7027 Thornbury Castle

To be fair the railway is doing it's best to enlarge loading gauges, and even the basic modern loading gauge, at 9'3 wide above platform height, is a bit bigger than many lines back in steam days. The key area, though, is height for container traffic, and the focus is on increasing the number of routes that can take high containers.
The problem is platforms. An astonishingly low percentage of passenger platforms meet the current standards, and here the emphasis is on reducing clearances because of accidents with passengers getting themselves or Possessions caught in sliding doors and dragged down between train and platform.

 

If you are not a member, why not join the Society, they have a splendid A4 high quality quarterly journal. Issue No.241 has a list of over 30 persons who amongst others contribute to the running of the Society they include a Chairman, Deputy Chairman, Company Secretary, Treasurer, Vice President, Chief Exec. General Manager, Locomotive Manager, C&W Manager, Operations Officer, Finance Manager, Civil Engineering Manager, a Mem. Sec. and Assistant Mem.Sec. to mention a few. I hope that may have answered your question.

 

In the context of what's been discussed on this thread, that doesn't entirely answer the question.

 

If there are all these people, then how did the 4709 group, manage to in effect short arm the society to ensure another GWR engine, one of a type that is not currently included in their collection, is going to become a parts donor, Having all those positions is worthless if someone can just ignore and step over them, If the GWS had purchased 4027 because it was a development of the castle time line, to eventually be restored, i would be supportive, but they have not, its not even clear who is buying it, and where the funds are coming from, if its from GWS funds, then i can't support the breaking up on an engine that is restorable, for someone's desire to build an engine that has to be questionable to start with, the class was hardly a success when compared to others, 8 members only were constructed compare that to the Castle and 28/38 types

 

Intriguing, so what has happened to Pendennis Castle and Drysllwyn Castle, both of which were of the same class as Thornbury Castle, last time I looked? I appreciate there are detail differences, but are they, or the differences in the year of build, significant enough to get worked up over? As an LNER enthusiast, where only single examples of many important classes survive, I think this really is a storm in a cornucopia!

 

Why some classes are wanted and others not is always a question - but numbers built aren't the only way of measuring the success of a class.

There are governance questions about the GWS and it's groups, and they've been discussed at length. 7027 has been taken on for the creation of 4709 and, personally, I would prefer that 4709 is successful than that the time and money go completely down the drain.

These preferences are relatively academic because, of the Big 4, GWR are bottom of my pecking order. No particular reason, just about my tastes.

 

We have 6 A4s. Which would would you sacrifice to recreate a Gresley A3 fitted with an A4 boiler, or a Thompson A1/1 perhaps?

That is basically what is happening. If the answer is you'd sacrifice none of the 6 surviving A4s to recreate another lost LNER class, then you're talking about preservation and conservation of what we have.

 

I know you probably weren’t wanting/expecting anyone to answer this… but for an A1/1? Eisenhower would be first choice, otherwise Bittern.

 

A meaning less question, imho. The only locos that could be recreated from A4 parts are other LNER pacifics and if that was desirable there's already a spare A4 boiler that could be used. There's also the difference that all the A4s seemed to be valued as museum pieces or working engines, which was not the case for 7027.

 

Not quite the same in that all those 6 were complete or restored upon preservation (not all to operating condition) and’ve been on display or in use/overhaul ever since; therefore I’d say cannibalising an A4 now’d be a greater sacrifice than an incomplete Castle which’s never been run or exhibited since withdrawal.

I agree it’s a crying shame this happened after the abandonment, in mysterious circumstances, of an active restoration which until the moment it stopped’d appeared to be fully funded by the loco’s latest of a number of rich ‘benefactors’.

 

Ah, but if we followed the logic of the 4709 approach, we could use the A4 boiler to recreate a P2, or an A2/2, or an A2/3, or a Raven A2. It's the not the right boiler for any of those locomotive classes, but the dimensions are similar and certain aspects could be hid by cladding or hiding the washout plugs externally.

The point I'm making is that we're either talking about railway preservation, in which case, every item isn't being made anymore and as time rolls on we've got to be more careful about conserving things, or restoring things, or everything is fair game and everything can be utilised however we like.

It's a hypothetical Miff, I am not seriously suggesting we would do that.

 

I know that - I was merely testing your hypothetical equation to destruction (of an A4)

 

Well OK then, how about a ROD? It's vanishingly unlikely any of the three survivors will ever leave Australia (especially if they read this...), but at least two are just dumped in the open air... supposing they could be persuaded to send one over, how about it? You could use the boiler for an S1, C4 or C5 (why not cut it in half and use to make two new 'original' boilers...?), the driving wheels for a Q4, and the cylinders can be used for a B6. The leading wheels have the same diameter as those on the B6/C4/C5 bogies too so we can use them. Standardised parts in the parts bin is not a purely GWR concept you know...

 

I was going to respond to post #3407 but got sidetracked and what I would have said has now been covered. I am posting this to prevent my previous draft from re-appearing whenever I come to this thread.

 

At the end of the day if someone wants to restore Thornbury castle its still potentially feasible as it would appear the 47xx group only want the boiler so the rest of it is surplus to what they need. Building a new boiler isn't ideal but as other projects have shown is doable if there is enough cash. Could even be restored with a restored chassis and a mocked up boiler for static museum display.

 

equally the 4709 group could have had a new boiler built of the correct type, or built it as the prototype loco 4700 with a 28xx boiler, one of which, i believe was set aside from the barry 10 2-8-0 for use with this project.

 

But they are ahead of any potential 7027 restoration group in the queue to make use of the boiler, possession being 9/10 etc. (Assuming that they do own it, and given that the loco has now left the GCR I'm inclined to think that is a reasonable conclusion).

 

Sorry but if 'We' were to follow the logic of the 4709 approach then 'We' would HAVE to dismantle an existing A4, it is compulsory to do so if 'New Building' Great Western locomotives, even '95%' of the existing loco isn't used, It still has to be dismantled, they're made of standardised parts so It has to be done, can't possibly be done any other way (sorry don't know how to find raving nutter emoji)

 

Am I the only person thinking that this thread has reached a state of spiraling downwards into absurdity? Time to call it a day and get on with the rest of our lives, leaving it behind, imho!

 

I agree. The decision has been made and it should just be left that way