Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

I've always understood that the K1 was more or less the engine Gresley wanted to build as his six=coupled freight engine but he was forced to costs, hence the outcome became the J38/9s

 

well , more than one .
having been introduced to Holcroft's gear , he stated he would only build 3 cyl. locos in the future . that is blinkered .
I still say the V2 should have been a decent 4-6-0 . of Scot proportions with 3 sets of Walschaerts gear

 

Except Gresley did build two cylinder locos after being introduced to Holcroft’s gear. J38/39 to his own design plus further construction of some pre grouping designs.

 

But would it have done the job with a narrow firebox? You seem to have overlooked an initial design of a modified K3 with an articulated bogie coupling it to the tender. Gresley wanted (or at least approved) the use of a wide fireboxed boiler, so the next logical step was a 2-6-2 as we know it. However, perhaps quite unwittingly, he started a new trend of a heavy mixed traffic loco with 6' - 2" drivers that could not only handle fast freight as its original intention, but also turned out to be a very effective 'back-up' to the Pacifics.

Certainly Bullied with his MN, WC/BB locos took this on board, with Thompson and Peppercorn for the A2s. Interestingly E. S. Cox in his writings referred to a wartime proposal of a 3-cylinder 2-6-2 for the LMS that never came to fruition...........

 

I think one or two who have returned to discussing Great Northern have either not read or forgotten some of the earlier posts. Simon has tried to remind us all, so let's be clear. For accounting purposes and because of wartime restrictions, ET's prototype new Pacific would be regarded as a "rebuild" of a Gresley Pacific though it would actually incorporate a lot of brand new material, some from the spares pool, and not very much from the original. Great Northern was due for a heavy general overhaul so was selected (not by ET) as the basis for the "rebuild". Someone decided that, rather than have the name disappear, the new loco would carry it. Thus there appeared the story that Thompson had "butchered" Great Northern, that he had done so out of spite, and that he must have hated Gresley and all Gresley's works. Simon has provided ample contrary evidence in this thread.

 

100 year old locomotive technology history is interesting but not important.
Incompetent management/Government allowing people with big egos to waste other peoples money is an eternal problem.
This is what make this Thompson after Gresley thing interesting for me.
Been there,seen it.

GWR disassembled a lot of (Holcroft designed) 2-6-0s and reused parts for 4-6-0s.

 

When you say ET did not have the authority, what was the reporting line of the person (Musgrave?) who did make the selection?

 

Without reading in detail I see the thread has moved onto 2-6-2 types. So is the consensus that the V2 was the engine that won the war because of their herculean haulage feats , or did we win the war because they needed repairs after performing said feats?

Jon

 

I find it very hard to take the statement "the engine that won the war" very seriously! Can anyone really believe the result of the war would have been much different if Gresley had built Stanier 8fs instead of V2s?

 

I also think the conjugated valve gear maintenance question needs separating into two:
1.for smaller engines, which would have had only 2 cylinders on other railways (essentially everything except the Pacific, Mikados and V2) then 3 cyl conjugated must have increased maintenance compared to 2 cylinders.
2. for the larger engines, which would have had three sets of independent gear (or even four) on other railways, the conjugated gear *should* have reduced maintenance, but in fact it appears to have performed very variably: according to posts on this thread it did well at Haymarket, with new big ends, when optically aligned later; according to all accounts it was very problematic in war time.
So the question of how good it was, or how sensible was the decision to use it on the two groups of engines, is slightly different.
Note also that Thompson's "solutions" for the two groups was different.
I repeat that I think Gresley *was* a preeminent genius.
Nevertheless, for my money (Crewe/Horwich bias declared), on Group 1 engines it created unnecessary maintenance compared to 2 cyl.
On Group 2 it was clearly a problem in wartime, which is when the decisions to change it were taken. I have to say, based on what I've read on this forum, as a practicing engineer (albeit Civil in my case), if it was my call, and based on that data, I'd have done the same as Thompson and plumped for conversation to independent gear.

 

Of course it's not a serious statement, but when discussing the demanding maintenance requirements of the V2's in wartime surely the abnormal work that they (and all classes) were being asked to perform should be taken into consideration ?

Jon

 

That patently is not true when you look at the context of the war, the maintenance issue, the Cox report, and the clear availability problems the LNER conjugated fleet had which were in excess of similarly aged and simpler machines.

We can choose to ignore the LNERs own data on this or not. That’s your choice: but it is incredibly obtuse to suggest there were absolutely no issues. There patently were.

 

Have it your own way.

 

The engine that won the war was the Stanier 8F.

Built for all four railway companies to do work that each required on trains for the war effort (armaments, vehicles, coal and steel) and proved reliable throughout at home and abroad.

End of discussion.

 

The response of someone who knows they have no reply.

Sorry Spamcan, you actually do produce some good objective posts but we cannot ignore the evidence that we have.

That actually has been part of the problem where railway history is concerned - period - not just Gresley and Thompson, but elsewhere too.

 

Given that this thread focusses on the need for locos to fit wartime requirements, surely the WD at least equals the 8F ?

Jon

 

Honourable mention most definitely.

 

or maybe the Rolls-Royce Merlin...

 

Fitted with Campbell & Banks piston rings designed by Captain (Peter?) Campbell & the P&A Campbell works manager, Mr Banks so IMHO oit was White Funnel wot won it............

 

I have not failed to read the previous posts, nor have I forgotten them.
Simon has done great research and he has formed his opinions based on that. But that does not mean he is right and that no one can question his findings.

I don’t understand why someone further down the chain can select a particular loco for rebuilding, and that the man at the top had to accept that decision.

This was the LNER after all - the one big four railway that seemed to appreciate a sense of its history. The national collection would be a lot poorer without the preservation efforts of the NER and LNER.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk