This article is written in South African English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
An email received from Piotr Staszewski on 18 December 2012:
From: piotr.staszewski
To: Kol Andre H Kritzinger
Sent: 18 December 2012 07:28 AM
Subject: Re: Kitson works list
Hello,
> Do you perhaps have the Kitson works list as well?
"Kitson Works List" Compiled by Reg Carter, November 1997
He writes:
"1271 25/3/65 0-4-0ST 4'0" 12x18 STD NATAL Ry
...
2046 13/11/75 2-6-0T 3'3" 12x20 3'6" CAPE GOV. ry 30 M15 115
215 SAR 0415
2047 13/11/75 2-6-0T 3'3" 12x20 3'6" CAPE GOV. ry 31 M16 116
216 SAR 0416
Orig. Back to Back tanks Rebuilt to 2-6-0 tender locos"
Yes, he writes 2-6-0
Sorry, nor photos neither drawings.
Regards, Piotr
Stored here for reference purposes. André Kritzinger ( talk) 20:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
This is not "original research" as per WP:NOR. It is an attempt to determine the truth out of conflicting information as reflected in different sources.
This pair of back-to-back locomotives is a conundrum. Here is an attempt at solving the riddle:
No other acquisitions from Kitson are shown in Littley's list that could possibly be these back-to-back locomotives. But, according to his list:
These Stephenson-built 0-6-0 locomotives are also mentioned by Holland (vol. 2 p. 120), who said he had no further details or photographs on them. (He said the same about the back-to-back locomotives.) [4]
So, what were these back-to-back locomotives, 2-6-0 or 0-6-0?
It seems far more likely, therefore, that these Stephenson Patent back-to-back locomotives were 0-6-0 engines, built by Stephenson and delivered to East London where the comparative trials took place, and not 2-6-0 engines built by Kitson and later, after the trials, transferred to Port Elizabeth, which at the time may as well have been on the other side of the planet.
Besides, the back-to-back concept was a Stephenson's Patent design, after all. André Kritzinger ( talk) 22:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Email received from John Middleton on 3 November 2013, copied here for the record:
From: John Nicholas Middleton
To: Andre H Kritzinger
Cc: Bruno Martin ; The Lake's ; Leith Paxton
Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 11:37 PM
Subject: Re: CGR Stephenson Back-toBack
Andre
This is one of those conundrums that has had so many theories put forward, that you are not quite sure what is fact and what is conjecture;
The known facts;
There was a lot of debate on this around 1993-94 in the Railway History Group and the late Donald Bell also had a close look at the evidence.
All of this debate seemed to suggest two things
Regards
John
Posted here by André Kritzinger ( talk) 00:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
This article is written in South African English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
An email received from Piotr Staszewski on 18 December 2012:
From: piotr.staszewski
To: Kol Andre H Kritzinger
Sent: 18 December 2012 07:28 AM
Subject: Re: Kitson works list
Hello,
> Do you perhaps have the Kitson works list as well?
"Kitson Works List" Compiled by Reg Carter, November 1997
He writes:
"1271 25/3/65 0-4-0ST 4'0" 12x18 STD NATAL Ry
...
2046 13/11/75 2-6-0T 3'3" 12x20 3'6" CAPE GOV. ry 30 M15 115
215 SAR 0415
2047 13/11/75 2-6-0T 3'3" 12x20 3'6" CAPE GOV. ry 31 M16 116
216 SAR 0416
Orig. Back to Back tanks Rebuilt to 2-6-0 tender locos"
Yes, he writes 2-6-0
Sorry, nor photos neither drawings.
Regards, Piotr
Stored here for reference purposes. André Kritzinger ( talk) 20:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
This is not "original research" as per WP:NOR. It is an attempt to determine the truth out of conflicting information as reflected in different sources.
This pair of back-to-back locomotives is a conundrum. Here is an attempt at solving the riddle:
No other acquisitions from Kitson are shown in Littley's list that could possibly be these back-to-back locomotives. But, according to his list:
These Stephenson-built 0-6-0 locomotives are also mentioned by Holland (vol. 2 p. 120), who said he had no further details or photographs on them. (He said the same about the back-to-back locomotives.) [4]
So, what were these back-to-back locomotives, 2-6-0 or 0-6-0?
It seems far more likely, therefore, that these Stephenson Patent back-to-back locomotives were 0-6-0 engines, built by Stephenson and delivered to East London where the comparative trials took place, and not 2-6-0 engines built by Kitson and later, after the trials, transferred to Port Elizabeth, which at the time may as well have been on the other side of the planet.
Besides, the back-to-back concept was a Stephenson's Patent design, after all. André Kritzinger ( talk) 22:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Email received from John Middleton on 3 November 2013, copied here for the record:
From: John Nicholas Middleton
To: Andre H Kritzinger
Cc: Bruno Martin ; The Lake's ; Leith Paxton
Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 11:37 PM
Subject: Re: CGR Stephenson Back-toBack
Andre
This is one of those conundrums that has had so many theories put forward, that you are not quite sure what is fact and what is conjecture;
The known facts;
There was a lot of debate on this around 1993-94 in the Railway History Group and the late Donald Bell also had a close look at the evidence.
All of this debate seemed to suggest two things
Regards
John
Posted here by André Kritzinger ( talk) 00:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)