Jeremy Hosking is after another BR Standard.........................

That's an interesting comment Steve, why is 60007 considered appropriate motive power? Is purely because of its ability to haul a heavy train?

 

I didn't use the word appropriate. In terms of the NYMR's origins, it isn't. What I did say was that it was suitable, which is why it gets regular use when it is available. A D49 would be appropriate but, for today's NYMR probably unsuitable.

 

Well I mean appropriate for what the NYMR considers to haul it trains today, not what was used back in the days of yore.

 

Whilst the NYMR manages quite well with its class 4's, they are on their sensible limit with 7 coaches. The pressure needs to be on the mark and its a 50-55% slog to maintain 20mph on the 1 in 49. There's little room for error and, if you sit down on the bank for any reason, restarting can be a real test of enginemanship.. The diner really needs a class 6 loco to be on top of the job. Class 7 & 8 locos have a good bit in hand, admittedly, but that is no real problem. Don't forget that 7 coaches on the NYMR with a Black 5 is comparable with one dragging 12-13 up Shap. The big boilers may be more expensive in terms of standby losses but there isn't much difference in the amount of coal shovelled during the journey.

 

Thanks Steve, very interesting.

 

Maybe a merchant navy could be a test bed, to reduce the surface area of the boiler, and reduce capacity of the firebox internals, there by making a more efficient but less powerful locomotive which retains its Sound and appearance ?...

Ok it's a merchant with clipped wings... But it looks the job, sounds the job and is viable.

 

Having read all of the post people need to remember all this talk of smaller class 4s. The point of preservation is to preserve the railway do have to make money to cover there costs but also need to preserve all the past big and small.

This does also include using them there is no point spending very sizeable sums of money then not using it to the maximum as there s no point running a class 8 on a few miles with 4 coaches there are very few lines that can accomodate these locos i doubt there is room for more than 2 mainline Merchant navys so it does leave a few that are going to have to earn there money on preserved lines.

There are probally only 4 lines that could justifiy using them at present the SVR is one of them with the west somerset and the north yorkshire moors maybe the mid hants or churnet valley when running over the extension.

I do have suspicion that all these size and wieght issue on the SVR would change if the loco had swindon on the makers plate.A castle or king would be just as bad for the pw

 

All very interesting points, thank you Steve. It's nice to see someone looking at this from all angles, and not just saying their unsuitable period...

I must confess I didn't consider the NYMR, as I wasn't sure about the curves and weight restrictions, but yes a MN would be right at home there. The gradients would certainly give the shipping lines a run for their money, certainly when you consider the fact that they weren't faced with the biggest of slopes on their original routes.

 

History shows that slopes have never been a problem for them or the light pacifics as shown by 1948

 

I wouldn't be so sure about that, Ruston906. Pragmatism is an important part of operating a railway these days. Kings and Castles are all very well as special visitors but I don't think that one would be welcome in regular use, although based on the railway is a different matter.

 

Should'nt this thread revert to being about JH & his offer to buy 80079?

Somehow it has turned into a thread about MNs which are of no relevance to this topic or the SVR particularly when there are plenty of other Bullied threads on here already.

 

The SVR does have relevance because Jeremy Hosking has bought 80079 and will continue to be based there, and might be overhauled there too.

And the MNs are also relevent because this thread has talked about JH's collection in general aswell, and within his collection he has TWO MNs, TWO...! Some would say he's mad, others would say he's lucky... I'm the latter.

Although saying that, since we are partly talking about JH's collection, one wonders why he's got 2 MNs. Afterall he doesn't seem to be a one for duplication in his collection. If he was using one as a donor, like he did with Sir Keith Park, then it would make sense. But it would appear that he's planning to restore the second aswell, eventually... Which begs the question, is he aiming for the holy grail of Bulleid projects, a original built (unrebuilt) Merchant Navy? Could be possible, he's certainly got the financial part nailed down... If there was anyone who could do it, it's him.

 

This, too, has been discussed before. IIRC, the two locos were purchased together, on the basis that one good runner could be overhauled fairly quickly from the two. Ian Riley was going to "assess" them, though he didn't say what for. As you say, if anyone can afford to un-rebuild a Bulleid, it's JH!

 

Does anyone know what became of Jeremy Hosking's discussions about 80079? I thought that the sale was not proceeding, but the Wikipedia entry for Mr Hosking states that, "Hosking bought the locomotive for £250,000, and will spend £350,000 on restoration. The locomotive will remain on the SVR." The wikipedia entry was last updated on 25th April.

 

Probably best to not believe a good size percentage of what is on Wikipedia though....

 

Where did you hear that the "sale was not proceeding" ?

 

Suprising a figure has been quoted for the overhaul before the boiler has had an out of frames inspection.

 

Agreed. £350,000 for restoration? That's pretty bloody cheap by the sound of things!

 

£350K is probably at the lower end of what's required assuming there is not a lot wrong with it, I don't think it's totally knackered, but at the same time it needs a bit more than just a retube!.

As said earlier, beward of Wiki entries, we have a few 'unusual' people in our hobby who are way off the mark.