Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

Thanks. I'd searched but nothing had come up.

 

I think that the problem has been that you seem to have assumed that there IS such an injustice and there are NO good reasons, and have been looking for evidence/opinions to back up your view. Now, I can understand you asking IF there has been injustice, and thus gathering opinions from far and wide, but because you are assuming an injustice, you seemed to feel the need to argue with anyone who presented information or opinions that did not support your view. Perhaps if you reassess the information again, it should be with the acceptance that it is at least possible that Edward Thompson was as bad as he has been painted, just as it is possible that he has been totally unjustly dealt with, and anywhere in between.

 

I think it's something of an injustice to judge a mans engineering on his personality and relationship with others, isn't it?

Isn't it also an injustice to accept one side of the debate on faith alone without looking at the alternatives?

Today's events stemmed from the B1 being called Thompsons only successful class. This cannot be so as the K1/1 was virtually replicated unmodified by Peppercorn and the O4/8 and O1 rebuilds continued to be built long into BR days. If they hadn't been successful in some form for the work required of them they wouldn't have been built.

I accept happily the L1 was unsuccessful - and the one offs? Not adequate for their jobs either and remained one offs. His Pacifics? A mixed bag and then some, happily agreed.

But to simplify Thompsons work to just the B1 seems churlish and not taking into account the limitations of the time.

I've never at any point dismissed those aspects of his character described by others either - only to ask if it is fair to base an opinion on solely those sources when there are others out there giving a different side.

However - wishing to remain fair and balanced - perhaps on reflection I do need to revisit those sources and reexamine them.

 

A man's engineering may be affected by his relationship with others, particularly if he makes engineering decisions based on like or dislike of another person and their engineering, that said, the engineering itself and his personality are subject to different criteria and should be judged seperately.

I think you mean evidence, not debate. Debate involves discussing the evidence. Perhaps you mean taking the evidence for one side of the debate on faith? I do tend to take the view that if most of the evidence sources back each other up, it's a reflection of the facts, not of a conspiracy. Note that all the evidence has to be taken on faith, is there anyone left who was there at the time?

Not being a user of Faceberk, I couldn't read what had happened today, I was commenting on the thread here and the various replies, comments etc. I would agree that the B1 was not his only success.

Fair enough.

 

For what its worth, I think that the fact that the gentleman concerned decided to subsequently delete his posts speaks volumes. That wasn't the most <ahem> 'interesting' FB spat I've ever seen, but it wasn't pretty, that's for sure...

For what it's worth, Simon, whilst I've never been a particular fan of ET and his work, other than the B1 and his efforts which resulted in the Peppercorn K1, you have made some interesting points about both the man and his achievements, and I do hope that you will continue your endeavours with your proposed book.

Best,
Mark

 

Sorry if you feel a little battered Simon.

I suspect that you were aware of the outcome of trying to rehabilitate ET.

The fact that HNG remains such an influential, iconic character who can still gather a mass of supporters to refute any who might appear to challenge his standing is remarkable so long after his death.
In attempting to be revisionist about ET you would be perceived as trying to undermine HNG's reputation. As it happens, with it being emphasised again that ET's few successes were due to making use of standard parts produced under HNG's term in office and most if not all of his original ideas being lamentable the reputation of ET has been cemented.

Finish your book, but beware of a backlash. You can cope with it, but remember that there will be people who had family members who witnessed ET first hand and I hope that you have tried to contact the Spencers, Edges, Wintours, Thoms, Eggleshaws, Bannisters and all the rest.

 

Late to the debate, sorry.

It is almost impossible to separate a man from his deeds. As an engineer Thompson obviously had some merits - he was involved in several successful re-buildings as well as some failures - the B12's and Clauds had a lot of his input, as well as others, of which the K1/1 was probably the most effective. He also - and this is often missed - carried on a lot of Gresley GN/NE design principles, such as the round top boiler . As has been frequently mentioned, his most successful work was assembling components already proved under Gresley into new combinations that were generally Gresley-like. When he tried to introduce ideas of his own he was less successful.

The real problem seems to have been twofold - while he appears to have been very kind to junior employees he seems to have resented and/or ignored any advice whatsoever from his senior stall after he became CME. In that, he may have simply been treating others the way he felt Gresley had treated him. The second problem - exacerbated by the first - is that, by the time he became CME and for whatever reason, his critical faculties had become clouded. He really does not seem to have been able to tell whether what he produced was worthwhile or not. Several of his rebuilds simply were not worth the effort - and he was by then severely lagging behind best practice elsewhere in the UK. The idea that a basically Edwardian inside cylinder o-6-0 should be adopted as a standard in wartime or immediately post-war conditions is obviously an error, and a surprising inconsistency in a man who objected to the maintenance costs of conjugated gear. Admittedly Gresley had produced the J38/J39. but he had actually intended to produce something like the K1 himself but it was vetoed on cost, and 15 years earlier he was probably unable to (or not interested in) making an argument based on reduced maintenance costs.

The near-unanimous opinion of senior colleagues of Thompson, both within and without the LNER, was that he was a man with what we would now call 'issues'. I don't see how any latter day revisionism can change that, although equally I don't see why we should treat the man like a criminal - he was doing a difficult job at a difficult time, a job he had come to at a late age. He had issues with some relationships with colleagues - there are several other CME's of which that would be true - but the work of the railway and his department was successfully carried on during his period of office. He had no obligation to hero-worship his predecessor, and several reasons not to.

The worst that can really be said of him is that he produced some locos that were less good than they might have been. Is there really any CME of which that is not true to some degree? Churchward had his Counties (tender and tank) as well as his Stars. Stanier had his 2-6-2T's as well as his Black 5's.

 

Good Luck with your research and eventual book simon, anything like this is almost certainly going to stoke emotions.

Careful research, should give a good perspective on Thompson's design, efforts, and maybe constraints he was placed under.

 

many have commented upon the rough riding of the Thompson B1s.

when 61353 was tested at rugby in 1951, it had its wheel balancing altered from 30% of reciprocating mass to 70% and was deemed as a result to ride extremely well both on the road and at the test plant.

no alterations to the original draughting were required, though it was noted the loco had only a front damper.

cheers,
julian

 

If this was discovered in 1951 was it applied to the class as a whole? If not, I wonder why not.

 

61624,
im afraid i cant help with further info - the LNER experts will have to hopefully assist. Brighton and GWR here!
cheers,
julian

 

Just to apologise for missing the last few posts, I will respond when I can tomorrow evening.

 

I have followed this thread with interest, knowing very little of Thompson's supposed animosity for Gresley. Isn't it usually the case that people and personalities are the most interesting topics for debate in any story? Dare I say it, even more than liveries?

I have skipped through the last few posts, so I apologise if this has already been mentioned, but as I read the descriptions of Thompson's character - stubborn, obsessive and incapable of empathising or forming relations with people - I couldn't help thinking Aspergers/ Autism Spectrum.

I just returned from seeing the film 'The Imitation Game' (the story of Alan Turing), and to be honest it has given me the final push to post this as food for thought, or to be shot down. I had hesitated to put this forward as I am not trained or qualified in this, but I know someone who is mildly affected. I doubt that it could be confirmed or diagnosed in someone who is now deceased, but it might explain some of Thompson's behaviours and attitudes. Maybe if writing a book it would be worth asking the question of someone who IS a specialist in this field?

By the way, The Imitation Game is an excellent film and I strongly recommend it.

 

Unlikely I think. I say that on the basis of research I have done into Thompsons war record (WW1).

I 'm not looking to excuse his behaviour in any way - particularly as there are some things that are inexcusable - but there is a strong possibility of other issues bubbling under the surface in line with other ex service men. But whether this is true depends on the next stage of my research - it could be another dead end.

 

I'm trying to remember where I read it, and who it was (possibly Dick Hardy), but someone described Thompson as being able to 'charm the birds from the trees', when he wanted to. That isn't very compatible with autism (by my limited understanding). However, charming people are still more than capable of falling out with others quite spectacularly and holding grudges, especially if they're used to getting their own way.

 

Fair enough, I wanted to put the suggestion forward as food for thought, as stated, and that is done now. I'm sure that personality flaws can have many underlying causes, and his war experiences, whatever they were, may well have been a major influence.

As to 'charming the birds from the trees', I agree that doesn't sound much like autism (by my equally limited understanding).

As an aside, my admitted limited understanding tells me that people who suffer these conditions are very often still successful. I had no idea until I watched the film that Turing had been linked to Aspergers (not a spoiler by the way, if you are planning to see it). His contribution to the war effort and modern life was immense. Anyone who sees the film may understand what made me think of this thread, and prompted my post.

Dave

 

Or did he have a "drink" problem?

Looking at some of the comments on this forum over time, I feel certain contributors may well be "under the influence" when they put finger to keypad........................

Cheers (hic!!)

Alan

 

I believe that's been said of Gresley as well.

Dave

 

Certainly not in any work of reference I've read.

 

It has been stated in several reference books that Gresley was fond of his drink, but that does not necessarily (and should not) denigrate him in any way - he was a man who had lived through the 1920s and 30s; if he did not drink it would have been odd!

I don't think we can or should read much into either Gresley's or Thompson's drinking habits for it has never been reported of either of them that it influenced them in their work or their behaviour at work.

The war issue is an interesting one as Thompson appears to be one of very few locomotive engineers in being on active service for the British army during WW1. Being mentioned in dispatches twice during the war is something of an achievement and - even if he may not have been at the front (I am chasing a lead which may confirm his movements during the war more fully) - he would certainly have been party to the devastation left behind the lines and after the war was over.

However, I should say no more until I know the full facts of that particular part of his story, if more to it can be found, great, if not it remains a strange gap in that known about his life - and yet with distinctions in promotion and rank and mentions in dispatches, bizarrely so. That said, my own late grandfather never spoke to me about his war experiences despite many questions when much younger - perhaps some memories and experiences are never meant to be shared.