7027 Thornbury Castle

I was really looking forward to seeing a new 4700 2-8-0....

But the needless butchering of another loco to provide a boiler which still isn't of the correct diagram has, in my humble opinion, just lost this project all credibility in much the same way as the Hawksworth County will be a sheep in wolf's clothing. Yes, it may save the 4709 group £xxxxxx, but they still won't have an authentic engine at the end of it. A very sad end to 7027, which was just starting to turn the corner into a brighter future.

Richard.

 

With respect I think you are being a bit emotive there. A loco's identity is its number, in the case of 7027, from new it has had four different boilers and 13 tenders and I'm certain that if you inspected the wheels and rods most of them would not be original.

 

As there never was a GWR locomotive 4709 one wonders what the basis for the anguish is here. Had the GWR subsequently built such a locomotive there is the possibility that there were differences to other members of the class. All the mixed up liveries, names and other items seem acceptable.

 

You are probably right but no Saints were built after 1913 whereas Halls were still being built 37 years later. So I can only conclude they were more useful i.e. better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Worth looking at the GWS press release: https://didcotrailwaycentre.org.uk/article.php/519/7027-thonbury-castle.

Basically this is nothing to do with Didcot or the GWS - it's all under the auspices of the 4079 project.

 

>

Its a very familiar scenario to me. I worked in IT in local government and individual departments presenting us with a fait accompli purchase that was at odds to the corporate strategy was almost usual. What can GWS senior management do? Invite the project team management to resign? Smart money is most of the volunteer workforce would go with them and what good would that do? In these mealy-mouthed PR careful days that's a really surprisingly forthright statement. I think those responsible for it must be royally p******d off with the 4709 crew.

 

Well, whether or not it was a deliberately spiteful act, he has certainly bowed out of railway preservation in a manner that has created almost as much of a mess as it is possible for a single individual to make. Firstly, the sale of 7027 must have caused a lot of resentment at the GCR considering how much work has been done on it over the last two years. Furthermore, it also looks as if it's going to cause quite a rumpus at Didcot especially if.....

who might well have had the resources to restore 7027. If I was a GWS member, I would be none too pleased with the 4709 group for preventing Thornbury's possible return to steam. Perhaps the best outcome from this unfortunate episode (apart from a change of mind so that 7027 isn't dismantled after all) may be that it could act as a catalyst to address what are clearly long-standing issues at Didcot, which one former volunteer has summed up most succinctly:-

 

Kind of makes me glad this individual never got to own 70013 (not there was ever any likelihood of the NRM selling it)

 

Be rather unfair to do so. I don't see any inconsistencies. Just because the fund raising comes through GWS accounts doesn't mean that the 4709 project is not largely autonomous. Plenty of analogies available in UK national, regional and local government for instance.

 

Triggers broom ....

Sent from my XQ-BT52 using Tapatalk

 

This possibility was rejected I believe some years ago, the choice being between the No.1 boiler (former 2861) and a new-build No.7 - where the new-build boiler was the preferred option, albeit pitched slightly lower to fit within current NR gauge, part of making the 47 mainline compatible.

Probably because that wasn't what was wanted from a new build, why settle for the condition of the prototype that was ultimately unsatisfactory. Hence the acquisition of a No.8 boiler is confusing to me, has that stated aim of a new No.7 changed, been given the green light by the membership? My relatively unfounded inclination is that it hasn't been. My own opinion, even if a No.8 can be made visually indistinguishable, it's likely making a step to many towards a new-build at any cost rather than a new-build/replica 4700 that is mostly faithful to it's design.

One also wonders about the economics of the purchase, it would be cheaper to strip 7027 for parts and get the boiler that way to get 4709 running that way, but that comes at the expense of at least some degree of goodwill, which I find tricky to put a value on. This appears to be the chosen course of action, but it's far from ideal, as is probably being found out. If 7027 isn't just a donor, then it becomes an additional cost that the limited manpower at Didcot may struggle to ever do anything with, likely making the option of the No.7 more appealing, making it's purchase unnecessary.

 

So does / did the 4709 trust have circa £300,000 sat around for the purchase of Thornbury or did the money come from the GWS or even a loan from one to the other ?

This kind of information is our business the moment either want money from us to further their aims.

Didcot has a whole has fallen from the lofty heights they once occupied, has the drama around 6023 been resolved yet ? Now many months did that actually ateam in its first and potentially last in my life times ticket (I’m 39).

How many people are donating in good faith a to ring fenced fund to overhaul for example 5900 or 7808 when there is zero interest or intention to do any work on them?

On the topic of 4709 if it’s ever complete will it make enough money in hire fees to cover its next overhaul or repairs? I can’t see many railways wanting it after its initial launch period.

The opportunity to hire out 6023 was lost after the cook over of its rebuild.

 

Amongst all the doom and gloom, have a picture of Thornbury Castle in her prime:

 

That supposes that the owner sold it for its market value, or close to it.

 

Indeed, and I would also add that even if the 4709 project is not completely autonomous on paper, it doesn't mean that they don't act independently anyway.

I know nothing about the GWS and any associated groups, but there are other examples of preservation groups setting themselves up without clear agreements and lines of accountability drawn up. And there has been much trouble when they've gone wrong.

Steve B

 

Were all those changes needed when several Stars were rebuilt into Castles? Going the other way, why do you need new cylinders. Just accept them slightly oversize for a Star or line them down. And how are the driving wheels different?