Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

Hang on chaps, be fair. The book in question contains exact copies of documents and letters, direct from the NRM archives. It does not, where there is such detail, offer up opinions in that manner. The source material is not available for public viewing except on request and as such, William Brown's book is the closest you will get to the W1's file.

I suggest if you have a friend who has a copy, to have a flick through. It is not like other locomotive books - very different and much more "primary" source than anything by the timekeepers.

I take the point of course but it does not wholly apply to this particular source on the W1.

 

I have got the book on the W1. But you can't tell what the author has chosen to leave out unless you go and consult the archive yourself. Quoting from the book a selection of primary sources from another author will not give you the same authority as someone who actually has gone to the archive and researched all the material available - that's what professional historians do and that's why they only publish a handful of books in their lives. You may find things that are of use and interest that William Brown left out because they were of no use to him or they did not fit into his hypothesis. You shouldn't rely on someone else's research of primary sources.

 

I don't disagree with your view Neil, but don't you think if the boiler itself was in any way at fault it would have been reported thusly both in that volume and elsewhere? I have ploughed my furrow this evening trying to find any reference directly to boiler tubes leaking and can find none. I can find almost everything else being at fault from the auxiliaries, to the cylinder sizes, to the lack of a superheater, to the draughting arrangement (which was revised) and a number of references to the cladding on, but not to the boiler itself being at fault.

So - as I stated originally - based on my reading - and to say arbitrarily without quoting sources - that the boiler suffered troubles when there doesn't seem to be documented evidence, primary or secondary - seems unfair and at odds with that known. Would you not agree that if the boiler gave trouble in that way, it would be reported thusly? Everything else seems to have been.

Edited - to remove erroneous comment.

 

Superheaters not being big enough? Did you read that they were reduced in size twice to prevent overheating and that a secondary superheater was added at the recommendation of Chapelon? This was to raise the temperature of the low pressure steam.

 

Yes, you're quite right - no idea what I was thinking when I wrote that, it is of course the other way round as you state.

 

Whether it was the boiler per se that caused problems or the associated bits and bobs, it comes to much the same in the end. A boiler is no use without those bits and bobs. If the high pressure water tube boiler had been able to function with a totally standard set of ancillaries, presumably those would have caused no more problems than on other locomotives and W1 as a whole would have been successful.

 

I'm not really interested in whether the boiler was at fault or not, the point I'm making is about how you use your sources for your forthcoming book.

 

Just been looking for a copy of Brown's Hush Hush book, my interest having been piqued by this thread, but I'd have to say the reviews aren't very positive. Several mention a lack of technical/engineering detail and too much in the way of personal opinion which is not backed up by contemporary evidence. So I think I'll give it a miss myself.

 

You're not wrong there!

I was intrigued by the Drummond water tube boiler (http://1920slocomotives.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/111-140-early-locomotives-and-in-works.html, photos 137/138) so looked it up in Bradley.

It was fitted to a K10 4-4-0 - this was the small mixed-traffic 4-4-0 class, that shared boiler, cylinders and motion with the M7 and 700 goods. The water tube boiler had a much smaller heating surface than the conventional K10 boilers (737 sq ft vs. 1,292 sq ft on the conventional boilers when fitted with cross-firebox water tubes). Despite that reduced heating surface, Drummond claimed steam could be raised in 90 minutes; he also claimed the evaporative rate was equal to the standard boilers. In practice, fractured flues, leaking tubes and priming severely hampered the loco and it performed little revenue-earning work. and there were several potentially serious blow-backs. A test run was completed from Clapham Junction to Andover Junction in January 1902, but the return had to be abandoned at Overton. The next run, in February, terminated at Grately. By March - April 1902, the loco was running fairly reliably on the Waterloo - Reading route; however, by July 1902 when Drummond reported to the board, he stated that the boiler worked well in a stationary capacity, but the jolting and vibration on the road caused fractures that could only be fixed by lifting the boiler. In December 1902 the boiler was replaced with a standard one, the locomotive having run only 4,641 miles.

Tom

 

I have to say I totally disagree with the reviews on the technical detail aspect. I've learned more about what went into the W1 and how it was built and why potentially it wasn't a success in all areas than in any other book on the loco. The book is worth it for the photographs alone, many of which are not published elsewhere and show many fascinating angles and behind the scenes looks at the loco's building, for instance.

The personal opinion bit I sort of agree with, though it doesn't for me in any way overpower the rest of the book which is a very good read indeed. I'm much more interested in the sources Brown's drawn from, than the writings of any of the time keepers, whose understanding of the locomotive and its experimental outline is much more limited.

 

Some reviews mention the lack of drawings, just one small GA is included apparently? Is that correct and if so, how do you get to grips with the detailed layout of this unique beastie ?

 

Yes, there is only one GA - but I would rely on other sources for that. I think those who are dismissive have missed the point of the book: it recounts the story of its development through letters, articles, photographs - and yes there's personal commentary but I think m'learned friends here would know what to take with a pinch of salt and what to nod in agreement at.

The point of the book is to provide a chronology of development. Reading the notes and letters passed between Gresley and Stamer, for example, although snippets at a time, times and context are provided and you can take or leave Brown's commentary as you please.

Personally speaking, the book would be the ultimate source on the W1 if it did include GAs and perhaps full copies of the letters, but there seems to be an abundance of material in the NRM's file and I think it's fair to say that if we all had the time we'd probably go through it and enjoy the history of what was a very interesting and very well engineered locomotive; even if sadly its performances were lacking.

However - as intimated above - using only a few sources leaves one's knowledge stale, and to quote source from a source is wrong. I take on board the points above with a good grace - my apologies for completely missing the point earlier gentlemen, I fear I misunderstood the context you were writing in.

 

I managed to get a copy of the book in question - nabbed it from an Amazon supplier at a VERY good price as soon as I saw it mentioned on the thread. Am looking forward to reading it when I get home in a few days' time

 

Looked good but found lacking in a number of key areas, hence the rebuilding scheme which saw the whole class of Lentz valve gear locomotives (as ordered under Gresley) to be rebuilt to B12/3, and 44 of the B12/1s to the same spec.

I don't think there is any doubt - surely - that the B12/3 version of the class was the ultimate development and its usefulness during the second world war pulling ambulance trains cannot be understated. Another locomotive class of the second world war that doesn't quite get the recognition it deserves.

If you read page 25 and 26 of Peter Grafton's work on Edward Thompson, you will find out he was intrinsically involved to the extent of working out the valve timings on a wooden mock up of the new valve gear with one of his technical staff, Mr A.E. English. The detail that Thompson went into for the rebuilding of 8579 whilst he was head of Stratford works is astonishing and is one of the few times I have found further details on this in contemporary sources such as The Railway Magazine corroborating the work that Gresley was impressed enough with to sign off a complete rebuilding schedule on.

So the answer is a lot more than you would choose to believe sir.

That's an awfully strange statement to make when a number of extremely similar round topped boilers were being fitted by Gresley to moguls, tank engines and mineral freight locomotives! The 99A boiler fitted to the B12/3s and the diagram 100 boiler fitted to the B1s are very similar in a number of details, and given the 99A boiler was based on the original 2800 boiler fitted to the Gresley B17s (which later received the 100 and 100a boiler types, your comment is totally off the mark.

If the NBL design was good enough for Gresley to sign off on why is it suddenly such a big deal when Thompson agrees with Gresley and chooses a similar design? I don't understand why you are so scathing of a design decision that Gresley and Thompson appear to have agreed on.

Of course it was deliberate and he was perfectly at liberty as CME to pick a boiler type he felt suitable for his new mixed traffic locomotive. What exactly is your point here? Is there any dispute in the steaming propensities of that boiler? Are you saying the Thompson B1 was in any way unsuitable for the traffic it found itself on?

In short what exactly is your point?

In only two major areas - the conjugated valve gear and its placement relative to the cylinders, and the number of cylinders for the small and medium sized locomotives. Both areas which - as borne out by the BR Standard program - Thompson was absolutely correct to question and make changes.

In all other areas he didn't exactly go out of his way to change for change's sake - a Thompson Pacific still has a double kylchap exhaust, big Gresley two window cab, eight wheel tender, round topped Gresley style boiler and three cylinders. Would you argue a raised running plate, eliminating the traditional splashers, was a bad idea?

Perhaps you should try reading and researching as I have done - you would see that statement is totally without foundation and a ridiculous assertion propagated by people caught up in the most vitriolic of Thompson detractors. I will not waste any more time on responding to this point as - with only six rebuilt mikados and one Pacific in total considered controversial and not in keeping with Gresley, the facts somewhat prove your statement wrong.

In any event - he was CME and it was his right as it was with every CME of every single railway in the land to plough their own furrow and develop their own engineering policies.

That is a ridiculous assertion given it was - like every single other railway across the length and breadth of Britain - a wartime austerity measure that was - to be absolutely fair to Thompson - being implemented in any event as he came into office. Getting supplies of the transfers for the lettering and numerals in wartime was impractical and difficult.

The plain wartime black was applied across the board and there is photographic evidence that both NE and LNER in various forms was used where supplies were available. So it's not a hard and fast rule and certainly understandable given there WAS a war on!

But Thompson was one of the first of the CMEs to bring BACK the corporate liveries with the A4s and other Pacifics returned to their apple green liveries at the end of the war. He didn't change this at all when he could well have done so if he had so wished (as Bulleid did in fact on the Southern!).

One of the proudest moments of Thompson's life, it is recorded, was was seeing no.500 Edward Thompson in full apple green LNER livery - hardly someone who wanted to eliminate the LNER as it was under Gresley?

You could ask exactly the same of Gresley or any other CME. Not enough credit is given to Freddie Harrison, for example, for his part on the LNER throughout his time working for all three of the LNER CMEs and under Riddles.

So the point is well made but equally applicable elsewhere, so your use of it to disparage Thompson falls down somewhat.

Source please? And to what extent? A bit of a open ended statement with no actual substance to it.

Could you provide a source for this please and to what extent do you believe his quality of work was sub par? He seems to have had very little to do with no.10,000, for which Bulleid was more involved in the original design (which many people believe - wrongly in my view - was a failure) but Thompson was involved in the rebuild and actually used the W1 as a standard in several comparative trials with existing and new designs of Pacific.

Hardly a "wilful revisionist" if I'm doing the research and looking at both sides of the story, whilst you remain blissfully misinformed and only open to one side of the debate.

 

From where I'm standing you don't seem to be looking at both sides of the story but are rather determined to exonerate Thompson at all costs. Plenty of posts have pointed to contemporary sources painting Thompson in anything less than a good light have been challenged and dismissed by you.

 

That's a rather unfair accusation actually.

There have been plenty of times I have conceded ground - go back through this thread and look.

Are you honestly sayng thompson shouldn't be exonerated for the mistaken view that the wartime black livery was an austerity measure and not, as suggested, to "rid the LNER of Gresley"!

Do you not think there is more than a bit of truth in that Thompsons negatives are overplayed? Populist view isn't always factually correct.

 

One avenue for further research is the anecdote in the HAV Bulleid's book "Master Builders of Steam". In the text it is stated that after leaving the LMSR Stanier became a consultant engineer for the LNER for a few years and his output included a report on conjugated valve gear which assessed the advantages/disadvantages and maintenance costs. It would be interesting if a copy of that report still exists.

HAV Bulleid incidentally was the son of OVS Bulleid, nephew of HG Ivatt, grandson of HA Ivatt and was a pupil of WA Stanier. The book was written with the assistance of Bulleid, Ivatt and Stanier and as well as being biographical included their recollections of working with HA Ivatt, Churchward, Collett and Gresley.
The book stresses that far from being bitter rivals the CMEs regularly up met socially and helped each other out.

Kind regards,
Gareth

 

Stanier left the LMS CME position at the end of 1942 and worked for the government as Scientific Advisor to the Ministry of Production. Edward Thompson discussed a lot of his plans with Stanier in 1941 and 1942, including asking Stanier and E S Cox to visit Doncaster in 1942 to view and report on the Conjugated Valve gear. The report may still exist, though it seems unlikely. E S Cox's book Locmotive Panorama vol 1 p140. There is no evidence from this book that Stanier was ever a paid consultant - only that Thompson admired Stanier and discussed his projects with Stanier and his deputy Cox.

If you haven't read the relevent passages, you really should.

 

That report does still exist, as written by E.S.Cox. The main criticism is the LNERs metallurgy, and tolerances, and adjustment of this led to improvements in reliability. There was a 2 way process to this visit, Stanier was obviously mulling over using it! Cox comments that whilst it was a noble design, it was really no longer the best available design despite it being a great piece of engineering- you have to remember this is only 4 yrs after Gresly had snatched the World record. Not bad to say he nicked the idea of a Diesel