I didn't rearrange or edit your posting; I trimmed it, as we're encouraged to
do in these forums.
However, now that you point out what you meant, I concede that I didn't read it
the way that you intended and I apologize for that.
Derek Boles
--- In cpsig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Steve Lucas" <stevelucas3@...> wrote:
Derek--
You edit my post #17444 to make it read as if I wrote that Stevens' work is
completely worthless? Take several paragraphs from this post and turn them
into unrelated "sound bites"? The first paragraph that you use is in which
the only "online author" I cite is solely with regard to a history of Beach's
pneumatic subway in New York City. The "50-year-old book" that I refer to is
a history of underground services in New York City, and is cited by the
online author, again referring to Beach's subway. Not Steven's work. Until
your editing made them look like I was trashing Stevens.
The second paragraph that you cite is with regard to G.R. Steven's work. The
third is a conclusion on using published works overall. Your editing out the
paragraphs preceding these three in my post has created a "straw man".
I have enjoyed your posts and your prose, but I am at a loss to understand
why you would do this.
As for the Champlain and St. Lawrence, the best historical work that I have
found is "1836-1986 A Tribute To Canada's First Railway On Its
Sesquicentennial", published by the Canadian Railroad Historical Association
in 1986. In this book, noted rail historian Fred F. Angus refutes many
published errors about this road, including its track gauge. I don't feel
any need to trash Mr. Angus.
Nor Mr. Stevens. In fact, I have both of Stevens' books, and find them a
very useful source of info. Finances, operating ratios and politics--no
problem with Stevens' works. But citing the Champlain and St. Lawrence's
track gauge as 5'-6" "Provincial Gauge"?
Funny that you should mention the recent VIA Rail derailment. Another list
has published a rendering of the derailment of VIA Rail train 92 at
Aldershot. The author of this diagram is a rail consultant. He cites a
speed restriction of 15 MPH in the diagram for train 92 which could not
exist, and signal indications not yet made public, if in fact those were even
the signal indications that train 92 encountered. A well-presented diagram
that will surely be part of the permanent record to some. I can see it being
printed and cited in future. After all, it's "contemporary". And also wrong.
This is how major historical errors are made and perpetuated.
I'll cite the last sentence of Mr. Angus' article "Setting the Record
Straight" from this book, which serves as a caution to those who record rail
history--
"It is up to rail historians to see that these old, incorrect 'facts' are
laid to rest so that Canadians will have a more accurate appreciation of what
our first railway was actually like."
To which I might add that Mr. Angus' advice applies "mutatis mutandis" (with
the necessary changes made) to all historical records. If a historian cites
the Chicago Tribune of 3 November, 1948, they have justification for writing
that Thomas Dewey defeated Harry Truman in the US presidential election.
Steve Lucas.
--- In cpsig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "trhahistorian" <derekboles@> wrote:
So you're going to trash Stevens' landmark work because of that and declare
it completely worthless? Where else do you plan on getting the bulletproof
facts that you want about the first 75 years of CNR history? Are you
actually going to do some primary research other than quote some online
author (without attribution) who pointed it out? What has he published and
what are his qualifications? How do you know the track gauge is wrong and
how do you know that?
I'm not arguing with your interpretation of the facts but these are just
some of the questions you need to answer before you take it upon yourself
to pontificate on a Yahoo list and denigrate a respected historical work
written by a deceased author with unprecedented access to CNR archives.
The assertion made in another email that oral history is more to be relied
upon is fine and dandy if what you're writing about happened after 1960.
Otherwise I guess you're just plumb out of luck. I've interviewed a number
of people "who were there," many of them elderly, and some of their
assertions often contradict photographic evidence.
Of course written histories contain errors. Few of us would argue that
there was anyone more qualified to write the book "Canadian Pacific Steam
Locomotives" than Omer Lavallee. And yes, there were a few pages of errors
that were generated after the book came out. I don't know how he felt about
them, but I know that I welcome corrections to my own pieces and I consider
them an ongoing addition to the historical narrative.
There are those of us who actually write history for publication, and I
acknowledge that there are others of you on this list who do as well, and
have contributed to this thread.
We do what we can with the information we have available in order to create
a permanent record that future researchers will be able to refer to. No one
gets paid for writing railway history in Canada except maybe a handful of
authors who have made writing a full time occupation. In fact, most of us
spend a lot of our own money researching these books and articles that we
will never get back.
I understand that some are annoyed about the media's handling of the VIA
Rail tragedy but I don't buy how that thread morphed into a trashing of
respected railway historians.
Derek Boles
--- In cpsig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Steve Lucas" <stevelucas3@> wrote:
This book is now over 50 years old; it should be a good source, right?
Wrong, and the author of this online piece tells us why.
G.R.Stevens' two volumes on CN's history were published in 1960 and 1962,
and contain a reference to the Champlain and St. Lawrence having a track
gauge of 5'-6". Which was introduced in the 1850's, certainly after the
opening date of the C&StL or 1836.
Caution is warranted when citing "facts" for the historical record.
Steve Lucas.
