JimC

46 minutes ago, TheSignalEngineer said:

Top men in loco departments a very small pool. 

I haven't thought through it, but were Churchward and Collett somewhat outside that pool? If the Swindon men were a little distanced from such a fraternity would that be part of Swindon's "splendid isolation"? As I say I haven't examined it to see if its true, and I might be completely wrong, and of course cause and effect. Just offering it up as a discussion point.
Going back to the early 19thC I did some potted biographies of early engineers for a project I'm working on, and it was evident that Gooch and the Armstrongs of the GWR came from a very small pool of Northumbrians including Stephensons, Hackworths and the like whose families were all known to each other.

Actually I kinda wonder if in some respects Collett might have been better on the LMS? He was very much a details man, and might have succeeded better in getting the LMS drawing offices to abandon some of their more dubious detail design. 

I think there's an argument that, in his desire not to be seen as just importing GWR, Stanier was sometimes a little too tolerant of mediocre designs/existing practice from his drawing offices. 

3 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

As for the BR3 prairies; they didn't have the all-round capability of a 5101 and having both on the strength of a depot invited unfavourable comparisons.

And fundamentally two locos of much the same weight with much the same boiler wasn't that unfair a comparison.  The Churchward standards seemed to get away with much larger cylinders (or if you like smaller boilers) than you'd expect. Although the 43s could get caught out by fast and heavy freight trains (which is where we started) .

3 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

 

New BG locos were still being built (albeit in 'convertible' form) as late as 1891.

 

And the last three renewals of the big Gooch singles were built in 1888. Although it seems strange to have built non convertible locomotives so late the 1888 Rovers were very big locomotives for the time, a good bit bigger than the Dean singles built as convertibles. It's also worth noting that a short lived replacement with a motive power change coming need not run its full potential working life to be economically viable, it just needs to be cheaper than keeping an old crock running.

Isn't it the list on this page? 

https://didcotrailwaycentre.org.uk/article.php/16/the-great-western-society

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

A subsidiary was a company already controlled by one or more of the others, while those that had no controlling interest above them became constituents.

I don't know about the other companies, but in the Western at least a Subsidiary at the grouping wasn't at all the same thing as a subsidiary in normal business terms. To the best of my knowledge the majority of the GWR Subsidiaries were independent, and not owned by one of the Constituents companies. 

2 hours ago, Dungrange said:

I've never really understood the distinction between "Constituent" and "Subsidiary" Companies,... .  How it was decided which companies were significant enough to get Board representation, I don't know.

According to Pole, Constituents were merged and Subsidiaries taken over, which presumably explains the Directors. As for Constituent or Subsidiary, much intrigue and politicking in and around Parliament committee rooms! 

As Pole tells it the GWR had proposed they should be the only constituent in their group, but as a compromise agreed the Welsh Constituents to be amalgamated into the GWR without the GWR being wound up as all other companies were. 

Hence this contemporary cartoon in the South Wales News. 

(from https://www.railwayaccidents.port.ac.uk/never-even-blew-me-cap-off-railway-grouping-accidents-pt-1/) 

18 hours ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

" - but on the whole the "Subsidiary Companies" are ones that had a separate legal existence but which were in fact operated by another company. 

I suspect that was more of an inevitable result than an aim. In his book, Sir Felix Pole of the GWR, who was deeply involved in the politicking, says “the broad basis being that the large companies in each group - styled Constituent Companies - should amalgamate and absorb the smaller companies which were called Subsidiary. " it was of course inevitable that concerns too small to run their own railway would end up as subsidiaries, but I doubt that was a direct aim of the policy. 

Because it was all done by takeovers and share ownership splitting up a Constituent or even a Subsidiary to take the components into different groups would have greatly added to the complexity and I doubt would have been practical. Judging by what Pole has to say there was enough trouble agreeing the relative values of different classes of share as it was. He notes a particular problem with 'ordinary' Cambrian shares which had not paid a dividend in years. The owners of such got £3 of GWR stock for every hundred plus no dividend for some years. 

I've not studied Traffic patterns and the like, so please excuse my ignorance, but it strikes me that the term mixed traffic as we use it is very different from the use in the term mixed trains. I wonder if when the term started to be used the meaning was closer?

Is this roughly the time when one started to see passenger rated or at least vacuum braked freight stock? There had always been medium wheel sized locomotives for secondary lines and branch lines, but that doesn't seem to be what the term was about, initially anyway. The term seems to have been more about versatile main line locomotives. 

I've been looking a bit at mid 19thC GWR locomotives, and Gooch seems to have built mostly 060s for freight/mineral, 222s for passenger and 240s for secondary lines, the main line general purpose type was uncommon. Was it the faster freight trains with partial or even full continuous brakes hence better braking that brought the new need? Would mineral and unbraked freight have the prime need of being able to accelerate trains back up to 20 or 30 after frequent stops to pin down brakes, but the new (when were they new) faster trains with better brakes required to be able to keep up a reasonable speed economically without all the halts? 

This is a bit stream of consciousness, excuse please.

Yes, its a definition I don't altogether understand. If we define mixed traffic locomotive as being something intermediate between mineral traffic and express, with wheels in the sort of 5'6-6'3 range then they existed from very early on. The mid 19thC GWR, for example, had both large and medium wheel types in its large collection of miscellaneous 2-4-0s. The medium wheel types were typically used for branch and secondary lines I think. Did the mixed traffic term come about because traffic changed? Did faster freight services became a thing at the turn of the century so that instead of all freight traffic being hauled by plodding small wheeled 0-6-0s something more lively was required?

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

I assume [the NER]  shareholders got the best deal when their stock was exchanged for LNER stock. 

If the popular wisdom about dividends is correct, did any LNER constituents shareholders get anything that could really be described as a best deal?

8 hours ago, DCB said:

The Manor was a bit of a shame,  a non superheated Saint with 5ft 8" wheels would have been a much better loco with the same overall weight. 

But could it be done to the weight limits? There were a lot of changes on the Manor chassis to get the weight down. No doubt that the original draughting on the Manor was up the chuff as you might say, but once it was sorted out there wasn't a lot wrong with them. 

I suppose one could imagine a 4-6-0 with 45xx cylinders (17x24) and 5ft2 wheels. I don't feel especially inspired to sketch it I'm afraid. Probably need a 225psi boiler to get the tractive effort up to something useful. I'm inclined to think a 2-6-0 would be more likely for a go anywhere tender engine.

The second one is a Grange equivalent with a Std1 boiler, I should have made that clear (edited now), sorry. 
A Std1 is pretty much exactly a lengthened Std 4 or vice versa.

A thinner and longer barrel on the top one would be a Manor boiler really!
For those who don't have a reference handy,
Std 4 (43xx etc) 4'11/5'6 11ft long barrel, 7ft firebox

(really too small, but that was what the 4-4-0s it was originally developed for had). 

Std 1 (Grange, Saint Hall etc) 4'11/5'6 14ft 10" long barrel, 9ft firebox

Std 14 (Manor) 4'8/5'3 12'6" barrel, 8'8" firebox

My boiler  4'11/5'3 11'6" long barrel, 8'8" firebox, 

In practice there has to be about zero chance that my boiler would work. I am very sure that, given the need to produce a boiler intermediate between Std 1 and Std 4,  the drawing office would have started off with something on those lines before giving up and designing one that needed new flanging blocks.

I posted these on another thread, but they may as well go here too. More GWR kit of parts specials.
The top one is my interpretation of the 5'8in 4-6-0 that Churchward outlined but never built. I've posted it here before I think, but not in colour.  Its roughly contemporary with the first 4700 in general style.

This second is a lightweight 4-6-0, a Churchward Manor if you like. The Manor challenge is the boiler, which needs to have greater capacity than a Std4 and  be lighter than a Std 1. In the event Collett designed a complete new boiler in every respect. I decided Churchward would not have done that, but produced a new boiler that was based on the Std1/4 flanging blocks. The firebox is the same length as a Manor, intermediate between Std 1 and Std4, whilst the barrel is appreciably shorter than a Manor one, only  inches longer than a Std 4 barrel. 

I'm quite pleased with the look of this boiler, if I'm not kidding myself it gives the locomotive a more purposeful look than the Manor. In reality of course Collet's team would surely have considered and rejected a shortened Std 1 like this before they went ahead and designed a complete new boiler for the Manor.

All seems very reasonable to me. I suppose the secondary express types appeared with the GW Counties, some of the LNER Pacifics and the Bulleid Light Pacifics on the SR. 

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

Collett designed a new boiler, no.14, for his Manors, but Churchward had a choice between the no.1, too heavy, or the no.4, too small for a 4-6-0 tender engine.

Yes, the boiler was an issue. AIUI the Grange came about because the Std4 boiler couldn't keep up with the 43xx front end on faster trips with heavy loads. Interesting to speculate what Churchward might have come up with for a intermediate size boiler using more standard components than Collett. Perhaps based on a Std 4 with a longer firebox and barrel/Std1 with shorter box and barrel. It would have to end up a bit shorter than the Manor boiler to be the same weight though. 

FWIW here's two fictional Churchward 5'8 locomotives. For the first, the Manor equivalent, I've quickly sketched up a lightweight boiler with a shortened Std1 barrel and firebox. The firebox is the same length as a Manor one, the barrel is a bit shorter than a Manor, so the smokebox is longer. The running plate is higher than a Manor or Grange, so there's just a single step. I've decided these are post war designs, with a fair bit in common with the first 4700.

While this is a red route Grange equivalent with a Std 1 boiler.

I'm quite pleased with that short Std 1 boiler on the lightweight one. Somehow the result seems to have a bit more presence than the real Manor, or is it just me?

7 hours ago, Miss Prism said:

But what would have been the operating dept need for a Churchward Manor? There were, in that era, plenty of old stagers (Dukes, Dean Goods, saddle tanks etc) that were well suited for the lighter lines.

A fair point. The rationale would have to be to hypothesise traffic on lighter lines that is too great a load for a 43.

I think that if Churchward had built 5'8 4-6-0s there wouldn't have been any Halls at all. If we suppose that say alternate Lots of 43s and Churchward 5'8 460s, presumably numbered as 49s, were built  in the later Churchward era then my guess is Collett would probably just have added side window cabs as he did with 43s and continued with them. Manors would still be needed, but would probably be all new rather than made from reused 43 components, but you would struggle to see the difference. Perhaps a higher running plate like the 47s, rather than the step up and down on the cylinders like Manor and Grange. Maybe I should sketch up a Churchward Manor? 

7 hours ago, rodent279 said:

 Or would that be difficult with the Churchward 4 cylinder layout,

Rather difficult. Wheels get in the way of the rockers if they move behind the cylinders. The Duchesses had quite different wheel spacing.

Although I suppose, bearing in mind the LMS drawing office apparently failed to understand the point of the carefully angled cranks on the GWR valve gear, one might be cynical and suggest they would have been quite happy with valve timing issues caused by valve rod expansion if the out to in rockers were in front of the cylinders.

8 minutes ago, DenysW said:

Yes, and you must use these Standard modules we've developed as part of your design.'. Beyer Garratt seem to have been especially prone to building exactly what the customer specified 

When I look at the Beyer proposals to the GWR there's a definite appearance of use of standard GWR components. Of course use of standard components is in no way a problem provided that the parts in question are up to the job.

7 hours ago, rodent279 said:

how about an 8F crossed with a 47xx, i.e. an 8F with 5'8" drivers?

With 5'6 between the first two pairs of driving wheels that would be a bit of a challenge! Like 47xx against 28xx it would need to be a major redesign.

3 hours ago, KeithMacdonald said:

 Otherwise known as the Gloucester Railway Wagon Works. I've no idea why it's there and not back at home in Gloucester.

Just a local repair shop, not the main factory. I understand there were six of these in Wales alone (source here: http://www.welshcoalmines.co.uk/forum/read.php?4,89683,89686 ). Which gives you an idea how big a business wagon repair was!

This is completely not my area of expertise, but is there any reason why the actual junction shouldn't be a couple of miles down the track? In other words beyond the scenic break, so your branch trains depart on the up line and return on the down? You'd need to work in a crossover to the bay, presumably facing, but hopefully any track plan incorporating a bay platform should be a guide. 

Think you'll find most coal merchants started business from railway goods yards. Given half a chance merchants would hang on to a wagon and fill sacks direct from the wagon. Of course the railway didn't like that at all. 

I've tidied up my sketch a bit and given it outside bearing for the trailing bogie, and the Bear's original 8 wheel tender. There seems to be an awful lot of daylight under the tender, which makes me wonder if I've misinterpreted the limited drawings I have. 

The six wheel tender version would have just about squeezed onto a 65ft turntable, albeit probably too out of balance to turn readily. This one on the other hand is just a fatal bit too long, although in practice a removable extension piece as was done with some 55ft turntables would be a viable option for both.

The Bear's tender is more interesting than I suspected when I came to draw it. It doesn't seem to have the well between the frames of the other standard tender so has higher sides. The tender in the other drawing is a well tank 3,500 gallon tender, but it's one of the ones that was given essentially cosmetic higher sides than it really needs.