If you register, you can do a lot more. And become an active part of our growing community. You'll have access to hidden forums, and enjoy the ability of replying and starting conversations.

Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

Discussion in 'Steam Traction' started by S.A.C. Martin, May 2, 2012.

  1. jma1009

    jma1009 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,381
    Likes Received:
    1,637
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    ynysddu south wales
    30567, Come on! Is that stuff from Dick Hardy not sycophantic? With regards Thompson, who went to the same public school, and shared the same old school tie. Perhaps they were members of the same Masonic Lodge too, overlapping a few years. (This could easily be resolved).

    Cheers,
    Julian
     
  2. 35B

    35B Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    25,493
    Likes Received:
    23,730
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Grantham
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    It sounds very strong when compared with those two pages. Which is why I think that discounting it is unwise. In the absence of other evidence on the author’s motivation, then I regard that quote as useful primary evidence that Thompson had left discord behind him and was perceived in that way. That in turn suggests something about how it was that Nock et al came to their interpretation, even if it was accompanied by hyperbole.

    I don’t pretend to have an insight into why this was, or how it was that he generated such emotion. But I take Cook as a sign that that emotion was real and not an effect of hindsight.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     
    jnc and S.A.C. Martin like this.
  3. 35B

    35B Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    25,493
    Likes Received:
    23,730
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Grantham
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    That comment, whether or not investigation would support it, is incompatible with your claims to historical method.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     
  4. Jimc

    Jimc Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    4,052
    Likes Received:
    4,665
    Occupation:
    Once computers, now part time writer I suppose.
    Location:
    SE England
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    I'd argue that it wasn't the CMEs job to design a better big end, but simply to order that one be designed. As for the rest, they are, after all, failings shared with Gresley who ought to have had this sorted out too. There is, after all, a strong case to say that a design your shed staff don't maintain properly is in an important respect a bad design. I think its rather strong though, to describe Cook as sorting out the big end problem fairly easily. What he did was to import a number of Swindon design features that had been developed over several years. It hadn't been an especially easy process to get that design sorted out, even if it was easy enough to copy it.

    There's an amusing sideline in Cook about that sort of thing. When the improved big end was designed at Swindon it was imperative that the enginemen didn't install the traditional wire and worsted trimmings. Rather than just issuing orders with the risk of having them ignored by those who couldn't imagine a big end with no trimmings, they tapped the oil pipe and put in a little fluted plug which allowed ample oil through but completely blocked any installation of trimmings, and called it a restrictor. Later on one of their ex-apprentices had gone on to a job with the LMS, and while visiting Swindon again "told one of our foremen that we were living in a fool's paradise. They had made tests [at the LMS] and found that the restrictor did not alter the flow of oil, in reply to which he was told that it was not intended to - it was there to restrict some fool from putting in a trimming."
     
    60525, MellishR, jnc and 4 others like this.
  5. S.A.C. Martin

    S.A.C. Martin Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    5,591
    Likes Received:
    9,325
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Asset Engineer (Signalling), MNLPS Treasurer
    Location:
    London
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Hallo Julian.

    I have no words.

    Then by all means Julian, please construct a point by point analysis to deconstruct the report.

    I have challenged you to do this before and I am yet to see it.

    Please explain what these solutions were. The problems were, as I see it, from the notes and evidence I gave:

    • Lack of manpower
    • Lack of training
    • Run to failure approach to Gresley design maintenance
    The first two are caused by the war and not easily solved by Thompson or anyone else in similar circumstances. The last one is more complex and is to do with the mileage/shopping approach to individual areas and sheds.

    KJ Cook wasn’t working during WW2. He was not under the stresses of wartime that Thompson and his team were under. It must be easier to design locomotives when not under austerity conditions, blackouts and raids.

    In any event Julian, if it was so easy to resolve, explain how Gresley failed to do it himself between 1939 and March 1941? Given the issues became apparent by 1940 (which you would know, if you had done the breadth of reading I had done of the LNER board minutes) you would think Gresley would be able to fix it?

    You see, I don’t actually think this was a problem that was of Gresleys making or one he or Thompson could easily resolve, particularly as their remit was to apply policy to the railways maintenance and overhaul facilities.

    They were not physically able to oversee every single locomotive day to day. I rather think you misunderstand what Gresley and Thompsons roles were.

    I really struggle with the idea that we can put all of the emphasis on just one man when the entire system of locomotive maintenance on the LNER contains thousands of people and decisions. The big LNER engines occupied a small fraction of the overall fleet in any event.

    After 1942 - as I have shown with the availability stats previously - overall availability of the bigger engines started to increase overall.

    Not least because the worst performing locomotives - the P2s - has been rebuilt into far more reliable (but unexceptional) Pacifics.

    They broke crank axles Julian.

    Bibby Line broke ONE crank axle and the whole fleet of merchant navy locomotives was withdrawn.

    The P2s broke at least three in a very short amount of time. They had axlebox issues, frame cracking, and more besides.

    You talk about putting them on other work in the south.

    If you can find me a shedmaster alive who would take a locomotive whose availability was just over half and had broken crank axles, I’ll show you a gold plated Unicorn.

    The availability of the Gresley classes was one issue. Overall LNER availability was a big problem. I have only provided the big Gresley classes so far but I will happily make the rest available when I have completed them.

    So to clarify: you think Thompson made the figures up? Had them massaged? Because the statistics cover every locomotive the LNER owned from 1942 to 1947. They are collected from sheds and regions and heads of.

    You talk about bias, misunderstanding, etc, and yet don’t ever point out in what way. This has been going on for a couple of years now.

    You make comments, I ask you to justify them, explain them, then you claim bias and so many other things but you never follow through with your pomp and circumstance about how you have a better understanding than Cox and how Cox is supposedly biased.

    Cox wrote the report - not Thompson. Cox never claimed that Thompson edited or wrote the report, only that he used it. So who of these two do you think is biased, and on what basis?

    With the greatest of respect Julian, I think you are sounding more and more like a conspiracy theorist the more I produce facts, figures and documents that don’t line up with your point of view.

    I rather think you need to step back and rethink your own approach to both this subject and also how you speak on it.

    On that note, I won’t be responding to your posts in future unless you do respond directly to the questions I’ve asked of you.

    Whereas I have done the research and provided the evidence, you have done very little except condescend to me without answering the questions your own (pretty biased!) statements have made.
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2019
    60525, MellishR, ragl and 5 others like this.
  6. S.A.C. Martin

    S.A.C. Martin Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    5,591
    Likes Received:
    9,325
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Asset Engineer (Signalling), MNLPS Treasurer
    Location:
    London
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    You do one of the kindest, most thoughtful gentlemen - sadly no longer with us - a real disservice Julian.

    You’ve said all this before and you never actually explain why you have a chip on your shoulder where Hardy is concerned.

    Funny how a positive Thompson source must be a sycophant but a negative one cannot be bitter.
     
    60525, ragl, paullad1984 and 3 others like this.
  7. S.A.C. Martin

    S.A.C. Martin Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    5,591
    Likes Received:
    9,325
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Asset Engineer (Signalling), MNLPS Treasurer
    Location:
    London
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    That seems fair. I’m not denying the depth of feeling wasn’t real mind. I am questioning if it was fair or logical to feel so strongly.
     
    jnc likes this.
  8. 35B

    35B Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    25,493
    Likes Received:
    23,730
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Grantham
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Emotion is never logical, by definition, and rarely explicable by logic.

    There is one thesis to be written on the logic of Thompson’s engineering, and why it was economically and practically justified. There’s another, very different, thesis to be written on why he provoked the reactions he did.

    It seems that the former can be evidenced to a reasonable level, using archive data, but the latter can only be inferred, as it relies on memories that are poorly recorded and no longer available to question.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     
    MellishR, ross, jnc and 2 others like this.
  9. S.A.C. Martin

    S.A.C. Martin Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    5,591
    Likes Received:
    9,325
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Asset Engineer (Signalling), MNLPS Treasurer
    Location:
    London
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    I just want to say one more thing this evening.

    It is very, very rare to find any railwaymen to be so universally respected as Richard “Dick” Hardy was - is.

    I find it to be utterly without merit and sad that one of the great railwaymen of our time can be dismissed in a manner that undermines what I know him for, and what others do too - a man with a generosity of spirit, a genuine and honest human being.

    I would ask that if there is anyone here who would like to add to the earlier poor form that Julian has shown - please, don’t.

    Let him rest in peace. He did his duty and then some for our industry.
     
  10. 30567

    30567 Part of the furniture Friend

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2012
    Messages:
    5,610
    Likes Received:
    3,512
    Actually I'm just subscribing to the proposition that Thompson divides opinion. There's probably enough evidence of that.

    Possibly more interesting are Hardy's brief comments from an operating perspective on the B1s, L1s, O1s, B2s, Q1s and K1s. What I really hope is that Simon is going to give us a well-rounded account of Thompson's contributions beyond the Pacifics which seem less emotionally charged and arguably more important, though I don't underrate the significance of the pathway from A2 to A1.
     
    S.A.C. Martin likes this.
  11. Jimc

    Jimc Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    4,052
    Likes Received:
    4,665
    Occupation:
    Once computers, now part time writer I suppose.
    Location:
    SE England
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    And given that depth of emotion, people being people, its probably inevitable that the disliked party gets ascribed poor motives for anything controversial they did, even when a cool dispassionate eye suggests the decision was purely rational, or even that it was made by someone else entirely. Goodness knows, don't we have enough examples in front of us in present day politics? Each side ascribing the worst of motives to the other?
     
    ross, ragl, 35B and 2 others like this.
  12. jma1009

    jma1009 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,381
    Likes Received:
    1,637
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    ynysddu south wales
    Hi Simon,

    Sorry to have ruffled a few feathers again, but sometimes you have to present the opposing case to get you to touch base.

    On the late Dick Hardy, I am sure I am not alone in considering from a working class background myself that this public school 'toff' got on so extraordinarily well with footplate crew living in terraced houses and their bicycles, and his resolution of ASLEF and NUR disputes in his writings, was rather one sided, and never with a single scrap of documentation to back up his writings, via ASLEF or NUR records or those of his own.

    My own comments this evening have been admittedly trite, and deserved your criticism. You will have to give me a week till I'm on annual leave to do a detailed critique of the 'Cox Report'.

    However, your book and research ought to address the opposing case, and if you do not have the engineering knowledge on valve gears and the matters raised, you ought perhaps to ask others to provide an assessment for you.

    Your book also ought to deal with adequately the Bert Spencer and Teddy Windle stuff, and the K J Cook stuff.

    With best wishes,

    Julian
     
  13. Fred Kerr

    Fred Kerr Resident of Nat Pres Friend

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    Messages:
    8,239
    Likes Received:
    5,250
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Freelance photo - journalist
    Location:
    Southport
    This recent spurt of comments fails to understand that the CME's reputation is factored at 2 levels - that of the design team which provides the locomotives and that of the operations staff who operate them. In the lower (operations) level I venture to suggest that this is based on depot responses to any design in working reality. I have already drawn attention to the changed maintenance practice at Haymarket and Townsend's efforts at Kings Cross Top Shed are well recorded; both show that what the CME expected and what the individual depots provided were often at variance which, if too far apart, brought attention to the problems at Board level. I feel that this highlights a possible area of discussion where any design faults could be seen by one depot as a problem that is curable by a change in depot practices whilst another depot may see any faults as a major problem requiring works attention and loss of availability hence to the discredit of th designer. It would be interesting to know how much the situation of availability at depot level affected the reputation of individual locomotive classes and - by definition - the reputation of the designer.

    I believe from comments that you have already identified disparities in locomotive availability from your analyses of the maintenance records and wonder if that analysis could possibly identify what influence - if any - depot action has on both availability and reputation of both locomotives and CMEs.
     
    ragl, S.A.C. Martin and jnc like this.
  14. jma1009

    jma1009 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,381
    Likes Received:
    1,637
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    ynysddu south wales

    Hello Simon,

    The only reason you do not take objectively Dick Hardy's many many repeated writings (which he was paid for), and consider another gloss on them that I have suggested, is because it supports (I would argue you do tenuously) a premise of your approach to Thompson.

    You kick away Bert Spencer. What happens to your premise if we also kick away E S Cox and Dick Hardy?

    What is the evidential basis and historical research basis for doing this? What precepts do you use for evaluating these primary source witnesses?

    Why dismiss Spencer, but give weight to Hardy and Cox? This is the nitty gritty of it all.

    (If, as I have stated, you understand the intricacies of locomotive valve gears, and middle big end design, you can see that Spencer got it far more right than Cox! And Thompson also!)

    Spencer wrote a public paper on it all for the Institute of Locomotive Engineers; Cox and Thompson kept the 'Cox Report' secret at the time.

    Cheers,
    Julian
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2019
  15. flying scotsman123

    flying scotsman123 Resident of Nat Pres

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    10,440
    Likes Received:
    17,941
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cheltenham
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Dick Hardy was largely a man before my time in this "world" (I have read Steam in the Blood, but that's all) but I appreciate he was a fairly big name. So it seems slightly incongruous to me that Thompson has been vilified for the best part of 70 years, meanwhile a fairly well respected figure who thought well of Thompson was also active and writing for a large chunk of that time. Did Dick Hardy ever seek to "set the record" straight in any way, or equally, did anyone seek to challenge him on his views on Thompson?
    Not trying to make a point at all, just musing.
     
    MellishR, 35B and jnc like this.
  16. MarkinDurham

    MarkinDurham Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,198
    Likes Received:
    973
    Location:
    Durham
    There is, of course, previous 'form' regarding a new Chief's work and practices being denigrated by those at the front line, both shed staff and footplate crews. Look at how Alexander McDonnell and his works were hated by many NER staff after he took over from Edward Fletcher.

    Mark
     
    ragl, S.A.C. Martin and Jamessquared like this.
  17. Jamessquared

    Jamessquared Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    26,103
    Likes Received:
    57,432
    Location:
    LBSC 215
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Ahem! #3291 ;)

    Tom
     
    S.A.C. Martin and 35B like this.
  18. Hermod

    Hermod Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2017
    Messages:
    985
    Likes Received:
    283
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Klitmoeller,Denmark
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    It would interest me and maybe others to se the Spencer paper.
    Source please?
    The fundametal weakness of Gresley conjugation is dynamics.
    Two valve gears doing work of three separate plus all the conjugation iron at seven or eigth rev per second full size.
    Low speed ,model expirience does not count more than graphical and approximate drawing office methods.
    It needs a computer.
     
  19. S.A.C. Martin

    S.A.C. Martin Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    5,591
    Likes Received:
    9,325
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Asset Engineer (Signalling), MNLPS Treasurer
    Location:
    London
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Hardy wrote several books where he outlined his personal experiences of Thompson in some chapters and he also wrote several articles. I believe I have the full collection now.

    He challenged the media of the day to back up their assertions on Thompson.
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2019
    flying scotsman123 likes this.
  20. S.A.C. Martin

    S.A.C. Martin Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    5,591
    Likes Received:
    9,325
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Asset Engineer (Signalling), MNLPS Treasurer
    Location:
    London
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    This Julian is the absolute last time I will respond to you, and I have done so because I believe it is in the best interests of this thread to respond to the points (what there is of them) so that others may gain further clarity on my position and approach and if they have further points to add or to critique, that they may do so.

    The reason this is the last time is because I have already addressed all of these points to you directly in this thread and you have either forgot I have made them or ignored them. I also believe that, it may be fruitless to discuss this further with you anyway as you are working from the personal viewpoint and not from an evidence based led approach, which is what I am trying to do.

    I would argue I do take them objectively. They are weighted to the point that:
    • Dick Hardy knew Thompson personally
    • Worked specifically in Doncaster Works at the time all of this was happening
    • Was on Thompson's design team and worked on Great Northern
    That makes his account first hand evidence and a rare glimpse into what it was like to work under Thompson.

    If you then start to talk about “which he was paid for” – aren’t all railway professionals paid for their work?

    You keep accusing me of this and I have done no such thing. I have however pointed out to you:
    • Spencer had been dismissed after the Cox Report was published and was not physically in Doncaster Works when many of these debated issues occurred

    • His views are therefore a second-hand account of Thompson, not first hand, where the drawing office is concerned and certain design of classes made
    I could add that some of Spencer’s writing comes across incredibly bitter, given the circumstances – I never have added that to my writing out of respect for his position.

    Perhaps I should, given what you aim at Dick Hardy by comparison, and in the interests of balance?

    As I said yesterday, interesting that a positive supporter of Thompson is a sycophant to you and someone who is negative is without question correct.

    Ludicrous. If you remove Cox, then the report is Stanier’s and you will have to justify why Stanier signed the report in any event. If you remove Hardy the questions of “is it fair to denigrate Thompson so strongly” don’t go away.

    I haven’t dismissed Spencer, but for absolute clarity:

    First-hand accounts are worth more than second hand accounts. Hardy > Spencer if what you want to know is what was happening in Doncaster Works during development of Thompson’s standard locomotive classes, not before or after.

    Cox wrote the report on conjugated valve gear and Stanier approved the report. Cox was intimately involved in the evidence and worked in Doncaster works too and therefore his accounts of that time and of his report, are weighted more than Bert Spencer, who was not there.

    This is the crucial point. Bert Spencer was not present in Doncaster Works when many of these supposed issues occurred.

    If we look at the availability statistics for Gresley classes, talk about maintenance regimes, and the design office, and look at the fact that during the writing of the Cox Report Bert Spencer was working for Thompson on versions of the middle big end with a view to trying to resolve the issues identified – and apparently failed – would it not also follow that this is why he was dismissed from Thompson’s team?

    Yet nobody - nobody – has suggested that. That is as much a possibility as anything else. Perhaps you would like to investigate that yourself? I have no intention of raising that in my own work, I am more interested in what I do know, and see, in the reports.

    I am working specifically from the reports, figures and board minutes. If you are saying Thompson was making it up to support his views, you are also raising the possibility of Thompson interfering with three very specific systems of recording information to make his views more valid.

    How likely is this?

    If Bert Spencer did get it right more than either of them, why in 1942 were all of the Gresley conjugated gear locomotives failing so often, and with much reduced availability?

    If Bert Spencer was so good, why do the availability statistics not support your view that Bert Spencer was the man to resolve this? How is it he was working on solutions and (apparently) did not resolve them before he was dismissed?

    In 1942 the issues had been apparent for nearly three years.

    So either Bert Spencer wasn’t the man to resolve the issues, or Thompson was making it all up to support his views – unlikely given the report and statistics, wouldn’t you say?

    You may disagree with Thompson’s solutions to the problems encountered, but they are entirely valid.

    Simplifying locomotives to two cylinders and in three-cylinder locomotive fitting a third set of valve gear led to the development of the Peppercorn A1.

    All of the locos rebuilt with inside valve gear worked another fifteen or so years towards the end of steam and were ultimately withdrawn as smaller classes in a world that was modernising. That Peppercorn did not reverse this change when he took over.

    Julian, you are being deliberately disingenuous there.

    The Cox Report was only ever meant to be seen internally within the LNER and was specific to the emergency board - neither Thompson nor Cox published it, and it only came to light as a document that existed some time after the event. Business confidentiality.

    I would argue that its lack of publication has suited Gresley’s supporters very well as not seeing the full report and only asides to a report – which was reported as Stanier’s in any event for most of the last fifty years – has meant it has been very easy to dismiss Thompson’s decision making without recognition that real issues existed that he and others were trying to resolve.

    It’s not an opposing argument. It’s a misinformed series of rants that ignores basic evidence and fact finding.

    I am going to choose to let others judge this section for themselves.

    You are welcome to write a detailed critique and I look forward to seeing it.

    My book and what I have been writing is not arguing about the case for or against conjugated valve gear: only if Thompson had any justification for his decision making and thinking in the context of that time.

    I have never at any point claimed any intricate knowledge of conjugated valve gear nor sought to turn it into a “one or the other” argument which you so frequently try to turn it into.

    My concern is:
    • Was there any justification for Thompson’s decisions?

    • What led him to make those decisions

    • Is there evidence to suggest he was correct
    For which I have a report from two engineers, highly respected, that comments at length on the conjugated valve gear, I have availability statistics for over seven years on the LNER for every class of locomotive, I have every set of LNER and Emergency board meeting notes and minutes from 1923 to 1948, in addition to a complete archive of wartime material from the railway press and its reporting of Thompson’s work.

    What have you done other than make accusations and sneering remarks?

    My challenge to you is to put up or shut up – give us your considered views on the Cox Report and why you think that report is wrong. Give us that at the absolute minimum.

    If you cannot, or won’t, please refrain from further commentary.

    Perhaps you ought to write an opposing piece Julian? I look forward to seeing your evidence.
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2019
    MellishR, ross, ragl and 2 others like this.

Share This Page