If you register, you can do a lot more. And become an active part of our growing community. You'll have access to hidden forums, and enjoy the ability of replying and starting conversations.

Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

Discussion in 'Steam Traction' started by S.A.C. Martin, May 2, 2012.

  1. Jimc

    Jimc Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    4,052
    Likes Received:
    4,665
    Occupation:
    Once computers, now part time writer I suppose.
    Location:
    SE England
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Dont underestimate the time and resources necessary to produce a new design. Is it dozens or hundreds of drawings required? All drawn by hand. If locomotives are needed more urgently than the office can produce a new design, never mind that the new one probably ought to have a few months on the road to look for snags before you build 50...
     
  2. MellishR

    MellishR Resident of Nat Pres Friend

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,066
    Likes Received:
    5,160
    Expediency indeed. As for the monobloc; setting up for it originally might have been expensive but, once the patterns exist and the foundry has been using them to churn out cylinders for a production run of locos, making some more should be no big deal.

    Considering that some design effort was evidently available for the new Pacific designs, it might seem a little odd not to try a version of the V2 with separate inside valve gear; but in effect he did, changing it to a Pacific at the same time.
     
    S.A.C. Martin likes this.
  3. S.A.C. Martin

    S.A.C. Martin Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    5,591
    Likes Received:
    9,325
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Asset Engineer (Signalling), MNLPS Treasurer
    Location:
    London
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Why build more V2s? This is a good question. By looking at the availability statistics, we can see that overall V2 availability was better than the Pacific classes year to year (generalising on the stats however, as it seems to be dependent on the area they operated to some extent).

    I don't think by continuing to build V2s and O2s, Thompson was in any way inconsistent in his approach. The components already existed, and work was ongoing, with most of the major works having booked capacity for building them. Both classes were on the whole, better than the locomotives they were replacing (older pre-grouping engines in the main, and supplementing the existing designs).

    The last batch of four V2s were subsequently built as A2/1s. This allowed a comparison with the A2/2 class. The intention was to build a mixed traffic Pacific on the principles that the Cox Report had suggested.

    The A2/1s were perfectly reasonable locomotives and their availability was better than most of the bigger classes - and the A2/2s in the main - likely because from the start, they used the same V2 boiler, which had been built in large quantities. Their standardisation with both Thompson's A2 front end and the bulk of Gresley V2 parts was a clear advantage.

    The thing that we should bear in mind is that the A2/2, A2/1, B1 and many of Thompson's designs were "easy win" redesigns. Think about the time required to design a whole new locomotives? If you are using standard parts that are already drawn up (as it was to a large extent across all of the Thompson standard designs) then you save a lot of drawing office time that might need to be employed elsewhere on other projects. Remembering of course - foundry and workshop capacity was heavily given over for the war effort. So any new designs or rebuilds needed to meet the criteria set by the LNER emergency board, and the war executive.

    On that note - is it any wonder the B1 came out as a straightforward two cylinder 4-6-0? It even retained, in the original batch, the V2 wheel centres that had been decided on as a use of a standard part. Now look towards the O1, K1, L1, and more...all utilising in the main standard components across different classes and retaining the best components where they were a rebuild (see O1).

    Again - hammering home the point - what the Doncaster office were able to design and turn out under Thompson's direction in such a short amount of time was nothing short of extraordinary. Particularly with the works capacity at an all time low and with the war going on.

    I sometimes feel that in the rush to deride all things Thompson, some writers have completely forgot about the people working under him, the difficult conditions they worked in, and that the design and build of steam locomotives isn't as easy and straightforward as has been described.
     
  4. M Palmer

    M Palmer Guest

    Sorry, I meant amongst LNER proposed designs. For example, I have a note scribbled down from something I saw at the NRM for a 1936 proposal for an "O2-type 2-8-0" with 5'2" driving wheels but the clerk wasn't able to find the relevant roll/file so I was never able to substantiate it (off topic but I did find a drawing of a LNWR 5'2.5" 2-8-0!). So when I saw mention of a LNER 2-8-2 with wheels betwixt 5'2" and 6'2" (i.e. not a P1 or P2) I was intrigued and thought I'd ask the collective brain trust whether this was notional or substantive since it is very much topical to the P2-A2/2 conversion question.
     
  5. Jamessquared

    Jamessquared Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    26,099
    Likes Received:
    57,412
    Location:
    LBSC 215
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Simon - just taking the point above out of a very good (and long) post:

    I don't think building six new V2s and scrapping the same number of P2s would ever have been countenanced.

    At the time of the rebuilds, the P2s were only between 7 and 12 years old, most of them being done when they were 8 - 10 years old. I don't know what length of time the LNER depreciated its locos over, but it was likely to be around 25 or 30 years. So at the time of rebuild, the locos would still have had at least 2/3 of their original capital value. Scrapping them and then building six new locos would have incurred not only the cost of the new locos, but also involved writing off more than 2/3 of the original cost of the P2s, with only any residual scrap value that could be recovered against the order. So that course of action would have been very expensive on the accounts.

    The question of what is a new build, a rebuild, a renewal, a repair etc is an interesting topic and one I think isn't always well explored in many books about locos. I suspect we can all think of examples of nominal rebuilds that amounted to "jack up the whistle - replace frames, wheels, boiler, cylinders, motion - refit whistle". What was striking to me in your earlier description of the P2 rebuild was that it really was genuinely a rebuild, with a considerable amount of the original loco remaining in the rebuild. In that light, the change of wheel arrangement tends to disguise the fact that it seems to me much closer to Bulleid --> Jarvis pacific - in which 90% of the original loco was retained - rather than say the first two Claughtons being rebuilt into Patriots, or the Drummond four cylinder 4-6-0s being renewed as Maunsell two cylinder King Arthurs, both of which resulted in relatively little of the original loco being incorporated in the new one

    Tom
     
  6. huochemi

    huochemi Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,751
    Likes Received:
    1,393
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    UK
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    A bit of an under-statement, although the comparatively recent RCTS book on the Patriots actually has an appendix on railway accounting and goes into some detail of how the expenditure on the Patriots was allocated. The accounting for the Big Four is rather idiosyncratic as there was a great reluctance to treat capital expenditure as well capital expenditure as we would usually know it. It is worth bearing in mind that the Big Four were all reducing their loco fleets in absolute numbers so nearly all new and "rebuilt" locos were treated as renewals whether Castles, Kings, A4s etc, (the accounts do not generally use a "rebuilt" definition), and intrinsically there was no difference between a "rebuilt" loco i.e. a loco which used a few / many parts from a withdrawn loco, and an entirely new-build loco. The expenditure for a loco was analysed into improvements (basically increased capacity/utility of that loco), renewals and repairs (as the do nothing position would require costs to be incurred on overhauling the existing nominal donor loco), but there is a suggestion the allocation was in reality somewhat arbitrary. I suspect the "rebuilt" debate is largely from enthusiasts. The Patriots seem to have been known internally by a variety of names - including rebuilt Claughtons, converted Claughtons, improved Claughtons and three cylinder Claughtons. For most Patriots, the GWR Manors probably had more 43xx in them than the Patriots had Claughton material. I wonder if the LNER minutes break down the allocation of expenditure on the A2/2 conversions into the various buckets, which would probably be expected in presentations to the board (as well as the unamortised book value of the existing locos and cost of upcoming overhaul).
     
  7. Jimc

    Jimc Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    4,052
    Likes Received:
    4,665
    Occupation:
    Once computers, now part time writer I suppose.
    Location:
    SE England
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    I'm sure you're right. I hope I've gained some understanding of this looking at GWR loco committee minutes. Renewal is, I think, a technical finance term which means construction of 'like new' locomotives on the renewals account. The Renewals account was money allocated to, well, make the capital items like new again. This was itself something of a flexible term. In the 20s numerous newly absorbed engines on the GWR were sent off to various loco manufacturers works for "renewal ... utilising such parts ... as may be suitable for this purpose". The bill for a "renewed" say Taff Vale 0-6-2 looks to have been something like 1/3 of the cost of a new Swindon or Armstrong built 0-6-2. The minutes also contain examples where the chosen replacements were "improvements" and in this case the extra expenditure needed to be voted on by the full board as capital.

    So locomotives might be rebuilt on the maintenance budget or the renewals budget - some Stars were upgraded to Castles on maintenance and some as renewals. I've gained the impression, though, that the renewals tended to be a more comprehensive job. So I reckon rebuild is an engineering term, and renewal a financial one, so trying to map one into the other is probably futile.

    An interesting question might be whether "new" GWR engines (also constructed on the renewals account) were built of all new parts, or whether suitable parts from the pool were used on them. Cook tells us, incidentally, that about 50% of the components from a withdrawn 43 went into a Manor or Grange, but presumably other components went back into the pool if they weren't life expired. The 1950s Manors don't seem to have been officially rebuilt from 43s, but similar numbers of 43s were being withdrawn to the number of Manors built, so one wonders. It might have made the Manors rather cheaper than BR standards, not that I suppose that would have cut much ice with the Kremlin.

    [Later] oh and rebuilds on the maintenance budget don't seem to have had to be notified to the board. In the special case of "The Great Bear", there's no authorisation for its renewal that I can find, just a note that says "Engine no 111... has recently come under general repair ... advantage has been taken of the occasion to reconstruct it so that it will be similar to the Castle type."
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2020
  8. andrewshimmin

    andrewshimmin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2011
    Messages:
    1,761
    Likes Received:
    2,160
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    I've an idea! How about when Prince of Wales has finished its first boiler ticket, we rebuild it into an A2/2?
    I quite like the look of them, and we could find out if they're any good...

    Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
     
    jnc, Bluenosejohn, 2392 and 5 others like this.
  9. Jamessquared

    Jamessquared Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    26,099
    Likes Received:
    57,412
    Location:
    LBSC 215
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    It could appear at a gala with “Lady of Legend” converted into a Hall and the new Patriot back-converted to a Claughton ...

    Tom
     
    69530, jnc, Bluenosejohn and 4 others like this.
  10. S.A.C. Martin

    S.A.C. Martin Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    5,591
    Likes Received:
    9,325
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Asset Engineer (Signalling), MNLPS Treasurer
    Location:
    London
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    God no. Let’s not go there!
     
    jnc likes this.
  11. lewi73050

    lewi73050 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2020
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    13
    And with General Steam Navigation going backwards into original condition!

    Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
     
    Bluenosejohn likes this.
  12. andrewshimmin

    andrewshimmin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2011
    Messages:
    1,761
    Likes Received:
    2,160
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Re-re-built or un-de-re-un-rebuilt?

    Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
     
  13. lewi73050

    lewi73050 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2020
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    13
    ...yes

    Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
     
  14. flying scotsman123

    flying scotsman123 Resident of Nat Pres

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    10,437
    Likes Received:
    17,937
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cheltenham
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    [​IMG]
     
  15. huochemi

    huochemi Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,751
    Likes Received:
    1,393
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    UK
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Certainly one of the more obscure areas for railway scholars. C H (later Sir Charles) wrote a (or the) bible for railway accounts (titled "Railway Accounts") in 1930. It is quite frankly difficult to understand in places but the Renewal Funds concept seems to have been an early example of inflation accounting, as it is depreciation but calculated based on projected replacement cost rather than historic cost.
    newton_p175.jpg
    This rather suggests also to me that the depreciation charged against an individual asset would be a different number, and probably not on balance sheet but in a separate record (as there is no suggestion that assets were valued in the balance sheet at replacement cost).
     
    ross, S.A.C. Martin and Jamessquared like this.
  16. jma1009

    jma1009 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,381
    Likes Received:
    1,637
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    ynysddu south wales
    I would make a few short pertinent comments on the above discussions.

    Thompson's building of more V2s was in the aftermath of Cox condemning the conjugated valve gear - which Thompson had relied upon to do his own rebuilds. So there is an inconsistency here that needs to be adequately explained. It cannot simply be dismissed on the basis Thompson didn't have time or drawing office resources - Bulleid managed to do this in WW2 for his new pacifics and also using a new novel design of boiler with a steel firebox incorporating lots of new innovations and welding.

    Here is where the Cox Report falls apart if Simon says the V2 availability was better than the Gresley Pacifics - they had essentially the same conjugated valve gear and the same shed staff and fitters and drivers, the same problems with maintenance in WW2 of the conjugated gear bearings on the levers in front of the smokebox underneath the plates.

    So why did the V2s have better availability compared to the Gresley Pacifics?

    I don't know the answers to this.

    But it is question that ought to be postulated.

    Cheers,

    Julian
     
    jnc and Eightpot like this.
  17. Fred Kerr

    Fred Kerr Resident of Nat Pres Friend

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    Messages:
    8,239
    Likes Received:
    5,250
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Freelance photo - journalist
    Location:
    Southport
    It appears to this reader that there is further nit-picking taking place hence I suggest you wait until Simon's book is finally published before criticising further. Whilst Simon has discussed much the book's contents I feel sure that some of the material will be retained to complete interest in it once published; why buy the book when it has effectively been published within this thread ? Whilst you occasionally raise valid points I am beginning to find your nit-picking tiresome and - possibly - causing delays to Simon finally publishing his tome; might I suggest waiting until publication then raise any (missing) points directly with Simon as your continued negativity is becoming intolerable.

    Just a thought from someone keen to read a complete book rather than answers to a continual flow of "what ifs ?".
     
  18. Spinner

    Spinner Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2006
    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    237
    Occupation:
    Public Servant
    Location:
    Australia
    I'd suggest that the better availability comes from being newer as a group than the Pacifics. V2s were being built up to the report being written, where the newest Pacifics were up to their second general overhaul.
     
    RLinkinS and bluetrain like this.
  19. MellishR

    MellishR Resident of Nat Pres Friend

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,066
    Likes Received:
    5,160
    Apropos continued building of V2s: what was the timing? What were the respective dates of the following?
    Receipt of the Cox report.
    Board approval for re-building the P2s.
    Board approval for building A2/1s in place of a some V2s.
    Building of the last V2s.
     
  20. S.A.C. Martin

    S.A.C. Martin Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    5,591
    Likes Received:
    9,325
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Asset Engineer (Signalling), MNLPS Treasurer
    Location:
    London
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Hmmm.

    It is not an inconsistency at all.

    The Cox Report came at a time when building of V2s, O2s and Stanier O6s was in full swing. If you cancel the building of locomotives, you do produce additional capacity for something else to be built, but you have to justify your expenditure not just to the board but the wartime executive too. Thompson cancelled the building of more V4s, for example, and the B1 design was quickly put together to replace that slot in the LNER's manufacturing capacity.

    The argument for continuing to build V2s when their overall availability as a new class is remaining better than others is logical. Thompson and the drawing office may not have been able to produce a new design to replace the V2 class wholesale in time.

    This is actually born out by the emergence of the rebuilt P2s first, and then the A2/1s, shortly after (utilizing the same front end design ethos including equal length connecting rods. The similarity of the Thompson Pacifics in the front end is notable and likely saved much on the development of individual drawings, as it did elsewhere when the B1 was designed virtually around standard existing components and drawings, and other classes in Thompson's range too that followed later.

    Comparing Bulleid on the Southern and Thompson on the LNER are not comparing like with like. Thompson and the LNER were far more restricted by their funds than Bulleid was. The LNER was also doing more for the war effort by war of facilities than the Southern was (with respect to the Southern, but the LNER facilities of Doncaster, Darlington, Gorton, Stratford and more had given up more of their overall workshop capacity).

    The Cox Report doesn't fall apart at all on this basis and I wonder why you continue to point directly at the one report, but never acknowledge the LNER's own statistics which back up the report.

    In any event - the reasons that the V2s likely had better overall availability could be down too:
    • Different work patterns
    • Lower mileages per diagram
    • They were newly built and the same level of wear/tear was not manifesting itself in the same way
    V2 availability wasn't perfect, just as an FYI;

    upload_2020-2-9_11-8-24.png

    I don't think we can sit here, look at the overall annual availability statistics, and claim that the Cox Report was in any way undermined by continuing to build the two Gresley designs that were:
    • Already under construction
    • Had major components built
    • Were doing modest work as a class already
    If anything Thompson and the LNER Emergency board probably could be criticised for - at best - not acting quickly enough on the Cox Report where the larger locos were concerned. But there is no doubt of the excellence of the B1's design given the wartime conditions.

    All questions are good, but I feel I have covered almost every aspect of that above before with you, Julian.
     

Share This Page