• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Ian Allan "Pre-Grouping Atlas and Gazetteer" -- flaw of some magnitude, in latest edition

Status
Not open for further replies.

Calthrop

Established Member
Joined
6 Dec 2015
Messages
3,297
I started a thread a few years ago, titled British pre-amalgamations rail atlases -- "upsides and downsides" , on the "Railway History & Nostalgia" sub-forum: page 69 thereof. I mentioned then that having lost seemingly for good, the copy of the Fifth Edition of the Ian Allan Pre-Grouping Atlas and Gazetteer which had served me well for a good many years; I had acquired a copy of the work's "revised and enlarged" Sixth Edition, first published 2015. Subsequently, my Fifth Edition proved not to be lost after all. In that post, I offered the opinion that the Sixth Edition (indeed considerably re-vamped from the Fifth) was in some ways an improvement on its predecessor; but in others, was the reverse -- on balance, not justifying the slightly bragging tone of its claims about its "revised" status.

Recently -- an embarrassingly long while after the above-recounted events -- I became aware for the first time of an in my opinion sizeable, and glaring, patch of errors in the Sixth Edition. (Just conceivably, part of that which I mention here might be conscious and deliberate attempted simplification -- if so, IMO very ill-advised -- on the part of those who produced the Sixth Edition; even if that were so, there would still be elements which are, plainly, flat-out mistaken and incorrect.)

This features chiefly on the atlas's Sheet 10, and involves variously Metropolitan / Great Central / Great Western trackage in Buckinghamshire, and eastward of that county's south-eastern extremity. The fault here, is failure to distinguish either in line-on-map configuration, or in the printed word, between lines of the Metropolitan / Metropolitan & Great Central Joint, and Great Western & Great Central Joint, systems. The PGA&G 's Fifth Edition accomplishes this correctly: it uses different and distinct variants on the dashed-or-pecked/dotted line theme, coloured orange, for the M. & G.C. Joint and G.W. & G.C. Joint, respectively; and wherever it labels them with printed initials / words, it does so accurately and correctly.

The Sixth Edition, on the other hand, shows all routes of both Joint concerns by orange simple dashed / pecked lines, making no visual distinction between the two undertakings; and the G.W. & G.C. Joint's main line "en route" is labelled wrongly twice, as "Met. & G.C. JT." -- identical to the (correct) labelling of its part-Metropolitan counterpart running through Wendover and Amersham. Nowhere "en route" does the G.W. & G.C. Joint bear its correct initials. In the region of Aylesbury, the Sixth Edition follows the Fifth, in showing a label reading "MET. & G.C. Jt. & G.C. Jt. COMMS." [="Committees"?]; except that the Sixth changes the "Jt." of the Fifth, in both places, to "Jc." [mistakenly thinking of "Junction"??].

All the above, refers to the atlas's Sheet 10. On the Sheet 39 part of the "Greater London" large-scale detailed map: the Sixth Edition, while continuing to show the "G.W. and..." by an orange dashed / pecked line identical to that representing the "Met. and...", does label the former correctly as "G.W. & G.C. Jt". Finally (back to Sheet 10), the Quainton Road to Brill branch -- by my understanding, purely Metropolitan as at 1922 -- has its one-of-a-kind-oddity status acknowledged by the Fifth Edition: in its route being shown, though in the standard orange for this cluster of railways, by a special and unique broken-line variation. In the Sixth Edition, though, its designation is the same dashed / pecked orange line as used for everything else in the "cluster". Both Fifth and Sixth Editions label the Brill line as "O. & A. Tramroad".

The degree of inaccuracy and imprecision described here strikes me as, when indubitably wrong, lamentable slackness and poor performance. If, as speculated above, some of it might be a deliberate attempt to make things simpler (nothing with this appearance has come to my notice in the Sixth Edition, anywhere else in Great Britain); that would be -- in my opinion -- as reprehensible as the outright errors, for a publication which claims to give an authoritative and detailed representation of railway ownership and administration nationwide at a particular date. Have been entertaining thoughts of writing to Ian Allan, presenting them with criticisms of the features of their Sixth Edition, as written of in my post here. However, it would seem certain that between 2015 and now, very numerous purchasers of the work will already have done that very thing; and it would be at least to hope for, that should there be a Seventh Edition, these matters might be remedied there.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

swanhill41

Member
Joined
8 Nov 2016
Messages
253
Location
Fleetwood
Ian Allan ?....They ceased to publish rail books about 2016 or so....You can write to Crecy Pub ,who they sold the book division to...Frankly their proof checking of books near end of life was bit dodgy.!
 

Calthrop

Established Member
Joined
6 Dec 2015
Messages
3,297
Ian Allan ?....They ceased to publish rail books about 2016 or so....You can write to Crecy Pub ,who they sold the book division to...Frankly their proof checking of books near end of life was bit dodgy.!

Ah, well, thanks for that info. To a considerable extent, I live under a rock: had no idea that IA were no more. My "2015-published" Sixth Edition is "labelled" with the venerable IA name, and I was working on that basis. So: bigger global issues quite aside, there would seem to be considerable doubt as to whether there'll ever be a further edition of the Pre-Grouping Atlas and Gazetteer.
 

DelW

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2015
Messages
3,835
A few years ago I replaced my rather aged copy of the Pre Grouping Atlas with a new version which IA published, combining the updated atlas with RCH Junction Diagrams. My copy is shown as first published 2014, so it's slightly older than the 6th Edition. It shows some of the same issues, but with apparently some differences as well.

On sheet 10, both the joint lines are shown with the same orange dashed lines, but on mine neither is identified by initials. Only north of the split are they annotated (correctly), as GW and GC.

Between Aylesbury North and South junctions, the book's junction diagram shows that the railway was run by a joint committee of the joint committees (if you see what I mean), hence the cumbersome annotation alongside (including the erroneous "Jc" instead of "Jt" on mine as well). But bizarrely, on sheet 10, this section is shown, not in orange, but in the solid dark grey style assigned to L & N W lines, including the adjacent branch from Cheddington!

The annotation of the Brill Tramway is different as well ... instead of "O & A Tramroad" (from its Oxford and Aylesbury origins), it's marked as the "Q & A Tramroad". Incidentally, IA is not alone in showing this as part of the Met & GC joint line - my copy of the Oakwood Press book on the GW & GC joint line has a map showing the tramway as part of the Met & GC system. Like you, I think this is wrong, and indeed the Junction Diagram shows it in a separate colour. Perhaps the situation is confused by the nearby Verney Junction branch apparently having become part of the Met & GC despite it not giving a through route to the GC anywhere north of Quainton Road.

The Pre Grouping Atlas is a useful reference, and I'd hope either Crecy or another publisher will carry it on - hopefully with these items corrected!
 

Calthrop

Established Member
Joined
6 Dec 2015
Messages
3,297
A few years ago I replaced my rather aged copy of the Pre Grouping Atlas with a new version which IA published, combining the updated atlas with RCH Junction Diagrams. My copy is shown as first published 2014, so it's slightly older than the 6th Edition. It shows some of the same issues, but with apparently some differences as well.

I wasn't aware of this "hybrid" version described by you: sounds, in principle, a potentially useful idea. Jowett's Railway Atlas, a copy of which I possess, sets out to fulfill an approximately similar purpose; but for various reasons, I'm unable to hold Jowett in greatly high regard.

On sheet 10, both the joint lines are shown with the same orange dashed lines, but on mine neither is identified by initials. Only north of the split are they annotated (correctly), as GW and GC.

I feel that while using the same "line" configuration for both, is sloppy; the lack of any identification by initials / words, is downright awful. I have to wonder, what on earth got into the cartographers / publishers concerned, re this particular patch of the rail system, in the mid-2010s?

Between Aylesbury North and South junctions, the book's junction diagram shows that the railway was run by a joint committee of the joint committees (if you see what I mean), hence the cumbersome annotation alongside (including the erroneous "Jc" instead of "Jt" on mine as well). But bizarrely, on sheet 10, this section is shown, not in orange, but in the solid dark grey style assigned to L & N W lines, including the adjacent branch from Cheddington!

Thanks for precisely identifying this odd "Joint of the Joints" arrangement at Aylesbury. I noticed the different colour for this short stretch of line (also running a short way southward along the branch to Princes Risborough) -- and, of course, the annotation alongside -- but just vaguely figured that it must be some weird arrangement by which (as I once heard in a humorous description of districts of Greater London waxing and waning over time), "they all ate each other").

The PGA&G has to struggle with the constraints of using only five colours (Jowett employs "all the colours in the paintbox", with a merry disregard for clarity or consistency); but in the earlier Ian Allan editions: with resorting at need, to assorted varieties of broken lines, as well as solid ones, things are nonetheless managed accurately and well. Prompted by your observations above on the "Joint x2" bit at Aylesbury: I see that the Fifth Edition does as good a job as may be, line-configuration-wise: shows this small bit of trackage, with dashed-black lines -- the Atlas's symbol throughout, for the Great Central throughout (it shows the LNWR -- Cheddington to Aylesbury branch, as you mention -- by solid black lines). The "Joint x2" area is so small, that I feel that Ian Allan can be pardoned for the technical inaccuracy of failing to show what was not pure Great Central, but a unique "mixing", by yet another configuration symbol. I suppose they could, in theory, have used dashed red or green lines; but feel that this is begins to verge on angels-dancing-on-pinheads realms.
Your atlas, though -- and my Sixth Edition, as I now fully notice for the first time -- use for the purpose, as you observe, solid lines of the same colour as those for LNWR routes (where the Fifth Edition and earlier ones used black, the newer editions use, as you say, dark grey). I really could swear that the makers of these newer atlas editions were on a mission to botch, on purpose, this part of Sheet 10.

The annotation of the Brill Tramway is different as well ... instead of "O & A Tramroad" (from its Oxford and Aylesbury origins), it's marked as the "Q & A Tramroad". Incidentally, IA is not alone in showing this as part of the Met & GC joint line - my copy of the Oakwood Press book on the GW & GC joint line has a map showing the tramway as part of the Met & GC system. Like you, I think this is wrong, and indeed the Junction Diagram shows it in a separate colour. Perhaps the situation is confused by the nearby Verney Junction branch apparently having become part of the Met & GC despite it not giving a through route to the GC anywhere north of Quainton Road.

"Q & A Tramroad" -- it's to laugh... did somebody maybe have "question and answer" floating around in their head? My understanding -- supported by Wiki -- is that the Quainton Road to Verney Junction branch was indeed Met. & G.C. Joint, whereas Quainton Road to Brill ended up as Metropolitan-only: just the way things happened to pan out... As mentioned in my OP, the Fifth Edition acknowledges the Brill Tramway's special status in this respect, by showing it in orange, but with a unique configuration: "dots, not dashes". The Fifth Edition does so well with the complexities of the railways of this area; then the later editions unleash an absolute storm of crass simplification / downright error. I tell you, Holmes, it's got to be deliberate sabotage !
 

Calthrop

Established Member
Joined
6 Dec 2015
Messages
3,297
Am expanding -- resulting from recent discoveries -- on the subject of this thread (which does seem definitely to be a minority interest !)

This matter of differences in the configuring of rail lines between the Ian Allan Pre-Grouping Atlas and Gazetteer, in its Fifth Edition and its -- open to criticism as "new and not-so-improved" Sixth Edition; was first focused on, concerning the part-Great Central joint lines in Buckinghamshire -- symbolic representation of "different partner vis-à-vis different route" Metropolitan, and GWR, respectively: Fifth Edition differentiated in symbols for lines used, between the two; Sixth indicated both in identical fashion (and was guilty of some incorrect labelling-in-words).

With the Pre-Grouping Atlas and Gazetteer's being limited to only five colours with which to show railway lines and their ownerships: it has needed to use some ingenuity to cope with Great Britain's pre-1923 multitude of different rail undertakings. This situation involved resorting to using for some undertakings, broken instead of solid lines, of the various colours. Editions up to the fifth -- one would reckon, in an attempt to optimise differentiation and make for as little confusion for the user, as possible -- seemed enthusiastically to "go to town" with this convention; employing variously, no less than four broken-line versions (representing as accurately as possible, by typing-to-screen): - - - - - - / -.-.-. / -..-..-.. / ...... In the matter of broken lines, the Sixth Edition has swept away most of the just-described -- any route shown in the Fifth by any of the above different kinds of broken line, is rendered in the Sixth, by just one uniform broken-line variety: a modification of the - - - - - - sort, with shorter separate "dashes" than in the Fifth. (With the larger-scale Greater London two-sheets layout -- having its extra need to distinguish lines of the constituents of what became London Transport -- there and only there in the book, the Sixth Edition augments its broken-lines "repertoire".)

I feel that this change results in a truly lamentable "shooting self in the foot" situation, in a few locations on the maps where, in the Fifth Edition, two railways shown by the same colour, and different varieties of broken line, physically connect -- the Sixth edition map,with its sole type of broken line, essentially fails to indicate "where one ends and the other begins". My personal feeling is that an attitude of "it's only in a few places -- if these instances bother you, find out by other means what the situation was", would be simply not good enough. Attempted systematic going through the Atlas sheet-by-sheet, has turned up for me five instances of this unfortunate state of affairs. To wit: Barry Junction (divergence of Barry Railway's line, from that of Brecon & Merthyr Railway). Rhymney (end-on connection of Rhymney Railway, and Rhymney / LNWR joint line). Between Boar's Head and White Bear / Adlington, and Chorley and Cherry Tree: LNWR / Lancashire & Yorkshire Joint stretches of line, amongst much pure L & Y. Near Marple: junction of Great Central / Midland joint, and Great Central / North Staffordshire joint, trackage. Rowrah (junction of Cleator & Workington Junction Railway, and its essentially independent quasi-subsidiary the Rowrah & Kelton Fell mineral railway. (The fault here described, does not properly apply to the situation in Buckinghamshire referred to earlier: the lines in straightforward GCR / Metropolitan and GCR / GWR joint ownership, did not directly physically meet at any point.)

I consider the way in which the Sixth Edition deals -- or fails to deal -- with the situations re the list of five above, as inexcusable. Otherwise -- well, some people like things complicated; others prefer them "simple, smooth and streamlined" in so far as is consistent with accurate information. The Sixth Edition's maps are admittedly clearer and tidier and easier on the eye, than their Fifth Edition counterparts -- and are on a slightly larger scale, thanks to slightly larger pages. However, in my opinion: by reducing the former range of broken-line configurations to one, they forfeit an opportunity for greater-rather-than-less clarification for the user, as regards "what belonged to whom". (This apart from the crass "failure to distinguish the contiguous and distinct" in my five examples above.) Whatever the makers' motives for this broken-line simplification -- to make things look tidier, to get rid of what they saw as unnecessary and potentially confusing complexity, to economise financially, or some combination of the aforesaid -- this step taken is, for my personal taste, the reverse of an improvement. And this is to say nothing of the outright errors, in more than tiny numbers, in the Sixth Edition's line-labelling-and-describing on the maps, via the printed word.
 

DelW

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2015
Messages
3,835
It's not obvious to me why the mapping needed to be changed from that in the 5th (and earlier) editions anyway. After all, the PGA&G isn't like a modern atlas, needing updating to reflect changes in the network, it's showing a layout from almost a century ago, and other than correcting any errors or omissions, shouldn't need changing.

I suppose it's possible that the (over)-simplified version was initially produced for use in the volume combined with the RCH junction diagrams, that I mentioned above, as there at least, the "other means" to work out the actual ownership are available within the same book. But even if so, it was arguably remiss to issue that version as a stand-alone volume.

I haven't been through it in anything like as much detail as you, but I think I've spotted another location where two different railways meet, that are shown with the same line type and colour. Again it's in south Wales (map 7 and - more clearly - expanded map 43 in my copy), north of Merthyr, where the Brecon and Merthyr has the same red dashed line as the B&M + L&NW joint line west of Morlais junction.

(Incidentally, unless I'm misunderstanding you, I disagree with the last sentence of paragraph 4: the GW&GC Joint line did meet the Met&GC Joint line, at Aylesbury South Junction.)

I do have some sympathy for the compilers though - some years ago I made some route diagrams for my own amusement, and found it very hard to proofread them, even though they were much simpler than PGA&G maps. But really that's another reason for not changing the mapping in the first place!
 

Calthrop

Established Member
Joined
6 Dec 2015
Messages
3,297
It's not obvious to me why the mapping needed to be changed from that in the 5th (and earlier) editions anyway. After all, the PGA&G isn't like a modern atlas, needing updating to reflect changes in the network, it's showing a layout from almost a century ago, and other than correcting any errors or omissions, shouldn't need changing.

I suppose it's possible that the (over)-simplified version was initially produced for use in the volume combined with the RCH junction diagrams, that I mentioned above, as there at least, the "other means" to work out the actual ownership are available within the same book. But even if so, it was arguably remiss to issue that version as a stand-alone volume.

For sure -- overall, clarity (as opposed to tidy appearance) is across the board, lacking -- in the overall informational sphere -- in the present deal with the 6th edition.

I haven't been through it in anything like as much detail as you, but I think I've spotted another location where two different railways meet, that are shown with the same line type and colour. Again it's in south Wales (map 7 and - more clearly - expanded map 43 in my copy), north of Merthyr, where the Brecon and Merthyr has the same red dashed line as the B&M + L&NW joint line west of Morlais junction.

Thanks -- I indeed missed that one, though I caught the two "bricks dropped" in this way in South Wales (one of them involving the Brecon & Merthyr !) mentioned by me upthread. The 5th edition indeed marks the distinction: B & M proper, a red simple dashed / pecked line; B & M / LNW joint, a "dots-and-dashes" one. I suspect a lapse of concentration, in which I "non-thought": "It's named the Brecon & Merthyr Railway -- of course, it will have run into Merthyr in its own right, end-of." In fact, though, at the "junctionery" around Pant, and Morlais Jun., it's the joint line which splits off and runs circuitously west / south / east into Merthyr; whereas the "pure" B & M charges off south-eastwards in the direction of the Bristol Channel. (This little "patch" around Dowlais / Pant / Merthyr is in my opinion, one of the most complicated and confusing areas-in-small-compass, of the entire pre-Grouping set-up !)

(Incidentally, unless I'm misunderstanding you, I disagree with the last sentence of paragraph 4: the GW&GC Joint line did meet the Met&GC Joint line, at Aylesbury South Junction.)

I expressed myself a bit misleadingly there -- was trying for "summarising / succinct"; at the expense, as it turned out, of clarity ! Actually "on the ground", routes met each other: GW&CG Joint and Met&GC Joint, at the divergence-point of the main line through Quainton Road, Wendover etc.; and the Aylesbury -- Princes Risborough branch. However, re ownerships: I would contend that -- per the PGA&G, "old" and "new" editions the two "Joints" pure-and-simple, didn't meet: there's the little bit of black or grey on the map, running a short way north, and south, of Aylesbury station; and a short way along the branch towards Princes Risborough -- we discussed this in posts #4 and #5: signifies trackage of the "joint committee of the two joint committees" -- purely visually-map-wise, this separates the orange of the GW&GC Joint, from that of the Met&GC Joint. (I suspect that you and I may mean something different, by "Aylesbury South Junction"; but that isn't directly relevant to the colours-on-maps issue. In addition -- I have just found that Jowett in his Railway Atlas, possibly tells a bit of a different story again, about this stuff in the immediate neighbourhood of Aylesbury; but I find his choice and juxtaposition of colours for the different companies, a horror -- often very difficult to make out -- looks like being necessary to wait for daylight tomorrow, to have a chance of properly making sense of what he's doing !)

I do have some sympathy for the compilers though - some years ago I made some route diagrams for my own amusement, and found it very hard to proofread them, even though they were much simpler than PGA&G maps. But really that's another reason for not changing the mapping in the first place!

It would seem that you're a more charitable person than I am ! My sentiment re those who produce pre-grouping rail atlases for publication, is that it's their job -- their competence and expertise in this admittedly difficult work, is why they're employed in that job: so -- while all humans are of course fallible -- one is entitled to expect them to make a damned good fist of this stuff which they produce, re accuracy and clarity. PGA&G 6th edition maps are, I'll concede, visually neater than those of the 5th; but what I think of as the "dumbing-down", and the sheer outright errors, which are featured in the 6th edition, are IMO much too high a price to pay for its neater-and-tidier look.
 
Last edited:

DelW

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2015
Messages
3,835
Ah, sorry, I see what you mean at Aylesbury south - the junction points are just within the "joint of joints" area, so the two individual joint lines never meet, albeit may have been only a few feet apart!

I've attached a couple of photos of the area, taken from the Pre Grouping Railway Junction Diagrams book. If you don't have a copy of that, I'd highly recommend getting a copy to explain these complex areas better. Mine came from a second hand stall at a railway gala, and I've kept it as it has some diagrams not included with the combined PGA&G version. A variety of second hand copies from various publishers seem to be available online, and there's even an Amazon seller offering a new copy at a not-very-bargain £1241.60 plus £2.80 delivery!!

The only real problem I find with it, is that as the art work is hand-drawn and over a century old, some of the colours are muddy and hard to distinguish. A good bright-white reading light is beneficial.
 

Attachments

  • 20200614_092854.jpg
    20200614_092854.jpg
    1 MB · Views: 15
  • 20200614_092940.jpg
    20200614_092940.jpg
    522.8 KB · Views: 15

Calthrop

Established Member
Joined
6 Dec 2015
Messages
3,297
Thank you for the "Junction Diagrams" copies. The greater-detail one of these makes the matter of Aylesbury and its North and South Junctions, I think, radiantly clear. It is indeed "joint of joints" trackage for a little way in all three directions out of Aylesbury station: though for a definitely short distance south of Aylesbury, both on the main line towards London and on the Princes Risborough branch -- but enough for there to be verily no actual physical meeting, as you say, of the two individual joint lines. Comparing this map, and the PGA&G: I get the impression that the PGA&G distorts things here just a little bit, in making " 'joint of joints' black or grey" trackage slightly more extensive -- especially south of the station -- than was the case in reality: PGA&G's relatively small scale would make it very difficult to show the detail accurately, if they'd done this little sector totally to scale. Your Junction Diagrams greater-detail map makes it clear to me that Aylesbury South Junction is purely on the main line towards Wendover and London, where "joint of joints" trackage gives way to Met&GC Joint ditto; the Princes Risborough branch diverges before this point, at an (un-named on the map) junction almost immediately south of Aylesbury station.

My understanding -- now that daylight has allowed best-possible viewing and, I think, comprehension -- of the Jowett's Railway Atlas version of things here; is that it depicts Aylesbury South Junction as a very little way south-east of Aylesbury station: and as both the point where "joint of joints" trackage ends; and the point where the Met&GC Joint line towards Wendover, and the GW&GC Joint one to Princes Risborough, diverge. Disagreeing thus, with the Junction Diagrams version as above. With my finding much to indicate that Jowett -- while very diligent -- is not the sharpest knife in this particular drawer; I have no hesitation in taking the Junction Diagrams version as the correct one. (Looking at your Junction Diagrams excerpts, I have the impression that Jowett basically modelled his maps in his Atlas, on the "style and scheme" of Junction Diagrams' mapping; but clumsily in comparison with the original ! Would reproduce here the relevant section from the Jowett page concerned, if I had the necessary skill in such things; which sadly I don't.)
 
Last edited:

pdeaves

Established Member
Joined
14 Sep 2014
Messages
5,632
Location
Gateway to the South West
I have the impression that Jowett basically modelled his maps in his Atlas, on the "style and scheme" of Junction Diagrams' mapping; but clumsily in comparison with the original !
As an aside, the Railway Clearing House did a load of regional maps in the same style as the junction diagrams. Jowett, it would appear, basically copied them by hand into one volume and omitted some of the detail (such as distances).
 

Calthrop

Established Member
Joined
6 Dec 2015
Messages
3,297
As an aside, the Railway Clearing House did a load of regional maps in the same style as the junction diagrams. Jowett, it would appear, basically copied them by hand into one volume and omitted some of the detail (such as distances).

Perhaps I'm too hard on poor old Jowett; but this information makes the esteem in which I hold him, less rather than greater. Trying to be fair: he does make some attempt at adding to his maps, lines opened post-Grouping. I would not have bought the copy of Jowett's atlas which I own -- except for the fact that he includes Ireland, which Ian Allan does not.


Many thanks -- potentially valuable resource.
 

Calthrop

Established Member
Joined
6 Dec 2015
Messages
3,297
More about Ian Allan Pre-Grouping Atlas and Gazetteer (Fifth, and Sixth, Editions) oddities. Perhaps my "sniping" at this publication is excessive and hardly fair; with this work being, of its nature, on such a large scale -- covering such a great quantity of complex detail: in order never to make / fail to catch, even the slightest mistake, its makers would need to be superhuman. However; I have just noticed -- after many years -- what is in every way, a very small error in the PGA&G. It would seem likely that there are other, similarly petty, errors in the publication; which -- with their as-mentioned pettiness -- a user of the atlas might well never notice. It would be unreasonable to feel or express outrage about something so small and basically non-crucial; I am not doing so: I just find amusing, this matter's being another instance of (as covered by me at some length, upthread) the Sixth Edition -- supposedly an "improvement" on the Fifth -- in my opinion, often failing to live up to that boast.

This concerns a small error in respect of the name of a wayside station on an obscure, long-abandoned branch line. The line is that of the former Great Northern Railway, from Bourne to Sleaford: the station is the first one south of Sleaford, on that branch. The station's correct name was Aswarby & Scredington, after two nearby villages respectively bearing those names. The PGA&G 's Fifth Edition mistakenly labels this station on the map; and lists the name likewise in the index; as "Aswarby & Sedringham". (Wondering is prompted, whether this error might have been contributed to by -- at the back of someone's mind -- the name of the tiny village some five miles to the south-east, called Sempringham; whose chief, and probably only, claim to fame, is that up to the 16th century it was the location of the chief monastic house of the only specifically English monastic order, the Gilbertines.) The Sixth Edition seeks to correct this error; but the attempted correction (map and index, alike) is -- while getting a bit closer to accuracy -- still wrong. The Sixth calls the place "Aswarby & Scredingham".

As said: a thing altogether too petty, to get hot under the collar about -- but it does nothing to improve my already rather low opinion of the atlas's Sixth Edition, vis-a-vis the Fifth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top