Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

Gents - am I going mad - where did the discussion of the CMEs go?

 

https://www.national-preservation.c...e-cme-in-locomotive-design-and-build.1288521/

Tom

 

Much obliged Tom.

 

My fault

My fault

 

I have almost finished reading Rowleges book on The Austerity 2-8-0 & 2-10-0's

What is interesting is how quickly after the end of the war the LNER bought 200 which suggests hat they had 'issues' with their freight loco fleet.

 

Or maybe they just did not enough of them.

Peter

 

More likely - surely - that with the backlog of maintenance accompanying an increased traffic demand plus the threat of the nationalisation that became real from 1948 it was a cheaper option to buy existing locomotives than pay money to build replacement locomotives from new - especially since workshop demands couldn't supply the 270 + WD 2-10-0s and the 70 Class J94s which were bought by the LNER within such a short time frame.

I believe that the LNER also retained 68 Stanier 8F 2-8-0 which operated as Class O6 and were returned to the LMS to become 48705-772 as the LNER received the WDs which were classified O7.

 

For many years (I first read this book when I was a teenager) contempt would be the correct word to describe my view about Thompson (and probably my late grandfather) - Oh how far we have come in the course of this thread!
Views now have certainly “softened” towards ET and I’m looking forward to reading Simon’s book with interest once published.

 

The LNER O6 (Stanier 8Fs) were built by the LNER and SR .LNER numbers 3100-24 built Brighton in 1944, 3125-34 Darlington 1945 , 3135-47 Darlington 1946 ,3148-55 Doncaster 1945 ,3156/7 Doncaster 1945 ,3158-67 Doncaster 1946.They were transferred on loan to the LMS and LMR(BR) in1947/8 ,they became 8705-8772.
8F S 8500 to 8559 were also built at Darlington and Doncaster 1943/4 for the Railway Executive , loaned to the LNER before taken into LMS stock in 1946/7.None of these loco's mentioned worked for the LMS before 1946/7.
The Ministry of Supply sold all most everything after the war at a ridiculously low price. The steel industry bought large quarry machinery ,draglines excavators ,loco's even loco sheds, (that had been supplied at the start of the war free of charge,) off them after the war for next to nothing. There was a plate on the items that read ,Property of the M O S. So I suspect the J94 s were bought at a knocked down price. It was the British Transport commission that bought the WD 2-10-0s in 1948 and allocated them to the eastern region ,most if not all were in Scotland in the 1950s ,Grangemouth ,Motherwell and Polmadie had most.

 

I have just finished Grafton's biography of Thompson. As intimated upthread - what a contrast to Rogers' offering...

 

Gents - an email today reminds me how far behind I am in providing the book. I am still waiting on some documentation to clear before committing to a publishing date (as you will appreciate, my apprenticeship and other railway related priorities do come first).

I am however willing to say that regards the mileage and availability figures that were brought into question RE Thane of Fife, that I currently intend to stick by the documented LNER mileage figures I have procured from the National Archives. There are reasons for this which will become apparent at a later date, HOWEVER - that does not mean Yeadon's figures are wrong. I believe them to also be correct. It is a bizarre situation that only the LNER could put themselves in, quite frankly.

What this has shown me more than anything is that the original objective of "both sides of the story" has been lost by me somewhat over the last year. I will do better, that I promise.

 

Career comes first, Simon. Your book will be ready when it's ready, as the old saw has it

Mark

 

An area which I have not so far seen discussed - perhaps I may have missed something - is ease of maintenance. I'm I cant find my original source, but I have read that under Thompson, the LNER paid more heed to accessibility, so that bolts were turned around to make the nut easier to get at. If so this would have made life a lot easier for shed staff who had to keep locomotives running. Given the comments above, would such a matter have been the personal responsibility of either Thompson or Gresley?

 

Conversely, which was easier to maintain, Gresley's external 2:1 gear, or Thompson's inside spaghetti?

 

Easy to provide a superficial answer, maybe harder to provide a measured and evidence based one. I think the only way you could really judge would be by reliability and cost of ownership records.

 

From first principles the Thompson scheme I would say.
The Gresley scheme activates three valves plus a lot of extra mass in 2 to 1 beams from two return cranks and two crossheads.
The middle big end needed loving care all the time and maybe even more due to beam flex.
Mr Gresley reminds me of one of my bosses:Surviving by telling the even more incompetent/-breed board how smart they were to let him do such good work .
Thompson is my hero.

 

For me the 2:1 gear has proved its suitability and reliability more than adequately since WW11. And in the preservation era I can’t recall a single failure on the main line with the A4s or V2 attributable to the gear. As for the big end, that issue was also sorted out by redesign long since. I wouldn’t hesitate to use the gear on a new build, and I’m confident the V4 will prove that.

 

With the greatest of respect Sheff, you’ve missed the point.

I have never argued against the reliability of the conjugated valve gear in preservation.

Nor post World War Two when better maintenance and overhaul regimes were possible.

Nor have I ever questioned the LNER pre WW2 with their choice of valve gear.

I have asked if it is fair to condemn Thompson and his body of work on the basis that the conjugated valve gear worked in conditions outside of that he was working in.

The overall availability of the conjugated valve gear locomotives in WW2 was poor. This is born out by figures and facts. This was not some sham Thompson cooked up to get his own way: locomotive availability on the LNER in WW2 was poor and the conjugated fleet suffered disproportionately to a lack in available maintenance.

If you asking which was easier to maintain as a fleet - the Gresley A4s or the Peppercorn A1s with the Thompson divided drive layout - you already know the answer to that. One class cost the least and ran the highest mileages of any express passenger class in BR days together with the best reliability of all of the LNER classes.

I too have no qualms with its use on the new V4. We agree wholeheartedly.

I am just wary of the idea that the conjugated valve gear was fine post WW2, therefore it was always fine, being perpetuated. It’s not the case.

Equally if I’m totally misreading you and this wasn’t a Thompson thing, do please disregard this. Sleep has not been in good supply recently.

 

If you'll forgive me, it seems as if you've avoided answering your own question.

You asked which design was easier to maintain, which is an excellent question, but I submit very hard to establish an accurate big picture answer to.

You then responded by stating that the conjugated gear design is capable of being maintained to give satisfactory service, which is obviously correct, and equally true of the design with three separate gears. But that response doesn't actually provide any information about which design was easier to maintain.

 

From a simplistic point, there is likely to be little doubt that the 2:1 gear will be easier to maintain, simply because there are less moving parts. By my reckoning, the conjugated gear has 8 pin joints against 10 on a conventional set of Walschaerts (if you count the trunnion as two) plus four slipper blocks. However, it is performance that is the critical point. Wear on the conjugated gear is more cumulative in its effect and added to this is the wear in the outside gear. However, because wear is more critical, it is probably advisable to renew components at more frequent intervals. I don't know whether this was done, though.