Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

Didnt Fowler admit to his own ignorance in locomotive matters?

 

A fair and reasonable set of thoughts on it. Here is how the data is looked at in my spreadsheet:



The box on the far left is how it was set out in the original report. The boxes on the right are my own notes and similar.

There's a fourth option on the Thane of Fife thing that has crossed my mind today - that it's not Thane of Fife in 1946 with 93% availability but one of the other A2/2s or one of the sub classes. That would account for the discrepancy between Yeadons and the LNER availability figures quite well. Therefore one would have to assume the availability figures are wrong in their identification of that specific engine, and Yeadons (vis a vis the engine cards) are correct.

However, I would prefer to get some time to look at the engine card copies I have again before making a judgement.

Either way it is an entirely fair point to bring up and one that should rightly be clarified before making any claims further on the availability question.

 

It remains interesting to me to see the complete disparity in treatment from LNER writers to certain historical figures and that seen elsewhere.

I claim no knowledge on the LMS other than having looked up Stanier, Cox, and in particular the development of his Princess locomotives in regards to my research on Thompson, but it strikes me that if Coleman is as you say he is, a more accepted figure in the history of the LMS, then it saddens me that we in LNER matters have not matched that level of thinking up to now, seemingly.

 

Have a look at 60511 and 60512. Both new during 1946 and both allocated new to Gateshead/Heaton. Of course the more you look at this sort of stuff the more questions arise! If there are 12 locos in your 1946 data, it should include both of these.

 

That surely is a reflection of how the railway company (and its employees) sees themselves. Given that the CMEs were the "glory boys" of any company their work would be highlighted and it would be a reflection of each company's ethos asto whether the individual at the head of a team (e.g. CME) or individuals within the team (e.g. named draughtsmen) would get a mention. A thought may be that Gresley gave team members credit within the company and to the Board but the company did not reflect that in its publicity whilst Thomson gave team members credit within the company but did NOT look to pass any compliments onto the board. This is obviously a political matter and may be part of the "barrier" that your thesis will be looking at.

 

Questions on questions. Not a bad thing. We should have the debate openly and revise views where applicable.

There were 6 A2/2s, 4 A2/1s, and I make it 2 A2/3s including the prototype no.500. That makes 12 engines.

So in theory, if 511 and 512 were both 1946 as well, then that would be 13 in fact as there would be 3 A2/3s and not 2. I think it would be best to check when 511 and 512 came into service - entirely possible that one or the other is not included in the 1946 data because it came into service at the back end of the year, potentially. Just thinking out loud.

(My thanks by the way to everyone looking at the data with me and providing their sources - I find this sort of discussion fascinating and it's a good example of where we can root through the figures to ascertain a closer truth of it all).

 

Absolutely Fred, I am not denying that. I am more commenting on how railway history has been written on since the events that have occurred. In LNER terms it's been very CME centric and not, IMO, been presented in the most accurate manner. Peppercorn, Harrison, Bulleid and Thompson are not mentioned and given credit anywhere near as much as they should be for the obvious successes in Gresley's reign as CME. That's not a criticism of Gresley, it's a criticism of those write on his history and forget that he was one man in charge of many people.

Did he? If so - where is the evidence for this? I'm not saying it didn't happen, but as below, evidence is key.

I would refute that point categorically, given the emergency board minutes that I have to hand. I would state this is a perception issue on Thompson's part. There are plenty of comments back to the board thanking teams and individual members either directly from Thompson or from people (usually Peppercorn) acting in Thompson's stead, regarding projects, design or wartime duties. I went through over a dozen volumes of emergency board minutes with quite a few notes to that effect.

RE perception, that does come up a few times. I think the perception of Thompson has been significantly damaged by assumptions or comments made without a full context.

Great Northern, case in point. He requested an A10 for rebuilding. G.A. Musgrave submitted the oldest A10 for rebuilding - Thompson had no say in the choice of loco (the CME had never had this ability - locos were submitted for rebuilding where a request was made). It is absolutely likely that Teddy Windle, chief Draughstman, did also remonstrate with Thompson over the choice of the loco. It is equally possible that Thompson turned round and said "not my decision" - which it wasn't.

But that nuance has been lost to time more or less. The story has been twisted (rightly or wrongly) another way and the perception of Thompson has been damaged by that.

 

Yes. If the census date was say 1st July or August, 12 would be excluded and 11 included. That would give one in the NER, a new loco.

 

According to Yeadon 511 was 'To traffic' on 20/7/46, 512 on 24/8/46, 513 on 31/8/46, 514 on 28/9/46, 515 on 19/10/46, 516 on 2/11/46, and 518 on 28/12/46. 519 and onwards were 1947 deliveries.

 

Obviously I will need to check but given I can see 511, 512, 513, 514, 515, 516 and 518 were 1946 entries and are not accounted for in the 1946 stats, presumably there is a start date difference between Yeadons and the LNER Availability Figures. Looks increasingly like the latter goes by financial year and not calendar year, possibly?

 

He's supposed to have said "he never designed a locomotive in his life". Not, incidentally, meaning that he didn't know anything about loco matters, but that he had a team to design them for him, under his leadership and guidance.
I'm often the project manager or design lead on big civils projects. All the drawings have my name at the bottom. Nearly always I've done none of the drawings, and probably only a small fraction are showing things I've actually done the design calculations or sketches for. But it's my responsibility, and so I've jolly well made sure they've be done by someone who knows what they're doing, been checked by someone who really knows what they're doing, that they're to my overall concept and requirements, and I've reviewed them, and maybe gone back to specialists with questions...
It was the same with CMEs. They were managers. Some were better at delegation and teamwork, others were more hands-on, etc.
Fowler wasn't the sort of person to get into the details of valve gear (hence the inconsistency with his classes), his background was originally locos but later things like gas.
Which is why it's silly when people say he didn't design the Royal Scots: he didn't work like that anyway.

 

Which begs the question: has railway history always been couched in the wrong terms? Has our understanding of what a CME does and what he gets involved with, always been fundamentally flawed when written on? From where I'm standing, purely Thompson-centric, there's a lot of things he's accused of that you get into the detail of, and go "but he wasn't responsible for that..." - if it's always been the same across the board, across railways, then why specifically has Thompson suffered so disproportionally?

 

"But it's my responsibility, and so I've jolly well made sure they've be done by someone who knows what they're doing, been checked by someone who really knows what they're doing, that they're to my overall concept and requirements, and I've reviewed them, and maybe gone back to specialists with questions...

I agree entirely with @andrewshimmin - that's how project engineering management works - be it rail, civil, electrical, mechanical or in my case, chemical. Happy Christmas all - may peace be with you

 

Maybe there is a question of who "on the inside" has written a memoir.

For example: Holcroft, writing "Locomotive Adventure" in the 1960s has given a pretty clear insight into how Maunsell (and to a lesser extent, Bulleid and Churchward) worked - what they did themselves, what they delegated to their assistants, and so on. More recently, Langridge (writing in the 1990s) has done a similar job for all the LMS CMEs from Fowler through to Ivatt, and onto the BR design practices. If you read Langridge, there isn't much room for doubt about how the drawing office worked (and interestingly how incremental design works; a gradual evolution of 2-6-4T designs for example that are variously called "Fowler", "Stanier", "Fairburn", "Riddles", but really are more along a continuum than distinct different designs).

Who is the equivalent of Holcroft or Langridge as an insider for the LNER under Gresley and Thompson? Quite possibly, had there been one who committed their thoughts to paper, the views of those designers might now be more nuanced.

Tom

 

I know I keep deflecting this thread from LNE matters on to LMS ones, but I'm going to do it again... (it's partly because I already buy Simon's line of argument anyway).
One of the things which amuses me sometimes is the arbitrariness of what gets called a new class and what doesn't.
Using LMS examples, the line of 4P tanks (2-6-4Ts) which started with Fowler is really more of a gradual evolution than district classes. But they are almost always thought of as four classes. Meanwhile within the Black 5s, for example, there were lots of variants with quite different boilers, valve gear, even wheel spacings I seem to remember, but all always lumped as one class. The Patriots and Jubilees are basically the same class with different boilers (and were originally spoken of as such within the LMS), but no one ever thinks of them like that now. I could go on... all of it not clarified by the fact that the LMS essentially didn't have a classification system for different designs (only power classifications).
There are examples on the LNE too, I believe. The A1/A3 classes was just a change of boiler pressure, as was the V1/V3, I think. But other classes contained very varying designs within one classification (P2, for example, or A2 later or B12/3 compared to B12/1).
Sorry for the digression.

 

I am intrigued by the implication that the LNER's financial year was different to the calendar year. The published accounts of the LNER I have (and I suspect generally for the other railway companies) are each for 12 month periods ended 31 December, as I imagine the Board of Trade or its successors saw merit in having the major railway companies submit results for comparable periods. Admittedly, I do not have a copy of the 1946 accounts.

 

The nearest are maybe shedmen and locomen like Bill Harvey, Dick Hardy and McKillop?

There is I think a wider issue of the 'cult of the CME' when perhaps the reality is that almost all designs were the result of team work rather than one individual having a 'eureka' moment.

 

I've just read a copy of "Thompson & Peppercorn Locomotive Engineers" by Colonel Rogers.

Wow. I can now see why so many people would hold Thompson in contempt, were this to be the only source of information they had.

However, any publication wishing to be regarded as a definitive work would be well advised to put their own house in order first, basis 'he who is without sin...' - claiming that, for example, 71000 was designed and built at Derby does NOT inspire confidence in other alleged 'facts'.

It's fortunate that we have now had the opportunity to hear alternative views on what actually transpired 1941-48 regarding ET, Pepp and the other players in this saga.

Mark

 

Although I’d never put this in the book - my personal view of Rogers tome is “greatest work of fiction since A Christmas Carol”.

It is the most partisan and inaccurate volume on Thompson and - in denigrating him so much - actually does a disservice to people like peppercorn who worked under him.

 

Indeed.

On a positive note, though, there are some nice photographs in it

Mark