bridging the Gap project, what progress is actually being made with it? Is there an estimated date of completion?

 

There’s a whole dedicated thread on the first page of the relevant sub-forum that might be a better place to ask the question, rather than just ask random questions in unrelated threads ...

https://www.national-preservation.c...-gap-great-central-railway-news.24082/page-51

Tom