Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

a lot of people forget the Gresley would have retired during the year following his untimely death ,so while he may have had plans he probably had little expectation of them being followed thro'.

Cox would probably not have been consulted until Gresleys departure . had Gresley lived , maybe not at all . who can tell ?

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we overstating the powers of a CME? Compare the situation on the LNER to the LMS where the decision to replace so many pre-grouping classes was a decision of the line's President, Josiah Stamp and the Board of Directors rather than the CME. Clearly, Stamp's calculations pointed to considerable ongoing savings from a scrap and build policy, as the LB&SCR board realised in the aftermath of the Craven era a good couple of decades before even the GW.

There's plenty, by way of economy measures on the LMS during the 1920's, to suggest it's financial situation, although better than that of the LNER, wasn't exactly massively prosperous. A cynic might point to grouping as a government's means of saving on rehabilitation costs in the aftermath of WWI .... and I'm a cynic (i.e. rarely disappointed, but occasionally .... very occasionally .... pleasantly surprised).

In the scheme of things, the LNER's belated drive to standardisation under Thompson wasn't so very far behind that of the LMS (recall that the big four did only last for 25 years - rather less time than certain heritage era livery debates have raged!). My own view is that the delay in issuing standardisation edicts may have had more to do with the tenure of Sir Ralph Wedgewood (formerly GM of the NER*) and the LNER board rather than HNG (or ET, for that matter), whose job was to implement board policy not to initiate it.

*Does anyone know what role Wedgewood played in Sir Vincent Raven's abortive electrification proposals? If so, perhaps a new thread (rather than hijacking this one) may be in order.

 

Were NBL entirely happy with producing the 3 cylinder Scots then??.... "of course".

Just asking, like.

Dave

 

It also includes providing the technical information for the board to make decisions on policy from. GW Loco committee minutes are full of "under circumstances represented it was agreed..." and a large chunk of the circumstances would be what their CME was telling them. Sure the LNER would be the same.

 

Your two points argue against each other - experience has shown that the 66s are not as good all-rounders that this analysis assumed, while their engine is considerably less fuel efficient than some of the locomotives they replaced - hence the reinstatement of a number of class 60s to operate services ill-suited to 66s, at a lower cost in fuel.

 

Absolutely, though any decision on what to do with said info remained the perogative of the board. Stamp's decision appears to have been his own, presumably empowered by his remit when appointed to this key position within 5 years of the Railways Act of 1921, which in the case of the LMS hadn't produced anything resembling a coherent management up to that point.

As a qualified economist and railway outsider (he came to the LMS in 1926 from ICI), Stamp was probably in the best position of any board member to take a dispassionate view of the conglomerate's longer term interest than the squabbling power blocs inherited from constituent companies.

Perhaps the LNER could've learned a trick or two from the example of it's west coast neighbour.

 

I do love the rank hypocrisy that means if it’s Gresley being questioned, it’s “overstating the role of the CME” but in the same breath people will willingly believe Edward Thompson picked 4470 to rebuild out of spite (where the evidence shows like Gresley he couldn’t nominate individual locos in this way!)

It is so frustrating to see the whataboutery and hypocrisy where looking at the evidence objectively is concerned.

 

Given the quoted phrase 'overstating the role of a CME', which has raised hackles, was (unlike any reference to 4470) mine I find myself compelled to refute any charge of hypocrisy, if such was aimed in my direction.

 

My apologies - it was not aimed at you specifically, but a general frustration of the perception of the problem where Thompson is concerned.

Where convenient, he is an angry bully boy pantomime villain with powers beyond that of a normal CME. Where Gresley is concerned, it’s beyond his role.



On a side note, at the MRC lecture next month I’ll be showing some of the models I’ve made.

Here’s Great Northern in her blue livery. My favourite (unpreserved) LNER Pacific...

 

Cracking Model you have there Simon, are there any colour pics of Great Northen on t'interweb anywhere I can't seem to find any.

 

Your clarification is much appreciated Simon. The relevant point in my post was attempting to underscore where the responsibility of any board or CME separates, in this instance drawing comparisons between the overall directions of the LNER & LMS under Sirs Ralph Wedgewood and Josiah Stamp respectively. My contention is that, whilst a CME's remit might properly include an advisory role to the top table, Thompson was no more responsible for his board's overall strategic policy than were Gresley, Stroudley or Webb.

Though I'd love to attend your MRC lecture, my outings are rather circumscribed by ongoing health issues. The only thing to be said in favour of getting old is that it's preferable to the alternative!

(Lovely model btw. With a bit of luck and a fair wind, my own project will begin the journey from design to construction within the next few months. Nowt so grand as a pacific .... the IWC Black Hawthorne No.6 will be - marginally - the larger of 2 4-4-0T's on my 'to do' list.)

 

possibly not - I dunno .however the job of knocking out 70 locos ASAP probably sweetened the pill, if it needed sweetening. in any event the Scot was a better engine.

it does make you rub your eyes at NBLs manufacturing capacity 70 Scots in 1927 followed by a shedload of B17 the following year , on top of whatever else was going on .
there must have been some very happy shareholders

 

Not to mention 30 King Arthurs in 1925 ... They must have got bored endlessly erecting 4-6-0s!

Tom

 

Maybe the LNER was less in need of standardisation than the LMS was? As said, they inherited some decent freight locos, and Gresley developed the Pacifics. On the LMS, their inheritance was underpowered Midland types, which to be fair, were well built, and from the LNWR, more powerful but less strongly built locos, the passenger types were prettty much worn out, the largest, the Claughtons, were for the want of a better word, iffy.

Also, there was the Midland/LNWR antipathy which didn’t help and the standardisation process under Stanier was a kind of fresh start

 

163 loco types and 187 boiler types by 1941. No, standardisation and rationalisation not needed.

At all.

Clearly.

 

the stuff for the Empire had more wheels!

 

.... even if, for the most part, shorter axles!

 

All this fuss because Gresley didn't want to build a basic 4-6-0. He'd taken over a variety of them from the NER, the GER and a plethora of undistinguished examples from the GCR, several of which he modified in an attempt to upgrade them. He'd also had built, in a hurry, his own B17 (handicapped by having to be short and light because of the state of the GER lines and the size of the turntables) which did the job but weren't world beaters. He was probably fed up with them.

So he chose the 2-6-2 layout for his later intermediate locos - so what.

 

What? The rebuilt MN was a huge improvement over the unrebuilt in terms of reliability and accessability. Even then to say they are praised to high heaven is an exaggeration. The A2/3 was not a huge improvement over either the P2 or the V2. It was capable of doing its job, but no more. It wasn't even a rebuild, but a new build based on previous rebuilds.

 

The CME's job is to carry out the wishes of the board to their satisfaction. That Gresley did..

The regions of the LNER had discretion over loco withdrawal . If they wanted to keep their local proven designs going in general they could. Gresley had basically to sell his designs to teh divisions, and if they didn't want them they didn't have to take them.

No-one ever, in this country, produced significantly more effective freight engines than the types I listed, as borne out that none of the Standard types, let alone Gresley's , replaced them. The GWR 28xx were better, but not enough to justify the capital expenditure of the replacement programme even if it had been feasible. Gresley's own O2's stayed a small class for the same reason. 25 years may be a long time for an express passenger engine to stay in front line service but it is still early adulthood for a freight engine - or are you suggesting the first 70 odd 28xx's should have been scrapped at 25 years old? Most of teh ones I listed had better cabs than anything on the GW!

Until a year or two before the end of steam the majority of locos were employed in slow speed freight haulage or shunting. The only real saving that could be made on such duties was the introduction of a type of motive power that drastically reduced manpower costs - that only the diesel (and in special circumstances electric) could do.

The 2-4-0's had all, except for 18, been replaced by 1939. 2-4-2's had been reduced to about 40 or so by the same date,,and the 4-4-2's were still doing reasonably well - and in any case their duties were more likely to be taken over by V2's than B1's. . The idea that there 4-6-0's were ineffective is a myth that has been debunked - in fact among the least efficient were the B16's that lasted the longest, mainly because although their efficiency was poor they were extremely robust - in common with the other long-lasting classes I listed. . There were far too many classes of 4-6-0 , it is true, but that wasn't Gresley's fault. He was on the point of introducing a loco to eliminate them - obviously it was one of his later priorities because they were mostly doing their job. In wartime, Thompson came up with a more appropriate solution for the times, albeit one using only slightly modified Gresley components.

.