Talk:Transport in Somerset

Format

Below is just an outline of a format that could be used to enable the article to include not just factual information of the modern system in use in the county, but could provide the reader with content to encourage further research into the subject. What do you think? I am no expert on the subject, but I thought it was time to make an attempt at constructing a possible template.Francis E Williams (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC) (moved to article page 10:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC))

Development

The article needs a lead section summarising what it is about. I would also suggest that sections such as "Self powered personal transport" should only be included if there is material specific to Somerset to be included - general issues related to these are covered in other articles.— Rod ^talk 10:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Ideas/Improvement

Maybe the current article can be renamed to Historic transport in Somerset or something along those lines, if you want I could then create Articles similar to Transport in Bristol, mainly focusing on current Transport, it would be a good idea as Bristol International Airport for example comes under both Bristol and Somerset. We can draw info from other articles too. Mark999 13:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Overview

The article has undergone many changes, the large contribution provided by Rodw in putting "meat on the bones", and the layout assistance from Pyrotec has enabled it to become what it is a present. (update.21:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC) I have not gone into electric tramways and mineral mining railways research yet should they be included?.) It now has to be assessed as a "fit for purpose item". Francis E Williams (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The revival of the railways

I have several issues with this paragraph. Looking at the reference provided, it is not clear exactly where this has come from. Is it a direct quote? If not, it reads rather like orinal thought or point of view.

"One outcome that was not foreseen as a result of the closure of many branch lines in the 1960s was the loss of public access to those rights of way established by the various railway companies."

Was there public access to the r-o-w of the railway companies when they were wound up?

"Those structures of level ground upon which so much energy and labour was expended, could have been put to good use in the past (e.g. rapid transit routes)."

Who says?

"The loss of continuity in the system as a whole, means that what remains of these rail trackways are now the subject of competition between human power and motorised rapid transit solutions."

Is this refering to sections of track that are cyclepaths etc?

Derek Andrews (talk) 11:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Confusing structure

Ther appears to be a confusion among "contributors" and "editors" about where to place content, and what content is being covered by each section. The article was intended to display the "really Histroical" content, the "last millenium", and the present "century" content. I can only blame myself in part for not monitoring the sitaution, but I hope I am not alone in checking the progress of the article within the Somerset project members. Perhaps a little reading, and understanding context of the content would be appropriate before adding more content in the varios sections. Francis E Williams (talk) 10:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment and edits. I would agree that the structure of this article is confusing. The current mix of history by chronology and then Waterways & than Last millennium as sub headings means that I am unsure where particular pieces of content should go. I would recommend either taking a purely chronological approach OR dealing with each type of transport in its own section rather than the mix of the two employed in the article.— Rod ^talk 10:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

As it is a "community project article" perhaps other members would suggest other alternatives as well. Temporarily I hav tried to clarify the contents section for the potential reader. It takes me a long time to type in these changes, the article is too big to copy edit as a whole, especially when it is obvious that people are making changes with good intent, but are further adding to the confusion, by "looking" but not "reading" first. It is my own opinon of course, but an equally valid point to consider. Francis E Williams (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Ferries

I have removed ferries from the Future strategy and proposals section? The reference given is the less-than-reliable burnham-on-sea.com website. There are no recent reliable references for Severn Link and the latest update on their own website dates back to June 2010 with nothing seen or heard of the company since. In Monty Python terms I think it would be safe to say that this ferry has "ceased to be, has expired and gone to meet his maker, it has kicked the bucket, shuffled off this mortal coil" etc. If the company seems like it is going to resume operations then we could always add it back in. If that weren't reason enough, the company was only planning an Ilfracombe/Swansea service so Somerset isn't on the menu making it irrelevant to this article anyway. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 16:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I think a lot of this final section should be removed - it's mostly crystal ball gazing. But first of all I want to get all the historical bits in one place, and all the current bits in another. And watch out for another flurry of "citations needed"! Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)