Edward Thompson: for and against

[coachmann]

The GWR, LMS and the SR had more or less proved the case for Diesels in the 1940's. The fact that diesel power was not adopted immediately speaks for itself. Regarding pollution, it was everywhere, not just on the railways, and while the country needed to manufacture and export to survive, there was no mood to tackle it. Many polluting pre-war cars had been put back on the roads in the 1950's seeing a purchase tax on new cars ruled them out for the labouring classes. Pre-war buses too were still bellowing out huge amounts of thick smoke until their demise in the later 1950s (by wealthier operators). Even as late as 1965, I could smell the smoke and generally stale air when returning at weekend to Oldham from Wales even though I had never smelled it while living there(!) and the clean air act had been in force for a couple of years by then. As for smog, I won't even go there. Zsheesh, what were we talking about?  Oh aye, Thompson.  

[Graham_Muz]

Certainly it is questionable what Bulleid was doing building the MN's during the war, and there is the great question of why the Southern built so many pacifics, but then when somebody considers what is needed to replace an M7 tank and come up with the Leader it may be best not to speculate too much on what is going on inside that particular mind! That said, his pacifics were innovative designs that did display a lot of very clever (if uneven...) engineering.

Sorry but I have come late to this thread. Just to pick up on the Leader being an M7 replacement as it has been mentioned a couple times now on this thread (and I am not picking on jjb but responding via phone and can not multiple quote)

 

The original intention of the Leader as quoted by Bulleid himself and again by his son, in his biography of his Dad, was to have the same route availability of the M7 not to be replacement for them. As such these are two completely different things and the later appears to be regularly incorrectly stated time and time again including in a number of otherwise respected publications. It's a case of it is stated enough it must be true!

As also pointed out this is not the thread to discuss the failings or otherwise of the Leader itself, but I wanted to just the record straight.

[S.A.C Martin]

That's fair enough Graham, thank you for the correction. I myself have also stated that on occasion incorrectly so it's good to know the exact intentions and aims of the Leader project.

[Poggy1165]

IIRC there was a proposal after WW2 that there should be a changeover to oil fired locomotives; however the Government vetoed the proposal on the basis that the country could not afford the necessary foreign currency to buy the fuel. Coal had the advantage (then) of being home produced.

 

So BR had no hope of widespread dieselisation - or even oil burning steam engines - in the early postwar years. Similarly it could not embark on massive electrification schemes because the available capital was strictly limited and came long way down the priority list after housing, education, the health service, and grants to Commonwealth countries. So the continued development of steam traction was inevitable - the alternative would have been to shut down the whole business.

 

Personally, I have always found it rather odd that Governments favoured the phasing out of tramways and trolleybuses at the same time, leading to an increased need for diesel fuel for other public transport. But there you go.

 

Another country might have handled matters differently, but that's another story. Correlli Barnett's series of books about Britain during the war and in the decades afterwards are sobering reading, for anyone of any political persuasion. Frankly after working my way through them I have no idea how we survived WW2, let alone the peace.

[bike2steam]

Leader -It's all about being able to understand the requirements of the Southern Railway at the time, never mind many don't/didn't, which was totally different to the other 3 groups. Back to the topic.

[jjb1970]

The Leader is a fascinating subject, I must admit I've always accepted the M7 link but am happy to be informed of stuff on the subject that counters this. The problem with Leader is that the debate is even more polarised and weighted in terms of one side of the argument than the Thompson debate, and this thread has shown how much heat there still is in the Thompson debate. 

[S.A.C Martin]

Aside from the book;  one comment on the Thomson design ‘team’.  Some of the Gresley design staff were re-assigned when Thomson came into office [presumably to reduce opposition to his changes].  Given that, and considering it was an age when the ‘Chief’ was much more a figure of authority, I find it surprising that the drawing office would defy him by altering the pacific front end. While this suggests that relations within the design office were really bad, is it possible that Thompson knew what was going on, but that as he was about to retire didn’t care, or was it a case of he knew his front end design was structurally faulty and this allowed it to be corrected without him admitting he was wrong?  [i have no evidence for this suggestion beyond some experience of how these things are sometimes achieved].

 

Jeremy

 

It's interesting to note that Thompson's 6ft 2in Pacifics all had connecting rods of the same length, whereas his only 6ft 8in Pacific, Great Northern, did not but retained the general layout devised in the 6ft 2in engines.

[Bernard Lamb]

Aside from the book;  one comment on the Thomson design ‘team’.  Some of the Gresley design staff were re-assigned when Thomson came into office [presumably to reduce opposition to his changes].  Given that, and considering it was an age when the ‘Chief’ was much more a figure of authority, I find it surprising that the drawing office would defy him by altering the pacific front end. While this suggests that relations within the design office were really bad, is it possible that Thompson knew what was going on, but that as he was about to retire didn’t care, or was it a case of he knew his front end design was structurally faulty and this allowed it to be corrected without him admitting he was wrong?  [i have no evidence for this suggestion beyond some experience of how these things are sometimes achieved].

 

Jeremy

 

People at the sharp end would defy the official policy of the CME, so why would you be surprised that drawing office staff would not take the same attitude.

A certain Mr Hardy had a reputation for getting on with the job rather than going through official channels and possibly getting his ideas rejected.

His modifications did seem to improve the machines in question.

It is possible that the CME did know about some of these tricks but would rather not sanction them as that would raise the question as to why he had not come up with the ideas himself.

Bernard

[jwealleans]

It's also worth remembering that the CME did not have authority over the operating department, so unless he visited a shed and found a modification, or it appeared in works, he might never become aware of it.

[S.A.C Martin]

It's interesting that so many people cite Thompsons front end as faulty or structurally weak. On locomotive classes with a mono bloc set of cylinders, the mono bloc apparently helped somewhat with maintaining a rigidity at the front end. This was true of the V2s and P2s in particular.

 

However, if my research is correct, renewing mono blocs was seen as expensive and more difficult to do in wartime. Hence, Thompson made it so that all of his three cylinder engines had separate cylinder castings.

 

This definitely made it easier in theory to renew the cylinders - effectively you don't have to remove the smoke box and possibly the boiler as you would have done with a mono bloc to renew the whole component - but how much did this contribute to the problem of cylinders working loose?

 

Engineering, and especially locomotive engineering, is a trade off between various compromises and perhaps Thompson felt the advantages in maintenance terms outweighed the negatives of the running of his Pacifics.

 

The same issues occured on engines with a similar layout - the GWR 4-6-0s and Staniers Pacifics - but there, those negatives are put into the overall context of maintenance and time spent awaiting repairs against time in service and reliability. If you take an LNER man and ask him to consider that, actually, Gresley was wrong in one specific ideal - designing locomotives for routes rather than traffic requirements across the board - he will also deny that the standardisation principles of the GWR and to a lesser extent LMS were more or less correct in terms of building and maintaining a fleet of railway locomotives.

 

On a side note, the A2/2s biggest problems for overhauls was in fact the small pool of boilers available to them over the first fifteen years of their lives both as built and rebuilt, spending a lot of time waiting on one or their own to be repaired.

 

Contrast this with the pool of spares for the Gresley A3s and it's clear the A2/2s were at a distinct disadvantage.

[coachmann]

I watched an interview with Mr.Hardy only this morning in which he explained the procedures for obtaining a locomotive for rebuilding. Normal lines of communication were followed when Mr.Thompson wanted a loco to rebuild into an A1 and the people responsible for loco shopping saw that Great Northern was due for shopping, it had a low running number, and as "...all the locos were going to be rebuilt into A1's, why not start with the first one". Mr.Hardy went on to say that no one in the drawing offices thought anything was amiss with the choice of this locomotive at the time......... The CME would not have known which locos were due for shopping and in any case, would not have bothered himself with such things. It was added that the K1 was pure Thompson design.

[The Stationmaster]

I'm interested in Simon's comments about front ends and cylinders etc.  I have never heard of the front end of GW designs losing bolts etc in the way of the Thompson pacifics although as is well known the cast frame extensions on the 2 cylinder Churchward designs were a point of weakness in the event of collision or similar heavy impact and had to be firmly stayed to prevent them from bending upwards.

 

I was also interested in Jonathan's comment -

 

It's also worth remembering that the CME did not have authority over the operating department, so unless he visited a shed and found a modification, or it appeared in works, he might never become aware of it.

- as i didn't realise that the loco running department and running sheds were not part of the CMEE's organisation on the LNER, we live and learn  (or have I misread something?).

[New Haven Neil]

Discounting engineering considerations, I am rather keen on the L1 tanks myself, a good looking loco, and the K1 which as above is really Thompson not Peppercorn.  The B1 I can take or leave, the B2 - ugh, but then again I don't like B17's either - too 'leggy'. The pacifics with the wedge front cabs I have gotten to quite like, but not those with the flat front which look old fashioned compared ot the rather modernistic front end.  What class were the 0-8-0 tanks, Q10?  Looked like a big J50, rather brutish, like those!  The D16, oh yes, a lovely loco, how much of Thompson wa sin them, I don't know.

 

Oh, and even Mr LNER here has to admit a GW man sorted the inside big ends - Cook wasn't it?

[S.A.C Martin]

I'm interested in Simon's comments about front ends and cylinders etc. I have never heard of the front end of GW designs losing bolts etc in the way of the Thompson pacifics although as is well known the cast frame extensions on the 2 cylinder Churchward designs were a point of weakness in the event of collision or similar heavy impact and had to be firmly stayed to prevent them from bending upwards.

My comment referred specifically to cylinders working loose on the two and four cylinder designs - this did happen but was dealt with as an everyday normal fact of working life, so far as I can make out, on the GWR. I.e. Not a big deal and easily dealt with.

 

I think Mike you are actually thinking of the smoke box saddle bolts on the Thompson Pacifics working loose - perhaps we are talking at cross purposes? Though I'd certainly be interested if there was evidence the cylinder bolts could be seen working loose on a Thompson Pacific in service.

[Classsix T]

When considering a person's attitude to colleagues and those around them it's important to point out that the perception of how they come across is often half the story. I'm sure we all know friends of friends of whom differing opinions of personality exist dependant on who you ask. I very much doubt Thompson or Gresley are any different in this respect.

 

As an aside, undoubted WW2 hero Douglas Bader, by most accounts not a very nice person but without question dedicated to doing his duty, was portrayed by British cinema "Mr Nice" Kenneth Moore in Reach for the Sky.

Maybe if a Thompson biopic had been made starring Wilfred Hyde-White history would look upon him more favourably.

 

I'm another for the aesthetic qualities of the L1 btw, but in common I too have a "thing" for large tanks..!

 

C6T.

[The Stationmaster]

My comment referred specifically to cylinders working loose on the two and four cylinder designs - this did happen but was dealt with as an everyday normal fact of working life, so far as I can make out, on the GWR. I.e. Not a big deal and easily dealt with.

 

I think Mike you are actually thinking of the smoke box saddle bolts on the Thompson Pacifics working loose - perhaps we are talking at cross purposes? Though I'd certainly be interested if there was evidence the cylinder bolts could be seen working loose on a Thompson Pacific in service.

I was told that cylinder bolts also worked loose Simon (I think Jock is probably dead by now and I lost touch with him some years ago when we moved) but it might be worth checking the relevant copies of 'Locomotives Illustrated' if you have them or can find them - I'm not entirely sure where mine are (sorry).  Mind you things also worked loose on Gresley pacifics - Jock was painfully reminded at his retirement presentation that he had been disciplined for failing to properly check the leading bogie on an A3 which subsequently dropped several components onto the ECML.

 

Interesting comment about GW engines as it's certainly not something I've ever heard.

[jwealleans]

 

i didn't realise that the loco running department and running sheds were not part of the CMEE's organisation on the LNER

I happened to have Geoffrey Hughes' Sir Nigel Gresley - the Engineer and his family to hand and found this (talking about his appointment by the GNR in 1911):

 

"As was usual at the time he also had control of locomotive running, though this was to be made a separate department after the Grouping of the railways in 1923. (pp 51).

 

Edit - reading a little further I find that this division of responsibility was apparently at the recommendation of Sir Vincent Raven.

[S.A.C Martin]

Thanks Mike I will look it up. It's something a few GWR enthusiasts have said to me in passing. I don't know how accurate the statement is but it is not beyond the realms of possibility or probability for that matter that all two cylinder locomotives when run down might have or have had loosening cylinders at one time or another. On any railway at any time I might add. I have read anecdotal reports of Halls suffering so though this was when they were at the end of their working lives.

 

The Stanier princesses were definitely so afflicted and this is recorded along with explanations of how the problem was dealt with in a number of publications.

[62613]

Engineering, and especially locomotive engineering, is a trade off between various compromises

 

Nail hit firmly on the head! I've seen this expressed as (Clay & Cliffe: The LNER 4-6-0 Classes) 'in engineering, you rarely get something for nothing'. In the case of the D16s, was it not Thompson who was responsible for rebuilding some with piston valves? These were among the first of the class to be withdrawn (RCTS 'Green Book') because the frames couldn't withstand the extra power due to these valves. I believe that the rebuilding of the B12s with the larger boiler and, specifically, long-travel valves, caused a few problems as well

[The Stationmaster]

I happened to have Geoffrey Hughes' Sir Nigel Gresley - the Engineer and his family to hand and found this (talking about his appointment by the GNR in 1911):

 

"As was usual at the time he also had control of locomotive running, though this was to be made a separate department after the Grouping of the railways in 1923. (pp 51).

Interesting - thanks for that Jonathan (the GWR stuck to the old system right to its end with change being forced on it following nationalisation although in its case it meant creation of the new motive power running department, moving running shed and Driver management to the operating department on the Wester didn't really happen until much later, when operational and maintenance functions were split at depot level).

[chaz]

This thread rumbles on with various opinions expressed and many authorities cited. We have to accept that a 21st century enthusiast is likely to have his favourites, often chosen on purely aesthetic considerations. Taking 60113 (4470) as the prime example (at least in this thread's terms) one can regret the loss of a "natural" museum candidate, to join the Stirling single and the two atlantics, or applaud the improvement in the machine (with a boiler pressed to 250 it's no great surprise that 60113 was the equal or an improvement on an A4) but this is all by the by. The rebuilt machine is long gone - and I can't imagine anyone taking it on as a new-build reconstruction.

 

Thompson as a man? At this distance we can only rely on published accounts from people who knew him, with all the prejudices and "baggage" that they would have brought to their writings. How could it be otherwise?

 

On both the man and his locomotives objective truth is not available to us and you may choose your evidence to suit your arguement!

 

Me? Well I'm a Gresley man, with a preference for his Pacifics. But I do recognise that the B17s were a compromised design and an earlier B1 would have made far more sense. The V4s were the usual elegant (but expensive) solution but what was really needed was a K1. But I betray my prejudices by saying so and you are welcome to disagree - in either direction.

 

Any machine is a compromise - many factors are in the balance. Personal opinions aside, the history of railways is littered with a full range of designs from outstanding successes to total failures. Where you put Thompson's locomotives on that scale is bound to be influenced by your viewpoint. I can't see that it matters now.

 

Chaz

[Clive Mortimore]

Spanner in the works time.......as a "Modern Image" modeller I have a question about the two engineers in discussion on this thread.

 

Sir Nigel Gresley was the boss when the North Tyneside articulated 3rd rail EMUs were introduced. Very nice trains so I have read.

 

Mr Thompson was in charge when the Liverpool Street to Shenfield line 1500 v DC units were designed. Very nice units to travel in off peak, well they were nice units during the peak but the other passengers did tend to put a downer on the journey.

 

Both systems have been superseded, the Tyneside twice. Which engineer built the best EMUs?

 

The use of electric traction was to improve these busy suburban systems because steam traction found it hard to cope.

[The Stationmaster]

Spanner in the works time.......as a "Modern Image" modeller I have a question about the two engineers in discussion on this thread.

 

Sir Nigel Gresley was the boss when the North Tyneside articulated 3rd rail EMUs were introduced. Very nice trains so I have read.

 

Mr Thompson was in charge when the Liverpool Street to Shenfield line 1500 v DC units were designed. Very nice units to travel in off peak, well they were nice units during the peak but the other passengers did tend to put a downer on the journey.

 

Both systems have been superseded, the Tyneside twice. Which engineer built the best EMUs?

 

The use of electric traction was to improve these busy suburban systems because steam traction found it hard to cope.

Not quite right I think - the Shenfield stock was designed in 1938 when Gresley was still in charge BUT it was fitted, due to being built later, with Thompson designed bogies.  the old North Tyne stock was a nice ride I thought, just a shame that the doors tended to slide open.  In only ever did one trip on the Shenfield stock and it wasn't anything like as interesting as the North Tyne units - maybe that means it was more mundane?

[BR(W)]

I, too, have never, ever heard of anything coming loose on the G.W.R. Churchward/Collett front-end. Don't forget that this was designed, in keeping with Mr. Churchward's clever modular design and maintenance philosophy, to be removable from the locomotive as a unitary module (if that makes sense), with the boiler module then being supported at the front by the cradle across the frames. A complete, replacement front-end module, having already been prepared based upon the requirements of the maintenance shopping 'tickler cards', could then simply be wheeled in and bolted on. In fact, when bolted together on the locomotive's centre-line, the two, symmetrical cylinder-saddle castings can be seen as a 'monobloc' and I simply don't see how any of this could 'work loose'.

 

What has sometimes been called into question, however, and what may be confusing the issue here, is the steam-tightness of the Hawksworth plate frame design, with its separate cylinder castings bolted to the one-piece, 'through' frames, with these, in turn, being bolted to the fabricated saddle-######-stretcher. Exigencies of wartime production, yes, but these '6959' (Modified Hall) and '1000' (County) classes were seen by some running staff as bit more leaky than their progenitors. So is there some sort of parallel here with the monobloc versus separate castings of the L.N.E.R?

 

And finally, if I may clarify Stationmaster's comment about the comparative weakness of the Churchward front-end bar frames (in requiring bracing struts): this only applies to the pony-truck arrangement. The 2900 (Saint) and subsequent 4900 (Hall), 6800 (Grange) and 7800 (Manor) classes, which all had bogies, did not require bracing struts. In fact, the pony-truck became something of a bête noir on the G.W.R. and was to be eliminated wherever possible, but particularly on all mixed traffic (5' 8"), tender types; and had the war not intervened, the moguls (4300 etc) would eventually have been replaced by the bogied 6800s and 7800s, and the 4700 2-8-0s by 6959s. Did Thompson have the same thoughts about, for example, the Gresley P2s and V2s: express passenger locomotives with a swinging-link pony-truck? Scares me!

 

Cheers,

 

BR(W).

 

Edit: The idiotic morality guardian filtered out my quite legitimate use of the Latin word which rhymes with "gum", but has a "c" instead of the "g". So, using this key, the phrase reads, "the fabricated saddle-gum-stretcher."

[Old Gringo]

Thank you Simon for starting this thread, as not only have I enjoyed the '300 post trip', but also because the title made me want to find out more for myself about Edward Thompson, Nigel Gresley and LNER locomotive policy.  The research has also kept me busy (in between watching the telly), while I have had to sit with my feet up convalescing after a foot operation.

 

As mentioned in an earlier post, I was introduced to the magic of Gresley's pacifics from a more innocent time with Harry Webster's book, but I can't remember seeing one close up until the Spring of 1963.  First, around Easter at York and then later at King's Cross just a few days before steam was officially banned, and from that day since I've admired the Gresley style.

 

However, whilst studying the history and attempting to be even-handed on the trail of the Edward Thompson story, I'm afraid that quite a few difficult and disappointing facts have been brought into focus for this ageing Gresley fan and most of Mr.T's actions are much easier to understand.

 

Another point worth bearing in mind when we discuss anything connected with the British steam locomotive is that every example constructed (excepting experiments) was a long term investment that was expected to perform useful work for at least 30-50 years (dependant on class of work, etc. and for more on this topic see Philip Atkins, 'Dropping the Fire', (1999) Irwell Press p2>).  All locomotives both existing and projected were therefore included as a capital cost, or agreed in the annual budgets. The railway boards and management of the Big Four expected good value for their money, but looking back, some of the actions all of them allowed and work they sanctioned now seem somewhat surprising.

 

And a couple of questions that I still haven't found answers to: The 32 year-old Edward Thompson visited the U.S.A. in 1913 (Marshall, 2003), just after he had first joined the GNR at Doncaster.  I wonder, did he visit Schenectady and meet Francis J. Cole, who built Alco's pacific number 50,000?  Or maybe the Pennsylvania's Altoona plant, where Axel Vogt had begun building the famous K4 pacifics ? Edit: However, it may have been earlier, see post 302 ?

 

The details of the superb Pennsy K4 became well known on both sides of the Atlantic, when a series of profusely illustrated articles were published in "Engineering", in 1916 (ref; Brown (1961) p66). Both Brown and Armstrong agree that Nigel Gresley used the same length boiler barrel as the K4 on his A1 pacific of 1922, however, rather than employing a giant Belpaire wide firebox as used on the U.S. locomotive, he adopted a round-topped, wide firebox.  Do the RCTS 'Green Bibles' agree ?

 

As a postscript; I'm still left with some great memories of Gresley's best. My favourite has to be sitting in the cab of "Golden Eagle" at St. Margarets shed in July 1964, as we hissed gently up and down the yard and then persuading my Mum (!) that we should also visit Dalry Road shed later in the evening, where No.7, "Sir Nigel" himself was basking in the evening sunshine.  Happy days!

 

I'm sure everyone will be even happier to know that I'm off now to read about Scottish railways. 

Hope some of the earlier notes proved useful.

 

All the best,

Grumpy, one foot in the bandage, Old Gringo!

 

Some of the sources for this and previous posts:

 

'2750, The Legend of a Locomotive', by Harry Webster (1953) Nelson;

'A History of the LNER', 3 volumes, Michael Bonavia, Allen & Unwin - (especially Volume 3, 1983, which has a chapter titled, Gresley, Thompson & Peppercorn, p67)

'British Steam Horses', George Dow (1950), Phoenix House;

'Top Link Locomotives', Norman McKillop (1957) Nelson;

'Enginemen Elite', Norman McKillop (1958) Ian Allan;

'Nigel Gresley', F.A.S. Brown (1961), Ian Allan;

'Locomotive Adventure', Harold Holcroft (1962) Ian Allan;

'Master Builders of Steam', H.A.V. Bulleid (1963) Ian Allan;

'Steam in the Blood', Richard Hardy (1971) Ian Allan;

'LNER Locomotive Development', Jim Armstrong, (1974) Peco Publications;

'Speaking of Steam', E.S. Cox (1971) Ian Allan;

'Gresley Locomotives', Brian Haresnape, (1981) Ian Allan;

Modern Railways, August 1963, Ian Allan, p105 Maximum recorded speeds worldwide.

'World Steam in the Twentieth Century', E.S. Cox (1969) Ian Allan;

'Locomotive Designers in the Age of Steam', J.N. Westwood (1977) Sidgwick & Jackson.

'Dropping the Fire', Philip Atkins (1999) Irwell Press;

'Sir William Stanier', J.E. Chacksfield, (2001) Oakwood Press;

'British Railways Steam Locomotives' 1948 - 1968, Hugh Longworth, (2007) OPC.

'Biographical Dictionary of Railway Engineers', John Marshall, (2nd Edition, 2003) Railway & Canal Historical Society.