Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

I can but ask them and see what they say.

 

I would ask nothing more and I am grateful for accounts - any accounts and of any point of view - that would aid the writing of my book.

 

With reference to rebuilding of locomotives.

Did not Gresley rebuild Ivatt, Robinson and Raven locomotives of various types and wheelbases? Not all of his rebuilds were successes either, and these were carried out pre-war with all the advantages that brings. Gresley built prototypes and one offs: not all of these were successful, and some were rebuilt along more conventional lines. All carried out with the advantages of the pre-war LNER and with the best circumstances available to the LNER bar - it must be so admitted - the capital at times.

Gresley is not unique and neither is Thompson by rebuilding locomotives of past CMEs and locomotive engineers. If we are to be consistent in our view of all locomotive engineers, I believe that we should state it is their prerogative as CMEs to follow their own path and develop their own engineering ethos, their influences and understanding be unique to them and part and parcel of their positions.

If we do not condemn Gresley for rebuilding Ivatt's locomotives, and we do not condemn Stanier for rebuilding Fowler's, not condemn a succession of Southern CMEs for their rebuilding of locomotives of their predecessors, neither should we condemn Edward Thompson out of hand for his rebuilding of any of Gresley's machines.

Perhaps we should put it into perspective. Total Gresley machines rebuilt: One K3, one K4, one A10, one D49, six P2s, ten B17s. Thompson removed with the building of 400+ B1s into British Railways days, hundreds of pre-grouping locomotives that were life expired. All other Gresley locomotives bar the single A4 Pacific, Sir Ralph Wedgwood, destroyed at York in the Baedaker Blitz, were retained and maintained and lasted through to nationalisation at the absolute bare minimum.

This is not a man who looked to rid the LNER of Gresley or destroy his legacy. Whatever you may think of the man, the fact remains that he accepted that the immediate needs of the LNER were met by Gresley's modern designs. He had a different vision for the future and whilst his own engines were different going forward, the Gresley fleet carried on alongside his new engines.

I have in front of me "Engines of the LNER" written by OS Nock and with contributions to its writing credited to Edward Thompson, GA Musgrave, LP Parker, CM Stedman and ED Trask who were his locomotive superintendents. The document is contemporary to the changeover to Peppercorn as CME and is dated 1947.

In it it states that there were in 1939 fourteen different 4-6-0 classes, mainly GCR, GNR and NER in design, over 500 4-4-0s of varying vintage (between 26 and 55 years old), over 800 pre-grouping 0-6-0s between 25 and 47 years old and 200 pre-grouping Atlantics across GNR, GCR and NER.

There were three intended groups in Thompson's standardisation scheme. Group I, new standard types. A1 (became A1/1), A2 (became A2/3), B1, K1, O1, J11, L1, Q1 and J50. This was the final line up of Thompson's designs and it is clear that both the K5 and D Class had been removed. Why is not made clear but I accept the hypothesis that they were not good enough to be included and propagated.

Group II, "non standard" types to be maintained. By maintained, we mean reboilered, rebuilt and otherwise kept in full working order. These comprised the A4, A3, B17, D49, B16, K3, V2, O4, V1 and V3 locomotives. These locomotives are the vast majority of the Gresley fleet (nearly 1000 locomotives by my poor late at night maths), yet I will concede it is strange, for instance, that the O2 locomotive class is not included, numerous as it was, but you can see that the retention and continued overhaul (not rebuilding - overhaul, with new boilers where required and minor modifications) of the vast majority of Gresley's designs.

Group III represents the largest group and is everything else left on the LNER books which were not to be reboilered or overhauled, and to be scrapped as and when appropriate to their condition. This group is almost entirely made up of pre-grouping locomotives. Several Gresley classes are not mentioned for being in any of the two latter groups and indeed, those such as the J39 continued on to the end of steam regardless.

I would argue that the idea that Thompson sought to destroy all that is Gresley, or in any way looked to undermine his legacy, to be completely without merit. The evidence does not stack up against him. He in three separate versions of his plans sought to retain the majority of the Gresley designs. This is not the work of someone who wanted to rid the LNER of Gresley, surely?

I rest now for some sleep but will return tomorrow for further points of debate.

 

Most of the people who really knew are now dead and much of the comments in this thread have a "football fan" air about them. I am struck though by a certain similarity between Thompson and D.E. Marsh of the L.B.S.C.R.

Both appear to have been prickly, difficult, people who, at various stages of their careers, were intensely disliked by subordinates and superiors alike. Marsh is reported to have had a good relationship with H.A. Ivatt though, which demonstrates how unpredictable human nature can be.

In both cases, the individual embarked on a controversial rebuilding campaign with extremely variable results. Similarly, the new designs of both men varied greatly in their capabilities although nothing like the chasm which existed between the I3 and I4 4-4-2 tanks affected Thompson's products. Thankfully none of the rumours about financial impropriety which are associated with Marsh apply to Thompson.

Doubtless 242 A.1 will observe that both were pygmies compared to Wagner (the engineer), Chapelon and De Caso.! This they were.

PH.

 

I doubt this discussion would be framed as it is without the insularity of many British steam enthusiasts.

 

After all these posts it would be interesting to know quite why Simon feels the need to be revisionist about ET.

There will be few if any alive now who have first hand memories of the two men at the core of all this. So the question is: What do you want to achieve and why?

Do you feel that the man was poorly treated? Was he a far better engineer than people give him credit for being? Or do you subscribe to the view that it is impossible for one person's abilities to be very much, if at all, better or worse than those of another?

Churchward and Gresley are widely regarded as the best CMEs that ever served this country. This must be from the outside looking in, my admiration for the best and most adventurous practice is well known by now it seems. Do you really believe that ET had merits worthy of addressing that make him any more than an unfortunate footnote in the fascinating and continuing story of the steam locomotive?

ET most certainly was a man in a hurry, anxious to make a name for himself. Quite a number of people are. His burst of actions early in his tenure confirm the reports of him wanting to eliminate "things Gresley". After this initial burst things start to look more pragmatic, being blunt there is only so much hostility a person can withstand. Also he was never going to be able to eliminate, sack, sideline, or avoid all those in the company that were admirers of all things Gresley. You might say he was doomed from the start. The wrong choice, sadly, yes.

 

In fairness to both parties the point about "circumstances of the time" is highly relevant but often over-looked. In Gresley's "time" the need for success in specific traffics led to the "horses for courses" such as the A3s for passenger duty; the "improved" A3s (aka A4s) for the new high-speed expresses; the V2s for mixed traffic and the J38 for Fife coal traffic. By Thomson's "time" the pressure for WWII supplies directed attention to standardisation as followed by the GWR and transferred to the LMS by Stanier in the 1930s hence his response to the need for more locomotives by designing the LNER equivalent of the Stanier Class 5MT in the guise of the B1.

The sad fact, however, as the Gresley / Thomson era shows is that locomotives are usually built for 25 - 30 years operating life but the economic environment which dictates the operating needs can change within less than 10 years. If one looks at BR in 1948 with its assets and operating environment then look at the same aspects only 10 years later one has to ask how a locomotive designer can design for a 25 year life when so much can change in 10 years. If one looks further to 1968 - yet still within the 25 year life-span of a 1948-built B1 for example - how many designers could have identified the vast changes of the 1960s in the completely different world of the 1940s ?

Whilst not a "Thomson" supporter by any means it does therefore seem a little harsh to judge him on 5 years in post when his area of work (i.e. the workshops) were being used for activities other than building locomotives and perhaps now is a suitable point in time to review his contribution to the LNER in the light of the changed requirements and facilities available to meet them.

 

Rebuilding locos went on through out railway history. It has no bearing in itself on the state of mind of the rebuilder, so is not evidence either way for Thompsons state of mind.

I disagree but for reasons see below

He didn't have the money, workshops, or time to completely replace the Gresley loco stock so the fact that he continued to include them in his stock lists proves only that he had to keep the LNER going and is not evidence either way of his wish to undermine Gresley

How you can say the idea is entirely without merit, I just don't know. Both Cox of the LMS and Cook of the GWR specifically state he did wish to "destroy" Gresley and undermine his legacy. Others have said the same thing, and his behaviour with 4470 strongly suggests it too.

The information regarding stock lists is not evidence of Thompsons aspirations and the fact he rebuilt engines is irrelevant to his state of mind. As you point out, everyone rebuilt engines.

It appears he intended his legacy and his fame to be locos that were better than Gresley's - unfortunately for him they weren't.

You appear absolutely determined to prove, by any means, that Thompson had no animosity towards Gresley. I think you have an impossible task, particularly if you apply the level of proof to your own arguments as you expect from everyone else, including those who were there.

All this happened 60 years ago. The war situation is well known and has been taken into consideration time and time again. Thompson has been judged many time on his character and his engineering ability during those 60 years and I don't believe the results will differ in the future.

 

Given that HNG achieved CME status at 35 - albeit with a LNER predecessor - it seems odd that someone should write that at 42 Harrison was discounted because of his "youth".

 

There's that word again - revisionist. Already condemning the question before it is asked.

I'm not asking for a wholescale revision of that known. I'm asking for a more open minded and fair debate. That a consistent level of treatment is given to Edward Thompson than has previously been given.

Lots of questions, all charged in the negative and all presuming things about me and my views. Do you not see that the hostility to new ideas and points of view is precisely why any debate about Thompson becomes highly charged? It is notable that one side of the debate is always right, one always presumed to be wrong.

Am I by saying that Thompson deserves more clear analysis, in any way denigrating or destroying theses men's reputation? No. So why is this relevant?

Yes.

For the precise reason that the most vocal side of the debate would have it so without looking at all the facts, all the sources, and trying to be balanced in ones views. I'm not asking that anyone likes the man nor thinks him a god. Only that there is a possibility, however small, that his footnote in history has been tarnished more than it deserves and whatever personal wrongs may have occurred at the human level, that should not prevent a constructive and open minded discussion of his engineering in comparison to others.

Aged 60, 5 years to retirement. The most senior engineer and has worked across a wide range of departments across five locomotive and carriage works in a career spanning the three major pre grouping companies and the LNER. In the middle of a bloody war where decisions needed to be taken. Alone, from the untimely death of his wife - an interesting parallel with Gresley.

You speak of hostility. A few select individuals state it as being almost indicative of thompsons behaviour 100% of the time. There are others who have not written so powerfully from third hand accounts who have first hand experience which is different. Why is this not taken into account?

Perhaps Thompson can be forgiven slightly for his existence by your standards of how he should be treated.

There are those like RN Hardy and a few others who would vehemently disagree with you on that. Is it only the loudest voices who count in a debate?

There's fact, hearsay and personal opinion. I accept engineering principles but these are constantly clouded by asides and snide commentary on the man, not his ability and not his circumstances.

Are things so set in stone that nobody is allowed even a cursory glance and to ask why this is so and if it is fair?

I started writing my book with the sole intention of clarifying my views on the man. The more I research and see the sometimes unbelievable comparisons, the more I feel him a man wronged. But it is easy to condemn an unpopular man, far harder to ask if it is wrong.

 

And on this we agree - this reason has been bandied about but seems unlikely. I would suggest it was the breadth of Thompsons experience that led him to be the choice for CME - there is nothing wrong with his strengths being an administrator perhaps more than engineer and he had been involved at all levels of the design and building process across locomotives and rolling stock, and maintenance. Does his experience not lend itself to virtue rather than condemnation?

I would suggest based on the costs to rebuild and the time out of traffic that the LNER was better served by Thompson than the Southern was by Bulleid. Controversial I know - but worthy of exploration and debate, no?

 

Not really part of this debate but a Southern Railway director conceded that Bulleid had cost them a lot of money but remarked also that nevertheless they'd more than had their money's worth.
Back to ET, I still find it intriguing that the LNER board did not turn first to him when looking for a successor to Gresley. I would love to know the reason why.

 

Simon - apologies if this has been raised before, what is the title/topic of your book?

As a complete novice when it comes to Thompson prior to this thread it's been something of an eye opener and sadly not in a positive way.

Perhaps it's the good old fashioned British support of the under dog but I would really like to read his side of the story.

 

The working title in draft form is simply "Edward Thompson".

 

Short of a seance that will be a tad difficult given that ET has passed on, is no more, has ceased to be, expired, gone to meet his maker, a stiff, bereft of life, he rests in peace.

 

As others have hinted, there is more to being a great CME than just locomotive design, though it is locomotive design that has a disproportionate share of the attention, particularly from enthusiasts (both contemporary and latter day).

Essentially a CME is a head of department for an organisation that may number thousands of staff; administrator; boardroom fixer etc etc. Some CMEs also had responsibility for the locomotive running side of the business, as well as locomotive construction.

With regard Bulleid, for example, whatever the inherent merits and flaws of his engines, he must have been supremely successful at playing the boardroom game to obtain funds for his department. I've stated before my view that Drummond is overrated as a locomotive designer, but the flip side is that he was supreme as an administrator, as evidenced by his creation of a new works at Eastleigh and transfer of the old works from Nine Elms, with minimal interruption to the new locomotive construction or repair programmes. On the other hand, it was administration that did for JC Craven on the LBSCR, and for all Stroudley's talents as a designer, even he couldn't fully sort out the mess he was bequeathed.

So with regard Thompspn - and I say again I am coming to the subject cold - those who try to form an opinion just on the merits of his designs may be missing the point, since that is only a part of his "job description" and a proper appraisal must include how he performed against all the elements of his job, both design and administration.

Tom

 

Yet large portions of his life can be read and analysed in Peter Graftons book. So not quite true - and in addition, why is it considered fair game to decry him like this? The outrage were anyone to do the same to Gresley or Bulleid...