t-b-g

Sorry for the previous slightly less than serious post! One of the news reports referred to the slip being from the waste from the most recent workings, adding that the tips from older workings, which were the ones nearest the houses, were quite stable and safe. What it didn't say was what "recent" means in this context.

How about Bernard Cribbins and "There was I digging this hole"?

Your second idea might be best as that will allow the valve gear to be removed as a single unit with the cylinders and slidebars. If the curved link is firmly attached to the frames by the motion bracket, that will make removal tricky. Tony

That looks a very neat solution. I have an unbuilt K2 kit in the cupboard and when the time comes I will be nicking that idea! I cannot quite recall how the motion bracket fits but I think that is designed to be soldered to the frames as well. You may need to put your thinking cap on for that too. If you would like to solve that one for me too, it would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Tony

Spot on! I worked briefly in a coking works 30 plus years ago and regular inspections were carried out all over the plant. Even while I was there for a few months, decisions were made that it was expensive to carry out regular checks and to maintain the plant and that it would save money if we just waited until something broke and then fixed it. There were places on site that were deathtraps, such as rotten mesh walkways to the top of the coal conveyor belt towers but getting anybody to spend money to fix them was impossible, so you had to walk up with your feet wide apart on the main runners. That plant is closed now but a friend of mine who has worked in the same factory for 40 years has had exactly the same done there and as a maintainence engineer he just waits for things to break. Was Hatfield Colliery the same? I have no idea but with previous owners having gone down financially I would guess that money wasn't exactly flowing for routine maintainence work. If politicians are to get involved, it is those sorts of things they ought to be asking about. Who inspected the tip, how often and what is in their reports?

My comments were not so much about the specifics of the problem at Stainforth but more about the general state of land drainage in the area, which may have contributed to the problem as the land on the far side of the line to the colliery has been waterlogged for many years. My father in law worked for Yorkshire Water and part of his job was as to be one of a gang of 20 who spent all summer long clearing drainage ditches from new growth. The work is just not done now and what do you know, the area suffers from frequent flooding. Perhaps it is a coincidence but my father in law doesn't think so and he had 40 years experience at the blunt end. I am really not assuming anything, just commenting on a posting regarding the lack of drainage planning on the tip. The area he worked in is actually below sea level, so it doesn't take a genius to work out that drainage may be a problem if it is neglected. Hatfield Colliery is probably at pretty much the same sort of altitude. This colliery is less than 100 years old and I class that as modern compared to when the land drainage schemes were being put in place. I pass Stainforth station regularly as one of my daughters works a couple of hundred yards from troublesome slag heap and I give her a lift 3 days a week. The whole area is run down, uncared for and suffering from vandalism. There seem to be "travellers" caravans and tethered horses and ponies all over the place. I would think that even the idea of leaving anything on site overnight would give anybody working there nightmares! Access isn't easy either as you have the dodgy pit tip on one side and the railway line and lagoons on the other. It will be a very challenging task to sort it out and I wish those involved the very best in their task.

I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case. It is the modern way of doing things. Cheapest and quickest and don't worry about the future too much if it reduces the profits now. Land drainage generally is badly neglected and many ditches and dykes have been left to get choked and blocked as there is no profit in spending money clearing them. It may even have something to do with the ever more frequent floods we seem to be having. Looking after roads seem to be going the same way. The Dutch drainage engineers who made large parts of this area of the country into useable farmland many years ago understood that such work had a long term benefit and we seem to have forgotten that in the chase for the quick financial return.

Cheers Gus but sadly I can claim no credit for the articles you mentioned! I have had one or two bits published in RM, MRJ and BRM but nothing with anything as modern as a 9F (unlesss you count the GCR 9F better known as an N5!). I tend to be more of your "behind the scenes" sort and spend much of my modelling time helping other people with their projects. In fact, I have just spotted some of my work in the heading to this page! Tony

I know just what you mean! The proper solution, good engineering and all that, is to make the cylinders removeable to allow good access to the driving wheels. Then there is the practical approach! How many times do you ever actually need to get driving wheels out? I once had a leading crankpin wear to the extent that it sheared off and took the wheels out to replace it. That is once in 35 years and having been involved with hundreds (not all mine!) of kit and scratchbuilt locos. A compromise might be to just tack solder the cylinders on in a couple of places, rather than a full blown soldered seam joint. That way, if the worst happened, at least you have a decent chance of getting the assembly off again. Even a blob or two of epoxy, allowing the joint to be broken with a sharp knife if necessary, might do the trick.

That is coming along very nicely. I a sure that it got mentioned on here somewhere but without trawling through lots of pages I am not sure where, so I will just touch on it again. One of the shortcomings of the kit is the access to the leading driving wheels if it is built rigid. Malcolm built all his either sprung or beam compensated and when I raised it with him his response was that if peple wanted to build it other than how he intended then it was their problem! You cannot get the leading wheels in and out once the cylinders are on. So you have a few options. One is to build up the frames as a simple wheels/coupling rods arrangement, get it working and even paint the frames before assembling the cylinders and valve gear. Another is to modify the cylinders/valve gear so that they can be attached with a nut and bolt, rather than be soldered to te frames. A third is to make the leading wheels removeable, with a slot and a keeper plate or retaining wire arrangement. All three will work but I thought it worth suggesting them before you get too far! Keep up the good work!! Cheers, Tony PS Just noticed that you have mentioned Comet cylinders and I think the frames look a bit altered, so you have probably sorted out a suitable modification to make the cylinders removeable but I will leave the post on just in case!

The private collection you mentioned may be the one based at the Doncaster Grammar School. They certainly have a huge collection of railway bits, including some highly interesting nameplates. I arranged to have a brass full size replica nameplate cast for a friend once and visited the "Procast" foundry to collect it. The place was littered with new plates but also with some original wooden patterns used for casting the plates (such as the LMS "Coronation"). So, to add to the question, is a new plate, cast from the original wooden pattern, a replica, an unused duplicate or something else altogether? I would be quite surprised if many preserved locos carry their original plates. They are just too valuable and of course many plates were removed at withdrawal and sold off, so that when the loco went into preservation, the plates didn't come with it. All the "Barry" locos would come into that category. You are right, it is a fascinating subject.

I had the great good fortune to get the chance to operate Striving a couple of times. The quality of the workmanship and the care that Chris Matthewman put into getting it to work well was truly inspirational. It worked perfectly and any problems were down to operator error (especially when I was on duty!) rather than mechanical or electrical problems. Big chunks of "Striving" were re-cylcled to make "Striven" which was exhibited just the once by Chris before he died and is now in the capable hands Colin and Val Ashby and can be seen at exhibitions from time to time.

The layout in Model Railways and at Nottingham is the later "Borchester Market". Still an excellent layout but the one that Frank Dyer really made a mark on the hobby with was the earlier "Borchester" (I think the layout was called Borchester but the station on it was "Borchester Town")

Easy one that! Buckingham and Borchester.

What about Manchester, Sheffield, Immingham and Grimsby Docks, Liverpool via the CLC plus the Nottinghamshire, Yorkshire and Derbyshire coalfields? Some folk think of the GCR as that little branch down to London but it went right through the industrial heartland and shifted many millions of tons of coal and steel. The main GCR suburban services were around Manchester and they were extensive. Dozens of 2-4-2 and 4-4-2 tanks on very busy routes.

Having worked for over 20 years at a place of work that went through several mergers, I have seen how infighting between former "opposition" people could be a bit more than petty squabbling. Former fierce competitors being asked to form an immediate and effective team and each company having a full admin set up at Head Office but the combined company only having room for one HR manager, one Product Development manager, one IT manager etc. At lower level, branch closures and the constant worry of "Will our office or their office go?" The back stabbing and political wargames were always an experience for anybody who enjoys a bit of office drama and "people watching". Many very senior people ended up out of a job, so you can understand why they fought tooth and nail. Imagine if a merger was imposed between Liverpool and Everton, or between Man. Utd and Man. City (or heaven forbid Sheffields United and Wednesday!). "Some players and staff have to go and one manager and ground to remain but we want you to all be professional and not squabble over who goes and who stays." Sparks would fly! There were only so many people who would be willing to stand aside and say "Go on, my good man, you take the job", as Robinson did. The GWR benefitted from a pretty much "no change" in 1923 but it certainly took the LMS a long time to sort itself out. The LNER seemed to do reasonably well, perhaps by allowing the Scottish, Great Eastern and North Eastern Areas some autonomy and the way Robinson and Gresley sorted out the main job was fairly harmonious. I know nowt about the Southern but the way people talk, it seems that not much happened until Bullied. He is the only one mentioned so far!

After our earlier differences I was happy to see such a well presented precis of the LMS loco situation. Couldn't have put it better myself. On most railways, designers had their good points and their bad and they also sometimes had to deal with poor administrators making the main policies. Although my main enthusiasm is for the GCR, I also have a bit of an interest in LMS matters and I am currently helping a friend build a full set of blue LMS Streamlines to go behind a Streamlined pacific. The "small engine" policy was certainly dead and buried by then. So, to ask a new question, was the end of the small engine policy a gradual process, on the way out with the Patriots and 7F 0-8-0s being a sort of intermediate phase, or did it end with a bang when Stanier took charge? Did Fowler plan to build pacifics (as Robinson thought about on the GCR)? I don't have so many LMS books and I wonder if proposals for such things were ever made?

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

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"

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

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.

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

The GCR drivers were amongst the most loyal to their CME in the country. Robinson was so well loved and respected that they would rather drive any Robinson loco than the best "foreign" locos around. Any interloper was doomed to non acceptance before it arrived. I have read Jackson & Russell as well as other books on the subject. After a while the GCR drivers came to accept the B17s and used them turn and turn about with the GCR Atlantics. I recall reading that the GCR crews were allowed to keep some Atlantics as a "sweeteneer" to encourage then to use the B17s. The C1s were exceptional locos and when you read Nock's accounts of their performances when deputising for Pacifics in the 1920s/30s they could often manage either very heavy or very fast trains at Pacific timings. I always think that winning over the hearts and minds of people is a big part in the battle to have your locos accepted by the operating crews. CMEs who gained the respect of the loco crews could sometimes provide them with a less than perfect loco and it would be accepted as if it was wonderful. The crews would do their utmost to find ways f getting the best out of the locos. When that loco is then transferred to another section, where they had their own highly respected CME, any shortcomings were then highlighted rather than swept under the carpet. Gresley had that degree of respect on the LNER. 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. Even if he had used a less well known loco as a test bed. His first action so antagonised enthusiasts and LNER people who admired Gresley and his work that he had a massive uphill struggle to win their hearts and minds after that. He lost a lot of support in Scotland when he took the P2s away. The operating people up there wondered why they had to give up the only locos they had that could pull some of their trains!

Yet another sweeping generalisation. People who should know better sometimes write nonsense. V2s "flimsy"? Didn't the Peppercorn A1s do the highest mileages of express locos between major overhauls? Flimsy indeed! The Gresley Pacifics were generally regarded as some of the best riding locos on the railway. As they were neither designed nor built there, may I query in what respect were the B17s "Doncaster" locos? Except that one was named after the football team! Designed by North British (after Doncaster couldn't produce a design that would meet the "spec" - NB didn't either but the LNER was desperate and decided to go ahead anyway - even though they knew the design was compromised) and they were built at Darlington and at Robert Stephensons. So Doncaster had little to do with the design (other to pass some failed design work on to NB) and nothing to do with the construction. It is well recorded that they were unpopular due to rough riding at some sheds but in others records show that they were highly popular with the crews. It is all in the RCTS book and others. These are easily checkable facts for anybody that wants to take the trouble.

It probably didn't help that Thompson inherited the job right in the middle of a certain unpleasantness involving some Germans and others. I can just imagine the guys in the drawing office being told to be stingy with every last scrap of metal in the design. I don't know for sure but it would seem logical that all the best quality materials were probably going into military equipment, plus the fact that many railway works were also producing weapons and suchlike. I can easily imagine a situatuion where the best engineers in the works were put on the military jobs. It is what I would have done. I would rather have the best blokes working on the bombs! So perhaps poor old Edward Thompson was ever so slightly hampered by the circumstances. Rather like the Austerities. I remember reading that they had a designed in life expectancy of something like 5 years and really were built on the quick and cheap principle. The fact that they were still running at all 15 plus years later (and a lot longer in some places) makes it understandable that they were a bit rough riding. I haven't seen the preserved one running or heard anything about its running but I would be interested to hear if anybody has. Is it as rough as they were back in the day or is it a sewing machine now? Was the problem in the design or in the working conditions and lack of "TLC" that they got in the 50s/50s?