Time Scales

York
Queen Street
Not at the time, due to the war, but even in war time people didn't stop thinking ahead - but that would not have stopped people considering the matter.
Reply to
:::Jerry::::
Loading thread data ...
":::Jerry::::" wrote
'Great Northern' was rebuilt in 1945, a little over 20 years after original construction. I would imagine it would have originally had an anticipated life expectancy of up to 40 years, so in 1945 it was only at half-life stage and unlikely to be considered of historical importance. In any event there were another 78 similar locos which *were available for preservation* if there was ever an actual demand.
Thompson's choice of 'Great Northern' might have been *unfortunate* with hindsight, but certainly not malicious in my opinion. He may have originally been overlooked for earlier appointment as CME of the LNER but he got there in the end. It would be unreasonable for him to blame Gresley for this delay to his (presumed) aspirations, after all the appointment was made by the company directors.
John.
Reply to
John Turner
Nowadays we're very aware of posterity and aware that things that are now quite commonplace and not-all-that-old may one day be regarded as "heritage", but this is quite a modern development. I think you are projecting today's attitudes onto the era half-a-century ago when priorities were different.
The LNER was an impoverished company and their priority was running a railway as best they could. Even if a different A1 had been chosen as the prototype for rebuilding, I have no doubt that if the rebuild had been comsidered successful the rest of the class including Great Northern would have been treated the same.
I am not an LNER expert, but I understand there was a very real problem with Gresley's conjugated valve-gear and that disinterested outside experts (possibly including Stanier, but I may be wrong there) were engaged to investigate the matter.
Andy
Reply to
Andy Kirkham
Stanier rebuilt the original Royal Scots into some something quite different, but I don't think anyone has suggested that this was an act of revenge against Fowler. It was just that the locos were outclassed by more modern machines and needed to be upgraded. Why should it have been any different on the LNER?
Andy
Reply to
Andy Kirkham
Andy, you make a couple of interesting valid points. Stanier had a "dead duck" to experiment on, namely the "Fury" Royal Scot which had been sitting around unused for several years & so was no great loss either from a practical point of view or sentimental (how could a loco that had killed people be considered sentimentally).
Secondly, Stanier's rebuilds of the Fury was successful & lead to the remainder of the last to be rebuilt on similar lines and were highly successful. If Thomson's rebuild of Great Northern had of been similarly successful, none of this rubbish about "vindictive spite" would have been considered.
No, Great Northern was just another loco.
Kevin Martin
Reply to
Kevin Martin
display?
didn't
So why was Stirling's 'Single' preserved, why was Coty of Truro preserved etc., it is you who is projecting today's attitudes not me!
So why spend money on a new design when they could have saved money by just overhauling a perfectly good locomotive?!...
Even if a different A1 had been chosen as
No, the Thomson rebuild was a prototype, otherwise why were the A3's not rebuilt into what became the Peppercorn A1's ?...
That is obvious! :~)
but I understand there was a very real problem
So at worse all the loco's needed was a new centre cylinder and valve gear.
Reply to
:::Jerry::::
No it was not. It was probably one of the most significant loco's to be designed, the first successful UK Pacific.
Reply to
:::Jerry::::
didn't
anticipated
half-life stage
event there
preservation* if
There was also 78 other loco's advalible, more if you inclued the A4's...
Well you disargee with some very eminat people, not least the directors of the LNER at the time!
He may have
And duely got kicked out at the forst opatunity!
It would be unreasonable for him to blame Gresley for
You seem to know very little about all this, it wasn't just the fact that he (Thomson) was 'over looked' when the first CME position was being awarded but certain subsequent events, such as Gresley publicly rubbishing an idea of Thomson's when he considered it as unworkable, there was no secret of Thomson's dislike of Gresley even before the latter's death.
As I said in another message in this thread, there were (war-time) problems with Gresley's conjugated valve gear, all that would have been needed was a new centre cylinder and motion, not a wholesale rebuilding.
Reply to
:::Jerry::::
In message , Norman writes
Quite :0(
Reply to
Roy
":::Jerry::::" wrote
I don't follow that argument, it may have been the first successful Pacific, but it was only *another* development of the archetypal British express passenger locomotive.
The only real difference between a Pacific and an Atlantic (the previously *preferred* ECML passenger locomotives) was an additional set of driving wheels, and it could be construed that the later Atlantics with wide fireboxes and large boilers were much more significant in terms of ECML passenger locomotive development.
The Gresley non-streamlined Pacifics were not considered of sufficient importance for one to be included in the original listings for the preserved national collection, and 'Flying Scotsman' only made it there by default.
John.
Reply to
Bottle Blue
express
Well if we take that approach, there should only be one loco in preservation - Rocket!...
Reply to
:::Jerry::::
It wasn't so much that Gresley's non-streamlined 4-6-2s weren't sufficiently important that excluded FLYING SCOTSMAN, but the original policy for the National Railway Collection. That policy was that no more than one locomotive wheel arrangement by a particular engineer would be included: as far as Gresley Pacifics that meant either MALLARD or any one other, and MALLARD it just had to be. Similarly, the choice of a Stanier Black 5 4-6-0 eliminated any thoughts of a Rebuilt Scot, Rebuilt Patriot or Jubilee being included as WINSTON CHURCHILL equally ruled other Bullied Pacifics out of the question. Hope this helps, David Costigan
Reply to
David Costigan
"David Costigan" wrote
Hmm - there's a MN in the National Collection, albeit rather incomplete because of sectioning to allow the interior to be viewed.
There's also two Co-Co diesel electrics, both of English-Electric origin in the form of classes 37 & 55, so it can be argued that there is in fact no hard and fast rule as to what is and what was preserved.
John.
Reply to
John Turner
other, and
incomplete
Yes, and only incorporated very late into the collection, after the decision to convert the old York round house into the NRM.
Oh come on John, David was talking about the decisions made from 1958 to the mid '60's, the original rational behind the National Collection excluded Duke of Gloucester, even though it has been include at first - such was it's short sightedness!
Reply to
:::Jerry::::
If you don't have either, the RCTS series will be much more valuable to you (as well as cheaper - it's complete in 19 parts), and is a much better overview of LNER locomotive history. Yeadon is a detailed catalogue of locomotives, but the RCTS series is a history of those locos and their development.
Tim
Reply to
Tim Illingworth
Thanks Tim but could you expand on RCTS Series, I'm getting no hits on any search engine..
Norman
Reply to
Norman
valuable
hits on
You mean
formatting link
?...
Unwanted hits, rubbish, the above was the first return using the Google.com search site with "RCTS" as the only search *phrase* - it's more a case of "Norman" being an inept idiot. :~(
Reply to
:::Jerry::::
Whoops - forgot the URL :-)
formatting link
Jim.
Reply to
Jim Guthrie
Seems Jim forgot to add the URL. Try:
formatting link
Doesn't look like there's much of the series in print at the moment, so you might have to try the secondhand market.
TOS
Reply to
The Old Salt
"Norman" wrote
RCTS = Railway Correspondence & Travel Society.
John.
Reply to
John Turner

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.