7027 Thornbury Castle

I can't answer for @Mr Valentine but the wider implications to me are about governance within the GWS.

Obviously - subject to any agreement he may or may not have had with the GCR - Mr Gregory is perfectly free to sell the loco to whomsoever he pleases. The question though is to whom or what organisation he has sold it. If he has sold it to the GWS, that rather calls into doubt their statements on the matter. If instead he has sold it to some other group - the question is which group, since there doesn't appear to be an independent 4709 organisation. And if 4709 is indeed independent of the GWS, there are questions of (1) why do they do their fundraising via the GWS, including use of that organisation's charitable status and (2) you start to get questions about insurance etc. of work carried out if it is done on the GWS premises. (If I own my own loco privately, I can't just take it along to a heritage site and work on it, at least not without a formal agreement in place covering things like charges for storage, consumables, insurance, safety management etc).

There is also a question about finance, given that the GWS holds a restricted fund for 4709 - was some, or all, of that used for the purchase? And if not, where did the money come from?

So the wider implications are about governance, but they are muddy in the lack of any formal confirmation about who precisely has purchased the loco, and using which money. The problem as I perceive is that the organisations that could shed light on it are not doing so, and while that is perfectly acceptable for Mr Gregory as a private vendor, for the Trustees of the GWS they have responsibilities to their charity about being transparent in the use of their resources.

Tom

 

The sale has publicly highlighted the governance failure of the GWS, which has allowed members to make major decisions on acquisitions and expenditure without recourse to the Board. It has highlighted the very poor grasp that Didcot's CEO has over charity law. Personally, I think/hope that when everything is properly examined, it will be found that nothing untoward has occurred, and that the concerns of myself and others surrounding Gift Aid etc were simply down to ignorant comments made on Facebook by the CEO. But to give you a couple of examples of these comments, from 12 August: "They are an autonomous group. We have no authority or wish to have authority over private individuals who pursue their interests", and from 15 August regarding 4709's restricted fund: "the account signatories are members of the group - not GWS". The Charity Commission's guidance has been posted before but is worth repeating; "As a trustee you must take steps to make sure that your charity’s money is safe, properly used and accounted for. Every trustee has to do this. Even if your charity has an expert to manage its finances, you are still responsible for overseeing your charity’s money." Even the GWS' own Articles of Association state "groups or branches shall be responsible for their own finances and expenses but shall be accountable therefore to the Board" [section 41].

Remember, this is an organisation that is supposed to be responsible for a very large stock collection, which is itself part of an accredited museum on a 25 acre site. This isn't just a question of property law surrounding one engine.

Edit: Jamessquared has done a much better job at explaining than I have. Unfortunately I've been told that the current GWS Chairman thinks that this is all just a social media storm, which will blow over.

CJ

 

Looking at this thread I suspect they are right, still be interested to see from the horses mouth how stripping an under restoration locomotive sits within the charitable aims and objectives of the GWS, be also interesting to hear the thoughts of the founding members, its quite the leap from saving a 14xx to scrapping a Castle.

I am sure you also remember the massive fuss there has been within the GWS membership previously in relation to things as benign as putting a smoke box number plate and BR transfer on the tender of 5051 so be interesting to see how the more conservative membership have responded to this as I suspect their engagement will not be social media based.

 

Given that 5051 has BR pattern outside steam pipes (as do all other preserved Castles), it's the only strictly correct way to display it. Will their proposed Star have steam pipes that they never carried in service? The only alternative is new cylinders unless they want to use steam pipes that were prone to cracking - they might last ten years though which is all that will be required!

 

How can the GWS Chair say this when they (GWS), 4709 Group and GCR have been contacted by a very dismayed previous owner (all to no avail as yet) who has the financial ability to at least save the loco from this mess? Whilst there is angst on social media, there is a lot more to it than that.

 

Not sure about facebook (my experience of that is that it raises nothing in terms of ££s) but somebody has stepped forward to harvest pledges in support of 7027:

Email: 7027ThornburyCastle@gmail.com

Announced through change.org

 

I was about to mention this. Those that participated in the petition should have an email about this. Seems to be in collaboration with JJP from what it says.

 

The idea of Thornbury Castle being restored is for the birds. It has gone through the hands of three astute business men with understandably no progress. It would need at least a million quid and more, even then, 20-25 years before completion. It's just not going to happen.

There is a chance however that sufficient interest, enthusiasm and ultimately funding might just give us a working 4709. It's quite probable that four Castles will see main line running now and in the next few years with in addition two possibles which is indeed an exciting prospect as is the future of 4709.

My memory of 4700's were Summer evenings and the 7.45pm goods from Morpeth Dock which passed the bottom of our garden at 8.oopm. Usually a Grange or Hall but occasionally a 47xx. I'm quite sure an inch or two off the boiler diameter will not disturb my recollections. I have given a couple of decent four figure donations but like others am waiting on developments.

 

Uh oh, another heretic to be burned at the stake for stating the bl**din obvious and upsetting dreamers and internet wailers. This thread has gone round and round and had achieved precisely zero. 7027 is still in the chop shop with little prospect of escape

 

And what basis can you justify that statement? Or is it just a figment of your imagination?

 

Is this a wind up?

 

In the past few years it was owned by Pete Waterman who spent his money on other locomotives- too many irons in the fire.
It was owned by JJP, who at the time did not have the financial resources to spend on this locomotive.
It was owned by Mike Gregory, under whose ownership a great deal of progress has been made. His decision to sell the locomotive is not, as far as anyone can tell, due to lack of progress, impossibility or scale of the work needed, or a sudden lack of personal funds.
I would not necessarily refer to all three of these men as 'astute businessmen' though.

There might well be a greater chance of inspiring that interest, enthusiasm and ultimately, and crucially, funding if the 4709 group do not alienate enthusiasts

 

Well you’re obviously getting some sort of kick out of it, or you wouldn’t keep coming back to inject your particular brand of unhelpfulness.

 

And the idea that 4709 + 40xx is somewhat easier/quicker/cheaper than 7027 is from another planet..........

 

Different opinions have been expressed here on the respective merits of restoring the existing Castle or building a 4700 and a Star using most of the Castle for parts. We're all entitled to our opinions. But who do you claim has suggested that building two is "easier/quicker/cheaper"?

 

If 7027 was sent to Cranmore, it would be in steam in time for Christmas!

 

A fake 4700 you mean.

 

Maybe but it’s certainly the ramblings of someone so desperate to see a faux 4700 that they’ll wilfully see the destruction of an under restoration Castle.

 

All new builds are fakes to some extent. A 4700 with a No.8 boiler from a Castle would be significantly less authentic than with the correct boiler, but my posting was not concerned with the merits of that proposal but with challenging what appears to have been a straw man, the supposed suggestion that building two locos is easier than restoring one.