Wright writes.....

[jwealleans]

Somewhere on Steve Banks' site he puts forward a system very similar to that but with the added refinement of slotting the fixing under the carriage floor so you can adjust for different curves.    I use the MJT system these days, but I did follow SB's example  when I built my QuadArt:

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Simon A.C. Martin]

22 hours ago, 60027Merlin said:

With regard to official records, whilst a lot of information is recorded, it does not, in many cases, tell the full story. All part of human nature of course.

 

For example, Peppercorn did visit Edinburgh (no doubt on a few occasions) and on one such visit he was there to insist that the instructions from Thompson, which Haymarket ignored, that their P2s were not to be used on workings south to Newcastle.

 

Where is the actual evidence for this? If it's a secondary source, quote it.

 

If Haymarket were ignoring instructions from the CME, the question must be - why? And if so - were the P2s in fact recorded on workings south to Newcastle, and when did this occur? Where is the evidence for this work?

 

There had been crank axle failures during the war, and this would have factored into the thinking of those running the fleet.

[Guest Simon A.C. Martin]

23 hours ago, queensquare said:

 

As a trained, professional historian (long retired from academia) it should be remembered that primary evidence needs to be treated with the same degree of scepticism as any other evidence. Who it was written for and why it was written are major factors. Just because evidence is primary doesnt make it any more reliable.

 

Jerry

 

Hi Jerry,

 

That is true, you must consider evidence on its merits and weight it accordingly. However in this scenario:

• Board minutes and reports to the board, recorded in those minutes, are required by law to be representative of the truth and have done in the UK for many years. Unless the suggestion is that Peppercorn falsified his reports to the LNER board on a level unbecoming of an assistant to the CME, his reports on the Thompson A2s must be taken as reflective of the events
• The internal Use of Engine Power document was collated by Stratford Works for the whole of the LNER and was used as management information to inform the board, CME, locomotive superintendents and more. Unless the suggestion is that this document (containing over 60,000 individual entries on every single locomotive class the LNER used during the war) has been falsified, then this must be taken as reflective of events
• These two pieces of primary evidence, crucially, corroborate each other's stories.
• The secondary evidence from individuals giving analysis on, for example, the Thompson A2/2s as being poor and unable to do their job, contradicts this evidence
• Since you have two pieces of primary evidence that show a different story, you should note the secondary evidence says something different and ask why
• However, we also have more primary evidence - the engine record cards - and these ALSO corroborate the first two pieces of primary evidence too
• The overwhelming conclusion is that any piece of evidence in isolation does not make a strong case for Thompson's locos quality being misreported; the combination of all three sets of primary evidence frankly shows that the views expressed were wrong
• Questioning the reliability of evidence argument is all well and good, but when multiple primary sources corroborate each other and multiple secondary sources are contradicted by these primary sources which corroborate each other, one can only conclude that the secondary evidences are wrong

I feel I have taken up too much of Tony's topic for the time being, so would invite anyone who has an interest (and a few of you already have) to PM me accordingly for further discussion, if you so wish.

 

Best wishes

 

Simon

 

[Guest Simon A.C. Martin]

15 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

Malcolm was not one for changing his mind or for being wrong. On anything. Ever!

 

I remember him soldering a dome onto a loco that ended up not quite square and straight.

 

His response? "I don't know what's up with this xxxxxx solder but it has moved after it set. I soldered it on straight but it isn't straight now."

 

If you think he was open to being persuaded to change his mind, then you didn't know him well enough. I tried for upwards of 30 years on and off and eventually gave up. I developed techniques of suggesting things to him in such a way that he could claim them as his own ideas. It was a wonderful game of cat and mouse that we both played with great enjoyment. 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Tony,

 

You were his friend, and he respected you enough to act a specific way with him. I was a (young at the time!) acquaintance, and asked him some fairly probing questions to which he would have, frankly, have been within his rights at the time to tell me where to go! I plead some naivety of youth in that. But he always treated me kindly, was always straight forward in his responses, and the difference maybe between you and I on certain topics is that we approached it very differently.

 

But I of course defer to you and your close friendship with him: I merely speak as I found him, which is to say, he was a gentleman who listened to me and responded to me graciously.

 

Best wishes

 

Simon

 

[t-b-g]

Just now, Simon A.C. Martin said:

 

Hi Tony,

 

You were his friend, and he respected you enough to act a specific way with him. I was a (young at the time!) acquaintance, and asked him some fairly probing questions to which he would have, frankly, have been within his rights at the time to tell me where to go! I plead some naivety of youth in that. But he always treated me kindly, was always straight forward in his responses, and the difference maybe between you and I on certain topics is that we approached it very differently.

 

But I of course defer to you and your close friendship with him: I merely speak as I found him, which is to say, he was a gentleman who listened to me and responded to me graciously.

 

Best wishes

 

Simon

 

 

He was very tolerant towards you, mainly because of your youth and enthusiasm. He thought you said some daft things sometimes but was willing to put up with it as he was glad to see a youngster so keen on our railways and didn't want to dampen that enthusiasm.

 

When he had to deal with people who were experienced enough to have reached the point where they should have known better and who he knew well enough that he knew they could take it, he could be absolutely scathing. 

 

He was a charming gentleman most of the time, (he had a very, very, stubborn grumpy side when things didn't go his way) and he was like a second dad to me but the words "I was wrong" or "I am going to change my mind because of what you said" were just not in his vocabulary.

 

 

[robertcwp]

Today's date is worth noting.

 

P1060728am by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

 

P1060642am by Robert Carroll, on Flickr

[Atso]

Having not read Simon’s book yet, nor many of the other books cited, I have hesitated on commenting. I still hesitant about commenting but wonder if the following may be insightful or helpful.

 

First off, a disclaimer; I am not an academic, just somebody who has been in various management roles from a young age. I later got my degree equivalent in management studies and came across the ideas and teachings of Professor Edward Deming (1900-1993) during this time.

 

For those who don’t know, Deming is generally regarded as one of the father figures of modern ‘Quality Management’ practices – his contributions certainly had a very big impact on the post WW2 Japanese economy and, much later, for Ford.

 

Data is highly important, but I think it is a mistake to place 100% confidence in it. This is because data is generated from a variety of sources. The more sources (i.e. employees) generating that data, the higher the likelihood that there are errors, omissions and falsifications and the harder it becomes to successfully manage the system that generates it. This is because of human factors and pressures of (or on) the system they operate in (see the talks on Youtube by Behaviour Economist Dan Ariely about his experiments). This is not necessarily because people are overtly dishonest but rather due to fear of the consequences of delivering bad news – those little ‘white lies’ that we all tell from time to time can have an accumulative effect.

 

Three quotes by Deming that I think are relevant here are:

 

“Every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets”

 

“Fear invites wrong figures. Bearers of bad news fare badly. To keep his job, anyone may present to his boss only good news.”

 

“85% of faults lie with systems, processes, structures and practices in an organisation and only 15% is down to operator skill and it is the responsibility of management to fix this.”

 

I have used these three quotes to attempt to illustrate how a bad system can affect the generation of accurate data from the lower levels of an organisation.

 

Professor Brian Joiner explained this is further detail:

 

“There are three ways to get better figures... Improve the system... Distort the system... Distort the figures”

 

In my experience, distortion of the system and figures happens quite a lot on a daily basis but is either purposely ignored at lower levels of management or simply goes unnoticed. The result is that more senior managers unknowingly receive a distorted picture that they are quite likely responsible for generating. The activities of Nick Leeson and the effect it had on Bearings Bank is an example of this at an extreme level.

 

Intangible human factor should not be underestimated, and I think it is also relevant that previous CEOs of successful businesses often spent a lot of time seeing how the data was being generated. Jack Welch’s (another divisive figure) management of GE is an example of this. Or as Deming stated:

 

“The most important things cannot be measured”

 

This may have already been considered here or in the various publications mentioned and, if so, please accept my apologies.

[Northmoor]

41 minutes ago, Atso said:

“The most important things cannot be measured”

 

Which brings us to the MBA mantra: "What gets measured, gets done".

 

This results in managers focusing on the things they can measure, whether or not they are the actual things which influence their organisation.

[Willie Whizz]

One is also reminded of “Stamp’s Law” (Sir Josiah Stamp being both a highly-distinguished public servant and one-time Chairman of the LMS):

 

”The government are very keen on amassing statistics. They collect them, add them, raise them to the nth power, take the cube root and prepare wonderful diagrams. But you must never forget that every one of these figures comes in the first instance from a village watchman who just puts down what he damn pleases." 
 

My own view, as both a veteran bureaucrat and an amateur historian, is that primary sources are essential, where available - but what is saved and what is shredded can distort any picture; that they never tell the whole story (which is why good anecdotal evidence has its place); and that Authority sometimes prefers not to keep statistics and records for things it would rather not know or be told. One past employer in the 90s affected not to know how many female managers and assistant managers their large business employed because they “didn’t keep those figures”; I think they were hoping that would be seen as non-discrimination in itself, rather than as wilfully avoiding the issue …

[30368]

I must say that this Thompson/Gresley debate does at times take on the mantle of the Brexit debate! It is more about belief and myth than reality and data.

 

Sir Nigel Gresley was one of the greatest Locomotive Engineers of the 20th Century, as was Churchward and Stanier and perhaps Bulleid*. Suggesting that a lot of data (primary sources) probably indicates that Thompson's locomotives performed better than the generally held view in no way detracts from, for example, Gresley's towering achievements. Thompson and his team designed some excellent locomotives and I include his pacifics in this too, they may have looked brutal, but seemingly they were effective.

 

As to the claim that statistics or data (the primary sources often referred to) were fixed or doctored may be true in some cases. But since investment decisions to improve railway fleet reliabilty relies on accurate data (something I was involved in), to suggest that they were "all fixed", as some seem to suggest, is just nonsense. The compilers of the data were held accountable! The times I have heard those who should know better say, that a given class was unreliable and/or difficult to drive, was common and not in any way related to the facts are legion. On the railway, it could be very much "give a dog a bad name"..

 

Sadly, people tend to make decisions (and I am not immune!) based on what they believe is the reality and not the facts and yes, I know, in this age of relative values we all have our own "reality"....

As someone once said in relation to Physics it makes no difference if you believe it or not, it just is.....

 

* I accept that this little list is just my view, my apologies if I have missed your favourite!

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

[Tony Wright]

As Simon (Martin) has quite rightly stated, it's probably now the right time to 'draw a line' under this Thompson discussion.

 

To anyone interested, I recommend purchasing his recent book (then compare - and contrast - its findings with many written by others on the same subject).

 

He writes as an 'academic' and uses 'primary evidence' - irrefutable it would seem. However, by not using 'primary evidence (in part) in his summing up of GREAT NORTHERN, he leaves himself open to scrutiny.

 

Quote - 'Always popular on 'Railtours'. Apart from the one illustrated (to celebrate the centenary of the GNR) and (perhaps?) one organised by the Northern Rubber Company, I don't think one (or two) uses on railtours qualifies it as 'popular'. Not, say, compared with some of Gresley's locos. 

 

Quote (with paraphrasing) 'GREAT NORTHERN outlasted most of the Gresley A3s, some of the Gresley A4s and several A2s and A1s'. This is simply not true. Most of the A3s were still running in late '62, all the A4s were (at least until the end of the year) and only one A1 had gone before (60123 after it had been damaged beyond economical repair, at Offord, a couple of months prior to). Perhaps one Peppercorn A2's withdrawal was coincidental.

 

Apart from SOLARIO's demise (with a cracked frame), 60505 was the first ER/NER/ScR Pacific to be withdrawn (and it was much younger). 

 

Was it because it formed part of a small class? Perhaps, but there was commonality of parts between it and the later Thompson Pacifics.

 

As I say, enough is probably enough now. Views are entrenched, and, the truth lies somewhere in between. At least Simon has written without prejudice. 

 

The fact that (with, perhaps, a couple of exceptions) all the Thompson locos which were ostensibly replacements for earlier classes or 'improvements' were withdrawn before what had gone before, or what came later, might suggest something. Who knows? 

 

To everyone's delight, I'll say no more on the subject!  

[Tony Wright]

Not to prolong any debate..............

 

But just to show how (visually) magnificent the P2s must have looked pre-War, captured here in model form by L. Loveless. 

 

 

 

 

[Stanley Melrose]

6 hours ago, Atso said:

Having not read Simon’s book yet, nor many of the other books cited, I have hesitated on commenting. I still hesitant about commenting but wonder if the following may be insightful or helpful.

 

First off, a disclaimer; I am not an academic, just somebody who has been in various management roles from a young age. I later got my degree equivalent in management studies and came across the ideas and teachings of Professor Edward Deming (1900-1993) during this time.

 

Snipped

In my days at Rank Xerox a Deeming Sword appeared as a trophy to be awarded to someone who met whatever criteria had been established.  I never knew who received it but I certainly didn't.

 

In terms of data, I remember when salesmen employed by Rank Xerox in Belgium were required to submit time sheets showing how they spent every minute of their working days.  These duly arrived at International HQ and we found to our amazement that not one of them ever had a pee, let alone anything more time-consuming, during the whole of the working week.

[john new]

1 hour ago, Stanley Melrose said:

In my days at Rank Xerox a Deeming Sword appeared as a trophy to be awarded to someone who met whatever criteria had been established.  I never knew who received it but I certainly didn't.

 

In terms of data, I remember when salesmen employed by Rank Xerox in Belgium were required to submit time sheets showing how they spent every minute of their working days.  These duly arrived at International HQ and we found to our amazement that not one of them ever had a pee, let alone anything more time-consuming, during the whole of the working week.

And equally daft were the timesheet systems where every 15 mins of the full day (less lunch break) had to be allocated to a function. Obviously there was no coffee/toilet break service code so it was always allocated to a function picked at random. Similarly for skewed cost allocations, we had a senior colleague who was often late for cross-Department liaison meetings, his cost centre always looked costly, why? If he delayed the start of a meeting the delay got charged to his cost centre, not the main purpose of the meeting. Fair, yes it was him we were waiting on, but relevance???

[Ray Flintoft]

23 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

As Simon (Martin) has quite rightly stated, it's probably now the right time to 'draw a line' under this Thompson discussion.

 

To anyone interested, I recommend purchasing his recent book (then compare - and contrast - its findings with many written by others on the same subject).

 

He writes as an 'academic' and uses 'primary evidence' - irrefutable it would seem. However, by not using 'primary evidence (in part) in his summing up of GREAT NORTHERN, he leaves himself open to scrutiny.

 

Quote - 'Always popular on 'Railtours'. Apart from the one illustrated (to celebrate the centenary of the GNR) and (perhaps?) one organised by the Northern Rubber Company, I don't think one (or two) uses on railtours qualifies it as 'popular'. Not, say, compared with some of Gresley's locos. 

 

Quote (with paraphrasing) 'GREAT NORTHERN outlasted most of the Gresley A3s, some of the Gresley A4s and several A2s and A1s'. This is simply not true. Most of the A3s were still running in late '62, all the A4s were (at least until the end of the year) and only one A1 had gone before (60123 after it had been damaged beyond economical repair, at Offord, a couple of months prior to). Perhaps one Peppercorn A2's withdrawal was coincidental.

 

Apart from SOLARIO's demise (with a cracked frame), 60505 was the first ER/NER/ScR Pacific to be withdrawn (and it was much younger). 

 

Was it because it formed part of a small class? Perhaps, but there was commonality of parts between it and the later Thompson Pacifics.

 

As I say, enough is probably enough now. Views are entrenched, and, the truth lies somewhere in between. At least Simon has written without prejudice. 

 

The fact that (with, perhaps, a couple of exceptions) all the Thompson locos which were ostensibly replacements for earlier classes or 'improvements' were withdrawn before what had gone before, or what came later, might suggest something. Who knows? 

 

To everyone's delight, I'll say no more on the subject!  

Sorry , Tony  but I think you have fallen into the same trap as Simon . In fact 60115 ,60123 ,60135, 60153 60526,60538 & 60539 were all withdrawn before 60113 , if only by a few days . Fleet withdrawal of all the pacific classes started in late 1962 , the surprise is that 60113 , a one off , if it was as bad as some say , lasted that late . If it was really so bad it could have been withdrawn  as early as 1959 .

   I won't say any more as I think enough has already been said apart from the fact that until mid 1942 the P.2's  received their major repairs at Doncaster , not Cowlairs whereas the A2/2's were almost totally maintained at Cowlairs  whilst in Scotland & thus suffered even more from the poor standard of repair there .

                                            Cheers ,

                                                  Ray .

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, Ray Flintoft said:

Sorry , Tony  but I think you have fallen into the same trap as Simon . In fact 60115 ,60123 ,60135, 60153 60526,60538 & 60539 were all withdrawn before 60113 , if only by a few days . Fleet withdrawal of all the pacific classes started in late 1962 , the surprise is that 60113 , a one off , if it was as bad as some say , lasted that late . If it was really so bad it could have been withdrawn  as early as 1959 .

   I won't say any more as I think enough has already been said apart from the fact that until mid 1942 the P.2's  received their major repairs at Doncaster , not Cowlairs whereas the A2/2's were almost totally maintained at Cowlairs  whilst in Scotland & thus suffered even more from the poor standard of repair there .

                                            Cheers ,

                                                  Ray .

Thanks Ray,

 

I was going on the month of withdrawal; I should have checked the days as well.

 

I don't think 60113 was as bad as has been suggested by many authors. In my 'spotting days, she could be seen on the same service - morning Doncaster-Kings Cross, principal stations, return - all the time she was out of shops; a heavy train (too long for Retford's Up platform) with frequent stops, requiring high power and rapid acceleration ability. It's just that the front end was wrong. There was absolutely no need to follow the style of the A2/2s in the rebuilding in my view. Even Thompson questioned that himself. Just think, GREAT NORTHERN, had she not been rebuilt, would have ended up as a double chimney A3 (with, possibly, an A4 boiler), just like all her sisters and would probably have been preserved. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

Edited July 4, 2022 by Tony Wright
tautology

[mattingleycustom]

23 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Not to prolong any debate..............

 

But just to show how (visually) magnificent the P2s must have looked pre-War, captured here in model form by L. Loveless. 

 

 

 

 

Interesting to compare 2003 with 2004, also by Loveless

Note the difference in lining on the cab, wheels and around the wash out plugs and green wheel centres on the tender ... interesting!

 

Glenn

[Tony Wright]

Geoff West came over today for his usual monthly running session on Little Bytham (actually two months, because of Mo and me catching Covid six weeks or so ago). 

 

As usual, he brought some interesting goodies to run.......

 

 

When John Houlden graduated to O Gauge, I sold a lot of his ex-Gamston locos/stock, quite a bit of which went to Geoff.

 

Including this rather nice DJH A1. 

 

 

A much-modified Hornby A4.

 

 

At least one Crownline V2.

 

 

 

And an heroically-filthy DJH Austerity. 

 

Here, she's heading south on full coals to New England.

 

 

And, later in the day, returning with mineral empties. 

 

 

With Stoke Summit and Charwelton sold, Rob Kinsey had no more use for this Little Engines J11/3. Rob made it and painted it, and I weathered it. Geoff then bought it off Rob, after it saw yeoman service on both the layouts mentioned.

 

 

Gilbert Barnatt (well-known of Peterborough North) tends to sell off kit-built items when an RTR equivalent appears. 

 

Here's a very nice DC Kits Derby Lightweight DMU, built/painted/weathered for Gilbert by Ken Gibbons - now sold to Geoff. 

 

Finally, though this A1 is my property........

 

 

Geoff weathered it for me - rather well!

 

Thanks, Geoff, for bringing these interesting models and for operating LB so diligently today. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

13 minutes ago, mattingleycustom said:

Interesting to compare 2003 with 2004, also by Loveless

Note the difference in lining on the cab, wheels and around the wash out plugs and green wheel centres on the tender ... interesting!

 

Glenn

 

 

Very interesting, Glenn,

 

Thanks for showing us.

 

Also the difference in the lining of the parabola, with it actually going upwards towards the outside steampipes on MONS MEG. And, note the relative positions of the nameplates. MONS MEG's is further back.

 

I believe the spec' for the wheels on a green-painted LNER tender was black centres.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[LNERGE]

I saw this and thought of you…

[geoff west]

Thanks Tony, for a most enjoyable day.

[mattingleycustom]

21 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

Very interesting, Glenn,

 

Thanks for showing us.

 

Also the difference in the lining of the parabola, with it actually going upwards towards the outside steampipes on MONS MEG. And, note the relative positions of the nameplates. MONS MEG's is further back.

 

I believe the spec' for the wheels on a green-painted LNER tender was black centres.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Tony,

 

Just looked at some photos of the originals in Yeadon's book.

The nameplates on MONS MEG are too far back on the model, their leading edge should be roughly in line with the front of the outside steampipes.

 

The parabolic curve looks to be similar to that on 2003, in that it should be horizontal immediately ahead of the steampipes.

A photo of 2001 (with the streamlined front end) shows the black painted smokebox and parabolic curve further back from the front of the loco; more black/less green in this area.

 

Despite these 'flaws', I won't demand my money back on 2004. After all, she's a big girl and looks just about perfect in my opinion.

 

Glenn

[Guest Simon A.C. Martin]

6 hours ago, Ray Flintoft said:

Sorry , Tony  but I think you have fallen into the same trap as Simon . In fact 60115 ,60123 ,60135, 60153 60526,60538 & 60539 were all withdrawn before 60113 , if only by a few days . Fleet withdrawal of all the pacific classes started in late 1962 , the surprise is that 60113 , a one off , if it was as bad as some say , lasted that late . If it was really so bad it could have been withdrawn  as early as 1959 .

   I won't say any more as I think enough has already been said apart from the fact that until mid 1942 the P.2's  received their major repairs at Doncaster , not Cowlairs whereas the A2/2's were almost totally maintained at Cowlairs  whilst in Scotland & thus suffered even more from the poor standard of repair there .

                                            Cheers ,

                                                  Ray .

 

Hi Ray,

 

Thank you for this information. May I ask what your source was please? As I would like to check if I may, and then cite it accordingly to make sure I have the record straight.

 

Thank you for the information on the P2s re Doncaster. That is corroborated by the engine record cards.

 

However I think Cowlairs gets a lot of criticism that I am not sure is borne out by the records we have. The A2/2s whilst in Scotland, if we go by the Use of Engine Power and Engine Records Cards, had an almost exemplary record for mileages and availability, which was only then hampered in the early 50s by the lack of a spare boiler until the decision was made to fit the Peppercorn designed alternatives.

 

Thank you for your informative post which has added some more food for thought.

 

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Ray,

 

I was going on the month of withdrawal; I should have checked the days as well.

 

I don't think 60113 was as bad as has been suggested by many authors. In my 'spotting days, she could be seen on the same service - morning Doncaster-Kings Cross, principal stations, return - all the time she was out of shops; a heavy train (too long for Retford's Up platform) with frequent stops, requiring high power and rapid acceleration ability. It's just that the front end was wrong. There was absolutely no need to follow the style of the A2/2s in the rebuilding in my view. Even Thompson questioned that himself. Just think, GREAT NORTHERN, had she not been rebuilt, would have ended up as a double chimney A3 (with, possibly, an A4 boiler), just like all her sisters and would probably have been preserved. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

 

I personally think that the criticisms of Great Northern are largely because of a misguided anger at rebuilding the prototype Gresley Pacific: if railway enthusiasts stepped back and looked at the evidence we actually have, Great Northern was designed as a further development of the A4 Pacific and her mileages and availability suggest she was an excellent locomotive, outclassed by only the Peppercorn A1s, Gresley A4s (with double chimneys) when in good order and the similarly set up Thompson A2/3s.

 

When people say "the front end was wrong" - was it? I would like to see evidence. Written, documented, physical primary evidence that shows this. Vague comments about "it was shopped more than X and Y" isn't good enough: it was abundantly clear from my research that the Thompson Pacifics were very deliberately shopped more often in order to maximise their availability and mileages (which is proven to be true by their consistently high availability and impressive mileages all round. Thompson A2/3 Honeyway standing as the ultimate example of this).

 

There was nothing whatsoever wrong with three sets of walschaerts valve gear and divided drive: the Peppercorn machines are set up almost identically, and the idea that "equal length connecting rods are wrong" has no basis in fact, and overlooks the genesis of the Thompson Pacifics by way of the P2s into A2/2s, and the severe restrictions on materials and drawing office time and availability that was occurring in the second world war.

 

Fact is, Thompson's entire work for the LNER as CME was about leading it into a better place and providing a number of short term stop gaps to meet demands on the locomotive fleet, as well as providing reasonable and suitable data in some prototypes for the development of the standard classes. 

 

Lastly: using withdrawal dates for steam locomotives in the late 50s and early 60s as some kind of measure for "how good a class was" is utterly inane and frankly without any kind of merit: steam was on its way out due to dieselisation and electrification (thus the writing was already on the wall) the smallest classes got withdrawn first, and the largest classes retained as much as possible with an eye on spares/training drivers/etc etc.

 

Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't understand how British Railways actually worked. End of.

[St Enodoc]

43 minutes ago, Simon A.C. Martin said:

the Thompson Pacifics were very deliberately shopped more often in order to maximise their availability and mileages

I do not understand this statement. Can you please explain the reasoning behind it?

[Guest Simon A.C. Martin]

1 hour ago, St Enodoc said:

I do not understand this statement. Can you please explain the reasoning behind it?

 

Yes. Shopping at intervals and given mileages to correct known issues, such as, but not limited to, "tightening of bolts around the smokebox saddle" or similar. Preventative maintenance.