Test your knowledge of New South Wales steam locomotives with this 20 question multiple choice quiz:

https://www.railtram.com.au/nsw-steam-locomotives

Thanks, spletsie; great quiz, and I fluked 80%.  Now I'll have a stiff scotch to recover from the shock!

Test your knowledge of New South Wales steam locomotives with this 20 question multiple choice quiz:

https://www.railtram.com.au/nsw-steam-locomotives

80%. Excellent Spletsie, really made me think, especially, 'Who designed the P class?' (I got that one right!)

Only 70% due to a couple of hastily ill-considered and careless answers.

90%, one of the 2 I got wrong I knew as soon as I clicked on it that I was wrong, along with at least two flukes.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The 34cl was an easy pick same as the 32, as it had what became known as the Thow cab porthole side window opening.

I gather you are/were thinking of the number swap between 6010 and 6042, but as that stands there was no way that it could be seen as the last to enter service but it was the last steam loco in service, but in reality it was 6010

6040 was the last one to enter service.

Test your knowledge of New South Wales steam locomotives with this 20 question multiple choice quiz:

https://www.railtram.com.au/nsw-steam-locomotives

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!

With the "was 6042 the last to enter service" issue, I think what's being talked about is the claim (set out in the NSWRTM's magazine Roundhouse many years ago) that the 6042 which still (sort of) survives in a paddock is really 6043, assembled from spare parts late in the life of the class and that there are photos of the two 6042s side by side in (I think) Cardiff workshops. Have never seen the photos so I can't vouch for truth of the story. Anyone else?  Would 6042 still have builders plate or other identifying numbers that might resolve this - but then all sorts of swapping seems to have gone on btween 60s, more even than other classes, so maybe that wouldnt help all that much.

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?

The true story of how the two garratts numbered 6042 came about, is told in an article by the Late Ron Preston, in his book 'Essays in Steam, Eveleigh Press, 1995'.

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?

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

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.

There has never, at least of what I am aware of any known reason why 6040 was so delayed as to 41 & 42 being delivered before the other two, unless there were not the parts for it to be completed.

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.

Ron was basically unsuccesfull in getting a photo of the two with numbers but I think there is a photo of 42 with the numbers off but with the removal from cab sides there was seen the outline of the numbers, but no way they could photograph the cabs together.

Beyer Peacock delivered 42 complete 60 Class Garratts.  They delivered substantial parts for another five.  When the NSWGR went back to try to cancel the second batch of 25, 6026 to 6037 were substantially finished, so the NSWGR had to accept them.  The order was successfully reduced to 17 additional Garratts, ending numerically at 6042.  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.  At the time that 'negotiations' to reduce the order started, General Steel Castings (USA) had only reached 42 sets of engine beds.  No more were cast.

All locomotives up to 6037 were assembled and in revenue traffic by late July, 1954.  The final five locomotives were constructed and shipped to Australia in 1956: 6042, 6041, 6039, 6038 and 6040 entered traffic in that order, between August, 1956 and January, 1957.  

Why was 6040 the last one to be assembled and released into traffic?  It was landed (unloaded) at Darling Harbour on 21 November 1956.  Assembly at Eveleigh Workshops took most of December 1956, 6040 was trialed in that month and accepted into traffic on 2 January 1957.

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.

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

Thanks Peter.

The recall is something the railways and government are very good at making calls on.  

Just prior to the WB dispute a new edition of the Safe working catechism was printed and the early distribution of them commenced, to which I received a copy of, same size as the old ones but with smaller and finer print, around a month after the distribution commenced, the powers be made the call to withdraw the vans and put a state wide notice to recall all the new books as the old one was to used for the time being with amendments coming.

No amendments came until the introduction of WB, and separate WB circulars were provided for staff in the affected areas. Ulan trains and through to NCLE were the first to operate, after all the disputes.

At WCK all enginemen went through a school for WB working before it was introduced with basic info only provided, since then there has been a lot of changes to many areas including the signalling.

Would be interesting to see a copy of the recalled list of the garratt's.

I'm pleased that people enjoyed the quiz.

I think I recall reading that as the 60 Class engines were entering service a view was formed that steam was old technology and diesel was the way of the future. This led the government to negotiate with Beyer Peacock to cancel part of the contract.

It is interesting looking at the dates in service listed in Steam Locomotive Data. There were several instances in the 60 Class where they did not enter service in order of road numbers. For example, 6002 was the first to enter service on 30 July 1952, and 6001 followed on 30 August 1952.

The out of sequence entry into service occurred with other classes too. After 3601 and 3602 the next member of the 36 Class to enter service was 3626. Also, 3626 through to 3660 all entered service before 3609 through to 3625.

..........................................
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
..........................................

The way I read Preston's book -

Cardiff works were often criticized for taking too long for overhauls.

When 6010 came in for usable parts stripping and scrapping, the works manager found it to be in a reasonably good condition and worthy of repair. A secret plan was put in place to overhaul 6010, and once overhauled, have it replace whichever 60 next came in for either overhaul or scrapping - this happened to be 6042.

Preston's photo, shows a dirty well-worn 6042 (now minus it numbers) standing beside a clean freshly painted 6042 (the old 6010 after overhaul). That evening, (the old) 6042 was set aside. To further confuse the issue, the front tank had its tab 6039 changed to tab 6042, and the bunker changed from tab 6021 to tab 6042 also. Apparently, the official records show the overhaul of 6042 took just one day !

Ron Preston accompanied the works manager that day and so was a direct eye-witness to the event. For the remainder of its life, 6010 masqueraded as 6042.

So, effectively 6042 in storage at Forbes is actually the original 6010.

Regards, Brian

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

Fascinating thank you.

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?

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

Fascinating thank you.

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?

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.

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.
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.

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.
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.

If this is true, why did Beyer Peacock issue builder's numbers for locomotives up to 6047 (and not 6048-6050)?

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.




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

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.
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.

If this is true, why did Beyer Peacock issue builder's numbers for locomotives up to 6047 (and not 6048-6050)?

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

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.

The only reason I could see for it is that there were in reality few spare boilers for them, those assigned to 43-50, meaning only 8, although perhaps additional ones could have been sourced from 6003, Geurie crash, 6012 first withdrawal & 6020 following collision at Mascot, making 3 extra's available.

IIRC, Cardiff was the primary shops to provide for CL1 heavy overhauls, along with CLass 2 Medium along with Eveleigh which carried out the Class 3 overhauls, Class I's usually involved the boiler unit being removed from the cradle although sometimes that happened with Class 2's. The class 1's involved the removal of the top section of the cab roof for ease of lifting and replacement.

The one thing that was always part of the mentality though was the need for speed and getting them back into service outside of drought times when they were in big demand, naturally that incurred some swifty type movements whereas the head of the branches turned a blind eye to, up to a point.  On other occasions there were some strange changes made as there was with 6015, it was modified to heavy type early in the 60's, and was then reverted to light type some time later, for use on the West and allocated to Dubbo/Parkes area working for the 64/65 wheat seasons, IIRC the allocation took place in 63, when the garratt's were pulled out of the west, it was converted back to Heavy type and spent its remaining years at BMD.

I still wonder with it in regards to the Cylinders when it was in the light configuration during that intermediate period.

Of the other light types, 6038 was a late withdrawal as it was allocated to BMD for a while and used on Muswellbrook coal working, turning via the triangle at MBK to run engine first both directions.  Its final journey was to Enfield for scrapping and worked a full load from BMD yard one afternoon, the date I have somewhere as I was the fireman on it. Driver was the late Barney Hough. We were assisted from the river by a 46cl, and a certain well known enthusiast engineman there had a tape recorder set up in the back cab to record the event, (would love to have a copy of that), once we were part way up the bank, 38 showed the old habits of light types as the water in the front tank dropped down, it started the slipping, Barney handled it well, and with the slow slog up the bank, I experienced the stories of cab heat in the tunnels there, likewise through Woy Woy.

IIRC I was stumped by the Harbour Bridge crossing and forget the other one, but I instantly knew I chose the wrong option as I clicked on it too quick, happy with 90% though.

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.
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.

If this is true, why did Beyer Peacock issue builder's numbers for locomotives up to 6047 (and not 6048-6050)?

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.
The GOs were constructed concurrently with the BP GMA/Ms, being a lighter version of them, but were built by Henschel and followed on from the first batch of GMA/Ms built by them, so did not carry BP numbers.
I am ignorant of the arrangement between BP and Henschel, if there ever was one.

Having checked the Wikipedia page on the 60 class, it appears that Beyer Peacock insisted that they be paid an amount if any of the unassembled complete locomotives were to be assembled. Normally the builder would supervise the assembly of locomotives at their destination, and would of course be paid for this. I assume Beyer Peacock wanted to be paid a similar amount should any of the locomotives be placed in traffic. I don't imagine that this would be a large amount compared to the cost of the locomotive.

Another advantage to the NSW Government of taking the last five locomotives as spares would be that they could be paid for out of revenue and not incur a a charge against capital, which would have to be borrowed money.

More interestingly, in the discussion of the identity change of 6042, the Wikipedia page states that in its final days in service, 6042 (which had carried the number 6010 on entering workshops) had the builder's plate from 6039, suggesting the boiler had been delivered as part of 6039.

The NSWRTM book "The 60 Class" by Groves, Wright and Morahan does not directly address the changes of identity of 60 class locomotives, on page 38 there is a photo of a builder's plate, with the number allocated to 6003, but photographed on 6025.

So we know that 6010 and 6042 both carried in sequence the boiler unit from 6039 and that 6025 carried the boiler unit from 6003. Trying to recall the number on the steel replacement plate I saw at Enfield, it seems likely that it was 7457 belonging to 6045, but I can't recall the locomotive number. This plate would seem to be an effort to avoid revealing the identity of boiler unit to observant members of the public while maintaining its identity.

I don't think there can be any doubt that 60 class locomotive cab numbers were routinely changed at overhaul.

Peter