mick b wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 7:23 pm
Well I can safely say this the first words I have ever read anywhere praising the A2/2 . Poor reliablity from day one ,excessive times in for repair, smokebox retaining nuts falling out the saddle due to excessive vibration , frames cracking due to excessive front end length and the resultant forces etc etc. A A2/2 better than a P2 really ??
Yes. I have documented evidence which shows the excellence of the A2/2.
Taking the word of (no offence to him ) an apprentice, as to what was being decided is at best questionable.As to what actually happended at Board meetings etc . What possible first hand knowledge would he actually have, I would imagine minimal if anything at all, other than rumours and gossip. Dont forget not everything is writtten down in minutes at any meeting .
Actually the L.N.E.R. board minutes are incredibly detailed and pretty much do write down and corroborate everything Hardy has written on. Apologies Mick, I have the benefit of eight years worth of work and access to archive documentation over you on this one.
Surely a CME has the final decision and /or influence to his staff as to what designs are being put forward to the Board. It is well known GN was next inline for conversion to a A3. There was however nothing to stop Thompson saying use the next Loco up for conversion instead of GN either. Musgrave would have informed Thompson of what he had decided. Such rebuilding or in this case scrapping of the P2's and a A3. Have huge financial commitments and approval by the Company and their shareholders, they would have the final say .
No, the C.M.E. never had that authority. No, Great Northern was never in the frame to be modified to A3 standard. Musgrave did not have to inform Thompson or the drawing office of his decision at all - they are different functions within the business and the details of the individual locomotives involved are largely irrelevant to the financial and engineering departments.
No, I dont think I will be buying the book. It is all becoming somewhat ancient history, heading towards 80 plus years ago, and decisions by whoever they were or not they all are now part of history as well . Nothing written in one book now ,will change many entrenched attitudes to Thompson or his designs and decisions, good or bad.
Suit yourself, Mick but very disappointing.
60027Merlin wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 8:23 pm
With reference to the A2/2s working in Scotland out of Haymarket, Dundee Tay Bridge and Aberdeen Ferryhill Sheds. Sooner, rather then later, they were found to be unreliable on a regular basis, resulting in loco availability problems. They could not cope with the allotted passenger turns especially being prone to slip and eventually Peppercorn A2s were drafted in to take over their work.
It was not a case of being banished from Scotland, they were simply not up to the job required on this section of the ECML.
That I am afraid is not true and I have evidence to show this quite substantially within the body of the book.