Who Decided the fate of the P2s?

[drmditch]

Please excuse me if this subject has been covered elsewhere. I did do a search and couldn't find this aspect of the sad destruction of (potentially???) superb engines.

Edward Thompson is quoted as saying that he wanted 'to get the P2s of the Aberdeen road'. However if I understand correctly, after Raven's initial report, on the LNER the CME was not directly in charge of locomotive running or (presumably) of allocation.

Since opinion appears to have been divided about the performance of the P2s, who would have taken the decision to :-
1. Keep them solely on the Aberdeen road with occasional (unsanctioned) trips to Newcastle.
2. Re-build (as in destroy) a major capital asset.

Clearly Thompson had firm opinions, but how did he manage to persuade the rest of the senior management?

(Some other recent discussions are.....here...)

[manna]

G'Day Gents

It is a very strange story, on other lines when a loco is deemed unsuitable, it is usually transferred to another location, IE the N2's on the St Albans branch (!) where they were deemed top heavy, so N7's were drafted in, to take there place, the N2's weren't rebuilt to 2-4-2's to see if they would then be suitable.
But with the P2's, a rebuilding in the middle of the most destructive war in history is mind boggling, if it was all over a personality clash with his dead boss.

manna

[Flying Fox 34F]

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!
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.
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

[earlswood nob]

Good morning all

I feel that if modifications/rebuilding had improved the locos, then people would have accepted them. However, who believes that the rebuilt P2's were better than the originals?
2002 was modified by fitting extra smoke deflectors. This was to solve smoke drifting problems. Who complains about the alterations to one (IMHO)of the best looking Gresley locos?
Later 2001/2 were fitted with a Bugatti nose. How often are there complaints about this action? I imagine that it improved visibility.
Finally, all six were rebuilt as pacifics and there is a multitude of complaints. I am not going to research their later performance, because I won't change my mind that it was a mistake to rebuild them as pacifics.

Earlswood nob

[earlswood nob]

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

[drmditch]

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

.... see here...

[S.A.C. Martin]

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:

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).

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.

[earlswood nob]

G'day all

Thanks for the link DRM. I shall read that slowly and try and ingest it.

Very interesting SACM.

Earlswood nob

[JASd17]

Thompson decided the fate of the P2s.

He had to persuade the locomotive committee that the P2s were not a successful class and SAC Martin has pointed out the main reasons why he was able to do this.

In order to further his standardisation plans under wartime conditions, and in particular his ideas for a mixed traffic 6' 2" Pacific, rebuilding the P2s was his logical option, because new 4-6-2 designs had at that time been ruled out by the Board.

Eventually the LNER created a reasonably successful version of the mixed traffic Pacific concept, but it took some time and a change of CME to arrive at that design.

John

[65447]

Regretfully I do not know the answer to the OP's original question, but I do consider that SAC Martin's responses should have their context clarified:

1. Referring to Peter Grafton as a source is useful but not definitive. I know and respect Peter's efforts to provide adequate answers to difficult questions but he is nevertheless a secondary source. I once had a conversation with him about the merits of comparing the reports in different biographies of LNER locomotive engineers - principally Gresley, Thompson and Bulleid - of the same events and attempting to establish for each who was really responsible for originating it. It's clear to critical readers that none of the biographers agree on the events that matter;

2. Reliance on the opinions in print of a specific driver on the route is dangerous; that driver has since been proven not to be in charge of the locomotive on more than one of the occasions on which he described events in the contemporary railway press;

3. The coal consumption figures were so poor because of the criminal way in which the turns were rostered, with the locomotives kept in steam but standing for hours awaiting the next turn.

I do however agree with the supposition in the penultimate paragraph that it was a combination of circumstances and deliberate misinformation that led to their rebuilding. Wars have been started for less.

In the end the decision was not made by one man but by the relevant committee, and finally sanctioned by the Board.

[mick b]

Interesting Simon but it leaves a very big question.

Why were they not simply moved to the ECML and used there??.

You quite rightly point out the problems with cranks and hot bearings , the main reason being their use on tight curves. It doesn't take a CME to work out move them to ECML job done. Surely have had to take into consideration the country is in the middle of a World War with almost non existent resources relating to materials and Locos. As said earlier he redesigned the front truck and just add a Kylchap System to one Loco, job done.

The P2 was capable of hauling huge trains if required and leading upto D day those trains were left to the poor V2 and other lesser in performance Locos. Yes a big coal appetite, but at the time Coal consumption was the last of the countries problems needing attention.

Sadly ET has yet again fiddle with a relatively proven design along with his many others one or more offs i.e J10, B16,D20, D49 etc etc, I do wonder what he was actually trying to achieve with some of his practices.

One answer is sure , I don't think we will ever know the answer !!

[S.A.C. Martin]

1. Referring to Peter Grafton as a source is useful but not definitive. I know and respect Peter's efforts to provide adequate answers to difficult questions but he is nevertheless a secondary source. I once had a conversation with him about the merits of comparing the reports in different biographies of LNER locomotive engineers - principally Gresley, Thompson and Bulleid - of the same events and attempting to establish for each who was really responsible for originating it. It's clear to critical readers that none of the biographers agree on the events that matter;

Absolutely agree, but for the benefit of the doubt, Mr Grafton is the only biographer who has deemed it relevant to go into any specific detail on a number of instances which are otherwise used for the specific purpose of decrying Edward Thompson. He may be a secondary source but he did take the time and effort to create such a source, and whilst not perfect it does a fair job of being objective in raising points of discussion and points of view.

2. Reliance on the opinions in print of a specific driver on the route is dangerous; that driver has since been proven not to be in charge of the locomotive on more than one of the occasions on which he described events in the contemporary railway press;

I absolutely agree with you, I thought that was my point - effectively the most vocal man was heard the most and of course this perhaps swayed opinion at the time.

3. The coal consumption figures were so poor because of the criminal way in which the turns were rostered, with the locomotives kept in steam but standing for hours awaiting the next turn.

This is interesting - I've not heard this before. What is your source for this information? I had heard that the engines were kept in steam on shed but it seems somewhat missing the point to include time spent on shed and coal consumed there with the lb per mile calculations for coal consumption, surely? Why would this be the case for the well known statistics on the P2s given in several publications but not be the case for coal consumption for other locomotives on the same railway?

I do however agree with the supposition in the penultimate paragraph that it was a combination of circumstances and deliberate misinformation that led to their rebuilding. Wars have been started for less.

In the end the decision was not made by one man but by the relevant committee, and finally sanctioned by the Board.

Well, I would not say it was deliberate misinformation - but certainly a combination of their reputation and their actual availability and reliability over a number of years. I don't feel it is necessary or helpful to state "wars have been started for less" - locomotive classes throughout history on a number of railways have been rebuilt by subsequent CMEs.

[mick b]

- locomotive classes throughout history on a number of railways have been rebuilt by subsequent CMEs.

I have deleted the rest of the post and only make a comment on above.

Agreed many Locos have been redesigned over the years and most I am sure were justified.

BUT how many of those rebuilds were during a World War , by a company almost bankrupt , and on Locos that only needed minor redesigns and/or being used on a correct route for their capabilities, or were so old in the 1940's that why would you even bother . ?

I quite like E T's Locos as they give much needed variation to the LNER modeller but that doesn't relate to the real world of Railways. I have no axe to grind regarding his decisions a very big Butcomes to mind when ET is ever mentioned .

Sadly many off his actions do not stand up very well to close examination albeit 70 year on.

[S.A.C. Martin]

Interesting Simon but it leaves a very big question.

Why were they not simply moved to the ECML and used there??.

You quite rightly point out the problems with cranks and hot bearings , the main reason being their use on tight curves.

Sorry Mick - but that's not strictly speaking true. Yes, the curvature of the track was a factor, but the Deltarail analysis of the P2 chassis has proven beyond reasonable doubt that a simple change to the pony truck would have guided the driving wheels better through these curves and potentially removed the hot bearing problem altogether. The crank axle failures are still being investigated but 2007 Prince of Wales will be fitted with a more robust design in any event.

On the continent and abroad, 4-8-2s and other similar and larger machines actually coped with tighter curvature better than the P2s so the failure is down to a lack of understanding as to the problems at the time, rather than the line on which they were designed to run.

It doesn't take a CME to work out move them to ECML job done. Surely have had to take into consideration the country is in the middle of a World War with almost non existent resources relating to materials and Locos. As said earlier he redesigned the front truck and just add a Kylchap System to one Loco, job done.

Thompson more than any CME during the war recognised the lack of resources and all of his locomotive designs either used existing components put together to make a new and adequate design or were conversions utilising as much of the existing locomotive and using standard parts where possible. I don't think Thompson can be accused of not thinking along those lines and not in the country's and railway's best interests (particularly when you consider the comparison with OVS Bulleid who built over a hundred brand new "mixed traffic" Pacifics which were summarily rebuilt after less than six years work in some cases).

The issues of the P2s being well known, or made well known, they were as a small class dealt with summarily. None of Gresley's successful locomotives were modified extensively - the V2s were left en-masse with the only change being the change of pony truck design to improve the ride and prevent more accidents occurring. The A4s and A3s were to be retained and overhauled, and it should also be pointed out that, aside from the last four being built as Pacifics, the V2 building program was maintained by Thompson.

The P2 was capable of hauling huge trains if required and leading upto D day those trains were left to the poor V2 and other lesser in performance Locos. Yes a big coal appetite, but at the time Coal consumption was the last of the countries problems needing attention.

Coal traffic was actually of the highest importance, as was fuel consumption. Bear in mind the traffic demands on the railway at the time, and the maintenance required together with shortages in all manner of things (including coal dependent on said traffic and other mitigating factors thanks in no small part to aerial bombardment) you can understand that a higher than average coal consumption would not work in the P2s favour.

The V2s are often described as "the engines which won the war" along with a number of others and their feats in traffic are somewhat legendary at times. The extreme example - pulling 26 coach troop trains on one occasion out of King's Cross - not withstanding they were not "poor" and it stands to reason that there was - and no one would have seen if looking at this objectively - any real advantage in moving 6 locomotives southwards that were still despite doing much lower mileages than any of the Pacifics or Moguls, having much worse availability and reliability, whatever their potential power output was. I argue that the 6 P2s would not have added much to the southern end of the east coast main line at the time, during the war.

Sadly ET has yet again fiddle with a relatively proven design along with his many others one or more offs i.e J10, B16,D20, D49 etc etc, I do wonder what he was actually trying to achieve with some of his practices.

J11/3 - excellent machine, well spoken of and an economic rebuild, was among the last of the Robinson machines to be withdrawn. More were rebuilt as and when certain components came up for renewal as per the O4s into O4/8s and O1s (both further classes well spoken of).

B16/3 - another good machine, economic rebuild and reliable.

D20/1 was under Gresley's instructions - is this really something you can aim at Thompson? Also a well thought of machine and no more were built after Gresley's death.

D49 one off - not an exemplary locomotive, remained a one off, had a driver who understood it and loved it enough to be quoted (on this very encyclopaedia I believe) but a one off prototype nonetheless.

The one-offs aside, the rebuilds using standard boilers and components took otherwise expired locomotive units and kept the parts which were not life expired. This was cheaper than building new and was a good exercise in recycling, effectively.

No different than the way in which the GWR under several CMEs reboilered locomotives or put new cylinder blocks on or similar. Why is Thompson pilloried for - given the wartime conditions - doing the right thing? There is no question that simplifying maintenance and standardising on certain components across classes was the right thing to do.

In many of these things he was proved abundantly correct and to this day people will only criticise Thompson because he followed Gresley who had a different way of doing things. I fear Thompson was right to adapt to a changing world and it was Gresley - the V4 a perfect example of this - who was not keeping up with the times.

One answer is sure , I don't think we will ever know the answer !!

I disagree largely because some answers are clear as to why and how, we will never know the exact personal thoughts that went through Thompson's head anymore than Gresley's before him - but whereas people will go in with an open mind for Gresley, they immediately think the worst of Thompson - despite there being little in the way of personal comment from those who knew him compared to Gresley. In this I think - whatever may be alleged of Peter Grafton's work - it remains the only source out there which dares to suggest that Thompson was in fact human and was also in fact doing his job.

[S.A.C. Martin]

- locomotive classes throughout history on a number of railways have been rebuilt by subsequent CMEs.

I have deleted the rest of the post and only make a comment on above.

Agreed many Locos have been redesigned over the years and most I am sure were justified.

BUT how many of those rebuilds were during a World War , by a company almost bankrupt , and on Locos that only needed minor redesigns and/or being used on a correct route for their capabilities, or were so old in the 1940's that why would you even bother . ?

The obvious answer to this is that three of the four major railways did this and it was a fair and legitimate engineering trend at the time. During the war, the LMS did so, with Stanier taper boilers being applied to the Royal Scots and Patriot class locomotives, and new round topped boilers and cylinders applied to locomotives of LNWR and Midland design. The GWR - through Collett and then through Hawksworth applied standard Swindon boilers and new cylinders to older pre-grouping locomotives where necessary or new boilers and cylinders to more modern but nevertheless older locomotives (Star converted to Castle and similar). All of these were done in and during the second world war.

Thompson was following the trends on both of these railways and did nothing particularly different.

Recycling older locomotives through reboilering is absolutely legitimate and all of these three railways did so. The Southern Railway did not - and look at the fleet the Southern region inherited and the problems of that fleet too. Locomotives from the LMS and LNER including Thompson's B1s, Gresley V2s and similar lent in order to supplement the withdrawal of an entire fleet of newly built Pacific locomotives.

Sadly many off his actions do not stand up very well to close examination albeit 70 year on.

We'll have to agree to disagree Mick - the more you examine Thompson's engineering policy, the more it makes absolute sense in context of the circumstances he found himself in, not least when you can see he was doing no different from the other major railways of the time (bar the Southern who I have always thought were unfortunate, rather than fortunate, to be given OVS Bulleid in wartime circumstances. This is borne out by the rebuilding of the vast majority of his pacifics into more conventional formats).