Parts of 7027 Thornbury Castle to be used for new build 47XX.

[Flying Phil]

Sad news is that 7027 Thornbury Castle is being sold - and its boiler is to be used on a "new build" class 47XX no 4709. This project is under the GWS umbrella at Didcot.
Needless to say a lot of people at the GCR have spent a lot of time and effort on the locomotive over the past two years and this decision is not going down well....

 

[Cowley]

Sad news is that 7027 Thornbury Castle is being sold - and its boiler is to be used on a "new build" class 47XX no 4709. This project is under the GWS umbrella at Didcot.
Needless to say a lot of people at the GCR have spent a lot of time and effort on the locomotive over the past two years and this decision is not going down well....

That’s a very surprising decision and strikes me as the opposite of preservation. I would love to see a recreation of a 47XX but not at the expensive of something arguably more valuable.

 

[AndyY1951]

It does seem completely wrong to destroy a locomotive which is currently under restoration, hardly a Barry hulk, to support new builds.
Perhaps Didcot will listen to public opinion and restore 7027 alongside the new builds?

 

[Harvester]

It does seem completely wrong to destroy a locomotive which is currently under restoration, hardly a Barry hulk, to support new builds.
Perhaps Didcot will listen to public opinion and restore 7027 alongside the new builds?

As it is the boiler from 7027 that is wanted for the 4709 project, it unfortunately appears to be the end for Thornbury Castle. I can well imagine the anger and frustration from the volunteers at Loughborough, who have been involved with the Castle over the last two years.

 

[Brush 4]

There is no need to destroy any locomotive to build a new one, as the A1 Trust have proved.

 

[Cowley]

There is no need to destroy any locomotive to build a new one, as the A1 Trust have proved.

I agree and I don’t think it’s even the correct boiler anyway so there’s still going to be an element of compromise here. As I understand it (and maybe someone like @Taunton might know) the 47xx has a similar version of a King boiler but with a shorter smokebox maybe?

It’s worth having a look at the Facebook page of the group that’s been restorating 7027 to see the amount of work that they’ve already done to it. I mean we’re not just talking a strip down and painting a few odd parts in red oxide here…

https://m.facebook.com/people/7027-Thornbury-Castle/100036159102918/

 

[Taunton]

Curious. The 47xx is a Churchward design. Parts from a post-WW2 Castle just seem inapplicable. The nine 47xx had the unique Standard 7 boiler. The Castle had a different design, next one out from the drawing office, the Standard 8, which had a smaller diameter (to get round a weight limit). All the rest, firebox etc, is different as well. Cab is spartan Churchward rather than Collett.

Now I know the team have only got what they have got, and the boiler can be made the right external size with additional lagging, and people feel there's "lots of Castles and no 47xx", but it's all a bit surprising. For many, the 47xx were rarely seen. Apart from a few summer Saturday holiday trains, they mainly ran overnight express freight - it was said the whole class would be invisible, on various sheds, at 2pm each day, but all out at 2am on fast, long distance freights. I believe there were four paired diagrams and one spare/works loco - Old Oak to Plymouth; Old Oak to Birkenhead, and a couple of others.

 

[Gloster]

The 47xx boiler had the same 14’ 10“ length as the Castle’s one, but was 5’6” diameter at the front and 6’0 at the rear, against 5’ 2” and 5’ 9”. The King’s was 16’ long, but had the same diameters as the 47xx. (Source: .gwr.org.uk )

And why do we need another loco that will trundle along at 25 mph with four coaches, or make occasional trips on the mainline, a market which I believe will decline substantially in the next decade? It doesn’t even have a name!

 

[Cowley]

Curious. The 47xx is a Churchward design. Parts from a post-WW2 Castle just seem inapplicable. The nine 47xx had the unique Standard 7 boiler. The Castle had a different design, next one out from the drawing office, the Standard 8, which had a smaller diameter (to get round a weight limit). All the rest, firebox etc, is different as well. Cab is spartan Churchward rather than Collett.

Now I know the team have only got what they have got, and the boiler can be made the right external size with additional lagging, and people feel there's "lots of Castles and no 47xx", but it's all a bit surprising. For many, the 47xx were rarely seen. Apart from a few summer Saturday holiday trains, they mainly ran overnight express freight - it was said the whole class would be invisible, on various sheds, at 2pm each day, but all out at 2am on fast, long distance freights. I believe there were four paired diagrams and one spare/works loco - Old Oak to Plymouth; Old Oak to Birkenhead, and a couple of others.

Thanks for the reply. I didn’t realise that it was a unique boiler design. They certainly look pretty hefty from photos.

The 47xx boiler had the same 14’ 10“ length as the Castle’s one, but was 5’6” diameter at the front and 6’0 at the rear, against 5’ 2” and 5’ 9”. The King’s was 16’ long, but had the same diameters as the 47xx. (Source: .gwr.org.uk )

And why do we need another loco that will trundle along at 25 mph with four coaches, or make occasional trips on the mainline, a market which I believe will decline substantially in the next decade? It doesn’t even have a name!

Pretty wide low route availability cylinders as well. Some projects just don’t quite seem worth it do they?

 

[Bevan Price]

I think that some people would like to produce replicas of every GWR class that has every existed. What next - a 26xx class 2-6-0 ???

 

[Cowley]

I think that some people would like to produce replicas of every GWR class that has every existed. What next - a 26xx class 2-6-0 ???

Please no!

I can understand the desire to recreate a 47xx because they were a lovely well proportioned locomotive with a certain mystic about them.
This just doesn’t feel right to me though somehow.

 

[railfan99]

It does seem completely wrong to destroy a locomotive which is currently under restoration, hardly a Barry hulk, to support new builds.
Perhaps Didcot will listen to public opinion and restore 7027 alongside the new builds?

Is Didcot well established financially, even after the last couple of years?

 

[Ashley Hill]

I don’t care for steam replicas. I’d rather see the money spent on restoring genuine locos to traffic. Breaking locos to create others is wrong as once the genuine item is broken it’s gone forever.

 

[Taunton]

I think that some people would like to produce replicas of every GWR class that has every existed. What next - a 26xx class 2-6-0 ???

Well, I suppose one could chop up City of Truro as a starting point for this ...

Is Didcot well established financially, even after the last couple of years?

I get the feeling that, compared to say 20-30 years ago, Didcot is rather falling on stony ground. They used to have days when they steamed (and could afford to) six or more locos. Not any more.

 

[Gloster]

I get the feeling that, compared to say 20-30 years ago, Didcot is rather falling on stony ground. They used to have days when they steamed (and could afford to) six or more locos. Not any more.

Which, to my mind, is a sign that the market is changing and declining. There is still a market for special trains and steam railways among the general public, but a recreation of a depot without much in the way of trains to ride on is much more of an enthusiast thing. But the steam enthusiasts are getting to an age where they are making fewer and fewer trips out, and they are not being replaced by anything like the same number of younger ones.

The railways and mainline trips will be able to continue, but even they will lose as it no longer becomes a treat to take grandpa on one of those trains he talks about being around when he was a boy. It will just be one of those once in a decade/lifetime things to do, like swimming with dolphins or balloon trips.

(Sorry. A bit of a hobby-horse of mine.)

 

[Flying Phil]

It seems like the previous owner of 7027 (Jonathan Jones - Pratt) is trying to buy the locomotive from the 4709 group - with a view to continuing its return to steam.....

 

[Cowley]

Yes quite an interesting development.

This has appeared on the Railadvent site:

Could steam locomotive 7027 Thornbury Castle return to steam after all?

Just days after a new owner for 7027 Thornbury Castle was announced, a twist in the story could be on the cards thanks to previous owner, Jonathan Jones Pratt.

www.railadvent.co.uk

Just days after a new owner for 7027 Thornbury Castle was announced, a twist in the story could be on the cards thanks to previous owner, Jonathan Jones Pratt.

On Friday, RailAdvent broke the news that 7027 Thornbury Castle, currently privately owned and under restoration at the Great Central Railway, had been sold to the 4709 Group for use on The Night Owl project.

Prior to restoration at the GCR under the care of the private owner, Chairman at the West Somerset Railway, Jonathan Jones Pratt, owned the locomotive, but sold the locomotive after finding a buyer who pledged to do the right for the loco, and the team at the GCR had the skills to get her back in service.

 

[Ashley Hill]

Wouldn’t a brand new boiler be better for 4709 rather than a 2nd hand one anyway?

 

[Cowley]

Wouldn’t a brand new boiler be better for 4709 rather than a 2nd hand one anyway?

I was wondering if the amount of money being spent on the purchase of 7027 would be better spent on a new boiler. What other parts do the 4709 group have or need though?

 

[Brush 4]

As I said yesterday at 20.05:- There is no need to destroy any locomotive to build a new one, as the A1 Trust have proved.

 

[John Luxton]

As I said yesterday at 20.05:- There is no need to destroy any locomotive to build a new one, as the A1 Trust have proved.

Tend to agree but isn't BETTON GRANGE also using scavenged parts?

 

[Towers]

I find this a tad bizarre, to be honest. It must be a pretty small number of enthusiasts nowadays who will actually fully appreciate what the intended replica represents, to the vast majority it'll just be 'a GWR loco' surely? I love steam, but will admit it was well, well before my era. I know what a King, Castle, Hall, Manor etc are, but I've no idea why Lady of Legend is special for example, and indeed I'd likely find it less interesting knowing that it's made up! It might as well be Gordon the Blue Engine. This seems a very expensive niche project, but there we are.

 

[TheEdge]

Wouldn’t a brand new boiler be better for 4709 rather than a 2nd hand one anyway?

The point that @Taunton has made is valid, the Night Owls used a unique boiler rather than shared with another class.

I can understand the desire to recreate a 47xx because they were a lovely well proportioned locomotive with a certain mystic about them.
This just doesn’t feel right to me though somehow.

I think that mystic is a mix of both the phantom nature of the things with their phantom like lives and the fact that I think they are pretty unique. I can't think of another UK design of a high speed pure freight design. Lots of heavy pulling freight designs and high speed mixed traffic locos, but I really cant think of another high speed freight loco.

Tend to agree but isn't BETTON GRANGE also using scavenged parts?

It is, but its actually using parts from a less represented class (Modified Hall) but that's in a far worse condition and being split out to Betton Grange and County of Glamorgan, along with other parts of the Barry 10. The issue here is that Thornbury Castle was being actively restored.

 

[Falcon1200]

It must be a pretty small number of enthusiasts nowadays who will actually fully appreciate what the intended replica represents, to the vast majority it'll just be 'a GWR loco' surely?

Could the same not be said of Thornbury Castle, especially given that there are several other Castles preserved ?

Needless to say a lot of people at the GCR have spent a lot of time and effort on the locomotive over the past two years and this decision is not going down well....

Understandable of course, but it seems strange for people to spend such time and effort on a loco which they do not own and have no control over ?

 

[Flying Phil]

Understandable of course, but it seems strange for people to spend such time and effort on a loco which they do not own and have no control over ?

That is a valid point, but is effectively true for the majority of volunteers on Heritage railways......

 

[alexl92]

Might be controversial, but after the 47xx is finished I hope that’s it for GWR new builds for a while.

I notice Jon Jones-Pratt who sold the loco to its current owner, is looking into to buying the engine back as this sale for cannibalising it breaches a condition of the original sale.

 

[DaveHarries]

Perhaps Didcot will listen to public opinion and restore 7027 alongside the new builds?

GWS Didcot have put out a statement saying that they were not party to the discussions on 7027. Meanwhile I wish JJP well in getting 7027 back: perhaps it would be best housed on the WSR?

Didcot Railway Centre

Living Museum Of The Great Western Railway

didcotrailwaycentre.org.uk

Dave

 

[Bessie]

GWS Didcot have put out a statement saying that they were not party to the discussions on 7027. Meanwhile I wish JJP well in getting 7027 back: perhaps it would be best housed on the WSR?

WSR has a weight restriction. Hence why Manors are currently the largest type of loco allowed along the whole length of line

 

[Brush 4]

Tyseley would seem the most logical home, as 3(?) of the Castles are there anyway.

 

[Bessie]

Tyseley would seem the most logical home, as 3(?) of the Castles are there anyway.

Tyseley is where 4709 is under construction