Talk:Butterley Tunnel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion in the past. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the UK Waterways WikiProject.
This is a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the UK's canals and navigable rivers. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page. |
| B | This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
[edit] Underground loading
Didn't Dudley have something simular? The Duke of Bridgewater's mines may have done so as well although records of them appear to be limited.Geni 18:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Dear Geni
Yes, Dudleys tunnels have underground wharves for loading limestone into barges. The Duke of Bridgewater used a system of canals within his mines to transport the coal out of the mine to the Bridgewater Canal where it was transhipped into more usual canal barges and shipped onwards. Both of these examples are I believe, more notable than the Butterley Tunnel but they are different and of course I still believe that the Butterley Tunnel to be notable enough to merit its entry in Wikipedia. At the bottom of the Butterley Tunnel page there is a reference, entitled "Butterley Tunnel Underground Wharf" which goes into the similarities, and differences between the three examples shown here. The conclusion of this report is the source of the claim for uniqueness.
Yours Faithfully Martin Cordon Martin Cordon 21:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- oh this entry should exist since there is too much information the merge iwas just lloking at counter examples to the underground loading claim. I haven't spent much time around the cromford canal so I don't know all the details.Geni 21:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Dear Geni
The Butterley Tunnel article has been under attack recently and as a result I have become excessively defensive. My apologies.
Yours Faithfully Martin Cordon Martin Cordon 21:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I have added minor comments on the section related to the underground wharf which may fall foul of the no original research rules. Whilst working at Butterley Engineering in around 1987, I was able to look down one of the shafts to the wharf following demolition of the foundry buildings. This could be verified if original tunnel plans were available. Happy for the comments to stay?? Jschwa1 12:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Dear Jschwa1
Beautifully done. There will be no objection from me. As an ex employee of the Butterley Company, do you know of further sources of information, apart from those listed on the Butterley Tunnel page? My interest in this tunnel does not just include writing an article for Wikipedia; I would like to see this tunnel repaired and brought back into use.
Yours Faithfully Martin Cordon Martin Cordon 15:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I've managed to dig out a book which contains much on the tunnel - The Cromford Canal, Portal to Portal, A Short History of the Butterley Tunnel by Des Greenwood. It was published by Ripley Printers in 2003. I got my copy some time ago from National Tramway Museum in Crich. When/if I get time I will add facts from this to the article. Jschwa1 21:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Dear Jschwa1
I have found a copy of Portal to Portal, The "Friends of Cromford Canal" had one. It is an excellent resource although there are some factual errors within. Under the no original research rule I wouldn't be allowed to correct them anyway. Feel free to add anything you think is useful whenever you have the time. I have also got into contact with the author of "Portal to Portal" who still works at Butterley Engineering and gave me a guided tour of the site. He showed me where he had seen shaft openings in the past; his observations match yours. I have taken GPS readings of the tunnel portals, the air shafts and the loading shaft positions as remembered by Des Greenwood, they all corroborate your observation.
Yours Sincerely Martin Martin Cordon 22:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tunnel Width
I have changed the tunnels width from 8 feet 6 inches to 9 feet 6 inches. Different sources cited give different widths therefore I went to the Eastern Portal and measured it myself. I am not sure how to cite a direct measurement, hence this discussion entry. Martin Cordon 17:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know either, but I would suggest inserting a reference at the end of that sentence (in addition to the one already there) that (1) alerts the reader to the discrepancy in the sources and (2) says something like "Width at water level is as measured by User:Martin Cordon on [date]." (By the way, doesn't the water level fluctuate, hence the width at water level should also vary?) Pan Dan 16:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Dear Pan Dan
The roof of the tunnel is a semi-circular arch. The sides of the tunnel are vertical. If the width is measured below the arch the water level will not affect the measurement.
PS. The Footnote works for me.
Yours Faithfully Martin Cordon Martin Cordon 16:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, makes sense. Pan Dan 17:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Quoting dimensions may actually be self defeating. The tunnels dimensions change quite drastically in places. In some sections I have seen towards the western portal the roof is elliptical instead of circular and significantly higher than the semi-circular sections. Dimensions will change depending on where the tunnel is measured this may be why cited sources vary. Martin Cordon 18:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Categories
The categories "Canals in England" and "Tunnels in the United Kingdom" have been removed from this article on the grounds of redundancy. The counter argument is that an article needs to be advertised in as many relevant categories as possible so that the maximum number of interested parties can find it. Instead of continuing to revert other editor's changes over and again I have opened this issue for discussion here. Martin Cordon 15:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- This issue is already being discussed on my talk page. Andy Mabbett 16:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
