Talk:Talyllyn Railway rolling stock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
Low This article has been rated as low-importance within the Trains WikiProject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Railways.
Mid Importance: mid within UK Railways WikiProject.
This article is within the scope of the Locomotives task force.

Contents

[edit] John Bate the builder

Who is John Bate the builder, (not the author, though it's probably the same person)? He is mentioned twice in the 'Engineering plant' section: as "John Bate / Pendre Works" (flail mower, my personal fetish...) and again as plain "John Bate" (Toby the trolley). Did he build the trolley himself? Did he build the mower in Pendre works but the trolley in his back garden? Yes, I'm being facetious, but this looks weird... --Jotel (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a facetious question - it should be explained. As you supposed, it is the same person - he was the Chief Engineer of the Talyllyn for many years after preservation. I'll see if I can find a way to explain this in the article somewhere. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 21:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
John was the designer of both projects - I believe they were both built at Pendre - would assume with the assistance of the works staff - without a copy of "Pendre Sidings" - (his book) in front of me I can't give the exact details - I should have quizzed him yesterday! Willsmith3 (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Early preservation i/c locos

Do you think we should separate this into the current stock and former stock - either by moving the Ford Tractor and the Charley's Ant to a new table as former locomotives / early preservation stock or move them to the bottom of the current table (underneath No 10) - just makes it visibly clear the locos are no longer on the railway Willsmith3 (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Another way to do this would be to added a "Scrapped Date" column, which should make it clear what happened to them. This information is already in the Notes, but separating it out would make it more obvious. Thoughts? Gwernol 21:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I more inclined to go with Will's suggestion and have a former locomotives section. This would leave the current 1-10 clearer in just two tables, albeit slightly out of numerical order. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 21:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Adding a 'Scrapped date' column would mean squeezing even more info across the screen. And this column would be almost always empty, thus being mostly a waste of space. Therefore if the distinction between the current & former stock is to be made more prominent, having a separate table is better. Or may be a different background in rows with the expired stock?? Just an idea...--Jotel (talk) 07:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I've split this to another table as this seems to be consensus. I've put in a year withdrawn column at the expense of the wheel diameter column, which was blank. I think date withdrawn is beter than year scrapped for two reasons - firstly I don't know if there is any information about when "Charley's Ant" was scrapped, and secondly, I recall reading a proposal that the current number 5, Midlander, may be withdrawn from active service, possibly into the museum. If that happens, it can be moved into the table. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 08:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mower photo

I had a go at the original photo with PhotoShop, uploaded the result which looks better (he would say that, wouldn't he...), and replaced the image in the table. Of course feel free to revert (as if anybody needed my permission)--Jotel (talk) 07:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 07:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Not a problem with me Willsmith3 (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Carriage Photographs

I have uploaded the photos of the Brown Marshalls stock I took last week - the picture of Van 5 isn't brilliant as it shows the rear of the coach rather than the platform side with the sliding doors and booking office window so if anyone can find a replacement that would be good! Unfortunately they were parked on the loop so I couldn't access the front without climbing up the bank! Willsmith3 (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sortable tables?

Any objections if I add formatting to the locomotive and carriage tables to make them sortable so that readers can arrange them by year built / boiler pressure etc? - I use this on the article for the neighbouring Fairbourne Railway and it seems to work well. I'll leave the wagon one for now until we have filled some of the blanks Willsmith3 (talk) 09:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Go for it! —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 09:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
No objection (at least from me), but IMHO this feature will be in practice unused. The table is small enough to get sorted 'by hand', assuming anybody wants to sort locomotives by boiler pressure:-)
But by all means do it if you want, it's your time and effort after all. --Jotel (talk) 09:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Some tables now sortable - this can be reverted easily if people don't like it! Willsmith3 (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)