He was educated at Marlborough before taking the Mechanical Science Tripos at Pembroke College, Cambridge, earning a third class degree.
[2][3] Thompson entered the railway scene after education, contrasting that of his predecessor Nigel Gresley, who had also attended Marlborough[4] after gaining practical experience as a pupil at Horwich Works.
After education at Marlborough, he would attend Pembroke College and be influenced by Sir George Stokes, ultimately graduating with a third class degree.
By 1910 he was assistant divisional locomotive superintendent on the North Eastern Railway (NER), in which capacity he gave evidence at the inquiry into the fatal accident between two goods trains at Darlington on 15 November 1910.
He served with the Armed Forces during WW1, and was twice mentioned in dispatches, and awarded OBE, Military Division for action at the Battle of Passchendaele.
[6] Upon demobilization, he returned to the railways, alternating between the wagon works at Darlington and Doncaster, and consequently between the North Eastern and Great Northern respectively.
He was fond of the boy and the two boarded a train to Doncaster, where Thompson spoke to him with great enthusiasm about ongoing projects.
When Thompson was appointed CME of the LNER, he became in charge of a railway which had a greatly reduced labour force and foundry capacity.
Examples of each are the D16/3 Claud Hamiltons (rebuilt), the B12/3 (re-boilered and new valve gear) and his K4 (built for the West Highland Line) and P2 (for the Aberdeen to Edinburgh route).
The programme had the desired effect of reducing the variety of LNER classes, and allowed the withdrawal of a number of elderly and worn out pre-grouping Atlantics, 4-6-0 and more.
[9] Edward Thompson retired in June 1946 after holding the post for 5 years at an age of 65 and was succeeded by Arthur Peppercorn.
At the naming ceremony, Sir Ronald Matthews paid tribute to the departing CME, thanking him for his service to the company through difficult wartime situation.
After retirement, he would regularly attend the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, the MCC and the Oxford and Cambridge University Club at Pall Mall.
Claims of Thompson's locomotive underperforming suggests that his designs failed in multiple aspects, with accusations including excessive wheel slip, frame fractures, going against LNER practice and requiring more maintenance.
Thompson also instituted a different maintenance regime for his locomotives where they would be shopped more often for smaller repairs and prevent issues from cascading into major accidents.
The LNER did not have a general purpose mixed traffic engine, such as the highly successful GWR Hall Class or the LMS Stanier 5MT Black Fives.
The Thompson B1 equalled the LMS Black Five locomotives during the inter-regional exchange trials in the first year of British Railways.
Although Thompson featured the modified locomotive in his standardisation plans, after trials showed little increase in performance or reliability, the experiment was not repeated and no longer pursued.
Previously the LNER had Gresley-designed coaches, the most famous of which had teak bodies but by 1940s standards these were considered insufficiently safe in a collision.
Had the grouping not taken place, Thompson was in line to become the Chief Mechanical Engineer on the North Eastern Railway, and perhaps even the LNER itself.
It is clear, despite the differences in engineering opinion and approach, Thompson greatly admired Gresley, hoping to refine his predecessor's work.
[14] Bert Spencer remarks that Thompson introduced many changes to improve productivity, whereas Gresley and Bulleid placed their attention on locomotive design.
[21] Some have claimed that the LNER board of directors had no immediate successor in mind, and went to various railway companies to seek a suitable replacement.
Harrison, who would go on to design the Duke of Gloucester, fellow Gresley assistant and Thompson's own successor Arthur Peppercorn or future railway historian E.S.
[23] Six months before his death, Gresley fell increasingly ill and failed to attend some of the board meetings, instead sending Edward Thompson, Arthur Peppercorn, occasionally J.F.
This valve gear arrangement worked well during peacetime but experienced problems due to poor maintenance during the Second World War, giving Thompson justification for his criticism of the design.
[25] The report was written by Cox and signed off by Stanier, dated 8 June 1942 and titled "'Report on the "2 to 1" Gresley Valve gear on L.N.E.R 3-cylinder locomotives'".
[26] With World War Two significantly reducing available manpower for maintenance and the necessary skills for maintaining the valve gear, Thompson received approval from the board to rebuild some of the more problematic members of Gresley's designs.
Part of the controversy likely stemmed from the loss of the name Great Northern and Thompson's misreading of the sentiment towards the locomotive.
After entering traffic, Thane of Fife underwent extensive comparative testing on the Scottish section of the LNER against the yet-to-be rebuilt P2s, after which nameplates would be fitted again.