J11s

[Pyewipe Junction]

Thompson selected the J11s, modified with piston valves, to be an LNER standard medium/light freight class.

What exactly did that mean, as all bar a few J11s were allocated to ex-GC and CLC sheds.

In addition to rebuilding existing J11s, did Thompson intend to build new J11s?

[Atlantic 3279]

An interesting question. I wonder if there is a surviving reliable document indicating any proposals for new J11 construction, possibly including projected numbers to be built? There were plenty of fairly similar O-6-0s of various designs still in LNER service, some simple, rugged and reliable, lasting in subsequent BR service for nearly twenty years. I imagine it would have required a very firm belief by the board in the economic case for scrapping many of those at early dates and replacing them with "standard" J11s for the sake of any simplification and economy of maintenance (and operation?) that would supposedly result.
I've read of the J11 proposal in several places (e.g. RCTS part 5, with associated mention of a planned new round-top boiler) but I don't recall any mention of anticipated numbers to be built new. I looked last night for any additional information in my rarely read RCTS part 1, expecting those to be the most authoritative books in my possession. The section on general locomotive policy and construction certainly lists the J11 as the proposed Thompson standard goods loco, but unless there is more detail elsewhere in that volume, further information seems to be lacking.

[Danby Wiske]

Yeadon Vol. 45 states:

Class J11/3, as it was known [No. 6009, the modified engine with piston valves], was intended to form the prototype for the LNER's own standard medium-size 0-6-0 for post war construction, but in the event no new engines of this type were built.

This wording suggests to me that the compilers of this volume at least thought that it was Thompson's intention to build more. Presumably his retirement and the subsequent nationalisation of the railways put paid to that plan...

[Atlantic 3279]

Assuming that 6009 was to be more than simply the prototype for further rebuilds, do the abortive 1938 proposals for rebuilding some of the J21s to provide more modern engines suited to the Stainmore route shed some further light on the possible features of any new additions to Class J11? The improved J21s were also to have J39 style cylinders with long travel piston valves, but in addition were to feature new frames modelled on the J39 pattern but with the shorter J21 wheelbase, along with J39 style raised central portion of the running plate. The J39 frame pattern would need only 1" alteration to wheelbase (if that) for new J11s and might well be preferred over an Edwardian frame design that was not "LNER house style". With the probability that any new 5' 0" boilers would be round-topped, smokebox resting on a saddle, and cabs to "LNER pattern" too, would any new J11s actually have looked much more like a smaller boilered version of the J39?

[Danby Wiske]

Very possibly, although I think Thompson would probably have favoured a high running plate for ease of maintenance (like the B1 and K5). I doubt it would have been aesthetically pleasing, even if not as hideous as Mr Bulleid's 0-6-0!

[Hatfield Shed]

... did Thompson intend to build new J11s?

Had the traffic demand led to requests to the Locomotive Commitee that a tranche of new small 0-6-0s were required, and this was approved; then a modernised design was available. The 'be prepared' approach.

[Pyewipe Junction]

... did Thompson intend to build new J11s?

Had the traffic demand led to requests to the Locomotive Commitee that a tranche of new small 0-6-0s were required, and this was approved; then a modernised design was available. The 'be prepared' approach.

Operational Departments were very conservative when it came to building new locomotives, being concerned with the 'here and now' rather than the future. The attitude was normally 'give us more of the same' as Ivatt found out on the LMS - he had to take a very firm stand to build his class 2s and 4s instead of more 4F 0-6-0s. Thinking more about this issue, I am surprised that Thompson didn't develop a small/medium 2-6-0 (with perhaps a complementary tank version), as the LNER was particularly weak in this area.

[jwealleans]

Thread drift, but haven't you just described the K1?

[S.A.C. Martin]

Thinking more about this issue, I am surprised that Thompson didn't develop a small/medium 2-6-0 (with perhaps a complementary tank version), as the LNER was particularly weak in this area.

Thompson produced both. Classes K1 (later K1/1 and then became Peppercorn K1) and the L1 2-6-4T which shared many components.

Yeadon Vol. 45 states:

Class J11/3, as it was known [No. 6009, the modified engine with piston valves], was intended to form the prototype for the LNER's own standard medium-size 0-6-0 for post war construction, but in the event no new engines of this type were built.

This wording suggests to me that the compilers of this volume at least thought that it was Thompson's intention to build more. Presumably his retirement and the subsequent nationalisation of the railways put paid to that plan...

The intention was to standardise on boilers, piston valves and other items wherever possible. The J11 was one of the largest 0-6-0 classes the LNER had, and also one of the best performing locomotives of that size. By effectively merging classes J11 and J39 and uniting them with boiler and valve gear types, that would have represented a significant portion of the LNER's mixed traffic fleet with interchangeable parts.

The J11/3 was intended to have the round topped boiler of the J39s, but in the event this didn't happen. The use of long travel and piston valves meant the existing boiler had to be raised up higher, necessitating some modification to the chimney, cabs and other fittings.

There was, as far as my research goes, no indication that Thompson intended for new building of any 0-6-0s outside of the J50 tank engine which was intended to have new members, but didn't after Peppercorn changed the order to J72s instead. The new standard types for his building and rebuilding programme were:

A1, A2, B1, K1, O1, J11, J50, L1, Q1

Non standard types to be maintained were:

A3 and A10, A4, B17, D49, B16, K3, V2, O4, V1, V3

J39 wasn't included in either, which was a surprise given the intentions of the J11/3 scheme.

It's speculation on my part but I have always felt that perhaps the J39 was omitted accidentally from the standard scheme, given Thompson and Gresley had chosen components from the class to be used for a wide range of rebuilding other classes.

[Pyewipe Junction]

Thread drift, but haven't you just described the K1?

Only if you consider a loco with a TE of 32000 ft lbs and a BR classification of 5P6F (some say 6MT) to be 'small/medium'. I don't.

Perhaps 'small medium' would be a better description than 'small/medium', ie something in the 19 to 22,000 ft lb range.

[Pyewipe Junction]

Thinking more about this issue, I am surprised that Thompson didn't develop a small/medium 2-6-0 (with perhaps a complementary tank version), as the LNER was particularly weak in this area.

Thompson produced both. Classes K1 (later K1/1 and then became Peppercorn K1) and the L1 2-6-4T which shared many components.

Yeadon Vol. 45 states:

Class J11/3, as it was known [No. 6009, the modified engine with piston valves], was intended to form the prototype for the LNER's own standard medium-size 0-6-0 for post war construction, but in the event no new engines of this type were built.

This wording suggests to me that the compilers of this volume at least thought that it was Thompson's intention to build more. Presumably his retirement and the subsequent nationalisation of the railways put paid to that plan...

There was, as far as my research goes, no indication that Thompson intended for new building of any 0-6-0s outside of the J50 tank engine

J39 wasn't included in either, which was a surprise given the intentions of the J11/3 scheme.

It's speculation on my part but I have always felt that perhaps the J39 was omitted accidentally from the standard scheme, given Thompson and Gresley had chosen components from the class to be used for a wide range of rebuilding other classes.

It's a pity you didn't put this information in your book.

[Atlantic 3279]

Had the J39 boiler been used on any rebuilt or new J11s, that would have put the weight up by several tons, potentially affecting route availability.

A new 5' 0" diameter boiler may have been thought a better idea.

Examples of LNER "standard" 5' 0" boilers did exist. There's mention indeed in the RCTS book of proposals to use the Thompson L1 boiler on the J39s, although the figures suggest to me that it would be rather long for the job in both the barrel and the firebox. Maybe a shorter version was envisaged?

[S.A.C. Martin]

It's a pity you didn't put this information in your book.

What information wasn’t in there? K1/1, check. L1, check. Thompson’s standard classes and non-standard classes to be maintained? Check. Covered all of those.

I didn’t include speculation on the J39 class because it wasn’t relevant to the book. The J11/3 was included and discussed, but not in great detail, as it was a minor part of the overall discussion.

[S.A.C. Martin]

Had the J39 boiler been used on any rebuilt or new J11s, that would have put the weight up by several tons, potentially affecting route availability.

That's probably why the proposal was summarily dropped.

Examples of LNER "standard" 5' 0" boilers did exist. There's mention indeed in the RCTS book of proposals to use the Thompson L1 boiler on the J39s, although the figures suggest to me that it would be rather long for the job in both the barrel and the firebox. Maybe a shorter version was envisaged?

From what I gather the proposal for the J39s to be reboilered with the L1 boiler type was also short-lived. It's interesting to observe that around a similar time frame there were:

1) An investigation as to fitting J39 parts onto the J11s - for which, the valve gear wand piston valves were adapted with modifications
2) L1 parts including boiler to J39s
3) L1 parts including cylinders, boiler and valve gear to the V1s/V3s and making them two cylinder locomotives

The only one of these that got as far as full line drawings was the V1/V3 two cylinder proposal, shown in the relevant RCTS book.

[Pyewipe Junction]

[/quote]

What information wasn’t in there? K1/1, check. L1, check. Thompson’s standard classes and non-standard classes to be maintained? Check. Covered all of those.

[/quote]

I looked through your book again last night and could find only two brief references to the J11s. Hardly 'covering' a major projected rebuilding programme, I would have thought. Don't forget also that over 30 J11/1s were in fact converted to J11/3s, right up to the mid 1950s.