Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

Thompson and Stanier seem to have got on remarkably well after Stanier left the LMS and when Thompson became CME. There is a throwaway comment in Cecil J Allen's Pacific book about Thompson writing to Stanier, and the response being unrecorded to history. I sincerely doubt that personal letters between the CMEs - let alone from someone Thompson clearly admired very much - would have become public record anyway. They were personal letters and probably stayed with Thompson, who is well known as a very private person. So much so that researching him - and finding remnants of him today - is proving remarkably difficult. His war record, on the other hand, grows ssteadily more detailed in my research day by day. His life is a remarkable story in many respects - I find the human qualities and flaws fascinating. Thompson has a back story quite unlike any other CME.

 

This stuff got me thinking, so I ventured into the heap of books I sometimes call a study and dug out my copy of J E Chacksfield's biography of Stanier (Oakwood Press OL114). Lo and behold the report in question is included as appendix 3 (pp 152 - 155). As mentioned above it was written by Cox but, says Chacksfield, signed by Stanier.

For those who don't have a copy.......

It's an interesting read (albeit too technical for me to really grasp all it's meanings and implications. There's a fair bit of stuff about Big Ends as well as Conjugated valve gear. Cox / Stanier conclude (inter alia) that "a good case can be made for not perpetuating it in any future design". Then after commenting on the need for frequent overhaul he says / they say "it is a matter of consideration, therefore, as to whether certain of the classes should not be fitted with an independent inside valve gear". Now that seems to me like a (very polite) way of saying get rid of it on the locos that already have it.

The report then goes on to make some points about the design of the Big Ends that I don't really understand but it involves white metal and the elimination of a Brass strip.

Chackfield also makes some interesting comments on the report on p127. There's the conventional sort of comment that Thompson "had, for some reason, an almost pathological dislike of anything Gresley was famous for, and was determined to avoid it in his own designs".

More interesting, and germane to this thread perhaps, is "Despite this criticism, from his own staff and elsewhere, Sir Nigel had steadfastly refused to consider any reversion to three sets of valve gear, fiercely guarding what he reckoned to be his personal trademark". Now his own staff could mean simply Thompson, or it could mean Thompson and one or more others. I've idea how much Conjugated Valve Gear was criticised "elsewhere", but evidently Thompson was not alone in his views.

You might also read that sentence as implying that towards the end of his career Gresley was prey to hubris, or that he was stubborn and refused to listen, which might explain Thompson's subsequent decisions a bit. Maybe a bit of a "cult of personality" around the Great Man, and maybe he wasn't quite so great after all?

Ammunition for both sides of the debate there. I'll now duck behind the nearest sand bags.......

 

Simon, I'll respond to the above in full later but your comments and "ammunition" are appreciated - not least because there's a good debate to be had here and I think the issue must come to down to being pragmatic and objective discussing whether the conjugated gear was right to not be perpetuated. Thank you for posting that.

 

The Gresley conjugated gear lasted in front line use until the end of Scottish steam in 1966 so couldn't have been a lot wrong with it, especially after the post war redesign of the big end and the adoption of Swindon's optical frame alignment method.

 

On the other hand, Maunsell got rid of it on his designs pretty rapidly, evidently finding it unsuitable for the rigours of service, despite having Holcroft on his staff who had done much to design and popularise the idea. It also seems that Holcroft himself was not hung up on that decision despite the fact that it could be seen as a repudiation of his ideas - indeed, the Maunsell 3 cylinder designs had been designed with a future conversion to three independent valve gears in mind.

Maybe the fact that a conversion was easy on the N1 / U1 tipped the economic balance in favour of early conversion, whereas if the Gresley designs would have needed more substantial rework, perhaps the business case was more marginal?

Tom

 

The finger is oft pointed at the Gresley derived motion but was it really the villain of the piece? The middle big end problem was largely cured by the redesign of the bearing and the optical realignment of the frames so IMO the finger points there rather than the valve gear. Add to that the adoption of the Kylchap exhaust across the fleet of Gresley Pacifics and you ended up with locos that were able to carry on in front line service until steam ended.

 

Simon are you going to be writing a book on Thompson?

 

I think it is the totality of the package - ie nothing wrong with the valve gear if you also have a sound big end design, optically aligned frames, rigorous maintenance schedules etc. If one is missing, it shows up the flaws in the other -particularly I suspect the maintenance regime.

Nothing wrong with that, it's just engineering! Just as GWR four cylinder designs worked well in pre-war conditions, but we're much less suited to the changed social and other conditions post war.

Tom

 

The maintenance regime pre war would have been pretty good and also post war along with the aforementioned improvements. Wartime would have been different but do we condemn a design solely against the background of WW2?

 

following on from the Stanier/Cox report referred to above, and tom's above post re Maunsell,
it is a fact that in 1925 both Holcroft and James Clayton publically criticised the Gresley conjugated gear. in the case of Clayton, his criticism was very forceful! as tom correctly states, the Holcroft conjugated gear as used on some Maunsell locos was quite different from the Gresley arrangement.

i am quite sure that Thompson would have been well aware of the Holcroft and Clayton 1925 criticisms of the Gresley gear.

cheers,
julian

 

Who condemned it? Thompson actually kept all but one class built with the conjugated valve gear in operation under his standardisation scheme - the P2s were the only real casualty and they were flawed locomotives on a number of levels. In any event - WW2's end did not bring back high standards of maintenance and people rushing back to the railway to be cleaners and fitters in droves, so one can reasonably argue that Thompson - and other engineers like him, including Bulleid - were reasonably justified in looking to simplify where possible and make things easier in terms of maintenance.

It was Thompson's intention throughout his standardisation scheme that only new locomotive designs were not to be built with the conjugated valve gear.

A reasonable condition given that - correctly, many commentators say - the intention was for all small and medium locomotives on the LNER to be two cylinders instead of three.

Class A4 featured prominently in his documentation to the LNER board as a class to be retained and and reboilered, and the enterity of the class save the single wartime casualty was retained, along with the A10s and A3s, and all other Gresley classes that were not life expired and had the conjugated valve gear. Hardly ridding the LNER of Gresley nor condemning the valve gear. Difference in development and opinion is not the same as condemnation.

It is perhaps notable that the A4s were picked in the exchange trials and though performing admirably the standardisation program took on many aspects of the LMS and some of Doncaster's principles in the chassis for several locomotive classes - all however were two cylinders save Duke of Gloucester.

So I don't think it is "condemning" - a highly charged word in itself - but more engineering preference.

 

I have been for five years, yes.

 

Hardly surprising given Riddles' background and that of many of his team.

 

I would like to think that if any advantages had been present in the results that both the chain driven valve gear and conjugated valve gear would have been considered for further development - but both classes failed at varying times on the exchange trials despite providing high performances. Reliability factored into the designs of the BR standards a lot I suspect.

 

As far as I understood it, DoG would preferably been a 2 cylinder loco, but the required size cylinders would have been out of gauge.

 

Under his standardisation plan the B17 (B2), D49, K3 (K5), K4 (K1/1) were all scheduled for rebuilding with two cylinders. Only the B2 got beyond a single example although the K1/1 evolved into the Peppercorn K1. If ET had been in office longer then IMO there is little doubt that the rebuild to two cylinders would have continued but interestingly nobody else saw fit to continue the programme.

 

I'd be interested to see your source for this.

I have a copy of OS Nock's 1947 published book on the standisation scheme and all of those you have mentioned there were - according to this volume (which was overseen by Thompson and published by the LNER) - intended prototypes for new build locomotives, and specifically not for the rebuilding of entire classes, which would be retained as non standard classes (with the exception to that rule being the B17 class, for which a further nine in addition to the prototype were rebuilt due to the varying condition of their cylinders, frames and boilers).

This is borne out by the Peppercorn K1 builds. Thompson before he left office dropped the D Class and K5 from his building program altogether in any event.

Well "they" did continue with that line of thinking with (my apologies) the O1 which continued to be built up to the mid 1950s as O4s of varying vintages wore out. Not to mention the Thompson reboilering of a number of different classes including a few Raven classes.

 

True, Cox states that 2 cylinders were considered sufficient until more were required to get the necessary tractive effort within the loading guage. Only DoG needed 3 and the powers that be were keen to further their poppet valve gear experiments on that. Fortunately the Caprotti drive did simplify the between frames maintenance, albeit at the expense of complicated valve chests. Given that reducing day to day maintenance was a serious consideration to the designers, I wonder what they might have done if the poppet valves hadn't been available - The complete lack of valve gear behind the cylinders between the frames is one of the major benefits of the conjugated gear.

Although Gresley felt his 2-8-0 classes showed an advantage to the conjugated 3 cylinder type over the 2 cylinder type - the 2 cylinder Stanier cl4 tanks were to all intents equal to the 3 cylinder versions used on the LTSR. Given the increased maintenance due to the third set of valve gear between the frames of the 3 cyl cl 4 tanks, I can see why the LMS felt 3 cylinders were unnecessary at that sort of power classification.

 

Damn, I seem to have the itch now.... I spent a little time Googling on Sir NG, Edward Thompson and Conjugated whatsits and came across something that may explain Thompson's obvious agenda to destroy all things Gresley.

It all starts with Sir Vincent Raven - CME of the North Eastern railway, a man who was beaten to the job of CME of the LNER by....... Sir Nigel Gresley.

Obviously Raven was out for vengeance and the fates placed the very implement in his hands when his Daughter married a quiet, unassuming young man called......Edward Thompson!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thompson, former C&W Superintendant of the LNER and workshop manager at Stratford works was known to have problems with Sir Nigel Gresley and the two men combined forces in a hideous pact to Destroy Sir Nigel and all he stood for.....

Sadly thye were beaten to the punch by the tragic early death of SNG but that merely opened up the opportunity for Sir Vincent Raven to shoehorn Edward Thompson into the role he (Sir VR) had been denied. Once in the role Edward Thompson could then destroy SNG's legacy.

And he would too, if it hadn't been for SNG's loyal band of followers, the Gresleyites.

Now, all I've got to do is work out how the Freemasons, Knights Templar and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion fit into this.....

Perhaps someone could make a film out of - how about The Raven's Revenge.....

Mwah ha ha ha haaaaaaaa

throughout

 

Losing the will to live with the Raven connection. Thompson and Raven were father and son in law, but as far as working together goes he worked for almost the enteriety of his career with the GNR and LNER.

If he had any Raven associations they certainly did not come to the fore when he was busy rebuilding a number of his locomotives for various reasons.

Raven had passed away by the time Thompson had taken office in any event - and it has been said by a number of different people that Edward Thompson's greatest railway love was in fact the Great Eastern Railway - he has been quoted as saying the time spent at Stratford was the happiest time spent.

So - and I know your post was tongue in cheek - but let's not give that train of thought more credence than it deserves. It's already been done to death by Cecil J Allen who, it seems on the face of his writing, knew absolutely bugger all about Thompson's life whether private or public.