Talk:"Little" North Western Railway

This article really ought to be named "'Little' North Western Railway", but I'm not sure that's technically possible in Wikipedia. Its official name was "North Western Railway", the 'Little' was an unofficial (but frequently used) nickname. --Dr Greg (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I would prefer the article to be renamed "North Western Railway" Johndarm (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

That's not currently possible -- North Western Railway already exists as a redirect to North Western Railway (India) and is linked to by several articles. Those links would need to be diverted first. --Dr Greg (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

The following letter has been unearthed at Carlisle Railway Archives. It was written by George Heald who was the main engineer on the railway from Lancaster to Glasgow. This letter seems to indicate that he was also the main engineer on this line too. He is scantily recorded probably due to his early death. He also clashed swords with Wordsworth over the Windermere Railway. See entry for George Heald for more info. I can include this info in the article but would prefer the main authors to look at it first. (Photocopy of original letter available from counthill@aol.com)

North West Railway

Imperial Hotel Covent Garden London May 5th 1846 Dear Sir

I have had little more information to add to my details of April 30th and May 2nd. To attempt any reduction of the works to the extent required to meet the capital is impossible. To ascertain that it is so, I have calculated the differences that would be made in the masonry supporting all the bridges were square instead of a good number being skew, and taking the lengths of all culverts as being adapted to embankments where the slopes are one and a half to one instead of two to one. And respecting the alteration that could be made in the earthworks of the present section by employing steeper gradients it is not probable that (without increasing the amount of the embankments) they could by any alteration get rid of the present amount of spoil 1,432,275 c.yds and at the same time dispense with the side cutting of 336,185 c.yds. But, if these impossibilities could be surmounted the estimate might be reduced from £1,258,519 to £1,076,433 leaving it still £276, 433 above Mr. Watsons limits of £800,000. To put the matter in an official form, I have sent two letters to Mr Watson giving him in the first the gross amount of the estimate of the several Branches and, in the second the result of the above mentioned investigation. He says he will go into the matter with Mr Vignoles this evening so I may perhaps hear from him tomorrow. I am in communication with Mr Horn Kings Arms Tamworth who is with Mr Brassey. Mr Horn wishes me to stay in London till the return of tonight’s post (Thursday Morning) They are on account, partly, of the Birmingham and Leicester Railway - a line whose Directors are at present undecided whether they will go on or stop - to such a choice of evils has the Railway World arrived. I do not think that the North Western Capital is enough to make them a single line – in fact I am sure that it is not (supposing that they have masonry for a double line) Regretting, that my news is not more cheery, I remain Dear Sir Yours truly Geo. Heald

Geo. Mould, Esq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holfy (talk • contribs) 13:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Interesting though this may be, it doesn't prove he was the main engineer beyond doubt. Even if it did, this is a primary source, but Wikipedia needs reliable secondary sources. See WP:No original research. -- Dr Greg  talk  18:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for that response. I have mulled over what you have written and looked at Wikipedia's policy. I accept that as it is written then the letter cannot be used. However I can't help feeling that there is something wrong with that rule. I feel that a high quality piece of primary evidence that can be located in a reputable archive should be worth more than a secondary source which may be one interpretation of a primary source. It also suggests that Wiki articles cannot be anything more than re-iteration of existing publications. On the other hand if I were to include this letter in an academic analysis of early railway construction I could then use it as reference. That is plainly absurd. Don't get me wrong, I understand the caution that drives this policy but it is a one size fits all rule which ignores the quality of the respective primary and secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holfy (talk • contribs) 22:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

There isn't an outright ban on primary sources; they can sometimes be used for purely factual information where is no doubt about their accuracy. But in this case we would be drawing our own conclusion from the source, which we can't do. Certainly if you published a scholarly paper on this in a peer-reviewed academic journal, we could use that, but then the material has gone through several layers of quality control. If you'd like a second opinion on this, you could ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways.

P.S. please sign your messages on talk pages. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (  or  ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when. -- Dr Greg  talk  23:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Reply