35025 Brocklebank Line

Email has just gone out from MNLPS that sets out this is not their intention, though the boiler will be given high priority so that Clan Line can use it if necessary. I believe '25's boiler is in pretty good condition.

 

I'm another small shareholder in SLL and I too support this move. The MNLPS has said in the past that one loco is quite enough, but SLL said in the past that it wasn't interested in main line running. Being willing to re-think as circumstances change and take your members with you is a mark of a well-run organisation and both SLL and MNLPS are worthy of such a description. While 35005 and 35006 have established themselves as heritage line locos, a Merchant Navy is a big beast much more suited to the main line.

Looking back to 1980, 35025 would have been next for the chop after 92085 and 4156 if Dai Woodham hadn't managed to buy some more wagons. It has not had the happiest of futures since being rescued from Barry, so being part of a double act with 35028 would be a very happy conclusion to a long rather uncertain period of its history. Furthermore, when restored, it will actually be returning "home", having been a 73A loco for a couple of years in the 1950s before moving to Exmouth Junction.

 

I must confess that the thought had crossed my mind, who knows possibly having two loco's just means that overhauls for both can be accelerated a bit by being able to have a boiler to drop in at overhaul time?

 

It is a great move if it gets the loco in work quicker. But I thought I had read an article in one of the mags where the MNLPS were saying a lot of their working members were getting older and it was hard to find new members to replace them. Maybe things have changed.

 

Maybe having a loco overhaul to plod along with will help, rather than the pressure of keeping one in service. Some groups also find that some of their members are more interested in the overhaul side of things than ongoing maintenance.

 

I believe 35025 will stay a bit longer at Sellindge as there is a strong team there. I believe that Herston works is the SLL "bottleneck" and is likely busy for the next three or four years....or more.

 

Maybe a deaccession of 35029 to MNLPS could be persuaded? A few bits off '25 and a bit of new platework ......

 

I've often wondered whether 35029 would actually be one of the easier MNs to restore to running condition. I mean, you've got to source a boiler, new cab sheets and some boiler cladding, but with most of the other scrapyard examples, you've got to do all that anyway, and also restore the chassis

Tom

 

Maybe, but think of how many thousands of miles it clocked up going nowhere when it was a working exhibit on those rollers. And all that with negliable maintenance. It could be the highest mileage MN in preservation

Peter

 

Because this is still multi £000 job. for a few more why not build it as Bulleid designed it.

 

Agreed. I think 35029 was selected for the NRM simply because it was easiest to extract at the time of locos that were considered unlikely preservation restoration prospects due to size. Its [good] condition was irrelevant but its completeness was important.
As you suggest, boiler, an outside cylinder and cab from 35025, new tender tank perhaps, mechanical overhaul. Job done at a significantly lesser cost than 35025 in its own right. Maybe a joint SLL/MNLPS [WIBN] project

 

And 35010 needs the same cylinder replacing, so make up two identical ones from the moulding, job's a good un!

 

I would have thought 35022 would have been a more likely candidate (which in some ways would have been full circle, as the MNLPS original choice for preservation), with no restoration work planned for it and seemingly no work carried out on 35027 since they both moved to Crewe.

The SLL feature in the latest Steam Railway does say that all they've been doing is ensuring 35025 doesn't deteriorate, but some restoration work has taken place and that the boiler has been inspected and advised it was in pretty good condition, but will still need some new parts and as I mentioned in my previous post it's reckoned there's less to do on 35025 than on 34010 and 34058.

It'll be interesting to hear more information if the transfer does go through, about what plans the MNLPS have for the loco.

 

I think I saw a boiler with 34058 stencilled on it at Tyseley during a tour.
Whether that's of interest, I don't know.