I never said ET was a perfect, or even a good man, but that example is not one which answers the question: was Thompson a good designer? Did Edward Thompson err and was he a jealous man? That absolutely could be evidence pointing to that.Hatfield Shed wrote:On his poor interpersonal skills, absolutely key to the role of running the department as CME, Grafton's book contains many examples. The unjustified jealousy toward Peppercorn over the 'Bayonet' coach for Eisenhower a good specimen.
However I cannot find that example in my copy of Grafton's book. Could you point me towards a page number please?
Yet equally there are those below Thompson such as Richard Hardy who speak of Thompson with respect and reverence. It is interesting that all those who denigrate Thompson are those who Thompson moved aside to form his own team, and very rarely in the positions on the front line running his machines (where a different story can be told).There and elsewhere it is quite clear that despite the habitual politesse and respect for the postion of CME of those company officers who wrote of their experiences under ET, that he made life very difficult to the point of unpleasantness for many of the key staff and left behind a demoralised team on his retirement.
In any event - define demoralised? Only a few have spoken up to make their views plain and that is not indicative of the esteem Thompson is held in across the whole of the LNER at the time when he retired, nor should it be, any more than the ES Cox report should condemn Gresley out of hand for its findings.
But perhaps that is missing the point - the L1 was supposed to fill a gap and be easier to manufacture and maintain. These two things are true and factual as much as it is also true they were found lacking in some areas, most notably the fabricated axle boxes. Given the immediate post war situation of the LNER, the prototype L1 is spoken of fondly but the production machines less so as they were not as well built. Is that the fault of the designer or the people manufacturing them?On the technical side, try 'Bill Harvey's 60 years in steam' author DW Harvey, pub David and Charles. That's regarding the L1, a fully Thompson design. The assemblage designs of existing proven parts largely worked well enough: proven components enabled this. That they consistently failed to improve on what had gone before where direct comparision can be made is undoubted.
I am afraid that statement is not factual.The people operating the equipment were not amateurs, and the earlier scrapping of Thompson pacifics than the designs they were supposed to supersede is all the argument required.
Many Peppercorn and Gresley Pacifics were scrapped before the vast majority of the Thompson A2/3s, of which there were only fifteen in the first place.
Dieselisation was coming in the late 50s and British Railways - all regions - were scrapping locomotives ranging from anywhere between sixty, thirty, ten, and even four years old, regardless of their perceived qualities or defects.
The first classes of steam locomotives on every region to go were the smallest classes - therefore it is of no surprise that a class of 6 Pacifics should disappear before a class of 79, 49 and 34.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the design and everything to do with the way that steam ended on British Railways generally.
That sentence is often repeated and it is always slanted against Thompson without any consideration for the context of the time, in which steam, as a whole, was being wiped out.
