Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

Obviously I had to go and see Mayflower when she was in London this month

Part of my book deals with Thompson’s legacy - which I estimate is two B1s, a variety of coaches and at least one BGZ.

Are there any other Thompson era railway items I’ve missed?

 

If that's all there is left of his work then it's not much to boast about is it when you compare it with the likes of Gresley, Stanier, Churchward, Bulleid etc.

 

Who’s boasting?

What a strange thing to say.

 

I think there were some Thompson Sleeping Cars around at one time? If so probably scrapped by now.

 

Are you following the restoration of the Thompson brake at the North Norfolk?

http://nnrailway.blogspot.com/

 

A rather odd comment. There is nothing left by any of those in mainline service, so what remains by any designer has been down to the vagaries of how preservation has worked: as has been rehearsed many times, it was just a quirk of what went to which scrapyard that resulted in relatively more GWR locos and relatively fewer LNER surviving long enough to reach preservation. Had Barry been in Hull or Doncaster, we might now have a dozen Thompson B1s in preservation but no Halls or prairies, but it would not tell you anything about the relative merits of the designs.

Tom

 

I mean it adds to my “Thompson gets a disproportionate amount of unnecessary vitriol” point

 

But if you or I left behind traces of our existence which brought happiness to thousands seventy years on, we would be pleased and in my case amazed!

 

If you view the K1 as Peppercorn putting the K1/1 into production then you might be able to count 62005 as an honourable mention. Since both surviving B1s were built after Thompson retired as well, it's not so much of a stretch.

 

Other CMEs come in for a fair bit of criticism so Thompson is not unique in that fact. Whether said criticism is justified depends on an individual's point of view.

 

I don't believe that is true. No other C.M.E. suffers with the following:

It is notable that every single one of the above quotations was made in books published after Thompson's death where he was not able to defend his point of views, and almost to a man they are opinions from individuals commenting on the character, Edward Thompson, rather than addressing the issues, which are many and complex and in the full context of the time, never explored properly by any of these writers.

The one which always stands out to me, however, is this one:

Something so grossly unfair and lacking in facts that it has stood unchallenged for over half a century.

So yes: C.M.Es do get criticism, but no, Thompson seems unique in the level of criticism and in particular personal and at times offensive material published.

No, I'm not sure that's entirely true either. I think there are some indisputable facts, and if one can show that there were genuine issues on the L.N.E.R that needed addressing, and that this was Thompson's aim, then I think a lot of the criticism (especially the personal ones) falls away.

Moreso, where they are manifestly unfair or inaccurate (e.g. the funeral - it was Thompson's express wishes in his will to not have a funeral with anyone present) then they should be called out as such.

 

That's a further weird interpretation of what I am saying. No, it's not about dissent, but if you are judging a man on what he leaves behind as a measure of how good he was or what he did, and steadfastly ignoring the facts about the end of steam, which scrapyards had which engines and what was available to purchase, then that is clearly a totally unfair thing to say against Thompson, the man and C.M.E.; and even if it was a measure of him, where is the consistency in applying it to everyone else who has few locos outstanding to their name?

All I have ever asked for is a reasonable appreciation of the history, and consistency, and that I will continue to ask for where Thompson is concerned.

 

Your reply justifies my comment regarding an individual's viewpoint..
It would seem that no criticism of ET is allowable in your eyes but you're allowed to post plenty of stuff criticising some of Gresley's work, particularly his derived motion. I just wish you'd publish the damn book and put this thread to sleep.

 

Criticism absolutely valid if factual. I have given you the quotations above, you can as usual make up your own mind on whether they are valid or not. My suggestion is not, based on the new evidence which has come to light which suggests Thompson - and others on the LNER - were justified to a degree given the circumstances they found themselves in.

Time and time again you exercise personal slights on any perceived criticisms of the Gresley valve gear. I have done nothing more but publish the Cox report, and the relevant L.N.E.R. statistics, on locomotives with the valve gear.

I have been, and always shall be, a Gresley fan. I love his locomotives and design. But I am not about to ignore evidence and believe him to be a deity incapable of errors. Nor can I overlook that there is a body of evidence that changes the conventional thinking about Thompson's work and whether he was justified in his approach.

Nor will I also ignore that post war, Gresley design locomotives received differing levels of maintenance and approaches in engineering and their performances and availability improved. I will of course make that point.

If you are reading what I am posting and deciding that there is any personal criticism of Gresley contained within, that is your interpretation. What you say of me and what I have written, put simply, is not true. What I am trying to do is contextualise the decision making and give evidence for my reading of the time. That has been helped enormously by the material I found in the national archives last summer. I do not intend to cherry pick, I will publish a broad range of points within the book.

You will understand I hope that the breadth of work I have been looking at, which includes the entire library of committee notes from the LNER emergency board, locomotive committee and more from Kew Gardens last summer (which I documented here) has added much to my understanding. Even today I was grateful to receive scans from the Stephenson Locomotive Society which will aid further understanding. It is nearly there.

Many writers reading this thread may sympathise with my point of view that as the facts change, so must I. Since this thread began in 2012 my views have changed, my thoughts too, and the evidence has changed from just the personal viewpoints and reflections of timekeepers and railwaymen to official statistics and reports (one of the latter I made freely available on this thread).

No one more than myself wants to publish this work but it has to be good enough for publication and accurate.

I have offered once to you (and to another nat pres member) to share my bibliography, and am happy to talk through any material I have found, and potentially share if I am able.

I am giving a further two lectures on Thompson this year, in the autumn, and you are more than welcome to attend and challenge me in person: I am happy to discuss this amicably. I have always been happy to do this.

What I do not understand is why you seem mortally offended every time I or anyone else posts on this thread, and to some extent that is further evidence for the difference in approach to the subject of Thompson.

 

What about the B12? Isnt that as rebuilt by Thompson?

 

Credited to Gresley but ET was in charge of it all so he would have had a lot of input into the redesign.

 

Under his direction, under Gresley's auspices. Honours even with his assistant, A.E. English, I feel. They were also responsible for the D16/3.

 

Mortally offended? Moi? You have me confused with someone else Sir. I'm simply challenging some assertions.

 

Perhaps a tad over egging the pudding on my part, but you do seem from reading sometimes personally aggrieved on behalf of Gresley.

Which you are, as always, welcome to do. I encourage it.

But I fear you see anything I post that may prove Thompson's thoughts during WW2 on the conjugated correct as somehow criticising Gresley for using it in the first place - which it is emphatically not. Both Thompson and Gresley can both be right in their thinking; they were working in different times and circumstances, and as with both, their personal circumstances may have also dictated their thinking. Equally, neither is beyond criticism, if justified.

From my POV the evidence is clear that Gresley and his team had none of their design flair or touch with the V4, but as his health worsened, understandably there was a change in priorities. Thompson was wired differently and looked at the railway differently to Gresley. There is no shame in that from either of them. In fact that's why they, along with Bulleid, Peppercorn, Spencer and Harrison, were probably some of the brightest minds the L.N.E.R. had ever seen. But circumstances and priorities change. Speed records and streamlined trains in 1938 to a two year old world war in 1941, and a manpower and locomotive crisis. Sublime to the horrific.

I personally feel the Gresley/Thompson story to be one of the most complex, intriguing and human stories that railway history has to offer. It has everything, including most notably great sadness for both men who outlasted their wives.