Jump to content
  • entries
  • comments
  • views

GWR 322 Class Tank Engines



I'm not sure how I came to omit a sketch of this class from my book, but I certainly did. I included the tender version. Perhaps I was unsure how many drawings of similar looking pre-group pannier tanks should be included. 


They have one of the more complex histories. The 322 class tale started in 1864. They were thirty 0-6-0 tender engines,  entirely of Beyer Peacock design, twenty ordered under the Gooch regime (322-341) and the rest (350-359) by Joseph Armstrong. They had plate (not sandwich) double frames with the running plate rising over each wheel to clear the cranks. They were rebuilt quite heavily from 1878, but not officially renewed. In six cases these rebuilds consisted of a conversion to saddle tank, and some numbers were swapped between locomotives so the tank locomotives took numbers 322-327, and the remaining locos 328 on.

So from 1878-1885 the six 322 tank engines were created at  Wolverhampton as conversions from tender engines. They had open cabs and full length saddle tanks as was conventional at this period.

They received a variety of boilers in the late nineteenth century, receiving the Sir Daniel type in various configurations. After 1918, they mostly received pannier tanks, and those that survived into the 1930s had all received superheated P class boilers. Only one received an enclosed cab. One was scrapped in 1921, and the rest between 1928 and 1932. So this sketch represents the last gasp of what were by then sixty year old locomotives, albeit only a very limited amount of the locomotive would actually have been of that age. I can see no GW lettering on a photo of 322 in the last days, so I've left it off.



The Sketch is based on the GWR weight diagram B31, but there are a few small changes based on a photo of 322, notably brakes, sanding  and axle guards.


And for interest, this sketch from the book is the original form of the class. Frames, motion components and maybe wheel centres are probably about all that was common to both! Tractive effort had increased from around 13,000lbs to over 18,000lbs.



Edited by JimC
replace image

  • Like 3
  • Informative/Useful 1


Recommended Comments

Always thought these made very pretty tank engines. I have a tender version that's been under construction for far too long. One day I'll finish it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
On 01/09/2021 at 19:43, Miss Prism said:

I'm not convinced the running plate needed to rise to clear the cranks.


That could be my sketch of course, as the cranks and rods aren't the easiest thing to get right, but I've just checked the dimensions, and it seems to scale for a 12" throw (24 inch diameter circle) for the crank and I've redrawn with the rods at the top. Don't forget suspension movement too.


Edited by JimC
Link to comment

Thanks Jim. It seems likely that the footplate height of an 1860 engine (especially with 5' wheels) was probably a bit lower than it was in later days. Often the buffer axis setting on the bufferbeam is a telltale clue.


Link to comment

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Create New...