Southern standardisation (follow-on from the 94xx thread)

We all know the GW had an amazing level of standardisation at a component level. This IMO is becuase they struck on a formula that worked and were rich and ruthless enough to impose it across the post-grouping system, and it still worked 40 years later. (Compare to eg the Midlandisation dead-end on the LMS, and LNWR being too archaic)

The LNER didn't look at standardisation of locomotives until Thompson (albeit there was some parts standardisation across Gresley locos), but as they only started in 1923 (or 1942ish for Thompson).

Interestingly, the Southern might have come in second in the standardisation stakes. As electrification allowed the removal of large numbers of older engines by the 1930s and would have continued had war/nationalisation. At which point in the 50s pretty much everything could be N/U, [S/H15, Black/Green tanks], [Q1 and pacifics], USA tanks.

Would that put them in second place behind the GW, or would the LMS's sheer muscle have allowed them to whack out enough black 5s/8Fs to get rid of all the older engines?

(The IMR obviously gets to point and laugh at such differing loco studs)

 

Indeed. If they had built the 4Fs as 2251-equivalents, using a pattern that could be developed into black 5s etc, then it would be very different.

I wonder it the austen 7s could have been built in a similar way? Or was an 0-8-0 too much of a dead end?

But yes, the sheer volume of midland-esque engines (and the fact that unlike the Southern, the steam duties needed replacing with more steam) is why I think the Southern may have "won"

 

They were also able to concentrate the vast majority of pre group classes into a very limited area served from a single factory, and institute a programme of installing standard parts on non standard locomotives. No doubt at all they were by far the best placed with a single dominant constituent who were also highly integrated. Most of all, though, there was the will to do it. Reading Cox, for example, it seems evident that on the LMS the drawing offices were much better at finding reasons not to change policies than they were at introducing them. And Holcroft talks about Jock Finlayson having a tendency to "revert to Urie" whenever the opportunity was there!

 

Should that also take account of the influence of LMS practice on Riddles Standard classes ? One needs to consider (a) that the LMS had a variety of designs from many companies (b) Ivatt was introducing his 2MT designs (41xxx/ 464xx) as standard to replace early 0-6-0 designs (c) LMS practice was reflected by the Standard 5 4-6-0 (improved Stanier LMS Class 5), Standard 4 2-6-0 (improved Ivatt LMS Class 4), Standard 2 2-6-0 (improved Ivatt Class 2MT), Standard 4 2-6-4T (improved LMS 2-6-4T) and Standard 2 2-6-2T (improved Ivatt 2-6-2T).

In terms of the Southern note that his BB/WC Pacifics were adopted as a "standard" design to replace the multitude of designs inherited from the many small companies that formed the post-Grouping Southern Railway but which had not been replaced earlier as (limited) funding had been allocated to electrification schemes following Sir Herbert Walker's policy of electrifying passenger services as quickly as possible but using diesel traction for the longer routes (e.g. Waterloo - Exeter / Bournemouth - Weymouth). Essentially a more basic question is how far post-Grouping companies were able to continue locomotive / traction policies within the aegis of post-nationalisation British Railways.

 

What about the 1923 drive to Midlandisation? Ironically, if they'd been less keen to do that, they might have been not as far down the wrong route.

It's interesting - nobody was stupid in the design offices, but they drew entirely different conclusions from a similar picture. What the GW had IMO was not just a will and ability to impose, but a formula that worked. Arguably both the midland and lnwr had both standardised, but at a technological arrangement that was superseded, arguably by grouping.

 

Taking this from a different standpoint, it's not the entire vehicles which need to be standardised.
It's the smaller components like clack valves, draw hooks and something as simple as a compartment door catch which offer savings if standardised.
The Southern happily swapped refurbished components between many classes. S15 828 has components stamped with the numbers of H15 and N15 locos withdrawn some years before 828.
Even consumables like brake blocks and firebars would make a saving. If your coach fleet all had wheels of one size instead of three it would make store keeping and supply much easier.

I think I read it somewhere in this forum, but were there not four or five different designs of boilers for Black 5's? Unfortunately they were not all compatible with the variations in chassis design.

Cheers, Neil

 

Yes, from a spares p.o.v. an engine is just a collection of spares lines.

(I used to work for Unipart, managing the info for the spares with a computer system was bad enough, doing it with men in brown overcoats and pencils behind their ears will be much harder - especially when it comes to change)

 

and three different frame plate thicknesses and---- you could go on and on about Black 5s.

 

A dumb question I've never asked. Did post-grouping companies ever consider standardisation with or buying stock from other companies? LMS and SR would be the primary case, not in competition and co-operating already on the S&D. Could the SR have, for example, bought or built an off the peg LMS 2-6-4T rather than designing their own locos?

Patrick

 

Didn't the LNWR and Lanky fall foul of the Law due to Crewe building engines for the Lanky? Did the relevant law still persist into Grouping?
Pat

 

LMS and the Royal Scots.
Basically, though, it would be a very troublesome affair, because as part of the CME's duty is to have a design team and factory capable of providing the best possible locomotives for the railway, if the CME wants to go outside its an admission that he can't do part of his job, and if the board wants to go outside its a statement of no confidence in their CME.

 

The Caley certainly weren't able to build Dunalastairs for Belgium due to a law permitting only construction for the 'home line'. That certainly went west under Railway Executive during WWII, with 8Fs being knocked out left, right and centre.

 

There's a big difference between one railway company building locos to sell to another one, which was regarded as unfair competition with the independent builders, and a railway works building another company's design to government order.

 

Not just Locos and Coaches.

The North Eastern Railway built 24 independent snowploughs to 12 different designs.
Some were obviously different, but most looked just like each other.

 

Hence the wording in my OP, as both the railways and their workshops operated under Railway Exectutive Committee control 'for the duration'.

 

What an apt name to raise this!
Presumably a lot of that was down to them being built on redundant tender chassis?

 

Mine isn't. (google Snowdrift at Bleath Ghyl. The timber one that's mine)

Some were built to reuse Loco Frames or Tenders, but others were purpose designed.

 

But the Royal Scots were ordered from North British simply because the works were building / re-building locos hence hadn't the capacity to meet the timescales requested by the LMSR Board. Their "outside order" was therefore not a criticism of either the Board by the CME OR the CME by the Board. Similarly with the Jubilees; one could also point to the order for Gresley A1s going to North British Loco BUT that wasn't a criticism of Gresley by the LNER Board either; even Swindon turned to the North British Loco for some its Pannier classes including 57cc and 94xx examples.