Who Decided the fate of the P2s?

[S.A.C. Martin]

May I add though Mick - forgive me if I seem forthright in my views. Being quite close to my own research and work I tend to write everything out as a stream of consciousness sometimes. My responses are nothing personal but I find it easier to respond point by point in terms of analysis.

I think I've exhausted my faculties for Edward Thompson today and it is probably to everyone's benefit if I go do some modelling instead!

[mick b]

May I add though Mick - forgive me if I seem forthright in my views. Being quite close to my own research and work I tend to write everything out as a stream of consciousness sometimes. My responses are nothing personal but I find it easier to respond point by point in terms of analysis.

I think I've exhausted my faculties for Edward Thompson today and it is probably to everyone's benefit if I go do some modelling instead!

Not a problem Simon.

But reboilering doesn't come close to cutting up (virtually) Six beautiful Locos which were less than Ten years old at the time and with relatively minor design flaws and suffering poor useage and maintenance which could have been easily and cheaply rectified. I wonder what Kings Cross and Mr Townsend could have achieved with them post war


Back to finishing another GN a A1/1 version of course

[neilgow]

A very interesting discussion. Has anyone over the years written a detailed technical analysis of the P2's by any chance? One reads and hears many stories about them. The one that springs to mind is the story of them liable to spreading track and derailing, any truth in this?

Rgds

NG.

[drmditch]

Some interesting points above.

I have always been surprised that, devolved organisation though the LNER was, the P2s were allocated and used in such an inefficient fashion.

I appreciate Peter Grafton's biography of Thompson. He does something which many other people fail to do, and relates the actions of the CMEs in the context of the engineering culture and policy (and the two are not the same thing) of the LNER, its antecedents and its different works.

Clearly Edward Thompson was a complex and sometimes difficult personality, but he was a competent engineering manager, trusted by the rest of the organisation and by HNG himself.
However it would be a shame if this thread just turned into a re-hash of the 'for or against' Edward Thompson debate, which has separate threads on this forum anyway.
My original question concerned who else must have been involved in the decision to rebuild the P2s.

We have material from contemporary engineers, like E.D Trask, about some of the problems with these engines, and what might have been done to correct them, with revisions to the leading truck, side-rods, and bearings. There are reports that the proposal to rebuild caused considerable contemporary controversy amongst the engineering establishment.

However, much of this is in the form of reminiscences and 'anecdotal evidence'. (Not that it is necessarily any the worse for that.)

Is there any 'primary evidence' in the form of committee minutes or reports or memoranda surviving?

[drmditch]

A very interesting discussion. Has anyone over the years written a detailed technical analysis of the P2's by any chance? One reads and hears many stories about them. The one that springs to mind is the story of them liable to spreading track and derailing, any truth in this?

Rgds

NG.

There is a good discussion in P J Coster's book on the A1 and A2 Pacifics. It seems to cover most of the points discussed above, and more besides.

[Bill Bedford]

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.

The problems with the V2 pony trucks didn't come to light until after Thompson retirement. The inference being that he had no real understanding of the causes of the P2s problems.

[Bill Bedford]

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.

You are looking at this with 20/20 hindsight.

Saying that 'the main reason [for the problems with the cranks] being their use on tight curves' misses the point that pacifics had been used successfully on the Aberdeen road since the late 20s without incurring broken crank axles. What Thompson knew in 1942 was that these locos, for some not well understood reason, had a high risk of braking their crank axles. Had these locos been transferred to other, more 'visible', duties and axle had broken at speed, there could have been a major accident that would have seriously damaged Thompson's reputation and been a source of grave embarrassment to the top management.

[Bill Bedford]

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.

A record of 2002 on a Kings Cross - Newcastle train loaded to 18 coaches and a six wheeled van has recently been posted on BritishRailways@yahoogroups.com. I'm not going to repost it all, but these are the conclusions the author came to:

At Peterborough, the Grimsby section was removed and, lightened by five coaches, the train set off to Climb Stoke bank; a section that should have produced some fireworks given that the fireman had had ample time at Peterborough to get the engine ready.
The climb turned out to be something of a disappointment since the engine did nothing that one of the low pressure Pacifics could not have matched and the early arrival at Grantham - as with Peterborough - owed far more to the timing clerk than it did to the train crew.
The reason for the rather disappointing performance can only be guessed at but may have had something to do with the prodigious appetite for coal the class had and having worked himself silly getting to Wood Green, the fireman may simply have told his driver that he could not keep up with the engine and his driver, realising that no especial effort was required to run early, took a sympathetic view..

The whole post can be seen at https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Bri ... ages/57356 for those with access to yahoo groups.

[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.

You are looking at this with 20/20 hindsight.

Saying that 'the main reason [for the problems with the cranks] being their use on tight curves' misses the point that pacifics had been used successfully on the Aberdeen road since the late 20s without incurring broken crank axles. What Thompson knew in 1942 was that these locos, for some not well understood reason, had a high risk of braking their crank axles. Had these locos been transferred to other, more 'visible', duties and axle had broken at speed, there could have been a major accident that would have seriously damaged Thompson's reputation and been a source of grave embarrassment to the top management.

So Bill what is your 20/20 hindsight then ?? as what you have said doesn't make it any clearer.

Why would the Loco break its crank for another reason?? as as you have said it is lethal. If they were that flawed they should never have run ever on any line .
I have never seen any comment made when 2001 2002 ran from Kings Cross when first built ??

[S.A.C. Martin]

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.

The problems with the V2 pony trucks didn't come to light until after Thompson retirement. The inference being that he had no real understanding of the causes of the P2s problems.

That's not my understanding of it Bill - happy to be corrected if you could point me in the direction of where to read up more? Since this forms a particular point in my book I am writing I'd be most grateful to be corrected. In East Coast Pacifics at Work on page 109, Peter Townend states the following:

"In 1946 the class [V2] was involved in two serious derailments near Hatfield whilst working passenger trains…it was decided to fit 25 locomotives quickly with a different design of pony truck which Thompson had already developed and used on the L1 2-6-4-T…Thompson had taken quick action some months before the second accident occurred. Many pony trucks were already replaced but not all to the new design".

I do absolutely agree with your second point though Bill - Thompson did not understand the problems with the P2s - nobody contemporary to their working life did, and that is why they rebuilt, addressing the fundamental issue of the crank axles and hot bearings by rebuilding. Somewhat drastic, but nobody can deny that this worked in addressing these issues.

[teaky]

Interesting reading this.

Just to start by laying my cards on the table. I am very much a Gresley fan and consider his locomotives to be the most attractive ever to run on British railways. I find the Thompson pacifics handsome but they don't quite hit the mark and this is primarily because of the ungainly positioning of the cylinders. The Peppercorn pacifics sorted things out visually.

I am very much thinking in aesthetic terms here and ignoring Thompson's technical details. He had a very difficult task on his hands to improve locomotives under wartime restrictions.

I have a pet hypothesis which I would welcome your comments on please.

Would a CME not be eager to display his talents by designing a front line express locomotive? In the case of the east coast main line this would inevitably point towards a pacific. Despite wartime restrictions was Thompson itching to find some way of producing a design of his own even if he could not get the board to agree to a completely new build?

A2/2 - Thompson's first opportunity to show what he could do.
A2/1 - Showed his growing confidence in his basic design and took advantage of already planned builds.
A1/1 - A mystery to me and the root cause of much negative feeling towards Thompson.
A2/3 - His first proper chance free of wartime restrictions.

[drmditch]

Would a CME not be eager to display his talents by designing a front line express locomotive? In the case of the east coast main line this would inevitably point towards a pacific. Despite wartime restrictions was Thompson itching to find some way of producing a design of his own even if he could not get the board to agree to a completely new build?

A theory I have not heard discussed before. There is the remark from Bulleid to Peppercorn 'Pep, if you design an express locomotive with five driving wheels your name is made!'
Could the same concept have motivated Edward Thompson, as well as the more mercurial Bulleid?

(It should be noted however that Bulleid, who may have had a significant input into the initial design of the P2, wanted to build an eight coupled express locomotive for the Southern.)

[Flying Fox 34F]

Most interesting reading gentlemen. There are main examples of axles breaking, but not all ended in disaster! It still happens now. The last one I know of was last year on the ECML.
This debate would polarise opinions and yes to our eyes it beggars belief as to what happened.
Ironically, I quite like the look of a A2/3 and have commented as such elsewhere. In fact now I have a copy of the drawing, I'm pondering creating the original design of A class (as originally designated) before anything happened to a P2! My finally piece of Irony is that I'm a distant relative of Thompson.
Paul 4475

[65447]

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.

A record of 2002 on a Kings Cross - Newcastle train loaded to 18 coaches and a six wheeled van has recently been posted on BritishRailways@yahoogroups.com. I'm not going to repost it all, but these are the conclusions the author came to:

At Peterborough, the Grimsby section was removed and, lightened by five coaches, the train set off to Climb Stoke bank; a section that should have produced some fireworks given that the fireman had had ample time at Peterborough to get the engine ready.
The climb turned out to be something of a disappointment since the engine did nothing that one of the low pressure Pacifics could not have matched and the early arrival at Grantham - as with Peterborough - owed far more to the timing clerk than it did to the train crew.
The reason for the rather disappointing performance can only be guessed at but may have had something to do with the prodigious appetite for coal the class had and having worked himself silly getting to Wood Green, the fireman may simply have told his driver that he could not keep up with the engine and his driver, realising that no especial effort was required to run early, took a sympathetic view..

The whole post can be seen at https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Bri ... ages/57356 for those with access to yahoo groups.

That's Bill Beckett's closed group - I'm barred for disagreeing with his pontificating.

'Should have..' 'owed more to the timing clerk..' 'can only be guessed at..' 'may have had something to do with..' 'may simply have told..'

Full of facts then!

[Bill Bedford]

That's not my understanding of it Bill - happy to be corrected if you could point me in the direction of where to read up more? Since this forms a particular point in my book I am writing I'd be most grateful to be corrected. In East Coast Pacifics at Work on page 109, Peter Townend states the following:

"In 1946 the class [V2] was involved in two serious derailments near Hatfield whilst working passenger trains…it was decided to fit 25 locomotives quickly with a different design of pony truck which Thompson had already developed and used on the L1 2-6-4-T…Thompson had taken quick action some months before the second accident occurred. Many pony trucks were already replaced but not all to the new design".

I do absolutely agree with your second point though Bill - Thompson did not understand the problems with the P2s - nobody contemporary to their working life did, and that is why they rebuilt, addressing the fundamental issue of the crank axles and hot bearings by rebuilding. Somewhat drastic, but nobody can deny that this worked in addressing these issues.

The accidents in 1946 involving V2 pony trucks were, according to the RCTS books:

Thirsk - 24th February, put down at the time to excessive speed
Hatfield - 15th July
Marshmoor - 10th November

The author goes on:
"A factor common to [some of] these incidents was the condition of the track.... Defects in the track were certainly blamed for the Hatfield and Marshmoor mishaps. At last it was conceded that the Gresley pony truck ensign was sensitive to track imperfections. The Official report on the Hatfield accident also recalled the derailment at Newark in March 1944 which may after all have been an advance warning of impending disaster which was not recognised.

Ten days after the Marshmoor accident it was decided to fit the V2's with the type of pony truck fitted to class L1 No. 9000, with spring side control"

Thompson retired on 30th June 1946, so was not involved with this decision. As to the reason Thompson used the side control pony truck on the L1, without evidence from the people involved at the time, we can only guess. However it is probable that cost was a major factor. Doncaster was building 8Fs at the time so the LMS pony truck design was available and Gresley had a patent on the swing link design, which may have given Thompson grounds for avoiding it.