Wright writes.....

[robertcwp]

4 hours 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 think my own view of your Thompson book might have suffered a bit as a result of having read the three Tim Hillier-Graves (TH-G) books in rapid succession just prior to reading yours. I knew almost nothing about Peppercorn and could barely put the TH-G book about him down. The TH-G Thompson one got off to a bit of a false start as I discovered part-way through that my copy was defective. P&S replaced it for me.

 

After reading all the books, I went back to Peter Grafton's book on Thompson, which is by no means bad. It's a pity Bert Spencer passed away before Grafton got to interview him. I think the Rogers book on Thompson and Peppercorn is one of the most questionable, possibly because he was informed by people who, for one reason or another, had taken a dislike to Thompson. 

 

I think there is merit in TH-G's suggestion that Thompson might have experienced what would today be called PTSD as a result of his WW1 experiences. Losing his wife at a relatively young age cannot have helped. Such things can affect people in different ways and affect the rest of their lives. I think that was also the case for my own father as a result of his WW2 experiences, which in some respects are too awful to go into, and the early death of his first wife.

[Michael Edge]

1 hour ago, gr.king said:

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

It works perfectly, stays on the job and doesn't have any harmful  effect on plastics - I've been using it for more than 40 years now.

[robertcwp]

10 hours ago, Willie Whizz said:

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”. 

An extensive list of issues was put together by several people for a railway society, which then decided not to publish it. My main issue was with the photo captions in the light of the authors' claim that analysis of photographs was key. Why then, were so many carriages misidentified? I have not published my list as all my observations were amalgamated with those of others and I cannot now recall which were mine without re-reading the whole book, which I'm not inclined to do. 

 

I may not have written a book on the subject but I have written articles and have put a lot of money into making old railway documents available for free to others, mostly carriage working books, some of which cost me hundreds of pounds each. So, please don't tell me to put my money where my mouth is.

[MarkC]

6 hours ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

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

Hi Jason

 

I would have thought that keeping it as she is would be more practical for the WSR - more water capacity, which on a long line like the WSR has to be a Good Thing, I would think.

 

Mark

[Compound2632]

It has been very satisfying to read the author's response to his reviewer, and also his publisher's response. I'm must say that as someone who wastes too much time fielding the "Midland small engine policy" myth, I have found @Simon A.C. Martin's comments a most refreshing challenge to the folklore one encounters far too frequently. The failure to examine historical questions rigorously and instead fall back on popular misconceptions and mythology is, in my view, a major contribution to the present parlous state our country finds itself in. There's far too much of such nonsense in real life; I don't want it in my hobby!

Edited June 9, 2022 by Compound2632
punctuation

[Northmoor]

9 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

It has been very satisfying to read the author's response to his reviewer, and also his publisher's response. I'm must say that as someone who wastes too much time fielding the "Midland small engine policy" myth, I have found @Simon A.C. Martin's comments a most refreshing challenge to the folklore one encounters far too frequently. The failure to examine historical questions rigorously and instead fall back on popular misconceptions and mythology is, in my view, a major contribution to the present parlous state our country finds itself in. there's far too much of such nonsense in real life; I don't want it in my hobby!

Hear hear.

My nomination for Most Repeated Myth is that all UK railway closures between about 1950 and 1970 were ordered by Dr Richard Beeching, closely followed by the one where Ernest Marples sold all his company shares to his wife.

[chris p bacon]

15 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

"Midland small engine policy" myth

 

😲...what....have I been lied to....

 

16 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

"Midland small engine policy" myth

 

😲....What.....Have I been lied to....

 

 

 

Oh...it seems to have quoted twice...😉

[john new]

I am not going to name and shame it here but this evening, after a month off SLS book reviewing due to medical setbacks (now overcome), I picked the first one off the top of the pending pile to begin reading and aid my recuperation. It is the worst example of page layout I have come across in decades and the opening para of the review has already been written to state that. Having now read the first chapter the book’s content appears to be good but ultimately, however excellent a work of reference it appears to be when I have finished it, how can I give it a glowing reference? In that I fully support Tony’s approach, if it is flawed it needs to be said.

 

Edited June 9, 2022 by john new

[john new]

Myths in common perception. George Stephenson built the world’s first steam engine, The Rocket, to run on the world’s first railway.

[Tony Wright]

4 hours ago, lanchester said:

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!

Thank you for pointing the facts out. 

 

Though I accept that there are far more Roman bits in Chester's walls than in York, a very large section above those Roman sections is medieval - common practice down the years in building on top of what's already there. One could argue that a fair bit of Chester's walls might be even Victorian (the top bits and at least one of the gates, though not for defensive purposes). 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

1 hour ago, robertcwp said:

An extensive list of issues was put together by several people for a railway society, which then decided not to publish it. My main issue was with the photo captions in the light of the authors' claim that analysis of photographs was key. Why then, were so many carriages misidentified? I have not published my list as all my observations were amalgamated with those of others and I cannot now recall which were mine without re-reading the whole book, which I'm not inclined to do. 

 

I may not have written a book on the subject but I have written articles and have put a lot of money into making old railway documents available for free to others, mostly carriage working books, some of which cost me hundreds of pounds each. So, please don't tell me to put my money where my mouth is.

Well said Robert,

 

I think far less criticism of the book in question might have occurred had it not been for one of the author's reputation of being hyper-critical of the work of others down the years. 

 

There is no doubt that I have found it of great use, but there really are too many errors of fact in it for me (those I know about).

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Willie Whizz]

1 hour ago, robertcwp said:

An extensive list of issues was put together by several people for a railway society, which then decided not to publish it. My main issue was with the photo captions in the light of the authors' claim that analysis of photographs was key. Why then, were so many carriages misidentified? I have not published my list as all my observations were amalgamated with those of others and I cannot now recall which were mine without re-reading the whole book, which I'm not inclined to do. 

 

I may not have written a book on the subject but I have written articles and have put a lot of money into making old railway documents available for free to others, mostly carriage working books, some of which cost me hundreds of pounds each. So, please don't tell me to put my money where my mouth is.

Mmmm … but the problem with that is that, unless a modeller looking to

make an authentic-looking model is so very, very seriously determined to be 100% accurate, they are unlikely to join obscure specialist societies (and may not have the time or money to do so) , or expend considerable effort tracking down half-forgotten magazines published years ago of whose existence they may have no means of becoming aware.

A published book (new, secondhand or library) has a way of becoming the nearest thing to the “authentic source material” available to perhaps 90%+ of people with a broad but reasonably serious interest in a subject - as witnessed by recent comments on here regarding the Edward Thompson story. If nobody writes the “better book” about LNER and BR(ER) workings - and frankly the people with the first-hand knowledge of the subject are fast diminishing now - then Banks and Carter will  inevitably de facto become and remain the “standard work” on the subject, warts and all. 
 

That brings me to another issue mentioned in recent posts above; what is the correct balance between ‘anecdotal evidence’ and and ‘primary sources’. In this, and in another historical hobby of mine, there is a typical argument that the ‘official records’ (like your Carriage Working Notices, but I only use that as an example) - as perhaps key primary sources - should be regarded as the “be-all and end-all” of the argument, and effectively beyond challenge. As a veteran bureaucrat of many years experience in business and local government I can assure everyone that this is emphatically NOT SO!  Official records of any business, organisation and Government Department are quite commonly incomplete; they have errors and omissions (sometimes accidental, sometimes just plain sloppy and careless); they often copy an error or prejudice in one document into others; they may have been phrased so as to ‘cover the back’ of the writer; and they commonly represent what was meant to happen or to have happened but not necessarily what on occasion, or even usually, did happen.

“Official records” for the railways as much as in any other field are a vital source, but they are not infallible. Memories of people who were “there at the time” are also fallible, especially with age - but they are no less worthy of being taken seriously. 

Edited June 9, 2022 by Willie Whizz

[robertcwp]

20 minutes ago, Willie Whizz said:

Mmmm … but the problem with that is that, unless a modeller looking to

make an authentic-looking model is so very, very seriously determined to be 100% accurate, they are unlikely to join obscure specialist societies (and may not have the time or money to do so) , or expend considerable effort tracking down half-forgotten magazines published years ago of whose existence they may have no means of becoming aware.

A published book (new, secondhand or library) has a way of becoming the nearest thing to the “authentic source material” available to perhaps 90%+ of people with a broad interest in a subject - as witnessed by recent comments on here regarding the Edward Thompson story. If nobody writes the “better book” about LNER and BR(ER) workings - and frankly the people with the first-hand knowledge of the subject are fast diminishing now - then Banks and Carter will  inevitably de facto become and remain the “standard work” on the subject, warts and all. 
 

That brings me to another issue mentioned in recent posts above; what is the correct balance between ‘anecdotal evidence’ and and ‘primary sources’. In this, and in another historical hobby of mine, there is a typical argument that the ‘official records’ (like your Carriage Working Notices, but I only use that as an example) - as perhaps key primary sources - should be regarded as the “be-all and end-all” of the argument, and effectively beyond challenge. As a veteran bureaucrat of many years experience in business and local government I can assure everyone that this is emphatically NOT SO!  Official records of any business, organisation and Government Department are quite commonly incomplete; they have errors and omissions (sometimes accidental, sometimes just plain sloppy and careless); they often copy an error or prejudice in one document into others; they may have been phrased so as to ‘cover the back’ of the writer; and they commonly represent what was meant to happen or to have happened but not necessarily what on occasion, or even usually, did happen.

“Official records” for the railways as much as in any other field are a vital source, but they are not infallible. Memories of people who were “there at the time” are also fallible, especially with age - but they are no less worthy of being taken seriously. 

As I have written many times, carriage workings are only part of the picture. Not so much for the steam era (as many from that era have now passed on) but for the post-steam era, a good source of anecdotal evidence is the former railway workers who contribute to my groups.io group (link below my signature).

 

As an ex-auditor and someone who spent quite a few years training auditors, I'm well aware of the limitations of single sources of evidence and the need for corroboration or supporting evidence. I have spent many hours scrutinising photos and film, as well as reading others' writings, and comparing things with official sources. What they show is that for the principal trains, the carriage workings are generally pretty accurate. For secondary services, the carriage workings are less reliable and for extras/dated workings, summer Saturdays, etc, you generally have to look to other sources. A further complication is the extent to which things changed over the course of a timetable. I have some WR and LMR books that were annotated with changes as they were made and by the end of the timetable, a huge amount had often changed.

 

It costs nothing to join my groups.io group and all the information therein is free. It has about 1,700 members.

 

Someone did in fact write what might well have been the better book on LNER train formations - it was Clive Carter. He wrote one on LMS/LMR trains that was published by Ian Allan but I understand it didn't sell well and they dropped the planned LNER one after Carter had written it. It appears that it was offered to other publishers but never made it into print. By a bizarre combination of circumstances, I came by a copy of the manuscript. If only it had been published as it had been written then, it would have been of much more use to modellers than the book that was ultimately published.

 

Incidentally, the review of the Banks/Carter book that I wrote for the LNER Society is on this thread here.

Edited June 9, 2022 by robertcwp
Add a link.

[Steamport Southport]

1 hour ago, john new said:

Myths in common perception. George Stephenson built the world’s first steam engine, The Rocket, to run on the world’s first railway.

 

First successful locomotive that ran on a railway that went from one place to another. That carried passengers and ran to a published timetable, day in, day out. With trains running on a double track mainline and had stations along the way where you could get on and off.

 

Everything previous were just industrial railways that went from nowhere to nowhere. Yet here was a railway that could take you from a major city to another major city in just over an hour. Which isn't far off how long it takes now.

 

If that's not the first proper railway then I want to see what was. 

 

 

Jason

[Clan Mcadder]

32 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

First successful locomotive that ran on a railway that went from one place to another. That carried passengers and ran to a published timetable, day in, day out. With trains running on a double track mainline and had stations along the way where you could get on and off.

 

Everything previous were just industrial railways that went from nowhere to nowhere. Yet here was a railway that could take you from a major city to another major city in just over an hour. Which isn't far off how long it takes now.

 

If that's not the first proper railway then I want to see what was. 

 

 

Jason

But they didn't go from nowhere to nowhere ,they connected an industry to a supply route or end point ,

 

which is surely what a railway is point A to point B . 

 

From people to goods it all goes on a journey, so i fail to see what makes a railway  not a Propper railway?

 

Fit for purpose maybe ?

 

[john new]

@Steamport Southport I don’t disagree with your assessment of the L&M which is pretty accurate as the first true railway as we know them today. If you unpick what I wrote though, I.e., unpicking the populist myth, you get the following:-

• not the first steam locomotive by a couple of decades and definitely not the first steam propelled vehicle
• built by Robert’s Newcastle works not by his father, and even if George had significant input into the design of Rocket it wasn’t the first one that George had designed.
• The L&M was not the first passenger railway
• I deliberately typed The as part of the name, it isn’t the The Rocket.
• Not the first authorised by Act and so on…..

Edited June 9, 2022 by john new

[St Enodoc]

3 hours ago, Michael Edge said:

It works perfectly, stays on the job and doesn't have any harmful  effect on plastics - I've been using it for more than 40 years now.

BR green oil (Duckham's)?

[Ian Rathbone]

Back to modelling - here’s a Brit built by a friend of mine, Pete Silvester.

 

 

I don’t know much about them but I like the larger tender behind the Scottish ones. This one is to 7mm scale built from the DJH kit.

 

Ian R

[Tony Wright]

Thanks for all the recent comments on all sorts of things. If nothing else, this thread is lively!

 

I'm just reviewing the latest books for BRM and I'll try my best not to be vindictive, a nit-picker, over-critical, acidic and especially cruel. 

 

This one is rather good............

 

 

 

But, my first 'love' is model-making, and I have two on the go right now........

 

 

Jesse sim's 'exploded' D2 now has a sweetly-running chassis.

 

 

And, I've just embarked on a Nu-Cast GWR 'Armstrong' for one of Geoff Haynes' customers. I have the 'joy' of those outside cranks to attend to.

 

Both are powered by DJH products. Interestingly, one of the AM10s I ordered this week still has a Mashima motor (the rear armature of which will have to be subsequently cut off). Both run superbly as prime movers. 

 

 

[Guest Simon A.C. Martin]

15 hours ago, MikeParkin65 said:

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.

I pondered on this viewpoint yesterday, and returning to it find it has a strong air of dismissal.

 

I am glad that fellow historians (who have supported my work) do not feel obliged to dismiss it out of hand so easily.

 

The fact of the matter is that railway history does matter and that’s why there are professors at the university of York dedicating time and effort to trying to accommodate those who study in it, and take it very seriously, including awarding degrees, masters and PHDs in the work.

 

As part of our islands history, the railways have had a huge impact on society.

 

Thompson, for what it is worth, ought to have a had a better reputation out with railway enthusiasts. A man twice mentioned in dispatches during the First World War, for actions at the front at the battle of Paschendale, surviving and then going on to become a distinguished and well educated railway engineer, and working through a Second World War, in any other sphere in Britain would have been recognized for his wok and character better.

 

Thats before we get onto what was the find of the century in Tim Hillier-Graves work and that he was a strong advocate for women’s rights and in support of their work at the LNER, which has (rather shamefully, I think) been mistranslated by several authors previously in a rather bizarre way. Thompsons story is a remarkable one and at times he was stoic in the face of overwhelming tragedy. Brave to the last - thoughtful on maintenance and engineering issues - his true story and that of those around him in WW2 is an untold story which really is the “best of British”.

 

What a pity that we have had to rely on some dubiously worded and researched works for so long when the evidence shows a story far greater than the sum of its parts.

 

 

Edited June 10, 2022 by Simon A.C. Martin

[Michael Edge]

8 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

BR green oil (Duckham's)?

I think it's actually Castrol GTX but it's not in the original can now. Mention of Duckhams takes me back a bit, we used to buy a lot of engine oil when we all ran old bangers. One of my friends ran his oily mini on Castrol R (because he liked the smell) but I think the oil cost more than the petrol.....

[stewartingram]

Takes me back. I was a user of Duckhams 20/50 for many years. I remember reading a tip to use it for model locos 'as it was thicker & clings to the gears better', so I tried it, and indeed it works. That was around the time I had discovered electrolube, and used that on some plastic Airfix wagons. The plastic went soggy, so I tried Duckhams. They also sold Cycloil, in a can similar to 3-in-one oil. I used that for ages as well, but sadly it is no longer available.

[St Enodoc]

44 minutes ago, Michael Edge said:

I think it's actually Castrol GTX but it's not in the original can now. Mention of Duckhams takes me back a bit, we used to buy a lot of engine oil when we all ran old bangers. One of my friends ran his oily mini on Castrol R (because he liked the smell) but I think the oil cost more than the petrol.....

I never used anything but Duckham's in my old Cortina (the one whose radiator I sold to you for a fiver - you could get a lot of pints for a fiver in 1977...).

[micklner]

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

I pondered on this viewpoint yesterday, and returning to it find it has a strong air of dismissal.

 

I am glad that fellow historians (who have supported my work) do not feel obliged to dismiss it out of hand so easily.

 

The fact of the matter is that railway history does matter and that’s why there are professors at the university of York dedicating time and effort to trying to accommodate those who study in it, and take it very seriously, including awarding degrees, masters and PHDs in the work.

 

As part of our islands history, the railways have had a huge impact on society.

 

Thompson, for what it is worth, ought to have a had a better reputation out with railway enthusiasts. A man twice mentioned in dispatches during the First World War, for actions at the front at the battle of Paschendale, surviving and then going on to become a distinguished and well educated railway engineer, and working through a Second World War, in any other sphere in Britain would have been recognized for his wok and character better.

 

Thats before we get onto what was the find of the century in Tim Hillier-Graves work and that he was a strong advocate for women’s rights and in support of their work at the LNER, which has (rather shamefully, I think) been mistranslated by several authors previously in a rather bizarre way. Thompsons story is a remarkable one and at times he was stoic in the face of overwhelming tragedy. Brave to the last - thoughtful on maintenance and engineering issues - his true story and that of those around him in WW2 is an untold story which really is the “best of British”.

 

What a pity that we have had to rely on some dubiously worded and researched works for so long when the evidence shows a story far greater than the sum of its parts.

 

 

This subject of Thompson was on the LNER Forum, and it was eventually locked. If anyone wishes to read it it is here.

 

Hopefully it wont be repeated again on here any further.

 

https://www.lner.info/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3412

[great central]

In response to the 'back to models' post from a master of his craft, can I put forward rather the opposite take on Britannias and probably lower the tone of the thread in consequence 🤔

Both 1960s Triang locos, Iron Duke is my original childhood loco bought as a Christmas present when first released, much used and abused, originally fitted with a smoke unit which I used to put 3 in 1 into because smoke oil was very much an unnecessary expense. 

I decided many years ago to upgrade and renumber it, when the folly of using 3 in 1 became apparent. As I cleaned away the rather scratched black paint on the smokebox the chimney simply disintegrated! 

The supply of spares for upgrading models was, at that time, not particularly good, being before Crownline came on the scene I think.

At one of the first Nottingham shows after moving to the Victoria Leisure Centre I asked, either George Norton or Ralph Jackson,about replacement chimneys to be met with a response along the lines of 'what's a BR standard, don't recognise anything post 1947. I looked through the various items on offer and selected one which looked about right. Apparently it was an A3 chimney and although a bit on the tall side didn't look bad, still wearing it to this day and won't be getting changed now.

 

 

Sir John Moore was a swapmeet purchase, all of £3 if memory serves, missing the smoke deflectors it was a prime candidate for Eastern regionisation (if that's a proper word?). Etched brass smoke deflectors fitted it looked the part.

 

 

Both painted using a Humbrol airbrush for the green with black parts by brush. Lining and lettering transfers from Kemco, which at the time didn't come with corners so I simply squared them off intending that they'd both be weathered to tone down the brightness.

Running on the original chassis and driving wheels with the open axle boxes filled in and pin point bearings fitted to take better wheels on pony and tender. Bogie wheels were changed for better versions as well. 

Valve gear is Triang/Hornby Evening Star, remember when such things could be bought as spares, with the mounting points modified to suit.

This is probably the second or third time they've seen the light of day in more than 35 years but, to me at least, they have character.