John Bunch's Southern Moguls

Is there enough room for SR and SLL to work together side by side , after all,that would be the best option, what ever the politics, and there will be some, i just hope that things work out for both JB and SR, how James Cox as motive power supervisor will get on with some of the people around the engines will be the biggest hurdle, but then, i understand that he knows JB very well, so hopefully there will no infighting as was evident on the MHR i dont know how relations are between James and the current MHR set up, but as 31806 visited twice, they must be on speaking terms, my hope that now both parties can put the past behind them, and learn from the mistakes of the past, my hope would be that over time relations between swanage Railway and Mhr improove and that maybe, just maybe one day one of the mogols might make a visit to MHR metals

 

The situation is completely different to past difficulties the MHR and JB had, as far as I can tell, John is moving his engines here, signing over for 25 years and we can all see them running again. Hopefully they can visit any railway in future, MHR included!

The past is the past. We have to move on from this for everyone's sake. Im extremely happy to see they have a working future. The Swanage Railway needed a bigger fleet and the MHR have compensated with other motive power. Im sure things are going to be great!

 

Well they have been for the last 25+ years.....

Since when has it been bad?....my impression is that the working relationship between the two is pretty good. But there again what goes on behind the scenes is vastly different than the rumour mongering that you see on forums etc

 

There is a little thing called forward planning.........all things being equal in the next couple of years SR will be running a trial mainline service into Wareham. A BIG first for railway preservation (no disrespect to NYMR)...running onto a busy mainline and with 3rd rail.....so if the trial works then the possibility of running to Wareham with steam becomes a possibility/next move. So if you look at the bigger picture there could be a requirement for the SR to have a larger fleet and with mainline certification.

 

Just seen the news about the JB moguls. I know none of the personalities involed, but speaking purely from the point of view of the engines, Swanage is the best home for them, being an ex-SR line. It gives the railway a more balanced fleet and avoids having to search for short-term hire locos when 34028 comes out of ticket. Like others here, I think it's going to be a tall order to return 31874 to traffic by August 2015, but who knows what arragnements have already been made? Some overhauls have been completed remarkably quickly and in this instance, a boiler swap with 31625 could be a possibility to speed things up. It would be good if one of the engines could be eventually used on regular through running to Wareham, but that's for the future. Let's see how things work with the DMU before getting too carried away!

There is a slight irony for those of us who saw 31806 in action at either the two recent Swanage galas. The weather was kind on both occasions, so the visits were nicely recorded for posterity, but now such sights are going to e commonplace. Never mind. It's a lovely engine and I'm certainly not going to complain if it's at the head of the train next time I'm down paying a visit.

 

Dan, your comment regarding 6695 is incorrect; she is not due 10 yearly overhaul until early 2016, a bit more than a few months away! Also where do you get the idea the overhaul won't be fast-track? It's in the interests of all parties to get the engine back in traffic sooner rather than later.

As regards the requirement for six steam loco's, this is a minimum requirement to provide sufficient power for the services we currently operate; as already stated we need to be thinking of the future but it's also handy to have additional resources in hand! Extra loco's could also mean availability for hiring out.

 

deleted

 

Multiple post, sorry kept coming up as error!!!

 

So the rumours were true. I wish good luck to all concerned. Since they can't stay on the Watercress Line, I'm really pleased to see the moguls go to Swanage. A properly negotiated 25-year agreement is good news for the line and the owner. Remembering some of the things said about 1874 and 1625 when they were each withdrawn from service early, I'll be interested to see how long it really takes to overhaul them.

The press release says 1874 and 1625 will move during June or July, with 1806 in action at Swanage from August, so just a few more weeks to ride behind the U-boat on the MHR. She made a lovely sight on the Watercress Belle on Saturday evening...

 

Whatever about the baggage of history (and I have some too in this matter) the prospect of two Southern lines far enough apart not to compete but near enough to co-operate, both main line connected, with mostly authentic Southern fleets, is mouth-watering. What price a ticket from Swanage to Alresford? (might have to use the 4TC or the Hampshire Unit for the middle bit I suppose)

 

Ah sorry Nigel, I thought I heard someone saying it was out sometime next year. When I said about not being fast-tracked, I was thinking with regards to available space in the works next year. But as it's not out until 2016 it shouldn't be a problem!

 

OK Dan, no problem. Overhaul may be contracted out either as a whole or boiler & remainder separately. Currently being looked into, depends upon costs and capacity of likely contractors; so may or may not need space in the railway's workshops. Watch this space!

 

Good News- the U's and N going on to a good future elsewhere and the Mid-Hants are in a pretty comfortable situation as it is- everyones a winner!

Presumably this means that there may be more than one U class or a U and an N in operation at once (even double headed?) Has there been an instance of this previously? That would be really nice to see at some point.

I wonder what the future holds for 1618/1638 too- surely there is the making of a gathering at some point with a selection of the 5 in traffic?

Chris

 

I would ride this weekend if you want a final fling behind the U, there is no guarantee it will be rostered again after Sunday.

 

Why doesn't the MHR web site indicate this coming weekend could be the last chance to ride behind 31806. Surely there is a marketing opportunity here to cash in on this weekend.

 

1638 is still in traffic, but into her ninth year - it's hoped she will run through the coming winter, but anything next year will probably count as a bonus.

Currently, the Maunsell Loco Soc are concentrating on 928. There is the very real chance of seeing three Maunsell locos in steam together later this year (847, 541, 1638) and then again within a couple of years (847, 541, 928). However, I'd imagine that once 928 is finished, they will probably take a bit of a breather to replenish funds. So it may be towards the early 2020s before we are likely to see 1618 or 1638 back in traffic again. Given the above, the best opportunity to see two moguls together may well be for a move either from Sussex to Dorset or vice versa some time this year.

Coming back to the U boats in general: it's fascinating to look at all the design variations between them; in particular that amongst the preserved locos, there are examples of K-class rebuild (1806); ordered-as-K-but-built-as-U (1618, 1625) and ordered-as-U (1638), with detail variations between them, particularly between 1806 and the others.

Tom

 

then on top of that you have the ones that had new front ends in BR days, then theres the tenders, and footplate hights as these differ from loco to loco, you could not swop the tender from the N onto either 1625 0r 1638

 

A bit like Black 5's then? All alike but no two are the same. (Amongst the survivors, anyway.)

 

Or terriers!

I seem to recall that when the MHR had their fire that damaged 1806's tender, the only possible replacement available for hire was that from 1618, on account of different running plate heights between the K class rebuilds and the native U class. I think (I'd need to check) that 1618 was laid up as a K but converted on the production line to a U, which is why the heights matched with 1806.

There are other detail differences. 1806 has a lower running plate, and bigger splashers, a vestige of when she had side tanks. The lower running plate also gives a different shape to the smoke deflectors. The other really obvious visual difference is the arrangement of cab spectacles on the front: one big window each side on the native U's, but two small windows each side on 1806.

I've heard drivers of long experience reckon that of the two on the Bluebell, 1618 is more powerful than 1638, probably on account of having the BR era modification to the drafting.

Tom

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/arleimages/5901227949/in/set-72157626851826181
U and N together at the MHR