First steam engine built by BR

[jsp3970]

I am sorry if this has been asked before but I could not find anything online.

 

I was wondering if anyone knew the identity of the first steam engine built by BR, obviously it would have a build date of Jan 1948. I asked my father who, while he did not know the answer, supplied a list of possible candidates. These were.

 

GWR design

Hall or 2251 class

 

LNER design

A2 or L1

 

LMS design

2-6-0, 2-6-2T or 2-6-4 T

 

He got this information from several book in his collection and all had build dates of early 1948. Can anyone shed any further light on this?

 

Thanks.

[ikcdab]

I guess you mean that construction started after 1 Jan 1948. Anything that construction started before Jan 1948 can't claim to have been built by BR.

Unless you mean the first engine to be released to traffic after 1 Jan.

[Wickham Green too]

Bulleid Light Pacific 24071 was new to traffic 17/4/48 so construction would have started under British Railways - that's the only 'Southern' candidate.

 

 

[Steamport Southport]

The Ivatt 4MTs would be a good call I reckon. 

 

3002 was built on 31/12/47

M3003 was "to traffic" on 17/1/1948

[adb968008]

According to BRdatabase, 192 locos have a build date between Jan -June 1948.

 

3218 has a build date of Jan 2nd, shared with B1 61274.

I don't know how many B1’s NB could assemble at any one time, but they had 10 out of the door by February..

 

But then NB wasnt a BR works either, so does it even count ?

 

 

Edited November 4, 2020 by adb968008

[jsp3970]

5 hours ago, ikcdab said:

I guess you mean that construction started after 1 Jan 1948. Anything that construction started before Jan 1948 can't claim to have been built by BR.

Unless you mean the first engine to be released to traffic after 1 Jan.

Good question and one that I asked my father about. Yes released after Jan 1, 1948 which would mean that the frames were laid in 1947 but the locomotive was finished under BR, which apparently would make the locomotive in question built by BR.

[jsp3970]

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

According to BRdatabase, 192 locos have a build date between Jan -June 1948.

 

3218 has a build date of Jan 2nd, shared with B1 61274.

I don't know how many B1’s NB could assemble at any one time, but they had 10 out of the door by February..

 

But then NB wasnt a BR works either, so does it even count ?

 

 

3218 was one of the ones he listed as a possible contender, but he never mentioned a B1 but as it was not built by BR then I would think it does not count.

Edited November 4, 2020 by jsp3970

[TravisM]

Being not sure how long it takes to “build” a steam loco but does the start of construction begin with frames laid or boiler constructed?  As with the boiler, that could have been built in another section of the factory or works, or even another works entirely.

 

As most locomotives were built in sub-sections and then assembled on the erecting floor, it’s difficult say for sure when a loco’s started, but we know when it’s been completed and available for traffic.

[adb968008]

The convention is a loco typically exists when its frames are laid.

 

That said I saw a palletted box labelled 56135 at Crewe works in a specific parts area, when surrounded by 56128-134 in various stages of construction, and considered it a “spot” as it was identifable.

 

To muddy waters further though, some lines were recyling bits for years, the GWR were masters of this. I recall looking at a prarie at Didcot that had numbers on it’s connecting rods from a loco 30 years older than the 61xx class. Stars became Castles, Moguls became Manors, Saints became Halls, 31 Kings were built, even though 30 were running, 6007 being written off in January 1936, 6 years after the last one was built, had its replacement in service by March 1936 just 2 1/2 months later, ostensibly built from stocks of spare parts, I’m not sure every GW tender was new either.
The LMS actually had spare frames for a Black Five, ready made, to speed up overhauls... nothing could be considered sacred... for instance 46229 is actually 6220 Coronation, 46100 is actually 6152, 4962 Rood Ashton Hall entered preservation officially as 4983 Albert Hall, 4082 Windsor Castle went for scrap as 7013 Bristol Castle.

Edited November 4, 2020 by adb968008

[Steamport Southport]

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

The convention is a loco typically exists when its frames are laid.

 

That said I saw a palletted box labelled 56135 at Crewe works in a specific parts area, when surrounded by 56128-134 in various stages of construction, and considered it a “spot” as it was identifable.

 

To muddy waters further though, some lines were recyling bits for years, the GWR were masters of this. I recall looking at a prarie at Didcot that had numbers on it’s connecting rods from a loco 30 years older than the 61xx class. Stars became Castles, Moguls became Manors, Saints became Halls, 31 Kings were built, even though 30 were running, 6007 being written off in January 1936, 6 years after the last one was built, had its replacement in service by March 1936 just 2 1/2 months later, ostensibly built from stocks of spare parts, I’m not sure every GW tender was new either.
The LMS actually had spare frames for a Black Five, ready made, to speed up overhauls... nothing could be considered sacred... for instance 46229 is actually 6220 Coronation, 46100 is actually 6152, 4962 Rood Ashton Hall entered preservation officially as 4983 Albert Hall, 4082 Windsor Castle went for scrap as 7013 Bristol Castle.

 

46229 is 46229. It never changed identities permanently.  It masqueraded as a red 6220 Coronation and was swapped back on return. 6220 was running around as a blue 6229.

 

46100 is 46100. It got new frames when rebuilt. I think all the rebuilds did. I think it was Riddles that said no part of that engine went to the USA as it's all been replaced.

 

4983 was a misidentification by enthusiasts wanting a famous engine. It was always 4965.

 

5029 was originally thought to be 4076 Carmarthen Castle. It was even in the magazines at the time that they had saved 4076 as they wanted an early Castle. Another misidentification by enthusiasts.

 

It doesn't matter what's stamped on a random part. The only part that's relevant to identity is the frames and frames did get replaced. But only rarely.

 

 

Jason

[Steamport Southport]

1 hour ago, jools1959 said:

Being not sure how long it takes to “build” a steam loco but does the start of construction begin with frames laid or boiler constructed?  As with the boiler, that could have been built in another section of the factory or works, or even another works entirely.

 

As most locomotives were built in sub-sections and then assembled on the erecting floor, it’s difficult say for sure when a loco’s started, but we know when it’s been completed and available for traffic.

 

The boiler is irrelevant most of them were "off the peg" although they tended to get a new one when built, but not always.  It's the frames that matter.

 

How quickly? Just over Twenty Five hours.

 

 

London and North Western Railway 17in Coal Engine number 1140 (Works number 2153) pictured at Crewe. This locomotive was constructed from raw materials in a record breaking 25 1/2 hours in February 1878. Its designer Francis Webb is pictured at the far left.

 

 

Jason

[Miss Prism]

Swindon was a bit like a chinese takeaway - "I'll have a number 37, a number 42, a number 17, but go easy on the prawn crackers".

 

 

[LBRJ]

I was under the impression that the only parts that really counted  as "The Locomotive" were the frames.

Its the same with vintage cars - anything else is just a collection of bits you add to the chassis.

[adb968008]

47 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

46229 is 46229. It never changed identities permanently.  It masqueraded as a red 6220 Coronation and was swapped back on return. 6220 was running around as a blue 6229.

 

46100 is 46100. It got new frames when rebuilt. I think all the rebuilds did. I think it was Riddles that said no part of that engine went to the USA as it's all been replaced.

 

4983 was a misidentification by enthusiasts wanting a famous engine. It was always 4965.

 

Yes, sorry your correct on 46229.

what 46100 was built as and what it became are different things. Indeed whilst most of it was replaced during its life, AIUI some of its motion is stamped 6399, which of course was experimental “Fury”... your same “parts swapping” equally applies to 60103 and just about any other engine of choice where very little original metal remains as a result of maintenance and parts swaps... thats Darwin's theory applied to evolution of any locomotive.

 

The key difference is however in the paperwork that follows the locos identity... 4965/83 there was no paperwork, just photographic evidence in before and after March 1962 supports the volume of evidence stamped on the loco (including cylinders, dragbox, bufferbeams  etc)  that supports an unofficial ID swap... the loco visually changed its frames, cab appearance in photographs taken after.

 

6100/6152 there was, it was a recorded ID swap, it happened. That subsequently everything changed during maintenance is simply “triggers broom”, there was a consistent, documented, assembled set of parts collectively numbered 6100, that started life as 6152 and simply evolved over time.

 

The UK has always been good at administration, if you want to see real ambiguity, look at Poland today.. I once saw three locomotives numbered “Ol49-69” on the same day, two of them were at Leszno at the same time, one in steam !

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 5, 2020 by adb968008

[jsp3970]

8 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

The UK has always been good at administration, if you want to see real ambiguity, look at Poland today.. I once saw three locomotives numbered “Ol49-69” on the same day, two of them were at Leszno at the same time, one in steam !

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interesting as I only knew of Ol49-99 being renumbered Ol49-69 and that was in 2001.

Edited November 5, 2020 by jsp3970

[adb968008]

On 05/11/2020 at 00:08, jsp3970 said:

Interesting as I only knew of Ol49-99 being renumbered Ol49-69 and that was in 2001.

iirc in May 2009..

What I suspect was ol49-69, freshly overhauled (i have pictures at the parade in ex-works condition).

 

the day of the parade “ol49-69” took the evening train to Poznan, via Leszno, where, visible from the platform was a partially dismantled ol49-69 painted black.

but, next morning
I saw ol49-69 in heavily rusted condition, no smokebox or tender at Gnieszno

 

ol49-69 was withdrawn from traffic for major overhaul in July 2009 at Leszno... it certainly didnt look ready for overhaul in May..

I didnt get a picture, but it was all black.

 

not to be confused with ol49-59, as was 100 and 23 (7 i think was awol)  which were out and about too same day, memories fuzzy on those, but seeing 69 several places and conditions certainly wasnt, obviously 2 were imposters, and I was leaning towards the inservice one being one of them.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 16, 2021 by adb968008

[Steamport Southport]

 

1 minute ago, adb968008 said:

Yes, sorry your correct on 46229.

what 46100 was built as and what it became are different things. Indeed whilst most of it was replaced during its life, AIUI some of its motion is stamped 6399, which of course was experimental “Fury”... your same “parts swapping” equally applies to 60103 and just about any other engine of choice where very little original metal remains as a result of maintenance and parts swaps... thats Darwin's theory applied to evolution of any locomotive.

 

The key difference is however in the paperwork that follows the locos identity... 4965/83 there was no paperwork, just photographic evidence supporting the volume of evidence stamped on the loco that supports an unofficial ID swap.

 

6100/6152 there was, it was a recorded ID swap, it happened. That subsequently everything changed during maintenance is simply “triggers broom”, there was a consistent, documented, assembled set of parts collectively numbered 6100, that started life as 6152 and simply evolved over time.

 

The UK has always been good at administration, if you want to see real ambiguity, look at Poland today.. I once saw three locomotives numbered “Ol49-69” on the same day, two of them were at Leszno at the same time, one in steam !.

 

Nope. It was 6100 which swapped identity with 6152. But that was in 1933.

 

Both were rebuilt with little, if anything, remaining of the original engines in the mid 1940s to 1950s. Definitely new wheels, boiler, cab, etc. Most got replacement frames. Look at the wheels next time you look at it. They aren't Fowler pattern. The current 46100 was almost certainly built new in June 1950.

 

Even the nameplates were different. The original set came up for auction a few years ago.

 

The fact it was no longer the original engine was the reason it went for scrap after being on the official list. Only being saved by Billy Butlin who wanted some famous engines.

 

 

 

[adb968008]

7 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

 

Nope. It was 6100 which swapped identity with 6152. But that was in 1933.

 

Both were rebuilt with little, if anything, remaining of the original engines in the mid 1940s to 1950s. Definitely new wheels, boiler, cab, etc. Most got replacement frames. Look at the wheels next time you look at it. They aren't Fowler pattern. The current 46100 was almost certainly built new in June 1950.

 

Even the nameplates were different. The original set came up for auction a few years ago.

 

The fact it was no longer the original engine was the reason it went for scrap after being on the official list. Only being saved by Billy Butlin who wanted some famous engines.

 

 

 

Nope ?

youve just confirmed what i said, adding more detail...

am I missing something... 6100 was originally built as 6152 yes or no ?

6100...the rebuild was a rebuild not a new build, according to documentation.

 

 

Edited November 5, 2020 by adb968008

[LMS2968]

I looked at '6100' at Bridgnorth a couple of weeks ago. The wheels are of the original type. Some of the Class got Stanier pattern, but not 6100. Whether or not they were the ones fitted in 1927 isn't the same thing.

 

6100's leading coupled wheelset is on the left.

 

Edited November 5, 2020 by LMS2968

[Leander]

Original type drivers were fitted to Royal Scot in October 1962, not long before withdrawal, but it had received replacement bevelled bogie wheels.

[Wickham Green too]

8 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

.... Definitely new wheels, boiler, cab, etc.  ....

Surely the original cab SIDES ( at least ) were used as they're not a standard Stanier pattern.

[Wickham Green too]

9 hours ago, adb968008 said:

....... the paperwork that follows the locos identity... 4965/83 there was no paperwork, .......

A number of pairs of Southern M7 0-4-4 tanks exchanged identity at the end : one going for scrap and another emerging from Eastleigh with its identity - long-frame type becoming short frame and vice-versa ............ no doubt there were many, many other similar examples ( let alone last-minute tender swaps ) ...................................................... how much of this was going on in the first weeks of 1948 is a different matter entirely !

[Wickham Green too]

10 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

London and North Western Railway 17in Coal Engine number 1140 (Works number 2153) pictured at Crewe. This locomotive was constructed from raw materials in a record breaking 25 1/2 hours in February 1878.

I'd like to know their definition of 'raw' materials ...... my definition would be iron ore, coke and limestone - but I doubt they even 'started' with steel billets and pig iron !

[PenrithBeacon]

10 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

46229 is 46229. It never changed identities permanently.  It masqueraded as a red 6220 Coronation and was swapped back on return. 6220 was running around as a blue 6229.

 

46100 is 46100. It got new frames when rebuilt. I think all the rebuilds did. I think it was Riddles that said no part of that engine went to the USA as it's all been replaced.

 

4983 was a misidentification by enthusiasts wanting a famous engine. It was always 4965.

 

5029 was originally thought to be 4076 Carmarthen Castle. It was even in the magazines at the time that they had saved 4076 as they wanted an early Castle. Another misidentification by enthusiasts.

 

It doesn't matter what's stamped on a random part. The only part that's relevant to identity is the frames and frames did get replaced. But only rarely.

 

 

Jason

Not sure about the last sentence in that some, perhaps many and certainly Crewe, considered the motion to be the identity of the engine.

[LMS2968]

28 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

Not sure about the last sentence in that some, perhaps many and certainly Crewe, considered the motion to be the identity of the engine.

That's true: Crewe allocated each engine a 'Motion Number', but that identification probably ended as soon as the loco left the erecting shops. As far as the Running Department was concerned, the number was the one on the brass numberplate on the cab sides, and that was a convoluted story in itself!