Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

10.30 in Northampton shire, one thing that was altered about then was the drink up time .Before your glasses had to be empty by 10.30,after 10mins drink up time was allowed.11.00 pm didn't come about for years and years later.

 

Before all-day opening came in, I recall Alexei Sayle's contribution to a TV series called 'Comic Roots', when he decided his own story wasn't half as interesting as how to drink 24hrs a day legally ..... it turned out there were statutory exemptions left, right and centre. Pubs near docks were a prime example. When restrictions first came in (during WWI), it was held 'unfair' that the essential dock workers couldn't enjoy a pint at the end of their shift. There were others too. Back when much of Wales was 'dry' on Sundays, restrictions didn't apply to Working Mens Clubs (are those still going?) of which my late father was a member .... always a practical sort, was my dad! Hotels and restaurants enjoyed more relaxed regulation and a total exmption existed for .... wait for it ... Royal Palaces, such as the site occupied by our parliament. Well, there's a surprise!

 

Don't forget the similar exemptions for railways - as illustrated in the Titfield Thunderbolt.

 

Indeed. Back in the day, the Ffestiniog made a very good living from that, every Sunday.

 

Getting back on topic...I wonder if Thompson was a drinker and if so, how much had he drank when he designed his first pacific?

 

Ooh, you are naughty but I like you.

 

Or you could go for an outing on a paddle steamer.

 

Just remember two yellows is a straight red

Tom

 

Does "straight red" mean a Stanier pacific

 

No, that would be a taper red. I think a Patriot is a straight red

Tom

 

Tom,
You need to brush up on your signalling. Two yellows means carry on but be careful, one yellow means the next one is a red.

 

There is a cartoon I have seen of the last boat from Weston to Cardiff with all the dipsomaniacs piling aboard

 

Towns with weekly livestock market meets had all day opening on the day.

 

The thrill of getting a pint at Smithfield at 6 in the morning is a memory that stays with me

 

Since the LMS motif has been introduced by others, maybe it's time for me to remind everyone that by the mid 30s the LMS had complete individualised records for every locomotive, meaning they could make very significant improvements in locomotive availability, reduce time in the works, reduce preparation time, and hence do the same work with fewer locomotives?
No, not the time?
Ok, sorry...
Then I won't mention that the LNER needed eight A4s to do the same work as seven Duchesses!

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

 

The LNER also had individual record cards for every locomotive and had done so since 1923 when Gresley introduced it railway and railway works wide following long standing G.N.R. locomotive practice. I do not know the ins and outs of all of the constituent LNER companies but the GNR practice was that adopted as standard, the G.E.R. certainly had its own works records for individual locomotives, and I cannot imagine with the amount of stock they owned that the GCR and NER wouldn't have had systems like that by 1923.

It's something of a misconception that suggests the L.M.S. were in any way ahead of the other railways with regards locomotive availability, works time and preparation. Individual locomotive cards were very much part of normal works setups across most of the country; a record would be required for the accountants sake, at the very least, and by the start of the 20th century the railways were far more economically and practically minded with regards maintenance and availability.

It would be more fair to state that the other three big railways were catching up to the Great Western Railway in some respects by the 1930s but that LNER, LMS and SR never managed the level of standardisation, availability and parts interchangeability that the GWR did (if you - possibly rightly - acknowledge that the GWR really were correct in their approach to minimizing the breadth and depth of spares required for their locomotive fleet, together with reducing overall design time).

Sounds like one of those tribal utterances to be perfectly frank. What data is it based on? What is the comparison being made? The Duchesses were beautiful locomotives, very capable machines, but found lacking in the exchange trials when compared with their contemporary A4 partners and with the more modern Bulleid Pacifics.

I think one of the best things about this thread is that we've looked at some of the fallacies uttered in the LNER and with first hand evidence including records we've shown them to be false at worst, misinterpreted or misunderstood at best.

 

Hi Simon,
I was only teasing! And thinking only about the top link express locos are a red herring anyway (or a green herring on the LNER) as you yourself have argued.
However, I understand what I said about the two classes is nevertheless true, and the data is freely available.
See e.g. Essery and Jenkinson, "An Illustrated History of LMS Locomotives", Vol 1. I only mention this one as having read it recently their cheeky comparison stuck in the mind, and that's what I quoted at you! They state e.g. 56000 miles per A4 per year, and 64000 miles per Duchess per year.
As I understand it, the Duchesses had higher availability, and did higher mileage per year, with heavier loads, and at basically comparable schedules, compared to the A4s (in both company and BR era, I believe). I'm speaking about their general revenue earning work, not uncommon superlative runs.
It would be churlish to suggest that the Princess Coronations (as officially termed) are as finely engineered locomotives as the A4s, they aren't in various respects. The classes weren't designed for quite the same duties. But broadly they are contemporary and comparable.
It's common to denigrate the LMS in locomotive matters (perhaps with a nod to the saviour from Swindon), but in terms of Motive Power as an operations division, operating economics if you like, they were (even before Stanier) ahead of their time (the Southern too in other ways). Sir Josiah Stamp was running a Company, not a railway society.
It wasn't only due to internal politics that the LMS was so dominant in this regard in BR.
Anyway, this is all a tangent, for which apologies.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

 

Yes, but the Southern could do the same work with only 6 EMUs (which was just as well, because for every six EMUs there were four Bulleid Pacifics on shed being sworn at by fitters )

Tom

 

I was under the impression that all railway companies kept record cards / sheets for their locomotives, although some no doubt did it more efficiently than others.

According to RCTS LNER Locos Part 10A, the Boiler Explosions Act 1882 required that boilers be registered, and regularly inspected. That would effectively mandate keeping of boiler records, which might be the same as engine records, depending on whether or not boilers always stayed with the same engine.

 

Just as a matter of interest, the LNER had the enviable record of never having a boiler explosion. All the others did, the LMS even managing for one loco to have two of them.