7027 Thornbury Castle

Point of order - we’ve been here before and yes, for consistency and sincerity’s sake, all scrapping for parts is wrong unless it’s truly a “no hoper”.

Reading about the sentinel scrapped last year was a heartbreaker.

 

Indeed. How many ex-NCB 15XX panniers were reduced to piles of spares to keep one going? Back then, one to supply two working locos I could've understood. Wouldn't have liked it, but the situation 40-50 years ago was very different.

 

Sorry Simon, but I have to disagree. As I think you know, my background is in museums/historic houses and I tend to look at things from that perspective. Any museum curator who is worth their salt will tell you that regular collections reviews and de accessioning are a fundamental part of good collections management. Deciding what not to keep is just as important as deciding what to keep, if not more so.

Just because something is old, does not neccessarily mean it is worth keeping. If we hold on to lots of things that are not really important, then they simply serve to divert time and resources from the things which truly matter.

I'll be sad to see Thornbury Castle go, but we have seven other "Castles" in preservation, and Thornbury has no special claim to fame. It's been almost sixty years since she last steamed. In "preservation" she's just been pushed from pillar to post. Does anybody actually need another "Castle"? She's too big for most heritage railways and there's plenty of "big engines" available (or potentially available) for main line work. These include, of course, the Tyseley "Castles" and 5029.

I think we are now at the point where we have to ask: does she really stand any realistic chance of restoration? And if not - how much money has been wasted over the years on moving her around between different locations? How much volunteer labour has been expended on her, that could have been more productively employed on other projects? I think it may be time to cut our losses and let her go.

By contrast, the 47XX project seems to have attracted enough support that it stands a realistic chance of success. I know some might say that it's better to restore a genuine artefact rather than build something new - and I have a lot of sympathy with that argument. But whatever one might think of it, the reality is that people have put their hands in their pockets for the 47XX, in a way that they haven't for Thornbury. As a movement, there's only so much that we can do to hold back the tide of market forces. So, if the 47XX can make use of Thornbury's boiler, why not let them have it?

Some may question the historical validity of creating a non-authentic replica - and, again, I have a lot of sympathy with that argument - but if the supporters of the project are happy with it, and they're still willing to put their hands in their pockets to make it happen, then who are we to stop them?

 

Sorry, but you seem to be making the same mistake as many others have before you - 7027 has always been privately owned so people have never had the opportunity to "put their hands in their pockets " for her!
There also seems to be some evidence that a 47xx is not a very popular choice of new build and the bank account and progress seems to back that up.

 

It’s not going to be a proper bona fida 47xx is it though?
It’s just going to be a cut and shut, looks like a 47xx that isn’t a 47xx. It’s also costing the GWS a hell of a lot in its reputation terms, something I say a lot but please convince me to donate to this project.

 

I would contest that assumption, I could use the same evidence to prove a 4700 is popular. Of course that does depend on how popular is defined, but I could equally use the same it has gotten further along than other proposals, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was completed in a decade with a newly built boiler sat on top of it.

The main problems I would foresee are this current saga involving 7027, which can tie into a general point of mismanagement; apathy or disapproval towards large new builds from significant quarters, and an over-saturation of large new builds concurrently - at least for the GWR, so that even with a plethora of major parts to draw on, progress is not as quick as it might well be. Of course, you can't just assume things would progress faster, but I suspect there would be some overlap in support that would be helpful.

Admittedly I am biased somewhat, if given the choice that only one of 4709 or 7027 could survive, I'm picking the 47. But that is a choice I should never have to make. It shouldn't have been a serious consideration to use a No.8 boiler for 4709 after a new No.7 was chosen over the existing No.1. Not wishing to speak for the financial supporters of 4709, but I doubt the idea of putting 7027's No.8 on it was what they had in mind for 4709 either.

7027 hasn't had a fair shake for restoration, and I would be pleased to see it restored in it's own right. Of course there are challenges to that, it is the 8th member of a class already well endowed in preservation, and being an express passenger locomotive means it might be less useful/applicable to some railways, which is probably balanced out by the fact that it is a large prestigious locomotive, clearly there are voices out there willing to restore it on that alone. The challenge is finding a home and wealthy donor to take it out of it's present dire situation.

But I would not suggest letting 4709 group. have their way with it unless significant quantities of time do go by with no appreciable offer. As Simon has mentioned quite strenuously up-thread, 7027 has never been floated out publicly as of recent, and it deserves a chance at that.

 

The project started in 2010. If it has such great support, why is it not even a rolling chassis 12 years later? Cylinder block taken from 2861 and then not used and more money spent having another set of cylinders cast. I'm not sure how you can use a lack of progress to show that a loco is a popular new build.
Whilst you are of course entitled to your desire to see a 47xx please don't be blinded into believing that the 4709 team have a groundswell of support or any kind of moral compass.

 

1. She was being actively restored before the owner threw a strop. So, yes, she did stand a realistic chance of restoration, and still does, if the will is there.

2. If we're going to question how much labour has been expended on her, we should also be questioning how much labour has been expended on other projects. How much time and effort has been spent on a certain newbuild that's now had to be undone- is that not a waste also? How many sets of frames has another newbuild got through- is that not a waste too? Your implication of wasted time, money and effort can be leveled at any project that hits a setback.

3. People haven't got their wallets out for Thornbury because the chance has never been given. If a fund is set up and rasises the grand total of £20 in 6 months then you have a point, shall we see first though?

 

7027 has been publicly available for sale for one month now and in that time I know of only one enquiry that has been made to the GWS Chief Exec and that was from a former owner of 7027. I await with interest whether any other serious offers come forward in the next five months.

 

Has it now? Publicly available you say? Show me the advert. So far we have a letter, sent it seems only to GWS members, and some posts on some social media.

I suspect that is because JJP is fronting the bid, more or less, that might have more backing if clarity on what is actually for sale is given.

Because no one in fairness in their right minds will buy it without the boiler.

 

How often do you ever see a formal advertisement and public prices for a locomotive for sale? AFAICS the vast majority go by word of mouth and private negotiation. The notes I have seem made it quite clear that the 'entire' (because of course its anything but entire) package including boiler is available.

 

I think we have to have a degree of respect for @MuzTrem position, coming as it does from a professional curatorial background. You can't keep everything just because it is old and the claims for an eighth Castle are not the strongest on any grounds of usefulness, technical interest or rarity.

It also seems clear to me that across the whole sector, we are desperately short of money and skills to restore the locos we do have. In that light, I can't actually see either loco having enough support to run in the future, certainly not within the next decade or so - and that regardless of who gets the boiler. Certainly I can't see both of them running.

Increasingly, many railways and loco owning groups are outsourcing overhauls to a small number of professional workshops and contractors - Flour Mill, Tyseley, Statfold, HBSS etc. Essentially they are swapping a lack of skilled volunteers for money, presumably - given teh sums involved - primarily from legacies rather than routine fundraising. You get some certainty in timescales in exchange for a lot of money, though it isn't a magic bullet, as the experience of locos being professionally overhauled at Llangollen showed. In any case, I don't see that as sustainable in the long term - it is riding a wave of legacies, but when they dry up? We could be looking at a much smaller sector; maybe railways will be primarily museums with a monthly "Sunday steam up" through the summer with their one working loco?

So is there a positive? I don't believe that 7027 and 4709 can both be restored by Didcot. But the old railway companies carried out quite significant maintenance "on shed", and the shed is at the heart of Didcot. So I wonder if the best option for 7027 is to preserve what is left, in a stripped-down state, and present it as a tableau of the kind of heavy overhaul that went on on-shed? Probably a bit heavier than normal with the boiler lifted, but you could say "this is what a corner of Swindon /. Wolverhampton / Caerphilly look like with locos under overhaul". That way you get an interesting exhibit (including the opportunity to see between the frames of a loco, not often seen by the public). It also at least hold open the option of a future in steam for the loco, however distant. At the same time, it doesn't divert too much funding and technical resource at a time when both are in short supply.

The other options I see:

• Resource gets split between groups doing 4709 and 7027, and neither gets finished
• 7027 gets dumped in a siding until it is indistinguishable from the weeds.

Tom

 

When it comes to work on 7027 or 4709 I cannot see Didcot is in the picture. They've (no doubt politely) effectively evicted all the new build projects except the Hawksworth County, with the County 4-4-0 being definitely at arms length and the 47 at Tyseley (like the 4-4-0). Its a funny thing to say of such a big site, but it would be hard to find a place for a non rolling exhibit. The historical repair shop is surely required to be accessible at all times for the heavy machinery, and the rest of the locomotive works, much of which is not open to the public, is pretty full with overhauls and the restoration of 7202.

At the moment the emphasis at Didcot is on infrastructure (although one shouldn't forget the splendid work on coach restoration). They are rebuilding the ex Heyford Station building, the shed roof needs work , and there's also the badly needed new entrance, which has received planning permission ( https://data.southoxon.gov.uk/ccm/support/Main.jsp?MODULE=ApplicationDetails&REF=P22/S0484/FUL ).

 

Surely the logistics of Didcot's lack of direct road access will always make other locations more desirable for overhauls so an emphasis on museum style presentation rather than a live workshop slowly loosing historical authenticity as rules for working workshops change might make a lot of sense.

 

Wasn't there a number 1 boiler off a scrapped 28, available, what are the dimensions between a number 1, and number 7 boiler? Would a boiler off an 28xx, fit the chassis of the 47? things like ring dimension could be done by using larger size lagging plates so it looks correct,
As regards Didcot, can they afford to put any of their larger fleet back into steam, the cost is the same, regardless of the milage, done, and i can't see that just running up and down the demonstration line, will be cost effective, for example the king, it may hardly be mechanically worn out, having done so little work, but the boiler work to get another ten-year ticket, will still be a lot of money, if its done, the only option has to be , one large engine, gets overhauled, and becomes a roving ambassador for Didcot, going out on loan, for most, if not all of its ticket, and whilst its earning money, that can at least be put towards the next project,

 

While the prototype 47 was temporarily fitted with a std 1 boiler (and an enormously long smokebox so as to reach the cylinders!) the dimensions are very different. In particular the firebox is much shorter. There'd really be little point. The Std 8 boiler, OTOH, is very close to the Std 7. Using a Castle firebox, maybe even a Castle barrel as well would make a lot of sense were it not for the PR dimension. If 7027 had gone back to rotting away in a siding, which was all too likely after the owner's change of plans, it should have been reasonably non controversial to break the locomotive up and use the boiler for the 47 and make other parts available as spares to keep the running Castles in service. As it is the political aspects make it a nightmare.

 

This very process has resulted in the NRM not having a single Churchward outside two-cylinder locomotive in their entire collection. 2818 was their oldest modern locomotive and the origin of most BR Standards! Words fail me.

 

When does a loco become a “no hoper’ ? AFAIK 7027 has had three private owners
(of apparent financial standing) and as of now there is no significant new financial
backer or group ( not to forget that there are other members of the Class in need
of funds )

If there are no offers to GWS at the end of the six months is she then a “no hoper” ?

Or is she, bearing in mind the above, not already a “no hoper” ?

I have no desire to see any loco scrapped; but if we consider the number of steam
enthusiasts is declining ( they are moving to the signal box in the sky ), a position
aggravated by the current recession and the market driven financial challenges
facing the ‘Railway Heritage’ fraternity, is it not perhaps time for some pragmatism?

Michael Rowe

 

My reading of this is that after six months they will proceed as intended in the absence of any offers. I'm beginning to feel pity for Mr Croucher. Is he losing his marbles? The one thing I would recommend is to be honest!

 

No-one has really commented on the level of outside interest in 7027, certainly before JJ-P took it on - perhaps that's because there wasn't much! It had been overlooked and mostly forgotten about, and that probably wasn't a bad thing. At any point in that period it could have been scrapped or parted-out for spares, probably without too much dissention. And although it was, as many have pointed out, it was in private hands, there was nothing to stop any individual or group from making an offer to take it on. As far as I know, no-one did, so what has changed?