This whole business of industrial and non-industrial (for want of a better term) has always perplexed me. In the end, it does seem to come down to the simple fact that the loco is ex B.R. or one of its predecessors it is acceptable but without this pedigree it is not. Thus, 68077 and 68078 would be acceptable but all other Hunslet designed and identical Austerities fall into the category of industrial. It has nothing to do with its suitability for the job or anything else, it seems. The 0-6-0's and 0-6-2T's that were once common in the north east were designed and built to operate at reasonable speeds hauling heavy trains over relatively long distances but they are still lumbered with this tag of industrial (or worse,' buckets' if you come from certain southern heritage railways). Yet these locos were little different from the many NER locos that often ran over the same tracks. B.R. and its predecessors had a good number of small locomotives that were identical to those that ran on many small systems. Perhaps it should be down to the locos ability to haul passenger trains, in which case it is ironic that two of the three Austerities on the IOWSR were built with vacuum brakes so that they could haul passenger trains yet 68077 & 68078 were never so fitted. Then, where would it leave 65894 and 63395, which were always rusty coupling locos until being vacuum fitted in the preservation era. We don't discriminate in this way with narrow gauge locomotives, as far as I'm aware. Let's be thankful and enjoy what we have and not label some of our much loved locos as second class because of the pre-preservation life. And that even goes for GWR locos.