Edward Thompson: for and against

[pointstaken]

I feel we need to remember though that the LNER, LMS, and Southern, were a merger of disparate companies with no thought of standardisation between them, whereas the GWR was an established company that took over smaller companies. Stanier's regime of course produced the Class 5's, a strongly GWR influenced design. Other companies could have standardised were they so minded to, despite the slump of the 30's. Makes one realise how powerful the CME's were in their empires.

 

Dennis

[The Stationmaster]

 


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?

 

I think perhaps you miss the point in my comment about Bulleid - he designed and intended his engines to be simple and efficient at running shed level.  The fact that they didn't achieve it is something else and as much down to the inability of materials to do what he wanted of them as anything else.  On the other hand the GWr had arrived at various levels of achievement in design, construction and running maintenance as a result of a whole series of development and maturity of that development through improved manufacturing and workshop practice.

 

It is of course quite true to say that at the Grouping the GWR was largely one company taking over smaller fry so therefore Swindon could continue on its path but as was clearly demonstrated elsewhere provided people could rise above infighting good results could be achieved; Maunsell did exactly that on the Southern despite having to bring together the disparate ideas of 3 former Railways.  Gresley could probably have done it on the LNER but seemingly chose not to while the LMS situation was basically a mess once Hughes had gone and until Stanier arrived.  What Thompson began on the LNER could probably have been done at least a decade earlier and would probably have made better use of the Company's limited financial resources although even then the option of 'scrap and build' probably wouldn't have been available.

[Ravenser]

I can't claim to be an expert on steam loco practice , but for me the most damning indictment of Thompson comes from E.S.Cox's  quick sketch in Locomotive Panorama Vol 1 , based on his own impressions from meeting him in Railway Executive Committee meetings during the war. (Ch6) .

 

Cox was offered a position with the LNER by Thompson but decided not to take it and makes it clear he subsequently realised he'd had a pretty lucky escape: "some things, however, which in my innocence I did not, indeed could not, fully appreciate.... this was one more of Thompson's many internal wars....another side to Thompson's character which was felt in full force by his own assistants and staff and which resulted in an atmosphere  at Doncaster which could hardly be described as that of universal love"  In sharp contrast to this is Cox's impression of Peppercorn : "Pep as he was usually called seemed to be loved by all ... he had the inestimable ability of letting his assistants get on with it, and when Thompson retired ... he reversed a lot of his predecessor's high handed actions " . This - a very sharp informed account by a professional - gives a certain credibility to the story that the Peppercorn Pacifics originated as a secret project drawn up by a Resistance group in the Doncaster Drawing Office which was brought into the open after Liberation

 

Cox also makes it quite clear that Thompson did have a "thing" about his predecessor's work and was conducting a campaign against it : "Although he played his full part in all that was going on another part of his mind was clearly occupied by thoughts of the lococomtives he was going to design, and the name he was going to make for himself in correcting the mistakes of his predecessor, as he clearly thought them." "he no doubt used the final report over Stanier's signature to full effect with his directors in the Machiavellian campaign he was conducting against all things Gresley" 

 

None of this is good at all. Gresley's team had been highly successful and had achieved big things . Seemingly they had been a good team working in a good atmosphere. In comes a new boss and things get pretty ugly in terms of treatment of the team . The new boss has a chip on his shoulder about his predecessor's legacy and spends a great deal of his time and effort in heavy internal politics aimed at discrediting it. When he goes  , the sunshine comes out and a happy team set about some strong new projects

 

This is a description of a  bad senior manager causing real damage to his department. And it's not enthusiast gossip - it comes from a well informed professional counterpart

 

Nothing Thompson built was better than it's equivalent on other railways - even the B1s weren't better than Black 5s and Halls . The L1 was clearly inferior to all the LMS 2-6-4Ts , and the problem was robustness and reliability - serious considering those were Thompson's intended objectives. Reboilering  04s with B1 boilers is fair enough - but the real solution to the LNER's heavy freight needs came from theBoard not the CME - buy cheap Government Surplus 8Fs and WDs. And rebuilding the J11s as a standard class?? What's the point of that?  Ivatt wasn't playing about with a programme for rebuilding 4Fs - he built 4MT 2-6-0s. Bullied came up with the Q1. Building tweaked J50s? - when the LMS and Southern were developing the shunters that led to the 08?  The Q1 was a bit of wartime cobbling trying to find a sensible use (which turned out to be shunting Scunthorpe) - not a standard class

[S.A.C Martin]

I can't claim to be an expert on steam loco practice , but for me the most damning indictment of Thompson comes from E.S.Cox's  quick sketch in Locomotive Panorama Vol 1 , based on his own impressions from meeting him in Railway Executive Committee meetings during the war. (Ch6) .

 

Cox was offered a position with the LNER by Thompson but decided not to take it and makes it clear he subsequently realised he'd had a pretty lucky escape: "some things, however, which in my innocence I did not, indeed could not, fully appreciate.... this was one more of Thompson's many internal wars....another side to Thompson's character which was felt in full force by his own assistants and staff and which resulted in an atmosphere  at Doncaster which could hardly be described as that of universal love"  In sharp contrast to this is Cox's impression of Peppercorn : "Pep as he was usually called seemed to be loved by all ... he had the inestimable ability of letting his assistants get on with it, and when Thompson retired ... he reversed a lot of his predecessor's high handed actions " .

 

Er - what exactly did Peppercorn reverse?

 

The design of the A2/3 and the potential rebuilding of the remaining A10s into A1/1s? That's two things.

 

The rebuilding of O4s into O4/8s and O1s continued - a further 360 B1s were built - the class K1 was essentially Thompson's design with a few aesthetic changes and not a lot else - the replacement pony trucks on the V2s were fitted en-masse - oh, and the Thompson L1 continued to be built in numbers. Hardly reversing a lot of changes in any way, shape or form?

 

This - a very sharp informed account by a professional - gives a certain credibility to the story that the Peppercorn Pacifics originated as a secret project drawn up by a Resistance group in the Doncaster Drawing Office which was brought into the open after Liberation

 

If you look at the lineage of the LNER Pacifics in an objective manner you will see that that minimal changes were made to Thompson's A2/3 to turn it into a Peppercorn A2, The wheelbase from the rear to the front of the driving wheels is almost identical. Peppercorn kept the three sets of divided drive, but (as Thompson did with his last Pacific, 4470 Great Northern) reverted to two different lengths of connecting rods as opposed Thompson's earlier (GWR and no doubt partially Stanier inspired) three sets of the same length. The front bogie was moved rearwards to create a more compact machine. Peppercorn's A2 actually reversed a sensible standard Thompson had set by fitting a single chimney instead of a double kylchap. The advantages of this exhaust being well known, why was this reversion made?

 

Cox also makes it quite clear that Thompson did have a "thing" about his predecessor's work and was conducting a campaign against it : "Although he played his full part in all that was going on another part of his mind was clearly occupied by thoughts of the lococomtives he was going to design, and the name he was going to make for himself in correcting the mistakes of his predecessor, as he clearly thought them." "he no doubt used the final report over Stanier's signature to full effect with his directors in the Machiavellian campaign he was conducting against all things Gresley" 

 

Define "all things Gresley" - the vast majority of locomotives Thompson intended to retain in his standardisation plan were Gresley locomotives, and arguably the best ones, with minimal modifications (including no such plans for removing the conjugated valve gear). In contrast, all new locomotives of the small and medium seized locomotives were to be built with two cylinders - which in wartime was entirely sensible - and all new express locomotives were to have three sets of walschaerts gear, which the Peppercorn A1 ultimately proved beyond reasonable doubt was also a sensible change from Gresley's work.

 

I'm skeptical you are being entirely fair in your choice of ES Cox's thoughts on Edward Thompson either. He is quoted in a letter to Peter Grafton in that biography as stating the following on page 99 (Chapter - The Years in Office 1941-1946):

 

 

"I do not think that Thompson's main object was to undo all Gresley's work. In two matters he was however quite determined, firstly to do away with the conjugated gear, and secondly to use two instead of three cylinders for all the medium and small sized locos. In these trends he was abundantly right and it is a pity that this entirely correct thinking got tangled up with non sequesters like the necessity for equal length of connecting rod".

 

So on just two counts was Thompson looking to break away from Gresley. The type of three cylinder propulsion used for the express and large mixed traffic locomotives, and encouraging two cylinder propulsion for small and medium sized locomotives. 

 

All other traits were retained. Walschaerts valve gear for outside cylinders. Round topped boilers and spacious cabs. The same basic group standard six wheel and eight wheel tenders. Thompson wanted to standardise on the Gresley A4 boiler, and indeed this type formed the basis, along with those of P2 no.2006's, for those on his range of Pacifics and Peppercorns thereafter. The double kylchap exhaust was standard across all of his Pacific types - the only LNER CME to do this.

 

None of this is good at all. Gresley's team had been highly successful and had achieved big things . Seemingly they had been a good team working in a good atmosphere. In comes a new boss and things get pretty ugly in terms of treatment of the team . The new boss has a chip on his shoulder about his predecessor's legacy and spends a great deal of his time and effort in heavy internal politics aimed at discrediting it.

 

 

That's quite a lot of elaboration there without much evidence. Can you state where this is so? There are several published counter arguments to the idea that Thompson was universally hated at Doncaster and one of which is Steam in the Blood by Dick Hardy. The biography on Thompson by Peter Grafton also makes the point 

 

 

When he goes  , the sunshine comes out and a happy team set about some strong new projects

 

Precisely two projects and a third with minor aesthetic design changes. A1, A2 and K1 derived from Thompson's prototype K1/1 and largely done whilst Thompson was in office. The number of Peppercorn pacifics - though agreeably high quality designs (the A1 is Britain's best Pacific locomotive type as far as I am concerned) was nowhere near the number of B1s built and arguably it was this type which made the biggest impact on the Eastern region of any locomotive since before the second world war. 

 

 

This is a description of a  bad senior manager causing real damage to his department. And it's not enthusiast gossip - it comes from a well informed professional counterpart

 

 

Well informed? Cox throughout Thompson's reign on the LNER was working for the LMS under Stanier. I should also point out that Thompson and Stanier got on well, and ES Cox and Stanier were invited to Doncaster works in 1941 to prepare a report on the conjugated valve gear. Pages 41, 42 and 42 of Peter Grafton's biography on Thompson give some details, though it omits the fact that it was ES Cox who actually wrote the report which Thompson brought to the LNER board to convince them that new locomotive classes should not be built with the conjugated valve gear. Stanier signed off on the report. This was a report written by two LMS engineers and it convinced the LNER board to give Thompson the go ahead to develop new designs.

 

 

Nothing Thompson built was better than it's equivalent on other railways - even the B1s weren't better than Black 5s and Halls .

 

I think that's a woefully inadequate comparison. The B1 exceeded all expectations in the exchange trials and was on several counts better than the Black Five or the Hall if you care to read Cecil J.Allen's The Locomotive Exchanges. The B1 was certainly easier to build (round topped boiler versus a belpaire one) and more of a "standard" than the Black Five, in comparison with the latter only having one boiler type amongst all the class and no oddities with Caprotti or similar. 

 

The L1 was clearly inferior to all the LMS 2-6-4Ts , and the problem was robustness and reliability - serious considering those were Thompson's intended objectives.

 

 

Arguably the prototype proved the design was sound, but the build quality of the production batch did leave a lot to be desired.

 

However I am skeptical that the L1s can be described as unreliable - unpleasant perhaps when run down (what two cylinder locomotive isn't unpleasant when run down?) but they were fully capable of doing the work put on them. That's not a design flaw as such, that's a manufacturing and materials problem, and Thompson can hardly be blamed for that in the face of the issues the wartime and post war LNER faced?

 

Reboilering  04s with B1 boilers is fair enough - but the real solution to the LNER's heavy freight needs came from theBoard not the CME - buy cheap Government Surplus 8Fs and WDs.

 

 

No disagreement from me here, but the validity of Thompson's O4/8 and O1 rebuilds must come from the fact British Railways continued this program through to the mid 1950s.

 

And rebuilding the J11s as a standard class?? What's the point of that?  

 

Exactly the same point as reboilering the O4s. To lengthen the service life of an otherwise decent locomotive by retaining the robust components and reboilering where necessary. This was achieved with the J11/3s which were well thought of.

 

Ivatt wasn't playing about with a programme for rebuilding 4Fs - he built 4MT 2-6-0s. Bullied came up with the Q1. Building tweaked J50s? - when the LMS and Southern were developing the shunters that led to the 08? 

 

 

Ivatt on the LMS and Bulleid on the SR were able to have more of a free hand than Thompson.

 

Remember that Thompson's remit from the LNER was new builds either using existing locomotives for conversions (example O1) or using existing components to produce new classes (examples B1 and O1). Bulleid somehow got permission to build over a hundred Pacifics of varying sizes and weights on the grounds they were mixed traffic (!) and his own Q1 class for me is his best steam locomotive design. Not fussy, simple, easy to maintain and build and run. More locomotives like this would probably have saved BR's Southern Region a hefty repair bill less than a decade later.

 

I hardly think we need to be reminded of the Leader - a locomotive that potentially had the ideas but was seriously flawed and complete waste of time and resources if we're going to play the "diesel traction imminent by BR days" card.

 

The Q1 was a bit of wartime cobbling trying to find a sensible use (which turned out to be shunting Scunthorpe) - not a standard class

 

I think you'll find the (Thompson) Q1 class was included as one of Thompson's intended standard classes actually. The rebuilds I think we could all agree were not exceptional locomotives but they were found a use - and more to the point, the tenders from the Q4s which would have otherwise been withdrawn were put behind other locomotives, thus saving the potential problem of building more new tenders when materials and workshop space were scarce. Making the best of that you have, effectively.

[jwealleans]

 

That's not a design flaw as such, that's a manufacturing and materials problem, and Thompson can hardly be blamed for that

 

But Gresley seems to be at fault for failing to foresee that the conjugated valve gear would become problematic in the event of wartime shortages of materials and skilled labour?

 

Thompson would have a much better reputation if he hadn't devoted so much time to denigrating his predecessor (how can you justify the time spent in 1941 producing a report on what a failure the conjugated valve gear was, instead of looking for practical ways to improve its performance). 

[micklner]

Quote

The Q1 was a bit of wartime cobbling trying to find a sensible use (which turned out to be shunting Scunthorpe) - not a standard class

Quote

I think you'll find the (Thompson) Q1 class was included as one of Thompson's intended standard classes actually. The rebuilds I think we could all agree were not exceptional locomotives but they were found a use - and more to the point, the tenders from the Q4s which would have otherwise been withdrawn were put behind other locomotives, thus saving the potential problem of building more new tenders when materials and workshop space were scarce. Making the best of that you have, effectively.

 

 

 

 

 

Sadly this resume show different facts

 

http://www.lner.info/locos/Q/q1thompson.shtml

 

Shows a very poor design and lack of forethought , the thing was built with too small water tanks etc . I cant say I have ever read any Gresley design having such a problem. Hardly effective.

 

As I said before you can argue his merits or not all day long.

 

Have a look at quote from Tony Wrights "Wright writes " thread below  which sums it up much better than I ever could.

 

 

Quote

I've also noted by following various threads how, by merely mentioning Thompson's Pacifics all Heaven seems to be in a rage! I've also noted controversy in the past when I've written in the various journals about how I built models of them. Clearly, there is no middle ground, and to encourage enmity on a 'constructive' thread such as this is counter-productive. However, might I lay claim to having built as many 4mm Thompson Pacifics as anyone else in the last 36 years - at least 20-plus from kits or from scratch, mainly in OO but some in EM? I mention this not to boast (it's a matter of fact) but to make clear that I've probably read/talked as much about them as most folk, in my research to get the the models 'right', so to speak. I don't mean just the established works, but access to first-hand notes (not published) and conversations with several men who had to work on/with them, sadly, mainly now deceased. My notes made from conversations with several Yorkshire drivers go back 35 years now! One can read the published works and make judgements in whatever way one wishes regarding Thompson's Pacifics. If you choose to regard the words (in part) of Cecil J Allen (who worked for the LNER) and Colonel H C B Rogers, then his 4-6-2s were little short of diabolical. If, however, one chooses to regard more the writings of Peter Coster and Peter Townend (the latter 34A's shedmaster during the ECML's steam finale) then, perhaps, a more measured view is given. By the way, Peter Grafton's biography of the man (though written with sincerity) reads more like a defence counsellor's work, and misses out some vital 'criticisms' in my opinion. I mention all the above not to claim greater knowledge than anybody else (I'm certainly not a professional railwayman), but just to show I have done a little research. My view, for what it's worth is this - any chief taking over from one of the greatest CME's in this country's history under the the most appalling privations the war could possibly throw at him was facing a most difficult job. Problems of maintenance/availability/labour and myriads more must have taxed even the greatest of men. (By the way, did one correspondent claim Thompson to be a genius? Surely not, for that would mean the likes of his contemporaries - Hawksworth, Fairburn and Bulleid - who also faced the same wartime difficulties deserves the same. In my opinion, titling British CMEs thus is reserved for only three in the 20th Century - Churchward, Gresley and Stanier). Without doubt, under those most difficult of times, Thompson was doing all he could to improve the situation. No intelligent man in a senior engineering position deliberately tries to 'wreck' the work of his predecessor - such a claim against Thompson is surely misguided and ignorant. But, and this is not unique in engineering history, by trying to improve/develop some of a predecessor's work, the result is not always entirely satisfactory. With regard to the P2 - A2/2 rebuilds, it's all well and good saying to the guys who've then got to run and maintain them that 'I've cured the over-heating/breaking of the cranks problems but the loco won't pull what it did before. In fact, it won't pull as much as the previous Pacifics - not because it's not powerful, it's just that its factor of adhesion is hopeless. That said, on lighter trains, it'll run fast. However, the cylinders will work loose and it'll spend more time in shops. And, because of the rebuilding we don't now have anything that'll pull 550-600 tons betwixt Edinburgh and Aberdeen; which is a pity, because several of the trains are that weight. But don't worry, you sons of Caledonia, for we'll take the locos away from you and they can be a problem to someone else'. Apologies if this appears to be flippant, but it sums up the reality.

As for the A2/1s, there's no doubt they were fast and powerful, but their shopping-intervals were much more frequent than those from which they were derived, and a V2 with a double Kylchap chimney would have been a much more sensible (and cheaper) option. Without doubt, the A2/3s were the best (and highly-regarded by Peter Townend) but there was no need for the same front-end problem to be perpetuated in new-build locomotives. The principle of having equal-length connecting rods does have merit but to compromise the front end of a loco because of it is poor practice. That the immediate successors reverted to the more conventional arrangement says it all, though they did perpetuate divided drive/independent valve gear which Thompson must be credited for. There is no doubt that Great Northern was admittedly much more powerful than that from which it was (ostensibly) rebuilt, and I don't entirely buy into the notion that Thompson chose the pioneer GNR Pacific to be 'obliterated' because of spite. However, the same frequent shop-necessitating front end was perpetuated, and one can argue that the best bits of it - the boiler/firebox and the double Kylchap chimney - actually came from Gresley. That being the case, and was later proven to be so, why not just fit those items to an A3? The fact that Thompson's successor and his team chose to produce quite different Pacifics for post-war construction says it all, really. Apart from the abandonment of the conjugated valve gear and by using divided drive, Peppercorn's A1s, and his double-chimney A2s, owe more to Gresley than to Thompson. The boiler (derived from the P2), big firebox (as in the W1 and P2), perforated steam collector (A3, A4, P2, V2) and the V-fronted (in part) cab (A4, P2, V2) all came from locos designed by Gresley's team. Where they did completely inherit Thompson's features, the results were certainly mixed. The independent valve gear was definitely more reliable than the conjugated type, particularly when lack of maintenance issues were apparent. However, by inheriting the B1 bogie (fine on a lightweight 4-6-0 but not on something much, much bigger), they rode just as badly as their immediate predecessors - and all Thompson's Pacifics had a reputation for 'lively riding. Unlike Gresley's Pacifics, which rode superbly. As for Thompson's Pacifics being 'ugly', that's certainly subjective. Having seen examples of every type (though not every individual loco), I had to have models of them - hence the pictures contained in this piece. And, in fairness, as models of big engines they're relatively easy to get to go properly. Because the cylinders are a distance from other than the rear bogie wheels, there's far less chance of shorting/interference, even in EM. Also in fairness, do you really need to know all about the prototypes in question when making a model? I think it helps, but that's my opinion, and I don't think I could have got my models as 'accurate as possible' just by looking at pictures/drawings. To me, Thompson's Pacifics most certainly had a real 'presence', and, without the variety they provided, 'spotting on the ECML during my day would have been far less interesting. I might also call them visually impressive - certainly that's the feeling I got whilst watching Great Northern get away southwards from Retford in the summer of 1958 (or it could have been '59?). She slipped so violently that she wore away part of the rail heads, and what came out of the chimney both visually and audibly was nothing short of fantastic!

 

 

 

 

Tony's comment only covers the Pacifics but it clearly shows the Thompsons design problems from some of his thoughts and processes.

[S.A.C Martin]

But Gresley seems to be at fault for failing to foresee that the conjugated valve gear would become problematic in the event of wartime shortages of materials and skilled labour?

The key difference is in the parts which were at fault. The bearings in the L1s were inadequate, as was the quality of their tanks, which reportedly leaked. All other things in consideration, as a class in power and simplicity of maintaining them, they were adequate and far more suited to the conditions the LNER found itself under.

 

Thompson would have a much better reputation if he hadn't devoted so much time to denigrating his predecessor (how can you justify the time spent in 1941 producing a report on what a failure the conjugated valve gear was, instead of looking for practical ways to improve its performance).

Thompson DID look for ways to improve the running of the existing gear. Several A4s received 19in cylinders and modifications to the gear to that effect. However the intention was for new designs to be built without the conjugated gear.

 

The report could have easily have said there was nothing wrong - Thompson commissioned it, he didn't write it. All statements regarding this report corroborate Thompsons view that the conjugated gear was not suitable for new locomotives given the conditions of the railway at the time.

 

So did Thompson deliberately denigrate as you suggest, or was his thinking correct and backed up by a report from two independent and much respected locomotive engineers?

[jwealleans]

I'm afraid the very existence of the report is deliberate denigration. Instead of simply taking the approach that wartime strictures imposed different design and maintenance parameters and quietly dropping the feature, he openly and loudly proclaims that it is wrong and brings in people from the company's biggest rival to pick over this failure. If I'd been on the drawing or technical staff at Doncaster I know how I'd have perceived that.
 

 

The bearings in the L1s were inadequate, as was the quality of their tanks

 

I hope I'm not being deliberately obtuse, that really isn't my intention, but isn't that a different way of saying they were badly designed and badly built?

[AMJ]

There are pros and cons for all locomotive engineers.  Many of the Gresley complex conjugated valve settings were removed by Thompson due to the austerity measures.  If the war had not been taking place I'm sure he'd have adopted this for 3 cylinder machines just like many of his coach designs ran on Gresley bogies.

 

You need to ask yourself would Gresley have done the same if he had survived past 1941?

 

The rebuilding of GCR ROD 2-8-0's was probably sensible as they would all have been 20+ years old with solid frames so replacing boiler and cylinders would have been needed to eliminate worn out components.

[Fenman]

I'm afraid the very existence of the report is deliberate denigration. Instead of simply taking the approach that wartime strictures imposed different design and maintenance parameters and quietly dropping the feature, he openly and loudly proclaims that it is wrong and brings in people from the company's biggest rival to pick over this failure. If I'd been on the drawing or technical staff at Doncaster I know how I'd have perceived that. ...

 

I don't know the full story of the LNER but my experience is that a senior manager who takes over from a previous God-like incumbent can sometimes struggle to persuade the Board to do anything differently.

 

In those circumstances, getting an external consultant to provide evidence is the only way you can make any progress.

 

For some reason, Boards can sometimes be reluctant to move away from trusting blindly what they believe to be the greatness of their previous officer.

 

Paul

[Tony Wright]

This debate goes on and on - it's most interesting and exciting at times.

 

My grateful thanks are given to Micklner for quoting my post from my thread. I note in that that I omitted to mention the Kylchap double exhausts fitted to all the Peppercorn A1s and some of the A2s as coming from Gresley, not Thompson. In fact, as intimated, the only things of merit in the Peppercorn Pacifics inherited from Thompson was the divided drive and independent valve gear (and this seemed to be no more reliable than the conjugated type once Cook had taken over at Doncaster and improved things - though this was post-war, and not under such extremes of pressure). The bogie (Thompson) was poor - when ALCAZAR ran with an A4 bogie she rode like an A4 - and the smokebox saddle (another Thompson inheritance) was inherently weak compared with the Gresley style. So, despite claims made elsewhere, the 'finest' Class 8P locomotive ever to run in these isles owes almost nothing to the previous CME for its excellence but much more to the one before. Anyway, if Thompson's big engines were any good, why was an almost entirely new design necessary for post-war production. Gresley's Pacifics show a continuing development throughout their existence - meaning they could, and were improved. Worth doing then. Nothing like the same applies to Thompson's Pacifics. No, they were developed no further, and we got the A1s instead. And why stick a flat-fronted cab on the A2/3? Yes, I know an inspector was killed by water hitting the angled spectacle of an A4 at Wiske Moor but once armoured glass was substituted it wasn't an issue. The greater field of vision and lack of internal reflection was something surely to be retained. And the round dome on the 117 boiler. Why?

 

Other issues include the attitude of staff towards their chief. To be successful, one doesn't have to be liked (after all, I used to be a teacher, though whether I was successful is a moot point!), but to have near open rebellion at Haymarket because of the rebuilding of the P2s doesn't say much for man-management skills. Though some of the previously-seen first-hand documentation has now been published (in Irwell's latest book on the LNER Pacifics - which generally paints a poor picture of the Thompson Pacifics), it's a pity that Geoff Lund's observations remain gathering dust, as does Trask's condemnations of Thompson's big work. Nothing in these notes is a result of stigma - they're first-hand observations by professional railwaymen.

 

At Doncaster, it's well known that the design staff and draughtsmen effectively hid their work from the CME, knowing his retirement was imminent. Hardly a ringing endorsement of what they thought of their chief.

 

Professional railwaymen are not sentimentalists. They use the best tools for the job. Isn't it significant that in BR days, with the exception of the four at Haymarket, not one of Thompson's Pacifics was ever allocated to ECML depots (for an extended period) which had principal express passenger work? Yes, I know New England had jobs which included, at times, 'The Flying Scotsman' and 'Heart of Midlothian', and York occasionally had 'The Queen of Scots', but for most of the time they were under-utilised and ran very low mileages in general. When Grantham lost its A1s, the substitutes were single-chimney A3s, not double-pot A2s. I know an A2/3 is quoted as the only loco to successfully time the Cliffe-Uddingston cement block train up Stoke Bank. A 9F couldn't do it, but a double-pot V2 could, or any other of the Pacifics. Can you imagine what Thompson's reaction might have been if he'd been told that when 500 emerged brand new from Doncaster works that it would be a great success on a cement train in the future?

 

As for the other Thompson locos - the B1 was probably the most useful engine the LNER ever had, and the post-war K1 (a very fine engine) is really a Thompson design rather than a Peppercorn one. The various O4 rebuilds were a good example of taking a sound design and improving it for extended life. That said, the originals outlived the 'improved' versions - a significant point, considering it applies to every Thompson design which was derived/altered from another (apart from the Q1s). The L1s were poor, and not a patch on the 2-6-4Ts running elsewhere, nor on the V3s. The others, a mixed bag at most.

 

Finally, and I've rarely (if ever) seen this mentioned before, though much is made of Thompson's arrogance and aloofness in a derogatory sense, where is the real evidence for this? Maybe this - from the formation of the LNER, every new design took the next number as its class allocation. Yes, I know Gresley left A3 and A4 vacant in anticipation of greater things (arrogance as well?), but when a new 4-6-0 arrived it was given B17, a new 4-4-0 D49, a new 0-6-0 J38/J39, a new 2-6-0 K4 and so on. Any new Thompson design was immediately given the lowest possible number (yes, the A2 was vacant because of withdrawals) and the previous recipients booted back to the end of the queue. Mustn't it have been galling to him when the notion was perpetuated after his retirement, and none of his Pacifics finally acquired the status of a single number?

 

I'm afraid the evidence is there - empirical and anecdotal. Though I admire those who defend Edward Thompson (and some of the criticisms have been unfair), his only design legacy really worthy of mention is the B1. And, since that was as good as any mixed-traffic 4-6-0 to run in this country, might that be a fitting epitaph?  

[The Stationmaster]

It is interesting to see the debate has now focused more clearly on the success, or otherwise, of Thompson's designs in traffic and how - once again - the problems of the front end of the A2s of various marks has come to be mentioned.  When I wrote about them some good few years ago for 'Locomotives Illustrated' I followed my usual course of speaking to men who had worked with them and on them and it quickly became clear from a former Fitter (by then a Region's Chief Mechanical Inspector) just how poor the design of cylinder fixing was and how front ends began to 'work' on some - as mentioned above.

 

Another subject of research was the North Eastern 4-6-0s and here I got a number of past footplate staff comparisons between B16s and B1s and, as others had said over the years, the B1s did not wear well as they put on mileage becoming increasingly rough and far more so than not only B16s but also B12s and - dare I say it - Black Fives  (I've never come across someone who worked regularly on both B1s and GW locos so can't draw a comparison there or with Southern types).  So the story, or everyday experience, with many of Thompson's designs in traffic, or in the hands of the Fitters at running sheds, is not exactly a shining bright one.

 

Quite why this should have been I really don't know - clearly it wasn't down to wartime construction standards which suggests to me there was something in the design of the engines which led to such deterioration and it might well have only been a detail but it was there and whoever was actually at the drawing board the Chief's bore the responsibility.

[jjb1970]

This has been a very informative and interesting thread. I'm reading it as a neutral, as I am not really that interested in the LNER I'm just enjoying the debate. As I posted near the start of this thread I do think Thompson has had an unfairly bad press and a lot of the negativity is linked to the issues around following Gresley. One of my other interests is naval history, particularly the WW1 era, there are many controversies about people in naval history, near the end of the book "Jutland 1916 - Death in the Grey Wastes" the author offers the following final opinion:

Perversely, as a direct result of the vigorous controversey that followed the battle,it has been the fate of Jellicoe and Beatty to be locked together in a kind of historical purgatory, endlessly analysed by naval historians. Both men deserve a better memorial to their courage and devotion to duty. It is more important to remember that in the end,together they delivered to the British people the naval victory on which ultimate success in the First World War depended.

I appreciate that this risks throwing the thread way off topic but I think there is something in this verdict for the Thompson - Gresley battles that still rage. 

[jjb1970]

I don't know the full story of the LNER but my experience is that a senior manager who takes over from a previous God-like incumbent can sometimes struggle to persuade the Board to do anything differently.

 

In those circumstances, getting an external consultant to provide evidence is the only way you can make any progress.

 

For some reason, Boards can sometimes be reluctant to move away from trusting blindly what they believe to be the greatness of their previous officer.

 

Paul

 

I quite agree, there is also the argument that many see money spent at the early stages of a project where the only deliverables are reports or drawings to be a waste of money when in fact it is much cheaper to spend money up front to try and get things right than to press ahead and then end up making adjustments to equipment once it is in production. The old adage about builders having two tools, an eraser and a sledge hammer has a lot of truth in it. I may be accused of having a vested interest here as I work for an employer whose primary business is design verification but we actually make a lot more money from endless work resulting from half baked projects ending in a complete mess than if we were engaged earlier and the efforts made to avoid all the recovery later on.

[Clive Mortimore]

Hi All

 

The grey cells have woke up and have remembered an article in a donkeys old Backtrack about the proposed Diesel Electric locos the LNER were contemplating to replace steam traction on the ECML post WW2. I think I may still have it as it contained some drawings of the locos and I was tempted to build them. Livery of course would be fully lined garter blue. With considering diesels, had the board taken their eye of things going on in the CMEs office?

 

Someone earlier on mentioned that while Thompson was rebuilding the J50s while other railways were building diesel shunters...........

 

 

.......well they built a few like the one on the end.

[The Stationmaster]

Funny how things turn up when least expected; today while delving through a box of 'various ephemera' acquired at various auctions I happened across an interesting little publication which recounted a lecture given to the Inst of Locomotive Engineers in 1947 by a Mr B.Spencer (M.I. Loco E) titled 'The Devleopment of LNER Locomtive Design 1937 -1941.  

 

It discusses Gresley's final design - a 2 cylinder (or possibly 3 cylinder) 2-6-4T developed while the V4s were under construction.  It seems the most practical, and initial, variant proposed was the 2 cylinder version as it would have had greater water capacity than the 3 cylinder version.  The engine would have used the V$ boiler flanging blocks to produce a taper boiler and would have use a wide firebox - hence the decision to go for 2 cylinders in order to make room for an additional water tank between the frames.  Using A4 outside cylinders with the bore increased to 19inches the 2 cylinder version had a tractive effort of 29,330 lbs while the 3 cylinder variant, using V4 cylinders would have had a tractive effort of 27,420lbs.  It was noted that 'the emergency period created by the war prevented the further development of these, the last of Gresley's designs' - the designs being the V4 and the new tank engine.

 

So there, roundly two years before the Thompson L1 arrived Doncaster had drawn up a 2 cylinder 2-6-4T with a maximum 20 ton axleioad.  Was the taper boiler originally intended for this design, using existing flanging blocks, the one Thompson rejected in favour of a preference for a parallel boiler.  And why draw up a new design when one, using many existing components or patterns already existed?  Simple I suppose, and as already suggested - the new broom came along with his new ideas and swept clean what had gone before, notwithstanding that it had a proven boiler and running gear.

[coachmann]

So there, roundly two years before the Thompson L1 arrived Doncaster had drawn up a 2 cylinder 2-6-4T with a maximum 20 ton axleioad.  Was the taper boiler originally intended for this design, using existing flanging blocks, the one Thompson rejected in favour of a preference for a parallel boiler.  And why draw up a new design when one, using many existing components or patterns already existed?  Simple I suppose, and as already suggested - the new broom came along with his new ideas and swept clean what had gone before, notwithstanding that it had a proven boiler and running gear.

The L1 boiler barrel was the same size as in the V3 class, made from a single plate and with a 5' 02 outside diameter. Dome casing was slightly further forward than the V3 and the firebox slightly longer. It had the same type superheater header as on the V1/V3 with the third steam pipe flange blanked off to suit the 2-cylinder L1. It also had a drop grate.

 

The proposed wide firebox 2-6-4T of Gresleys intrigues. A wide grate in between the frames and between the middle and rear axles? I wonder how that owuld have worked when wide fireboxes and grates are usually between splayed out frames behind driven wheels.

 

The L1's put in good mileages between heavy repairs, usually around 70,000 miles, the recond probably belonging to 67741 with 132,558 miles between September 1957 and August 1961, although 67791 ran 172,898 miles after its last heavy repair in July 1956 to its withdrawal in November 1962. (Locos of the LNER Part 9A)

[Ravenser]

 

Er - what exactly did Peppercorn reverse?

 

 

Define "all things Gresley" - the vast majority of locomotives Thompson intended to retain in his standardisation plan were Gresley locomotives, and arguably the best ones, with minimal modifications (including no such plans for removing the conjugated valve gear). In contrast, all new locomotives of the small and medium seized locomotives were to be built with two cylinders - which in wartime was entirely sensible - and all new express locomotives were to have three sets of walschaerts gear, which the Peppercorn A1 ultimately proved beyond reasonable doubt was also a sensible change from Gresley's work.

 

I'm skeptical you are being entirely fair in your choice of ES Cox's thoughts on Edward Thompson either. He is quoted in a letter to Peter Grafton in that biography as stating the following on page 99 (Chapter - The Years in Office 1941-1946):

 

 

 

 

 

Simon: Since I'm quoting from Locomotive Panorama , you're taking issue with E.S. Cox, not with me . "All things Gresley" is his phrase , in a published memoir, not mine and it is his judgement that Peppercorn reversed Thompson's policies

 

 

 

Well informed? Cox throughout Thompson's reign on the LNER was working for the LMS under Stanier. I should also point out that Thompson and Stanier got on well, and ES Cox and Stanier were invited to Doncaster works in 1941 to prepare a report on the conjugated valve gear. Pages 41, 42 and 42 of Peter Grafton's biography on Thompson give some details, though it omits the fact that it was ES Cox who actually wrote the report which Thompson brought to the LNER board to convince them that new locomotive classes should not be built with the conjugated valve gear. Stanier signed off on the report. This was a report written by two LMS engineers and it convinced the LNER board to give Thompson the go ahead to develop new designs.

 

 

As the relevant chapter of Locomotive Panorama spells out - "The Mechanical & Electrical Engineers Committee also met once a fortnight throughout the war ... From Stanier's taking of the chair I [ie Cox] had to attend every meeting as his dogsbody and do all the technical devilling beforehand.."   His sketch of Thompson is part of his impressions of the senior engineers from other railways he met in the course of those meetings , as are the comments about Peppercorn.  In addition, Cox, as a senior member of the BR CME's team after 1948 necessarily worked closely with Peppercorn and others from the LNER

 

I couldn't help being aware about the report you mention , since I actually quoted the end of Cox's own description of the episode. Because of copyright concerns I was careful  to restrict my quotes , but I'm happy to expand the citation:

 

ES Cox , Locomotive Panorama Vol 1 ch 6  p140 Shepperton 1965 ISBN 07110 0543

""prepare a report on the 2 to 1 valve gear. This was a Gresley feature he particularly disliked.... I could not of course report on whjat it had been like in the hyday of the A4s pre-war. .....All this, of course, was only saying what Thompson could perfectly say for himself but  he no doubt used the final report over Stanier's signature to full effect with his directors in the Machiavellian campaign he was conducting against all things Gresley"

 

 

That is the  summary of the episode published 20 years later for a general readership by man who the man who wrote the report. With the greatest respect, please don't attack me for the considered judgement of the man who wrote the report on how his work was used

 

That's quite a lot of elaboration there without much evidence. Can you state where this is so? There are several published counter arguments to the idea that Thompson was universally hated at Doncaster and one of which is Steam in the Blood by Dick Hardy. The biography on Thompson by Peter Grafton also makes the point

 

 

 

Before claiming that I've misunderstood, misrepresented and misquoted , it would have been sensible to read the primary source I cited and quoted. Very plainly you haven't. This destroys your arguments about what ES Cox thought . Try reading his own account to find out  what he actually wrote on these subjects . Cox states "In October 1944 [Thompson] approached me as to whether I would be prepared to come to Doncaster to work under him with the odd title of Mechanical Engineer (Commercial) " This went as far as an interview with the Assistant General Manager and CME, before LMS senior management intervened and warned off the LNER

 

My quotation  was taken from Cox's own reflections on what might have been:

 

"There were some things, however, which in my innocence I did not, indeed could not, fully appreciate.... this was one more of Thompson's many internal wars... in the teeth of great opposition from some of his own colleagues....another side to Thompson's character which was felt in full force by his own assistants and staff and which resulted in an atmosphere at Doncaster which could hardly be described as that of universal love"

 

 

 

 

I think that's a woefully inadequate comparison. The B1 exceeded all expectations in the exchange trials and was on several counts better than the Black Five or the Hall if you care to read Cecil J.Allen's The Locomotive Exchanges. The B1 was certainly easier to build (round topped boiler versus a belpaire one) and more of a "standard" than the Black Five, in comparison with the latter only having one boiler type amongst all the class and no oddities with Caprotti or similar.

 

 

Arguably the prototype proved the design was sound, but the build quality of the production batch did leave a lot to be desired.

 

However I am skeptical that the L1s can be described as unreliable - unpleasant perhaps when run down (what two cylinder locomotive isn't unpleasant when run down?) but they were fully capable of doing the work put on them. That's not a design flaw as such, that's a manufacturing and materials problem, and Thompson can hardly be blamed for that in the face of the issues the wartime and post war LNER faced?

 

 

 

 

Ivatt on the LMS and Bulleid on the SR were able to have more of a free hand than Thompson...... Bulleid somehow got permission to build over a hundred Pacifics of varying sizes and weights on the grounds they were mixed traffic (!) and his own Q1 class for me is his best steam locomotive design. Not fussy, simple, easy to maintain and build and run. More locomotives like this would probably have saved BR's Southern Region a hefty repair bill less than a decade later.

 

I hardly think we need to be reminded of the Leader - a locomotive that potentially had the ideas but was seriously flawed and complete waste of time and resources if we're going to play the "diesel traction imminent by BR days" card.

 

 

 

 

I'm really not sure what the number of Bulleid Pacifics ordered by the Southern Board have to to do with the merits of Thompson's designs and his management of the LNER's mechanical engineers. And where exactly was I referring to diesel traction (Whether Thompson or Peppercorn should be deemed responsible for the production EM1s, the EM2 design and order, and the Cl 306 and Cl 506 EMUs I don't know. But certainly much of the design work must have postdated Thompson's retirement - and shows the LNER mechanical engineers were a bit busier in 1945-9 than you suggest 

 

 

I think you'll find the (Thompson) Q1 class was included as one of Thompson's intended standard classes actually. The rebuilds I think we could all agree were not exceptional locomotives but they were found a use - and more to the point, the tenders from the Q4s which would have otherwise been withdrawn were put behind other locomotives, thus saving the potential problem of building more new tenders when materials and workshop space were scarce. Making the best of that you have, effectively.

 

 

 

 

Why on earth they were included as one of the standard classes when the LNER was struggling to find a good use for them is exactly the point I was making. See RCTS "Green Bible" Part 9B , p9-11 , with such comments as "Langwith  men summed them up as a good engine spoiled"  and the final summary "Thus class Q1 did come into its own after many trials and tribulations, and ultimately earned something to offset the cost of an expensive though well-intentioned project". If you don't agree with that judgement, please blame the RCTS, not me

[billbedford]

The proposed wide firebox 2-6-4T of Gresleys intrigues. A wide grate in between the frames and between the middle and rear axles? I wonder how that owuld have worked when wide fireboxes and grates are usually between splayed out frames behind driven wheels.

 

 

There is a drawing in RCTS Vol 9A. The firebox was behind the coupled wheels and the coupled wheelbase was 6'3" + 6'1"

[billbedford]

Simon: Since I'm quoting from Locomotive Panorama , you're taking issue with E.S. Cox, not with me . "All things Gresley" is his phrase , in a published memoir, not mine and it is his judgement that Peppercorn reversed Thompson's policies

 

 

Did Cox actually write the memoir or use a ghostwriter? 

[S.A.C Martin]

Ravenser, you are right to pull me up for not reading your source. I will go away, read the volumes in question and think on your response before submitting a further one. My apologies for being caught up in the passion of the debate (though I am enjoying reading all the different views and robust debate on offer: it is healthy to have and it is being conducted rather well, on the whole).

[billbedford]

So there, roundly two years before the Thompson L1 arrived Doncaster had drawn up a 2 cylinder 2-6-4T with a maximum 20 ton axleioad.  Was the taper boiler originally intended for this design, using existing flanging blocks, the one Thompson rejected in favour of a preference for a parallel boiler.  And why draw up a new design when one, using many existing components or patterns already existed?  Simple I suppose, and as already suggested - the new broom came along with his new ideas and swept clean what had gone before, notwithstanding that it had a proven boiler and running gear.

 

The L1 started as a design for an updated V3, only later was it extended a given a rear bogie. The final design had a modified V3 boiler and B1 cylinders. The odd thing was that the drivers were reduced from 5'8" on the V3 to 5'2" on the L1. I have never seen a real explanation for this change, but it may very well be that in 1943 the Ministry of Supply would only allocate steel for new goods engines and wheel size was adjusted to ensure that the L1 appeared to meet the government's requirements.

[robmcg]

As I see it, having read all the above, as well as many references to LNER locomotives in various books and articles, Thompson's Pacifcs were poor, and his other engines were pragmatic designs or rebuilds in wartime and immediately post-war conditions.

 

Much of the comment becomes debate about personal attributes, character, and the politics of being CME.

 

Very enjoyable discussion and I love reference to the Royal Navy after WW1.

 

I especially applaud those who have spoken to the drivers and fitters who worked on various engines. I have never quite understood why in LNER post-war and BR days good solutions were found to such as front bogie design or breathing. but were not applied, or only reluctantly applied.  Financial constraints?

 

Thanks for the interesting reading.

 

Rob

[Ravenser]

Did Cox actually write the memoir or use a ghostwriter? 

 

There's no obvious evidence that a ghost writer was involved , and I've never seen it suggested before, though I can't say I've gone looking for any evidence. 

 

The preface certainly reads as if we are to assume that it is his own work . It credits and acknowledges quite a few people but not a ghost writer

 

Cox certainly wrote and presented a number of technical papers and drew up plenty of internal reports , and to me the style does feel more like a technical or managerial writer than a literary one.  Certainly the style is much closer to a technical paper or management report than say Gerry Fiennes "I tried to run a Railway" or Richard Hardy's  writing - and I've never seen it suggested either of them didn't themselves write what was published under their name [ As an English graduate I'm probably competent to make the assessment]

 

Proving a negative is difficult - I've always assumed Cox himself wrote it, and I can't see why it would be inherently impossible for a professional mechanical engineer to write a book in retirement . His own explanation of why very few did is that holding a responsible senior position left no time for such interests and that the sheer volume of reports memoranda and correspondence at work meant that few would have any appetite for more writing

[bluebottle]

Did Cox actually write the memoir or use a ghostwriter? 

 

Ravenser answers the question pretty comprehensively; I'm still puzzled by it. If this hypothetical ghost writer wrote a text that wasn't representative of Cox's knowledge and opinions, why on earth would Cox lend his name to it?