7027 Thornbury Castle

Am I the only one to think that if one were to, for the sake of argument, buy a Castle on the cheap in a "fire sale", threaten it's future, then make Joe Bloggs pay through the nose to save it, one might obtain a significant funding boost for one's own project? Just thinking out loud....

 

You'd think the 'right' offer would be 'cost of purchase by 4709 group' + 'costs incurred by 4709 group whilst they've been buggering around'… if the 4709 group are seeking to equate the offer with eg a number significantly bigger than the price they paid the former owner, the whole game goes back to square one…

Simon

 

I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with 4709/GWS snapping up a bargain and selling it on at a profit, if they achieve that. Free market economics and all that.
However:

One interesting question is exactly what 4709/GWS own and are therefore selling. By which I mean, had any parts been purchased by GCR on behalf of the former owner, but not yet billed to him, and therefore not transferred to 4709/GWS as part of the sale? I have no idea (and I doubt any such information would ever be made public) but it would potentially alter both the value of what is on offer, and the viability of the project to restore it, if there is any confusion around this.

 

Isn't there a Dean goods boiler kicking about at Didcot?

Lengthen the cladding, change the smokebox slightly and voila!

A night owl with a boiler more suited to plodding up and down 1/4 mile of the demo line.

If its OK to do it with a Castle boiler I don't see the problem...........

 

No-one seems to have commented on this bit from the Rail Advent article:

That implies that some parts have not yet passed to GWS ownership. Are those only the parts that Tyseley has offered, or has the GWS not yet paid for all the parts from the GCR?

 

I read that as meaning "all the parts which remain of 7027" i.e. the boiler, frames, wheels, whatever.

And I read "continues to be committed to buying" as "someone signed a bit of paper on our behalf and now we have to pay the remaining instalments". (It isn't clear what the original deal involved, but this is at least consistent with the 4709 fundraising appeal from a month or so back which seemed to say "we're buying this, now we need donations to pay for it".)

 

Given I have the spirit of Chris86's posts right, and enlarging rather literally?:

Well seeable as ensuring no likely new build Dean Goods.
"OK to do it with a Castle boiler" as a precedent changes the problem at best or mischievously inspires more problems - plural.
Would certainly wreck the case for running the Night Owl on the main line which would get fees and publicise it for gifts to ensure its future.

 

And still the pointless speculation, unnecessary comment and "dancing on the head of a pin" trying to decide what this or that wording implies continues. That simply wastes time.
The message is it is time to organise if you want to see 7027 survive in its own right.
I cannot personally arrange this as there are already four ex GW locos which take up all my spare time and more and the few other active folks in other groups are similarly flat out. Unless new folk come forward, organise themselves and are willing to give quite some priority to 7027 nothing will happen.
I will though honour my previous pledges made quite some pages ago now.

 

Its every bit as authentic to use the Dean goods boiler in the Night Owl frames as a Castle boiler.......

 

Could they not use the boiler off the Saint replica?

 

Nah, if they are going down that route they could just use the no.1 off the 28 they have scrapped?

 

Was that so they could use the 28's regulator handle on another new build?

 

The regulator handle was intended for the Great Bear Project, but owing to the boiler having been dropped down three feet into the frames for mainline running, it was found that it could only be moved off the stop 1" before hitting the cab roof. To alleviate this, the project's engineering lead had the handle modified by bending it down, but found that the regulator could not be shut without hitting the cab floor. The project management team are currently evaluating their options.

 

Given everything you have on the go the offer to provide some guidance setting up a group was a very generous one, I take it nobody has made contact?

See you tomorrow to help get another GW 4-6-0 a little closer to steaming

 

Frames are wrong on the tender for a Hawksworth, but i suppose you could possibly do cosmetic work so they look like Hawksworth ones.

 

Be interesting to see what’s considered the ‘right offer’ Why is it I have a feeling the ‘right offer’ however much it might be might be ‘not what we consider a fair price’ regarding 7027?

 

What do you consider to be a fair price?

 

Maybe what was paid to its previous owner would be a start.
There might be a further price that GWS has to pay further down the road maybe?

 

Some pages back, Simon corrected my statement that Pete Waterman had done nothing towards 7027's restoration, asserting that PW had had a new Hawksworth tank built. I believe that may have subsequently been separated from 7027, which in all pictures since she went to Weston Super Mare, appears to be paired with a (much more pretty) Collet 4000 gallon tender.