6880 Betton Grange

How long did you wait for 46291 before getting fed up?

 

Oops! Fingers too big for keypad again!

 

Some of us knew what you meant John

 

I think the best way of describing GW locos is that they are a good performing product as far as the outcome of steaming well and pulling a train goes, but their packaging is not the most user friendly. Ultimately different people will have different opinions on whether the performance is worth the inconvenience of the packaging or not.

 

I suppose you could say that no progress was made after Churchward and it shows

 

Well that’s totally incorrect John.

 

I actually find them ideal in all aspects. I’d never have a bad day on a Western Engine. Easy to fire, easy to drive, great for signal sighting both smokebox and tender first. Yet take 75069 or 34027 at our place. The standard is awful for tender first running. No sighting at all. The bullied is as bad in both directions

 

But I'd imagine preparing the standard and (to an extent) the Bulleid is less arduous than a Western. No inside motion on the standard, rocking grates and hopper ashpans, plus you have an enclosed cab to keep more of inclement weather out. For some people they would prefer a loco that is easy to prepare and awkward to drive in reverse than the other way round.
Ultimately I'm happy with a day on a steam loco whatever design it is, but people are allowed their preferences and, like I said, different people will be willing to take different inconveniences because of different strengths. The beauty of human preferences is there actually isn't a right answer, and it's a shame when people try to present their own opinions as objective fact

 

There is not a single GW engine that is more difficult to Prep than the Bullied!

And now a days on GW engines you can have all the rocking grate, hopper pans, etc.

 

Churchward was responsible for a huge advance in steam loco efficiency and many of the features were copied by other railways. The GW had something of a monopoly in the west so probably didn’t need to do anything else. I think they were the only company of the big four that never failed to pay a dividend to its shareholders. Is a Castle much more than an updated Star?

 

That’s a bit unfair on Bulleids, they were not designed for tender first running on branch lines. The steaming capacity of the boiler is the best there is, especially on the larger MNs, 28 can take nearly 600 tons of Pullmans up Martin Mill Bank without breaking sweat. Is the prepping any worse than a four cylinder Castle? 75069 is unfortunate in being ex Southern Region with a high sided BR1B tender

 

You can, but in my experience (which admittedly has only covered 6 GW locos) that doesn't mean they all do have those types of mod cons. I've only crewed one GW loco with a hopper ashpan and one with a section of the grate as a drop grate, but never a full rocking grate.

 

That’s not correct. I think part of the design brief and hence the tender design was about being able to do a substantial amount of tender first running. (On the WC/BB)

I agree GW engines are less ergonomic than some later designs. However, a key feature of keeping them much as they were after Churchward was the standardisation of spares and simplification of training. I learnt to fire on 822 and 823. When I later got on a Hall and then later still all the other tank and tender types I have had the privilege to work, the controls were instantly recognisable! These factors must have massively weighed in the consideration of “updating” designs.

 

I’m not sure about that, the tender first view on the originals with high raves was virtually non existent.

 

6989 doesn’t have a rocking grate, and the hopper ashpan is arranged in such a fashion that it is impossible to check one section is clear without cinders from one of the others raining down on you. As for the grate, it is a nasty thing to clear.

As I have said before, once out on the road it’s a good loco. But I’d stand by my earlier view that taken through a whole day comprising prep, running and disposal, I’d rather be on an 80000 tank (if the load is big) or a Wainwright engine for a smaller load. That’s from a fireman’s point of view - drivers and fitters would have equally legitimate views on different types, which may be similar or vary.

Tom

 

I do wonder how disruptive it would be for an experienced crew to have to deal with multiple different cab configurations in the course of their work, especially as a fireman at, say, Saltley in the 1950s would have encountered locos with Midland, LNWR, LMS Fowler, LMS Stanier, and BR standard cab layouts and they seemed to manage fine!
As a fireman (so with slightly less do to with controls than a driver) I've had several occasions where I've gone from predominantly operating one type of cab to another (GW - Industrial - LMS - Industrial - GW - Caledonian - GW) and I've never really felt much of an adjustment period in working out where the controls are. The adjustment period has been more in terms of working out how the loco behaves and how it wants to be fired. The biggest things that play a role in adapting to that from a cab layout point of view is firehole door shapes and whether the loco is left hand drive or right hand drive. Admittedly when your first encounter with a loco is bringing it into steam for a day pottering round a heritage railway the demands on figuring out which control does what aren't as great as if you're relieving another crew and are about to take a 10 coach train over 100 miles at 60mph!
One could argue that the GW could have easily adapted the shape of cabs and tenders on GW engines to be far more enclosed with a more comfortable seat and controls arranged to help facilitate the crew using them, while still keeping the core elements that made the locos steam well and pull well, but then admittedly that would have limited, for example, how easily tenders could be swapped between locos at overhaul etc

 

It’s considerably better than other high sided tenders.

 

It is not the experienced person you need to think about though, but the ease of collecting that experience.

Yes they could have made changes as you suggest, but those would inevitably have introduced component variation and that was what they wanted to avoid.

 

Great for signal sighting in reverse because the tender is generally low. It's the same with an S15. The other thing that's the same is there's absolutely nowhere to hide if it's raining. The BR standards that would generally run distances in reverse were pretty good for doing so. The 'Rolls Royce' of all steam locos - the Cl.4 2-6-4T - is a delight to drive in forward and reverse. You have a very good view in both directions and there's no need to lean out of a cab window to do so. In reverse they are best driven with the body facing inwards and looking over your right shoulder. They provide a sliding seat to make it even better. So many people drive them the other way around, looking out of the cab window and over the left shoulder.
When it comes to driving a western loco you have one handle to apply the brake and another to release it. You've also got a brake handle that you can't reach whilst looking out of the cab side so useless for shunting. If it's one of the big tanks you struggle to get comfortable when running in reverse as the reverser handle gets in the way. I can only get comfortable by sitting on the tank with my left leg dangling out over the cab side. I'm not going to say anything about prep and disposal; it's been said too many times before. Or that they only have one gauge glass. They do steam well and pull well, though, and the regulator is generally easy to operate.
Mind you, the worst 'wessie' of the lot has to be the Super D....

 

The 4 tank is lovely.

The D is …. Antique (I think that’s as polite as I can be)

Personally I don’t find the problem with the position of the brake gear. I’m not very tall but I have long arms