Talk:The Railway Children

Untitled
Not sure about fraud - the father was a government offical and as far as a remember the implication was that he was falsely accused of espionage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.51.102.49 (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2004 (UTC)
 * Clearly. The whole Russian bloke subplot was related to this. Icundell 11:45, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Having just read the eText at Project Guttenberg, he was charged with selling state secrets to the Russians. Icundell 12:25, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Adaptations
"The story was adapted as a television series four times by the BBC. The first of these, in 1951, was an 8 episode series of 30 minutes each and was adapted for television by the author, Edith Nesbit." Hey! Edith Nesbit died in 1924 according to her Wiki page! Xxanthippe 04:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have created a new article for the film: The Railway Children (film) and I have moved the information about the film there. Count de Ville 03:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Location
While the 1970 film clearly says Yorkshire, the book is not specific about location. It is unlikely that anyone would be commuting daily from Yorkshire to London in ~1905 (especially on a 9:45 train!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.232.14 (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The producers of the 1970 film were stuck with Yorkshire as they had done a deal with the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway to use that for their location work. It is indeed rather implausible, but in the book the railway was the Great Northern and Southern Railway, and the Old Gentleman was a director, so we're free to fantasize as we like! The producers of the 2000 film used a railway in the south of England, which is much more realistic.2A02:C7D:1207:3300:D95E:354F:8A97:738E (talk) 10:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Image
I added an image, it isn't the original though unfortunately, but if someone finds the first edition image they can just up-date (I don't know how to). Anyway, I think it's a nice illustration and better than nothing for now. Sue Wallace 22:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * How about this public domain title page from the 1906 edition? Image:Nesbit-railway001.gif Unfortunately it's not a great scan. Jfire (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The surname Waterbury
I've just read the novel and the surname of the family is never mentioned, so where did the name Waterbury come from? Count de Ville (talk) 00:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Waterbury first appeared as the surname in the credits to the 1970 film and has since become pervasive. I think it is due to a misunderstanding by the person who adapted the novel for the screenplay. In the book Peter is described as having been given a Waterbury watch for his birthday. The adapter seems to have assumed that this referred to an heirloom of the Waterbury family which had been handed down to Peter. In fact Waterbury was a well-known watch manufacturer, and indeed Timex still manufacture watches with the Waterbury brand name. It seems so rooted in people's minds that the error is impossible to correct. It has become a favourite quiz question. 2A02:C7D:1207:3300:D95E:354F:8A97:738E (talk) 09:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

None of the adaptations by the BBC in the 1950s, nor the Carlton TV adaptation in 2000, mention a surname. The 1968 BBC adaptation (the first one starring Jenny Agutter) has the surname as Faraday. Denis Constanduros did that adaptation. I see that Lionel Jeffries did the 1970 adaptation himself. Impregnable (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Politics
The following has just been added:
 * The book refers to the then current Russo-Japanese War and to attitudes taken by British people to the war. This dates the setting to the spring, summer and early autumn of 1905, and also accounts for the very hostile opinions of Tsarist Russia expressed in the book. Those opinions are now known to have been entirely justified, but when the book was published in 1906 that was controversial, the Conservatives (here represented by the Station-master) backing the authoritarian Russians, while the Liberals (represented by the Porter) back the Japanese.

I see the whole of this as unsourced, WP:OR and most of all, inaccurate.

I recall nothing in the book about the Russo-Japanese war, nor ever specifically to Tsarist Russia. Nor do I recall the station staff being used allegorically like this. Certainly we have The Russian, and glowing comments about his writings (which struck me as odd at first, but then E Nesbit was a founding Fabian, so it makes sense). To some extent, he's described as persecuted by the Tsarist state, but that's still focussed on him, not on the war or even Russia particularly.

This needs sourcing if it's to stay. Primary sourcing from the book, with rough pages and quotes, or ideally some secondary discussion of it, as we are after all required to use. Now I'm known for being lenient on OR generally, but it has to at least stand up to the text itself. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I have in front of me a 1999 reprint of the first book version of the story in 1906. It includes a sentence or two that was omitted from later editions, and explains Andy's doubts. Here is an extract from the original conversation between Perks and the children in Chapter 6.

“Well, I do think Mr. Gills might have told you about it. It was horrid of him.”

“I don’t keep no down on ‘im for that, Missie,” said the porter; “cos why? I see ‘is reasons. 'E‘s Russian sides in this 'ere war. An' I'm Jap. Course 'e wouldn’t want to give away ‘is own side with a tale like that ‘ere. It ain’t human nature. A man’s got to stand up for his own side whatever they does. That’s what it means by Party Politics. I should ‘a’ done the same myself if that long-’aired chap ‘ad ‘a’ been a Jap.”

“But the Japs didn’t do cruel, wicked things like that,” said Bobbie.

“P’r’aps not,” said Perks, cautiously; “still you can’t be sure with foreigners. My own belief is they’re all tarred with the same brush.”

“Then why were you on the side of the Japs?” Peter asked.

“Well, you see, you must take one side or the other. Same as with Liberals and Conservatives. The great thing is to take your side and then stick to it, whatever happens.”

I can quite see why those phrases were omitted from editions after WW1. They might have seemed trivial in the light of of a much more terrible conflict, and indeed, after 1917, quite irrelevant. Impregnable (talk) 21:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's very useful. Can we source when this was cut?  Is there any secondary discussion of it around? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The 1906 version is available online at http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu Impregnable (talk) 13:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 1 June 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: pages not moved to the proposed titles at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 08:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

– There are ten entries listed upon The Railway Children (disambiguation) page, with the once-popular 117-year-old children's novel no longer the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, having been overtaken by its various film and television adaptations. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The Railway Children → The Railway Children (novel)
 * The Railway Children (disambiguation) → The Railway Children
 * Oppose. Quite a lot of this page is dedicated to the various adaptations of the book, so it seems inappropriate to move the page for a DAB when it fundamentally serves the same purpose. And even then, only one of the adaptations gets similar pageviews to the book (the 1970 movie). Nohomersryan (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the points of Nohomersryan -- the current setup appears to be both logical and to the benefit of readers.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose - as per Nohomersryan - makes more sense to just have the disambiguation as a hatnote Stan traynor (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.