35011 General Steam Navigation

The reason we are looking for private site is we have already asked them and they all said no including the MD of Arlington Services.

G.S.N

 

The crank axle design change applied to both originals and rebuilds, they're interchangeable except for the outside crankpins and balancing. It was implemented before rebuilding and changed the method of attaching the chain sprocket, which was done partly in anticipation of fitting eccentrics to the impending rebuilds, but mostly to stop the fatigue failures caused by the original design (like 35020 demolishing the station canopy at Crewkerne). I believe all the surviving original Light Pacifics have the later design, and I would strongly suggest that any 'un-rebuilding' project with an MN uses the same, for fairly obvious reasons. As @73129 says, the middle cylinder would have to go back to the original design, which is another expensive casting.

 

Thanks for the updates re 35025 there appears to have been some good work done in the past, its always a shame when a project stalls like this one appears to have done. All the time, effort, money, hope, dreams and aspiration of those involved not being enough to see it through. Hopefully their efforts are not in vain and the project can be revitalised building on the efforts of what has been achieved so far.

 

The casting of a new cylinder shouldn't be too expensive. I believe the Patriot project used a modern technique that significantly reduced the costs of pattern making. Machining however is always the most expensive part of the manufacturing costs, I think.

 

Regardles what happens they will need a crank axle made, as there are no spare un rebuilt wheel sets, unless someone decides that the stripped spamcan at Carnforth can loan hers until one can be made to replace it, if its not expected to be restored in the next 10 years or so, on paper, an un rebuilt MN should attract sufficient support to have been well on the way by now, but better later than never, just out of interest ,can the valve gear be adapted to use the middle cylinder, as it is? after all the original idea wasnt to use chain driven valve gear, prehaps, if they have to start from scratch, then look at what was planned and see if it can be done.

 

Interesting that you don't then sign your name to your posting, or tell us anything about your group, numbers of volunteers available, an outline of your arrangements with the owner, any finance available, skills/experience available within your group, parts available, machinery available etc etc.

To gain credibility you have to give people something to work with!

Keith

PS: Looking at your name on your profile, I hope that you are a different David Williams from the one associated with this mess otherwise I fear that credibility will be virtually impossible to establish

 

Totally different David Williams. I think I'm right in saying. Let's just say he is also a director of Wadebridge(34007)Ltd. If you look at one of his posts from his profile, the information is there.

Also a simple check on Company Check says he is only a director in said company.

 

David Williams is a very a common name so I would be surprised if the 2 are 1 and the same

 

Point taken, however I think the rest of my post still stands.


Keith

 

The rest of your point is valid. Who actually owns the locomotive is a big question for me. Is it a society owned loco like P&O or is it simply owned by one chap whose trying to his loco processing forward.

I think personally they are at the beginning of the long road to restoration and are currently trying to find a home before they go on a recruitment drive

 

I wish you well, but without any great expectations. If you are going to go for it - and it's a worthwhile aim - then you really need to have everything together. I responded to an ad in Steam Railway 20 odd years ago for a similar project on 35022.

When 35022 was later sold on by SLL, I realised that the project had the optimism but probably not the strength in depth to succeed. I may have been culpable too - I never really got beyond the armchair. To me, this was proven by the fact that it was SLL that sold it on, with its track record. I'd be delighted to be proved wrong, but will need to see not just a secure base but a clear sense of what it needs and of a good set of contacts to help that happen before it will feel right to me.

 

Giving a little more thought to the subject, although its ultimately up to whoever owns the locomotive, I'd rather see it restored in its rebuilt form, which is the condition in which it was immortalised by Colin Gifford's photography. Furthermore, this might be the easier (or shall we just say less hard as it will still be a challenging restoration?) option in the long run in any case. Whilst the missing driving wheel and crank axle provides the option to 'un-rebuild' it, why make things more complicated than they already are? As for a new wheel, I seem to recall that some of the MNs built in wartime had fabricated wheelsets where BFB segments were welded together (I think it was mentioned in Bulleid of the Southern?). I also seem to recall that 35011 has the only surviving fabricated (ie. welded) trailing wheel assembly.

If we are to see an original emerge, I think it would be better to start from scratch and recreate 21C1 'Channel Packet', whether in original 'widow's peak' condition or with the cowling fitted, as that locomotive started the whole exhilirating saga.

 

As the crank axle is the same on both the original, and the rebuilt engines, so i read, then that wont effect the needing to have one made, they do have a spare wheel set, but its a plain axle wheel set, so may not need to have wheel sets made, just the replacement crank axle, assuming the leading, or trailing wheel set is the same as the driving,except for the size of the pin and that the wheels can be pressed off the axle then of course theres a tender to build also but when looking at the size of the task, a tender is most likily the easiest bit,
my view is that thy need to find a preserved railway, that will give them a home, and backing, so maybe the Gloucester and Warwickshire may be worth asking, its slightly outside of the Hampshire / Dorset area but you will find it hard to find a home at any of the big players, because they dont have the room for a very long term restoration project or i suspect the desire to see their work force working on an engine that wont steam for the best part of ten years 35006 is due to enter traffic, very soon, so another MN that could be restored during the ticket of 35006 may be an idea, and it would give you something to aim at

 

Please note I am acting entirely on my own behalf in my support for this project and totally independent of Wadebridge 34007 Loco Ltd and the Mid Hants Railway.

Dave Williams

 

At the risk of upsetting a few people I'm going to pose a few questions. What is the point of this 'project' other than an attempt to satisfy someone's fantasy? B.R. rebuilt the Bulleid Pacifics to produce a better loco so why should one seek to recreate an inferior one which, to 99.9% of the population looks exactly like an original BB/WC? The cost of "unrebuilding" 35011 with a new inside cylinder, crank axle etc etc is going to be way beyond the cost of restoring it as 'rebuilt' with little or no benefit commercially. If, and it's a big "if", there is a need for another restored rebuilt MN (bearing in mind their limited use on preserved lines) then why not get together with the owners of 35010 (the one with the smashed LHS cylinder) and suggest making one 'good' one from the two? This would have the added advantage of releasing a boiler, wheelsets and other major components for 'pool' spares. Just my 2p's worth - at the end of the day it's the person or persons picking up the bill who make the decisions.
Ray.

 

The engineer in me says 'why do it?' but, in our game, the heart frequently over-rules the head. The whole damned heritage railway movement wouldn't be here if that wasn't the case. There are 10½ Merchant Navies out there, most of which are vying for funds from a limited pool. Having a USP makes it different from the rest and gives it a head start in pulling at peoples purse strings IF it is properly organised and managed. That requires a motivated and organised TEAM and, given that, I can see the money and help coming in.
The first job, though, is getting that team organised.

 

Steve has hit the nail on the head with that comment. Spot on.

 

Breaking GSN up for spares is another option if we could not find sufficient support for restoration of the loco back to its original condition or yet another rebuilt loco.
The owner is willing to put the loco in to a trust or a CIC if he can see we have a viable support group so if you are interested I am setting up facebook page and if anyone has has any photos we could use on the page would be most welcome.
Regards
Dave

 

Might be worth writing an open letter to the railway magazines asking for help to find a new home. I would suggest getting the locomotives owner to sign it to say he approves so it definitely gets published and taken seriously.

Shame there's not more room on the MHR, wouldn't mind getting involved with 11 once 5 is done.

 

What happened to Ace Locomotives please?