That's an interesting observation, Simon, and you are right. We owe a debt of gratitude to John Betjeman for highlighting the risk to our architectural heritage. I wonder if the Great Hall could have survived the development boom that's been London since Euston was first rebuilt. Was the Doric Arch a huge loss? Well, whether you are a fan or not the failure to retain it either there or moved elsewhere was an act of vandalism.
Rant over (temporarily!)
Yorkie Dave - From my own personal memory I can say that I never saw a loco with no cabside number (except on the WR) or without a totem although I know that the totems or "BRITISH RAILWAYS" were not always applied to locos overhauled immediately after nationalisation. Neither did I ever see a totem painted out Tony - after all what would be the point of doing so? Even those locos without totems on the Western Region retained GWR on the tanks up to withdrawal but I never saw a tender loco sporting GWR until we reached the stage where a few had been preserved (including Clun Castle which never carried "GWR" when in service being built in 1950). There's no doubt, though, that the Midland Region sent their most worn out examples to the ex GCR lines.
You are quite correct, Tony, that the resolution of these images is something of a compromise. They'll make decent prints up to A4 size and have all been scanned in the belief that they'll be viewed on WT at full screen size for which they seem adequate. However, I have the advantage of the TIFF original scans
and I can confirm that the 9F does indeed have a cab side number and the 2-6-0 has a totem. In both cases the locos are in such appallingly filthy external condition in combination with the lighting at the time of the photos any numbers or external details are very difficult to detect. I'd be most interested to see any examples of locos without cabside numbers or totems in the later BR era though. (That excludes the Western Region, of course, where most locos had their cab side plates removed to avoid them being "repatriated"). Having said that I certainly have pictures of locos towards the end of steam which left works with no lining or decoration. In respect of the difficulty in determining details here's a JPEG from an original TIFF of the 2-6-0 and you'll see what I was dealing with, so it's possible I've smudged out any cabside info in trying to cover up the scratches.
(Tim and I used to joke about images like this, as I often accused him of keeping them lying around in his sock drawer.)
Yorkie Dave again - that photo of your dad's is a cracker in demonstrating how "decorations" for want of a better word can be lost due to lighting conditions in photography. The absence of any decoration on the tank side was also replicated elsewhere, certainly on locos leaving Ashford Works (I seem to remember but would have to check) at one time soon after nationalisation and your photo shows that it wasn't only Ashford.
Roger. Once again thank you for your research regarding this loco. I saw a number of the ex M & GN 2-6-0s at Eastleigh in 1965, all without exception in very poor external condition except for one which was going through works (43007 although 43106 looking disgraceful was in the shed yard and obviously subsequently went through the works). I suspect they were there for assessment to determine whether they were worth repairing. However, the bigger part of your post is of interest to me as it conflicts with the details I have gleaned from the Stephenson Locomotive Society. (As you may have noticed, having been roundly criticised by Mickoo for failing to quote the reference for the details attributed to each of the photos in view of their potential importance as historic documents I now try to do so). The SLS advises:
New to New England 31 December 1950
Allocated to Neasden 14 April 1951
Cambridge 11 September 1954
Melton Constable 13 July 1957
Cambridge 5 October 1957
Kings Lynn 30 November 1957
March 26 November 1960
Sheffield Grimesthorpe 4 March 1961
New England 5 August 1961
Staveley (Barrow Hill) 4 July 1964
Langwith Junction 9 October 1965
Withdrawn 14 November 1965
So certainly an M & GN loco at one time although the allocations don't match those you suggest. How we determine which may be correct (and is it really important having established and agreed about the allocation within the confines of the M & GN) I'm now unsure but it would be helpful to know where your details come from. My Locoshed Books, although I don't have a full run of them, generally agree with the SLS data.
So there's a couple of rabbit holes we've taken ourselves down. What fun! Please add any further thoughts or comments.
Hopefully I'll get to put up some more photos a bit later. That was my intention when I started this post but I got rather carried away...
Brian