Edward Thompson: for and against

[Old Gringo]

A great deal of this enjoyable discussion has centred around the locomotives that hauled the 'varnish'; the LNER high-speed expresses that whisked the wealthy up and down the ECML.  These trains were no doubt some of the favourite trains of the older RMwebbers (including myself) and were the best publicity that the LNER could wish for - especially when the locomotives were fitted with 'boy-racer' exhausts!  But, that didn't pay the dividends, however small they may have been on the impoverished LNER.

 

David has put forward some interesting information, in posts 186 and 192; some of which refers to locomotives other than the high profile Pacifics and the ill-fated Mikados mangled by the over zealous Edward Thompson (tongue firmly in cheek there).

 

David suggests, "Gresley used the (small) amount of money available for locomotive construction very wisely".  Certainly he would have used it to the best of his abilities during his tenure of office as CME, and must have satisfied the LNER board, otherwise he wouldn't have held down the job.  Without doubt, Sir Nigel kept the financially constrained LNER in the headlines and he built some outstanding locomotives, which put in superb performances as long as they were well maintained.  However, was the money used "very wisely", that's a different question?

 

As noted in post 133, from his own paper read at the Institute of Locomotive Engineers (Leeds 1918), "he (Sir Nigel) expressed an opinion that he was a strong advocate for standardisation, but not necessarily of standardised locomotives" (ref: Cox, 'Speaking of Steam, p85).  Standardisation, really?

 

During his 30 year tenure of office (GNR 1911 - LNER 1941), at least 1470 locomotive frames were manufactured from designs created in Sir Nigel's drawing offices and from which 25 different class types were introduced, using 11 different wheel arrangements.

 

However, there was not much sign of any standardised policy; in fact the K4, P1, P2, and U1 were all very small classes designed to satisfy particularly specific operating needs and the W1 was an unusual experiment.  And let's not forget, that clean standardised 'style' common to most LNER locomotives is from the Doncaster drawing boards of 1900, pure Henry Ivatt.

 

451 of those frames became 0-6-0 locomotives and by adding the N2 class 0-6-2Ts to this figure, a grand total of 558 locomotives of a similar chassis type were built, all equipped with six-coupled wheels, driven by two inside-cylinders operated by inside valve motion.  Forget the varnish, these were some of the locomotives that paid the dividend, what little there was, working day-in day-out alongside hundreds of very similar engines from designs of the other pre-Grouping companies.

 

According to published figures, by 1941, another 652 of the frames were equipped with three-cylinders, operated by a conjugated valve-gear (putting extra strain on the middle big-ends) and causing six times the failure rate of the corresponding LMSR 3-cylinder locomotives, under the maintenance conditions demanded by wartime.

 

So, with hindsight, a total of 1216 of Sir Nigel's (1470) locomotives were more labour intensive in everyday service than a simpler outside cylinder design would have been.  A few of them might have been very quick, some really good to look at and some extremely strong, but as an operating package was that the 'wisest way' to spend the money?

 

Enter Mr. Nasty - Edward Thompson . . .

  

In addition to the information in Jamie's note (post 196), several other American railroads could lay claim to locomotives producing massive power and capable of very high speed.

 

Here's another three for example:

 

The 'Hiawatha' was powered by F7, 4-6-4 locomotives, which regularly ran at 100mph with consists of around 1,000 tons over parts of the 400 mile route between Chicago and the Twin cities.  The service was begun in 1935, with stylishly streamlined giant Atlantic locomotives, which are reputed to have reached speeds around 120mph with a lighter consist.

 

Over on the New York Central, Streamlined J3 Hudsons (4-6-4) styled by Henry Dreyfuss powered the near 1000 ton consists of the 'Twentieth Century Limited' (the equivalent of a hotel on wheels) and regularly ran at 100mph on parts of the Water Level Route.  Later even these superb locomotives were 'bumped' by the famous NYC 'Niagara's (4-8-4s), one of which put in close to a quarter million miles in 11 months, all run at very high power outputs.

 

On the West Coast, the Southern Pacific's GS4, 4-8-4s powered the 'Daylight' express trains and were another class of locomotives capable of hustling the varnish at high speed between Los Angeles and San Francisco.

 

Of course the North American engineers had the advantage of a much larger structure gauge in which to create real 'super-power', Chapelon and Wagner produced European equivalents and in the U.K, Nigel Gresley got close and Tommy Coleman, William Stanier's draughtsman came even closer.

 

 

Some of the sources: 'British Railways Steam Locomotives' 1948 - 1968, Hugh Longworth, OPC, 2007.  'Gresley Locomotives, Brian Haresnape, Ian Allan, 1981. 'Speaking of Steam', E.S. Cox, Ian Allan, 1971.

[Bomag]

 

So, with hindsight, a total of 1216 of Sir Nigel's (1470) locomotives were more labour intensive in everyday service than a simpler outside cylinder design would have been.  A few of them might have been very quick, a few really good to look at and a few extremely strong, but as an operating package was that the 'wisest way' to spend the money?

 

 

You have not considered the relative cost of maintenance. The relative cost of the capital asset compared to the cost of employing suitability qualified/competent staff to maintain it varies with time. That fact that labour costs in the C21 are a significant if not the majority of the cost for constructing something does not mean the same was true in the 1920s and 30s. Just looking at the civil engineering side based on data I saw during a clear out at RCE Anglia in about 1990 the cost of laying plain track by hand was cheaper than machinery by an order of magnitude. Now you avoid it as much as possible. 

[jjb1970]

More fascinating posts. I really do think it is worth keeping sight of the fact that the CME's all knew steam locomotives intimately, they had reasons for doing what they did. Their actions may seem inexplicable, silly or wrong to us (and isn't hindsight a wonderful thing!) but these were not stupid men acting without a purpose. They also had to balance many demands and limitations to try and achieve optimum results, made worse for Thompson by war time conditions and shortages. Whilst we may disagree with what they did and it is certainly true the CME's had what might be called less successful efforts or designs which left room for improvement I think they all deserve to be recognised as capable engineers. I know there is a school of thought which believes Thompson was some sort of Machiavellian social climber who ended up in post via a combination of choosing the right wife and hanging on the coat tails of the right people in the hierarchy but you don't end up as a chief engineer in a large organisation without strong engineering skills. 

[chaz]

I would suggest that anyone wanting an insight into Edward Thompson's character should read Col. H C B Rogers excellent book "Thompson and Peppercorn - Locomotive Engineers". A very readable, fair account with (inevitably) much reference back to Sir Nigel's tenure and his locomotives.

 

Chaz

[S.A.C Martin]

I would suggest that anyone wanting an insight into Edward Thompson's character should read Col. H C B Rogers excellent book "Thompson and Peppercorn - Locomotive Engineers". A very readable, fair account with (inevitably) much reference back to Sir Nigel's tenure and his locomotives.

 

Chaz

 

I personally find that book absolutely abhorrent. It's an absolute hatchet job as far as Thompson goes, though it did confirm his fondness for the GER and Holden's standardisation regime. My copy is signed by the author and though much treasured, I'd say it adds little to the debate about Thompson - it's far too emotively charged and overlooks the war problem entirely.

[coachmann]

Any debate with the surnames Gresley and Thompson in the same sentence is bound to be emotionally charged.......It's how it is with some LNER linesiders and modellers..........A no-win situation. Speaking as a railway modeller, I may be aware of many locomotives shortcomings but it has sweet f-all to do with whether I 'like' particular engines or not. Someone mentioned Robinson's 4-6-0's, great looking machines all, but all suffering in the firebox & ashpan department. So will modellers say they would not buy them if produced RTR because of their their failings? Of course not. But the strength of feeling in the Gresley camp might prevent them from buying Thompson Pacifics, a perception that could lead the RTR folk to avoid these locomotives.

 

I am aware of the detail differences reputedly putting manufacturers off doing Thompson's Pacifics, but even if only three locomotives were the same outwardly, they represent a class three times larger than Duke of Gloucester and Tornado!

[sandra]

I would be very happy if Bachmann or Hornby were to produce a Thompson pacific. Although these locomotives may not have been outstanding they do have a certain fascination possibly due to their controversial origins. When watching Stoke Summit at exhibitions or on seeing film or photographs of Little Bytham, Peterborough North or Retford, it is always the Thompson pacifics which attract my attention. This may be due to their rarity and the large number of variations in a relatively small group of locomotives.

 

Some people regard them as ugly or ill proportioned but this, if true, does not prohibit them making a fine model. For example the Ivatt 4MT 2-6-0 is sometimes seen as ugly but the Bachmann model is outstanding. Similarly the class 73 is the classic 'box on wheels' but the Lima model was rather attractive. So I would suggest to the major manufacturers that a Thompson pacific would be a good subject for a model and would sell well. My own preference would be for a A2/2. These locomotives have a look of brutal power which I feel would translate very well into a model.

 

It seems to me that both Thompson and Gresley were providing locomotives which were suitable for the times in which they worked. Gresley presumably was happy for the extra costs involved in producing three cylinder locomotives in a time when the advantages outweighed the extra costs involved, whereas Thompson worked during the war period when labour was in short supply and therefore locomotives had to be easier to maintain. Whilst work on the railway was a reserved occupation, many railwaymen left to join the forces and the railways were very short of all types of labour during the war.

 

I would suggest that Gresley did extend the three cylinder concept to too many different types of locomotives. Whilst three cylinders are fine for express locomotives I would question whether the concept should have been applied to relatively small locomotives such as the V1 and V3 or the D49.

 

Perhaps Thompsons biggest mistake was the rebuilding of the P2 class. Whilst these locomotives were flawed these flaws could have been rectified without totally rebuilding the locomotives and they could have remained on the line for which they were built and on which they did perform well.

 

It has been suggested that the rebuilding of 'Great Northern' was a deliberate snub to Gresley. I do not know if this is true but as I understand it the intention was to rebuild all the remaining A1 locomotives as A1/1 and the next in line for rebuilding was 'Great Northern'. Thompson's intention was to make 'Great Northern' a better locomotive and in fact the rebuilt locomotive was better. However it would have been better still if it had been rebuilt as an A3 and fitted with a Kylchap blast pipe and double chimney.

 

So I would not like to take sides in this debate as both Gresley and Thompson have arguments on their side, I do believe that Gresley was the the better locomotive engineer. However we should be grateful to both Gresley and Thompson for the production of all these wonderful locomotives about which we can still have so much debate over seventy years later.

[billbedford]

Likewise the P2, when running as a 2-8-2 they handled the heavy Aberdeen sleepers single handed, when rebuilt they needed double heading, so what was the point?  The maintenance saving per locomotive became a maintenance increase per train, why couldn't Thompson see it? why rebuild an engine so it needed double heading which it had not needed before?

 

 

As far as I can see, the replacement of double heading with a single large loco was one of Gresley's obsessions. By and large operating departments preferred the flexibility that the use of two locos afforded when the need for extra power was intermittent or even seasonal. As for the economics of double heading, it may be worth pointing out that the LMS, who managed with only 50 pacifics, as opposed to the LNER's 202, and who double headed more trains than most railways, was much the more profitable of the two companies.

[S.A.C Martin]

As far as I can see, the replacement of double heading with a single large loco was one of Gresley's obsessions. By and large operating departments preferred the flexibility that the use of two locos afforded when the need for extra power was intermittent or even seasonal. As for the economics of double heading, it may be worth pointing out that the LMS, who managed with only 50 pacifics, as opposed to the LNER's 202, and who double headed more trains than most railways, was much the more profitable of the two companies.

 

Just to clarify, that's not actually something I wrote. That is David's post from the previous page which I had wanted to quote - but alas, no edit facility here to correct my mistake.

 

Needless to say, I agree with you Bill to the extent of developing motive power to avoid double heading but arguably the potential for mikados to be developed across the whole of the LNER system seems to have been hampered by the P2s work in Scotland.

 

If they had been more successful as a class as built there doesn't seem to me to be any reason you'd look to build more Pacifics if you have a Mikado which can handle the trains more efficiently (and with a better adhesion rate - better point to point timings then possible). This wasn't the case and we ended up with the excellent Peppercorn A1 instead in a round about way.

[coachmann]

Bill has a good point there. The LMS would put anything from a  2P 4-4-0 to a 'Crab' or Black Five on the front of a 'Scot' or 'Jubilee' at Manchester to work Trans-Pennine expresses over Standedge. Then the pilot would come off. An LMS 'Mikado' might have worked on its own but then the crew would be stuck with this large loco for the rest of the duty when a smaller loco would have sufficed. Also this loco would have been overkill on a lightweight local out of Leeds if this was included in the daily or two-day diagram before working a Trans-Pennine back to Liverpool. Double heading had its value when one looks at the complicated diagrams for both locos and footplate crews. 

[jwealleans]

But would the LMS have had as many small engines and as much double heading if Stanier had been in post in 1923 instead of 1932?

 

It's also worth pointing out that the operating department defined their needs to the CME each year, not the other way round.  If they'd been happy with the status quo, they'd have asked for more of the same rather than signing off on P2s or V4s.

[coachmann]

But would the LMS have had as many small engines and as much double heading if Stanier had been in post in 1923 instead of 1932?

 

It's also worth pointing out that the operating department defined their needs to the CME each year, not the other way round.  If they'd been happy with the status quo, they'd have asked for more of the same rather than signing off on P2s or V4s.

All I can say is the LMS after Stanier and indeed BR continued the practice of double heading until dieselization in the early 1960s. The train engine could handle it alone on part of the duty and so the LMS and BR had the option of using many different classes of engine instead of being stuck with a purpose-built TransPennine loco.  Contrast this with the LNER and its purpose built locos for specific routes, which in the end were less than ideal.

[chaz]

I personally find that book absolutely abhorrent. It's an absolute hatchet job as far as Thompson goes, though it did confirm his fondness for the GER and Holden's standardisation regime. My copy is signed by the author and though much treasured, I'd say it adds little to the debate about Thompson - it's far too emotively charged and overlooks the war problem entirely.

 

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion but I can't agree with you. The author, in his opening "Acknowledgements" lists a number of eminent engineers closely associated with the locomotive affairs on the LNER during the relevant period. At this remove and with no personal knowledge one has to accept the account of of these protagonists. Far from being a hatchet job the author seems to deal as fairly as he can with the locomotives produced under Thompson's tenure of office, giving him full credit for the excellent B1 class which he describes as "one of the most useful engines ever possessed by the LNER". However the anecdotes about Thompson and his relations with work colleagues suggest that at best he was a difficult man to work with.

 

"It is important to remember that it was during the darkest days of World War II....that Edward Thompson was appointed CME" - so starts the chapter "Thompson Takes Control" and much of the rest of it is set in the context of the war.

 

I wonder if there are not some parallels between what happened when Thompson took over from Gresley and what happened when Brown took over from Blair?

 

Chaz

[bluebottle]

...........................................

 

I wonder if there are not some parallels between what happened when Thompson took over from Gresley and what happened when Brown took over from Blair?

 

Chaz

 

That remark sounds like a variation on Godwin's law is called for!

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

[Clive Mortimore]

That remark sounds like a variation on Godwin's law is called for!

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Mr Godwin cannot be that well read, if he was he would know that all good forum topics end up comparing Gresely to Thompson.

 

I would suggest that anyone wanting an insight into Edward Thompson's character should read Col. H C B Rogers excellent book "Thompson and Peppercorn - Locomotive Engineers". A very readable, fair account with (inevitably) much reference back to Sir Nigel's tenure and his locomotives.

 

Chaz

Hi Chaz

 

This is the same Col Rogers who in his 1980 book "Transition from Steam" wrote "It is difficult to believe that diesel and electric locomotives and multiple unit trains will ever inspire the affection with which the great steam engines have been regarded by railwaymen and amateur enthusiasts alike."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xSbmBhFnQk

Oh Yeah!!!!!!

[Old Gringo]

You have not considered the relative cost of maintenance. The relative cost of the capital asset compared to the cost of employing suitability qualified/competent staff to maintain it varies with time. That fact that labour costs in the C21 are a significant if not the majority of the cost for constructing something does not mean the same was true in the 1920s and 30s. Just looking at the civil engineering side based on data I saw during a clear out at RCE Anglia in about 1990 the cost of laying plain track by hand was cheaper than machinery by an order of magnitude. Now you avoid it as much as possible. 

 

With all due respect, although I agree that the relative cost of maintenance might not be a significant factor against the capital cost of construction of the 592 locomotives of basically GNR Gresley designs (i.e. those classes introduced before 1922), I would suggest that it is still a relevant factor to the LNER business.

 

When Nigel Gresley took over the office of CME from Henry Ivatt in 1911, maintenance costs most probably didn't matter much to any of the independent railway monopolies.  However, that was the economic situation before the railway workers' strike of 1911, over four years of the 'Great War' and the following strike of 1919, which together not only put paid to the Nationalisation proposals drafted by Sir Eric Geddes, but also raised all the railways' operating costs by a considerable amount.

 

After the Grouping of 1923, costs began to matter to all the managers of the Big Four and it was not long before Josiah Stamp on the rival LMS led the way and began to demand operating efficiencies; whilst Herbert Walker on the Southern looked to employing electricity to keep the share-holders happy (and Felix Pole on the GWR promoted holidays! - joke).

 

Eventually, the drive for greater efficiency would reach locomotive design departments. The future of the general purpose locomotive was there for all to see in Robert Urie's 2-cylinder 4-6-0 of 1913; rugged utility locomotives capable of doing more for less and designed with the logic of accessibility, but it would take around another two decades for the concept to spread country-wide.

 

Just as it would take the better part of 15 years as CME and the results of the locomotive exchange of 1925, for Nigel Gresley to fully appreciate the real value of long lap/long travel valve events, it would also have probably taken those maintenance reports from 1941 for him to appreciate that the complication of three cylinders and conjugate gear was an expensive luxury for the day to day operation of the smaller engines earning the dividends.

 

As Sandra says in post 208, the power required by three-cylinders was best used on the top link engines, those that warrant top link maintenance and designed for the prestigious jobs.

 

What the LNER really needed by WW2 was a uprated version of Urie's 4-6-0 . . .

 . . . enter Edward Thompson and the "Bongo" cobbled together on a fag packet from a lot of oddments in the Doncaster shops,(to borrow an earlier comment by David, in post 193), later followed by Peppercorn's excellent little K1s, before they got all those ex-LMS ugly-duckings (edit: aka Flying Piglets)..

 

Of course, it's easy to make comments like these almost a Century later, armed with a mass of data from a mountain of books and nothing better to do than speculate!

 

Did Nigel Gresley ever have the budget and would he have considered a radical 'slash and burn' policy of pre-grouping designs that happened on the LMSR?  Was the LNER ever in a financial position to let Sir Nigel make a fresh start like William Stanier did on the LMSR in 1932 - with a programme for a new range of 'standard' designs?

 

Great thread, by the way!

[S.A.C Martin]

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion but I can't agree with you. The author, in his opening "Acknowledgements" lists a number of eminent engineers closely associated with the locomotive affairs on the LNER during the relevant period. At this remove and with no personal knowledge one has to accept the account of of these protagonists. Far from being a hatchet job the author seems to deal as fairly as he can with the locomotives produced under Thompson's tenure of office, giving him full credit for the excellent B1 class which he describes as "one of the most useful engines ever possessed by the LNER". However the anecdotes about Thompson and his relations with work colleagues suggest that at best he was a difficult man to work with.

 

"It is important to remember that it was during the darkest days of World War II....that Edward Thompson was appointed CME" - so starts the chapter "Thompson Takes Control" and much of the rest of it is set in the context of the war.

 

I wonder if there are not some parallels between what happened when Thompson took over from Gresley and what happened when Brown took over from Blair?

 

Chaz

 

I find it difficult to take seriously an assessment of Thompson's pacific types with phrases such as "they must rank with such famous locomotive failures as Webb's compounds for the London & North Western Railway…" and so on and so forth. The other accounts of Thompson's locomotives are equally highly charged and none take into account the fact that Thompson could only get permission for specific conversions during wartime - none of his locomotives bar the B1s, A2/3s and the vast majority of the A1/1 were new builds - nor do they take into account a changing world of locomotive railway engineering where Thompson was - shock horror - following the trends of the time. 

 

I find it even more difficult to to take Rogers seriously when there are a large number of assumptions made as to Thompson's character and behaviour: both in his family and railway connections and a few outright awful (and undeserved) descriptions such as "he was neurotic" with a single outburst whilst suffering an attack of jaundice.

 

It's by no means a balanced or fair account on a number of levels frankly and I personally think you'd find better balanced accounts elsewhere. It is no coincidence and extremely interesting that ex-Stratford men including one Dick Hardy have very different recollections of Edward Thompson to that described by Holcroft - best example on page 43 where he states a number of "facts" about Thompson's work at Stratford and gives no evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, for these accusations.

[chaz]

I find it difficult to take seriously an assessment of Thompson's pacific types......

 

I find it even more difficult to to take Rogers seriously when there are a large number of assumptions made as to Thompson's character and behaviour......

 

It's by no means a balanced or fair account on a number of levels frankly ......

 

I think it best that we just agree to differ.

 

Chaz

[micklner]

        The problem you have Simon and everybody else is with the passing of 70 years, is that no one is still alive who actually witnessed what actually occured and the reasons for decisions etc made then  ( I wonder if anybody is still alive ? ) .

       Therefore everything said nowdays by is purely opinion informed or not. These may or not be fact ? but can be only based on historic documentary evidence.

       Books are always blended with opinion of the author and how he/she wants to present facts. Books therefore take a direction, that will not always suit that readers own opinions.

     Cant say I have seen much evidence of a Gresley camp being evident on this thread. Nothing particularly obvious to change my opinion of Thompson either so far.

[S.A.C Martin]

        The problem you have Simon and everybody else is with the passing of 70 years, is that no one is still alive who actually witnessed what actually occured and the reasons for decisions etc made then  ( I wonder if anybody is still alive ? ) .

       Therefore everything said nowdays by is purely opinion informed or not. These may or not be fact ? but can be only based on historic documentary evidence.

       Books are always blended with opinion of the author and how he/she wants to present facts. Books therefore take a direction, that will not always suit that readers own opinions.

     Cant say I have seen much evidence of a Gresley camp being evident on this thread. Nothing particularly obvious to change my opinion of Thompson either so far.

 

Don't disagree with that Mick at all. My only caveat would be that there is a clear middle ground which can be found between research, interviews and documented evidence. For example, putting the Thompson Pacifics down as "failures" isn't a fair description; whereas stating their faults and why they were inferior to the Pacifics before and after is fair and right.

 

Chaz, I'll happily agree to disagree. My apologies if I seemed a bit overbearing earlier.

[chaz]

 

Chaz, I'll happily agree to disagree. My apologies if I seemed a bit overbearing earlier.

 

No need to apologise. No offence taken.

[Pebbles]

Whatever the merits or otherwise the middle of a war wasn't an ideal time to experiment, no wonder Thompson could only get limited authority for some of his schemes. At a rough estimate a third of Gresley's V2s and O2s were built during Thompson's reign, construction continuing up to 1944, so were they that bad? The hand that fate dealt Thompson required that he keep the railway running with the equipment he had inherited and this should have been his priority, not experimenting with new types. Thompson knew he would be retiring in 1946, and whilst I have some sympathy for him wanting to make his mark there is a time and place, unfortunately for him he had neither.

[coachmann]

If we are talking experimenting in wartime, I have one word.................B U L L E I D! Thompson kept the LNER loco fleet going through the war and also gave the LNER its locos for the future....B1, K1, 01, A2 and so-on. The groundwork had been done for Peppercorn.

[jjb1970]

The Bulleid pacifics weren't experimentation, they were production locomotives which had been designed to be easy to maintain and operate. How successfully Bulleid achieved those aims is another question but they were not an experiment.

[jwealleans]

Coincidentally I was reading a Southern Way wartime special this morning which mentioned that there was 'some unrest' among the workforce at building the first Bulleid pacifics.  They clearly didn't think they were what wartime resources should have been used for.