Spot on.Regarding Thompson, he'd been told to retain as much as possible of the P2s when he rebuilt them as Pacifics and in general a lot of his policies have to be viewed in the light of the experience during WW2 with much reduced maintenance due to manpower shortages and a greatly increased workload for the actual engines.
Edward Thompson. Good or Bad
Moderators: 52D, Tom F, Rlangham, Atlantic 3279, Blink Bonny, Saint Johnstoun, richard
Re: Edward Thompson. Good or Bad
-
James Brodie
- GER D14 4-4-0 'Claud Hamilton'
- Posts: 333
- Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:13 pm
- Location: North Yorkshire Moors.
Re: Edward Thompson. Good or Bad
Dear Sirs, If Mr Thompson hadn't rebuilt Great Northern which be fair was the oldest and also clapped out and anyway the people who control the purse strings dictate what is to be scrapped etc eg a coach condemned because the repair price was too high. The repair-a new vacuum hose! (March/April 54 Middlesbrough Station accounts) back to Mr Thompson. he had G N rebuilt hence the engine lived a bit longer and denied us several million razor blades.
Jim Brodie.
Jim Brodie.
-
enterprise
- GNR J52 0-6-0T
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:34 pm
Re: Edward Thompson. Good or Bad
Boris says "hard seats and big fire holes" Not on B1s! They had padded seats and the traditional half trap to fire through. I can't compare them with the black 5 because I never fired one, but I did plenty of trips on the B1. Marylebone to Leicester. Woodford , Banbury and Bletchly. They did ride a bit rough though.Coachman says the L1 didn't compare with the Midland 264. He's right there, the L1 was twice the loco to the Midland tank. The midland 264s injectors were too slow and on a heavy local train I found one injector had to be on all the time, just to maintain the boiler. They carried less water than the L1 and they lacked the pulling power of the L1. They did ride nicely though, and once in their stride they could motor. I don't know if I read Coachmans article correctly but he seemed to say that B1s didn't have rocker grates. Well they did, the early ones had a drop grate and the later ones had rocker bars. I know because I cleaned lots of fires on B1s.
Enterprise
Enterprise
Re: Edward Thompson. Good or Bad
Apologies.....I hadnt realized the original drop grate had been replaced by rocking grate and hopper ashpan.
If the initial Fowler design had shown up the number of faults the L1 did in as many years, I wonder if the LMS would have developed the type further through Stanier, Fairburn and Riddles. The LMS/BR designs did the jobs they were designed for on passenger and freight duties and the Fowlers managed thirty-odd years service. The Fairburn and Riddles 2-6-4Ts were equally at home on the Eastern, Western and Southern regions.
On a purely enthusiast note, I love all Thompsons designs....
If the initial Fowler design had shown up the number of faults the L1 did in as many years, I wonder if the LMS would have developed the type further through Stanier, Fairburn and Riddles. The LMS/BR designs did the jobs they were designed for on passenger and freight duties and the Fowlers managed thirty-odd years service. The Fairburn and Riddles 2-6-4Ts were equally at home on the Eastern, Western and Southern regions.
On a purely enthusiast note, I love all Thompsons designs....
-
strang steel
- LNER A4 4-6-2 'Streak'
- Posts: 2353
- Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 3:54 pm
- Location: From 40F to near 82A via 88C
Re: Edward Thompson. Good or Bad
As a simple platform ender who never did anything other than take numbers and read books, I have little antagonism towards Thompson.
I can imagine that he may have been a little jealous of Gresley having the top job in peace time when competition with Stanier over streamlining and speed records were in the media forefront, and that he was then constrained by wartime when he got his chance.
However, reading between the lines of historical accounts I do get the impression that Gresley was almost unmovable when it came to logical modifications of his own designs, and that might have engendered some resentment in those below him with what they considered to be original ideas.
I suppose that it would have been difficult to rebuild the P2s as pacifics using as much of the original, without making a sows ear out of a silk purse - as it were.
Thompson may have had practicality where Gresley had the romance, but apart from his rebuilds, I like the Thompson locomotives.
The hypothetical question which really intrigues me is how the LNER might have looked in the mid-20s had the favourite candidate for CME (Robinson) accepted the job at the grouping?
I can imagine that he may have been a little jealous of Gresley having the top job in peace time when competition with Stanier over streamlining and speed records were in the media forefront, and that he was then constrained by wartime when he got his chance.
However, reading between the lines of historical accounts I do get the impression that Gresley was almost unmovable when it came to logical modifications of his own designs, and that might have engendered some resentment in those below him with what they considered to be original ideas.
I suppose that it would have been difficult to rebuild the P2s as pacifics using as much of the original, without making a sows ear out of a silk purse - as it were.
Thompson may have had practicality where Gresley had the romance, but apart from his rebuilds, I like the Thompson locomotives.
The hypothetical question which really intrigues me is how the LNER might have looked in the mid-20s had the favourite candidate for CME (Robinson) accepted the job at the grouping?
John. My spotting log website is now at https://spottinglogs.co.uk/spotting-rec ... s-70s-80s/
Re: Edward Thompson. Good or Bad
Judging by what Robinson did design in the way of big engines, the LNER would have been in a mess. At the same time, it does look as if Gresley had already done his best work before 1923 and spent his time on the LNER refining his designs and inflicting his conjugated gear onto designs that did not benefit. I'm not sure his D49, B17, K4, V1 tank and J38/39 were that much better than what had gone before though. To be fair, Collett on the GWR was only refining Churchwards designs and Maunsell wasn't stretched. The true mess was the LMS...(until 1935)The hypothetical question which really intrigues me is how the LNER might have looked in the mid-20s had the favourite candidate for CME (Robinson) accepted the job at the grouping?
-
enterprise
- GNR J52 0-6-0T
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:34 pm
Re: Edward Thompson. Good or Bad
Hi coachman, I think you will find that the early B1s had drop grates and drop ash pans with self cleaning smoke box, but the later ones from 61200 onwards had rocker bars. The problem with the rocker bars were that clinker would get stuck between the bars and it quite often meant the fire had to come out so the fitter could free the bars.
Enterprise
Enterprise
Re: Edward Thompson. Good or Bad
I have no problem with Thompson locos and they give some variation of design .
The only one I have never understood is why the the P2's were not just transfered South if the only ? reason for turning into them into A2/2's is that were not suitable for the Scottish lines. The decision was made mid war when resources were very stretched , surely a much better use could have been made with the materials,time and the money spent.
The only one I have never understood is why the the P2's were not just transfered South if the only ? reason for turning into them into A2/2's is that were not suitable for the Scottish lines. The decision was made mid war when resources were very stretched , surely a much better use could have been made with the materials,time and the money spent.
Re: Edward Thompson. Good or Bad
Book Law asks an interesting and provocative question here. As a newcomer to this Forum I am impressed with the reasoned, articulate, to the point, knowledgeable and humorous responses I have seen, so I had better get this right! Inevitably on a forum there is thread drift and the topic has broadened to include comparison with Gresley and some other of the constituents CMEs.
The last time I was a platform ender I think was 1957 at Hadley Wood, so most of my knowledge comes from being a book worm, but I think I can bring a relevant perspective from a career in professional engineering and would like to answer the question from the point of view of the directors of the LNER, that is not only technically but also commercially. I am afraid my opinions cannot be supported by facts and figures as we do not have access to accounts and management records, but I will try to be reasoned and I will limit my thoughts to locomotives and exclude carriages and wagons.
The primary job of a CME was to provide adequate motive power for immediate and future traffic requirements at the lowest possible initial and operating costs. The LNER was perennially short of cash so it should have placed emphasis on the former. As the post 1939 labour shortages got more severe so the need to reduce man hours in maintenance increased. These business needs should have resulted in simple, straightforward, new locomotives and in making best use of existing locomotives, updating them in cost and labour effective ways and deploying them where they could be best used.
At the time of his appointment Thompson’s record showed that he was the most qualified man for the job. His strategy and designs largely filled the above requirements. He made up locomotives from the LNER parts bin that were not perfect but generally fit for purpose, well certainly B1 & K1, although the L1 appears to be flawed. His medium power rebuilds were generally, but not always, successful and the B12/3 was exceptionally useful.
His high powered locomotives appear to be a different story. Three separate sets of Walshart’s valve gear and his labour saving improvements were a move in the right direction, but the insistence on using the same connecting rod even when not absolutely necessary, as in the A2/3, was a mistake as Peppercorn’s later locomotives showed. I’ll not comment on Great Northern as that has been very well addressed earlier in the thread, but I am certain that the P2s would have achieved greatness and their full potential hauling 26 out of Kings Cross during the war. Come to think of it the P1s could also have made their mark too.
On balance he appears to have known what he was doing, but did not always achieve it. I think that could be applied to most CMEs though. His efforts certainly supported the LNER business objectives. As a character he does not appear to have been much fun, but he was doing his job in exceptionally difficult circumstances, his retirement was imminent and he had a grand vision, he would have been a man in a hurry and they do not always observe the finer points of etiquette. In a small way an analogy with Lord Dowding may be appropriate.
Two of the ways of providing adequate motive power for a system are:
1) build large numbers of a few standardised designs from fewer standardised components to cover all purposes and accept the few compromises that will be found in traffic, or
2) build a few locos for specific purposes to plug gaps in traffic requirements, leave the rest to expire.
The GWR and latterly the LMS did the former, the LNER the latter. Quite to what extent Gresley had his hands tied by the LNER’s cash situation and what his own inclinations were I do not know. It would be an interesting book! The LNER did not build or even rebuild anything like enough locomotives for its needs. In 1922 it had about 8,000 locos on its books. Many of these were already ancient. It never managed to build or buy more than about 200 locos per year even in its best year (1947) and frequently built less than 100. They probably needed to build or buy on average 250 locos per year every year. The average age of LNER locos was therefore a lot greater at the end of the regime than at the beginning.
It is clear that the LNER could not afford to spend much money on locos, so they needed quantity, not quality, and as a rebuild would be likely to cost less than a new build they should have systematically rebuilt and updated promising pre-grouping locos. Gresley put effort into where it appeared to matter most in the ECML and was very successful with his designs for main line use, but I am not sure that this is where new locos would have had the most important financial impact on the LNER although they did achieve the greatest publicity impact.
Gresley enjoyed innovating and trying out new ways of making locos more efficient. He was amongst the first to use Walshart’s valve gear and long lap piston valves and achieved early success with them. He furthered wide and well shaped fireboxes, high superheat, streamline steam ports and low back pressure exhaust.
However, conjugated Walshart’s valve gear seemed like a good idea at the time. It probably was if he had kept it only to main line engines that had to have three cylinders and not applied it almost universally. It also caused him to lose direction with long lap valves. He used a lot of resource on experiments with water heaters, poppet valve gear, high pressure boilers and boosters, most of which were not successful or perhaps too far ahead of their time to be worth the LNER spending money on research at that time. He built locomotives for secondary purposes that were unnecessarily complex and expensive (O2,P1,D49, B17, V1,K4, V4), was slow to apply the benefits of Knorr rings to piston valves universally and did not put the required effort into pre-grouping rebuilds utilising the lessons of appropriate fireboxes, superheat, long lap valves and Knorr rings.
I think it would be difficult to find two more different men than Gresley and Thompson. Each had his strengths and weaknesses, yet oddly, professionally they were entirely complementary. If Gresley had concentrated on mainline engines with wide fireboxes and carriages and left Thompson to get on with new medium power standard designs and rebuilds of pre-grouping engines the LNER may have had the best locomotive design team of any grouping railway..............
The last time I was a platform ender I think was 1957 at Hadley Wood, so most of my knowledge comes from being a book worm, but I think I can bring a relevant perspective from a career in professional engineering and would like to answer the question from the point of view of the directors of the LNER, that is not only technically but also commercially. I am afraid my opinions cannot be supported by facts and figures as we do not have access to accounts and management records, but I will try to be reasoned and I will limit my thoughts to locomotives and exclude carriages and wagons.
The primary job of a CME was to provide adequate motive power for immediate and future traffic requirements at the lowest possible initial and operating costs. The LNER was perennially short of cash so it should have placed emphasis on the former. As the post 1939 labour shortages got more severe so the need to reduce man hours in maintenance increased. These business needs should have resulted in simple, straightforward, new locomotives and in making best use of existing locomotives, updating them in cost and labour effective ways and deploying them where they could be best used.
At the time of his appointment Thompson’s record showed that he was the most qualified man for the job. His strategy and designs largely filled the above requirements. He made up locomotives from the LNER parts bin that were not perfect but generally fit for purpose, well certainly B1 & K1, although the L1 appears to be flawed. His medium power rebuilds were generally, but not always, successful and the B12/3 was exceptionally useful.
His high powered locomotives appear to be a different story. Three separate sets of Walshart’s valve gear and his labour saving improvements were a move in the right direction, but the insistence on using the same connecting rod even when not absolutely necessary, as in the A2/3, was a mistake as Peppercorn’s later locomotives showed. I’ll not comment on Great Northern as that has been very well addressed earlier in the thread, but I am certain that the P2s would have achieved greatness and their full potential hauling 26 out of Kings Cross during the war. Come to think of it the P1s could also have made their mark too.
On balance he appears to have known what he was doing, but did not always achieve it. I think that could be applied to most CMEs though. His efforts certainly supported the LNER business objectives. As a character he does not appear to have been much fun, but he was doing his job in exceptionally difficult circumstances, his retirement was imminent and he had a grand vision, he would have been a man in a hurry and they do not always observe the finer points of etiquette. In a small way an analogy with Lord Dowding may be appropriate.
Two of the ways of providing adequate motive power for a system are:
1) build large numbers of a few standardised designs from fewer standardised components to cover all purposes and accept the few compromises that will be found in traffic, or
2) build a few locos for specific purposes to plug gaps in traffic requirements, leave the rest to expire.
The GWR and latterly the LMS did the former, the LNER the latter. Quite to what extent Gresley had his hands tied by the LNER’s cash situation and what his own inclinations were I do not know. It would be an interesting book! The LNER did not build or even rebuild anything like enough locomotives for its needs. In 1922 it had about 8,000 locos on its books. Many of these were already ancient. It never managed to build or buy more than about 200 locos per year even in its best year (1947) and frequently built less than 100. They probably needed to build or buy on average 250 locos per year every year. The average age of LNER locos was therefore a lot greater at the end of the regime than at the beginning.
It is clear that the LNER could not afford to spend much money on locos, so they needed quantity, not quality, and as a rebuild would be likely to cost less than a new build they should have systematically rebuilt and updated promising pre-grouping locos. Gresley put effort into where it appeared to matter most in the ECML and was very successful with his designs for main line use, but I am not sure that this is where new locos would have had the most important financial impact on the LNER although they did achieve the greatest publicity impact.
Gresley enjoyed innovating and trying out new ways of making locos more efficient. He was amongst the first to use Walshart’s valve gear and long lap piston valves and achieved early success with them. He furthered wide and well shaped fireboxes, high superheat, streamline steam ports and low back pressure exhaust.
However, conjugated Walshart’s valve gear seemed like a good idea at the time. It probably was if he had kept it only to main line engines that had to have three cylinders and not applied it almost universally. It also caused him to lose direction with long lap valves. He used a lot of resource on experiments with water heaters, poppet valve gear, high pressure boilers and boosters, most of which were not successful or perhaps too far ahead of their time to be worth the LNER spending money on research at that time. He built locomotives for secondary purposes that were unnecessarily complex and expensive (O2,P1,D49, B17, V1,K4, V4), was slow to apply the benefits of Knorr rings to piston valves universally and did not put the required effort into pre-grouping rebuilds utilising the lessons of appropriate fireboxes, superheat, long lap valves and Knorr rings.
I think it would be difficult to find two more different men than Gresley and Thompson. Each had his strengths and weaknesses, yet oddly, professionally they were entirely complementary. If Gresley had concentrated on mainline engines with wide fireboxes and carriages and left Thompson to get on with new medium power standard designs and rebuilds of pre-grouping engines the LNER may have had the best locomotive design team of any grouping railway..............
Re: Edward Thompson. Good or Bad
Thompson rebuilds of Robinson J11s with piston valves were fine machines.
Its good to know where you stand. Saves making a fool of yourself later......
-
Captain Cuttle
- LNER J94 0-6-0ST Austerity
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 10:11 pm
Re: Edward Thompson. Good or Bad
I read that the drawing shop delayed some of his rebuilds by being deliberately dilatory so it would seem he was unpopular with subordinates.
He could have been LNER's "standardiser" if WW2 hadn't happened and his designs would have been fresh instead of rebuilds. I know his later ones were fresh and were generally good, but he was restrained by events.
My own view is that Great Northern would have been preserved, if not messed up by Thompson, although LNER didn't have a great track record for preservation. The wholesale "slaughter" of LNER stock, more than any other railway, was nothing short of disgraceful.
He could have been LNER's "standardiser" if WW2 hadn't happened and his designs would have been fresh instead of rebuilds. I know his later ones were fresh and were generally good, but he was restrained by events.
My own view is that Great Northern would have been preserved, if not messed up by Thompson, although LNER didn't have a great track record for preservation. The wholesale "slaughter" of LNER stock, more than any other railway, was nothing short of disgraceful.
-
jwealleans
- LNER A4 4-6-2 'Streak'
- Posts: 4223
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:46 am
Re: Edward Thompson. Good or Bad
Don't confuse the LNER with the Eastern Region of BR or those who oversaw the latter days of steam. The LNER established the railway museum in York and took in locomotives from other railways as well as their own - I've seen prewar pictures of 'Gladstone' in there and I'm sure there were others.LNER didn't have a great track record for preservation.
Compare that attitude to Stanier sending the two Broad Gauge locomotives kept at Swindon for scrap.
The NBR Atlantic may have fallen victim to the wartime scrap drive but overall I don't think the LNER had a lot to reproach itself for in terms of preservation.
-
S.A.C. Martin
Re: Edward Thompson. Good or Bad
City of Truro? The first Atlantic, Henry Oakley? There's countless others.Captain Cuttle wrote: although LNER didn't have a great track record for preservation.
Reading up on his Q4 to Q1 rebuilds - astounding how you can take a clapped out tender engine and create a successful tank engine class, and have the forethought to keep the tenders for other locomotives.
On a side note, can a Q1 be made out of a Bachmann 04, I wonder...!!!
Re: Edward Thompson. Good or Bad
The LNER didn't do too badly. It was the LMS that had a poor track record of preservation. Various ex MR locomotives sent for scrap when Stanier took office and those lovely LNWR big passenger engines circa 1949 after photos were taken. They were mad keen to inflict the LMS version of the Compound on everyone in the 1920's and yet didn't preserve a single one. No Fowler 2-6-4T either, the precursor of the range right up to the BR Standards. A big commercial company yes, but some did a better job when it came to setting locos and coaches aside for preservation.
-
jwealleans
- LNER A4 4-6-2 'Streak'
- Posts: 4223
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:46 am
Re: Edward Thompson. Good or Bad
One was illustrated in a recent edition of Forward (the magazine of the Great Central Society).can a Q1 be made out of a Bachmann 04, I wonder