Returning a Bulleid Merchant Navy to as built condition

In 2009 it was suggested that a project was to be established to return one of the surviving Bulleid Merchant Navy loco's to as near original condition as possible. Does anyone have any news on this project or know which loco is being considered. Moderators, if I am repeating a thread already created please move this as appriopriate!

 

Fantastic scheme...... probarly the only one left worth doing in terms of the support and finance it would attract
I know many that would put there cash behind such a project
Just needs somone or some team to take it on

 

I thought people owning 35010 wanted to do this ?

 

I hadn't heard about 35010's owners wanting to do it. 35022 would be the likely candidate in my opinion. But then again looking at these photos http://www.pvsonline.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=2332 there will only be frames and wheels left when the boiler sees use on 35027. Could 249 Squadron be cannibalised for such a project?

 

I believe it was 35011, General Steam Navigation, which was the MN that was planned to be back-engineered to its original Bulleid condition; there are some threads on this in other fora including:

http://nineelms.freeforum.me.uk/merchant-navy-35011-35020-f22/35011-general-steam-navigation-t23.htm

I know time marches on but I'm almost certain that a plan to back-convert a MN has been mooted for several years, probably decades given the way time flies and the length of time it takes to restore steam locos. As several of these locos have survived (One third of the entire class I believe?) there has always been an interest in coverting one of them into its "as built" condition but, like most other projects, it either needs a very good business case for doing so or it needs patronage by rich people who don't mind spending lots of money (most rich people are rich because they DONT spend money but that's the world according to me!). Anyway, it would seem to be a good idea to me but whether it will ever happen is quite another matter.

 

How back engineered would the preservation movement wish to go? The original form was with a 280psi boiler and the cab was narrow which limited forward vision. The very first rebuilds were to expand the cab to that in use on today's preserved fleet and the boiler pressure was reduced to 250psi.
If we merely wish to replace air smoothed casing, that should be simple and cheap enough to become a reality.

 

All the Merchant Navy's were built with the same width cabs as now. The third series even had the wedge front when built. I think you are getting confused with the fact that the first two series had a straight front when built, later changed to the wedge design 1949 - 1954.

 

The boiler pressure was reduced well before the locos were rebuilt.

 

35011 would be the best candidate because she has got to have a new crank axle and it would be just as easy to cast it for an un rebuilt form as for a re built , but im not sure what mel' s thoughts are about this, and of course the valves will have to be re engineered . are the chain sprockets on a BB/WC the same size as what was used on the original MN'S? then at least there might be patterns for them somewhere

 

The most complicated and expensive issue (to my understanding) is the making of a pattern, casting and fitting of a new, that is to say original design center cylinder casting.

The 2 outside cylinders would need to be removed and de-modified and modifications to the main frames when rebuilt would also need to removed.

The internal chain motion could be developed using more modern components/specifications/chain pitch etc (much like 34067) and with most Merchant Navy engines (or indeed and ex-Barry engine) that have not been re-steamed or near steaming a whole host of fittings would need to be built from new, as well as a suitable 6000 gallon tender.

Some years ago when I lived in the UK a few of us (now all ex-MHR) went down to the Swanage and looked at 35022 when they wanted to sell her and discussed the project to de-modify her. At the time (1990 or there about) we estimated that the total cost was around ₤1 million to get her running!

Saying that I would love to see 35005 Canadian Pacific de-modified and refitted with a Berkeley mechanical stoker and all the unwanted bits from her offered up to another Merchant like Mr Hoskins 35022 to assist that one to steam.

 

Only slightly off topic but 35006's rolling chassis at Toddington (Glos Warks Rly) was re-united with its recently overhauled and tested boiler last month. Photo in latest "Railway Herald". 35006 and 2807 have been "sparring partners" at Toddington for years (2807 arriving there in 1981 and 35006 in 1983) and 35006 has just beaten 2807 into steaming first (although the boiler was off the frames for the test) so first laurels to the 35006 team. I have the utmost respect for anyone who attempts to restore such large express locos, they are magnificent but its a lot of work and money!

 

If anyone seriously considers this as a project, and wants to go beyond a "cosmetic" fitting of an air-smoothed casing, they might want to read up on why the locomotives were modified by Jarvis in the first place. You start from a base of low reliability and availability, with high running costs, along with high maintenace and repair costs. The main features of the rebuilds were the redesigning of the valve gear, the intermediate drawbar gear between engine and tender,elimination of problems with the mechanical lubricators, the steam reversing gear, and of course the air smoothed casing in relation to overall accessibility and repair.
You then move on to removing or replacing--or rather building from new today--valve gear and rocker shafts, inside cylinder, smokebox, superheater header, steampipes, reversing gear, piston heads and rods, oil bath, air smoothed casing, lubricators, regulator, ashpan and grate, cylinder cocks and sandboxes. There were also considerable changes to the tender in detail.
I suppose if you are starting with a "bare shell" of an engine, ie ex-Barry it is actually easier, but still dreadfully expensive, just to create something that was clearly inferior to the rebuilt form.

I think "cosmetic" would be the way to go. But if it was my million quid, I think I would consider it better spent on a new-build of something extinct on the Southern.

 

I think Tangmere has proven that if looked after well and with lower mileage run on today's main line, an air-smoothed Bulleid is reliable and a good performer. As I said earlier 35022 would be a good starting point as there's not a lot left of her other than frames, wheels, cylinders and Port Line's former boiler.

 

What would be the point of just doing a half-arsed cosmetic job? It would be like sticking a tender behind an Austerity and calling it a Black Motor/Midland 3F/any other sort of 0-6-0. My belief is that such a project would attract far more in the way of interest, funds etc if it was done as a proper job rather than putting a Rebuilt in a dress. Considering the amount of components that would need to be replaced if you were starting with a Barry wreck, there isn't a huge amount on your list that would be left on there anyway.

Much of the gumph that has been written about the originals is rumour and conjecture that has reached the stage of being passed off as 'fact'. Were they that unreliable and poor to work on? Speak to some of the people that worked on them in their original form and see what they think of them. Free running, easy steaming; the general opinion was that the Rebuilt's were inferior to the Originals.

 

So looking at the practicalities - is there any difference in the valve gear between a MN and a BB/WC? Same sized driving wheels, so presumably same coupled wheel base? If not I assume you could just adjust the chain length? This being the case then all the bits exist on WC/BB's and could be borrowed for replication, or else the drgs may be in York??

 

It has to be said, there were gripes with the difficulty of accessing parts under the casing if anything went wrong and with the other idiosyncracies associated with the class. However, I also believe that the design was too far ahead of its time, and that technology has now had over sixty years to catch up with Bulleid's vision. Now is probably the best time to de-modify a rebuilt: the formerly-troublesome oilbath issue has been resolved with new sealing methods, and I've not heard of any problems with the Bulleid steam reverser creeping into full-forward of late. I also think that the problems with the valve gear have been overstated, for how can multi-link Morse chains 'stretch' in service? Whilst the pins linking the chain links together may become distorted if the reverser gets put into reverse whilst moving forward in an emergency, I think that under normal operating circumstances, this perception is a fallacy. As such, should this project ever get off the ground and the group are offering shares in the locomotive a la Southern Locomotives Ltd., then I'm sure I'd support it. From what I gather, the actual valve gear arrangements are exactly the same, but I haven't seen any drawing of the MN version to comment otherwise. I think the principal difference between an MN and WC/BB was the firebox size and boiler length, whilst the former were generally heavier as a result.

 

I certainly hope the MHR wouldn't consider doing this to 35005 considering she is complete. It would make much more sense to do it to one that is stripped and missing parts, so as to start from a fresh. Surely?

 

Stewie Griffin:

If the originals were so good, and the unreliability and high costs a figment of peoples' imagination at the time, why was serious consideration given to scrapping the whole class and building something new, until Jarvis and Swift came up with plans for major modifications to the class at less than half the cost of new locomotives ?

That was what saved them from the cutters torch in 1955. Nothing else. Fact.

 

I don't deny there were issues with the originals, however a lot of these problems have been magnified in the time that has elapsed since the originals were at the forefront of people's minds, and clearly we are unable to ascertain first hand how good/bad they actually were. What I would say is quote the engineman in Winksworth's book; "I don't know why they had to rebuild the engines; all they needed was a decent reverser and they would have been fine". It has also been stated to me by an engineman who had 35027 as his regular loco when new that the re-builds weren't a patch on the originals to crew.

Reverser issues may go some way to explaining some of the economy issues (fuel consumption etc). How many of the other problems were down to the inadequate materials available during wartime? With the benefit of modern materials etc and the ability in preservation to lavish the time necessary on such an advanced machine (for its time) I see no reason why one couldn't be made to work just as well as OVSB intended.

Do you see original West Countries failing all the time in preservation?