Talk:Volk's Electric Railway

Trains: in UK Mid‑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

Mid

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

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

It is requested that an a map be included in this article to improve its quality. Please work with the Maps task force to create and add a map to this article.

Brighton Mid‑importance

	East Sussex portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brighton, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource about Brighton and Hove. If you would like to participate, please visit the project pageBrightonWikipedia:WikiProject BrightonTemplate:WikiProject BrightonBrighton articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Volk's Electric Railway RDT.

External links

In Search of Daddy Longlegs

In an attempt to avert the revert war that seems to be brewing, how about some open discussion of this link?

Relevant policy:

- WP:EL
- WP:ADS#External link spamming

Accepting that this site is selling a product, and that it doesn't have a great amount of content, then it still has some photos that add to the article(s). I'd regard this as a good link to add to the Brighton and Rottingdean Seashore Electric Railway and a possibility I wouldn't oppose for Volk's Electric Railway. If I opposed it, this would be on the grounds of duplication more than anything.

Your opinions please? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The site is pretty poor from an EL perspective:

Its main purpose is to sell DVDs
Because of its construction there is no way to link to the content on the BRSER, so you have to link to a page promoting that content and other content
The photos that are available aren't that compelling - they're more like a personal photo blog rather than richer content that enhances the article.
The photos are low quality and very small, and don't really illustrate much
Some of the images may be copyright violations
There is nothing in the link that wouldn't be present in the article if it was improved to GA or FA status

I'm afraid given all that I wouldn't support adding this link to either article. It certainly isn't suitable for this article, and really shouldn't be linked to the Brighton and Rottingdean Seashore Electric Railway article either. Sorry, Gwernol 22:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty much of the opinion that the site fails to meet the spirit of the standards set out in the guidelines you guys have linked to. I'd add that even where an advertising site can be claimed to have useful content, such as the photos referred to, it's a slippery slope, and sets a dangerous precedent for other far more invasive commercial site spam. Additionally, the site in question doesn't seem particularly to be referenced or to attribute the copyright origins of those images. I don't have any reason to doubt that it is produced by somebody entirely above board, and perhaps thoroughly knowledgeable, but nevertheless, I wouldn't call it a reliable source, so it really doesn't belong here. – Kieran T ^(talk) 01:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the best solution is that next time I'm in Brighton, to photograph the remains of the trackbed and put them on Commons 8-) That's the one useful thing this site offers that isn't already in the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a great solution. Gwernol 01:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the website we were discussing contacted me to ask how he could convince me (us) that it's a site worthy of inclusion. I thought I'd mention it here so that the discussion didn't get too disjointed. I've given him some suggestions as to how he might make the site less focussed on commercial activity. I'd also like to say that he sounds like he has put considerable effort into research and production, which goes some way to modifying my opinion about it being a reliable source. It seems that there is hope for this link. The chap has said he'll read up on WP:EL guidelines. So, if the link returns, it will be worth seeing if it has changed before reverting. – Kieran T ^(talk) 19:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Method of Operation

Quote from article:

"In general, there is only one train on each single track at any one time. The railway does not operate with two trains on one single track section."

The wording of the two sentences is contradictory. Either the railway does or does not operate with two trains on one single track section at oner time. Although this would be regarded as original research, Volk's Railway themselves seem to be unaware of any restriction on operation of two trains on one single track section as they operate in this manner regularly during busy periods particularly during weekends and school holidays. Two trains can often be seen in the Aquarium station or at the Marina station. The depart one after the other, the second train running twenty to thirty seconds behind the other. The line speed is clearly low enough that this is not a problem. Since there is no signalling anywhere on the line, it is clearly operated more as a tramway than a railway.

Also the line voltage is 110 volts not 160 volts as claimed in the article. Again, this could be considered original research, but there are signs all along the railway warning of the 110 volts centre electrified rail, particularly at the numerous pedestrian crossings. One has to assume that Volk's Railway themselves know what their voltage is. 86.163.87.193 (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gauge

The article claims that the gauge was reduced to its current 2 ft 8+1⁄2 in (825 mm) gauge. Since it was originally 2ft, this is hardly a reduction but an increase. Have I missed a point in the line's history where the gauge was larger than 2 ft 8+1⁄2 in (825 mm)? 86.163.87.193 (talk) 16:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: it was 2 ft 9 in (838 mm) for a time. It's in the article now, but maybe it wasn't when you added the above note. Why they felt a need to lose half an inch remains a mystery. 109.145.22.224 (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William Pollard

William Pollard, is this the one? Volk's Electric Railway#Rolling Stock Peter Horn User talk 15:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, missing link: https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapid=225377508 Peter Horn User talk 15:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]