7027 Thornbury Castle

Don't rise to it. He's here for the wind up and has made several very hateful remarks. Don't feed the troll.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

 

Not feeding any trolls. I just though a Senior finance auditor would be able to add a few small numbers together and not end up with 'hundreds'

 

You'd like to think so. Unfortunately I had to block him as he was getting rather unsavoury towards me. It seems those in favour of saving 7027 have got him very animated indeed.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

 

out of over 750 built….

 

I would be quite interested to know what Michael Gregory is doing with his 9F on the GCR. Presumably not sold for scrap. Probably honouring an agreement to let them continue to have it and honouring a legally binding contract.

The complete opposite of the behaviour of JJP in respect of the SDRT and Washford. JJP being the previous owner of Thornbury Castle.

 

I’m not sanguine about it, but nor do I regard it as a particular tragedy. This is a locomotive that has languished uncared for for most of the last 60 years, and is a member of one of the better represented classes in preservation. It’s demise would be sad, but not earth shattering.

If others can raise the money to purchase and restore it, then good luck to them. Unfortunately, I sense more outrage than anything else, and am inclined to call WIBN.

For me, the issue is in the manner of the sale. 7027 has been a rich man’s toy since at least being sold to Pete Waterman, and has been unlucky that those rich men have been unwilling or unable to see it through to completion for whatever reasons. The latest of these appears to have had ignoble motives for this latest sale.

That has been matched by a buyer which seems neither to have support or particular authority for the purchase. Worse, in the manner of the purchase, the buyer seems to be risking an institution’s credibility for the sake of one project, where damage to the institution would have far more impact than failure of the project. I suggest that it is the risk to Didcot that ought to be uppermost in minds, not that to 7027.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I raised the point about his history, because it sits ill with his appearance as a saviour. I didn’t mean to open a wider discussion on his (de)merits, and suggest that there’s plenty on the relevant threads. Caveat emptor and all that…


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I think you possibly could. You can by contract attach conditions of sale with financial or reversionary clauses. Something like:

‘the parties agree that:

1. Prior to the purchaser selling any interest in the locomotive it shall offer the locomotive for sale to the vendor for the original sale price; and

2. the purchaser shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the locomotive is restored to working condition and operating on a heritage railway within six years from the date of this agreement. Should the locomotive not be so restored it shall on that date pay the vendor an additional £1.50 and ownership of the locomotive shall revert to the vendor’

You could in theory even agree to make the remedies injunctive - I can go to court to stop you - but would more likely be financial. The big BUT is I think it unlikely many purchasers would want to buy a loco under such terms, though that’s a different matter.

 

Such a clause might also raise issues over price - the asset is no longer unencumbered - and the standing of the vendor to enforce that condition.

For someone selling a locomotive to successfully require a reversionary clause when the sale is due to their inability to achieve/afford a timely restoration would suggest almost superhuman negotiating skills.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Hi Patrick,

My view is that such a contract would be so difficult to draft to deal with all eventualities that it would either be void due to uncertainty, or not a sale contract transferring ownership at all.

Cheers,
Julian

 

I must confess to being somewhat confused / bemused that there are some National Preservation 'enthusiasts' who don't really care much about historical artifacts and aren't really advocates of GWR new builds either??

What is clear to me is that items of historical importance should have listed status - just as other artefacts such as buildings have. If I became the private owner of a half-timbered building, I couldn't just bulldoze and call it another pile of old wood and plaster. Not without consequences anyway.

In my humble opinion, we should celebrate that thanks to Dai Woodhams, our railway heritage is so much richer than it might have otherwise been and the fact that this collection of locomotives has a heavy GWR/SR flavour is not the reason to then argue for only one of each type and discard the rest.

Who's up for disposing of the contents of museums and art galleries on the basis that we've already got 'one of those' somewhere else?

 

If it isnt listed or protected by a statutory body you can do whatever you want.

Its a private sale of inanimate bits of metal and not life or death. Its one of eight examples that survive.

If you all want it that badly go and buy it off the bodysnatcher gang. Put your money where your mouth is as bleating on the internet is precisely what the previous owner would have probably wanted.

Look forward to being stunned by the sound of cheque books coming out...

 

Me.

Not because I'm careless of heritage, but because "listing" sometimes loses focus on relative importance and value of the items in question. There is a presumption that, once an item is given to a museum or gallery, it should be protected for ever, inviolate. That's a reasonable assumption, but there are ever more (just read "Piloti") examples of something being the only example of xyz architect's intermediate stage, without consideration of how important that really is. Just as someone's mentioned that 7027 was the only example of a single chimney Castle with 3 row superheater. Galleries and museums do reject exhibits because they're duplicates, and are right to do so.

Museums and galleries have curators; the word conveys a meaning of selection as well as looking after. The issue with 7027 is not the possible loss of a Castle, sad though that would be, but the absence of curatorial judgment in the operation of the GWS and it's associated organisations.

 

I've just disagreed with some of what @misspentyouth62 has said, but I will agree with him on one major point - this is not just about what is legal.

 

thanks Julian and @35B , I agree with all you say. I can however think of two non-commercial transfers that do supposedly have conditions. The SVR Rolling Stock Trust (as was) bought 7819 for a nominal fee and the SVRA Wolverhampton branch hold a ‘golden share’, whatever that may be. The Army Museum transferred to SVRH locomotive 600 Gordon, but with a restriction (I recall) to prevent it being sold on. So things are possible but I agree that in commercial sales hugely unlikely

 

The Railway Museum and deaccessioning come galloping into my consciousness. 50033? Was Austerity’Welsh Guardsman’ deaccessioned in Wales too? I think we've already got 'one of those' is a factor in those decisions? I stand to be corrected

 

Can’t comment on 50033 but “Welsh Guardsman” like other locomotives from the NCB, were passed into the care of the National Museum of Wales in the early 1980’s. There were several locomotives in the collection including 7754, Sir John and several Austerities. At the time they were placed initially on loan to various Welsh railways. Around 10 years later it was decided to dispose of the locos to the said railways for nominal sums. Lack of a central “Welsh railway museum” may have been a factor, as was the ongoing liability of owning a locomotive. I believe the disposals had more to do with these factors than duplication as such.

edit, as I recall the locos were still actually owned by the NCB until disposal but were managed via the National Museum of Wales

 

And I’ve taken this off thread, apologies. Back to 7027 and The Night Owl…

 

As a small correction on that point, there is a good spread of preserved SR locos, but not primarily down to Barry Scrapyard. Of the 213 locos preserved that came from Barry, only 38 (or about 18%) were of SR origin and they represent a rather limited range of types: a Maunsell Q; 4 Maunsell U class; 5 Urie / Maunsell S15s and 28 Bulleid Pacifics. Of the other 50-odd locos of Southern provenance, they all found their way into preservation by other routes.

The 28 Bulleid Pacifics do rather make the point about relative importance of preserved locomotive types - given 10 Merchant Navies in that list, would people mourn that Ellerman Lines has been sectioned, or that -realistically - it’s hard to see some amongst that number ever being restored?

Tom