Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

It is difficult to analyse perception, but it seems that the sense that Thompson was anti-Gresley was not confined to enthusiasts, albeit it may have been something which generally provoked amusement rather than hostility amongst his colleagues. I have already noted Bonavia's quote from Sir Ronald Matthews in his History of the LNER (Bonavia was an assistant to the Chief General Manager 1945-57 - his papers are at the NRM and may be worth trawling through) but Bonavia also notes "The original GNR A1 was rebuilt.....ungainly appearance compared with the elegance of Gresley's 1922 design (in fact people were struck by the contrast between the neatness of Thompson's own designs and the apparently deliberate "uglification" of Gresley's engines)." Now as we have seen, there really was not much original GNR A1 about 4470, and there was not much that was rebuilt (albeit dismantling it gets to effectively the same result). Bonavia however was not a loco enthusiast so he and others may not have been aware of the subtleties but even had he known, it would be reasonable to consider this an unusual choice of loco. Bonavia also goes on to say "The impression that Thompson was denigrating his predecessor's designs was not entirely removed by a study of his standardisation plan.", although the following comments do not really flesh that out. And "Thompson's successor Peppercorn was temperamentally much more akin to the extrovert Gresley than to his immediate predecessor. "Peps" as he was widely known was a genial character...One of his first moves, which cheered many at Doncaster, was to recall to design work some of Gresley's former assistants, notably B Spencer."

Cox was clearly aware that Thompson had an agenda and refers to his report being used in "the Machiavellian campaign [Thompson] was conducting against all things Gresley". Thompson in fact offered Cox a job but this was stopped by the LMS. Cox notes also that "I learned many years later that [the proposed job] was one of Thompson's many internal wars..." "...the genialities of the M&EE's meetings failed to disclose another side to Thompson's character which was felt in full force by his own assistants and staff , and which resulted in an atmosphere at Doncaster which could hardly be described as that if universal love."

The generally unemotional RCTS Locomotives of the LNER notes in the chapter on the A1/1 "Regrettably it was on other than mechanical grounds that No 4470 was selected for rebuilding. Thompson allowed his personal feelings to get the better of him in this instance and the Chief Draughtsman stated afterwards that he and certain high up officials had unsuccessfully attempted to deter Thompson in this action."

There does seem to be a bit of a common theme here. Having said that, Thompson clearly did much good work, so an appraisal is unlikely to be binary, and as noted, Peppercorn in some ways continued his work. I should add that I don't have an axe to grind, and I do like the looks of the Thompson A2/2.

 

The reason I became so interested in Thompson was exactly that: asking the question, why are we – LNER fans that is - so hostile?

I’m an LNER man through and through and I repeated the often said sound bites of “Thompson set out to rid the LNER of Gresley”, “rebuilt Great Northern out of spite”, “destroyed the P2s through jealousy” and a number of other sound bites that, on reflection, looking at them objectively, are bonkers.

Yes, they’re bonkers. But they only start to look bonkers once you actually start to research. Many of the books regarding the LNER go into very little detail on Thompson, his machines or his time as CME and many by omission make the case for the Richard III version of Thompson strongly.

I questioned my own hostility when it was called out by a friend of mine who is a GWR fan. His biggest concern was how nuts I sounded when I repeated those sound bites. The first thing he asked of me was “didn’t Thompson take over during the war? Wasn’t it at the height of the Blitz? What was really going on?”

Its these assumptions and sound bites that have damaged Thompson’s reputation the most.

Together of course – as I have found – that Thompson himself probably didn’t help his perception. He was a very private person, much moreso than Gresley, and he in many ways had a very difficult life outside of the LNER. That doesn’t excuse everything, but I think the point we should be trying to make is to rationalise Thompson and his actions rather than simply dismissing all he did as either being out of spite or jealousy.

The strangest thing for me is reading comments which are attributed to Thompson. A number of times he praises Gresley to the hilt – “one of the best engineers we’ve ever had” – but he balances this with criticism of the conjugated valve gear. So Thompson felt strongly on this issue and this was the one weakness he felt strongly enough to do something about. Is that spite or is that engineering difference of opinion? Harrison seemed to think spite and is quoted as saying this but other sources differ.

If we were being truly objective, looking at Thompson’s actions and his own reasoning together with what happened, does it really seem likely that in the middle of a very bloody war, with death raining all around at times, with materials short on supply and manpower inadequate at the best of times, that Edward Thompson as CME really had only one goal in his head – to rid the LNER of Gresley? This is an impossible task, which of course he never attained and in my opinion, never thought about attaining.

I started writing the book as an exercise for myself, to try and work out my own feelings. It’s morphed into something more, and I am very grateful to Nat Pres for allowing this thread to continue for our debates. Yes they go round in circles sometimes but I am continuously impressed at the depth of knowledge – and we all learn more as a result.

I’m not promising that I have all the answers. Currently I am in the process of taking all of my source material and changing how I present it in the book. This is a very long and arduous process. But it’s allowed me to see the chronology of Thompson’s time as CME better and I think it puts the man into light better.

He was human. He was flawed. But one thing I feel about Edward Thompson more than anything – he was misunderstood. Maybe unable to fully convey his own feelings or understanding in which himself and his actions could be perceived in the way he wanted.

 

No, not that one goal, many goals, one of which was to make his own mark on the LNER with his ideas of what he thought was good design. ("I have much to do and little time to do it" was I believe the quote). It may well be that to achieve that in wartime he had to be harder on Gresley's heritage than was otherwise necessary. I don't actually blame him, as I've said before, but I don't think denying it does Thompson any great service. By exaggerating your case in such a manner you ensure we have difficulty in believing you are "truly objective"

 

Having read this thread as an LNER fan and specifically of the works attributed to Gresley. I feel that the ire generated by Thompson is out of all proportion to his 'crimes'. It seems that the P2s were too limited in application, too small a class and too flawed to be 'really useful engines' (spent the weekend with my 4yo nephew) so were ripe for a rebuild, sorry but can't fault that decision...that doesn't mean I'm not looking forward to seeing a P2 newbuild! I suspect there was a lot of ego involved in rebuilding Gt Northern, as opposed to another classmate. You want the flagship to be one of yours and you want the flagship to incorporate the latest technology (as you see it), if you want to get one over on your predecessor then that's an added bonus, but I bet it comes behind the other 2 reasons (unless you are a psychopath...are we saying ET was a psychopath?), so yes I bet Gt Northern was deliberately chosen. I do wonder if the planned streamlining had been applied to Gt Northern, whether some of the criticism of its ungainly appearance may have been nullified

 

Had a sportsman made such a quote, they would be praised for their determination - indeed, I suspect high achievers in many walks of life have an outlook of wanting to get on with things quickly as possible. So it seems odd to take such a statement as somehow reflecting badly on Thompson, rather than as a sign of determination and focus.

In the end, I don't think it actually matters whether all of Thompson's ideas turned out better than Gresley's; what is important is that he implemented them honestly believing that they would be better. He had an engineering philosophy that was somewhat at variance at what had gone before; he believed that it would be an improvement; and he was focused on implementing it - indeed, if you genuinely believe your ideas are better than what preceded them, wouldn't you see it as being in the best interests of the company to get them implemented as quickly as possible? With locomotive engineering, "best" is a complicated compromise between capital cost, maintenance cost and operating cost, and the balance sometimes takes years to become obvious, but even so, I still can't see why Thompson is vilified for being focused on implementing what he considered the best solution for his employer?

Tom

 

Who said it reflected badly on Thompson? I was just using it to show that one of Thompson's goals was to make his mark with his own designs. Nothing wrong with wanting to make his mark either - the problems are with what he seems to have done to be able to make his mark in the face of the Board's refusal to allow it. Do you think it reasonable to achieve your aims by means of blaming your predecessor for so much that even the chairman of the board becomes testy, however much you want to achieve them?

 

Indeed it would appear that poor old Mr Thompson made a rod for his own back. Granted Gresley's death had been to a degree unexpected, I have seen a photo [possibly the last or at least one of the last] of Gresley with a group of I presume senior managers/directors look over the prototype Woodhead Electric "Tommy" and he looked decidedly ill and not long for this world. No doubt if his health had been better he'd have stayed on beyond 65 even in pease time. When as Thompson when he hit the big 65 was given the gold watch and ask to shut the door on the way out to retirement and oblivion.

 

That's one interpretation.

Unless we are saying ES Cox was lying and Thompson fiddled the figures, a vast amount of the LNER conjugated valve gear fleet was taking up a lot of maintenance time in WW2.

Partly conditions - lack of manpower and materials (specialist lubricants, for example, that the A4s normally had) - partly design (if of course you accept the conjugated valve gear and particularly the middle big end wasn't perfect).

So here's where we are.

Either Thompson was justified in wanting to make change or he wasn't.

If he wasn't, then the points regarding potential spitefulness, vindictiveness, etc, stands in terms of what he had to do to convince the LNER to make changes. I accept that as an interpretation.

However, if you he was justified in making change on the LNER then there's an argument that he's been treated badly by railway historians thereafter - because clearly he had to do a lot to implement change.

How much you go one way or the other depends upon whether you believe the crux of ES Coxs report - that the issues with the conjugated valve gear were widespread (failure rate compared to similar LMS 3 cylinder engines was six times an amount - what amount is not given in the report).

Big question - do we believe the report or not? (Remember - it was reporting on the current situation only and only in the context of the manpower and maintenance conditions of the time).

How much you rationalise Thompsons actions after the report is published depends on whether you feel the report is accurate, and the information Thompson provided and its findings thereafter were accurate and justified.

The fact remains that ES Cox made a number of suggestions and to different lengths Thompson carried them all out as part of his standardisation plan.

Many people suggest Peppercorn reversed all of Thompsons policies - this is not true. He changed the order for more A2/3s to A2s of his design, and received authorisation for 48 more A1s after his prototype, cancelling the A10 rebuilds. The L1, K1, O1 and other rebuilds continued.

Many of the pre grouping classes Thompson had earmarked for withdrawal and replacement with his B1s were as and when B1s became available.

The interesting thing about all of this is that the report was given behind closed doors - it wasn't reported widely in the railway press and its contents certainly weren't made available to just anyone. So did Thompson really seek to damage Gresleys reputation or seek to do so at the time? War context and confidentiality do apply in addition.

The way you put it Lplus you make it sound as if Thompson had no justification for wanting to make changes - otherwise why have a report written and why be so forthright in wanting to make change?

I've always said there's two sides to every story. One wonders if the side of the story we've had has had the advantage in being the most vocal for the longest time. You start to believe things even though there may be fair, rational and straightforward reasons behind them.

 

Gresleys death was unexpected - but he appears in photographs not long for this world?

Contradiction in terms no?

In any event, only one sad death was truly unexpected in LNER terms - AH Peppercorns, who really did go before his time.

In any event there was no precedent to be set by the retirement age rule - only Thompson was old enough to make it and the LNER ceased to exist within a decade.

 

Not really as if you take earlier part of that quote too "he looked decidedly ill and not long for this world"......... Granted things were in a merry flux what with the war and the Labour landside in mid 1945. Giving them the mandate to nationalise the not only the railways, but other what might be called private national industries like the coal mines.

 

Except that Richard Hardy - who worked in the drawing office and in a small way on 4470 - refutes that Thompson was the one responsible for the choice of 4470.

The way he described it in Steam World 59 was that it was more likely GA Musgraves choice as locomotive running superintendent - a clerk nominating a locomotive and he approving it.

Hardy also stated it was possible that Teddy Windle, chief draughtsman, demonstrated with Thompson over this - but that it was equally possible Thompson would have told him it was Musgraves choice, and, quoting directly, "that would be the end of it [the matter]".

Hardy described this scenario as "how a choice would have been made normally and how railwaymen normally behave in the real world".

I'm prepared to accept there's different interpretations available but this to me sounds the most plausible when you cross reference Hardys recollections against how the LNER was known to work from other authors (Townend for one).

Up to the individual to make their own minds up though.

 

I have to say the Machiavellian scheming Thompson, deliberately testing his rubbish loco against even worse ones so he could build more rubbish locos, does not sound like a real person at all! What possible purpose would be served by building locos you know to be sub-standard? How on earth would it "make a mark" or whatever is supposed to be the rationale.
As the hostel owner says in Muppets in Space "Peoples is peoples". People just don't behave in the bizarre malicious and irrational way Thompson is alleged to have done by some people on here unless they are psychotic. Is that really what you mean? Have you actually met anyone who behaved in the way you claim Thompson did for the type of reasons you are proposing...?

 

I wish it were as simple as that. Thompson seems to have wanted to make changes whether justified by engineering problems or not. He wanted to make his mark and he also didn't like some of Gresley's design ideas, but the Board were quite happy with Gresley's designs and their performance. There were problems due to wartime circumstances which Thompson put before the board as reasons for change. Part of the evidence was the report which I personally think reached an unreasonably critical conclusion. Thompson evidently made such a fuss that the Chairman seems to have become annoyed but eventually gave way. So there was a mix of personal ambition, dislike of some aspects of Gresley's designs, and failures due to wartime circumstance driving Thompson to insist on change.

You speak of justification for change as an absolute - I disagree. Thompson had three justifications in his mind - ambition, dislike of existing designs and wartime problems. In my mind there was not enough of a problem due to wartime circumstance to condemn the Gresley gear out of hand. There may have been sufficient justification for rebuilding the P2s due to operating problems but it seems it was the report which swayed the Board to allow rebuilding the P2s since the report was insisted upon by the board as a precursor to change. So personally I don't believe there was sufficient engineering justification for major change, and thus to my mind the report and the failures were used by Thompson to get his own way in terms of ambition and putting his design ideas into action, at least as far as the pacifics were concerned. As to the newbuild B1 and L1 - and the O4 rebuilds - I doubt the Board really cared if Thompson used 2 instead of 3 cylinders - I don't. It's shame the V4 wasn't pursued, it was a handy and good looking loco, but it was a peacetime design.

We are never going to agree.

 

Take a politician - any politician.....

I asked a simple question - why didn't Thompson test his loco against the best existing version of the A4 if he thought it was better?

Perhaps you could give me a sensible answer without resorting to hyperbole?

 

If I was to look at it with my limited knowledge...............

Gresley had a very long tenure as CME, first on the GNR, then LNER. Secondly most of the 'Big4' CME's' rebuilt their predecessors work to some extent but not hugely so. In the Post 1940 period, except Thompson produced locos very similar to what had gone before (Modified Hall, Fairburn 4mt tank, etc)

Might that have influenced the way he is perceived?

 

Well, honestly, in the absence of Thompson's detailed daily diary how is anyone going to know that?

One can speculate endlessly, from "thought that was a fairer comparison" to "didn't want to mess about with the A4 turns" to "the only locomotive the running dept would let us use" to "we know the relative performance of the fleet anyway so which particular config we ran the tests against didn't really matter and that one was convenient", but such speculations are of very little value.

Might be better to say that "issues with the 3 cylinder fleet were widespread". Stanier/Cox do as you've noted before make it clear that they consider the conjugated valve gear to be a very secondary factor.

 

Erm Bulleid?

 

That pretty much sums up why my book isn't aimed at you. You've already made your mind up and had done so well before this thread was started.

Which pretty much cements for me where the open mindedness lies - it's not on your side of the debate I'm afraid.

 

And yet the Gresley fleet performed all that was asked of it during the war and this included prodigious feats of haulage. Hard to see how the V2s could have won the accolade of "the engines that won the war" if things were as bad as you would have us believe.

 

Fair comment, but it does mean any improvements shown are open to question. Thus they can't be relied upon as a fair measure of improvement due to the gear, cylinder location and frame changes.

Indeed, it was the big end which was failing, though I'm not sure whether the mixed traffic and freight 3 cylinder locos were suffering such a high rate of failure.