35011 General Steam Navigation

A Merchant Navy as originally designed would have a USP and I personally would like to see it!

That said if 35011 is going to be anything more that the subject of chat on a web forum then the owner and/or the supporting group need to show progress to attract the required finance and support to achieve this goal. Measured progress is the key and as (realistically) nothing fundamental is going to change in the next 12 months with 35011 whether it stays in Kent or moves elsewhere (unless they owner has finance to start the fundamental overhaul of the existing frames/wheels/boiler) so efforts would be better placed on making the project more interesting for supporters, investors and/or an existing line/centre/museum etc.

For example:

• A first and relative easy start would be a decent web site stating and promoting the project aims and plans, you don't have to look far to see well presented and informative examples (82045 and Bretton Grange groups to name two)
• Develop a engineering plan, properly costed and establish an engineering partner (assuming that no dedicated engineering facilities are to be developed by the GSN project team) such as Rliey's or Adam Dalgeish Engineering etc.
• Based upon the proposed engineering program then a financial plan can be developed.
• Create a publicity plan, perhaps create a replacement MN cab/smokebox display/nameplate etc suitably finished for shows/galas as a major item in the this program.
• Obtain drawings for the centre cylinder and motion.
• Cost and make patterns (of whatever method 3d printing or traditional) for above.
  
• Obtaining costing for casting/machining the above components.
• Negotiate/discuss with other Bulleid owners about leasing a suitable tender and or crank wheel set for eventual use (for short/medium term use until new items can be made)

Once this sort of measured progress is made, then moving the locomotive so actual work on the remains of 35011 could be undertaken becomes a positive development for the project, however if the project hopes to gain credibility simply by moving 35011 again then - unless you really need to move - it will result in revenue for the transport company and little else.


Good luck GSN team and I hope we can see 21C11 in wartime black, post war Malachite or 35011 in BR Express Blue before on or before her 80th birthday in December 2024.

 

This one?



Picture Source: http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/n...-general-steam-navigation-news-photo/90747232

 

Also, u need to establish a 'board of management' to take the project forward consisting of members with a range of experience and vision to get things moving. They should be rewarded somehow, based on input and service by shares in the loco. The owner will have to accept that the ownership base will have to be diluted with share issues at some point in the future. There will have to be leadership, legal agreements, bank accounts, website management, fundraising, publicity and most importantly commitment. It may be worth finding someone to set the whole thing up in the first place and then reverse out..
I'm sure you could advertise on here so think about the wording:

'WANTED' Committed individuals to form a management team for the purpose of returning GSN to the mainline in her original form. The duration of the project is estimated at 20 years and those interested should have broad experience in senior management of major projects in industry not necessarily the rail industry. The successful candidates will know the range of skills required to undertake such projects as this and therefore there will be no job description set out here.

Remuneration: These posts are voluntary but progress on the project will be rewarded by shares in the loco and the satisfaction of seeing her on the mainline in 2035.

We are an equal opportunities employer and it is important that all groups are represented on the team

Please apply etc etc..

 

Just a side note - they are probably concentrating on the final push for the Saint to be completed (which, to be frank, is exciting me as much it did when I saw Tornado first steam and then run at the GCR in 2008). That project is so close to completion it is tantalising!

 

Completely agree, that Saint does look brilliant but that A1 does have a speical place in my heart as it was the thing that got me back into the hobby

 

Strangely enough, me too.

 

HaHa strange coindence

35011 has a facebook group now which can be found here

philw2 is right and setting up a managment board and a proffessional website should be the next stage

 

My reply referred to the previous couple of posts discussing the possibility of using gears rather than chains. Did you mean drawings and components exist of chain drive, which is not quite the same thing?

 

Sorry Sl with you now, seriously dont know of any of the gear / propshaft drawings exist. But given that nothing has surfaced in the multifarious volumes written about these enigmatic machines perhaps it never got worked up ....

 

Most likely the drawing office would have only drawn the chosen arrangement once the gearing idea was thrown out, the very fact that the MN's were built at all during the war time, is in its self an interesting story,

 

That sounds most likely to me. A shame because, to me anyway, it would have made it a much more interesting project if it including correcting some of the shortcomings as originally built, in a similar way to the P2 project. I assume the MNs suffered the same problems with the steam reverser as discussed on other threads?

Dave

 

The problem with changing the design is you have take in to account what the ORR said about when 34067 Tangmere connecting rod came free due to a none standard design.

Regards
Dave

 

But you should be able to modify a design, provided it is done for the right reasons and is properly designed and approved. See the P2 project amongst others.
You will almost certainly have to stick to as-built, however, for reasons given above. Still, good luck and hope it goes ahead.

Dave

 

Mmm, but if you correct all the shortcomings aren't you back to a rebuilt MN?

 

Ha Ha, fair point. To be fair though, although it might have been interesting to incorporate Bulleid's original geared valve gear had that been possible, I wasn't really advocating making changes. The question about the steam reverser was just that, a question.

Dave

 

The existing design has grandfather rights and there is generally no need to assess this, as such. However, there is nothing to stop you changing the design provided that you properly assess it. That's evolution.

 

Next year would be a good time for a launch (or re-launch?) of the "unrebuild a MN" project as it will mark the 75th anniversary of the first one - 21C1.

 

Not a bad idea, if a railway or two is holding a gala themed around that date then the group could go along to officially unveil the plan in front of a crowd of Bulleid fans...