Thompson's standardization programme

[scots region]

Hello all, for the past six topics I have asked your help; now though I will repay the favor. So here is a list of Edward Thompson's standard designs, PLEASE NOTE due to Thompson short stay as CME of the LNER not all of the designs on the list were built or progressed beyond the prototype.

 

1) 4-6-2 A1, Express passenger, prototype rebuilt from Gresley A1 4470 Great Northern and latter reclassified as A1/1, this Loco remained the sole example.

 

2) 4-6-2 A2, Heavy passenger and freight, six Locomotives in class all rebuilt from Gresley P2s, latter reclassified as A2/2s.

 

3) 4-6-0 B1, General utility type, new design made from standard components, 409 Locos in class originally 410, one destroyed in accident and never replaced.

 

4) 2-6-0 K1, Mixed traffic, prototype rebuilt from Gresley K4, 70 in class, prototype completed by Thompson, the class was modified and completed under Peppercorn.

 

5) 2-8-0 O1, Mineral, prototype rebuilt from GCR Robinson's O4, 58 in class

 

6) 0-6-0 J11, Freight, 30 GCR J11s received long travel piston valves under Thompson, there were no further modifications.

 

7) 2-6-4T L1, Mixed traffic, totally new design, 100 Locos in class.

 

8) 0-8-0T Q1, Heavy shunting, rebuild from obsolete GCR 0-8-0s, 13 Locos in class.

 

9) 0-6-0T J50, Medium shunting, Locomotive proposed but never built

 

10) Light shunter, design proposed but never built.

 

 

Taken from O.S.Nock's BRITISH LOCOMOTIVES OF THE 20th CENTURY Volume 2 1930-1960 published by Guild Publishing. All copyright belongs to them.

[AMJ]

I bet that 9 & 10 on your list were replaced by the heavy & light diesel shunters quivalent to the 08 and 04's. Prototypes of which were operated in the latter days of the LNER.

 

The hypothetical electrics and diesel replacements of steam have been discussed many times before but atleast we have some idea from the EM1 & EM2's. I often thing that the 91 is an AC electric version of the A4 and have not been suprised to see both in each others liveries in the hypothetical liveries repaints.

[ArthurK]

In reponse to the above in category 10 we have the 28 NER J72s turned out after BR took over although as far as I am aware these were never classified as "standard".

[The Stationmaster]

According to 'Locomotives of The LNER' written by O.s. Nock and published by the LNER in 1947 a prototype of Type Number, the J50 'medium shunting tank' was built and is illustrated as 8983 'rebuilt from a GNR design.

 

It might also be useful to add the 'Non-Standard Types to be Maintained', as follows

 

1. 4-6-2 A10 Gresley pacifics (to be reboilered as A3)

2. 4-6-2 A3 Gresley pacifics, as built

3. 4-6-2 A4 Gresley pacifics, as built

4. 4-6-0 B17 'Sandringhams' To be converted to B2 class, identical with B1

except for larger driving wheels.

5. 4-4-0 D49 'Hunt' & 'shire' classes, experimental rebuilding in hand.

6. 4-6-0 B16 Valve gear to be modified (to walschaerts).

7. 2-6-0 K3 being fitted with two cylinders and higher pressure boiler,

rebuilt to class K5.

8. 2-6-2 V2

9. 2-8-0 04 GCR mineral type when reboilered and fitted with new cylinders

becomes new 01 standard type.

10. 2-6-2T V1

11. 2-6-2T V3

[scots region]

According to 'Locomotives of The LNER' written by O.s. Nock and published by the LNER in 1947 a prototype of Type Number, the J50 'medium shunting tank' was built and is illustrated as 8983 'rebuilt from a GNR design.

 

It might also be useful to add the 'Non-Standard Types to be Maintained', as follows

 

1. 4-6-2 A10 Gresley pacifics (to be reboilered as A3)

2. 4-6-2 A3 Gresley pacifics, as built

3. 4-6-2 A4 Gresley pacifics, as built

4. 4-6-0 B17 'Sandringhams' To be converted to B2 class, identical with B1

except for larger driving wheels.

5. 4-4-0 D49 'Hunt' & 'shire' classes, experimental rebuilding in hand.

6. 4-6-0 B16 Valve gear to be modified (to walschaerts).

7. 2-6-0 K3 being fitted with two cylinders and higher pressure boiler,

rebuilt to class K5.

8. 2-6-2 V2

9. 2-8-0 04 GCR mineral type when reboilered and fitted with new cylinders

becomes new 01 standard type.

10. 2-6-2T V1

11. 2-6-2T V3

 

 

Any chance of a photograph of 8983? I believe that Thompson intended that the A10s to follow Great Northern, am I wrong, let me know. Only one K5, 206, was built, 365 The Morpeth was rebuilt with two inside cylinders. Tip if you want to model it Hornby's Edward would be a good start.

[cbeagleowner]

I do love talking Thompson...

 

A great place to find our about some of these things and more is Peter Grafton's Edward Thompson of the LNER. It's a fascintating, understanding and unbiased look at the life of a much maligned man who probably wasn't the best people person. It realy helps you understand the man, and the siutation he was in as well as his designs. Well worth a read. You can also see some of his designs in picture here.

 

Another, and I think it fair to say more negative approach to Thompson, but just as interesting is Col.HCB rogers Thompson and Peppercorn loco engineers. Again, a good load of photos and text. The colonel is no Thompson fan it's fair to say!

 

I don't have the Nock book so don't know exaclty what it says except the above quote, but if that's right it's wrong. The J50 was the only one of Gresley's designs (GNR - 1914 ish?) that was selected as a standard as it was good! I'm afraid that I can't find any speical reference to 8983 in my books, though RCTS is in my daughters room and she's asleep (hopefully!) at the moment. But J50's were two a penny.

 

All in all, I wonder what you folks make of ET's scheme? I think that he wasn't the best engineeer. He had hits and misses (probably more hits then he's given credit for). But he's no Chapelon. But there was some sense to a person in the mid 1940's with the realities of how things were trying to think of standardisation. Though whether actually bearing in mind the very situation it was wise, achievaeble, ET went about it in the right way, or it could have delivered it are up for debate!

 

Hope that's of some use, as I say, I do enjoy tlaking Thompson. There's a lot more to say I think then he just wrecked the P2's...

[micklner]

A2/1 A2/3 ????

[The Stationmaster]

I do love talking Thompson...

 

A great place to find our about some of these things and more is Peter Grafton's Edward Thompson of the LNER. It's a fascintating, understanding and unbiased look at the life of a much maligned man who probably wasn't the best people person. It realy helps you understand the man, and the siutation he was in as well as his designs. Well worth a read. You can also see some of his designs in picture here.

 

Another, and I think it fair to say more negative approach to Thompson, but just as interesting is Col.HCB rogers Thompson and Peppercorn loco engineers. Again, a good load of photos and text. The colonel is no Thompson fan it's fair to say!

 

I don't have the Nock book so don't know exaclty what it says except the above quote, but if that's right it's wrong. The J50 was the only one of Gresley's designs (GNR - 1914 ish?) that was selected as a standard as it was good! I'm afraid that I can't find any speical reference to 8983 in my books, though RCTS is in my daughters room and she's asleep (hopefully!) at the moment. But J50's were two a penny.

 

All in all, I wonder what you folks make of ET's scheme? I think that he wasn't the best engineeer. He had hits and misses (probably more hits then he's given credit for). But he's no Chapelon. But there was some sense to a person in the mid 1940's with the realities of how things were trying to think of standardisation. Though whether actually bearing in mind the very situation it was wise, achievaeble, ET went about it in the right way, or it could have delivered it are up for debate!

 

Hope that's of some use, as I say, I do enjoy tlaking Thompson. There's a lot more to say I think then he just wrecked the P2's...

 

 

I'm no expert on LNER tank engines or the subtleties thereof but the picture of 8983 (can't scan at present alas) looks to me just like most other J50s although it has got a hopper style top on the bunker (so long since I saw one I can't remember what they had 'normally').

 

The A10s were, according to my understanding, the remaining A1s which we reclassified to make way for the new A1s. The book is quite clear that they were to be turned into A3s - in other words a continuation of earlier policy.

 

As far as the standardisation plan is concerned I think it was very sound in its aspirations and basic idea as the LNER still had a right hodge-podge of a loco fleet with large numbers of riuundown locos still suffering the after-effects of wartime working; it made very good sense to rationalise, severely.

 

But alas the results don't seem to have been as good as the intentions with some of Thompson's designs lacking robustness and tending to become extremely rough riding, and rough in other ways too, as they put on the mileage. Most enginement who had the choice would take a B16 over a B1 any day of the week and some would purposely fail B1s in order to get a B16. Those without experience of B16s don't seem to have been so choosy but B1s could get very rough and a pal of mine was nearly thrown right off one.

 

So yes - the idea to go for simplicity was good, the intention to reduce the number of 3 cylinder locos and Gresley-Holcroft valve gear also made sense in post-war conditions. But the execution left something to be desired.

[Guest Max Stafford]

Personally, I'm a member of the pro-Thompson camp. Much, nay, too much has been said about the alleged grudge against Gresley which I consider was probably non-existent. Gresley had a great respect for Thompson's organisational flair and was very supportive of him during his time in office. Both had fundamentally different philosophies about what made a useful locomotive though which is primarily what drove Thompson in his efforts to standardise LNER motive power. It's no coincidence that he was a great admirer of Stanier's work on the LMS. It also needs to be understood that when Thompson took office, the proverbial was hitting the fan all across the world, meaning that there was little room for sentiment when it came to having a fleet of functioning and available locomotives to serve the country in its hour of direst need. Although it cannot be denied that the P2s were a particularly elegant design, they were beginning to develop very serious problems due to the lack of specialist care that could be afforded them in the middle of 'total war'. Whilst some argue that re-deployment of the class in the south would have been a better option, it doesn't address the very real problems of serviceability which plagued the P2s during the war years. Although conjugated valve gear works well when it's properly maintained, it is by necessity high maintenance - something you can't really have when half the fitters are in Egypt holding back Rommel...!

 

Dave.

[cbeagleowner]

I just looked up the J50's in RCTS and can't find any mention of them connected with ET except they were the standard shunter.

 

I would echo both Mike's comments about ET's scheme and Dave's about the P2's.

 

I think with the P2's especially they could have been used better further south with their power, but maybe it was simply it would have been too difficult to look after them as they were by no means the finished article. I guess it woudl be interesting to see what people would have said if A2/2's would have been good engines, whether people would still have been as critical.

 

A2/1's weren't a hit to be fair, but A2/3's weren't all bad. Their steam circuit was excellent and they powerful and free running. I don't know if to ride on they were any worse then some Pep A1's. Obviously the front end always was a problem, and it only came about because of one of ET's things about connecting rods being of equal length. But they did last to the end. It's worth saying that the A2/1's and A2/2's also weren't withdrawn early because they were particualy rubbish but because they were small classes.

 

As far as I know, many of his other rebuild weren't bad. It was that they just weren't better eg B2's over B17 or K5 over K1. I think. Feel free to correct me on that as I've not read about these things for a while.

 

He did also pioneer the K1 - his K1/1 being a good engine, and imho looking a bit nicer then a Pep K1. So he got a hit there I think too.

 

Mike - it would be interesting to know what the drivers thought of the Raven / Gresley / Thompson B16's - did they have a favourite of them all?

[scots region]

Personally, I'm a member of the pro-Thompson camp. Much, nay, too much has been said about the alleged grudge against Gresley which I consider was probably non-existent. Gresley had a great respect for Thompson's organisational flair and was very supportive of him during his time in office. Both had fundamentally different philosophies about what made a useful locomotive though which is primarily what drove Thompson in his efforts to standardise LNER motive power. It's no coincidence that he was a great admirer of Stanier's work on the LMS. It also needs to be understood that when Thompson took office, the proverbial was hitting the fan all across the world, meaning that there was little room for sentiment when it came to having a fleet of functioning and available locomotives to serve the country in its hour of direst need. Although it cannot be denied that the P2s were a particularly elegant design, they were beginning to develop very serious problems due to the lack of specialist care that could be afforded them in the middle of 'total war'. Whilst some argue that re-deployment of the class in the south would have been a better option, it doesn't address the very real problems of serviceability which plagued the P2s during the war years. Although conjugated valve gear works well when it's properly maintained, it is by necessity high maintenance - something you can't really have when half the fitters are in Egypt holding back Rommel...!

 

Dave.

 

Excellent point, after the war Britains Railways needed planned and consice devlopment, standardization was an option it was a nessity.

[Guest Max Stafford]

Rich has stated the rebuilds were no better performance wise. This is probably correct, but remember that this is only part of the overall picture. A simpler arrangement and standardised parts render all sorts of operational advantages in terms of availability, reliability, eased maintenance and reduced pool of spares. All these factors would have been of primary importance in the cash and staff-strapped mid-late 1940s. It's likely that these factors more than compensated for any lack of improvement in performance.

 

Dave.

[cbeagleowner]

I think that's right too Dave - we so easily see things clearly don't we, without actualy taking into account all the so many other factors!

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Standardisation only fully delivers on its' promise if it is possible to scrap and replace. If you start with 150 locomotive classes to maintain, and introduce ten new 'standards', that's now 160 classes to maintain; a degraded situation. To show a significant saving on maintenance, it is necessary to quickly scrap a lot of the variety to really reduce the class numbers in service. ( The same observation applies to Riddles' hopelessly botched standard steam power scheme for BR, it increased the variety in service, and only produced one 'winner' significantly more capable than anything previous.)

 

In this respect it is the B1 that was the clear success. Gresley had realised the need for a medium power lightweight design, and his design priorities saw Doncaster produce something good but expensive; the cheap but effective job that was the B1 was that all important thing in the circumstances: affordable. Many worn out (and fully written off from a financial standpoint) Atlantics, 4-4-0 and 4-6-0 types of dated design (often with limited numbers in service) were able to be cleared away by the introduction of this one type.

 

 

[Mallard60022]

Just thought I would say that I really like his coaches too, especially the ER main line stuff. Was that part of a 'standardisation' programme of stock?

36E

[cbeagleowner]

I guess standardisation isn't always the answer. It's a philosphy, which might fit a time. HOwever, it's fair to say that Gresley's 'bespoke' philosophy also worked WW2 aside. I do wonder at the time just how much people were preparing for war in the 30's and how that was reflected in the railway industry.