Morello Cherry

3 hours ago, Matt37268 said:

But 6023 never worked anything on the mainline after its restoration so how can you count that as being part of a your ‘slow retreat’ comment? 
We may as well start counting the absence of the likes of 4930, 5000, 6000 and 75069 as part of the ‘slow retreat’ from the mainline. 

There's a wiff of 'in my day this was all fields'

Anyway, if anyone really has a craving for steam and the ability to stand by the doors then I recommend a trip to Romania. (Clip from this weekend and older photo) - This is the Sibiu Agnita line.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1543974269513567

There was a backtrack article recently (within the last 5 years I reckon) on them but i can't remember more.

Hamilton (1967) has a couple of pages on them and the routings and some stuff on the wagons. He also says that pressure of demands on GWR locos meant that later on some were routed away from the GWR. He also has a lot about the trains for trains for navy personel.

There is a photo on (p.81) of a Jellicoe Special which is reportedly the only one of one. It shows a 0-8-0 Webb compound being banked up Shap. Sadly the Quintinshill report is as far as i can tell silent on what was hauling the empty wagon train.

when you have a small diorama of a small rural station and yard but just couldn't resist the new model class 24 or the new sleepers, let alone deciding whether you want the maroon or the blue grey model and go mad in the shop instead.

I am pretty sure no one at an exhibition is buying the preservation society special from London story either.

9 hours ago, Not Jeremy said:

Gosh, it's being so cheerful that must keep you chaps going.

 

On, and on, and on, and on, and on, and......

Yeah, I find it really weird that on a discussion forum dedicated to discussing preservation topics that people would spend their time discussing at length issues affecting one of the biggest operators and preservation in general.

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

It depends what you mean by support.

 

I have a feeling 2007-2012 were mainline steams golden years.

 

London can support more tours than it has, but it was neglected as a market. The DCE to Swanage and Weymouth 3 x a week was onto something, just as an example. Wcrc were looking at putting a turntable in Weymouth.

I also recall plans for a return to Stratford upon avon, and Oxford as a tourist product from Londom, and regular steam to Kyle from Inverness.

This wasnt down to lack of demand.

The decline started after Wootton Bassett, its never recovered. 

Its becoming is more about a higher end business model, rather than an enthusiast support base. The locos are the casualties and the tour market for the exclusive, as the costs have risen not because demand fell. At some point mainline steam will be a once in a lifetime opportunity ss it becomes too expensive.

 Saturday May 11th puts three steam locos into the Capital on three different tours (Actually 4 tours if you count 86259 on the CME) , enjoy it whilst it lasts, as its gone from a routine summer event, to an almost biennial, indeed I am approaching as most likely the last time 4 tours trapse London in the same day… 5 when the 33 comes on Sunday..

Enjoy it whilst it lasts.

 

 

 

 

I'd suggest that the 'golden era' is at the root of the problems the industry is seeing now.

During that period we saw a lot of expansion but that expansion was only possible by playing fast and loose with safety and in the end this culminated in Wootton Bassett. You can run lots of charters if you cut costs and corners such as getting rid of traction inspectors.

Beyond Wootton Bassett we've seen the SDR, GCR, NYMR, WSR all come under scrutiny over safety issues, paperwork and taking responsibility, in some cases we've seen not just ORR but also the CPS.

At the same time, the clowns by the trackside during Flying Scotsman's return to steam as well brought unwanted attention to the sector (videos such as the guy at the level crossing as well). (I did find it ironic that someone was complaining about parents not taking responsibility for their children when I've seen plenty of irresponsible train spotters and photographs on the railway - including people going off the end of the ramp on a 3rd rail station to get that all important photograph. It did make me wonder who the real 'brutes' who need a responsible adult to supervise them really are in all of this). You reap what you sow.

The result of Wootton Bassett, etc means that the authorities are paying a lot more attention to what goes on in the heritage sector. Whether that is WCR or WSR. The days when people could treat a line as their own private fiefdom are going and what we are seeing in WCR is the last kick of a dying regime.

But more importantly, scrutiny means costs are pushed up (as they should be) and what this means is that essentially only the very wealthy can afford to play trains - either essentially paying up, or being wealthy enough to think that the rules don't apply to them (hello lockdown trips to the Scottish highlands to test the toilets).

The smaller operating groups are unfortunately the collatoral damage caused by the sloppy, unsafe practices of others during the 'golden era' of rail tours.

When it comes to some connected with railways I am constantly reminded of Orwell's comment that nothing short of dynamite will convince some people which century they are living in.

2 hours ago, rab said:

Is not part of the problem that the link between "parents" and "responsible" seems to be getting weaker as time goes on

That just isn't true and is misty eyed romaticism. If anything the reverse is true.

How many times in your childhood did you play unsupervised? How often do you see children playing unsupervised today?

It is weird, in a era of helicopter parents, media led scare stories about what will happen if you take your eyes off your child for 10 seconds, the tutting disapproval of mumsnet, and apparently a younger generation that is so molly-coddled as to be unable to do anything such as open a slamdoor, simultaneously parental responsibility is getting weaker.

Schrödinger's parent - both overly protective and wantonly irresponsible at the same time.

On 22/04/2024 at 18:49, The Johnster said:

Coming back to the habit of leaving the cab to 'oil around', I would expect drivers to wait for an opportunity to present itself just after a train had passed on the opposite line before venturing out on to the rh side, as there would at least be a few minutes before another one passed.  As this applies to the Ais Gill accident, I read it as the driver going out on to the rh side of the loco approaching Birkett Tunnel, as you wouldn't want to be on the lh side in a tunnel, just after traffic had passed on the adjoining running line, to make his way widdershins around the running plate. 

 

The problem is that this isn't what the report says. The report says the opposite:

Quote

Driver Caudle gives the  following account of his journey after passing Kirkby Stephen he left the footplate when approaching Birkett Tunnel, on the near side, to oil the left driving auxiliary box, and was on the framing whilst train passed through the tunnel. He then went round the smoke-box on to the off side, oiled the corresponding box, and got back to his place at the "front." Mallastang up distant signal is situated on the near side of the railway about 1,060 yards from the south end of Birkett Tunnel. A good can be obtained of this signal as soon as the cutting at the south end of the tunnel is cleared say for 500 yards. Caudle states that he got the impression, when he was outside the engine, that the distant signal was in the clear position. The wind also was stronger than he had expected to find it. He was consequently a longer time than usual going round the framing, and was outside when the engine passed the distant signal.

No one mentions a train passing in the other direction.

Caudle's statement clearly says that he went left to right and was on the left hand side in the tunnel.

He is on the left hand side of the engine when in the tunnel... with the smoke and the engine working hard at 30mph (if my maths is correct a train going at 30mph takes about 29 seconds to go through 428 yard long tunnel).

He moves across the smokebox to the right hand side once outside the tunnel.

He is on the off side when passing the signal on the nearside which can be seen after about 500 yards. He is still outside the engine when passing the signal (approx 72 seconds after leaving the tunnel exit)

Birkett Tunnel from the south (428 yards)

Pringle has this to say about the issue. Again, emphasis here is mine.

Quote

(c) By the Company's regulations oiling an engine is the duty of the driver and not the fireman. Before the recent improvements in lubrication were adopted, it was necessary for a driver, more than once on a long journey, to feed additional oil on to the bearings. A receptacle is now filled with oil before a journey is commenced, and the lubricant is syphoned, drop by drop, from wicks on to the bearings. Provided that the receptacle is large enough to supply all the oil likely to be syphoned there is no actual necessity for the driver to renew the supply during the journey. But drivers of long service have generally acquired the habit of going round their
engines and prefer to continue the practice even though it may not actually be necessary. It affords the men an opportanity also of observing the movement of the engine, which cannot be seen from the cab. Caudle and Nicholson say that they are in the habit of going round with a feeder once during the journey between Carlisle and Leeds.

The practice must be regarded from two points of view, viz., danger to the men themselves, and loss of security to the train. When the train is travelling steadily, there does not appear to be much risk to an experienced man in thus exposing himself on the framing. The men, in this case, say that they select a portion of the road where it is straight, and there is shelter from the wind. But it cannot be denied that there is some risk in stormy weather of falling from the engine, also on all occasions of coming into contact with outside objects. The attitude of the Board of Trade has been that the practice is inadvisable on account of this, personal risk. A notice (vide Appendix II.) has been issued by the Company warning the men that accidents have occurred, and cautioning them against leaving the footplate unnecessarily when the engine is in motion. The enginemen were aware of this notice, and state that they did not consider the practice to be dangerous.

The second aspect is important from the poirit of pubiic safety. A man is certainly at a disadvantage for observing signals, when he is engaged outside an engine in securing his footing and using a feeder. But the men, again, reply that there would not ordinarily be any danger to public safety, because the work only occupies the short period of two or three minutes, and that they are careful to choose a section of line between block posts, where, from their knowledge of the road, there will be no signals to observe. Provided their judgment can always be relied upon in this respect, the danger of non-observance of' signals should be srnall. Moreover, firemen are also fully competent to observe signals, if required to do so, during the temporary absence of the driver from the footplate. If a driver chooses to go round the framing, there should be a distinct obligation upon him, in my opinion, to arrange with his mate that the latter shall be at liberty from his own work to devote hlniself to the more important work of observation.

On this particular occasion it appears that Caudle was away from the " front " longer than he had calculated to be, and consequently passed the distant signal before he had returned to his proper position. His action was therefore ill-judged, and possibly the reason why the distant signal was not properly observed, or at all events obeyed. But there was no necessity for Caudle to go round at the time he did, and he did not take the precaution to see that the fireman, \rho was strange to him, was disengaged, nor did he give him any instructions.

@Jim Martin - re crew falling off (The notice that Pringle mentions above from the appendix II in the report (p55))

 

Quote

NOTICE TO DRIVERS ARD FIREMEN.

PRECAUTIONS TO BE TAKEN TO PREVENT INJURY.

Accidents have occurred to drivers and firemen through their failure to take proper precautions when they have gone out on to the engine framing, or on to the top of the tender while the engine was moving.

Drivers and firemen are hereby cautioned against leaving the footplate unnecessarily when the engine is in motion.

Rule 24A of the Company's Rule Book warns all servants of the Company not to expose themselves to danger, and drivers and firemen are hereby requested to take such precautions  at all times as will ensure them from risk of injury.

BY ORDER.

General Superintendent's Office,
Derby May 1st, 1911.

All this discussion about whether or not it is safe or not, or why can't we do what we've always done because I've never had an accident so it is fine sounds eerily familiar. I am just shocked to see that no one has accused Major Pringle of being a namby pamby woke snowflake health and safety killjoy.

Is that not this accident - Manors Junction on 7th August 1926 with some embroidery?

2 hours ago, Jim Martin said:

With all this clambering around on the locomotive footplate, I wonder how many enginemen ended up falling off moving trains

I seem to recall a couple of accidents where there were run away engines after drivers fell off their engines.

TBH the expectation seems to have been that if the driver died/was injured during the journey the fireman would takeover.

There is one story i read of a driver being decapitated by a bridge and the fireman taking over to complete the journey.

I'm pretty sure I read one accident report where a driver 'went missing' over the side of an engine when in motion and the fireman didn't notice for a while. (I have in my mind it was in Ireland).

I suspect it happened more often than we imagine but would probably only show up as the sort of thing a fireman would have been commended for rather than the sort thing that would induce a visit from a Major.

2 minutes ago, thegreenhowards said:

How would my child be hit

Probably when you play fast and loose with safety and fail to provide sufficient stewards as per your exemption with the ORR.

1 hour ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

You're not misremembering. I am quite surprised photographs seem so hard to find - the sight of the poor fireman sitting on the front bufferbeam of Linda, Blanche or Mountaineer with a bucket of sand coming into Tanybwlch in miserable weather seemed common enough in the 80s. Later on, on the one occasion I was sent to the front myself, I rather envied those fireman with all that space in front of the smokebox - particularly on Mountaineer - for the engine I was firing was Prince, and we had a bloody great headboard on to boot, and the only place to perch was alongside the smokebox in front of the sand pot (oh the irony! I don't know if the sand pots on Englands and Fairlies were ever connected to sanders, but by the 1980s they were merely decorative). I can't remember what I held on to - the headboard, probably. I do remember that the sleeve of my jacket was wrecked by the heat. I think this was in 1991, and probably one of the last occasions this was done on the Ffestiniog.

As someone who has also fired Prince (maybe there should be a Prince firemans support group?) this is part of what drives my question. My abiding memory is that even when plodding along well, it was not a very smooth ride. If Prince was like that I am struggling to think what 30 mph on a MR 4-4-0 in the middle of the night would have been like.

I am glad that I wasn't imagining it. It was one of those ones where I wondered if it was something I'd imagined. My guess is that on the occassions when people were handsanding when the train came into Tanybwlch the weather was so awful that the photographers decided not to waste precious film in the gloom.

28 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

I would hardly class things such as 'oiling, getting the injector working, and watching his Fireman' as 'little things'.  The world of steam engine management changed massively in a few decades in the early to mid 20th century as technology and materials developed.  1913, especially for those who had learnt their job in even earlier times was a very different railway from just one generation later let alone the later years of steam traction.

 

Failed lubrication could mean stopping and have to be rescued, dodgy and troublesome injectors could mean just the same, and nursing a fire back into shape to keep steaming also took skill and experience - hence the Driver's interest.  Managing the engine is, and was very much so back then, as important as looking out for signals and it could distract an Engineman from other tasks if there were real problems to deal with simply in order to keep on the move.  Where Caudle really fell short was in his wider actions after getting back to the cab and not paying proper attention to where his train was and any signals which might have been missed.

 

The wider ramifications of the collision are interesting - Rule 217, which would have played a critical role in certainly reducing the impact and, probably averting the collision had been in the course of revision during 1913 and Ais Gill prompted a move to further revise and ensure that in these circumstances the (Rear) Guard should immediately go back to protect a train stopped in the way the first express had stopped..   The GWR of course - not unexpectedly - noted and sought to act on the comments about its audible distant signal system (later known as ATC).  

 

However it is interesting to note that the 1910 Hawes Jcn collision had a far greater impact on the GWR and in 1913 it decided to spend £30.000 on providing additional and more comprehensive track circuiting throughout its main line network.

I don't disagree but doesn't Hawes Jnc show the same important parallels? Just as the signalman forgot that the locos were in front of the signal box and got distracted by other things, Caudle forgot where he was/to look out for the signals because he was distracted by oiling, the injectors, watching the fireman. There is also a piece in Fellows evidence that suggests they were lulled into a false sense of security that all was fine ahead of them.

Quote

His evidence also suggests a driver who was a bit distracted:

Quote

Quote

Caudle wasn't the first and won't be the last person to become so focussed on task A that they forget to carry out task B until they are shaken out of their tunnel vision, in this case the fireman shouting the warning.

Doesn't it boil down to that if he hadn't left the cab to oil around he wouldn't have missed the signals, because even if he'd still had to help with the injector and monitor the firing, there would have been plenty of opportunities to see the various signals at danger.

The impact of oiling around in motion does seem to be very much downplayed in the evidence in quite a concerted way - ie it was normal, it was expected, it only takes 2-3 minutes, they only do it between block posts when there are no signals to watch for.

7 hours ago, Wheatley said:

As previously advised - out through the gap between the cab sidesheets and tender then round via the footplating provided for the purpose. Either lamp and oil can in one hand and the other on the handrail, or arm hooked over the handrail and one in each hand. The fireman would be more than capable of minding things on the footplate for the period the driver was away. 

 

 

 

 

Although in this case the fireman wasn't because of the injector issue.

The estimate of 2-3 minutes to make your way all the way  around in the dark and stopping to oil twice seems a bit optimistic to me.

1 hour ago, LMS2968 said:

Directions are usually given in travelling direction of the TRAIN rather than the engine, so which way it's pointing doesn't come into it. If the engine is stationary in a yard, though, you would refer to left and right when looking towards the chimney.

Here is the full quote:

Quote

Driver Caudle gives the following account of his journey after passing Kirkby Stephen he left the footplate when approaching Birkett Tunnel, on the near side, to oil the left [emphasis mine MC] driving auxiliary box, and was on the framing of the locomotive when the train passed through the tunnel. He then went around the smokebox on to the off side, oiled the corresponding box, and got back to his place at the "front." pp.9-10

That reads to me to as left hand side in direction of travel to right hand side round the front.

It says 'He kept the regulator and reversing lever in the same position and continued to-run forward"

He gets back into the cab and he set to work on the injector and then he watched Fellows putting some coal on the fire, then finally Fellows saw the red tail lights.

It reads to me like a driver who was so focused on the little tasks (oiling, getting the injector working and watching his fireman rather than paying attention to the signals).

I guess he thought that he'd never been stopped there before so why would he be stopped there this time...

1 hour ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

I don't think the direction of running has anything to do with it, and a locomotive running tender or bunker first wuould still have the nearside on the left for someone in the cab facing the chimney.

 

However, reading through entries in OED, it seems that use of the term in relation to motor vehicles does sometimes change according to the side of the road being driven on. In relation to horses and other animals, it is always the left (even in places where they drive on the right).

 

I think what isn't apparent in @Morello Cherry's photograph is how much running plate the is outside the splashers.

Looking photos of the later 2P and the Midland Compound there is not much room around the cab - barely enough to put a foot down - but clearly a handrail along the cabside to hold onto and there is no reason for it to be there unless you needed to get out onto the front via the cab.

7 hours ago, Wheatley said:

 

There is an Ivo Peters cine film of a Caley 0-6-0 on a railtour in 1963, the fireman is out on the footplate braying the Westinghouse pump with the coal hammer as the train approaches Whithorn, so it wasn't just a pre-grouping practice. 

 

 

I might be imagining it but I think I saw someone hand sanding from the front on a welsh narrow gauge railway in the very early 1980s on a very wet trip up through some woods. But I am probably misremembering what happened.

FWIW - I was reading up on Samuel Caudle on SteamIndex and I came across another entry for a driver which has some relevance here in response to the 'it was all fine in the 1960s people these days are babies' crowd:

Quote

Jimmie Dobson originated in Tillicoultry where he started work in 1899, but moved to Cowlairs in 1901. In 1906 he was snowbound at Steele Road. In Falkirk Tunnel a rail displaced off another train pierced the cab narrowly missing Dobson. When driving A3 Spearmint in November 1939 he was seriously injured as the train was leaving Polmont by an open carriage door on another train. Working on Glen class on excurssions to Fort William, Fort Augustus and on Stores Train which took him all over NBR system. Also broken axle on driving wheel of Director class and complete failure of motion on another.

https://steamindex.com/nbrsg/j40.htm#40-25

CDL not only helps protect passengers but also staff, it says something about WCR that they don't really seem to care about their own staff being injured by open doors.

42 minutes ago, 'CHARD said:

 

Let's not get an*l about minutiae. 

 

Sorry! The irony was strong.

But writing 'here here' instead of 'hear hear' when saying don't be anal about minutiae is not ironic. It'd only have been ironic if he'd been being anal about minutiae, or spelling. Something being unfortunate does not make it ironic.

2 hours ago, LMS2968 said:

In those days the running plate was quite a bit wider than the cab and splashers and getting around them from the cab gangway would not have been difficult. I imaging he took the gauge lamp with him to see the way and the oil levels in the oil boxes. By the way, on the Midland the driver stood on the right hand side, not the left. The 'lubtricators' here would have been drip-feed through a syphon and not mechanical; these really arrived only with superheating and not at this date with these engines.  The reverser and regulator would have been set to allow the best performance, in this case with the low steam pressure in mind, and would have been left at that. Injectors could be fussy things and the Midland's were poor; the shame is that they were carried on into LMS days. What driver Caudle did was common practice in those days, and not just on the Midland.

The report says he got out on the 'near side to oil the left auxiliary box' working his way round to the off-side. p.6 of the report.

I guess it all boils down to how big the running place is. I don't know what form 446 was in in 1913. In the images of the class 2's I've seen there really doesn't look to be much room around the cab side plates or the splashers. 

On the 156 you can see clearly how they would get to the front, the running plate is right back to the cab steps but I'm struggling to see for the class 2. 

FYI - The report also dismisses low steam pressure for the second express highlighting that it had run to scheduled time p.9.

I am trying to workout how you would get out of a hardworking 4-4-0 at 30mph at 3am in the pitch dark with an oil can and lamp.

The men claim it would normally only take them 2 or 3 minutes to do this which seems very fast considering what they were doing. p.10 

All the reports and most of the articles about the accident make mention that Driver Caudle left his engine while in motion to oil around the engine. Much is made that this was something didn't need to be done due to the fact that the engine had lubricators but it was tradition for drivers to do this. He goes out on the left hand side, works his way round the framing and ends up back in the cab on the fireman's side. It is said that the weather meant he was away from his cab for longer than expected and when he came back the fireman was struggling with injector and he was distracted by this. The combination of the two actions meant he missed the signals and the signalman waving a red lamp.

Now what puzzles me is how did the 59 year old Caudle leave the cab while the train was in motion, climbing and in Birkett tunnel  and at 2.51am? How would you get out and how and what would you be oiling? When the accident happens the train is estimated to be going about 30mph?

I am unclear if 446 had been rebuilt or not but the images of the MR class 2 show it as this:

Given the splashers - how the hell do you get round the framing at 30mph?

The second thing is if the fireman is firing and dealing with the injector what is happening with the regulator/cut off. Would he just have it full fwd or near enough and left the regulator wide open?

6 hours ago, franciswilliamwebb said:

 

Behave yourself.  Most of the BBC researchers will be back at school following the Easter break😉

This smacks of rivet counters punching down.

It is easy to mock but local journalism has been cut to the bone. Almost all local news stories carried by the BBC use stock photos (there is another story about an assault in Hull which uses google streetview...). Almost certainly someone has gone onto Getty or one of the other photolibrary resources and put 'railway tracks' into the search box and this as a 'indicates it is a railway but not of an identifable place'.

Having used these search engines for work they are something of a blunt instrument and no doubt this was a 30 second search and select for the story to get it out by a harrassed, overworked, underpaid and under-staffed local journalist (they certainly won't have a researcher working for them). The story doesn't live or die on the image, no one is going to be misled or misinformed so why care that it is a generic shot of some track that probably isn't in the UK.

This Dutch film popped up in my youtube feed. I thought I'd share it as it might be of interest.

The photo also answers my 'how were they fixed on'. It looks like it is hooked over the handrail.

Is Brylcream man wearing a black mac?

The phone makes me wonder how they communicated with the other testers in earlier times ie the LBSCR image.

2 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

It doesn't really help - as there's none at Mallaig, the train's got to run tender first in one direction or the other. 

Both stations are pretty much at sea level, so unless the gradients are much more challenging in one direction than the other, it's not going to make a lot of difference which way round it sets off.

I'd assume that there was at one point a turntable at Mallaig. It surprises me, given that there have been steam services running on the WHL every summer for the last 40 years, that one has not been re-installed at Mallaig

16 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

How would you hear a thing on the phone?

It looks like it has an extended mouthpiece and earpiece. Ideal for bellowing instructions.

I can't begin to imagine what their hearing would have been like at the end of the day.

I also like the fact that the chap on the phone has brylcreamed his hair in place so that not even working in the indicating shelter at speed is going to ruin it.

It looks like the chap nearest to us must be sitting down as well which makes me wonder how that was fixed down.

5 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

Wonder if that's a posed photo? Can't help thinking where is the photographer? Have they posed the train, and got the loco in the background to move?

I'd assume in the cab looking through the spectacle window?

2 hours ago, Nick Gough said:

In answer to the query posed in the first post I have found this photo, taken by the official GWR photographer:

 

Looks like the nearest man has something behind him to protect his back from the heat from the smokebox.

Thank you. A fascinating photo.

A weird mix of not much room, but a stool for when talking on the phone. The heat shield looks like a sheet of plywood (a step up on cyclists using newspaper as weather protection).

All I can say is not a gig I'd be volunteering for.

6 hours ago, OnTheBranchline said:

The less said about Basil Liddell Hart, the better…

That doesn't have anything to do with it. The point is that the critique of Haig pre-dates the 1960s which was what was being claimed.

6 hours ago, Olive_Green1923 said:

Iain Dale is technically not the source. He just edits the book and hosts the podcast. The source is the historian Miranda Malins, who specialises in the life of Cromwell and who wrote the chapter on him in the book. As mentioned, I’m personally not a monarchy buff, but by coincidence had recently read the chapter and listened to the podcast, and therefore learnt much about him which I never knew, including the supposed facts I flagged earlier re: his reputation amongst the establishment.

I am familiar with Malins work and well, let's put it this way, like others within this genre, she is to history what Nock is to railway writing. Prolific but works to a lower standard of evidence than other experts in the field.

For example if I were highlight that when it comes to Richard I we have the first known use in English of the word holocaust to refer to antisemitic violence, I would caveat that the source is Simon Schama and the claim should be treated with caution, for the pure and simple reason is there is no source cited. Hence it is a questionable claim due to the lack of supporting evidence.

To go back to the claims about Cromwell at Sidney Sussex it is variously claimed to be that a curtain is drawn when toast to the King/Queen is made, however, if you look at the portrait there is no evidence of any curtain. Nor is there any mention of it being done when the Queen or the then Prince of Wales visited the college. So something a bit more robust is needed to support Malins' claims.

50 minutes ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

I'd say the the most interesting Britannia naming is 70044 Earl Haig. This was the 1950s when he was still (mostly) seen as a national hero, before his reputation was comprehensibility (and not entirely rightly) trashed by historians in the sixties. Nowadays most people just see him as Geoffrey Palmer with a dustpan and brush in Blackadder. 

 

 

 

 

That just isn't true. He was being criticised in the 1930s. Whatever you may think of them - Lloyd George's memoirs were 1936, Liddell Hart's was developing his critique from 1930 onwards.