GWR

[Dorsetmike]

I'm beginning to think that GWR is a cult, I see no other reason for the preponderance of their loocos RTR is there one of their 4-6-0s that has never been produced RTR (county)? (or any tender loco come to that), mind you they all look the same except for size, so it must be so easy for manufacturers, just stretch or shrink it a bit, same with tank locos, 2 basic shapes pannier or prairie, just add or subtract wheels, stretch or shrink. Maybe a few different from constituent companies at grouping but how long did they last before being rebuilt in or near the GWR image or scrapped.

[Yet_Another]

One could make the same claim for any very strong brand. Star Wars, Lego, Apple spring immediately to mind. Fanatical proponents & detractors.

Just makes other companies jealous 

(BTW, I am no GWR fan)

[Snowwolflair]

They were asking the same question in the Railway Modeler in 1952.

[Wrinkly1]

In real life that was the strength of their engineering - get a half-decent loco then expand or shrink it to suit different roles. They also produced boilers in a number of sizes which were interchangeable between some different loco classes.
As a dyed-in-the-wool GWR fan who was brought up on steam engine 'spotting' I can't imagine how someone could ever mistake one class for another 🤪🤪🤪

[Papyrus]

Blimey, Mike, you know how to live dangerously!! You'll be getting a knock on the door late one night from the Swindon Liberation Army at this rate...

I do however, agree with you to a large extent. The GWR style was very distinctive and attractive to many, but having a roster of virtually identical engines on one's layout doesn't do it for me. The variety of locos seen on the other regions has far more appeal as far as I am concerned.

Incidentally, being a Southern man, you probably aren't aware of what LNER people believe GWR stands for... Gresley Was Right.

(Ducks down below the parapet.)

Cheers,

Chris

[Richard G Dallimore]

I'm beginning to think that GWR is a cult, I see no other reason for the preponderance of their loocos RTR is there one of their 4-6-0s that has never been produced RTR (county)? (or any tender loco come to that), mind you they all look the same except for size, so it must be so easy for manufacturers, just stretch or shrink it a bit, same with tank locos, 2 basic shapes pannier or prairie, just add or subtract wheels, stretch or shrink. Maybe a few different from constituent companies at grouping but how long did they last before being rebuilt in or near the GWR image or scrapped.

The GWR standardised that is not its fault, the fact that the southern is poorly covered which is where your coming from may be it didn't standardise. LNER mainline locos are very well covered as well but you don't point that out.

So quick missing GWR list County, mogul (wheel base missing across the board I believe), Star, saint.

As GWR covered the regions that I grow up in I am a fan but not sure about cult, but I think it comes down to Swindon Standardisation and GWR existed long before grouping as a big company.

[Chris Morris]

Back in the 1920s Great Western loco design was well ahead of others in the UK thanks to Churchward. Because they were so good there wasn't as much development in the 1930s under Collet as there was on other railways.

Although I wasn't around at the time it does seem that the Great Western had an excellent publicity department and created a fantastic image for the railway. I also think that pretty much all GWR staff believed they worked for the best railway. So far as I am concerned they ran trains in the nicest part of the country- the South West.

[Trainfish]

Apart from the cordless ones most kettles look similar to me. I think the only mistake made by GWR was not having a class which was blue with yellow ends.

I'll leave now 

[Bob G]

CMEs often took their "brand" with them, so the Drummond 0-4-4Ts and 4-4-0s first designed for the NBR and CR then began to appear on the SR.
Bulleid worked under Ivatt and Gresley.
Maunsell was Southern through and through and was probably closest in concept to the GWR CMEs for interchangeability of parts and a brand image.

The GWR on the other hand never recruited CMEs from other regions.
Some might say that you can't improve on perfection but I'm an SR fan and I like the fact that our CMEs made mistakes. It makes for a more interesting life.

Bob

[Wrinkly1]

....and in my previous post, I forgot to mention that Stanier was 'poached' from the GWR by the LMS. 

[Newportnobby]

I think the only mistake made by GWR was not having a class which was blue with yellow ends.

They did, however, have the Blue Pullman with full yellow ends

My only experience of SR stuff was in the 60s and was only what I saw at various London termini, Clapham Junction and Oxford. My own collection reflects that in that I have 11 SR locos and 18 WR ones (steam)

[Dorsetmike]

I'm not disagreeing with standardisation having advantages for the operator, but prefer some variety, standardisation is boring to the observer. A bit of standardisation on the SR and its constituents, the ex LSWR H15, N15 and S15 classes had a lot on common and do look alike, the SR derivatives of N15 and S15 were similar but had some changes in appearance mainly to conform to loading gauge issues, most noriceable being the cab roof.

'Twould appear I have put the feline amongst the feathered rats.

[martyn]

Maunsell's assistant, on both the SECR and SR, Harry Holcroft, was also ex Swindon.

He left the GWR when Churchward's development eased off. He was heavily involved in the SR's smoke deflector development, as well as giving some suggestions to Gresley on how to solve a certain problem with the conjugated valve gear. He seems to have been a 'power behind the throne' in some respectsm and Maunsell allowed him to design the 3-cylinder 2-6-0s; he had seen Moguls working in the USA and conveyed his enthusiasm to Churchward whilst still on the GWR.

https://www.steamindex.com/people/holcroft.htm

James Holden on the GER was also ex Swindon.

It has been said (cheekily) that the GWR didn't design much new after Churchward, they just swapped bits around for a new class.



Martyn

[Richard G Dallimore]

I'm not disagreeing with standardisation having advantages for the operator, but prefer some variety, standardisation is boring to the observer. A bit of standardisation on the SR and its constituents, the ex LSWR H15, N15 and S15 classes had a lot on common and do look alike, the SR derivatives of N15 and S15 were similar but had some changes in appearance mainly to conform to loading gauge issues, most noriceable being the cab roof.

'Twould appear I have put the feline amongst the feathered rats.

I think as much as anything GWR existed longer than other big 4, started in 1800's and promoted it self very well. So got in to the psyche of he country more than the others, after all MR, GNR, LNWR, LSWR, S&DJR are all most as memorable than LMS and LNER. But most in south west had all long gone by this point. By the time of the big 4 GWR had already done a lot of its growth and standardisation. It also controlled some very lucrative markets like south wales coal (better quality than a lot of other areas), commuters around London, rich farm land of south west, china clay (some southern).

[joe cassidy]

I guess that people liked the GWR because it evoked summer holidays, rural England, IK Brunel, etc.

The Southern Railway was Commuter Land, going to work on crowded trains, no fun.

As for the LMS/LNER - coal mines, satanic mills, unemployment, it was grim up north.