7027 Thornbury Castle

There's no indication as far as I can see, the only transfer into 4709's fund is the £13k from 1014. Possibly someone has given them a loan, but I honestly don't know.

 

Has this put the GWS accounts into the red, ? if so, one would assume people will ask why, why was it so urgent to buy 7027, to provide a boiler, when an type 1 that looking at the drawings, does not look out of place, already is owned by the GWS, and formerly was earmarked for this project,

 

Page 119 & 120 of J.H.Russell "A pictorial record of Great Western Engines" shows 4700 as-built with No1 Boiler with as modified with No7 boiler, side-by-side. I have to say the No1 boiler does make the engine looking somewhat 'under-boilered' but I think this perception of mine is enhanced by the lack of o/s steam pipes. The narrative tells that to reach the saddle, the locomotive required an 'extraordinarily long' smokebox at 8'

 

Not only is 4709 financially in hoc (to central GWS funds better spent on other things?) but there is yet more debt to come as the balance is paid for 7027 whilst there is still a £ mountain to climb to get to even a basic rolling chassis. All of course as things stood at the end of the GWS financial year. Meanwhile the 4709 website has not been updated for a year - the last update announcing the acquisition of 7027. Have donors turned their backs on this scheme and the promotors gone to ground?

 

Assumptions can be the mother of all sorts of miscalculations!

 

can you please answer the question ? or don't you know the answer, its a simple question, no miscalculations, Has this put the finances of the GWS into the red . yes. or NO. If yes, What member of the committee sanctioned it, Again quite easy questions to answer,

 

According to the recently published accounts the GWS has money in the bank.

 

Not by me they're not! I'm not a member. And I'm not the one making assumptions with no evidence to support them.

 

Martin, I do not understand your question. If you look at the GWS accounts (which are available online) expenditure on 4709 is shown under item 19, Statement of Funds. The funds raised for 4709, as for a number of other "GWS" locos, are restricted funds so can only be used on that loco (although they could be supplemented by unrestricted funds were the trustees so minded). As at 31 January 2022 (the accounting date) there was a positive balance of £80,190 which should be part of the overall GWS cash balance of around £2.16million (including deposits and investments in gilts). A quick review of the GWS annual report suggests it is rather better written than many heritage railway charity reports. What is not clear is where the asset(s) comprising the loco sits. The text suggests many locos are in Great Western Preservations but I cannot see a statement anywhere that says the GWS makes grants to GWP (or anyone else) to fund expenditure on the loco, so that remains a mystery. Generally one would expect expenditure to be capitalised and the book value of the loco asset to be increased by the amount of the expenditure. However, if the locos which are the subject of the restricted funds are not owned by the GWS, then the GWS assets will reduce by the amount of such grants. As the restricted funds are effectively held in trust, their disbursement should have no impact on the solvency of the GWS.

Calculating "profitability" of a charity is difficult but prima facie there was a surplus in the unrestricted funds income v expenditure (this is referred to in (b) Charitable Activities of the Achievements and Performance section of the Directors' Report). The description under Reserves Policy is unusually thoughtful compared with the rather half-baked analysis one generally finds in railway/ locomotive charity reports, which gives some comfort as to the going concern basis of the GWS itself (albeit I think I would reconcile it back to cash rather than "funds").

 

side play on the trailing axle

 

I' m afraid that this has occurred to me too.

 

I think this is the case, I really think this has tainted the reputation of GWS as well.

As my old woodwork teacher used to say ‘to build a reputation takes some time, you can bugger it all up in 5 minutes’

 

I for one. With nearly 80 tons adhesive weight and a very good reputation it should be reliable performer with heavy trains on the present main lines.

The smaller cylinders as remade to improve gauging attest to the intent for it to range the network, a new number 7 boiler built for 250 psi would preserve the tractive effort at starting and improve the efficiency. Think of it as a King with improved adhesion - and, though a lower speed limit, reliable restarting and up the likes of Hatton and Camden banks.

I am apprehensive the Castle boiler would not achieve the ratios of the No 7: the smaller tube plates mean losing about a vertical row of tubes so the free gas area through them is impaired nor would it have the firebox volume over the grate which is simply smaller by about 10% however much the boiler was no bad one.

 

Workshop space over a pit or under under a crane is actually precious, rare and limited.

 

The chances of this ever going mainline are almost zero. Already Didcot are saying not for the moment. Do you actually realise how much certification and paperwork there is to do? This is not something that just needs a filing cabinet and a few photocopies. We are talking serious and costly analytical studies.

 

Apropos those additional hoops to jump through for main line running; quite rightly, rusty wrecks rescued from Barry and restored to original condition need evidence that all their parts are as they should be, but with that evidence to hand they seem to enjoy some sort of grandfather rights. Likewise, apparently, Tornado, built brand new to the original Peppercorn design with only a few tweaks. The P2 needed the additional Vampire simulation, even though the only change from the original that could significantly affect the vehicle dynamics is its improved pony truck. Was that only because of the (justified or not) reputation of the original P2s? Or would it be necessary for any new build with a significant change from the originals? The P2 also has a modified crank axle, which again is improved from the original design, but it does seem only right to have the evidence that the design really is significantly stronger. For the particular case of 4709, if the GWS did decide at some future time to go for main line running, what differences from the originals might need "serious and costly analytical studies"?

Edit: I hesitated whether to post this here on the Thornbury thread or on the Current and Proposed New-Builds thread.

 

Deleted

 

Any and all of them would need analysis and acceptance by an independent engineer. How much analysis and how much cost would depend on the type, and nature of the changes.

 

Go and re-read the Thompson and Gresley threads on the original P2s. Yes, their reputation was deserved, that’s what all of the primary evidence shows us. Does that mean a new P2 has to exactly replicate the issues of the originals?

No, of course not, that’s why I am a founder member, I have confidence in the P2 Trust’s approach. The two biggest issues were the pony truck and crank axle. Improving these results in what we hope will be a locomotive that retains all of the advantages of the Mikado wheel arrangement without the two biggest issues of the originals. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

 

Deleted