7027 Thornbury Castle

The "fund" that purchased the 9F is the DCRT (David Clarke Railway Trust) .... But it was an anonymous donor to the fund that actually paid for the 9F. The feeling was that the 9F was
(a) Available to run now
(b) Typical for the GCR
(c) Needing an overhaul in a couple of years which shouldn't be Too expensive ( - around £300,00??)
Whereas Thornbury needs around £1M spending to get it running in 2-3 years possibly, plus purchase price.
Plus the DCRT/GCR have a rather expensive "Gap" to be bridged and already has an impressive steam fleet.

 

The David Clarke Memorial Trust you mean? I'd be surprised if they stepped forward - it's one thing to purchase an operational engine that has been based at the line for a significant period, with the class having a strong association with the line, and quite another to purchase and restore 7027. There's still a lot of funding left to complete the gap, plus the desire to complete the double-track to Leicester at some point, whatever's happening with the shed (gone very quiet on if that's moving or not!). So lots of other priorities I suspect.

Thornbury's sad story continues unfortunately.

 

Re the Loughborough Engine Shed - I think it is safe to assume that it is staying where it is for the next, quite a few, years. They have spent a lot of money on a new roof, new services, an extension along the East side and new front doors.
The track to the North will have to go along the West side of the shed as a single track up to the canal bridge I expect. Certainly not ideal but a workable solution to a very complex situation.

As for Thornbury, it certainly does get murkier if only a deposit has been paid.
Here is the chassis on its stands a few weeks ago.

 

I hasten to add that this 'intention to use the General Fund' is simply what I've been told, it's potentially very difficult to prove what someone's intention is without clear written evidence.

But I think the road that led to this is partly a governance issue, and partly a cultural issue, whereby the governance is theoretically there, but not being applied (which ok, you could still argue is simply a governance issue!). In the past, I had the distinct impression that the chairman had too much independence, and could present decisions to the board as a fait accompli. Yes in theory the board democratically votes on things, in theory they are involved in formulating decisions and announcements, but...

When you have a situation like that, which is allowed to continue unchecked for many years, it shouldn't come as a surprise when certain people think they can still behave this way even when no longer in office.

And then you have the more formalised issues with the GWS' governance.

Several years ago the board were contacted by a volunteer, who asked what controls where in place for the authorisation of large-scale spending. There was no response. At one of the recent online AGM's, the same question was submitted, but it wasn't read out to the audience, let alone answered, beyond a generic 'we have seen your question and will reply in private.' Needless to say there was never any reply. It was stated at the last AGM that as a result of the 7027 debacle, new controls have now been introduced.

The drama with 7027 could have been avoided if people had just employed some critical thinking, instead of donning the usual GWS-strength rose-tinted glasses.

This is why I'm not surprised at what has happened.

 

Well, that at least is a positive outcome.

 

The frames for Thornbury are still in the shed without the driving wheels. The front bogie frame is outside, at the far end, and looks to have been painted a bit recently? There has been some shunting at Quorn so the boiler, on a low bogie wagon, may be more accessible?

 

Not seen anything, albeit as I don't read SR any more there may have been something in that as they were pretty supportive of the approach. Not seen any appeal for cash so one assumes they consider they can fund the purchase through existing resources.

One would assume that as the frames of 4709 are at Tyseley then 7027 will eventually migrate there for the boiler to be overhauled.

 

If that were true the P2 would have a worse problem.

 

The weight diagram lists minimum radii as 8 chains normal, 7 chains slow. That's the same as listed for the large wheel GWR 4-6-0s, but greater than other 2-8-0s.

 

The boiler and tender tank for Thornbury are now moved to the yard at Quorn - so transport to Didcot soon??

 

Can't see it going to Didcot as nothing to do with the 47xx is there is it , plus I imagine they will want to dodge the inevitable publicity, I believe the project is now at Tyseley so perhaps that would be the destination?

Not sure who would want the tender tank?

 

Wightwick Hall perhaps? Think she is currently running with Owsden Halls tender?

Chris

 

The Collett 4000g tender (4019) at Quainton Rd that was purchased from Barry with Wightwick Hall (arrived Woodhams with Willington Hall) already has a new tank constructed during preservation I believe?

 

A number of GWR tenders have had new tanks in preservation - and before that in service. Flush tank 4,000 gallon tenders are relatively common and very interchangeable.

 

Sad to see.

 

Bloody criminal.......

 

So whats happening with the rest of the engine, the frames wheels motion etc, did didcot buy those, or was it just the boiler,

 

The frames were still in the shed at Loughborough 2 weeks ago with the wheels in front.

Sent from my M2003J15SC using Tapatalk