Talk:Clifton Rocks Railway

Bristol Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bristol, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bristol-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BristolWikipedia:WikiProject BristolTemplate:WikiProject BristolBristol
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	At least one photograph is included in this article

Trains: in UK Low‑importance

Trains Portal

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 and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).

Piccies

I have added some pictures from Flickr into the Commons category for the railway. There are a large number of other freely available pictures of the railway that others may wish to transfer and use in the article. --TimTay (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gauge

There are several contradictory sources for the gauge of the railway, with the answers varying wildly:

This 1894 article gives 3ft: Bristol Naturalists' Society (Bristol, England) (1894). Proceedings of the Bristol Naturalists' Society. The Society. p. 116.
The article currently gives 3ft 2in, sourced to: "Clifton Rocks Railway – FAQ". Clifton Rocks Railway special interest group.
Maggie Shapland's 2017 book on the Clifton Rocks Railway (p28) gives the gauge as 3ft 21⁄2in.
Martin Easdown's 2018 book gives 3ft 8in: Easdown, Martin (15 July 2018). Cliff Railways, Lifts and Funiculars. Amberley Publishing. pp. 34–35. ISBN 978-1-4456-8004-0.
This 1957 book gives 3ft 81⁄2in: John Robert Day; Brian Geoffrey Wilson (1957). Unusual Railways. Muller.

These all seem like at least somewhat reliable sources. Which one should we have in the article? The Mirror Cracked (talk) 05:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there is ambiguity among the sources I think it is fair to reflect this for the reader. I would suggest something like: "There were four cars in two connected pairs, essentially forming two parallel funicular railways. The width/gauge of the tracks has reported as being between 3ft (ref) and 3ft 81⁄2in (ref) (ref) with two others specifying the gauge at 3ft 2in (ref) and 3ft 21⁄2in(ref)." (or similar) with suitable reference templates for each source and convert used for the feet and inches.— Rod ^talk 17:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Rodw: I think that's an excellent solution, at the least until a definitive answer can be arrived at. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 23:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, nice solution. I note that John Robert Day et al. (1957) states "3ft 81⁄2in" which is different from "3ft 8in" (Easdown, 2018). This would be a fifth gauge to be mentioned (Operations). For the purpose of {{Track gauge}}, and most likely in the original ordering papers, 1⁄2in matters. -DePiep (talk) 08:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, it is the other way around: 3 ft 81⁄2 in (1,130 mm) (Day, 1957) is in the article, but 3ft 8in (Easdown, 2018) is not. -DePiep (talk) 09:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here in a picture from 2005/2006: rails still present back then, maybe ask them for the gauge. -DePiep (talk) 09:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

track 38" (narrower than the expected 3'8" due to the problems of digging the tunnel) i.e., 3 ft 2 in (965 mm) but also

The gauge of the railway was 3 feet -- variant #6 by now.

The 38" reason makes it plausible that this track had an unique gauge (tunneling problems could have made deviation from standards plausible). -DePiep (talk) 09:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]