Talk:Wellington Cable Car

Comments

View of the Cable Car from the Kelburn terminus. The cable is in the middle of the track.

Man, that anon IP really doesn't like that picture, do they ... Ppe42 00:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did explain in the discussion page a few months ago that it's a lame pic that doesn't show anything of importance to the Cable Car system. A shot of the Talavera points would be much more appropriate.--210.246.17.210 13:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This discussion page was blank until now. The 'lame pic' clearly shows the cables in the centre of the track, and the distance down to the University stop. A picture of the Talvera section would be great, why don't you take one and add it to the article rather than repeatedly removing a perfectly ok and illustrative picture against consensus? Ppe42 01:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding any illustrative purposes, the picture has none. There is no horizon to show the steepness of the track, Salamanca appears closer than it really is (due to the low angle foreshortening the distance), and showing the cables is pointless if it doesn't show how one car balances the other. I don't like the picture because all it illustrates is that the Cable Car is red.

Regarding any supposed consensus, there only seems to be you and your friend.--210.246.9.244 08:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no prior history of interaction with you or with Ppe42, so there is a degree of consensus in that 2 independent people agree that the picture is harmless, and only you think the picture is pointless.

There is no horizon to show the steepness of the track

There is no horizon, yes, but you do get a horizontal perspective from the platforms. --Limegreen 02:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The uneveness of the platforms does not give any sense of the steepness of the track. Find another straw to grab.

I won't argue about consensus with you, as you do not seem to know what the word means.--210.246.9.129 13:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think my grasp of consensus is OK. It's perhaps overused here in the meaning of everybody agrees, but certainly most people seem to agree. You've now been reverted by 3 editors, and someone else has contributed to the article without feeling like they need to remove the picture. You might quibble as to whether that is consensus, but I don't see that you have illustrated any consensus for change. --Limegreen 23:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll add my voice in here as another person who supports keeping the picture. This isn't "Wikifantasticphotography". The photo serves its purpose of illustrating the cable car and its tracks. I think the quibbles with it are rather petty, and this edit war even moreso. Get over it and leave the picture alone (or better still, go take your own picture!). - Axver 11:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This really isn't entertaining any more. Limegreen, what's the next step to deal with an edit war? Ppe42 15:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

the more pictures the better. go out and take one of Talavera station. And include it. But leave that picture in. Otherwise, you are just being a troll. --Midnighttonight Remind me to do my uni work rather than procrastinate on the internet 03:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, there seems to be a real consensus now that the picture is good enough for now. I still maintain that the the picture is lacking in value, non-encyclopediac for all the reasons I have laid out, but I will leave it until something better comes along. --Efil's god 14:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Changes & reversions

I've made the following reversions & changes, for the following reasons:

1. Replacing 1000mm-gauge with the more usual and simpler metre-gauge

2. Deleting "strictly speaking" in "The Cable Car is, strictly speaking, a funicular rather than a true cable car". I don't think it adds anything

3. Changing "5 m/s (approximately 18 km/h)" to 18 km/h, since 5 m/s is precisely 18 km/h, & vehicle speeds are normally expressed per hour rather than per second

4. Removing capitalisation in Grip Car - it's a vehicle type, not a title

5. Changing the reference to Lambton re-opening, since it never closed.

Birdhurst 07:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

1. 1000mm is the measurement used in all the technical documents I have seen regarding the Cable Car. I think staying consistent with them would be best.

2. The "strictly speaking" comes from the confusion seen on the cable car page with regards to the Wellington Cable Cars status.

3. m/sec is what is on the dashboard speedometer, the plaque on board states 5m/s. I think following their lead is more correct.

4. I've seen it capitalised in the museum, but your way makes more sense.

5. You are absolutely right. My wording was sloppy.

--Efil's god 12:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Distances

The Cable Car Museum website (Early Beginnings) says the original system was 785m long and rises 119m (390 ft) with a grade of 1 in 5.1. The article has length of 612m/track 628m, and a rise of 120m. The travel of the cars (612m) will be less than the length of track (628m), with the track at each end. But has the system shortened from 785m, or does this length include extra track to the Workshop for car maintenance? Hugo999 00:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Alleged death

Removed line referring to death:

 On 24 February 1909, John William Wakelin, aged 30, was accidentally killed by the tram.

The reference at https://billiongraves.com/grave/John-William-Wakelin/11575420 states:

 Beloved husband of
 May Constance
 who was accidently
 killed by Wellington Tram

There's no evidence the Cable Car was involved, as there were many other trams in Wellington by 1909 2407:7000:AA16:A600:ECDC:564B:2C77:1611 (talk) 09:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)