35018 British India Line

If it was mine I certainly wouldn't send it there; I'd be worried about receiving a pile of rusting bits back a few weeks later, just before 35009 emerged on its first railtour. ;-)

 

The tender is a conversion from a self weighing tender with a new tank to a 6000 gallon capacity and was fitted to 35018 somewhere about 1960 there was a small batch of this design produced to fit the longer chassis variant Bulleid tender 35018 retained this same tender up to withdrawal and at Barry, when purchased the same tender was purchased, When 34105 was first Restored, its own tender was not ready so it ran with this tender, until its own was compleated.

 

Am I not right in thinking its present outline is due to a more recent reconstruction ?

 

if you look at 34046 it has the same basic design but this is a new tank, the tender behind 35018 is the original batch the coal space may have been extended but thats all

 

Interesting picture of 35018 found here- is this the weighing tender discussed earlier?

http://www.portlandbill.co.uk/images/railway/35018_2.jpg

Not my image- credit to the website or owner etc etc.

Chris

 

i'm not sure That looks to be an original 5000 tender that was an very early photo as the tender has the original cycling lion, the rebuilt tenders do not have the cut down side past the coal raves the self weighing tender was a one off build

 

just looked it up when rebuilt it ran with tender 3118 a 5500 gallon batch 1 tender, it ran with this until 10/64 when it got tender 3343 a rebuilt 6000 gallon BR rebodied tender, this was a Br design there was 5 in all that should explain the standard look.
the full history of 35018s tenders is as follows , 3129 when new, 3343 from 1952 , 3346 from 10/ 1952 3118 from 1961 ending up with the rebodied 3343 in 10/1964
The MN tenders were suffering with corrosion post war, and a decision was made to rebuild the worse examples with new bodies of a Br design 3343 being rebodied in 1962 this was the only longer bodied chassis to be so rebuilt, the others were in the first series and short wheelbase versions
date as follows 3111 feb 63,31112 Jan 60, 3115 May 59 and 3118 Jan 62 .
in all there was 3 batches of tenders, batches 1 and 2 were shorter, the final batch were longer and 6000 gallon capacity the others being 5000, and 5500 gallon

 

This now confirms what all of us Southerners have been saying for years. You can't beat a Bulleid Pacific.

If 35018 is going to say up North. Any chance of 34016 Bodmin coming down South when it returns to the main line.

 

That is not in much doubt wherever you hail from.

 

If Saturdays performance is anything to go by then clearly you can, lol

 

Yes. Having researched BILs tender for a model reconstruction, the tender was from a re-bodied tender which it had at the time of being stored. It runs on the longer wheelbase tender (5500) I think, but has had its water capacity increased. However, during the time at Carnforth the coal space has also been rebuilt. You can tell as the area on top of the water tank is much futher back and in some photos you can see where the welding join is. The other items at the back of the tender are in the top casing, again much further back.

It means that BILs tender is fully rebuilt again, but only Carnforth really know how much coal capacity and water has been included for sure. Whatever it is, if its on the 5500gl chassis, I expect the range is much further.

Wanna bet?

 

Don't suppose they ever bothered putting a rebuilt through Rugby testing station but what can we say about them for definite ?
Draughting is good (but there is room for improvement)
Very free steaming, sure there will be some info on maximum output somewhere but getting on for 40,000 lbs per hour ?
Relatively small cylinders for such a prodigious boiler ( intended for 280psi).
Pacifics not noted for surefootedness - No exception here despite the smaller cylinders.

The Genetic make up suggests a Loco. incapable of the kind of Maximum effort, even transitory, of some other british 8p's but in terms of sustained high output at least as capable as anything else (though not as efficient as the Duke)

 

Just to make things perfectly clear:
When 35018 was rebuilt in February 1956 it had tender 3346 of 6,000 gallon, from series 3, which had been cut-down at the same time. This was changed for tender 3118, a 5,250 gallon version from series 2, in December 1961, which it had until withdrawal in August 1964. On paper, for accountancy purposes, tender 3343 was assigned to 35018 in October 1964.

Tender 3343 was the self weighing tender which was given a new body in February 1962. The new body was one of the 5,250 gallon batch built to replace the worn out tender tanks used for the MNs and LPs but, as the chassis it was to be fitted to was longer, it had a section welded into the back to lengthen it and this increased the capacity to 6,000 gallons, although I’m not sure if this was officially measured! The other difference was it had two ladders at the back instead of the normal one. This tender was attached to 35008 Orient Line which was the only member of the class have it. So this is the first time 35018 has actually run with this tender.

The chassis used for the Merchant Navys is of course completely different to that used for the Light Pacifics.

 

Yes, they did, report #20 for 35020. Report #10 was the unmodified version.
It looks as if the modified has slightly decreased front-end capabilities if graphically compared.
Kind regards
Jos Koopmans

 

As I suspected. Detuned, although still very capable...

 

Report 10 was the testing of 35022 on the rollers at Rugby
Report 20 with 35020 consisted of controlled road tests done by Swindon testing station, not Rugby. There is no mention of it going on the rollers at Swindon. However, there is a photo of 35025 Brocklebank Line on the rollers at Swindon, but I can find no details of the testing.

 

You are correct, of course! I should remember parts of the text and not only the figures!
Kind regards
Jos Koopmans

 

I think I counted 13 coaches on this train, was it not overloaded for its first operation? I feel more running-in is required for 'new' restorations.

 

13 yes, one more than on its test run, over the same route to start with! Yes it stopped on the bank towards Clapham (probably partially down to the Bentham pick-up), but it was also re-started on the same poor railhead conditions, and even made it to York 5 early

 

OK indeed! I thought NR had restricted the number of coaches per train two years ago? The big end has certainly suffered as a result.