Edward Thompson. Good or Bad

[S.A.C. Martin]

I've had a few emails this week on the book from members of this forum, and just wanted to say a public thank you for your kind words and support.

I just want to reiterate that if you send me a PM, I will provide the datasheet which forms the basis of the graphical analysis in the appendices.

The datasheet is a verbatim copy, in excel form, of the original LNER statistics and has been peer reviewed by a large group of statisticians, other historians, editors and my publisher.

I haven't as yet seen any published reviews of the book, but am keeping an open mind at this time.

[Pebbles]

Just read The LNER Society review.

[Dave]

So have I, a most informative and interesting review, confirmed my opinion of what has been said on here.

[Pebbles]

Am I to take it that there are no other "The LNER Society" members on this Forum who would wish to comment?

[jwealleans]

No. More than enough has already been said.

[S.A.C. Martin]

Where can we find a copy of the review?

I would be most interested to see it.

[Pebbles]

Where can we find a copy of the review?

I would be most interested to see it.

I really have little idea how this system works, however should you wish to try to obtain a copy of the review - which was for members - I would suggest that you contact " The LNER Society". I should add that other members of the "Society" also use this website and may be able to assist.

[S.A.C. Martin]

I did. My publisher and I provided the review copy.

[S.A.C. Martin]

It's always interesting to read the reviews, and having had one from Hornby Magazine this month, I now have a copy of the LNER review too.

Rupert Brown, the chairman, reviewed it. He sums my book up as:

In summary, what started out as a worthy attempt to apply modern analytical methods and typesetting has failed to provide a truly objective statistical comparison and convincing revisionist viewpoint and instead at times it borders on obsessive.

C'est la vie!

I have made notes from reading the whole of his review, and will make some alterations going forward. However, I do feel strongly that it is rather telling that the review is very, very general in its appraisal and with no attempt made to state the additional primary evidence in a meaningful way (the "excel spreadsheet" is based on the LNER's original database and has thousands of individual entries, spanning the full six years of the war and every single locomotive class' work).

In short, I am not surprised by Rupert's review. I am not surprised - but I am disappointed by the dismissal of much of the actual primary evidence (which he skips over).

There is one thing to mention - I did indeed use RCTS - somewhere in the editing stage the bibliography omitted them. I will make sure they are reinstated for the next edition.

[S.A.C. Martin]

So have I, a most informative and interesting review, confirmed my opinion of what has been said on here.

Have you read the book Dave, out of interest?

Just read The LNER Society review.

I would be interested to know if you have read the book, and if you agree with his statements.

No. More than enough has already been said.

Have you read the book Jonathon, out of interest?

The Hornby Magazine review absolutely nailed what I was going for and acknowledged the new primary evidence that has come to light throughout the research. Rupert has not mentioned the board minutes, the full copy of the Cox Report, the additional data sets or many of the other new pieces of primary evidence that have been presented throughout, including a (never previously published outside of the LNER's PR) report on the Thompson L1 prototype.

I understand the omission of mentioning the RCTS books is a faux pas on my part. I can only apologise for that - they should indeed have been included within the bibliography and appear to have been cut accidentally when we were formatting the book. But that is a small point against what has been a decade long study, for which its aims and its outcome do not look to have been fully appreciated.

[jwealleans]

Have you read the book Jonathan, out of interest?

I haven't and am unlikely to - it's outside my era of interest. I'm equally unlikely to read the other recent book on the same subject. My comment was aimed at the sterile and circular debate on this and other internet forums where the same entrenched points of view are regurgitated ad nauseam and at excessive length.

You might like to speak to Amazon about their entry for it: A completely new selection of high quality photographs chosen to compliment all of the previous volumes detailing the Southern Region's fleet of EMUs didn't seem to me to suggest the same volume that Rupert reviewed.

[S.A.C. Martin]

Have you read the book Jonathan, out of interest?

I haven't and am unlikely to - it's outside my era of interest. I'm equally unlikely to read the other recent book on the same subject. My comment was aimed at the sterile and circular debate on this and other internet forums where the same entrenched points of view are regurgitated ad nauseam and at excessive length.

Begs the question why you commented on the thread Jonathon?

You might like to speak to Amazon about their entry for it: A completely new selection of high quality photographs chosen to compliment all of the previous volumes detailing the Southern Region's fleet of EMUs didn't seem to me to suggest the same volume that Rupert reviewed.

Hi Jonathon. Was that necessary? I am not responsible for Amazon. An error in the description is one of those things.

I have tried to be polite in all my communication to date with the LNER Society and I cannot help but feel the approach of the society and its members to be at odds with its claimed main aims with regards LNER history.

[Pebbles]

[

Just read The LNER Society review.

I would be interested to know if you have read the book, and if you agree with his statements.

As is the case with many publication, I have not read "the book"; I merely reported that a review had been written. If you are pressing me I would add that looking back over many years, you have presented your views on numerous occasions. Hopefully with the publication of "the book", there will be no cause for further debate here. To sum up, your case and conclusions have been published and perhaps it is time to allow your work to speak for you.

[65447]

It's always interesting to read the reviews, and having had one from Hornby Magazine this month, I now have a copy of the LNER review too.

Rupert Bix, the chairman, reviewed it. He sums my book up as:

There is one thing to mention - I did indeed use RCTS - somewhere in the editing stage the bibliography omitted them. I will make sure they are reinstated for the next edition.

1. His name is Rupert Brown, not Bix. It is a great pity that Malcolm Crawley is not still with us; his views would have been most insightful, although I have a very shrewd idea what they would be.

2. Are you certain there will be a next edition?

[jwealleans]

Was that necessary? I am not responsible for Amazon. An error in the description is one of those things.

It was intended to be helpful. Please accept my apologies for what was intended as a positive gesture. In the spirit of not prolonging the debate any further, I shall withdraw.