JimC

This comes down to the two sets of rights. As your book is GER it must surely be out of the original copyright. The NRM only hold copyright on their copies, not on yours.I Again its the two forms of copyright. There is copyright on the actual order of words, and there's copyright on the image taken of them. The two copyrights may be owned by different people. The sensible thing is to get an agreement from employer or former employer. Most are pretty reasonable. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ownership-of-copyright-works

That's quite feasible. Assignation of copyright does not depend on physical ownership of a copy of the item.

Well, if you buy an original copy of Bradshaw then copyright has expired and you can copy it as you like. However depending on how much work you do preparing it for printing there may be some copyright in your presentation of it. So publisher B can't reproduce your version of Bradshaw, but they can reproduce the original. So and so's collection is a decidedly dubious area. Just because I have a print - or even an original negative - I may not own copyright on the original, and in some cases the copyright owner may be near enough untraceable. However if I make reproductions of the original, especially if scanned, cleaned up, altered colour balance etc, then I'll have copyright on those reproductions, but if someone else also has a copy of that print nothing I do with reproducing my print affects what he can do with his print. Other than that I don't know about the precise legal status of 'xx collection'. I suppose if you can't credit the actual copyright holder its the next best thing, and stating where you got it might prevent others who have a print from getting excited. Can anyone comment.

There are potentially two varieties of copyright on any work. The first is the authors copyright, which expires at authors death + 70 as described. The second is copyright on the actual presentation. So if I make a new issue of a book written 40 years ago I have to have permission from the author or their estate to reproduce their words. But say my new issue contains illustrations I have selected, a layout I have carefully worked on and so on, then I have copyright on my layout. So if in 5 years someone wants to publish a facsimile edition of my version of the book, with my layout etc, then they have to seek permission both from the original author and from me. If they want to produce a brand new edition with their own layout they only need permission from the author. When NRM claim rights on the reproductions of material they produce its the second type of rights thay are claiming, not the first. Yes, it all seems irksome, but turn it around, why on earth should the people who did all the hard work, be it authorship back then or layout more recently, be the only ones who don't benefit from the sale of a work? An example of the limits of the second style of copyright is that when I produced illustrations for my book I used as source some drawings sourced from the NRM. But because I redrew each illustration completely there were no copyright issues, because I wasn't reproducing the NRMs copy. If I had wanted to use the original drawings, rather than draw them myself then I would rightly have had to seek permission and pay. It does hurt, though, that the publisher wanted me to include a limited number of original photographs, and boy did they make a hole in my income. I don't really begrudge photographic libraries their money, because keeping a library together is a serious piece of work, but the disparity in what they made for each illustration in my book, and what I made for each illustration I drew or took was not a happy calculation for me! JimC

We covered this topic recently in a digression on a thread about the Rapido 15xx which I don't think you participated in. There were, as I expect you know, two types of Std 10, the KA and KB. KA were the original superheated ones on all the absorbed classes and the 2251s. KB were the unsuperheated ones for the 94s and 15s. According to RCTS 215 KB boilers were constructed. There were 10 GWR built 94s, 200 outsourced 94s and 10 1500s. So that suggests that there were never enough saturated KB boilers to go round the 94s, so it seems likely a few always had KA boilers unless any KA boilers were converted to be non superheated. Presumably there was a good supply of KA boilers in the 50s as pre group locomotives were withdrawn with boilers that would have had life left. I'm told, incidentally that the 15s all had at least two boiler changes, and that 9400-9 all had KB boilers when withdrawn, so while the last 94s might not have had boiler changes the early ones definitely did. If anyone has access to the records for 9400-9 it would be interesting to know the boilers they had when turned out. The numbers ought to let us know whether they were new or reused. Similarly the 94s which had GW supplied boilers, but unfortunately I'm locked down away from my records and can't look up which ones they were.

I have the impression, compared to the LMS say, that almost all GWR locomotives were expected to serve passenger turns if needed, hence the rarity of locos with 3 link couplings and no vacuum brake (67xx and ROD in the 50s? ). And I wonder if this in turn is part of the GWR's relative reluctance with diesel shunters, as the early ones were simply too slow for such duties. Any comments people? The first 94s with superheating seem intended as traffic locomotives, although they lost this with boiler changes. Alternatively perhaps they were just turned out with second hand boilers, which would have been superheated? On that topic, according to RCTS, it doesn't seem as if enough saturated Std 10 boilers were built to cover all the 94s and the 15s, so were there always a few superheated boilers among the 94s, or were some older boilers retubed without flue tubes? ISTR some 94s were built with GWR supplied boilers, and wonder if those were new or refurbished. An obvious difference between 5700 and 9400 is the firebox. I don't have numbers here, but wouldn't the Std 10 firebox have been wider than the P class? The 2251s were I think all screw reverse by the time the 94s came out, so that was one difference in the cab layout.

One oddity was that locos from many different pre group classes*, although normally the lower powered ones, were picked for auto working, and the gear seems to have sometimes been taken off again at overhauls, but the new built classes kept their gear for all their lives, and don't seem to have swapped with their non auto fitted cousins, 74s and 58s. *the ones Johnster lists were predominant though.

I wonder if it's significant that the trailers could only be driven from one end. That must have forced certain limitations on what could be done. Do we have anyone here who has driven a 14 or a 64? Could they comment on whether cab first or boiler first is more congenial?

Does anyone here have access to the records for 9400-9409 to tell us what boilers they had?

Oh no, the 97xx are clearly pannier tanks with the tanks extended downwards, whereas, for example, the 1101s are obviously side tanks with the tanks extended forwards. [grin]

I find it hard to see station polluting smokeboxes as anything other than a major own goal, penny wise and pound foolish making the railway a far more unpleasant environment to work in and even more importantly travel on.

The real reason things get done may be different from the ones presented to the directors though. In my own career I saw large sums expended on what I saw as bees in bonnets, vanity projects or 'looks good on the CV" when I felt the money would have been far better spent on low profile developments which would have done much more to enhance the work of the organisation, but wouldn't have been nearly as exciting.

It's one of the amusing quirks of steam enthusiasts in the UK that folk wish to deny certain locomotives have pannier tanks. I suppose because the pannier tank configuration is so strongly associated with the GWR. So I observe enthusiasts and or owners of industrials and others that clearly have pannier tanks ardently denying it. Even more amusing when you consider locomotives with no footplate and outside motion, where the distinction is at best blurred, and verging on non existent on some locomotives.

A study of numbers indicates that the 94s were built to replace the last of the pre group 0-6-2T and 0-6-0T, which were withdrawn over the period the 94s were built. So a cheaper alternative to more 56xx. And yes, more boiler capacity and brake power than the 57s.

Mmm, but if there hadn't been the desire to build a new design then they wouldn't have built a new locomotive, in the language used before the war on the GWR they would have renewed the locomotive utilising such parts as might have been suitable for re-use, which would probably have been not many... The Duke of Gloucester is certainly the hardest of the BR standards to justify. But perhaps they foresaw more heavier trains, in which case more 8ps would have been desirable.

They had to be building *something*. Even with short lifetimes, steam being capital cheap and maintenance heavy, I imagine the standards were cheaper than keeping life expired pre group locos designed in an era of cheap labour running. As for alternatives, the Southern had to have new design, the standards were substantially LMS anyway, so it's really only West and East where there was a case for perpetuating existing design schools. But with the East in the middle of a design upheaval anyway I think it can be argued that only on the Western was there really a strong justification for perpetuating existing design.

Any number of ways to skin the cat, my usual division is small wheel v large wheel, but with 54s, 64s and 74s honorary members of the small wheel club. It is tricky to draw firm lines, especially on the basis of power, because Collett's 'small' classes, esp the 74, whilst clearly of the 850 line of development were actually more powerful than earlier members of the 'large' 57 lineage.

Excellent piece of work. The numbers may seem dry, but they tell us a lot we simply cannot find out any other way.

I think this is something of a non-existent distinction. If you look at the GWR pannier tanks the straps across the boiler are not large at all, but the support brackets under the tanks are very substantial. I suspect few engineers would pick hanging tanks in tension over sitting them on solid structures in compression.

If you ignore capital expenditure electric traction has been the superior option for over a hundred years.

I would still be interested to know whether signalmen at Bognor regularly had to provide authority to pass at danger, or at the other extreme whether it was the first time this signalman had ever had to do so?

I suppose at the time she must have been the most powerful locomotive in the country with a long travel valve gear, and one may speculate that the steaming deficiencies of the boiler wouldn't have been an issue at low speed, whereas its immense capacity would have been a virtue on long climbs. By various accounts, too, Churchward's regulator design gave better control than those on other locomotives. It's claimed that the capabilities of the Bear on heavy fast freight led to the 47s. So perhaps it was a task that played to her strengths. As Churchward said, " The modern Locomotive Question is principally a matter of boiler" so we can speculate that a duty that played to the strengths of the boiler and not its weaknesses would show the Bear in the best light.

A number of locomotives have held that title in succession.

That's an interesting number. There were 10 GWR built 94s, 200 outsourced 94s and 10 1500s. So that suggests that there were never enough saturated KB boilers (Std 10 saturated) for all the 94s, so it seems likely a few always had KA boilers. I wonder if that was always the first 10, and whether the superheated locomotives were allocated different tasks. Unless, I suppose, any KA boilers were converted to be non superheated. Presumably there was a good supply of KA boilers in the 50s as pre group locomotives were withdrawn with boilers that would have had life left.

Yes, 2251s and the absorbed 062Ts were superheated, and from that it seems the 15s and the 94s shared the same boiler pool. I've always assumed the GWR built 94s being superheated was evidence that they were intended as traffic locomotives, but I find myself wondering if they were simply fitted with secondhand boilers from the pool. I wonder if 9400 has a superheated or saturated boiler now. Anyone know? We've got a long way off the topic, but I suggest there's good evidence that one should not be dogmatic about detailed fittings on any particular 15 without a dated photograph since they may well have changed over the locomotive's life. Who'd be a model manufacturer!