Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

A B17 did beat a world beater on one occasion:

https://archive.org/stream/meccano-magazine-1946-10/mm194610#page/n17/mode/2up

 

Gents I’m currently travelling so will consider what’s been written and will respond ASAP. Lots of food for thought.

 

Whilst Thompson refused to carry out the Board's origninal instruction to provide "more of the same" and threatened to resign if he didn't get his way.....

 

Subsitiute "Craven" for "Thompson" and I might believe you!

One obvious difference by Thompson's accession was that the inherited pre-grouping locos were 18 years older, 18 years more obsolete and not getting cheaper to undertake ever more overhauls upon. Even with the weeding out of weaker heirlooms during Gresley's tenure, the number of superannuated classes still wheezing around the system was way north of optimal.

 

Not sure if you're joking here - in the event you aren't it's well documented that Thompson threatened to resign if the board didn't accept his view.

That is very true, but then Gresley had plans to hand to replace them - the V2 and the V4 were capable of replacing all the old 4-6-0s that he couldn't update (such as the B16) and a good few other outdated classes. There's no doubt the B1 was a loco for it's time and circumstance, but Gresleys plans were just as acceptable on the basis that you don't actually design locos specifically for war conditions (unless perhaps you're the Reichsbahn...) Knocking Gresley just because he didn't want to build basic 4-6-0s prewar is nonsense.

 

Well, ultimately that's the right thing to do. There's a nasty little quandary if one's line management embarks on a policy one believes to be fundamentally flawed. Do you stay, and do the best you can to make a silk purse out of a sows ear, or do you go? But if you feel a policy is so flawed that you cannot in good faith implement it the first thing to do is to inform your superiors and let them decide how much they value your judgement against theirs.

 

Which is why Thompson got E S Cox to write a report under Stanier's signature backing Thompson's views.

 

Point 1)

Point 2) Agreed

Point 3) Whilst undoubtedly the case, there are multiple cases of new CME's modifying, if not outright cancelling existing build orders. I doubt there's too much to be read into this (says one who gleefully anticipates the upcoming V4 even more than the P2).

Point 4) Err ..... knocking Gresley? Where exactly did I do that? Steady on now .... I got it in the other ear from Simon just yesterday for something someone else said!

For the record, hagiographies aren't my 'thing' .... as anyone who knows me would readily confirm! Have a shuftie at my earlier comments on this thread and it should hopefully be apparent I've been going out of my way to be impartial wrt personalities, confining myself to clarifying a few issues and chucking other ancilliary considerations into the debate.

 

Point 3) Agreed, it's more the point that Gresley had a way to go which didn't involve 4-6-0s, so criticising him for not building them is absurd.

Point 4) I'm not referring to you, more to the theme of several of the posts above, notably 1565, 1614 and 1617, which contain said criticism.

 

There’s a difference between backing views and providing evidence. Coxs report says a great deal that many LNER writers skip over conveniently.

 

Is there somewhere ,where I can read the Cox report?

 

I'm not going to get into the same old arguments about that report. Cox backed Thompson's view - the why and the wherefor has been debated to death many pages back, assuming the pages in question haven't been archived. I haven't changed my views and I'm sure you haven't either, so suffice it to state the fact of the conclusion.

 

Rather like the Southern though and indeed the GWR until the arrival of the Halls didnt Gresley tend to build mixed traffic 2-6-0's rather than 4-6-0's?

 

On 4-6-0's, especially after some of the less than triumphant early efforts, I share your lack of surprise that any CME would stick with what they knew best and we had a "why the GNR had no 4-6-0's" debate a while back. The bulk of these locos the LNER inherited was unlikely to change anyone's mind in this regard, with the notable exception of the Holden 1500/B12 (raise a glass to the memory of Bill Harvey for ensuring one B12/3 remains), which many seem to look on as a 4-6-0 in wheel arrangment only!

The cunning 1500/B12 ash pan design I only learned of on this forum a few months ago and find it a bit surprising no-one else (AFAIK) applied such an elegant solution. Aspirational newbuild 'Cardean' and 'Sir Sam Fay' types (and their bank managers) might want to consider taking a second glance at Holden's design. 'Paddlebox' recreationists though could worse than find sympathetic support specialising in Munchausen syndrome.

The low axle load lines of the ex-GE lines were certainly a special case and I think it's to Thompson's credit that he made a good loco better and also to that of Gresley for the sensible stop-gap decision to go ahead with an additional order, even though the Lentz gear employed was, with the benefit of hindsight, a step too far for metallurgy of the day.

It shouldn't be forgotten that Stanier also went with what he knew (from his Swindon background) when he produced the Black 5's and on the LSWR, Urie at least had Dugald Drummond's designs as a prime example of how not to design a 4-6-0! (I always think Urie a somewhat overlooked CME and a tad overshadowed by Maunsell). Equally, I find nothing unduly stange in Gresley' long experience of moguls and wide fireboxes producing a 2-6-2.

The Highland 4-6-0's weren't half bad and had that line come under the LNER, perhaps they wouldn't have been consigned to history as something of a dead-end, design wise. Still, it didn't and they were!

With a cornucopia of Halls, Black 5's and S15's plying their trade over the rest of the UK and the home grown B17's not doing too badly, it's no real surprise Thompson revisited the 4-6-0 when he did.

 

Where please?

 

I will be happy to furnish you with a copy. Let me know via PM your email address.

Actually my views by definition have to change. Where new evidence becomes available I have to examine it and adapt my views accordingly. One must be flexible and also be prepared to admit a fault.

Which I do where Thompson is concerned: and especially when presented with a paper by an independent engineer (who did not mince his words) and statistics on the reliability of the Gresley fleet at that time.

It is a shame more railway enthusiasts can't do the same when they are presented with such evidence.

 

Humans are notorious for ignoring evidence that conflicts with their existing beliefs. Some of us try to be open minded but many don't even make the attempt.

 

It is not the layout which was the problem. There is - as I intimated earlier - a question of a why two experimental conjugated valve gear 2-6-2s were being built in 1941 using specialist materials.

The A2/3 was never intended to be an improvement on the P2s.

Perhaps we can dispel this utter myth once and for all?

The A2/2s - the P2 rebuilds - were never intended to be a match for their original potential. This continued and repeated nonsense of claiming that Thompson was trying to build a Pacific to be better than a Mikado is an absolute myth. He has never at any time, nor was the LNER, quoted as trying to do such a thing.

Both contemporary sources and every single written document on the A2/2s lists them as being the prototype for a new mixed traffic Pacific. Very specific duties, very specific tractive effort, making the best of what was a locomotive class that had, in no specific order:

• suffered five crank axle failures in a very short period of time
• were reputed (though not proven) track spreaders
• were in economic terms wasteful on fuel
• were six non standard locomotives within a class with six non identical boilers

I have asked this question before, but what would you have had any locomotive engineer do with the P2s at the height of the second world war?

The A2/3 - the development of the A2/2 - however was shown to be on the whole a better locomotive than the V2s (until they were fitted with double kylchaps, I think that is fair to say). There were good comparative tests done and the A2/3 did the job it was designed to do and did it well.

I need to check this but I am not sure that this is strictly speaking true, particularly given what I know about Edward Thompson's time as mechanical engineer at Stratford and Darlington.

I have just got in from France so will try and respond to more points tomorrow morning.

 

Go back to post 644 in this thread, somewhere around page 32. Then keep reading.

 

The V2 was the alternative to the B1, not the V4. Besides, what was so specialist about the materials - one V4 even used a steel firebox instead of copper.

Then why did you use the P2 - A2/3 relationship in comparison with the unrebuilt - rebuilt MN, which was certainly intended as an improvement, to try to show how unfairly Thompson is treated?

Moved them to the ECML

I should hope so, considering the Kylchap, the bigger grate and the longer boiler.