Discussion in 'Steam Traction' started by 34007, May 13, 2008.
The chap on the Coal Stage at Bath shed called the original version Greenbacks.
Bit of Merchant Navy news - Ian Riley's posted photos on Facebook of the bogie wheels of 35009 in what looks like overhauled condition, so that seems to be progressing.
Link for them that do: https://www.facebook.com/Rileysuk/photos/pcb.3416584435087261/3416581995087505
We, i.e. us trainspotters in the 1959/60 era, also called them ‘square bellies’!
The latest edition of the Steam Beano hit the mat yesterday. In a double page spread on pages 8/9, it "reveals" a plan to restore Wadebridge to mainline condition and, perhaps, turn her out in malachite green and "sunshine" lettering. It seems the MHR & Wadebridge Locomotive Ltd have received a 6-figure donation from Alexander Choremi, a Swiss railway fan with a particular love of Bulleid locos. It sounds from the article as though work on Wadebridge will start quite soon and so she won't be moved to Margate. I know one can't always take SR's "news" at face value - they do like to sensationalise everything - but this piece includes quite extensive quotes from Stephen Evans, chair of both the MHRPS and the Wadebridge loco company.
Personally, I hope this ambitious plan does come off. A well-maintained Light Pacific is a boon to mainline tour operators, and a malachite green Spamcan on the mainline would be a fantastic sight. Once the overhaul starts in earnest, I'll be making a contribution.
Only one thing better than an unrebuilt light pacific in Malachite would be its big brother, also rebuilt to original condition.
Tut, tut. There is only one type of Bulleid Light Pacific so no need to use the "unrebuilt" prefix. The rest are Jarvis detuned varieties.
On a more serious note, after Thompson rebuilt some *B17s, they were referred to as Thompson B2 not "rebuilt Gresley B17" so I wonder why Jarvis was not accredited likewise with the rebuilt SR Pacifics.
*Other classes are available,
That's the million dollar question, and there seems to be no rhyme or reason as to which designer classes get assigned to in enthusiasts' minds. To take an example, most enthusiasts talk about distinct "Urie S15s" and "Maunsell S15s", which were built in different series and the later ones incorporate some trivial design variations. But all Black 5s are "Stanier Black 5s" even though I suspect there is probably at least as much difference between a 1935 and 1950 Black 5 as there is between a 1920 and 1937 S15. No-one ever talks about the "Ivatt Class 5".
Before feeling sorry for Ivatt, he does seemingly get the credit for the 2MT locos, despite all the significant drawing work having been done under Fairburn and the first locos appearing at a time when they must have been ordered and construction started under Fairburn! Yet the Southern Q class 0-6-0s that started appearing in 1938 are always credited as a "Maunsell Q class": if you credit Ivatt with the 2MTs, you should by the same token credit Bulleid with the Q, because they appeared on his watch ... (FWIW, I think enthusiasts are correct to say the Q is a Maunsell loco, and wrong to say the 2MT is an Ivatt loco).
Workshops operated on a continuum with a rolling programme of new construction, into which sometimes entirely new designs would eventuate, and sometimes evolutions of previous designs; sometimes rebuilds of older locomotives. Over that, the Chief would from time to time change, and they may be content to allow existing construction to continue with minimal imposition of their own ideas; or they may come in as a new broom and make big changes. Enthusiasts tend to ignore that when it is inconvenient!
I believe a lot of enthusiasts still think the CME spent
his working day sitting in an office at a drawing board furiously designing locomotives down to the last detail. That’s about as true as saying the CEO of a bank counts all the money at the end of the day.
Fowler apparently spent little time actively involved in locomotive design and left the Derby clan to get on with it.
Attributing some classes to certain CMEs is no more than acknowledging that they were introduced during his tenure of office.
When it comes to rebuilds, many were effectively on the accountant’s advice so they could be charged to the revenue account. Particularly true of the Midland, when a Johnson/Deeley 4-4-0 was transformed into a 483 Class very little, if any of the original engine remained. Providing an unrebuilt engine went into the works and the whistle was transferred to the new one, I assume everyone was happy.
Does make me wonder why the donation wasnt sent to Gen Steam Nav, but then 6 figures covers a range and even at the top end it wouldn't necessarily see that project completed any time soon, whereas say 250k would go a long way on an already built loco...
I remember from years ago when, as a volunteer on the MHR, we used to operate 34016 and then 73096 on the mainline. One of the grumbles used to be that maintaining these engines for mainline use took a disproportionate amount of effort and allotted time to do so, some said to the detriment of the other non mainline locos which were the bread and butter of the railway.
It would be good to see 34007 out on the main with all the razzmatazz and publicity associated with that, if this actually becomes fact then hopefully the powers that be who now run the railway have considered all the angles, both good and bad, to doing so.
There might have been a bit of politics involved in some of that thinking, I can't ever remember a service train having to be cancelled because of a main line commitment, part of the reasoning may have been because with the exception of Bittern, all the main line approved engines were in the ownership of the same person, 30506, for instance, never got to go main line, even though, it would have been a good candidate, apart from its small driving wheels .
Fowler was a gas engineer & admitted to knowing little if anything about locomotives, Fairburn was an electrical engineer so could have produced a LMS EM1 equivalent but not a steam loco
If it’s true and it does happen why not sign an agreement with someone like Saphos/LSL (6233, 60007) or the KWVR and NRM have done with Riley’s and West Coast (45212, 60103 and 70013) there are other examples.
I appreciate it’s very easy to just put it like that in a sentence but how much time do some of the loco’s I’ve mentioned above spend at the heritage lines they’re nominally based at in between mainline duties?
According to the Beano article, that's something they're seriously considering. Ever since the "glory days" of Daylight Railtours and Steam Dreams' "Green Train" being based on the Watercress Line, successive MHR management teams have been very aware of the down side of mainline operations. Some have said "never again" while others have said "OK, so long as it doesn't compromise running Watercress Line trains." I think the present incumbants are in the latter category.
I think that may be a bit of journalistic speculation, a lot has changed since the days of the Green Train. Is there really a business case for investing in all the expensive gizmos for mainline running? The NYMR can justify it on the basis that they are running regular timetabled trains on NR. Then what stock do they use, certifying a set of coaches is expensive in both money and time. If they do decide to try it again they do have the advantage of having at least one member of the tram with a lot of experience in keeping a main line engine running.
Am I right in saying that the Whitby locos are not fitted out with the full set of main line electronics?
You could be right but I thought all certified locos had to be fitted
Thanks but that wouldn’t be allowed for any locos working off the Mid Hants
Separate names with a comma.