Bulleid Pacifics - Past or Present

Hi all,

Does anybody have any updates regarding 'Braunton' or 'Taw Valley'

Overhaul for Taw Valley and Tender and mainline fitting to 'Braunton'??

Many thanks

 

Braunton is about to go through or is already undergoing fitting out for mainline use, as it won't be used at the Spring Standards gala for this reason. Taw Valley may be a few years yet. From what I've heard, its undergoing a very comprehensive overhaul, possibly more comprehensive than at first thought (this is despite the new cylinder). In a way, its a shame that it won't be going mainline for its next ticket, but its best to let other Bulleids take the limelight for a bit, and that the SVR will have some proper motive power to grace its metals!

 

As a shareholder-in-waiting of 34053 Sir Keith Park, I'm wondering what the long-term plans will be once 34010 Sidmouth is restored? I know that if I had won the lottery for a few million, I'd probably purchase 34073 249 Squadron and donate it to SLL (if they wanted it) for another long-term 'rainy day' project (which most of their locos were at one point!). I know I could ask SLL about their long-term plans, but nonetheless I enjoy the 'wouldn't it be nice if...' conversations we sometimes get on here.

 

34053 was another one of these locos that most people said would never run again. Seeing that SLL has a good track record bring Bulleids back to life again maybe SLL could take another impossible job on and purchase 35022 from Jeremy Hoskins

 

As it was SLL who sold 35022 to Mr. Hosking I can't see them wanting to buy it back!

 

If I were the MHR I would get these locos - Of course I am still waiting to win the lottery to get CP (35005) into traffic!!!

Being sensible you have to remember that JH has quite a good track record with the locos he has.. I'm sorry, but i wouldn't donate a loco that I owned to SLL - I would rather let the MHR overhaul a loco I owned!!

 

I suppose the Mid Hants needs a BB to complete the set... But if I owned it, and didn't donate it, I'd want to see it go mainline, although not necessarily in the first operating period.

 

i think that SLL have enough on their hands as it is with what they have got, after all they havnt even put the bb through a ten year yet , seemingly prefering to restore engines from scrapyard condition than putting engines through overhauls , can anyone from SLL say when the overhaul on the class 4 and the squadron will be started, or do they prefer to go down the "glory " route of just restoring new engines and leaving engines that have run their ticket to wait till either they run out of new projects is it cheeper to keep on turning out new engines than to put old faviorates through overhaul?

 

I say fair play for going down the 'let's restore as many as possible' route, because it defeats the problem of too many Barry Wrecks littering the sidings. If the time comes when the Swanage Railway comes into possession of the Furzebrook sidings once oil stops going by rail, at least the out-of ticket examples could be put on display in a shed. If they lined up all of their engines, it would certainly look impressive. 34072 has already had some parts removed ready for overhaul, which will begin in earnest once 34053 is complete. The idea is to build a new tender for 34072, which is probably why work seems slow at the moment.

 

Not sure why funds would need to be raised, last time i read about this loco the funds for overhaul were there. Was just a case of waiting for her time to go in the sheds.

Not sure if anyone else has any more up to date info on 35005 though?

 

Its funny the things you pick up from here and there. I was looking at http://www.greatwestern.org.uk/preserve_pres_sr.htm and noticed that before purchase by SLL, the owning consortium of 34010 Sidmouth wanted to rename it 34109 Sir Trafford Leigh Mallory. Was there any truth in it, and what were the reasons for this decision? Whilst it is relatively easy to change the identity of a locomotive, it seems to me as though they intended to change the identity permanently.

 

When 34066 Spitfire was in the accident at St Johns on Dec 1957. Why was she not put threw the rebuild program? When other light pacific’s had already started going threw the rebuilding program. Surely this loco would have been a good candidate for going threw the rebuilding program?

Thanks

 

Remember, BR was in the public sector, the most innefficient business sector there is.

 

The Southern Region were very short of pacific power owing to various factors at the time of the St Johns accident and Stewarts Lane wanted it's Loco back as fast as possible. As there were already Loco's undergoing rebuild at Eastleigh, the powers that be at the time took the decision that it would be better to repair Spitfire as quickly as possible and return it to traffic.

 

The 'owning consortium' was just one person. IIRC that person had a nameplate from 34109 and had the intent to rename the loco accordingly. Not sure whether he also intended to re-number it, as well. It was nigh on 30 years ago and my memory has faded.

 

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

What is the latest on 35006 on the GWSR? Passed her Steam test last year, but no update on the website as yet? Has the boiler been reunited with the frames and pipework and other work been done??

And I hate to say this, but is she likely to be returning to steam this year? I say that because of the very few people who turn out to work on the loco???

 

Any suggestions about whats going on this video of Tangmere at Lewisham - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFAcJFGaOKs
The last section from about 6:00 minutes appears to show some problem judging by the most unusual motion noise - Is the steam reverser playing up maybe ?

 

That is a strange noise....

 

I don't think the relatively sharp corner helped much, either.