You have to dig further to get all the information.

[john coffin]

A couple of weeks ago, in the brick trains postings I was chided for misinterpreting information,
specifically about some locomotives on the Southern end of the ECML.

I am not superhuman, and do not know everything, but at my age, I am able to make
Judgements on the research that I have done. I am also prepared to learn more
and accept when I am wrong.

Since I know that one can make different interpretations of information, I went
back to basics, and check my various sources. I rely not on one source, but access
to more than 50 volumes within my personal collection. This includes published
and unpublished items that I have either bought, or been privileged to obtain.
So it takes more than 10 minutes to read, and re read things to check how far out,
or not one might be. I have also been able to read a couple of pieces by Owen Russell,
including his piece on the P1’s.

I will look at the suburban locomotive question first.

It is certainly true that the N1 when modified and then produced was a good and
suitable loco for the job, and indeed, the basis for Gresley’s N2. However whether
it was weight distribution, or other issues, the prototype was not something that
the Met accepted, and it is interesting that Ivatt decided not to rebuild 190, the
first one. Perhaps he had learnt from his experience with the 0-8-2T.

There is no evidence that Ivatt actually designed the 0-8-2T for suburban work
out of Kings Cross, indeed, some sources suggest that it was initially designed
for freight work. It could be semantics, but it then leads one to consider that it was
re-purposed to see whether or not it worked. What is clear is that the 4-4-2T was
not displaced by the 0-8-2T, which one would imagine would happen if were truly
successful. There is evidence in many sources that they caused damage to the curves
on the Barnet suburban line, whilst they also definitely had problems at Moorgate,
being very tight on the engine run-round, and there are details of them having
problems with crossovers in and around Kings Cross, with loaded trains. However,
this did not stop them from being a successful loco for many years moving empty
passenger stock around, particularly empty mainline stock. Groves mentions that
the small diameter wheels were a decided handicap on the tightly time down trains
between Finsbury Park, up to Palmers Green. Thus in my mind they did not fulfil
the purpose of making a successful London suburban locomotive.

That they succeeded in both the West Riding and from Colwick, on both some
passenger work and goods, and were particularly useful on coal trains between
Colwick and Peterborough, both full and empty.

Around Grouping some came back to London to work the empty main line passenger
stock, a job they did for about 6 years. But surely the most important
determining factor about the success of a locomotive must be the life-span on
the original task for which it was designed, and these locos only lasted about 25
years, and were one of three classes of Ivatt’s that were scrapped early in their
working lives. Later and smaller locomotives lasted longer.

Now is time to consider the coal trade, and the other two locomotives mentioned.
I have read both Owen Russell articles a couple of times and must say that there
are certain conclusions with which I disagree. Those I will discuss later.

Coal traffic was very important for the GNR, and had expanded dramatically
since the ECML opened. The traffic into London grew to such an extent that it needed
to build Ferme Park in the 1890’s, and introduce the third tunnel at Kings Cross.

But there were still a number of problems over the route between New England
and Ferme Park, even though relief sidings had been extended what was not done
was make the approx. 73 Mile mainline journey 4 tracks, and indeed that was not
even done immediately after grouping, much to the Chagrin of Gresley, since that
is what it is suggested, he was told before designing the P1’s. Indeed, it was more
han 50 years before the problems up to Digswell Viaduct then, beyond into London
were solved, and it is only recently that they have re-opened the third tunnel at Kings Cross.

However, to discuss the two locos I mentioned, the GNR 0-8-0 and Gresley P1.
Studying all the published and unpublished work there are still some areas of
doubt in the information available.

In the 1890’s the majority of GNR coal wagons were 9 tonners capacity, giving
A Gross weight of about 14 tons. Before the introduction of the 0-8-0’s most
evidence for that time suggests that trains were 45-50 wagons, so one basis of
my claims is that the 0-8-0’s hauled 60 wagon trains, and thus the difference
in capacity was only 10-12.5%, which hardly seems worthwhile. However what
we can conjecture from the available evidence is that about 8 trains a day were
running, and they suffered the same problems as later ones, not that they were
too long for the relief sidings, but there is certain that they were causing problems
at the reception sidings.

Otherwise most of the relief sidings would not have been occupied all day by
Trains only averaging 9miles per hour, this certainly continued until the late 1930’s.

Between the 0-8-0’s and the P1’s were the Gresley 2-8-0’s which starting in 1914
Were hauling trains of 80 wagons, which were almost certainly 10 tonners with
a gross weight of 16.5 tons. Whilst in terms of vehicles, the increase was only 1/3rd
the vehicles, but also an additional 1 ton in terms of freight, making the load
nearly 50% greater for such a small increase in vehicles. Both coal capacity and
vehicle numbers were a dramatic increase. Yet still they waited in the relief
sidings all along the track over the 73 miles. Later the P1’s moved 100 wagons,
and it appears that they too might have been 10 tonners, since nowhere so far
have I found details of the train weights for those journeys, I therefore have to
assume that they were. It is worth realising that in Grouping times a lot of coal
was moved from Ferme Park to the Southern area, and every 80 wagon train
needed 4 shunting processes to make up suitable trains to travel there.


Thus both the 0-8-0’s and the P1’s were not able to do the job they were designed
for over a very long period. The Ivatt loco also was scrapped within 35 years,
whilst the P1’s were the first Gresley Locomotives to be scrapped within 20 years of being built.

We all know that often passenger locos were not too long lived, but goods ones tended
to last literally for ever. Which brings back to mind the question of whether or not the
locos actually fulfilled the purpose for which they were built for a profitable period,
especially in the case of the P1’s which it should be remembered
cost 25% more than Flying Scotsman to construct.

You might say that I have put a personal slant on the interpretation of the data that
I have read, but then I know of no book printed since the time of Thomas Carlyle that
does not have facts interpreted by the author, and then modified by the demands of
the sub editor to fit it into the publishers space.


Amongst the books and papers consulted are Wrottesley, Grinling, Bird, Groves,
The RCTS LNER green books, Yeadon, even O.S.Nock, and Kenneth Leech.
Perhaps the most important book until the 3rd volume of Peter Tatlow’s new series
Is that of Geoff Goslin, published in 2002, Goods Traffic of the LNER.

I also mentioned reading two articles by Owen Russell, and my concern about some
of his conclusions. He does not seem to have a proper grasp of the coal industry along
the ECML, nor the amount of coal that was transported to London by sea.
Some of this was replaced during WW1, when at one time over 140 coal trains as day
were being moved into London.

In regard to his article about the P1’s he suggests that the authors in RCTS 6B did not
draw the correct conclusions from the facts they assembled, but he does not explain
what he means indeed in my view his complete article is a modern interpretation of facts.

We all interpret the information we read in a particular way, and as Winston Churchill said,
history is written by the victors. Nowadays, few people actually have, like me actual
experience that they remember of steam engines in revenue service.
It is after all 55 years ago since it stopped. So any viewpoints on steam engines and
their usage and value are based on the memories of children, or reading material
which may well be biased depending on which engineer you prefer.

Prove me wrong on any of the above, and I will be pleased to accept it if it is the truth,
not your interpretation.

Paul

[manna]

G'Day Paul

With the P1's they must have hauled long trains, as it's documented that the trains they hauled had to be split 'Before' they entered Ferme Park.

There was a lot of banter about a steam loco's reaching 30 mph in 30 seconds in the early 1900's, was the R1 0-8-2's Ivatt's response ?? we know that they did work down the 'Drain', so they were tried on suburban traffic, the low cab, boiler mounts and chimney prove that, and they were very successful on heavy ECS.

The Q class 0-8-0's were a jump up from J3's and J4's used on the coal drags from Peterborough, maybe not such a success as the O1 and 2's but better than a small 0-6-0

Just a few thoughts and facts that I have read over the years.

manna

[S.A.C. Martin]

We all interpret the information we read in a particular way, and as Winston Churchill said,
history is written by the victors. Nowadays, few people actually have, like me actual
experience that they remember of steam engines in revenue service.
It is after all 55 years ago since it stopped. So any viewpoints on steam engines and
their usage and value are based on the memories of children, or reading material
which may well be biased depending on which engineer you prefer.

Prove me wrong on any of the above, and I will be pleased to accept it if it is the truth,
not your interpretation.

Paul

Paul,

Historians and academics would disagree with you.

That's why History is a specialist field and much emphasis is placed on the importance of evidence and how to interpret it in a manner likely to result in a more correct analysis.

Historical Methodology is incredibly important.

With respect, history isn't written by the victors in this country. It's reported on by historians following academic practice with methods of evaluating the information available.

There are many secondary sources in railway history that are opinion pieces dressed up as history - that is the bias you speak of.

The best secondary sources rely on primary evidence to make their points.

It's the difference between O.S. Nock and Tim Hillier-Graves, I feel.

Best wishes

[Pebbles]

Paul there are a number of issues that must result from your fine dissertation many of which have previously been the subject of debate. However, whatever the pre-grouping intentions the post Great War reality changed that. Gresley's intention of stocking the LNER with his 2-8-0' design was stymied by the acquisition of 04's at basement prices. Then we have to examine any justifiable reason for tank engines of either 0-8-2 or 2-8-2 variety. I have read that the P10 project eventually fell down on the 04's, but also importantly for lack of braking power. Much later this was also a problem with Thompson's L1.
In the immediate post grouping period Gresley appears to have adopted a precautionary, pragmatic stance. On the basis of seniority, many have questioned the legitimacy of Gresley's appointment and he may have been very conscious of this. He may have inherited many outstanding contracts and commitments hence the continued building of the B7, B16, A2 etc. Whilst Raven's adherence to Stephenson valve gear was clearly at odds with Gresley's design philosophy Gresley does appear to have been seduced by Robinson's mega concepts, hence the U1 and P1. As an aside, the high costs of the P1's has to be seen in the context of they being prototypes with special features. Robinson was on the right track, but to fulfil his vision required breaking with private ownership of wagons and a massive investment in fitted freight and mineral stock.
I fear that it is impossible to view British railways in isolation. Having lead the world with the Industrial Revolution, British industrial decline started in the 1860's and then accelerated. From memory I believe that in the 1890's one of the shop foreman at Doncaster had the first micrometer! Restrictive workshop practices and an unwillingness of management to address issues compounded the problem. Was it not Bulleid who encountered both workshop and management resistance to reducing costs when new equipment was installed. Shipyards who in the 1950's still riveted when the rest of the world welded, the list goes on!
I'm not sure that all will fine this totally relevant, so I'm going away to hide!

[drmditch]

This forum, and others, do occasionally trigger debate about the nature and relative validity of historical source material.
I have tried to avoid adding (much) to this content, as I am sure that many people know much more than I do about railway (and specifically LNER) history.

However, since appreciation and evaluation of source material formed a significant part of first-year studies for my degree in history fifty or so years ago, I would make the following points.

All source material (and however one defines primary and secondary material) is subject to survival and selection. These two are linked. Evidence survives because someone at some time selected it to survive.

All humans carry a level of innate opinion and prejudice, both of a particular individual at a point in their own history and studies, and those of the society and generation to which they belong. Some people, fortunately, from time-to-time make determined efforts to reject the prejudice of their own and previous generations. This gives rise to what is sometimes called 'revisionist' history which, for me, can sometimes be helpful and sometimes not. As with all historical study it's value depends on the integrity of research and the intellectual honesty of the historian. However neither of those can be unqualified or absolute. I would again stress the importance of generational issues.

It can be dangerous to treat any source (and particularly secondary sources) as being of absolute value. The difference between O.S. Nock and Tim Hillier-Graves which Mr Martin refers to above, is interesting in this aspect. Mr Nock wrote and published with his own set of opinion and prejudice.
In our time we need to as aware as possible of what those might have been, and be prepared to evaluate his works accordingly.

History, despite the opinion and prejudice, of many people (and even upon occasion myself! is always being re-written!

Fifty years ago we had to read sources (in Latin) for our study of the Second Crusade.
We had less 'primary' material from Arabic sources, but of course in those days many British schools still taught Latin but few, I think, Arabic.
For much of my lifetime the very word 'Crusade' and 'Crusader' were used freely in a way which many people today (but not unfortunately some politicians) would regard as offensive.

There is a lovely Terry Pratchet quotation about the need for history to be re-written: I will have to look it up later.
I can assure you that my Hornby model of A3 No.108 is planned to be re-numbered and re-named.
The second word of it's name may now be problematic, but I have no problem with the first!

It will be re-named (based on a photograph on Page 45 of Peter Coster's 'Book of the A3 Pacifics') to become No.56 and if I get a move on it may get finished in two years time!

To demonstrate my own (relative) impartiality I have a question to ask about my Hornby model of No.500, but perhaps I had better to do that on my own thread elsewhere!

[Hatfield Shed]

...All source material (and however one defines primary and secondary material) is subject to survival and selection. These two are linked. Evidence survives because someone at some time selected it to survive...

For completeness, there are also 'accidental' survivals with no intention, and negative selection by legal obstacle.

Do you want evidence that N5 no 69266 ever worked on the remains of the Hertford section of the Hertford, Luton and Dunstable branch? I have a colour photographic print, which flew out of a paper recycling truck as it overtook me while cycling. What other evidence was lost on that truck we will never know, nor do we know the photographer, and since the internal evidence within the photograph dates it as protected as Intellectual property, it cannot be accepted by Herts Archives for public access which I find most annoying.

[drmditch]

You make good points, and your example is fascinating!

[john coffin]

I always welcome extra information and comments, so will answer those I understand,
and Pebbles it is always to spar with you verbally.

Manna, you are right about the need to speed up suburban trains, but of course that had to be constrained by the restrictions of
the Widened lines, not least the terminus at Moorgate, which is where the 0-8-2T "fell down". What I did learn in all this research
was that the original suburban turns required the released engine to go over to the main line, and remove trains from there to
be cleaned and checked. Thus when the R1's were used at KX in the early 20's they had to write a special turn for the loco to allow it
to just move empty mainline stock, and you are correct that they got a reputation for fast movements. However, that did not save them
from a very short life of such a type of engine at that time.

I also agree that the P1's did haul 100 wagon trains, however the Gresley 01's successfully moved 80 wagons for about 10 years before
the P1's, and they were probably 10 ton wagons rather than the 9 tonners hauled by the 0-80's. However from a modern prospective,
the idea of all those trains and crews standing around for up to 9 hours, does not make any sense. Especially when it took so long to
determine that faster shorter trains were a more profitable way to go, cutting down as the K3 hauled trains would have required a lot
less shunting to allow trains that had to go over the widened lines to be produced. it is an interesting conundrum.

I also agree that there were a number of things that caused the early years of the LNER to be somewhat confusing to those of us
now. Whilst it is true that there were others who had seniority in the pre grouping CME's, I think the management of the LNER
did not chose to follow the LMS model, they wanted an engineer who was likely to be around for more than 10 years. By chance, I
have just read an Oakwood book on Maunsell on the Southern, and their management took a similar view, for he was there for over
16 years. The LMS however underwent many changes until the appointment of Stanier in the mid 30's.

I agree with drmditch and also found Hatfield shed's comment valuable, not least because I have recently become the proud owner
of a bound set of Railway Magazine from 1947-1968, which has given me interesting thoughts too. The real importance though it
that as a magazine it was able to contain data from people who had worked in pre grouping railways as well as post grouping.
It also follows life up until the withdrawal of steam, and shows how things both stayed the same and yet were changed by the
two wars and their impacts on both the railways, and working practices. It also opens an interesting view point on O.S.Nock.
Whilst many today might not like his style, and may disagree with his understanding, he was a man with both decent qualifications
and also mixed with those in powerful positions. Many many not know that he worked for the Westinghouse Company of GB, and indeed
for much of his later career worked with K. H. Leech as his boss. For those who also may not know, Kenneth Leech, who was co-author of
Stirling SIngles, with Maurice Boddy, was a top man at Westinghouse UK, who had been in the drawing office of the LTSR, and also worked
with many of the pre-grouping top engineers who were co-opted by the ROD in the Western Front during WW1. amongst his workmates
there were Bullied, and Thompson, so he too knew many of the people who in Post Grouping times became top officers. It seems that
the ex ROD men often rose to the highest positions. Leech had been born like so many of the days into a religious family, and many
relatives and family friends were avid followers of the railways, he knew many of the then well known photographers and recorders.
What is certain is that Mr Leech was no fan of Henry Ivatt, due to what he saw as a ruining of the lines of the Stirling singles. this
enmity lasted until the mid 30's when he got involved in being part of the team that ensured that No1 was able to run in 1938,
not least because of problems with the original rather warn out chimneys. Post WW2 Boddy and Leech were able to ensure that
the tender now behind No1 was saved from a field from which it would almost certainly have been scrapped.
All this is a long way of saying that whilst some documents released recently might suggest the Nock was wrong, he had one
advantage that none of us now have, access to people who were there and doing it at the time. However, he also suffered from
the old problem which was he always had to get permission through the British Transport Organisation for many of the technical
items in his books.

Paul

[john coffin]

I must confess Mr Martin I struggle with your apparent naivety about the real world.

Publishing is about making Money, no more no less, and whilst niche publishers might well start out wishing to producing
a specific book that interested him, basically how accurate a book depends on the needs for it to be profitable.
If you don't believe me, take note of a recently published book "Colonisation a Moral Reckoning by Nigel Biggar.
it was commissioned by a major publishing house, yet when it was presented, because it did not meet the modern
perspective of the evil British empire. It was rejected, but the author was allowed to keep his manuscript and
get it published elsewhere. For those who are not sure about how evil Britain was, I commend it as a good and
valuable historical book.

Having access to all relevant information is no protection against using ones own "unconscious bias" actually coming to
the fore, in your case your almost fanatical pursuit of cleansing Thompson's reputation. It shows in some of the things
you chose to ignore to put your case more forcefully. Like the fact that a Scottish traffic manager hated the Gresley
P2's and refused to use them in traffic for many months at a time, adversely affecting their mileages. A similar thing
had happened early in LNER times with the Ivatt D1's which spent much time in storage rather than use. Nothing that
Doncaster/Kings Cross said changed either thing.

The only area where proper historical research is likely to follow the path you suggest is treatises for degrees, not
for publications sold to the general public. Just because you can access works record cards, does not mean that
you are qualified in any way to extrapolate engineering information of a subject you have no practical knowledge of.

Final thought I quoted Winston Churchill about who writes history, and he was certainly a more successful author than
you might ever be.

This all started because some one asked about Brick trains! We know that by 1935, at least 5 brick trains were running
from Peterborough to London 4 days a week, and possibly 7, but we don't to our knowledge, have available WTT's to
show the other days of the week. The information about the 0-8-0's could only have been gleaned from articles written,
the same about the P1's, but it does strike me as interesting that I have not found any comments anywhere about
the Gresley 01's taking the 80 wagon trains to Ferme Park being too long. Interesting methinks.

Paul

[S.A.C. Martin]

I must confess Mr Martin I struggle with your apparent naivety about the real world.

Publishing is about making Money, no more no less, and whilst niche publishers might well start out wishing to producing
a specific book that interested him, basically how accurate a book depends on the needs for it to be profitable.
If you don't believe me, take note of a recently published book "Colonisation a Moral Reckoning by Nigel Biggar.
it was commissioned by a major publishing house, yet when it was presented, because it did not meet the modern
perspective of the evil British empire. It was rejected, but the author was allowed to keep his manuscript and
get it published elsewhere. For those who are not sure about how evil Britain was, I commend it as a good and
valuable historical book.

Having access to all relevant information is no protection against using ones own "unconscious bias" actually coming to
the fore, in your case your almost fanatical pursuit of cleansing Thompson's reputation. It shows in some of the things
you chose to ignore to put your case more forcefully. Like the fact that a Scottish traffic manager hated the Gresley
P2's and refused to use them in traffic for many months at a time, adversely affecting their mileages. A similar thing
had happened early in LNER times with the Ivatt D1's which spent much time in storage rather than use. Nothing that
Doncaster/Kings Cross said changed either thing.

The only area where proper historical research is likely to follow the path you suggest is treatises for degrees, not
for publications sold to the general public. Just because you can access works record cards, does not mean that
you are qualified in any way to extrapolate engineering information of a subject you have no practical knowledge of.

Final thought I quoted Winston Churchill about who writes history, and he was certainly a more successful author than
you might ever be.

This all started because some one asked about Brick trains! We know that by 1935, at least 5 brick trains were running
from Peterborough to London 4 days a week, and possibly 7, but we don't to our knowledge, have available WTT's to
show the other days of the week. The information about the 0-8-0's could only have been gleaned from articles written,
the same about the P1's, but it does strike me as interesting that I have not found any comments anywhere about
the Gresley 01's taking the 80 wagon trains to Ferme Park being too long. Interesting methinks.

Paul

What an extraordinarily acerbic post.

[richard]

<moderatorial cough>

Paul: Clearly Simon and yourself are not going to agree about Thompson, but there is no need for personal attacks.

[S.A.C. Martin]

I have slept on it overnight, and I feel I must respond as John Coffin/Paul’s comments are potentially defamatory, with my apologies Richard (but thank you for intervening last night).

Having access to all relevant information is no protection against using ones own "unconscious bias" actually coming to
the fore, in your case your almost fanatical pursuit of cleansing Thompson's reputation. It shows in some of the things
you chose to ignore to put your case more forcefully.

Thompson was my specialist interest. I have written a book on him. Writers who specialise in a subject matter will discuss their specialist subject. You describe it as fanatical as you do not agree with my views, and would prefer to respond in personal attacks than with anything concrete to refute my views. This is a repeated theme with you personally.

You are welcome to disagree with me: I do not care for your descriptions of me. Play the ball, not the man, as they say.

Like the fact that a Scottish traffic manager hated the Gresley
P2's and refused to use them in traffic for many months at a time, adversely affecting their mileages.

If you have a new source of information I have not seen, you are welcome to share it and I will happily consider it. Writers have to make editorial decisions on the evidence they have to hand. The story you describe above is unfamiliar to me.

However it is unlikely to change my views, given the mileages and availability of the P2s over their working life.

The only area where proper historical research is likely to follow the path you suggest is treatises for degrees, not
for publications sold to the general public. Just because you can access works record cards, does not mean that
you are qualified in any way to extrapolate engineering information of a subject you have no practical knowledge of.

Paul, you are well aware it was far, far more than works records cards, and with respect my work stands on its own merit, with a large number of reviews on it commenting on the amount of primary evidence provided (including the use of engine power document, board minutes given verbatim, letters and more).

Arguing that publications intended for the public shouldn’t follow academic standards is an interesting take. Who are you to make that judgement for everyone else?

On the subject of whether I am qualified to write on these matters: I am a qualified railway engineer, having undertaken a five year apprenticeship with Network Rail. I have qualifications to HNC and NVQ standards. I have been working in signalling design, track, maintenance, rolling stock and I am now an asset engineer in my own right.

I am also finalising my EngTech registration as we speak, to become a member of the IET (MIET).

I specialise in integrating railway systems, mostly signalling based, and I am looking to take these qualifications further.

My LinkedIn profile gives more details on the rest of my background, but given it involves ten years of research on LNER matters for my (now two) books, an English degree, five and half years practical experience with Network Rail, and the same with the MNLPS (helping with the administration and engineering behind Clan Line), I think I could argue quite successfully that your comment above is defamatory.

Perhaps you would care to retract your statement on my qualifications before this potentially gets more serious?

Final thought I quoted Winston Churchill about who writes history, and he was certainly a more successful author than
you might ever be.

This comment is the one which initially caused the most harm, but looking back this morning I see that it is acerbic and born out of nothing more than to be nasty. It’s a fact of life now that people on the internet who generally hide behind pseudonyms feel emboldened to attack those who they disagree with.

You have, like everyone else on this planet, the right to disagree with other people’s views. However, I also have the right to defend myself from public attacks on my credibility and livelihood.

[mick b]

Read Richards comment again.

Move on please.

[S.A.C. Martin]

Read Richards comment again.

Move on please.

Morning Mick. You might feel differently if you had been on the receiving end of the comments.

Very easy to say "move on" when you've not been targeted like that, with respect.

Best wishes

Simon

[mick b]

Simon,
As already said pointless comments. You need a thick skin on forums !!