Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

I fully accept the Peppercorn machine looks more compact, but I do like the sleekness of the length of the boiler myself. I think 60113 in her original condition (no deflectors) looks absolutely fabulous personally - there's a shot in Peter Grafton's book showing the rear 3/4 view and she looks very striking. I don't think the oft-publicised front 3/4 does the Thompson Pacifics any merit - same with Stanier's Princesses. Side on, I think they're all very handsome, very purposeful machines.

 

Oh dear. You'd better look out for the horse's head on your pillow now.

 

How many people who have actually worked on one still say it's a wonderful design, particularly the valve gear and inside rod...

 

My only caveat is that I don't like the ones with the smoke deflectors - either none, or wing-type ones look best IMO

 

Mr Thompson's B12/3 seems to be doing rather well in the 'most elegant loco in preservation thread' Admittedly rebuild of already handsome locos (ok not those with the ACFI water heaters).

 

Hmmm, it's actually not bad from the cylinders back, but completely wrong from the cylinders forward. It looks like an engine in the works with an occupation bogie temporarily under the front end.

Note: that is an aesthetic judgment, not an engineering one!

Tom

 

You are quite right. I remembered the story but got the names wrong.

 

One wonders what course LNER locomotive development would have taken if Robinson had accepted the job.

 

Unless he was going to stick to 4-4-0s the LNER's coal bill would have massive, he didn't seem to understand correct boiler proportions and the importance of good airflow to the grate, but on the plus side his chassis repair bills would have been less than Gresley's.

Dave

 

A friend of mine has lent me some literature which includes a full copy of the written portion of ES Cox's report, as signed off by William Stanier.

Never in my entire life have I felt so angry at railway historians. Particularly those who use ES Cox's comments regarding Thompson "determined to undermine Gresley" or similar to beat Thompson's reputation with a stick.

Reading the report, I could perhaps be forgiven for feeling this evening like Thompson absolutely deserves to be exonerated: because the former CME of the LMS signing off on, and I quote, regarding the conjugated valve gear as "not fit for purpose" amongst other seriously damning indictments must in some way prove that Thompson wasn't just doing it for the sake of trashing Gresley's reputation as so many presume: there were serious failures which the report covers in some detail.

I do need to go over the report in more detail, try and get the original source material from which it was derived, and then look at my current draft of the book and maybe even start again from scratch. It changes everything: and I feel totally let down by the LNER community on a number of levels. Knowing this report exists and dismissing it so easily (as has been the case when I've asked repeatedly for information from certain members of the LNER fraternity elsewhere) and then still looking to trash Thompson's reputation…

…it is very difficult to remain objective when quite clearly a great injustice has been done - if anyone should be presumed to be trying to undermine Gresley, it's certainly not the man who asked for the independent report but the man who penned it - and anyone who thinks ES Cox didn't know what he was talking about is kidding themselves.

Sorry to be so negative ladies and gents. I just feel greatly let down on a number of levels.

 

Whilst sympathetic to your angst, it has been noted by some that E.S. Cox is a name to be careful about in that whilst he could "talk the talk" there were doubts about his ability to "walk the walk" - as noted by his lack of progress once Riddles had retired. The report, therefore, may be seen as one person's view but not necessarily one shared by those who "worked at the coalface"; although signed off by Stanier one wonders how much of it had he read and / or agreed with.

Whilst not an engineer I note your reference to Cox stating the conjugated valve gear "not fit for purpose" whilst I recall talking to the shed foreman at York in the 1960s on the same subject and his experience was the reverse. He recalled a wartime working when the valve gear had (IIRC) over 1" of play in the motion but still managed to keep time on an express working. He acknowledged that it was most effective when well maintained but - in the wartime and pre nationalisation times - when was that possible. Nonetheless the gear performed its task and the shed foreman was happy to acknowledge the worth of it; that valuation may not have been to the liking of one brought up in a world of different motion assembly.

 

On an aesthetic level the design follows the Raven / NER concept of placing the cylinders between the driving wheels and the bogie rather than between the wheels of the bogie leading to the practical problem of extended frames and consequential cracking - perhaps the reason that such Thompson-designed Pacifics were amongst the earl;jest casualties of the dieselisation era.

 

Hi Fred - absolutely take your points. Is there a source I can read up on regarding Cox that gives the above view, RE the walk the walk? Would like to be able to contextualise my view of his and any potential for bias or similar problems. Thank you for your considered reply.

 

I think an apology is in order. As the poster who put forward the possibility that Thompson may have been on the autism spectrum, I now feel very clumsy and insensitive. I try to be careful about what I have written before hitting the 'post' button, but on that occasion I didn't pause to consider that members of the forum may themselves, or through family members, be affected.

I certainly DID mean my comments to be constructive and helpful in trying to explain Edward Thompson's behaviours, and hope that everybody read them as intended. Also, having a close family member with an Asperger diagnosis, in no way was I being abusive or critical.

Simon, you appear to have made your mind up that the way Thompson behaved was most likely due to shell shock. I know very little about post traumatic stress disorder, but have listened to a few radio interviews with sufferers, including a couple in the last three or four weeks on Radio 5. Symptoms include withdrawal, erratic behaviour, especially in response to loud noises (fireworks are often mentioned), depression, alcoholism, becoming distant and isolated, suicidal tendencies, feelings of failure and struggling to lead a normal life or even go out. Does this sound like Edward Thompson?

At the end of the day you may well be right. I have no axe to grind in this, admittedly interesting, debate. We will probably never really know. All I suggest is that it would be wise to talk to somebody with specialist experience in these fields before deciding what to put in your book.

 

Dick Hardy maintained that Robinson's engines were not so bad as some liked to paint them. The B7s and B3s needed crews that understood them and given them could perform in an admirable manner. His view was that the coal consumption of these machines was not particularly unreasonable when they were handled correctly particularly when referenced against the work being done.
Sadly the "battleship build" B7s suffered from frame cracking. In power output it could never match the Gresley A1 which developed into a rather trouble and vice free design once the problems associated with larger, high powered locomotives became better understood.

 

Cox is an interesting subject in himself. I'm very ignorant of matters beyond the GWR, and I've only read one book of his, Chronicles of Steam. I also have a predilection to be biased against the Riddles team, but the impression I have is that the book in question is distinctly self serving, and that Cox was not nearly as open to ideas from outside the LMS/L&Y axis as he thought he was. Glancing through the book again its remarkably silent on the eastern lines.

We should also reflect that its not unknown for management to select the "independant" external consultants who are most likely to deliver the conclusions they want, nor for external consultants to tailor their report towards what their customers want to hear. I've been guilty of it myself in the past: presenting the data absolutely honestly, but in the text tending to downplay the conclusion which wasn't what the customer wanted to hear. I found it a remarkably easy trap to fall into, and possibly others have not been immune.

Another thing occurs to me. It seems to be considered by at least some sources, I think, that those we regard as the great men of the 20thC GWR, Pole and Churchward, were not nearly as well regarded by the GWR directors as they have been by historians and enthusiasts. Is it possible that Gresley, an equivalently great figure, was similarly unappreciated by his directors, and Thompson's actions in post and maybe even his appointment reflect that? Indeed something like that might be behind the commissioning of the report. I offer this as unfounded speculation of course, but it might be an avenue worth eliminating?

So clearly the report is valuable, but maybe also in context as well as content?

 

Having read all this, I have come to the conclusion that the only person who could research and come up with an unbiased account of the facts is someone who has absolutely no interest in preserved steam locos.

Therefore Gentlemen, you are all wasting your time.

 

I do not have the book to hand but I have read that when asked by Thompson to give an opinion on Gresley's derived motion, Stanier replied simply that he would not have used it himself. Read into that what you will but it's not exactly an outright condemnation of the gear.

 

Well, thank you kindly. I suppose I should throw all my efforts and work on the fire then?