Jump to content

Talk:British narrow-gauge railways

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Section 3 Heritage and Museums

[edit]

Several of the railways listed in this section, such as Alton Towers, Bicton, Billing Aquadome, Great Bush, Whipsnade & Umfolozi seem to have little to do with Heritage (although Alton has the monorail from Expo 86, and did have a line since 1929) - and certainly no longer have anything of heritage value to be seen - and nothing to do with museums. Should these be grouped into a separate category of "Theme Park Railways"? There are a number of others that could also be added to that category, although sadly, most seem to be running very similar American-styled steam-outline modern diesels.

Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? Lynbarn 21:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are, of course, right. This makes complete sense. Let's do it. Gwernol 21:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mileage

[edit]

Would it be useful to show an extra column (after gauge, perhaps) containing the mileage of each line, where known. If nobody objects, I will add the column in about a week - I don't know most of the values though, So I'll leave most blank... Any thoughts? Lynbarn 22:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, its not super valuable right now as only two entries have lengths. What's more a number of these railways varied in length significantly over time. A number more we probably can't get lengths for. What about branches - how should they be treated? Until we have a reasonable spread of reliable data is it worth including this column just for two lines? Wouldn't that information be better off on the articles for those lines? Gwernol 00:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now you tell me! I do know (or can find) the lengths of several of these lines, and I will be adding them as I can over the next few days/weeks, but I thought it better to add the column to all the tables first, even though they are blank. As for variable lengths, several entries have various as their track gauge, so I still think the additional column is a valid addition Lynbarn 11:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sorry about that. I'd meant to add a similar comment to your original announcement, but I forgot, sorry. Your most recent message reminded me. I think as long as we get a reasonable coverage of lengths (at least 50% of lines?) its fine. Gwernol 11:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blenheim Palace

[edit]

There is a narrow gauge railway in the grounds of Blenheim Palace, Oxfordshire, which does not appear to be listed here. I'll leave someone more knowledgeable about railways to decide on the appropriate category for it.Rodparkes 03:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for reminding me of that line - I was there only about two years ago! I have now added an entry to the list. regards, Lynbarn 11:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should this really be counted as a narrow gauge railway - I'd have thought it was a miniature railway? Its certainly listed on the miniature railway page!! Callywith 19:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, A miniature railway (more or less scale models of full-size prototypes, able to carry passengers) is by definition a narrow gauge* (ie less that 4ft 8.5inches) railway but a narrow gauge railway (full-size prototypes running on rauils less than 4ft 8.5 inches) isn't necessarily a miniature railway. In the case of the Blenheim line, I think it qualifies for both. (*although at the extreme, I guess a roughly 4/7ths scale model of a Brunel broad-gauge could be miniature but not narrow!) Regards, Lynbarn 00:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military Use

[edit]

Is it a deliberate decision to omit any reference to the various military narrow gauge systems that existed?<br\> Examples include Woltham Abbey & Woolwich Arsenal (Army); Broughton Moor and Chattenden & Upnor (Navy); Calshot and Chilmark (RAF). Locos from 2 of these systems are still at work on the Talyllyn and Welshpool lines.Gawthorpe Dave 13:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No - if you have any information of military or former military lines or stock, please feel free to add it. Regards, Lynbarn 00:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a separate article British military narrow gauge railways which is linked from this article. It covers all these railways. Gwernol 13:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closed - Present?

[edit]

I find having the word "Present" in the closed column confusing - does it mean that the railway is currently closed or "present" in the sense of answering the register, miss? I would suggest putting "Open" or where applicable, "Seasonal" or "Occasional". Britmax 10:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It means until the present - i.e. the railway is currently operating. The reason for this is that all the other entries in that column are dates, so having "1876 - open" is a misnomer, whereas "1876 - present" conveys that the line opened in 1876 and continues to operate. Gwernol 13:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I?

[edit]

Several of the railways have the suffix (I) next to them. Maybe I'm going blind, but I don't see anywhere that states what this signifies. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 07:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's corretc, Snigbrook. It is an attempt to separate the original and the preserved railways. Not entirely a successful devise, obviously :-) Perhaps making it explicit by having the preserved version named e.g. "Talyllyn Railway (preserved)" would be better, or maybe just combining the two entries? Gwernol 13:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see what it means now. Perhaps the enties from two tables could be combined, as follows:
Name Opened Closed Gauge Length Location Notes
Corris Railway 1859 1948 2 ft 3 in (686 mm) 121⁄4 miles [1] Machynlleth, Wales Built to carry slate from the Corris district. Closed after flooding of the Afon Dyfi.
1967 Present 2 ft 3 in (686 mm) 1.6 km Corris, Wales Heritage railway revival of the Corris Railway. Reopened to passengers in 2002
The question arises as to which table to put this in. Or do we combine the two tables completely? I'm willing to do this if consensus is to do so. — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo (talk) 12:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's a really good idea, I wonder why I never thought of that? I'd suggest merging into the table currently containing the original railway, as most of the revived railways are preservations of public railways. Gwernol 12:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to steal your thunder - I saw you suggested it, and thought that this was a good way to implement it. I might split the preserved lines/museums, leaving the museums and moving the preserved lines into the public lines as per your suggestion. A job for tonight ;-) — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo (talk) 12:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear I wasn't trying to be sarcastic. When I said "maybe just combining the two entries" I'd meant into a single row; your suggestion of making them two "sub-rows" as above is a much better suggestion and all yours. Truly, well done for coming up with this solution. Best, Gwernol

Table sorting

[edit]

I've merged a lot of the entries from the preserved/museums, as discussed above. Some of the entries are borderline as to whether they are museums or short demonstration lines, and I may have called some the wrong way, so feel free to move things as required. Both tables could do with a bit of clean-up, e.g. to get consistent formatting of lengths etc. Feel free to let me know if there's any other discrepancies. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting of a different kind

[edit]

Would anyone object if I sorted out the tables? In my opinion, it would look clearer if railways were arranged by type (public or otherwise), then by gauge, then alphabetically; instead of the current 'type, then alphabetically'. Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no objection in principle to re-ordering the tables, but I think they should be left in table format. Further discussion may be necessary if you intend to rewrite this as an unformatted list. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 16:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And, why are you commenting that it's unformatted? Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mean replacing the standard table format with a text list, which is what you appeared to be doing. Please wait for consensus before making a major change like this. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. But I have waited for around 24 hours. Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And, I know it seems like a few minutes between 16:29 and 16:51, and not 24 hours; but I didn't sign the talk page correctly, which I apologise for. Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I realise that, but your original suggestion was to sort the tables, not to gt rid of them. Have you tried using sortable tables? —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 21:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're suggesting the current layout, but using sortable columns in the table. Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The 2'6" gauge lines are sorted before the 2'0" gauge lines. This is back to front.

Gauge Commission

[edit]

The only major NG railway before the Gauge Commission of 1846 appears to be the Festiniog Railway of 1836 (horse) and 1863 (steam). Given the large number of different narrow gauges that followed, it seems that the gauge commission did not give a lot of thought to standardising narrow gauges, like what Italy did. Tabletop (talk) 04:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting of gauges in table

[edit]

The sortable function sorts 2'6", 2'0", 3'6" which is not in correct order.

It would also be neat to write 2' 0" instead of 2'. Tabletop (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steepbridge Light Railway

[edit]

The Steepbridge Light Railway is an industrial line in UK. [2]

Tabletop (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference WHITEHOUSE was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ "CHEAP AGRICULTURAL RAILWAYS". The West Australian (Perth, WA : 1879 - 1954). Perth, WA: National Library of Australia. 15 March 1906. p. 3. Retrieved 20 August 2012.

Track gauge question: Herne Bay Pier Tramway

[edit]

An odd track gauge of 3ft 4 1⁄2in is mentioned for the Herne Bay Pier construction railway (Herne Bay Pier Tramway) and doesn't have a source. A forum states 3ft6in. Not a valid source, nothing else could be found on the internet. Does anyone have a source for the exact track gauge?--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pic: [1]. Another description at [2] ("Once again the problem of moving baggage from the pier-head to the shoreward end had to be overcome and a construction railway, used originally by the contractors, was retained and converted for passenger use." -- could explain the odd gauge).
If no serious source is found, we must replace it with a question mark in the list. -DePiep (talk) 08:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on British narrow gauge railways. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful inconsistency problem

[edit]

Please summarize British quarrying and mining narrow-gauge railways and British narrow gauge slate railways like the rest of the summary sections, per WP:SUMMARY, instead of relegating these to "See also" were people are apt not to notice them.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on British narrow-gauge railways. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest?

[edit]

This article says that the Surrey is the oldest public railway in the world but the Surrey page says that the Lake_Lock_Rail_Road is the oldest. The Lake Lock states that it is older than the Surrey, but I wouldn't know?

IceDragon64 (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of simplified comparison is rarely useful. What's a "railway"? Most of these are plateways, certainly horse-drawn. What's a "public railway"? Freight or passenger? Is something (like the Middleton Railway) "narrow gauge", even when there's not yet an established standard gauge?
IMHO, the Ffestiniog still has an important claim here, despite being much later. It's a loco-hauled, public access by ticket, edge railway. More importantly, it's a deliberate choice to reject the then established standard gauge in favour of something narrower. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Last commercial carrier

[edit]

The Decline of the narrow gauge: 1900–1950 section claims - without a source - that the Ashover Light Railway was the "last narrow-gauge commercial carrier in Britain". I don't know what is meant by "commercial carrier". There were lots of industrial narrow-gauge railways after the ALR closed. The Talyllyn Railway was a common carrier and still operating when the ALR closed. I've tagged the claim as needing a source and as dubious, but I think it is so ill-defined that it should be removed. Thoughts? 157.131.122.202 (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_narrow-gauge_railways&oldid=1200366208"