Bulleid Pacifics - Past or Present

i beleive that there will be work for both 35009 and 35027 for the folowing reasons, i would assume that having an 8p that can be run at 75 mph as part of his stable would give Ian Riley flexibility with rail tour operators, lets say that a tour booked for one of his black 5's gets overbooked , or cant be easily timed at 60, then he has the option of putting 35009 on instead an MN can go anywhere a black 5 can go as long as its with in the axle loading

secondly at the moment only 35028 is active and that is normally restricted to VSOE work so there would be opertunities for 35027 if based from Southall for work in the south and also MN hauled tours are still very rare and i would imagine that the prospect of a tour headed by port line, or Shaw Savil could catch the imagination of southern fans who knows maybe even both machines could one day get involved on the now annually celibrated last day of southern steam running from bournmouth and waterloo and passing en route

 

A Black 5 will possibly be better on tightly-timed, hilly sections though *thinks back to Fives versus Bulleid light pacifics on the S&D* ...

 

That works quite well because as you say 35027 could be based at Southall and 35009 could be based at Bury or in the north and get work on trips that the Riley Black 5 duo get. Don't know what the plan is about 35022 though.

 

But you are restricting your argument to the Merchant Navy locos and treating them in isolation, whereas in reality there are also Britannia, Royal Scot, Braunton, Tangmere, Union of South Africa, Flying Scotsman, King Edward II, Clun Castle, Pendennis Castle to add before too long (and Ian Riley has hinted at a fourth MN entering his works soon). Most of these are new to the main line or haven't been out there for a long time and between them represent a sizable increase in the main line fleet. To be viable they have to maintain a certain level of business. Arguably 6023 is going to replace 6024, but the overhaul of 6024 isn't likely to take 10 years and so there will be two kKings out again. There either has to be an increase in the number of trains or each loco will do less work (and earn less), it is as straightforward as that.

 

this is a Bulleid thread so taking MN's in isolation is what i was doing, but to expand this, people tend to go on tours for 2 reasons, either its a loco they lke, or a route that they like sometimes a mixture of both, for instance 35009 over the S&C would do well because its been a very long time since an MN did Shap ,yes there is only so much work to go round, so i would expect to see those engines that are not always running main line appearing on preserved lines where their owners have ties with , for instance ians black fives see a fair ammount of work at the NYMR so i would imagine that 35009 could spend time there as well as bury , just as i for one would not be shocked if Britainia or any other hoskins owned engines turned up at Ropley or Minehead from time to time given the links between the owner and the railways concerned , where preserved lines have direct access to the network i would expect to see more engines spending time on hire between rail tours and this would give a boost to both the owning groups and to the railways concerned

 

Surely the timing of a tour is worked out for the booked motive power. Seems rather odd that an organiser would request a Class 5 and then get it timed so it requires a change to a Class 8.

 

What about if say a tour operator puts in a timing/ route request and it cant be accomodated at 60 mph with out causing delays to other timetables services but could be accomodated if it could be timed at 75mph? its this posible problem i was refering to,or the tour booked out which meant that extra coaches would need to be added either that or turn people away, in that case having another engine of 8p power from the same loco owner that could be substituted to either allow the tour to run, or to run with a heavier load would make that tour more likily to happen

 

rEgardless of whether this is a Bulleid thread, when the point is whether there is enough work for 3 or 4 Merchant Navies on the main line it seems relevant to me to consider the bigger picture. I don't think it is an answer to glibly assume that any underutilised engines will find work on heritage lines. It is true that Ian Riley#s black 5s spend a lot of time at the NYMR but they're mid-sized engines, and are of particular value because they can run into Whitby. Hillaire Belloc once said "The whale is not a table fish" and the same is true of class 7 and 8 engines on the whole. I do't expect to see the Hoskings engines being regular performers on the Mid Hants, because they are relatively expensive to run in (the daily hire fees on Bittern are among the most expensive around, I believe) so whilst they may visit for galas I think the MHR will prefer to use theier own engines.

 

If that's the case I doubt they'd advertise for Class 5 haulage in the first place. Contrary to what some people think, organisers are not fools and in all probability know what's what regarding their tour proposals and advertise accordingly.

 

I don't think we need to worry about 35022 for a while yet, as it is a full restoration and as has been mentioned in the press, the work being done is only exploratory at present. So that'll leave two MNs to 'worry' about, and, if previous suggestions are to be believed, one in the north and one in the south may be just about economically viable, especially as 35028 seems to have almost exclusive rights to the VSOE trips, which generally takes it out of the mainline fleet in the normal sense of the term. A possible use for 35022 would be as a 'free-roaming' MN, although if the rumours surrounding this locomotive are true, un-rebuilding the locomotive would probably make it an attraction in its own right. One thing's for sure, the MNs, despite their size, do seem to have an enduring popularity, as the ticket sales seem to show whenever 35028 does an enthusiast's tour. The only way to be proved right or wrong regarding the economics is to try it out and see what happens...

 

There's another update regarding 35006. See here: http://www.gwsr.com/enthusiasts/departments/po-restoration-project/progress-reports/2011/january.aspx .

 

I saw that it was posted here sometime back; http://nineelms.freeforum.me.uk/t171-35006-po

 

That's an expensive mistake if "what happens" turns out to be on the "wrong" side of the equation!

Tom

 

I think that this question of a surfeit of large engines to run mainline is a reason why 72010 'Hengist' group are initially intending their engine to do the tours of heritage lines. Of course, if it takes another 5 years to complete there may have been either an explosion in the number of ml runs or a major reduction by then.
(Check the latest on the web-site 72010-hengist.org)

 

Well, there's only so much that studies and market analysis can tell you, and in any case, it would probably tell you that there is no economical reason to put steam on the mainline at all. At the end of the day, if the owners wish to see their locomotives on the mainline, then that's their prerogative, and as a Southern enthusiast, I wholeheartedly thank them for their guts in making it happen. I for one would try my utmost to have at least one ride behind each locomotive. I'm only sorry I missed 35005...

 

I never knew they were planning for heritage lines primarily. About time someone planned their new-built big engine for the heritage lines, in my opinion. :smile: It would be ideal for them. Its less heavy going on coal than WCs which have found homes on such lines and has axel load of 19 tons giving it route availability of black 5s which too are common on todays heritage lines. (info from Hengist's website) This coupled with being a strong 6 loco will make it ideal for the lines it runs on. Full steam ahead for Hengist from me then!

 

Hi All,

There’s been some movement on 35018 British India Line. I’ve been told that Richard Heather has now sold her to John Bunch. Looks like we will see her return to steam in the future. Is this the missing loco that has been talked about on the Works forum which is going to Ian Riley’s?

 

Riley hasn't released anything on the interweb pertaining to the fourth Merchant's identity but its most likely 35018. Her things have been removed from storage at the MHR recently, there's no movement on the other non-operational MNs and other people working at Bury loco works have told me its 35018. I wonder if it's going to ELR based when done? Hope so. Guess we won't know anything for sure until it's announced and/or the 2 halves of 35018 arrive on the back of a low loader....



Also, doesn't Bunch own 34073? wonder if anything's planned for that

 

I would imagine - and this is only a guess - that it will be ELR-based in the same way that Tangmere was when it was owned by John Bunch and Ian Riley! The interesting thing now will be to see what John Bunch does with his three Maunsell 2-6-0s when their time is up o the MHR. If his interest now lies on the main line they probably aren't going to be of much use to him.

 

Looks like the future for Bulleid Pacific’s on the main line is going to be very rosie. If she does go to Ian Riley's will she jump in front of 35009 Shaw Savill?

Latest photos for February Here.

http://lee.mediaobjects.co.uk/c1941247.html