35011 "GSN" to be restored

Certainly does, and it appears that no further work has been done on it since leaving the MHR!

 

I recall that 35018 swapped her un-restored tender (#3350 ex 35025) to work with 34105 Swanage. The frame and tank were separated and a new 5000 gal high sided body was built and fitted, the old body was sold to 35025 group (I believe).

Tender #3343 which was the one purchased from Barry for 34105 was the one 35018 went to Woodhams Barry with (its self a very late swap with 35008) this 6000 gal version was ‘returned’ to 35018 and this is the one that is now at Portland.

 

Certainly does, and it appears that no further work has been done on it since leaving the MHR![/quote:2xoump4i]

She had a little bit as I can recall to her cylinders, but apart from the initial winterisation etc - Oiling etc and cover, then no i don't think she has! Or certainly doesnt look like it!

 

I take that Richard Heather is still the sole owner of 35018. Will we ever see her run again.

 

Probably not, whilst he still owns her. As it is obvious that he lacks the resources to finish the restoration. If only he had accepted the MHR`s offer to buy the loco, she may well have been running by now.

I believe at the time it was a good offer but after he rejected it, the MHR subsequently went on to purchase Can Pac, which for them was even better as it did not need restoration.

Incidentally did JB not offer at some stage to help him out in restoring her to mainline standard?

 

One could use the same argument about the various GW 4-6-0 re-/new-build schemes, or indeed about Tornado - how different is it from 60532 Blue Peter? On the other hand, such a project could be enough to save a loco that might otherwise be left to rot or broken for spares.

A large part of the power difference between original and rebuilt light pacifics was the reduction in boiler pressure from 280 to 250 psi, which was applied to all the Bulleid pacifics. I suspect that an original MN running at 250 psi would not be noticeably more powerful than a rebuild. It might be quite a different beast to drive, though, with the different valve gear and steam reverser.

 

As much as adhering to the original plans would be nice, the dubious reliability of a steam reverser would mean that if I was undertaking such a project, I'd probably retain a screw-reverser. Personally, I'd 'un-rebuild' an MN to original condition plus a few improvements to the original design based upon operational hindsight. This would include sheeting within the casing above the wheels to prevent oil and coal dust throw-back into the lagging. I'd also try to devise a way of preventing the sand from getting onto the motion when refilling the boxes. In my opinion, far from being vandalism, this would go some way to realising the full potential of the original design, in the same way that the improvements on 71000 have. As much as I respect what Bulleid tried to do in opening new avenues of approach to steam design, I also respect the opinions of people who maintained the locomotives, and in this day and age, there needs to be increasing consideration in this respect.

As for 35018, it is a shame that its restoration has stalled, especially as it is a historically significant member of the class, being the first to be rebuilt.

 

34070 does indeed have sheeting on the underside of the boiler barrel. And as for the steam reverser, they are perfectly reliable with routine maintenance. However, there seems to be concensus that it is a good idea to re-tune a MN!
Anyone got any cash?

 

its sad when you think how close 35018 was to steaming but by now she will be a long term project and the owner clearly does not have the funds to restore it
with the fall of the price of scrap, he must be kicking himself now, but even when it was at ropley he struggled to raise funds to pay for parts for the engine so the future looks very bleak in deed it looks very bleak for all the engines that have moved away and are still in limbo by the time swanage is sorted out, god knows what will be the state of it the std 4, a really useful engine, will probally not steam again insidently, what happened to the s160, i saw it at swindon after it was moved to the old workshops but where is it now?

 

Agreed re: 35018, the situation re: 34105 and 76017 is not quite so bad, as according to the latest Mid Hants News, a representative of the shareholders has looked at them recently and described the poor external condition as superficial.

Apparently the MHR were assured that the boilers were in relatively good condition, needing little work.

Certainly in the case of 34105 the air smoothed casing is nowhere near as bad as when it arrived from Barry and certainly does not appear to have rusted through.

 

Before 35018 left the MHR the owner was asked if he would sell a half share in the loco to the MHR and in return the railway would overhaul the loco with no cost to him. That seemed like a great deal for him and the loco. I can’t under stand why he never took up the offer. There can’t be too many railways that would come up with that type of offer to a struggling owner that has no hope and bob hope in getting his loco back in to steam again. Well he missed the boat and like someone else has said the MHR got a far better deal with the purchase of 35005.

 

Doesn't that rather depend on what value was put on that half share?

I can think of loads of offers that didn't get far because they were somewhat derisory. In fact the only such offer I can think of that did go ahead resulted in the erstwhile owner losing his his engine altogether.

These things are never what they appear to be at first sight.

 

another reason why the owner refused the offer might have been because of the politics that were previlent at the time
but on a happier note i hope that ian riley does indead restore 35009 who knows he might even one day prefer it to a black 5 one thing about the merchants, they will haul anything you can hang on a drawbar but please ian, dont paint it black !!

 

It isnt going to be black, it was said that once completed she would be painted in early BR blue.

 

Early BR Blue I don't will do her much justice in my opinion..

 

Ian Riley and his team will, however, so the colour pales into insignificance.

I wouldn't mind seeing her in lined BR black... 8-[

 

So does this mean Ian Riley is certainly going ahead with the overhaul of her now?

And yes I wouldn't mind BR Black too!! 8-[

 

It worked on 35005.... and imo looked very good.

Yes.. it has been said if she isnt sold by the time the second black 5 is complete then the team will begin her restoration.

 

That is excellent news - I wonder how long it will take for Ian and his team to restore her? She is pretty much complete from what i remember isn't she?

 

Agree with you totally - also with Kieran Hardy - 35005 looked OK in Blue. Anyway, a restored blue-painted 35009 is better than a kit of parts lying around looking for a new owner.

My one concern, having noted how the steaming prospects of several unrestored MN's has improved during the last year is whether there will be enough work for them all. As far as heritage lines are concerned, a rebuilt WC/BB looks similar to an MN, uses less coal, has a lower axle loading and has the power to cope with the heaviest trains even on the longer, steeply graded lines (witness 34101 on the NYMR or 34046 on the WSR) A "Merchant" would be a popular guest engine, but how many lines apart from the Mid Hants and the G/WR wold want one based on their line permanently? Neither the Bluebell nor the Swanage Railways (two obvious candidates) are that keen.

On the main line front, a MN is ideal for the VSOE. It has the power without the clearance problems that regrettably barred 60009 and 4472 from Kent. In the past, VSOE wanted to run more trips with steam than the MNLPS were prepared to offer with Clan Line. Is this still the case? A steam loco on the front really is the cream on the cake with the British Pullman, and several of their current diesel-hauled excursions could probably go over to steam haulage without any obvious problems (e.g. their circular lunch trips or the "Murder Mystery" that goes through Hove, Botley and Basingstoke)

However, if VSOE are no longer interested in boosting the number of steam-hauled trains, we could be in a situation where perhaps 3 main line certified MN's (35009/27/8) and a further three WC/BB's (34027/46/67) will be competing for a limited number of main line openings. I hope this doesn't sound pessimistic, and I would be delighted to be proved wrong, especailly as hopefully the worst of the recession will be over by the time we reach this scenario.