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. Lplus

    Lplus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2011
    Messages:
    1,919
    Likes Received:
    991
    Location:
    Waiting it out.
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Of course we're going over old ground - this is an internet forum, they're renowned for it.

    Of course the LNER directors wouldn't spend money just to further Thompson's fame. He had convinced them ( with the help of Stanier's report no doubt) that he could design a better locomotive which did away with the, to his mind, errors of Gresley. Due to wartime conditions he couldn't just build a new loco so had to "rebuild" an existing one. As he was going to use new frames it would have been more logical to "rebuild" a loco which needed new frames; as it was, the still usable frames from 4470 were added to the spares inventory for use on another engine. Instead he chose 4470 anyway, so his "improvements" would be first seen on Gresley's first pacific. Whether it was spite, arrogance or pure chance, you can make your own decision, but the circumstantial evidence is pretty significant to my mind.
     
    Sir Nigel Gresley and Spamcan81 like this.
  2. 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
    Let's not forget that the LNER board did call "time" on Thompson's rebuilding programme. Seems they were not convinced of the "improvements". I think Thompson should be best remembered for his very capable B1s.
     
    Sir Nigel Gresley likes this.
  3. Maunsell man

    Maunsell man Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,593
    Likes Received:
    505
    Occupation:
    Senior Finance Auditor
    Location:
    Kent
    I think he rebuilt 4470 because he knew that three quarters of a century later a load of mainly unmarried blokes whose preferred outdoor coats are made of shiny synthetic material would spend endless hours debating why he did it on some strange magic thing called the internet!

    Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk
     
    ragl likes this.
  4. 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
    Speak for yourself sunshine.
     
  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
    That's quite a generalisation and shows a severe lack of research.

    Not all LNER engines were marked thusly in wartime and there are hundreds of photographs throughout the vast number of Yeadon's Register volumes showing locomotives of all LNER types with gold shaded red, and yellow shaded red, and Gills sans in yellow and cream lettering with the full LNER throughout the war years.

    The idea of the "NE" was indeed intended as a wartime austerity measure but mainly where supplies of the full LNER transfers were not available. There are photographs of Brighton built O6s (Stanier 8Fs to the non-LNER fans) with the full lettering and the NE standing alongside each other in the early 40s. It was almost a random thing towards the end of the war, and LNER was applied to one specific A4 (still with us, in the states) when garter blue livery and stainless steel lettering was reapplied to honour its new name. This was before 4470 was released to traffic so clearly the austerity argument holds no water whatsoever.

    But humouring you: if this was actually wartime austerity measure, then my question would be to explain away the fully (and double red lined out) GER prussian blue livery and the nameplates - the first rebuilt P2, Thane of Fife, was released in plain black with NE on the tender and no nameplates - this is a true wartime austerity livery - whereas 4470 was released in September 1945 (after the 2nd of September as it happens - the official end of WW2) in this extremely complicated and expensive livery.

    I hardly think the use of NE on the tender in the format 4470 appeared in could ever be excused as a wartime austerity measure when brand new B1s were being outshopped with LNER on their tenders at the same time. So that leaves other options, one of which is that Thompson wanted NE on the tender for aesthetic purposes. Not entirely without merit I think if you factor in that he worked for both the NER and GNR previously. So is Gresley the only man to be credited with a love of the railways he'd worked for? Edward Thompson was human.

    I would never deny that it is a supremely arrogant thing to do. My view is that it was not malicious: and there is a difference between the intent between the two thought processes, which (for those who don't look at the Thompson debate objectively) tend to dismiss Thompson out of hand for being some sort of Richard III figure when there is precious little evidence aside from hear-say and third-hand personal commentary to go on.

    Which - let's be frank - was entirely the point? There was no point in replacing acceptable locomotives Thompson intended to keep (The A4s and A3s were part of his standardisation plans, to be reboilered and kept going as part of the overall fleet) so replacing the oldest and perhaps considered weakest locomotives in the express links - the A10s - as was intended - and providing something better than a single chimney A4 but intended to be easier to maintain was a fair goal. All of the A10s could in theory have been rebuilt along these lines.

    Interesting fact - the A1/1 was intended to be streamlined along the lines of the A4. Would the A1/1 have had less flack for being fitted with a bugatti front end? The LNER board said no on austerity grounds. The one thing Thompson did not like was the conjugated valve gear - everything else he utilised as standard parts from Gresley's previous reign, including the B1 which used many standard parts.

    There was no official set of tests or comparisons made between Humorist or any of the Thompson and later Peppercorn Pacifics - and even Peppercorn made no attempt to improve the A3s with the fitting of a double chimney during his time, so perhaps it was felt by successive managements that the A10s and A3s were at the end of their development.

    You can hardly blame Thompson for looking forward for his own designs - he was CME after all, it was his job - and on a similar note, should Peppercorn have simply fitted double chimneys to the A3s and A4s and not developed his own Pacifics? That's a question many people would answer in the negative.

    As it happens Thompson did compare the V2 to the A2/3, the A2/2, A2/1 and A4 were compared, the A1/1 ran against an A4 but opportunities for the sort of testing that Gresley was able to do pre-war (crucial point here!) was not available. He had to make do with that he knew and was available to him. The tests concluded a lot of things - not always in the negative for Thompson's locomotives (though it must be said, the A2/2 was always struggling in various ways and the A2/1 was perhaps underboilered).

    If Thompson was so against all things Gresley:

    Why did he continue the building of Gresley designs? (V2 and O2 predominantly)

    Why was the whole of the Gresley fleet - express, mixed traffic and goods - retained virtually unmodified?

    Not much of a machiavellian campaign against all things Gresley, is it?

    More pre-grouping designs were wiped out by Thompsons standardisation plans than anything Gresley design in particular. Six P2s and one A10 of the express passenger engines rebuilt, a few B17s and one D49, K4 and one K3, the K4 becoming the Peppercorn K1 which is generally regarded as being largely Thompson's and not Peppercorn's design.

    You don't think describing it as a "machiavellian campaign" is objective do you? Because the body of evidence doesn't add up to the description frankly.
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2014
    ragl likes this.
  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
    I myself find it difficult to be objective about the Bulleid Pacifics. For one - it still staggers me that Thompson's Pacifics get such an awful reputation, yet locomotives which were en-masse completely rebuilt away from the original designs are held in such high esteem. The amount of money wasted by building the huge number of Bulleid Pacifics and then running them in their original unconventional format by the Southern Railway must be staggering in comparison to that spent on Thompson's which ran completely unmodified into the late 50s and early 60s. Not to mention the amount of money spent on redesigning and then rebuilding them.

    I accept - for objective reasons - that the Bulleid Pacifics were capable of high and sustained performance, but in a country at war and recovering post-war, having to rebuild completely locomotives less than a decade old is not in my opinion indicative of good engineering management.

    One thing you cannot aim at Thompson is that he didn't equip the LNER and the Eastern region thereafter with decent tools for the jobs required in the future - the B1 is ample evidence of that in addition to the decent rebuilds such as the O4/8s, O1s and similar which were perpetuated throughout BR days as and when engines like the O4s came up for withdrawal.
     
  7. GWR4707

    GWR4707 Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    May 12, 2006
    Messages:
    18,046
    Likes Received:
    15,736
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cumbria
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Oh dear you have done it now.....
     
  8. Yorkshire Exile

    Yorkshire Exile Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2007
    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    82
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Codger and retired trustee of A1SLT
    Location:
    Jersey
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Sorry but this attempted justification of Thompson's deliberate butchering of 4470 is a rewrite of history.
    Another A1, 2556 Ormonde, was in the works at the same time as 4470 (almost precisely per Yeadon) and staff and workers at Doncaster attempted to persuade Thompson to use that locomotive. He would have none of it.
    I am pretty sure that this information has been published before and I have also heard it verbally from people who worked at the plant at the time.
    Any suggestion there was no "machiavellian campaign" because so few Gresley engines were "modified" is nonsense; the real reason there was no such campaign is that Thompson reached retirement age!
    As has been said let us remember Thompson for his B1's and now't much else!
     
  9. Big Al

    Big Al Nat Pres stalwart Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Messages:
    21,065
    Likes Received:
    20,775
    Location:
    1016
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    I myself find it difficult to be objective about the Thompson Pacifics. For one - it still.............No don't let's go there. One is enough I think. :)
     
  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
    "Butchering" is a hugely emotive word that indicates he ruined the locomotive.

    He did not - objectively speaking he produced a decent locomotive. It remained a one off, and the Peppercorn A1 was better by far, but it was an improvement on the A10 and was a better locomotive when rebuilt.

    Therein lies the problem with discussing Thompson objectively - it causes an emotional imbalance for anyone Gresley inclined. Fair and reasonable assessment rendered virtually impossible by sixty years and more of one side of the debate being more vocal than the other.

    That is ridiculous - his standardisation plan clearly showed the retention of the vast majority of Gresleys locomotive designs, unmodified. No campaign there at all and to suggest it was due to his retirement age is wrong.
     
  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
    Yes, it is noticeable how difficult it is for people to be objective. Dare I say there's a lot of acrophypal stories about Thompsons engineering out there...?

    Why not try to rebuttle with reasonable argument?
     
    goldfish likes this.
  12. Maunsell man

    Maunsell man Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,593
    Likes Received:
    505
    Occupation:
    Senior Finance Auditor
    Location:
    Kent
    I'm not the one having a temper tantrum because some anonymous person on the internet doesn't happen to agree with my views on some irrelevant event that happened 75 odd years ago. It's the sort of spat that gives transporters a bad name... Sunny Jim
     
  13. 242A1

    242A1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,558
    Likes Received:
    1,299
    The drawing office staff took matters into their own hands and dragged their feet so to speak knowing that ET would not plague them for much longer, his retirement was not too far away. No need for the Directors to do overmuch. Thompson was not going to be in place for overlong and the company had a very limited purse. ET did not have access to the funding to allow him to pursue his aims.

    What did ET achieve? He annoyed enough people, still does evidently. Introduced divided drive three cylinder Pacifics to the UK - the very thing that you try to avoid if you are intent on producing a locomotive capable of producing a reasonable power output. As for standardisation, well the LNE already had a pool of components that could used to produce a wide range of designs. The B1 was a synthesis of these parts. You have to seriously ask questions about the ability of a man who in light of the earlier Hall, Black Five, S15 and other designs produced such a machine that represented little or no improvement on these earlier designs. Little wonder Bulleid was Gresley's assistant. He was forward looking though sadly circumstances prevented him from producing the machines that he really wanted to.

    Worse, the B1 cylinder design was based on that of the K2 but on test the earlier Gresley design could prove to have a better cylinder performance. Hmmmm.

    Then you have the rebuilding of the O4 class as O1. You do not have to search to far to find the views of those who worked at the sharp end. The old Robinson engines rode better, steamed more readily and only suffered from their old cab design.

    Further, who the **** is going to introduce a locomotive with inside valve gear during a period of great difficulty regarding staff and resources as opposed to an engine whose valve gear is accessible from the top side and needs only a regular few shots from a grease gun.

    Might I suggest that a book about the great railway draughtsman (and women) would be a far better use for your time. Being a Thompson apologist/revisionist is a pointless place to be.
     
    Sir Nigel Gresley likes this.
  14. Big Al

    Big Al Nat Pres stalwart Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Messages:
    21,065
    Likes Received:
    20,775
    Location:
    1016
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    OK. I'll be brief.

    On the positive side: Thompson helped with ideas to improve maintenance - e.g. hopper ashpan, rocking grate, inside cylinder design changes and larger piston valves that helped with steaming. Free running locomotives as well. But.......
    By all accounts the P2s were great locomotives and could handle formidable loads but the fact that they tended to have axlebox problems because of their long rigid wheelbase was sufficient to bring about their modification to a more conventional pacific. Ok so far you might say. But what this did was reduce the weight over the main drivers by about a sixth and suddenly you had a locomotive that couldn't keep its feet. Solve one problem, create another.......and so on

    So a curate's egg of a designer, in my view. And was it not the case that some of his locomotives had the shortest service history of the LNER?
     
    S.A.C. Martin likes this.
  15. 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
    Can't disagree with any of that and it is not my remit (or desire) to defend a decision which I also believe was the wrong one. However - one can understand given the conditions of the time the reasons behind rebuilding the P2s even if you don't agree with following through with the decision. The crank axle failures were significantly higher than on other classes and it was this that probably led to their rebuilding in addition to several vocal dissenters from the Scottish Region.

    Thompson looked to fix a fault, and did so by rebuilding the locomotives as Pacifics. The P2 Trust's Deltrarail study shows how the P2s could have been modified to remove these weaknesses - it is a great shame that really, a lack of knowledge of why certain parts failed on these engines led to their rebuilding. Thompson fixed the immediate problems but introduced other new problems which he brought forward with each new Pacific design, albeit less severely.

    If you mean the lone D Class - probably - but by far shorter life spans were achieved by the Standard locomotive classes and that is no indication of their value. Across the four regions when steam was being withdrawn, smallest classes went first leaving the largest ones. The B1 notably survived to the end of steam and the small class of A2/1 and A2/2 Pacifics were withdrawn first. Not an indication of quality.

    There's a difference between being an apologist and wanting to look at an area of railway history which is viciously written with little or no objective viewpoints. It's rather telling that the men who worked on the locomotives we're discussing are rather more inclined to less dramatic (and certainly less derogatory) commentary.

    It is a shame - one thing I will say in response to 242A1's response above - that there simply isn't enough written about the role of the draughtsmen in railway history. Railway historians centre on the personalities and the egos without going into the technical details and how they were approached. I would love to be able to study it further but I fear - given the number of times I've been to search engine at the NRM and found, with increasingly little success, anything from the draughtsmen in the archives that the first hand accounts at the time are few in number and not as detailed as you'd like. A great pity.
     
  16. 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
    One Scottish driver is alleged to have said the the P2 rebuilds "would slip on Musselburgh Sands".
     
  17. 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
    In your opinion maybe.
    As for the debate, you have to ask yourself why so few people seem to support him.
     
    Lplus likes this.
  18. Sir Nigel Gresley

    Sir Nigel Gresley Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2006
    Messages:
    880
    Likes Received:
    148
    Occupation:
    Retired Soldier of Fortune
    Location:
    Dorset
    Tut, tut! The Cartazzi axleboxes can hardly be called a truck. Incidentally, the inventor, F I Cartazzi started work on the GNR, which probably explains Gresley's liking for said trailing wheel arrangement.
     
  19. Lplus

    Lplus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2011
    Messages:
    1,919
    Likes Received:
    991
    Location:
    Waiting it out.
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    We have, but you don't want to accept them.

    Well, you joined in, so I guess you're tarred with the same brush.
     
  20. 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
    People have but you dismiss them. I'm sure there are apocryphal stories about all locomotive engineers. Thompson had every right to want to introduce a new class of 6' 8" Pacific. Want angers followers of Gresley and perplexes others is that of the A1s available to him, Gresley's first was chosen in spite of Doncaster staff trying to convince him to use another as a guinea pig. Now you may say this was to pay tribute to the GN, I say that's balderdash. There was a degree of acrimony between Gresley and Thompson over certain issues. The best known one was when Thompson was on the footplate of Silver Fox and out of the blue told the driver to "go for the ton". Had Thompson made his views known earlier then Driver Haygreen would have prepared his loco for it but as it was he had to flog her mercilessly with the end result the middle big end gave way and the middle piston went through the end of the cylinder. The crew were deeply upset by this as it reflected poorly on their enginemanship and would never have driven the loco in such a manner had it not been for Thompson's instance. Gresley was not best pleased when he heard the news and rebuked Thompson.
     

Share This Page