I have just bought a black shunter number 13029 but I can't find any reference to this loco. I have looked in a 1951, 1960 and 1963 Combined volumes plus a 1952, 1961 and 1963 shed allocation book. Is 13029 a genuine number?
Kevin
I have just bought a black shunter number 13029 but I can't find any reference to this loco. I have looked in a 1951, 1960 and 1963 Combined volumes plus a 1952, 1961 and 1963 shed allocation book. Is 13029 a genuine number?
Kevin
I have just bought a black shunter number 13029 but I can't find any reference to this loco. I have looked in a 1951, 1960 and 1963 Combined volumes plus a 1952, 1961 and 1963 shed allocation book. Is 13029 a genuine number?
Kevin
In message , Kevin Rayner writes
The 1958 combined volume says
Engines D3000-D3336 were originally numbered 13000-13336 and are being renumbered as they are overhauled.
Yes, the original BR batch of 350HP shunters that became the 08s were introduced in 1952 and numbered from 13000 - 13365. They were re-numbered to D3000 - D3365 around 1955/6 and eventually became
08-001 etc. (D3366 - D4192 came out after the numbering change).reference British Rail Fleet Survey vol 7 - Diesel Shunters, Brian Haresnape ISBN 0 7110 1449 3 Keith Make friends in the hobby. Visit Garratt photos for the big steam lovers.
Keith Norgrove wrote:-
I've never managed to get my head around this? In one reference book I read that the pioneer LMS shunter was the English Electric design which later became the Class 08. In another it says it was an Armstrong-Siddley design with jackshaft drive. Which is correct?
(kim)
The D prefix numbers started only from 1957, not 1955 as I suggested above (confirmed in 1972 combined volume)NB They would mostly have been painted green when renumbered. Keith
Make friends in the hobby. Visit Garratt photos for the big steam lovers.
"Kevin Rayner" wrote
Yup, an 84E Tyseley loco for the first few years of its life.
John.
Both, the LMS did a lot of experimenting before settling on the EE Co version as the best. All in the Haresnape book.
Essentially the LMS prototypes were:
1831, built 1932 at Derby on the frames of the ex MR 0-6-0T of the same number, Davey Paxman 400HP engine. Hydraulic transmission. 7050, built 1934 by EE Co & Drewry Car, W H Allan 160HP engine, mechanical transmission 0-4-0. 7051, built 1933 by Hunslet, MAN 150HP engine, mechanical transmission 0-6-0. 7052, built 1934 by Hunslet, Mclaren Benz 150Hp engine, mechanical transmission 0-4-0. 7053, built 1934 by Hunslet, Brotherhood Ricardo 150HP engine, mechanical transmission, 0-6-0. 7054, built 1934 by Hunslet, Davey Paxman 180HP engine, mechanical transmission, 0-6-0. 7055/6, built 1935 by Hudswell Clarke, Mirlees Ricardo 150HP engine, mechanical transmission, 0-6-0. 7057, built 1934 by Harland & Wolf, Harlandic 150HP engine, mechanical transmission 0-6-0. 7058, built 1933 by Armstrong Whitworth, Armstrong Whitworth (Sulzer) 250HP engine, electric transmission, jackshaft drive, 0-6-0. 7059/68, built 1933-36 by Armstrong Whitworth, Armstrong Whitworth 350/400HP engine, electric transmission, jackshaft drive, 0-6-0. 7069/78, built 1935 by English Electric, EE 6K 300/350HP engine, electric transmission, twin motor drive, 0-6-0. 7079, built 1934 by Hawthorn Leslie, EE 6K 300HP engine, electric transmission, twin motor drive, 0-6-0The 7069/79 series were the forerunners of the 08s but the first production batch were:
7080-7119 built at Derby with EE 6K engines, electric transmission and Jackshaft drive. built 1939 - 42. These were followed in 1944 by the 'standard design' Derby built E£E 6K engines and twin motor drive starting from 7120 120 examples were built, 14 of them being for the WD and did not come into Rly service. Some of these locos lasted in BR service to get corporate blue livery.Keith Make friends in the hobby. Visit Garratt photos for the big steam lovers.
Keith Norgrove wrote:-
Gosh, thanks. That was a lot of work. I wish someone would produce a RTR jackshaft drive 0-6-0 as an alternative to the ubiquitous 08.
(kim)
In message , kim writes
Isn't there a kit available?
John Sullivan wrote:-
I think so but it's an etched brass affair and none-to-easy to assemble.
(kim)
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.