|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jan 20, 2013 16:39:03 GMT
I thought this was a really interesting topic so I have started a brand new thread. Take it away....  @reganorak - there is some confusion as to whether the Met locos were rebuilds or not but the photographic evidence shows them under construction at a time when the originals were still around. one report suggests that only the first was a rebuild, the others were new build perhaps incorporating a limited number of original parts. it is quite likely that the Met followed contemporary railway practice in designating some new builds as rebuilds simply for accounting reasons (the LCDR was a past master at this) - presumably, it avoided taking a hit on the depreciation account? GH
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2013 17:07:37 GMT
I have seen the photo of rows of the new bodies in Vickers works, I did wonder if it was a 'body' swap but I guess the definitive answer will be one of life's mysteries.
|
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jan 20, 2013 17:43:29 GMT
@reganorak - I have now tracked down the photo I had in mind. It appears on page 31 of Benest's book*. The photo shows 15 of the locos under construction in Vickers' works. Careful examination of the visible locos shows them mounted on their underframes and with their bogies ready to be fitted - clearly much more than a bodyswap job. As the author remarks, the Met could hardly have had 15 of their existing locos oou at once to provide parts for the new fleet.
GH
* This may not be easy to track down these days as I see my edition was published as long ago as 1963 ... (Old age may have its rewards etc etc)
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Jan 20, 2013 23:07:32 GMT
This is an interesting concept. We know that no17 was a rebuild of a BTH loco but its is also estimated that 4 others were also rebuilds. Glyn and I were having a conversation with a member a year or so ago regarding this topic and it was suggested that there were more rebuilds than just 17.
I'm not sure what the spares allocation of the Met locos would have been at the start of the 1920s but by producing 15 new machines plus No17 may have allowed the remaining four to have been modified. of the 15 new machines did any of them reuse parts from the former locos? We know that all 20 sets of bogies, compressors and traction motors were used to equip the 20 1921 saloon stock motors which entred service around 1921-22.
Met no21 appears to have gone to the GN&City and photos show it with new (perhaps from a scrapped motor car) bogies.
Back to the joint tube stock, it seems a waste that it lasted less than 10 years! Even the 1928/29 stock on the Bakerloo were faster although I expect it was down to the door operations and not the motors as a 6 car UCC 1928/29 train M-T-T-CT+CT-M formation was less powerful than the joint stock M-T-T-M+CT-M (they both had 240hp motors?).
|
|
|
|
Post by grahamhewett on Jan 21, 2013 8:18:45 GMT
metman - I understood that 21 had the running gear and perhaps traction equipment off the original GN&C loco, but the frames and body off Met 1. The arithmetic would certainly allow for 15 new builds as per the Vickers photo and 17+ four others to be re-builds in some way, and still leave a spare set of frames and a body for 21, but if 20 sets of old bogies, motors and compressors were re-used and the old bodies scrapped (except for 1/21), what carried over to the new builds - the frames alone perhaps? BTW - I guess this really ought to be a separate thread, so apologies for thread drift. GH
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Jan 21, 2013 23:31:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by phillw48 on Jan 22, 2013 9:06:34 GMT
I can't see the first two pics?
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Jan 22, 2013 17:41:04 GMT
It may be there is a problem on that site. They both opened ok yesterday. Sorry about that, perhaps one of the more technical members can help?
|
|
roythebus
Pleased to say the restoration of BEA coach MLL738 is as complete as it can be, now restoring MLL721
Posts: 1,256
|
Post by roythebus on Mar 2, 2013 18:34:51 GMT
ISTR seeing a picture of the locos being built in the 75 Years of the Met book. I'll have to dig it out, it makes an interesting read!
|
|
|
|
Post by caravelle on Mar 2, 2013 20:34:10 GMT
I was reading in Graeme Bruce's Steam to Silver earlier that No6 was also rebuilt although the underframe extensions did crack frequently. Here is no21 at Drayton Pk and the Barrow works: Link 1Link 2Link 3I think the photos will show now. |
|
|
|
Post by metrailway on Mar 3, 2013 0:19:56 GMT
I read somewhere (can't remember where...) that No 21 was intended to be preserved. Is this true?
|
|
metman
Global Moderator
5056 05/12/1961-23/04/2012 RIP
Posts: 7,400
|
Post by metman on Mar 3, 2013 3:02:59 GMT
I have heard the same. Sadly the fitter instructed to take the roof off wreaked the loco leaving it only fit for scrap sadly!
|
|
|
|
Post by phillw48 on Mar 3, 2013 10:04:18 GMT
It was decided to scrap it when it was realised that it was 'trapped' on an isolated piece of track by newly installed 'tube-gauge' cable arches. The suggestion of preserving it was only made after the cable arches had been installed.
|
|
