7027 Thornbury Castle

The photo I have seen is of the boiler on the frames in a yard .Photo on a subscription to view website ….Yard not Tyseley .

 

Isn't most of the 47xx at Leaky Finders (or did I imagine that), perhaps 7027 has gone there as well?

 

If it is I don’t know where they have put it

 

Just noticed this interesting comment, thread drift though it may be! If Didcot do not seem to have done anything to preclude main line use in the long term, however remote that possibility is, am I right in thinking it would be a 75mph loco whereas the more gauge restricted Hall was 60 mph ? All fairly in tune with idle speculation of course .

 

What the County's speed limit might be, at some future date when it might go main line, is also a matter of speculation, because the system for assigning speed limits could change between now and then. However its wheels are (nominally, depending on tyre wear) one inch bigger than a B1's or a Bulleid Pacific's, so if the system doesn't change it would qualify for 75 mph.
But are its cylinders not from a Hall and therefore the same outside width? If so, would their being (again nominally) a mere inch and a half higher up than a Hall's make it any less gauge restricted?

 

That would mean that the smokebox saddle is 1-1/2" higher, so the boiler centreline will be 1-1/2" higher as well. A minefield?

 

According to the project no, the boiler height is fine for NR.

 

This whole thing really does ask who runs the GWS, ? The organisation say, " We will not be going mainline, Yet other groups it would seem are intent on at least making their engines fit the necessary standards needed for mainline running, which goes against what I assume is GWS policy, yet those groups are part of the GWS, or claim to be, in some cases, receiving funds from GWS accounts,

 

It's usually regarded as best practice.

 

A lot of groups restore their loco to mainline standards even though they have no intention of going mainline.

 

As I understand things, there are two main parts to qualifying a loco to operate on the main line. One is the fitment of various electronic gubbins, which is expensive and absolutely not to be considered unless you definitely intend to go main line. The other is traceability and certification of critical components, which is arguably worth doing anyway.

 

Surely, it has to fit the loading gauge, as well?

 

Certainly if I was looking at either building a 'newbuild' loco or restoring an existing one even if I had no plans to go 'main line' making sure it fitted the current NR loading Gauge makes a lot of sense

 

Plenty of heritage line locos are restored and overhauled without reference to the (ever decreasing?) NR loading gauge. Why would you alter a loco just to fit a diminished standard which you have no need whatsoever to adhere too?

 

Even if its main home is to be Didcot, it it is ever to leave, just to visit other heritage railways, it has to traverse NR to reach the loading/unloading point. Presumably that would be a lot easier for a loco built and maintained t5o main line standards. I don't know, though I doubt, if there are any loading gauge issues on that short run.

 

I believe its called future proofing, I could well be mistaken on this but I believe when 6229 was re streamlined it was done so that should it ever go mainline again it could do so and be a bit more gauge friendly. I’m guessing it would also help when it’s been moved by rail?

 

According to the project it does:

"Mainline operation?
Although the boiler doesn't need to be lowered to run on the national network. A reduction in height of the cab (already completed) and a safety valve casing, similar to the one used on King Edward II, will be required.

Unfortunately, the group has decided not to equip 1014 County of Glamorgan with the necessary equipment for mainline running at this stage. However, with it being within the height restriction, it leaves the group an option in the future to fit the equipment."

 

True, though there doesn't seem to be a standard loading gauge any more, hence the recurring need for each loco to be specifically gauged for each route where it is to run.

 

There never really was a standard loading gauge. But what they do now, at least with weight limits, is to have a database of every relevant structure on the railway so instead of whole sections being limited a route can be planned down to Individual structures, which is much more flexible.
Gauging is complex in that there are separate gauges for locomotives, passenger stock and freight stock, because they all behave differently in detail. I don't think there's a steam locomotive gauge, my guess is they use the general locomotive gauge, but of course different locomotives behave differently. A Hall with two cylinders alongside the smokebox is going to have a different dynamic envelope to a Castle with cylinders further back for instance. AIUI gauging is a much more precise art than it was in the days when Churchward put a set of wooden cylinders on a Dean Single and sent it round the system to see what got clobbered. On the one hand it's much more precisely measured, but OTOH there's much less tolerance for accepting one in a million chances of a problem.