Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

It always strikes me as a bit odd the degree to which enthusiasts either recognise renewals and rebuilds as being a new class or completely ignore it.

For what it is worth, at the time they were withdrawn in 1962 as "the oldest design still working on BR", substantial parts of the Beattie Well Tanks were only around 25 years old - essentially newer than the 1366 class pannier tanks that replaced them!

Tom

 

So on your basis, what really were the oldest essentially original classes around 1960?

 

Quite possibly some of the 9F's that hadn't yet had a general repair in works.

 

By final withdrawal of the last Terriers, there can't have been too much material surviving from the Marsh A1x rebuilds, never mind original Stroudley era components ,,, though I suspect the prize for replacement parts goes to GWR No.1213!

 

It’s a complex question. Taking the Beattie tanks, at the time of their withdrawal, the frames dated from the 1930s; the boiler from the 1920s; the bunker and cab from the 1890s; you’d have to look at maintenance records for thinks like wheels, axles and cylinders. However, in physical form, they were 1930s outline, quite distinct from how they had been since the 1890s, and bearing scant resemblance to the original design from the 1860s. Of course, that 1930s appearance was on a basic plan (wheelbase, cylinders, valve gear, location of tanks etc) that wasn’t much changed since the 1860s.

Of the Stroudley Terriers still in existence at that time, for the mainland ones at least the form was substantially similar to how they are built, except for changes to the boiler, smoke box and sanding gear (and details like brakes and water feed arrangements) that were more modern. Fenchurch at least had, and still has, some substantial components that are demonstrably original from 1872.

Off the top of my head though, on the Southern at least I suspect the Adams classes might have had the longest substantially unaltered existence. The O2s on the Isle of Wight had new bunkers and air brakes, plus Drummond boilers in some cases. The three 0415 radial tanks shuffled between Adams and Drummond boilers but without other significant changes in form (even though as I recall two of them got new frames in the Maunsell era). But the answer to your question might be the Adams B4 dock tanks, which were really scarcely altered between the 1890s and 1960s. (Obviously parts were renewed, but without significant design change).

Off the Southern, there might be other contenders. You’d be looking for a late Victorian loco still running in the 1960s without having had a substantial change such as a new boiler design. What about the LNWR Coal tanks, or maybe some GER 2-4-0 on a rural East Anglian backwater? The surviving NER 0-6-0s of that vintage I believe had had superheated boilers fitted from their original condition.

Tom

 

Actually with at least one A1x you would be incorrect, namely No. W11. When, as No. 40. she went to Paris brand new, she was equipped with Stroudley's speed indicator which none of her classmates were fitted with. The mounting holes can still be found on her mainframes as can the inscriptions made by the ironfounders in the wrought iron. Stroudley does seem to have been a better designer of frames than his successors.

The date was 1878 by the way and I think it would be difficult to find this sort of proof of original components for any other individual machine of its age.

 

The tanks on Fenchurch still have the (blanked off) holes on the top for the steam balance pipe that went across the front of the cab. Only the first six Terriers had that feature, so the tanks are either original to Fenchurch, or - less likely - to one of the other five in the 1872 batch.

Tom

 

When I wrote my post I had in mind some of the 0395s which were not reboilered ; those two tanks at Devons Road (?58850) ; possibly the J15s. Were the Aspinalls and Barton-Wrights significantly rebuilt? Apologies to mods for O/T.

 

The GCR O4s / LNWR Super Ds?

 

That is a very difficult thing to prove unless the feature concerned is unique to anindividual machine. For example, it is tempting to assert that the Stroudley pattern air application valve on W11 was the one used during the momentous air brake demonstrations in Paris but it can never be proved.

 

Indeed so, hence how I phrased my post. The evidence is that the tanks are original to 1872, and given maintenance practice that in general saw locos stripped and reassembled from the same major components rather than from pooled parts, it is highly likely, though not definitive, that the tanks are indeed original to Fenchurch.

I think to demonstrate the possibility that the tanks swapped, you would need to find a time when two of the original 1872 batch were simultaneously in the works. Interestingly, there was an interesting snippet on the current overhaul of “Stowe” where the fitting of a component from another Schools class loco can be tied down to a specific date in the 1930s as the only time when both locos were simultaneously under overhaul.

Tom

 

Actually, I recalled Fenchurch on a low loader, outside Brighton Model World, not long after I posted (and felt a right charlie!) ..... and date stamps visible on parts of the undergubbins. Odd though that, even with the Marsh rebuild, they retained so much original metal, when other classes needed new bits'n'bobs. Probably down to the sort of traffic they handled for much of their existence. If there was ever a testament to Brighton build quality ......

Best get back on topic ..... thanks for your patience, folks!

 

Older locos are less likely to have the major bits swapped around as they weren't built with the accuracy that became the norm in the twentieth century. Templates would be used for marking things out but things such as holes would be far more approximate and at the whim of the person drilling them. for this reason it is far more likely that a locomotive under overhaul would get all its original bits back unless they needed replacing. A lot of time can be spent in making two items that have never before gone together fit. (Hence the trade of fitter.)

 

Quite.

Tom

 

I’ve enjoyed the thread drift. Always good to think about such things and see different points of view.

 

Thanks for showing the interesting spreadsheet/graph. As others have pointed out, data is skewed by the onset of dieselisation, with only the earliest Gresley pacifics able to complete 40 years service.

To provide background context, attached is a similar chart for LNER 8-coupled heavy freight haulers. This has only marginal relevance to the Thompson story, but it does bring in classes that completed work before diesels appeared, with noticeable life-span variations.

Some points regarding the chart:
(1) Note the Ivatt GNR "Long Tom" 0-8-0s (LNER Q1/Q2). Early withdrawal was facilitated by the purchase of ROD 2-8-0s, and completed by the 1930s trade recession. These engines had lives much shorter than the contemporary NER 0-8-0s (LNER Q5) and also much shorter than the contemporary GNR 4-4-2 passenger engines.

(2) The Hull & Barnsley 0-8-0s were withdrawn en-bloc in 1931, again displaced by ROD 2-8-0s and the recession. When the LNER had the opportunity, it could be as ruthless as the LMS in eliminating numerically small and non-standard types. H&B engines fared badly.

(3) Thompson rebuilt 13 Q4s as 0-8-0T 1942-45, withdrawn 1954-59.

(4) The prototype (non-standard) O2 was withdrawn in 1948; the remainder as shown in the chart.

(5) The O4 total includes 273 ex-ROD engines, built 1917-19 and purchased by LNER 1923-27. The government requisitioned 92 O4s in 1941 and purchased 5 more in 1952; these never returned to LNER/BR.

(6) The 58 O4 engines rebuilt by Thompson to O1 had similar total life-spans to remaining O4s.

(7) The LNER had additional Stanier & Riddles 2-8-0s on loan. The LNER O6s were transferred to the LMS in 1947, replaced by O7s/WDs.

An overall conclusion is that, based on service life, the Raven Q6 and Robinson O4 provided the best "return on investment".

Apologies for quoting so many statistics. For readers unfamiliar with classes mentioned, info is here:

https://www.lner.info/locos/locos.php

 

That is another thing which comes into the "ought to be true but is it" category. Years ago I had a deal to do with a Dinorwic Quarry Hunslet and she had parts with a real mixture of makers numbers on her.

 

Well, it would also depend on the factory practices. If your replacement parts are 6 weeks by ship getting to the customer maybe you're a bit more motivated to ensure they fit first time.

 

That is quite a bit different from the question of simply overhauling a locomotive. It was always (and still is) quite common to cannibalise a loco to keep another going. Why buy a new tank or anything else when you have a perfectly good one sat there doing nothing. Better to spend time making it fit than buy another. Having two locos being overhauled is a different matter. Unless you can guarantee interchangeability I certainly wouldn't mix parts without good reason and I don't think any other Engineer would.

 

You say that, but it was fairly common practice - so far as I can see from the L.N.E.R. works records anyway - to put one loco "on the pit" one day and then by the end of the process to have the same loco, with same numbers and nameplates, but a variety of parts swapping would have taken place.

The V2s are a great example of this, and if you've ever looked closely at Green Arrow's motion, for example, you will observe that much of the locomotive, though stamped either 4771 or 800 or 60800, will have other locomotives stamps. The boiler currently on the V2 was on other class members too, and the tenders were swapped round regularly.

I place less emphasis on the idea of "locomotive originality" being the be all and end all because, unless it went straight into a museum from the workshops on building, no locomotive is original. Practically speaking, running repairs and as you say Steve, parts cannibalizing is going to happen on a working railway.