Wright writes.....

[johndon]

35 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks John,

 

I'd like to know what came of it. I built it as 61632 after it became ROYAL SOVEREIGN, with the ex-P1 tender. 

 

The whole thing worked out quite well. Mike Russell donated the kit, I provided the wheels/motor, built it, and Ian Rathbone painted it. The Audley End team paid for Ian's painting and I was paid for writing the article. Mike got a set of pictures, one of which he used on the kit's box afterwards. I tested and photographed it (only on film I'm afraid) on Retford, and it was handed over to the quartet of Martin Lloyd, Mark Lloyd, Richard Nice and Harry Anstess (along with Norman Venus, the builders of Biggleswade). It could have ended up in France with Harry, though who's got it now, I don't know. If it's never going to be used, I'd like to get it back (at a fee, of course) for use on Retford. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

I'm seeing Martin and Mark (and possibly Rich) on Saturday so I'll ask if they know.

[Tony Wright]

29 minutes ago, johndon said:

 

I'm seeing Martin and Mark (and possibly Rich) on Saturday so I'll ask if they know.

Thanks John,

 

If they know where it is, and are willing to sell it back (I donated my time for its building because they're mates), then please ask them to let me know. It ran beautifully on Retford on the boat train - it would be nice to see it doing it again.......

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[landscapes]

On 04/01/2023 at 16:17, Tony Wright said:

More on 'Semis' (this magnificent class has no other name to any trainspotter who saw them)......

 

 

 

DUCHESS OF SUTHERLAND looks resplendent in LMS lined black.

 

 

 

But better in LMS maroon?

 

Shots like this pair are impossible now since a decree went out that all the world will be fenced! 

 

 

In model form, a 'Semi' looks good in black (Hornby RTR).

 

 

And in BR blue (built/painted from a DJH kit by Bob Paddison).

 

 

And, certainly in BR maroon. I did this Hornby/Comet conversion and Ian Rathbone painted it. 

 

 

I built a DJH kit, which Geoff Haynes painted.

 

 

It ran on Little Bytham for a short time, recalling 46245's working of a railtour in 1963.

 

 

But now, it's much more at home on Shap.

 

 

Iain Henderson brought his Hornby/Comet conversion along - Horny body/Comet frames. 

 

 

And Timara (as now) Easter brought this detailed/repainted Hornby one to run on LB. 

 

Though splendid in maroon, in my opinion, the 'Semis' looked their best in BR green............

 

 

Hornby/Hornby Dublo's 'Semi' with a die-cast body; detailed by me and weathered by Geoff Haynes. It's now a permanent resident on Shap.

 

 

And a scratch-built one. Started by I know not whom, I built a Comet chassis for it, completed it and Ian Rathbone painted it. 

 

It's now the property of the same friend who owns 46256.

 

Whatever the finished colour (of any loco), when I attend shows, many observers state that metal models look better if left unpainted! 

 

 

Some of these images will have been seen before, but probably hundreds of pages back and thus lost. Fortunately, I have back-up for all the images I paste on RMweb. 

 

 

Hi Tony

 

lovely models

 

They are exceptional locomotives, I remember going round Camden MPD one Sunday morning in very early 1963 and the shed was packed with them they looked enormous to a ten year old boy.

 

Such carefree happy days.

 

Regards

 

David

[robertcwp]

4 hours ago, 65179 said:

 

Not as easy to spot as it was in  1949/50 though I'm sure Robert!

 

A 1950 one from Rail Online:

https://www.rail-online.co.uk/p319746925/h15107f58

 

2 end door thirds and a BG followed by a Tavern car pair tends to stand out.

 

Simon

The photo I had in mind is by Keith Pirt and is on page 58 of the Booklaw Steam Memories 55 on Retford. The caption does acknowledge that the train might be the boat train. The image shows 61363 heading west about to cross the flat crossing. Date given is October 1958. The reason it's clearly the boat train is the visible stock, notably the Gresley RKB second carriage behind a Mark 1 open second. There were only a few such RKB conversions and one was often in the boat train.

[bbishop]

Gentlemen, as merely a modeller of the LSWR and Deutsche Bahn, I must admit to being confused by B2s.  So far as I can tell from this thread, they were a Robinson loco of the GCR that was radically rebuilt by Thomson, with new boiler, cylinders, etc.  Wouldn't have been much left of the original.  Bill

[robertcwp]

12 minutes ago, bbishop said:

Gentlemen, as merely a modeller of the LSWR and Deutsche Bahn, I must admit to being confused by B2s.  So far as I can tell from this thread, they were a Robinson loco of the GCR that was radically rebuilt by Thomson, with new boiler, cylinders, etc.  Wouldn't have been much left of the original.  Bill

The Thompson B2 was a B17 rebuild and the ex-GC ones would have been reclassified much as Thompson did with the original A1 and L1. 

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, robertcwp said:

The Thompson B2 was a B17 rebuild and the ex-GC ones would have been reclassified much as Thompson did with the original A1 and L1. 

 

In the days of my youth, as I recall, I was puzzled by the progression A1, A3, A4, A2, A1. 

[t-b-g]

2 hours ago, bbishop said:

Gentlemen, as merely a modeller of the LSWR and Deutsche Bahn, I must admit to being confused by B2s.  So far as I can tell from this thread, they were a Robinson loco of the GCR that was radically rebuilt by Thomson, with new boiler, cylinders, etc.  Wouldn't have been much left of the original.  Bill

 

Thompson did do a drastic rebuild on a former GCR B3. There wasn't much left from the old loco apart from the front bogie and part of the main frame. The rebuild became a B3/3.

 

It was a one off and no others were done. The rebuild suffered from cracking to the frame and was not very successful.

 

Thompson seemed to like his locos having the lower numbers in the LNER Class system so quite a few existing classes were renumbered to make way for his designs. I can think of B1, B2, A1, L1 and O1 off the top of my head but there may have been others. I often wondered why as it must have created extra work in the drawing offices and in the supply chain for spares etc. if everything had to be altered for existing classes. Previously, the next free number in the sequence had been used for new designs, which seemed a bit easier.

 

So the former GCR B1 class became B18 when Thompson introduced his B1 class. Then when he rebuilt some B17s, he called them B2s, causing the previous ex GCR B2 class to be reclassified as B19. So the old B2 was a pure GCR Class and wasn't rebuilt. The new B2 was a rebuilt B17.

 

All dead simple really.........

 

[bbishop]

So Thompson was a bit of a megalomaniac?  And I thought LSWR classes were complex!

[jwealleans]

6 hours ago, bbishop said:

So Thompson was a bit of a megalomaniac?

 

Brace yourselves, everyone.....

[robertcwp]

6 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

Thompson did do a drastic rebuild on a former GCR B3. There wasn't much left from the old loco apart from the front bogie and part of the main frame. The rebuild became a B3/3.

 

It was a one off and no others were done. The rebuild suffered from cracking to the frame and was not very successful.

 

Thompson seemed to like his locos having the lower numbers in the LNER Class system so quite a few existing classes were renumbered to make way for his designs. I can think of B1, B2, A1, L1 and O1 off the top of my head but there may have been others. I often wondered why as it must have created extra work in the drawing offices and in the supply chain for spares etc. if everything had to be altered for existing classes. Previously, the next free number in the sequence had been used for new designs, which seemed a bit easier.

 

So the former GCR B1 class became B18 when Thompson introduced his B1 class. Then when he rebuilt some B17s, he called them B2s, causing the previous ex GCR B2 class to be reclassified as B19. So the old B2 was a pure GCR Class and wasn't rebuilt. The new B2 was a rebuilt B17.

 

All dead simple really.........

 

The Thompson K1 was another example of using a lower number, using the old LNER K1 - ex GNR H3 - designation. The old ones had all become K2 by then anyway so there was no reclassification of other engines.

 

Here is the only image of the Thompson B3/3 that I have in my collection:

1497_Gorton_12-3-48 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

The Thompson K1, later K1/1, was a rebuild of the Gresley K4. The production series of K1s built shortly after nationalisation are usually attributed to Peppercorn but apart from the gap in the running plate ahead of the cylinders, they seem to me to have been pretty much the Thompson design.

 

Thompson rebuild:

61997 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

Production series:

62005_Westgate-in-Weardale_3Dales_20-5-67_m by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

Edited January 6, 2023 by robertcwp
Add a bit.

[Guest Simon A.C. Martin]

I would suggest that for those who want to learn more about Edward Thompson, they should start with with reading books by Peter Grafton (Edward Thompson of the LNER) and Tim Hillier-Graves (Thompson: His life & locomotives).

 

The former is closer to the time of the events in question and comes in several editions which give a good range of personal information, the latter was published recently and has used aspects of Edward Thompson's and Bert Spencer's personal archives to fill in gaps and explain some things. 

 

Without wishing to incur the wrath of the mods, my book on Edward Thompson is also available from Strathwood Publishing. My work focuses on the archives of the LNER at the National Archives, and the National Railway Museum's search engine facility, which makes it different to Peter Grafton and Tim's work, in that I focus on statistical analysis afforded to us by way of the LNER's Use of Engine Power document, together with the drawings, letters and reports of the LNER board, including their full board minutes 1923-48, and that of the LNER Locomotive Committee too, and the associated archives of the office of the chief mechanical engineer and the mechanical engineers at Darlington, Doncaster, Stratford, Gorton and more.

 

My work and research was put together over a ten year period and the main bulk of the online discussion on Edward Thompson can be found here: https://www.national-preservation.com/threads/edward-thompson-wartime-c-m-e-discussion-2012-2022.35938/ - with a warning that over ten years, views can change: mine certainly did as I did got closer to the primary source material, culminating in publishing my book.

 

Regarding classifications of locomotives for the LNER, Edward Thompson's standardisation programme would have reduced the LNER to 19 classes within a decade, had it gone ahead as intended, with a small set of "standard classes" (new locomotive designs such as the B1 and L1s) and "non-standard to be maintained" (which included much of Gresley's more successful classes, including A3, A4, K3, etc). The reclassification of older, obsolete stock to lower numbers where they were classes intended were to be withdrawn and then deleted from stock makes sense, and indeed Peppercorn continued this with his A1, A2 and K1 classifications as well. 

 

No criticism exists on record for Peppercorn and I doubt it makes much sense to criticise him, or Thompson, for policies which firmly identified that the LNER had a large group of pre-grouping locomotive designs that were to be found wanting by way of performance, mileages and availability by 1942, and required either partial renewal (reboilering/etc) or complete replacement by way of new designs.

 

Nationalisation meant this did not happen as intended, and the introduction of the BR standards to the Eastern and Scottish regions of BR continued the overall intention of the LNER's "Forward" programme of 1945, albeit with some pre-grouping classes lasting longer than intended.

 

When Edward Thompson's work is placed into its proper context, with primary sources examined and everything including the secondary sources considered, you will find an engineer doing his job in the most difficult of circumstances, surrounded by a team of hard working people on the LNER in all the various design offices, engineering facilities and more. When all's said and done, Thompson's time as CME was a successful one, and the LNER were lucky in that they had three talented CMEs in a row who produced some remarkable machines and work for them. Not every railway company is so lucky.

[Tony Wright]

Though in many ways, the most logical of locomotive classification (by way of wheel-arrangement), the LNER's system threw up some surprising anomalies. 

 

For instance, a sub-division, say the difference between an O4/1 and an O4/3 denoted whether a loco had vacuum brake or not (important), yet the A4s were never sub-divided, even though some had corridor tenders and some had non-corridor types. So, a sub-division could mean minor differences (O4/6s having side-window cabs, for instance), yet also signify different classes - A1/1, A2/1, A2/2, A2/3, for instance. 

 

Thompson's 're-defining' of classes might have appeared logical (his classes taking the lowest denomination), though it was completely different from what had gone before (Gresley's designs took the next available number, though he'd thought well ahead by leaving the A4 unused for 12 years). 

 

Though I've never read anything about it, I wonder what ET must have thought when his successor immediately chose the lowest denomination for the three classes he was responsible for? A2, A1 and K1, 'shunting' Thompsons 'equivalent ' designs into the realms of sub-divisions. 

 

I personally think Wright writes has been 'carpet-bombed' (thanks to Graeme King for the apt description) enough of late regarding Edward Thompson and his works. 

 

I did say I'd comment no more on ET (somewhere between the 'extremes' lies, as always, the truth), so right now I'm converting a J6 from OO to EM......... Nothing ET about that! 

Edited January 6, 2023 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Guest Simon A.C. Martin]

Thompson's renumbering/reclassifying (or should I correctly say: the renumbering and reclassifying of classes under Thompson as CME) anticipated that the LNER was about to embark on a wide scale cascading of locomotive types, and start an ambitious scrap, renewal and build new programme for the future.

 

If you have a copy of "Forward", which outlines the LNER's plans for locomotive stock, it becomes obvious very quickly that reclassification of classes isn't just some apocryphal Edward Thompson hang up (which it repeatedly gets portrayed as) but is in fact part of a wider plan throughout the railway company to make the LNER appear more modern as it attempted to genuinely modernise its rolling stock and image.

 

From over 164 separate steam locomotive classes into just 19 types intended: yes, it absolutely makes sense to reorganise and plan for a time when older locomotives are no longer part of the equation.

 

 

Once again, I repeat the need for citations and reference to the primary evidence where railway history is concerned.

 

As always, if there are people genuinely interested in Edward Thompson and want to learn more, my door's always open.

[t-b-g]

2 hours ago, robertcwp said:

The Thompson K1 was another example of using a lower number, using the old LNER K1 - ex GNR H3 - designation. The old ones had all become K2 by then anyway so there was no reclassification of other engines.

 

Here is the only image of the Thompson B3/3 that I have in my collection:

1497_Gorton_12-3-48 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

The Thompson K1, later K1/1, was a rebuild of the Gresley K4. The production series of K1s built shortly after nationalisation are usually attributed to Peppercorn but apart from the gap in the running plate ahead of the cylinders, they seem to me to have been pretty much the Thompson design.

 

Thompson rebuild:

61997 by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

Production series:

62005_Westgate-in-Weardale_3Dales_20-5-67_m by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

I didn't mention the K1 as it was re-using a classification that wasn't in use at the time.

 

The LNER system was certainly interesting and as TW says, had some oddities and inconsistencies. There were two quite distinct varieties of J6, with many parts that were not interchangeable but I don't recall them ever being given divisions within the class.

[MikeParkin65]

8 minutes ago, Simon A.C. Martin said:

Thompson's renumbering/reclassifying (or should I correctly say: the renumbering and reclassifying of classes under Thompson as CME) anticipated that the LNER was about to embark on a wide scale cascading of locomotive types, and start an ambitious scrap, renewal and build new programme for the future.

 

If you have a copy of "Forward", which outlines the LNER's plans for locomotive stock, it becomes obvious very quickly that reclassification of classes isn't just some apocryphal Edward Thompson hang up (which it repeatedly gets portrayed as) but is in fact part of a wider plan throughout the railway company to make the LNER appear more modern as it attempted to genuinely modernise its rolling stock and image.

 

From over 164 separate steam locomotive classes into just 19 types intended: yes, it absolutely makes sense to reorganise and plan for a time when older locomotives are no longer part of the equation.

 

 

Once again, I repeat the need for citations and reference to the primary evidence where railway history is concerned.

 

As always, if there are people genuinely interested in Edward Thompson and want to learn more, my door's always open.

Love that its an A4 on the cover :)

[Guest Simon A.C. Martin]

Just now, MikeParkin65 said:

Love that its an A4 on the cover :)

 

It may surprise you to know that the A4 Pacific was one of Thompson's favourite locomotive classes. His personal archive, recently written on by Tim Hillier-Graves in his book, revealed he spent an inordinate amount of time with the class, including indulging in photography of his own, and collecting papers and articles on them.

 

Thompson's own writings and work on the A4s is well documented, and in particular his efforts, together with the teams around him, in trying to reduce the issues of the middle big end by way of re-design, and lining of the cylinders during the second world war, are of interest.

 

Of course, we know that the A4s were more reliable post war, once maintenance regimes were better again and the setting up of the frames and valve gear at works was improved by K.J. Cook, but his aim was not to remove them from the frontline but to have them as part of that frontline plan going forward.

 

Given his role in the fitting of kylchap double chimneys to the A4 class when mechanical engineer at Darlington, together with his work on the similarly fitted W1, he clearly had a fondness for them. Great Northern, if it had been streamlined as intended, would have been simply the post war A4 Pacific (it is fundamentally a Gresley A4 Pacific fitted with Thompson divided drive at the front end).

 

The A4 class was in the "non standard to be maintained" category and it was Thompson's intention for future class "A1s" or 6ft 8in locos to standardise on the A4 boiler. No further Thompson A1s were built, of course, but the theory was sound and later A4 boilers were fitted to the Gresley A3s in later life. 

[t-b-g]

Tony W has very politely requested that we lay off the discussion on Edward Thompson.

 

I agree with him. It has been done to death and beyond.

 

I suggest that those who wish to continue discussing the man and his works could start their own thread.

 

[LNER4479]

Can I just add 'seconded'? WW is fundamentally about shared enjoyment in railway modelling, principally (but not exclusively) locomotive and rolling stock construction, admiring and seeking inspiration from the work of others. I enjoy keeping track of - and occasionally contributing to - this thread on that basis.

Edited January 6, 2023 by LNER4479

[Pebbles]

I am also heartily sick of the frequent references to Edward Thompson often triggered by the most innocuous comments.

 

I fully agree with t-b-g that any further discussion about the man would be better conduct on a dedicated thread.

[Guest Simon A.C. Martin]

49 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

Tony W has very politely requested that we lay off the discussion on Edward Thompson.

 

I agree with him. It has been done to death and beyond.

 

I suggest that those who wish to continue discussing the man and his works could start their own thread.

 

 

11 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

Thompson did do a drastic rebuild on a former GCR B3. There wasn't much left from the old loco apart from the front bogie and part of the main frame. The rebuild became a B3/3.

 

It was a one off and no others were done. The rebuild suffered from cracking to the frame and was not very successful.

 

Thompson seemed to like his locos having the lower numbers in the LNER Class system so quite a few existing classes were renumbered to make way for his designs. I can think of B1, B2, A1, L1 and O1 off the top of my head but there may have been others. I often wondered why as it must have created extra work in the drawing offices and in the supply chain for spares etc. if everything had to be altered for existing classes. Previously, the next free number in the sequence had been used for new designs, which seemed a bit easier.

 

So the former GCR B1 class became B18 when Thompson introduced his B1 class. Then when he rebuilt some B17s, he called them B2s, causing the previous ex GCR B2 class to be reclassified as B19. So the old B2 was a pure GCR Class and wasn't rebuilt. The new B2 was a rebuilt B17.

 

All dead simple really.........

 

 

14 hours ago, robertcwp said:

The Thompson B2 was a B17 rebuild and the ex-GC ones would have been reclassified much as Thompson did with the original A1 and L1. 

 

4 hours ago, jwealleans said:

 

Brace yourselves, everyone.....

 

What you actually would like is to exclude me from the discussion on Thompson, having started it yourselves.

 

This is basically amounting to gaslighting on your parts.

 

I'll see myself out.

[t-b-g]

2 minutes ago, Simon A.C. Martin said:

 

 

 

 

What you actually would like is to exclude me from the discussion on Thompson, having started it yourselves.

 

This is basically amounting to gaslighting on your parts.

 

I'll see myself out.

 

No Simon. I think there is much to discuss about ET. There is so much to say that I think he deserves his own thread. I have held back from posting things on several occasions as there were signs that it was growing a bit tiresome for others.

 

There will be plenty of people on RMWeb who have things to add about ET who may not look at Wright Writes but will look at a thread with his name in the title.

 

So it is more about getting the discussion into a more appropriate place than about suppressing it.

 

As there are quite a few ET locos on Little Bytham I am sure he will appear again here but perhaps we don't need chapter and verse on his history every time he is mentioned.

[Chamby]

2 hours ago, MikeParkin65 said:

Love that its an A4 on the cover :)

 

Carrying a name allocated to an A3!

[Bernard Lamb]

57 minutes ago, Guest Simon A.C. Martin said:

 

 

 

 

What you actually would like is to exclude me from the discussion on Thompson, having started it yourselves.

 

This is basically amounting to gaslighting on your parts.

 

I'll see myself out.

Says he for the second time.

Simon, if you enter the kitchen you should not be surprised if you find that it can get a bit hot at times.

We have all had to face the heat if we have been involved in controversial topics. Having a long time interest in the railways of Germany from an unusual position to that normally found in the UK I have had run ins with the odd 'political exremist' as I would view them. I just mumble a particular rude German word to myseff and  carry on. I have enjoyed your posts on WW and your contribution will be missed.

Bernard

[D-A-T]

I thoroughly enjoy Wright Writes. I learn from more knowledgeable modellers than myself, I enjoy the banter and I quite often get inspired to try to raise my modelling game. However as soon as the subject of Thompson comes up I start to skip entire ‘chunks’ of the thread as it tends to be pedantic, argumentative and quite often unpleasant. And, not to put too fine a point on it, the same protagonists.

PS I note one of the contributors now has Guest on his name. Is he no longer a member of this Forum?

PPS As an aside my main hobby is sailing. If you ever are amongst a group of sailors and want some fun just say “I think Rocna anchors are useless” and wait for the reactions! Hours of fun to be had. It would make a discussion about Thompson look like a maiden Aunt’s tea party in comparison. 🤣