7027 Thornbury Castle

The truth is that 7027 was under restoration, and steady progress was being made.
That is not what the 4709 mob are telling the press and public.
When you say something that is not true, knowing it to be untrue, that is not 'misdirection'

 

I have to agree with you Paul, 60163 and 2007 were very lucky to have someone like Mark Allat (have I spelt that right?) who knew a little about marketing. Have to say things like the Roadshows were a great idea. It meant that those who were interested could directly ask questions to those at the top.
The quote from David Elliot about him and Mark having to sell a pencil to everyone in the UK in the railway press is also rather memorable.

I’ve yet to see anything from those in charge of the likes of the GWS/4709 group as memorable along the lines of ‘An A1 for the price of a pint’ or the various clubs involved with the P2.
All I see is a Bob Geldof style ‘just give us yer money’
With nothing in return.

I don’t think those in charge of 4709 have grasped that this isn’t the 1980’s you can’t just appeal for funds or have a second hand bookstall and rely on peoples goodwill for a few quid any more.
Personally I have a lot of time for people like @Gav106 and Barbara with 82045 who come on here and do their best to keep us informed with what’s going on.
Kudos to Gav as well for fronting up on here especially when we all know things with 5551 haven’t gone as smoothly as they should have done. (Sorry to bring it up Gav but your honesty is something to be admired)

Apologies if this is sounding like a bit of a rant but nobody at the top of the 4709 group or GWS seems to be fronting up, saying ‘Yes I’m the person in charge, speak to me etc’
These are bloody hard times at the moment, I say this a lot but trust and goodwill you can’t put a price on, I really hope that those in Oxfordshire realise this before it’s too late.

 

You can argue that three successive ownerships failed to restore the locomotive, which isn't a lie. But if that was to meant to make a point about the locomotive being un-restorable, then that line falls flat on it's face, given the progress on it at the GCR. Or that other locomotives have been restored from worse. The last failure comes from ownership's emotions, rather than lack of capability.

 

Not being able to raise funds quick enough does not in my view justify destroying a loco that was already under restoration. If their fund raising is going that slowly then maybe the appetite for a 4700 doesn’t exist that much beyond the group.
Also given the paucity of funds, is it any more likely that the loco will be finished even with an incorrect boiler?

 

I really don't see owning a spare boiler as being all that important in preservation.

Firstly, there are enough locos to go round, so one spending 10, 20 or 30 years out of traffic between restorations is not uncommon, and not really a problem either. It's not like the 1950s when these were assets which needed to be sweated and downtime minimised in the interests of profit.

Secondly, there are a few (but not many) groups which have, or have had, a spare boiler.
In the case of Flying Scotsman, the present owners decided it wasn't worth the bother and got rid of one of them.
In the case of the Urie S15 group, despite having three boilers, their second loco has yet to steam.
In the case of 92212, despite having 92245's boiler available, the loco is still mid-overhaul out of traffic.

Meanwhile other groups have had new fireboxes, new outer wrappers, new tubeplates and new barrel sections made as and when required. As all of these 'spare' boilers will need eventually. So essentially, taking a spare boiler off an extant loco might save some money in the short term, but only in the short term. In the long term, the same repairs will still be needed, but it potentially condemns the donor to never steam again.

And, there are other loco classes, without spare boilers, where nevertheless every class member has been steamed in preservation, such as all 9 of the surviving GWR 'Manor' 4-6-0s. It's all perfectly possible.

 

Nothing is being Scrapped... which would raise money.
Nothing is being 'Destroyed' (destruction costs).

60 pages later it would appear that no amount of decrying using the boiler from Thornbury is going to change anything unless someone offers a decent price for Thornbury and its boiler and a plan to fund its continued restoration.
It seems to me that taking the 47xx crew to task for moral or ethical 'crimes against preservation' when 47xx is not a 'preservation' project is pointless.
Has a fundraising/opposition group got off the ground yet?
Anyone opposed to the 47xx plan should not contemplate looking to buy Thornbury without its boiler as that almost guarantees its boiler will be used in the 47xx.

It has been said a number of times that 47xx cannot go mainline. That might be the case, but interested to know the reasons why not

 

OK, perhaps I shouldn't have referred to restoration attempts "failing". I didn't mean to imply that restoration had been tried and been found impossible. The facts, however, are that three individuals in turn bought the loco, apparently with the intention of getting it restored; in Pete Waterman's case presumably in the fullness of time after the other locos. Each in turn then abandoned the project for one reason or another.
And please don't imply that I am one of those "peddling this lie that 7027 is somehow a locomotive that is beyond restoration". Some may be saying that, but I have not said it and I don't tell lies. Restoration at the GC could have succeeded if funding had continued. Restoration remains possible even now, though only if the 4709 people can be persuaded to sell and a lot of cash can be found from somewhere.

 

There is no point in having a spare boiler if you are going to do nothing with it, the overhaul of 92212 has been protracted because they didn’t use the time in traffic to get the other boiler ready to drop into the frames. If Tyseley bought 7027s boiler and had it ready for when one of their two Castles came out of traffic there could be a much quicker turn round, it’s why the A1 Trust are having three boilers.
There seems to be very little forward planning, particularly with locos based on heritage lines. If 7027 is overhauled the cost is going to be well into six figures just to be dumped at the back of Didcot shed after ten years, along with Pendennis by then.
I am a member of another loco owning group whose engine is coming to the end of a long overhaul but they are already creating a fund for the next one, steaming fees alone don’t come near the cost of a full ten year job.

 

GWS policy for a start! But its not that it could not, but that its unlikely to be very practical.

The NR limit for 60mph on the mainline is 5'8 wheels. The 47 certainly has nominal 5'8 wheels, but what does NR have to say about wheels that started off at 5'8 and are now turned to less? Then the 47s were limited to 60mph in service and didn't ride well above that. There has to be at least a strong suspicion that they would be limited to 50mph on the modern railway. How many paths are there for 50mph limited steam, even if there are no gauging limitations?

There's a pretty reasonable case for a rebuilt 47 to expand the collection at Didcot as a hugely impressive piece of kit and the last Churchward design, especially as Didcot does not have too many Churchward classes. It could go and wave the flag round the country to earn a modicum of cash back for the GWS. What I can't see is a good case for running one on mainline steam tours. There are already an adequate number of Castles and Kings which can do the job far more effectively.

 

Its funny you mention the Patriot, I may be wrong but wasn't one of the instigators of the 47xx project (and one of the most vocal supporters on line relating to the 7027 elements) also heavily involved with the Patriot as well, may well still be?

 

I have been somewhat surprised that amongst all the posts deriding Steam Railway Magazine I have not seen mention of this quote in the latest issue from Clive Hetherington: 'We would consider letting him buy it if the funds were in evidence'

Sounds to me like there is a partially open door.... Just needs a group and some £ to open it further perhaps?

 

I really wouldn’t know if this was true.

 

Im presuming you are talking about the ex chairman of 5551, David Bradshaw. He is no longer involved with the patriot apart from being a life member and having a vote at an AGM. I have seen a few of his posts about Thornbury on social media and i can recall multiple times in past board meetings where he used to say it would be a good idea to use Thornbury to make a saint. That being said i dont believe he was involved with 4709 and i do remember that he was not (at the time) on good terms with the 4709 group

 

According to the latest missive online from JJP (as part of a discussion he was having directly with the GWS CEO) attempts have been made to formally contact the 47xx group to open discussions, but to date no response has been received. Seems rather strange that the GWS have somewhat pivoted to having no involvement with an autonomous group to now offering its assets for sale?

Rather brings to mind the saying that a journalists job is when told by someone that it is raining is not to parrot repeat it but look out the window to confirm whether its true or not!

 

Thanks, that's the one, I recall he originated the whole three counties project which the 47xx formed a peripheral element of?

 

Isn’t the issue less about planning, and more about capacity? Some groups (MNLPS is certainly one) have the funding and people to work to some very good plans. Most groups strike me as having to muddle through a bit more, so needing a little more give and take about how they can do restorations.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Certainly less than ideal, but then so are 8f's and Pannier tanks

iirc Gauging issues are being mitigated by various design tweaks including cylinder width and are actually helped by using a Castle boiler...
iirc 5ft 8 Wheels allow a line speed of 60mph (and wasnt a Std 4 ( 5ft 3) given a derogation to run at 60mph?)( - though i suspect the footplate will be a bit lively at that speed)

So by that measure a black 5 is pretty useless for the mainline as would be a V4 ...