0riginal Central London Railway locomotives

What authoritative source is this recorded in please ?

--
Nick

Thanks ...

... but I wonder, then, where they got that data from. That is a ??1970s?? book referring to an event of ~70 years previously?


There is, of course, a reason I am asking the question about these locos


Before anyone shoots me down, I'll state what I post below is no less evidence - albeit coincidental evidence - than "they've been scrapped" is anecdotal evidence without citation.


The CLR locos were supplied by General Electric of USA.

GE of USA supplied electric locos to mining railways in Chile.


The full CLR EMU service displacing those locos was mid 1903.


In 1904 - El Teniente in Chile - one biggest copper mines and allegedly the worlds biggest underground copper mine - scaled up dramatically from a human digging + animal haulage operation to large scale mechanisation of production and transport.





Take a look at the first 2 photo images here (you'll maybe get advert pop-ups to cancel)


resmy.fortunecity.com/teniente.htm




There is a striking resemblance between those mines locos and the CLR locos.


I am fully aware centre cab / sloping bonnet ("steeple cab") electric locos were the in thing at that time especially from GE of USA .


But look at the overall proportions, with images of the CLR side by side, the length c.f. the bonnet slope angle . The cab roof is lower and of different profile, and the cab bulkhead windows are different that is clear. But look at the cab sides - seems to me to be vertical to the same height on both types. Could they be the same thing ? A rebuild ? Even if the gauge is different they could be rebuilds.

I've been delving into old electric locos world wide for 20+ years now, and I'm used to seeing all sorts of shapes and sizes and variations on a theme, but right at first sight of the El Teniente locos the CLR came to mind right away, I even thought they *were* CLR images at first glance.

I made this link 5 years or more ago, and been digging and delving and coming up with nada. I don't like posting theories like this without more substantial evidence as its all to easy open to uninformed comment. But this is one I now want to seek opinion on.


Is it just remotely maybe might be possible that in 1903 some (or even all) the CLR locos made their way back to GE and were modified for El Teniente ?


The CLR locos would have had to have been specially built for the CLR tunnel profile, and not the tube tunnels built to meet a standard design of mines loco. Or, why would GE (and I am convinced they are GE) build mines locos to the same profile as CLR ? One answer is because they had the design already, but then they are clones, and therefore of equal interest.


So far I've not been able to find any technical gen on those El Teniente locos, even in spanish resources, and I read it reasonably well enough (although it was portugues I learnt, it was BR-PT).


Even if not, if those Chilean locos are 1904 built, surely they must be closely linked to the CLR machines ?


--
Nick

That's brilliant if there is a set-in-stone link!

I'm pleased - and amazed - someone knows what I'm talking about.

I'd be very interested to know of that book if you can find the time.

When I find the time - which is the main problem for me too - I was going to delve through academic library papers and journals, having failed so far to find anything using on line index resources - but maybe thats because what I'm looking for is too specific to have been indexed. Quite apart from any possible CLR connection, I want to know about the El Teniente machines on their own.

But, the way I see it, surely if the only differences are bogies, bogie height, bogie framing, and twin-air all that can be dealt with in a rebuild, one that would be less extensive that that originally planned for all of Met. 1-10/11-20 ? - and theres no reason why the maker could not pass them off as new by merely not mentioning their history.


--
Nick

Initially they had the motors as part of the axle (gearless), the same arrangement as the C&SL locomotives. This meant that three quarters of the 44 ton weight was unsprung. This caused considerable problems with vibration that led to their early withdrawal and replacement by MU stock. But before this 3 of the locomotives were experimentally converted to geared drive but this did not completely eliminate the vibration problem. The entire fleet had been withdrawn from passenger service by 1903 and all except the 3 modified locos and one original loco had been withdrawn and by 1906 had been disposed of. Of the remaining four two of the modified locos went to the Metropolitan for experimental purposes and the other two were kept as yard shunters at Wood Green depot.
The two locomotives that went to the Metropolitan were used for regenerative braking experiments and were scrapped in 1915. The one remaining original 'gearless' locomotive was scrapped in the 1920's leaving # 12 as the sole remaining example. The other locomotives were scrapped in 1906.
An attempt was made to sell them for industrial use but as I said this was unsuccessful but it is probable that components were recovered for further use.
The El Teniente locos are similar to the CLR locos but are certainly not those, which is is not surprising as the CLR locos were based on a mine loco. A very similar loco also operated on the Harton mine system here in the UK (Harton # 9 built by AEG).

But all of the above - while interesting to those others readers who may not know this subject - is all about the lives with CLR including the 3 which lingered, whereas my question was entirely about possible lives of the *other* 25. My question was and still is "28 built. Never mind the reasons for their demise. Initially 3 retained, then just one, no.12 which became L21 scrapped 1942. What happened to the other 25 ?"



You say "certainly not those" - what evidence do you have for this, or know of, from authoritative sources ?

I also fail to see the connection with any Harton machine.

--
Nick

There is no record of these locomotives after 1906 except the four mentioned above. These locomotives were of a unique design for a specific purpose and despite their newness would be difficult to find a buyer. The most likely scenario is that they were all scrapped/dismantled for parts. The answer you are looking for could well be buried in the archives not only of LT but of GEC in the USA who made them.

I agree ...

... and that alone is a puzzle. Even if no good to anyone else and scrapped, they did so by vanishing without trace. 100-110 years ago I know, but you look at other items of stock, and beyond railways, you find records or comments over time like "broken up in 19xx at site XYX" or "bought by xxx for scrap and taken away by traction engine and scrapped at ABC".

For these nothing. When I see things like this I challenge. and when the only word usually used is sale (rather than scrap), and however it is described is without further qualification, no date, no name, no location, I ask questions.

Cynical me could hypothesise that some one back in time either did not know what happened or asked a mate at the depot, and someone wrote scrapped. And ever since that has been reproduced (party because there is nothing else to say) any time anything is ever written about them. But it could be incorrect.

The El Teniente connection is probably a wild goose chase - but I think everyone would agree there is an uncanny resemblence and they date from the same period.

--
Nick

What guage are the lines at el Teniente? most Chilean railways are either irish (5'3") or narrow gauge.

Even aside of the gauging issue, surely shipping these locos back across the Atlantic and round Cape Horn (this was pre-Panama Canal) would have cost more than supplying new ones from GE in the USA?

Camel back designs were not uncommon in that era.

They have probably been stolen by scrap metal thieves and were taken to China. Such as all the signal cabling which was taken from the Hessle area overninght so has completely ggubered all the rail services in the East Riding this a.m.

It would be difficult if not impossible to 'narrow' the gauge of the CLR locos because the armatures were mounted on the axle as part of the 'gearless' drive. This method of drive was already becoming obsolete due to the advent of geared drive which was made possible by improved materials and manufacturing techniques.

From (hazy) memory of the GA, there would have been plenty of scope to narrow the gauge, certainly by 7¼".

Just to go back to that point, El Teniente uses multiple gauges, and "standard gauge" i.e. 4 ft 8.1/2 in is one of them on surface tracks.


Way off topic, but to prove the point, the most modern El Teniente locos - the 8 big BoBo supplied by Schalker Eisenhütte Machinenfabrik
145.253.78.178/pdf/mining-locomotive01.pdf
are "standard gauge".


El Teniente is an internal mining railway, not part of the Chile national network, no need for connection, no need for same gauge, so all the suggestions of 5 ft 3 in and 3 ft 6 in are based on incorrect assumptions. They may well use those gauges, but not for "thats what Chile uses" reasons.

IIMU understanding 4 ft 8.1/2 in was selected for - and still used - on a lot of their surface lines is because the mine was mechanised by US engineers using US supplied kit - GE was in right at the start - so used the gauge they already worked with.

It is academic now anyway, as posted above it seems the scrapping of CLR locos in 1905/1906 is documented in an authoritative record, one that no-one previously had been able to cite.

--
Nick

The two machines that 'went to the Raworth company' were those that are recorded as going to the Metropolitan. Raworth carried out the experiments with rheostatic braking for the Metropolitan.