Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

Why was that sarcastic comment necessary?

For the record, all of my proof readers did a great job. I am very grateful for all of them.

 

Just seems mean spirited, frankly. Do you have anything constructive to add?

 

Deleted

 

Hi Simon

I just finished reading your book and found it fascinating. I think many on here will know I am more of a GWR fan, and I confess to not knowing much more than the basics about LNER CMEs and rolling stock, so I wasn’t previously aware (apart from recent postings on NP) of any controversy about Thompson. Your book was therefore an education in many ways. Thank you.

I certainly never realized that so many of the later LNER locos classes were rebuilds of older locos (and they say all GWR locos look the same. LNER ones really are! ).

PS. Will send you a few private comments later.

 

Likewise, I found it fascinating. I think the author has made an important contribution in correcting some of the nonsense that has accumulated around Thompson’s reputation. He has debunked some opinions out there that have been masquerading as facts.

The book makes clear the problems besetting the LNER during WWII and that Thompson AND HIS TEAM came up with rational solutions within what was possible at the time. It also makes it clear that what the Thompson regime did was a continuation and development of Gresley’s work, most definitely NOT a repudiation of it.

I would have liked to have seen more of the data the author draws upon but I understand the reasons why this has not been included.

Overall, I think it’s well done and I applaud it.

 

More to the point, it seems to me that it highlights how old the LNER loco fleet was with only 1000 out of 7000 being 'Gresley' designs by the time of WW2.

I wonder what the figures were for the LMS & GWR - Post 1923 designs that is, not Gresley.

There is also of course the question of why this was the case.

 

The LNER was broke! It had the worst financial position of any of the four groups.
https://rchs.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/FINAL-Wilson-LNER_2.pdf

 

Thank you.

I see @S.A.C. Martin gets a mention, not very flattering to Gresley.

 

Surprised to see myself in there. I got cited - wonders will never cease!

 

It will be Wikipedia next...

 

Having accidentally stumbled across it the other day, The Edward Thompson wiki page is in desperate need of some attention on both the content and sources side!...

 

Two interesting tings from the book, firstly that the B17 design - and although it isnt stated, the B1 I gather as well, were designed by North British, not the LNER.

Secondly both Gresley & Thompson were widowers, I know Peppercorn married Dorothy Maher but had be been married before?

 

No, the Thompson B1 was drawn out by Doncaster works. Some batches of B1s were built by NBL.

That’s why in the book the distinction for the B17s is made - this was an outside contractor leading design, different from almost everything else.

 

Interesting that the quoted reference STILL repeats the view of Thompson's "hatred" of Gresley :

There were significant differences between Gresley and Edward Thompson, for example. Thompson held a number of mechanical engineering positions in Gresley’s department between the grouping and April 1941, when he was appointed Gresley’s successor as CME. They had not worked well together. Apart from differences in character, Thompson and Gresley disagreed on a number of issues.81 A significant difference was that of the Gresley conjugated (or derived) valve gear for three- cylinder engines. Another was standardisation and significantly when he became CME in 1941, Thompson started a much needed programme of standardisation.

Given that managers (or CMEs) have different opinions of how to achieve the same result (i.e. keep locomotives available under wartime conditions) it is to be expected that different decisions will be taken at the pint when circumstances / the Management Board dictate. Sadly - to my mind - the repetition of the Gresley v Thompson hatred only weakens my acceptance of any other argument / discussion he forwards in his paper irrespective of how correct his assumptions are.

 

The only mention I can see of 'hatred' is your use of the word. 'Not worked well together' and 'disagreed on a number of issues' could be fair comment without necessarily leading to hatred. The same could occasionally have been applied in my own career but I and the colleagues concerned still respected each other.

 

The thing which bothers me is "had not worked well together". I accept there is something of a subjective view to this, but Thompson clearly responded well and did good work for Gresley whilst under him. Gresley will have thought whether he had his money's worth from Thompson - likely he did, otherwise Thompson wouldn't have come into the effective second in command role, as Mechanical Engineer at Doncaster.

It's difficult sometimes to overcome the huge amount of subjective - shall we say - interference that seems to resonate out of the Thompson/Gresley story.

 

Its also very vague language. What does "not worked well together" mean? And its not even, really, a criticism. There are always going to be people that don't establish a productive working relationship together for whatever reasons, and isn't part of the art of good management to utilise their skills without having them interacting negatively? I can recognise someone as competent without having to get on with them.

Perhaps an extreme example is George Armstrong and William Dean on the GWR, both classic Victorian autocratic managers. In those days the GWR had two main works, at Swindon and Wolverhampton. Swindon had been the domain of the broad gauge, and Wolverhampton the narrow, but as the broad gauge diminished Swindon, always the chief works, became involved in both. To cut a genealogy short and simplify, Dean had once been junior to Armstrong at Wolverhampton, but moved to Swindon and was later promoted to Locomotive Superintendant (=CME), effectively over Armstrong's head. In practice, though, Armstrong was left to run Wolverhampton more or less independently, subject of course to the board, and Wolverhampton wasn't brought fully under Swindon control until Armstrong retired.

 

I have a North British drawing for the Pipe and Rod of a B1. It has been traced from an original Doncaster drawing.