Talk:GWR 7200 Class

"Coal Scuttle Bunker"
Citation needed for this term that I've not seen used in any pre preservation volumes. The later engines certainly had a larger water tank and smaller coal capacity within the bunker as described, and I have a feeling some of the earlier ones were modified in the same way, but all the large standard tanks had a sloping top to the water tank under the coal space. As the forward end must be at the same level in all, the provision of greater water capacity inevitably meant that the water tank would have a steeper slope. "Newly developed" is a strange phrase since its not obvious that there was any design innovation in putting a larger tank in. The phrase seems to originate with the 7200 trust. 212.159.44.170 (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Remember that the 7200 class (like many other side-tank locos) had three tanks, not two. The tanks alongside the boiler would have been the same for the whole class, but there was a third tank at the rear, below the coal space. The sloping row of rivet heads on the bunker side shows the position of the division - coal above, water below. If this division was raised up, the water capacity would be increased with a corresponding loss of coal capacity. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)