Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

Can you clarify that mileage - is that the mileage since construction as P2s, or just what they achieved after rebuilding?

Tom

 

Yup, he has mixed the figures. Locomotives of the LNER 2A p. 152 gives both the mileages as A2/2s (616,000 - 694,000 apart from 503 at 508,000) and as P2s, the latter all being between 225,000 and 362,000.

 

Yes please tell us what they record. When I was researching GWR design I found the GW Loco committee reports to be frustrating in the extreme, since they record what decisions were made, but not why. Are the LNER ones more helpful?

 

Just a quick note - I'll respond in full later. Re the LNER committee notes (and my sincere apologies Julian, I had misread you on that part) I haven't seen them and yes, I do intend to get copies of them. However may I say for the record that Andrew Hardy's work on the P2s is excellent - but I don't intend to sponge off his hard work in any way shape or form. He's done the hard work and I must do the same for my book.

On Julian's note about reporting on the A2/2 favourably, however - reporting favourably on the A2/2 rebuild after one year isn't a crime committed by Thompson nor does it put him in a bad light.

Why wouldn't he comment favourably on a locomotive that had been in service a year and wasn't exhibiting the problems the class as a whole developed later on?

Context - it was trialled for a year against the other unmodified P2s and Thompson reported back on it. It is interesting - I have every single bit of news worthy items on the P2s and the rebuilds from 1935-1950 specifically from The Railway Magazine and whilst there is sincere lament for the P2s loss there isn't the criticism and derision published that is now.

We know the flaws of the A2/2s now and we all appreciate that they were not the best Pacifics.

But it's not inconceivable to think that no.2005 one year after a massive rebuild was an adequate locomotive, surely? Why would Thompson run his own locomotive down to the LNER committee if it wasn't showing the problems they had specifically tried to design out?

I rather think that highlighting Thompson commenting favourably on a locomotive that has been trialled for a year with no major issues as something which in some way brings Thompson down is reading far too much into why he would be doing so.

 

This is what Andy Hardy wrote on 10th June 2014 on the RMWeb site (incidentally I have no interest in model railways but found Andy's contribution quite by accident)

'I have looked through the LNER records at TNA at Kew and Thompson does not really give a reason for rebuilding the locomotives to the powers that be, other than hinting at mechanical troubles. Infact he reports to the Board on 27th July 1943:
"The converted engine has now been in service for some time and has proved entirely satisfactory in that it has not only been able to handle loads at least equal to the stipulated maximum load of the P.2 Class on the Edinburgh and Aberdeen section, but has also been remarkably free from mechanical trouble, so that it has consistently been available for traffic."
Seemingly Thompson was making out that the A2/2 was as good as the P2 engines when it came to heavy trains, with less maintenance isseues but the evidence suggest otherwise. Yes during wartime conditions the A2/2s did haul some very heavy trains over the route however a notes was added " These loads, although similar to the P2 class engine, are the absolute maximum for the A2 class, and trains should be kept within these figures. The figures quoted have application only under present war-time arrangements and may be subject to further modification of which notification will be advised in course."
The trains the P2s could haul as a matter of course were the top end of the capacity of the A2/2. It seems that the heaviest trains were given to the A4 locomotives, It should be noted also that the A2/2 locomotives seemed to spend a lot of time in the workshops. They were not free from maintenance issues as much as claimed.
Yes the P2 locomotives had problems and Thompson tried to address this with rebuilding to bring them inline with standard practice. After all, 6 slightly different and unusual locomotives miles away from Doncaster was asking for trouble during. Gresley locomotives were designed for different operating conditions to those found during the war. Thompson had to do the best he could in the circumstances and I think he did. The engines did some good work when transferred away from the Scottish Section.'

Andy's candid comments on what Thompson reported to the LNER Loco Committee are worthy of further study I suggest.

OK perhaps not the first time a loco committee has been hoodwinked... I have the text of Collett's report to the GWR loco committee justifying the rebuilding of The Great Bear. However in the case of The Great Bear we know a lot of other primary source info at the time that gives a background picture. Sir Aubrey Brocklebank, chairman of the GWR loco committee was almost incandescant that Collett had rebuilt The Great Bear into a 'new' Castle.

Incidentally, I would regard Collett's decision to rebuild The Great Bear in the same light as the rebuild of the P2s by Thompson. A simple alteration to The Great Bear to outside axleboxes on the rear trailing axle would have solved a lot of the mechanical problems, and we all know with hindsight Inglis had already strengthened most of the bridges but hadnt told the CME. Though on the otherhand The Bear was in effect a standard 'Star' with a rear frame extension, with a 'one off' boiler through which much was learnt. The conversion was an easy job for Swindon.

The P2 rebuilds I suggest fall into quite another category.

I am quite sure there is much else of great interest in the LNER Loco Committee minutes/records. I havent researched them myself, as surprising as it may seem I have no interest in the LNER. To this extent I regard myself as impartial, and merely attempting to test some of Simon's views in the light of the LNER contemporary evidence I am aware of. Plus of course a wider context in knowing quite a bit about Holcroft, the conjugated gear, and to a lesser extent Cox.

Cheers,
Julian

 

Andy has put a lot of good information on the table there. My question to you Julian is: if the locomotive no.2005 was doing good work, and was pulling some very heavy trains, is it not fair and expected that the progress of a prototype (which might form the basis of a new standard class - and it did as a matter of fact) is reported back to the locomotive committee? Is that not the point of building a prototype in the first place? Thompson did build or re-build a number of locomotives to form prototypes and the successful ones were duplicated. The unsuccessful, or unnecessary, ones weren't. The D Class, K5 and B3/3 all fall into this category.

On a side note regarding train lengths, the V2s pulled trains outside of their stipulated maximums, as did all of the Pacifics during the war due to the necessary wartime traffic. Prior to the A2/2 rebuild, Gresley's rebuilt W1 (a 4-6-2-2 or 4-6-4 dependent on your interpretation) was trialled alongside the six P2s for a short time and it too was called on to pull more than its maximum stipulated weights.

If the A2/2 pulled loads over and above its maximum, it was (like all of the other classes) probably down to wartime circumstances and not necessarily indicative that the intent was for the locomotive to be equal to the Mikado - more a case of "needs must".

Bear in mind, there was a war on...

I don't believe anyone would argue otherwise. I am certainly not and to suggest that a Pacific could be the equal of a Mikado in the haulage stakes would be foolish.

Thompson rebuilt no.2005 primarily as a prototype (I think we could all agree on this) for his new type A mixed traffic Pacific locomotive. I don't believe Thompson was trying to design a Pacific to be the equal of the Mikado, but if the prototype was doing good work, why can't he report back on this? The locomotive was on comparative test for a year. It is not as if he built one and the whole class was immediately rebuilt.

It seems perfectly reasonable to try out a single rebuilding and if proving satisfactory to then authorise rebuilding the rest. I don't think anyone here would claim the P2s were maintenance trouble free prior to rebuilding?

The A4s had a better adhesive ratio than the A2/2s and one suspects they were probably, amongst all of the big engines on the LNER, the most able for pulling such trains - yet a Gresley V2 holds the record I believe for the longest LNER region troop train (26 coaches I believe?)

On the other point, no the A2/2s as a class were not free from maintenance troubles throughout their working lives. I think we all agree on that. However it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that no.2005 in July 1943 was not showing the maintenance troubles the whole class would suffer in the years to come.

Do you know what the A2/2s were stopped the most for in the late 40s and early 50s Julian? It wasn't frame problems, or steam pipe joints not being tight, or similar. It was in fact the very small pool of boilers available to them. The A2/2s under overhaul would have to wait long periods for either their own reconditioned boilers to become available or for another class member's. Until the decision was taken to fit them with Peppercorn boilers, this was their greatest hindrance (made worse when Wolf of Badenoch's original boiler was scrapped). Their mileages improved somewhat thereafter as they were not stopped for such lengthy periods. The other issues remained however and it's not my intention (and never has been) to airbrush their shortfalls.

I only ask that we consider the possibility that the performances of the A2/2s was probably adequate or more than when rebuilt and declined rapidly after the war. There are many allusions to the level of maintenance given at Cowlairs works being inadequate for all locomotives: the A2/2s were to be overhauled and fixed there a number of times. Is that a factor? I don't know the answer but I am asking the question. It's not as black and white as they were the worst class, therefore they were always bad locomotives.

This bit from Andy is probably the fairest thing written on Thompson in decades. One I approve of and appears in a different form in his new publication (which is excellent and worth a read for anyone with a passing interest in either the P2s, Gresley or Thompson).

Yes absolutely and Andy and I have discussed it on a number of occasions; agreeing to disagree on some points and agreeing with each other on others. His interests are the P2s, mine is Thompson and I was happy to provide him with help on request. His new publication is excellent and I feel is the most balanced account of the P2 rebuilds that has been written to date.

Yet another comment which invites intrigue and yet never quite goes so far as to say what you are really thinking Julian. Why not just say what your views are?

Julian you are many things: but you are most definitely not impartial, based on a sample of the last week's worth of posts.

 

Hi Simon,

I am sorry if I have not appeared impartial. You set yourself up as an 'Aunt Sally' and we cant help knocking you down!

One or two entries by Andy Hardy in the LNER Committee minutes/records are so illuminating. I am quite sure there is so much more to research and uncover for the Thompson period.

Cox suggests Thompson had already provided the Board/Loco Committee with a report prior to 8th June 1942, but were not happy, so the report from Cox of 8th June 1942 was commisioned.

Incidentally Cox knew Thompson quite well due to the regular meetings of the CME departments of the 4 companies during WW2 (see Locomotive Panorama Vol1). They both thought 2 cylinder locos were the way forward (this was hardly unusual, and was what Churchward propounded in his standard classes, and Maunsell with his N class, and the Urie LSWR 4-6-0 class that formed the highly successful S15s and King Arthurs on the SR).

Cheers,
Julian

 

But isn't that *exactly* what you would expect to happen? The new man suggests a significant change of policy. The board, unhappy with the implicit suggestion they've been on the wrong path for years, wants a second opinion and they (or Thompson?) go to Stanier, who was without doubt the most authoritative figure in locomotive engineering at the time. Collett was 70 and on the point of retirement, and Bulleid junior and too associated with Gresley. Stanier was the only rational choice for a board level report. More junior staff, however well qualified, would not have been considered to have the authority. Stanier would have brought Cox in to do the leg work, and that would have been expected. He'd hardly go round gathering the evidence in person.

And sure its Thompson's responsibility that the big ends didn't get sorted out on his watch, but it does appear from the drawings register that he had the drawing office work on the problem and they failed to fully resolve it. They also failed to fix the problem for Gresley and Peppercorn, who were responsible for the design not being sorted out under their authority, so logically Thompson should not be criticised any more (or less) than his predecessor and successor. The register appears to me to show that in 1954 they did a lot of work bringing in BR style bearings for a lot of the LNER classes, so maybe bearing design was not a strength of the LNER team? No-one's good at everything. But I'm happy to be corrected on this by someone with some serious expertise on the LNER drawing office work: all I've done is to take a quick look at the descriptions and titles in the NRMs Doncaster drawings list.

 

As did other CME's when they took over but how many of them went to the bother of getting a report from another CME to justify their new approach. Bulleid's Pacifics were major a departure from what had gone before on the SR but I can't recall him seeking justification from other CMEs for his chosen course of action.

 

Perhaps that is indicative of the different engineering routes taken by the Big Four companies and not necessarily (as you imply) that Thompson was wrong. The LNER was the only railway in Britain using conjugated valve gear on a mass scale. Nobody else was. If you want to make changes to a company which is going it alone and believes it is right to do so, how are you supposed to convince them? I can't see that Thompson asking for an independent report was in anyway underhand, it was the right thing to do.

If the report had not been as damning as it was in terms of whether the LNER should continue with conjugated valve gear (putting aside the pros, cons etc) I don't believe Thompson would have been able to make the changes he did. That we have the full report and its wording shows that Thompson was given the mandate for change by Stanier and Cox, not Thompson directing them to give him the answer he wanted.

Maybe I am missing something here - but so many people wish to condemn Thompson for doing what on the face of it appears to be exactly what he should done. What other course of action should he have taken, if he felt strongly and sincerely that change was needed? I can't see that there is an alternative. Get an independent (and whatever you may say of Thompson's character, he did choose a fully independent and most senior CME and engineer to write the report (Stanier, who deputised Cox) report and see what the results are.

No but then Bulleid did have to justify to a lot of people within the SR that what he was doing was correct - and as you are fully aware, his Merchant Navy and Light Pacifics were justified to both the SR and the War Office as being mixed traffic engines (!) and would have been 2-8-2 were it not for the permanent way department of the SR objecting. So he had different trials and tribulations to Thompson to get what he wanted off the drawing board and onto the rails.

Interesting to note that in a world where building new locomotives was curtailed because of the war effort, Thompson went for rebuilding where necessary and Bulleid obtained permission for new build designs! Yet railway historians and enthusiasts criticise Thompson for what is effectively recycling in an age of austerity but there is a blind spot where Bulleid is concerned. Who did the right thing by their railway?

Thompson went through proper channels to get authorisation for his locomotive designs. Independent report, testing of the prototype, approval for new builds or rebuilds when required and when practicable. Bulleid appears to have found new and interesting ways to justify his approach through highly questionable descriptions of his engineering. Which in practice gave us some very high performing locomotives, unquestionably. Their performances are not in doubt. Their maintenance and costs are. But that's for another thread.

 

I will concede that Julian!

Very much so. I have been fascinated by the press releases of the Thompson designs to the railway world. There's some really illuminating stuff to be found traipsing back through such publications. The high praise for the K5 I found in one article in The Railway Magazine in the late 40s was staggering - this is one of the locomotives always described as an utter failure! Being praised for its low maintenance costs and better fuel consumption. That said the B3/3 was also highly praised by Harrison but the B2s were disappointing - many sources suggesting it made a bad locomotive worse. One suspects that is why no more than ten B2s were rebuilt from B17s.

That is interesting Julian - where is that mentioned, if I may ask?

It is quite striking that the K1/1, K5 and B1 classes all have some similarities with the GWR and SR 2-6-0s and 4-6-0s. However I've always felt the K5 looked a lot like an LNER interpretation of the LMS "Crab" - high shouldered 2-6-0 with large cylinders.

 

Just coming back to this post (aware of the discussion about whether the mileages are correct), but I have always thought the mileages comparison was a fallacy of sorts where the LNER is concerned. Here's an example.

Loco X is stationed at King's Cross.
Loco Y is stationed at York.

Loco X does a return trip to Leeds daily. This is approx 200 miles.
Loco Y does a return trip to Peterborough daily. This is approx 130 miles.

In one week (assuming it works every day without failure) Loco X does 1400 miles.
In one week (assuming it works every day without failure) Loco Y does 910 miles.

In one year (assuming it works every day without failure) Loco X does 72,800 miles.
In one year (assuming it works every day without failure) Loco Y does 47, 320 miles.

So the milages rack up for Loco X daily compared to Loco Y. Of course we know it's not as simple as that and that in railway terms both locomotives would be out of traffic at various times for various reasons over a year, but the point stands.

So let's say loco X is a Peppercorn A1 and loco Y is a Thompson A2/2. Both of these locomotives would have really been stationed at King's Cross and York concurrently and their daily workings would have been different. We know that Peppercorn A1s would go to Leeds Central and return (or vice versa) and Thompson A2/2s would have worked mixed traffic and fast goods to Peterborough's goods yard and return concurrently. So can we really compare the two locomotives on the basis of their mileages? They are doing different work and travelling different distances.

That's a very simplistic example I accept but I hope it sheds some light on my thinking.

 

Might we look at the stillborn ARLE work for that? Presumably the junior draughtsmen who drew up the various diagrams at the different works in 1917 were senior draughtsmen in the 30s and 40s... Not that I know any more about the project than what's here http://www.steamindex.com/locotype/arle.htm on steamindex...

 

I implied nothing of the sort, that is simply your interpretation. As for Thompson going through "proper channels," that again is simply your take on the situation. I agree that Bulleid effectively conned the authorities by describing the MNs as "mixed traffic" but he didn't seek the help of other CMes to justify his approach. You could argue that Thompson was not seeking to prove to the board the perceived failings of the Gresley gear but was seeking to prove it to himself. Does this show a flaw in his nature in that he needed the approval of others rather than the confidence of his own convictions? I doubt we'll ever know but Stanier didn't seek outside approval when he initiated the wholesale rebuilding of the Scots and Patriots, neither did Bulleid with his modifications to the LNs, nor did Maunsell with his rebuilding of earlier designs and nor did Gresley with the many rebuilds he initiated.

 

Not if, as I understand jma1009 as saying, Cox records that the board had turned down Thompson's original proposal and the point of the Stanier paper was to support what he already wanted to do. Presumably he did need the approval of the board.

And, you know, I'm not sure current management theory would regard seeking to establish a consensus for a significant policy change as a character flaw. Perhaps the SR and BR(s) would have saved a great deal of money if Bulleid had had a similar 'flaw' in his nature!

 

The SR reckoned they got their money's worth out of Bulleid and as for "current management theory," that's an irrelevance as we're talking WW2 here - a different age entirely.

 

You talk about Stanier not needing approval to make changes - he was working in peacetime which had different restrictions - no austerity in materials for example.

Thompson wasn't and as I've noted before, he had restrictions placed on him by the war office and LNER board.

So is it still unreasonable for Thompson to get an independent report?

 

The quote from Andy Hardy "It seems that the heaviest trains were given to the A4 locomotives" is somewhat surprising.

The better adhesive ratio is because of the lower TE: there was presumably little difference between their adhesive weights. So there should have been little to choose between them when limited by adhesion on wet rails, but the A2/2s should have had more power available from their larger boilers, subject of course to the firemen being able to shovel well enough. So why would shedmasters have chosen the A4s for the heaviest trains? Was it perhaps that they had disliked the P2s (because of the alleged problems with the track) and they didn't trust the rebuilds?

 

Could it be as simple as just picking the locomotives everyone was most familiar with and best able to get the most out of? 100% of 2,000HP beats 90% of 2,200HP... (to pick numbers out of the air)

 

In one book there was a quote from an Edinburgh driver that the rebuilds would "slip on Mussleburgh Sands" so perhaps they were not as surefooted as they could have been.