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. Hermod

    Hermod Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2017
    Messages:
    985
    Likes Received:
    283
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Klitmoeller,Denmark
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Certainly but I was trying if there was a connection between Thomson being war weary son in law when father in laws pacifics needed new cranks.
    Cannot have been happy times.
    In Germany they made fourcylinder simples, compounds and three cylinder simples more or less alike .
    Three-cylinder front drive S10-2 had the lowest repair costs.
    Thompson cannot have reused the monoblock cylinder group from Cock of the north so his solution must have been more expensive as a front drive solution.
     
  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
    This has been the problem with the Edward Thompson story all along. So many assumptions and not enough fact finding or constructive debate.

    None whatsoever: Raven was dead, Thompson had never appreciated Raven's views on locomotives, and he had been advised by way of the Cox/Stanier report to try a third set of walschaerts valve gear, which he then carried out on the A2/2.

    They were the worst of times for the LNER. It was a very bloody and difficult war.

    I have the figures in front of me. Cost of conversion of 2005 Thane of Fife: £2400.

    Cost of building a new B1 at the same time for comparison, £8050.

    Cost of building a new V2 at the same time, £9700.

    So it wasn't particularly expensive. So much of the original P2 locomotive was retained. Everything from the front of the boiler was retained. Three of the four sets of drivers and most of the axles. New cylinders cast. Outside valve gear retained, third set identical to outside sets manufactured and used. Added a longer smokebox, new running plate, new frame extensions, an A4 type double chimney (made standard across his pacifics).
     
    andrewshimmin and pete2hogs like this.
  3. Richard Roper

    Richard Roper Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,310
    Likes Received:
    1,355
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Librarian
    Location:
    Just up the road from 56E Sowerby Bridge
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Now that would be another very absorbing read! Just coming to the end of reading Peter Townend's "LNER Pacifics Remembered", and although this was originally intended to be another chapter in "East Coast Pacifics at Work", it's a damned interesting book in itself, so any further material on East Coast Pacific running would be most welcome!

    Richard.
     
    S.A.C. Martin likes this.
  4. Hermod

    Hermod Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2017
    Messages:
    985
    Likes Received:
    283
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Klitmoeller,Denmark
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    The Raven Pacifics got new crank axles in1925,Raven very much alive and his son in law probably had mental scars from WW1.
    It is quite possible that this expirience has influenced his choice of rebuilding strategy for P2s nearly twenty years later..
    A front drive solution had not been more expensive and not so fatique prone.Lower mass probably as well.
    The Raven B16 must have been very good locomotives as both Gressley and Thomson tried to modernize them.
     
  5. 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
    Irrelevant to the question of the Thompson A2/2s: they got divided drive on the basis of the Cox/Stanier report and Robert Thom's suggestion of keeping all the connecting rods equal length.

    Thompson actually suggested to Gresley to rebuild the Raven A2s as two cylinder Pacifics whilst he was one of Gresley's assistants. This was not carried out.

    He probably did, but how is that relevant to the question of the A2/2 rebuilding nearly thirty years later?

    I honestly don't think the Raven connection influenced him at all. Thompson was well known for his admiration of the GER, GWR and Stanier and his locomotive design reflects those three specifically and demonstrably.

    The problem with the front end on the A2/2s was frame flexing from where the cylinders overlapped the frame extension. This was not the same on the A2/3s or A2/1s and thus these issues were not so marked. All of the LNER Pacifics suffered some degree of frame cracking or flexing, bar the A4s which had different stay arrangements (but as we have found with Bittern in preservation, were not entirely immune from difficulties in this area).

    "Must have been" or "must not have been" - their mileages I have glanced over and I would think it fair to say both Gresley and Thompson considered them problematic, hence the rebuilding.
     
  6. 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
    On a separate note. I have been finalising the format for my LNER mileages spreadsheet. Here's a snapshot for 1942.

    upload_2018-7-31_15-1-36.png

    As you can see, I am adding the V2 and V4 classes for more comparisons - and I have also made a % column on the right hand side. What this column means is what % of the mileage between general overhauls was actually achieved on average per class, per region of the LNER.

    The things that have taken the longest to do here is inputting the formulas and the raw data. The design of the table is only slightly different to that used by the LNER.

    I hope this is of interest - having had a chat with a like minded friend last night, I'm of an opinion I should probably put this together as a separate useful pamphlet for LNER enthusiasts and anyone else so inclined.
     
    Fred Kerr and RLinkinS like this.
  7. Jimc

    Jimc Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    4,052
    Likes Received:
    4,665
    Occupation:
    Once computers, now part time writer I suppose.
    Location:
    SE England
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    As a bit of a numbers enthusiast I'd encourage you to look into basic statistical analysis. There are tools now that weren't available back in the day. Im particular a comparison as to whether design or region was more significant in variations would be revealing.
     
    S.A.C. Martin likes this.
  8. 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
    Hi Jim - could you be more specific. I am doing some statistical analysis as part of the Thompson book, though limited to the P2 and A2/2 discussion primarily.

    I think this is fair - for example, across the board, I can see that the "intended mileage between general overhauls" as per the 1937 document for the Scottish regions was lower than the other regions for the same class of loco (see Pacifics and V2s).

    But the Scottish based A10s, A3s, A4s and V2s were all significantly better at achieving a higher % of their intended mileage before general overhauls.

    Why this is was so - I don't presently have a definitive answer, but I do have several theories to postulate.

    Example:

    Thane of Fife was the first of the Gresley P2s rebuilt as a Pacific. Emerging partway through 1943, her first mileage between general overhauls as an A2/2 was very high in comparison to the P2s.

    She had travelled 45,732 miles to the year’s end and her first general overhaul – 20,000 miles better than her P2 counterparts average of 25,357 for that year.

    Putting this into context, the intended mileages for the P2s before general shopping was 70,000 miles. The P2s in 1943 achieved only 36% of this figure. On the same terms, the A2/2 achieved 65%.

    The question of whether this locomotive was better because it was "new out of shops" doesn't actually stand up to scrutiny as so much of the original P2 was reused without modification. The difference was wheelbase, double kylchap exhaust and valve gear. Thane of Fife went from being the worst P2 to one of the LNER's highest mileage Pacifics in a year. Extraordinary turn around.
     
  9. Jimc

    Jimc Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    4,052
    Likes Received:
    4,665
    Occupation:
    Once computers, now part time writer I suppose.
    Location:
    SE England
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    I'm not a statistics professional, so I'm a bit reluctant to make recommendations. College was a long time ago! I will say I've found the T-test functionality in Excel to be useful for doing comparisons like this though.

    I think possibly you're in danger of reading a bit much into the P2 data. Although much of the P2 hardware was reused without significant modification, that doesn't mean that the hardware wasn't inspected, overhauled and generally put into as good as new condition. I assume the rebuild was classed as a renewal, and a renewal was intended to deliver a locomotive in as new condition. Some components do seem to have an almost indefinite life. So yes, I think new out of shops does stand a certain amount of scrutiny. Cook, in Swindon Steam, records an exchange with HG Ivatt in which he claims Ivatt said "I can't understand it, you build a new engine and we build a new engine and they both run high mileages; when you repair a locomotive it also runs a good mileage but ours don't." So assuming that's fairly reported it does suggest that new out of the shops is a genuine thing. Whether the same was true of the LNER I don't know.

    The other risk is whether you are taking numbers over a long enough period. If there's an intended time between overhauls of 70,000 miles, and an annual mileage of 40,000 miles then engines will be overhauled roughly every other year. They will run much smaller mileages in the year they are overhauled than in the year they are not. So if Thane of Fife left the shops at the beginning of the year she would be expected to run the year out without too much time out of service. By contrast at least one and probably two of the other P2s would have been overhauled during the year, so we would anticipate a lower average mileage anyway. That much lower? Well, you can only find out by getting more data and probably more detailed data. The first n years of life of each locomotive type might be revealing.

    This is the trouble with doing stats: it draws you in, and eventually you find out there's no substitute for getting all the data. On the other hand it is the best tool we have for what really happened, otherwise we just end up with anecdote, which is a very poor servant. I commend you for starting down the road though.
     
  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
    Fair points all Jim. I have to have a bit of a think now as what you have said does resonate, particularly on shopping. Perhaps I am approaching the data wrong with the %s.
     
  11. Jimc

    Jimc Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    4,052
    Likes Received:
    4,665
    Occupation:
    Once computers, now part time writer I suppose.
    Location:
    SE England
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Not incorrectly per se, you just need to be aware of the limitations. The big advantage of converting everything to percentages is that it makes numbers directly comparable. The big tripping point is that it doesn't tell you whether those comparisons are valid, which is where the more sophisticated tools come in. One of the most helpful tools is to have control data to compare against. One I have used in the past is odd and even numbers! If you were to the mileages run by locomotives of each class, locomotives in each district, and locomotives with odd numbers and locomotives with even numbers then that might be interesting, as might locomotives 1 year old, locomotives 5 years old, locomotives 4 years old. But of course that means finding the per locomotive figures, if they are still available, and entering a horrendous amount of data. But take that, and modern statistical tools and spreadsheets, and you'll have a better handle on maintenance than the CME did back in the day...
     
    S.A.C. Martin likes this.
  12. 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
    Absolutely fair.

    I am having copies of individual engine cards made up for certain classes, so although I cannot give a loco by loco analysis to the nth degree, I suspect it will be possible to say "here's the data for Thane of Fife, here's a control for the P2s" or something along those lines - and maybe leave the raw data to be interpreted by others.

    It is all fascinating stuff. Thanks again for your input (pun unintentional but a happy coincidence).
     
  13. W.Williams

    W.Williams Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2015
    Messages:
    1,585
    Likes Received:
    1,465
    Occupation:
    Mechanical Engineer
    Location:
    Aberdeenshire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    SAC, I was reading the P2 history pages on the A1SLT site recently and couldnt help but notice the rebuilt P2/A2/2's didnt survive long on the Aberdeen runs once they became ordinary pacifics.

    What are your thoughts around that?
     
  14. pete2hogs

    pete2hogs Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2007
    Messages:
    721
    Likes Received:
    418
    The B16's were every bit as coal hungry as the Robinson B7's , but were perhaps more amenable to rebuilding or perhaps less expensive in maintenance. From Geoffery Hughes excellent work on LNER 4-6-0's, average coal consumption figures are given for the four years 1936-39. B7's 61'8 lb / mile, b16 63'2 lb/mile. Best figures for the larger classes are from the GE section, B12 55.7 lb/mile, B17 (in original 180lb condition) 54.1 lb/mile. .

    Incidentally B7's managed an average of 37,870 miles per annum, B12's 39,911, B17's 41,109 but B16's only 28,514.
     
  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
    Simon. Up there somewhere, you state that the rebuild of Thane of Fife cost £2450. With the comparisons you gave, it seems a bargain price for a usable locomotive. Do you have any idea what the annual cost of continually repairing the P2's might have been?
    Ross
     
  16. Fred Kerr

    Fred Kerr Resident of Nat Pres Friend

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    Messages:
    8,239
    Likes Received:
    5,250
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Freelance photo - journalist
    Location:
    Southport
    A thought from outside but a possibility perchance. Haymarket was mown to be a "Gresley" depot and as one of the home depots for the P2s I suspect that they would not accept the A2/2 once modified by Thompson. At the same time the depot would be finding the Gresley V2 an adequate substitute hence their unwillingness to operate the A2/2s. This may be tenuous (or hearsay) but could be one explanation given that certain depots seemed to handle locomotives by one designer better than locomotives from other designers.
     
  17. MarkinDurham

    MarkinDurham Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,198
    Likes Received:
    973
    Location:
    Durham
    I seem to recall Norman Mckillop (Toram Beg) saying just that about the A2/2s in one of his books
     
  18. 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
    It's an interesting topic of conversation, and my feelings on this have changed the more information I have had on the subject. So a few caveats before I go into my current line of thinking:

    1. Wartime - the availability problem is across the whole of the LNER
    2. The Scottish based locomotive classes all consistently achieve better mileages between general overhauls than their English based counterparts

    So let us go back to 1941 when Edward Thompson takes over.

    P2 reliability is appalling, frankly, throughout the second world war. So nobody should be surprised when Thane of Fife gets recommended for rebuilding after the Cox/Stanier report* is published in 1942. It is the poorest performer with the worst availability, and it is the only one with a single chimney.

    At around the same time the W1 was sent to Scotland. Thompson had always admired this locomotive (having worked on the double kylchap fitted to it in its original form) and it was put onto the same duties as the P2s as a comparison.

    (On a side note, I am in the process of collating information I have from the National Archives regarding this test).

    The W1 was put on to do the same work as the P2s. When the A2/2 joined them for comparison, the W1 was clearly the "control" engine. Similar boiler, six driving wheels.

    The A2/2 then goes on comparative testing with the W1 and P2s in 1943.

    The W1 achieves the best mileage between general overhauls of those three classes in that year (52,580). The A2/2 does a decent 45,732 miles. The P2s as a class achieve an average of 25,357. This is the lowest average of all of the express passenger locomotive types.

    Also working in the same area, are the Gresley A4s. The Scottish A4s achieve the highest average mileages of any decently sized class on the LNER, that I can see currently in the collating of my mileage spreadsheet, at 55,238 for the same year. The North Eastern area A4s achieve by comparison 39,693 miles between general overhauls.

    The W1 returns south and the rest of the P2s are rebuilt in the same format as Thane of Fife. They are as a class standardised with the double chimney A4s in respect of their kylchap double chimneys.

    In the meantime Gresley A4s are drafted in alongside to work the same trains as the other P2s are rebuilt. The lone A2/2 does a number of forays across the rest of the LNER. One A2/1 is built - Highland Chieftan - and is put to work alongside Thane of Fife too.

    1944 is the worst year for mileages between general overhauls for the LNER, across the board. Although Scottish locomotive mileages are generally still higher, the averages per class fall for this year in line with that experienced elsewhere.

    In 1945 there were 10 "A2s" and the mileages for the 6 A2/2s and 2 A2/1s give an average of 48,252 across the North Eastern and Scottish areas. This puts them second only to the Scottish region A4s at 57,358 miles.

    Mileages across the LNER rose significantly in 1945. I do not believe it is entirely a coincidence given the cessation of hostilities in Europe and abroad in 1945.

    The worst availability figures at first glance were for class A1 (the rebuilt Great Northern, later A1/1) at 22,052 miles. I have since discovered that this was for exactly September 1945 to December 1945, for that is when the A1/1 first emerged and started her period of testing.

    By 1946 there were 12 "Class A2s" made up of 6 A2/2s, 4 A2/1s and 2 A2/3s, commanding a respectable 45,824 miles to year's end.

    The best class for mileage between general overhauls in 1946 was Great Northern with a year end mileage of 68,304 miles.

    As more A2s are built, the LNER start to pool locomotives more closely together. This was one of Thompson's recommendations during the war - the LNER had always done this, to some degree, but now even smaller classes were more concentrated in specific areas for maintenance and overhaul purposes.

    The six A2/2s are stationed in England later, together with most of the other Thompson Pacifics, with the newer A2/3s and new Peppercorn A2s together with the perennially reliable Scottish based A4s doing the same, or similar work, done by the P2s.

    So for me, I would hesitate to say there was any significant prejudice against the rebuilt P2s in Scotland. They clearly were better locomotives as A2/2s than P2s, born out by the significant improvement in their year end mileages. If the prejudice was real, that says more about the drivers attitudes than it does the locomotives. In any event, it was pure economics and practicality that eventually sent them south of the border.

    It is strange how LNER fans or railway enthusiasts can have such contrary views on locomotive placement. If a class is sent away from its original duties, then it is deemed to not have done its work very well (A2/2s).

    However we also hear clamours for the P2s to have been sent south during the war to do the work of the A3s and A4s out of Kings Cross, normally by the same people. This strikes me as a poor understanding of the situation.

    If the P2s weren't capable of reasonable mileages doing their own work in Scotland, what possible reason could there be for sending them south? They were demonstrably poor locomotives when we look at their availability, time in works, time out for repair. I doubt that Kings Cross would have appreciated receiving locomotives for which their poor reputation at the time preceded them, particularly when their own engines were suffering disproportionately.

    It is extremely telling that the majority of Scottish based locomotives were capable of better mileages compared to their English counterparts but the P2s were by far and away the worst of the express passenger locomotives throughout the war. When rebuilt, the A2/2 mileages were comparable to the other Pacific classes, a clear improvement.

    There is absolutely no doubt that the P2s were capable of fine performances when in perfect fettle. But Gresley and Thompson were not running a testing program for locomotive performance in pursuit of record breaking, they were running a railway.

    They were accountable to a plethora of different people, Thompson moreso once the second world war intervened and the LNER's availability figures then went to the war office, which granted expenditure to the LNER and also controlled more aspects of their daily work than ever before (at that point).

    Thompson had to justify any additional expenditure to the LNER's Emergency board and the war office, and whatever may be alleged against his character, it is clear to me on the basis of the pre-war and wartime mileages that there WERE inherent problems in the LNER in terms of mileages and availability across the board, and quite clearly in the Gresley designed fleet too at that, with the P2s achieving some incredibly bad statistics.

    So where the rebuilds justified? Yes. Was it also justifiable to move them from the Scottish region later? Absolutely. Was it down to prejudice against Thompson's designs? I don't believe so. It is of course possible that the prejudice against Thompson's Pacifics was real and also that they were moved purely on economic grounds for maintenance and overhaul purposes.

    For better or worse, those are my thoughts on the subject of the A2/2s moving south from Scotland.

    *Will happily provide a copy of the report for anyone who wishes to read it.
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2018
  19. 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 do Ross. I will go away and check my figures before I come back with the costs. However the real saving was in annual mileage and time out between general overhauls. On that basis, the A2/2 conversions look increasingly good value for money.

    And maybe this has been part of the problem. Too much indignation, too much emotive language, not enough looking at the figures and looking at them critically.
     
    jnc likes this.
  20. 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 hesitate to write this, but generally I have found that whilst attitudes towards Thompson do seem to be strong, I don't believe that the decision to move locomotives around the LNER system is influenced particularly by the drivers. Certainly not in the documents I have read.

    The causes appear to be purely about concentrating the same types together in certain areas so as to maximise availability to work and the availability of spares.

    I think there is truth in what is said about different depots handling certain classes better. I don't believe the drivers thoughts were taken particularly into account.

    The prejudice against Thompson's designs is real mind - whether it was justified, is another matter. But I do not believe it factored into the locomotive superintendents decisions.
     
    Fred Kerr and Richard Roper like this.

Share This Page