GWR No 111 The Great Bear 4-6-2

[Coach bogie]

 

Interesting comment too about your grandfather going to Canton as most men in later years seemed to go to either Old Oak or Tyseley for their firing job before moving back home to a driving vacancy when their turn arrived, a good way of jumping over men who were originally senior to you but hadn't moved away for promotion. The earliest one I've ever heard of was a Westbourne Park Cleaner who went to Tyseley for his firing job and subsequently came back to Old Oak a couple of years after it opened.

 

Most of the family worked in the factory, with the footplate relatives spending periods at Oxford, Westbury and Newton Abbott. As soon as he had enough seniority through the links as a driver, he pushed to be moved back. In addition to his footplate duties, he had a leading role in ASLEF, which I am told assisted, in the move back to Swindon. I was too young, when he died, to really appreciate all this. I am sorry to say I was far more interested in hearing about the oil firing days and Caynham Court. He absolutely hated the 94XX. At the end of his driving career he had

cataracts, on his eyes and was reduced to shunting and local duties. He did not mind the duties, as he was able to have regular hours for the first time in his life, but shunting with a screw reverser!!!

 

 

Mike Wiltshire

[Leicester Thumper]

Of course this throws up the debate of weather T.G.B was a bad steamer or badly steamed.

 

could be said a combination of both, from the evidence provided it is clear that it was a unique firing experience due to 111 being of a non standard class and design. with it being a one off, the issues of trying to fix faults for 'bad steaming' would that it would be less likely to get fixed. You also have to remember that the drivers and firemen were all used to driving standardised design locomotives, which in some form or another, had certain traits between each class which enabled them to get to grips easily/easier with the firing.

 

all the answers we need to know are above, and I have to say, there is some mightily fine information here!

[DavidB]

This was a universal finding around the world: want high power from steam, use a wide firegrate. That Swindon didn't go this way after Churchward's lead is a measure of the loss of the technical supremacy at that centre, swiftly following the GOM's retirement.

You are unquestionably right about the dominance of wide firebox designs when it comes to total power output, but Mike Notley has argued compellingly that 5043's remarkable performances on the main line in the last few years have shown that the basic Churchward firebox design, when matched with Sam Ell's final draughting and a fine-tuned level of superheating, can produce a level of edhp per square foot of grate in excess of the Princess Coronations at their best, and (if you believe the testimony of people like Bob Meanley of Tyseley), 5043 has always been driven to date with something in reserve - in other words, the argument goes that the Swindon firebox in a Castle GTi like 5043 is actually more efficient at high power generation than the UK's most powerful Pacific design. Now I appreciate that this is very different from maximum power generation, and 5043's highest calculated total output to date of 2,030 edhp is only two thirds of what Duchess of Abercorn produced in 1939, but I find it very intriguing that it's taken until 2010 to begin to discover exactly what the Swindon technology is truly capable of delivering. There were occasional hints of extraordinary performances on the Birmingham road in the late 50s with double chimney 4 row superheater Castles, but nobody seemed to believe that they were capable of delivering more power than a Western diesel - but now we know that they could. Mike the Stationmaster once wrote about Clun Castle beating HST times up Sapperton - to my shame, I was sceptical, but after 5043's blistering climb up Whiteball a couple of weeks ago, followed by marching load 12 over Sapperton in a torrential downpour without breaking sweat the next day, I'm now convinced that the story of Swindon steam may need another chapter.

 

David

[ringo]

My Grandfather too, was a GWR fireman, and he too had 111 on many occasions, and he didnt have too many problems with her, so I am proud to be associated with that loco, even to the point that my car registration is 111GWR ! (and no I dont want to sell it......)

 

I miss my Grandfather with his tales of old, of the curve shy Bear, one thing though, he hated "Krugers"!, he was a proper old railway man, tought me how to drink Ansells best, and how to play 5's and 3's....things I needed to know when I jioned BR......

 

I too agree that ther should be a decent ready to run loco in 4 and 2 mm.......come on Heljan, stop producing odd ball Diesels (actually dont stop), and produce some steam oddities, mind Hornby already have the wheels, cylinders and motion, its a starting point.

 

Cheers

 

Ringo

[GWR-Fanatic]

I too agree that ther should be a decent ready to run loco in 4 and 2 mm.......come on Heljan, stop producing odd ball Diesels (actually dont stop), and produce some steam oddities, mind Hornby already have the wheels, cylinders and motion, its a starting point.

 

In that case, can I be cheeky and say that I'd love this particular locomotive in N gauge, Farish and Dapol produce some really fantastic models in this scale, and I'd love to see one of them release a version of GWR 111, and I would be proud to add it to my collection, as Churchward is my favourite designer overall, of course followed very closely by his successor Charles Benjamin Collett, Who I believe could have carried on the legacy if he were only given the chance.

 

I also believe that he had been limited by the knowledge he only designed 2-6-0's, from the way I've read about him in at least one biography, he was a man with great potential, and Churchward saw that in him.

 

I would love to see somebody produce a book along the same lines of the LNER W1, the LMS "Fury" and the Southern "Leader", as at the time of it's building it was very much an experimental locomotive, it was only many years after "Great Bear" that other companies began to build pacific locomotives.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...the argument goes that the Swindon firebox in a Castle GTi like 5043 is actually more efficient at high power generation than the UK's most powerful Pacific design. Now I appreciate that this is very different from maximum power generation, and 5043's highest calculated total output to date of 2,030 edhp is only two thirds of what Duchess of Abercorn produced in 1939, ...

Why compare to a notoriously inefficient design? An A4 is known to be a better unit than a Princess Coronation when it comes to efficiency, and the Castle grate does about the same output per unit area as the A4 when worked flat out. There is no magic here, there is a maximum weight of coal that can be burned per unit area per unit time, and if all other design factors are broadly equivalent, that sets the limit on power production. Bigger is better, greater power production capability, better performance maintenance as ash builds up, greater power reserve against problems.

 

The real point is that had Swindon had a worthy successor to Churchward, the Castle could have had that performance by the 1930's, exactly as Gresley had delivered on the A4, rather than waiting for the 1950s for BR to apply the lessons learned elsewhere: that better draughting for low back pressure and high temperature superheat were rather useful techniques. That was the mark of Gresley's quality, he recognised when someone else had got something right - valve events in the case of the Castle in 1925 - and acted on it. And had such a successor CME at Swindon developed the Bear to overcome its initial troubles, then Stanier would have had a lot less trouble getting his pacific design right for the LMS...

[Coach bogie]

Charles Benjamin Collett, Who I believe could have carried on the legacy if he were only given the chance.

 

I would love to see somebody produce a book along the same lines of the LNER W1, the LMS "Fury" and the Southern "Leader", as at the time of it's building it was very much an experimental locomotive, it was only many years after "Great Bear" that other companies began to build pacific locomotives.

 

There is already a book on the Great Bear from an Irish publisher a few years back. I am at work at the moment so do not have it in front of me. I'll add details later.

 

I attended a lecture by Oswald Nock at the Swindon Mechanics Institue in the 1970's with contributions from others involved and as someone who knew Collett quite well, it was clear that Collett was not appointed for his design skills. If Paddington had wanted that then Stanier would have been appointed. Churchward has set the legacy for future designs that worked for the Western. Collett was more of a 'works' man. he completely changed working practices and systems within the works and a the sheds, something that the Western badly needed, reducing out of traffic periods for stock. The management structure was changed when Collett was appointed making him closer to the board, especially Felix Pole, and accountants at Paddington. Churchward may have been a great designer but he was not exactly popular when it came to sticking to budget or working with other departments. Churchward had a poor working relationship with the PW engineers in particluar and was designing to out of date information. The Bear was restricted to routes due to weight, yet by the end of the Bears life it could have travelled over other routes, unknown to Churchward due to the poor communication with the PW section. This situation was resolved by Colletts time and the management restructuring, of particular importance when the Kings came along when Collett discovered that only a couple of bridges needed strengthing, only by actually talking to the engineers. It was Colletts choice to rebuild 111. He had a more financial approach to design & maintenance. Why rebuild an aging loco when new Castles where coming on line? Use the rebuild budget on new stock. When Stars wore out, he built more Castles. When Saints and moguls wore out, he built more Halls. Swindon did not need another Churchward, they needed someone to keep the wheels turning with declining revenues and difficult financial times ahead, a job description that Collett was able to fulfl.

 

Mike Wiltshire

[Guest dilbert]

The real point is that had Swindon had a worthy successor to Churchward, the Castle could have had that performance by the 1930's, exactly as Gresley had delivered on the A4, rather than waiting for the 1950s for BR to apply the lessons learned elsewhere: that better draughting for low back pressure and high temperature superheat were rather useful techniques. That was the mark of Gresley's quality, he recognised when someone else had got something right - valve events in the case of the Castle in 1925 - and acted on it. And had such a successor CME at Swindon developed the Bear to overcome its initial troubles, then Stanier would have had a lot less trouble getting his pacific design right for the LMS...

 

(my bold) Churchward had fourteen years in which to attempt for fix the problems of the The Great Bear. The fact that this wasn't significantly addressed speaks heaps in itself - and that 4-6-0 motive power at that time was sufficient for the GWR. It is stated that Hawksworth (who had worked on some of the engineering elements of the Great Bear) as GWR CME and had drawn up plans for a Pacific - and that led nowhere either in austerity GB

 

It was Colletts choice to rebuild 111. He had a more financial approach to design & maintenance. Why rebuild an aging loco when new Castles where coming on line? Use the rebuild budget on new stock. When Stars wore out, he built more Castles. When Saints and moguls wore out, he built more Halls. Swindon did not need another Churchward, they needed someone to keep the wheels turning with declining revenues and difficult financial times ahead, a job description that Collett was able to fulfl.

 

(again my bold)

 

It was noted earlier in this thread that Churchward was disappointed with Collett's transformation of the Great Bear - this can be interpreted in two ways - either he didn't like what Collett had done or maybe he was expressing his regret at not having done modifications over the years when that opportunity existed.

 

Collett's choice of rebuilding locos (or not) is most evident with the constituent companies that were integrated into the GWR in 1923. Whatever made sense was Swindonised to whatever extent that made sense or otherwise was recycled/binned. The decisions being made on what was best for the GWR (interestingly enough, it's thanks to the LNER that CoT was preserved).

 

The development of the AEC Railcar (and ultimately the embryonic DMU) happened under Collett's stewardship - something that nationally didn't get into full swing until BR was born out of the post-war havoc. His approach to streamlining is well documented - it wasn't worth it and he wasn't wrong either... dilbert

[melmerby]

Not much has been said about the type of locomotive required for the duties it was needed on.

IMHO the Swindon approach of a narrow firebox 4-6-0 loco suited the GWR requirements. Why build a pacific if a 4-6-0 will do?

 

Bear in mind the majority of LMS express passenger locos were also narrow firebox 4-6-0s (Scots, Jubilees, Patriots), the pacifics were built for the more extreme duties.

A 4-6-0 was not ideal for the LMS and LNER for their heaviest trains on the longest routes. If Swindon had 400 mile routes maybe the pacific type would have appeared again in the inter war period.

The GWR also had the advantage of Welsh steam coal which helped the use of narrow fireboxes.

 

 

Why rebuild an aging loco when new Castles where coming on line? Use the rebuild budget on new stock. When Stars wore out, he built more Castles.

 

Mike Wiltshire

 

BTW 15 Stars (and 111) were rebuilt as Castles

 

Keith

.

[The Stationmaster]

Mike the Stationmaster once wrote about Clun Castle beating HST times up Sapperton - to my shame, I was sceptical, but after 5043's blistering climb up Whiteball a couple of weeks ago, followed by marching load 12 over Sapperton in a torrential downpour without breaking sweat the next day, I'm now convinced that the story of Swindon steam may need another chapter.

David

Stashed away somewhere (probably in the big brown envelope labelled 'GW150' I expect) I still have a very detailed log of that run - among a number of other GW150 workings. Peter Semmens pestered me a number of times for a copy which I know he would have published so I wasn't prepared to let him have it in order to protect several (including me) who were involved as our 'sparkling performance' and very early (c.20+ minutes) arrival at Swindon did not go down well with someone in higher authority (hope he doesn't read RMweb, he is now a modeller).

 

One thing which does, I think, need to be taken into account when looking at contemporary steam engine performance is that the locos are usually in tip-top condition and have been carefully prepared and(not always I will admit) have decent coal. Undoubtedly such performances - usually totally unrecorded - were sometimes achieved in everyday working but for operational purposes everything had to be based on what could be done on the most average of days with the most average of just about every factor you can think of. As an example of what could be done I know of one example when a 43XX replaced a failed 'Castle' on the Up 'Bristolian' and on a point-to-point basis didn't lose any time - although it then broke.

 

As for Collett things are very straightforward as Coach Bogie has already said - he was a production engineer and a 'works man' and some of the changes and advances he made at Swindon led to things which were way in advance of what went on elsewhere in running maintenance terms. The other big point is about GWR 'standardisation' which was about far more than works items such as, say, boilers or wheels - all parts were standardised thus anyone coming off, in particular, the Eastern post 1948 was amazed as the spares holding in Western running shed stores with a simple range of components such as firebars and nuts & bolts, injectors and so on which could be used on almost any Swindon built or 'modernised' locos of a particular size.

[Coach bogie]

 

BTW 15 Stars (and 111) were rebuilt as Castles

 

Keith

.

 

I should have said why rebuild the Bear as a pacific? The Star and Bear rebuilds only used the frames and wheels. New cylinders and motion parts were required, new boiler, new cab - new locomotive really, but a rebuild as far as the accountants were concerned.

 

Mike Wiltshire

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...As for Collett things are very straightforward as Coach Bogie has already said - he was a production engineer and a 'works man' and some of the changes and advances he made at Swindon led to things which were way in advance of what went on elsewhere in running maintenance terms...

Quite so. When we were chewing over 'what if nationalisation had happened instead of grouping scenario' for this very reason I would have had him in charge of all the UK railway works. His workshop practise (the GWR having the money available to make it happen helped of course) was indeed the class act among the UK companies. Outside opinion was found in the US reaction to the King sent for the B&O Centennial. Experienced steam engineers had never realised a reciprocating steam loco could be so quiet mechanically.

[Coach bogie]

Further to GWR Fanatic's enquiry the book is 'The Great Bear. Britains First Pacific Locomotive' by Charles Fryer. Fryer Publishing, Cork, Ireland, 1996.

 

Mike Wiltshire

[melmerby]

I should have said why rebuild the Bear as a pacific? The Star and Bear rebuilds only used the frames and wheels. New cylinders and motion parts were required, new boiler, new cab - new locomotive really, but a rebuild as far as the accountants were concerned.

 

Mike Wiltshire

Being pedantic the 10 "Abbeys" which were rebuilt were actually classed as new builds for accounting purposes although any usuable parts from the withdrawn Stars were incorporated into the new Castles. I suppose a few less parts to be drawn from stock would reduce the cost!

 

Keith

[John_Hughes]

One point which needs to be made about firebox designs is that most CMEs kept a very close eye on the coal that would be supplied and designed accordingly.

 

I've seen ex-GWR locos which were fine steamers on the South Wales coal for which they were intended but which ran out of steam very quickly indeed when supplied with what the London Midland Region regarded as perfectly decent loco coal. And - as someone observed in a different context - a Stroudley Terrier would run happily all day on stuff that a Webb Compound would throw contemptuously out of the chimney.

[OnTheBranchline]

An idea for a kick starter?

[Horsetan]

Slightly OT, but I do wonder what might have happened if British locomotive design, whether at Grouping, or post-nationalisation, had had André Chapelon in charge, with the kind of driver and fireman education and training structure that French railways had.

 

How different might things have been?

[The Stationmaster]

Slightly OT, but I do wonder what might have happened if British locomotive design, whether at Grouping, or post-nationalisation, had had André Chapelon in charge, with the kind of driver and fireman education and training structure that French railways had.

 

How different might things have been?

Grossly more expensive.  French running practice was, and is, very consistent, but was (and is) expensive in manning terms and probably in energy consumption as well.

 

And what about French training - I used to work with a chap who had been a Fireman and the Driver at Le Mans (in post-war years) who had left the the footplate and finished up in a managerial post - his technical training had been fairly minimal, but then 141Rs didn't need much in the way of 'technical' I suppose. 

[unclebobkt]

One point which needs to be made about firebox designs is that most CMEs kept a very close eye on the coal that would be supplied and designed accordingly.

 

I've seen ex-GWR locos which were fine steamers on the South Wales coal for which they were intended but which ran out of steam very quickly indeed when supplied with what the London Midland Region regarded as perfectly decent loco coal. And - as someone observed in a different context - a Stroudley Terrier would run happily all day on stuff that a Webb Compound would throw contemptuously out of the chimney.

 

       IIRC. when Stanier moved away from Swindon to Derby his earlier locos. were built to the same general measurments as similar GWR. locos.;  but with the LM&SR's. inferior quality of coal Stanier ran into problems with steaming very quickly.

  In fact didn't Stanier write to Collett advising him to look ahead carefully before future supplies of Wales finest steam-coal  ran out of availability?

  However, the above having been written in 1925. didn't 'Pendennis Castle.' perform more than adequately using coal supplied as standard to the L&NER.?

     

[unclebobkt]

  Slightly OT, but I do wonder what might have happened if British locomotive design, whether at Grouping, or post-nationalisation, had had André Chapelon in charge, ... .

  How different might things have been?

 

      Well - weren't 'Kylchap.' chimneys fitted to a good many BR. locos.?

  Possibly, rather than mons. Chapelon, who was probably looking-forward to his retirement,  senor Porta. one of Chapelon's apostles, with the Argentinian railways might have been a better and a longer term bet?

     

[John_Hughes]

       IIRC. when Stanier moved away from Swindon to Derby his earlier locos. were built to the same general measurments as similar GWR. locos.;  but with the LM&SR's. inferior quality of coal Stanier ran into problems with steaming very quickly.

  In fact didn't Stanier write to Collett advising him to look ahead carefully before future supplies of Wales finest steam-coal  ran out of availability?

  However, the above having been written in 1925. didn't 'Pendennis Castle.' perform more than adequately using coal supplied as standard to the L&NER.?

     

 

Indeed, Pendennis seems to have behaved very well (and used less coal than the LNER locos too!) though of course double chimneys further improved the class' steaming qualities in the 50s.

 

But I remember how the performance at Aberystwyth and the other Cambrian Line sheds fell through the floor when Midland area coal was used - though the Standard steamers seemed to thrive on it. And the Vale of Rheidol engines, perfectly fine performers on South Wales steam coal, would run out of puff four or five times on a single up run when fed stuff from the Midland's pits.

[Satan's Goldfish]

Reviving a dead thread, lots of good info on the engine, but can anyone provide further info on the tender? I may have been looking in the wrong place TGB's tender is the only one I've noticed on inside frame bogies. Was it a one-off, or could that design be found with other classes?

[Coach bogie]

Reviving a dead thread, lots of good info on the engine, but can anyone provide further info on the tender? I may have been looking in the wrong place TGB's tender is the only one I've noticed on inside frame bogies. Was it a one-off, or could that design be found with other classes?

A one off but after its' demise as a 4-6-2 the tender was used behind various 4-4-0 County and Saint class locomotives.

 

M&L used to sell the tender from their Bear kits a spares so you could use behind other classes. This is my 2912. Time for a upgrade and repaint now I have seen an enlarged image of it.

 

 

Mike Wiltshire

[Satan's Goldfish]

Thanks Mike, I'll add it to my list!

[Clearwater]

Hi

 

Picking up on a point above about route availability, would I be broadly right that the Bear could have run through to Birmingham post the upgrade of that line? I'm assuming that if the line was passed for Kings that the line would also have been ok for the Bear.

 

Context is that I've recently obtained an M&L Great Bear kit and am looking for an excuse for it to fit my eventual Midlands themed layout. Albeit both the kit build and the layout may be a few years in gestation...

 

David