Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

I think, with respect, you are getting you knickers in a twist now. First, Thompson clearly thought it was necessary to continue building _some_ 3cylinder engines, so the two cylinder engines really are are kind of irrelevant. In fact they don't help the defence of Thompson because all of his Gresley rebuilds except the K1/1 , as well as the L1 which was a replacement for the v3's, cost more to maintain and/or were less efficient than the Gresley versions. It has already been discussed much earlier that the change in conditions meant it was harder to justify multiple cylinders on smaller locos - although a powerful suburban tank is perhaps one area where it could have been justified, if only for the passengers' comfort.

The K4's did not have any particular problems as three cylinder engines (nor did the V4's) so as far as improving the K4's was concerned the K1 rebuild made no difference - it was however a useful prototype which went on to be the parent of a valued class. Another designer might have just built the prototype, it was a mixed traffic engine so should have been OK in wartime.

Incidentally had Gresley lived he would undoubtedly have built V4's in similar quantities to the B1's - would that have been a disaster? I don't think so. The V2's may have got into a terrible condition but they still were regarded (on the LNER!) as the 'engines that won the war'.

Because other railways did something doesn't mean it was right - the other railways all adopted Belpaire boilers, and that does not seem to have been a correct decision, as the LNER boilers (including Thompson's) showed. The round top boilers as designed at Doncaster and Darlington were cheaper to build and cheaper to maintain than the Belpaire boilers, and clearly were in no way inferior in steam raising.

Bulleid was also trying to improve maintenance, and sadly also came up with something that was worse instead of better. And for which he is extensively criticised, although he too has staunch supporters.

Yes, arguably IF other railways were designing a 3 cylinder engine from scratch, they should have at least considered conjugated valve gear because it quite clearly is a viable, if not a perfect, solution. The vast majority of Gresley engines ran with the gear unaltered for their entire lives. Once reasonable maintenance was restored after the war (and with the Cook improvements) they ran successfully for another decade until the maintenance levels finally nosedived after about 1962. The A4's even successfully ran one of the last two steam express services in the country.

Cox's comment makes it very clear that he thought Thompson had an agenda over and above pure engineering considerations.

I've always thought you had a strong point that the bile against Thompson is vastly overdone , but his reaction to the conjugated valve gear is one of his faults, not a strength. His fix simply created other problems and his focus on the gear itself deflected attention from the actual big end problem.

 

As a postscript, one of the last designs made under the Gresley regime was apparently for a 2-cylinder 2-6-4 tank version of the V4, so perhaps this is some evidence that had Gresley lived he would have adapted to war conditions more than is supposed (source, The LNER 2-8-2 and 2-6-2 classes, J.F. Clay and J. Cliffe).

It should be noted that the same source points out the V4 was designed in 1939 before war broke out. They also say the reason three cylinders were employed in such a relatively small engine was so it could be RA4 - the B1's were RA5, and thus in 1939 would have been banned from quite large areas of the LNER in Scotland and East Anglia. In performance they quote that the V4 was considered equivalent to a J38 in freight load haulage and were able to time 12 coach Norwich expresses on 30cwt of coal, so there is no doubt that in pre-war conditions they would have been an excellent engine which would have enabled the LNER to withdraw even more outmoded locos than the B1 did.

 

We're discussing the conjugated gear in relation to the Thompson pacific rebuilds.

Nope, he threatened to resign if he didn't get his way. The board insisted on a report by another engineer. Isn't that guile? perhaps it should be called bullying. Apart from that many people have said he was working to reduce or remove the Gresley "influence". It's good job the report was so emphatic isn't it? I wonder what the board made of it...

Good question - I believe they made an attempt, but they don't seem to have concentrated on it. One could argue Thompson wasn't really interested - he wanted to build his own design of pacific with equal length rods and three sets of gear - and that's just what he did.

Well, as one for the status quo, I've no doubt you're getting at me among others. Perhaps you should remember that this thread was started with a view to a achieving a result - and despite the information presented the result has still not been achieved despite the arguments going round and round in circles for months. Could that possibly be because the prevailing assessment of Thompson is broadly correct? (though severely overstated by some.) Just because someone wants to change history's view of someone or something, it doesn't mean they are necessarily right.

We certainly could - do you want to go first?

 

The 2-6-4T design you mention had, I believe, a similar but not identical boiler. I think I'm right in saying that there were 2 and 3 cylinder versions.

 

There apparently were drawings for two and three cylinder versions. We don't know which would have been actually built. But it shows a two cylinder version was being considered. As I understand it same boiler with wide firebox (not sure with or without thermic syphons). Another reason given for two cylinders was so a well tank could be added with extra water supply, but there has been an impression given that Gresley would not budge from three cylinders, clearly late in life he was at least prepared to consider two cylinder alternatives for whatever reason.

It should also be pointed out that, high though Gresley's standing was with the LNER board, he wasn't allowed to just do whatever he wanted - he had several proposed designs turned down, and in some cases inferior designs were obliged to be built - the J39's for example would have much better been built as outside cylinder Moguls. A 5F 0-6-0 is pushing it, especially if it is going to be expected to run fast.

 

Hi Simon,

I suggest the report was used by Thompson to give him carte blanche to deal with the P2 mikados and rebuild them. Your mate 'ahardy' on the RMweb site and P2 rebuild trustee has found all the loco committee records on the P2 rebuilds at Kew, and they do not show Thompson in a good light insofar that Thompson gave the committee a very good report on the first rebuild.

The 'rebuilding' of 'Great Northern' came much later, and probably the June 1942 report had little influence by then.

If 'ahardy' passed onto you all the loco committee records relevant to the Thompson period, I for one would be very interested to see them on here.

Cheers,
Julian

 

I'm by no means well informed about LNER matters, but why shouldn't Thompson have given the committee a good report on the first A2 rebuild? Were they absolutely useless? I thought they were perfectly fine in themselves, just not superlative. I also thought that they improved on some of the issues with the P2 by removing the unsatisfactory pony truck and reducing the coupled wheelbase? They also got rid of the problematic valve gear - although before I an eviscerated by the conjugated mafia, I quite appreciate that less drastic action could have solved the problems without removing the gear.
Remember the A1ST people think there was enough wrong with the original P2 that they are changing quite a few details too.

 

Well yes of course he would have pointed to the report to get authorisation rebuild the P2s. Why wouldn't he?

Cox suggested that the 2-8-2 and Pacifics suffered the most in the report from the middle big end issues. The P2s also had a reputation - whether deserved or not - of track spreading, hot axle boxes, and a number of very serious incidents with broken crank axles by the time the report was written. They were also utilised badly on the route they were designed and their fuel consumption was high (mostly because they were sat in steam waiting for work quite often).

What would you do if you were Thompson? What anyone do if they were CME? Take Thompson out of the equation and look at the P2s objectively.

Being under utilised, history of maintenance problems, some serious incidents that could have ended more badly had they not happened at slow speed. What would you do with the P2s? Isn't it at least reasonable to look at the P2s and consider that rebuilding was potentially an option? Pony truck and coupled wheelbase causing problems. Rebuild as Pacific with bogie. Problem checked off. Three sets of walschaerts and new crank axles. Solves next problem of middle big end (in theory) and crank axle failure.

How does reporting positively on a locomotive which had been in service for less than year - and was not exhibiting the issues of the P2s - paint Thompson in a bad light? Thane of Fife was trialled for a year before the rest were authorised to be rebuilt. They were compared like for like. There's no questioning of the A2/2 being as capable of the P2 in the heaviest loads, but that wasn't the point - I suggest - of the A2/2 rebuild in the first place.

Great Northern is, almost verbatim, exactly what Cox suggested should happen in the report! It was one of the conjugated locomotives rebuilt with three sets of valve gear as suggested.

 

I don't believe there is any dispute that the P2s were never developed properly. Some of the issues were identified as early as the visit to France. Looking back, however, it is interesting to say the least that Thompson didn't try a gradualist approach first of all replacing the pony truck with his own better version but jumped straight in so to speak with a conversion to Pacific format. Whether these were as capable as the P2s as you suggest may be open to question by people more knowledgable and qualified than myself.

 

As I said before, I don't know much about the P2 / A2 story, but surely if the long wheelbase was a problem, only a drastic rebuild could deal with that?
I have always been interested that some classes got a reputation for "long rigid wheelbase" problems (tea spreading and derailments) while other types which actually had longer rigid wheelbases were apparently fine.
For example, on the L&Y the Hoy 2-6-2T had a very bad reputation related to their wheelbase, and in fact had their centre driver flanges removed. Meanwhile the Aspinall 0-8-0 and even 0-6-0 which used the same yards and pointwork actually had longer rigid wheelbase without any problems... A similar thing happened on the Highland, I think.

 

Hi Simon,

I am sorry but I dont ever recall Cox suggesting in the report that the P2s be rebuilt as Pacifics with equal length conn rods and outside cylinders in a problematic position with regard to frame design. Cox's comments on the conjugated gear were coutched in very careful terms. The main tenor of the report was in respect of the middle big end of which he commented on in frank detail. Thompson failed to deal with the middle big end/provide a satisfactory solution whilst he was in office, but did not hesitate in using the report to condemn the P2s for rebuilding.

In fact as the P2s were not given high speed expresses, they did not show any middle big end failures or problems with the conjugated gear anyway. They had a flaw in the crank axle keys that could have been easily and cheaply remedied, and did not require rebuilding the locos into Pacifics. They had a problem with the pony truck which again could have been easily and cheaply remedied without recourse to rebuilding them.

You have the LNER Loco Committee extracts for the P2s but you have failed to quote them here, as they do not support your thesis.

Instead of a simple amendment to the crankaxle design, and easy amendment to the pony truck, Thompson rebuilt the locos so that they were no where near as useful as they could have been on the ECML in wartime.

His rebuilds of the P2s cost the LNER an awful lot of money and produced something that was far more expensive and of less use than a few simple alterations to the P2s. The P2 new build confirms this.

I am trying to be objective here.

Incidentally, there is no evidence apart from Norman McKillop's recollections that the original P2s caused any track damage. Norman McKillop's account has been challenged by the P2 Trust.

I do not have any truck with the idea the P2 rebuilds paved the way for the Peppercorn Pacifics, and that therefore their drastic rebuild was justified.

Cheers,
Julian

 

In fact the allegation, as far as running lines is concerned, has been specifically refuted. They may have caused track problems in engine shed yards etc. To put the other side of the argument, I have also seen it argued that they were unsuitable for the southern ECML because of the track around Kings Cross.

I don't have any problem with Thompson trying his ideas out on a small and problematic class of 6 engines. I do have a problem in that he seemed to learn nothing from their failure and perpetuated the problems in three further designs.

edit : I should reiterate an earlier comment of mine that I actually find the A2/2's better looking than the P2's , the only real blemish is the square cut rise in the footplate in front of the cylinders. It would have been interesting to find out how well one could have done if properly looked after and used on front line expresses on the Southern ECML. Such 'looking after' would have been expensive, however. They do seem to have done quite well when used in emergencies. Maybe if I win Euromillions I'll get the P2 guys to build one. With the revised bogie springing, of course.

 

Now there you have a specific example of bad engineering. Whatever was wrong with the Hoy 2-6-2T's (It seems a lot!) removing the flanges actually made them worse.

 

Have to say Julian, I rather think you're the one rewriting history and not me.

Were it not for the p2 rebuilds we absolutely would not have had the Peppercorn machines and to say we would is a lie outright.

Put simply Thompson rebelled against Gresley. Peppercorn then rebelled against Thompson. But both the Cartazzi, coupled wheelbase, three sets of walschaerts and boiler type were all carried forward.

Both Thompson and Peppercorn carried forward the portions of Gresleys design they saw fit. They disagreed on the coupled wheelbase. They agreed on the removal of the conjugated valve gear - and it did not reappear under Peppercorn who simply changed A1 and A2 and continued the building of B1s, O1s, K1s and L1s throughout his tenure.

Hardly siding with Gresley and very much agreeing with Thompsons interpretation.

 

Hi Simon,

We wont agree on this I am sure.

However, your above post shows a very partisan attitude. In fact I would be bold enough to say it is your most partisan post to date.

I am not the one writing a non partial all new appraisal of Thompson in book form. I am just trying to challenge the evidence you have put forward and test it.

If you do not have the technical appreciation of the details, then I suggest you give up. You have side stepped my comment on the P2 LNER locomotive committee minutes and failed to comment on them. We both know what they record. That is not being objective and impartial by you, but being subjective, selective, and partial.

Cheers,
Julian

 

Ive not side stepped it at all. What you do is apply hindsight and knowledge to a situation where Thompson and possibly better men could not have possibly seen the future.

You only wish to see the worst of Thompson. I am trying to rationalise in my head the actions of a man whose duties in wartime far out stripped just the locomotive design process.

That you say Thompson reporting on the A2 rebuild in a positive light does him no favours shows your bias. I've read the contemporary reports - and publications like the railway magazine were favourable at the time. That's crucial: at the time.

The new P2 (founder owner here by the way before you start accusing me of partisanship again!) showed a large number of problems with the P2 design but only after the careful delta rail analysis. They've had the hindsight of computer analysis and design - something Thompson never had.

How can you condemn a mans decisions on the basis of a modern day interpretation of the design, with the advantages that brings?

It seems simple enough for me - you do so because, as you have done continuously for the last week, you cannot admit to yourself that Thompson may have had a point in his engineering, even if we all agree it was not the best it could have been nor did it prove the best in service.

Yes maybe I do have a fault - maybe it is wanting to see the best in people - but from your side of the debate it has been anti-Thompson, then Cox when it suited, and dismissive of Stanier when it suited.

Partisan? Only where Gresleys reputation is concerned I suspect, as it seems to have been since Thompsons passing.

 

Well, it is getting late and bed time, but again you have side stepped the LNER loco commitee records and failed to comment on them! What better primary source documentation could you possibly have other than these records!

Ignore them at your peril if you aim to provide a balanced appraisal of Thompson's work as CME.

Cheers,
Julian

 

deleted

 

Summarising the LNER Loco Committee for the rest of us would have the merit of simplicity.

 

Here is something curious - mileage figures for the A2/2's ( From 'The Power of the A2's', Gavin Morrison)

60501 - 616461
60502 - 673947
60503 - 246238
60504 - 294242
60505 - 225739
60506 - 290000 approx - exact figure not given but quotes as 'just under 17,000 per annum'

So, why did the first two achieve roughly two-three times the mileage as rebuilds compared to the others? They were York allocated, but so was 60503 - the other three were at New England and presumably only used in extreme shortages. That doesn't explain the discrepancy between 60501/2 and 60503.