Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

Can You please tell us what message number to look for?
I have sougth and not found

 

It seems highly improbable that the traffic dept would have a say on which individual locos were scrapped. How many of each class to keep in service perhaps.

At the other end of the lifespan it is recorded that the Traffic dept asked for more 4700s (the big mixed traffic 2-8-0) but Collett elected to build Castles instead as being more versatile. Presumably though any major policy disagreement would have gone to the board.

 

I will sort today and repost a copy.

 

No CME in the country had administrative powers like that. CMEs shaped policy of a railway.

Individual decisions on locomotives were always done at lower administrative levels. How many to scrap, which to shop, what got rebuilt, where are we sending new and old locos - these decisions ultimately rested on the heads of (on the LNER anyway) locomotive superintendents who were responsible for regions of work.

The idea that the “man at the top” has all the power and looks over and checks every decision being made in every corner of the railway is a ludicrous one. It’s simply not possible.

It’s why the Great Northern debate is so daft. It assumes Thompson had a level of authority when it was actually down to autonomy.

Certainly, there may have been a level of insensitivity shown by Thompson when it was raised to him directly that it was 4470 was the loco being rebuilt - but that’s still speculation.

Looking at the all dates, it’s likely that Great Northern had already been dismantled or was midway through that when Thompson and Windle may have remonstrated.

Everything we say on that point is second or third hand and speculative, because neither Thompson or Windle put their thoughts on the matter down on paper directly and the story has been recounted by other people, to other people (we only have in print the Windle story because OS Nock and Rogers both spoke to Freddy Harrison).

 

My guess would be the chief of the works. We know that it was Cook's initiative to combine a Duke and a Bulldog to create the prototype Dukedog. On the other hand Cook tells us it was Collett's personal decision to condemn 6007 after Shrivenham and build a 'new' locomotive on renewals.

The CME must surely have been responsible for the strategic decision to start thinning down an old class, but yes, seems unlikely to have picked which 0-6-0 to scrap and which to keep.

Things were quite probably different on the highly centralised GWR to LNER and LMS anyway.

 

Always is a pretty big word though. The CME certainly had the power to overrule delegated decisions. And it seems beyond the bounds of probability that Thompson wouldn't have taken a keen interest in this particular job. But from his point of view (much to do - little time) it would surely have been ridiculous to delay the project until another A1 needed a heavy general.

To truly justify the claim that GN was specially picked one needs to demonstrate that an otherwise better candidate was passed over. I'm not sure that will be possible at this distance.

 

You’re right Jim - it is a big word - but there’s just no documented evidence that Thompson was ever that interested in which loco it was, so long as they picked one from the pool of A10s, and not A3s which he was satisfied with should remain a “non-standard to be maintained” class going forward.

I said this before - but I think the likeliest thing that actually happened was that the new 4470 was going to come out unnamed, like the P2 rebuilds, and the head draughtsmen, Teddy Windle, remonstrated with Thompson over the loss of the GN name, and Thompson likely relented on that basis - hence when released to traffic had name and a special livery given.

Thompson simply didn’t have the appreciation of locomotive names. He wanted to name the first B1 “Utility” - says much I think!

The only time he was on record as being moved or influenced by the naming of a locomotive was when no 500 was revealed as being named after him. He is on record as saying that Mrs Thompson (the late Guen Raven) would have approved.

 

Look forward to the book, despite my reservations am sure you have made a fine crack at a complex subject. To inherit from a great man, with 90% of shops building gliders and ordnance, and a lot of ageing locos pre grouping needing renewal for years(the LNER never had any money, so the tale goes). And yes, I'd be sure V2s cost more, more cylinder parts, and taper boilers apparently cost threefold a parallel. So perhaps he did a job, under very difficult circumstances, but rubbed a few peoples noses in it.
That the Thompson Pacifics, Gresley's EM1 and Bulleid Pacifics were ever built at such a time is another debate entirely.
Gresley's Valve gear had a poorly understood synergistic effect, making it efficient and George Stephenson is said to be the best 5 on the road, but not in trials. The differences in all these systems seems very slight, but something obsessed over. Perhaps the fine Crewe balancing of everything was what produced consistency,
On the metallurgy front, I think there may be more to it. It was a massive 10 times stronger at Crewe, than of Gresleys 20+ year old designs and there are hints, and it has been suggested to me(there is no proof here, perhaps the aeronautical people know, that Sir Frank Whittle required Sir William Stanier's expertise in this area... And it is hinted that this was one of Stanier's tasks in the war. The stress on middle cylinders from heat were enormous, Gresley cracked it with his system, Stanier with metallurgy(in part acquired from Swindon). And I think Great Northern's middle cylinder, was a weakness? These are only suggestions with no concrete evidence, and I haven't been able to find any. Such matters would have totally been state secrets, or Crewe would have perhaps been obliterated.

 

It strikes me that for us enthusiasts, our idea of a CME is akin to the owner of a model railway. Total authority in all decisions, financial and practical and aesthetic. Except how many modellers have ever had to worry about reliability, availability, axle loads.....

 

It's a bit like Brexit...gone on for too long and the same old arguments get re-cycled? That is no reflection on you and your research/work. I suspect that, whilst this thread has provided some useful facts and idea's for further investigation, any remaining work to be done will be sourced from other means. Maybe time to wind up this topic on Nat Pres for your own sanity?

 

Agree with the Brexit analogy!

The trouble is John, every so often, someone comes up with a gem of a lead, or a source, or an idea.

The frustration last night was more aimed at having to clarify that the report wasn't edited. Thank you for your thoughts though. My sanity, as ever, in question!

 

That's kind, thank you. I hope I have too!

Thompson was definitely not blessed with tact, and I would hope nobody here would think I am trying to canonise him by writing on him. He was, like many of that era, autocratic. He had also been in the army during the first world war and surprisingly close to the front (in charge of troop movements - this is likely to have been a very stressful job and after the event likely impacted on him). He was well known for being a bit sensitive about his voice. He was also more complicated than is otherwise described. Entirely human, to be fair.

I would add the V4s into that. The EM1 is an interesting point but as a one off, largely moot I think. The Bulleid Pacifics were in effect trying to solve the same problem on the Southern that the LNER had - lack of maintenance personnel available.

The majority of the Thompson Pacifics - the A2/3s and the A1/1 - were built post second world war.

Thane of Fife was the only Thompson Pacific for nearly two years.

The A2/1s were V2s with bogies and a third set of valve gear, and did good work, I don't think they were particularly controversial as new builds. They "may" have been underboilered compared to the larger Pacifics but their fuel economy and turn of speed was undoubted. They didn't suffer the issues of the A2/2s with not having a enough spare boilers available at overhauls.

If it was, it didn't manifest itself until it was withdrawn in the 60s. Great Northern on paper, now I have seen its engine card, looks better than it has been described. But the pattern looks clear: more works visits, less overall time in works, good availability.

 

Right, for those asking for the report, here is the wording from my book as it will appear.

For anyone wishing clarity:

• This has been copied from an original copy
• This has been written word for word
• It has not been changed, aside from format
• It does not include the evidence that Thompson submitted to E.S. Cox or Sir William Stanier
• It is signed William Stanier but it has been confirmed that E.S. Cox penned the report on his behalf

 

Referring to the posting 3253 of Staniers document I'm not sure that his referring in paragraph 1 of his conclusions really holds water. He refers to 'rapid wear of pins', yet four of the pins on the Gresley 2 : 1 arrangement are readily accessible, being at the front of the outside cylinders. That only leaves four more between the frames forward of the inside cylinder. To me, what he is saying that any pins in any valve gear, whether on a Gresley or anyone else design will also suffer 'rapid wear of pins' too.

To put things into proportion I'd like to point out that on the LMS 'Duchess' class, each of the inside cylinder piston valves has no less than five more additional pins on top of those driving the outside cylinder valves. Did they suffer 'rapid wear of pins', too?

 

That definitely is not what he is saying. If you read further down:

It's not just pins in isolation that is being referred to.

It is specifically the rapid wear in the pins to the inside cylinder, but the pins are one part of the overall issues.

 

Hermod - please see above.

 

Something nagged me at the back of my head today when you said this, so I had a look back through the emergency board notes for 1940-43 to cover Gresley and Thompson. Both CMEs had put in a policy of only withdrawing locomotives to shops based on boiler condition, with instructions relating to patching up and keeping running at sheds in specific circumstances (for which, the conjugated engines were exempted where issues with the middle big end were encountered. Which is interesting).

The CME of the LNER did have the power to use a broad brush strokes approach - as we can see with the various rebuilding of loco classes in Gresley's reign and under Thompson.

But it's not as simple as "withdraw that whole class for rebuilding". Look at the P2s as the ultimate example: Thompson proposed rebuilding a single prototype off the back of the Cox report - one rebuild was authorised by the emergency board.

Thane of Fife was nominated as it was the lowest mileage with worst availability (and crucially, was already in shops).

It was on test for a year, compared directly to the originals, and then approval was given for the rest to be rebuilt.

It's a very Ombudsman answer to give - so with my apologies for this as a former ombudsman worker - but maybe "it depends" - !

 

Thank You.Have ordered the Stanier book and look forward to reading