60019 Bittern

Which was my original point. By reclassifying as they did, on the LNER one locomotive type could have three different class designations in the records, while at the same time, one class designation could refer to two entirely different types …

As @35B says, it’s the number part that is irrational, not the letter.

Tom

 

That would only be a problem if the historian didn’t cross reference other information available to them.

I have a database of five years worth of 170 ish classes on the LNER with over 75,000 individual entries. I had no problem understanding that B1 and B2 became B18 and B19.

On this I think I could quite happily claim I have the most experience on doing that specific task!

 

That is one definition of the problem; my thought was much more oriented to the at the time issues involved with the then available record systems.

 

A1 and lowest numbers have prestige applied to them. The LNER liked publicity. “Here’s our new A1, here’s our new K1, L1” - etc etc.

When Gresley joined the LNER and they started classifying all of the different locomotives, the only reason there was no Gresley B1 was because he hadn’t designed a 4-6-0 by 1923. He had to settled for the next number available - B17!

Virtually all of the locomotive classes on the LNER when they grouped them had the Gresley designed locos first. Where there wasn’t a Gresley design, it went by age and constituent company. (Ish)

The LNER seemed pretty robust internally from all the research I’ve done in terms of how they recorded things.

The number of times a classification was reused was pretty small too, to be fair.

Nearly 170 classes and only A1, B1, B2, K1, L1, O1 reused. (A1 reused twice).

Not too bad going I think!

 

Can't help feeling that this re-classifying shows part of Edward Thompson's personality coming out. Like someone I once knew - they had to have the No. 1 position. I'm not aware that Gresley was really bothered about such a thing.

 

So 7 vanity renumberings, and a clear precedent for using the next available option on a reasonably high profile class.

I'm reluctant to point the finger at the CME's department for this, but it confirms my view that publicity trumped good operational practice.

 

I would think the Directors would be far more likely culprits!

 

Usual NP I see. A thread about a specific subject deviating into a discussion about something else.

Dave B

 

https://strathwood.co.uk/products/edward-thompson-wartime-cme-due-in-december-2021-pre-order-today

Read the goddamn book.

I’m getting too old for this…

 

Sorry to keep the drift going..
The system in Queensland was to use a letter to designate the number of driving wheels (A=4, B=6 etc.) and add to that the cylinder diameter in inches.
So the last class of 'Pacific' locos was designated as BB 18 1/4 (to differentiate them from the older B 18 1/4 class).

 

I have read the book, which is why (a) I am surprised at these decisions and (b) am reluctant to point the finger at the CME department for the decisions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Quite agree, add A2 also reused (NER pacifics).
The RCTS green book suggests that Thompson's first thought was just to use the relevant letter for his standard designs, possibly he had to change when he turned out two (plus) different pacifics, A1 and various A2.
When the LNER was set up the ex GNR locomotives came first in the list, and this of course included pre grouping Gresley designs. However within this list several Ivatt (and earlier) locomotives came before the Gresley ones, e.g. N1 and N2.

 

I always thought the LNER's system made pretty good sense, from the point of view of someone who manages a workshop that has to deal with lots of varied vehicles spanning several decades of production. I would see it to being in quite a similar position to someone managing the workload in a repair shop.

In my world, if someone books in work on model 'JP1 ' I know exactly what dummy engine to prepare, what fixtures will be required and what fixings and spares I need to have prepared ahead of time, usually before the vehicle arrives. All from 3 letters/numbers. That is constant, any major changes that mean those parts won't work have to be recorded on a new model ID. If a JK1 came in I would know that the dummy engine will be the same, but I'll need different chassis fixtures. It saves a lot of time interrogating VIN numbers, or matching changes to model years. More importantly to me it means mistakes are rare, so nothing hangs around without work being done.

In the same vein, if I was running a locomotive workshop, and I knew I had a O4/4 due for a standard procedure, in theory I should know exactly what I need to have on hand just from the class number so that the job shouldn't be waiting on parts to be move around between depots. Alternatively, you could label it as 'Robinson 1911 Heavy Goods, w/O2 boiler (full length), side window cab' but that's a lot harder to fit on a card. Working from the other side, I would also say that it encourages standardisation. It's not the most drastic example, but you can't just put on a tender from an O4/3 (without a water scoop) because you have it spare, because then the locomotive no longer fits its classification. If you go ahead and do it, you have change the identity of the loco, which prepares everyone who has to deal with it after you. It also allows for very clear and precise organisation and grouping of spare parts.

To use a topical example, if you were expecting a 4073/Castle class, how would one know if it had 2/3/4 row super heater, or a double chimney before time without pulling out it's entire maintenance log? I might be way off the mark, and the same classes were always repaired in the same shed and it wasn't an issue if they sat around for a couple of days while the information was gathered. However, the level of detail in the LNER system definately aligns the most to the modern systems that I deal with.

 

It’s a good thing they didn’t decide to make a single….

 

I'm just loathe to repeat the Thompson thread all over again, but there's an element here of assuming the CMEs had more power than they actually had to enforce ideas such as that suggested.

Thompson made two mistakes with his reclassifying, that was "Class A" and "Class B" which he intended to use to avoid reclassifying other classes. In the event, his classes were reclassified, and others reclassified to suit these re classifying, and Peppercorn's reclassifying wasn't of his own impetus either.

Ultimately the decisions for classifying locomotives lay with operating departments engaging with the design team, and and agreeing to certain reclassifications.

Look at class K3 as an example. For some time you had K3/1, K3/2, K3/3 and K3/4. These all became K3 by the 40s. Tender type and cab changes were ignored from that point.

 

Getting back on track with 60019, when the engineering dept on 60007, started the overhaul, they did so with the knowledge they would document every stage.

To that end 800 stages were documented, and with pics, to show a later generation how to overhaul a A4.

That documentation will prove invaluable in the restoration on 60019.

 

That's brilliant. Knowledge retention is an ongoing battle on the railways.

 

With the proposed overhaul of Bittern, I was just wondering what the current status of the second tender is, and whether some work would be carried out on this.

 

Especially when there is not an Haynes manual on an A4, How many spanners would you need for each section. the text would make interesting reading,

 

Sure its at Margate, i had a trip from Kings x to York with it, (2nd tender) with no water stop.
As impressive as that was, it was pushed extensively by a WC 57 all the way, the loco did very little work.
From the stops at Kings x we must have been doing 50mph when we left the North platform end.