# Talk:Charles Pearson

Although there's nothing inherently objectionable about the article, several statements (even a whole paragraph) seem to need references. Recognising the increasing congestion in the City and its rapidly growing suburbs... is an example. The Squicks (talk) 21:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I think they're all covered now. --DavidCane (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, great. The Squicks (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the article is overly slanted towards the idea of Pearson being a misunderstood sage ahead of his time or something like that. Things that I've read say that his ideas were completely impractical with the technology available then and would have been disastrous if applied.
For example, World railways of the nineteenth century by Jim Harter says that Charles Pearson's idea was "a great joke in the city" and "received with almost unanimous derision and ridicule". The Squicks (talk) 02:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The Victorian City by historians H. J. Dyos and Michael Wolff has noted that "decisive arguments" were there against Pearson, stating that he may likely have created a "still greater increase in street congestion". The Squicks (talk) 02:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
After all, the first really practical subways in the United States and in France didn't start until decades after Pearson's death, in the 1880-1900 era. The Squicks (talk) 02:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think I have cast him as a sage - that's certainly not how he seems to me - more a dogged campaigner with a persistent streak in continuing to push his agenda over a long period. A good lobbyist in other words. In writing the legacy section, I certainly haven't gone as far as Wolmar, who describes Pearson as "a visionary and an idealist" (p. 16 of his book). Pearson's personality is hard to judge as there isn't a great deal written about him directly and next to nothing on his personal life. I get the impression that he was proud of his position and did not take criticism lightly - see the introduction to his The Substance of an Address Delivered by Charles Pearson, Esq. at a Public Meeting on the 11th, 12th and 18th of December 1843. (linked in the bibliography) which is a 212 page record of a three session speech presented in response to a pamphlet issued criticising him and the City of London Corporation.
The original idea for an atmospheric railway was certainly impractical, and, as the article states would have failed had it been built. The idea of building a railway tunnel under a city also presented an huge engineering problem - one with which Sir John Fowler struggled when he was chief engineer for the construction of the Metropolitan Railway when the work was eventually undertaken in the 1860s.
Thanks for the links. The first I had missed and the second I had seen, but it's always good to get more of these.
With regard to the quote from Hart; in the context of 1836 his proposal for a railway running under the city was certainly very novel bearing in mind that railways were in their infancy and London didn't even get its first railway station until that ear (Spa Road station on the London and Greenwich Railway) which makes it hardly surprising that such an idea was ridiculed. I will put this in though as it is good context and "shows what he was up against".
The Dyos & Wolff quote and the larger context of the paragraph which follows it demonstrates the age old problem that "traffic expands to fill the space available" (e.g. the M25 motorway). Whilst the Metropolitan Railway may not, ultimately, have reduced the traffic congestion on the streets much, as some might have hoped, it enabled so many more people to get into the city that would otherwise have choked it to death or would not have been able to come at all.
In terms of the first practical railways elsewhere, the Paris and New York systems and the 1896 Budapest system had to wait for the development of electric traction as no other city was brave or foolish enough to build a system using steam trains as used in London.--DavidCane (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
was brave or foolish enough
"It's remarkable how often those two points co-incide..."
Anyways, thank your for responding to my points. The Squicks (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
It still seems to me, though, that the Legacy section needs a bit more balance. The words of someone like Christian Wolmar, who- in my opinion- goes too far and overestimates Pearson's ideas and him as a person, is not enough. A more evenhanded source about Pearson's legacy should be added in beside it. The Squicks (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)