P2 Locomotive Company and related matters

I'm quite sure that A.H. Peppercorn had his own ideas of what his Pacific would be even if ET hand't succeeded Gresley. Just a pity he's not around to ask what influences his predecessors had on his thinking.
As for the V4, design work started before the outbreak of war so it's against that backdrop you must judge at least the commencement of the project. As for the two boilers being different, that's because Gresley wanted to compare one with a thermic syphon against one without. Entirely sensible IMO to establish which was best.

 

We do have that evidence from J.F. Harrison actually: he stated on several occasions that the Peppercorn A1 was a development of the Gresley line of thinking. Conveniently ignoring the lack of conjugated valve gear which had proven so controversial (whether for or against) and which was a hallmark of Gresley to his dying day. I don't feel Harrison's views were entirely fair in that respect. The V4 was a prime example of not changing with the times.

I concede the commencement of the design, however the finished first prototype appeared in 1941, two years into the war when, as ES Cox would evidence with his report, the 3 cylinder Gresley locomotives were struggling with the working conditions. The use of thermic siphons - to me anyway - looked distinctly out of place amongst the war effort, in addition to the use of the specialist steels too. I do not disagree with you on the comparison: but was the middle of the war the time to be trying out such an experimental locomotive with high manufacturing costs?

 

Considering Bulleid got the MNs - complete with thermic syphons et al - built during the height of WW2, the V4 would seem to be an uncomplicated design by comparison. From what I've read there were no advance orders for more V4s nor materials for same before Gresley died so perhaps they were destined to e a class of two no matter who was CME.

 

A fair comparison. Although the differences in the approach of the Southern and LNER boards to new locomotive stock is notable. Thompson only had authorisation for rebuilds or new locomotives incorporating mostly standard parts: Bulleid had an almost clear hand with some creative thinking and accounting to get the "mixed traffic Pacifics" through.

They were signed off as "no further action" by Thompson very early on in his stint as CME, so it is likely that further batches had not been considered by Gresley, most certainly.

 

For my edification, not being well-versed in LNER matters: Did OVSB have any hand in the design of the V4s, or was the design too late for that? Even perhaps some early discussion with Gresley around the basic concept, before detailed design work started? While overall they are clearly a Gresley product, certain features (such as thermic syphons; novel constructional methods to reduce weight etc.) suggest either a Bulleidian influence, or at least independent conception along a set of principals that would have been fully within Bulleid's own thought processes.

Tom

 

Since the two chaps worked together its quite probable they shared discoveries and ideas. Even when Bulleid had gone to the Southern. These Guys including Stanier and probably Maunsell too, did correspond and meet in both a personal and professional capacity, the Telephone had been invented . Certainly by the late thirties a lot of the rivalry and one-up-man-ship had been put aside in favour of cooperation in keeping the railways running against the gathering clouds in Europe.
From the outside in Bulleid was sold on the idea and pressed ahead with it, Gresley was perhaps keen to give it a try on but who knows who saw it first....

 

Bulleid went to the Southern in 1937 and the V4 first appeared in 1941. There's no doubt the V4 was on the drawing board before it emerged for a number of years, so if you gave it two or three years it might be just outside of Bulleid's direct influence on the LNER to Gresley. But as below:

Entirely reasonable to assume they continued to have influences on each other. They met up at the engineers group that Gresley chaired (to his death) and as you say conversed and wrote to each other often. So who used the thermic siphons first? Gresley. Who looked at reducing the weight of a locomotive in that vein? Gresley, but it doesn't also follow that it's inconceivable to think Bulleid might have had a hand in that. His own work thereafter shows a similar line of thinking, if not identical in the respect of taking the principles further (Boxpok wheels etc).

 

It has been written (Colonel Rogers) that the Doncaster Drawing Office deliberately prevaricated with the drawings for the A1 as Thompson's retirement approached by starting with the rear end of the locomotive, so determined were they that the front end arrangements needed improvement. I suspect that these moves would have been made by Chief Draughtsman, Teddy Windle and not Freddie Harrison who was brought down from Scotland by Pepp when he took on.

 

To be perfectly frank, anything that Colonel Rogers says I take with a huge pinch of salt, although it is true that the new A1 was not re-drafted until after Thompson had tired. However it seems very unlikely that they took the A1/1 and simply changed the front end - the A1/1 has more in common with the A4 than the the A1 does with it, and equally the A1 has a lot more in common with the rebuilt P2s and the original P2s than it does with the A1/1 or A4.

In short, I've no doubt the new A1 came to being after Thompson's retirement, but to delay drawing out the front end arrangement? Doesn't seem necessary given the timing of 4470's emergence and then Thompson's retirement only nine months later. Interesting though how the A1/1 and A1 are very different in reality. Particularly at the rear end, never mind the front end! The A1/1 as you know an almost carbon copy of the A4 at the rear with the same boiler and cartazzi arrangements. You could argue the Peppercorn A1 was the same ideas repackaged, as the A1/1: a 3 cylinder Pacific with divided drive, more or less.

 

Are we at risk here in ascribing too much to individual CMEs as opposed to their design teams? Although we don't know much about the dynamics of various drawing offices we do know some. Holcroft tells us that Bulleid at the SR was notably hands on, giving little regard to his senior staff's opinions, whereas Maunsell might take Clayton or Holcroft ideas on different projects as he felt appropriate. Holcroft describes Churchward as being different again, favouring a strong team approach in which he led his staff towards an agreed consensus. Its notorious too that Fowler delegated just about all aspects of locomotive design. If its true that the LNER's drawing office could prioritise work on the less controversial parts of the loco to delay front end design until Thompson retired that tends to suggest that Thompson was less hands on than Bulleid was at the Southern. What do we know about Gresley and his team?

 

I think we're in danger of making assumptions based on preconceptions frankly! Thompson was very hands on. The amount of work -and physical work at that - that went into the B12 re-design for instance, by Thompson and A.E. English, is well documented by Peter Grafton and a few other sources. Thompson spent an inordinate amount of time going round the works he was in charge of (and his manner at Stratford and Doncaster is well documented), and unlike Gresley whose drawing offices were in London, moved the drawing offices to Doncaster for this exact purpose during the war.

Thompson's problem was acute: he was actually too hands on, almost obsessive. The story regarding the desire to use folding discs instead of lamps on some of his engine types is well known and is an example of Thompson being too close to the idea to see the practicalities of carrying it out.

This did however produce some advantages for the personnel in charge of maintenance. Thompson cared for ease of maintenance above all else. It is a shame that this is forgot when his Pacific designs are criticised, where most of them had either a rocking grate or a hopper ashpan, or both in some cases in addition to having separately cast cylinders - which is an advantage for maintenance as you don't need to take the whole front end apart to remove, for example, a monobloc. This causes other issues as you know.

I feel the earlier description of "locomotive engineering is always a compromise" to be very apt.

 

So

So what's any of this to do with the P2.

 

Not a lot.

 

Getting back on topic, further components have been delivered to Darlo, the cab has been trial-fitted and work is progressing on No. 2007's splashers..... did you know it had splashers? Not many do! You can see the latest update here.


Foxy

 

Misery guts!

Mods feel free to move the conversation away as you see fit.

 

In that case that would place further doubt on the story about deliberate prevarication. I assume Thompson knew he wouldn't be in post when the new design was completed. Presumably he was well aware that Peppercorn had differing opinions. I can easily imagine thinking on the lines of "not having a front end I don't like designed on my watch. Let them get on with the other stuff while I'm still here, and they can stuff it up afterwards". It does seem to me that a number of railway writers have a weakness for a good story or a conspiracy (only human nature after all - you want the book to be readable), and sometimes you need to bear that in mind when studying.

 

As Gresley served at Crewe he would be well aware of some fairly advanced ideas. Yes, Webb thought of using cast steel for locomotive frames well before the General Steel Castings Corporation. Unfortunately the cast steel monoblock bed came about in the USA and not here. Webb also experimented to test out new ideas but worked for a company that was better placed to absorb the costs associated with this kind of work than either the GNR or LNER. This gives a little insight into what he experienced whilst serving his time, so to speak, and how this shaped his thinking.
By the time that he had achieved CME position Gresley had a wide range of contacts including Chapelon. All locomotive engineers would be aware of the rebuilt PO 3500 class of the late 1920s and early 30s and the various features that these machines featured - including the thermic syphon. As a forward thinking engineer you would naturally wish to include these, but when finances are to say the least, tight, progress is slow. You might wish to introduce fully welded frames the equivalent of the cast steel bed, but if neither your welding technology nor your workshop development allow for this then you continue to make the best of what you have.
Bulleid was in the Gresley team mix when so many new ideas were known of, being discussed and plans for their adoption or otherwise being discussed. Though the new may excite, there is always the day to day ordinary to deal with, and there are only so many hours - ans so much money.

 

The tenure of Thompson at Doncaster is well worth relating, as he was responsible for the rebuilding of the original P2s. Keep up the good work Mr. M, it is a very interesting subject and it shows that you have conducted some very deep research into this period of British locomotive history. However, don't forget to throw in a bit about liveries now & again, that will please the whingers!!

Cheers,

Alan

 

Simon

The p2 is happening now you have the opportunity to be part of this and even accurately document it's construction , so why
talk about something that happened 70 years ago where the only information is from books which you assume are accurate.

 

I'm a founder member (F103) of the P2 Keith - would you say that's being a part of its story?

Why do I enjoy talking about Thompson? Not all of it is in books. There's been interviews, trips to museums, a trip to a battlefield and even a day out to see one of his B1s up close. I find the research and investigative work fascinating.

Besides, the P2 group are perfectly capable of documenting building the P2 themselves and are doing so with aplomb. The story can be read and seen on their website and Facebook every day. The progress is astonishing and I have every confidence that 2007 is going to be legendary.

You can't tell the P2 story without Thompson I'm afraid: the influence of the P2s goes from Gresley through Thompson and culminates in the magnificent Peppercorn A1.

If by indulging my own interests I can present a different side, a balanced view and perhaps some sense to what is - I also maintain this - a mistake in rebuilding the P2s - then I am contributing in a very minor way.

I've put my £1000 forward for the frames, that'll do for the time being as I try and make a life for myself too.

A friend of mine pointed out I spent roughly half that amount on a ticket on Scotsman...it doesn't bear thinking about!