Talk:Confederate railroads in the American Civil War

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Trains: Operations Mid‑importance Trains Portal DYK May 27, 2017 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 and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated projects or task forces: /  This article is supported by the Operations task force. Military history: Logistics / North America / United States / American Civil War Start‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military logistics and medicine task force North American military history task force United States military history task force American Civil War task force

I combined several of the like cites together, although they could be condensed even further if one covers and entire paragraph. The tiny lead needs to be expanded, and we must have other pics around of railroad used by the CS.

Cite #2 needs page numbers, and the last sentence of the History section as well as the first paragraph in the 1862 section both need citing. Interesting read so far. I look foward to the article growing over time - rail was so important in the war and a constant problem for the Confederacy. Kresock (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for counter-examples to the statement 'As 1862 opened, the Confederacy achieved an amazing first in the history of railroads, by planning, constructing and then operating the first railroad ever designed and used exclusively for military purposes.', under 1862, I found the following: Grand Crimean Central Railway. Is this a good enough counter-example to remove the statement? Willhsmit (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should the picture be left in an article on Confederate railroads? It's a Federal artillery battery, not a Confederate artillery battery. Someone reading the article would think that the picture is a Confederate railroad car. But pictures I've seen elsewhere state it is part of the Federal siege effors at Peeter'sburg (the most recent being Robert R. Hodges Jr. Ameircan Civil War Railroad Tactics). Furthermore it's mislabeled as a mortar. That's a 32 pound cannon, not a mortar. -annonymous 1/24/2012 6:21 AM EST. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.71.212.48 (talk) 11:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't there a subject

The real question is not why is this a subject. It is a good history subject, but I don't know whether a subject is due or which one should be started.User:gparkes —Preceding undated comment added 21:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, much can be done. Union_(American_Civil_War)#Economy discusses agriculture and especially cotton but not transport. If other articles also don't address this question perhaps that's a good place to start. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, I did a bit more reading. Seems the North had the

USMRR had great statutory power to mobilize, but didn't apply it in the North because the companies were acquiescent. Several bits of the story are pretty well covered in those two articles and in the biographies of the various officers, but nothing pulls them into one Union rail story. The main approaches I see are: pull it together in a section of the Union (American Civil War), or start a new Union railroading article, or make it part of the current article under a broader name. I like the last, since this article is not yet at all too long. I mean, the story of railroads is, oversimplifying, the Yanks had them and the Rebs didn't. The article as it stands today says the Rebs didn't, but the contrast it supplies is weak. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Agree with the last. The article should be ‘Railroads in the American Civil War’, and it would not need very much changing, since nearly all the campaigning was in the south. Valetude (talk) 07:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be worth pointing out that the railroads in the South had traditionally been maintained by Northerners, as the South had so few facilities for training technicians. When the war started, these valuable employees naturally went home, leaving the railroads to look after themselves. Valetude (talk) 07:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be of interest to note some of the early incidents of trains in combat - Joe Johnston sending troops to Bull Run, the Battle of Vienna (Virginia), the capture of the rail-junction at Corinth, and others. Valetude (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]