Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion 2012 - 2022

No need to defend yourself. I'd gathered your course at Isis Polytechnic wasn't Home Economics.

 

OK thanks, I don't always bother to log in, so missed this one.

 

Just wanted to say a big thank you to everyone who has taken part in the discussion this year, bought the book or added to the Thompson story.

I think we are now at the stage where we’ve had a good run on this thread - ten years worth of debate and research! - and it’s now time to let it lie for the time being.

I’m proud of the fact that we’ve covered so much ground in this thread. From where we started in 2012 to ending 2022 with the book out, reviewed (mostly well!) and finally putting to rest so many of the myths around Thompson’s life.

So on that note, Merry Christmas one and all.

Thank you for taking part in the longest online debate on railway matters to date!

 

And thank you, Sir, for making it possible.

 

Happy Christmas Simon - And to everyone on Nat Pres!

Richard.

 

Looking at the mongrel Pacific V2/A2, has any wise sage ever calculated what boiler pressure they would have needed to be adequately boilered?

 

They were adequately boilered.

 

I don't think that's correct, see lner info and first hand accounts, however they weren't so bad as Great Northern, which was kept as a spare at the end of a station. It may be this reputation arose as they became wore out, leaked and lost boiler pressure.

 

Clearly you haven’t read Simon’s book yet , or caught up with this thread since 2019.

 

The claims they were "under boilered" are, putting it bluntly, wrong.

The V2 boiler they had was pressed to 225lb, 5lb higher than the V2s were and 5lb higher than the Gresley A3s. They had the klychap double chimney from new.

I have found no first hand evidence that they suffered from being "under boilered". They were not shy of steam with the setup they had.

It was a pilot engine once whilst it was being checked for its driving wheels potentially having shifted on the axles.

I think it exists only in the heads of the apocryphal storytellers, to be honest! All steam locomotives when they get run down might lose performance but all of the LNER Pacifics had excellent boilers which could raise steam well and, perhaps more importantly, keep making steam efficiently.

 

When worn they may use more steam than when fresh out of works but steam locos don't leak significantly and don't lose boiler pressure. As for being kept as a spare at the end of the station, 60113 was always a Doncaster loco and it was the practice to keep an A1 pacific as a standing pilot at Doncaster, ready to take over from any ailing loco at any time. As Doncaster only usually had about 6 A1's on its books, it stands to reason that it would spend a lot of time on this duty for a significant part of its life.

When spotting at Doncaster it was always a bit annoying that you could see the loco in the sidings at the south end of the station but you couldn't get its number because of the angle and distance away. The only consolation was that you knew that you would almost certainly have already crossed it off in your combined volume.

 

It pleases me Steve that you put 60113 in the A1 category

One of the things which has always puzzled me are the references from some quarters that, where they speak positively of Great Northern, they refer it to being just another of the Peppercorn A1s - quite an accolade, but the Thompson A1 strictly speaking is the post-war A4 Pacific development. It does seem to indicate that it was thought of as being as capable as a Peppercorn A1.

 

Well, if Ian Allan lumped them all together, who am I to disagree?