Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

Gresley was CME in UK.
OK.
Where did FINEST come from?
Nobody else in UK made three cylinder conjugated minerals
UP in USA conjugated on 4-12-2s and regretted.
I think Thompson was a better engineer and almost got the salvation of P2s right.



I was invited to write my thoughts here.
Preservation is a psyco minefield

 

I would recommend delegating that to software wherever possible, but I realise that that is easier said than done!

When I was a student I used the typesetting programs LaTeX and BiBTeX, which handle referencing and cross-referencing flawlessly at the cost of being very prescriptive about appearance (unless you are an expert, or rather, a TeXpert). I don't think I have found any application since, though, that handles book-length text with complex noting and referencing without some sort of problems (although I have heard good things about Scrivener).

Given where you are in the project, I would not recommend swapping tools right now!

 

That's a fair point, but if author and editor (and publisher) are on the same page from the start regarding the style of book to be produced, it shouldn't be a problem.

 

I’d suggest that if it is a question of house style, it may say something not altogether good about the publisher.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Gresley was CME in UK. OK. Where did FINEST come from?

Before Gresley became CME of the LNER he was (1) An LNWR Premium Apprentice under Francis Webb at Crewe (2) an L&YR pupil under John Aspinall at Horwich Works (3) graduated through the Carriage & Wagon Department to become Works Manager at L&YR's Newton Heath Works (4) became Carriage & Wagon Superintendent with the Great Northern Railway at Doncaster then (5) succeeded Henry A Ivatt as CME of the GNR to (6) become CME of the LNER on the recommendation of John G Robinson - the preferred candidate for the post at the 1923 Grouping. In post he continued developing the locomotive fleet with many successful designs whilst also ordering locomotives to designs of CMEs from the pre-Grouping companies; this included his continued interest in electrification and his design of the first EM1 (BR Class 76) Bo-Bo that saw service in Holland during the post WWII restoration of railways.

Finest is an objective phrase but suffice to say that the directors of the LNER considered Gresley so highly that his 100th Pacific locomotive was endowed with his name - the first living CME to be so honoured IIRC

Nobody else in UK made three cylinder conjugated minerals

Just because no-one else did, it does not define the 3-cylinder mineral engine as a lever to criticise unfavourably. Until Gresley only J.G. Churchward had built a Pacific Locomotive - and an unsuccessful one according to Churchward himself - so does that disqualify Churchward from also being considered as one of the UK's finest CMEs ? Note also that Robert Riddles introduced the 2-10-0 to the UK as a freight design but no-one else designed such a large locomotive; is this a good reason to disqualify Riddles from being considered as one of the UK's finest CMEs - especially given his work creating the BR Standard family of designs in post-war UK ?

UP in USA conjugated on 4-12-2s and regretted.

Any locomotive is only as good as its operation and maintenance is concerned. Many in the UK have no knowledge of USA operating requirements and maintenance standards hence it is unequal to compare UK with USA standards but the fact that the Gresley / Holcroft conjugated valve gears operated successfully for over 40 years on his Pacific designs and were only replaced for operating reasons (i.e. introduction of diesel traction) rather than mechanical problems suggests that the USA standards were at fault.

I think Thompson was a better engineer and almost got the salvation of P2s right.

Thompson might have been a better engineer - especially given that Gresley entrusted him to undertake design modifications on the Great Eastern locomotive stock based at Stratford and overhauled at Stratford Works but you are still comparing Gresley the Designer with Thompson the Engineer hence the inequality of your argument IMHO. In the case of the P2s Gresley put the various components together (including 2-8-2 wheel arrangement) as a designer whilst Thompson rebuilt them with a different set of components (including 4-6-2 wheel arrangements) and the ungainly (IMHO) NER arrangement of cylinders between the leading bogie wheelsets whilst the later Peppercorn improvements re-arranged the cylinders between the bogie and the Driving wheels to provide a neater design.

I was invited to write my thoughts here.

You have accepted that invitation but have lost much support for Thompson by criticising Gresley in a manner that suggests you have little empathy with him or his work. By so doing you fail to understand both the continuum of design work as Gresley sought to build on the work of the CMEs from the pre-grouping companies that were melded into the LNER and the continuum of development continued by Thomson - and later by Peppercorn - to relate the current locomotive fleet to the operating needs of the day. Both Gresley and Thompson faced different needs according to the times in which they had CME responsibilities and each had different solutions for the problems which arose ; neither was better than the other because the operating needs were different hence different solutions were required.

Preservation is a psyco minefield

A Psycho is a mindless killer (of reputations) with no emotion about the arguments for his "victims"; you cannot garner support for Thompson by destroying Gresley as by so doing you weaken your own argument(s) in support of Thompson. If Thompson is to have credibility as a CME it is by comparison with, not destruction of, his peer group - including Gresley.


Whilst I admit undying loyalty to Gresley and his reputation whilst viewing Thompson as a less successful CME I am not prepared to consider Thomson a failure per se. In accepting he made mistakes - as did Gresley - his term of office was too short to allow him any opportunity to correct them and IMHO his term of office is best illustrated by his success in designing the B1 4-6-0 and his failure in designing the L1 2-6-4T classes. In that context I look forward to reading S.A.C. Martin's thesis to present a more considered opinion of the man and his work.

 

I would agree with the problems regarding referencing which people won't understand until they have had to bloody well do it ! I would also agree regarding the time it takes to research Company minute books, I did some work on a certain canal company and only looking at the minute books for a 5-6 year period in the late 18th century took 4-5 days at the National archives, whilst tedious I did have about half a day left at the end to look at something more interesting stuff regarding the GWR on the Clients time!

Cards on table, I have no dog in this fight, but I do find the almost Messianic approach by certain posters to Gresley a little odd, I strongly admire the GWR engineers, but I can easily identify faults in all of them and whilst I think that Brunel was a genius, he was at best an extremely flawed one! Us copper tops get a lot of stick on here, but on this topic I don't think we can come close the you LNER types ability to start a fight in an empty room about happenings 80 odd years ago.

Any well researched (and referenced) work which aids peoples understanding of history is to be applauded and to discount it out of hand if it doesn't immediately comply with an ingrained opinion is short sighted at best.

 

Regarding only Gresley using conjugated gear on goods engines, he patented his gear and that would have been a disincentive to others from using it even if Gresley did not intend it that way. He was not alone in seeking his own solutions to problems as he saw them.
Thompson was the only UK CME to build 3-cylinder Pacifics with divided drive but equal length connecting rods. Does this make him a bad engineer because nobody else followed his ideas?
The UP 9000 class was not as unsuccessful as you seem to be suggesting. 88 were built of which only 8 had the Gresley gear removed, the rest either having roller bearings in the gear as built or modified with them at a later date. The maintenance problems were largely to do with the third cylinder rather than the Gresley gear. They were in service for around 30 years, not a bad record in the USA, and successfully raised freight speeds from 40mph to 50mph. Hardly a disastrous record.

 

I don't need to imagine oiling the motion of a T3, having done it. Not to be recommended (unless you get the fireman to do it.)

 

Of course a number of CME's weren't even locomotive engineers .....................

 

Was it worse than on a LNWR 0-8-0?Or the T2?
Would it have been easier if the T3 had been three Walscharts?

 

The Super D has Joy gear so there is relatively more room. I've never had the privilege(?) of oiling up a GW 4 cylinder loco but I reckon that would be similar to the T3 in terms of accessibility. With them all though, if you set them right you can get up between the ashpan/firebox and the axle and reach the big ends and eccentric straps.

 

Even if the author is in the fortunate position of being able to choose between publishers, and even if such detail were in the contract on offer (it is not IME) just like steam locomotive design and whether one will have 2, 3 or 4 cylinders and 2, 3 or 4 sets of valve gear, a perfect solution will not be on offer, one must simply pick the compromise that looks most reasonable in the circumstances. It may be, of course, that an author will keep a list of references, even if they didn't make it into print, so a polite enquiry might bear fruit.

 

I found MS Word adequate in the end, although it took a fair bit of study to get my head round it, plus a fair bit of argument with an editor who did not have the same sort of IT background. It would be a hell of a job to bolt it all in afterwards though.
I would much rather have used Adobe, but their change to annual licenses was unacceptable to me.

 

I also use Word, although it gets a bit clunky when fully loaded with images and file sizes of c. 500mb.(that is probably an advantage of desk top publishing packages, which save the images separately like web files). Footnotes are not a problem in Word, with the proviso that it is not clear how it decides to be one (full width) or two columns width, as it does not always pick up its cue from the adjacent text. I suspect most users' issues would be around formatting, breaks and page numbering. I self-publish because I doubt anyone would offer to publish my books and, more importantly, that way I retain control of production values and image quality. You cannot rely on third party editing. You may find for instance that some editors have no concept of image sizing: they see it as something to make sure there is the right amount of text on each page, whereas images should be sized relative to the amount of detail e.g. you don't want a life size image of a shed plate and a thumbnail of a panoramic shot of a shed yard. Also, if one peruses the many books on offer, some image reproduction is execrable. If self-publishing, IMHO you really have to bite the bullet and pay for Photoshop and Acrobat (the pdf maker which comes with Word is not really up to it, and you will find you need to edit the pdf) on subscription (you can go the whole hog and get an omnibus package which includes InDesign and a number of other packages, but that is probably c.£100 a month).

 

Much of what you say I agree with, but I disagree on the L1 being in any way a "failure". A failure is the Paget machine. A failure is Leader. A failure is the Kitson-Still locomotive. I could go on...

The L1 class was built mostly post war, with austerity measures, and was only withdrawn when dieselisation swept the railway. Were they excellent locomotives? No. Were they terrible locomotives? Again, no, they were somewhere in-between, with faults known and fixed as the years went on.

I personally do not believe that any of the Thompson designed locomotives built was in any way a "failure". At worst, they were mediocre. But they did the jobs asked of them. That at the end of the day, is what makes a locomotive useful to the railway - is it capable of doing the job asked of it. Since none of the Thompson locomotives was found to be incapable of pulling trains, I submit that none of them were failures.

 

Apologies Steve - perhaps I should have put failure in quote marks given that the L1 class was reportedly the least successful of his designs albeit successful in that they lasted until being replaced by dieselisation. I suppose that at one level a possible comparison between Gresley's N2 Class and Thompson's L1 class might provide an interesting comparison given that IIRC they worked the same services.

 

Steve?

Simon

(No worries, should probably put it as the main name).

Re Thompson’s least successful designs - B3/3 (although favoured by JF Harrison) only lasted to 1949. Cracked frames. B1 type spares used on B1 and O1 locos.

The D class was damaged in a heavy shunt in 1952 and scrapped. Boiler and tender went into spares pool.

Other than that, all other locos had reasonable working lives.

 

N2 and L1 is not in same tractive effort class.
Fairburn/Stanier/Fowler 2-6-4s were better for examining aptness of Thompsons skill.
It is a shame that no interchange trials of 2-6-4s were made with road tests,Rugby test plants etc.
If there are other than me believing in Thompson,we should unite and complain to WIKI.
Try Googling LNER L1 and be ready for Thompson contempt.
Gresley was once taken from somewhere in France to Paris,visiting Chapelon.
The Nord Pacific failed,anew locomotive put on and they arived on time.
The locomotive was a 2-8-2 surburban tank with 1550mm drivers.

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6482666t/f1.item.r=

The Wiki lie that Thompson put to small wheels on L1s is defaming and should be removed.

 

Not quite, Fred. The N2s were used mainly on the inner suburban services from Kings Cross/Moorgate to Hatfield and Hertford North. The L1s (of which a number were based at Hitchin) were used on the outer suburban services KX to Hitchin and Cambridge. Not sure if they regularly worked to Peterborough, perhaps a bit far for their water capacity. By the noise they made known locally to me on the GN line as 'Concrete Mixers'.

 

Before leaping to the defence of the L1s, I suggest you speak to those who had to drive, fire and operate them.
According to a friend of mine who fired them, they became very rough riders in a short space of time.
The fact that BR tried some modifications in an attempt to improve matters shows that they were far from perfect.