Talk:Tilbury

Untitled

There is a redirection from West Tilbury to Tilbury. I believe this is misleading since the Tilbury page is largely about the modern (19th and 20th century) town of Tilbury. The traditional parish and village of West Tilbury is and was quite distinct. I believe there should be a separate entry for West Tilbury, but I don't know how to do this.

Comments?

Rjm at sleepers 09:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've now created a West Tilbury page. Rjm at sleepers 09:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Tilbury tree -hoax?

I believe the paragraph about the Tilbury tree is a hoax - but it is such a delightful story that I'd like it to be true. Does anyone have a source?

Rjm at sleepers 14:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a hoax. Check [1] for quite a bit of additional nonsense (but amusing nonsense!] on the subject. The Thurrock Museum and Thurrock History Society have never heard of it.

Queen Elizabeth and the Tilbury Camp

I believe this section is not correct - the troops could have crossed to Kent very easily if they needed to. I intend to re-write it and move it to the West Tilbury page.

Comments?

Rjm at sleepers 09:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Tilbury Grace Beach

WHERE IS TIBURY GRACE BEACH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.119.169 (talk • contribs) 22:07, August 2, 2007

I don't know it. Where did you hear of it? --Malcolmxl5 21:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This could possibly be Grays Beach which is a mile or two upstream from Tilbury Docks. Rjm at sleepers 05:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Tilbury Trojan Skinheads

A para on the above has been added to the section on the docks. Were they anything to do with the docks (as distinct from presumably wearing Docs)? Would probably be more appropriate to move this to a different part of the article (or delete it as unreferenced). Pterre (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It certainly has little to do with the docks, so if it is retained, it should probably be in another section. It would be polite to add a fact tag and give some time for a reference. The comments about the band (ARB) seem to be accurate, although once again should probably be in another section. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 07:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have moved it to a new section and provided a source. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 08:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Why no separate article -

-for Tilbury Docks? Every other part of the PLA system - even those long since defunct (see eg Surrey Docks) - have their own article, yet Tilbury has none. It is the only one of those remaining as a working dock, and surely deserves a completely separate from this article on the town itself. There is much more to be said about it than merely one para here: and that para has no reference whatsoever (see these notes for a start. Surely we can do better than a 1946 map, too? Is it not Tilbury Dock not Docks: there is only one dock, isn't there?Peter Shearan (talk) 10:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree - why not be bold and split it off? There is also some mention in Port of London (which to my surprise is not linked to from the Tilbury article) and Forth Ports. I guess the 1946 map is there because nothing later is out of copyright. I have more detailed PLA maps from 1925 and 1960s but neither is definitely out of copyright - you will probably have to create your own from scratch. As to the name I've always known it as 'docks' (and note that the Port Cities article can't make its mind up on the subject). While it may be strictly a single dock today, both my maps name 'Main Dock', 'East Branch Dock', 'Centre Branch Dock' and 'West Branch Dock'. In addition to the main water body there have in the past also been three separate dry docks and a tidal basin. Note that the port of Southampton (which strictly has no docks at all) is generally known including on road signs as 'Southampton Docks'. However, maybe it would be better to call it Port of Tilbury or something? Pterre (talk) 13:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I take your latter point, and had noticed the Port Cities' indecision! You are obviously well-informed about this - I'm merely an observer from across the river - but it appears that the London Cruise Terminal is rarely used as such now. Would that be correct? A further thought now is that, once the Docks info is removed, the article should then be concerning itself much more with the town itself. As I understand it, Tilbury has never recovered from the 1970s huge reduction in the labour force, since most of the inhabitants were port employees. The Wiki suggested method of writing about settlements here would need to include such economic info, as well as other details of the way people in the town occupy themselves! Talk about skinheads/travellers is hardly that! I may try to tackle it; and would be grateful for your comments when I do so. Regards Peter Shearan (talk) 06:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a separate article for Tilbury Docks. There are actually several docks in the complex so Tilbury Docks (in the plural) is correct and certainly locally it was known as Tilbury Docks (I lived in Tilbury between 1988 and 1996). Indeed, a google book search reveals numerous references to the docks as 'Tilbury Docks' in the past[2] and I think 'Port of Tilbury' is a relatively recent construct, perhaps derived from the Port of London Authority. There's a brief article in The Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911 ('Tilbury Docks'), which is in the public domain, that might serve to start the article off perhaps. I remember the cruise liners docking at the terminal but I do not know what is happening now. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the info on the Port of Tilbury. The new article for the moment is simply word-for word as the original: it will need a good deal of work to make it into a coherent whole. I shall then make this article more comprehensive on the town itself Peter Shearan (talk) 06:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Port article rewritten Peter Shearan (talk) 07:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Notes on rewrite

Having removed the Port section, I have now rewritten the article to conform with the Wiki suggested pattern. I have removed both the paragraphs on Travellers and Skinheads: the first, according to the reference that was supplied, talks about Thurrock - it does not specify Tilbury: if it does mean that then there should be a better reference. The second is surely now in the past (25 years ago): even if it means that there is a meeting up of participants. Perhaps a short sentence under history if thought to be very important? IMO both the above only show what a terrible place Tilbury is - is that the intention?

Questions:

• where is the secondary education for the town? Any private education? Tertiary (colleges?)
• is the Band the only cultural aspect? Some sports information? Library?
• Where do people go for work locally? (needs a note under Economy)
• Demography needs an entry: population etc
• any notable people?

Peter Shearan (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

History?

The first para of the history section says, "Tilbury’s history is closely connected with its geographical location (see below). Its counterpart on the south bank of the River Thames, Gravesend, has long had an important part to play insofar as communications are concerned. The principal road in Roman times, the so-called Watling Street passed through that settlement, and the fact of the narrowness of the river at this point meant that a ferry would become an part of those transport links. In addition Gravesend and Northfleet (also on the south shore) both became vitally important to shipping."

Since the earliest significant settlement at what is now Tilbury was at the end of the 19th century, the link to Watling Street appears (to me) to be rather tenuous. Gravesend and Northfleet may well have become "vitally important to shipping", but they don't seem to have any significant influence on Tilury's development. There were a number of cross Thames ferries, in addition to that at Tilbury, including West Tilbury, Grays and Purfleet. They were all locally important, and the Tilbury ferry probably survived longer because of the fort.

I think the current paragraph is misleading and should be deleted. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 07:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

as a geographer, I am only too well aware that no one part exists in isolation from another; hence my proposition that what had been the important place to shipping before Tilbury Docks was Gravesend, and it was because of that that the new site was ideally placed. The pilotage and customs operations are still based in Gravesend, although the town has little connection now with the river. Once an industry is based somewhere, it is quite regularly where changes take place: there is the expertise and the physical wherewithal to make it more expensive to move it elsewhere. It is called industrial inertia - although Wiki doesn't apparently recognise the term, this reference does!. So I strongly reject the suggestion that Gravesend and Northfleet have nothing to do with the history of Tilbury. Peter Shearan (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Rita McLean's history of the docks mentions explicitly the importance of Tilbury Fort railway station in the choice of site. She implicitly suggests that the availabilty of cheap marshland was another factor. There is no mention of the proximity to Gravesend or Northfleet. How about Grays Thurrock; was that important? Clearly, the history of any settlement is affected to some extent by its neighbours. But I'm not aware of any source that suggests that Gravesend and Northfleet had a particularly important influence on the establishment or subsequent development of Tilbury. How about simply saying that Tilbury benefited from the proximity of Gravesend and Northfleet? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Note, I wrote the preceeding comment before reading yesterdays changes to the paragraph. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 07:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

thanks for that. I've now discovered a reference for it: how does it read now? Peter Shearan (talk) 14:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the revised paragraph is an improvement. I'm not sure that the 14th century ferry was at what is now Tilbury. There were also ferries at East Tilbury and West Tilbury, although the latter may have fallen into disuse by then. The early ferries were not much more than rowing boats. Do you have a reference that says they carried livestock or wool? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Reference 4 says exactly that Peter Shearan (talk) 07:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, reference 4 says:-

"The Tilbury Ferry, which at one time had its terminal within Tilbury Fort (early 16th century), was the only way for people, animals fattened on the marshes, and other goods, to cross from Essex into Kent without a long detour. (Not to be confused with the Gravesend to London "Long Ferry" and its "tilt-boats".)

14th Century

"... a topographical curiosity ... extracted from a manuscript of the time of Edward II (1307-1327) ... a list of about a hundred places in England, with the addition ... of the thing ... for which each place was at that time celebrated or remarkable: 'PASSAGE DE TILLSBURY' ___ Tilbury Ferry, not yet out of date."

The Gentleman's Magazine, 1862"

The comment about animals and other goods is not linked to the 14th century manuscript. The manuscript is not quoted as saying anything about sheep or wool, and may in anycase not be about the ferry at Tilbury Fort. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is a 17th century depiction of the ferry. I don't think you'd fit many sheep in!

The Tilbury Ferry in 1640

Rjm at sleepers (talk) 08:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Fine, but it is only a drawing, and a bit difficult to make ot whether the passenger is actually carrying anything. The Celia Fiennes notes suggest that much bigger craft were used, and my book has a great deal of information about the watermen of Gravesend and their craft Peter Shearan (talk) 10:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The Celia Fiennes quote is interesting; I'm afraid the wikipedia article didn't give me a good impression of how big a hoy was at the end of the 17th century, but presumably bigger than a rowing boat. The picture mentioned in the hoy article implies a dozen or so passengers (or equivalent cargo). Anyway, I think the text is much improved. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

References

Etymology?

I agree that the name for the docks, and the settlement around them, was taken from West & East Tilbury, or perhaps from the rather closer Tilbury Fort. But the article reads as though the settlement was known as Tilbury Town. I don't think it ever was, and I lived in Grays between 1950 & 1965. My Grandfathers built much of the workers apartments (the dwellings) in the 1900s, and I never heard them call the town anything except Tilbury or very occasionally Tilbury Docks. The first homes built when they were councillors were Tilbury Gardens, by analogy with Welwyn Garden city. (Not a convincing analogy, in my opinion).

Tilbury Town was the name of the railway station, named so by the railway company to differentiate it from Tilbury Riverside, the sadly-gone steamer terminal at the ferry crossing point.

I notice that Thurrock council use the name Tilbury Town in their web site | here but I'm not convinced. After all, the name of the first local authority was Tilbury District Council.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Plain Tilbury is certainly the most common usage even today. It does result in confusion with older sources that use the name Tilbury to refer to either East or West Tilbury - eg Queen Elizabeth's speech. Tilbury Town probably does derive from the railway station, but it has become a more general, although less common, usage. I have removed the term Tilbury Town and substituted town of Tilbury. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Photo request

I have uploaded the requested photo - File:River-front-at-Tilbury.jpg. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tilbury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080905013633/http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/defoe.htm to http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/defoe.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)