Stan Evans Review of John Daines Zoom forum presentation on 14th July 2021 and reminiscence of TRT in action:
John Daines was brilliant . Not only the very professional way he gave the presentation but the many items of news I did not know. In particular those related to TRT in the war. Also Lyons running successfully a war effort factory.
One memory of TRT was in the middle of a nasty engineering fault on Leo I he came down and quite rightly wanted to know our progress. We had been down 3 hours by then.
He suggested you go into the work shop , have a cup of tea,switch off for 5 mins then recap the problem
Needless to say it worked. we were up again in 20 mins. A lesson I used many many times later on in my career
So I repeat John gave a brilliant presentation.
Of course feeding my ego he points an arrow at your truly at the Leo I engineers control desk in the section Maintenance
Professor Stephen Evans I was interviewed by John Pinkerton prior to my graduating from Keele University in 1966. I was offered by Dr Pinkerton, sponsorship to do a PhD in any subject in any University that I wished (it’s possible I still have that letter but can’t put my hand on it now).I didn’t want to do a PhD then, as I had had 3 years in the sixth from at school (I did my A levels at age 16), followed by going to Keele for 4 years and having a scholarship to go to Swarthmore College, Pennsylvania for a year, so I had already had 6 years in academia post my A levels- I wanted a job. I started work the week after graduating from Keele in the Research Division at Minerva Road. English Electric-Leo had just had “Marconi” added to the name and I worked for John Winterbottom on speech recognition and visual display design. With Ann Cropper I published a paper in 1968 on “Ergonomics of Computer Display DesignThis seems to have gone on being cited up to last year.
[https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?cluster=3718501728846242519&hl=en&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&as_ylo=2014]
I don’t know whether some reminisces of working at Minerva Road in the Research Division would be of interest- it was obviously post Leo, though I did learn CLEO and Intercode. I left EELM to go to CERN in 1968, and worked as a programmer there for Carlo Rubbia, subsequently a Nobel Laureate.
I changed the focus of my career several times and I am now semi-retired and paid to work 1 day per week at The London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.
I recall various people from 1966-68 in addition to Pinkerton and Winterbottom. Ernest Lenaerts was around Minerva Road then; I did meet you very briefly and various other luminaries of the time but I’m sure you won’t remember me. Ann Cropper and I were involved in the start of the British Computer Society “Display group”, and our paper was based on a talk I gave in one of the early meetings of that group.
Professor Stephen Evans: Read More »
Mike Finlay Memories of LEO
I was born in on 18th April 1937 a true Londoner within the sounds of Bow Bell, did my National Service between 1955 and 1957 at the RAF Air Radar School as an RAF Radar Theory instructor, and then studied at Jesus College, Cambridge for the Natural Science Tripos Part 1, followed by the Economics Tripos Part2, graduating in 1960.
I joined LEO after Cambridge. The Careers Advice fellow at Cambridge said that my Natural Science and Economics degree together with my Electronics experience in the RAF suggested I should try for a job in the nascent Business Computer industry, so I had interviews with ICT, IBM, NCR, and LEO. LEO was the standout option, due to the recruitment process whereby we were given a lesson on some basic machine coding and then set a problem to solve by writing a program. This gave an insight into what the job would entail, unlike the others which were basically a simple form of IQ test.
I did receive offers from all four – though the non-LEO ones were for punch card processing rather than computing. It was an easy choice, and I joined LEO in September 1960, as a trainee sales consultant. My first task was to rewrite a payroll data vet program for Tate and Lyle on the LEO II/1 bureau at Cadby Hall, though I was based at Hartree House. The rewrite was necessary as the program’s many modifications had made it too big for II/1’s massive storage capacity of 2,000 words – ie 1K bytes!! Happily, the rewrite was a success, and I learned the value of constructing a comprehensive set of test data to ensure the program could cope with all eventualities.
I then moved into Frank Land’s Consultancy team, under Mike Jackson, to work on the Renold Chains project. I remember the concern of their management team about this new-fangled idea – “Will we still be able to make chain?” was a frequent query at progress meetings!
I learned how to write Job Plans the LEO way, with flow charts etc, and the value of studying what the client needed to be done, as opposed to a “One system fits all” approach to tendering and project implementation. I also enjoyed analysing the LEO III sort program, in order to produce a ready reckoner for calculating how long the sort would take for different input variables.
I worked on many interesting projects under Mike and, later, John Aris and Doug Comish. These included Post Office Premium Bonds, Stewart and Lloyds, Shell Mex BP, Manchester Corporation, HM Dockyards and many other Government Departments. I remember our contacts at the Treasury were a Mr Alcock and a Mr Balls, which I hope did not represent the government’s views on our efforts. There was also a memorable two weeks in Prague at the Communist bloc Computer Exhibition in 1966, on the EE-LEO stand under Ralph Land, and it is good to see both Frank and Ralph at the LEO reunions.
My visits to Shell-Mex BP being driven by Mr Caminer, and to Renold Chains in Manchester in Mike Jackson’s Austin Healey Sprite, were particularly memorable if rather hair-raising. It was always good to arrive!
I shared an office at Hartree House with Ninian Eadie and Mike Gifford, both of whom had stellar careers LEO, and I also met LEO II Chief Programmer Susan Finch, my wife now for 55 years and counting.
As LEO III activity increased, and later System 4, I became Defence Sales Manager under John, but I fear without much success, and my last post before the ICL merger was as Government Sales Dept Systems Manager. ICL then made me Regional Systems Manager South for Doug Comish’s Local Government Sales Division, which meant working at an old ICT office in Beckenham. This was a two-hour commute, so when a Computer Systems Manager job came up in Cockfosters, 5 minutes from my house, I left ICL in autumn 1969 and began the second phase of my career, which ended as Director of Strategic Planning for TSB Retail Bank Division.
I retired in 1992, and my best memories are the early days at Hartree House, working alongside fellow graduates and professionals, doing a job both innovative and exciting, whilst also enjoying a vibrant social life with some colleague or other throwing a party nearly every weekend. LEO was truly a ground-breaking project, and I am very proud to have been involved. When people ask me “What did you do?” on the golf course, I always tell them about LEO and what it meant for the future of British business management.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ye54m4sfqwkh1fz/Mike%20Finlay%20Biography.docx?dl=0
John Fletcher, I was a maintenance engineer for approximately 20 months on the Leo 3 at British Steel site Ravenscraig Motherwell in the late 60’s. I was employed by English Electric Computers at that time who also serviced the process control computers in the strip mill. Our Leo training took place at the Post Office Edinburgh site. Great training and experience as I remember. a good foundation for the rest of my computer industry career. I remember the Leo has been fairly reliable and therefore not needing much attention. Spent more time with the document reading/paper tape generating data processing data.. Christchurch Dorset is now home. .Tel. 01202 255870 mobile 0748 838 4414
John Simon Florentin, Computer Operator I used to work on Leo III’s at Shell Mex’s computer centre in Hemel in about 1965-67. I thought I had better write something about this before I disappear for good.
They had two of these machines that were to us exactly the same. All this was on the lowest level of the building where it crossed the bottom end of Marlowes in the centre of Hemel-Hempstead. This building has since been replaced.
These machines were run 24 hours a day Monday to Fridays. There would be two teams of about 4 operators on each shift, one for each machine. The only other persons around on the night shift would be someone in charge of the whole shift, the cook to feed us and a person who was the magnetic tape librarian and the engineers. On the night shift the operators would be fed at about 12.00 at night and the computers would be handed over to the engineers who would do whatever maintenance was necessary. They frequently did not use there allocation of time and it was possible for anyone who wanted to, to run their own programs. I think one machine was handed over to the engineer for an hour then the other for an hour. When the operators were not working or eating one popular pastime was playing cribbage. On the end of the week night shift there would be a very large sort that took most of the shift. But when it finished everyone went home early.
Each machine had eight tape drives (no discs) These would be four on two channels – so the source files would be read in from two drives on one channel and output to two other drives on the other channel. The source file would be on about 10 tapes.
This meant that one person would be working almost by himself juggling these tapes all night. On top of this, every now and then the tapes containing the current partially sorted file would be saved just in case a re-run was needed. During a large sort like this the machine could run up to two other programs
All programs had to be typed onto paper tape and then read in.
I think the words in the memory were 48 bits long. One or two of these were parity bits as operators would get SPF’s on the console denoting a store parity failure.
It was said these machines had a floating point option fitted.
The control store was in a box about 1ft cube. Inside was a three dimensional array of fine wires with very small cores at what appeared to be random points.
The paper tape reader was made by Elliot but the paper tape punch was made by Teletype. The printer was made by Anelex. There was also a card punch and reader. There might have been a reader for reading forms where boxes were selected by drawing a line through them (Editor: Lector or Autolector). The whole machine was made using transistors except in the tape drives, TM2’s made by Ampex. Thyratrons were used to control the roller used to press the tape against the drive. The density of the bits on the mag tape was such that we had a gadget with a sort of fluid magnetic liquid in it such that individual bits could be seen.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/qwhc24ztw05iyab/John%20Florentin%20memoir.docx?dl=0
John Simon Florentin: Read More »
John Forbes, Reminiscences. Joined Leo in early 1960. Did a few ‘odd jobs’ for Leo ll. In summer was told that I was to lead a small team writing an Intercode Translator for Leo lll. My immediate questions were, “What is Intercode?” “What is a Translator?” With a small team created Intercode translator
Working closely with Master routine (MR) had Translator and its MR interface working in 1961.
Moved to CLEO compiler in 1962 with a larger team.
In 1963 on spent more time accompanying consultants to answer/explain to prospects how Leo software worked.
In 1964 IBM announced 360. Moved to team designing ‘new range’. Abandonment of ‘new range’, after ‘deal’ with RCA for Spectra series. Worked on System 4 and software support until moving to Canada in 1969
Two points raised I think I can provide comments on.
1. Why CLEO rather than COBOL? This will go down in the annals of LEO history as one of the great internal debates. (I was not party to it).In the red corner we had the proponents of CLEO (Clear Language for Expressing Orders) It was a clearer language than COBOL. It sought to combine the facilities of COBOL AND FORTRAN in the requirements it addressed. And perhaps most importantly it was the brainchild of TRT. In the blue corner we had the proponents of COBOL led by DTC. It was an already accepted high level language. This meant that it would be easier for a company that had COBOL programs to convert from another machine to a LEO machine. (Far-sighted in that uniform tape standards, programming languages had not yet emerged as a long-term goal).
Anyway the RED corner won by a KO and I was instructed to produce a CLEO compiler, for which I was given a somewhat larger team than had been the case with INTERCODE.
2. Why did the CLEO compiler produce output that was input for the Intercode translator?
In the initial design stage, the objective was to produce object code ready for handling by the Master Program in the same format as the Intercode Translator; and we had experience of doing this. Inside the team there had been little if any discussion about whether that was the right way to go. Then came the suggestion (from Mike Josephs, I think) that we should go the Intercode route. The argument for going this way was that the CLEO compiler would be ready sooner, both because it would cut down on some of the work that had to be done in earlier passes of the program and because some additional passes would not be required. The argument against was simply that each compile would take longer. I agreed with the Intercode route, on the understanding that we would later be able to amend the compiler to be expanded to incorporate the translator functions. (Of course, this never happened and many members of the team and I were long gone into other roles soon after the Intercode version was working.)
3. High level languages v low level languages and computer road blocks. The pros and cons of this debate have been well versed for many years. What, even now I believe as I swear at my laptop, is an understanding of what is the critical component that slows down the execution of a program. For many years it was the speed of the cpu. In one organisation I became familiar with a critical long running batch program ran every night. The solution was to get faster tape drives. Surprise! the run time of the critical update program did not decrease.
Now I look at my lap top and wonder why a program takes so long to load or a file to be found. The disc drive has (in my case) become the limiting factor. My experience is that very few installations take the time to analyse where their road blocks are. See https://www.dropbox.com/s/qhekzhfa8jh4lwb/John%20Forbes%20memoir.doc?dl=0
I was dozing on the settee when I became aware of LEO on the screen and Wendy Craig uttering the words Lyons Electronic Office. Bill Forfar: Reminiscence – Article – Computing History
- Wendy Forward Memoir by her daughter Anna C Page
My mother, Wendy Elizabeth Forward, was a computer programmer during the early 1960s in London before embarking upon overseas travel She read mathematics at Reading University, and graduated from there in July 1963 (her degree certificate says ‘Pure Mathematics, Applied Mathematics and Geography, resulting in a BSc Honours 3rd class). She was a programmer on the Leo III business computer from approximately September 1963 until about August 1966. The Leo was the first business computer in the world, invented during the early 1950s for the Lyons Teahouses (Leo stood for Lyons Electronic Office). See: http://www.leo-computers.org.uk/newphotos.htm for photos of Leo I, Leo II and Leo III. My mother worked in the Lyons main bureau computer at Hartree House, Queensway, London http://www.leo-computers.org.uk and there are some wonderful photos of the installation of this machine – by crane through the window! This machine was in use from 1962 – 1972.
My mother lived near to the computer, in Leinster Square, and then later she moved to Fitzjohn’s Avenue in Hampstead. I succeeded, via the Leo Computers Society, to get in touch with one of her former colleagues who confirmed that she had been a Leo programmer. Her colleague, Peter Byford, told me “We all had a great time at Leo although we worked long hours. We all got on well, your Mum was a nice lady, good programmer, sometimes worried more than most when things went wrong but an important part of our programming team. She would have worked on CLEO and intercede” (programming languages).
My mother’s first dog in Cape Town was called Cleopatra was a Great Dane, the runt of the litter (Cleo for short). We had always thought that Mum had named her for the Egyptian Queen (though we didn’t know why), however CLEO stands for ‘Clear Language for Expressing Orders’ and was the plain English programming language developed for Leo computers (but which ultimately lost out to other programming languages – see pages 164-165 ‘A Computer called Leo’, by Georgina Ferry). To me this just shows Mum’s quiet and ironical sense of humour that she named her dog after the programming language she used, especially as dogs are (hopefully) controlled by commands.
Leo Computers merged with English Electric in February 1963, in October 1964 EE bought out Lyon’s holdings and the computer company was renamed English Electric LEO Marconi, in 1967 it merged with ICT to form International Computing Limited (ICL). These first two events would have taken place while my mother worked for the company. ICL later lost out to IBM and the USA market and then the Japanese has predominated the computing world ever since.
I remember my mother’s reaction to the first Apple home computer that friends of ours acquired in the early 1980s. She so wanted a reason to justify the expense of acquiring one, but despite the fact that it could have helped with the household accounts, the accounts for her mathematics coaching and the weekly letters to her parents and sister, she resisted the urge to buy one as she saw it as a luxury and was very careful about saving money. I so wish that she had bought one, though she would not have had long to enjoy getting to grips with programming again because of her early death.
My mother was an inspiration to me in so many ways, although I only had her for 13 3/4 years. She would have been pleased with my achievements at the Open University (both as a student and member of staff), as I am proud of hers at Leo: what a great technology role model to have in my family.
Wendy and Cleo, 1968. See also https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/md6e105079om96rvzjaw7/Wendy-Forward-by-Anna-Page.docx?dl=0&rlkey=ykq9u1x4qen2f36p2l9st9ydz
Nigel Furness, I was involved in 1981 in decommissioning the Bristol machine, LEO III-70 which was a 326 model (editor: the last LEO). Prior to decommissioning I had been employed as a systems engineer to provide engineering support for this machine. I had been trained at Charles House which was a BT (formerly GPO) installation, as was Bristol and Cardiff. I was unaware that the guys who were training me had been at the forefront of computer science in the 1950s. Many of the concepts embodied in LEO are to be found in today’s PCs – multi-channel DMA for example, though LEO’s version of a DMA controller was called an “assembler” – a term guaranteed to cause confusion in conversation with programmers. LEO III had the world’s first multitasking operating system, called rather quaintly “the master routine”. It also had a microprogrammed CPU – a very advanced idea at the time. LEO was beautifully made and all those engineers who worked on LEO were very proud to have been connected with the machine and we were very sad when we switched it off for the last time. I and (I think) six other colleagues were the last generation of engineers recruited by ICL to work on LEO and I joined the company last of all, several weeks after the others in January 1980. I have to say that much of what I learned during this period has underpinned my entire understanding of computers and it was a marvelous opportunity for a young engineer to have experienced what some have called “the golden age of computing”
John Godwin : LEO Programmer Johannesburg:
Worked in the Johannesburg Bureau from 1964 until 1986 when I moved to the then holding company. Originally we were part of the Rand Mines Group of companies. The mining houses were our main customers for whom we ran payrolls, stores and share transfers. For full reminiscences see Center for Computer History