Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, Barry O said:

Having spent several days fighting to get a consistent electrical connection between  the wheels and the sound chip on 3 locos.. I know.

 

I have fitted about 50 sound chips to kit and scratch built locos on Carlisle.. none have nickel silver "pick ups" just never had the same problem.

 

Baz

Good afternoon Baz,

 

I'm sorry you've had problems fitting the decoders into those locos I gave to you at Leeds.

 

I can only report that I've fitted decoders into locos on many occasions, all fitted with nickel silver wipers, and had no problems at all. Please ask Gilbert Barnatt about their performances on Peterborough North. Admittedly, none has been sound-fitted - are they more-sensitive?

 

I'll fit the next ones in the queue (all with NS wipers) and report accordingly.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Jol Wilkinson]

4 hours ago, polybear said:

 

It would be of great interest (and not just to me I'm sure) to learn more of these tweaks please.

 

 

 

Run out (wobble) on plastic centred wheels appears to be function of several factors. If the wheel is accurately made then a major influence is the tightness of the wheel fit on the axle. If very tight then the wheel centre appears to get distorted so causing run out.

 

The usual ones tweaks are ensuring the back of the wheel is slightly "countersunk" and the ends of the axles are lightly bevelled to ensure that the axle goes into the wheel bore smoothly.

 

Some wheels (notably Sharmans) seem to be  a tighter fit. Ultrascale wheels have  a lighter fit and suffer from run-out less, but may need pinning to the axle. John Hayes usually did this with the locos he built and wrote up for MRJ, including a Finney A3 kit in issues 65 and 67.

 

In MRJ 165 Tom Mallard described how he lightly reamed Sharman wheels to be an easier fit on the axle. He aimed for a .001" interference fit (although doesn't explain how he measured that) . They were than fitted using Loctite but could have been pinned instead.

 

I have used the same approach since reading Tom's article, especially on larger diameter wheels. I have just assembled two 6' 9" (27mm) Sharman wheels on an axle after just  countersinking the wheels and putting a slight bevel on the axle ends and these run true. I have another pair to fit to the gear driven axle but will lightly ream and pin these. These will run in the fixed axle on a compensated 2-4-0.

 

I press wheels on using a GW quartering wheel press. This has a thin plasticard "support" layer glued to each press face so that the wheels are supported around the tyres as they are pressed on, rather than just at the contact point with centre hub.

 

This is probably too much faffing about for those who have the option of using Markits wheels for OO and EM, but for those that don't  the above may be of interest.

 

Edited December 19, 2022 by Jol Wilkinson
Amended text

[Tony Wright]

My own thoughts regarding driving wheels, based on my 'primary evidence'. 

 

1. Romford/Markits drivers are more expensive that friction-fit ones (though I think Ultrascale ones are quite pricy these days).

 

2. Until recently, only a generic range was available from Romford/Markits, but now specific class types are available. Most friction-fit drivers have been specific for years.

 

3. Fitting/quartering of Romford/Markits drivers is quicker, easier and much more-robust than friction-fit equivalents. Quartering is automatic, and the wheels never slip on their axles. Quartering on friction-fit drivers needs a good eye or a jig, and if required to do really 'hard work', friction-fit drivers need pinning in some way. 

 

4. Romford/Markits' axle centres need disguising for appearances' sake.

 

5. Romford/Markits wheels can be put on to their axles, taken off and put back on countless times without failure. One usually only gets 'one go' with friction-fit drivers. 

 

6. I've never had a tyre come off a Romford/Markits driver, yet have had at least six come off the friction-fit drivers I've used (some, not on locos I've built, to be fair - they came off as I tried to remove the wheels). 

 

7. For beginners, the Romford/Markits driver is probably more user-friendly. 

 

If everything were easy in railway modelling, I doubt if I'd have pursued it for so long (and continue to do so). Not for me (and many on this thread) the exclusive use of RTR or the delights of 'chequebook modelling' (each to their own, of course). However, where a working steam-outline loco is required (and I mean really-working - hard, fast, powerfully and reliably - as on LB or Retford), then, in my experience, the 'easier' Romford/Markits drivers are the way to go.

[LNER4479]

25 minutes ago, Simon A.C. Martin said:

The crank axle was standard with the Pacifics and it was not determined at the time that the failure was actually down to a combination of design and metallurgy.

FWIW - Gresley crank axles were routinely replaced at works every 250k miles, to maintain reliability (and avoid unfortunate incidents) - having all three cylinders driving on the same axle made them prone to cracking. The problem was that the P2s didn't make 250k miles before breaking axles (whereas the pacifics did), due to the significant extra power and a far less propensity to slip (8-coupled versus 6-coupled).

 

The No.2007 P2 project by chance came across a report from 1939 of a broken P2 axle (with picture of the failed axle), which occurred at 139k miles and was a typical failure - starting away with a heavy train (from Stonehaven station). A pacific would have slipped (thus dissipating the energy); the P2 didn't and it found the weakest point (a crack originating from the key way that had already been growing which had reached a critical point).

 

The P2 project commissioned a modern industry wheelset expert to redesign the crank axle, using modern standards and this is the design that has been approved and since manufactured and fitted to the loco. Calculations show that it should now run more than 250k miles before it needs replacing. Modern NDT methods are also now available to enable any crack propagation to be detected long before it becomes critical - techniques that simply weren't available in the 1930s/1940s.

 

I believe most - if not all - of the above to be factual!

[t-b-g]

15 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

FWIW - Gresley crank axles were routinely replaced at works every 250k miles, to maintain reliability (and avoid unfortunate incidents) - having all three cylinders driving on the same axle made them prone to cracking. The problem was that the P2s didn't make 250k miles before breaking axles (whereas the pacifics did), due to the significant extra power and a far less propensity to slip (8-coupled versus 6-coupled).

 

The No.2007 P2 project by chance came across a report from 1939 of a broken P2 axle (with picture of the failed axle), which occurred at 139k miles and was a typical failure - starting away with a heavy train (from Stonehaven station). A pacific would have slipped (thus dissipating the energy); the P2 didn't and it found the weakest point (a crack originating from the key way that had already been growing which had reached a critical point).

 

The P2 project commissioned a modern industry wheelset expert to redesign the crank axle, using modern standards and this is the design that has been approved and since manufactured and fitted to the loco. Calculations show that it should now run more than 250k miles before it needs replacing. Modern NDT methods are also now available to enable any crack propagation to be detected long before it becomes critical - techniques that simply weren't available in the 1930s/1940s.

 

I believe most - if not all - of the above to be factual!

 

I hope they are right. Otherwise they will have spent millions of pounds on a complete failure. Mind you, they did do lots of "homework" so they should be OK.

 

I understand the boiler should be delivered in the next couple of months, so a big step forward.

 

I have always thought that a few minor modifications would have changed the P2s from being very powerful, (almost too powerful but prone to problems as a result) into still the most powerful but much more reliable passenger locos on the railways in this country. The fact that they look magnificent is a nice bonus.

 

In a couple of years we will be able to see one hauling trains for ourselves and I can't wait.

 

Edited December 19, 2022 by t-b-g
To add content

[micklner]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

My own thoughts regarding driving wheels, based on my 'primary evidence'. 

 

1. Romford/Markits drivers are more expensive that friction-fit ones (though I think Ultrascale ones are quite pricy these days).

 

2. Until recently, only a generic range was available from Romford/Markits, but now specific class types are available. Most friction-fit drivers have been specific for years.

 

3. Fitting/quartering of Romford/Markits drivers is quicker, easier and much more-robust than friction-fit equivalents. Quartering is automatic, and the wheels never slip on their axles. Quartering on friction-fit drivers needs a good eye or a jig, and if required to do really 'hard work', friction-fit drivers need pinning in some way. 

 

4. Romford/Markits' axle centres need disguising for appearances' sake.

 

5. Romford/Markits wheels can be put on to their axles, taken off and put back on countless times without failure. One usually only gets 'one go' with friction-fit drivers. 

 

6. I've never had a tyre come off a Romford/Markits driver, yet have had at least six come off the friction-fit drivers I've used (some, not on locos I've built, to be fair - they came off as I tried to remove the wheels). 

 

7. For beginners, the Romford/Markits driver is probably more user-friendly. 

 

If everything were easy in railway modelling, I doubt if I'd have pursued it for so long (and continue to do so). Not for me (and many on this thread) the exclusive use of RTR or the delights of 'chequebook modelling' (each to their own, of course). However, where a working steam-outline loco is required (and I mean really-working - hard, fast, powerfully and reliably - as on LB or Retford), then, in my experience, the 'easier' Romford/Markits drivers are the way to go.

You forgot the recent pointers from a couple of weeks ago, on here.

 

Markits only Wizard sell them (when they have any stock , it is still no different than a couple of weeks ago)  , unless there is another Retailer ?. Roxey has given up. I dont do/intend to have 30 mins chin wags with the maker (sorry). Still a limited range.

 

Gibson cheaper and using a GW Press (good pointer re the add on plastikard bits as mentioned by Jol earlier) Huge number of prototype versions available, and in normal times they are delievered in a week or less.

 

I have never had a Gibson wheel fail, in fact they are a nightmare to get off. Markits are best for beginners. However I have had Gibson wobbly ones though, my fault not Gibsons !!

Edited December 19, 2022 by micklner

[MikeParkin65]

46 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Baz,

 

I'm sorry you've had problems fitting the decoders into those locos I gave to you at Leeds.

 

I can only report that I've fitted decoders into locos on many occasions, all fitted with nickel silver wipers, and had no problems at all. Please ask Gilbert Barnatt about their performances on Peterborough North. Admittedly, none has been sound-fitted - are they more-sensitive?

 

I'll fit the next ones in the queue (all with NS wipers) and report accordingly.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Afternoon Tony,

 

My very limited understanding of things electrical is that Nickel Silver has higher resistance than phosper bronze. 

 

DCC sound chips need both more current and a cleaner passage for the signal that has to pass from controller, through the DCC bus, through track, wheels, pick ups and ultimately to the decoder therefore I can imagine a problem not apparent in a DC set up or a straight DCC (no sound)  set up would create an issue in a sound fitted loco.

[Jol Wilkinson]

23 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

My own thoughts regarding driving wheels, based on my 'primary evidence'. 

 

1. Romford/Markits drivers are more expensive that friction-fit ones (though I think Ultrascale ones are quite pricy these days).

 

2. Until recently, only a generic range was available from Romford/Markits, but now specific class types are available. Most friction-fit drivers have been specific for years.

 

3. Fitting/quartering of Romford/Markits drivers is quicker, easier and much more-robust than friction-fit equivalents. Quartering is automatic, and the wheels never slip on their axles. Quartering on friction-fit drivers needs a good eye or a jig, and if required to do really 'hard work', friction-fit drivers need pinning in some way. 

 

4. Romford/Markits' axle centres need disguising for appearances' sake.

 

5. Romford/Markits wheels can be put on to their axles, taken off and put back on countless times without failure. One usually only gets 'one go' with friction-fit drivers. 

 

6. I've never had a tyre come off a Romford/Markits driver, yet have had at least six come off the friction-fit drivers I've used (some, not on locos I've built, to be fair - they came off as I tried to remove the wheels). 

 

7. For beginners, the Romford/Markits driver is probably more user-friendly. 

 

If everything were easy in railway modelling, I doubt if I'd have pursued it for so long (and continue to do so). Not for me (and many on this thread) the exclusive use of RTR or the delights of 'chequebook modelling' (each to their own, of course). However, where a working steam-outline loco is required (and I mean really-working - hard, fast, powerfully and reliably - as on LB or Retford), then, in my experience, the 'easier' Romford/Markits drivers are the way to go.

 

All very valid points, Tony. Unless you want to build one of these for example, or any of many other pre-group locos (irrespective of gauge).

 

This LNWR Renown is fitted a set of large boss 7' wheels produced by Bill Bedford as prototypes. They have 3D printed centres, very nicely machined tyres, are self quartering (there is a key in the wheel bore and machined keyways on the axle). Sadly Bill didn't go into production with them.

 

 

With regard to tyres falling off centres, I have experienced that with Alan Gibson wheels, but never  when "in action", only when removing them from the axle. The tyre is easily refitted, with a drop of Loctite to hold it securely.

 

Sharman wheels  have a groove on the inside face of the tyre and so they cannot be separated.  The only problem is their availability.

[Guest Simon A.C. Martin]

I apologise Tony, but we really need to quash a few of these things permanently. 

 

Quote

I have no wish to prolong the 'Thompson debate', but there is 'primary' evidence that those in Scotland responsible for running the P2s were 'up in arms' when the decision was taken to rebuild them.

 

What is this "primary evidence" Tony?

 

If that primary evidence is so strong, then it should have been published, physically, but never has been.

 

Whereas I went out of my way to go through the full LNER archives, for which I found the following primary evidence:

• board minutes giving the problems of the P2s
• Reports giving their issues
• locomotive committee minutes

All three sources, quoted and cited in my book, are reports which are fed from the traffic department, maintenance, and more. The P2s issues were raised by those running the P2s. 

 

 

The prototype Thompson A2/2 was on test for a full year, and the report given to the board, written by Arthur Peppercorn and fed by the statistics and feedback from same said traffic department, which then led to their approval to rebuild the remaining five locomotives. 

 

That report can be found here:

 

 

I have cited both of these reports and the board minutes they accompany in my book on Thompson. This is primary evidence. Note the signature of Charles Newton.

 

Quote

I've had access in the past to Geoff Lund's first-hand contemporary notes

 

Lund's notes are not primary evidence, nor are they equal, or bettering, that of the official record, and the clear evidence from Peppercorn and to the LNER Emergency Board of the satisfactory work the Thompson A2/2s did. 

 

Quote

Eric Trask is reported to have said 'It'll take more than Edward Thompson to sack me!'.

 

The LNER company structure is pretty clear from its inception in 1923, to its final days in 1948, and Edward Thompson was not physically capable of sacking Eric Trask, or anyone, on any whim, let alone a disagreement on a locomotive design from an individual working several grades below, in a department far removed from Thompson's.

 

That statement, which you have made before, suggests that Thompson 

 

a) knew who Eric Trask was

b) had a power that no CME had, including Gresley

 

Thompson was not Eric Trask's line manager: he would have had zero interaction with him, and, as the official records show, had better things to do than to deal with any single individual in the running department. The same applied to Gresley before and to Peppercorn after. 

 

The LNER Emergency Board had the final say on the building of the first Thompson prototype and the rebuilding of the remaining Gresley P2s, so really Trask's comments regarding Thompson need to be taken for what they actually are: a dig at the CME with no repercussions, made some time after the event and taken as factual with no follow up analysis querying the veracity of the statement.

 

Secondary evidence either needs proper evidence (letters/reports/etc) to link such a claim, or it needs to be discarded.

 

In this case, I had to discard that claim, and Trask's recollections, because it lines up with absolutely nothing that we know as discernible, provable fact from the LNER's own archives: and no primary evidence was given to corroborate his story.

 

This is the key thing, and if you take anything away from this today, take this: someone making a statement such as "it'll take more than Thompson to sack me" is not providing primary evidence.

 

This is secondary evidence, it should be rightly questioned, and it should be discarded when, from research, it becomes clear it is not reasonable to hold it up as anything other than commentary.

 

Quote

These were guys who were running the railways in the most-difficult of times, and the P2s' unsurpassed ability to take anything behind their tenders was much-appreciated. As rebuilds, the factor of adhesion of the A2/2s was so diminished that, according to one reported comment, 'They'd slip on Portobello Sands!'.

 

This is simply not true, and I have pointed this out to you before. 

 

The factor of adhesion was reduced, but it is a reduction from 4.06 to 3.67 (adhesive weight was 79 tons, became 66 tons). The Thompson A2/2s had a better factor of adhesion than the Bulleid Pacifics, and were entirely comparable with the other LNER Pacifics. 

 

So they are not so diminished that they are unusable, which is factual.

 

In any event, and as you are well aware: all Pacifics wheelslip, and perhaps the Thompson ones needed a more experienced driver than others: but the Pacific with the lowest factor of adhesion amongst the LNER Pacifics was the Peppercorn A2, and that is not criticised for its capabilities.

 

 

In the report seen above, we can corroborate the point of view that the Thompson Pacifics were entirely capable machines.

 

Quote

There's no doubt that the P2s weren't right, and Simon Martin quite rightly lists their low-availability (

which was not entirely down to the design's failure).

 

Yes, it was. The P2 class as a whole were performing poorly even before the second world war. The design has been re-evaluated by the P2 Trust and many changes have been made to the pony truck and the crank axle, which should hopefully fix those issues. Those two items are major design flaws and are directly responsible for the P2s' issues. 

 

Quote

However, their incomparable load-hauling capabilities were known (and appreciated) by those responsible for running them.

 

Their load hauling capabilities were matched by the Gresley A3s, the A4s, the V2s, the Thompson A2/2s and (when required to work the services), Gresley's original class A10s.

 

Quote

I'm also 'suspicious' of the A2/2s' (claimed) ability to take the same train weights as the P2s. If they were that able, why were they transferred away from their indigenous route as soon as the Peppercorn Pacifics came on-stream? Transferred to English depots which had very little 'prestigious' work......

 

The logic that has been expressed in this thread state that the P2s, when they are unreliable, should be sent elsewhere to England, to be better utilised.

 

But...

 

The A2/2s, proving their worth, were then exiled to England.

 

Do you not see the frustrating double standard being applied here Tony? 

 

The truth of the matter is that the Thompson A2/2s were not "standard" as the Peppercorn A2s ultimately were (having, off the top of my head, three boiler types between six locomotives) and it made sense to send them south when the production A2/3s and then Peppercorn A2s came into service. Nothing more, nothing less, and this has happened with a myriad of designs across the whole of railway history.

 

Again, we should look to the primary sources.

 

Quote

Interestingly, as far as I've read, Lund's accounts and Trask's accounts are not mentioned in Simon's recent book on ET. Do they not qualify as 'primary evidence'?

 

No, they do not, and no, they do not count as primary evidence. I am not the only writer who has pointed that out.

 

Quote

In fairness, his book does demolish many of the unfair myths about ET, and does, at least, redress the balance against what has been published before. 

 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

 

 

Including those above, I hope.

Edited December 19, 2022 by Simon A.C. Martin

[Guest Simon A.C. Martin]

46 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

I hope they are right. Otherwise they will have spent millions of pounds on a complete failure. Mind you, they did do lots of "homework" so they should be OK.

 

I understand the boiler should be delivered in the next couple of months, so a bog step forward.

 

I have always thought that a few minor modifications would changed the P2s from being very powerful, almost too powerful but prone to problems as a result into the most powerful passenger locos on the railways in this country. The fact that they look magnificent is a nice bonus.

 

In a couple of years we will be able to see one hauling trains for ourselves and I can't wait.

 

 

I am a founder member of the P2 Trust - no.103 - and the entire reason I became a founder member was because I trusted in the engineering excellence of the A1 Trust, and I stand by that.

 

Being able to recognise the flaws of the original P2s, and see that the evidence gives us a very specific story on them, is not also decrying or denigrating the P2 Trust.

 

That should be pretty clear from everything I have ever written. If it is not: let me be clear. The new Gresley P2 has been well designed and I am confident in the abilities of those who have been building it. 

[Guest Simon A.C. Martin]

57 minutes ago, LNER4479 said:

FWIW - Gresley crank axles were routinely replaced at works every 250k miles, to maintain reliability (and avoid unfortunate incidents) - having all three cylinders driving on the same axle made them prone to cracking. The problem was that the P2s didn't make 250k miles before breaking axles (whereas the pacifics did), due to the significant extra power and a far less propensity to slip (8-coupled versus 6-coupled).

 

The No.2007 P2 project by chance came across a report from 1939 of a broken P2 axle (with picture of the failed axle), which occurred at 139k miles and was a typical failure - starting away with a heavy train (from Stonehaven station). A pacific would have slipped (thus dissipating the energy); the P2 didn't and it found the weakest point (a crack originating from the key way that had already been growing which had reached a critical point).

 

The P2 project commissioned a modern industry wheelset expert to redesign the crank axle, using modern standards and this is the design that has been approved and since manufactured and fitted to the loco. Calculations show that it should now run more than 250k miles before it needs replacing. Modern NDT methods are also now available to enable any crack propagation to be detected long before it becomes critical - techniques that simply weren't available in the 1930s/1940s.

 

I believe most - if not all - of the above to be factual!

 

Yes, I believe that to be entirely factual. Further reading can be found here: https://nearyou.imeche.org/docs/default-source/scottish-rd-centre---past-presentations/151217-p2-locomotive.pdf?sfvrsn=2

 

 

Note slide 57. 

 

I have had the pleasure of discussing the design with many A1 and P2 trust members over the years. The re-designed crank axle is, I think, about 30% overall beefier. 

[Clearwater]

On the "how good will the new P2 be" debate, I'm drawn to the comments I've read (apols can't source) about 71000.  An excellent loco in preservation that arguably benefited from the advances in knowledge and engineering in its preservation rebuild.  You'd be pretty bonkers not to seek to improve on what was done, particularly when it's under the bonnet so to speak.

 

David

[Compound2632]

This raises a couple of interesting questions:

1. The new build locomotive has been considerably re-designed, not only correcting deficiencies in the original design but also exploiting improved materials and manufacturing techniques. Can it therefore be described as a Gresley P2?
2. If it is described as a Gresley P2, will its undoubted success simply reinforce the myths that Simon is at such pains to refute?

[CXW1]

All valid points raised by Tony, Mick and Jol about wheels in my opinion. I build EM gauge models so I can go either way with wheel suppliers and I accept the merits and disadvantages of both types. I’m not restricted to using friction fit wheels like Jol and other P4 modellers.

 

My recent personal experience of Markits wheels is that they have been anything but foolproof or user friendly, having purchased them specifically for that very reason.

 

I’ve recently had Markits driving wheels where the square hole in the wheel has been too tight to fit onto the axle and required careful filing. I think I managed to successfully deal with the problem, but if I'd been a bit too keen with the file it would have made a square hole into something not square and, I assume, wobbly.

 

The other issue I’ve had recently with a set of Markits driving wheels is that they weren’t round. I took what was a very square chassis to pieces and reassembled it again twice and started to question my own ability before realising that a set of non-concentric wheels were to blame. At the end of the day I received a full refund from Wizard for a faulty product so I didn’t lose anything apart from my own sanity for a few evenings.  

 

The loco in question now has a set of Gibson driving wheels which were fitted with a GW wheel press and are OK for me. Admittedly the loco isn’t required to pull heavy trains at 90mph on the ECML so I can’t comment on the durability of friction fit wheels under heavy load. 

 

I don’t want to come over as ‘anti-Markits’ because I’m not, and I don’t have an axe to grind. I’ve had lots of success with Markits wheels. It is just that my personal and recent experience of Markits wheels hasn’t been the user-friendly solution as is often promoted.

 

Cheers

 

Chris

[Tony Wright]

12 minutes ago, Simon A.C. Martin said:

I apologise Tony, but we really need to quash a few of these things permanently. 

 

 

 

 

What is this "primary evidence" Tony?

 

If that primary evidence is so strong, then it should have been published, physically, but never has been.

 

Whereas I went out of my way to go through the full LNER archives, for which I found the following primary evidence:

• board minutes giving the problems of the P2s
• Reports giving their issues
• locomotive committee minutes

All three sources, quoted and cited in my book, are reports which are fed from the traffic department, maintenance, and more. The P2s issues were raised by those running the P2s. 

 

 

The prototype Thompson A2/2 was on test for a full year, and the report given to the board, written by Arthur Peppercorn and fed by the statistics and feedback from same said traffic department, which then led to their approval to rebuild the remaining five locomotives. 

 

That report can be found here:

 

 

I have cited both of these reports and the board minutes they accompany in my book on Thompson. This is primary evidence. Note the signature of Charles Newton.

 

 

 

 

Lund's notes are not primary evidence, nor are they equal, or bettering, that of the official record, and the clear evidence from Peppercorn and to the LNER Emergency Board of the satisfactory work the Thompson A2/2s did. 

 

 

 

 

The LNER company structure is pretty clear from its inception in 1923, to its final days in 1948, and Edward Thompson was not physically capable of sacking Eric Trask, or anyone, on any whim, let alone a disagreement on a locomotive design from an individual working several grades below, in a department far removed from Thompson's.

 

That statement, which you have made before, suggests that Thompson 

 

a) knew who Eric Trask was

b) had a power that no CME had, including Gresley

 

Thompson was not Eric Trask's line manager: he would have had zero interaction with him, and, as the official records show, had better things to do than to deal with any single individual in the running department. The same applied to Gresley before and to Peppercorn after. 

 

The LNER Emergency Board had the final say on the building of the first Thompson prototype and the rebuilding of the remaining Gresley P2s, so really Trask's comments regarding Thompson need to be taken for what they actually are: a dig at the CME with no repercussions, made some time after the event and taken as factual with no follow up analysis querying the veracity of the statement.

 

Secondary evidence either needs proper evidence (letters/reports/etc) to link such a claim, or it needs to be discarded.

 

In this case, I had to discard that claim, and Trask's recollections, because it lines up with absolutely nothing that we know as discernible, provable fact from the LNER's own archives: and no primary evidence was given to corroborate his story.

 

This is the key thing, and if you take anything away from this today, take this: someone making a statement such as "it'll take more than Thompson to sack me" is not providing primary evidence.

 

This is secondary evidence, it should be rightly questioned, and it should be discarded when, from research, it becomes clear it is not reasonable to hold it up as anything other than commentary.

 

 

 

 

This is simply not true, and I have pointed this out to you before. 

 

The factor of adhesion was reduced, but it is a reduction from 4.06 to 3.67 (adhesive weight was 79 tons, became 66 tons). The Thompson A2/2s had a better factor of adhesion than the Bulleid Pacifics, and were entirely comparable with the other LNER Pacifics. 

 

So they are not so diminished that they are unusable, which is factual.

 

In any event, and as you are well aware: all Pacifics wheelslip, and perhaps the Thompson ones needed a more experienced driver than others: but the Pacific with the lowest factor of adhesion amongst the LNER Pacifics was the Peppercorn A2, and that is not criticised for its capabilities.

 

 

In the report seen above, we can corroborate the point of view that the Thompson Pacifics were entirely capable machines.

 

 

 

 

Yes, it was. The P2 class as a whole were performing poorly even before the second world war. The design has been re-evaluated by the P2 Trust and many changes have been made to the pony truck and the crank axle, which should hopefully fix those issues. Those two items are major design flaws and are directly responsible for the P2s' issues. 

 

 

 

 

Their load hauling capabilities were matched by the Gresley A4s, the Gresley V2s, the Thompson A2/2s and (when required to work the services), Gresley's original class A10s. The P2s

 

 

 

 

So hang on. The logic that has been expressed in this thread state that the P2s, when they are unreliable, should be sent elsewhere to England, to be better utilised.

 

But...

 

The A2/2s, proving their worth, were then exiled to England.

 

Do you not see the frustrating double standard being applied here Tony? 

 

The truth of the matter is that the Thompson A2/2s were not "standard" as the Peppercorn A2s ultimately were (having, off the top of my head, three boiler types between six locomotives) and it made sense to send them south when the production A2/3s and then Peppercorn A2s came into service. Nothing more, nothing less, and this has happened with a myriad of designs across the whole of railway history.

 

Again, we should look to the primary sources.

 

 

 

 

No, they do not, and no, they do not count as primary evidence. I am not the only writer who has pointed that out.

 

 

 

 

Including those above, I hope.

Good afternoon Simon,

 

Your strident responses are noted; thank you.

 

If I may, I'd like to advise some caution. I've not studied the 'primary evidence' regarding ET by any means as much as you have - it's all rather academic, and many views are so entrenched now as to be 'irrefutable', despite 'all the evidence'. 

 

Why do I advise caution? You've really set yourself up as 'paragon of virtue' with regard to Edward Thompson and his works. I did find your book 'interesting' in many ways, though your non-inclusion of some of the thoughts of the men responsible for running locomotives at the time seems puzzling. Still, as I've stated, it does redress some of the balance. 

 

That said, you're effectively saying that much (most?) of the works on the subject by 'established' authors such as Nock, Allen, Rogers, Yeadon, Trask (via PN Townend), Lund (magazine articles), Coster (to some extent), Crawley (magazine articles), Cliffe and Clay (the last two not so 'hostile' to ET) should effectively be 'dismissed' as being inaccurate and prejudiced. If that's the case, then good luck. 

 

Having written several books myself (though not as learned as yours), I'd be very careful of claiming that you're 'right' and others are just plain 'wrong'. 

 

Probably best to close this correspondence now. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[LNERandBR]

Personally, I think you will never change some opinions of Thompson. The whole debate will just spin round and round in circles much like the whole DC vs DCC debate.

 

In my opinion, he did what he felt was required. He was working under trying circumstances and rather than debate his more controversial decisions lets celebrate his achivements like the B1's.

[Guest Simon A.C. Martin]

28 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Simon,

 

Your strident responses are noted; thank you.

 

 

They are not intended to be strident Tony: I am directly answering the claims you made and trying, once more, to point out what is obvious. Evidence is key.

 

Quote

If I may, I'd like to advise some caution. I've not studied the 'primary evidence' regarding ET by any means as much as you have - it's all rather academic, and many views are so entrenched now as to be 'irrefutable', despite 'all the evidence'.

 

But those entrenched views are not then railway history, are they? That's commentary and speculation dressed up as railway history and primary evidence.

 

Here's the thing Tony. I did do the hard graft and research. I went across the UK, went to as many people as I could, went through archives, did the hard work with the statistics, and my book came out very different to some of the books which came out before.

 

But interestingly, I am not alone with this.

 

Tim Hillier-Graves' book was published before me and said the same things, virtually, and Peter Grafton's work did too, and his was the earliest such book which questioned the secondary sources on Thompson and Gresley.

 

Quote

Why do I advise caution? You've really set yourself up as 'paragon of virtue' with regard to Edward Thompson and his works. I did find your book 'interesting' in many ways, though your non-inclusion of some of the thoughts of the men responsible for running locomotives at the time seems puzzling. Still, as I've stated, it does redress some of the balance.

 

I think on reflection Tony that you have put yourself in the corner of defending the secondary material in a way that does you no favours. 

 

Quote

That said, you're effectively saying that much (most?) of the works on the subject by 'established' authors such as Nock, Allen, Rogers, Yeadon, Trask (via PN Townend), Lund (magazine articles), Coster (to some extent), Crawley (magazine articles), Cliffe and Clay (the last two not so 'hostile' to ET) should effectively be 'dismissed' as being inaccurate and prejudiced. If that's the case, then good luck.

 

I have never said that about Peter Coster (he has helped with my Gresley book), nor Peter Townend (who in fact helped significantly with the Thompson book). Both men I reached out to, and they were both incredibly helpful. 

 

Nock, Allen and Rogers should all be reassessed, for definite. Rogers work on Thompson should be entirely dismissed. It is a poor contribution to the history of the LNER, I am afraid, and I am not the only person who has said that. 

 

Quote

Having written several books myself (though not as learned as yours), I'd be very careful of claiming that you're 'right' and others are just plain 'wrong'. 

 

 

Probably best to close this correspondence now. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

 

 

Hi Tony,

 

I have always provided the evidence which backs up my statements. That is the subtle difference here and can be seen in my previous post, and all those posts I have made before it.

 

Understandable that some may not like the answers which come out of serious research: regardless of that, primary evidence should be respected, understood and acknowledged. 

 

It is disappointing - from my end anyway - that when views are challenged and even the physical record photographed, and provided, showing the factual record of events, some would prefer to play the man, not the ball, as it were, because it challenges long held views which they would rather hold onto.

 

I long for a day when LNER writers can as a whole move forward from the subjective opinion pieces of old, and into more serious academic discussion of the evidence they have to hand.

 

Which, where the LNER is concerned, is an astonishing amount of evidence, publicly available at two of the best archive facilities in the country.

 

Best wishes

 

Simon

 

 

 

 

Edited December 19, 2022 by Simon A.C. Martin

[30368]

43 minutes ago, Simon A.C. Martin said:

I am a founder member of the P2 Trust - no.103 - and the entire reason I became a founder member was because I trusted in the engineering excellence of the A1 Trust, and I stand by that.

 

Me too and I totally agree, the Chief Engineer seems a very competent and dedicated gentleman. Looking forward to the first run.

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B Founder F166.

[Guest Simon A.C. Martin]

34 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

This raises a couple of interesting questions:

1. The new build locomotive has been considerably re-designed, not only correcting deficiencies in the original design but also exploiting improved materials and manufacturing techniques. Can it therefore be described as a Gresley P2?

 

Yes, it can. it will be effectively P2/4 under the LNER classification system. There was no one P2 identical by the time of their rebuilding, in any event: so a seventh P2 on a similar theme with necessary and understandable changes for the modern mainline is not that far from the originals.

 

If it is described as a Gresley P2, will its undoubted success simply reinforce the myths that Simon is at such pains to refute?

 

Only if it is not matched with good education explaining why the changes were made to the P2s originally, how they have arrived at the designs they have now, and that no.2007 has effectively gone a very different way in resolving the issues of the original P2s.

 

Which, to be fair, is exactly what the P2 Trust have always done: their roadshows are excellent. David Elliott's ability to answer questions and educate is rarely matched elsewhere. It is sad to note the recent news.

 

 

[t-b-g]

45 minutes ago, Simon A.C. Martin said:

 

I am a founder member of the P2 Trust - no.103 - and the entire reason I became a founder member was because I trusted in the engineering excellence of the A1 Trust, and I stand by that.

 

Being able to recognise the flaws of the original P2s, and see that the evidence gives us a very specific story on them, is not also decrying or denigrating the P2 Trust.

 

That should be pretty clear from everything I have ever written. If it is not: let me be clear. The new Gresley P2 has been well designed and I am confident in the abilities of those who have been building it. 

 

I knew that Simon. I trust them too. The fixes for the problems had been identified long before they announced that they were going to build the loco.

 

I have often wondered if fitting a revised crank axle and pony truck to the original P2s would have cured their problems and been much cheaper and quicker than the total rebuilds that took place. At least we will now get to see what an upgraded P2 might have performed like if that option had been followed.

[Guest Simon A.C. Martin]

10 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

I have often wondered if fitting a revised crank axle and pony truck to the original P2s would have cured their problems and been much cheaper and quicker than the total rebuilds that took place. At least we will now get to see what an upgraded P2 might have performed like if that option had been followed.

 

They probably would have been Tony, but that would have required a lot of drawing office time that the LNER simply didn't have in the middle of the second world war.

 

What gets overlooked repeatedly is that the engineering facilities of the LNER during WW2 were restricted massively by the work for the war department, the drawing office being one of these facilities that was also giving over some of its work. 

 

Fitting divided drive and three sets of valve gear, as Thompson did, was one correct answer to the P2s issues. The desirable outcome that the P2 Trust have produced is not one that was available to Thompson - or to anyone, for that matter - during WW2, even Gresley (though the board minutes and locomotive committee minutes show he was aware of the issues. How much importance he placed on them is probably shown in the concentration on getting the V4 design right).

[LNER4479]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

1. The new build locomotive has been considerably re-designed, not only correcting deficiencies in the original design but also exploiting improved materials and manufacturing techniques. Can it therefore be described as a Gresley P2?

In the vernacular at least, it is described by the Trust as an 'Improved Gresley P2'. If you want to attribute a designer to it, then it could with some justification be described as a 'Gresley/Elliott P2' (which would be a nice touch).

 

The third major element of re-design, not so far mentioned, is the cylinders / valve gear. The new cylinder block has now been manufactured (to the Elliott re-design) and a mighty impressive lump of welded steel it is too. The major difference here is the repositioning of one of the inside valve ports, so as to even out the steam clearance volumes between all three cylinders. A trade-off consequence is the use of a rocker lever mechanism to activate one of the inside valves. That is a bold bit of re-design for which the proof of the pudding will definitely be in the eating. The wear on the cam follower for the infinitely variable valve settings is addressed by advances in modern metallurgy.

 

https://www.a1steam.com/prince-of-wales/news/prince-of-wales-details/monobloc-preview-delights-donors

 

[MJI]

Been working on these 4 today

 

 

[MJI]

I think with Thompson it is often forgotten it was World War 2.

 

 

[Barry O]

3 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Baz,

 

I'm sorry you've had problems fitting the decoders into those locos I gave to you at Leeds.

 

I can only report that I've fitted decoders into locos on many occasions, all fitted with nickel silver wipers, and had no problems at all. Please ask Gilbert Barnatt about their performances on Peterborough North. Admittedly, none has been sound-fitted - are they more-sensitive?

 

I'll fit the next ones in the queue (all with NS wipers) and report accordingly.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Tony 

 

the DCC sound sees a  short loss of   Power so switches off.

 

Normal DCC is reasonably OK so you don't notice it.. but turn the lights out and observe.. Time to move onto something which has a bit more electrical continuity.. phosphour bronze wire works a lot better..

 

Baz