Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

To throw it out there - cat amongst pigeons:

Bert Spencer very much involved in Gresley setup.

He amongst others very focused on conjugated valve gear development.

WW2 comes along and availability of locos becomes a real (and now evidenced) problem.

Thompson commissions an independent report from Cox and Stanier. The report states not to build any more with this gear, and maybe rebuild a few with a third walschaerts gear, or simplify to two cylinders.

Put yourself in Thompson’s shoes. You are dealing with a very difficult wartime situation.

Do you keep a Gresley supporter who you could reasonably argue has contributed to the situation you find yourself in or do you change the team?

(As an aside, I think it’s naive to suggest any other potential CME wouldn’t make changes on the LNER - the status quo early wasn’t working, availability wise).

 

(And further point - for clarity - I’m not saying Gresley’s team were making bad decisions and were incompetent, more making a point of how you could twist the interpretation of that decision making).

 

I think that it's fair to say that any change 'at the top' can polarize issues when the inevitable reshuffle occurs; Thompson's problem was that he wasn't HNG, whose star still shone brightly within the LNER, and was probably on a hiding to nothing regardless of what he did.

 

Perhaps it might be worth considering the criticism of Collett for his lack of innovation and development of GWR design post Churchward, or the problems that Whale inherently on succeeding Webb. In most cases the successor is condemned for either trashing a legacy or for stagnation or for failing to deal with problems. Perhaps only a few: Churchward, Gresley and Stanier managed a transition without too much flack.

I do think that it is worth contextualising the problems that Thompson faced compared to those that Hawksworth, Bulleid and Fairburn faced as incoming CMEs faced with succeeding people who had been in post for a while and facing very different problems and demands to their predecessors. The Bulleid-Thompson comparison is useful but I think it worth widening. The context will I think help move the discussion out of LNER parochialism.

 

Only 5 weeks to go on this thread ( hallelujah)

 

I don’t understand why you feel the need to post that.

I’ll do my best to get e copies out to those who’ve asked for them before Xmas.

Bear in mind I am in training, will be busy over the holiday period (as are we all) it may or may not be available before or after then.

Setting myself deadlines just doesn’t seem to work given how much has to be done.

 

For what it is worth, my take on ET. There can be little doubt that the rebuilding of the B12s into B12/3s was a success in probably producing the best inside cylinder 4-6-0 that this country ever had, and the longest lasting, too. I used to do a bit of line side observation and phoning during the school lunch hour at Potters Bar in the mid-1950s and can recall B12/3s several times on the mid-day 'Cambridge Buffet Express'. The same could be said for the D16 rebuilds, although the frames weren't really up to it.

However, I always thought his Pacific as rather ungainly machines, so accordingly I put up a photo of 60501 taken at Brookmans Park (between Potters Bar and Hatfield) on July 7th, 1958 that is a bit of a puzzle. Bearing in mind that it was then only two weeks out of a casual repair from Doncaster, and a bit leaky around the cylinder area, what was it doing running light engine on the Down Slow bearing in mind that its home shed then was York (50A)?

The B1s, a modern loco, but according to the writings of Bill Harvey deficient particularly in the axle boxes and needing serious attention after only 40 - 50,000 miles. Much the same could be said for the L1s (there was a number of them at Hitchin (34D) for the Kings Cross outer suburbans, so noisy in the motion department that they rivalled the WD 2-8-0s for this. Concrete mixers, we nick-named them. Suffice it say that these shortcomings were something the ET should have given attention to, the B1s having been around since 1942.

Other 4-6-0 conversions like the B17s) weren't over successful with the frames not standing up to the thrusts of two big cylinders. I have a photo somewhere of the chassis of 61671 'Royal Sovereign' at Stratford Works, must try and locate it.

As for the production K1 2-6-0s, I feel that there must have been some thought given to these weaknesses in Peppercorn's time as I haven't come across anything to suggest that they suffered in the axle box area.

 

Hi Simon,

Spencer was an adherent of long travel long lap valves, and strongly disagreed with his boss Gresley fitting short travel valves to the original A1s .

I don't think it correct to state that Spencer was a proponent of conjugated gear; and altering the gear to provide shorter or longer travel is quite a simple process requiring no great expertise at all.

It certainly was not dependent on Spencer as the LNER's 'valve gear expert', as anyone in the drawing office could have done these alterations in my opinion (in the same way that in miniature examples Don Young, Martin Breeze, and Martin Evans designed conjugated gear without the expert knowledge of say Spencer (LNER), Pearce (GWR), and Holcroft (GWR/SECR/SR).

This all becomes very 'nuanced', and it is very important to understand valve gear design of the respective types of valve gears and their various arrangements, plus we can input all the designs these days into a computer simulator and check whether the original gears were on paper what they ought to be, and who really were the experts in retrospect!

Bert Spencer was clearly very upset at his transfer away from the drawing office at Doncaster by Thompson.

One of the problems with LNER locos was that the frames were of thinner steel plate when compared to the SR and GWR (I don't know about the LMS). Don Young described being involved in an overhaul of 'Mallard' in the 1950s, and the frames were knackered. The B1s had thin frame plates. One cannot put this down to WW2 steel shortages; it was a design approach that pre-dated Thompson and WW2, and which Thompson continued.

Cheers,

Julian

 

I don't think you really have the gist of the Stanier/Cox report .

they did not advocate no more 3 cyl locos . yes - build 2 cyls when they would do the job , but it is not possible to build a 2 cyl engine with 40000 lb TE and have it fit the loading gauge - quite apart from the problem of having frames that would take the stress .
there was an acceptance that more large capacity 3 cyl locos would be built but the recommendation was they should not use conjugated gear. (why anyone thought the LNER needed more 4-6-2/2-6-2 locos is beyond me - a fleet of decent 4-6-0 would have done the job )

they were also asked to make an estimate for the replacement of the conjugated gear across the entire fleet ,which had to be rejected on cost grounds.[/QUOTE]

 

Yet Thompson continues to build V2s with conjugated gear!

Cheers,

Julian

 

Works programmes don’t start and stop instantaneously though, and once ordered, it’s not cost effective to call a halt to ongoing construction. My understanding of the chronology is that the Cox report was mid 1942; it would have taken probably several months to digest and get board approval for any change in policy, by which point the 1943 construction programme would be underway and the 1944 programme being agreed. Construction of V2s stopped in 1944 and the last four, as I understand, weren’t constructed but instead the order was transferred to become A2/1 Pacifics.

So I don’t see any discrepancy between a report recommending ceasing production of locos with conjugated valve gear being written in mid 1942 and construction ceasing in 1944; hard to think it could have happened much quicker. (There are plenty of similar instances during that period of aircraft and tanks being produced after the decision that they were unwanted had taken place).

Tom

 

Regarding building 4-6-2s and 2-6-2s rather than 4-6-0s - might that have been to do with being able to keep large, wide fireboxes, which were more able to cope with poor quality fuel?

 

Where is the source for this quote for converting the entire fleet?

You have often mentioned this quote but I can find nothing in any of the emergency boards minutes nor the locomotive committee minutes, nor can I find it in any direction to works for costs from Thompson. I have the full minutes for 1942-1947 which was no small undertaking on my part over the summer.

This appears to be a myth - I don’t believe anyone at any point on the LNER thought (even Thompson) that they’d rebuild every single Gresley class in the middle of WW2.

More evidence against this comes from Thompson’s own hand - older Gresley classes were in the main kept as “non standard to be maintained” until such time the boilers became unserviceable.

 

Because the works are in full flow with components manufactured and there was no time to do a full redesign until later on?

Bearing in mind works capacity for loco building or rebuilding was hamstrung by the obvious need to manufacture weapons, aircraft, ammunition...for the war department.

 

Bang on the money Tom, with the added issues of the LNER works concentrating on manufacturing for the war effort in the main.

Many people ask why the Thompson B1s has fabricated rather than cast parts and the simple fact was that the foundries for the LNER for casting components was doing work for the war dept.

 

It’s a possibility, but the LNER did build 4-6-0s - classes B12 and B17 built under the company pre 1941.

They just didn’t build a generic go anywhere 4-6-0 until Thompson took over.

So arguably that’s a design house decision - particularly when you consider the other locomotives rolled out under Gresley (various 2-8-0 and a 2-6-2T with round top boilers and narrow fireboxes). Poor fuel does not seem to factor into the design work IMO.

 

Fair points, Simon, but the classes you mention tended to be on shorter runs between stops - freight in particular - where fires could be 'brought round' at stops. The Pacifics and V2s, on the other hand, would hopefully go further for longer. Just a possibility.

 

There’s no doubt length of potential runs is indeed a factor - but we were talking of fuel, I thought.

Then there’s the V4 which fits neither one bracket or the other. I don’t think many would argue that the V4 wasn’t a Rolls Royce and the B1 wasn’t a Land Rover - but the LNER needed Land Rovers...

 

Poor quality fuel was the issue, wasn't it? Wide 'boxes tend to cope better.

The V4 was an apparent oddity - fantastic performance for its size, but using expensive and hard to get materials when there was a war on wasn't a great idea... plus the tragic demise of their designer. However, how far along were they when everything changed because of the war? Another thing to add to the "what if" discussions list

 

Why the jubilation ? As an interested insider I am finding this an interesting thread with much expert opinion being made available for readers to learn more about a period within steam history that is full of both interesting facts and places much knowledge in a context that has previously been overlooked. I think many on here have learned much and many have been able to add pieces of jigsaw to the puzzle that has alerted Marti to a wider context than he had previously considered - as well as identifying information sources that were more valuable and valued than first thought.

I would agree with celebration in the context that it means Martin can complete the book and relax after a "job well done" although I suspect once the "finished" text is published further information will come to light that could / should have been included.