Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

Sorry if this isn't quite the place to ask this, but this thread has raised the question.
Gresley's A1's and A3's were somewhat prone to frame cracking, to an extent also the A4's. The B17's (which I am aware were a North British design) were, due to their weight-minimising design were very prone to frame cracking. So too Ivatt Atlantics.
I am not aware of frame cracking being a common issue on the GWR, (though it may have been an issue that no-one mentions). My question is, was this a common failing only on the GNR/LNER, or was it to some extent or other a problem for all companies?

 

According to Cox it was LNWR that really excelled in cracking frames.
According to Adrian Tester mr Cox and his merry standards were also good at it.
It was a common problem with age of locomotives

 

One example off the LNER I can think of was the Maunsell U class moguls which were prone to frame cracking. They had been designed as K class tank engines and built down to a weight, with the result that the frame plates were too thin and probably inadequately stayed. When new class U locos were built, that aspect wasn't redesigned even though the need to keep weight down no longer applied, with the result that the locos developed frame problems over the years. (The frame plates were 1 1/8"; probably 1 3/16 or 1 1/4" would have been needed).

The rebuilds were done very efficiently at Ashford. Prior to the chosen loco being sent to the shops, the new frames (or front end) were set up in the erecting shop, along with cylinders, buffer plank, draw hook, foot plating, steps, springs and brake hangers. A replacement boiler and much of the other components would also come from stores, with the result that the old loco could be rebuilt quickly.

Many (but not all) of the locos received partial frame replacements in the 1950s (as did the closely related class N moguls). Of the preserved U class moguls, 1625 had complete new frames and 1806 new front end; 1618 and 1638 weren't replaced. The new frames can be recognised by being curved rather than straight at the front.

Tom

 

When Great Northern was rebuilt it was a national scandal amongst LNER men. Gresley was revered, okay his valve gear needed a bit of maintenance but it worked. And they were popular locos at all levels. A3s A4s V2s and all the locos carefully kept going won the war and don't you forget it! The B1 could be deemed an austerity engine, and was Thompson's only decent design. Gresley greatley respected his contemporaries, and carefully rebuilt a few, say B16s,B9s to improve on slight issues, and the company was careful to conserve locos from each major company, later the 2C2 electric of Raven and the NBL were scrapped sadly, but we have a lot to be thankful for, 4 NER engines D17, Long boiler NER 2-4-0s, GNR single and Henry Oakley. So,No doubt 1470 when retired. So, when you rebuild his pride and joy, expect the reaction he had. It was a wholesale reaction of anger amongst all LNE workers. I have this on first hand recollection. Perhaps you should start the book with this story, how it affected his reputation,and then demonstrate what he did do well like coaches and badly, for example the poor riding L1s, and the cracked frame B9 rebuild disaster? For example when considering Gresley we look at the Garratt, and Brunel the Concrete boat, all engineers have relative successes/failures. Without this it makes or a ridiculously unbalanced and poor version of history not worthy of publication.

 

There is absolutely no contemporary evidence for this whatsoever save from a few select individuals writing after the event.

No doubting that and I haven’t said otherwise.

The availability stats for the LNER in WW2 tell a very different story. A3, A4 and V2s struggling to be available 2/3rds of the time compared to other similarly sized classes on other railways.

The loco that “won the war” (if such a thing exists) was the Stanier 8F. That I am sure we can agree on.

So we’re totally ignoring the production K1s and O1s then, both well thought of and both developed under Thompson?

Gresley “rebuilt” more locos as CME than Thompson did so not sure that stacks up at all.

And who was responsible for many of Gresleys rebuilds, that were approved?

...oh right, that would have been Edward Thompson. Acting as mechanical engineer at Darlington and Stratford respectfully.

There is no evidence for this in any form whether at the time or past. None. People had jobs and lives to live than to get angry over the rebuilding of one steam locomotive.

Gresley showed no interest in GN past its initial debut. Born out by the fact it was just another A10 for many years.

And what did you do on the LNER?

I don’t believe it did affect his reputation at all, when CME. How it has been reported and what has been said since, has.

I am writing the book to take account of all angles that I can.

Production L1s manufactured to a different spec well after he had retired (two to three years after actually). Is that Thompson or Peppercorn or British Railways Eastern Regions responsibility, given the prototype underwent an incredibly comprehensive set of trials and proved excellent?

Also: B3. Not B9. Besides which the B3/3 was actually well thought of and written on by Freddy Harrison - frame cracking common in all GCR 4-6-0s. This rebuild was a prototype for the B2s - agreeably at best a mixed bag,

People are free to judge my work on its own merits. As always.

 

Sorry, that's just romantic tosh that doesn't bear any scrutiny. However good those locos were, they only represented a tiny fraction of the country's combined motive power. When people say "the V2 was the loco that own the war", do they really mean "had they been replaced by an equivalent number of Black 5s and 8Fs the war would have been lost"? That's clearly nonsense.

There were lots of ways the old railway companies made tremendous contributions to the war effort, but I'd suggest not looking at individual locos, but concentrating more on teh sum total of weapons produced from railway works; or the tremendous ability of traffic departments to run many additional trains while under attack, particularly at critical times such as the retreat from Dunkirk or the build up to D-Day. But to say "a loco won the war" is I am afraid nonsense.

Tom

 

Whether it was the norm for Eastleigh design 4-6-0s I do not know, but many years ago I noted that on the preserved Southern S15 'Greene King' loco the frames from the top corner of the horn cheek (as distinct from horn block) on the LH leading coupled wheel had cracked and been welded. I also noted that the dome cover was a casting some 1" thick rather than being pressed out of sheet metal. To me, a case of putting metal in the wrong place.

 

Certainly the GWR Saints were notorious for suffering from cracks above the horn guides which required repair by welding.

Lady of Legend has for this reason had the donor frames left deeper behind the splashers, even so Maindy Hall's deeper frames had repairs in this area.

 

I think Jock Finlayson, the Eastleigh draughtsman, had absorbed much from his childhood watching ships being built on the Clyde ...

Tom

 

Am I sure I want to wade in here? Evidently, yes.

Reading around the subject over the years I have detected a (welcome) softening of opinion on Thompson and I think it is increasingly evident that many of his locomotives have been written of harshly (I do think the L1 can stand some criticism though but was certainly 'good enough for government work'). That said S.A.C. Martin, I do think you can get a bit tirady whenever 4470 gets mentioned. Thompson WAS responsible for the rebuild. He was CME and the buck must stop with him regardless of whoever actually actioned the rebuild. Otherwise he was just a pointless figurehead and I know he wasn't that. It is the nature of a hierarchical structure. Thompson WAS insensitive to the history of the locomotive, though he was hardly unique in this, it IS a legitimate criticism.

I am very much interested in your book and have noted the recent concentration on various maintenance statistics. I am all for some statistics to illustrate a point but I am a little concerned that the book may become something of a statistical dissertation and that may be a little dry for my tastes. Do you have chapter headings for your book (subject to change of course) so we can get a feel for its nature? Obviously the book doesn't and shouldn't cater solely for me but I am definitely in the target demographic!

I hope you do not find the above overly harsh. I do have something of an appreciation of Thompson's works. I recently spent 2 hours standing in a field to see Mayflower for all of 7 seconds. If that doesn't make me a fan, I truly don't know what does!

She was running late because of the leaky box on the back btw!!!

 

I agree.

I will try not to be tirady in my response!

Ultimately the CME for a loco design or redesign gives a specification, consults his draughtsmen, makes decisions on how to proceed.

The choice of locomotive to be shopped is not, and never was in, the CMEs remit.

Shed staff, locomotive superintendents, maintenance - locomotives were chosen for shopping based on condition and mileage since last repairs.

The issue isn’t so much that he was insensitive - he may well have been - but if we accept the decision wasn’t his to take (confirmed by Dick Hardy in his writing and born out by the notes I have found in Kew Gardens and NRM) then the idea that he deliberately “picked” Great Northern is wrong.

The personal viewpoint of “he set out to destroy Gresleys reputation” is completely at odds with reality. Great Northern and the P2s are over emphasised and the facts are largely ignored.

Heart over head thinking as opposed a focus on what actually happened in the chain of events.

Thompson is reported to have argued with chief draughtsmen Teddy Windle over this. I am inclined to believe this, I also feel it very likely Thompson was unaware, and probably didn’t care, over the choice of loco in the first place. It wasn’t his responsibility to pick a specific loco.

I have felt and will write in my book why I think he was insensitive - I think it is more likely to be about losing the name, rather than keeping it, as per the P2s.

In that he was likely to have shown insensitivity - but is that any different to Gresley ordering the rebuilding of Claud Hamilton? Or ordering the rebuilding of various other loco classes? Where is the outrage over Ivatts Atlantics being rebuilt? Or classes scrapped entirely?

The level of anger aimed at Thompson is entirely disproportionate to the supposed crime, what he could have done, how he would have acted.

The concentration on stats is not the main aim of the book, they support some of my assertions and also will help to fully frame the context of the time.

I will tonight make up a list of the chapters and do a quick blurb for you, happy to do so.

Not an issue at all, always happy to answer queries.

 

HNG's reaction is unrecorded, what with him being dead and all...

But everyone, for a long time has held the opinion that Thompson was a malicious **** because he rebuilt 1470 into an ugly pacific to besmirch HNG's legacy. And, because HNG designed some truly beautiful locomotives, and Thompson's were not nearly so pretty, we despise Thompson.
If it turns out that the malice was on the part of the bloke writing about Thompson....
If the witness who claims the accused had blood on his hands is in fact a liar, then all the circumstantial evidence the prosecution cites needs to be reviewed.

 

It’s odd isn’t it? When rebuilt as A1/1, 4470 had been running as an A10 for three years after Gresleys death.

No special treatment, no rebuild to A3, was not a particularly well thought of or looked after engine that was also not particularly original either.

There were at best two other A10s around that time that could have been picked. Some were not due for shopping so are discounted. Great Northern was dismantled, wheelsets and tender reused, virtually everything else was new.

Frames from A10 were reused for another A3 locomotive rebuild, reportedly, but I can find no documented LNER source giving that (engine cards don’t tell you what happens to parts after discarding).

Exactly.

 

Not a theory that I have ever subscribed to, just that he was insensitive and/or indifferent which we seem to agree on(?).

I genuinely have no answer to that.

Agreed.

Here I think we will disagree (but that's OK!). Steam locomotives will always be an evocative subject for me and I suspect for many, so I can forgive others' fervour (up to a point).

Speaking of Hardy, I recently read in a Steam World article of his that the B2s were even rougher riding than the B17s which he said was saying something. In your research, have you found whether Thompson was at all concerned with improving the rough riding of some of his classes or was this of low concern?

After the A4 everything is ugly! Seriously though always thought the Thompson locos looked fine, albeit utilitarian, which would be a product of their time. 4470's deflectors though?

 

I am wondering how many people are aware that Thompson was only CME from April 1941 to the middle of 1946.

The B2s started to be rebuilt in August 1945. The class of 10 engines was complete by the end of 1947. Thompson was in the role of CME for exactly one year between the first prototype emerging and his retirement. Rough riding only really started to emerge in the late 40s, early 50s.

(And I would argue the ride might have been harder - but they were also noted for not oscillating as bad as the originals. Which would the drivers and maintenance staff prefer?)

What exactly is Thompson - retired in 1946 and dead by July 1954 - supposed to have done to rectify these supposed faults?

The B2s stopped being built because the B1s were the better overall engine, and fitting B1 type boilers to the B17s proved more expedient. In any event, Thompson had produced a rebuild of the B17 that was better economically on fuel and simpler with two cylinders. As far as he was concerned, by time of his retirement, it was job done.

 

I think I've read somewhere that it was 60070 Gladiateur (rebuilt to A3 Jan '47).

 

That rings a bell. Maybe it was mentioned in RCTS or Yeadon's?

 

See this what I mean by tirady. A simple "no it only became evident under Peppercorn's tenure" would have sufficed. Sheesh.

 

My apologies, it again was not meant to be "tirady" - but it is a fair point I think. Thompson had five years, and oversaw the building of 25 Pacifics, a few batches of B1s, one L1, one K1 prototype, a good number of O1s and O4/8s, and a couple of other one offs.

Eventually work from his design era numbered around 800 locomotives. I think whichever side of the fence you come down, no one can deny he left a decent locomotive legacy to the LNER and BR eastern region after.

But he was also responsible for modernisation and reorganisation of the major works, thousands of new carriages, wartime traffic needs, and various big policy decisions taken with the emergency board across a variety of different subjects relating to the LNER's work for the war effort. He was so much more than just the Great Northern and P2 rebuilds.

 

No scrub that, I can't keep a number in my head more than a minute these days. I think it is in RCTS Part 2a and it is 2573/60074 Harvester which presumably had a cracked frame. It is referred to in a thread in the LNER encyclopedia site.