Talk:Tulk and Ley

	North West England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lancashire and Cumbria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Lancashire and CumbriaWikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaTemplate:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaLancashire and Cumbria articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Trains: in UK Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Mid-importance).

I am planning to write a separate article for Fletcher Jennings. Biscuittin 21:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fletcher, Jennings section moved to Fletcher, Jennings & Co. I think this is appropriate because F-J is the better-known name and there are F-J locomotives preserved. Biscuittin 20:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crampton locomotives[edit]

There is some disagreement between the text and the table. I believe the table is correct but I have left the text as it is, pending further research. If anybody has more information, please add it. Biscuittin 11:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've only just noticed the Tulk & Ley article and the difference between the text and the table. The text is correct - the engines ordered for the Namur & Liege Railway never reached Belgium and went instead to the S.E.R. in Dec 1849. (See Donald L Bradley's 'Locos of the South Eastern Railway' published by the RCTS.)

I suspect the T&L works numbers given in the table are nonsense. Many loco-building firms had lists of works numbers made up by outside "expert historians" in the late 19th century, apparently simply by listing all the firm's known (or believed) products and numbering them from 1 upwards. Put into print, numbers from these lists have been repeated in book after book.

The Vulcan Foundry works list is a good example - hundreds of quite fictitious locos were awarded numbers, apparently simply to make the list look complete. I know this sounds crazy, but it's true! I mentioned this in the Vulcan Foundry article, with a couple of refs.Hyjack7 (talk) 15:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Works Numbers 17 on=[edit]

According to Lowe number 17 was built in 1850, not delivered till 1854. Then no more till 1855 numbers 18, 19 and (poss a rebuild) 20 Chevin 16:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Chevin. There has also been speculation that No.17 was built in 1847 (with nos. 13-16) and not sold till 1854. Sharman is sceptical about this because of detail differences between the locomotives. After the collapse of Railway mania in the 1840s there may have been a slump in the demand for locomotives so perhaps Tulk and Ley decided to switch to other work. We will probably never know for sure. Biscuittin (talk) 10:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]