GWR Tenders

If you mean the book's front cover picture on that Amazon page, surely it's a 4700, and one of the picture at http://www.4709.org.uk/ shows the same kind of tender.

 

The picture on the front that you mention and also those of 4709 are indeed the Collett variant, however the book contains as per my message a 28.38 with a HAwksworth variant.

 

OK, sorry, I assumed wrongly that you were referring to the picture visible on that page rather than to one inside the book.

 

We have recently researched 6024's tenders. During its 32 years GW and BR service it was coupled with 19 Collett 4000 gallon FB tenders. The longest partnership was 6 years and the shortest 5 months. Whilst the first tender was new, others were 'donated' from Kings, Castles and Halls. In turn, they were then passed on to other Kings, Castles and Halls (though not necessarily in that order).

In preservation the loco is coupled with tender number 2425, which was attached at Swindon for the 'final' journey to Barry. This is the oldest tender (built 1929) that the loco has partnered! During its working life 2425 was coupled to 20 locos, including Kings, Castles, Halls and a Star (not in that order).

Does this not suggest that Kings were not restricted to 'special' versions of Collett 4000 gallon tenders.

November 1947 - coupled with 5921 BINGLEY HALL - tender 2425 was damaged in an 'accident', and repaired at Oxley and Swindon. It is clear a new rear drag box has been fitted at some time and evidence that a water tank may well have been replaced. Can anyone please shed any further light?

 

Its evident from the Tender Lot register that there were very few differences between the two lots of tenders for the Kings and others built at the same time. I'm just looking at some images of it and I can't spot any listed drawings that were different between Lot 120 (first 10 for Kings) and Lot 121 (which were intended for Halls). Also we know that the two self weighing Hawksworth tenders could readily be swapped between the Kings and other classes since they were used on both. What I've heard is that the differences were limited to some aspects of the connection pipes, and maybe platform heights, so they could be exchanged if necessary.

If you can find a source for details of repairs to tenders, esp with numbers that don't end in 0, I'd be delighted to hear what it is.

 

With regards to Hawksworth tenders, do any of you know which locos arrived at Barry coupled to Hawksworth tenders?. One is clearly seen in my shot from 1980 - https://www.flickr.com/photos/bristol-re/5670099975/in/album-72157626530822064/ .

Very Best Wishes,
Bob.

 

This may be of interest to those who have an interest in such matters although its not clear what the history or source of the tender involved is https://www.facebook.com/4083431693...8343169343644/503400676504559/?type=3&theater

 

Looks like 2397 :— http://www.ten.vintagecarriagestrust.org/tens/TenderInfo.asp?Ref=52

 

If, as I think, a tender's number 'belongs' to the chassis, then the tender pictured in the previous post I suggest cannot be 2397. Built in 1928, 2397 would have 'short' tank support gussets whereas the tender pictured has has 'long' tank support gussets.

 

2397 does indeed have post 1930 style frames.
The frames seem to have been replaced quite often on GWR tenders. According to my reckoning something approaching 30% of surviving pre 1930 GWR tenders do not have the original design frames., and there's a lot of grandfather's axe about some of them... Tender 2397 went into the works, tender 2397 came out of the works. New tenders and repairs came from different budgets, so to say "its got new frames, we'd better call it a new tender" would have got the works into a pile of paperwork and committee approvals.

 

Perhaps the way to really establish the tender's identity is to locate the stampings on the chassis or items attached to the chassis. On 2425 we found identity stamps on much of the brake-gear components and stanchions.

 

There is a quite interesting review/historical analysis of the tenders at Didcot in the most recent GWR Echo....

 

I think it's more accurate to think of tender (and loco) ID's as an order number. "Order no xxxx is for tender number xxxx to go into works for a full overhaul" When it emerges whatever has been replaced, it is still tender no xxxx ., because that's how it as been accounted.

 

I think you are mistaken about Cook and rough riding - that had already been fixed by recalibrating the bogie springs on the Thompson and Peppercorn Pacific's. In any case it was not rough riding in the same sense as a Black 5 or a Sandringham, it was more a case of swaying at speed. He did introduce much improved shop practice and solved the big end and axle-box heating problems on the A3's / A4's.

 

Primarily it was an experiment to see if having an 8 wheel chassis would reduce the wear on the axle bearings. It seems it didn't make any significant difference that would justify the extra cost, so the idea wasn't taken up.

 

Here is the 'Real Thing' coupled to an unknown Western

 

Re King with Hawksworth tender. The last two Hawksworth tenders built were 4127 and 4128 were fitted with coal weighing apparatus and used for testing purposes. These were fitted to a variety of locomotives including ‘King’, ‘Castle’, ‘County’, ‘Hall’ and 43xx engines as required. 4127 was built in
March 1952 (lined green livery), and 4128 in February 1952 (lined black).

 

Interesting combination, would have improved tender first working I suppose....

https://railway-photography.smugmug...isits/Swindon-works-26th-March-1961/i-bCG2wLJ

Photo taken from @neildimmer page of this parish.

 

How fascinating. The caption says "attached" - was it actually capable of working like that. wonder why it was done?