Talk:Pentewan Railway

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 Mid-importance).

Cornwall Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cornwall, an attempt to improve and expand Wikipedia coverage of Cornwall and all things Cornish. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.CornwallWikipedia:WikiProject CornwallTemplate:WikiProject CornwallCornwall-related articles

Low

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

See drop-down box for suggested article edit guidelines:

Be bold - if you know something about Cornwall then put it in! We value your contributions and don't be afraid if your spelling isn't great as there are plenty of spelling and grammar experts on clean-up duty!
Articles on settlements in Cornwall should be written using the standard set of headings approved by the UK geography WikiProject's guideline How to write about settlements.
At WikiProject Cornwall we subscribe to the policies laid down by Wikipedia - particularly civility and consensus building. We are aware that the wording on Cornish entries can sometimes be a contentious topic, especially those concerning geography. You don't have to agree with everything but there is no excuse for rudeness and these things are best solved through consensus building and compromise. For more information see WP:CornwallGuideline.
These pages are not platforms for political discussion. Issues relating to Cornish politics should be restricted to those pages that directly deal with these issues (such as Constitutional status of Cornwall, Cornish nationalism, etc) and should not overflow into other articles.
Most of all have fun editing - that's the reason we all do this, right?!

I've added a bit of information to this, some of it is cited and verified and some of it not, although for the most part I'd say it's all fairly reliable. I hope to include this and all the rest of the Cornish china clay related articles in a wikiproject on Cornish china clay at some point, which hopefully will allow linking this article to a number of articles on the broader subject of clay mining in Cornwall. If anyone would be interested in contributing then please do let me know. ▫Bad▫harlick♠ 18:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already posted articles on the broad gauge railways serving the China Clay District, e.e. the Lostwithiel and Fowey Railway, and added a section on Par Harbour and Canal to the article on Par, Cornwall. I have the Cornwall Mineral railways on my to do list, but I'm not sure when I will be getting round to it. Should we link them all with a new category? Geof Sheppard 08:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you mention it, I am beginning to think that creating a new category might have more impact than a wikiproject. Re the mineral railways, I have a large (and I mean LARGE) collection of photographs that I personally have taken of the branch lines (mostly of the works along the lines, including the Fowey branch/docks, Lansalson branch, Goonbarrow branch, Parkandillack branch, Carbis & Wheal Rose branch lines, as well as a few of the others that have no designated "branch as such" (IE Trenance kiln, Burngullow, Par Moor kilns, Par docks dryers, Rocks dryers, etc). The only thing that I am missing is the Retew branch, Wenford Bridge kilns, and Drinnick mill, the latter was demolished entirely before I had a chance to take photographs. I also have all Maurice Dart's books on the subject, and I am an acquaintance of said author, so all of his photo archives and knowledge are also available to me. Let me know if you need anything in that vein. ▫Bad▫harlick♠ 00:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Track gauge 4ft 6? Surely some mistake

At present the article starts with

It was built as a horse-drawn tramway ... In 1874 the line was rebuilt ... at which time the gauge was changed from 4 ft 6 in (1,372 mm) to 2 ft 6 in (762 mm).

I can't find any documented reference to the gauge ever having been 4ft 6in and I am going to edit it out. If I am mistaken, please accept my apologies and cite an authority, and reinstate the reference. Afterbrunel (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a mistake; there is a reference in Google Books to a work by "Ad La De Felicie" (editor), and the summary of the contents includes the assertion about 4ft 6in. The giveaway is that the book is formulated from "High Quality Content from Wikipedia articles". In other words the book copies the incorrect statement in this article (and charges over £40 for the privilege). Afterbrunel (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "now" without a date

I am a bit uncomfortable with this text in the article:

A set of complete points are still in situ outside an old engine shed. An unusual weigh bridge is also still in existence although being overgrown.

There is no date. These artefacts could have been removed a month later, but no-one knows when an editor said they "are" in situ. Quite apart from that where are they? Outside an old engine shed? Where? This is potentially useful information -- a photograph would have been even better -- but we need more detail. Afterbrunel (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]