Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

There is a comment somewhere comparing the 2- and 3-cylinder Maunsell moguls. During the 1950's, some of the 2-cylinder engines required new front end frames whereas the 3-cylinder ones didn't, reasons given being the greater piston thrust of the 2-cylinder engines and the rigidity of the 3-cylinder front end with the cylinder blocks solidly bolted together. Which was the greater effect isn't stated...

 

It would seem he frequently does.

 

Your recent posts on this thread do you no favours. I feel sorry for you if this is the best you have to offer.

Andy

 

From someone who started on the road towards becoming a professional historian, serious historians do write much longer books on much narrower topics; few get to write the wide ranging popular histories.

Regardless of the ultimate quality of Simon's work and accuracy of his conclusions (I'm hoping Santa will provide so that I can judge...), his approach and workmanship as demonstrated here are absolutely a demonstration of serious historical method and endeavour.

There is a lot of railway writing on mine and I suspect others' shelves that falls well short of being of serious historical merit.

 

And once again a full scale slanging match kicks off.

 

Nor any of us. But I have respect for the endeavour and analysis even where I may disagree with the conclusions.

And as for qualifications, some of my best university courses were taught be people who were not "qualified historians", having entered academia without the now mandatory PhD.

 

It wouldn't be required if the moderator in question either engaged constructively or stopped the personal, snide commentary.

From my end it is absolutely wearying and, I can see if I did not have the strength of character (as I am quite used to this where the subject of Thompson is concerned) it could do others not used to it a lot of damage to their mental health.

I find it extraordinary that Ralph feels it necessary.

Nobody called you woke. You started this with your own posts aimed at me. If you didn't feel the need to personally attack me every so often, we wouldn't have these frankly ridiculous public spats. Which I am deeply unhappy about, and don't wish to have, but at the same time I will not be bullied by anyone.

I will, once again, ask you kindly and directly to cease doing this, or I will have to appeal to the rest of the moderators to step in: as it is now going too far, and I have tolerated this for far too long on this forum.

 

I can't speak for others but to me a serious historian:

i) Makes use of primary source material including material that has not been used before.
ii) Draws critically upon a wide range pre-existing secondary literature
iii) In analysing the material they do not play fast and loose with the material ie misrepresent evidence, selectively quote
iv) synthesizes that material into a new analysis that moves the interpretation of the object under discussion forward - ie doesn't just rehash old material.

You don't need to be a Professor to do this, nor do you need to re-write the history of everything with broad brush strokes . Indeed, there are some academics who I do not consider to be serious academics precisely because they play fast and loose or because they just rehash the same old stuff. Plenty of serious historians work at as 'narrow' micro level as understanding changes in a single farm, factory, village or town.

I think it is fairly clear from this thread that @S.A.C. Martin is a serious historian.

 

The first thing which occurs is that higher degrees are predicated on peer review. There have been cases, in various fields, where individuals without benefit of 'the accepted route' have produced work, which once noticed and subjected to academic review, has quite properly resulted in the award of a higher degree.

Secondly, be it noted that it's precisely that very recognised academic route was what produced that historical contortionist and fawning apologist for the worst excesses of royalty through the ages, David Starkey.

Be it also known that the late John Julius Cooper, 2nd Viscount Norwich, who amongst much other work, produced what's widely regarded as a seminal (and if you'll excuse a personal view, very readable) history of the Byzantine Empire only ever claimed the status of 'writer'.

Consider some of the best known history scribes within our collective field of insanity:
J.I.C Boyd (Textiles)
C Hamilton Ellis (Artist)
O.S Nock (Engineer)
L.T.C Rolt (Engineer)

I'm tempted to add the best known 'railway writer' of 'em all .... Rev.Wilbert Awdry (Clergyman - thin!), as IMO, that gentleman has been single-handedly responsible for the genesis of more generations of railway enthusiasts than all other writers combined!

Others (Hello @35B) will doubtless recognise the quote "By their fruits shall you know them". It's been around for a while now.

 

I think that at least one of those listed may not be considered by many on here to be a "serious" historian. And, thinking of one notable doctorate was issued outside the "accepted route", I think the late Col. Cobb would have considered himself not a historian but a cartographer.

 

In point of fact, within my OP, only Starkey does claim to be an historian. I suspect your 'at least one' refers to Rev.Awdry. Whilst he never claimed any historic accuracy for his 'Railway Series', within those pages, real life incidents abound (as did much correct operating procedure, a point lost on the corporate behemoth now wantonly shredding his legacy*). It was Sir Handel's run-in with a road roller which led teenage me to the long lost NG lines of Co.Cork.

I was tempted to include H.C Casserley on my list. If a picture does indeed paint a thousand word, what a superb, often unique historic archive that gentleman left to us.

*Apologies for the mini-rant there!

 

For clarity, my accusation of non-seriousness was aimed at Nock.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

There have been plenty of bitter things said about Boyd in the narrow gauge world I fear.

 

I have seen some cheap shots at James Boyd over the years and undermining of his work by implication which suggests he managed to upset someone who made it their business to insidiously snipe at his reputation.

It is worth bearing in mind that he was involved actively in the Talyllyn and the Festiniog at the start. He also explored narrow gauge systems across the country and Ireland before preservation was thought of and many of the photographs used in his books were taken by him and the plans and diagrams were often based on his ground work research and redrawn by a close friend. He also left interesting cine film which has been used in DVD's.

His work was mainly published by Oakwood and grew in size and extent. They were far in advance of what other publishers would produce for such minor lines at the time and he used primary sources. He was keen to include as much as he could because he thought he may be leaving what could possibly be the final word.

The following are a far more balanced view of his life and work:

https://www.festipedia.org.uk/wiki/James_Boyd

https://www.steamindex.com/library/boyd.htm

 

His teacher at school was W.H. Auden according to Festipedia. That is a fascinating link. Auden being responsible for The Night Mail, of course.

 

Boyd was an engaging interesting writer. Something that is often lacking in railway books. His works no doubt sowed the seeds for the preservation movement in Wales.

He was however a dreadful historian.
His books are unfortunately full of nonsense portrayed as fact without any source. He had access to a wealth of information, some of which has now disappeared because he took it and didn't look after it. It can be really frustrating because sometimes his writing has an element of fact that he failed to interpret correctly, and sometimes we have no clue where he got an idea from.

No history book is 100% accurate. The issue is that a generation of railway enthusiasts thought his work on the Festiniog for example was some sort of bible. This has lead to immense frustration amongst those trying to reaserch the history of the railway. Something that writing about Edward Thompson and the Festiniog seem to have in common.

Tim

 

The thing I have noticed most about O.S. Nock - which was particularly infuriating when I was doing my Thompson research - is that I found he contradicted himself throughout the body of his work on multiple occasions. The meeting he had with Thompson, for instance, he goes into in greater detail, that is more sympathetic to Thompson, earlier in his body of works and by the end of his writing career it is far more dismissive.

Some could say that O.S. Nock has had a hand in denigrating Thompson unnecessarily over the years. Many of the claims he made about Thompson's locomotives in later books are directly contradicted by his earlier books, written at the time those locomotives were actually running.

I am not familiar with the works of James Boyd but his reputation precedes him.