Talk:John Wykeham Jacomb-Hood/GA1

Comments:

I'm going to hold for now. This article has potential for being much more, I'd love to help if I can.

• Thank you for the review. Unfortunately I'm not sure I can 100% agree with some of your comments. They seem to assume there exists a wealth of sources about how Jacomb-Hood fits into the railway world of the time. This simply isn't the case. The sources currently in the article are the sources I can access about him. Let me demonstrate:
  • Waterloo station was a big deal – how was he involved in the design and the decisions? – As I write in the article, he designed the station layout, which was standard for an engineer to do at the time. He did not design the grand façade and offices, as these were done by J.R. Scott, who was a trained architect.
  • Was he just a manger for the designers? – no, he actually designed it, which I write in the article
  • What did he contribute? – he did the layout of where everything is, but not what it visually looks like.
  • The switch to pre-cast; it looks like he was a significant part of that. Did he advocate for it? – well it was done under his leadership. I'm not sure where I'd find whether he specifically proposed it, but he wouldn't have let it happen widespread under his watch if he thought it was a terrible idea.
  • What was the effect on productivity? – how would I find a source on this? I did find something saying it was one of / possible the first use of precast concrete in the UK, so I've added that.
  • It sound like a Lego block strategy, was that his? – well yes that's how precast concrete blocks work, and that's why it's more efficient. The source compares it to Meccano, which is largely the same thing. I have added it to the prose in case it wasn't clear
  • Was he a real creator, or just a nepo baby? – well that's up to you and any reader. No source passes judgement on whether he was a nepo baby. As mentioned in the article on his father, such practices of nepotism were very usual at that time as part of the idea that certain professions ran in the family and should be preserved as such. I would personally say that he did benefit from nepotism, but it is clear in the article that he achieved many great things, and by the time he started to rise the ranks of the LSWR those who had supported him had largely died.
  • A lot of the references have more on his family than him. – I'm not sure I agree with that. I count four on his father, one on his brother, and two on his cousin. That leaves around twenty for him.
• In terms of salary, I understand your concerns but I think it is nice to track his career progression in this sense (almost all Victorian railway engineers were pretty money-driven). By comparing the salaries to today using the {{inflation}} template, one can get an idea of where he fits in societally because the two are of roughly equivalent spending power. I personally think adding average salaries etc. is a little overkill.
• In terms of the CLOP issue, the source is actually in the public domain anyway but I have reworded it for good practice. I have also changed the infobox to 'infobox person' because his military career is fairly irrelevant, and added extra post-nominals he had.
• If you can actually find sources that actually discuss these issues, such as "where he fits into the railway world", in more detail, then of course I will add them. But they just don't really exist. Maybe in old newspapers, especially obituaries, but obituaries aren't really reliable sources for these kinds of judgements either.

As an example of things you could include, Grace's guide has "He was responsible for the carrying out and maintenance of much of the electrical work of the Company, and took great interest in the question of electrification." Then I connect in Gilbert Szlumper, who seems to have worked for him, and may have run the electrification effort. Then https://zenodo.org/records/2232769/files/article.pdf?download=1 where Jacomb-hood does a whole analysis of electrification. " High-Speed Electric Traction on Kailways." By J. W . JACOMB-HOOD, M. Inst. C.E. This article cites his writings in contemporary tech journals. I found a whole book chapter he wrote on electrification: https://doi.org/10.1680/ec1903.50280.0038 Could I encourage you to dig into a few of these? He wrote detailed analysis of the elctrification process, it appears he was a major player in one of the big tech advances of the early 20th century. Thank you

• The problem with these is that they are primary sources that he authored. I have added the zenodo one to the article (which is the same paper as the DOI). I also found and , the latter of which contains ten pages of analysis written by him, but that's not reliable or useful encyclopaedic information to just say what he wrote. I really don't think there are any other secondary sources on him on the internet. From looking at ICE publishing there are also some obituaries of people he trained under where he is mentioned, but I'm not sure how useful that is either. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 12:28, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

@WhaleFarm: I was thinking about this review and your comment that "for GA [the fine detail] seems excessive" – this is an argument that comes up often but is flawed because an article could be sent to GA when it is already preparing or nearly ready for an FAC, and no one should expect the nom to remove information that is needed for FA but not needed for GA, or to delay adding it. For example, I will send Isambard Kingdom Brunel to GAN in a few weeks; it is over 12000 words and highly-detailed because I am aiming for FA, but that does not mean it is 'too good' to be a GA. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 14:00, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I found a 2013 University of York thesis by David Turner, Managing the “Royal Road”: The London & South Western Railway 1870–1911. It has several useful new sources. In particular, pp. 282–284 discuss Jacomb-Hood’s 1903 reorganization maintenance. Turner argues that he introduced a substantially new system of standardized workloads, inspections, team incentives and prizes, stabilizing expenditure despite rising costs.

The main underlying sources are the South Western Gazette, May 1905, p. 6; Jacomb-Hood’s report to the Engineering Committee of 25 March 1903, TNA RAIL 1057/3422; the Railway Gazette, 13 March 1914, p. 380; and the Engineering Committee minute books, TNA RAIL 411/46–62. There are others, I only skimmed.

Also references a 1902 paper by Jacomb-Hood, “Electric Traction in its Relation to Existing Railways,” held at the LSE as HE1/106. In it he apparently proposed electrifying the LSWR suburban routes later converted from 1913. Another useful record is TNA RAIL 411/28, 10 October 1901, p. 129, containing his review and classification of the company’s ongoing capital projects.

These sources could add some depth to the article by showing Jacomb-Hood as a stratagists and forward-looking engineer. It is densly referenced, I assume those references are available, as the thesis is relativly recent.

The zenodo article has his paper given together with one by the author of . (that book is actually pretty fascinating). The paired Langdon paper was about the third rail. I think it's safe, from the paper and the book chapter, to say that JWJH researched and publish analysis promoting the electrification of rails, and studying the related issues (power plants, competition with steam, power distribution, AC vs DC). There is good historic background in , the timing of may of this voltage/economics/acdc line up with JWJHs work.

also found

On the wages, financial- my comment mainly is that these seem excessive because they are without context. A section on is wage growth, compared to others in society, rail, whatever may be interesting. "his salary was £600, equivalent to £67,400 in 2025." brings the question, is this high? low? typical for engeers? I have to way to judge the relavence. "his salary was consistenty double that of other engineers, and 5 times that of similar profession" would really get my attention.

I've also seen references to his involvement in automaic signaling. In 1902 or 1903, he went to America to study the signaling systems in place. I found a paper by Cudworth that references him. https://zenodo.org/records/1928449

Scribid also has this tantalizing bit:

Railway, J W Jacomb-Hood, visited America to inspect a levers, all mechanically interlocked. number of signalling installations. He was particularly. 12 14 ...Read more WhaleFarm (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

These sources are interesting, and I will find a time to add them, and thank you for finding them, but are they really relevant to whether or not the article passes GAN? It already has broad depth even if it doesn't talk about e.g. some electrification information in David Tuner's thesis. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 19:34, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that the article does not need to include everything in Turner’s thesis, and I am not suggesting separate sections on electrification, signaling, or every other subject Jacomb-Hood touched.

My concern under 3a is broader than the omission of one electrification fact. The article has a good deal of detail, but most of it is a chronology of appointments, salaries, and individual construction projects. The sources give a fuller picture of what he did as chief resident engineer and what distinguished his tenure.

Turner discusses his reorganization of permanent-way maintenance in some depth. Jacomb-Hood studied how materials and labor were being used, added rigor to assigning and inspecting the work. The sources seem to show (I haven’t gone deep) the he used incentives to improve track condition and the department’s efficiency. That seems like a significant part of his work, rather than an optional detail.

There is also material on his investigation of automatic signaling. His American visit was for the study of U.S. railroad signaling, and he later took part in the technical discussion surrounding automatic signaling. I would be careful not to claim that he personally developed or installed a particular system without stronger evidence, but this does seem relevant to his work on railway operation and safety.

Electrification is another part of the same picture. His paper did more than mention the subject in passing: it examined the economics and engineering of electric traction, including generation, distribution, competition with steam, and the choice between AC and DC. I do not think that needs extensive treatment, but a sentence would help show that he was studying the larger technical questions facing the railway. There is good documentation that he did more than designing stations and bridges.

Taken together, the maintenance reforms, signaling work, and electrification study suggest that an aspect of his career was the investigation and adoption of newer railway technology. That aspect is largely missing at present. A short paragraph could probably cover it.

My comment about the salaries is related. A statement such as “his salary was £600, equivalent to £67,400 in 2025” gives a precise number but no way to understand its importance. Was that unusually high, normal for a district engineer, or evidence of his growing standing in the company? Some comparison would make it meaningful. Otherwise, several salary figures may be taking up space without telling the reader very much about him. UNDUE ??

I will finish reading the article and checking the remaining references before deciding the review. Since we differ over how much 3a requires here, I also think it is sensible to wait for a second opinion. In the meantime, I would encourage adding at least a brief account of this side of his work. There are clearly reliable sources for it, and could give the reader a much better sense of why his career mattered. I completely get how hard this can become, many of the sources end up with what library I should visit. Maybe use the references that are easy to come by, and go for more detail later. WhaleFarm (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

On the salary issue, I've already said there would be no way to comment on his salary relative to the time without WP:SYNTH because how much he got paid relative to everyone else hasn't been included in sources. That's why {{inflation}} exists – one can pretty easily google what they get paid today and find it's about £200,000–600,000 for a senior rail executive, but their job is very different to today. According to google David Hughes, the CEO of East West Rail (probably more comparative to JWJH's role) earns around 200k so again possibly slightly on the low side. Adding any of that to the article would be blatant OR. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 13:49, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I would not suggesting that you make an original comparison with modern railway executives. I agree that would be OR and would probably be misleading.

My point is only that the repeated inflation conversions do not themselves provide context. They tell the reader something about present-day purchasing power, but not whether Jacomb-Hood’s salary was ordinary, unusually high, or significant within the railway industry. Without that context, the succession of precise salary figures feels like excessive detail.

There is published work. T. R. Gourvish’s “A British Business Elite: The Chief Executive Managers of the Railway Industry, 1850–1922,” in the 1973 Business History Review, specifically examines senior railway managers, incomes, and social status. D. Mitch’s 2005 conference paper, “Was Britain delayed in development of the engineering profession?”, also discusses the relative salaries of engineers in Victorian and Edwardian Britain. As a conference paper it may provide stronger sources, not just direct reference as the final citation. I’ve looked at previews, but they seem relevant. Wages and salaries in England during that period seem to be a very studied subject. This was only a very cursory search, I suspect a lot of material.

None of this context has to be added. The easier solution would be to compress the salary progression into one sentence, perhaps giving his starting and final salaries, rather than listing every increase with a separate modern equivalent. My concern is not that the article must undertake new research, only that figures should either help explain his career or be reduced when they do not. WhaleFarm (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I still think that adding these sources to say whether his salary was high or not would be: (a) a gross undersimplification of the topic because not all railway companies were equal and you do not know how much he earnt from other ventures or how else the company paid him (e.g. in stock options); and (b) still SNYTH because those sources don't talk about his salary or his career; they are generic. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 16:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

That is fair. I agree that comparing his salary to general studies could become synthesis. I am not asking you to do that.

My 3b concern is simpler: the article gives each salary increase, followed by a modern inflation equivalent, without a source explaining why each increase is significant. The inflation conversion makes the historical amount easier to understand, but it does not say why all of the figures belong in the biography.

If no source discusses the significance of his pay, the cleanest solution is to condense it. The article could say that his salary rose from £1,000 when he became chief engineer to £2,000 by 1912, perhaps with one modern equivalent rather than one for every intermediate increase. The employment record would still be represented without interrupting the account of his engineering work.

I would not treat this as a major issue by itself. It is simply a question of focus and proportion under 3b, not a request to add original analysis. WhaleFarm (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• @JacobTheRox and WhaleFarm: What is the status of this review? Is this ready to be promoted? If not, what else needs to be done? Z1720 (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Z1720 We have hit a little bit of a stalemate where I believe criterion 3 is being applied erroneously and that the article is ready for promotion, whereas WhaleFarm does not. I am willing to keep working on the article but I am a bit concerned it will just include adding trivial detail or that WhaleFarm is asking for me to add detail that does not exist in reliable sources or would require SYNTH or OR. Outsider input on application of criterion 3 would be appreciated. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 23:08, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

• For the question of wages and their significance, a GA usually doesn't need to explain if the amount is significant. I don't think the significance of the wages is a major aspect of this person's career, and is thus not necessary to fulfil 3a unless someone demonstrates that sources consider this significant. Happy to take a look at other aspects if pinged. Z1720 (talk) 00:18, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

@JacobTheRox @Z1720

My review, in summary:

The salary issue:

I would not propose original research or synthesis. My concern is 3b: focus and proportion. The salary history is cited or discussed 11 times, with modern inflation equivalents added. That gives the salary material disproportionate weight for the sources currently used.

There are a few theoretical ways to handle this. One would be to integrate salary and professional status into the article, but I do not think that is likely to be workable here unless there are reliable sources directly discussing railway engineers’ salaries or Jacomb-Hood’s pay in context. Another would be to keep the detail if a source specifically highlights its importance, such as unusually high pay or significant increases. I also do not think that is likely unless such a source turns up. Those are more a thought experiment than practical suggestions.

The practical solution is to reduce the detail. Something like “his salary rose from £1,000 in 1901 to £2,000 by 1912”, with one modern equivalent, would make the basic point without interrupting the career narrative. The probate/estate figure should stay if it is relevant to the personal-life section.

The broader issue is 3a. The article has good detail on appointments, salaries, and lists of projects, but there are reliable sources covering significant parts of Jacomb-Hood’s career that are reasonably within the main aspects of the topic, without requiring exhaustive coverage. Finding and adding this material takes time, but that does not change the GA standard.

The clearest examples are electrification and signaling, along with the permanent-way reforms. These were not small side issues in railway history. Automatic signaling was a major safety and operations issue, especially given the American experience with railway accidents, and Jacomb-Hood appears to have gone to the United States to study railway practice, including signaling. Electrification was also a major contemporary question in Britain, involving the economics of coal, competition with steam, power generation and distribution, and AC versus DC systems. Jacomb-Hood published on this subject and was involved in the discussion.

I am not suggesting separate sections on all of these topics. A concise paragraph would suffice. But as it stands, the article provides a useful chronology of his career without giving enough sense of what distinguished his tenure as chief resident engineer, and a weath of WP:RS to support it. That is why I do not think 3a and 3b are fully met yet. WhaleFarm (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

If you do not think the article meets the GA criteria, and the nominator is unwilling to change the article in such a way that would make it meet the criteria, you should fail the nomination. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm failing this nomination. The details, and the discusions, are captured above.

I would encourage the nom to look at some of the other sources. If they are still desiring to go for GA with this material, another reviewer may have different thresholds from me, and I respect that. WhaleFarm (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2026 (UTC)