Page 1 of 1

New CR negative

Posted: Sun Apr 21, 2019 2:43 am
by Victorian_Lad
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

Re: New CR negative

Posted: Sun Apr 21, 2019 7:49 am
by caley739
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

Re: New CR negative

Posted: Sun Apr 21, 2019 7:24 pm
by Victorian_Lad
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

Re: New CR negative

Posted: Sun Apr 21, 2019 7:30 pm
by jimwatt2mm
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

Re: New CR negative

Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:51 am
by dunalastairv
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 The book makes reference to 54639 being withdrawn in December 1953 and I rather suspect it never moved again from the date of this photograph until its official demise.

Re: New CR negative

Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2019 5:09 pm
by caley739
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

Re: New CR negative

Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2019 7:08 pm
by jimwatt2mm
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