Wrong Railway Facts

[Western Sunset]

And W P Allen (ex-ASLEF).
Member for labour relations on the initial Railway Executive in 1948. Also had A1 60114 named after him.

Think this is a good example of thread drift...

 

[Bald Rick]

And W P Allen (ex-ASLEF).
Member for labour relations on the initial Railway Executive in 1948. Also had A1 60114 named after him.

Think this is a good example of thread drift...

And Alan Williams!

 

[Western Sunset]

Allen keys are useful in railway engineering. With IKEA appearing on TfL tube maps, also another railway link...

 

[edwin_m]

To say nothing of Dr. Ian C. Allen, specialist in rail photography in East Anglia in the steam era; and Allan Garraway, of British Railways and Welsh narrow gauge fame -- what is it with all these Allens / Allans, prominent in this hobby?

ETA: and how could I forget Peter Allen, high-management in ICI, which enabled him to see and write of rail and steam scenes all over the world, approx. 1950s era? -- there's got to be some kind of a "charm".

Something that didn't apply to another ICI alumnus who showed a rather different interest in railways.

 

[webbfan]

Suprised no one has so far mentioned Clement Edwin Stretton, eminent author of railway books and articles. He made up an awful lot of facts which later were quoted in the writings of quite a few reputable authors. Harry Jack had an article published in Railway archive describing some of his 'facts'.

Available to read here http://www.lnwrhg.com/articles/stretton/stretton1.php

 

[Spartacus]

Going back to captions not matching photos, often glaringly, I've noticed sometimes that an early edition can be correct but a later one has a photo changed, apparently as a result of publishing rights issues, but the caption change often seems to be missed. I remember years ago noticing 3 editions of the same book, one of which I owned, I think another owned by a friend, and another in a book/second hand shop where the earliest edition had the original photo and correct caption, the middle one had a revised photo but now incorrect caption, while the last had the revised photo and now correct revised caption.

 

[Western Sunset]

Or when photos are cropped for publication, and something mentioned in the caption has been cut out of the picture.

 

[Calthrop]

Oddly enough, I have just come across a potential "wrong fact" in a book very recently acquired. One of a pair by the respected historian of the British narrow gauge, J.I.C. Boyd: written and published shortly before his death in 2009, in his late eighties. The two books: Saga By Rail -- one on Great Britain and the Isle of Man; and one on Ireland (the author managed to experience a great and enviable variety of rail action in Ireland when, thus, "the going was good" -- basically 1940s and 1950s). I already have the Irish volume; recently purchased the "Great Britain, etc." one -- a highly "miscellaneous mix".

With Boyd's writing these in his extreme old age -- while he still appeared mostly, admirably on-the-ball; a few items of dubious accuracy seem to have crept in. The mentioned oddity just found: the author is recounting a visit to the industrial Snailbeach District Railways in 1941, when on leave from Army service. On his visit, the line's 0-4-2T was at work, shunting; also to see was "a line of overturned wagons which lay on its side below the train ... [the mishap] appeared to have happened only recently ... a man came running from an adjacent building and hailed us. We thought we were about to be evicted from the premises, but no. He was just anxious that the photographs which I had just taken 'should not be seen by Colonel Stephens, the owner of the railway in Tonbridge, as he had not been told of the derailment' ". The anecdote continues, with Boyd telling of explaining to his new bride -- who was with him on this visit -- the "who and what" of Colonel Stephens and his light-railway empire.

The "what is wrong with this picture?" -- of course, Colonel Stephens had died ten years previously: the management of his railways being carried on for the next couple of decades by W.H. Austen, hitherto his second-in-command. Although assorted convoluted scenarios can be dreamed up, in support of Boyd's actually knowing what he was doing in writing these sentences (might the staff member have been senile / drunk / otherwise befuddled, thus talking about Stephens rather than Austen? -- but if so, an explanatory word from Boyd would have been in order ...): it would, I think, appear most likely that Boyd -- not far off age 90, writing about an incident six-decades-plus in the past -- was the confused one; having at least at the time when he was writing, forgotten about Stephens's death in 1931. And, the Saga By Rail books are full of fascinating material, most of it thoroughly coherent and accurate-appearing; one can take in stride, the odd memory "hiccup" on the part of a very aged gentleman.

 

[Spartacus]

Oddly enough, I have just come across a potential "wrong fact" in a book very recently acquired. One of a pair by the respected historian of the British narrow gauge, J.I.C. Boyd: written and published shortly before his death in 2009, in his late eighties. The two books: Saga By Rail -- one on Great Britain and the Isle of Man; and one on Ireland (the author managed to experience a great and enviable variety of rail action in Ireland when, thus, "the going was good" -- basically 1940s and 1950s). I already have the Irish volume; recently purchased the "Great Britain, etc." one -- a highly "miscellaneous mix".

With Boyd's writing these in his extreme old age -- while he still appeared mostly, admirably on-the-ball; a few items of dubious accuracy seem to have crept in. The mentioned oddity just found: the author is recounting a visit to the industrial Snailbeach District Railways in 1941, when on leave from Army service. On his visit, the line's 0-4-2T was at work, shunting; also to see was "a line of overturned wagons which lay on its side below the train ... [the mishap] appeared to have happened only recently ... a man came running from an adjacent building and hailed us. We thought we were about to be evicted from the premises, but no. He was just anxious that the photographs which I had just taken 'should not be seen by Colonel Stephens, the owner of the railway in Tonbridge, as he had not been told of the derailment' ". The anecdote continues, with Boyd telling of explaining to his new bride -- who was with him on this visit -- the "who and what" of Colonel Stephens and his light-railway empire.

The "what is wrong with this picture?" -- of course, Colonel Stephens had died ten years previously: the management of his railways being carried on for the next couple of decades by W.H. Austen, hitherto his second-in-command. Although assorted convoluted scenarios can be dreamed up, in support of Boyd's actually knowing what he was doing in writing these sentences (might the staff member have been senile / drunk / otherwise befuddled, thus talking about Stephens rather than Austen? -- but if so, an explanatory word from Boyd would have been in order ...): it would, I think, appear most likely that Boyd -- not far off age 90, writing about an incident six-decades-plus in the past -- was the confused one; having at least at the time when he was writing, forgotten about Stephens's death in 1931. And, the Saga By Rail books are full of fascinating material, most of it thoroughly coherent and accurate-appearing; one can take in stride, the odd memory "hiccup" on the part of a very aged gentleman.

I dunno, I can easily see that being a correct recollection, the new management could easily have been generally referred to by staff as 'Col Stephens' given how intrinsic the man was to the line's existence, and that of many others, after his death, the name of the old manager becoming something of a nickname for any that might follow. Not that dissimilar to police (and signallers) being referred to as Bobbies, when the man their name comes from died in 1850.

 

[Taunton]

I guess I will never write a railway book. Although I may get the 200-odd pages 99.9% right, sounds pretty good, which is about 50,000 words, that still leaves 50 words that are wrong, which some reviewers delight in homing in on in reviews, sometimes I have noticed to the exclusion of anything positive about the 99.9%.

I could write about Taunton in 1966, with D870 coming through in maroon livery. Here comes the review. "Oh, any idiot knows that D870 was repainted blue in 1965 ...".

 

[Gloster]

I guess I will never write a railway book. Although I may get the 200-odd pages 99.9% right, sounds pretty good, which is about 50,000 words, that still leaves 50 words that are wrong, which some reviewers delight in homing in on in reviews, sometimes I have noticed to the exclusion of anything positive about the 99.9%.

Reviews are mainly to show how clever the reviewer is. My attitude when reviewing (mostly) railway books was to answer several questions. What does the book say it is going to do? How well does it do it? Are there any particularly good or bad points (brilliant photos, lousy maps)? Do I, personally, think it is worth the price or is it only worth it if you have certain interests? I generally avoided picking out errors unless they were so horrendous and obvious that you have to doubt the writer’s competence.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

I find it very understandable how discrepancies can appear in any written work over time. As an example of circumstances, back in my early days on BR, many people, myself included, kept a personal record of things we were taught, or had to remember for the benefit of the job we were doing, and by this I mean things such as siding capacities, train movement scenarios at terminal locations (ie: if a departing train from Waterloo was leaving platform 9 - or lower - toward the Down Main Fast, then a simultaneous arrival in to p10 or higher could arrive from the Up Main Fast. But if the said departure was from platform 10 or higher, the simultaneous arrival would need to arrive via the Up Main Relief). That may seem inconsequential to many, but within the detail that had to taken in to account for the peak hours at Waterloo, it could mean the difference between a reliable timetable and one that was regularly a victim of late arrivals or starts. This sort of information was never kept in some central store, it was more often than not just 'known' by those directly involved, or noted by some (such as myself) who were interested in same.

In more recent times, with the introduction of computer systems, much of this 'detail' has been written in to official internal documentation. That is all well and good, but the sheer volume of such detail for any given location on the railway, can be immense, and the upkeep/updating of same has, I would guess, become a whole industry within an industry.

In my later days, there were some departments (non safety critical I should add) who would issue similar work threads, with updates of their activities etc, that after a few months the updates would drop off a cliff with no explanation, and one was left to assume the associated workload was simply too much for the staff to upkeep.

In a similar fashion, keeping written works (books and such) completely up to date over several issues, will not be an easy task. Having had to do same in the course of my career, I would not want to be going through that process again in my retirement !

 

[jfollows]

I certainly know from my own experience that I've posted things on this forum which I "remembered" and which turned out to be complete twaddle and rubbish. The only lesson I guess I learned is that if I were to write a book I should not rely on my memory alone, but seek corroboration from an independent second source at least.

 

[Andy873]

Reviews are mainly to show how clever the reviewer is. My attitude when reviewing (mostly) railway books was to answer several questions. What does the book say it is going to do? How well does it do it?

Very good questions about books here.

As I've said before, ultimately I would like to write a book or put something on a website regarding my old line. After years of researching it I can narrow things down to essentially three categories:

1. Absolute fact - cross referenced, checked, hopefully with multiple sources which again have been checked.

2. Probable - one or more facts checked that point to something without that final conclusive fact proving it.

3. Speculation & opinion - what you might think is probably correct but you don't have any proof of.

If I do ever write something about the line I might decide to do one of two things:

a) Keep it simply to the absolute facts.
b) Write the facts, but add in what I think is probable and speculation.

If I chose option B, I would be very careful (in every case) to clearly state whether it was fact, probable or just plain speculation.

There is always a danger with option B that someone say 100 years from now might take probable / speculation as actual fact.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

If I chose option B, I would be very careful (in every case) to clearly state whether it was fact, probable or just plain speculation.

I think that is key, and I believe you'd be far more respected (as an author, not that I have any experience of same) being up front in that regard. I tend to be very selective these days with the books I do purchase, and those whose authors have gone the extra mile, do tend to stand out as worth the extra cost that will (often) come with this.

 

[Dai Corner]

I guess I will never write a railway book. Although I may get the 200-odd pages 99.9% right, sounds pretty good, which is about 50,000 words, that still leaves 50 words that are wrong, which some reviewers delight in homing in on in reviews, sometimes I have noticed to the exclusion of anything positive about the 99.9%.

Academic papers are 'peer reviewed' before publication to pick up the 0.1%. Why couldn't railway book publishers do the same?

 

[Magdalia]

Academic papers are 'peer reviewed' before publication to pick up the 0.1%. Why couldn't railway book publishers do the same?

I worked in publication, in a field where everything was checked thoroughly, and having to own up to an error was regarded as a catastrophe.

Some areas of historical research have a strong tradition of research going back to original sources, thorough checking, and peer review. One example I'm aware of is cricket, where the Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians has had huge influence in creating a good research and publication culture.

Unfortunately the same can't be said for railway history. There's no equivalent of the Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians, which leaves the gatekeeping of standards in the lap of the authors and publishers.

I tend to be very selective these days with the books I do purchase, and those whose authors have gone the extra mile, do tend to stand out as worth the extra cost that will (often) come with this.

Many of the customers for railway books are not so discerning, hoovering up anything on their particular area of interest. This gives the publishers little incentive to add costs of checking, when they know that it will make little difference to sales. The quickest route to making money is a quick cut and paste job, together with a few new photographs where the captions have not been checked. This has fostered a "copying one person is plagiarism but copying two is research" culture. The result is that errors are copied over and over again until they become accepted as fact.

So it is up to the customers to raise standards by not buying books that are poorly researched or badly edited. For me, a key litmus test on research is evidence that the author has read the primary sources in the National Archives. And photo captions are an excellent litmus test on editing, there are thousands of pictures on the internet now which has made it much easier to identify errors like this:

I could write about Taunton in 1966, with D870 coming through in maroon livery. Here comes the review. "Oh, any idiot knows that D870 was repainted blue in 1965 ...".

If the reviewer can find the error, why has the author or the publisher not found it first?
(By the way there were no blue Warships in 1965!)

 

[Dai Corner]

So it is up to the customers to raise standards by not buying books that are poorly researched or badly edited. For me, a key litmus test on research is evidence that the author has read the primary sources in the National Archives. And photo captions are an excellent litmus test on editing, there are thousands of pictures on the internet now which has made it much easier to identify errors like this:

The customer is often not the reader and has no interest or knowledge in the subject.

I've received many books as surprise presents over the years.

 

[contrex]

I admit to not finding Cecil a sympathetic character; but this practice on the part of one widely acclaimed as a highly serious Christian, feels to me a little bit "off". Maybe if he both politely thanked the junior staff for their labours, and in some way rewarded them in, at least, what he deemed to be a practical manner ...

I am reminded of a comment someone made about William Gladstone, to the effect that like every politician, he had cards up his sleeve, but Mr G believed that the Almighty had put them there. Christians are, I am afraid, not immune to self-delusion and vanity.

 

[Revaulx]

I am reminded of a comment someone made about William Gladstone, to the effect that like every politician, he had cards up his sleeve, but Mr G believed that the Almighty had put them there. Christians are, I am afraid, not immune to self-delusion and vanity.

I think that comment reflects worse on the person making it than either Mr G or “Christians”.

 

[contrex]

I think that comment reflects worse on the person making it than either Mr G or “Christians”.

We must agree to differ.

 

[181]

Some areas of historical research have a strong tradition of research going back to original sources, thorough checking, and peer review. One example I'm aware of is cricket, where the Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians has had huge influence in creating a good research and publication culture.

Unfortunately the same can't be said for railway history. There's no equivalent of the Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians, which leaves the gatekeeping of standards in the lap of the authors and publishers.

The Railway and Canal Historical Society aim to support good-quality research, but they can only do this for people who choose to make use of them, and there's presumably no way they could enforce it over the whole range of what gets published.

 

[Magdalia]

The Railway and Canal Historical Society aim to support good-quality research, but they can only do this for people who choose to make use of them, and there's presumably no way they could enforce it over the whole range of what gets published.

I am aware of the Railway and Canal Historical Society. Way back before the pandemic I actually attended one of their meetings. My impression is that their interest is concentrated on the early development of railways. But they have done a lot of work on the Chronology of Modern Transport in the British Isles 1945-2015, which is available on their website. Anyone publishing a book covering this period is wise to check their dates against the RCHS list first.

 

[Spartacus]

Just as an aside, a lot of the early WWII books, written by those who took part, often during the war, have been shown years later to have contained numerous errors, even though they were often written with information from log books etc from the time, with people recorded as going into combat together when someone was already dead, transferred, or yet to join, or with vehicles and equipment that they couldn't have at that date. There's no doubt that some were intentionally written in order not to disclose secrets of the war or immediate post-war, but others would have had no real value, and have been shown to exist in contemporary logs which one would think would be reliable. Guy Gibson's 'Enemy Coast Ahead' is littered with both, the 2003 reprint pointing them out, and possible reasons for them. Either way, it's inevitable that some of these errors, intentional and otherwise, have made it into the file marked 'accepted facts', especially when the source material has to be treated with a certain amount of mistrust.

 

[eldomtom2]

Frankly, any source has to be treated with a minimum degree of mistrust - even if their intentions are above board, people misremember and make mistakes...

 

[Western Sunset]

Observer #1 sees loco X leaving Kings Cross on 1000 to Edinburgh
Observer #2 sees loco Y passing Grantham on 1000 X - Edinburgh (same day)
Observer #3 sees loco Z arriving at Edinburgh on 1000 ex-KX

So what's true? From all three observers' viewpoints, they made the correct jottings in their book. It's how we interpret those observations.

 

[andrew749]

Observer #1 sees loco X leaving Kings Cross on 1000 to Edinburgh
Observer #2 sees loco Y passing Grantham on 1000 X - Edinburgh (same day)
Observer #3 sees loco Z arriving at Edinburgh on 1000 ex-KX

So what's true? From all three observers' viewpoints, they made the correct jottings in their book. It's how we interpret those observations.

Exactly so. In mathematics it would be like trying to extrapolate a curve on a graph from just three points. Assuming that the observations are correct, the interesting part is what happened in between.

 

[Andy873]

One question is what is anyone doing about correcting things...

One such person, Richard has been working on corrections to Clinker's closed passenger stations and goods yards.

Here is a link to his corrections:

https://rchs.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Clinker-Goods-Depot-corrections.pdf

I think it's a great thing he's doing and I would suggest to anyone who has Clinker's book to have a read to see if any one of your stations entries have been corrected.

 

[Western Sunset]

Never knew about those corrections; thanks for the "heads up" on that ongoing work.

 

[Zamalek]

I'm a university-based historian of ancient Egypt and modern naval history (yes, an odd mix, but goes back to childhood hobbies), and I'm doing quite a bit on what I've dubbed 'Zombie Facts' - things that were once thought to be 'true' (or at least a reasonable hypothesis in the light of current data), but which have now been disproved by specialists. However, the old 'facts' have become so embedded in the secondary literature (and Wikipedia!), that it is now almost impossible to kill these zombie-facts, as few people bother/are able to keep up to date with ongoing research. It shows how lazy most authors are - and their lack of understanding of how history-writing works .... Examples include not just ideas about ancient history (where one might expect change), but the very existence of various late 19th/early 20th century warships ...