Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

Whilst the L1s had short lives one can't say that this was due to the locomotive given that the Kings Cross area was an early area that was dieselised and all the area's steam locomotives - irrespective of age - were either transferred or scrapped by the early part of 1963. In the case of the L1s I venture to suggest that there was nowhere that could use them hence their scrapping.

 

I think the double-headed train you refer to was the 5.52 p.m. (?) ex Kings Cross, normally as you say was hauled by a B1 and an L1. Not so headed due to a lack of power but because the train divided at Hitchin with the B1 taking part of it to Peterborough, and the L1 going with its part to Cambridge. For a time other 4-6-0s were used like 'Black 5' 44911 (ex 6J - Chester) and a BR 'Standard 5' instead of the B1.

 

Thanks for the info on the ER dieselisation. I think there was also an extension of the GER suburban electrification at this period, with large numbers of Class 305/308 EMUs delivered in 1960-62, at the same time as the L1s were rapidly disappearing for scrap.

The L1 was a heavy engine, which can be attributed to its exceptional water tank capacity. Maximum axle-loading was 20 tons, which even in 1960 might have debarred it from some secondary and branch lines where the LMS and BR Standard 2-6-4Ts (with 18 ton axle-load) were accepted.

 

Gresley believed in three cylinders and pony trucks and Thompson believed in two cylinders and bogies.
It is of utmost importance to know who was best very soon as the young people after us will not give a dam.
The LMS made various 2-6-4 t for more or less same job.Has there ever been made a serious comparison of the three cylindered versus the rest and where can we read it?

 

I don't know if it is exactly the comparison you want, but Langridge's "Under 10 CMEs" covers the 2-6-4T locos. What stood out for me is that while as enthusiasts we tend to see neat divisions into "Fowler", "Stanier", "Fairburn" locos, from a works perspective they were much more just a continuum of the same design. The annual building programme would require 25 (or however many) new 2-6-4Ts to be built each year; and from time to time some incremental improvement would be made on the basis of works or running shed suggestions, which the drawing office would work up into revised drawings.

Tom

 

Basically football team banter.





I mean, I am biased (LNER fanatic and all that) but the clean, straight lines of the Thompson machine really do it for me on an aesthetic level. The Stanier machine isn't as elegant, but it is rugged, which I do like too.

Surely the aesthetics of any locomotive are mostly subjective? What's the point of it?

 

Thank You.Will read.
I am trying to solve the question if Thompson could have rebuilt them and still have all four driver sets.My best bet is to have put 14feet connecting rods onto third driver and have only two big cylinders higher up.This woul leave clearance for KH-Zara truck.

 

I tend to the view that the aesthetics of a piece of engineering are often an insight into it's deeper properties. Unfortunately, for me, the L1 looks a bit of a thug whereas the Stanier looks more resolved, with a bit more finesse - but still nothing superfluous. To make a comparison to fighter jets, the Stanier puts me in mind of the Phantom, whereas the L1 reminds me more of the Lightning. And, much as the Lightning was excellent at what it did, the slightly subtler Phantom had the edge in operation.

 

Aesthetics aside, the LMS tanks could run quite happily at express passenger train speeds with their long wheelbase and 5ft 9in wheels. The L1 was supposed to work fast outer suburban trains and the 5ft 2 in wheels ensured that this sort of work knocked then to bits in no time. The short wheelbase would have made then rough riders, especially when run down which, according to those who had to work with them, didn't take long. Peter Townend, didn't say too much about them, apart from Kings Cross doing their best with them which isn't really a ringing endorsement. In summary, they weren't up to the job they were designed for.

 

Could be worse. You could've cited the USAF A10!

 

Not in a dog fight it didn't. A Frightning would run rings around an F-4. First time I've seen the word "subtle" used to describe the St. Louis Slugger.

 

Nowt wrong with a Warthog. Handsome is as handsome does.

 

The LMS tanks were described by one LMS motive power man as:

"Unable to 'supply enough heat to mash tea in a busy refreshment room'."

It appears you can pick any class of locomotive and you will find a railwayman having a moan about them. It is also quoted to show the fallacy of using single (often out of context) tart quotes to prove or disprove the merits of a class, type or designer, since the quote is out of context.

 

It has a certain thuggish beauty to it.

I observe that from approximately contemporary introduction, one was still in squadron service at the end of the Cold War and still sees limited use now; the other didn't see the Cold War out. As for subtle, all things are relative - and I could have compared the Lightning to an A10, which wouldn't have been fair on either.

 

I think you mean the 2-6-2Ts which were very weak machines

 

wrong class.The Cox quote was about he 2-6-2t

 

Erm, it was quoted for irony because of the nature of the debate about Thompson. This thread is littered with subjective personal opinions quoted as evidence (often out of context or misquoted) for dismissing Thompson's locos. Simon has spent the last 224 pages arguing against this as a way of assessing locomotives. Quoting out of context (and I am aware it was about the 2-6-2's) was to demonstrate how terrible these type arguments are when it comes to assessing the merits of a loco design. Sauce for the goose as sauce for the gander to make the point about how poor these kinds of sources are.