Wright writes.....

[S.A.C Martin]

I believe I know who you are referring to, and he made no secret of his views, which were set out in one of his published works. 

 

Which published work would this be Gilbert? I'd love to read it. 

[great northern]

Which just begs the question "Why build more O2s?"  Ulitimately in running any business making money is all that matters.  They had standard goods loco (the O4) in large numbers which they had got very cheaply.  Perpetuating an over expensive non standard design makes no sense.  Why not just build more O4s?  Not invented in Doncaster?

So you are now suggesting that Gresley had an antipathy to anything that he did not design himself, or at least which was not Doncaster designed? What for example about the D11's that he had built for use in Scotland? What about GE designs such as B12 and D16, which were rebuilt to more modern standards rather than scrapped and replaced by his own designs? That is not an exclusive list by the way. And why was the 02 a "non standard design? It was the GNR's heavy goods engine, just as the 04 was the GCR's.

[great northern]

Which published work would this be Gilbert? I'd love to read it. 

Steam in the blood by Dick Hardy Simon. It is a very enjoyable read, covering his time right through from apprenticeship to the end of steam, or nearly.

[S.A.C Martin]

Steam in the blood by Dick Hardy Simon. It is a very enjoyable read, covering his time right through from apprenticeship to the end of steam, or nearly.

 

Thank you very much Gilbert - I'll look it up now.

[LNER4479]

Hello Tony and all,

 

I'm a little late in posting on this thread - and I apologise in advance if I interrupt the flow of the fascinating Thompson vs Gresley conversation - but I wanted to say what a great pleasure it is to have the 'Wright Writes' thread going and that we are able to communicate with Tony in this way.

 

I count myself as one of the lucky ones to have visited the 4mm Little Bytham. To take up a lineside position north of the station, on the west side of the line and witness a seemingly endless procession of beautifully recreated ECML trains is a joy to behold. As one of the 'younger ones' I never saw ECML steam in it's pomp so this is the closest I'll come and what a recreation. Some of the recent pictures in the BRM MI piece looked fabulous.

 

Seeing as how Grantham's first picture was included in Tony's protoype layouts article in this month's BRM, I'll comment if I may over headlamps (seeing as how the caption to the picture included a gentle jibe on the subject!). Those who have looked at my 'previous layout' thread will observe that headlamps were de rigeur, so they will feature on Grantham - in time! I'm another one though who can't abide the garish 'milk churn' appearance of lamps stuck on straight out of the packet; for me they detract, rather than enhance when they're like that. What I used to do (and will do again) was to deliberately break off the handle part, on the basis that these appear way over scale and are the least visible part on prototype pictures. Their removal instantly reduces the 'too large' look of the appearance.

 

As others (it appears) have done, I standardised on a flattened 26swg wire for my lamp brackets, removing any RTR ones already fitted. With a 0.6mm hole drilled in the bottom of the lamp, and slightly 'flattened' to match by working a small screwdriver into the hole, the correct lamp headcode could be represented on any loco at the head of a train (and removed again when 'on shed'). There was a little bit of an attrition rate with lamps disappearing (falling off), but not too bad.

 

Being a private, home-based layout, I could change the lamps as required. Grantham will be more of a challenge being an exhibition layout (especially when coming on/off shed) but we'll see!

 

All the best Tony and I look forward to continuing to read your informative comments and information on this thread.

Edited January 21, 2013 by LNER4479

[Andy Y]

Tony has put together some very useful reference material on the O2 ahead of the Heljan model which explores the minefield of variations.

 

 

 

 

I note with interest the development of the news regarding Heljan's proposed introduction of an O2. I've enclosed some pictures, together with some descriptions to illustrate the difficulties involved for a manufacturer in which model to produce. Basically, there were four types which, into BR days comprised 1. O2/1 (GNR tender and side-window cab; right-hand drive). 2. O2/2 (GNR tender and GN cab; right-hand drive). 3. O2/3 (Group Standard tender with straight sides or flared sides, and side-window cab; left-hand drive). Other than the different tenders and different drive-side, the O2/3s had long-travel valves, thus raising the central section of the footplate up compared with the O2/1s and O2/2s, and they also had cut-outs to the bottom edges of the bufferbeam. 4. O2/4 (rebuilds of the earlier types with B1-type 100A boiler fitted). Whatever the drive-side, the vacuum ejector was placed above the boiler handrail (before, it had been behind) and the dome was lower than that previously fitted. Those locos converted from O2/2s received side-window cabs on becoming O2/4s. Other than that, there were myriads of detail differences, as I hope these images show. I've made some notes but these don't include numberplate styles or whether the tenders are equipped with single line running gadgets.The more you look, as they say!  I'm helping (or will be) Heljan with their research, but I can't say which manifestation they'll be doing.

 

Pictures (notes beneath image, details of photographer,date and location available via mouseover - full size image upon click)

 

63922. O2/1, AWS pipework and apparatus on left-hand side. GNR tender with water pick-up gear (breather cones in coal space). Door stop fitted to prevent smokebox door opening too far.

  

 

63927. O2/1 which has inherited an ex-K3 GS tender. AWS on right-hand side. No door stop.

 

 

63931. O2/4, ex-O2/1. GNR tender (probably) without pick-up gear.

  

 

63932. O2/4, ex-O2/2. AWS on left-hand side. Different style of GNR tender, with cut-out above the vertical handrail. No water pick-up. Door stop.

 

 

63935. (1957). O2/2. No water pick-up, no door stop.

 

 

63935. (1961). Now O2/4. AWS on left-hand side (but with reserve cylinder on right). Water pick-up gear.

 

 

63936. O2/2. AWS on left-hand side. Door stop. No water pick-up gear. 

 

 

63939. O2/2. GS tender inherited from withdrawn K3. AWS on left-hand side. No door stop.

 

 

63943. (1958). GNR tender with cut-out and pick-up gear. Door stop.

 

 

63943. (1963). Ex-K3 GS tender. AWS on left-hand side. Door stop.

 

 

63945. O2/4, ex-O2/2. AWS on right-hand side but reserve cylinder on left. No door stop.

 

 

63946. O2/2. Door stop, no water pick-up, frame-mounted guard irons.

 

 

63949. O2/4, ex-O2/3. GS flared tender, door stop.

 

 

63961. (1962). O2/4, ex-O2/3. GS flared tender.

 

63961 (1959). O2/4, ex-O2/3. GS straight-sided tender. No door stop.

 

 

63963. O2/3. GS straight-sided tender. AWS on right-hand side. Door stop.

 

 

63967. O2/3. GS straight-sided tender but without coping plate.

 

 

63973. O2/3. GS flared tender. AWS on left-hand side. No door stop.

 

I hope I haven't muddled some of these notes up, but the pictures show the immense amount of variation amongst the individual locos. But, which variations to choose?

[Guest Tom F]

A really handsome looking goods locomotive. Will compliment the O4 and O1 very nicely. Stunning photos Tony, thanks for sharing.

[davidw]

Like Tom,

I'm looking forward to the O2. One or two will grace my metals. 

 

It's stunning how much ER stuff is now available "out of the box". With more to follow.

Edited January 21, 2013 by davidw

[Markeg]

Thanks Tony for sharing these photos and explaining the myriad of variations.

 

"But, which variations to choose?" I agree.

 

Will compliment ECML stock, not just the 01 and 04 Tom.
 

Mark in OZ

[coachmann]

Someone has already commented on the LNER purchase of Robinson ROD 2-8-0s and the fact that Gresley did not need to design a more complicated 3-cylinder 2-8-0 (02). A B17 that could only develop a miserly 4P could have had 2-cylinders like all others loco of this power rating, or better still more well-proven B12's. The LNER must have looked whistfully at the simple but effective LMS and GWR locos, and despaired when he was still messing around with three cylinders and a wide firebox on the teeny little V4's just before his demise. Thompson did what he could with the materials at hand dring WW2 and served his company well in the end. Why Peppercorn had to fit three-cylinders to 'his' A2 is anyones guess when the Britannia built a year later with the same 7P power rating only had two.

 

No doubt Gresley felt a great debt to Robinson of the GCR after the latter turned down the job of CME of the LNER and recommended Gresley. Probably accounts for keeping Robinsons 'choked up' 4-6-0s in traffic via various rebuildings and also why he chose to build more A5 tanks and D11's.

 

 

I dont know if preservation gives any clues or not but having filmed both the A2 Blue Peter and Britannia climbing away from Llandudno Junction to Conwy Tubular Bridge, the Brit romped away with its load while the A2 showed itself to be a slippery beggar despite the more even 3-cylinder propulsion.

 

[LNER4479]

GN cab version for me!!

 

That's a bit parochial I admit, but a quick glance through two of my LNER (ie pre-1948) books shows all but one O2 to have a GN cab in LNER days.

 

Perhaps Tony can enlighten us as to whether cabs were subsequently swapped and the various sub-classes came later?

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

A GNR Ivatt pattern tender and 'traditional' cab seem like good choices to me, on two counts.

 

There are no such things available RTR at present: so you get a product that looks decidedly different from anything else on offer.

 

Heljan are a plastics moulding specialist, who are able to make moulded parts available separately. Is there any sort of market for 'ready to adapt' GNR parts to alter other  models - the K3 immediately comes to mind?

Edited January 21, 2013 by 34theletterbetweenB&D

[jwealleans]

the K3 immediately comes to mind?

 

You can get an etch with all the K3 cab variants from SEF.  I put a low windowed North Eastern cab on a Bachmann one recently and Tony Wright did the same thing in BRM at the same time as I was doing mine.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...I dont know if preservation gives any clues or not but having filmed both the A2 Blue Peter and Britannia climbing away from Llandudno Junction to Conwy Tubular Bridge, the Brit romped away with its load while the A2 showed itself to be a slippery beggar despite the more even 3-cylinder propulsion.

 

 

 

Read Bill Harvey's descriptions of the troubles he had maintaining the Brits in service. It is a tale of vibrationally induced stress fracture problems: examples such as the side rod failures, driving wheels shifting on axles, a tender drawbar breaking while running at speed, show the problem with two cylinders for that power in a UK format design and construction. These things didn't happen with three and four cylinder designs of similar power capability. Build it to North American standards, with well proven technique for up to 6,000 ihp from two cylinders, and you get a 130 ton loco unit, not really suited to running on UK tracks. Had this estimate from a guy who served his engineering apprenticeship at Crewe, and went into this in detail as one of the design options looked at toward the end of the LMS' existence. They wanted a two cylinder V2 equivalent, which was essentially the design target that Riddle took forward as the basis of the Brit. As with nearly everything in engineering, with every option come trade-offs.

[t-b-g]

Someone has already commented on the LNER purchase of Robinson ROD 2-8-0s and the fact that Gresley did not need to design a more complicated 3-cylinder 2-8-0 (02). A B17 that could only develop a miserly 4P could have had 2-cylinders like all others loco of this power rating, or better still more well-proven B12's. The LNER must have looked whistfully at the simple but effective LMS and GWR locos, and despaired when he was still messing around with three cylinders and a wide firebox on the teeny little V4's just before his demise. Thompson did what he could with the materials at hand dring WW2 and served his company well in the end. Why Peppercorn had to fit three-cylinders to 'his' A2 is anyones guess when the Britannia built a year later with the same 7P power rating only had two.

 

No doubt Gresley felt a great debt to Robinson of the GCR after the latter turned down the job of CME of the LNER and recommended Gresley. Probably accounts for keeping Robinsons 'choked up' 4-6-0s in traffic via various rebuildings and also why he chose to build more A5 tanks and D11's.

 

 

I dont know if preservation gives any clues or not but having filmed both the A2 Blue Peter and Britannia climbing away from Llandudno Junction to Conwy Tubular Bridge, the Brit romped away with its load while the A2 showed itself to be a slippery beggar despite the more even 3-cylinder propulsion.

 

 

 

So, Gresley built more D11s and A5s out of gratitude to Robinson! I always thought it was because they were very, very good locos and saved him the job of designing something similar, when a perfectly good loco design was available and could be built and put into service quickly.

 

The comment about the O2 is a bit daft too. Gresley was designing the O2s during WW1 and the first was produced in 1918.

 

At the time the GNR and GCR were competing for much coal traffic. Gresley would have had to have known that the railways would be part of the same company, that he would be in charge and that he would have the opportunity to purchase hundreds of surplus locos at good prices.

 

Even then the LNER needed more, so more O2s were built. This makes sense as the O2s were the slightly more modern design and the production was to be at Doncaster, where they had experience of building the O2s but not the O4s. Both classes of loco were very good and I am sure that if the O4 showed any great superiority over the O2 then Gresley would have built more of them instead. He was not averse to using Robinson designs - see A5 & D11 above!

 

If anybody wants to read a bit more of Dick Hardy's work, which I thoroughly enjoy reading (I met him once too, a lovely man) then go beyond the good things he has to say about Thompson and have a look at what he says about some of the Robinson 4-6-0s. Apparently much maligned and a lot more capable than many railway enthusiasts seem to think.

 

I got to meet George Hinchcliffe shortly before he died. He rode behind (and sometimes on) most of the GCR locos and he and the crews who worked them thought the world of a good number of the types. The B7s in particular would pull anything you put behind them. Dick Hardy wrote about seeing one on 32 carriages once. The Imminghams and similar were fine locos too and did excellent work over many years without any major rebuilding.

 

So, by the accounts of people who worked on them and with them, they were not so bad. Perhaps those giving them such a hard time can quote their experiences, excluding second hand reading of other enthusiasts words.

 

I do dislike this slagging off of railway locos, designers etc. They all had their good points and ideas (mostly!!) and they all got it a bit wrong sometimes. Such and such a desginer/company/class was "stupid" "fell flat on their face" etc. Far more provocative and antagonistic that Tony Wright's views, which are based on a lot of experience at the sharp end of the hobby. 

[coachmann]

I wasn't aware I was writing daft comments so thanks for your valued imput. The most simple minded of individuals knows that none of us on here have been locomotive designers, not even you dear boy,  but since when did this preclude folk from having opinions? You constantly refer to Hardy's books, but there are lots of other book and writers out there in the wider world.

 

So, Gresley built more D11s and A5s out of gratitude to Robinson! I always thought it was because they were very, very good locos and saved him the job of designing something similar, when a perfectly good loco design was available and could be built and put into service quickly. I did not say the A5 and D11 were poor designs.

 

The comment about the O2 is a bit daft too. Gresley was designing the O2s during WW1 and the first was produced in 1918. 3-cylinders an expensive waste on a goods engine. The 04 was more than adequate and would have been more standardised than creating two classes.

 

At the time the GNR and GCR were competing for much coal traffic. Gresley would have had to have known that the railways would be part of the same company, that he would be in charge and that he would have the opportunity to purchase hundreds of surplus locos at good prices. But he didnt know he would be in charge, as you put it, of the LNER. Well documented old chap.

 

Even then the LNER needed more, so more O2s were built. This makes sense as the O2s were the slightly more modern design and the production was to be at Doncaster, where they had experience of building the O2s but not the O4s. What was wrong with using Gorton? Both classes of loco were very good and I am sure that if the O4 showed any great superiority over the O2 then Gresley would have built more of them instead. He was not averse to using Robinson designs - see A5 & D11 above!

 

If anybody wants to read a bit more of Dick Hardy's work, which I thoroughly enjoy reading (I met him once too, a lovely man) Good for you! then go beyond the good things he has to say about Thompson and have a look at what he says about some of the Robinson 4-6-0s. Apparently much maligned and a lot more capable than many railway enthusiasts seem to think. So why were they all withdrawn before 1950, even the young'uns?)

 

I got to meet George Hinchcliffe shortly before he died. He rode behind (and sometimes on) most of the GCR locos and he and the crews who worked them thought the world of a good number of the types. The B7s in particular would pull anything you put behind them. Robinson had learned by the time he designed the B7's that the middle axle needed moving to allow for a deeper ashpan and give it as rear damper. Dick Hardy wrote about seeing one on 32 carriages once. The Imminghams and similar were fine locos too and did excellent work over many years without any major rebuilding. On secondary duties...not top link for which they had been designed. Rebuilding? Raising boilers? Messing with Caprotti motion....?

 

So, by the accounts of people who worked on them and with them, they were not so bad. Perhaps those giving them such a hard time can quote their experiences, Dont be silly. excluding second hand reading of other enthusiasts words...Which is only what you are doing!!!!

 

I do dislike this slagging off of railway locos, designers etc. So you dislike debate unless it fits in with your own ideas? They all had their good points and ideas (mostly!!) and they all got it a bit wrong sometimes. Such and such a desginer/company/class was "stupid" "fell flat on their face" etc. Far more provocative and antagonistic that Tony Wright's views, which are based on a lot of experience at the sharp end of the hobby. Well slap my bottom...... I had some experience at the sharp end of a shovel...but hey, forget that, it wasn't my hobby.

 

[Andy Y]

GN cab version for me! That's a bit parochial I admit, but a quick glance through two of my LNER (ie pre-1948) books shows all but one O2 to have a GN cab in LNER days. Perhaps Tony can enlighten us as to whether cabs were subsequently swapped and the various sub-classes came later?

 

 

 

For 4479's information regarding the O2s.

All the ten O2/1s (built 1921) received side-window cabs between 1939 and 1940. Prior to that they had GN-style cabs, and higher boiler fittings - these being the GNR-built examples. It would appear that the fitting of side-window cabs and the lowering of the boiler fittings was (in the main) contemporaneous. 

All the 15 O2/2s (those built in 1923/1924 to the LNER composite loading gauge, which was lower than the GN) retained their GNR cabs until some were rebuilt to O2/4 between 1944 and 1958, five in number. These were (6)3932, 63933, 63935, 63938 and 63945. They then received side-window cabs.

All the 41 O2/3s (built between 1932 and 1943) always had side-window cabs.

 

With regard to the B17s, it was because of the severe weight restrictions imposed by the GER main line that three cylinders were chosen - to restrict the potential hammer blow. That it wasn't a complete success was down to those restrictions, and a two-cylinder loco of the necessary power would have induced too much hammer blow. It's doubtful (at the time) that even a Stanier '5' would have been acceptable for the route - doubtful? - impossible, for they didn't exist then. As for building more B12s, it was because these admirable locos couldn't cope with the increased loads that a more powerful loco was needed. It was only after bridges were strengthened that the 'ultimate' two-cylinder loco emerged for the route, the BR 'Britannia', those these (as has been highlighted) were not entirely trouble-free, and one could argue that a three-cylinder loco of equal power would not have been as prone to shedding its motion as were the 'Brits' at times. Larry's right (by implication) that a more simple two-cylinder 4-6-0 should have been a priority for Gresley, and the V4 was an unnecessary luxury. However, wide fireboxes were a Doncaster feature and those locos thus fitted could cope with poorer quality fuel much better than a narrow 'box equivalent. 

 

Finally, though the 'Britannias' were Class 7, the A2s were Class 8. Really, a far more powerful locomotive, even though (as do all Pacifics) they had a propensity to slip. 

[Mallard60022]

Well, what a superb set of 02 pics from Tony(thanks).

P

[t-b-g]

I wasn't aware I was writing daft comments so thanks for your valued imput. The most simple minded of individuals knows that none of us on here have been locomotive designers, not even you dear boy,  but since when did this preclude folk from having opinions? You constantly refer to Hardy's books, but there are lots of other book and writers out there in the wider world.

 

 

I have a lot of respect for you, as an experienced and highly knowledgeable member of the model railway community and a contributor of some great stuff to RMWeb. Only the other day I was painting some LMS carriages and I was looking at your website for inspiration.

 

That is what makes it quite sad for me to be in a position where I am having to challenge statements from such a "name" in the hobby.

 

My sources are people who worked on and with the locos. Sadly, many are no longer with us to back up what they told me.

 

It is a long time since I was called a "boy" and I shall take it as a compliment! Only 53 and barely remember steam!

 

I sat and worked for 30 years with a bloke who did design real locos or at least big chunks of them (no one person ever really designed a loco - it was the drawing office team who did the real work!) he did the bodywork on the Class 85 electric and numerous parts for steam locos.

 

He worked in Doncaster drawing office under Peppercorn and spent many happy hours discussing Thompson and Gresley with the people there.

 

His stories were wonderful, always entertaining and full of relevant facts and names and I never once found anything he said to be innacurate. Through him and through others I met through him, I was fortunate to spend quite a few happy hours with people who were there. Not railway enthusiasts (although they had lots of railway enthusiasm) they were professional railwaymen. I am very lucky in this respect and accept that others may not have had access to such marvellous first hand accounts, although many were also authors so at least some is on the record and has to be more valid than the writings of enthusiasts who didn't work with the locos. So I mananged to talk to those in the thick of it on the real thing.

 

You have been around longer than me and have a far bigger profile in the hobby than I do, so if I managed it, why should it be so "silly" for you to have done the same?

 

The reason I quoted Dick Hardy particularly is that you seem to want to agree with his views on Thompson but not on Robinson. You are the one selecting the comments and words that match your views, not I. 

 

To answer your points in turn:

 

A5s and D11s. You never said they were bad locos. What you did say is that they may have been built as some sort of appreciation to Robinson for recommending Gresley for the job. Pure fantasy. They were built purely on merit, suitabilty and availability, not some romantic "thank you" notion.

 

O4s and O2s. At the time both classes were designed, the two companies were in competition with each other. The surplus O4s were away in ROD service and nobody knew how many would come back and what state they would be in. They were built on the quick and cheap with inferior materials (steel fireboxes), as the LNWR realised when they pretty much bought them for the tenders, rather than the loco.

 

It is a bit like saying that if the Midland had built some LNWR 0-8-0 locos in 1912, they might have been better off. At the time the O2s were designed, the O4s were simply not available and nobody knew that they would be, so why on earth should Gresley, as CME at the GNR, suddenly start producing locos to another companies design. It did happen on rare occasions but only when the companies and had offered or been asked for help because had nothing suitable itself, which the GNR clearly did in the O2. The Brighton Atlantics and the Southern 4-6-0s are cases in point. Gresley having O4s in 1918 was no more a realistic prospect than Gresley going to Churchward and saying "I like your 28xx so can I build some please?"

 

B17s, I think Tony Wright has put that one to bed. They had to be more powerful than the B12 and they had to work over some light bridges, so to reduce the hammer blow to acceptable limits they had to have 3 cylinders. They also had severe length restrictions, which resulted in a compromised design but they were hardly total failures. They were quite capable of working the Boat Trains and the long distance workings on the GCR.

 

As for debate, on the contrary, I enjoy it greatly. I have even been known to change my mind sometimes! I fully accept that people are entitled to differing views and I welcome them openly and with enthusiasm.

 

Since when were B7s (mixed traffic - think early 4 cylinder Black 5), B9s (Freight locos mainly) and Imminghams (the clue is in the name - fish trains) top link locos? The B2s and B3s may have been but again, a sweeping statement which groups a good number of highly varied different classes as all being failures is a bit wide of the mark. Most GCR expresses were quick, short and easily handled by the very capable Atlantics and 4-4-0s. The were not all perfect or even good locos but even the smaller, non standard classes of a couple of locos lasted until they were swept away by the B1s. Probably better than small no standard classes on a number of other railways.

 

I used to be in a debating society (45 years ago now) and the first rule was that you argue your case on suitable points for and against, not by sweeping statements belittling the opposition.

 

Finally, I never said that you hadn't been at the sharp end of the hobby. I know how long you have been building superb models and that you have probably acheived more in the hobby than a good many of the rest of us put together. I just said that Tony Wright has a certain degree of knowledge and experience, not that you didn't. Just like I never said that you had claimed that the A5s and D11s were poor. You seem to be attributing things to me that are far removed from my intention and carefully chosen words.

 

Gresley and Robinson clearly had a lot of respect for each other, may we please try to emulate that?

 

Tony

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited January 21, 2013 by t-b-g

[LNER4479]

 

Tony Wright said:

For 4479's information regarding the O2s.

All the ten O2/1s (built 1921) received side-window cabs between 1939 and 1940. Prior to that they had GN-style cabs, and higher boiler fittings - these being the GNR-built examples. It would appear that the fitting of side-window cabs and the lowering of the boiler fittings was (in the main) contemporaneous.

All the 15 O2/2s (those built in 1923/1924 to the LNER composite loading gauge, which was lower than the GN) retained their GNR cabs until some were rebuilt to O2/4 between 1944 and 1958, five in number. These were (6)3932, 63933, 63935, 63938 and 63945. They then received side-window cabs.

All the 41 O2/3s (built between 1932 and 1943) always had side-window cabs

 

Thanks Tony, that at least partly confirms my 'hunch'.

 

Looks like I (and many other of us!) will have to be very careful when we select our chosen Heljan O2 (particularly if re-numbering!)

 

For the time being, this rather nice kit built example has already put in a turn or two at Grantham - and it happens to have a GN cab  (please ignore the funny time-warp machines in the background!)

(I've a horrible feeling I'm about to find out that there's all manner of things wrong with it!)

Edited January 21, 2013 by LNER4479

[coachmann]

I should probably throw in the towel but hey.....

 

I have a lot of respect for you, as an experienced and highly knowledgeable member of the model railway community and a contributor of some great stuff to RMWeb. However, your statements on LNER loco history have me chuckling! Good..

 

My sources are people who worked on and with locos..... That puts the little people in their place.

 As for debate, on the contrary, I enjoy it greatly. I have even been known to change my mind sometimes. I fully accept that people are entitled to differing views and I welcome them openly and with enthusiasm. There is a sutle difference between repeating historically inaccuarate half and non truths and a lively debate, which should at least be over some known facts rather than supposition and opinions as to what is fact and what is hearsay and fiction, put about be enthusiasts over the years. Oh dear.

Dissagree with my views by all means but there is a subtle difference between "it differs from mine" and coming over all bumptious. I wear several hats and one of them belongs to experience of firing on BR and conducting and driving buses. Therefore, whenever I read an account of a loco or a bus, my viewpoint is tempered by experiences of working on a daily basis with machines dropped upon the workforce by people who can. I may not have fired a GCR 4-6-0 or a Gresley machine,  but I can sure work out from diagrams and written facts when something ain't right, would give me a hard time, or is inneficient work practice. A shed master could tell me one thing, a driver another, and a fitter something else. Mix in ones own experiences and a picture is formed. That's life.

[t-b-g]

I only mentioned that they were professional railwaymen to differentiate their experiences from those who are more on the outside looking in, not to belittle anybody. I agree, you have you views and experiences and I have mine. They differ and I am happy to leave it at that.

 

Tony 

Edited January 21, 2013 by t-b-g

[Guest jim s-w]

I only mentioned that they were professional railwaymen to differentiate their experiences from those who are more on the outside looking in,

Generally people who work with things see them very differently to how a fan of said thing does. In terms of knowing more about them and especially in terms of knowing what they look like, id always trust an enthusiast over someone who works with them.

 

Think about it like this - unless you are a mad car enthusiast, I bet you dont know the arrangement of the rear lights on the car you drive. Why should you ever look at them (other than to check they work)? But a car enthusiast (who might not even own the type of car you drive) will probably know more about the history and details of your car than you do.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

[Guest Phil]

I only mentioned that they were professional railwaymen to differentiate their experiences from those who are more on the outside looking in, not to belittle anybody. I agree, you have you views and experiences and I have mine. They differ and I am happy to leave it at that.

 

Tony 

Generally people who work with things see them very differently to how a fan of said thing does. In terms of knowing more about them and especially in terms of knowing what they look like, id always trust an enthusiast over someone who works with them.

 

Think about it like this - unless you are a mad car enthusiast, I bet you dont know the arrangement of the rear lights on the car you drive. Why should you ever look at them (other than to check they work)? But a car enthusiast (who might not even own the type of car you drive) will probably know more about the history and details of your car than you do.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

Agree with you to a point, but you are dangerously near to generalising !! Some footplatemen actually knew that some locos had different controls in their cabs to others !!!

[Poggy1165]

I think it's also true that footplatemen often (not invariably) had a preference for their 'own' locos, and a degree of distaste for anything 'foreign', even if it was newer and better than what they already had. They could be just as biased as mere enthusiasts. In life generally there is a strong constituency that likes what it is used to and deplores change. (As anyone who has ever had to manage change will be aware.)