35018 British India Line

And? I quite liked it in black. Which means a rebuilt MN would look reasonable in plain black.

 

Meaning it isn't an entirely spirious livery

 

I have my preferences, but I have long since realised that I must be financially committed to a locomotive before I start wailing about a lick of paint. Which is why I'm committed to 34010, 34053 and 34072, as their owning group's preferences coincide with mine. 35018 ain't a museum piece, and whilst it's a nice thing to acknowledge the past, it has a new future now, and plenty of time to be repainted if the owner so wishes.

 

I know what is going on. WCRC have got another Film contract with Warner Brothers after the success of Harry Potter. They are going to provide the locomotive for Batman's train in the next DC Universe film. Batman uses the train to transport his Justice League colleagues around. This is how 35018 will be outshopped: (There is going to be more outrage about the livery than the fact she has become a 2-4-2!)

 

Why not West Coast maroon? They are a TOC at the end the day. 34027 looked very smart when on Harry Potter duty!

 

We did that to death on page one

 

That seems a reasonable guess. Based on the available info 46115 is approaching ten years since it first steamed so logically could be due a heavy general which might present a matter of priority with 34016? Depends on capacity and individual preference probably. My instinct would be to enjoy the Scot this year as it could be its last for a while.

 

If 46115 had a bottom end overhaul at the half way point it may be a lot quicker than 34016, which will need a full overhaul including a complete mechanical overhaul she did sit out of traffic for a long time before she was moved to Carnforth

 

Very true but then we do not know if any remedial work on 34016 has taken place already either. Some say it was in good shape mechanically but the boiler was poor hence 34073 entering the fray. Same situation with 34067 too?
Unenviable choices to make perhaps or a nice position to be in depending on your point of view!

 

Essentially one boiler assembly and three possible locomotives, depending on the arrangements between owners. I still haven't got to the bottom of whether 34073 is indeed under the custodianship of WCRC, or whether it is still John Bunch's pigeon, which seems too be the case with 34016. Equally, though its none of my business, one does wonder which locomotive owner/owning group contributed the spare oil trays and oilbath pump for 35011's retro-conversion.

 

34016 was withdrawn due to serious firebox defects, so that could mean a new firebox, or a boiler swap the strange thing is that this was a new firebox 5 years earlier ,and the boiler work done was said to be good for 20 years,

 

It seems unlikely that CRRES is in a position to be taking on contract work involving 34067, 34073 and 34016 so it can perhaps be inferred there is some corporate control if not outright ownership involving the group of legal entities associated with WC.
The status of 73096 is even more opaque if anything.

 

CRRES takes on plenty of contract work for third parties e.g. NNR quad set.
Doubt anyone who actually knows the ownership of 34016,34073 and 73096 will inform the speculators.

 

I think its a fair bet that it'll be a similar arrangement to 31874, 31625 and 31806 at Swanage. Storage, then restore and run on the proviso that they are returned in better condition than they arrived once either party decides to call it a day. As JB used to accompany 34067 around quite a bit, I suspect he has fair connections with Carnforth.

 

CRRES has and indeed is presently working on 61306. The point being made is that internal demands are growing so external capacity seems likely to be reduced, just like Crewe.

 

It would surprise me if that were the arrangement even though JB has Carnforth connections because it would mean investing in assets owned by others which has the possibility of turning quite sour.
An alternative possibility to deal with any capacity issues would be to sub contract one of the overhauls outright, perhaps to Rileys for example?

 

As state previously the only people who know for sure are John Bunch and David Smith, and there is zero likelihood on either of these two gentlemen telling what the share is, what we do know is that 34067 is jointly owned by JB and a business associate of DS,who prefers to remain in the background, but CRSS seems to control the maintaince of the engine, i suspect that the likelihood is that 35018 is owned outright by DS, but that 34016 will be a contract overhaul , that Bodmin could be a similar shared ownership, 73096 we know remains in John Bunches ownership, but i expect that will move to either Carnforth, or Swanage for its restoration to be completed, either once 35018, or most likily 31874 are completed, as the plan is to go mainline with the mogul, i can see the 5 heading down to Swanage, as i dont think Southall has the facilities now to do a heavy overhaul, but of course i stand to be corrected .

 

As I recall the RAIB report about the Winchfield incident clearly identifed 34067 as wholly owned by part of the Carnforth group but maintained under contract by CRRES. The mysterious associate seems to be a bit of a Hong Kong Phooey.
As you rightly point out there will be no public announcements which is a pity. If this year turns out to be a last chance for the Scot in a while, making that public could persuade more folk to buy a ticket to ride behind it thus boosting income?

 

Especially now the Scot's replacing 6233 on the Mid-Day Scot, a rare run at Beattock should make her talk..

 

The Management would like to welcome all readers to the new look forum for all those interested in historic transport "National-Itdoesn'tmatterhowinauthenticitlooks.com".