Who's loco is it anyway...

I have always understood that the identity of a loco stays with the frames.
See the NYMR and 841 - 825

However what the position is when the frames have been replaced with new may be open to discussion.
Probably still the same due to being a new replacement for an intended part.

 

Re: Scotsman Overhaul updates

We been through all this several times. Many locos swapped frames or had new ones made. It has nothing to do with them. The identity is that which the 'owner' decides it will be. Usually, this is in the hands of the accountants but sometimes the Engineers get a say in things.

 

Re: Scotsman Overhaul updates

That's a common enthusiast urban myth. The identity of a locomotive is determined by an accountant, nothing more, nothing less. If a loco goes into a workshop and emerges with a different mix of components (up to and including frames), it is effectively an accountant that decides the identity of the loco that emerges.

For example, in 1961/1962, Drummond M7 class locos 30031 and 30667 entered the works and emerged a bit later after overhaul carrying the same numbers. So far, nothing surprising, except that close inspection would reveal that both locos entered as short frame M7s, and emerged as long frame ones! What had happened is that at the same time, locos 30106 and 30128 (which were long frame M7s) had entered the works for scrapping; the frames had transferred to 30031 and 30667, but for reasons best known to the accountant, the overhauled locos had kept the numbers they had with short frames (even though those frames had undoubtedly been scrapped) whereas the locos claimed to be scrapped were the long-frame locos (which had undoubtedly survived). There were other examples[sup]*[/sup], but that was a particularly obvious case of the identity of a loco moving between sets of frames.

The Bluebell's Dukedog is another example where for accountancy purposes the frames were deemed to come from one loco, but in practice actually came from an entirely different one.

Similarly, not really my field, but I have severe doubt about the exact number of Black 5s made, and the mileage they attained, beyond saying "lots" and "a long way".

[sup]*[/sup] To take examples just from the Drummond M7s:

• 30031 had its frames scrapped, received the frames of 30106 which was written off as withdrawn
• 30133 had its frames scrapped, received the frames of 30047 which was written off as withdrawn
• 30378 had its frames scrapped, received the frames of 30050 which was written off as withdrawn
• 30667 had its frames scrapped, received the frames of 30128 which was written off as withdrawn

Tom

 

Re: Scotsman Overhaul updates

Wasn't harrow rebuild Duchess rebuilt from stock spares... That must have been a lot of stock spares...

 

Re: Scotsman Overhaul updates

Not as far as I know - it was scrapped, creating a vacancy for a class 8 loco, filled by constructing the Duke of Gloucester, which otherwise may not have ever got off the drawing board (being a somewhat non-standard standard, if you see what I mean...)

Tom

 

Re: Scotsman Overhaul updates

I believe Gloucester was a replacement for the non-standard Princess Anne, and City of Glasgow was indeed heavily "rebuilt".

 

Re: Scotsman Overhaul updates

That was 46202. 46242 'City of Glasgow' was repaired.

 

Re: Scotsman Overhaul updates

I stand corrected. I knew it was a Stanier pacific that was replaced with DoG, but just got the wrong one - frankly they all look the same to me: :smile: (Ducks and runs for cover...)

Tom

 

Re: Scotsman Overhaul updates

I really don't think this is true, I think you're giving the Accountant's Office to much control over day-to-day affairs of the Works. A loco of a certain identity comes into the shops and, after repair, goes out again. Because of the virtues of standardisation it may well swap components with another loco but it didn't seem to happen that often because the concept of wear limits might make it too complicated to do so. I'm not at all sure that new frames would be an issue on determining the identity of a loco, but certainly frames wore out and were beyond repair and were replaced and I'm sure that the costs of an individual repair would untimately be reported via the management chain to the accountants. But, having been reported, they would simply allocate the costs to a budget line.

The only time that the Accountants Office would get directly involved was if a loco would be replaced before the 35 yrs right down period (which was set by the Finance Acts not the Accountants Office). In this case some of the money would be allocated to capital and the rest to whatever current or revenue accounts were available for use. The way the LMS Patriots were financed is a case in point.

Why do you think the number of Black 5s produced is moot?

Regards

 

Re: Scotsman Overhaul updates

Maybe not the accountants office - but the works office? Certainly somewhere fairly disconnected from the actual physical pieces?

 

Re: Scotsman Overhaul updates

The "discovery" of the existence of 4965 Rood Ashton Hall, and the surreptitious disappearance of the real 4983 Albert Hall is an example that accountants didnt call all the shots...

 

Re: Scotsman Overhaul updates

I doubt this'll add anything special to the conversation, but I liken the merry-go-round of parts that constitute a complete steam locomotive in service to a relay race. Once one part is worn out and replaced by a new one, that new part assumes and takes up the identity of the original. This could include new frames if the parts attached to it were from a collection belonging to a certain locomotive, or if the original number of that locomotive is stamped on them. They may not be the same components as when built, but they certainly obtain something of the 'spirit' of the original machine once fitted, if you get my drift.

 

Re: Scotsman Overhaul updates

Talking about Alantic tanks reminds me about J52 68846's preservation. When Captain Smith was looking at Kings Cross shed for a engine to buy, he had hoped to buy a Ivatt designed engine. By that point only the J52 and a C12 Alantic tank was left. The C12 was repainted like the J52 for events use, but otherwise was completely un-useable. If had been better use maybe Smith might have brought that...

 

Re: Scotsman Overhaul updates

Identity clearly stays through parts exchange, even frames. The closest definition i can think of would be continuity through time. In the same way that you are the same person you were 20 years ago, but the cells making up your body aren't, and trigger's brush is still trigger's brush after however many different handles and heads, it looks as if enough parts of the engine exists that have ever been on the engine, then the engine is still the same engine.

So, at construction let's say an engine was given its components, then at its first general repair, it was given a new tender and wheelsets, then the loco suffered a crash, given a new boiler and frames, but kept the wheels and tender, and later was restored from Barry condition, involving a new tender, and other pieces. At general repair, its wheels are new, but its the same engine as when it was built, then after the crash, it's got different frames and boiler, but the continuity of other parts secures its identity. This works for me to explain why you can't simply make one engine another by changing the name/number plates, as it still has components continuity with the previous identity.

If that makes sense...

So 4472 has been through a lot of parts replacement, and very little of the original loco still remains, but its still 4472

EDIT: Bulleid Pacific beat me to the same point, see below

 

Re: Scotsman Overhaul updates

Well, that's not quite the situation I described with the M7s. Two locos entered the works, one was scrapped and one was repaired, but the identity of the one "repaired" was ascribed to the loco whose frames were scrapped, whereas the loco whose frames were saved was deemed to be "scrapped". Note as well that this is a frame swap, not a case of entirely new frames.

Well, it's kind of speculation. But suppose you start with a large number of Black 5s, but also enough spare parts (including frames, boilers etc) in a pool that, if assembled, several more locos could be assembled.

So after a while and a good number of hard miles, let's suppose Loco A enters the works. It's frames are deemed beyond economical repair, but 6 weeks later it emerges with the same running number but new frames from the pool (and has its official mileage adjusted accordingly, as happened to the M7s). As far as the accountant is concerned, Loco A has just had a heavy overhaul, meanwhile, a set of frames (and maybe other components) is being melted down somewhere. But under different accounting conventions, you could say that actually Loco A had been scrapped but a new loco, Loco B had been constructed. The net result as far as the traffic department and the scrap man are concerned is the same (a worn out loco is replaced with one in good condition, and a set of frames is scrapped) but in one scenario it looks like a heavy overhaul paid for presumably on the works revenue account; in the other it looks like a loco scrapped and a new one built on the capital account.

In the case of the Black 5s, it seems to me that there was a decision that perhaps 800 or so were built, with maybe 50 sets of spares and the spares were rotated through the fleet. But actually, who is to say that actually there weren't 850 built, but never more than 800 in existence at any one time? The answer seems to be one of accounting, not down to the fact that there is an absolute known number of locos.

Incidentally, something similar happened with the SECR H class. 66 were ordered but only 64 emerged, with the last two sets of components "disappearing" into a repair pool. When Maunsell took over, that upset his way of thinking and he ordered that the parts were found and the last two locos constructed, which is why two of the H class have build dates several years after the first 64. But I wonder just how many of the supposed missing parts were genuinely found, or whether there was some subterfuge to build, in whole or part, from new, in a slightly slushy way?

Tom

 

Re: Scotsman Overhaul updates

If you want to see this practice in real life today, goto Poland, ol49-69 is not the same engine it was 10 years ago... Or 15 years ago for that matter, there are remains of two locos carrying the identity ol49-69... And another one running daily.

 

Re: Scotsman Overhaul updates

It seems to me that the way Eastleigh went about extending the lives of the M7 fleet is perfectly sensible, practical management and has nothing at all to do with the Accountants Office.

As for your remarks re the Black 5s it is a matter of historical fact that the LMS and LMR did not hold all that many finished components in stock, certainly not enough to build another loco from. I accept that it did happen with the smaller railways pre-group but the post group railways were far too well managed for such a thing to happen.

Regards

 

Re: Scotsman Overhaul updates

Yes, the only reason for that point was to demonstrate that the identity of a loco does not necessarily go with the frames: Loco A and B enter the works, Loco A has it's frames scrapped (and various other unknown components distributed between A and B), but it is Loco A that is deemed to have emerged from the works, albeit sitting on Loco B's frames. As for who decided the identity of which loco was "overhauled" and which "scrapped", somebody had to make that decision, and doing it the way they did caused a certain amount of administrative work for the works office (for example, emending all the mileage records of Loco A). So if not the accountant, I wonder who made the decision, and why?

Are you sure? Why would you have unfinished components in stock - surely the whole point of having a pool of frames, boilers etc, is to hold them in readiness for an overhaul so they can be swapped as quickly as possible? And given the sheer number of Black 5s (officially 842) then surely that would have amounted to several sets of frames, boilers etc at any one point in time.

The first Black 5 came ouut of the works in 1934 and the last, officially, in 1951, by which time the early ones (having done up to 17 years heavy service, including 6 years with minimal maintenance during the war) would have been pretty tired. In those circumstances, it is not hard to imagine, in the immediate post-war period, that a time-worn Black 5 entered Crewe for overhaul, more or less adjacent to a brand new Black 5 being officially built, and some spares also being built. Who's to say that, in those circumstances, a few locos that went into the works notionally for an overhaul (and which officially kept their running number) didn't actually emerge as effectively a brand new locomotive? That looks to me like an accountancy decision to charge the overhaul to revenue rather than capital.

Tom

 

Re: Scotsman Overhaul updates

The idea that frames determine a loco's identity is pure enthusiast myth. Sure, many locos may have kept the same frames all their lives, but to the engineers they are just another part. The accountants don't care either, as long as a loco that goes into the works at one end either appears at the other or is notified as scrapped or disposed of, they are also content. Works procedures in a particular works are probably the main determinant on whether loco 6xxxx emerges from a general overhaul with the same frames it went in with. In the case of an A3, it would be about a 50/50 chance on every general. Most A3's will have changed frames two or three times in their lives.

I'm sure in the case of the M7's the accountants didn't decree exactly what happened, it would primarily be a works/engineering decision about what bits to use and the accountants would then decide the best way to enter it in their records.

Rumour had it that parts of 46202 were used in the rebuild of 46242.

There were certainly enough parts to build a spare A3, since that is exactly what happened with Grand Parade. I've also seen odd rumours about Black 5's, one being that far from being a standard class almost every one was different, but I'm not an LMS man and don't know what to make of them. If your 'production line' is still running I wonder if it is simply cheaper to build another one and break the old one for parts that get fed back into the production line when a 17 year old one comes in for repair? Are there any cases of late Black 5's mysteriously having apparently earlier components?

I've long suspected that Stratford, in GER and pre-war LNER days, recycled large parts of withdrawn locos in overhauls of survivors of the same or similar classes, or even in 'new builds'. Certainly parts such as tenders and wheels were used, but I am of the opinion it went much farther than that and would include almost any part that had little wear and would fit. They had component standardisation policies well down from the 1880's on, as did a number of other railways from about the same time.

 

Re: Scotsman Overhaul updates

Sorry, Tom, but this is just fantasising! Please produce your evidence! Although there were instances of peculiar practice at one time ie before 1929 Finance Act which regularised the accountancy procedures post the 1929 Railway Loans Act, since then if an accountant indulged in the behaviour you suggest in your last sentence he would be committing a criminal offence.

I think you need to study workshop management practices, in particular the costs of storing items.