Wright writes.....

[Iain.d]

I have managed to complete the rebuild of my latest two Stanier carriages. First up is this D2159 Corridor Composite with Comet sides on an Airfix donor.

 

 

I think curtains in first class compartments were often blue but I chose to do these in orange. One reason is that I have already built two carriages to this diagram with blue curtains and wanted this one to be visibly different, also I have recently seen some film footage on a Branchlines video taken in the first class compartment of a BR Mk1 CK in the early 1960s. In the shot, the curtains look decidedly orangey/yellowy, definitely not blue. So I’m assuming a Stanier CK may have been ‘re-curtained’ with orange ones.

 

The other is this D2119 Third/Second Corridor built on a Hornby donor.  This is the third of this type I have built also, the others being in crimson and cream.  Despite their standard look I like the little subtle differences in the Stanier Period III carriages, such as the fact the inner corridor doors on this type had different commode handles to those at the end, they’re bent at 90 degrees rather than being simple loops. I have previously mentioned issues with HMRS transfers, these were done from the same pack and not an issue in applying them….go figure!

 

 

And here they are coupled together. They form part of a six car formation comprising BSK/TO/BSK/CK/TO/BSK.

 

 

Kind regards,

 

Iain

[Bernard Lamb]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewes_avalanche

 

It was actually just over the county border in Sussex.

My memory of avalanche theory and practice in dealing with them dates from almost 60 years ago from a basic mountaineering course. 

Bernard

[Pebbles]

3 hours ago, Bernard Lamb said:

 

That area, the very south east corner in particular, does seem to catch some very bad weather.

The worst avalanche recorded in the UK was I believe in Kent.

Bernard

The only record death from and Avalanche in England was in Lewes, it is commemorated by the Pub "The Snowdrop".

[31A]

4 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Can I just ask, what use did the Southern Region have for snowploughs, especially such a monster as the one we've been shown? The South Downs are hardly the mountains of Craven let alone Drumochtar.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGqdV9A0Zns

 

[Compound2632]

Well, I have gained a new degree of respect for railways south of the Thames!

[grahame]

5 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Can I just ask, what use did the Southern Region have for snowploughs, especially such a monster as the one we've been shown? The South Downs are hardly the mountains of Craven let alone Drumochtar.

 

The north downs (in Kent) used to get a lot of snow when it was brought in by Easterlies blowing from the Steppes and the North Downs were the first bit of high land they encountered. There was a time when Kent had more snowfall than any other English county (not Scotland). I've often driven north with snow on the car to arrive in places like Leicester where there was no snow and my car was the only one with snow on in the car park.

 

 

[grahame]

2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I recall seeing an image of a 'West Country' completely immobile and inundated with snow in a huge drift in the winter of 1963; in the West Country. 

 

 

I was living in Herne Bay during that infamous winter of '1962/63. Herne Bay was the only place the open sea froze for over a mile out from the shore ('Open sea' as opposed to coastal and inshore waters or estuaries).

 

The day the sea froze over in Herne Bay - Kent Live https://www.kentlive.news/news/kent-news/day-sea-froze-over-herne-3791067

 

"In January 1963, the sea froze for one mile (1.6 km) from shore at Herne Bay, Kent.[9][10] The sea froze inshore in many places, removing many British inland waterbirds' usual last resort of finding food in estuaries and shallow sea. The sea froze 4 miles (6 km) out to sea from Dunkirk.[3] The upper reaches of the River Thames froze over,[8][11] although it did not freeze in Central London, partly due to the hot effluent from two thermal power stations, Battersea and Bankside. The removal of the multi-arched London Bridge, which had obstructed the river's free flow, and the addition of the river embankments kept the river from freezing in London as it had in earlier times (see River Thames frost fairs)."

 

 

[cctransuk]

2 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

The prototype wasn't anything like as monstrous as the model.

 

As said model is now in my possession, and will shortly have a close encounter with boiling water, I hope eventually to show it here looking somewhat more like the prototype.

 

Copyright www.ontrackplant.com

 

This is the only photo that I have of one of these snowploughs - if anyone knows of any others, I'd be most grateful for links.

 

Regards,

John Isherwood.

[Tony Wright]

Fortunately, the heavier snows earlier this year weren't enough to stop the trains........................

 

 

Nice to see LNER again on the ECML.

 

Equally fortunately, it's always high summer in miniature Little Bytham. Thus the sun shines on what Geoff Haynes dropped off for photography today..........................

 

 

 

Scratch-built years ago by the late John Edgson, Geoff recently painted this B17. 

 

 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

More items Geoff has recently painted/weathered...................

 

 

An F6 in O Gauge

 

 

And the bodywork for an O Gauge LSWR 'Jubilee'. 

 

 

Two O Gauge wagons.

 

 

And finally, a weathered Hornby 8F, the property of a friend of mine. I renumbered/re-branded  it (it was in LMS condition) and Geoff has made it entirely natural. 

 

 

 

 

[Dylan Sanderson]

Evening everyone,

 

Without wanting to trigger a debate, does anyone know why the first A2/3 was number 500, but the second was 511 ‘Airborne’, with 501 - 510 being the A2/2s and A2/1s? Wouldn't it be more logical to start the A2/2s and A2/1s at 500, then have all A2/3s numbered consecutively from 510?

 

Seems a hit against the theme for Thompson, since Thompson simplified the LNERs numbering system?

[Andy Hayter]

5 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Well, I have gained a new degree of respect for railways south of the Thames!

 

It's a bit like me here in the South of France (Further South than Bordeaux).  No one believes we have snow - actually it snowed today.  I just have to remind them that the next time they watch Ski Sunday from Val d'Isere, it is just across the valley from us.  

[LNER4479]

2 hours ago, Dylan Sanderson said:

Without wanting to trigger a debate, does anyone know why the first A2/3 was number 500, but the second was 511 ‘Airborne’, with 501 - 510 being the A2/2s and A2/1s? Wouldn't it be more logical to start the A2/2s and A2/1s at 500, then have all A2/3s numbered consecutively from 510?

Perhaps I'm not the ideal person to attempt to answer but I'd always assumed it was because the P2s were the first to be mutilated tackled by Mr Thompson but kept their '2' suffix as they'd previously been P2? The numbers 501-506 thus aligning with their old P2 numbers 2001-2006. Then what would have been four V2s - the 'orphans of the storm' - before the stage set for genuine new locos? If nothing else, it helps me to remember which Thompson A2 sub-class is which!

 

Interestingly, LNER Forum records that the original (1943) numbers for the rebuilt P2s were allocated as 990-995 but changed in 1946 to 501-506. This thus left the nice round number 500 for Mr Thompson to adorn the first truly 'new' loco with his own name. A touch of vanity?

Edited March 19, 2021 by LNER4479

[Pebbles]

8 hours ago, Denbridge said:

Winters were a lot harsher than what we are now accustomed to in recent decades. Even in 1960's Sussex i well remember having several inches of snow fairly regularly. I well remember older neighbours talking about being cut off in outlying areas.

I have just remembered, High and Over Seaford was all but impassable for about three days at the end of December 1970.

[Tony Wright]

11 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

Perhaps I'm not the ideal person to attempt to answer but I'd always assumed it was because the P2s were the first to be mutilated tackled by Mr Thompson but kept their '2' suffix as they'd previously been P2? The numbers 501-506 thus aligning with their old P2 numbers 2001-2006. Then what would have been four V2s - the 'orphans of the storm' - before the stage set for genuine new locos? If nothing else, it helps me to remember which Thompson A2 sub-class is which!

 

Interestingly, LNER Forum records that the original (1943) numbers for the rebuilt P2s were allocated as 990-995 but changed in 1946 to 501-506. This thus left the nice round number 500 for Mr Thompson to adorn the first truly 'new' loco with his own name. A touch of vanity?

An absolute touch of 'vanity' I'd say Graham,

 

EDWARD THOMPSON got the first of the A2 numbers because (with a bit of 'creative' accountancy), it was the 2,000th loco built at Doncaster Plant, getting the works number 2000.  The original numbers were to have been 200-14.

 

I know that Mr Thompson's name crops up frequently here, often with not much respect. There's no doubt his job was very hard (following one of the greatest CMEs of all time, in wartime to boot), but there's always that niggle of his being arrogant to me. 

 

After the Grouping, and the allocation of classes, any new construction took the next free number - B17, D49, J38, J39 and so on. Yes, it could be argued that the original arrangement, with the ex-GN classes taking precedence, was 'arrogance' on Gresley's part, but Doncaster was the real centre of loco development on the LNER. 

 

This 'next in line' obviously did not suit the new CME. No, all his rebuilds/new construction took the lowest possible classifications (meaning the highest possible status?), resulting in the original Gresley Pacifics being booted down to A10, and the likes of the poor old GC B1s and B2s being relegated to B18s and B19s. I suppose the one exception was the K5. In the case of the B2s, this 'vanity' was taken even further, with the first rebuild being given the name ROYAL SOVEREIGN, for use on the Royal Train from Kings Lynn to Kings Cross. 

 

Few authors have a good word to say for Edward Thompson, and, with the exception of the B1s (which had no prior equivalent) all his classes were withdrawn before those they were designed to replace became extinct. H.C.B. Rogers considers his Pacifics to be among the most notable failures of all time (akin to the various Webb compounds). 

 

It has to be for a reason that, on taking up the post, Thompson virtually disbanded Gresley's design team, only to have it reinstated when Peppercorn took over (an equally good reason?). Do you think Thompson was miffed when, under Peppercorn's tenure, the new designs became A2, A1and K1, relegating Thompson's equivalents to mere sub-division classes? 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[robmcg]

Without wishing to inflame things it is my feeling that the B1 ad O1 successes of Thompson were more because of the skills of draughtsmen and tradesmen at Doncaster and Darlington than the CME himself, and again, the skills of these people were at the heart of all wartime and postwar work.

 

I have read three books about Thompson the man, as well as his work, and none contain much to admire. That said, Gresley was vain, and that's an understatement. To me the most telling thing about Thompson was that when he was at school he never excelled at anything. Quite how he rose to be assistant CME I do not know.  Perhaps because Bulleid was enticed away by the Southern?

[Compound2632]

51 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

H.C.B. Rogers considers his Pacifics to be among the most notable failures of all time (akin to the various Webb compounds). 

 

If that comparison holds, Thompson's pacifics must have been pretty decent engines. 

[LNER4479]

I once heard an interesting story (whilst Tornado was being built), related by Malcolm Crawley, who had direct experience of Doncaster drawing office practices. Apparently, the pro-Gresley drawing office staff, aware that Thompson was due retirement in 1946, were already working on what would become the Peppercorn A1 and A2 types. They took care to keep the front half of the loco drawings (showing the reconfigured front end) suitably covered, showing only the rear part of the loco which was not, of course, any different to the existing Thompson pacifics - just in case 'the Boss' walked by.

 

Probably explains why the first Peppercorn pacifics were able to be put into production so quickly - but also speaks volumes as to the reputation of the retiring CME.

 

There's a fascinating chapter in O.S.Nock's book LNER Steam (1969, 10/-) simply titled 'Edward Thompson'. Amongst various interesting snippets are:

 

An early exchange between Sir Ronald Matthews (LNER chairman) and Thompson. Matthews told Thompson that there was no need to spend time designing new engines; Gresley's were unbeatable and if more locos were needed then Thompson should just use the existing designs

 

'Sir Ronald Matthews got the shock of his life when Thompson's reply amounted virtually to 'over my dead body'! A long discussion followed, during which time Thompson went to great lengths explaining the difficulties that were being experienced with engines having the three-cylinder conjugated valve gear. Sir Ronald was incredulous, and eventually Thompson made a characteristic gesture. In as many words he said: 'If you don't believe me get an independent authority to examine the position. If I'm wrong my office is at your disposal; if I'm right I require your consent to make radical changes'.'

 

This led to no less a luminary than Sir William Stanier being invited to undertake said independent review. Thompson subsequently related to Nock the outcome of the review - but, interestingly, did NOT show a copy of Stanier's report(!) Nock states:

 

'I gathered it [the report] was couched in rather non-committal terms. Stanier did not condemn the three-cylinder conjugated valve gear as such, and went no further than to say that he would not use it himself. As Stanier had built many three-cylinder engines for the LMS, the latest of which were the highly successful 'Converted Royal Scots' this could be taken as a reflection on the Gresley arrangement, though really no more than a vaguely indirect one. But it was enough to secure for Thompson the necessary authority to discard it in all new designs on the LNER.'

 

Nock then goes on to relate his actual meeting with Thompson, where he gained the above information. Nock was due to write a series of articles in The Engineer, the scripts of which were submitted to Thompson; in return Thompson invited Nock to Doncaster so that he could explain the policy on which he had been working. The meeting was somewhat informal, Nock actually staying overnight at Thompson's home:

 

'It was at his own fireside that he told me of the situation regarding the conjugated valve gear, and of how he came to formulate the plan for the range of standard two-cylinder locomotives. I remember him as a charming host; a tall, elegant , scholarly man, but one who was highly sensitive, and it was the criticism of his work in the railway Press that had greatly distressed him, and led to his invitation to me - with the hope that I might help to redress the situation that had arisen.' (aka a charm offensive?)

 

The following morning, Thompson took Nock into the works and showed him several examples of gears that had caused the engines concerned to become total failures on the road. He concluded by making an open invitation for Nock to ride on the rebuilt 4470 Great Northern, more or less on any train of Nock's choosing! The offer was taken up some months later when Nock chose to use the Aberdonian to take him to Scotland to spend Easter on the West highland line - 4470 was duly allocated to the King's Cross-Grantham leg for Nock to have his cab ride.

 

Although the loco performed perfectly adequately, Nock can barely conceal his disdain at Thompson having chosen such an historic loco for his conversion!

 

All fascinating stuff and interesting to hear a first hand view - from which you're welcome to make any conclusions you wish, since it is all now a matter for history.

Edited March 19, 2021 by LNER4479

[Clive Mortimore]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

 H.C.B. Rogers considers his Pacifics to be among the most notable failures of all time (akin to the various Webb compounds). 

 

That would be the same Col. Rogers who wrote "It is difficult to believe that diesel or electric locomotives or multiple units will ever inspire the affection which the great steam locomotives have been regarded by railwaymen and amateur enthusiasts alike."

 

Oh yeah!!!!!!

"Three thousand and three hundred horse power, with eighteen cylinders per engine and two engines, that's thirty-six cylinders. That's why they're special."

 

[LNER4479]

Just now, Clive Mortimore said:

Oh yeah!!!!!!

"Three thousand and three hundred horse power, with eighteen cylinders per engine and two engines, that's thirty-six cylinders. That's why they're special."

 

Pah! Three thousand, three hundred and thirty-three horse power - with only four cylinders. 6234 'Duchess of Abercorn', 1939.

[Clive Mortimore]

1 minute ago, LNER4479 said:

Pah! Three thousand, three hundred and thirty-three horse power - with only four cylinders. 6234 'Duchess of Abercorn', 1939.

Continuous rating ?

[LNER4479]

Limited only by the fireman's ability to keep shovelling. Somewhat more meritorious than merely waggling a handle ...

[john new]

4 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

Limited only by the fireman's ability to keep shovelling. Somewhat more meritorious than merely waggling a handle ...

And why mechanical stokers were tried and oil firing.

[Clearwater]

The Thompson Gresley relationship is fascinating.  Whilst not direct contemporaries, they’d been to the same school and must have moved in similar, for the times, upper middle class circles.  Particularly in those days, your average Joe didn’t get sent to a school like Marlborough.  However, Thompson’s father in law effectively lost his job to Gresley on grouping.  But Thompson kept working for the LNER.  Why?  He can’t have been a wage slave like many of us.  In modern parlance, Gresley didn’t manage him out, or manage his succession towards his favoured choice.  Without being an expert, I can only conclude that Gresley must have had sufficient confidence in Thompson’s abilities not to have had him moved.  You’d have thought Greeley’s position would have been powerful enough to have got what he wanted (albeit I might be analysing through a modern management prism.)

 

Assuming Gresley thought Thompson was competent, and putting aside the emotion of the conversion of 1470 and the P2s, one might wonder whether or not at some point whether rail historians will reappraise Thompson and his legacy.  In many ways, an analogue of Hawksworth.   Both succeeded to the CME role late in their careers, in succession to a dominant character and design orthodoxy and in the same year in the middle of the Second World War.  Arguably, Thompson has one great design attributed to his tenure, the B1.  I’m not sure even the most ardent GWR fan could argue one of the locos produced in his tenure had the same impact.  
 

David

[Northmoor]

49 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

Limited only by three firemen's ability to keep shovelling. Somewhat more meritorious than merely waggling a handle ...

I thought this slight edit to your statement was necessary.