2999: Lady of Legend

I think though Jim you are still slightly missing the point. On a GWR loco, if one gauge glass fails, that represents a total failure of your ability to read the water level until such time as you can repair it. On any other loco, failure of one glass does not represent an equivalent total failure - you have redundancy.

It’s still to me an oddity as to why the GWR / BR(W) were happy to continue that state of affairs, seemingly right to the end of steam.

Tom

 

3205 is coupled to a Collet 3000g tender, one of two origonals still in existence, the other being with 3803.
"Intermediate" tenders are a completely different beast being Churchward era progressions of the standard Churchward 3500g tender.
I think your reference re 68xx is to a Collet 3500g tender of which no origonals survive but one has been recreated and currently is paired with 7820.

 

Its not a total failure of ability to read the water level with a glass broken as there are two test cocks.

 

I think those criticising the size of the Saint's cab are probably failing to appreciate how early the design is. Direct contemporaries such as the Ivatt atlantics and the Midland compounds had similar small cabs. I think the only company building locomotives with large, 'modern' cabs at that time was the North Eastern.

In a way, this mistake is another tribute to Churchward - people assume it's a much later design than 1902. Drummond introduced the Paddleboxes (with little cabs) a decade later.

 

It's probably worth mentioning that there was a period when the GWR did in fact use two gauge glasses, mounted next to each other on the same frame. I don't know the exact time-frame of their use, but they crop up in the 1880's and 90's. Evidently the single glass frame which replaced them was considered to be a better arrangement.

 

While that is technically true, having only try cocks available robs you of an at-a-glance view of the level; provides only a binary water / no water indication at each cock, rather than an indication of level; and the difference between opening a cock to steam, or to water which then instantly flashes to steam, is a subtle distinction to make reliably.

It still feels odd to me that a company that in some ways was very progressive towards enhancements of safety (such as early development of AWS, for which they were prepared to invest considerably) still saw fit to indicate water level in a way that was hardly more advanced than in Brunel’s era.

Tom

 

I am saying nothing.

 

Thank you for enlightening me. The shape of the top (fender) is basically the same as a Collet 4000 gallon tender, but it's clearly lower. A lot of Granges ran with these tenders in BR days. That's the design that I think looks best coupled to the Granges.

 

Please don't forget the Great Eastern Claud Hamiltons (LNER Class D14/15), which had large side-window cabs from 1900. The North British and the GNSR also began to provide such cabs from around 1900.

But the North Eastern was certainly first in the provision of better cabs.

 

There wren't a huge number of these built, 27 I think. However the picture is complicated by Swindon's policy of replacing old design parts with new. Its not impossible there were some older tenders renewed with these tanks. The mix and match gets complicated. the Lady' tender, unfortunately, has post 1931 frames.

Side Windows cabs - and Churchward put one on an Atbara in 1903. Apparently the crews hated it so much it was taken off again in 1904...

 

Thank you. Another example of if it can go wrong it will, this time with two gauge glasses - https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/MoT_Lamington1948.pdf

 

Fascinating, if tragic read. Thanks for posting it.

 

Can but agree with the previous two replies. Insomuch as even with two 'glasses things can and do go wrong too...... By the same token I also often wondered why the Great Western stuck it out with just a single gauge glass, when pretty well every other company used a pair, building [theoretical] a fail safe procedure.

Granted many of the early replica new build locomotives, Locomotion, Puffing Billy and the Steam Elephant [to name but three] have a modern single gauge glass. Ok they run at a working pressure of 50lbs per square inch, compared to 150lbs+ of the more modern locos. Having said that you could at worst end up just as dead if Puffing Billy's boiler explosively failed due to a duff gauge glass.

 

Searching through the railways archive database it seems that from the 1920s when I started looking boiler failures caused by low water were very rare, especially if one excludes the S160s. So few in fact that it would be impossible to decide which design was statistically safer.

Now can we get back to the Saint? There are some fine photos around Fbook.

 

I would imagine the main issue is getting her out of Didcot, to go anywhere (even by road) she will have to go mainline (being tripped to east yard) and thus I image having to take off the valve cover and chimney each time would be a lot of hassle.

 

Because it worked for the footplate crews and was cheaper and thus provided more return for the shareholders, the fact that the GWR does not seem to have been any more affected by boiler explosions does seem to suggest that this debate is somewhat superfluous in what should be a celebratory thread.

By the way she is a beautiful looking girl although will be sparing a thought for Maindy Hall today, who in ex Barry state was a regular feature of my childhood visits to Didcot.

 

Hope we'll get some photos of here with the vintage carriages soon: Here they are ready and waiting...

 

Not my video, and Didcot seems to be in the throes of a hurricane... but a nice record of an exciting event none the less.

 

I went for my ride after lunch. She was then hauling (and propelling) two more modern coaches. Until I saw that video today I didn't realise I had missed a ride in the older coaches.

 

Congratulations to all concerned, she looks great. Hope the team are having a little celebration tonight, they deserve it.....

Regards


Matt