GWR Shed or MPD?

[Martino]

Sitting in front of the fire with a single malt (well it is that time of year), I got to thinking that I always understood that the GWR called such places either Engine Sheds, Sheds or Works.  However I see that the current trend is to refer to them as MPDs.  Isn’t that something that was an LMS term adopted by British Railways?

[Steamport Southport]

Pretty much my reading of it. 

 

I think the term MPD came in during the 1930s when the government gave loans to the railways to modernise their infrastructure with modern buildings and things such as mechanical coal plants. ISTR the LNER may have also used the term. No idea what the Southern called them.

 

Didcot was one of the "new" sheds. I've never seen them called anything other than engine or running sheds on the GWR.

 

https://didcotrailwaycentre.org.uk/article.php/17/1932-engine-shed

 

https://didcotrailwaycentre.org.uk/article.php/310/the-1932-engine-shed-when-new

 

A works was just that. Many of the larger sheds had a works part where they could undertake almost any overhaul or repair apart from major ones, sometimes including a lifting shop for removing boilers. Didcot's is shown in the links above.

 

 

Jason

[LMS2968]

The term, Motive Power Depot, came with Ernest Lemon's reorganisation of the and revision of shed layouts to improve what we would now call through put. Larger sheds became 'Concentration Depots' and carried the A classification, and  carried out most of the routine maintenance and repairs; they would have a number of sub-sheds termed 'Garages' with the B, C, D, etc. classifications, which simply housed its allocation and carried out minor running repairs, sending the heavier repairs to the A shed. Like many things LMS, it was imposed on the other Regions from Nationalisation.

[Compound2632]

3 hours ago, LMS2968 said:

Like many things LMS, it was imposed on the other Regions from Nationalisation.

 

I am sure what you intended to write was: "Like many things LMS, it was an efficient and effective system from which other Regions only benefitted after Nationalisation."

[LMS2968]

Nice try, but no cigar! It wasn't that efficient once the sheds learned to work the systems. For instance, the washout / X day exams required more than about  two and a half days, taking an engine out of traffic for three days, and hitting the shed's availability figures. How to reduce this? Well, start the job about ten minutes after midnight. The engine was in steam that day for ten minutes, so available. The rest of the day - 23 hours and 50 minutes - saw the engine under exam and / or repair, but the day still counted as available. The following day, it would be in pieces for all twenty-four hours so unavailable for that day. The next - third - day would see the engine reassembled and the fire lit in the late evening, but in that state the engine was, according to the rules, available and so counted as such for that day. The result: for almost three days the engine was in kit form. Number of days counted as unavailable: one.

[Aire Head]

42 minutes ago, LMS2968 said:

Nice try, but no cigar! It wasn't that efficient once the sheds learned to work the systems. For instance, the washout / X day exams required more than about  two and a half days, taking an engine out of traffic for three days, and hitting the shed's availability figures. How to reduce this? Well, start the job about ten minutes after midnight. The engine was in steam that day for ten minutes, so available. The rest of the day - 23 hours and 50 minutes - saw the engine under exam and / or repair, but the day still counted as available. The following day, it would be in pieces for all twenty-four hours so unavailable for that day. The next - third - day would see the engine reassembled and the fire lit in the late evening, but in that state the engine was, according to the rules, available and so counted as such for that day. The result: for almost three days the engine was in kit form. Number of days counted as unavailable: one.

 

Any system can be abused though. Also the example of abuse you provided was more than capable of being done under other systems of organisation.