slilley Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 Towards the end of its life 55017 was recognisable by the absence of a footstep at the No 1 end above the drawhook. I know this was the result of accident damage that was repaired, and according to some tales some cab parts were taken from 55001 and used on 55017. What I would like to know though is a bit more about the incident that made such a mess of the front of 55017. Where did it happen, how did it happen, which other locos were involved if that was the case? Best wishes Simon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Pannier Tank Posted September 22, 2017 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 22, 2017 (edited) 16.01.80Sustained collision damage to No.1 end at Finsbury Park TMD.18.01.80To Doncaster Works for collision damage repairs (off 28/03).It was first thought that 55017 had been fitted with a nose section from either 55001 or 55020 (following the cutting up of these locomotives) indeed one nose section from 55020 was missing from the scrapline on the 17th February, however, it later became apparent that an entirely new nose had been fabricated. This new nose cone could easily be identified by the fact that the central footrest had not been replaced above the buffer beam equipment. source http://www.napier-chronicles.co.uk/9017.htm Edited September 22, 2017 by Pannier Tank Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
slilley Posted September 22, 2017 Author Share Posted September 22, 2017 16.01.80 Sustained collision damage to No.1 end at Finsbury Park TMD. 18.01.80 To Doncaster Works for collision damage repairs (off 28/03). It was first thought that 55017 had been fitted with a nose section from either 55001 or 55020 (following the cutting up of these locomotives) indeed one nose section from 55020 was missing from the scrapline on the 17th February, however, it later became apparent that an entirely new nose had been fabricated. This new nose cone could easily be identified by the fact that the central footrest had not been replaced above the buffer beam equipment. source http://www.napier-chronicles.co.uk/9017.htm many thanks for that Pannier tank. I need to know though how the damage was done, was 55017 struck by another loco or what? Does anyone know the root cause? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swindon 123 Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 many thanks for that Pannier tank. I need to know though how the damage was done, was 55017 struck by another loco or what? Does anyone know the root cause? The damage to 55017 was caused by it having an argument with the end of No5 road in the shed at Finsbury Park Depot and coming off 2nd best. It returned back into service over the late evening/ early morning of the 28/29th March 1980 on 1A41 from Doncaster to Kings Cross. I remember this well as I was the D/A on Kings Cross Turn 154, booking on at 18.47, and we had to get 55017 out of Up Bay, Platform 2 I think nowadays, and swap over locos with the incoming loco. I remember we had problems on the run back to London, with an electrical burning smell permeating the cab, which we finally traced to stuck traction motor contacts in the electrical cupboard in our driving cab. This was soon sorted out.Below is a copy of Kings Cross 154 dia, from the 1980/81 time, but little had changed from March 1980, except for the booking on time. KX-154. (05-81)~ by Paul James, on Flickr Paul J. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
slilley Posted September 23, 2017 Author Share Posted September 23, 2017 Paul many thanks for that. Just what I was looking for. Best wishes Simon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonC Posted September 26, 2017 Share Posted September 26, 2017 wow I'm really surprised so much effort went into fixing it up so late in its career Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
deltic17 Posted March 22, 2019 Share Posted March 22, 2019 On 26/09/2017 at 15:06, GordonC said: wow I'm really surprised so much effort went into fixing it up so late in its career Well it did many miles of important service for the last (almost 2 years) after repair. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now