7027 Thornbury Castle

Pete, If your going to do it, do it once and do it right, It might take a little a longer to get there but don’t bugger about with it, every time I see 82045, it looks a little more a little complete, none of this jiggery pokery about trying to to make bits and pieces to try and fit, yes it’s bloody hard work, but if a jobs worth doing…

 

Yes I get it, and the notion of authenticity is admirable, but perhaps quicker is better than never. The longer a project drags on, the more the diminishing resources will bite and it’s hard to see an improvement in the volunteer situation or finances in the next decade - after that who knows, (those closer to ground zero will have a better feel for this than my gut instinct.). Perhaps one finished outcome is better than two misses. Preservation has had its share of tragic outcomes and I feel there may be many more. I hate to make some sort of a case for this.

What about the thinking of those directly involved who look at it and think that it may be 10-15 years at the very least before completion and the chances of them seeing it done are slim?

The only way to counter this situation for those who feel strongly enough about it is to get involved.

 

Hmmmm….(plants tongue firmly in cheek)…one could argue, that building a GWR 2-8-0 with the incorrect boiler is actually pretty authentic to the GWR story….

Building a great big engine that has route availability issues is also pretty authentic!

 

I know that this is going beyond just talking about this one engine, but do the GWS have a fleet plan?

They went to a lot of effort to put on broad gauge track which currently has nothing to run on it. They have a huge collection of standard gauge engines, many of which haven't run in many years and which don't appear to have a plan for overhaul etc.

Are they just accepting that many / most of their engines won't run again within the next 50 years?

Sent from my SM-G770F using Tapatalk

 

Sorry if this isn't the most appropriate thread, but the drift of the discussion leads me to enquire of the passenger and goods stock in the GWS collection. With so much emphasis on more locos, seemingly at the expense of what's already there, I do wonder at the outlook for other stock.

 

Has the 4709 group actually made any commitment to mainline running? Would it be a 60mph or 75mph do anyone know? Even if was intended for mainline running, does DRCs withdrawal from the mainline scene now make this unlikely?

Part of what makes this so unpalatable for me is that I assume the 47xx will run at Didcot for a few years and then go to a few galas before being withdrawn and parked up in the shed.

If Didcot want a unique engine to show off, maybe steam 6106?

I have seen the arguement that this allows the project to be completed in more manageable time frame. Maybe the group should ask why they can't raise the money for a new boiler? Maybe the general public and enthusiasts just aren't that interested in another GWR 4-6-0 of no real significance.

Did the 4709 group consider asking if they could use 5051s boiler? Earl Bathurst will probably never steam again anyway....

 

I think with the way that things are going at the GWS/Didcot, I think if they were to start a fundraiser for a loco like 6106 or 5900, it would actually be more of a novelty than all these new builds! It would be so out of left field for the GWS to actually show some care and attention to their existing fleet it would shock and surprise most people!

 

Is it worth pointing out* that the project must have a significant number of supporters (or at least a few with deep pockets) otherwise it won't be funded and won't happen. Since it is apparently happening, draw your own conclusions. The same is true of several other projects that the nay-sayers here keep knocking.

I would also point out that GWS aim to 'collect' examples of as many GWR vehicles as they can, so the chance to recreate a missing class is something they are always going to give serious consideration to. I think they should be applauded for thinking creatively (no pun intended). Criticising them because they can't keep everything in operating condition is just silly. Do the NRM get the same criticisms because most of their collection cannot run?

* Probably not, but worth a go anyway.

 

It seems there is a further twist to the 7027 story this morning https://www.railadvent.co.uk/2022/0...ornbury-castle-return-to-steam-after-all.html

 

You've missed the point entirely. This is about cutting up a prestigious loco that was part way through a restoration. End of discussion on that.

People don't want everything in operating condition, that would be silly. However, people would like some consideration to the home fleet of locos rather than new build after new build after new build.

Thinking creatively, perhaps. Expedient and unpalatable, without any doubt.

 

See post https://www.national-preservation.com/threads/7027-thornbury-castle.421075/page-54#post-2758036

 

'cutting up' makes it seem like the whole thing is going for scrap. Obviously that is not the case.
I think you too are missing my point, which is that there are a significant number of supporters for the 4709 project (or at least version 1.0 of it). Personaly I am now in 2 minds about this particular project, but stand by my applauding their creative thinking (without which we would not have a Saint or Railmotor).

 

Thanks, somehow I missed that particular post.

 

A very interesting development Re JJP's offer. Perhaps if a PLC or fund, is set up for Thornbury, then the money going to buy it from the 4709 group will help them to fund a new No 7 boiler. Also, all those people who think it was such a bad idea, can now help to get 7027 back into steam by contributing to its restoration.

 

Given how many steam rollers have been converted to showmans engines. Perhaps it is only fair that it happens the other way around for once.

I suspect in the long run the 4709 group will be grateful if this doesn't go though. The bad relations something like this will generate can easily eclipse the benefits of owning a boiler the wrong size.

Tim

 

Fingers crossed, but I suspect that much depends on how intransigent Michael Gregory is feeling, and how determined he is to ensure that the GCR lose both the locomotive and the restoration work.

Given that he seems to have purposely conducted negotiations in secret (even lying to the GCR about his intentions if you believe their statement in Steam Railway) to ensure that it is disposed of permanently - quite possibly costing himself money in the process - I wouldn’t hold out much hope. Who knows, he may even have written a contract which tries to prevent 4709G from selling it on.

 

post deleted. I do not want to be involved with is in any way.

 

That is a helpful comparison. Didcot has a large collection of locos, other rolling stock and other material (coal stage, signalling exhibition, etc) but only two short running lines (or two and a half, with the broad gauge). Therefore steam locos chuffing up and down can only ever be a small part of the operation. Another part is lending locos to heritage lines, and we could do with more of that and perhaps lending of other rolling stock, though that is always subject to the practical difficulty of getting anything in and out via NR. Didcot shares with all heritage lines the problem of prioritising limited resources, and whatever they decide will leave some people dissatisfied.

All that said, I do agree that the broad gauge loco and the rail motor should be near the front of the queue for overhaul and operation.

JJP has had much criticism on here for some of his actions, but let's give the devil his due for seeking a solution that could keep everyone happy.

 

This caught my eye...

Richard explains; “Back in the early 1920s, the GWR planned to use the no.7 boiler for a number of other classes,
including the ‘Saint’ and 28XX, all of which then carried the no.1 boiler. I think we’ll see something similar happening here.”

Which classes were considered ?
How much would be involved in fitting a number 7 boiler to a 28xx ?