Wright writes.....

[Craigw]

1 minute ago, Compound2632 said:

 

This seems very strange to me. The magazine is at liberty to employ any reviewer the editors see fit; the publisher's views don't come into it. A critical review from an expert in the field is all part of the risk involved in publishing. Or are you suggesting that the editors are so craven as to bow to pressure from the publisher? 

 

I did a review many years ago of a RTR loco for an Australian Model railway Magazine. The review was mostly positive but the manufacturer really took great offence They withdrew all advertising, threatened legal action (they didn't follow through) and I was publicly bad mouthed at any exhibition they went to. The whole experience was awful and left much more than a bad taste in my mouth.

 

So, things can get very nasty.

 

Regards,

 

Craig W

[Compound2632]

21 minutes ago, Craigw said:

I did a review many years ago of a RTR loco for an Australian Model railway Magazine. The review was mostly positive but the manufacturer really took great offence They withdrew all advertising, threatened legal action (they didn't follow through) and I was publicly bad mouthed at any exhibition they went to. The whole experience was awful and left much more than a bad taste in my mouth.

 

So, things can get very nasty.

 

I cannot imagine such goings-on in the world of mainstream publishing and reviewing; the most one gets in the TLS is a letter from the author pointing out the reviewer's own biases, prejudices, and errors of fact. But there, there are two centuries and more of tradition of gentlemanly conduct - although if one goes back to the 18th century a reviewer might be called out by a particularly hot-headed author for a dawn meeting.

 

Perhaps the manufacturers need to take a look at their eighteenth-century attitudes?

Edited June 8, 2022 by Compound2632

[Barry Ten]

5 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I cannot imagine such goings-on in the world of mainstream publishing and reviewing; the most one gets in the TLS is a letter from the author pointing out the reviewer's own biases, prejudices, and errors of fact. But there, there are two centuries and more of tradition of gentlemanly conduct - although if one goes back to the 18th century a reviewer might be called out by a particularly hot-headed author for a dawn meeting.

 

Perhaps the manufacturers need to take a look at their eighteenth-century attitudes?

 

Not as far back as trhe 18th C  by any means. I know of least one reviewer who was threatened with violence after a perfectly fair review of a decent but flawed debut novel. The writer was effectively black-listed by other reviewers and their career was over. Most publishers won't want to touch anyone with that reputation either.

 

 

[Tony Wright]

38 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

This seems very strange to me. The magazine is at liberty to employ any reviewer the editors see fit; the publisher's views don't come into it. A critical review from an expert in the field is all part of the risk involved in publishing. Or are you suggesting that the editors are so craven as to bow to pressure from the publisher? 

It's not strange, really Stephen.

 

What happened was that the publisher no longer sends books to BRM for review. 

 

The policy (quite rightly in my view) is for me to only review books for BRM which are sent to the office by the publishers for that purpose.

 

The Thompson book was sent to me from the author (whom I know well, and I'm friendly with), and he, knowing the situation, asked me to make any comments on here - which I've done. As I've said, it's generally very good and well researched, with some punctuation/grammatical errors and some errors of fact. These observations cannot be disputed in my view, and are entirely objective. What isn't needed is a prejudiced and ignorant set of opinions by way of a review. 

 

In my professional career as a photo-journalist, I've been 'threatened' with 'legal action' on more than one occasion - in one instance for NOT writing something! Can you believe that? Risking being sued for not mentioning a product. Of course, nothing came of it. At another time, an employee of a company 'begged' me to alter my review of a product he was responsible for, imagining his job was a risk. At other times, manufacturers have threatened to withdraw all advertising if a review is published. One highly-priced train was sent for me to test, and it derailed all over the place on LB; on the industry standard track (Peco) and on the best hand-built track (by Norman Solomon). I did write a review, but effectively 'pulled it' myself because there was precious little I could say of the running which was positive (though others have solved the problem themselves by altering bogies/wheels; something, in my view which should not be necessary). I did show the manufacturer the review, and I was accused of staging a 'bonfire party'! I videoed the offending articles, but that was never seen (nor ever will be because I've deleted it). 

 

One thing I do is to make sure (as far as possible) that all producers see a review of mine BEFORE it's published. It doesn't give them a right to have anything changed, but it does give them a right to reply. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Compound2632]

10 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

What happened was that the publisher no longer sends books to BRM for review. 

 

That suggests that they know that what they are publishing is of insufficient quality! 

[Compound2632]

On reflection, there is a bargain between the book publisher, the magazine editor, and the magazine readers. The publisher hopes for a favourable review, as a form of free advertising - justifying the cost of sending a copy for review. If there are negative reviews, then the publisher has nothing to gain by sending copies for review. The reader expects fair reviewing, which will enable them to decide if the book is worth buying. If there are no negative reviews, the reader will doubt the reliability of the reviewing, and cease to buy the magazine. The noble editor has to strive for impartiality and honesty in the reviews they publish, whilst still putting bread on the table. Thus one meets well-fed readers and occasionally well-fed publishers, but rarely well-fed editors. If one does meet a well-fed editor, one is led to doubt the integrity of their magazine's reviews.

Edited June 8, 2022 by Compound2632

[jrg1]

7 hours ago, sandra said:

Hello Tony,

 

There is only one Britannia on Retford and that was used on the North Country Continental. However it was out of period as Retford is set in the summer of 1957 but I understand that Britannias didn’t appear on this train until 1958.

Here is 70037 Hereward the Wake on the Harwich/Liverpool boat train. This is actually a Hornby Britannia re-wheeled to EM gauge otherwise it is entirely Hornby. It even still has the flangeless trailing wheels, I haven’t yet got round to replacing them. Roy Jackson seemed to have a blind spot about trailing wheels, a number of “Pacific’s” didn’t have them and they ran as 4-6-0s. I’ve now fitted trailing wheels to them all, only the Britannia is now waiting to be done.Here she is approaching the flat crossing. She has now been replaced on this train by a Hornby B17 which is correct for the period. The train in the other direction is hauled by B17 61620 Clumber, a great locomotive built by Tony.

 

Sandra

I used to see the Harwich boat train with a Britannia at the head in the early evening at Lincoln.  Your images brought back many pleasant memories.  Can you advise what the coach formation is?  I read somewhere that western region coaches were once seen in the formation.  I know that a Bulleid tavern set was briefly used in the late forties-that would have been interesting to see.

[jrg1]

5 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Having now received the latest book on Edward Thompson, I've read through it and come to some conclusions (I won't be reviewing it for BRM because the publisher has not been happy with some of my comments in the past, even though they've been true). 

 

What might one conclude?

That almost every other work on ET in the past is wrong - in some cases, totally wrong! In fact, some might even be accused of having told outright lies. 

That the author uses first-hand, empirical evidence, but seems reluctant to include any anecdotal evidence (there was a near-revolt in Scotland when the P2s were rebuilt). 

That Thompson's locos (especially the big ones) were nowhere near as bad as has been reported in the past, and, in some cases achieved highly-creditable mileages (though were frequently-shopped).

That, not before time, the author 'sets the record straight'.  

That the work, at least in part, is spoiled by poor grammar/punctuation - examples include sat instead of sitting (goodness me, this is now endemic!) and forgot instead of forgotten. Commas and apostrophes are jumbled in gay abandon at times as well! And, when will current authors learn that the seasons are not proper nouns, and thus don't qualify for a capital? 

That not all the facts stated are correct - no A4 was withdrawn before GREAT NORTHERN and most of the A3s were not withdrawn before the A1/1. 

That the author has written a most-interesting book, which is beautifully printed and produced, and should become an essential work on any enthusiast's library shelves. 

That it'll be useful to model-makers everywhere, even if 60505's cab is cut-back because it has a Thompson boiler, not a Peppercorn one.

That ET should receive much more praise for his work (in the most-difficult of conditions) than has been given in the past (history has not been kind to the unfortunate LNER's middle CME). 

That it's very good value for money.

 

Any other conclusions?  

For Edward Thompson to produce the B1 class with a standard boiler, V2 wheelsets, D49 bogie, K2 cylinders and standard tender, all in a time of austerity, was an extraordinary engineering achievement.

[St Enodoc]

14 hours ago, Iain.d said:

Transfers are home produced – the font is perhaps a little too big.

They look good to me - at least you can read the darned things.

[JustinDean]

8 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

It's not strange, really Stephen.

 

What happened was that the publisher no longer sends books to BRM for review. 

 

The policy (quite rightly in my view) is for me to only review books for BRM which are sent to the office by the publishers for that purpose.

 

The Thompson book was sent to me from the author (whom I know well, and I'm friendly with), and he, knowing the situation, asked me to make any comments on here - which I've done. As I've said, it's generally very good and well researched, with some punctuation/grammatical errors and some errors of fact. These observations cannot be disputed in my view, and are entirely objective. What isn't needed is a prejudiced and ignorant set of opinions by way of a review. 

 

In my professional career as a photo-journalist, I've been 'threatened' with 'legal action' on more than one occasion - in one instance for NOT writing something! Can you believe that? Risking being sued for not mentioning a product. Of course, nothing came of it. At another time, an employee of a company 'begged' me to alter my review of a product he was responsible for, imagining his job was a risk. At other times, manufacturers have threatened to withdraw all advertising if a review is published. One highly-priced train was sent for me to test, and it derailed all over the place on LB; on the industry standard track (Peco) and on the best hand-built track (by Norman Solomon). I did write a review, but effectively 'pulled it' myself because there was precious little I could say of the running which was positive (though others have solved the problem themselves by altering bogies/wheels; something, in my view which should not be necessary). I did show the manufacturer the review, and I was accused of staging a 'bonfire party'! I videoed the offending articles, but that was never seen (nor ever will be because I've deleted it). 

 

One thing I do is to make sure (as far as possible) that all producers see a review of mine BEFORE it's published. It doesn't give them a right to have anything changed, but it does give them a right to reply. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Thank you for sharing your experience Tony, which was particularly interesting for me as I’ve had almost identical experiences working as a reviewer for a well known pro audio magazine a number of years ago. At the time I thought this was a culture restricted to the area I was working in so it almost comes as a relief to hear this behavior occurs elsewhere. 
 

Jay

[john new]

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. 

[MarkC]

8 hours ago, jrg1 said:

For Edward Thompson to produce the B1 class with a standard boiler, V2 wheelsets, D49 bogie, K2 cylinders and standard tender, all in a time of austerity, was an extraordinary engineering achievement.

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

[Compound2632]

2 minutes 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

 

One should not be surprised. Standardisation of components was Stroudley's great achievement on the Brighton in the 1870s; all others followed in the great man's footsteps. One can see the same happening on the Midland under the tenure of Stroudley's friend SW Johnson - there may have been many different classes but key items such as boilers were common across many classes; this approach stuck right through to LMS days. It's the sensible and efficient way to run a large locomotive fleet. I'm sure plenty of other examples can be cited. As ever, the Great Western was never as exceptional as the popular imagination has it.

[polybear]

42 minutes ago, john new said:

........ 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 colou rs that hinder readability are recent examples.

 

I imagine photos are a problem - do you run a double page photo thru' the spine?  Or halve the size of the photo and fit it on one page?  Big - and therefore less photos, or more that are smaller?  Or big photos and a bigger - and therefore more expensive book that may not sell as well?  A real minefield.

[scottystitch]

1 hour ago, john new said:

...photos spoilt by being run through the spine area, 

 

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.

[john new]

5 minutes ago, polybear said:

 

I imagine photos are a problem - do you run a double page photo thru' the spine?  Or halve the size of the photo and fit it on one page?  Big - and therefore less photos, or more that are smaller?  Or big photos and a bigger - and therefore more expensive book that may not sell as well?  A real minefield.

Personally, when I was editing the Journal, I chose to rotate to 90deg to maximise the space I had on a single page and run the picture unbroken. I also edited and designed the three recent SLS books, there is a balancing act between costs and page sizes, also for the paper quality chosen; however, if the publisher chooses high quality paper then the image presentation needs to match it. 
 

The recent, otherwise excellent, book on the HSTs is an example of one where my review stated some of the images had been spoilt by being run too large thereby having to cross the spine. As the son of an Art School lecturer with typography within his remit, and also as a former photographic club member for about 30 years, I probably tend towards looking at photos as a judge would - split the image badly and which half has the relevance? The split has lost the original integrity of the whole. The obvious point here is that when the design team get it right (as you perceive right to be)* you don’t notice, it is what they could have done better that you spot. Also in the modern world are you designing for the e-version or the print copy? Some of the things I see from viewing most of my magazines now in e-format work fine electronically where there is no spinal folding but I would hate in a print copy.

Probably need to get the thread back on topic, I now have a big batch of Pen & Sword books to review that have been delayed as I have had roughly a month in hospital - they are a varied mix. The next week or too will be filled with interesting reading, hopefully, with good weather to sit out in the garden whilst doing so.

 

* and that is obviously personally subjective.

[Andy Hayter]

1 hour 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  (1), not printed on the vertical and choice of type colours that hinder readability (2) 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. 

 

 

I do hope the editor of BRM reads this post John.

 

(1) Probably works well in print but is a nightmare for those using a digital edition used in portrait fashion.  Even landscape you get a gap between the pages so the effect is lost.

 

(2)  Black on a blue sky seems to be a chosen favourite of the current editor.  At least in the digital version you can expand the text to make it readable.

 

 

rant over

[john new]

1 minute ago, Andy Hayter said:

 

 

I do hope the editor of BRM reads this post John.

 

(1) Probably works well in print but is a nightmare for those using a digital edition used in portrait fashion.  Even landscape you get a gap between the pages so the effect is lost.

 

(2)  Black on a blue sky seems to be a chosen favourite of the current editor.  At least in the digital version you can expand the text to make it readable.

 

 

rant over

Your number (2) yes very, very annoying and renders some text almost unreadable.

[Tony Wright]

10 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

On reflection, there is a bargain between the book publisher, the magazine editor, and the magazine readers. The publisher hopes for a favourable review, as a form of free advertising - justifying the cost of sending a copy for review. If there are negative reviews, then the publisher has nothing to gain by sending copies for review. The reader expects fair reviewing, which will enable them to decide if the book is worth buying. If there are no negative reviews, the reader will doubt the reliability of the reviewing, and cease to buy the magazine. The noble editor has to strive for impartiality and honesty in the reviews they publish, whilst still putting bread on the table. Thus one meets well-fed readers and occasionally well-fed publishers, but rarely well-fed editors. If one does meet a well-fed editor, one is led to doubt the integrity of their magazine's reviews.

Thanks for that reflection, Stephen; most erudite.

 

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? 

 

The author also states that Thompson's A2/3 was a development of his A2/2, 'but with a double chimney'. It might be, but since all Thompson's Pacifics had double chimneys at source, then the statement is partly false; very misleading, if someone then built a model of an A2/2 with a single chimney! That said, it would have to be a model built by a half-wit if his/her only source of reference was that one comment. 

 

The two examples cited above are errors of fact - not my interpretation or opinion. Where I might express an opinion on this work is with regard to the endless regurgitation of information published elsewhere concerning loco withdrawal dates and disposals. I suppose 60054's destiny (on page 20) is of some morbid interest, but there's no mention of the fact that she carries an A4 boiler (much more use to modellers). Nor (on page 26) that the Thompson TK behind a 'Crab's' tender appears to have replacement rounded window corners. And surely (on page 27) it would be much more relevant to to mention that SUNSTAR still retains RH-drive (and probably BR blue livery) rather than her building/scrapping dates? As I say, much more use to modellers, especially.

 

Where I struggle in reviewing a book is where my knowledge on the subject matter is limited. There's a weighty tome on the Southern electrics for me to comment on. I've been told by at least three different friends that some of the units' descriptions are incorrect. Since the SR units' nomenclatures are incomprehensible to me, I don't feel qualified to write the review. I can comment on things like the paper quality, picture reproduction and the design lay-out, but not on the accuracy (or otherwise) of the trains' descriptions. 

 

Anyway, someone told me at a recent show that he thought my reviews were 'the best he reads'; no he's not in my employ or a relative!

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Willie Whizz]

Ah, the Banks and Carter book rears its head again …
 

I don’t doubt it has its faults, most of which (but not all) I’m not qualified to pronounce upon - but that’s the point - so many “experts” have  pronounced upon it and yet, so far as I know, not one has put all that knowledge they claim to have into writing and getting published the “better” book that is clearly cried out for. 
 

So actually I’m getting a bit tired of hearing it now. Gentlemen: “money … mouth … put”. 

[Guest Simon A.C. Martin]

17 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Having now received the latest book on Edward Thompson, I've read through it and come to some conclusions (I won't be reviewing it for BRM because the publisher has not been happy with some of my comments in the past, even though they've been true). 

 

What might one conclude?

That almost every other work on ET in the past is wrong - in some cases, totally wrong! In fact, some might even be accused of having told outright lies. 

That the author uses first-hand, empirical evidence, but seems reluctant to include any anecdotal evidence (there was a near-revolt in Scotland when the P2s were rebuilt). 

That Thompson's locos (especially the big ones) were nowhere near as bad as has been reported in the past, and, in some cases achieved highly-creditable mileages (though were frequently-shopped).

That, not before time, the author 'sets the record straight'.  

That the work, at least in part, is spoiled by poor grammar/punctuation - examples include sat instead of sitting (goodness me, this is now endemic!) and forgot instead of forgotten. Commas and apostrophes are jumbled in gay abandon at times as well! And, when will current authors learn that the seasons are not proper nouns, and thus don't qualify for a capital? 

That not all the facts stated are correct - no A4 was withdrawn before GREAT NORTHERN and most of the A3s were not withdrawn before the A1/1. 

That the author has written a most-interesting book, which is beautifully printed and produced, and should become an essential work on any enthusiast's library shelves. 

That it'll be useful to model-makers everywhere, even if 60505's cab is cut-back because it has a Thompson boiler, not a Peppercorn one.

That ET should receive much more praise for his work (in the most-difficult of conditions) than has been given in the past (history has not been kind to the unfortunate LNER's middle CME). 

That it's very good value for money.

 

Any other conclusions?  

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 9, 2022 by Simon A.C. Martin
additional "history" for "history book" deleted

[CF MRC]

Some of the older crumblies will recognise this 2mm scale loco made by HH (Pop) Groves in the early 60s. 

 

I have been privileged to work on it to get it running again (not much needed).

My test track is designed to be noisy and iPhones have specially sensitive microphones for 2mm scale locos!

 

There are more details in the Rydes Vale thread in the 2mm scale section. The locos and stock will be displayed at the upcoming 2mm Diamond Jubilee (+2) celebration in Derby Conference Centre on the 18-19th June, with CF as a supporting act.
 

Tim

[Tony Wright]

3 minutes 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 history published history book, and one that focuses on the evidence first and foremost, I think I can 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 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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for those comments Simon,

 

I will send you a list of my findings in due course. 

 

The evidence you present is certainly convincing and, as I've stated, should put the record straight on ET and his works. 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. 

 

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. 

 

One final thing occurs to me. Since your book so contradicts the works of the likes of Nock, Allen, Rogers, Harrison, Cox, Yeadon, and so on and so on, should the rest of their work on, say, LMS or GWR locos be brought into question as to its accuracy? It's amazing (at least to me) that so many other authors should be so wrong. 

 

Kind regards,

 

Tony. 

[Guest Simon A.C. Martin]

7 minutes ago, Tony Wright said:

One final thing occurs to me. Since your book so contradicts the works of the likes of Nock, Allen, Rogers, Harrison, Cox, Yeadon, and so on and so on, should the rest of their work on, say, LMS or GWR locos be brought into question as to its accuracy? It's amazing (at least to me) that so many other authors should be so wrong. 

 

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.

[TrevorP1]

2 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

 

A good point and true across many aspects of engineering - the motor trade for example.

 

This even applied to Bulleid pacifics with, if memory serves me correctly,  a Lord Nelson bogie with different wheels, steam reverser from a Q class and on some light pacifics a U Class tender chassis. Somewhere I have seen a light pacific tender with SECR on one of the axleboxes.