45xx 2-6-2t's

I recently bought some railway magazines from 1955, the year I was born.I was surprised to see in the May edition list of withdrawn locos (amongst the expected 4-4-0's and South Wales tanks) 5 or 6 45xx's. In June there were three more.

What happened to make these locos redundant? It was too early for Beeching or DMUs to be having an effect and there were at that time many far older loocos around still

Any ideas?

 

Maybe age was a factor? The first batch was built in 1906-1915 (a total of 55 according to Wikipedia)

There may have been older locos around but perhaps they were not performing the type of duties that the 45xx were?

I await someone to shoot me down.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GWR_4500_Class

 

4507 of the first batch not withdrawn until 1963, although Im sure you are right age was a factor.

 

Methinks some were replaced by Pannier 0-6-0s released by the advent of the Class 08 shunters which were being built from 1953 onwards and the introduction of the 20 + Ivatt 2-6-0s to the Cambrian sheds which also released some WR locos to replace the 2-6-2Ts

 

It was also the last Wolverhampton Stafford Road built loco still in service.

 

possibly yes....but still loads of aging Panniers around at that time...

 

The Great Western, once they had decided that a certain class met the requirements of its services were prone to repeat the basic design using updated developments.
Examples were large panniers where the 94XX & 57XX replaced the 27XX and similar , small panniers where the 16XX replaced the 850 class and similar, 14XX replacing the similar Dean locos etc. etc.
It is very possible that they would have produced a 65XX class of small wheeled 2-6-2T to replace the earlier 45XX as they wore out beyond economic repair.
The 45XX were more powerful than the Ivatt 2MT 2-6-0's, which were more a replacement for the worn out Dean Goods and Cambrian 0-6-0s

 

Alot of the new 'panniers' spent alot of their time in store. The 1600 class replaced most of those. I would have thought the arrival of new engines and their age that saw them replaced. 4507 apart of course, the next oldest engine after her was 4555! How did she surived for so long would be an intresting question.

 

Railway cut backs started long before the Beeching report, for example in 1955 all the former GWR stations between Warminster and Salisbury were closed and the stopping trains withdrawn.

John.

 

That must be it but I would have thought in that case there would also have been 53xx 51xx 49xx etc withdrawals as well, I cant really see what replaced the 45xx amongst the new builds/ Thx for all the replies.

 

DMUs? Or would that have been later?

 

Was it the case that the 43xx/51xx which were displaced in turn replaced the 45's? e.g Minhead branch used 45xx during the 20's/30's but in later years the Large Praries and Moguls became more prominent?

 

I dont know.Probably that has more to do with paid holiday boom in the fifties.

1955 was really too early for dmu's to be having an impact I think

 

Don't forget that the BR Standard class 3 82XXX 2-62T's had started to appear and some worked on the WR.

Paul

 

BR 82xxx 2-6-2Ts displaced some of the 45xxs.

 

I find it very interesting (well fairly ) One tends to look at a list of locos and forgets that they werent all necessarily all in traffic right up to the end, indeed I would assume there werent many 43xx moguls left by 1960 and a lot of 288xx and 42xx would have been gone by then too I should think..must buy me a book on the subject!

 

The last 43 to go was 4358, which was withdrawn around about 1959 - certainly none of them made it to the 60's.

I think there was a scheme to try and preserve it, as it was the last surviving Wolverhampton engine.

 

Yes, but of the 4300 - 4399 series, 88 of them were withdrawn in the 1930's for 're-use' in the Manor & Grange building program. (The other 12 were from the 8300 series, drawn mainly from members of the 5300 series.)

Many 43xx's in the 53, 63 & 73 series lasted until 1964.

 

Odd if you think about it - nearly another 20 tons of locomotive weight. You've got to wonder what respective coal consumption was like if they were doing the same work...