Deepgreen
Established Member
I find myself thinking of the 9Fs, with their scandalously short life - were any/many withdrawn before the 1961 completion of 92220?
And some of their EE507 traction motors were recovered for use in Class 455s, so may still be around today.Many of the EPBs were built using recovered components and underframes as well - apparently there were LSWR axleboxes knocking about until well into the 90s!
Accoirding to Hugh Longworth's comprehensive listing, 92220 entered service in March 1960. The earliest withdrawals appear to be May 1964 (92034, 92141/142/143/169/170/171/175/176/177)I find myself thinking of the 9Fs, with their scandalously short life - were any/many withdrawn before the 1961 completion of 92220?
Sorry - meant 1960. Glad that none were withdrawn before it though! BTW - good to see Norbiton gaining prominence through your moniker - my father lived there before moving to New Malden, where I grew up.And some of their EE507 traction motors were recovered for use in Class 455s, so may still be around today.
Accoirding to Hugh Longworth's comprehensive listing, 92220 entered service in March 1960. The earliest withdrawals appear to be May 1964 (92034, 92141/142/143/169/170/171/175/176/177)
That was Trevithick, grandson of famous Trevithick and son of Trevithick the ex-loco superintendent of LNWR Northern Division. Think he was the works manager under Whale. Went round condemning Webb Compounds whenever saw one in the works. Curious as believe he was a friend of Webb. Unfortunately he scrapped them too soon and left a crisis from shortage of locomotives. Said to have cost him the CME job when Whale retireThere were steam locomotives scrapped at LNWR Crewe, due to a senior officer with a major grudge, issuing malicious instructions to condemn locomotives not life-expired, simply present at the Works for overhaul, his activity was not discovered for a considerable time. It may have been those Precedent locomotives you refer to.
The last DMS entered service in 1978, less than a year before mass withdrawals started. There were a few odd ones withdrawn even earlier.
Also, Dart withdrawals commenced well before the last ones were ordered or built.
The FS Ford Transit buses in London were built in three batches, with the second and third batches replacing the first and second. That counts!
Yes it does. This was a less familiar part of London Transport to me at the time. Were they on routes C11, H2 & P4 for example?
Brian Reed, "Crewe Locomotive Works and It's Men" starting page 131. He wasn't the only person involved but did do the actual selection. As said he wasn't promoted to CME as everyone including himself expected when Whale retired. Instead was promoted a couple of years later and moved to Earlstown.That was Trevithick, grandson of famous Trevithick and son of Trevithick the ex-loco superintendent of LNWR Northern Division. Think he was the works manager under Whale. Went round condemning Webb Compounds whenever saw one in the works. Curious as believe he was a friend of Webb. Unfortunately he scrapped them too soon and left a crisis from shortage of locomotives. Said to have cost him the CME job when Whale retire
I have been looking for details to complete the story. Do you have the details of numbers / names and dates of scrapping of the locomotives affected by the Trevithick incident?
Also what action was taken against Trevithick when his malfeasance came to the attention of the LNWR?
Don't think so. it's true they had fewer tenders because overhauled engines were given next tender available rather than tenders waiting for engines. Can't remember details but was decided to increase the number of tenders by purchase of either engines and tenders or just tenders from war department and use just the tenders. So various photos exist of Claughtons with a ROD tender.At Crewe, tenders were separated from locos because of the different duration of overhaul. The story I read concerned a works manager who walked around the tender sidings, marking them for break-up in an apparently random way regardless of condition. This then created a shortage, making for difficulty when engines emerged from the works to be re-united with tenders.
Don't think so. it's true they had fewer tenders because overhauled engines were given next tender available rather than tenders waiting for engines. Can't remember details but was decided to increase the number of tenders by purchase of either engines and tenders or just tenders from war department and use just the tenders. So various photos exist of Claughtons with a ROD tender.
Vague memory having read that LNWR ordered extra boilers for various classes after the war so would have spares. It was the boiler that took the longest time for overhaul, by giving an overhauled engine one of the spare boilers it was out of the shops sooner. Hence required more tenders.The reason given for attaching ex R.O.D. tenders to Claughtons was to increase the water capacity when they were transferred to the Midland Division, because of the bigger distances between troughs there. Even the LNWR's last tenders carried only 3,000 gallons (the MR was 3,500), the canny company avoiding conveying un-necessary weight. The (distinctively different) ex Claughton tenders displaced ended up, at the end, on 0-8-0s.
Ted Talbot's Eight Coupled Goods Engine book does say, about the purchase of 75 'ROD' engines (for £340 each, delivered to Crewe!), that 'The reason for the purchase was to obtain the tenders, as there was a "considerable shortage of tenders on Division A at the time"'. He doesn't explain the reason for the shortage.
Vague memory having read that LNWR ordered extra boilers for various classes after the war so would have spares. It was the boiler that took the longest time for overhaul, by giving an overhauled engine one of the spare boilers it was out of the shops sooner. Hence required more tenders.
Suspect timing of purchase of extra tenders and the move of Claughtons to Midland Division would suggest these events weren't connected.
It's in The LNWR Recalled, again edited by Ted Talbot
The amazing Blood and Custard site so far only has the detailed history of the units that survived to become 4Subs.The Southern Railway's 3SUB/ 4SUB stock was built in many separate batches between 1914 and 1949*. Many of the older ones were withdrawn during the 1930s and 1940s, often having major components, such as underframes, incorporated in newer ones. (these underframes were often relatively new, as they in turn had been built to carry superstructures recycled from hauled stock)
*Yes, I know the Southern Railway did not exist in either 1914 or 1949.
Yes it does. This was a less familiar part of London Transport to me at the time. Were they on routes C11, H2 & P4 for example?
I expect some other 'brand new' fleets fit a similar category, too (i.e. pulled from service through some fault that was subsequently corrected).I might be completely wrong here, but wasn't the entire fleet of GWR IETs ("entire fleet" being around 2 units IIRC at this point) withdrawn the day after they entered service following issues found on the first day (i.e. air conditioning showers )? I think GWR IETs were still being built at that point, thus meaning the entire fleet was withdrawn (and then entered into service again) before the last ones rolled off the production line?
The amazing Blood and Custard site so far only has the detailed history of the units that survived to become 4Subs.
https://www.bloodandcustard.com/SR-AugSUB.html
I'm not sure off-hand how many of the 3-Subs were withdrawn before 1949 (bomb damage apart) though ISTR the LSWR-built ones went first (and some of the LBSCR overhead stock was repurposed as steam push-and-pulls!).
A few responses seem to have missed the “significant withdrawals” (ie plural) aspect of this, which I think implies a number of locos or MUs going back to the ROSCo offlease unexpectedly.I expect some other 'brand new' fleets fit a similar category, too (i.e. pulled from service through some fault that was subsequently corrected).
Weren't there a batch with Cravens bodies which had 5 window bays, then the lighthouse version (route number in roof box) which were early casulties. Arguably, the RTL and RTW were Leyland versions, while there was also the short lived SRT class, where an RT body was mounted on an STL chassis. Universally unpopular because the extra half ton meant poor braking, in fact, a test was carried out to try and stop one in Longmore Ave, Barnet at the foot of the hill. Despite a full brake application, the driver was unable to stop.I think you're right that the whole of the RT class were never in service all at once, but a small number of pre-war RTs were transferred to the Country Area for use on a route with a bridge that had a weight restriction, and continued running after the last of the post-war examples had been delivered.
Where shall I start?But it's a bit like GWR pannier tanks of which there were IIRC 3 generations of essentially identical locos (I expect to be told the error of my ways soon...).
Very close. The first Castle withdrawn was 4009, built in 1907 as you say as a Star, rebuilt as a Castle in 1925, and bizarrely later renumbered as 100A1 and named Lloyds (100A1 is a Lloyds insurance expression for 'perfect condition', and there were some common directors between the GWR and Lloyds) withdrawn in March 1950 - so not so perfect then. The last new Castle, 7037 Swindon, was built in August 1950, so an overlap of just a few months. Apparently early withdrawals were on the grounds of frame condition, which started to get weak, particularly the ones that have been chopped about in the Star conversion.I believe the first of the GWR Castle class (albeit rebuilt Stars) locos were withdrawn before the last Castles were built.