JimC

Its an interesting aside that 2-4-0 111 was withdrawn in Dec 1904, whilst the Bear is as modified in Dec 1913 with top feed. There has to be a suspicion that what we are actually seeing is the last of the class, 114, perhaps at Swindon for her demise in April 1914 and someone thought of a nice photo opportunity with a bit of number plate swapping. There's still a spectacular contrast between the 2-4-0, an 1880s rebuild, and the Bear, constructed only 20 years later.

The domed boiler sketch is somewhat conjectural. I only had the photo I've linked on the 7/110 page to work from, which is of the other side, so a certain amount of guesswork is involved.

Anyone following this will gather that I'm currently working on very early Wolverhampton classes. The 111 Class was the first real class to be designed and built by Joseph Armstrong at Wolverhampton, but to my mind its very much a development of the earlier singles I've previously sketched here. The first six were built in 1863/4 under Joseph Armstrong. They had outside plate frames with the footplate rising in curves to clear the coupling rods, 6ft0in driving wheels and 16x24in cylinders. This first batch had raised round top fireboxes and no domes. Twelve more followed in 1866/7 after Joseph had been promoted to Swindon. These could be considered to be George Armstrong designs and were built with domed boilers. Initially they all had open splashers and weatherboards. In the eccentric numbering of the GWR early days, the first batch of six in 1863/4 was numbered 111-114, 115A and 116A. Eleven more followed in 1866. The first four were numbered 5A, 6A, 7A, 8A and renumbered 1006-1009 soon afterwards. That same year 115A and 116A were renumbered 1004/5. 372-7 and 1010/11 followed, the last being completed in January 1867. Cabs and enclosed splashers appeared by the late 1880s, along with larger cylinders and thicker tyres, bringing the wheels up to 6ft 2in. In 1866 Nos 30 and 110, two of the early Wolverhampton singles, were renewed into locomotives of this class with all these features. A considerable variety of boilers were fitted in their later years, encompassing not only varying dome positions, but also boilers as small as the Metro and as large as the Standard Goods. Most were withdrawn between 1903 and 1906, but a few lingered on longer, the last being scrapped in 1914.

Here's a smugmug collection photo of 375, one of the 1866 (George Armstrong) built 111s with a dome. If you zoom in on the original it's clear it has the same safety valve cover shape as the domeless engines, so exploding a theory I was forming about the double curve shape only being associated with domeless boilers.

I found a sketch of No 7 in Holcroft's Armstrong book, so I've added it and reworked the original post. Holcroft also provides a drawing of No 30, which was somewhat intermediate between 7 and 110, but I'm not sure it adds very much to the story.

I suppose if you consider the raised casing seen on many Ramsbottom safety valve installations - Barry Railway A class sketch here for instance, then put the later style GW safety valve cover on top of that and merge the two into a single piece of metal then you get something very like the Armstrong style. Its an interesting thought that the steam collection pipe could have been under the safety valve fitting making it a sort of dome. It's certainly the highest point so it seems feasible. And when you look at that photo it does seem as if the first part is quite high. I don't know if I have an engineering drawing of anything that early to check. Holcroft doesn't seem to mention the subject from a quick run through his books, but I do note that "The Armstrongs" contains quite a few more Ahrons sketches of the very early types that I ought to work up.

Two very early ones. This is GWR No 7 from 1859, Wolverhampton works no 1, and the first Joseph Armstrong design for the GWR. Holcroft tells us that Armstrong, very much a member of the Northumberland school, was much associated with George Gray. Gray's designs for the Hull & Selby and LBSCR had the same feature of inside frames on the driving wheels and outside on leading and trailing wheels. They were also the inspiration for the well known Jenny Lind type. My sources are quiet on what motion was fitted. There were eventually five of these early singles. No 8 was very much a sister of No 7 and came out the same year, whilst 30 and 32 (the last classed as a renewal) followed in 1860 and finally No 110 in 1862. They didn't really constitute a class, but had a number of common features. There are plate frames rather than the sandwich frames Gooch would have used, and the very complex shaped Armstrong safety valve cover. Early Armstrong boilers like this were domeless, although domes were adopted fairly soon. The last of these similar singles was GWR No 110 from 1862. Surprisingly it was the second No 110, the first having been an 1851 locomotive for the Birkenhead Railway which lasted hardly a year under Armstrong. It's worth noting that by this time Armstrong had about 70 locomotives in his charge of many designs from most of the significant manufacturers of the period, so he should have been in a strong position to evaluate the best features for his own design. Unlike its predecessors No 110 had outside bearings on the driving wheels. This 110 bears a distinct family resemblance to the 111 class 2-4-0s which came along in 1863. In later years the 1862 110 received larger cylinders, a weatherboard and maybe even a cab. It ran until 1887, when it was renewed as a 2-4-0 of the 111 class in the form that class had been rebuilt into at that time. It seems unlikely that many if any major components were reused. By contrast No 7 had been withdrawn in 1876, some years before any of its cousins, and seems to have been largely unaltered.

I fear I share your doubts about the format. I'll run on into early Wolverhampton and then review again. Sandwich frames... yes, I'd love to know too. Not the least is the way that the Armstrongs only used plate frames on their all-new classes (I think, I'll be sure when I've gone through this), but when it came to renewing Gooch designs they retained sandwich frames, even when you'd think there was nothing of the old frames worth keeping. Dean built some classes with sandwich frames, although I haven't got that far yet to see if they were semi renewals or not. And then we have Holcroft's first hand account of new sandwich frames being constructed for a major overhaul as late as 1901. I can report what happened, but why... Holcroft's 156 is such a good example. Built by George England to a Gooch design. Renewed in 1882 when at the very least the frames must have been significantly altered, new frames again in 1901... Could it be that there were so many fittings, axleboxes, everything sized for the thick sandwich frames that it was worth keeping with them even though the actual frames were replaced? Accounts are very definitely not my strength, but It would be interesting, if such a thing exists, to have a itemised list of exactly where the money went on a new locomotive. I found a "Repairs and Partial Renewals Register" at Kew, and thought it would be interesting, but when I came to view it it showed exactly what was spent at each factory each week, but listed against Salaries, Office Expenses, Wages, Materials, Machinery & Plant and Other Expenses, without a single clue of what jobs the money was actually spent on!

So how would you find that? Is the absence of locomotive history OK (bearing in mind I intend to pick up rebuilds when the clock gets to them) or would you find yourself saying, yeah, yeah, but what happened to them?

I suppose I would anticipate "inside" in this context as meaning that all cylinders operated on a three throw (is that the right terminology) crank axle with two main bearings outside all the cranks as opposed to having the outermost cylinders drive directly on a (fly?) wheel. Three 5 inch cylinders ought to fit easily enough within a normal sort of frame spacing, even allowing for slide valves alongside the cylinders. 6 eccentrics would be quite a sight though!

So here's the Gooch era. Do you think you'd regard this as excessively skimpy on detail? Or does it work OK? Swindon Locomotives up to 1864 (Gooch) 1854-1859 Only 24 standard gauge locomotives were built at Swindon over this period, mostly 0-6-0 Goods. There was no standard gauge route to Swindon so they had to be transhipped north on broad gauge wagons. A further 17 were built for the GWR by Beyer, Peacock, mostly to Gooch designs. Some 54 Broad gauge locomotives were also completed. Nearly all Gooch designs featured sandwich frames. These were constructed of two relatively thin metal sheets each side of a wood core – normally oak or ash – all riveted together. They normally have a slotted appearance with large cut outs in less stressed areas. Gooch era boilers were normally domeless with a raised firebox and featured a simple safety valve cover. As was typical for the era these locomotives had minimal protection for the crew. As one would expect the designs were similar to but generally smaller than the broad gauge types. 1855/6. 57 (0-6-0) class 1855 The twelve locomotives of the 57 class were constructed at Swindon in 1855 and 1856. They had outside sandwich frames and partial inside frames. Driving wheels were 5'0 diameter, and cylinders 15½in x 22in. 69 (2-2-2) class 1855 The 69 class 2-2-2s were also delivered in 1855/6, but although to a Gooch design they were constructed by Beyer, Peacock. They had 6'6" driving wheels and 15½in x 22in cylinders. 1857/9 77 (0-6-0) class 1857 Two 0-6-0s were ordered from Beyer, Peacock, which were essentially Gooch boilers on a Beyer designed chassis. They had 5' driving wheels like the 57s, but 16*24 cylinders. 79 (0-6-0) class 1857 The first three of the 79 class were built at Swindon. They were similar to the 57 class, but had smaller (4ft6) driving wheels and larger (16inx25in) cylinders. 24 were built, the last in 1862. Two basic 0-4-2 saddle tanks, 91 & 92, were purchased from Beyer, Peacock. A similar loco, 342, was built by Beyer, Peacock in 1856, and bought by the GWR in 1864. 1860 Nos. 93 & 94 (0-6-0T) The first of well over a thousand GWR built 0-6-0T appeared in 1860. They were quite small engines with 4ft 2in (or possibly 4ft) wheels. They were fairly typical Gooch designs with domeless boilers, raised fireboxes and Gooch valve gear. They had inside frames, small side tanks and a well tank under the bunker. 1861 167 (0-6-0) class 1861 Four 0-6-0s were bought from Beyers which had been originally ordered for the Shrewsbury & Hereford. They were similar to the 77s. 1862/3 149 or England (2-4-0) class 1862 Built by George England and Co in 1862, to a Gooch design, this was an express passenger locomotive, unusual at a time when most passenger work was done by singles. They had 6ft 6in driving wheels and 16in x 24in cylinders. They were numbered 149-156. They had slotted outside sandwich frames with the footplate rising in curves to clear the coupling rods, and open splashers with the spokes visible behind the springs. The boiler was domeless with a slightly raised round top firebox, and was substantially similar, if not identical to, that on the 157 class 2-2-2s. The general appearance was similar to the Gooch 69 class singles. 131 (0-6-0) class 1862 These were an updated version of the 57 class, with 5'0 wheels, 16in x 24in cylinders and fitted with Stephenson link motion. Two batches were built in 1862, 131-136 at Swindon, while 137-148 were built for the GWR by Slaughter, Gruning & Co. The rest, 310-319, were built at Swindon in 1864/5. 157 (2-2-2) class 1862 These were built by Sharp Stewarts in 1862 to Gooch specifications and had sandwich frames. They were not unlike the 69 class, but with larger 7ft 0in driving wheels and 16in x24in cylinders. 1864 320 (2-4-0T) class Swindon built two outside cylinder 2-4-0 Well tanks in 1864, 320 & 321. A Gooch design, they were the first standard gauge locomotives to be fitted with condensing gear on any British line. They had steeply inclined outside cylinders, located above the footplate and were very similar to the broad gauge ‘Metropolitan’ class. Driving wheels were 5ft 6in and cylinders 15in x 24in. 322 or Beyer (0-6-0) class 1864 The "Beyer" Class hardly warrants inclusion here since they were entirely of Beyer design. They were another class of 5ft 0in driving wheel 0-6-0s, with 17in x 24in cylinders. They had plate (not sandwich) double frames with the running plate rising over each wheel to clear the cranks. There were two orders, the second being delivered in 1866 after Armstrong had taken over as Locomotive Superintendent.

OK still unhappy with my drafts. A straight time based approach, with just a listing of classes built each year and sketches to show what new developments looked like seems to work provided I have no more than a sentence or so about the new class but nothing about its history. As soon as you go into subsequent development of the class everything starts jumping around in time and its easy to lose the thread and the logical sequence goes out of the window. One option, which is on the lines of what @Harlequin was talking about, would be to use extensive cross referencing and have one part of the volume a sequential history, and the other half class histories for reference. It would extensively duplicate the existing book though, and be a very large volume. Another that occurs to me is to say dammit, the other book will do as a class reference, and leave out all locomotive details at all, just have "this was built" and a sketch. Some rebuilds would also be included, especially in the 1870-1900 era when all sorts of boiler types were seen. That ought to make a reasonably small and cheap volume. The original book is maybe a bit thinner on the very early stuff than I could now do, but there's little help for that.

As a (semi) aside, a quick count up suggests that by 1863 Joseph Armstrong was responsible for the maintenance of some 200 Locomotives of around 50 designs and ten different wheel arrangements from at least 16 builders. John Gibson in his volume "Great Western Locomotive design – A Critical Appreciation", comments that there isn't much to say about Armstrong's designs because they were very sound and orthodox. Looking at those numbers it's evident that Armstrong must have been in an extremely good position to judge what best practice was and what features should be adopted. Looking at his record it would seem he took good advantage of that knowledge.

With a single or an 0-4-0 largely yes, but AIUI with a coupled locomotive only to a limited extent, since the wheels aren't completely free. Side play on the axles will help align the wheels, but that brings its own problems with friction from alignment of bearings, wear etc.

Don't forget curves. All the friction that comes from wheels unable to rotate independently.

Yes, its an interesting format, and works pretty well. Of course he's got a much wider variety to contend with. I haven't found it that easy a format to dip into in search of specifics, but it's a good book to read seriously. Which makes me think, is there a difference between a non-fiction book and a reference book? --------------- On a different topic I'm wondering about absorbed types in the context of a chronological format. Going back to say 1870 or before the vast majority of the narrow gauge locomotive stock was this essentially random collection from here, there and everywhere which the Armstrongs had to try and conjure a working fleet out of. I think its very easy to give inadequate emphasis to the absorbed types, but at the same time are people interested? This is a section I've drafted for the Shrewsbury and Birmingham's absorbed stock. What seems to be practical is a listing of the fleet and then detail, including a sketch if possible, of more significant types. Shrewsbury and Birmingham – 1854 The Shrewsbury and Birmingham, which first ran trains in 1849, had 22 locomotives at the time of the merger, also in 1854. They worked closely with the Shrewsbury and Chester and the Birkenhead Railway, and at times locomotives were loaned or transferred between them. The fleet consisted of:- One 2-2-2 from Bury, Curtis & Kennedy. One 2-2-2 from E.B. Wilson & Co One 2-2-2 from W. Fairbairn & Son Six 0-4-2s and four 0-6-0s from R.B.Longridge & Co. Four 0-6-0s, three 0-4-2s and a 2-2-2 from Robert Stephenson's. One 0-4-0T from Sharp, Stewart and Co. They had a similar history to the S&C fleet and most were withdrawn at similar ages. Nos. 25 & 46-49 (0-6-0) Builders Longridge Line Shrewsbury & Birmingham Driving Wheel Size 4ft 9in Dates Built 1849-52 Cylinder Dimensions 15in x 24in Number Built 5 Boiler Class Long boiler type Dates Withdrawn 1868-1889 Figure 2 No 46 after 1854. I haven't seen any evidence that the GWR referred to these as a class, but it's convenient to do so here. No 25 came to the GWR via the Shrewsbury & Chester and was numbered out of sequence with the rest. One was rebuilt as a saddle tank during its life, and the others were withdrawn in the 1860s and 1870s without major reconstruction. No. 28, Nos. 50-53 (0-6-0) class Builders Stephenson’s Driving Wheel Size 4ft 9in Dates Built 1849-51 Cylinder Dimensions 15in x 24in Number Built 5 Boiler Class Long boiler type Dates Withdrawn 1869-1877 Again all five were built for the S&B, but one came to the GWR via the Shrewsbury & Chester and was numbered out of sequence. Unlike the Longridge 0-6-0s they had an ordinary raised firebox casing. A plan to convert them to saddle tanks never bore fruition, and they were withdrawn around the 1870s. Now the thing is, if I put in a section for each absorbed line with at least a basic summary of the stock, its going to be huge chunks of a volume. Rightly so in the context of what the fleet looked like, but very unwieldy, and it pretty much doubles the size and cost of a volume. Russell, for example, has two books on GWR and one of absorbed, but he almost completely ignores the 19th C absorbed stock which would easily be another book's worth. If I'm seeking simply to trace the thread of GWR locomotive design then, apart from major rebuilds renewals into essentially GWR types, few of them are relevant, and you'd most certainly get a slimmer and easier to read volume out of it. One could do a separate study of the absorbed/amalgamated stock for instance, but would it sell? I have my doubts. What does the panel think, include the absorbed stock, or make it purely GWR build and concentrate on the design story? I'm conscious that we tend to have this picture of the GWR as a homogenous fleet of stylistically similar locomotives, with just a few Dean Goods and maybe Bull/Duke/Dogs to add some variety. Well, it was probably like that between London and say Newton Abbot, but go to Wales or Chester and it was an entirely different story.

Easy to get a circular argument I guess (can't have longer trains because the locos aren't big enough, don't need longer trains with the stock we have), but there must have been all sorts of technical limits its difficult for us to appreciate. I only have much data for the GW, but late 19thC Dean Goods were rated at power class A, which was allowed 29 loaded coal wagons on a 1:150 gradient. Aberdare 2-6-0s, which are probably roughly equivalent to most pre group 0-8-0s, were allowed 48. That's a very considerable increase required in terms of length of refuge sidings, strength of couplings, train braking and all the other issues. And presumably the longer the unbraked mineral train is the more difficult it is to manage. I recall Cox pointing out that given a sufficiently long unbraked train it can stretch over two hills, making the problem of managing it extraordinarily complex. There were a handful of very early 8 coupled locomotives, but it seems evident they were not considered advantageous.

I think you're absolutely right. I had better think more about how to approach this with a different format. I suspect, for example that at any given period, especially end of 19thC, new boilers on different types coming out of the shops would be similar, and it would be good if one could show developments appearing across the fleet new and nominally old locomotives together. I'm thinking that my lots spreadsheet which I'm using to pick out time lines needs to include significant rebuilds etc. If I can tie down dates for locomotive diagrams in the 20thC better than I have so far that might help for that era. I've done a bit of that by interpolating the dates of diagrams for new classes. 19thC will be quite a bit of work.

Yes, I haven't got to that one yet, but my impression is he's listing all the diagrams that a given class/sub class could have. For the 20thC classes it could be useful to list the diagram each lot was built against, but pretty much all of the most complex and difficult classes to get one's head around predate the diagram system. It would be helpful to have the date each diagram was issues, but by and large I haven't traced that yet.

Yes indeedy. I don't think the tech is quite there yet - at least not without some more advanced programming than I really want to do or are capable of, but I can visualise an electronic book in which one has multiple indices, and can check the level of detail required and then have software create chapters that contain the required content in a readable form. Perhaps each paragraph, maybe even sentence would need its own meta data, and the software would assemble the text with the required meta data in the order defined by the chosen indices. Be an emperor sized job to label all the paragraphs with the correct meta data though. A book that could be different every time you read it!

I've been working with that, but didn't find it as useful as I hoped. It's not very sortable which doesn't help. Also I don't like that he lists locomotives by the last number they carried, not the build number. I've got a spreadsheet I've been working on for several days which will be the data source for this project, and although I started with the John Daniels sheet I also reckoned I needed to OCR the complete lot lists from RCTS part one, which I'm treating as the master reference. Then combine the two, and deal with all the issues like lots that need to be divided up for different years, design changes or whatever. I've also had to make reference to the individual RCTS volumes for further details. Its a considerable task and not very congenial! The trouble is that making a database of GWR locomotives is decidedly awkward. Paper registers don't always transfer well to computers. There's no unique key, and not easy to construct one. A locomotive can have multiple numbers, classes, wheel arrangements etc etc, and a number multiple locomotives. It's all very messy! Yes, I have that concern as well. especially when its a few successive years of very similar types.

Thankyou for that. Have you seen this link? https://devboats.co.uk/gwdrawings/errata/GWRlocoDevelopmentErrataFirstEdition.pdf

They're certainly a minefield, the pre group 0-6-0Ts. The challenge is not so much what they were like when built, as what they were like a few years down the lines after overhauls at different factories. Making larger scale digital versions of the drawings available is a very interesting idea. I'll give some serious thought to that. Thankyou. Relationships/contracts with publishers may well not permit it though.

I'm mulling over something different in the way of formats. Traditionally locomotive books have been written class by class, which in many ways is the most logical way to do it. But the trouble is that its difficult to get a sense of how design developed. Say for instance, you're looking at GWR 0-6-0 freight engines. You list the 57 class and its history from a cabless domeless sandwich frame locomotive in 1855 with Gooch motion, then maybe the renewals around the mid 1870s which were almost new locomotives, domes boilers, Stephenson link etc, and then typical 1890s boilers, even Belpaire fireboxes before being withdrawn mostly in the 1910s. Then you jump back to the 79s in 1857, and a similar story, and so it proceeds, jumping between eras and what by the end of their lives are very different locomotives. Which is fine, and its conventional because it works for most people, but it makes it very difficult to gain a picture of how the design school was progressing. A Dean Goods at the end of the class service life in the 40s and 50s was a very different beast to the first built Dean Goods in the early 1880s, and maybe it makes as much or even more sense to look at it alongside a 2251 as opposed to an Armstrong Goods? So then I got to thinking, OK, lets look at it over a time line. The most extreme version would be to use a format of annals - literally year by year, So sort of "1903. Of the 60 locomotives built this year, most were transitional Dean/Churchward types with Churchward boilers. There were 10 Aberdares with Std 4 tapered boilers without top feed and slide valves. 27 Bulldogs, which mostly had second hand parallel barrel Std 2 boilers, although the last ten had short cone taper boilered Std 2s. The reason for the second hand boilers was that the original plan was for a sort of super Bulldog with a Std 4 boiler, but in the event these were used to upgrade Aberdares instead. The ten new Cities, fitted with Std 4 boilers were also built this year as were a further 10 of the 36xx 2-4-2Ts. Most notable, however, was the start of the Churchward revolution. The 2nd and 3rd prototype Saints 98 and 171, the 28xx, No 97 and the large Prairie No 99 all appeared this year, the first with the Churchward front end with integrated cylinders/saddle. The DeGlehn no 102 also made its first appearance this year. Arguably this was year the final form of the British steam locomotive appeared. Then illustrations of a City and the Churchward prototypes perhaps." An alternate approach would be to do periods of design, for instance Churchward/Dean Transition and Churchward Standards. That would separate the 36xx, Aberdare, Std boilers on 4-4-0s and the Std 2/4 boiler era from the true outside cylinder era, and in many ways would be a lot more readable, but on the other hand there would be big overlaps, with transition types like the Bird and Flower as late as 1908, but the outside cylinders starting in 1903. On the other hand it would be a lot more readable. What do you think folks? Would you be more likely to purchase a book based on timelines? Rigidly as annals, or more flexible with eras?

Good point. Were there any servicing facilities at all at Kingswear? You'd think they would want to do a bit more than just turn locomotives coming off through trains from wherever.