Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

And happily co-existing with both the 7 accompanying Gresley coaches and Gresley locos that happen to be on or visiting the NYMR!

 

Ok this is getting way off topic for which I apologise, but Bulleid didnt understand the known restrictions on Stephensons valve gear arrangements. Holcroft knew them but wasnt involved in the Q or Q1 design.

I have in front of me the drawing of the LeMaitre draughting. Bulleid failed to understand the nuances of the design.

Ok, modern research has proved what I stated, yet this information was also around at the time Bulleid built his locos.

I have picked on 2 of Bulleid's failings in design because they are indisputable, both then and now. There are many others.

I would have to say I rank Thompson above Bulleid as a successful designer, despite the failings of both.

And yes, I have designed (and built) quite a few locos albeit in 5"g and 3.5"g and some of them have won awards.

Cheers,
Julian

 

An O1 was basically a new loco wasn't it, a B1 with a different wheel arrangement?Did any O4 parts remain other than the tender?

 

Fine, but so what? The point of the matter is that the passenger didn't care about Lemaitre blast pipes, just that they got them home on time. It is the passenger who ultimately pays the bills, and I think they got their money's worth. The need for perspective rather than rivet counting is needed.

 

Yes, the frames, all of the wheels, axles and axleboxes. It was the latter which proved their Achilles heel in service but in fairness they were still excellent locomotives.

 

And if we follow that logic and do so consistently, then Thompsons faults should also be overlooked to an extent...

 

I don't disagree; if they did the job without spreading the track in the process, then they were fine. This just boils down to the fact that people didn't like the man for whatever reason, and, by extension, what he did. The fact that it happened to be 'Great Northern' that was rebuilt, even if it was at the direction of the board and it produced a more functional locomotive, didn't do him any favours, as he was in charge at the time.

In the end, there is no comparison between Bulleid and Thompson. They were both on different railways with different problems and came up with completely different solutions. Now a comparison between Gresley and Thompson, on the other hand...

 

There's nothing 'rivet-counting' about highlighting the shortcomings of Bulleid's Lemaitre exhaust. He made a hash of it through not fully understanding the fundamentals involved. I'm puzzled as to why he didn't perpetuate the proven LNER Kylchap, unless patents/licencing fees were an issue? There was an excellent video clip on Youtube this year of Braunton passing under a bridge, and you could clearly see that the exhaust did not fully fill the chimney, and eddies could be seen re-entering the chimney around the periphery. Despite this, the pacifics were good steamers, but they could have been even better, with better combustion and so more economical on fuel. Of course the photers wouldn't like the lack of volcanic action.

 

Thompson applied it to all of his Pacifics with no issues, and Peppercorn applied it to 49 A1s and 9 A2s so was it potentially an LNER exclusive?

 

Retrospectively saying he didn't understand is fine. But just because some engineers might have got it right from the off doesn't mean their method was accepted as standard practice until later. And how is it that some firemen have said that they could be economical with coal?

 

I agree: but I suspect we are in the minority.

 

They are entirely comparable: they were contemporaries. That's the point. Similar wartime situations and they made very different decisions.

One is reviled by the majority of railway enthusiasts and the other isn't. That's part of the overall question as to whether Thompson has been treated fairly by history.

Big strides today on this thread with someone actually stating Thompson was a better engineer than Bulleid. Never thought I'd see the day.

 

There are still differences- the Southern still needed passenger locomotives in wartime because of troop movements, whereas the LNER was in a munitions producing area.

I still stand by my suggestion that just looking at things from an engineering standpoint (rivet counting) limits scope.

As for your other point, I think Bulleid is considered controversial by enthusiasts, which is different than being reviled- but then again, that's just your take on Thompson's reputation, which I'd also put in the controversial bracket, albeit for different reasons mentioned above and below. I agree Thompson was probably a better engineer in terms of using simplicity to crack a walnut, but equally, I'd venture that his tenure might be considered akin to Maunsell taking over from Bulleid- perceived as a step backwards.

I speculate that it might have been wartime, but for a railway that eventually led the field in the 1930s with Gresley's pacifics, Thompson's focus on standardisation may have been viewed as a retreat, rather than a change in direction amongst the workforce, whereas Bulleid's new or at least visually different derived designs appeared to (and in my personal, biased, view as an enthusiast did) put the Southern at the forefront in adversity- surely a significant morale boost? I think the difference lies in the manner in which both carried their workforces with them, and that is probably at the heart of why Bulleid is regarded with greater deference than Thompson.

 

I'd be very surprised if supporters of GWR, LMS or SR have any strong views on Thompson one way or another and I doubt that, even given his strong following, HNG could claim to have the majority of railway enthusiasts in his camp.

 

You say, that but I have observed writers, journalists and enthusiasts all taking pot shots at Thompson over the years and very few know enough about him or the time he was working in to make the accusations that they do.

In particular that the B1 was the only locomotive of note when it's clear that's not the case either.

Then of course there's the "Thompson looked to rid the LNER of Gresley" oft repeated quote and the animosity.

There have been lots of unwatered down, rather abusive things said about Thompson since his passing and it's something readily observed by reading any number of LNER texts in addition to the railway press.

If Grafton and by extension myself in some small way question the established thinking then it does help redress the balance a little.

 

Yes Sheff, there were indeed Licencing fees attached to the Kylchap Exhaust at the time. It is interesting to note that two of the "Nelsons" - 862 "Lord Collingwood" & 865 "Sir John Hawkins" were fitted with Double Kylchap exhausts prior to the arrival of Bulleid in 1938. The Kylchap exhausts were subsequently replaced with Bulleid's preferred arrangement of a Lemaitre exhaust. However, the Kylchaps were stored and later sold to the LNER - I wonder if one ended up on the rebuilt "Great Northern"?

Cheers,

Alan

 

No licence fees for Lemaitre then?

PH

 

Don't know about that Paul, maybe not, could be one of the reasons Bulleid chose that design. In later years, L.D. Porta developed the Lemaitre into the Lempor and Lemprex designs, so it certainly had merit. The fee status is something to investigate.

Cheers,

Alan

 

Yet Jarvis made no changes to Bulleid's exhaust arrangements and would have had every chance to do so during the rebuilding programme so perhaps the arrangements weren't so bad as some people claim.

 

And if, as has been cited on the 6023 thread, even Sam Ell's exhaust arrangements for single chimney locomotives were open to further refinement, then this suggests that Bulleid's alleged lack of knowledge in this field was actually emblematic of a more widespread issue, even malaise, in British locomotive design. Also bear in mind Britain had no testing facility until 1948, so there was little other method of testing beyond road trials. Blueprints and diagrams can only take you so far in the pre-computer age.