Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

Simon, I wasn't condemning Thompson, and I look forward (as a non-engineer though) to reading the report. I was simply suggesting that just because three independent sets of valve gear can work well doesn't mean that conjugated gear can't.

Dave

 

One of the reasons the valances on the A4s were removed was to make access to the derived motion easier for maintenance purposes.

 

That's fair enough Dave - my apologies, I wasn't aiming my comments specifically at you, but trying to put into context my own thoughts.

 

This seems to me the key sentence:

Now I read that as being primarily damning of the big end design as the cause of the major operational issues, with the conjugating gear being very much a secondary factor.

The paper does seem to justify what Thompson did, ie discontinue conjugated gear on new builds, experimentally rebuild a 4-6-2 with 3 sets of gear, and work on big ends.

It's also revealing in that it demonstrates that in spite of the core problem being known, the LNER engineering staff failed to resolve it. It may well be at least a partial explanation of why Cook was moved to the NE and E region CME post as a known engineering specialist.

It's funny how all the design offices seemed to have blind spots where they seemed happy to accept things that a dispassionate eye would surely see was inadequate.

 

Thanks for posting that, Simon. All very interesting. I concur with Jimc's post regarding the big end bearings. With regard to the conjugated valve gear, it seems that Gresley was correct in theory, but was let down by a combination of the materials of the time and maintenance procedures. As with other design/construction/maintenance issues from the past which come up, it is interesting to wonder how things might have been different had modern technology been available to the designers and engineers of yesteryear.

 

Ok, so conjugated valve gear while fine in theory, in practise is unsuitable and showed up weaknesses in the design and build of the big end. Fair enough Thompson did one thing right and Gresley did one thing wrong. It seems to me however that one example is being singled out, in an attempt to right a perceived wrong at the expense of all other examples. One positive example out of many negative examples in no way alters that balanced view that on the whole Thompson was pretty unremarkable (indeed flawed in many ways) when viewed in the company of his peers and did little to leave a positive mark in locomotive design history.

 

I'm a consulting engineer myself, and in the careful language of the trade, that report is pretty damning. Certainly it justifies not replicating the gear any further, and investigating rebuilding some examples.

 

Wrong. A poorly designed big end is a poorly designed big end. That's what Cook sorted out when he arrived from Swindon, not the derived motion. The conjugated gear continued to work well right up to the end of steam. Given how radical a rebuild BR undertook on the Bulleids, it's interesting the no similar drastic surgery was undertaken on the Gresley Pacifics nor were they withdrawn early in favour of locos with three independent sets of gear.

 

He didn't NEED to be remarkable. He needed to do what was necessary. There was a war raging on.

Contextualise his position properly and actually, you can see his remit was not to produce locomotives of high performance or ones to break speed records - he needed locomotives to do a job. The B1 is the best example of this.

None of his locomotive classes are exceptional machines. That wasn't what was required of him. Improving conditions of maintenance was, and as a rule, the Thompson classes were indeed easier to work on in shop than Gresleys.

Two instead of three cylinder where possible.

But - as I've repeatedly said - we can be far too loco centric in these matters and he had other positives to his regime. You cannot condemn him as CME for producing unremarkable locomotives when that was pretty much his remit in the first place. Workhorses which were simple to build and simple to maintain to do a job and do it as reliably as possible.

He had other duties too as CME in wartime for which he did a very good job.

When you think of Thompson, contextualise his position with the conditions of the time and ask if the populist lines of thinking are fair. I don't believe they are.

 

Yes indeed - and the same comparison can be made of Thompsons Pacifics with Bulleids.

So the question is: unremarkable as they were, really they really as poor in service as certain people would you have you believe, given they were never rebuilt as extensively not modified as the Bulleid Pacifics were?

I think, more and more, the question is not about high performances or speeds but the day to day work and value for money. I suspect Thompsons Pacifics represented better value for money to the LNER than Bulleids did on the Southern simply on the basis of the rebuilding of the latter.

Which is better: a locomotive easier to maintain but unremarkable in performance or one with high performance capabilities which proves difficult to maintain in the changing conditions of the time?

I suspect the answer is not as clear cut as others would have you believe.

 

Sorry I forgot Mr S P. amcan was a more highly regarded and skilled engineer than Mr W A Stanier.

 

Incidentally, if anyone would like a PDF copy of the above, go on my website www.britishrailwaystories.com, and use the contact email there with the tagline "Stanier/Cox Report" - I will happily provide one for anyone so interested.

One thing puzzles me greatly - this report should have been in Peter Grafton's book and I can't believe it wasn't. I am told it is in the Stanier biography from the same publishers, albeit in an edited format.

 

So - my question for the day - on the basis of this report (which, remember, was an independent report Thompson sought out, written by ES Cox and signed off by William Stanier) - do you think Thompson was justified in his actions for changing the LNER design regime in the way that he did?

Let's not focus on whether he did so in a good or a bad way - do you feel he was justified in changing the direction? Just that question. Think on that.

 

He may have been fairly ordinary - indeed, it would be surprising if he hadn't been. In any walk of life, even for people who have reached the very top of their profession, there will be a range of abilities: not everyone will be a Gresley or a Stanier. For the LNER to have replaced one genius on retirement with another would have been a happy circumstance indeed!

But none of that explains the almost pathological vitriol that seems to be directed at Thompson by some people. After all, Collett was pretty ordinary when viewed through the lens of Churchward, but he doesn't attract anything like the same degree of opprobrium. It feels to me that Thompson was doing a difficult and stressful job in very trying wartime circumstances: he did it to the best of his ability, always trying to make decisions that he felt were in the best interest of his employer. If in retrospect some of those look less than optimal - well, who hasn't made what in hindsight turn out to be poor decisions? None of that would seem to justify the vilification to which he, almost uniquely amongst CMEs, is subjected.

Tom

 

Simon - one little thing in the report:

Are you missing a "0"? Otherwise that bit seems not to make sense. 0.044" would make more sense in context. Otherwise, the lost motion when new seems to be more than the 3/8" (0.375") when worn.

Tom

 

Good spot Tom I will edit that.