Who's loco is it anyway...

Re: Scotsman Overhaul updates

From what I understand a locomotives identity is taken from it's frames, which were, under normal practice the first part of a loco to be laid down. Thus when Tyseley bought 4983 Albert Hall from Barry that's what they thought they were getting. It wasn't until the rebuild started that it was discovered that the frames were stamped 4965 ( and there were no re-stampings) and Tyseley found out that they had been sold a "ringer".
A lot of the loco's parts were stamped 4983 but not the most important parts ......the frames, and that's why we now have 4965 Rood Ashton Hall running around the big railway.
One other thing, 5043 has one of it's rods stamped 4029 does this mean that The Earl isn't really the engine that we have all come to love and admire?

 

Re: Scotsman Overhaul updates

I won't go into great detail about every LMS Class 5 being different, but that is about right. There were three different thicknesses of frame plate, I don't know how many differnet boiler designs, four different motion designs, two different rear to driving axle centre dimensions. In 1943 Crewe Works built a new frame set for locos 45000- 451. So there was always a spare frame set in the Works when a Class 5 came in and the frames needed some serious work doing on them. With regard to parts from 6202. There is a component on 6203 that is stamped 6202. I cannot recall what it is, but I have seen a photo of it.
When any loco came into Works for a heavy general overhaul, all parts that were not already stamped were paint stamped with that loco's number and were returned to the loco during the overhaul, irrespective of whether the frame set was changed. Invariably, a different boiler was used.

 

Re: Scotsman Overhaul updates

I didn't know that Crewe had a spare frame set, but it is true that there were a least three different frame designs: for the vertical throat plate firebox; the sloping throat plate firebox; and the later long wheelbase locos. I thought that if a loco needed new frames then they were made as required after the necessary investigations for these were expensive items.

As you say, an overhauled boiler was always fitted after a major overhaul of the engine, not the one it came into works with, and all the other components stamped with the engines number were re-fitted if they were fit for further use. Crewe had a rolling 'stock' of boilers which sped up the overhaul process, rolling because most of the stock not already in use would be being overhauled themselves and these would therefore be in the works not in the 'Finished Part Stores'. The actual number of spare boilers was very carefully monitored to keep a tight control over costs, this was shareholders money they were spending!

I have always thought that it was the motion that identified a loco not the frames. Perhaps the practice was different on other railways.

Regards

 

Re: Scotsman Overhaul updates

So are you saying that there wasn't a spare set of frames, boilers etc just waiting to go on? I'd be interested to know how Crewe obtained such rapid overhaul times!

Yes, storage is expensive, but it is a red herring: getting a loco outshopped and back into service quicker gets your expensive asset earning money quicker. So the cost of storage of a spare set of frames etc has to be set against the saving made by having each asset earning money for a greater proportion of the time.

In any case, I think you are missing my point, which is simply that, in the case of the Black 5s (but the same could apply to many high-voume locos), the fact that there were more than 842 sets of frames, more than 842 boilers, more than 842 pairs of cylinders etc demonstrably means that more than 842 sets of parts were built. The fact that the LMS / BR(M) chose only to issue 842 running numbers, but constantly recycled new parts and scrapped old ones over the course of 30-odd years, is simply a recognition that that is how they chose to account for the locos: under different policies they could have said more than 842 were built (and issued more than 842 numbers), but some were effectively scrapped well before what are the accepted scrapping dates. The end result in terms of numbers of locos serviceable at any one point in time would have been the same, but the financial implications different. That's all I meant when I said I had a doubt about the number actually built.

Anyway, I guess we should agree to disagree...

Tom

 

Re: Scotsman Overhaul updates

Cook, in Swindon Steam, makes it clear I think that to the GWR in the 1930s the identity of the loco was an abstract concept which was used as required.
Examples.
2021 #2062: rebuilt with new wheels, cylinders, boiler, motion, cab etc etc on old frames in 1930 - became 5400
5400: rebuilt discarding all remaining components including frames from 2062 - stayed as 5400

King 6007: rebuilt from accident damage retaining frames boiler and and most other parts: kept same name and number but considered new

Stars to Castles - new cylinders, boilers, cabs, extended frames. 5 rebuilds kept same no and name and identity and considered rebuilds, ten got new no, kept name and were considered new.

Duke 3265 - given frames from 3365, and several other rolling chassis components, retained cab, kept no and name, considered rebuild.
Other Dukedogs - 1 ran for a while with Duke identity, rest all considered to be "new" Earls.

I could go on, but clearly there is no pattern at all. More than likely they did what suited the works and the book keepers at the moment.

Other times and other places, doubtless they did things differently....

Albert Hall/Rood Ashton Hall - I bet Swindon works just loved putting one over the Kremlin...

 

Re: Scotsman Overhaul updates

I don't know how many times we have discussed this ridiculous idea that the frames identified a loco. As regards the Black 5's, for a start, 45110 has the frames from 45297, 45337 those from 45280, 45025 those from 45079, 45428 those from 45063 and 45305 those from 45019. That's just amongst the preserved ones. There are at least 230 known frame swaps amongst the first 460 Black 5's built, the last in 1958. I don't have details of the later builds with different frames.
It's not as if Black 5's were unique in this respect. Many classes had spare framesets, which were swapped around or the frames were simply renewed when necessary. They were an expendable, if expensive, lump of metal. When it came to putting the bits back together, the works didn't necessarily wait for the bit stamped with the locos number to be repaired; if, for example, the right hand crosshead wasn't ready for fitting, one that was ready would be fitted, whichever loco it came from. The notion that the motion identified the loco means that 35029 is well on its way to being in steam again as I was looking at motion carrying this number only last week and it wasn't swapped whilst the locos were at Barry.

 

Re: Scotsman Overhaul updates

Then there's 6152 and 6220 in preservation as well, but 6100 and 6229 were scrapped...

Was this a works or an accounting or a management change that decided to swap identities when they went to the US?

i read somewhere that some motion parts of 6100 (as preserved) carries stamp marks from 6399..Fury.

 

I've separated these posts from the 4472 thread as its a worthy topic in its own right.

for 4472, see here

http://railways.national-preservation.com/steam-traction/26494-scotsman-overhaul-updates-226.html

 

Re: Scotsman Overhaul updates

Hmmm - so short frame Drummond M7 30031 enters the works along with long frame 30106. A month or so later 30031 re-emerges, but now with long frames. Meanwhile, 30106 is declared to be scrapped. Clearly the identity of a loco belongs with its ... oh, hang on a minute...

As far as the big railway was concerned, the identity of a loco was whatever the company chose it to be for their own internal reasons, and nothing much to do with the specific chunks of metal or what they happened to have stamped on them.

Tom

 

Re: Scotsman Overhaul updates

When I was a lad the identity of a loco was the number painted (usually) on the cab side because that was the number I underlined in my Ian Allan. When I went around Crewe works it was the number chalked on the board next to the frames. Good job I didn't look at all the numbers stamped on bits and pieces because that would have confused my simple mind!

 

I'm certainly enjoying this thread, some interesting points. Dinorwic would be a good example of the practices of rotating components and certainly mysteries surrounding the loco's true identity.

I get the impression that the level of parts sharing/identity swapping was pretty random, given what I have read here and elsewhere, I find it difficult to imagine many cases where a pool of parts would not be required for keeping a 'fleet' running so there is always going to be some rotation with all the bits- presumably more so with the more numerous classes.

Would it be a good analogy to assume that a number is actually only a tool for identifying that particular selection of parts, rather than a locomotive as a whole? I used to spend a lot of time repairing landrovers and this was always the way I looked at them- the registration identifies that particular 'kit' of parts that come together to build a 'thing' at that particular time rather than perhaps identifying its origins (However- more often than not the chassis was the original....)

Chris

 

Re: Scotsman Overhaul updates

If it not it means Lode Star has a sister that's put on a lot of weight

 

QUOTE=ADB968008;544482]Then there's 6152 and 6220 in preservation as well, but 6100 and 6229 were scrapped...

I've got a feeling you're right about 6100/6152 (6152 went to US as 6100 and was never changed back) but wrong about 6229/6220 (6229 re numbered as 6220 for US visit, and changed back to 6229 on return)... Or at least that's what I remember from the Steam Days video I have from the 80s! (Not that it changes your valid point either way...)

Dan

 

Loco numbers and the spotting of them are odd. If you glimpsed a cabside number between two coaches or buildings, did you "see" that loco enough to underline it in your Combined volume more than, in some magical way, if you saw a the cab of the same loco in the works during overhaul or indeed dismantling?
When does the number begin or stop being the loco? Is a flame cut number or a number/name plate on a wall still that loco?
If you were on a train spotting and your mate was looking out one side and you the other, did you "cop" the locos each other saw and called out the numbers of?
There's a thesis to be written here, equal to the "tree falling in the forest" stuff!

 

Interesting discussion. I think that the accountants are the ones who hold sway.

Your UK example of 4965/4983 illustrates this point. Both enter Swindon at teh same time, one for scrap (4965), one for overhaul (4983). Boiler on orignal 4983 found to be better than that on original 4965. Frames and bottom end of 4965 found to be better than on origianl 4983. The fix? Without having to go through Board of Trade mandated boiler overhaul on boiler swap regulations, boilers are exchanged along with identites. Result? 4983 emerges with the same boiler that it entered works with, no boiler exchange, no internal overhaul required. Leftover parts sent off to scrap with identity of 4965. Today's position? 4983 is teh actual locomotive that survives, because that is the identity assigned to that particular assembly of 49xx parts.

In Australia, we've had similar changes. In 1969, two baldwin built D-59 Class 2-8-2s entered Cardiff Workshops. One, 5913, was condemned, to be scrapped. The other, 5919, was to be given a medium overhaul and sent back into traffic. On inspection, 5913 was found to be in far better condition that 5919. Rather than having to go through the procedure or re-instating 5913 to the books, the two locomotives swapped identities. This happened because the NSWGR had officially ceased capital expenditure on steam locomotives circa 1959 and due to dieselisation, a withdrawn, condemned steam locomotive tended to stay that way.

Another example. Now, we have 3203 in preservation. This locomotive is a 4-6-0 buiolt by Beyer Peacock on 1891. In the early 1950's, Clyde Engineering (Sydney) built four sets of frames for teh C-32 Class, the last four sets to be made. These included cylinders, axles and wheels. In 1952, 3203 entered Eveleigh Workshops for overhaul. When outshopped, 3203 was fitted with one of these new sets of frames (2nd last C-32 to be rebuilt), a new boiler (3203D) and a different tender. What parts were carried over? Basically, the identity is all that was refitted on outshopping from what entered workshops. In accounting terms, 3203 was rebuilt, so the money came from maintenance budgets, not a new locomotive. Accounting requirements.

 

[QUOTE =dan.lank;544497]QUOTE=ADB968008;544482]Then there's 6152 and 6220 in preservation as well, but 6100 and 6229 were scrapped...

I've got a feeling you're right about 6100/6152 (6152 went to US as 6100 and was never changed back) but wrong about 6229/6220 (6229 re numbered as 6220 for US visit, and changed back to 6229 on return)... Or at least that's what I remember from the Steam Days video I have from the 80s! (Not that it changes your valid point either way...)

Dan[/QUOTE]

6152 was (mostly) the engine which went to America and the numbers / names were never swapped back with 6100 on her return. 6229 also went to America, but as 6220, but in this case, identities were restored on her return. There were subtle differences between the 6220-24 and 6225-29 batches to confirm this photographically. It is also recordeed (If memory serves) on the two Engine History Cards.

 

I think the tenacity of the idea that a locomotive is identified by its frames is founded on our almost universal experience of the DVLA. All motor vehicles are identified by the chassis number or if a motorcycle, the frame number. Most people assume that the same system applies to locomotives. Just as well it doesn't as anyone who has tried to get the DVLA to change an incorrectly recorded motorcycle frame number will know.

 

If you are operating more than a couple of locomotives you have to have a means of identifying them for a multitude of reasons, hence the need to number them. When a loco went into works for a major overhaul, it would be reduced to a very large kit of parts that would be sent to all corners of the works for repair/replacement or whatever. In Victorian times, many components were 'fitted' together and it made sense to keep them together because it was known that they would fit again with little effort. However, with the introduction of more modern manufacturing techniques and better tolerances, components became more interchangeable. You knew that a bit of one Black 5 would probably fit another one (provided they were of the same build spec) so there was no advantage to keeping everything together and, as Tom has said, time out of traffic was of the essence. If putting bits off one loco onto the frames of another meant that a loco could be back in traffic more quickly, this would have happened. The only thing to worry about was ensuring that each loco had a unique number when it left the works. If loco 12345 went into the works, a loco numbered 12345 had to leave it, unless it was scrapped.

 

The situation gets much more complicated when you look at 19th century locos.

As an example: The fledgling London, Chatham and Dover Railway had a class (the "Aeolus" class) of 4-4-0 tender engines, with 5'6" driving wheels, 3' carrying wheels and outside cylinders. They were somewhat unsatisfactory, and were eventually "rebuilt" as conventional 2-4-0T engines with inside cylinders, 6'0" driving wheels and 3'6" carrying wheels. Effectively, these were entirely new locos (new frames, cylinders moved from outside to inside, tenders discarded, driving and carrying wheels of different size etc) but were classified as the "new" Aeolus class for accountancy purposes. Probably only the boilers, and maybe a few minor components, were common to both designs. But to take the point in Steve's last sentence, locos with the same names entered and left the works!

Such examples are far from rare in the early loco history of many companies.

Tom