Bulleid Pacifics - Past or Present

It certainly looks magnificent but on a recent video it shows a close up of the cross head securing nut with the cotter pin and slot in a horizontal orientation. this was highlighted as a potential problem in the RAIB report on the Tangmere incident, I hope the Bluebell engineering staff are aware of this...

 

In honor of Polish pilots who fought in the Battle of Britain and World War II, 34053 is renamed as '303 Squadron' at the Spa Valley Railway

 

A fitting tribute - well done Spa Valley, SLL and all others concerned.

 

The SLL website news has been updated today with news of all the fleet, including plans for 34028 Eddystone to go Main Line. https://www.southern-locomotives.co.uk/News/news.html

 

The latest issue of Trackside magazine arrived today reporting the excellent news about the plans to get 34028 back on the Main Line.
In the same issue there are some pictures taken at Carnforth of the boiler being removed from 6201 and it was rather sad to see in the background 34016 Bodmin in a very sad state going very rusty.


Sent from my XQ-BT52 using Tapatalk

 

An interesting snippet of nearly-news on J94 68078 on that report too. A loco we don't hear much about.

 

With the recent problems involving 34067, and the fractured combined crosshead and piston rod, how many of the Un rebuilt engines still have this original arrangement?
It was changed to a separate crosshead and piston rod on the rebuilds, and on some of the original engines,
In light of the incident, have any operators of engines still running with the combined crosshead and rod design done ultrasonic tests on their engines to detect any signs of fracture?

 

Other than 34067, only 21C123 retains the original design I believe.

 

Coincidentally I had been going through my photo archive and could only find 34023 shows the original design as you say. Interestingly, 34073 that has been donor to Tangmere at Carnforth has modified design with cotters, albeit still in scrapyard condition with crosshead and piston in situ.

 

The SLL website news has been updated today, with news on all the fleet. https://www.southern-locomotives.co.uk/News/news.html

 

Reading the news from SLL, it would appear that 34028 will be as long as the funding keeps up, be used on the RTC tours operated by West Coast, over the South of England, most likely to free up a black 5 for use elsewhere, and the plan is that Sidmouth will in turn replace Eddystone, I would have thought, a rebuilt light pacific better suited to SLL's own use, and that a better candidate would have been to have Brocklebank line as the next main line fitted engine, Most of the routes the tours cover, Clan line has used , so gauging isn't an issue, and the larger engine would be better suited to mainline running, a MN, really is too big for preserved line use, and by the time Eddystone bowls out, so will have Clan line, so there might be an opportunity to have a working partnership with the MNLPS, as 28 bowls out, 25 takes its place, it could also, visit main line connected railways, Bluebell, Mid hants etc, , in-between main line outings, ok, I know that Sidmouth could perform the same duties, but would the spa valley, Mid hants or Swanage want to operate an MN, if a light pacific that used less coal, was available?

 

I suspect the SLL may well have a stronger funding stream for Sidmouth and it's overhaul had been put back a couple of times over the years. Sir Frederick Pile may also have more money in the "pot" and it has its own support team now within the SLL. I am looking forward to Brocklebank getting finished - but it will be behind the other two.

 

You’re full on WIBN today Martin!

 

No not really, all I'm saying is SLL have an engine that isn't as suitable, for preserved line use as others it has, and asking might that one be more suitable, and the MNLPS are already helping with overhauling the pump, and some loose tie in would benefit both parties, by the time Clan line becomes due for overhaul again, then having one of the SLL stable available to pick up the work, might be sound long term . can a light pacific, handle the full British Pullman rake? what's the maximum accepted trailing load on the main line for a light, as regards that of a MN ?

 

I like the idea of SLL entering the MainLine scene with 34028 although reflecting on current situation, there's other Bulleid's in the mix along with those you mention :

LSL have three Bulleids in their collection and one wonders what long-term plans they have for 35027 & 35022?
34007 Wadebridge is also being Mainline enabled as I understand it?
WCRC have four Bulleids with 35018 not seeing much action these days and no published plans for 34016 to be overhauled that I'm aware of?
Ian Riley has 35009 but I'm not sure whether that's being worked on more recently?

 

While I agree with you that, all else being equal, you would probably pick Brocklebank as the future mainline candidate ahead of Sidmouth, my suspicion is that all is not equal here. I would imagine that conversation has probably been had when deciding which loco would take the mantle from Eddystone when the time came, looking at all sorts of factors in addition to pure power. My guess is that for whatever reason they think it is a more realistic target, likely in part due to both the time and money required to get it into action, to have Sidmouth as the replacement for Eddystone. A LP is far from weak, it is still a class 7, and it may be that for the work they expect to garner for their mainline loco, at least in the short to medium term, a class 7 should be sufficient and so whatever added 'difficulty' there would be in getting Brocklebank ready instead of Sidmouth would not necessarily have the pay off in opening up extra work opportunities.

 

Yes, from very many thousands of miles timing Bulleid Light Pacifics in the 1960s they are far from weak. But similar miles timing Merchant Navy pacifics showed there was a noticeable improvement in performance, just as you would of course expect from a class 8 loco. And maybe, as the modern railway continues to evolve, a class 8, especially the faster accelerations when needed, would be better off for finding pathways in amongst normal traffic. And of course the related issue touched on in the post by @martin1656 about the trailing loads. But, as much as I'd like to see 35025 back on the mainline, it's not my time, money and effort going into getting any loco ready for main line use.

 

I would also suggest that if the plan is to keep 34028 "down south" then in reality there are very few places that you can run steam only, even if we are back in the era of Mk1's (with or without CDL issues complicating things). So in my view the difference between a MN & a WC/BB is somewhat moot. That is before any pressure from NR to make diesels the preferred accompaniment. Other than major outside issues (such as Saturday's White Rose weather event or infrastructure issues) timekeeping on tours this year seems to have been way better than normal, NR must have taken note of such things. Maybe they could not "ban" pure steam tours, but I am sure "encouragement" could be applied to go with the "new norm".

 

Another issue will be that the moment you run into any termini, you will need another loco to release the stock unless there is a run round, and at most termini there are no way to run round so operationally the diesel is going to be needed anyway,

 

Propelling out has been allowed in some places in fairly recent times. Whether it is allowed may depend on where you're going (e.g. sidings nearby) and on details of the signalling.