Edward Thompson, Hero or Villain? (with Simon A.C. Martin) - Railway Mania PODCAST #5
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 лип 2019
- Every story from history has its 'goodies' and 'baddies', but how much of our perception of these events is influenced by the storytellers?
Today I'm joined by Simon A.C. Martin, who is working on a book about the engineer Edward Thompson, who took over from Sir Nigel Gresley as Chief Mechanical Engineer on the London and North Eastern Railway at the height of World War Two. Thompson has often been criticised for his designs and decisions, but how much of this is justified?
Simon is looking to set the record straight using contemporary reference material.
RAILWAY MANIA is a podcast covering everything to do with trains and railways. Each episode, Corwin takes you on a bite-sized journey through many topics and tales of the Iron Road, including everything railway modelling to railway history, interviews with fellow enthusiasts and experts. Pop the kettle on and let's talk about trains!
Images watermarked with the RCTS logo are reproduced by kind permission of the Railway Correspondence and Travel Society.
www.rcts.org.uk/
All un-watermarked images were sourced from Wikimedia Commons and are presented here under a Creative Commons licence. A complete list of Wikimedia Commons references and attributions is available on the Railway Mania site.
railwaymania.net
Home to the Railway Mania Podcast and the Sudrian Histories project, Railway Mania is a hub for railway enthusiast entertainment, including videos on real-life railways as well as modelling builds and tutorials.
The Railway Mania Podcast is available to listen on all podcasting apps, as well as being hosted on the Railway Mania UA-cam channel. Often the video versions will include additional information and footage where possible.
For anyone wishing to give it a go and browse the back catalogue, all episodes are available on the website, please check out the shop and see what merchandise might take your fancy:
www.railwaymania.net/
I revisit this conversation quite often simply because of how educational it is, and how deeply passionate Simon A.C. Martin is about bringing truth to Thompson's career with the LNER and to Thompson as a person. Hope he comes back soon!
Would love to see a new build of Great Northern - actually prove once and for all it wasn't a) ugly and b) crap.
I'm still learning about British railway history and recently heard Thompson referred to as a "rotter." I had a feeling there was more to the story. I found this podcast to be very illuminating. Thanks for making it!
My mind has been changed. It has been decades of shameful character assassination of Thompson, by people who should have and did know better. The war years were terrible and given the LNER inherited a huge inventory of old Pre-Grouping, disparate stock, I can now see what Thompson faced. Thank you for putting the record straight.
I really love Simon's commitment to research and proving the case for Thompson. The mechanical detail and everything he laid out makes very logical sense engineering wise. Is it a shame Great Northern got rebuilt? Absolutely. Was it done of necessity on an engine most didn't see any significance of until after the fact? Absolutely. Thompson had his hands tied by both the war, and the motley crew of locomotives from the LNER. Well done as always
Fantastic podcast! You’ve certainly changed my opinion of Thompson greatly.
Very good story, it made more clear to me as what Edward Thompson actually did on the railway and which goals he was aiming for.
And these goals make absolutely sense to me as being active in maintenance myself.
Making things less prone to breakdown, and if they do simpler to fix is the way to go to save on maintenance costs and enhance the availability of your equipment.
A maybe small loss in performance can never undo the savings you just made this way.
Also his view on preventive maintenance on part of the fleet was a step forward, locomotives were in the shops more often, but for less time and you could count on them when in service, this form of maintenance is commonplace now.
The B1 is the sterling example that he was able to design a sound locomotive, it's the Black Five of the LNER and has like the Black Five performance figures that rise above those envisaged when being designed.
@@paulcaswell2813 any chance of a citation or evidence? What you are describing is an outright lie.
I was an Engineer and subsequently an Engineering Manager during part of my life. True Thompson's aesthetics were not the same as Gresley's but neither were the circumstances. Everything that Thompson did was within the allowed parameters. There was a war on and the best trained members of the workforce had, in many cases, been called up for military service. Accessibility was now the key, and Thompson also had to deal with an untrained workforce in order to keep the railways running.
The A2/2 has been castigated but Thompson had said that he would utilise all the available parts. This he did, hence short rods and cylinder location. However it had better availability than the P2s. The A1/1 was a good engine, and I know the former shed master of New England where it spent much of his life. True the large pacifics were scrapped before Gresley's, but that was plain economics. Steam was being run down and there were more parts sitting on the shelves for Gresley locos so common sense dictates that you get rid of the minority. There was a logic to Thompson's work practices. He also rebuilt the B12 loco, though naturally Gresley, as Chief Engineer, got the kudos. You cannot get a silk purse out of a sow's ear and there were a few to sort.
I am not maligning Gresley or his works but what would he, Gresley, have done had he not died and had the same circumstances as Thompson? Gresley experimented and Thompson's initial rebuilds were experiments to see what worked.
FWIW Great Northern was due for a rebuild as it was an A1. No doubt it had been through heavy overhauls at other times in its life so how much, apart from the nameplates and some motion parts was original? Probably not much.
I look forward to the release of the Simon A.C. Martin book. What a great podcast.
First episode I've listened to, and this was bloody fantastic. Never thought I'd be so fascinated by the availability rates and miles between failures of wartime LNER Pacifics but yes I'm drinking this up. Thanks!
Thank you!
I have a hunch that whoever took up the role as CME of the LNER after Greslay would have been considered controversial simply because he would have had a huge pair of shoes to fill and having to do it during the strains of wartime when austerity ruled and extravagance wasn’t an option.
Bulleid is already controversial but came up with some of the best locos the Southern Region had ever seen, so I think he’d do it well.
This
Dude... you’ve really done it. This is the longest and probably the best so far mate! Having Simon on was a real treat to have on the podcast. I’ve always looked at Thompson as a real shameful figure in British Railway history but after what you’ve both discussed, it has left me with a lot to think about.; I thank you two for that.
Thanks so much for the kind words James!
Me too!😊
Thank you for making this! I don’t like just having one end of a historic argument bashed into being the “facts” this has been very enlightening :)
Oh that’s great that Simon joined you and very interesting topic
Thank you!
What a great episode gents, it’s very pleasing to have not only realised myself that a lot of Thomson’s reputation (in a negative light and that I initially believe) was simply wrong and the negativity undeserved and I shall be using this video as a reference whenever I see those narratives being said about him. Nicely done 🙂
I like Thompson’s A1/1, A2/1s, A2/2s, and A2/3s
Just finished it, bloody brilliant and of course the best way to end, on a good word.
Thompson following Sir Nigel Gresley was like Wilf McGuinnes following Sir Batt Busby & David Moyes following Sir Alex Fergusson. The Impossible Job!
All these successors were perfectly capable people, but they were not following mere mortals: they were following legends!!
Edward Thompson was Sir Vincent Raven's son-in-law. GREAT research Simon.
Always smarting over the A2's dismissal in favour of the A1s... ;-)
@@paulcaswell2813 the A2s were crap. Besides if Thompson did want to continue his uncles work,
ELECTRICS
That's what he would've done since that's what Raven focused on
I'm pleased that you've actually gone in depth into the whole deal.
Today theres also this rather loco centric idea that the CME's were extremely high up in the railway hierarchy. With the board minutes and details they weren't particularly noticeable or outstanding in the overall scheme of things.
And, of course, one could also argue Thompson and his modifications etc, could be extended to the standards. As in the loco designs and mods are trying to make things work effectively in the given environment. By this, the standards were outside valve gear, 2 cylinder. Yes, one could cite the 3 cyl Duke, but when previous 4 cyl were fairly commonplace...
I'm sure there were those at the time were rolling their eyes at Gresleys products, some even today saying that Gresley made sure it was his Pacifics rather than Ravens vastly superior (their words) examples got squadron production.
It was entirely the LNER board that sent Gresleys team all the way to Germany to study the new VT flying hamburger for a joy ride: if the advantages were that good (Wagner was honest with the LNER team) the A4 may never have happened.
I’ve always been a big fan of Thompson’s work, i never understood why he was done so dirtily. in a way, I think this puts plenty of it in perspective.
He is now our Treasurer for Clan Line
This is the 4th time I've listened to this, and there's so much to learn from this. I am glad Simon has taken the time to speak about this because as with many things, history has been written incorrectly! Work from the likes of Simon and others, it's nice to actually prove that previous writings from others are in fact false. This sort of work in research is the testament to prove that history was or is wrong. Perhaps it's time to look at other pieces of railway history that we take for granted as "FACT" and see if they're wrong or have been altered to become more glamourous?
I enjoyed this interview. I've heard the stories.
The "folding disks" I find odd. I also find the thought of running at speed at night with such poor lighting frightening. In the US, we run lights on all of the time. They can be seen at all times. During the day: Usually dim while standing and bright while running. Also, no locomotives sneaking up on bystanders unawares; bells in the yards and more than a "toot" at crossings.
I think it’s sad that people often remember Thompson in a negative light, which was my first impression of him due to literature. He was just doing his job and what he thought was most logical at the time. Granted it was not perfect, but it was still a job he needed to complete. One thing I can complain about is the lack of PR which Gresley was heavily focused on.
"lack of PR which Gresley was heavily focused on" ??? You obviously know absolutely nothing about railways or Gresley. Quite the contrary, Gresley's whole manner when he was made CME of the LNER was to focus the public's attention on his work. Which was a virtual constant string of major PR success's, or possibly you've never heard of Mallard. Or the fact he was knighted for his PR success's, or the fact he's probably the worlds best known CME as a result.
@@JamesSmith-mv9fp And your point is what exactly? Of course I've heard of all those feats Gresley accomplished, who hasn't? Hell, I've got three different books about Mallard sitting on my bookshelf in front of me.
I was referring to how Thompson made little use of the PR department though granted it was in war time so there wasn't really much time for showing off.
So again, what point are you trying to make?
Thst was bloody fantastic!
Just out of interest: the New Zealand garratts (and subsequent Pacific rebuilds) were 3 cylinder (6 on the garratt of course) had Gresley conjugated valve gear. This was extremely unreliable for the NZR and a large factor in their withdrawal. Conversion to 2 cylinders was impracticable without recasting major sections of the loco, and 3 sets of walchaerts was impracticable with the narrow gauge.
Middle end issues I'm not aware of, possibly due to lack of information, and low speeds, small (although nearly the largest on the NZR!) drivers possibly not producing the rapid shut off hammering at speed that the conjugated gear gave.
As you said, frequent and attentive maintenance was essential, and the NZR, although good staff and very good engineers (the NZR pioneered the use of walchaerts valve gear (the example in the British science museum is ex NZR) the 4-6-2, the 4-8-2 etc), the remoteness of working operations and the equipment availability simply weren't practicable in the dominion. An indication is there were two major workshops in the whole country, one in each island.
fantastic Podcast! i learnt alot today!
Brilliant episode, very informative and challenging. Two minor points 1.) you refer in the graphic to the K1s as 2-6-2s rather than 2-6-0s. 2). There is one more surviving Thompson locomotive, K1 62005 2-6-0, of West Highland fame.
Arrgh darn it! Something always gets through, thanks for the heads-up, I'll see if I can blur the erroneous '2'. I'm not sure if Simon omitted the K1 due to the role Peppercorn played in the design or as it was built under Peppercorn's regime rather than the K1/1? In any case I am glad we still have it :) Thanks for listening in!
Railway Mania I omitted it as I feel it’s just modified enough to be “Peppercorn” as opposed “Thompson” - but it still uses Thompson era bits such as the one piece slide bar valve gear.
@@Britishrailwaystories That makes sense! I was reading about it and felt it linked back to what we were talking about a loco being a 'Thompson' loco or a 'Gresley' loco, when the work was mostly done by other people, in this case Peppercorn!
This was so good omg!!
Thank you.
Thompson's fault was falling foul of the Gresley fans. If you do anything against who or what they love, you are a villain even if the action is badly needed. Beeching has been give the same treatment with 60 odd years of hindsight, without taking into account the individual situation of each line he recommended for closure at that time or the country's economic situation. Both men made mistakes, but who can say what these mistakes were at the time they were made without referring to hindsight?
Also on Beeching, his boss was corrupt as he'll and had stock in road construction (well his wife did). Earnest Marples should be the one attacked
@@SudrianTales whilst it has been proven that Marples was a crook in regard to his tax evasion there has been no evidence that Marples Ridgway benefited from Marples being Minister of Transport.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 no. He only sold his wife the shares in his road construction company and then passed measures that increased roads using his company and others he had an interest in.
@@SudrianTales yes, he introduce the parking meter, the single and double yellow lines, traffic wardens, the MOT test, the provisional driving licence, the panda crossing and the 250CC limit for learners on motorbikes. He also abolished the BTC which did fof the last remaining canals, but few people care about that. Whilst there are plenty of allegations of conflicts of interest, there is very little concrete evidence to support these claims.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 given how long it took to find him guilty of the crimes we know he did, I'm not surprised
This is a cracking podcast, thank god for UA-cam deciding I should check these out. Always loved the B1, my favourite loco even being an LMS man. Glad the sound quality has been increased in these later podcasts too. I listen to these while using Trainz: A New Era doing prototypical routes. Great podcast so far and looking forward to catching up with the rest.
Glad you enjoyed it! I did invest in some better microphones after the first two episodes, maybe one day I'll go back and re-record them, who knows?
Thanks very much for the kind words, hopefully more to come soon!
@@RailwayManiaNet
Even if you could just make them louder it'd be fine haha, all good none the less 😊
Well, I’ve certainly learned a lot. Good job to you both.
Thank you Patrick!
@@RailwayManiaNet You're very welcome.
It was believed that 3 cylinders could produce similar power outputs as 4 cylinders but more economically but the GWR only considered 2 and 4 cylinders.
If I was Thompson I'd have rebuild the P2s with 2 larger cylinders rather than turn them into those ungainly three cylinder pacifics. Then shift the rebuilt P2s onto the ECML where their load hauling capabilities can be used to maximum effect whilst getting displaced A10s and A3s to work the Aberdeen route. Admittedly with the benefit of hindsight (partially) we can see two cylinder arrangements can produce good power and speed if we look to the Britannias and 9Fs in particular though the GWR and LMS had been doing this sort of thing for years, only resorting to inside cylinders with their biggest machines and then going 4 cylinder arrangement rather than 3 for an easier valve arrangement to manage the internal cylinders.
I have to say Thompson, along with Gresley, had mixed successes with his designs but is sadly judged a lot more harshly than his predecessor.
The P2s were an interesting conundrum. It is probable that the difficulties with the crank axle and axleboxes were caused more by the Gresley swing link pony truck than by any intrinsic problem with the design. It's interesting to note derailments of V2s during the war, and the solution adopted with success. That was to replace the swing link pony truck with a spring controlled unit. It would have been far cheaper to modify the pony truck of the P2s in this way, and would probably have solved the problem. As such, one has to feel that Thompson did not consider the modifications of the P2s properly as this, rather than a full rebuild, would have been a far more sensible option. Thompson was perhaps just more keen to introduce his new Pacific. As a degree-holding engineer, this would seem to me to be a dispassionate analysis of Thompson's treatment of the "orphans of the storm".
Also, figures shown to the board are one thing, but actual data often did not make it to board level. The RTCS green books use, as I understand it, works records, which tell a rather different story of the rebuilds than the data presented by Simon here.
On the other hand, this is a very interesting discussion. It's a pity there was no engineer to talk through some of the data, for example on adhesive ratio and so on. The P2s had a much greater adhesive ratio than any pacific, hence the choice of wheel arrangement in the first place. It is possible that the replacement of the pony trucks of the P2s would not have solved the problem, but the LNER at the time would have lost nothing by trying that solution first. Good engineering practice would have been to do just that, especially as there was plentiful evidence, collected under Gresley with tests on the K3, that demonstrated the swing link truck was a liability. Similar experiences were had on the LMS with pony trucks in the 1920s, and spring controlled trucks were the solution taken there.
Lovely comment sir! The Green Books offer dispassionate information with virtually zero narrative - they just let the locomotives speak for themselves. I'm on my third copy of Vol 2A - the previous two having become worn out. Much finer than any 'story-driven' volume!
@@paulcaswell2813 they're the best source of dispassionate analysis of the engineering I've found. I have the lot, collected over more years than I care to think about, and I read them all about once a year!
All other books on the LNE are just prose views - the Green Books just give facts. Love them.
This is the first Railway Mania episode that I‘ve listened to: excellent stuff, it be cannot praised highly enough. I happened to stumble across this gem some time after midnight - I was riveted from beginning to end. Simon‘s meticulous research is absolutely fascinating - has the book been published yet?
Thanks! I don't think the book is out yet.
@@RailwayManiaNet Out very, very soon...
Now out from Strathwood publishing.
Thomson certainly seems to have so much flack. One wonders how Mr Gresley would have coped with the ever diminishing availability of engineering capacity, workshop space etc etc. What insight this discussion shows!
Even those noble men who drove the iron horses would not have fully taken in the huge requirements of production and maintenance. Just a thought from a musician who likes steam engines of all types.
I might not be as smart as some other enthusiast, and I honestly don’t have many feelings for Thompson. He did his job, and made a steam engine that did a job. Rated at 8P/7F, his Pacifics did their jobs. I’m a bit more practical when it comes to engine designs being from across the pond yet growing up with British media… I’m sure you can take a guess which one I’m talking about… and having grown up around steam engines designed with Function over appearance is quite normal for me. The prettiest engine I’ve ever seen from here that comes to mind, was the CNR U4-a 6400. And being from over here, I can tell you, these engines are quite eye catching to the usual tubes, bits & bobs strewn about everywhere.
Wonder if there will be a audiobook for simons book?
Very interest interview however I do have to ask one thing about another Thompson rebuild that you haven’t mentioned , the Thompson rebuild of a gcr b3, the Thompson b3/3 which was made into a look alike b1
Surely a more worthy member of the A3 class, as far as preservation is concerned, was "Papyrus". Certainly more so than "Flying Scotsman". :)
It would have been nice to preserve more than one!
@@RailwayManiaNet Oh absolutely, yes! You'll get no argument from me on that. 🙂
Great Northern should've been preserved too
I hope a model manufacturer will make The Great Northern as an OO Scale model. It looks fantastic. Martin. (Thailand)
My mind have been changed. It has been decades of shameful character assassination of Thompson by people who should have and did know better.
where did you get that lner a1/1 Great Northern model and where can I get one? Please respond when you get this please.
Simon adapted a Hornby A1/A3 to make it, I think it may be on his blog somewhere
www.britishrailwaystories.com/
@@RailwayManiaNet so he built the model himself?
@@awesome-xk8vj I did yes. Hornby A3 with an A4 boiler type used. NRM flying Scotsman I believe.
Just out of curiosity Simon, you mentioned that Thompson was involved in the rebuilding of the Raven A7 4-6-2T’s, was he also involved in the rebuilding of the Worsdell and Raven A6 4-6-2T’s, A8/H1 4-6-2T/4-4-4T’s, and T1 4-8-0T’s?
Hello, I'm not sure if Simon will see this comment, but a good place to ask may be the LNER forum - www.lner.info/
Okay, thank you.
I will check for you, but I wouldn’t be surprised tbh! The way the LNER assistants worked was to pick up direction from Gresley to do work on his behalf. Thompson, Bulleid and Peppercorn all did work for him on this basis.
Ah, I see.
Peppercorn was more like Thompson than like Gresley, but times had changed.
In regards to the nonstandard types to be maintained, I read somewhere that Thompson wanted to keep the B12s because of their light axle loads/route availability. Have either of you found any evidence of this being truthful?
Either way, intriguing podcast.
Sorry mate my personal knowledge on it is limited. It might be worth consulting some of the books Simon mentions?
I like the video
1:11:47 My favorite part.
What about the rebuilt B3/3
Laughing once again at the steam whistle censoring at around 48:00
im surprised railway related shows don't do that more often
Do you know why Edward Thompson rebuilt 10 of the Gresley B17's into his B2's? Was he trying to turn them into mixed traffic engines or make them a passenger variant of his B1? Please respond when you get this please.
Unreliability of conjugated gear, B17 was still express passenger. Changing valve gear and boiler gave B2, changing boiler only gave B17/6. Same thing happened with class O4, which became O4/8 or O1 dependent on how much was changed.
@@Britishrailwaystories So the B2's are a more simplified version of the B17's, and so with the boiler and valve gear changed is what makes the B17's into B2's?
basically yeah
Thompson and Bouch both get epic hate.
One for having to work within a far tighter budget than his predecessors and one for finding out the failure to account for wind force (when no one else had ever done so before him) was a tragic mistake.
Neither deserves the legacy they've been given.
Is Bouch supposed to be Beeching?
Was the Thompson D Class mechanically successful? Please respond when you get this please.
In short, yes. Not an outstanding locomotive but perfectly usable.
@@Britishrailwaystories Did the Thompson D class have any mechanical faults if so how could they be fixed? Please respond when you get this please.
Read Peter Townend's book about his time as Top Shed shedmaster & you'll hear from the man who kept more A4s running in the 50s than anyone else. He suggests that the problems Thompson attributed to the conjugated gear were more to do with an inherently weak design of middle big end. Once this was changed to a better design there were few problems. It looks likely that Thompson was obsessive about all things Gresley & therefore focussed on the wrong problem.
But it was Cox who pointed out the many and various failings of the conjugated valve gear and recommended its abolition in favour of three sets of independent valve gear. Thompson acted upon that recommendation.
What was the richest railway company? And in what order?
That's a good question, I'm afraid to say I don't know unfortunately although I often hear that the LNER was the poorest. The GWR often had a rich, grand appearance although how much of that was PR I don't know. Would be interested to find out!
i believe it was lms,gwr,sr and then lner because the lms had a but ton of goods and was humongous
From one thing I read long ago, the Southern was the only one of the Big 4 that consistently paid a dividend to its' shareholders, which would suggest that all the London commuter traffic that it had ensured it was profitable.
Some may fuss about 'revisionist ' history , but as time goes by , ALSO the re - telling of the story of the past by definition goes on .
Hence , we may only hope the accumulation by generations of succeeding accounts may widen & , version - by - version , even deepen our understanding of this burgeoning ' remembered past '.
In this context , the memoirs of contemporaries perhaps more often than not will verge upon hagiography ; here , I am thinking of the words of Rogers & Cox , both patently 'Gresley men ', nicht wahr ?
Now on this question of historiography , there is a very possibly analogous wholly admiring account given at the close of the 1960s , by Wright , of the work of Lord Dowding in building up & then commanding under war conditions RAF Fighter Command through the day - time Battle of Britain .
& Yet Dowding ' s lacunae & if you will , missteps if not outright ' failure ' , in dealing with the upstart , perfectly unexceptionable & rivalrous ungentlemanliness of some subordinates has since become clear ; for these insights we owe a succeeding generation of historians , notably Mr John Ray .
That said , none of this can do much but to enhance our appreciation of what Dowding will have actually done , mainly perhaps in having erected what some to - day denominate a kind of ' virtual ' Internet form of aerial combat & control .
Gresley brought in a particularly sophisticated form of of steam valving that indeed did represent a refinement of the steam locomotive that took into account the efficient function of the TOTAL
ITY of 'things ', the engine , itself , AND as an element in the train - railway _ system _ '; this most likely would not have even been an Sir Nigel had not been a self - confident , if not sometimes imperious , temperament .
& Nor will he , a man at work in a more autocratic ( or at least less ' democratic ' ) age have had to endure at the end of career a summary comeuppance & down - sending .
The point at which the inner - directed Dowding did not do as well for himself , of course , was on the point of the fact that all Late Modern warfare between nation - states was ( N B ) become ' committee warfare ' & therefore there was present everywhere the seep of political necessity , by now grossly ' popular ' ; here , Dowding failed adequately perhaps even to KNOW that Churchill positively needed the , yes , otherwise completely pointless sacrifice of some young pilots , scrambling against the Luftwaffe bombers in the dark nights of the Winter blitz , BEFORE an effective air - borne radar will have been available .
Now Thompson of the LNER , a man of the Dowding generation & very possibly as remote, nonetheless was a man also far more of the industrial milieu , with its boards of directors , its capital demands & now , in the arms of a People's War , his need to oversee above all the movement quotidianly of the vast movement of ' stuff ' under war - time conditions of cold , taedium & blockade -- this last after all was THE sine qua non of his entire oeuvre .
& Well he knew that ; it was perhaps most of all was the point of his efforts all in the direction of motive power ... _ simplification _ .
In any case , please let me say I look forward to what you may have to say one day about the work of Andre Chapelon , a man whom I admire also , along with Lord Dowding & yes , now Thompson as well as Gresley .
However , Rogers ' book about Chapelon likewise perhaps is overly founded upon hagiography & so he remains otherwise a person on both the topic of the steam locomotive AND his historical period not yet adequately ' biographed ' .
*****
Finally , thank you very much for sheer amount of both time & insight you ( both ) have given the subject , here .
1
Running an engine to failure has to mean that it’s past its best halfway through and for the remaining time is as RAF and probably using loads of coal and water as the valve events go and the rings wear out. So not economical and really not pleasant to work with. A good’ un would be amazing and most of them wouldn’t be good’uns
The engineer's don't wave from the trains anymore, not like they did back in 1954 just a different world,I guess.cellphones just make it less sincere.
Very interesting and informative though in general I am not a fan of revisionist history. I would much sooner rely on the accounts of people who worked for both men. I am sure if I wrote a book in fifty years time on the car industry BMW board minutes would indicate they emission tested perfectly but were just misunderstood.
norfolk rover the problem is precisely that the assumed “history” as you know it hasn’t been written by people who worked for them.
I’m working from contemporary documents including board minutes, letters, stats.
Hardly revisionist if it is evidenced.
I would consider the content to be corrective rather than revisionist.
Well said. Reading the words of those who were actually around at the time is much more authentic accounts than what can be found in official minutes. Although comedy, the description of minutes given in 'Yes Minister' is true. And as someone who has done a fair bit of minute-taking over the years, I can say that a 'wink' in my direction from the Chair simply means 'do not minute' until the next wink. Much is missing from meeting minutes - and it's what's missing that contains the meat of the discussion in many cases.
Nock; Townend; Hoole... No - I quite agree - no first hand experience at all ;-)
The problem is that I was brought up on the writings of those who DID live with the locomotives daily - we didn't need 'histories' written - it was there in front of us. Now (and I'm speaking as an historian of sorts) historians have taken over from first hand experience. The old adage is starting to show itself in pre-nationalisation railway history - 'The Past happened; Historians give their interpretations of what happened'. This is why I haven't bought a new railway book for years (Coster's wonderful work excepted). We're now going to 'interpretations' rather than 'what was known and understood at the time'. Minutes can only give a tiny insight into what happened: asking the men whose lives were governed by what was discussed within those minutes would give a very different answer.
All cme are heroes ...stupid question
My personal favourite was sir William, black 5 ,jubilees, although fowler had the crab and 2300 tanks were excellent machines
I think Thompson was right about the conjugated gear but don't like to admit that. Some of what he did was frankly, vindictive it seems to me. His A1/1 looked horrible, the outside cylinders were located, aesthetically speaking, in the wrong place. I really don't think equal length rods were that critical. Thompson sent a photo of the first one to Stanier asking "what do you think?" Stanier didn't reply. But the B1 was a damn good loco. Bugger.
Stanier's Black 5 was a much smoother engine ;-) Just for argument and accepting the revisionist argument, why would 4470 be outshopped in GER blue? No other reason than to remove any links with the GN. Remember - Thompson had NER blood running through his veins.
Paul Caswell if it was to remove all hints of the GN Paul then why not start with removing the name Great Northern entirely?
Thompson worked for the GNR and NER and was by no means an NER man at all. He was in fact well known as an advocate and supporter of GER practice and this is born out by his fondness for the GER livery - and his time at Stratford works.
I do think you need to do some reading Paul. Much of your posts here are just playing the contrarian without evidence.
So Thompson is that type of guy that wants to help,but them fucks everything up. Could it be?
Well not exactly. He didn’t really fuck up a lot of stuff, people just exaggerate the story to make him look bad.
Well Thompson was not that bad thats true,but do not try to tell me the rebuilt p2s were that good,let me give you some facts,March 1947 five out of the six laid up at Cowlairs (along with three of the A2/1s at Darlington by the way) overall the engines ran a poor mileage between general repairs,just one example between 1945 to1959 60506 was shopped thirty times,compared to the then veteran Flying Scotsman with eleven visits.If they could have run with a corridor tender can you imagine them on the non-stop Elizabethan,London to Edinboro in 1954 390 minutes schedule an average of over 60 mph.No way!
If you listened to the whole podcast you would have known that for the 30 times 60506 was in shops having minor repairs (over a ten year period), it spent more time at work and did better mileage than Flying Scotsman did with 11 visits in the same period (as it was held in shops for longer for more involved work). The rebuilt P2s were good machines and the statistics we have on them prove this, undoubtedly.
@@Britishrailwaystories Well its no use getting in to a long drawn out debate,you obviously think they were good machines,but you can not get away to,- one they were the first pacifics to go,second they spent most of their life on secondary work,Thompsons B1s were excellent machines,has were some of his rebuilds,and he was constrained by economics after the war,but the A2/2s were not a success.And as i said can you imagine them on the non-stop Elizibethan express,i don"t think so!
@@ericholmes8665 So on the basis of the "withdrawn first" argument we would see that the Gresley V4s were the worst of the large LNER locomotives. Withdrawal dates are no indication of anything, given British Railways was withdrawing steam locomotives en masse. Obviously smallest classes go first. That's factual. The A2/2s were a success and the statistics in my book prove that beyond reasonable doubt.
@@Britishrailwaystories That is a bit of a silly statement,the V4s were not big engines,just 2 engines which were not right for the post war era,the K1s were their successers,now i am not a Thompson Hater,has i said is B1s Rebuilt B16s O1s were good engines,he was in a difficult situation after the war,but Doncaster could not wait to cancel the last 15 A2/3s and replace them with the Peppercorn A2s,the A2/2s record speaks for itself they were powerful but prone to slipping,and not in anyway an improvement on the P2s,they spent most of their life on secondary work,and one thing not always mentioned the men who used them,show me the pride like the top link drivers had in their engines,the working men did not like them, very rough riders,The Gresley engines were noted for there smooth riding at high speed,a big plus to the men who had to do this difficult job,and when the A2/2s were being withdrawn mass withdrawal had not started,in fact the A3s were still being improved has they were still getting double chimneys and German deflectors,which gave them a performance edge over the EE type 4s which were intended to replace them.
Thompson was a hero. Gresley was a misguided eccentric.
I wouldn’t say that. Both are heroes. I’ve nearly finished my Gresley book and it’s been a fascinating research period.
do not read thompson book read vincent raven book the feud was between thompson and gresley over vincent raven daughter witch thompson married but she was very fond of gresley
He butchered great northern and he butchered the p2s
Did you listen at all?
@@SudrianTales I second this
Of course there are trolls still riffing on Thompson. Why am I not surprised?
Thompson deserves his poor reputation.
His pacifics when new were exceptionally heavy on fuel ..lacked adhesion... were classed as 8P ..but could only run as 7P classification because of slipping .. the length of his pacific A classes caused cracking in the frames and were rough riders. So I'm not sure how these get classified as improvements !!! ... simply because of their availability during the war.
Thompson took the P2 and simply rebuilt them because their wheelbase couldnt handle the sharp curves when running in Scotland ...when all he had to do was send the original configured P2s to operate out of Kings Cross on the heavy war time trains in the southern area of the LNER where the track was generally straighter. So it wasn't the rebuilding that helped this class ..it was simply keeping the rebuilds in the south !!!. . So the commentators comments are not really an accurate comparison, as when Thompson's rebuilt Pacifics were sent to run in Scotland they cracked their frames on the curves.
Alot can be said on Thompsons locomotives ..his Pacific's weren't the success the commentator is trying to portray ..after the war they were only used on secondary expresses, freight duties and were withdrawn quickly... indeed most of the aging Gresley Pacifics they were supposed to replace outlived them....and Thompsons best effort in the A2/3 only coming out after the war in 1946 but were scrapped starting in 1962 a life span of only 16 years ..for a brand new class of locomotive !. For reference Gresley A3 were rebuilt from A1s in 1928 and started to get withdrawn in 1961 ...33 years for the earliest.... with Prince Palantine being built in 1924 lasting until the end of steam only being withdrawn in 1966 ..after 42 years service.
Thompson also designed Coaches ... these too were not liked, not having end doors but two equally spaced around the centre of the coach ...causing problems decoaching and these too were replaced reasonably quickly.... even being outlived by wooden types of Gresley design. But like the author who likes the Thompson pacifics..I like Thompson mainline coaches..but because I like them doesn't make them any better.
So yes ..with a war on Thompson was challenged ..but he didnt achieve anything other than just about scraping through that period.
The commentators also dont mention that within the drawing office Thompson was a real tyrant.. Gresley giving his designers a wide range to develop his and their ideas - for some reason the commentators seem to condone this....where it was do as I say with Thomoson or there were repercussions. Not exactly the best working conditions to develop new ideas and as such he wasn't liked ..nor by many of the running superintendents.
The whole situation was only recoved by the appointment of AH Peppercorn as CME -- who had secretly been designing loocomotives behind Thompsons back as even they were aware of the huge Thompson failings that his locomotives had. Peppercorn then brought together all of the running departments and the drawing office staff that Thompson had alienated to produce two of the best Pacifics -- the Peppercorn A1 and Peppercorn A2's.
Go read the book I’ve written, and when you’ve finished looking at the primary evidence collated, come back and let us know if you feel differently.
It’s only my opinion, Edward Thompson, was a villain, he undid a lot of Gresleys work, like rebuilds, rather than improve. Such as the P2’s.
Did you even listen the whole thing?
Wow I second what @trains and stuff said don’t comment on a video if you don’t listen/watch to the whole thing
@@navysealinguardiantank2679sometimes I wonder if these trolls even watch the whole video before posting these kind of comments.
@@joshuaW5621 they act like they’re in narnia man wtf even after all of this new information
I vote villain.
A. He ruined Gresley’s P2s and turned them into crappy Pacifics instead of modifying them instead.
B. He ruined the first LNER A1 Great Northern by turning it into a hideous Pacific that wasn’t worth the experiment.
C. Thompson’s annoying renumbering scheme that caused such engines like Scotsman to be BR 60103 and not 64472, or Mallard being 60022 and not 64468.
D. He was responsible for scrapping the P1s, which somebody with a better heart would’ve saved.
E. He Turned a batch of V2s into hideous pacifics.
And F. He had an ill temper.
Did you even watch the whole video?
@@astromotive6047 He clearly did not. Not my target audience - those with ears and mind closed will never learn.
@@Britishrailwaystories well said
@@Britishrailwaystoriessome trolls will continue to believe rumours after they’re debunked. I’ve seen it all too much. It’s unfortunately the way it is.