How was (for example) "28xx" pronounced in GWR days?

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, eldomtom2 said:

This raises a question I've wondered for a while - what was the official LMS method of distinguishing between two classes of the same power code?

Why did they need to bother?  The differences only mattered for spares and maintenance purpose because for traffic purpose a power class 4 was a power class 4 and a power class 5 was a power class 5 and a 5XP was that bit more capable than a class 5 but not quite in the same league as a class 6.  So all the timetable and loadi books needed to show was the power class required to work the train to time.  The engine diagrammers then worked from that and drew up the diagrams accordingly and if a Running Foreman or Control didn't have an engine in the booked balance for whatever all they needed was one of a similar power class in order to run the train to time.

 

And that was b no different from any other company i would expect - certainly no different from the GWR although it classed its power groupings in its own way.  and teh samne went for the other companies.

[The Stationmaster]

3 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

... which poses the further question - did the LMS feel there was a need to distinguish between two "classes" of the same power code ? ( Route availability permitting )

Maybe - all depends on circumstances.  For example the GWR sometimes distinguished in Power Group E because of the different operational  characteristics of engines in that Power Group -  e.g, 28XX 2-8-0, 42XX 2-8-0T, or 72XX 2-8-2T.  Tthe reason for such a distinction might not show up when you look at a particular train but would become relevant when the balance of that working was taken into account.

 

So things like coal and/or water capacity could sometimes matter depending on, for example, times allowed in the timetable for water stops.  Another thing - although usually distinguished by a suffix lr some sort of symbol - might be bearings and their impact on the engine's ability to run long  distances without stops for oiling,

 

But basically apart from such factors the overall guide was always power class/group and the load of the train

[Wickham Green too]

25 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

...things like coal and/or water capacity could sometimes matter ...

Yet only the LNER seems to have used any sort of official sub-classification for locomotives with different tender types !

[eldomtom2]

6 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Why did they need to bother?  The differences only mattered for spares and maintenance purpose

So presumably those involved with such matters would need a method of distinguishing between classes?

[Wickham Green too]

There was an awful lot of commonality of parts so of little consequence what 'class' a component came from .... it would normally be replaced with an overhauled one of the same type from stock when required.

[JimC]

11 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

Yet only the LNER seems to have used any sort of official sub-classification for locomotives with different tender types !

The GWR issued different engine diagrams for different tender types. 

[Wickham Green too]

Indeed  - as did the other Railways - but to what extent did they consider them as different 'classes' ? ................................ or, to put it another way, what importance did the Railways put on the concept of 'classes' compared to the, possibly blinkered, view from this side of the enthusiast fence ? 

[JimC]

It would be interesting to know more about how the diagram books were used operationally. Even more interesting to know more about how locomotives were allocated to sheds. The shed master has to work the diagrams he has with the locomotives he has, and juggle with his allocation when necessary, accept non ideal choices when he has to etc.  The key decisions must surely have been in allocating locomotives to sheds. Was it imposed on the running shed, or did the shed master have influence in what he got? The running side certainly fed back to the factory what they felt they needed. 

[The Stationmaster]

3 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

Indeed  - as did the other Railways - but to what extent did they consider them as different 'classes' ? ................................ or, to put it another way, what importance did the Railways put on the concept of 'classes' compared to the, possibly blinkered, view from this side of the enthusiast fence ? 

On the GWR and BR WR the only importance in recognising 'a Class' was by its number group.   Originally shown as 40XX (i.e. included with 'Stars') in the first GWR Passenger etc Train Loads Book published in 1927 things clearly changed over the years as other number series were added so that by the end they appeared in the WR Loads Tables as 70XX with an introductory note adding which other number groups were covered by '70XX'

 

In earlier tables, including the 1927 book, some classes were referredtoby name rather than number group - e'g 'County (4-4=0 version of course, or ''Bulldog' or 'City' but eventually for passenger loads it all settled down to class numbers and no names.

 

By post war years GWR Freight Marshalling Books used the Power Group as the basic identifier for the power required sometimes specifying a number group in that power range.

[Miss Prism]

Does 'a big Churchward' (for a 47xx) and 'Baby Castle' (for a Collett Goods) have any official foundation, or are these enthusiasts' terms?

 

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, JimC said:

It would be interesting to know more about how the diagram books were used operationally. Even more interesting to know more about how locomotives were allocated to sheds. The shed master has to work the diagrams he has with the locomotives he has, and juggle with his allocation when necessary, accept non ideal choices when he has to etc.  The key decisions must surely have been in allocating locomotives to sheds. Was it imposed on the running shed, or did the shed master have influence in what he got? The running side certainly fed back to the factory what they felt they needed. 

As far as I know, and definitely gong by what happend in the Western Diagram Books were not used operationally for the simple reason that there was no need for them.  I'd be surprised if things were any different elsewhere.

 

The reasons are quite simple - what the operator at ground/Control Office level and in most planning jobs needed to know was where a particular classes of engine could or couldn't go and what loads ity could take.  So that information was assembled at HQ level into such things as Route Availability information (the GWR used a coloured map for that) plus listing elsewhere local restrictions0. and loads tables.

 

Similarly engine (working) diagrams (i.e what an engine would do during a turn of duty) were based on the RA and loads table information in order to decide what type would be diagrammed to work each train.  The diagrammer would then aim to get best use of each loco by producing a diagram (similar to a bar chart) linking together the various jobs that type of engine would do over a period of tme.  Note - that type of engine although each working period would take into account coal and water capacity etc in steam days.  In later years the principle of the line diagram fell out of use but it came back with computerisation which  can readily do tasks in that manner.  The finished diagrams would then be written in text form and issued to those who needed them for everyday working purposes.

 

Allocations were simply an adding together a depot's diagrammed work plus provision of maintenance etc cover (not necessarily from the same depot).  So for example - albeit way past the steam age - when I needed to know what size f fleet was necessary to cover a train service or what train service I could cover witha given size of fleet it was down to doing some line diagrams (aka bar charts) which was my pt preffered way of doing the job and seeing what optimum situation I could reach.  Provided you have teh right sort of brain and experience for it the task needn't be as daunting as it might sound.

[The Stationmaster]

13 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

Does 'a big Churchward' (for a 47xx) and 'Baby Castle' (for a Collett Goods) have any official foundation, or are these enthusiasts' terms?

 

No - 47XX were always referred to as such - a frequent sight in publications because they were far more restricted than every other class of Red RA engine.  In later years 2251 were referred to as 32XX in loads etc tables but in a 1948 publication they are shown as '2200-2299 & 32XX'

[eldomtom2]

19 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

There was an awful lot of commonality of parts

Such was the goal of course, but of course the LMS inherited a large variety of locomotives from several different railways. There would presumably have to be some method of distinguishing between different designs in the same power class - after all, the rest of the big four (and BR) did so.

[The Stationmaster]

24 minutes ago, eldomtom2 said:

Such was the goal of course, but of course the LMS inherited a large variety of locomotives from several different railways. There would presumably have to be some method of distinguishing between different designs in the same power class - after all, the rest of the big four (and BR) did so.

Did they?  the only distinction the GWR applied was by number series and they didn't even distinguish between a 'Star' and a 'Castle' when it came to train loads.  And the WR didn't distinguish between a 'Castle', a 'County', and a 'Britannia' when it came to train loads or basic Route Availability (and in fact also for a lot of local siding etc RA.

 

Operationally - as I've said before - on the LMS a Class 4 was a Class 4 and that, basically, was that.  Depots certainly needed to distinguish between some types of similar power capacity because of differences in various parts and occasionally certain specifics would be added to, say, a Class 8 when ne of the engines with better balancing/bearings was needed for a faster freight.   But why bother to distinguish other wise?

 

I now from those who worked on them that the NE Region didn't distinguish between a B16 (of any sort) and a B1 when it came to allocating power to a train although the Enginemen had a definite preference for the NER based design over a B1 - but they weren't given any choice and just had to get on with what they were given..  And that was an impottant point in another way on BR because a man was Passed to drive a steam engine.  Not to drive any particular class but to drive any steam engine and he could be given any one to drive as long as he knew the road and his link covered that category of work.   Back (in LMS terms) to a Class 4 engine was a Class 4 engine and the Driver would be expected to take it and do the job with it even if he'd never seen one like it before

[eldomtom2]

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

Did they?  the only distinction the GWR applied was by number series and they didn't even distinguish between a 'Star' and a 'Castle' when it came to train loads.  And the WR didn't distinguish between a 'Castle', a 'County', and a 'Britannia' when it came to train loads or basic Route Availability (and in fact also for a lot of local siding etc RA.

 

Operationally - as I've said before - on the LMS a Class 4 was a Class 4 and that, basically, was that.  Depots certainly needed to distinguish between some types of similar power capacity because of differences in various parts and occasionally certain specifics would be added to, say, a Class 8 when ne of the engines with better balancing/bearings was needed for a faster freight.   But why bother to distinguish other wise?

 

I now from those who worked on them that the NE Region didn't distinguish between a B16 (of any sort) and a B1 when it came to allocating power to a train although the Enginemen had a definite preference for the NER based design over a B1 - but they weren't given any choice and just had to get on with what they were given..  And that was an impottant point in another way on BR because a man was Passed to drive a steam engine.  Not to drive any particular class but to drive any steam engine and he could be given any one to drive as long as he knew the road and his link covered that category of work.   Back (in LMS terms) to a Class 4 engine was a Class 4 engine and the Driver would be expected to take it and do the job with it even if he'd never seen one like it before

Again, you are referring to what distinctions were made when it came to allocating locos etc. That the NE Region didn't distinguish between B16s and B1s when allocating power does not mean they did not distinguish them for other purposes. The LNER, of course, would not have distinguished between B16s and B1s if it didn't see a reason to.

[Wickham Green too]

Then some Railways didn't distinguish between classes that we take for granted .......... I'm sure most reading this would get an instant mental picture of the loco if I mention 'M7' or 'T9' for instance - Dugald Drummond wouldn't have had a clue what I was talking about !

[The Stationmaster]

16 hours ago, eldomtom2 said:

Again, you are referring to what distinctions were made when it came to allocating locos etc. That the NE Region didn't distinguish between B16s and B1s when allocating power does not mean they did not distinguish them for other purposes. The LNER, of course, would not have distinguished between B16s and B1s if it didn't see a reason to.

Yes - I said that as I made it clear that I was taking about operational purposes.