What was Edward Thompson's Problem?

[hholdenaz]

Yes, I know he only rebuilt the P2s into A2/2s and Great Northern into an A1/1 and four V2s into an A2/1 to get rid of the middle cylinder, and while I don't have a problem with the A1/1 and A2/1, (Loud voice) WHY DID HE HAVE TO CHANGE THE WHEEL ARRANGEMENT OF THE P2S!!!??? SERIOUSLY, HE COULD'VE JUST REMOVED THE THIRD CYLINDER!!! There was no reason to change the wheel arrangement of the P2s. (Rant mode) HE RUINED THE WHOLE P2 CLASS JUST BY DOING SO!!! WHY DID HE!!??

(Taking deep breaths)

Sorry about that. I just don't understand why he couldn't remove the third cylinder on the P2s. There was no need to rebuild them 100%. I mean, couldn't he have just removed the third cylinder? That would be just as effective. Plus, it wouldn't have ruined the P2s. Why? Well, it's because they were designed to be powerful and had excellent performances in their original form. They were strong enough to deal with freight trains already before the rebuilding. I didn't have a complaint about it until today when it got into my mind. Well, please tell me what you think.

 

[Euphod]

What's your point? His designs were neither successful nor celebrated and his contributions were ignored by his successors. I'd pretty much classify him as a failure.

 

[hholdenaz]

What's your point? His designs were neither successful nor celebrated and his contributions were ignored by his successors. I'd pretty much classify him as a failure.

Well, the point is, he could've simply remove the middle cylinder on his rebuilds instead of rebuilding them 100%. But NO! He had to rebuild them. Why didn't he just remove the middle cylinder? It would've been better than rebuilding the whole entire class.

 

[clam1952]

Why? Google says. http://www.lner.info/locos/A/a2_2.shtml

These locomotives were built for the line between Edinburgh and Aberdeen, but the wheelbase was found to be too long for the continuous curves of this line. Also, the swing-link pony truck was causing damage by adding unnecessary stress to the frames. A similar pony truck arrangement on the V2's s would eventually by fixed, but Thompson decided to approach the problem on the P2's with a complete rebuild.

Bit more here, with the possibilty of a new P2 being built by the Tornado bunch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNER_Class_P2

 

[hholdenaz]

Why? Google says. http://www.lner.info/locos/A/a2_2.shtml



Bit more here, with the possibilty of a new P2 being built by the Tornado bunch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNER_Class_P2

Well, unfortunately, the rebuild does not yet count because the A1 Trust may not be able to make it. Also, why didn't they just do the same thing that was done with the V2?

 

[paulhobbs]

Never mind Edward Thompson's problem, what's yours? Why don't you check your facts before posting? Thompson didn't remove the middle cylinders on the Pacifics and the P2s he added a third set of valve gear for the middle cylinder. As for why a bit of research would tell you that as well.

Paul

 

[amigacooke]

His designs were neither successful nor celebrated

The Thompson B1 was successful (though certainly not perfect) and is celebrated.

 

[Paulsw2]

By some strange act of synchronicity, I've just reached the chapter dealing with Thompson as CME of the LNER in O S Nock's seminal three volume work, British Locomotives of the 20th Century. Apparently, at Thompson's interview for the CME position, the LNER Chairman, Sir Ronald Matthews,

...underlining the very difficult conditions in which they were working in wartime, said he felt sure the CME would appreciate there as no need to spend time designing new locomotives. Gresley had left them the finest stud in the country, and they would carry on. And then Thompson astounded him by replying, "My appointment is at your disposal Chairman..." and he went on to explain by how much he disagreed and how necessary it was for changes to be initiated and entirely new standards set up. He told Sir Ronald that while Sir Nigel Gresley was, " the greatest engine designer we ever had, he made one mistake...." and he enlarged upon the shortcomings of the conjugated valve gear.

At Thompson's suggestion, an enquiry into Gresley's valve gear was led by Sir William Stanier, who sent his deputy, E S Cox over to Doncaster to investigate:

The report without actually condemning the conjugated valve gear went to the stage of saying that he would not use it himself; and that apparently was good enough for Thompson to begin his depredations.

So Thompson was concerned with "uniformity of valve events, which he always emphasised could not be done with the Gresley 3-cylinder layout" and this shaped his view about re-modelling the P2s which Nock describes as "unbelievably harsh" and "the most horrible mutilation".

Paul