The LNER Encyclopedia

Zaphod Scotsman.

Please do some actual research, their are plenty of books out there which make it clear that 60114 was allocated to Copley Hill from the years 1950-1953 ONLY

Be advised by the people who have posted in this thread.

Can we lower the heat chaps, please?

I really don't mind who is a genius and who isn't but there needs to be something more substantial than because bloke A says so, that's all right then.

The records for both locomotives held in the various national archives are pretty clear on where they were allocated so if there is something else that contradicts those, the documentary source needs to be quoted by someone.

As far as the documents I have seen (especially those at KX DME or Kew) I cannot substantiate the additional 56C claims for either locomotive. If 60103 was maintained anywhere but KX in 1960, even on loan, it would have showed up in the KX records.

For what it is worth 60103 was regarded by the KX mtce staff I worked with as a bit of a dog. They wanted it shifted to another depot but KX always seemed stuck with it while, in their eyes, better A3's were transferred elsewhere.

RCTS 2A and Yeadons will lay all this squabbling to rest

Tom F wrote:Zaphod Scotsman.

Please do some actual research, their are plenty of books out there which make it clear that 60114 was allocated to Copley Hill from the years 1950-1953 ONLY

Be advised by the people who have posted in this thread.

Don't doubt Simon: he knows his facts.

EDIT: Also, Simon Martin actually does his research and his grandfather worked at Copley Hill, so he knows his stuff.

This.

jwealleans wrote:This.

I wasn't being a troll, I was telling the truth: Simon Martin would never lie.

Maybe best if SAC Martin interjects here, seen as this individual isn't going to listen to the facts he has been given in this thread.

Might I remind everyone that memories can play tricks after 50-60 years. Heck, 20 years can be a stretch for some of us youngens!

Records of most of these allocations do survive and have been published. They might have errors. Also official records and what actually happened might differ (e.g. true and official/accountant withdrawal dates of the A4s). However, they are generally much more reliable than memories and recollections. Further verification is required before the records are dismissed.

When people send me corrections for the locomotive pages, the vast majority are in three categories: Mistaken identity by the sender (eg. B2/B17 confusion); typo/transcription error on my part (easy for me to verify); and 'personal' comments with no supporting evidence even after it is requested (e.g. "Loco X was a dog and spent all its time in the works" despite a complete record in Yeadons that indicates rather the opposite)