(Australian Railway Historical Society Bulletins, April and May 2003)

This note by John Knowles is about letters by Rod Milne in the Australian Railway Historical Society Bulletin in 2003, one in the April and two in the May numbers. An earlier version of these comments was submitted to the editor of the Bulletin (now Australian Railway History) in August 2003, but the editor has not published it. He has not said why.

The subjects of these letters are the Dayboro’ branch, comments by Graham Bailey and me about Rod Milne’s article and subsequent letters on that line, and how Rod Milne has been treated by the critics of his original article and letters.

The 2003 letters are misleading and self-seeking and must be replied to. Almost no history emerges. They are rhetoric by Rod Milne to disguise or excuse his errors. He argues by creating diversions, making misleading claims, attacking his critics and their methods, creating heat and playing the victim. Some of his arguments are meaningless and desperate.

I have corrected or attempted to correct a lot of material in articles written by Rod Milne. I have also drawn attention to significant omissions in those articles, within the parameters set by the titles of or preambles to his articles. I do and have done this because the errors and omissions have been substantial. A lot of errors and omissions in more recent articles remain to be corrected.

Rod Milne tackles potentially interesting subjects. His enthusiasm and energy are considerable. He has uncovered some interesting things, new to me, such as the temporary outdepot at Wallaville which operated for some of the years the QR operated there, and the coal mine near Calen. I have been sympathetic to the difficulties of uncovering the full history of his subjects. Despite that, I have been uneasy about the lack of information about his sources, and the casualness of many remarks (eg lack of clarity about the date or period, impreciseness of terms). All too often, however, I know some of what he has written to be wrong or incomplete, and incomplete in terms of readily available sources.

In his point 6, Rod Milne complains about the manner in which I have drawn attention to the errors and omissions. (I think he is complaining about the manner more than the style). He also says that my style is intended to show that he is an unreliable author. That is not surprising. I do consider him to be an unreliable author. He also says that the styles of his critics are derisive, meaning that by the manner of their writing, his critics indicate that his writings are worthy of derision. I certainly think that many of his arguments and attempts to justify himself after being criticised are so silly that any reasonable comment on them will turn out to be what he calls derisive (see especially the matters of double trips to Yugar and how heavy was the traffic on the Dayboro’ line below). I also think that he is a misleading and self-seeking debater.

In the August 2002 Bulletin I said that I appreciated Graham Bailey’s two letters about Rod Milne’s original article on the Dayboro’ line, saying that Graham has compiled very detailed records about everything to do with that branch. Rod Milne has responded to this by saying (p 149) that in one of my letters on the Dayboro’ line, I have anointed Graham as my preferred "expert" on that line, but that act does not make Graham’s contentions about Yugar and Camp Mountain correct. He then goes on to say that I did this because I want readers to believe Graham’s contrary views as somehow more authoritative than his. I do not know of experts being anointed, and would not want to do it myself, but I certainly believe that Graham Bailey is a reliable and thorough historian on the Dayboro’ branch and that Rod Milne is not.

Rod Milne says that he is troubled by the continuing assertions that traffic on the line was light, a simplistic overview if ever there was one, he says. There were periods of busy traffic, even in the last years of the line when sand was railed out of Armstrong Creek. The line served various adjacent districts not immediately along it. We are reminded that livestock tonnages are not given in the Commissioners’ Reports, then told that revenue tonnage was not reflected in the size of the trains, and about the wagons being empty and badly underloaded. Reference is made to traffic, including occasional fluctuations in traffic and special trains, on other light traffic QR branches, Crows Nest, Ridgelands, Canungra, Beaudesert, Mt Edwards, Tarong, Cecil Plains and Windera. Then it is asserted that Dayboro’ was a moderately trafficked line, there being busier branch lines but many less busy. There was also Departmental traffic in water, sleepers, rails, ballast, firewood and sand, not given in Commissioners’ Reports. Readers are told that train crews would not agree with me about how busy the line was (they would be "horrified" at my views).

None of these points prove the line was busy, indeed they say nothing at all about volume of traffic in and out, the number of trains, the number of wagons handled, or even when there were upwards fluctuations in traffic. It is all bluster. That traffic was not light is simply asserted, and those not agreeing are disparaged. Not one figure is given, absolute or comparative. The arguments employed defy reason. Having to include departmental traffic in sleepers, rails, ballast and firewood to make the line seem busy is almost certain proof that it was not. Empty and poorly loaded wagons were common on QR goods trains in the days when it was a common carrier, even on main lines. If they were more common on the Dayboro’ line than elsewhere, that is a good indication the traffic was light, ie there was insufficient traffic to reasonably fill the wagons which had to be used to convey the traffic that there was. While underloaded wagons meant the number of wagons was high in relation to the traffic, that does not make the line busy. The one traffic which moved in any volume, timber, loaded wagons well.

On livestock, the Commissioners’ Reports give the numbers of outwards livestock by animal type, and on the Dayboro’ line, the numbers were never great, wherever the animals came from, along the line or from farther afield. The numbers could be easily converted to tons, and that was done regularly in arriving at train loads, and in obtaining the total traffic in tons conveyed on the system, so the point about there being no figures for tons of livestock outwards is of no substance. But Rod Milne then says "it is not unreasonable to expect a counter traffic flow, which was normally the case on lines with stock traffic". This is an argument of desperation. The vast majority of livestock moved from the areas where it was bred to the areas in which it was killed for consumption or export. Such counter flow as existed was mostly livestock moving to the breeding areas for restocking after drought (if available). Some livestock moved from drought stricken breeding areas first to less badly affected areas (where available) to improve its value before further movement to abattoirs. (Often the properties less badly affected by drought were occupied to the limit of the fodder available thereon by stock bred there.) Inwards movement of males for breeding in the days before artificial insemination was insignificant in tonnage terms. On any line with outwards traffic in livestock, the counter flow did not occur in most years and over the years, the volume was small.

Further, the Reports also give the tonnage of goods inward and total revenue inwards for goods and livestock together. On the Dayboro’ line, that revenue was so modest that there cannot have been much after the items for which the tonnage is given, general merchandise and (especially) timber, which Rod Milne informs us was an important traffic into Dayboro’. In other words, livestock traffic was of no consequence on the line. The nearby places Rod Milne mentions as significant cattle-raising areas obviously did not use the Dayboro’ railway. When the Commissioner reported on the economics of the whole branch (Mayne Junction to Dayboro’) in 1938-39, the only goods traffic he considered worth mentioning specifically was timber from the terminus, and that was only 5580 tons for the year.

Whatever upwards fluctuations there were in the volume of traffic, they were balanced in arriving at annual totals by lower than average volume for most of the year, or by downwards fluctuations. Rod Milne does not say how busy the upwards fluctuations were. The types of goods conveyed were not of the types subject to seasonal peaks. Overall the traffic was so light, however, that even if all the annual goods traffic in any year the line was open moved in one season, say three months, the line would still not have been busy, as a railway, for those months.

The other branches, all light traffic, are irrelevant in establishing how busy was the Dayboro’ line. The QR had a lot of light traffic lines in the thirties, forties and fifties. Dayboro’ was definitely one of them.

He calls the views of train crews in aid about how busy the line was. He does not know their views. Even if the trains had been hard to work, the difficulty of working them does not make the line busy. That depends on the number of the trains.

Trying to make it appear that working a train on the branch was a difficult proposition falls flat as an argument too. Working goods trains to and from Dayboro’ was not especially difficult. There were indeed steep gradients on the line, but the climbs were not very long and those which determined the loads even shorter. Most height gained outbound was subsequently lost en route (Dayboro’ was only 160 feet higher than Mayne where the goods trains started, 28 miles away) and in the round trip, all height gained was lost. A shift on the goods train out and return was a trip of only 56 miles taking seven hours. Even with a full load both ways, a shift of a return trip to Dayboro’ on any class of engine would have been a comparatively easy one for enginemen, and in terms of shunting and dealing with roadside traffic at intermediate sidings, there were harder shifts for guards. In addition, as is inevitable on lines where traffic is detached outbound and attached inbound, a full load from Mayne usually became less than a full load by Dayboro’ and vice versa.

Graham Bailey summarised the public traffic on the line in his letters in the June 2000 and October 2001 Bulletins. He also dealt with the QR departmental traffic in the December 2002 Bulletin, with the exception of the volume of sand from Armstrong Creek. Apart from the information shown for one week in June 1951 in the Train Notice reproduced in his original article, Rod Milne has provided no information on the total volume on that sand traffic (the arrangements shown in that notice provided for about 150 tons to be moved per day for four days if the tonnage capacity of the VTS wagons was fully used). Sand was not a common ballast material in the Brisbane area, and it was not uncommon for ballast pits to be worked only as needed. Rod Milne clearly knows no more about the tonnage of sand conveyed for QR purposes. In any case, one train per day when it ran hardly made the line busy.

Further, in his original article Rod Milne said that loadings on the line were not all they could be, described the traffic conveyed in terms of its generally modest quantity, and quoted the modest populations of the two towns served. It is surprising that he has since felt the need to declare otherwise, in such strident terms, and with no figures. Both the State Transport Commission and the Commissioner for Railways remarked in the 1930s (references in earlier letters) about the lightness of traffic on this line.

Consider too another response of his on the traffic. I asked in the October 2002 Bulletin whether logs were indeed railed into Dayboro’, a matter of clarification. In the April 2003 Bulletin, he says that I seem to be refuting that they were hauled into Dayboro’ in the later years, to be "muddying the waters" without any evidence to support this stance. I had no stance, and did not refute anything. I asked a simple question to obtain the evidence. His heat is a diversion. He offered no figures.

All this argumentation about traffic on the line is so silly that it deserves derision. He has not made one convincing point.

There is then the question of dividing trains into Yugar, where there was a siding. In his original article, on p 58 of the February 2000 Bulletin, Rod Milne said, in his references to Yugar, that it was a long time since the Dayboro’ goods stopped there to shunt or to reduce loading for a double trip. Both Graham Bailey and I challenged Rod Milne on the evidence for the double trip. Graham Bailey gave an analysis of the circumstances under which engines might not have been able to move their loads on each side of Yugar (October 2001) and might have had to make a double trip to the siding there.

Rod Milne now says that the issue is laboured in our replies, and that it is we who claim that these double trips never occurred. His justifiable point, he says, is that they would have occurred on the odd occasion, the reason for this being fairly obvious to anyone reading the article and noting the description of the line through Yugar. He finds it remarkable, he says, that we can still insist that in the 23 years (does he mean 33?) that trains worked through Yugar, there was never once a need to reduce a load. Graham Bailey is asked if he knows of double trips which once occurred on the Bell line. All he was saying in his original article, he says, and quite reasonably so, he says, was that this thing occurred, not all the time, but on odd occasions. Graham Bailey and I are said to be truly courageous in asserting that the double trips never happened without a full day-to-day train working over the history of the line to support us.

None of this is an argument to support his point, which is that the double trips occurred (sic, actually occurred) on odd occasions. How does he know? It is he who needs the full record of train working over the history of the line to make his claim. My point (and Graham Bailey’s is similar) (and Rod Milne misrepresents this) is that such might have occurred, but that does not mean that it did occur. Dividing trains elsewhere on the system does not prove his point that trains ever divided into Yugar. If Rod Milne felt that trains might have been divided into Yugar, he should have made it clear that was what he was saying. He should also have provided reasons why that was likely, and the likely frequency. Accuracy requires that suppositions, however reasonable, be identified as such (and this one is not even reasonable). The mention of the point being laboured, the claim that Graham Bailey and I said that dividing never occurred, and that his point was reasonable, are misrepresentations and diversions, a type of arguing worthy of nothing other than derision.

On the late running of mixed trains, I can provide numerous examples of late, indeed very late running of QR mixed trains, trains I observed and travelled on. Rod Milne did not answer my point about why it was so important to avoid delaying the Dayboro’ mixed to attach traffic at Camp Mountain. Mixed trains on branch lines were run, among other things, to shunt at intermediate sidings. His response is bluster and does not address the point.

The very titles of these points say that Rod Milne has classified certain comments as being unnecessary or wrong. He does this to make the errors and omissions seem to be of minor importance. I think the opposite. That is why I made the comments.

If ever there was a minute point it is the hyphen in Wallan-garra. Rod Milne made its existence into an argument (see ARHS Bulletin October 2000 and earlier letters referred to there) and raises it here yet again, making it appear that I am responsible for the space the subject has occupied. He says that both he and I were shown to be right. That too is a misrepresentation, in that I was never wrong. It is interesting that he notes (ARH August 2004) the QR variation in the spelling of Wooloongabba, which is exactly what I did when I first mentioned the spelling of Wallan-garra. (Dayboro’ is now spelt without the apostrophe - reference, Queensland Place Names Board - but the apostrophe was part of the name of Dayboro’ in the days of the QR branch, so he did not need to refer to that.)

He says that the error about crossing at Goondoon will sadly remain (as I explain in the Wallaville article comments, everything I said was correct, but more could have been said). He does not acknowledge his own errors on that subject and many other errors and omissions in the article concerned, and other articles of his. If seekers of information on certain subjects go to some of Rod Milne’s articles which contain errors or fail to mention important aspects of their subject and are unaware that corrections and additions were provided (as was previously the practice) in the Bulletin up to two or three years later, therefore not in the index for the year of his original article, I fear that his errors are sadly likely to be repeated and his omissions remain unknown. That applies even more with the more recent failure by the editor to correct errors and omissions at all.

His Point (2) Confusing Differences of Opinion with Errors

I treat this along with Rod Milne’s claim that there is not one right interpretation of history, and that some fellow historians are trying to force their interpretation of history on to the remainder. Under this heading Rod Milne is talking about one aspect of interpretation, that is of making sense of the evidence that there is. Indeed, when evidence is surprising, scant or conflicting, it is reasonable to subject it to analysis, to test its reasonableness (a process which Rod Milne tends to call "saying what should have happened" if done by someone else). Even then, opinions can differ on what that evidence means.

In that analysis, the evidence cannot be stretched, however. One Train Notice (the precise location of which has never been given) saying a special ran to Camp Mountain quarry cannot be generalised by interpretation into saying that such trains ran. Even less so can a possibility of the untoward or unusual be interpreted into the event actually happening, as in the case of trains dividing into Yugar.

[Rod Milne is partial to saying what "should" have happened himself. In the January 2003 Bulletin, he tells us that diesels were changed to steam at Warwick on the Southern Line to enable the optimum utilisation of the new diesels, that there was little benefit in having a new diesel sitting up at Wallan-garra awaiting a job etc. I have replied to this repeated error in another comment. All his arguments (as above) about dividing trains into Yugar are of the "should" kind. So is not delaying the mixed to shunt at Camp Mountain. Rod Milne uses this argument or rejects it as it suits his claims to be correct. He considers that other lines are valid indicators on the lightness of traffic, but are not of how mixed trains were run.]

The interpretation of history from the point of view of only one side, in political history usually the conqueror’s, is something very different. Rod Milne’s articles contain no interpretations of this kind. This point about interpretation therefore does not apply to the matters for which Rod Milne has been criticised. Occasionally he gives opinions with no supporting reasons or examination of the various points for and against, including the reasons given by those responsible for the matter on which he is expressing an opinion (eg on the closure of the Southport line in ARH April 2004). That is a one-sided opinion, not an interpretation. He is also of the opinion that traffic on the Dayboro’ line was not light. He is free to hold and express that opinion too, but if that is a matter of interpretation, of very basic facts, it is, as above, an irrational one to hold.

More important, however, is that the Rod Milne approach to history and its sources can be quite unreliable. On this (reference principally QR Beyer Garratts) see his letter in ARHS Bulletin for October 1998 and his my reply in the November 1999 Bulletin.

See also below about the Untoward and Unexpected.

If opinion is one of taste (eg about the appearance of locomotives) then alternative opinions can always be expressed.

Rod Milne has previously complained (January 2003) that some of my article on the 1150 class in the December 2001 Bulletin had been wrongly attributed to him. The editor changed a "he" which referred to the late Roger Boland to "Rod Milne". I pointed this out to the editor, but he has not acknowledged his fault.

I accuse Rod Milne of misrepresentation in the more general sense. My letter in the November 1999 Bulletin about Beyer Garratts contains several examples. In May 1999, he claimed that my letter in the July 1998 Bulletin commenting on his article on the Cooyar line had failed to allow for much of the coal hauled on that branch being for the QR itself and not included in the statistics of paying traffic, and that I had erroneously suggested that the coal traffic on the branch was not a "worthy business". Neither point was true. His August 1999 letter about the 1250 class also contained misrepresentations of my arguments.

In the current case, he says on p 149 that in my article some years back on Brisbane electric train timetables, I said that weekend services were rarely late. He then goes on to give circumstances in which they were late. The article, in the December 1999 Bulletin, was about the speed of the trains and the tightness of the running times rather than the timetables. Referring to the tightness of the schedules, I said that, in comparison with weekdays, little time was lost at nights and weekends because stops were short then. This cannot be held to be late running from track closures, the matter now referred to by Rod Milne. I have been misrepresented. I consider the preceding paragraph also misrepresented me. Whatever Rod Milne considers garbled, I do not recognise in what he says views that I hold.

He says on p 149 that I have made a simplistic assertion that Dayboro’ trains were lighter than many other branch line trains. I cannot find reference to my saying that, and consider that a misrepresentation also.

All three letters contain large elements of Rod Milne asserting something reasonable to make it appear that he is a knowledgeable and reasonable fellow who must know what he is talking about whatever he says, whereas his critics are unrealistic fellows (or at least I am) whose verdict on the various subjects is not to be believed. When he does make his points (ie the things he claims he knows about) he compliments himself on the reasonableness of his views.

I am said in a sarcastic sense to be learned, to be academic, not to understand the real delays inherent in travel on mixed trains, that I try to/want to have readers believe Graham Bailey’s views before his. He says there is a practical reality to train working that is different from the academic one. A QR file on late trains of 1935 is mentioned with the suggestion that I read it to expand my perspective. Graham Bailey and I are said to have difficulty understanding the limitations of the goods tonnages given in QR Annual Reports. Rod Milne’s friend Banjo Patterson is mentioned presumably to say he has knowledgeable contacts.

Then the reader is told that in the process of elevating the minutiae to glorious levels, there is the need for common sense to be applied, which apparently only Rod Milne can do. My point about the mixed train being able to collect loading at Camp Mountain is said to be derisively argued. Both Graham Bailey and I are said to have made rather courageous and foolhardy statements and certainly have not proved our cases. He says that it is highly dismissive to suggest otherwise (on the Camp Mountain and dividing trains to Yugar questions). Time wasted in a double trip is a red herring readers are told. He further says that there is a veiled suggestion in my stance (on the attaching of traffic at Camp Mountain) that timekeeping would not have been a problem on the line.

Not one of these criticisms is explained, all are diversions and beside the point. It is remarkable that despite the long list of imperfections claimed for our approaches, not one clinching point in his own favour is given. Presumably the file says nothing about the particular case of delays to Dayboro’ mixeds at Camp Mountain, or that would have been said.

Then he simply asserts that what he says is correct. And on the questions of the traffic on the Dayboro’ branch and dividing at Yugar, he says it more than once, presumably on the basis that the more often he claims to be correct the more he will be believed. And he offers no proofs of his own claims or cases.

On the reasons I gave for claiming that traffic from Camp Mountain could be dealt with on the scheduled goods trains, Rod Milne simply asserts the opposite, without reasons. The QR did not arrange special trains without good reason. Graham Bailey provided considerable detail on traffic from Camp Mountain, which Rod Milne has not referred to at all. He has still not given the source of the Train Notice about a special train scheduled for Camp Mountain traffic. I would like to be able to check it.

Rod Milne claims that Graham Bailey and I have overlooked the untoward and unexpected, which he says occur more often than one thinks in the practical running of railways. He claims I have garbled what he said about this previously, and he has made the same point in other disputes I have had with him. He has not explained how I have garbled what he said. I repeat that I accept that unusual events occurred, and that they should be recorded in the history of the lines concerned. I also accept that they can be more interesting than the ordinary regular events. I also say that the very words indicate that the events concerned played a minor part in the history of a given line and had a tiny impact on the overall volume of traffic. Untoward and unexpected events do not receive specific mention in the annual statistics of each line as such. But they are included in the annual total. The sheer unusualness of the events means that their effect on the annual total must be small.

Rod Milne seems to think that because some things are not known, which will often include the unusual, untoward and unexpected, the conclusions of his critics (on the subjects under debate), based on what is known, cannot be right. He seems to be saying that on account of unknown untoward and unexpected events, it should be concluded that the Dayboro’ line was busier in some way than Graham Bailey or I have allowed. Notice that he says "the untoward and unexpected occur more often than one thinks in the day-to-day practical running of railways", ie actually occur in the day-to-day running. If they occur so often, in the day-to-day running, they can hardly be untoward or unexpected, because they have achieved a regularity. That aside, what do exceptional events which have been recorded tell us?

Rod Milne quotes five trains in one day to Crows Nest to convey livestock which had arrived Toowoomba in one train from the Western Line. The event emphasises mostly the limitations of that branch, in terms of the locomotives it could carry, the ban on double heading, and the steep gradients, leading to a maximum load of 90 tons per train. It also shows how, when the QR was a common carrier and protected from competition, it was unable to refuse traffic which was unprofitable to it at the standard mileage rates. It might also say something about the availability of train crews and B15 type engines at Toowoomba on the day concerned - perhaps it was a slack time. Perhaps the whole consignment of livestock was conveyed to Crows Nest immediately to avoid the need for "spelling" (unloading the animals for relief). On the day concerned, the line was certainly busy in its own terms, even in terms of most QR branch lines, but not especially busy in number of trains per day for a railway. The revenue from the five cattle trains in one day was included in the revenue inwards for Crows Nest for the year, and the mileage of the five trains in the traffic train miles. They did not make the Crows Nest line into a busy line.

Rod Milne mentions occasional railings of livestock to Tarong and Windera which resulted, he says, from famed overland trek type specials, the stock driven thence along stock routes. Until the 1960s, almost all livestock conveyed by the QR arrived at the railhead on the hoof, moved in droves along stock routes. After droughts, beasts were sent, where available, into the breeding areas, for restocking and moved from the railheads in a drove, and that is what Rod Milne is referring to. The movements are indeed part of the history of the lines concerned and of the cattle industry, but they do not make the lines concerned generally busy (he uses the word "occasional" himself), and it is not clear why the events are famed. They will have occurred in or just after years in which the outward railings of livestock will have been below average. Rather they point up the requirement of the QR as a common carrier to provide for the varied requirements of an industry subject to fluctuating fortunes.

What of events which are not known at all? After the researcher/writer has consulted people involved, official files, newspapers, notebooks, diaries, and photographs he or she is not entitled to imagine that the untoward or unexpected might have happened because something which can be so described happened on another line, or on this line at another time, or simply might have occurred (like dividing trains into Yugar). Imagined items cannot be prayed in aid to find that a line was busier than it is otherwise known to have been, whether in tons, number of animals, trains or wagons loaded or unloaded, or whatever. It is never justifiable to say something happened because it might have happened.

On p 149 Rod Milne says that despite comments by Graham Bailey and me, he would nor alter his original article on the Dayboro’ line one iota. When it has been shown that his article contained so many errors and omissions (comments which he has not disproved), and his justification for his original arguments turns out to be so much bluster, this statement has a lot of the frantic and brazen about it. It seems to mean that he should be allowed to write whatever he likes as history, even if it is wrong and incomplete, and that he sees himself as immune from the general rule that if he goes into print, he is subject to anyone who doubts what he has said, knows that he is wrong or knows more, writing in to say so?

He says it is up to his critics to write articles which include the facts he has not included and from their own perspective. This accepts that there were omissions, but he does not say what should happen about his errors. What is the point of another author with comments writing another article on any of his subjects, repeating a certain amount, even a good deal, of what he said? The alternative articles would in any case lead to the same revelation of the errors and omissions as writing a letter of comment. They would also emphasise the errors and omissions in the Milne articles less than a direct comment.

Rod Milne says that writing history is a hobby, none of us has a mortgage on the truth, we are ageing (I hope he means a monopoly on the truth, because a mortgage on the truth has some peculiar implications). All of these things are obviously correct, but they are wise words with no bearing on the error/omission rate in the Milne writings. He remarks that compiling history is a process of collating a range of differing perspectives. If he means that historians should consult all possible sources on their subjects, I agree and wish Rod Milne would do it (and quote the sources in a way they can be checked). If there are differing versions of an event and the reasons for it, the historian has to report those differing versions, with the sources and the association of the source with the event, then analyse the reports for inconsistencies, impossibilities etc, and the possibility of any being right. This analysis will not resemble in any way the three letters from Rod Milne under discussion, with their rhetorical devices rather than analysis.

Further, it cannot mean that if Rod Milne (or anyone) is shown to be wrong about some thing or has omitted important things, his different perspective has to be accepted or tolerated. Rod Milne is so intent on the Dayboro’ line being moderately busy, despite all evidence to the contrary in the statistics and in the researches of a careful historian, that when his view is called into question, he asserts the contrary without a single figure, attacks his critics, and calls into question unknown untoward events to try to make the line busier. Such a proposition is plain silly, and renders the reliability of his judgements on traffic levels on railways, absolute and relative, doubtful.

Then in the last two columns of his letter in the May 2003 Bulletin, he claims that he has no problems with corrections of genuine errors, that he shows admirable restraint in the face of criticism and that he does not take on the role of obsessive critic himself. The preceding many paragraphs say the opposite on all of this, and his claims ignore the sheer volume of his errors and omissions. In similar vein, he claims that various nasty things have been done to him in drawing attention to his errors, and that he is an admirable fellow who does not do these things himself. I have shown here that he commits all the tricks in the debating book, and then simply asserts that he does not.

He claims prospective authors are being deterred by a certain type of response to his articles. I see this completely the opposite way, that no prospective author should model his or her research, writing and debating methods on Rod Milne. They should want to be as complete and correct as possible.

Rod Milne makes several references to collaboration in the writing of history. I think he means not to disagree, to let his errors and omissions lie. I consider that to be unacceptable. He has never raised collaboration in the more usual sense with me.

He remarks that we are ageing. That is all the more reason to get the history right, at least the "we" who know and are writing about the days prior to 1965 or so. If I see errors and significant errors in Rod Milne's articles, I believe I should point them out, and that the editor should publish them. I cannot point them out when I am dead.

Rod Milne brings up in these letters several points he has made before. I have not listed the enormous number of errors and omissions I have noted in all his articles. It would occupy a lot of space, even as a list. I could also list the examples of heatedness, and lack of balance, logic and sense in his writings.

In the letters under discussion here, Rod Milne’s second and third replies on the subject, what has been published is inadequate, desperate, self-serving argument. Despite their length, the letters did not raise anything new, nor did they correct anything. They were complaints about having been the recipient of deserved critical comments. Leaving the three letters unanswered, however, would imply that Rod Milne’s approach and his statements are correct, complete, and reasonable. That is not right, and it is not fair to the readership, or the future users of the Bulletin/ARH as source material, or intending writers, for the implication to prevail.

Rod Milne wrote the three letters to say "lay off me". No doubt he feels sore about some of the comments made on his best intentioned articles and the manner of the comments. If he continues to make serious errors and omissions, and to defend his original against all reason, comments must continue and be published somehow.

Although it would be best if original articles were as complete and accurate as possible, one hundred per cent identification of errors and omissions in submitted articles is of course impossible. It was previously the practice to publish replies giving such errors and omissions known to others, a practice which at least has the prospect of improving completeness and accuracy.

Corrections and additions are always second best, however. They cannot have the broad view, the flow, and the illustrations of original articles, they require the reader to tune into parts of the subject months even years later, parts which might not at that long gap in time seem important in the totality of the subject no matter how significant the errors or omissions. As important, future researchers do not necessarily find corrections and addenda, no matter how good are indexing systems. It must be better to have articles as correct as possible before publication.

There is ample proof in recent articles by Rod Milne that the editor of ARH is not checking or having checked articles submitted to him, at least from Rod Milne. Nor is he publishing errors or omissions submitted to him. These policies are curious for an historical journal. Their practice leads to the question, what use is ARH as an historical journal?

In my view, comment of the type above has to be published somehow.