Great Northern (Thompson)

[Tom F]

Hi I'm Tom

I have a question regarding Great Northerns Frames.

I have two books (Peter Townend's East Coast Pacifics At Work and Peter Coster's Book Of A1 and A2 Pacifics)

Both these books state that Great Northern had brand new frames when rebuilt by Thompson, yet I have on authority from
a good friend on these matters, that GN had her original frames, but were extended, this apparently is documented elsewhere too.

So why is it stated from so many other sources that she had new frames?

I'm sure someone here can help me with this one

[TopShedCleaner]

Hello Tom,

I'm a newbie on here too. My name is Ben.

I have the Wrold of Trains series and that, too, says that the Thompson Great Northern rebuild (or should that be almost new build) used new frames for the locomotive, though i believe it used many existing parts from the original locomotive. Wheels were the same diameter for all of them.

Now (not mentioning website) there is a website that mentions the same thing, the frames were new. I have read somewhere that the frames were actually altered and will try and find out the info for this, although, i reckon, that many on here may already have the answers. I'd be willing to try and dig a little deeper.
I have a few books that i can look in but it isn't totally my area. I'll see what i can do. There are a few ex railway workers that i know that may also provide an answer, or certainly an opinion!

[52D]

Welcome aboard chaps

[Tom F]

thanks for replying TopSheadCleaner, glad im not the only newbie

It's very odd isn't it, my friend has a friend who worked at 'the Plant' and actually worked on GN, so thats where the story from him come from about the frames, and as you have mentioned there are ones that support this.

Yet there are current books on the matter which clearly state new frames!

Thanks for the welcome 52D

[Flamingo]

RCTS Part 2A says that the rebuilt Great Northern had completely new frames and that its old frames were re-used for A3 2573. It was common practice to re-use frames in that way.

[Tom F]

RCTS Part 2A says that the rebuilt Great Northern had completely new frames and that its old frames were re-used for A3 2573. It was common practice to re-use frames in that way.

well now the plot is really beginning to thicken!

Maybe it's something we will never know, most interesting though!

[S.A.C. Martin]

Firstly, good afternoon everyone - glad to be on this esteemed forum.

I'm the friend Tom has spoken of in his original post in this thread.

I emailed Richard some time ago and ashamed to say I didn't follow up his kind invitation until now (so my apologies Richard), so here is my original post from RMweb that started this discussion between myself and Tom off:

Here's what I think I know:

1) The identity of a locomotive comes from its frames.

2) 4470 was rebuilt from a Gresley A1 into Thompson's A1/1.

3. Great Northern (60113) was cut up in 1962 or thereabouts.

Yet what I have been hearing and reading from a few people suggest that new frames were made for the A1/1, and that GN's were re-used? Here is a link to the LNER database stating exactly that: http://www.lner.info/locos/A/a1_1.shtml

We say that Thompson rebuilt Gresley's Great Northern locomotive. Did he? If the frames of Great Northern were used to replace another locomotives, surely the identity of that locomotive with the original frames became Great Northern, as per my first point?

If point 1) is valid, then the locomotive in question (2573 originally before a frame exchange?) should have been renamed Great Northern to match its frames (as has happened in preservation with engines like Rood Ashton Hall).

My question then, is two fold:

1) Was Gresley's Great Northern ever really rebuilt if its largest constituent parts were re-used and then in service for years afterwards?

2) Do we do Edward Thompson a disservice by saying that he "rebuilt" Gresley's premier machine? Surely it would stand in that case that he renamed it, taking the Great Northern name for his prototype engine?

Or have I missed something here?

And a small point - would that then mean that Gresley's Great Northern, albeit under a different name, and Thompson's Great Northern, were both in fact running at the same time in the 1940s/50s???

Now since I typed that I have read most, if not all the volumes Tom has reccomended to me and that have been mentioned on RMweb, that include information on Thompson's Great Northern.

I am willing to admit a fault, but remain perplexed as to the actual answer of this mystery. The evidence does all point towards new frames, which would in essence make it an entirely new locomotive, and not a "rebuild" at all (that is my postulation). Therefore my second question would be - if we accept 60113 was a new locomotive, why is that Thompson is remembered in such a way that he is held up as the man who disfigured Gresley's prototype pacific locomotive?

[mick b]

"if we accept 60113 was a new locomotive, why is that Thompson is remembered in such a way that he is held up as the man who disfigured Gresley's prototype pacific locomotive?"


I think you have answered you own question. Thompson through spite ,naviety or whatever picked Gresleys first Pacific for a rebuild when he could have used other A10's. Great Northern is a rebuild in my opinion

Mick

[S.A.C. Martin]

"if we accept 60113 was a new locomotive, why is that Thompson is remembered in such a way that he is held up as the man who disfigured Gresley's prototype pacific locomotive?"


I think you have answered you own question. Thompson through spite ,naviety or whatever picked Greasleys first Pacific for a rebuild when he could have used other A10's. Great Northern is a rebuild in my opinion

Mick

Mick,

My apologies, but I fail to see how my quote you have used fits with your opinion. With respect, of course, you are entitled to your view which I accept is the standard interpretation of events.

I stated "if we accept this as a new locomotive..." - which implies GN was not a rebuild but a new engine. We could then, in effect, say GN was broken up for spares in one way or another.

Simon

[Bill Bedford]

Now since I typed that I have read most, if not all the volumes Tom has reccomended to me and that have been mentioned on RMweb, that include information on Thompson's Great Northern.

If you read the RTCS Vol 2A chapter on the A1s you will quickly see that your 1/ premise is incorrect. A3 frame cracked so badly that the Plant had two or three spare sets of frames. As a loco came in for a heavy repair the frame were removed and a new set of repaired frames substituted.

Individual locos were no more than accountancy entities and probably on the nameplates and works plates had any continuous association with a particular loco.

[mick b]

Hi
No apology needed ,as Bill said there was a large change round of parts etc. Not much on any loco is original after the first couple of heavy repairs.
I read once the only original parts on Flying Scotsman is the Cab Roof and if memory correct the wheel centres.
Most locos running today are a mix of various locos and new parts.
cheers

Mick