7027 Thornbury Castle

I asked

I didn't suggest any need to find the whole cost immediately: I asked how long it would take.

 

It is hypothetical, but doesn't almost anything have its price? I suggested way up thread that the negotiations for buying 7027 from the 4709 group would be interesting.

 

It's interesting, isn't it, that the project was going to cost £1M, then after loads of work has been done the various sources at Didcot reckon it would cost £2M. Someone is plucking big numbers out of the sky.

 

I agree somone is likely plucking big numbers out of the sky, but can you identify any of those sources at Didcot (or are you just making an assumption as to where that figure came from?)
The first time I saw £2m quoted was in Trackside magazine, but they did not state a source for that figure.

 

It was also telling to read in the latest GCR Main Line magazine (192) that ..."the tender wheels have been delivered with their new tyres fitted. This is the first time these wheels have been at the GCR since the loco moved in February 2020!". Obviously a lot has happened since that was written and published.
I still find myself very ambivalent about this current situation. I quite understand why the 4709 group have bought Thornbury as it gets them a lot further forward and does go a long way towards their (near) recreation of a lost class of engine. It also increases the distant possibility of a working "Star". However it has also generated a lot of negative publicity.
I also regret that this would mean not having another working Castle available for heritage rail use.
I admire the desire to effectively reverse the decision. If the 4709 were to sell the locomotive, for more than they paid, they would be financially in a stronger position to buy their correct new boiler and regain a lot of their lost goodwill.
Perhaps there could then be a "Thornbury Owner/Supporters" group, as has been said, it has previously been owned by three different wealthy individuals who, for various reasons, have not been able to see the locomotive restored to steam.

 

General consensus seems to be that it brings a working Star no nearer to reality as the frames are completely wrong (and possibly other parts?).

 

General consensus where? On Nat Pres.....

 

General Consensus? On NP? Thats the funniest thing I've read all year!

 

The CEO of Didcot mentioned that figure in a post on their FB group, though where he got it from I've no idea. In another post he also said that MG (the recent former owner) had died, which doesn't seem to be backed up by any other sources either, so I wouldn't pay much attention to anything he says. Except that clearly he is in an influential position to decide both locos' futures.

I suspect the £2M figure is designed to scare off any potential 7027 supporters, but of course it is clearly a nonsense that an existing loco with all major components available would cost more to complete than a half-built replica with many of the major components missing. I'm afraid it just doesn't wash. Well, unless 7027 was effectively gifted to them along with a pot of cash and a destruction order.

Again, the Didcot FB group makes interesting reading. As a non-member of Didcot all I can really do is watch them tearing themselves apart, but it seems a shame that a few die-hard 47xx fans can drag a once-respected preservation group into the mire like this.

 

Actually, once the differences between the frames had been pointed out, I don't think anyone has continued to argue that 7027 makes much sense as a source of parts for a Star.

 

It's only the front end casing over the inside cylinders that's different. Stars were converted into Castles so the reverse could be done. Not that I am defending the GWS/4709 Group who are guilty of issuing too many items of misinformation in an attempt to justify their purchase.

 

I am not sure whether they are 47xx fans or just fans of getting their own way.

Interestingly the papers for the GWS AGM landed today, the 4709 restricted fund had 80,190 in it on 31/1/22.

Possibly more depressing is that whilst the Heavy Freight fund (3822/7202) is pretty healthy financially less than £1k was spent from that fund over the year rather confirming that it doesn't appear that we shall see 7202 in steam anytime soon.

SR has also landed this morning, which will, I suspect, make interesting reading.

 

Differences between frames of a Star and a Castle or between early Castles and late Castles? Stars were converted into Castles so the reverse must be possible. I've looked for changes in the frames between early and late Castles and can't find any.

 

Its been discussed elsewhere on here.

Quite a funny quote in SR from the Vice President of the GWS regarding the conversion, following a piece in the story which notes that the 'conversion' would include cutting a foot off the back of 7027's frames the quote is 'The 'Star' will feature authentic dished extension frames' (which again suggests that the extension frames will be new), going on to note 'We are also planning the conversion in such a way that it can be easily reverted.... Should a no.7 or no.8 boiler become available, it would then be relatively straight forward to steam as Thornbury Castle again'

So basically their 'plan' is to lop a lump off the back of 7027's frames, take off the extensions and add new, and this will leave 7027 in a position that the works can be easily rectified. I am no expert, but I can imagine there being quite extensive engineering costs to add a foot back onto a set of butchered frames, refit the original extension frames etc etc, and if this happens what happens to the 'Star' they have created.

Cloud cuckoo land doesn't come close.

 

In case anyone is wondering about the difference in frames:

To give the front bogie wheels clearance, the Stars and early Castles, up to 4093, had the front section of frame joggled inwards. Castles built from 4093 onwards simply had a small area above the wheel dished in. You can see the difference here between 5051 on the left, and 4079 on the right. I'm not aware of any Star ever receiving dished frames, with the exception of some of those rebuilt as Castles.

Just to clarify, the GWR 4-cylinder engines don't have extension frames, instead they have continuous plate frames all the way through. The confused terminology coming from the promotors of this scheme says it all I think!

 

Wait... are you saying that the magic boiler fairy doesn't exist?!

 

I think that quote suggests that it does and they hope its going to mysteriously secrete a no.8 boiler, as they won't need a no.7 as they will have already buggered with 7027's no.8 to create their hybrid

 

But Stars were converted into Castles, which means, I think, that the existing frames must have been extended (by welding?). Point taken about the differences in frames. Any new Star would also need new cylinders with internal steam pipes. The alternative would be a Star with late Castle/BR steam pipes!

 

We have a Star. There's one in the NRM. There is no "need" for another one, outside of the Didcot bubble of new builds.

The feasibility of a new Star that is also convertible to a Castle format is WIBN thinking at best and at worst, poor engineering knowledge of the subject matter (which given it is coming from sources that are meant to be GWR orientated, is somewhat disturbing).

This feels like smoke and mirrors. "Here's a perfectly serviceable locomotive we are breaking up for our pet project. Here's an example of recycling we may undertake to make another pet project, with no guarantees as to success".

That's what I am seeing, personally.

 

SR has quoted him as saying 'fully external steam pipes' now one hopes this is a misquote from them or the scheme is getting evermore peculiar.

FWIW the whole story is odd insofar as we have the Vice President of the GWS quoted saying all this, then later in the piece the CEO of the GWS when asked why Didcot intended building a star saying 'We do not' going on to note that whilst the VP has voiced the possibility at no time has the board of the GWS considered it formally nor informally!