Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

Big Al · 30 Oct 2019

S.A.C. Martin a spus: ↑

At this time the main aim is to get the manuscript done as much as possible.

I’ve been struggling to get the bibliography done and happily it’s nearly there (so many citations!)

The major sections are complete, each locomotive class is discussed fully now, and my personal viewpoints on each year end of the LNER and the work Thompson was doing is ongoing.

Its probably the definitive version of my work on this now.

If I find a publisher I’ll do a proper paperback. If I can’t, I’ll self publish electronically. I won’t self publish a printed version I’ve decided. Too much time and space taken up and I really don’t have as much time anymore with everything I do.

Thank you for your kind thoughts.

My original offer of supplying everyone on Nat Pres with a free ebook of it still stands.
Click to expand...

Hang on in there Simon. Given the research and time you have spent on this book it would be a very churlish person who says it doesn't represent a definitive and balanced critique of Thompson's time and work.

But rest assured; those 'yes but' folk will still be out there on the day it is published.

Richard Roper · 31 Oct 2019

Just read your reply Simon, and Thank You for the update. I'd love to have a copy of your book, whether paperback or an e-book.
I personally think it deserves a hardback, but appreciate that the effort and cost would more than likely be quite hideous!

Richard.

S.A.C. Martin · 10 Dec 2019

Evening all,

I have been working on the book in quiet periods, getting it ready for publication (which is going to be early next year). I have as promised gone back to the Great Northern chapter and made some changes.

Thank you to everyone who submitted feedback in the development of that chapter. It's much appreciated.

Please find below the chapter in question for your perusal.

Any issues, let me know.

This will likely be my last update on the thread for this year. It has been an incredible year, with two lectures and a podcast, and much support and food for thought given.

There are so many people to thank for their support - Lawrence Robbins at the Model Railway Club of London, Mark Allatt and Ian McCabe of the Gresley Society, Graeme Bunker of the A1 Trust, Chris Ellick of the MNLPS - you've all been so supportive of my work and I am very grateful. There are dozens more, and I have a full page's worth of thanks in the book ready!

On that note - enjoy the chapter, and have a great Christmas.

Best wishes,

Simon

No.4470, “Great Northern”, Class A1
Image colourised by Ian McCabe

It was inevitable that a new standard Pacific class would be produced for the L.N.E.R. Both Thompson and later Peppercorn would produce their own take on the basic outline set by Sir Nigel Gresley with his original A1 (later A10), A3 and A4 Pacific classes.

Thompson was following the Cox Report to the letter in rebuilding some classes with a third set of valve gear. He did this when rebuilding the P2s into the A2/2s, and he would do so again with a member of the A10 class in anticipation of developing a new A1.

The new A1 would incorporate everything learned from the twenty-plus years over which Gresley had developed his 6ft 8in Pacifics, plus the construction and day to day operation of the P2 rebuilds and the later A2/1 class.

In the event, this new design would be a 6ft 8in Pacific to supplement the existing A3 and A4 Pacifics.

There was never any question of a wholescale rebuilding of the existing Gresley classes, which had been identified by Thompson as being essential to the “Non-Standard, to be maintained” classes as part of the total of 19 classes and he had envisioned as the L.N.E.R. concentrating on in the years going forward.

In 1944, the remaining A10s were being rebuilt into A3s, based largely on their overall condition. The last A10 survived until 1947. Some commentators have claimed that the remaining A10s would have been rebuilt as Thompson A1s as well.

There is no demonstrable evidence for this in the Emergency Board or Locomotive Committee that I can find. I remain sceptical that there was ever a call for rebuilding of the remaining A10s into more Thompson A1s, whether from Thompson himself, his department, the Emergency Board or the Locomotive Committee minutes.

The idea that there was perhaps stems from several articles in the railway press, including one given as an example later in this book, about the “next in class A1”, and all the rumours that developed forthwith.

The intended Thompson A1 was with the design team for a long time. The original intention appears to have included streamlining the design, as per the A4 Pacifics. RCTS 2A shows a number of these early drafts, including “semi-streamlined” design.

Without question, the new A1 locomotive design was based on the A4 Pacific. The final design included main frames which were entirely A4 where the driving wheels were concerned, unique at the cartazzi end, and virtually identical to the P2 rebuilds and A2/1 at the front end.

The use of the 250lb A4 boiler required the design to start with the better designed frames of the A4s. The smokebox followed the practice set by the rebuilt P2s, with a double Kylchap chimney and blastpipe.

The biggest difference to Thompson’s normal design remit was in the cylinder layout. Unlike the previous Pacifics turned out under his tenure, and the standard A2 to come, the A1 had a divided drive layout, where the inside connecting rod was of a different length to the outside ones. Thus, the presumed advantage of the equal length connecting rods and valve events was lost on Great Northern.

Thus, the new A1 design was bigger than the original P2s in terms of wheelbase at 38ft and 5in long.

The final design included a reversion to the flat fronted cab sides of the A3s; with changes to a flat floor, with side sheets matching the overall size and depth of the B1 class.

This component of the A1 design foreshadowed the British Railways Standard classes, where the cabs were provided with a level floor and were somewhat higher off the ground, using less overall material than the grouping and pre-grouping classes they were designed to replace or supplement.

The tender frames and wheelsets were retained, but a new tender tank (echoing the standard A3 type with beading) with straight sided sheets at the cab end, was designed for the new A1.

Electric lighting together with the hinged discs were fitted to the front of the locomotive.

The details of the new A1’s smoke deflection arrangements were somewhat hampered by the decision to not provide a streamlined nose as per the A4 Pacifics. Again, there are a mix of views on this.

The most logical scenario was that as an austerity measure, the additional material required for the A4 front end would not be acceptable to the Emergency Board or the Wartime Executive, which was still heavily influencing what the design team could and could not do.

This argument falls away somewhat when we consider the contemporary Bulleid Pacifics. It has been suggested that Bulleid was able to “get away with” building his Merchant Navy locomotives by virtue of labelling them “mixed traffic” locomotives.

The A1 prototype was classed both as an express passenger locomotive and as a rebuild of an existing locomotive. The former was true; the latter was expediency.

Not much of the original Great Northern was retained when the design was approved and the rebuilding commenced.

The driving wheels, parts of the rear cartazzi, the tender frames and wheels (but not the tank), and some smaller items were retained. The boiler and frames were put into the A10 spares pool, the frames being refurbished and retained for almost immediate reuse.

The Thompson A1 which emerged was a combination of several different eras of thinking. The Gresley line ran through it in the choice of boiler, size of driving wheels, the overall layout of the cab and the use of the double Kylchap chimney.

The double Kylchap was a Gresley development that Thompson made standard across all his Pacifics, with the A1's smokebox being carefully developed based on previous experience with his 6ft 2in classes.

Whatever else may be alleged against the Thompson Pacifics, nobody has ever claimed they were short on steam, and the steam circuit in the A1 in particular was excellent.

The Great Northern Controversy

There is no locomotive more misunderstood, more underrated, and more hated, than the Thompson rebuild of Sir Nigel Gresley’s prototype A1, the rebuilt no.4470 Great Northern.

The locomotive attracts so much criticism that at times, it goes from the reasonable (deflectors? Lack thereof) to the patently ludicrous (“deliberately uglified so as to make the designer turn in his grave” – Cecil J.Allen in British Pacific Locomotives).

We should get one thing clear: there is no way that any design team under any C.M.E. of any railway company goes out of their way to “uglify” a locomotive design. A locomotive may appear inelegant, maybe even actually ugly, but all engineers are more concerned with the functional aspects of a locomotive design, particularly in the middle of a war.

In order to fully appreciate the rebuild and its design development, we must disassociate from the “Thompson hated Gresley” line of debate and consider what the new A1 design was designed to be and how its design came about.

Many books and magazine articles which have written on the choice of Great Northern, the locomotive, have been unable to do this and report that the rebuilding was an error of Edward Thompson’s judgement.

Most see it and report on it as a political or personal attack on Gresley’s memory. There are several accounts which claim that “officials and draughtsmen tried to deter him from rebuilding this engine”.

There are several issues with the idea that Edward Thompson selected this locomotive specifically for rebuilding.

The first question that needs to be asked is “was Edward Thompson responsible for selecting Great Northern?” The answer, emphatically, is no.

If Edward Thompson had somehow chosen this specific locomotive to be rebuilt, this would have been an extraordinary step away from the process that any previous rebuilding of a locomotive had followed.

The process of events and chain of command is outlined in a number of primary sources: the Emergency Board notes, the Locomotive Committee notes, and from Dick Hardy’s writings on the L.N.E.R. (and in particular, his experience working on the new Thompson A1 drawings as one of Edward Thompson’s draughtsmen).

These sources show that the C.M.E. and his team would agree a specification for a new locomotive design. This, roughly, was the first stage of any potential rebuild or conversion.

Outline drawings, together with a list of components, would then be produced and the C.M.E. would discuss this with his team. If satisfied, the C.M.E. would then put the design forward to the board, who would approve the rebuilding on the specification the C.M.E. provided.

A Locomotive Running Superintendent would be asked by the design department to nominate a locomotive for shopping at the earliest opportunity for rebuilding, and his decision would be scrutinised by the financial department.

A locomotive that did not meet the brief given – which would have been based on its age, total mileage and its mileage from last shopping and overall condition – would not be shopped.

This brief, incidentally, was standard on the L.N.E.R. and had been in place since before Gresley, as it was standard shopping practice by the G.N.R. A similar system in place on both G.E.R. and N.E.R., and these three companies’ works formed the bulk of the L.N.E.R.’s output.

The responsibility for the design, the responsibility for carrying out the conversion and construction of the locomotive and the responsibility for the choice of locomotive to be rebuilt, were not in the same department: let alone in the hands of one man.

At a minimum, these crucial decisions were the responsibility of three separate men.

The C.M.E., who would be responsible for the design’s details, the locomotive running superintendent, who would be responsible for the choice of locomotive, and the assistant mechanical engineer who would oversee the rebuilding of the locomotive in question.

These three men would be reporting to the Emergency Board, albeit only the C.M.E. directly beholden, to the War Department (and again, only the C.M.E. directly) and to the financial department of the L.N.E.R. who would agree on the expenditure – which, again, would be under scrutiny from the Emergency Board of the L.N.E.R.

Once the design was approved, the expenditure approved, and the locomotive approved for shopping: it would be at this point that all parties were satisfied, only then would the chosen locomotive be sent to shops. It would be put on the pit (in this case at Doncaster Works) for dismantling, and within a short amount of time would have been in its constituent parts. Components for the new/rebuilt locomotive would have been prepared and the work would have started almost immediately.

The choice of locomotive would not likely have been directly communicated to the design team once a request for a locomotive to be rebuilt was made. Neither the C.M.E. nor the design team had any real say in the allocation or shopping of locomotives (with some exceptions such as placing locomotives on trial in certain areas for assessment, as both Gresley and Thompson did over the course of their careers).

Thompson as C.M.E. was, ultimately, responsible for policy development on the L.N.E.R. and giving design direction to the designers under his remit. He would have also been given advice by his chief draughtsman and his assistants on the details of the design and would take decisions based on these discussions and developments accordingly. His position was in fact about broad brushstroke approaches. The specific details were for his designers and assistants to sort out, as it had been with Gresley before him.

Thompson, who had worked in many roles throughout his railway career. This included acting as one of Gresley’s assistants, a draughtsman and various roles at the head of major railway works. He would have well understood his remit and the limits of his role.

The C.M.E. role is much misunderstood by railway writers, in general. The role is one of a policy maker, not a designer. The C.M.E. has about as much power to seek out and select a locomotive for rebuilding as a mouse has reign over an elephant. In short: no power whatsoever. So, if Thompson was not responsible for selecting the locomotive, does the whole grievance fall away?

Of course not.

If we accept that Great Northern held a place in the hearts of L.N.E.R. railwaymen – and it did, undoubtedly – then it also follows that this feeling could have been found elsewhere. Dick Hardy recalled an argument Edward Thompson might have had with Chief Draughtsman, Teddy Windle, in one of the articles he wrote in the mid-1990s for Steam World Magazine.

In this, he confirms who would have selected the locomotive – G.A. Musgrave (the Southern Locomotive Running Superintendent) and that Windle remonstrated with Thompson over the choice. Hardy – who was present in the drawing office at the time – recalls that is likely Thompson told Windle that it had not been his decision, that it had been made, and that was likely that.

Thompson, as we are all aware, was not blessed with tact. He has been described as charming and clever, but tactful he was not. Perhaps misunderstanding the full depth of feeling towards the name Great Northern, as opposed the locomotive itself, is Thompson’s real crime.

It is speculation on my part, but I have often wondered if the Great Northern story may have been misinterpreted. The P2s – never particularly successful – had their nameplates removed when rebuilt, the names only being restored normally after a period of running in. The A2/1 Pacifics followed suit.

The original board minutes from the Emergency Board and the Locomotive Committee make no mention of the specific locomotive being rebuilt, which is notable insomuch as it follows the precedent set by the rebuilding of Thane of Fife.

Where there was an enormous difference in approach was in the locomotive’s unveiling. Unlike the previous Thompson Pacifics, the first Thompson A1 was outshopped painted in a new livery, complete with nameplates, and was readied for inspection by the Emergency Board and members of the design team.

In Steam in the Blood Dick Hardy describes that the last time he encountered Edward Thompson was at this unveiling of the new locomotive. It was a low-key affair, but the locomotive was one of the first locomotive designs out of the L.N.E.R. past the end of the second world war.

Great Northern emerged with new, straight nameplates, recalling the previous Thompson Pacifics, the P2s and the V2 Green Arrow in its style. The livery was that of the G.E.R., modernised for the Pacific, and replete with double red lining out on locomotive and tender. The tender read “N.E.”, which of course means “North Eastern” and was a wartime austerity measure, due to the difficulties in the manufacturing and delivery of the necessary transfers.

There were three direct tributes to three of the four major railways that made up the L.N.E.R. – and coincidentally, all three were railways that Thompson had in some way encountered during his working life (on the N.E.R. working as an assistant to a locomotive running superintendent, together with his link to his father in law, the N.E.R.’s Sir Vincent Raven, his links to the G.N.R. as a Carriage and Wagon superintendent, his time at Stratford Works in the 1930s working on the designs of James and Stephen Holden of the G.E.R.). Thompson had no great link to the G.C.R. and thus no mention of this railway appeared in any meaningful way on Great Northern.

No reasons were given for the special livery in either the Emergency Board or Locomotive Committee minutes.

As we discussed earlier, Edward Thompson was not overly sentimental about naming locomotives. His reaction to the change of name from “Utility” to “Springbok” probably sums up his opinion on naming locomotives in general. He was said to have been singularly indignant at this change to his plans. He was an engineer by trade and was not sentimental.

There remain only two occasions that Edward Thompson is on record for any form of sentimentality where locomotives are concerned. The second instance we shall return to in the building of the final Thompson Pacifics.

In the first instance, Peter Grafton in his tome on Thompson recorded that J.F. Harrison felt that the choice of Great Northern struck Thompson as being serendipitous – if his ideas were sound, and worked, what better prototype to take forward the development of line than the locomotive which started it all?

Rather than sounding like a spiteful dig at his former employer, it sounds more like Thompson was hoping to emulate the successes of the original prototype by taking the design further.

In this, Edward Thompson and his design team absolutely succeeded. The rebuilt Great Northern had a far higher tractive effort, had a better steam circuit and reserves of power. Once the smoke deflectors had been added and the restoration of the original style of cab fitted too, the prototype started out from King’s Cross on trials and was a highly capable machine.

These trials are recorded in Cecil J. Allen’s British Pacific Locomotives volume, and a few other locations. The consensus was that it was better than a single chimney A4 Pacific, which were the most numerous and most modern of the L.N.E.R. classes.

Great Northern was not selected for the exchange trials in 1948. Instead the honour, which turned out to be dubious, fell to the double chimney A4 Pacifics of Seagull and Mallard. This is often used as a stick to beat the Thompson designs with – if they had not been picked, they must surely have been inadequate?

Yet the newer Peppercorn A2s were available, with the first of the Peppercorn A1s coming into service in the August of the same year as well. No criticism of Peppercorn or his locomotives for not being included in the trials is on record, so far as I can see.

Great Northern very quickly became non-standard once Peppercorn took over. The new Peppercorn A1 design, contrary to popular belief, was not based on the Thompson A1 design but was in fact a 6ft 8in version of the Peppercorn A2, itself a development of the standard Thompson A2, and from there, the original Gresley P2s.

This is borne out by the reverse engineering of the breed by the A1 and P2 Locomotive Trusts in the building of their engines no.60163 Tornado and no.2007 Prince of Wales.

Opinions on Great Northern range from “useless” to “considered the equal of a Peppercorn A1”. The truth, as ever, is likely somewhere in-between the two extremes.

The availability of Great Northern, which is based on its actual time in works against actual time doing or available for work, was significantly higher than the other Pacific classes, at 83% availability in 1946, its first full year of work. This involved a mileage of 68,304 miles and working 256 days of the 310 days, taken from the L.N.E.R. Availability Figures that I collated from data in the National Archives at Kew.

Only one Pacific did better than Great Northern for that year. No.505, Thane of Fife, with 93% availability, achieving 61,152 miles but 289 days’ work that year.

Looking at the locomotive’s engine card (available in the National Railway Museum’s Search Engine Archives) which gives the dates in, and dates out, of shops, together with mileages and days worked, reveals a similar story for the rest of its working life.

The differences between the targeted mileage, run to failure approach taken by the Gresley designs compared to the preventative maintenance and high availability of the Thompson Pacifics is notable for the difference in availability.

The Thompson Pacifics, both during the war, and post war, were more available for work than the Gresley Pacifics in a calendar year.

Almost all the L.N.E.R. Pacifics were outshone by the Peppercorn A1s, the final development of line, which not only achieved high overall availability but also high mileages between shopping.

Great Northern ended her working life in November 1962, outlasting the W1, most of the other Thompson Pacifics, most of the Gresley A3s, some A4s, and several Peppercorn A2s and A1s, and did so as the highest mileage Thompson Pacific with some of the best overall availability for work.

When all is said and done, for a one-off locomotive, which was designed and built during one of the greatest conflicts of our time, surviving for so long into the diesel era: that it was always able to do a task asked of it, is all that matters.

Peter Townend remarked in his book Top Shed that Great Northern was “an otherwise excellent locomotive, hampered by the Thompson front end”.

Whilst there’s no doubt of Townend’s ability, knowledge or experience, I question if this is entirely fair. The Thompson front end in service did not suffer middle big end failures the like of the Gresley Pacifics in their working lives. Crank axle failures on the Thompson Pacifics were, on examination of the causes of failures through the engine cards at York, virtually non-existent.

The Thompson Pacifics required more trips to works to fix things such as tightening the smokebox bolts on the front end, swapping in valve gear, working on the bogie spring arrangements, but their overall time spent in works annually was less than the majority of the other L.N.E.R. Pacifics.

The best summing up of Great Northern was that she was a one-off, an oddball, a post-war A4 Pacific perpetuating many positive developments that Thompson recognised were worth bringing forward.

She was perhaps a locomotive hampered by the austerity measures of the time – streamlining would have improved her looks significantly – and the fact she will always be associated with Edward Thompson and seen in a context of rebuilding and replacement of Gresley’s first Pacific locomotive.

Great Northern was a good locomotive, and a worthy prototype whose development started in the 1920s and ended in 1946 when Edward Thompson retired. It helped to pave the way for something even better. When all is said and done, that’s what all engineers aspire to provide.
Click to expand...

Corbs · 10 Dec 2019

Nice one Simon - the podcast episode just ticked over 2,000 plays and is the most-viewed one Good way to end the year.

S.A.C. Martin · 10 Dec 2019

Corbs a spus: ↑

Nice one Simon - the podcast episode just ticked over 2,000 plays and is the most-viewed one Good way to end the year.
Click to expand...

Thank you again for indulging me on this. It was such a great piece of media to be involved with, and you were most patient during recording! Of all the media pieces I have been involved with this year, that is the one I am most proud to have been involved with. Thank you Corbs.

MarkinDurham · 10 Dec 2019

Nice one, Simon. I look forward to your completed work. Compliments of the season to you and your family.

Mark

Fred Kerr · 11 Dec 2019

No criticism from me but minor corrections of English required (concerns highlighted) :

There was never any question of a wholescale rebuilding of the existing Gresley classes, which had been identified by Thompson as being essential to the “Non-Standard, to be maintained” classes as part of the total of 19 classes and he had envisioned as the L.N.E.R. concentrating on in the years going forward.

Should read "that" ?

Thompson, who had worked in many roles throughout his railway career. This included acting as one of Gresley’s assistants, a draughtsman and various roles at the head of major railway works. He would have well understood his remit and the limits of his role.

Sentence incomplete ?

When all is said and done, for a one-off locomotive, which was designed and built during one of the greatest conflicts of our time, surviving for so long into the diesel era: that it was always able to do a task asked of it, is all that matters.

Different punctuation required ?

Whilst there’s no doubt of Townend’s ability, knowledge or experience, I question if this is entirely fair. The Thompson front end in service did not suffer middle big end failures the like of the Gresley Pacifics in their working lives. Crank axle failures on the Thompson Pacifics were, on examination of the causes of failures through the engine cards at York, virtually non-existent.

Possible rewrite to read : to the extent of the ...?

Pardon my pedantry but I hope you will forgive me; nonetheless a book I look forward to reading. Have you found a publisher for this yet because - if not - could I suggest you contact Mortons to publish it as one of their bookazine collection ?

S.A.C. Martin · 11 Dec 2019

Thank you Fred for those corrections - have corrected them this morning on my master copy.

I had discussions with a publisher last year and during the course of this year, but I have got no further than that I am afraid. I am concentrating on getting it finished as a "ready to publish" manuscript at the moment but I will bear that suggestion in mind. Thank you for your thoughts.

jma1009 · 12 Dec 2019

Hello Simon,

In that one chapter I still do not see how you deal with Bert Spencer's comments - as you ignore them completely and any reference to them.

You do not address any of the criticisms I have made of Dick Hardy's recollections, or of the 'old school tie' accusations I have made.

Your failure to understand what 'Front End' deficiencies Peter Townsend described is indicative of a failure to assess properly any of the engineering concepts; just as one would expect of a model railway modeller, with no knowledge of locomotive valve gear, as is also indicative of your failure to understand the report of E.S. Cox.

Cheers,
Julian

Jimc · 12 Dec 2019

jma1009 a spus: ↑

Cheers,
Julian
Click to expand...

Do you need to be quite so aggressively offensive?

35B · 12 Dec 2019

jma1009 a spus: ↑

Hello Simon,

In that one chapter I still do not see how you deal with Bert Spencer's comments - as you ignore them completely and any reference to them.

You do not address any of the criticisms I have made of Dick Hardy's recollections, or of the 'old school tie' accusations I have made.

Your failure to understand what 'Front End' deficiencies Peter Townsend described is indicative of a failure to assess properly any of the engineering concepts; just as one would expect of a model railway modeller, with no knowledge of locomotive valve gear, as is also indicative of your failure to understand the report of E.S. Cox.

Cheers,
Julian
Click to expand...

Remembering the discussion on thread, I see no reason why Simon or anyone else should have to address those comments. There has been plenty of discussion over the choice of sources, and their weightings. You are at liberty to disagree with that, but not to impose your own views on those of an author. The same applies to the Cox report or Peter Townsend's comments, and how they are interpreted.

The book, when finished - and I hope it does get "properly" published, with the value that a decent editor can provide, rather than "just" being self-published - will stand or fall as a whole. Neither you nor I have enough material on which to form an overall judgement of the conclusions despite @S.A.C. Martin's very public sharing of material en route.

MellishR · 12 Dec 2019

35B a spus: ↑

Remembering the discussion on thread, I see no reason why Simon or anyone else should have to address those comments. There has been plenty of discussion over the choice of sources, and their weightings. You are at liberty to disagree with that, but not to impose your own views on those of an author. The same applies to the Cox report or Peter Townsend's comments, and how they are interpreted.

The book, when finished - and I hope it does get "properly" published, with the value that a decent editor can provide, rather than "just" being self-published - will stand or fall as a whole. Neither you nor I have enough material on which to form an overall judgement of the conclusions despite @S.A.C. Martin's very public sharing of material en route.
Click to expand...

That's fair up to a point, but where there is a substantial body of opinion based on person X saying such-and-such, but Simon has amassed evidence to the contrary, a few words exploring why person X may have made that statement and why it was mistaken wouldn't go amiss.

I agree with the desirability of using a "proper" publisher if possible.

35B · 12 Dec 2019

MellishR a spus: ↑

That's fair up to a point, but where there is a substantial body of opinion based on person X saying such-and-such, but Simon has amassed evidence to the contrary, a few words exploring why person X may have made that statement and why it was mistaken wouldn't go amiss.
Click to expand...

Agreed wholeheartedly

huochemi · 12 Dec 2019

MellishR a spus: ↑

That's fair up to a point, but where there is a substantial body of opinion based on person X saying such-and-such, but Simon has amassed evidence to the contrary, a few words exploring why person X may have made that statement and why it was mistaken wouldn't go amiss.

I agree with the desirability of using a "proper" publisher if possible.
Click to expand...

Oi, what's this about "proper" publishers? I publish my own books and IMHO they are rather better than a lot of the stuff put out by "proper" publishers. I think, if I may be so bold, that what it needs is an editor.

torgormaig · 12 Dec 2019

huochemi a spus: ↑

Oi, what's this about "proper" publishers? I publish my own books and IMHO they are rather better than a lot of the stuff put out by "proper" publishers. I think, if I may be so bold, that what it needs is an editor.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with Robin (@houchemi) about the excellent quality of his self published books. I was looking through a couple of them last week in the NRM's Search Engine library and was very impressed by both the quality of his research (into Chinese loco class history) and the production of the books. They are certainly far superior to the quality of "bookazine" type publications. But I'm sure Simon will persue all options once he has a finished product to publish.

Peter

huochemi · 12 Dec 2019

torgormaig a spus: ↑

I have to agree with Robin (@houchemi) about the excellent quality of his self published books. I was looking through a couple of them last week in the NRM's Search Engine library and was very impressed by both the quality of his research (into Chinese loco class history) and the production of the books. They are certainly far superior to the quality of "bookazine" type publications. But I'm sure Simon will persue all options once he has a finished product to publish.

Peter
Click to expand...

That's very kind Peter. Usual fee?

Fred Kerr · 12 Dec 2019

jma1009 a spus: ↑

Hello Simon,

In that one chapter I still do not see how you deal with Bert Spencer's comments - as you ignore them completely and any reference to them.

You do not address any of the criticisms I have made of Dick Hardy's recollections, or of the 'old school tie' accusations I have made.

Your failure to understand what 'Front End' deficiencies Peter Townsend described is indicative of a failure to assess properly any of the engineering concepts; just as one would expect of a model railway modeller, with no knowledge of locomotive valve gear, as is also indicative of your failure to understand the report of E.S. Cox.

Cheers,
Julian
Click to expand...

You are unfair to criticise a portion of the book without knowing the contents and organisation of the whole. It may be that Simon feels discussion of the various points you raise should be discussed in other portions of the book yet to be read. That is the author's right and - until the complete thesis is available for comment - may not be the final form of the data that Simon has collated. AIUI Simon offered the text for interest and comments regarding the content; your comments could have been better offered rather than stated as an attack on a work still in progress.

S.A.C. Martin · 12 Dec 2019

jma1009 a spus: ↑

Hello Simon
Click to expand...

Hallo Julian.

In that one chapter I still do not see how you deal with Bert Spencer's comments - as you ignore them completely and any reference to them.
Click to expand...

The chapter is on Great Northern, not Bert Spencer, Julian.

I am dealing specifically and only with the locomotive 4470 in that chapter. Bert Spencer was not present at Doncaster works throughout the development of Great Northern and is therefore of limited value here. I have explained this before. That is the end of the matter.

You do not address any of the criticisms I have made of Dick Hardy's recollections, or of the 'old school tie' accusations I have made.
Click to expand...

Your accusations are not based in reality, nor are they fair. They appear to be based purely on a personal level from yourself against Dick Hardy and public schools.

Neither of which I wish to bring into the Thompson book (because I do not place much stock in your views on either subject). That too, is the end of the matter.

Your failure to understand what 'Front End' deficiencies Peter Townsend described is indicative of a failure to assess properly any of the engineering concepts; just as one would expect of a model railway modeller, with no knowledge of locomotive valve gear, as is also indicative of your failure to understand the report of E.S. Cox.

Cheers,
Julian
Click to expand...

Julian, I have asked you multiple times to explain your stance on this and multiple times you have not provided any evidence to the contrary.

Your repeated personal attacks on me have now got to a stage where I am considering asking the moderators to limit your access to the thread.

I have asked you, several months ago, to apologize for your past comments; which were not forthcoming. I politely asked you via direct message to stop posting in the thread, out of respect for the fact that every time you do, you add nothing of value and bring us into disrepute.

As far as I am concerned - having said this once before - this will be the last time that I respond to you directly as I will be placing you on my "ignore" list, out of a desire to be kind to my own mental well being and sanity.

That is the end of it, as far as I am concerned.

S.A.C. Martin · 12 Dec 2019

MellishR a spus: ↑

That's fair up to a point, but where there is a substantial body of opinion based on person X saying such-and-such, but Simon has amassed evidence to the contrary, a few words exploring why person X may have made that statement and why it was mistaken wouldn't go amiss.
Click to expand...

I would like to make it clear that Bert Spencer is not included in the Great Northern chapter as he was not present throughout its design process and is, in my opinion, of limited value to the discussion on the development of the lone Thompson A1.

I have a separate chapter in which I write about Bert Spencer in any event. I have been careful to be objective where Spencer is concerned, however I - very much - think that his viewpoints have been overplayed in the Thompson story.

We should try and focus on primary evidence from people who were there, together with stats, reports, and the like, which are objective in nature and not simply take at face value the opinions given (and in fairness I say the same of Dick Hardy's views - but then he has the advantage of having been someone who - did - work on Great Northern).

The above chapter was published because I promised to republish it in this thread, as thanks to those who had provided feedback.

Fred Kerr a spus: ↑

You are unfair to criticise a portion of the book without knowing the contents and organisation of the whole. It may be that Simon feels discussion of the various points you raise should be discussed in other portions of the book yet to be read. That is the author's right and - until the complete thesis is available for comment - may not be the final form of the data that Simon has collated. AIUI Simon offered the text for interest and comments regarding the content; your comments could have been better offered rather than stated as an attack on a work still in progress.
Click to expand...

Hi Fred - nailed it as usual. Thank you for your considered points.

S.A.C. Martin · 12 Dec 2019

35B a spus: ↑

Remembering the discussion on thread, I see no reason why Simon or anyone else should have to address those comments. There has been plenty of discussion over the choice of sources, and their weightings. You are at liberty to disagree with that, but not to impose your own views on those of an author. The same applies to the Cox report or Peter Townsend's comments, and how they are interpreted.
Click to expand...

I agree; but equally I want to place on record that I have written on Bert Spencer in another chapter within the book.

The book, when finished - and I hope it does get "properly" published, with the value that a decent editor can provide, rather than "just" being self-published - will stand or fall as a whole.
Click to expand...

Agree. Obviously I would prefer it stands - but if it falls, there is no shame in having tried. I have read more, and written more, and done more with this subject than almost everything else I have done in my life. It has taken up so much of my time, there has been blood, sweat and tears, and whatever other people think of the material is fine by me. I am proud for having stuck with it and done something productive.

I could not have done that without the myriad of viewpoints and robust debate on this forum, which for the most part, has been respectful. Thank you all.

Neither you nor I have enough material on which to form an overall judgement of the conclusions despite @S.A.C. Martin's very public sharing of material en route.
Click to expand...

I saw no reason to hide away the evidence from others. With everything I have found, I have talked about it here. I have shared the statistics, letters, and other finds, at the earliest opportunities. It fascinates me that we can still find out new things so long after the event.

The Edward Thompson story is more dramatic, more emotive, and more life affirming than many have told it. For too long we have relied on writers who do not do their research. Now, with more material available, we can see a very different story unfold.

Autentificare sau Înregistrare

Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

Big Al Nat Pres stalwart Staff Member Moderator

Richard Roper Well-Known Member

S.A.C. Martin Part of the furniture

Corbs Well-Known Member

S.A.C. Martin Part of the furniture

MarkinDurham Well-Known Member

Fred Kerr Resident of Nat Pres Friend

S.A.C. Martin Part of the furniture

jma1009 Well-Known Member

Jimc Part of the furniture

35B Nat Pres stalwart

MellishR Resident of Nat Pres Friend

35B Nat Pres stalwart

huochemi Part of the furniture

torgormaig Part of the furniture Friend

huochemi Part of the furniture

Fred Kerr Resident of Nat Pres Friend

S.A.C. Martin Part of the furniture

S.A.C. Martin Part of the furniture

S.A.C. Martin Part of the furniture

Distribuie pagina asta

Autentificare sau Înregistrare

Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

Big Al Nat Pres stalwart Staff Member Moderator

Richard Roper Well-Known Member

S.A.C. Martin Part of the furniture

Corbs Well-Known Member

S.A.C. Martin Part of the furniture

MarkinDurham Well-Known Member

Fred Kerr Resident of Nat Pres Friend

S.A.C. Martin Part of the furniture

jma1009 Well-Known Member

Jimc Part of the furniture

35B Nat Pres stalwart

MellishR Resident of Nat Pres Friend

35B Nat Pres stalwart

huochemi Part of the furniture

torgormaig Part of the furniture Friend

huochemi Part of the furniture

Fred Kerr Resident of Nat Pres Friend

S.A.C. Martin Part of the furniture

S.A.C. Martin Part of the furniture

S.A.C. Martin Part of the furniture

Distribuie pagina asta

Căutări utile