7027 Thornbury Castle

imho, it doesn't tell us much more than the fact that such details were not crucial nor tightly specified and were yet the craftsman to apply his usual practice. Unless you are claiming that such details never ever differ between examples other other class members (and it is commonly stated, for example that no two Black 5s are the same, so I would imagine there are such differences between LMS built and contractor built examples) then it is difficult to see much justification for preserving a loco solely for the riveting on its running plate edge. Curation surely comes down in the end to significance.

 

This is a common argument, but ignores the reality that such "Unsuitable" engines draw more people to the operating railway - which is why the Spa Valley, KESR, Bluebell, Swanage etc all want to run such engines.
Which then begs the question would "Thornbury" have been a bigger attraction than a "nearly" 4709 will be?

 

If , as is expected, Thornbury goes to Tyseley and its boiler goes to the 47xx. Could Tyseley buy and finish the frames, put one of their Castle boilers on
- and call it "Thornbury Castle"?
(Equally this could be done by the GWS if they own the frames).

 

You are missing my point, it wasn’t a preserved loco, it was a pile of scrap and very unlikely to have been restored. There are finite financial resources available to put into preservation, another 8F would not have attracted the money needed to get it back in steam, from what I’ve read the boiler was shot anyway and many new parts would needed to have been manufactured. 48773 needs a lot of work but at least it’s complete. If parts from Barry wrecks can be used for new build projects that clearly do inspire people to put their hands in their pockets I can see nothing wrong with that. There was a lot of controversy about Maindy Hall but look at what’s been achieved with it, if we didn’t have the Saint I very much doubt there would be another Hall in service. Didcot already have two that need to return to steam.

 

Possibly - no doubt depends whether they feel that would be a more advantageous route to keeping. Castle in traffic than overhauling an existing one!

As a wicked aside, it wouldn't totally surprise me if one day West Coast were to wheel out a freshly-overhauled Bulleid pacific named "249 Squadron". What you would not see though would be "249 Squadron" and "Tangmere" side by side!

Tom

 

I’m a supporter of using locomotives that are of interest, rather than just for the job. I also acknowledge that what have been restored have a lot to do with interest of fundraisers and volunteers.

But I do still question whether those large locomotives really do attract visitors in normal circumstances, rather than for one off events.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

That would depend on how urgently Tyseley needed a castle back in use, In theory yes if they had a need to, they could finish the frames , and then put them in store, so when an Castle came to the end of its ticket, they only need to overhaul a boiler, which could be anything from a few stays and retube, and then drop it into a ready chassis, and of course, theres the publicity of being able to announce Thornbury's return, and of course, then at each overhaul, there could be an overhauled chassis, and of course, if 4709 group were to not be able to complete the night owl, then there is always the chance of picking up the boiler

 

Sorry Tom - pedant alert

The unrestored Bulleid at Carnforth is 34073 '249 Squadron' whilst 34072 '257 Squadron' is currently at the Spa Valley Railway where I'm sure they would love a visit from sister 'Tangmere' ;-)

Useless information snippet - excluding 34051 Winston Churchill, the only Bulleid light pacific boiler that hasn't been worked on for restoration so far is from 34058 recently sold to SLL.
The boiler from 34010 Sidmouth hasn't steamed in preservation but is due to do so with 34053 as I understand. Isn't it fantastic to have so many Bulleid's saved from the scrap man

 

That would depend on the loco, I think. As I suggested in another context, it's all about significance. On the NYMR a few years ago, when 60007 was used regularly in the summer months, there was evidence of visitors turning up specifically to see it and ride behind it and I think the same was also true of 60532. If 60103 or 60163 was to visit for the summer rather than just for a special event I think they would have the same effect. In contrast, if they were replaced by a Castle or Princess or Merchant Navy I doubt if the same effect would be likely to occur.

 

Two things spring to mind, the creation of one, nearly two with others on the way of a fullsize mainline steam loco from scratch, may have made it possible for any unrestored steam locomotive to be no longer considered ' a no hoper' but at the same time such locos are also downgraded from 'irreplaceable'.
My lottery dream would be to give a little to every restoration going... but 92245 whose future is to personify a rusting hulk would have to be ' destroyed' for my own pet project, never been worked on, stripped of its boiler and plenty of other parts besides but you can bet someone would 'object'.

 

Indeed and any extra everyday passenger income (vanishingly small after the initial interest dies down) needs to be considered against the increased costs of running overly large locos. That cost is not just in increased coal, oil & steaming fees but needs to include increased PW wear & tear.

 

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but 92245 doesn't have a boiler.
And yes, people would (quite rightly IMHO) complain if you were destroying a loco with history to create a fantasy loco.

 

Didnt actually read the post...

 

You just don't photograph them side by side.

 

I acknowledge certain individual locomotives have that prestige. But it is no more than a handful which have real reach out to the general public - and in the context of forming an economically based locomotive strategy (as opposed to historically based), my hunch is that the celebrity factor is effectively nil when measured over a "10 year" boiler certificate.

 

Here we go again. In a perfect world we'd have heritage railways running smaller locos by and large but we don't live in that perfect world and until all these railways can discover a hidden cache of Class 3 locos etc., they'll have to run what's available be it large or small.

 

Tyseley have got a perfectly good, 100% complete, non-operational Castle sitting around. Why would they want an incomplete loco just in case?

 

I would therefore expect that Railways hiring in locomotives would not consider such large engines....but the evidence from SLL and elsewhere is that larger engines do in fact attract sufficient extra income that they are worth the slight extra expense.

 

The cost of buying the incomplete frames and motion will be a LOT less than the cost of having to manufacture new parts when, eventually, they are needed.....

 

There's also the fact that boiler repairs tend to take longer than mechanical ones so it would actually be the boiler that would normally be the more useful spare unless something catastrophic occurred to the wheels, crank axle or cylinders of the donor - and then it would be just a case of keeping it for spare parts and then why would you bother overhauling/restoring parts that are unlikely to be wanted until they are needed?