Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

Whilst agreeing that "all improvement was meant for running locomotives" UK practice tended to see locomotive running be related to the needs of the operating dept and civil engineering restrictions with the appropriate company board specifying many of the requirements. In the case of the introduction of the A4s, for example, I believe that Gresley liaised with the Civil Engineers to have the infrastructure fettled to handle the high-speed trainsets that they were designed to work. In that context the present fragmentation of the network under privatisation shows how important that agreement continues to be with the current Network Rail failures (in completing infrastructure improvements) affecting both operating fleets (through transfer changes) and timetables. Whilst this discussion is for another thread, it shows that improvements in locomotive design and performance has consequences beyond the simple running of a locomotive hence should not be ignored.

 

It may not be relevant to steam locomotive development but it is relevant to locomotive development and Tom's point that a good CME would be interested in reducing overall costs not just fuel consumption. This would include the costs of standing time and preparation/disposal. An earlier post mentioned poor policies which led to the premature scrapping of many nearly-new locos in the 1960s. This was certainly a waste of capital but must have generated big revenue savings from the reduced equivalent standing/preparation/disposal manpower and resource requirements for electric & diesel trains.

 

In the US, General Motors Electro-Motive Division convinced everyone to move swiftly to diesel-electric power simply by showing that the capital and interest costs of the "more expensive to buy per unit horsepower" diesels would save money compared with the expensive maintenance of steam locomotives. A very serious part of the cost of steam power over there was that associated with water supply and purification.
Eventually even the Norfolk and Western RR, which existed to move coal, and for whom coal was virtually free found that these maintenance savings made the diesels less costly in service, despite having to import fuel.

 

Thank you. My learned ambivalence towards Thompson has meant that I've read very little about his work (until you started this). The 1946 date of the “A4 Style” proposal could be seen to imply that the streamlining was to be a retro fit to improve the unhappy appearance of the A1/1. It does not necessarily prove that that is what Thompson intended in 1942. Is there any evidence that he had intended streamlining from the start?

 

Given the seemingly endless succession of weekend replacement buses on Brighton services for the past Bob Knows how many years now, some round these parts just might consider that the lesser of two evils. It'd certainly solve all those niggling loco guaging issues!

 

I find it a little odd that none of the drawings show the running plate profile that was actually used . how did that come about ?

 

Not sure I fully agree with you. If the boiler proportions are not right, particularly in respect of free gas area and tube diameter/length, then the heat from the fire will be less effective, and more coal needed to overcome this. Surely this will apply whether raising steam from cold, or just sitting around. I am thinking here in terms of the LMS 'Jubilees' and the many variations of boiler design in the early 1930s to get them to steam properly.

 

I remember reading somewhere that if you had a locomotive with a 50 sqft grate on standby, it used a fair amount of coal just preventing holes forming in the fire.

 

Do you have a source for the justification of the bogie position? It just seems a little odd to me to compromise the frame design by changing the cylinder position purely for the sake of bogie maintenance.

 

deleted

 

deleted

 

I will try and find that for you ASAP. It’s in my notes somewhere I am sure.

Good question Ross. I will check my notes and report back. I don’t know off the top of my head.

 

I will check if this is mentioned anywhere.

 

Gents, I am still looking into the above, but yesterday was a much longer day than I anticipated.

I am working on an FAQs page to add to the first post on page 1, to help newcomers who are potentially going through the now over 100 pages of text on this topic.

What questions/subjects should be on there, in your opinion?

I have the following so far:

• Why did ET pick Great Northern to be rebuilt?
• Why were the P2s rebuilt?
• Were ET and SNG enemies? (This has been asked of me this week and I still don't know quite how to respond)
• Was there any truth in the rumour that the drawing office hid drawings from Thompson?
• All of his locomotives were bad I heard (quick explanation per class why this isn't necessarily so)
• He wasn't the first person to be picked by the LNER board for the new CME role
• He reversed all of Gresley's work (explanation why this patently isn't true - only in one specific area)

Any others?

This is being done alongside the book's final editing, which I am pleased to say is probably only a few months off being ready for an e-copy. I have said this before mind...!

 

Hmm, which will be longer - the FAQ or the book?

 

The book - by far!

 

The interesting ,as yet unanswered question, must be if Thompson improved anything or just ego-tripped big time.
Locomotive design history have examples of both.

 

Would you say it was an ego trip to build hundreds of mixed traffic class 4-6-0s and freight 2-8-0s; a couple of handfuls of Class 8 express Pacifics; some big passenger tank engines and in the process scrapping hundreds of old pre-grouping engines to simplify and standardise the motive power fleet? Because that seems to describe Thompson’s work - but equally applies to Stanier. Was he on an ego trip as well?

Tom

 

An easily quantifiable yes.

An easily evidenced no.

 

Not sure I have enough hands to clap as loudly as I’d like Tom - so I’ll settle for saying “thank you” instead!