Talk:Carlisle railway history

	North West England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lancashire and Cumbria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Lancashire and CumbriaWikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaTemplate:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaLancashire and Cumbria articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Trains Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled]

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The problem with the story of the railways of Carlisle is the fragmentation; a newcomer interested to understand the development is unlikely to take much interest (at first) in The Maryport and Carlisle Railway, for example, until that person understands the broader picture. At that stage the individual histories with more detail, will become important. Afterbrunel (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Nit-picking (sorry)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Two or three nit-picks occur fairly immediately:

your 'C'lile railways in 1843' map seems to be the same as the 1837 map - I'm afraid I'll have to leave that to you to sort out
Hudson's leases of N&C and M&C: my recollection from the contemporary newspaper reports of M&C shareholder meetings is that one (I think the N&C) was personal, the other had to be through one of his companies because the leased company's Act made no provision for leasing by an individual. That detail didn't make it into the M&C article - I will chase that up and edit accordingly
Solway Junction was already a financial basket case before the ice brought the viaduct down (because the M&C and the Caley intercepted any potential traffic and routed it via Carlisle, said the SJR directors; which seems only too plausible, but of course WP mustn't say so - at least not in so many words). Again I will see what can be done as a short edit, but not tonight.

Don't let those niggles spoil your Christmas though. I agree whole-heartedly with the point that single-company articles can't do justice to the interactions between the various routes. The problem is even worse/more fun for West Cumbria, where all the lines were local, nearly all the key players wore more than one hat, there was a healthy dose of non-railway local politics involved, and there don't seem to be any convenient previous authors to provide referenceable explanations of the interactions. So far, I have taken the last point as a warning that any overarching 'Railways of West Cumberland' article would be at considerable risk of OR (and OR which gets it wrong, at that). Can't see that as being a problem for Carlisle, though Rjccumbria (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Add topic