Talk:CGR 0-6-0T

Kitson and Company works list
An email received from Piotr Staszewski on 18 December 2012:

From: piotr.staszewski To: Kol Andre H Kritzinger Sent: 18 December 2012 07:28 AM Subject: Re: Kitson works list

Hello,

> Do you perhaps have the Kitson works list as well?

"Kitson Works List" Compiled by Reg Carter, November 1997

He writes: "1271  25/3/65  0-4-0ST   4'0"  12x18  STD   NATAL Ry

...

2046  13/11/75  2-6-0T  3'3"  12x20  3'6"  CAPE GOV. ry  30   M15  115 215  SAR 0415 2047  13/11/75  2-6-0T  3'3"  12x20  3'6"  CAPE GOV. ry  31   M16  116 216  SAR 0416 Orig. Back to Back tanks Rebuilt to 2-6-0 tender locos"

Yes, he writes 2-6-0

Sorry, nor photos neither drawings.

Regards, Piotr

Stored here for reference purposes. André Kritzinger (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

What were these, 2-6-0T or 0-6-0T?
This is not "original research" as per WP:NOR. It is an attempt to determine the truth out of conflicting information as reflected in different sources.

This pair of back-to-back locomotives is a conundrum. Here is an attempt at solving the riddle:
 * Frank Holland, in his dimensional drawing (vol. 1 p. 27 bottom) showed them as two Kitson-built 0-6-0T locomotives that survived until 1912, and said he had no further details or photographs.
 * Jean Dulez describes them as 2-6-0T locomotives (actually erroneously as 2-6-0+0-6-2T), Kitson works no. 2046-2047 of 1875, that later became part of the Kitson 1st Class 2-6-0 tender fleet on the Cape Government Railways Midland System which were rebuilt from tender locomotives to saddle-tanks. He probably based this on the "Kitson Works List" compiled by Reg Carter, November 1997, as quoted in the previous section above and as kindly supplied to me by Piotr Staszewski.
 * Littley, in his article "CGR Numbering Revised", according to him largely based on a 1881 report, shows the following acquisitions by the Cape Government Railways in 1876/77:
 * On the CGR Midland System at Port Elizabeth:
 * Kitson 2046-2047 2-6-0T no. M15 and M16.
 * Kitson 2079-2086 2-6-0 no. M17-M24.
 * And on the CGR Eastern System in East London:
 * Stephenson 2257-8 no. E5 and E6.

No other acquisitions from Kitson are shown in Littley's list that could possibly be these back-to-back locomotives. But, according to his list:
 * The Kitson locomotives all went to the Midland System in Port Elizabeth.
 * The only 0-6-0 locomotives that were acquired by the CGR in 1876 (in fact, up to 1879) are the two Stephenson 0-6-0STs no. E5 and E6 for the Eastern System in 1876, Stephenson works no. 2257-2258.

These Stephenson-built 0-6-0 locomotives are also mentioned by Holland (vol. 2 p. 120), who said he had no further details or photographs on them. (He said the same about the back-to-back locomotives.)

So, what were these back-to-back locomotives, 2-6-0 or 0-6-0?
 * If they were 2-6-0, as Dulez and Carter states, they could very well have been Kitson 2046-2047 of 1875. However, that would mean that they would have to have completed the comparative trials with the Fairlie locomotives on the Eastern System in 1876, and then would have had to be shipped or ox-wagoned to the Midland System by 1881 to become Midland System no. M15 and M16. At the time the link-up of the Midland System and Eastern System mainlines was still sixteen years in the future, in 1892. Such a transfer is certainly possible, but unlikely in my opinion, since it seems to be a lot of trouble to go to, especially when considering the fact that, at the time, the Eastern System was barely getting started and had no excess of locomotives in its fleet. Besides, even if such a transfer did happen in 1876, the Kitson-built numbers M17 to M21 would already have been in service and numbered (as tender locomotives) on the Midland System, so why would a gap in the numbering have been left there in advance for these two tank locomotives?
 * If they were 0-6-0, they were likely Stephenson 2257-2258, no. E5 and E6, which went to the Eastern in 1876 and remained there as separated locomotives after completion of the comparative trials. After all, Holland described them as 0-6-0 in the first place. (Okay, he also said they were Kitson builts...)

It seems far more likely, therefore, that these Stephenson Patent back-to-back locomotives were 0-6-0 engines, built by Stephenson and delivered to East London where the comparative trials took place, and not 2-6-0 engines built by Kitson and later, after the trials, transferred to Port Elizabeth, which at the time may as well have been on the other side of the planet.

Besides, the back-to-back concept was a Stephenson's Patent design, after all. André Kritzinger (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The known facts
Email received from John Middleton on 3 November 2013, copied here for the record:

From: John Nicholas Middleton To: Andre H Kritzinger Cc: Bruno Martin ; The Lake's ; Leith Paxton Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 11:37 PM Subject: Re: CGR Stephenson Back-toBack

Andre

This is one of those conundrums that has had so many theories put forward, that you are not quite sure what is fact and what is conjecture;

The known facts;
 * Crown Agents Archives show RS 2257/58 as "Two Tank Engines" shipped on the "Claremont" arriving EL 1 Feb 1876 (together with K 2038-39)
 * Crown Agents Archives show K 2046-47 as "Two Locomotives" shipped on the "Queen of the West" arriving PE 21 Feb 1876
 * CGR January 1878 Report listed " Two Stephenson Twin" locomotives on the Eastern Section, its not possible to identify K2046-47 in the Midland list
 * CGR December 1878 Report did not show the above but did list " Two 6-wheelers" on the Eastern Section
 * The Report on the Tilney trials (page 201 of G3 1878) has a reference to the"Stephenson" twin as "now separated"
 * RHG 14 of 1994 carried a drawing of a CGR 2-6-0T (SIDE tank) with rear buffing gear not a coupler.

There was a lot of debate on this around 1993-94 in the Railway History Group and the late Donald Bell also had a close look at the evidence.

All of this debate seemed to suggest two things
 * There was a Stephenson twin on the Eastern, used for the trials then separated (RS 2257-58 presumably)
 * K 2046-47 were ALSO built as a twin loco but as side-tanks later separated and rebuilt as saddle tanks.

Regards John

Posted here by André Kritzinger (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)