Jump to content
 

Edward Thompson: for and against


Recommended Posts

I like  Thompsons Big Locos but this one must go down as the worst effort by miles. For a virtually total rebuild of a Loco to last only 6 years in that form must classify as a total disaster.

 

http://www.lner.info/locos/B/b3.shtml

 

 

 

The numerous questions regarding Thommo are

 

1. How did he ever get permission from the board for his strange one off rebuilds. Being realsitic not one of them other than the A1/1 was a better Loco for all the effort.

2  What did he hope to achieve .

3. The LNER was always skint and so I have read on numerous occasions, so why was so much money wasted on such projects

4. All of this was going on in war conditions therefore lack of supplies ,spares etc . He should have been concentrating on keeping the fleet alive and well for the war effort, not tweaking knackered old designs.

 

Split from Gilbert's Peterborough North thread. If I may Mick,

 

Regarding the length of time in service. The B3/3 was never intended to produce a class of 6ft 9in locomotives. It was a design study using standard parts to see if other 4-6-0 classes, including the B17s, could be modified for further use. This same method of design study was successfully done on the freight class O4 to produce the O1 and O4/8, and on the K1/1 for Peppercorn to produce his K1.

 

How did Thompson get permission for his rebuilds? The same way Gresley did for his prototypes and rebuilds. Put simply, he obtained permission by putting forward proposals to the committee for one off rebuilds which, dependent on their success in traffic and after extensive testing, were either abandoned or tweaked further for use as one of the standard classes. This is why the K5 went no further than a single locomotive, and the K1/1 was modified slightly to produce the excellent Peppercorn K1. 

 

What did Thompson hope to achieve? Thompson hoped to achieve a level of standardisation similar to that on the LMS (arguably with the sheer number of pre-grouping classes the LNER inherited and kept going up to the early 1940s, there was little chance of a GWR style level of standardisation).

 

By and large he actually achieved this. The B1 replaced nine GCR 4-6-0 classes outright and a vast number of pre grouping 4-4-0s and similar. The K1 supplemented the existing K3s and replaced other pre-grouping 2-6-0s. The O4/8 and O1 were carefully planned out rebuilds which kept the O4 fleet going too.

 

Each of Thompson's prototypes cost more per locomotive than building another of an existing standard locomotive. However in the long run, the lessons learned from these rebuilds, which used already existing tooling and components (the B1 being the best example of a locomotive produced by using what you already have) helped produce some large classes of locomotives which were easier to maintain, repair and cheaper to run as two cylinder machines than those which existed previously.

 

Of this there can be no doubt, Thompson was abundantly right to abandon 3 cylinder propulsion for all but the largest Pacific classes and whilst his large tank locomotive cannot be considered an exceptional machine, his B1, O1 and the O4/8 together with the K1/1 can be rightly recognised as locomotive classes that helped the LNER make it into the late 40s with a decent working fleet.

 

As for tweaking older designs - the K5 could be described as tweaking I suppose (though it was far more than simply bolting on new cylinders and new valve gear - the boiler was new too and the frames required modification), the B3/3 was rather more involved, as were the B2s, O4/8s and O1s.

 

Thompson was looking ahead to when the LNER would require new locomotive designs and moreover, look to reduce costs through increasing standardisation. He included in his standardisation plans essentially three groups of locomotives: those to be withdrawn and not maintained (a great amount of pre-grouping, most notably a significant number of GCR, NER and GNR classes), those to be retained and maintained (including the A3s, A4s, the O2s, V2s and other similar machines), and the new standard classes (from which the B1, K1 and O1 featured with the A2/3).

 

On the face of it and looking at it objectively, you can't criticise the decision to look to reduce the number of different locomotive classes by introducing new, easy to build and maintain designs but also retaining the best performing locomotives too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll put my tuppence in on this speaking as a joint 'LNER-LMS man' who happens to like Thompson's locomotives and a couple of Gresleys. The LNER was a million miles away from standardisation and so whatever Thompson did after Gresley was never going to go down well with lineside superintendents. Thompson set the foundations for a better and more standardised LNER locomotive fleet with a mixed traffic 2-6-4T, mixed traffic 2-6-0, mixed traffic 4-6-0, and passenger A2 Pacific. There was no 6' 2" Pacific before Peppercord and latter's department merely tweaked Thompson's designs.

 

Compare that to the Southern which was left with more Pacifics than trains but was given nothing modern to replace the elderly passenger tanks..........The LMS baled the region out on that score.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting comments Simon.

 

As to the B3 no logic , again he had the B1 on the go why bother with the B3 or the B17 one was worn out obsolete design and the other a poor rough riding design.

 

Why did he bother  e.g with rebuilds of  D49, J11, D20 none of which were never ever going to be new standard designs. What would he learnt from such pointless exercises where the Locos concerned were worse than the original designs after rebuilding .

 

Is still smacks of fiddling with other CME's designs just to hack a lot of his staff off . Judging from comments again recorded ,he was very good at such things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I always find it amusing to look back into history and in this case it is interesting to look at what the LNEr was publishing about its loco fleet in the late 1940s.

 

As things stood in 1947 the 'new standard types' were identified as follows -

 

4-6-2 A1 Express Passenger. Prototype rebuilt from original series of Gresley pacifics and noted as 'to be streamlined'

 

4-6-2 A2 Heavy Passenger & Freight.  Prototype rebuilt from 2-8-2 (P2 class)

 

4-6-0 B1 General Utility Type. New design with standard components.

 

2-6-0 K1 Mixed Traffic.  Prototype rebuilt from Class K4 with standard components

 

2-8-0 O1 Freight.  Prototype rebuilt from Great Central Robinson 2-8-0.

 

0-6-0 J11 Freight. Prototype rebuilt from Great Central Robinson 0-6-0.

 

2-6-4T L1 Mixed Traffic Tank.  New design with standard components.

 

0-8-0T Q1 Heavy Shunting Tank.  Prototype rebuilt from GCR Robinson 0-8-0 tender engine.

 

0-6-0T J50 Medium Shunting Engine. Prototype rebuilt from GNR Gresley 0-6-0T.

 

- - -       --   Light Shunting Engine.  To be designed.

 

Non standard designs to be retained and reboilered as required were listed as

 

4-6-2  A10  (formerly A1, to be rebuilt as A3,

4-6-2  A3

4-6-2  A4

4-6-0  B17 cylinder and valvegear to be modified and converted to B2 class, identical to B1 except for larger driving wheels

4-4-0  D49 Experimental rebuilding in hand

4-6-0  B16 Valvegear to be modified

2-6-0  K3   Being fitted with 2 cylinders and higher pressure boiler as Class K5

2-6-2  V2

2-8-0  O4  GCR type, when reboilered and fitted with new cylinders becomes new O1 class

2-6-2T V1  Gresley 3 cylinder tank engine (seemingly no alterations proposed?)

2-6-2T V3  (noted as 'similar to V1 but higher boiler pressure

 

And that; 's that.  Incidentally the the alterations to a 'Lord Faringdon' (B3) 4-6-0 are entioned and it is noted that 'its general performance prompted the decision to rebuild the B17s ...as 2 cylinder machines'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the B3/3 only lasted the short time it did was because it fractured one of its cylinders, and was not considered economically repairable; it being a one-off. Rebuilding of the B2s was halted, IIRC, because it was found that the B17s rebuilt with a 225lb boiler were better performers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While reports suggest a great deal of antipathy between Gresley and Thompson, at least with the B1 Thompson recognised the economic challenges that the railways would face post-war. Would Gresley have coped with those challenges? Much admiration though I have for him, I very much doubt it.

 

Dennis

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that Edward Thompson was vilified for modifying other CME's products, seemingly to spite the 'old guard'.

 

However, we can now look back over nearly 70 years later and view the times with more information and hindsight than was previously available -

Thompson was with the NER when Gresley was with the GNR, with the appointment of Gresley to the post of CME of the newly formed L&NER in 1923, nothing more is heard of Thompson until his appointment to the post of CME, upon Gresley's death, at the time the railways were suffering staff, materials and workshop shortages due to the pressures of the war. Thompsons primary role was to ensure that the railway had enough loco's to work the traffic, given the prevailing conditions, he was right to look at standard classes for the future, classes of locomotive power that would also be more economical to build, maintain and operate.

It would not have escaped his notice that staffing levels would never return to pre-war levels, so again a locomotive that could be worked on with fewer people, or taking less time to prepare - think about the time it would take to oil round one set of valve gear, then double it, or even triple it whilst you are lying on your back in a cold wet puddle.

 

When the war was ending Thompson was nearing retirement age anyway, but the future of the railways was still seen as 'The Big Four' so again Thompson was right to try to put the Motive Power Department in good order whilst bearing in mind the fact that electrification had been approved for the Woodhead Route and the GE suburban lines, so Thompson might have been looking for a twenty year life-span for his standard classes hence the large number of rebuilt types featuring, and it is always good engineering practise to have a prototype to asses before fleet production commences.

 

From our observation point here in the 21st century, we can say that Thompson, along with Bullied, Ivatt, Hawksworth and Peppercorn, was partaking in a pointless exercise, with nationalisation in 1948, the modernisation plan of 1955, and subsequent dieselisation and electrification of the retracted network, BUT at the time Thompson, and the LNER board thought it was the right think to do for the good of the railway, company and shareholders.

 

The one question that I would like answered is - Why did Edward Thompson leave the post of CME before his work bore fruit?

Link to post
Share on other sites


The one question that I would like answered is - Why did Edward Thompson leave the post of CME before his work bore fruit?

 

 

 

 

 

 

He retired at 65. He was responsible, while on the G.E. for rebuilding the B12s and D14/15/16s.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I always find there is something simultaneously wonderful and tragic about the last hurrah of steam. As with many other technologies there was clearly still potential to improve the technology and some of the late designs were superb yet in hindsight and to many people at the time it was clear that steams days were coming to a close and that railways would move towards diesel and electric power. I suspect future generations will consider diesel to be a transitional technology and question the commitment of many to a form of power which in the long terms will be seen as a bridge between steam and electric power with some niche use for stand bye power. To be honest I am not really a fan of the LNER or Thompson but I do think he has had an unfairly bad press and that in part this is more related to his perceived insults to Gresley's designs than to consideration of his own work. As has been pointed out, a re-build being a one off does not mean it was a valueless or pointless effort and it is a reasonable way of proving ideas and testing technology. If it works well enough to sanction series re-builds then great, if not then it is still valuable learning to feed into new designs. Remember that people like Thompson did not have the software that modern engineers take for granted and which allows pretty much endless simulation and virtual analysis. One of my railway heroes is O.V. Bullied and he makes the controversies around Thompson pale into insignificance but to me he remains a fascinating engineer and one I admire hugely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...Thompson was with the NER when Gresley was with the GNR, with the appointment of Gresley to the post of CME of the newly formed L&NER in 1923, nothing more is heard of Thompson until his appointment to the post of CME, upon Gresley's death...

A significant aspect to remember is that Thompson was 'in line' for the CME job on the NER. He'd done the correct things in career path, gaining relevant experience and industry networking, married the boss's daughter, and was in the 'Buggin's turn' queue for NER CME behind Raven (CME) and Stamer (CME to come). The grouping threw that clean out of the window, with Gresley (a man not much older) quite correctly getting the LNER CME post. And there was OVSB - a younger man and quite clearly next in line to the CME - Thompson's career path expectations dead in the water. Thompson got lucky in that OVSB went to the Southern: come to that, so was the LNER...

 

Now, here's another thing to think about. Both OVSB and Thompson 'broke away' from the orthodoxy they had been working in when they got the keys to the door. That's highly suggestive to me that both had been somewhat stifled under Gresley; even OVSB, who was given quite a free hand on projects such as the P2.

 

As for the rebuilding aspect of Thompson's career as CME: his pre-CME successes had been rebuilds as already mentioned, while based at Stratford. He hadn't undertaken any clean sheet new designs in his LNER career, OVSB got all that. Natural enough for him on taking up office to see if any more of what had proven successful was possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll put my tuppence in on this speaking as a joint 'LNER-LMS man' who happens to like Thompson's locomotives and a couple of Gresleys. The LNER was a million miles away from standardisation and so whatever Thompson did after Gresley was never going to go down well with lineside superintendents. Thompson set the foundations for a better and more standardised LNER locomotive fleet with a mixed traffic 2-6-4T, mixed traffic 2-6-0, mixed traffic 4-6-0, and passenger A2 Pacific. There was no 6' 2" Pacific before Peppercord and latter's department merely tweaked Thompson's designs.

 

Compare that to the Southern which was left with more Pacifics than trains but was given nothing modern to replace the elderly passenger tanks..........The LMS baled the region out on that score.

 

It's interesting because I regard Bulleid with a mixture of admiration and suspicion. 

 

 

Interesting comments Simon.

 

As to the B3 no logic , again he had the B1 on the go why bother with the B3 or the B17 one was worn out obsolete design and the other a poor rough riding design.

 

Why did he bother  e.g with rebuilds of  D49, J11, D20 none of which were never ever going to be new standard designs. What would he learnt from such pointless exercises where the Locos concerned were worse than the original designs after rebuilding .

 

Is still smacks of fiddling with other CME's designs just to hack a lot of his staff off . Judging from comments again recorded ,he was very good at such things.

 

The idea was to see if the existing 4-6-0 classes which were "non standard" could be made useful or brought into line using standard parts. The B3/3 showed the way for the B17s into B2s but the rest of the GCR fleet were condemned, the original GCR frames and other components not standing up as well as the excellent Robinson O4s (which were similarly converted into O4/8s and O1s). To be fair, there being nine classes of GCR 4-6-0 and only two GCR 2-8-0s (O4 and O5) the former being extremely numerous, it made sense to convert where appropriate into either O4/8 or O1.

 

The D49 rebuild was an experiment into potentially providing a standard 4-4-0 to replace all existing pre-grouping and grouping. The use of the D49 made some sense as the conjugated valve gear examples were not as well thought of as Gresley's excellent Pacific classes, and in the case of The Morpeth, the Reidinger drive it had been fitted with proved troublesome and when it came up for repair, it was an opportunity to convert and see the potential in a two cylinder 4-4-0. Accounts of no.365 are hard to come by but it is largely described as a failure by everyone except its regular driver. From the LNER encyclopaedia:

 

 

At Starbeck it was noted that with its regular drivers, No. 365 was capable of some fair performances. However there would be endless trouble if an unfamiliar driver took control. The main problem was the big end brasses which tended to run hot with high cut-offs. In 1952, No. 365 (now. No. 62768) was involved in a three engine collision at Dragon Junction near Starbeck. Damage was substantial, and No. 62768 was withdrawn. The other two locomotives were also D49s and both remained in service, with No. 62768's undamaged tender being swapped for No. 62758's damaged tender.

Regarding No. 365 Adam Roper knew one of No. 365's drivers, George Harris, and recalls "I knew one of The Morpeth's drivers (George Harris - known as 'Old George' because he was). His comment was that the engine's fault lay in the ash pan - unfamiliar crews would shovel ash over the big ends and contaminate the bearings, causing them to run hot. Other than that he was very proud of his engine because no one else had one like it. He wasn't driving on the day of the final accident, but regularly parked it outside his house so that he could tell if anyone was taking it out who shouldn't have been."

 

So not an exceptional machine, not a failure either (it did work after all and it is fair to say it was probably disadvantaged by being a unique locomotive with a small pool of drivers.

 

The rebuilt D20s were good machines and the first was so modified under Gresley (not Thompson, the rebuilding to the locomotive concerned were carried out in 1936 under Gresley's instruction, but like the B12/3s, under Thompson's direction), just two more being modified in Thompson's reign as CME in 1942 and one under Peppercorn in 1948.

 

Some commentators have stated that Gresley and Thompson had some level of falling out over the D20 rebuilds: Thompson giving details to the railway press where Gresley felt he shouldn't. Peter Grafton states in his book that this was done in the presence of some of Thompson's subordinates and perhaps this "left painful memories" for Thompson. In any event, the rebuilt D20/2s were well thought of and it is actually surprising on a number of levels that the rest were not similarly treated.

 

The J11/3 was another excellent machine and used a combination of standard parts to renew otherwise life expired J11s to become the LNER's new standard 0-6-0. That many pre-grouping and grouping 0-6-0s did make it into BR ownership is perhaps a reflection on the nature of the LNER's finances and the reasonable expectation that the standard classes of the LNER (and subsequently BR) would be built in large numbers allowing these to be withdrawn more quickly.

 

That was not the case and perhaps that is a decent reflection on the ruggedness of many of the NER, GER, GCR and LNER 0-6-0s (the GNR 0-6-0s surviving in varied amounts to the mid 50s and into the late 50s in some cases. I think it was the J6s from the GNR which managed to make it to 1962 perhaps bucking the trend a little here).

 

Every locomotive engineer on every railway I know of rebuilt or tweaked predecessors designs, Thompson was no different. He is perhaps unfairly vilified for this attribute which we know was worse on other railways.

 

 

I always find there is something simultaneously wonderful and tragic about the last hurrah of steam. As with many other technologies there was clearly still potential to improve the technology and some of the late designs were superb yet in hindsight and to many people at the time it was clear that steams days were coming to a close and that railways would move towards diesel and electric power. I suspect future generations will consider diesel to be a transitional technology and question the commitment of many to a form of power which in the long terms will be seen as a bridge between steam and electric power with some niche use for stand bye power.

 

To be honest I am not really a fan of the LNER or Thompson but I do think he has had an unfairly bad press and that in part this is more related to his perceived insults to Gresley's designs than to consideration of his own work. As has been pointed out, a re-build being a one off does not mean it was a valueless or pointless effort and it is a reasonable way of proving ideas and testing technology. If it works well enough to sanction series re-builds then great, if not then it is still valuable learning to feed into new designs. Remember that people like Thompson did not have the software that modern engineers take for granted and which allows pretty much endless simulation and virtual analysis. One of my railway heroes is O.V. Bullied and he makes the controversies around Thompson pale into insignificance but to me he remains a fascinating engineer and one I admire hugely.

 

It is interesting you say that, as the P2 group building Prince of Wales have been able to test the P2 design in a number of different scenarios in association with Deltarail and it is clear that if this technology had been around in Thompson's era, the P2s probably would not have been rebuilt. That it was the pony truck, and nothing else, which really hampered their running characteristics says much of how little the P2s were understood by the LNER and both Gresley and Thompson. Thompson took what he believed was the right decision to produce more reliable units by fitting a bogie and removing a set of driving wheels.

 

Spectacularly missing the point of eight coupled traction of course, but when you analyse the overall layout of the rebuilt P2s you see there's a pattern to Thompson's thinking and certainly he was following the trends set by Stanier in this country, and abroad at the time. Compare the Princess class and one of Chapelon's Pacifics to Thompson's A2 classes and you can see a surprising similarity. The A1/1 is startlingly similar to one of Stanier's original Princess proposals, a 3 cylinder Pacific with very similar layout. Even the stovepipe chimney and cab layout is very similar on the A1/1 to the actual Princess class which was built. 

 

Some of you may be aware that I have been writing a book on Edward Thompson, for some years now. I initially started it on a whim four years ago after some debate on this forum and I am still working on it now. The research I've undertaken has shown some discrepancies to that reported by the timekeepers (Cecil J. Allen and OS Nock in particular) whilst Peter Townend's extremely helpful and insightful recent publications have added to my overall understanding of Thompson and his designs.

 

There's no "right" answer and there is always going to be some speculation but I do believe there was more to Thompson's work than simply looking to spite Gresley. If that had been the case, I doubt the A3s and A4s would have been retained at all. They remained standard classes along with the V2s and Thompson looked to supplement their numbers with more mixed traffic Pacifics. He was building both for the present in wartime and in future and it is fair to say this is overlooked in favour of a more passionate attack on the man's engineering credentials.

 

The criticism Thompson receives for building prototypes in wartime using standard parts - and minimal numbers of prototypes, incidentally - seems unjustified to me, particularly when compared to well over a hundred experimental Bulleid Pacifics which were rebuilt minimally continuously and then extensively rebuilt under Jarvis' direction in BR days. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Simon

     Wartime condtions cannot compare with what was done in peacetime.

 

      J11 I still wonder why such a old design was considered as a new standard ? well thought off yes . Surprised a new design wasnt considered .

 

      D Classes I still see no reason for considering 4-4-0 Locos based on Victorian designs why they were ever considered to be adequate for post war traffic.

  

      B17 was poor and the B1 should have replaced them instead of the B2 built.

 

      A lot of what the LNER had as a fleet would have been gone before Thompson took charge , only reason they still in stock was due to being held back due to the war.

     Probably doubtful if Gresley had lived that Thommo would have ever been CME anyway.

 

     A long time ago and I doubt we will ever know about a lot of what actually happended or the reasons behind some of the decisions made at the time.

      One good thing is that due to Thommo we have some lovely variation of Loco classes for the LNER modeller.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was perfectly normal for a CME to rebuild or modify the designs of his predecessors. It was less of a throwaway society then, and the idea was to upgrade old engines to make them last longer instead of just scrapping them in favour of new build. This was not something invented by Thompson. For example, on the GC Robinson probably modified as many Sacre, Parker and Pollitt engines as he built new, particularly by fitting standard boilers. Some of the Sacre engines verged on the ancient but it was deemed worthwhile to get a few more years out of them. The modern mind finds such concepts hard to grasp. It would be like a bus company fitting a new engine and seats to a 1956 Daimler. We just don't don't do that sort of thing.

 

Thompson's 'crime' was that he dared to touch engines built by Gresley, who had a following that to this day regards him almost as a saint. The ultimate sacrilege was the rebuild of Great Northern the sacred prototype of a much revered class of engines. However I would suggest that his objective was to produce locos that were simpler to maintain in the wartime conditions the LNER found itself in. Given that the LNER was not a rich company (to say the least) he probably did a good job overall. It did however involve treading on a lot of toes, and he does not seem to have been very good at winning friends and influencing people. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

At grouping it was generally expected, in the NE camp, that the older (near retirement) Raven would get the new LNER cme job, when the younger Gresley ( rightly) got the job it left a little bad feeling. But the son-in-law eventually got revenge on the 'Marlborough School' mafia.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I think it was a pattern with CME's, OVSB made some major changes to locomotives he inherited from his predecessors without worrying about sensibilities yet it seems he was very touchy about the re-builds of his own designs which are generally agreed to have resulted in better locomotives. Gresley is up there with Stanier and Churchward in the pantheon of legendary engineers and it does seem that Thompson poured petrol on a fire that would have lit anyway by being somewhat blunt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gresley A3 fans should bear in mind that none were listed in the national collection, which is why Alan Pegler stepped in. I read something in a contemporary 'Railway Magazine' about all the CME's having a meeting where they could read papers if they so chose. There was criticism of Gresley by some other CME's for applying conjugated gear to his designs where it was most inappropriate, of little use, a waste of expenditure and very likely to add to maintenance costs on small wheeled locos.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Simon

     Wartime condtions cannot compare with what was done in peacetime.

 

      J11 I still wonder why such a old design was considered as a new standard ? well thought off yes . Surprised a new design wasnt considered .

 

      D Classes I still see no reason for considering 4-4-0 Locos based on Victorian designs why they were ever considered to be adequate for post war traffic.

  

      B17 was poor and the B1 should have replaced them instead of the B2 built.

 

      A lot of what the LNER had as a fleet would have been gone before Thompson took charge , only reason they still in stock was due to being held back due to the war.

     Probably doubtful if Gresley had lived that Thommo would have ever been CME anyway.

 

     A long time ago and I doubt we will ever know about a lot of what actually happended or the reasons behind some of the decisions made at the time.

      One good thing is that due to Thommo we have some lovely variation of Loco classes for the LNER modeller.

 

Hi Mick,

 

I absolutely agree, wartime conditions cannot be compared with what was done in peacetime. Thompson used standard parts where possible to produce adequate designs for which he had several aims, reducing maintenance costs, reducing production costs, increasing overall fleet reliability and moving the LNER towards a better level of standardisation.

 

Thompson was not able to "build new" as such - the B1 was new but was sold on the basis of utilising already existing components. Indeed, the original B1s used V2 wheel centres, for instance. The J11 was chosen because it fulfilled the need of a "standard" 0-6-0 - it was a numerous class and again easy to modify into the J11/3 which used already existing components from other classes. 

 

The D classes were removed from the last form of Thompson's standardisation plan in 1947. Therefore Thompson clearly changed his mind about the need for a standard 4-4-0. A trend which we will note continued into BR's own plans, where there was no standard 4-4-0.

 

Absolutely agree that the B17 was lacking on some fronts, but perhaps Thompson felt - and the engine men of the GE section certainly did - that a 6ft 8in 4-6-0 would better meet express timings than the 6ft 2in engine, hence their retention and rebuilding into B2 or B17/6. Again, this was dependent on the components requiring replacing as per the O4s into O4/8s or O1s.

 

Gresley for me, was an excellent engineer and Edward Thompson himself said that he was "the greatest living locomotive engineer since Churchward" - but in the V4 I am convinced he was not in touch with the needs of the LNER and the desperate conditions the railway found itself in. Thompson was almost - genuinely - whatever we may think of some of his locomotive types - the right man for the time because he did produce locomotives that the LNER needed - the B1, O1 and K1 (perpetuated under Peppercorn successfully) and got the LNER through the war as CME. 

 

It was perfectly normal for a CME to rebuild or modify the designs of his predecessors. It was less of a throwaway society then, and the idea was to upgrade old engines to make them last longer instead of just scrapping them in favour of new build. This was not something invented by Thompson. For example, on the GC Robinson probably modified as many Sacre, Parker and Pollitt engines as he built new, particularly by fitting standard boilers. Some of the Sacre engines verged on the ancient but it was deemed worthwhile to get a few more years out of them. The modern mind finds such concepts hard to grasp. It would be like a bus company fitting a new engine and seats to a 1956 Daimler. We just don't don't do that sort of thing.

 

Thompson's 'crime' was that he dared to touch engines built by Gresley, who had a following that to this day regards him almost as a saint. The ultimate sacrilege was the rebuild of Great Northern the sacred prototype of a much revered class of engines. However I would suggest that his objective was to produce locos that were simpler to maintain in the wartime conditions the LNER found itself in. Given that the LNER was not a rich company (to say the least) he probably did a good job overall. It did however involve treading on a lot of toes, and he does not seem to have been very good at winning friends and influencing people. 

 

I think the difference between engineering then and engineering now isn't so different. Putting new engines into locomotives such as the Class 43s, 60s, 47s to become 57s and similar has been going on for years. The difference between that and swapping boilers and cylinders isn't so great really. It's the same principle. 

 

I think Great Northern herself is a much misunderstood and harshly criticised locomotive. I personally find her a very handsome locomotive as rebuilt with the stovepipe chimney, no smoke deflectors and small cab. The overall elegance of the round topped boiler and lengthy wheelbase is not, to my mind, ruined by the placement of the cylinders.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Simon

     Wartime condtions cannot compare with what was done in peacetime.

 

      J11 I still wonder why such a old design was considered as a new standard ? well thought off yes . Surprised a new design wasnt considered .

 

      D Classes I still see no reason for considering 4-4-0 Locos based on Victorian designs why they were ever considered to be adequate for post war traffic.

  

      B17 was poor and the B1 should have replaced them instead of the B2 built.

 

      A lot of what the LNER had as a fleet would have been gone before Thompson took charge , only reason they still in stock was due to being held back due to the war.

     Probably doubtful if Gresley had lived that Thommo would have ever been CME anyway.

 

     A long time ago and I doubt we will ever know about a lot of what actually happended or the reasons behind some of the decisions made at the time.

      One good thing is that due to Thommo we have some lovely variation of Loco classes for the LNER modeller.

I expect the simple answer to most of those questions was 'money'.  The 'conversions'/rebuilds used generally sound existing frames and wheels which saved cash compared with building new and above all Thompson, and the LNER board, wanted to get a fleet of standardised locos as quickly as possible and no doubt as cheaply as possible to start reaping the advantages that would bring.

 

Numbers can always be used to prove all sorts of arguments and cases but the 1947 edition of the LNER booklet makes the telling points that -

'there are now nearly 400 of the new standard types', and,

'The engines to be maintained by reboilering represent a further 1,080 - a fair proportion of the LNER locomotive stock of approximately 6,500'.

 

As far as the 0-6-0 and 4-4-0 were concerned I think the two were representative both of a need for economy and limited understanding, or lack of vision, on how traffic was likely to change in post-war years.  Both types were doing work which demanded little more in terms of size and there was no real reason to see that need changing.  Logically of course the BR Standards progressed from there to making wider use of modern 2-6-0 designs based on the way the LMS had gone in its motive power development but in saying that we are to some extent comparing financial apples with financial pears.  The LNER, particularly during and in the aftermath of war was no doubt still very mindful of its financial position in the previous couple of decades  So a good bit of modernisation applied to sound older bases was hardly a bad thing, albeit perhaps unadventurous.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Re-engineering is a valid exercise. Of course there comes a point where new build is justified and sensible but I think modern society is too quick to throw away perfectly good stuff. There is now a very strong perception that new=good, old=rubbish or old=too poor to be able to afford good stuff. This has permeated industrial operations with customer facing operations. A Mk.3 coach in good order is a perfectly good way to travel and in some ways superior to most of the trains that replaced it but to many people it is just old. Diesel and electric locomotives can be re-engineered to the point of being effectively new locomotives and this is indeed in the proud tradition of older times when all sorts of locomotives were built by re-using existing frames and such like. For diesel locomotives there is now the problem of emissions compliance for the prime mover which makes re-engining difficult but that will be resolved in time. A complication for modern trains is that the spare parts cannot just be reverse engineered by a good machinist or casting outfit and trains are now heavily dependent on supply of replacement parts from the manufacturers who in turn may be vulnerable to their own supply chain. In the steam age railways could keep solid designs going almost forever using their own workshops, that would no longer be possible, at least not without crippling cost which would make it a phyric exercise in proving you can do something if you really want to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those who weren't there over 70 years ago should try to imagine what it would be like if war broke out this afternoon and was to prevail until 2020 followed by rationing until 2025. Making use of existing materials was essential during and in the aftermath of WW2. The J11 was a sound machine and its date of birth was quite irrelevant in the context of the times. Strong frames, adequate bearings and rebuilt with piston valves, there was no starting off with a blank sheet of paper when essential materials weren't to be obtained. 1930's design USA 'gangster' cars imports were everywhere, trams sped along on worn out tracks with dished joints that would amaze (and scare) today's travellers, and buses chucked out enough smoke to put everything else out of view. Over-worked & under maintained was the norm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

 

Every locomotive engineer on every railway I know of rebuilt or tweaked predecessors designs, Thompson was no different. He is perhaps unfairly vilified for this attribute which we know was worse on other railways.

 

No one ever seems to scream blue murder at Folwer's rebuilding of the various Johnson's 4-4-0s into 483 class 2Ps. They were a drastic rebuild of a beautiful locomotive into a handsome machine. In fact I have heard it said they were so rebuilt all that happened was the number was jacked up, the old loco sent for scrap and a new one rolled in and the old numbers lowered on to the loco. :scratchhead:

 

With a non LNER head it could be seen that Gresley might have wasted the resources he had in the myriad of expensive designs of new locos and the make do and mend of the pre-grouping locos whose care he inherited instead of doing a Churchward and designing a small range of loco classes using standard parts early in the LNERs history. I feel the P2s despite being lovely looking locos (and from what I have read powerful ones) were a waste of money, a class of five locos where only two were built the same.

 

Anyhow this whole debate was proved to be worthless when BR introduced those wonderful modern image diesels. :nono:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

What a sporty loco the V4 'Bantam Cock' must have been, imagine that on the GCR today! Not 'austerity' by any means.

 

Dava

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

As a confirmed red engine man perhaps I can be a disinterested observer.   All I know about tthe Thompson/Gresley  business is culled from books.  I also know that the late Malcolm Crawley, one of the last LNER premium apprentices so hated Thompson that he called his layout Thompson's End.

 

However One mention above is that Thompson dissappeared from view then emerged as CME.  I believe that he spent his time in the running sheds trying to maintain Gresley's locos.  In particular he had to repair inside big ends.   So a large part of his career was spent in the area that acutally consumed much more revenue than new construction, that of repair and  maintenance.  I believe that the Crimpsall repair shop at Doncaster was 10 times the size of the new construction shop.  Thus when Thompson became CME he started to build simpler easier to maintain machines and trial modified some of the existing ones to try and reduce costs.

 

As an aside the late Gerard Feinnes wrote the following, "I then moved to Kings Cross and inherited the Gresley inside big end and driver Bill Hoole."

 

Whether these thoughts will find favour I don't know but I doubt that Thompson would have done things out of spite.

 

Jamie

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

The issue of maintenance is a perennial one in engineering. A standard part of promotional literature for industrial equipment is to claim it has been designed for easy maintenance regardless of how impossible it may be to do even simple and routine jobs. I have seen large diesel engines designed for ease of maintenance according to manufacturers claims where I've been left wondering if the designers even knew what maintenance was. A lot of it is the packaging, an engine itself may be pretty well designed for servicing then installed in an engine room in a way that makes maintenance a pig of a job. So I can certainly see how spending time responsible for maintenance would have had a profound effect on Thompson. As an aside I think in general design engineers should all spend a bit of time in operations and maintenance to get an understanding of the operating environment of their machines and the challenges of keeping them going. Thompson's efforts to simplify designs may have lacked the elegance and interest of Gresley's work but I can see how they'd be considered better designs from an O&M perspective and it was a policy shared by BR with their standard design steam locomotives.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...