Edward Thompson: for and against

[micklner]

My logic is the V4 was designed pre war , the designer died and the type of metal was unavailable to build them and the country was in the middle of World War which at that time we were losing.

 

As to costs the LNER seemed happy even in wartime to commision rebuilds of the  A1 and P2 which were 90% or more new parts as previously discussed.

 

Yes the B1 was built but that is nothing to with the V4 which was from a hugely different era.

 

As to the book I look forward to its publication. Good luck with that.

[billbedford]

Apart from the gear/drive and a few visual details, the Peppercorn Pacifics are a development of Gresley principles, not Thompson's. So, it could be said that after five years of 'fiddling' with big locos, the Doncaster design team finally reverted to what was, and had been, best practice. 

 

There was a fundamental difference in the approaches of Gresley and of both Thompson and Peppercorn. In that they both understood that economic factors, such as costs and availability were much more important to the companies' bottom line than any amount of clever engineering. While the Peppercorn A1s had an external resemblance to the Gresley designs, they managed to put in an average of 25% better milage between shopping than the A4s, and that was increased to nearly 50% for those locos fitted with roller bearings. 

[PenrithBeacon]

One issue that must have affected Thomson was the shortage of steel in the 40s/early 50s. These shortages must have made being economical with what he had instead of starting from scratch.

 

By and large I'm a supporter of Thomson. AFAIK the only serious error was to have all coupling rods the same length in the pacifics. This always led to a weak front end and was known about in the mid forties after the experience of the GW four cylinder engines and the LMS Lizzies. Peppercorn corrected the problem.

 

A lot of people excuse the conjugated drive by saying that maintenance issues were the source of the problem. They weren't! The problem was that the conjugated drive was a poor concept. OK on the drawing board, dreadful in practice. It must have caused a lot of time being spent correcting problems that could and should have been spent more profitably elsewhere.

 

A lot of comment has been made about Thomson's social skills issues. A lot less has been said about Gresley, but his behaviour towards Harry Holcroft who actually designed the conjugated gears (note the plural - see Proc Inst Loco Eng 1919-20) was horrendous. There were a number of incidents during Gresley's life which have led me to believe that although the bloke could mix OK (compare and contrast with Thomson) he had a very jealous nature which made his contemporaries a little wary.

 

I have long been of the view that Gresley had passed his sell-by date with the A4s and should have been kicked up-stairs with a managerial post. Instead he died in post (always a good point towards a canonisation process) and Thomson had to pick up the pieces at a time that was not the most propitious.

 

Straying a little from the thread, why did Peppercorn build 100 pacifics? surely that was a figure far in excess of actual need. I'm quite sure that a lot fewer would have been made if nationalisation hadn't occurred!

 

Regards

[robmcg]

Reading this thread today, and thank you Simon for your thoughtful and informative writing, I found myself thinking of the way the Riddles Standard Clan class was misunderstood in ways comparable perhaps to the A2s.  Comparable in, say, steaming capacity or ride (pick your own references), ad in the way they were seen as inferior to Britannias, or 'no better than a Black 5'...  thus never in an operating department's familiar engine list, nor necessarily receiving 'tweaks' to improve steaming and such other development..  I particularly agree with your weight given to the opinion of fitters and other crew, and the value of everyday utility, rather than the C J Allen / O S Nock enjoyment of exceptional performance, even though it is fun to read about the latter.

 

Rob

[S.A.C Martin]

Did Peppercorn build 100 Pacifics? Pretty sure it was 64 total. 49 Peppercorn A1s and 15 Peppercorn A2s. It's interesting to comment on the number built. There were only 26 Thompson Pacifics in comparison to over a hundred Gresley Pacifics and the aforementioned 64 Peppercorn Pacifics. Of course, a 65th Peppercorn Pacific and a 50th A1 has since been built.

[bbishop]

I've been following this thread with interest. My starting point is the LSWR and German Railways! I don't want to get involved in the Gresley / Thompson / Peppercorn arguments; but why did Gresley build such complicated 2-6-2 and 4-6-0 locomotives? The Prussian Railway had shown the way c.1910 with the P8 class, followed by Urie in 1914 with the H15 class, then Raven with what became the B16; all simple two cylinder mixed traffic 4-6-0s. The LNER was crying out for the two cylinder 4-6-0 in 1930, but instead Gresley has the B17 developed, to be honest a fairly poor locomotive. At least Thompson produced the B1 class and developed the K1 class.

 

However, you LNER enthusiasts should be grateful you didn't get Bulleid. How on earth did he get 140 Pacifics past Sir Useless Missenden, then develop the Leader class to replace the M7 tanks?

 

Bill

[Old Gringo]

I would hazard a guess that the history of the steam railway locomotive might have been written about more than any other 'modern' invention.  The hindsight afforded by some of this vast literary output provides us with a wonderful opportunity of looking into the history, but don't forget - it's a fact that even when we're trying to be objective about any subject we will tend to read what we want to read.

 

Names like William Buddicom, Zerah Colburn, Axel Vogt and Egide Walschaerts virtually disappear into the ether whilst those of Francis Webb, Nigel Gresley, Edward Thompson and Oliver Bulleid are always somewhere in the headlines, as the popularity of this thread shows.

 

Many of the well-known, British locomotive engineers presented papers at the Institute of Locomotive Engineers, but, as far as I know, only a few of them have put their views and/or a rationale behind their designs into (public areas of) print.  However, there's always been plenty of loco-centric biographies to choose from!

  

Three engineers, Charles Bowen Cooke, Zerah Colburn and George Hughes left us books on 'how to build a steam locomotive'; Andre Chapelon and Richard Wagner both produced technical volumes on the latest improvements.  Roland Bond, Harry Holcroft and Ernest Stewart Cox gave us their autobiographical studies, which include some of the final developments of the steam locomotive in the U.K.  Holcroft's involvement with a conjugate mechanism has been mentioned in an earlier post.  His draft design was completed in 1909 and Holcroft met Gresley some years later, possibly through involvement with the ARLE as one of Maunsell's team drafting design for a possible standard range of post WW1 locomotives.  Following this meeting Gresley made adjustments to his pilot 3-cylinder 2-8-0 and also suggested that Holcroft might like a job at Doncaster, however, Richard Maunsell veto'd this move.

 

E.S. Cox (1900-1992) was the more prolific engineer author, producing six books in rapid succession following his retirement; all of which IMO give a reasonably balanced view of railway locomotive affairs, from a professional's standpoint.  The books are: Railway Panorama Volume 1 (1965), Volume 2 (1966), British Railways Standard Steam Locomotives (1966), Chronicles of Steam (1967), World Steam in the Twentieth Century (1969) and Speaking of Steam (1971) all published by Ian Allan Limited.

 

A few references have already been made to the comments made by Cox and to his authorship of a report on conjugated valve-gears.  As technical officer for William Stanier, Cox would have written this document for his chief, who would not have signed it unless he agreed with its conclusions.  For those interested in reading the short report (dated 8th June 1942), it appears on page 152, of the Oakwood Library of Railway History, OL114, 'Sir William Stanier', by J.E. Chacksfield, 2001, ISBN 0-85361-576-4.

 

I would venture to suggest that Thompson provided Cox with the information that "there were 652, 3-cylinder locomotives on the LNER provided with the conjugate gear" and access to either the drawings, or a locomotive, or perhaps both.  Edward Thompson's office must also have provided the information regarding the number of hot inside cylinder big ends experienced during 1941, which appears to be "6 times the amount suffered on the 591 LMS 3-cylinder locomotives". During the second year of total war, maintenance standards were no doubt beginning to slide.

 

Cox then compares the loading of the V2 big end with that of the LMS Royal Scot, "which had been very free from hot inside big ends over the fifteen years that the class had been in service".

 

The three conclusions to the report make hard reading for all of us who like Gresley's best, which when properly maintained are fine engines.

 

Much has been said about Nigel Gresley's 30 year tenure of office as CME (GNR from 1911 to LNER, 1941).  As second choice for the job, (John Robinson was offered the post by Whitelaw and Lord Faringdon, but recommended Gresley as he was about to retire) he kept the impoverished LNER in the headlines, with the best appointed and fastest Anglo-Scots expresses.  However, behind the gloss of the 'varnish' was maybe a different story, whether due to policy direction, or lack of a bigger budget, who can say?

 

Cox makes this (unusually frank) observation regarding Sir Nigel on page 85 of 'Speaking of Steam': "All who are interested in locomotives have their pet hobby horses, the inmates of railway design offices as much as any others. Chief Mechanical Engineers by their weight and authority were allowed common consent to have very shiny hobby horses indeed, and an interesting monograph could be assembled on this subject.  Gresley was no exception, and his addiction to the use of three cylinders for everything was an abiding obsession.  Similarly, he thought nothing of the Belpaire firebox . . . or the ARLE proposed standardised locomotives. . . .  Although he expressed an opinion that he was a strong advocate for standardisation, but not necessarily of standardised locomotives" (I.L.E., Leeds, 1918).

 

Regarding the post-war situation and Thompson, Cox makes this comment in 'World Steam in the Twentieth Century', page 72:

"On the LNER Gresley had died in 1941, and his successor Thompson did what had been commonplace with the old autocratic CMEs of pre-1923, namely completely reversed the Gresley line of development and proceeded to design new engines . . . the conjugated valve gear for three cylinders was , however, replaced by three independent gears and two instead of three cylinders applied to all the smaller types. Although Thompson has been much criticised, what he did in these respects was technically right and in-keeping with world trends.  When at the eleventh hour of the LNER's independence, Arthur Peppercorn succeeded to the CME's position in 1946, there was little time to do more than tidy up . . .  and produce the final very successful A1 and A2 pacific classes" (and the K1 moguls).

 

By 1941, from King's Cross to Kittybrewster, the LNER operating division must have been crying out for a go-anywhere, do-any-job engine; a reliable, easy to maintain, accessible 2-cylinder engine and eventually they got it, the "Bleedin' old Bongos"*, B1, 4-6-0s - Thompson's parallel-boilered LMS "Black Five", just right for post-war operating conditions!

 

Apologies for the length of this post. I hope some of the information proves useful.

 

Edit: * A comment from one of Stratford's enginemen to Richard Hardy, read somewhere in his writings - probably in 'Steam World'?

[bluebottle]

Simon has certainly led an interesting and educational debate and perhaps shaken some prejudices, though I suspect that the majority of Gresleyites will continue to regard Thompson as he who made sows ears out of silk purses and used the body parts of Sir Nigel's locomotives to construct his own creatures ...

[Tony Wright]

One issue that must have affected Thomson was the shortage of steel in the 40s/early 50s. These shortages must have made being economical with what he had instead of starting from scratch.

 

By and large I'm a supporter of Thomson. AFAIK the only serious error was to have all coupling rods the same length in the pacifics. This always led to a weak front end and was known about in the mid forties after the experience of the GW four cylinder engines and the LMS Lizzies. Peppercorn corrected the problem.

 

A lot of people excuse the conjugated drive by saying that maintenance issues were the source of the problem. They weren't! The problem was that the conjugated drive was a poor concept. OK on the drawing board, dreadful in practice. It must have caused a lot of time being spent correcting problems that could and should have been spent more profitably elsewhere.

 

A lot of comment has been made about Thomson's social skills issues. A lot less has been said about Gresley, but his behaviour towards Harry Holcroft who actually designed the conjugated gears (note the plural - see Proc Inst Loco Eng 1919-20) was horrendous. There were a number of incidents during Gresley's life which have led me to believe that although the bloke could mix OK (compare and contrast with Thomson) he had a very jealous nature which made his contemporaries a little wary.

 

I have long been of the view that Gresley had passed his sell-by date with the A4s and should have been kicked up-stairs with a managerial post. Instead he died in post (always a good point towards a canonisation process) and Thomson had to pick up the pieces at a time that was not the most propitious.

 

Straying a little from the thread, why did Peppercorn build 100 pacifics? surely that was a figure far in excess of actual need. I'm quite sure that a lot fewer would have been made if nationalisation hadn't occurred!

 

Regards

Perhaps just a few comments.........

 

A serious error was to have all the coupling rods the same length in the Pacifics? Really? Are you suggesting that one side should be shorter or longer than the other? I would have thought it essential to have coupling rods of the same length. 

 

The Gresley/Holcroft conjugate gear was 'dreadful in practice'? During the war, perhaps, and one can see Thompson's motives in abandoning it (also Peppercorn's for not re-instating it) but I think that statement misrepresents the overall facts. For four decades pre-war, locos with this gear ran the precursors of the HST, over long distances at very high average speeds, with an enviable record of reliability. Yes, with proper maintenance, but Gresley and his team can hardly be blamed for not allowing for war. 

For 14 years post-war, locos with this gear ran the the World's longest non-stop steam-hauled train daily (apart from weekends) during the summer season, again with an enviable standard of reliability. As the early diesels failed to live up to expectations, engines with this gear regularly filled-in, running mileages unheard of even in their pre-war heyday - all with a high standard of reliability. Yes, locos with divided drive and independent valve gear were doing the same, but no better overall at the time. Towards the decline of steam, a class of big engines with this conjugated gear was operating long distances, with a very high degree of reliability, regularly over the main lines of seven (yes seven) pre-Grouping companies. The GNR, NER, NBR, MR, CR, G&SWR and the GC - eight if you include the GC/GW Joint. 'Dreadful in practice?' Really? Express locos with this gear lasted almost as long in BR use as any of their perceived 'successors', certainly longer than those of Thompson. And, locos with this gear were chosen to have an Indian summer on the three-hour expresses 'twixt Glasgow and Aberdeen. Admittedly, loads were light but timings were tight and the standard of reliability was very good. Finally, locos with this gear were almost always allocated in greater numbers than their newer brethren to the principal ECML depots during the steam revival of the '50s/early-'60s. With one exception, Thompson's big locos were allocated to none. Since professional railway men, responsible for running a railway, are usually unsentimental and pragmatic, then the 'dreadful in practice' gear must have been an unbearable burden to them - or not. 

 

Simon has mentioned the error in attributing 100 Pacifics to Peppercorn.

 

As for Gresley's personality. Like all great men it must have had serious flaws, and the comments regarding various designs are muddied by reference to personal characteristics. He certainly took his team along with him, something Thompson (at times) struggled with. But, I agree, not all the Thompson criticisms are fair or impartial.

[PenrithBeacon]

...

 

A serious error was to have all the coupling rods the same length in the Pacifics? Really? Are you suggesting that one side should be shorter or longer than the other? I would have thought it essential to have coupling rods of the same length. 

 

...

'Coupling' rods are a typo; should have written 'connecting' rods. The rest of the post sounds more like a UKIP statement in its tone.

[billbedford]

A lot of people excuse the conjugated drive by saying that maintenance issues were the source of the problem. They weren't! The problem was that the conjugated drive was a poor concept. OK on the drawing board, dreadful in practice. It must have caused a lot of time being spent correcting problems that could and should have been spent more profitably elsewhere.

 

 

Derived valve gear is so much easier if you start with four cylinders...........

[billbedford]

 

I have long been of the view that Gresley had passed his sell-by date with the A4s and should have been kicked up-stairs with a managerial post. Instead he died in post (always a good point towards a canonisation process) and Thomson had to pick up the pieces at a time that was not the most propitious.

 

In companies with sharper top management Gresley would have gone after the B17 debacle.

[Tony Wright]

In companies with sharper top management Gresley would have gone after the B17 debacle.

Fair point. But then the same could be said of Stanier after the debacle of the 'Jubilees' as originally built. If either had happened, we would then have been denied the delights of the A4s and the 'Princess Coronations', surely two of the finest express passenger locos to run in these islands. 

[billbedford]

Fair point. But then the same could be said of Stanier after the debacle of the 'Jubilees' as originally built. If either had happened, we would then have been denied the delights of the A4s and the 'Princess Coronations', surely two of the finest express passenger locos to run in these islands. 

 

If management decided the services needed 8P locos to run, then they would have been forthcoming, whoever designed them.

[PenrithBeacon]

Fair point. But then the same could be said of Stanier after the debacle of the 'Jubilees' as originally built. If either had happened, we would then have been denied the delights of the A4s and the 'Princess Coronations', surely two of the finest express passenger locos to run in these islands.

Yes a fair point. I'm pretty sure Stanier's job was on the line over the Jubilees. Because Stanier was in India when the Duchesses were designed they are really attributable to his staff. The only design decision taken by Stanier seems to have been the diameter of the wheels! Whatever!

 

My view is that anybody is permitted to get things wrong at least once. The key is how quickly the problem is resolved and to some extent that is dependant on their approachability. Stanier seems to have been very approachable while I cannot be that sure of Gresley.

 

Re Bill's point concerning four cylinders. This arrangement did permit perfect balancing at least on the drawing board but led to very constricted working arrangements between the frames, better to have, in the British context, just three. Three cylinders could, and did, deliver just as much power, again in the British context, as four with less complication.

 

Regards

[coachmann]

Fair point. But then the same could be said of Stanier after the debacle of the 'Jubilees' as originally built. If either had happened, we would then have been denied the delights of the A4s and the 'Princess Coronations', surely two of the finest express passenger locos to run in these islands. 

When Stanier left the GWR he quite naturally applied Swindon boiler principles to his LMS designs. They didn't work with poorer coal, as the GWR was to discover some years later. It took a while for Staniers team to sort out different draughting and superheating and then it was pretty well plain sailing. The only 'debacle' on the LMS I can recall took place before Staniers appointment and involved Compounds, Scots, 2-6-2T's, Beyer-Garratts and 7F 0-8-0's. Goodness knows what this debate would have been like had Gresley or Thompson been involved in ten years of engineering travesties as occurred under Fowler.

[OFFTHE RAILS]

............................., followed by Urie in 1914 with the H15 class, then Raven with what became the B16; all simple two cylinder mixed traffic 4-6-0s.

 

 

Just to clarify - the Raven B16s were 3 cylinder locos.  Gresley rebuilt some with outside Walschaerts valve gear and Holcroft's 2:1 derived motion. Thompson rebuilt more with 3 sets of Walschaerts valve gear.

Ian

[The Stationmaster]

We keep seeing references in this thread to the B1s being the LNER equivalent of the Stanier Black Fives but having heard much about the condition of high mileage B1s from those who worked on them I would be interested to know if anyone has reliable information on mileages achieved between major overhauls for some of the country's various 2 cylinder mixed traffic 4-6-0s as this would have had an influence on running costs?

[S.A.C Martin]

The rest of the post sounds more like a UKIP statement in its tone.

 

Let's keep the debate constructive, please. It's been extremely informative and I have enjoyed reading all the alternate points of view. It's an absolute truth that opposite sides of the debate in this subject are never going to agree on everything. So let's keep that in mind and keep debating in the best possible manner.

[jjb1970]

On valve gear, the fact that there were implementation problems with Bulleid's chain driven valve gear have tended to cloud the verdict of posterity on this innovation yet if steam was not already in its twilight and if BR had not decided to follow a risk averse conservative policy for the standard designs (a policy which in the circumstances was justified and correct) then I believe the chain driven valve gear could have been developed into the best of all the various methods. Chain driven timing arrangements are not a radical technology and even in Bulleid's day there was nothing new about the concept, with the benefit of more experience to refine and develop the idea for rail use then it could have offered a low maintenance, simple and lightweight solution. That it had problems on the pacifics is undeniable but I believe it is also undeniable that his pacifics were superb performers when on song and that many of the problems such as poor welding, accessibility, environmental protection of the timing gear and a better understanding of chain behaviour to extend its life would have been worked through and delivered a good, robust system far superior to the alternatives. One of Bulleid's problems was that he foresaw possibilities that were just out of the reach of the capabilities of contemporary manufacturing to deliver, that doesn't mean that his ideas were not good.

[gr.king]

I used to deplore/detest the look of the Thompson Pacifics and I can't say they are my favourites now, but I have mellowed a little. Thompson's ideas like those of every other engineer were a mixture of good and poor. Gresley's desire for three cylinder smoothness but with only two readily accessible sets of valve gear was quite logical, but the means of bringing that about had some unfortunate weaknesses when poorly maintained and /or thrashed to the limit. We can never find out what might have happened had events taken a different course, but suppose that Thompson's work had not included the destruction rather than the conservative development of the six P2s, and suppose that he had not picked Great Northern for rebuilding as a test prototype for the new A1 class. The V2-derived A2/1s alone might have been fairly uncontroversial forerunners to the A2/3s, which do appear to have had their uses. Would we now be debating anything here?

 

Four cylinders obviously help to even out a number of the imbalances in a loco, especially those that apply laterally, and they allow lower stresses on each con-rod and big end than would be generated by just two very large cylinders. But as has been pointed out, space for bearings etc can begin to run out in a four cylinder machine (not that it always does) and the torque is applied no more evenly during the revolution of the wheels than if only two cylinders where in use - assuming cranks at the usual 90, 180 and 270 degrees of course in order to allow the use of just two sets of valve gear. Cranks at 45 degree intervals are possible of course in order to smooth out the torque, but then four sets of valve gear or some other cunning device for operating the valves become necessary. It is quite interesting (to me) that in the last couple of decades the long-standard formula of an even number of cylinders for balance in motor car engines has been eroded by the appearance of three and five cylinder engines. The correct way to "balance" a machine depends upon exactly what the objectives of that balancing exercise may be.

[jjb1970]

Steam continued in China long after the rest of us abandoned it, but I don't recall those good people building any chain-drive spamshicans...

 

True, but none of their other technology of that era was especially modern either. Bulleid's enthusiasm for sleeve valves was misguided for the time for sure but in terms of valve timing a chain drive is a very simple and efficient mechanism, as testified to by automotive engine designers, large diesel engine designers and all sorts of other applications. If more time and effort had been invested in applying it to steam locomotives then it had much better potential than Walschaerts valve gear, conjugated Walschaerts etc/

[coachmann]

Apologies....I go thru' periods of levity then decide to delete in case my humour is taken the wrong way, as it often is. So I deleted it before you posted.

[jjb1970]

No worries, I'm not such a Bulleid fan as to be blind to the controversies he left behind, if anything that is a big part of his appeal for me. The elephant in Bulleid's room of course is he threw himself into perfecting a technology which was already effectively obsolete by the time he did much of his work and Bulleid was too good an engineer bot to have recognised the implications of advances in diesel technology not to mention he worked for a railway with a large electrification program.

[robmcg]

When Stanier left the GWR he quite naturally applied Swindon boiler principles to his LMS designs. They didn't work with poorer coal, as the GWR was to discover some years later. It took a while for Staniers team to sort out different draughting and superheating and then it was pretty well plain sailing. The only 'debacle' on the LMS I can recall took place before Staniers appointment and involved Compounds, Scots, 2-6-2T's, Beyer-Garratts and 7F 0-8-0's. Goodness knows what this debate would have been like had Gresley or Thompson been involved in ten years of engineering travesties as occurred under Fowler.

 

Best thing I've read all day. (although it's only 10am., winter,  and a cup of tea is helping)

 

I so much enjoy reading about the different ways different engineering groups or cultures, e.g. LMS or LNER developed their steam engineering... LMS did damn well under Stanier, look at the original Princess Royal and its poor steaming etc and how brilliantly it was developed.  (I just bought a 6201 Princess, I'm biased). But that was 1935, not 1945. The LNER A2/1-2-3 might have had better outcomes IF the LNER had money and a need for fast mixed traffic engines like the A3/V2 capacity and better maybe than B1s...

 

Also curious about mileages/running costs for B1s compared to Halls/Black5s/Standards.  Some material may be in the 1948 trials material to give an idea at least of coal consumption and power.

 

typo edit    '6201' Princess, not 62001