The LNER Encyclopedia

Among my father's colour slides, about which I am gathering information for cataloguing, are several taken on the above date during a works visit which was part of the 'Don-Yor-Dar Flyer' railtour with MR No.1000. One of these is a shot of the frames of an A4 which was undergoing a heavy overhaul. Can anyone tell me which locomotive this was, please?

Many thanks.

The only two A4s which appear to have been in Doncaster Works for general repair on the date you mention are 60001 52A, (31/7/61- 5/10/61) and 60012 64B, (12/9/61 - 27/10/61).Source Yeadon Volume 2.

Stembok - many thanks for this information. In the photo the locomotive is completely stripped to the frames, its front bufferbeam is off and it is in the process of having its right-hand cylinder bored (and possibly the centre cylinder too). There are also signs of dye penetration testing of the frames for cracks, and of setting up for electric welding. 60012 would only have arrived at Doncaster 4.5 working days before the picture was taken, so could it have reached that stage in its repair in that time? 60001 left the works just under 3 weeks later, which I expect would be time enough for its reassembly. Am I right therefore to presume that this is 60001? Any further advice very welcome.

I've attached the photo (I think) so you can see what I mean.

great picture.

cant help feeling elf and safety would have a field day now with that unguarded belt and boring machine.

I am afraid that I would only be guessing 54JCC. Unfortunately, I cannot make out any of the chalked inscriptions on the engine. Mind you,looking at the dates in Yeadon, 60001 did seem to be in works for a lengthy spell, end of July to October, though perhaps Work's holidays may have had something to do with this? As for 60012 I suppose it depends upon how quickly they got her stripped down and admitted to the Crimpsall Shops. I wonder if anyone with knowledge of the repair procedures followed by the Works and their order might be of assistance. A possibility here might - just might- be found in the order of locos noted if anyone still possesses an original list for that particular day. Good luck and loved the photo, brought back some memories.

It must have some form of identification on it, I know all the parts would be stampped, but there must be a lable of it's number, for trackinng.

As for length of time, I know it's LMS, but on one British Steam Railways DVD there's the following of a loco from loco right back to loco, and that took 2 weeks including re-painting!

The A4 in the picture would have plenty of identification in various areas but unfortunately not readily recognisable from the photograph -which is the problem - unless someone might be able to enhance it?
Normally a full general repair and repaint for a Pacific at Doncaster seemed to take on average some six weeks in the 1950s from booking in to booking out and give or take a week.,with allowances for holidays etc at certain times. I would suspect that Crewe might well have been quicker as big investments were made there in speeding up repairs on a flow line system in the 1930s. I remember an article many years ago in which an engineer from Crewe recalled visiting the works of other companies and comparing some of them unfavourably in terms of modern equipment and, possibly because of this, productivity. The LMS workshops seem to have benefited from greater investment, whereas the LNER suffered in this respect, as in other areas, because of its more precarious economic position. Does anyone have sample figures from Crewe for ,say, general repair times on Princess Coronation Pacifics in the 1950s which might possibly support this?

Normal workshop practice as far as I understand it was for an Engine, Carriage or whatever to come in at one end of the shop, go through a stripping process of normally worn items, then wheels, bogies off then frames onto a stand for repairs.
Whilst these repairs were being carried out the removed articles would be overhauled, refurbished or replaced then put into stock in store.
When required after or during frame repairs replacement parts would then be refitted. But not neccessarily the same original parts.
If you examine any Loco especially ex LMS you will find a multitude of differing numbers that the item had been used on.
I did this to an ex LMS Jinty at the Mid Hants and found 48 different numbers on the wheel sets alone.
Carriages are the same as in the repair shop at York Mk1s and 2s came in at one end of the lift shop were stripped, cleaned, repaired and reassembled on a production line system.

stembok wrote: The LMS workshops seem to have benefited from greater investment, whereas the LNER suffered in this respect, as in other areas, because of its more precarious economic position.

It could be argued that the LNER's precarious economic position was a result of it not having anyone in top management to make the changes to business practices that the LMS made in the 30s.

Bill Bedford wrote:

stembok wrote: The LMS workshops seem to have benefited from greater investment, whereas the LNER suffered in this respect, as in other areas, because of its more precarious economic position.

It could be argued that the LNER's precarious economic position was a result of it not having anyone in top management to make the changes to business practices that the LMS made in the 30s.

Probably because the LNER was 'run by gentlemen' - or so it has been said. A lot of good it did them all, in the end - all bankrupt by 1947 or going that way due to service to the nation in the war. Don't believe it if anyone today tries to compare the traffic flows of the LNER and the LMS in the 1930s, the latter was the largest organisation of its kind in the world at the time.

The LMSR was more business led in terms of management and organisation. Remember however that change requires initial investment and this is where the LNER struggled. Many more things could and no doubt would have been achieved on the LNER had the money been available. The LNER certainly did not lack vision and ability in its senior management (eg Wedgwood, Gresley) or on its Board (Whitelaw). As it was the LNER put on a highly creditable showing, at times on a shoestring .A look at the economic history of the LNER will bear out just how difficult things were and why. The idea in 1923 was that the former NER area would provide much of the financial muscle to power the Group. For reasons beyond the control of the railway this was not possible, as the NER area, much of it based on heavy industry, suffered prolonged economic hardship. While the LMS also served areas with economic problems in this period it also served large areas which were expanding economically and doing well in the 1920s and 30s and benefited from this.

Thanks to you all for spending part of your weekend on this one.

Some of you have been trying to examine the markings on the frame. The photo I posted was reduced in resolution so that it would upload. For those who are interested in the markings I have now cropped out the center of the loco's frame, sharpened it a touch and attach it below at the full resolution available from my slide scanner. The markings are directions and dimensions for the benefit of the craftsmen who will descend once more on the loco the following day (the picture was taken on a Sunday). Such wording as 'GRIND TO FACE' and 'WELD HORN SIDE' can be made out.

This is certainly very interesting from the production engineering point of view, but I can still see nothing which identifies the A4!

Thanks again for the thoughts - the comments on LMS vs LNER main works organisation are interesting. It brings it home that CMEs had much more to do than sit in their offices signing off drawings for new locomotive designs.

That picture is dreadfully eerie it looks as though it wastaken only a few days ago but records something 40 years old. It is a remarkable photograph.

This is when rivet/nut counting comes in handy!

If the smokebox plating in the foreground belongs to the locomotive concerned then I would say it is 60001 as the number of holes used to attach it at the bottom-front looks like seven whereas on 60012 it would have been, I think, four. Looking at pictures it is difficult to see if its 4 or 5 – anyway it is less than on the one in the picture.

73D - I'd never given a thought to the plating in the left foreground, and certainly had not recognised it for what it quite evidently is now that you've mentioned it, i.e. the streamlined fairing from the right-hand side of an A4 smokebox! I'd even missed the short section of lining, which should have given it away... and I used to pride myself on having a bit of an eye for detail! This is the power of the Internet to be sure.

Anyway I'm attaching a cropped, and slightly sharpened, view of that detail at full resolution, from which you can see that there are five holes clearly visible and, I'd say, another two that are just on the 'horizon' as it were, giving seven.

As you infer, an identification derived from this is risky, because it could be 60001's plating lying next to the frames of 60012!

My father was particularly proud of his steady camera grip, and I think rightly so when you can find detail like this on an indoor shot which was almost certainly hand-held, without flash, using film of speed c25 ASA!

Thanks for your perceptive eye.