7027 Thornbury Castle

Build another No. 8? Why? Build a No. 7 surely!

 

I’m thoroughly confused. When I was growing up people still called them Brush Type 4s …

Tom

 

All that presupposes that hiring out a Castle to preserved lines is going to be a profitable exercise. I rather doubt that. If it were people would do it with the other Castles.

 

Just for fun, as I suggested it in an above post, this is a 47 with a Castle boiler - presumably 4 row superheat one as it has the double chimney.



There's no doubt in my mind that the smaller boiler loses something.

 

My point is this, if you're planning on using a castle boiler, because of loading gauge restrictions, in and out of Didcot, then if they were to restore both engines, having a boiler that eventually could fit either engine, would make sence. As regards hiring, well, most active castles are working on the mainline, and those operating them, seem to prefer not to have them go out on hire, I'm sure there are several lines that would welcome a castle, SVR, GWSR, TSR and further afield, NYMR, Bluebell, MHR, All of these can take the axle weight of a Castle.

 

The plan to use the Castle boiler on the 47xx was nothing to do with getting in and out of Didcot. That was one of the lies used to justify buying 7027. It would only make sense to build another No. 8 if there was a need to swap boilers to get one of the two locomotives back into service quickly. As far as I can see, there isn't.

There's just two active Castles at present and only one is used on the mainline. Use of Castles on heritage lines has not been a frequent occurrence. There's a reason for that.

 

I can't speak for any of the others, but I doubt a Castle would be especially welcome at the Bluebell - or at least, I wouldn't build a business case around "if we restore it, they would hire it long-term". Firstly it is pretty big, and our overhaul queue is actually quite stacked with big engines over the next decade (Stowe, Archie, Beachy Head all in progress and the 9F and Blackmore Vale likely to follow); what we desperately need are more small to medium locos (class 1 to class 3/4). Secondly the preference both financially and I am sure from the members is to invest in our own fleet. We have had to hire visiting locos for a number of years in the mid 2000s - mid 2010s and then again for the last couple of years; but it isn't especially desirable if you don't specifically need to do so, IMHO. Paying upwards of £50k per year in loco hire, year after year, is an expensive business when you consider what you could do with your own fleet with that money.

Ultimately, there are two big locos here that both need finishing, including construction of one new boiler and overhaul of a second. However you dance round swapping parts and fantasy schemes about restoring one to pay for the second, no-one has actually come up with a credible scheme of how you even finish one of them, let alone both.

Tom

 

And what's that got to do with anything?

 

Is there?

 

I hope that those who wish 7027 to be purchased have given some thought to its future restoration, it hasn't being that successful in the past. A fair amount of money will still be required.
Deep pockets will the order of the day: there may not be a money tree awaiting - it has already had three unsuccessful chaces.

 

No, obviously not. We are clearly all the optimistic dreamers that you think we are, and all think that merely raising a half million quid to buy the locomotive is the end of the story, and once purchased, all that will be required is a few tins of brasso and some paint.
Happy now?

 

It would be better to divert the £1m or whatever will be required to complete this project in whatever form is required, to supporting existing railways or projects. I say that as someone who's favourite type of engine growing up was a 47xx. I just worry that we can't go on infinitely extending the number of toys in the box

 

looks neat to me. I like those sketches you do but this is a little biased?
Does it loose more than a no 1? Besides which the only way a number 8 has any advantage size wise would surely be if the height of the Belpaire shoulders is less. Having a narrower forward tapered section surely makes no difference apart from not being a straight fit to the smoke box saddle and any difference there can be easily disguised with thicker cladding and perhaps fitting a larger smokebox. Can't see that a double chimney would be required...

 

If (as has been stated) the issue on height is the OHLE at Didcot, then it's the bits on top that matter most, not the Belpaire shoulders. I agree about the double chimney.

 

I intend to make a few inquiries, once I've done the bulk of my work and other pressing issues this week, to see what is currently happening.

Before that, here are some shots courtesy of the Thornbury Castle Facebook group, that everyone should see. These photographs have been freely available for some time here: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100036159102918













I don't see a locomotive here that is a no hoper, completely unloved and incapable of restored. I see a dedicated team, starting work, and making great strides which includes producing a genuine rolling chassis.

I think there's a few people in this thread who need to see these photographs and maybe give themselves a shake.

This isn't ex-Barry with no work done it, this isn't a locomotive completely devoid of parts that render it unserviceable and unusable. You could argue quite cogently that if you want to see a Castle running or want to be involved in the restoration of a Castle class, this is the ideal candidate which happens to be on the ideal steam railway for it (provided the temporary speed restrictions are removed with the required maintenance done on the infrastructure in due course), as it won't be trundling around 25mph, it'll be able to do a decent whack of speed and provide something different for the GCR, were it to stay and be restored in its own right.

The pride that can be found in the work shown on the Facebook page is clear, as can the crushing disappointment from the volunteers and staff who worked on the locomotive.

That latter aspect means something to me. It should mean a lot to the rest of you as well. Ownership may be important, but so is doing the right thing and as it stands there are so many issues with this sale on an ethical and curatorial level that I feel strongly there will be issues for some years.

The wounds can be healed if the right outcome - selling the locomotive whole and allowing it to be worked on again - is met. Anything less is a loss for everyone, quite frankly.

 

Useful post Simon - I thought it was just a festering carcass.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

A sign that the biased HR Media is working as planned. I haven't seen any images of the work carried out at Loughborough used in any of the magazine articles I've read, in fact GCR is barely mentioned.
Clearly a sign that there are those out there who want the story people read to gloss over the poor decisions and management of this whole affair so far.

 

If (as now appears to be the case) the sale to the 4709 group has not yet been completed, then the previous owner is still the owner. And if (as is reported to be the case) he wishes the boiler to be used for 4709, any potential restoration group will have that obstacle to overcome as well as having to raise the money. As long as he has the 4709 group as a willing buyer, what could induce him to sell to anyone else? If (as has been suggested) he wishes to stick two fingers up to the GC, even if he does allow a new group to take possession, that may be on condition that the restoration happens elsewhere.

N.B. I'm not saying I want that to happen, only that it looks a possibility.

The best outcome would be for both the restoration of 7027 at the GC and the building of 4709 to be completed, but I don't see the prospects as very good.

 

Might I say well done for getting underway with your enquiries. Though it is somewhat shameful that you have had to undertake homework on the part of so many others who could quite easily have undertaken the task of checking the narrative that they were being fed.

The bigger question is why this narrative is being pushed and who is benefitting from it?

Agendas, narratives and desperate media companies should always be viewed with an extremely jaundiced eye. Believe fewer words and check out "facts" for yourselves.

 

The preservation business is well capable of "restoring" a locomotive from a cabside number plate. So in that sense there is no such thing as a "no hoper" and its about as useful a phrase as that other perennial, "stuffed and mounted", which is so often applied to a locomotive that is neither. What makes any project viable or not is simply its ability to attract sufficient quantities of money and sufficient hours of (preferably skilled) volunteer labour. Unfortunately the Castle project seems to have lost the first. I imagine the GWS management (if not the 4709 group) would be happy to pass the hot potato on to the GCR, but I can't help thinking that the GCR probably has better things to do with that sort of money.

Actually I just drew it because I had vaguely wondered what Castle boilers would have looked like on the 47s as I wondered if it was considered when the decision was made to build a new set of 10 std 7 boilers in 1955-7. And so I drew an HD boiler with the double chimney since the increased efficiency ought to make up for the reduced size. The sketch is a what if for 1955, and I suppose I should have put it in the "never were" thread. The double chimney and (implied) 4 row superheat was supposed to separate it from anything the 4709 group might or might not get up to. TBH I have had trouble understanding the thinking behind some of the 4709 groups stated plans for a couple of years now.