Current and Proposed New-Builds

Here's another alternative:
4709 group sells 7027 to JJP or a GCR group or whoever with a small profit towards their loco
4709 group fundraises to build a new boiler for their loco
See which one steams first....

 

I think it's you that is missing the point. 7027 was bought for its boiler and possibly a future Star. Until work starts on that Star (unlikely till 4709 is finished, if ever) nothing has been lost, the boiler has just been borrowed and some of the other bits are perhaps in slightly better shape so worthy of careful storage. Why is that any worse than the state it has been in for the last 30 years? The time to moan is when the gas axe starts to be in use on 7027's frames. The minute Mr. Gregory lost interest in funding 7027's restoration at the GCR was almost certainly the death knell for 7027's prospects of running again at the GCR - or anywhere else. And if you think a volunteer group could have taken it on, look at how long it has taken a volunteer group at the GCR to overhaul 34039, an engine which was already complete.

BTW - My name is not Bob!

 

With my apologies for getting your name wrong. I think I was writing at cross purposes earlier.

I don't buy the adage that a volunteer group couldn't have restored 7027. That is clearly not the case - we have a good hundred examples of volunteer groups up and down this country restoring steam locomotives, diesel and electric locomotives/trains and infrastructure/equipment that also works on a daily basis to support our industry.

7027 was never offered for sale on the open market before and I suspect there are enough GWR fans out there who'd support a Castle restoration as part of a group. Getting a new group together is difficult but not impossible, and it's been done many, many times before. It's what our industry has been founded on since the Talyllyn and Ffestiniog Railway revivals.

 

This really is beginning to feel like a continuous stream of desperate attempts to justify the actions of the 4709 group, and 7207's previous owner, for poor decision making and a lack of transparency with the wider heritage industry.

You're basically advocating using a Castle boiler...to achieve what? The same status quo we are at now, except some undefined moment in the future, assuming that the Night Owl gets built.

The thing that makes this worse is the splitting up of a mostly complete and previously under active restoration, locomotive, for parts to put into a locomotive for which, as far as I can see:

• Doesn't have complete future funding
• Doesn't have all of its required parts ready to fit
• Is not a "47xx" on the basis it is being fitted with a boiler type none of the originals ever had

I remain sceptical that all of this was justifiable in the first place. It is a great shame to lose a locomotive in preservation - having just read the sorry tale of an industrial locomotive on one of the other threads - I cannot help but feel that this whole sorry saga could, and should, have been avoided by less behind closed doors discussions with only a few people and more of an opening up, honestly, to the rest of the industry. You never know - 7027 might have been found a better home and a better set of new owners had anyone been aware it was in danger of being sold for spare parts. The first thing anyone knew about this was when it had already been sold, it seems.

 

I think it's probably partly the influence of the 4709/7027 saga, as you say, and partly that said saga has made more people aware of just how little the County got out of the 8F in the end, and that which it did take still meant it would always be hamstrung compared to a 'real' County. At the end of which, one might well ask what the point was.

It seems like a recurring theme of Didcot-origin new-build naivety: "A was developed from B. Therefore we can use a late-variant A to reproduce a B, or parts from a B to build an A." And as with many things in engineering, undeniable design lineage often turns out not to mean significantly interchangeable large assemblies. And the GWR were better at this than most, but as some posters have pointed out many times, things evolved and a late-era 'Standard' set of components might have significant differences to those on a Star or Saint or 47XX, to say nothing of things like main frame plate differences between assorted 2-cyl 4-6-0s of different wheel diameter.

 

No. I didn't say anything about it's being likely.

 

I'm not advocating anything in particular. I have already acknowledged, more than once, that using parts of 7027 to build a 4700 and a Star is a poor idea. I was only asking whether using the Castle boiler temporarily would be worse than the present situation.

 

Has anyone claimed that? Even with volunteer labour you still need a fair amount of cash, and there is room for doubt whether that would ever have been found, but that is not to say that restoration was impossible.
But that's all academic unless and until the 4709 people either have a total change of heart or at least agree to re-sell both halves eventually.

 

It would not have been worse, that is for sure, though one actually wonders how the 4709 mob could have come across as worse in all this. However, if they were now to claim that they intended to merely borrow the boiler off 7027 for a few years.... I doubt anyone would believe them.

Or as I heard recently "If you haven't the time to do it properly, what makes you think you'll have time to do it twice?"

 

You dare do that to a Hunslet. It is rarer than a Castle

Sent from my SM-A105FN using Tapatalk

 

A short update from the Holden F5 Trust on progress at Tyseley: https://www.holdenf5.co.uk/engineering-news-september-2022/

 

That's good to read - I do like the look of these passenger tanks and this will look wonderful when finished.

 

Just reading the latest Steam Railway mag and see the P2 team are keen to say its a Gresley. But surely this is about as Looky Likey as it gets ! Boiler over a foot ''too short'' welded not riveted, firebox steel not copper. Working pressure ''too high''. Cylinders fabricated not cast and ''too small''. Roller bearings not plain and many other deviations. Not a Gresley P2. Compare this with my recent favourite, the new Hawksworth County.. Boiler overall dimensions about right. Traditionally riveted, with a copper firebox. Working pressure ''too low'' but Hawksworth .
Chassis is Hawksworth including correctly sized cast cylinders. Plain bearings as original. Some people are amusingly still willing to defend their double standards!
For my part l welcome both projects and cannot for the life of me understand the obvious prejudice against the County.
Its as if you visited Didcot and entering the Transfer Shed instead of marvelling at the broad gauge Iron Duke you scoff at the
'' bastardised, lookey likey, mongrel, half baked mishmash of inappropriate parts cobbled together'' that is the ''Austerity frankenloco''. How sad is that !

 

The A1 Trust is building the seventh P2 which should be completed some 90 years after the sixth member of the class. If you imagine that the LNER would build a P2 identical to any of the originals after a hiatus of even 10 years you have little idea of the pace of locomotive development.

The aim is building the next P2, not a slavish copy of a design which was never fully developed. This is a new build not a copy build.

 

They also started off with a clear aim and strategy, all new components, and didn't involve dismantling other locos to achieve their aim.

I really can't get behind any of these GWR rebuilds. None of the other new build projects have involved dismantling and scrapping of other locos for components, but that seems to be fair game if they're GWR locos. Certainly none of the others have involved purchase and dismantling of a part restored loco!

1014 is little more than an overweight Hall using a hacked about 8F firebox. I don't see the point in the Grange - park it next to a Manor with a big tender and play spot the difference. Pretty much all the other new builds are either small for preserved line use (G5, F5, 82045), or big enough for mainline (60163, 2007). The GWR ones seem to be in-between - too big for pottering around at Didcot or too small/useless for mainline use.

 

The GWR one which impresses me is the County 4-4-0, it's using correct, un messed about with parts, and a lot of new material, and they seem to be making good progress.

 

5944 makes some good points but I don't think he is correct to dismiss the smaller new builds as ..."small for preserved line use (G5, F5, 82045)". There are quite a few preserved lines for which those types of locomotive will be ideal. Even the larger lines can use them for shorter "Stopping trains" or "on the branch line" as on the GCR.

 

I don't think he is saying too small. Could be re-punctuated, but the sense I think he is conveying is is they are either "small - for preserved line use; or big - for mainline use." (@5944 can correct me if I have misunderstood the sense he intends).

Tom

 

Correct! Yes, I probably could've worded it better. You can add 72010 and 61673 as big mainline locos, even though they're not class 7/8. At least they'll be 75mph so useful for patching, even if loads need to be reduced. 4709 is too slow for mainline use and pretty much too big for most preserved lines - and absolutely massive for Didcot!

 

Ah the joy of misreading internet wording! ...I think we are all agreed now!