7027 Thornbury Castle

They could be the original GWR pattern steam pipe but they had a tendency to crack. The later style was never carried by a Star.

This whole Star story is just a means to try to somehow justify the purchase. Nothing more.

 

Perhaps the GWS will swap the identities between 4079 and 7027, since 4079 would make the (almost) perfect Star. After all there is a precedence; 4082 became 7013 and vice versa on a permanent basis. Maybe I shouldn't give them ideas!

 

I flicked through in the John Lewis reading room, and to paraphrase, it appeared that the GWS Vice President was saying “we’re going to build a Star” and the GWS Chairman was saying “No we’re not, the board has never even formally discussed the idea and our priority is to get existing locos overhauled”.

Can’t help wondering whether Christmas card lists are being hastily re-compiled within the upper echelons of the society …

I only flicked through the main article on 7027, but the selection of photos was quite interesting: they all showed a rusty hulk, minus bogie etc. whereas a quick dive on this thread would show a loco looking much tidier with frames and wheels painted etc. A picture is worth a thousand words, but in that light, SR appears to have very much chosen to portray the loco as “no hoper for which breaking might be the best option” while a different selection of photos could have implied the complete reverse.

Tom

 

I thought so. If the people who are responsible for a Great Western new build are as clueless as that about Great Western locos, are they competent to build anything?

 

Granted one Star exists in the NHM. All the same, personally I would be delighted to see another one in working order, but it has become clear that starting with the bottom half of Thornbury Castle would make little sense. And going through that process and then converting it back into a Castle would clearly be totally insane.

 

Put it this way: a consensus on Nat Pres is a rarity to be considered or examined with a bit of care.

 

In one of the latest editorials of SR, it’s new editor suggested we might have to cut back on certain luxuries so we can support certain other things we enjoy.
I’m rather glad to say I’ve followed his advice and decided that I’ve not renewing my subscription…

 

One might also say ‘We have six complete Castles capable of running in the foreseeable future (plus one immaculate museum piece). There is no “need” for another one, even though a collection of part-restored parts exists.’

In principle I’m not in favour of the current proposal to, effectively, split up Thornbury’s remains for parts. On the other hand this loco has been owned by three rich individuals, all of whom started with good intentions but bailed out when reality bit them; and no society or group has ever made a serious offer to take it on. And there’s no shortage of Castles, with a more secure future, in preservation. Is Thornbury one too many?

 

Are 18 Black 5’s too many?

 

I hope not but, like Thornbury, some have never attracted enough support for their restoration to be completed so it’s open to question.

 

Ask Ian Riley that Question, he might like a few more,

 

It would help to keep the other Castles that are running running if there were a spare Castle boiler.

Also having a three row row superheater - the intermediate stage when the superheat was increased from the original two rows to four - the boiler now with Thornbury Castle is
unique. As an illustration of the development saga from the original two row superheater with a single chimney to the final form of a four row superheater with a double chimney, if a Castle boiler has to be altered irretrievably should not another solution be preferred?

 

You can’t have too many Black 5s

 

Looking at 4073 last week, I wouldn't describe it as immaculate. The paint/varnish is looking very tired and there's bare metal in places where there should be paint. But the NRM won't want to touch it as it was last painted at Swindon.

 

Yet they removed the Swindon installed asbestos.

 

Probably only because they had to!

 

Think I am heading that way also, straw breaking long standing camels back and all that, its been pretty woeful for a couple of years but its a long-standing habit I have been struggling to break.

The latest edition continues to push the 4709 group line and the Editor has a very peculiar passive aggressive writing style. The funny thing is one would expect them to put letters both for and against the proposal in the letter page for balance, the fact that its a mix of negative and basically neutral would suggest that they haven't been inundated with supporting letters, which makes the stance of the magazine even stranger

Oh and it seems to continue to run out of content bar printing press releases.

 

Where is this spare Castle boiler coming from, aren't they butchering it to create some manner of hybrid no.7?

 

It's interesting until it's worn out, even if this special boiler were still fitted to Thornbury, then what? Is anyone eventually going to make space in a museum to keep the worn out remains of 'The only Castle boiler with a 3 row superheater'? There are some good reasons to keep Thornbury together, but the fact the boiler has some detail differences doesn't seem like one of them when the plan either way is to use it until it has to be replaced eventually anyway.

 

How many people would ever see the inside of the boiler, and how many of them would think the number of superheater rows significant? The information about the superheater can be preserved anyway, whether or not the hardware survives. (And sooner or later the hardware might need to be replaced anyway.)

I am adequately persuaded by the last few weeks' discussion here that using the bits of 7027 towards building 4709 and a Star is a bad idea, so I do hope that a deal can be done to buy it back off the 4709 team and put the money towards a new 250 psi No.7 boiler.

However I also think that 7027's prospects for full restoration are very poor even if the 4709 people do decide not to use her after all, considering the amount of work that would still be needed and the competition with many other locos needing overhaul, particularly the other surviving Castles. Is it heresy to suggest it be kept more or less as it is now, as a source of spare parts for other Castles? At least one of those other Castles was originally taken from Barry as a source of spare parts but subsequently restored to working order, so having a new source of spares could be handy. In the long run, none of the work of overhauling existing parts or making new ones would be wasted.