Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

Agreed, however by your own reasoning many perhaps did not find him practically impossible to work with - what do they say about him?

[/QUOTE] The only reason he achieved any measure of success at the time was simply because he had access to a pool of good components. None of which he could take credit for. [/QUOTE]

I don't know the background to this but its a very strong accusation to make - plus somewhat contradicts some of the other comments on here regarding standardisation....

[/QUOTE] If the B1 was built in difficult times, where materials were in such short supply why did the locomotive end up with undersized bearings, use the before mentioned copper firebox and weigh more than the Gresley alternative. Worse it even had a higher axle loading [/QUOTE]

To reference your earlier comment locomotives are designed and built by a team not just him?

[/QUOTE] It is also true that the better the engine you create the fewer of them are needed. Another substantial saving. You want an example, try the N & W Class J. [/QUOTE]

Using this argument I assume that you consider that the Black Fives were an absolute dog then? So do traffic demands have no bearing on it?

[/QUOTE] Back when the W1 was being developed ET was given a measure of responsibility for this work. If he had been an engineer of merit he would have recognised the issues that were restricting this machine. He didn't. You could argue that HNG should have recognised them but he was very busy elsewhere and had delegated the task. [/QUOTE]

The same argument could be applied as per your matter of the B1's - on that basis Gresley takes full account for any short comings.

To lay my cards on the table I personally don't have a great deal of interest or background knowledge of the works of Thompson, however as a historian it does get my back up when so much heresay is being banded around as fact to berate and criticise a gentleman who is not here to defend himself.

Oh and apologies for the bloody awful formatting - I hope this isnt used as evidence in 70 years at how dreadful I am at IT!

 

I think the Defiant, Stirling and Whirlwind were more than moderately successful. They all achieved the Air Ministry specifications that they were designed for. The Defiant and Stirling were overtaken by the rapid developments during the war years but found successful alternative roles, the Defiant as a night fighter and the Stirling as a mine-layer and tug. The Whirlwind was probably the best original design of them all and was very successful in a number of roles. It was withdrawn because of the inability of Rolls Royce to develop its engine due to the demands for Merlins.

Regarding the Thompson debate, I hardly think I need to declare my prejudice. However, all we are doing in this thread is rehearsing old opinions based on limited information from years ago. I imagine the archives exist that would enable a researcher with degrees in mechanical engineering and history (do they exist?) to produce an authoritative thesis and probably obtain a PhD.

 

What was it, 2.3 million miles for that particular lemon, the Precedent, Charles Dickens, handling the Manchester-London's nearly every day for 30 years? Or that compound lemon Jeanie Deans with a virtually unbroken road on the Corridor for nine years(?) between Euston and Crewe? Do we need to start a separate thread on Webb?

 

The Precedents were just about the only successful locos...his Compounds were appalling apparently, especially his double singles which could revolve their sets of wheels in opposite directions at times.

 

As I think I've posted before, K J Cook, in his book Swindon steam, spoke of "the discord brought in by Edward Thompson's tragic desire to obliterate Gresley. Sir Nigel Gresley was the idol of the locomotive world of the old Great Northern, later of the London and North Eastern..." He who attempts to cut down idols is rarely popular, and those who have to fill a great man's boots are often not well thought of, and Thompson managed both. Interesting to think, on that subject, that Cook himself ended up in both Churchward's chair and Gresley's albeit when the responsibilities were diminished...

 

But Jeanie Deans was a 2-2-2-0, and the slip eccentric inside gear was actually one of the more successful features, perhaps because the cut-off could not be changed. But, you are right, uncoupled drivers is a bit counter-intuitive.

 

The Longsight shedmaster used to swop name and number plates with other Precedents when Charles Dickens needed attention, so not quite what it seemed.

Dave

 

The only reason he achieved any measure of success at the time was simply because he had access to a pool of good components. None of which he could take credit for. [/QUOTE]

I don't know the background to this but its a very strong accusation to make - plus somewhat contradicts some of the other comments on here regarding standardisation....

[/QUOTE] If the B1 was built in difficult times, where materials were in such short supply why did the locomotive end up with undersized bearings, use the before mentioned copper firebox and weigh more than the Gresley alternative. Worse it even had a higher axle loading [/QUOTE]

To reference your earlier comment locomotives are designed and built by a team not just him?

[/QUOTE] It is also true that the better the engine you create the fewer of them are needed. Another substantial saving. You want an example, try the N & W Class J. [/QUOTE]

Using this argument I assume that you consider that the Black Fives were an absolute dog then? So do traffic demands have no bearing on it?

[/QUOTE] Back when the W1 was being developed ET was given a measure of responsibility for this work. If he had been an engineer of merit he would have recognised the issues that were restricting this machine. He didn't. You could argue that HNG should have recognised them but he was very busy elsewhere and had delegated the task. [/QUOTE]

The same argument could be applied as per your matter of the B1's - on that basis Gresley takes full account for any short comings.

To lay my cards on the table I personally don't have a great deal of interest or background knowledge of the works of Thompson, however as a historian it does get my back up when so much heresay is being banded around as fact to berate and criticise a gentleman who is not here to defend himself.

Oh and apologies for the bloody awful formatting - I hope this isnt used as evidence in 70 years at how dreadful I am at IT![/QUOTE]

I think that the post by Jimc answers some background on this.

The LNE standard range comprised of a significant number of items developed under HNG, Bulleid was his assistant, then Bert Spencer on the locomotive side. Contrary to popular belief the LNE under HNG did develop standardisation but not to the point where blindly following it would have a negative impact on the performance of the engine. Gresley rarely spoke badly of any body but ET perhaps came close. He was not near the top of the tree in the team and it appears that HNG found things for him to do. The B12 rebuild for example, on the GE, out of the way. It must be said that he did rather well with this project. It could be that working in a smaller environment suited him but we will never know how much of the work carried out on this design was carried out by him first hand. Interestingly the 1500 class, which became the B12 came out under Holden's tenure at the GE. However it is probable that the man really responsible was the Chief Draughtsman, Russell.

Regarding the team, see Ken Cook's views.

The Black Five being a dog! No. The basic concept was capable of much further development - see the 5AT. The fact that it wasn't developed overmuch reflects on those responsible for locomotive development not on the design as we know it. And the type served well for the demands asked of it. The point I made concerned fewer engines and better, make a locomotive more capable and you can ask more of it. The Class J was a solution for a traffic demand. Why, for example, build 50 engines when 30 built to a better design cover the same work at a cost of 15% extra per unit and offer as compensation a significant fuel and water saving?

The W1 was an experiment and in truth more than one example should have been built in order to spread the development load. In the absence of speedy enough development the rapid improvement in the standard Pacifics delivered the default traction option. The W1 had enormous potential but the Gresley Pacifics became good enough. Good enough to remain in front line service for more than 40 years. Maybe we should try again with the W1.

Please don't apologise for the formatting and have a good evening.

 

If that is what you infer, I apologise. That was not my intention. However you just admit, giving quotations to nameless individuals with no sources is not documentary proof and certainly not first hand evidence.

Anymore than me saying a friend says the B1s were the LNERs best machines (and I should state that a friend does indeed state that on occasion and his reasoning for this whilst I disagree with him ultimately I respect where he's coming from).

No you do not: mores the pity as I am writing a book on Thompson and any guest gabd accounts, negative or positive, would be gladly welcomed and put into the book unedited.

It would lend more credence to your views if you were more open with your sources as many posters have been on here.

As for the RCTS books, you cannot rely on them alone and they have been found to be not infallible on a number of details. They are good resources mind, just in the retrospect of examining history more closely one must be careful with some details.

Sorry but a number of posters (yourself included) have made little or no allowances for the circumstances.

There's been a number of strange contradictions from the negative side of the debate I'm afraid. I'm happy to be corrected wherever I am wrong but the playing field must level out.

 

I am certainly not going to give you the names and contact details of the individuals concerned without their express permission. As for doubting the veracity of both what I've been told about the L1s by people who worked them and what has been written by the RCTS - quoting official tests in some cases - where's your irrefutable evidence to the contrary?

 

You seem awfully aggressive for what is a simple request for verification and information. I'd be happy to pass on my contact details then if you would prefer to pass them onto your friends?

Either way you must accept that simply saying "I know someone who says this" isn't first hand evidence and needs verification. Otherwise we'd all do it to prove our points?

 

Not aggressive at all. These guys are in their 70s and 80s and may not welcome contact from a stranger. Not only that but it's plain bad manners to pass on someone's contact details without their express permission.
To take it further, when I read a book about the Battle of Britain, am I to dismiss it unless I speak to the pilots themselves as the author "may be making it up?" Some things are taken on trust.

 

With respect, I'd be concerned at any historical book based on taking things 'on trust'. I would want to see extensive use of primary evidence produced at the time, not many years later.

 

Don't recall anyone suggesting anyone was making things up, more that one should be aware of the source, and interpret what is said accordingly.

I am sure you don't mean to be but I would agree that some of your posts on this topic do come across as being somewhat aggressive to anyone who doesn't agree entirely with your adoration of Gresley.

 

I respect HNG, I do not adore him.

 

Sorry spamcan - misread your posting. In any event, my point about primary evidence stands. There is a lot of froth here (about a man who cannot defend himself) and not a lot of actual evidence for those of us who are coming to this fresh. This thread has taught me a lot, but I'm not a fan of the anger.

 

The reader has to takes things on trust. I've a couple of books on WW1 seen throughout the words of the those who partook. As they are all dead, how on earth can I or anyone else talk to them to verify the veracity of what has been written?

 

With reference to the point about the P2s being sent back to Scotland after their rebuilding, but being sent back again very quickly, ISTR that it has been said by some, including in at least one book by Norman McKillop (yes, there's another story, but not, perhaps, for this thread...), that this was because the crews thought very highly of HNG and his work, & were not impressed by what had been done to 'their' locomotives, & didn't want anything to do with them. Apocryphal? Perhaps, perhaps not.

 

I appreciate your point about Thompson not being here to defend himself but does that prevent discussion about those who lived in the past?

 

In the end I don't care about extenuating circumstances; it may have been wartime, ET may have been chewed out by HNG, he might have been disapointed not to be CME after Raven, whatever.

Despite being asked to pick another available A1 for rebuilding he insisted on 4470 ( I too recall reading that, but I don't recall the author) That seems like arrogance or even spite, but whatever his reasons, he will not be forgiven for it. If the rebuild had been of the calibre of the Peppercorn A1 (or even of the quality of the fully developed A3s) he might have been grudgingly forgiven, but it wasn't; it was a competent loco spoiled by the front end layout, despite the earlier rebuilds using that layout previously proving to have front end problems.

He would not listen and he would not bend.