New CR negative

The day to day working of the Caledonian Railway Company, including its constituents and successors.
Post Reply
Victorian_Lad
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2017 9:03 pm

New CR negative

Post by Victorian_Lad » Sun Apr 21, 2019 2:43 am

Hello,
I recently purchased an original negative along with the copyright for my collection of Two Ex-Caley Engines at an unknown location but possibly HR territory. Ex-CR 294 Class 'Jumbo' No. 67237 & Ex-CR 60 Class 'Greyback' No. 54639 in the early 1950s. If the CRA is interested in using it for any purpose they wish, who would I need to email the image to (obviously without the watermark)? Image

Kris Wilson

caley739
Posts: 165
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 6:59 am

Re: New CR negative

Post by caley739 » Sun Apr 21, 2019 7:49 am

Kris
This is an interesting image which shows well the everyday reality of dirt & grime in a steam running shed. No.54639 has a date 21.7.53 chalked on the smokebox door which fairly precisely dates your photo. At that date she was allocated to Hamilton shed 66C and Jumbo 57267 alongside was allocated to Motherwell shed 66B. I'm pretty sure this is one of those two locations, and if I had to choose I would go with Hamilton shed.
I think the Photo Archivist, Donald Peddie would be a good contact for your query.

Tom Robertson

Victorian_Lad
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2017 9:03 pm

Re: New CR negative

Post by Victorian_Lad » Sun Apr 21, 2019 7:24 pm

Ah yes, I should have probably looked up the allocation of the locomotive. (it was rather late when I posted this) Such a lovely machine, shame they were not as good as planned.

Kris

jimwatt2mm
Posts: 632
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 5:36 pm

Re: New CR negative

Post by jimwatt2mm » Sun Apr 21, 2019 7:30 pm

The wall to the right of 43659 appears to be timber. Motherwell shed is (it's still extant as a (DRS?) wagon repair depot) stone. I can't recall what Hamilton shed was, but I've a feeling it was stone built too.

Jim W

dunalastairv
Posts: 193
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 7:01 am

Re: New CR negative

Post by dunalastairv » Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:51 am

From looking at "L.M.S. Engine Sheds, Vol. 5" Hamilton seems a definite bet, and the location is probably the far right bay as you look towards the shed's buffer stops. Most of this wooden building, delapidated in the extreme, had been truncated by 1953 but enough remained to allow for 54639 to be slumbering at the back. The book makes reference to 54639 being withdrawn in December 1953 and I rather suspect it never moved again from the date of this photograph until its official demise.

caley739
Posts: 165
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 6:59 am

Re: New CR negative

Post by caley739 » Tue Apr 23, 2019 5:09 pm

Victorian_Lad wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 7:24 pm
, shame they were not as good as planned.

Kris
Were they really so bad. Most of them put in over 25 years of service on main line goods traffic to and from Carlisle. They had the rare distinction of 20 built to pre group design as late as 1925/6 and along with the Hughes Dreadnoughts built in greater numbers were the first 4-6-0s built for the LMS, although the latter were not really successful and had shorter working lives. Author O S Nock seemed to have a low opinion of these and other Pickersgill types in his practice and performance articles, which were just glorified train timing. Another author, Keith Miles I think,had a good opinion of them, and thought them the equal of a Fowler/Hughes Mogul or Crab on goods work. I may be biased, but I like them and possess at least one postcard photograph of nearly all of them. :evil:

Tom

jimwatt2mm
Posts: 632
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 5:36 pm

Re: New CR negative

Post by jimwatt2mm » Tue Apr 23, 2019 7:08 pm

dunalastairv wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:51 am
From looking at "L.M.S. Engine Sheds, Vol. 5" Hamilton seems a definite bet, and the location is probably the far right bay as you look towards the shed's buffer stops. Most of this wooden building, delapidated in the extreme, had been truncated by 1953 but enough remained to allow for 54639 to be slumbering at the back. The book makes reference to 54639 being withdrawn in December 1953 and I rather suspect it never moved again from the date of this photograph until its official demise.
The only occasion I saw Hamilton shed was one day inthe early '60's when a few of us paid a visit. my abiding memory is of entering the 'close' that ran through the offices and being confronted by the other end being filled with the cylinders of a Hughes 'crab'! Consulting my copy of 'LMS Engine Sheds Vol. 5' I see that it was a timber shed. Perhaps the offices were stone built?

Jim

Post Reply