Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

I didn't know W Bremner was still playing.

 

It was reduced to reduce the load on the centre big end. The conjugated valve gear when badly worn tended to make the centre cylinder work harder due to slack. 5 locos were modified in 1947 but the results were inconclusive so the cylinders returned to normal size as time passed. From aroundabout the same time as the test, a better middle big end began to be fitted and the conjugated gear was better maintained so the problem went away. Note that Thompson had retired by 1947, so he can't be blamed for the reduction.

Given the rush to find a new CME described by Hughes, and the fact that Gresley expected to continue in service, I don't believe the directors really knew what they wanted, other than the continuance of the Gresley tradition. It was Thompson who told them in no uncertain terms that he wouldn't accept that, citing the problems with the conjugated gear as one reason for change. The biggest restriction on his activities was the war effort which precluded building new passenger locos, which was no doubt why he chose to rebuild the P2s first. Actually, this could be the suject of a book in itself, so trying to distill it in one post doesn't do it justice.

 

I don't think they had a choice. I believe he told them he would do it his way or not at all, and there wasn't enyone else with sufficient seniority to go to.

 

The K3 fast freight had 5ft 8in wheels but I think the B1 was intended to be more of a mixed traffic loco - all things to all departments - so the 6ft 2in drivers would be more appropriate. 6ft might have been even more appropriate but the LNER had patterns for 6ft 2 in to hand....

 

Very interesting debate.
From a purely personal point of view my opinion of ET is framed by his insistence on the butchery of 4470 - sorry Simon enough in my book to condemn the man on its own.
However I do accept he was not appointed at the best of times and he may well have been doing as bidden by the then LNER powers that be.
Notwithstanding that he did not have to destroy 4470.
I am further aware of the views of a very prominent person who was very close to the top of the LNER who could not abide Thompson at any price nor what he was doing behind the scenes to obliterate everything Sir HNG believed in and produced. The person concerned is still living although sadly not enjoying the best of health but I will make contact and see if the person is prepared to talk to you.
By the way if you write much more on here in ET's defence it won't be worth writing the book!

 

Would be difficult as he is, sadly, deceased.

 

They also had patterns for 5'8". The engines so fitted, the original K1, the K2 and the K3 were mixed traffic classes. The V1 and V3 were suburban tank.

If ET had exercised sufficient thought he would have built the locomotive we now know as a B1 with 5' 8" wheels. He could have used the Dia 100 boiler and a standard cylinder set, 19.5" x 26" for example. The weight saving would have allowed the B1 to be built with better, standard, main bearings. It might also have allowed the B1 to more closely approach the V4 weight. The rotational speed required for 70 mph and more would present no problems.

 

Why build more locomotives than you need to? You are in the business of providing locomotives for a railway. A railway that has to earn money, has to pay its way.

The A1 was poor compared with what could be achieved at the time. You need to read more.

ET may have admired a man who owed his success to making use of drawings taken from a previous employer. Speaks volumes for his ideas of ethics. More, it goes further to confirm that the received opinion of ET, man and engineer is very much the correct one.

 

It frequently was. A range of standard wheel sizes, you choose the one suited for the design exercising your talents at the time.

 

I thought he was trying for the equivalent of the LMS black 5 for overall war transport purposes. 5ft 8 wheels would have been a bit small.

So would I but conversely, in the wartime situation, every bit helps.

Have these views been published anywhere?

 

Why? You are building an engine for wartime use. K3s could run at 70 mph+. The 19.5" x 26" twin cylinder set would breath even more freely. The preserved K4 with 5' 2" driving wheels easily runs at 60 mph+. The 4-6-0 would (or should) be a more stable vehicle on the track. 9Fs could run at 90 mph+.

And why copy a Black Five? A worthy enough design in its time and place. But the LNE had plenty of locomotives better suited for fast running. They needed a machine with good route availability and good all round moderate performance.


Every little helps. Exactly, but skimping on bearing size? When it was so easily avoided. What was the man thinking of? Unless this is an example of the team quietly getting back at a detested boss.

As to views, I await with real interest.[/QUOTE]

 

I know. Still think Dave Mackay should have thumped him when that famous pic was taken.

 

The K3 would not have been able to handle a 1930s streamliner, or TheFlyingScotsman but it had a fighting chance of handling anything else. It could deal with heavy freight too, it was a mixed traffic design and so was the V4 which shared the same driving wheel diameter. The wheel diameter is not so important as the ability to deliver the required rotational speeds.

 

I don't know whether the last part of that sentence represents the views of YE, the very prominent person, or both: but anyway previous postings on this thread have amply demonstrated that Thompson actually "obliterated" only a very small proportion of Gresley's work. And everyone seems to agree that he was, quite understandably, keen to establish his ideas in the form of new locomotive designs in the limited time available to him, which would have left him little time to do anything behind the scenes.

 

But he had to make best use of what was available. Patterns cost, ET synthesised LNE standard components but he could and should have selected more wisely. Or maybe he didn't know how to.