Who's loco is it anyway...

I went to the Thinktank in Birmingham quite a few years ago & was told by the resident engineer that City of Birmingham has the frames from City of Liverpool. Dunno how true this is though.

 

I can't see it: the two engines would need to be in Crewe works for heavy repairs at the same time (as far as I know, Crewe held no spare set of frames for these engines). Although there were times noted on the EHCs when the periods were close, and in a couple of cases overlapped slightly, there was never enough time for them to be there together to have such a major exchange happen.

 

Following on from what LMS2968 says above, the only slight possibility could have been that with "City of Liverpool" having been withdrawn quite early, ie in period 5/63, "and" if "City of Birmingham" received a heavy general after that date, before withdrawal in period 9/64, "and" "City of Liverpool" was scrapped within Crewe rather than elsewhere, that the latter's set of frames would have been available if so required on the other loco. Surely though it would have been much too late in the day for that sort of transplant, a frame failure would have simply meant withdrawal.
I dont have the records to check all this, others may well be able to do so and discount my theory.

46118

 

The frames from 'City of Liverpool' were found at Edge Hill sitting on a pile of bricks -Scousers probably had the wheels away.

Bob.

 

Thanks for that. Substitute 'Muslims', Pakistanis, gays or women and see howe long it takes before you're in court.

It's thanks to comments like that that the Hillsborough families took so long before they were believed.

 

What are the motion numbers etc.? It might be that City of Liverpool was in better condition at preservation time and they simply swapped the plates.

 

Cobblers, why are you being so sensitive?

Anyway this has nothing to do with Hillsborough.

Chris:

 

Thompson1706's post is childish. He needs to grow up!!!

 

Bob is an ex-pat "Scouser" and having known him for over 40 years I can assure you he is "grown up". I sincerely believe that Bob's post was a joke. Sorry but you need to "loosen up". Ray.

 

Possibly, but that was the third time on three different forums in three days that I'd read similar comments. The sense of humour does tend to wear a bit thin in those circumstances.

Perhaps we should leave it at that and get back on topic.

 

We all have our senior moments Ray, and I think you have just had yours

I also know Bob and can assure you that he is not childish.

As has been pointed out ,Bob is a "scouser" in exile, add to that I am a Welshman and my Wife is from Dublin, we find that if you can laugh at yourself , one can laugh at other people.

Try not to take life so seriously

Chris:

 

Chris, I think it may be you who just had a "senior moment" - LOL. If you would care to re-read my post I was defending Bob - I think your post may have been directed towards Std Tank who accused Bob of being childish. Perhaps this error has come about by us seemingly having now to always reply with a quote. Is there a way of replying without a quote like there used to be? Regards Ray.

 

Its Time to move on.
Before someone brings Essex into this...

 

It is pretty common knowledge that 'Albert Hall' and 'Rood Ashton Hall' swapped identities at Swindon but it is now thought that Moguls 5306 and 5351 also swapped identities at Swindon in 1961. When I purchased 'Ironbridge No3' (P1990/40 now at Telford) from the CEGB I found that everything below the footplate,apart from some motion from No2, belonged to 'Ironbridge No1 (P1803/33 now at Foxfield). In fact the only parts of No3 were the boiler ,cab and tanks. As convention states that the frames dictate the identity of the loco I really bought No1 and Foxfield had No 3 - confusing isn't it? I wonder how many other locos have a 'false identity'?

Now, as Bob's non-PC joke upset a couple of people how about a Politically Correct one:
Three persons of unspecified gender, ethnic origin and sexual orientation went into a bar and........... Nah, doesn't have the same 'ring' to it ! LOL. Ray.

 

Well, Middleton has Hawthorn, Leslie no.3860 which was No.6 in the APCM Swanscombe fleet of locos. At least, that is what was on the bill of sale and documentation that we got from APCM and that was what was on the worksplates attached to the cab. When you start looking closely, though, most of the parts are stamped 3717, although 3716 and 3715 also occur on various bits and pieces. The frames themselves don't actually carry a number. When 3860 was delivered to APCM in 1935, it was No.6 in the fleet. However, the 1970 IRS handbook had 3860 as being No.3. The numbers were carried on the saddletank and the tank presently fitted to No.6 has a bent front handrail, making it fairly easily identifiable in photos taken in the 1960/70's. This tank appears on photos variously credited as being 3717 or 3860 and carrying No.6. I am told, but have no hard evidence, that the Swanscombe Engineer always kept the worksplate with the boiler and the boiler that we have is definitely that delivered with 3860 in 1935. As for the frames, they probably started life with 3717, which is supposedly at Quainton Road. Which set of frames they have, I don't know but I don't think that they are from 3860! There's a choice of 3715, 3716, 3717, 3718, 3719 or 3860.

 

On the narrow gauge there is the "Maid Marian"/"King of the Scarlets"/"Velinheli" mystery (Reference: Cliff Thomas' Oakwood press book on the Quarry Hunslets page 102) :-

"Velinheli" - Has correct early type frames but wrong boiler - has a dome but should of been dome-less.

"King of the Scarlets" - Has wrong later type frames (should be early type) but has correct boiler.

"Maid Marian" - Has wrong early type frames (should be later type) and should of had a dome boiler but is now domeless.

The frames / boiler /saddletank type combinations of these three "Alice" class locomotives apparently don't match up with their as built condition suggesting there was a 3-way swap around of identities between the locomotives. (and to further confuse matters "King of the Scarlets" was originally named "Alice" but that name was known to have been switched to the present namesake now at Bala in 1908 or thereabouts... and I suppose, according to one theory, there are two ex Dinorwic quarry hunslet engines on the BLR today that have carried the name "Alice" - phew!).

Now that Statfold has brought "King of the Scarlets" back from Canada there is a chance that the mystery will now be resolved.

Gareth

 

Sorta semi on topic, I was at the Bluebell yesterday and looking at 9017 happened to notice that with the light at the right angle you can still see where the porthole windows in the cab over the firebox were filled in, and that must have happened circa 1926 on 3258 "The Lizard". I thought it was rather cool to still be able to see that trivial bit of the locomotive's history.

 

The hydrostatic lubricator in the cab of 9017 is probably one that used to belong to 823 "The Countess" - it was part of a swap or sale many years ago. There has been a long history of co-operation between the two lines, I believe we even bought some smokebox doors together as the Beyer tanks and the Dukedog have the same size.

 

It is probably quite well known, but LMS Princess Royal boiler #9100 was fitted to

1. 6202 (as built)
2. 6203
3. 6206
4. 6212
5. 6207
6. 6211
7. 6203 (Preserved)

So arguably a bit of the original turbomotive lives on,

Boiler #9101 : -

1. 6203 (as built)
2. 6209
3. 6203 (again)
4. 6207
5. 6210
6. 6211
7. 6203 (3rd time)
8. 6201 (Preserved)

 

Some footage of Turbomotive, and other interesting film. Noticed this on another site...........

http://www.britishpathe.com/video/news-in-a-nutshell-56