Edward Thompson. Good or Bad

[richard]

Bouch '1001' Long Boiler is another example. Whilst looking at what they inherited in 1923, the LNER found they had a working museum piece - so in the museum it went.


Richard

[Coboman]

Compare that attitude to Stanier sending the two Broad Gauge locomotives kept at Swindon for scrap.

Are you sure you mean Stanier? I thought it was Churchward.....

[jwealleans]

The mention of MIdland locos being scrapped back upthread made me wonder whether I#d confused two stories I'd read.... but then it makes the point against both the GWR and the LMS.

[S.A.C. Martin]

I ask the good people of the LNER forum to arbitrate in a matter.

Edward Thompson - bad?

Of course it is aimed at me (I could not care less, frankly), but I wanted to gauge the general consensus of this particular forum as to the arguments being put towards the "bad" side. Do they have merit, or not? I find the Peter Grafton book to be the most refreshingly objective assessment of Thompson, Gresley and the rest than any of that written by the timekeepers (who seem to contradict their own evidence at times).

[Streaker]

The reason Wilson Worsdell rebuilt so many of his brother's designs was that T.W. was a fan of 2 cylinder compounding on the Worsdell-von Borries system. However, in day to day work enginemen found them less flexible and useable than the simple engines so when Wilson W took over from his brother the directors of NER instructed him to rebuild them as simple engines (after he had recommended it).

On the subject of my namesake, Mr. Thompson, from a purely aesthetic point of view his Pacifics looked awkward whereas the Gresley and Peppercorn designs proved the old adage "what looks right usually is right". Mr. T. did produce some good designs, like the B1 and K1 but with hindsight it was a mistake for him to butcher "Great Northern" and I can't help but feel there was some spite involved there. As I understand it there was another of the Gresley Pacifics in the works at the same time which had been shopped earlier but "Great Northern" was chosen instead.

[60800]

Compare that attitude to Stanier sending the two Broad Gauge locomotives kept at Swindon for scrap.

Are you sure you mean Stanier? I thought it was Churchward.....

Churchward was away on either buisness or on holiday and stanier effectively took charge at Swindon during that time. Stanier needed the floor space that the broad gauge locos were taking up, so he had them scrapped.

[Blink Bonny]

Ay up!

Thompson's engines failed to meet their design criteria which were to a) reduce maintenance costs and b) reduce coal consumption. Standardisation? Doubtful. His B1s were superb machines. It could be said his only good engine. The L1s? Least said the better! Did Peppercorn modify the K1 design (other than the front footplating) before service?

As to the man himself? Dunno - when someone is disliked, then bad things are written.

[52A]

And he had a face like a pan of chips.

[S.A.C. Martin]

Ay up!

Thompson's engines failed to meet their design criteria which were to a) reduce maintenance costs and b) reduce coal consumption.

Some evidence please. It was certainly the case that the A2/2s were, for the most part, more fuel efficient than the P2s they replaced, purely on the average lb of coal per mile stats (my sources, Edward Thompson by Peter Grafton, British Pacific Locomotives by Cecil. J. Allen).

And he had a face like a pan of chips.

What an incredibly innate thing to say. Irrelevant too. I'm no oil painting - I presume that makes me a bad person too?

[52A]

And he was humourless, like others I have come across.

[richard]

Are you comparing like-for-like when it comes to coal consumption for the P2s and A2/s?

The P2s were required to do some hard work - that is what they were designed for. And there's some evidence to suggest they weren't exactly fired in the most efficient manner for one reason or another.

One of the main problems with the rebuilt Pacifics is that they weren't any better than what they replaced. Being non-standard this meant they had short lives.

On the other hand, my understanding of the L1s was that they weren't all bad - more a case of teething problems (e.g. leaky welded tanks). With Nationalisation and Modernisation, these problems were never really fixed. Even if the LNER soldiered on into the 1950s and 1960s with the Government paying its war debts, I doubt the L1s would have had a long life - they would be have been prime replacements for first generation diesels and even some suburban electrics.


Richard

[60800]

I personally still can't figure out why Hornby made the L1 if it had a rather short and miserable service life. I think that a K1 or K4 would have been much more popular. My opinion of the model itself is why bother getting one, as I have a bachmann V1/3 sat there on the shelf anyway, and from a distance, you can barely tell the two apart.

Back onto Thompson, I don't think he was good, but he wasn't bad either, he produced some howlers, but came out with the B1 (as has already been noted) and those lovely coaches which ended up on the elizabethan behind A4s. So, there really is quite a bit to thank him for.

[S.A.C. Martin]

Are you comparing like-for-like when it comes to coal consumption for the P2s and A2/s?

The P2s were required to do some hard work - that is what they were designed for. And there's some evidence to suggest they weren't exactly fired in the most efficient manner for one reason or another.

An extremely fair point Richard, however the average coal consumption in service for the two classes over their first three year periods of operation was that I was basing my opinion on (stats in Grafton and Allen's books). Whereas the P2s seem to have always been coal heavy, the Pacifics weren't. Were they inferior machines? Of course they were, but the point is that in the middle of a war, an A2/2 was more fuel efficient and easier to maintain than the Mikados. It is indeed a shame they were not tried elsewhere on the ECML, but arguably you would have had engines doing the same jobs (V2s) with much lower coal consumption in any event. There's an argument that says he should have withdrawn and stored the P2s and just built more V2s, but there you go, it didn't happen, and it was to prove the basis

Being non-standard this meant they had short lives.

Yes, and it's interesting how the "first to go to the scrap heap" quote always fails to take into account that the smallest classes with non standard parts were always withdrawn first.

On the other hand, my understanding of the L1s was that they weren't all bad - more a case of teething problems (e.g. leaky welded tanks). With Nationalisation and Modernisation, these problems were never really fixed. Even if the LNER soldiered on into the 1950s and 1960s with the Government paying its war debts, I doubt the L1s would have had a long life - they would be have been prime replacements for first generation diesels and even some suburban electrics.

Richard

Interesting - thank you for that insight Richard.

I personally still can't figure out why Hornby made the L1 if it had a rather short and miserable service life. I think that a K1 or K4 would have been much more popular. My opinion of the model itself is why bother getting one, as I have a bachmann V1/3 sat there on the shelf anyway, and from a distance, you can barely tell the two apart.

The Hornby Thompson L1 model is an astonishingly good model. I have three myself, and I am looking forward to matching them up with some Gresley subs. Hornby made them because they thought they would sell, and they have done, and continue, to sell out.

I find it heinous such an exquisite model is being decried because of its designer!

Back onto Thompson, I don't think he was good, but he wasn't bad either, he produced some howlers, but came out with the B1 (as has already been noted) and those lovely coaches which ended up on the elizabethan behind A4s. So, there really is quite a bit to thank him for.

True enough, but bear in mind his "howlers" were built and run during air raids, evacuations, building of shells and military equipment and the deaths of many people around him, including his wife.

[Tom F]

I personally still can't figure out why Hornby made the L1 if it had a rather short and miserable service life. I think that a K1 or K4 would have been much more popular. My opinion of the model itself is why bother getting one, as I have a bachmann V1/3 sat there on the shelf anyway, and from a distance, you can barely tell the two apart

But surely the L1 like all the super detail model is geared towards 'Railway Modellers' more than people who buy a model because it looks nice.

If you are modeller like myself and others on here who are trying depict a certain place and time, it doesn't matter what you think of the loco's design or designer. You have one because it was there. Simple!

To compare to the older V3 model is somewhat odd when you see the detail on the L1. Stunning model, fact!

[60800]

I assure you, I have nothing against the hornby L1 but that dosen't mean I'd want to buy one. I'd just got the jist from this thread that the L1 was basically sidelined and forgottern about, which is why it would seem a bit odd for Hornby to produce one.

EDIT: With regards to comparing it to a V1/3, in haulage capacity, size etc, they are not too far apart, and I do have a 'budget' to keep to (pocket money ) and there are other models out there which I feel would be more worthwhile getting, as I already have a small suburban loco. Bear in mind I have five A4's, but that's another story