Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

Oh for heaven's sake don't play the victim so much. I put a damn great smiley at the end of my post. And just how were you scratching my back?

 

My comment which caused him so much upset on the FS thread was meant to be light hearted. Must learn how to do smileys!

 

No need to repeat yourself....

Seriously though if you are posting via the interweb smileys appear in the bar above the comment box, if you click on the smiley face button a plethora of options appear!

 

Thanks I will give it a try.

 

I'm afraid I don't do internet sarcasm well - and it's very difficult to tell of tone and intent with words on a computer screen too.

Past experience also leaves me a little cautious, so you'll forgive me I hope for being a little defensive, shall we say.

 

I have picked up a copy of Peter Coster's "The Book of the A1 and A2 Pacifics" and it's a terrific read with many photographs of Thompson and Peppercorn Pacifics not known previously to me. The overall tone and balance between the context of decision making in the locomotive design stakes is pretty much spot on. Fully recommend it to anyone who wants a good read on the two designer's Pacifics.

There seems to be an underlying criticism by Mr Coster of the financial cost of building the P2s, and then not developing the design further, a criticism also aimed albeit more sparingly at Thompson with his Pacifics. He makes the point that investing £50,000 to £60,000 in the 1932 and 1934 building programs for six large engines to overcome a haulage problem with one train in particular was "mistaken".

It's an intriguing viewpoint and one I'd not considered before. I should balance that by saying that on the same page, Mr Coster describes the Mikados as having much potential too.

I wonder if the main criticism is actually investing in such a design and then not developing it further though? Thompson removed that potential but Gresley was alive in 1940 and the problems of the P2s were well known before then. Why were they never developed further - we may never know.

 

How much information is left in the records about the finances?

Looking elsewhere we know that the GWR Pacific the Great Bear, built in 1908, had major boiler changes from 3 row to 2 row superheater in 1913, and a second new design superheater in 1920. Then it was scrapped/rebuilt in 1924 when it required major firebox repairs. The intervals make it seem feasible that new things were tried only when money had to be spent anyway.

So what is still known about when heavy repairs were scheduled for the P2s? When were major components going to come up for replacement? If you go to the board and say "In the next 4 years we are going to spend this much on these locos, which are unsatisfactory. We could try and fix them for this much, with uncertain chances of success, or we could take the much lower risk option of rebuilding them for this much. Of course it would not be precisely unprecedented for 'this much's' and 'chances and risks' to be edited to encourage the desired decision...

 

The small matter of WW2 may just have been preoccupying Gresley and his team from September 1939 onwards.

 

That has also been used to defend Thompson's actions - so we would also use it to justify Gresley's inaction? Just asking in the interests of balance. If we look to excuse Thompson for looking to make changes as a result of the war, then we must also in consistency excuse Gresley thusly.

However his development of the V4 in 1941 seems to completely refute your statement. He had time to design an entirely new locomotive class: why was the focus then not on the maintenance problems of the existing fleet?

Of course in Gresley defence I should also cite he was extremely ill throughout 1941 and had been struggling with the death of his wife for a number of years.

 

The V4 was a mixed traffic design and thus allowed under war time rules so that explains that one and maybe HNG felt that was a greater need than sorting a small class of large 2-8-2 locos. After all, the V4 was intended to replace many older designs and modernise the LNER MT fleet.

 

That's an interesting interpretation - the LNER encyclopaedia quotes this on the V4:

"[The V4 is] an experimental type which it is hoped will solve the problem of passenger and freight working on sections of the line where heavier engines are not permitted owing to engineering restrictions"

That to me suggests it was specifically for lines such as the Highland lines and the GE section where axle loadings were lower. So it wouldn't have entirely replaced the mixed traffic fleet.

There was no restriction on rebuilding existing locomotives - hence the A2/2s - only restrictions self-imposed by the LNER in response to government restrictions on building new locomotives. So there was no restriction on developing the P2s or modifying them, in theory.

I agree with your view that perhaps Gresley - and others with him - felt there were greater needs than sorting a small class of large locomotives but then they also seemed to fail to recognise maintenance difficulties elsewhere too.

I'm not criticising Gresley mind: I think there's extenuating circumstances enough to suggest why the P2s weren't developed. But if we criticise Thompson for rebuilding the P2s, why do we not criticise Gresley for ignoring their more obvious flaws?

Balance.

 

I would be interested in reading your book Simon. I do have a Kindle.

Dave

 

Hi Simon. I would very much like to read your book too. Your efforts to revisit the work of ET, often in the face of some adverse attitudes, have been pretty much unstinting. I for one now have a more open mind towards ET...

Mark

 

Please add me to the list also.........

 

And me.

 

Simon,

A lone voice in the Antipodes - I'd like to get a copy too please.

 

Me too, sir!

Thanks, Simon

 

I would like a copy too please Simon, but feel that I should contribute in some way. Do you have a PayPal account?

 

Quite agree. I haven't contributed, but would be interested to read the final work. I would expect to have to pay, anything less would be cheeky!

 

Completely agree.

Dave