Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

I couldn't agree more - but believe it or not that idea is actually on the Wikipedia page for Edward Thompson, which was obviously written by a Gresley fan.

I have to say until recently I was a pretty disinterested observer, no real inclination to "either" side, but the more I see the more I'm inclined to believe that Thompson has been, ahem, treated very unfairly by posterity.

Looking forward to reading your book.

 

The ET/Raven connection was doing the rounds long before Wickipedia was even a twinkle in its inventor's eye.

 

I've long since given up on Wikipedia - or in fact railway websites and magazines in general - trying to present a balanced look at Edward Thompson and Gresley. In my research I've turned up several unexpected anecdotes about Thompson and Gresley socialising and whilst it is clear that in later life the two men were stubborn, perhaps even pig headed and certainly held a few grudges on certain issues, I think that people play up the "anti-Gresley" side of Thompson perceived and equally the "anti-Thompson" feeling in general is played up too.

I have been told a certain high profile time keeper in preservation said once it was easier to sell magazines painting Thompson as a villain than to portray any semblance of balance in articles on him, but there you go...

Thank you, I just hope it lives up to expectations in some ways. I've changed a lot of the book since starting this thread and have been very grateful for the continued debate and to and fro of the thread. It always leads to something new or a new point of view and sometimes - dare I say it - it makes me go back and say quite a lot that my original interpretation of events wasn't right and needed to change.

But that is what I should be doing anyway: when new evidence comes to light, you have to assess it against the whole story and see if on balance it makes a difference. If it does, then you need to adapt to that rather than steadfastly refusing budge from a encamped view.

Absolutely: and what a shame that the people perpetuating it didn't do any research whatsoever into Thompson's life or career.

 

Obviously very much tongue in cheek but be careful not to bite your tongue off !

In fact I suspect Raven had more time for Gresley than many give credence because, despite his steam designs, Raven was keen on electrification and had already initiated proposals for electrification of the ECML but the importance of coal to the NER (later LNER) business led to the electrification of the Newport - Shildon scheme as a first priority. At the Grouping whilst Gresley and Raven designs competed for the new standard LNER Pacific design Gresley also designated Raven as the LNER Electrification Maestro, albeit in a consulting role. His legacy included the adoption of 1500 volts dc as the standard electrification supply for the LNER and later BR electrification schemes and his NER locomotive designs were adopted by Gresley in 1936 when the latter designed his first Class 76 6700 - later 26000 - for the later Woodhead Electrification Scheme.

Whilst not familiar with much of the documentation that SAC has obviously read I suspect that Thompson's choice of 1470 was made more in ignorance - especially of the effect his choice would make - rather any desire to wipe out the work of his predecessor and that such choices may reflect on a lack of sensitivity that many claim Thompson had in his dealings with others.

 

I am afraid that any notion that ET chose to rebuild 4470 through any form of error is truly mistaken.

He also took deliberate decisions to avoid making use of design material (boilers) that emanated from the GN/Gresley/Doncaster centre of thinking.

His mixed traffic standard design weighed more than the Gresley better than equivalent. And it used a copper firebox too. Not a good decision in wartime.

With respect to his "Pacifics", who really influenced him? On the boiler front he messed up the a/s ratios and on the chassis side divided drive is not the way to go if you can avoid it. The cylinder disposition came from the compound school. (French mainly) But ET displayed a woeful lack of understanding with respect to the mechanical integrity that it offered. As for his work with 10,000 - the less said etc.

Given a task "to give him something to do" how much of the work carried out on the B12 modernisation was actually carried out by him?

At the end of the day those that are admired do the very best possible with the resources available to them. These we learn from, the rest are best forgotten. Life is too short and the challenges too onerous.

 

I have asked you a number of times to explain this point and you have still, as yet, to explain this thinking.

But I suppose the use of high grade materials specifically in the V4, and trialling a thermic siphon boiler, in addition to conjugated valve gear, in a locomotive for which lots of new tooling had to be created, was a better decision in wartime?

I've already covered off a few of your points previously but I'm flabbergasted by the above - because yet again you say a lot without giving sources and some of it seems absoplutely contrary to the facts.

Particularly regarding the W1 for which Thompson had little, if any, input - he was at Stratford works throughout the majority of its development and Bulleid was assisting Gresley on that project along with the P2s. How on earth can you aim the finger at Thompson there?

I have copied my response from a few pages past to respond to your points again. Please quote some sources for your "information" - mine I shall put in as a list at the start of this thread I think to help see my thinking.

Looked good but found lacking in a number of key areas, hence the rebuilding scheme which saw the whole class of Lentz valve gear locomotives (as ordered under Gresley) to be rebuilt to B12/3, and 44 of the B12/1s to the same spec.
I don't think there is any doubt - surely - that the B12/3 version of the class was the ultimate development and its usefulness during the second world war pulling ambulance trains cannot be understated. Another locomotive class of the second world war that doesn't quite get the recognition it deserves.

If you read page 25 and 26 of Peter Grafton's work on Edward Thompson, you will find out he was intrinsically involved to the extent of working out the valve timings on a wooden mock up of the new valve gear with one of his technical staff, Mr A.E. English. The detail that Thompson went into for the rebuilding of 8579 whilst he was head of Stratford works is astonishing and is one of the few times I have found further details on this in contemporary sources such as The Railway Magazine corroborating the work that Gresley was impressed enough with to sign off a complete rebuilding schedule on.

So the answer is a lot more than you would choose to believe sir.

That's an awfully strange statement to make when a number of extremely similar round topped boilers were being fitted by Gresley to moguls, tank engines and mineral freight locomotives! The 99A boiler fitted to the B12/3s and the diagram 100 boiler fitted to the B1s are very similar in a number of details, and given the 99A boiler was based on the original 2800 boiler fitted to the Gresley B17s (which later received the 100 and 100a boiler types, your comment is totally off the mark.

If the NBL design was good enough for Gresley to sign off on why is it suddenly such a big deal when Thompson agrees with Gresley and chooses a similar design? I don't understand why you are so scathing of a design decision that Gresley and Thompson appear to have agreed on.

Of course it was deliberate and he was perfectly at liberty as CME to pick a boiler type he felt suitable for his new mixed traffic locomotive. What exactly is your point here? Is there any dispute in the steaming propensities of that boiler? Are you saying the Thompson B1 was in any way unsuitable for the traffic it found itself on?

In short what exactly is your point?

In only two major areas - the conjugated valve gear and its placement relative to the cylinders, and the number of cylinders for the small and medium sized locomotives. Both areas which - as borne out by the BR Standard program - Thompson was absolutely correct to question and make changes.

In all other areas he didn't exactly go out of his way to change for change's sake - a Thompson Pacific still has a double kylchap exhaust, big Gresley two window cab, eight wheel tender, round topped Gresley style boiler (whether with a banjo or round dome) and three cylinders. Would you argue a raised running plate, eliminating the traditional splashers, was a bad idea?

Perhaps you should try reading and researching as I have done - you would see that statement is totally without foundation and a ridiculous assertion propagated by people caught up in the most vitriolic of Thompson detractors. I will not waste any more time on responding to this point as - with only six rebuilt mikados and one Pacific in total considered controversial and not in keeping with Gresley, the facts somewhat prove your statement wrong.

In any event - he was CME and it was his right as it was with every CME of every single railway in the land to plough their own furrow and develop their own engineering policies.

That is a ridiculous assertion given it was - like every single other railway across the length and breadth of Britain - a wartime austerity measure that was - to be absolutely fair to Thompson - being implemented in any event as he came into office. Getting supplies of the transfers for the lettering and numerals in wartime was impractical and difficult.

The plain wartime black was applied across the board and there is photographic evidence that both NE and LNER in various forms was used where supplies were available. So it's not a hard and fast rule and certainly understandable given there WAS a war on!

But Thompson was one of the first of the CMEs to bring BACK the corporate liveries with the A4s and other Pacifics returned to their apple green liveries at the end of the war. He didn't change this at all when he could well have done so if he had so wished (as Bulleid did in fact on the Southern!).

One of the proudest moments of Thompson's life, it is recorded, was was seeing no.500 Edward Thompson in full apple green LNER livery - hardly someone who wanted to eliminate the LNER as it was under Gresley?

You could ask exactly the same of Gresley or any other CME. Not enough credit is given to Freddie Harrison, for example, for his part on the LNER throughout his time working for all three of the LNER CMEs and under Riddles.

So the point is well made but equally applicable elsewhere, so your use of it to disparage Thompson falls down somewhat.

Source please? And to what extent? A bit of a open ended statement with no actual substance to it.

Could you provide a source for this please and to what extent do you believe his quality of work was sub par? He seems to have had very little to do with no.10,000, for which Bulleid was more involved in the original design (which many people believe - wrongly in my view - was a failure) but Thompson was involved in the rebuild and actually used the W1 as a standard in several comparative trials with existing and new designs of Pacific. That he was not present for the majority of the development of the P2s and W1 is down to him being in charge of Stratford works at the time.

 

Regarding the B1 weighting more than the V4, I'm sure I read (probably back in this thread) that the B1 was significantly cheaper to build than either the V4 or a black 5, whilst offering similar,if admittedly not class leading performance. It is perhaps a Skoda to the V4 Audi, which in wartime and post-war Britain, was far more appropriate.

 

Rest easy folks, I shall not raise the, ahem, hypothesis of the Raven's Revenge again..... but before I dump it in the swamp where it belongs two parting thoughts:

1. the case against Thompson is materially weakened when it rests, at least in part, on what is let's face it, a conspiracy theory. #David Icke.
2. Thompson clearly deserves better than to be smeared with such playground stuff, but Gresley also deserves better than to be served in such a manner.

An earlier poster mentioned the possibility that Thompson may have been Autistic (I read the suggestion as being meant to be constructive or explanatory rather than abusive).

If Thompson was Autistic he would have had Aspergers Syndrome (which is now being described as high functioning Autism). I'm not sure if you had any thoughts on this or plans to explore it further but as someone who was diagnosed just last year I'd be happy to swap thoughts with you on this matter by PM / conversation.

 

No - I am positive that Thompson was not autistic.

However I am investigating the possibility of potential shell shock. Certain documents having been made available to me about Thompson's war record, he was in charge of large scale troop deployment and was at at the front on several occasions, including stints at certain locations were the battles were bloodiest. It would explain an awful lot of his character and in particular an extreme recollection regarding a bout of jaundice he had.

 

My understanding was that, far from being "beaten to the job" Raven did not want the challenge and essentially passed himself over in favour of the younger man.

 

I thought that was Robinson. He was offered the job but suggested Gresley because of his relative youth. I don't know if Raven was even considered.

 

And of course we couldn't get Skodas and Audis in wartime.

 

The account I've read of the matter is that robinson was the senior CME of the grouped companies and was offered the job on a seniority basis. Not wanting it, he suggested HNG rather than Raven who IIRC was the next in seniority.

 

Quoting the LNER encyclopedia
"
With the imminent formation of the LNER, Raven resigned from the position of CME in 1922, but was appointed to the position of Technical Advisor of the LNER for 1923. Also in 1923, Raven becomes a director of Metropolitan Vickers. In 1924 and 1925, Raven travels to New Zealand and India, reporting his findings to IMechE, before effectively retiring.

Raven died on 14th February 1934"

Not sure if that means he took himself out of the running, or he was persuaded to leave.

 

Anyway... I might be alone but I actually really like the look of this

 

Alone? Probably not. Deluded? Probably so.

 

This is part and parcel of the problem. It seems perfectly reasonable to undermine anyone who actually likes a Thompson design, but if you dare criticise a Gresley, Bulleid, Stanier or similar design whether for aesthetics or mechanical properties - woe betide you!

The double standards simply must stop in railway preservation in terms of discussing its history.

Frankly I find I like the length and layout of the Thompson Pacifics a hell of a lot more than a Bulleid Pacific - I know which I'd prefer to be fixing if I were a fitter in the 1950s.

 

Chill out dude and note the smiley.

 

Sorry, it just looks wrong to me. Like some one grabbed it by the smokebox and pulled hard. When compared to the Peppercorn A2, it just looks ungainly.

Almost anything is better than an unrebuilt Bulleid, certainly a Thompson/Peppercorn A2. (Worked on an A1 and a W/C so I do know)

 

There's a smiley? Sorry I'm currently on an older windows machine and there's not one coming up here. If that's the case my apologies for the brusqeness of my reply!