Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

The A2/2s and A2/1s were clearly prototypes. The standard mixed traffic Pacific became the A2 - later reclassified A2/3.

Yes, I'd like to. Not sure how to approach him mind?

A saving of 40HP is still a decent saving but I agree, perhaps negligable in light of the overall results.

Thank you for this, I understand your reasoning better.

I must confess this is one of the things which stumps me too. It would have provided a far better comparison of overal mechanical and economical ability of the two locomotive classes.

I'm not disputing his reputation or his knowledge, and I accept his words. I just think we should have some comparative examples from other Pacific loocmotive classes on the LNER before dismissing a locomotive out of hand on the basis of its shopping. How many times were the A3s called into works? Were the reasons for shopping more or less serious and did they take longer or shorter periods in works? These are not unreasonable questions to ask, and I will do so if I can get in contact with Mr Townend.

 

its unfair to judge thompson based on a decision to modify 4470

Railways in the 40s were not known for emotion and sentimentality,locomotives were plant machinery and the remit was to make them as effective and efficient as possible.
That involves R&D and experimentation. 4470 was selected as it was in the wrong place at the right time.
Given the state of the railway infrastructure during the war, limited finances available, extended requirements of the fleet and obvious budget limitations, why would time be spent even trying to change the selected loco ?

 

It would certainly be a sensible commercial decision to experiment on an older loco rather than a newer one, and 7 of the first batch of 12 were already rebuilt to A3. Perhaps he should have saved Great Northern and experimented on the next oldest unrebuilt A1. That would have been Flying Scotsman...

 

Why would he waste time rebuilding a proven design into an unknown quantity given the constraints you mention?

 

How many times were the A3s called into works? Were the reasons for shopping more or less serious and did they take longer or shorter periods in works? These are not unreasonable questions to ask, and I will do so if I can get in contact with Mr Townend

Re A3 shopping, this was in Trains Illustrated Jan 1958:

"A correspondent takes exception to the age with which A3s are credited when their contemporary exploits are discussed. When an A3 undergoes major overhaul at Doncaster a great deal of what reappears is new. At the time of his visit 60074 was having new frames from the front buffer beam as far as the middle driving axle welded on to the old, together with a complete new set of cylinders and new tyres all round. Moreover in the past Doncaster kept no spare boilers and had no opportunity to make any, but now with the cessation of new steam construction and the provision of a new boiler pit it has the chance; the normal practice is to return a boiler to the frames from where it came but if this would mean a delay in output a spare is used. Except for her rear frames, cab and wheel centres. 60074 would leave Doncaster brand new despite the building date on her works plate."

My italics, I find this very strange as having a pool of spare boilers for standard classes was the norm in most works from the 1920/30s where it was found that chassis overhauls were much quicker than boiler work, so the overhaul time was much reduced by using a spare boiler. Or was it that A3 chassis overhauls took that much longer?

Dave

 

I suppose it's a question of money as ever. If Doncaster wanted to spend umpteen thousand pounds on establishing a pool of spare boilers wouldn't it be capital expenditure have to be approved by the board? And isn't it likely they'd only have approved that by cutting other expenditure like new locomotives perhaps? And then shopping practice would need to be changed, suitable undercover storage found for the boiler pool etc? All difficulties which might be thought worth putting off until standardisation was further advanced.

 

Why wouldn't he, assuming he genuinely thought that his new design was sufficient improvement to make back the return on investment? And regardless of how the actual loco turned out, surely you are not suggesting that he deliberately set out to produce an inferior loco? It may have turned out that way, but Thompson must have believed that his ideas had merit, otherwise they would have remained firmly on the drawing board. Or even as a prototype for a new design to test out ideas, starting with certain components from an existing loco would help keep the cost down.

I think those that ask "why did he choose one of Gresley's locos?" are asking someone - in the middle of the war charged with making a financial return for his employers - to act with an unreasonable modern heritage-era degree of sentimentality. It's one thing if the directors of the LSWR in the relatively prosperous 1890s, on finding a few relic 1830s carriages at Bodmin, stuck them on the concourse at Waterloo as historical curios, rather than chopping them up for firewood. It is an entirely different thing to assume that a hard-pressed CME in a cash-strapped company in the middle of a total war would show any sentimentality towards a bit of front-line motive power if, instead, he felt by rebuilding it he could make it a more effective machine for the conditions of the day.

Tom

 

In all, 110 A3 boilers were built between 1927 and 1950. None were made after 1950. 36 A3s were fitted with A4 boilers at various times during the 1950s and early 1960s. Indeed, during 1960/61 60039, 60043 and 60109 received brand new A4 boilers. Townend recalls the fact that Doncaster did not tell the sheds that A4 boilers had been fitted. When the superheater elements were replaced on one of the A3s at the Cross, they protruded into the firebox. Words were exchanged with Doncaster and correct sets of elements were quickly sent to the Cross.

 

He was due to retire less than nine months after the A1/1 appeared. Hardly time enough to build a class of them.

 

I think you are clutching at straws. Workshop programmes are set out years in advance, not days or months. BR built fifty Bulleid pacifics, umpteen castles and manors, Peppercorn A1s, long after their designers had retired. The LMS and then BR carried on building Black 5s for about a decade after Stanier left office. So what relevance is it that Thompson knew he was due to retire? He should have had a reasonable expectation that, had the design been successful, it would and should have been perpetuated under his successor.

As I see it, he had two options with 4470. Leave it as it was, or modify in a way that he thought was an improvement. Viewed through the eyes of someone tasked with meeting traffic requirements against boardroom financial constraints, it is pretty obvious that rebuilding was the correct option if he believed - which surely he did - that rebuilding resulted in sufficient RoI. Sentimentality for his old boss' design doesn't come into it.

Tom

 

Nearly all of Churchward's prototypes were rebuilt or scrapped by Collett to a greater or lesser extent. But I suppose the difference is they still more or less looked like Churchward locos.
40/4000 and the Bear were both rebuilt as Castles, 100/2900 and 98/2998 were scrapped, 4301 was scrapped/rebuillt into Grange(s)so were all his 4-4-0s and 4-4-2Ts, 99/3100 was rebuilt as a 5100 then an 8100... Only the 2-8-0 and small prairie prototypes survived Collett largely unaltered.

 

This is a proven design that was finding wanting with changing traffic needs - 180lb boiler A10 class compared to the A3s and A4s. The intention (carried out on the A1/1) was to standardise on the A4 boiler and use three sets of valve gear. The intention (which was not carried out) was to rebuild all of the remaining A10s to the A1/1 format.

Thompson could only create new locomotive classes through rebuilding - so he was hardly wasting time if the intention was to produce a prototype 6ft 8in express locomotive to his engineering ethos. Other rebuilds were more satisfactory - the K1/1 became the K1 and was very successful, all things considered - and of course there is the O4 and O1 rebuilds which continued long after his death.

---

I see that a few posters have commented that Thompson's record in the wagon and carriage departments somehow undermine his ability to be a CME - is not the wagon and carriage department a part of the CME's remit? How on earth could that experience be seen as a negative in light of his full role? The coach designs produced under Thompson continued on for a good 15-20 years until the end of steam and beyond, until mass withdrawal with the cascading numbers of Mk1s and Mk2s later.

Thompson's previous locomotive experience surely cannot be in any doubt - the D16/3 and B12/3 - both very able designs - were carried out under Gresley's tenure and his instruction whilst head of Stratford works. This is all part and parcel of his curriculum vitae which the LNER board would have considered. He was the most senior engineer at the LNER in any event on Gresley's death and the broad range of experience he had does not seem to have been matched by other engineers mentioned.

 

A proven design that Peppercorn saw fit to leave well alone and was rejuvenated by the fitting of the double Kylchap and outlived ET's Pacifics.

 

Er - no. The 180lb A10s were converted into A3s by fitting of the superheater headers and new boilers as and when those parts came up for renewal. The last A10 made it into BR days in 1948 (Sir Hugo I believe) and was summarily converted. So no - Peppercorn, like Thompson, recognised that the original design was inadequate for the LNER (and later BR')s changing traffic needs.

No argument against the first point and on a technical level none for the second (4472 outlived all of the Thompson Pacifics into preservation!) but outliving the Thompson Pacifics (again) is not indictive of the comparable quality of locomotive.

Some Thompson A2/3s outlasted a number of Peppercorn and Gresley Pacifics - if you are going to apply that logic you need to do so consistently across a board, and of course it would be a nonsense to suggest a Peppercorn A1 or Gresley A3 was inferior to a Thompson A2/3 on the basis of its withdrawal date.

 

After your book on ET, I look forward to your next tome explaining how the German's won the Battle of Britain.

 

I think your mockery speaks volumes about you, rather than the discussion and analysis I am trying to promote in this thread.

 

I don't disagree with you Al RE the second point. There are some descriptions given in Peter Grafton's, and a few other books (the relevant RCTS and one of Hughes' books) that implies Thompson was quite hands on with the development of the B12/3, in particular.

You are quite correct to say we don't know the full extent of Gresley's influence and I would not wish to state or infer that he had no influence or input - clearly untrue, he was CME and signed off on them. My point was simply that these were projects developed under Gresley which Thompson was reputedly in charge of, or directing at some level, and that the locomotives which emerged were successful I believe. As much a reflection on Gresley as it was on Thompson.

EDIT: An interesting point - Thompson was also given charge of the D20 rebuilds under Gresley and this is reputedly the first big confrontation Thompson and Gresley had with each other - Gresley admonishing Thompson in front of his subordinates regarding details of the locomotive given to the press.

We don't know the full extent of what Thompson did (I have tried to find out but without much success at present) so can't say whether Gresley or Thompson was right in their views but that this was the first big conflict we know of. Interesting that the rebuilds were considered successful but no more were rebuilt after Gresley's death.

 

Well thats a helpful contribution to the debate, you very obviously do not agree but is such a response really necessary?

 

After your book on ET, I look forward to your next tome explaining how the German's won the Battle of Britain.

Watched this thread from afar, and this kind of sums this fella up, gets backed into a corner, and then spouts spurious rubbish.

Keep it going Simon, the exchange of views (exceptions allowed), makes for really interesting reading.