Penlowry

Chronicling the development of my 5-gauge 4mm scale model railway with a few off-topic insights thrown in for free

The ends of the spectrum

Leave a comment

As you will know from previous posts, I do like oddities. However I also like standardisation. It’s the Engineer’s sense of order in me. As a professional railwayman, the idea of standardising across a fleet, or fleets, had much appeal. In a world where costs are analysed time and time again (I often wonder if there is a false economy in the cost of the ongoing analysis, but I digress), the need to standardise is more and more important. The lack of standardisation on coupler interfaces is one that makes me bang my head against the wall, but in other respects the railway has got much better. 

Possibly the standardisation crown has to go the GWR. Their standardisation policy saw loco type after loco type using parts from others to produce a fleet of locos where boilers, wheelsets, cylinders, rods, chimneys, smokeboxes, cabs, and tenders could be interchanged. 

 

I recently attended the York show where I acquired (within 10 minutes of arriving) a Mainline 43xx Mogul – the pocket rocket of the Western. A class loco which I think Collett didn’t improve at all when he produced his 93xx version. This one, however, has a dodgy motor. I’ve been looking at ways to get the loco back up and going again and one thought was to use the chassis from something else.  

  

With the standardisation, the chassis and wheels are the same as the 61xx prairie tank, except without the trailing truck, and is also the same driving wheels and wheelbase as the Grange and the Manor. So I have plenty of options. 

I’ll post again when I have decided, but in the meantime, here is a comparison chart of GWR six coupled tender locos showing the standardisation (the Manor class isn’t included as I haven’t got a GA of that to hand and don’t be looking for scaling accuracy cos it ain’t!). The only real differences apart from the Mogul are the Modified Hall and County which had 7’2″ bogie wheelbase, and the unbuilt Pacific which had a new driving wheelbase but according to OS Nock would have used the 6’3″ drivers from the County. The comparison also shows what a big lump the County looked to those used to the more “slimline” boilers of the older types. 

The oddball in all GWR six coupled locos was the King class which was very different (and therefore not shown), but the Pacific would have used the front end of the King so it would have had company. 

  

Advertisements

Author: Chris H

Now in my fourth decade, I am a rolling stock engineer and have worked in many different locations including a 7 year spell in Sydney, Australia, where I arrived with a suitcase and left with a wife and a son. I am now based back in my home county of Yorkshire where I juggle full time work, being a Dad, and trying to fit in railway modelling and visits to volunteer on the Ffestiniog Railway. In addition to my heavily railway themed life, I am interested in rugby, cricket, reading crime novels, falconry, and medieval re-enactments.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s