LNWR18901910 Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 After the success of my LNWR Mogul, I have planned a project for quite some time. It's the GWR 7100 Class 2-6-4T. The 61xx Large Prairies are quite interesting and so have the GWR 72xx 2-8-2T tank engines. The 72xx did strike as a 2-6-4T which the LMS mostly used when it pulled coaches. This would be another 'what-if' locomotive that I have always wanted to do, really. The GWR 7100 Class were designed and built with incorporated plans of the 61xx 2-6-2T and 72xx 2-8-2T locomotives but with a double-trailing rear-axle. The class earned the nickname 'Platypuses' because of the rear double trailing axles like tails. 100 of these were built between 1933 to 1935 and were used on rural and suburban branchlines. The class survived into British Railways nationalisation until they were withdrawn between 1961 and 1964, one year before steam on the British Railways Western Region ended. No less than six locomotives survive under preservation including the first of its class which was first built at Wolverhampton and still survives today. I haven't any pictures, but when I do get around to it, you'll all see the locomotive taking shape as it gradually builds it way up. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisf Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 This is indeed an interesting might-have-been. I do not know why the GWR never tried 2-6-4Ts. It may have been put off by the 12 0-6-4Ts that it inherited from the Barry Railway. They were rather prone to derailment when running bunker first and one example overturned. Despite being only 12 years old they were all withdrawn in 1926. Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Prism Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 100 of these were built between 1933 to 1935 and were used on rural and suburban branchlines. A 90ton redroute loco on rural branchlines? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimC Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 This is indeed an interesting might-have-been. I do not know why the GWR never tried 2-6-4Ts. The 51s et al carried 2,000 gallons of water, as much as the BR 2-6-4Ts. So a 7200 style extended bunker on a 5101 or 3150 would probably give around 2,700 gallons of water, enough for quite considerable trips, so you'd be looking at doing long cross country routes. Are you planning the Standard 2 boiler like the 61s, or the larger diameter Standard 4 like the 72s and the 3150s? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNWR18901910 Posted November 21, 2017 Author Share Posted November 21, 2017 A 90ton redroute loco on rural branchlines? Yes, my good woman. Why not? Of course, that can happen. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNWR18901910 Posted November 21, 2017 Author Share Posted November 21, 2017 The 51s et al carried 2,000 gallons of water, as much as the BR 2-6-4Ts. So a 7200 style extended bunker on a 5101 or 3150 would probably give around 2,700 gallons of water, enough for quite considerable trips, so you'd be looking at doing long cross country routes. Are you planning the Standard 2 boiler like the 61s, or the larger diameter Standard 4 like the 72s and the 3150s? Good question, Sir. I have two Hornby and Airfix 61xx Large Prairie bodies and the back of one of them is cut away and the other would have its bunker cutt off and grafted into its place. A double trailing bogie would also be fitted on underneath. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold TheSignalEngineer Posted November 21, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 21, 2017 A 90 ton red route loco on rural branch lines? Stanier, Fairburn and 80xxx would have qualified as Blue. The Fowler 2-6-4T was a bit heavy on the crank axle so would have been Red. There's a couple of good documents available here http://www.michaelclemensrailways.co.uk/?atk=634 The first is a GWR Engine Route Map from 1931, hand amended up to 1957. The second gives route availability colours for GWR classes, BR Standards, Diesels, DMUs and Shunters on Lines transferred to the LMR and lines in the Gloucester District. It also gives local restrictions and engines authorised on former LMS lines operated by the Gloucester District. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Prism Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 (edited) Excellent GWR Engine Route Map. I've added a link to it from gwr.org. Thanks. Edited November 21, 2017 by Miss Prism Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNWR18901910 Posted November 21, 2017 Author Share Posted November 21, 2017 Excellent GWR Engine Route Map. I've added a link to it from gwr.org. Thanks. I'm terribly sorry, but I don't see any link whatsoever. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Prism Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 I'm terribly sorry, but I don't see any link whatsoever. The link is on the links page. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNWR18901910 Posted November 22, 2017 Author Share Posted November 22, 2017 The link is on the links page. Thank you kindly for pointing that out. I have followed it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCB Posted November 22, 2017 Share Posted November 22, 2017 (edited) The 2-6-4T could well have been rebuilt from the 3150 class instead of the 31XX 2-6-2Ts of 1938. Both 3150 and 31XX had the same Std 4 boiler as the 42XX and 72XX 2-8-0 and 2-8-2 tanks and were an accountancy wangle which would have worked equally well for a longer range tank instead of a more powerful smaller wheeled banker. I is believed the 31XX were worse as bankers than the 3150 as with higher boiler pressure and smaller wheels they were more prone to slipping. However they were very successful suburban passenger locos, doing exactly the same sort of work the 2-6-4 T might have done. The 31XX and 3150 are among the few GWR locos not available RTR in 00 nor do I know of a kit so why not build one of those instead of a 2-6-4T. I have a 3150 planned based on a Grafar 00 81XX. I don't really know what use a 2-6-4T would have been compared to the 2-6-2T unless it had the Std 1 firebox on a Std 4 boiler barrel, something which Swindon could have built from standard parts The LMS 2-6-4s had longer fireboxes than GW locos which pushed the cabs back on the frames and necessitated the trailing truck rather than extra coal and water capacity while the LMS Tanks ended at the cab spectacle plate I believe whereas the GW ones continued to the cab doorway and both were nominally 2000 gallon capacity. There is little doubt the LMS 2-6-4Ts and BR Std versions were excellent suburban passenger locos but so were the GW Prairies. Sadly no other UK railway managed to make a decent passenger 2-6-4T The southern's Rivers couldn't stay on the track and W1s had no turn of speed, while the LNER L1 seemed to be unable to stay together at high speed and L2 and L3 were goods locos. Maybe if the L1s had had 3 cylinders with inside stephenson's valve gear NER style they would have been on to a winner. Edited November 22, 2017 by DavidCBroad Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNWR18901910 Posted November 22, 2017 Author Share Posted November 22, 2017 The 2-6-4T could well have been rebuilt from the 3150 class instead of the 31XX 2-6-2Ts of 1938. Both 3150 and 31XX had the same Std 4 boiler as the 42XX and 72XX 2-8-0 and 2-8-2 tanks and were an accountancy wangle which would have worked equally well for a longer range tank instead of a more powerful smaller wheeled banker. I is believed the 31XX were worse as bankers than the 3150 as with higher boiler pressure and smaller wheels they were more prone to slipping. However they were very successful suburban passenger locos, doing exactly the same sort of work the 2-6-4 T might have done. The 31XX and 3150 are among the few GWR locos not available RTR in 00 nor do I know of a kit so why not build one of those instead of a 2-6-4T. I have a 3150 planned based on a Grafar 00 81XX. I don't really know what use a 2-6-4T would have been compared to the 2-6-2T unless it had the Std 1 firebox on a Std 4 boiler barrel, something which Swindon could have built from standard parts The LMS 2-6-4s had longer fireboxes than GW locos which pushed the cabs back on the frames and necessitated the trailing truck rather than extra coal and water capacity while the LMS Tanks ended at the cab spectacle plate I believe whereas the GW ones continued to the cab doorway and both were nominally 2000 gallon capacity. There is little doubt the LMS 2-6-4Ts and BR Std versions were excellent suburban passenger locos but so were the GW Prairies. Sadly no other UK railway managed to make a decent passenger 2-6-4T The southern's Rivers couldn't stay on the track and W1s had no turn of speed, while the LNER L1 seemed to be unable to stay together at high speed and L2 and L3 were goods locos. Maybe if the L1s had had 3 cylinders with inside stephenson's valve gear NER style they would have been on to a winner. Thanks for sharing that. Very interesting points on 2-6-4T tank locomotives. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold unravelled Posted November 22, 2017 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 22, 2017 Building aGW 2-6-4 has been one of my plans for a while. My thought was that it would be done for an increased coal load, rather that extra water, which is more conveniently replenished. So what was the range of a 2-6-2 on a normal servive and coal load, and what improvement would a 2-6-4 give? One thought of mine was that they could be useful on a Paddington Worcester semi fast. Looking forward to progress here Dave 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimC Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 Building a GW 2-6-4 has been one of my plans for a while. My thought was that it would be done for an increased coal load... The coal capacity on the large prairies was 4 tons, as against 4.25 tons on Collett 3,000 gallon tenders. Like most larger GWR tank engines there was a water tank under the coal - look for the diagonal line of close spaced rivets on the bunker. So a 2-6-4 could have the same the same coal capacity as a small tender engine plus approaching the same amount of water. I agree the Std 4 boiler would be a more likely option. I suppose a Dapol City of Truro could donate one, although time has not been kind to the quality of the mouldings. An amusing option for a fictional large GWR tank engine would be a 4-6-2T based around the Manor chassis and boiler. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNWR18901910 Posted December 2, 2017 Author Share Posted December 2, 2017 Building aGW 2-6-4 has been one of my plans for a while. My thought was that it would be done for an increased coal load, rather that extra water, which is more conveniently replenished. So what was the range of a 2-6-2 on a normal servive and coal load, and what improvement would a 2-6-4 give? One thought of mine was that they could be useful on a Paddington Worcester semi fast. Looking forward to progress here Dave Thanks, Dave. I am making good progress on it so far. It's slowly starting to take shape. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNWR18901910 Posted July 12, 2018 Author Share Posted July 12, 2018 And here it is after so long! Finally, after so long, my GWR 71xx Platypus is finally taking shape! Once the body is finished, the chassis, on the other hand, is a different matter. 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold tomparryharry Posted July 21, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 21, 2018 Didn't Wrenn turn out a 2-6-4? Called an 8100..... Cheers, Ian. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNWR18901910 Posted July 21, 2018 Author Share Posted July 21, 2018 Didn't Wrenn turn out a 2-6-4? Called an 8100..... Cheers, Ian. That was a repaint of a BR Standard 4MT 2-6-4T. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now