# Talk:Digswell Viaduct

Could do with expanding about what the "Several ideas to overcome this limitation without damaging its essential historic character and rhythmic design are periodically discussed" might be.  Sladen 14:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The final paragraph of the final section talks of “quadrupling” the viaduct. In height, length, width? The source seems to suggest increasing the number of tracks from two to four. Wouldn’t that be “doubling” the viaduct’s capacity? I think this needs a little unpacking for the reader. KJP1 (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

@KJP1 I think this use of "quadrupling" is a railway-specific neologism meaning "make it four tracks"; "doubling" a line would be making it two tracks. I'm sure that can be sourced, but I see the term doesn't appear in the current revision. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:23, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
HJ Mitchell - Thanks Harry, it's a useful explanation for a railway novice like me. I think the revised wording will be easier for the general reader to understand. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 08:48, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Digswell Viaduct/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: JacobTheRox (talk · contribs) 13:55, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: KJP1 (talk · contribs) 17:27, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Very happy to pick this one up. It’ll be done over the next two/three days. Comments are likely to come in batches. I’ll ping when I’m done, but feel free to respond as I go if that’s easier. I tend to do a full read-through with comments, and then a summary table. An example of the approach is here. KJP1 (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
@KJP1: – Thanks for the review; I think I've answered everything. JacobTheRox(talk | contributions) 21:25, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
JacobTheRox - Many thanks for the prompt responses. I'm, almost, all fine. I made a slight tweak to the wording of the "tray bong" gang which I hope makes it clearer. All that leaves for me is the Pevsner. Firstly, I wouldn't write that Lewis was "no relation to William and Joseph" in the absence of a source. Personally, I think it likely that they were related somehow - both families originated in Norfolk and tended to be very large - but I simply don't know. More critically, I don't think we can state that Pevsner "falsely" attributes the viaduct to Lewis C. That almost implies a deliberate falsification. We know that they did, at least in 2002 (I wish we had access to the 2019 revised version), and that other sources also did so, though they may well have been following Pevsner. Can we not just state the facts, e.g. "... and his son Joseph Cubitt. (Some sources attribute the viaduct to the engineer Lewis Cubitt"). Let me know what you think. KJP1 (talk) 05:56, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

@KJP1: I've added two (albeit not amazing) sources for them not being related just out of principle; I've also changed it to 'close relative' because we're all related if you go back far enough. It's always harder to prove something isn't than prove something is! I've also removed the "falsely" as I'll admit that's effectively OR by adding my thoughts on the accuracy of certain sources. Let me know if you're happy with the result. JacobTheRox(talk | contributions) 10:49, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Yep - fine with those, and very happy to pass. Thanks again for an interesting article on an important structure. Sometime, we really must find out if the 2019 Pevsner still, incorrectly, says Lewis! KJP1 (talk) 05:12, 29 September 2025 (UTC)


### Comments
Quickfails

Not seeing any Quickfail issues. Earwig is giving 30% [1] due to a little bit of close paraphrasing around Queen Victoria, but that can be easily addressed [see below].
No longer seems to be an issue.
Infobox

This looks fine.
Lead

...is a railway viaduct" - bluelink on first mention?
Done
Can we have Hertfordshire mentioned somewhere, e.g. "over the Mimram Valley in Hertfordshire, in the East of England". I was initially struggling to work out where it was.
Done
"with blue facing bricks also added in the 1930s. Metal gantries were added to the side of the viaduct in 1980" - Not sure what the "also" is doing? To avoid the repetition of "added", can the second be changed to "attached", or some such. And were they added just to one side, or to both?
Rewrote for coherency; not sure from reading sources exactly where the bricks were added.
Cubitt/Cubitt/Brassey - I think these warrant a mention in the lead. They are among the construction titans of the period and contribute to the viaduct's notability. Something like, "Designed by the father-son team of William and Joseph Cubitt, and built by Thomas Brassey, the viaduct opened in 1850. It has been Grade II* listed...."
Added
Design

"This problem is exacerbated by Welwyn North railway station being situated at the northern end of the viaduct" - would "being" improve the flow?
Yes, that was a missing word
"Several ideas to overcome the limitations of the viaduct" - not sure what the "Several" is doing?
Replaced with 'various'
"It is built from red brick, and the entire viaduct took thirteen million of these bricks to build, which were fired from clay mined from the same site at the time the viaduct was being built" - perhaps, more simply, "It is built with thirteen million red bricks, fired from clay mined at the site".
Rewritten
"driven into the ground by steam-fuelled piling engine" - a single engine, or engines?
One engine; fixed
"The original waterproofing originally consisted of a bitumen membrane" - don't think we need the second "originally".
Fixed
"These systems were subsequently replaced in 1986" - or the "subsequently".
Removed
"particularly important [structure] of special interest" - this isn't quite right. Grade II is "of special interest", Grade II*, which this is, is "of more than special interest".
Fixed
History - 1848–1850: Construction and opening

"The viaduct was built for the Great Northern Railway between 1848 and 1850, and was built to carry their line between Kings Cross and Welwyn" - I think the second "and was built" can go to avoid repetition.
Fixed
"The prominent railway engineer George Hudson" - a "The" would avoid the false title.
Fixed
"The construction of the viaduct came at a cost of £69,397, which is equivalent to £9,374,000 in 2023. The construction of the viaduct..." - to avoid repetition, perhaps "Building was undertaken..."?
Fixed
"and they became known locally as the 'tray bong' (i.e. an anglicised très bon) gang from their poor French" - I cannot understand this at all. Assuming the navvies weren't French, and if they were, their French would have been better, why should they have been expected to have any French at all? And why would the villagers of mid-19th century Digswell have wanted to communicate with the navvies in a foreign language, when, given that most of the gangs were Irish or English, they could all speak English, although probably not terribly well due to a lack of education. I can't access the source. Can you unpack what it says because, at present, I just cannot make sense of the paragraph.
The text of the source is:
The viaduct was built by the great engineer, Thomas Brassey, whose services were in demand throughout the world, including France where Brassey had earlier taken his gang of navvies to build the Paris to Rouen railway in 1841. The arrival of Brassey, who took up residence in the Cowpers Arms, Welwyn, while his navvies moved into a huge encampment of shacks stretching from Digswell to Digswell Farm at Black Fan Lane, caused quite a stir in the area, not least because the navvies had picked up some French words, albeit imperfectly, becoming known as the 'tray bong' gang. One of the entertainments they provided for themselves and the locals was the bare-knuckle prize fighting that they staged behind the Duck at Burnham Green on Friday nights.
Your questions are valid but verifiability, is preferred. I've added a bit more information for clarity
Urban myth re. Queen Victoria - first, this is where we have a bit of an overlap with Herts Live [See Quickfail above].  Their text reads "she was reportedly so frightened of its height that she refused to travel across it and left the train, using a horse-drawn carriage instead to travel the length of the bridge on the ground. However, her published diaries for that day show that she was staying at Osborne House on the Isle of Wight at the time." The article text reads "she was reportedly so frightened of its height that she refused to travel across it and left the train, using a horse-drawn carriage to travel the length of the bridge on the ground. However, this is unlikely because her diaries show that she was staying at Osborne House on the Isle of Wight on that day." They are a bit too close. Now, it's entirely possible the HertsLive reporter lifted it from here. I frequently come across my wording in articles on historic properties in WalesOnline/The Monmouthshire Beacon/The South Wales Argus. But, for the avoidance of doubt, I think it needs a light re-write.
The second issue is the concluding statement of the second paragraph of the Urban myth part. This states that, on the Queen's visit to Balmoral in 1851, "there is no record of her refusing to cross the viaduct". But I think that is exactly what the HertsLive source does say. I'd suggest a redraft - combine into one para. / start with the opening / then the QV myth / then the 1851 trip where most sources suggest she crossed without incident.
Rewritten completely.
History - 1851–present: operation and refurbishment

"with metal gantries suspended on the side" - [See comment in Lead above]. From the image, I think that it should be "sides".
Fixed
" William Mitchell Acworth reports that the Great Northern Railway traditionally considered the viaduct to be more important than the roof of Kings Cross" - having read the source, it's a perfectly accurate summary of what Acworth said, but I'm still not sure I understand it. In what way was the viaduct "more important" than the King's Cross roof? Operationally, architecturally, historically? Not sure anything can be done about it?
As I understand it, he was making the point that although the roof of king's cross is stunning and architecturally impressive, the Digswell Viaduct is actually a greater architectural achievement which is understated due to its lesser beauty. If you've been through King's Cross on a sunny day you'll understand why the roof is the benchmark for something impressive on the line.
"Capacity issues were raised again in the Department for Transport's 2006 study on railway capacity" - dropping the last three words will avoid repetition.
Done
"BBC News listed the quadrupling of the viaduct" - I've already put my query here on the Talkpage, where it can be safely ignored if addressed in this review. I don't get what is to be "quadrupl[ed]", and I'm not sure it isn't in fact "doubling".
Doubling would be taking a single track line and making it into a double-track line. Quadrupling is where you take a double-track line and make it into a quadruple-track line. They're standard terms in the railway as far as I know, but I've reworded it anyway.
See also

The three examples given are large and impressive. But, beyond this, is there any connection that led you to include these, rather than others?
I chose them because they are all prominent, impressive two-track Victorian viaducts that carry railways over valleys/other low-lying land. Most railway viaducts are either quite short (to just carry the line over a road, river, or other rail line) or quite long (to carry the line over a valley) so I chose some of the latter.
Images

Licensing etc. looks fine. They would benefit from alt text.
Alt text added because why not
Sources

3. William Humber: A record of the progress of modern engineering - this could do with an OCLC 181795100 [2]. And the bluelink isn't the right one.
4/8/10/11/18/20 ISBNs - you've a mix of hyphenation styles. They should really be consistent.
Fixed except The Directory of Railway Stations as it is template generated.
Publisher location - two of the book sources have this, the rest don't. Consistency would be better.
17. Acworth could do with an author-link.
Done
Broad coverage - Is there any merit in including Pevsner for completeness? Unfortunately, I don't have the 2019 revised, but the 2000 Cherry revision does mention it, albeit briefly. "The austere backscreen of the forty-nine brick arches (by Lewis Cubitt 1848-50)" [p=137]. The only interesting bit is the attribution to Lewis Cubitt, which conflicts with all the other sources. I wonder if the revised has a correction? Might be worth a footnote, e.g. "Pevsner attributes the design to Lewis Cubitt but the viaduct's listing by Historic England is clear that it was undertaken by William and Joseph". It does appear to be a subject of some confusion, [3]/[4]. Looking into it a bit more,  I do think a footnote flagging the confusion is probably necessary. I see that Commons attributes it to LC, [5].
The viaduct was designed by William and Joseph. There were quite a few Cubitt engineers at the time so it's probably just a mistake in the book which has been perpetuated in other sources. I've added it anyway with the sources.


### Review summary
It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar): 
The prose is generally of a very high standard. I've made a few suggestions, principally around repetition.

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
It looks MoS compliant to me.

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section): 
I've made a few tidying suggestions but nothing major. I have checked Sources 1/2/3/5/6/7/9/12/13/14/15/16/17/19/21/22/23 and they support the article content. I have a query about some content in Source 8, and a lesser query regarding Source 17, both of which I've flagged.

b. (citations to reliable sources): 
I think the sources are fine, although I am no railway expert. Source 21 looks a bit blog-like but I understand that the UK Railways project deems it RS.

c. (OR): 
No evidence of OR.

d. (copyvio and plagiarism): 
Earwig threw up one issue which can be easily addressed - and which may well be copying from here.[6] I'll also do some spot-checking of sources. Now done.

It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects): 
As above, I'm no railways expert, but a search suggests that all the major sources are covered. I've made a minor suggestion.

b. (focused): 
The article is well focussed.

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
All good.

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
All good.

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): 
It is well-illustrated. I have suggested alt text, but this isn't a GAN requirement.

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Captions are fine.

Overall:
Pass/fail: 
I shall check with the nominator when I've concluded my comments to see whether an On Hold is necessary. KJP1 (talk) 08:56, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
JacobTheRox - That's me done. A very interesting read, for which many thanks. Let me know if you want me to put it formally on hold, and shout if you've any queries regarding the comments. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 09:10, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Just need to resolve the Pevsner issue and we are good to go. KJP1 (talk) 08:29, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

See Common misattributions KJP1 (talk) 06:48, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Congrats on the GA. I'm just a little worried that we're not using the best sources. There's lots of news and web sources cited but I'm not seeing many books, especially not the multiple weighty books that are available on civil engineering or railway history (by way of example, see the bibliographies at Wolverton Viaduct and Bennerley Viaduct). The Encyclopaedia of British Bridges only has a brief entry on Digswell but cites another six books as further reading. The GA criteria don't say much about sourcing but you could easily get a featured article out of this with a bit more research. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:20, 29 September 2025 (UTC)