JimC

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!

Dammit, why didn't I find that? I have a copy of that photo from RCTS, but much worse quality. [later] especially as you'd already posted it in this blog!

Not to be confused with the 0-4-2T 3521s that ended up as 4-4-0s, these were 2-4-0Ts that ended up as 2-4-0s. Built in 1885, the ten double framed 3511 2-4-0Ts were a tank engine version of the Stella class 2-4-0s, a part of a Dean standardisation exercise that also included the 2361 outside frame version of the Dean Goods and the 1661 0-6-0ST. All had major components in common. They were a much larger engine than the Metros with 17in by 26in cylinders and class P (Dean Goods) boilers. Originally (as shown) they carried condensing apparatus for use in the Severn Tunnel. 3501-10 were similar, but built as convertibles for the broad gauge. The 3511 series lost tanks and gained tenders to become additional members of the Stella class in 1894/5. This sketch was quite a challenge. I started it because I was given a couple of blueprints of weight diagrams of the class, but when I came to trace the blueprints the frames just didn't look right to me against photographs. I've decided, on *very* limited evidence, that the running plate on the drawings is a little too low, and so I lifted it and now I think it better matches photographs. Sketch updated 1st Feb

The GWR bought 100 and kept 50, which had the boilers considerably upgraded to GWR standards, including copper inner firebox. The others were run until they dropped, but I imagine they kept enough spare boilers to constitute a reasonable boiler pool. Hence there was no immediate need to put standard boilers on. Fitting Std 1 boilers to the RODs was apparently considered during WW2, but (doubtless cheap) Riddles 2-8-0s were bought after the war, and one may speculate this was partly at least to replace the now aging RODs. The GWR austerities and their changes in (G)WR ownership seem to be very poorly documented in GWR sources.

I'd kinda assumed that the Sodor railway had a sort of Manchester or Birmingham extension or at least running powers so that there was a daily out and back for Gordon's express train, the fish train and maybe a couple of other heavy trains.

Perhaps not the 3150: it has the larger diameter Std 4 boiler whereas the 5101s and the 61s had a Std 2, so the 3111s are, I suggest, the better bet.

For sure, but it also complicates admin, stock holding, distribution etc. Basically its producing a new model, albeit one with no development costs, for a run of 100. I don't know how the relative costs of body and chassis production line up, but it seems to me not utterly impossible that a genuinely profitable price for a chassis might get sufficiently close to that of a complete model that it would generate more bad publicity in complaints about price gouging than the income from sales would be worth. But I'm just speculating.

Trouble is the numbers game. Supposing a manufacturer decides to order some extra running chassis. How many could they sell? A hundred? And how many of those would be taking away sales from complete models?

For sure. And its hard to hack up or chuck that nice detailed body to use the chassis as a donor for something different that (unless you are sufficiently skilled not to have to bother with converting R2R anyway) probably won't look nearly as good. In ten or fifteen year's time of course... But that won't help sales now.