Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

How is the book coming along Simon? Lockdown helping you?

 

Massively! Re-read the whole book and found tons of grammatical errors

I have been working on it in the evenings. I figure I may never get this sort of time again so it can be as good as it can be.

Also done a brief outline of my next book (Merchant Navy development in wartime) and the research I need to do for that.

I’ve offered a few times but if there’s anyone out there who would like to check the latest draft of the book on lockdown, please say so and drop me a message. I could always do with the critical eye and feedback and I’m happy to share my work for reading or research purposes.

 

I just want to say thank you to everyone who has PM'd to offer to do some reading. It's much appreciated!

If you'd like to see the current draft please feel free to drop me a message with your preferred email address by 5pm today. I will send out a link to the book for a one time download.

 

Just want to say thank you to everyone who has been reading my draft book, and providing me with many very helpful comments and ideas. The one thing coming out as a theme throughout the feedback is that I haven't contextualized my evidence well enough, together with being somewhat defensive in some instances. There's a lot to go through, and I am very grateful for all the feedback. I am considering what I do next - the book clearly needs more of a rewrite than I thought.

On that note, I've paused all work on my other personal writing projects until I've got a handle on this book.

Sorry all. I feel somewhat strongly that I have let a number of you down in relation to the book. I am mulling over making it publicly available for reading during lockdown, if only to provide some recompense and discussion for those who'd like to read it.

 

No way, Simon. This has been one of the best discussion threads on here. It's your project, you're doing the work and you call the shots. Hope you find the right way forward and very best of luck.

 

As someone else who's waiting till it comes out, I'd agree with you about knowing when to finish - the world of classical music is full of debate over which edition is definitive, because composers couldn't make their minds up about when they were done.

But I note @S.A.C. Martin's comment about defensiveness, and welcome his openness to that feedback. The case for the thesis of the book will be much more effective if it is an argument for x, y, and z, rather than an argument against a, b, and c; a defensive tone in a writer always undermines my confidence in their case and makes me look for the holes. Similarly, at a detail level, if the feedback is demonstrating that the evidence isn't self-evident, briefly drawing the context for those pieces of evidence out can only be beneficial to the reader's understanding of the book.

 

there has been a good robust debate and i have learned a lot but still do not feel i know what Thompson hoped to end up with and in what timescale.

 

I have not engaged in any debates on this thread as not being an engineer I did not feel I had anything to add but I must confess I have always admired the aesthetics of Thompson's Locomotives (yes including the Pacifics) and felt for many years he has been much maligned. I may be wrong but when I have read books about Thompson I have always had a niggling feeling that some writers had not really done their homework and were allowing prejudices to colour their views.
I am looking forward to being able to purchase a copy in order to enhance my knowledge further.
I have always been of the opinion that to write a book takes a lot of courage knowing that there will be detractors who in most cases have not the wit, will or courage themselves to put their head above the parapet.
To you Simon my admiration and regards.

 

Hear, hear!

Richard.

 

Just want to thank everyone for their responses, and I will respond to everyone in turn on their points during the course of today.

 

I agree with the thrust of your points Al, but a couple of suggestions have given me pause for thought. The book is laid out roughly in chronological order and sub divided into chapters relating to when significant events happened during Thompson's reign (e.g. the first P2 rebuild). The issue is a lack of contextual clarity throughout regarding the why and not the what: so we know what happened but not why it happened.

To that end, I have started writing a couple of new chapters in earnest, and the chapters titles now look thus:

Introduction
Chapter 1: Thompson’s life at a glance
Chapter 2: Thompson’s railway career
Chapter 3: The L.N.E.R. in Wartime: Problems and Strategy
Chapter 4: Thompson’s approach to the wartime problem
Chapter 5: 1941
Chapter 6: 1942
Chapter 7: The E.S. Cox/Stanier Report & Bert Spencer
Chapter 8: 1943
Chapter 9: The rebuilding of the P2s
Chapter 10: 1944
Chapter 11: 1945
Chapter 12: Great Northern
Chapter 13: 1946
Chapter 14: Post retirement
Chapter 15: Thompson's Legacy
Chapter 16: Epilogue
Special Thanks
Bibliography & References

So hopefully the additional chapters 3 and 4, together with splitting a few of the others (P2s, Great Northern) will help focus things a little.

 

This is looking excellent Simon, I am really looking forward to purchasing your book. It will be especially interesting after having read the book by HCB Rogers, and different editions of Grafton's work.

Best Regards, and all credit to you for persisting with this monumental project.

Richard.

 

This too I think needs clarifying more in the book and potentially in the responses I have given here.

Basic gist was this, in a nutshell:

• Standardisation of as many components, small and large, as possible
• reduction of LNER's loco stock from over 170 classes with 163 boiler types to around 19 with 22 boiler types
• reorganisation of the major works and sheds to cope with a significant reduction in manpower
• organising sections of the LNER so that they could carry out their duties to the wartime executive
• answering directly to the LNER's emergency board
• giving the LNER a reasonable chance of working through their problems and having in place a long term aim of making the railway more efficient

 

Given the reported antipathy between Gresley and Thompson it may be worth a section on their relationship - both personal and working - but is that worth a possible Chapter in its own right or splitting between chapters at the expense of establishing a background to the WWII decisions made by both on the direction of the LNER Board ?

Some have hinted that Thomson's relationship with Raven left him aware that had Raven been selected as the LNER CME he would have possibly succeeded Raven hence his antipathy; is this a valid point of view ? It is also reported that Gresley was sufficiently magnanimous that he allowed Raven to continue representing the LNER interests in possible electrification schemes. Gresley even followed Raven's principles in the design of his Class 76 - to the extent of linking the linking the bogies as proposed by Raven.

I believe you have previously mentioned their personal friendship as being good with mutual support during personal loss of spouses hence - again - curious asto the depth of that in relation to their working lives; does your researches cast any light on these 2 areas ?

 

the great unknown is what inside and outside pressures was Thompson under and the degree of obstruction he was under. All orgaizations are averse to change. It helps who you have backing you to gain buy in from those under you.There seems to be something very wrong when there is this apparent obstruction in wartime.

reguards
Dave

 

Hi Fred,

In short, no, I don't think it is a valid point of view. There's no evidence to suggest Thompson felt that strongly about his father in law or his father in law's position as the CME of the NER, and Thompson throughout his working life had moved around to gain a broad enough overview of all the different aspects of railway engineering that I don't think - personally - that he felt strongly on anything other than the need to reduce the number of components the LNER was manufacturing, the number of different classes in service, and the approach to maintenance that the major sheds and works had. In two out of his three aims he succeeded, the one which he didn't (reducing the number of classes on the LNER significantly) was down to running out of time to make inroads.

 

One thing that strikes me is that in the railway family there were loads of examples of people who managed to be on good personal terms while disagreeing professionally on certain subjects. Peter Rayner's book 'On and Off the Rails' is full of examples. I could well believe that Thompson was perfectly capable of serving LNER as a highly effective loyal deputy and maintaining a good personal relationship with the chief while having his own convictions about the need for standardisation and simplification. Surely Ralph Wedgwood and Charles Newton will have been well aware of what they were getting when they appointed him.

 

I agree completely about the ability to be on good personal - and even professional terms - while having radically different visions. I'm less confident that Ralph Wedgwood and Charles Newton would have known what they were getting - history is full of seconds in command being promoted to the top job, and proving a surprise to those who appointed them.

 

Can I ask, on what basis do you ask this, and in what sense?

It is an often quoted example that Thompson offered to resign to the board of directors when they disagreed with his viewpoints. Going back through the emergency board minutes I am now very skeptical that such a thing happened at all.

The reason I say this is because the board were fully aware that the railway had maintenance and availability issues with rolling stock well before Gresley passed away and Thompson took over. In several of the minutes available to us, questions are asked directly of Gresley, Thompson and Peppercorn and all three confirm that the availability of locomotives to do work was poor, and they cite reduction in shed staff, and deficiencies in production of replacement parts, together with works capacity minimized by war work and yes - even design deficiencies - as part of the reason for the difficulties with maintaining a constant number of locomotives for any job at any set time.

It seems incredibly unlikely that Thompson's views were not known to the emergency board. If we accept that, then the idea that Thompson surprised them all with his views seems very unlikely.

It is not however surprising that Thompson asked for outside influences to review the LNER's problems. Hence the Cox/Stanier report.