Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

And your reply is somewhat disengenuous. I'd agree you haven't condemned every source in the public domain, but almost all of them. I'm sure if someone quoted Peter Grafton, you wouldn't be accusing them of using a "tainted" source. Sadly that is still a huge number of sources you won't recognise, with no real evidence that they really are tainted except your say so.

Indeed - I don't blame you in the least. I'm not sure quite how that information would help anyway except in any assessment of Thompson's relationships with Gresley and his staff.

Unfortunately that still leaves you with a lot of information which will inform your deliberations but can't be shown as the reasons for your conclusions.

I'll return to this...

A consensus was mentioned by Big Al somewhere up thread. He felt that most people had reached one. I did point out that not everyone agreed. Do we need one? probably not. That said you have often asked for a "balanced debate" so I was assuming that you were expecting some sort of concensus to emerge

I wonder if those cards reflect the impact of failures/maintenance problems on the running of the trains, as opposed to the direct costs. Example - the failure of the inside eccentric caused the locos with them to fail on the road, whilst the 2 to 1 gear might get rough but didn't lead to failure on the road (Townend - Top shed). Whilst you might find repair/refurb costs to be greater for the 2 to 1 gear (especially if they were refurbished as a precaution), do you include the costs and disruption cause by a failure on the road in your analysis?

You mention an olive branch, with conditions. I'm assuming the conditions refer to the disclosure of information which you are not prepared to put in the public domain within your book. You can rest assured that I don't tell tales out of school, but I'm not sure what you would expect to acheive by such discussion. As far as I'm concerned, if it can't be said on here, where everyone else can see it, it is actually of no consequence, not even to the readers of your book. Perhaps you would be better offering some sort of olive branch to the two people who questioned you, particularly Tobbes, after all he is the one you accused of reading a few rubbish books.

I have a counter suggestion or two to try to defuse this subject:

1:- Stop bigging up Thompson's achievements and locomotives further than you can prove using ALL the available published data (for and against), whether you think it of dubious quality or not, until such time as you can prove without reasonable doubt that any particular information is invalid. (you are addressing that in your book aren't you?) And before you complain that you are entitled to express any opinion you wish, yes you are, but if someone disagrees, please have the courtesy to accept that their information is as valid as yours unless it is proven otherwise.

2: - Stop talking about a "balanced debate" unless you are prepared to accept the validity of ALL published data available until suchtime as you can prove without reasonable doubt that any particular information is invalid.

3: - Consider whether debate is the right word. Debate is generally rife with distortions such as hyperbole, reducto ad absurdum, straw men, using a detail to fight a generality and vice versa, etc etc. Very entertaining in a University debating chamber no doubt, but no one is going to vote on this, so the adversarial behaviour of debate does nothing for the balance of the final conclusions.

4:- Finally, and possibly most importantly, for heavens sake get your book published before anything else and get some reviews from professional railway writers. In the end it matters little what we think on NP, it's the general railway enthusiasts who you have to get interested if you want get this subject to a wider audience.

 

To be frank Lplus: you have in many ways made a few rather unfair comments the last few days. I have read your latest response, I am disappointed by your reply in the main, but I cannot say I am surprised by it given the aggressiveness and veracity of your posts towards me.

Regarding “validity of opinions” - that’s fine - but when I challenged you on your view and provided a direct photographic source showing otherwise, you dismissed it as “one swallow does not make a summer”.

So even if I were to furnish you with every positivity I could possibly collect, I rather suspect you would dismiss them outright. That has been the case in a number of situations.

The Cox report earlier in this thread was a case in point: your interpretations seemed astoundingly at odds to what had been written. Nevertheless you continued to criticise me for taking a different line there. No matter.

On the subject of sources: I do not (and have not - but you continue to insist this on my behalf!) simply dismiss sources: but I do ask to what extent they are a fair and valid representation of what happened and whether the full historical context has been taken into account.

Example: OS Nock declaring in British Pacific Locomotives that GN was rebuilt “so as to make its designer turn in his grave”. We know now from several sources who were close to the rebuild that the choice of engine wasn’t Thompson’s, the engineering was correct in theory but ultimately not perfect (the later A1 proving better) - would you still say that comment was a fair and balanced view of Thompson’s Work?

Lastly I would ask - as you have asked me in kind - what you think my perception of your behaviour and your words to me is?

 

Blimey .... this is getting reminiscent of trying to nail down a warped floorboard! Could you imagine an extra zero (or two) tacked onto this thread's page count had Mr Thompson also initiated a significant change of peacetime livery?

My long-standing interest in archaeology has taught me that the most hard baked of the received wisdom of centuries can be overturned when someone successfully questions the veracity of any 'founding myth', or better yet ... provides hard evidence to confute it. Closer to home, consider that quite a bit of JICBoyd's published output was considered, by practically everyone, to be gospel not so very long ago. Today, of course, we know better ...... perhaps.

Although human interaction is a damned sight more subjective than pure science, the 'Scientific Method' applied to all published scientific work requires it to be subject to peer review, scrutinised and tested, then confirmed or rejected according to how well it stacks up. Debunking long held beliefs on personalities is no different, though far after the event, the best which can usually be hoped for is a better balance of probability, supported by verifiable documentary evidence.

There's a concept in the academic world which glories in the title "The Half-Life of Facts". In the case of the reputation of Mr Thompson (though equally true of just about every historical figure), bias and entrenched views of those now regarded as 'primary sources' were evidently as prevalent during his life as now. Ferreting out the likely truth is the task of the historian and in the case of Edward Thompson, I'd suggest the work done by our very own @S.A.C. Martin (for which, thanks Simon) has certainly dispelled a few myths, re-ignited discussion on the post-Gresley LNER and produced a thread which has given us all hours of (sometimes even educational) entertainment.

When trying to correct historic imbalance, yer actual researcher might comfort themself with this thought .... consider that millenia after Aristarchus of Samos, we still have the anti-evidence brigade who'd place us back at the centre of their depressingly limited homocentric view of the universe.

The thing I find endlessly fascinating is the process by which nebulous, often initially partially informed, opinions congeal into identifiable viewpoints, each attracting it's own adherents as any debate proceeds. This is so all-pervasive in us modified chimps that it has to be as hard wired into our primate brains as pattern recognition. For the sake of sanity (yours ..... mine gave up the ghost years ago!), I'll curtail that line of thought right now!

 

"Aristarchus of Samos" I had to look that one up

 

That's my constant internal thread drift in action. We bang on about 'linear scrap yards' on here, but I've got a 'cranial scrapyard'. Putting my memory into workshop terms, I don't know whether my loose bolts are metric or Whitworth ..... coz I think the label says B.A!

 

I'm no more aggressive to you than you have been to me and the others who disagree with you. Also I suspect you are calling me a liar, to which I take great exception.

And you conveniently ignore the fact that I also provided a reference from a different book edited by P Townend which also praised the "swallow" but was pretty damning about the class as a whole. So I think that was a fair comment. Do you even have the book I refererenced?

I explained my point of view several times, even having my explanation endorsed at the time - see post 712 above and subsequent. Hardly astoundingly at odds. Not as you see it, but as you have often pointed out having a differing opinion is hardly a crime. So have you got any other examples of me dismissing your evidence without counter evidence or logical explanation?

Given that Nock may well not have been close to the action in the works at the time, it may well have been a fair and balanced view of Thompson's intentions as he saw them or had them reported to him. You simply do not know. It certainly can't be taken as a guide to his reporting of the abilities of the locos, or even the Cox report, which he reported according to what he was told by Thompson. You cannot accuse those in the past of bias or lies unless you know for certain that they knew otherwise. Hence my request that you prove bias or lies, not just assume it because the conclusions stated don't fit with your views, or even with evidence you have subsequently found. If that is the way you have written your book you are in for a severe drubbing - once it gets published

I don't actually recall asking you any such thing, but in any case you seem quite capapable of telling me what your perception of me is - Aggressive, prejudiced, reactionary and liar probably covers it. But as you said in post 1830, you don't care what people think of you, and I am of the same mind.

If you're disappointed in me, think how disappointed I am with you. Still, you have form, so I really have no idea why I thought you might actually listen this time and start acknowledging the existence of ALL the information intead of just that information you like. You're writing what is supposed to be a factual historical reference, not a eulogy, so all the opinions should be included, even if you then show there is real evidence to disprove some of it. Or have I got it wrong, is your book one side of the story, and everyone else has to write the other side?

In the end, it makes little difference what you prove about Edward Thompson and his relationship with Gresley, or his intentions re GN, or any of the other things you are hoping to challenge. One thing won't change and that is the historical record of the locomotives of the LNER. The B1s will still continue in their ubiquitous activities on the humdrum work of a mixed traffic loco, the L1s will still suffer from the high speeds of the outer suburban workings, the V2s will still continue as the mainstay of the fast freight services, the A1s will still be the economical express load luggers they always were and the Gresley pacifics will still soldier on until their renaissance and glorious finale in the last years of steam on the ECML (despite that pesky valve gear that actually doesnt seem to have been a much of a problem at all to those who had to use it....) There won't suddenly be a fleet of A1/1 locos sweeping the Gresley pacifics aside and rendering the activities of Peppercorn unnecessary, there won't be a flood of A2/3 locos sweeping the V2s off to pick up freights or the scrapyard. Those two classes and their progenitors will remain a small series of locomotives firmly in the second rank of the LNER pacific stud. And why is that? Not because of favouritism, croneyism, Gresleyism, or any other ism you care to think up, simply because the authorities of the LNER in the mid/late 40s saw them for what they were, inferior designs.

Have a nice day.

PS you can add "sarcastic" to my other attributes.

edited to get the quotes right.

 

Some thoughts from a neutral, who has some historical training:

Indeed, if your are presenting arguments in a debate, you should seek to provide factual evidence to support your contentions if you wish your argument to be accepted.

Absolutely, primary source data should be considered, even if certain information may then be promoted/demoted for it's value.

This is a debate, and historians would treat it as such.

Indeed - the evidence needs to be seen out there in its best light.

 

I think other posters can make up their own minds: one account whose name is public, is happy to direct others to his sources, provides bibliography on request, copies of reports too, gives photographic evidence where applicable - or an anonymous account who will call someone else a "liar" without merit or evidence.

If you would like to make a retraction, I will happily accept one and we can consider the matter closed.

However if you persist, I will exercise my right to report back to the moderators of this site. In any event, I will not be responding to you further at this time.

 

Entrenched views are indeed unhelpful. I suspect that "confirmation bias" will cause some of the contributors to this thread either to refuse to read the book at all or to reject much of its content as supposedly reflecting bias on the part of the author. Some of us, on the other hand, at least try to keep open minds.

I do think it is a great shame that some of the evidence about Thompson has been given to Simon only on the strict understanding that he publishes it either unattributed or (as he is choosing) not at all. And all, apparently, because the providers of that evidence expect to suffer if it is published with their names. That amounts to censorship by those who believe that Thompson was a bad lot. Not only do they not wish to see any evidence to the contrary but they would (so it is alleged) take punitive action against anyone who offers such evidence. Not nice!

 

I think you may overstate the position. There’s the small matter of moral pressure, where people are reluctant to upset the applecart because they fear the consequences if they do. Those fears are often poorly grounded, though none the less real for all that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Edward Thompson - someone I'm in two minds about.

There can be no doubt that his involvement in rejuvenating the former GE B12 4-6-0s and the D16 (Claud Hamilton) 4-6-0s certainly brought them up to date cylinders and valve gear-wise, even if the new wine cylinders were perhaps a bit too much for the old bottle frames of the D16s.

That said, some aspects of him I find rather strange. What, for example was achieved by the extensive rebuilding of the former GC B3 4-6-0 6166 (later 1497) to something of a B1 look-a-like that was so prone to frame cracking that it was scrapped in 1949?

Whether he suffered from some mental aberrations or egotism I don't know, so why did he have a number of existing loco classes changed up to higher numbers to leave the low-digit 1s and 2s free for his new engine classes? To me, I am afraid, he must remain something of an enigma.

 

This aspect must be by far and away the most baffling thing as far as I'm concerned (for the LNER as a whole, not just Thompson), trying to trace the lineage of ECML pacifics when each designer had to have his big engine called an "A1" is very confusing!

 

Do we know that was actually him? Would seem a pretty low-level issue for a busy CME to get involved in - and by inference, of all the things you could criticise a CME for, numbering policy seems pretty marginal.

I don't know the ins and outs of LNER numbering policy, but conceivably could it have been an accountancy decision, i.e. based around a continuity of loco IDs in the capital stock list even as the underlying physical locos changed? After all, loco No. 1 was the principal ECML express loco right back to Stirling days. I wonder if there is any relationship between works order number, budget (capital, renewal or revenue) and number carried?

Tom

 

Mr Bulleid did some strange numbering going south or was it an accountant?

 

This is about classification rather than numbering, though; and I don't think it was an accountancy decision because Gresley never renumbered classes or reused old classifications, whereas Thompson did. The initial classification series was left with a few gaps to allow for new Gresley designs to be grouped with the ex-GNR classes, but when there wasn't a gap Gresley was quite happy to slot in new classes at the end rather than redesignating old ones - B17, for example. Mind you, the Pacifics would always have been a bit inconsistent anyway, because at the start of the system only two spare class designations were left for tender Pacific classes, and of course both had been used by the mid-30s (although A2 had been freed up by the time Thompson wanted to use it). I've never really understood why a bigger gap wasn't left - why the A5 class weren't given A10 and so on.

Thompson originally wanted, for at least some of his standardised classes, to just use the letter as the class designator. The Thompson B1 class was originally just Class B, and his experimental rebuilt D49 was Class D. In total there were at least 5 classes he moved to free up low numbers: A1, B1, B2, L1 and O1.

 

Ah, apologies, I’d misunderstood @eightpot’s point.

Tom

 

On the loco numbering point, in the 1943 scheme, the A4s were originally to have been 580-613, but a decision was made to promote four "directors" to 1-4 and then when the scheme was implemented in 1946, they were all brought into this series.

 

Odd, the way we can choose to perceive people we've never met in the flesh. When considering reputations, recall that IKB had his share of 'interesting' notions and from all accounts, Stanier certainly didn't place diplomacy over clarity (neither did David Curwen, though many SG types and the irritatingly young mightn't find his name as familiar).

 

A few people have messaged me, asking a few questions regarding research.

The above photographs illustrate something of a point.

There are biographies.

There are loco centric books.

There are LNER books.

There are magazine articles.

There are full histories of locomotive design.

There are contemporary documents including reports from the LNER, the railway press and even a few letters.

There are different versions of the same books, edited over decades.

Some writers appear more frequently, others less so.

Out of sight (on a hard drive) are scanned documents from the NRM. Photographs of documents. Engine cards. Email and letter correspondence. LNER board meeting notes.

The point I’m trying to make, in a roundabout way, is that all of these sources are part of a huge jigsaw puzzle. Every piece of the puzzle has two sides to it. The positive and negative slants on Thompson’s story.

That’s why my recent talk on Edward Thompson was titled “both sides of the story”.

I’m not oblivious to the negatives. I believed them blindly as a child and a teen. I looked beyond the assumed truth and feel there is more to understand.

I am not asking for a wholesale revision of the accepted views. All I am asking for is context. Reasonable understanding that Edward Thompson was an engineer of more than just locomotives and that he did his job in the middle of World War Two.

Ultimately whether you feel convinced by my assertions will be up to the book. I accept that fully. But many people seem to believe writing “just happens”. It doesn’t. It all takes time.

Here is my olive branch to anyone who wants it. I’m at your service. PM me. Challenge me. If you’d like to speak over the phone, or over a drink. Please, feel free to.

Life is too damn short - as I am acutely aware, given several of my best sources and contacts in writing this book have passed away in the last year - for railway enthusiasts to argue.

Maybe I’ve been too much of an angry young man at times. I can accept that. Maybe I am still an angry young man.

But don’t ignore that there is more to the story of Edward Thompson than the idea he was an embittered old man trying to destroy his old boss’ legacy. It’s far more interesting and complicated than that.

***

Two quick notes. I previously attributed British Pacific Locomotives to OS Nock. That should have been Cecil J. Allen.

Secondly, regarding the B3/3: Thompson was severely restricted by war office and LNER board by what he could do. The B3 in question was rebuilt to provide a direct contrast to the B1 (6ft 9in wheels to 6ft 2in wheels).

JF Harrison - one of Thompson’s greatest critics - described this engine as a “beauty” in a letter to Peter Grafton. The engine proved perfectly capable - was broken up in 1949 and the B1 type components put back into the spares pool when the GCR frames went beyond repair.