In the March 2006 ARH, there is a half page (p116) "From the Editor".

In the second paragraph the editor says that he has an absolute commitment to accuracy. In the fifth paragraph, he says he does not publish letters that attempt to advance personal disputes and disagreements, or letters that do not advance an appreciation of railway history, engage his readers or encourage them to contribute positively.

This all seems very reasonable, but it does not hold together.

He has published several articles which contain a large number of errors and omit important aspects of their subjects, as material on this web site demonstrates, ie he is not accurate about the degree of accuracy he is committed to. And most of the errors and omissions are about important matters. He has nevertheless not taken steps to publish corrections, nor adopted procedures to prevent these defects occurring in the first place.

Corrections imply disagreement. They are inevitably negative about wrong and misleading material already published, but positive in the sense of accuracy. If the editor wants to have only positive things said about inaccurate or incomplete material he has published in recent years or its authors, then he cannot have his accuracy. When comments and corrections are offered, the editor cannot know that a disagreement or dispute will develop. In any case, he is the editor, and should arrange resolution of potential disputes off page, while ensuring corrections are made. The truth cannot amount to defamation.

If errors are not corrected and omissions pointed out, how can readers appreciate railway history? An appreciation of railway history comes from learning the facts about the subject as fully and correctly as they can be established, some perspective on them, analysis of how and why they happened, how they fit together with contemporary events, with all sides of a story told, and finally basic evidence about the origins of the material and the completeness of the search made, with discussion of the limitations resulting from lack of or conflicting evidence. What else could an appreciation of railway history be based on? Without all this being the basis of all articles, how can that appreciation be advanced?

My aim in writing the comments and corrections on this web site is the same as what the editor claims to be his - accuracy. I am not seeking to have disputes. Most of the errors I point out will eventually be discovered from the same sources as I use, and the lack of an absolute commitment to accuracy (despite what the editor says) will eventually become known whether the editor publishes my corrections or not. But making the corrections and comments now avoids the errors becoming accepted as correct in the meantime, and benefits in many cases from the knowledge of those who were present at the time or close to it.

The editor is failing in important aspects of his job. His current policies mean that the many considerable errors and omissions which have appeared in his journal in the last eight years or so have not been corrected in it. He is not having material from at least one author known to be unreliable checked in advance - despite what he says in his third paragraph, it is not impossible. Checking in advance also avoids the need for long lists of corrections, which inevitably are of little interest to many readers. With guidance from and/or through the editor, enthusiastic authors with an eye for interesting subjects could well become reliable and useful.

My comments and corrections are not to everyone's taste. Those who were entertained by the original articles might not want to know that the content was of dubious accuracy or completeness, or want the bother of separating right from wrong, especially if the enjoyment came from a general fascination with the past, or from the photographs. Others might not want to bother with the complications of the full story or to have their ideas about subjects disturbed.

Others could be unhappy with an apparent sense of self importance on my part, a need to correct all and sundry, to give detailed scrutiny to the writings of one particular author, to an unfair or unreasonable degree.

Those who do not want to know about the inaccuracy or incompleteness have to accept that what entertained them is not history. Those not liking my scrutiny and apparent penchant for correcting might consider that my comments would not be possible if the articles concerned were accurate and complete.