RTC: Edinburgh Flyer - 04/04/26

It was fitted with air braking by a previous owner.

 

It was owner's choice, as I don't believe 34067 is owned outright by West Coast.
It is owner's choice not to fit the others.
To me Tangmere has never sounded quite right in recent years when compared to others of it's same class, but it used to be a very strong performer 15-20 years ago.
There was a good reason so many were rebuilt, the intensive use is perhaps highlighting this.
I suspect there is a big desire to get Lizzie back.

 

To their credit, repairs have been completed to Tangmere rapidly in the past. Otherwise there are Black 5s available in the absence of The Jacobite.

 

Indeed it was.
Although Tangmere was out of traffic for many years and it is perhaps surprising the air brake apparatus wasn't made use of during the overhaul of 35018, for example.
When the Northern Belle was acquired there wasn't a loco in the 10A fleet that could be used on it so 6201 was "acquired" as a stop gap resurrection and overhaul of 34067 undertaken. It seems doubtful whether either of those things would have happened had the Northern Belle not become part of WC, bringing with it a necessity for air brake capability.

 

Fingers crossed, 'The Lancashire Fusilier' would be very pleasing I'm sure.

 

I didn't know about that. I thought Tangmere was owned by David Smith and it was his decision my mistake.

 

It was owned by a close associate of David Smith, that may now have changed, but the air brakes date from that period of ownership.

 

Bet the costs for 2 thunderbirds, one from Newark stung....

 

Maybe that should read "close associate " ......
34067 was originally owned by Brian Pickett who put it through restoration at Riley's, including fitting of air brake apparatus. Mr Pickett sadly died not long after it returned to steam and a partnership of Riley's and John Bunch bought it, whereafter it was used extensively very successfully on the VSOE train under EWS operation.
Around 2007 the Riley shareholding, at least, was sold and it went under WC operation. It may have been used a while longer on the VSOE by EWS, can't verify. Other than the original news that it had been sold to the "associate" of Mr Smith, there has been little to suggest it is any different to the rest of the 10A fleet in terms of ownership.

 

67’s travails have nothing to do with why the Bulleids were rebuilt. One only has to look at how good ‘92 was on the main line as well as 67’s performances earlier in her main line career to show what they are capable off. ‘67 has sounded well off beat of late. Whether that’s due to valves being set wrong or other issues with the valve gear, I know not.

 

For how much of the trip did Tangmere stay on the train despite being seriously sick?

 

They were both from Newark. The odd thing is, they're really meant to be used to clear the line and 34067 was already off the train and in the down goods loop out of the way. I'm not sure why they were used to drag it all the way back to York.

 

Totally agree. It isn't a criticism to say that original Bulleids have unique set up and maintenance requirements but with the right regime are capable of astonishing performance. As you say 34092 was exceptional, especially after the Geisel modification, traffic notices of the day referred to it being "class 7 but load as class 8" I understand.
34067 was also a strong performer when it was on the VSOE job during its first stint restored.

 

I don’t think you can categorise its usage in the heritage era as ‘intensive’ in comparison to its BR days?
There appears to be recurring instances of front end problems, judging by the failures and audible evidence from videos.
Regarding this latest episode, as the loco stayed on the train for some distance despite the symptoms, I’d expect she’ll probably need a rebore as well as new rings etc Hopefully there’s enough meat in the liners to permit that.
I wonder who picks up the bill for the rescue?

 

Because it had air braking fitted before it moved to become a 10A loco I believe. Personally I am not sure what the ownership is of the loco.

 

Recalling that the LH outside cylinder disintegrated whilst hauling a train on the S&C in 2024. Replaced by the one from 34073?
Some while before that it was reportedly out of traffic undergoing a middle cylinder rebore?