7027 Thornbury Castle

There's definitely some logic in that, my only slight worry with that is do you just end up with a shed full of more, more heavily worn locomotives?

Is there an argument for "pulling the plaster off" and picking a known to be very tired loco every 2nd one and doing a full on zero-hour overhaul, knowing that next time round should be less onerous?

Are Didcot getting to the stage where there are spare boilers (and other components) kicking about that can be worked on as stock items ready to go onto a chassis for a quick-er turn around?

Chris

 

I can sort of see the logic, but the new builds aren't all that new. Yes, a lot of them are, but in Didcot's case you have some new components stuck on old frames, with equally elderly boilers. The Saint may be 10 years old when it comes out of traffic, but the boiler will be 100 years old. Likewise with the County.

 

The boiler won’t be 100 years old. Very few of the working locomotives we see today have their original boilers fitted. I think it’s not unfair to say most working locomotives have fewer “as built” parts than they have “as overhauled/in service” parts (and that’s perfectly fine but we should be realistic about what we’re looking at).

 

Whilst the boiler won't actually be 100 years old, It's origins will go back well over 55 years and whatever work the boiler has had done on it is 'only' going to prolong the 'working' life of the boiler. This will be another Great Western project that it is farcical to refer to as a 'New Build'

 

I agree with you.

New build is a term I personally reserve for projects which have all new components. Conversions are what the Saint and County are - that’s not meant to denigrate but give a meaningful description of the build.

To be fair, from my point of view either status is still an engineering achievement and I don’t think we should dismiss out of hand the use of standardised parts to recreate lost classes. My biggest objections mostly centre around the suitability of components towards a reasonable depiction. The Saint, as it has always done, strikes me as the best example of a conversion done right to recreate a class.

 

I certainly don't denigrate the engineering , workmanship enthusiasm or what one could almost call 'Love' for these conversion projects, BUT i do question the reasoning about them, as I understand it precious little, other than the restored boiler of Maindy Hall actually remains in Lady of Legend, and those parts that do survive have been altered beyond restoration to original, so why start with an existing loco and 'throw away' 90% of it?

 

The first question is whether you mean 90% by size or 90% by value, and the second question is how much of what was thrown away was actually usable. Platework, for instance, is AIUI relatively cheap and may be rusted beyond reuse on an ex Barry wreck, so nothing is lost by discarding it. Motion components, OTOH are I believe very expensive, and if much of that was reused, which I believe it was, then that would be a huge saving. The frames were reused, albeit modified, I think much of the brake gear was reused. The major new parts were cylinders and wheels. Big items to be sure, but both are components that may need to be replaced in service, and I don't believe the old ones hve been destroyed, so if any Hall needs them...

And yes, new build isn't really accurate, but its widely used and clearly well understood. Renewal would be a better word in GWR parlance, were it not for the fact that its not so well understood by rail enthusiasts and it covers a huge spectrum from complete new locomotives through amalgamations of different types down to a crash repair allocated to a different budget!

 

We’re back to the perennial problem that there are more locos preserved than there is realistic work for - or capacity to overhaul (which is somewhat related to the first point).

Organisations with large fleets have tended to manage that in the way @Jimc sets out, i.e. with locos alternating between periods in traffic and longer periods out of traffic (ideally on display, but all too frequently rusting in a siding somewhere).

The GWS has though exacerbated the problem: it had a large fleet, and has chosen to make it larger with several new builds. The issue to me is then that in the main, the prototypes chosen are by and large not well suited to its core operation (typically being expensive to operate and for future overhauls) while at the same time, not - in my eyes - telling the most significant stories about the history of the GWR. “Firefly” made a lot of sense, and I can just about see the logic of the Saint as a significant Churchward loco - but the two Counties and the 47xx I fear will be expensive white elephants (if they even get finished) whereas a Metro tank or similar would have been both historically interesting and operationally useful and cost effective.

Tom

 

The 90% that I posted should perhaps have been '90%' as it was an arbitary rather than accurate figure, just, if You like, for illustrative purposes, I have not carried out an actual audit on this project. As was posted by@Jimc platework is relatively cheap and would probably need replacing, so why 'Buy' rotten or innacurate platework in the first place? seems like a false economy to Me, new cylinders and wheels? So again why buy unusable items? frames have been 'Cut about', so why not buy new steel plate from which to make frames of the correct pattern? I suppose that things like frame styretchers and horn blocks were of the correct (standardised?) type, if so why not make patterns and have new castings? that way all GWR restorers could benefit, the Barry horn blocks would have needed re machining in any case, which would in any case have removed any 'Standardisation' that they had. With regards to what to call these projects, would not 'Conversion from Existing Locomotive' be both as understandable and more accurate than 'New Build'?

 

But what its its core operation? Or should we say core activity? If we consider the Bluebell then its core activity is to run nostalgic trains through delightful english countryside. The primary reason most go to the Bluebell is the steam trip through the scenery. But if we consider the GWS in that light then all they can offer is a few hundred yards surrounded by the modern railway and a housing estate. Clearly running steam trains is not the core activity, because arguably the only heritage operation that offers a poorer experience in that regard is the NRM.

So if its not the trains, what is it? I suggest that the key experience of the GWS is the freedom to walk through a genuine, if somewhat sanitised, running shed, and be up close and personal with the large and varied GWR locomotive (and wagon) collection. No other site can offer quite that that experience. If they had more moving locomotives that freedom to wander would have to be considerably curtailed. As it is I hate to think what the risk assessment and insurance detail looks like with unprotected pits to fall down and all the other hazards. So considering the experience in that respect the renewals make a lot more sense. Each one makes the collection of 20thC types a little more complete, and each one provides a different locomotive to walk around and photograph. And if they aren't steamed very often: consider: after this ticket is over the Saint may well not be steamed again in my lifetime at least. Time to see it now before its too late?

I suppose you could argue that there is no need to build the renewals as complete functional locomotives, you could build shells like the Windsor Dean single or the US Harry Potters. But how many steam enthusiasts visit the Windsor Dean Single? There is, I suggest, just something about the genuine article, even if its slumbering for a few decades waiting for a set of greasy-fingered Prince Charmings.

 

I think that the key point is what Didcot operationally needs. To fulfill the desire for a ride behind a steam locomotive does not need a Castle or King.
This duty would be admirably covered by a Panier tank or small Prairie.
I fully agree that a unique selling point of Didcot is the line up of large locos in/around the shed.
With that in mind it might make more sense to concentrate the overhauls for working locos on the smaller types and have the larger locos as pristine examples of the GWR express classes on display. With maybe one showpiece loco streamable and one under overhaul.

 

Is this possibly where the 47xx project falls over, despite various protestations it will not be the genuine article, at best, it will be a 47xx chassis with a Castle boiler on it, it grates especially when compared with the Saint project where Didcot (rightly) made a massive deal about accuracy down to taper buffers and revet styles.

 

Well,

Currently in the shops are 1361 (0-6-0ST), 3650 (0-6-0PT), 1466 (off site, 0-4-2T) 7202 (2-8-2T) and 1014 (4-6-0). And 7202, whilst being a very big locomotive indeed, has a relatively small boiler with grate little bigger than a large prairie. So it would seem they are already implementing that policy!

 

Whilst this is probably something for elsewhere, are any of those remotely near steaming (The Echo seems to have pretty much given up on reporting locomo0tive matters), IIRC 1361 was started but considerably more than expected was encountered and its stalled, 3650 seems to be mainly 3-4 volunteers (who seem to do sterling work), but is presently at the strip down stage, 1466 is on-going but taking an age (due to supply issues plus the overhaul seems to have been strangely nomadic), 1014 looks like its getting there but boiler actually isn't finished and will need to go back to Huyton at some point to be completed, and 7202 has been under overhaul for years, again I assume with a very small team.

Looking at it 4144 has 2 years left on its ticket, Trojan longer and then there is the Industrial which doesn't really fit with the USP of Didcot. Similarly as she is heading towards half way though her 10 years I assume that 2999 will be taken out of service shortly so she can be converted to the Atlantic?

 

That's all true, but it leads to the thorny issue of "how genuine" or even what we actually mean by "genuine".

I remember someone (many years ago, probably on TV) telling how (in the then-Yugoslavia) they had seen "genuine Dalmatian imitation Scotch whisky". During the recent WHR bean feast, I was particularly keen to get a ride behind Lyd; which is a genuine Boston Lodge imitation L&B loco.

Is Tornado is a "genuine" LNER A1? It was built many years after the LNER ceased; but then so were the original A1s, built under BR. The A1 Trust have made clear that it is not a replica but a new A1, with some changes from the originals. The P2 is likewise not a replica but a new P2, with rather more changes from the originals. Some of the P2's changes are necessary for compatibility with the modern railway, but some of them (such as the pony truck and the valves and valve gear) are improvements that would be equally relevant even if the environment had not changed.

So one way to look at 4709 could be that it is a new 47xx with some changes from the originals, notably a slightly smaller boiler, but bigger than the No. 1 originally fitted to 4700. If the No. 8 boiler design had existed a few years earlier, it might well have been chosen for the 4700s rather than have the bother of designing a slightly larger one. So I am prepared to regard 4709 as a "might have been" and considerably more genuine than the shells, but slightly less genuine than it would be with a No. 7 boiler, and clearly not at all a genuine GWR product built at Swindon.

 

Say what you like but neither Lyd nor Tornado involved the destruction of a loco under restoration.

 

Surely "destruction of a loco under restoration" is a bit misleading as the owner clearly did not want to fund the restoration any further and took an offer to buy it rather than just scrap the parts or let them return to the rusty state that he had bought two years before. Now the boiler is to be used and the chassis etc is still in existence, having had a lot of work done on it.
There was the opportunity for continuing the restoration but, for whatever reason, no viable financial package could be arranged.
As I said originally, I feel very sorry for the many people on the GCR who spent many many hours in the hope of seeing Thornbury steam again.

 

Off-topic a bit but was there any proposals by GWR to use a Castle boiler on any 2-cylindered locos? or was there just not the need of anything more?

I gather the number 7 boiler was expected to be used in other classes, notably what became the Castle, but ran into weight issues.

 

Hi Phil. How else would you describe it?

The locomotive was under restoration. It has now been split apart for spares. That’s destruction. I don’t know quite how we could describe it as anything else?

 

Hi Simon
I suppose it is semantics, but I tend to think that destruction means that it is in tiny unuseable pieces, whereas Thornbury has its various pieces repurposed. If the frames etc are being safely stored it is obviously possible for another wealthy benefactor, or well organised team, to have a new boiler made and the locomotive completed...as Thornbury Castle.
(I suspect that I am more amenable to this process as, in my other life, I have been known to put alternative car engines in old (nearly) classic cars.)