To What Extent is Source B(TM)s View on the Impact of the Railway on Stoke Bruerne Supported by the Other Sources

It also does not say in Source B about the locks they opened before the railway opened in 1835. This is said in the Grand Junction Canal Company’s Minutes. They were trying to compete with the Railway Company. This was shortly contradicted. This was because in 1851, after the opening of the railway, they did not need as many double locks; we saw this on our site visit to Stoke Bruerne, because they wanted to economize water. They wanted to do this because the Railway Company was overtaking the Canal Company. They were taking over the canals business. They didn’t have enough money to maintain the locks so they decided to close to sets of double locks later in 1851. This adversely affected Stoke Bruerne because they had less materials and foods coming in which meant that there standard of living decreased. This does agree with Source B but not wholly, like the money problem and economizing water.                                                                                                  

In the Tables of Dividends, Revenue and Tonnages you can see clearly the effect of the Railway was on Stoke Bruerne. From 1838 onwards you can see the money and percent go down rapidly.  In 1850 it goes down even further from 4% to 3 %.  That is in the dividend table; In the Tonnage it is worse, in 1840 there was £121,140 in 1850 there was £81,565. This shows that there was significant decrease in business coming through the village. This does support Source B by the standard of living but Source B does not mention the decrease in money coming in.  This shows that the village and villagers were affected by the Railway opening still being used to transport building goods.

    I think that that most of the important impacts were mentioned in Source B. But some were omitted. The author left out the fact that profits were dwindling. I think Source B does tell the whole story but not always. This is because it does leave out some facts. Most of the other sources do agree with source B, in that the railway was having an adverse effect on the village and the villagers of Stoke Bruerne. The Information in Grand Junction Canal Minutes partially supports Source B But not wholly because it does not mention the fact that they had to close two locks because they were losing money. This does support Source B by the standard of living but Source B does not mention the decrease in money coming in.  The other sources do support Source B.

The reliability of Source B might not be that reliable. There might be factors that caused his view of the village to be even worse than seen. His intentions might have been not reliable because he was writing a book about 7yrs after the railway opened. Why would he have been writing a book about the canal if the canal were derelict and unused? He was trying to sell his book. His hunger might have also affected his viewpoint. He was hungry so more likely to be critical about things.

At the time of year he was writing his book might have been a time when business was slow and not good. If it were busy, it would have changed his viewpoint.

I think I have enough reliable sources because; two of the sources were an official document, which were the Table of Dividends and the Canal Minute Book. The source from the book may be reliable but we will never be sure because we cannot go back in time. It may not be reliable because it was a book and the author would have said anything to sell his book. I think that from these sources we can tell that the railway had an adverse effect on Stoke Bruerne. It affected the villager’s standard of living. We can tell that the railway made life for the villagers hard.