OO gauge GWR Mogul and Prairie

[melmerby]

1 minute ago, Les1952 said:

Just as a thought-

 

To what extent did  the GW works indulge in the practice on the LNER side of stripping locos down to the frames at major overhaul and sending most components off to different specialist parts of the works for refurbishing?  What came back was more often than not from a different loco.  Rather than wait for (say) the motion parts from 9399 to come back from cleaning and refurbishing it would be reassembled with the next set of appropriate parts that were ready.

 

Doncaster had this off to a fine art, to the extent that when the A3 "Grand Parade" was badly bent at Castlecary the works had a "renewed engine" built from spares and waiting to go into the paintshop before the unfortunate engine had arrived at works for repair, the result being that only the nameplates were left of the original loco- which was then carefully dismantled and all appropriate parts used again.

 

Les

PS I am aware there wasn't a 9399.

I think I've seen a picture of both locos together somewhere

 

Swindon probably had a similar system.

e.g. when King Class loco 6007 was written off in an accident in 1936 a new loco was ordered to replace it.

The new loco (using the frames, boiler and other parts from the original) was back in service in less than 2 months from the writing off.

 

After Harrow, Crewe managed to repair this (City of Glasgow) pretty quickly (Princess Anne which looked no worse was scrapped):

 

[Steamport Southport]

3 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

I think the usual quote is that all GWR locos look the same, which is a slightly different matter.

 

On the evidence of this thread, it would probably be fair to say that "if any two GWR moguls were the same, they didn't stay that way for long."

 

John.

 

Aye. But GWR and LMS are generally pretty simple compared to the LNER with all their classifications and sub classifications. Then an engine in one sub-class would be rebuilt into a totally different sub-class. The various classes of 2-8-0s are particularly headache inducing.

 

For example a locomotive in the O4 class would get a totally different boiler and still be an O4. Whereas one with that same boiler, but altered valve gear and cylinders would become a new class. Bonkers and totally confusing.  

 

https://www.lner.info/locos/O/o4o5.php

 

 

Jason

[tomparryharry]

3 hours ago, melmerby said:

I think I've seen a picture of both locos together somewhere

 

Swindon probably had a similar system.

e.g. when King Class loco 6007 was written off in an accident in 1936 a new loco was ordered to replace it.

The new loco (using the frames, boiler and other parts from the original) was back in service in less than 2 months from the writing off.

 

After Harrow, Crewe managed to repair this (City of Glasgow) pretty quickly (Princess Anne which looked no worse was scrapped):

 

Princess Anne was a one-off: The Big Lizzies had a field of parts to choose from.

[Les1952]

9 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

Aye. But GWR and LMS are generally pretty simple compared to the LNER with all their classifications and sub classifications. Then an engine in one sub-class would be rebuilt into a totally different sub-class. The various classes of 2-8-0s are particularly headache inducing.

 

For example a locomotive in the O4 class would get a totally different boiler and still be an O4. Whereas one with that same boiler, but altered valve gear and cylinders would become a new class. Bonkers and totally confusing.  

 

https://www.lner.info/locos/O/o4o5.php

 

 

Jason

 

The O1, O4 and O5 were different classes because they were different in concept. If a loco was the same weight and had a chassis basically the same as Robinson designed it then it was an O4.  There were eight sub-classes of O4 to show big differences above the running plate that needed differentiation, ie round-topped boiler, steel firebox (the ex-MoD locos as purchased), locos still to GCR loading gauge that wouldn't fit under bridges on other parts of the network etc.

Not all of these differences were externally visible.   The O1 was a "new" Thompson class built on the chassis of an O4, with new larger cylinders with piston valves above the cylinders, new cab and Walschaerts valve gear- ie a Thompson chassis not a Robinson one.  The O4 rebuilds that were Robinson's chassis but had only been given the same boiler were O4/8.  O5s were a bigger boilered class originally thought (in GCR days at least) to be the next step forward.  As they were heavier they were in a separate route-availability group and by the thinking at Gorton at the time of the grouping that made them a different class.  When the bigger boilers wore out they were given O4-sized boilers and became part of the appropriate O4 sub-class.

 

At the grouping each area (basically each absorbed railway) decided what made up a class to be included in the new system and each had different ideas- Gorton (GCR) had different ideas from those of Darlington (NER), and the NER weren't consistent- J26 and J27 were virtually a single class while others with large numbers weren't given an LNER class at all (class 398 0-6-0).  The GWR didn't have that problem as it grew by absorbtion rather than by amalgamation and could afford to be ruthless weeding out non-standard types (10 year old Barry 0-6-4 tanks come to mind).

 

The GWR had access to pots of money that the LNER didn't.  The best comparison is that Collett was able to build more 0-6-0 pannier tanks than Gresley was able to build engines in total.  Yes, some of these seemed big and flashy but these all managed to pay for themselves- the first year of the streamliners total costs including building them was only 18% of the revenue they generated. 

 

Apart from those locos that were new builds disguised as rebuilds/repairs to satisfy accountants (Manors and Granges for example) to what extent was an engine emerging from Swindon a set of different but equivalent kit parts on the frame of the one that went in?  And- could a loco revert from some more modern parts (ie motion brackets) to an older variation at overhaul because these were common-user?

 

That was the original question I posed, and it may be relevant to some of the discussion earlier in this thread.

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

10 hours ago, Les1952 said:

Just as a thought-

 

To what extent did  the GW works indulge in the practice on the LNER side of stripping locos down to the frames at major overhaul and sending most components off to different specialist parts of the works for refurbishing?  What came back was more often than not from a different loco.  Rather than wait for (say) the motion parts from 9399 to come back from cleaning and refurbishing it would be reassembled with the next set of appropriate parts that were ready.

 

Doncaster had this off to a fine art, to the extent that when the A3 "Grand Parade" was badly bent at Castlecary the works had a "renewed engine" built from spares and waiting to go into the paintshop before the unfortunate engine had arrived at works for repair, the result being that only the nameplates were left of the original loco- which was then carefully dismantled and all appropriate parts used again.

 

Les

PS I am aware there wasn't a 9399.

Swindon was doing that long before Doncaster got the message I think you'll find.  Thus engines of some classes could arrive with outside steam pipes and leave with inside steam pipes while  boiler changes on a 57XX pannier could back date it to, say, no longer  having a top feed although it had appeared new with one.  It was one of the big advantages of Churchward's standardisation programme which was taken to an even higher level by Collett and it reduced shopping times and took full advantage of the interchangeability of components (unlike the LNER which was far less standardised in terms of components, especially minor components).  The latter made a big difference at running sheds as well because GWR depots generally need a much smaller range of the interchangeable parts which were likely to need changing on engines in traffic.  

 

Stanier of   course took the system to the LMS although Midland designs had been standardised as had LNWR - but not with each other.  The result of course was that except for certain key features a main works visit of a GWR engine could change details of its appearance as could updating of various items as a class passed through works.  But having said that the change of a major feature like a motion/boiler support bracket on a GW engine was much less common until the time when withdrawals began to bite and good condition major parts, such as frames might be taken from condemned engines for reuse.  

 

As ever the important thing for the modeller is to find reliably dated photos of any particular engine they wish to model and ideally similarly dated photos of both sides of that engine (that's the harder bit).

 

The case of 6007 after the Shrivenham collision is interesting but probably owes little to a story about standardisation.  Most of the damage was to extraneous platework and minor components attached to the frames with the most comprehensive damage being to the bogie.  The boiler was not reported as being damaged but the front end of one of the main frames s was bent 3/8" out of line and might well have been repairable in one way or another as it was not reported to be cracked.  I suspect the work was charged to a separate Lot number as much for accountancy reasons as anything else because it did involve quite a lot of new manufacture of parts which would not have been held as stock items and which normally remained attached to the frames during a general overhaul.  The boiler would have simply gone back into the pool in the normal fashion at a general overhaul.   Incidentally Fireman Cozens lived for many years after the collision but his hair had turned snow white shortly after the incident and remained that way.  He was regrettably of a rather nervous disposition in his later years so I wasn't at ll inclined to ask him about his experience when I met him in the late 1970s.

[Les1952]

2 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Swindon was doing that long before Doncaster got the message I think you'll find.  Thus engines of some classes could arrive with outside steam pipes and leave with inside steam pipes while  boiler changes on a 57XX pannier could back date it to, say, no longer  having a top feed although it had appeared new with one.  It was one of the big advantages of Churchward's standardisation programme which was taken to an even higher level by Collett and it reduced shopping times and took full advantage of the interchangeability of components (unlike the LNER which was far less standardised in terms of components, especially minor components).  The latter made a big difference at running sheds as well because GWR depots generally need a much smaller range of the interchangeable parts which were likely to need changing on engines in traffic.  

 

Stanier of   course took the system to the LMS although Midland designs had been standardised as had LNWR - but not with each other.  The result of course was that except for certain key features a main works visit of a GWR engine could change details of its appearance as could updating of various items as a class passed through works.  But having said that the change of a major feature like a motion/boiler support bracket on a GW engine was much less common until the time when withdrawals began to bite and good condition major parts, such as frames might be taken from condemned engines for reuse.  

 

As ever the important thing for the modeller is to find reliably dated photos of any particular engine they wish to model and ideally similarly dated photos of both sides of that engine (that's the harder bit).

 

The case of 6007 after the Shrivenham collision is interesting but probably owes little to a story about standardisation.  Most of the damage was to extraneous platework and minor components attached to the frames with the most comprehensive damage being to the bogie.  The boiler was not reported as being damaged but the front end of one of the main frames s was bent 3/8" out of line and might well have been repairable in one way or another as it was not reported to be cracked.  I suspect the work was charged to a separate Lot number as much for accountancy reasons as anything else because it did involve quite a lot of new manufacture of parts which would not have been held as stock items and which normally remained attached to the frames during a general overhaul.  The boiler would have simply gone back into the pool in the normal fashion at a general overhaul.   Incidentally Fireman Cozens lived for many years after the collision but his hair had turned snow white shortly after the incident and remained that way.  He was regrettably of a rather nervous disposition in his later years so I wasn't at ll inclined to ask him about his experience when I met him in the late 1970s.

 

Doncaster standardisation dates right back to the days of Stirling- who tried to use one set of standard components in every loco as far as possible.  Certainly components being put into new engines at the time of his retirement were compatable with some in locos being built as far back as 1870.  Similarly the NER started a similar system when Worsdell took over at Darlington in the eighteen eighties.  The advantage the GWR had was that at the grouping it wasn't trying to amalgamate five different sets of standards.  The GWR had a privileged position in this respect.

 

Les

[melmerby]

7 hours ago, tomparryharry said:

Princess Anne was a one-off: The Big Lizzies had a field of parts to choose from.

But it was standardised as much as being an amalgam of parts from a Princess & a Coronation.

[The Stationmaster]

22 hours ago, Les1952 said:

 

Doncaster standardisation dates right back to the days of Stirling- who tried to use one set of standard components in every loco as far as possible.  Certainly components being put into new engines at the time of his retirement were compatable with some in locos being built as far back as 1870.  Similarly the NER started a similar system when Worsdell took over at Darlington in the eighteen eighties.  The advantage the GWR had was that at the grouping it wasn't trying to amalgamate five different sets of standards.  The GWR had a privileged position in this respect.

 

Les

The GWR was of course having to amalgamate rather more than 5 sets of standards although it wasn't alone in that respect at the Grouping.  But it did of course set to and do exactly that.  However teh advantage it had was that as far as it was concerned from a loco viewpoint it already had a fairly consistent set of standards.

[Les1952]

7 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

The GWR was of course having to amalgamate rather more than 5 sets of standards although it wasn't alone in that respect at the Grouping.  But it did of course set to and do exactly that.  However teh advantage it had was that as far as it was concerned from a loco viewpoint it already had a fairly consistent set of standards.

 

What the GWR didn't have to do was amalgamate 5 sets of standards from railways each of which was a fifth of the total (all right a sixth to a quarter but no ONE set amounting to about 75% of the total stock).  The LNER inherited major workshops and major design depts from the GNR (Doncaster), NER (Darlington and Gateshead), GER (Stratford), GCR (Gorton) and NBR (Cowlairs), each of which was building its own locos to its own, different, standards - The only ones of the size of the lines the GWR inherited were the Great North Of Scotland and the Hull and Barnsley, and even these had their own families of locos built to different design standards to the big five. 

 

Hence the GWR could evolve Churchward's standards rather than having to reinvent each standard at the grouping. On the other three of the four grouping companies whichever areas lost out took a "not invented here" attitude -  GNR vs NER feuding on the LNER and the LMS trying to persuade Crewe and Derby to sing from the same hymn sheet.

 

To come back to the moguls the fact so many were built - 342 over a twenty year period  - meant that later ones had a lot in common with locos twenty years older, and the Manors and Granges were seen as another evolution of the design.  Designs evolved but compatability of parts meant a later loco could receive pieces that had started off in several different classmates, and which in some cases were older than the loco itself.  A few years ago someone did a check on which locos had contributed parts to one of the preserved Halls during its GWR/BR overhauls.  How many did they find?  It seemed a lot.

 

Les

 

[tomparryharry]

7 hours ago, Les1952 said:

 

What the GWR didn't have to do was amalgamate 5 sets of standards from railways each of which was a fifth of the total (all right a sixth to a quarter but no ONE set amounting to about 75% of the total stock).  The LNER inherited major workshops and major design depts from the GNR (Doncaster), NER (Darlington and Gateshead), GER (Stratford), GCR (Gorton) and NBR (Cowlairs), each of which was building its own locos to its own, different, standards - The only ones of the size of the lines the GWR inherited were the Great North Of Scotland and the Hull and Barnsley, and even these had their own families of locos built to different design standards to the big five. 

 

Hence the GWR could evolve Churchward's standards rather than having to reinvent each standard at the grouping. On the other three of the four grouping companies whichever areas lost out took a "not invented here" attitude -  GNR vs NER feuding on the LNER and the LMS trying to persuade Crewe and Derby to sing from the same hymn sheet.

 

To come back to the moguls the fact so many were built - 342 over a twenty year period  - meant that later ones had a lot in common with locos twenty years older, and the Manors and Granges were seen as another evolution of the design.  Designs evolved but compatability of parts meant a later loco could receive pieces that had started off in several different classmates, and which in some cases were older than the loco itself.  A few years ago someone did a check on which locos had contributed parts to one of the preserved Halls during its GWR/BR overhauls.  How many did they find?  It seemed a lot.

 

Les

 

The list from pannier 9629 runs at about 17 different locomotive numbers, with possibly more during the restoration process. One of the upside is when the conversation goes like this:- "Hey! We've found part XXX from our spares pile, and the number is for 9629." It's very gratifying to find parts from the locomotive, and even more so, when those parts are up for sale. Much Kudos for the vendor,as the jigsaw gets ever closer to completion.

 

Ian.

[martinT]

On 22/12/2019 at 22:24, Miss Prism said:

I do not believe there is enough room for lining on a Churchward 3500g with a large early logo. A few tenders had small early logos with lining - see the caption for 6385.

 

Agreed! But what about the later BR Totem. This photo from Neil Dimmer shews 6379 in undoubtedly lined green livery - but is that the large version of the 2nd BR totem?

https://railway-photography.smugmug.com/GWRSteam-1/Churchward-Locomotives/Churchward-Tender-Locomotives/Churchward-4300-Class-Mogul/Churchward-Mogul/i-8XVbDk8

[Miss Prism]

On 03/01/2020 at 12:09, martinT said:

Agreed! But what about the later BR Totem. This photo from Neil Dimmer shews 6379 in undoubtedly lined green livery - but is that the large version of the 2nd BR totem?

https://railway-photography.smugmug.com/GWRSteam-1/Churchward-Locomotives/Churchward-Tender-Locomotives/Churchward-4300-Class-Mogul/Churchward-Mogul/i-8XVbDk8

 

Yes, I think it is. Looking through a few Mogul pics, the small version of the late crest seems to predominate in post-1957 days on the 3500g Churchward tenders, but I guess works were applying whatever transfers they had in the last days, 

 

Here's 6341 at Horton Road, with what seems is a large late crest:

 

 

 

Edited February 6 by Miss Prism
image reinstated

[martinT]

21 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

 

Yes, I think it is. Looking through a few Mogul pics, the small version of the late crest seems to predominate in post-1957 days on the 3500g Churchward tenders, but I guess works were applying whatever transfers they had in the last days, 

 

Here's 6341 at Horton Road, with what seems is a large late crest:

 

 

 

thanks, but is 6341 lined here? It was getting so difficult to tell at this stage. I'm ploughing thro' Neil Dimmer's Mogul collection but with 280 in it it's taking some time. This one shews 6374 definitely lined & with the small crest:

https://railway-photography.smugmug.com/GWRSteam-1/Churchward-Locomotives/Churchward-Tender-Locomotives/Churchward-4300-Class-Mogul/Churchward-Mogul/i-RxbMTGD

 

and here's 6365 at Glo'ster, again lined but with I think the large crest:

https://railway-photography.smugmug.com/GWRSteam-1/Churchward-Locomotives/Churchward-Tender-Locomotives/Churchward-4300-Class-Mogul/Churchward-Mogul/i-VrxZTV7/A

 

so it looks as tho' lined locos could have either size of the 2nd crest.  All I need to do now is find a small crest on a definitely unlined loco!

 

Martin

[Miss Prism]

1 hour ago, martinT said:

thanks, but is 6341 lined here?

 

I don't think so.

 

Quote

All I need to do now is find a small crest on a definitely unlined loco!

 

5385 (with a high washout plug line on its firebox), 6336. Both outside-piped. (I can send pics if you need.)

 

Also, 6337 (which is not 6359 as listed on Neil Dimmer's site) is unlined with small late crest.

 

Additions to lined engines are: 5322, 5339, 5370, 6352.

 

5369 is in unlined green.

 

Edited January 4, 2020 by Miss Prism

[martinT]

6 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

 

I don't think so.

 

 

5385 (with a high washout plug line on its firebox), 6336. Both outside-piped. (I can send pics if you need.)

 

Also, 6337 (which is not 6359 as listed on Neil Dimmer's site) is unlined with small late crest.

 

Additions to lined engines are: 5322, 5339, 5370, 6352.

 

5369 is in unlined green.

 

 

Thanks Russ. Yes, I'd noticed the problem with 6337/6359 - it's one of several misidentifications I've come across. Once I've got through the collection I'll make my Mogul photo spreadsheet available.

 

Martin

[martinT]

On 04/01/2020 at 20:03, martinT said:

 

Thanks Russ. Yes, I'd noticed the problem with 6337/6359 - it's one of several misidentifications I've come across. Once I've got through the collection I'll make my Mogul photo spreadsheet available.

 

Martin

As threatened here's my current Mogul photo spreadsheet - about 750 entries. My ambition is to find photos of all 342 - a bit ambitious I know, esp. for the 43xx & 83xx series.  I hope this link works:mogul-listing-mjt.xls

 

Martin

[melmerby]

Hope you don't mind but here is the same thing in numerical order:

43XX locos.XLS

[Hilux5972]

Dapol has shown finalised CADs for the Prairie. They all seem to odd angles, not the usual profile, head on etc. 

[Hilux5972]

Here’s some slightly clearer versions. Looks like we are getting moulded on numberplates on the bunker sides. I’ll still honour my preorder of one BR version, to compare against Hornbys, but I’ll be most likely sticking with Hornby for future versions. 

[outatime]

I think the Dapol one looks very promising, a different colour in the cad picture usually means a different part.

So the cabside numberplate could possibly be a separate part.

What catches my interest is the fitting of both decoder and speaker and of course the compensated chassis.

Just cancelled my preorder on the Hornby one, i will wait until the Dapol one arrives.

 

Regards,

Bjoern

[tomparryharry]

Having publicly said I'll be having one, and nothing here to alter what I've said.  Yes, I'll be in for a couple, and the Hornby version as well.

 

It still seems that polite discussion, and clearly defined observations have been of benefit to both the producer, and modellers at large. 

 

What's next? Large Metro 2-4-0, anybody?  But, play nicely.....

 

Cheers,

Ian.

[Miss Prism]

Seems like the Dapol Digest is no longer "The definitive source for Dapol product news."
 

[David Stannard]

17 hours ago, Hilux5972 said:

Dapol has shown finalised CADs for the Prairie. They all seem to odd angles, not the usual profile, head on etc. 

 

It's probably so Miss Prism can't pick any more faults with the CAD which would result in more tweaking and delay production even more.

[David Stannard]

9 hours ago, tomparryharry said:

 

What's next? Large Metro 2-4-0, anybody?  But, play nicely.....

 

 

Yes please!

[melmerby]

10 hours ago, tomparryharry said:

 

What's next? Large Metro 2-4-0, anybody?  But, play nicely.....

 

Cheers,

Ian.

Noooooooooooo.

I've just bought a kit.