Current and Proposed New-Builds

On the topic of the Grange, as a disciple of Doncaster, please can someone of the Swindon persuasion please tell me why these locos had a step in the running plate over the cylinders, unlike all their similar cousins? TIA


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Same reason as the Manors

 

To make them look a little bit different to the others?

 

I’m told it’s an early attempt at ergonomics by the GWR. Someone in Swindon drawing office realised that GW footplate crews generally had to be of short stature with long arms to crew their locos so on their more modern builds they lowered the running plate so they could more easily reach all the inaccessible oiling points between the frames. Of course they couldn’t do this over the cylinders, hence the step.

 

C'mon, Steve, you can't mention GWR engines and ergonomics in the same sentence!

 

Knew I could rely on you Steve


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I think my colleagues from North Yorkshire and the Severn Valley are barking up the wrong tree here. The reason is that with smaller wheels, lowering the running plate allowed reinstatement of splashers which allowed additional space for decorative brass beading: had the locos had high running plates, the opportunities for extra embellishment would be removed.

Tom

 

I'd assumed it was to ensure that the smaller wheels could reach the rails. It's that old 'assumption' thing again, I guess…

 

The raised footplating over the cylinders on both the Manors and Granges was for two reasons:-

The splashers over the driving wheels would have been much smaller than deemed desirable if the footplate had run along to the cab at the same level as the cylinders.
Secondly, however, both the Manors and Granges had larger steam passages at the top of the cylinders, making the Granges (and I presume the Manors?) more free-running than the Hall and Modified Hall Classes.

 

In my research, I’ve recently come across some memorandums from the GWR streamlining dept….it would seem it is there to increase downforce.

 

I was thinking along similar lines. GWR moguls had the same 5'8" driving wheels as Granges but with straight running plates. They did have splashers, but only very small ones, not big enough for nameplates; but that was OK because the moguls weren't named. On Granges the splashers needed to be bigger to accommodate the nameplates.

I've always wondered why Halls were given driving wheels slightly larger than the Churchward standard for mixed-traffic locos. The argument that that would allow them to go a tad faster isn't altogether convincing, so perhaps another reason was to allow straight running plates and big enough splashers to take their nameplates.

 

... to stop a successor putting bigger wheels on it and claiming a new class...

 

It's obvious from the foregoing that putting stepped running plates on these locos gave them significant advantages over other GWR locos, in which case, it begs the question why this wasn't applied more universally, especially as the GWR were very fond of standardisation?

 

I have always wondered about just how many original ideas Mr. Collett had. In this instance he copied, amongst other, R W Urie. I'm not up on the Lanky, but didn't they do the dropped plate thing, as well?
Pat

 

Isn't it obvious that the stepped running plate is because GWR liked their 4-6-0s to all look (so very) different

 

Of course, you could have the D.E. Marsh variant, where I believe the design inspiration came from the gradient profile of the line the locos were designed to traverse …



Tom

 

Personally I think it was a severe case of Crab envy …..


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Its found on later ( and earlier ones that have had new cylinders) 280T and 2-8-2T. 4253 for instance has the updated front end.

 

Quod erat n demonstrandum.

 

Being serious now, is it because the cylinder blocks were raised and was that due to elimination of inequalities or is that completely on the wrong track?