35025 Brocklebank Line

The SLL website says that the class 40 wheelsets were sold and that the frames were to a WC/BoB design, but they have not yet been found in the undergrowth at Sellindge

 

Interesting. I think the previous owners bought those diesel wheelsets in the days long before other groups started casting new Boxpok wheels, so hopefully a more authentic appearance is on the cards for '25's future tender.
Also interesting if they had WC frames lined up for a MN tender. I am constantly confused by all the Bulleid tender variations but one thing I do recall is that one type has a flat base on the tank, the other has a recess into the frames. Which is which I can't remember... but presumably one way round you can match the two bits, and the other way round, you can't.
As I recall those tender frames looked roughly like this: [ |0| |0| |0| ] where o represents the hornguides and | represents where different small sections of frame had been welded together. To my untrained eye the welding looked excellent but how they managed to make all those bits straight and true I've no idea. Nor whether they'd be allowed on the main line. I guess time will tell but I wouldn't be surprised if '25 will need new tender frames.

 

Completeness? Doesn't 35029 have parts 'borrowed' from 34051?

 

Not heard that one but quite possibly. Maybe some of the fittings from 35029 had gone by the time it left Barry so for display purposes 34051 was robbed of bit the public wouldn't see.

 

some trivia reference 35025 and tenders .......

The third series of MNs utilised 6000g tenders and 35025 ran with tender 3343 until June 1952 when it was fitted with tender 3350 through to withdrawal in September 1964. Moved to Woodhams in March 1965 and lost it's tender when 35018 was purchased for the Mid Hants railway. This tender was subsequently paired with WC 34105 Swanage and received a new tender tank created as a hybrid of 5500g capacity. The old tank is the one said to be paired back with 35025. (coincidently, original tender 3343 is now paired with 35018 at Carnforth)

http://www.ten.rhrp.org.uk/displaytender.php?Ref=208N96XGREHDYF1VIJP5

The Boiler with 35025 said to be in good condition, was new when fitted to 35013 Blue Funnel as built. Fitted to 35025 in December 1956

I believe the previous owner of 35025 had a new drag box made but not sure if that may have been used instead with 34010 or 34058?

NB : There is an apparently unallocated Maunsell 4000g tender snowplough T715 / ADS70225 at Sheffield Park - ex 30915 Brighton I believe.

 

I think that 34051 needed all its "bits" for itself so I guess the answer is no!

Peter

 

When 34051 had it's cosmetic refresh at the MHR I remember seeing a video saying that it had a number of parts made or returned as they had been lost or loaned for other locos.

Chris

 

A pedant writes: Bulleid locos don't have Boxpok wheels, they have BFB ("Bulleid - Firth Brown") wheels. Although superficially similar, there are detail differences. In particular, a BFB wheel is cast with a corrugated form which you could imagine as offset "spokes" in two planes (inside and outside), with their edges linked by webs to form a continuous corrugated disc. A Boxpok wheel in effect has true box-section spokes and rim (hence the name).

BFB: https://35011gsn.co.uk/Technical and Education Centre/how-it-works/bfb-wheels-and-tyres.html (Not my photo). Click on the photo for quite a clear view.

Boxpok: https://www.flickr.com/photos/gmpullman/49743081178/in/photostream/

Tom

 

As a long-term MNLPS member, I'm not sure that this is such good news. Though 35025 might be a useful source of spares (then again, it might not), it will be many a long year until it's ready to cover for Clan Line and in the mean time it could be quite a drain on resources, both money and people. Although Clan Line is a good earner, and the society has a good record of financial management, there's always a need for donations on top of operational income, so there's no spare cash to restore another loco.

Previously, when Clan Line was withdrawn for overhaul, the MNLPS hired in other locos, such as 60163 and 60009, to cover their VSOE/Belmond obligations. This worked pretty well. MNLPS only had to pay for the days / miles that the replacement loco operated and they hired locos that were actually available and in-ticket. Until '25 is ready (10 years? more?) it won't be of any great benefit to the society.

Now, I don't expect anyone on this forum to answer any of these questions. I'm just trying to think through the implications:

Where will MNLPS keep 35025, and how much will that cost per year? Siding space, especially under cover, needs to be paid for whether or not there's any work being done on the loco

How many parts does '25 have and what remains to be manufactured? Who will fund that?

Will '25 bring any new volunteers to MNLPS? How many? What are their skills?

Will '25 bring any cash, or existing donors? How much? What are its debts, if any, and will SLL pay those off before the transfer?

Thinking about interchangeable parts, and tenders in particular, 35028 has a unique tender, because the air-brake pump is fitted at the back. If '25 ever gets to main-line running condition, would it have the same air-brake system as '28?

If '25 and '28 are both in running condition at the same time, would there be sufficient work, and sufficient MNLPS support-crew, for both locos?

It seems to me that the benefits of owning and operating several examples of the same type of loco start to appear with 3 or more. I'm thinking of the Essex Loco Society's 2 working S15s from 3, or one of the Manor-owning societies (EMF??) with 2 at work and one in the works, most of the time. Ian Riley has done something similar with his Black Fives - some owned, some "shared" as it were. But no, I'm not suggesting that MNLPS takes on another long-term MN restoration!

 

A correction: they own 841, 830 and 825, but 830 has never steamed in preservation and 841 has bent frames which is why 825 was restored.

 

When 34051 was at Didcot, we asked John Bellwood where all the missing parts were. Do you think that 35029 was 'complete' when it left Barry?

 

No, it never has been and isn't to this day, even on the side that is "complete". 34051 had a wandering life in its early preservation days - Brighton, Tyseley, Didcot - with no inventry of what was on the loco at that time so bits did just walk. But why rob one loco for another when both are to be displayed.

Peter

 

Offer accepted!

 

Having been a long time supporter of 35025 (from its GCR days) I was very pleased that SLL did take it on and proceeded with its preservation and protection. I am even more pleased that MNLPS are to restore it to Main Line running...eventually (understandably).

 

Please do be patient with us as we work out the details.

I have noted my inbox and responded as best I can but have and will continue to refer people to the press statement above and to refer to our communications officer.

Please do not reach out to our committee as they have a lot on their plate at the moment. There will be more information shared as and when we have something to say.

Above all, remember we are at the start of this process and there’s a lot of work to do before anything starts to happen.

But on a personal note - I’m thrilled, remembering ‘25 being worked on at Loughborough in my GCR volunteer days whilst at university there. I’ve always had a soft spot for her. I can promise that in my capacity as treasurer, I will do the right thing by both ‘28 and ‘25.

And if you want to see them both working, you know what you need to do - join MNLPS and let us know which loco you want to sponsor, effectively.

I’m still working out the details for committee but as the press release alludes to, we intend to ring fence both engines separately to a great degree. When I can release info on how that works I will ask our press officer to explain.

Best wishes

Simon

 

I hope your post and communications with MNLPS members will reassure people such as such as @Steamage (See his post #309). He has raised some perfectly valid points - to which I could add the issue of support crews if both 35025 and 35028 were both working trains at the same time.

35028 has a reputation second to none for performance and reliability and, having owned the loco for 59 years, the MNLPS, albeit now consisting of a lot of new members (including your good self) from the people who bought it from BR in 1967, know every nut and bolt of their engine.

It is quite unprecedented for an independent loco-owning group to take on a second loco after such a long time. The nearest parallel I can think of would be, supposedly Exporail in Montreal de-accession Dominion of Canada and offered it to the Sir Nigel Gresley group. Would they want to take it on? I have no idea, but even if they did, while no sensible person could imagine that 4489/60010 could be unloaded in the UK, dragged to Southall, coaled and watered and promptly rostered for a trip from King's Cross to York, the bottom line is that it is essentially a complete engine. Other main line operating groups which have taken on an extra loco such as the 5305 LA (30777 + 70013) or Bahamas group (LNWR Coal Tank ) have either taken on essentially complete locos or else only intend to run one on the main line.

In taking on an unrestored ex-Barry loco with a view to main line operation while operating another engine, the MNLPS is breaking new ground. I therefore wish them all the best and still believe (as do most other posters) that this is the best possible future for 35025, but for all the goodwill towards the engine, it will certainly require a lot of careful planning to ensure that it can be returned to steam without compromising the excellent - and well-deserved - reputation which Clan Line has acquired in the preservation era as both a stunning performer and the epitome of reliability.

 

I feel like this is great news, and I hope that the feeling from inside the organisations involved is similar!

I do hope that 35025 does return to the mainline, I have memories of seeing her at Loughborough when I was younger and thinking that it "can't be far off".

The MNLPS have an enviable reputation for reliability with 35028, perhaps a second loco allows them to further build resilience.

Best of luck to the MNLPS.

Chris

 

This is my ninth year as treasurer…