Re: Unidentified locomotive


Frank Stamford
 

Hello Bruce,

The vertical boilered locomotive in the Tasmanian
Transport Museum is identified, and was described
in an article in "Light Railways" No.175, January
2004. It was built by Oliver & Co. Chesterfield,
England in 1889. Its first owner appears to have
been Tyler & Co. of Ida Bay, who took delivery of
such a locomotive in 1890. The unidentified
vertical boiler loco also appears to have first
belonged to Tylere & Co. since it answers the
description of a log hauler/locomotive built for
them by Kennedy & Son, Hobart. The similarity of
the two units might not be co-incidental. Kennedy
& Son may perhaps have used the Oliver & Co.
locomotive as a model. That would seem logical.

Regards,

Frank

At 10:33 AM 26/04/2010, you wrote:


Gents,

You may wish to contact the Tasmanian Transport Museum for more information
on a potential solution to this question. Back in 1988, I designed a new
welded-construction replacement vertical boiler for a loco similar to that
shown in the photos (which I believe was actually built to get it running),
so they may be able to assist with this. The vertical boilered loco that I
designed the new boiler for was very similar to that shown in the photos.
Hope this is of some help.

Kind regards,

Bruce Rankin

From:
<mailto:LRRSA%40yahoogroups.com.au>LRRSA@yahoogroups.com.au
[mailto:LRRSA@yahoogroups.com.au] On Behalf
Of Frank Stamford
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 9:40 AM
To: <mailto:LRRSA%40yahoogroups.com.au>LRRSA@yahoogroups.com.au
Subject: Re: [LRRSA] Re: Unidentified locomotive

Hello John,

At 09:21 PM 25/04/2010, you wrote:


Dear Frank,

I would respectfully suggest that Scott Clennett's information may be in
error,
I do not think you comment is justified.

The only information I quoted from Scott Clennett's book was:

"Scott Clennett in his forthcoming book, says that there is a
suggestion this log-hauler/loco went to Chesterman's at Raminea."

He does not make any statement of fact, he is reporting a suggestion,
and certainly makes no claim to it being fact.

And indeed there were a few things "of note" in his recent LRRSA article
that may bear further inspection...
You need to back up your assertion with facts, otherwise it is not
helpful. You could say exactly the same thing of my recent writings
in "Light Railways" and your statement would be just as true but
equally unhelpful.

In a previous email on this subject I said:

"It is unfortunate that the most active and knowledgeable Tasmanian
timber tramway specialists are apparently not members of this Yahoo
Group, as there input to these types of discussions would be valuable."

I think I had very good reason to say that. In both Victoria and
Tasmania there are only a handful of people seriously involved in
timber tramway research. In both states the subject is vast and in
many areas incredibly complicated, with layers upon layers of
succeeding operators, very limited written records, rapidly decaying
remnants - which in many cases are extremely difficult to access, few
living survivors of the era, and poorly identified photographs.

For around a quarter of a century now the Victorian researchers have
voluntarily formed themselves into a sort of loose team, because it
dawned on them that the subject was too complex to be handled on an
individual basis. Each member of the team selected an area to
specialise in. In the process of researching they often uncover
information relating to other areas. A process of sharing and
exchange of information was established and continues. In some cases
vast swathes of information changed hands because it could be made
better use of to others in the team. At times there was doubt about
who was covering small regions on the borders of areas being
researched by different people. In such cases discussions took place
to decide who was best placed to cover that region. At times one
person handed a region to another, because he felt it was a better
fit. When manuscripts are prepared for publication they are
voluntarily submitted to others in the team for review and critique.
As a result when a book is published it very rarely brings forth much
in the way of correspondence relating to errors.

That process has led to the publication of at least six major books
on Victorian timber tramways, and the subject is far from exhausted.

In the case of Tasmania I believe the subject is equally as extensive
and equally as complex. There is the potential for many major books,
far beyond the capacity for any one person to handle successfully.
Not just because of the size of the task, but much more so because of
the complexity and difficulty of finding information. So far there is
no equivalent of the "loose team" approach in Tasmania, and I am
convinced there is a need for it. It is extremely frustrating that we
do not have a team of co-operative knowledgeable reviewers to
critique the work of authors writing on Tasmanian timber tramways. In
the case of Scott's forthcoming book, it covers a very small area of
Tasmania, but one of daunting complexity. Ultimately there is enough
material in that small area for several major books. Scott's book
will be pioneering the way, and hopefully laying the foundations for
others to delve into a smaller area and produce more detailed
history. It is unreasonable for you to expect the book to be devoid
of all mistakes, there are mistakes in the books I have been involved
in: "Powelltown", and "Arsenic and Molasses", but I still think they
should have been published.

Regards,

Frank

Happy Researching and Modelling,

Aim to Improve,

Prof Klyzlr
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Join LRRSA@groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.