Oil fired 50 classes

M636C · Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 11:29 am

I seem to have precipitated the current argument with my comment about 5502. Certainly my recollection was that the number was 5502, but it might have been 5602 (if 5602 was an oil conversion) or possibly another number altogether. There is a photo somewhere which didn't show the number clearly since the locomotive had been stored for a long time and the cab side numbers were about the the same colour as the cab side.

We should all be grateful to John Forsythe for the Steam Locomotive Data Books which are a valuable resource for all enthusiasts.

There are some errors, one of which indicates that one 30 class (I can't recall the number) was superheated on conversion to tender in the 1920s/1930s. This is not correct, 3100 being the first superheated in 1940, Keith Smith having participated in its trials and described the activity in his memoirs.

The same date was typed in two adjacent columns in error, and this error carried through a number of issues of the Locomotive Data, and the error carried through into the ARHS "Compendium" with an explanation of the non existent early superheating.

Some data was intentionally deleted, the contract price of the Beyer Garratts being deleted after the first issue (and free replacement of the first issue was offered when the inadvertant publication of this sensitive data was discovered). Of course, I kept my first edition.

But no such compilation will ever be free from minor errors.

While I should defer to TW on this, I think that most post war VR boilers had steel inner fireboxes, and I recall seeing a plate to this effect in the cabs of VR steam locomotives, particularly J, K and N class locomotives.

The remaining North British N class and the last 30 J class were all oil burners as was N432, the last completed Newport N class.

M636C

nosecone · Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 12:11 pm

a6et · Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:13 pm

M636C · Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 4:37 pm

One thing that needs to be looked at in the Locomotive Data Book and in most NSW locomotive histories is the effect of the renumbering and second reclassification upon the introduction of the duplicate stock in mid 1891.

Thow's letter classes dated from his 1889 report and initially had no real significance other than to allow simple reference to a specific type.

But by 1891, it was realised that there were more new classes on order than there were remaining blank letters in the alphabet, but more significantly, there were a number of locomotives on the register that were obsolete and did not deserve to retain a place on the list.

The main clue to the renumbering was the delivery of the Baldwin 2-8-0s in 1892 and their renumbering before they entered service. This was not due to any error, but due to the mid 1891 renumbering and reclassification.

The locomotives being delivered at the the time were the V class 2-6-4 tanks from Beyer Peacock and the W class 4-6-0s from Baldwin. The V class became the second E class and received reissued numbers from locomotives placed on duplicate stock while the Baldwin locomotives kept numbers at the high end of the capital stock but got a new class of "second O".

The B class 2-6-0s from Dubs were given reissued numbers from the point deliveries had reached, and then the reissued numbers replaced the capital stock numbers on the earlier members of the class. The class didn't alter, since it was an established class letter, but the builder's numbers were, from then on, in a different order to the running numbers.

The NSWGR never did handle renumbering well, and the 1924 renumbering is mainly notable for the rigid application of various rules which hopelessly confused the order of the P, T and TF classes in particular.

I have never understood why the shuffling of numbers in the 6 to 12 series occurred, and given the trouble that was obviously taken to get these numbers on to P class, why 10 was allowed to remain on an E class while 9 was far too important to be left on the same tank locomotive!

The numbers 6, 7 and 8 had been given to second hand A class, providing a continuous run from the second 1-4 and the replacement 5, but somehow these numbers really needed to be moved to passenger engines.

But I believe that at least an explanation of these numbers and number changes are at least as important as a listing of the 1924 renumbering.

A friend of mine with some legal experience suggested that the 1924 renumbering was given to the least intelligent and most junior clerk at Wilson St to implement as the only likely reason for the messy result.

M636C

nosecone · Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 9:02 pm

a6et · Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 11:12 pm

Rivets · Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 11:45 pm

Gentlemen gentlemen

I was wondering in your books you have, do you have any figures on the economy of any of the oil fired locos?

Cheers

M636C · Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 7:42 pm

Rivets · Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 11:46 pm

Hey thanks a lot! Smile

I was trying to do a bit of a search on the net but couldn't get much info, but I was wondering the fuel capacity of the oil fired 59 classes?

Cheers

jumboman44211 · Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 11:58 pm

1900 Imp. Gals. or 8637.4 litres.

Cheers

I'm all in favour of progress; it's change I don't like.

C3827 · Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 5:34 pm

I have been recently researching this at the RRC and in particular going through the monthly Mechanical Branch statistics. Amazing info was recorded and detailed including oil fuel consumption per class ie. 55 and 59 classes of steam and the 40,41,42,43 & 44 classes of diesel.
I don' have the figures in front of me now but I think the 55 class were burning around 7-8 gallons per mile whereas the diesels were burning around 1.2 to 1.5 gal per mile with the lower figures representing the 4 stroke Alco engines.
These documents also contain the minutes of the 3 monthly meetings that were held in the Branch and they contain some great info as well. In regard to this issue was a number of discussions about the withdrawal of the oil burning 55 class and their scrapping. The powers to be wanted them scrapped as soon as possible so they could sell the steel for scrap but the scrapping was held up because the Mech Branch wanted to remove the boilers first so they could be reused on other standard goods engines. This goes against my understanding that the oil fired engines were withdrawn only after 3-4 years of service because of boiler damage. Perhaps the only the firebox needed rebuilding the rest of the boiler was OK.

Deep Throat · Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 9:11 pm

Rivets · Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 11:50 pm

M636C · Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 12:10 am

Deep Throat · Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:08 pm