Sir Nigel Gresley - The L.N.E.R.’s First C.M.E.

I think if you don’t have time to produce, I wouldn’t put your graph in at all, since I think it is misleading. If the objective is to show themes of when particular types were introduced then that is better simply as a table or even prose.

Though I’d like to see such stuff related to the wider economic picture and the state of the inherited pre-grouping fleet. For example, was the construction of e.g. the P1s in response to a major upturn in traffic on some route; or a realisation that within a few years a number of elderly 0-6-0s would need withdrawing or reboilering and building one big loco could allow two older ones to be withdrawn at less cost than overhauling with new boilers etc? In other words, new designs don’t come out in isolation: there is always some business driver that leads production certain ways. There’s a reason why a significantly large proportion of the SR’s 1924 programme was King Arthur’s!

Tom

 

Well Gresley did preside over the largest roster of horsepower within the Big 4 companies (classified as shunting). Return for 1937 attached.

 

So this is an example of the table I have produced to go alongside it:



I'll certainly have a go. Would the graph be better by way of removing the reference to the year of introduction, Tom?

 

Based on the assumption that the J38 fleet was built specifically for Scottish coal traffic I feel there is no argument that J38 is a freight design despite the fact that class members occasionally worked passenger services whilst the J39 was a mixed traffic engine following the ethos of the day for the suitability of 0-6-0 designs for a variety of services.

 

Actually, I’m surprised the numbers are so low. Are you sure those are horses, and not e.g. mechanical horses?

(I don’t know - but I had a feeling that even up to the War, the companies had hundreds of horses, not tens?)

Tom

 

Could it be clarified by changing the "year of Introduction" to "First class member entered service", and perhaps a second row stating "introduced between" with the range of dates of entry into service - So, for example, class A1 would show 1922 in the first row, and 1922-1928 (I think) in the second.

As Tom suggested, a stacked graph saying how many of each class came into service in each year would be the best, but would be quite difficult to tabulate in a sensible format.

John

 

I'll have a look and see what I can do.

 

A quibble maybe, but for 1912 it should be the smaller-boilered K1. The 2nd batch with the larger diameter boiler as K2 followed a couple of years later.

 

Definitely the equus genus. You are correct though to the extent that there was a significantly greater number of horses engaged in road transport activities, and came under a separate return, that for 1937 attached.

 

I think you meant vac equipment and screw couplings. I also think that, generally, the only LNER constituent railway that went for rusty coupling* locomotives was the NER which had them in a big way. All the classes you quote are ex NER and you can add the Q6 & Q7 to that number, plus various tank locos. Apart from the odd shunting loco I think that most other locos from constituent comanies were fitted with a vacuum brake or air brake.

*Locos fitted with a continuous brake always had a screw coupling, those without had a three link coupling and were known as rusty coupling locos on BR around us. Screw couplings require lubrication so don't generally go rusty, unlike three link couplings.

 

Yes, corrected - I meant screw couplings.

Tom

 

Some of the GCR ROD O4 variants were steam brake only into BR days.

 

They all became K2s and as such I took the editorial decision to make it one group as K2.

 

Very true. I think that these were the ex ROD locomotives, which were built without vac brakes and a water scoop as they were intended for use in Europe where they would have been of little use. LNER O4/3. I've not looked into their allocation but I wonder if they were mainly in the north east. Something to investigate further.

 

Fair enough.

 

Seems likely, the GWR ones retained steam brakes and never had vacuum brakes. That required a different version of GWR ATC which didn't have automatic braking. Incidentally one thing to watch out for is that some authors get confused about water and coal capacity of tenders which was different on tenders built for the ROD.

 

I think the majority of the O1s (Thompson rebuilds of the O4s) only had steam brakes.

 

Looking at photos of O1s, yes, you are correct. The Tyne Dock O1s and any fitted with AWS were vacuum fitted.

 

As built for the ROD, what became the O4 with the LNER were fitted with air brakes originally.

 

Among the 0-6-0s inherited from the GE and NB, there were also large numbers with steam-brake only. There were also a lot with train brakes, these being a complex mix of air-brake, vac-brake and dual-brake. And there were many changes over time.