Talk:Cape Town Railway & Dock 0-4-0T

Blackie built as 0-4-0T

Some of the electronic paper trail needs to be stowed away here for possible future reference during edits of the Blackie article. The realisation that the locomotive began life as a 0-4-0T and not, as had always been thought, in the 0-4-2WT configuration it was preserved in, began with Littley's discovery of the accomanying picture, taken c. September 1861, and subsequent articles that were published by Littley and Dusty Durrant. (Both articles used as references on the article.)

The apparent second dome in the picture and the dome positions bothered me a little. Some of the email correspondence between John Middleton and myself that followed to clear up the mystery of the twin domes, follows below for future reference.

From: "Andre H Kritzinger"
To: "John Nicholas Middleton"
Date: 09/13/2013 04:31 PM
Subject: Re: The Cape Town Railway and Dock Company

Yes, Leith Paxton picked up the Blackie issue as well and sent me copies of the articles by Littley and Durrant. I'll tackle that in a day or so. One question I'd like your opinion on first, though: In the picture with Littley's article the locomotive appears to have two domes. Either that, or there were objects carried on top of the side tanks that obscured the single dome? What looks like the dome is visible between these two items.

The articles mention that the conversion was possibly in preparation for the work at Port Alfred. (I suppose it may also have been while it was repaired after ending up in the ditch when the Pickering contractors became upset.)

The flanges on the second drivers may then have been removed during the conversion as well, and not at Port Alfred...

From: John Nicholas Middleton
To: Andre H Kritzinger
Sent: 14 September 2013 03:25 PM
Subject: Re: The Cape Town Railway and Dock Company

BLACKIE is certainly an interesting topic. The rebuilding was quite significant and could of course have included a new boiler. In the Littley shot I would guess one dome is the steam dome and one is a sand dome, often put on top of boilers as a warm place to keep the sand dry. It was a common practice in the USA but not so much in the UK with its restricted loading gauge. Similarly in SA, sand box practice soon became running plate mounted rather than boiler mounted. The object between the domes could be the safety valves. I wonder if the original loco was top heavy - the rebuilding to a well tank suggests that it might have been.

From: "Andre H Kritzinger"
To: "John Nicholas Middleton"
Date: 09/14/2013 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: The Cape Town Railway and Dock Company

I thought it could be a sand dome as well, but when comparing the picture to present day shots of Blackie, the objects appear to be located further forward and backward respectively than the present dome. Also, the objects appear to be rectangular, not round. The object visible between them sits in the same position as the present-day dome and appears to be round.

A boiler change could explain it, but in 1861 the locomotive was not even two years old so it would be rather early for a boiler replacement.

From: John Nicholas Middleton
To: Andre H Kritzinger
Sent: 14 September 2013 04:58 PM
Subject: Re: The Cape Town Railway and Dock Company

Not sure - on the loco today the dome is mounted almost centrally between the axles and although the angle (front 3/4) on the 0-4-0T shot is difficult to tell it appears to be roughly the same. Sand domes can be square but having enlarged the photo, I wonder if the square boxes are actually on the side tank and could thus be tool boxes - they appear to be slightly offset from the dome. Finally we have no evidence of an 1861 rebuilding, it could be anytime between then and the shot at Port Alfred.

André Kritzinger (talk) 12:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cape Town Railway & Dock 0-4-0T. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111006025553/http://196.35.231.29/sahra/HeritageSitesDetail.aspx?id=12996 to http://196.35.231.29/sahra/HeritageSitesDetail.aspx?id=12996

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. Thank you. André Kritzinger (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)