Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

Tricky one - but then the 3 GW locos, as well as showing a progression, were by two different designers too...

 

With the Stirling Single, the C1 and C2 Atlantics, the NER 4-4-0 and the A4 there is a fair representation of ECML frontline motive power. A pity a Gresley A1/A3 isn't there too. Same of course could be said NBR and NER Atlantics.

 

And the B17, I believe, which also had divided drive. True, the valve is driven from behind the cylinder and the rocking levers ar also in there, but there was still no eccentric on the centre driven axle nor the accompanying eccentric rod, expansion link, combination lever, radius rod etc getting in the way of maintaining the remainder. A reasonable compromise, given that especially with divided drive the centre cylinder was too far forward on both classes for the valve drive to be in front of the valve without fitting a large box above the buffer beam rather like the southern U1 and N1 classes.

Are you talking about the Holcroft or the Gresley gear? I feel sure I read that the Gresley gear and mountings were strengthened early on, the main rocking lever ending up as a large I beam tapering to each end. I think an aluminium verson was tried too, though it was abandoned due to suffering early fatigue.

Edit, the strengthening may have been carried out on the K3s gear

 

Isn't this a bit academic? The A3 was preserved because it was Flying Scotsman and was already a worldwide icon. I don't believe any of the class would have been preserved had it been cut up before the idea of saving it came about. It was only included in the National Collection very late and no doubt due to some pressure brought to bear on the NRM to do so. I suspect they regret taking it on now.

 

Alan Pegler wanted to save an A3 as there wasn't one on the National Collection's list. In 1963 he had the opportunity to buy 60103 and the rest is history. Too late to ask him now but IMO he'd have gone for another A3 if Scotsman had not been available. All rather a moot point now though.

 

He did state in a few books that Papyrus would have been his first choice - her condition was not as good as Scotsman's apparently.

---

Regarding the slight thread drift - for which I have no problem because I've been fascinated by the conjugated valve gear discussion (but does this deserve its own thread? A very enlightening discussion and one I've not seen come up before) but there's a few things I wonder if it would be possible to finalise my thoughts and approach on with regards Thompson and his locomotives.

A sort of basic outline of the points I am covering in the book, my current interpretation, and that I've learned from the discussion - and anyone can add to that or argue with it whatever their views (just lets keep it impersonal and concentrated on the debate). Would that be acceptable?

 

As the 1961 published list of steam locomotives that were to be preserved ran to 10 GWR locomotives from 71 in total that may not be precisely the case...

http://www.didcotrailwaycentre.org.uk/visitor_information/otheritems/GWShist_01.jpg

 

Having been rather publically abused on the LNER Society's facebook page with regards this subject today, I feel perhaps the topic has run its course here too.

I have never asked for a whole scale rethinking of the topic, only questioning the established thinking.

In doing so I have - though gratefully, not here or from people here - been subject to a rash of abusive messages and emails regarding my views.

I never thought I would be ashamed and saddened to be an LNER supporter but I am certainly feeling it today.

Thanks to everyone on Nat Pres who have taken part in this debate and done so constructively. Even where we disagree, I have been gratified for the informed commentary and links to sources.

Thanks again.

 

Somewhat saddened to read this Simon. Having followed this particularly thread since inception, I can say that all of your posts and responses have been considered, thoughtful and delivered with a gentlemanly dignity, even in response to some very, shall we say, robust replies. It is indeed a great pity that others can't conduct themselves in a similar fashion.

One question, are you still going to proceed with the book?

Cheers

Alan

 

At this stage, I don't know. I feel somewhat battered and perhaps I should take some time away from the subject to come back to it with a fresh head and look at all the information clearly again.

I'd like to say yes but I wonder if I am simply opening myself up for criticism. How many who have emailed me to tell me how wrong I am in my thoughts would actually read the book and try to understand a different point of view?

So I don't know would be my answer I am afraid.

 

I've just perused that FB page...

Godwin, eh?

 

I tried to find it and failed.

 

Here you go
https://www.facebook.com/groups/417723518301967/?ref=br_rs

 

You do set yourself up by not being able to allow other people to pass comment without starting off a huge debate about why they're wrong though. Sometimes it's just better to 'walk away' and let people be content with their opinions rather than trying to be evangelical and try and change them.

 

Not a wholly unfair comment Neil. In my defence I hate an injustice and cannot see why it must be so that people look to denigrate without good reason.

I note the gentleman has now deleted his posts leaving mine.

Again, perhaps reflective of his views and the manner of putting across his views compared to mine.

 

It's great to see that you're passionate about Thompson and his locomotives and wish to revise history. The gentleman's opinion on how history should be debated is a load of nonsense, one of the great things about history is that it can always be reinterpreted in different ways and there is no' one truth', but many. Some of our greatest historians have been revisionists or post-revisionists and it's gratifying to see that railway history might be moving into a revisionist age which will reflect a maturity of debate and ideas. I hope you continue your book and don't feel put off.