Talk:Taff Vale Railway

message: I've got a book out of the library with the intention of greatly improving this article. If you're intending to add anything susbstantial in the mean time, I'd greatly appreciate you letting me know first. Cheers. Varitek 15:36, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignore that. It didn't take nearly as long as I thought it might. However, I still need to do something about the Cogan Pill/East Dock fiasco, but it'll have to wait. Varitek 17:58, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: The article currently gives the following as directors in 1836, as in the Barrie (1950) source:
Josiah Guest, Walter Coffin, Edward Lee, Thomas Guest, Thomas Guppy, Thomas Powell, Christopher James, Thomas Carlisle, Henry Rudhall, William Wait, William Watson, Peter Maze.
This list differs from the directors announced in the Cardiff and Merthyr Guardian, 24 September 1836, p.2 (differences in bold):
JJ Guest, Walter Coffin, TR Guest, Thomas Powell, T Carlisle, EH Lee, Henry Rudhall, CE Bernard, Chris James, WK Wait, E Waring, RH Webb. (Also see Railway Times (1884) 47:722 for the same list.)
Can anyone check if the original Act (21 June 1836) includes the first list of directors above please? (Possibly at the NMW, it doesn't seem to be available online.) Thanks. RLO1729 (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  First TVR directors 

message: Why does this article use the generic , which according to its documentation "is intended as a meta template: a template used for constructing other templates. Note: In general, it is not meant for use directly in an article"? Surely it should use  in common with articles like Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. I imagine the generic infobox was used to be able to present the current "free-form" range of information in the one box but I agree that  should be the first box in the article. Is there a suitable infobox to embed, or add after the rail infobox, that would allow the history and other info not covered by the rail infobox to be included as well? I couldn't see one in the List of infoboxes. RLO1729 (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of that detail (e.g. "1888 Competition from Barry Railway" - what kind of competition? This could be "Guess the name of the engine and win a prize") doesn't belong in an infobox, although it's fine for the text of the article. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

text: I've replaced the generic infobox as suggested; also added a 'Milestones' table using the History details from the earlier version as I found the info helpful to get an initial quick overview of the railway before (or instead of) reading the whole article. RLO1729 (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

text: Also added 'Motto and 'Railways worked/leased' tables so most information from the earlier version has not been lost. Other editors may wish to discuss and reach consensus on whether these are necessary but I found the summary information helpful. RLO1729 (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: The lead section says:
:From 1923 the Taff Vale Railway was a constituent of the new Great Western Railway
whereas the 'The twentieth century' section has:
:The Taff Vale Railway was amalgamated into the putative new GWR on 1 January 1922
and Note 9 says:
:The Grouping is popularly supposed to have taken place on 1 January 1923, but in fact the process was phased over more than a year
and there are two further cases where 1923 is used in a similar context.
I have based the info currently in the lead section infobox and tables on the 1922 date. Given the 'The twentieth century' subsection is headed 'From 1922' and this independent source, I suggest all years above should be 1922 (even though there was a transition period). If there are no objections I will make these changes in the next day or so. RLO1729 (talk) 06:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Section 2 subsection 1 of the Railways Act 1921 states The constituent companies in any group may on or before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, submit ... an amalgamation scheme ... which has been agreed to by all those companies. That "or before" is crucial: it allowed voluntary amalgamation before the 1 January 1923 deadline, and so the companies concerned could largely decide their own terms - section 2 subsection 3 shows that If the constituent companies in any group fail to submit an agreed amalgamation scheme ... on or before the said date, a scheme for the amalgamation of the constituent companies in that group shall be prepared and settled ... by the amalgamation tribunal. with the implication that the terms of amalgamation might not be favourable. The pre-group GWR accordingly amalgamated with the other major constituents (Alexandra (Newport & South Wales) Docks and Railway; Barry Railway, Cambrian Railways, Cardiff Railway, Rhymney Railway, Taff Vale Railway) of the post-group GWR on 1 January 1922, and besides allowing favourable terms to be settled, this gave the new GWR a whole year to absorb the smaller companies (such as the Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil Junction Railway, etc.) instead of the single day that the LMS, LNER and Southern Railway were permitted. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that background. I think readers coming cold to the subject (such as me) will see apparent inconsistencies in the article and not understand why the two years are used seemingly interchangeably, especially given the definitive statement in the article that "The Taff Vale Railway was amalgamated into the putative new GWR on 1 January 1922." Could you add some further explanation to the article to clarify please? Thanks. RLO1729 (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  1922 or 1923? 

message: Minor point re your edit of the Infobox railroad_name deleting 'The' - although the 1836 Gazette notice is possibly ambiguous as to whether the railway name includes the definite article, it also uses a hyphenated variation (and a typo!) whereas the official railway name does seem to have been intended to be 'The Taff Vale Railway' (at least in its shorter form) from the outset, see the 1836 Bill advertisements here and here. RLO1729 (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''The''? Taff Vale Railway 

message: Many of the article's Notes currently read as editor commentary. They should be reviewed and include supporting citations for every claim made. RLO1729 (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article 'Notes' section 

message: The article is slightly ambiguous in its use of "Taff Vale Railway", in different places meaning the company or the physical rail line. For instance:
- the infobox shows dates of operation as 1836–1921 (1836 is the year the Act was passed, so the company) but then gives its length (the physical line),
- the article has the rider "This article is about the railway company" but begins with "The Taff Vale Railway (TVR) was a standard gauge railway in South Wales, built to serve the iron and coal industries around Merthyr Tydfil, and to connect them with docks in Cardiff. It was opened in stages in 1840 and 1841."
It would be good to clarify the use of the term throughout the article. In the example above, if the infobox dates of operation are the company, then they should be 1835-1921 (year the company was formed) but if they are the rail line then they should be 1840-1921.
What do other editors think?  RLO1729💬  03:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: On the railways of Great Britain before privatisation, the company and line were pretty much synonymous, therefore we have one article for both concepts. The legal name of the organisation was Taff Vale Railway Company, but in published works the word "Company" is almost universally dropped. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Taff Vale Railway": company or railway?