35009, Shaw Savill

I am a member of MNLPS but there's will be others who know a lot more (Derby 2, Big Al where are you) but I would think as a small loco owning group they are more interested in making sure that what has been the most reliable and well turned out locomotive on the mainline stays that way. What purpose would there be in diluting resources by acquiring a second locomotive and then having to find sufficient work for it to earn its keep?

 

Why divert/dilute the skills needed to keep 35028 on the road by having the headache of another? You can set the tea by Clan Line, the MNLPS have done rather well with in the 40 odd years with their own 'Swiss Watch' why take on the burden of another?

 

Like you I don't see much benefit in MNLPS attempting to maintain two locos but there would be considerable merit in having a second boiler and other major components to reduce overhaul downtime. That wouldn't increase the number of operational MNs though

 

For curiosity value, I noticed the 4.20 at Ascot (Diamond Jubilee Stakes) was won by 'Merchant Navy' at 4-1; hope somebody managed to obtain some good winnings to invest in a suitable project!

 

The MHLPS are only as small group and not getting any younger, a second MN, well, I would thing that every last penny has to go towards the upkeep on Clan line, so do they have the manpower to overhaul a second, I would say not, unless they get an influx of new members who are prepared to pay regular amounts of money into it, OK I can see the positives, they can overhaul everything on the other engine during 28's running life, so that as 28 becomes due for overhaul, what ever , it is just takes over if theres an overlap of say 2 years, during which time they have 2 working engines, hire one out , as long as the money keeps coming in, the only way this would work if than engine was gifted to the MNLPS.

 

There have been several cases where a Barry wreck has been bought as a source of spares for other locos but eventually steamed in its own right and these are wonderful achievements. This however deepens the shadows cast by locomotives that have been broken up or given up their vitals to keep others running. No one wants to see a loco 'scattered to the winds' but in the case of Bulleid pacifics this is surely the only outcome IIRC correctly there are 6 Merchant Navies unrestored, if we eventually get another 3 of those back that will be to my mind a better than expected result. I find it especially disappointing that 35011 has had to have a new crank axle made when there are 5 others doing nothing.

 

The crank axle for 35011 requires a driver sprocket to be fitted to drive the chain valve gear. Unfortunately, the crank axle for the rebuilds is dimensionally undersize in the area that the sprocket has to be fitted.

 

one part of a five part assembly...

 

Do you happen to know whether that's a result of the temporary withdrawls (in early BR days) due to axle issues, or purely down to the later rebuilding programme?

 

It was down to the rebuilding programme.

 

Are you sure about that? Jarvis wrote that the eccentric attachment for the rebuilds (a spigot and five studs) was designed to also allow for attaching a modified version of the chain drive sprocket, thus making a rebuild axle usable on an original, but not the other way round. Not totally straightforward, because the crankpins were different.

 

A rebuilt crank axle can be modified to be used on 35011, after Crewkerne new axles were fitted to the Merchat Navys and they ran unrebuilt for 2 years before the rebuilding programe begun. The axles were modified for the new valve gear which could be undone.

I'd agree that 35025 is the only MN that I would be worried about but her rolling chassis is in very good condition, I had a look around her whilst I was waiting for the kettle to boil during the last 35011 working party.

 

That's as may be but isn't this the loco which didn't have a crank axle? You can't very well modify something you don't have.

As it should be because when it left the GCR it had not long since been re-wheeled with all of the axleboxes and journals done, IIRC. The group working on it at that time wanted it moved into the main shed so they could start adding copper pipework, understandably not wanting to do that outside. For whatever reason that wasn't possible, the project stalled, and then with some management changes at the GCR at that time it left. Probably if it had stayed it would be significantly more advanced by now. However, moving it to Sellindge was not really a very sensible thing to do (although to be fair to them, they didn't have a lot of choice), and from what I've heard the majority shareholder steadfastly refuses to let go, so it sits there. One day, I reckon it could be a good project for someone to carry on with.

 

That is very true, but the last few posts have been questioning if it would be possible to convert a crank axle and I just answered the question.

For those who like a photo here’s the crank axle al CADed up. The model is based on drawing W11247 which was fitted to the Merchant Navy’s in 1954. The right hand crank web was then modified during the rebuilding of the locomotives.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Reading back a few posts you would have got a better angle on this. Your comments on intransigent custodians does have a bearing though. Surely it would have been possible for one of the other MN's ( 35009 or even 35029) to give 35011 a leg up with a 'you can have ours now but you must return / replace it when (or if) we ever need it back'
Im assuming that there are differences between a MN and a WC/BB crank axles

 

Didn't MN11 give up its an axle at one time to 34046 or am I misremembering?

 

Re 35025 recent history, that tallies with my understanding. Is there some connection with the erstwhile owners of 92212?
Someone with a deep pocket and a vested interest in having a fairly complete 8P to finish off would surely be wise to make an offer that couldn't be refused?

 

yes, When it was withdrawn 35011 had its crank axle replaced with a plain axle, because it was expected to just go and be scrapped, so it reached Barry with no crank axle, but 3 plain axles, When 34046 was rebuild to go mainline one of its axles was found to be flawed so the plain axle was swopped out of 35011, because it was sound, this left the 35011 group with a wheel set that would need a replacement axle, as they needed a crank axle anyway, the plan was made to have a new crank axle made,

 

Don't recall the details abut that sounds about right. guessing that a MN axle could work a WC/ bb if the axle box is the same size, but suspect that MN axles are thicker ?
Thinking on that I should desist from guilt tripping folk over 35011's crank axle - I don't know whether 35011 have actively pursued this and were turned down or perhaps just thought that the safest / less fuss option was to have this part built new.

 

We did look at loaning a crank from an another group but were unsuccessful. Creating one from scratch was the only option we had.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk