Note on the Dugald Drummond post

I have today deleted one post from Turnip Rail because, well, I don't agree with it. The post, written in 2010, was on the topic of the London and South Western Railway's Locomotive Superintendent between 1895 and 1911, Dugald Drummond. In the post I criticised him for his poor management of the company's Locomotive Department. As is the way with historical study, in mid-2012 I changed my views based on evidence. Since that time I have  modified and refined them considerably as research progressed and have ended up both praising and criticising Drummond in my thesis.

Over the years I have had numerous communications on the post with interested individuals and each time I have had to explain how my views have changed. Today, when I received another message, I just decided to delete the post (and I apologise to the individual who posted the comment). It was becoming very repetitive to keep communicating on this topic when the post did not reflect my views.

In due course I will write a post on what I actually think of Dugald Drummond.

Looking forward to 2012 with Turniprail (and a thanks to all)

I thought that I would use this first post of the year to lay out some personal goals for the blog, my research and myself over the coming twelve months. I really hope that all come true, but I doubt it.

PhD: I am actually in the last stretch of my PhD and I have to submit the thing by October. However, my academic task in the next few months is to take the eight chapters I have crafted over the last five and a quarter years and turn them into a coherent piece of work that can be submitted in draft form to my supervisor.  Theoretically, this should be easy, as in my head my thesis, which is on the management of the London and South Western Railway between 1870 and 1910, is pretty complete. The reality is that a lot of work needs to be done, especially to brush up on a bit of background reading. But I’ll get there, I have no doubt.

Blog: I have to warn you, given that these are the last ten months of my PhD, my blog may suffer due to a diminished number of updates. Already, the frequency of my posts has dropped to one a week and it is quite possible that as October nears I may need to reduce this further.

This said, I am committed to the blog and will hope to do some original research for it at points (naturally I may gush forth after October with a plethora of posts because of the freedom I will have). More importantly though, while I have made some wonderful friends through it, and hope to make more, it entertains many who read it and also helps my ultimate career goals (see below).

I don’t think the topics of my posts will change much. I am still interested in railway management, even though I may be sick to death of it by October. My continuing interest in Railwaywomen will feature, not just because I have already written a post on this topic for the future, but because I find it a fascinating area to study with new revelations coming forth every time do more work on the subject. I will also want to look at a bit more at the railways before 1870, as this area of railway history has received little investigation. Ultimately, however, all of Victorian railway history is still fair game for blogging about, and I hope to choose varied and interesting subjects to post on throughout the year.

Work:  As I have mentioned elsewhere, I work in a public library part-time to fund my PhD. Unfortunately, like all who work in libraries, I possibly may loose my job by March. Therefore, it should not surprise anyone that one of my hopes for 2012 is that this doesn't happen. Yet, given this has been a possibility for some while, and to avoid not having the finance to fund my PhD, I have already paid off my university fees.

Nevertheless, one interesting thought has crossed my mind. If I am made redundant I’ll be able to finish my PhD early given the free time. Clearly that would not be in any way ideal, firstly, because this is not the way I hoped my career would progress (see below), but also because I genuinely love helping people at the library.

Career: I suppose I had it in my head that in this year my career would begin – whatever would be. I’ve had two main ideas since my PhD commenced; the first to be academic, the second to be a journalist and freelance writer. The former is an option. However throughout my PhD I have not done any teaching (and therefore have had time to write the blog). I would be very willing to teach if it was to lead me to better things, but I have never been over-keen on the idea. I dunno, maybe I’d love it when I get there. Furthermore, I have always considered that there may be an opportunity to get an research grant to do a project, perhaps on the early railways, so I may look into that as an option.

However, I think I am more interested in becoming the journalist and freelance writer (while keeping firmly in touch with academic developments). Firstly, given the cuts, I am not sure that positions in the academic world will be flowing as easily as they did in years past, especially for an early career historian. But secondly, I so enjoy writing my blog and would love to do something similar for some money (don’t worry, I love writing my blog so much that that will always remain). Originally, before the crisis hit, my idea was that I was going to keep the part time job in the library while building up my profile as a writer. Then, when I was getting enough regular work to sustain me, I would reconsider my position at the library. However, if I do lose my job, parts of this plan may have to be advanced. Nevertheless, whatever happens, I suspect I will be on that career road before the end of the year.

Love: I am sure I will secure the love of many new friends in 2012 whatever happens, as that is what occurred in 2011. Indeed, one of the joys of 2011 has been that I have met so many good, kind, supportive and loving people.

Indeed, I want to wish everyone a happy and productive 2012. I love writing my blog for such wonderful, supportive, generous and friendly readers and Twitter followers. I am always buoyed by your positive comments, your support for my work and your friendship. I cannot begin to thank you all enough.  You are all so lovely.

And now for some blog stats from 2011:

Most visits on one day: 24 December – 284

Lowest number of visits on one day: 22 April – 12

Week with most visits: w/b 18 December - 576

Month with the most visits: December – 1,783

Total visits: 13,201 (Average - 36.17/day)

Unique visits: 9,651 (Average – 26.44/day)

Page views: 21,399 (Average – 58.63/day)

Pages per visit: 1.62

Average time on the site: 1 minute 13 seconds

Repeating 'facts' Frequently does not make them 'History' - Potential Errors in Railway Historical Writing

Anyone who has ever read my post footnotes will not have failed to notice that in the course of writing them that there are some books that I use regularly, for example the Oxford Encyclopaedia of British Railway History. This is principally as I don’t have the time to research every subject that I write about. Yet, when writing posts I will always attempt to find in 19^th century newspapers and journals, which are increasingly available on-line, to add some contemporaneous commentary on the different subjects. I also, if possible try and find some academic research or use some of my own work if relevant. This is because I have a very real concern about the books I use to write my blog.

Railway literature can be split into three different categories. Firstly, there are the ‘books with pictures,’ which have very little detail and simply exist for the pure pleasure of looking at the photographs of trains. Secondly, there are narrative histories, which may focus on a particular line, company or locomotive designer. Indeed, R.A. Williams’ three part history of the London and South Western Railway simply recounts what happened, when it happened. There isn’t any reference to the railway’s political, social, cultural or technical environment, nor is there detailed analysis. Personally, for me, these narrative histories are exceedingly dull.

Lastly, and leaving aside academic work that is done, there are the analytical railway histories for the general reader. Recently, we have seen Christian Wolmar write a number of books of this ilk, notably Fire and Steam. However, Christian follows in a fine tradition of individuals who have written about railways in a way whereby anyone who was interested in history, rather than railways, can enjoy the topic. Indeed, the most notable author was the late, great, Jack Simmons. However, I do sometimes have to ask questions of the facts found in this class of authors’ texts.

One of the accepted facts of the early British railway history was that military men dominated the management of the railway companies. This is a 'truth' that has been reprinted again and again, and those analytical histories of the railways have, presumably because the authors used earlier books, repeated it very frequently. Yet, this accepted fact is simply not true. In four blog posts in April (Found here, here, here and here) I showed by using three directories of railway officials from 1841, 1847 and 1848 that less than 4% of early railway managers had military titles. Thus, the supposed truth, so frequently repeated, was destroyed.

But naturally, this got me thinking. In my blog posts I frequently use facts that I see repeated in more than one railway history book. But what if those facts’ have only become accepted because they have been repeatedly regurgitated in the railway historiography?

For example, recently I found the origin of one highly repeated fact (the details which escape me now) in a Victorian history of the railway industry. Yet, the Victorian book itself was far from academic, was more anecdotal than those that had used its information and on other areas of detail I found it simply to be wrong. Furthermore, the opinions, books and letters of authors, for example Dickens and Trollope, have been used many times to describe aspects of railway travel. Indeed, I myself have used these author’s opinions before. But surely these authors had higher standards than the average traveller and this was reflected in their opinions. (Note: If I have to use Mugby Junction one more time I may scream).

Indeed, it has become clear to me that Dickens harboured resentment for station refreshment rooms after having had a bad experience in the 1850s. Now, that isn’t to say there were not bad refreshment rooms, but the narrative on the subject has been shaped by his, and others,’ negative opinions of them. However, no one asks about the good refreshment rooms. Neither do the query the fact that most criticisms of them comes from before 1870, with little being found after this date. Why doesn’t that fact ever get a mention?

Overall, my point is that in the railway literature there are facts which, despite being false, have been regurgitated so often that they have become established as ‘truth’ because no one has questioned them. For this reason, individuals writing railway history articles or books must be careful when repeating things found in other books. Indeed, until more serious and in-depth research has been done on the 19^th century railway, the validity of many established 'facts' will simply not be known.