7027 Thornbury Castle

Sorry to keep banging the drum for this but this isn't a locomotive that was a no-hoper, it was a locomotive under active restoration, and no, it has never been "publicly" available for sale at any point prior to the frankly small amount of exposure that social media has pushed the GWS into doing something.

Nobody disagrees with the principle that we are currently in a crisis for the industry, with diminishing returns and a lack of volunteers, money and more.

That's not in dispute. I support that view, I see it everyday.

What is in dispute, remains in dispute, and will continue to be in dispute is the very nature of this entire sorry affair.

It's insulting to those volunteers on the GCR that were working on the locomotive that it is being labelled as nothing more than a Barry wreck, effectively.

Describing it as that is in itself is problematic, given the absolute no-hopers we have seen restored over the years (including, I note, the no-hoper of all no-hopers which is currently incumbent at Didcot in express passenger blue!)

If people want to try and justify the breaking up of a complete locomotive for pet projects, they can.

But they should be prepared to also acknowledge that what they are suggesting isn't railway preservation, and should receive criticism from the rest of the heritage railway movement for their actions.

There is a significant difference between "not being able to save everything" as a curator (a view I respect understand and support) and what has happened here. Curators take difficult decisions but when they do decide to dispose of items, there is a process for offering those items out. The NRM has been criticised for doing that, and yet as far as I can see, they did the following:

• Publicly, including advertisements
• In a good time for groups or individuals to present the necessary funds or meet requirements

We have had nothing of that here at any point.

As for the idea that any individual or group can just go make an offer on an unrestored locomotive - how many times realistically has that happened in this country, in this industry, and that locomotive has been sold on to better fortunes? Or, conversely, has it been held onto even more tightly? (I cite the Binbrook Crab as the ultimate example of this).

The moment that the situation regarding 7027 and any potential sale is fully clarified (what is included? What price?) then it will be made public and then people can vote with their feet. Either get behind a group or individual, but until there's sufficient clarity on the terms of the sale, everyone should do the following:

Calmly await events.

 

The only person in preservation with the necessary cash has already got a Castle. Even Pete Waterman saw that it was a huge job and sold it.

Bob.

 

I haven't advocated breaking 7027 for spares, what I'm trying to point out is that it wouldn't be the end of the world if it happened - surely that's better than it gradually returned to ferrous oxide? Back in the day, all the Castles at Barry were purchased, one of them for spares. We have reached a position where all but one have been restored and the remaining one (possibly not the originally earmarked one) looks unlikely to be restored to running order. What is so wrong, therefore, with using it for spares, as intended from the outset? It's all very well to say that it was under restoration but its latest owner had clearly lost interest in it, and how far would it have progressed without his funding. Just look at how fast 34039 is progressing, as a big engine owned by a group - and bear in mind that it is being overhauled from a largely complete state. As Treasurer of the Clan Line Group you must have an apprciation of how difficult it is to keep a popular, active, big engine going, let alone rebuilt from scratch

If you feel that strongly about saving it, then don't just criticise, start a fund to take it on and try to carry some others along with you. I've done that as a teenager (I started the fund that bought 80135 for the NYMR, albeit not without a struggle) and I was Chairman of the LNERCA and co-owner of the Fairbourne Railway, so I have put (too much of!) my money where my mouth is, but I have also learned along the way that sometimes there are limits to what can be done.

 

I'm not sure no hoper is something that can be defined. We can see from aircraft restoration that they pull a tangle out of scrap metal out of the ground, straighten a couple of data plates and maybe reuse a couple of other components and call the new aircraft a restoration. Given the will, the money and the time anything can be reconstructed. The question is whether the will and the money are likely to be there, and that has only a limited association with the actual condition. The other issue that needs to be considered is that simply storing something as big as a steam engine is expensive. The previous owner decided he wasn't going to continue financing the restoration. As soon as that decision is made the storage charge is money wasted. If you hang about two years waiting for a buyer then its a hell of a lot of money. That seems to be what killed the Binbrook Crab. Unsurprising that if there's a half reasonable offer on the table its going to be grabbed.

And I'm afraid talking about clarifying what's available, public advertisements etc is just so much hot air. I certainly knew the thing was potentially up for sale. It was obvious simply from forum chat. I've certainly no ear in the inner circle of the heritage game. And if I wanted any clarification all that's needed - and the only sensible thing to do - is to contact the vendor and ask. If an organisation can't be bothered to do that then they're certainly not a credible potential purchaser.

My own opinion: technically speaking using a Castle boiler - or at least firebox - as a basis for a boiler for a 47 isn't a bad idea, and if there is a big enough saving could be viable. PR wise using 7027 now while it appears to have an alternate future is a b*****y disaster, and gives a great opportunity for the GWS knockers to enthusiastically indulge in their favourite sport. Politically, well, the 4709 people appear to have, deliberately or otherwise, managed to stick the GWS management between a rock and a hard place in which they have no good course of action. Conspiracy or cockup? Who knows, but its not the first time I have thought 4709 group planning distinctly peculiar.

 

GWS knockers?

I’ve always been very supportive of the GWS, with respect. Never found cause to complain until now with this engine.

With respect to the comment on “go start your own fund” - I’m waiting to see on what’s said before I make any decisions of my own; but I’m hardly going to be one of those who is in the armchair supporter category, I would hope…!

 

But if everyone else does the same how will they know when the right moment has arrived. Someone has to break cover....... but there's a big difference between being in the peleton and being out in front!

 

Which at the last update was awaiting a, response from the gws (who now appear to be selling a locomotive that a month ago they had no knowledge or interest in). A cynic woukd note, it's, a handy way to run down a self imposed deadline by not responding to people isn't it....

 

I would humbly suggest that the person in front has already broken cover, and perhaps some are waiting in the wings for the sensible thing: which is clarity.

All very well and good suggesting people march in with their size nines but that is more likely to put people off selling, not encourage negotiation.

And for what it's worth, I am sure there are plenty of people waiting for the sensible reporting back of information before a decision is made on supporting such a cause.

 

You might be putting words in my mouth, clearly it is not 'great' support in comparison to new build juggernauts a la A1slt, but my point of contention was you saying it is not a popular choice of a new build. And yet it is further along than other new builds started at a similar time, there is some significant progress, like said new cylinders.

A lack of progress compared to some feels a bit more like mismanagement, rather than a lack of popularity. Lack of clear vision hampers that. Not knowing what boiler to go with, only casting new cylinders recently after not utilising those from 2861. Along with generally just being a smaller project nestled in among many others GWR and GWS related. Issues previously mentioned.

I'm more working on the point that 4709 seems to have some turnover in income, Combine that with with the money presumably spent on acquiring 7027, and an income of £97,000 in the year ending 31st Jan 2022, previous years being £72k, £73k, £69k, £44k, £44k, £61k, £53k, £49k, £46k and down the £8k income in 2012, when the project really started to gather pace. Hence my belief that it would not be impossible to complete a new boiler for 4709 within 20 years of the projects start. The funding seems to have been roughly equivalent to projects like the B17, with similar progress.

Maybe I am privileged in being young and feel entitled to patience, as opposed to others of advanced age, hence part of my opposition to the prospect of completing the locomotive by around 2025 with the boiler from 7027. Previous comments referencing that the project is fully funded to completion (presumably while utilising 7027) do not create the impression that a 47xx is an unpopular choice. Perhaps I am splitting hairs about your comment that there is evidence it is not popular, but the evidence I see does not agree with your conclusion, and I wouldn't be ringing you up otherwise.


Thus I can say the same for you, don't deny that 4709 clearly has some popularity and support. It may not be the publicly popular move to support 4709 especially as of recent events, but don't deceive yourself into thinking it is insignificant and unpopular project as a whole. If it truly was, it would not have gotten this far in the first place.

 

I’m past caring. If those at Didcot want to play at doing kit bashing at 1:1 scale then that’s up to them, Please don’t come knocking at my door though when you want the funds to be taken seriously in the future.

 

I was only explaining the general principles of collections management, not necessarily endorsing the specific decisions the NRM has made in recent years. However, in the case of 2818, she has at least gone to another accredited museum where she will be properly cared for. There are still two Churchward locos (3717 and 4003) in the collection, both of which represent significant milestones of locomotive development in their own ways. It is a shame to lose any one of them but sonetimes you have to make some room to allow more modern exhibits (e.g. thr HST or Eurostar power cars) to be collected. Bear in mind there is also another 2-8-0 of similar vintage (63601) in the collection.

Sent from my SM-A125F using Tapatalk

 

The opportunity is ALWAYS there for people to put their hands in their pockets if they want to. At any point when the restoration of the loco was visibly stalling, anybody could have approached the owner and said, "would you like me to organise a support group to raise funds and recruit volunteer labour for your engine?" I'm sure any private owner would have been ready to listen to any credible offer. But it's never (to my knowledge) happend, which suggests to me that people just don't feel that strongly about seeing yet another "Castle" in steam.

But if I'm wrong, and there is enough support out there - now is most definitely the moment to put up or shut up.

Sent from my SM-A125F using Tapatalk

 

Agreed, but the NRM now have a Star, a Castle and a King but not one single example of what was arguably Churchward's most important development, an outside two cylinder tender locomotive. No Saint, no Hall, no Grange, no Manor, no 28/3800 or anything similar. Who made/makes these decisions?

 

The British Transport Commission? Isn't there a 28XX in the National Collection?

 

There was until 2017!

 

Presumably you are being consistent in your views and condemn outright the two "frankendiesel" projects - Baby Deltic and LMS 10,000- as well?

 

Whatever our opinions about the various classes, that is a seriously unbalanced set.
Edit: corrected a typo.

 

Agreed, and I don't know why they chose to deaccession as 28xx, surely one of the most pivotal designs in UK locomotive development -- what was every other UK and Ireland railway company turning out in 1903? The first 8F wouldn't arrive for another 32 years!

 

I think all three of the recent standard gauge de-acquisitions have been odd, in as much as even had you wanted to remove three steam locos, all three (the 28xx, NSR 0-6-2T and LSWR T3) all probably had better claims to stay in the national collection on the grounds of the stories they could tell than some others.

Tom