Edward Thompson. Good or Bad

[S.A.C. Martin]

That's great. I will be interested to hear your thoughts. I have taken on the chin a few of the errors - page 132 and 133 have a paragraph repeated (will be fixed for the next version) but other than that I am very pleased with the book. It has been a real labour of love and hopefully adds to LNER history.

[Pyewipe Junction]

Hello,
I purchased my copy of Ëdward Thompson" and look forward to reading it in whole.
The book and 2 others left the Strathwood (publisher) warehouse on 24/11/2021 by DHL Express.
Parcel arrived in my very large letterbox in Australia on Sunday 28/11/2021.
That is quite unbelievable because I regularly wait up to 2 months for other parcels from mainland Europe.

And Simon thanks for the signature at front of book.
The first few pages have been interesting, and I get your emphasis "that the wartime situation contextualises many of his decisions".

Kimball

You've had better luck than me. All I've had so far is an email confirming my order, but no subsequent email saying it has been despatched, although I have had a number of other promotional emails from Strathwood.

[S.A.C. Martin]

Noting you are in Australia, it may be a good bet to email strathwoodpublishing@gmail.com to let them know you've not had it yet.

If you get stuck let me know by PM and I will see what I can do.

[Bantamcock]

I have not purchased this book, but intend to at some point when it hits the top of the priorities list. I have to admit, I didn't appreciate a lot of what Thompson did, but I read some other books, including the one by Col. Rogers , and reached the conclusion that Thompson was doing the job of an engineer, in the best way he knew how. I agree that he was probably suffering from PTSD, and wonder if he wasn't a autistic to?

I think all who have commented need to remember a couple of points. Firstly, it is true that written records do not always tell the whole story, sometimes things are not recorded or recorded in such a way that they present things how the writer wants them to be perceived. Secondly, in the same vein, people form opinions on things based on what they experience, hear, read and observe. Those opinions are no less valid and we are all entitled to form our own, regardless of what others think. Lastly, we would all do well to remember that we are enthusiasts, we have preferences based on things such as aesthetics, sound, location, personal connection and nostalgia amongst other things. We are never going to agree with or like everything that has come before, but part of our interest in this subject is liking one thing over another for one reason or another, but we shouldn't need to argue about it.

[Pyewipe Junction]

Noting you are in Australia, it may be a good bet to email strathwoodpublishing@gmail.com to let them know you've not had it yet.

If you get stuck let me know by PM and I will see what I can do.

I have. No reply yet.

[Pyewipe Junction]

I have not purchased this book, but intend to at some point when it hits the top of the priorities list. I have to admit, I didn't appreciate a lot of what Thompson did, but I read some other books, including the one by Col. Rogers , and reached the conclusion that Thompson was doing the job of an engineer, in the best way he knew how. I agree that he was probably suffering from PTSD, and wonder if he wasn't a autistic to?

I think all who have commented need to remember a couple of points. Firstly, it is true that written records do not always tell the whole story, sometimes things are not recorded or recorded in such a way that they present things how the writer wants them to be perceived. Secondly, in the same vein, people form opinions on things based on what they experience, hear, read and observe. Those opinions are no less valid and we are all entitled to form our own, regardless of what others think. Lastly, we would all do well to remember that we are enthusiasts, we have preferences based on things such as aesthetics, sound, location, personal connection and nostalgia amongst other things. We are never going to agree with or like everything that has come before, but part of our interest in this subject is liking one thing over another for one reason or another, but we shouldn't need to argue about it.

This sounds like the kind of comment I see regularly on the hi fi forum I also belong to! Over there it's called subjectivists v objectivists.

[S.A.C. Martin]

I agree that he was probably suffering from PTSD, and wonder if he wasn't a autistic to?

This regularly gets raised wherever Thompson is mentioned, and I need to make this clear; I found nothing to suggest he suffered from autism.

Autism is not a catch all term to try and explain away people's behaviour. Please remember that. Autism itself needs to be better understood by railway historians and not used to fill in gaps in knowledge.

Even if he - did - suffer with autism - so what? The negativity associated with it by those who don't understand fully is infuriating to me.

[S.A.C. Martin]

This sounds like the kind of comment I see regularly on the hi fi forum I also belong to! Over there it's called subjectivists v objectivists.

A good way of putting it.

[kudu]

page 132 and 133 have a paragraph repeated (will be fixed for the next version) but other than that I am very pleased with the book. It has been a real l

Obviously the sub-editor especially liked that one.

Kudu

[S.A.C. Martin]

page 132 and 133 have a paragraph repeated (will be fixed for the next version) but other than that I am very pleased with the book. It has been a real l

Obviously the sub-editor especially liked that one.

Kudu

No one happy about it - not sure how it managed to get through the editing process. It had been reviewed by near enough 10 people looking through it.

[richard]

Some posts to remind me to get a copy

re. autism: Doesn't sound right to me either. There are definitely engineers who come off as "eccentric" - and perhaps some of those might have been, but Thompson doesn't fit that - and of course the dangers of cod diagnoses based merely on limited historical records.

[65447]

More likely that he had OCD, given the ongoing reports of his demands for tidiness etc., and insistence on compliance of the workforce to rules and regs.

[S.A.C. Martin]

Struggling to understand the logic here. Head of department in an engineering role wants tidiness and people to follow the rules and regs? Shock horror.

How many of these criticisms are fair? I challenge the only reason you've raised that is because you read it in a book on Edward Thompson and therefore equated following the rules/tidiness as a negative aspect of his role.

[kudu]

With the Thompson controversy still raging, I thought I'd check what Michael Bonavia had to say in his excellent little book "The Four Great Railways" published in 1980, a work I'd thoroughly recommend for its succinct and wide-ranging coverage of its subject. Bonavia is perhaps especially authoritative on the LNER as he worked there over the period of nationalisation.

The index throws up three references to Thompson (Gresley gets more, but Peppercorn gets none).In his chapter "Great Men and Great Engines" he divides the later CMEs on the Big Four into traditionalists like Hawksworth or Ivatt and those who "struck out a new line, Bulleid ... and to a rather lesser extent, Thompson..." He also distinguishes those concerned with "advanced design" like Bulleid and those "as much concerned with ease of maintenance, especially Thompson." Later in the chapter, covering the war and its aftermath he writes: "On the LNER the Thompson regime was interesting, because Edward Thompson underlined the potential weakness of Gresley's famous locomotive classes - the imprecision of valve events for the middle cylinder... and the tendency for middle big-ends to run hot. He used these as arguments for rebuilding Gresley engines ... and for confining his own new mixed traffic designs to two cylinders.

"In fairness to Gresley, it was ... [wartime conditions] that made these troubles so conspicuous. Thompson's policy of building medium-powered locomotives of classic 4-6-0 design ... was probably correct in the context of wartime and post-war requirements."

All this might seem fair and balanced, but how about this earlier passage in his chapter specifically on the LNER when he gets to its the later years? "Gresley... died in harness relatively early in the war ... and his policies were considerably modified by his successor, Edward Thompson- a case of a Darlington man following a Doncaster man and paying off some old scores!" Discuss!

More generally, I'd especially recommend his general remarks on the role of the CME and how to judge them. How about this? "A point sometimes overlooked is that when a locomotive is described as having been 'designed' by Mr X as CME, the actual extent to which Mr X was personally involved in the design ... could vary enormously. A CME was the manager of a very big department in which the design office was only one component and, in terms of staff numbers, not a very large one. By far the greatest work load on the CME's department was not new construction at all, but maintenance." Enthusiasts please note.

He goes on to stress that the CME was also responsible for rolling stock construction and maintenance, with the emphasis again on the latter. But his role goes wider still. For instance, the LNER CME also covered the Docks Machinery Engineeer and the Road Motor Engineer. I trust Thompson's policy on dockside cranes is thoroughly covered in S A C Martin's new book!

Bonavia concludes his remarks on the CME like this: "One has to envisage a busy departmental manager, supervising the overall performance of very large workshops, settling staff problems, and frequently dealing constantly with ... the General Manager, the Chief Accountant, the Operating Superimtendent and - very important - the Motive Power Superintendent." He also suggests the size of the Big Four accentuated "the creeping trend towards bureaucracy."

I'm sure we all too easily overlook these points when we assess any of the famous steam loco engineers of the past.

Kudu

[S.A.C. Martin]

May I say thank you Kudu, for what is a very thoughtful and thought provoking post below. I have responded to individual points for ease of reply - please take this in the manner intended (friendly conversation) - it is very interesting what you have found and I will source a copy of Bonavia's book in due course.

With the Thompson controversy still raging, I thought I'd check what Michael Bonavia had to say in his excellent little book "The Four Great Railways" published in 1980, a work I'd thoroughly recommend for its succinct and wide-ranging coverage of its subject. Bonavia is perhaps especially authoritative on the LNER as he worked there over the period of nationalisation.

The index throws up three references to Thompson (Gresley gets more, but Peppercorn gets none).In his chapter "Great Men and Great Engines" he divides the later CMEs on the Big Four into traditionalists like Hawksworth or Ivatt and those who "struck out a new line, Bulleid ... and to a rather lesser extent, Thompson..." He also distinguishes those concerned with "advanced design" like Bulleid and those "as much concerned with ease of maintenance, especially Thompson." Later in the chapter, covering the war and its aftermath he writes: "On the LNER the Thompson regime was interesting, because Edward Thompson underlined the potential weakness of Gresley's famous locomotive classes - the imprecision of valve events for the middle cylinder... and the tendency for middle big-ends to run hot. He used these as arguments for rebuilding Gresley engines ... and for confining his own new mixed traffic designs to two cylinders.

"In fairness to Gresley, it was ... [wartime conditions] that made these troubles so conspicuous. Thompson's policy of building medium-powered locomotives of classic 4-6-0 design ... was probably correct in the context of wartime and post-war requirements."

It's interesting the Bonavia appears to be - the - only writer saying this in the 80s. Nock in particular was far more critical.

All this might seem fair and balanced, but how about this earlier passage in his chapter specifically on the LNER when he gets to its the later years? "Gresley... died in harness relatively early in the war ... and his policies were considerably modified by his successor, Edward Thompson- a case of a Darlington man following a Doncaster man and paying off some old scores!" Discuss!

I cover this in my book, but it really wasn't a huge departure from Gresley, and that is borne out by the actual locomotive designs that emerged.

More generally, I'd especially recommend his general remarks on the role of the CME and how to judge them. How about this? "A point sometimes overlooked is that when a locomotive is described as having been 'designed' by Mr X as CME, the actual extent to which Mr X was personally involved in the design ... could vary enormously. A CME was the manager of a very big department in which the design office was only one component and, in terms of staff numbers, not a very large one. By far the greatest work load on the CME's department was not new construction at all, but maintenance." Enthusiasts please note.

Completely agree and that point is made in my book too.

He goes on to stress that the CME was also responsible for rolling stock construction and maintenance, with the emphasis again on the latter. But his role goes wider still. For instance, the LNER CME also covered the Docks Machinery Engineeer and the Road Motor Engineer. I trust Thompson's policy on dockside cranes is thoroughly covered in S A C Martin's new book!

I am afraid I didn't come to dockside cranes, but I don't doubt it was a part of Thompson's overall role. The sheer breadth of work he undertook as CME is staggering.

Bonavia concludes his remarks on the CME like this: "One has to envisage a busy departmental manager, supervising the overall performance of very large workshops, settling staff problems, and frequently dealing constantly with ... the General Manager, the Chief Accountant, the Operating Superimtendent and - very important - the Motive Power Superintendent." He also suggests the size of the Big Four accentuated "the creeping trend towards bureaucracy."

I'm sure we all too easily overlook these points when we assess any of the famous steam loco engineers of the past.

Kudu

I think you and I haven't overlooked this - and neither did Bonavia. But many other writers over the last five decades definitely did overlook this with Thompson.