Talk:GWR Sir Watkin Class

query
According to Holcroft, The Armstrongs of the Great Western, p.66, the Sir Watkin class was a series of 20 2-2-2 standard-gauge express engines built by Joseph Armstrong in 1869 and very similar to the 10 Sir Daniel class of 1866. Holcroft does not seem to mention the broad-gauge 0-6-0Ts described in this article.

Perhaps the names were transferred from one class to the other?

8474tim (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Two entirely different loco classes, possible misprint/confusion by Holcroft. The "Sir Watkin" class were these broad-gauge 0-6-0T, dealt with on p. B29 of part 2 of the RCTS series. The twenty standard-gauge 2-2-2 of 1869 comprised two-thirds of the "Sir Daniel" class, a.k.a. the GWR 378 Class (378-387 built 1866, 471-480 and 577-586 built 1869, of which 577-586 were originally 1112-1121). See RCTS part 4, pp. D9-D12.
 * Four of the 378 class were named, three being transferred from broad-gauge engines:
 * 378 Sir Daniel possibly named when new 1866 - new name, in honour of Sir Daniel Gooch (resigned 1864)
 * 380 North Star name added some time after building - name from Broad Gauge loco of the GWR Star Class: new 1837, withdrawn 1871
 * 381 Morning Star named some time after building - Star class as above, new 1839, wdn 1869
 * 471 Sir Watkin poss. named when new 1869 - name ex B.G. loco, GWR Sir Watkin Class, new 1866, wdn 1892
 * The apparent duplication of two loco names may be explained by the suggestion in RCTS part 2 p. B29 that the B.G. loco Sir Watkin was renamed Wynn in 1869. -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this, I will remove the reference in the Joseph Armstrong article. Maybe Sir Watkin himself, if a GWR director, objected to having a mere tank engine named after him - as I believe happened later with the Collett 'Earl' ('Dukedog' rebuild) class 4-4-0s in the 1930s - the earls in question were not amused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 8474tim (talk • contribs) 18:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think so: the name Wynn referred to the same person - Sir Watkin Williams-Wynn, 6th Baronet. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Wynn
The article states that
 * it has been suggested that [ Sir Watkin ] may have been renamed Wynn in 1869.

The reference given actually states that he a list exists dated 1869 in which the class and locmotive names have been changed, but that the new name was probably never carried. A photograph (probably taken in 1892, but certainly no earlier than 1883) clearly shows that the locomotive carried Sir Watkin nameplates at that time. Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's curious, I know. However, in RCTS part 4 p. D11 (see GWR 378 Class) we find that "Four of this [378] class had names, three of them already carried by broad-gauge engines ... 471 Sir Watkin. It is known that nos. 378 and 471 had their names at a very early date, probably when built [1869]". The GWR was not a line given to duplication of names, and there are several instances of locos being renamed in order that the earlier name could be re-used on another loco, also of absorbed locos being renamed or de-named to avoid duplication with an existing GWR loco. In which publication is this photograph to which you refer? -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The best copy is in Steele's Broad Gauge Album, but it also appears in Russell's locomotive book.


 * Do we know for sure that the 378 Class Sir Watkin was named in 1869? Armstrong preferred numbers and so it might have been named later - at least two of the others were given names after they had entered service.


 * Even more confusing is its classmate Bulkeley which was sold to the South Devon in 1872 and so freed up this director's name for use on a Rover in 1880. However the original Bulkeley had returned to the GWR in 1876 but ex-SDR locomotives - in all the GWR's paperwork - this was only refered to by number so there was no clash in the documentation! Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The actual text from RCTS part 4 is as above, omitting irrelevant detail (North Star and Morning Star). They do also have a photo (fig. D14) showing no. 471 named Sir Watkin, and dated February 1889, ie before the withdrawal of the B.G. 0-6-0T in question. I don't know that "Armstrong preferred numbers" - if that be the case, why were all of Armstrong's broad-gauge locos (convertibles aside) given names, but not numbers? Also, there are several instances of named standard-gauge engines in the pre-Dean period - 55 Queen, 378 Sir Daniel (and the other three described on GWR 378 Class); 999 Sir Alexander, 1118 Prince Christian, 1122 Beaconsfield, 1123 Salisbury; so Armstrong was not totally anti-name. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Have examined somebody else's copy of
 * the photo is undated, so all I can really tell is that the B.G. 0-6-0T still bore the name Sir Watkin after being provided with a saddle tank. Unfortunately, I don't have the date of that modification. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We're into the realms of original research here, but I'm confident that there is no record in easily accessed archives that gives the date of conversion of these locomotives. As I recall, the GWR locomotive lists (which were regularly reprinted and updated to record mileage ran) started to show the new tank sizes around 1883. These documents - including the one recording final withdrawal - continue to use the name Sir Watkin; I don't know where Read saw (or heard about) the 1869 list that he mentions. The reason that the photograph is thought to date from 1892 is that there are several posed in a similar way with the engine looking dusty and unloved, and the background notable for a lack of detail. At least some of these have been positively identified as being taken at the Swindon "dump" after withdrawal.
 * We're into the realms of original research here, but I'm confident that there is no record in easily accessed archives that gives the date of conversion of these locomotives. As I recall, the GWR locomotive lists (which were regularly reprinted and updated to record mileage ran) started to show the new tank sizes around 1883. These documents - including the one recording final withdrawal - continue to use the name Sir Watkin; I don't know where Read saw (or heard about) the 1869 list that he mentions. The reason that the photograph is thought to date from 1892 is that there are several posed in a similar way with the engine looking dusty and unloved, and the background notable for a lack of detail. At least some of these have been positively identified as being taken at the Swindon "dump" after withdrawal.


 * All this adds up to my scepticism about the nameplate ever being changed. Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)