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. ::)
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 :D
(BTW, I am no GWR fan)
They were asking the same question in the Railway Modeler in 1952.
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 🤪🤪🤪
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
Quote from: Dorsetmike on October 11, 2020, 01:20:04 PM
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.
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.
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 :thumbsup:
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
....and in my previous post, I forgot to mention that Stanier was 'poached' from the GWR by the LMS. :D
Quote from: Trainfish on October 11, 2020, 02:38:11 PM
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 :P
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)
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.
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 (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.
:D
Martyn
Quote from: Dorsetmike on October 11, 2020, 03:32:21 PM
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).
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.
As someone who did most of their trainspotting in the late 50s/early60s at Hayes & Harlington and Southall shed on the mainline to Reading and all places west I can only echo what the proponents of the GWR have already said. I don't have a problem with locos all 'looking the same' - the commonality of design and loads of green engines gave the (G)WR a quality image. As did the hydraulics that came after!!
Norman
Quote from: joe cassidy on October 11, 2020, 04:03:24 PM
As for the LMS/LNER - coal mines, satanic mills, unemployment, it was grim up north.
:no: :) Not in East Anglia to the best of my knowledge! The only mines were flint mines and the mills were powered by wind or water...
:sorrysign: :offtopicsign:
Cheers,
Chris
What images does East Anglia conjure up ?
Flatness and water ?
Samphire ?
Quote from: joe cassidy on October 11, 2020, 06:06:30 PM
What images does East Anglia conjure up ?
Flatness and water ?
Samphire ?
All of the above. And to the north of East Anglia - "Bracing".
I don't understand the opening comments. Here is my collection of smaller GWR tender locos. All sleek and all quite easily distinguishable. For those who have yet to be enlightened the line up from left to right is 28xx, Hall, Manor and Grange. All trusted and long standing good runners by the way.
(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/100/3123-111020181221.jpeg) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=100336)
Much as already said, the GWR had in modern speak "established brand recognition" before the grouping and a very effective publicity department.
On loco development, they undoubtedly lead the way up to the late 1920s then just stopped... The best up and coming designer they had - William Stanier, felt he had to go elsewhere to progress and look at the transformation of the LMS loco fleet under his influence. Most would acknowledge the the LMS lead the way in steam loco development through the 30s & 40s and was heading for an even more standardised post war fleet than the GW (the Southern by then had all it's eggs in the Electric basket). Just imagine what a Duchess could have done on Brunel's billiard table.
Quote from: Chris Morris on October 11, 2020, 06:12:30 PM
...all quite easily distinguishable.
Nope, sorry. The Hall, Manor and Grange all look the same to me... :( :-\ But then you knew I was a Philistine, didn't you? :confused1:
Cheers,
Chris
Quote from: joe cassidy on October 11, 2020, 06:06:30 PM
What images does East Anglia conjure up ?
Flatness and water ?
Samphire ?
The Upwell and Wisbech tramway which I drove through the other day with my artic...
I'm surprised no one has mentioned laziness of the manufacturers yet. It must be much easier to model a locomotive without any outside valve gear, which makes GWR engines much easier to make.
Quote from: Nebucanezza on October 11, 2020, 10:09:37 PM
I'm surprised no one has mentioned laziness of the manufacturers yet. It must be much easier to model a locomotive without any outside valve gear, which makes GWR engines much easier to make.
Part of the greatness of the Great Western. They designed locos that were easier to model!
Quote from: Papyrus on October 11, 2020, 07:34:57 PM
Quote from: Chris Morris on October 11, 2020, 06:12:30 PM
...all quite easily distinguishable.
Nope, sorry. The Hall, Manor and Grange all look the same to me... :( :-\ But then you knew I was a Philistine, didn't you? :confused1:
Cheers,
Chris
My tongue may well have been in my cheek at the time.
These locos were very similar but were designed to be the right tool for the job. Halls could manage heavy freight but the 2-8-0 was a better wheel arrangement. The Grange was basically a Hall with smaller wheels (the cylinders were actually of different design on the Grange) which made it a better loco for areas such as Cornwall where a bit more power was preferred to a bit more speed. The Manor then took the Grange basics and added a smaller boiler for greater route availability which was required in places such as central Wales. The Granges and Manors were officially rebuilds of Churchward 2-6-0s but I don't think that reflected reality.
God's Wonderful Railway just says it all. :P
Quote from: PLD on October 11, 2020, 06:36:04 PMJust imagine what a Duchess could have done on Brunel's billiard table.
This is a family forum!
But seriously, for all the imagery of Brunel, idyllic seaside holidays etc. it seems often forgotten that the GWR had a less romantic bit which went up through a major industrial conurbation all the way up to Birkenhead.
Indeed. Strange you never see models of that, though.
I must admit I was brought up with the classic GWR branch station to fiddle yard concept in the early sixties, courtesy of Cyril Freezer and Railway Modeller.
Well, they were and still are based in the west country, I guess.
It was a different world to a kid growing up among the coal mines of the north east!
The GWR also got a great deal of revenue by moving coal from the South Wales coalfields. Not glamorous or pretty and not for publicity brochures but nonetheless profitable.
Quote from: NinOz on October 12, 2020, 08:40:50 AM
God's Wonderful Railway just says it all. :P
Or Greasy, Wet & Rusty :P
Quote from: chrism on October 12, 2020, 09:21:26 AM
Quote from: NinOz on October 12, 2020, 08:40:50 AM
God's Wonderful Railway just says it all. :P
Or Greasy, Wet & Rusty :P
Or Grotty, Wretched & Ridiculous :whistle:
As opposed to Lithe, Magnificent & Superb.
:moony:
I'm just happy Sonic's first N gauge loco is the 56xx as a couple were based at Oxford for a few years. I have plenty of SR locos which were visitors to Oxford (or can be found excuses to :))
Certainly when I started out in N everything seemed to be based on WR branch lines and it seemed to take quite a while before sufficient decent models emerged for other locations. I also agree the Southern has been ignored considering the plethora of EMUs in use from very early days and the lack of variety of steam, but guess manufacturers know their markets (or do they?) :-\
Quote from: Newportnobby on October 12, 2020, 10:25:11 AM
but guess manufacturers know their markets (or do they?) :-\
To some extent I guess the manufacturers have created the markets.
If a manufacturer makes the decision to produce a reasonable range of locos from a particular region then, provided what they make is good enough, then people will buy them - thus creating a market for more variety from the same region.
Quote from: PLD on October 11, 2020, 06:36:04 PM
On loco development, they undoubtedly lead the way up to the late 1920s then just stopped... The best up and coming designer they had - William Stanier, felt he had to go elsewhere to progress and look at the transformation of the LMS loco fleet under his influence.
Stanier decided to go, because he would never have made CME of GWR, being only 5 years younger than Collet, had he waited for Collet to retire, he would have been passed over in favour of someone younger.
Stanier made the LMS fleet good by bringing GWR Ideas, the black Five just being a later development of the Hall Class, with outside valve gear..
Quote from: Richard G Dallimore on October 11, 2020, 02:33:26 PM
So quick missing GWR list County, mogul (wheel base missing across the board I believe), Star, saint.
I need a Saint Class dammit, if only to renumber it to 2910
Lady of Shallott. Added to 6910
Gossington Hall, I shall have my tribute to Dame Agatha's
The Mirror Crack'd from Side to Side.Wait, what were we talking about?
I'm not as partisan as I used to be and don't wish to join the argument as to whether the GWR was the best or the worst of the big four (does anybody think it was the second best?) but there is something that puzzles me about GWR engines. One often sees reference to their classes as for instance, 28xx, which presumably means that the first of the class was number 2800 and the rest had numbers ascending from there. You never see something like the LMS Royal Scots referred to as 61xx although the same logic would apply. My question is, did GWR employees from Churchward or Collet downwards actually say "twenty-eight ecks ecks" or is this an enthusiasts invention?
Quote from: Ali Smith on October 12, 2020, 01:09:31 PM
My question is, did GWR employees from Churchward or Collet downwards actually say "twenty-eight ecks ecks" or is this an enthusiasts invention?
I understand that the usual term amongst the enginemen was simply a 'Twenty-Eight'. Harold Gasson, who wrote extensively about his footplate experiences, did mention 'Halls' and 'Castles', so it appears that at least some named classes were referred to as such. Interesting, he called what enthusiasts would describe as a 'Star' class engine a 'Forty'.
Best wishes.
John
I'd hazard a bit of a guess that the xx suffix may actually have been an Ian Allen invention (but only for the WR and Standard classes).
It does lend itself to ex GW locomotives as that company standardised on locomotive numbering eg classes did not run from say 5901 to 6050 (as an example). So, referring to 59xx locomotives, one is sure only to include Halls.
The GW numbering was, of course, retained after 1948 possibly due to the reliance on cast cabside numberplates.
It wouldn't work on other regions eg LNER had classes within numerical groups eg 60001-34 were A4s and 60035 -60112 were A3. Therefore 60xxx or even 600xx wouldn't work.
Similarly the LMS classes transcended numerical groups eg Patriots and Jubilees.
As for the Southern, well apart from the Bulleid Classes, their numbering was all over the place it seems.
The xxx suffix does work again for the Standard Classes eg 70xxx or 92xxx etc.
Just a thought
Martin
Quote from: emjaybee on October 12, 2020, 10:04:04 AM
Quote from: chrism on October 12, 2020, 09:21:26 AM
Quote from: NinOz on October 12, 2020, 08:40:50 AM
God's Wonderful Railway just says it all. :P
Or Greasy, Wet & Rusty :P
My mom worked for a company that sent machines and spares out by rail. The transportation manager referred to a certain railway as Loose em, Mix em and Smash em. I'm told that what based on bitter experience.
Or Grotty, Wretched & Ridiculous :whistle:
As opposed to Lithe, Magnificent & Superb.
:moony:
Quote from: Chris Morris on October 12, 2020, 06:19:48 PM
Quote from: emjaybee on October 12, 2020, 10:04:04 AM
Quote from: chrism on October 12, 2020, 09:21:26 AM
Quote from: NinOz on October 12, 2020, 08:40:50 AM
God's Wonderful Railway just says it all. :P
Or Greasy, Wet & Rusty :P
My mom worked for a company that sent machines and spares out by rail. The transportation manager referred to a certain railway as Loose em, Mix em and Smash em. I'm told that what based on bitter experience.
Indeed - most of them have alternative names, although the only other one that springs to mind immediately is Late & Never Early ;)
I can't recall ever hearing one for the Southern - although that might be because my preservation days were spent well and truly in SR/LSWR territory.
Going by the OP I think the S in SR means sparse :D
Quote from: The Q on October 12, 2020, 11:19:03 AM
Stanier made the LMS fleet good by bringing GWR Ideas, the black Five just being a later development of the Hall Class, with outside valve gear..
Absolutely; while Swindon stagnated, and at a time Derby needed a kick in the tender area, he carried on the developmental path (with a hint of Horwich influence) for his new employer to their mutual benefit.
Quote from: Dorsetmike on October 11, 2020, 01:20:04 PM
I'm beginning to think that GWR is a cult
Well that's a strong opening quote :laughabovepost:, but not sure it's so much a cult a following yes but a cult well.....maybe for some :D
This is where I personally think makes the GWR such a success modelling wise is not only based on the very much standard designs but actually comes from the Press department of the 1930s GWR offices!
Lets be honest if many of us think of a railway poster from the 30s most (not all) will conjure up images of GWR posters and the rose tinted glasses of their adverts which in many respects catches the "golden era of steam" ideology which still reverberates today amongst many, which in turn when it comes to modelling makes a large portion of GWR items very good sellers.
Personally while I don;t model steam i think that while not all classes are covered GWR is a very well covered period, and maybe some other regions need a bit more coverage to fill some of the gaps, then no one can claim cult status for GWR....
Although it is a bit of a chicken and egg situation I think GWR models sell well which is why manufacturers keep making them. Its interesting that since making his first GWR model Union Mills have almost not looked back and have continued with a GWR theme for new models. That kind of suggests GWR sales have been very good, either that or he has" seen the light".
Hi, see attached image of a page from GWR appendix to service timetable. '29XX' is an official GWR abbreviation. P
Quote from: Ali Smith on October 12, 2020, 01:09:31 PM
I'm not as partisan as I used to be and don't wish to join the argument as to whether the GWR was the best or the worst of the big four (does anybody think it was the second best?) but there is something that puzzles me about GWR engines. One often sees reference to their classes as for instance, 28xx, which presumably means that the first of the class was number 2800 and the rest had numbers ascending from there. You never see something like the LMS Royal Scots referred to as 61xx although the same logic would apply. My question is, did GWR employees from Churchward or Collet downwards actually say "twenty-eight ecks ecks" or is this an enthusiasts invention?
My Ian Allan spotters books refer to the loco by class e.g. class 1600, class 2800, class 5700 etc but my Observers books refer to all the classes as 16xx, 28xx, 57xx with the exception of the 14xx which they refer to as 1400s :confused2:
Does the world get any better than this?
(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/100/3123-131020104642.jpeg) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=100431)
(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/100/3123-131020104737.jpeg) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=100432)
Quote from: Chris Morris on October 13, 2020, 10:49:05 AM
Does the world get any better than this?
Yes - no crest with a lion doing anything ;)
Or, even better, the above but also with outside axleboxes on the front bogie axle :D
Lovely model, and I really like the lamps, head code and plate. :thumbsup:
However, I must agree with an earlier post, that to me most GWR steamers look very similar to me. ;)
But the livery is cool.
I've always thought that the cabs on GWR tender locos look like an afterthought.
They all look like someone designed a loco, then the crew complained they were getting wet so they stuck on something that was kicking around in the scrap bin.
It's just not elegant.
I've never really thought about it like that, but I agree, now that you've pointed it out. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Bealman on October 13, 2020, 11:12:59 AM
I've never really thought about it like that, but I agree, now that you've pointed it out. :thumbsup:
I know, right?
Cab forward it's an elegant beast, but the cab looks like the chief engineer accidentally picked up his 3yr olds nursery painting and passed it onto manufacturing by mistake.
Quote from: emjaybee on October 13, 2020, 11:05:52 AM
I've always thought that the cabs on GWR tender locos look like an afterthought.
They all look like someone designed a loco, then the crew complained they were getting wet so they stuck on something that was kicking around in the scrap bin.
It's just not elegant.
I believe that was the case for the Star class.
Quote from: emjaybee on October 13, 2020, 11:20:56 AM
Quote from: Bealman on October 13, 2020, 11:12:59 AM
I've never really thought about it like that, but I agree, now that you've pointed it out. :thumbsup:
looks like the chief engineer accidentally picked up his 3yr olds nursery painting and passed it onto manufacturing by mistake.
Nah, that was when they experimented with "streamlining" - although I have heard that Collett wasn't impressed with the suggestion in the first place, so made something so awful that he was allowed to remove it again very quickly ;)
Is that the one that looked like a giant knob? (Doorknob, I mean, of course) ;)
'Manorbier Castle'
https://locomotive.fandom.com/wiki/GWR_4073_Class_5005_Manorbier_Castle/Gallery?file=Gwrls170.jpg
I don't think the CME's staff were really trying, probably a sap to the publicity department.
The GWR was fortunate to effectively be little changed at Grouping. It absorbed, mainly, the Welsh Valley railways, but I think there was little change in senior management. Thus locomotive policy in particular continued as it had been before Grouping and the strong family resemblance was retained. This even included changes to GWR style fittings on absorbed engines.
It could be said that the GWR existed with continuity from incorporation until well into the BR period, especially when the BR standard express loco colours were so similar, and the WR was permitted to retain the cast numberplates, and hence pre-Nationalisation identity.
I also got a feeling when starting 'serious' modelling in the 70's that the GWR was modelled because models were available, and because the GWR was modelled, new releases from manufacturers were GWR biased. The policy of standardisation, and hence relatively large numbers of many classes also helped that many classes could be seen from Paddington to Birkenhead or to Penzance, whereas after Grouping, in the other companies, many locos stayed in or near their originating Company area.
There was no doubt that in many respects, Churchward was well ahead in design policy during his tenure, but it could be said that stagnation came in afterwards: and as has been said, Stanier left as there was no chance of promotion on the GWR. But that's another story.
Basically, what PLD said in his first post..........
Martyn
I may be modelling Southern in 1964 and have grown up (as far as I ever did) seeing BR Blue/Grey everywhere but even I cannot deny the appeal of a quaint rural GWR Terminus. Rose tinted specs and all that, it has always been a chicken and egg situation with supply and demand. The more modellers bought GWR the more models manufacturers supplied, which meant more modellers were enticed by the range of locos and so on. RM didn't help!
Have I just stumbled in to todays "Spot the difference competition" ;) :P :-\
Quote from: Chris Morris on October 13, 2020, 10:49:05 AM
(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/100/3123-131020104642.jpeg) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=100431)
(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/100/3123-131020104737.jpeg) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=100432)
I think I have the answer! One's made by Graham Farish and the other is made by Dapol...
Quote from: Nebucanezza on October 15, 2020, 07:08:17 AM
I think I have the answer! One's made by Graham Farish and the other is made by Dapol...
Correct! Also one is heading towards Torbay and the other towards Exeter and Paddington. Rather confusingly the down Torbay Express is carrying the reporting number for the up Torbay Express. Its also unlikely that a castle would still be carrying the old BR emblem on the tender with that type of reporting number. Being top link locos all of them (or nearly all of them) would have received the new logo on the tender by 1958 but the reporting codes with a letter in them didn't come in until 1959 (I think). I'll have a word with myself about these mistakes.
Here is a another photo showing the beauty, wonder and excellence of Great Western engineering. All of these locos are of course different classes and it is very easy to "spot the difference". Scenes like this - 4 or 5 fully coaled locos running tender first - were a fairly regular sight on summer Saturdays at Aller Junction in the 1950s. The locos were coaled and serviced at Newton Abbot depot and then trundled together down to Goodrington and Kingswear ready to work the trains taking the holidaymakers back home. Apparently being on the footplate of a fully coaled loco travelling in reverse is not nice unless you like eating coal dust.
(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/100/3123-151020073449.jpeg) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=100563)
That's a splendid photograph of an interesting working. Thank you very much.
These various Great Western locomotives look wonderful.
Thanks again and best wishes.
John
Ok, I'm trying to get it, honest.
I give up, I've spent about five minutes looking carefully at that pic. They all look the same, granted it's probably not the best photo for an I.D. parade, seriously, are they different classes?
???
From left to right
Manor - smaller wheelers so the running plate has a higher section by the cylinders, small tender and although it's hard to tell, smaller boiler
Hall - Larger boiler larger wheels and straight running plate
Grange - same size boiler as Hall (although not identical) but smaller wheels hence raised running plate by cylinders.
Castle - larger boiler, larger wheels and smaller straight sided rather than sticky out cylinders. The castle of course had four cylinders whereas all the others were just two cylinders.
Hope that helps. I absolutely deny ever looking at the nameplates to distinguish between the grange and the manor.
For me the "trademark" of the Castle is the slidebars, which I would describe as "blade-like".
Quote from: Chris Morris on October 15, 2020, 12:14:01 PM
From left to right
Manor - smaller wheelers so the running plate has a higher section by the cylinders, small tender and although it's hard to tell, smaller boiler
Hall - Larger boiler larger wheels and straight running plate
Grange - same size boiler as Hall (although not identical) but smaller wheels hence raised running plate by cylinders.
Castle - larger boiler, larger wheels and smaller straight sided rather than sticky out cylinders. The castle of course had four cylinders whereas all the others were just two cylinders.
Hope that helps. I absolutely deny ever looking at the nameplates to distinguish between the grange and the manor.
???
Really?
That's some 'corporate identity'!
Thanks for info. Not sure it will 'compute' but I'll try. :D
As per my post #12;
They just swapped standard parts (boilers, cylinders, wheels) around to make a new class......... :D
Martyn
EMJAYBEE wrote
That's some 'corporate identity'!
Thanks for info. Not sure it will 'compute' but I'll try.
"Joe explained it for you but he can't understand it for you" :no:
Quote from: martyn on October 15, 2020, 01:26:58 PM
As per my post #12;
They just swapped standard parts (boilers, cylinders, wheels) around to make a new class......... :D
Martyn
Or
The incredibly talented engineers of the GWR were the only ones clever enough to design a range of locomotives suitable for many roles using many standard parts thus improving the effectiveness and efficiency of this wonderful railway.
Im sure I read somewhere that the large prairie only required three new parts, all of the other parts already existed for other locos.
Chris;
I actually agree that from a maintenance point of view, the GWR path was an excellent way of running their loco department.
If you had a ready supply of spares in the stores, then there was little time lost in replacement of an item which was beyond further use or needed a long time to repair. And, as I also said, there is little doubt that during Churchward's reign, they were at the forefront of (at least) UK design. Repairs to 'one offs', or at least small number classes, could lead to an excessive amount of time in shops rather than on the road; and the GWR designs were suited to the loads and schedules in force at the time.
I've just re-read a reappraisal of the 1948 loco trials on BR, and hadn't appreciated that the 28xx dated from pre WW1; but it still managed to get the best economy figures overall in the freight trials. However, the same review states that the 'Castle' and 'King' classes had not advanced much from their introduction, despite larger superheaters and double chimneys, and had been left behind by continuous improvement to classes on other railways.
Martyn
Quote from: osborns on October 15, 2020, 01:27:25 PM
EMJAYBEE wrote
That's some 'corporate identity'!
Thanks for info. Not sure it will 'compute' but I'll try.
"Joe explained it for you but he can't understand it for you" :no:
Darn it, foisted by my own 'signature'.
:veryangry:
:smackedface:
A walk around the STEAM museum in Swindon (when it was possible ☹️ ) would leave most people feeling what an amazing organisation the GWR was. I am sure it was not perfect but they took pride in everything they did. I get the impression that the GWR was very efficiently run - ahead of its time in terms of management technique.
Kind regards
Paddy
Watched the movie "Enola Holmes" on Netflix last night.
There was some nice footage of a GWR loco + coaches at the beginning.
Difficult to identify which class of loco though :)
The picture and narrative of the locos coupled together running tender first are great. That's a working I'd never heard about! There again my knowledge of things GWR is minimal.
I can imagine the coaldust problem! :thumbsup:
Quote from: Bealman on October 17, 2020, 07:07:55 AM
I can imagine the coaldust problem! :thumbsup:
I can remember it :o
We had to spray water over the stuff on very dry days before every tender-first working to reduce the problem.