Those Great Locomotives - Thompson A1/1

[@sirmatsdubois2509]

Be honest my opinion of Thompson has always been that he was better in designing his own engines rather than rebuilding engines from other designers. but it is not his fault that not all of his designs were winners. in the end we can only be happy for what we got. plus I think we can all agree that his b1's are some of the best of the l n e r.

[@exarkun42]

For those of you that have an interest in looking into Thompson, I highly recommend the book "Thompson, his Life and Locomotives" by Tim Hiller-Graves. I have learned so much about Thompson as a person and the effect that his designed had in the field overall that I can't hate him. For instance, the Peppercorn A1 is just an A2/3 with a shortened drive piston from the center cylinder, allowing for the compacting of the frame. When I saw this, I was so mind blown that I checked other sources that I had to hand and confirmed it. And excellent video, glad to see you persevered with this project. Well worth it. :)

[@mr.meloetta1939]

Ever since I learned about it, I've honestly grown to love the Thompson A1/1 more than normal Gresley A1s. I just like things like the longer boiler, the more imposing size, the larger smoke box, stuff like that. Also, as an A1/1, Great Northern appearantly had a midnight blue livery which I imagine just looked beautiful. Love to see this guy get more attention.

[@FlyingScott]

The boiler wasn't much, if at all, longer than a Gresley A3. From the outer cylinders onward it is the same length.

[@Britishrailwaystories]

No apologies necessary, my apologies for not watching this earlier. Lovely stuff.

[@gresleyng-thebritishrailwayfan]

Hi, Mr. Martin, There is an article called "Thompson Revisted" from PressReader. Does the article present true evidence about Thompson?

[@Britishrailwaystories]

@@gresleyng-thebritishrailwayfan given it is heavily based on my research, yes, but I was unhappy with the final version of the article. It doesn’t make it entirely clear how much of the article was based on my work. C’est la vie!

[@gresleyng-thebritishrailwayfan]

@@Britishrailwaystories thank you for your reply.

[@steel5543]

It really feels like the Railway Mania episode was the first time anyone tried to discuss Thompson and his machines in a more positive light, its so weird to me that people were dismissive of the idea for decades. Simon A.C. Martin deserves major praise for how in depth he went with his research

[@Britishrailwaystories]

That’s very kind, thank you.

[@Lamp_2155]

I am obsessed with this thing One way or another I *will* have this in oo gauge. Definitely the most beautiful of Thompson’s rebuilds

[@102TheMaster]

That was something I had always never understood since I noticed it, people will poopoo the Thompson front end but when Stannier does it nobody really complains lmao

[@ex48bw]

That distant "Boooo!!" at 5:52 made me chuckle! This was a really well put-together video, thank you! Mr Thompson's work is getting a decent reappraisal at last, which is a good thing I think. P.S. Anyone who takes time to think about whether to use 'less' or 'fewer' can't have done that badly at English, after all!

[@ThatScottishAtlantic57]

While I still think the Gresley A3 are fine locomotives. The A1/1 has a charm of it's own & needs more love. Great episode as always 👍

[@HyperCat72]

I'm blocking you

[@CXR-gk4lw]

@@HyperCat72 boo hoo

[@HyperCat72]

@@CXR-gk4lw we're friends, and I've started to respect some Thompson pacifics since I posted that comment lol

[@CXR-gk4lw]

@@HyperCat72 my bad sorry about that man

[@HyperCat72]

@@CXR-gk4lw it's ok, me from about a year ago doesn't come off as very nice, do I

[@FlyingScott]

This video requires the context of the TGL episode covering the Thompson A2/3s for the optimal experience: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jZWpiZJ4r8uSa68 Once again my apologies to Simon of the A.C. Martin variety for the plagiarism. Also also, if this video seems a bit sparse where the visuals are concerned, I am afraid that is because there are very few photographs of Thompson's A1(/1) online where the source was easily traceable. It is what it is. *I should also stress that the outer cylinders were not placed back in the frame - From the cylinders onwards, 60113 is the same length as a Gresley A3.

[@Lamp_2155]

A streamlined Thompson Pacific would be interesting. I don’t think he’d of cared about such a thing but it’d cover up the appearance which is one of the main criticism of his Pacifics

[@confusedshovel1232]

well there was an artist rendition of a semi-streamlined a2/3, being of lner 500 edward thompson, which does cover up the cylinders

[@darkgreenambulance]

Very naughty!! It has been established that he did no such thing. His rise to C.M.O. came at a very traumatic time for him. Wars were raging, locomotives were being stretched to the limit, (goodness knows what would have happened without steam), and a very large portion of the work force was away fighting. He even had to send out a memo asking the heads of various loco works, if they could possibly not withdraw engines unless the maintenance was absolutely vital. "I have so much to do", he once exclaimed, "and so little time to do it". The three cylinder derived gear which you may be partly referring to, was recognised by him as working well BUT --ONLY WHEN PROPERLY MAINTAINED. This was a problem when maintenance schedules were very sparse. I will stop here as many others will have further knowledge. Thomson was on very good terms with N.G.

[@modelrailfan37]

I definitely prefer the Gresley A1 over the Thompson A1/1 (my opinions are the same for the P2 and V2 designs), but I don’t dislike Thompson’s Pacifics. They look quite a lot like the LMS pacifics (which I like quite a lot), and I really don’t see why so many people think their ugly. The thing I can’t look over with Great Northern however, is that had Thompson not rebuilt the locomotive, it would have most likely been preserved as a part of the national collection, similar to how the NRM often used the first member of a class to keep in the museum. Seeing as Flying Scotsman was also so popular, and was preserved by a group of fans, it most likely would have still been preserved as well, and then we would have had two A1/A3’s preserved. But that is just speculation, and all in all my main point was I don’t hate any of Thompson’s pacifics, I just wish we hadn’t lost classes of locomotives such as the P2 because of them, and I’m quite glad he didn’t touch the A4’s.

[@FlyingScott]

I think people give the NRM too much credit when talking about preserving locos. Scotsman wasn't on their published list. Nor was Papyrus. Nor was Silver Link, if you want to use the "first member" argument. But Channel Packet, Morden/Brighton Works, Coronation, all passed up in favour of other members of their class. The NRM has not always been this compassionate organisation that people today often ascribe it to be.

[@modelrailfan37]

@@FlyingScott true, didn't really think of that, and your probably right. In the end Great Northern needed repairs anyways.

[@TallboyDave]

@@modelrailfan37 From my understanding, the Preserved Engines List of 1959 that people refer to in this situation stipulated that only one of a particular wheel arrangement by a given designer would be chosen; and since "Mallard" had already been given the nod, since she was and is the world speed record holder, that meant all the other Gresley Pacifics were straight out of luck. Though it is rather noticable that a pair of Collett 4-6-0's are part of the National Collection- Those being "Caerphilly Castle" and "King George V"; I guess Swindon gonna Swindon.

[@modelrailfan37]

@@TallboyDave huh I’ve never heard of that list. Thanks for the info!

[@MachRacer4]

I thought the elongated front end on Thompsons A1/1 class Pacific was because he used a divided drive in which the middle cylinder powered the front driving axle instead of the middle driving axle, while Peppercorn’s A1 and A2 classes went back to having all three cylinders powering the middle driving axle despite having the same triple Walschaerts valve gear setup as Thompsons Pacific’s.

[@FlyingScott]

Combination of the two really, Thompson wanted to keep the connecting rods and valve rods of equal length, which results in the elongated look exacerbated by the divided drive.

[@AdiPullen]

Hi mate I hope you are well Yes they some interesting opinion on Thompson Great informative video. I love someone to do an a2/1 Keep safe ARP

[@OddHunter5504]

I am ashamed to say i was one of those Thompson Haters until i did further research on the rebuild However I will just say that my Preference is the A10 Version Of Great Northern

[@Britishrailwaystories]

Great central regulator - sorry should have picked up on this. This was because you had classes O4 and J11 that also used these. The intention was to try and standardise the cab fittings across the whole fleet. That didn’t happen because to be brutal, the Gresley pull out double seated one was better.

[@FlyingScott]

Nae worries, always appreciate being corrected or indeed informed. Thanks for the info!

[@McAttack21574]

I'm pretty sure if Thompson had his way, he'd have built a completely new engine instead of rebuilding Great Northern, as with properly developing a standardisation program too.

[@Shark30006]

4470 Great Northern was rebuilt to a Thompson Class A1/1 in 1945.

[@caledonianrailway1233]

One lner standard design that was proposed by peppercorn was supposedly based on a trip to the USA to see how diesel power worked compared to steam they were apparently impressed by a 4-8-4 design and there was plans to make their own version but then nationalisation happened

[@the_steam_locomotive_chick]

Superb video

[@wizlish]

Tell me more about these "8 foot 6 inch" Thompson Pacifics you mention. Those would have made the BR 05s look like veritable cabbage-cutters in comparison! How did they fit them into the British loading gage? /s ;-}

[@MonsieurFluffyPants]

Technically it's "Fewer pounds of coal" or "less coal", but it's very common for English speakers to use "less" for countable nouns if considering them in generally uncountable groups "less than a thousand miles to go!"

[@FlyingScott]

So basically if I hadn't given it a second thought all would have been well regardless :\

[@MonsieurFluffyPants]

@@FlyingScott haha yep 😆

[@Sigil_Firebrand]

I personally think Thompson gets a far worse reputation then he deserves, but I will also say I personally dislike the appearance of the Thompson pacifics. Almost entirely due to the outside cylinders location combined with the overall side profile, just makes it feel off to me, unbalanced almost. Still a great video as always!

[@hywelroberts1653]

I agree I don't care even if Great Northern burned less coal and used less water that still didnt help with the other things that Thompson had torchered her with. That's why I keep saying she should have become an A3 instead

[@FlyingScott]

@hywelroberts1653 How can you look at all the things Thompson and his team did to their A1 design, see the improvements and stats, yet still think Thompson somehow did a disservice to a newbuilt locomotive given the Great Northern name and number for accounting reasons?

[@hywelroberts1653]

@@FlyingScott I’m really sorry Scott it’s just that I really don’t like Thompson Locomotives especially his pacifics, that’s why I try to avoid them as best as possible. Yes I understand that she was rebuilt because of her poor condition but even then like you said she still wasn’t perfect. My reason for suggesting to have her rebuilt into an A3 instead was because maybe then she could have reached her true potential after the war

[@CXR-gk4lw]

@@hywelroberts1653 isnt the reason why great northern wasnt perfect because it was rebuilt as a prototype?????? another good example is the w1. wasnt perfect, was rebuilt with an a4 cladded body and boiler, wasnt perfect after that either

[@CXR-gk4lw]

also as a side note since great northern was in poor condition during the war, if she wasn’t rebuilt anyway, the lner would’ve eventually just scrapped her for being the weakest remember this was during the time when the lner was the most broke it had ever been

[@zhegermanflo4341]

While not my cup of coffee visualy , just don't like the way he positioned the cylinders kinda throws the looks out of whack but the A1/1 rebuilt clearly saved Great Northern a bit longer. Alas it wasn't enough for preservation.

[@JohnDavenport-ck9nk]

I’ve honestly got a soft spot for the Thompson Pacifics. Also, what is an A10? I’ve never heard of that class

[@confusedshovel1232]

unrebuilt gresley a1s basically

[@robertwilloughby8050]

Yep. Confused Shovel is quite right. Although I would add that the A10's were the A1's with the slightly bigger cylinders rather than the smaller ones in most, but not all, cases.

[@JohnDavenport-ck9nk]

@@robertwilloughby8050 izs that to say some of the A1's were fitted with the Knorr piston valves but not the new boiler?

[@robertwilloughby8050]

@@JohnDavenport-ck9nk Yes. It was like an intermediate stage before full conversion to A3. But note that I said that most, but not all A10's were like that.

[@ЛЬВИНИ]

Nice video. Super.

[@TheSudrianTerrier653]

the Main reason The A1/1 is hated is because of the Specific A1 that was rebuilt, if another had been Rebuilt , and Great Northern had instead Been turned into an A3, everyone would be happy But it could of been worse, for example if Scotsman was in the works at the time

[@stephendavies6949]

Can't argue with your opening statement on the received wisdom on "facts" that surround the decisions Thompson made relating to Gresley's locos are anything but. However, my personal, subjective view is that Thompson's pacifics were not aesthetically pleasing. Like Wilf McGuinnes who succeeded Sir Matt Busby, and all those who have followed Sir Alex Ferguson, Thompson found himself in an impossible situation. Not only was he replacing a true legend, but there was a war on, so he had to make do & mend with whatever he could lay his hands on in order to help both the country and the LNER survive.

[@gresleyng-thebritishrailwayfan]

Hi Flying Scot, I'm sorry if I rushed you by asking this question: do you know what the Thompson Pacifics' max speed is? I just wanted to know more about them.

[@neilsonthegreat]

Wait so the A1/1 was in some aspects better than the A4 on trains in Scotland

[@spankflaps1365]

One of the Scottish depots sent their Thompson pacifics back to Doncaster, mainly due to poor steaming. I don’t think they ever went back into traffic, they were so bad. But on the other hand, Gateshead depot had a fleet of poor steaming A3’s and A4’s. Sometimes all the rotten eggs go in one basket.

[@neilsonthegreat]

@@spankflaps1365 so which depot did send away they're Thompson Pacific's

[@FlyingScott]

@spankflaps1365 Which itself is odd because the Thompson locos were praised for their free-steaming nature, and Scottish locos tended to perform better than English ones due to the higher quality of the water. Rotten eggs indeed!

[@gamerfan8445]

5:47 I think it’s unfair to use the king as an example, because they have four cylinders.

[@FlyingScott]

Kings used divided drive like Thompson, the only thing that would set them apart mechanically in that area is that the King has a total of one (1) extra cylinder placed neatly besides the other inside cylinder. They used the same setup as a Thompson loco where the positions of the cylinders and connecting rods are concerned.

[@gamerfan8445]

@@FlyingScott fair enough point.

[@bradleythomasburdentrainta366]

If I'm being brutally honest, I think the reason why Thompson’s Pacifics are so dusliked is because of men being unable to control their emotions.

[@themanformerlyknownascomme777]

Huh, I guess that the A1/1 is much like the PRR T1 and S1; an undeserved reputation for slipping.

[@FlyingScott]

Oh no it did slip a lot, due to weight distribution. Thing is all Pacifics slip, it's the nature of the large wheels. Besides, it had a higher adhesion rate than the Bulleid Pacifics!

[@themanformerlyknownascomme777]

@@FlyingScott all engines slip at somepoint, some just do it more than others. However, these British engines and the T1/S1s have an ironic conncection: the A1 was based on the the PRR's K4 class. In the US, the trains got much longer and heavier much faster than they did in the UK (I've heard that America's early adoption of air brakes for all freight cars is somewhat to blame) so in the United states the K4 became underpowered very rapidly, and the PRR's K5s failed, and when the T1s and S1s showed up, the engineers were so used to the K4's being underpowered they were not ready for the S1/T1's superpowered performance and would often give the engines too much power causing the slips, this was driver endused error that was actually quickly rectified, but the reputation stuck. I'd be curious to see a slip comparison between the various pacifics.

[@Farmer5567]

Isn't that the class that gordon is based on?

[@ChrisMemphisBoy]

Yes

[@russellgxy2905]

Not enough words for how much I appreciate your acknowledgment of Scotsman not being the first authenticated at 100 mph

[@FlyingScott]

Nowhere did I say that, I said Scotsman was not the fastest A3, that respective title going to no.2750 'Papyrus'.

[@A.i.r_K]

while Thompsons reason for rebuilding the A1 is logical, due to WWII occuring, and the Great Northern being rebuilt was only misfortunate, i still cant look past the result of the rebuild. its just not a Gresley design. and if i could be honest, Thompson designs just werent as elegant as Gresley's big engines or the Peppercorns. edit: also, how did the A1/1 stack up against A1 and A3?

[@gamerfan8445]

I think scot said on the P2 video that they preformed good, but crews prefer using the A3,A4, and V2 over them.

[@FlyingScott]

@arry5432 It is not a Gresley design, because it isn't. The A1 'Great Northern' and the A10 'Great Northern' are two completely separate locomotives sharing a name and number purely for accounting purposes. The Gresley loco was life-expired.

[@FlyingScott]

@gamerfan8445 You're thinking of the A2/2s. The A1(/1) was described as being "easier to work with than [an A10] and more economical than most of the A4s."

[@andrewganley9016]

Blotted his copy book by destroying the superb P2s and the pioneer Gresley Pacific 'Great Northern' which should have been preserved

[@FlyingScott]

A right shame Arthur Peppercorn himself wanted to set the record straight, and found out a Thompson A2 could do all the work a P2 could do, 14 bogies with ease, with not even a V2 besting it. P2s were very poor locos only slightly saved by their looks.

[@spdaylight1]

I think its still kind of nonsense that they used anything off the engine if it was JWF. why not dump it in a siding and keep the original locomotive if you are going build a whole new engine anyway.

[@FlyingScott]

Using an old accounting trick known as "lying", by stating X locomotive is a rebuild rather than a new build, companies could count said faux rebuild as a revenue investment, rather than taken from capital. Fowler and Anderson did the same with "their" Patriot Class, yet nobody bats an eye. To tackle the point of "why not just dump it?", indeed, why did a war-torn railway on its knees not keep a prime express passenger locomotive due to go in for routine maintenance aside just for it to never receive that maintenance? Seems so obvious when you put it like that... Valuable metal remains valuable metal, especially when they're using most of it to either build tanks, aeroplanes and automobiles, or pumping it in some poor German chap through the barrel of a rifle.

[@LNERA3PRODUCTIONS]

I still think they are ugly

[@FlyingScott]

Excellent argument, however; your mother.

[@LNERA3PRODUCTIONS]

@@FlyingScott 😂

[@A.i.r_K]

hideous is a bit extreme, but it thompons design are definitely lackluster/inferior to Gresley designs aesthetically, and somewhat worse in performance