Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

Interesting. GW Loco cttee minutes tend to be "under circumstances represented it was decided to" and not give you a clue what the circumstances were.

 

LNER Emergency Board in particular were interested in the circumstances. The notes regarding the rebuilding of the P2s, for example, referenced back to previous minutes and the Cox report explicitly, together with acknowledgements of investigations made by members of the board outside of the CME. Very evidence led, which surprised me.

It's why I don't believe the LNER board were in any way surprised that Thompson wanted to make changes as CME, but they had asked him to provide evidence and also for an independent viewpoint to confirm the details.

There were noted worries at locomotive availability even in Gresley's time in 1940 and 1941 - mostly put down to worker displacement from the war and the difficulty in retaining/training personnel to replace the men who had left for war in terms of maintenance. This makes a lot of sense when you look at what regimes were likely in place at all the sheds and works by the time Thompson comes on the scene as CME - the railway is virtually in crisis mode. Not unsurprising given the war, of course (where you lose trained men, and vast amounts of workshop space, literally from the get go in 1939).

I don't believe Gresley was well enough in 1941 to start the process of reorganising the railway's works and staff - that was in fairness left to his deputies in Thompson and Peppercorn. Gresley's absence at meetings in the months immediately prior to his death is notable, Thompson and Peppercorn and Harrison deputised for him on many occasions.

It's also why I think the often held view that the LNER were looking for, or approached other, engineers to take on the CME role is actually an outright lie - the emergency board minutes and what was going on seem to suggest that a form of succession planning had started in late 1940. It is highly likely Thompson was always the choice to take over from Gresley as a result. It may be that they had expected Gresley to retire, and not pass away, but Thompson's swift appointment and the lack of any minutes showing they were approaching anyone (in contrast to how other roles were reported on) says much to me.

Of course, the latter is speculation on my part. The absence of any approaches in the minutes does not mean that nothing happened. However if we were proceeding with an Ombudsman's hat on, and looked at the actual evidence, what would be the most likely truth?

• for all other job roles including chief electrical engineer a process was started and recorded for approaches to individuals
• this did not happen with the CME role
• Thompson was appointed three weeks after Gresley's death, shortly after his funeral and a mourning period
• Thompson was involved with the board - as was Peppercorn - immediately after Gresley's death - and in fact had been prior too for some time
• Everything continues as is for the time being as Thompson reorganises his departments

The whole scenario is a complete contrast to the perceived wisdom that Thompson was second or third choice to other railway's CMEs or other engineers. If he was, then he likely wouldn't have been involved in any of the processes on-going before and after Gresley's death.

He was the most senior engineer after Gresley and had the greatest breadth of experience of all the senior engineers in the company. Thompson had five years left in him, and the board needed someone to keep the railway going. That much is clear.

 

Gresley patented a conjugation gear WW1 and modified two cylinder O1s into three cylinder O2s so he could employ it.
75 tons slow speed mineral engines do not benefit from three cylinders .
There is always a power-loss from using more steam to do same work with a three cylinder engine at mineral speed.
For high speed pacifics the conjugation scheme was a mechanical disaster.
The beauty of Walscharts gear is that the best part of valve work is done by the piston rod droplink and goes almost untaxed to the valve .
There is a lot of iron and mass between outer piston rods and inner valve ditto in the Gresley scheme.
It will be very hard to find a locomotive class that would benefit:the minerals were to slow to need three cylinders and for the fast classes,that has to be three cylindered, it led to self destruction.
Job of Governments/managements is to guard against threats from outside and wild spending inside.
I have read that Thomson was met with We will just proceed with the fantastic inheritance from Gresley and he answered Over my body.

 

So how did the A1/A3s last forty years as front line locos and the A4s the best part of thirty? I am only an amateur but I've read various books by Hardy, McKillop, Townend etc and don't really recognise that picture.

It's a shame we don't have comparable data for the Stanier fleet on the WCML in wartime to what @S.A.C. Martin has unearthed for the LNER fleet. Or do we?

 

Three cylinders no good on freight locos? Best go tell the Germans that the 44 and 58 classes were a waste of time then. And Raven with his T3 0-8-0 obviously got it all wrong.

 

The Germans built ten two cylinder baureihe 43 and ten baureihe 44 both ca 110 tons around 1926.
The 43 was more economical up to ca 1500 drawbar-horsepower and that fitted well with the trafficpattern at that time.
25 more baureihe 43 was built.
The next lot of 44s were built 1937 because freigth train speed had increased and the 43s had had problems with the force from the two 720mm cylinders.
One of the 43 took a 4501 tons train from Lubbenau to Berlin in 1949.Ca 100kilometers
The 44s from 1926did not have conjugated gears.
The baureihe 58 from 1917 had conjugation;
there is maybe a morale somewhere here.
The Raven(my CME role model) would have been in conflict with the loading gauge .
It needed 22,5 inch cylinders if he had gone two cylindered outside
The 58 were reconstructed after WW2 in DDR and the conjugation scrapped.
They got an independent inner Walschart where the quadrant was driven from an outside crank.
http://www.osterthun.com/2.StaticGisbert/G58100-LvFrt.jpg

 

The Elizabethanian ran 632 km in 6.5 hour or 100 km/hour .That was not really fast but long.
A 4-6-0 would have a sour firebed at the end.
LNER pacifics were maybe underutilized for much of their life.

 

One minute three cylinders is no good for freight, next we have problems with forces from two cylinders. Please make up your mind.
Raven is ok with a three cylinder freight loco but HNG isn't? again please make up your mind - two or three?
When it comes to designing locomotives, I'll back Herbert Nigel Gresely over you any time.
Have you a source for a 43 shifting 4500 tons all on its own? That seems an very high tonnage even for a 43.

 

GWR and LMS 2-8-0s were two cylindered and of more or less same mass and tractive effort as o2s.
LNER without Gresley could have done the same and then there was no need for conjugation.
Raven is my hero and beyond reproach.
The 4501 tons stunt is mentioned in ISBN 3-922404-88-x page 23

 

And thus any objectivity goes straight out of the window.
Just imagine oiling the motion of a T3 - six sets of eccentrics and a middle big end squeezed between the frames.
Now oil up the centre motion of am O2 - just the middle big end between the frames and the derived motion all accessible at the front end.

 

The conjugated valvegear was not a mechanical disaster, it just required a degree of maintenance, Gresley could never have forseen the conditions his engines would have to face in wartime. Three cylinders mean a much better balanced machine than two cylinders and I can vouch for that having experienced the side to side motion on the footplate of a poorly maintained 8F, heaven knows what sort of sideway forces it was transferring to the track.

 

Something in the geometry of 2 outside cylindered locos without trailing axles? The Swindon formula (for locos with more than 4 coupled wheels at least) seems to have produced a line of steady enough runners (well, the Black 5's were basically modernised Halls - whoops ..... didn't mean to leave that comment in!) .... or maybe such machines just tended not to be run at the highest rates of knots?

Recall Capt.Tyler's report of 1866 comments about TR loco 'Dolgoch's' susceptibility to excessive 'horizontal motion' .... on a loco which probably hasn't since travelled at the breakneck 20mph attained during BoT tests back then! A Ffestiniog double Ffairlie once reached 40mph .... or so t'is rumoured .... but then again, articulated locos have often been mentioned as smoother riding than their rigid brethren (an accident in S.America involving a double-atlantic Garratt was attributed to the smooth ride fooling the driver into believing he was moving at safe velocity)

Perhaps @marshall5 or another of our number suitably familiar with the IMR Beyer tanks (once allegedly occasionally run at 40+mph or so) might comment on how these beasties behaved back in their prime?

 

A three cylinder locomotive sways MORE than the corresponding two cylinder unless one sacrifices some of the perfect three cylinder longitudinal balance.

 

No conjugation on the T3.
Conjugation was a Gresley egothing
The T3 was constructed when most british locomotives had everything between the frames.
It cannot have been more difficult to lube than a J something
The B16 outlived the B17 by the way

 

The T3 is a direct contemporary of the LSWR S15, a descendent of the H15 (of 1914). The GNR Moguls and 2-8-0s started production in 1913. The SECR N (intended as a heavy freight class) dates from 1917. Regardless of where most British locomotives in service at that time had their motion, the future had already arrived by the time the T3s were being built.

We've been through the question of classes outliving others with you before. Withdrawal dates in Britain had much more to do with geographical distribution, remaining available duties and local policy than any perceived quality of the class. The LSWR O2 (a fine little design for the 1880s, to be sure) outlived everything the Great Western ever built in BR service.

On the question of yaw, if you take the rough assumption that reciprocating mass can be designed in proportion to piston thrust, and keeping the strokes the same, a three cylinder engine does not yaw more than an otherwise identical two-cylinder engine of comparable tractive effort, in fact it does so by an identical amount, assuming an equal percentage balance of reciprocating masses for each cylinder. If it has three cylinders of the same size as the two cylinders, then certainly it will yaw more, but then it's a considerably more potent machine. The difference is that a 3-cylinder engine with no reciprocating balance at all is a Bulleid Pacific, which in this respect worked very well, whereas powerful 2-cylinder engines with <50% reciprocating balance tended to be somewhat unpopular due to longitudinal surging. The only partial exception is the 9F, in which balancing for yaw was omitted entirely, following the example of the Bulleids. It was also tried on a short wheelbase Schools with enough success to be adopted for the Bulleids, so essentially balancing for yaw on 3-cylinder engines didn't matter (but was done anyway on most classes). However, none of that is the cause of the rough riding 8F @Johnb mentioned...

Where powerful 2-cylinder engines really came unstuck, prior to the introduction of manganese steel liners from the '40s onwards, was in hammering their coupled axleboxes with the higher piston thrusts. Brand new B1s on GER mainline express duties needed all their coupled axleboxes re-metalling and re-fitting at about the same frequency as a B17 needed the trailing coupled axleboxes done. Once the axleboxes got loose in the horns, well, then you were in for a rough ride.

 

Bet you it didn't...

 

Narrow gauge doesn’t count

Tom

 

That was a matter of geography. B17s mostly in the former GER area, the first area of the former LNER to have steam eliminated.
B16s were mostly in the former NER area, among the last areas of the former LNER to have steam eliminated.

 

Read what Dick Hardy said about the B17s, they were not Gresley’s best design

 

Wasn't it a case go Gresley saying in effect that they couldn't build a more powerful loco compared to the B12 within the GE Civil Engineer's restrictions (particularly weight) which was why the job got farmed out to N. B. Loco, and even they had to get a relaxation on axle weights.