Talk:List of early British railway companies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale within the Trains WikiProject.
	This article is maintained by WikiProject UK Railways.

I have created this list since it is reasonable to assume that few of these railways will ever appear on the Category:Early British railway companies list: the whole point is that, since almost all of the became swallowed up by the big companies - and often in a very few years - it would seem to be pointless to write articles about all of them.

These are only the railways I have so far discovered: the Railway Year Book only includes a selection for each main railway company. Note that the LNWR had 45 of them! Many articles and books on the principal lines include more; and it may well be that other Wiki folk can add to this list.

I have a feeling that the Category I mentioned above ought to be renamed - eg Early British railway companies (1800-1860) - although I am a little dubious about that arbitrary cut-off date: amalgamations continued well into the 1870s (and later!!!) Peter Shearan 10:41, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

as a further thought on my last remarks: the cut-off date is certainly a stumbling block as far as many of the pre-gouping companies are concerned, since, par example, the constituent parts of the North Staffordshire Railway continued to amalgamate with smaller companies until well into the twentieth century, as were the Cambrian Railways. Many of the companies were simply set up to do just that: in very many cases the larger railway were behind the new one, and provided rolling stock to run the railway from its opening day. There is no real logic to it: I think that any so called independent railway in existence before the Grouping ought to be considered as early. A glance at my article List of early British railway companies will show how many there were, and to whom they were eventually joined; Peter Shearan 09:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am now absolutely convinced that the cut-off date is wrong. There is no distinct watershed when railway openings became fewer and as I said above many were still being opened well after the 1850s. The real point, as I see it, is that any railway opened before 1923 was an early railway and most were part of one the main line companies at that date. No-one seems to have yet taken me up on the point, and until I hear otherwise I shall now put in all pre-1923 railway openings on this list.

Peter Shearan 14:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I've been adding the HR components, and it has become clear that we need to do some more structuring. Two problems are showing up in the current layout - firstly lines that opened in stages, the Dingwall & Skye is a classic, opening for goods on one date, passengers on another and requiring an extension act to finish the line as powers for one part had lapsed.

The second problem is how to discuss more generally what the constituent companies did while they were still independent and how the merger came about. Relationships between some companies were decidedly complex, especially those that came to form the GE.

4973 15/5/05

PS - another thing -- where did you find out about the Nairn and Keith. This does not appear anywhere in my sources and seems to be just a section of the route built by the IAJR !

4973.

I cannot answer your query direct since you haven't told us who you are!!

I agree with your comment about restructuring. The article came about because I had discovered in Wikicities that someone was attempting to do just this - and I could see the enormity of the task. I only wanted to give a skeleton of what went on when the railways were first being built, and not to try to delineate each part of each railway's history. I can see what you are saying though. The "railways" named in many of the Acts of Parliament had to be named in a legal sense, even if (as often happened so far as I can make out) they were being put forward by existing companies. One thought I have had, now that it has grown to this extent, is to have each main heading separately (instead of the sections I have now), so that it will be easier to edit.

the other point moving on from this is the ephemeral nature of many of the lines, so to give them separate articles would be very time-consuming and time-wasting (too many stubs would result!). That is why I have put them under major companies: a note about them ought to appear in the article of that company, I think - would that answer your comment about the opening in stages?

I am worried that the article could start to be over the limit for size!

your PS - the 1912 Railway Year book states: "The HR originated with the Inverness and Nairn Railway .... A railway from Nairn to Keith was opened in 1858, and amalgamated with the former under the name of the IAJR, three years later" (the original gives full names of course). So it was, as you say, part of the IAJR, but earlier according to that source.

I have looked further, however, and found in an article in Railway Magazine for November 1955 a different story - more comprehensive anyway. You may have it? If not I can quote what it says. Thanks for your interest! Peter Shearan 19:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)