Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

I have to disagree with that as from where I'm standing, any evidence that paints ET in a good light is seized upon by your good self but anything that is detrimental too him is called in to question. You say the purpose of the book is to examine if ET was misunderstood, I think you're starting from the position that he was misunderstood and you're seeking to prove this.

 

Absolutely. A very fair point.

And we should note that Thompson didn't stop V2 or O2 production straight away - only the last four of the final batch of V2s were built as A2/1s instead.

So yes I agree, there's room on both sides. But the report highlighted the Pacifics and mikados - and we should remember, the gear was applied to more than just the big engines. There were freight, small tank and tender engines to consider also.

 

Perhaps there's a little of both, I'm not ashamed to admit that. I do personally believe Thompson may have been misunderstood on a number of things. I also don't believe he helped himself. Perception is key.

And I think we can all agree that the reporting of Thompson time in office previously has been slanted with not enough information or evidence given.

But equally you are starting from a position (and have done previously) where Thompson can do no right. Even when faced with a report written by an engineer independent of the LNER, you make no common ground in asking if the report may have had grounds for its reasoning. Quite the opposite in fact.

So you're quite happy to point the finger to my position when you're coming at it from an extreme position in terms of viewpoints. We're not trying to get Thompson canonised: it's asking whether the criticism is fair.

Examining the whole story and conceding points is part of that. You very rarely concede anything so the book and this thread isn't really for you. Again, your mind is already made up.

 

Hah! and this from a man who has spent five years attempting to write a book to prove his own theory that Thompson wasn't guilty as charged. Do you really think everyone who doesn't see the light the way you do has a closed mind? How open is your mind to the idea that much of the criticism could actually be justified? You continue to accuse those who disagree with you of having extreme viewpoints, yet you are the one who argues every point in favour of Thompson despite many here, including me, agreeing that Thompson wasn't the devil he is painted by some.

I've looked at your evidence and heard your explanations and am of much the same mind as I was before - Thompson wasn't the devil some paint him and he wasn't the saint you would like him to be. I have some sympathy for him, and he produced some good mixed traffic and freight locos, but also think he made some less sensible design decisions and manipulated situations to help further his own ideas. If you still feel that does him an injustice well there you go - you haven't convinced me otherwise, and from the fact you are remarshalling your ideas yet again, it seems you don't yet think you can convince the wider enthusiast world either.

In the end history tells us of the success or otherwise of the various locos and types of gear, and to my mind the level of success mirrors the abilities of their designers.

I've spent enough time on this subject seemingly no avail, though if it has at least made you question your own motives and logic, perhaps it has been worth it.

 

My view is that pretty much ALL comparative locomotive performance tests carried out in the age of steam were fatally flawed as they made no real effort to compare like-with-like, remove compounding factors (pun unintended), their sample size was miniscule and their data inconsistent and unreliable. They also almost all compared individual factors (coal consumption, water consumption, certain maintenance costs) without actually looking at whether these were important in the round.

 

Possibly because nothing you have written here has convinced me otherwise. ET wasn't the devil incarnate and he built a very good loco in the B1 but there seems to have been enough written by those around at the time to suggest that his "anti Gresley" drive wasn't solely engineering based.

 

If I may drop some heretical views from a crimson lake heathen into this rarefied apple green discussion of valve events...
It was asserted a while back that the LMS Duchesses had "horrible" valve events. I don't actually know if this is true, but let's say it is for the sake of argument.
Let's take a look at the Duchesses (aka Princess Corononation) compared to the A4 - they are faily comparable as there were similar numbers of locos, built around the same time, of comparable power and thermal efficiency, for similar duties, with similar length of service.
Now Essery & Jenkinson make a very good point about these classes: They state annual mileage figures (life-time, not just war-time) for these classes as (from memory) 56000 for the A4 and 64000 for the Duchess.
The difference was in the high efficiency of the LMS' motive power organisation: a lot of effort was put into reducing the time being prepared, being disposed, in light repairs, in major repairs, waiting around to be used, running light, etc. The design team also concentrated on ease of operation and maintenance and "robustness": as in avoiding "casualties" (being out of service due to failures). Clearly there were successes as well as failures, but overall the LMS make huge progres in these areas (under all CMEs).
The result of this improved "availability" was that 7 Duchesses could do the work of 8 A4s. That's means the LMS saved the (considerable) cost of about 5 or so Duchesses because the locos did more work.
Now none of the above means the Duchesses were faster, better looking, cleaner, more thermally efficient, better steamers, better front end, better draughting.... But, for the railway company, they got more bang for their buck with a Duchess - so which was the "better" design? I think probably six of one and half a dozen of the other - but the point is comparisons between locos and classes are not just down to valve gear...

 

Hi Simon,

I wouldnt bother too much about what C J Allen wrote in his books, or for that matter 'secondary source' type books relying on what is contained in other books.

You have been referred to:-

Michael Bonavia, worked in Chief GM's office, and quoted the CGM on Thompson

Quotes of Teddy Windle Chief Draughtsman from 1935 on Thompson rebuild of 4470,

E.S. Cox 'Locomotive Panorama' Vol1 (1965)

J Inst LE papers and discussions including Cox, Bert Spencer, Holcroft, Cook, and Gresley

K.J. Cook 'Swindon Steam' (1974)

D.W. (Bill) Harvey 'Bill Harvey's 60 years with steam' 1986

You have various books by Peter Townend quoted back at you.

The book you dont like by Rogers quotes letters from B.C. Symes (in the LNER drawing office at the time), Roland Bond, and J.F. Harrison

All these people, except Rogers, were not railway journalist/authors/'hacks',
but were instead intimately involved with the events at the time, and with the exception of Holcroft and perhaps Bonovia, knew Thompson.

You have at least one extract from the LNER Committee Minutes, and the one quoted some pages earlier is via Andrew Hardy's own research of these documents.

I make 3 points.

1. You need to research the LNER Loco Minutes and any other relevant LNER records for the Thompson period

2. You need to assess and judge how much weight should be given to the evidence of the above personalities.

3. You have placed far too much emphasis on R.H.N. (Dick) Hardy's various writings on Thompson, and you need to assess and judge how much weight his evidence should be given, bearing in mind that it is generally at odds with virtually everyone else involved at the time.

Cheers,
Julian

 

Was it?
I made the comment "uneven", which was based on Don Ashton's analysis ( http://www.donashton.co.uk/html/lms_duchess.html ), in the context of the sentences "...the LMS didn't do anything so sophisticated on the Duchesses and apparently accepted the uneven valve events. TBH I have no idea what the implications are in practice: it would be very foolish of me to make suggestions about which design compromises were optimal".. I can't find horrible in the thread.

But then, from what you say in your post, the greater annual mileage of the Duchesses wasn't much to do with the initial design anyway. Its also an interesting question as to whether the investment in the organisation required to deliver the increased mileage exceeded the investment in extra locomotives.

 

My apologies if this has been mentioned already, but there was an article about this subject in the latest "Heritage Railway" (don't have my copy to hand as I'm at Schiphol Airport en route to Jakarta) which suggested that ET got the nod for the top job ahead of Peppercorn after Gresley's death because he was better at the LNER internal politics "dark arts" than Peppercorn was. An interesting angle to take.

 

[deleted and re-posted]

 

[re-posted as I mucked up the previous effort]
I was thinking about this comment but it is hardly exculpatory as Thompson could have over-ruled it, as you may be acknowledging. But continuing on this theme, and setting aside the theory that the choice of loco was simply because ET wanted to be beastly to Gresley's memory, Thompson would no doubt be thinking/hoping that the new loco would be the subject of much publicity and favourable comment. By the normal meaning of the word, the loco was not a rebuild but it is conceivable that keeping the same number and name was important for gaming the system in this way, to have it signed off by the finance people or auditors as a rebuild. Thus the A2/2s kept the same names and numbers as the P2s, the K1/1 the same as the K4, the D49/D etc. So, being aware that he was stuck with the existing name, and recognising that the A1s/A3s did not provide very promising material for names of sufficient prestige or gravitas - (you can hear the press asking "Why did you call this world-beating locomotive Captain Cuttle?") - actually Great Northern was an obvious choice. He must also have been aware that the loco had very little originality about it, but he failed to take into account the possible effect on those who had no reason to speak favourably of him, who would seize on this as an illustration of his pettiness. If maintaining the pretence of a rebuild was indeed behind the choice, it would also make it very difficult to explain or defend the choice to the outside world.

 

But then isn't ability at the "dark arts" a key attribute for a head of department? My experience of many years working in a large organisation was that if the head of department isn't good at the politics then the department is in for a difficult time.

 

I note comment about the annual mileages of the A4s (56000) compared to the Duchesses (64000) but, in addition to the different operating practices between the 2 companies (e.g locomotive changeovers etc) there is a need presumably to look at the LNER depot practices. I referred earlier to books on Haymarket Depot practices written by Harry Knox where he notes that a modified exam procedure increased the depot's annual mileages and if the current questions are looking at A1 4470 becoming A1 113 then surely the comparison should be geared to the depot (i.e. Kings Cross) experience (viz. Peter Townsend's writings).

A further thought about depot practices would be the familiarity of the fitters with the problems caused by the conjugated valve gear - and their ability / willingness to solve them. In that context I recall a York depot foreman telling of an A3 Pacific working from York during WWII with a tremendous amount of play in the motion yet he noted it still ran at "a fair turn of speed" during the onward journey to Newcastle because of the conjugated valve gear. A more modern example is the willingness of Doncaster to consider full engine replacement for its fleet of "Deltics" with the inherent costs of running to / from Doncaster Works where the exchanges took place; BR reckoned it could be completed within the timeframe of a shift hence minimising delays to the locomotive's availability for traffic.

On the assumption that the rebuild was operating the same diagrams as Gresley A1 / A3 then a comparison of Kings Cross running costs and Miles per Failure for the Gresley Pacifics and Thompson's rebuild would provide a better yardstick and be worth critical analysis. In his praise of the Thompson A1 does Townsend offer such comparative data to assess the effectiveness of its rebuild compared to the Gresley designs ?

 

Some at least of the LMS success in improving engine miles per day per loco WAS down to design - many older and less reliable (and beautiful and wonderful!) locos were replaced by new reliable locos designed for high availability.
Regarding cost, the investments in depots, equipment and organisation cost £75k in 1930s prices. The improvement in loco availability was 25% from 1929 to 1936 (from both new locos and the organisational changes) saving the capital cost of about 2500 extra locos... Sounds like good value to me!

 

Quite correct, but IMHO the Southern situation was significantly different to the other 3 - the same comment I suppose could be made about Stanier - it was a brief post after all

 

Sorry, I disagree. while I accept you started on this with the best of intentions, you now seem to have reached a point where any suggestion against Thompson is rejected, even when supported by contemporaries. A Thompson hagiography is no more help than the various Gresley ones. Attacking people making reasonable points contrary to your view is not going to help anyone to accept your book as casting new light, in the way certain recent books have done on the 'coal eating' reputation of the Robinson 4-6-0's.

Thompson _did_ rebuild Great Northern and produced an engine no better than just fitting it with an A3 boiler and a Kylchap which would have cost hundreds of pounds less in construction and have been more reliable and cheaper to maintain. Humorist was sat there for anyone to evaluate.

Thompson _did_ perpetuate design features of the A2/2's in all his subsequent Pacifics which guaranteed their maintenance would be more expensive than the conjugated Gresleys they were competing with. And which entirely defeated the purpose of his design changes, which were to reduce maintenance costs.

Testing may have been difficult in wartime and immediately after, but it is a very strange decision to not test your new and 'improved' locomotive against the best of the existing ones.

His other rebuilds of Gresley engines, with the exception of the K1/1. were basically fatuous and produced less effective engines which in practice saved no money. The K5 was one of the first K3's withdrawn, the B2's were outlived and outperformed by the higher pressure B17's and his own B1's. As for the J11/3's and the Q1's, what was achieved? Was there any traffic need? and about the 'mixed traffic' aspect of the L1's the less said the better. The LNER didn't see fit to mention the D and out of politeness I'm prepared to overlook it as well. The Shires weren't exactly Gresley's best either.

Against which, as I have always said, the B1's, K1's (OK, built by Peppercorn but with basically trivial modifications) and O1's were very good engines, and the O4/8's were a sensible compromise to improve the loco while retaining serviceable parts.

 

As someone else pointed out, it is very difficult to compare like for like. LNER and LMS repair and maintenance practices were very different at the time, and although mileage between repairs would seem to be an absolute, it relies on the actual repairs being comparable in cost and extent.

But in any case it is irrelevant to the central point regarding Thompson's Pacifics, which seem to be the locos that generate most of the animosity .He intended to reduce maintenance costs compared to the existing Gresley Pacifics and V2's and instead he increased them substantially. His Pacifics required works visits something like twice as often as the Gresley ones, and compared even more unfavourably to the Peppercorn ones.

Cook of course tackled the 'mileage between repairs' issue for the A4's, from a 'works' angle, but I don't have to hand the improved figures the Gresley Pacific's achieved after his attentions. If anyone wants to start an LMS Pacifics v LNER Pacifics conversation I'll try and locate them.

 

NB the mileage comparison figures quoted before for A4 and Duchess were annual average, not between repairs, and hence a measure of availability and how much use they got out of the locos for the construction cost. They are whole-life average and hence include the war years and the better years later. The efficiency of the maintenance regime clearly plays a part in this. The point is, whatever esoteric comparisons of one-off high speed run performance, the LMS got more useful work per engine from their pacifics, and so I imagine the LMS board wouldn't have swapped them for any class of LNER pacifics!

Regarding LNER pacific maintenance costs comparisons: I had always understood that the LNER (and SR and GWR) simply did not have any meaningful system of tracking maintenance costs per class or per loco (costs being more than just frequency of shopping), nor for measuring "availability for traffic" systematically. This impression may be based on biased pro-LMS sources, of course.
What was it about the Thompson front end which needed more maintenance?

Of course, just as it is wrong to damn Thompson's wartime actions on the basis of post-war improvements, it is also wrong to overly criticise Gresley's gear on the basis of wartime conditions which were foreseen in the early 1920s when the gear was being developed. Which is why even those on here who most support re-evaluating Thompson don't do so on the basis of denigrating Gresley in the slightest.

 

Absolutely right, except that I think you meant not foreseen in the early 1920s.

What we should be doing is indeed re-evaluating Thompson, neither damning him out of hand nor defending everything that he did. We should acknowledge that he got a lot wrong, but also that he got some things right, and that some of what he got wrong he almost certainly genuinely believed at the time to be right. As for his motives; there is certainly some evidence that he resented Gresley, but considerable uncertainty as to how strongly he felt and how far that motivated his decisions.