Current and Proposed New-Builds

Cook (IIRC) said that about 50% of the donor 4300 was used in the Granges and Manors. One guesses the boilers would have gone back in the pool too.

 

If there is sufficient evidence to show that something is incorrect, then our views should be revised accordingly.

There is nothing wrong with taking a fresh look at history and questioning if it has been well reported, researched, written on, etc.

I fear the idea that history is set in stone, and can therefore stonewall legitimate lines of inquiry, is absurd.

 

Ah but there is often no evidence one way or another, just "wild surmise"

PH

 

The Churchward 4-4-0 Counties had technology as a pre US Civil war locomotive:
Short wheelbase,4 eccentrics on driving axle transfereed with rocking things to outside valves and a funny swing link 4 wheel carriage up front.
Boiler much heavyer and higher up.Cylinders heavier and wider apart.Locomotive asked to run much faster than fifty years before.
Preprogrammed disaster and ugly as well.

 

History is bunk! How much of ■.■.■.■■■■'s output is still unquestioningly accepted in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary?

I always liked Ronal Searle's take on it in "Down With Skool":
History started badly and hav been getting steadily worse. When I look at some of the villanus faces around me, I fear it will soon get even wors
That was a lifetime ago...... he was right. He still is!

And don't even get me started on one certain pathetic apologist for the status quo, obviously still angling for a KBE, presumably "For services to brown-nosing". Call that fawning idiot a historian? It's amazing my TV still has an intact screen. Thank Bob for remote controls!

[Note to self: Medication time Howard .... and a nice lie down with a cup of tea]

 

as far as I'm aware the wheels cylinders and motion were identical so I would guess it might have been a case of a new frame and leading bogie plus bigger boiler and cab with many detailed fittings transferred too. How far off the mark is that?

 

In your opinion Paul. It often depends on how open minded one is to new ideas and evidence.

For example, today I took delivery of some documents from Search Engine at the NRM. They consist of an interview between a locomotive engineer and a railway writer which took place in 1948. The details of the interview give a unique viewpoint and rather prove a few points I suspected.

This interview has only been written about briefly and never published publicly. Most published "History" - written by others - doesn't give this evidence or anything close to this viewpoint.

Research, an open mind, and a willingness to look at all sides is key I think.

 

No problem to me provided it is not a case of taking up a position before seeking evidence to back that position. I am not saying at all that this is the case here but there have been examples of this, even in medical research.

 

I suspect that in the case of the formulation of GWR loco policy (which is what this discussion is about), you are doing @Jimc something of a disservice.

Tom

 

Note that I did say "often".

PH

 

The cylinders were new, and its said the valve chests in particular were redesigned with influences from Chapelon. They also had 9" piston valves, whereas the 43s had 10". My guess is that the 43s were approaching new front end time*, so it would probably have been reasonable to pick 43s that were coming up for new cylinders as the parts donors.

*For those who aren't aware the frames on the Churchward and Collett standard two cylinder classes stop off at the driving wheels. From there forward the cylinders etc are supported on extension frames - almost bar frames, bolted onto the conventional frames. The cylinder/boiler saddle is a single unit - well two halves, anyway, bolted together, and the extension frames run under the cylinders.
According to Cook, he worked out a system that when a 2 cylinder standard classes needed new cylinders, they took off the whole front end, extension frames and all, and replaced it with a complete new assembly, thus saving a lot of time in the shop.
Hawksworth discontinued the use of extension frames on the modified Halls and the Counties, which is sometimes presented as a major development - which to me is fairly amusing as all the Churchward and Collett 4 cylinder classes and every other GWR class had full length frames and separate saddle assemblies. No doubt there were pros and cons to both designs.

 

Oh absolutely. That is why I remain optimistically cautious. The evidence I have been given doesn't necessarily prove my views, but it is a very good indication that the established history is not as straightforward as previously indicated.

 

Just a bit - whilst the wheels and motion may have been used on the 68xx & 78xx the cylinders were not. The Grange and Manor cylinders were a new design and, IIRC, slightly different from each other. In reality the 43xx to 68/78xx was an 'accountants rebuild' but, due to the G.W.R.'s standardization policy, many of the 43xx parts e.g. Standard No4 boiler went into the parts 'pool' to be used , as required, for repairs to existing as well as 'new' locos.
Ray.

 

so if a brand new loco was built needing a no4 boiler, might they get a secondhand boiler or did they have to really be new to satisfy the accountants?

 

I think that in general new locos got new boilers, although exceptionally a series of Bulldogs built in 1902 to 1903 were turned out with second hand No 2 boilers, this was because the new No 4 boilers intended for them were purloined to upgrade the Aberdare design.

 

An interesting question, and one I don't know the answer to. I think you'd need to consult a detailed class history which covers the boiler histories of each member of the class. If the numbers of the first boilers fitted to each were notably out of sequence it might be reasonable to assume that they were secondhand.

 

I assume the loco record/repair cards at Kew would have that information.
Ray.

 

Those two statements seem slightly contradictory - influenced by Chapelon but with smaller piston valves?

 

I think that the redesign was more to do with larger and more streamlined steam passageways.
Ray.

 

Hagley Hall was positioned next to the platform at Bridnorth earlier this year with the cylinders removed. This gave a clear view of the front frame section. I have often read about it but have never seen it before, it was very interesting.