GWR locos numbered in the 17xx series

[Joseph_Pestell]

I should probably preface this conversation by admitting that I know next to nothing about GW Pannier tanks. Various threads on RMweb have taught me that it can be a very complex subject even with "well-known" classes such as the 57xx. So the more I learn, the less I know.

 

So, imagine my surprise when a bit of research on Truro turned up a class that I was not even aware of, the 17xx. I don't recall ever seeing a model of one and a search of RMweb did not come up with a mention.

 

And yet, it was a numerous class and remained in service until BR days.

 

I can see, perhaps, why no r-t-r or kit producer would want to go there. Hardly two locos the same. They originated as a rebuild of not one but two earlier classes of Wolverhampton-built 0-6-0T and carried, over their lives, various boilers and different designs of water tank (short and long).

Edited August 5, 2019 by Joseph_Pestell

[melmerby]

Hi Joseph

 

If you mean the 17XX number series they are actually 1854 tanks and were built in Swindon, not Wolverhampton

Well known and available as a whitemetal kit with saddle or panniers.

See here:

http://www.sefinecast.co.uk/Locomotives/New and Revised Loco Kits Page 2.htm

Usual myriad of variations as befits Swindon tanks of the period.

Edited August 5, 2019 by melmerby

[The Stationmaster]

Bit of an odd one this - 1700 was a 1661 Class saddle tank later converted to a pannier tank but the others numbered in the 17XX series were members of the 1854 Class.  So in the case of the photo the only way you can establish which class the engine belonged to was by its running number although it might also help to know that 1700 was withdrawn in 1930.

 

Looks like somebody who did the original caption was rather lackadaisical in their 'research'

[Joseph_Pestell]

2 hours ago, melmerby said:

Hi Joseph

 

If you mean the 17XX number series they are actually 1854 tanks and were built in Swindon, not Wolverhampton

Well known and available as a whitemetal kit with saddle or panniers.

See here:

http://www.sefinecast.co.uk/Locomotives/New and Revised Loco Kits Page 2.htm

Usual myriad of variations as befits Swindon tanks of the period.

 

Even the classification of locos is difficult on the GW! A shed full of locos with numbers in the 1700 series are an 1854 Class!

 

I can't even find the internet page that I was reading yesterday on them. But, as I understood it, (re)built at Swindon but from originally Wolverhampton locos.

[The Stationmaster]

18 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Even the classification of locos is difficult on the GW! A shed full of locos with numbers in the 1700 series are an 1854 Class!

 

I can't even find the internet page that I was reading yesterday on them. But, as I understood it, (re)built at Swindon but from originally Wolverhampton locos.

Ah, right so we can go a bit further into the wonderful world of GWR tank engines.  

 

There were quite a number of the Wolverhampton built 655 class numbered in the 17XX series at the same time as there was a single 1661 Class engine and quite a number of 1854 Class engines also numbered in the 17XX series.  So yet again in order to establish which class the engine actually belonged to you need to know its running number.  But the one thing which is absolutely clear is that it was not a 17XX Class engine - because there was no such class.

 

Back to the original lackadaisical research in whatever it was you were reading.

[melmerby]

28 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Even the classification of locos is difficult on the GW! A shed full of locos with numbers in the 1700 series are an 1854 Class!

 

 

The GWR numbering system of late where loco generally went in a XNXX (where N is the class) form is a late addition to GWR history, before that they went anywhere where there were gaps.

[Joseph_Pestell]

5 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

Ah, right so we can go a bit further into the wonderful world of GWR tank engines.  

 

There were quite a number of the Wolverhampton built 655 class numbered in the 17XX series at the same time as there was a single 1661 Class engine and quite a number of 1854 Class engines also numbered in the 17XX series.  So yet again in order to establish which class the engine actually belonged to you need to know its running number.  But the one thing which is absolutely clear is that it was not a 17XX Class engine - because there was no such class.

 

Back to the original lackadaisical research in whatever it was you were reading.

 

I had better re-edit the thread title.

 

Let's ignore 1700 itself (too early withdrawal) and consider the rest. Were the 655 Class numbered in a block of 17xx and the 1854 Class numbered in another block? Or was it a complete free-for-all?

[Miss Prism]

645 class

655 class

1813 class

1701/1854 class *

2721 class

List of GWR loco classes

A Beginners Guide to Pannier Tanks

 

* effectively one class, the differences between engines disappearing after their first reboilering (which was at an early stage)

 

[The Johnster]

As far as I can tell, it was a free for all but not to the extent that numbers didn’t follow on in blocks.  It was not, however, like the later allocations of blocks if numbers with the same second digit later used, like the 49/59/69/79 Halls.  

 

My own interest is that an old Wills 1854 Pannier has come into my possession and I’m planning on ‘working it up’ with a new Southeastern Kit chassis.  For my shed and period, 2 locos are suitable candidates, 1730 (so yes, some 1854s were numbered in the 17xx series) and 1870.  1870 lasted longer, withdrawn October 1950, so is the chosen victim.  

 

If that’s not confusing enough, modelling these older panniers in their last years is fraught with issues.  I have a Hornby 2721 as 2761, but I have a photo of this loco at Swindon Works on the reception roads after withdrawal, so have been able to work this one up with some accuracy.  1870 will have no such luxury; did she retain the half cab or did she have a full 57xx type cab at the end?  

 

Unless I am able to confirm otherwise, I’ll give her a full cab just to make her different from 2761.  She may also have had a spark arrestor chimney for work in ROF sidings, another thing I’m going to take a punt on, but it’s not the best example of correct, disciplined, modelling practice!

Edited August 5, 2019 by The Johnster

[melmerby]

6 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

I had better re-edit the thread title.

 

Let's ignore 1700 itself (too early withdrawal) and consider the rest. Were the 655 Class numbered in a block of 17xx and the 1854 Class numbered in another block? Or was it a complete free-for-all?

1700 was completely different to the other classes as it was a double frame tank (e.g. outside cranks)

 

There were 69 x 1854 locos numbered in the 17XX series, there were 30 x 655 locos numbered in the 17XX series

the 1854s were 1701-40, 1751-70 & 1791-99

the 655s were 1741-50 & 1771-90. (Also in the class were 2701-2720 plus 655 itself & 767)

 

RCTS part 5 covers all the various classes of 0-6-0 tank engine

Edited August 5, 2019 by melmerby

[Joseph_Pestell]

14 hours ago, melmerby said:

1700 was completely different to the other classes as it was a double frame tank (e.g. outside cranks)

 

There were 69 x 1854 locos numbered in the 17XX series, there were 30 x 655 locos numbered in the 17XX series

the 1854s were 1701-40, 1751-70 & 1791-99

the 655s were 1741-50 & 1771-90. (Also in the class were 2701-2720 plus 655 itself & 767)

 

RCTS part 5 covers all the various classes of 0-6-0 tank engine

 

Many thanks. I will check back on the loco allocations at Truro but I think that they are all 1854s.

[JimC]

A topic after my heart! And (shameless plug) both the various GWR numbering schemes (for there were at least three) and the pannier tank classes are covered in my book (see sig).

The classes are nicely covered above, but I spent a lot of time thinking about numbering. The conclusions I came too were:-

Originally the GWR numbered standard gauge locomotives sequentially. This ran up to about 1875, with various complications as it got increasingly difficult to manage. Very roughly speaking this was locomotives built up to that sort of date with numbers under about 1300. New locomotives - and the definition of new is a subject in itself - might either be allocated numbers to replace withdrawn ones, or else be allocated in the next available free space.
The next scheme, from about 1875, was that blocks were allocated for different wheel arrangements. 1501 to 2000 (these blocks always started at 1) were allocated to 0-6-0 tanks. There wasn't any attempt to separate classes, instead, as a batch of engines  (lot in GWR terminology)  was ordered, it was given the next available block.

So,

1501-1560 were Wolverhampton 645/1501 class,

1561-1660 Swindon 1076 class,

1661-1700 Swindon 1661 class, 

1701-1740 Swindon 1854 class,

1741-1750 Wolverhampton 655 class,  

1751-1770 Swindon 1854 class,

1771-1790 Wolverhampton 655 class,

1791-1800 Swindon 1854 class

1801-1812 Wolverhampton 645 Class (very odd in the sequence - built in 1881 before 1661s, 1701s, 1741 etc.)

1813-1853 (except 1833) Swindon 1813 class,

1854-1900 Swindon 1854 class (built before 1701-1720!)

1901-2020  Wolverhampton 850 class

(I may have missed some)

As can be seen from the 850s running up to 2020 this also ran into trouble and there were various shuffling of blocks - 2701 - 2800 being taken from 0-6-0 goods to 0-6-0T for instance.
This scheme basically ran up to 4000 and around 1912, when there was a significant numbering and the better known second digit scheme came into use with classes kept together.

Thinking about the odd 1801 series, I now, after looking at various building dates in the last hour, wonder if 1701-1800 wasn't allocated to 0-6-0Ts until after the 1801 series was in use. It looks as if there was also an attempt to separate the small wheeled 850/1901s from the larger wheel types. I think I need to write an extra paragraph for the 2nd edition that will probably never appear but exists on my PC!

 

 

Edited August 6, 2019 by JimC

[JimC]

53 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Many thanks. I will check back on the loco allocations at Truro but I think that they are all 1854s.

 

It wouldn't be surprising. RCTS tells us there was a tendency for 1854s to be allocated to the southern division and 645s/655s the Northern division.

[Joseph_Pestell]

http://shedbashuk.blogspot.com/2017/07/truro-st-blazey-1938-1962.html

 

This the internet resource that makes mention of these "17xx" locos.

 

Checking the numbers from the info above, I see that it was 2 x 1854 and 1 x 655.

[melmerby]

A bit sloppy as has been mentioned they were never called 17XX.

The other classes seem to be correctly noted.

[JimC]

By the end of their lives the two classes were superficially very similar, don't think we can blame too much... Plus there was a lot of variation in both, chimneys, cabs, bunkers etc...

 

Edited August 7, 2019 by JimC

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, JimC said:

By the end of their lives the two classes were superficially very similar, don't think we can blame too much... Plus there was a lot of variation in both, chimneys, cabs, bunkers etc...

 

The confusion is the "17XX" description when 1701+ were later members of the 1854 class when 1700 itself was a 1661 class double frame loco

There never was a 17XX class.

 

These rebuilds end up being the prototypes for the later common classes such as 57XX/54XX/64XX etc.

[brianusa]

Most interesting thread, lots of stuff I never knew of!  Thanks.

      Brian.

[JimC]

Some of the confusion was down to the GWR.  The GWR tended to refer to classes by lot number in roughly pre grouping days. Talking about classes by number was certainly 20thC, quite possibly post WW1.  655 class may well be an enthusiasts label. The only GWR reference I've seen is to 1741 and 2701 classes, although that drawing may date to after 655 and 767 had been withdrawn. 

 

655 and 767 were numbers reused from 645s after those 645s had been sold in the 1870s, which must have been confusing, although in the end 645 and 1741 classes more or less merged.

I don't know if he's on here, but David Burton has done some good research on these Wolverhampton classes which I've benefited from.

Edited August 8, 2019 by JimC

[jim.snowdon]

1 hour ago, JimC said:

Some of the confusion was down to the GWR.  The GWR tended to refer to classes by lot number in roughly pre grouping days. Talking about classes by number was certainly 20thC, quite possibly post WW1.  655 class may well be an enthusiasts label. The only GWR reference I've seen is to 1741 and 2701 classes, although that drawing may date to after 655 and 767 had been withdrawn. 

That is not something I have come across, although I believe it was a practice on some other railways, the LSWR being an example. My understanding of the GWR is that referred to locomotive classes by reference to the number of the first locomotive of the batch (or Lot) and, if the class was named, the name of the first of the batch. Quite often there would be differences between successive batches as design improvements were incorporated. Such complications diminished considerably as design became more standardised and the numbering system more organised. Even then, it didn't disappear, with such examples as the 4500/4575 and 2800/2884 classes.

 

Jim

[JimC]

30 minutes ago, jim.snowdon said:

That is not something I have come across,

 

I'm fairly sure the practice varied between different branches of the organisation as well as at different dates. Weights diagrams and works drawings in general are the most obvious manifestation. Few of those on line. I suppose one example would be https://www.4709.org.uk/attach/47XX_Frame_Plan-1.pdf where there is no mention of a class name, just the lot number. I find it a pain when I'm looking at older diagrams, because they have lot numbers and diagram letters, but not the class, so I have to cross reference to see what class I'm looking at. I suppose its logical that engineering diagrams would be based on lots since so often there were variations between successive lots of the same nominal class, and a drawing of one part might change between the 1st and 2nd lots of a class, and another part stay the same until the 3rd. The traffic department, on the other hand, would be unlikely to care!

Edited August 8, 2019 by JimC

[Joseph_Pestell]

20 hours ago, JimC said:

By the end of their lives the two classes were superficially very similar, don't think we can blame too much... Plus there was a lot of variation in both, chimneys, cabs, bunkers etc...

 

 

We could run a "spot the difference" competition. I'm at 6 so far. The obvious main difference is those very lightweight frames on the 655 class.

[The Johnster]

I got 7, but only by counting the front and rear guard irons as separate items.  All are very minor and effectively invisible on a 00 gauge model.

 

Another difference, not shown in this illustration, is that some engines carried 57xx type fishbelly coupling rods in their later lives.

Edited August 8, 2019 by The Johnster

[JimC]

These are just worked up from weight diags with a bit of input from other sources. I wouldn't want to guarantee every detail. There are even such things as weight diags showing configs that have never been spotted in the wild!  Especially the 655 needs to be given a bit of caution because I didn't have a drawing for a late 655 handy and I worked that up yesterday.  Really, just like models, one ought to work up from individual photos.  Interesting comment on the rods, the amount of belly in the rods is one of the things I find most difficult to judge.

[jim.snowdon]

4 hours ago, JimC said:

 

I'm fairly sure the practice varied between different branches of the organisation as well as at different dates. Weights diagrams and works drawings in general are the most obvious manifestation. Few of those on line. I suppose one example would be https://www.4709.org.uk/attach/47XX_Frame_Plan-1.pdf where there is no mention of a class name, just the lot number. I find it a pain when I'm looking at older diagrams, because they have lot numbers and diagram letters, but not the class, so I have to cross reference to see what class I'm looking at. I suppose its logical that engineering diagrams would be based on lots since so often there were variations between successive lots of the same nominal class, and a drawing of one part might change between the 1st and 2nd lots of a class, and another part stay the same until the 3rd. The traffic department, on the other hand, would be unlikely to care!

In that respect, yes. The workshops are only interested in the works order number at a practical level, the operators are only interest in the class of locomotive, in terms of what it can do, where it can go and how far it can get. The detail differences are irrelevant. Rather conveniently, the GWR categorised its locomotives for both route availability and tractive effort, making things simpler for the operators.

 

Jim