Tangmere Question

Tangmere's schedule for the rest of the year seems a bit lighter than in previous years. Its staple diet of "Cathedrals Express" trips is being shared out more, particularly with 70013. I would also guess that 60163 will be back for some of the Christmas Carol specials, although I doubt if Tornado will be able to do the White Cliffs Christmas Luncheon.

Still, some exciting runs for 34067 to come - the first through steam trains to and from Swanage in May and the 9th July End of Southern Steam commemorative trip to Weymouth. I did a Weymouth trip behind her two years ago, and apart from the diesel shoving the train up Uowey Bank, it was superb, particularly the climb of Parkstone Bank and going fast line from Basingstoke to Woking in the dark.

I believe that when Tangmere was restored, one feature was a modification allowing engined and tender to be uncoupled and re-coupled quickly enabling it to be turned in two pieces on the rather short turntable at Swanage. Considering the logisitics of running a through train to Swanage for the first time when there are also service trains, I can't blame the operators for going for "top and tail" with a diesel - i.e. steam only one way. Even doing this sounds like quite a challenge. Still, it would be a further selling point if these trips go well to run another "first" before too long with steam both ways and the engine being turned. Great if this could be squeezed in before Tangmere's boiler ticket expires.

 

Are there big problems arising from splitting loco and tender :-k
As I understand it - a new, full Fitness to Run exam is required by Network Rail, after it's split and re-joined, before the loco can be allowed to go back on the main line.
Does anyone know whether this is correct or not?
We've got quite good at splitting Bulleids (for photo charters, etc.) using our little 50ft turntable =D>

 

Pity no-one with the necessary technical knowledge has replied. It does seem rather over the top if an engine is going to be re-connected to the same tender as it was uncoupled from only a couple of hours only. I note that according to the Steam loco movements website, Tangmere is going all the way back to Eastleigh after its run to Swanage on 2nd May and then a similar Engine & Coach movement back to Swanage before the return trip on 4th. This would tend to support your theory, for a layover at Swanage for a couple of days with the engine split from the tender,turned and rejoined would be a far simpler and cheaper option if there were no other complexities such as a new fitness to run exam.

I'm sure you have It would be good if all concerned could negotiate a "derogation" so that we can soon look forward to main line trips to Swanage with steam both ways.

 

I don't know but it is probably true. I can see the logic in having to re-test TPWS, etc, which will have to have been disconnected but a full FTR does seem OTT. The NYMR falls fouls of a similar requirement for a full FTR if the fire has been dropped. It means that a loco cannot have an FTR at Grosmont before going to Pickering and being stabled overnight there and then working the first train next day right through to Whitby as the FTR carried out 18 hours previously is no longer valid. If the fire was left in overnight, with a minder, the loco could run through to Whitby the next day.

 

Wasn't there talk of the Swanage Railway being interested in gaining possession of the Wych Farm terminal once the oil trains cease to run? All you'd need then is enough money for track rationalisation, an MPD with turning facilities, a workshop and all the paperwork needed to sort it out! However, long term, this would probably be a good idea for attracting mainline specials.

 

There was the issue regarding BP returning that land to its original state once their operations ceased. If that could be overcome then I would think that a depot could be established there (funds permitting obviously).

Regards,

Dan

 

Re the main subject, the operators of 34067 will probably wish to have it in traffic to take part in any 70th anniversary of the Battle of Britain as the only likely registered example of the type. If WCRC are managing the overhaul they have a proven ability to turn things round very quickly in an understated manner.

 

How about 34059 (Sir Archibald Sinclair)? Of course any BoB will be worthy of attending....

 

Can't see 34059 ever going main line ?
:-k :-k :-k :-k

 

i think tangmere's owner is called John Bunch. I think he also owns 34073 (probably as a kit of spares for 34067)

 

Was John Bunch and Ian Riley, they sold the loco to someone else. John Bunch still heads up the support crew and maintenance teams down south and the loco is sent up to Carnforth for winter maintenance.

Regards,

Dan

 

Thanks for the update

Regards,
HarpoMarxist

 

Why not renumber Braunton ? i thought West Countries & BoB's were alike in all but name.

 

34059 is OWNED by Bluebell railway PLC, mainline just doesnt come under what they want. Maybe a possibility in 20 years time, if steam locos are still considered 'safe'.

 

At least they put the AWS on

 

That's something I've wondered about for a while. Have SLL and the restorers of 34059 put a fully-functioning AWS system on their locomotives, or is the battery box just for show?

 

34059 has fully working AWS

 

You're quite right Martin

 

Perhaps I can clarify the situation regarding 34059, the locomotive is indeed owned by the Bluebell Railway and always has been. The Bluebell Battle of Britain Locomotive Group was formed to raise funds and provide labour for the restoration. The only involvement with the Bulleid Society was the fact that both groups shared a magazine. Both 34023 Blackmore Vale and 30096 Normandy are soley owned by the Bulleid Society.
The AWS on 34059 is not in operating condition, although it is complete and could be made to work.
Roger Cruse. Chairmam Bluebell Battle of Britain Locomotive Group.