7027 Thornbury Castle

Having now read the piece in SR and the editorial its all a bit odd. The editorial seems to be not only strongly supporting what is proposed to Thornbury but also almost advocating stripping any other locomotives which are not under active restoration completely ignoring the fact that 7027 was under restoration however much those who want to see the back of her want to claim otherwise. I wonder what extent of their readership cocnurs with this point of view, one would imagine that much as with the GWS Echo the next edition letters page will be interesting.

Thanks for this, its useful when this stuff comes out into the open and what you say reflects exactly what I have heard from other people, it does seem that said ex Chairman is basically running his own pet projects within the umbrella of the GWS with little to no oversight from the Trustees*. It will be interesting to see how the GWS trustees respond to the SR piece, despite their protestations elsewhere (the CEO being rather unnecessarily combative with people who suggested otherwise on Facebook for instance) its explicitly states that she has been purchased by the GWS and includes all manner of cryptical comments regarding future projects.

* In writing that I tried to establish the structure of the management/trustees at the GWs as I know its complicated and I can find no mention at all on the website so I resorted to the recent Echo.

There is GWS Ltd which has a board of Directors
Then there is the Vice President and CEO, neither of whom are Directors and then departmental mangers.

There is also GW Preservations Ltd which has a board of Directors.

Like many such complex organisations, there are lots of structures with the same names keeping popping up.

 

Apropos the argument that we don't need a Star because there is one in the NRM, it seems noteworthy that no-one is saying we don't need a Brighton Atlantic because there is an extremely similar GN Atlantic in the NRM. We are all (AFAIK) delighted with the progress on Beachy Head.

 

That is a silly argument, really.
"We don't need a Saint/County because its a bit like a Hall, we don't need a Grange because it's a bit like a Manor, we don't need an A1 because it's a bit like a A2, we don't need a Clan because it's a bit like a Brit."
Of course, none of these projects (no matter what your feelings are) have ever used parts from a loco that was being restored in its own right. Owners can do what they wish, but IMO the 7027 mess goes against the principles of the movement and the goodwill of those who put their free time into such things.

The Star proposal is cuckoo and in some ways decadent. There's already a Star, but more than that, the premise that a Castle is a Star with a bigger boiler is a very simplistic way of putting it. The frames are wrong - AFAIK the Stars only ever had the "joggled" frames like the early Castles (later Castles have "dished" frames, which are wider at the front), the wheels are the wrong pattern, the cylinders are too big, a lot of the inside castings are likely different too, it's already been mentioned that you need to lop off a big chunk of the frames as well. You'd end up with something that almost looks right but really isn't. But apart from that, finding funding is going to be a tough one - convincing people to cough up for something we already have just isn't going to wash.

 

We don't "need" one. if you assume steam is a must-have, the whole preserved network could be run with a bunch of 4MTs and 3MTs.

There's no need for a 47xx either. Therefore you don't need to chop up a castle to do it.

The difference is that the Atlantic lot have destroyed nothing to build their engine.

 

But with Beachy Head there was a spare boiler. The problem is there are too many new build GWR locos being started or proposed, which are unlikely to get the funds they need, even if they try to do them on the cheap.

 

The same logic would suggest we have enough Castles because there's one in the NRM...

 

Hammer, nail and head spring to mind Paul.

 

Some remote from our collective lunacy might question why more than Rocket and Evening Star are needed .... and only grudgingly admit a case for Flying Scotsman. It all depends on one's outlook and perspective.

 

Most of us are probably familiar with the expression 'wibn' meaning something overly creative without recourse to practicalities.
I think much of what l have read on this thread is something else, maybe 'wote' meaning WO rst T hing E ver. That is something that is passionately criticised in the absence of the full facts. I am drawn into this myself, its the pile on or pile in principle where others follow without standing back. Now please do not take this as support for the dismantling of 7027. It is just a polite request to those in the know to provide more information. My instinct is to dislike, my education says find out.

 

Try telling that to the GCR people who have spent two years restoring a Castle for the GCR. From their perspective, they could have worked on something else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

The twists and turns continue.... https://www.railadvent.co.uk/2022/0...releases-update-on-7027-thornbury-castle.html

 

Reading between the lines it looks as though the ball is in the 4709 group's court. Their decision could potentially be the make or break (literally) of 7027, or the 47xx losing a large chunk of support. PR disaster indeed.

 

Nice to see Rail Advent back-pedalling furiously...

 

Does anyone have to hand information on how long and at what cost the new build projects compare ?
And how this compares with ex-Barry restoration projects.

 

Absolutely: they do indeed.

 

I would say it is the duty of the party proposing the irrevocable step to justify its actions.
I think labelling something WIBN or WOTE is a way of avoiding engagement.
The fact the star "idea" came out after the initial announcement shows that even the 4709 lot are aware of their culpability in the matter..

 

They don't "need" to build a boiler, they can let the whole thing rust if they choose
What they need to do is justify cutting up another engine, which is a historical artefact in itself.

To seek to do so by means of further destruction for an as-yet-unsupported project is truly mind-boggling. (Compare to the 3-counties agreement that clearly set out plans and reasons and is, slowly, bearing fruit).

 

And GW Preservations Ltd is wholly owned by GWS Ltd, with directors appointed by GWS Ltd.

 

Oh good show .... they can put the money towards building a new No.8 boiler.

Issues of law surrounding property aside, if an undertaking was given and accepted in good faith, said good faith goes out of the window, never to return, where one side breaks the deal .... however much the party breaking the deal casts around trying to lay the blame anywhere but squarely with themselves.

Reputations mightn't be worth a damn in politics and it's a mighty shame to see the death of the gentlemens' agreement in our field, even if that has been depressingly clear for a while now. A gentlemen's agreement involves a minimum of two gentlemen.

If one thing still needed clarification, it's that verbal agreements aren't worth the paper they're printed on.