Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

Given Gresley's experience with the U1, it makes me wonder whether he considered a Garratt for this type of work.

 

Didn't the P2SLT engage engineering consultants Mott Macdonald in the design of the crank axle?

 

I believe they did and IIRC have made changes to the original design. I think those suggesting that 2007 could suffer similar crank axle failures to the originals are way off the mark.

 

The most recent edition of the 35011 newsletter mentions that they are working with and sharing information with the A1st on crank axles.

@S.A.C. Martin - I want to just come back to a couple of points. I was flicking through the LNER 150 book and it includes Bill Harvey's diary as shedmaster at Neasden. July 1944-April 1945 p.142-3

It shows I think the danger of 'reading too much from notes scrawled in the margin'. Although it is a diary it was clearly written or the write up of the diary was done well after the event.

There is a comment which reads:

You can argue here whether it is the staff shortages or poor design that make the L1's so problematic for Harvey. He doesn't expand on the story so we can't really assess the story but it would be wrong to quote Harvey as "Describing the L1's as 'terrible'" because it would be without context or explanation as to why.

But there is something else (and to go back to reading differently) when Harvey arrives 23 locos are stopped, including 14 S160s. But it turns out that the examiners are being misled by the all bronze bearings and thinking that they are running hot. So hence we have lower availability but this is due to misdiagnosis by the examiners in part due to unfamiliarity with the design. Just looking at availability data it wouldn't tell us this unless we had a note or it was a well known problem. This would impact on availability for a single class and would skew the data.

Harvey has to deal with a chronic coal shortage to the point where the shed runs out on several days. (They use a grenade at one point to dislodge the residue they are so desperate). But also not just a locomotive maintenance backlog but a backlog of workshop maintenance, so both wheel drop tables are broken, the coaling plant breaks down regularly. Towards the end of the war he is dealing with chronic absenteeism, so at one point he is 5 drivers and 12 firemen down, labour unrest - having to suspend a driver for refusing to go out with a serviceman fireman.

All of which would impact on availability across the board.

But here we can see all the different things that can impact on availability in a 9 month period and this is what I mean about 'reading differently' - examiners failing locos wrongly, coal shortages, workshop maintenance backlog, staff shortages, labour unrest. All of which would give you lower than normal availability but none of which would be due to the locos being badly designed or 'bad engines'.

And of course - Harvey is a single source, a shedmaster, writing after the event, with experiences and issues boiled down to a couple of sentences etc, etc

That said the diary is fascinating because you have him filling in for a shedmaster who is signed off sick, he is dealing with traffic demands, GAM, fuel shortages, infrastructure problems, labour issues, and mechanical issues. All of which come together and as an example of 'thick description' it is superb, but it is also one shed for a short period of time which may have been exceptional.

A perfect example of notes scrawled in the margin - no suggestion about what happened but a comment about motives - but we are unclear about whose? He had been talking frequently about the i) 'mutinous' Italian POWs who had been brought in ii) the difficult British staff. But you could easily over-read it as evidence of workplace sabotage, you could over-read it by deducing that it would have to be X who was responsible etc etc

I also want to go back to the Rogers correspondence and suggest a possibility. Could it be that Rogers misunderstood or misinterpreted Harrison's correspondence? You know full well and this thread is full of examples of it, where you have said or written something and someone has taken completely the wrong idea from the one you intended. Now, sometimes it can be the fault of the audience (not reading properly) or sometimes the writer (not being clear). For example, when I mentioned not 'reading too much from notes scrawled in the margin', a couple of people took away completely the wrong idea from the one I intended and thought I was suggesting widespread fraud of loco records. Once I had finished facepalming, I had the ability to go back and hopefully clarify what I was arguing (don't over read a single source or comment and build outwards from it) and hopefully the people reading it got what I was trying to say. I had the ability to do that in quick order, it is unlikely that Harrison would for example have the ability to correct Rogers if Rogers misunderstood Harrison or even to have realised what Rogers had taken away from the correspondence.

 

I am in agreement with you. The crank axle has been beefed up substantially and the P2 will not be subject to the loads and stresses the originals had in any event.

 

Re @Monkey Magic post above, I can't recall now how much discussion there has been of the L1s here, or in Simon's book. Obviously Neasden post-war was, for whatever reason, one of the most testing places for the shedmaster (see both Harvey Sixty Years in Steam and Beavor Steam Was My Calling.

To give a flavour, here is Harvey writing about 1949. He had been sent to Neasden by L P Parker in a crisis. Many senior railway people working at Marylebone lived on the GC and noticed things going wrong..................

' It was imperative to concentrate every effort on maintaining in serviceable condition those locomotives still running. This was of paramount importance and there was no choice in the matter. It was also the case that these new tank engines, which it was confidently expected would put an end to Neasden's power problems, were proving to be a grave disappointment, giving as much and more trouble to maintain than the 38 year old locomotives that they were replacing. In designing a powerful general purpose locomotive of the 'go-anywhere, do anything ' description, a wide route availability is only attainable by cutting down the weight of metal in its construction, often at the expense of inadequate bearing surfaces. Earlier mention has been made of this in connection with the B1 4-6-0s ; in the case of the L1s this was exaggerated by the smallness of its coupled wheels (5'2'') for the high average speeds demanded by the GC's semi-main line suburban services. Early complaints from drivers that their new locos were knocking themselves to pieces were but statements of fact. Detached wheel boss liners were commonplace ; likewise horncheek liners shaken loose by impact and vibration were found resting on hornstays ................This excessive vibration caused the all-welded water tanks to split along their length at footplate level...........water dripping from these bunker fractures onto the live electric rail made uncoupling on the Met line especially hazardous.'

There is then six pages on the power position and actions taken before he was allowed to escape back to Norwich.

Then Beavor, shedmaster at Neasden five years later

' The L1 tanks were among the most powerful passenger tanks in the UK and this largely accounted for their frightful tendency to batter themselves loose after a few months of running. One could hear their high-speed knocking over half a mile away ; in at least one district they were commonly referred to as 'concrete mixers'. Thompson, in his eagerness to eliminate many of Gresley's practices, had dispensed with axle box wedges ......so that when wear developed between the boxes and the horn-plates,it was impossible to do anything about it, except remove all the axle boxes for relining-- a task far beyond the limited capacities of most depots. At Neasden, once I had been able to get the allocation pruned, we were knocking up over 7,000 miles a month with our L1s (considered a respectable mileage even for main line locomotives). ..... After I left Neasden, many of them had the axle-boxes fitted with manganese-steel liners and this enabled a greater total mileage between overhauls.'

Just thought I'd throw that into the mix.

 

Computer Aided Design is only as good as the information put into it. If there are 'unknowns', and not available, then problems can arise as shown over the last few days with the 80X and 195 units referred to in the Diesel & Electric Traction section.

Regarding the P2, I will repeat the question that has gone through my mind:-

Why did all these P2 crank axle failures take place on the 9-5/8" diameter section behind the driving wheel boss rather than on the 8-1/4" diameter part of the axle adjacent to the inside crank web, which had the same torque or power applied to it as the outside cylinders?

 

I have no idea if there is any evidence of this. Is there any evidence of a decline in workmanship especially with the manufacture of new locomotives. I am wondering if: increased demands for quick supply, combined with material shortages combined with the loss of skilled labour to military/war service, post-war austerity, might have led to poorer quality work?

 

Like Tornado's? (Or was that your unstated point?)

Maybe they do have the P2 axle situation fully understood. (Was there ever a report from them explaining in detail why the originals' failed? If so, I can't see why they didn't post it on their site; it's not like anything in it would need to be kept private.) We'll see.

Noel

 

I don't know, but I think the shedmaster stories are more about inherent robustness and ease of maintenance rather than weaknesses of first construction. I align with the people who are saying that there are various dimensions to what makes a successful loco type, fitness for purpose or whatever. I wonder whether the fleet of L1s based at 34A had similar problems.

I slightly wonder whether there is such a thing as over-standardisation given the variety of operating conditions which had to be catered for.

 

A very good point; I just ran into this on the Patriot thread.

Noel

 

Hmmm. I hope so.....

 

Perhaps you should offer your services to the A1 SLT as you obviously have a Great deal of experience in designing large eight coupled express passenger locomotives.

 

Gresley is on record as being no fan of articulated locos, saying as much publicly, just ahead of grouping. The U1 was the result of a GC proposal, inherited by the LNER. You have to imagine, with other fish to fry, it was a case of there being no imperative to seek an alternate solution.

 

What a sly little dig at Tornado’s previous motion problem.

 

Cheap shot that tells me far more about you than 'motion.'

 

Put away the handbags chaps... And I don't care who started it.

 

If I did do so, I would be very surprised if they took up my offer.

In the meantime, have you an explanation to my question as posed again?

 

The questions of the P2s and their crank axles failures are covered at length in Andrew hardy's book, and I also in my tome make references to a number of reports and board decisions on them.

My bottom line with the P2s as built is that Thompson had no other option given the reports on his desk, and the availability issues.

The new P2 has a beefed up crank axle, will be operating on a railway with far less strenuous curvature and will be pulling trains well within its operating limit, together with a pony truck that will actually do the job properly.

I think we need to separate what has been designed in the modern day from that which was designed in the 30s. The new P2 is a different beast altogether.

I would ask though - because it is wearying to see - that we don't get aggressive over questions being asked of Gresley's work. Nobody is trying to undermine his reputation or whatever. They're just trying to work out what actually happened. I don't think the P2s being poor as a class besmirches Gresley's reputation at all - they're only 6 locos out of thousands, after all.