LNER Big Engine Policy, Traffic Committee etc

[ahardy]

Evening all.

I wonder if anyone can help me, i'm conducting some research into various bits and pieces and am looking for a little help in locating some information.

Does anyone know if any of the Locomotive Traffic Committee minutes survive anywhere, particularly for 1932 and 1933.

Likewise I have found references for locomotives being ordered as part of the 1932 locomotive building program, does anyone know any details of the whole of the program and any details what was included.

Lastly, I have seen a lot of references to Gresley's Big Engine policy. I know this wont written down etc, but I wondered if anyone knew of a good summary of his thoughts and design rationale relating to this.

Ideally i'm looking for some pointers towards first hand sources and records, or if not any books that cover the subject.

Thanks in advance for your help, i'm sure it wont be the last question I ask on here.

Regards,

Andy

[LNER Fan 60008]

The "big engine policy" was simply the encouragement of designing and using large locomotives for the LNER instead of sticking to an array of smaller locomotives.
A mass of bigger stronger locomotives would avert motive power issues and keep the railway supplied with strong locomotive classes that wouldn't be held back from growing workloads as the years went by. The LMS in its early years chose the opposite policy - sticking to a mass of smaller engines instead. Basic observance of both railway's early histories reveals which policy worked best.

The epitome of Gresley's policy was the P2. The early LMS' epitome was probably the Jinty.

[Ormonde]

The epitome of Gresley's policy was the P2. The early LMS' epitome was probably the Jinty.

Which of these two classes was more successful?

[Andy W]

The LNER Locomotive Committee minutes are at the National Archives, Kew in the Rail 390 series. If you haven't been to Kew before, details of what you have to do before you can access documents are on the National Archives website.

The minutes and reports for the period 1930-1935 is file Rail 390/32 and the agenda book for 1929-1933 is file Rail 390/115.

[notascoobie]

The epitome of Gresley's policy was the P2. The early LMS' epitome was probably the Jinty.

Which of these two classes was more successful?

Depends which context you use to judge success. If it's hauling 12 carriages at express speeds between Edinburgh and Aberdeen, it's probably the P2. If it's pottering around a goods yard and doing transfer freight trips, it's probably the Jinty.

If it's not being chopped up by a spiteful and less talented successor then it's definitely the Jinty!

Toodle pip

Vernon

[65447]

Does anyone know if any of the Locomotive Traffic Committee minutes survive anywhere, particularly for 1932 and 1933.

Likewise I have found references for locomotives being ordered as part of the 1932 locomotive building program, does anyone know any details of the whole of the program and any details what was included..

Regards,

Andy

As has already been stated, they are held at Kew in The National Archives. However, if you are only after a summary listing then one appears in the chapter titled 'Locomotive Policy and Construction' on p15 et seq in RCTS Locomotives of the LNER Part 1 - Preliminary Survey. Details of construction and rebuilding for each class are dealt with in the appropriate Parts of the series.

[john coffin]

Whilst there are certainly loco committee records at Kew, they may not give all the answers you want.

It is important to remember the context of the time, it was the middle of the depression, and with many people out of work, the government offered low cost and preferential financing to major UK companies, including the railways. They were directed to give work to larger companies that had previously been heavily involved in overseas loco provision, like North British, because they were not getting the orders. It made little sense to replicate old technology, when traffic was still growing.
Even the LMS had abandoned the process when they appointed Stanier, who started to build considerable numbers of large locos. But the LNER had a real advantage, in that from the beginning it had only one main works, Doncaster, whereas the LMS had been trying to deal with the fight between Crewe, Derby and even Horwich. Although the Midland was not the main part of the LMS, Derby over powered the loco committee, which is why it continued to build 4-4-0's until the late 1920's.

The LNER constituents did not actually have one company going from London to Scotland, whereas the LMS had two, LNWR and Midland, so from the beginning, the LNER had to consider locos to travel the whole distance. Whilst both the GNR and NER had started to build Pacific's, they were still experimental. But it was the traffic department that requested larger locos to haul trains non stop or with minimum stops all the way from London to Edinburgh, and from where the idea of a bigger engine policy came.

There is a myth that the loco engineer decided what locos were designed and built, but it is just that a myth. The traffic department predicted their needs and the number of trains they wanted to run, and presented the Loco engineer with their demands, which were also aligned with the finances from the Accounts department. That is why some locos were built from the Capital Account, and some from Revenue.

Then the Loco engineer attempted to create a suitable loco for the needs with which he was presented.

Along with the special build programme, also came the Electrification programme that was started.

As for the argument about Jinty and P2, the Jinty was an evolution of the original Midland 0-6-0T whilst the P2 was really a prototype that encompassed all the ideas that Gresley wanted to test, and frankly lead to the A4. Few prototypes last as long as the A3's did, but without them, we would not have had Mallards speed record.

Paul

[1H was 2E]

Now the LNER had a big engine policy, and we all like big engines but was this necessarily an indication of forward thinking?
The LMS standard 0-6-0T has been mentioned. Now some of these had screw reverse and steam heat and were used on passenger work (including down the LNER to Potters Bar) but they were also use as shunting engines.
The last was built in 1931 and the LMS then changed to diesel for shunting (apart from a small number - 5 - of dock tanks and 2 Sentinels, one for use at the top of a rope worked incline and the other, an advanced design, for comparison with diesels). The diesels could be available for work for a week without attention, which would seem to present a major advantage over steam.
On the LNER, however, steam shunting locomotives continued to be acquired. 14 J50s in 1938/9; an order for more was replaced by one for the Thompson Q1 0-8-0T. 75 saddle tanks from the MoS were followed by 28 J72s. It wasn't until 1946 that diesel shunters started work on the LNER; 4. A fifth made it after Nationalisation. It appears that these benefitted from the experiences of the LMS being little different from that company's design.
The LNER's constituents had 4-8-0 and 0-8-4 tanks for heavy shunting, and the LNER built more to these designs. The work these impressive (and, probably, expensive to build and maintain ) locos did was within the capabilities of 350HP diesels. And the Thompson Q1s, also pretty big, seemed to just fade away.
I wonder why there was such a difference between the LMS and LNER policy for shunting locos. Remember it was freight traffic, not crack expresses, that earned the big money.
I'm now hiding behind the settee........

[pete2hogs]

I recall the comments by David L Smith when some Jinties appeared on the ex GSWR lines as them being 'out of the ark' . The GSWR had had power reverse on its engines for about 40 years by then...

I do credit the LMS with great innovation regarding the diesel shunter - however it was a pity that BR built about 500 more of them than were actually needed...

It's important to remember that the LNER and LMS had quite different organisational structure - the divisions on the LNER were near autonomous in most respects with their own works - albeit the works would produce standard types as well. It probably made sense from a spares point of view to build more of local types like the GCR and NER heavy shunters when only a small batch was required.

In any case, through the 20's and 30's, the LNER simply didn't have the money to set about wholesale replacement of older engines. Or even to produce the best possible new designs - if Gresley had been able to spend more freely he'd have built Moguls instead of the J39's. Remember things like the A4's and P2's would be a relatively small part of his budget, it was the J39's and K3's among his designs that did the bulk of the revenue earning.

The Q1 was yet another of Thomson's aberrations. No-one wanted them and they were got rid of quite quickly. If he'd stuck to the B1, K1 and O1 plus diesel shunters he'd have a much better reputation. The J50 on the other hand was reputedly a very good tool for its purpose.

[ahardy]

Thanks everyone for the replies.

I have a trip to Kew planned, so will have a look at the committee notes along with all the other files I plan to see.

I have a feeling I may need more than one day.

Many thanks.

Andy

[john coffin]

worth knowing that Tuesdays and Thursday are later nights at Kew
but also remember that it takes about 1 hour to get papers, and you need to get a photographic readers card, which they produce on the top floor. Once you have one, you can pre book some of what you want I think using your home machine. Worth checking again once you are there.

HTH
Paul