Talk:Victoria Dock railway station

Move to Victoria Dock railway station

Why is this being disambiguated - Victoria Dock railway station is empty?

Also I don't think "Hull Victoria Dock" was ever used as its name.

Hoole calls it "victoria dock station", fawcett (who seems to have done the most research) references it as being "victoria station"

NB Looking at his map cutting from disused-stations.org.uk (which must be original because its the pre-expansion station) it looks clear that the title should be "Victoria Station" -this would need disambigating.

I will move it to Victoria Dock railway station, it can be to the relavent disambiguation page for "Victoria Station" based on whatever is the official format for naming those.

As an aside - the map (ie "victoria station") makes sense - on a passenger service there are numerous examples of companies not using "unglamorous" title - "victoria dock station" would be yet another example (no one goes to a dock unless they have to) .. on the other hand "victoria station" sounds like a suitable destination for anyone.. Prof.Haddock (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Butt calls it Hull Victoria Dock. Lamberhurst, what do Cobb and Quick say? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

What do you think of the map? (it's the 1950s OS first edition).Prof.Haddock (talk) 21:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Maps - even OS maps - are not good sources for the names of railway stations, since they usually omit redundant detail, such as the name of the town; indeed, in towns with just one station, an OS map might just say "Station" with no name at all. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

more Victoria County History states "Victoria station", or just "Victoria" as per the London or Manchester stations quote : "From June 1853 to August 1854 the trains ran from the old Hull and Selby terminus to Victoria, a new station .."

Another .. not sure about this source but "Steam arounf the east riding" Mike Hitches (2013) "the Hull & Holderness Railway was unique in that it was one of the few small independent companies with its own locomotives and rolling stock, these being shedded at the Victoria station."

also Bradshaw's tourist guide (1866) p.60 "Taking train at the Victoria station we pass through MARFLEET, HEDON, BUBSTWICK, and KEYINGHAM .."

It seems the use of the word "dock" in the name is a relatively modern invention.

In "The British Architect" (journal) 1887 v.27 - it lists a contract "for erection and completion of a goods landing shed at Victoria Dock Station Hull" - wonder if it started being called "victoria dock" after passenger services ended. Prof.Haddock (talk) 22:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Both Cobb (Vol. I, p. 389) and Quick (p. 220) use "Hull Victoria Dock". According to Quick (p. 394), the name "Victoria Docks" is known to have been used as a prefix for Tidal Basin and Custom House. Lamberhurst (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Is "victoria docks" a typo - I've not seen it used in the plural here.

Also do they give dates - it looks from what I've seen that it was originally "victoria station" when a passenger station, and maybe it started being called "victoria dock station" after converted to freight.

It was "Victoria Station" ie in the NER Bill for 1862 "A Railway, length 27 chains, to connect the Company's Victoria Dock Branch at the Southcoates Station with the Hull and Holderness Railway at the Victoria Station, at Hull; such works to be completed within five years." - [1]

I think it was rebuilt c.1888 - possibly the name "victoria dock station" started then, though it looks certain that name wasn't used before. This is also interesting - by Henry Oliver RCH [2] it lists a "Victoria" station (on the Hull and Holderness), at the same time as a "Victoria Dock (Drypool)" .. Prof.Haddock (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Also anyone know the date when Drypool Goods station came into use ? Prof.Haddock (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

When looking at sources, we need to be careful with interpretations of phrases. For example, if a source says "Victoria, a new station", or "Taking train at the Victoria station", it might be that the author (or editor) has omitted the word "Hull" on the grounds that the chapter or paragraph is about Hull, and so has decided that restating "Hull" is superfluous. If the source says "Victoria Dock Station Hull", it's unlikely that the station's signboards will have shown exactly those four words in that order - more probable that the author has rearranged the words of the station's name to suit his (or the journal's) preferred style. Even in legal documents, the order of the words is secondary to the meaning that they are intended to convey: what matters to the lawyers and MPs is that a phrase like "the Victoria Station, at Hull" is unambiguous; it doesn't literally mean that the station was named "the Victoria Station, at Hull" or even simply "Victoria".

The omission of the word "Hull" is unlikely. To the passenger travelling to Hull for the first time, it would have been important to see the word "Hull" somewhere in the station name, so that they could be sure that they were in the right town before alighting.

This is why we need to place more reliance on authors like Butt, Cobb and Quick who record the actual name of the station that was shown on signboards and in timetables, without performing any editorialising. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The point was not whether or not "Hull" was in the title but whether the title was "Victoria" with or without the "Dock" I think the contemporary sources show that whilst the station was used for passengers there was no "dock" in the used name. I have no information on whether "Hull" was used as a prefix or suffix in official or common use.Prof.Haddock (talk) 02:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

If you 'have no information on whether "Hull" was used as a prefix or suffix in official or common use', why did you move it from Hull Victoria Dock railway station to Victoria Dock railway station in the first place? In the absence of clear evidence, it should have remained where it was. This does not mean that starting a move discussion was wrong - rather, it was the right thing to do - but you should have waited a decent length of time for any objections to be lodged before moving the page - seven days is recommended at WP:RM. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

If you had enough respect to read and acknowledge the reliable sources I provided above eg goverment papers, railway clearing house etc then you would see that there was no or little evidence for "Hull" as a suffix or prefix in the contemporary literature. Relying on sources written 100years later, rather than what is actually shown to have been in use is a game of chinese whispers - what sources are the later author's actually using? Butt has already been shown to be unreliable once. Is it certain that the names provided by Quick or Cobb are meant to be taken literally, or are they disambiguated shorthands?Prof.Haddock (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Please show some respect. It should be obvious that when I wrote '... source says "Victoria, a new station", or "Taking train at the Victoria station", ...'; '... the source says "Victoria Dock Station Hull" ...'; '... phrase like "the Victoria Station, at Hull" ...' I was quoting from the sources. Since I had quoted them verbatim, this proves that I did "read and acknowledge" them.

The names given by Quick, Cobb and Butt are indeed meant to be taken literally. This is why, on p. 239 of Butt, we find six entries for "Victoria", two for "Victoria Bridge", one "Victoria for Roche", four "Victoria Park", one "Victoria Park and Bow", one "Victoria Park Halt", one "Victoria Park, Whiteinch", one "Victoria Road" and one "Victoria Terrace". If Butt had invented his own disambiguation, surely all of the "Victoria Park" would have had the town name appended, not just the one in Whiteinch; also, don't you think also that those first six might have been shown as "Victoria, Dundee"; "Victoria, Cork"; "Victoria, Ebbw Vale"; "Victoria, London"; "Victoria, London"; "Victoria, London"? Butt doesn't do that - however he does distinguish them, by indicating the railway company - these are shown just after the station name: "Victoria Cal"; "Victoria C&M"; "Victoria GW"; "Victoria LB&SC"; "Victoria MD"; "Victoria SE&C". Those initials are not intended to be taken as part of the name, since he does this for every single station in his book, ambiguous or not. For example, a little further up the same page, Verney Junction is shown as "Verney Junction L&NW/Met&GC". There is no other Verney that this could possibly be confused with, yet he still gives the full name (Verney Junction), and also indicates the London and North Western Railway and the Metropolitan and Great Central Joint Railway. Returning to the various Victorias: completely absent from page 239 are the stations of that name at Manchester, Nottingham, Sheffield and Hull. The book is alphabetical, and so we find those elsewhere: on page 154, "Manchester Victoria"; on p. 175, "Nottingham Victoria"; on p. 209, "Sheffield Victoria"; and on p. 125, "Hull Victoria Dock" and also "Hull Victoria Pier". If the word "Hull" had been absent from either of these two station names, they would have been listed on page 239, like the London stations, but they're not. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

How do you know that Butt's naming scheme is supposed to be 100% correct and literal ? - is there an explicit explanation of the scheme in the introduction - I don't have access to Butt so I can't say.

For example In the 1867 RCH (Henry Oliver) source, page 109 link - a different scheme is used eg "Victoria" listed for the Hull and Holderness line listed under V, as well as a "Victoria Dock (Drypool)" (is this a different station?) ... the other Victoria s eg Manchester, London etc are also listed under V.. this is a contemporary source I would expect to be reliable.

I see no reason to taken one source absolutely literally when it is contradicted by others. Some genuine documentary evidence would be welcome. eg timetables / tickets etc

I am starting to have doubts about the absolute accuracy of Butt's work. For example there already was the example of the date of opening of the Wressle. Another example - The Henry Oliver source gives the Hull main station's name as "Paragon Street", and its owner the NER - but according to the wikipedia article, Butt states that the NER called the station "Paragon", and the Y&NMR "Paragon Street". That's another example of Butt being at variance with contemporary sources. Is Butt a collation from other secondary works? Prof.Haddock (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Butt draws information from the Railway Clearing House and from Bradshaw, amongst other sources. He states (p. 6) that it is "difficult in some cases to determine what the official name of a station really was", pointing out discrepancies between the station nameboards, timetables, and tickets. He also criticises Bradshaw for being "particularly misleading in ascribing a distinguishing suffix to stations in the same town, although the stations were not so distinguished by their operating companies".

There have been a lot of recent edits at Hull Paragon Interchange, and the relevant paragraph has been rearranged more than once, such that the present version is not fully supported by the sources ascribed to it. What Butt actually says for Hull Paragon is:

HULL BR 54 TA 02 RF Hull Paragon

HULL PARAGON NE 54 TA 02 RF Hull Paragon Street; RN Hull BR

HULL PARAGON STREET NE 54 TA 02 OP 8 May 1848 Y&NM; RN Hull Paragon

Notice that there is only one explicit date: an absence of a date means that Butt was unable to determine even the year with certainty. These three entries should be read respectively as:

"A station named Hull was located at map reference 54 TA 02 (in Jowett). It was renamed from Hull Paragon by British Railways (Railway Executive)."

"A station named Hull Paragon located at map reference 54 TA 02 (in Jowett) was renamed from Hull Paragon Street by the North Eastern Railway. It was renamed Hull by British Railways (Railway Executive)."

"A station named Hull Paragon Street located at map reference 54 TA 02 (in Jowett) was opened on 8 May 1848 by the York & North Midland Railway. It was renamed Hull Paragon by the North Eastern Railway."

Taken together, they become "A station located at map reference 54 TA 02 (in Jowett) was opened on 8 May 1848 by the York & North Midland Railway and was named Hull Paragon Street. It was renamed Hull Paragon by the North Eastern Railway, and Hull by British Railways (Railway Executive)." It does not mean that 'the NER called the station "Paragon", and the Y&NMR "Paragon Street"' - since Butt does not give a year for the dropping of the word "Street", it could have happened as early as August 1854 or as late as December 1922. We cannot assume that the NER always called it Hull Paragon. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

"Docks" in the plural is used by Quick. As for the name post-closure to passengers, {{Clinker-Stations}} also refers to Hull Victoria Dock (p. 66); my edition from 1988 shows it still open to goods. As for dates, Quick indicates that it was opened on 1 June 1853 and closed on 1 June 1864 with services diverted to Paragon (p. 220). Interestingly, he mentions that "Drypool" was "Airey's name for Victoria Dock". Nevertheless, Drypool is referred to in Clinker who gives a closure date of 3 March 1969 (excepting private sidings) without mentioning an opening date. Could it be that Victoria Dock was known as Drypool after closure to passengers? Lamberhurst (talk) 10:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

After closure to passengers it was converted to goods use (I think the Fawcett book listed as a source has a little more info.) The sources I have indicate that afterwards it was called "Drypool goods station". The 1969 closure date is likely accurate - the track was lifted c.1970s. Impossible to run trains by the 1980s.

The niggle I have is that I can't find any non-modern sources that refer to the passenger station as "Victoria Dock (with or without any suffixes or prefixes) - all the historical and pre-modern sources I have seen so far lack the "dock" in the name when describing the passenger station.Prof.Haddock (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried Bradshaw? Lamberhurst (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Not yet. The local library doesn't seem to have any.Prof.Haddock (talk) 22:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Please move to correct title

I seems clear that as a passenger station the title was "Victoria Station" - this would need disambiguating. Can someone do that please.Prof.Haddock (talk) 23:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Before any more page moves happen, we should form a consensus as to what is best. This may mean a formal WP:RM. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about - you already have a standard format for disambiguation of railway stations - and you revert every change I make that you decide doesn't fit that format. Now I ask for you to choose a correct title for disambiguation and you want at reuqested moe now,

I suggest you go and troll someone else. Prof.Haddock (talk) 02:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Redrose64 is clearly correct on this. The name change should not have been made without a proper discussion. For Prof Haddock to accuse Redrose64 of trolling is disgraceful. -- Alarics (talk) 07:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

As I have noted above in my most recent addition - I appears that the sources I have provided (which would generally be considered to be the epitome of reliability eg RCH, Goverment reports ) were cursorily ignored. I don't have an explanation for that behaviour.Prof.Haddock (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

By "any more page moves", I am referring to another move of this page so soon after the last one, which took place at 20:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC) - less than twelve hours ago. If the page had been left at Hull Victoria Dock railway station, no further disambiguation is necessary, unless evidence can be provided that there was more than one station in Hull known as "Victoria Dock" (Butt lists just the one). Please give examples of where I "revert every change [you] make that [I] decide doesn't fit that format". --Redrose64 (talk) 08:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Grid reference

TA109290 is out. [3]

Can someone convert (53.745759, -0.316779) to OS coords. ThanksProf.Haddock (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you will find the conversion on wiki is out, and has been for several years, rather than the conversion from streetmap that I took. Keith D (talk)

If I try TA11092902 that's nearer it's definately bottom left of the TA1129 square (from the OS maps) - the old shed in http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/h/hull_victoria_dock/index.shtml is in that square too. Prof.Haddock (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The conversion in Streetmap gives me TA111290. Lamberhurst (talk) 11:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Name again

Found another one - this from the NER. (1861) It's from a notice in the London Gazette [4]

quote:

Secondly, a railway commencing by a junction with the Victoria Dock Branch of the North Eastern Eailway at the south, end of the Southcoates Station on that branch, in the township of Southcoates, otherwise Sudcoates, in the parish of Drypool, in the town and county of the town of Kingston-upon-Hull, and thence passing from, through, into, and in the township of Southcoates, otherwise Sudcoates, and the township of Drypool, both in the. parish of Drypool, in the said town and county of the town of Kingston-upon-Hull, and terminating by a junction with the Hull and Holderness Eailway, at the first half-mile post on that railway east from the Victoria Station, and in the said township and parish of Drypool

I added the underlining. This is confirming the pattern I though I was seeing in the original literature -eg

• Victoria Dock Branch line

but not "Victoria Dock station" , instead just

• Victoria Station

Whilst still a passenger station, not the goods station. 1861 should be within the passenger period. I notice that 20th century writers use both forms seemingly randomly.. Prof.Haddock (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)