Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

Completely wrong. If I was of that mind set I wouldn't be paying good money to travel behind 61306 on Sunday. I happen to think he designed a pretty good 5MT in the B1.

 

I take that point - happily - so why are you so aggressive and completely unreceptive to the idea that he wasn't doing everything out of spite, as has been oft repeated, and that maybe he was justified in some (not all) of his actions?

 

The salient point there is whether he was doing anything out of spite. To accept that he did some things out of spite means that all his decisions have to be at least considered in the light of such bias.

 

I think there's enough evidence to suggest he was not completely without rationale for his actions - and the evidence certainly points that he may have been justified in the context of the time to make these changes to the LNER.

To be perfectly frank, the only decision where I could accept an accusation of spite is probably the choice of 4470 - but on further research I find I also disagree there too, albeit accepting it was, if not spiteful, very thoughtless in a number of ways and probably ill advised.

What I really need to do is to go out and investigate the use of conjugated valve gear in the 30s and 40s, to give a more informed and balanced opinion on a) its use on the LNER and b) whether Thompson was right and justified to abandon it (at present I believe he was, but that is up for debate).

Anyone have any specific titles they think I should read? Happy to consider all and any sources.

 

If you haven't already, read Holcroft "Locomotive Adventure" (especially part 1) which gives the background to the idea, covers the Gresley - Holcroft discussions about it prior to Gresley's first 3 cylinder loco, and also covers the specific criticism Holcroft had of the Gresley implementation (specifically, that the inside valve events would be effected by expansion of the valve spindle as it heated up) and the specific design measures the SR took both to obviate that problem and make any subsequent conversion to three independent sets of valve gear easier - a wise precaution as it turned out.

I'm sure others will have other good references.

Tom

 

If you are to write a book that re-examines Thompson's work, rather than rehashing existing works (many of which are aimed at enthusiasts and not mechanical engineers), I suggest that you use as much source material as possible. Try the NRM which has a huge archive from the LNER, and the Minutes of Proceedings of the Institution of Locomotive Engineers, which are in the National Archive. You are probably already aware of the Steam Index site which has links to material useful to both amateur enthusiasts and engineers.

Gresley: http://www.steamindex.com/people/gresley.htm

Thompson: http://www.steamindex.com/people/thompson.htm

 

Thank you both, much appreciated. I've used Search Engine a number of times but was unaware I could get the minutes for the ILE proceedings. Most useful and will take advantage of that.

 

I've never said he was completely irrational but there is usually more than one rational option, so rational actions can still be influenced by bias.

Difficult to prove either way, though for something to be thoughtless, you need to be sure no thought was involved. If ET was asked to change it and he disagreed for whatever reason, then thought was definitely involved and it becomes a concious decision in the face of resistance; which may or may not be spiteful

You probably need to go back to the first use of the gear in that form in the O2 2-8-0. There was some development early on, I think, particlularly on the K3
I do wonder if it was used as an excuse, to a certain extent, for ET to get an opportunity to develop his own ideas. ET didn't like it (possibly because it was Gresley's signature idea? possibly because the lack of absolute precision offended his sensibilities? possibly because he thought it really was wrecking the bearings?), and it was blamed for the bearing problems, but once Cox disproved the link to the bearings except in a minor way, the need to abandon it became less, irrespective of the wartime wear. The Cox/Stanier report certainly appeared to give him carte blanche to change it, (due, at least in my opinion, to flawed assessment and reasoning - see above posts), but the lack of will to find a cure for the premature wear until 1945 seems almost wilful. I'd almost ask if he really wanted to find a cure. I know it seems odd, but if the gear had stopped wearing out quickly the whole reason for changing to three sets of gear would have been lost and the Cox report made to look silly.

One could put together a whole train of reasoning which paints ET in a much worse light than has so far been the case. You really wouldn't like it, but it is internally logical.

I think I've quoted most of mine already - there have been others, but I don't have them myself so can't quote from them.

 

One thing is for sure. When ever Edward Thompson is brought up people are polarised for and against him. What's more I can't think of any other C.M.E. from the Big four or their immediate Pre-Grouping predecessors in the same post, who were as vilified as he is/was.

 

On the contrary. For many years there were only views against Thompson. It's taken Peter Graftons revised editions and Dick Hardys recollections to question the populist views and accounts, and ask if they are fair.

Maybe at the end of all this I'll conclude Thompson was wrong. But at least it'll be after trying to find out as best I can, the closest to the truth I can muster, and itll be looking at both sides of the story and trying to give a balanced opinion. I may fail in that but I'm damn well going to try.

 

I sincerely hope you can do this with "engineering eyes"! Nock in Gresley Pacifics p 35 mentions the use of
high tensile nickel-chrome steel for weight savings. So Gresley could miss the ton weight of an extra inside
Walschaert like a tooth ache! The replacement by simple, easy accessible and maintainable equipment is imho
very sound engineering!! The problems mentioned in the Cox report were all solved some time later, so what
wise hindsight do we really have?
Kind regards
Jos Koopmans

 

To challenge a couple of these points:
According to the P2 website (the photograph of the failed crank axle) there was only one third of the original cross section remaining before failure occurred. This implies a safety factor of 200% - hardly significant under-engineering.
The cause of the failures was fatigue cracking.

Something was either causing or permitting the cracks to form and then propagate until failure inevitably occurs. The P2 website lays the blame firmly on the design of the keyway, with stress multiplication occurring at the sharp corner.

So what to do? Thompson would have had access to this information and could have simply redesigned the keyway. If he wanted to demonstrate that his ideas of three sets of valvegear were superior, he could have modified one of the class and conducted proper back to back trials. He could even have modified one as pacific and used this as a test bed to prove his ideas.

Did he do any of those things? No, he embarked on a wholesale rebuilding of the entire, albeit small, class without any evidence that this was the correct solution.
Also this ignores the pony truck design, which I believe Thompson had already decided to abandon on the L1 design, and he could easily have made this improvement to the P2 class.

When you look at at actions like these, can anyone really be surprised that history has judged him so badly?

 

I don't think it is as simple as that. Don't forget, this is only one area in which the P2s were reportedly not adequate. Hot axle boxes, reputed track spreading and the same wear in the conjugated motion as other classes. Throw the crank axle failure into the mix - and specifically, more crank axles failures in a small class of six locomotives than in a fleet of 70+ locomotives (the A3s) fitted with the same type, and the story doesn't look good overall for the P2s. Then the question of how they were utilised and fuel consumption and things get a bit hazier.

Why re-design the keyway if the intention is to do away with the conjugated valve gear altogether - Thompson had a report which backed him on this move and even suggested rebuilding a number with three separate sets of valve gear.

So he carried that out, albeit, according to RCTS 2A and East Coast Pacifics at Work, not before a number of different drafts including the original "Class A" 6ft 2in Pacific (page 97 of the latter book) which looks distinctly Gresley-like. By dividing the drive and going for equal length connecting rods, subsequent versions became more like French and GWR practice and eventually ended up with a concept similar to what became class A2/2 - made from rebuilding the P2s.

In some respects, a great use of resources to produce a prototype for an intended new class, but (and I accept this because I agree with it) a shame that a class which in hindsight had much potential had to be lost. I don't believe there was any "spite" in deciding to rebuild the A2/2s and do think Thompson on the face of it was justified in carrying it out. The report by Stanier does lead credence to that.

That is precisely what he did and the results were published in The Railway Magazine. No.2005 - later 995 - and then later 505 - Thane of Fife was trialled alongside the original P2s after rebuilding. No.2005 was rebuilt November 1942 to January 1943, and then compared with the P2s from January on the same work until September 1943 when the rebuilding of the rest of the P2 class was authorised.

I have found a number of other contemporary sources and on the whole, they are quite positive about the merits of the original A2/2. There is of course some expected (and to be fair, warranted) sadness at the rebuilding of one of Gresley's engines, but there's a lot more positivity in the rebuilt locomotive than there was at the original no.2005.

This is incorrect. Not just because 2005 was used comparatively and results taken against the originals, but also because the problems - as I believe they were perceived - were in fact "solved".

If the problems were, in no particular order:

1. Fuel consumption
2. Broken crank axles
3. Overheating axleboxes
4. Wear and subsequent problems with the conjugated valve gear
5. Reputed track spreading

The A2/2s were not as heavy on coal: the coal consumption was brought down from the mid and high 70lb per mile to the 50s and early 60s. No A2/2 ever suffered a broken crank axle in its lifetime. Overheating axle boxes were rare. With three sets of independent walschaerts gear, the problems of the conjugated motion (as known at the time) were eliminated. The pacific format did not produce the "track spreading" the class was reputed for (but I have always suspected this was part and parcel of the problems with the pony truck). If we agree he in theory solved all of those problems, it is fair to say that Thompson succeeded and the rebuilding of the P2s was a success. It eliminated all of these reported problems.

Where he failed was actually completely missing the point and potential of the P2s. The eight coupled wheelbase with 6ft 2in driving wheels could have been improved. I'm not convinced that - as on the Peppercorn machines to follow - Thompson couldn't have fitted three sets of walschaerts to the P2s and retained the wheelbase as is, with a replacement pony truck.

This is effectively what the P2 Trust is doing, but they are only aware of the full extent of the pony truck problems through the use of Deltarail's software.

And yes - due to the way the cylinders were mounted (three separate cylinders instead of a mono bloc) and the way the frames were made from bolting a new end onto the cut P2 frames - other problems manifested themselves on the A2/2s. In eliminating certain problems, Thompson created new ones. However in each version of his Pacific format, the overall building and idea improved. The A2/3s are well thought of in certain quarters and the A1/1 too (but only if you eliminate its identity from the equation and focus on its performance as a unique locomotive).

We should remember that Thompson's intention was to produce a mixed traffic Pacific - so he converted a mikado which - if everyone, Gresley supporters too - are being fair and honest, did show a number of problems all of which added up to produce a non standard locomotive class that was not getting the mileage it should have been getting and was also being utilised poorly.

How much of what we know about the P2s problems was perceived in the manner we now understand them isn't easy to define - and I think both Gresley and Thompson showed some ignorance when looking at the P2s and their problems. Maybe - and I accept this - some wilful ignorance on both their parts.

However we have the benefit of the P2 Trust's work to examine the problems carefully and present solutions that weren't available to Gresley, Thompson or Peppercorn. So we should bear this in mind when we examine the P2s more closely. They remain one of my favourite classes - flawed yes, but a cracking idea, arguably not as well carried out as they should have been, and then lost to war and a change in locomotive policy. Their demise is understandable, I feel, even if I disagree wholeheartedly with Thompson on the rebuilding itself.

But this is with the benefit of hindsight. The pony truck design Thompson employed and which was fitted on the V2s in addition to a number of other classes, was based on the Stanier 8F and only came about (as I understand it looking at the building dates of Stanier 8Fs at Doncaster, from which the new design was derived with close attention to those being built) after the P2s had been rebuilt. It is entirely possible given the way the V2 class and its own pony truck problems were handled that no one at the time - so the late 30s and early 1940s - realised the pony truck was a problem in the way the P2 Trust subsequently have found it was. That's not a fault of Gresley or Thompson in my opinion: sometimes you can't see the wood for the trees.

When you consider all the facts, it does not excuse the vitriolic and one sided manner that has presented itself over a number of years, no.

Particularly when little research is undertaken and most sources seem happy to make use of hearsay (I still can't quite get over OS Nock's dismissal of the report and how at odds his reporting of a report he had never read was with the actual report's contents!)

 

Wasn't one of the problems the way Gresley saw a problem and immediately produced a new design - even if it only meant a small number of non-standard locos were built? When really there was a need for a larger number of locos which could be used all over the company's lines - eg LMS Class 5, GWR 43xx and Halls, Thompson B1

 

The purpose of the keyway would have been to locate the driving wheel on the axle, so nothing to do with conjugated valvegear.

Fair enough, although a better comparison would have been against a modified P2, with simpler solutions to the problems.

1. I understand the excessive fuel consumption was only really an issue with 2001 as built with poppet valves.
2. Solved by neutering the locomotives, rather than dealing with the design faults with the axles.
3. Could have been solved by replacing the pony truck. The shortcomings of the originals were known in 1943.
4. Done to death - replace with internal Walschearts if deemed necessary.
5. See reply 3. I accept that the modern analytical techniques employed by the trust were not available then. However for a big 8-coupled loco the design was surprisingly compact. the coupled wheelbase was less than the GWR 47xx, and only three feet longer than a jinty. Not sure how tight the curves on the Aberdeen route actually were, but I am surprised that track spreading on the main line was such a problem.

Agreed, although where is it said that three sets of walschearts couldn't be fitted?

Again, I am sure the problems and solutions to the pony truck issue were fully understood in 1943, even though they were not acted upon until after the war.

I completely agree. I am note seeing spite or vindictiveness, but a vanity project that should not have happened, certainly in the way it did.

As ever my disclaimer as a non-engineer - happy to be shot down in flames over any of this.

Dave

 

What on earth are you expecting? Nock was never shown the report by ET, so he extracted as much information as he could and reported that. What else was he supposed to do? If his report differs from the actual report, it is the person who told him, not Nock himself who is at fault. Considering no one seems to have seen the report other than Stanier/Cox/ ET and the Directors, it is likely that ET told him. Why do you persist in complaining about Nock?

I'm just as amazed by the report as you, particularly the bias I see in it, as I have already explained.

You say you are hoping to take a balanced view, but I still don't see it. This isn't a court of Law, where the benefit of the doubt should be given in the case of lack of direct evidence. This is more like a civil court, where balance of probability holds sway. If most people say one thing it is likely to be at least close to the truth, and if a series of events tie together they are likely to be what happened. If you want to make a name for yourself as a bona fide historian, you will have to accept that if the bulk of the evidence (direct or otherwise) is against ET, then you have to accept it. Even that could make a good book.

You appear to have begun this excersise in an attempt to rehabilitate ET, but to be taken seriously you will have to question everything, including, especially including your own wishes and prejudices, or you risk producing, not a useful historical document, but a fanboi's revisonist rant.

Sorry to get a little heavy here, but I do actually want you to produce a book that tells the truth, whatever that truth is.

 

hi simon,

a reasoned assessment of Thompson requires an ability to judge the engineering and design factors of what he did and didnt do.

i am afraid to say that most of your posts over the last week have shown that you dont have the requisite knowledge to be able to carry out this task. you seem to have considerable difficulty in interpreting primary source documentation when it doesnt agree with your hypothesis. either you are playing 'devils advocate' or you are barking up completely the wrong tree. or perhaps cant see the wood for the trees! apart from the B1 (which in any event was a cobbled together assembly of existing standard parts, and a pretty rough rider with heavy axle box wear and no adjustable horncheeks, and the thinnest frames ever used on a large loco) everything else Thompson did or failed to do when in office doesnt paint him in a very good light. the evidence against him is somewhat overwhelming!

the Dick Hardy stuff by the way is a case of the 'old school tie' - something else most would find objectionable about Thompson. preferential treatment for the young Mr Hardy because he went also to Marlborough.

cheers,
julian

 

Because I have read a large number of books by him and taken from those sources a large number of quotations regarding that report. Over a period of thirty years the manner in which OS Nock wrote on Thompson changed significantly. The tone towards Thompson became more critical and a few of the later quotations add more questions.

Here's the bit I have to question.

The report we have is critical and the language we could argue is damning on a number of levels towards Gresley's designs. You would cite that as bias against Gresley.

We've had a number of people cite that other engineers were equally critical of Gresley. I asked an actual engineer in the LNER fraternity about the conjugated valve gear - he reckons the LNER were the only company in the entire world using conjugated valve gear throughout a fleet of locomotives by 1940, all others having abandoned it in their new designs.

If - as you intimate below (but I disagree with!) the populist view is correct - then the fact that everyone else was using one type of valve gear and Gresley wasn't says that either the rest of the world was wrong or Gresley was.

(For the record, I don't think he was wrong. I think circumstances changed and traffic demands called for different engineering. But the V4 is proof that Gresley would not change his engineering stance and the B1 is proof that - everything else aside - Thompson was right to abandon 3 cylinder propulsion, whether conjugated or not - for all small and medium locomotives being built new on the LNER.

The populist view is not always factual, and in the case of Thompson, there has been more than a little bit of only one side of the story being aired. If I must accept that Thompson could/is wrong - and I do - then you must also accept (because it is true) that more than a little vitriol, much of it completely unnecessary and more to the point, with little basis in fact, has been aimed at Thompson.

However I fully accept that I must do better and I will strive to.

I do accept that the bulk of the "evidence" is against Edward Thompson. But would you - or could you - accept that some of the "evidence" could be based on false perceptions, or even mistaken interpretations of events?

I mean we've already identified a number of points where it is not clear cut.

Ten years ago, I was bought a book called British Pacific Locomotives. In this book by Cecil J. Allen, the Thompson Pacifics occupy a very small number of pages. Cecil J. Allen dismissed them almost entirely. A friend pointed out the aggression behind the writing of that chapter compared to the others. I was curious as to why. I had always been told that Edward Thompson was no good, a nasty little man who looked to destroy all things Gresley. I started doing some research.

In ten years, my view has changed completely and to be frank, whilst I will strive to give both sides of the story, there is a part of me which feels let down by the anti-Thompson side of the LNER enthusiasts which have written on LNER history. Aside from a few cases, as I perceive it, the only balanced reporting of Thompson's tenure comes from contemporary reports and where people outside of the LNER fraternity have written on him. You say I have bias; perhaps I do, perhaps I need to overcome them. Perhaps there is also some truth in what I found.

Don't apologise for what is an honest appraisal of how you view things. I prefer honesty and straight to the point posts, and have appreciated your commentary and debate. It makes for lively evenings and it makes one think. It is, as my friends would say, "all good!"

Absolutely, which is why I set up this thread here, have taken detailed notes, asked for sources, asked people who do know, and have tried to put together an understanding for myself.

I appear to have a lot more knowledge on the subject than you have shown, I'm afraid. But I am happy to state that I don't know it all, I am always learning, and as I always have done, I will change my view based on the evidence available to me.

If you could quote some examples I'd be happy to go over my thinking. However on a number of occasions you have given up an opinion, I have given my interpretation and then you have - none too politely I might add on occasion - rebuked me or looked to undermine me because I disagreed and offered an alternative viewpoint.

I've given sources, book references, and even provided an entire report I have typed up when a copy was provided to me: you have provided no sources at any time and only repeated - doggedly - various viewpoints about how Thompson was no good, how the B1 was the only good one and even then blah blah blah…when there is evidence, both written and verbally available from people who were there, that this is not the whole story.

Case in point.

Words fail me. There is evidence - not that you would care to look for it, read it, or even when presented with it - that this was not the case at all. I wonder what Dick Hardy would make of that?

At the end of the day Julian, you clearly have your mind made up, so this thread is not for you. Perhaps you could leave it at that?

I will remain open to evidence and persuasion, but I would also state - defending myself somewhat - if I feel that a criticism is unwarranted, then I will look to evidence why. I am allowed some right of reply, no? If I am wrong then let my words show me to be wrong.

Yes, I think a fresh look at the manuscript is definitely in order on a number of levels. Particularly as I feel there is within this thread clear evidence that, whatever misdemeanours you may believe Thompson committed, he has not ever deserved the derision, hatred and vitriol aimed at him.

He indeed may be worthy of criticism regarding his locomotives; he may not be a good or average engineer, but we are talking about someone who is not some one dimensional cardboard cut out villain as any number of LNER enthusiasts and writers would have you believe. Edward Thompson was human, and perhaps if people bothered to look up his personal life, and try to understand Thompson the person more, they could see that the story of Thompson the engineer: Thompson the CME is not so clear cut as we've all been led to believe.

Peter Grafton did a great job in trying to provide that other side of the story. He didn't go far enough I believe. It's up to me - and others like me - to challenge the preconceived and entrenched views and question them. If they hold up to objective scrutiny, then they should stay. If they do not - and let's be fair, there's several things which clearly do not stand up to scrutiny in terms of criticism of Thompson - then surely they should be struck from the record?

I feel passionately about this because I had no interest in it at all until someone, who wasn't a railway enthusiast, asked me why my British Pacific locomotives book was so aggressive towards Thompson. I didn't know and I wanted to find out. Here we are, 40 pages later, and I feel like there's been interesting discussion and lots of eye openers - both good and bad on both sides. Perhaps there is hope after all.

 

I' m dubious about weight saving. With the conjugated gear, the two outside sets have to be strong enough to operate three valves, and so presumably somewhat heavier than if they were only operating two valves.

 

Last one for this evening.

Forgive me: I was not clear. The overall layout of the front end would have been changed by fitting three sets of walschaerts, and with the intention to replace the conjugated valve gear and use divided drive, it is entirely possible that the keyway issue on the crank axle was simply overlooked - because as far as they were concerned, they were solving the problem by removing several potential sources of the problem. If that makes sense?

We are coming at this from the idea that they wanted to modify the P2s further - Gresley stopped work on modifying the P2s himself at one point so perhaps Thompson continued - wrongly in hindsight - the view that they could not be developed further.

My notes state that the average fuel consumption of all six streamlined engines prior to rebuilding was in excess of 70lb per mile in normal service and there's a few sources including Peter Townend's excellent volumes quoting these figures.

I fully accept and agree that this was an extreme solution - it is still a solution. Not one I - or you - or anyone would contemplate ourselves, but nevertheless changing the Mikado to a Pacific solved several of the main issues. This also reduced the adhesion factor and meant the locomotives did not have the same ability they had previously.

Could you provide a source for this? My notes on this point may be inaccurate and I am anxious that I am wrong on this point that it should be corrected. It looks as if the pony truck was a known problem on specific classes - would the P2 have been included, given it was the same design? Contemporary sources I have don't seem to mention the pony truck but they do mention the wheelbase amongst other things.

Absolutely.

I am intrigued by the use of the word "compact".

That may well be but the P2, unlike the 47xx does also have a cartazzi at the rear. The overall length of the entire locomotive and its ability to negotiate curved track is going to be less than the 47xx simply on this basis, no?

Which has one axle less? Not sure why the Jinty is a relevant comparison.

I am in two minds - I think it was a potential issue, may even have happened on occasion, but has potentially been overplayed too.

What I actually said is that I couldn't believe Thompson couldn't fit three sets of walschaerts - but then he had a thing for equal length connecting rods so I suppose that factors into it.

Thank you for your considered thoughts David.