45407

Can anyone tell me why this black 5 now carries the nameplate Lancashire Fusilier, when it was originally based on another loco, 46119

1st Grouping Number lms 6119
2nd Pre Grouping Number
1st Pre Grouping Number
Works/Lot Number 23614
Name Lancashire Fusilier
Class Code SCOT
Designer Fowler/Stanier
Designation 4-6-0
Built 06/11/1927
Builder North British Locomotive Company, Glasgow
1948 Shed 1B Camden
Last Shed 8A Edge Hill
Withdrawn 16/11/1963
Disposal details Crewe Works (B.R.)
Disposal Cut Up
Disposal Date 30/11/1963

 

Yes Ralph, but all this name swapping off other engines long gone, aint really correct, I mean its like changing a makers plate just to resemble another.
I understand that people do it, like "The Saggin Dragon" says, but they are not correct, also Mayflower is another engine that used another engines name, off another B1 61379, and even A1 Tornado is not a new name, as it was off a Britannia class 70022.
Am not disputing it, its just its a shame that they did name them with new names not used, like the Bury Fusilier ect.

 

I'm not aware of any Bury Fusilier's regiments, only Lancashire Fusiliers.

And again, there are many engines with incorrect names, K1 No. 62005 is another. But I don't see an issue. Sure, it isn't correct by pre-1968's history, but preservation is a whole new chapter of an engine's career, and if the owner wishes to bestow it with a name they can be fond of/or a name of meaning and reflection, then it is their choice.

I suggest you read this : http://www.lancs-fusiliers.co.uk/gallerynew/LFsteamtrain/LFtrain.htm

 

Recycling of names is certainly nothing new, and not something that never occurred in the age of steam. First example off the top of my head, BR Standard 5s allocated to the Southern region were given names from SR N15s as they were being scrapped. There are other examples of this, some Britannias carried names from locos from the 19th century. In fact Jubilee 45700 had her name pinched by 70000 when the Britannias were introduced!

 

Several of the Royal Scots oriinally carried the names of early LNWR locos. As far as re-naming in preservation goes I don't really care one way or another - after all it's only a bit of brass which can easily be removed and if it pleases the owner who has probably poured thousands of his 'hard earned' into the loco then so be it. Ray.

 

Same here, but I don't have any concerns about 45407 (or 45231) now sporting nameplates. They are in the style of those nameplates fitted to the few named Black Fives, and also in line with the military theme of the nameplates attached to 45154/6/7/8. Likewise, I've never felt concerned about the Bluebell's "Dukedog" carrying the name originally allocated to it but never carried because of objections from one of the earls about being commemorated by such an antiquated-looking loco. If there still is an Earl of Berkeley, I wonder how he would feel now about being commemorated by a historic (and popular) double-framed 4-4-0?

I know we have 18 preserved black fives, but the last "namer", 45156, comes pretty high on my personal list of engines I wish had been saved. I guess someone did look it over when withdrawn from Rose Grove and probably rejected it as there were engines of the same class available at the time which were in better condition.

 

didn't someone nick 45156's nameplates a few months before withdrawal ? Were they ever recovered (ever given to the regiment it belonged to ?)

As for naming preserved steam loco's, no one seems to care too much about fictions liveries on industrials, or Austerities pretending to be J94's.. and they are far more "in your face" than a nameplate.

 

I joined the LLPG when it re-formed with more achievable aims on 2nd Dec 1968, Bob joined a few weeks later. By that time any idea of saving 45156 had long gone, IIRC due to a combination of lack of funds and loco condition. I also seem to remember that another group were going to go for it but could be wrong. You'd have to ask Eugene Wheelwright (owner of Whitehead at Butterley) for the full story as it was mainly his idea. Ray.

 

Martin,

It's Thompson 1706 (E1705 got torched about 1988 !). As Ray says, the L.L.P.G. had scaled down their ambitions by the time I joined.
The list of locos which we missed out on would make interesting reading.

Bob.

 

I think you'll find that the naming of 45407 came at a time when the downsizing of the Army required amalgamations of local regiments and the consequent disappearance of Regimental Names; the naming of 45407, based at Bury, to commemorate the Lancashire Fusiliers (local to Bury) was a simple case of Ian Riley looking to ensure that a proud regimental name didn't disappear from its locality as have so many others.

In fairness this question of names being re-allotted is quite common as another Black 5 (45231 / 5231) was named Sherwood Foresters whilst based at the GCR (Loughborough) - a name previously carried with pride by Royal Scot Class 46112 and Class 45 D100 /45060.

A simple answer, however, is that locomotive owners have many reasons for giving their charges specific names and you need to understand their reasons for doing so. perhaps a locomotive owner reading this thread may care to explain his rationale ?

 

The inference of charterplan's original post is that somehow it is wrong, or "not allowed" for a name to be transferred from one locomotive to another. Not so.

Without doing the research, which would be a considerable task, I am sure that over many decades of steam/diesel/electric motive power, and from the earliest times in our railway history, names have been moved from one locomotive to another successor engine.

Mr Riley is therefore simply perpetuating something that has happened many times before.

46118

 

Was certainly very common in early days. For example, on the LSWR, the early engines were named but not numbered. If an original was scrapped and replaced, the replacement generally took the original name, since that was how the locos were identified on the company's capital stock list. (Later on, the same practice occurred with numbers - new locos would have a new number if they were deemed to be additions to capital, but take the old number if they were a replacement of an existing loco which led to duplicate numbers if the old loco was not scrapped at the same time. At one point, the LSWR had an original loco, its replacement, and the replacement's replacement all running simultaneously with the same number, distinguished by various cyphers).

There are also plenty of pre-preservation examples of locos changing name in their working lives (Schools class "Uppingham" became "Bradfield"); gaining names (the unnamed LBSCR class L tanks acquired names when rebuilt as tender engines); losing names (the SECR River class tank engines lost names when rebuilt); taking names of earlier locos that had been withdrawn (the BR Standard 5s took the names from withdrawn King Arthurs); taking names of locos that were still in service (the earlier GWR Dukedogs where the names were transferred to Castles ) and being assigned names but not carrying them in service (the later GWR Dukedogs).

So - pretty much anything goes. Hardly a problem therefore, in my eyes, to imagine that such things necessarily stopped in 1968 - if the owner wants to name his loco, then why not?

Tom

 

When the Standard 5s were named, was one named Sir Lamiel or was that avoided because 777 had been preserved?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

No - there were only twenty named Standard Fives, but 74 King Arthurs, so not all the names were replicated.

Incidentally, the original LSWR Urie-designed N15s weren't named until Southern Railways days, to bring them into line with the Maunsell King Arthurs. The Urie engines took names of people and places associated with the Arthurian legends, but none was named after an actual named knight(*) - those names were reserved for the Maunsell engines.

Of the BR Standard Fives, "Camelot" was named after the withdrawn 742, which was one of the LSWR Urie batch, (built 1919; named 1925; scrapped in 1957). The Standard Five 73082 took the name in 1959.

Tom


(*) Excepting "The Green Knight" and "The Red Knight", which are descriptive but not proper names of people!

 

Thanks Tom!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk