Prototype Tim Mills' Photos

[Roger Pound]

I had wondered about the last digit on the "Mystery Princess Royal" being a seven, but the nameplate doesn't look big enough for "Princess Arthur of Connaught" - or perhaps that is only the bracket for it, as by then nameplates were frequently removed when a loco was put in store. There just seemed a vertical aspect of the downward stroke of the digit making it appear straight. Of course, the whole thing is affected by the viewing angle. I understand 46207 was withdrawn on 25 Nov 61, so it could have been at Crewe at the time of the photograph, although nominally an 8A engine.

I must admit that I had a particular liking for 46207 - she was the first of the class I ever saw - excluding the 'Turbomotive' which had passed through a little earlier the same day. That was way back in the late 'Forties'..........

I hope there is something of interest here, even if my thoughts are "way off beam".

Roger

 

[oldravendale]

Thanks again Grahame @Dog Star . You have a nose for these inaccuracies, don't you, for which I'm eternally grateful? That was a combination of finger trouble and "failing to check my work" - again! Scrap date was actually June 1968 which I'll now correct.

Martin @Martin Shaw . Thanks for clarifying the date of allocation to Crewe South for 44679. Also for the precise details for 48345. Both added to the accompanying notes for these locos.

Thanks for your comments Roger @Roger Pound. Sorry to disappoint, but 46207 was at Willesden in store without nameplates at the least between 25th March 1961 and 18th June 1961. It was reinstated in August 1961 at Camden so if the date of the photo at Crewe as 7th May 1961 is correct, and I accept that can always be questioned, it can't be 46207.

 

[Roger Pound]

Thanks for your comments Roger @Roger Pound. Sorry to disappoint, but 46207 was at Willesden in store without nameplates at the least between 25th March 1961 and 18th June 1961. It was reinstated in August 1961 at Camden so if the date of the photo at Crewe as 7th May 1961 is correct, and I accept that can always be questioned, it can't be 46207.

Thank you Brian - it was just a surmise based on aged eyes and a personal whim, to be honest. I am indeed obliged for the additional information regarding 46207.

I regret that I find the depths one can plumb in this electronic age into railway research is now beyond both my skill set and patience, these days. I guess senility has set in, .

Roger .