Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

Which in any case have much better big ends, so I don't see an issue. The main lesson would be for creators of new build LNER locomotives, who should make sure they use the latest and best design of big end, not the inadequate original design. But I'm sure they already know that. Its perhaps a salutory lesson for those who crave originality as a general principle.

 

Read the report properly as well as study a wider history of the Gresley design. Study further and you'll find reports of locos with three independent sets of gear not having equal distribution to the centre cylinder.

 

Gentlemen, please. Let's focus on clarity.

It's 1941 and Thompson has commissioned this report. He gives this to the board of directors - it is signed by William Stanier and written by ES Cox. It clearly carried enough weight for the LNER board to allow Thompson to make changes where possible. The report basically underlines two points: Thompson was right to want to change for three independent sets of motion, and he was right to examine rebuilding locomotives which carried the gear, into locomotives with three independent sets of motion. We cannot know, but perhaps the report itself influenced Thompson's direction. There is at the very least a question mark over that.

I find the report rather damning of the situation. The number of LNER locomotives quoted comparable to similar LMS machines which had failed being six times greater is an astonishing statistic. Particularly when you consider they had similar numbers of machines with three cylinders.

So my view is that Thompson was justified in wanting to make changes. The question for me is why this report has been so difficult to obtain, and only present in a book on William Stanier, and never to my knowledge published in any LNER book on Gresley. That doesn't make for an entirely balanced view on the man and his machines, does it? Nor has its mysterious lack of publishing done Edward Thompson any favours.

 

I suspect there is the school of thought that Gresley could do no wrong and that any evidence to the contrary needs to be buried and discredited. The way the big four operated and the idea that their CMEs were akin to gods of creation certainly helped to postulate this invincibility mantra. Perhaps Thompson was the first commercially aware CME, commerce being an anathema to engineering purists.

 

I don't disagree Al - but when I first read the report, I felt like it was the missing piece of the puzzle fitting into place. It explains the direction and underlines Thompson's desire to make changes for the good of the LNER - which, rather than to "rid the LNER of Gresley" as has been repeatedly stated and oft quoted and misquoted, I think it was to make the LNER better operationally - and he certainly achieved that aim even if some of his locomotives were lacking. The B1 on its own made the LNER and BR eastern/north eastern/great eastern regions better equipped for changes in traffic demands during and after the war.

I feel somewhat vindicated, that I'm not just a crazy person holding up a sign in the street with tin foil round my head yelling at all and sundry that the end of the world is nigh! I feel that I have the ability to go and write a book that should give the facts, and if possible restrain myself enough to ask if others can read it, and do as I feel I have done - sought out both sides of the story and made my views based on that. If I fail in that task, I will have failed Edward Thompson more than if I had simply championed him. It should not be about that, it should be about letting others make an informed opinion on such matters. They haven't been able to before and now I hope, I can help there.

 

hi simon,

thank you for posting the report which i read with great interest.

it certainly proves O.S. Nock's conclusion to be wrong.

how does all this reflect on Thompson?

he didnt cure the middle big end problem - failure on his part.

there is nothing in the report to justify what he did to 1470 'Great Northern', rebuilding it in such a drastic way with quite unnecessary expensive alterations. the same could be said of his other rebuilds. (there is nothing in the report saying that certain locos needed their cylinders moved to get them to run ok at high speed etc!)

Ron Jarvis, when rebuilding the Bullied Pacifics, made a much better job of curing well known faults than Thompson did of some Gresley locos.

cheers,
julian

 

Hmm, since Nock only said what he was told and never saw that report, I don't quite know what you mean by that.

Interesting report, thanks for posting it Mr Martin. I'll have a good look at it later this weekend. I'm sure if that report had been published at the time, Stanier would have been pilloried for saying that the speed record holding loco had valve gear that was "incapable of being made into a sound mechanical job" He would probably have been accused of sour grapes. I'm not surprised ET didn't divulge the detail to Nock. As to whether it was justified, I'll look through the report and comment tomorrow evening.

A quick comment about the bearings - Stanier suggested thin shell bearings in the report and it was not until Cook arrived that they were applied, successfully.

 

I infer from this comment that you have typed a copy of the report yourself. As I am sure you appreciate, that is not good research practice. You should ensure that all your publicly posted versions include something similar to, "typed from the original by S.A.C. Martin".

 

Well, failure on Gresley's part and on Peppercorn's part too if we are being fair. Or rather failure on the drawing office's part since I'm pretty sure that none of those three would actually be designing improved big ends personally.

You're much cleverer than me if you can state categorically that it was possible to fit in a third set of valve gear *and get reasonable valve timing* without moving the cylinders. My understanding is that one of the things that was attractive to Gresley about the conjugated gear was that it avoided having to get inside walschaerts gear to fit. I don't pretend to understand valve gear design, but this page seems interesting. http://www.donashton.co.uk/html/more_cylinders.html

But in any case I would not expect information about cylinder position and design in that sort of report. They were reporting on the current state of play, not designing a replacement.

 

Whilst I'm not a particular fan of Edward Thompson. Bear in mind he got the CME's job almost by surprise as Gresley unexpectedly passed away in April 1941 [I have seen what is thought to be the last photo of Gresley taken not long before his passing and he did look decidedly ill]. What's more Thompson had IMO to do the job with one arm tied behind his back so to speak, on account of the war. Speaking of which it was still going badly for the UK, as we were still alone against Hitlers' Reich. Granted he turned his sights East in the June of '41 with his suicidal invasion of the USSR/Russia, reneging on their "none aggression" pact. Resulting in the USSR/Stalin joining the UK against Hitler.

Equally there were "known faults" for want of a better term with regards to some of Gresley's designs, which lead to a high/regular maintanence regime in order to keep them in running order. Quite the opposite to what was available in the circumstance, what with all the shortages of men and materials. As a side note and how true the tale is I don't know. Apparently the LNER Board approached [with permission of the Southern Board] Bullied to see if he would like to return and take the top job, he thanked them and diclined wishing to stay on the Southern.

 

Woo Hold your horses there, it now sounds like you are bigging him up into some kind of messiah, not unlike the sycophants of those who went before him. Ok so he made an (arguably correct) engineering decision to rework a design feature, however he has been vilified for much more than just that. Balance, where is the balance, what else, specifically, did he do of worth, what else did he do, specifically, that was clearly wrong (even with the benefit of hindsight -without which you can never decide if a thing is right or wrong)

It matters not that it was war time, that times were hard, that he was working with one hand behind his back, they are all merely excuses. Remember, deciding to do nothing can be a perfectly valid and correct decision.

 

Here's my summation so far. Point 3 is probably where the most interesting conversation is to be had, from my, ignorant, point of view
1. Does the report indicate that ET had a sound expectation that using three sets of valve gear would improve availability and/or performance/and/or reduce costs - Yes
2. Does this mean that criticism based on this is now mere bitching - also yes
3. Does the use of independent valve gear require rebuilding and moving the cylinders to such an ugly position in order to allow similarity between internal and external connecting rod lengths? - not really answered,discuss as per JimC's post
4. Did ET rebuild Gt Northern against known opposition at the time - it looks like it
5. Did he do it out of malice or perceived commercial need coupled with lack of empathy/ pig-headedness/ possible aspergers tendency? - that would take a psychic or some papers not yet discovered
6. Was ET intimately connected with creating the beautiful and effective B12/3 - Yes
7. Did he build some effective locos which were appropriate to traffic needs at the time - Yes B1 and see above
8. Did he build some deeply flawed locos - Yes L1
9. Did he build some bloody ugly locos - Many would say his pacifics
10. Did many other far less vilified CMEs build some good, some bad and some ugly locos - For sure
11. Is he a villain or a hero - Neither

 

Noted I will do so this evening on my return home.

 

An interesting part that seems to be disregarded is the expertise of the fitters of the day; accepting that the conjugated gear was flawed what difference did dedicated fitters make in maintaining locomotive availability ?

To take an extreme case in parallel; the Bulleids were a fitter's Marmite in that you either liked them and found maintaining the chain drive "no problem" or you hated them and found maintaining the chain drive a "right pain in the a**e". If you you were happy then maintenance was easy, the loco returned to traffic and availability was maintained; if not maintenance was a pain, the loco's return to traffic was delayed and availability was decreased leading to management "being on the case".

In that context the LNER fitters were presumably in the same mould and those fitters happy to deal with the "problems" created by the conjugated gear would simply get on with it it; the more recent examples of the Deltics is a more interesting parallel given Doncaster involvement. Judged expensive to operate by the accountants, the operating authorities were happy to use them and accepted the "cost" of sending them to Doncaster for engine replacements knowing that downtime would be one day and the locomotive would be available for the train running that no other locomotive could match. By allowing for this in the diagramming the Deltic fleet provided what the operating / commercial side needed but what the accountants were unwilling to accept - presumably the on-going argument of train operation.

In fairness my understanding of Cox's report is that the conjugated valve gear called for heavy maintenance (and Cox may have been alert to the future where fitters with the required skills would not be available) hence his view that future 3-cylinder locomotive design should be of the (easier to maintain) 3 independent sets of motion. That is NOT to disregard the investment in staff and training for the conjugated gear but as the locos so fitted reached their end-life the replacement locos should be fitted with independent motion.

In that context Thompson was right to make the change for future locomotives AND right to retain the conjugated valve gear on existing locomotives; sadly he blighted his efforts by choosing 1470 / 4470 Great Northern as his first conversion because that would have been a more worthy candidate for preservation than 4472 / 60103

 

I wouldn't question the stream distribution, but I believe anyone who has witnessed a German DB/DR Class 44 in action would agree that despite their syncopated exhaust beat they are an exceedingly good machine.

 

Indeed they are. For what ever reason many three cylinder locos don't have an exact even beat.

 

Regarding ET, two things come to mind. Firstly, having three sets of valve gear may have eased the middle big-end problem, but did not solve it. That the Western version with a thin whitemetal coating solved the problem one reason being that by being thinner it could stand the hammering effect better that a thick walled whitemetal bearing. In this connection in the I/C engine world, Gardner only changed from thick bronze line-bored whitemetal main bearings and big-ends to modern thin-walled bearings in the 1960s. Indeed, I recall adverts in 'Exchange & Mart' (remember that?) around 1960 of firms offering the facility to re-whitemetal Ford conn-rod big-ends.

The other is that ET obviously had a streak of, well I'll use the word 'vanity' about him, meaning he had to be Number One. After all, for what other reason would a CME reclassify loco classes like Gresley 180 lb 4-6-2s, GC 4-6-0s, GN 2-8-0s, and GC 2-6-4Ts just so that he could have A1, B1, B2, L1 and O1 for his own creations?