Edward Thompson: for and against

[The Stationmaster]

I don't think we should overlook what 'standardisation' really means, or ought to mean, on a loco fleet.  Boilers are thing which get changed around at main works and most of their components should ideally be on a similar cycle so while having classes with the same or similar boilers can help reduce works costs and spares overheads they are only a tiny part of the picture.  The same applies to most motion components and wheels with, for the former, the only real advantage coming from commonality of bearing types and sizes as they are the things which wear most quickly.

 

Wher standardisation really needs to work is at the area of running shed consumables and spares - things as minor as nuts & bolts or as important and highly consummable such as firebars.  Grades of oil, types of packing or packing materials and so on.  One ex-Eastern man moving to the Western after nationalisation was amazed at both the far lower quantity of spares and, even more so, at the much smaller range of them compared with the situation on the LNER.  Churchward's standardisation didn't just mean No.1 boilers left right & centre but standardisation as far as possible of all the minor components and things such as injectors hence a smaller stores holding at sheds and a far simpler system of supply and central stores holdings.

 

Quite to what extent Thompson began to achieve that on the LNER I don't know but he surely must have recognised it was what others had been doing on teh otehr railways and seen teh sense of moving well away from Gresey's complex 'horses for courses' approach to loco stock.

 

Incidentally, and without wishing to go wildly off subject Bulleid's ideas were generally excellent albeit radical - as I wrote a good many years back in 'Locomotives Illustrated' the Driver's Preparation Time for a 'Merchant Navy' in original form was considerably less than that required for an LMS 4F let alone the time required for a loco of equivalent size on the other railways.  The ideas and theory were good, the execution, as Bulleid often reputedly said himself, was that the materials and technology weren't there to enable him to achieve what he ideally wanted.  In that respect the LNER was probably a lot better off in having Thompson than it would have been with Bulleid.

[coachmann]

Incidentally, and without wishing to go wildly off subject Bulleid's ideas were generally excellent albeit radical - as I wrote a good many years back in 'Locomotives Illustrated' the Driver's Preparation Time for a 'Merchant Navy' in original form was considerably less than that required for an LMS 4F let alone the time required for a loco of equivalent size on the other railways.  The ideas and theory were good, the execution, as Bulleid often reputedly said himself, was that the materials and technology weren't there to enable him to achieve what he ideally wanted.  

This is interesting. So with today's technology and materials, it should be possible to build a new original Merchant Navy as envisaged by Mr. Bulleid.

[billbedford]

He no doubt received a commission on every set of conjugated gear fitted and he made damn sure as many of his designs got fitted with it as possible. 

 

 

While a run down set of Gresley's conjugated gear just made the loco much less efficient, one of his swing-link pony trucks that was run down could be positively lethal.

[billbedford]

Untrue.  It was clearly stated in his contract with the GNR that he would receive no payment for use of any patented design by the company.  I find it hard to believe that the perennially cash-strapped LNER would be more generous.  His only privilege as CME was the right to take pupils who paid (I believe) £50 to be under his supervision.

 

 

That was the 1912 contract when Gresley first became CME of the Great Northern. Has anyone a copy of his 1923 contract?

 

I find it hard to believe that he persisted on using his costly patented designs unless he was receiving royalties.

[bike2steam]

For some reason the 'reply quoting this post' doesn't seem to work for me now. But in response to 'coachman's post #52, 'Southern locomotive Limited' embarked on such a venture 20 odd years ago,using 35022, but thro' lack of interest/funds dropped the idea.

[jwealleans]

 

I find it hard to believe that he persisted on using his costly patented designs unless he was receiving royalties.

 

That's a point of view.  There's a loco in the NRM fitted with his 'costly' (is that true, by the way?) patented design which went faster than any other steam engine in British history.  I think I'm right in saying it was the fourth of his designs fitted with that costly patented design to claim that record.  Isn't that a fairly powerful argument for persisting with it?

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...Gresley provided his company with a PR machine in the form of the A4, but in reality a few premium expresses trotting up and down the East coast mainline behind locos that required extra attention to inside big ends etc did not bring in the bread 'n butter...

Sorry, but that is a wholesale distortion of Gresley's record....

 I'm scratching my head at this comment - could you elaborate on this please?...

Gresley's career involved much more than the provision iof express locos

 

I don't need to denigrate Gresley, his own work for the LNER does that on its own. He no doubt received a commission on every set of conjugated gear fitted and he made damn sure as many of his designs got fitted with it as possible. He produced lots of small classes at a time when Stanier was providing the LMS with 700+ mixed traffic Black Fives. Lots of small classes goes against standardisation and required lots of spare parts to be held at assorted depots. Unnecessary valvegear complication provided lots of extra unnecessary work for the fitters. At speed the middle valve events over-ran and put a strain on that part of the loco.

 

The East Coast was miles behind the West Coast as far as building a standardised fleet was concerned and had made no headway by the time war broke out...

No, he didn't make any commission from the LNER for application of the conjugated gear. Normal agreement that as an employee, any inventions were used free by the employer. (Incidentally, one of the very real limitations on employing patent devices was the LNER's relative poverty: the Kylchap ejector which was so successful incurred a patent fee for every application. Gresley would have used it wholesale on his wide firebox machines, had it been affordable.)

 

Gresley's real achievement was how much he achieved with relatively little, the LNER being 'financially embarrased' most of his career with them. Given the money, doubtless a fully standardised fleet would have been constructed. Instead what money there was had to go into largely providing the higher power output locos required to operate the increasingly heavy services for which no existing designs were suitable. Near 200 each of the K3 and V2 is hardly penny packet stuff in UK terms for locos of such power portential, and the LNER had a larger wide firebox fleet than the rest of the UK put together throughout the big four's existence.  It was make do and mend with the smaller inherited types, not by choice but by force majeure, no money to do otherwise.

 

When war broke out, it was government money that became available to keep the railways moving that enabled the LNER to produce a medium mixed traffic loco, and sweep away some of the elderly and life expired pre-group types that had been retained in service out of necessity. Had Gresley lived it would have been a different machine, but probably no less successful. But that is unknowable. Even so, most of the elderly pre-group locos were going to keep going on BR's ex LNER regions to the end of steam. Even the nation couldn't afford the standardisation job, so no hope for the LNER alone. On the other hand, because most of the inherited small locos were a good lot of sound design, the railway was kept running.

[billbedford]

There is a saying to the effect that a good engineer could make for ten bob what anyone else would make for a quid.

 

When I hear stories that the O2s were rejected for service in WW2 because they cost one and a half times as much to build as a LMS 8F I begin to wonder what an O2 could do that an O4 or a Q6 could not do for half the costs.

 

As for the idea of the LNER being impoverished, I can't help but think that much of the problem stemmed from senior management, which after all included Gresley, had very little idea of what their costs were and how best to control them.

[coachmann]

. And as for the rubbish Coachman spouts.............. 

Is there any need for this kind of talk. It certainly puts me of contributing....

[station cat]

 

Thompson's standard types were not all new and were not all LNER designs - pre-Grouping types figured too, so he was limited in what he could do and most of his rebuilds were actually new frames and many other parts, indeed almost new locomotives but that was not what had been approved. And as for the rubbish Coachman spouts about Thompson's prototype rebuilds and Peppercorn needing a blank sheet of paper, surely any serious student knows that the blank sheet of paper was actually the Gresley drawings with modern additions such as roller-bearings, and that the sheets were being drawn before Thompson's retirement in readiness for Peppercorn taking over. The source for that? Malcolm Crawley - who was there when it happened.

 

Being there when events occur is rarely the key to being objective in analysing them

[Pint of Adnams]

Doesn't help your case at all if you manipulate an incomplete quote to your intended advantage - you should have included sufficient to make it clear that it was specifically in connection with your absolutely incorrect information concerning Thompson and Peppercorn and supposed blank sheets of paper.

 

However, if you wish it to apply it to a lot more rubbish then don't let me hold you back...

[billbedford]

 

Do not forget too that Thompson's B12 rebuild was not to improve a GER design but to overcome problems found in service with the valve-gear of a batch build by Beyer-Peacock to an LNER order - yes, an experiment that failed but you don't learn if you don't try and ability to adopt others' ideas was a trait of HNG's that Thompson did not possess in the same degree. 

 

The B12/3s almost exactly match the spec the running department drew up before having the B17 foisted on them.

[DavidH]

Is there any need for this kind of talk. It certainly puts me of contributing....

I know you have a thicker skin that that ... especially when you're not adverse to a robust put-down yourself ;-)

 

And you did allege that Gresley used his designs solely because he got a commission on it ... which sounds like rubbish by any other name.

 

In my mind I've got you all sitting round the table in a club messroom, with beer on the table and much head-shaking going on. It's be a shame if you dropped out now it's getting interesting. 

 

Just sayin'  

[Welly]

It has been nearly 70 years since Thompson retired from the LNER but the relative merits of Gresley, Thompson and Peppercorn's locomotives still arouses debate!! Did enthusiasts passionately debate the merits of Broad Gauge versus Standard Gauge in the 1950s?

[Pint of Adnams]

And where was Thompson at the time that the B17 requirements were prepared? A new line of enquiry perhaps, to ascertain how much if any input Thompson might have had if or when liaising with the Running Dept. which of course due to Raven was entirely separate from the CME's Dept.

 

As a GE man I'd have been delighted if there were many more B12s of any sub-type, but that was not to be.

[billbedford]

And you did allege that Gresley used his designs solely because he got a commission on it ... which sounds like rubbish by any other name.

 

 

Why would anyone go to the hassle and expense of taking out patents if they didn't think they were going to profit from them?

[Fenman]

Why would anyone go to the hassle and expense of taking out patents if they didn't think they were going to profit from them?

 

Because other railway companies would have to pay to use them?

 

Paul

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

That is exactly the case. Gresley for sure got royalties on the UP's 9,000's the 4-12-2 heavy for the transcontinental freight drag.

[Andy Y]

Insulting post removed from topic, let's keep it civil.

[billbedford]

And where was Thompson at the time that the B17 requirements were prepared? A new line of enquiry perhaps, to ascertain how much if any input Thompson might have had if or when liaising with the Running Dept. which of course due to Raven was entirely separate from the CME's Dept.

 

 

Thompson was assistant to Glaze at Stratford from 1927-1930, and it seem he was mainly concerned with the organisation of the works, particularly Temple Mills wagon works. Doncaster was working on the B17 design during 1927, before letting NBL take over the contract at the end of that year. So Thompson doesn't seem to have been involved in the pre-design process at all. He was around and could well have been involved with the work needed to get the first batch of B17 working well enough for traffic.

[Clive Mortimore]

It has been nearly 70 years since Thompson retired from the LNER but the relative merits of Gresley, Thompson and Peppercorn's locomotives still arouses debate!! Did enthusiasts passionately debate the merits of Broad Gauge versus Standard Gauge in the 1950s?

Hi Welly

 

I am liking this debate, it is keeping members busy and therefore away from debating /telling us that steam is better than diesel.

 

 

Edit....I have heard GWR devotees more than once mention the transition phase of the railways was when they converted the GWR to be like a real railway.

[jjb1970]

Incidentally, and without wishing to go wildly off subject Bulleid's ideas were generally excellent albeit radical - as I wrote a good many years back in 'Locomotives Illustrated' the Driver's Preparation Time for a 'Merchant Navy' in original form was considerably less than that required for an LMS 4F let alone the time required for a loco of equivalent size on the other railways.  The ideas and theory were good, the execution, as Bulleid often reputedly said himself, was that the materials and technology weren't there to enable him to achieve what he ideally wanted.  In that respect the LNER was probably a lot better off in having Thompson than it would have been with Bulleid.

Bulleid was a truly fascinating engineer, and engineer blessed with a superbly original and innovative mind. That he mixed brilliance with what might be politely described as some less than brilliant ideas is one of the things that makes him such a captivating figure to me. Some write him off as some sort of bonkers experimentalist without really considering what he achieved and that many of his more conventional run of the mill engineering duties showed him as an extremely competent engineer. I think it is true that as a visionary he foresaw possibilities that were beyond the capability of contemporary engineering to deliver, in a sense one of the key skills of an engineer is to work within the boundaries of what can be achieved in the real world yet there is also something admirable about those who strive to break free of existing orthodoxy. As a shareholder there is no doubt that a Thompson would be a preferable employee than a Bulleid but as an engineer and rail enthusiast Bulleid is the steam engineer who appeals to me more than any others.

 

On Thompson, to advocate a re-appraisal of his work does not mean denigrating Gresley nor do Gresley's achievements invalidate any consideration that perhaps his successor was also a fine engineer. Something worth remembering is that the CME's of the big four generally knew a lot more about steam locomotives than most and none of them were fools or incompetent.

[Bernard Lamb]

Back in the day Bulleid was the only locomotive engineer that was mentioned in the class room so I must declare an interest .(I attended The Welding Institute at one time)

His ideas went further than just building locomotives.

Rather, than as mentioned higher up the thread, trying to build a Bulleid MN using modern resources a better idea might be to get a group of engineering students to redesign both the MN and the A4 in each ten year period from the original to the present day. 

Improvements in steel for the machined parts, aluminium cladding and later carbon fibre, advances in welding, more specific lubricants and last but not least the use of strain gauges and other devices to get the information into a computer for study, as is commonly done nowadays from any thing from push bikes to F1 cars.

All rather academic as going by the quote from Bill Bedford. Indeed a phrase that I have used in the past, the locomotive engineer who stands head and shoulders above all others is Worsdell.

Oops raising the case for the Q6 again......... better run.

Bernard

[Pint of Adnams]

Ah but which Worsdell - the man who designed the GE Y14/LNE J15 or t'other one?

[S.A.C Martin]

I don't think we should overlook what 'standardisation' really means, or ought to mean, on a loco fleet.  Boilers are thing which get changed around at main works and most of their components should ideally be on a similar cycle so while having classes with the same or similar boilers can help reduce works costs and spares overheads they are only a tiny part of the picture.  The same applies to most motion components and wheels with, for the former, the only real advantage coming from commonality of bearing types and sizes as they are the things which wear most quickly.
 
Wher standardisation really needs to work is at the area of running shed consumables and spares - things as minor as nuts & bolts or as important and highly consummable such as firebars.  Grades of oil, types of packing or packing materials and so on.  One ex-Eastern man moving to the Western after nationalisation was amazed at both the far lower quantity of spares and, even more so, at the much smaller range of them compared with the situation on the LNER.  Churchward's standardisation didn't just mean No.1 boilers left right & centre but standardisation as far as possible of all the minor components and things such as injectors hence a smaller stores holding at sheds and a far simpler system of supply and central stores holdings.
 
Quite to what extent Thompson began to achieve that on the LNER I don't know but he surely must have recognised it was what others had been doing on teh otehr railways and seen teh sense of moving well away from Gresey's complex 'horses for courses' approach to loco stock.
 
Incidentally, and without wishing to go wildly off subject Bulleid's ideas were generally excellent albeit radical - as I wrote a good many years back in 'Locomotives Illustrated' the Driver's Preparation Time for a 'Merchant Navy' in original form was considerably less than that required for an LMS 4F let alone the time required for a loco of equivalent size on the other railways.  The ideas and theory were good, the execution, as Bulleid often reputedly said himself, was that the materials and technology weren't there to enable him to achieve what he ideally wanted.  In that respect the LNER was probably a lot better off in having Thompson than it would have been with Bulleid.

 


There is no doubt in my mind - and I say this as an out and out LNER man - that the GWR were by far and away right in assessing their traffic needs and in the type of the locomotives required for those roles. Further, there was a clear difference in the attitude towards maintaining a locomotive fleet. The preparation time for a Bulleid Pacific may have been shorter on shed than, say, a Castle, but how many more miles between classified repairs did a Castle manage over a Bulleid Pacific (before they were extensively rebuilt) and how long did repairs take in comparison?

 

The 1948 exchange trials left no one in any doubts as to the performance qualities of any of the locomotives taking part, but the whole question over a locomotive policy is not just one of extraordinary or one off performances but whether or not high performances could be sustained regularly and with the least amount of expenditure in both time and money on maintenance and repairs.
 
The GWR were way ahead of every other railway in this respect due to their standardisation policy and I think it's fair to say that only Stanier on the LMS and Thompson to a lesser extent on the LNER achieved some limited and similar parity in terms of reducing the number of classes and increasing the standardisation of components across their respective locomotive fleets.

 

billbedford, on 27 May 2014 - 10:26, said:

While a run down set of Gresley's conjugated gear just made the loco much less efficient, one of his swing-link pony trucks that was run down could be positively lethal.

 


This much is true: and Edward Thompson pushed for, and had authorised, the replacement of this type of pony truck with one based on the Stanier 8F for the whole of the class V2.

 

Gresley's real achievement was how much he achieved with relatively little, the LNER being 'financially embarrased' most of his career with them. Given the money, doubtless a fully standardised fleet would have been constructed.

 

Where is the evidence for this? Thompson's B1 - a mixed traffic 4-6-0 - effectively replaced around twenty types of varying heritage and wheel arrangement. The total number of Thompson mixed traffic classes numbered just three: the B1, the K1 and the L1.

 

So what was the number of mixed traffic Gresley design locomotives…? Throw in on top the fact that Thompson intended to have just one standard freight locomotive (the O1, supplemented by the existing O4s and O4/8s), and compare this with the variety of 2-8-0s and two 2-8-2s Gresley had built?

 

Gresley designed locomotives for specific routes - this much is true and the evidence is there in spades - so standardisation across the system was never on the cards under Gresley. Lots of locomotive classes for lots of different routes, and in small numbers to boot. So I would argue that the idea that any form of standardisation in pure locomotive class terms was achievable under Gresley is wrong.

 




When war broke out, it was government money that became available to keep the railways moving that enabled the LNER to produce a medium mixed traffic loco, and sweep away some of the elderly and life expired pre-group types that had been retained in service out of necessity. Had Gresley lived it would have been a different machine, but probably no less successful.

 

I must challenge this idea. There is an extreme conservatism in Gresley's locomotive policies towards the end of his reign on the LNER. Producing the V4 - an excellent locomotive design capable of admirable performances for its relatively small size - but its building was completely at odds with the time in which it was built (the start of the second world war, where the prototypes were built with specific high grade materials and became a further 3 cylinder locomotive class to add to those already using the conjugated motion, in an era of extreme austerity).

 

The V4 was the wrong locomotive for the wrong time and I think the success of the B1 thereafter proves this beyond reasonable doubt. The B1 was simpler to build on a large number of levels. Round topped boiler, existing components from the existing V2 class and was also as a two cylinder machine easier to repair and maintain.

 

On a similar note, many enthusiasts state the Peppercorn A1 as the locomotive Gresley would have built. He would therefore have had to have dropped the conjugated valve gear from the design and we can see from the V4 that he had no intention of doing so. Thompson did drop it - the right decision - and whilst the layout of his locomotives was a deviation from Doncaster practice, it followed the trends of the time if you care to look at Stanier, Chapelon and a few other engineers. Peppercorn had the benefit of the work done on the Thompson A2 varieties and the lone A1/1 to produce his Pacifics, and I'm afraid to suggest that absolutely none of the work done under Thompson mattered to the extent they - the drawing offices - ignored the data and evidence they had of the existing Pacifics work, seems extremely unlikely.

 

I am aware of the late Malcolm Crawley's views on Thompson's Pacifics from my own short time spent with him a few years back and from some of his friends in and around the A1 Trust. I was privileged to meet with him on a few occasions and I wish I had been able to interview him before he died. We lost an incredible source of information and a gentleman.