35011 General Steam Navigation

I wonder if Didcot Ry Centre would offer you a home..

They've a number of projects approaching completion and AFAIK nothing to replace them. They may be looking for a major project to keep them busy but it wouldn't be GWR.

Discussion invited..

 

Aren't Didcot planing on building a Dean Single? They put some feelers out a while ago and I heard they got a positive response but it's gone quiet since.

 

I know someone in South Bedfordshire who could help...

 

not sure, they'd already ibtained a fleet of diessls at that stage

 

Binbrook?

 

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

I haven't fired one of these, but I don't imagine that they are immune to the laws of physics - a bigger boiler means more water and metal to heat up and keep hot. Plus they have 3 cylinders, which are still all working all the time and so wearing - with consequent increase in maintenance costs. Having said that, I'd love to see one on the NYMR, where it has a chance of being used on sensible loads. I think the Mid Hants bought 35005 almost in a panic, because it became available when it became clear that they would lose the Bunch fleet. With most trains around 5 coaches it (like the 9F) is way overpowered and uneconomical for them.

 

Having seen GSN at Sellindge many times and feeling sorry for the old girl I guess I would like to see something done with her be it used for spares, conserved or worked on for a return to working order. The OP talks of us as in a group. Maybe he could elaborate as to who the 'we' are and what if any experience and resources they have. I would have thought that a group looking for an MN to restore would be better off aligning themselves with the Brocklebank Line group whose engine is also at Sellindge but with far more components and work done. At least it has a crank axle. Different groups and different owners but with one thing in common. Two engines in the weeds next to each other with no funds and no resources. Surely common sense would dictate that talking with each other and coming together could result in one of the locos working again? To get GSN to a point where Brocklebank Line is would take years and tens, if not hundreds of thousands of pounds.

No, maybe not...

 

I asked the same questions at post #26 on page 2 of this thread - no answers have been given


Keith

 

As i understand it all the work done on Brocklebank will have to be done again , the project engineer who carried out that work at the time was not trusted by the group, and the quality of the work is in question , if i can be honest, placing both those engines at Selinge was a mistake, they ,had they have gone anywhere else may have stood a chance of a return to steam one day, but you have an owner who has never on the face of it been able to get any one to work on it, bcause he i think has given up on it, but cant bare to let it go

 

If there was a serious group out there who wanted a Merchant Navy 35009 would be the far best bet and is currently for sale I believe from Ian Riley.

 

In reply to your questions the group comprises of 3 of us the owner who wishes remain in the background Tom Clark and myself. I can not speak for the others but I have been with the Wadebridge loco group since it was rescued from Barry and helped with the restoration and fundraising. We are members of the Bulleid Loco owners association and though them we have access to a large collection of drawings from the NRM and individual loco groups.
I have been in contact with other unrestored MN owners including the Brocklebank line group but so far I have not had a positive response about working together.

The door is open if any one wants help us do something positive with GSN

Regards
Dave

 

There would clearly be very little work for another working MN in rebuilt condition. And the class as originally built had serious drawbacks, which prompted the rebuilding. There's a much better case for Bulleid's original intention, with inside motion in a sealed housing but using gear wheels rather than chains. Combine that with marshall5's suggestion of making one good one from two and you MIGHT have a viable project.

 

How much design work would this involve though? Also, were the chains in a MN any more troublesome than those on the WC/BoB locos? As it hasn't stopped a number of those in original condition being restored, so I wouldn't have thought it would be the be all and end all.

 

My thoughts also. Do any drawings of Bulleid's original design still exist? If not, then how could you replicate his intentions with any accuracy.

But in principle I do like the idea of re-using the parts of a loco unlikely to be restored in its own right, to recreate something we have now lost, as in the case of 4709 etc.

Dave

 

No drawings would be a litle surprising, but given the existance of very similar if not identical components then there clearly arent any insurmountable problems here.

 

That was why i pondered on the Wadebridge group, because they had already restored an unrebuilt , so assuming that the construction was simular, ie chains and oil bath , fittings etc they would be best placed to actually produce a working engine at the end of it,

 

I suspect the custodians of Waderbridge have enough to contend with looking after Waderbridge!

 

Just to correct a small error.

According to various reports at the time the shareholding in the locomotive Wadebridge was gifted to the MHRPS. Alan Moore donated a 73% shareholding to the society, which pretty much means the MHR have outright control, unless of course the MHRPS have sold some of their shares in the meantime which I would have thought unlikely.

 

Thanks for the correction I knew they had out right control of her just thought it was only by 1 or 2%.