Wrong Railway Facts

[Andy873]

I was looking the other day at Huncoat station on the East Lancashire line and came across something I've seen before - wrong "facts".

Looking on the Internet it says the station was "re-located in 1902", but if you look at this map (published in 1895, surveyed 1890-92) you can clearly see the station at its present location (the 1848 map shows the original location).

That means the re-location date of 1902 is clearly wrong?

It's not the first time I've come across such things while researching my old branch line (not this one).

What mistakes have you found over the years? I'm guessing they are sadly very common?

Thanks,
Andy.

 

[jfollows]

There was the first issue of RAIL magazine which covered a Class 87 cab ride and said that the pantograph dropped at every neutral section, a more recent issue of the same magazine said that third rail went as far as Salisbury, is that the sort of "fact" you're after? Or does it just mean that it's not a very good magazine?

 

[Andy873]

There was the first issue of RAIL magazine which covered a Class 87 cab ride and said that the pantograph dropped at every neutral section, a more recent issue of the same magazine said that third rail went as far as Salisbury, is that the sort of "fact" you're after? Or does it just mean that it's not a very good magazine?

Don't know about the magazine, but yes, anything that you have read and found evidence to the contrary - which means one of them is clearly wrong.

Simple example, regarding my old branch line - many sites state it closed in 1957 - wrong, it closed to regular passenger services in '57, but didn't close until 1964.

My real point being is that some of these "facts" have found their way into books and people take them as being correct, which they are not, and over the years..

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

You do have to be careful, however, when researching history via Ordnance Survey maps, as the 'surveyed' and 'published' dates are not always as it seems. If a reprint was required between editions, they would sometimes make minor changes without revising the whole map. In the age of rapid railway expansion this was quite common - just new lines / alterations were added - much like they do with major new roads today. On later OS maps there is a code to indicate the 'version', but not on this series. Sometimes 'projected lines' were added - which never subsequently happened!

 

[Andy873]

You do have to be careful, however, when researching history via Ordnance Survey maps, as the 'surveyed' and 'published' dates are not always as it seems. If a reprint was required between editions, they would sometimes make minor changes without revising the whole map. In the age of rapid railway expansion this was quite common - just new lines / alterations were added - much like they do with major new roads today. On later OS maps there is a code to indicate the 'version', but not on this series. Sometimes 'projected lines' were added - which never subsequently happened!

Yes, I used to think OS maps were absolutely and always correct, something that I have also found not to be true either.

I agree you really do have to be careful, I wouldn't want to write something in a book wrong and then years later someone else comes along and writes another one and quotes what has been wrongly written.

Any examples of wrong railway "facts" anyone?

 

[Gloster]

Any examples of wrong railway "facts" anyone?

There is a recent thread on this forum by @rogerfarnworth on errors in the routing of the Welshpool & Llanfair through Welshpool. (Sorry, I can’t do a link, but there should be enough there for a forum search.) Over the years I have come across many errors, some small and some whoppers, and even had my name traduced by those who won’t accept that they have made or copied an error.

 

[jfollows]

This thread, presumable: The Welshpool & Llanfair Light Railway

 

[Taunton]

The constant assertion that Beeching was bad for the railway ...

 

[pdeaves]

The constant assertion that Beeching was bad for the railway ...

... or was responsible for every closure, ever ...

 

[swt_passenger]

Books are always well researched, right? There’s one I’ve read that describes a substantial concrete building in Newcastle, (half way down Forth Banks on the corner of Pottery Lane), as the original passenger terminus of the Newcastle and Carlisle railway, and they give its open period as about 1840-51. It is “Lost Railways of Northumberland” by Robert Kinghorn, there’s probably a few members here who’ve seen it.

But the major mistake is that this ‘station’ wasn‘t actually built until after the King Edward Bridge opened in 1906, during which period the existing goods station was remodelled, ie the whole section on what was now the “wrong side” of the new bridge works was demolished as it was cut off by the new viaduct. The new concrete building in question was opened from new in about 1910 as a multiple level goods handling facility, with the railway access from the west, under the viaduct and into on the top floor.

There’s a good review quoting the text of Kinghorn‘s book , I’ve linked it below, it includes loads of research, map details and pictures. If that book section can be so misleading, what are the chances something else in the book is also completely incorrect?

Forth Banks Railway Station?

_ © Copyright Les Hull and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence

heddonhistory.weebly.com

 

[Western Sunset]

Don't get me started...

The current issue of MLIPlus (#256) has a feature on DHP1. There's a photo, described as "a busy workshop at Hatton", when actually it's the interior of the International Combustion works in Sinfin Lane, Derby.

 

[Andy873]

Thanks everyone, some great examples!

There’s a good review quoting the text of Kinghorn‘s book , I’ve linked it below, it includes loads of research, map details and pictures. If that book section can be so misleading, what are the chances something else in the book is also completely incorrect?

A very high chance, and the frustrating thing is as said before, someone else could come along years later, write another book with the error re-repeated and we end up believing it.

A book I have about my old branch line has a photo of Great Harwood station from the front. however and somehow the photo is reversed, i.e. the entrance is on the wrong side - and that's how I thought it looked until I found other photos showing it correctly which tied up with the OS street map of the area and how people remember it.

 

[Railsigns]

Various publications have said that the first Solid State Interlocking was at Leamington Spa in 1985, ignoring the one at Dingwall in 1984.

 

[Andy873]

More great replies, thanks, it seems errors are very common and frustrating!

and even had my name traduced by those who won’t accept that they have made or copied an error.

Yes, I could see how they simply couldn't accept they were wrong.

As many of you know, I have been researching my old line for a good few years now and believe my facts are correct - however, if someone where to turn up with undisputable information showing one of my facts was wrong I would be disappointed but would accept it. Indeed, I would be very keen to check my other facts with them.

 

[Trestrol]

Books are always well researched, right? There’s one I’ve read that describes a substantial concrete building in Newcastle, (half way down Forth Banks on the corner of Pottery Lane), as the original passenger terminus of the Newcastle and Carlisle railway, and they give its open period as about 1840-51. It is “Lost Railways of Northumberland” by Robert Kinghorn, there’s probably a few members here who’ve seen it.

But the major mistake is that this ‘station’ wasn‘t actually built until after the King Edward Bridge opened in 1906, during which period the existing goods station was remodelled, ie the whole section on what was now the “wrong side” of the new bridge works was demolished as it was cut off by the new viaduct. The new concrete building in question was opened from new in about 1910 as a multiple level goods handling facility, with the railway access from the west, under the viaduct and into on the top floor.

There’s a good review quoting the text of Kinghorn‘s book , I’ve linked it below, it includes loads of research, map details and pictures. If that book section can be so misleading, what are the chances something else in the book is also completely incorrect?

Forth Banks Railway Station?

_ © Copyright Les Hull and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence

heddonhistory.weebly.com

One part of the Newcastle and Carlisle Railway station does survive but not on its original site. The carriage shed on the station site was not very old when station site was redeveloped. It was moved stone by stone to become 1 Neville Street the goods agents offices. It still stands to this day. You can still see the sealed up openings where the carriages went in.

 

[Taunton]

The Ian Allan spotting books showed the original Wirral electric unit numbers every year, until they were withdrawn around 1980.

They had been built in 1938, and four cars were destroyed by bombing in WW2 in 1941. However these four continued to be shown, unlike anything else withdrawn, in the books right up until the rest of the fleet was withdrawn, when they were all deleted. There were four replacements for them built and numbered with the 1956 batch, which also appeared. The error must surely have been pointed out to the publisher multiple times, but never addressed.

 

[43096]

Too many believe that if it has been written by Colin Marsden, it must be true…

 

[swt_passenger]

One part of the Newcastle and Carlisle Railway station does survive but not on its original site. The carriage shed on the station site was not very old when station site was redeveloped. It was moved stone by stone to become 1 Neville Street the goods agents offices. It still stands to this day. You can still see the sealed up openings where the carriages went in.

Yes, and if you read right down that’s mentioned towards the end of the linked article, but that author reckons that it was an early N&C stone goods shed (built in the 1850s) that was repurposed as the Neville St offices. I think it would have been on or very near the alignment of the N&C passenger route, ie on the north side of the massive 1870s goods station site, the concrete building that I originally pointed out is in a completely different place right in the south east corner of the site..

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The recent DfT announcement of more funding for the Transpennine Route Upgrade majored on digital signalling replacing Victorian signalling.
The announcement used a picture of signals at Severn Bridge Jn signal box at Shrewsbury, to illustrate "Victorian signalling" (there is none left on the TRU route).
But the signals shown were BR/LMR-pattern upper quadrants, quite recently installed - and the heritage signalling at Shrewsbury itself is an Edwardian installation.
This is misleading on several different levels.

 

[DerekC]

The constant assertion that Beeching was bad for the railway ...

Is a statement of opinion, as is yours in asserting that it isn't true. Not an incorrect fact!

 

[Ken H]

The recent DfT announcement of more funding for the Transpennine Route Upgrade majored on digital signalling replacing Victorian signalling.
The announcement used a picture of signals at Severn Bridge Jn signal box at Shrewsbury, to illustrate "Victorian signalling" (there is none left on the TRU route).
But the signals shown were BR/LMR-pattern upper quadrants, quite recently installed - and the heritage signalling at Shrewsbury itself is an Edwardian installation.
This is misleading on several different levels.

Dont get me started on pictures used as illustrations (especially in newspapers and on TV) to be in a completely different place to the story.

 

[6Gman]

The Ian Allan spotting books showed the original Wirral electric unit numbers every year, until they were withdrawn around 1980.

They had been built in 1938, and four cars were destroyed by bombing in WW2 in 1941. However these four continued to be shown, unlike anything else withdrawn, in the books right up until the rest of the fleet was withdrawn, when they were all deleted. There were four replacements for them built and numbered with the 1956 batch, which also appeared. The error must surely have been pointed out to the publisher multiple times, but never addressed.

Weren't there some "extra" Southern EMUs as well listed for some years? 4-REPs or 4-TCs if I recall correctly.

 

[341o2]

... or was responsible for every closure, ever ...

You beat me to it. He was only a consultant and gave advice, which was not always followed. Plus he is apparently responsible for today's rail network as in "If only Beeching hadn't closed the railways"


VoR No 9 is an original D&M locomotive rebuilt by the GWR.

As a member of the Woodland Trust, according to the writer of an article describing walks in the area steam locomotives have run on the Ffestiniog since 1836, the year it opened

According to the Bournemouth Daily Echo in 1946, MN class 35017 Belgium Marine was manufactured in that country and purchased by the Southern Railway

 

[Bertone]

Various publications have said that the first Solid State Interlocking was at Leamington Spa in 1985, ignoring the one at Dingwall in 1984.

Yes agreed, but Dingwell SSI was a RETB scheme, whereas Leamington Spa was the first conventional SSI signalling project.
As you may be aware, LS was a tripartite project involving British Rail, GEC and Westinghouse.

 

[Railsigns]

Yes agreed, but Dingwell [Dingwall] SSI was a RETB scheme, whereas Leamington Spa was the first conventional SSI signalling project.

That's correct, and there's nothing factually wrong with stating that Leamington Spa was the first SSI, providing the statement is qualified as you have done. But too often it isn't.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

I was looking the other day at Huncoat station on the East Lancashire line and came across something I've seen before - wrong "facts".

Looking on the Internet it says the station was "re-located in 1902", but if you look at this map (published in 1895, surveyed 1890-92) you can clearly see the station at its present location (the 1848 map shows the original location).

That means the re-location date of 1902 is clearly wrong?

So, what works took place in 1902 at or around Huncoat station? A new platform opening? Installation of loops? Track widening? Local newspapers of the time do seem to suggest that there were some alterations to the layout in the vicinity of Huncoat in the first half of that year.

 

[ian1944]

In 1990 or so I bought "Britain's Railways from the Air" and "The Second Book of Britain's Railways from the Air", published by Ian Allan. Basically, they were selected Aeofilms photos with brief descriptions. I found that each had about ten non-trivial errors, ranging from getting a year wrong to misnaming a station or a junction, via such a solecism as "Whitley Bay is served by trains to Blyth" written long after there were no such things. On writing in to point this out, the reply justified the errors by citing "lack of local knowledge and misleading captioning by Aerofilms of their original prints". I had no local knowledge but had no difficulty in spotting the errors from personal knowledge, other sources held and old maps.

There were at the time quite a lot of aerial photo books being published, so it seems apparent that Ian Allan were rushing to join them and employed an author not up to the job of basic fact-checking and appropriate personal research, with the publisher not doing any meaningful in-house editing. In their favour, the pics were well-enough chosen and mostly interesting, and a certaim amount of smugness arose from identifying the errors.

 

[Gloster]

So, what works took place in 1902 at or around Huncoat station? A new platform opening? Installation of loops? Track widening? Local newspapers of the time do seem to suggest that there were some alterations to the layout in the vicinity of Huncoat in the first half of that year.

Quick’s Chronology says the relocation by 37 chains was in 1882/9. Brown’s Liverpool & Manchester Railway Atlas suggests that it is possible that just the Up platform was relocated. There was also Whinney Hill Brick Works which appeared sometime between 1893 and 1912, and was (at sometime) served by a line. (All these may come from similar sources to yours.)

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Quick’s Chronology says the relocation by 37 chains was in 1882/9. Brown’s Liverpool & Manchester Railway Atlas suggests that it is possible that just the Up platform was relocated. There was also Whinney Hill Brick Works which appeared sometime between 1893 and 1912, and was (at sometime) served by a line. (All these may come from similar sources to yours.)

Could indeed just be one platform that got moved in 1902.

The contemporary news article from February 1902 ("The Burnley Express") talks about...

"The work of laying two loop lines between Huncoat and the intermediate siding near the Accrington Cemetery is in progress, and the construction of the new platform Huncoat Station opposite the Accrington arrival platform is half completed".

(N.B. There may be some garbling in the above extract due to optical character recognition limitations).

Perhaps some folk previously researching the history of Huncoat station have been confused by the publication date of the relevant OS maps.

Link to 1893 OS map...

View map: Ordnance Survey, Lancashire LXIII.7 (Accrington; Altham; Clayton Le Moors) - Ordnance Survey 25 inch England and Wales, 1841-1952

Link to 1909 OS map...

View map: Ordnance Survey, Lancashire LXIII.7 (Accrington; Altham; Clayton Le Moors) - Ordnance Survey 25 inch England and Wales, 1841-1952

 

[Gloster]

Comparing Brown’s atlas and the 25” map suggest that the second station was originally provided with staggered platforms (an arriving train on one line would run right past a train stopped at the platform on the opposite line before itself stopping). When the change to platforms opposite each other took place is less clear, but could well have been when the third line was laid.