Talk:Table Bay Harbour 0-4-0T

Table Bay Harbour construction locomotives
The following are emails with additional information and arguments received from John Middleton:

From: John Nicholas Middleton To: Andre H Kritzinger Sent: 17 September 2013 08:27 PM Subject: Re: Table Bay Harbour Board 0-4-0WT / 0-4-0T

Andre Sorry to do this to you again but the TB pages need some re-working ! We have evidence of two Broad Gauge locos BEFORE the 1874 one and seven in total. I would suggest doing them altogether rather than splitting them as 0-4-0T / 0-4-0WT as otherwise it gets far too complicated !

The first Broad Gauge loco arrived on the ship "Navarino" on 2 October 1862. We don't have a photo.

The second Broad Gauge loco is referred to on 19 July 1870 in a report in the Cape Argus stating that “the wagons, which are of iron, discharged their loads through a trap in the bottom, were hauled along several lines of railway by two engines, one of them constructed at the works and being the first locomotive made in South Africa”.

We know one of these locos was built by Henry Hughes (a predecessor of todays Brush Traction - see link) and was an 0-4-0ST and for a long while we thought the first loco was the Hughes. However, recent research seems to indicate Hughes only started building locos about 1867 and thus it may be that the second loco is the Hughes. It is inconceivable that the Table Bay Harbour workshops could have built a loco from scratch, more likely it came as a kit of parts and was assembled rather than being delivered complete, which is probably what is meant by the "first locomotive made in South Africa". The second loco is also not mentioned in the Harbour Board minutes which is rather odd - especially since building / assembling it seems to have been considered newsworthy.

Henry Hughes and Co

Harbour Board minutes reflect that locomotive wheels were shipped to the Harbour Board in late 1863 and “castings” in late 1864, whether these were spare parts or parts for the second engine is unknown. There is a painting by Otto Lansberg of the breakwater under construction in 1869 showing a side or well tank locomotive at work. Since the Hughes locomotive was a saddle tank, this again seems to confirm two locomotives were here prior to 1870.

The third locomotive was Fletcher Jennings 128 of 1874 and the Harbour Board minutes of the time record the Hughes loco as the "spare locomotive" once the FJ arrived. However, there are also references to the second locomotive, which had presumably been scrapped by this time.

The fourth locomotive was Fletcher Jennings 169 of 1879 (your page shows it as Black Hawthorn)

Following this were Black Hawthorn 642 and 646 of 1881 and 1079 of 1893 all 0-4-0ST.

Numbering: The only confirmed numbers were the three BH which were Table Bay Nos 4, 5 and 8 and a FJ which was No.2 in 1904.

The first 3'6" gauge loco was No. 6 (BH 648 of 1881) and therefore the numbers 1-3 were presumably used for the four Broad Gauge locos in use prior to 1881. Nos 1 and 3 were later "re-used" for 3'6" gauge locos built in 1890 and 1898 and thus it is reasonable to deduce that the original Nos 1 and 3 were scrapped by those dates. One of the FJ locos was still in use in 1904 and was No. 2 - assumed but not conclusive that this was FJ 128. The other FJ is assumed to be No. 3.

It seems probable that the Hughes loco which was still extant in 1874 was by then No. 1 and thus the only question is how the numbering worked before 1874 when FJ 128 arrived, we have no hard evidence of the numbers prior to 1881 but the original two locos may have been 1 and 2 with some renumbering when FJ 128 arrived and took No. 2.

On closure of the Broad gauge Nos 5 and 8 were rebuilt to 3'6" gauge but 4 disappeared, either scrapped or possibly to East London as suggested earlier.

By the way - on wider than 3'6" gauge locos - I presume you are aware that Simonstown Dockyard was built 1901-1910 with a 4'8 1/2" gauge railway and at least 8 locos are known but all returned to the UK on completion of the construction.

Hope this helps

John

Posted here for reference by André Kritzinger (talk) 23:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * From: John Nicholas Middleton
 * To: Andre H Kritzinger
 * Sent: 21 September 2013 02:33 AM
 * Subject: Re: Table Bay Harbour Board 0-4-0WT / 0-4-0T


 * Andre


 * I think we should be careful with the first two, either could be the Hughes (the 1867 start date may be wrong) and the Otto Lansberg painting could also be either. All we know for certain is that the Hughes was an 0-4-0ST so presumably the Lansberg painting was the other one.


 * From: "Andre H Kritzinger"
 * Sent: 09/21/2013 03:16 AM ZE2
 * To: John Nicholas Middleton
 * Subject: Re: Table Bay Harbour Board 0-4-0WT / 0-4-0T


 * Hi John,


 * If the Brush article on Wikipedia is correct about Hughes being established in 1865, then the second loco has to be the Hughes. See: Hughes's Locomotive & Tramway Engine Works


 * From: John Nicholas Middleton
 * To: Andre H Kritzinger
 * Sent: 21 September 2013 01:34 PM
 * Subject: Re: Table Bay Harbour Board 0-4-0WT / 0-4-0T


 * With this type of ancient history we do have to be careful unless we have hard photographic evidence or actual archive material. The Brush article may be right but conflicts with Frank Jux (one of UKs foremost researchers) who originally said the 1862 loco was the Hughes. A possibility is the 1862 loco was built by Hughes before the Hughes company was formed. I think we should leave it open. The evidence infers 2 locos before 1870 (although the lack of mention in Harbour Board Reports of the second loco remains a nagging doubt), there is hard archive reference to a Hughes 0-4-0ST and the Hughes is referenced in Harbour Board Reports. The Lansberg painting suggests a side or well tank but its a painting not a photo and artistic licence could be a factor. In doing this type of research one has to be very very careful of not representing assumptions as fact as future historians will read it as fact. This is a problem with Hollands books in places, Dusty Durrant in particular made a lot of false assumptions which are in print in books and SA Rail and of course are assumed as fact by many. We need to get the info out there but we just need to be careful in how we phrase unproven data. Cheers John

Posted here for reference by André Kritzinger (talk) 13:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Dating the opening of Hughes Works
The following is another email received from John Middleton:

From: John Nicholas Middleton To: Andre H Kritzinger Sent: 07 October 2013 04:47 PM Subject: Table Bay 7'0" Gauge Locos

Andre

Just to show that new data is always coming in, yesterday the latest edition of the Industrial Locomotive Society Magazine plopped through my letterbox.

In it, Frank Jux (who else !!) has an interesting piece (nothing to do with South Africa) about a Broad Gauge contractors locomotive supplied by Henry Hughes in September 1863 for the construction of the Camarthan & Cardigan Railway in Wales. However, what this does show is that Hughes was building locomotives in 1863 which pre-dates the 1867 quoted elsewhere. Thus it seems entirely possible that, as Frank Jux originally thought, the first Table Bay loco was a product of Hughes. I suggest you remove the 1867 reference in your page on these locos, as its clearly incorrect.

Kind Regards

John

Posted here for reference. André Kritzinger (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)