The LNER Encyclopedia

Has anyone heard the nickname Waverley class being bestowed on A2s before. The reason im asking is this verbatum quote below from the MOTs report into the third Goswick accident of 1953.

The Train.

3. The Train, consisting of four bogie coaches, four bogie vans and a four wheeled fish van, weighed 253 tons and was drawn by Engine No. 60509, "Waverley" class A.2/1 with a 4-6-2 wheel arrangement, weighing 158 tons with the eight wheel tender fully loaded.The brake power of the train as a whole was 77% of the total weight of 411 tons.

First time ive heard that term used.

52D wrote:Has anyone heard the nickname Waverley class being bestowed on A2s before. The reason im asking is this verbatum quote below from the MOTs report into the third Goswick accident of 1953.

The Train.

3. The Train, consisting of four bogie coaches, four bogie vans and a four wheeled fish van, weighed 253 tons and was drawn by Engine No. 60509, "Waverley" class A.2/1 with a 4-6-2 wheel arrangement, weighing 158 tons with the eight wheel tender fully loaded.The brake power of the train as a whole was 77% of the total weight of 411 tons.

First time ive heard that term used.

Myself, I've never heard of the A2 referred to as a Waverley class. I think the paragraph quoted contains a classic case of a misplaced comma; and some suspect capitalisation.

Had the comma been placed after the closing quote around the name Waverley, then it would have made the sense intended by the writer. Also, the words "Engine No." needed no capitalisation, and the word "class" should have been capitalised. No need to have capitalised the word "Train" in the first line, either.

So, . . . engine no. 60509 Waverley, Class A2/1 with . . .

A quick google search reveals the loco no. 60509 was indeed called Waverly, so it is not a 'nickname' for the A2/1's

Thanks Giner that probably explains it. This was the third of three crashes at the same set of points although this one was mechanical failure as opposed to human error of the first two.
Today as you go past the spot its almost impossible to visualise the earlier carnage that occured and indeed a friend who had to check the culvert(for Network Rail) where Merry Hampton lay following the 1947 crash could see nothing that told him there had been three crashes at this spot.

52D wrote:Thanks Giner that probably explains it. This was the third of three crashes at the same set of points although this one was mechanical failure as opposed to human error of the first two.
Today as you go past the spot its almost impossible to visualise the earlier carnage that occured and indeed a friend who had to check the culvert(for Network Rail) where Merry Hampton lay following the 1947 crash could see nothing that told him there had been three crashes at this spot.

A chilling kind of karma at work there. My wife always says things come in threes.

blackout60800 wrote:A quick google search reveals the loco no. 60509 was indeed called Waverly, so it is not a 'nickname' for the A2/1's

Your spelling "Waverly" is correct, I believe. In answering 52D's post I had looked it up in the 'Locomotives' section in the home page of this site. There, it is spelled "Waverley", with the second "e". I'm sure that's not right - I think.

I may be chided for semantics now, but y'know . . .

never seen it spelt 'waverly' before.....

Apologies for missing the second 'e'

My excuse: It's a Friday

Ay up, Blackout!

I'll believe you.

Thousands wouldn't...

My 'Friday' remedy: Queen on the Ipod, blurting out of cheapo speakers deafening the whole close

My bad. It is Waverley - with the second 'e'. Such are the senior moments of an insomniac. No orange at Christmas for me.

Most of the men I knew who had to work on them had a different name, unfortunately not for publication!

most common name woud be "coal miners friend".

mr B