Thompson Myths

IF researching Edward Thompson for the last decade has taught me anything, it is that railway history is littered with examples of things being repeated without source, and therefore over many years being established as fact.

Robin Russell’s response to the Thompson debate is welcome (July issue) but falls into this same trap. In the 10 years I have been collecting and

examining evidence towards my book, I am yet to find any that shows there was anyone in Scotland who criticised the rebuilding of the Gresley P2s to their ‘Pacific’ format at the time of the rebuilding or directly afterwards.

In fact, the opposite is true: I have collated a number of reports and statistics from the National Archives at Kew (which hold the LNER’s original archives, including board minutes and more) that show a very positive

response to the original prototype Thompson A2/2 Thane of Fife.

If such criticism for the rebuilding existed at the time, it was not on official record.

The ‘engineer sent to Scotland’ from the CME’s office was very likely to have been Arthur Peppercorn (based on the evidence I have collated), who was Thompson’s assistant. His visit to Scotland was extensive and included examining and reporting back on the prototype A2/2, which he did to the LNER’s Emergency Board with a report recommending rebuilding the rest of the class to ‘Pacific’ format based on the availability, reliability, and ability to do the work required that the prototype was showing.

The Gresley P2 and Thompson A2/2 story is often couched in terms that paint the former as a locomotive struck down, with great potential, and the latter a poor substitute and incapable of doing the work of the former.

The reality is that the Thompson A2/2 was a powerful, reliable locomotive and the ‘use of engine power’ document we have available shows this to be true.

The ‘lack of adhesion’ often quoted as the reason for moving the Thompson A2/2s south of the border does not hold much water when one considers the similar Peppercorn A2s had a similar ratio of adhesion to the Thompson ‘Pacifics’ they replaced.

The mileages for 1942-1946 for the

P2s and A2/2s suggest strongly it was the P2s that were incapable of doing the work required of them, and the Thompson A2s did the same work – and did it far more reliably.

Simon AC Martin Stratford, London