JimC

I can tell you that no tender lot number was issued, because W84 (or any other) doesn't appear in the tender drawing register. This is curious, because lot numbers were issued for other conversions to travelling water tanks, even during the war. The conversions that do appear are of absorbed or much older tenders.

Surely the 47s, being red RA, were no more restricted on weight than Castles, Halls, Granges, 94xx etc . There were a few extra restrictions related to cylinder width and fixed wheelbase, but my understanding is they were mostly odd sidings and loops, not actual routes. Cook states that the Traffic department put in a request for more 47s, but Collett elected to build Castles instead as being more versatile, if more expensive. Later correction: I should have checked this better. The 47s had restrictions on a good number of lines as listed in various working timetables. Nevertheless they were sufficiently highly regarded that BR built a new set of ten Std 7 boilers in 1955/7, and a new superheater design was introduced in 1957.

Isn't hindsight involved though? If an early 1950s viewpoint has no massive contraction of freight services and network, and steam until say 1980 then all the standard classes would have been built by the hundreds. Consider that by about 1965 all pre group classes and all pre Stanier on the LM should have been replaced. Paging through my late 50s Observers book I reckon that's in excess of 140 classes and (although I haven't tried to count presumably several thousands of locomotives. Bearing in mind the need to provide motive power for weight restricted lines I think the standard classes look a bit less foolish in that light.

Why 57' do you think? And for that sort of service might there have been a temptation to make them wider, perhaps with (some of) the Super Saloons fitted with through control so they could be used to strengthen the sets in the same way as was done with GW railcars? Mind you the extra width would have prohibited excursions to Epsom...

Well for sure, but this is the imaginary topic. Nothing we speculate about was built, and mostly for good reasons. But we construct what ifs for our own amusement. The Atlantic type suits light and fast trains, whereas the traffic went the other way onto heavier moderate speed trains and the mixed traffic classes for most passenger work. But if the railways had succeeded in moving goods traffic away from 25mph unfitted trains towards fast fitted trains - something the 9F would have been pretty good for and the mixed traffic 4-6-0s and 8 coupled classes even better at - then frequent light fast passenger trains might have fitted in the network better. And a move to fast fiitted freight was certainly desired, it just couldn't be implemented.

In Churchward's day a big part of the four cylinder locomotives was smoother running (passenger comfort) and longer intervals between overhauls, whilst four driving wheels against six meant smoother freer running at the cost of adhesion. So if you can construct scenarios in which those concerns are still valid with the technology changes in the meantime then you have some sort of case.

That's not, I believe, a Rapido drawing. I think its based on one of mine I gave them a copy of so they had a quick and easy vector image for use in publicity material. Don't regard it as representative of the model. All errors on that sketch are down to me, not Rapido. There will, I imagine be several errors, as although I did the best I could a completely accurate drawing is a surprisingly difficult thing to manage unless you spend a great deal of time, effort and money. Now I look again I'm having bad thoughts about the reversing shaft arm. In turn I based it on BR WR drawing 124595 in its ex Microfiilm format from the NRM. This isn't perhaps the best image in the NRM collection, being a bit distorted and hard to read dimensions from. However I'm reasonably confident that my reading of the top of the sidetank as being below the bunker top but above the handrail is correct as per the GA drawing. Whether the handrail was located exactly as per the GA drawing when the locomotives were turned out from Swindon works - or indeed whether the handrail location was consistent to a fraction of an inch on all ten locomotives - well, that's quite another thing. I like to think, though, that my drawing is good enough for the intended purpose of giving you an impression of the livery options Rapido are offering you. Apologies if its inadequate. Jim Champ PS, if you want a real howler in locomotive drawings, no less a person that C.J. Freezer managed a beauty in his "Locomotives in Outline GWR". Anyone who has the book take a good look at the cab and bunker of the 94xx on page 32. I hope none of my drawings have an error of quite that magnitude and I take great comfort from it. Even Homer nods!

On the other hand, if they can present their opinions and evidence rationally and without rancour or pointless personal attacks then it may serve to inform the rest of us.

I trust the forum rules don't allow that. Quite unnecessary.

The classifications are listed individually in numerous places (to chuck in a swift plug my book has them including many absorbed) but I'm not aware of a single table anywhere showing them as a group. It wouldn't be too hard to compile something, they are mostly on Wikipedia I think for instance, but its a tedious bit of work.

I suspect to really understand 19thC accounting practices like the duplicate list you really need to be a 19thC accountant. The way I saw it explained was that it rapidly became obvious that, what with lead times, economies of scale etc, that it was quite impossible to schedule things so the replacement locomotive arrived the day its predecessor fell off its perch. In addition to that it was obviously vital that the replacements always arrived before the predecessors died, else nothing to run the services. So there was often life left in the old engines when the new ones arrived, and thus the duplicate list, because using up the remaining mileage until the old locomotives were ready to scrap was an obvious cost saving. One presumes that the duplicate list would indeed be run until they dropped, maybe allowing minor repairs, maybe not I suppose. All well and good, but things were often not even as simple as that. Supposing the line decides halfway through the renewal programme that actually they want to expand the fleet and re-designate some of the replacements as extra locomotives. Then in order to keep things tidy the ones with most life that were scheduled to be replaced come off the duplicate list and go back to the main list for a period of time until another replacement arrives. Presumably in the end, though, it was decided that the renumbering and so on was a waste of time. No-one on the running side needed to know the capital status of the locomotives, so it could be dealt with by an entry in a ledger rather than a number on the side of the locomotive.

GWR number series started with 1 before Churchward's revised scheme, but the downside of that was that the 100th locomotive in the 27xx series of 0-6-0 tanks was 2800, then 2-8-0s started at 2801. Everything's a compromise! Later on 0-6-0T 2800 was renumbered, I forget to what, and the 2-8-0 prototype no 97 renumbered 2800.

2C11 would be either the 11th 4-6-0 or the first 4-6-2. Having the letter at the end provides a delimiter.

Not the least confusing part of Swindon numbers is that they had at least 4 systems (counting grouping), and the later ones were just superimposed on earlier. So originally locomotives were numbered sequentially, then under Dean there were ranges attached to types, which covered up to about 4000 with successive lots of a given type allocated sequentially, and then Churchward introduced the second digit scheme, which covered wheel arrangement/type rather than class. ie 4 cylinder 4-6-0 4000, 5000, 6000, 7000. 2 cyl 4-6-0 29, 49, 59, 69 etc (the Hawksworth Counties were originally going to be 99, but it was changed, allegedly because the identity of the new class was leaked to the press). Then at the grouping rather than give a whole new range, which might have made more sense, they used spare numbers under 2000. In the case of 4073, it seems likely that the Castles were originally considered as an expansion of the Star Class, which finished at 4072. There were a number of other cases where what might be called a sub class started where the previous left off. The 15s and 16s were using number ranges from the Dean scheme which had been vacated by scrapped pre grouping 0-6-0Ts. The trouble with really rational number schemes is that they tend not to survive 40 or 50 years of new classes unless you start with really large numbers as per TOPS, so either renumberings or confusion, take your pick.

Holcroft tells us that he kept diaries in his Southern days.

Just a small thought. I'm currently further up the coast, and one thing I've noticed as a scenic feature is a raised beach. Coastguard Lane, West Wittering is a little local road that I reckon runs on the edge of one, so on one side of the road it drops down a few feet to an area that's variously wet/verging on salt marsh, whilst the actual road is on the edge of the raised beach, and presumably bedded on shingle. I find it easy to imagine a railway builder settling on such a feature - a sort of one sided embankment with level ground on the high side for a yard. The lane runs down to a creek, and although I don't believe there's a history of boat or ship building on that spot, its easy to imagine there could be. Another scenic thought is mud flats with the tide out. No pesky water to reproduce. A little further down the harbour there are sea defences made from railway sleepers. Traffic wise, your yard would have timber in, but quite probably there would be fish/seafood traffic in the other direction. Lobsters by rail is apparently still a thing according to a bit of web search!

RCTS states that the 4-4-0s were built to the MSWJRs locomotive superintendant's design, but of course we know that typically CMEs/superintendants did not man their own drawing board, so its still a matter of speculation how much was drawn by NBL's staff and how much by MSWJR employees, if indeed they kept a drawing office.

There was a MSWJR 4-4-4T given a GWR tapered boiler, but photos on line rather rare. http://www.gwr.org.uk/notes/mswjr10.jpg

well, that works, if somewhat aesthetically challenged!

Don't forget to consider firebox and ashpan versus axles when considering this. Doesn't the classic 0-4-4T have the box between drivers and bogie? I suppose one might go for 2-4-4T if wanting a longer boiler and outside cylinders as a development of an 0-4-4T if track were too tightly curved for a 2-6-2T. Might try a sketch. Faced with very heavy freight and passenger traffic on the tightly curved yet almost level Erewhon branch, Churchward very reluctantly told Holcroft to get him out a 2-4-4T based on the 3100s. Holcroft adapted the standard 4-6-0 bogie for the larger trailing wheels on the Prairie, altered the frames at the back, and apart from quite a lot of fiddling with brake rigging the job was done. Holcroft had wanted to alter the front end cosmetics according to some ideas he was mulling over, but Churchward insisted it was kept as standard as possible with the 31s. In practice I reckon the weight distribution would be highly dubious with no chance of equalisation between trailing wheels and bogie, but hey, just a quick hack of the 2-6-2 drawing. The throwover at the back would be pretty spectacular too I reckon. I've just looked at alternatives, a smaller boiler from the standard range or even something based on a Barry 0-4-4, but really keep coming up against better alternatives. Its far too away from my library of standard parts to consider sketching myself, but given a requirement for large coal and water capacity without the length getting out of control as the above does, would a wide firebox be something to consider? Gresley is much more the man for small classes than Churchward, might an GNR/LNER enthusiast consider a 3 cylinder 2-4-4T with a wide firebox, and maybe a booster unit on the bogie?

Another complication with the Welsh classes is that those re-boilered with GW Std boilers were always RHD. Unsurprisingly.

A quick scroll through Russel suggests lines the GW absorbed were varied. ADR - at least some RHD Barry - not sure Cambrian - RHD Cardiff - at least some RHD Rhymney, mix TVR - RHD B&M at least some RHD MSWJR LHD

I've been mulling that over, with maybe a couple of extra bits of plastic to give an impression of the gear at the end of the scroll irons:-)

Back tank on its own, not many. Water tank under the coal space - common.

Don't forget the starting point was the Crampton type which has an extreme driving wheel diameter which will not fit the axle under the boiler barrel. Agreed the driving wheel in the central position is superior, but that was never the point!