The LNER Encyclopedia

Having been studying the early history of GNR carriages for many years now, I am intrigued by one particular thing about the later carriages.

If HNG was only carriage and wagon superintendent for 6 years, from 1905-1911, why are all carriages produced by the GNR and then LNER up to 1941 called Gresley's and those produced from 1941-1946 called Thompson, when Thompson was LNER C&W superintendent from 1923-1930???

Who was it of the various authors decided that all carriages should be named Gresley's? I would guess Brown in his book about Gresley from 1961, but it could have been Ossie Nock.

I also know that Bullied had some charge of the C&W department during GNR days, but not sure for how long.

It is of course also interesting to note that although Howlden was c&w superintendent for the GNR from 1877-1905, in contract forms from the 1880's the final arbiter was said to be Stirling. Very strange.


paul

Perhaps it is down to who was CME and had ultimate responsibility for signing off the designs?

Wouldn't the CME oversee the work of all the Superintendents?

If he's the Boss I guess he gets to call the stock what he wants!

rgds

Vernon

In a similar vein to how a Holden B12/3 is stated to be a Gresley design, when Thompson oversaw the rebuilding whilst head of Stratford works. Gresley was CME at the time and therefore had overall responsibility.

notascoobie wrote: If he's the Boss I guess he gets to call the stock what he wants!

Yeah, about those Pigeon vans...

Pennine MC wrote:

notascoobie wrote: If he's the Boss I guess he gets to call the stock what he wants!

Yeah, about those Pigeon vans...

You wouldn't be thinking of a Diagram 120 "Brake Van - fitted with shelves for pigeon traffic" to quote the Diagram Book, would you? Surely no one in their right mind would abbreviate that lot to 'Pigeon Van' would they?

Getting back to the topic, stock tends to be associated with the CME - think of 'Stanier' stock of the LMS or 'Maunsell' stock on the SR.

Most 'Thompson' stock appeared long after the man himself had retired.

Robert,
How strange I just mentioned on Jwealleans thread this afternoon that the NRM have a drawing 12800D titled...32' 0" 4 wheel passenger brake van fitted with shelving for pigeon traffic (D120).

whilst it is true that some talk of Maunsell and Stanier carriages, we also talk of Bain for the NER, Clayton and Bain for the Midland.

However on the GNR it is different in that we do not talk about Stirling or Ivatt carriages, rather Howlden and Gresley, so why?

Paul

I think it's because Howden and Gresley were Carriage and Wagon Superintendents with no CME above them. IIRC Stirling and Ivatt were Locomotive Superintendents. When Gresley got the LNER locomotive job at the grouping, he took on C&W as well. He was a CME with superintendents working for him.

Hence Howlden and Gresley carriages in GNR days and Gresley and Thompson carriages in LNER days, according to the times they were CME.

Regards,

Vernon

Dunno Vernon, in 1880 Stirling was certainly Howlden's boss according to the tender forms.

My interest is pedantic I know, but it does confuse.

It is also strange that HNG was the first of the GNR c&w superintendents not to be a trained carriage builder, so when you study other railways too a number of CME's appear to have progressed via C&W to Loco Engineer, wonder whether it was to remind them what the locos actually had to do when built

paul

john coffin wrote:It is also strange that HNG was the first of the GNR c&w superintendents not to be a trained carriage builder, so when you study other railways too a number of CME's appear to have progressed via C&W to Loco Engineer, wonder whether it was to remind them what the locos actually had to do when built

paul

Gresley was appointed Outdoor Assistant to the C&W Superintendent of the L&Y in 1900. A year later he moved to the L&Y carriage and wagon works at Newton Heath, in 1902 was appointed Works Manager there and in 1904 he was made Assistant Superintendent of the C&W department.

So he DID have a broad if comparatively short career as a 'carriage builder' and the L&Y was noted for it's advanced designs of coaching stock for the period.

Thompson was also appointed to the C&W department at Doncaster, following Gresley's promotion to Locomotive Superintendent in 1911 but did not remain there for long before joining his father-in-law Raven at Woolwich Arsenal for war service in 1916. After the end of WW1 he returned to Doncaster briefly before going to the NER as C&W Manager at York. He subsequently had various periods of service in the C&W department of the LNER but, as Peter Grafton wrote, Thompson's time was spent on administration, management and production planning rather than design.

john coffin wrote:If HNG was only carriage and wagon superintendent for 6 years, from 1905-1911, why are all carriages produced by the GNR and then LNER up to 1941 called Gresley's and those produced from 1941-1946 called Thompson, when Thompson was LNER C&W superintendent from 1923-1930???

Simple - Gresley was responsible for a design standard that was used, with variations, up until the Newton coach of 1945. Coaches built to follow the Newton design were then labeled 'Thompson' even though he had retired before most of them were built.

It's all a question of enthusiast's semantics, and as such not very interesting.