If you register, you can do a lot more. And become an active part of our growing community. You'll have access to hidden forums, and enjoy the ability of replying and starting conversations.

Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

Discussion in 'Steam Traction' started by S.A.C. Martin, May 2, 2012.

  1. S.A.C. Martin

    S.A.C. Martin Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    5,591
    Likes Received:
    9,325
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Asset Engineer (Signalling), MNLPS Treasurer
    Location:
    London
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    How can it be dismissed? It's the ONLY part of the story we've heard since Thompson died. We've had decades of this - as far as I am aware, this is the first time in the Thompson debate that we're seeing full on statistical analysis of his locomotives at work.

    Those clamouring for "don't dismiss the points of view of the driver/timekeeper/etc" - are you going to be reading the stats with an open mind? What if the long held views are - shock horror - wrong?

    I think the Thompson story is one of the clearest examples of myth trumping evidence. Not anymore, thank you.
     
  2. Big Al

    Big Al Nat Pres stalwart Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Messages:
    21,072
    Likes Received:
    20,779
    Location:
    1016
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    But that will not stop some people suggesting that this is just another perspective that is too distanced from the period in question and places too much weight on the wrong information to have greater relevance.

    Why should this be any different from the versions of history as written by commentators from their own standpoint!
     
    jnc likes this.
  3. MellishR

    MellishR Resident of Nat Pres Friend

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,069
    Likes Received:
    5,165
    If you mean notions such as "the L1s were crap" (or "Thompson hated Gresley") then, in the light of the evidence that you have assembled, those should be recognised as myths and dismissed. I don't think the same applies to testimony from shedmasters or drivers, or indeed even from lineside observers if they remember L1s going past rattling: that should be accepted as valid as far as it goes, though only part of the picture and possibly of minor significance.
     
    jnc likes this.
  4. Monkey Magic

    Monkey Magic Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2018
    Messages:
    3,498
    Likes Received:
    6,845
    Location:
    Here, there, everywhere
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    In some ways the problem is separating the important material evidence from the 'noise' - in the case of the L1's literally.

    The problem is trying to ID the cause rather than focussing on the effect. So we may have testimonies from shed masters saying 'x was useless' but without knowing the context of duties and the environmental context ie labour shortages etc, we don't know why, however, the problem is that the default explanation is that 'x is a bad design' without much thought to what was expected of the design or other factors.

    Unfortunately, trying to unpack this is going to give you a sprawling 'messy' explanation which flies in the face of deeply held mono-causal shibboleths.
     
    paullad1984, jnc and S.A.C. Martin like this.
  5. Spamcan81

    Spamcan81 Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Messages:
    35,121
    Likes Received:
    20,773
    Occupation:
    Training moles
    Location:
    The back of beyond
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Bur Simon's narrative is long distanced in time from the period in question. Yes he has a lot of statistics but they are only part of the picture and statistics are always open to interpretation. I read a book on the Battle of Britain that used statistics to "prove" that the RAF was never in danger of losing. Every other narrative I've read says otherwise but it just goes to show what you can do with figures. There's a lot more to any story than just numbers.
     
    jnc and 60017 like this.
  6. 62440

    62440 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2020
    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    316
    Location:
    4A
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    From a layman’s point of view, maybe it’s a question of seeing how the majority of the straws blow, allowing for the fact there will always be exceptions?
     
  7. S.A.C. Martin

    S.A.C. Martin Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    5,591
    Likes Received:
    9,325
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Asset Engineer (Signalling), MNLPS Treasurer
    Location:
    London
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    But are recollections of "rattling" really good evidence compared to the official records giving miles, days out for repair, availability and more?

    If a shedmaster makes a claim that all of the Thompson L1s were no good, but they were all less than six months old when he recalls them having issues, is that good evidence and significant? What if the data directly contradicts the testimony?

    The reliance on testimonies ahead of records is not a good one. We do need both but where there's a discrepancy between someone's recollections and the official record, we need to be fair and balanced in our appraisal. Not just accept the testimony as sacrosanct.

    But the statistics you refer to are primary evidence, recorded at the time and showing a huge amount of the day to day operations of the railway. If loco X does less miles than loco Y and loco Y has the poor reputation, then the stats refute the reputation.

    I feel so much of this thread is trying to unchain the reliance on individual testimony as evidence, and introducing more primary forms of evidence that actually show us what was happening at the time - and yet we keep coming back to "but so and so said this" - !!! - nobody's discounting testimonies entirely, but they're not always reliable. At least the stats remove the subjective nature of individual opinion from the equation.
     
    Kje7812 and jnc like this.
  8. Big Al

    Big Al Nat Pres stalwart Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Messages:
    21,072
    Likes Received:
    20,779
    Location:
    1016
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Precisely. And back at #5061 that example illustrates quite well how an erroneous testimony when set beside the relevant data reveals the flawed story.
     
  9. Spamcan81

    Spamcan81 Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Messages:
    35,121
    Likes Received:
    20,773
    Occupation:
    Training moles
    Location:
    The back of beyond
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Ah, the old "primary evidence" argument. We've been here before. When other primary evidence comes to light in the shape of writings by former shed masters, or conversations with Pepp's widow, these are dismissed as "hazy recollections" or "jealousy". And it is perfectly possible for a loco to get a justifiably bad reputation even if the statistics paint a different picture. As I've said before, it's not just about the numbers. Numbers can tell you about availability, daily mileage etc. but they don't tell you if the loco was a rough rider, a bugger to fire, difficult to drive, required the burning of much midnight oil to get it ready for the next day etc.
     
  10. Fred Kerr

    Fred Kerr Resident of Nat Pres Friend

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    Messages:
    8,239
    Likes Received:
    5,250
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Freelance photo - journalist
    Location:
    Southport
    You also need to take on board the view of the "men on the front" - i.e. the driver / fireman whose ability to drive the locos will influence the statistics. At the end of steam many drivers would fail the steam locomotive for the minutest fault if a diesel locomotive was available as replacement often leading to the withdrawal of the steam locomotive and statistics showing low / poor mileage within a specified time period. Even in Norman McIllop's / Toram Beg's day the relationship of crews and locomotives affected both locomotive / class reputations and operating statistics although perhaps not to the same extent. Hence the apocryphal tale that when received by Haymarket for trial Edward Thompson was IMMEDIATELY returned south with a curt note that Haymarket was a Gresley depot and would remain so ! Another that myth that Simon hopes to debunk.
     
    Monkey Magic likes this.
  11. Big Al

    Big Al Nat Pres stalwart Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Messages:
    21,072
    Likes Received:
    20,779
    Location:
    1016
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Sorry but I fear you may be confusing what primary evidence is. Documents of the time and comments of the time, at the time, come ahead of, for example, what the widow of someone may say that she remembers her husband saying about X or Y.

    It matters a great deal that ALL available evidence is considered - primary, secondary and anecdotal - and the most powerful will be when you see multiple matches of one with another.

    Most of what I have gleaned on 'matters railway' are through single author accounts. When I edited the life story of a Southern footplate man it was just his recollection and his experience. There was nothing to corroborate what he said but fortunately it was not the kind of book that the one we are discussing is trying to balance out.
     
    S.A.C. Martin likes this.
  12. S.A.C. Martin

    S.A.C. Martin Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    5,591
    Likes Received:
    9,325
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Asset Engineer (Signalling), MNLPS Treasurer
    Location:
    London
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    It's not "primary evidence" and that is the frustrating thing about the circular debate you are intent on having. As has been said in this thread several times, recollections written a long time after the event may not always be accurate (the Harry Patch example was a good one) and the genuine primary evidence is records taken at the time. This is pretty basic stuff for historians and you can read more on it here: https://umb.libguides.com/PrimarySources/secondary

    Regarding the below...

    I think you know perfectly well that I didn't dismiss Dorothy Mather's comments at all. I would like it if you would quote directly what part I wrote that you take issue with.

    When you go back and find that accusation lacking, you should post a retraction.

    But they do tell you the value to the company, and actual work done by the loco or class in question, and the bottom line is that the driver, timekeeper and shedmaster are not infallible in their recollections, and we also have to consider what, if any, influences there may have been post the event to blur the viewpoints (such as decades of writing where Thompson is a pantomime villain).

    Treating something cautiously and analysing it is not dismissing it: contrasting it with primary evidence and pointing out a discrepancy between the two is legitimate and necessary analysis.
     
    Kje7812 likes this.
  13. johnofwessex

    johnofwessex Resident of Nat Pres

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2015
    Messages:
    9,186
    Likes Received:
    7,226
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Thorn in my managers side
    Location:
    72
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Peter Smith was a fan of the 9F's but also recalls another S&D Fireman having a heated exchange with Control because he didnt like the work that he had to do to get the most from one.

    But Smith wrote up his experiences, the disgruntled fireman didnt
     
    Monkey Magic likes this.
  14. Monkey Magic

    Monkey Magic Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2018
    Messages:
    3,498
    Likes Received:
    6,845
    Location:
    Here, there, everywhere
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    That is a quixotic argument.

    Personal accounts tell you one person's view which are going to be subject to biases. For example, we learn here that you have an acute bias against statistical material, and a strong preference for personal testimonies. Nothing wrong with that, it is just your view. But what it does mean is that your views are skewed in a certain way. And essentially, you've just demonstrated why personal testimonies should be treated with caution.

    All personal testimonies are ego documents, they don't tell us about the bigger picture.

    If you want to write a response to Simon which re-asserts the importance of personal narratives then no one is stopping you.

    A while back I recounted something I witnessed when a senior driver failed a loco, when it came back on shed works supervisor looked at it and said it was fine and sent it out again the next day. If the driver wrote their memoirs it would no doubt say 'terrible engine', if the works supervisor wrote their memoirs they would probably say 'driver with a difficult personality who wanted their preferred engine', and if I write my memoirs it will probably say 'run down at the end of the season, driver took first opportunity to fail the engine to get their preferred engine, workshop supervisor didn't pick a fight but passively aggressively sent the engine back out the next day as if there was nothing wrong with it (and a different driver), and it ended up having to take a pilot because the tubes were leaking so much.'

    The statistics will tell us that the loco had a failure, the statistics will tell us that it managed 3 trips out of the 4 it was scheduled to do. Take one testimony and you get the story of a rubbish loco, take another testimony and you get a story of a difficult senior driver, take a third testimony and you get a story of office politics.

    At the risk of getting all postmodern, there is no such thing as the truth, just the interpretation of the material.
     
    jnc likes this.
  15. Jimc

    Jimc Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    4,052
    Likes Received:
    4,665
    Occupation:
    Once computers, now part time writer I suppose.
    Location:
    SE England
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    "History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it" Winston Churchill.

    And there is more than bare stats. How many trains were late because the crew was nursing a rattling wreck? To what extent were duties allocated on the basis of what could be operated? Stats and numbers are our best guide to what was going on, not least because they would be the basis of decision making in the management echelons, but there was more to the story as well.
     
    Kje7812 and S.A.C. Martin like this.
  16. Jamessquared

    Jamessquared Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    26,105
    Likes Received:
    57,436
    Location:
    LBSC 215
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    I think the numbers don't lie...

    In July 1940, the RAF had 1,259 pilots. By November they had 1,796 - so despite the best efforts of the Luftwaffe, they had gained strength in that crucial period. By contrast, in July 1940, the Luftwaffe had, for example, 906 operational Bf 109 pilots; by September they were down to 735, at which point they called off the daylight attacks. In what was essentially an attritional battle, the RAF was able to build strength while the Luftwaffe lost strength, to the point the battle became untenable.

    Subsequently, it became convenient to promote a propaganda message of "backs to wall, saved by the few". And undoubtedly it was true that relatively few people stood between Britain and defeat - but those few were never in danger of being defeated. There were structural reasons that favoured the defence (for example a German pilot shot down over the channel or England was almost certainly lost to future fighting even if they survived the initial crash / bale out; a British pilot who survived being shot down was almost certainly able to fight again). The British also had a better training system, and used their resources more wisely. None of that should take away from the valour of those in the front line, but if the statistics show a different picture to the customary narrative, you have to question the customary narrative, and ask why that narrative arose. It was convenient at the time, and has been ever since, to portray the Battle of Britain as a great victory against the odds, when in fact it was an attritional battle during which our production of men and machines kept more in etc air than the Germans managed. Moreover, the Germans had to effect an absolute crushing victory before they could launch an invasion, whereas the British merely needed to avoid an absolute crushing defeat to stave off an invasion: those odds always favoured the defence.

    Tom
     
    maddog, clinker, Kje7812 and 5 others like this.
  17. Bluenosejohn

    Bluenosejohn New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    329
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Birmingham
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    The problem is looking at the Battle of Britain with the knowledge of today as opposed to how the respective sides saw it in 1940.

    The Germans seriously underestimated the RAF's numbers and their ability to replace losses whereas the British overestimated the German numbers. Both sides in the heat of combat thought that they destroyed more of the enemy: this had a more serious impact on the over confident German High Command who expected the RAF to be eliminated soon throughout. In contrast the RAF were under no illusions about their task however many they claimed when in fact they doing better than they thought.

    The RAF needed fighter planes only during the battle: the Luftwaffe pilots were split between fighters and bombers. The RAF had a better supply of pilots and were able to retrieve more pilots who bailed out that than the Luftwaffe who were fighting over enemy territory or even worse if you came down the Channel.

    British manufacturing was better equipped to replace losses and indeed to increase numbers of vital planes.

    The situation is summed up by a memorable scene in the Battle of Britain where Sir Laurence Olivier in a wonderful portrayal of Sir Hugh Dowding has the following exchange at the height of the battle about claims of losses: ( with thanks to the IMDB site )

    • Minister : [on the phone] Dowding, look, our people in Washington are having trouble with the American press. It's about today's figures. German sources there are saying that our claims are wildly exaggerated. - - Hello? - Are you there Dowding?

      Air Chief Marshall Sir Hugh Dowding : I'm here, Minister.

      Minister : Well, I mean, can you verify the figures?

      Air Chief Marshall Sir Hugh Dowding :
      I'm not very interested in propaganda. If we're right, they'll give up. If we're wrong, they'll be in London in a week.
     
    jnc and 60525 like this.
  18. MellishR

    MellishR Resident of Nat Pres Friend

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,069
    Likes Received:
    5,165
    They are not only different kinds of evidence but apply to different aspects of the locos' performance. Good availability etc says nothing about how they sounded and little about what they were like to work on. I'm by no means wishing to discredit the statistics, but just stressing that they are not the whole story -- which I think you accept anyway.
     
  19. Spamcan81

    Spamcan81 Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Messages:
    35,121
    Likes Received:
    20,773
    Occupation:
    Training moles
    Location:
    The back of beyond
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Planes were never really a problem once Beaverbrook got manufacture and repair sorted. The real problem was pilots. Apart from a general shortage, injured or killed experienced pilots were replaced with raw newcomers with very few hours solo on fighters and no combat experience. As you've quoted Dowding from the BoB film, here's another.
    • Air Chief Marshall Sir Hugh Dowding : Gentlemen, you're missing the essential truth. We're short of 200 pilots. Those we have are tired, strained, and all overdue for relief. We're fighting for survival. Losing. We don't need a big wing or a small wing. We need pilots. - And a miracle.
    The miracle arrived in the Luftwaffe switching from attacking the airfields to attacking London. Bad news for the inhabitants of London but good news for Fighter Command who had been in danger of not having any airfields fit from which to operate.
     
    Martin Perry and jnc like this.
  20. Bluenosejohn

    Bluenosejohn New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    329
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Birmingham
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Agreed. As I put the Germans had more issues with their replacement planes and replacing their pilots than the Allies.

    In the case of pilots both sides were loosing experienced men but the RAF had a system that enabled them to replace numbers more effectively helped by the fact that they were fighting a defensive battle at the time plus what proved to be highly effective Czech and Polish squadrons coming in along with pilots from the Empire.

    It is not how it was seen at the time. Operation Sealion for the German invasion of Britain was not postponed until September 17th 1940. On the 27th September 1940 the American Ambassador in London was to report back home with a very negative view of Britain's prospects:

    Secretary of State, Washington DC

    From United States Ambassador, Joseph Kennedy

    Dateline: London, 27 September

    For the President and the Secretary

    The night raids are continuing to do, I think, substantial damage, and the day raids of the last three days have dealt most serious blows to Bristol, Southampton, and Liverpool. Production is definitely falling, regardless of what reports you may be getting, and with transportation smashed up the way it is, the present production output will continue to fall.

    My own feeling is that… [the British] are in a bad way. Bombers have got through in the daytime on the last three days, and on four occasions today substantial numbers of German planes have flown over London and have done some daylight bombing.

    I cannot impress upon you strongly enough my complete lack of confidence in the entire [British] conduct of this war. I was delighted to see that the President said he was not going to enter the war, because to enter this war, imagining for a minute that the English have anything to offer in the line of leadership or productive capacity in industry that could be of the slightest value to us, would be a complete misapprehension.
     

Share This Page