Talk:Rolling stock of the Bluebell Railway

Trains: in UK / Locomotives / Passenger trains 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).
	This article is supported by the Locomotives task force.
	This article is supported by the Passenger trains task force.

Sussex Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sussex, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sussex on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SussexWikipedia:WikiProject SussexTemplate:WikiProject SussexSussex-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

References

As discussed at talk:Bluebell Railway, the article is unreferenced. Online info about rolling stock may be found via this web page Mjroots (talk) 06:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a start at referencing the page using the Bluebell website and the external websites of owning groups such as Maunsell and Bulleid. So far only down to EMUs completed.Bluebellnutter (talk) 22:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was wondering if there is a way of hiding the references, only the number of references required (presumably one for every entry) will make the list almost as long as the rest of the article! Bluebellnutter (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably do away with the internal hash links on the reference web pages which would probably bring the number down considerably (operational, overhaul, loan and static). The internal page links are really just a nice to have and do not distract from the value of the page as a reference. MilborneOne (talk) 11:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I've done is to remove all the references to the Bluebell website, creating links to the main pages at the bottom, leaving only external (i.e. non-Bluebell) links referenced. Bluebellnutter (talk) 22:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hundred seaters

Should the 'Hundred Seaters' section just be merged with the 'Pre-grouping Bogie Coaches'? Seems a bit silly having a separate section for 2 coaches.Duncanbourne (talk) 09:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would certainly seem a better place for it. In fact, it might reordering that section and logically starting from 4 and 6 wheeler pre-grouping, then bogie-pre-grouping, and going through the era with pullmans and saloons tagged on the end? Bluebellnutter (talk) 17:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Section re-ordered with the hundred seaters merged into the pre-grouping bogie coaches section. Bluebellnutter (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes content skewed + direct links needed

(1) The Notes sections mostly contain fairly inconsequential, current and transient information about restoration progress (hence requiring frequent monitoring/updating) and almost nothing about the history of the locomotives! I came here trying to find out when Baxter was converted from 3' 2.25" gauge to standard gauge (see Betchworth railway station#The Betchworth Quarry Railways to see why!).

(2) I discovered that there is a Bluebell page for the locomotive but first had to scroll to the bottom of this article (hence losing my place in a long list), open an external page, scroll down the external page to find where Baxter's entry was, then open this other page... What's wrong with having a direct link below the text in each 'Notes' table cell, such as:

(Bluebell Railway stock list entry)

I think this would be a worthwhile addition to the table.

EdJogg (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To reply (belatedly!) to your points, I don't think your first point is really what this page is for. I'd say this serves a more useful function as a list which does contain up to date details of the status of the fleet, which includes the frequent updating you mention. If the history of the locomotives is required, then that's why the links are there to the specific pages for the class (see the work I've recently undertaken on LB&SCR A1 class as proof. Hopefully those pages contain detail on the history of the preserved examples, as is the case with edits I've also donw for the E4 and O1 class pages. If not, then perhaps this ought to be flagged on those pages for someone to do something about. As to your second point, that would seem a good idea. I'll have a crack at it when I get a spare few hours, and maybe add a "See also" link for entries such as Baxter. Bluebellnutter (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick point, Baxter was built as standard gauge. The Dorking Greystone Lime Co. at Betchworth bought two 3' 2.25 engines to a similar design to Baxter (albeit to a smaller size) in 1880, three years after acquiring Baxter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slaffter (talk • contribs) 20:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Slaffter (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

34059 Sir Archibald Sinclair Ownership

I have removed the statement saying 34059 Sir Archibald Sinclair is owned by the Bulleid Society. While the BS do maintain a page on their website dedicated to 34059, this is simply because it is another Bulleid engine based at the Bluebell. The BS-owned engines are only 21C123 'Blackmoor Vale' and 96 'Normandy'.

Slaffter (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bulleid coaches 1456 and 1481

Note that the photo said to be "1481" is actually of 1456, as can be seen by the small sliding lights and the extended bodyside panelling over the sole bars. Richard Salmon

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Rolling stock of the Bluebell Railway. 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:

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} 01:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]