Jump to content

Talk:Anglesey Central Railway

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleAnglesey Central 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 so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 7, 2008Good article nomineeListed
March 31, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article

Diagram

[edit]

Having produced this composite diagram I've put it here for those who know more than I do about this area to work on, possibly. Britmax (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anglesey Central Railway

[edit]
Anglesey Central Railway
Legend
Amlwch
Port
Cemaes
Amlwch Associated Octel
Rhosgoch Tank Farm
Rhosgoch
Red Wharf Bay
Llanerchymedd
Llanbedrgoch
Llangwyllog
Pentraeth
Cefni Reservoir
Rhyd-y-Saint
Llangefni
Ceint
Holland Arms
North Wales Coast Line
Gaerwen

This fine route diagram has just made me realise that most of the little route diagrams that I added to this page when expanding it are actually rather unneccesary. As a result, I'm removing the diagrams for the proposed (unbuilt) branches. Thank you for the proverbial prod to re-evaluate my (very early) contributions.

I'm reluctant to put the Red Wharf Bay branch in the main diagram as they'd both be light red, but the RWB has been taken up, while the Amlwch line's track remains. With the NWCL passing by as well, it's not possible to show three types of track with two colours. Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources to follow up

[edit]

William Bulkeley Hughes, Esquire, M.P.; (1797 – 1882) - Chairman of the ACR [1]Ansbaradigeidfran (talk)

Papers at Bangor involving several local railways [2]

Local government transport plan, August 2000. [3] Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some images of stations. Pre-1946 photographs are public domain in UK. [4]

Network Rail 2008 Route plan makes no reference to Amlwch line, other than marking it non-operational in the diagram. [5] Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas Môn mentions the building of the Cefni and Alaw reservoirs, opening in 1952 and 1964 respectively. Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motor train (ran to Llangefni/RWB) [6] Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 09:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Locomotives used:

  • Mountaineer 0-4-4-0T (tank) Outside Cylinder, built by James Cross & Co., Sutton Engine Works, St.Helens, Lancs. Bought new in 1866, went to Neath & Brecon c/1867, resold to Mr Henry Appleby 2/1880, later dismantled
  • Anglesea 0-6-0WT (well tank) Outside Cylinder, built by Hawthorns & Co, Leith, Scotland. Sourced by the contractor, went to N&B as Miers in 1868

Reference: [1] Image of mountaineer on page 166 of "The Neath and Brecon Railway: A History", Gwyn Briwnant Jones, Gomer, 2005 Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 10:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Birmingham locomotive club (1968). Industrial and independent locomotives and railways of North Wales. p. F3.

GA pass

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Don't be surprised if you see further changes made to this page in the next couple of days, as I've invited assorted other editors to get involved in this one; I think there's enough material here to take this one all the way to the Main Page with a little work. The only real concerns I have at this stage are: some of the sections are a little long; the references at the moment are a little messy; there's not enough coverage of what (if any) through services were run from the mainline onto the branch; the images might be better off in a gallery. All of these are minor concerns, though. — iridescent 22:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest stumbling block I see for FAC is reliability of sources (and without publishers identified and with at least one questionable source, it's unclear to me how this article meets the GA criteria). Publishers should be added on all citations, and how http://2d53.co.uk/index.htm meets WP:V should be established. It looks like a personal, self-published and commercial website, which shouldn't pass FAC and I don't believe should pass GA either; perhaps the priniciple authors of the article have more information to establish reliability of this source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's good enough to meet GA standards (although I defer to SG in these matters); the publishers are listed in the "Bibliography" section, although I agree that the references in general are a mess. I agree that [7] is possibly an unreliable source, but it's only cited three times; once as an additional citation to a section that is already backed up by a published source and twice as the citation to a relatively minor point ("A few special passenger services were subsequently operated, notably in 1969, 1983 and 1992/93") and a brief mention of the locomotive used for the same journey. The GA criteria are laxer than FA; the requirement for WP:RS (in the Wikipedia sense of the phrase) is only for "for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons", and I don't think the statement in question qualifies. The only real flaws I can see regarding the references are the split between the bibliography and reference section (one of which duplicates the other), and a general messiness in referencing making the ref section unnecessarily long - however, I don't think that at GA level this is an insurmountable problem. While I can't verify what the books cited say (especially as one of them is in the Welsh language), the ISBNs certainly demonstrate that they exist, and from the titles they obviously are on the topic of the railway. I might not accept this level for a BLP article, but I've no real doubt that they are cited accurately. — iridescent 23:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit to add) If Malleus doesn't (I can see him working away on the article now and don't want to ec him) I'll "standardise" the references tomorrow. — iridescent 23:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, gosh; I'm so sorry ... had by my personal preferences again (I hate double reference sections, even though they are perfectly acceptable, and I didn't notice that there was a separate section that lays out full info on sources. I'm wrong :-) The split sections are acceptable, even though not my personal prefernce. And yes, please double check that anything cited to a questionable source is completely uncontroversial. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, no, on closer examination. OK, dinner is on the table waiting for me, so I'll come back to this later tonight rather than spouting off like this; publishers need to be identified on all websources, which aren't currently listed in the separate refs, which is books (exactly as I usually do it). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the vote of approval in rating this as a good article. I'm pleased to see the first article I really contributed to making it to GA status, and am only too happy to see further improvements. I freely admit that I don't have the whole referencing thing down to pat yet, but I may yet get the hang of it. I've looked through a summary of the changes that you've all made to the article in the past hours, and concur with all of the, with the possible exception of renaming the section "the track today" to "2008 status". The new title, while arguably better, doesn't suit the content of the section to my eye, as it deals with the recent history through the 90s as well. Perhaps a title suggesting the search for another use for the railway would be appropriate, or its revival. Nothing really good is coming to mid at the moment, though.

With regards to the Welsh article, if it's Atlas Môn you were concerned about, I noticed last week that my father owns a copy of the very same atlas, published in English [8]. They are identical in content, and so I've switched the title/publisher for the English names. If it's the "rise and fall of the port of Amlwch", the references I have made are generally to English quotations of period letters. These letters are held in Bangor University's archives, and I intend to gain access to them over the summer: there may be other interesting snippets to find in them. I will also try to remember to look through contemporary newspapers for independent verification of the rail tours. I'm going on holiday in a few days, however, and I doubt that I'll get much rummaging done before then.

Thanks once again. Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A brief note re the above; while it's me that passed it, take anything SandyGeorgia has to say very seriously, as SG's one of the (if not the) leading authorities on Wikipedia article assessment, whereas I freely admit that my criteria are laxer at GA level. If you ever want to take this article to FA level (I think in terms of content, it could be fairly easily done), treat anything SG says as if it were holy writ.
Regarding referencing, you might want to look at the similar (albeit shorter) article I recently wrote on the fairly similar Hellingly Hospital Railway, to see how the referencing works on a similar article. A useful tip, if you're not already aware, is to activate "RefTools" (under "Gadgets" in your preferences); this adds a "Cite" button to your edit toolbar, and makes citing books & journals (it doesn't work so well for newspapers) a lot easier than fiddling round with citation templates. – iridescent 20:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pointers. With regard to referencing, should the page numbers quoted be kept individually (e.g. Baughan 82, Baughan 83, Baughan 84), together (Baughan 82-84) or dropped (Baughan)? Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The {{cite book}} template includes an option for page numbers, if that makes adding them easier (as does the automatic form RefTools generates). I think if you have 3 references to page 82, 83 and 84 it makes more sense to create a single reference for pp82-84 and cite that one three times, to cut down on reference clutter, but that's just a personal opinion. FWIW, I've regularly (as in the case of the Hellingly article I mention above) cited books without giving the page numbers; in the case of the Harding book I cite there, listing individual pages would have meant doubling the number of references, and in the case of a book like this, where anyone who actually wanted to find the individual page could find the appropriate entry easily, I don't see a need for individual page numbers. Doing it this way is incorrect as per Wikipedia:CITE#Provide page numbers, and you probably couldn't get away with it at FA level, but I've taken plenty of articles to GA level doing it this way. SandyGeorgia, Karanacs or Malleus Fatuarum, all of whom are probably watching this talkpage, are better qualified than me to talk about how things work at the "highest" levels (A-class and FA); if they don't answer, I'd suggest posting a question at User talk:SandyGeorgia or User talk:Giano II - neither of them should mind you asking. (If you go to Giano, don't be put off by the arguments that are generally taking place on his talkpage; as long as you ask valid questions, he's generally very good at giving sensible answers.) – iridescent 21:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've grouped together the references to all the books other than Rear's "Anglesey Branch Lines". The others are all portions of a book that discuss the ACR, whereas I'm referencing all over the place in Rear's 60-odd page book, and specifying pages 1-60 doesn't really help much. Does this mean it's a core book that can be taken as required reading, or that each individual citation should mention a page number? Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 22:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a copy of Geraint Jones's "Anglesey Railways" (2005) ISBN 9781845270063 which has a chapter on the ACR. I don't know whether it can add anything, but feel free to ask me to check for particular things in it. BencherliteTalk 22:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick browse through this book in a shop a week ago, but didn't spot any information on the ACR that I hadn't already seen elsewhere, and left it on the shelf. If you find any titbits in it that aren't in this article, please do add them. Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I'm first up to bat. To get through an FA nomination you have to be very precise about your citations, and give the specific page number(s) that support what it is that you've just said. The best way to do that, I think, is to put all of your published sources into a Bibliography section using {{cite book}}/{{cite journal}} or whatever, and reference the pages as <ref>Rowlands (2008), p. 62</ref> for instance, or whatever Harvard style takes your fancy. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saved by the dinner bell. Do that, and then also fill out the websources by giving publishers as well as author or publication date when available (unwatching now, since there are plenty of people on board). (Except it's not necessary to add an nbsp on page nos, that was left over from a temporary MOS aberration. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the bibliography section, is this (one edit ago) the kind of thing you mean? I found that style used on some page I felt knew what it was doing.
(update) I've reverted to that version, having found some comments above that I'd missed. Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 10:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When you (Malleus) say "all published sources", do you mean just books, or also items such as National Rail's Business Plans, or more? I'm a bit unsure where the line is. I'd previously just put books where I was referencing more than one page in the bibliography.
SandyGeorgia, thanks for the pointer of publishers for websources. The proverbial lightbulb was almost lit on that one, but it helps to have someone press the switch. Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 23:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor GA issues

[edit]

I'm not sure if this article would pass a WP:GAR. The lead section is but a single sentence, and does not adequately summarize the article. Some of the sections could be reorganized/combined to make the article flow better, and tie into each other more. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Dates

[edit]

In the main information box it states it was only in operation until 1876. Why so? The physical line itself was in use until 1993 so I think this should be changed as the 1876 date gives the wrong impression. Or am I alone in thinking this? Cls14 (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The company Anglesey Central Railway was in operation until 1876 when it cease to exist and the line was taken over by the London and North Western Railway - listed as successor (which in turn ceased to exist on 31 December 1922 upon formation of the LMS). See Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock and Ayr Railway for another early railway company whose line is still in operation that is also has GA status, that identifies the dates of operation of the company between formation and takeover. --Stewart (talk) 07:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this page was to do with the line as opposed to the company though. By saying that it ceased operation in 1876 it seems to me that the info box is saying the line wasn't used after that. Can we get a third opinion on this. And if the third opinion agrees with Stewart then I will quit pestering :-P Cls14 (talk) 10:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit I think it's a little odd to have a box that gives dates of operation for just one of the companies that operated the line. The article is about the whole history of the line, not just the line when it operated independently. BencherliteTalk 03:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think there has to be some generic agreement on this. I can see both points of view. This is probably the first time that this issue has come up - as far as I can see, especially as there are quite a number of Scottish articles that follow the setup shown in Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock and Ayr Railway. I think there is a case for identifying when the Successor company (which is noted in the box) took over. Some of the Historic (pre-grouping) Companies built lines which are still operation, however as in this case, although the line was still operation until the end of the 20th century, the originating company had long gone. Maybe a case for adjucting the template? --Stewart (talk) 07:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know how to do that Stewart because I am not sure! Cls14 (talk) 13:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Peer review

[edit]

Article recently put up for peer review - I asked about octel site

Suggestion - I'd like to see a small section on the octel industrial sidings (in the route section)- I know it's technically not the same railway - but..
Some info (links) http://www.penmorfa.com/Archive/one.html
Images of octel wagons http://gallery6801.fotopic.net/c43236.html (that were probably used on this line.)
http://www.2d53.co.uk/amlwch/Amlwch%202.htm - the octel site had it's own Hunslet shunters
There's some images of 'rescued' rolling stock from octel here http://www.nwrail.org.uk/nw0608e.htm
The hazardous cargo travelling on the line at that time (liquid Chlorine etc) is also probably worth a mention.FengRail (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way did you know that google maps (and MS multimap) lets you link to specific places. eg Llanerchymedd - railway running N/S) - (though I would usually put as a link in the references or external links, as embedded external links are frowned upon.) - useful if you need expand upon a specific point..FengRail (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1877 Accident Report

[edit]

A copy of the Board of Trade's repost on railway accidents in 1877, including the Rhosgoch incident, is at the National Rail Museum, York. Record No. 001406006 Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Anglesey Central Railway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Anglesey Central Railway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Anglesey Central Railway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anglesey Central Railway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Anglesey Central Railway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA concerns

[edit]

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:

  • There's unreferenced passages in the article, including the entire "Route" section.
  • The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article.
  • The "Reopening" section contains many short, one sentence paragraphs. This section should be formatted more effectively.

Is anyone interested in fixing up this article, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]

Anglesey Central Railway

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result pending

The article contains uncited statements, including the entire "Route" section. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. The "Reopening" section contains many short, one sentence paragraphs; this section should be formatted more effectively with longer paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anglesey_Central_Railway&oldid=1259918197"