Talk:British narrow gauge railways

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance within the Trains WikiProject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Railways.
High Importance: high within UK Railways WikiProject.

Contents

[edit] Section 3 Heritage and Museums

Several of the railways listed in this section, such as Alton Towers, Bicton, Billing Aquadome, Great Bush, Whipsnade & Umfolozi seem to have little to do with Heritage (although Alton has the monorail from Expo 86, and did have a line since 1929) - and certainly no longer have anything of heritage value to be seen - and nothing to do with museums. Should these be grouped into a separate category of "Theme Park Railways"? There are a number of others that could also be added to that category, although sadly, most seem to be running very similar American-styled steam-outline modern diesels.

Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? Lynbarn 21:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You are, of course, right. This makes complete sense. Let's do it. Gwernol 21:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mileage

Would it be useful to show an extra column (after gauge, perhaps) containing the mileage of each line, where known. If nobody objects, I will add the column in about a week - I don't know most of the values though, So I'll leave most blank... Any thoughts? Lynbarn 22:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Done at last - sorry for the delay! Lynbarn 23:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, its not super valuable right now as only two entries have lengths. What's more a number of these railways varied in length significantly over time. A number more we probably can't get lengths for. What about branches - how should they be treated? Until we have a reasonable spread of reliable data is it worth including this column just for two lines? Wouldn't that information be better off on the articles for those lines? Gwernol 00:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Now you tell me! I do know (or can find) the lengths of several of these lines, and I will be adding them as I can over the next few days/weeks, but I thought it better to add the column to all the tables first, even though they are blank. As for variable lengths, several entries have various as their track gauge, so I still think the additional column is a valid addition Lynbarn 11:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry about that. I'd meant to add a similar comment to your original announcement, but I forgot, sorry. Your most recent message reminded me. I think as long as we get a reasonable coverage of lengths (at least 50% of lines?) its fine. Gwernol 11:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blenheim Palace

There is a narrow gauge railway in the grounds of Blenheim Palace, Oxfordshire, which does not appear to be listed here. I'll leave someone more knowledgeable about railways to decide on the appropriate category for it.Rodparkes 03:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

thanks for reminding me of that line - I was there only about two years ago! I have now added an entry to the list. regards, Lynbarn 11:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Should this really be counted as a narrow gauge railway - I'd have thought it was a miniature railway? Its certainly listed on the miniature railway page!! Callywith 19:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, A miniature railway (more or less scale models of full-size prototypes, able to carry passengers) is by definition a narrow gauge* (ie less that 4ft 8.5inches) railway but a narrow gauge railway (full-size prototypes running on rauils less than 4ft 8.5 inches) isn't necessarily a miniature railway. In the case of the Blenheim line, I think it qualifies for both. (*although at the extreme, I guess a roughly 4/7ths scale model of a Brunel broad-gauge could be miniature but not narrow!) Regards, Lynbarn 00:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military Use

Is it a deliberate decision to omit any reference to the various military narrow gauge systems that existed?
Examples include Woltham Abbey & Woolwich Arsenal (Army); Broughton Moor and Chattenden & Upnor (Navy); Calshot and Chilmark (RAF). Locos from 2 of these systems are still at work on the Talyllyn and Welshpool lines.Gawthorpe Dave 13:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

No - if you have any information of military or former military lines or stock, please feel free to add it. Regards, Lynbarn 00:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
There is a separate article British military narrow gauge railways which is linked from this article. It covers all these railways. Gwernol 13:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Closed - Present?

I find having the word "Present" in the closed column confusing - does it mean that the railway is currently closed or "present" in the sense of answering the register, miss? I would suggest putting "Open" or where applicable, "Seasonal" or "Occasional". Britmax 10:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It means until the present - i.e. the railway is currently operating. The reason for this is that all the other entries in that column are dates, so having "1876 - open" is a misnomer, whereas "1876 - present" conveys that the line opened in 1876 and continues to operate. Gwernol 13:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I?

Several of the railways have the suffix (I) next to them. Maybe I'm going blind, but I don't see anywhere that states what this signifies. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 07:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Also some of the railways have (II) next to them. I think it's to distinguish the original railway with the heritage railway, if they both have the same name. --Snigbrook (talk) 13:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
That's corretc, Snigbrook. It is an attempt to separate the original and the preserved railways. Not entirely a successful devise, obviously :-) Perhaps making it explicit by having the preserved version named e.g. "Talyllyn Railway (preserved)" would be better, or maybe just combining the two entries? Gwernol 13:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I see what it means now. Perhaps the enties from two tables could be combined, as follows:
Name Opened Closed Gauge Length Location Notes
Corris Railway 1859 1948 2 ft 3 in (686 mm) 121⁄4 miles [1] Machynlleth, Wales Built to carry slate from the Corris district. Closed after flooding of the Afon Dyfi.
1967 Present 2 ft 3 in (686 mm) 1.6 km Corris, Wales Heritage railway revival of the Corris Railway. Reopened to passengers in 2002
The question arises as to which table to put this in. Or do we combine the two tables completely? I'm willing to do this if consensus is to do so. — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo (talk) 12:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Now that's a really good idea, I wonder why I never thought of that? I'd suggest merging into the table currently containing the original railway, as most of the revived railways are preservations of public railways. Gwernol 12:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to steal your thunder - I saw you suggested it, and thought that this was a good way to implement it. I might split the preserved lines/museums, leaving the museums and moving the preserved lines into the public lines as per your suggestion. A job for tonight ;-) — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo (talk) 12:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to be clear I wasn't trying to be sarcastic. When I said "maybe just combining the two entries" I'd meant into a single row; your suggestion of making them two "sub-rows" as above is a much better suggestion and all yours. Truly, well done for coming up with this solution. Best, Gwernol

[edit] Table sorting

I've merged a lot of the entries from the preserved/museums, as discussed above. Some of the entries are borderline as to whether they are museums or short demonstration lines, and I may have called some the wrong way, so feel free to move things as required. Both tables could do with a bit of clean-up, e.g. to get consistent formatting of lengths etc. Feel free to let me know if there's any other discrepancies. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)