Jump to content

GUCCC Town Class Names


RogerM

Featured Posts

Why a railway gazetteer rather than a trade directory though? Were I doing the job, I would be trying to select names that had some meaning to my potential customers

I don't think you would have easily found single trade or Post Office directories that would yield the whole of the list of names that they came up with.

 

I'm no great expert, but when I have used them in family history research, most such directories are very much regional.

 

I'm struggling to think of a country wide directory that would contain some of the fairly obscure place names used.

 

I didn't particularly buy the "railway list" thing early on, but the more the argument has developed, the more plausible it sounds, versus any other alternatives I can think of.

 

That said, I have always tended to think of it as potentially "railway map", rather than maybe "railway directory", simply because you do find strings of places in those names that sit as sequential places on a particular railway route.

 

I think something like the "Aber" thing is quite interesting, because, as has been pointed out, it exists as a named railway location, but not really a place. That could be indicative of someone with no knowledge of North Wales finding that name on a map, (or in a directory), and using it. You would not, I believe find it in a trade directory.

 

On the balance of probability, I think it is a good theory. Whether anyone will actually find evidence to say how they decided it, I do very much doubt though!

Edited by alan_fincher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been doing a little research on the Town Class boat names and the theory that they were picked froma list of railway stations. This is intended to eventually form a page on my website but I thought I'd post it here first in case anyone is interested, wishes to add to it or pull it apart!

 

Although they were known as the as the town class, a casual glance at the list of GUCCC boat names reveals they are not consistent with this nomenclature. Instead we find a list of towns, cities, villages and even locations in London.

 

It has long been speculated that the boats were actually named after railway stations but there have always been a number of anomalies in the list that don’t appear to fit this theory. However having undertaken some research into this I now feel certain that the entire class were named after British (and in one case Irish) railway stations without exception.

 

>snip<

 

 

Some additional observations, my notes are in red:

 

BADSEY: Littleton & Badsey (GWR)

BARNET: High Barnet (LT)

BATTERSEA: Battersea Park (SR)

BEAULIEU: Beaulieu Road (SR)

BOGNOR: Bognor Regis (SR)

CHALFONT: Chalfont & Latimer (LT/LNER)

HAWKESBURY: Hawkesbury Lane (LMS)

RAWDON: Apperley Bridge & Rawdon (LMS)

SOUTHAM: Southam & Long Itchington (LMS)

TADWORTH: Tadworth & Walton-on-Hill (SR)

TARPORLEY: Beeston Castle & Tarporley (LMS)

 

All of the above names in capitals are listed first in the Bradshaw index in bold type with a subsequent separate reference to the other town of village served - like this: SouthamM and LongItchington - notice how they made 'LongItchington' one word!

 

In some cases the abbreviation of the name makes it impossible to ascertain which station the boat was named after:

 

BELFAST: could be Belfast Great Victoria Street (GNR), Belfast Queens Quay (B&CDR) or Belfast York Road (NCC)

FENNY: could be either Fenny Compton (GWR & LMS) or Fenny Stratford (LMS)

HAMPSTEAD: could be either West Hampstead (LMS) or South Hampstead (LMS)

Or just Hampstead the station between Golders Green and Belsize Park LT (Charing Cross, Euston & Hampstead Railway).

KEW: could be either Kew Bridge (SR & LMS) or Kew Gardens (LMS)

OULTON: could be either Oulton Broad North (LNER) or Oulton Broad South (LNER)

These were not listed separately in the in the Bradshaw index.

YEOVIL: could be either Yeovil Junction (SR) or Yeovil Pen Mill (SR)

Or Yeovil Town GWR

 

There are five names in the list where the name could refer to either of two identically named stations in different parts of the country:

 

BARNHAM: Suffolk (LNER), Sussex (SR)

BELMONT: Middlesex (LMS), Surrey (SR)

HALTON: Lancashire (LMS), Cheshire (GWR/LMS Joint)

NORTON: Cheshire (GWR/LMS Joint), Yorkshire (LNER)

OAKLEY: Bedfordshire (LMS), Fife (LNER)

 

Finally there are the boats with mis-spelled names:

 

BILSTER: This is generally assumed to be a mis-spelling of BILSTON, which was a GWR station.

GLOSSOR: Presumably this was either supposed to be GLOSSOP (LNER) or GLOUCESTER (GWR & LMS).

BERKHAMPSTEAD: Antiquated spelling of BERKHAMSTED (LMS). It is possible the station still used the old spelling at the time the boat was named.

EDGEWARE: Mis-spelled with an extra E. There were actually two Edgware stations; the London Transport station which opened in 1923 and the LNER station which closed in 1939. I tend to think the boat was named after the LT station, but it is not possible to prove this.

FULBOURNE: Apparently mis-spelled with an extra E, but in fact although the village is called “Fulbourn”, the railway station always used the older spelling “Fulbourne”.

Yes this is always spelled Fulbourne in Bradshaw

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you would have easily found single trade or Post Office directories that would yield the whole of the list of names that they came up with.

 

I'm no great expert, but when I have used them in family history research, most such directories are very much regional.

 

I'm struggling to think of a country wide directory that would contain some of the fairly obscure place names used.

 

I didn't particularly buy the "railway list" thing early on, but the more the argument has developed, the more plausible it sounds, versus any other alternatives I can think of.

 

That said, I have always tended to think of it as potentially "railway map", rather than maybe "railway directory", simply because you do find strings of places in those names that sit as sequential places on a particular railway route.

 

I think something like the "Aber" thing is quite interesting, because, as has been pointed out, it exists as a named railway location, but not really a place. That could be indicative of someone with no knowledge of North Wales finding that name on a map, (or in a directory), and using it. You would not, I believe find it in a trade directory.

 

On the balance of probability, I think it is a good theory. Whether anyone will actually find evidence to say how they decided it, I do very much doubt though!

I think we have certainly advanced our understanding of this issue through this discussion, and while we have not and can not arrive at a definitive answer, we have a better idea of why we believe what we do about it.

 

And yes, the map idea is tempting, for the reason Alan gives. Would such a map, listing all those small stations have been available and practical to consult? Would it have included the exclusively underground stations?

 

We are also assuming that the name selection was done centrally, by one means. But maybe (for example) A-H and K-Y were done as two separate operations, perhaps not using the same means. Not sure if the discernable patterns would bear that out, but I'm sure someone will be moved to check!

 

And why oh why no 'M's???

Edited by Chertsey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be nice to know, but so far it all seems conjecture, hopefully some company minutes or similar will surface , Aber doesn't seem to be a town unless it's short for aberystwyth but why hoose a name so remote from the canal?

 

 

Err what about "Belfast" ?? or "Greenlaw", Stirling, Whitby??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of the stations (cities, towns, suburbs and villages) listed had some form of freight or parcels facilities - even those that we now regard as part of the 'London underground' so the list could have been taken from a 'Bradshaw' or a railway company publication promoting its freight and parcels services - with regard to the latter my money would be on an LMS publication - at the time, the LMS was "the largest commercial undertaking in the British Empire" and incidentally the largest company (owned by stockholders) in the World. Their publications included maps and lists of freight handling stations that extended to other companies lines because, in those days, inter-company transfers of freight and parcels traffic was commonplace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a quiet day in the G.U.C.C.Co. offices when Bert, Chief Boat Naming Technician piped up....

 

"Right lads I've run out of ideas for this new lot of boats on order. There's blumming loads of them and the Gaffer says they've all got to be place names....Alf, where were you born?"

 

"Towcester, boss"

 

"Right, that's a start...T.O.A.S..."

 

"T.O.W.C...you wally!"

 

"Oh, okay...what about you Bob?"

 

"Burkamsted, Bert."

 

"Right, is that with or without a 'P'?"

 

"Haha! Can I have a 'P' please, Bob?...Dunno mate, they spell it all ways down there. Most of them can't spell their own name."

 

"Well that's two out the way, only another hundred or so to go. Has anyone got an atlas?"

 

"No Bert but I've got a Bradshaw's Railway Directory in my snap box."

Edited by carlt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of the stations (cities, towns, suburbs and villages) listed had some form of freight or parcels facilities - even those that we now regard as part of the 'London underground' so the list could have been taken from a 'Bradshaw' or a railway company publication promoting its freight and parcels services - with regard to the latter my money would be on an LMS publication - at the time, the LMS was "the largest commercial undertaking in the British Empire" and incidentally the largest company (owned by stockholders) in the World. Their publications included maps and lists of freight handling stations that extended to other companies lines because, in those days, inter-company transfers of freight and parcels traffic was commonplace.

Sounds plausible. Railway expertise is what this discussion has possibly lacked in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where did the railway gazetteer legend first appear anyway? Could it be traced back to someone who was actually in a position to know?

I think it was first suggested in a letter to WW in the 70s/80s. (I really must persuade the MD to get someone to scan all the old issues in...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yes, the map idea is tempting, for the reason Alan gives. Would such a map, listing all those small stations have been available and practical to consult? Would it have included the exclusively underground stations?

 

The idea of the Undeground as a separate entity to the rest of the rail network is a more recent concept.

 

In the mid 30s when the GU 'Town Class' boats were named there were four rail companies (LMS, LNER, GWR and SR), and the core of what we now know as the Underground was operated by the London Passenger Transport Board which had only been set up in 1933. Before 1933 the Underground lines were operated by Underground Electric Railways Company of London (the deep tube lines) and the Metropolitan Railway (surface and subsurface lines). And even in the mid 30s there would have been clear memories of the pre Grouping (1923) time when there were many more railway companies across the country. Within this matrix of companies, lines and stations, trains from one company would operate over numerous other companies' lines and serve other companies' stations, and so the LPTB stations would not have been regarded as different from the rest.

 

The London Underground, as it existed from the 1950s to the 1980s was largely a product of the post-war nationalised railway environment. During this period local rail freight services came to an end, as did coal deliveries by rail to local station-based coal merchants, and so there was no longer any need for interoperation between local suburban passenger trains and other services. Some sections of outer London surface lines were transferred to London Transport, to become the outer branches of the deep tube lines. Elsewhere the slow lines for local trains (operated by the Underground) were separated from the fast(er) lines on which British Rail trains operated. Ownership and maintenance of the lines was divided between London Underground and British Rail in the same way.

 

The separate marketing and branding of the two operations also contributed to the differentiation between the two, not least because of the iconic status of the Tube map, which was continuously updated to reflect the changes to the LT network.

 

The distinction only began to be blurred again with the introduction of the London Connections map in the 1980s(?), which showed London Transport and British Rail services in London on the same map, together with the start of bringing the fares and ticketing regimes closer together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't get it. I still have a feeling we are making a proposition fit the facts, why would you not pick man line stations why choose obscure ones like Aber. Where is the logic in this approach I don't have an alternative and it's an net testing discussion. Still at the back of mind I wonder why a canal company would pick names linked to its main competitor rail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aber was quite a popular tourist town at the turn of the centuryl largely because of the railway, it also had substantial connections with local industry. My Welsh friends and family have said that they have never heard of anyone listing Aber by its full name of Abergwngregyn, it has always been listed as Aber.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't get it. I still have a feeling we are making a proposition fit the facts, <snip>

 

This is exactly my point. 'Oh look, all those names are on this absolutely massive list of names' isn't proof

 

Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't get it. I still have a feeling we are making a proposition fit the facts, why would you not pick man line stations why choose obscure ones like Aber. Where is the logic in this approach I don't have an alternative and it's an net testing discussion. Still at the back of mind I wonder why a canal company would pick names linked to its main competitor rail.

 

Logic would appear when someone suggested a source of place names might be from a railway gazeteer. In the thirties railways were the prime movers of people and goods. Timetables and gazeteers were commonplace - more so than road maps.

 

I doubt the thought of choosing names from what might have been conceived as a competitor would have entered anyones mind - they just wanted place names. Seems a logical idea to me. Why Aber? It would have been high on the alphabetical listing, and short enough to have been accurately spelt and painted on though many were not of course. A proposition to fit the facts need not necessarily be wrong. There is more chance of it being right given the era and its transport network.

 

Ah - proof! There appears to be none. But does that make it unacceptable as a theory? Can you prove it not to be so?

Edited by Derek R.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is exactly my point. 'Oh look, all those names are on this absolutely massive list of names' isn't proof

 

Richard

No one is saying it is. But it fits the facts better than any other hypothesis that has so far been offered, so seems the most likely explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one is saying it is. But it fits the facts better than any other hypothesis that has so far been offered, so seems the most likely explanation.

 

Would you like to check the names against the index in my 1898 Times Atlas?

 

Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't get it. I still have a feeling we are making a proposition fit the facts,

Well yes, that is the whole point, arriving at a possible explanation that fits with the facts rather than one that doesn't. I really don't understand why people have a problem with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you like to check the names against the index in my 1898 Times Atlas?

 

Richard

An atlas or other gazetteer is another possibility, but would they be as likely to be lying around in an office? Does your atlas have Angel in it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well yes, that is the whole point, arriving at a possible explanation that fits with the facts rather than one that doesn't. I really don't understand why people have a problem with this.

 

I have a real problem with "These boats were named by picking railway stations from Bradshaws". There is absolutely no proof.

 

It is becoming an act of faith, or a conspiracy theory

 

Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone prove a negative?

 

Richard

More to the point, can you posit a hypothesis that fits the facts better? Because if so, that is the one we will all accept.

 

I have a real problem with "These boats were named by picking railway stations from Bradshaws". There is absolutely no proof.

 

It is becoming an act of faith, or a conspiracy theory

 

Richard

It is not an act of faith, we are agreed we will never know for certain. It is a theory, certainly, and none the worse for that, but where do you get the conspiracy from?

 

Of course there is no proof. If there were we wouldn't be spending our time trying to arrive at the most likely explanation. You can't always have proof. As the creationists point out, there's no 'proof' of evolution by natural selection, but it is accepted because it is the theory that best fits the facts. That's how science works.

 

Also (and this is a key point) NO ONE is saying "These boats were named by picking railway stations from Bradshaws". It would indeed be wrong if they were. We are saying that it looks like a plausible explanation given what we do know.

Edited by Chertsey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

More to the point, can you posit a hypothesis that fits the facts better? Because if so, that is the one we will all accept.

 

I'm sorry, I'm not a true believer. I don't buy the Bradshaw theory, I don't want or need it to be true. I haven't done any research into this - in particular doing what Pete Harrison suggests i.e. look at the minute books. Without that research I am not offering any hypothesis.

 

So, Bilster and Glossor. What about those then

 

Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.