35018 British India Line

Ian Riley doesn't waste time overhauling his Black 5s - it can be done with the right planning and resources. Also, 48151 is reportedly Mr Smith's 'pet' locomotive, so it's certainly very possible that she's had a 'fast track' overhaul.

As always, we will have to wait and see

 

Plus the 8f had a fairly extensive mechanical overhaul only a couple of years back did it not? Relatively little mileage since would stand it in good stead for a boiler-only set of works this time?

 

Thanks. I've found reference to Combe Martin in a piece by Jim Lester on the Nine Elms Loco site called The Black Sheep. It gives details of a series of experiments in the early 50s on 34043 together with 34011 and 34065 (not 55 as I misremembered).

 

35018 is not yet registered on TOPS so no main line move imminent. HTH, AN

 

Any idea what size capacity and wheel base length the tender is on the engine as it returns to traffic? Is it the same as the one it ran with in British Railways days...

 

the tender is a rebuild of a self weighing tender and i think dates from the BR era, i think its 6000 gallon type, but not 100 percent sure,

 

Bit of an oddball, I think. 35018 went to Barry with a rebuilt self-weighing tender (3343) as Martin said, which was based off the long 6000 gallon chassis. One reference I've seen suggests it left with the tender from 35025 (3350, a standard 6000 gallon job as fitted to the last ten MNs), the tank of which was subsequently sold to the 35025 group. I assume whatever tender it has is on one of those two 6000 gallon chassis, which had a 14'4" wheelbase (7'4" + 7'), as opposed to 13' for most Bulleid tenders.

From the pictures, it's got a BR era re-body, as fitted to several of the West Country and early MN tenders, and the rebuilt self-weighing tender. These were nominally 5250 gallons, but as extended for the long chassis it will be somewhere over 6000 gallons, since the tank is higher sided than standard.

All this is assuming Carnforth haven't juggled the proportions a bit to give more/less coal. All the MN tenders were nominally five tons, although at least one series was found to hold six tons when actually measured.

Confused enough yet? I am.

 

Vintage Carriage Trust tender survey says this:

http://www.ten.vintagecarriagestrust.org/tens/TenderInfo.asp?Ref=261

No idea how accurate that is (though the VCT tender info is mostly collected relatively recently I believe). It does seem to agree with @8126's post above.

Tom

 

the tender top that was sold to the 35025 group was off the chassis that is now behind swanage, as far as i know the tender s were swapped, the one that arrived with 35018, was swopped for her original tender that was purchesed for 34105, this was then rebuilt with a new tender top, to the original high sided design, and the BR rebuilt tender after use behind Swanage was finally reunited with 35018 when the new tender for 34105 was completed. hope this makes sence

 

Does that mean that instead 35018 has a shorter wheel-base, higher sided design tender, that was in use with some WC/BoB?

Looking at the pictures of the engine, the tender looks to have been higher sided than most of the 6000 gallon types I have seen in pictures - both when in steam in BR, and being photographed at Barry, Mid Hants and Portland awaiting restoration.

 

Not quite. If I interpret Martin correctly, the tender 35018 went to Barry with was bought for 34105, then swapped back when they were both on the MHR.

It's the same tank design as you see behind 34046 (and 35005 when she reappears), but stretched to go on the long wheelbase chassis. Only one of its type.

 

Not helping that 34046 and 35018 have this same one off tender design. Is Braunton's on a large wheel base as well?

35018's on the MHR does look different, looking again at it. Any details on this would be great. But really I probably will have to wait until it does its test run and theres some detailed photographs out there to look at.

 

Sure that extra water capacity will come in handy...
Aware of the practicalities underlying it but the rebuilt/ raveless tenders look like a dogs breakfast to me.
Well done to the City of Wells chap who ( well he has the loco casing to match admittedly) put them back on

 

City of Wells' tank is a new one, built during its protracted overhaul. From what I remember reading years ago, City of Wells has run in preservation with the tender from 34051, and 34051 has 34092's tender - How true this is I have no idea.

Richard.

 

Sorry, I was typing out a hurried explanation on my phone at lunchtime. Let's have a slightly more in-depth run down of Bulleid tenders:

As built, most of the Bulleid Pacifics had 13' wheelbase tenders (equal spacing). Because this is OVS Bulleid, the WC/BB tender chassis is different to the MN chassis, of course - MNs have clasp brakes on the tender, the light Pacifics don't, and the frames are different. The flavours of these are as follows:

Batch 1 MN: 5000 gallon
Batch 2 MN: 5100 gallon
21C101-21c170: 4500 gallon tender, to fit Hastings gauge so only 8'6" wide
34071-34110: 5500 gallon tender, 9' wide.

Once cut down these all have much the same side profile, but the 5500 gallon tender has a strange raised central region to the tank behind the bunker. Look at a picture of 34053. To add confusion, some Light Pacifics have run in preservation with MN tenders, which generally look quite good with them. BR also made a concerted effort to get the 5500 gallon tenders behind rebuilt Lights, which is why 34016, 34027 and 34053 have them, despite not having been built with them.

These tanks were quite lightly built for their capacity, and caused a fair bit of trouble with splits and leaks. In addition, it was decided that Hastings gauge light Pacifics were a silly idea, so it wasn't necessary to replace 4500 gallon tenders like for like, especially as BR were widening the cabs as they rebuilt the class. As a result BR came up with a new design tender tank to fit on all of the above chassis, which has the continuous side profile without obvious fire iron tunnels and 5250 gallons capacity. 34046 has one, 35005 will have one when she next emerges and I may have missed a couple of others. I think about ten of these were built in total, which isn't that many out of the whole.

For the last ten MNs (35021-35030), it was decided that a bit of extra water capacity wouldn't go amiss on longer runs and so the long wheelbase (14'4") 6000 gallon tender was born. This pre-dates the 5250 gallon tender and just looks like a version of the earlier MN tenders with the water tank behind the bunker stretched out.

These tanks didn't really cause any trouble, however, one of them was rebuilt as a self-weighing tender to measure coal consumption. Some time after its job in that form was done, it was rebuilt with a long version of the 5250 gallon tank, as opposed to a new 6000 gallon tank. It is to the regular 5250 gallon tenders what the standard 6000 gallon tender was to the earlier MN tenders, so is probably somewhere over 6000 gallons. 35018 took it to the scrapyard and it seems this is what 35018 will have again.

For those who really, really must know more, Irwell Press do "The Book of the Merchant Navy Pacifics" and "The Book of the West Country and Battle of Britain Pacifics" both by Richard Derry. A veritable mine of such information...

 

Just a quick point, if I may?... BR didn't make all the cabs of the Hastings-gauge light Pacifics (34001 - 34070) wider, only those locos that were rebuilt. In preservation, though, 34067 now has a 9' wide cab to help accomodate the air brake gear.

 

Good point, I've clarified the original post.

 

Thanks for that - obviously this is an area I am not overtly familiar with. In that case, 35018 will return with a stretched 5250 gallon shaped tender that is the full length of a 6000 gallon tender wheelbase?

If that's the case I can start hacking two to bits to make one!

(Also guessing that Braunton runs with something like the 5250 tender now, as I did research and found that when it returned to steam in preservation it ran with the tender from Port Line...)

 

Brauntons tender always looks a bit big to me is it a MN Tender?

 

She will grow into it?