Talk:Peak Rail

Trains: in UK Low‑importance

Trains Portal

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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).

Derbyshire C‑class Mid‑importance

The article on Peak Rail is supported by the Derbyshire WikiProject, which is a collaborative effort to improve the quality and coverage of Derbyshire-related articles on Wikipedia.DerbyshireWikipedia:WikiProject DerbyshireTemplate:WikiProject DerbyshireDerbyshire articles

C

This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

More information:
/
	At least one photograph is included in this article

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Aaron north, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 02:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC).Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles[reply]

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Peak Rail.

Signalling diagram errors

Although I have no personal knowledge of this railway, there seems to be a number of obvious inaccuracies on the signalling diagram included in the article:

The semaphore arms of signal CL6 are projecting on the wrong side of the post
The L.O.S. is facing the wrong way
Signal CL14 is bracketed away from line instead of towards it
Signal DD7 is bracketed away from line instead of towards it

Could someone with reliable knowledge of the signalling on this railway please confirm the correct situation. –Signalhead ^< T > 14:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am creating a new track diagram, smae size as the old one, but problems fixed. manadude2 (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; that's corrected some of the errors but CL6 and DD7 are still wrong, I reckon. –Signalhead ^< T > 22:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After spending about 5 months at the railway, and worked in both signalboxes, I can assure you the signals on this diagram are as accurate as possible to the real thing, but due to space and some problems encountered during production, the diagram may not be 100% accurate, which is something you can expect. If you want to have a bash at creating a diagram that IS 100% accurate, be my guest, but it is impossible to be completely accurate. Please be aware that there is no offencive thoughts in this message. manadude2 (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've created my own version of the diagram and included it in the article. –Signalhead ^< T > 22:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proper Grammar

Please use correct grammar. I have noticed commas with no spaces, and name uncapitalised. I have added the {{copyedit}} tag. Thanks manadude2 (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would reccomend that the 'future' and 'extensions' sections be merged, and second the grammatical condemnation of the entirety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaconway88 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

buxton mineral water

I'm sure the publications i'm sure at the time said this was leased and gave the impression (though they didn't explicitly say) that the railway was still interested in the land long term (after all they do aim to link to buxton eventually) Plugwash (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Level Crossings

The article suggests that the two level crossings were the only ones on the old Mdland Line from Manchester to London but there was, and is, at least one other at Sawley, and there was another at Cossington 86.141.118.161 (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Platforms

To be pedantic the down platforms were number 1. So if the presently unused platform was reopened by Peak Rail should it ought be Platform 1 with the other being renumbered? Chevin (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of any historical numbering peak rail seem to have accepted the number 2 for thier platform at matlock though IIRC they aren't displaying the number on the platform. Plugwash (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit

This section: (First preservation attempts with the Buxton Steam Centre) was so incredibly confusing that I could not understand it, much less copyedit it. I'll copyedit the rest of the article, but I was not able to touch that section beyond leaving a tag. Aaron north (T/C) 02:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished my copyedit. I did what I could, but this article needs help. One of the most basic problems is that this is written like some sort of current event, to-be-updated, news-ish story. This is not written like an encyclopia entry, and of course hasn't been constantly updated. Parts of it should be re-done to minimize anticipation of what is about to come next tomorrow, next week, next year, etc. State the history, state the current features of the rail, put in a section on future plans, all in a professional encyclopedic tone, update when necessary, and the article would be much improved. Aaron north (T/C) 02:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have copyedited the First preservation attempts with the Buxton Steam Centre section. Hopefully this makes more sense now. Osarius : T : C : Been CSD'd? 15:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images

There are too many images cluttering up the article. I will take the time to organise them into a gallery. Perhaps a few of you could help out on this task? Cheers. Osarius : T : C : Been CSD'd? 22:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Peak Rail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080916142804/http://www.peakrailvols.org.uk:80/ to http://peakrailvols.org.uk

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]