Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

No apology required Matey As I say I took your post to be a thoughtful suggestion. Anyway we (Society as a whole) need to be more aware of Autism which affects about 1.1% of the population. This means that there are around 700,00 Autistic people in the UK, the vast majority undiagnosed and perhaps unaware of their condition. The first I really knew of Autism was about 5 or 6 years ago and I was diagnosed as Autistic and ADHD last year, just in time for my 50th Birthday. In the meantime I've had 50 years of the 3 Rs - rejection, ridicule and being written off. Another reason I sympathise with Thompson.

Moving to the subject of shell shock this is now more generally known as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (it tends also to affect members of the emergency services who see some dreadful things too) - one of the key symptoms is intrusive flashbacks - not just a reaction to a sound but "re-experiencing" the original event as if it is actually happening right now. Re-creating the past in a very bad way. This undermines the individual's ability to be in full control of themselves and is corrosive to any form of self-esteem. The knock-on effects are fairly self-evident.

 

No not at all, it will probably be a wonderful piece of interesting writing. I am merely suggesting it will not be unbiased, as such a thing is impossible to summon up, because it is history. All history is a personal later interpretation of the perceived "facts". They are of course perceptions, as it is impossible to interview those involved at the time of the involvement.

 

Nice to see someone stand up for Robinson's Engines. I think most of the criticism of their appetite for coal came after they were imported to the GN to run the Kings Cross to Leeds services - the GN men were used to wider fireboxes on their Atlantics and Pacifics and of course the Engines were GC not GN so they were on a loser from the start. (I gather poor ashpan design was also a major factor though).

Anyway, I raise my hat to anyone with a good word to say about Robinson and his engines.

 

This really is a most interesting thread. Jim C's comment above is a salutary reminder that we should always regard information in context and be aware that there might be hidden contexts. just as we should always consider the design brief or at least the context of the times to understand engineering decisions

 

Most interesting - Cox makes no such condemnation when describing the production of the report when he wrote his Locomotive Panorama book in about 1964. He mentions the combination of wear at multiple joints leading to insufficient valve movement at low speed and excessive movement at high speed. He also mentions hot big ends and a lack of stiffness in the big end which appeared to contribute to the big end problems. He then says the report contained nothing that Thompson could not say himself (to his directors)

I've also seen the description of the report conclusion being that Stanier didn't condemn the conjugated gear, but just "that he wouldn't use it himself".

I too would like to see the whole report, though I don't see quite what source material the written report could be derived from - or do you mean appendices showing measurements and maybe photographs?

To describe something as "not fit for purpose", when it has been used successfully on some 500 +locos (I'm not going to add up the numbers of O2, K3,4, V1,2,3,4 A3, A4, locos, but it must be at least that), including a world recordholder, seems to be quite absurd. I would like to know in what context that statement was made. If it was made in the context of wartime load lugging without the ability to maintain it whatsoever, then perhaps, but then anything more complex than an outside 2 cyl loco could be thought of as unfit for purpose. As Fred Kerr relates above, and Peter Townend relates in Top Shed, the conjugated gear could get rough as anything but would still get home

 

Further to this, having checked I find this wording in LNER Steam, by O S Nock.

According to Nock, Thompson stated that the Directors could get an independent authority to examine the situation regarding the conjugated gear, and if he was wrong he would resign, but if he was right he insisted on being allowed to make big changes. The Directors finally agreed, but the question then became who? Thompson then approached Stanier who eventually agreed to make the investigation. I quote Nock;-

"Although Thompson confided many details of his early months to me he did not show me a copy of the report. I gathered that it was couched in rather non-committal term. Stanier did not condemn the three-cylinder conjugated valve gear as such, and went no further than to say that he would not use it himself.As Stanier had built many three-cylinder engines for the LMS, the latest of which were the highly successful 'Converted Royal Scots' this could be taken as a reflection on the Gresley arrangement, though really no more than a vaguely indirect one. but it was enough to secure for Thompson the necessary authority to discard it in all new designs on the LNER."

If the report is as damning as Mr Martin states, why did Thompson not explain the level of condemnation (which you would think vindicated him) - or why would O S nock lie about what he was told by Thompson.

 

OS Nock's piece rather looks like a slant to deliberately put all the onus on Thompson I am afraid. The about turn in the nature of the writing Nock has done on Thompson between 1942 up to his death is starting to shock me a little when I go back to my sources.

And yes, the report is particularly damning. I don't think Stanier would have signed off on a report if he wasn't satisified with its contents. I note that with the hint of criticism towards Gresley, Cox's reputation is now under intense scrutiny instead! Perhaps there is a cult of personality here after all...

 

I will post a response in full tonight with the quotations relevant to my earlier statement.

 

No disrespect here but you've obviously made up your mind about Thompson so I doubt the book will be that balanced. Nothing you've written here or on other forums leads me to believe that you're approaching this subject with much of an open mind. You mention that Cox's criticism of Gresley now brings criticism of Cox himself and hint that this is because of his "anti Gresley" stance but you're doing the same thing yourself regarding Nock and his post '42 "anti Thompson" stance. Given that all the protagonists in this matter are long dead, none of us have any first hand information and have to go with what has been written by others and make a judgement as to
who we prefer to believe.

 

Let's put it this way: for many years I had the complete opposite view about Thompson. I read specific LNER centric texts, we are all to some extent ingrained in the Gresley line of thinking as a result, those of us who study the LNER. My views have changed drastically over a long period of time and now I feel that there are certain things which have been twisted. So yes - perhaps my book is going to be in the opposite direction. However perhaps it is no longer about presenting facts on its own. Perhaps it IS about redressing the balance.

Ask yourself this - if you feel something is an injustice, and you feel strongly about it, wouldn't you want to present your findings to explain why you feel that way?

Why is it such a bad thing if I now present a view different to everyone else's? So it's perfectly acceptable to trash Thompson's reputation because it's the populist view, but suddenly someone does some research - thinks previous works are in themselves unbalanced - and now seeks to redress that - and that's a bad thing?

Its the inconsistency of approach that is the most maddening to me.

I would suggest you haven't done the research I've done for a start however - and if you read a number of books by Nock, you will see his writing becomes more and more slanted. I know, I have all of the quotations carefully written out at home. This report was the missing piece in the puzzle, frankly.

Is it so difficult to think that perhaps there is more to the whole story than simply that Thompson "wanted to rid the LNER of Gresley?"

 

As an interested bystander this thread has been enlightening in many ways as I knew little of Thompson to be honest before this.

Its also interesting that you raise the issue of a 'cult of personality' as one thing that has caught my eye is the relationship between two of the early protagonists in this historical situation and their later interpretation by many in historical texts.

The memories and reputations of both Gresley and Bulleid seem to be protected very vigorously by their supporters (which they are quite within their right to do) however what both seem to also attract is an almost paranoid response that they were both slighted or worse attempts were deliberately made to discredit them after their retirement by unnecessary rebuilding/destruction of their product (Gresley via Thompson and Bulleid via the rebuilds).

I am not sure what I am actually trying to say here, as I say its only an observation from an interested bystander (albeit one with a professional historian mind), however its very interesting that two engineers who emerged from the same works and worked closely together do seem to historically be viewed as almost victims of their successors vindictiveness?

 

Taking that statement in isolation, you could read it as anywhere along a spectrum from a nuanced "I've carefully studied all the engineering, financial and operational concerns and conclude on balance that it wouldn't work in our situation" to a categorical "I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole - but I don't want to embarrass an esteemed colleague by saying as much". Without other corroborating documentation, it is very difficult, at 70 years remove, to tell where on that spectrum Stanier was.

Tom

 

To answer my own question, if the report was as damning as to say the gear was "unfit for purpose" for general peactime use, I can't imagine ET would have been keen to let it get beyond his directors. To be honest I suspect a large portion of the railway press would have had a field day with it. As I pointed out above, for 500 successful locos including the world record holder to have valve gear unfit for purpose is simply absurd, and anyone who were to make such a statement would be ridiculed.

Also bear in mind he had stated that his position was "at the disposal" of the Directors if he was wrong, so anything less than a direct condemnation would have put his job at risk. To suggest that Cox might have written the report in the light of that knowledge, would be to suggest he was less than honest, but as suggested above, writing reports for a "client" who has an agenda can lead to unintended (or intended) bias. In that case for both ET and Cox to have played down the actual report when informing others (ET to Nock and Cox in his book) would be unsurprising.

No doubt you will now accuse me of bias against both ET and Cox, but I would then ask why would Nock have played down any information he was given if he was told of the report? he had no irons in the fire, he was a writer - or are you saying he would have played it down because of repect for Gresley? That seems hard to believe, he'd more likely have told the world of such a strange conclusion. Even if he were unable to do so then, he'd have made it plain later on in his writings. (but then of course he's biased against ET isn't he?)

 

Frankly I don't think Stanier would have signed off on the report if he didn't agree with it. He was acting as a consultant and was well within his rights not to support it. If he disagreed with any of Cox's writing he would surely have had it changed: it is his name on the document as signatory, after all.

I have the report in my bag at the moment and will re-read it again over lunchtime slowly, but I'm afraid what OS Nock says the report states, and what the report actually states, are two very different things indeed.

 

One of the problems that this situation creates is that being paralleled by the internet today - to simply read the written word is NOT to understand what is being said. To illustrate this I tell the old Jewish joke of the Tsar who created an edict against Russian Jews that he stated would only be reversed once he received an apology from them. The Tsar was advised that the Jews would not apologise hence his surprise when he received the requested letter of apology and his pleasure at showing it to those who said he would not receive such a letter. The Tsar was less pleased, however, when the letter was read in the Jewish vernacular as the wording - in that form - basically told the Tsar to get stuffed !

As noted above reports can be written in such a way as to meet hidden contexts and can be important as much for what they don't say as for what they do say; hence the caution when taking written works at face value.

I have also GOOGLED ES Cox which has brought up the following note :

http://www.steamindex.com/people/cox.htm

Born Glasgow 1900. Died Berkhamsted 14 September 1992. The final chapter of Chronicles of steam is autobiographical in terms of his earlier life: the other books give some details of the remainder. Marshall notes that he was educated at Merchant Taylors School, Crosby and was apprenticed under Hughes at Horwich Works. His books, sometimes criticised by Rutherford in Backtrack, remain one of the greatest insights into locomotive development on the LMS and (for steam) on British Railways. Only K.J. Cook and Holcroft offer comparable glimpses. Cox was highly critical of Fowler and Beames, yet was equally stubborn in his own views on three-cylinder design (of which he may have been an inept practitioner) and of things non-LMS. The page on E.L. Diamond probably tells us much about Cox, and is a warning for future historians. There is a danger that Cox's views may be reproduced unchallenged. Adrian Tester has given an extended critique of considerable importance..

On page 87 of Locomotive Panorma (Vol. 1) there is an interesting observation: "However, the old insularity was gradually dissolving and as part of the Royal Scot investigation I was sent, in November, on to the Southern Railway to ride the Lord Nelsons. It was now that I was able to meet Clayton and Holcroft who, sharing the same office at Waterloo, had so great an influence upon the trend of design on that region [sic]. Although these engines rode much better I am afraid that the expedition threw little light upon our own particular trouble." It was probably that Cox's own insularity was ending when he met people of the stature of Clayton, and possibly Holcroft who could be viewed as his equal, but had far greater experience. Thus future historians should take note of Cox's limitations, especially when he relates to the period outwith his own expertise. His remarks concerning Beames should be treated with caution. There is some evidence that he was careless in his citation of others: "E.W." Selby, for instance, rather than "F.W.". In this respect he is less reliable than Holcroft..

Perhaps the most damning evidence against the overall competence of Cox is that there appears to be no reference to Goss in any of his works (that is through examining the indexes to his books) and this may explain why boiler performance on some of the Stanier designs was far from satisfactory.

 

There does seem to be some questioning going on here about what the report says against how it was later interpreted by Nock etc.

Have I misinterpreted but doesn't SAC Martin have a copy of the report so there can be no doubt as to what it says, and that it was signed off by Stanier - are we not into a primary v. secondary source debate here?

 

A copy of the written conclusions of the report is in my bag. I am waiting on the background to the report, i.e. the data Thompson presented to Stanier and Cox, from which Cox was able to then examine locomotives in works and the records collected at works for locomotives with the conjugated valve gear. The written conclusions are very pointed in what they say.

I should also point out that Nock admits he never read the report in several of his books - so why is his view on it so important?

 

Because his view shows what information about the report was available at the time (unless he's simply lying of course?) He states he "gathered" that is was non committal in nature - so who told him? Since it seems to have been kept under wraps for so long, it suggests it was a private report eyes only for ET and the Directors, so likely ET told him - so why did ET not tell him the truth? Perhaps ET didn't want a furore about condemnation of Gresley gear, but why not? if he had the evidence? He could have used it a year or two later to justify his changes to the various locos he rebuilt. Perhaps even ET thought it was over the top......( No, mustn't go there Lplus, naughty!)

I really must tell Bittern that it has valve gear not fit for purpose - I can write it below the plaque commemorating the 90+mph runs of 2013

 

Please don't think I - me personally - am condemning the valve gear! I am not. I am simply asking if - on the basis of the report - Thompson was actually right and perhaps the criticism aimed at him with moving away from the conjugated valve gear is in some way unjustified?

I don't think Thompson was condemning it out either - why keep all of those Gresley locomotives with that valve gear type then? - but he was building for the future and the present.

Bittern is better looked after in preservation than she ever was in LNER days and particularly during the war and in immediate post war Britain - I don't think you can compare her now to how things were then in that way. The A4s have been wonderfully reliable in preservation for the most part, Bittern an exceptional performer through and through. They have had every advantage of the modern age, however.

 

Before the war the A4s were the premier LNER locos, they would have had attention lavished on them to keep them fit for the high speed trains. During WW2 and immediately after, not so much, true, but in the 50s and 60s, I feel sure the grease guns were plied as necessary to keep the valve gear from losing fit as once again the services demanded it. It wasn't even that difficult to change the bushes if needed, being right at the front....so yes I think I can compare preservation to normal usage during most of the loco's life.

ET had a right to change the type of valve drive if he wanted to, irrespective of his hatred or not of Gresley designs - I just feel the wartime problems of the Conjugated drive were blown up out of all proportion in order to get permission from the directors to design and build his own locos.