Talk:Steamtown Peterborough Railway Preservation Society

Fair use rationale for Image:Steamtown.png

Image:Steamtown.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 16:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use of Logo

The organisation that owned the rights to the logo, "steamtown, peterborough railway preservation society inc" no longer exists. The current owners of the assets, the District Council of Peterborough, have a new logo for the museum.(Sulzer55 (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC))

Revision Notes

added more recent information on move of Garratt 402, but also amended the referencing within the page to align with more contemporary wiki practices. there is a need to add in more links to known material on the organisation, but this can wait Sulzer55 (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Tweaks and clarification

made a number of changes to update the page, including ref to the problems with 402's return. Added specific comment re Ian Milne - who was not acknowledged during the launch of the centre. this bloke has busted his nuts to get the show to where it is, but in all the grovelling and sucking up, those in charge did not mention him. I am of the understanding he has since stepped down, and DCP are looking for a new manager. Rumblings from Peterborough are questioning the ongoing viability of the project. Interestingly, the land is now DCP's. One wonders if they looked at the clean up costs for all the years of dumping the railways did! this land is nothing but poison Sulzer55 (talk) 10:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible vandalism

Cleaned up a heap of changes made by an unregistered user - as the some of the comments appear to conflict with material referenced, I believe that it may have been vandalism. Sulzer55 (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverted vandalism

Please sign and and use appropriate referencing

have reverted a number of changes (again)

Thanks Sulzer55 (talk) 12:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

More vandalism

reverted more vandalism - seems someone does not like refs to people who have done a lot of work. THerefore have removed names from the page. Sulzer55 (talk) 10:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The changes struck me as being driven by someone with an agenda. I wasn't quite sure of the specifics so I left it up to your discretion to fix things. Ozdaren (talk) 11:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

New ref

Found reference to the Linqage Report and Hart Report - have added this in. Would be interesting to find the originals, and read them in detail. The referenced article notes a number of other interesting comments.

THere are other refs on the web that imply findings of the Linqage report, but are not reliable enough to use in this article. Sulzer55 (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

reverted vandalism

reset page yet again. Sulzer55 (talk) 12:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Split Steamtown

Restructured pages that were the Steamtown museum into two separate pages - one on the Heritage precinct, and one on the operating society.

THese are two separate entities, with two different purposes. Sulzer55 (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand the move, however it seems a little cumbersome to have a comma between Steamtown and Peterborough. Through out its life it was known as Steamtown Peterborough (and of course Steamtown for short). Was Steamtown, Peterborough Railway Preservation Society Inc the official name? Ozdaren (talk) 07:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey Ozdaren - yes, the legal name was with the comma - cumbersome yes, but correct. The article will go through a little more of a tidy up, I found some additional information - did you see the guff in the latest Rail Digest??Sulzer55 (talk) 10:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Not yet. I've been a bit remiss about visiting my source of magazines of late. Ozdaren (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Ha- the info re depots was to be the next edit!!!!!!!!!!Sulzer55 (talk) 09:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You might have better info, mine has no references. Though I do have a scar on my right knuckle from picking up scrap steel in the 'new' yard around 1979/80. Ozdaren (talk) 10:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you send me a pic of the Injury, I am sure I can do a newspaper jobbie and beat it up into some form of scandal! :-p Sulzer55 (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Haha, I'm sure there are now laws in place to protect young children from the exessive zeal of steam enthusiast parents. I'll see if I can get some proper photos of Steamtown around 1980. We have some interesting ones of that era. Ozdaren (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The Depot

Added information regards the Depot. If anyone can shed light (no pun intended) on the shift from the Hostel site to Peterborough West, I'd Love to know more. If anyone can shed light on the Ozdarren "skunned knuckels due to Foamer parents" scandal - would be most grateful :-p Sulzer55 (talk) 12:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Added some further info about the Depot, and a pic of it in 2006Sulzer55 (talk) 11:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Style

I think it's too cumbersome to keep repeating the full name of the society in most paragraphs. Steamtown or the Society should suffice. The recent edits to add in the society's full name makes the article cumbersome. I propose the changes to be rolled back. Ozdaren (talk) 15:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

cleaned up page, including removal of text trying to separate this and the heritage centre page.

Tidied up other changes which suggested that the edits were done by someone who is not fully informed as to the history of steamtown.

Thans to Ozdaren for the maintenance Sulzer55 (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Requests for refs

In response to requests for refs; I have made a couple of tweaks to this page;

• Local support

Various editions of the Partyline, and the minutes available, are pretty clear in identifying people from outside of Peterborough as being key to the organisation. Ray Hall (Salisbury) was president for a number of years, and did a stirling job at trying to reverse the fortune of the society. A number of others (eg BW) made big inroads in improving safeworking. whilst a family from Truro underpinned the track. A bloke from Adelaide kept 901 running, with some support from a couple of dedicated locals. Many of the track gang travelled from Melbourne, Mildura and Adelaide This is not to criticise some of the locals, such as SH, DS and CW, whose input even today has kept the SHRC open.

• Corporation support

Whilst the Corporation did provide some assistance, it was rare and limited, including the use of some plant, the work gang for small jobs, or the odd bit of cash (small amounts). As there are few examples, it is hard to cite specifics. Subsequent to the collapse of the Society, the input has been considerable, and is noted as being a key factor in the success of the heritage centre. I will attempt to source specific refs as I can. Sulzer55 (talk) 09:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

have modified the wording to relate better to an editorial in the Partyline Sulzer55 (talk) 11:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Removal of ref to "Steamtown" and "Steamtown Peterborough"

Although the Society was known by both names, I have removed them from this article, and from the SHRC article to eliminate any possible confusion between the two entities, and to ensure consistency between the two articles Sulzer55 (talk) 09:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That will clear up a lot of confusion. There are still some references to "Steamtown" on the SPRPS site- could you change these to "the Society"? Again to remove confusion.

If neither site uses "Steamtown" or "Steamtown Peterborough" then this should be OK - but I think that a mention that both organisations were or are known by these names may be more constructive for the reader and historically correct. Perhaps this could be done in the first or second paragraph (as it was previously) but with an added clause something in the line of "but in future the SPRPS will only be referred to as the Society on this page" (and vice versa on the SHRC page).

If we can discuss changes on the discussion pages before undoing or doing anything then we can get both pages up to the high standard that Wikipedia likes. To be honest, the SHRC page is pretty much as I wanted it now (after my edits and addition of photos this evening).

I would like to add a section on rollingstock - perhaps listing all the rollingstock available for display or inspection - your thoughts?

Truce? Mangoeater2 (talk) 10:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have just changed the last few references to "Steamtown" and inserted "the Society" on the page. I have asked you to do this but it has not been done yet. You probably have not had time. Just helping you to remove the ambiguity. Mangoeater2 (talk) 10:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I will place a defunct railway society in a dying town higher on my priority list Sulzer55 (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hat

Could you please add "current" to the SHRC reference (for the current static museum . . ). Ditto for the SHRC page. Pedantic? Yes - but just another bit of "clarification" for the reader. Mangoeater2 (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes very pendatic - have lodged a request for a "disambiugation"page for the term "Steamtown Peterborough"Sulzer55 (talk) 04:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Mangoeater2 (talk) 05:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The End

"Some alternate options, such as removing the line north of Black Rock, and using the resulting funds for improvement of the remaining section and rolling stock, appear not to have been explored."

I have just discussed this with another committee member. Your reference to this having not been explored is not true. This proposal was discussed at the public meeting discussing the future of the Centre and was considered not financially viable. Could you either please remove this sentence or get a reference to support the statement. I have added . Mangoeater2 (talk) 02:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"This is despite similar railways running on the same railway structure elsewhere."

This may be true - but "2 wrongs do not make a right" applies here. Those other railways my have needed upgrading for the same reasons as mentioned in this report, but had not yet been upgraded. I suggest that, as this appears to be a subjective comment, that it be removed. Mangoeater2 (talk) 03:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

More a case of who is spinning what to suit their agenda. Perhaps you may like to use your links to have the FULL Hart Report, Linqage Report, and the NRBD report/business plan (around 1992-94) put out in the public domain for discussionSulzer55 (talk) 04:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

John, I dislike "bias" in the reporting of facts. Subjective comments are where "spin" comes in.

I am mentioning these points so that we can discuss them. The inclusion of <citation needed> is to allow the reader to realise that a comment is being disputed. Your response is very aggressive - rather than seeking consensus. I have suggested that you add a reference to support your comment (this IS a contentious comment and NEEDS referenceing).

Remember who these pages are for - they are not just for you and me.

In the past you have shown a penchant for removing comments that are not referenced. If the reports that you mention support your comments, then please reference them so that your comments may be upheld (and thereby remove the <citation needed>).

I will try to access these reports and get back to you.

Do you have access to the public meeting minutes/report at which the future of the Centre was discussed? Were any minutes kept? I will try to access these as well if they exist.

The comment about "other railways" is still a subjective comment. Mangoeater2 (talk) 05:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I have asked for copies of the reports and minutes (if available) - but this will take a few days yet. 60.240.99.57 (talk) 08:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a highly contentious statement which is not supported from other sources. It is not up to me to reference a counter statement - it is up to you to reference this statement. As you have not referenced it ,I am removing it. When you have a reference to support this statement feel free to put it back up.

You often accuse me of trying to put a "spin" on the article, yet you constantly try to put a bad light on anything to do with the SHRC at or from the time that the SPRPS collapsed. In truth the "bad light" should be shining off the SPRPS. Mangoeater2 (talk) 01:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation page

Have requested a disambiguation page so the uniformed can work out which "steamtown peterborough" they wantSulzer55 (talk) 04:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Mangoeater2 (talk) 05:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Reverted more changes

AS there is no discussion on this page in relation to changes made, I have reverted all of them - I am assuming more vandalism - Please post comment here as to the reason for the changesSulzer55 (talk) 00:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The only vandalism is being done by yourself Sulzer.

We have discussed disambiguation and the removal of ambiguous references such as just the word "Steamtown" and the need to replace this with either "the Society" or "the Centre". I asked you to do this but I noticed that it was not completed (you did seem to agree with the removal of these references - after initially resisting and reverting all of my edits to do the same).

Copied from "Removal of ref to "Steamtown" and "Steamtown Peterborough"" above:

"Although the Society was known by both names, I have removed them from this article, and from the SHRC article to eliminate any possible confusion between the two entities, and to ensure consistency between the two articles Sulzer55 (talk) 09:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)"

and in reply to your opening comment (also copied from "Removal of ref to "Steamtown" and "Steamtown Peterborough"" above):

I have just changed the last few references to "Steamtown" and inserted "the Society" on the page. I have asked you to do this but it has not been done yet. You probably have not had time. Just helping you to remove the ambiguity. Mangoeater2 (talk) 10:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You missed a few which I removed. I thought I had put a mention of this on the discussion page. You say "Sorry, I will place a defunct railway society in a dying town higher on my priority list Sulzer55 (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)" but I see you had time to revert all of my changes to remove the last references to "Steamtown". Vandalism?

I have asked you to include the word "current" in the hat against the SHRC link - you keep removing this. Do you WANT to prevent readers from knowing that there is a currently operating museum at the location? You have strongly resisted the changes which indicate that there is a) another Steamtown page, b) a Railway Museum and c) that it is open and running today.

Your comments on the SHRC Discussion page (and your reference to a "defunct railway society in a dying town" are beginning to show your deep antipathy towards the SHRC. So much for unbiased reportage. The addition of the word "current" is to try to let people know that the museum is operating today and by so doing help save Peterborough from "dying". You seem to want to "kill off" Steamtown (the SHRC) and let the town die.

Stop "Vandalising" these pages with your petty edits! Mangoeater2 (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Removal of of contentious statement in "The End"

See discussion in "The End" above Mangoeater2 (talk) 02:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Rolling Stock

Removed the word "very" from the phrase "a very small band of volunteers". Subjective statement - especially as you try to minimise the effort of volunteers, and especially local volunteers, at every turn. Trying to remove "spin" from the article. Mangoeater2 (talk) 01:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Operations

Here you say "In later years, the majority of active volunteers came from outside the district" as if this is a negative thing (your wording suggests a negative spin on this passage) - other Heritage Railways attract most of their patronage from outside of the local area - research Pichi Richi's volunteer base - this is actually a good thing that an organisation can attract patronage from other areas; it makes for a much stronger organisation. I have changed the wording to "bit in later years" Mangoeater2 (talk) 02:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Additions to "The End" and "Last Fling"

I have added some comments to these 2 sections (with references) regarding Council input and maintenance of the track to remove the bias that was appearing in the original text. Mangoeater2 (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Continuing editing problems

Copied from your user Talk page for the edification of all who are reading this page (so that they can more fully understand our conversation):

so you continue to attack me and my work, use your "mates" as references, but here are offering a "truce" - to be honest I did not know we were at War? The behaviour I have seen is one reason the show fell over...Sulzer55 (talk) 04:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

What on earth are you on? I am trying to correct ambiguities and (perceived) bias only. I am trying to get the 2 pages to reflect their actual situations instead of the "spin" that had been placed on them.

I can't even begin to know what you mean by "use your "mates" as references".

There has been a continual struggle to get my amendments up - you revert them (possibly even without reading them as is obvious on some reversions) - and yet in most instances you eventually accept the thrust of the changes (though you do seem to like to reword everything - LOL).

I have felt vey strongly that your reverting my initial amendments was contrary to the way Wikipedia works and felt incensed that you thought you had the right to do so without first adding <citation needed> (in fact you just accuse the changes as being "vandalism"). This was the cause of my initial adverse reaction.

I called a "truce" to say "let's begin again - now quietly discussing changes, etc". I see that you are still taking an agressive stance. As regards "The behaviour I have seen is one reason the show fell over..." - quite probably - but I was not there - and it is not necessary to continue the squabbling by those who were. As they say "It is a bran nue dae". Mangoeater2 (talk) 04:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Mangoeater2 (talk) 08:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh for Christ's sake you two! Can't you just go out for a beer and sort out your differences (preferably without slugging it out in the bar!). Skinsmoke (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Please note that article talk pages are for discussing the article and not the editors. --Kudpung (talk) 03:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

EAR request

Membersof the WP:EAR team have addressed an editor enquiry at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Conflict of Interest - Steamtown Peterborough Railway Preservation Society Inc vs Steamtown Heritage Rail Centre editing, and made their recommendations. Do take the opportunity to follow any links that explain relevant policy..--Kudpung (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The End

I have just changed "the disposal of property" to "implementing the "Steamtown Peterborough (Vesting of Property) Act 1986" to remove the suggestion that the Council was about to sell off the assets of the Society. References remain the same. Mangoeater2 (talk) 11:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Add reference to both entities known by just "Steamtown" and "Steamtown Peterborough"

I want to add into the first section:

"Though both the "Steamtown, Peterborough Railway Preservation Society Inc" and the "Steamtown Heritage Rail Centre" were and are known as simply "Steamtown" or "Steamtown Peterborough", only the term "the Society" will be used in referencing the Railway Preservation Society on this page; to clarify which organisation is being referred to."

I want to add this to let the reader know that they are viewing a page on "Steamtown" but also to let them know which entity they are reading about.

I suspect that any one researching these pages does not know that there are 2 "Steamtown"s and that the Hats do not say that both entities were known as "Steamtown" or "Steamtown Peterborough" only.

Comments? Losing the separation of the pages? or clarifying "Steamtown" and "Steamtown Peterborough" for the reader?

This is something I am NOT sure of editing in.

This same comment will be added to the SHRC's Discussion page. Mangoeater2 (talk) 12:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Vesting of property Act

This Act was created as a result of the asset crisis of the 1980s. The Act vested the assets of Steamtown to the council, and allowed the council to make them available to SPRPS for operation.

A number of items where purchased by Steamtown after this Act was enabled, and thus were not affected by this legislation (eg the NSUs, some section cars, some passenger wagons).

Will endeavor to find a copy of this Act. Sulzer55 (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Steamtown Peterborough (Vesting of Property) Act (No 81 of 1986) Ozdaren (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

minor Cleanup

thanks to whoever has tidied this up, it is looking pretty good.

I have corrected a couple of things - 720's tubes failed whilst it was hauling a train up Minvilara Bank, and the event at Black Rock was run using hand powered Kalamazoos formerly used at Cummins. the reference to Goolwa is correct, I will find the reference and update at some stage - Steam Ranger was still operating out of Dry Creek at the time, and the proposal ruffled feathers there.

I am not sure that the population decline is what killed it, this was identified early on and lead to the interest in moving to Clare, Gladstone or Goolwa. Certainly a factor was that Peterborough itself was not a major tourist centre (but then prior to PRR commencing trains, neither was Quorn. Sulzer55 (talk) 08:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Unreliable source tag

Especially for Valeinmose:

Please see the comment I made for my last edit: "Deleted 'unreliable source?' tag: although Railpage is a fansite, with all the attendant reliability problems, the locomotive is widely known to have failed then and boiler tube failure is the most likely source."

Before I made that comment, I had checked with two people familiar with the events of the society 30 or so years ago. They confirmed the information as being correct, and also that it was extremely unlikely that a reliable published source was available since the society was in its terminal stages and wasn't in the business of publishing what it was doing. Nobody is going to come up with reliable sources now.

I didn't write the sentences that utilised the unreliable references, but I asked: (1) can a better source be found now? (2) can the three items simply be deleted? (3) can they be rewritten without references? I suggest the answers are (1) no, (2) no, because they cover occurrences that were crucial in the fold-up of the society and (3) no, that's not on.

I detest fan sites as sources of information and I'm accustomed to looking for reliable sources to fix such references. However, in this case one can't ignore the practical realities. If we delete, the crucial factors will be lost. If we just don't cite, it's worse than using these unreliable sources.

This one calls for acting in accordance with the adage, "Policies are for the guidance of the wise and the blind obedience of the drongo". SCHolar44 (talk) 05:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Whether you checked with 2 or 2000 people is irrelevant it is WP:OR, the fact remains that the text is still not backed up by a reliable source. Railpage is an internet forum and as explained at WP:USERG are not admissible. I have reflagged the cite as unreliable. Please do not revert again without coming up with a good reason as to why policy should be overridden. Longer term if the text remains uncited, it will need to go. Broad16 (talk) 06:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)