Talk:Waterford and Tramore Railway

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland 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.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains Low‑importance

	Trains Portal
DYK	October 28, 2010

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.

This article lacks references.

An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

The only unconnected railway in Ireland?

I removed this from the article, since the (same) statement was indeeded sourced in the lede: {{cn|reason=[[Cork, Blackrock and Passage Railway]] seems one exception plus some narrow gauge|date=June 2021}}. But maybe that said source is wrong and indeed Cork, Blackrock and Passage Railway is another exception? (Narrow gauge lines do not count for this, I’d say.) Tuvalkin (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence of (Casslerley, 1974) being used to support the specific claim "The Waterford and Tramore Railway was the only broad gauge line in Ireland that was not connected to any other" prior to revision 1040802956. The concept of connectivity seems to have dated from the unsourced: [1] as "Unusually for a railway line, it did not connect to any other line."; followed by the stronger and still unsourced claim: It was the only railway line in Ireland which did not connect to any others. [2].
(Casserley, 1974, p86): Was used in Revisions "The line had no intermediate stations, only the two termini, and was to remain completely isolated from the rest of the Irish railway network throughout its life" - This does not in my view support the statement: " was the only broad gauge line in Ireland that was not connected to any other". Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where I have suggested the C&PR might be an exception (a guess) I have investigate a little further into ~~gavground~~.<Background. I have seen a source claiming the W&TR was never connected to another; with the save source claiming a pre-1900 very brief short temm connection to the C&BR. I am looking at that furture to confirm details and in case I have misread.
As Tuvalkin has admitted they not read (Casserley, 1974, p86) by the statement " But maybe that said source is wrong" I suggest they revert their revisions: 1040818615 and 1041285421. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still trolling, I see. People interestred in this matter should not be misguided by this user’s antics: See User_talk:Djm-leighpark#Put_it_back!. Tuvalkin (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tuvalkin: There are two issues here: One is the my behaviour, which is indeed perhaps meritous of a further block, that is for others to decide. The other is sources and article content and interpretation of them. That hinges around the content of (Casserley 1974 p86). WE need to find a way to resolve the content/sourcing dispute as we are at an impasse as my reasoning, which I feel to be sound, seems not to have persuaded you. We thus need to find a way of dispute resolution. I wonder if I might impose on Mjroots: (I'm actually working here as an offshoot of the request at [3], Redrose64, or Bungle to look at my logic here. If it really has to come to it I could scan p.86 of Casserley to any of these and they might be missing to forward to Tuvalkin. But, it would be almost implausible to think I do not have the book and it is reasonable to believe that if I say that page does not support the statement "was the only broad gauge line in Ireland that was not connected to any other". Casserley does say "It was unusual in the it never had any other physical connections with several other lines that had reached Waterford" on p.86. Can those suggested please review the content whatever about if I need to be blocked further. Probably better a mediator can be found from here. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that you yourself added to the article lede the missorced statement and yet on the same day you added a «citation needed» warning on an equivalent statement elsewhere in the article, it’s pretty much a matter about your behaviour — as now, 3 months later, you compounded it with your insistence that I am to blame for this mess and that if only my edits were reverted then everything would be peachy.

Make it simple: Forget about me and forget about Casserley and just add a simple {{cn}} warning to that statement (that WTR is and ever was the only unconnected Irish railway line) at both places it appears in the article, and let someone sooner or later will come up with a source for it.

Tuvalkin (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tuvalkin I'm really happy to simply change the second use of Casserley which I don't believe matches the source to a {{cn}} I'm not willing to change the other Casserley citations because I sincerely believe they are accurate and possible. Pragmatically I can't forget the Casserleys. The 1974 book is incredibly useful for citations over a wide range of articles, in my efforts to improve the sourcing of Irish Railway articles really valuable. Let alone other works. Plus the photographs. The "only" is a significant claim. It's why I'd cn'd it and not removed it in the first place. The CB&PR comment was a suggestion to look at a possible disclaimer as I was making that cn. (If I may say so myself it was a brilliant suggestion and is only likely to fail due to a minor siding connection to the C&BR in circa 1870s that was used for a mere few mmonths? by a few wagon?) I hoping the current article is acceptable. I really do try my hardest to accurately source, but I know sometimes I misread, sometimes I put the wrong page number, sometimes I inadvertently bring something from another source and assume its in the sourced content. But I really but a lot of effort in providing a WP:V trail and ensuring no link rot. But I will make mistakes. I wish you the best. Thankyou. 23:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm mentioned above, but I'm not an expert on Irish railways. What I do have is a book of Railway Clearing House (RCH) Junction Diagrams (1980s reprint of 1914 edition) - if two railways met at any point, the area around the connection is shown somewhere in that book. Conveniently, all of its 160 (approx.) diagrams have been uploaded to Commons, and so we may examine RCH Junction Diagram 124 (dated 1913 lower left). The left-hand half shows the Cork area, where the Cork, Blackrock & Passage is not connected to other lines, at least at the Cork end; but is also shown to be a 3-foot line. The right-hand half of the same diagram shows the Waterford & Tramore as unconnected at the Waterford end. In that book, I cannot find any other diagram that show these two railways, which implies (but does not confirm) that neither railway connected with any other at that date. What the diagram cannot support is the claim that the Waterford & Tramore was the only Irish 5 ft 3 in line not connected to any other. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gauge

Thought it was standard gauge. 67.3.36.71 (talk) 04:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]