35018 British India Line

I was all set to come on here and moan about Carnforth having form for not putting engines in an accurate livery, grumble grumble...

...but that photo in heritage railway magazine. Damn, it looks good in plain black! Like Britannia did a few years back.

Well done to the restoration team. Here's to some good years running for her.

 

It's great to see '18 looking substantially complete, so well done to all concerned. I for one am delighted that they didn't standardize her, and would love to see her in green with the cycling lion totem - am I right in thinking that she was the only rebuilt MN to carry it?

 

Personally I am indifferent to the livery whatever that finally is and I respect the owners prerogative to do with their property as they wish.
Where I am less in agreement is with the notion of being supportive of a perceived bloody minded attitude to defy the wishes of those expressing a wish to see it authentically painted. If that attitude exists and prevails it seems to me utterly disregarding of the very people that the owners presumably hope will spend considerable sums to ride behind the loco over the course of its operational career to come. Why on earth would anyone do something so counter productive? They could be the difference that takes a charter into profit so why risk alienating them? Taking a contrary stance would imply contempt for the people you need to have onside regularly, which would suggest charters are only run to offset an expensive hobby?
Common sense will win out and I believe we will see an authentic livery once the commissioning is complete. Look forward to experiencing it emulate 35028 over the S&C almost 40 years on.

 

No, at least a few others did. Certainly '10, '20, '23, and from one picture I think maybe '26 as well.

 

I agree with the points you make but I also understand why those at the top at West Coast like to indulge in a little bit of will it do this/or that? People like David Smith, James Shuttleworth and Pat Marshall are steam enthusiasts, we shouldn't forget that and we also shouldn't forget what an awful lot of good they've done for a fair few years now. But if I'd spent x amount on putting a machine like 35018 or 45699 or 456115 back into a condition where it can be enjoyed by the Great British Public, the last thing I'd want is some smart arse telling me what colour it should be! You make a point that west coast will want enthusiasts to come and ride behind 35018 and support 35018 when it's back in service, well yes of course they will but what some of the critics on here should remember who it was who did the dirty work and put the hard yards in so we can enjoy what we have on the mainline today. I haven't heard too much praise about what 10A did as regards putting 5699 back on the main line, I've heard a fair old bit about it being the 'wrong colour' though! We really ought to be a bit more thankful for what we have and maybe (myself included) shut up moaning when we can't have things exactly as we want them.

 

now stop that....making seriously good sense isn't what we do here.

I don't care what colour they paint it, after all they have done for mainline steam, they've a very very good case for painting all their locos in their own livery. In fact I think they should , as they are the successors to the old companies, all of whom painted the locos they took over in their own colours.

 

As I said at the beginning of my previous post, it is completely the owners prerogative to do as they see fit. What we do not concur on is that they would actually allow the irritation of people having a say on livery to actually influence the decision. As you point out, much investment has occurred so common sense suggests they will wish to maximise the return by attracting the most travellers and publicity opportunities.
The choice will be either sentimentally or business driven, nothing else.

 

I think Porterbrook have some paint left over from their last job.

 

Plus white tyres and running plate.

 

Hear, hear. Can't wait for Mr. Hosking to paint his Castle in Crystal Palace colours.

 

Thanks for posting. It was interesting to compare your pictures with mine taken in 1974 (See previous page of this thread). Although my photo was taken 10 years after 35018 was withdrawn and the effects of 10 years out in the open are obviously visible, the deterioration caused by a further six years out in the open was very striking. A salutary lesson for railways wishing to conserve their non-working locos as they await their turn in the overhaul queue.

 

well it would be his call. I'm not a fan of the maroon that has been used before but I think a suitable livery that looks retro but is very much their own could be developed. As it is LNWR black is very geographically appropriate

 

It's not a mixed traffic engine. They were only described as such to get authorisation from the Ministry of Supply for their construction during wartime. Under BR they were classified 8P and liveried accordingly

 

Correct on the last point

 

not very patriotic was it.

 

Incorrect, as has already been established. At least 35020-26 had it in addition to 35010 (mentioned above) and 35018 until the crest was changed.

 

You lot down there can have it as often as we get 35028 'oop north!'

 

Yes this inconsistency in railway history constantly annoys me. Hawksworth and Thompson criticised beyond, in my view, reasonable and rational argument for working within the guidelines they were given by their railways (standard parts, no new builds, or limited amounts in Hawksworth's case) yet Bulleid plays the game and he is a considered a hero for this...

There's no doubt they were able engines, but whether they should have been built is another matter.

Anyway that's for another thread: let's focus on welcoming another survivor back to steam.

 

I know I've put this diagram up on another thread, but for some context about Bulleid's programme of locomotive building: This chart shows the total number of SR locomotives in stock between 1923 and 1947 (red line) and the numbers built (green bars) and scrapped (purple bars).

With regard Bulleid, two things are obvious: One is that actually he built relatively few locos during the war: none at all in 1940; 10 Merchant Navies between 1941-42; 40 Q1s in 1942; nothing at all in 1943; one Merchant Navy in 1944 before construction of the WC/BBs and more Merchant Navies started in earnest in 1945.

In the meantime, the railway was still scrapping elderly pre-grouping locomotives, but essentially had to stop that process for all but complete basket cases during the war. In the immediate post-war period (and continuing through to about 1951), hundreds of locos dating back to the 1870s / 1880s were scrapped as being beyond all economical repair.

All of that while the SR was in the forefront both of German attacks and the additional freight and transport demands imposed by being the carrier to all the channel embarkation ports, and having several major naval bases and much of Fighter Command on their territory, with associated supply issues.

Given that, what is surprising is not so much "why did they get Authority to build the MNs?", but rather "how did they survive while building so few new locos?" You can probably query whether the MN was the right loco to build, but in the end, at the peak of the war it was only 10 locos, along with 40 Q1s that presumably no-one finds controversial.



Tom

 

Yet Stanier was allowed to build more unashamedly express passenger Coronations, complete with streamlining as late as 1943!

There's also the question of what exactly is a mixed traffic engine. For instance I believe King's were used on perishable freight traffic and a few Atbaras (large wheeled 4-4-0s) were used on coal traffic. No doubt Bullied's pacifics would have performed well on freight turns on other lines, despite being a little light footed when starting, but that wasn't the Southern's need.