GWR Class name pronunciation

[Erudhalion]

This is quite a silly question, but has been bugging me for a considerable amount of time: how do you read the names of GWR classes, such as 72xx?

 

I can think of a few possibilities, the first one being seventy-two-ecks-ecks, but I doubt it's the right one.

 

Is there a definitive answer?

 

Thanks in advance.

[Talltim]

I alway though it was as per your example

[malcolmy]

Yep me too!

 

Confusion arises with some of the later classes but I would just use the individual digits. E.g. Two-two-five-one. Etc.

[lonesome_whistle]

I think standard railway parlance would have been simply 'seventy-two', 'fifty-seven', and , in the case of standards on the Western, 'ninety-two'. A Western diesel was, of course, a 'thousand'!

 

If saying it in full, then I prefer 'seventy-two hundred' over 'seventy-two ex ex' as it sounds less like a modeller's term.

[Phatbob]

I would say "seventy-two-hundred", but would write it as 72xx. I wouldn't say "seventy-two-ex-ex". That just sounds too "clumsy" to me.

[br2975]

"Seventy two" or "Forty two" was the norm, from what railwaymen I met told me.

.

Counties were known as 'thousands' as were Westerns when they arrived.

.

Not all railwaymen appeared to use the class name e.g. Hall or castle as enthusiasts do/did

 

Brian R

[Erudhalion]

I always thought the "ex-ex" sounded clumsy too, and had thought of "seventy-two hundred" as an alternative, but just "seventy-two" had never occurred to me, although it does seem the neatest way now I see it.

[cary hill]

.

Not all railwaymen appeared to use the class name e.g. Hall or castle as enthusiasts do/did

 

Brian R

 

Does that mean that a Castle would be referred to as "4073" (class) ?

[buffalo]

"Seventy two" or "Forty two" was the norm, from what railwaymen I met told me...

That sounds quite reasonable and corresponds to what I've heard from some other sources, but what about the many classes without an 'XX', e.g. 8750, 2251, etc.?

 

Nick

[The Stationmaster]

Does that mean that a Castle would be referred to as "4073" (class) ?

An interesting question that one. I have seen them in official operating dept publications referred to as 40XX (yes, lumped with the 'Stars') and 70XX (BR era) as well as by their number groups and by all sorts of names by enginemen but usually 40s/50s etc or 'Castles' while 'Kings were referred to in one publication as '60XX King class'.

 

Answering Nicks' question the 8750s were 57XX although they have been referred to by other **XX numbers at various times in different publications although I don't know about the 2251s but suspect '22er' would have been most common in later years.

[melmerby]

There is the reported case of a failed Castle on an express having been replaced by a Grange.

When the train arrived at Leamington to change crews the outgoing driver apologised for the somewhat lowly engine for the class of train, the replacement driver replied "A 68 will do just fine" or something similar.

 

Keith

[Trainshed Terry]

A friend of mine says 69 sex sex for some reason.

 

Got and running for the exit. :jester:

 

Terry

[Siberian Snooper]

Does that mean that a Castle would be referred to as "4073" (class) ?

 

I've heard of Stars as small 40's and Castles as Large 40's

 

Cheers SS

[Martino]

In my area Castles were always Castles, Kings were Kings and Halls, Halls. 61XX were 61s or tanner one-ers if you were being childish. 2251 class were Collet 0-6-0s, or baby castles. Warships, Westerns and Hymeks were always that. For some reason WR DMUs were always. 'Bog Units'!

[melmerby]

The GWR's own publicity (Names, Numbers, Types and Classes 1928) refers to them such as:

3252 "Duke" class

3300 "Bulldog" class

4100 "Flower" class

3700 "City" class

4000 "Star" class

4073 "Castle" class etc. etc.

 

It does not mention e.g. 29XX class when referring to the different loco types

 

When there are modified locos added to a class e.g. Collett's updated 2800s in later additions (as in the 1946 issue) they are included in the main group, still as 2800s but noting that those numbered 2884 onward are to the updated design.

The same applies to the later version of 4500 tanks.

 

Keith

[Castle]

Hi All,

 

The method at Didcot is largely as per the railwaymen - a 72XX would be referred to as a 'seventy two' although as we only have a limited number of engines, volunteers refer to No. 5322 for example as the 53 and No. 3822 as the 38 and I am not sure if this was practice back in the day. We however also use class names for named engines (Hall, Castle, Saint, County, etc.).

 

The Star / Castle - small / large 40s was definitely used in the steam age. I think it is in the Laira Fireman book but I can't be sure.

 

There are also society nicknames for the various of the engines too - titles include:

 

Taffy Tank (this is an old one!), The Donkey, The Sledge, Battered Agnes, Spud II (or, at the moment, Gordon!), Big 13, Hinderance, The Nag, The Rat, The Bus, Bathtub, BPC, Kerosene Castle (another old one!), Panda Tank (x2) and Erebus

 

Enjoy...

 

All the best,

 

Castle

 

 

 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...Is there a definitive answer?...

I would encourage the thought, 'probably not'. Whatever HQ may have said, the operating crew will probably have had another name, and given the parochiality of much of the UK steam network, quite likely more than one name may have been in common usage.

 

Of one pronunciation you may be sure however. It will be Carsehole rather than Cassel.

[Miss Prism]

I like the typical Didcot humour of describing the broad gauge stuff as ' 18" to the foot '.

[Castle]

Hi Miss P,

 

We aim to please...

 

All the best,

 

Castle

[Ozexpatriate]

This is quite a silly question,

Some may disagree, but I didn't find this to be a silly question at all and resulted in a discussion I thought was interesting.

 

Doubtless the colloquial terms for Western stock yet lives, but only in the memory of some. As a practical matter this terminology stopped being in everyday usage at least ~50 years ago, if not 65 years ago.

 

I enjoyed the thread.