Hawksworrth GWR pacific

I've heard a little about this design. Like that it was desgned at a very similar time to the Bullied light pacifics and that Hawksworth was bery upset that Bullied got the "ok" from the goverment to build the bullieds, but he didn't for his pacific.

I'm very intrgued to find out more, so if any one knows anything.... would love to see what it would have looked like! :-k

 

Cecil J Allen mentions briefly Hawksworth and a possible Pacific design in "British Pacific Locomotives", an Ian Allen publication from the 1960's and subsequent reprints.

He says that the locomotive would have closely resembled a "King" from the front end to the rear coupled axle, behind which there would have been a wide Belpaire firebox. Allen claims to have seen an outline drawing of the engine, but Hawksworth himself in correspondence with Allen dismissed the design as no more than a "draughtsman's dream". The design work such as it was, was therefore thought to have been unofficial.

So it was a "Pacific" King with a wide firebox. You will just have to use your imagination!

Regards

46118

Maybe a Mod might like to move this thread out of this forum to somewhere else, like steam traction?

 

There is a painting of a loco that is suggested to be based on the Hawksworth pacific in OS Nock - Stars Castle and Kings, not sure which volume but suggest its probably the second one.

 

If you ask me that looked almost like a RHDR loco, especially the weird looking proportions of the front elevation. Very strange!

Chris

 

Funny you should say that, it's exactly what I thought as well. It's obviously not serious, and with all the stuff that was found, it's a shame the mag didn't show something more interesting.

Hawksworth Pacific? I think 'draughtman's' dream' is a pretty lucid definition. You've only got the see the dome to set the alarm bells ringing.

A drawing appears in RCTS 'Locomotives of the Great Western' Pt 9.

 

From the Line Drawing of it i seen i'd say it had more in Common with Princess Royal than a King.

 

I believe the basic idea for the boiler had more in line with a Merchant Navy, than anything else.

 

An artist's impression of what it would have looked like appeared as a painting in an Ian Allan book many years ago. The engine did indeed very like a GWR version of the LMS Princess Royal class. Another way of looking at it is to say that the Princess Royals were LMS versions of the Kings. Not surprising really because Stanier came from Swindon and brought a lot of GWRr ideas with him, so the two classes were quite similar at the front end.

Way back in the early years after Nationalisation there was a firm rumour, which was even published, that Swindon was actually building a Pacific. Someone had reported that the frames were seen under construction in A Shop at Swindon Works. It turned out that the frames were for the final batch of Castles 7028-7037.which came out in 1949-50.

 

[quote="springers] What about the drawing in SR of a 4 - 8 - 4 with a bogie tender!! Colin.
Maybe a Mod might like to move this thread out of this forum to somewhere else, like steam traction?[/quote][/quote]

I was more intreseted in the idea of using a Castle class boiler (standard No. 8 I think) as part of a tank engine design. That may been a monster if it had been built, but it would proberley fouled weight restrictions. Anyone know more details on that one? I have been wondering, if it was a four or two cliyinder, wheel aranegment etc.

Another tank design which was thought about but under Churchward in the 1900's, was a 0-8-0T using a standard 5 boiler (small prairie) and 4 foot 7 1/2 inch diameter driving wheels. I think this was intended for use in marshing yards.

However the fact is there was no real need for these two tank engines, pacific, or 'Uranus' designs, as the existing designs where suficiant (espcially when the Castles and Kings recived improvements like double chimneys).

Another point why is this thread in the 'Heritage railways & Centres in the UK' section shouldn't it be in 'Steam traction'?

 

In the June 1985 issue of "Steam Railway" there was a feature on locos that never were.

No mention of a Hawksworth paific, but there was a 4-4-0 modern light passenger engine (succesor to the Dukedogs) with 5' 8" driving wheels and outside Walschaerts valve gear pictured. The article stated such a loco would have been ideal for many of today's preserved lines.

Gresley's original (1933) design for the A4s was a 4-6-2 version of the P2 2-8-2.

In 1942 a three cylinder 2-6-2 mixed traffic loco was designed by T F Coleman, the Chief Draughtsman of the LMS as one of 12 standard designs for the LMS needs after the war. (Hmmm... 12 standard designs eh).

Bulleid designed a streamlined 2-8-2 for express boat trains, but the Civikl Engineer objected to the leading pony truck. The Board would only sanction construction of twosuch locos and Bulleid abandoned the project.

In 1952 a fourth design of Gas Turbine loco was partially built. A fire tube boiler would heat air, not water, which was then compressed to drive the turbines. Residue hot air went to a combustion chamber to burn pulverised coal. Temperature outside this chamber would be 1,300 degrees Fahrenheit and 2,500 inside. It was conceived as a 117 ton loco with a 19.5 ton axle loading. It ended up as a 150 ton monster causing the A1A-A1A wheel arrangement to be altered to 1A1A-A1A1 arrangement to spread the load. It disappeared around 1956. Any older members of this forum see the partially built loco?

Those were the locos pictured, the article describes some others (but no Hawksworth pacific) featured in a book "Locomotives that never were" by Robin Barnes

 

The idea was for a 2 cylinder 2-10-2, with a No.7 (47xx) boiler pressed to 250lbs. I doubt weight would've been a problem, not with that many axles! Rather ungainly, but it would've pulled a King backwards. Tractive effort would've been over 41,000lbs, there was also a version planned with 4' 6" wheels, which would've had over 42,500lbs. I think it was quite a serious proposal at the time.

The one I like is the 2-6-0 version of a 15xx.

 

Designed with increased weight coal trains from South Wales. This was mentioned towards the end of "The GWR in South Wales".

 

It was around this time that a couple of Kings were tested on very heavy mineral trains in the Ebbw Vale area, I wonder if these events were related to the development of the 2-10-2 scheme.

 

A King tested in the South Wales valleys? I thought they were barred on all but the most engineered lines?

CF.

 

My favourite 'engine that never was' was published in Kevin Robertson's "Leader Steam's Last Chance" on page 17.
Diagram W7326 - Brighton Drwg office.

Basically a tank engine with air-smooth West Country/Battle of Britain casing, an oversized bunker (instead of a tender) and sitting on two Leader three-axle bogies. The ash pan situated between the bogies. Water was carried in two side tanks blended into the casing beside the boiler and in a well beneath the coal bunker

66ft overall length over buffers,
48ft total wheelbase
15ft 6 bogie wheelbase (8ft+7ft 6in)
4 tons of coal
2,500 gals of water
16t-15cwt axleload
100tons total
Boiler Pressure 280lbs per sq. in
Cylinders 13.25in dia 15in stroke (with sleeve valves)
Tractive Effort (85% B.P) - 30,800lbs
Adhesion factor - 7.28

This was an early proposal for the eventual Leader class - probably would have been much more successfull!
Interesting it was this drawing that was actually authorised by the SR board as a limited build of 5 locomotives in 1946.

The eventual off-set boiler and tripple cab arrangement were as a result of post authorisation alterations!

 

A recent issue of Railway Modeller (Nov 08?) has a scratchbuilt GWR pacific: 'Exeter Cathedral'

 

There nearly was a Cathedral class. Don't know if this is true, but at a talk I attended, the speaker stated the GWR were averse to suggestions unless they would produce a technological improvment. When the Counties were under construction, a member of the public suggested they be given the 99XX range of numbers so the GWR would actually have loco 9999. As a result they were numbered 10XX.
Before that when the Kings were about to start production, someone suggested to follow the Halls, Manors, Granges, Castles and Abbeys; it would be ideal to name this new class after Cathedrals served by the GWR, so an alternative name was sought.
Anyone able to confirm of deny this please?

 

I think the truth is being twisted a bit here; the Counties were originally planned to be in the 99xx series, however this was changed during the construction of the first engines to 10xx. The common tale behind the change, is that it was a reaction against the information being leaked to the railway press, who had naturally published it. Whether this is true or not, I couldn't say!

With regards the Cathedrals, I believe this was what you could call the 'working title' of the Kings, used before an official name had been decided on. I think it was actually the main contender for the class name, however the decision to send one of them to the US to represent Britain, swayed the final choice towards something more patriotic.

As it happens, the company invited the public to suggest a name for the train which was to become the Cornish Riviera.

 

You've got to wonder how much use a Pacific would have been to the GWR... Any significant amount more power than a King and it would have slipped like a light Pacific, and Sam Ell's dvelopment work largely dealt with the poor coal problem.