7027 Thornbury Castle

But this is why we do research, and we cross check and reference, and talk to experts, and have policies/procedures/etc for railway preservation/curation/engineering and the HRA.

Just because some people don't have the knowledge or understanding of a topic is not a reason to lower standards.

 

None of which necessarily invalidates what is happening with 4709, provided there's clarity about what it is - and is not.

Taste, however, is a different beastie

 

But they are the same length firebox and same length barrell, so actually they are quite similar...

 

Reading through some of the recent pages of this thread there seems to be a continued lack of understanding from a select few (whether intentional or not) about why so many are upset about this loco being used for parts. The loco was being restored a, which sets it apart from all the other new builds using donor locos. All the "it was sat at the end of the siding for xx amount of years rotting... blah blah" is rather tiresome, and it is frankly old news.

There is a distinct lack of morality from those that are, or should I say were, considered one of the main bastions of GWR/WR preservation.

 

At the end of the day if it can be lowered into the frames with only so much as a support spacer required then that is to my mind similar. and if it was rostered in a shed with other 47xx's back in the day doubt there would be difference to note other than its a good'un / not so good'un. There were a myriad of locomotive classes with a variety in boiler type, its not a big deal.

What has happened here with Thornbury is really not ideal but If the money and will to produce two perfect outcomes existed then we wouldnt be moaning about it still - but it is what it is and ' its not even a proper one' scoffery is a bit sad.

Could mention Scotsman and its A4 boiler and wonder whether that was also not proper , but that is now history that has been moved on from (and i now understand the point that that was acceptable - because there was nt a set of A4 frames that people had worked on left rusting behind a shed ?)

 

Generally a front view of a loco is very distinctive though, and I think a few inches of boiler diameter is very perceivable - I suspect rather more so than a few inches extra firebox length would be, FWIW. You could no doubt effect some subterfuge with bigger diameter crinolines and an original size smokebox if you were so minded, though that's a bit of extra complexity and I suspect may need some thought about how the smokebox saddle is arranged.

Ultimately, I don't think this has been preservation's finest hour, even though if a loco hasn't been restored in 50+ years, you have to accept that maybe it never would be. It's also a fair point that if we accept various nominally restorable vans have had their under frames taken for Victorian carriage restorations, why not a loco - it is different only in scale, not in kind. (And similar rarity - when I last looked hundreds of SR PMVs had nominally survived to this day and some had given up their under frames; it is not as if someone had taken a unique underfame from a complete surviving carriage to put under a different carriage).

My take is that the learning points should be:

1. The governance processes within the GWS appear to be opaque
2. The risk posed by locomotives in the sole control of a wealthy benefactor: a change of aims of one person can thereby render hours of volunteer labour already spent redundant. That is a double whammy for those at the GCR: not only do they see their labours wasted, but there must also be the thought that had they worked on another project, their time would have had a more beneficial effect for their "home" railway.
3. Project management by the 4709 group: as far as I can see, the continued uncertainty about the boiler for 4709 is not independent of having design impacts elsewhere on the loco, possibly leading to rework (which has a cost in money and time).

Tom

 

Except it was proper: A4 boilers were fitted to A3s in the 50s and 60s by British Railways at reduced boiler pressure. Flying Scotsman wasn't one of those fitted in service but it was considered a reasonable compromise as a spare boiler when originally preserved.

 

As far as I can see there are two, and only two, reasons for anyone to be unhappy about the use of Thornbury's boiler for 4709.

One is that active restoration of the Castle was underway (at long last, after several false starts). However the work had then stopped when the funding stopped. Any propect of the work resuming was very remote, and the expiry of the six months grace seems to confirm that it has remained very remote. Even so it is still not impossible. It is perfectly possible in principle, if very unlikely, that a correct no. 7 boiler can be built at some future date, allowing the no.8 to go back on the Castle frames (if those survive).

The other reason is that a no. 8 boiler isn't quite right for a 470x. However the difference in steaming power will be insignificant for operation on heritage railways, and the smaller diameter will (apparently) help with getting the loco in and out of Didcot over NR tracks and can be disguised by some tweaking of the smokebox, the saddle and the cladding. For all practical purposes there will be a working 470x, a lot sooner than if the Castle boiler had not become available.

However I agree that we could do with more transparency about the financing of the purchase and about what Didcot will do with the parts that they have no immediate use for.

 

You mean when it was sold by the owner who was funding it, surely? Let's not make it sound like the funding stopped due to any other reason.

 

It is a fact that the funding stopped. I said nothing about how or why.

 

Was no longer being restored.

One rather assumes the funding stopped as soon as it was decided to sell...

 

What does assume do?

 

At the end of the day the GWS who have done so much good in past have really done themselves no favours. I for oen wont support them or even visit Didcot again.... Im sure there are many other folks who feel the same. And when the begging bowl comes out again... and yes I have donated to various Didcot based projects they can go and do one.....

 

Perhaps when the GWS have their next appeal, those who take a similar stance to yourself could write to the appeal coordinator or GWS chairman stating that you would normally have donated £X to the appeal but because of the 7027 situation you will instead be donating it to project Y at another railway

 

What exactly offends you so much? One of the two reasons that I mentioned in post #3008 for being unhappy about the use of the Castle boiler? Or the lack of transparency about the funding? Or something else?

 

Personally, it's the principle of it all. A loco which had started to be restored in its own right to be used as a donor. It doesn't feel in keeping with the goals for which many of these groups (such as the GWS) were originally formed. That's it really.

 

What was it about this locomotive that caused multiple owners to start restoring it, then stop and sell it? I don't think this question has been sufficiently answered for me to draw conclusions on whether the outcome is justified or not.
Of course, any locomotive is restorable if your pockets are deep enough - there in lies the issue for this locomotive unfortunately.

 

AFAIK, Waterman did nothing with it, JJP's financial situation changed so he sold it, then the GCR chap had restoration going at a decent pace before he threw his toys out the pram.

 

Which is ironic really, when you consider the reaction to his decision in some quarters! It's one of those radical irregular verbs isn't it:

I take principled decisions
You blow with the wind
He has thrown his toys out of the pram

 

It seems to be that Waterman had too many things on, JJP managed to buy himself a shinier toy and lost interest, and god knows what went on at the GCR. Possibly the less said about that the better....