Imaginary Locomotives

[Mike 84C]

As a person who fired Granges and Hall's I would agree with Johnster that most Western locomen would prefer a good Grange to a good Hall but I think the improved draughting of the  69's & 79's made a good engine much, much better.

[Alex Neth]

So is the Churchward Grange a mixed traffic loco, like the 43XX class, but longer?

Edited March 1, 2022 by Alex Neth

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

My view is that the 10xx Counties should have been built as 3-cylinder machines as Jubiliee equivalents a proven concept,

 

That would have been interesting.  It would surely have had to have three sets of valve gear, so outside motion would be difficult to avoid.  Also, would Swindon have had the same trouble with the boiler that Stanier had with the Jubilees?

[JimC]

42 minutes ago, Alex Neth said:

So is the Churchward Grange a mixed traffic loco, like the 43XX class, but longer?

Ultimately nearly all GWR locomotives, except the Kings, were used for some freight duties so its hard to draw a firm line, but apparently the raison d'etre of the Granges was that the running department wanted a bigger boiler and a front bogie on the 43s.

[Alex Neth]

3 minutes ago, JimC said:

Ultimately nearly all GWR locomotives, except the Kings, were used for some freight duties so its hard to draw a firm line, but apparently the raison d'etre of the Granges was that the running department wanted a bigger boiler and a front bogie on the 43s.

Thanks for that. On another note, how many of them should or were going to be built, what time frame, and where they might have been built? (I'm making a faux Wikipedia article [not posting it on there, just Google Docs] on the Churchward Granges [aka. Fish class as I like to call them])

[JimC]

9 minutes ago, Flying Pig said:

 

That would have been interesting.  It would surely have had to have three sets of valve gear, so outside motion would be difficult to avoid.  Also, would Swindon have had the same trouble with the boiler that Stanier had with the Jubilees?

It would be interesting to know the relative costs, manufacture and running, of the GWR implementation of two sets of gear plus rockers against three sets of gear.
   Its hard to avoid the conclusion that boiler and front end design was not an especial strength of the LMS design team, but on the other hand its said, I don't know how reliably, that post WW2 Swindon redraughting wasn't as effective on 3 cyl types as on 2 and 4, so who knows.

[AlfaZagato]

I had been under the impression that the 43XX was a response to the running department's request for (basically) the Granges.

[tythatguy1312]

1 hour ago, JimC said:

Ultimately nearly all GWR locomotives, except the Kings, were used for some freight duties

I honestly suspect that, if a King could cross the Royal Albert Bridge without spreading the rails on it apart, that they would've tried a King on the China Clay trains.

[Northmoor]

4 hours ago, The Johnster said:

As an alternative to 47xx, this seems entirely cromulent, but to do Grange work might have been a bit heavy on coal and wasteful of steam.  For a 2-cylinder loco a no.1 boiler is probably sufficient, which of course gets us back to the 68xx as built.  These were very well regarded by the crews, who reckoned they were as fast as and a coach better than a Hall, and better climbers, which makes Hawksworth's decision to modify the Hall design and build more of them instead of more Granges a little difficult to justify.   This is a driver's viewpoint as expressed to me at Canton in the 70s by men who'd fired and driven Halls and Granges, so may not take into account other factors in the decision to build more Halls, but one would have thought, especially during wartime, that the smaller wheeled loco was a better choice.

 

Had Hawkworth used the Stanier 8F boiler jigs for boilers for 6959s, an interesting equivalent to a Black 5 would have emerged, but it was clearly thought that the Modified Hall (and the 2884 for that matter) were fine as they were.  My view is that the 10xx Counties should have been built as 3-cylinder machines as Jubiliee equivalents a proven concept, but of course this was against the background of his failure to convince the Ministry of Supply that pacifics were mixed traffic locos, and his opinion of their permitting Bullied to build the MNs is well known.  War is hell.  He was looking to get an express loco past the Ministry and may not have been focussing on the very best possible mixed traffic designs, perhaps to make his name after Collett's perceieved successes with the Castles and Kings; of course, he ended up ordering more Castles postwar.  This is only my opinion of course, and must be taken as such rather than as an unequivocal statement of established fact.

A lot of what I've read about Hawksworth suggests he probably did many things for no other reason than it's what Collett wouldn't have done.

[JimC]

5 hours ago, The Johnster said:

 which makes Hawksworth's decision to modify the Hall design and build more of them instead of more Granges a little difficult to justify.   This is a driver's viewpoint ...

I've heard it said that when the GWS had the choice of purchasing either a Grange or a Hall from BR they picked the Hall because it had a less non-ferrous metal and thus was cheaper to buy. I've never understood how that could be, but if Halls were cheaper to build for some reason I suppose that might explain the choice.

[rodent279]

5 minutes ago, JimC said:

I've heard it said that when the GWS had the choice of purchasing either a Grange or a Hall from BR they picked the Hall because it had a less non-ferrous metal and thus was cheaper to buy. I've never understood how that could be, but if Halls were cheaper to build for some reason I suppose that might explain the choice.

Why would a Hall have less non-ferrous metal? Same boiler & firebox, so it can't have been a saving in firebox copper. What else would a Hall have less of, apart from wheel diameter?

[JimC]

This is the source. 
https://www.steamindex.com/gwrj/gwrj5.htm#39-417-rh
Apparently in a letter published in GWR journal no 39 by a gentleman named  R.F. Hill the writer notes that 6815 Frilford Grange had been selected for preservation as it was in good condition, but that 6998 Burton Agnes Hall was selected as it was cheaper (it contained less non-ferrous metal).

 

As I said I don't understand how there could be a significant difference, or indeed whether the anecdote is actually true.

[rodent279]

Maybe the Hall had already been stripped of some pipework, and the Grange hadn't? Although that would just mean that they'd have to replace more pipework, so it would even out in the end.

[The Johnster]

3 hours ago, tythatguy1312 said:

I honestly suspect that, if a King could cross the Royal Albert Bridge without spreading the rails on it apart, that they would've tried a King on the China Clay trains.

 

Given that Kings actually were tried on the Newport-Ebbw Vale iron ore trains, I would say your suspicion is entirely justified...

[john new]

10 hours ago, rodent279 said:

Maybe the Hall had already been stripped of some pipework, and the Grange hadn't? Although that would just mean that they'd have to replace more pipework, so it would even out in the end.

But a cheaper price, even a small difference, could well have made the vital difference at step 1 between having enough £ to get it or not. 
 

Edited March 2, 2022 by john new

[JimC]

According to the GWS Web site 6998, which worked the last steam hauled service on the WR in Jan 66, was transferred to them the same month, and later moved to a GWS site running under her own steam, which would suggest there was nothing significant missing. 
Frilford Grange had been withdrawn at the end of November 65.

 

Edited March 2, 2022 by JimC

[Mike 84C]

JImC you are far more computer literate than I but please lift the water scoop when you do your amazing what ifs. My eye now go's straight to it!

[John Besley]

11 hours ago, JimC said:

According to the GWS Web site 6998, which worked the last steam hauled service on the WR in Jan 66, was transferred to them the same month, and later moved to a GWS site running under her own steam, which would suggest there was nothing significant missing. 
Frilford Grange had been withdrawn at the end of November 65.

 

 

I think the GWS site was Totnes BR down on the cattle dock site on the Riverside spur, this is now the site of Babbage Road industrial estate

 

Also stored there was 1466 and an Ocean Liner salon from memory as a small boy ...

 

The track went down past the back of the Harris Bacon factory and past the  hotel crossed over the road and out along The Plains to Baltic Wharf as run by A J Reeves & Co (from memory) the timber importer

 

It was called Baltic Wharf as that was where the timber ships came to unload Scandinavian softwood into Reeves sawmill

 

For a long time well into the 1980's sections of the track where buried in the Tarmac untill the warehouses had a upgrade to posh flats

 

 

Edited March 2, 2022 by John Besley
More information

[JimC]

4 hours ago, Mike 84C said:

JImC you are far more computer literate than I but please lift the water scoop when you do your amazing what ifs. My eye now go's straight to it!

But, but, its always shown in the down position on GWR GA drawings. Who am I to argue with their conventions?

[JimC]

For @Mike 84C...

 

Edited May 19, 2023 by JimC
replaced image

[Alex Neth]

1 hour ago, JimC said:

For @Mike 84C...

For the base look of our class should we use:

This one ^,

Or this one ^?

[11ty12]

Moderately related topic: I made a GWR 4-6-0T out of the 4600 tank. I’m aware the coal capacity looks small, but perhaps the boiler is just really efficient

[tythatguy1312]

I feel like a tender-tank design might be a viable option given the size of the bunker, a couple standard gauge pugs used that arrangement

[Ramblin Rich]

On 03/03/2022 at 00:40, Alex Neth said:

For the base look of our class should we use:

This one ^,

Or this one ^?

Sorry, I can't tell the difference.

But then, all GWR 4-6-0s look the same....

[JimC]

 

On 05/03/2022 at 13:35, Ramblin Rich said:

Sorry, I can't tell the difference.

But then, all GWR 4-6-0s look the same....

 

Perhaps I can be of assistance? Does this help?
And for non-fictional GWR 4-6-0s may I recommend the link in my signature?

 

 

Edited May 19, 2023 by JimC
replaced image