Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

Both fresh information and fresh events may cause a re-assessment of previous views. I imagine that, in the light of current events, any modern histories of Ukraine and biographies of Vladimir Putin will require a complete re-write. I wonder how a historian would have viewed Hitler if writing in 1939, before he plunged Europe into war and murdered millions of people.

I am much looking forward to see what Simon Martin has to say about Nigel Gresley, as I think there are big gaps in what has been written about him and his work. The "populist" books by Nock and others focus very much on the speed and performance of his express passenger classes. We seem to lack an insider's view of Gresley's period of office such as provided by Holcroft and Cox for the GWR, SR & LMS.

 

I have 3 - Toland, Kershaw and Volker Ulrich's 2-volume work. I have to say, Ulrich's is a stupendous work, and like yourself, I thought Kershaw had pretty much nailed it beforehand.

Richard.

 

I am told there is a review in the LNER Society's Journal. I have no access to the journal, therefore I am waiting on the results. Has anyone read it that would wish to share the details?

 

It's always interesting to read the reviews, and having had one from Hornby Magazine this month, I now have a copy of the LNER review too.

Rupert Brown, the chairman, reviewed it. He sums my book up as:

C'est la vie!

I have made notes from reading the whole of his review, and will make some alterations going forward. However, I do feel strongly that it is rather telling that the review is very, very general in its appraisal and with no attempt made to state the additional primary evidence in a meaningful way (the "excel spreadsheet" is based on the LNER's original database and has thousands of individual entries, spanning the full six years of the war and every single locomotive class' work).

In short, I am not surprised by Rupert's review. I am not surprised - but I am disappointed by the dismissal of much of the actual primary evidence (which he skips over).

There is one thing to mention - I did indeed use RCTS - somewhere in the editing stage the bibliography omitted them. I will make sure they are reinstated for the next edition.

 

The review mentioned sounds awfully close to the old Press dictum "Never let the facts stand in the way of a good story". Some folks are interested in nowt more than confirmation bias, always were and always will be. I'd reckon the only valid reaction will be from generations actually capable of seeking a balanced view, in which Simon's tome, thoroughly researched from original source material, will be a crucial ingredient for the ages.

On critics, I'm with Brendan Behan (No? Go Google it!).

 

You won’t win them all Simon. But, I guess you probably knew that going into it…there has certainly been some “push back” in this thread!

I guess you are trying to uncover more of the story by looking at certain information that may not have been used in such a way before. Unfortunately for you, the demographic who hold preconceived ideas about Thompson are, ummm….how can I put this…..somewhat resistant to new thinking (wasn’t I tactful there!). I suspect Mr LNER society journal may fall into this category!

I have a solution. You need to write a book about the GWR. A Bigger fan base who will lap it up regardless, and, everyone else is jealous of pretends not to acknowledge how successful the GWR was. These non-conformists could also embrace it searching for grist to put in their tall poppy syndrome mill!

I have always thought there may be a real flaw with contemporary histories written in an age when print was a coming into its own. It could be that some authors were prone to over-egging in order to sell copy, or just too close to the subject. It must also be remembered that PR played a big part in the age of steam travel. There has never been a complete definitive history written on anything, so well done you for digging deeper Simon - I just wish I had an interest in any of the CME’s of the LNER. See the previous paragraph for the secret to opening my wallet .

​

P.S. I’ve thrown a few stereotypes around here in order to establish a “vibe”. If I’ve offended anyone who bucks the trend I apologise!

 

Make a performance comparison of B16/1(Raven) and B16/2(Gresley) and B16/3(Thomson) .
Debate will then move from Hero Worshipping to verbal war based on cold facts .
Can I preorder a signed copy?

 

I've always considered a B16 a lovely looking engine, if only there were a few still around to have a play with!

 

Or, as colleagues of mine used to put it (referring to other people, not to themselves) "My mind is made up. Please don't cloud the issue with facts".

 

A bit of shameless self promotion. This weekend at the London Festival of Railway Modelling, I have been invited by the organisers to give a talk with Lawrence Robbins on the Thompson book at 11.00a.m. with a book signing to follow at 12.15 and after 2.00pm on Sunday 20th March 2022.

So if you'd like your book signed, or want to chat or indeed challenge me, here's your opportunity to do so!

 

For anyone interested in listening to the talk, please find the link below:

https://fb.watch/bT2xaDzHzI/

I apologise for the sound quality - the mic and echo I was getting led me to speak a little slower than usual.

 

My understanding of the performance of the Bulleid boiler was based on it being over-draughted, although, having said that the proportions must have been correct. I'm looking forward to seeing how General Steam Navigation goes, which is being re-draughted based on a lot of modern knowledge and hindsight.

 

It's important to take into account that the GWR served a much wealthier area than the LNER did.

 

All those copper mines at every turn ...

Tom

 

@S.A.C. Martin posted a table a while back in the 'What Ifs' thread that showed in the 1948 exchanges the Duchess and MN boilers noticeably outperformed everything else in terms of lbs of water evaporated per lb of coal burned, and the Light Pacific boiler was very much in the first rank of the rest. Given the high pressure and steam temperature of the Bulleid boilers at this time, that was even more notable, especially as the Bulleids were by repute driven hard and might have been expected to be throwing a fair bit of coal up the chimney.

So yes, a magnificently free steaming boiler, but also an efficient one. Just a shame that in their original form the valve gear seemed to be letting the side down in efficient use of the steam.

 

Not sure where to put it, so here as good as anything. The latest Backtrack dropped through my door on Monday, and has an interesting looking article by Tim Graves on the links between senior British railwaymen (Gresley, Stanier, and Stamp are the focus) and their German peers. Glancing through it, it raises some interesting questions.

 

The term "lbs of water evaporated per lb of coal burned" doesn't take into account the superheat temperature. If I remember correctly the MN and the Duchess had a lowish superheat temperature compared with, say an A4, a British Standard Pacific or 9F. A saturated engine would do very well in terms of "lbs of water evaporated per lb of coal burned"

 

Funny you should mention that. The same table includes both the high and low superheated versions of the King (although on Welsh coal), which displays exactly the trend you describe. However, the difference between the two is less than that between the Duchess/MN and the rest, whereas I suspect the difference in steam energy content between a 2-row and 4-row King was rather greater than between a 280 psi MN and an A4. So I'd still maintain the MN boiler was pretty efficient, all told.

 

Here are the statistics again for interest's sake...


They are indeed at the top for water evaporation rates. That doesn't make them the most efficient locomotives though, that's only part of the story: the best locomotive boilers for evaporating water relative to the coal consumed. A quick glance at the other tables reveals how much more coal was burned by the loco classes in question over their peers.

Coal consumption relative to the power output put the Gresley A4 at the top. The Merchant Navy was beaten by a Thompson B1.

I would argue that ultimately the exchange trials were not a lot of use and the results and choices of engines used were fairly meaningless, particularly if you are going to suddenly throw a different type of coal in and record only some of the overall classes on that fuel at that.

If we really want to do a deep dive into these results then we should be asking more pertinent questions, such as what were they really trying to achieve?

Cecil J. Allen's book comes across as something of a competition/sporting event when there was meant to be more detailed scientific study (probably hampered by the overall setup of the event).

Arguably a fresh look at what the stats are actually telling us and better open debate would be welcome.