Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

Fair enough, I've dug a bit deeper and find that from the very basic GA at the back of "LNER Pacifics Remembered" the cylinder centerline to drive axle dimensions are approximately 12ft 6in for the outer cylinders and 11ft 6in for the centre cylinder of the A1/1. This compares with the A3 and A4 having 15ft 6in for the outer cylinders and 12ft 6in for the inner cylinder (from a detailed A3 GA in "Gresley Pacifics" by R M Tufnell) The A1/1 outer rods were still too close to the dimensions of the inner rod to allow the bogie to come back to a sensible position. For comparison the Peppercorn A1 had the approximate c/l of cyl to axle dims of 15ft 1in for the outers and11ft 7in for the inner ( again from a basic GA)

 

Yes indeed 242A1 had divided drive. This engine was an exercise in creating a worthy machine out of a total camel designed by a committee. It was a one off experiment. Chapelon had worked out a number of 4 cylinder compounds but the robustness of the crank axle was a concern. The original 4-8-2 was a three cylinder design and in making the machine work effectively more power was realised than the original designers had envisaged.

The locomotive needed considerable thought given to the strength of the 30mm thick frame plates and associated stretchers. The weight went up and so the engine became a 4-8-4.

The L.P. cranks were set at 90 degrees with the H.P. set at 135 degrees. The coupling rods were therefore set at an angle more suited to high power transmission but that is a side issue here.

Porta did his own work on compound designs. He also maintained an interest in locomotives on a global scale and showed an interest in the A1 project and took the trouble to put together an alternative proposal for the next development of the class. The Trust hangs on to the full paper but an overview can be found on Martyn Bane's site. It was important that the class reverted to unified drive. The frames in divided drive would have to absorb the effect of two very different driven axles, effects absent in unified drive. I think that both HNG and OVB had an instinctive appreciation of this.

On now to the L1 class. A suburban tank with a relatively high tractive effort. But without the design integrity to cope with it. Designed and built on the cheap, by a man who was obsessed to a degree with this type of locomotive. The Gresley P1 (even though it never benefitted from long travel, long lap valve gear) could run at 60 mph+, the K4 has little trouble running at 60 and more. I dare say that the long travel fitted O2s could get a move on too if it was required of them. All high T.E. small wheeled machines.

The B1 was a synthesis of standard LNE parts fitted with undersized axle boxes. One day we will have a V4 to play with. Welded steel box, no precious wartime copper here, much use made of welded fabrications. Interesting, eh?

 

100% sure on the A1/1 - and sources for the rest? And the source for that I asked for previously, if I may be so bold. It would be gratefully received for a better understanding.

 

Is it not possible to have a constructive, analytical debate about the man without one side of the debate always looking in some way to denigrate or emotively charge their argument for the sake of making it about the man's character?

Edward Thompson was tasked by the LNER and by circumstance (remember? War, materials shortages, and the similar) to build simpler, cheaper to manufacture and to maintain locomotives. Agreeably, the prototype no.9000 is remembered very well but the production batches much less so. Why? Their axle box design, rather than the driving wheels, is perhaps key.

Much has been written of these overheating. By my recollection these were fabricated as per the B1 and not cast. Would that make any difference? I do not know, I ask to broaden my knowledge and understanding.

The K1/1 - incidentally - which has been unbelievably cast as some sort of unusable machine on the previous page - is more or less the Peppercorn K1 design. The only major difference was the bizarre adoption by Peppercorn of the L1 style valve gear (I say bizarre because the prototype K1/1 retained the standard Gresley 3 piece slide bar design).

Minor aesthetic differences aside, the K1 is practically the K1/1 design and has been credited to Peppercorn despite the developments made by Thompson in this area and the intention to produce a standard 2-6-0 type. I would suggest that is a poor reflection on those who write railway history.

 

Just seen Lplus post re the A1/1 con rod dimensions so I concede on that but as was pointed out in the same post the centre con rod was still too long to make the wheelbase a sensible one a la Peppercorn A1.
Sources for the L1 and B1 are any driver/fireman who crewed them. I have the pleasure to count some of these as my friends and would trust their recollections over any fawning Thompson acolyte. They had to work them day in and day out and would soon discover any shortcomings in any design.

 

Not when one side of the debate refuses to accept any evidence that shows Thompson in a bad light.

 

Constructive debate about what exactly? A sadly flawed individual according to many who had dealings with him. If you are being revisionist then by all means be so.

ET tasked by the LNE, interesting. More interesting was his manipulation of the task.

Simpler, cheaper to maintain. Using materials that were not so crucial to the war effort. So rather than a steel firebox he goes for copper.

The rebuilding of the P2 class did the provision of heavy load haulage on the ECML no favours. And the rebuilds did traction provision on the Aberdeen road no favours either. Really had an eye on the best use of the company's resources in most difficult services. I wonder who?

The K1 did at least have axle boxes of a good size. They had a boiler staying weakness and could be rough riding but were generally quite well appreciated. The production of the original in the form of a K4 rebuild did WHR traction provision no favours.



One of the greatest problems that the steam locomotive had to face was the misplaced obsession that some designers had with simplicity. Well simple is easier for the less able to grasp. The steam locomotive might appear to be simple but in truth it is very hard to design an outstanding one. It has been said that it is far easier to design a good diesel electric locomotive than it is a good steam locomotive. This country did not have a single outstanding design when judged against what was possible. We had a few good machines, those that were adequate, the barely adequate, the inadequate and so on.

 

Indeed. There is a school of thought that the LNER would have been better served if the P2s had been reallocated to the GN where their prodigious haulage capacity could have been put to good use on the heavy wartime trains on what is a far kinder road than the Aberdeen route. I have read also that after rebuilding they were sent back to Scotland of for the Scots to return them south. I presume there are official records to demonstrate if this happened.

 

There's a clear difference between sources which state it and personal comment added to it.

Where have I refused to accept ANY evidence which portrays him in a bad light? On several occasions I've largely agreed on certain character points.

My point remains - and on this you and others are woefully short of the mark - is it constructive or objective to introduce a mans character (positive or negative) when trying to ascertain if the designs were adequate or not?

In the above posts you have both effectively ignored instructions that Thompson WAS given by the LNER whilst in office, citing it as personal judgement on his part, for which you have no evidence but cite it as such.

As for your sources - it is incredibly convenient to cite unnamed friends and former colleagues for a variety of quotations plucked out of thin air. I'd be happy to take interviews from any you'd so care to pass my contact details onto to for the express purpose of getting their side of the story down.

You cite what I am saying is revisionist. Perhaps part of it is, certainly I think there have been many points raised which deserve better and closer attention to ascertain if what is said is being fair.

The whole point of exploratory debate is to see if it is possible for conventional thinking to be questioned. I think there are several questionable statements above.

The "outstanding locomotive" comment is one which I question in particular. How does an individual design an outstanding locomotive in the middle of a world war in Britain? Would you not accept it was not Thompsons remit to design such machines but to design ones which could do the jobs required of them based on the resources he had?

So much of this thread is based on the fallacy that Thompsons tenure was not very good because his character was flawed and that the end products were not amazing. Time and again the circumstances of his appointment are completely ignored.

If you are going to be objective, as I am trying to be, it's not about being an apologist or an acolyte (two terms you have applied in a derogatory fashion to me) but to consider all that is true at the time of the appointment and take it into account when making a judgement.

Now I can and will accept that some of his designs were lacking - I say as much about the L1 above - but do we not feel that some things can be excused based on the circumstances?

Your side of the debate have tried to paint him as a penny pincher and yet in the same few pages have also admitted the LNER were short of cash! So which is it and is the criticism of Thompson fair there?

 

That's quite a claim - really? Over 150 years of steam locomotive design history, there wasn't a single outstanding designer?

Tom

 

I think that the " judged against what was possible...." is the key point of 242A1's analysis, can't argue with that.

Cheers

Alan

 

1. So you're effectively called me a liar. Nice to have got that straight. I don't have to give you the names and details of anyone so I suggest a look at the relevant RCTS "greeny" on the L1s to find a list of their shortcomings or is that a biased publication too?
2. That was someone else who said that.
3. Only in your opinion is it a fallacy and nobody has ignored that he was appointed in war time.
4. Not said he was a penny pincher. Again you're quoting someone else.
5. In my case that has been quoted by me as an explanation why under Gresley the LNER did not undertake wholesale renewal on the loco fleet as did the LMS (as mentioned by you).

 

I still can't work out why Thompson is vilified to the extent he is. At best, you might say he was average as a designer, or even below average, but there are plenty of below average designers out there who don't attract anything like the same degree of personal opprobium. Some of the arguments used to put him down are past any kind of rational engineering or economic argument: earlier in the thread, we are asked to believe that a choice of name is evidence of a poor design. That's no longer an objective argument, it is simple blind prejudice.

In essence, anyone following one of the greats is going to be judged against higher standards, and thereby suffer from what is actually reversion to the mean. (In other words, if you happen to have a supremely talented person in a role, it is almost certain that the next incumbent won't also be supremely talented: if it were so, it would be statistically extremely unlikely). So I can only assume that the esprit de corps built up under Gresley caused those who worked with him to strongly defend his reputation. That is understandable: less so is that, seventy years later, we can't have a more rational discussion of Thompson's strengths and weaknesses without trotting out the same prejudices.

Thompson was hardly unique in being a middling sort of designer. I'd single out Dugald Drummond on the LSWR as being, in locomotive design terms, somewhere between non-entity and disasterous. (Just look at the asthmatic 4 cylinder 4-6-0s, or the dreadful double-singles. Only the T9 was a really good design, and even that owes some of its subsequent reputation to reboilering by Urie. The Adams locos reboilered by Drummond were universally considered worse than the originals). Yet Drummond doesn't attract anything like the ferocity accorded to Thompson; indeed, many people would put him up there in the pantheon of notable locomotive designers.

I also suspect people aren't giving enough credit for the conditions Thompson had to work in. It's worth remembering that during the war, we had the Spitfire, Mosquito and Lancaster. But we also had the Defiant, Whirlwind and Stirling, the designers of which aren't subjected to a barrage of subjective criticism three generations later. Not every design is perfect, and not every designer a genius. But saying that shouldn't lead to a blind vilification on subjective grounds of any designer who doesn't reach those lofty heights.

Tom

 

Careful Tom, such balanced, considered and thoughtful discussion will have you shot down by the neophytes at the platform end.

Cheers

Alan

 

You are quite right of course. Webb of the LNWR produced so many lemons that the LNWR was in dire straits for locos. Thompson has to be better than both these guys

 

I'm enjoying this thread for what I'm learning from it but still really don't understand why he is so vilified. Now where's that match? At least Thompson's pacifics didn't have a tendency to catch fire. I actually love the bravery of Bulleid's pacifics but heavy on coal and complex with serious design flaws? Why isn't he as loathed? I suppose I ask the question in this inflammatory way because Spamcan 81 seems most disapproving of his work. In terms of tractive effort the B1 lies between a black 5 and modified hall, I often read it is cheaper to build and maintain but can't find comparative costs, that would be interesting. The L1s seem poor locos by pretty much everybody's estimation, and probably earn the penny-pinching eipthet applied to Thompson but it would be interesting to have a debate around whether that was entirely design flaw or whether they were badly built or maintained. The B1s ere noticably rougher than the B17s (but more powerful) and the V4s (but cheaper), being ignorant, what were the L1s compared against?

 

I wonder... I bet if you look on the right aviation forums you'll find plenty of vituperation...

 

Locomotives are designed and built by a team. ET had such unredeemable flaws that many found him practically impossible to work with. Not a great start for a team leader.

The only reason he achieved any measure of success at the time was simply because he had access to a pool of good components. None of which he could take credit for.

If the B1 was built in difficult times, where materials were in such short supply why did the locomotive end up with undersized bearings, use the before mentioned copper firebox and weigh more than the Gresley alternative. Worse it even had a higher axle loading.

It is also true that the better the engine you create the fewer of them are needed. Another substantial saving. You want an example, try the N & W Class J.

Gresley had big engines built that could handle increasing traffic demands. This allowed the best of the pre grouping types to cascade down to manage the less onerous tasks. True they were getting older, but they could manage the work asked of them very well. They were not going to last for ever but the finances available had to be worked with.

WW2 comes along. HNG fancies the chance of the A4 running at 130mph, but this gets put on the back burner - as it happens permanently. The demands the heavier side of traction are well met and there are advances in hand should they be needed. He has tackled the issue of an engine to replace the elderly types. As it happens the test results for this design are every encouraging, the best engine ever used in East Anglia. Sadly HNG was not particularly well and passed on and away. His surviving engines are a worthy memorial, though I ought to go to Netherseal again to pay my respects.

Back when the W1 was being developed ET was given a measure of responsibility for this work. If he had been an engineer of merit he would have recognised the issues that were restricting this machine. He didn't. You could argue that HNG should have recognised them but he was very busy elsewhere and had delegated the task.

I think that Eric Bannister was the last of the Premium apprentices that could well remember both men. Did you contact him when he was alive?