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

Does the world get any better than this?

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 

Lovely model, and I really like the lamps, head code and  plate. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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"     

Quote from: Chris Morris on October 13, 2020, 10:49:05 AM

I think I have the answer! One's made by Graham Farish and the other is made by Dapol...