JimC

For @Mike 84C...

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

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 Frilford Grange had been withdrawn at the end of November 65.

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.

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.

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.

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.

There you go, a Castle boiler on a 5'8 4-6-0. Sort of a County equivalent really.

A Castle boiler would be a better bet for weight. Actually....

I enjoyed doing the "Churchward Grange" more than I expected and couldn't resist doing some more work on it, and have produced two versions, one pre war and the other post WW1. For pre war I've removed the raised foot plate over the cylinders and replaced it with a cover as per Churchward 42xx. Its imagined to have been built in 1906/7, so short cone boiler, not superheated, no top feed, no Holcroft curves etc, and carries a 3 digit number as per other Churchward prototypes. I also picked a fish name nearer the beginning of the alphabet. This imagines the class introduced post war, alongside the 47xx which it has much in common with and hence the number 4800 which would have been the logical next series. The running plate is slightly higher, the same as the 47xx, so no cover over the cylinders. If successful these would surely have been built instead of Halls and perhaps also instead of the later lots of 43xx too, so one can imagine it being an exceedingly numerous class..

Apparently when the running department wanted more 47s Collett decided to build Castles instead as being more versatile. But a Collett 47 is easy enough to imagine. Side window cab and fire iron tunnel!

Something like this I expect. Grange with a 47xx cab (slightly *shortened* to my surprise), a tall safety valve cover, no fire iron tunnel and inside steam pipes. I've called her Salmon because Churchward was much keener on natural names than Collett's buildings, he was an outdoors type and he'd already used birds and flowers...

Amazingly though, the last one being withdrawn wasn't the end of the story. See this thread for the second life of one (or part of one) of the class. https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/156057-identification-of-a-mystery-outside-framed-engine/ Also https://www.flickr.com/photos/14581588@N05/4735888892 and http://www.historywebsite.co.uk/articles/Railway Gazette/OWWR.htm

Bit of a veteran this time. These are technically absorbed locomotives. 248 (upper sketch) is one of a class of five delivered to the Oxford, Worcester and Wolverhampton Railway in 1854/5. They were an E.B. Wilson standard design. 253 (lower sketch) is one of seven more, with differences to the frames, were bought by the the Newport, Abergavenny and Hereford Railway. These lines merged into the West Midland Railway, which in turn was taken over by the GWR to form a significant part of the narrow (=standard) gauge Northern Division. They were much rebuilt over their lives, acquiring larger cylinders and other changes – even in some cases new frames – but don’t seem to have been officially renewed. In RCTS the 253 frames are described as G.N.R. pattern, and the 248s as being N.E.R. pattern. In the E.L. Ahrons sketches I've used as the chief basis for these drawings I also seem to see some differences in the inside motion arrangements and some other more obvious variations. Although the first was withdrawn as early as 1877, and all the 253s by 1881, the last survivor of the 248s was withdrawn in 1907, but not bearing too much resemblance to this sketch by then. Livery is a complete minefield for something as early as this. I've just chosen an approximation of Wolverhampton colours with the lining left off.

I was mulling over the 15xx in a blog post. There are some surprising dimensions. If only one could talk to the people who designed it and know what they were doing in detail. Here's a chart of some of the measurements of the 15 against vaguely comparable types. Do they altogether make sense when you look at it as a dedicated dock shunter? Weight: Why did they put such a big boiler on the 15xx? A P class boiler like the 57 would have been perfectly adequate for short distance shunting work. It was basically a bigger boiler than the ones on the Austerity and USA tanks. The big boilers on the GWR locomotives make sense when you consider their traffic duties. Wheelbase: Its arguable whether the 15xx is in the same ballpark as the Austerity and 08 - 10% longer than 08, 25% longer than the USA. I have doubts about enthusiast second guessing on technical design matters, especially when its me(!) but I think there's a case to be made that the 15xx wheelbase was as long as it could be without having the locomotive fall on its nose because of the weight of the big cylinders. Its interesting that there's a known study of an outside cylinder 2-6-0PT with a P class boiler and 14'6 fixed wheelbase. I wonder if the longer and rear heavy (because tapered) Std10 boiler was chosen because it aided the weight distribution?

I have a not very well founded suspicion that enthusiasts tend to exaggerate the practical benefits of outside cylinders and outside valve gear. The trouble with this sort of thing is that few of us are trained steam locomotive designers, and I wonder how sound some of our deductions are. I've found it very easy to construct a cloud cuckoo land castle of theories that seem completely logical, only to have it come crashing down when a new bit of evidence appears.

You're correct, the long rail does seem to have been a GWR addition. Goodness knows where I got that from! I've altered the original post.

These large 0-6-2Ts were built by Kitsons in 1908, and, according to RCTS, with the obvious exception of tanks and bunker, were virtually identical to Taff Vale O4s. Its not immediately obvious to me why this should be, as the O4s were never built by Kitsons. I shall be interested when I get to the Taff Vale classes. The obvious feature of the class of 3, in common with some other Cardiff classes, was the long tanks, heavily sloped at the front. I can't make my mind up whether I like this or not aesthetically! Anyway this is the sole GWR reboilering of the 33 class, which lasted until 1953. One of its sisters was withdrawn in 1930 and cut up in 1934 after failing to find a buyer, and the other, withdrawn in 1934, was soon sold into industry, and survived into 1960, just a few years too early to have a chance of preservation.

Well you may find it objectionable, but its legal. Because public domain. If they clean up and otherwise process the images before distribution (admittedly probably unlikely) they may even have a limited copyright on *their version* of the images. I imagine they are probably primarily targeting small companies for whom the convenience is well worth a modest fee. Personally I dislike the thought of anyone taking income from my iwork without paying me a share, so I am careful not to put it in public domain.

That's the whole point of public domain. Everyone is free to use things as they like. Alamy are providing a distribution and advertising service. The very fact that the images were found there suggests the service is functional.

It will at least be difficult for anyone to say definitively that you are wrong...

I was idly scanning locomotive drawings (as you do) and I was struck by how much this locomotive matched the general style of the Dean 0-4-4s, with short wheelbase and a long gap to a short wheelbase bogie, although it is rather larger. They were built in 1885 by Beyer Peacock for the Mersey Railway, and three ended up with the Great Western via the Alexandra Docks Company.

Looking at dates on GWR.org wartime black was probably mid 42 to mid 45, postwar green mid 45 to end 47. Bearing in mind increased works capacity post war when armaments production ceased and the workforce returned its likely that numbers of locomotives in post war livery exceeded those in wartime black. Against that on the 56s is that Caerphilly probably did a higher proportion of 56s than the other factories.

Would the good burghers of Birkenhead have much say in it?