Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

6 hours ago, Iain.d said:

Well, there’s nothing particularly distinctive about this LMS catering car, its consistent with the design of LMS carriages of the day. The only thing, to me, that might cause it to be noticed in a train formation is its length and the clutter on the roof.

 

It’s an LMS Restaurant Third to Diagram D1901/1923 and is just about ready for painting.

 

 

There’s nothing distinctive or unusual in its constriction either! It’s built from the Comet Models kit and pretty much everything needed to complete it, is included in the box. I did spend a while bending up the water tank filler pipes on the roof and locating them, there is another pipe further along the roof near the fan(?) covers that I forgot to fit before I photographed it, and I’ve soldered up the corridor gangway suspension brackets (to be fixed after painting) from bits of 1mm x 1mm angle brass and a strand of electrical cable wrapped around a piece of .5mm wire. I've made a simple swinging coupling hook. I’ve yet to make the concertina gangways from paper but I can do that when the paint’s drying.

 

 

The restaurant carriage will be paired with this LMS D1903 Composite Open, again from Comet Models.  They will form the dining portion of a Pines Express formation I’m partway through constructing. Not much further detail has been added other than I’ve modelled lamps for the First Class tables and made up some curtains for the windows.

 

 

 

 

For both carriages I’ve cut the glass for the windows, bent the wire for commode handrails using .45mm brass wire, made up the toilet window handrails and luggage window safety bars and the handrails/safety bars for the obscured glass section of the restaurant car from .45mm nickel silver wire. I need to add roof ribs to both carriages from thin tape but I’ll do that after the roofs have had their final wash.

 

The intention is to wash and primer them today, spray them maroon tomorrow, line and transfer them on Monday, varnish them on Tuesday……

 

 

Kind regards,

 

Iain

Beautiful modelling!

 

Thanks Iain.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[micklner]

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

We’ve been here before and it’s exasperating how those who just want an opportunity to bash whot Thompson did will do so without fear of reprisal.

 

However a few simple answers to your question Tony as to why someone would want the latter version:

 

1) it offers something different and has to be at least converted from a model if not built from a kit

2) some of us think it’s quite handsome

3) it was well photographed on the ECML and for an accurate depiction of the timetable at some point should appear

4) wanting to represent all the LNER Pacifics you can

5) there’s nothing wrong with it

 

Micks model in apple green is lovely but I always preferred seeing it in the dark Prussian blue with the GER style lining (which I think mick has also done).

 

Horses for courses!

Sure did at least three , two Hornby conversions and a very poor PDK version not in photos, and sold on long ago.

 

 

 

[Tony Wright]

I don't know whether my work/life balance is right, especially now as I'm officially 'retired' (have been since I turned 65, 11 years ago). That said, I still build locos (on a barter basis with Geoff Haynes and for myself) still build items for review, test-build kits, review and photograph RTR products, assist (in a small way) RTR manufacturers and kit-makers with new developments, assist others in their modelling, find new homes for models on behalf of the bereaved, and photograph layouts. I also sub/proof-read BRM each month (any bloopers you can blame on me!). I really enjoy my retirement!

 

Regarding how I conduct my own modelling (say, building a loco), I can't be ar$ed with spending weeks and weeks (even months) on a build. I take no more than 30-35 hours to erect, say, a DJH LNER Pacific. This is usually 'achieved' within a week, meaning spending up to eight hours in a day (with meal/comfort breaks, of course). In the past, I've worked well into the night, but I find now I'm more-productive in the morning - often the early morning, firing up the iron before 5.00 am. 

 

It's a work/life balance which suits me. However, it must be acknowledged that I have a most-understanding wife, who rarely lays down conditions on my time. She realises I'm the least-emancipated male in creation and accepts my total uselessness at 'domesticity'. Some wives/partners of friends I know are, at best, indifferent to what their husband/partner pursues as a hobby, and, at worst, openly hostile! The best, like mine, are very supportive...........

 

Each to their own. 

Edited December 17, 2022 by Tony Wright
typo error

[Tony Wright]

17 minutes ago, micklner said:

Sure did at least three , two Hornby conversions and a very poor PDK version not in photos, and sold on long ago.

 

 

 

Lovely models Mick,

 

However (there's always one of those), please alter the return cranks' angles so that they lean forward (both sides) at bottom dead centre (the restriction of using Hornby's drivers). That's one restriction which wouldn't apply to a Crownline/PDK A1/1.

 

In motion, your GREAT NORTHERN will look like a rebuilt Bulleid Pacific! Odd. 

[Iain.d]

1 hour ago, richard i said:

Do you not sleep?

how do you find the time with everything else which impinges on modeling time? I manage one evening a week. I count myself lucky if I can get a second, even when on holiday. The management has lists which have to be ticked off of jobs that need doing around the house and garden.

richard 

I do, and usually very well thank you!

 

What I wrote was a little tongue in cheek, what with Christmas coming. But as an estimate, I do about an hour a day, and maybe up to two hours on each weekend day. But I rarely get that as a contiguous block of time; it might be two half hours or three twenty minute sessions or a variation of.

 

I often break modelling down into 15-20 minute jobs as I find I’m more productive like that. In fact the idea of sitting down to a long modelling session isn’t something that appeals to me, I’d get bored. If I have 10 or 15 minutes ‘spare’, I’d prefer to do some modelling rather than watch telly or browse the internet, which is probably why I’ve only made 249 posts on RMWeb in four years!

 

Like most of us, some days there’s no modelling, because of all the other things going on. I’m also very lucky to have a room in the house with just my stuff in it, so I have a work bench with a few things on the go, so its easy to sit down and do something rather than having to pack/unpack the current project as time allows. My partner paints (as in like an artist, not a tradesperson) and she and I will often do our own hobbies but be together in the same room sharing time and conversation. I consider myself very fortunate.

 

And yes, we have a garden, the grass does need cutting but it’s about 30 degrees outside so it’s not happening today(!) and there's always a list of household jobs to do.  I also have a second part time occupation that takes up pretty much every Tuesday night and usually one weekend a month!

 

Kind regards,

 

Iain

[t-b-g]

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

We’ve been here before and it’s exasperating how those who just want an opportunity to bash whot Thompson did will do so without fear of reprisal.

 

However a few simple answers to your question Tony as to why someone would want the latter version:

 

1) it offers something different and has to be at least converted from a model if not built from a kit

2) some of us think it’s quite handsome

3) it was well photographed on the ECML and for an accurate depiction of the timetable at some point should appear

4) wanting to represent all the LNER Pacifics you can

5) there’s nothing wrong with it

 

Micks model in apple green is lovely but I always preferred seeing it in the dark Prussian blue with the GER style lining (which I think mick has also done).

 

Horses for courses!

 

I certainly don't want to reopen that can of worms again Simon.

 

Looks are always impossible to measure and I am sure there must be people who think the loco looked better after rebuilding. There are people who think that the concrete and glass of modern architecture looks great too.

 

[cb900f]

Superb modelling Iain but the comment with regards to 30 degrees was below the belt at this present time in the uk.

 

Regards  Pete

[Barry Ten]

12 minutes ago, cb900f said:

Superb modelling Iain but the comment with regards to 30 degrees was below the belt at this present time in the uk.

 

Regards  Pete

 

Indeed, the only reason I was up and posting at 8am was that our local parkrun was cancelled at short notice due

to snow on the track. Can't say I was hugely disappointed....

[Chamby]

1 hour ago, Iain.d said:

I do, and usually very well thank you!

 

What I wrote was a little tongue in cheek, what with Christmas coming. But as an estimate, I do about an hour a day, and maybe up to two hours on each weekend day. But I rarely get that as a contiguous block of time; it might be two half hours or three twenty minute sessions or a variation of.

 

I often break modelling down into 15-20 minute jobs as I find I’m more productive like that. In fact the idea of sitting down to a long modelling session isn’t something that appeals to me, I’d get bored. If I have 10 or 15 minutes ‘spare’, I’d prefer to do some modelling rather than watch telly or browse the internet, which is probably why I’ve only made 249 posts on RMWeb in four years!

 

Like most of us, some days there’s no modelling, because of all the other things going on. I’m also very lucky to have a room in the house with just my stuff in it, so I have a work bench with a few things on the go, so its easy to sit down and do something rather than having to pack/unpack the current project as time allows. My partner paints (as in like an artist, not a tradesperson) and she and I will often do our own hobbies but be together in the same room sharing time and conversation. I consider myself very fortunate.

 

And yes, we have a garden, the grass does need cutting but it’s about 30 degrees outside so it’s not happening today(!) and there's always a list of household jobs to do.  I also have a second part time occupation that takes up pretty much every Tuesday night and usually one weekend a month!

 

Kind regards,

 

Iain

 

I am in similar circumstances... apart from the last paragraph!   My grass also needs cutting... but it’s about 2 degrees outside so it’s not happening today(!)

[Guest Simon A.C. Martin]

40 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

I certainly don't want to reopen that can of worms again Simon.

 

Looks are always impossible to measure and I am sure there must be people who think the loco looked better after rebuilding. There are people who think that the concrete and glass of modern architecture looks great too.

 

 

The point is that where aesthetics are concerned, there is no right and wrong answer, and where locomotive design is concerned, form does not always follow function.

 

Modern architecture has its place as does preservation, but I can't help but feel there's still a tone of "I'm right and you're wrong" in your response there: which seems unnecessary.

[polybear]

8 hours ago, Iain.d said:

Well, there’s nothing particularly distinctive about this LMS catering car, its consistent with the design of LMS carriages of the day. The only thing, to me, that might cause it to be noticed in a train formation is its length and the clutter on the roof.

 

It’s an LMS Restaurant Third to Diagram D1901/1923 and is just about ready for painting.

 

 

There’s nothing distinctive or unusual in its constriction either! It’s built from the Comet Models kit and pretty much everything needed to complete it, is included in the box. I did spend a while bending up the water tank filler pipes on the roof and locating them, there is another pipe further along the roof near the fan(?) covers that I forgot to fit before I photographed it, and I’ve soldered up the corridor gangway suspension brackets (to be fixed after painting) from bits of 1mm x 1mm angle brass and a strand of electrical cable wrapped around a piece of .5mm wire. I've made a simple swinging coupling hook. I’ve yet to make the concertina gangways from paper but I can do that when the paint’s drying.

 

 

The restaurant carriage will be paired with this LMS D1903 Composite Open, again from Comet Models.  They will form the dining portion of a Pines Express formation I’m partway through constructing. Not much further detail has been added other than I’ve modelled lamps for the First Class tables and made up some curtains for the windows.

 

 

 

 

For both carriages I’ve cut the glass for the windows, bent the wire for commode handrails using .45mm brass wire, made up the toilet window handrails and luggage window safety bars and the handrails/safety bars for the obscured glass section of the restaurant car from .45mm nickel silver wire. I need to add roof ribs to both carriages from thin tape but I’ll do that after the roofs have had their final wash.

 

The intention is to wash and primer them today, spray them maroon tomorrow, line and transfer them on Monday, varnish them on Tuesday……

 

 

Kind regards,

 

Iain

 

Hi Iain,

Stunning as always; I'm always amazed at just how neat and tidy your solder joints are - could you share some of your secrets regarding soldering so neatly and cleaning up as well please?

Many thanks

Brian

 

 

[Guest Simon A.C. Martin]

2 hours ago, micklner said:

Sure did at least three , two Hornby conversions and a very poor PDK version not in photos, and sold on long ago.

 

 

 

 

Lovely Mick. Having seen these photographs again, I have gone downstairs, clipped off the handrails on the lower firebox sides on mine and put some filler over the holes ready for a partial repaint. It finally got to me seeing that error I made all those years ago.

[drmditch]

1 hour ago, cb900f said:

Superb modelling Iain but the comment with regards to 30 degrees was below the belt at this present time in the uk.

 

Regards  Pete

 

Ahem - don't you mean below the equator?

 

[BMacdermott]

14 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

I wonder if any RTR manufacturer will ever produce Gresley catering triplets? They are such 'signature' vehicles.

 

Hello Tony and everyone

 

I wouldn't normally 'intrude' here with my 00 Wishlist Poll Team hat on, but as you and my colleague Robert have raised some questions about RTR stock I thought readers might like to be made aware that they can vote for the Triplets and many other GNR/LNER/BR items in The 00 Wishlist Poll 2022. There is a link in the RMweb home page banner headline.

 

I have attached an exact copy of what readers will find in The Poll but note that votes cannot be cast from it (you have to access the actual Poll via the link). This copy is simply for readers to 'browse at leisure' and make their selections ready to vote.

 

The Gresley Triplets are sets that I am particularly fond of and can see such as Hornby making a fine job of them with the various liveries. 

 

All the seasonal best to you all.

 

Brian (on behalf of The 00 Poll Team)

The Contents of The 00 Wishlist Poll 2022.pdf

[t-b-g]

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

 

The point is that where aesthetics are concerned, there is no right and wrong answer, and where locomotive design is concerned, form does not always follow function.

 

Modern architecture has its place as does preservation, but I can't help but feel there's still a tone of "I'm right and you're wrong" in your response there: which seems unnecessary.

 

No need to be so defensive Simon. To avoid any doubt I will make it clear that I was expressing a personal preference, not suggesting that I might be right about anything.

 

I have come to learn that having a discussion about something is much more fun than being right all the time.

[Tony Wright]

I'm not sure that this constitutes an 'ugly model'................

 

 

I think it's a very fine model of a loco which always causes debate; scratch-built/painted in Scale Seven by Steve Barnfield. To call this model 'ugly' is disingenuous in my opinion. 

 

 

One might even suggest this model (Hornby's original A1) has 'ugly' valve gear - the weird angle of the eccentric rod is wholly-unnatural. 

 

As I've mentioned, I make models of what I remember seeing - including 'ugly' 'Austerities' and the likes of 'ugly' Ivatt 4MTS. If one is trying to recreate an 'actual' prototype (not some made-up system), building locos which 'actually' ran through it,  during a particular time period - as I'm doing with Little Bytham - then............

 

 

GREAT NORTHERN has to be included. I built this from a Crownline (now PDK) kit, and Ian Rathbone painted it (beautifully). Why it's considered a 'poor' kit puzzles me. 

 

John Houlden's (since cremated) Gamston Bank, depicting as it did the mid-'50s, also needed a model of the A1/1.........

 

 

So John created it from a mixture of DJH kit and scratch-building.

 

I have to say, this is much more how I remember seeing it. Mine is too clean, as is Steve Barnfield's. 

 

There's no doubt that the rebuilt GREAT NORTHERN was a far more-potent machine than the original. That said, a Gresley A3 with an A4 boiler, double chimney and German blinkers was just as potent, but, in my view, far more aesthetically-pleasing. Ironically, that's how GREAT NORTHERN would have eventually ended up had she not been converted into 'something guaranteed to have her designer turn in his grave' (the last bit are not my words, but those, paraphrased, of an eminent railway historian). 

 

 

[Guest Simon A.C. Martin]

17 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

Ironically, that's how GREAT NORTHERN would have eventually ended up had she not been converted into 'something guaranteed to have her designer turn in his grave' (the last bit are not my words, but those, paraphrased, of an eminent railway historian). 

 

 

An historian would use the primary evidence and recognise the need for primary evidence.

 

Cecil J. Allen was an enthusiast, and a timekeeper: his books are dated and most are not accurate, and even now there should be a lot of reappraising of his work.

 

It took me ten years to put together all

of the primary evidence for the Thompson book and in that time I was able to recognise that the many personal, subjective things said on that topic did not come from a love of railway history, but were thrown in to make sure everyone knew they leaned a particular way when it came to sell the next book.

 

I personally think we need to stop canonising writers like Allen, Nock and similar. The limits of their writing are clear when you have been studying the subject properly for a good while.

[DenysW]

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

I personally think we need to stop canonising writers like Allen, Nock and similar.

I can recommend (as informative about styles that used to be acceptable) "The History of the Midland Railway", C.E. Stretton, Methuen 1901, and "A History of the Great Western Railway", G.A. Sekon, Duke, Long & Co., 1895. Both present their 'Histories' as a battle between the good guys (their railway) and the devious, unscrupulous bad guys (all other companies). Sekon is also a fervent admirer of the one true (broad) gauge, and mourns its passing almost continuously.

 

It's my view that there is a progression from this Victorian degree of massive bias through the writers of the mid-20th Century such as Allen and Nock who maybe present opinions as fact too often, to modern historians who try and avoid bias.

[micklner]

1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

I'm not sure that this constitutes an 'ugly model'................

 

 

I think it's a very fine model of a loco which always causes debate; scratch-built/painted in Scale Seven by Steve Barnfield. To call this model 'ugly' is disingenuous in my opinion. 

 

 

One might even suggest this model (Hornby's original A1) has 'ugly' valve gear - the weird angle of the eccentric rod is wholly-unnatural. 

 

As I've mentioned, I make models of what I remember seeing - including 'ugly' 'Austerities' and the likes of 'ugly' Ivatt 4MTS. If one is trying to recreate an 'actual' prototype (not some made-up system), building locos which 'actually' ran through it,  during a particular time period - as I'm doing with Little Bytham - then............

 

 

GREAT NORTHERN has to be included. I built this from a Crownline (now PDK) kit, and Ian Rathbone painted it (beautifully). Why it's considered a 'poor' kit puzzles me. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why was the PDK poor??. I presume it is a new version of the Crownline version , no idea if they are identical. When I bought mine it had just been released by PDK in 2011. In 2013 Graeme King made a Resin and etched conversion kit for the A1/1 and he also did ones for the A2/2 and A2/3 using the Bachmann A2 as a base. All were excellent kits and much  much better than the PDK version of the A1/1.

This has been mentioned before on here re the PDK model of the A1/1. The fold up chassis must have been designed for EM on building ,I then realised as result there was zero sideplay between the drivers and chassis, I has to file the bearings down to virtually nothing for the wheels to just turn. As a result it didnt like curves very much. The whole kit appeared at the time to be rushed out for sale. The Cab even had lines of etched rivets on the outside!! (there none on the A1/1). A resin boiler didnt help towing anything either.

In this case a combination of Hornby A3 and a conversion kit in 2013 was miles ahead. Whether PDK have ever redesigned the kit since I have no idea. I have'nt even considered any of their range since. Perhaps someone else has built one since 2011??.

 

 

 

PDK version in 2013 in the first photo, and on the left in photo two. It is lower than the Hornby based version and the vans behind it.

 

 

[t-b-g]

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

An historian would use the primary evidence and recognise the need for primary evidence.

 

Cecil J. Allen was an enthusiast, and a timekeeper: his books are dated and most are not accurate, and even now there should be a lot of reappraising of his work.

 

It took me ten years to put together all

of the primary evidence for the Thompson book and in that time I was able to recognise that the many personal, subjective things said on that topic did not come from a love of railway history, but were thrown in to make sure everyone knew they leaned a particular way when it came to sell the next book.

 

I personally think we need to stop canonising writers like Allen, Nock and similar. The limits of their writing are clear when you have been studying the subject properly for a good while.

 

One of my other historical interests is in the military and recently I have been taking a look at the American Civil War. The main sources of information are the official reports, which deal mainly in factual information and are often slanted to make the people writing the reports look good and the diaries and writings of the men who were actually fighting the battles.

 

So the official report from an officer commanding a unit might say "We withdrew in good order" whereas a Private, writing about the same event would say "It was chaos. We ran as fast as we could in all sorts of different directions".

 

One General wrote 4 accounts of a particular battle over several decades and each account was different but each account made him look good! In fact, as the years went by, he got even better.

 

Both would be regarded as primary sources by historians yet they tell different stories of the same event. Anybody writing a book, 160 years later, could choose to include one, or the other, or both to give a balanced view and to let the reader decide which was most likely to be correct, or if it is somewhere in between.

 

What I don't understand is how somebody like Nock or Allen, on the footplate recording speeds, cut offs, timings etc. first hand, is not "primary". They were there, recording history as it was being made. If they made some mistakes, then most writers do but it shouldn't mean that everything they wrote should be ignored or discarded, or regarded as unreliable.

 

I have quoted this example before but the late Richard Hardy once told me a story about the ex GCR Class B7s. "Miner's friends" they were called and most written accounts tell how heavy on coal they were. Mr. Hardy told me that if you wanted a loco to take a heavy train over Woodhead in the winter, then any loco crew on the line would have picked a B7 as the loco most likely to get you over the top successfully and that on that route, with the loads they were hauling, any loco would have been heavy on coal.

 

So the official records show them as coal guzzlers. The loco crews saw them as reliable heavy haulers. Of course both are right but you don't get the full picture by using one side of that equation.

 

I am sure that almost any subject matter can be shown in a good light if you discount everything ever written that shows it otherwise.

[Willie Whizz]

So-called “primary sources” and official records are certainly essential to any serious historical study. However, as a veteran bureaucrat I can confidently assert that they very commonly do not tell the whole story.
 

There may be all sorts of motivations - many legitimate, others less so - for writing the “facts” in a certain way, not least of which may be to protect the writer’s back against subsequent complaint or challenge; or to present them in such a way that the writer’s  own preferences over how they should interpreted, and what should happen next, constitute the “official record”.

 

Minutes of meetings - perhaps one of the ultimate primary sources - are not usually transcripts and are commonly written to record outcomes and decisions,  but not the twists and turns of debate and considerations that led to them. 

 

And sometimes simple honest mistakes are made, and sometimes it isn’t thought necessary to write down for the record what everyone who “needs to know” already knows. 
 

The point of view of outside observers and witnesses is therefore frequently (though equally not invariably) valid - certainly in the sense of being an honest and correct record of what they saw and heard and were told. 

[Bernard Lamb]

36 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

One of my other historical interests is in the military and recently I have been taking a look at the American Civil War. The main sources of information are the official reports, which deal mainly in factual information and are often slanted to make the people writing the reports look good and the diaries and writings of the men who were actually fighting the battles.

 

So the official report from an officer commanding a unit might say "We withdrew in good order" whereas a Private, writing about the same event would say "It was chaos. We ran as fast as we could in all sorts of different directions".

 

One General wrote 4 accounts of a particular battle over several decades and each account was different but each account made him look good! In fact, as the years went by, he got even better.

 

Both would be regarded as primary sources by historians yet they tell different stories of the same event. Anybody writing a book, 160 years later, could choose to include one, or the other, or both to give a balanced view and to let the reader decide which was most likely to be correct, or if it is somewhere in between.

 

What I don't understand is how somebody like Nock or Allen, on the footplate recording speeds, cut offs, timings etc. first hand, is not "primary". They were there, recording history as it was being made. If they made some mistakes, then most writers do but it shouldn't mean that everything they wrote should be ignored or discarded, or regarded as unreliable.

 

I have quoted this example before but the late Richard Hardy once told me a story about the ex GCR Class B7s. "Miner's friends" they were called and most written accounts tell how heavy on coal they were. Mr. Hardy told me that if you wanted a loco to take a heavy train over Woodhead in the winter, then any loco crew on the line would have picked a B7 as the loco most likely to get you over the top successfully and that on that route, with the loads they were hauling, any loco would have been heavy on coal.

 

So the official records show them as coal guzzlers. The loco crews saw them as reliable heavy haulers. Of course both are right but you don't get the full picture by using one side of that equation.

 

I am sure that almost any subject matter can be shown in a good light if you discount everything ever written that shows it otherwise.

I have spent a lot of time researching the Beds and Herts Regiment and their  voyage to Singapore and subsequent time as guests of the Japanese. I was told at a very early stage not to trust any published documents and even to be wary of official documents. Very few War Office, later MOD, files were released until around 2011 and much information is stll secret. I could only read one file at TNA Kew with an invegilator presnt in a private room and then had to sign not tp pulish quotes from it. I also have an hour by hour account of the Battle for Singapore by a leading Officer who was on the front line. This has never been published and again I had to sign not to publish any part of it. This is very critical of certain high ranking people and and highlights who held which view. As with the reports that you mention Tony, there is often more than one viewpoint even by the same writer to suit the required message of the day.

 

On a railway connected note I helped David Spaven with a book at one time. I would post any discarded material on the forum. There was a thread that included various posts about what happened to the track when the Waverley Route closed. A chap who claimed to be a rail worker in the area posted what he thought was the situation. I had on my computer a large fold out strip map from his boss that told a very different story.

Bernard   

[30368]

1 hour ago, t-b-g said:

Both would be regarded as primary sources by historians yet they tell different stories of the same event.

 

Primary sources are a record created at the time of the historical event. An historian would evaluate primary sources for bias or, as we might say now, an agenda. Sometimes the historian is more interested in the unwitting testimony, the underlying assumptions of the source creator, rather than the content. Whilst most retired generals may have created the official dispatch shortly after a battle their memoirs were usually written many years after the event and, I would argue, are therefore secondary sources. Montgomery made an industry out of his memoirs...

 

I think that Simon ACM has made this distinction many times in his contributions to this thread on his book about Mr Thompson which relies on many performance records and accounts written at the time and he makes the modest claim that Thompson was not the "destroyer of worlds" that some seem to think he was. Some of his designs were rather good! Mr Gresley was a giant of steam because of his many achievements but not all of his work was great. I really don't know what the two gentlemen thought of each other, but I suspect that they may well have chuckled over some of the pontifications on the Thompson/Gresley subject found on this thread.

 

Merry Christmas and kindest regards,

 

Richard B

Edited December 17, 2022 by 30368

[t-b-g]

5 minutes ago, 30368 said:

 

Primary sources are a record created at the time of the historical event. An historian would evaluate primary sources for bias or, as we might say now, an agenda. Sometimes the historian is more interested in the unwitting testimony, the underlying assumptions of the source creator, rather than the content. Whilst most retired generals may have created the official dispatch shortly after a battle their memoirs were usually written many years after the event and, I would argue, are therefore secondary sources. Montgomery made an industry out of his memoirs...

 

I think that Simon ACM has made this distinction many times in his contributions to this thread on his book about Mr Thompson which relies on many performance records and accounts written at the time and he makes the modest claim that Thompson was not the "destroyer of worlds" that some seem to think he was. Some of his designs were rather good! Mr Gresley was a giant of steam because of his many achievements but not all of his work was great. I really don't know what the two gentlemen thought of each other, but I suspect that they may well have chuckled over some of the pontifications on the Thompson/Gresley subject found on this thread.

 

Merry Christmas and kindest regards,

 

Richard B

 

I genuinely think that if ET had built his own designs and not rebuilt Great Northern and the P2s, history would have been a lot kinder to him. He had a difficult job to take over with little time to plan what he wanted to do and a short time to do it before he was due to retire.

 

It is always difficult taking over from a successful and popular boss. I have seen it in my old day job. The new boss comes in and starts telling everybody that the old boss was yesterday and everything changes from now on. You have to be a genius at man management to pull that off and get everybody on board. In railway terms, if he had built a new Pacific and run it in trials against the Gresley designs, he might have carried people with him.

 

Taking the pioneer Gresley Pacific and rebuilding it that way just turned people, railwaymen and enthusiasts, against him.

 

I am not a rampant Thompson hater (unlike my mentor Malcolm Crawley, who really was!) and I agree that he did a lot of good things. I just think that he would have been remembered in a much better light if he had gone about things differently.

[PupCam]

 

8 hours ago, t-b-g said:

Looks are always impossible to measure and I am sure there must be people who think the loco looked better after rebuilding. There are people who think that the concrete and glass of modern architecture looks great too.

 

The only modern building with any hint of architectural merit in Stevenage (and a former star in an Inspector Morse story) is being demolished to be replaced by a, no doubt 🤔, attractive block of flats.

 

Such a shame when there's such  a dearth of decent architecture in the place.

 

 

Alan

Edited December 17, 2022 by PupCam