Talk:Romney, Hythe and Dymchurch Railway

Safety

"An exemplary passenger safety record is one of the RHDR's proudest boasts."

Is this really appropriate, consider the two fatal crashes within the last few years?FrFintonStack 20:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I can understand your question, as this sentence appears at odds with the safety section below, but it should be remembered that in both these tragic incidents, injuries to passengers were very minor, if any, and neither arose from any fault of the railway or its staff - both resulted from inappropriate actions by motorists.

These two incidents aside, the line is very safe, and despite the volume of passengers carried, there have been very few injuries of any kind. Regards, Lynbarn 01:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There are 22 reported safety incidents. 14 are related to level crossings and have been blamed on the road user. One of the others was a head on confrontation on on a single track line that thankfully did not result in a collision. Nevertheless it was an unacceptably dangerous incident. That leaves 7 actual accidents that are due to the railway operations. That is one accident per 3 km in a railway that has been operating for less than 100 years. That is an appalling safety record. By way of comparison the near by London Brighton & South Coast Railway with 274 km of track had only 16 incidents in its 76 years of operation. (Okay this is original research but it is enough to throw doubt on the uncited comment that RH&DR has an exceptionally good safety record.)OrewaTel (talk) 11:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Having a citation tag for three years suggests the text is unsubstantiated, so I've been bold and removed it. Bazza (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Map Removed

I've removed the Kent Railways map posted by Pickle UK as it shows completely the wrong route for the RHDR! The 1927 line (Hythe - New Romney) is correct, but the map then follows the now defunct standard gauge line (roughly) to Lydd, with no sign of the RHDR 1928 route to Dungeness. I have informed the author of the map of his error and requested that the map be corrected, at which time I see no reason why it shouldn't go back on this page. Timothy Titus 02:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem, i was just taking advantage of the new map to show the line in context with the rest of Kent (rather than other railway lines in Kent). Pickle 04:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure. And I think your idea is a good one too! Hopefully the author will correct the mapping error quickly and we can put it back up again. Enjoy the sunshine! Timothy Titus 09:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The route has been corrected, so I've put the map back up again. Alas, the author has now labelled the 1928 extension as 1929 - but that's a small error compared with the former incorrect route! Timothy Titus 08:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

History

Noitced a wl to Armoured train today,and if i recal rading a book on the RHDR some time ago, did the army not build one during the war for the RHDR or is my memory playing tricks on me ? Pickle 22:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there was a RH&DR armoured train, built on the frames of bogie ballast wagons sold to the railway from the Ravenglass & Eskdale. --Skarloey 22:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Locomotive 5 'Hercules' was fully armoured, as well as the former bogie ballast wagons mentioned above. The locomotive took the centre of the formation, with a wagon on each side of it, each wagon having an anti-aircraft gun fitted. The armoured train was manned by soldiers of the Somerset Light Infantry and is known to have shot down at least one German 'plane during the hostilities. It was usually stabled under the overall station roof at Dymchurch, which was constructed by the army for that purpose, and was made of reinforced concrete. When this structure was finally demolished (late 70s, from memory) it was a MAJOR task, due to the metal rods reinforcing the concrete. Part of the armoured train was reproduced during the 1990s (without real guns!) for historical re-enactment. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 18:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, those soldiers look thrilled to be cruising around in that thing: not only are they excellent and predictable targets without any real protection, but now they can look totally badass for the ladies! I sure hope they come and watch us when we cruise through the station in our adorable little mini-armored-train! AnnaGoFast (talk) 01:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Level crossings

I have added a picture of the barriered level crossing at Botolph's bridge as I felt the page was lacking one, perhaps it could also do with an update to include that the barriers have now been installed on several crossings? Bluebellnutter 17.45, 14th August 2007 (UTC)

Great pictures!! They really bring the railway to life. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard 11:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that there should be more details about the level crossings, and the update to ABCL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.2.75 (talk) 11:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for Additions

I'd love to see several additional sections in this article. It looks like some folks who have been contributing might have the information. Pictures of the stations would be good, since as I remember they are distinctive. Pictures of the coaches. Timetables. Historical use in WWII. Financial balance sheets. Plans for future railway maintenance / development. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk • contribs) 04:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Each station (past or present) has its own article, and most have photos. Go to the stations section and click some links to see more. As for the World War II stuff, I'll try to add something later (unless someone else has already done so by then!), but you can read some details at the station articles for Romney Sands and War Department Halt. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 16:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The photos of the trains at the stations are good. I made the mistake of clicking the town names in the first paragraph. (I remember an impressive double-tracked tunnel at one station?) Maybe if there are pictures of the station buildings themselves, that would be nice; it's vaguely possible I have some, I'll check. In regard to the military history, I'm a bit of a military buff as well as being a railway buff, and these offbeat military situations can give a lot of insight into the underlying thinking of the regular military which are often tacit, unacknowledged, or not recognized. I just Googled, and couldn't find much, so if anyone has a source, 500 words on the war effort would be nice. 1000 would be wonderful. Lol.Alpha Ralpha Boulevard 21:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I (as the one who added most of the photos for the various stations) have photos of pretty much ever locomotive and some of the carriages on the line (including the engineers wagons), I did wonder if it was worth having a link through the names of the engines on the first page to pictures of the engines? As to the war, I suppose you could almost split it into three areas, the War Department siding, the armoured train with hercules (with a pic if anyone has one) and the PLUTO (Pipe Line Under The Ocean) scheme which used the railway for transport of pipes to Dungeness from Romney. Just my £0.02 worth... Bluebellnutter 17.40 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This site has photos with nice aspects which seem to expand the horizon of what the railway comprises: http://www.urban75.org/photos/kent/romney-hythe-railway.html Alpha Ralpha Boulevard 19:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Extension to Sandling

It seems to me that this is currently a major omission from the article. These plans were taken very seriously in the 1980s. The Directors had land surveys done, drew up detailed potential route maps, and spoke to landowners in Pedlinge, and on Sandling Park Estate. There were serious discussions about motive power, and proposals for possible new locomotives powerful enough to handle some quite impressive inclines. As I recall from those days, the word 'extension' was slightly misleading as the plan was not to extend from Hythe, but rather to establish a branch line from a junction on the Willop. However, I have searched and searched for information, and cannot find anything. I've been through back issues of 'The Marshlander' and trawled the internet, but can't find any definitive records or outlines. I was on the staff of the railway back then, and could do some basics from memory, but without citations they probably wouldn't survive very long! Does anyone have anything that could help? Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 04:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to add a brief note to the article, but if anyone can help expand it - please do!! Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 04:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Second Level Crossing Picture

The caption suggests barriers are to be installed, but the road signs show otherwise - will these signs be replaced or is the caption wrong? They're very pretty, for modern LCs... Worley-d (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The half-barrier installation programme is an on-going work. We have a lot of level crossings, and can only afford the manpower and the capital investment to do these crossings one at a time. However, they will all eventually be altered to half-barrier, and naturally this work includes changing the approach signs appropriately. The signs can't be changed before the work is done - that wouldn't make sense! As for 'pretty' - the whole of the RHDR is pretty. Thanks for noticing! Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 10:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Route Map / Triangle at the Pilot

The current route map shows the former turning triangle as being between The Pilot and Dungeness Road level crossing. In fact it was between Kerton Road Bridge and Battery Road crossing (as can be seen clearly on Google Earth and, if you keep your eyes peeled, from the train). I have no idea how to edit the map. Perhaps someone who does can correct it. Chatmool (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It should be correct now. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Seperate article for rolling stock?

Given the success of similar such pages for the Bluebell Railway and Kent & East Sussex Railway, would it be an idea for this article as well, especially given the variety of stock (we don't need to list every carriage, but a general outline of the general carriage types plus the special saloons, and the same with the freight stock)?

It would also help to clean up the article (which is a little higgledy-piggledy at the moment), as we can move the New Tenders section as well. That way the article can focus on the other elements. The section on services should probably stay here, however.

It would also allow photographs of the various items of rolling stock, as well as more detailed history and details for the various items as we'd have more space to play with, and increase the reliability of the article as an encyclopdic source. Bluebellnutter (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• No takers? Bluebellnutter (talk) 23:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Smallest public railway

Why is the Wells and Walsingham Railway considered a public railway? What is meant by "public railway" anyway? If, as I suppose, a railway with public transport function except/additionally to pure joy rides, I don't see how the Wells and Walsingham Railway is such, at least there is nothing mentioned about public transportation services in its article. Greetings Quork QTar (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

That's simple. The W&W is a "public railway" for all the same reasons as the RH&DR. Reason one, it's a public company. Reason two, it operates by virtue of a Light Railway Order issued by the Government (in this case the W&W Railway Order 1982, as amended by the W&W Railway Order 1994) as part of the national transport network. See here for more details. Reason three, it provides a public timetabled service - and if you've spent any time on the W&W you'll know that in addition to tourist passengers it also carries a lot of local people, especially from the little halts into Walsingham for the farm shop and other supplies. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 23:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah okay, thank you. That might use some clearing up in the W&W article then. Greetings Quork QTar (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Possibly of interest (or not?) is the appearance of the railway in the Pogles' Wood episode "Trains" from Series 1, which is currently giving me a rather strong dose of nostalgia.85.139.79.147 (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

There was also a Pogles' Wood book based on that episode. I have a copy somewhere, and have been trying to find it. Wonderful RH&DR illustrations in it. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 00:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

AOCL+Bs

The level crossings on the railway are all labelled by the railway as ABCLs (Automatic Barrier Crossing Locally Monitored), but contrary to popular belief, the actual term would be the one created by Network Rail in 2013 - AOCL+B (that is Automatic Open Crossing Locally Monitored with Barriers). The two crossing types are different, with the main difference being that an ABCL is an upgrade of a crossing, i.e. complete overhaul, new barriers, new lights, new equipment, new signage etc. However, an AOCL+B is the addition of barriers to an AOCL and nothing else major is changed. They layout stays the same and the signalling is altered to fit the barriers. This is why AOCL+B is the correct term. See Level crossing#Types of crossing for more details please. Nathan A RF (talk) 06:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Your summary of AOCL+B is of course quite correct, but I don't think this article should be changed, for two reasons:

1. Wikipedia is always based on sources, not original research (WP:OR). The primary sources available, as far as I can see, all describe the new RH&DR crossings as ABCL. Most significantly, the railway itself describes these crossings as ABCL, and we would need sound evidence, backed by sources, to suggest that they were wrong.
2. I don't think your argument is correct, in any case. These conversions were not simply "barrier strap ons". The S&T staff of the RH&DR completely redesigned these crossings at their upgrades. The track circuitry and equipment cabinets have all been completely redesigned and replaced, along with the barrier installations. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 10:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Signage at ABCLs and not at AOCL+Bs

Yalding ABCL level crossing

That is true, but I still think the sources are wrong. The term AOCL+B is only two/three years old, and the railway would have continued to refer to the crossings as ABCLs since 2005(?) when Botolph's Bridge LC was given barriers. The equipment was redesigned, as was the case at Winchelsea Level Crossing not too far away when it was given barriers and was turned into an AOCL+B. In an ABCL upgrade, phones are added to the crossings, the relevant signage (see picture) is added and the lights are normally replaced and repositioned. In the case of an AOCL+B, the barriers are added and no signage (see picture) or phone is added. In some cases, the barrier has been placed in front of the lights (such as Winchelsea LC) and the lights have not been moved. If the RH&DR was to have built ABCL crossings, they would look exactly like the ABCLs currently in the UK (see picture). Please, I do urge anyone on here that the term ABCL is correct. There may be no formal designation of such, but the terminology is definitely there. This forum may add some more info [1]. Nathan A RF (talk) 18:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

With respect, it is not enough to "think the sources are wrong". In order to make this change to the article you need either new sources or consensus - or, preferably, both! That's how Wikipedia works. As for the definition of both ABCL and AOCL+B, neither a personal opinion nor an on-line forum will do. Again, a definitive source is needed. The definitive source for level crossing definitions is the ORR Level Crossings guidelines. I have a copy, but my copy dates from 2011, and is therefore from before AOCL+B existed as a LC type. I wonder if you are correct to say that the existence of a telephone to contact the signaller is the clincher? Forums are not sources, but even the forum to which you direct us (above) notes that Halkirk LC is a ABCL, but has no telephones. I'm not trying to be difficult here, but you are proposing a significant change, which contradicts the existing sources and the railway's own data, and you are not presenting any alternative source or any editorial consensus. Your proposal does therefore fail the standard Wikipedia tests. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 03:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Look, these types of crossings were only named a few years ago, I know what the differences are, and despite your lack of support, I haven't changed my mind. I do think that these crossings are AOCL+Bs. There is no definitive website for naming an AOCL+B, as the website hasn't been updated yet, combined with the fact that the term was (I think) created by Network Rail managers to make a distinction between ABCL and AOCL+B, because they are two different types of crossings, with one having relevant signage and telephones. The ABCL at Halkirk is a modern example of how Network Rail have changed their ideas to ABCLs, but that is only in the Scottish region. I out it to you simply, if there was a pie in a shop and I knew there were sloes in it, I would say they were sloes. But because someone else thought they were bullace, the name of the pie was changed to bullace because someone said? I know that these crossings are AOCL+Bs. Three things: No phone, no signs, nothing altered. That's what makes an AOCL+B. To reiterate my point, the Halkirk ABCL and the Duirinish ABCL are modern changed versions of ABCLs and both Scottish. They are exceptions. Nathan A RF (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of what you know, Wikipedia requires sources or references. If they are not yet available anywhere, then the information should be omitted. (I don't think it helps anyway as it's just a strange set of letters to most people, but that's a different matter.) Bazza (talk) 15:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Wow, one is an "Automated Barrier Crossing with Local Control" and the other is an "Automated Locally Controlled Barrier Crossing"! Huge difference, stop the presses, this clearly changes everything and throws every bit of information in the article out of whack! I mean, one type of crossing functions exactly like the other, but is made up by modifying an older one slightly, while the other is all new, and has a different obscure acronym designating it. Obviously completely different things. I could really care less, and the fact that they were ALL "Automated Barrier Crossings with Local Control" (or whatever) right up until a couple years ago when someone decided to be annoying and officious and create a whole new (but almost identical) designation for a species of crossing means that as far as I'm concerned they are and always will be "Automated Barrier Crossings with Local Control", even though there is some guys in an office somewhere now insisting we call some of them "Automated Locally Controlled Barrier Crossings" because of some pedantry. They are "barrier crossings". That's all most people care about. That said, your analogy about pies in a shop fails. That's not the situation as far as I can gather; what it appears to be to me is as if I went into a shop and was looking at a pie with containing apples, which look pretty good, and I say so outloud. Suddenly, an anorak comes jogging up to me and denounces me for mis-stating things, because these here are not all apples. Only the RED ones are apples, the ones with green skin on them are now called "allpes". He demands it's a fact, official policy and all, and shows me a page online where people are talking about the subtle differences in taste between allpes and apples as "proof", and insists that the word has been changed in the dictionary. Okay, for starters, show me the dictionary or your word means nothing; second, most people don't really care if the dictionary suddenly DID decide to start calling green apples "allpes" instead. They're just apples anyway. In any case, you are the one coming in telling everyone how a word has been changed and this is the NEW designation: that is not the same thing as someone trying to insist that a fruit that has born its name for centuries is actually NOT the fruit they think it is, in spite of what they are seeing. See, the analogy doesn't fit at all. Telling someone "that apple is not an apple" doesn't work because they know that it IS an apple. Telling people "that apple isn't an apple, it's an allpe, and that's a fact, no matter what you say, because it says so in The Official Book" is different altogether. 01:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

dogleg

I have just restored a link to the dab page Dogleg, as that page includes the phrase "Dogleg - any departure from, and subsequent return, to a normal, straight-line or direct path" which is what the word is being used to describe here. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Quite right - good revert. Thank you. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 00:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)