34073 moved?

Never say "never". If 34073's boiler is being prepared for a quick swap with 34016 (and that's a very big "if"), then 16's boiler may end up on 73. It makes sense to get Bodmin up and running, earning money on the mainline, as quickly as possible. 34073 is a much longer-term project, even if she's got as many parts stored as was advertised.

 

Best thing to do with 34073 is remove the middle cylinder, fit it to 35018, bore out that middle cylinder to MN size. Use 34073s crank axle and whatever is left of the valve gear etc.
And put 35018 back as it should be!

 

Er no. Best thing to do is restore 34073 as the memorial to 249 Sqd she once was.

 

I'd agree - in the grand scheme of things, more complex things than making crank axle / casting a new cylinder have been achieved in preservation. So much as I'd like to see an original Merchant Navy, cannibalising a BoB that has its own identity isn't the place to start.

Tom

 

I'm sure the cheaper polystyrene mould technique would render cannibalisation superfluous, anyway. Had circumstances been different ten or so years ago, it might well have steamed by now, but the past is past; we have to learn from it and move on. I'm sure 34073 will get its time in the sun again.

 

I'm pretty sure the crank axles were modified on all the MN's and Lights, starting before the rebuild programme, and it was only the crankpins that made the wheelsets non-interchangeable between originals and rebuilds. The chain drive sprocket was changed to use a spigot+studs interface later used for the eccentric on the rebuilds, since the original clamped attachment was responsible for 35020's bout of property damage at Crewkerne.

So if (hypothetically) you were going to put an MN back in original condition (and please, not 35018), I'd advise making an exception for the crank axle.

 

Sorry to put a pessimistic view on the situation. "You cant save them all" springs to mind. The bits and pieces left of '73 are probably worth more being used a strategic spares for '16 and '67 and other Bulleids.

Its a fact that is becoming more and more apparent with locos still in Barry condition and still deteriorating further from their time at Barry. Their condition is such that a few are surely close to being beyond economic repair. Yes it would be nice to see yet another Bulleid stretching her legs but in the coming 2 years there will be a minimum of 13 Bulleids running. Surely that is enough?

 

I'm not sure how well the terms "economic" and "heritage rail" go together...

But seriously, most of the BoB's (including many of the now long-gone ones) memorialize(d) things worthy of having their names/memories kept alive. But what about the ones that are now scrapped? I sympathize with those who want to restore her as a memorial to her namesake, but what about all the others where that's not an option?

Noel

 

Simple. NEW BUILD! Let's get the facebook page and livery sorted first....

 

I'm on it

 

Of all the MNs still unrestored, 35018 is the least good candidate for "un-rebuilding" since she was the prototype/pioneer rebuild. Also, it looks like she's finally on her way back to working condition. "Un-rebuilding" might be a way to raise funds for an MN that otherwise wouldn't be restored.

 

Surely David Smith's track record for rebuilding Galatea means that he'd be a fairly good bet for restoring 34073 if the mood took him? I thought 35018 was pretty near a complete kit, and 34067 and 34016 are definitely complete, so I'm not sure the economics of buying something for spares would be? The boiler might be the fly in the ointment of my thinking, but doing a quick job so 73's boiler slots onto '16 doesn't mean '73 doesn't get put back together some time in the future. I reckon it's more positive than languishing at Bury. #positivity


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

34073 is owned by John Bunch.

 

How do you know John could of sold 34073. Unless you have spoken to the both of them.

 

If you are talking about Flying Scotsman, there is no similarity whatsoever.
I don't recall Merchant Navy loco frames falling apart because they had bigger bore cylinders than West Country loco.

 

35018 is by far the best candidate for putting back as it should be. It was the first to be detuned, so perfectly appropriate for it to be the first to be put back!

 

Butchering a BB to recreate an MN is akin to cannibalism. Are the cylinder blocks the same size on a BB as an MN? If not then you'd be making the walls thinner.

 

And in other news.................................. Bodmin is due to move soon from the MHR, and we all seem to assume to Carnforth.....................................