JimC

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 One of its sisters was withdrawn in 1930 and cut up in 1934 after failing to find a buyer, and the other, withdrawn in 1934, was soon sold into industry, and survived into 1960, just a few years too early to have a chance of preservation.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?

Even if the classes in question were state of the art when they were constructed it would be rather disappointing if there hadn't been considerable advances in the various factors that influence cost of ownership in the meantime. My interests lie elsewhere than MR and NER locomotives, but in the one volume I do have the admittedly self-serving Cox is not very positive about the vast majority of pre Stanier types from the maintenance viewpoint. The BR standards were intended to be much cheaper to maintain and run than those that went before. Underwhelming as most of them undoubtedly are, did their designers fail that badly in their key aim?

The 43 was a direct result of Holcroft seeing 2-6-0s used as multi purpose locomotives on Canadian lines. Holcroft had reported back, and when a Churchward idea for inside cylinder standard classes for secondary lines proved impractical he had Holcroft draw up a 2-6-0 with as many std parts as possible. The result was effectively a tank version of the 3150 2-6-2T, but Holcroft tells us that was more due to common use of the same parts than a deliberate plan.

With 2-6-0s, aren't we failing to note the spectacular success of the GWRs 43s as an influence?

No argument that they either built too many standard classes or not enough standard locomotives, take your pick. Classes of 20 and 30 were [redacted]. But although pre group crocks could have been kept on until the end of steam - and as late as 1961 the WR planners* seem to have envisaged 1970 for the end of steam - how much would it have cost? The pre group stock was worn out, expensive to maintain and even more expensive to overhaul. How many years did it take for a modern replacement to pay for itself in increased availability and reduced overhaul expense? Not a whole lifetime, that's for sure. *source : lecture to WR London lecture debating soc 1961 by David Pattison, who was deeply involved in the planning.

Here's another 1813 variation for you... A handful of very early pannier tank implementations were short and didn't flank the smokebox.

Well the 1813 class is the obvious subject - they existed in side tank, saddle tank and pannier tank form, as well as being the first of the family that ended up with the 57s. I did a little blog feature on the 1813 side tanks, @Mikkel and I did a bit of research on them.

2230 was built with a Std 4 boiler, but only ran like that from Oct 1906 to Jan 1907. You'd think an Airfix/Dapol 61xx body wouldn't be a mile away, but I've overlaid a 61 drawing on a 2221 drawing for you here, and the differences do add up. I've lined up the boilers - if you line up the footplate the bunker and cab match better, but the 4-4-2 boiler is pitched just over 6in higher which would rather notice, especially as the tanks on the 4-4-2 are lower and longer. Still, for all its deficiencies the Dapol kit isn't that expensive, and one could butcher a few...

Well, I've produced the sketches, and altered the first page to include the usual description. I thought it might be more interesting to include the discussion rather than start a new page. The other feature of 795 that differs in photos and weight diagram is the forward of the cab hand rails and, I think, the radius of the cab cutout just above it. Rather randomly, because I came across it while preparing the drawing, I was interested to see a 1924 photo in RCTS (K452) of another ex P&M locomotive, 928, in which as well as the GWR cabside plate the saddle tank is still labelled P & M No 14 with what appears to be a cast plate.

Here's a first draft which I'll take a good look at later. Feel free to comment. I was struck, when I was copying standard parts from other drawings and the like, by just how small this locomotive is, so I thought that for now it would be fun to have an outline of a 57xx behind to give an idea of the relative size.

Whenever I'm approaching Didcot and see the above sign, I get this urge to creep up late one night and alter it so it looks like the version underneath... Fortunately, perhaps, I live too far away and have got too old for that sort of game!

I reckon there's at least two more differences between drawing and GW era photo. And what about the sanding arrangements? It looks to me as if there's just a single smallish sandbox located between the wheels, instead of two large conventional ones on 942. Don't recall seeing anything like that elsewhere. And aren't those buffers unusual, so very short.

One thing about that one which is interesting, but fortunately not my problem is that the balance weights in that photo are completely different to the one I linked to, clearly they - and I presume the wheels - had been changed.

Here is a GWR outline drawing. How many differences can we spot between this and the photograph @Miss Prismlinked? There's another photo of her in Industrial days here: https://thetransportlibrary.co.uk/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=100626

Shame, but that one looks useful: I haven't seen it. Do you have a large version?

Powlesland and Mason were not really a railway as such. They provided cartage and locomotive haulage on the trackwork of the Swansea Harbour Trust, which also owned its own locomotives. At the grouping they had nine 0-4-0ST from five different manufacturers. These two, built in 1903 and 1906, were among the last steam locomotives built by the Brush Electrical Engineering Co. This is the same Brush company, give or take a few mergers and acquisitions, that was and is a significant builder of diesel electric locomotives. They had taken over the the Falcon Engine & Car Works Ltd in 1889, which had built steam locomotives for P&M amongst others. Powlesland & Mason locomotives came to the GWR in January 1924, late in the grouping, and were given a rather random collection of numbers – and number plates – reused from locomotives absorbed earlier that had already been withdrawn. 795 was given a considerable rebuild in 1926. This included a new boiler to a different design, and, uniquely for an 0-4-0T, pannier tanks. These were short tanks and didn't cover the firebox. 921 didn't receive such dramatic changes but did receive a GWR combined dome/safety valve cover. Both were sold on to industry in 1928/9. 795 was scrapped in the early 1960s, but 921 survives and is preserved, although has not run in preservation. An earlier version of this page included the following request for assistance, which explains the earlier part of the discussion. These - well, perhaps just 795 in its extra cute pannier tank form - are going to be my next sketch. What I could do with, though, is a really square side on photograph to get the rods and cylinders right. I have a GW weight diagram, but it has no detail. All the photos I've found on line of 921 are at something of an angle. This one isn't bad, but squarer would be better. Any offers?

Well that's obvious enough. The prairie is shunting a sludge tender. Much scope for amusement in associating sludge with soccer...

My guess is it depends. Weight diagrams for major classes are often very well drawn. Some of the ones for one off absorbed are sketchy in the extreme. Something rather interesting - to me at least - passed through my hands recently, which was 4 or 5 weight diagram like drawings of absorbed Welsh classes about 5 inches wide. They'd been drawn by A E 'Dusty' Durrant who was a Swindon Apprentice and draughtsman. What was interesting is that they were dated, and the dates were in the middle of his apprenticeship. Holcroft, Durrant etc are strong on what they did during the day and weak on the evening classes where they were taught draughtsmanship and presumably engineering maths and it now occurs to me that weight diagram like drawings would be an obvious training exercise. And I've just realised I have a email contact with an ex Swindon drawing office draughtsman. I had better ask, hadn't I!