Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

Marsh's status and how he's been reported isn't necessarily irrelevant to this conversation. Ask the question: how has Marsh been presented and does it feel fair?

Lashing out under stress is not the same as being "unbalanced" which I'm sure you're aware has other negative connotations which have been applied to Thompson.

And in any event - how Marsh or Thompson act under stress has no bearing on the question of objectively trying to ascertain the pros/cons of their locomotive policies.

 

There is one instance cited where Marsh had an elderly but serviceable locomotive scrapped because it stalled at the head of a grossly over loaded train in which he was a passenger. Earlier in his career, at Swindon, hie was so disliked by his boss that the latter refused to talk with him. On the other hand H.A. Ivatt seems to have had a productive relationship with Marsh.

It all sounds a bit familiar doesn't it! A rather "hit and miss" mechanical judgement is another thing in common.

I am always a bit cautious about revisionists views on as "errors" in the accounts of past happenings. As an example, away from railways, revisionist historians were apt to cite Richard III's "hunchback" as an example of Tudor propaganda. Ironic therefore that following the monarch's recent exhumation, about the only thing we know for certain about his life was that he did indeed suffer from a spinal deformity!

PH

 

Well, I hope this getting too off topic but I totally agree with Paul.

Even before WW1 (when arguably Unions in the railway works were just starting to find their feet) Marsh had an appalling reputation at Brighton with 'man management'.

He also had a strong dislike of anything built by Stroudley - whose influence at Brighton 20 years after his death remained incredibly strong.

Marsh, in a fit of temper ordered the immediate withdrawal of Stroudley single wheeler 'Abergavenny' because it slipped on the notorious Falmer bank with a train (that it wasnt booked to work) that Marsh was travelling in.

There is also a lot of evidence (much of it only recently uncovered) of Marsh shall we say being a bit free and easy with expenses and sale of 'surplus' items. Previously this was only hinted at...'leaving under a cloud' etc.

Simon, have another look at Roger's book on Thompson and find all the quotes from B.C. Symes who was a senior draughtsman in the Doncaster drawing office. There is also quite a lot about Thompson's character and the way he dealt with staff in Grafton's book which you havent referred to.

Cheers,
Julian

 

Yes Paul - but the best known version of Richard III is that written by Shakespeare and that has informed generations of "historical fact" despite that version of the historical figure being a mostly fictional being written to appease an Elizabethan audience with contemporary views on Richard III being less than fair to him.

 

Hang on Julian. I'm not objecting to Thompson being difficult or trying to airbrush anyone's views put forward.

I'm objecting to your use of the word "unbalanced" and the context you placed that in.

You've continuously ignored the positive aspects of Thompson referred to but I haven't denied the negative accounts exist.

I'm asking if it's fair to portray Thompson as unbalanced.

In the end I suspect your mind is made up - which is why you settle for the Shakespearean Richard III version of Thompson rather than question your own preconceptions of the man.

 

But he was right about the "crookback" bit! Perhaps the critics are right about Thompson as well. Being an autocrat is not of itself a guarantee of unpopularity. Stroudley and Churchward are examples of this.

PH

 

But maybe the critics are right - and are also only telling one side of the whole story. Does that seem fair and balanced to you?

If you think Thompsons a one dimensional Shakespearean villain, then clearly you're only going to look at the negative portrayals and not the positive ones.

What is astonishing is how much of that aimed at Thompson is when broken down "he said, she said" and not a critical, objective appraisal of his actions.

It's very easy to pick a side and fight that corner. It's difficult to be fair and balanced because sometimes that means admitting the other side has a point.

A point made to me recently: one can spin it thus that Thompson wanted to undermine Gresleys reputation (I don't accept this personally but it is a known viewpoint that exists) - equally it is easy to make Gresley look even better by decrying his immediate successor.

I wonder sometimes. It seems too easy to dismiss Thompson out of hand by one side of the debate than to acknowledge he may have had a point, but executed his ideas in a less than ideal manner.

 

It's quite straightforward really and applies to any employment situation, railway or otherwise. If a Chief is well liked, well respected or both the subordinates will forgive most imperfections. However, if a person is disliked or only has authority by virtue of the post occupied then the underlings will believe anything of them. As far as I am aware Thompson was not accused of dishonesty a la D.E. Marsh. Regarding the latter, no hard evidence seems to survive but one gets the opinion that people around the Brighton scene at the time "thought him capable of anything" which ended up being damning. If Thompson was disliked by the drawing office it is pure human nature for these people not to undertake those little extra exertions they would happily give to someone they did have regard for.

Much of this thread has been pure wimwam and IMHO this whole matter hardly warrants a whole book being devoted to it. Not everybody is a revisionist or really cares that much.

PH

 

Ah there's that Paul Hitch charm again!

Lucky I like writing eh? I'm sure there'll be one person who might like to read - and at least I can say I've been happy to share my research when prompted.

You say revisionist - I say "om-buds-man".

 

Article yes but book no.

PH

 

That's one man's opinion. If anyone asks for an article on Thompson I'd be happy to provide. I'm writing the book because I want to: not necessarily because there is a pressing need for it. Does one need to have a reason to pick up a pen and write for one's own pleasure and self-improvement?

 

Yes but please let this thread come to a natural end without giving it artificial respiration again!

PH

 

We should be thankful that Paul hasn't called Thompson a starry-eyed gricer.

 

Paul,
I often support your viewpoint on other threads when the predictable anti-PH backlash gets posted.
No one is forcing you or anyone to read this thread. If you think the subject is exhausted, read other threads and skip this one. Some of are finding it interesting still.

 

Come, come, he was never that.

PH

 

I think we could all quite agree on that!

 

Hi Simon,

Please dont accuse me of bias. I am not a Gresley fan, nor have I any Thompson bias. I have read Rodgers and Grafton. Both show Thompson as a bad 'man management' boss, same as Marsh, and both had a bad temper and odd traits.

I entirely agree with Paul that this would result in a complete breakdown in goodwill with the drawing office staff, and would affect design work.

Barney Symes was so p-ssed off he was still fuming about it 30 or so years later when he wrote to Rodgers.

Imagine the Chief Draughtsman in 1942 being posted 'elsewhere' namely Bert Spencer, because he was the one person who stood up to Thompson, as he did to Gresley. Imagine the effect that would have had on his colleagues!

Guys at their desks knowing come 5pm their boss would later go round the office checking everything they had done after they had gone home.

Symes states quite categorically no one dared question anything Thompson ordered. So no one said 'I dont think your rebuilt P2 frame arrangement is ok, or the cylinder arrangement ok'... (or 'your B1 frames are too thin and the axleboxes too small')

Not a good situation at Doncaster.

And not good for wartime either.

Just again my personal opinion of course.

Cheers,
Julian

 

Let's play devils advocate here a little.

You take over the reins as CME in 1941.

You find that maintenance costs are soaring. Skilled workers which would normally have been there for the upkeep of locomotives are now on war service and the LNER is drafting in whoever they can find to keep things running.

More three cylinder Gresley locomotives are out of service at any one time than other types at this point in the war - born out by Coxs report.

You receive said report.

Bert Spencer and his team had been working on a more complicated (both materials and design wise) 2-6-2 and a 4-8-2 from about 1937/8. There's no simple to maintain designs on the horizon. These are surely needed.

If you're Thompson - or anyone else for that matter - wouldn't your question be "what have you been doing for the last three years?"

There's a war on and there are clear issues emerging for the circumstances you find yourselves in.

You now know from the independent report that you can make changes and remove the conjugated valve gear. Bert Spencer is an advocate of keeping the gear and is a vocal opposition to your plans.

The sensible thing to do is remove Bert Spencer from office and replace him with someone who supports your plans going forward.

And this would not be difficult to do - you have a report which does not report favourably on the middle big end design or the conjugated gear overall (or at least, accepting we have different interpretations, the perception of the conjugated gear you receive from the report is not favourable).

Bert Spencer might have stood up to Gresley on occasion - but at that point in WW2 Thompson felt he had to make changes, and if you are not using conjugated gear going forward why would you keep someone who is a vocal and clear opponent to your plans?

Answer is you wouldn't.

That's surely one of the things about working that you generally accept? If you do your work you shouldn't fear quality assurance. I can't see that this is any different to how it should have been in the first place.

If it wasn't - why wasn't it? Why did the Doncaster drawing office require such measures? You could put that down to Thompson - or were the drawing office at that point, with Gresley ill in the early years of the war, just not doing what they should have been doing?

Anyone who comes into an office and wants to make efficiencies is going to be unpopular - one rather thinks there's two ways this could have been spun.

This I find difficult to accept as Peter Townend states a few things in East Coast Pacifics at Work which contradict that - such as the connecting rod/cylinder issue was a draughtsman man choice, not Thompsons (though it allowed him to make all three connecting rods equal length).

And in any event, a lot of Thompsons choices are down to wartime measures. The P2s had to reuse as much as possible and use standard parts where possible.

The B1 was effectively the same and the overall aim in the war effort was making the most of what you have.

There were materials shortages - particularly metals. Your works are mostly preoccupied in any event making armaments.

So if you are Thompson - with no end of the war in sight as yet - what would you do? Given the circumstances?

You're criticising decisions that were made when air raids and austerity were the order of the day - when Britain needed order and rationing because there was, let's face it, a wee bit of an inconvenience to the drawing office in that there was a war on.

If you're Mount - the governments official from the war office in charge of railways - and you see these decisions being taken that you Julian see as poor engineering decisions, but your side of the story is "making most of what we have" - you're going to see those decisions in a completely different light.

 

Not so much "Devils Advocate" as "Compulsive Revisionist" I fear.

Having perpetuated this rather tedious thread by a further posting(!) let me just make one observation regarding E.S. Cox. In one of his books he refers in approving terms of Fairburn that "he loved intrigue". Sounds as if Mr. Cox was rather fond of office politics which point should be good for a further 300 or so postings.

PH

 

You know when you've ruffled someone's preconceptions when they have to attack your personality rather than your argument. Swing and a miss I'm afraid Mr Hitch - try again later on if you're willing or, in fact, able.