Talk:Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock and Ayr Railway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock and Ayr Railway has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Merge

I'm thinking the information on the Irvine and Kilmarnock line and Dalry to Kilmarnock line pages could be moved completely to this page now that this page covers all the stations on the GPKAR? Dreamer84 22:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes - Good idea. It may be prudent to add a section detailing the dates of opening of the various sections to complement the section detailling the closure of the Dalry to Kilmarnock line. I was also think that also adding a section of connections to other railways (cf L&A Rly section
We can then get an Admin to delete the pages. Stewart 23:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newton-on-Ayr station

Come across something odd about this station. The Butt date of opening is in 1839 along with the rest of that section of line, however the book Ayrshire's Last Days of Steam gives the date as 1886! I'd actually be more inclined to go with the 1886 date as it doesn't seem possible for Newton-on-Ayr to lead into/out of the original Ayr station at the harbour, as the station is off to the south east of the location of the old Ayr junction, which would have made it a very odd terminus if it opened in 1839. --Dreamer84 01:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Howwood name

I'm not really sure whether i should correct the station to its current name for the article. On the one hand it opened as Howwood\Howood and so this is currently how it is known. On the other hand, i moved the page some time ago as there are 2 Howwoods (or exceedingly close) in the UK, however neither are referred to by the counties in which they are in, in the names. They have their current names for disambig. Simply south 21:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

I have failed the GA nomination. The reason being:

  • The lead is "too short"; see Wikipedia:Lead section
  • As a rail fan, I would like to see the rolling stock section; did this railway have any (I bet)? (This also means that it fails Appropriate broadness in coverage of the topic.)

The reasons may be of a small amount, but getting the rolling stock and perhaps some more information will take more than a week, so I decided not to put this article on hold. Once this is done, I think it could pass a GA. --Hirohisat Kiwi 17:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opening dates

I'm currently working on improving this article to bring it up to GA (or better), and have noticed a contradiction of dates: Awdry states that the line opened from the south as far as Beith on 21 July 1840, with the rest of the line (all the way to Glasgow) opening on 12 August 1840. However, Butt gives 21 July as the opening date for all stations from Dalry to Paisley Gilmour St (except Lochwinnoch, which was apparently 12 August). Does anyone know of a third source that could back up either claim, or have any views themselves? --- Dreamer 84 16:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

RAILSCOT just confuses the issue with Howwood to Paisley shown as opening on 21 July 1840, and through working from the Ardrossan Railway on 20 August 1840. Lochwinnoch opening may have been delayed due to construction difficulties. --Stewart (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Popperwell, Vol 1. gives: Paisley to Ayr opened 1839, Glasgow to Irvine 1840, Irvine to Ayr (5/8/1839); throughout 12/8/1840.
Robbertson, Table 25, gives: Ayr to Irvine 5/8/1839, joint line 15/7/1840, main line 21/7/1840, Kilmarnock branch 4/4/1843.
I'll see if I can get hold of both Whishall and Lewin, but might not be for 2 to 3 weeks.Pyrotec (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
A digital copy of the 1842 edition of Whishaw can be downloaded from Google Books. It doesn't really give many clues about opening dates unfortunately, as it seems the line north of Irvine was still being built when most of the information was compilied. --- Dreamer 84 18:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't know about that, I'd been borrowing the D&C reprint. Popperwell has been through the SRO records (BR GPK/1/1), but also gives an interesting couple of refs: Warden J (1841): (1) The Glasgow & Ayr and Glasgow & Greenock Railway Companion; and, (2) Guide to the Glasgow & Ayrshire Railway. There is an illustration of the cover of ref (1) published in Ayr by McCormick & Gemmell, and in Glasgow by Andrew Rutherglen. Popperwell was living in Morar when Vol 1 was written (2/4/1989). Some of the building contracts also seem to have been discussed by T(erry?) Colman (1965) The Railway Navvies.Pyrotec (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
P.S. There are two templates for Whishaw, one refers to the D&C facsimile and the other to the original - until you told me I'd not worked out where copies of the original could be found.Pyrotec (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up on the template, I've changed it over now. Found the Warden book here, and although the title sounded interesting the book seems to focus very little on the railway itself and more on the towns! There are seemingly a few pages missing though from the introduction, wouldn't be surprised if the information needed is missing too. --- Dreamer 84 18:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I finally understand the confusion here after getting hold of a copy of The Glasgow and South Western Railway, published by the Stephenson Locomotive Society in 1950. The line was opened from Kilwinning to Beith on 21 July 1840, but also opened at the other end from Glasgow to How(w)ood on the same day. That's the reason Lochwinnoch didn't opened till the next month, as the line between Howwood and Beith hadn't opened yet. It must also explain why 'Howood' station had a short life: it must have been acting as a temporary terminal station until the line fully opened. So technically there was no contradiction after all, but maybe just a litle bit of miswording on the part of Awdry. --- Dreamer 84 17:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There was some sort of requirement to start the work at both ends, sorry to put it that vaguely; it looks like that was carried through to opening both ends at the same time.Pyrotec (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GPK&AR locomotive

Hey, a couple of months ago you uploaded this diagram of a locomotive from Whishaw's book that you indicated as being of the Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock and Ayr Railway. I was wondering, are you sure it was a GPK&AR loco? Its just the book's description of the engines used on the line at the time doesn't match this design (supposedly they only had 4 wheels for one thing). Whishaw also mentions that the GPK&AR locos were the same as the ones used on the London and Birmingham Railway, one of which is shown on Plate VI. --- Dreamer 84 17:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

According to Lowe British Steam Locomotive Builders,, Thomas Edington of Glasgow built four 2-2-2 engines for the G,P,K&R in 1840-1 to the specs of the company's engineer, Mr.J.Miller. They were 7 Phoenix, 8, Prince Albert, 10, Garnock, 15, Kyle. Number 8 was sold to the LNWR in 1847 and renamed Dunlop. He includes an indistinct manufacturers drawing that looks identical to the Wishaw drawing. Given that Wishaw was published in 1840, he may have included the pictures at the last minute but neglected to update his text. His 1842 edition seems only to have been a reprint. Best wishes Chevin (talk) 07:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GAC review notes

[edit] Good article criteria

  • Well written: Mostly, some easily fixable issues found
One concern, in the lead is the statement "The section between Paisley and Glasgow was jointly owned." by whom? In my opinion, the who should be answered or the statement removed. I suggest: "The section between Paisley and Glasgow was jointly owned by a company who proposed a similar line at the same time."
Per WP:MOSNUM (Manual of Style, Numbers section) 21 MPH should have metric conversion. I suggest using the conversion templates, like this 21 miles (34 km). See Template:Convert
The maximum fare for passengers at the time was 2d, 1½d and 1d for first, second and third class respectively. My understanding of the MOS is that for UK articles any currency used besides £ should be explained on the first instance.
"reopened again some years later" This is awkward, just say reopened or later reopened, the rest is redundant.
  • Factually accurate and verifiable: Found issues, but easily fixable
Citation #36 does not give enough information to verify. Please expand this citation.
Citation #37 Citations to the website should include: the access date, publication date (if known), and the publisher. The information given currently is not sufficient. See the documentation for template:Cite web template for a sample of what should be included. In this case I suggest doing something like this:

British Rail (ScotRail) (1987). The Rebirth of AyrLine: Electrification to Ayr / Ardrossan / Largs - 1986/1987. British Rail (ScotRail) (hosted by Railwaysarchive.co.uk). Retrieved on 2008-05-14.

I'm a fan of using these citation templates for all sources (Cite book, Cite web, etc.), but this is not a requirement only my personal preference. I like them as they ensure consistency and that all the information required is given.
Are and ISBN or OCLC code available for the two books by Hamilton Ellis? If not my preference would be to state "None Found" or "Not Applicable" just so everybody knows this is due to the age of the works, not sloppy research or anything.
  • Broad in its coverage:Yes
  • NPOV:Mostly, did find two minor issues
much nearer (words like much require a source or could be considered WP:OR.
"Raising capital proved no problem for the committee" could be considered OR or POV, how about "The committee raised sufficient capital..."
  • Stable: Yes-No edit wars, last edits were in april and were mostly copyedits
  • Images: Yes-7 images used on page (not counting the PD graphics used to make the map) All 7 had PD,CC or GNU license, no apparent copyright violations.

[edit] Other suggestions

These have no bearing on Good Article status, but are friendly suggestions:

I suggest reviewing the portion of the MOS on fractions. I read it to see if it applies, and to be honest, I can't tell. I've never reviewed an article with fractions before, so I'm not familiar with the rules.
Suggest renaming header 1850-1923: Glasgow and South Western days
"the former GPK&AR had several of its stations closed", suggest instead "several stations closed"
In my opinion some sentences in the section 1850-1923: Glasgow and South Western days have parentheses that that should be replaced with commas or dashed.
Despite this,comma, the line remained open for long distance passenger services such as an overnight train from Glasgow to London via Paisley
The last item under sources should be moved to a new section called External links, unless this is actually used as a source in the article.
FYI: The link checker utilities used for Good and Featured article reviews (http://tools.wikimedia.de/~dispenser/cgi-bin/linkchecker.py) is frowning upon this link because it redirects: http://www.railscot.co.uk/Glasgow_Paisley_Kilmarnock_and_Ayr_Railway/frame.htm There is nothing wrong with this, but if you want to submit this article for FA status, it may come up as they rely on this tool to verify the integrity of all links on each article being reviewed. You might want to link to the direct link.

Overall, well done. Congratulations. Once the above mentioned sourcing and MOS issues are addressed I would most willingly promote this article.Dave (talk) 05:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I'll work on the changes you suggest over the weekend unless someone else does it before then. Just one thing to mention about the currency usage: it is actually pounds sterling, only pre-decimalisation, however I will work in a link to something like this to give some context. --- Dreamer 84 09:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem, just let me know when you are ready to have me take another look. Also, I will be without internet access for a while this month, so if I don't respond promptly please wait or find another review to take my place.Dave (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
If Dave is unable to respond, please leave a note at WT:GAN or on my talk page and someone can take another look at this. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I have limited internet access now, but expect things to be back to normal the first week of June. If you can wait that long I'll finish the review then.Dave (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Not a problem. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I have passed the GA for this article. For the record, I still have issues with the statement "Raising capital proved no problem for the committee" and feel this should be replaced with "The committee raised sufficient capital...", however it's not a big enough of a deal to affect the nomination. Dave (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)