Talk:LNER Class EE1

Designation

Since British Rail Class EF1 stands for Electric Freight 1, I think it is a reasonable assumption that British Rail Class EE1 stands for Electric Express 1 and British Rail Class ES1 stands for Electric Shunting 1. Can anybody confirm this? Biscuittin (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

True, and true. Also, these classifications were introduced 4 October 1945.

• Boddy, M.G.; Fry, E.V.; Hennigan, W.; Hoole, Ken; Mallaband, P.; Neve, E.; Price, J.H.; Proud, P.; Yeadon, W.B. (April 1990). Fry, E.V. (ed.). Locomotives of the L.N.E.R., part 10B: Railcars and Electric Stock. Lincoln: RCTS. pp. 98, 90. ISBN 0 901115 66 5. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

--Redrose64 (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Rename

This should be renamed. It's a NER loco, not LNER or British Railways. It's certainly not British Rail, which didn't even exist until some years after it was scrapped. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Problem there is that the NER didn't use classifications for any of its electric locos (except for nos 1 & 2 early on - photos show them with "CLASS ELECTRIC 1" painted on the bufferbeams); no classification is recorded for no. 13 until EE1 was allotted by the LNER on 4 October 1945 (see previous thread); but it was scrapped after the formation of BR, being withdrawn August 1950 and cut up 15 December 1950 (Boddy et al. 1990, p. 98). Indeed, photos exist of it with the BR number 26600, applied some time in 1948 (Boddy et al. 1990, fig. 134). --Redrose64 (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

British Rail didn't exist until 1965. The 'EE1' class designation was introduced by the LNER, so it would be no worse to call them "NER class EE1" than a "BR class EE1". Admittedly the Newcastle Quayside steeplecabs would be more of a problem, but this loco was unique, so why not identify it as "NER No 13", as that's how it was originally known? BR seems odd anyway, given the LNER allocation of the same class name, but British Rail is a strange anachronism. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

"British Rail" was merely the marketing name used from 1965 of the body legally known as the British Railways Board, which was created 1 January 1963 as the legal successor to the rail interests of the British Transport Commission. The BTC used the marketing name "British Railways", and the BRB continued to do so for a little less than three years. It's generally accepted that "British Railways" and "British Rail" are one and the same, and the body broken up at privatisation in the 1990s was essentially, albeit not legally, the same one that was formed on 1 January 1948.

Whether articles on loco classes should be titled "British Rail Class xxx" or not us currently under debate at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Naming convention so please let's not discuss that aspect here. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

(rewrite message) Having read the above properly, and taking what has been said to be true - then "NER No.13" seems correct - I can't see any justification not use the name of the company that ordered/built it - eg as far as I know "Midland Railway" locomotives are always named as such, even if they later worked for the LMS or BR. Is there any reason why this should be an exception. (or are there other exceptions ?) Sf5xeplus (talk) 13:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The main problem with NER No.13 (which surely deserves a redirect at least) is that it fails for classes, like the Quayside steeplecabs, where there was more than one built. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

NER No.s 1 & 2 ?? A similar situation exists for SNCF BB 1-80 (fr:BB 1-80) which also don't appear to have got a class

(remove garbeled) Is this a "1" on the EF/EB class too ? - image [1] Sf5xeplus (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your question. The NER had 13 electric locos, numbered 1-13. The NER numbers were retained on the LNER, until the general renumbering in 1946. They were not classified on the NER (but see British Rail Class ES1#History, paragraph beginning "Early photographs show the locomotives with"), and were not classified on the LNER until October 1945, when nos. 1&2 became class ES1; 3-12 became EB1, and 13 became EE1. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - not being clear - this image [2] I thought it looked like a number 1 on the front of the loco... For some reason I was thinking "North Eastern" meant NER, not LNER .. just me getting confused... That's an image from LNER times isn't it.Sf5xeplus (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The oval thing on the front of the loco is the numberplate... but it reads "3", not "1" - the loco is the first of what later became LNER Class EF1. That photo is exactly the same as one in Ken Hoole's book between pp. 16-17. The caption states that it's fresh from the paint shop at Darlington, but also states that it's in grey (as opposed to green or black), which suggests a special paint job for the official photographer, which in turn suggests that it's brand new; it's undated, but the text on p. 16 states "The official photograph of the first locomotive was taken in tne paint shop yard on 11th May, 1914" and so I assume that the photo we're discussing is this official photo of 11 May 1914. "NORTH EASTERN" is indeed NER - on the LNER these locos were lettered "L N E R", one letter beneath each window, and the large numberplates were removed, with the numbers being painted on the bufferbeams. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the solution I would really expect the name to include "NER" in some form, as that matches common use. Perhaps even "NER 0-4-4-0 electric shunter" . It's a flaw of the current name(s) that a google search for "NER electric shunter" fails to find the "ES1" wikipedia article at all. Sf5xeplus (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

"NER 0-4-4-0 electric shunter" would be a poor name for several reasons. Firstly we don't know how many they had - It's a common enough configuration. Imagine renaming British Rail 18000 to "GWR 0-6-6-0 gas turbine locomotive", then finding that there were two meeting that same description, but they needed to be distinguished. Even if there's only one class of these, you still have the same problem if you extrapolate that naming convention to other locos. Secondly "shunter" is subjective, and is quite wrong in this case. The steeplecabs were built specifically for climbing an uphill tunnel without fumigating their crews, and the quayside part of the line was big enough that work down there was a bit more than shunting. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Ken Hoole is regarded as an authority on the subject, and in his book

• Hoole, Ken (1988). The Electric Locomotives of the North Eastern Railway. Locomotion Papers. Headington: Oakwood Press. ISBN 0 85361 367 2. LP167. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

he doesn't mention any classification at all, save for noting "When new both engines carried the legend CLASS ELECTRIC 1 on their bufferbeams, but no reference to this has been discovered in any NER documents or locomotive registers". He reproduces a photograph between pp. 8-9 as evidence, and this lettering can just be made out above the lower edge of the buffer beam; it's darker than the buffer beam colour (possibly black lettering on red). He doesn't mention the LNER classifications at all, and for chapter titles he avoids making up any unofficial scheme (perhaps wisely, unlike R.W. Rush's works on the LYR and the Furness Railway). The chapter titles that he uses are:

• Chapter One The Quayside Branch Locomotives NER Nos 1 and 2
• Chapter Two The Shildon—Newport Locomotives NER Nos 3-12
• Chapter Three The Main Line Locomotive NER No. 13

--Redrose64 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible change to the title of this article

This article is currently named in accordance the Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways naming conventions for British rolling stock allocated a TOPS number. A proposal to change this convention and/or its scope is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Naming convention, where your comments would be welcome.