Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

What puzzles me most about the last day or so is that I’m perfectly approachable by mail, phone or in person.

If there’s an issue, tell me. But sometimes things get brought up again - I’m always happy to share my research and work - and it helps me too, because it allows me to cement my thoughts and see things more clearly too.

 

Is this still the 'Edward Thompson Wartime C.M.E' thread? Just askin'!

 

Really? Why do you feel the need to ask Simon to put a sock in it? It's all contained within one thread, you don't have to read it, and it's an informative thread that ha a perfect right to exist and continue. You don't see me complaining about the existence of the tap room thread, I just don't visit it. Simples. You'd be the first to complain if someone turned up and asked you all to put a sock in it because they personally found it tedious.

I agree.

I did and I have done before when I've thought it appropriate, I have no qualms about doing so.

This is where we part ways Victor, I don't consider moderators ordinary forum members. Of course they have the right to comment on topics as they wish, but as my headmaster used to drone on about, with rights come responsibilities, and in my view mods also have the responsibility to act in a way becoming to the forum, not to simply excuse their behaviour on the basis that other people are just as bad.

I am quite surprised at that - going to all the effort of posting a response on Simon's thread, which has had a lot of engagement by a lot of members all interested in the topic at hand, specifically to say you think it's boring as hell and why don't you just shut up - seems the height of rudeness to me. But perhaps that's just me reflecting the "youth of today" not understanding respect...

I'm certainly a fan of anyone coming on here with primary research on an interesting topic and thoughtfully and patiently explaining all their ideas. I'm definitely not a fan of a moderator coming in complaining it's too long, too boring, and to put a sock in it.

 

That is very kind and maybe of importance to the subject of why A2/2s look as they do.
P2s fundametal problem was that the P2 rigid wheelbase was to long.
Thompson could rebuild into a 4-6-2 or a 2-6-4.
The last would not have solved the conjugation trouble as drive would be like a V2.
And pony truck derailing.
Pacific be it then .
The expensive Unicylinderblock woud have been nice to keep but would hit stations platformson curves due to the shorter rigid wheelbase and long overhang.
The Uniblock has 6 feet 8 and a half inch between centres of outside cylinders.
Thomson must have thougth of driving frontaxle because cylinders can then come closer at 6 feet 3 as on LMS compounds.
Problem was I think,that there wee not many existing modern outside cylinder designs available for this case but myriads for the aforementioned 6feet eigth or nine.
Thats why cylinders were placed in the mid of nowhere if You ask me.

 

Time for the dogs to bury the point- scoring bone meethinks.

 

Agreed, I shall leave it there. Perhaps I did go on a bit, but it did annoy me. Back to Thompson.

 

Why does it have to be a point scoring exercise?

It’s absolutely wearying.

I simply posted a response to a query, Friday night after a long day at work. In my head, I was just trying to help on a subject I have tried to learn more about.

It’s bizarre to me that it should be such a big deal to anyone. Hey ho.

 

OK.

 

Why should someone complain about details of Thompson and his designs on a thread so titled. If I don't want to read any more about some particular subject I just don't open it.

No one complains about enthusiastic followers of Bullied or Collett yet many of their actions are probably even more questionable than anything Thompson did. At least he supported the war effort to the best of his ability.

 

I think I recall that the J11/3 was to be the standard LNER 0-6-0 design under Thompson (happy to be corrected). If so, I find that an odd choice, with the J27, J39 or J20 and others of course, being available. Does anyone have any more to add to this story?

 

In fairness Ralph this appeal should be made to those who question Simon's thesis hence his need to repeat - in simple terms - for those who fail (don't want ?) to understand the fact that Thomson has been so badly analysed by so many so-called "experts" hence the current work to redress the balance.

 

That is correct. I think it was a numbers thing as much as anything but I will check my notes when I am home from my latest round of exams.

They were in line to get a round topped boiler as part of their modernisation but what actually happened was the fitting of piston valves, the boiler pitched a bit higher, shorter chimney and dome, modified cab and not much else.

 

Its impressive how a design which by then was over 40 years old was chosen to be one of the LNER standards. True praise to the ruggedness of Robinsons original design

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

Or maybe, for a secondary design, the best compromise between utility and the required design effort to design something better from scratch. You could argue the same about the J72 locos built by BR to a fifty year old design - given the resources, I'm sure you could have designed a better loco, but not so much better that it was worth spending lots of design and tooling effort (i.e. money) on. Better to spend the resource on the frontline locos where improvements in design will have more of a payback.

Tom

 

Were there plans for new construction, or was it purely a rebuild programme?

From a standardisation point of view, if there is a reduced demand for 0-6-0 tender engines (with lots of B1s and potentially K1s coming on stream, displacing the earlier Gresley moguls down the duty chain), it makes sense to examine the possibility of rationalising to a single class. Much preferable to do that than withdraw some of the J11s, half the J39s, half the J17s, etc, etc. The Southern did this a few times over, rationalising their pre-grouping 4-4-0s and tank engines, with surviving classes moving across the old pre-grouping boundaries to fill in. I know it has been suggested that some Central Section crews were perhaps less than delighted to find an M7 against their name on the roster, but crucially the classes kept tended to have enough of them around to make it worth standardising without having to build new.

 

As you rightly say, designers have to make compromises, between often conflicting requirements and constraints. There seem to have been successful examples of just about every possible permutation of layout for multi-cylinder classes, at least among those with a leading bogie.

There were fewer examples of multi-cylinder 2-8-2s, but the following may be noted:

3-cylinder unified - LNER P1 & P2; Prussian P10 (DRG 39.0).
4-cylinder (compound) unified - Saxon XX HV (DRG 19.0).
4-cylinder (compound) divided - PLM 141C & SNCF-standard 141P.

I cannot think of a 3-cylinder divided drive 2-8-2, but the German 3-cylinder 2-10-0s (BR 44 & 58) had divided drive.

Your revelations about poor LNER wartime availability in general, and the specific issue that the P2 was particularly poor, are perhaps the most important finding to come out of your fresh research. I don't think that previous authors were aware of the full seriousness of the situation. Even the RCTS authors, who picked up most things including the P2 crank-axle breakages, do not seem to have known that P2 availability had become much worse than other classes. Certainly, the history of the Thompson period needs to be re-balanced in the light of your findings.

Although 2-8-2s saw only limited use in Britain, British manufacturers had designed and built them in large numbers for India and other overseas customers, albeit in 2-cylinder form for heavy mixed traffic and goods work. So the 2-8-2 was not alien to British engineers.

It would certainly be interesting to know whether Thompson gave any serious consideration to retaining the P2s in 2-8-2 form. That might depend on what he perceived to be the key underlying problems of the P2 - was it simply the unified drive and conjugated valve gear, or was the long (19ft 6in) fixed wheelbase itself a key issue in Thompson's eyes? Many of the continental 2-8-2s had leading Krauss or Zara trucks, providing a more flexible engine through side-play in the leading coupled wheels. But cylinder centres and connecting rods have to be spaced sufficiently wide to allow such side-play, such that the 21-in diameter cylinders of the P2 might then not fit within the narrow British loading gauge. So probably not an option for Thompson. Also, Thompson's preferred arrangement of divided drive with equal-length connecting rods would be tricky to arrange in a loco without a leading bogie.

Anyway, I think the available evidence suggests that Thompson decided fairly quickly to rebuild as 4-6-2, prior to getting the drawing office to work-up actual plans. Perhaps Simon may have thoughts on whether or not that is a fair conclusion?

 

It surely can't have been a very hard decision. The 2-8-2s had been highly problematic, and the potential benefits not realised in practice. Noteworthy, perhaps, that the GWR elected to build more Castles instead of an extra batch of their large wheeled 2-8-0s, and that class was regarded as highly successful.

 

Say what you will about Robinson locomotives, they certainly had longevity going for them and Thompson was quite canny in his rebuilds of them, O4/8s, O1s, Q1s. I agree it most likely a numbers thing given their relative age and would be interested in that being confirmed (absolutely no rush).

I wonder (idly you might say) whether had they subsequently introduced the round-topped boiler variants, would they have been given Part number 6 or otherwise classified distinct from the J11/3s or would they be lumped together and the round-top boilers supplant the Belpaires as and when?

 

On the question of "why the J11".

My availability figures spreadsheet gives the following class numbers:

J6 - 110
J11 - 174
J15 - 130
J20 - 25
J27 - 115
J36 - 137
J39 - 289

J39 was the largest and most modern 0-6-0 class the LNER had. The J39 piston valve block was applied to the J11/3, making the two classes standard in this specific way.

A J39 type boiler was planned to be fitted to the J11s to modernise them further (never happened).

If it had been, arguably J39 and J11/3 would have been much more closely aligned. Likely they may have been categorized as a new class in line with Thompson's other rebuilds.

Remember: Thompson wanted to reduce the LNER's number of classes to 19 classes total. In 1942 there were 172 classes and 193 boiler types.

Only 31 J11/3s were actually built and the standard 0-6-0 class was quietly dropped in favour of a standard 2-6-0 by Thompson and then by Peppercorn.

 

^ Intriguing, thank you!