JimC

After a little diversion into working out an as built Armstrong Goods, I've now got to the 481 class. I'll be glad when I get nearer the end of the 19thC and there are a few more images available. The "As built" 481 seems to be another with one half reasonable photograph in RCTS. I've just bought the electronic version of the RCTS books, and I don't reckon I can scan their images any better than they have, so I can use those and save a bit of time. Need to make another trip to Leatherhead and see if there's anything better in "The Locomotive". Also figure out a way of getting the pages flatter when photographing without any risk to the books. I guess I can experiment here on any old book!

Fairbairn originally, according to RCTS, but that must be post 1889, by which time it had not only had near enough everything changed above footplate but most of what was below too! 

Reckon this is about as good as I can do on the Bicycle for now without going mad(der). Been a bit of a struggle this one.  Think I'm going to give myself a break before tackling the next.

Yes indeed, but consider how many tenders arrived with absorbed lines, and whilst the locomotives might have been problematic, one supposes tenders are easier to get right. Also I suspect that once you've got standard wheel sets, brakes and axle boxes on there was probably less value in standardising the rest. 

More photos are definitely a good thing, keep it up please. I can't see us getting buried in 19thC 2-4-0 photos!

Yes indeed, those are the Swindon renewals of 1887-9, and nice useful photos they are too. But the wheelbase was quite different so there aren't too many cues. Trivia: 17 481s went into the Swindon factory to be renewed, and 18 rebuilt 481s came out. The other 3 481s went into Wolverhampton, one came out with new frames of a different design, one was relatively little changed, and one came out as a renewed 439, which was a rather larger locomotive than the 481!

I'm trying to find photos or drawings of the earlier 388s in as built condition, and not doing very well. A couple of rather indistinct photos in RCTS and not much more. I'm thinking particularly of the first three lots which started life with small domes, large safety valve covers and no cabs, but also the 1876 lot with side sheets on the spectacle plate. Anything with a cab is definitely too late. Amy suggestions?

11 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

There's no coupling rods flailing around. Is there a 2-4-0 class with the same cylinders and boiler that one compare weight diagrams with?

There wasn't a 2-4-0 with as big a boiler as the Dean singles I don't think.  Only the Armstrong 4-4-0s. Mind you, bearing in mind my limited technical knowledge, my understanding is coupling rods aren't the problem with balance. They go round and round in nice circles (well not really circles, but you know what I mean) and you just hang a weight opposite.  I think its connecting rods that get all complicated. But correct me if wrong.

And I quite agree with you about the 3000s looking lumpish. Here's my sketches of an original Dean and an original Sir Daniel side by side.

Mike, you are welcome to have a vector version of any of my sketches if it would help you.

Its an interesting aside that 2-4-0 111 was withdrawn in Dec 1904, whilst the Bear is as modified in Dec 1913 with top feed. There has to be a suspicion that what we are actually seeing is the last of the class, 114, perhaps at Swindon for her demise in April 1914 and someone thought of a nice photo opportunity with a bit of number plate swapping. There's still a spectacular contrast between the 2-4-0, an 1880s rebuild, and the Bear, constructed only 20 years later.

The domed boiler sketch is somewhat conjectural.  I only had the photo I've linked on the 7/110 page to work from, which is of the other side, so a certain amount of guesswork is involved.

Here's a smugmug collection photo of 375, one of the 1866 (George Armstrong) built 111s with a dome. If you zoom in on the original it's clear it has the same safety valve cover shape as the domeless engines, so exploding a theory I was forming about the double curve shape only being associated with domeless boilers.

I found a sketch of No 7 in Holcroft's Armstrong book, so I've added it and reworked the original post. Holcroft also provides a drawing of No 30, which was somewhat intermediate between 7 and 110, but I'm not sure it adds very much to the story.

I suppose if you consider the raised casing seen on many Ramsbottom safety valve installations - Barry Railway A class sketch here for instance, then put the later style GW safety valve cover on top of that and merge the two into a single piece of metal then you get something very like the Armstrong style. Its an interesting thought that the steam collection pipe could have been under the safety valve fitting making it a sort of dome. It's certainly the highest point so it seems feasible. And when you look at that photo it does seem as if the first part is quite high. I don't know if I have an engineering drawing of anything that early to check. Holcroft doesn't seem to mention the subject from a quick run through his books, but I do note that "The Armstrongs" contains quite a few more Ahrons sketches of the very early types that I ought to work up.

I fear I share your doubts about the format. I'll run on into early Wolverhampton and then review again.

Sandwich frames... yes, I'd love to know too. Not the least is the way that the Armstrongs only used plate frames on their all-new classes (I think, I'll be sure when I've gone through this), but when it came to renewing Gooch designs they retained sandwich frames, even when you'd think there was nothing of the old frames worth keeping. Dean built some classes with sandwich frames, although I haven't got that far yet to see if  they were semi renewals or not. And then we have Holcroft's first hand account of new sandwich frames being constructed for a major overhaul as late as 1901. I can report what happened, but why...

Holcroft's 156 is such a good example. Built by George England to a Gooch design. Renewed in 1882 when at the very least the frames must have been significantly altered, new frames again in 1901... Could it be that there were so many fittings, axleboxes, everything sized for the thick sandwich frames that it was worth keeping with them even though the actual frames were replaced? Accounts are very definitely not my strength, but It would be interesting, if such a thing exists, to have a itemised list of exactly where the money went on a new locomotive. I found a "Repairs and Partial Renewals Register" at Kew, and thought it would be interesting, but when I came to view it it showed exactly what was spent at each factory each week, but listed against Salaries, Office Expenses, Wages, Materials, Machinery & Plant and Other Expenses, without a single clue of what jobs the money was actually spent on!

So how would you find that? Is the absence of locomotive history OK (bearing in mind I intend to pick up rebuilds when the clock gets to them) or would you find yourself saying, yeah, yeah, but what happened to them?

So here's the Gooch era. Do you think you'd regard this as excessively skimpy on detail? Or does it work OK?

Swindon Locomotives up to 1864 (Gooch)

1854-1859

Only 24 standard gauge locomotives were built at Swindon over this period, mostly 0-6-0 Goods. There was no standard gauge route to Swindon so they had to be transhipped north on broad gauge wagons. A further 17 were built for the GWR by Beyer, Peacock, mostly to Gooch designs. Some 54 Broad gauge locomotives were also completed.

Nearly all Gooch designs featured sandwich frames. These were constructed of two relatively thin metal sheets each side of a wood core – normally oak or ash – all riveted together. They normally have a slotted appearance with large cut outs in less stressed areas.

Gooch era boilers were normally domeless with a raised firebox and featured a simple safety valve cover. As was typical for the era these locomotives had minimal protection for the crew. As one would expect the designs were similar to but generally smaller than the broad gauge types.

1855/6.

57 (0-6-0) class 1855

The twelve locomotives of the 57 class were constructed at Swindon in 1855 and 1856. They had outside sandwich frames and partial inside frames. Driving wheels were 5'0 diameter, and cylinders 15½in x 22in.

69 (2-2-2) class 1855

The 69 class 2-2-2s were also delivered in 1855/6, but although to a Gooch design they were constructed by Beyer, Peacock. They had 6'6" driving wheels and 15½in x 22in cylinders.

1857/9

77 (0-6-0) class 1857

Two 0-6-0s were ordered from Beyer, Peacock, which were essentially Gooch boilers on a Beyer designed chassis. They had 5' driving wheels like the 57s, but 16*24 cylinders.

79 (0-6-0) class 1857

The first three of the 79 class were built at Swindon. They were similar to the 57 class, but had smaller (4ft6) driving wheels and larger (16inx25in) cylinders. 24 were built, the last in 1862.

Two basic 0-4-2 saddle tanks, 91 & 92, were purchased from Beyer, Peacock. A similar loco, 342, was built by Beyer, Peacock in 1856, and bought by the GWR in 1864.

1860

Nos. 93 & 94 (0-6-0T)

The first of well over a thousand GWR built 0-6-0T appeared in 1860. They were quite small engines with 4ft 2in (or possibly 4ft) wheels. They were fairly typical Gooch designs with domeless boilers, raised fireboxes and Gooch valve gear. They had inside frames, small side tanks and a well tank under the bunker.

1861

167 (0-6-0) class 1861

Four 0-6-0s were bought from Beyers which had been originally ordered for the Shrewsbury & Hereford. They were similar to the 77s.

1862/3

149 or England (2-4-0) class 1862

Built by George England and Co in 1862, to a Gooch design, this was an express passenger locomotive, unusual at a time when most passenger work was done by singles. They had 6ft 6in driving wheels and 16in x 24in cylinders.

They were numbered 149-156. They had slotted outside sandwich frames with the footplate rising in curves to clear the coupling rods, and open splashers with the spokes visible behind the springs. The boiler was domeless with a slightly raised round top firebox, and was substantially similar, if not identical to, that on the 157 class 2-2-2s. The general appearance was similar to the Gooch 69 class singles.

131 (0-6-0) class 1862

These were an updated version of the 57 class, with 5'0 wheels, 16in x 24in cylinders and fitted with Stephenson link motion. Two batches were built in 1862, 131-136 at Swindon, while 137-148 were built for the GWR by Slaughter, Gruning & Co. The rest, 310-319, were built at Swindon in 1864/5.

157 (2-2-2) class 1862

These were built by Sharp Stewarts in 1862 to Gooch specifications and had sandwich frames. They were not unlike the 69 class, but with larger 7ft 0in driving wheels and 16in x24in cylinders.

1864

320 (2-4-0T) class

Swindon built two outside cylinder 2-4-0 Well tanks in 1864, 320 & 321. A Gooch design, they were the first standard gauge locomotives to be fitted with condensing gear on any British line. They had steeply inclined outside cylinders, located above the footplate and were very similar to the broad gauge ‘Metropolitan’ class. Driving wheels were 5ft 6in and cylinders 15in x 24in.

322 or Beyer (0-6-0) class 1864

The "Beyer" Class hardly warrants inclusion here since they were entirely of Beyer design. They were another class of 5ft 0in driving wheel 0-6-0s, with 17in x 24in cylinders.

They had plate (not sandwich) double frames with the running plate rising over each wheel to clear the cranks. There were two orders, the second being delivered in 1866 after Armstrong had taken over as Locomotive Superintendent.

OK still unhappy with my drafts. A straight time based approach, with just a listing of classes built each year and sketches to show what new developments looked like seems to work provided I have no more than a sentence or so about the new class but nothing about its history. As soon as you go into subsequent development of the class everything starts jumping around in time and its easy to lose the thread and the logical sequence goes out of the window.  

One option, which is on the lines of what @Harlequin was talking about, would be to use extensive cross referencing and have one part of the volume a sequential history, and the other half class histories for reference. It would extensively duplicate the existing book though, and be a very large volume. 

Another that occurs to me is to say dammit, the other book will do as a class reference, and leave out all locomotive details at all, just have "this was built" and a sketch. Some rebuilds would also be included, especially in the 1870-1900 era when all sorts of boiler types were seen. That ought to make a reasonably small and cheap volume. The original book is maybe a bit thinner on the very early stuff than I could now do, but there's little help for that.

As a (semi) aside, a quick count up suggests that by 1863 Joseph Armstrong was responsible for the maintenance of some 200 Locomotives of around 50 designs and ten different wheel arrangements from at least 16 builders. John Gibson in his volume "Great Western Locomotive design – A Critical Appreciation", comments that there isn't much to say about Armstrong's designs because they were very sound and orthodox.  Looking at those numbers it's evident that Armstrong must have been in an extremely good position to judge what best practice was and what features should be adopted. Looking at his record it would seem he took good advantage of that knowledge.

Yes, its an interesting format, and works pretty well. Of course he's got a much wider variety to contend with. I haven't found it that easy a format to dip into in search of specifics, but it's a good book to read seriously. Which makes me think, is there a difference between a non-fiction book and a reference book? 

---------------

On a different topic I'm wondering about absorbed types in the context of a chronological format. Going back to say 1870 or before the vast majority of the narrow gauge locomotive stock was this essentially random collection from here, there and everywhere which the Armstrongs had to try and conjure a working fleet out of. I think its very easy to give inadequate emphasis to the absorbed types, but at the same time are people interested?

This is a section I've drafted for the Shrewsbury and Birmingham's absorbed stock. What seems to be practical is a listing of the fleet and then detail, including a sketch if possible, of more significant types.
 

Shrewsbury and Birmingham – 1854

The Shrewsbury and Birmingham, which first ran trains in 1849, had 22 locomotives at the time of the merger, also in 1854. They worked closely with the Shrewsbury and Chester and the Birkenhead Railway, and at times locomotives were loaned or transferred between them. The fleet consisted of:-

One 2-2-2 from Bury, Curtis & Kennedy.

One 2-2-2 from E.B. Wilson & Co

One 2-2-2 from W. Fairbairn & Son

Six 0-4-2s and four 0-6-0s from R.B.Longridge & Co.

Four 0-6-0s, three 0-4-2s and a 2-2-2 from Robert Stephenson's.

One 0-4-0T from Sharp, Stewart and Co.

They had a similar history to the S&C fleet and most were withdrawn at similar ages.

Nos. 25 & 46-49 (0-6-0)

Builders Longridge

Line Shrewsbury & Birmingham

Driving Wheel Size 4ft 9in

Dates Built 1849-52

Cylinder Dimensions 15in x 24in

Number Built 5

Boiler Class Long boiler type

Dates Withdrawn 1868-1889

Figure 2 No 46 after 1854.

I haven't seen any evidence that the GWR referred to these as a class, but it's convenient to do so here. No 25 came to the GWR via the Shrewsbury & Chester and was numbered out of sequence with the rest. One was rebuilt as a saddle tank during its life, and the others were withdrawn in the 1860s and 1870s without major reconstruction.

No. 28, Nos. 50-53 (0-6-0) class

Builders Stephenson’s

Driving Wheel Size 4ft 9in

Dates Built 1849-51

Cylinder Dimensions 15in x 24in

Number Built 5

Boiler Class Long boiler type

Dates Withdrawn 1869-1877

Again all five were built for the S&B, but one came to the GWR via the Shrewsbury & Chester and was numbered out of sequence. Unlike the Longridge 0-6-0s they had an ordinary raised firebox casing. A plan to convert them to saddle tanks never bore fruition, and they were withdrawn around the 1870s.

Now the thing is, if I put in a section for each absorbed line with at least a basic summary of the stock, its going to be huge chunks of a volume. Rightly so in the context of what the fleet looked like, but very unwieldy, and it pretty much doubles the size and cost of a volume. Russell, for example, has two books on GWR and one of absorbed, but he almost completely ignores the 19th C absorbed stock which would easily be another book's worth. If I'm seeking simply to trace the thread of GWR locomotive design then, apart from major rebuilds renewals into essentially GWR types, few of them are relevant, and you'd most certainly get a slimmer and easier to read volume out of it. One could do a separate study of the absorbed/amalgamated stock for instance, but would it sell? I have my doubts.

What does the panel think, include the absorbed stock, or make it purely GWR build and concentrate on the design story?

I'm conscious that we tend to have this picture of the GWR as a homogenous fleet of stylistically similar locomotives, with just a few Dean Goods and maybe Bull/Duke/Dogs to add some variety. Well, it was probably like that between London and say Newton Abbot, but go to Wales or Chester and it was an entirely different story. 

9 hours ago, Clearwater said:

suspect that the evolution of design with rebuilds and heavy overhauls complicates the picture though and not as simple as just new locomotive builds.

I think you're absolutely right. I had better think more about how  to approach this with a different format. I suspect, for example that at any given period, especially end of 19thC, new boilers on different types coming out of the shops would be similar, and it would be good if one could show developments appearing across the fleet new and nominally old locomotives together. I'm thinking that my lots spreadsheet which I'm using to pick out time lines needs to include significant rebuilds etc. 

If I can tie down dates for locomotive diagrams in the 20thC better than I have so far that might help for that era. I've done a bit of that by interpolating the dates of diagrams for new classes. 19thC will be quite a bit of work. 

1 hour ago, Miss Prism said:

(I don't like the entries under the diagrams column - very confusing.) 

Yes, I haven't got to that one yet, but my impression is he's listing all the diagrams that a given class/sub class could have. For the 20thC classes it could be useful to list the diagram each lot was built against, but pretty much all of the most complex and difficult classes to get one's head around predate the diagram system.  It would be helpful to have the date each diagram was issues, but by and large I haven't traced that yet.

10 hours ago, Harlequin said:

I think that the reader might want to follow their own path through this huge matrix of information, to suit their particular interest, and so a format that is heavily cross-referenced might be a good way to go.

Yes indeedy. I don't think the tech is quite there yet - at least not without some more advanced programming than I really want to do or are capable of, but I can visualise an electronic book in which one has multiple indices, and can check the level of detail required and then have software create chapters that contain the required content in a readable form. Perhaps each paragraph, maybe even sentence would need its own meta data, and the software would assemble the text with the required meta data in the order defined by the chosen indices. Be an emperor sized job to label all the paragraphs with the correct meta data though. A book that could be different every time you read it!

10 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

 

That's do-able, on a DIY basis, from John Daniel's spreadsheet:

http://www.gwr.org.uk/notes/Loco_lot_nos.xls

I've been working with that, but didn't find it as useful as I hoped. It's not very sortable which doesn't help. Also I don't like that he lists locomotives by the last number they carried, not the build number. I've got a spreadsheet I've been working on for several days which will be the data source for this project, and although I started with the John Daniels sheet I also reckoned I needed to OCR the complete lot lists from RCTS part one, which I'm treating as the master reference. Then combine the two, and deal with all the issues like lots that need to be divided up for different years, design changes or whatever. I've also had to make reference to the individual RCTS volumes for further details. Its a considerable task and not very congenial!
The trouble is that making a database of GWR locomotives is decidedly awkward. Paper registers don't always transfer well to computers. There's no unique key, and not easy to construct one. A locomotive can have multiple numbers, classes, wheel arrangements etc etc, and a number multiple locomotives. It's all very messy! 
 

11 hours ago, Mikkel said:

TBH, I think year by year might make for slightly dull reading after a while? Maybe  longer time spans instead, e.g. 5-10 years with a focus on selected key issues and developments in that period

Yes, I have that concern as well. especially when its a few successive years of very similar types. 

2 hours ago, stevel said:

PS just bought a copy of the loco development book this summer, 👍👍.

Thankyou for that. Have you seen this link?

 https://devboats.co.uk/gwdrawings/errata/GWRlocoDevelopmentErrataFirstEdition.pdf