Talk:Carl Abraham Pihl

Metric or Imperial

Given that Norway was by then a metric country, isn't the choice of an imperial gauge (3' 6") a bit strange?

Tabletop (talk) 11:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It's two years since I read about Pihl, so I'm a little uncertain, but imperial units were still being used to a certain extent at the time. Of course, there were both Norwegian, Swedish, German and English inches, all that were slightly different (thus the metrification was welcomed). Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

And why 1016mm?

Tabletop (talk) 03:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The gauge was 3' 6", 1016 mm is the metric equivalent. Pyrotec (talk) 09:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Not correct. 1016. Tabletop (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

If the {{convert}} template works, you will find that it was 42, not 1,016 mm (3 ft 4.0 in), although I wonder if the intention was actually 1,000 mm (3 ft 3+3⁄8 in) metre gauge.
As for imperial units, don't forget that Der Adler was bought off the British shelf, and many other countries also adopted British gauges.
It also works the other way, as the Snowdon Mountain Railway was built in the 19th century to the Swiss 800 rack gauge. Tim PF (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Narrow gauge network

Were the narrow gauge lines all isolated from each other, or did they join up, or what this something in between.

Narrow gauge lines include:

• Meråker Line
• Østfold Line

Tabletop (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that Østfold Line, which goes from Oslo to and across the border to Demark, is standard gauge. The Meråker Line ran from the port at Trondhjem, in Norway, to Sweden and was used for exporting timber from Sweden (an ice-free port was required, hence Trondhiem). My understanding, and I'm not a expert, is that all lines apart from an isolated few which linked to harbours, did appear to congregate on a loop around Oslo, much as UK railways seem to link to various London termini. User:Arsenikk, is the expert, if we have an expert (I tend to review, rather than write, articles on Norwegian railways). Pyrotec (talk) 08:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

For a list, see List of railway lines in Norway. First the Trunk Line was built as standard gauge, and then those that were to connect to the Swedish network (which has passed legislation prohibiting new non-standard gauge lines) were built with standard gauge (Meråker, Østfold, Kongsvinger and Ofoten). However, Pihl got his way with the Trondhjem–Støren Line (which was isolated, but later continued as the Røros Line and then connected to standard gauge in Hamar). Similarly, the Randsfjord Line and Drammen Line and later the Vestfold Line and Lier Line were built in narrow gauge, so everything running west of Oslo (from its own station, Oslo Vestbanestasjon) was narrow. Other isolated lines built in narrow gauge were, among others, the Jæren Line, the Voss Line, the Setesdal Line, the Sulitjelma Line, the Lillesand–Flaksvand Line (the latter which never connected to the national railway). The Bergen Line was the turning point, because one made a political decision to connect two narrow gauge lines with standard gauge, causing the line to be longer to reach Oslo East Station, and the conversion of the Voss Line. Of course, everything was in the end either closed or converted to standard gauge. A few oddities: the Sulitjelma Line was at first 750, while the Thamshavn Line and the Trondheim Tramway were both metre gauge. There is sufficient information to write an article on the issue, but I don't know if I have sufficient sources at the moment, so I'd have to go to the library first, anyhow. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

"Cape" or "CAP" gauge

The three foot six gauge is often called "Cape" gauge after the Cape of Good Hope (South Africa) which changed to this gauge fairly early on. However Queensland adopted this gauge on a grand scale in 1865, and it has always been called "narrow gauge" in that country, and three other states followed suit. Narrow gauge were adopted in Norway and Queensland about the same same time. Did Phil adopt English measurements rather than metric ones to attract an English market for his gauge?

Tabletop (talk) 03:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No. Pyrotec (talk) 09:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I see my change to the title of the "Cape" or "CAP" gauge section was reverted without explanation, so I'll try a discussion here. That section doesn't have any discussion of whether its "CAP gauge" or "Cape gauge", so the title is clearly inappropriate. More importantly, I've never seen any reference to "CAP gauge" but dozens of sources that use "Cape gauge". I think "CAP gauge" is a backronym and I'd suggest that unless we can provide a reliable source to uses of "CAP gauge", it should be removed. I can't find a single reference to it on Google, via web search or book search. Has anyone got a reference? Laplorfill (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Well do you have any reliable sources for "Cape gauge", or you you biased towards you choosen view? There are plenty of modern sources going back to the mid 1990s making such claims (see Cape gauge) but that is some hundred years or more after the event? Anyway you can hardly claim that google is a reliable source. The Cape gauge article does have one claim for CAP gauge, but that is a 2001 conference paper. I have another (1996) which states: "It was often thought that Carl Pihl was the inventor of the 3'6" gauge but others had used it before him including George and Robert Stephenson. Phil's great contribution was to develop the gauge into a practical system for a mainline railway system ....". However, the same argument can be applied to these modern sources. However, there were several British Civil engineers who studied Pilh's system in the 1870s and their debates were published at the time: Sir Charles Fox (of Sir Charles Fox and sons, later Freeman Fox and Partners) used it in Australia and Sir John Fowler of the Indian Gauge Committee recommended it for use in India. The contemporary published reports going back to the 1870s directly associate Pilh with this gauge and railway system; and, unfortunately, they are somewhat contemporary with the construction of the Cape railway system. However, there may also be contemporary discussions about the Cape railway system. As far as I can see, at the moment, there is uncertainly and CAPE gauge is being pushed as the only valid viewpoint on quite flimsy grounds. You might be right in your comment "I think "CAP gauge" is a backronym, but I'd like to look at the 1870s papers to see if Pihl was called Carl Pihl or Carl Abraham Pihl. If he was mostly known as Carl Pihl, that might be indicative of a backronyn having been more recently applied. Pyrotec (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, plenty of reliable sources for "Cape gauge". For example: "From Cape Gauge to International Gauge: A Policy Heritage for Our National Future and Children", published by South Africa. Dept. of Transport, 2006; "Little Trains to Faraway Places" by Karl Zimmerman; "Africa's Transport Infrastructure: Mainstreaming Maintenance and Management" by Heinrich Bofinger; "Electric Traction - Motive Power and Energy Supply: Basics and Practical Experience" by Andreas Steimel; article "BG locos converted to cape gauge for first time" in The Hindu, 27 October 2012; article "Narrow gauge rail pose huge limitations on transport efficiencies" in The Australian (which interestingly calls it "Anglo Cape gauge"); "Tracks Across Continents, Paths Through History: The Economic Dynamics of Standardization in Railway Gauge" by Douglas J. Puffert; "Round the world on the narrow gauge" Whitehouse and Allen. To name just a few. Let's turn to P.J,G. Ransom's excellent "Narrow Gauge Steam" which says "The 3ft 6in gauge became known as Cape gauge, supposedly from its use by the Cape Government Railway: Roar Stensrsen of the Norwegian Railway Museum convincingly suggests it should rather be the CAP gauge from Pihl's initials". In other words it *is* Cape gauge, but Stenersen would *like* it to be called CAP gauge. Cape gauge is widely used, CAP gauge is not.

I have no particular axe to grind beyond looking for the article to be properly sourced and accurate. I'd greatly appreciate it if you'd follow WP:AGF and not make insinuations about my motivations of which you cannot know anything. Thanks, Laplorfill (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no requirement for accuracy, since wikipedia is based on secondary sources, only that an article has Wikipedia:Verifiability via reliable sources (see also the assay Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth). I'm quite happy to WP:AGF, but the statement "In other words it *is* Cape gauge, but Stenersen would *like* it to be called CAP gauge. Cape gauge is widely used, CAP gauge is not" is somewhat incompatible with "no axe to grind". Truth as defined above is based on selective choice of sources, such as Ransom stating "... supposedly from its use by the Cape Government Railway" and discarding conflicting views, such as Stenersen "would like to be" is based on "....of the Norwegian Railway Museum convincingly suggests it should rather be the CAP gauge from Pihl's initials". Sorry, I think I miss read that as two references. Pyrotec (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

As I said earlier, the wide-ranging list above consists of modern books and some well known railway authors, P.J,G. Ransom, for instance is one of two references used in Cape gauge. Roy Owen in "Norwegian Railways: from Stephenson to high-speed" states: "Pihl worked on his ideas, including designing coaches to such good effect that CAP-gauge became used in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Sudan and South Africa". Ransom might in fact be right about the name, but there are two references Owen and Stenersen (Bjerke, Thor; Stenersen, Roar (2002)) giving a different viewpoint. Pihl is not well known as a railway engineer nowadays, but he was 110 years ago. So his absence from google is merely that: it not a state of absolute accuracy. In his obituary (OBITUARY. CARL ABRAHAM, PIHL, 1825-1897) published on 1 January 1898 he was named as Carl Abraham Pihl, so your theory of backronym could be correct, it might also be incorrect; and it is only a theory. Pihl did a lot of development work on 3' 6" gauge railways so even if the gauge is correctly known as Cape gauge, what is currently in that subsection of this article bears little or no relationship to Pihl since he is not even mentioned there. It seem to be little more than a two-line summary of Cape gauge and the majority of that article is not about the Cape. Pyrotec (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly you state above, that The Australian (which interestingly calls it "Anglo Cape gauge"). In the case of the Queensland railway, the British civil engineer C D Fox (the son of Charles Fox) was involved, so that might account for the "Anglo" part. Pyrotec (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

So, we agree that the sources in favor of Cape gauge greatly outweigh those for CAP gauge. Your implicit argument that these are "modern" sources, so somehow don't count, is original research. Pihl is a perfectly well-known engineer and indeed Ransom discusses him extensively. Since we also agree that Wikipedia articles should be based on sources, I fail to understand why you reverted my edit which was based only on the sources in the article. You have consistently assumed bad faith on my part and that is damaging to the effort to build the encyclopedia and I find it quite objectionable. If the section is titled "Cape gauge or CAP gauge" then it's contents should discuss (with sources) that question. Since the section does not cover that, but instead, as you say, summarizes what Cape gauge is, it should be title "Cape gauge". Alternatively it should be sourced and re-written to reflect the title. Since we now have sources for both viewpoints, it is possible to do that. How much better it would have been if you had used your knowledge to help improve the article instead of abusing the rollback tool and assuming bad faith consistently. Disappointed, Laplorfill (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for recommending Ransom, I will get a copy today. I was not aware until now that "Pihl is a perfectly well-known engineer and indeed Ransom discusses him extensively". I was reviewing quite a few Norwegian railway articles about three years ago and that is how I discovered Carl Pihl. I only have one book in English that mentions him (so thanks again for recommending Ransom); the rest came from searches of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Any statements I make here are clearly statements on a talkpage. WP:OR only applies to statements in the articles themselves. Actually, I did assume good faith on your part. Your edit summary stated "No sources to support it ever being called "CAP gauge"", but now you seem to accept that there are sources supporting it, but somewhat less than Cape gauge. If we take the criteria for a Good Article, and this article is well below that standard (it's rated Start class here), sources are required for "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines". In the case of this subsection, I don't regard the topic as being about "Cape gauge or CAP gauge", those are clearly just "labels" or invitations to debate. CAP was a firm believer in 3'6" gauge railways as a system. The section title which is called "Narrow gauge notes" should really be about the system; the subsection title which is called ""Cape" or "CAP" gauge" should really be about the track and the infrastructure (which specifically happens to be 3'6" gauge) and "Couplings and loading gauge" is about what ran on the tracks. Pyrotec (talk) 02:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

1016mm (3' 4") gauge

3' 6" gauge is sometimes written 3 1/2 feet in newspapers of the time, where "1/2" is a single symbol for type-setting purposes.

Newspapers in the nineteenth centuury typically had combined symbols for these fractions:

• 1/4
• 1/2
• 3/4

and do not appear to have symbols for other fractions.

Thus a 3 1/3 feet gauge would have been awkward to type-set. Tabletop (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Did Norway/Pihl influence Queensland/Abrahm ?

The Queensland Parliament chose 1067 in about 1861.

The Queensland Railways opened in 1865.

Was Carl Pihl in Norway on the other side of the world influencing the choice of the same (his preferred) gauge in Queensland? Tabletop (talk) 08:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Quite possibly! In the 1840s, Carl Pihl had worked in the UK with Robert Stephenson for two years and then on what was to become part of the Great Eastern Railway; and I believe he was a member of the (British) Institute of Civil Engineers (ICE). He'd certainly presented papers and contributed to discussions at the ICE on narrow gauge railways and he and "his system" were mentioned by name in contemporary discussions (of the ICE). He also wrote on the relative advantages of 5' 6" / metre gauge railways for India in the 1870s. Most of the railways were built by British contractors who know, or know off, Carl Pihl. (See http://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/search?value1=pihl&option1=all these papers are downloadable). I have another ICE paper somewhere, but it could take me some time to find it, as I'm going on holiday at the weekend for most of what is left of this month. Pyrotec (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Note, in the discussions on the railways of India it states the Pihl gave advice to the Agent General for Victoria, no dates given in that paper, but Victoria and Queensland are in the same continent. Pyrotec (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carl Abraham Pihl. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060517211726/http://www.my-scandinavia.de:80/articles.asp?ID=2 to http://www.my-scandinavia.de/articles.asp?ID=2

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) 06:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)