7027 Thornbury Castle

I think most would agree with you if the loco being used for parts hadn't been in the process of restoration.

 

That's the nub isn't it?
Taking an engine with no path to running is very different to one that appears to be on the way to running (and would likely be finished before the 47xx)

 

.... in order to fail to faithfully recreate a 47xx.....

 

My sleepy final observation this morning was simply that if Thornbury can be dismantled mid restoration then maybe no loco is as safe as we thought.

The main thrust of my comment was that someone was offering financial help to Thornbury Castle but not necessarily to other castles.

No offence was intended to the hard working folk of Tyseley, or anywhere else.

No need to panic no other gasworks engine in imminent peril.

 

So should they construct a 100% accurate replica, knowing that it would have limited use because of restricted route availability.
Or, compromise accuracy in the interests of having wider route availability. There are several examples of the latter around and I'd be happy with that sort of compromise.

Cards on the table, my only reservations about this are the use of a partly restored Castle, but the work done so far is presumably not wasted if the same work is required to turn the chassis into a Star.
I do have sympathy for those who have been doing the work only to find it is now being used for another purpose. You do however have to accept that the owner(s) can do whatever they like with their property (Such as sell it to someone else who may have a different agenda). I had several years of that compromise in the early years of Epping Ongar (i.e. before Roger bought it.) and it was very frustrating at times.

 

Indeed, it's one thing to strip down a loco that is still in Ex-Barry condition; if the loco itself is too far gone but parts can be put to use on other projects, especially if other examples of a particular class are operational, then it might not be considered a great loss in the grand scheme of things. Indeed, 4942 'Maindy Hall' was, as I understand, brought with the intention of use as a basis for a new "Saint" from the outset. As a result, the loco in it's new guise as 2999 stands out amongst the crowd, and we still have several original 'Halls' in preservation, at least three of which look likely to be in operational condition within the foreseeable future.

However, it is quite another to strip down a locomotive for spares when the loco in question has been under active restoration with the express purpose of being restored to run in its own right. For this fate to befall 7027 after those at the GCR had clearly put so much effort into the loco's restoration, dedicated to getting Thornbury fully operational after all these years, is a travesty unlike anything I've seen in railway preservation in my lifetime, and essentially means that, should the plan regarding 4709 get the go-ahead, those involved with 7027's restoration won't even get the chance to see the finished result of their work commissioned and launched into service.

Furthermore, I can't see the logic of using 7027's boiler (No. 8) for the 47xx if, as has been stated previously, if it isn't the correct/prototypical type of boiler that the class would have utilised (No.7), especially if there's no guarantee that this will do anything to speed up 4709's eventual completion. As for the announcement regarding a new-build 'Star' class, I fail to see the point of doing this when we've got an existing 'Star' in preservation, even if the sole survivor is on static display in NRM York. Hypothetically speaking, I'd much rather see 4003 restored to working order as opposed to 7027 being stripped just for the sake of outshopping a new-build & operational 'Star' which will inevitably end up like the majority of Didcot's fleet has; stuffed & mounted in or outside Didcot shed for years or even decades at a time.

If this entire fiasco isn't an example of a monumental cock-up, then I don't know what is.

 

Or a third, and more sensible option would be to use parts from locos with no hope of restoration, fund a new boiler and be done with it.

Oh, wait... Wasn't the original plan?

 

I totally accept that a private owner could choose to turn 7027 into razor blades if they wanted to. But with these objects, 'custodianship' seems to be a more sensible description than mere 'ownership', and implies that there are broader obligations to the community and to future generations; there's a reason people still lament Churchward's (bloody awful) decision to scrap broad gauge 'North Star' and 'Lord of the Isles' effectively because they were 'in the way'.

On the question of 100% accuracy, no one doubts that 6024 is still a King, and that the narrower cylinders that 4709 is scheduled to carry is entirely sensible. But if you're going to bother with a 47xx, then build the right boiler for it, instead of bodging something that will 'look about right'; the original 4709 plan of using 2861's Std No 1 boiler was at least more historically accurate than this nonsense.

Precisely this, @GWRman, precisely this.

 

Fair comment, but how is that relevant to my point about accuracy verses practicality?

 

More that I'm not quite sure where many people think the skilled volunteers and significant funding are going to appear from, in particular at the location suggested. It is tough enough to maintain everything and operate day to day services at present for many a railway or engine owning group with dwindling numbers let alone suddenly take on a project of the scale of 7027, as nice as that may be.

I'm not sure many realise just how little of 7027 actually exists so whether as a Star or a Castle the scale of the task and required funding to do so should not be underestimated.

 

I stand corrected regarding your support of Defiant. I would like 4709 to progress, but I have not yet donated cash and I acknowledge that bodging a Castle boiler to sort-of fit seems a poor idea, especially when it arouses so much aggro.

 

I'm not sure how it should be measured but I think quite a lot of 7027 existed in 2020 ....and a lot more is in storage and has been made at Lbro since then.....

 

But
Bodging a Peppercorn A1 boiler into a P2 is a great idea because...?
I can see that it's disappointing that a loco which has started towards restoration ( again) now seems to have failed(again) and be heading towards an ignominious end. But Any new/restored GWR parts will no doubt find a purpose sooner or later more likely on another Castle than the Star. Castles are superb, but is it really that important that another one is restored? I'd rather see the 47xx, I'd rather it didn't involve cannibalism but needs must.

 

If using the No.8 boiler off 7027 to create a 47xx lookalike and then using its frames and wheels to create a Star lookalike is such a good idea, it seems odd that the GWS/4709 Group haven't thought of it (and attempted to purchase 7027's remains) before. After all Pete Waterman had it up for sale for long enough and then JJP moved it on again more recently.

It's more likely that these proposals haven't been thought out in advance and have, it seems, only become 'a good idea' after they were offered 7027 at some bargain price in an act of petulance to deny the loco to the GCR. This, in turn, means the whole debacle is the result of nothing more than predatory opportunism by the GWS/47xx Group.

 

That's a false equivalence because neither projects effect any other existing locos.

 

@mdewell , I don't discount that at all. But to my untrained eye, it's pretty striking that the 4709 press release annoucing/confirming all of this didn't say

"We recognise that there are differences between a No 7 and No 8 boiler (insert differences in size) but these will not be noticable to most observers. Crucially, by doing this we will deliver 4709 to service N years sooner, saving £R hundred thousand pounds. Once 4709 in service, we will continue to fundraise for the correct No 7 boiler which we intend to complete before the first 10-year overhaul, at which point we plan to restore 7027 to her as-delivered/as-retired condition."

This isn't a million miles from the place that the 6880 group have found themselves as I understand it, borrowing the bogie (and other components?) from 5952 Cogan Hall which they will then restore and no-one seems to be hauling 6880 over the coals - presumably because Cogan Hall wasn't being actively worked on, and arguably because the 6880 team are trusted and have a well of goodwill to draw on.

The first of these isn't true for 7027, and I fear the second is not, either.

 

By studying a complete one carefully then comparing to the parts with 7027. I know as at one point I had involvement with 7027 and was surprised just how little was with it, lots of big ticket items to be funded. Not insurmountable, but is the reason for my comment above regarding the significant funding required regardless which breed of 4-6-0. £1.5-2m may get somewhere near.

 

Often in loco restoration the big stuff is impressive and the small stuff is expensive and / or time consuming.

Stuff like lubrication pipe work is basically unseen yet laborious to make and fit, to take just one example.

Tom

 

You sure? There was a considerable overlap between the 6880 group, 5199 group and the previous management of the Llangollen Railway. Look how well that turned out. Be interesting to see a detailed report into the Grange and if it's in the same state as the Patriot and various other LR Engineering projects.

 

Actually, the P2 Receiving a Peppercorn boiler does have a direct effect on an existing locomotive-60163. By fitting the new P2-alike with the same boiler as Tornado, a lot of problems have already been solved, and the new Locomotive will have a proven boiler design- heaven knows, the A1SLT will have enough unknowns to deal with already.
Furthermore, and directly affecting 60163, it is thought that with both locomotives carrying the same boiler type, a third boiler can be procured, costing altogether no more than one A1 boiler and one P2 boiler, and giving the trust a spare pool boiler which can be fitted to either locomotive at overhaul. Reduces overhaul times, and thus increases revenue potential.