Talk:Lynton and Barnstaple Railway

Merging the L&BR Trust article

It has been suggested that the trust article should be merged with this one.

This is the main article of a number relating to the L&B, but whereas this is primarily concerned with the history of the original railway line, the other is about a modern charity created to support the restoration. There is little information that is common to the two, and the main article is already around the suggested maximum size for an article, therefore I believe the two should remain as individual articles. Regards, Lynbarn 22:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Merge - as per Lynbarn. I see no problem with keeping the articles separate, indeed, I can see no real reason why you might want to merge them.

EdJogg 01:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Merge - for the reasons stated aboveOxyman42 17:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

<G>

86.136.173.80, I'm not sure that Wikipedia is the place for a request for information such as you have added re.Lew - it is after all an encyclopedia - to inform - and not a discussion group - to enquire - (despite this page<G>), but I would be interested to hear other views on this. Regards, Martyn (Lynbarn) 29 December 2005

fair enough lynbarn, i'll keep my contributions stictly factual in future

by the way, what page are you referring to? if this (<G>) is a link it dosent work

The <G> isn't a link, it's short for Grin - I was alluding to the fact that these talk pages - connected to each Wikipedia article - do sometimes carry enquiries relating to the subject of the article!!! Martyn 16:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

ohhhh Doubledgedsword 17:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

pictures off the website

sice you're assistant webmaster for the website, are the pictures on there available to put up on wikipedia? if they are ill put some up straight away Doubledgedsword 18:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Probably, but I don't own the copyright on any of those currently shown. Also, they are mainly modern pictures, not so applicable to an encyclopedia entry, and as they are on the web site anyway, people can see them there by following the link. I have some others available though - I'll add some more in the next few days Lynbarn 18:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Aiming for Featured Article standard

I've been told this article is close to meeting Featured Article Status - although a few changes are necessary, some of which I have made already. It is also 33kb long, with is about 10% above ideal, so some trimming may be necessary. Will also press on with adding more citations... Lynbarn 21:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC).

You could make the article shorter by splitting off the part on locomotive/rolling stock into separate articles. Our Phellap 23:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively, there will come a time when it is natural to split the article into two, divided chronologically: one page describing the original railway (and stock); the other covering the re-born railway. Not sure how this would affect the 'featured' status! EdJogg 12:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

heritage rail template

It might be worth replacing the infobox rail template with Template:Heritage Railway as more information can be added about commercial and preservation history.

 Done Lynbarn

On a different note, why was the preserved L&B webiste link removed as spam? Nearly every heritage railway article has a link to the railway's official website, so why should the :&B be any different? Our Phellap 15:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The link is still there, but just via another article, following some discussions with User:NigelR (see also [1]. It seemed not too bad to me, although he did point out that there were over 30 links in total in wiki, which I could see was a little extreme. Lynbarn 16:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Resolved

Lynbarn

Terminus

In the infobox on this article it lists Woody bay as the terminus station, should it not readLynton and Lynmouth? I understand that woody bay is the center of the preserved operations but observe that this is cited lower in the same infoboxOxyman42 23:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out - it is not clear from the template which data relates to original and which to preserved status. it has been wrong for several months! I will correct it shortly. Thanks again. Lynbarn 01:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Perchance it is not dead but sleepeth

Please merge relevant content, if any, from Perchance it is not dead but sleepeth per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perchance it is not dead but sleepeth. (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.) Thanks. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-14 11:07Z

 Done Lynbarn 12:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Curves?

What was/is the radius of the sharpest curves on the line? Tabletop (talk) 11:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Brakes?

What kind of continuous brakes were used? Air? Vacuum or Unbraked? Tabletop (talk) 11:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Trainload?

What is the maximun weight of a train that needed to be hauled on this line. This has a bearing on the strength of the drawgear. Tabletop (talk) 04:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Tabletop, Please see the comment I have recently placed on your talk page. Many thanks, Lynbarn (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Geograph Pic

You may be interested in this picture of Narracott railway bridge on Geograph. (Sorry, don't have time to upload it to Commons.)

EdJogg (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Lynton and Barnstaple Railway/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article is being reviewed as part of the WikiProject Good Articles. We're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. This article was awarded GA-status back in 2007, so I will be assessing the article to ensure that it is still compliant.Pyrotec (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   some slight traces of "marketing speak" but otherwise OK.

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Yes, but few of the books citated have any page numbers; and "various editions of magazines" are quoted with no details whatsoever

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm giving this article a "Keep" marking although some improvements to referencing would be desireable.Pyrotec (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Festiniog or Ffestiniog?

Section 2, History (para. 3) refers to "The Festiniog [Sic] Railway Company". Whilst some editors feel this should be "corrected" to the Welsh spelling now in common use, "Ffestiniog", the anglicised single "F" was actually the correct legal title of the company in 1898, when the L&B was constructed, hence its use herein.

Sic is a Latin word meaning "thus", "so", "as such", or "in such a manner". In writing, it is placed within square brackets and usually italicized – [sic] – to indicate that an incorrect or unusual spelling, phrase, punctuation, and/or other preceding quoted material has been reproduced verbatim from the quoted original and is not a transcription error.

I hope this serves to clarify this apparent error in the article. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Mixing fact and fiction

A number of edits have been made recently to pages such as Lynton and Barnstaple Railway and Rolling stock of the Lynton and Barnstaple Railway adding details of locomotives that do not and did not ever exist. These are reported in an alternative history at County Gate, a website featuring a model railway layout of the same name, which depicts a planned but NEVER BUILT extension of the L&B from Lynton to Minehead.

The model features alongside YEO, EXE, TAW, LYN and LEW, the real L&B locos, a number of locos which, although designed authentically, only exist in model form, and were never built or even designed in real life. The 2-6-0 0-6-2T locos "River Avon" & "River Brue" and the North British 4-6-4s "Axe" & "Lyd" exist only in the imagination of the modeller, (although the modern L&B does have a locomotive named AXE - A Joffre class 0-4-0 built in 1915 by Kerr Stuart for use by the French Army in World War 1, and the Ffestiniog Railway have a recently-built replica Manning Wardle named "LYD")

No diesel ever ran on the original L&B, "River Avill" was never therefore built by Armstrong Whitworth for use on the railway, and neither were any of the railcars depicted on the model or on the website.

I hope the above clears up the situation - Please do not add any details of locos, rolling stock, locations or events that may not be verifiable from sources other than the County Gate website without first discussing on this talk page. Thank You. Lynbarn (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Lynton and Barnstaple Railway/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

 

Starts GA Reassessment. The reassessment will follow the same sections of the Article. Thank you --Whiteguru (talk) 08:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

 

Result: Delisted. Legitimate concerns, no opposition or improvements made; Matters raised in the reassessment were not addressed. These matters will remain valid until the next GA Review, whereupon they must be addressed first. --Whiteguru (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

 

Instructions: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment

---

Observations

This is a GA Reassessment: so a truncated set of observations...

1. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

• Page created 23 May 2005
• Page has 686 edits by 234 editors
• 90 day page views = 3,602 with average of 40 visitors daily
• 16 edits reverted
• Page has 39 watchers.
• Internet Archive Bot has been on page twice - last visit tagging no links as dead;
• Cluebot NG has not visited, indicating no vandalism; page considered stable

1. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

• 11 images on article
• all fair use rationales accepted, images have appropriate captioning

1. Overall:

• Basically, this page is in a Good Article shape and form. However, this page records the restoration of a closed narrow gauge railway in North Devon, UK, and should be updated on a regular basis. With 39 watchers, this should not be a difficult task. Below are some observations that may merit attention - and possibly inclusion - in various sections, such as Present, Restoration and Prospects.

• There is a citation needed tag on the twinning with the Walhalla Goldfields Railway. Consider this link.
• Chelfham Station restoration has won a National Railway Heritage Award.

• Parracombe Halt has been purchased.

• Bratton Fleming Station has been purchased.

• Planning the rebuild of the railway might be an inclusion

• Killington Lane to Blackmoor and Wistlandpound may serve as a useful reference

• The challenges of rebuilding Woody Bay to Lynton are also documented.

 

Should these matters be responded or attended to, the article may retain GA status. --Whiteguru (talk) 04:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

 

Result: Delisted. Legitimate concerns, no opposition or improvements made; Matters raised in the reassessment were not addressed. These matters will remain valid until the next GA Review, whereupon they must be addressed first. --Whiteguru (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

 

Gauge

The book "Stockton & Darlington - One hundredd and fifty years of British Railways" says on page 100 that the L&B gauge is 2ft 0in. ----MountVic127 (talk) 04:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

That book is wrong. The gauge of the railway is 1 ft 11+1⁄2 in (597 mm). Opolito (talk) 05:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)