7027 Thornbury Castle

there are reputedly a lot of parts in store for it too

 

Any pics of the damage? The pics online don't seem to show any damage although there aren't too many pics of that area.

I imagine the only problem would be the asking price. Possibly another situation were someone doesn't want to sell the loco on, but doesn't want to/have funds to do anything with it.
I would've thought standing for many years with no bogie hasn't done the frames much good - that's a lot of weight acting as a bending force causing stress at the nearest weak point, probably the leading axle cutout.


Keith

 

I imagine the boiler is empty which might mitigate that

 

There are supposed to be a lot of parts for the loco in the container at the back of Crewe next to the tender.

But I suppose with this loco it's as you say. The price is too high and that mean any loco groups can't afford to buy it, even if you started a group it would take years to raise enough just to buy it. Then you would have to raise again to overhaul to working condition. So you then have the option of a wealthy owner coming along but the most obvious one already has one and you could get one of the other members of the class back out much cheaper than restoring this one. Is it a case of too many in preservation? Same goes with Halls, 28XX etc.

 

I was thinking more of the unsupported weight of the cylinders...


Keith

 

Can't help thinking that if the frames couldn't cope with the static weight of the cylinders with the boiler and everything else empty they would simply disintegrate under the dynamic loads imposed running at speed.

 

It has been suggested that the Waterman Heritage Trust also owns Breakdown Crane ADRC96719 and this was also going to leave the Heritage Centre for Peak Rail. Anyone able to clarify?

Also been suggested that BR GUV 86568 - 93568 may have also been part of the Waterman Heritage Trust collection. Again can anyone clarify the status of this?

 

But the frames would've been designed to cope with the weight in conjunction with the driving wheels and the bogie.

Keith

 

It is rather sad to see this engine rusting away, especially when you consider it's owned by a well known steam buff. Really I find it rather odd why Waterman would still be insisting on wanting to sell it for such high a price, for he must surely see that no one will buy it as circumstances stand now, and if he has such a love for steam engines why is he just letting this one rust away...? Really if he wants it's future secure, then ideally he would consider just donated it to some form of trust or organisation that could restore it. Either that, or do what folks have been circling that engine for for a while now, and give it to a group to make a working star class with it. A Star Class would be a unique engine to have in preservation, that is one that actually runs, I'm sure there are those who'd want this right?

 

I know a few people who have mentioned it becoming a Star. It would as you say be good for the scene as you would then have a Saint, Star, Grange, County, Manor, Castle, Hall and King all in steamable condition. The ultimate gala at the WSR lol.

 

No thanks! - there is far too much "kit bashing" going on already with perfectly restorable locos. A Castle & Star are not as identical as folk think & 7027 as the only surviving 3 row superheat Castle has a bright future if PW will just sell to the right buyer.

 

The major change in conversion to a Star would be fitting a No. 1 boiler. There are plenty of those about, but are any obviously spare from other restoration projects? The other modifications would be largely cosmetic, albeit substantial. You could line the cylinders down or not bother. The existing boiler obviously shouldn't go to waste, especially if as stated it is the only surviving one with 3-row superheater and in good condition, but couldn't it become a spare for other Castles? Did Castles never change between different versions of the boiler?

 

If true, perhaps it makes for a guarantee that his prospective purchasers are financially secure. If you can't organise the dosh for a serious purchase price how can you credibly say you have the money to restore?

But the solution is quite simple: Mr Waterman needs a few major hit records to prop up the bank balance a bit. Unfortunately they're not coming like they used to.

 

ISTR from an examination of Lode Star in York that the coupled axles are equalised, which I don't think is the case on the Castles is it?

 

My understanding is the equalisation was removed from 1930 after Collett had instituted a big redesign of suspension arrangements. I suppose something might have been replaced in the 50s as "originality" was the big fad at the time, and certainly Lode Star had her elbow steam pipes removed. I haven't managed to find a good photo of the suspension on line to check.

The earliest Castles also had equalisation and lost it at the same time. Really if you were going to back rev a Castle into a Star it would be much easier with one of the 1924 built ones, but those two are far too iconic.

 

Didn't the guys scanning Swindon drawings at the NRM find a proposed set of drawings for a Castle 4-6-2T ?... theres an idea... A Folly class.

 

Someone might like to try drawing one up if they have this on their computer? http://www.didcotrailwaycentre.org.uk/sales/sketchpad.html

 

Sometimes those sorts of sketches were to demonstrate what wouldn't work. Traffic department asks for something impractical, CME gets drawing office to draw up weights diagram, says, well we'll build it if you can get engineering to approve it...

I reckon a 4 cylinder 4-6-2T with a Castle boiler would be more weight restricted than a King, so certainly a folly. I think a 2 cylinder or even 4 cylinder 4-6-2T based on a Manor would work within red weight limits, but how much of an advance it would be on the tuned up large prairies like the 3100 and 8100 is debatable.

For Lplus: Here's a quick shot at a 4 cylinder 4-6-2T with 6'8 wheels and the Manor boiler. Its a sort of super County tank I suppose. This isn't using the sketchpad by the way.

 

The 1932 proposal for a Pacific high acceleration tank engine would have used Star cylinders with a shortened No 1 boiler and 5ft 8in wheels. Unfortunately the cylinders couldn't clear the bogie with the smaller coupled wheels.

This project along with the alternative of a 6100 with a 250 psi No 4 boiler was abandoned.

 

Didn't they look at this at Tyseley to the extent of having a no.1 boiler which was actually up for sale recently, equally 2873 has lost her boiler no idea if they are one and the same.

As discussed 7027 is unique and historically important. I cannot see any progress in the short to medium term as the owner seems little interested in progress apart from publicity every 2-3 years telling us what he is going to do.

She instead sits as one of the GWR (I know it's BR (w) really) survivors that I have little hope for progress in my lifetime :-(