Wright writes.....

[Jesse Sim]

On 08/06/2022 at 19:46, Tony Wright said:

Why do I never take my own advice? 

 

Readers of this thread might recall some little time ago that I was given a pre-built Nu-Cast V2 by Jesse Sim from Australia. It was in the most-hideous shade of green! The deal was I could have the V2 in exchange for my rebuilding a Nu-Cast D2 he'd bought (I think) off eBay. When it arrived in Oz, it looked like this.........

 

 

 

If ever there's an object lesson in why NOT to glue metal locomotive kits together, this is it. (No, I don't know what the green blocks are for). 

 

The chassis was something else! 

 

 

The holes for the bearings were enormous; so much so that a standard one eighth bearing just fell right through! It can never have run. Luckily, I had some one eighth bearings with huge rims, so, by setting them up with jig axles and applying as much hope as solder, they're now accurately in place and the drivers run true. 

 

I'll get the chassis running, then rebuild the wreck (it's actually rather nicely painted). Why do so many loco builders use such rubbish practices in their making of kits? 

 

Now, why do I never take my own advice? Because, if I had, I could have achieved what's below far more easily.....

 

 

Unable to live with (nor want) a bilious green V2, I detailed the 'gift' and repainted it in BR lined black. You can see it's on its original white metal lump of a chassis.

 

 

 

 

Still on its original chassis, Geoff Haynes then weathered it for me, lining the valances beforehand. 

 

I couldn't really accept that chassis (even though it ran quite well)..............

 

 

So, I put a set of Comet frames underneath it (selling the original chassis to a friend). 

 

How could it have been easier? By my building an untouched Nu-cast V2 in the first place, putting it on Comet frames.

 

Note to self; don't touch any future 'deals' such as this ever again!  

 

 

 

 

 

 

You ungrateful bas…….

 

 

Better not finish that until you finish the d2… 🤣

 

Only kidding, thanks Tony. The big lump of green soap (it looks like it) was in the tender, whoever owned it before used it to glue the tender pick ups to something. 

[john new]

1 hour ago, Simon A.C. Martin said:

 

The short answer is "yes". There needs to be a wholescale re-evaluation of their work and a renewed focus on writing railway history as historians, in academically acceptable ways of research, writing and evaluation.

Fully concur. My own published works on the waggonway pioneer Huntingdon Beaumont, for example, challenged the long held views of Dr Richard Smith that he acted with reckless abandon. Taking all the same facts as Dr Smith my appraisal of those actions from a modern business perspective, is that what he tried were all the right moves, but that given the economic conditions he was working within, in particular the cost of borrowing and the people he borrowed it from, failure was inevitable. The streak of recklessness in his personality, and there was, emerged through not giving in early enough to the inevitable debt trap rather than the methods he was adopting to try to escape the financial trap he was in. Like so many business men, then and subsequently, it was a failure to service the debts he had taken on that brought him down rather than anything to do with extracting and transporting the coals. In these areas he was an innovator, blending existing technologies into new transport forms, and was one of those men of the time kick-starting the whole use of rails to transport goods.

 

Edited June 9, 2022 by john new
Grammar and punctuation.

[Clearwater]

In military history circles, there are some interesting debates about the accuracy of people's personal testimony.  The closer to the event, the more accurate the testimony tends to be.  There is a tendency for old men to a) remember things how they want them to be remembered b) not to want to show themselves in a way they wouldn't want to be seen/perceived c) be subconsciously influenced by the impact of 50/60/70 years of popular culture around particular incidents, a form of false memory syndrome.  An example might be that a veteran 78 years after D-Day confidently asserts that it was a Tiger tank that ambushed them where the documentary evidence is that particular type of tank could not have been at that location at that time.

 

I see no reason why the testimony of railway men would be any different and, particularly when talking about anecdotes about a controversial figures such as Thompson would be any different.  (in a similar vein, I doubt the veracity of e,g . the Collett/Churchward "hand me an illumination" story).  As such, I'd think a historian should be wary of such sources, including memoirs written many years after the events they describe.

 

I'd be interested to understand the provenance of the RTCS books.  If they were written for an enthusiast audience 50+ years ago, it's quite probable that they themselves contain errors.  If that's the case, I'd be very wary about treating them as gospel.  As ever, if we're modelling a particular loco, if you want to be sure, you need a contemporary photo showing that particular detail.

 

David

 

 

 

Edited June 9, 2022 by Clearwater
missing word

[Tony Wright]

2 hours ago, Simon A.C. Martin said:

 

The short answer is "yes". There needs to be a wholescale re-evaluation of their work and a renewed focus on writing railway history as historians, in academically acceptable ways of research, writing and evaluation.

Thanks again Simon,

 

Re-reading part of Nock's works, he cites some tremendous runs behind the P2s pre-War, where time was made up, even hauling extremely heavy trains. It was his belief that no other class could have done it, and expresses surprise as to what must have happened to the class during the War, necessitating their rebuilding. 

 

I still think anecdotal evidence can be of use in historical terms, especially written (or expressed) by those at the 'sharp end' of railway operation. Jack Somers (shedmaster at 35A) seems to have held his Thompson Pacifics with some little regard at times, though he accepted that, even though his shed was one of the biggest on the ER, it did not 'qualify' for Gresley Pacifics (until right at the end). He seems to have much preferred the A3s and the A4s, and considered them more-reliable once their middle big ends had been sorted out by the Swindon-trained Cook, and all had double Kylchaps; more reliable than any of the other big locos fitted with independent valve gear (a view shared by Peter Coster). 

 

I don't think it can be denied that, right at the end, Gresley and Peppercorn Pacifics were working on (failing) diesel diagrams and running daily distances greater than anything in their heyday (pre-War, with regard to the Gresley types). Granted there were more of them, but Thompson's big locos don't seem to feature much in that glorious Indian summer. An Indian summer which saw the A4s go out in a blaze of glory in Scotland. Does it not strike you as odd that, at the time, with so many newer Pacific types available (the A2/3s were stored at places like Scarborough), they were not chosen instead? Their smaller driving wheels might have been better suited on that old Caledonian road, but Ness insisted on getting A4s. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

[Strathwood]

2 hours ago, Simon A.C. Martin said:

 

Morning Tony,

 

I am glad you have received it, and I thank you for your kind comments. 

 

If you could in an email point me to the corrections required, I will happily take care of them for the second edition. Although I have an English degree under my belt, it is difficult to see the wood for the trees sometimes when you are so close to the subject matter. It has its issues, like any book, and I will fix them for the next edition. But for a first published history book, and one that focuses on the evidence first and foremost, I think I can be happy with it. But I take your points and I will make sure to correct the book accordingly.

 

Kevin Derrick has been an amazing publisher to me, and has been incredibly supportive of my work. He and George Reeve have taken my original document and turned it into a book that I am proud of. I pay tribute to them, including their patience with dealing with me, a very difficult author!

 

Where I contradict other authors, the question that has to be posed is "why" shortly followed by "what evidence is there to back up my claims" and then it's up to the individual to decide if they want to believe Nock, Allen, Harrison, Rogers, Yeadon or Cox for their views. For my part, I chose to criticise Rogers directly and I feel the other authors need to be assessed on their individual merits. The key point here, as always, is "evidence" and I think there's enough primary evidence that exists which shows these authors in a poor light for their original research.

 

It's not just me saying this. Tim Hillier-Graves excellent books on the three LNER CMEs also contradict these authors and I think I am right in saying it's not before time that some of the absolute myths on Thompson are finally put to bed. Tim Hillier-Graves actually helped me in the latter stages of my own publication and he is personally thanked along with a whole whole host of others in the special thanks page.

 

The RCTS was mistakenly left out of the book's bibliography, a mistake I won't forget in a hurry. I don't feel that I contradict the RCTS too much, in my view. If anything, the primary evidence in the form of the LNER's management information I provide in my book actually complements the existing RCTS books. The contradictions are normally "how bad were the Thompson Pacifics" which, it turns out, were excellent in their own right and a useful stop gap before the production Peppercorn A1s and A2s.

 

I will leave it at that, I do not wish to take over the thread with more Thompson talk. There is a useful debating thread on the Nat Pres forum, for anyone minded to discuss it further, found here: Edward Thompson: Wartime CME 2012-2022 - ten years worth of debate there. Views change, evidence emerges, arguments and debates ensue. All in the interests of progressing railway history. That shows how long I have been working on my material.

 

If anyone has any questions, clarifications or feedback for me and the book, please direct them to strathwoodpublishing@gmail.com.

 

I will retire now, back to the aether. 

 

Kind regards,

 

Simon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you, Simon, for your gracious comments amid the flack thrown up by the reviewer once again whose glass always seems to be half empty.

 

It should be noted that without the arduous work and dedication of so many small businesses, not to mention their own personal investment of significant funds and time, our hobby would be so much poorer. Yet some must have a dig at every chance they find for themselves.

 

Reviews are one thing but trying at all attempts Tony to take the moral high ground in any public forum, at every opportunity, does little to encourage anyone to produce, models, kits, DVDs, magazines or books to send for you to review and then keep for your own personal collection. Especially if the producers feel, you will seize the chance to be seen to find something amiss with their product to indicate your own self-professed superior knowledge or research abilities in a vindictive way every time. Why indeed would they not decide to save themselves from yet another round nit picking directed at them. More so when they see other products without such comments being reviewed "impartially", when they really do deserve such harsh treatment.

 

When you are gifted the books either by the author or the publisher who have both tried their best with their output, it is no wonder they get to the point of wondering, why some people like yourself Tony feel they must be so critical all the time, the absolute best teachers always encourage after all. 

 

I recall one very respected and wise teacher from my past who advised us at school of the following "if you have nothing nice to say, then say nothing". So many times, Tony I have done this with you, and I think quite fairly in the end I asked BRM staff that your sometimes acidic remarks are best not published, especially cruel when we have been so supportive of both BRM and the hobby not only financially but in our efforts to bring pleasure to everyone around the hobby too. Especially true in these financially hard times for both customers and businesses large and small.

 

Strathwood Publishing was set up by myself to not only provide me with employment but to also see books published that would otherwise be passed over by other existing publishers. The business is still run by me and is set up as sole trader and continues to provide incomes for others too while bringing enjoyment and satisfaction thankfully to so many others aside from yourself Tony, who do like what we do and how we do it.

 

Always disappointing that some cannot help themselves picking the tallest poppies.

 

I would rather that all of this had been kept private, but Tony in your comments which were really unnecessary, I felt it was right to air my views and critic back upon Wright Writes. Even if it does put my head above the parapet yet again for you and others to take a few further pot shots in my direction.

 

Kevin Derrick

Strathwood Publishing 

[LNERandBR]

Respectfully, I had no idea which publisher was being mentioned until now. Also, how can one improve what they do if every review they receive basically says 'it's brilliant'?

 

If there are errors then there are errors. It might be too late to do anything about it for the current book but how can you fix it for the next one if you don't know they exist?

 

What every book needs is a range of reviews. From a known expert on the subject and from others who have no knowledge of it. Then the buyer has a more rounded set of reviews and can make their decisions.

 

It's ony natural for a book on an LNER subject to receive a more detailed review from Tony as thats the subject matter he knows best.

[polybear]

Perhaps if such books were reviewed before they went into print it would give scope for correcting any known errors before it's too late?

[LNERandBR]

Well, one would hope they would go though a process of checking before publication.

 

However as Simon says it's often easy to miss things though not seeing the wood for the trees. Fresher eyes would pick these up but I doubt publishers would have the budget to send preproduction copies to lots of different people and pay them for the service.

 

Books will always have errors, however it's only by spotting those errors that follow-up books can have them rectified.

[Guest Simon A.C. Martin]

1 minute ago, polybear said:

Perhaps if such books were reviewed before they went into print it would give scope for correcting any known errors before it's too late?

 

All books do have that, and errors will still creep in. I had a field of editors for the Thompson book, even ahead of sending it to Kevin, went through dozens of times myself, and it was checked by friends and family and god knows who else and still errors creep in. It happens. One thing I have learned is not to get too hung up on all of the grammar/spelling corrections. There were so many that pre-print I had kept delaying publication time and time again. At some point you have to say "enough" otherwise it will never get into print! All of these errors, incidentally, were my own.

 

I have kept one copy of the book as my "editing copy" and any time I spot something, I wrote a note on it in biro, or scribble it out, or put an asterix to go back and check/validate source or data before changing it.

[Steamport Southport]

5 hours ago, MarkC said:

Indeed so, but, in fairness, wasn't that effectively how some GWR classes were put together, using standard parts? (And, in today's world, how the WSR's Mogul, 9351, came about 😎 )

 

(Not trying to denigrate ET here; merely pointing out a fact 🙂)

 

Mark

 

9351 is just a 51XX Prairie with the tanks, bunker and rear wheel removed and a tender added. I think it was mostly a way of getting the locomotive running with the least cost. I have heard they might rebuild it back to original condition one day. But building new tanks and bunker will be very expensive.

 

I was involved in one of many attempts at restoration at Southport and I'm afraid the tanks and bunker needed total replacement as they were rotted. One of the reasons the restoration floundered. But it had a very good boiler which is why it was selected ahead of the others in the first place.

 

 

Jason

[Guest Simon A.C. Martin]

4 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Though I accept that anecdotal evidence is far less-reliable than empirical evidence, there is (in my view) some credence to some of the stories (told by men now long-dead) that much of Thompson's work (especially with the big engines) was not regarded highly (Geoff Lund and Eric Trask were in no doubt that the A2/2s were not what they wanted on the Aberdeen road). Still, we've been through this before. 

 

 

 

I hesitate in responding to this directly, however, where the P2 story is concerned, we need to be brutally honest with ourselves, and look at the primary evidence first before considering the secondary views.

• Pre second world war, the Gresley P2s had poor availability and mileages.
• Into the second world war, they became progressively worse culminating in a final year availability of 47% and average mileages of 25,357: which was 12,000 less than other Gresley classes and 20,000 miles less than Thane of Fife as a Thompson A2. 
• These statistics are recorded in two locations, the Engine Record Cards (in NRM York) and in the Use of Engine Power Document (National Archives, Kew).
• These statistics have been digitised by me and a helpful set of graphs was produced for the book, as seen below:

 

The dip in average mileages in 1944 for the A2/2s is due to several coming into service that year, having been rebuilt from P2s. 

 

 

So what do these statistics tell us?

• The original P2s were not performing well and had not done so for some time prior to rebuilding.
• Thane of Fife performed to a very high standard post-rebuilding and this continued into the late 40s.

We also have the reports from and to the board on the Thompson locomotives, which again I have digitised and made copies of. I cannot reproduce them on the open forum as this incurs copyright infringement to the National Archives, but I have made the transcripts available in the book and the file references too, for which the following is of interest:

 

MEMORANDUM TO THE L.N.E.R. EMERGENCY BOARD                                             27TH July 1943

 

LOCOMOTIVE BUILDING: YEAR 1943

 

…Under L.N.E.R. Emergency Board Minute 3064 of the 23rd July 1942 authority was given for the conversion of one P2 class 2-8-2 Passenger Tender Engine to the 4-6-2 wheel arrangement. The converted engine has now been in service for some time and has proved entirely satisfactory in that it has not only been able to handle loads at least equal to the stipulated maximum of the P2 class on the Edinburgh and Aberdeen section, but has also been remarkably free from mechanical trouble, so that it has been consistently available for traffic. It is proposed that the remaining five P2 class engines should be converted in a similar way to the 4-6-2 wheel arrangement, at an estimated cost of £2400 per engine.

 

…signed, Charles Newton [report on the rebuilt locomotive given by A.H. Peppercorn]

 

This report to the LNER Board is backed up by the statistics we hold which shows that Thane of Fife was in fact, available for traffic to a high level and also did a high amount of mileages for the company.

 

So, why should we trust the primary evidence here?

• The board minutes must be considered reflective of the truth because they are the official written record of events for the railway company.
• The statistics are collated by the Stratford Office for the LNER as a whole and are distributed to management for analysis and evaluation of its assets. These must also be considered reflective of the truth.

 

So with that in mind, we turn to the secondary sources and questions might arise of what was said at the time and what actually happened.

• Do the secondary sources match the primary views?
• If not - why not?

So why are such differing views held by certain parts of the story to others? I think too much emphasis has been placed on the exceptional load hauling capabilities of the P2s without recognising that trains over 550 tons were exceptionally rare in the operations of the LNER, and on the Aberdeen road in fact, even in wartime.

 

In any event both Thane of Fife and the Gresley Pacifics and V2s proved more than capable of hauling such heavy trains without resorting to double heading. So the idea that the Thompson A2/2s "couldn't do the job of the P2s" must be considered untruthful, and retracted accordingly. The opposite is in fact the case: the Thompson A2/2s did the work asked of them and did it more than adequately.

 

This is different to "do the secondary sources like the Thompson Pacifics" for which of course, everyone is entitled to a subjective view on the relative merits or otherwise of the classes involved. This should not and cannot however be the accepted truth and override the primary evidence where that primary evidence shows the secondary sources to be wrong.

 

If nothing else, your well-researched work should expose many myths and untruths told about ET's work, especially where prejudice would seem to have been involved.

 

I hope so Tony, because (as I hope the book proves) it is not just Thompson's reputation that was harmed with the, at times, libellous side of the criticisms aimed at him: but the men and women of the major works of the LNER who actually rose to their challenges under his leadership and produced some remarkable feats of engineering that have gone completely under the radar of previous writers.

 

My apologies for taking this off topic once more - the last time, I assure you!

 

Best wishes

 

Simon

[MikeParkin65]

4 hours ago, Simon A.C. Martin said:

 

The short answer is "yes". There needs to be a wholescale re-evaluation of their work and a renewed focus on writing railway history as historians, in academically acceptable ways of research, writing and evaluation.

I think almost the exact opposite of this. I understand the sentiment and perhaps the intentions but railway history isnt the same as political or social history. The thing that bind us all in this forum and elsewhere is enthusiasm for the railways. Much of that enthusiasm has been passed on through the generations and is based on the myth, legend and excitement of the past and present as those who saw and experienced it and is now passed to those of us who weren't there at the time. 

 

Its interesting to have a different view on Thompson but I dont think it takes anything away from the great writers of the past who's view was different . I'm not sure it adds much to try and rewrite that history now (apart from being a perfectly valid adjunct to the hobby though not one I'm personally interested in). Its a bit like 'what if models'  - they leave me cold but I respect that they float some fellow enthusiast boats. 

 

[Bernard Lamb]

1 hour ago, polybear said:

Perhaps if such books were reviewed before they went into print it would give scope for correcting any known errors before it's too late?

That would however leave the team behind the book open to having their exclusive material stolen. The choice as to exactly who would review it would have to be made with great care. I have been through a couple of books in draft form chapter by chapter with the author when I have assisted with research. It can be a difficult task to present new material in a manner that does not tread on too many toes. A reviewer can at times help in this area. I also declined to help on another book as I was not happy with the brief under which the author was working and unsurprisingly, to me at least, when it was published it got hammered by the critics.

Bernard

 

[Dunsignalling]

6 hours ago, scottystitch said:

 

Agreed.  The otherwise excellent Master Neverers volumes occasionally suffer from this.  Running such well crafted images across two pages through the spine just doesn't do them justice, in my view.

 

Many of my aviation related photo books suffer the same affliction.

 

I, for one, would have preferred these images to be reduced in size,  turned through 90 degrees and presented as a landscape image on one page, i.e. requiring the reader to turn the book for proper viewing.

 

Best

Scott.

Or, if there are a substantial number of photographs justifying larger reproduction, why not just print the book in landscape format?

 

John

[scottystitch]

Just now, Dunsignalling said:

Or, if there are a substantial number of photographs justifying larger reproduction, why not just print the book in landscape format?

 

John

Again, agreed. That would be best.

 

I was minded to say the same, however I decided to keep my alternative on a pound for pound, same size book for same size book basis.

 

Best

Scott.

[Guest Simon A.C. Martin]

1 minute ago, MikeParkin65 said:

I think almost the exact opposite of this. I understand the sentiment and perhaps the intentions but railway history isnt the same as political or social history. The thing that bind us all in this forum and elsewhere is enthusiasm for the railways. Much of that enthusiasm has been passed on through the generations and is based on the myth, legend and excitement of the past and present as those who saw and experienced it and is now passed to those of us who weren't there at the time. 

 

Its interesting to have a different view on Thompson but I dont think it takes anything away from the great writers of the past who's view was different . I'm not sure it adds much to try and rewrite that history now (apart from being a perfectly valid adjunct to the hobby though not one I'm personally interested in). Its a bit like 'what if models'  - they leave me cold but I respect that they float some fellow enthusiast boats. 

 

 

With respect Mike, railway history is indeed the same as political or social history and actually crosses both of those spheres in a myriad of ways. Just because you don't think it is, does not make it so. 

 

In writing my book I spoke to professors of history, sociology and English who are currently encouraging me to try and apply for a PHD to take this further. I would have applied to the University of York to do my degree in railway history but - alas - the funding has been pulled. A great shame. I will continue to write railway history books and use the academic models in terms of research and writing to produce more accurate reporting. 

 

In studying the Thompson story what has come across most to me in the writings of old is that there's a significant portion of it that has no basis in truth or reality. That is clearly wrong. Things that have been reported badly or misrepresented should indeed be corrected.

 

So with respect, I apologise, but I cannot say that I endorse your view of this. Railway history is still history; and it deserves a more academic and professional approach than it has necessarily had in the distant past. 

 

With that in mind - I thoroughly recommend those interested in seeking out Tim Hillier-Graves books on the LNER CMEs and Peter Tuffrey's excellent book on the LNER Workshops, or Kevin Robertson's book on Leader, for examples of well researched work that underlines the importance of primary evidence being examined and given the weight it deserves.

 

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, Strathwood said:

Thank you, Simon, for your gracious comments amid the flack thrown up by the reviewer once again whose glass always seems to be half empty.

 

It should be noted that without the arduous work and dedication of so many small businesses, not to mention their own personal investment of significant funds and time, our hobby would be so much poorer. Yet some must have a dig at every chance they find for themselves.

 

Reviews are one thing but trying at all attempts Tony to take the moral high ground in any public forum, at every opportunity, does little to encourage anyone to produce, models, kits, DVDs, magazines or books to send for you to review and then keep for your own personal collection. Especially if the producers feel, you will seize the chance to be seen to find something amiss with their product to indicate your own self-professed superior knowledge or research abilities in a vindictive way every time. Why indeed would they not decide to save themselves from yet another round nit picking directed at them. More so when they see other products without such comments being reviewed "impartially", when they really do deserve such harsh treatment.

 

When you are gifted the books either by the author or the publisher who have both tried their best with their output, it is no wonder they get to the point of wondering, why some people like yourself Tony feel they must be so critical all the time, the absolute best teachers always encourage after all. 

 

I recall one very respected and wise teacher from my past who advised us at school of the following "if you have nothing nice to say, then say nothing". So many times, Tony I have done this with you, and I think quite fairly in the end I asked BRM staff that your sometimes acidic remarks are best not published, especially cruel when we have been so supportive of both BRM and the hobby not only financially but in our efforts to bring pleasure to everyone around the hobby too. Especially true in these financially hard times for both customers and businesses large and small.

 

Strathwood Publishing was set up by myself to not only provide me with employment but to also see books published that would otherwise be passed over by other existing publishers. The business is still run by me and is set up as sole trader and continues to provide incomes for others too while bringing enjoyment and satisfaction thankfully to so many others aside from yourself Tony, who do like what we do and how we do it.

 

Always disappointing that some cannot help themselves picking the tallest poppies.

 

I would rather that all of this had been kept private, but Tony in your comments which were really unnecessary, I felt it was right to air my views and critic back upon Wright Writes. Even if it does put my head above the parapet yet again for you and others to take a few further pot shots in my direction.

 

Kevin Derrick

Strathwood Publishing 

Good afternoon Kevin,

 

I'm sorry you feel that my reviews (not just of your books) are 'acidic', best not published and 'especially cruel'. 

 

Are my comments on Simon's book thus? He asked me to pass on any observations on here, which I've done. Apart from a few grammatical errors and one or two errors of fact, I think it's a splendid work. It 'rights many wrongs', which I think is a fair comment.

 

What am I supposed to do when writing reviews of books? Not mention any errors, especially those of fact? The more recent book reviews of mine which seemed to upset you were those regarding 'Steam's Lament'; those focusing on London Midland Engine Sheds. In my reviews I stated that the reproduction was excellent, the views varied and comprehensive and of great help to modellers. Should I have never mentioned that CLUN CASTLE (on page 102 of Volume 1) is actually on Chester 6A, not Birkenhead? And, that the the BR Standard 4 4-6-0 on page 101 is actually inside Wrexham Shed, not Mold Junction? I don't think such a generally splendid work is compromised by my taking 'the moral high ground'. Would any reviewer be considered 'impartial' if he/she only ever wrote gushing praise? 

 

I've written several books, and innumerable articles, both on prototype railways and model railways. In every case, I'm always interested to read constructive criticism of my words - necessary constructive criticism, because much of what I've churned out contains errors of fact or opinion. It comes with the territory. 

 

As for my being 'vindictive'. Would a vindictive person proof-read books and articles for several publishers (at no charge)? Or, would such a person test-build kits for manufacturers, write instructions and provide photographs for catalogues? Or write class histories and observations for manufacturers (Accurascale's latest Deltic springs to mind)? 

 

I'd never claim to be a 'good' teacher, but if all I'd done is issue unreserved praise to my pupils down the years, and never given them the metaphorical 'kick up the backside', I doubt if I'd done them a good service. 

 

Finally, many (if not most) of the books I receive to review are either sold on behalf of CRUK or donated to charities or clubs.

 

My apologies if you've been 'hurt' by any of my comments in the past.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Strathwood]

9 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

Or, if there are a substantial number of photographs justifying larger reproduction, why not just print the book in landscape format?

 

John

I agree, and personally like the larger landscape format too, hence starting the STEAM'S LAMENT for black & white, and the DAYS REMEMBERED series for colour material.

 

A note of caution as we were all amateur photographers back in the day, not all material is strong enough for larger landscape use no matter how rare it is; hence some shots need to be used smaller occasionally.

 

Kevin

[Tony Wright]

25 minutes ago, Simon A.C. Martin said:

 

I hesitate in responding to this directly, however, where the P2 story is concerned, we need to be brutally honest with ourselves, and look at the primary evidence first before considering the secondary views.

• Pre second world war, the Gresley P2s had poor availability and mileages.
• Into the second world war, they became progressively worse culminating in a final year availability of 47% and average mileages of 25,357: which was 12,000 less than other Gresley classes and 20,000 miles less than Thane of Fife as a Thompson A2. 
• These statistics are recorded in two locations, the Engine Record Cards (in NRM York) and in the Use of Engine Power Document (National Archives, Kew).
• These statistics have been digitised by me and a helpful set of graphs was produced for the book, as seen below:

 

The dip in average mileages in 1944 for the A2/2s is due to several coming into service that year, having been rebuilt from P2s. 

 

 

So what do these statistics tell us?

• The original P2s were not performing well and had not done so for some time prior to rebuilding.
• Thane of Fife performed to a very high standard post-rebuilding and this continued into the late 40s.

We also have the reports from and to the board on the Thompson locomotives, which again I have digitised and made copies of. I cannot reproduce them on the open forum as this incurs copyright infringement to the National Archives, but I have made the transcripts available in the book and the file references too, for which the following is of interest:

 

 

 

 

This report to the LNER Board is backed up by the statistics we hold which shows that Thane of Fife was in fact, available for traffic to a high level and also did a high amount of mileages for the company.

 

So, why should we trust the primary evidence here?

• The board minutes must be considered reflective of the truth because they are the official written record of events for the railway company.
• The statistics are collated by the Stratford Office for the LNER as a whole and are distributed to management for analysis and evaluation of its assets. These must also be considered reflective of the truth.

 

So with that in mind, we turn to the secondary sources and questions might arise of what was said at the time and what actually happened.

• Do the secondary sources match the primary views?
• If not - why not?

So why are such differing views held by certain parts of the story to others? I think too much emphasis has been placed on the exceptional load hauling capabilities of the P2s without recognising that trains over 550 tons were exceptionally rare in the operations of the LNER, and on the Aberdeen road in fact, even in wartime.

 

In any event both Thane of Fife and the Gresley Pacifics and V2s proved more than capable of hauling such heavy trains without resorting to double heading. So the idea that the Thompson A2/2s "couldn't do the job of the P2s" must be considered untruthful, and retracted accordingly. The opposite is in fact the case: the Thompson A2/2s did the work asked of them and did it more than adequately.

 

This is different to "do the secondary sources like the Thompson Pacifics" for which of course, everyone is entitled to a subjective view on the relative merits or otherwise of the classes involved. This should not and cannot however be the accepted truth and override the primary evidence where that primary evidence shows the secondary sources to be wrong.

 

 

 

 

I hope so Tony, because (as I hope the book proves) it is not just Thompson's reputation that was harmed with the, at times, libellous side of the criticisms aimed at him: but the men and women of the major works of the LNER who actually rose to their challenges under his leadership and produced some remarkable feats of engineering that have gone completely under the radar of previous writers.

 

My apologies for taking this off topic once more - the last time, I assure you!

 

Best wishes

 

Simon

Thanks Simon,

 

There's no need to apologise for taking this 'off topic'. You're certainly not doing that; it's all very interesting stuff. 

 

Would you think more of me had I not mentioned any (little) errors in your book? You did ask me to comment on here, after all. 

 

I wish everything I've ever written in the past had so few.

 

Kind regards,

 

Tony. 

[MikeParkin65]

26 minutes ago, Simon A.C. Martin said:

 

With respect Mike, railway history is indeed the same as political or social history and actually crosses both of those spheres in a myriad of ways. Just because you don't think it is, does not make it so. 

 

In writing my book I spoke to professors of history, sociology and English who are currently encouraging me to try and apply for a PHD to take this further. I would have applied to the University of York to do my degree in railway history but - alas - the funding has been pulled. A great shame. I will continue to write railway history books and use the academic models in terms of research and writing to produce more accurate reporting. 

 

In studying the Thompson story what has come across most to me in the writings of old is that there's a significant portion of it that has no basis in truth or reality. That is clearly wrong. Things that have been reported badly or misrepresented should indeed be corrected.

 

So with respect, I apologise, but I cannot say that I endorse your view of this. Railway history is still history; and it deserves a more academic and professional approach than it has necessarily had in the distant past. 

 

With that in mind - I thoroughly recommend those interested in seeking out Tim Hillier-Graves books on the LNER CMEs and Peter Tuffrey's excellent book on the LNER Workshops, or Kevin Robertson's book on Leader, for examples of well researched work that underlines the importance of primary evidence being examined and given the weight it deserves.

 

I wont labour the point but impact of the railways on human history isnt going to be troubled by whether Thompson was wrongly maligned or not. A different sort of history.

 

I applaud the achievement in finishing your tome and I wish it well but I dont think there is any greater purpose to be served, it is just another adjunct of the hobby.

[lanchester]

7 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

 

 

Returning to book reviews, where there are obvious errors of fact in a work, then they should be pointed out. For instance, I'm just reviewing a railway book on York. The author claims that the ancient city has 'The most complete medieval city walls in England'. Leaving aside the fact that the walls are not medieval in origin, but Roman, this is just not true. Chester has the most complete set of walls (actually complete, unlike York's). As a native Cestrian, of course I know this, but do others? 

 

 

Tony, I think you have picked a slightly iffy 'fact' to 'leave aside' here. I'm sure you are right that Chester's walls are more complete than York's, but I think they may also be more Roman?  Although York's walls run mostly, but by no means always, on the lines of the Roman walls, hardly any of the visible fabric of York's walls is Roman - the multiangular tower, parts of Bootham Bar (below ground level), and that's about it. To the extent that the medieval is built on top of the Roman, the latter is embanked in ramparts and invisible. By contrast many visible sections of Chester's walls include in situ Roman masonry ten or more courses high.

 

As a former journal editor and occasional reviewer, albeit in a quite different field, I myself have too often been guilty of introducing one error while trying to correct another, which of course is what gives pedantry a bad name!

[johndon]

10 hours ago, Clearwater said:

In military history circles, there are some interesting debates about the accuracy of people's personal testimony.  The closer to the event, the more accurate the testimony tends to be.  There is a tendency for old men to a) remember things how they want them to be remembered b) not to want to show themselves in a way they wouldn't want to be seen/perceived c) be subconsciously influenced by the impact of 50/60/70 years of popular culture around particular incidents, a form of false memory syndrome.  An example might be that a veteran 78 years after D-Day confidently asserts that it was a Tiger tank that ambushed them where the documentary evidence is that particular type of tank could not have been at that location at that time.

 

 

So very true.  Sticking with military circles, and I may have mentioned this before but many of the surviving veterans of the attack on Pearl Harbor cannot agree what colour the USS Arizona was painted on the fateful day.  Likewise, it has only recently come to light that the anti fouling paint on the underwater section of the hull on HMS Hood was grey rather than the widely accepted red.

Edited June 9, 2022 by johndon

[Michael Edge]

This B1 turned up on my bench recently for repairs to its drawbar.

This one of the locos from Carllsle, needed more work than I could do out there in France.

It's one of mine from 1982, painted by Larry Goddard - out of curiosity I ran a magnet over it to see what I had built it from and it turns out to be almost 100% steel, unusually even the boiler.

After repairing it I put it on my test track to check its running - sounded like a bag of nails. Investigating this I found that there wasn't a drop of oil in any of the bearings and probably hadn't been any there in the 40 years since it first left my bench. A drop of oil (car engine oil as usual) on each bearing and it runs quietly and smoothly now.

[gr.king]

And I thought I was out on a limb with my habit of using good old 20W/50 to lubricate my locos...

[Northmoor]

11 hours ago, john new said:

As a former Editor and current reviewer for a Society Journal I think you have to simply be honest, if I am having to accept the stated facts in a book as given I say so, in my summary. I am probably more forgiving of some grammar idiosyncrasies than Tony, provided it still makes sense, but am critical of some of the current page layout trends that spoil a book, photos spoilt by being run through the spine area, not printed on the vertical and choice of type colours that hinder readability are recent examples. The other very important point to mention, if the book omits them, is that there are no source references listed for the the author’s interpretation of supposedly stated facts. 

This is one of the things which, I have to say, I really do NOT like about BRM; too many photos are grossly over-enlarged.  They often no longer do the excellent modelling justice, in fact they make it look worse by enlarging the cat hair or specks of dust on a locomotive, or make the exquisite hand-painted inch-high figures look like three-inch high figures painted by a five year old.

Large photos do seem to be used to disguise a lack of written content.   In one issue not long ago (and BRM is far from the only guilty party in this, car magazines are notorious for it) I found I had read a 12-page layout article in less than 3 minutes, because the double-spaced text made up slightly less than one page.