A recent chance discovery for me (was never in childhood, a systematic "spotter"): there was a Jubilee class 4-6-0, number 45651, which bore the name Shovell. Presumably after the naval hero of some three centuries ago, Admiral Sir Cloudesley Shovell (wonderful name), who came to a sticky end on the Isles of Scilly in 1707.
I have to feel that this is not the happiest possible name to bestow on a coal-burning steam locomotive: calling up associations not so much of power and majesty; as of the fireman's most-used and most-familiar implement, and his exhausting and highly-dirty labours with it. It's my impression that the naming of steam locos (in the later steam era, more of a British thing than elsewhere in the world) -- after the fresh morning of the railways, when locos everywhere were most often named, frequently with glorious and random inspiration and individuality -- tended largely to become at best drearily assembly-line-ish-routine, at worst descending into the depths of bathos.
The London, Brighton & South Coast Railway comes in for considerable "stick" on this account -- for in the latter decades of its independence, relying heavily for naming of locos, on places served by its system (it was observed as unfortunate, for sure, that -- re any reaching-destination-fast image -- a loco came thus to carry the name Crawley). Yet further scraping the barrel, when the South of England was exhausted for naming purposes: the LBSC looked to Continental place-names -- whence the famous corny joke, referencing bemused passengers' taking the loco's name for the train's destination -- highly-confused old lady expostulating, "but I haven't got money to Berne !" Many of Britain's on-a-large-scale railways were to a greater or lesser extent in this boat, re loco-naming. I'm unable to be greatly impressed with much of our "Big Four" 's naming of locos: tendencies IMO toward endless mechanistic line-ups of dignitaries / stately residences / things martial or mercantile. The LNER's naming habits appeal to me the most: their love of the names of famous racehorses, accidentally giving rise to crazily poetic great variety; and of assortedly speedy wildlife; putting them in the main for me, above their rivals.
Would be interested to hear any thoughts about other perceivedly less-than-fortunate locomotive nomenclature (or defences of rail undertakings' naming-doings). I admit to not thinking the whole practice of giving names to locomotives, "all that much of a much", post-the exuberance and poetic wildness of the first decades: and naming of modern-traction motive power leaves me totally cold, as regards its being done at all; and most of the names hit on -- but "that's just me" -- all opinions, entitled-to...
I have to feel that this is not the happiest possible name to bestow on a coal-burning steam locomotive: calling up associations not so much of power and majesty; as of the fireman's most-used and most-familiar implement, and his exhausting and highly-dirty labours with it. It's my impression that the naming of steam locos (in the later steam era, more of a British thing than elsewhere in the world) -- after the fresh morning of the railways, when locos everywhere were most often named, frequently with glorious and random inspiration and individuality -- tended largely to become at best drearily assembly-line-ish-routine, at worst descending into the depths of bathos.
The London, Brighton & South Coast Railway comes in for considerable "stick" on this account -- for in the latter decades of its independence, relying heavily for naming of locos, on places served by its system (it was observed as unfortunate, for sure, that -- re any reaching-destination-fast image -- a loco came thus to carry the name Crawley). Yet further scraping the barrel, when the South of England was exhausted for naming purposes: the LBSC looked to Continental place-names -- whence the famous corny joke, referencing bemused passengers' taking the loco's name for the train's destination -- highly-confused old lady expostulating, "but I haven't got money to Berne !" Many of Britain's on-a-large-scale railways were to a greater or lesser extent in this boat, re loco-naming. I'm unable to be greatly impressed with much of our "Big Four" 's naming of locos: tendencies IMO toward endless mechanistic line-ups of dignitaries / stately residences / things martial or mercantile. The LNER's naming habits appeal to me the most: their love of the names of famous racehorses, accidentally giving rise to crazily poetic great variety; and of assortedly speedy wildlife; putting them in the main for me, above their rivals.
Would be interested to hear any thoughts about other perceivedly less-than-fortunate locomotive nomenclature (or defences of rail undertakings' naming-doings). I admit to not thinking the whole practice of giving names to locomotives, "all that much of a much", post-the exuberance and poetic wildness of the first decades: and naming of modern-traction motive power leaves me totally cold, as regards its being done at all; and most of the names hit on -- but "that's just me" -- all opinions, entitled-to...