Are you sure you saw that loco?

[pH]

I haven't got the references to hand but there was a particular circumstance about the B16s at Darlington when they were being rebuilt to B16/3. 

 

As I recall, the first rebuild used the spare frames left over when they scrapped the rest of the B16 that got bombed at York, the frames from the first rebuild were used for the second, and so on. When the programme was stopped there was still a spare set of frames which hung around North Road for many years.

 

And of course they couldn't follow the usual practice of identifying by the frames, because the York casualty had already been completely written off the books! (and so wouldn't have been in your ABC anyway!).

 

RCTS Green Book Part 2B - Tender Engines B1 to B19 describes exactly what you have said. The frames left over when the rebuilding programme was stopped were from 61434.

[bobthesod4479]

Ref the RT example. It got worse when they started selling off the buses. As i understand it, the bean counters started by getting rid of the early 1948 build registrations, not knowing that they could have been a late 1954 chassis and body due to the re and running number being taken from a bus going into Aldeenham to one just coming out, after all can you imagine the chaos with cancelling and re issuing all those road fund licences. As far as they were concerned it was a time expired bus. Apparently some of the bus companies who bought these couldnt believe their luck. I think after it was discovered the engineers decided what buses were to be released.

[Swindon 123]

So which one is it

 

25327 Man Vic 26 March 1983

25327 MV 260383.jpg

 

OMG thats 33 years ago

That is possibly the one i was thinking about. The number does ring a bell.

Looking at Class 24 and cab swaps, there is the case of D5005/D5025. This loco seems to have had a severe identity transformation as the body of D5005 ended up with the cabs of D5025, whose number it then adopted. Full story here on Derby Sulzers.  http://derbysulzers.com/24025.html

 

Paul J.

[5944]

I went to Meiningen works open day last year, and 2-10-0 50 3501 was running up and down outside. Alongside the line, there was a pair of loco frames. One was clearly labelled as 03 2243, which has been dismantled for years. The other set were off a 2-10-0, and the wheelsets had 50 3501 painted on them. Inside the works was a new smokebox door labelled up for 50 3501. Outside was an old boiler painted with 50 3501. Who knows what the "real" 50 3501 was actually made up of!

[chaz]

How much of a machine can replaced before it ceases to be the same machine? It doesn't matter. Best to think of a particular loco' (or rather its number) as an operating "concept". The collection of parts that are amalgamated to embody it were/are subject to replacement. So what? If I go to see "The Scotsman" run on a special I will see an A3 - the fact that some (most?) of the bits that did 100mph in 1934 have been swapped or replaced at Doncaster over the years would not affect my pleasure one jot. But it might amuse me to point out to a fellow enthusiast that it's not the real thing - if I was feeling wicked! 

[br2975]

Logically with diesels we should have accepted the worksplate I guess. But given the 6122/6121 connumdrum even that may not have been robust!

 

And of course with both diesel engines and boilers there were spares.... numbers of which increased as classes were run down, meaning that not all "belonged" to a loco at any given time

 

Phil

 

Thank you Phil.

 

Cue enthusiast with additional info ............. (me ?)

.

" Once upon a time BR owned a locomotive which bore the number D6122 which lived north of Hadrian's Wall. When its working life was over the loco was moved south, to the 'Big Smoke' where it was used in a re-railing demonstration at Hither Green depot. Once that demonstration was over, the locomotive was sold for scrap, to Woodham Brothers, Barry Dock."

.

"One day, a young oik (me) visiting the yard acquired the only remaining NBL works plate still on the loco, which, being cast in poor quality alloy (nothing new there for NBL) it was deemed worthless by the scrappers."

.

"As D6122 languished in the yard the paintwork faded, and on one cab, the numbers wore to reveal the identity D6121 beneath"

.

I will leave any reader(s) who are still awake to conduct their own, additional research, in order to identify the loco to which the works plate belongs (bearing in mind, I only ever saw one Cl.21/29, and that was at Woodham Bros. yard.).

.

Brian R

[Andy Kirkham]

I must say I was glad when Albert Hall became Rood Ashton Hall. To me the whole charm of the Hall, Grange and Manor names was that they were a  catalogue of obscure country houses, which would mean nothing to the average passenger who was not an avid member of the National Trust. (The outcome of this was that 6825 Llanvair Grange and 6877 Llanfair Grange both referred to the same building). Reading through the lists of meaningless Hall names is a pleasantly memerising experience, but the spell is rudely broken whenever one encounters the occasional famous one.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

How much of a machine can replaced before it ceases to be the same machine? It doesn't matter. Best to think of a particular loco' (or rather its number) as an operating "concept"...

 In just the same way, 'Tornado' is a valid member of the Peppercorn A1 class.

 

Our onetime next door neighbour's eldest son, somewhat older than myself, had a method which considerably amused me when he revealed it some twenty years ago. He was in great reputation for his spotting prowess, and carried one of the Ian Allan volumes with him at all times. There within were copious tickings of all the locos he had seen. All he had done was add a few more ticks every weekend to his battered and travel worn volume. Since his parents were far and away the most mobile in our locale - they had a Bristol car, very grand -  and they were out over most weekends as a family this had complete credibility. Hilarious.

[Phil Bullock]

That'll be D6122 bearing D6121s cabs Brian - including worksplates!

 

Hee hee

 

Phil

[298]

Certainly internals of diesels got swapped around in Works. I remember a visit to Crewe sometime in the late 80s/early 90s and saw lots of bits marked 47555, but the loco itself wasn't on the Works.

The exact number is unknown, but the best estimate is of no less than five "Commonwealth Spirits" existing at any one time- but you would have been lucky to see two in the works at the same time. I have it on good authority from a basher on an ALR who arrived in Edinburgh behind 47555, caught a HST to Kings Cross, then got to Paddington to find 47555 on the blocks.

[stovepipe]

That loco turned up absolutely everywhere, I wouldn't be suprised at all if two of them were running about!

[TheSignalEngineer]

 In just the same way, 'Tornado' is a valid member of the Peppercorn A1 class.

 

Our onetime next door neighbour's eldest son, somewhat older than myself, had a method which considerably amused me when he revealed it some twenty years ago. He was in great reputation for his spotting prowess, and carried one of the Ian Allan volumes with him at all times. There within were copious tickings of all the locos he had seen. All he had done was add a few more ticks every weekend to his battered and travel worn volume. Since his parents were far and away the most mobile in our locale - they had a Bristol car, very grand -  and they were out over most weekends as a family this had complete credibility. Hilarious.

They went past Fudgers Junction on every trip.

[ScRSG]

Always felt that copping locos from a works visit, when they were all in bits was a bit of a "fudge".

 

There is an oft published photo of a Duchess in Crewe Works with a Jubilee smokebox door.

[jonny777]

Yes, I always had the same conscience-rending thoughts on works visits. My way around that was to add the numbers into my notebook with brackets round them, for any loco that was just a bodyshell or under construction. They were never underlined in an ABC but a corresponding bracket was put around the the number there also.

 

The problems arose when any of my bracketed locos were withdrawn and I had not seen them subsequently as operational machines. This was particularly acute with the class 49s (if I can call the APT power cars that) which I had seen in various stages of construction in Derby Works, but I never saw an operational APT unit.

[ikks]

I must say I was glad when Albert Hall became Rood Ashton Hall. To me the whole charm of the Hall, Grange and Manor names was that they were a  catalogue of obscure country houses, which would mean nothing to the average passenger who was not an avid member of the National Trust. (The outcome of this was that 6825 Llanvair Grange and 6877 Llanfair Grange both referred to the same building). Reading through the lists of meaningless Hall names is a pleasantly memerising experience, but the spell is rudely broken whenever one encounters the occasional famous one.

I feel they really missed their opportunity with sod Hall or B??gger Hall or worse still f... Hall wan't used..........but then I am only a 70 year old former train spotter........ho hum

 

Mike

[Gwiwer]

Yes, I always had the same conscience-rending thoughts on works visits. My way around that was to add the numbers into my notebook with brackets round them, for any loco that was just a bodyshell or under construction. They were never underlined in an ABC but a corresponding bracket was put around the the number there also.

 

The problems arose when any of my bracketed locos were withdrawn and I had not seen them subsequently as operational machines. This was particularly acute with the class 49s (if I can call the APT power cars that) which I had seen in various stages of construction in Derby Works, but I never saw an operational APT unit.

 

 

"Rules of spotting" seemed to vary with area.  As a southern / western based yoof I was accustomed to underlining anything I saw on the rails and complete on shed though not in bits in works.  But go "oop north" and the rule seemed to be that you couldn't count it unless it was moving.  That, I am told, was a hang-over from the days of steam when it was a means of discouraging (or attempting to discourage) illicit shed bunks.  You could bunk every shed you could find but you couldn't count anything unless it were moving.   I encountered the same at Kings Cross more than once; the gathering at the end of platform 10 - now platform 8 - was always divided as to whether you could count something on the fuel point - the "locals" said you could but those up for the day or the weekend from Yorkshire or beyond insisted you had to wait for it to move off first and accused some "****** southerners" of "cheating".

 

I grew up with an awareness that there was an arbitrary ruling regards locos in works.  If they appeared complete and wore a number you counted it; if parts were obviously off (even if they were lying nearby on the floor) you didn't.  I also learned very early on that the true identity of a locomotive is that of its frames no matter what might be painted on the cab sides.

[Rugd1022]

 The exact number is unknown, but the best estimate is of no less than five "Commonwealth Spirits" existing at any one time- but you would have been lucky to see two in the works at the same time. I have it on good authority from a basher on an ALR who arrived in Edinburgh behind 47555, caught a HST to Kings Cross, then got to Paddington to find 47555 on the blocks.

 

''Of the 512 Class 47s originally built, it is estimated that at least 643 are still in use on Britain's railway network''​

 

Does anyone remember the photo which appeared in one of the railway mags of '50 084' inside Crewe Works..? Apparently some wag had added an extra bit of vinyl to 50 034...

[uax6]

Mike wrote:

I feel they really missed their opportunity with sod Hall or B??gger Hall or worse still f... Hall wan't used..........but then I am only a 70 year old former train spotter........ho hum

 

A previous boss of mine actually lived in a place called Soddington Hall. That is probably the closest even the railway would have got to those suggestions...

 

Andy G

[stovepipe]

''Of the 512 Class 47s originally built, it is estimated that at least 643 are still in use on Britain's railway network''​

 

Does anyone remember the photo which appeared in one of the railway mags of '50 084' inside Crewe Works..? Apparently some wag had added an extra bit of vinyl to 50 034...

 

I remember that, it was in June 1978 for the Open Day. Naturally, still in short trousers, I duly wrote it down only to scratch my head later what it was. It wasn't until a photo of it appeared in Power of the 50s (I think) that I found out it was 50 034 with a backward 3 overlaid. I'd seen it before it had gone to works anyway......

[toffee]

That'll be D6122 bearing D6121s cabs Brian - including worksplates!

 

Hee hee

 

Phil

Anything to do with D6122 ain't simple

https://www.rcts.org.uk/features/diesels/loco.htm?id=diesels/D6121

 

Might have guessed Brian was the supplier of the info and picture of the plate......lucky s.. ! Remember walking around Woodhams in the early years and being offered a plate off something by a bloke with a couple in his hands, as it was steam I didn't bother....wish I had now !

Brian, nothing to do with any of the above but have you seen this this morning ?

http://thegrowlergroup.org.uk/?cat=21

Proper Canton loco ! Well done Growler group.

John

[chaz]

I feel they really missed their opportunity with sod Hall or B??gger Hall or worse still f... Hall wan't used..........but then I am only a 70 year old former train spotter........ho hum

 

Mike

 

Or Surly Manor?   And wasn't there a plan to name the pannier tanks after garden sheds?

[royaloak]

That is possibly the one i was thinking about. The number does ring a bell.

Looking at Class 24 and cab swaps, there is the case of D5005/D5025. This loco seems to have had a severe identity transformation as the body of D5005 ended up with the cabs of D5025, whose number it then adopted. Full story here on Derby Sulzers.  http://derbysulzers.com/24025.html

 

Paul J.

But if it was just the cabs transplanted how come D5025 also ended up with the extra bodyside grille and (well worn) 2 tone green livery, both of which the 'old' D5005 had but not the 'old' D5025?

[stovepipe]

But if it was just the cabs transplanted how come D5025 also ended up with the extra bodyside grille and (well worn) 2 tone green livery, both of which the 'old' D5005 had but not the 'old' D5025?

 

Because the cabs off D5025 were grafted onto D5005 which became D5025 and then 24025. The cabless body of D5025 became D5005 on the books and was scrapped before renumbering. D5000 took the now vacant number 24005 on TOPS renumbering. Which is all basically what the Derby Sulzer link above is saying.

[The Johnster]

On a very cold and very foggy January night in 1964, me and a bunch of spotting chums were on our way back to Cardiff from a shed bash around Birmingham and Wolverhampton, changing at Gloucester from a Bristol train to catch the dmu stopper to Cardiff.  To our delight, on coming down the footsteps of the long footbridge, we were directed to a set of 3 maroon Hawksworths with what appeared to be some sort of steam loco at the Cardiff end.  To elucidate, there was a cloud of steam mixing with the fog and a sort of shape in the middle from which said steam was issuing from everywhere except the safety valves.  Closer inspection showed it to be a Modified Hall, and to my shame one of the things that have passed from my mind in the intervening years is it's identity.  This is surprising in a way because we went to some trouble to establish it.  

 

When I say it was a Hall, it was really the remains of one.  There were engines on the scrap line at Barry in much better condition; for instance there were engines at Barry that you could see the livery on, engines at Barry with glass still in the cab windows, engines at Barry you could easily identify from their numbers.  This sorry specimen had no number or nameplates, and was so filthy as to be remarkable even by 1964 steam standards; the only bits that weren't filthy were rusted.  There was no brass beading on the splashers, or the cab front corner, or around the cab windows, in fact there were no windows.  The chimney's copper cap was missing, as was the safety valve cover.  

 

A little questioning of the crew revealed that (fairly obviously) the stock was from the Hereford service, the dmu had failed, lying cold and silent in the down bay, and that this bag of spanners was the only loco in steam available, and that the Gloucester crew didn't look too happy at the prospect of taking a train to Cardiff with it, especially when they told us that the chalked 'F/O' on the tender was code for 'freight only'.  They didn't know the identity of their steed either, except that it wasn't one of theirs but an Oxford loco, they thought, at least it had come in on an Oxford turn with Oxford men, and were quite impressed when one of us asked for an oily rag and proceeded to wipe the clag off one of the connecting rod oil bosses; there was the number where it had been stamped by Swindon works when the loco was built.  We'd learned this trick at Barry.

 

It can't have been much fun for the crew.  We of course rode in the leading compartment, but the night was so thick that you couldn't see anything.  The Hall's steam heating bags were ok, though.  I doubt we went faster than 30mph at any point, and the ride on the footplate must have been terrifying; we could hear the bangs as she slewed violently with every driving wheel revolution, and feel the movement transmitted through the tender to the train, with more bangs and shockwaves as she further mangled an obviously already destroyed big end bearing.  Add to that that they were freezing because there was no glass in the spectacles and we were feeling distinctly sorry for them.  It was less a locomotive and more a cloud of barely mobile steam with a rattle in the middle.  They gave up at Severn Tunnel and who can blame them, and the Hall was dragged off and replaced by a Hymek, which gave a fine run but could not make up the 25 minutes we'd lost in less than that number of miles.

 

But ever since then I have believed absolutely and without question that you could establish a GW loco's identity from the number stamped on the connecting rod bosses.  Years later, the advent of building model compensated chassis starting with marking the frames for the axle holes by using the connecting rods as a template confirmed to me that it must be so; those rods must go with that set of frames or the thing would bind and jam in running, wouldn't it?  The identity of a steam locomotive, or any coupling rod driven beast including Swiss crocodiles, Fells, and Teddy Bears, is a defined relationship between those rods and that frame whatever other bits are taken off or bolted on in the meantime.  Now, this correspondence has thrown all that into doubt and I don't know what a locomotive is any more.  

 

Thank for that, guys...

[royaloak]

Just seen this so I apologise for the late reply-

Because the cabs off D5025 were grafted onto D5005 which became D5025 and then 24025. The cabless body of D5025 became D5005 on the books and was scrapped before renumbering. D5000 took the now vacant number 24005 on TOPS renumbering. Which is all basically what the Derby Sulzer link above is saying.

Have a look at the photo about 3/4 of the way down this page-

http://www.derbysulzers.com/24025.html

And it shows that it was the whole bodyshell which was re-used because it is all in 2 tone green, a livery 5005 carried but 5025 didnt.

 

The other photos show 24025 with an additional bodyside grille which it didnt have originally so that also points to the whole shell being from 5005.