Talk:Talyllyn Railway/Archive 1

Archive 1

Talyllyn Lake

Talyllyn Lake is a ribbon lake, according to http://www.aber.ac.uk/visitors/en/schools_guide.html. I haven't included this as a ref as the site is unrelated to the Talyllyn Railway. I've added it to the Tal-y-llyn Lake article instead. – Tivedshambo (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Main picture

Can we replace the main picture for this article, of Talyllyn at Nant Gwernol, which is 30 years old and rather washed out? I'd suggest swapping it with the similar view of No 4, against Nant Gwernol in the list of stations. However as this is one of my photos, I'm reluctant to appear as self-promoting. Any thoughts? – Tivedshambo (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree the picture quality of the photo of No 1 at Nant looks a bit dated - either of your pictures of No 4 would be suitable - i personally like the one of No 4 at Tywyn as it is a closer view of the locomotive. The picture of No 1 could still be included on the page albeit it further down.  Willsmith3  _(Talk) 02:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

which Talyllyn ?

"Despite its name it does not quite reach Talyllyn Lake". Are you sure the name originally referred to the lake, and not to a former parish? --Jotel (talk) 13:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There's something about that in either Railway Adventure or Talyllyn Century I think - I'll check tonight if I get chance. —  Tivedshambo  _(t|c) 13:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well technically the quote doesn't claim that the railway was named after the lake, just that the railway doesn't reach the lake. There is some doubt about the origin of the name - I just went through Boyd's account in his book The Talyllyn Railway and he raises this as a question. However I can't recall seeing a published suggestion that the name derives from the parish, only speculation on why the railway was named after the lake when it was never likely to get there. Gwernol 14:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Technically speaking you are right as to what the quote claims (or doesn't). But, IMHO, if somebody said about London Road ""Despite its name it does not go towards London", this would imply the road was named after the town, and not e.g. Jack London. Nitpicking, really.... --Jotel (talk) 14:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, sorry about the nitpicking :-) The main point is can we find a source that says something about the relationship between the railway's name and either the lake or the parish? So far, I haven't found anything that we could use to answer this in the article. The nearest I have is Boyd's earlier book Narrow Gauge Railways in Mid Wales. On page 61/62 of the 1965 edition he writes:

There is an Irish touch (sic) in that its title suggested a destination at Talyllyn Lake (though this was never a serious destination) which has never been nearer the railway than 31⁄2 miles.In fact, it is extraordinary that the title given to the railway was ever adopted at all, for stripped of its legal phraseology, the Act was obtained 'to construct a line from the Aberyswyth & Welsh Coast Railway at Towyn towards Talyllyn' thus giving a rough guide to the district served rather than the lake itself.

Which is sadly ambiguous since Boyd both refers to the Lake and to the "district" of Talyllyn - perhaps meaning the parish? It is likely that the true intention is lost in the mists of time and we may never be able to precisely answer this question. Gwernol 15:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've found the quote I was looking for. Chapter 2 of Talyllyn Century (also by Boyd) states:

The title given to the line was the Talyllyn Railway. As no powers were applied for or sanctioned to Talyllyn – a lake three miles east of Abergynolwyn – the name remains a mystery, but might well be explained by the railway having English parents and a generalisation on their part as to the extent of the locality. English promotion in Wales has produced quite a number of these curiosities in proper names.

I would agree that there is no right answer, but I'll change the start of the article to explain this. —  Tivedshambo  _(t|c) 16:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If I'm allowed to speculate, I'd say the name referred to the parish. The railway was to provide transport for local folks and wasn't meant to be a tourist attraction, so the lake was irrelevant. Don't quote me on that, this isn't WP-verifiable :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jotel (talk • contribs)

It would be more accurate to say that the railway was meant to be a private mineral railway to connect the Bryn Eglwys quarry with the standard gauge railway at Tywyn. Its not clear why the McConnells went to the trouble of getting an act to make it a public railway. Its pretty clear their primary intention was not to serve local passenger traffic. However there were early attempts to promote the railway as a tourist attraction of sorts, including posters that said it could be used to visit Talyllyn Lake and even Cadair Idris - which is a good walk from Abergynolwyn! Eventually this tourist promotion turned into the "Grand Tour" which involved a round trip on the Talyllyn, Corris and Cambrian railways with a bus between Abergynolwyn and Corris via the Lake. It would be interesting to know when the name "Talyllyn" referring to the parish, fell out of use. Was it in current usage in the mid 1860s? Gwernol 16:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This is certainly worth adding to the article, particularly the "Talyllyn Grand Tour ®" :-) --Jotel (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Especially as it links again the Corris and the Talyllyn, whose histories are intertwined in interesting ways. I'm away from my books for now, but I'll try to add this in later. Thanks, Gwernol 16:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a bit about it in Railway Adventure, chapter 1, in which Rolt states that the grand tour used wagonettes between Abergynolwyn, the Pen-y-bont Hotel on Talyllyn Lake and Corris. —  Tivedshambo  _(t|c) 17:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes and there's quite extensive coverage in some of the Corris histories, going back at least to Cozens' book and also in Boyds later works. I expect its covered in Boyd's Talyllyn Railway too. The tour was, of course, run by the Corris Railway using their own charabancs, so its not surprising that most of the coverage is in books on the CR. I don't think it will be hard to add an interesting section once I get home from work. Best, Gwernol 17:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've put in a bit, but I'm going out soon, so I'll leave any further improvements to you! —  Tivedshambo  _(t|c) 17:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

boiler

"the Chairman of the Hunslet company [...] had No.4's boiler". Surely the intended meaning is ... had a boiler of the same type as that of No.4's and not owned the existing boiler of engine No.4. I think this is worth correcting if my understanding is right. --Jotel (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That whole paragraph was problematic. You are right about the sentence construction you point out, it was confusing. Worse it was incorrect, since it was not just No. 4's boiler that was overhauled - the entire locomotive was sent to Hunslet's for overhaul. I have rewritten the paragraph, which was misleading and confused events in the early 50s with the rolling stock strategy of later preservation years. I hope this version is better, even though it needs more work. I want to go back to the sources and re-write both the History and Preservation sections - they are both too short, lacking in sources and have some errors that need correcting. Gwernol 16:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

more references

Somebody may find these useful/useless (delete as applicable):

• BBC site with details of loco operation
• mentions some names e.g McConnel, related to the early history
• description of the signalling system, not particularly TR-specific IMHO
• £1.2m grant, 2003
  --Jotel (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Pat Garland "played a critical role in negotiating the transfer of the Talyllyn Railway Company" - may be some of the info in his obituary could be added?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/31/db3103.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/01/31/ixportal.html
--Jotel (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Route map

It's not very legible, and the blue inset at the top is totally illegible (translation: totally useless). I think a GA should have something better.--Jotel (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, that took hours to make :-) I agree it needs improvement. I was planning to do a complete rebuild of it. It looks great at high resolution (click through to see the original), but not so good when thumbnailed as it is on the page. I guess this just prompts me to get on an make it better. I agree we need this to get to FA. Gwernol 20:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it does enlarge when you click on the blue button in the bottom r.h. corner. Not immediately obvious (to me anyway). If you are going to redo it, may be use the diagrammatic style (see mainline route maps, e.g. Buxton Line)? Just a suggestion....
BTW, there is one unnamed red dot past Tywyn Wharf - shouldn't it be either described or deleted?? --Jotel (talk) 07:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you're referring to Tywyn railway station on the Network Rail line. I made the map into an imagemap some time ago, so that users can click on the stations to go to the specific articles, though it isn't ideal, and I don't think it works in some browsers. I can revert it to a normal image if people prefer. —  Tivedshambo  _(t|c) 07:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The imagemap idea is a nice one, what confused me is that clicking on a 'non sensitive' part of the image does nothing, unlike with other images where this causes enlargement. I have no idea whether you can do this trick with imagemaps. --Jotel (talk) 08:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be possible - I'll have a look later. —  Tivedshambo  _(t|c) 08:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I knew the question of a drawn map vs. a diagrammatic one would come up. My personal preference is a drawn map. The diagrammatic ones are great if you want to show the set of stations and branch lines, but give you no sense of the line's relationship with the local geography. The current map at least gives you a sense of the relative distances between the stations and the overall shape of the line. I'm working on an improved one that shows more local features (roads, rivers, mountains). The schematic layout of the Talyllyn is very straightforward - a single line with a set of stations - but the way it climbs the mountainside, particularly around Dolgoch and Nant Gwernol, are what give the line much of its character. I think we should represent that. What do you think? If the diagrammatic style is preferred, its easy enough to make one. Gwernol 11:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I much prefer hand-drawn ones where available - the ones produced using WP:RDT are useful where no alternative exists, or for complex layouts, but for the Talyllyn it would be a blob for Wharf, followed by a blob for Pendre, followed by by a little blob for Hendy, followed by... etc. etc. The map you've produced is much more detailed than this, and if you're willing to improve it, so much the better. —  Tivedshambo  _(t|c) 11:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not say I preferred the diagrammatic one, simply that this is an alternative (much faster to produce, BTW). At the moment the current map is also a blob here, another blob there, except that the blobs are positioned in the geographically correct way.
It's easy for me to say I would also like to see local features, twists and bends & all that, but I'm unable to make any contribution towards this goal, so probably I should shut up now. --Jotel (talk) 13:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The consensus then (at least amongst us three) is for a hand drawn map. I am working on a completely new map which I hope will be much better than the current effort. These take some time to produce, but I hope to have it done by the weekend. I'll upload it once complete and seek opinions on it. Thanks, Gwernol 13:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the imagemap template for the map to include a default back to the image page. —  Tivedshambo  _(t|c) 08:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Douglas locomotive

"currently guised as "Duncan"". What is this supposed to mean? --Jotel (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It means its painted to look like the character called Duncan from the The Railway Series children's books, which were based in part on the Talyllyn. Gwernol 20:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The information is out of date anyway, as it's currently only guised as a pile of parts. I've updated the information. No 3 has the honour/ignominy (delete as applicable) of being the children's engine this year. —  Tivedshambo  _(t|c) 23:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

In-line book citations

How do people think we should do these? There is a mixture at present - either using the {{cite book}} template directly, or by referring to books in the bibliography. I've looked at a few recent featured articles, and the latter method seems to be preferred - see for example today's FA - though I'm not really bothered either way. I do think we ought to be consistent thought. —  Tivedshambo  _(t|c) 07:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"I'm not really bothered either way. I do think we ought to be consistent thought". Same here :-)
Being a lazy sod, I'd go for the form which requires less work to convert to.--Jotel (talk) 07:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Inline citations (i.e. using {{cite book}} etc.) are pretty much required for FA status. I suggest we start converting over to those now. It does require more work, but it allows readers to see exactly which information came from where, thus meeting WP:V better. Gwernol 10:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

TR as employer

"The railway is a big employer in Tywyn"
This seems suspicious, as how many people can a volunteer-run railway employ?? OTOH, may be even a number small in absolute terms is a big one in Tywyn?? Suggestion: either delete this phrase (keeping the bit about traditional skills) or provide hard facts and let the readers decide whether it's big or otherwise. --Jotel (talk) 09:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There's not much in the way of large businesses in the Tywyn area, I suspect the TR may well be one of the largest. It does have a number of permanent staff, plus temporary seasonal staff for the shop, catering etc. However I can't find any figures or citations to back this up at present. —  Tivedshambo  _(t|c) 09:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The best I could find is some 2003 data, which I added to the article.--Jotel (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Observations

1. Infobox is too wide IMHO. Making it slimmer would reduce the amount of blank space under it.
2. I like the clickable map. However, it should be either expanded or reduced in width to remove the thin column of text, which look ugly. Mjroots (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments-

1 - the width of the infobox is fixed in {{Heritage Railway}}, so far as I can tell.

2 - Making the map smaller would make it even harder to read - see comments above. I'll increase the size of the template, but making it too large will cause problems for users with smaller browsers. I've formatted the text so it appears under the map rather than alongside. —  Tivedshambo  _(t|c) 19:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If the template can't be altered what about filling the blank space with a picture below the template? The removal of the thin column of text makes the section look better now. Mjroots (talk) 07:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

One thing we ought to look at if this article is to get to GA (and especially FA) status, are pictures. A few quick thought to get the ball rolling:

1. It would be great to complete the images of the carriages, and also get some images of freight stock. In fact we need a whole section on the railway's freight stock, which is especially important for the pre-Preservation railway. Anyone fancy a trip to the Narrow Gauge Railway Museum? Tivedshambo?
2. I am concerned that the picture we have of Dolgoch from 1951 (Image:Tal-Y-Llyn Dolgoch Abergwynolwn 1951.jpg) is a problem. While the image has permission from the website owner [1], I don't have a lot of faith that this is legitimate. This is a well know photo that has been published in a number of books. I doubt the website owner is the copyright owner. We would need to at least establish that he is, or we will probably have to remove the image from the article and request its deletion from commons. Unfortunate since its a great picture, but we need to take copyright seriously.
3. Ideally we'd get some more historical photos onto the article. There are a few very early images, taken in the 1860s, that I believe are now in the public domain. I intend to scan these and upload them to commons. I wonder if there are other pictures that we could source? We'd need to find a copyright holder who was willing to put their pictures into the public domain or license them under an appropriate creative commons license. Again, this may be something we could do via the Narrow Gauge Railway Museum? Does anyone have a contact there we could approach?

Other thoughts? By the way, big thanks to Tivedshambo for the majority of the existing pictures which are excellent and really enhance the article. Gwernol 21:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to go over and take more photographs when I get the chance - I've got a few days off just before Easter so I could go for a day then. My only concern is that there's only one train operating at the time, which could well be the same coaches that I photographed the other day. I could probably talk my way into the sheds as I'm a (non-active) member, but I doubt I'd get any good shots in there.

-On red service, it is likely to be the same rake in action again however you could always give the railway a ring before you visit to check. Photography in the sheds would be tricky owing to lack of space and light (as seen in pictures taken for the vintage carriages trust survey http://www.vintagecarriagestrust.org/surveystatus.htm)- I'll have a try next time I'm at Pendre! Two train working is in operation from 21st Mar - 6th April so you should be able to photograph more stock then.  Willsmith3  _(Talk) Willsmith3 (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

With regard to archive photos, there are some on the railways website at http://www.talyllyn.co.uk/gallery/index-archive.html. If we could make a wish-list of what would be most appropriate, I'd be willing to contact the railway to ask permission to use them. —  Tivedshambo  _(t|c) 22:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, some of these archive shots would be most welcome. The ones captioned "Loco No. 1 'Talyllyn' at Abergynolwyn on a down train, in August 1935.", "Loco No. 3 at Dolgoch on a trial run in 1951.", "The first No. 7 (a short-lived petrol/parrafin loco) being turned at Quarry Siding on a portable turntable.", "The old watering-point at Ty Dwr, on the mineral extension above Abergynolwyn. The original loco shed was located behind the left-hand slate column." and "'Dolgoch' at Tywyn Wharf in 1949, with the complete passenger stock." seem particularly useful from a historical and illustrative perspective. I know the National Library of Wales hold several historical photos as well. I may try to contact them to see if they'd be prepared to release any of them. Thanks, and good luck with your Easter trip if you go, Gwernol 22:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

loco No.6

... is described as 'ex-RAF'. Well, the HM Air Force isn't an obvious supplier of rolling stock, even second-hand :-). Will it be possible to expand this description a bit, something like 'ex RAF base in xxxx'? --Jotel (talk) 10:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this should be expanded. No. 6 was ex RAF Calshot, a base on the south coast. I have the book on the Calshot railway - there's an interesting short article to be written there which would allow us to link to Douglas. More generally I think we'll need to expand the loco histories somewhat as they all have interesting and historically significant "backstories". Gwernol 12:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Table

For some reason, the table for internal combustion locos isn't displaying loco number 10. Can anyone see what's wrong with it? —  Tivedshambo  _(t|c) 14:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. There was an unclosed reference (<ref name=Potter> instead of <ref name=Potter/>) which meant the contents of the row for No. 10 were being added to the reference. Gwernol 14:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well found - thanks! —  Tivedshambo  _(t|c) 14:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. When text mysteriously disappears, the first thing I always look for is a problem with the references. They're usually to blame :-) Gwernol 14:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The mystery of Dolgoch viaduct,

The text (with dimensions omited) now reads: "the line crosses the Dolgoch viaduct which carries the line above the Dolgoch ravine". Previous versions said "the Dolgoch viaduct, which carries the line above the Dolgoch ravine". So what crosses what above what? I've never heard of a railway line crossing a viaduct. Does the viaduct carry or cross the line?? --Jotel (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The railway is on top of the viaduct - the ravine below. I'll change to "crosses over the Dolgoch viaduct". There are many railways which cross viaducts. —  Tivedshambo  _(t|c) 17:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The viaduct carries the railway and crosses over the Dolgoch ravine. Both versions actually say this, though I think the second is clearer. A picture of Dolgoch viaduct would be useful, but unfortunately these are difficult to obtain now because of the growth of trees in the ravine. A viaduct is simply a multi-span bridge, though typically it applies to one that spans across a valley, which is what the Dolgoch viaduct does. Whether it carries a road, railway or canal is immaterial. Best, Gwernol 17:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this photo on Geograph good enough to use? All photos on Geograph are suitable for Wikipedia as they are Creative Commons 2.0 licenced. Mjroots (talk) 10:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Its pretty marginal and nicely illustrates the difficulty of getting a good photo of the viaduct due to the tree growth in the ravine. I have a very early (1860s or early 1870s) photo of the viaduct in an almost treeless ravine. I'm going to scan and upload it (I believe copyright is expired so it is in the public domain). Gwernol 10:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

1950 or 1951 ?

From the lead: in 1951 it became the first railway in the world to be preserved. But the Rescue: 1951-1960 section says the line was taken over in 1950. The http://www.talyllyn.co.uk/index-about.html page is distinctly non-committal... --Jotel (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The whole preservation section needs a thorough overhaul and expansion, as this is in some ways the most significant historical era of all. Per Rolt's Talyllyn Century the meeting that resulted in the founding of the Preservation Society happened on October 11 1950. The old company's shareholdings were transfered to Talyllyn Holdings Ltd. on February 8 1951. The railway reopened on June 4 1951 under the control of the railway preservation society. Rolt is as well placed as anyone o give the definitive version of events. So I think the February 8 1951 date is the formal moment that the new regime took over. I intend to undertake a complete rewrite of the history post-1950 when I get the time and from sources. Best, Gwernol 21:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Middle years

Is there a better way of phrasing this - middle years is a bit ambiguous! Ta  Willsmith3  _(Talk) Willsmith3 (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I've updated two of the sub-section headers under "History" - is this better? We could always go with just the years covered as the headers, though I do like a couple of words of summary, as they lend more flavor to the account. Thoughts? Suggestions for better titles? Gwernol 22:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah thats better [User:Willsmith3| Willsmith3 ]] _(Talk) Willsmith3 (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Enhanced map

I've reworked the map and would like to hear feedback. It now shows more of the local geography, including approximate heights of the landscape, rivers, roads and towns. I think its much more useful - what are your thoughts? I haven't made it clickable yet, but that should be fairly easy to do once the image is finalized. Gwernol 22:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Like the map - Perhaps the place names such as BRYNCRUG / TYWYN should be in caps to differentiate from stations. Wharf station is technically called Tywyn Wharf and also you have swapped a y and a w in Bryn Eglwys - easy mistake to make. I would also change the text size on the stations to differentiate them from the halts otherwise a very good effort [User:Willsmith3| Willsmith3 ]] _(Talk) Willsmith3 (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent map - well done! If I can add a couple of minor suggestions: Fach Goch is two words, not hyphenated, therefore I think it should have a capital G. Also a capital S in Quarry Siding. Do people feel I should make this "clickable", like the previous one? —  Tivedshambo  _(t|c) 00:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks both, for spotting the mistakes and suggesting improvements. I've updated the map. Tivedshambo, I would certainly like to see this made into a clickable map. Do you fancy working your magic on this version? Thanks, Gwernol 01:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: make the dots/dashes, marking the location of stations/stops, bigger. But even as it is, the new map is very nice indeed, and much more informative: thanks, Gwernol. A clickable version would be even better, but not necessary (IMveryHO).--Jotel (talk) 07:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

One more suggestion Gwernol: How about an arrow in the top right pointing to Tal-y-llyn Lake? It's referred to in the article, but anyone who doesn't know the area might think it's the grey-blue area you've used for the quarry. I'll see what I can do with the imagemap tonight. —  Tivedshambo  _(t|c) 09:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If the correct spelling is Tal-y-llyn (with hyphens), it should also be used in the article text.--Jotel (talk) 09:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The railway is not hyphenated (this was established in a very early edition of the Preservation Society's newsletter back in c1953) - whereas according to the Ordnance survey, the lake is. —  Tivedshambo  _(t|c) 10:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I meant the spelling of lake name only, I see it's corrected now. Thanks for the clarification all the same.--Jotel (talk) 10:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

New version containing: bigger station/halt markings, a "to Tal-y-Llyn Lake" note. Thanks again for the suggestion, Gwernol 11:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Nearly there, but I think it should be Tal-y-llyn not Tal-y-Llyn. —  Tivedshambo  _(t|c) 12:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Argh :-) Fixed, thanks for spotting, though the purist in me shudders at "Tal-y-llyn Lake" both because in general Welsh names should be spelt without hyphens but more importantly because "Talyllyn" means "the long lake" so "the long lake lake" is just wrong. Still, we suffer through the River Avon, so I guess we must follow the ordnance survey in their wisdom. Gwernol 12:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Just be grateful it isn't Torpenhow Hill (lit. Hillhillhill Hill) :-) Anyway, the map should now be clickable for the station articles and Bryn Eglwys - I might add other clickable links later. —  Tivedshambo  _(t|c) 21:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I love Torpenhow Hill, what a great name. And good work on making the map clickable - it adds a great deal. Gwernol 22:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The clickable map is nice and useful indeed. Bur I wonder how many innocent readers will know it's clickable. This isn't specific to this map, AFAIK until you actually click you don't know whether you'll get a larger version of the whole thing (WP default) or more details about a 'region'. Add a brief explanation?? --Jotel (talk) 08:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Like making the map caption "Map of the Talyllyn Railway. Click on the place names for the relevant article." perhaps? If only Tivedshambo had thought of that :-) Gwernol 09:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Further maps

I'm working on a few more maps and plans. I think a map of the Abergynolwyn village branch, of Bryn Eglwys quarry and of both Wharf and Pendre would be useful. The latter would need two maps - the original layouts and the current layouts, to show how operational matters have changed after preservation. Gwernol 12:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Talyllyn Railway

Talyllyn Railway (the United Kingdom)

An overall location map might be useful as well. The code {{Location map|United Kingdom|label=Talyllyn Railway|long=-4.08989|lat=52.58294}} should work - it looks ok in page preview, but when I saved it in my sandbox the Talyllyn appeared somewhere up near the Orkneys! I'll see how it works here. —  Tivedshambo  _(t|c) 13:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm - same problem here - at least with my browser. Any thoughts? —  Tivedshambo  _(t|c) 13:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if something like this would be useful - it displays the correct location in my browser (Firefox). Either show this map of the entire UK, or use one of just Wales, which could show a few major locations too? Gwernol 13:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Another possibility is to reuse the map from Cardigan Bay, preferably making the Tywyn dot bigger and red, and/or changing its label to "Talyllyn Railway"--Jotel (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done —  Tivedshambo  _(t|c) 19:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions:

1. Change the colour of 'Talyllyn Railway' text to something more different from the dominant colours on the map (i.e. not green)
2. Make the line marking the railway thicker and in a contrasting colour --Jotel (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Is that better? —  Tivedshambo  _(t|c) 19:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks ! --Jotel (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

self-propelled vehicles

... include a flail mower. Is it really a rail vehicle? The WP article Flail mower says it's a tractor mounted implement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jotel (talk • contribs)

Ah but this one is a special rail-mounted flail mower :-) Gwernol 21:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting one should not believe everything one reads in WP ?? :-)) --Jotel (talk) 08:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You may very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment ;-)  —  Tivedshambo  _(t|c) 08:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Table

The locomotives table needs adjusting so that the wheel arrangements display on a single line. Mjroots (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're referring to the internal combustion loco table? In which case, done. Thanks for spotting the problem. Gwernol 20:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I meant the steam locomotives. Mjroots (talk) 06:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've made it a fixed width. It will still cause problems with large font sizes, depending on browser settings, but I don't want to make it too big as it'll reduce the width of other columns. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 06:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Bryn Eglwys article

I've added a new map to the Bryn Eglwys article, and am intending to greatly expand that article from the various sources I have. I know this doesn't directly impact this article, but its such a key part of the story of the Talyllyn Railway, that I believe we need to consider both articles as a pair. Feedback on the map is very welcome, and hopefully I'll have improvements of the article text to get feedback on soon. Thanks, Gwernol 21:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Carriage & Plant Photos

Took a few pictures of carriages whilst I was working at Pendre earlier - will upload soon - only a few snaps - nothing particularly brilliant as the stock wasn't in the best position.

Also took pictures of the flail mower and Matisa tamper in case these would be of any use - do you think we should have a list of this kit underneath the diesel locos or would this be overkill - any views? - If not i'll still upload the images and add them to the Talyllyn Railway category - will illustrate the rail mounted flail for Jotel! All the best Willsmith3 (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Can't wait to see that! Alert me as soon as it's done :-)
More seriously though, I will NOT object to pictures of 'works' rolling stock being shown (and possibly described in some details) in the TR rolling stock article.--Jotel (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff. Any more carriage pictures would be welcome, especially of the line's original stock, which is sorely missing from the artilce at present. Personally I'd be in favor of a third table called "Self propelled vehicles", or "maintenance of way stock" or similar perhaps? Particularly if we can get photos. Gwernol 01:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding another table, with maintenance vehicles, would increase the length of the article even more, it's long enough as it is. What about creating a (sub)article Talyllyn Railway rolling stock and having all the details & photos of steam engines and lawnmowers there? Then the main article would contain only a brief description of steam locos, plus the usual {{main}} pointer. BTW, if such an article is created, I'd like to see more details about the locos, like length, weight, water tank capacity &c, if available of course. --Jotel (talk) 07:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Done - see Ffestiniog Railway rolling stock for precident. Feel free to revert if you disagree. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 08:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a good split. I'd wondered whether we'd end up needing to do this, as the article had become quite long. The Lynton and Barnstaple Railway article has the same structure. Gwernol 11:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have uploaded the plant pictures and made a table which i've got on my sandbox user:willsmith3/sandbox - lacking a few details at the mo so I haven't added it to the new loco article - if anyone can fill in the blanks, you are welcome to copy it to the article and fill it in! Any comments? - Didn't manage to get a picture of Toby - will try next time i'm down! Willsmith3 (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Is the tamper in its usual livery, or is it in the guise of something else (eg. a pile of scrap metal)? :-) --Jotel (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Will, this looks good. I can add more details from Bate's book when I get home this evening. Jotel - tampers are machines whose purpose is to shake themselves to bits - with the side effect of tamping the ballast below them. They tend to look a little worn and unloved, as this example does :-) Gwernol 16:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope it normally masquerades in that rust coloured form -I agree it could do with a bit of a spruce up if time permits- nobody loves the plant unlike the steam locos! - Ah cheers Gwernol - I don't have a copy of Bate of hand at the mo - that would be great Willsmith3 (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Galltymoelfre Tramway section needs attention

From quarry lies about a mile (1.6 km) south-east of Nant Gwernol station and three hundred feet (100 m) above it.
This doesn't look like a complete sentence :-( Could somebody familiar with the site correct it? --Jotel (talk) 08:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I suspect The quarry lies... is correct/ —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c)

You suspect correctly, sorry a typo on my part while assembling the text. Thanks for spotting it and fixing it. Gwernol 11:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

1951 opening date

Could we have the actual date (day & month) of the opening instead of (at the very least: in addition to) a reference to some obscure movable ecclesiastical feast ?--Jotel (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added the date (14 May 1951). Bear in mid that whilst Whitsun is little celebrated now (at least in the UK), at the time it was a public holiday, and probably half term for schools. It was therefore of some significance at the time, s I've left the reference in. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 21:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the date is in, thanks ! I don't think the Whitsun reference is worth arguing about. --Jotel (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of dates, should they be wikilinked, as per MOS:DATE#Autoformatting and linking? If not, I think they should be in British format, e.g. 14 March not March 14. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 22:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

My personal thoughts about wikilinking dates are not particularly relevant here, but I'm pretty sure that such formatting is expected in GAs and FAs. Otherwise of course the British format should be used. And spelling too: there is labor lurking somewhere, I believe :-)

Not anymore .... --Jotel (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Section titles

I'm not keen on the new section titles: Continued success: 1978-2000 and Narrow Gauge Railway Museum: 2000-2007

1. The former is against NPOV, and reads like an advertisement
2. The latter suggests that a fundamental change happened in 2000: a working railway turned into a museum

There was nothing wrong with the previous title Present: 1980 onwards --Jotel (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not entirely happy with them myself, but I'm equally unsure about having a single section cover the entire period 1978 through 2008, that's thirty years. Are we really saying there were no substantial sub-phases during this time? I'm working though Bate's book at the moment, trying to summarize the time fro the Nant Gwernol extension onwards. It does seem that a lot of the last 6-7 years have been concentrated on the rebuilding of Wharf station and in particular the new NGRM. I will try to rework the headers, but I do think there is value in splitting the 2000s off into a separate section. Gwernol 18:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

2001 would seem a logical place to split, being the start of the new millenium, unless there is a significant event which would mean there is a better year to split at. Mjroots (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I want to trace when the Wharf rebuild project really started. Hopefully Bate covers that, if not I have some other sources I can consult. Gwernol 18:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

2001 would seem a logical place to split, being the start of the new millenium Can't we think of a better reason? Why there is no split in 1901, when a similar significant event happened? --Jotel (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like there is a better reason - the Wharf rebuild project! Mjroots (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Cliff Thomas came through - I finally added his book to the rather large pile of sources I'm working from, and he covers the genesis of the museum. So, I've split the sections based on 2001 as the start of the museum project, which I think gives a decent break point. Gwernol 13:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed

Could someone provide a ref for "Despite falling passenger figures in recent years" in the section The railway today please, otherwise it should be removed. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 09:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm working my way forward in time, so should get to this soon. I believe it is correct that passenger numbers have fallen somewhat in recent years. There seems to be a general slight decline in passenger numbers for all the Welsh narrow gauge railways, and its certainly true that overall ridership peaked in the 1970s and has fallen significantly since then. But you're right that this needs a source. I believe I have a couple that will support ridership numbers since the mid 60s. I hope to add these soon. Gwernol 10:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

On further review, I've taken that sentence out, since it appears to be untrue. These are the figures published in the TRPS annual reports (all number are total passenger journeys per year): 1998: 91664, 1999: 89378, 2000: 89067, 2001: 92530, 2002: 91890, 2003: 96953, 2004: 92670, 2005: 98610, 2006: 95338 these all come from The annual Council Meeting reports. These figures show an increase in passenger numbers over the last decade, rising from around 90,000 to around 97,000 on average. I think these are still lower than the figures in the mid-70s, or at least there was a significant dip in the 80s and early 90s. I'll try to get sources to support that belief. Gwernol 11:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Good article? What remains

I had a friend of mine, who is not a railway enthusiast, look over the article. I've incorporated the really good suggestions they gave me into recent edits and I think we're moving ever closer to being able to ask for a GA review. What do others think?

There are some things I think we need before we take it to review. What does everyone else think to this list? Are there more things we can cross off easily?

• Images - there is still room for improvement, I feel. Some suggestions, if we can find them:
  • if we could find them, some images from the 50s and 60s to illustrate the earlier days of preservation would be really helpful
  • A really good shot of Bryn Eglwys. I'll see if I can find a public domain one to scan. If not, could anyone donate a modern one? I know the site is very hard to photograph these days, but if someone was heading in that direction...
  • A good overhead shot of Wharf station would be helpful to illustrate the modern layout there
  • A good shot of the NGRM would also bring some life to the "New Museum" section (see below)
  • Anyone got a picture of the mineral extension? Preferably before conversion to a passenger line, but a modern one would be fine. Particularly good would be one showing its ledge-like progress through the Nant Gwernol gorge
  • finally, a picture of the Nant Gwernol footbridge would make a nice illustration for the section that mentions it

• Modern history. The text is pretty good up to 1980, but much thinner after that. I'm continuing to develop this section, but there are fewer sources as we get towards the present day - because the history of railway in the 90s and 2000s hasn't been written yet. If anyone has sources we could use, particularly railway magazines, I'd welcome some help fleshing these sections out.

• A short video clip of a Talyllyn train in action. There's nothing quite like the sound and movement of a train to capture the spirit of the Talyllyn.

• Improve the route description sections

Other items for the list? Gwernol 12:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

One more item: I've been looking into citation formats in more depth and I think that Tivedshambo is correct here when he says that we should be "referring to books in the bibliography." rather than directly referring to the source in each ref. The problem with the way we (mainly I, admittedly) have it now is that we've lost the specific page numbers for each occurrence of the source. Its going to be a bit of a pain to switch the all over, but I think we'd need to do it for FA status, even if we're probably okay for GA as is. I'm definitely willing to do the work, since I got it wrong earlier, if everyone agrees that it should be done. Gwernol 16:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right. I can do page refs for both Boyds, Potter, Railway Adventure and Talyllyn Century, but the rest I'll leave to you. I'm sure I used to have a copy of John Bate's book, but I've no idea where at present. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 17:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, then I suggest we roll up our sleeves and dive in:-) Potter is the only one I don't have (must get a copy) so if you want to start there, I'll work on some others and we can meet in the middle. Gwernol 17:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Done Potter. Will look at rest later, but going out now. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 18:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Phew, I've done the rest. A few may need tweaks, but the sources are now looking pretty solid. Gwernol 22:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

And another (there's always just one more...) it would be great to get a photo of the railway in its broader environment, especially one showing the Fathew Valley, since its such an iconic glacial valley. Sorry I can't help directly with taking photos, as I'm currently a fair way from mid Wales, I fear. Gwernol 17:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Currently planning on going to the area on Saturday, weather permitting. I'll get any photos required. Might be able to get some video, but will need to find out how to convert mpeg to ogg format. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 17:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be great. I can help with MPEG to OGG conversion if you like. If you want me to do that, send me email and we can arrange somewhere for you to drop the MPEG originals. Best, Gwernol 17:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Just looked at the long-range forecast for next weekend, and decided that going earlier in the week might be prefereable. Only disadvantage is that there are less trains, so getting photos of different coaches might be problematical. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 17:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Passenger numbers

Passenger traffic....over 23,000 (roughly equivalent to 40,000 passenger journeys) in 1877. Is the bit in brackets really necessary? It simply says that roughly all passengers made a return journey, which is hardly surprising.... Am I being thick and missing something important here? --Jotel (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I put this in because all the other passenger figures in the article are passenger journeys, while the early figures are only available as passengers carried. It may be obvious to you and I that most passengers will make a return trip, but it isn't necessarily obvious to the casual reader. Gwernol 16:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Route description: Wharf to Pendre

The Wharf to Pendre route description section has a rather fine tale of the rebuilding of the bridge from Potter, which starts "This bridge was rebuilt by Merioneth County Council (as it was at the time), as it had become unsafe due to the heavier traffic passing over it...". I have two thoughts about this. First, what date is this referring to? I'm guessing this is in the 50s or 60s, but I don't have a copy of Potter to hand. Second, shuld this be moved to the Tywyn Wharf railway station article? Its really history of the station, not part of the route description. Would anyone object if I moved it there? Thanks, Gwernol 16:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

My mistake - should have said it was 1955. Feel free to move if you like. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 17:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Moved it to the station article. Gwernol 17:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Track layout diagrams - move to station pages?

Thanks for creating these Gwernol. Would these be more appropriate if located on the page for the relevant station rather than in the main article? In my opinion this section looks somewhat cluttered at the moment. The route section gives a description of the journey passengers will experience today so perhaps location photographs would illustrate this better and then the detail of historic track layouts can be attached to the stations that they illustrate. Any comments? Willsmith3 (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is right, they should go into the station articles, if we can get better photos of the stations themselves, particularly of Tywyn and Pendre. The only one I might argue to keep in the main article is the Wharf in 1866 layout, since I think it helps clarify the description of the shunting issues at wharf, pre-1952. Even that one could go into the station article though. Thoughts? Gwernol 23:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

In general, I'm against 'all in one' articles. So in this case, in particular, I think the diagrams should be moved. --Jotel (talk) 07:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I've already moved two of them out. I think the Wharf 1964 layout diagram is useful in the "Securing the infrastructure" section as it illustrates the descriptive text. Its already in the station article, so if you want to remove it from this article, that's okay with me. The other diagram still there is the village branch. We currently don't have a separate article that we could move it to, and I think it helps the text a lot, especially for people who are new to the subject. What do other think about moving these two remaining maps? Gwernol 13:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Cite Web refs

Personally, I'd prefer to see {{cite web}} references directly referenced, as we had them before, rather than having to scroll down to the bibliography section find the relevent link. Most FA I've seen seem to do this. I'm happy toput them back if there's no objections. Thoughts? —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 10:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. Gwernol 13:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Time to submit this for GA review?

I think the article is ready to submit for GA review. With the route descriptions fleshed out and the refs in the Harvard format, I think its ready. More photos would be good, but I don't think they're necessary for GA, and we want to leave something to do to go from GA to FA :-) What do others think? Its amazing how much we've been able to improve the article in the lasty month or so. Many thanks to Tivedshambo for getting us started on the process and to all the excellent editors who have contributed. Gwernol 13:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. I'd like to see an expanded lead section, but this could wait to FA. My only gripe now - and it's a minor one - should refs have a space before the or not? At the moment we have a mixture of both. A simple job to fix either way. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 14:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll submit it to GA review tonight then, unless anyone has an objection. I think your asking if there should be a space before the leading "<ref>" right? If that's the case, then I think there should be. As you say, easy enough to make it consistent. Any thoughts on what should go in the expanded lead? I agree that it could be longer, but I we'd need to be careful to include just the most important bits of the article and not make it too long. Gwernol 16:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to write them, the ref tags should come immediately after the punctuation. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 16:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Then that's the standard we should adopt - thanks for finding the proper MoS entry. Gwernol 17:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is superb. Love the maps ... whoever did those deserves great credit. There is only one thing letting it down and thats the references. I must confess that I am not a fan of the Harvard system, and I never will be. But having so many "Boyd 1998 page 75" type references does not do the article any favours. It look repetitive, and gives the impression that one reference is being "over"-referenced ... perhaps where the same page of Boyd is referrred to more than once that this coudl be multiple-referenced (ie. a,b,c). Apart from that it all looks very good. Olana North (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all I second Olana North's opinion about the maps. As to the references, there is plenty of time to change them if (repeat: if) deemed necessary. As of now (17 March), the article is 32nd in the 'Transport' queue for assessment and the no.1 article was submitted some 6 weeks ago. --Jotel (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments on the maps. Aw shucks :-) On the Boyd references, I somewhat agree with Olana North about these. Part of the problem is that there are two different Boyd books being used (Boyd 1988 and Boyd 1965) which makes it look heavier on the Boyd than it is. Second, he is the primary historian of the Welsh narrow gauge railways, so there is always going to be a heavy reliance on him. I think there are several that could be moved to multi-reference, and I'm happy to do this. I think this will help a bit. Thanks for the useful feedback, Gwernol 20:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Photo requests

Ok - All being well I'm off to Tywyn tomorrow, armed with camera. This is the list of photos I hope to take.

• Bryn Eglwys, if I get the chance to get up there.
• "Overhead" shot of Wharf (will have to be from road bridge as even administrators can't fly!
• Photo of museum, inside and out
• Photo of wagons
• Photo of carriages
• "Toby"
• General photo of Fathew Valley
• Nant Gwernol footbridge
• General photos of Tywyn and Abergynolwyn for respective articles
• Video footage

Any other suggestions? Let me know before 07:00 UTC —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 21:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

These would all be a great help. I can't think of any more to suggest right now. No doubt we'll all come up with a fantastic list just as soon as you return :-) Enjoy your trip the the railway, wish I could join you. Gwernol 21:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Have fun- if we do come up with anything else after your visit I can perhaps take some - although I'm not on duty now until Mid April unfortuantly Willsmith3 (talk) 13:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sheep on the line!

Note 59 (about the sheep) needs a page reference. It's a couple of pages from the end of chapter 4. In my edition, it's page 134, but that's an earlier edition than the one referenced in this article. If Gwernol or anyone else with a copy of the 1998 edition has a copy to hand, could they look this up and add it please. Thanks. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 22:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that Tivedshambo, I'd missed it entirely. Its page 114 from the 1998 edition of Railway Adventure. Duly added to the article, Gwernol 22:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Reference section

There looks to be a fair bit of white space around the list of references as it is in three coloumns - are there any objections to making this 4 or 5 columns using reflist|4 or reflist|5 ? Willsmith3 (talk) 13:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Worth trying, though it might be a bit odd since we have a handful of much longer web references which might wrap badly or not at all. If you swithc, make sure you check how they come out. Other than that, I have no objection, especially to a four column layout. Gwernol 13:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It all appears in a single column for me - both in IE6 and Firefox. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 21:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Really? That's odd. I'm currently seeing a 4 column reference list in Firefox 2.0.0.12. The reference list is rendered as a DIV with the style "-moz-column-count:4" set: Firefox should interpret this as an instruction to lay out the following text into 4 columns. Are you working in a very narrow window? It may be defaulting down to one column if there isn't enough window width to show all four? Otherwise I'm perplexed why it isn't working for you... Sorry, Gwernol 22:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah - I was using an older version of Firefox (I don't usually use it). Upgraded it and it works fine. IE6 is so bug-ridden I'm not surprised it doesn't work, but it's still my preferred browser, for other reasons. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 22:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Today's photo session

Just got back. Took lots of photos - will review and upload to Commons shortly. Had a chance to travel on the line from Dolgoch to Nant Gwernol and back in the afternoon, and took the opportunity to proof-read the article in full. Found one major error - the last part of the second paragraph of Prosperity under McConnel: 1866-1880s seems to start mid-sentence and does not relate to the rest. I think it's been missed when moving other text around. Any takers to clean this up? —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 18:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm very much looking forward to seeing the photos. There were two problems with the paragraph you point out. First it wasn't very well written, I've tidied up the text a bit. Second there was an unclosed reference (again my fault) which took out a paragraph break and two sentences of the following paragraph. I've fixed this too. Any further copy editing is welcome, of course. best, Gwernol 18:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Just uploaded 30 photos - phew! See User:Tivedshambo/Talyllyn. Feel free to use as you see fit, but I'm shutting down for a while in order to get some rest and something to eat! —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 20:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Great photos, thanks so much Tivedshambo. These really provide a cornucopia of pictures to choose from. Looks like you had a good day on the railway. Gwernol 21:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Great stuff - these really do look good. I've just uploaded a picture of Dolgoch in maroon livery on her first day after the repaint - will find somewhere appropriate to include it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willsmith3 (talk • contribs)

Very nice picture of Dolgoch, which I've added to the Dolgoch (locomotive) article. It should be there at the least. I have to say that much as I liked Dolgoch in her recent pale green livery, the Maroon looks even better. Oh and thanks for the Trains Did You Know nomination, Will. Best, Gwernol 23:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Gallery section

Do people think we should have a gallery section at the bottom of the article - perhaps underneath The Line in fiction. The Ffestiniog article has this. I notice there are a few unused TR images on commons that Tivedshambo has taken/are Creative Commons Licenced - ie Wharf water column, No 4 on Dolgoch Bridge, Forrestry Crossing and the slate plaque on the side of the loco shed so these could be used. There are also a lot of images on Flikr which are Creative Commons licenced (http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=Talyllyn&l=cc&ct=0 )-can someone confirm whether it is permissible to use these are on wikipedia? Willsmith3 (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not keen on gallery sections as there's a risk of them becoming over-large with "holiday snap" type photos. There already is a link to the commons category if people want to see more. As far as flickr goes, photos can be taken from there, provided that they allow commercial and derivative use. At a quick glance, a lot of them don't. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 16:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tivedshambo on both counts. I'd wondered about a gallery page myself, but I think most of the images that are currently unused could be placed in the various sub-articles. There is a delicate balance to be drawn between text and images. I think we're in a pretty good place right now, but it would be easy to flood the article with pictures - the Talyllyn is a very photogenic railway. TBest, Gwernol 17:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. Thanks for your opinions! Willsmith3 (talk) 18:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Move "Grand Tour" into its own section, or even article

I think that the current paragraph on the Grand Tour should be moved out of the History section. Here's why:

1. There's actually quite a lot more that could be written about this
2. The Grand Tour in its various forms spanning across at least two of the history sections, so expanding it would be split and will be hard to integrate into the flow
3. The Grand Tour was not just about the TR, it was run by the Corris Railway, so it really fits in both articles.

I think it deserves its own section, or even its own article which could be linked from both here and Corris Railway. Thoughts? Gwernol 17:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Support. Preferably a new article, the TR one is long enough: see WP:SIZE.--Jotel (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, WP:SIZE is another good point. Thanks, Jotel. Gwernol 18:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm planning to move the Grand Tour out to its own article, once I get back to my books this evening, unless anyone objects. It probably won't cut down much from the existing article, since its only two sentences now and I'll leave one there to reference the sub-article. But every little helps, right? Gwernol 19:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Done, though the article Corris Railway Grand Tour needs more work. I'll be expanding it over the weekend. Gwernol 11:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Winding house demolition

Yesterday I found a slight discrepancy in the year the village incline winding house was demolished. Thomas apparently states it was 1968 (currently note 45), though Potter states it was 1969 (note 71). However, I've looked through some old copies of Talyllyn News, the TRPS journal, and that makes it clear it was 1968. I can change the Potter reference to match, but is it possible to clean the article up - it seems to repeat the same information in three places at present. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 18:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen both '68 and '69 too. I think 68 is the right answer, as you suggest. This is one think we need to make consistent in the article, as you say. Gwernol 18:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a photograph of it being demolished in the December 1968 News, so I don't think there's any doubt about the year. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 18:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sheep, and other expansions

A few things. Firstly, I don't think the references to sheep on the line should be removed - sheep often do trespass on the line and are a regular problem. I won't put it back though unless others agree. Secondly, some ideas for other expansion:-

1. In pre-preservation days it was possible for day trippers to hire a slate wagon, and return from Abergynolwyn by gravity after the last train had gone. This is well documented, and I believe unique to the Talyllyn.
2. Should we add something about the operational side of the railway - method of single line working, signalling (and general lack of) etc.
3. The fact that all passenger trains are steam worked. On most UK preserved lines, at least some trains are worked by diesel.

Any takers to write these up? I'm happy to do it otherwise, but I'm going off-line for a few days over Easter, so it'll have to wait for next week. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 20:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

First we should be a little wary of putting much more into the article, since its already quite long. That said, I like most of your specific suggestions :-) Currently we briefly mention the use of slate wagons for additional passenger accommodation, but I agree that their use for gravity working is probably unique. There were such uses on the upper reaches of the Ffestiniog, especially after 1946, but they were not sanctioned by the railway, whereas th Talyllyn gravity trips were. Even Spooner's Boat was for private use only. I agree we're missing the operational side - might that be suitable for a sub-article? I might have a go at the operational article myself. Finally, while most trains are steam worked, there have been diesel workings. The Vale of Rheidol is also all steam, isn't it? Might be worth mentioning in the operational article? Oh, and I also like the sheep story, its not that important but it does lend character to the article. Best, Gwernol 20:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes the article is long, but there are a few things which get repeated, so it might be possible to do some pruning. Or leave that as an improvement required for FA? —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 20:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Bluebell railway is also all steam for passenger trains. Mjroots (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• signalling (or lack thereof): there is a document listed here which states tokens are used. Whether this is worth mentioning is a different story. My feeling is 'probably not', but that's not a very strong opinion :-)
• sheep: yes, they add character, so they would be very appropriate in, say, a newspaper/magazine article. But this definitely isn't encyclopaedic stuff, unless one wants to risk the wroth of GA/FA reviewers and add a 'Trivia' section.
  Jotel (talk) 10:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Signalling - its a bit more complex than "tokens are used". The line's operational story is quite rich, including use of signals and a variety of different token systems. Sheep - I'll argue that its more than just trivia. Not only is sheep farming the major agricultural activity of this region, but sheep encroachment has played, and still plays, a role in the running of the line, as perhaps its major operating hazard. When I say "character" I don't just mean in the journalistic sense, but also that this is part of the nature of the railway. The encroachment of sheep is noted in all the major sources, which tells us this is not just color commentary but actually a part of the daily functioning of the railway. Gwernol 11:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Gravity working

Passenger traffic using gravity working is probably unique. Unusual, but not quite unique, see Cromford and High Peak Railway.--Jotel (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That rings a bell, though the article doesn't mention it, as far as I can see. I've got a couple of C&HPR books, which I'll look at. Was their gravity service ever formally approved by the railway? The interesting thing about the Talyllyn's service was that it was formally sanctioned by the railway (if not the larger railway authorities :-). Passenger gravity runs occurred on several other railways - the Ffestiniog, the Corris and the Welsh Highland spring to mind - but none of these were official public services. Gwernol 14:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Writing that triggered a memory. I believe the Mount Tamalpais Scenic Railway in northern California ran formal passenger gravity working. There may even be an article that could be written about these services... Hmmm... Gwernol 14:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

From the 'Operation' section of C&HPR: In 1855 an Act of Parliament authorised the carriage of passengers. [...] when a passenger was killed in 1877, the service was discontinued. Not exactly a success story... Yes, inclines are not mentioned explicitly, but they were so numerous and spread all over the line length that passenger services must have used them.--Jotel (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I wasn't actually talking about inclines, but about gravity trains on the main line. People sat in a slate wagon at Abergynolwyn, started it rolling downhill and ended up in Tywyn. No ropes, locomotives or other power source involved. Passenger haulage on inclines (i.e. with the cars attached to ropes or cables) is actually quite common - see Funicular. With a bit more research I found that Wikipedia already has an article on gravity working: Gravity railroad. There were at least a couple of railroads in the US that were true gravity railroads, as mentioned in the article. Gwernol 16:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see we've been talking about two not quite identical things :-). BTW, funiculars are totally rope operated, unlike our good friend C&HPR where there were inclines intermixed with a more conventional mode of operation. I hope we agree on that.... 16:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it is. I proposed a rewrite of the current set of articles around cable railway which are a bit confused at the moment. Basically a funicular has permanently attached cars, a inclined plane uses cables to lift cars between levels (like the C&HPR or the Talyllyn's Alltwyllt incline) and a cable car railway is a cable-hauled street tramway (think San Francisco). I am going to rationalize these soon an include the gravity railroad article which conflates gravity working with cable railways. Altogether a fascinating set of subjects. Best, Gwernol 18:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Stations and halts

Now that we have a full route description, I think the stations and halts table is now superfluous. Most of the information is found either in the preceding sections or in the station articles. Do we need to keep it any more? —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 07:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

My clear preference is yes and no :-)
No, because the same information (I assume, I did not compare it word for word) is available in XYZ station articles, accessible either via wikilinks, or by clicking on the map.
Yes, because I like the table, with nice photos of, and a brief information on, each station/halt.
But more seriously, given the article length, I think the table should go. Or make it 'collapsible' (I think this is the right term), hidden by default?? --Jotel (talk) 08:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep but with changes. I think that the table provides a good link to the relevant station articles and should be kept. From a reader's perspective, I'm not sure I would think of clicking the links on the map, and looking for wikilinks to each of the stations from the text is difficult as they don't stand out from the rest of the route text as there are other links to Falls for example. Some of the information in the fourth (notes) column is repeated elsewhere so could be pruned down and could be replaced with a grid reference. If needs be make it collapsible as Jotel says. Perhaps we should wait to see what recommendations we get when the article is reviewed for GA status (which will hopefully happen before too long!)  Willsmith3  _(Talk) 12:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a difficult one. There is certainly some duplication between the map, the route description and the table. I tend to agree that though the clickable map is very nice, many readers won't think to use it to find out more about the stations and halts. I also think the images in the table give a nice visual sense of the flow of the railway - this works especially well with the Talyllyn as its such a linear line. The distance data in the table is also nice for the aficionados amongst us. Perhaps we could add grid reference and height above sea level columns to the table and then prune back the descriptive text as suggested by Will? That would avoid the duplication of text, while still retaining the benefits of the table. Gwernol 19:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic : factual discrepancy. Rhydyronen station is 2m13ch from Tywyn Wharf in the table, but only 2m12ch in its own article. At least one of these is wrong... --Jotel (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

2m 12ch according to Quail map, though it's quite possible other references give a different figure. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 22:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Grid refs for each station would be good, with coordinates as well. I'd suggest this goes in the first column in the format of
Station name
Grid ref
coordinate
Mjroots (talk) 08:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Talking about matters geographical: Giving coordinates of an object some 12 km long with one arc-second precision is an overkill. There is a map showing the TR location, this should be sufficient. Coordinates of a railway/motorway are meaningless.--Jotel (talk) 08:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The co-ordinates are for Wharf station, which is the railway's primary terminus. That makes sense to me as a co-ordinate. On the subject of precision, I disagree with your removal of the first decimal place on the metric version of the station altitudes. The imperial version is accurate to within 6 inches, so a precision down to 10cm is about right and certainly closer than the present 1m precision. Gwernol 13:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Coordinates work well enough on many of the rivers articles I've worked on - like River Bourne, Kent. Mjroots (talk) 13:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Could you point me to a source (in WP or elsewhere), where elevation is given with a better precision than 1m? What's good for Snowdon, or Mount Everest, is good enough for TR's stations
• Channel Tunnel, M6 motorway, Buxton Line or [[Ffestiniog Railway], to name just a few 'linear' objects, do nor have coordinates. I repeat: a coordinate precise to a few tens (or hundreds) meters of a long structure is meaningless. --Jotel (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The issue of geotagging linear objects is still under discussion by the Geographical Coordinates WikiProject. There are examples of various wags to geotag objects like roads, rivers and railways. Unfortunately a consensus has yet to form on the best way to show a single title co-ordinate: various options include tagging the mid-point of the object, the "obvious" endpoint etc. have been discussed. See here for the latest discussion from a couple of days ago. As ClemRutter points out, UK railways do have the concept of "up" and "down" and so the obvious co-ordinate to geotag is the originating terminus. In the case of the Talyllyn, which runs up from Tywyn, that would be Wharf station.

I think I didn't articulate my point about the altitude metric conversion properly. Let me try again :-) The metric measurements are conversions of the imperial measurements. When converting measurements between units, you should always try to retain the same level of precision in the target measurement that the source measurement had. The source in this case has a precision of 6 inches. Therefore you have lost precision if you round to the nearest metre. To preserve precision, you should round to the nearest 0.1m. Gwernol 14:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Had you checked some of the 'linear object' articles mentioned by Mjroots or myself, you'd have noticed that coordinates given there refer to specific points of the structure: river source & mouth, two ends of a tunnel etc. If somebody puts the coordinate(s) in the infobox, with a clear indication what it/they refer to (station name or whatever), I shall withdraw my objection.--Jotel (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I did check those out, but they address a different point. The question is, whether we have a single co-ordinate in the title or not, using the display=title param of the coord template. This was addressed in ClemRutter's comment on here, specifically: "I want to look at a page, be it road, railtrack, canal or river, and see one coord at the top so I can find it on Google Maps... Railways in the UK also have the concept of the up line and the down line" which I agree with. The Talyllyn has one major terminus which has always been described as the "starting point" of the line. Its also where most passengers join the trains and has always housed the company's headquarters. This seems like an obvious choice to locate the railway. Given the Wharf station is a single point, it can be located with precise coordinates. I agree that additional co-ordinates for important waypoints would enhance both the route description and the infobox. Gwernol 14:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

At a quick glance, the infobox doesn't have facilities for coordinates - yet. Leave it with me and I'll see what I can do. -- Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Done - hope it's clear that it's referring to the terminus. -- Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo (talk) 15:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that looks very nice. Good work, a good compromise, I think. Gwernol 16:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's no problem to add the coordinates into and infobox. There's a conversion template that does the work, it just needs adding after a grid reference. Mjroots (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

GA review

I've signed up to review this, looks pretty good at first glance, I'll do a detailed read through within the next couple of days and comment as necessary then. Jimfbleak (talk) 08:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Good Article nomination

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I fixed a couple of very minor formatting errors. In the branch line section, there is text sandwiched between two images, which will be picked up if you go to FA, but otherwise, I can't see any significant faults. Da iawn

Jimfbleak (talk) 13:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jim, for picking up the errors and for passing the article as a GA. Much appreciated. Hwyl, Gwernol 13:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Diolch yn fawr Jim! - Well done everyone who has worked to get the article up to GA - onwards to FA!  Willsmith3  _(Talk) 13:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Talyllyn Railway/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

==Good Article nomination== GA review (see here for criteria) It is reasonably well written. a (prose): b (MoS): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions): Overall: Pass/Fail: I fixed a couple of very minor formatting errors. In the branch line section, there is text sandwiched between two images, which will be picked up if you go to FA, but otherwise, I can't see any significant faults. Da iawn Jimfbleak (talk) 13:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 08:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 15:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)