Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

Hi Simon,

I dont think Bert Spencer was an advocate of the conjugated gear. He did what his boss Gresley told him to do, and Gresley ignored Spencer's objections to the original A1s having short travel valves - and we all know what happened as a result!

Read also Spencer's paper The development of L.N.E.R. locomotive design, 1923-1941. J. Instn Loco. Engrs., 1947, 37, 164-210. Disc. 210-43, 524-41. (Paper No. 465)

Funny isnt it how the first thing Peppercorn does is bring Spencer back to Doncaster drawing office, despite Peppercorn not perpetuating the conjugated gear!

Cheers,
Julian

 

Absolutely fair point Julian, well made.

 

I think this illustrates where your desire to explain shades into a desire to exculpate. There is a profound difference between having your work reviewed, and having someone come around when you aren't there to check up on you when you aren't there. One is perfectly normal and professional, the other is frankly sneaky.

Unlike @paulhitch and some others, I have found this thread interesting as shedding a light on a topic I know little about, and which sheds light on some of the passions loose in this hobby of ours.

However, I know from my days as a student historian, that it is sometimes necessary to assemble the facts till they build a picture, then go to press with a considered thesis. In this case, I am concerned that the thesis has been pre-ordained, and that so much time that could have gone into active research has instead gone into postings on here. And, while I would never expect any researcher to know every document or publication in their area, I am a little surprised at some of the gaps that have been highlighted - if only from the point of view of a literature survey; Day-Lewis on Bulleid being a particular example.

Based on this thread, I am convinced that there is an interesting article, possibly even a book*, to be written on Thompson's reputation, how it developed, and where it was (and wasn't) fairly based on his engineering. Like a good malt whisky, though, I suspect it will mature better away from heat and light.

* - Long ago, I realised that railways can generate books that are far longer than the intrinsic interest of their topic, from memory while reading an extremely thorough history of the Brill branch. The classic of that genre, in my experience, is the 416 pages devoted to the West Somerset Mineral Railway by M.H. Jones.

 

Ruffled preconceptions? None at all on this issue. It's just that I am not scouting around to justify any particular standpoint, especially when all involved are dead and there is no conclusive evidence.
This is post No 1304 on this topic. Good grief!

PH

 

If I may, I'll respond more in full after work but I appreciate your post greatly as there's a number of very salient (and fairly put) points that need to be addressed - and yes, I've had a fear at times of wondering if I have swung too far in one direction. However that's half the battle of the material.

In terms of the literature - if you don't know it exists, you can't read it. That's partly why this thread exists: and I am very grateful for the large number of contributors to the thread who have pointed me in the right direction for books or journals to read and collate.

 

No further response necessary from my perspective.

 

I think Simon has said repeatedly he doesn't want to exculpate (nice word!) or even excuse Mr Thompson, just de-demonise him a little. Sounds reasonable to me.

I've never understood why Thompson is vilified in a way other CMEs with mixed legacies are not. Bulleid being the obvious example (as an aside, there are some other rebuilds where I would be interested to know if it worth the money spent rebuilding them). I bet the LNER felt they "got their money's worth" from Thompson, too.
Even people like Robert Whitelegg, who by all accounts basically ruined the G&SWR by the simple means of bad valve gear design/poor valves on his rebuilds and even locos just shopped under his supervision, don't seem to be so hated.

Why?

 

I think the simple answer to all this is that unfortunately Thompson was hated by all his subordinates when he was CME.

Even the despised Marsh got on with his chief draughtsman Basil Field, and delegated a lot to him. Thompson sent his chief draughtsman Bert Spencer away from Doncaster, and so was deprived of the one person who stood up to him and was the most experienced in the drawing office.

If Simon drags up Dick Hardy again in support I will groan and quote 'old school public tie' stuff!

Cheers,
Julian

 

So would it have been better if everyone in the drawing office was very matey, but the locos produced were more costly and harder to maintain (Pacifics possibly excepted)?

As a non LNER person, can someone explain why Peppercorn didn't revert to the Gresley valve gear (and other details)? Should he have done so?

 

Julian your dismissal of Richard Hardy is frankly astonishing. He was there. He was in the drawing office when Thompson was CME. His view is as valid - if not more so - than many of the writers you've quoted. He is one of the last living links to Thompson and the LNER.

The least you could do is have read his works on Thompson, articles and perhaps show a damn sight more respect to him.

I also sense a massive chip on your shoulder regarding public schools which is completely blinding you to the obvious. Where he was schooled is irrelevant: he was there, he is a living witness, and unless you're suggesting he's a pathological liar trying to exculpate Thompson himself, his views are valid.

If he was there, and he knew Thompson, and also worked in the drawing office, then he saw a different side to the story that is well known. So that at the very least shows it is not as cut and shut as you and other partisan contributors would have us believe.

But I sense you are now just trying to bait me so I'll leave you to it. I'm not trying to convince anyone whose minds are made up with their own prejudices and pre conceptions.

Thompson hated by all of his subordinates? When one such subordinate says otherwise? What a view at odds with the truth we know!

 

Did not Thompson send a rather nice letter to a young Dick Hardy adding as a postscript something like 'I was at Marlborough too'...

If that isnt an example of the 'old public school tie' then I dont know what is!

Checkmate?

Cheers,
Julian

 

And why should the published recollections of Barney Symes senior draughtsman carry less weight than Dick Hardy who was a mere boy at the time?

 

Gresley also went to Marlborough. So what? That shouldn't dictate our preconceptions of any of the three men.

And did I mention Symes Julian? No I did not. You've thrown a number of railway authors - Rogers for one - at me.

So are Hardys first hand recollections of so little value? That seems ludicrous.

However, Hardy was no "mere boy" when he worked for Thompson, which shows exactly how much you actually know about his railway service. And to be frank that's a ridiculous thing to say to undermine Hardys views.

 

Hi Simon,

So despite the 'old school tie' connection with Hardy you dismiss Barney Symes's recollections and give greater weight to Hardy? Despite at the time Hardy was very junior, and Symes a senior draughtsman!

What does that postscript on that letter from Thompson to Hardy signify to you? It is pretty clear to me!

Cheers,
Julian

 

Julian,

I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse but I've never said at any point that I give any greater weight to Hardy over Symes. They were both there and experienced two different Thompsons and are equally valid views. Hardy is a living witness which is exceedingly rare these days.

Unlike you, I am not discounting anyone by virtue of their age or schooling.

If you choose to discount Hardy because he was an apprentice and also comparatively young, that's your hang up.

I choose to place some weight on Hardys views because he is at the very least proof that Thompson is more complicated a person than Symes or anyone else has described.

I'm very much of the opinion that you are sidestepping any points I make in favour of your own one sided affair. I therefore feel there's little to more to say to you on this matter. Other contributors can make their own minds up.

 

And you don't?

 

One page back you can see where I actively supported a post Julian made.

There's other examples, if you care to read them.

 

It is hard to keep out of this when so much is thrown about that could be resolved by simply checking a few sources.

Dick Hardy was no Thompson worshipper. He frankly says he has no experience of the Pacifics in service and leaves it as that, nor as far as I know does he comment on Thompson's relationships with the rest of the drawing office. We know from Hardy's reaction to L. P. Parker (a true martinet of the old school) that he was tolerant of behaviour that many, especially those brought up in a modern egalitarian environment, would find unacceptable.

We are talking about transitional times, in the middle of a war, for goodness sake, and a new incumbent who is trying to achieve change for what he believes are excellent reasons. Should the person in charge, who has made his case to the board, allow himself to be obstructed by his subordinates, no matter how experienced?

Having run teams of engineers, I know from experience that one person who refuses to 'sign up' to the project can, without deliberately sabotaging, prevent all progress. Such people have to be removed or bypassed.

It does seem that Thompson, if opposed, would maybe push his ideas even further, with unfortunate results like the undersized wheels on the L1's. But on the other hand he is entitled to expect at least a fair hearing from his subordinates - ultimately what is done is his personal responsibility, far more so then than now, and if he, the boss, adopts ideas that he does not believe in then he places himself in an impossible position. I see here rooted obstinacy on both sides. But at the end of the day the boss is entitled to insist - if he doesn't he is no boss at all.

No, Peppercorn did not revert to the conjugated gear. Nor did he remove the conjugated gear from anything that had it. Both solutions had their problems, but both in the end were made very reliable, although the Gresley solution has always upset critics because of the uneven beat it could produce. There is no evidence that the uneven beat was in any way detrimental to the locos' ability to perform their allotted tasks, any more than the uneven beat of the LNWR 0-8-0's was. There is in fact no engineering reason why a 3 cylinder engine should not have a larger middle cylinder anyway, as long as the extra power is accommodated in the design of the big end etc. I doubt anyone would design an engine like that because it upsets entrenched ideas of symmetry and fitness, but it would work.

 

Why did the LNWR 0-8-0s have an uneven beat?

 

There certainly are valid engineering reasons why you might choose not to design a 3 cylinder engine with a larger middle cylinder; if you get the balancing right you've effectively just wasted a load of mass that could be usefully taking load, to say nothing of getting an even turning moment. I suppose Smith-type 3-cylinder compounds (Midland compounds and SNCF 242A1), are almost equivalent, with relatively even cylinder sizes but potentially widely varying pressures, but they usually had the outside cylinders at 90deg crank angle and the inside cylinder splitting the difference (which also benefits the exhaust).