Bulleid Pacifics - Past or Present

Just read your update and in view of comments about SLL's membership not getting any younger, I think you're doing the right thing and plan to offer more than just moral support in due course. While getting Sidmouth up and running will involve borrowing a few bits from Eddystone, I would think the psychological effect of saying "We've restored our final Bulleid" will be very signficant and positive for the group. Although this approach for restoring Sidmouth will add to the task of overhauling Eddystone, the overhaul will still be an easier job than taking on a full-blown restoration from ex-Barry condition and SLL will have the satisfaction of saying "That's all we'll have to do in future." - even though I am not for a moment implyng that overhauls are simple - especially of Bulleid Pacifics.

 

John, thanks for your comments. If we restored Sidmouth without borrowing Eddystone's boiler and borrowing some parts the job would take longer and cost more, and it would not bring Eddystone's overhaul any closer. There is never a good time to squeeze a restoration into a series of overhauls, but now is as good as any, as we'll have five locos in service as soon as 257 Squadron is complete. Over the years many people have bought shares to support Sidmouth, and we think it's right to go out of our way to complete the task we've always intended to do. Thanks for your support - moral and the other sort!

 

All good news then it looks. No mention of overhauling the standard 4 just Manston and Eddystone? Surely the most desirable heritage railway loco?

 

80104 had major boiler repairs earlier this year and came back with a 7 year ticket. It will need some work on the axle boxes sooner rather than later.

 

Latest update on 35005

http://preservation.watercressline.co.uk/blog/entry/canpac-overhaul-update-november-2015

 

Great news, Eddystone has gone full circle now

She is really coming together nicely and thank god we are finally moving that boiler!

 

The latest Gwsr loco dept blog has details of another step forward on p&o over the weekend. i helped out with the fitting and all I can say is that hats off to the Eastleigh fitters! Although not as bad as say a nelson with 2 con rods to fit, there isn't a lot of room. It's also intriguing to see all the lumps and bumps left over from the rebuilding process and removal of the oil bath. As 35006 along with 35028 were the last two done, it wasn't exactly pretty! Lastly it's very useful that all the frame stretchers have lightning holes, very useful for block and tackle u bolt shackles! (Don't worry about the title!)
http://www.gwsrsteamloco.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/beware-of-amorous-reindeer.html?m=1

 

Re fitting middle rods on 35006, acres of space compared to doing it on a Spamcan. Good to see her that bit closer to entering service.

 

Great to see that the 35006 is not far away, cant wait to see the old girl hauling trains like she was built to do.

 

35006 out and about today - first run on 3 cylinders!

 

Yard running to prove all three rods work!
Photo credit d. Wigg
Video will appear at some point I'm sure

 

Link to the GWSR blog with photos of 35006 (scroll down)

http://gwsrsteamloco.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/what-happens-when-you-run-out-of-coal.html

 

Does anyone know why 34025 Rough Tor was remanded within a month to Whimple. It seems an odd thing to do within a month of naming 34025 when another unnamed loco could of took the name Whimple.

Thanks

 

I suppose it misbehaved itself... However, I've heard several reasons for the renaming, one being that some sort of deal was struck between the Southern and Whiteway's Cyder of Whimple to put the village on the map, as it were, and that it was possibly thought that they could get away with renaming 34025 due to Rough Tor's close proximity to (34032) Camelford. This might have been because the BBs were under construction, and to name the next available locomotive Whimple would have broken the series. However, this was to happen later with the 1949-50 batch of WCs in any case (ie. 34091-34108), and again with the final two.

 

Thanks
Lee

 

@35011GSN's Tweet: https://twitter.com/35011GSN/status/684470562702364673?s=09

 

Speaking of Sellindge MNs I saw a photo of 35025 (sadly cant share) and shes starting to look like shes getting to the point of no return.

 

How is it that 35025 apparently continues to rot away at Sellindge with no-one to work on it while part of another Bulleid is going to Sellindge to be worked on (34010's original boiler according to post 3897 on this thread)?

 

Correct me if I am wrong but I thought the plan was to use Eddystones boiler on Sidmouth to bring down on the costs and time. So it would be 34010s boiler on 34028s frames that are going to Sellindge for storage rather than to be worked on with Sidmouth being restored at Swanage.