Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

And so would I. Low pressure would mean a later cutoff for the same power output, with lower peak forces on pistons and cranks.

It seems to me that the late decision to go for very high speed, and therefore the need for hard acceleration from already high speed (if that is what happened) provides sufficient explanation for mechanical failure.

 

I think it's a shame we lost the original Gt Northern to a (by many accounts) unsuccessful loco but it crosses my mind that an insult was the very last thing he intended. He had loco called Great Northern, with NE on the tender and painted in Prussian Blue. Is it not possible that the choice of loco was very deliberate so he could honour three constituent railway in one having worked at Darlington, Stratford and Doncaster. Just thought and explains the 'austerity' lettering on the tender also

 

That is exactly my thought process, and I agree that this seems entirely plausible - I say as much a few pages back. It certainly makes more sense than the idea that Great Northern was deliberately uglified "to make its creator turn in his grave" as Cecil J Allen states in British Pacific Locomotives.

 

This is of course during peace time when skilled men and maintenance were in high supply and rigorous.

During wartime the situation changed alarmingly and this is well recorded by a number of sources.

Bear in mind the large part of the skilled workforces at all of the railway companies were either conscripted for war duty, taken for building munitions or were in some way contributing to the war effort - the skilled workforce was largely lost with unskilled labour supplementing what remained. In the circumstances, building simple to maintain and run locomotives was the order of the day and there is no shame in that.

Post-war it was expected that the level of care and attention would return and as recounted by people such as Peter Townend, this did not really happen. Hence the BR standard locomotives being designed in the manner that they were, being simple and easy to maintain and repair locomotives.

Lots of posters on here comment on efficiency this, engineering that, and forget that at the end of the day there is someone fixing, running and maintaining the damn things in addition to the relevant costs and social factors involved.

 

Just read your post,SAC Martin, on LNER Encylcopedia where you talk about Thompson being influenced by GER practice (half way down this page http://www.lner.info/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3412&start=105) It's an interesting point and worth noting that a GER Y14 still holds the record for the fastest assembled steam loco in the world. I would therefore further your assertion that when looking for simplicity and standardisation and therefore ease of building and maintenance that perhaps he would look back to Stratford days. You suggested that the B1 was the B12 reimagined. I suggest instead it is a 'medium sized black mixed' to the Y14/J15 little black goods. No frills simply built competent workhorse

 

My views have changed somewhat since then I think. I would need to go back and re-read what I wrote.

Absolutely fair to call me out on that interpretation, I was of course working from memory. However aesthetics are very much a personal preference - whilst there's no argument the locomotives were utilitarian in their new forms, what really changed aside from the cylinder placement? Did that really change the LNER line so drastically? CJA's views are indeed of value but where Thompson's machines are concerned he writes very little compared to the other locomotive engineers. Not only that, but citing withdrawal dates as an indication of quality doesn't lend itself to being a totally objective assessment of Thompson's machines, much less how little information he actually provides on them in any of his publications.

 

Perhaps because hs didn't rate them very highly?

It seems that almost everyone who was there at the time or dealt with the locos themselves has expressed an overall negative view of both Thompson and his pacifics to a greater or lesser degree. Unfortunately you seem to think that they were ALL biased in some way - lovers of Gresley, suffered from Thompson's temper, whatever - even E S Cox, who only dealt with Thompson at the Wartime Mechanical and Electrical Engineers' Committee and when invited to inspect the conjugated gear. Thompson even discussed his other projects with Cox and Stanier and later invited Cox to join the LNER. Just how do you think all that led to Cox receiving an erroneous view of Thompson?

As you feel that the only unbiased person is yourself, there is no point in further discussion, as you automatically consider anyone who has expressed a negative view of Thompson or his pacifics as biased.

 

So not rating them - which I can accept - also means they should be just given a cursory glance without further investigation or study? Even the Raven Pacifics which really well an engineering dead end got a more balanced and detailed write up despite not being rated highly either.

Did I actually say that?

No, not at all. But the same tired arguments keep getting rolled out with the same basic sources. I've already on several occasions in this thread (over several years!) expressed the view that these engines weren't exceptional. And yes - I do question the motives of those sources. That's entirely the point - are they truly objective viewpoints?

One example I think needs to show why I question the motives so much behind certain sources. In one copy of a particular LNER publication, thompsons unpopularity was cited and proof was given at this due to nobody being at his funeral.

Peter Graftons book - and one other source - points out that Thompsons will expressly wished for no one to be present, and a basic funeral according to the rights of the church to be given.

So even in death, the intention to denigrate the man on a personal level - from people who were normally level headed and knowledgable - was a clear politically motivated and petty bit of commentary.

He was an engineer and he was human. In all of the detritus we've read over the last few pages there are those whose own research and reading has been limited with some half truths put forward without sources (still waiting on member to state his sources for his anecdote).

I didn't start the thread to change anyone's opinion but to ask the question is what has been written fair or balanced? We've had two people castigate Thompson for building a 3 cylinder Pacific with divided drive.

Arguably he was absolutely correct in his thinking and it was in Peppercorns A1 that we find what was - without argument - Britains best Pacific in terms of costs to run and day to day performance - which is what CMEs post war were really worried about.

So does he instead deserve praise? No probably not but perhaps he's not deserving of what - reading books and magazines from 1941 to the present day - has almost become a witch hunt to destroy his reputation without merit.

 

Smallest classes were withdrawn first with largest classes withdrawn later to the end of steam. This was confirmed by Peter Townend as being particularly true on the Eastern region.

The same argument could be aimed at any number of the BR standard classes - it doesn't hold any water.

 

How to put this into a rather more modern context. Shall we just say that Edward Thompson was the David Moyes of the CME world.

More seriously I have come to believe that he had issues later in life that impacted on his mental condition. But this would be poor excuse for some of his decisions.

 

In both instances the above posts reflect the levels that one side of the debate will go to, to undermine Thompsons character.

The first regarding withdrawal dates is ludicrous: A2/3 locos were withdrawn after some Peppercorn A1 and A2 variants. Does this make the latter locos worse examples of their classes? Of course it doesn't. 9fs which were less than five years old were being withdrawn and these were excellent machines - some withdrawn before Thompsons.

They were all casualties of dieselisation on BR. No more, no less and to suggest otherwise is wrong.

 

Wasn't David Moyes Sir Alex' chosen one, though?

More generally, I have to say - not being an LNER afficionado - that I have a certain sympathy with where SAC Martin is coming from. Mention Thompson and it seems even any attempt at a rational argument on economic grounds disappears, to be replaced by a raucous shouting match that rapidly becomes clouded with very loaded terms: Gresley's legacy seemingly being "butchered", the man "turning in his grave" etc.

It's almost inevitable that if a workshop is lucky enough to be run for a period by one of the "greats", then whatever comes after, whether a dud or merely drably competent, will seem like a letdown. One wonders what the men of Brighton, dazzled by Strodley's brilliance, felt about Earle Marsh; or those at Nine Elms used to the dashing locomotives of Adams felt when they were replaced by the plodding, and with one or two exceptions, mostly pretty disastrous offerings of Drummond. Yet uniquely it seems to be Thompson that causes a red mist to descend in any discussion!

Tom

 

Really!!!! Because the those who want to vilify Thompson are so reasonable in their position aren't they.

Can we just give this a break now, its going nowhere and there is something a little distasteful in the attempts being made on here to vilify and destroy the reputation of a man who died many years ago and is not here to defend himself.

Perhaps the fact that Gresley can be seen as a victim of a heinous plot perpetuates the glorification of him for many and they are welcome to take that position - its a free country (apparently unless you dare to say or do anything to a Gresley locomotive).

I have said this before on here, I honestly cannot believe how vicious and irate people can get about pre-nationalisation railway history?

I think I will get back to the GWR - we are not to sure about Collett but we sure as hell are as unpleasant about him as it has been on this thread.

 

I don't know that I would assume any decision making in that period was entirely logically based, but even so it would make sense to withdraw small classes first, whether they were good, bad or indifferent. The only time it would not be a reasonable decision would be if the ones that were left in service were actually incapable of doing the work. If you require 40 only locomotives, and you have 50 class A, which are adequate, and 5 class B, which are better than adequate, its still better to withdraw all of class B and remove the requirement for holding consumables for them.

 

No, but in Jim's hypothetical examples, the stock control for 40 type A locos would be cheaper and easier than 35 type A and 5 type B, even if B was inherently a better loco. So you preferentially standardise on a smaller number of bigger classes.

Tom

 

Perhaps that is how CJA felt about them - not worth discussing. he doesn't have to hate Thompson to dislike his locos.

Me, post 137 - Stanier and Cox were asked to report on the conjugated valve gear. to quote Cox again "but he(Thompson) no doubt used the final report over Stanier's signature to full effect with his direectors in the Machiavelliean campaign he was conducting against all things Gresley"

Cox has no irons in the fire, being straight LMS, so I tend to take his view as being realistic.

You, post 165 - If Thompson was so against all things Gresley:

Why did he continue the building of Gresley designs? (V2 and O2 predominantly)

Why was the whole of the Gresley fleet - express, mixed traffic and goods - retained virtually unmodified?

Not much of a machiavellian campaign against all things Gresley, is it?

So yes, you effective did say that Cox had an erroneous view of Thompson.

Yes, yes at all. These sources are the only ones there are. There are no old sources stating that the pacifics were wonderful locos and that Thompson respected and cherished Gresley's memory - perhaps that's not because all the known sources are biased but because the sources have reported the truth.

Divided drive per se was never the problem, more the way it was implemented. One might say adding another set of valve gear (which could and did occasionally fail completely - as opposed to the conjugated gear which almost always got home however rough it got) was an added complication being inside the frames, but divided drive itself wasn't the bugbear. I believe the need to use the original rods from the P2s led to the outside cylinders being adjacent to the normal position of the rear bogie wheels on the A2/2s. Unfortunately with 225psi boilers and only 3 cylinders the cylinder diameter required for the necessary tractive effort meant the bogie had to be moved forward to provide lateral room, leading to the elongated front end and the maintenance problems which occurred. Unfortunately Thompson prepetuated this layout to the A1/1, quite unnecessarily as these were new rods (it is said he also believed in equal length rods, but that may or may not be the case) thus the loco was both ugly and had maintenance problems.

If Thompson had shown more concern for Gresley's memory and agreed to rebuild a different A1 I doubt there would have been anything like as much vitriol thrown. He was either arrogant or spiteful in rebuilding 4470, and history hasn't forgiven him. That said, his B1 ensures that his reputation as a designer will always have merit, and his pacifics will be remembered as being curates eggs, forever tainted by the needs of wartime.