GUCCC Town Class Names

[Chertsey]

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

I think we must be at cross purposes here. I am not looking for certainty, just enjoying exploring possibilities. I don't want or need any particular theory to be true, but I would like to work towards what the most likely explanation is on the face of what we know. I can't imagine why you find that so controversial.

 

The minute books might help, if they were available, but they might not. They could well say 'these boats will be named after towns' but not how.

 

Bilster and Glossor - could be mangled communication, either handwriting (more likely) or phone conversation. Again, do you have a better explanation?

[alan_fincher]

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?

Or Aber ?

 

If you picked 172 individual place names from an 1898 Times atlas, choosing (either intentionally or unintentionally) to include quite a few places that had a population of just a few hundred, it does seem exceedingly unlikely to me that further investigation would show that each and every one had a railway station, (or, if misspelt, would appear to have still meant to have been somewhere that had a railway station).

 

The odds do look pretty high (to me at least!) that some kind of railway based map or listing was probably consulted.

 

I know that's not proof, but it is by far the best theory so far presented, surely ?

[Chertsey]

Added to the fact that there was this 'legend' for want of a better word, that appears to have been around at least since the eighties, and could have come ultimately from someone who was actually there, and the known facts are all consistent with it. You would have to be quite perverse to want to seek a different explanation unless some new evidence emerged.

Edited July 6, 2012 by Chertsey

[David Mack]

So, Bilster and Glossor. What about those then

 

Well I am not aware of any towns or railway stations with those exact names. So they have presumably been named erroneously, whatever the source of the names. So their existence neither adds to nor takes away from the 'Bradshaw theory'.

 

Unless, that is, anyone can come up with a source of names which does include these two in this form.

[RLWP]

Well I am not aware of any towns or railway stations with those exact names. So they have presumably been named erroneously, whatever the source of the names. So their existence neither adds to nor takes away from the 'Bradshaw theory'.

 

Unless, that is, anyone can come up with a source of names which does include these two in this form.

 

How interesting. Why don't they take away from the Bradshaw theory - they aren't in Bradshaw

 

Richard

[Chertsey]

How interesting. Why don't they take away from the Bradshaw theory - they aren't in Bradshaw

 

Richard

I think you're being deliberately peverse now I'm afraid. Bilston and Glossop are both in Bradshaw and could easily have been misrendered at some point in the process.

 

The question is, is there another theory that would account for them better? I certainly can't think of one.

Edited July 6, 2012 by Chertsey

[RLWP]

Let's start again shall we.

 

I think that the claim is "the boats were named by taking station names from Bradshaw". Is that right?

 

Richard

[Derek R.]

The quandry seems to be, why do some want 'proof' of a certain hypothesis for it to be contemplated at all - and why others are quite prepared to accept the 'probability' based upon certain hypothesis that can neither be disproven nor proven, but having an understanding of human nature and information likely to be available in a time now past, are prepared to accept said probability.

 

Grey areas exist in many fields of knowledge for many different reasons, but when reasonable doubt points one way or another - why fight it demanding the unprovable - negative or otherwise?

 

Is the light on? - or is the light off? Or has someone fitted a dimmer switch, and at what point of 'dim' is it set?

[Chertsey]

Let's start again shall we.

 

I think that the claim is "the boats were named by taking station names from Bradshaw". Is that right?

 

Richard

No, that is most definitely NOT the claim.

 

The claim is the boats COULD have been named by taking station names from Bradshaw or some other railway gazetteer and given the known facts this is a credible possibility.

 

Things don't have to be black and white.

[alan_fincher]

I think you're being deliberately peverse now I'm afraid. Bilston and Glossop are both in Bradshaw and could easily have been misrendered at some point in the process.

 

The question is, is there another theory that would account for them better? I certainly can't think of one.

Unless someone can find a source that actually includes Bilster, Glossor, Berkhampstead, etc.

 

There is little doubt they were meant to be place names, and it would seem far more likely they got garbled somewhere between whatever source was used, and what got painted on the boats, than that they were wrong in the initial source.

 

The same issue exists with the "Stars" - I doubt you'll find a pre GUCCCo source that includes "Glaxy" & "Triagulum" in a list of astronomically related items, will you ?

 

In fact the "Stars" appear to be worse, in that there are several others where you can't even guess what the intention was meant to be, it seems!

[RLWP]

No, that is most definitely NOT the claim.

 

The claim is the boats COULD have been named by taking station names from Bradshaw or some other railway gazetteer and given the known facts this is a credible possibility.

 

Things don't have to be black and white.

 

And they could have been named by many other methods. So, I suppose the question is - so what?

 

I would like to hear what the 'known facts' are. As I understand it, the only facts available to us are just the names painted on the boats

 

Richard

[Derek R.]

Let's start again shall we.

 

I think that the claim is "the boats were named by taking station names from Bradshaw". Is that right?

 

Richard

 

No, It's not. Begin at page one.

[carlt]

Is the light on? - or is the light off?

[Chertsey]

And they could have been named by many other methods. So, I suppose the question is - so what?

 

I would like to hear what the 'known facts' are. As I understand it, the only facts available to us are just the names painted on the boats

 

Richard

They could have been named by other methods but none of them is as likely given what we know about the names of the boats and the contents of railway gazetteers compared to other publications or potential sources of inspiration. That's actually quite strong evidence. It's all about a balance of probabilities.

 

The way I see it the discussion started with the story that the boats were named thus, this was questioned, we then considered the evidence and many of us concluded that that was in fact the most likely explanation.

 

Saying there's no proof isn't actually a criticism. Saying it doesn't account for anomalies perfectly doesn't mean dismissing it out of hand, if it accounts for them better than any alternative.

 

History isn't about proof. It's full of doubts and likelihoods.

 

I'm a social scientist; you're an engineer. Maybe there's just no meeting of the two.

Edited July 6, 2012 by Chertsey

[RLWP]

So, what is it that is being shown of offered here?

 

Richard

[Chertsey]

It's a few Grand Union obsessives throwing ideas around. Why don't you like us doing that?

[alan_fincher]

And they could have been named by many other methods.

If you ignore the spelling anomalies, (which I don't think anyone can explain as other than errors), and use another method to randomly chose 172 place names, (some of which are really very small places), doesn't it seem exceedingly likely that some of those 172 choices would turn out not to have a railway station associated with them ?

 

Despite the scope and scale of the railways at there prime, there were still heaps of quite sizeable places that would not have had a railway station. Doesn't it seem a bit odd they didn't manage to pick even one of those, if their selection criteria had no connection to the rail network ?

 

I had never given this idea much credence until looking again at what we do know. To me now it does seem a fairly compelling argument.

 

I'm struggling to remember what we have been told about the earliest appearance of these names, other than on the boats themselves. Can anybody remember what the oldest paper records are that actually show them ?

[Chertsey]

I think this has been a very interesting and fruitful thread but I'm bowing out now before the argument about scientific method becomes acrimonious. Someone start a new thread if those minute books appear!

[alan_fincher]

I'm a social scientist; you're an engineer. Maybe there's just no meeting of the two.

I suppose someone could still have a Higgs Bosun moment in an archive somewhere!

 

I note Stephen Hawking now concedes losing $100 over something he said evidence would never be found for!

[RLWP]

It's a few Grand Union obsessives throwing ideas around. Why don't you like us doing that?

 

Hey, I've nothing against that. Please see all that stuff on Alan Fincher's missing GU gearchange mech

 

It seems likely that the GUCCC used a railway directory (Bradshaw?) to pick the town class names

 

I disagree. I don't accept that spelling mistakes can be used to prove the theory, and then discarded as mistakes. I disagree that a railway directory is the only possible source of a list of place names. I don't even buy the idea that the names were picked from a convenient list. To me it seems likely that there was a more well thought out process.

 

Unfortunately, we don't have any evidence

 

Richard

 

If you ignore the spelling anomalies, (which I don't think anyone can explain as other than errors), and use another method to randomly chose 172 place names, (some of which are really very small places), doesn't it seem exceedingly likely that some of those 172 choices would turn out not to have a railway station associated with them ?

 

<snip>

 

Now, the Powell hypothesis is that the names were chosen as they had something to do with trade, in particular places were things were transported to or from. Like places on railway lines

 

Richard

[magpie patrick]

 

 

 

Now, the Powell hypothesis is that the names were chosen as they had something to do with trade, in particular places were things were transported to or from. Like places on railway lines

 

Richard

 

That may be so, and whilst I have deleted your reference to spelling mistakes it is worth bearing in mind that the age we are dealing with had less than 100% literacy. Where I struggle, as I often do, is the idea that history can be precise, especially in matters like this. It is a matter of record that the Rodden Cider Canal opened on the 34th of Octember 1789 (obviously I've made that up) but try getting a record of why our boat "Juno" is so called is impossible.

 

Your thesis is that these boats were named after places "at the top of the mind", is it all that different to the idea they were named after railway stations?

 

Belfast I struggle with, why the heck would the GUCCC have been trading with Belfast, and equally, no one station is called Belfast (go on, argue, but as far as I remember no Belfast station actually has the word "Belfast" in its name)

 

Not edited, but I believe Belfast Central carries the city name, but it opened in the 1970's long after the town class.

[David Schweizer]

If you ignore the spelling anomalies, (which I don't think anyone can explain as other than errors), and use another method to randomly chose 172 place names, (some of which are really very small places), doesn't it seem exceedingly likely that some of those 172 choices would turn out not to have a railway station associated with them ?

 

Despite the scope and scale of the railways at there prime, there were still heaps of quite sizeable places that would not have had a railway station. Doesn't it seem a bit odd they didn't manage to pick even one of those, if their selection criteria had no connection to the rail network ?

 

I had never given this idea much credence until looking again at what we do know. To me now it does seem a fairly compelling argument.

 

I'm struggling to remember what we have been told about the earliest appearance of these names, other than on the boats themselves. Can anybody remember what the oldest paper records are that actually show them ?

That consideration occurred to me early in this discussion, but when I tried to think of some, the only place of any significance I could think of was St Davids, but it was little more than a village, and not a city in 1936. I certainly could not think of any sizeable places in Wiltshire that did not have a railway station when the boats were built.

Edited July 6, 2012 by David Schweizer

[alan_fincher]

I disagree. I don't accept that spelling mistakes can be used to prove the theory, and then discarded as mistakes.

OK, I admit this has run a while, and I'm not going to revisit the whole thing. But has anybody actually used the (assumed to be!) spelling errors in support of the "railway" theory over any other.

 

I think they are just errors. Particularly if capitals were used - it is not hard for someone to change "GLOSSOP" to "GLOSSOR" - just needs a mark on the paper in the wrong place, and I doubt many working for the GUCCCo had heard of the place!.

 

I don't think the "errors" thing can either strengthen or weaken any theory, unless you can actually find a potential source for the names that reproduces those errors - which I doubt anybody will.

 

Now, the Powell hypothesis is that the names were chosen as they had something to do with trade, in particular places were things were transported to or from. Like places on railway lines

Yes, I just can't think of a likely source that would include some of the place names listed. "Aber" doesn't seem to be a place name in its own right, does it, but there was a railway station called that.

 

Try another "Ab....." one. What about "Aboyne", a small village in the highlands. I can't think what kind of trade listing, (or person who worked in shipping goods), would put "Angel" and "Aboyne" in the same list of place names.

 

Like Sarah, though, I'll dive out, as I don't think recycling the discussion is going to change anybody's opinion now!

[RLWP]

<snip>

 

Your thesis is that these boats were named after places "at the top of the mind", is it all that different to the idea they were named after railway stations?

 

<snip>

 

This is, in fact exactly my point. I can put forward a logical argument for the names, that cannot be proved or disproved. I'm afraid it has no more or less value than the 'picking names at random from Bradshaw' theory which equally cannot be proved or disproved

 

So, nothing has changed.

 

Richard

[Proper Job]

100 posts and nothing proven