Talk:L&YR Class 30

Numbering
There is additional information about L&YR Class 30 and L&YR Class 31 at Locomotives of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway but it is unreferenced. There seems to have been some overlap between the two classes in terms of rebuilding and numbering. There also seems to have been a compound version. Can anyone clarify the situation? Biscuittin (talk) 08:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The compound version was L&YR Class Q2. Biscuittin (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As with other Aspinall classes, the original design was refined over the years, with improvements being introduced first as rebuilds of older types and then applied to newer batches. The 0-8-0s are a case in point:
 * 110 built 1900-08 - the original design with small boiler: the 60 retaining this boiler at grouping being allotted LMS 12700-59 in order of building
 * 20 built 1903 by Hoy with cylindrical corrugated fireboxes: all later rebuilt with large boiler, some being superheated either at the same time or later on
 * the 4-cylinder compounds, one being rebuilt 1906 from original design, 10 built new 1907 - these were allotted LMS 12760-70 in order of building
 * (LMS nos. 12771-800 were allotted to those from the first two groups rebuilt with large boilers but not superheated)
 * 40 built 1910-11 1917-18 with large saturated boilers: only one was later superheated, and the rest were allotted LMS 12801-39
 * 115 built 1912-21 with large superheated boilers: LMS 12840-89, 12902-21, 12924-68
 * (LMS nos. 12890-901/22/3/69-94 were allotted to those from the earlier groups rebuilt with large boilers and superheaters)
 * Total: 295, LMS nos. 12700-12994. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Number of locos built
Casserley and Johnston state that Class Q1 totalled 130 locomotives but the LMS numbers quoted do not support this. I think there has been some double-counting (because of rebuilds) and I make the total 110. There is still a lot to find out about this class. Biscuittin (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Reading Marshall, as far as I can see: As built there were 5 groups:

That makes 295 altogether. All survived to the grouping, though withdrawals started no long after.

Subsequent fates: Final state: Rebuilding ended at the end of 1923. Locos superheated during 1923 took numbers in the "E" block, without leaving gaps in the other blocks. Presumably the renumbering scheme took a while to work out. Kjhskj75 (talk) 13:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Casserley and Johnston made a number of demonstrable errors in their book; one of them was the use of R.W. Rush's class codes (like Q1) which have no basis in fact - see Marshall vol. 3, paragraph at the top of p. 285 (the one that begins at bottom of p. 284). Marshall also made a few errors, but those that I have detected so far are typographical: for example, on p. 260, L&Y nos. 383 (lot 43) and 511 (lot 44) are both assigned LMS 12701 - in fact, 511 should be shown as 12714; similarly, on p. 261, L&Y nos. 157 (lot 48) and 86 (lot 55) are given LMS 12983, but 157 should be shown as 12893.
 * To take the initial problem: I believe that the first table given above is correct: presumably Casserley and Johnston overlooked the corrugated fireboxes, and assumed that lot 48 started out identical to lots 43 etc.
 * LMS numbers were not allocated immediately at Grouping. In any newly-created organisation (especially one created by amalgamation) it takes time to decide on wide-ranging policy matters such as loco numbering. With the pre-existing tensions between the ex-MR and ex-LNWR camps there would have been disagreement upon the plan to follow; and it could have been possible that the LMS might have decided to leave LNWR loco numbers alone, and renumber all the others. As is well known, it was the Midland locos which (by and large) kept their numbers. The LMS could have followed the LNER plan and simply added a given number of thousands, but instead they chose to renumber into blocks by class. Both of these decisions would have taken time to negotiate, and then the detailed plan had to be worked out - this would have taken some weeks. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Railway Magazine June 1954 p 396 said there were 21 with the Hoy corrugated firebox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnragla (talk • contribs) 04:29, 13 June 2015
 * It says "a total of 21 of these 0-8-0 type engines built by Hoy were equipped with cylindrical fireboxes". This total comprises 20 built new in March-August 1903 (Horwich lot 48), plus LYR no. 392 (LMS 12771), built May 1900 as part of Horwich lot 43, rebuilt with Hoy boiler February 1902. The table given by above describes the variants when new, which is why the figure of 20 is given. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * According to Lane (p111, Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway Locomotives, Pendragon) 18 of the original Aspinall locomotives were rebuilt with the large saturated boilers to put them into group D, and 28 were rebuilt with large superheated boilers putting them into group E. However two of those rebuilt to group D were then rebuilt in 1921 to fall into group E. Lancastrian63 (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Infobox
The figures in the infobox are for Class Q1. Classes Q2 and Q3 are different. Biscuittin (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have created separate articles for L&YR Class Q2 and L&YR Class Q3. Biscuittin (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)