What could have ended the Midland's 'small engine' policy

[clecklewyke]

Brilliant! WD Austerity with designed in "Clank". I wonder which draftsman came up with that idea!

 

Tony

I'm sure I read somewhere that locos with the tolerances of those coming out of Doncaster works would be regarded as needing overhaul if they had been on the Western region. 

 

(Probably a wind-up?)

 

My mate Brian (W) Lewis produced a super sound file for my WD with a very realistic clank.

 

Ian

[t-b-g]

I'm sure I read somewhere that locos with the tolerances of those coming out of Doncaster works would be regarded as needing overhaul if they had been on the Western region. 

 

(Probably a wind-up?)

 

My mate Brian (W) Lewis produced a super sound file for my WD with a very realistic clank.

 

Ian

 

You were close! Doncaster was certainly not the best works for quality of engineering but it was far from the worst.

 

Malcolm Crawley was once involved in a project (in the 1950s) to improve workshop practices at Doncaster, which involved him visiting other works. Two of those were Swindon and Crewe. Although not a huge GWR fan he was highly impressed with the quality of work at Swindon and certain practices were adopted from there, particularly to do with frame alignment.

 

Crewe, on the other hand, was turning out locos with engineering tolerances that would have been regarded as ready for scrapping by Swindon.

 

This wasn't a wind up, it was based on actual measurements of various parts of locomotives as they either came in or left the works.

[coachmann]

I stepped down for a pee and a look around our Austerity while waiting for the road out of Rochdale one afternoon. It was the first time that I noticed the huge balance weight on the third driving wheel stuck out so far that the surface showed it was being hit/wiped by the coupling rods.  Now't to do with Midland small engine policy but there we are........  .

[jamie92208]

You were close! Doncaster was certainly not the best works for quality of engineering but it was far from the worst.

 

Malcolm Crawley was once involved in a project (in the 1950s) to improve workshop practices at Doncaster, which involved him visiting other works. Two of those were Swindon and Crewe. Although not a huge GWR fan he was highly impressed with the quality of work at Swindon and certain practices were adopted from there, particularly to do with frame alignment.

 

Crewe, on the other hand, was turning out locos with engineering tolerances that would have been regarded as ready for scrapping by Swindon.

 

This wasn't a wind up, it was based on actual measurements of various parts of locomotives as they either came in or left the works.

There is a very good story in one of the books on the 9F's.  Apparently someone at HQ noticed that Swindon's machining costs were much lower than Crewe's and that Crewe's foundry costs were lower than  Swindons, so ordered some parts for the next batch of 9F's to be cast at Crewe and Machined at Swindon.  The result was a batch of parts that cost more than from either works.  Apparently due to Swindon having much finer casting tolerances than Crewe's foundry.  Consequently the machining coast at swindon for the Crewe produced castings were horrendous.

 

However it wasn't just the railway works that had problems.  Malcolm Crawley told another story of being involved in commissiond a series of diesles at Doncaster that were built by an outside company.  Apparently he insisted that on delivery they be put over a pit and the gearboxes drained and examined.   This was after a stanbge transmission noise in a new loco had been traced to a large bolt loose inside the gear casing.

 

Jamie

[jwealleans]

I often wonder how much better people would think of Thompson if he had just designed his own locos, instead of making his first task to take the historic first Gresley pacific, "Great Northern" and completely altering it.

 

I'm no friend of Thompson, but I believe the choice of loco was actually down to the Doncaster Works Manager.  Granted Thompson refused to alter that choice, but I feel he's been unjustly tarred with more malice than may have been the case.  When I find the source of that information (it was in the Gresley Society magazine) I'll post a reference.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...Malcolm Crawley was once involved in a project (in the 1950s) to improve workshop practices at Doncaster, which involved him visiting other works. Two of those were Swindon and Crewe. Although not a huge GWR fan he was highly impressed with the quality of work at Swindon and certain practices were adopted from there, particularly to do with frame alignment....

 There is a lot of evidence of this from various sources. The GWR had been wealthy enough to invest in optical frame alignment among much else in the way of superior engineering shop kit for precision in parts production and loco erection and repair. Swindon was significantly reaping the benefit of the resulting 'virtuous circle' of better production technique leading to subsequent reduced running and repair cost from the 1920s on. Less wealthy companies, (and the GNR and LNER certainly fall into this bracket) had to make do with older equipment and get what they could from it. The only way forward for them was a better intrinsic design, and that is the story behind much of what drove design progress at Doncaster.

 

Bill Harvey writes very interestingly on the subject of component quality as seen during his apprenticeship. One of the telling descriptions is that his chargehand erector - and those leading the other teams - would select from the batches of parts supplied the better pieces first. As a result the final locos from a typical batch run of 10 or 20 would get a concentration of the poorer components, and take significantly longer to erect due to the extra machining and fitting required. It is very likely that these machines were also the 'lemons' from the batch, performance compromised by a lot of borderline to spec components.

 

I have had considerable career experience in pushing for better manufacturing precision, often against a production director who doesn't want to make the investmetn spend in the better equipment required. Because the greatest of the savings resulting are not in his department. It's downstream in a large reduction in early life failures, much reduced ongoing maintenance costs, great economy obtained by minimal  refurbishing or remanufacturing of parts in spares support. That's what made me a student of economics: change the method of measurement of a manufactured item from what it costs to bang it off the production line, to the total life cost of the product from design to recycling; then the production director sees the value of investment in precision.

[t-b-g]

I'm no friend of Thompson, but I believe the choice of loco was actually down to the Doncaster Works Manager.  Granted Thompson refused to alter that choice, but I feel he's been unjustly tarred with more malice than may have been the case.  When I find the source of that information (it was in the Gresley Society magazine) I'll post a reference.

 

It may not have been Thompson's intention or decision to use Great Northern (which certainly happened to be in the right place at the right time) but I was just speculating as to how much better his reputation would be now if he had used a different loco.

 

He alienated so many loyal Gresley people before he had really got going and I don't think he ever really won them over.

 

 

 There is a lot of evidence of this from various sources. The GWR had been wealthy enough to invest in optical frame alignment among much else in the way of superior engineering shop kit for precision in parts production and loco erection and repair. Swindon was significantly reaping the benefit of the resulting 'virtuous circle' of better production technique leading to subsequent reduced running and repair cost from the 1920s on. Less wealthy companies, (and the GNR and LNER certainly fall into this bracket) had to make do with older equipment and get what they could from it. The only way forward for them was a better intrinsic design, and that is the story behind much of what drove design progress at Doncaster.

 

Bill Harvey writes very interestingly on the subject of component quality as seen during his apprenticeship. One of the telling descriptions is that his chargehand erector - and those leading the other teams - would select from the batches of parts supplied the better pieces first. As a result the final locos from a typical batch run of 10 or 20 would get a concentration of the poorer components, and take significantly longer to erect due to the extra machining and fitting required. It is very likely that these machines were also the 'lemons' from the batch, performance compromised by a lot of borderline to spec components.

 

I have had considerable career experience in pushing for better manufacturing precision, often against a production director who doesn't want to make the investmetn spend in the better equipment required. Because the greatest of the savings resulting are not in his department. It's downstream in a large reduction in early life failures, much reduced ongoing maintenance costs, great economy obtained by minimal  refurbishing or remanufacturing of parts in spares support. That's what made me a student of economics: change the method of measurement of a manufactured item from what it costs to bang it off the production line, to the total life cost of the product from design to recycling; then the production director sees the value of investment in precision.

 

Good to see somebody talking sense! IMO best post on here so far..........

[Ohmisterporter]

 That's what made me a student of economics: change the method of measurement of a manufactured item from what it costs to bang it off the production line, to the total life cost of the product from design to recycling; then the production director sees the value of investment in precision.

 

That highlights the biggest obstacle to progress in every organisation, "We've always done it like this".

[coachmann]

Thompson would let it be known he wanted an unrebuilt A1 (later A10) to rebuild as the prototype for a new standard class of loco but the choice of Pacific to rebuild would have been done at shop floor level. Great Northern might have been next on the list for rebuilding to Class A3 and the foreman might have thought it would be a good idea to let this famous engine be the class leader.....Funnier things happen at sea.

 

I suppose there was a train of thought in amateur circles that Thompson should have thrown his hands in the air when he saw Great Northern being stripped down, and said.."My gaw'd, you're a cad Mr.Foreman.... we can't rebuild that engine...It's the old boss's sacred cow.......I'll be damned by the authors of the RCTS green books in the future.............We'll rebuilt 'Flying Scotsman' instead...(chuckle) ......Anyone coming for a pint...?"

 

 

Edited January 25, 2013 by coachmann

[bluebottle]

I suppose there was a train of thought in amateur circles that Thompson should have thrown his hands in the air when he saw Great Northern being stripped down, and said.."My gaw'd, you're a cad Mr.Foreman.... we can't rebuild that engine...It's the old boss's sacred cow.......I'll be damned by the authors of the RCTS green books in the future.............We'll rebuilt 'Flying Scotsman' instead...(chuckle) ......Anyone coming for a pint...?"

 

 

 

You're a very naughty man, Coach.

[kevinlms]

The drivers at Mansfield (ex Midland) despised the LT&SR 4-4-2 tanks, which they got as replacements for their beloved Midland 0-4-4 tanks. They were, at least, both LMS (but still foreign!).

 

They might of both been 'LMS', but surely there that was about the limit of their 'sameness'? In fact, there was nothing Midland about the Tilbury Tanks either, as they were basically an existing design with more members built. With air brakes & long suburban passenger trains along an almost flat line, renowned for fairly fast running, they were hardly going to find the same conditions elsewhere on the system (without the air brakes). Not surprised that the different motive power ended up dumped 'out the back'.

[kevinlms]

There is a very good story in one of the books on the 9F's.  Apparently someone at HQ noticed that Swindon's machining costs were much lower than Crewe's and that Crewe's foundry costs were lower than  Swindons, so ordered some parts for the next batch of 9F's to be cast at Crewe and Machined at Swindon.  The result was a batch of parts that cost more than from either works.  Apparently due to Swindon having much finer casting tolerances than Crewe's foundry.  Consequently the machining coast at swindon for the Crewe produced castings were horrendous.

 

 

Jamie

An example of accountants that just look at the price, without knowing what constitutes the price. I suppose no one wondered why there was a significant difference? Just assumed that Crewe machining & Swindon casting sections were both inefficient and that Crewe foundry & Swindon machining sections were similarly efficient.

[t-b-g]

Thompson would let it be known he wanted an unrebuilt A1 (later A10) to rebuild as the prototype for a new standard class of loco but the choice of Pacific to rebuild would have been done at shop floor level. Great Northern might have been next on the list for rebuilding to Class A3 and the foreman might have thought it would be a good idea to let this famous engine be the class leader.....Funnier things happen at sea.

 

I suppose there was a train of thought in amateur circles that Thompson should have thrown his hands in the air when he saw Great Northern being stripped down, and said.."My gaw'd, you're a cad Mr.Foreman.... we can't rebuild that engine...It's the old boss's sacred cow.......I'll be damned by the authors of the RCTS green books in the future.............We'll rebuilt 'Flying Scotsman' instead...(chuckle) ......Anyone coming for a pint...?"

 

 

 

 

I just took the time to read up what really happened, rather than add to all the speculation.

 

"Great Northern" was actually called into the works having been specifically requested by Thompson to be the subject of his rebuilding. Various people, incuding the Chief Draughtsman, expressed strong reservations but Thompson rejected any suggestion that another loco be selected.

 

Now the RCTS book is not always right but if that is the true, it would explain rather a lot about the way people feel about Thompson.

 

All this 1940s stuff is way outside my chosen period of interest, so I had never really looked before but it does seem pretty conclusive that the loco was chosen deliberately rather than "Grab whatever is in the works"

Edited January 26, 2013 by t-b-g

[Clive Mortimore]

All this talk of Thompson and "Great Northern" does it really matter today, the poor thing has been recylced several times by now. I am convinced it was my uncle's Ford Cortina and now forms the out box of SWMBO's washing machine.

Edited January 26, 2013 by Clive Mortimore

[bluebottle]

I sat up rather too late last night reading this and other threads, and had troubled dreams. What might have happened had not W. A. Stanier been available when Josiah Stamp decided that it was necessary to appoint an outsider as CME of the LMS? In my fantastical REM sleep , one E. Thompson was brought into the job, and I awoke in a cold sweat...

Damn you, subconscious mind!

[Poggy1165]

Given that World War 2 was going on was anyone (apart from enthusiasts) really worried about one piece of machinery being rebuilt instead of another? I can't imagine so. If it was really such a big deal, they could always have shifted the nameplates to another engine, Bristol Castle style. Perhaps Mr Thompson just wanted his fancy new creation to have the name Great Northern because he wanted to honour the memory of the GNR. Does it have to be a case of spitting on HNG's grave?

[t-b-g]

Given that World War 2 was going on was anyone (apart from enthusiasts) really worried about one piece of machinery being rebuilt instead of another? I can't imagine so. If it was really such a big deal, they could always have shifted the nameplates to another engine, Bristol Castle style. Perhaps Mr Thompson just wanted his fancy new creation to have the name Great Northern because he wanted to honour the memory of the GNR. Does it have to be a case of spitting on HNG's grave?

 

I think that there were enough LNER people concerned that it made them far less accepting of Thompson's ideas. He probably shot himself in the foot doing it and his reputation has been, well, what it is, ever since.

 

If he had listened and used another loco, he may have gained the respect and support of many more people than he did. The fact that the Peppercorn A1 was being designed in secret by draughtsman in the drawing office while Thompson was still in the hot seat (and trying to design is own A1 based on the Great Northern rebuild) would indicate that he didn't have the total respect and support of the people there.

 

Of course none of it matters now. Just like than 99% of what is on RMWeb matters little. If RMWeb vanished tomorrow the world would (probably) carry on. We might even all get some more modelling done but we wouldn't be able to share our thoughts and details of what we are up to so easily with others.

 

We are not going to change anything and we are not going to alter Thompson's reputation. But it is interesting (and educational) to discuss it, as long as the discussion is carried out in the right sort of way and it is lovely having such an instantaneous medium as a web forum on which to do it. I have certainly learned some new things as a result of recent threads on here and I would guess that others have too.

 

Tony

Edited January 26, 2013 by t-b-g

[kevinlms]

I think that there were enough LNER people concerned that it made them far less accepting of Thompson's ideas. He probably shot himself in the foot doing it and his reputation has been, well, what it is, ever since.

 

If he had listened and used another loco, he may have gained the respect and support of many more people than he did. The fact that the Peppercorn A1 was being designed in secret by draughtsman in the drawing office while Thompson was still in the hot seat (and trying to design is own A1 based on the Great Northern rebuild) would indicate that he didn't have the total respect and support of the people there.

 

 

Tony

Perhaps it was merely a case of he had some bright ideas, that didn't quite work out as intended. If they HAD all worked, would he be considered a genius, rather than a villain? What if Stanier had been judged by say his work on the early Jubilee's? What if the management had been just like current day Chelsea's?

 

 

Thompson wasn't the last CME from Doncaster to have some ideas that didn't work out. I'm thinking of Bullied's 'Leader' locos & his Irish peat burners, rather than his Southern pacific's.

[DerekEm8]

I think that there were enough LNER people concerned that it made them far less accepting of Thompson's ideas. He probably shot himself in the foot doing it and his reputation has been, well, what it is, ever since.

 

If he had listened and used another loco, he may have gained the respect and support of many more people than he did. The fact that the Peppercorn A1 was being designed in secret by draughtsman in the drawing office while Thompson was still in the hot seat (and trying to design is own A1 based on the Great Northern rebuild) would indicate that he didn't have the total respect and support of the people there.

 

Tony

Tony,

 

It seems like like the LNER at Doncaster at that time was a very secretive organisation from the above - it's a wonder they got anything designed !

[coachmann]

The events surrounding 'Great Northern' are many and varied and are like politics.....Hobbyists believe what happens to suit their leanings. I don't think for one minute it had any effect on Thompsons 'reputation', except amongst amateurs. The LNER was a transport company with a job to do, so making ends meet with available manpower, particularly during the conflict and afterwards when materials continued to either be rationed, was difficult to say the least. What Thompson did do was provide his company with a new range of standard locos, which in turn allowed the LNE to withdraw its deadlegs and cut down on stocks of spares. 

 

Some of the dead wood had been retained because it was needed during the war. That they could pull heavy troop trains etc etc wasn't anything magical...Jinty 3F's could haul heavy trains from carriage sidings but it didnt mean they could work them along at express speeds. But as some classes were particularly heavy on coal (and I have the GCR 4-6-0s in mind here, eliminated 1947-50), it mattered that they be withdrawn at the earliest opportunity. The other three railway companies shared similar problems when it came to keeping locos in traffic because of the war and even the mightly LMS could not rid itself of its liabilities immedietly war ended.

 

What is probably not realised (unless one is also interested in buses) is the Government directed far more money into public road transport than railways after the war, so while towns and cities started to receive new buses from around 1946 onwards, the railways continued on a make do and mend basis. Mr & Mrs Britain may have been thoroughly fed up with rail travel and rationing, but it was a great time for transport enthusiasts while this country continued to be a living museum.

Edited January 26, 2013 by coachmann

[Guest Tom F]

Midland 'small policy' thread....yet we are talking about the controversial Edward Thompson.

He may not have been everyone's cup of tea, but this thread just shows what good debate ET creates!

[Clive Mortimore]

Thank s Tom for reminding everyone that is about the MR small engine policy. Mind you all the talk of rebuilding has made me think of what Deeley (and Fowler) done to those beautiful Johnson class 2 passenger 4-4-0s. Perhaps we are too many years away from the date of their rebuilding to hear the cries from the line side commentators of the day. Or were they shut up by the efficiency of the MR (not the later LMS) with is small but economical to run locomotives? Even in the later days of the LMS a 483 class 4-4-0 was the benchmark which other locos were pitted against when it came to economical day to day use.

 

I still think that the small engine policy was right for the MR at the time. Events proved that it did not work on the much larger LMS.

 

With much thought to the opening question "What could have ended the Midland's 'small engine' policy?" it should have been the formation of the LMS. A fresh view in 1923 on the operating policies of all the companies that formed the LMS could have saved the company a lot of money and given us a different range of locomotives to moan about not being right when Mr Bachmann, Hornby, Dapol and Heljan produce one

Edited January 26, 2013 by Clive Mortimore

[billbedford]

Some of the dead wood had been retained because it was needed during the war. [ ] But as some classes were particularly heavy on coal (and I have the GCR 4-6-0s in mind here, eliminated 1947-50), it mattered that they be withdrawn at the earliest opportunity. The other three railway companies shared similar problems when it came to keeping locos in traffic because of the war and even the mightly LMS could not rid itself of its liabilities immedietly war ended.

 

While a lot of locos were kept in service longer than they normally would, I'm not sure that that coal consumption was a factor, since the class that this canard is usually applied to, the B7s, was no heavier on coal the the contemporary B16. Since both classes were 6MT they were likely to have a heavier coal consumption than a 5MT B1. The real problem for the late build GC locos was that with the electrification of the Woodhead route they would have become redundant within the payback period of any major rebuilding. 

 

The other point with GC locos is that while Thompson, when he was at Stratford, and Stamer, at Darlington, had the resources to update pre-grouping locos that fell within their orbit, there was no one at Gorton with similar authority.

[jwealleans]

Good point, Bill: I'm not sure Thompson gets the credit he deserves for his work in reboilering the GE engines which almost all worked right through until the end of steam in the GE area. 

 

But we're way OT again, now.....

[coachmann]

The Midland was a small railway with its own peculiar points of view. For instance, it built single wheelers because of the introduction of steam-sanding. These engines suited the Midlands small engine policy when other railways had moved on from single wheelers to 4-4-0's. The Midland rebuilt and developed the 4-4-0 into the Compound when other railways were building 4-6-0's. We know why this was done.. ...Bigger and longer engines owuld have entailed much expenditure on infrastructure like longer turntables. The top men in the company only knew thinking small so when politics or whatever put them in charge of the huge LMS, they treated the huge conglomerate as a Greater Midland outfit. Therefore it is easy to see why the small engine policy and Midland ideas continued right through the 1920s and into the early 1930s until Stanier put put in charge to sort out the LMS's huge problems.

 

As an enthusiast I put midland carriages and Fowler engines above all else. As a rational thinking man, I question the rationality of building Class 4P Compounds, whose superheated design dated from 1914, for use on West Coast expresses as well as across the system at a time when the GWR and SR were building large 4-6-0s and the LNER Pacifics. I question why axlebox bearing that were okay on a 4F so long as it stuck to aroung 35mph were specified on Class 10F Beyer-Garratts and 7F 0-8-0s. I question why long lap long travel valves etc were only put on a very few classes and yet reversion was made to old fashioned valvegear on the Class 3 2-6-2T's built in 1930! The latter also had a 2F boiler to provide 3P power!! These engines were not only lilly-livered but were expensive on springs for some reason. Stanier does not come out of this shining seeing as he merely stipulated an upgrade with taper boiler.

 

But modernisation went beyond motive power. Carriages with flush sides, welded underframes, modernisation of loco depots, cutting coal consumption, standardisation of components and so-on also came in during the 1930s.

 

 

So in my opinion, the Midland's small engine policy ended when Fowler, Anderson and the rest were put out to pasture and William Stanier brought in to form a new team, sort out the in-politics and equip the LMS with modern motive power suited to the types of trains the company had the potential to operate.

Edited January 26, 2013 by coachmann