![]() | 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: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following is the contents of an email from John Middleton on 2 October 2013, posted here for reference.
The parts pertinent to this article are:
The Neilsons are the most confusing, but were (in my view) clearly NGR rather than Harbour Board. The Neilson works list I have shows them as NGR Nos 89 to 93 and this certainly fits since the A class had reached No. 88 by 1893. The next batch of A class appeared in 1896 and were numbered 89 upwards, so the Neilsons were either renumbered or sold by the time the new A class arrived. Quite what they were used for isn't clear but I do have this one very interesting photo of one in Durban station March 1900 with the Princess Christian Hospital Train (apologies for the poor scan), so presumably NGR used them as small yard shunters.
Now have a look at the 31 December 1904 loco list and you will see that two of these are listed as locos 510 and 511. This doesn't seem to correlate with the SAR Rolling Stock Register which shows four - even allowing for those to include the one sold to PPR, we still have a third loco that seems to have made its way to SAR but which was not on the NGR books in 1904. By 1904 locos 1-9 had been renumbered 501-509 (Beyer Peacock / Kitson) which tends to confirm that the lower 5xx numbers were not used for the Neilsons, although as already noted there was considerable re-use of the 5xx series, so its possible (but would have to have been pre-1902). The next loco list I have is 31 December 1908 and 510 has gone with only 511 listed, so we can presumably date 510's demise as between January 1905 and December 1908.
Jim Barrows draft Register identifies the PPR loco as Neilsen 4482 (which was NGR 90) and then "sold to P. SMITH & Co, May 1920". I do not know who "P.Smith" was, possibly just a scrap dealer. The Register identifies 91 (Neilsen 4483) as becoming 511 later 0511 scrapped between 1912 and 1931. I don't know the validity of this data and I feel the identification of the individual locos in this batch is still open to correction. I guess this came from one of the Rolling Stock Registers but unfortunately I didn't transcribe this data.
My feeling is that some of the names attributed to these locos may have been later additions. For example why would a loco in Natal be named "PRETORIA" at a time of high tension just prior to the Boer War. Much more likely is that either the PPR one (or perhaps another) got to Pretoria much later and was so named. Perhaps "NATAL" was renamed "PRETORIA" again for patriotic reasons but thats just guesswork.
The complete email:
Inserted here for reference purposes. André Kritzinger ( talk) 19:48, 4 October 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: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following is the contents of an email from John Middleton on 2 October 2013, posted here for reference.
The parts pertinent to this article are:
The Neilsons are the most confusing, but were (in my view) clearly NGR rather than Harbour Board. The Neilson works list I have shows them as NGR Nos 89 to 93 and this certainly fits since the A class had reached No. 88 by 1893. The next batch of A class appeared in 1896 and were numbered 89 upwards, so the Neilsons were either renumbered or sold by the time the new A class arrived. Quite what they were used for isn't clear but I do have this one very interesting photo of one in Durban station March 1900 with the Princess Christian Hospital Train (apologies for the poor scan), so presumably NGR used them as small yard shunters.
Now have a look at the 31 December 1904 loco list and you will see that two of these are listed as locos 510 and 511. This doesn't seem to correlate with the SAR Rolling Stock Register which shows four - even allowing for those to include the one sold to PPR, we still have a third loco that seems to have made its way to SAR but which was not on the NGR books in 1904. By 1904 locos 1-9 had been renumbered 501-509 (Beyer Peacock / Kitson) which tends to confirm that the lower 5xx numbers were not used for the Neilsons, although as already noted there was considerable re-use of the 5xx series, so its possible (but would have to have been pre-1902). The next loco list I have is 31 December 1908 and 510 has gone with only 511 listed, so we can presumably date 510's demise as between January 1905 and December 1908.
Jim Barrows draft Register identifies the PPR loco as Neilsen 4482 (which was NGR 90) and then "sold to P. SMITH & Co, May 1920". I do not know who "P.Smith" was, possibly just a scrap dealer. The Register identifies 91 (Neilsen 4483) as becoming 511 later 0511 scrapped between 1912 and 1931. I don't know the validity of this data and I feel the identification of the individual locos in this batch is still open to correction. I guess this came from one of the Rolling Stock Registers but unfortunately I didn't transcribe this data.
My feeling is that some of the names attributed to these locos may have been later additions. For example why would a loco in Natal be named "PRETORIA" at a time of high tension just prior to the Boer War. Much more likely is that either the PPR one (or perhaps another) got to Pretoria much later and was so named. Perhaps "NATAL" was renamed "PRETORIA" again for patriotic reasons but thats just guesswork.
The complete email:
Inserted here for reference purposes. André Kritzinger ( talk) 19:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)