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 articles
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 articles
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.—
Rodtalk 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 8+1⁄2in" 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 8+1⁄2 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
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
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 articles
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 articles
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.—
Rodtalk 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 8+1⁄2in" 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 8+1⁄2 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
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