I was surprised by the answer!
Basically total guesswork; but trying to deduce as regards likely traction -- am plumping for "surprisingly late", rather than ditto "early": 1903 ?
I was surprised by the answer!
A reasonable guess, a bit closer, but not correct.Basically total guesswork; but trying to deduce as regards likely traction -- am plumping for "surprisingly late", rather than ditto "early": 1903 ?
1900 is correct. The first line, from Porte Maillot to Port de Vincennes, opened on 19 July 1900. One of the reasons for the relatively late opening was the wrangling between the City of Paris and the French state.Let's try ... 1900?
I'm afraid not.Were they all the last member of their class to be withdrawn?
No, not that, either; sorry.Month of construction?
Ah, thank you .. guesses are sometimes right after all!
What have the following locos have in common, other than all having been preserved from Barry Scrapyard?
BR Standard 9F 2-20-0 No. 92207
GWR 4575 Class 2-6-2T No. 4588
LMS Stanier 8F 2-8-0 No. 48151
SR Maunsell S15 4-6-0 No. 30828
Thanks.
Ah, thank you .. guesses are sometimes right after all!
What have the following locos have in common, other than all having been preserved from Barry Scrapyard?
BR Standard 9F 2-20-0 No. 92207
GWR 4575 Class 2-6-2T No. 4588
LMS Stanier 8F 2-8-0 No. 48151
SR Maunsell S15 4-6-0 No. 30828
Thanks.
You have it, well done ... these are the names:Is it something like they’ve all carried names since being preserved?
Yes, that would be interesting, wouldn't it ... ? Sorry, that's not right - see above.Now, a 2-20-0 I would like to see!
Pulled the first train on a preserved line, or part of one?
Sorry, that's also not right - see above.The first of their class to run in preservation?
You have it, well done ... these are the names:
BR Standard 9F 2-10-0 No. 92207 "Morning Star"
GWR 4575 Class 2-6-2T No. 4588 "Trojan"
LMS Stanier 8F 2-8-0 No. 48151 "Gauge O Guild"
SR Maunsell S15 4-6-0 No. 30828 "Harry A Firth"
Your turn in the Pattern Shop, sir!
Yes, that would be interesting, wouldn't it ... ? Sorry, that's not right - see above.
Sorry, that's also not right - see above.
No not that I’m afraid. Far more of a visual thing…Is their current owner a different person(s) than the one(s) who bought them for preservation?
No not that.Were they all taken into preservation in working order?
Do they all carry a livery they never wore in service?
Next up...
What is the connection between the following:
1, 7, 22, 50, 119, 122, 401
I think it might be pioneers?
1 - 44001
7 - not sure. D5300 maybe?
22 - D9000
50 - D400
119 - D6700
122 - D200
401 - D1500
Is it locos moving into gaps in tje series when renumbeted for TOPS:
D9000 became 55022
D400 became 50050
D6700 became 37119
D200 became 40122
D1500 became 47401
Not sure about the others, although 1 did become 44001. Unless 7 was the Vale of Rheidol loco which was ?
Both correct, but @Cowley got there first. So back over to you.
Yes , 26007 was D5300, and 50 is also applicable to D8000 / 20050, btw.
Autocoach provision? (Absent on the latter)A fairly simple one. What was the main difference between the GWR 4800 and 5800 classes introduced in 1932 and 1933?
Correct. The 4800 Class 0-4-2T were fitted to work push-pull with autocoaches, while the otherwise almost identical 5800 lacked this feature. The 4800s were renumbered to 14XX in 1946.Autocoach provision? (Absent on the latter)