GWR Tenders

Well I suppose it had to happen. In the middle of a fairly useful discussion, we get the usual load of anti GW rubbish from someone called Edward from a deprived area. I suppose that you believe that the ergonomic slum which the LNER provided for its footplate staff was superior to the GW cab? At least the GWR had proper water gauges on their tenders, rather than an additional footplate sprinkler.

Having provided us with a sweeping statement regarding corks, perhaps you would care to enlighten us with which GW engines had "corked oiling points in three figures" ??

 

Well I suppose it had to happen. In the middle of a fairly useful discussion, we get the usual load of anti GW rubbish from someone called Edward from a deprived area. I suppose that you believe that the ergonomic slum which the LNER provided for its footplate staff was superior to the GW cab? At least the GWR had proper water gauges on their tenders, rather than an additional footplate sprinkler.

Having provided us with a sweeping statement regarding corks, perhaps you would care to enlighten us with which GW engines had "corked oiling points in three figures" ??[/quote:36er4qgq]
Well now that you've joined in the partisanship of arguing the toss between the GW, LNE et al, the GW may have had better tender gauges but those on the boiler - ie the tri-cocks - fall well short of what every other loco builder did for the best part of the 20th century. I'd be interested to hear your explanation of why such things were perpetuated and coincidentally why they insisted on combining these with the gauge glass stand which meant that, if the portways of this stand became blocked, both the gauge glasses and the tri-cocks would give a false reading.

Way off the topic of GW tenders, I admit!

 

Steve,

Way off topic but here goes. The gauge glass column was there first of all to provide a robust base to the cocks themselves, and also meant that once the column was bedded to the boiler mounting pads it was far easier and quicker to mate and align a replacement water cock to the column than it would, were the cock to require bedding to the boiler. Secondly the column provided a suitable mounting for the trial cocks that were fitted as back up. There would have to be some pretty serious neglect to get the column to block up as the water ways are substantial, and the track record of boiler mishaps on the GWR/ BRWR seems to back up the thought that there may only have been one gauge, but they were pretty reliable. If the trial taps are maintained, they too are reliable and easy to interpret once you know what you are doing with them, the secret is to gently crack them rather than throw them wide open - you can then easily differentiate between steam and water. Far too many modern footplate crews fail to test these items on a regular basis, and the resultant lack of exercise causes them to quickly seize rendering them useless should problems arise. The fact that the standard GWR water gauge minus trial cocks was adopted as a BR standard should say how good they were compared to the opposition, and they even found their way onto BR diesel steam heat boilers. Perhaps the worst incident to befall a GW loco relative to water gauges was the incident with a Grange at Wheatsheaf Junction when it suffered a partial firebox failure due to low water level caused by the top gauge glass rubber extruding through a crack in the glass and blocking the water way through the glass, giving a falsely high water level indication. Have a look at the record of low water failures on the other group railways with loco's having two glasses. Maybe having a spare encourages complacency?

There were other railways in Britain that only used one gauge, the LNWR being the prime one, meaning that at grouping there were well over 6000 engines in the UK with one gauge. It is also worth noting that a great number of modern American super power loco's were only fitted with one water gauge and usually three trial cocks, although it has to be admitted that many were also fitted with low water alarms; that said I would suggest that they were not relying on the low water alarms and must have been satisfied with just one gauge. It really is a question of careful maintenance and inspection, and rodding the gauge thoroughfares at each washout.

Incidentally Edward is a bit slow coming back to tell us which GW engines had corked oiling points in 3 figures.

 

Sorry, had this slight inconvenience called work!

That figure of 100+ was going round Grosmont when we had a visit from Nunney Castle a good few years ago. Perfectly willing to be corrected on that one. It broke before I had the pleasure. Still an awful lot more than an A4!

However, if we're talking about developments, surely the practices of Thompson, Bulleid, etc, in trying to remove lubrication from the hands of the driver are a form of progress. Saves things getting missed out of human error, or because someone can't be bothered. As for putting an oil pot, with a top filler, directly under a sidetank footstep...

What amazes me is the reaction to one "tongue in cheek" posting!

 

Bob,
I've enjoyed your robust defence of GW water gauges! I've no problem with the glass water gauge and, as you say, it became the BR standard. I can't accept the fact that the LNWR and Americans used tri-cocks as being good evidence of there suitability. More probably, they were just as backward as the GW in this respect!
Unlike a lot of people on the NYMR, I always test the tri-cocks. I've had many years experieince of such things on non GW locos and only ever crack them. I also always open the bottom one first for reasons that become obvious if you do use them. I also frequently ask my fireman if he can tell the difference between water and steam and most can't. It isn't too difficult if the top one is showing steam and the bottom one water, but it gets harder if they are both showing the same and you can't tell an obvious difference.
I think Ed over stated the three figure corked oiling points but I believe I'm correct in stating that there are over 200 official oiling points for the driver on a Castle. Happy to be corrected, though, especially as I've never had the privilege(?) of oiling one. A 56XX is bad enough. Give me a Standard, any day.

 

Thanks for the responses people, never knew there was so much behind it all really interesting... still not 47xx with a Hawksworth though! We will have to do that then when we build the replica one!!

I love the phrase 'tongue in cheek posting'...

 

Hi All

Reposted from another link

Comment left on my website, can anyone answer this question please?
Is this rare ? Note the Hawkesworth tender I have never seen a \'Grange\'
with one before!!
http://www.steamlocomotives.photos.gb.net/p67121318.html
Neil

 

If you read through this whole thread, it answers your question I believe

 

I think Five Granges ran with Hawksworth tenders in all as long as the records are correct

Bobs story of a Grange failing due incorect water reading is true it was 6859 Yiewsley Grange on Gresford bank i have seen the full report on it

Apparently a 28 went out to rescue it and the noise of a standing start on the bank was somthing else

The loco was parked up at Croes Newyedd shed Wrexham with the firehole doors padlocked while the investigation took place

A drawing exsits showing the water level

Just a bit of history

 

Those one's that leaked all over the track causing your driving wheels to slip and occasionally self ignited you mean ?, new doesn't imply better.

 

What was the reason behind this tender ? Was it just an experiment that didnt work out or a specific reason for it ?
Was the water capacity / coal capacity significantly increased or was it based around reducing axle loadings ?

 

Continuing the off-topic discussion, but looks like you've been taken in by the hype - read http://www.wadebridge34007.co.uk/fundamentalist.html for further information.

 

Ive read that it was to reduce axle loadings. On the face of it from photos other than the extra axles, it looks very similar to a collett tender, though it would be interesting to see how they fitted the trough collector.
In answer to the poster from last year who inquired, ive seen a photo of the (later) tender behind 5068 Beverston castle at Gloucester. It must have been shortly after nationalization because it had British Railways painted on the side of the tender, Tornado style. I think she got a lot of trial mods at Swindon since she was shedded there. I gather she also at one time had a boiler with an experimental smokebox, which seems to have affected her performance somewhat....

Interesting tender, if those drawings were ever found Id like to have a look.

 

Only a model, but you get the general idea.

http://www.crphillips-models.co.uk/Model Pix/GWR Models/Kelham Hall with 8 wheeled tender.JPG

"This is No.5904 "Kelham Hall", and was the last loco to be paired with the unique Collett 8-wheeled tender, which is how it is modelled in this picture. The tender had many partners during its 27 year life - mostly "Castles", but also a "Star" and two other "Halls".

 

Nice model, I could do with one to put behind Beverston Castle. Is the tender all scratchbuilt?

 

Here's a link to the main page, scroll about half way down. If you look at the rest of the site there are some nice models.

http://www.crphillips-models.co.uk/gwrmodelspage6.html

 

Thanks very much for that.

 

If you are into such things a very nice photo of 4079's tender was posted over the weekend https://www.facebook.com/1614216472...421647218065/1215000538526832/?type=3&theater

Seems to be musical chairs with tenders at Didcot, 5051 now paired with 4079's, not sure where 6998's which was with 5051 is now - and no idea where the Collett one formerly with 5051 is?

The benefits of standardisation!

 

I realise that I am probably having a conversation with myself, but continuing the theme of strange tender locomotive combinations in http://www.amazon.co.uk/Western-Cou...qid=1443705848&sr=1-3&keywords=david+maidment there is a picture of a 28xx/38xx with a Hawksworth tender - it just looks wrong!