Getting Your Railway Facts Wrong

[Andy873]

I try as always to get my railway facts correct, but due to more and more documents being made available online I'm now going to have to re-write the early history of the branch line I have been researching.

My original source of information about the branch line comes from a well written L&Y Society book from 1993, it was written that year as the last remaining section was about to close because it had been used to supply a power station. But news broke about the power station closing and hence the book was written then.

The book of course starts with how the line came into being with both the L&Y and a new railway company both submitting their own bills to Parliament more or less at the same time, now that's okay at this point. However the society book makes only a slight reference to the East Lancashire Railway company which by the time these two bills were submitted had been amalgamated into the L&Y. As you read this brief description in the book your left wondering if the L&Y's bill / plan was their own or one of the ELR's.

Now with the help of newspaper articles the picture becomes clearer...

What actually transpired was the ELR back in November 1845 submitted a bill to obtain (in principle) to build two sections of the branch line, but it didn't plan to join up the two ends. Now fast forward 20 years to 1865...

This new (would be) railway company called the Manchester & North Lancashire Railway (M&NL) were quite frankly fed up with the L&Y, the townsfolk and businesses of the two towns involved had been asking repeatedly for the branch line to be built, but it simply fell on deaf ears and this new company came along promising to build it plus others. The L&Y were "hopping mad" about this as this branch would be right in the heart of what they considered to be their territory. In October 1865 the M&NL were causing quite a scene in the newspapers which stated this new company was already surveying land around Burnley.

The L&Y simply couldn't risk that the M&NL would submit a bill and it becoming an act, all this news coverage would have course alerted the L&Y of this possibility and so they dug out the old ELR plan with the two ends joined up and submitted their own bill. The M&NL subsequently did the same. The deadline for submission to Parliament being the end of November, and if you missed that deadline you would have to wait another year.

The newspapers in November do report both companies submitting bills to effectively build (more or less) the same branch line. They also report by 20 January 1866 the M&NL had dropped their competing bill after compensation was paid to the M&NL plus a promise that the L&Y would actually build the line and not simply abandon it at a later stage.

My mistake:

Given what had been written and until recently I believed the M&NL caught the L&Y off guard with their (M&NL) plan, which given the deadline date thought the L&Y had rushed to submit their own bill.

It just goes to show, as time moves on and more online tools / newspapers / documents are made available just how wrong you can be!

The L&Y book does state that the L&Y chose to build the line in two sections which is not the case either, the L&Y bill proposed to build the whole line in one bill, however someone somewhere objected to the route at the eastern end, and what was actually passed stopped the line at the second town, and the L&Y were forced to submit another bill with an alternative route later that same year.

As I post this, I'm feeling both pleased I've finally been able to work out what really happened, and also down in the dumps as I've been wrong regarding the early history of the branch line all this time...

Please tell me I'm not the only one who's got railway history wrong!

 

[Cowley]

You’re definitely not the only one Andy. There’s been numerous “facts” that have been passed down through the years that have ended up being debunked later.

Better to have a go and rectify or at least acknowledge the mistakes later than never write anything I reckon?

 

[EveningStar]

You’re definitely not the only one Andy. There’s been numerous “facts” that have been passed down through the years that have ended up being debunked later.

Better to have a go and rectify or at least acknowledge the mistakes later than never write anything I reckon?

Totally agree, better to have a go and in the process be honest with the facts as found.

Is what we tell the undergraduates, that it is better to use primary sources that are personally verifiable rather than secondary sources that are written by somebody else, where there is a risk of errors or falsifications. By going back to original documents, such as contemporary newspaper reports, allows a more accurate picture. Colleague and research collaborator of mine, a historian, is starting to write a book on the history of railway buildings, and I know she will be heading to the National Archives as her first stop.

 

[Cowley]

Totally agree, better to have a go and in the process be honest with the facts as found.

Is what we tell the undergraduates, that it is better to use primary sources that are personally verifiable rather than secondary sources that are written by somebody else, where there is a risk of errors or falsifications. By going back to original documents, such as contemporary newspaper reports, allows a more accurate picture. Colleague and research collaborator of mine, a historian, is starting to write a book on the history of railway buildings, and I know she will be heading to the National Archives as her first stop.

I admire anyone who has a go at writing railway history. The amount of people that are interested in pretty niche areas and have unbelievable levels of knowledge in things like 19th century L&Y timetabling (for example) make it a pretty daunting subject to get your teeth into, then there’s the wider social context of the railways on top of the technical aspects to think about.

I get the fear just setting a question in the quiz section.

 

[Peter C]

I completely agree with you both @Cowley and @EveningStar. As a history student myself this is the sort of thing I love. A lot of people think 'History' as a concept is just learning that on X date in Y place, Z happened, and then rinse-and-repeat until suddenly you have Done History. In reality it's much more about analysing sources and events from particular angles to bring out a completely new approach or idea - see women's history as an example of going back to historical records and 'reading against the grain' or between the lines to discover things not previously noted.

Older railway history books are quite interesting I think because some of them tend to focus more on "X happened and then Y happened and then Z happened" rather than any real analysis - still an interesting read though. And even now you get 'great men' histories which tell the story of a person or company through the names of the big men at the top and ignore the day-to-day stuff (what you'd call social history).

@Andy873 - try not to feel too disheartened about having been incorrect: that's what history is all about. It's a bit like how scientists are pleased when their hypotheses are proved wrong because it's furthered their knowledge about something, I suppose. I know myself from having researched various things that finding another piece of information which contradicts stuff you've got already can be really irritating, but the flip-side of that is to then look at things going forward in the context of the new information you've found, and you may well be able to find out more than you otherwise could have, if that makes sense. And anyway, as more and more records from archives are digitised and made available online, you'll be bound to find things which contradict what you've already got so it's an ever-evolving process. In many ways that's why I love history, because I don't really believe in the idea of there being 'the' history of anything - simply 'a' history. You can't cover absolutely every little detail ever about something without making a book the size of Saturn, but you can give it a jolly good try. I've seen a lot of your threads on here and it's clear you're doing a great job at making sure you get the history spot-on so I say be proud of yourself!

-Peter

 

[Magdalia]

As I post this, I'm feeling both pleased I've finally been able to work out what really happened, and also down in the dumps as I've been wrong regarding the early history of the branch line all this time.

You should feel very pleased and not at all down in the dumps. Through diligent research of contemporary sources you have found something that the authors of the 1993 book either did not find, or did not realise the significance of it, or overlooked. It is a research triumph!

it is better to use primary sources that are personally verifiable rather than secondary sources that are written by somebody else, where there is a risk of errors or falsifications. By going back to original documents, such as contemporary newspaper reports, allows a more accurate picture.

I am not a historian by training, but I was fortunate that I learned this not long after I started out in railway historical research. I try to get back to primary sources wherever possible.

It is also important to remember that there are original sources that only become easily accessible much later on, and were not available to authors of earlier works. Digitisation of old newspapers is one example, another is the "thirty years rule" for many documents in the National Archives.

I get the fear just setting a question in the quiz section.

I'm usually too busy with research to look at the quiz questions!

 

[Sun Chariot]

Hello @Andy873 your previous threads and posts, have been a delight and demonstrate the extent of your research effort. You can be proud of yourself.
I'll echo what you and others said - inevitably a "drip feed" of new insight appears, after a topic of research is published / broadcast.

My view, is that some researchers can take so long in their pursuit of 100% accuracy & perfection, that their work never actually gets published / broadcast - and their whole raison d'etre is lost.
Other researchers take the option of getting content into the public domain, to stimulate the discovery of new information.

The late, great, Michael Harris made assumptions in some of his written works on LNER stock; assumptions subsequently proved as incorrect.
See the linked page, section with title LNER 56'6" BG to D.44. However, at least Michael got his work published in a timely manner!
The author of that website, in their quest for total perfection with "LNER Passenger Trains and Formations", consumed 12 years to reach their publication of volume one - and a further 12 years (if it comes out this autumn) for volume two!

LNER NPCS - from sleeping cars to BGs - Steve Banks

Railway historical research (all companies) especially workings on the LNER and BR. Railway modelling of coaches and carriages on a professional basis.

www.steve-banks.org

 

[Peter C]

The late, great, Michael Harris made assumptions in some of his written works on LNER stock; assumptions subsequently proved as incorrect.
See the linked page, section with title LNER 56'6" BG to D.44. However, at least Michael got his work published in a timely manner!
The author of that website, in their quest for total perfection with "LNER Passenger Trains and Formations", consumed 12 years to reach their publication of volume one - and a further 12 years (if it comes out this autumn) for volume two!

LNER NPCS - from sleeping cars to BGs - Steve Banks

Railway historical research (all companies) especially workings on the LNER and BR. Railway modelling of coaches and carriages on a professional basis.

www.steve-banks.org

That's an interesting point about assumptions in historical research. I'm afraid I don't know Mr. Harris's work, but my personal opinion would be assumptions are generally okay so long as it's made clear that they are just that - preferably somehow in the main text, rather than in footnotes/endnotes. In my research I've had to make assumptions for certain little details which aren't consequential, but have marked them as being assumed rather than hard fact - who knows, someone reading the finished product might just read that and be able to research it further.

My view, is that some researchers can take so long in their pursuit of 100% accuracy & perfection, that their work never actually gets published / broadcast - and their whole raison d'etre is lost.

On a more general historical note - readers may be familiar with Mark Lewishohn, historian of The Beatles, who is currently writing volume two of his Tune In series of books about the band. His desire to get all possible accurate information - for he is determined, from what I've read, to achieve total accuracy - means there's been eleven years since the first volume (which itself ran, in the extended edition, to 1700 pages) and there's no word yet on when the second will be published.

Other researchers take the option of getting content into the public domain, to stimulate the discovery of new information.

This is my favoured approach. I'm not currently researching railway topics, but I think the general discussion of historical practices can be applied to railway research - as with anything you research and publish, inevitably once it's published you'll get someone getting in contact to say they've got this huge archive or they've got material which would help/contradict your thesis/etc. but you couldn't find them or their archive during your research. History - and, picking up again on what @Cowley said earlier, railway history in particular - is fractal: you could spend your entire life (and I'm sure people do!) researching very small periods of time (say, just a few years or even a few months) and clearly there's enough material out there to make that worthwhile.

-Peter

 

[Zamalek]

I'm an historian who deals with ancient Egypt and the totally unrelated topic of 19th/20th century naval history, and have come across numerous examples of what I call 'Zombie facts' - things that were a perfectly valid interpretation of data available in the past, but then revised (in some cases unrecognizably so) in light of new discoveries, whether of objects or archival sources (including contemporary press reports).

The reason I call them 'Zombies' is the fact that once 'old' views are in print, often in 'authoritative' sources, they are often almost impossible to kill. Revisions are frequently in specialist historical journals/websites, and non-specialists will have no idea they exist. So long-dead ideas keep getting recycled in 'popular' books, magazines and websites (including Wikipedia, where I have on occasion been reverted multiple times when trying to correct Zombies ...).

 

[Bevan Price]

Sometimes the contents of history books has to be summarised or condensed to fit into the available space. I knew (the late) John Tolson, who wrote the history of St. Helens Railway (Oakwood Press), and he told me he had far more information than could be fitted in the format of his book. The same probably applies to other books.

 

[6Gman]

I'm an historian who deals with ancient Egypt and the totally unrelated topic of 19th/20th century naval history, and have come across numerous examples of what I call 'Zombie facts' - things that were a perfectly valid interpretation of data available in the past, but then revised (in some cases unrecognizably so) in light of new discoveries, whether of objects or archival sources (including contemporary press reports).
The reason I call them 'Zombies' is the fact that once 'old' views are in print, often in 'authoritative' sources, they are often almost impossible to kill. Revisions are frequently in specialist historical journals/websites, and non-specialists will have no idea they exist. So long-dead ideas keep getting recycled in 'popular' books, magazines and websites (including Wikipedia, where I have on occasion been reverted multiple times when trying to correct Zombies ...).

This is so true in all areas of research I suspect!

 

[Andy873]

You’re definitely not the only one Andy. There’s been numerous “facts” that have been passed down through the years that have ended up being debunked later.

Better to have a go and rectify or at least acknowledge the mistakes later than never write anything I reckon?

Totally agree, better to have a go and in the process be honest with the facts as found.

I admire anyone who has a go at writing railway history. The amount of people that are interested in pretty niche areas and have unbelievable levels of knowledge in things like 19th century L&Y timetabling (for example) make it a pretty daunting subject to get your teeth into, then there’s the wider social context of the railways on top of the technical aspects to think about.

I completely agree with you both @Cowley and @EveningStar. As a history student myself this is the sort of thing I love.

You should feel very pleased and not at all down in the dumps. Through diligent research of contemporary sources you have found something that the authors of the 1993 book either did not find, or did not realise the significance of it, or overlooked. It is a research triumph!

Hello @Andy873 your previous threads and posts, have been a delight and demonstrate the extent of your research effort. You can be proud of yourself.
I'll echo what you and others said - inevitably a "drip feed" of new insight appears, after a topic of research is published / broadcast.

In my research I've had to make assumptions for certain little details which aren't consequential, but have marked them as being assumed rather than hard fact

To everyone (even if I've not quoted you) I want to say what kind words of encouragement. Comments like these really do help to keep me going!

I also woke up this morning with some more good news, I had a reply from the National Archives about the L&Y Act of 1866 which wasn't available online, a lovely lady there not only told be it had been digitised but also sent me a copy - my missing link.

What she also told me was that a lot more Acts had been digitised and soon they'll be made available - so if you've been looking for an act, keep an eye out!

With regards to the branch line:

I was really just going through a process and dotting the I's and crossing the T's but I was still puzzled over why the L&Y simply didn't go straight south from Padiham to near Rose Grove (Burnley). Going this route would be easier, shorter, and you're going through countryside not flattening houses to clear a route into Burnley itself. The main point that going straight into Burnley puts the line on the wrong side of Gannow Junction which connects the East Lancs line with the Copy Pit line (West Yorkshire route)...

Why would you place a new line on the wrong side of this junction carrying all that extra traffic? The answer is, the junction and Copy Pit line didn't exist at the time the route to Burnley was drawn up. This can mean only one thing, the original route was done before the Copy Pit line existed, which in turn means the plan was the ELR's one and not the L&Y's.

The smoking gun - The solicitors name acting on behalf of the ELR's 1845 bill was the very same one as the L&Y's 1865 bill twenty years later.

By 1865 the Copy Pit line and Gannow Junction were well established, as too was the heavy amount of traffic coming from West Yorkshire. Knowing that, and that Accrington station was getting busier and busier even I would forget going directly from Padiham to Burnley and instead take the line directly south as it would be on the correct side of Gannow. Once you do that, a large amount of that West Yorkshire traffic can bypass Accrington by using the new branch line.

The 1866 act does confirm that the line had for now to terminate on the West side of the A678, back then it was a turnpike road and described as Blackburn Road. It doesn't mention any objections but it looks like there were. I also think that the L&Y wouldn't care too much about the line stopping where it had to, it would at least give them time to survey a new route directly south from Padiham, which I know was done in September 1866 and plenty of time for the second bill in November which then completes the line as built.

Thanks again for the kind words!
Andy.

 

[Indigo Soup]

The reason I call them 'Zombies' is the fact that once 'old' views are in print, often in 'authoritative' sources, they are often almost impossible to kill. Revisions are frequently in specialist historical journals/websites, and non-specialists will have no idea they exist. So long-dead ideas keep getting recycled in 'popular' books, magazines and websites (including Wikipedia, where I have on occasion been reverted multiple times when trying to correct Zombies ...).

Unfortunately, in many areas Wikipedia's editorial policy actively prevents such corrections - an untruth repeated often enough must be true, because it has been repeated so often. And if the evidence that it is untrue is found in a primary source, it can't be referred to because the source might be biased!

This is so true in all areas of research I suspect!

I am aware of a well-known 'fact' circulating in naval history circles for about a century now which is incorrect, and arising from a newspaper report shortly after WW1.

The primary sources were found about ten years ago which show that the newspaper report mistook one ship for another, quite different, one. Any attempt to point out the error is usually met with 'but the newspaper report at the time said....'

There's even one case where someone made up a totally fictional ship, and was completely transparent that the ship was a figment of their imagination. It managed to get repeated so many times that it became accepted as fact and even got published in one 'serious' history book!

 

[Rescars]

At least there is a sporting chance of unearthing primary sources for events which occurred in the 19th and 20th centuries. Future researchers may be more challenged to secure similarly reliable data created in the current digital age.

 

[eldomtom2]

I'm an historian who deals with ancient Egypt and the totally unrelated topic of 19th/20th century naval history, and have come across numerous examples of what I call 'Zombie facts' - things that were a perfectly valid interpretation of data available in the past, but then revised (in some cases unrecognizably so) in light of new discoveries, whether of objects or archival sources (including contemporary press reports).

The reason I call them 'Zombies' is the fact that once 'old' views are in print, often in 'authoritative' sources, they are often almost impossible to kill. Revisions are frequently in specialist historical journals/websites, and non-specialists will have no idea they exist. So long-dead ideas keep getting recycled in 'popular' books, magazines and websites (including Wikipedia, where I have on occasion been reverted multiple times when trying to correct Zombies ...).

If you can cite the specialist journals you shouldn't have too much trouble changing Wikipedia to reflect them...

 

[Zamalek]

If you can cite the specialist journals you shouldn't have too much trouble changing Wikipedia to reflect them...

Generally so, but there have been occasions where someone has still said 'but XXXXX is a respected source, and surely they cannot be wrong' .....

 

[contrex]

I believe the idea that the 1967 Bournemouth electrification scheme was at 850v west of Pirbright Junction is still stuck in some peoples' heads. I think it started in a magazine article.

 

[Spartacus]

I'm an historian who deals with ancient Egypt and the totally unrelated topic of 19th/20th century naval history, and have come across numerous examples of what I call 'Zombie facts' - things that were a perfectly valid interpretation of data available in the past, but then revised (in some cases unrecognizably so) in light of new discoveries, whether of objects or archival sources (including contemporary press reports).

The reason I call them 'Zombies' is the fact that once 'old' views are in print, often in 'authoritative' sources, they are often almost impossible to kill. Revisions are frequently in specialist historical journals/websites, and non-specialists will have no idea they exist. So long-dead ideas keep getting recycled in 'popular' books, magazines and websites (including Wikipedia, where I have on occasion been reverted multiple times when trying to correct Zombies ...).

Tell me about, my 'favourite' non railway zombie facts concern the Sherman tank, firstly supposedly called a "Ronson" during WWII because it 'lights first time every time', even though the phrase wasn't invented until the 50s, so clearly wrong, and secondly that it was unusually prone to catching fire. This was something looked at during the war by both British AND German statisticians when it was noticed by both sides that they seemed to catch first more. Both came to the same conclusion, the Sherman wasn't bad at catching fire at all, it just happened to follow two allied types that were unusually hard to set fire to, which made it look bad in comparison; later modifications put it in the same class as the earlier two. So even though it was statistically debunked during the war itself it's a myth that persists today, by people caring more about opinions rather than cold hard facts.

 

[Indigo Soup]

Tell me about, my 'favourite' non railway zombie facts concern the Sherman tank, firstly supposedly called a "Ronson" during WWII because it 'lights first time every time', even though the phrase wasn't invented until the 50s, so clearly wrong, and secondly that it was unusually prone to catching fire. This was something looked at during the war by both British AND German statisticians when it was noticed by both sides that they seemed to catch first more. Both came to the same conclusion, the Sherman wasn't bad at catching fire at all, it just happened to follow two allied types that were unusually hard to set fire to, which made it look bad in comparison; later modifications put it in the same class as the earlier two. So even though it was statistically debunked during the war itself it's a myth that persists today, by people caring more about opinions rather than cold hard facts.

That particular myth was started by a former American tank mechanic, whose unit repaired battle damaged tanks to put them back into service. Because of the nature of battle damage, that meant they were disproportionately likely to see tanks that had been put out of action through fire.

Dragging it back to railways... there's a widespread belief that British tanks were undergunned because larger turrets wouldn't fit within the loading gauge. This turns out not to be entirely true. They would only fit if the turret was allowed to overhang the tracks, which was accepted by other armies, but the British Army refused to do so.