Why did the LNER not adopt a policy of standardization until Thompson?

[Rivercider]

I know little enough about the LNER (it being the furthest away of the Big 4 from where I live) but I assume that Thompson must have been additionally constrained by WWII. With additional wartime traffic levels the operating departments of all Big 4 companies must have been looking for new locomotives, while at the same time keeping in traffic locos of other older designs that would otherwise have been scrapped. 

I know that on the SR a number of withdrawn former LSWR locos were reprieved early in WWII to cater for the increased traffic, and to cover the loan of 4-6-0s to other regions including 10 N15s to the LNER in 1942,

 

cheers

[phil-b259]

On 06/12/2022 at 16:58, Steamport Southport said:

 

The SR still built quite a few hundred locomotives though.

 

Including 150 brand new Bulleid's and if that wasn't "developing steam" then I don't know what it was.

 

 

Jason

 

Given the Bulleids appeared during / just after WW2 / during nationalisation when mass electrification was obviously not an option its not as simple as you claim!

 

Had WW2 not got in the way then I would have expected yet more electrification to be the order of the day from the Southern (they had a couple of well developed schemes in what we would now call the 'preparation pool' that would most likley have started in 1939 / 1940 were it not for an Austrian dictator) so even with Bulleid in charge and the number of light pacific considerably reduced from what eventually transpired.

 

 

[OnTheBranchline]

On 06/12/2022 at 10:45, Cwmtwrch said:

H N Gresley tended to the 'horses for courses' approach, building a number of classes for specific jobs. Lack of money may also have been an issue; building a smaller number of standardised classes may have saved money in the long term, but "scrap and replace" requires quite a lot of capital in the short term, which history suggests the LNER just didn't have. 6000 classes seems rather excessive as there were only about 50 classes at nationalisation. Even counting sub-classes, which as commented already, were often there for relatively trivial variations, this figure seems very improbable.

 

So they didn't have the money right now to save money long term? That's kind of how poor organizations stay poor is that they don't have the money to buy higher quality stuff which lasts longer so they don't have to respend it when things break. 

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, OnTheBranchline said:

So they didn't have the money right now to save money long term? 

 

Just so. Ask yourself, why didn't the LNER, alone of the grouping companies, adopt the Belpaire firebox?

 

But the LNER was in the fortunate position that it inherited good, robust, simple locomotives from its principal constituent, in large enough classes to be economic to maintain more-or-less indefinitely.

[Bucoops]

45 minutes ago, Rivercider said:

I know little enough about the LNER (it being the furthest away of the Big 4 from where I live) but I assume that Thompson must have been additionally constrained by WWII. With additional wartime traffic levels the operating departments of all Big 4 companies must have been looking for new locomotives, while at the same time keeping in traffic locos of other older designs that would otherwise have been scrapped. 

I know that on the SR a number of withdrawn former LSWR locos were reprieved early in WWII to cater for the increased traffic, and to cover the loan of 4-6-0s to other regions including 10 N15s to the LNER in 1942,

 

cheers

 

WWII definitely had a huge impact on Thompson's work. And of course Gresley before him.

 

I believe railway companies needed government permission to new build locos - hence a few "rebuilds" that hardly used anything of the original, and not many new locos.

[62613]

8 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Some of those classes were intended to be larger, like the B2 (B17 rebuild), which worked well but did not justify multiplication to the extent originally envisaged (all the B17s). The solitary K1/1 (K4 rebuild) was essentially a prototype for the production K1.

I think the Thompson B2s weren't multiplied further after some B17s were fitted with 100A boilers, pressed to 220lb/sq in, rather than the 180 to which they were derated during WW2. These (B17/6) were found to be as good when tested as the B2s, which had one cylinder less (even though it was larger). It might be worth mentioning that Thompson cut his rebuilding teeth on the GE and NE sections; he was responsible for the rebuilding of the B12/1  to B12/3 (long - travel valves)*, and the various Clauds to D16/3, 20 with 8" or 9" piston valves instead of slide valves. He also was responsible for the complete rebuilding of an NER class R (D20); it was his description of this in the technical press without permission that caused a rebuke from Gresley**; it may have been this which caused the rift between them.

 

* Clay and Cliffe: The LNER 4-6-0 classes, Ian Allan 1975, ISBN No. 0 7110 0622 9-88/74

** RCTS Locomotives of the LNER Part 3C, Tender Engines, Classes D13 to D24: It's worth noting that of the 12 classes described in this book, the only ones surviving at Nationalisation were D15, D16/2, D16/3 and D20. Three D17s survived to be allocated numbers in the 1943 scheme, but were withdrawn by January 1948.

 

Edited December 8, 2022 by 62613

[Aire Head]

5 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Just so. Ask yourself, why didn't the LNER, alone of the grouping companies, adopt the Belpaire firebox?

 

I really want someone to photoshop a Belpaire onto Flying Scotsman now 😂

[62613]

16 hours ago, Aire Head said:

 

I really want someone to photoshop a Belpaire onto Flying Scotsman now 😂

 

21 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Just so. Ask yourself, why didn't the LNER, alone of the grouping companies, adopt the Belpaire firebox?

 

But the LNER was in the fortunate position that it inherited good, robust, simple locomotives from its principal constituent, in large enough classes to be economic to maintain more-or-less indefinitely.

And actively changed Belpaires from some classes that were built  with them. They also fitted saturated boilers to at least a couple of classes that were built superheated

[Compound2632]

6 minutes ago, 62613 said:

 

And actively changed Belpaires from some classes that were built  with them. They also fitted saturated boilers to at least a couple of classes that were built superheated

 

Which all points to the central issue dictating LNER locomotive policy: no money.

[t-b-g]

Another way of looking at it would be that the LNER managed to run the trains that they wanted to with the cheaper, easier to build and maintain round top fireboxes, so there was no justification for spending extra money on changing over to the more expensive Belpaire type.

 

I am pretty sure that it wasn't a case of them not being able to afford Belpaire fireboxes. They built plenty at Gorton for GCR types. It was just that the other works were already set up for making the round top type and the expense of changing them wasn't justified.

 

[melmoth]

22 hours ago, OnTheBranchline said:

 

So they didn't have the money right now to save money long term? That's kind of how poor organizations stay poor is that they don't have the money to buy higher quality stuff which lasts longer so they don't have to respend it when things break. 

 

And it's not just applicable to organisations:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory

[JeremyC]

I'm a bit puzzled why the LNER not using Belpaire fireboxes is a sign of its financial circumstances. As far as I am aware neither Doncaster or Darlington (which became the two main LNER design offices ) had ever used Belpaire fireboxes, so surely it's more a case of continuing existing practices which had been found to be satisfactory. 

Edited December 9, 2022 by JeremyC
Spelling

[Bucoops]

The GER certainly made extensive use of Belpaire fireboxes. Many were replaced over time with round topped - but equally quite a few "survived" the duration.

[proton]

Two world wars, enormous social upheaval, , the naval race of 1905, the end of Britain's world dominance, the Great Depression, the social class inequalities, the Korean war, Suez, the Clean Air Act.  Its a wonder the railways were as good as they were.  How fortunate we all are to be able to replicate our favourite railway, and imagine how perfect it might have been.  Certainly when I run my trains the world in which they exist is perfect!

 

PBM

Edited December 10, 2022 by proton
adding more reasons!!