Jump to content

Talk:Clifton Rocks Railway

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

Piccies

[edit]

I have added some pictures from Flickr into the Commons category for the railway. There are a large number of other freely available pictures of the railway that others may wish to transfer and use in the article. --TimTay (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gauge

[edit]

There are several contradictory sources for the gauge of the railway, with the answers varying wildly:

  • This 1894 article gives 3ft: Bristol Naturalists' Society (Bristol, England) (1894). Proceedings of the Bristol Naturalists' Society. The Society. p. 116.
  • The article currently gives 3ft 2in, sourced to: "Clifton Rocks Railway – FAQ". Clifton Rocks Railway special interest group.
  • Maggie Shapland's 2017 book on the Clifton Rocks Railway (p28) gives the gauge as 3ft 212in.
  • Martin Easdown's 2018 book gives 3ft 8in: Easdown, Martin (15 July 2018). Cliff Railways, Lifts and Funiculars. Amberley Publishing. pp. 34–35. ISBN 978-1-4456-8004-0.
  • This 1957 book gives 3ft 812in: John Robert Day; Brian Geoffrey Wilson (1957). Unusual Railways. Muller.

These all seem like at least somewhat reliable sources. Which one should we have in the article? The Mirror Cracked (talk) 05:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there is ambiguity among the sources I think it is fair to reflect this for the reader. I would suggest something like: "There were four cars in two connected pairs, essentially forming two parallel funicular railways. The width/gauge of the tracks has reported as being between 3ft (ref) and 3ft 812in (ref) (ref) with two others specifying the gauge at 3ft 2in (ref) and 3ft 212in(ref)." (or similar) with suitable reference templates for each source and convert used for the feet and inches.— Rod talk 17:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Rodw: I think that's an excellent solution, at the least until a definitive answer can be arrived at. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 23:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, nice solution. I note that John Robert Day et al. (1957) states "3ft 8+12in" which is different from "3ft 8in" (Easdown, 2018). This would be a fifth gauge to be mentioned (Operations). For the purpose of {{Track gauge}}, and most likely in the original ordering papers, 12in matters. -DePiep (talk) 08:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, it is the other way around: 3 ft 8+12 in (1,130 mm) (Day, 1957) is in the article, but 3ft 8in (Easdown, 2018) is not. -DePiep (talk) 09:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here in a picture from 2005/2006: rails still present back then, maybe ask them for the gauge. -DePiep (talk) 09:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More from https://www.cliftonrocksrailway.org.uk:
track 38" (narrower than the expected 3'8" due to the problems of digging the tunnel) i.e., 3 ft 2 in (965 mm) but also
The gauge of the railway was 3 feet -- variant #6 by now.
The 38" reason makes it plausible that this track had an unique gauge (tunneling problems could have made deviation from standards plausible). -DePiep (talk) 09:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]