Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

Wrong Sir, Martin. It was 68 Sir Visto.

 

Thank you for the correction - quite right. Haven't got my books here so was working off the top of my head. I got the wrong "sir", sir

 

He presumably hoped to show that his new design was better than an A4. MAYBE he chose the non-kylchap A4 because that gave him a better chance of the result he wanted. N.B. I am NOT asserting this as a fact, only suggesting it as a possibility.

 

It's a fair point to be frank.

 

Telling a subordinate off is one thing. Doing so in front of that person's subordinates is inviting intense resentment for ever after. Either Gresley had a very good reason for choosing to embarrass Thompson or he was showing extremely poor judgement.

 

Unfortunately there's just not enough information on this event to make an informed judgement either way.

I am following up a potential lead on the document that was published in the railway press but it's not a certainty to include the information we really need.

 

The other engineers who were approached first were O V S Bulleid and Roland Bond. If you feel ET had more and better experience than them, clearly the LNER directors disagreed. Do you feel you know more about the requirements for a CME than the LNER Directors?

Somewhere back in this thread it was stated that Ormonde was also in the works for rebuild to A3. The works staff asked ET if he would use Ormonde instead of Great Northern for his new rebuild but ET refused. So, yes he can be judged as a person from that - it was unecessary to rebuild that particular loco. As to the quality of the loco itself, that would have been the same, and the rebuild would have been assessed on it's merits or faults whatever the name on it.

I suspect if Great Northern had made it to A3 and Flying Sotsman become A1/1 it would have been Great Northern which would have been preserved. Personally, I would have been fine with that. I like FS because it's an A3, not because of the name.

 

Well that is rubbish. Ormonde was not rebuilt until 1947.

 

Twisting my words a tad. Where did I say he was more qualified than them? I did not, I merely pointed out that Thompson did by virtue of his broad experience hit many of the competencies and experience a CME would be expected to have. No one can deny he was the most senior engineer there on age and service record after Gresleys death, surely?

Please don't put words in my mouth.

RCTS and Yeadons seem to suggest Ormonde did not have a major overhaul including the change of boiler and addition of superheater headers until 1947 when rebuilt as an A3 (two years after 4470s rebuilding).

So was it in the works for a heavy general or to that effect at the same time 4470 was shopped?

Why and how? No A3 was selected for preservation - period.

It took a private buyer to save one. Papyrus was of greater merit and honour than GN arguably and had been Peglers first choice reputedly.

 

I am sure that he deserved it ☺

It's amazing how this thread has revealed things, if this is true (and backed up by evidence) and taking account of the, I believe evidenced, fact that Thompson was a belligerent chap this would seem to provide a much more plausible foundation for any animosity towards Gresley.

 

If they'd been Ashford men, the components would have disappeared into the spares pool and the subsequent guv'nor would have been none too impressed!

Tom

 

Another factor to consider here. Both Gresley and Thompson went to the same school but thereafter their paths diverged. HNG went to serve his apprenticeship at Crewe, he then moved on to Horwich. ET went to Cambridge, Pembroke College as I understand it.

It is not a universal rule, but Oxbridge students and graduates have a tendency to assume that they are superior to all others that have not benefited from such a privilege. They take it very badly when they come into a situation where they are found to be lacking in ability compared with someone from the lower ranks as it were.

ET had what we call attitude issues. Would not be advised (4470), had a most regrettable personal manner, which was not made better by events as he grew older.
Imagine the ignomy - having to take a most definite second (or even worse place) behind a mere apprentice.

 

The Doncaster "Grandad's Axe" principle as I have frequently cited in this forum with regard to new-build LNER locos: Stick an original works/nameplate/whistle etc on it, and it becomes that loco! I have the cut-off indicator from "Harvester"......... (next new-build?)

This is at odds with Yeadon, who lists the following boilers as having been fitted to "Harvester" (list is simplified):

New No. 8030
1932 No. 8252 (new)
1935 ex-2578 (60079)
1940 ex-2745 (60091)
1942 spare
1947 spare
1948 ex-2575 (60076)
1950 ex-60080
1952 ex-60062
1954 ex-60071
1956 ex-60043
1957 ex-60040
1959 ex-60065

 

Your post no 392 - He was the most senior engineer at the LNER in any event on Gresley's death and the broad range of experience he had does not seem to have been matched by other engineers mentioned.

Is that not the same as qualification? Or do you only consider academic qualifications, in which case I doubt either of us know whether Bond or Bulleid had more diplomas than Thompson.

Post 168 - Another A1, 2556 Ormonde, was in the works at the same time as 4470 (almost precisely per Yeadon) and staff and workers at Doncaster attempted to persuade Thompson to use that locomotive. He would have none of it.

Yorkshire Exile seems to disagree - I've also seen the statement that there was another loco available at the time and , though I can't recall who wrote it. I've been reading books about the LNER for many years, so the details of which book said what tend to merge into one another.

edit - true, "in the works" could mean for a heavy general

That would have been the fastest A3 v the "0riginal" A3 - What a choice to have to make! Perhaps if Great Northern had become an A3 it would have been chosen for preservation anyway?


Well, In the end,

A- ET rebuilt what was to a lot of people an iconic loco, even at the time, and I believe the reports that he refused to use another in it's place, even if you don't

B - His pacific locos were not the unqualified success he hoped for - and the odd front end layout which caused the maintenance troubles was not deemed fit to be perpetuated by Peppercorn.

C - The conjugated valve gear was not the failure Thompson wished to portray it and it was used more than just successfully until the end of East Coast steam and beyond.

All the rest is froth

 

You will insist on twisting my words to make it seem I am denigrating them to improve Thompsons stake; however you cannot deny that Thompsons experience in different works and in different capacities is a broad range of experience and in that specific sense he has an edge (as far as we know) on other potential candidates considered.

None of the A3s were intended for preservation in the fledging NRM - not as "original" as the V2 and A4 chosen. Never understood that stance and not preserving a K3 either.

I can well believe it but I find it difficult to believe that anyone - Thompson included - would rebuild 4470 for any purpose other than to show his engineering ethos.

No argument from me.

Absolutely, but there were fair arguments at the time of Thompsons tenure - conjugated valve gear falling out of fashion elsewhere.

I don't know, where it's been fair and reasonable without resorting to personal attacks I've found it most intriguing and very informative.

 

In that light, it is worth remembering that as early as the 1930s the Southern Railway began converting their 3 cylinder engines that had conjugated valve gear to having three independent sets - and that despite the important role that Holcroft had originally played in developing and patenting the 2 to 1 conjugated valve gear. Clearly Maunsell felt that the cost of rebuilding with an additional set of valve gear, and the increased difficulty in oiling up, were more than compensated by the reduction in problems caused by the conjugated gear. So Thompson clearly wasn't alone in considering that conjugated gear had problems. You won't find many people who consider Maunsell misguided for rebuilding his own locos in that way - indeed, they had been designed to make such a rebuild possible if needed.

Tom

 

I am not trying to twist your words. You are comparing ET with both OVS Bulleid and Roland Bond together with various people also in post in the LNER.
Thompson's experience in different works and capacities may well have had an edge over the others in post in the LNER but considering Bulleid was Gresley's assistant for many years, he probably had at least as much experience as Thompson - and we don't actually know enough about Bond to say either way - so saying that "as far as we know" Thompson had the edge isn't actually possible - since we don't know enough to make the comparison, in particular with Bond. Surely the fact that the Directors approached both Bulleid and Bond before Thompson suggests that they felt those two men had more experience?

True, though perhaps the original pacific itself. albeit as an A3 might have tempted them - we'll never know.

Certainly his intention was to show how good he was, but I suspect there was an underlying desire to "one up" Gresley as well. Else why not use another loco when asked? Too many different sources indicate his dislike of Gresley for the possibility to be ignored, though perhaps it was a dislike of the workers of Doncaster Plant instead....

Certainly poor wartime maintenance caused problems, but condemning it out of hand seems excessive. Concentrating maintenance resources on ensuring the pivots were greased would surely not have requred a huge number of extra man hours? certainly not as many as building a series of new locos.....

 

Perhaps splitting hairs would have been more appropriate a description from me? I take your point RE Bulleid mind, and Bond is worthy of further study too to make a better judgement and improve my knowledge base and understanding.