Talk:Pont-y-Cafnau

GA (self-)nomination

I realize that this article is a bit sparse for a GA nominee, but it just about exhausts — rather surprisingly, in my opinion, considering the importance of this bridge — the available information about it. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"See also" elsewhere

"*==See also== * [[Pont-y-Cafnau]], world's earliest surviving iron railway bridge" inserted in three articles, but text about the bridge itself could go in at least the ironworks article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Tramway power

Were the trams pulled by horses, or some other motive power? --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The trams were originally horse drawn (1793 predating steam locomotion). The tramway was not much more than a mile in length and downhill from the quarry at a gradient of 1 in 80. It was originally an edge railway (ie wagons with flanges as now) but converted around 1830 to a plateway (flangeless wheels). MJT Lewis discusses in Merthyr Tydfil Tramroads and their Locomotives (Railway & Canal Historical Society 2004 p50, 58-62)and surmises some locomotive use post 1830. However, there is no cast absolute evidence for this.Crantock (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Update

I have amended the history section to give a clearer understanding that the bridge originally carried 2 troughs (hence the plural in the title). This is neatly illustrated in the RCAHMW digital survey series image 9. I have referenced the updates to "The Glamorganshire and Aberdare Canals" whose chapter on water supply contains good narrative, a map (post the demise of the upper trough) and a printof an 1817/20 painting by Perry Williams showing the high level Taff Fawr aqueduct and the bridge. This painting is reproduced in sketch form in "the Archeology of the Montgomeryshire Canal" by Stephen Hughes (RCAHMW 1981 p19 & 20)which again contains some useful narrative.

I have to confess this is my first Wiki change so please forgive stylistic crimes.Crantock (talk) 23:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes

The article has recently been changed like this: "the Pont-y-Cafnau is the world's earliest surviving iron [[railway bridge|tramway bridge]]". I don't believe these changes are appropriate:

• There are no sources that I have been able to find, with one possible important exception, which identifies this as the earliest such bridge. All of them qualify that clain by saying "probably" or "earliest known" or something similar. The only reliable source currently present in the text for the claim is #3, the CADW Listed Building Database Record, and it only says: "probably the earliest known iron railway bridge". Due to this I was careful not to make an absolute claim that it is the earliest when I originally inserted that claim in the article. There are at least two important sources on this point that I've not been able to access (though I haven't made a search recently for them):

• Hague D. and Hughes S. "Pont y Cafnau, the first iron railway bridge and aqueduct?" Ass. Industrial Archaeology Bulletin, 1982, 9, No. 4, p. 3-4.
• Davis, W.L. Bridges of Merthyr Tydfil, Glamorgan Record Office in collaboration with the Merthyr Tidfil Heritage Trust, 1992, ISBN 0905243153

If anyone has access to copies, I'd love to have a copy of the Hague & Hughes article and the Pont-y-Cafnau section or sections of the Davis book. Unless you have a source that definitively says that it's the earliest, then I'm afraid that it's original research to say that it is.

• While there's no doubt that it was a tramway bridge, tramways are a type of railway and this bridge's claim to fame isn't as the earliest known iron tramway bridge, but the earliest known iron bridge for vehicles which ride on rails, i.e. railways. Moreover, the sole cited source for the earliest claim, as noted above, claims it as the earliest "railway" bridge, not the earliest "tramway" bridge.

I believe these changes should be reverted for those reasons. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Then delete "earliest surviving" too. The point is that it's not, "merely the oldest survivor, as the well-known truly oldest has now been lost".

Also please don't reinstate "railway". It never carried a railway. It was a plateway, and there is a difference. Nor was it (per recent changes that don't seem to have raised anything like as much challlenge) a "navigable aqueduct". Andy Dingley (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

(a) Surviving: How about changing it to "earliest known", since that's what the source actually says? There might be a bit of a copyvio issue, but we can fade that, I think. (b) Plateway/tramway/railway: I also agree that that it was probably a plateway (and I only say "probably" because I don't recall for sure), but even the plateway article begins with "A plateway is an early kind of railway...". And the sole source, at least at the present time, says "railway". And the railway article starts with "Rail transport is a means of conveyance of passengers and goods by way of wheeled vehicles running on rail tracks." Finally, I would note that in this edit you refer to Trevithick's Pen-y-Darren locomotive as a "railway locomotive" (emphasis added), as it is referred to several times in that article, when in fact it also ran on a plateway tramway. If this bridge is a "tramway bridge" then that locomotive is a "tramway locomotive" not a "railway locomotive." Just as that locomotive's claim to fame is as the first successful railway locomotive, this bridge's claim is as the earliest known iron railway bridge. (c) Navigable aqueduct: I have no opinion about the navigability issue and did not add it. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Trolling through other contributors edits just so that you can pick holes in them is what makes this place such a pleasure. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I went to the Trevithick article just to see what they called that locomotive. It was just happenstance that I happened to notice that you called it that and even then I didn't and don't mean to slam you with it, just to note the contradiction. But however you (or I) care to characterize my actions, you've not addressed the substance of my arguments. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC) Update: Sorry about that, I see now that you have done so. — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)