Wright writes.....

[Andy Y]

I will admit to getting slightly 'caught out', or perhaps 'taken aback' when Andy Y made a remark about the lack of them on my locos, when he was visiting the other day and we had Bleakhouse Road up.

Hopefully not taken as a criticism Tim, it was just me trying to check that we hadn't omitted something which was available from the snaps. After all; when you're getting a cruel close-up of outstandingly good modelling it's worth checking.

 

 

It's worth observing that when Tony and I were discussing lamps and exhibition layouts and he saw a pic of BHR he thought it was 7mm.

[gwrrob]

What you mean BHR isnt real?

 

Of course it is.I've ridden on it at Pecorama. Also known as  Beer Heights Railway.

[The Stationmaster]

Hopefully not taken as a criticism Tim, it was just me trying to check that we hadn't omitted something which was available from the snaps. After all; when you're getting a cruel close-up of outstandingly good modelling it's worth checking.

 

BHR_1BW.jpg

 

It's worth observing that when Tony and I were discussing lamps and exhibition layouts and he saw a pic of BHR he thought it was 7mm.

Typical S&DJtR - enginemen take the lamps off to trim and fill them and forget to put them back and the Signalmen are too interested in all their little jobs on the side to bother looking at the front of trains (although they did look for tale lamps).

Signed,

I used to work with quite a few ex S&DJtR blokes 

[gwrrob]

 (although they did look for tale lamps).

 

Either you've forgot a 'B' or your spelling gone awry Mike.   

[MJI]

Couple a BR Mk.I or Gresley/Thompson corridor coach to a Stanier corridor coach.  Adaptors will sort out the different gangways but the LMS coach will only couple onto a hook. Fine in real life but I havent seen a Kaydee that drops down to leave a hook showing. In model form a Kaydee isnt ideal when mixing stock, but the good 'ol hook is.

If I was bothered I would fit a discrete auto coupler of some form, but I just don't like screw couplings on buckeye stock

[The Stationmaster]

Either you've forgot a 'B' or your spelling gone awry Mike. 

 

 

"tale lamps" are them things old hands tell young uns over a mash

 Very much what they were with blokes off the Darset - they could tell a good tale  Our Admin Asst at Westbury was a keen gardener and got talking to one of our ex &S&DtR footplatemen one day about dahlias ' don't worry, I'm known for my dahlias' says the Darset man promising to bring some in the next day.  Duly turns up with a boxful and is profusely thanked - until he says 'and that'll be a fiver'.

[Captain Kernow]

What you mean BHR isnt real?

To paraphrase His Excellence, the Baron von Harrap, 'it's as real as you want it to be'...

[Captain Kernow]

Hopefully not taken as a criticism Tim

No, not at all, Andy, more of a bit of 'self-reproach', as I'd been so used to operating without lamps, that the mention of them kind of jolted me into a sense of realisation...

 

Another lovely image, btw, thank you very much!

[S.A.C Martin]

Thank you to Simon Martin for pointing out my error in the description of the bulbous door on the O1 not having a flange. He's quite right of course and I must be more careful in my descriptions. What I meant to do (and this is a weak excuse I know) was to qualify my statement with 'prominent' as a prefix. After I read it through after posting to you, I realised my omission but didn't think to rectify my inadequate use of English. Still, as an ex-teacher - well spotted young Martin for finding my 'deliberate' error. But it does have a wider context, and errors of fact must be pointed out. I've long been a critic of websites where wildly inaccurate statements are posted, and, in this case, I've been 'hoist by my own petard', so I'll take it on the chin. If Simon is also right about the door on 3780 being bulbous (looking closely, he probably is) then my conclusion that it was a BR addition is erroneous, though probably 99% correct. Again, a mistake to be pointed out. Still, at least most of what's been posted has been useful, though, I admit, I must be more careful in future. My compliments, too, for the weathering on his own O1 seen elsewhere on the site.

 

Can you please pass on my thanks Andy for Tony's very kind response.

 

I know Simon is a follower and student of the LNER - well done for that - and a supporter of Edward Thompson's Pacifics. Though I've no wish to get any further involved in the 'discussion' on the merits (or otherwise) of ET's 4-6-2s, it might be of interest to him to know that I've just been working through some first-hand documents relating to the period between the P2s' construction and their subsequent rebuilding.

 

All these are unpublished (though eventually they will be) and they relate (in part) to correspondence about the rebuilding concerning several LNER officers responsible for actually running the railways around Edinburgh and beyond. Almost to a man, the opinions on the rebuilding ranged from an 'act of criminal folly' to a complete waste of time and money.

 

I will be very interested to read this correspondence when it is made public. I look forward to it and continuing the debate with more knowledge and understanding of the rebuilds as a result.

 

Though the RCTS tells us that No. 2004 worked a troop train from Perth to Newcastle in the early part of the war, reading through these documents suggests there were several more occasions when the P2s did this, invariably overnight (hence the previous lack of information?). Apparently, the trains were massive (and vital) and no other locomotive class could manage them, especially over Cockburnspath. If a P2 were not available, the train was double-headed.

 

This might be a fair assessment of the P2s worth, were it not for many and detailed accounts of other locomotive classes pulling long ambulance and troop trains throughout the war. One V2 out of King's Cross was recorded at 24 I recall. So perhaps the P2s could do the job more easily, but other locomotive classes seemed capable of matching such performance - but I will concede, not over the road for which they were built.

 

All my previous readings about the P2s suggest visits to Newcastle were rare. No, on a not-infrequent basis it seems, but only overnight. Though the correspondents acknowledge that the big Mikados had their faults, the retention of these giants with their unsurpassed pulling power (especially during the war) should have been paramount. Haymarket's shedmaster almost lost his job for saying so. Only Toram Beg, amongst the professionals, appears to have criticised the P2s in print, though Geoff Lund (one of the officers) reckons the driver's lack of seniority pre-war would have meant his having little to do with them. Anyway, Toram Beg's assessment of the A2/2s was even more damning. He's the one who reckoned they'd slip on Portobello Sands!

 

Though this does go slightly off topic, with Hornby's imminent release of Cock o' the North (admittedly in original form), then it might be of interest. Anyway, might we eventually get a Bugatti-nosed P2?

 

Regarding the P2s and Thompson Pacifics - much has been made of my stance (!) elsewhere, I must qualify my views a little.

 

There's no doubt in my mind that Thompson made a grave error when he selected the P2s for rebuilding. They were magnificent locomotives and arguably had all the right ingredients for a class of highly successful express passenger Mikados. I have been closely following the A1 Trust's work on their "next lot" no.2007, asking questions when I can from the right people, and some of the things being brought to light about Gresley's design are very interesting. See here for the Vampire DeltaRail Model's explanation.

 

The leading pony truck design has been found to have a very dangerous trait - on a curve of increasing radius, the pony truck actually starts to lift the front driving wheels from the rails. The suspension was shown to take up some of this slack, but eventually the drivers are lifted clean of the railheads. From the A1 Trust website:

 

 

The mechanics of this arrangement have now been clearly understood, following its detail examination and modelling. Most significantly, the links were configured such that the vertical distance between the bogie and underframe increases as it ‘swings’ away from its centre line. Put another way, it is lifting the front end of the loco up as it negotiates the curve. This of course increases the weight on the pony truck wheelset, presumably in an attempt to help increase its steering capability. However, the unfortunate side effect of this is that it leads to the weight on the wheelset behind it (ie the leading coupled wheelset) to be correspondingly reduced (obviously, the overall weight of the locomotive has to stay the same!)

 

The work has already developed far enough to allow the movement of the suspension to be shown in animated form, which is an aid to understanding. Those that were able to be at the Convention would have seen this during Owen Evan’s presentation. As the virtual locomotive makes its way round a curve of increasing radius, so the lifting effect of the front pony truck starts to take effect. At first the suspension arrangement is able to compensate but it eventually gets to a stage where the inner wheel of the front coupled wheelset is lifted completely clear of the rail!

 

One person in the know who I have corresponded with, feels there is evidence that the pony truck design - shared with the V2s - may actually have been directly responsible for some of the accidents involving the V2s, although he says this with some supposition as they need to investigate this further. One thing Thompson was right to do, was to point at this pony truck design as a source of weakness and start replacing the pony truck on the V2s en masse. 

 

I think - and I say this as a reader and follower of the LNER, without engineering qualifications, so take it with a pinch of salt if you must - that perhaps the problem with the Gresley P2s was that not enough was known about the problems with the locomotives to fully assess why they needed more repairs to overheated axleboxes, crank pins, fractured steam pipe joints and similar (though as Peter Townend attests in East Coast Pacifics at Work, there is little evidence available aside from that known of their repairs at Cowlairs).

 

He also points out that the wheel arrangement being the main factor in these problems as a nonsense - citing eight coupled and ten coupled goods engines happily negotiating the same curvatures of track, which is a very fair point.

 

It may well be that the pony truck was the sole cause of many of the P2s problems, and that a simple re-design, as per the V2s, could have saved these locomotives from being turned into their Pacific format. We say this in hindsight, because the pony truck on the V2s was only identified and then dealt with as a problem when the P2s were starting to be rebuilt.

 

Thompson perhaps never understood - nor did anyone else at the time or since until now - the true extent of the problems, and how simple it might have been to fix said problems, and thus it was that the simplest solution to the problem of the locomotives' maintenance in terms of axleboxes and crank pins, was to fit a bogie and turn them into Pacifics. Drastic in some respects, but what really changed? The front section of the P2 frames was separate to the rest in any event, a new one was bolted on and the cylinders were set back accordingly with the same short connecting rods. The steam circuit was improved marginally, and in fairness to Thompson, though the three separate cylinders could and did work loose, they were easier to remove, fix and then replace than the previous monobloc. 

 

We may have been robbed of the Gresley P2s through a lack of understanding of the real problems the P2s had, and how simple it may have been to correct them. But then, Thompson nor his staff had access to computer modelling in the vein the A1 Trust is working with.

 

Do I feel the A2/2s were an improvement? Of course not. Were they outstanding locomotives? Of course not. Did they work on for another twenty years? Yes. Much is made of them being a "disaster" or a "failure by all accounts" but I find in reading on locomotive development generally that there are varying levels of "success". It says much that the Thompson Pacifics, for all their negatives and varied forms, were never rebuilt as drastically as Bulleid's Pacifics in their lifetime. 

 

The level of diatribe aimed at their apparent inability to pull trains is not matched by their actual and continued work for British Railways.

 

 

 

Gresley designed engines at a time when the railway, and the steam railway at that, was the undisputed prime mover of people and goods. Thompson and his successors were faced with very different problems, so one cannot compare like with like. The Thompson Pacifics were not a success, as witnessed by their being largely marginalised at sheds such as York and New England.

 

I'm not sure that this is an entirely fair assessment of their worth Gilbert. Everything I have read suggests the ex-LNER regions had rather tidy minds, and tried to allocate locomotives according to the number in their classes, grouping together smaller classes rather than scattering them amongst the region.

 

If the movement of the Thompson Pacifics to York and New England is indicative of their worth, what does that say of the equally small number of Peppercorn A2s being moved from the southern end of the East Coast main line and being sent en-masse to Scotland? I wouldn't say the Peppercorn A2s were marginalised, nor really were the Thompson Pacifics. It makes perfect sense to keep smaller classes together in terms of allocation, work and maintenance, and that is exactly what happened, if RCTS 2A and Yeadon's amongst other notable publications are to be believed. 

 

The often quoted reason for Great Northern's departure from King's Cross shed is because it was a terrible locomotive. Peter Townend - who was shedmaster, as we all know - refutes this entirely in several of his books, and points out in East Coast Pacifics at Work that as a prototype, a one of a kind, it was easier to be repaired and maintained from Doncaster. King's Cross - which had a stud of the much more numerous A1s, A3s and A4s - more or less standardised on their fleet. That's fair enough and one wonders how many more of this stories about the Thompson Pacifics' inability to pull the proverbial skin off a rice pudding would be proved wrong by simply looking at all the facts to hand.

 

It is surely also a shattering indictment that even while he was still in office his staff were secretly working on a new design of Pacific, and that exisiting orders for A2/3's were cancelled after his retirement?

 

I think that says more about their opinion of Thompson, the man, than it does about the actual engineering ethos behind his Pacifics.

 

Whether we like it or not, Thompson led the way with the divided drive, electric lighting, hopper ashpans and rocking grates, and had several years development of such a Pacific type in both 6ft 2in and 6ft 8in forms that allowed Peppercorn to take advantage of that learned, and create the ultimate Pacific locomotive in my view.

 

I am always very skeptical of the idea put about that they "designed a locomotive Gresley would have made" - Gresley's work on the V4 in the first few years of the war showed that Gresley was behind the times and would not budge on certain portions of his engineering ethos. High grade materials and valve gear which, while sound in practice, was not up to the job with decreased maintenance and labour available in a very bloody conflict with rife fuel, food and materials shortages. 

 

I don't defend Thompson's engineering because he was a nice man really - of course he wasn't, there is enough evidence  - but there's been a severely strong and also manipulative airbrushing of history which is trotted out again and again because the man who did what was necessary in some respects, was Edward Thompson. No one judges Gresley on his abject failures, so to do so with Thompson, who had neither the luxury of time nor money nor the manpower to develop an engineering policy as Gresley did, is at best unfair.

 

Peppercorn made two excellent Pacifics which had divided drive, the same long smokeboxes and double kylchap exhausts that Thompson standardised on. The wheelbase was different but the basic ingredients were the same. Thompson is the only one of those three locomotive engineers who standardised on those three portions, Peppercorn reverting to a single chimney for his A2 (for reasons unknown). 

 

There were indeed some successes, B1 and K1 in particular, but even they really represented the final development of a line going back to GN days. It is significant also to look at what happened to classes which Thompson rebuilt. The B2's worked alongside the B17's, but no more were rebuilt, and both classes were withdrawn at the same time. The same applies to J11, though in fact the original engines lasted a bit longer than the rebuilds. That also applies to the 01's, which were outlasted by some original Robinson engines. Surely, had the Thompson designs/rebuilds shown themselves to have significant advantages over the originals, more rebuilding would have taken place?

 

It seems unfair that the B1 and K1 are devalued to the extent of "final development of a line going back to GN days". Someone had to make the decisions to make those locomotives: it was Edward Thompson and he should be rightly applauded for his overall forward thinking in terms of his engineering policy: one which is borne out by the thinking behind the many two cylinder locomotives BR built as their standard locomotive designs.

 

Many of Gresley's locomotive classes were developments of ideas found on the GNR: they are not dismissed as mere developments of Ivatt's engineering.

 

I agree that the B2s were the odd man out, and forming a small class, it's again easy to see that they would be first up for withdrawal against the more numerous B17s. 

 

The Thompson O4/8s continued to be built as and when the boilers on the O4s came up for up renewal. BR converted 70 O4s to O4/8 between 1955 and 1958 - which must be indicative both of Thompson's faith in the boiler type, and the original robustness of Robinson's design.

 

The O1s lasted until 1963 and gave a very good account of themselves. They were in a minority compared to the original O4s and it's unsurprising (again, because classes tended to be withdrawn dependent on their numbers) that they went first. Several commentators have cited the original Robinson components - the axleboxes in particular - as the main weakness of the class, but that does not appear to have hampered their ability to pull trains.

 

That they were chosen for the 1948 exchange trials must say something of their worth. I've been reading the account of their work by Cecil J. Allen, and it strikes me that the O1 was a surprising powerhouse in many respects, despite circumstances of the road militating against them. 14 different checks on one particular run!

 

 

I have no particular leanings. I just think Gresley could have provided his company with simple to build and maintain 2-cylinder engines, as was proven later by Thompson. The L1, B1 and K1 easily did the work that K4's, D49's, B17's, V3's and V4's had done. The K4's, D49's and B17's barely lasted out the 1950s, well short of the final years of steam, while contemporary designs from the other 'Big Four' companies sailed forth into the 1960s untouched apart from the SR 'King Arthurs'. 

 

In complete agreement with your views there Larry.

 

 

Thompson was down to earth and yet innovative in designing the smaller wheeled A2 Pacific, which Peppercorn was given on a plate to develop. We simply do know know what Peppercorn would have designed seeing as he never did ow't from scratch. Thompson's A2 idea of a smaller wheeled Pacific was surely the precursor of the BR Britannia, the one seed that did not germinate on the LMS.

 

It's interesting that looking at the Britannia, you see much of the LNER design team's influence, albeit in a two and not a three cylinder Pacific. I agree that Peppercorn had the benefit of Thompson's reign to fully assess the needs and requirements of a 6ft 2in and 6ft 8in standard Pacific, and to be fair to Peppercorn and Harrison, they perfected the ideas which had been tried and tested by Thompson and Gresley beforehand. Thompson did not really have that advantage as he was the first to try divided drive on a Pacific locomotive. I would be wrong and naive to suggest the Thompson Pacifies were perfect machines, but again, they did their work for the best part of twenty years, with minimal changes to the design. 

 

 

As an aside, I watched a video this morning showing Peterborough in the early 1960s. After a few Gresley and Peppercorn Pacifics 'slipped' while leaving the station, the narrator made big play of the "ungainly Thompson Pacific attempting to make a dignified exit." There was a momentary slip before the A2/3 got hold of the train and proceeded on its way, and then lost its feet for a moment on the points that all the other Pacifics had slipped on, but the narrator just had to tell us a V2 would show us how it should be done! 

 

This is one of the things which exasperates me. All Pacifics wheelslip. I haven't experienced a single one out of any of the working Pacifics in preservation not wheelslip at one time or another. There are many accounts of Pacifics wheelslipping in BR days and well before that. Why are Thompson's so maligned when they all did it to varying degrees? It seems to be another of those comparisons made for the single intent of decrying Edward Thompson.

 

Nobody would defend the man for some portions of his behaviour or temperament. Certainly Dorothy Mather did not do so when I talked to her a few years ago about him with her! Even she admitted that some portions of that written on him was not fair. But I respect her views on Thompson the man more because she witnessed the late night phone calls and almost obsessive behaviours of him when he was working with her husband Arthur Peppercorn.

 

Yet clearly, here was a man under incredible pressures, dealing with the impending end of his career, the loss of his wife and a situation which could have been beyond any man. The wartime CMEs - even Bulleid, who I put a number of question marks over on his engineering - must be credited for bringing their railways through a conflict which saw an unprecedented level of collateral damage and loss of human life. I think if a more objective view of Thompson is needed, it is to understand he was not perfect, nor particularly nice - but that the circumstances of his appointment could not have been more grave.

 

Peter Grafton's work on Edward Thompson remains probably the most balanced, though I will accept there are several engineering shortfalls there which paint a more positive than an objective view in some respects. It remains for the individual to take all of these sources together and make their own judgment on the man.

 

I'll get off my soapbox now. I should really write my own book collating all of the evidence, for and against, and be done with it. I can have a disclaimer at the front stating I have absolutely no engineering background, aside from studying Aero Engineering at L'boro for a few years, and an English degree and a love of railways; thus pre-empting the pinch of salt and ensuring all railway enthusiasts will close the book firmly shut!

 

EDIT for general spelling and grammar mistakes!

Edited January 21, 2013 by S.A.C Martin

[Brian Harrap]

I've only just caught up with this thread, and it's very pleasing to read some of the common sense comments from Tony.

 

On the subject of lamps, I will admit to getting slightly 'caught out', or perhaps 'taken aback' when Andy Y made a remark about the lack of them on my locos, when he was visiting the other day and we had Bleakhouse Road up.

 

That's not to say that I've not thought of this, as a serving railwayman (over 30 years and counting...  ), I suppose it would be remiss of me not to have done so...

 

My exhibition layouts all feature 3 link/screw link couplings, and, like Tony, I really don't like the 'dreaded tension locks' (although one member of my operating team - who claims to be from the Nobility of an unspecified, possibly non-existent continental country) dislikes 3 links so much, that he brings his own (weathered) stock to operate on my layouts, at exhibitions, when I'm not looking...).

 

Whilst most of the other kind souls who help me out at shows put a brave face on it, I suspect most of them would welcome something easier than 4mm 3-links with open arms! However, I will persevere with these as long as I can..

 

All my layouts also feature a lot of shunting, especially terminus stations like 'Bleakhouse Road'. On 'Engine Wood', you can, if you wish, just run through trains and not shunt (they leave that to me). 'Callow Lane' will be another shunting fest, with very few through workings from one fiddle yard to another...

 

A few years ago I developed a 'system' (bit of a loose term for some bent bits of 0.4mm brass wire), to allow removable tail lamps during exhibition operations. The attached photo probably best illustrates how it worked - the tail lamp had a bit of brass wire glued in the back of it, coming out at an angle of approx 45 degrees, and this was inserted into a corresponding hole in the rear of the vehicle concerned:

 

tail lamp.jpg

 

However... in practice it was much easier to put the tail lamps into position when the train was out of sight, in the fiddle yard, than when on view in front of the paying public, especially if you'd already spent a few moments faffing about with the 3-link couplings! 

 

Then you could easily drop the lamp onto the ballast, or even waste more time trying to find the tweezers that you thought you had only a few minutes earlier.. Lamps also got lost, so I'd be hard pushed now to find more than two or three of the dozen or so that I prepared for exhibition use.

 

And that was just for tail lamps, never mind loco head lamps or side lamps on brake vans... In operational terms, any train that didn't exhibit the correct lamps would attract the attention of the signalman, who would probably be required by the Rules & Regulations - depending on the circumstances - to arrange for your train to be stopped to ascertain the facts and arrange for the lamp situation to be rectified. So, you could say that having all lamps correct is important on the model, but equally the tail lamp was the signalman's confirmation that your train was complete, so it could arguably be considered the most important of the lot (should we wish to draw such possibly contentious distinctions...).

 

Thus you cannot really keep the loco headlamps in place on a train that has terminated, and where the loco is going to return to the fiddle yard without being turned. To keep it realistic, you have no choice but to remove them and replace them at the opposite end of the loco.

 

Whilst some folk may be happy to insert a portion of a stable (certainly robust in 4mm scale) into the front of the footplate on your expensive plastic-moulded RTR loco, or into the whitemetal or brass footplate of your kit-built loco (same for smokebox doors etc.), I am not prepared to potentially 'disfigure' my models in that manner, so my lamp brackets (where I haven't retained the RTR ones, for example - the later RTR ones aren't bad in some cases) are usually made up from 0.75mm brass strip from Eileens.

 

The real things were mostly bolted onto the loco, so you could say that they were robustly held in place. On the 4mm model, my brass strip ones really have to be attached with superglue or perhaps epoxy (unless it is a metal footplate, and I can solder them in place - even then, glueing is usually easier). The same applies for the brackets for side lamps on brake vans.

 

I suppose it might be possible to solder a bit of wire to the underside of the lamp bracket and glue this into a hole in the footplate (actually, I have tried it!) or perhaps flatten the top of a bit of 0.5mm brass wire to resemble the upper portion of a lamp bracket, and glue the lower (still round wire) part into the footplate (done that as well, thinking about it), but even then it needs to be neatly done, in order to look good, and you've then got to remember to change each loco head lamp, plus tail lamps, plus do the 3-link couplings, each time you terminate a train in public view and re-start back to the fiddle yard.

 

Given that some of my kind and tolerant helpers aren't really that keen on 3-links, I can't bring myself to make them 'do' lamps as well (to say nothing of the verbal and written Rules exam that I'd probably have to subject them to...    ).

 

It goes without saying that (for me) using Bluetak isn't really acceptable, either - how much pressure do you apply - in public gaze - to get the lamp to stick on, and how easy is it to inadvertantly derail the loco in the process? (also bearing in mind that not every 'enthusiast' exhibition goer likes seeing the 'hand from the sky' anyway...!).

 

So, to conclude, I've tried removable tail lamps, and could probably make that system work again, if I really felt the will to do so. As regards loco head lamps, it is the one thing that I would like to do, but in a robust and reliable way that equally doesn't compromise the appearance of the locos. As I haven't found that system yet, the head lamps stay off...

 

On a layout, there are other things that contribute equally to the perceived realism of the model, such as weathering, decent scenery and working signals. All of these things are achievable these days, some may take a bit of practice but the experience of getting there ought to be fun. However, realistic loco steam exhaust, the replication of a loco 'blowing off' or the steam from the cylinder drain cocks hasn't yet been done with any degree of realism.

 

 

Nor have walking, gesticulating figures in 4mm scale, either...

 

 

(and if they did, they'd probably go on strike for better wages on my railway!...  )

'Continental' modelling is so much easier.........couplings that work, built in loco and tail lamps, correct track gauge.......I won't go on. The Baron.

[silverlink]

I read with great interest the above comments on lamps and couplings, for my layout the couplings are'nt a problem as most movements around the shed are light engine only so no fiddling with three link couplings. The lamps however are a different matter, in my attempts to add more realism to my models I've perhaps shot myself in the foot. I decided some time ago to go down the 'working lamps' road which to me are so much better than the over scale Springside etc type. The problem now is I cannot remove them as they are both glued and wired into the loco, question now is when coming on shed does the loco look better for having working lamps that may not be exactly correct, none at all, or perhaps having removable over scale white metal ones that will need the dreaded 'hand-of-god' to remove/refit them ( definatly not prototypical ). Personally I think I will stick with my working ones and will in future when fitting new ones to locos fit them with single 'light engine' ones.

Ian H

Haymarket Cross 

[Guest dilbert]

Why do certain CME's such as Thompson seem to be villified? Collett, as successor to Churchward, has received similar critiques (e.g. GWR 4-6-0s all look the same blah, blah) and yet as CME, Collett's priorities weren't necessarily to new loco designs, orientated to operational and production elements - his heritage was founded by Churchward's standardisation programme. Under Collett's guidance saw the arrival of the AEC Railcars and the lack of loco streamlining on GWR locos (in the latter instance to which he saw no obvious technical merit).

 

In all of the Thompson stuff, I can't help thinking that there is some (obvious) link to Vincent Raven and his limited particpation in the newly formed LNER (Raven had been a successful and innovative CME for the GER NER). Is there any reason to believe that Raven would not have been such a good CME as Gresley?... dilbert

 

edit : to correct GER for NER...

Edited January 20, 2013 by dilbert

[micklner]

This has been speculated on so many times with no answer.

 

What is definate is

 

Raven didnt get the job of LNER  CME  Thompson was Ravens son in law 

 

Gresley did get the job of LNER CME

 

Thompson took over from Gresley and "tinkered" with number of Gresleys designs amongst other "work" some of which is without doubt good e.g B1

 

 

It would appear most of his staff had no time for him and that dislike has spilled over to the media, here etc etc and still continues to this day .

 

I doubt if any answer is going to appear 70 years on. Lets just enjoy the Locos !! good or bad !!

[The Stationmaster]

I read with great interest the above comments on lamps and couplings, for my layout the couplings are'nt a problem as most movements around the shed are light engine only so no fiddling with three link couplings. The lamps however are a different matter, in my attempts to add more realism to my models I've perhaps shot myself in the foot. I decided some time ago to go down the 'working lamps' road which to me are so much better than the over scale Springside etc type. The problem now is I cannot remove them as they are both glued and wired into the loco, question now is when coming on shed does the loco look better for having working lamps that may not be exactly correct, none at all, or perhaps having removable over scale white metal ones that will need the dreaded 'hand-of-god' to remove/refit them ( definatly not prototypical ). Personally I think I will stick with my working ones and will in future when fitting new ones to locos fit them with single 'light engine' ones.

Ian H

Haymarket Cross 

Depending on how far Haymarket Cross is from the station(s) or yard(s) it served then most likely engines coming on shed would have a 'Light Loco' headlamp and, of course, a tail lamps.  However - and again it depends on the distance etc - engines going off chimney first might be lamped either for the train they are going to work or as light engines but they will carry a tail lamp.  If they go off chimney first OI would think light loco lamp leading and tail lamp trailing but under Local Instructions you could arrange it to suit yourself.

[coachmann]

Why do certain CME's such as Thompson seem to be villified?

 

 

Rites of passage in adolescence are a cross-cultural ritual, but uniquely practiced in perpetuity by the East Coast Conjugated Motion tribe as a form if circumcision to cut off 'Thompson'.    

 

Source : 'Villification' Volumes A1 & A2'.  

Edited January 20, 2013 by coachmann

[Guest dilbert]

 

Raven didnt get the job of LNER  CME  Thompson was Ravens son in law 

 

Gresley did get the job of LNER CME

 

Thompson took over from Gresley and "tinkered" with number of Gresleys designs amongst other "work" some of which is without doubt good e.g B1

 

... I doubt if any answer is going to appear 70 years on. Lets just enjoy the Locos !! good or bad !!

 Well I didn't get picked up on the NER gaffe (since corrected)...

 

My question about Gresley/Raven was rhetorical... but I haven't come across reasons why Raven wouldn't have been a good CME for the LNER. As for enjoying the locos (good or bad performance-wise), no problem,.. I just get the impression at times that an RTR version is expected to run to the equivalanet qualities of the prototype (good or bad)... dilbert

Edited January 20, 2013 by dilbert

[Mike J]

 

I'll get off my soapbox now. I should really write my own book collating all of the evidence, for and against, and be done with it. I can have a disclaimer at the front stating I have absolutely no engineering background, aside from studying Aero Engineering at L'boro for a few years, and an English degree and a love of railways; thus pre-empting the pinch of salt and ensuring all railway enthusiasts will close the book firmly shut!

 

EDIT for general spelling and grammar mistakes!

You are entitled to stand on your soapbox, and you make very valid appraisals of the many points that you've addressed. Maybe you should write that book even though you admit to a lack of an engineering background. I agree with your points regarding the relative merits of Thompson's designs and strategy. The single biggest reason why Thompson is so decried is that he upset so many people, as by most accounts he was not a particularly nice individual. His engineering capability in evaluation suffers because many of his contemporaries simply disliked the man. He went out of his way to upset the Gresley followers and seemed to actively enjoy getting a reaction. (Literally a small man following in a big man's footsteps.)

I have read many of the well documented accounts on the relative merits and problems with Gresley and Thompson designs. Alot are polarised and your more balanced view would certainly make a more interesting read, especially if you could co-write with someone from an engineering background. I'm well read on these subjects, but from your writing above have nowhere near your knowledge, so would look forward to such a book. It's food for thought!

Mike

[micklner]

 Well I didn't get picked up on the NER gaffe (since corrected)...

 

My question about Gresley/Raven was rhetorical... but I haven't come across reasons why Raven wouldn't have been a good CME for the LNER. As for enjoying the locos (good or bad performance-wise), no problem,.. I just get the impression at times that an RTR version is expected to run to the equivalanet qualities of the prototype (good or bad)... dilbert

One obvious reason is look at his Pacific design, it would suggest a much more conservative/Victorian frame of mind . Gresley was in comparison ground breaking , no idea of their respective ages in 1923 perhaps he was due retirement anyway !!

 

Re Locos I was talking prototypes not models he ho !!

[asmay2002]

You are entitled to stand on your soapbox, and you make very valid appraisals of the many points that you've addressed. Maybe you should write that book even though you admit to a lack of an engineering background. I agree with your points regarding the relative merits of Thompson's designs and strategy. The single biggest reason why Thompson is so decried is that he upset so many people, as by most accounts he was not a particularly nice individual. His engineering capability in evaluation suffers because many of his contemporaries simply disliked the man. He went out of his way to upset the Gresley followers and seemed to actively enjoy getting a reaction. (Literally a small man following in a big man's footsteps.)

I have read many of the well documented accounts on the relative merits and problems with Gresley and Thompson designs. Alot are polarised and your more balanced view would certainly make a more interesting read, especially if you could co-write with someone from an engineering background. I'm well read on these subjects, but from your writing above have nowhere near your knowledge, so would look forward to such a book. It's food for thought!

Mike

 

About 30 years ago I had the privilige of talking to a senior engineer who, in his youth, had been one of Thompson's premium apprentices.  He had nothing at all bad to say about the man.  Quite the reverse.  So where does the "by all accounts" stuff come from. 

[asmay2002]

For example, look at all the heavy goods locos the LNER inherited from the GCR and NER. they were perfectly acceptable and did the jobs they were designed for, so with money in short supply they had to be left to get on with it.

 

As to your comment regarding 02's, again the decision to buy war surplus 04's was purely pragmatic and momey led. Quite simply, the Government were almost giving them away, and as the LNER had already inherited quite a lot from the GCR , it was the sensible and cheap option at the time. Significantly, more 02's were built in later years.

 

Which just begs the question "Why build more O2s?"  Ulitimately in running any business making money is all that matters.  They had standard goods loco (the O4) in large numbers which they had got very cheaply.  Perpetuating an over expensive non standard design makes no sense.  Why not just build more O4s?  Not invented in Doncaster?

[asmay2002]

 

 

With regard to ASMAY 2002's recent post on this thread responding to Coachman's and Great Northern's comments, though I can't argue with his figures, I can't follow the logic. I must be dim! Comparing one railway with another is, to use the old adage, like comparing apples with pears. Each of the Big Four built the types of locomotives to suit that railway's individual needs. Into this must be factored specific routes and their requirements and the financial constraints in place at the time. I've just done some (very rough) adding up as to the number of steam locomotive locomotive classes inherited by BR from the Big Four at the beginning of 1948. This includes all the myriad of pre-Grouping designs still extant (many with little life expectancy to be fair). The GWR provided over 50 classes, the Southern over 70, the LMS over 100 and the LNER over 140. I'll leave the mathematicians to work out the percentages, for I haven't counted up the number of individual locomotives from each company. At first glance, these figures support ASMAY 2002's argument about the number of classes and how few locos must have been in them, but it must be remembered that of all the Big Four the LNER was in the most parlous state financially, and could not afford to scrap and replace, as did the LMS under Stanier's regime. Part of Gresley's locomotive policy was to build specific classes for specific routes. If this was unlike what the others did, it doesn't necessarily mean that there's a serious flaw. Take the K4s - I agree, few in number but the only class that could handle the heaviest loads unaided over the West Highland route. It's been said that at Crianlarich, the sight of a K4 passing over the equivalent LMS line handling two more coaches than a Stanier '5' underneath was a sight to behold. One could argue that the Class '5' was much more versatile, but it wasn't as suitable over the more hilly routes as the K4. Gresley saw the economics of a specific design (it saved an engine and a crew) but it had a cost in terms of the initial build price and the added complications. Interestingly, post-war, when various 4-6-0s came to the West Highland (B1s, Stanier '5s', Standard '5s'), their haulage capacity was all inferior to the K4s, and they thus took lighter loads or resorted to double-heading. Only the accountants have the real answers. The same is so for the P2s (even more so), and after their demise there's wasn't a locomotive in the land capable of taking what they did. But, I admit, the cost imperatives were high. 

           

As to the numbers in various classes, umpteen standpoints can be taken. It's not always the case that if a class has a vast number in it, it must be better than a smaller one, even when the economies of standardisation are factored in. It's cited that the J38s were few in number, but they were a far superior locomotive to the 4F. Just because there were more 4Fs doesn't make them a better engine, and in no way could they have done the work of the J38s in the Fife coalfields. But then, the J38s couldn't have hauled the holiday extras taken by the 4Fs. Ask the bean counters.

           

Ironically, one could argue that the LNER built too many big engines to Gresley's design of 'only' three classes (if you combine the non-streamlined Pacifics), nearly 300 of A3, A4 and V2 (I admit the P2s and W1 aren't included). Thompson and Peppercorn added even more, so that the ER/NER/ScR of BR ended up with a grand total of nearly 400 locomotives heavier than a GWR 'King'. And, if we're really being 'picky', Thompson's total of Pacifics were formed of four classes, and yet they only comprised a total of 26 locomotives. What's sauce for the goose....

         

By the same 'logic', Stanier could be criticised for not building enough Pacifics for the LMS, and there were fewer 4-6-2s of his design in two classes than there were in one (A3) of Gresley's. As I say, arguments can be swayed in all directions. 

         

To conclude, and my apologies to those I've left behind (not surprisingly, for I'm muddling myself up), one can't always make direct comparisons. And, with regard to my comments about Edward Thompson's P2 conversions they were to indicate that some new information was forthcoming. I applaud those who defend Thompson, for his motives must have been admirable, and the constraints of the war meant he had to do something to reduce maintenance costs. However, it is a fact of history, that every one (with one exception) of his 'improved' 'standard' locomotive types was outlived by the types they were supposed to replace, however many were built and of how many classes. The exception (if you don't include the K1s, which were brought out under Peppercorn's regime, though, I admit, Thompson showed the way) was the B1. Without doubt, this was the locomotive the LNER really should have built years and years before, and it's a valid criticism of Gresley for his not doing so. One could argue that it was the LNER's most useful locomotive and a fitting tribute to its designer. As has been said already, had ET not tinkered with a few of Gresley's 'sacred cows', his name would have been revered as entirely the man for the job in the circumstances. Just think, had he left the P2s alone, fitted a Kylchap double pot to the V2s and fitted an A4 boiler and a Kylchap double pot to Great Northern (and all the other A1s/A3s) - all of which were entirely possible at the time, and much cheaper than costly rebuilds - he would be considered to be amongst the most applauded of the 20th century CMEs. But, no, he's the most derided. Perhaps, best leave it there.

           

Tony,

 

Thanks for the reply, much of which I agree with, but you may have missed the context.  I was replying to "Great Northerns" assertion that LNER classes weren't built in lots of small classes when the arithmetic tells us they were and merely putting the record straight. Gresley built roughly twice as many classes in much smaller numbers to cover the same range of tasks as Stanier and for a smaller company.  (Great for enthusiasts and those of us who love locos - not so good for the shareholders). Tiny theoretical savings in having the perfect machine for every job were even then almost certainly outweighed by the extra maintenace costs. Mechanical performance isn't everything, Ultimately it's the financial performance that matters and the LMS was very interested in getting that right in contrast to the LNER. The K4 was a magnificent little engine but do the tiny number of days a year when the extra capacity was needed really justify the extra cost over a K1 ( I doubt it).  I know the LNER was in poor financial shape in Gresley's day but it was even worse in Thompson's and his plan to standardise on a small number of classes was the right thing to do.   The LNER could have done it 20 years earlier (as the LMS and GWR did).  It would have deprived us of some interesting locos to model but the LNER may have been a little less broke if they had.

[Guest dilbert]

One obvious reason is look at his Pacific design, it would suggest a much more conservative/Victorian frame of mind . Gresley was in comparison ground breaking ,

 

And Raven's class EE1 & EF1 were Victorian? Design-wise they combined the elegance of steam loco with another form of traction... that would become more acceptable several decades later...dilbert

[Mike J]

About 30 years ago I had the privilige of talking to a senior engineer who, in his youth, had been one of Thompson's premium apprentices.  He had nothing at all bad to say about the man.  Quite the reverse.  So where does the "by all accounts" stuff come from. 

Hi Asmay 2002,

I should maybe have qualified this by saying most accounts I have read. (There is no 'by all accounts')

I cannot ever recall reading a single sentence that described Edward Thompson as amiable. I can only form an opinion from what I read, and agree that these accounts may be biased and somewhat coloured by some authors, but am happy to hear of a first hand account that is more complimentary.

Thank you,

Mike

Edited January 20, 2013 by Mike J

[micklner]

And Raven's class EE1 & EF1 were Victorian? Design-wise they combined the elegance of steam loco with another form of traction... that would become more acceptable several decades later...dilbert

 

 

Sadly they didnt work and/or were so expensive the NER couldnt afford to run them , hardly successful . Most rotted in storage for years until scrapped. 

Design wise they were boxes with windows hardly elegant.

The only one that was used for a considerable period was the ES 1, only Two built on a line 1 mile long. I agree it has it own look, nothing like as elegant as a Steam Loco though.

The EF1 and EFB1 were again used one line until the depression closed the line and again were stored until scrapped.

 

As I wrote earlier  look at his Pacific they werent called Skittle Alleys for no reason. All he did was stretch the Atlantics,hardly groundbreaking or much inovation shown.

Edited January 21, 2013 by micklner

[great northern]

About 30 years ago I had the privilige of talking to a senior engineer who, in his youth, had been one of Thompson's premium apprentices.  He had nothing at all bad to say about the man.  Quite the reverse.  So where does the "by all accounts" stuff come from. 

I believe I know who you are referring to, and he made no secret of his views, which were set out in one of his published works. That is a person for whom I have considerable respect and indeed admiration. It would however be a very rare person indeed for whom no-one ever had a good word. "by all accounts but one or two" maybe?