35011 General Steam Navigation

Having GSN reverted to an original build MN would give it the USP required for it to stand out from the rest and would surely be a massive draw from the enthusiast fraternity if not the general public. As for requesting assistance from the MHR or Swanage, I'm sure that along with the engineering skills and advice, it could be worth enquiring about how you can successfully apply for Heritage Lottery Funding after all, the MHR seem to do a very good job in that department resulting in amazing results. Obviously there is a lot to do with organisation, home, fundraising, etc before this can even be considered but with its USP, maybe it is something they would be interested in assisting with?

 

The Turfburner was quite successful it seems, even rescued the odd failed diesel.....too little too late though and the diesels were there early (although a tad temperamental.

 

Only a tad? Didn't the Metro-Vics initially have Crossley two strokes that had a habit of running in the reverse direction on start up?

 

I 've a vague recollection that the engine direction was supposed to be related to the direction of travel of the loco, although though why this should have been the case in a diesel electric beats me - can anyone enlighten us?

 

Just had a thought, Dave is part of the Wadebridge loco company correct? , could Ownership of 35011 be transfered to the group, as Wadebridge is part owned by the MHR, it could become a wadebridge loco group project that could in turn open the door to 35011 being done by the same people, and others who are already working on 35005, as it would not take away people from other restorations, and that in turn would open the door to help with lottery funding etc, and eventual operation , the boiler could then be done at Ropley, asuming they can fit it in the schedule, in say 5 years, when hopefully Wadebridge is nearing completion

 

Mr Williams says he's totally independent of 34007 and the Mid-Hants.

 

I suspect the real issue in rehoming this loco is that they are patently unsuitable for use on a preserved line as they are too big and there are loads of them left through an accident of fate and not because people wanted them. It would be nice to see GSN run and Blue Star, Brocklebank line et-al but they aren't all going to get on the mainline and preserved lines are starting to get a bit more commercially minded. Most railway management teams just don't consider them suitable for running at 25mph with 5 bogies. Port Line looked fantastic at the Bluebell when it was there but it didn't do anything else that Blackmoor Vale could do other than gobble coal and hog the workshop.

 

What i meant was could the group accept a second loco, as long as its accepted that it is to be restored, im not saying that the MHR have a stake in it, not at this point,

 

have you fired a MN ,or WC, i have and a smaller engines such as a mogol, once you have taken out of the equation the lighting up, there is very little in it, the main difference is that on a 8p you are not working at full capacity, so less wear and tare, unlike a smaller engine that will need more maintance because its being knocked to bits day in day out

 

Nope, always C&W. I did know plenty of people in the loco mind who used to speak freely enough. Port Line was a lovely loco but just wasn't suitable and suffered from firebox problems throughout its stay at the Park, caused as I was always told by the men that know the constant heating / cooling of its running over short distances.

With regard to the coal, although I never worked on the footplate at Bluebell I do from experience know that lighting up my 4" Garrett 7nhp Agricultural engine that it will gobble up a heck of a lot more at the lighting-up stage than my smaller Ruston & Proctor did but once moving around the consumption levels do more or less even out.

If the Merchants were considered that economical to run surely they would all be out and about working?

 

forgot to add, yes you are course right about wear and tear...

The proposal to de-tune it gives the project a USP and would probably be the best way to attract support. Can't imagine what would actually be reused though...

 

Thank you for conceding that part, when Port line was on the Bluebell, they were not running beyond HK, if she was still there,and working, then she may have been more popular as the trains get heavier , and you need 6 or 7 mk1s because of the numbers, then these engines may become more heritage railway friendly,
But my point is this, its the only chance to have a go at returning an MN to its original condition as the need to replace the crank axle makes it possible i would also look at changing the valve gear, Bullield did not want chains , he was forced to by wartime conditions ,then think on the commercial side of it, how in demand would the only original MN be at galas? especially if you were lucky enough to have an unrebuilt west country,or BB,an rebuilt of the same class, and a rebuilt MN in the same line up

 

The MHR owns 51% of Wadebridge so have complete control pretty much of the locomotive. I think its safe to say there is not a chance they would want 35011 on the railway. We already have 35005, 34007, 34105 and 34059 as a member of the 05 team what we are doing and what would need doing on 11 are completely diffrent things. We are overhauling a locomotive and what 11 would need is a complete restoration to a rebuilt or if your going to back date her your basically talking about a new build which the MHR has no experince with. Its a shame but highly unlikely.

 

what's amazing is that the turfburner was first steamed in 1957 and yet the A class were built from 1955 and there were earleier ones too!

 

As with any new build there is the option to deviate from the original for reasons of neccessity or practicality or sheer perfectionism

To give genuine no 'visible outside gear' without using the original method means trying to cram a load of cranks and levers in a v small space or driving the motion off a shaft ; there are the couple of developed poppet valve options here which could be hidden behind casing ? Whether this would be less work than re realising Bulleids original soloution is questionnable and a bit touch and go, surely the world of sumps, seals and chains has moved on over the last 60 years. Of far more interest is the exact reincarnation in terms of 'bodystyling' - early 50's would allow the Maximum no of pseudo genuine colour schemes to be rotated

 

What i was saying was that it may be an option for the company ,that own 49 percent of Wadebridge to obtain 35011, if gifted to them, which is what i think the owner has in mind, heres why, they have an un rebuilt WC, the workings of its larger sister may not be so different, that should give the engine a firm base to build from, it does not need to be based anywhere , just a site with the facilities to strip and rebuild it, whilst fund raising can be carried out, once its ready for re assembling, then an approach can be made to move it to a rail workshop ideally Eastleigh , whilst the MHR may not want it as an unrestored hulk, which i fully understand, i think if it was rebuilt as an original and offered to Ropley as a working engine, , they wouldnt turn it down, mostly because of the extra revenue they could get from it, i would expect it would be on loan elsewhere more than at the place it would be based,

 

Hmm, I believe that the 49% arent in a position to obtain the locomotive as a gift, I believe it has to be voted for and thats something they wont win.

The engines best bet with the MHR is to be shoved in Ropleys headshunt covered by a tarpalian and left alone, whilst a soceity raises enough funds to get serious restoration underway. The Wadebridge team will there own hands full soon when 34007 comes out of steam next year, as they probably wont get much support coming from the MHR teams who will have Lord Nelson, the Black 5, Sir Fred Pile and CanPac to work on (Assuming the Standard, the Ivatt and Swanage are back at this point). The work itself can be done at Ropley and would make more sense than Eastleigh as at Ropley we have more access to engineering facilities.

It should be pointed out one of the main reasons Canadian Pacific is at Eastleigh is because its location near the college making it easier to build relationships with the students we are aimming to recuirt for the railway.

 

The economic argument in favour of creating a fleet of Turfburners may well have been fomented by the almost limitless supply of realtively cheap peat in Ireland. As in the UK, the cheap oil available in the 50s' was one amongst a host of other reasons that soon put paid to any notion of a steam driven railway.

Cheers

Alan