The LNER Encyclopedia

Found this on BRITARCH today.
Do you agree with the comments from the haulier?

http://217.204.41.132/cgi/NGoto/2/297498929?2760

GWR fans have a lot in common with Santa Fe fans, even down to their love of shiny things!


Richard

Well, if a road haulier said it about railways, it must be true - right?
Seriously though, each of the 'Big 4' had their good and bad points. In respect of the GWR random examples of the good points that come to mind with me must be the affection which they seemed to engender in the travelling public, staff loyalty (mostly), the great innovations of G.J. Churchward and the introduction of ATC. On the bad side, a lack of innovation in the 1930s, four a side seating in mainline corridor stock, non-slam doors on their coaching stock and a lack of buckeye couplings. If you look at the LNER, it had its good and bad points too, almost everything affected by the fact that they were always teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. It was, however, run by gentlemen.....

GWR? Stands for Gresley Was Right yes?

hq1hitchin: Of course they all have their strengths and weaknesses (and I would agree with Churchward being a great engineer). I think my reaction is to the fan following (hence the Santa Fe comment) that appears out of proportion. Unfortunately in the modelling world it also leads to "yet another GWR branchline terminus" syndrome
I can see why these are popular, but I'd like more variety (actually I think the magazines are giving us more variety these days).


Richard

The GWR was not only a very great and successful railway, but also a great social institution in the areas which it served, ie "God's Wonderful Railway". Like many successful institutions it did however fall prey in certain areas to a degree of complacency in its later years and to the ,"we've always done it this way" syndrome. As William Stanier - ex GWR himself - once remarked to O S Nock on a locomotive matter, "Of course all Swindon's geese are swans!".

Yes, Richard - you are right about the 'branch line syndrome' and I'm not even sure it was the GWR they wanted set in aspic, perhaps it was BR(W). It's all a long time ago now and there are a diminishing number of us about who joined BR when there was still some steam traction, never mind pre -1948. Old rivalries should, perhaps, now be buried after 60 years

A quick flick through some railway signalling circuit diagrams convinced me that the western were just being awkward. Every other region cuts the positive leg of a single cut circuit but the western cuts the negative.

An early move by Richard Beeching on becoming Chairman of B R was to send Stanley Raymond to Paddington as G M with the task of bringing the Western Region into line. Raymond, evidently a fairly abrasive character, was not everyone's cup of tea, but he did make the necessary changes. The story goes that on arrival he -perhaps a little insensitively, or perhaps sending out a strong message, take your pick - consigned some GWR memorabilia - portraits etc - to the store room, commenting that, "We are running a railway not a museum". One significant factor in all of this was that compared with other members of the 'Big Four' the GWR came through the 1923 Grouping relatively unscathed and intact. While there were upheavals elsewhere of various kinds it was able to progress serenely on its way from 1923 to 1948 and beyond, where other groups had to confront and manage change earlier, as they struggled to integrate.

A quick flick through some railway signalling circuit diagrams convinced me that the western were just being awkward. Every other region cuts the positive leg of a single cut circuit but the western cuts the negative.

Also....
7 foot gauge, they had to change.
25 inches of vacuum, they had to change.
Right hand drive, they had to change.

52A wrote:Right hand drive, they had to change.

Actually only the Scottish Railways were left hand drive. Other companies had to change at the grouping, or face a mutiny by their Scots loco men

I'm not sure they did change on the 25 inches of vacuum. Have read accounts when drivers of locos with 21 inches vacuum ejectors struggled to release the brakes on a train after a GW loco had been on the front and the trainpipe pressure hadn't been equalised properly. Some of the Stanier 8Fs built at Swindon and used frequently on the Westren had 25 inch ejectors fitted to avoid this problem.

Morgan

Yes, didn't they have to 'pull the strings' on the vacuum cylinders when, say, a Southern engine backed onto what we would now call 'cross-country' train at Oxford after in ran in behind a GW engine with 25 inches on the gauge - and vis-versa?

Yes the vacuum did change, although I can't remember the date of "Operation Vacuum Change".

The GWR 25 inches of vacuum would have been difficult to maintain with a traditional small ejector arrangement and therefore the GW fitted its locos with a larger multi -jet ejector and used a vacuum pump, driven from one of the cylinder crossheads to maintain vacuum when the engine was in motion. They obviously thought the extra expense of providing and fitting this equipment worthwhile in terms of braking performance, though there would also be some saving in steam and therefore coal and water by the use of the crosshead pump instead of a conventional small ejector during running. As stated running on 25 inches of vacuum as opposed to 21" could and did cause trouble and delay at inter - regional engine changing points, Oxford, Bristol, Shrewsbury etc.