New Build P2

And that, class8mikado, is the problem with the steam locomotive. People think it is a simple machine, I suppose it could be considered that if all you wanted to build was a poor or mediocre specimen but if you want to realize the best potential of the classic Stephensonian concept it is a very different matter.

Thompson's pacific designs were poor. Moving the outside cylinders did not produce a 231E, it was never going to and Thompson was a fool if he thought he could kid anyone. Little wonder the drawing office dragged its feet and worked from the cab forward when they knew he had little time to go before retirement whilst a new pacific design was underway.

The man resented the fact that the CME job on the LNER had not gone to a man with NE/Raven family connections. You could say "bitter and twisted" - and it showed.

 

If the line of succession on the LNER ran true to form, there was a chance that Thompson would not have succeeded Gresley in 1941, as Bulleid was Personal Assistant. I wouldn't have been too surprised if he would have been offered first refusal for the post of CME had he not already gone to the Southern (thus making Thompson a bit more bitter, although I've not read anything about him not getting on with Bulleid). However, whether we would have found his Pacifics on the LNER is another matter, as circumstances would have dicated that he'd less time to make his mark than he had on the Southern. Maybe, he'd have gone straight to the Leader... When are the results of the current phase of the study due to be published?

 

Really 242A1, we should meet up for a pint and a chat one of these days, though i suspect theres a little bit of reading up for me to do first...
But Surely at the heart of a steam locomotive is a very simple Machine, and the degree of sophistication towards the maximum thermal and mechanical efficiency has unfortunately got to the point of diminishing returns for re realising British locomotive designs. ?

 

I know it's not going to change support for the Gresley school but I reiterate my post on the V4 thread.

From 50 Famous Railwaymen by Chris De Winter Hebron "...it was actually the imperatives of trying to run a railway during wartime (and during the post-war austerity that followed) that dictated Thompson's radical departures from Gresley's key practices."

In 'Fifty Years with Scottish Steam' the author wrote that some of Gresley's designs were a nightmare to maintain e.g. with a K2 to replace the vac cylinder rolling ring the loco and tender had to be separated, similarly on the V1/V3 the same job entailed taking the cab floorboards up, removing the injector feed and delivery pipes, uncoupling all the brake rigging and hoisting up the brake cylinders by means of a block and tackle dropped through the cab roof! Replacing a rear sander pipe on these tanks meant taking off the footstep, and dismantling the equalising pipe from front to rear tank, just to get at two bolts. Gresley locos had a spring on the reversing shaft to counter-balance the gear. If it broke the whole shaft had to be taken down and while replacing the spring itself took five minutes, the whole job took five hours. When Thompson came in he modified this arrangment so the whole job took just ten minutes.

I can't believe that the Gresley drawing office were unaware of the shortcomings, which is probably why he brought his own team in.

Back to the P2s, Norman McKillop (Toram Beg of A3 Spearmint fame) thought they were pretty hopeless on the Edinburgh - Aberdeen road they were designed for.

Dave

 

i Think Toram Beg(Wee Norman !) would be a good , if somewhat ironic name for the new P2.
Whilst without doubt a magnificent creation it still baffles me that something with a 21ft long coupled wheelbase should be considered a suitable design for anything with curves in it... i still remain not totally convinced that its suitable for todays permanent way and wait to see what mods have to be made to accomodate this (reduced Flanges? side play in the rear coupled axle ?) a 2-8-2 Brit with 5ft 3-6 inch wheels makes far more sense....

 

...... I admire your optimism, but fear your dreams are doomed for the foreseeable future, in the same way that I doubt we'll ever see the 5AT either. Hopefully at some time in the future, once the old 'any colour so long as it's BR' guard has passed on, a new generation of enthusiasts unencumbered by such baggage may come along and run with one or two of these projects, but they'll still face the problem of how to raise the money of course.

 

I did hear a rumor that this new build Will be announced in 2012. Runs to find my coat.........

 

On what basis do you say that? I find so much anti-Thompson this, anti-Thompson that stories, opinions and myths pervaded in the railway media that when the facts of the locomotives are spoken, the two do not match up! I can't find any evidence to suggest that they didn't at the very least run.

There's no evidence to suggest the Thompson Pacifics were bad steamers, or incapable of doing the tasks they were presented with. There's a lot of evidence which suggests the the A2/1s and A2/2s suffered as a result of being numerically small classes. O.S. Nock, Cecil J. Allen and many of the other time keepers all relate the excellence of the Thompson front end and its high speed running in their respective books in British Pacific Locomotives/Performance. Reliability doesn't appear to be a huge problem either, at least not more so than the Gresley or Thompson machines.

If we are saying they were not capable, or not recorded as doing, quite such extraordinary feats as those recorded of the original A4s and A3s, then yes they do perhaps fall a little short. But they were built using as many standard components as possible during the middle of a very bloody conflict. That they were adequate for the tasks they were presented with does not make them poor locomotives.

The Paget locomotive is a "poor" locomotive - Fowler's Ghost is barely a locomotive (!) - the original W1 was arguably worse as a prototype than the A1/1, for instance, in day to day operations and reliability (and I would say both suffered as a result of being one offs rather moreso than their designs deserved, both in theory being sound)...! There are many other examples of "poor" locomotives, but no locomotive is "poor" if it manages to go about its work without major problems and altercations day in, day out.

And there's no doubt that Gresley and Thompson clashed on occasion: Peter Grafton makes that clear in his book on Edward Thompson, but equally would Thompson have invited Gresley to dinner, played golf, or chaired countless meetings of the CMEs with him if they had been at loggerheads the entire time?* If he had hated the man so much, would he have done so much to support him after Gresley's wife died?*

Yes, they differed in their opinions on locomotives, but no more so than any other locomotive CME.

Thompson rebuilt one class of Mikados - arguably justifiably on the basis of economics - ten Gresley B17s, leaving most of the class intact, one Gresley K3, one Gresley A1 and one D49 4-4-0 during the war (and probably a one or two more I have forgot). Anything else was rebuilds of even older locomotives (Q4 to Q1s) or new builds using standard components.

If he was a man so eager to rid the world of Gresley, I am certain that a) the A4 Pacifics would have been completely rebuilt - they weren't, b) he would have done the same with the A3s and c) he wouldn't have bothered reusing the name "Great Northern" if he wanted to simply rid the railway of an iconic name, and d) so many more Gresley locomotives would have been removed from service.

As it was he tried to fix the "problems" of the former whilst in his Pacifics, perhaps creating some unforseen problems elsewhere.

Peter Grafton's book relates how one person who worked on the build described Thompson as choosing 4470, not because it symbolised Gresley and thus was destroying him, but that if the design modifications worked, and produced a good locomotive, it would be poignant that the locomotive would continue the ideals of the original Great Nothern locomotive.

It's also very telling that 4470's rebuild is always described as "hideous" and "ungainly", for example, paying no attention to the fact it is extremely similar in length, outline and format to the LMS Pacifics, or to most GWR 4-6-0s, with regards cylinder position and connecting rod length. Are these locomotives criticised for their looks as much, I wonder...

But fundamentally, the smokebox layout, the divided drive, the standard components and the overall aim of Thompson: to make a Pacific locomotive which was easy to maintain and still perform adequately for its task; was that which was retained.

Moving the bogie position back made a more compact locomotive, certainly, but the differences between the Peppercorn and Thompson A2s in terms of the design ethos are fairly minimal if we strip back the aesthetics and detail. Long smokebox, double chimney, divided drive, 6ft 2in Pacific, non corridor tender, high pressure boiler of 250lb if we take the Pep A2 against the A2/3. The rest seems rather trivial when you consider the interchangeability of components between all of the Pacific classes (except, perhaps, the A2/1s).

It's rather telling how one sided the story against Thompson is, particularly in the railway press and in "common knowledge" when you realize that stories such as a Gresley A4 being used instead of the A1/1 for testing high speeds on the ECML postwar were due to availability and not down to political pressures from within the LNER.

I do think Thompson has been maligned enough online, in the media, in books and in passing without people providing any evidence to back up their claims. It wouldn't hold up in court!

*Read Peter Grafton's book from the Oakwell Press.

 

...... perhaps we'd all better start buying some tickets then!

 

Your rant is far more biased in Thompson's favour than any comments by Gresley enthusiasts about Thompson.

All Thompson's 'Pacifics' were poor as vehicles, and if there is no evidence of Thompson being anti-Gresley did Bert Spence say in an interview with O S Nock that Thompson's works were done "in sheer bloody spite".

S A C Martin, until the day you qualify as an engineer please do not pontificate on Engineering matters.

 

A fair amount of twaddle in SAC Martin's post if I may say so.
Thompson wasn't in office long enough to undo everything Gresley on the loco front but rest assured that if he had been able to get his way then the standard front line Class 8 Pacific on the LNER/BR(E) would have been his A1.
The moving back of the bogie on the Peppercorn Pacifics had good reason behind it. Made the wheelbase shorter and thus the locos were less inclined to slip and also removed the right angle bends from the outside steam pipes. Regarding the propensity of the Thompson A2s, one Scottish driver was quoted as saying "they'd slip on Mussleburgh Sands." Another source mentioned that when the rebuilt P2s were sent back to Scotland, the Scots sent them straight back south again. Also it is worth noting that the first LNER Pacifics to be withdrawn by BR were all of the Thompson variety.
Thompson's rebuild of a D49 with two inside cylinders was an unmitigated disaster. Wouldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding by all accounts.
The LNER management asked for trials to see if the cost of the various rebuilding programmes was justified. Following these trials no more rebuilding took place.

Hardly a glowing endorsement of him.

 

Nock, in his book LNER Steam, makes the point that Thompson was a follower of Churchward's ideas on equal length connecting rods. (though he didn't apparently feel the need for changing all the boilers to swindon practice.) Given his desire to fit equal length connecting rods, divided drive and the extension of the frames become necessary. Simply going back to unequal length conrods shortened the Peppercorn locos back to what we would think of normal proportions. Don't the 4 cyl GWR engines all have the outside cylinders well back behind the smokeboxes as well?

 

They do but they don't have the bogie stuck miles out in front a la Thompson. Were the Kings divided drive or did all four cylinders drive on to the middle axle?

 

They were divided drive - well, all the 4 cyl engines back to the Stars were apparently divided drive. the GWR engines had the outer cylinders beside the rear bogie wheels, not behind them, possibly because of greater guage width allowed the cylinders to stick out further, or possibly because as a 4 cyl the pistons were smaller than the LNER 3 cyl - or both?

 

Not necessarily "biased" but trying not to run a man's reputation down on the basis of hearsay. I have asked for evidence that Thompson was any of that which has been written about him here, and so far people are willing to happily talk him down without evidence. I have cited my sources, you can agree or disagree with me as you please, but I'd rather make an informed judgement on the man with all the evidence to hand.

He is the only one to do so, with little in the way of evidence. Peter Grafton makes this point rather markedly in his book on Thompson.

I defer to the learned man to produce some evidence to the contrary of my argument which isn't simple hearsay and mudslinging.

Please point to the "twaddle" (!)

Evidence? He didn't rebuild the A4s nor the A3s. Perhaps new locomotives would have been built to his type, certainly, but there's no evidence to suggest the notion that he wanted to undo everything Gresley through rebuilding. If he had done, would he have not completely rebuilt the A4s straight away rather than modify the 2:1 conjugated motion with better designed components?

I never said the Peppercorn locomotives were not an improvement in various ways. The ingredients, if you will, of the two types are practically the same: are we seriously suggesting the A2/3s were so bad they were unusable? Poor in relation to what exactly?

I note the Bulleid Pacifics were so troublesome in their early life that the vast majority of them required some extensive rebuilding of their own by another designer. Stanier kept tinkering with his own Pacific designs over the course of his working life. Gresley's A1s were not perfect when first built by any means.

Thompson started his work in the middle of a rather bloody conflict and had to work with what he had. Standard components were used to the extent that the V2s, A2/2s, A2/1s, P2s, and A1/1 all share a great degree of interchangeability between valve gear components. Surely when running down the man and his work, the conditions of war when working must be taken into account?

To that end, I think some degree of objective comparative assessment is in order when stating bluntly "Thompsons Pacifics were bad". They may not have been outstanding locomotives but they don't seem to have given anywhere near the trouble that other Pacific classes have done, historically.

Don't all Pacifics wheelslip? But I note the driver is Scottish...

But as noted by Peter Grafton:

So does that say something about the locomotives or the attitude of the drivers? You tell me.

Notable because in the late 50s and 60s ALL classes that were small numerically were withdrawn, not just the Thompson Pacifics though they suffered as result. Is that against Thompson, the design, or the general way things were going for steam?

From Peter Grafton's book:

So there's a clear difference of opinion about a single locomotive. There is a lot of praise for Thompson's Q1 tank engines, particularly the ingenuity of the rebuilds during wartime, and whilst the K5 was another one off, and clearly not a good one, the B1s eventually numbered 410 examples - hardly "poor" engines.

The first set of trials included 3697, 2003, and 2512. (Cecil J. Allen, British Pacific Locomotives for the full story, page 103). The A4 certainly burned less fuel per train ton mile, and lb per mile, in both sets of tests. Both of the A2s were also 6ft 2in Pacifics working at 225lb per square inch boilers as opposed 6ft 8in Pacifics utilizing a 250lb boiler. Even Cecil J. Allen reports some positives of the Thompson locomotives - "better at starting than the A4s" due to cut off and wheel size, but accepted that the A4 was the better machine.

The second set of trials were much closer than the first, the engines concerned used again and with the same crews, now being more familiar with the Thompson machines. 3697 had clear advantages in terms of a hopper ashpan and rocking grate over the A4, but accepted, the A4 had the best consumption figures in both trials. The difference in the second trial to the first was about 20lb per mile difference between the A2/1 and A2/2 results.

The third set of trials concerned showed that the A1/1 4470 against A4 4466 averaged 0.085lb of coal per train ton mile and 39.8lb per mile, and 0.086lb and 39.9lb per mile respectively.

Overall I'm not convinced that previous posts decrying the man so much as to be deliberately hateful in some respects are painting an entirely accurate picture of Thompson, his working conditions, or his locomotives. If you have the evidence, by all means, state it.

Peter Grafton - a writer who by his own admission, had absolutely no love for Thompson, but equally no malice, went out to find the evidence and produced a book which near enough cements my view that Thompson - though no angel - is much maligned as a person, and his locomotives were too as a result.

 

In the middle of the war I doubt he would have been allowed to rebuild the relatively new A4s whether he wanted to or not, but Nock states tha the A10s were all to be rebuilt to A1/1, possibly as the boilers came up for renewal. After all the A10's were in the process of being rebuilt at the time to A3 as their boilers wore out.

Bill Harvey stated the changes to the 2 to 1 gear were "The principal causes of excessive wear under war conditions were the ingress of fine smokebox ash into the bearings and over-long intervals between greasing. We recommended as a temporary expedient until pre-war standards of maintenance could be assured that an oil lubricated plain bearing of the largest possible diameter (which could be given attention by the driver) be substituted for the existing grease-lubricated main fulcrum roller bearing, also that special attention be given to making the footplating and inspection door above the 2-1 gear ash proof." A bit simpler than a full rebuild.

Indeed, though they were not rebuilds of previously successful locomotives, wheras the A1/1 and A2/2 were. It might be argued that the A2/1 was a rebuild of a less successful loco, but one might ask if the rebuild was a significant overall improvement.

The difficulties of war should not be taken lightly. The ban on constructing new passenger express locos meant that he had to use a rebuild for the changes he wanted to make for the A1/1 (the new engine was virtually a complete new loco) and use rebuilds of the P2 and V2 to trial his ideas - particularly the equal length conrod.
His greatest success was the B1 for war mixed traffic use and the use of standard Gresley parts to build it, although economies meant it got rough quickly.

The fact that Peppercorn was able to improve them so much to produce the A1 and A2 suggests that they were flawed designs, whether or not they could do the job set before them.

 

^ agree comments regarding the 2:1 gear. I've always seen this as an excellent solution for 3 cylinder loco's, as was Stanier's rocking gear for the Duchesses (why he didn't use it on the Princesses I do not know, as the GWR already used it on the Kings etc, but the wrong way around). Anything that removes gubbins from between the frames has to be good from an operating and maintenance point of view, so long as it doesn't introduce reliability problems of its own. Properly maintained the 2:1 gear was fine, and once the inside big end issues were sorted out the A4's ran very reliably in the 50's and 60's. If they'd had the benefit of roller bearings and rocking grates etc then they would have been nigh on perfect (in my slightly biased opinion )

 

Got to agree with all of that....The GWR inside gear seems to be a throwback to the late Victorian attitude of Churchward - to keep the workings out of sight.

 

Not necessarily "biased" but trying not to run a man's reputation down on the basis of hearsay. I have asked for evidence that Thompson was any of that which has been written about him here, and so far people are willing to happily talk him down without evidence. I have cited my sources, you can agree or disagree with me as you please, but I'd rather make an informed judgement on the man with all the evidence to hand.

But all the evidence you have quoted is hearsay, apart from that of Bert Spencer, which you dismiss. None of them were workers in the drawing office at Doncaster at the time; Spencer was, so I think it;s fair to call him an informed source!

I think you are making the mistake of treating the various sources you have quoted as academic volumes when they are nothing of the sort, they they were written by train timing enthusiasts for other train timing enthusiasts, and those authors may wellhave had their prejudices. There's usually very little technical content and timings in isolation tells virtually nothing about what is going on with the loco or its fitness for purpose, but far too much emphasis is placed on the results. I'd personally put rather more credence on what the likes of Peter Townsend and Bill Harvey had to say on the matter.