7027 Thornbury Castle

I vaguely recall some comment from GWS management a few years ago that the ideal would be to always have 2 small locos and one larger one operational. Seem sensible to me (especially when you have 2 demo lines, but one has tight curves that limit what can run on it).

 

It's called keeping your options open.

 

Yes, but 6024 has new cylinders for additional clearance, 6023 does not. All locos that run on the main line have to meet the height restrictions.

 

My understanding is that the GWS has no interest in running main line ops in its own right, but has no objection to other organisations (such as VT, for example) operating them on its behalf.

 

Since reversed, I believe, as it is now no longer intended to run it on Network Rail.

Peter

 

Doesn't any loco being transferred to Didcot, have too be with in the NR clearances any way, as there is no other way, but to be towed over NR metals, into the depot, might this mean, removing safety valves chimneys, etc to not foul the height restrictions?

 

Not really wishing to re-enter the fray but

I think the 47xx, after an appropriate boiler was designed, was the apotheosis of Mr. Churchward’s
( and his team’s ) achievement. Repeating my previous “ arguably more so than the 29xx or 40xx “
( although the addition of a 40xx Star to the Didcot collection would add to the historical sequence,
29xx, 40xx, 47xx ) )

Regarding Mr Collett: as an ignorant ( non GWR luvvie ) outsider, it has also always seemed that
Collett never felt able to move away from the Churchward heritage: it was left to Mr Hawksworth
and later Messrs Cook and Ell to restore Swindon’s position.

Mr Martin, has written concerning restoration, in almost sacred terms. However I think GWS
Didcot is a ‘working museum’. My understanding of such: a collection of static exhibits, some
of which, at any particular time, are operable. A museum should tell as complete a story as
possible ( Tom is correct that Collett dominates : hardly surprising bearing in mind operable
steam during the last decade (1958-68 ). New exhibits will inevitably be new builds, which
may or may not include existing parts ( eg austerity boilers on early recreations )

My original thoughts wrt 7027 vs 4709 were which one could actually come to fruition first ?
After reading many thoughtful postings ( and some not so ) I am none the wiser.

If all things were equal I would support a 47xx over another 5089: things appear not to be
equal, but where the balance lies still escapes me.

Perhaps if possession represents 90% of the law then whoever ( ? ) owns 7027 has the
right to call the shots !

I suspect, in the real world, my mumblings have no more relevance than all the other posts
on this forum but……

Michael Rowe

p.s. Should the non workable Dean Single complete with sound and smoke effects
featured in the Windsor Royal Experience happening have been donated to Didcot,
a non working replica; valid or not ?

 

Well, to be fair, although the GWS collection is rather Collett biased, at least partly because a significant part came directly from BR, the GWS and related rebuilds/recreations consist of three Churchward and one Hawksworth.

There is, I suppose, an argument that if you are going to do recreations of lost types it makes sense to start with the kit of parts types before the parts rot away in headshunts, whereas anything 19thC would have to be basically all new.

Maybe I should be mischievous and suggest that when it's 3738s turn for the shops she should be rebuilt in 97xx (condensing pannier) form, which would be very much reversible.

 

Unlikely, since 3738 is privately owned (or was). Ditto for 3650. There might also be a problem finding a suitable Weir pump.

 

Just to clear up a few things. The decision to withdraw from mainline running was made at the end of 2019; the gauging modifications made to 6023 predate this by several years, and the engine's full height has since been restored. The support coach and various bits have been sold, however the last I heard was that the portable GSMR had been retained, in case the opportunity ever arose to run 'locked in' on a branch again, such as with the railmotor a few years ago. This of course is a very different scenario from absolutely laying one down on Dainton, which is what people really mean by 'main line'. The current GWS Chairman stated at a recent AGM that it was extremely unlikely that this decision would ever be revisited. The focus instead is on using the engines at DRC or hiring to preserved lines, with an emphasis on making sure DRC benefits from any arrangement. There has been no talk, to my knowledge, of loaning engines to other bodies so that someone else can play with them on the mainline.

I'm afraid there is 'keeping your options open', and then there is wishful thinking. I don't think the GWS has any plans to do either.

Needless to say, none of the above appears to apply to the 4709 group!

P.S. In the last month or so there's been an article on the Grange in either Heritage Railway or Trackside. The vibe I got was that a mainline 6880 was more a case of 'if', and not 'when'.

 

I was only commenting on the practicality of running 4709 on the main line; whether it will or not is another matter. But talk of main line running no doubt assists appeal income!

As for hiring out stock to run on other railways, it reminds me of a hiring 5572 to the WSR. Somehow they managed to run it through some catch points and bent all the brake rigging. They returned 5572 as was and no doubt recompensed the GWS. The fitters at Didcot had to make the repair; I felt that I was giving my free time (and money) to pay the salaries of the permanent staff!

This statement sums up the GWS in a nutshell: "The current GWS Chairman stated at a recent AGM that it was extremely unlikely that this decision would ever be revisited."

 

Plus one Gooch (Firefly)

 

Volunteering today at Didcot. 1,100 people through the gates. Around 50 asked me where the toilets were, 2o children asked me where Thomas was. No-one asked about Thornbury Castle. Plenty of compliments about the standard of our carriages.

 

Why would the public ask about 7027?

Did they ask about 5051? 7808? 5572?

No?

Best cut them up for a random project that the parts won't fit anyway.

 

Ok that’s a fair enough point but your not asking that particular demographic to contribute to 7027 and the plans announced for it have you?
You’ve said nobody who’s paid a visit today has asked about 7027 so if you don’t mind me asking
‘Where is 7027 and what are your plans for its future?’

 

Did they ask about the dead cat on the table?

In case you're wondering....

 

Perhaps the people who would have asked you about 7027 no longer want to go to Didcot.

 

Volunteer effort should always be applauded and it's great to hear that it's been a successful day at Didcot.

The comment about Thornbury Castle seems unnecessary. Did many ask about the new-build 'Night Owl'?

Jon

 

Not commenting on the rights and wrongs, in an ideal world a new no 7 boiler would be made for 4709, and if a new one was built and mainline running was considered then maybe a higher pressure design would enable a reduction in cylinder size.
However all this nonsense about a no. 8 being 'not even the right one' and 'doesnt even fit' , its as near as you could get and requires very little modification, if you were building a new Black 5 and could get hold of an 8F boiler is about the closest comparison i can think of.