Talk:Reisszug

Trains High‑importance

	Trains Portal
DYK	October 24, 2009

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

High

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

Austria Mid‑importance

	Austria portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Hohensalzburg Fortress.

Station names

In January, DerBorg added station names of "Salzburg Dom" and "Salzburg Festung" to this article. Assuming "Salzburg Festung" is the upper station, the name "Salzburg Dom" seems very unlikely for the lower station. That station is to the east of the castle, whilst the cathedral is to the north, nearer the lower station of the modern passenger funicular. Which makes me wonder if these are the names of the stations for that funicular, and the wrong article got updated by mistake.

In any case, I've checked the cited sources for the article, and cannot find any reference to these names. So I've reverted the change. If you know better, and know a source for these names, please feel free to re-add with citation. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

indeed - those station names refer to the OTHER funicular, the Festungsbahn --Snottily (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, it was really a big misunderstanding. I've confused Reisszug with Festungsbahn for this reason: Still now i went 7 times into Salzburg and 3 on the Festung, but i didn't know about the existance of a second funicular. I've supposed that "Reisszug" was the official name instead of "Festungsbahn"; i was also surprised to discover that it opened in 1495, 3 centuries before Stephenson. By now the article avoids confusions, excuse me again for the technical problem. --Dэя-Бøяg 18:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it is an easy mistake to make. All is ok now. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i have the unfair advantage of living in the place ;) --Snottily (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note of July 2013: About the station names, I've added the correct ones adding also the coordinates. "Nonnberg" station (the lower one) is also referred in Funimag article. Btw, considering the usage and the age of the funicular, there are no signboards with names. If this edit has technical problems feel free to revert. Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 11:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reisszug or Reiszug

User:Snottily moved this article from Reiszug to Reisszug on July 1 2009 with the comment moved Reiszug to Reisszug: bad transliteration of the german "ß". always becomes a double s when transliterated to other languages. But the text still reads Reiszug throughout.

I am no expert in German to English transliteration. Can somebody explain to me in words of one syllable why the title is spelt in a different way to the text. Is this an obscure feature of the german "ß"?. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it's a bit complicated: the Reißzug is officially spelled with the german ligature "ß" - which is transliterated as "sz" or, in modern times, as "ss". now, german "reißen" means to pull hard, which seems to make sense in the context, but is a false lead. the Reißzug got its name from "reisen" (to travel), which at the time was spelled variously, but more often than not with the ligature ß. the en:wp article quotes a web page which, not entirely unreasonably, spells the Reißzug as "Reiszug". that may be nearer to the word's origin, but is not the officially recognized spelling. therefor, spelling in the article should be corrected to either Reißzug or Reisszug. --Snottily (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've added both Reisszug and Reißzug in the lead, them standardised on Reisszug through the rest of the article. But I've left the references and external links as they are, as that reflects the spelling (right or wrong) of their authors. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious claims

I've tagged some stuff in the Early history section as dubious (and edited it a bit) as the claims made there are problematic.
If it is limited to claiming that the Rz is oldest cable railway still in existence then that is tenable; but the oldest railway? If this means railway in the broad sense (A roadway laid with rails, originally of wood, later also of iron or steel, along which the wheels of wagons or trucks may run, in order to facilitate the transport of heavy loads: OED Railway, def 1), Then these go back to ancient times, so the Rz isn't the oldest railway by a long shot: If in the strict sense (A line or track typically consisting of a pair of iron or steel rails, along which carriages, wagons, or trucks conveying passengers or goods are moved by a locomotive engine or other powered unit (OED def 2) then it isn't a railway at all.
So, whatever the sources may say about this, I think this claim needs deleting. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley:You did notice the ′′probably′′ and the ′′in existance′′ didn´t you. Nothing in the article claims this as definatively the oldest ever railway. I´m not aware of anything older that still exists, and there are sources to that effect in the article. If you can source claims to the contrary, then please feel free to do so. Also I´d note the that the rather odd OED definition you quote (odd because I´ve never see a definition of a railway before that requires locomotives) includes the word ′′typically′′. On the basis of your claims above, I don′t see anything remotely dubious about the statement, so I′m going to remove your tag. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 08:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why I've been tagged here, but I'm happy with this article to claim almost anything for the Reisszug, including railway, definitely cable railway and even funicular (in the absence of a good definition at funicular). I'm happy to see it as "possibly the oldest surviving railway" (if not probably) because this is based on its survival (rare) and also its presumed commonality with the very early wooden mining railways of the area in the De Re Metallica period. So long as we're clear that it when it first had rails that these were wooden, and we don't claim it as being any early sort of edge railway (it was almost certainly just a trackway or plateway instead).

I'm not a fan of using the OED for sourcing technical definitions. There are subtle technical distinctions, particularly the question of edge railways and when wooden planks as runners become "rails", where the OED doesn't go. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley:Oops, sorry Andy, finger trouble there. But thanks for basically supporting my stance on this. I of course meant to reply to @Moonraker12:. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]