Wright writes.....

[Jesse Sim]

Sorry to break up the Thompson-Gresley debate but I couldn’t help post this. No prizes on what I’m working on at the moment but I’m getting nearer to creating the mix match workings of the LNER in the 1930s hauled by the beautiful C2 built by Tony and painted by Geoff Haynes. 

[2750Papyrus]

9 hours ago, Clearwater said:

The Thompson Gresley relationship is fascinating.  Whilst not direct contemporaries, they’d been to the same school and must have moved in similar, for the times, upper middle class circles.  Particularly in those days, your average Joe didn’t get sent to a school like Marlborough.  However, Thompson’s father in law effectively lost his job to Gresley on grouping.  But Thompson kept working for the LNER.  Why?  He can’t have been a wage slave like many of us.  In modern parlance, Gresley didn’t manage him out, or manage his succession towards his favoured choice.  Without being an expert, I can only conclude that Gresley must have had sufficient confidence in Thompson’s abilities not to have had him moved.  You’d have thought Greeley’s position would have been powerful enough to have got what he wanted (albeit I might be analysing through a modern management prism.)

 

Assuming Gresley thought Thompson was competent, and putting aside the emotion of the conversion of 1470 and the P2s, one might wonder whether or not at some point whether rail historians will reappraise Thompson and his legacy.  In many ways, an analogue of Hawksworth.   Both succeeded to the CME role late in their careers, in succession to a dominant character and design orthodoxy and in the same year in the middle of the Second World War.  Arguably, Thompson has one great design attributed to his tenure, the B1.  I’m not sure even the most ardent GWR fan could argue one of the locos produced in his tenure had the same impact.  
 

David

 

I have just bought a copy of "Thompson His Life & Locomotives" by Tim Hillier- Graves, published by Pen and Sword.  I've only skimmed through it as yet but it does cast new light on events such as the changed role for Bert Spencer.  It would be interesting to read a TW review! 

[Denbridge]

10 hours ago, Clearwater said:

The Thompson Gresley relationship is fascinating.  Whilst not direct contemporaries, they’d been to the same school and must have moved in similar, for the times, upper middle class circles.  Particularly in those days, your average Joe didn’t get sent to a school like Marlborough.  However, Thompson’s father in law effectively lost his job to Gresley on grouping.  But Thompson kept working for the LNER.  Why?  He can’t have been a wage slave like many of us.  In modern parlance, Gresley didn’t manage him out, or manage his succession towards his favoured choice.  Without being an expert, I can only conclude that Gresley must have had sufficient confidence in Thompson’s abilities not to have had him moved.  You’d have thought Greeley’s position would have been powerful enough to have got what he wanted (albeit I might be analysing through a modern management prism.)

 

Assuming Gresley thought Thompson was competent, and putting aside the emotion of the conversion of 1470 and the P2s, one might wonder whether or not at some point whether rail historians will reappraise Thompson and his legacy.  In many ways, an analogue of Hawksworth.   Both succeeded to the CME role late in their careers, in succession to a dominant character and design orthodoxy and in the same year in the middle of the Second World War.  Arguably, Thompson has one great design attributed to his tenure, the B1.  I’m not sure even the most ardent GWR fan could argue one of the locos produced in his tenure had the same impact.  
 

David

It has been suggested that the reason the B1 was succesful was because it was a simple machine with components brought together from other designs, with little design input from Thompson at all, bar the mainframes.

[Dunsignalling]

2 minutes ago, Denbridge said:

It has been suggested that the reason the B1 was succesful was because it was a simple machine with components brought together from other designs, with little design input from Thompson at all, bar the mainframes.

Or, to put it another way, by the time the B1 was designed, the industry in general had built up sufficient knowledge of 2-cylinder mixed traffic 4-6-0s that it should have been difficult not to make a decent job of it...

 

John

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, 2750Papyrus said:

 

I have just bought a copy of "Thompson His Life & Locomotives" by Tim Hillier- Graves, published by Pen and Sword.  I've only skimmed through it as yet but it does cast new light on events such as the changed role for Bert Spencer.  It would be interesting to read a TW review! 

I haven't received my copy of late, but I'm looking forward to seeing it; particularly after reading the same author's book on Gresley.

 

One must be cautious of any book reviews in my opinion (particularly mine). I've just read one in another model railway magazine (I review books for BRM) where the reviewer concludes 'This is a perfect book for modellers' and even suggests that a young Peter Denny would have been delighted with it. May I suggest 'very, very young', because I don't think the great modeller, even not long out of junior school,  would have been that impressed with the author's inability to spell the names Garratt (Garrett sic) and Allan (Allen sic) correctly, nor his ability to distinguish loco designs between the GN and the GE, and as for not knowing the difference between a Gresley A1 and A3, well! Hardly perfect? 

 

In another book I'm just reviewing I was astonished that the author (a confirmed GWR admirer) believed that only 29 'Kings' were built, that some 9Fs (other than EVENING STAR) were painted green in BR days and that Crosti-boilered 9Fs were still running in 1965!

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

[Tony Wright]

8 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

Or, to put it another way, by the time the B1 was designed, the industry in general had built up sufficient knowledge of 2-cylinder mixed traffic 4-6-0s that it should have been difficult not to make a decent job of it...

 

John

Interesting that the design work and initial construction for the B1 was done at Darlington (Thompson's spiritual home?), rather than Doncaster. Probably because Doncaster never built a 4-6-0 until BR days (a BR Standard Five).

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

One more comment on Edward Thompson (and particularly his Pacifics) if I may? 

 

Based on his rebuilding of GREAT NORTHERN (which was to be Class A1) and his 6' 2" Pacifics (which became A2/3) which were to be Class A2, these were to be the standard express passenger and/or principal heavy mixed traffic motive power for future construction. That being the case, why, after his retirement, was the plan not put into place, with 50 Thompson A1s and 40 Thompson A2s built? The Peppercorn A1s and A2s were fundamentally different (and much better?), and owed most to their success to Gresley features - the boiler/firebox (derived from the P2), the Kylchap double pot (a puzzle why some of Peppercorn's A2s reverted to single chimneys), the (part) 'V'-fronted cab and the perforated steam collector. Divided drive and independent valve gear came from Thompson, and the bogie (which was found to be unsuitable, coming from a comparatively lightweight B1). 

 

What became the A1/1 could hardly be called a success (spare loco at Grantham?) and the A2/3s ended up at depots which had main line work of a secondary nature in the main. Prejudice? 

Edited March 20, 2021 by Tony Wright
to add something

[Tony Wright]

And more (in model form) on Mr Thompson's Pacifics....................

 

I've just received my Hornby STEADY AIM this morning, and here it is, straight from the box (I've yet to add the extra bits). No build issues, and it runs superbly.

 

 

My nearest equivalent, HYCILLA, which I built from a DJH kit and which was painted by Ian Rathbone. 

 

The difference in the colour is open to debate, but in some detail aspects, the Hornby model is superior to this - the front framing below the footplate and the driving wheels, for instance. 

 

What cannot be disputed is that the painting on my example will cost around £100.00 more than the complete Hornby A2/3, and that, in total, one could buy around six (yes SIX) Hornby A2/3s for the price of the example above! 

 

Food for thought? 

 

 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

Another request, please..................

 

 

The caption on the original print states 'Norwich Thorpe', but I don't think that's right. 

 

The loco would appear to be reversing (out of a terminus?) after working a local passenger service on the ex-GE section.

 

The date would be prior to 1956/'57 and the B17 is shedded at Ipswich.

 

Could it be Thorpe?

 

Many thanks in anticipation......................

[Woodcock29]

10 hours ago, Jesse Sim said:

Sorry to break up the Thompson-Gresley debate but I couldn’t help post this. No prizes on what I’m working on at the moment but I’m getting nearer to creating the mix match workings of the LNER in the 1930s hauled by the beautiful C2 built by Tony and painted by Geoff Haynes. 

Hi Jesse

That looks to be a Dia 198 twin brake composite (based on my reading of the GNRS volume on Howlden Articulated Twin and Triplet Sets). I'm curious about the end of the brake coach as I would have thought it should have end windows - two narrow windows each side of the end. I presume these are built from D&S kits? In which case the end with windows should have been on the etches.

 

One pitfall to look out for is that the cast guard's duckets do not fit flush at the bottom so they need a lot of filing back to get them so and then restoration of the beading on the lower half of the duckets - probably too late for your twin as I presume they are soldered in place?

 

Here are two photos of the triplet I built early last year from D&S 6 wheelers. On the two brake ends I used etched duckets from a sheet of extra parts for GN Howlden coaches produced by Frank Davies (Chuffer Davies on RMWeb).  In the unpainted view you can clearly see the end windows.

 

 

 

Andrew  

[PenrithBeacon]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

One more comment on Edward Thompson (and particularly his Pacifics) if I may? 

 

Based on his rebuilding of GREAT NORTHERN (which was to be Class A1) and his 6' 2" Pacifics (which became A2/3) which were to be Class A2, these were to be the standard express passenger and/or principal heavy mixed traffic motive power for future construction. That being the case, why, after his retirement, was the plan not put into place, with 50 Thompson A1s and 40 Thompson A2s built? The Peppercorn A1s and A2s were fundamentally different (and much better?), and owed most to their success to Gresley features - the boiler/firebox (derived from the P2), the Kylchap double pot (a puzzle why some of Peppercorn's A2s reverted to single chimneys), the (part) 'V'-fronted cab and the perforated steam collector. Divided drive and independent valve gear came from Thompson, and the bogie (which was found to be unsuitable, coming from a comparatively lightweight B1). 

 

What became the A1/1 could hardly be called a success (spare loco at Grantham?) and the A2/3s ended up at depots which had main line work of a secondary nature in the main. Prejudice? 

Thanks for the info on the book; ordered from Amazon. 

My understanding is that Thomson used as many Gresley components as possible excluding the conjugated gear that is. In some respects this lead to weaknesses which Peppercorn addressed at the expense of introducing new components but which lead to better locomotives. 

It should be borne in mind the the LNER was, to all intents and purposes, bankrupt during Thomson's period but Peppercorn had the financial mass of the state behind him post nationalisation. 

But did the former LNER really need so many extra pacifics?

See the RCTS books

[bbishop]

Let us not forget the Locomotive Committee wanted locomotives that could run to the timetable without failing on the road or clogging up the works under repair.  In that respect, the Thompson locomotives satisfied their brief and the fact he was unpleasant to his staff concerned them not a jot.  In truth the B1 was probably a better bet as a class 5 locomotive than the V4.

 

1923 - Two railways had obvious candidates for CME.  Then the LMS selected Hughes, born in 1865, who retired after two years.  The locomotive department was a mess for the next decade.  The LNER had maybe three candidates.  Robinson, born 1856, discounted himself.   Raven was born 1862 so could have remained in post until 1930(?).  Which leaves two unanswered questions.  First, how would the Darlington vs. Doncaster competition panned out?  In my opinion the Darlington products were at least as good except for the heavy express locomotives.  But how would the A1 vs. A2 trials have been interpreted?  Second, what would Gresley have done if passed over?  He was ex-L&Y, so would he have accepted an LMS offer in 1925?  Immaterial, because the LNER board chose Gresley, aged 46 at grouping.

 

1941 - Gresley died suddenly aged 64, so the Locomotive Committee were probably expecting him to retire about 1945; at which time Thompson would be 64, Peppercorn 56 and Harrison 46.  As they chose Thompson over Peppercorn in 1941, Harrison would have missed out in 1945 although he was the same age as Gresley at Grouping.  Of course, Harrison would become CME on Peppercorn's death in 1950.

 

Starting from my studies of the LSWR etc morphing into the Southern Railway, I sense the willingness to take risks in the 1920s (Baring & Walker, Stamp, Whitelaw & Wedgewood) had ossified by the 1940s.  Not just the change in circumstances due to WW2, the chairmen and general managers were by nature risk-adverse, so there is no way that Harrison would have been appointed in 1941 or 1945.

 

Having left questions unanswered, I look forward to your replies.....  Bill

 

 

[31A]

44 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Another request, please..................

 

 

The caption on the original print states 'Norwich Thorpe', but I don't think that's right. 

 

The loco would appear to be reversing (out of a terminus?) after working a local passenger service on the ex-GE section.

 

The date would be prior to 1956/'57 and the B17 is shedded at Ipswich.

 

Could it be Thorpe?

 

Many thanks in anticipation......................

 

Could possibly be Yarmouth South Town, terminus for trains from Ipswich via the East Suffolk Line, loco backing onto a train in the platform?  See for example the background in the picture of 69690 on this page:

 

http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/y/yarmouth_south_town/index4.shtml

 

It certainly doesn't look like Norwich Thorpe!

[Northmoor]

39 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Another request, please..................

 

 

The caption on the original print states 'Norwich Thorpe', but I don't think that's right. 

 

The loco would appear to be reversing (out of a terminus?) after working a local passenger service on the ex-GE section.

 

The date would be prior to 1956/'57 and the B17 is shedded at Ipswich.

 

Could it be Thorpe?

 

Many thanks in anticipation......................

I'm 99% certain it's not Norwich Thorpe, Tony.  The background is wrong for either direction; the station is overlooked by higher ground on the North side and if this photo is facing South you'd be looking across the yard, not at some rows of houses.

 

It's not Great Yarmouth or Lowestoft either.  I wondered if it could be Hunstanton but there appears to be the approach to a bridge in the background which is not far from the ends of the platforms; I'm not sure if that's right either.  the platforms appear slightly curved, which may be another clue.

 

One thing this image really shows - which you've commented on before - is how low prototype platforms often were.  It is nowhere near footplate level, which it is on a lot of layouts. 

 

Rob

 

Rob

[Bill Matters]

I am waiting for S.A.C. Martin’s book on Thompson, which looks to have been extensively researched (including analysis of loco usage/repair history from the NRM) and may give a more even-handed appraisal of ET than hitherto experienced. 

 

https://www.national-preservation.com/threads/edward-thompson-wartime-c-m-e-discussion-2012-2021.35938/page-206

 

has 206 pages of sometimes heated discussion as you might expect.

[Tony Wright]

17 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

I'm 99% certain it's not Norwich Thorpe, Tony.  The background is wrong for either direction; the station is overlooked by higher ground on the North side and if this photo is facing South you'd be looking across the yard, not at some rows of houses.

 

It's not Great Yarmouth or Lowestoft either.  I wondered if it could be Hunstanton but there appears to be the approach to a bridge in the background which is not far from the ends of the platforms; I'm not sure if that's right either.  the platforms appear slightly curved, which may be another clue.

 

One thing this image really shows - which you've commented on before - is how low prototype platforms often were.  It is nowhere near footplate level, which it is on a lot of layouts. 

 

Rob

 

Rob

Thanks Rob,

 

It might be Yarmouth South Town, from Steve's images? 

 

Platform heights?

 

Many on models are ridiculously high, resulting in an inability to open carriage doors fully (they'd clout the coping!). 

 

Because Bytham's station dated from 1910/'11 (rebuilt at the time of the quadrupling) its platforms were higher than many - half way up the centre line of an A4's front buffers. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

10 minutes ago, Bill Matters said:

I am waiting for S.A.C. Martin’s book on Thompson, which looks to have been extensively researched (including analysis of loco usage/repair history from the NRM) and may give a more even-handed appraisal of ET than hitherto experienced. 

 

https://www.national-preservation.com/threads/edward-thompson-wartime-c-m-e-discussion-2012-2021.35938/page-206

 

has 206 pages of sometimes heated discussion as you might expect.

I'll reserve judgement on Simon Martin's book. At one point in his writings he's referred to Edward Thompson as a 'genius'. 

 

How many CME's might that epithet refer to? Very few?

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Northmoor]

41 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Thanks Rob,

 

It might be Yarmouth South Town, from Steve's images? 

 

Indeed, I remembered Yarmouth Vauxhall and Beach but not South Town.

 

My dad was brought up on the GE and would probably recognise this location instantly.

[Richard E]

4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

In another book I'm just reviewing I was astonished that the author (a confirmed GWR admirer) believed that only 29 'Kings' were built, that some 9Fs (other than EVENING STAR) were painted green in BR days and that Crosti-boilered 9Fs were still running in 1965!

 

Regards,

 

Tony.  

 

Interesting, for those ignorant in GWR machinations, my information leads me to believe there were 31 King Class built, 20 in the initial batch in 1927 (Lot 243) and a further 10 in 1930 (Lot 267). 6007, King William III was written off at Shrivenham in January 1936, condemned on 5th March and a replacement locomotive (Lot 309) was erected, being placed into service on 24th March, taking the same name and number, it is rumoured that some of the damaged locomotives components may have been used in the replacement.

 

As for the Crosti 9F am I correct in thinking the pre-heaters were sealed out of use in 1960 or so but some of the sub-class, retaining their distinctive 'hamster cheek' smokebox, remained in service until 1967.

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said:

Thanks for the info on the book; ordered from Amazon. 

My understanding is that Thomson used as many Gresley components as possible excluding the conjugated gear that is. In some respects this lead to weaknesses which Peppercorn addressed at the expense of introducing new components but which lead to better locomotives. 

It should be borne in mind the the LNER was, to all intents and purposes, bankrupt during Thomson's period but Peppercorn had the financial mass of the state behind him post nationalisation. 

But did the former LNER really need so many extra pacifics?

See the RCTS books

Good afternoon David,

 

I think you're right in that Thompson used many (the best?) of Gresley's components; in the case of the A2/2s, he was forced to, resulting in the short connecting rods necessitating the cylinders be placed so far back. There was no reason for this arrangement in the A2/3s, since they were new builds. 

 

In case of the A2/3s he reverted to a round dome (even though the perforated steam collector was proven to be superior) and a flat cab front (why?). Even though the Peppercorn A1/A2 boiler was virtually the same as the Thompson A2/3 boiler (individual A2/2s, A2/3s, A1s and A2s carried both types), it reverted to the perforated steam collector, placed further back. 

 

Thompson even had some new A3 boilers built with a round dome (Dia. 94HP - the RCTS gets muddled on this point), even though the Dia. 94A (with a perforated steam collector) had superseded it. 

 

The further forward dome resulted in water surging into it under heavy braking, and the 'V'-fronted cab (at least with regard to the spectacles) was far superior in reducing reflected glare. Yet, in his new construction A2/3s Thompson chose to discard the perforated steam collector and the 'V-fronted' cab, both reinstated by his successor. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

1 minute ago, Richard E said:

 

Interesting, for those ignorant in GWR machinations, my information leads me to believe there were 31 King Class built, 20 in the initial batch in 1927 (Lot 243) and a further 10 in 1930 (Lot 267). 6007, King William III was written off at Shrivenham in January 1936, condemned on 5th March and a replacement locomotive (Lot 309) was erected, being placed into service on 24th March, taking the same name and number, it is rumoured that some of the damaged locomotives components may have been used in the replacement.

 

As for the Crosti 9F am I correct in thinking the pre-heaters were sealed out of use in 1960 or so but some of the sub-class, retaining their distinctive 'hamster cheek' smokebox, remained in service until 1967.

Good afternoon Richard,

 

So KING WILLIAM 111 was the same as GRAND PARADE in that it was effectively a brand new loco built (out of spare parts?) to replace one wrecked in an accident? 

 

Regarding the Crosti 9Fs, the pre-heaters were actually removed by the sixties (making them eight-and-a-halfFs), though all retained their 'hamster cheek' smokeboxes.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[New Haven Neil]

IIRC the post-Crosti 9F's were in fact 8F's officially.

[Dunsignalling]

29 minutes ago, Richard E said:

 

Interesting, for those ignorant in GWR machinations, my information leads me to believe there were 31 King Class built, 20 in the initial batch in 1927 (Lot 243) and a further 10 in 1930 (Lot 267). 6007, King William III was written off at Shrivenham in January 1936, condemned on 5th March and a replacement locomotive (Lot 309) was erected, being placed into service on 24th March, taking the same name and number, it is rumoured that some of the damaged locomotives components may have been used in the replacement.

 

As for the Crosti 9F am I correct in thinking the pre-heaters were sealed out of use in 1960 or so but some of the sub-class, retaining their distinctive 'hamster cheek' smokebox, remained in service until 1967.

IIRC, only one of the Crostis was officially withdrawn in 1966, the rest remaining in service (at least on paper) into 1967, though I think some may have spent their last few months stored. 

 

However, they were (strictly speaking) neither Crostis or 9Fs by then, having been downgraded to 8F due to their smaller boiler capacity, the pre-heaters having been bypassed, as you say, in 1960, with the side-mounted chimneys removed and the forward ones assuming their rightful employment. 

 

John

[Mike 84C]

45 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

c

46 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

However, they were (strictly speaking) neither Crostis or 9Fs by then, having been downgraded to 8F due to their smaller boiler capacity, the pre-heaters having been bypassed, as you say, in 1960, with the side-mounted chimneys removed and the forward ones assuming their rightful employment.

 

As Tony says the preheaters were removed along with all the related Crosti equipment. Speaking as one who shovelled coal into them they were b useless the inability to boil water and maintain the boiler was staggering. Should have been rebuilt or cut up. I will not be convinced otherwise!

[CF MRC]

Little bit of progress since 1984...

photo courtesy of Pekka Siiskonen.

 

Tim