7027

I don't know about Peterborough or Grantham but Doncaster always had an A1 sat in the sidings facing south on my many visits. The loco essentially just sat there and didn't do any station pilot work. We always referred to it as the standing pilot. Annoyingly for us spotters, it was very much in view but in such a position that you couldn't read the number, although the odds on it being a cop were small!

 

Depends what you mean by "regular". I was all over the whole system, and there were steam locos in action from Weymouth to Aberdeen in those days. Including Friday-night Perth sleepers of 620 tons from Euston - much more fun, I have to say, though the western engines did sound good!

 

Yes, known as the 'jockey' valve; afair, it involved closing the regulator, then opening it just a crack against a stop. But not having actually worked on any ex-GWR locos, I can't be absolutely certain.

 

In regard to the current state of Thornbury Castle, this loco continues to deteriorate along with a number of other items from the Waterman Heritage Trust collection currently on site at Crewe (Class 46, 12 wheel sleeping coach, BR inspection saloon etc.) with no sign of any work being done to restore these items. I am sure Crewe Heritage Trust would be happy to see the items gone from its property as they do not derive any revenue from the storage of these items and have barely enough room to accommodate visiting steam/diesel locomotives during the open season.

 

Don't worry - I very much doubt they ever will. I merely thought I'd mention it as something that I, personally, think is a nice idea. How technically feasible it is I don't know - I'm afraid I'm no expert on the detail differences between the Stars, the early Castles and the later Castles.

I hate to say it but yes, to me, it's a trivial reason. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any preserved GWR engines named after locations in my native county (Buckinghamshire) either, but I've never lost sleep over it. Sorry to be blunt, but just giving you an honest expression of my opinion!

I suppose this boils down to a personal opinion as to how big a variation between different locos has to be to be considered significant. Personally, I feel that we have several single-chimney castles and a BR built castle represented, so I don't see a single-chimney BR built castle as being such a significant variation. I fully accept that others my disagree on this, though.

Personally, I'd much rather modify a Castle, which is near-enough duplicated by 7029 and in poor condition anyway, than tamper with the unique time capsule that is Lode Star. However, I can see that others might argue that Lode Star is not unique as a representative of a loco in ex-Swindon Works condition as we also have 4073, 9400 etc. Again, I suppose one has to make a personal judgement.

Well, as I said above, all this talk of a Star conversion is probably academic anyway. And I'd certainly rather see her restored in her current form than sent for scrap or left to rust away to nothing!

 

Thornbury Castles' frames wouldn't be quite right for a Star anyway. However if a set of Star frames and cylinders could be built, kit of parts components could be swapped between various locos... If there's a desire to see a 3 row superheater single chimney Castle back in action, it probably makes as much sense to restore the boiler currently on Thornbury Castle and swap with the boiler on one of the other Castles when one is required...

 

Nice wheelsets for a Pacific...

 

[Thinks …] Hmmm - wheels, frame and boiler from 7027; nab a spare set of pony truck wheels from some Turkish 8F; add cab from 2861; nick the water cart tender from the T9 when no-one's looking; send to the Frankenfactory Didcot and hey presto! Ursa Major!

Tom

 

Don't know that much about the exact design, but axle load would be ok these days and it was as good as a Star. As long as no one renames it Bonnie Prince Charlie and puts on Star type Rotary cam gear. I think the original must have truly been one of the most imposing engines ever built. Just the idea of a rebuild could split the Swindonites forever.

 

I can't see any point in de-tuning a Castle and giving it a smaller boiler to make a look-a-like Star...just who would you please doing that!

 

This seems to be a much repeated idea, that its representative of Swindon and shouldnt be touched. But having looked at Lode star, I cannot see that its true. On one of the modellers forums its been pointed out that the external steam pipes were removed during 'restoration', and the holes not plugged, and you can indeed see this today on the machine in the Steam museum (one wonders if the steam pipes internally even match up) For that reason and many others, id put a rocket under the NRM and restore Lode Star. It cannot be said she is in original condition, or even peak Swindon condition, so restoring to running condition would lose nothing. If you want to see a machine restored by swindon and representive of their practice, there are two others at Steam. The Dean Goods (which to my mind looks near mint) and Caerphilly Castle (which is certainly worn, and has some later features, but is clearly representive of Swindon working practice, and in my view should never run again to reflect that).

By contrast, Thornbury is the last single chimney castle made postwar by Swindon. That like it or not is historically significant. Personally I would much rather have 'Swindon' or 'Great Western', but it is what it is. For that reason, Id leave it the heck alone and restore it to at least static, and preferably running condition. Yes its rusting away, and thats regrettable. Why complete the vandalism and gas axe it into something of no historical significance?

 

Nobody. I mean, I could see the point of making a new one, and perhaps put in draughting improvements to give it a better output. But its not worth losing a Castle to do it. In my opinion, it would be like altering the Mona lisa by the addition of a moustache because Da vinci didnt do enough male portraits.

 

I can't see the point of steaming Lode Star either. It is one of the very few GWR locos officially preserved and should be left where it is telling a story that also can (or will) be told by a working Castle or the Saint when finished. A Castle is only really a Mk2 Star after all, and much better in terms of performance.

 

Churchward himself may have preferred Saints anyway. There was some discussion in one of his biographies that he continued to build more Saints than was strictly necessary after the trials, because he didnt quite believe the running departments assessment that Stars were slightly better. Well he might well have been right if the story about Lady of Lyons is true...

 

Incidentally, I dont know if many are aware of this useful site, but it lists the records of 7027, including when it went in for shopping, including where it was shedded.
http://www.brdatabase.info/locoqry.php?action=locodata&type=S&id=7027&loco=7027

 

I can see where you're coming from but, from a strictly conservationist viewpoint, one can argue that the mis-matched steam pipes are, in themselves, now part of the loco's history. It shows how attitudes to railway preservation have matured over the last sixty years. If Lode Star had been withdrawn yesterday, any modifications made during her service life would have been retained and conserved, acknowledged as part of the history of the engine's working life. However, in the 1950s and '60s, the policy was that engines should be preserved in original condition, and the fact that Lode Star's steam pipes were fudged in order to meet this criteria is physical evidence of this.

I realise, however, that it may seem hypocritical to take such a stance with Lode Star whilst casually advocating major surgery to Thornbury Castle!

 

Woulden't an operation Star just answer the question we already know the answer to, that the Number 1 boiler would struggle to sustain the output you would expect of a 4 cylinder machine, to a layman it seems like rostering a Hall to the Cheltenham Flyer's crack timings.

 

I've heard that the Stars were reckoned to be a coach better than the Saints, but on the other hand a Saint must have cost a good deal less to build than a Star, and its recorded that Churchward was criticised by the board for the cost of his locomotives - and of course its also famously recorded what his response was!

 

There is only one way to test this theory and Didcot are doing half of that test...

 

my understanding is that the 2 cylinder Saints were better on the hilly roads and the Stars were best on the long flat fast runs. Both were eclipsed by the Castles, especially once certain bridge restrictions had been lifted