Talk:Newmarket and Chesterford Railway

message: Can we change the name of this article to drop "Company" from the title? Not much links to it, so it shouldn't be that hard or controversial to change.
I don't know formally how to make a proposal so for now I will just set down a
Reason for change:
The railway itself and its operating company are two different things. The title is excessively long. Analogies with other railway articles (e.g. London and North Eastern Railway, Great Western Railway, Eastern Counties Railway ad nauseam) show that rarely is "Company" used in the title of the article.
While the article can and should of course mention the company, it need not be in the title.
Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed name change for article-- drop "Company" 

message: I see on other diagrams dashed lines are used for continuation symbols, not the arrows we are using here. What is the convention? SimonTrew (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Continuity symbols

message: OK I think I have understood this now. I have tidied up the Newmarket article a bit, in particular to add links to this article in the infobox, and to try to clear up the confusion between "Old" and "New" stations.
As far as I can manage to divulge— and I have tried to clarify in that article— the seemingly pointless creation of Warren Hill station was for trains from northerly destinations. I presume, therefore, that rather than disembarking at the more convenient Newmarket station, they would disembark at Warren Hill and have a stroll down the High Street on the way to the racecourse; I could see this working if there were special race day tickets specifically for Warren Hill. Since Warren Hill is beyond the triangular junction (if coming from the Ely direction), presumably the train would continue to Newmarket station anyway, but perhaps it balanced the load a bit.
Of course this is pure speculation but it does make sense for why building a "racecourse" station that is further from the racecourse than the existing one. I'm not saying that what I have put above is correct, just that it means we have not *definitely got it wrong* with the placement of a "race day" station farther from the racecourse than the existing station. Obviously this needs more research. SimonTrew (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warren Hill 

message: I found a nice reference at Newmarket Racecourses site:
This confirms that Warren Hill was built to encourage northern traffic, and also mentions the building of a new station to cater for southern traffic, and special fares (gives an example of I think 6/6d from London). I will add the references to the Newmarket railway station site (and probably copy this bit into the talk there) but I thought it was worth adding here too. SimonTrew (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, hang on. Those pics are from the turn of the last century. They must be PD then? I've downloaded them but can't put them on commons cos it has been having a cigarette break for the last couple of hours. SimonTrew (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice new reference-- Newmarket Racecourses history 

message: I went to the Cambridge Central Library today and there are a couple of good refs on this, including maps etc and acts of parliament. Unfortunately not to borrow. From memory, the closure of the section from Gt Chesterford to Six Mile Bottom was made by parliamentary Act with an extremely long name in 1858. The length of the name of the Act was such I would suspect nowadays it would be a Statutory Instrument or some such, and I imagine passed through Parliament with little dispute i.e. rubber stamped, but had to do so under the proceedings of the time. Of course this is all guesswork.
In the Cambridgeshire Collection, which is housed at the Cambridge Folk Museum, there is a whole book on the N&CR, and I will try to get hold of it. The small section in the book I read in the Library indicates there was quite a political war between N&CR, the Royston-Hitchin line (sic) later the Great Northern which wanted to extend to Cambridge but Cambridge didn't want it much, and the ECR were worried it would branch roughly from Royston to Gt Chesterford on a route that I imagine is roughly the same as the nowadays A505 road. Gets quite interesting for what I imagined was a rather potboiling branch line; two large players wanted to capture the Cambridge (and Beyond) to London traffic and battled over this short section.
Si Trew (talk) 01:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  More refs 

message: The article says that there was no "Abington" Station but the schematic map contradicts this (and links to a separate page) - Which is correct? (or have I misunderstood?)
Gilgamesh4 (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have checked the March 1850 timetable for the line - no mention of an Abington station. As you say its on the map but there's not much to go on the Abington station page. Could it be the sources are wrong (I don't own them so cannot check)?. I have aslo checked the Great Eastern Journal referenced in the article - nothing there. regards Davidvaughanwells (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abington Station contradiction