Discussion in 'Heritage Railways & Centres in the UK' started by Selsig, Jul 26, 2010.
The remains of the Mk1 certainly look like a TSO!
Believe it might be Mk I TSO S4712.
Great to see everyone rallying round to help following this terrible fire. Is there any news as to whether the Class 11 is salvagable or not?
I was talking to a chap (no idea what his name was) from the Maunsell group on the Q class yesterday and he knew nothing about the tender from 1618 going to the MHR.
it would depend on how badly damaged the tender is, dont forget they do have the new tender body on what i remember might have been a fowler chassis so they could in theory do a rush job on this, or subject to the runing gear being ok, use the tender from 31874 ,this has a new tank already fitted ,but would need the permission from its owner to be used as i believe the owner wasnt to keen on the first plan which was to swap the boilers from both u classes which lead to 31806 being restored in its own right what ever tender is used, be it one from the bluebelle, or one of the MHR based tenders it will need repainting , then if the tender from 1618 ,would need painting back once its not needed, , but i for one would not be surprissed if 31806, ends up at the bluebelle anyway hense why a possible tender swop is being looked at
I think you'll find the Fowler tender (ex 4F 44044 I seem to remember) was used in the coversion of Douglas, the MHR did order a number of new all welded tender bodies for 73096, 34105, 31874 & 31625 some years back from Plenty's of Newbury
The tenders for U class 31625 and 31806 were both removed at Barry going to the Steelworks at Bitton Ferry. 31806 got the 6 wheel tender from S15 30847 and 31625 was purchased with a LSWR 6 wheel tender from Urie S15 30499 which was going to be used before later a ex V class converted snowplough was purchased as a more sutiable frame for the new body and then attached to 31625.
This is the tender I think was damaged in the fire at Ropley after it was swapped along with 31625's boiler to the better chassis of 31806.
If anything I would assume that 31874's tender would be in not too bad shape and would be a more suitable proposal than leasing another tender from any 3rd party, after all the MHR already lease the 3 resident ones!
So I heard, that the oil in its sump got so hot that it caused the sump to explode which obviously made the fire so much worse. If thats happened I cannot see much hope for the loco.
There is always hope! If the movement can build from scratch it can certainly re-build this or any other engine. It's the LSWR coach that is the concern, but Chris's post re that matter also gives rise to hope.
Odd. The oil in the sump should not be able to be pressurised. Were the fuel tanks empty at the time?
There is another tender in Ropley yard that has a new tender tank on it. Does anyone know the history behind it?
I think that this tank was started (and never completed) in the late 1990's and was destined for 31806's tender, the chassis is a ex-V class snowplough and I think was purchased for use with 34073.
But someone who is more current with the MHR would be able to correct/clarify this.
No idea matey, I'm just repeating what I heard. I suppose if the oil was boiling and it ignited, that might have cause an explosion that broke the sump.
It aint going to happen..knowing how much our class 15's genny cost to overhaul which was not fire dammaged, I hate to think how much the one on that 11 will cost, then you have the traction motors, all the control gear, all the wireing, a new engine, plus are the frames buckled? all that for a shunter? it aint gunna happen!
My understanding is:
The loan of the tender from 1618 has been discussed. When I spoke to someone from the Maunsell Loco Society at the 50th Gala weekend they said it was still subject to negotiation (1618 belongs to them, not the Bluebell itself), but it had been confirmed that this tender was suitable. I gather that the ex-River (including 1618, which was ordered as a River) tenders were different in terms of connection to the loco from the other Q, N and U tenders, which explains why Mid Hants couldn't easily use one of their other tenders.
Can anyone comment on how cleaning operations are going in respect of the boiler shop which was said to be smoke damaged only? Has any work started on-site generally, or is it a case of the fire authority and the MHR's insurers still investigating the cause?
Otherwise any timetable for getting folk back into the boiler shop, despite the obvious access problems.
I was wondering that as well. Seems to have all gone quiet on the cleanup front. After all it is nearly a month since the Incident.
Would imagine that the whole process of inspection, investigation, report writing, loss adjustment, payout etc will take quite a while and the MHR will not want to do anything that may delay or impede those processes.
However, if the Mid-hants had "business interruption" cover as part of their fire insurance, there will be a drive by all concerned to get things back in use as soon as possible. Minimises the insurers costs in that respect.
Don't forget Thomas event has been running for the last ten days. Which takes up a lot of resources and also puts Ropley yard out of action.
Thanks, yes of course that would probably explain it.
One thing, reading in the latest MH News, (which i was pleasantly surprised was up to date enough to mention the fire).
It was stated that phase2 of the Ropley works project, i.e The machine shop and office block extension to the main works, work was to start in September on foundations and steelwork.
Lets hope the fire does not affect the going ahead of this part of the redevelopement plans.
Separate names with a comma.