The attribution of locomotive designs is problem often discussed among railway enthusiasts. It is well-known that, although railway companies officially attributed their locomotive designs to their Chief Mechanical Engineer, the gentleman in question often took little, if any, part in the detailed design work. A similar problem arises in architecture: whilst buildings are often attributed to a single, prominent architect, such individuals usually work at the head of a large practice, with a team of draughtsmen to support them. The extent to which the architect takes a personal role in the design process varies considerably between different practices and often between individual commissions. Thus there is considerable scope for debate about who actually generated the basic idea for any particular building. Such debates can become particularly heated when one of the architect’s assistants goes on to become a noted architect in his/her own right: inevitably, there is a temptation for architectural historians to look for early signs of the rising young stars asserting their own ideas.
The Southern Railway’s architect, James Robb Scott, has become embroiled in just such a debate. Scott was the head of the SR’s Architectural Section throughout the company’s existence (1923-47), overseeing the design of many new station buildings. Initially, these followed a traditional neoclassical style, but by the mid-1930s Scott’s team had switched to an innovative Streamline Moderne style. Whilst these buildings have never attained the legendary status of Charles Holden’s contemporary work for London Underground, they are well-known among railway and architectural enthusiasts. Nevertheless, Scott himself has remained an enigmatic figure. Attempts to research his life and career have always been hindered by the fact that he never joined the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), meaning that its archive contains very little information about him.
However, one of Scott’s assistants, Edwin Maxwell Fry, went on to become an architect of some repute: he became a leading figure in the British Modernist movement and a RIBA gold medallist, no less. It was therefore inevitable that architectural historians would become interested in the extent of Fry’s contribution to the SR’s station designs. Fry himself anticipated this interest and, with considerable chutzpah, he used his autobiography to essentially claim sole credit for the station buildings designed during his brief time on the SR. He painted an unflattering portrait of his former boss, describing Scott as a “lumbering Scotsman waiting only for the salmon rivers to rise”. In the face of this lethargy, Fry claims that he took effective control of Scott’s department and assembled a team of young architects around him, who then continued his design philosophy after his departure.
Fry’s autobiography is the only known first-hand recollection of Scott, so architectural historians have relied heavily upon it. Whilst some have been suspicious of Fry’s self-aggrandising account, others have accepted his assertion that it was Scott’s young assistants, rather than Scott himself, who provided the creative vision for the SR’s new stations. Even the official English Heritage listings for Margate and Ramsgate stations – two of the most important buildings designed by Scott’s team – attribute them to Fry.
One could argue, with some justification, that such attributional debates are irrelevant. Buildings – or locomotives, for that matter – are not like paintings or sculptures. They are complex, functional entities and they rarely – if ever – derive solely from one person’s individual ‘genius’. Nevertheless, it seems only fair to Scott’s memory to subject Fry’s claims to critical investigation. Moreover, such investigation can provide useful insights into the broader functioning of the SR’s
