Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

You might want to include the chapter "From Cock o' the North to Saint Johnstoun" in "Essays in Steam" (J F Clay) as part of your reading.

There is a J F Clay quote (can't remember where I saw it) along the lines of judging ET just on his larger engines is as unfair as judging SNG just on his smaller engines.

 

Thank you very much - I will seek that book and quotation out.

 

Indeed speaking of Sir Vincent Raven. Whilst he was "passed over" if you will for the post of C.M.E. of the newly formed L.N.E.R. he did stay on for around a year or so acting as a "Consultant". As both he and Mr [at the time] Nigel Gresley held each other in high regard. After all Raven had, had plans to electrify the Eact Coast Mainline between York and Newcastle, he even went to the extent of building an express Electric engine [the ill numbered] 13 which was tested on the Newport [Thornaby] Shildon line, that in turn crossed the ECML at Darlington. After all whilst Gresley was known as a "steam" man, he was open minded enough to at least have a look at the alternatives. Hence the 3 Armstrong Whitworth Diesel railcars that ran in the thirties......

 

Do you have specific knowledge of the way the gear was maintained?

Having the good fortune to have an A4 in the yard at Ropley, I've looked at the gear itself with a view to maintenance. I could grease all the joints bar the centre pivot and the connection to the end of the middle valve from the sides of the loco. I'm not sure if access to the centre joint requires opening the codsmouth and lifting a plate or two, or needs access from a pit, I think the foreman might take a dim view of me crawling under it in the yard. Next time it's on the pit for preparation, I might try to have a look if I'm there that day. I'm fairly sure the nonstreamline pacifics had doors and removable plates in the front for access, as did all but the D49 and B17 which had the gear behind the cylinders.

 

There will be an interesting exercise. IIRC having the gear behind the cylinders avoided the problems of valve over travel associated with having the gear at the front so I wonder what the middle big end failure rates for those classes were.

 

Which is why no modern locomotives are called Wandering Willie or Gay Crusader.

 

I've re-read Cecil J Allen's account of the Thompson pacifics. The tone is certainly set by the first chapter title - The revolt from Gresley - and one does get the feeling that, whilst his reviews of other CMEs' work has some degree of admiration (perhaps not for The Great Bear but I think we all agree that that was a camel) his review of Thompson has a feeling that it was something a little distasteful that had to covered for completeness. Nevertheless he does say: "Whatever else might be alleged against these Thompson rebuilds, however, there was nothing wrong with their front end arrangement, as was demonstrated by their capacity for high speed". This is illustrated by a table of runs between York and Darlington with Earl Marischal. Of course none of the other big four companies had pacifics designed by more than one CME. If they had perhaps similar partisanship would run through their histories.

As for the authors of various popular works, we need to remember that, of those actively covering the period in question people like Allen and Ellis were authors whilst Nock was an engineer turned author. His outlook was prolific but sometimes had the hallmarks of a production engineer in that there would be a certain period allocated to a certain book and no recovery allowance for poking further into sources. This I think explains his quoting oral sources and not doing deeper research.

 

Indeed so. This is why we need to be cautious about such works, as well as those by people who appear to be riding hobby horses.

PH

 

Remember also that many books were written on contemporaneous information whilst later writers were able to access official records (i.e. locomotive record cards) that told a different story or better identified the conditions in which unpopular decisions were made; the Cox / Stanier report and its availability being but one example. Possibly this means that Simon is better "qualified" to write a book on Thompson as sufficient time has passed that both more records / research material have become available and Thompson's work can be seen in a more conciliatory perspective in the context of the time as we now know it.

 

To be fair, we are still finding new and interesting potential sources, for which I'm most grateful.

Such enthusiasm from a mind open to possibilities! But you are not wholly wrong and I suspect left it open ended for a reason.

 

Unfortunately I cannot "buy" this. The trouble with revisionist historians is that they tend to start with a premise and hunt around for "facts" to justify this. For example I would be very careful in how much reliance is placed on E.S. Cox who comes over in his own words as a top grade office politician (e.g. his expressed approval of Fairburn as someone who "loved intrigue"). We are all well aware of reports and surveys which are put together to produce the results wished for by the person or organisation commissioning them. Who better to do this than an office politician?

We will never know one way or another.

PH

 

I think that's true on a number of levels. When Grafton wrote his original book he didn't have access to the research methods I've been able to employ - the forces database, online search engines, even this forum.

I do believe firmly that the reporting of this bit of railway history needs changing in the most part. I've never seen any Gresley book or journal mention the Stanier report - the general belief is that Thompson was acting purely out of spite, to "uglify his predecessors designs so as to make Gresley turn in his grace".

That's clearly not the case and some tipping the balance of the way events are portrayed is required. However we can look at that which has been uncovered and say - even if you might disagree still with thompsons choices - that you understand why he made them a little better.

 

Let me ask you a direct question please, Paul. What have YOU read on Edward Thompson, and what exactly do YOU personally call "revisionist" about this thread?

There is a difference between hunting for facts to suit ideas and bring presented with evidence that confirms it.

At the same time all new evidence is up for scrutiny - but don't things like the Stanier report sway favour away from the established thinking to something different? What if the established thinking is wrong?

Surely it is the duty of fair minded people to look at BOTH sides of the story and make their minds up based on that?

 

What do I consider "revisionist"? Just about everything.

PH

 

What specifically and why?

Would you not agree that history should be revised where the evidence suggests it has been recorded, if not wrong, but in a manner not fair to the individuals concerned, it should be revised?

 

You're on a hiding to nothing trying to get Paul to justify his sweeping generalisations...

 

Hardly a generalisation. There is no-body alive who is in a position to assist and there is a paucity of written information.

The whole point is that there is no definite evidence one way or another. It is as much conjecture as whether or not Richard III did have the princes in the Tower murdered or if the Duke of Clarence was in fact Jack the Ripper. Certainly nothing to write a book about.

PH

 

Probably: but I think it's right to ask so that I can understand his point of view better.

Maybe everything potentially on Thompson will be revising the accepted story. So what? If the evidence on inspection stands up to scrutiny then it should.

One thing above all else has defined this debate. There is a clear and aggressive defence of the accepted thinking wherever someone thinks it believes it might in some way portray Gresley in a negative light.

I have nothing but the upmost respect for Gresley and it has never been my intention at any point to deride him or tarnish his memory by stating that Thompson may have been right to follow the path he chose.

However, in retrospect I can see why others might be defensive where the evidence presents or could present uncomfortable truths.

I will always look to present my findings in a fair and balanced way - and where Gresley is concerned, I will always look to be fair and place his actions firmly in context, as I would with Thompson.

I think a fair point has been made regarding conjugated valve gear and the reports conclusions and would look to revise my views there accordingly.