A1 Peppercorn, 60114 W.P. Allen - Single chimney when built?

[S.A.C. Martin]

Once, many years ago, my late grandfather told me this was the case with 60114: that she had been built with a single blastpipe and not a double chimney originally. I could not find photo nor reference to this so dismissed it as being somewhat of a myth, despite his claim that he had seen her so fitted.

That myth came back to haunt me this evening when re-reading Cecil J.Allen's British Pacific Locomotives, a favourite volume of mine. For on page 109, under the heading "A1 Class" and referring to a set of trials in 1949, it reads:

The tests just mentioned took place in 1949, and were made in order that the performance of the 'A1' and 'A2' might be compared with that of the Gresley 'A4s' in the historic exchange trials of the previous year between locomotives of the various regions of British Railways.

The Peppercorn engines selected were No.60114 W.P. Allen of the 'A1' type, and No.60539 Bronzino of type 'A2'; whereas the latter was the only 'A2' which started its career with a double blastpipe and chimney, the former at first had been built at Doncaster with a single blastpipe only, though in common with all the 'A1s' it acquired a double blastpipe later.

Left slightly speechless reading that - exactly as described by my grandfather. The question is - given I have never seen this information crop up anywhere else - how much truth is there in this, and did 60114 work with a single chimney at any time, and is there a photograph of it so equipped?

[2512silverfox]

The works photo of 60114 W P Allen was taken in October 1948 and shows the double chimney. The loco was originally ex works in August 1948 but no photo was taken at that time which in itself is unusual because photos were almost invariably taken of experiments. 60114 was therefore not photographed unitl the nameplates were fitted.

I can find no written reference to a single blastpipe in the ususal sources, so suggest that without that evidence it is unlikely. However compelling evidence may lurk somewhere!

[majormagna]

I might have a theory on this, however it is rather... well; unlikely more than anything else...

Don't forget, the chimney and the blastpipe(s) are technically seperate entities. Regarding the chimney, the A1 Steam trust's site states only that:

It (60114) had a plain chimney.

This is most likely the 'unlipped' version of the double chimney.

No-where seems to have information on the "Single blastpipe", however, this is where my theory comes in.

Could the works, perhaps, while still recovering from the war, have fitted a single blastpipe with the intention of replacing it with a double one when one became avaliable; yet still built the smokebox with a double chimney? Perhaps temporarily blocking off the unused exhaust (If that were required)?

I know this might seem as though I am "invalidating" your grandfathers word, however, quotes can often be sunconciously 'edited' by the brain; perhaps your grandfather saw inside the smokebox and did indeed mean the blastpipe, but for some reason you recall "chimney" instead?

[S.A.C. Martin]

Unlikely Major, thanks for posting anyway.

2512, thanks for confirming my own thoughts. Has to be said - not photographed for nearly three months after being outshopped?

Bit odd - I thought works photographs for newly outshopped prototypes were quite common?