IIRC, the little standard-gauge Alderney Railway, in the Channel Islands, used to run a *train* of three Wickham cars. They still have some Wickhams, but most trains seem to consist of a diesel locomotive hauling a couple of ex-London Transport tube cars (nicely painted in the old LT red-and-cream)!
The Wickhams were my favourites of the BR railbuses, though the Park Royals were nearer home at that time on the Hitchin-Bedford line. They gave them some of the best Scottish routes: Craigendoran-Arrochar, and Gleneagles-Comrie, which was where I rode in one, and luckily got a fairly decent photo with the Brownie box camera (in 1962 or 63).
They are rather like the German VT98 railbuses (of which I once had a nice N gauge model) or the Hungarian BZmot ones in Hungary, on which I have travelled. There's also a Swedish railbus, the Nene Valley Railway has one I believe. One problem was that few of the British 'buses had buffing gear, so couldn't haul a wagon.
I really have to finish my Dapol (Airfix) Park Royal kit... I even have the Hollywood Foundry motorised chassis for it. It would be tempting to put a tiny TV camera inside to recreate the view from the front seats - a happy memory, that was.
They are rather like the German VT98 railbuses (of which I once had a nice N gauge model) or the Hungarian BZmot ones in Hungary, on which I have travelled. There's also a Swedish railbus, the Nene Valley Railway has one I believe. One problem was that few of the British 'buses had buffing gear, so couldn't haul a wagon.
Yes. The majority of European railcars, since the 1930s at least, were able to haul trailers and/or wagons. Some German minor railways used a powerful 4w railcar as principal motive power, as it could haul a reasonable trailing load. Passengers, in effect, travelled in a mixed train!
The pre-war GWR railcars, much larger than the BR 4w railbuses, were perfectly capable of hauling trailers or vans, and the County Donegal Railways in Ireland showed what could be done with versatile and economical railcars in the Continental manner...
For those of you who recall previous mention of the replica LBSCR Atlantic Beachy Head, here's a brief video of her on a trial run a couple of days ago:
IMHO, the lined black BR livery (similar to that of the pre-grouping London & North-Western Railway) looks very handsome indeed. I think there are a few bits n'bobs to be added before she enters service in August - nameplates, smokebox number plate, and shed plate...
Which long-gone locomotive would you like to see replicated?
An LNWR express locomotive - a "George" or (preferably) a "Claughton" (with some necessary improvements). No more GWR 4-6-0s please! Oh yes, a "Claude Hamilton" (in GE blue) would be nice.
Which long-gone locomotive would you like to see replicated?
The Great Central War Memorial, 1165, Valour.
But if I couldn't afford that, I'd settle for a 9K (LNER C13) an extremely elegant tank loco that would be useful on a typical preserved railway. Of course, it would have to be in its original condition, not mutilated by that ghastly chimney introduced by Mr R A Thom. The so-called flowerpot.
I suppose one would need the Euromillions, either way.
An LNWR express locomotive - a "George" or (preferably) a "Claughton" (with some necessary improvements). No more GWR 4-6-0s please! Oh yes, a "Claude Hamilton" (in GE blue) would be nice.
Yes, a Claud Hamilton (or one of its derivatives) would be good, but I've never much liked the (IMHO) rather ugly LNWR engines. Agreed re GWR 4-6-0s, which all look the same, anyway.
Which long-gone locomotive would you like to see replicated?
The Great Central War Memorial, 1165, Valour.
But if I couldn't afford that, I'd settle for a 9K (LNER C13) an extremely elegant tank loco that would be useful on a typical preserved railway. Of course, it would have to be in its original condition, not mutilated by that ghastly chimney introduced by Mr R A Thom. The so-called flowerpot.
I suppose one would need the Euromillions, either way.
A couple of good choices...
Mine would be one of R EL Maunsell's handsome and successful D1 or E1 classes - rebuilds of the D and E 4-4-0s of the South Eastern & Chatham (mechanicals by R R Surtees, artistic details and general elegance by H S Wainwright). The D1s/E1s (they were very similar in looks) were common on the railways of Kent until final withdrawal of the last examples in November 1961.
That's a really interesting question that I'd not thought about before. I agree about a LNWR press engine and I'd go for a George before a Claughton. All LNWR engines seem to have worn out more quickly than other peoples', but I get the impression that for their size, a George in prime condition without leaking cylinders etc packed a far more reliable punch than a Claughton. And 6004 which was the last surviving Claughton was a rebuilt one. With that big and rather primitive boiler, I reckon that permutation looked gross.
I agree that it's a huge pity no Claud got preserved. That may have been because by the time people started to talk about preservation, the survivors were all rebuilds. The last Super-Claud with an original boiler went as far back as 1952. It's quite an interesting question which permutation one would choose to recreate.
With weight, availability etc a Claud would be just the thing for a typical preserved railway, and especially the North Norfolk as by BR days, Clauds and 1500s were regulars on the M&GN despite the well known dominance of Ivatt Doodlebugs.
Likewise in every way, an example of a variety of the late SECR 4-4-0 rebuilds.
If I was going to choose a Great Central class to recreate, for me, I think it would have to be an A5 Pacific tank.
For my own choice, though, one option would be an unrebuilt Scot with the original parallel boiler. I never saw one in that condition. The last one to get its new boiler was somewhere around the tail end of 1954. Another would be a Midland 700 class, a classic class but extinct from 1952, or, and this is pretty esoteric, a Midland 999 class. As a non-standard design, they became extinct right back in 1929. They were basically a simple version of a Compound, but they had a curious valve gear, and I'd be interested to know how well they performed. Noseyness, though doesn't justify that sort of effort and expenditure.
An LNWR express locomotive - a "George" or (preferably) a "Claughton" (with some necessary improvements). No more GWR 4-6-0s please! Oh yes, a "Claude Hamilton" (in GE blue) would be nice.
I would like to see an early Highland Railway Jones locomotive, one with the Crewe framing and louvred chimney - a Sky Bogie would be perfect. I was a bit disappointed that the one HR new build project is a Small Ben. It's a good engine of course, but lacks the unique character of a Jones design. However, what matters above all is economics - the ability to generate revenue, and the Ben is probably going to do that quite well.
Well, I am a member of the project building a Clan, so I suppose I have to say that. Otherwise a Jersey Lily, a Thompson A2/3, a GWR Bulldog, one of the M&GN's elegant Beyer Peacock tender locomotives, I could go on...
Being a bit serious for a moment, with any such project one has to ask if the aim is mainline running (in which case the bigger, the better) or running on preserved lines (in which case one probably doesn't need anything much bigger than a Class 2 or 3).
Being a bit serious for a moment, with any such project one has to ask if the aim is mainline running (in which case the bigger, the better) or running on preserved lines (in which case one probably doesn't need anything much bigger than a Class 2 or 3).
I think this is a very pertinent suggestion. Many large locos are going to be (at best) wasteful on preserved lines and at worst white elephants.
However, just as railway modellers seem to be more drawn to the large, the unusual and the one-off against what would actually be useful on their layout, so it seems to be with enthusiasts in general, and not least among reconstructionists.
An aspect of this discussion is rather like the ones we have in the church. How do we increase offerings, and how do we fill more seats? 'Flying Scotsman' must be a shiny charismatic preacher leading a megachurch - not my style at all.
One very early type which AFAIK has not been replicated is the Middleton Railway's rack locomotive of 1812 - the world's first commercially successful steam engines:
There were at least three of them, possibly four, working until the mid-1830s. Illustrations never seem to feature a tender, but they must have had one, possibly a simple flat truck with some coal, and a barrel of water...
An accurate replica might be a bit tricky, given the need to have a rack on the outside edge of one rail, and the Middleton Railway was narrow-gauge at the time (4 feet 1 inch), but the replica of Puffing Billy runs on standard-gauge AFAIK, whereas the original was (and still is) of 5 feet gauge.
At least they're originals IYSWIM, but a replica Middleton locomotive, for example, would be more of a semi-freelance 12-inches-to-the-foot model, or a kind of large visual aid!
Talking of early railways, I have today received some very nice 00 scale Liverpool & Manchester Railway wagons, 3D printed, and sold by a certain YouTube channel...the maker has done his homework, and the models are based on contemporary prints and drawings.
Quality is first-rate, prices are half what Hornby charge for completely unrealistic wagons, and the option is available to fit NEM couplings (the modern version of the tension-lock coupling invented by Triang many years ago). This means that I can couple the wagons to my Rapido L&MR Lion, which has a NEM coupling on the tender.
The Potcommon Railway (somewhere in the little-known southern English county of Suffix, and linking the town in its title with the sea at Black Treacle Bay) can now run proper *luggage trains* conveying Coals, General Merchandize, Pigs, and other Beasts. However, I shall probably use my Hornby L&MR Tiger for luggage trains, if I can work out how to attach a NEM coupling to a Hornby L&MR carriage, so that I can also run a *coach train* headed by Lion - not prototypical, as the L&MR 0-4-2s were intended for freight traffic, but the Leicester & Swannington Railway did have some rather similar engines to haul mixed passenger/goods trains in the late 1830s.
On order is the forthcoming Hornby 00 model of the Stockton & Darlington's Locomotion of 1825 - pre-production working samples look fantastic, and it's scheduled for introduction in the S&DR's bi-centenary year. Hopefully, Hornby will provide some suitably realistic wagons so that Rock Treacle can be conveyed, but I have some Accurascale chaldrons on hand just in case...
One distinct advantage of these early prototypes is that the models take up very little space!
Yes - they could do with some light weathering. The coupling bars are a bit fiddly, as are the chains provided by Hornby, so I may replace them all with NEMs...
Ah but of course - mind you, that would more like fencing than a railway track.
Perhaps Peco could bring out stone block (rather than sleepered) trackwork? There might be a demand. Broad gauge baulk road (would that be 00b7?) wouldn't really sell, though.
... which will be as big as the wagons and spoil the effect!
What kind of track are you using? I have no idea what was used on the L&M, but I bet it was a bit different to today's!
At the moment, I'm using ordinary Peco Setrack - the L&M used stone blocks, with some cross-timbers in various places, but it's hard to know exactly how the track appeared. Contemporary prints show it evenly *ballasted* with what looks like sand (!), and only the rails showing...
The Swannington line used cross-timbers, with longitudinal timbers in the tunnels, so their line (which as single-track, with sidings and passing loops) would have looked rather more familiar.
The art of compromise...though if I were building my own track, I'd use a much lighter rail, perhaps with stone blocks made of card...
As to the NEM couplings, which are AFAIK the smallest available, they do spoil the effect a bit, as they hold the wagons slightly further apart from each other than do the bars or chains. I might try using the NEMs just for coupling the locomotives to the trains, keeping the formations semi-permanent IYSWIM.
I'm using ordinary Peco Setrack - the L&M used stone blocks, with some cross-timbers in various places, but it's hard to know exactly how the track appeared. Contemporary prints show it evenly *ballasted* with what looks like sand (!), and only the rails showing...
That seems to have been common on many lines until 1900 or so.
The Swannington line used cross-timbers, with longitudinal timbers in the tunnels.
Very much a forerunner of modern slab track, then.
I might try using the NEMs just for coupling the locomotives to the trains, keeping the formations semi-permanent IYSWIM.
Yes, ballasting over the sleepers seems to have been common, though the Board of Trade disapproved of the practice. Some of the early coal-hauling lines actually used coal as ballast, no doubt because it was plentiful, and on hand, so to speak!
But not so good if there were gaps in your firebars ...
The Southeastern and Chatham, as you know, used Dungeness shingle. This was a Bad Idea as it doesn't "bind" properly; its use was a direct cause of the Sevenoaks disaster.
Yes, and that was exacerbated by the poor track which caused the locomotive (presumably with a higher centre of gravity than tender locomotive) to roll. When tried on the Southwestern mainline an identical ran safely at 80mph although with a lot of vibration.
The big Brighton tanks (not sure which ones - the Baltics?) had anti-surge baffles fitted in the side tanks and (I think) a reduced water capacity.
It's interesting to think of the SECR/SR Mogul family leading to the "Rivers", the Irish "Woolwich" Moguls and the Metropolitan K class.
Yes, quite a family! To which might, I suppose, be added Maunsell's W class 2-6-4Ts, one of which was tried on an Oxted line passenger train, with hair-raising results...the class never again worked a passenger train (though they did work empty stock), even in the last days of steam.
Earnest entreaties and pleas to have one on a railtour special were AIUI firmly refused.
Maybe a replica River (with baffles) would run well on today's longer heritage lines, given the generally high standard of track?
That would be a nice thought, although the BR Standard 4 tanks are very good!
BTW it's often struck me that Maunsell was a somewhat under-rated CME, possibly because he served an unfashionable railway. I think one could make a good case for saying that the Mogul/River family were about the first truly "modern" locomotives - two outside cylinders, Walschaerts valve gear, taper Belpaire boiler with drumhead smokebox, superheat, decent (piston) valve events .... in 1914!
I think one could make a good case for saying that the Mogul/River family were about the first truly "modern" locomotives - two outside cylinders, Walschaerts valve gear, taper Belpaire boiler with drumhead smokebox, superheat, decent (piston) valve events .... in 1914!
I think the Swindon view on at least some of those is 'why would you want them?' Oh, and 'you appear to have fitted an unnecessary gauge glass'
Dare one suggest that Swindon, having made huge advances in the very late Dean/early Churchward era, then got (ahem) rather stuck in a rut?
I think they'd say they got it right in about 1906, and very little change was thence necessary until the end of steam as the primary locomotive technology.
In their own terms, they were also probably right - some locos got superheat when they had to burn rubbish coal, Hawksworth built the 15xx (probably for a bet about how far he could get from house style), and that's really it until the diesels arrived.
Dare one suggest that Swindon, having made huge advances in the very late Dean/early Churchward era, then got (ahem) rather stuck in a rut?
I think they'd say they got it right in about 1906, and very little change was thence necessary until the end of steam as the primary locomotive technology.
In their own terms, they were also probably right - some locos got superheat when they had to burn rubbish coal, Hawksworth built the 15xx (probably for a bet about how far he could get from house style), and that's really it until the diesels arrived.
Whilst not having a great deal of time for the GWR, I do think their pre-war AEC railcars were a huge step forward. Perhaps they'd have progressed further with diesels, if WW2 hadn't intervened?
Dare one suggest that Swindon, having made huge advances in the very late Dean/early Churchward era, then got (ahem) rather stuck in a rut?
I think they'd say they got it right in about 1906, and very little change was thence necessary until the end of steam as the primary locomotive technology.
In their own terms, they were also probably right - some locos got superheat when they had to burn rubbish coal, Hawksworth built the 15xx (probably for a bet about how far he could get from house style), and that's really it until the diesels arrived.
Whilst not having a great deal of time for the GWR, I do think their pre-war AEC railcars were a huge step forward. Perhaps they'd have progressed further with diesels, if WW2 hadn't intervened?
IIRC they were actually looking closely at electrification down to Penzance and across to South Wales in the 1930s, before 'circumstances changed' - so without WW2 I'm not sure they'd have gone for diesels except on the branch lines. Basically they wanted to build a railway that we're still groping towards now!
They did of course try gas turbines, and I think they'd have electrified their main lines (albeit on DC, I guess, as that was the standard at the time).
What they didn't do with their steamers was go for outside valve gear which looks less tidy but is more accessible. Also high superheat was only added in BR days - that added a real "sparkle" to performance.
Mind you, GW express locomotives looked magnificent! I remember travelling to Oxford in about 1970 and seeing a resplendent "Pendennis Castle" outside the GW Society shed - wow!
From a paper presented by the four companies to a meeting of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers in 1947*:
"The present position of steam locomotives is directly the outcome of a consistent policy by Churchward in the early part of the present century and followed throughout the intervening years in the design of the company's stock. By adopting, as early as 1902, a boiler pressure of 225 lb. per sq. in., superheat, and piston valves with long travel, he set the seal upon locomotive design for the Great Western Railway, and the successful outcome of his pioneer work has been felt in every other railway using steam locomotives."
The paper goes on in the same vein, but there's no mention of anyone since Churchward or any significant developments in the meantime apart from a note on oil burning. He was the prophet of the one true faith.
*Quoted in British Railways Engineering 1948-80, Johnson, Long, Bond; Mechanical Engineering Publications Ltd., 1981.
Comments
https://www.alderneyrailway.gg/
You were indeed fortunate with your railbus riding!
Yes - just a wandering train of thought, so to speak. It was the trolleys we rode in South Africa.
Yes, I did, but the larger railbuses (remember the Airfix model of the Park Royal version?) were quite attractive vehicles.
Yes. The majority of European railcars, since the 1930s at least, were able to haul trailers and/or wagons. Some German minor railways used a powerful 4w railcar as principal motive power, as it could haul a reasonable trailing load. Passengers, in effect, travelled in a mixed train!
The pre-war GWR railcars, much larger than the BR 4w railbuses, were perfectly capable of hauling trailers or vans, and the County Donegal Railways in Ireland showed what could be done with versatile and economical railcars in the Continental manner...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EB775KDGKzU
And here's a closer view of her at Horsted Keynes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJR7nlLSVJg
IMHO, the lined black BR livery (similar to that of the pre-grouping London & North-Western Railway) looks very handsome indeed. I think there are a few bits n'bobs to be added before she enters service in August - nameplates, smokebox number plate, and shed plate...
Which long-gone locomotive would you like to see replicated?
The Great Central War Memorial, 1165, Valour.
But if I couldn't afford that, I'd settle for a 9K (LNER C13) an extremely elegant tank loco that would be useful on a typical preserved railway. Of course, it would have to be in its original condition, not mutilated by that ghastly chimney introduced by Mr R A Thom. The so-called flowerpot.
I suppose one would need the Euromillions, either way.
Yes, a Claud Hamilton (or one of its derivatives) would be good, but I've never much liked the (IMHO) rather ugly LNWR engines. Agreed re GWR 4-6-0s, which all look the same, anyway.
A couple of good choices...
Mine would be one of R EL Maunsell's handsome and successful D1 or E1 classes - rebuilds of the D and E 4-4-0s of the South Eastern & Chatham (mechanicals by R R Surtees, artistic details and general elegance by H S Wainwright). The D1s/E1s (they were very similar in looks) were common on the railways of Kent until final withdrawal of the last examples in November 1961.
I agree that it's a huge pity no Claud got preserved. That may have been because by the time people started to talk about preservation, the survivors were all rebuilds. The last Super-Claud with an original boiler went as far back as 1952. It's quite an interesting question which permutation one would choose to recreate.
With weight, availability etc a Claud would be just the thing for a typical preserved railway, and especially the North Norfolk as by BR days, Clauds and 1500s were regulars on the M&GN despite the well known dominance of Ivatt Doodlebugs.
Likewise in every way, an example of a variety of the late SECR 4-4-0 rebuilds.
If I was going to choose a Great Central class to recreate, for me, I think it would have to be an A5 Pacific tank.
For my own choice, though, one option would be an unrebuilt Scot with the original parallel boiler. I never saw one in that condition. The last one to get its new boiler was somewhere around the tail end of 1954. Another would be a Midland 700 class, a classic class but extinct from 1952, or, and this is pretty esoteric, a Midland 999 class. As a non-standard design, they became extinct right back in 1929. They were basically a simple version of a Compound, but they had a curious valve gear, and I'd be interested to know how well they performed. Noseyness, though doesn't justify that sort of effort and expenditure.
Here you go - Prince George: https://newprincegeorgesteam.org.uk/
I would like to see an early Highland Railway Jones locomotive, one with the Crewe framing and louvred chimney - a Sky Bogie would be perfect. I was a bit disappointed that the one HR new build project is a Small Ben. It's a good engine of course, but lacks the unique character of a Jones design. However, what matters above all is economics - the ability to generate revenue, and the Ben is probably going to do that quite well.
I think this is a very pertinent suggestion. Many large locos are going to be (at best) wasteful on preserved lines and at worst white elephants.
However, just as railway modellers seem to be more drawn to the large, the unusual and the one-off against what would actually be useful on their layout, so it seems to be with enthusiasts in general, and not least among reconstructionists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZNKmnw38MI
One very early type which AFAIK has not been replicated is the Middleton Railway's rack locomotive of 1812 - the world's first commercially successful steam engines:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middleton_Railway
There were at least three of them, possibly four, working until the mid-1830s. Illustrations never seem to feature a tender, but they must have had one, possibly a simple flat truck with some coal, and a barrel of water...
An accurate replica might be a bit tricky, given the need to have a rack on the outside edge of one rail, and the Middleton Railway was narrow-gauge at the time (4 feet 1 inch), but the replica of Puffing Billy runs on standard-gauge AFAIK, whereas the original was (and still is) of 5 feet gauge.
Quality is first-rate, prices are half what Hornby charge for completely unrealistic wagons, and the option is available to fit NEM couplings (the modern version of the tension-lock coupling invented by Triang many years ago). This means that I can couple the wagons to my Rapido L&MR Lion, which has a NEM coupling on the tender.
The Potcommon Railway (somewhere in the little-known southern English county of Suffix, and linking the town in its title with the sea at Black Treacle Bay) can now run proper *luggage trains* conveying Coals, General Merchandize, Pigs, and other Beasts. However, I shall probably use my Hornby L&MR Tiger for luggage trains, if I can work out how to attach a NEM coupling to a Hornby L&MR carriage, so that I can also run a *coach train* headed by Lion - not prototypical, as the L&MR 0-4-2s were intended for freight traffic, but the Leicester & Swannington Railway did have some rather similar engines to haul mixed passenger/goods trains in the late 1830s.
On order is the forthcoming Hornby 00 model of the Stockton & Darlington's Locomotion of 1825 - pre-production working samples look fantastic, and it's scheduled for introduction in the S&DR's bi-centenary year. Hopefully, Hornby will provide some suitably realistic wagons so that Rock Treacle can be conveyed, but I have some Accurascale chaldrons on hand just in case...
One distinct advantage of these early prototypes is that the models take up very little space!
What kind of track are you using? I have no idea what was used on the L&M, but I bet it was a bit different to today's!
Peco Code 1800 obviously 😉
Perhaps Peco could bring out stone block (rather than sleepered) trackwork? There might be a demand. Broad gauge baulk road (would that be 00b7?) wouldn't really sell, though.
Don’t give Bachmann ideas - they, KR and Heljan are the current go-tos for oddities.
At the moment, I'm using ordinary Peco Setrack - the L&M used stone blocks, with some cross-timbers in various places, but it's hard to know exactly how the track appeared. Contemporary prints show it evenly *ballasted* with what looks like sand (!), and only the rails showing...
The Swannington line used cross-timbers, with longitudinal timbers in the tunnels, so their line (which as single-track, with sidings and passing loops) would have looked rather more familiar.
The art of compromise...though if I were building my own track, I'd use a much lighter rail, perhaps with stone blocks made of card...
As to the NEM couplings, which are AFAIK the smallest available, they do spoil the effect a bit, as they hold the wagons slightly further apart from each other than do the bars or chains. I might try using the NEMs just for coupling the locomotives to the trains, keeping the formations semi-permanent IYSWIM.
Very much a forerunner of modern slab track, then.
My thought, too.
The Southeastern and Chatham, as you know, used Dungeness shingle. This was a Bad Idea as it doesn't "bind" properly; its use was a direct cause of the Sevenoaks disaster.
The big Brighton tanks (not sure which ones - the Baltics?) had anti-surge baffles fitted in the side tanks and (I think) a reduced water capacity.
It's interesting to think of the SECR/SR Mogul family leading to the "Rivers", the Irish "Woolwich" Moguls and the Metropolitan K class.
Earnest entreaties and pleas to have one on a railtour special were AIUI firmly refused.
Maybe a replica River (with baffles) would run well on today's longer heritage lines, given the generally high standard of track?
BTW it's often struck me that Maunsell was a somewhat under-rated CME, possibly because he served an unfashionable railway. I think one could make a good case for saying that the Mogul/River family were about the first truly "modern" locomotives - two outside cylinders, Walschaerts valve gear, taper Belpaire boiler with drumhead smokebox, superheat, decent (piston) valve events .... in 1914!
I think the Swindon view on at least some of those is 'why would you want them?' Oh, and 'you appear to have fitted an unnecessary gauge glass'
I think they'd say they got it right in about 1906, and very little change was thence necessary until the end of steam as the primary locomotive technology.
In their own terms, they were also probably right - some locos got superheat when they had to burn rubbish coal, Hawksworth built the 15xx (probably for a bet about how far he could get from house style), and that's really it until the diesels arrived.
Whilst not having a great deal of time for the GWR, I do think their pre-war AEC railcars were a huge step forward. Perhaps they'd have progressed further with diesels, if WW2 hadn't intervened?
IIRC they were actually looking closely at electrification down to Penzance and across to South Wales in the 1930s, before 'circumstances changed' - so without WW2 I'm not sure they'd have gone for diesels except on the branch lines. Basically they wanted to build a railway that we're still groping towards now!
What they didn't do with their steamers was go for outside valve gear which looks less tidy but is more accessible. Also high superheat was only added in BR days - that added a real "sparkle" to performance.
Mind you, GW express locomotives looked magnificent! I remember travelling to Oxford in about 1970 and seeing a resplendent "Pendennis Castle" outside the GW Society shed - wow!
"The present position of steam locomotives is directly the outcome of a consistent policy by Churchward in the early part of the present century and followed throughout the intervening years in the design of the company's stock. By adopting, as early as 1902, a boiler pressure of 225 lb. per sq. in., superheat, and piston valves with long travel, he set the seal upon locomotive design for the Great Western Railway, and the successful outcome of his pioneer work has been felt in every other railway using steam locomotives."
The paper goes on in the same vein, but there's no mention of anyone since Churchward or any significant developments in the meantime apart from a note on oil burning. He was the prophet of the one true faith.
*Quoted in British Railways Engineering 1948-80, Johnson, Long, Bond; Mechanical Engineering Publications Ltd., 1981.