Standard Class 5 73129

Off piste for this thread but........

6023 King Edward II, 92214, 1000 and 46203 Princess Margaret Rose were all in a single line tucked inside one of the sheds (U shop?). If you saw one of these or more, you likely saw them all although access was a tad tight and a bit of a bottle neck.

4930 Hagley Hall was lined up with Furness 20 and Stanier Mogul 13268 in what the map labels 'Steam Cavelcade' (or Made in Derby?) I think? 46115 Scots Guardsman was west end of this line on Friday.

Coal Tank 1054 was on the turn table and 82045 was with Locomotion in the 'Stem Hub' of G Shop.

73129 was parked with all of the other mainline steam including the boring ones (?) 45627/45699 Galatea was doing the steam rides.

 

Goodness, I really messed up there...

I seem to recall the Coal Tank is/was coming to the NVR?

 

Indeed it will be, off to Peak Rail first and will also be heading to GCR in October

 

AFAIK yes

 

I certainly don't consider Bulleids to be 'boring' and it was nice to see 35018 and 35028 at tGG. OTOH, as I've commented elsewhere, the lack of pre-grouping exhibits was disappointing and, whilst there was clearly far more duplication among the modern traction exhibits, I think it might have been possible to achieve a better balance among the steam exhibits, too. Personally, I would gladly have swapped one of the Bulleids for, say, a "Terrier", or the Brighton Atlantic, or LSWR 563. Similarly, there were two Jubilees at the event; I like Jubilees, but I could gladly have swapped one for, say, Caledonian 828, or one of the preserved L&Y locos.

Sent from my SM-A125F using Tapatalk

 

What would the practical and cost implications of that be though?

The Merchant Navy’s literally got there under their own steam (or at least ‘by rail’), where with some good will and coal the transport costs were probably pretty low. By comparison, extricating 46203 and transporting it by road was likely a bit more costly, but at least it wasn’t that far away…

Aside from the Innovation train, there wasn’t a convenient cavalcade to stick Beachy Head or Fenchurch onto, even if more of that ‘good will’ was extended to enable them onto the big railway and find paths to drag them to Derby. Did anything else make the journey from Swanage? Or Spa Valley?

Were the locos in question planned to be in use over the weekend? Was there spare capacity in their absence etc.? Would steaming costs be offset by Greatest Gathering attendance?

I suspect that for many locos, their attendance was a combination of relevance, convenience, expedience and cost where – if a 50 in attendance, but it was no harder to have three 50s, that's what you got, ditto if the SVR was providing one steam engine, but could nearly as easily send three, that's what they did. The counterpoint being that if there was no budget, or convenient way to transport engine X, then it likely wouldn't make it…

Simon

 

I think after all I must have seen all of them.

 

I understand Gus Dunster was one of the organisers, so that explains the strong SVR presence. He also has a very large rail industry phone book having held a number of senior roles over the years (also proven very useful for the SVR)! Moving items in by rail was indeed probably a lot more cost effective. At least 2/3 of the steam locos had a valid mainline ticket. 4930 and 13698 had temporary clearance to be transferred by rail, along with 4 SVR carriages and the DMU. That's one train journey V at least 10 lorry movements. Using an SVR diesel with a mainline ticket - then the cost is literally a mainline driver and track access fee in each direction.

 

The convoys to and from the SVR were impressive, but by my reckoning at least 4 locos moved from the SVR to Derby and back by road; 82045, 12099, D8568 and H3802.

Apologies for the continuing thread drift, so in an attempt to get back on topic, here's a couple of favourites of 73129 in happier times. I have particularly fond memories of a storming run at the 2014 SVR ASG - can't believe it was over 10 years ago.

 

Well, this is an impressive thread (I'm catching up after weeks away). Starts off with a very specific title and a very clear question in post 1, and by post 2 it has moved off into "my loco is better than your loco" discussion and a discussion of a gala event for which there is an entire dedicated thread ...

So, drawing a line under 28 of the previous 29 posts - does anyone know anything about 73129 in answer to @MellishR questions?

Tom

 

In the BRSLOG owners and contacts details, 73129 is shown as owned by Derby City Council (Standard Five Fund). However, there are no contact details.

 

Answered, Tom.

 

I had already found out that Derby City Council is the owner. Written like that it suggests that the Standard Five Fund is somehow part of the Council, but that seems unlikely.

 

I would say that the only person that can answer that question is someone from the Midland Railway Centre.

 

I have been doing a bit of delving. The Standard 5 Fund is an ongoing fund administered by the Midland Railway Centre.

 

It is but whoever has written the on line timetable for the Rail 200 event has it as 1504 not 1054. Perhaps they think they’re getting a 1500 0-6-0PT instead.

 

Thank you. Progress!

 

Did the Standard 5 have a tender with it at Derby? I have a feeling its tender is on hire to the NYMR and is running with 92134 - or is that the one from 73050?

 

73050's tender.

 

The tender paired with 73129 in preservation is the BR1B 4725gal tender that was withdrawn with 4MT 75079 - itself being restored at MHR (with a new build tender)

73129's tender was 'borrowed' for a short spell with 9F 92203 but as @std tank says, the tender paired with 9F 92134 is loaned from Nene Valley's 5MT 73050