Talk:Table Bay Harbour 0-4-0ST

Table Bay Harbour locomotives by Black, Hawthorn & Chapman and Furneaux
From: John Nicholas Middleton To: Kol Andre H Kritzinger Cc: Bruno Martin ; The Lake's ; Leith Paxton Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2013 10:09 PM Subject: Re: CGR 0-4-0ST of 1889 (TB & PE)

Hi Andre

The later Cape harbour locos are actually quite straightforward but Holland rather muddied the waters by getting them all mixed up with the construction locos which he also called "Harbour Locos".

My key sources are;
 * SAR Rolling Stock Registers (two versions located at - SAR Museum and SAR "Anker Building" Centurion)
 * Black Hawthorn Works List (Allan Baker published Industrial Locomotive Society 1988)
 * Peckett Works List (Published Industrial Railway Society)
 * Harbour Board Reports

The first 3'6" gauge lines in Table Bay are believed to date from 1881 as that was when the CGR were converting from Standard. BH 648 was the first loco built to 3'6" gauge and it was ordered 28 July 1881 with 3 month delivery promised so it likely arrived in CT towards the end of 1881.
 * Table Bay

Of the BH/CF locos listed as your "1889 Class" ALL were initially delivered to Table Bay (although some later went to Port Elizabeth and Mossel Bay but only in SAR days). Your caption for the 14 photo thus needs amending.

The 7'0" gauge locos were actually slightly different in having 11x17 cylinders compared with the 10x17 of the 3'6" gauge locos.

It seems SAR didn't really know what to do with these locos when they took them over as they initially stored the 11 survivors (only 12 locos seem to have passed to CGR of these No. 9 went to Mossel Bay, and does not seem to have been allocated an SAR number). Although Nos 10-17 were allocated SAR numbers 010-017 its not clear if any actually carried these, the last in service, No. 14 always seems to have carried that number as it was photographed as such at PE in the 1930s. One query is whether Nos 5 and 8 were actually rebuilt to 3'6" gauge or were they just stored from 1904 (when the 7'0" gauge closed) until disposed of.

Your dates and distribution also need amending, the list should read as follows;

BH 642               4.1881        Table Bay 4        7'0" Gauge        Scrapped by 1904 (or possibly sent to East London), does not seem to have been taken over by CGR BH 646                7.1881        Table Bay 5        7'0" Gauge        Possibly rebuilt to 3'6" after 1904. Sold as scrap Salt River 5/1913 BH 648                7.1881        Table Bay 6        3'6" Gauge        Sold as scrap, Salt River 5/1913 BH1005               12.1889        Table Bay 1        3'6" Gauge        sold or scrapped by 1908 (does not seem to have been taken over by CGR) BH1021                8.1890        Table Bay 7        3'6" Gauge        Scrapped Salt River 10/1935 BH1079               12.1892        Table Bay 8        7'0" Gauge        Possibly rebuilt to 3'6" after 1904. Sold for scrap to Vaggens & Co 5/1907 (did not pass to CGR) BH1083               3.1893        Table Bay 9        3'6" Gauge        Transferred to Mossel Bay 5/1912 - Scrapped Uitenhage 12/1916 BH1128                10.1895        Table Bay 10        3'6" Gauge        Transferred to PE after 1908 - Scrapped Uitenhage 10/1935 BH1129               10.1895        Table Bay 11        3'6" Gauge        Scrapped Salt River 10/1935 CF1149                3.1897        Table Bay 12        3'6" Gauge        Scrapped Salt River 3/1929 CF1152               5.1897        Table Bay 13        3'6" Gauge        Scrapped Salt River 2/192 CF1168                7.1898        Table Bay 14        3'6" Gauge        Transferred to PE after 1908 - Scrapped Uitenhage 8/1938 CF1169               7.1898        Table Bay 15        3'6" Gauge        Sold to Lourenco Marques Forwarding Agency, LM Docks 3/1913 CF1170                7.1898        Table Bay 16        3'6" Gauge        Scrapped Salt River 3/1929 CF1171               7.1898        Table Bay 17        3'6" Gauge        Scrapped Salt River 10/1935

Note: the BH works records show the order date (shown above) with promised delivery (usually about 3 months later), hence the dates that were shown on the worksplates may differ in one or two cases from dates ordered. For example 1005 likely plated 1890 and 1079 likely plated 1893 as plates would be dated for ex-works dates.

As noted above Table Bay 10 and 14 came here, probably in SAR days and lasted until 1935 and 1938 respectively.
 * Port Elizabeth Locos

The PEHB BH/CF locos were larger than the Table Bay ones, with 12 x 18 cylinders and 3'0" wheels. Although the first four locos are shown in BH records as numbers 1-4, the locos were allocated letters by 1901 (listed as such in the 1901 Harbour Board Report).

On the BH-CF-HC relationship, CF took over BH in 1896 but CF closed down completely in 1902 (it wasn't taken over by HC - they just completed the last few orders).

BH1104               8.1894                PEHB 1 later D                CGR 1015 / SAR 01015 -        Scrapped Uitenhage 2/1932 BH1108               11.1894                PEHB 2 later E                CGR 1016 / SAR 01016 -        Scrapped Uitenhage 1/1930 BH1109               11.1894                PEHB 3         later F                CGR 1017 / SAR 01017 - To Mossel Bay Harbour, 6/1914; scrapped Uitenhage 12/1920 BH1126               9.1895                PEHB 4 later G                To Port Alfred 1904 returned by 1910 - CGR 1018 / SAR 01018 - Scrapped Uitenhage 8/1928 CF1207               12.1900                PEHB K                CGR 1019 / SAR 01019 - Scrapped Uitenhage 8/1921 CF1208               12.1900                PEHB L                        CGR 1020 / SAR 01020 - Scrapped Uitenhage 9/1929 HC 616               2.1902                PEHB M                CGR 1021 / SAR 01021 - Sold to Rhodesian Rlys 7/1929 HC 617               2.1902                PEHB N                CGR 1022 / SAR 01022 - Scrapped Uitenhage 3/1919

Note: The last two were ordered as CF 1213-14 but completed by Hudswell Clark after CF closed down, they were ex-works from HC in 7.1902.

You mention the first three locos, this is where it gets more complicated. The builders details in the Rolling Stock Register as published by Holland are incorrect. There could be several reasons for this but most likely they were old locos that had received new boilers or other parts, the dates and builders of which were then entered in the Registers.

The first PEHB loco was built by Fox Walker (a Class W 0-4-0ST with 12" cylinders) this was ex-works in December 1876 but only landed in PE in April 1877 - it was Fox Walker 330 of 1876. The records of the Crown Agents do not show any further deliveries to the PEHB before 1883, but a second loco was taken on (possibly secondhand) since the Harbour Board Report for 1891 shows two locos, described as one smaller than the other, the second loco has not been identified but was possibly one of the CGR construction locos purchased secondhand.

The 1895 Report refers to 5 locos with a 6th on order - presumably the first two plus BH Nos 1-4.

The 1901 Report refers to 12 locos - with A, B, E, F, H, K noted by letter, and stating that two new locos had been delivered during 1901 (presumably K and L).

The 1902 Report refers to 14 locos - presumably A to N.

The first two locos presumably became A and B. The third loco C is thought to be a 0-4-0ST built by Lowca Engineering (232 of 1898). Lowca were the successors to Fletcher Jennings and Lowca 232 first went to Table Bay where it is believed to have been No. 3 (replacing an earlier 3), it was likely transferred to PE before 1901.

A and B are listed as "Peckett" in the Rolling Stock Register, however, the Peckett works list is well documented and there are absolutely no locos that fit unless they were secondhand. Fox Walker had gone into liquidation in 1878 and was taken over by Peckett (who had not previously built locos). Pecketts supplied mainly the UK market and the vast majority of locos were standard gauge. Indeed the first 3'6" gauge loco was for South Africa - but for a Natal Colliery and has been photographed there so isn't a PEHB loco. However, Peckett could have provided spares if not a new boiler for FW 330. Peckett often used their name on prominent castings such as buffers and thus if fitted with Peckett spares the FW may have been described as a "Peckett" when SAR wanted to list it and din't know its history. The second loco is harder to explain, there are no other FW or Peckett locos it could have been, unless one of the old CGR construction locos had perhaps received new Peckett parts at the same time.

The scrap dates for these three are as follows A to CGR 1013 to SAR 01013               Scrapped Uitenhage 1/1918 B to CGR 1014 to SAR 01014               Scrapped Uitenhage 5/1912 C to CGR 1015 to SAR 01015               Scrapped Uitenhage 6/1913

This still leaves H, I, J and O to explain - as previously discussed I and J are 2-6-0ST with O being the 1903 new build Kitson 4245.

H must have been an old loco as it was scrapped before 1908 although there is a gap in the CGR/ SAR numbering for it (1023 / 01023), it could have been another 2-6-0ST.

There is one further mystery loco, in 1903 the Harbour Board Report refers to purchasing a small engine secondhand from Despatch Brickworks. Only one loco is known there - Andrew Barclay 234 of 1881, a 0-4-0ST which had been new to the brickworks. There is no gap in the PEHB numbering for it, unless it replaced one of the older locos A, B or C and thus became one of CGR 1013-1015. It seems unlikely it could have been H since that loco was already in service in 1901.

Hope this all helps

Kind Regards John

Included here for record purposes. André Kritzinger (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hawthorn Leslie of 1904
From: John Nicholas Middleton To: Kol Andre H Kritzinger Cc: Bruno Martin ; The Lake's ; Leith Paxton Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2013 11:34 PM Subject: Missing 0-4-0ST of 1904

Andre Table Bay had one additional loco that you have not described

No. 29 was an 0-4-0ST built by Hawthorn Leslie 2567 of 1904, it was allocated SAR 029 and was scrapped at Salt River in 10/1935.

Regards John

Included here for record purposes. André Kritzinger (talk) 00:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)