![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template: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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template: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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)