MHR Restorations and Overhauls

That doesn't include the time on the Belle when she managed to nearly run out of water at M4M despite topping up at Ropley. Resulted in some unusual shunting moves before we pretty much coasted back to Alresford having abandoned any thoughts of reaching Alton! Looking forward to seeing Cheltenham out, pity she will be in Malachite. 76017 is also not far off, always a favourite of mine.

 

I guess with 925 and then 80150 and 34058 being brought in as well as overhauling 34105, 76017 and restoring 75079 it will help when the JB locos are moved (albeit with 80150 and possibly 34058 taking a back seat for a little while.


I really can't wait for 925 to return as I've yet to experience a Schools in steam myself. I've missed 30926 on her visits south and 928 is out of service at the Bluebell. I have some pictures of a young me about age 7 on the footplate of 925 at the NRM (I think 30926 was out of service at the NYMR at this time) in 1998. Would be even better to do it again 14 years later but with her in steam.

 

Yes 5224 was something of a problem with water consumption/capacity - I hate to think where it was all going. It would have been difficult-impossible to use in winter with the water supply at Alton regularly iced up.

The (only?) good thing about Cheltenham being in Malachite might be that Nelson won't seem like such an eyesore -) - I remember seeing an unrebuilt bulleid on the Bluebell in what I think was Malachite and thinking it was the only class of loco that looked good in it!! Each to their own on livery matters.

I'm afraid 76017s completion has slipped away due to carriage shop fire and being a bit overtaken by Cheltenhams boiler - it does look like an awful lot of boiler work still to do. On a brighter note, the axlebox horns have almost finished being machined to get everything square, and we seem to be just getting started on getting the motion sorted out.

Incidentally I saw an article that said there were two more runaways at Whitchurch after 76017s mishap - both of the others being 76xxx's. Were they the main motive power for freights on the DNS or was there a common factor in the runaways?

 

Thats interesting for I have heard that they are heading for Okehampton though of course I could easily be wrong on this.

Regards
Chris:

 

30075 is currently at Barrow Hill for firebox repairs - see Project 62 Home Page

 

It is a shame 5224 is leaving, but like the Yugo Tanks it isn't ours to overhaul. I can't say I ever found the water usage excessive, but it was certainly better if driven the way God and the GWR intended. Wide regulator and short cut off.:smile:

 

5224 was a good loco when at the NYMR. At least, I thought so!. It as always a water guzzler, though, and there wasn't much left in the tank after an 18 mile run.

 

Some of our crews seemed to struggle after 10miles. As I say I never found it excessive - for that particular type.

 

I was reading a book by a Harold Gasson, fireman at Didcot Shed in the 40s and he noted that the GW eight-coupled tanks were greedy and with limited water capacity. Apparently at every opportunity for water they'd take it, fill both tanks and the boiler to the brim, and spend about ten minutes trying to avoid blowing off for fear of showering the vicinity!

 

Had a fantastic day with the 9F and Wadebridge, all for just £14! The Mid Hants always puts on a good show, even on a quiet weekend in early March.
You know, today could have been called an S&D tribute weekend, and I'd happily have stumped up £25!

 

Well, all contributions are gratefully received.

Next time you make a visit , get off at Medstead and ask one of the station staff to escort you to the wagon restoration area to say "Hi"

Kindest regards
Chris:

 

You can always make a contribution. But seriously, congratulations for saying something positive about the Mid-Hants Railway, a lot of people put in a lot of effort to put on a good show, even on a quiet weekend in March.

 

It's great to hear someone enjoyed a day at the MHR. Thanks for putting a positive reply on the forum about the MHR.

 

Sad to hear 5224 is off. Not so gutted about the fake Yankee tanks though! Didn't really see the point of having them on the MHR in the first place. A bit small for the banks.

 

They would have fitted a Guildford Shed kind of atmosphere (being close to the USA Tanks) but as you say not great for going up the Alps.

 

Short shuttles and short freights were the order of the day, can't remember seeing 30075 at Alton, but I do seem to remember hearing it cross over Lymington bottom bridge whilst I was in TDS sadlers a few years back. "30076" was intended for enhanced access footplate courses I believe.

30075 on a demo freight | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

30075 Freight | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Yankee tank | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

RE 30076, Yes thats correct, on my last visit to ropley i remember talking to one of the group who had brought the engine, their idea was for disabled access to the footplate, At the time whilst i can see why someone would like to do such a thing a USA is hardly the engine i would choose , an austerity tender conversion would make more sence and be a safer experience for them

 

Part of the problem was undoubtedly that the engine was coming to the end of her ticket and the front end was quite worn; this was noticeable on her last appearance at WSR. She did the job, but was definitely 'tired'.

 

To be pedantic 30076 doesn't exist yet Its still listed as 62-521 on the owners website, and I note suggestions of disabled access seem to have disappeared. Having riden on 30075, I have to say, with its stepped footplate, big firebox and very enclosed cab (the USA's were renowned as sweat boxes), I dont think it is exactly the ideal loco for this conversion. Whatever Project 62 decide to do with their locos, lets hope at least one stays in the South, Spa Valley could do with another loco capable of running to Eridge.

Mark

 

Hasn't the owner of the USA lookalikes on the Spa Valley offered them for sales because they can't run to Eridge?