Wright writes.....

[Compound2632]

14 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thompson (actually 'Newton') cars

 

Now there's interesting. Was it, I wonder, the change of job role and title from "Locomotive Superintendent" to "Chief Mechanical Engineer" that led to the decline in status, or at lease enthusiast awareness, of the name of the person occupying the role previously called "Carriage & Wagon Superintendent"? I only really know about the LMS in this context, where the two principal constituents had a long history of separation of Locomotive and Carriage & Wagon Departments, with separate Board committees. Robert W. Reid was the last C&W Superintendent of the Midland and first of the LMS (though I'm not sure what the LMS called the role); his work in streamlining the production methods at Litchurch Lane and Wolverton is well-known, even if the carriages produced under his superintendency are generally called "Period 1" rather than "Reid" stock, thanks to Jenkinson & Essery. But what they called "Period 3" is very widely referred to as "Stanier" - the names of Reid's successors being lost to enthusiast consciousness.

 

So tell me more about Mr Newton and his revolution (in LNER terms) in carriage design!  

[65179]

12 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Now there's interesting. Was it, I wonder, the change of job role and title from "Locomotive Superintendent" to "Chief Mechanical Engineer" that led to the decline in status, or at lease enthusiast awareness, of the name of the person occupying the role previously called "Carriage & Wagon Superintendent"? I only really know about the LMS in this context, where the two principal constituents had a long history of separation of Locomotive and Carriage & Wagon Departments, with separate Board committees. Robert W. Reid was the last C&W Superintendent of the Midland and first of the LMS (though I'm not sure what the LMS called the role); his work in streamlining the production methods at Litchurch Lane and Wolverton is well-known, even if the carriages produced under his superintendency are generally called "Period 1" rather than "Reid" stock, thanks to Jenkinson & Essery. But what they called "Period 3" is very widely referred to as "Stanier" - the names of Reid's successors being lost to enthusiast consciousness.

 

So tell me more about Mr Newton and his revolution (in LNER terms) in carriage design!  

 

Here he is: 

 

 

(Chief) General Manager of the LNER 1939-1947.   A bit more info here: https://m.facebook.com/DidcotRailwayCentre/photos/a.210517012308528/4022782961081895/?type=3

 

Another one with work experience less parochial than our interests tend to be.

 

Simon

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, 65179 said:

(Chief) General Manager of the LNER 1939-1947. 

 

So if this is the Newton to whom Tony referred, in what sense was he more responsible than Thompson for carriage design? I can see that as GM, he may well have come in and said: "The company needs to move away from these 19th-century wooden-bodied carriages to all-steel or at least steel-panelled ones like the GWR (to say nothing of the LMS)". So he may have been the driver for design change.

 

But I still want to know who was responsible for the engineering and design aspects of LNER carriages - to whom did the C&W Drawing Office staff answer? Gresley and Thompson had each in their turn been C&W Superintendent on the Great Northern - did Thompson initially occupy that position on the LNER? - so the CME always, one might suppose, have had a lively interest in the C&W side pf his responsibilities?

[t-b-g]

17 minutes ago, 65179 said:

 

Here he is: 

 

 

(Chief) General Manager of the LNER 1939-1947.   A bit more info here: https://m.facebook.com/DidcotRailwayCentre/photos/a.210517012308528/4022782961081895/?type=3

 

Another one with work experience less parochial than our interests tend to be.

 

Simon

 

I would be surprised if that is the same man. It would be odd for a General Manager to be designing carriages. It is more likely that the Newton who designed the carriages was a senior draftsman rather than a General Manager. Malcolm Crawley always referred to the carriages as "Newton" but he didn't like giving Thompson any credit for anything. Most things on the rails were actually designed by relatively unknown people in drawing offices but they ended up bearing the name of the CME.

 

 

[jwealleans]

I don't have my books to hand, but I believe the initiative to design a new carriage came from Newton late in the War.   The first one was commonly known as the 'Newton coach'.   As to who did the actual design, I'm not sure I've ever come across specific names, though as CME Thompson would have approved it.   There was an attempt to design a cheaper bogie at the same time, but trials showed that it was inferior to the Gresley design and so it was dropped.

 

Would the minutes of the Rolling Stock Committee, if they survive, throw any more light?

 

Whoever was ultimately responsible (and there were probably many hands involved) they are an attractive vehicle.

[65179]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

 

I would be surprised if that is the same man. It would be odd for a General Manager to be designing carriages. It is more likely that the Newton who designed the carriages was a senior draftsman rather than a General Manager. Malcolm Crawley always referred to the carriages as "Newton" but he didn't like giving Thompson any credit for anything. Most things on the rails were actually designed by relatively unknown people in drawing offices but they ended up bearing the name of the CME.

 

 

 

I do tend to try and avoid posting random nonsense Tony.  

 

As Jonathan alludes to, Harris refers to to Newton's May 1944 report to the Emergency Board of the LNER about carriage shortages. This was followed by his November 1944 report which set out proposals for construction of 4600 vehicles. This went into detail about the characteristics of the stock. Prototype Corridor 1st 1531 built in early 1945 embodied many of these features and was sometimes referred to as the Newton coach. He won't have been the designer (and I can't answer the questions Stephen posed), but it is the Chief General Manager's name that gets attached to this first coach and by extension what we call Thompsons in general.

 

Simon

Edited December 13, 2023 by 65179

[drmditch]

This is discussed in Harris, LNER Carriages. See Chapter 12.

'A memo dated November 1944 from Newton to the Emergency Board and this set the main principles of the stock to be built'

'A prototype standard carriage had appeared during January 1945 in the shape of vestibule first No.1531.'

'This, at the time known as the Newton coach, entered service to the accompaniment of a major exercise in public consultation'

Mention is made of a brochure entitled Design for Comfort, inviting comments/suggestions by/from passengers.

 

In the next column (page 102)  Mr Harris refers to 'The first of the postwar, Newton or Thompson carriages - all titles are relevant - were approved  by the Emergency Board at it's May 1944 meeting.......'

 

The critical factor for 21st century basic modellers like me is the 'introduction from 1949 of radiussed  corners  to the large bodyside windows.........'

(See page 104.)

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, jwealleans said:

I don't have my books to hand, but I believe the initiative to design a new carriage came from Newton late in the War.   The first one was commonly known as the 'Newton coach'.   As to who did the actual design, I'm not sure I've ever come across specific names, though as CME Thompson would have approved it.   There was an attempt to design a cheaper bogie at the same time, but trials showed that it was inferior to the Gresley design and so it was dropped.

 

Would the minutes of the Rolling Stock Committee, if they survive, throw any more light?

 

Whoever was ultimately responsible (and there were probably many hands involved) they are an attractive vehicle.

Good afternoon Jonathan,

 

The 'Newton' coach was indeed the initiative of Sir Charles Newton, but the responsibility for the design at the time would have been Thompson's. Interestingly, because the design/construction/appearance was so different from the previous Gresley carriage designs, perhaps Thompson thought he (or his designer) would 'invent' a new bogie for it; which was quickly dropped because it was inferior to the Gresley double-bolster design. History was to repeat itself a decade later when Gresley HD bogies were fitted underneath some Mk.1 catering cars because the original B1s rode so poorly. 

 

The 'Newton/Thompson' carriages are indeed very attractive vehicles. My being partisan insists that they were the finest-looking (and riding) pre-Nationalisation carriages ever to grace our railways, especially in full sets. 

 

As here, in model form................

 

 

'The Elizabethan' as first built by me to run on Stoke Summit.

 

 

 

Now running, of course, on Little Bytham.

 

The uncluttered roofs on most of the cars is evident in the third shot (the Aberdeen pair of Mk.1s bringing up the rear).

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

[melmoth]

Re: The Newton Coach. Michael Bonavia (who was working for the LNER around that time) says this in the relevant volume of his history of the company:

 

 

[Mark Laidlay]

Talking about the loco famous for being famous, my model arrived today from China via Germany and TMC.  It’s my only H0 scale British loco and likely to stay that way, although I have vague recollections of having a Lima 4F somewhere.

Is funnel too big?

What’s that bit of green between the splashers between the front two axles, the drive from the motor appears to go to the rear drivers.

Why is there no effort at modelling the drawbar between the loco and tender?

What can I do about the moving frame when only the rear axle should be moving?  I suppose that’s the price of buying a model that can go around tight curves.

The cab numbers are surely wrongly positioned, was that right at any time?

It’s a big step from the tender to the first coach, I could have got a shorter NEM Kadee.

The green looks better in the flesh (plastic) than the photos.

It looks just right the way the NSWGR coaches demonstrate the size difference.

[Compound2632]

6 hours ago, t-b-g said:

I would be surprised if that is the same man. It would be odd for a General Manager to be designing carriages.

 

Not designing but specifying - laying down the operational requirements (ease of boarding / disembarking), as the extract @melmoth posted shows.

 

Thank you all, this has been most informative, though I still hanker to know who was in charge of working out the detail. One would like to be a fly on the wall in any drawing office as the design of any locomotive, carriage, or wagon was thrashed out!

[billbedford]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

Thank you all, this has been most informative, though I still hanker to know who was in charge of working out the detail. One would like to be a fly on the wall in any drawing office as the design of any locomotive, carriage, or wagon was thrashed out!

 

Presumably the Chief Draughtsman at York Carriage Works.

6 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

perhaps Thompson thought he (or his designer) would 'invent' a new bogie for it; which was quickly dropped because it was inferior to the Gresley double-bolster design.

 

Not sure about this. The early bogies look suspiciously like GER products. I wonder if they were always intended to be stop-gaps until new Spencer-Moulton bogies could be made. I believe an outside company made the steelwork, maybe Metro-Cammel?

[Tony Wright]

More on the Little Engines O4/7............

 

 

Test running today with a full load proved entirely satisfactory.

 

 

 

I've equipped this loco with a 'goalpost' at both ends because I'll have it running in reverse from time to time (not uncommon, though maybe not for long distances on the main line). 

 

 

Plotting the positions for the handrails' height was done by using my usual gauge (seen before), measurements being taken from the Isinglass drawing. 

 

 

Followed by the use of spring dividers, a scriber and a pin vice.

 

 

To reach this stage this evening. 

 

A large amount of metal needed removing from the smokebox front to accommodate the door. 

 

Not much more to do now. 

 

 

[Mark Laidlay]

A couple of photos showing the size difference between 4mm and 3.5mm scales.

[Pint of Adnams]

On 13/12/2023 at 09:49, Compound2632 said:

 

Now there's interesting. Was it, I wonder, the change of job role and title from "Locomotive Superintendent" to "Chief Mechanical Engineer" that led to the decline in status, or at lease enthusiast awareness, of the name of the person occupying the role previously called "Carriage & Wagon Superintendent"? I only really know about the LMS in this context, where the two principal constituents had a long history of separation of Locomotive and Carriage & Wagon Departments, with separate Board committees. Robert W. Reid was the last C&W Superintendent of the Midland and first of the LMS (though I'm not sure what the LMS called the role); his work in streamlining the production methods at Litchurch Lane and Wolverton is well-known, even if the carriages produced under his superintendency are generally called "Period 1" rather than "Reid" stock, thanks to Jenkinson & Essery. But what they called "Period 3" is very widely referred to as "Stanier" - the names of Reid's successors being lost to enthusiast consciousness.

 

So tell me more about Mr Newton and his revolution (in LNER terms) in carriage design!  

 

Others have provided chapter and verse but while Sir Charles Newton grew up as an accountant he was also a true railwayman and qualified in a number of aspects of railway operation.

 

The impetus for the future planning of the LNER came from the Chief General Manager's Office in the guise of the Forward Plan, summarised for the public in a 24-page booklet which also referred to the consultation through that office undertaken the previous year on the design and layout for future coaching stock. The engineering design may have been under the CME's office but the concepts were Newton's. There were several drivers for the changes to the design of the coaching stock, including the increased cost of teak but the government's restrictions on uses for steel that mandated the use of teak and oak framing with deal and canvas roofs still; the problems experienced during WW2 of the difficulties of access to, egress from, and movement within crowded carriages that had end doors only and, perhaps most significant, the difficulties of escape in the event of fire that had been evidenced in accidents.

 

 

Edited December 15, 2023 by Pint of Adnams

[t-b-g]

1 hour ago, Pint of Adnams said:

 

Others have provided chapter and verse but while Sir Charles Newton grew up as an accountant he was also a true railwayman and qualified in a number of aspects of railway operation.

 

The impetus for the future planning of the LNER came from the Chief General Manager's Office in the guise of the Forward Plan, summarised for the public in a 24-page booklet which also referred to the consultation through that office undertaken the previous year on the design and layout for future coaching stock. The engineering design may have been under the CME's office but the concepts were Newton's. There were several drivers for the changes to the design of the coaching stock, including the increased cost of teak but the government's restrictions on uses for steel that mandated the use of oak framing; the problems experienced during WW2 of the difficulties of access to, egress from, and movement within crowded carriages that had end doors only and, perhaps most significant, the difficulties of escape in the event of fire that had been evidenced in accidents.

 

 

 

A most interesting document and thanks for posting it.

 

I wonder if any of the ideas that had been gathered through the public consultation were ever implemented, or if nationalisation put an end to such plans?

[Bucoops]

No doubt they deliberately didn't mention that prior to the end door design, each compartment had it's own door on one side, and there were several doors on the corridor side - e.g. D21, D23 and D115 TKs had 4 doors for 8 compartments. Presumably returning to that style was ruled out due to cost and structural integrity reasons.

[MJI]

talking about carriages just spent £100 on some

 

An ex LMS BT  to go with my LRM 0-4-4T - Comet

Two Mark 3 TFs for another HST set - Hornby

[Pint of Adnams]

On 13/12/2023 at 09:23, Tony Wright said:

Good morning Rich,

 

I agree; I have seen pictures of new Thompson (actually 'Newton') cars where the oval windows appear to be frosted, but in every image I've discovered so far of these carriages in BR service (carmine-cream/maroon/blue grey) the oval windows are white (as are some of the rectangular windows in the catering cars, and certainly in Gresley cars as well).

 

They do look very distinctive. A few model examples............

 

 

Also Bachmann. Not really white enough?

 

I make the oval windows white in the simplest way. Use clear Plastiglaze to begin with, then paint the insides with white enamel.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

Crimson and Cream suited them best (we had this conversation at Ely show). Photographs show vary degrees of 'whiteness' for the oval corridor windows opposite the lavatories, some being clear enough to see the handrail through (see below), predominantly opaque->white for the lavatory windows themselves, and white at the catering sections of those cars.

 

 

[Pint of Adnams]

2 hours ago, Bucoops said:

No doubt they deliberately didn't mention that prior to the end door design, each compartment had it's own door on one side, and there were several doors on the corridor side - e.g. D21, D23 and D115 TKs had 4 doors for 8 compartments. Presumably returning to that style was ruled out due to cost and structural integrity reasons.

 

Gresley tried to get the Superintendents and Passenger Managers to move away from that, for the reasons you mention, as far back as pre-WW1 GN days, and when he wanted to try steel bodies. The Superintendents and Passenger Managers remained firmly of the opinion that passengers preferred compartments and individual doors, even though the NER for example had built some very neat end-door opens, and would not be swayed until well into the 1930s and long after the LMS and GWR.

[Bucoops]

55 minutes ago, Pint of Adnams said:

 

Gresley tried to get the Superintendents and Passenger Managers to move away from that, for the reasons you mention, as far back as pre-WW1 GN days, and when he wanted to try steel bodies. The Superintendents and Passenger Managers remained firmly of the opinion that passengers preferred compartments and individual doors, even though the NER for example had built some very neat end-door opens, and would not be swayed until well into the 1930s and long after the LMS and GWR.

 

It's frustrating for me all these years later - how many extra door hinges, handles and commode handles I have to do as a result 😁

[MJI]

4 minutes ago, Bucoops said:

 

It's frustrating for me all these years later - how many extra door hinges, handles and commode handles I have to do as a result 😁

I know the feeling my next two kits are a gwr tk c54 and a piii lms bt lots if doors and i forgot to order more hinges.

 

Rtr detailing is easier, 4 grab handkes, 4 door handles, 4 roof handles, 4 end handles, done .

[Tony Wright]

The Little Engines O4/7 is complete......

 

 

What a fag erecting the motion! I thought it would just take an hour, but treble that. 

 

Clearances were very tight (how anyone builds these in EM, I don't know), and the fold-together etched slidebars were beyond my capabilities. In the end, I used straight brass stock of the appropriate section. 

 

 

Still, I think it's turned out OK, representing around 20 hours of (mostly) enjoyable modelling spread over a few days, 

 

The house I lived in for quite some time in Chester overlooked the teacher training college fields, and beyond that was the ex-GC line from Chester to Wrexham and the Wirral. Though not near enough to read numbers, with binoculars the various classes could be identified, and O4/7s from Manchester were quite common as they plodded along to and from Dee Marsh. 

 

Of an evening, mates and I would meet up on Brook Lane bridge, which carried the thoroughfare of that name over the line from Chester General to Birkenhead. During that time there were several freights with interesting motive power (some ex-GWR), which didn't go through the General (hence our 'spotting location). Brook Lane ran parallel to the CLC/GC mentioned in my last paragraph, and freights would appear on that at the same time; on one occasion, O4/7-hauled, called-on by the most magnificent example of a CLC bracket signal. 

 

All long, long gone now. Not just the derivatives of the GC 2-8-0s, but the whole line itself; just a cycle track today, with the land carrying the triangle to Northgate station all built on. Though the line to Birkenhead survives, 3-rail Mersey units now ply the trade which used to be the job of powerful 2-6-4Ts before the DMUs came and went. 

 

Thank goodness I can keep alive my memories by making models of the classes I saw..................

 

 

[Tony Wright]

My Christmas task will be to add all the separate details to these latest Rapido models......

 

Including.......

 

 

The ex-NER Dynamometer Car, made famous as the fastest clerestory carriage in history when it flashed through Little Bytham at over two miles a minute behind MALLARD on that great day in July 1938. 

 

The model represents the car when it recorded performance in the '48 BR Exchanges, a decade later. 

 

There are many 'detailing' bits to fit, including some incredibly fine, pierced etched covers for the end windows' protection. I'm going to have to be incredibly careful with my use of superglue, because this is a magnificent model. 

 

It was originally only available through Rails of Sheffield, but this is a separate run. Did Golden Age once make a model of it, too.

 

 

Even more detailing bits are supplied with Rapido's Wisbech & Upwell depiction, in splendid GER condition. 

 

I do hope my hands will be steady!  

[Michael Edge]

10 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

All long, long gone now. Not just the derivatives of the GC 2-8-0s, but the whole line itself; just a cycle track today, with the land carrying the triangle to Northgate station all built on. Though the line to Birkenhead survives, 3-rail Mersey units now ply the trade which used to be the job of powerful 2-6-4Ts before the DMUs came and went. 

 

Thank goodness I can keep alive my memories by making models of the classes I saw..................

 

 

It is at least a very nice cycle track, we rode the whole length of it earlier this year.