Renumbering locomotives...

[Trev]

...as scrapped classmates.

There is an interesting little snippet in Novembers 'Railways Illustrated' about this practice.

For instance, EE Type 1 no 20001 was to be renumbered as scrapped 20004 for the September gala at Butterley, whilst 50049 Defiance was renumbered/renamed 50012 Benbow for a trip to Scotland in June.

Does anyone have any views on this? I'm in two minds about it myself. On the one hand I can see that the owners of the locos want to maximise the revenue that they get from their charges, but then there is a part of me (probably a leftover from my spotting days!) which holds that a locos identity is fixed for all time when it's given its first number and name. I even have trouble thinking about TOPS numbering, and still think of the locos concerned in their pre-TOPS numbers.

Any views?

[swisstrains]

I tend to agree with you Trev.
However, I don't think we could argue too strongly against the practice as the Big Four changed the identities of several locos for various reasons.
Do you know of any examples of B.R. doing it?

[Trev]

Originally Posted by swisstrains

However, I don't think we could argue too strongly against the practice as the Big Four changed the identities of several locos for various reasons.

That's a good point. But the big four changed identities for what could be loosely termed 'operational reasons' such as exhibitions, special trains etc. It just seems a bit odd to do it with preserved locos. I just don't really see the point. I can quite understand why its done, but there is a little bit of me that somehow feels it's wrong. Silly I suppose, 'cos it doesn't do any harm. Like I say, I think it's probably a residue of my old trainspotting instincts. I reckon that subconciously I still need to know the true identity of a loco, just in case I haven't seen it before, and feel that if they can renumber one, then they can do it to 'em all. And then where would we be!

[Gandalf]

Is the B1 Mayflower just such an example of preserved loco number/name changing?
John

[Trev]

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Is the B1 Mayflower just such an example of preserved loco number/name changing?

Yeah, that's a good one John. Mayflower was actually 61379, and 61306 never carried a name. So why put the name on a loco that never carried it? In a way, it's even dafter than renumbering a loco to the identity of a scrapped classmate. Why not just renumber 61306 to 61379 'Mayflower' and go the whole hog?

On the other hand, 45305 was at one time named 'Alderman A.E. Draper' after the owner of Drapers Yard here in Hull. The Black 5 was the only loco Draper saved, and as the name had not been carried by anything else, I didn't really mind that, even though the engine was never named when owned by the LMS or BR.

[GWR9600]

Numbers were changed by BR and its successors on its Diesels all the time just look at some class 47s had two numbers then became a Clas 57!!! Also the class 91s were originally 91/0s then became 91/1s and then reverted back to 91/0s I think. So why should it be any different for preserved engines?

[Trev]

Originally Posted by GWR9600

Numbers were changed by BR and its successors on its Diesels all the time just look at some class 47s had two numbers then became a Clas 57!!! Also the class 91s were originally 91/0s then became 91/1s and then reverted back to 91/0s I think. So why should it be any different for preserved engines?

I see your point, but the number changes to diesels were due to reclassification and/or rebuilding. If a 57 was ever preserved (for instance), then I would have no problem with it retaining its 57 series number. The only problem I would have is if its number was changed to that of a different , scrapped, Class 57.