If you register, you can do a lot more. And become an active part of our growing community. You'll have access to hidden forums, and enjoy the ability of replying and starting conversations.

Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

Discussion in 'Steam Traction' started by S.A.C. Martin, May 2, 2012.

  1. bluetrain

    bluetrain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2019
    Messages:
    1,326
    Likes Received:
    1,460
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Wiltshire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    A most interesting observation. While we enthusiasts can get fixated on details of locomotive and rolling stock design, we have to remember that design was only one of the many onerous responsibilities of a CME. He also had to efficiently run large engineering establishments and ensure the (operationally-critical and safety-critical) maintenance of locos and stock both in the major works and across a dispersed network of local depots.

    In design terms, Gresley had been a major innovator and experimenter who was not afraid to step outside the mainstream, whereas Thompson could be viewed as pulling LNER design into a more orthodox, mainstream direction - the exact opposite of the route that Bulleid on the SR was taking at the same time. But Thompson also seemed to be a man in a hurry - just looking at LNER class lists, I am struck by the number of new classes and sub-classes created by Thompson in a short period under difficult wartime conditions. Some of Thomson's initiatives led to large-scale new construction (especially the B1), some of the rebuilding programmes built up momentum and carried on into early BR days (B16/3, B17-B2, O4-O1) and some petered-out after only a single rebuild. Was Thompson spreading his efforts too thinly across too many projects?
     
    S.A.C. Martin likes this.
  2. S.A.C. Martin

    S.A.C. Martin Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    5,591
    Likes Received:
    9,325
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Asset Engineer (Signalling), MNLPS Treasurer
    Location:
    London
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Spot on. In addition to that, he had to satisfy the demands of the LNER's emergency board, the wartime executive, and the many different work streams at the major locomotive works (e.g. foundries were now turning out armaments instead of railway items).

    The comparison with Bulleid is an interesting one. Thompson seemed to have much more in the form of limitations to what he and his design team were allowed to do.

    Thompson's intention was to withdraw most if not all regrouping locomotives and keep the following 19 classes:

    Non standard (to be maintained): A10 & A3, A4, B17, D49, B16, K3, V2, O4, V1, V3
    New Standard: A1, A2, B1, K1, O1, J11, J50, L1, Q1

    Re sub classes. Many sub classes were created by way of boiler changes. O4/8 for example. Class A2 included the six P2 rebuilds and four V2 developments, and his standard A2 class (later A2/3).

    So the intention was to reduce the number of older steam locomotives and maintain the best, more modern classes, whilst when possible supplementing these locomotives with new standard designs that were in theory designed to reduce maintenance time and increase availability.

    The short answer to this is "no" as I don't believe that each individual one of the Thompson designs is fully understood. This becomes quite loco-centric, and though I am loathe to go full loco-centric, it may be helpful to think through the numbers of locos involved.

    The context of Thompson's time on the LNER 1941-1946 was that there was a locomotive availability problem. (I personally would go further - I have the stats in front of me and I do not believe it would be unfair to use the word "crisis"). Overall availability (as in, how many days in a defined year of work, would a locomotive be available for work?) was around half for the whole L.N.E.R. fleet for the first few years of the war.

    Some classes were better than others. Some classes were abysmal (class D17 was below 20% - unsurprising given age/condition/etc). Some newer locomotives had poor availability.

    Availability issues were caused by several factors.
    • Lack of trained personnel to carry out maintenance (50,000 men had been taken from maintenance and related depts at the outset of the war)
    • Lack of workshop space (war department had railway works manufacturing armaments, vehicles, and similar)
    • A shortage in supplies of materials, lubricants, and similar
    • Only building V2s and O2s in large numbers during war

    Fast forward to just before nationalisation in 1948 - there were 4600 locos which it was intended for the non standard to be maintained, and new standard classes, to replace entirely.

    Thompson's one off prototypes that did not produce further locomotives were as follows - one D class, one B3/3, one K5.

    The D class was built from the unique D49 The Morpeth - spares for its unique Reidinger gear were not available. D11 cylinder blocks and valve gear were available, and the D49's frames, wheels, boiler and tender were solid. Result: unique engine that wasn't quite a D49 and not quite a D11 built that had better availability than it had before (by virtue of being a complete working locomotive). Make do and mend.

    B3/3 was a Thompson rebuild of the GCR B3 caprotti machines. JF Harrison was surprisingly complimentary about this locomotive. It ran until 1949 and its boiler, tender, cylinders and valve gear went into the respective spares pools. Its rebuilding gave Thompson's team some good information about rebuilding locos using a standard boiler, valve gear and cylinders - hence the B2s from B17s which followed.

    Class K5 was almost a new locomotive, in reality. It was a notional two cylinder rebuild of a K3. It had new frames, an entirely new boiler type, and used B1 cylinders and valve gear components. It was a good engine and compared well to the K3s. It was a parallel development of the K4 rebuild, K1/1. Ultimately that 2-6-0 proved the better, go anywhere design. K1s were built new by Peppercorn and BR with minimal changes from the Thompson K1/1 design.

    The K5 didn't produce a new locomotive class. Its boiler design however was used on K3s going forward, the diagram (from memory, 96A?) boiler being built in batches to replace K3 boilers as they became life expired. So not a complete loss. The K5 itself ran until 1960. A satisfactory working life.

    The one point that is worth making about Thompson's designs is that, with the exception of class B3/3 (and accepting the D classes' short life due to an accident) is that they all, without exception, had normal working lives.

    They were only withdrawn with the onset of dieselisation, and the removal of steam from the work they were doing, together with a clear accountancy measure for withdrawing smallest classes first.

    To my mind there is only one exceptional Thompson class - class B1. I use that word because it was the engine which proved exactly what the LNER needed. Built in large numbers, it did pretty much what it was supposed to do - replace ageing grouping and pre-grouping locos and go pretty much anywhere across the system. All other Thompson machines were adequate for their daily tasks and largely simple to work on.

    That was pretty much Thompson's remit when faced in 1941 with the issues mentioned above. Increase availability and reliability of locomotives. This wasn't just about the designs - it was about best practice with maintenance, overhauls, and utilising the right classes in the right areas.

    Thompson - having always been in and around the shop floor - was all for that. In letters I have found at the national archives, Thompson's concern for availability and how it impacted on the railway's ability to meet its obligations was clear, and it was sincere. He asked for opinions from around the network, he examined procedures, and made decisions based on this thereafter.

    At the end of the day, we could look at his time in office purely in terms of the 20 Gresley engines he rebuilt (1 A10, 6 P2s, 10 B17s, 1 K3, 1 K4, 1 D49), the 4 he developed further (4 A2/1s from V2 design), or we could note the near 100 Gresley locos he continued to have built, with minor changes (O2 and V2), together with his desire to retain most of the larger Gresley loco classes for the LNER going forward.

    Or - and this is controversial, I accept - we could look at Thompson's whole time in office - five years - and remember that locomotive design was but a part of the overall big railway setup, and that his foremost concern was keeping trains running on what was Britain's poorest big four railway company, which also suffered disproportionately in terms of bombing too (after the Southern, most likely).
     
    bluetrain and jnc like this.
  3. 30567

    30567 Part of the furniture Friend

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2012
    Messages:
    5,610
    Likes Received:
    3,510
    Or his whole career. I don't like the fetish of the Chief. Surely in many walks of life people contribute most in their thirties and forties. Then if they are good enough they become the boss. OK I'm exaggerating. But just because Holcroft, Jarvis etc didn't become top man doesn't mean they weren't crucial team members.
     
  4. Jamessquared

    Jamessquared Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    26,103
    Likes Received:
    57,430
    Location:
    LBSC 215
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Just taking this in isolation, I think you can get too hung up on classes and sub classes as a measure of output of an individual designer - even if we are just being loco-centric.

    CME's take over on a single date, but the workshop activity is a continuum. When he starts, the railway will have a loco fleet that ranges from their predecessors locos brand new right through to some relics forty or more years old. (When OVSB took over as CME on the Southern Railway in 1938, he had locomotives from 12 different CMEs in his charge: Beattie, Adams, Drummond, Urie, Kirtley, Stirling, Wainwright, Stroudley, Billinton Sr, Marsh, Billinton Jr and Maunsell, as well as a few non-standard designs such as the PD&SWJR locos from Hawthorn Leslie. When he moved on 10 years later he bequeathed exactly the same mix to British Railways, to which were added his own designs).

    The workshop will have a programme already in place that will inevitably be building the predecessors designs (amongst other things); the drawing office will have a range of designs at various stages, some more or less ready to go, others quite speculative. Eventually, if they are in place long enough, the new designer will assert his own philosophy to new designs, but it will take several years for that to show through as uniquely new designs. Sometimes that design philosophy represents a radical break with the past (Bulleid taking over from Maunsell is an example); sometimes it will be distinct but more nuanced (Maunsell continuing production of Urie designs, but "Ashfordised" in subtle, but important ways to make them more efficient). It also seems a bit of a grey area how much change to an older design warrants a new class name or credit to a new designer: the "Ashfordised" Urie S15s and N15s are invariably credited to Maunsell; but the modified H15s built in 1924 generally still get credited to Urie. In SE&CR days, when Ashford put a new boiler on an old loco, they added "1" to the class name but didn't credit it to the new CME; whereas when Bulleid took the Maunsell Q and put on a new boiler, Ashford called it the Q1, but the credit generally goes to Bulleid: you'd probably say it conforms to his philosophy for maximising steam production as the sine qua non of locomotive design even though the design has considerable Maunsell parentage.

    So when you look back, the locomotive output of a particular CME will consist of:
    • His own designs to his own conception: quite possibly not very many of those, though his successor might build more: most "Thompson B1s" were outshopped after his retirement.
    • Locos nominally credited to him, but which are fundamentally the conception of his predecessor. (The "Ivatt" 2MTs on the LMS are a good example: enthusiasts always credit them to Ivatt since the first appeared a few months into his tenure, but given the lead times, all the design work right through to getting them accepted onto the Works Programme and the early construction happened under Fairburn: they would be better named Fairburn 2MTs)
    • Continuation of new batches of his predecessor's designs, either unchanged or modified. (Thompson carried on building V2s, which retain Gresley's name as designer. Hawksworth continued to build new batches of Collett's Hall class, but seems to have effected just enough modification to get them credited to his name as the "Hawksworth Modified Hall class").
    • Repairs of older engines, unchanged
    • Rebuilds of older engines, possibly using more modern components, such as boilers of a different design; swapping old slide valve cylinders for piston valves etc
    • Experiments, which may or may not get called a new sub class. Bulleid rebuilt an H1 Atlantic with sleeve valves but it was never anything other than an H1. On the LNER, the sleeve valve loco probably would have been given a unique sub-class descriptor - you might have had H1/1 (an H1 as built); H1/2 (the original superheated, piston valve Atlantics, which the SR called H2); H1/3 (the H1 locos rebuilt with superheated boilers but retaining slide valves); H1/4 (the sleeve valve loco). Four sub classes for 12 locos.
    All of which is to suggest that understanding the impact of a particular CME requires a lot more analysis than just looking at the classes of locos bearing his name!

    Tom
     
  5. johnofwessex

    johnofwessex Resident of Nat Pres

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2015
    Messages:
    9,185
    Likes Received:
    7,226
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Thorn in my managers side
    Location:
    72
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    In the same way I suppose Generals Marshall & Eisenhower got Armies into the field for Montgomery & Patton to win battles with
     
  6. Big Al

    Big Al Nat Pres stalwart Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Messages:
    21,065
    Likes Received:
    20,773
    Location:
    1016
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Can I suggest that his brief was different from Bulleid? The Southern urgently needed a 'modern' main line 8P pacific and in addition a lightweight 7MT that could operate in the West Country and elsewhere on lines that wouldn't benefit from heavyweight locos. (The WSR are currently reliving that issue even though they are a different railway). The LNER already had the big locos that they needed.

    When you strip away the pro Gresley froth and defensive comments, at a basic level of debate what went on over WW2 was really quite simple, I would suggest.
     
    MellishR and jnc like this.
  7. Jamessquared

    Jamessquared Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    26,103
    Likes Received:
    57,430
    Location:
    LBSC 215
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    I think the differences in design philosophy disguise a significant similarity between Bulleid and Thompson, which is that both foresaw that the post-war labour situation would be very different from that pre-war, and they designed their locos accordingly. For Bulleid that meant reducing the labour or improving the working conditions particularly of footplate and and preparation and disposal crews. For Thompson it meant reducing the amount of on-shed maintenance needed. They then arrived at very different end points: Bulleid locos had a degree of complexity relative to his predecessor’s in order to reduce manual tasks, while Thompson removed complexity to reduce the maintenance burden. So two different outcomes but arrived at from reaching the same conclusions about the future.

    Tom
     
  8. paullad1984

    paullad1984 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2007
    Messages:
    918
    Likes Received:
    428
    Don't even get me started on my views on them!
    Seriously though its an interesting comparison to make.
     
  9. bluetrain

    bluetrain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2019
    Messages:
    1,326
    Likes Received:
    1,460
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Wiltshire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
     
    jnc likes this.
  10. S.A.C. Martin

    S.A.C. Martin Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    5,591
    Likes Received:
    9,325
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Asset Engineer (Signalling), MNLPS Treasurer
    Location:
    London
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    I believe I may be the first writer on LNER matters to look at the availability problem of WW2 with the full statistics from the LNER available. That actually is crucial to the crux of the argument that Thompson wasn't inventing reasons for his locomotive policy: there is clear evidence for why he made the changes he did. It forms a large part of my overall argument and when you start to look at the full figures, you do see why he would proceed as he did.

    I'm not sure it is 10%. But there is also the point that even if it was 10% of the total stock, how much of the railway's work did that 10% do? It was likely more than 10%, and if so, that presents its own problems.

    You have the Pacifics which were on the top end expresses. You have the mineral locos of classes O1, O2 and O3 and they took the bulk of mainline freight. You have by 1939 a large number of V2s (and more being built) and they take everything from passenger to mixed traffic to fast freight.

    I'm pretty confident I can use my availability figures spreadsheet to work out how many of the fleet were conjugated though. I'll get back to you when I have worked it out.

    There is no doubt that the aim was to replace exactly that - Thompson wanted to reduce the LNER to just 19 classes of steam locomotive. That was the ultimate aim.

    In 1937 we know there were 165 classes under LNER ownership. That includes almost all of the pre-grouping locomotives inherited in 1923 at the grouping, and adds the Gresley classes built as LNER classes.

    I think it was as basic as Thompson anticipated a different approach to running trains, and the choice of keeping 19 classes only (of which classes A1, A2, B1, K1, L1, O1) covered pretty much all of the traffic going forward, was about reducing massively the need to keep a huge variety of spares, tooling and moulds for foundry work. More a case that he didn't feel there was a genuine need for anything smaller than a 4MT, hence the K1 and L1 which were "go anywhere" and intended to be virtually "do anything".

    I have found no evidence to support that, however further examination of the Chief Electrical Engineer, Richards, may shed some light on that. I do not believe it was in Thompson's remit to investigate electrification and certainly I have found nothing to suggest he was involved in any meaningful way.

    To clarify a few things:
    • The J45 diesel shunter (more info here: https://www.lner.info/locos/IC/des1.php) were ordered under Gresley's direction. Thompson however followed through and had them built.
    • Thompson's Q1 class was as much about "make do and mend" as it was freeing up additional tenders for better condition locomotives that needed them. The Q1s were built with J50 parts which had been made for a batch that had been then later cancelled.
    • The purchase of the austerity tanks meant not requiring to build new J50s, effectively. Waste not, want not, as they say.
    • Thompson left the J50 in as the standard shunter in his future plans (it would have been J50/3 I think that would have been made in more numbers) - Peppercorn swapped that for J72. Why? No idea.
     
    bluetrain and jnc like this.
  11. S.A.C. Martin

    S.A.C. Martin Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    5,591
    Likes Received:
    9,325
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Asset Engineer (Signalling), MNLPS Treasurer
    Location:
    London
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Seems a very fair summation to me.
     
  12. bluetrain

    bluetrain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2019
    Messages:
    1,326
    Likes Received:
    1,460
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Wiltshire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    You are of course absolutely right.

    Whether a class or sub-class is specifically identified will sometimes depend on what the authorities are seeking to portray.

    Thus for instance, James Stirling on the SER, as a leading proponent of standardization, wanted all of his 118 0-4-4 tanks to be viewed as a single "Q" class, disregarding the fact that the design evolved over its 1881-1897 period of production (bogie redesigns, use of steel rather than wrought iron, etc). Whereas when the SECR authorities ordered the new "R1" 0-4-4 tanks in 1899, they probably wanted to give the impression that there were significant improvements to the 1891 LC&DR "R" class. Perhaps it had a new design of whistle?

    As an aside, if the Bluebell Railway had come into existence just a few years earlier, it might have been able to preserve both an "R1" class 0-4-4T and an "R1" class 0-6-0T. Now that really would have confused enthusiasts unfamiliar with the SECR!
     
  13. 30854

    30854 Resident of Nat Pres

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2017
    Messages:
    12,172
    Likes Received:
    11,493
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Brighton&Hove
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Similar story over in Ireland, where the GSR inherited a pair of ex-WL&WR 2-4-2Ts, built to the same design. One stayed on it's home system, t'other was flogged (to one of the Cork railways) and arrived on GS books via the scenic route. They got different GSR classifications. Other classes, comprising rebuilds with variations as wide as superheat vs saturated boilers, Belpaire vs round top fiteboxes and even slide vs piston valves got grouped into single classes.
     
    andrewshimmin and bluetrain like this.
  14. Jamessquared

    Jamessquared Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    26,103
    Likes Received:
    57,430
    Location:
    LBSC 215
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    I'm reminded of the designation of the Boeing B50. Basically it was a B29 Superfortress with bigger engines and a few other detail changes, and was originally to be called the B29D. But by time they were ready in late 1945, the USAAF was scrapping existing war surplus B29s wholesale, so the B29D got redesignated the B50 so as to avoid the somewhat embarrassing appearance the Government was buying new examples of a type it was busy scrapping!

    Tom
     
    andrewshimmin, 35B, ross and 2 others like this.
  15. ross

    ross Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,002
    Likes Received:
    2,477
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Titfield
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    My suggestion as to why is four-fold. 1.the lower performance of the J72 might actually have been closer to what was required, giving better economy. 2. The lower pressure 140lb boiler suggests that a shunting locomotive could be left to simmer then quickly brought up to working pressure. 3. The austerities were built to give a short life of very hard work and scrapped, not the endless renewal lifespan of normal locomotives. 4. Side tanks on the J72 meant the fireman didn't have to climb on top of a very high saddle tank then have a second man operate the water crane.
     
    Sheff likes this.
  16. bluetrain

    bluetrain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2019
    Messages:
    1,326
    Likes Received:
    1,460
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Wiltshire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Thank-you again for another most interesting post.

    I suspect that your research into wartime locomotive availability will shed light not just on Thompson's approach but also on the evolution of traction policy during the BR steam era. It is very evident that, as new locomotives (initially steam, later diesel) became available and older types could be withdrawn, BR was selective about which classes were withdrawn first - initially among the pre-grouping types and later among LNER standard classes. Although the picture is skewed in later years by dieselisation taking place at different times in different areas (and on the Great Central section by partial run-down and partial transfer to LMR control), there still seem to be interesting patterns of certain types (such as the O4) being held in high regard until the very end, while other classes appear to have been in "good riddance" territory.

    The LNER's relative lack of new small engines must have meant that its local services in the 1950s were mostly in the hands of "old crocks" to a much greater extent than on the other main-line railways who had scrapped many more of their older locomotives (replaced by EMUs on the Southern and by new-build steam on the GWR and LMS). The need for diesel railcars must have been more acute in the ex-LNER areas than elsewhere.

    Regarding electrification, the on-line LNER encyclopedia tells me that the Shenfield electrification scheme had been planned before WW2 with some work actually started before suspension for hostilities. So I think that Thompson must have factored some electrification into his plans, even if there is no record of him specifically saying so. The Woodhead electrification scheme was in a similar position to Shenfield, but traffic on that route was mainly heavy freight rather than suburban passenger.

    https://www.lner.info/locos/Electric/shenfield.php

    One further point to mention is that the LNER was not alone in having engines with Gresley conjugated valve gear, although it certainly had far more than anyone else. There was a brief flurry of overseas interest in the late 1920s, perhaps as Gresley and his practices became more widely known. Previous posts have discussed the very impressive Union Pacific 4-12-2s. Thee was also take-up of the Gresley gear in Japan, Australia and elsewhere, with the Japanese C53 4-6-2 possibly being the most numerous class (97 engines) with Gresley gear outside of the LNER. But this overseas interest seemed to quickly dry-up in the early 1930s, with the relevant railways deciding that their conjugated locomotives were good enough to keep but not to multiply. Subsequent construction reverted to 2-cylinders or went to alternative 3-cylinder solutions. While this wider background may not have directly influenced Thompson's thinking, it does lend support for his wish to move away from conjugated valve gear, if not necessarily for specific details of his rebuilding projects.

    And finally, as for Peppercorn's decision to build more J72s, perhaps he'd simply had lunch with Hawksworth, who was starting construction of the similarly-sized GWR 1600 class!
     
    andrewshimmin likes this.
  17. Forestpines

    Forestpines Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2009
    Messages:
    1,681
    Likes Received:
    2,438
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Somewhere in the UK
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    This was to a large degree covered by the introduction of the B1, which replaced various older secondary-rank tender locos all across the LNER system.

    Don't forget the Northern Heights and Loughton-Ongar electrification schemes too - all fall into the "started in the 30s, completed after the war" pattern
     
  18. bluetrain

    bluetrain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2019
    Messages:
    1,326
    Likes Received:
    1,460
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Wiltshire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    You've reminded me of a book picked up from one of the railway second-hand stalls, describing the railway scene in West Germany around 1960. After the amalgamation of the German Railways in 1920, they built only limited numbers of new small steam engines - comparatively far fewer than the GWR and LMS built. But there was a good stock of Class 38 (Prussian P8) 4-6-0s, along with enormous numbers of heavy freight 2-10-0s. So a local passenger service might well be hauled by a Class 38 4-6-0, but a Class 50 2-10-0 was just as likely to provide the motive power. Similar scenes can of course be found today on Britain's heritage railways!
     
    ross and Forestpines like this.
  19. Spamcan81

    Spamcan81 Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Messages:
    35,121
    Likes Received:
    20,773
    Occupation:
    Training moles
    Location:
    The back of beyond
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    But was it not the case that those schemes were not started until after the lines had been transferred to LT? If so, definitely outside ET’s remit.
     
  20. andrewshimmin

    andrewshimmin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2011
    Messages:
    1,761
    Likes Received:
    2,160
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    I think many of the more extreme of the Gresley-worshipping/anti-Thompson commentators completely ignore the fact that *none* of the various other railways which tried Gresley or similar conjugated gear continued with it. They were all either rebuilt or, as you say, judged to be good enough to keep running but not to multiply further. I think this says a lot. In most cases the decision to not continue to pursue the conjugated gear was made long before wartime brought maintenance into sharp focus.
    A similar judgement seems to have been passed by history on Compounds: mostly good engines, generally worth keeping going, but rarely worth multiplying. And like with the LNER and Gresley gear, in a few cases, e.g. in France, where there was a real commitment to the principle, it could be perfectly workable and indeed bring excellent performances, if the additional maintenance costs were accepted.
    As has been said on here before, it's interesting that Thompson, for rebuilding a small number of Gresley engines, becomes a monster, while those who rebuilt compounds (Whale, Wordsell who rebuilt his own brother's engines) are not similarly vilified, although they too rebuilt temperamental engines capable of fine performances into (generally) less inspiring but more reliable ones.
     

Share This Page