Errors and omissions

However hard one tries, and however many people proofread the text, errors slip through. The following are the ones that got through the sifting system into print. They will, of course, be corrected next time around and are posted here so they can get an airing sooner and so that readers will know that I know about them.

If you know of anything else then I would welcome being told so I can look into it and try and get it right next time round.
You may do this by emailing HERE:

Thank you to those who have already supplied corrections.

METROPOLITAN LINE

Page 62 (second para) - the revised direction of running was instituted on 7th November, the work on 3rd October was postponed (this seems to have happened in consequence of diversion of effort following Munich crisis).
Page 85 (top photo caption) - This is self-evidently Dreadnought loco-hauled stock and not 'T' stock
Page 94 (top para) - the reference to 'road to rail' conversion (now there's an idea) should be 'rail to road'.

JUBILEE LINE

Page 5 - The opening date for the Metropolitan Railway should be (10th) January 1863, not December. It is quite extraordinary that so many people missed this, and that I committed the sin in the first place.
Page 22 (last para) - the revised direction of running was instituted on 7th November, the work on 3rd October was postponed.
Page 29 (fourth line up) - "The huge cost of £110-£180 meant..." should, of course, read: "The huge cost of £110-£180 million meant...".
Page 32 - note the omission of a full stop at end of final word.
Page 78 (line 9) - a spare word "but" has mysteriously appeared in the sentence and should be ignored.

DISTRICT LINE (2006)

Page 50 (top) - The platform extension was at the east end of platform 4 and it is now known that it survived the replacement of the bridge in 1959 and disappeared between 1980 and 1990. While the fog explanation for the extension in the inspecting officer's report is not to be doubted, it does seem more probable that it was never intended to divert LTSR steam trains but was perhaps to allow District trains to couple up, reducing the paths required during fog, however no instructions have been found to that effect. That the District began running a few long trains as soon as the platform extensions were ready may be material.
Page 81 (third paragraph, second line) - "Upton Park" should read "Upney"
Page 82 (line 7) reference to date 9th June should be 1958 and not 1957.

PICCADILLY LINE

On page 17 references are made to the various contractors which constructed the line. The names are correct but it emerges that two of the sections are transposed. Thus the Finsbury Park to Strand section was awarded to Walter, Scott & Middleton and the South Kensington to Barons Court tunnel mouth section was awarded to Walker, Price & Reeves. The supervising engineers and contractors for the other two sections are correct. The information originally came from a report in Railway Gazette, December 1906, which was incorrect.

Page 56 (upper caption) - Each reference to "four-car" train ought to be to a "three-car" train; control trailers never appeared at the head of four car trains. (I hadn't seen this addition).

Also, on page 98, the caption was intended to be read in conjunction with a photo of a 1931 stock car while a 1934 stock car picture has in fact been used. Practically the stock was near identical, but the reference to air-worked end doors should be construed as arriving in 1931, not 1934.

On page 130 there is a reference to the opening of the first floor bus station. The correct date of opening was 23 October 1993 (not 1994 as implied). It closed two weeks later owing to the surface being too slippery, and reopened 15 December 1993.

VICTORIA LINE, BAKERLOO LINE, NORTHERN LINE

None noticed yet.

 

HAMMERSMITH & CITY RAILWAY

Page 25 (right hand column, fifth line) - Reference to thirty years should, of course, be to twenty years.

Page 38 (line 15) - The reference to Rowland Hill relates to General Sir Rowland Hill GCB, GCH (later 1st Viscount Hill) and not to the person of similar name who was connected with the General Post Office.

Page 38 (same paragraph as above) - In 1878, Royal Oak station actually stayed put, but the GWR main line tracks were re-routed onto a new alignment south of the platforms (thus placing the platforms on the north side of the railway).

Page 110 (Photo caption) - The car shown at head of train is one of the Metropolitan cars on permanent loan to the H&CR and which were very similar to the H&C stock; these had centre doors fitted at the same time.

METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY
Volume 1, Nineteenth Century

Page 18: second paragraph: reference to page 15 should be page 17.
Page 24: footnote: Morgan Peto should read Morton Peto.
Page 42: endnote reference “26” in last line should be to endnote “18”.
Page 55: second paragraph, 6th line, word ‘City-bound’ wrong at that date. Word ‘northern’ more accurate.
Page 57: second paragraph: reference to page 52 should be page 54.
Page 107: North & South Junction Railway should read North & South Western Junction Railway.
Page 112: third paragraph: reference to page 116 should be page 118.
Page 133: table: Nov 1879 column; total should be 15(16). June 1881 column total should be 17.
Pages 176 & 178: reference to J.C. Wills (where occurring) should be to C.J. Wills (Charles Joseph Wills).
Page 182: paragraph three, line 3: ‘publically’ should be ‘publicly’
Page 240: third entry: should read Hon Richard Southwell Bourke.
Page 241: eighth entry under Directors: should read Hon Richard Southwell Bourke (Lord Naas, later Earl of Mayo).
Page 274: table near bottom. Under 1871 entry, builder's names should conform with those on page 93, ie Gloucester and Oldbury.
Page 274: next entry in same table (1879) there were two builders, not one. The other builder was Metropolitan Carriage & Wagon Co. The totals are correct, but the two builders constructed two trains each.
Page 306 Chapter 12 Footnote 1: the citation has been traced. The reference is to The Times [London] 31.8.1881 page 4 col 6 (the very last line in that column)

Photo Captions. Many photographs used were from private collections, bore no indication of photographer or origin and were not known to me (hence attributed to owner's collection). Another researcher has identified the photographer of some of these, which I give as follows:

Page 115 H.L. Hopwood (though sourced LTM)
Page 126 H.L. Hopwood (though sourced LTM)
Page 188 C.H. Eden
Page 269 (top) Locomotive Publishing Co.

Other amplifications, errors or omissions in captions:

On page 121 I can add that top picture was taken in 1892, but I still do not know by whom.

On page 185, the non-District visiting loco (only partly visible) has been identified as apparently a Manning Wardle 0-6-0 tank loco intended for industrial use but sometimes obtained for railway construction work. It is possible they were used by Bott & Stennett for the widening work between Hammersmith and Barons Court, and stabled at Lillie Bridge c1905. This firm certainly had a similar loco in use for building the Uxbridge branch. Confirmation would be welcome. Image derived from Locomotive Publishing Co postcard.

Page 214. My attention has been drawn to the lighting chimneys on the carriages which are not of the correct type for Pintsch lighting either. The suggestion is made that they are for oil lights, and perhaps used on the shuttle train as it only made short journeys and then only in the open air. I have not found any positive reference for this yet. We know the District was very interested in the Pintsch system and its deployment on the Met, but this photo does not represent any use of it on the District this early.

In the top photo on page 234, my attention has been drawn to the non-District loco on right (only part of which is visible). I am advised this is a Midland Railway 0-4-4 well tank loco (by Kirtley), and would probably be one of the locos borrowed for the electrification works, dating picture 1904-early 1905 (before Estell retired).

It has also been pointed out that the images on page 130 and 269 (top) appear to be of the same locomotive, in the same condition and with two of the three visible staff the same, though contents of bunker are different. The implication is that they may have been photographed on the same day and possibly in the same place (though it is hard to place the second one at Hounslow as information is sparce). If destination board is relied on, it might be suggested it is when through trains operated to the City shortly after opening in 1884, but as no carriages are visible it could be a light engine to which no significance can be given to the board.

Complications around photo on Page 92.

I have had the image for many years without knowing its origin, but it has been pointed out that it originated from the Gloucester Railway Carriage & Wagon Co, which photographed examples of its vehicles as orders were about to be dispatched. This means the carriage shown, No 85, must in fact be one of the 1871 carriages, as this batch was the only one built by Gloucester, and is not an 1879 Ashbury. I find I took it upon misplaced trust that the number 85 signified it was from the 1879 batch.

I gather I am not the first to be puzzled about how the District's carriages were numbered and that the matter is still not resolved. Nevertheless the photo remains representative of early carriage stock and this note gives me the opportunity to draw attention to the chains underneath the carriage, which were part of the braking system. Also visible half way across rear end is the gas pipe used to refill the gas containers on the roof.

Further corrections, amplifications etc are in hand and will be published in due course.

METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY
Volume 2, Twentieth Century

Page 9: third paragraph: reference to Silver Jubilee should have been to Golden Jubilee.

Notes to Chapter 7 and 8, Notes page 388 (referring to Chapters 7 and 8 [pages 205 (etc) and 234 (etc)].

In the notes, the Chapter 8 heading is in wrong place. In consequence, notes 1-34 under Chapter 8 are actually 27-60 of Chapter 7 (ie add 26). Notes 35-48 of Chapter 8 (as presently numbered) should therefore correspond to notes 1-14 in the text. Ie subtract 34 from the Chapter 8 numbers.