The LNER Encyclopedia

The following is not a theorem, nor does it have particularly convincing evidence behind it. Most of it is circumstantial, but with the possibility of further intrigue with this train of thought.

The basic question I am asking is: did Edward Thompson, on becoming CME of the LNER, follow - not in the footsteps of Gresley, but in some respects the basic design principles which (Sir) William Stanier perpetrated in his time with the LMS, when he designed Great Northern?

That which prompted me to ask this question is in part a throwaway comment ("Thompson greatly admired Stanier" Page 42), and in the other part, also in Peter Grafton's book, a photograph which can be found in Peter Grafton's book, Edward Thompson of the LNER, on page 101 of the second edition.

The top photograph on that page, shows a rare rear three quarter view of the prototype Thompson A1 "Great Northern" which we latterly know as the single A1/1.

The locomotive exhibits traits which its former incarnation - a low pressure Gresley A1 Pacific - did not exhibit. High shouldered, curved running plate at the front end, leading to a high running plate with no splashers. The running plate goes straight to the cabsides, and curves underneath them to straighten out at the end of the sidesheets, which in their height are much shorter than the previous standard Thompson and Gresley adhered to, with their Pacific classes (A1, A4, A3, A2/2, A2/1)

The locomotive exhibits further traits, which are away from the Gresley design ethos, but in keeping with the previous A2/2 and A2/1 classes. The cylinders are set directly ahead of the front driving wheels, and their positioning relative to the front bogie is just overlapping the rear wheels on the aforementioned bogie. The outside steam pipe is designed to make what is effectively a 90 degree turn, from the smokebox, into the cylinders. The smokebox is longer than the standard Gresley affair, and is topped off with a stovepipe double chimney, which - it has been mentioned in Mr Grafton's book - was a design choice made in the spirit of austerity.

The question is - looking at this three quarter view, am I perhaps forgiven for suddenly seeing a Stanier influence in the locomotive design? These are all traits the Princess Royal Class - built in the 1930s, a good part of a decade earlier than the lone A1/1 - has. Comparing it to 6201's original form (which funnily enough, had a stovepipe double chimney when built) there seems to be an uncanny similarity of the Princess Royal and A1/1's overall layout.

I shouldn't get too engaged with conspiracy theories - all good engineers, and Gresley was certainly an exponent of this, noted developments around them and took on board that which would lead to improvements in design, performance or efficiencies in operation.

Another example in Grafton relating to Thompson, whilst at Stratford, concerns his question as to why GWR locomotives' exhaust sound like shots from a gun, to which the answer was they have sharp valve events with long travel, high boiler pressure and a small smoke box, giving resonance. This led to Thompson's highly successful first rebuild of the B12 class. So one could equally argue that he followed Churchward's lead.

Locomotive appearance and aesthetics were often more influenced by the drawing office than the CME. The drawing office would be given a general directive as to what the CME wanted and then would get to work and produce the drawings.

Could the first A1/1 running plate shape, like that of the B1, be just as well described as a simple further "tweak" of the post-grouping Darlington fashion that first became evident on the J38, J39, D49 group of locos, and at a later stage in more exaggerated form on the rebuilt C7s? That shape itself might be seen merely as a modernisation, including better wheel access, of the shape that first appeared on North Eastern locos in the form of long boxes above the running plate, these having the concave curve at the front as per the later running plates. I'd be inclined to think that in that respect Thompson was, in line with his North Eastern pre group origins and loyalties, simply giving the Darlington design idiom preference over the Doncaster version.

Fair enough chaps, I just wanted to clarify my thoughts as it was somewhat perturbing to look at the A1/1 and think "that looks like a Princess"

EDIT: I should add, not because I have anything against LMS locos, but that my perception of Edward Thompson as a locomotive engineer could have been well off!

I think Atlantic has hit the nail on the head, the 4-6-0s of class B1 and the K1 2-6-0s show definite Darlo/ NER influences. (Nowt wrong wi that he thinks)