Tangmere

There's a good overview here: https://southern-locomotives.co.uk/Class_Details/Bulleid_Light_Pacific_Tenders.html

In summary: MN and WC/BB/Q1 tenders are two distinct families.

The MN tenders come in three different water capacities, with a fourth added later when new bodies were required - plus the major visual distinction of with raves / cut down and a few oddities.

WC/BB/Q1 tenders come in three different water capacities: the Q1, the Hastings gauge WC/BB and the normal gauge WC/BB. Again, there is a fourth variant of capacity when bodies were later replaced, plus the raves / no raves variations.

Tom

 

Quite so - and if you read the resume of how SLL have deftly managed their tenders ( and others in preservation), you will probably lose the will to live or learn never to ask about Bulleid tenders again.

Suffice to say no Bulleid tenders (or indeed blastpipes) were harmed during the latest overhaul of 34067.

JS

 

Thanks for the clarification.

Neil

 

So, is it fair to say that the tender frames are the same for both MN and BB/WC with the exception of the Hastings gauge, which is narrower ?

 

Apparently not! I seem to remember someone telling me that MN tender frames had the water tank recessed into them whereas the BB/WC ones were flat-topped (and the tank flat-bottomed to suit). Which is also why relatively less BB/WC tenders survived as their frames found further uses.

(Someone more expert than me will no doubt confirm or deny or otherwise explain better than I did.)

 

I might be wrong, but I am sure that the WC/BB tender frames are shorter than the MN type, Also, whilst the cabs were narrower on Eastern section engines, and the tender body, i'm not sure if the actual chassis is? can anyone shed further light on this .

 

I found this on Southern locomotives web site regarding tenders.

https://www.southern-locomotives.co.uk/Class_Details/Bulleid_Light_Pacific_Tenders.html

 

Not all Eastern section Pacifics had the narrow cab and not all with a narrow cab were allocated to the Eastern section.

 

Enter the minefield of Bulleid tenders. Long wheelbase. Short wheelbase. Large water/small coal. Smaller water/ larger coal space. 3 vac reservoirs or 4. Position of water treatement hatch. No water treatment hatch...

 

On a related note, I noticed passing on Sunday that 34073 has regained a boiler.

 

34073's boiler is now on 34067 apparently.

 

Nice to see pictures of this locomotive back on the main line (P26 Trackside #9).

 

What did Bulleid say about his new Pacifics being a "standard" design to minimise spares ?

 

The tenders were interchangeable so a degree of standardisation there and in spite of wheel base differences, the wheels were the same.

 

Just to add to the complication, unless it was changed at the last overhaul, Tangmere is running with a Merchant Navy 5100 gallon tender. Clan Line is coupled to a 6000 gal tender but some years ago it was modified with an extended top to the coal bunker with a reduced interior space to add additional water capacity to replace that lost to the space needed for the air pumps. It now resembles a 5100 gal tender but with a longer uneven wheelbase.
As a matter of interest the last batch of ten MNs had a fabricated rather than cast rear truck but don’t go looking for it on Clan Line, it got swapped for a cast one during BR days at one of its overhauls.

 

I believe the only fabricated one surviving is now with 35011 and is being refurbished at North Norfolk Railway if memory serves me right?

 

Correct, 35011 is being retro rebuilt to original condition.

 

Just to throw another one into the mix, isn’t this a similar design to those used by 70000 and 70013?
Please tell me if I’m being annoying.

 

Similar looking and I suspect just a case of form follows function...