Talk:Watercress Line

Trains: in UK Low‑importance

	Trains Portal
DYK	2007-11-12

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).

This article lacks references.

Hampshire Mid‑importance

	Hampshire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hampshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hampshire 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.HampshireWikipedia:WikiProject HampshireTemplate:WikiProject HampshireHampshire
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Watercress Line.

Watercress Line

I propose moving this article to the above title as the present "Mid Hants Watercress Railway" is a mish-mash - which doesn't occur outside Wp and its mirrors - of the marketing name (the Watercress Line) and the owners' name (Mid-Hants Railway plc), and of these two the more commonly used is "Watercress Line". -- Picapica 11:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! Go for it. Euchiasmus 14:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I support the suggestion made by User:Our Phellap that this article be merged with that at Mid Hants Railway -- Picapica 10:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motive power - out of date ?

Looking at this section, I'm not sure that it is completely up to date. Particularly as at the top level it claims that Douglas was operational in 2000 whilst later on it is listed as under construction. I've absolutely no idea what the true picture is, I'm not sufficiently involved with the Mid-Hants Railway, but I do know that I can't be sure that what I read on this Wikipedia page is accurate.

There's obviously an ongoing problem keeping this section up to date. The way it is subdivided means that it could quickly become inaccurate. An inaccurate encyclopedia is a useless encyclopedia. Is there a better way of listing the various locos, somebody, please, HELP ?Hethurs (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary use of bold font

I'm unsure why a recent editor has found it necessary to enbolden text reporting mechanical failures of locomotives. 7severn7 (talk) 07:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it was an (anonymous) Watercress Line volunteer/fan who was rather upset at losing the 5MT. I mean, the news is pretty disastrous -- the 5MT has been one of the stalwart engines on the line. I think it had a year to run on its boiler ticket, and I was wondering what they were going to do when it ran out. We'll find out now.

(pause while website consulted)

OUCH!! -- the cylinder block has been destroyed, so a new casting will be required. Not something that you can pick up off-the-shelf... Maybe £250k is not that wide of the mark.

EdJogg (talk) 09:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have removed emboldening, and simplified text (in loco descriptions). 'Incident' report has been moved to 'Incidents' and will be copy-edited in due course. Could do with a reference and detail from the next Steam Railway magazine, or similar (please?)

(Personally feel a bit sad about this one, as she was the engine I drove on a driver's experience day last year. Hopefully the money can be found to fix what was previously (I understand) a very reliable engine.)

EdJogg (talk) 09:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm told the pattern for the replacement cylinder for 34027 was about £15000 with about another £15000 for casting and machining. Expensive but a long way from £250000. 7severn7 (talk) 09:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they picked-up on the cost for the complete overhaul due soon? £30k is painful, but not so bad. Was the cylinder common to other standard types? (Just thinking that the pattern could be re-used by other groups in the future...)

EdJogg (talk) 11:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion on the adaptability of such a pattern takes place at http://railways.national-preservation.com/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=18640&start=60 7severn7 (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting thread. Suggests that the cylinder block was unique for the Standard 5. Latest post (just before this one!) also mentions a £250k figure which includes other work (boiler, wheels, etc). Lots of speculation at present... EdJogg (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we ain't gonna get much change out of this years profits...
Ralph Chadkirk (talk) 18: 38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a newsletter. I don't think locomotive failures belong in here. Biscuittin (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are failures, and failures. This one had the potential to write-off the loco (Ok, over-stressing slightly) and is, thankfully, rare. The above discussions were trying to get the facts right, but they are admittedly less on-topic than would be normal for a talk page. (Sorry if this bothers you; on the other hand it is directly related to the article content/topic.)

On a more general point, I agree with you. All the heritage railway pages have 'operational status' information for their locos to some degree or other, which is updated when someone can be bothered, in some cases with a silly level of detail. I would prefer a much simpler one-/two-word description: 'Operational'/'Under overhaul'/'Unrestored'/etc but I've long since given up trying to combat it. (end of unrelated-to-article section)

EdJogg (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ropley Signal Box

Haven't been around for a while, so haven't seen developments. I think that the Ropley Signal Box resignalling section should be put back in the Ongoing Developments section - because it is ongoing.

Also could we change the operational status to 4 things - in service, under restoration, static and under maintenance? Obviously those don't have to be the same terms, but something along those lines (as I think Edd said above). Ralph Chadkirk (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Ropley Signal Box -- be my guest. My edit was rather 'knee-jerk' following the previous IP-edit deletion. The new structure seemed logical, but if you think it fits better somewhere else, go ahead. -- EdJogg (talk) 00:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]