It does not matter how many times this subject comes up: whenever this is discussed there seems to be some sort of emotional imbalance and built in prejudice that prevents constructive dialogue and debate, normally in the form of the evidence and known facts about Thompson and Gresley being muddied by those for whom Gresley could do no wrong, and Thompson nothing right.
So, from the top:
earlswood nob wrote:G'day
A thought has just occurred to me. Is the new build P2 being built with a Gresley swing link pony truck, or the side control springing later fitted to V2's?
Earlswood nob
They are designing it with the later Thompson-designed V2 pony truck (which was in turn based on the Stanier 8F type pony truck).
Flying Fox 34F wrote:I know from Peter Townsend's book on the pacifics that ET was a good friend of the LNER chairman, but said chairman was quoted as saying there was no need for more pacifics!
The actual statement was from Sir Ronald Matthews: "...the existing stock was quite satisfactory and any additions could be built from existing designs" - Peter Grafton's book on Edward Thompson, page 42.
I have also read that ET was disciplined by Gresley, for releasing technical data to the railway press without Authority. I believe this was when he was at Stratford rebuilding the Clauds.
"Disciplined" implies that there was a process though which Thompson was disciplined through company rules and regs by Gresley. The locomotive rebuilds in question were the D20/1s - which were very successful and free steaming rebuilds - and Gresley in fact pulled Thompson up on this whilst in front of the latter's immediate subordinates, whilst inspecting one of these locomotives. This was whilst Thompson was at Darlington, in fact, and is covered in Peter Grafton's book on page 33.
This may have been the start of a grudge. CME's were powerful, but I wonder if some of this was cloak and dagger. The first rebuild of course happened to be the single chimney P2. I'm certain that fitting a double chimney and Kylchap blast pipe would have been cheaper.
Paul 4475
Let's start from the basics. Six locomotives - a small class - all different in many details but after some rebuilding, largely the same.
They had much higher fuel consumption - as much as 20-40lb more per mile (75-90lb per mile was regularly recorded) than an A3 or A4 Pacific.
These locomotives suffered crank axle failures - more between the six members of this class than any other express passenger and mixed traffic class the LNER owned at the time.
These locomotives suffered hot bearings on a constant basis.
One of these locomotives had been built with a single chimney and was not a good steamer, reputedly. This is perhaps further emphasised by its sisters very free steaming from the kylchap exhausts. This would not have solved the immediate problems of broken crank axles and repeated hot bearings.
The rebuilding of 2005 Thane of Fife was done largely expeditiously and for around two years was a direct comparison with the original P2s being used on the route. Changing the locomotive to a Pacific had brought down its adhesion rate rather markedly but no hot bearings or crank axle failures were suffered. The locomotive had other problems which would not become as marked until a few years later (bearing in mind the small class number and spares available including the pool of boilers - more on that later).
So you can see, if you accept that perhaps one man - not Thompson, but a driver on the route - becomes vocally critical of a class, that class will be looked at more closely. Thompson was concerned with matters of maintenance and looked to bring down workshop times (some what ironic but we'll deal with that later). 2005's rebuild eliminated the problems of the P2s whilst also missing the point of the eight coupled wheelbase. Nobody can say that Thompson wasn't entirely correct in converting them to Pacifics because it did solve the immediate and pressing issues.
We can in hindsight say that perhaps fitting the revised V2 pony truck would have been as successful, but we are saying that from the position of Deltarail's analysis of the 3D model of the P2 Trust's P2 and therefore this is evidence and development which Thompson could never have had access to.
I do not believe anyone in such a position of authority does things to deliberately and callously "uglify" or otherwise his predecessor's work, and in Thompson I genuinely believe based on the evidence that he was a trying to make more reliable units from the P2s with the A2/2 design. Were it not for a small pool of boilers until the decision was taken to fit them with the standard Peppercorn boiler, amongst other details, they would have been as good as the A2/3s (which were by and large the A2/2 design with large smoke deflectors and a flat fronted cab).
The Pacifics did adequate (not outstanding) work after rebuilding and several of their annual mileages improved markedly (Thane of Fife in particular). Extreme prejudice north of the border is quoted as being the cause for their movements south but I think that's actually sensible planning by the operating committee - the largest contingent of Peppercorn's A2s moved north, and the A2/2s which were a smaller class with a smaller pool of spares, moved south to be closer to Doncaster effectively.
Peter Townend is quoted in both of his Pacific books that concentrating locomotive classes to specific depots was desirable and that is exactly what happened. It makes sense for the newest production Pacifics in greater numbers to go where best use can be made of them, and the A2/2s effectively were prototypes of further classes and therefore it made sense to concentrate them in one or two close locations south.
Regarding the war years - much of the P2s was re-used in the rebuild (3/4 of the frames, six driving wheels, the boilers and cabs mostly untouched along with the tender. New cylinders, front end and smokebox utilising standard parts where possible and retention of the short connecting rods which gave a staggered layout for the Great Western and Stanier style equal length connecting rods). Thompson did not in any of his locomotive types build entirely new, locomotives like the B1 being built up from standard and well designed Gresley products. There is no shame in that as what was produced was an excellent use of resources and simplified manufacturing, and operating requirements too.
In my view - not shared by many - the P2s had too much exposure with their problems from their line and drivers, and the Scottish workshops (which - it is noted by Grafton, Townend, Nock and Allen, at varying times were inadequate in their levels of repair and servicing) and therefore it seems the argument for rebuilding them was made for Thompson, not by him. Reading contemporary copies of the railway magazine for my research on the book I am writing on Thompson, 2005 appears and doesn't set the world alight but neither does it raise many eyebrows in particular. The rebuilt locomotive was not useless: it did the job required of it adequately and in a wartime scenario Thompson nor anyone else would ask for much more. It was certainly more reliable during the war years than its unrebuilt sisters.
The BR years do not look favourably on the A2/2s - but I feel when looking at the availability of locomotives on other railways, this is possibly because the excellence of the Gresley A4s and later Peppercorn A1s with their larger classes mitigates against objective judgement on what was always, whether Gresley or Thompson, a very small class of locomotives ultimately the same in outline but always differing in detail and quality.
