Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

The same work as the P2s.

Double heading was not reintroduced. Train weights were also, it appears, not reduced either. The A2/2s literally took on the same work and did it.

 

It is almost always something with power and people.
Was LNER management /Gresley empowered by the emergency board?And When
Who put Thompson in Charge? and when?
Interesting times indead.
How many tons new locomotive was 2400£ worth at that time?

 

I don't know exactly how comparable it is between different companies, but as an example, in 1942, Merchant Navies 21c3 - 21c10 cost between £18,470 and £19,144 each. (The first two were more expensive, being somewhat experimental). So you could convert all 6 P2s for less than the cost of one new Merchant Navy. (I don't know how precisely the LNER accounted for what was new construction, renewals etc, but one assumes that the cost is correct and which budget it came from is a secondary issue).

That cost makes ballpark sense to me given how much of the original P2 was retained in the rebuild.

Tom

 

I hesitate to join in but I have always understood that the A2/2s were ( as with many other 4-6-2s ) very prone to
slipping. ( the loss of adhesion compared to the P2 2-8-2 configuration would have been considerable ).

As at the Nationalisation in January 1948 A2/2 Nos. 502-6 were allocated to Haymarket ( 501 was at Ferry Hill but
reallocated to Haymarket within weeks ). Apart from No.60506 which was reallocated to Ferryhill in April
1949 and promptly returned back to Haymarket, they were all transferred South of the Border between
September 1949 and January 1950. Three each to York and New England where they remained until withdrawal.

There are 30 A2/2 detailed performance logs post 1948 until withdrawal on the RPS archive. All south of
the Border.

There is one log prior to their transfer South. No.503 (14/6/47) on the 5.20 ex Aberdeen, 377 tons tare, kept
time comfortably, albeit a very generous schedule, 123 minutes with 4 intermittent stops. It had replaced a
V2 at Dundee. ( timed by the much respected G.J.Aston )

C.J.Allen in 1940 wrote “they (P2s ) have no difficulty handling 500-550 ton trains” (This comment
was based on previously published logs, including from the footplate. I note in the past there have been some
deprecating comments wrt ‘train timers’ during this forum discussion but on the ‘road’ observations should not
be dismissed ? . Logs from Messrs Allen, Nock, Charlewood and Aston )

I am not suggesting the P2s were without their limitations ( although Livesey reported they rode well)
but I think to imply the A2/2s could have equalled the P2 starting from Aberdeen, Montrose,
Stonehaven etc , with 500 ton trains is debatable.

What is evident is that the P2s whilst capable of hauling 500 tons plus in reality
most services had lighter consists.



Michael Rowe

 

We are focusing far too much on slipping as a reason to condemn these locomotives out of hand.

There is no doubt they were capable of slipping - more than as P2s - but whether this then stopped them from carrying out their duties satisfactorily is a completely different question.

Which - if we look at the report I have quoted above, and the statistics we have for their mileages and availability - suggests that they were fully capable of carrying out the work in question, and did actually did so.

It is not unusual for newer traction to displace older traction on any railway. The Gresley Pacifics moved around too during their working lives. This particular class was moved to two separate depots and worked until withdrawal. That's not indicative of anything unusual.

Not surprising; as you have outlined, they were moved south of the border prior to those logs being written.

I have this log in my records. 503 did a good job. "Generous schedule" implies it was doing something easy. It's not an easy road and this Pacific kept time "comfortably". So is this an example of an A2/2 doing a good job, an easy job, or that it wasn't being challenged?

Just as a side note, if we took a not unreasonable 30 tons per vehicle (assuming Gresley stock of some form) 377 tons gives us around 13 coaches on the drawbar. So not exactly a short train. Someway short of the 500 maximum that the P2s, we are told, could pull. But - looking at the stats - far more available for work and with nearly double the annual mileage.

I will repeat this quotation:



"handle loads at least equal to the stipulated maximum of the P2 class on the Edinburgh and Aberdeen section".

Unless you are suggesting that this was a lie - it seems reasonable to be factually accurate. The A2/2s did the same work until their movements to other sheds post-nationalisation, when displaced by newer Peppercorn A2s.

Nobody is arguing against that. What we are showing, with evidence, is that the A2/2s are not as bad as they have always been made out to be.

 

Jayzuss... Can't help thinking that this thread has gone full circle after all of these years and we're back at square one with the same old regurgitated, nonsensical, claptrap attempts to shade what has been more than adequately demonstrated as incontrovertible fact.

It's no wonder that Simon's patient and stoic demeanor has been tested on so many occasions by what would be considered hate crimes on other social media...........

Cheerz,

Alan

 

“handle loads attached at least equal to the stipulated maximum of the P2 class on the Edinburgh and Aberdeen section".

This is an “interesting” choice of words worthy of Sir Humphrey. Were they intended to convey the impression that the rebuilds could, if necessary, handle more than the P2s?

 

A lot of the 'evidence' against Thompson is very weak. By and large it is the same repeated anecdotes from sources that might not be entirely reliable.

However, I do also think that this opens up a wider question about railway history - there are very many locos, designers, etc who have a negative reputation most of which is based on dubious anecdotal evidence. I wonder for example if say the Webb compounds, or the later Drummond locos were subject to the same kind of scrutiny ie availability, mileage, fuel consumption etc, if we might need to rethink a number of supposed 'engineering dead-ends'. I'd suggest Thompson is perhaps the first of many reputations that ought to be re-visited.

 

Any pictures showing a P2 with 18 wagons at speed?

Cox describes pacific slipping in commenting the 1948 exchanges
Most important is that a starting pull of say 18 tons at 1meter drawbar height unloads front end and overload the rear end with 2 tons.
If You read Cox carefully it becomes clear that the only pacifics worthy of praise was the Britannias.For real railroading Royal Scotts were better.
Adhesive weight of a P2 was 79 tons and a A2/2 was 66 tons
The other case is when track is hollow so that locomotive hang on the end (undriven) axles.
In both cases difference between a Mikado and Pacific is not enormous.
A 4-8-0 like Chapelons from august 1932 had been more useful than the P2 as built 1934.

 

The way I read it is that you test to see if it meets the requirement, but not test to failure. So if for example the limit is "haul 500 tons", you test it with 500 tons and if it manages, you can say it "handles loads at least equal to the stipulated maximum". It might fail at 510 tons, or it might easily manage 700, but you can't say for definite because there was no incentive to test. So I don't think it is Sir Humphrey-esque; more just being precise with how you phrase it for the official minutes.

Tom

 

I think in the case of the Drummond 4-6-0s at least, there were comparative coal trials done at the time that show beyond reasonable doubt that they were far worse than the locos they were designed to replace.

Webb is an interesting case: he gets criticised for his compounds which made up perhaps 20% of his output, and his simples get ignored - which were 80% or so. I'm also not sure whether the notion that his compound double singles locos could start with one set of wheels going in one direction and the other in the other has much basis in observable reality, or whether it is just an incident -real or imagined - that has slipped into folklore applicable to all his locomotives.

There is also observation bias to consider. "Bulleid pacific slip". Given that they were the very last mainline express locomotives working out of London, they were I suggest very heavily observed and so of course there will be plenty of reports of such locos slipping. But if you watch a thousand departures and a hundred involve a slip, that might be no worse than a rarely observed loco that was never observed to slip, but which was only watched five times.

Tom

 

Just for clarity, I am not arguing against the case for rebuilding the P2s as 4-6-2s. I am very much looking forward to Mr Martin's book which should set the record straight on Thompson.

I hear what you say and about the need to be precise. If so, surely all they needed to say was 'equal to' without the implied qualification of the words 'at least' - but I don't want to labour the point.

 

Just while we are on this - I have been playing around with a graphical analysis of the main data-set for 1942-1946.





This is a work in progress, but it gets the point across I think.

Not that we can prove any direct correlation (!) but it seems to me that having better availability gives better annual mileages.

This is of course just a tiny fraction of the data analysis we can do with the L.N.E.R., and it has some limitations.

For example, in each year there are not an equal amount of P2s and A2/2s available. 1946 is skewed by Thane of Fife's availability being the only A2/2 we can reasonably identify in the dataset. 1945 has all of the A2s grouped together by comparison (so the actual availability and mileages for the specific A2/2 class might be higher or lower).

For the record, I am not 100% certain this adds much to the discussion. However it definitely does show a significant improvement where P2s become A2/2s in both annual mileages and availability.

 

It would be interesting if possible to revisit the data.

I think you are absolutely right about information being passed down as and it eventually becomes 'fact'. I wonder if someone had stood on the end of the platform at Waterloo from 1900 to 1967 if the Bulleid's reputation for slipping would be sustained when compared to their precursors. It's a big sample of one place but a small sample relative to everywhere else and a longer time period.

I get a bit tired of reading books where there is a claim that a loco was poor/hated/slipped/fuel heavy etc etc and the evidence for it seems to be 'because I said so' or a 'mate of a friends cousin says' or 'some old driver told me this in the pub'. As we have said before, standards of evidence for some well known (and less well known) railway writers leave a lot to be desired, and repeating something on the grounds that X said so, so it must be true is not really a solid foundation upon which to build an argument.

 

Thank you for your reply.( Sorry if I have agitated ‘Raji’ ! )

For the record the 377 tons tare was made up of 10 + 6/ 52 axles ie presumably 10 8 wheelers plus 6 4 wheeled vans.

My original posting predicated the 2-8-2 would have had better acceleration powers ( It is through superior
acceleration that modern day 800/802s have an advantage in overall time keeping than HSTs. )

I am not aware of any records of A2/2s hauling in excess of 500 tons twixt Edinburgh and Aberdeen. ( I know there
were heavy load tests on the first P2 converted but these were on the ECML ? ) I understand why Thompson wished
to.rebuild the 2-8-2s, also he was under financial constraints to keep costs down ( compromises ? ) but the end
product was surely his poorest Pacific design ?

I thought comparing P 2s and A2s (after they had the blast pipe lowered ) might interest.

Starting from Montrose.
Times to Usan Box (1/88) and MP 26.75 (1/110)

P2 2002
With 510 tons 5 minutes 25 secs and 8-45
510 tons 5-15 and 8-26
530 tons 5-15 and 8-14


A2
60528 with 375 tons, 5-14 and 8-19 ( this required RFO and 35% )
60525 with 450 tons 5-43 and 8-30
60532 with 475 tons 5-23 and 8-43
A2 60531 with 515 tons passed Usan Box in 5-26, unfortunately no time to MP 26.75.

The A2s were very powerful machines ( as 60532 has shown in the Preserved era ): I have no
doubt Mr Peppercorn and his team learnt much from Thompson’s A2/2s. The transfer of the
A2s to Scotland and the reallocation of the A2/2s to York and Peterborough, where they were
mainly employed on fast freight and lesser main line services, is I think significant. ( I do
not imagine it was other than thoroughly pragmatic )

it is a shame that, during WW11 and post war, loadings between Aberdeen and Edinburgh very
rarely reached pre War levels, but indications are the A2s would have almost equalled P2
power outputs with far greater availability.

Regarding Messrs Gresley and Thompson ( as an unreconstructed SR enthusiast ) I have no
emotional attachments. They operated in very different environments: I have however never
understood the oft quoted antipathy to Thompson. My probably ignorant perception is that
inter alia he paved the way for the A1s and the A2s.

I hope your work is published soon.

Michael Rowe

 

Nice unintentional pun... That would be a good description in the sleeve notes of a Peter Handford recording...!

Richard.

 

Yes, I’d be proud of that turn of phrase had I consciously thought of it!

Tom

 

This, fundamentally, is one of the reasons why revisiting the evidence with an open mind and trying to get the full context is so important.

See also: Richard III.

 

Did any of those earlier locos (apart from tank locos) have trailing wheels? If not, it would be expected that the Bulleids would have slipped more often than their predecessors. Noting Tom's point about the heavy observation of the Bulleids' workings out of London in the last years of steam, is there any evidence that any of the British Pacifics were really significantly better or worse than others for slipping?

 

Is there not the experience of Kings Cross where many Pacifics were reported as slipping on entering Gasworks Tunnel but explained by drivers as poor enginemanship when reducing the cut-off from start up at full (to set up the conjugated valve gear) to a lower figure in preparation for the climb to Finsbury Park whilst moving the regulator to a fuller degree ?