Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

Yes they are all relevant to an extent but why must they be allowed to cloud an objective assessment of his work?

Fourth choice - based on what exactly? What source says that?

 

Decry him like what?? Anyone would think we've branded him as the antichrist.

All the histories indicate he was difficult to work for and with - why is it a crime to mention this, after all he's not the first or the last to be described thus.
All the histories indicate he didn't get on with Gresley, at least professionally. Again you seem to believe it is unreasonable to mention this , but he's not the first or last to have problems with his boss, so what wrong with this criticism?
All those who used his locos seem to feel that they were lacking in at least some areas. Why do you feel repeating those criticisms is unfair?

As to Gresley and Bulleid, there are things they did that deserve and have received criticism, but you asked about Thompson and the forum has answered.

 

This extract from the Steamindex website suggests he was actually third choice:-

Hughes' excellent biography of Gresley casts considerable doubt on the ability of Thompson to act as CME, as perceived by the Company's Chairman:

Although at the beginning of 1941 Sir Nigel was unwell, he was expected to continue in office - indeed this appears to have been his intention - and it does not seem that the LNER Chairman, Sir Ronald Matthews, regarded it necessary to consider the difficult problem of choosing a successor for the post. (It is believed that Matthews assumed that Gresley would go on until he was 70, when he would be succeeded by Arthur Peppercorn, and then Freddie Harrison.) So, when the question arose, it was a matter of urgency. At the time, none of Gresley's senior staff was recognised as his deputy and hence no one was being groomed as a potential successor. Indeed, the only one who might have been regarded as such had been his erstwhile personal technical assistant, Oliver Bulleid, who had left the LNER in 1937 to join the Southern Railway. He had been followed by DR. Edge, a competent manager, but who lacked the breadth of experience needed to fill the CME's position. So, the natural successor in 1941 would have been one of the Mechanical Engineers in the Areas, that at Doncaster being regarded as the senior. This position had been occupied by Edward Thompson since 1938, following similar posts at Stratford and Darlington.

Sir Ronald Matthews lived in Doncaster, and was also Chairman of the Sheffield firm of Turton Brothers and Matthews, and had been Master Cutler. Both Gresley and Thompson were his house guests, and evidently close, as Prudence, one of the Matthews daughters, recalls them as 'Uncle Tim' and 'Uncle Ned'. On paper. Thompson should have been the automatic choice to succeed Gresley. but according to Stewart Cox, Sir Ronald made approaches to his opposite number on the Southern, to see if Bulleid could be enticed back, and the LMS, to enquire after the availability of Roland Bond, whom he had interviewed in connection with Bond's appointment to superintend the joint LNER/LMS locomotive testing station. However, Bulleid was engaged in the production of his new 'Merchant Navy' Pacifics, and Bond had just been put in charge of the workshops at Crewe, so neither could be spared. Consequently, here being no other obvious candidates for the post, without further delay, Matthews appointed Edward Thompson as CME of the LNER, the decision being confirmed at the Board Meeting on 24th April, 1941, just 19 days after Gresley's passing.

Hughes added that Theompson was known to display a brusque manner on occasion, and in his latter years under Gresley the two were obviously at odds. Why this should be is not at all clear, as over the years Gresley gave Thompson successive promotions, but Vi Godfrey [Gresley's daughter] told [Hughes] that her father had said that Thompson had been 'disloyal', so clearly something serious must have developed between the two men.


Sorry for the double post...

 

You must agree that personal opinions when given, give only one side of the story.

To trust one side implicitly and to ignore sources from the other side (however limited) is not in any way making a fair assessment of the facts. RN Hardy (who was an apprentice under Thompson's tenure and was one of those close enough to give a view on the man) gives an extremely positive of Thompson in Steam in the Blood - would you discredit that account on the basis of all of the other sources which paint a different picture?

At the end of the day all I would wish to put forward is that Thompson was flawed, had negative character traits, but that these character traits are explicitly given by only a few sources first hand, and many second or third hand. Whether you read Hughes, Allen, Nock or anyone else, the same individuals are quoted making the same negative points in the same extremely negative manner. There's no doubt in my mind that Thompson was difficult, stubborn, and probably was bitter at some treatment he'd had previously and the manner in which he'd climbed his own ladder.

However that is not a full picture of the man's character, and there are sources if you wish to look for them (and I have done, as it happens, finding more positive references than I'd believed I would, including the odd interview from men now sadly passed) but for the most part the argument of this thread seems to be to stick to the best known quotations and most publicised sources and shout down anyone who would dare challenge it.

At the end of the day I am not asking for sainthood here. I am asking for a moment of reflection to ask whether the detritus, diatribe and sometimes plain spiteful descriptions of the man and his machines are fairly given. I question how so many who are not the man in question can be so confident of his supposed motives when the body of evidence suggests he had not those same said motives.

The book has been on the go for nearly four years now, and has been revised and re-written and re-developed a number of times with every new piece of information that comes to light. This thread has provided a number of new sources which I am most grateful for. I am not looking for, nor ever have done, to excuse any inadequacies of Thompson. I want to understand the time period better, his working conditions and perhaps understand him better. It is possible to see his side of the story even if he is not around to speak it. On that basis it has been worth writing the book and I understand entirely Peter Grafton's feelings when he wrote his.

 

I think there are a number of issues that the whole Gresley vs. Thompson debate really miss out on, which explain why things have gotten the way they are. I’d warn now given how over-arching themes here are so complex even this long reply doesn’t do issues justice and I have tried to keep it brief!

Firstly the data itself – many people can point to a book saying that this research has been sourced and quoted by this historian, engineer etc. Facts in texts can also be skewed to reflect the opinion of an author as ultimately they have a book to sell or a post on a forum to try and impress. For everyone one attacking Thompson over Gresley, there is another one defending him. We want to quote this knowledge to further our cause but ultimately a source from a text is a written account of what was said by someone else, and to quote someone by what they said is only a partial account of a conversation, the rest you presume is not available to view or not recorded in detail. It means that every time we quote something in debate we merely rehash something that has been said, and given the topic is so vast the same things on both sides have been said quite frequently.

Second are the facts. Personally, I think that some have been interpreted and recounted so much that the whole debate most of the time loses its focus. Thompson might have been a character and might have chosen very badly with the rebuild of Great Northern but some of his designs worked very well. The B1 is fine the L1 too powerful, but the L1 is also very similar to the K1 and that is a successful design. The Pacific’s were the idea of standardisation and that the whole fleet should be of one kind. Orders for the V2s and rebuilds of the P2s gave a chance for ideas to be put into practice. People mention the war but this is a case more of testing with lessons learned being turned into the development of a new build standard design, which Peppercorn and the team then took forwards with A1 and A2/3. This might be a simpler view given I’m writing a lot here, but essentially it’s how I see it. Thompson’s small groups of engines end up becoming the non standard engines in the fleet and thus are withdrawn first as dieselisation makes an impact and fleets are maintained, not because of their inability.

While Thompsons work here looks more respective in this light Gresley could be seen as being given the benefit of the railway fraternity that likes a good and nice story. This is the third reason. Gresley is given the accolade of being one of the best designers ever and it’s true a lot of his work was brilliant. However, Gresley’s work is largely based on the A3 and A4 that brought fame with regular running, good PR and of course 126.5mph. His experiments with the W1 and P2s that were definitely non standard do not bring as much derision as Thompsons work, yet the two shared the same goal – to build a better engine. Gresley’s engines didn’t always work. The J39 is a case in point that it pretty much continues NER-style practices of building freight engines based on standardised parts. The group standard tender, cab and smoke box pretty much follow standard NER formats. There was the boiler to work on, size of wheels etc, but that was a formality. The D49 before that was again pretty much half already designed. Gresley was a tinker, someone who wanted to change, measure and evolve yet operate with complexity, more than a pragmatic Thompson who had more core beliefs and opinions and wanted to enshrine these into practice like standardisation and efficiency. While Gresley also was in post for longer and had greater time to have opportunities for success present themselves, the fact that Thompson took over during wartime has been overplayed. Also, when Gresley engines did work, they are amongst the best ever. The A4 is a brilliant engine and a testimony to the design with the recent Mallard 75 celebrations ensures such thinking is continued in this aspect today. Thompson, meanwhile, could still have managed to do this with greater results and by operating in a manner much more diplomatic and more importantly with consistency. Trying to do so much so quickly is perhaps why the idea of destroying came about, but I think too he was aware that he would not be in post for long.

These issues are the ones that enthusiasts recount over and over again. That Thompson was cut by time and money and Gresley was successful, brilliant and had longevity. It frames the debate that is skewed and as enthusiasts like to belong to a group they rehash the argument over and over again, normally always backing Gresley who is more often seen to be the winner overall upon reflection. It’s the railway enthusiast’s version of the football glory supporter, backing Man Utd as Gresley to win over Leeds as Thompson. This happens time and time again in the hobby, its why the Somerset and Dorset gets cult status, and why heritage diesels are preferred by teenagers and 20 something’s interested in diesel traction over a class 66 when it’s the latter they have more familiarity with – to give but two obvious examples. The other issue is more of the familty tree being a factor in who married who. This I think is more down to the conspiracy theorists having a play in the issue, and little else. Most followers take a simple idea or basic knowledge, adopt what they know and then join the majority. The hobby is escapism after all and we don’t go looking for conflict to relax in, but because we take such interest passions run high and thus this whole thing spins out of control.

While the engineering, legacies and the historical academia are factors in the debate and its issues, there’s much more about the reason why it’s still hotly contested and the reason it’s been going for so long that explains the nature of the debate today. These reasons frame what we talk about just as much as anything that actually happened making an objective debate on this issue equally as controversial as the topic itself.

 

I don't believe I've ever been in a Thompson coach. How did they stack up against the competition?

 

The main aim of the book is to look at statements made regarding him and whether they are fair assessments. Effectively, seeing if Thompson is marked on the same criteria as others. Some of that is the human side and some is purely the engineering. I think they can be examined separately and carefully in the context of the statements posed.

I feel the question of aesthetic merit is somewhat flawed. The best locomotives for a given job are not always the best aesthetically. The cab forward locomotives of the USA were supreme machines but were functional not aesthetically pleasing. Does that value them less than a more conventional looking locomotive? Of course not, it's about the engineering and their ability to raise steam.

The question as to how well informed Thompson was on locomotive design - can't quite believe that is in doubt given his experience at the MR, NER, GNR, and LNER Stratford works?

 

There is the (valid) point that in the context of his promotion ET did not have time to discuss with other experts when the Board was seeking immediate results (i.e. more locomotives) and reminds me of an old saying from my computer days that "it is difficult to remember, when being chased by a crocodile across a lake, that your job is to drain the lake and not spend time with the animals in it !"

 

Its funny how we think like that, because of course the CME was a senior executive and not a designer in the sense a 19thC locomotive superintendent might have been... We have from Holcroft, Churchward's involvement in the design of the 4300 2-6-0s:-

Holcroft had visited Canada, and had been struck by how the 2-6-0 type was used as a maid of all work on secondary lines, and on his return suggested that something of the sort should be considered on the GWR.

According to Holcroft, in 1910 Churchward was starting to think about locomotives for secondary lines as the new standards were filling all requirements for main line services. He was thinking on the lines of inside cylinder inside frame types with large diameter piston valves above the cylinders. As Holcroft tells it this concept turned out to be impractical. After some thought Churchward turned up at his drawing board one day and said “Very well then; get me out a 2-6-0 with 5’8 wheels, outside cylinders, the No 4 boiler and bring in all the standard features you can.” Holcroft continues “With that he departed, and it was the end of the matter as far as he was concerned.”

And as CMEs go Churchward seems to have been pretty hands on.

 

The problem with using aesthetics as a judgment of good engineering design is that it is subjective; moreover, what is considered aesthetically desireable changes over time. (Consider, for example, how a lot of Victorian architecture was at one time considered vulgar and unattractive, yet is now rightly praised).

On the locomotive front, locomotives now considered as superb examples of great engineering, such as the Maunsell N, were derided at the time on aestheitic grounds for appearing overly functional: certainly, it is easy to imagine that to the Edwardian enthusiast bought up on a diet of Wainwright Ds and Es, the Maunsell N must have given a profound "shock of the new". Yet few today would demur from the view that the N was one of the seminal locomotive designs of the early twentieth century.

And if you want a more modern example, two words: Bulleid Q1. Even today, you'd have to be pretty contrarian to say a Q1 was aesthetically pleasing, but judged against engineering and economic principles (specifically, capability to do the work vs. cost of manufacture in a wartime economy), it was a triumph.

Where a designer can create a happy marriage of form and function (as with a Gresley A4), then so much the better. But engineers should be judged on function, except inasmuch as the form might promote increased sales (which in itself becomes a part of the function). So saying that Thompsobn created "ugly" locomotives isn't really a valid criticisim (against whose standards do you judge them as "ugly"?). Saying he produced "ineffective" locomotives is a valid criticism, but from my reading of this thread, the fact that his locomotives had twenty year working lives suggests that they weren't innefective - humdrum maybe, but certainly not outright disasters in the mould of the Drummond four cyliner 4-6-0s or double singles.

Tom

 

There is a saying in the aircraft world - and maybe elsewhere - that "if it looks right, it is right". In the opinion of many, Thompson's Pacifics didn't "look right" at all. Conversely the B1 "looked right". I'll leave you to work out for yourself which design was the most successful from a technical viewpoint.

 

One or two here seem to think that Simon is doing something wrong in challenging the received wisdom. It seems to me that what he is doing is very reasonable; accepting that Thompson as a person had flaws and the designs that he produced likewise, but investigating whether the totally negative received wisdom is really the whole story or whether there's more to be said on the positive side.

In a totally different context I have just come across a quotation that seems apposite, mutatis mutandis:
"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved."

 

Put so much better than I have done in previous posts - thank you for that sir.

 

I woudn't discredit the account, in fact I'm sure Mr Hardy did find ET a courteous and helpful person, but I would consider the position of the person who wrote it and how they related to ET in terms of seniority. I feel sure I've read other accounts of ET being kind to very junior members of staff.

If by shout you down you mean disagree with you, then I'll admit to shouting you down, though I tend to use capitals to shout on the internet.

Well, the "body of evidence" actually does suggest he had those motives, in that "the body of evidence " is the majority of the evidence available to us. If it wasn't the majority, you wouldn't even be asking the question or writing a book. That there are those with different views doesn't surprise me, though I would ask you to consider just how those persons relate to ET. When the likes of Hughes, Allen, Nock, E S Cox, K J Cook etc all take a certain view, I would suggest they between them know enough of the workings of the loco design establishment during the war to be able to produce a reasonable record of the events, whatever their personal feelings. I get the impression that those who were close to the business of design at high level all tend to have the same views. Those on the periphery may well have a different view of the man himself.

ET was a frequently difficult man, who was unlucky in the timing of his big break, who didn't get on with his previous boss and who wasn't quite as clever as he thought he was.

Nope, he's not doing anything wrong in challenging the received wisdom, it's his dismissal of the received wisdom as nothing but a load of bias that is troubling. It suggest his views are already biased against the received wisdom - which doesn't bode well for a book that supposes to look at both sides fairly.

 

"If it looks right, it is right".



"Look where that oaf Chapelon has gone and put the cylinders, also, he has rebuilt one of our beloved pacifics in creating this monster. Looking like that it has to be a total failure!"

Oh yeah?

Cheers

Alan

 

Who said anything about Chapelon being an oaf and his locos not "looking right" and being total failures? Oh yes, it was you.