Talk:CGR 1st Class 2-6-0ST

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:CGR 1st Class 2-6-0ST 1876)
Jump to: navigation, search

Updated information on the 1st Class Kitsons[edit]

Email received on 3 October 2013:

From: John Nicholas Middleton
To: Andre H Kritzinger
Sent: 03 October 2013 05:15 PM
Subject: Re: CGR 2-6-0ST

Hi Andre

Jean Dulez's book had tremendous potential to create a new definitive work but its frustrating that he perpetuated old myths as well as creating some new ones (I have no idea where he got the idea that 0525/0534/0602 were some of these 2-6-0ST - thats just plain wrong, they were construction 0-4-0ST). I did try to help him at one point but there was just too much to do and he didn't seem very interested in digging for the truth.

You are one of the very few people in SA attempting to set the record straight, so you have my full support !!!

The 2-6-0ST are however confusing, we know for certain of 11 locos - the CGR had ten and one in 1903 for the PEHB. However, the PEHB had three (possibly four) which appear in the SAR Rolling Stock Register as PEHB letters I,J and O (later 01024-26) shown as built 1901. Loco H at the PEHB is a bit of a mystery as it was scrapped before 1908 and thus didn't get a CGR number (although 1023 was left blank and presumably was intended for it). Possibly Loco H was also one of these 2-6-0ST which fits the theory below. Note that PEHB Reports show that these locos were in service BEFORE 1901, as the 1901 report lists 12 locos (A to L) of which 2 had been put into service in 1901, thus implying A to J were in service by the end of 1900. Loco O was only put into service in 1903 (Harbour Board Reports) so the Rolling Stock Register is wrong anyway showing that as 1901 built.

The origins of the CGR locos do lie in the ten 1 st Class 2-6-0 tender engines, Nos M15-M24 (K 2046-47 of 1875 and 2079-86 of 1876). All ten were rebuilt to 2-6-0ST with a new loco K 4245 of 1903 built to an almost identical design for PEHB with slightly larger cylinders (this loco became PEHB letter O). Holland states erroneously that five were sold to the PEHB (Nos M15/16/20/21/23), the other five were withdrawn prior to the 1899 CGR renumbering. However, the problem with this is that the five locos M15/16/20/21/23 passed into SAR stock as 0415/16/20/21/23 and although they certainly worked for SAR in Port Elizabeth (and East London), they were variously scrapped between 1916-1946 and have separate entries in the SAR Rolling Stock Register to the numbers 01024-26 allocated to the PEHB locos. Two of the other five 2-6-0ST (M17-19/22/24) are known to have become Bloemfontein Works shunters before 1899 and its possible that of the five withdrawn prior to 1899 (M17-19/22/24), three were sold to PEHB and two went to Bloemfontein. These latter two locos were OVGS 3 and 4, later IMR 303 and 304 and then CSAR "C" and "D", they were scrapped in 1911-12 (replaced by two Hunslet 2-6-0ST from Table Bay Harbour - 01006 and 01010 which lasted until the 1930s).

In the Carter Kitson works list, there is a block of five numbers K 4079-4083 of 1901 for which no details are available. It is therefore possible that Kitson did supply new locos, although the dates don't quite tie up as the PEHB locos seem to have been in service by the end of 1900 and probably in the 1895-99 period. Another explanation is that Kitson provided new boilers in 1901 for at least some of these old locos.

Bear in mind that the Rolling Stock Register had to draw data from somewhere and often on these older non-standard locos it would be based on something found on the loco and a 1901 Kitson Boiler Plate would be a perfect piece of data. Similarly, Hollands erroneous reporting of a Peckett at the PEHB is because the Rolling Stock Register shows a Peckett. We know this is wrong as the Peckett records survive. However, the PEHB did have a Fox Walker who were taken over by Peckett and who may well have supplied Peckett marked spares.

Think of it like a jigsaw puzzle - you cannot force pieces in which you don't know where they go, this is unfortunately what Holland tried to do.



Posted here for reference purposes. André Kritzinger (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)