https://www.railtram.com.au/nsw-steam-locomotives
Test your knowledge of New South Wales steam locomotives with this 20 question multiple choice quiz:80%. Excellent Spletsie, really made me think, especially, 'Who designed the P class?' (I got that one right!)
https://www.railtram.com.au/nsw-steam-locomotives
90% although there were a few good guesses! How many 34 class locos there were and who designed the 32 class were 50/50 guesses.The 34cl was an easy pick same as the 32, as it had what became known as the Thow cab porthole side window opening.
6040 being the last loco to enter service threw me, as, I thought it'd come out in the wash that there were 2 "6042" locos? The second 6042 would have been the last to enter service I would have thought.
The other one I got wrong, I don't think I read the question correctly. Always good fun.
Test your knowledge of New South Wales steam locomotives with this 20 question multiple choice quiz:Thanks for the quiz. 100% here after nearly clicking on a wrong answer in haste and making the 55 class somehow enter service in the 1950s!
https://www.railtram.com.au/nsw-steam-locomotives
When NSW cancelled some of the order for 50 60 class and received some of the others as unassembled spares there was reportedly an agreement with Beyer Peacock not to make up additional locomotives from the spare parts. But since there were never more than 42 of the class and since if there were two 6042s they were not both running at once maybe that's not a breach of the agreement?Peter, I am not sure that there were five complete garratts, as such that were delivered as the terminology used was that the agreement reach would be for 42 completed engines, with the remaining 8 to be in knocked down condition, along with at the time no further garratt parts were to be made.
Beyer Peacock delivered 47 complete 60 class locomotives and certain complete parts for the remaining three, including the cast steel frames. It was the government that imposed a limit.
The NSW Government wanted to cancel the order but the locomotives were too far advanced and the charges for cancelling the contract were too great. To save face, the government would only allow 42 locomotives to run, since they wanted to cancel after 37 locomotives had been delivered (in 1955) and ten more sounded like too many.
This meant that there were five complete unused locomotives, and thus five complete boiler units able to be interchanged during visits to workshops.
It became common to have a replacement locomotive ready to put into traffic as soon as the locomotive came in for overhaul. In the case of 6042, the two were seen together in the open but this was common practice, the numbers being changed as the new loco entered service.
But 6042 was by no means different from many other occasions when 60 class numbers were shuffled to maintain the pretence of 42 rather than 47 locomotives.
(I actually got 100% but some answers were guesses)
Peter
Of the other eight, 6043 to 6050, three mostly complete locomotives now classified as spare parts were delivered and two further incomplete locomotives were delivered as further spare parts. The final three, 6048, 6049 and 6050 were cancelled.Thanks Peter.
Beyer Peacock issued builder's numbers for locomotives up to 6047.
The "classification" as spare parts was a decision of the NSW State Government as a face saving measure.
My information suggested that all of the frames had been cast by GSI.
Certainly, the documented designs for small 4-8-4 locomotives with 59 class boilers suggests that there were at least some unused frame castings lying around. If 6043 to 6045 were "mostly complete locomotives" that would suggest that they had frames. Since builder's numbers are associated with boilers, you might expect that the boilers up to 6047 were complete.
John Forsythe's first issue of "Locomotive Data" included prices for the 60 class. This was replaced by an issue that lacked these figures and owners of the first issue were requested to return the original copies for the replacement lacking those numbers.
That suggests that it was at the NSW end where information was being restricted.
Peter
..........................................
The thing with the 2 6042's is an interesting tale as Brian mentions regarding the late Ron Preston's story in the book he also mentions. Going off what I understand to be what happened, was that 6010 had been listed for withdrawal condemned at Cardif. It was sitting outside the shops when 6042 arrived for overhaul but on examination 6010 was in better mechanical and boiler condition than 42, apparently a quick swap of the brass numbers took place along with blacking out of the tank and bunker numbers
..........................................
Fascinating thank you.So, effectively 6042 in storage at Forbes is actually the original 6010.Only if 6010 had not swapped numbers at an earlier overhaul.The practice of swapping the boiler unit because the boiler required overhaul more often than the engine units meant that the locomotive numbers became scrambled fairly early on, helped by a number of complete boiler units from locomotives numbered above 6042.It is clear that 60 class numbers changed more often than not at overhaul, depending on what part of the three units is regarded as carrying the number.Peter
The difference with the garratt's is that the boiler and its cradle is just that, when compared to the frame that was on other locomotives, when overhauls take place, and depending on the grade, 1, 2 or 3 generally only the 1 or heavy overhaul meant the boiler was generally removed from the frame for replacement, it provided more access to the areas in the frame that needed checking, generally also the cab was left attached to the frame and roof removed on heavies.So, effectively 6042 in storage at Forbes is actually the original 6010.Fascinating thank you.
Only if 6010 had not swapped numbers at an earlier overhaul.
The practice of swapping the boiler unit because the boiler required overhaul more often than the engine units meant that the locomotive numbers became scrambled fairly early on, helped by a number of complete boiler units from locomotives numbered above 6042.
It is clear that 60 class numbers changed more often than not at overhaul, depending on what part of the three units is regarded as carrying the number.
Peter
For other locomotives, boilers were also swapped regularly of course (John Thompson's "38" has an interesting if possibly not quite complete table of where the 38 class boilers went among the class, including boiler 3819 currently carried by 3801, and indicating the newest boiler - at least the newest one that fits - 3825a, as being the one on 3820). No-one thinks that this means 3801 is really 3819.
I havent got my copy of the 60 class book anymore but I don't remember it including a similar table of boiler allocations?
Am I right that for a normal locomotive the frame identified the engine whatever else might be swapped (frames themselves being replaced eg because of cracking but not swapped)?
It would be so interesting to have a list of which 3 units made up 60s during their lives. Is that still ascertainable for the surviving ones in their final forms?
Under the agreement for cancelling the last 3 locomotives and accepting 3 complete but in parts and another 2 as incomplete locomotives was the provision that only 42 locomotives would ever operate at one time. That is, NSWGR were prevented from building another 3, 6043,6044 and 6045 as they did with the 81 class. The boiler units of the 3 complete locomotives, 43, 44 and 45 were used and I think I have seen a photograph of the builders plate from one of these on a locomotive.If this is true, why did Beyer Peacock issue builder's numbers for locomotives up to 6047 (and not 6048-6050)?
I don't know why BP were so difficult over this, their order books were full at the time and they went on to build another 300 locomotives themselves and subcontracted a large number to other builders because their shops were at capacity. The SAR GMA/M class followed on from the NSWGR 60s, followed by the RR 16A and 20th classes, some for Angola, and finally the EAR 59 class.
I scored 95%, not knowing where 3214 ended up.
A very enjoyable quiz.
I find it strange that the garratt's would swap cab numbers on engines under overhaul, while its an easy way to work on getting a specific engine back into traffic if its delayed in shops, my observations of them under overhaul shows that the cab is left on the boiler cradle, the only reason I would see for it is that of being similar to the 6010/42 change over, although that is something of a one off really as it was carried out in the open rather than in the shops, so it seems.Under the agreement for cancelling the last 3 locomotives and accepting 3 complete but in parts and another 2 as incomplete locomotives was the provision that only 42 locomotives would ever operate at one time. That is, NSWGR were prevented from building another 3, 6043,6044 and 6045 as they did with the 81 class. The boiler units of the 3 complete locomotives, 43, 44 and 45 were used and I think I have seen a photograph of the builders plate from one of these on a locomotive.If this is true, why did Beyer Peacock issue builder's numbers for locomotives up to 6047 (and not 6048-6050)?
I don't know why BP were so difficult over this, their order books were full at the time and they went on to build another 300 locomotives themselves and subcontracted a large number to other builders because their shops were at capacity. The SAR GMA/M class followed on from the NSWGR 60s, followed by the RR 16A and 20th classes, some for Angola, and finally the EAR 59 class.
I scored 95%, not knowing where 3214 ended up.
A very enjoyable quiz.
It seems that the NSW Government were the ones concerned with limiting the number of locomotives in traffic.
I can't see how Beyer Peacock could enforce an agreement not to use locomotives delivered complete...
(Refuse to supply the 46 class still on order?)
I recall seeing a Garratt at Enfield which had a steel oval plate in place of the usual Beyer Peacock builder's plate.
It had a four digit number starting with "7" welded on it.
In those days as a poor student I couldn't afford to take a photo of something just because I didn't understand it.
But my memory suggests that the number was the builder's number of a locomotive numbered above 6042.
Since the cab numbers were often changed at overhauls, the builder's numbers might have been a convenient way to track which boiler was where, and this might have extended to locomotives that didn't actually carry plates.
Weren't the SAR GO class among the last built?
I had looked up preserved locomotives on line a few days before doing the quiz, so knew where 3214 was...
Peter
The information on the cancellation of the last engines comes from memory but it is also confirmed by Wikepedia's entry for the locomotives.Under the agreement for cancelling the last 3 locomotives and accepting 3 complete but in parts and another 2 as incomplete locomotives was the provision that only 42 locomotives would ever operate at one time. That is, NSWGR were prevented from building another 3, 6043,6044 and 6045 as they did with the 81 class. The boiler units of the 3 complete locomotives, 43, 44 and 45 were used and I think I have seen a photograph of the builders plate from one of these on a locomotive.If this is true, why did Beyer Peacock issue builder's numbers for locomotives up to 6047 (and not 6048-6050)?
I don't know why BP were so difficult over this, their order books were full at the time and they went on to build another 300 locomotives themselves and subcontracted a large number to other builders because their shops were at capacity. The SAR GMA/M class followed on from the NSWGR 60s, followed by the RR 16A and 20th classes, some for Angola, and finally the EAR 59 class.
I scored 95%, not knowing where 3214 ended up.
A very enjoyable quiz.
It seems that the NSW Government were the ones concerned with limiting the number of locomotives in traffic.
I can't see how Beyer Peacock could enforce an agreement not to use locomotives delivered complete...
(Refuse to supply the 46 class still on order?)
I recall seeing a Garratt at Enfield which had a steel oval plate in place of the usual Beyer Peacock builder's plate.
It had a four digit number starting with "7" welded on it.
In those days as a poor student I couldn't afford to take a photo of something just because I didn't understand it.
But my memory suggests that the number was the builder's number of a locomotive numbered above 6042.
Since the cab numbers were often changed at overhauls, the builder's numbers might have been a convenient way to track which boiler was where, and this might have extended to locomotives that didn't actually carry plates.
Weren't the SAR GO class among the last built?
I had looked up preserved locomotives on line a few days before doing the quiz, so knew where 3214 was...
Peter
Subscribers: a6et
We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.