Talk:Brill Tramway

message: A map might be useful. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: And take these a same grain of salt. I hope they don't seem rude. I simply don't understand some stuff.
* I know where London is, and it would help to see the train line in reference to London in the first map.
**The direction to London is marked on all the maps. The "close up map" of the route would be significantly bigger if I actually showed the line, because of the angle it ran at. On the 1872 map there is no line to London; it hadn't yet been built. – iridescent 15:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for all that! I know it's an inherently dull topic, but (as with all these 19th century articles) I do try to show that the people involved were no better, no worse and no different to people today, and that all these Grand Projects were ultimately stories about people, not machinery. I think it's worked on this one. – iridescent 15:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comments on Malleus's talk if you haven't already. What this section was intended to do (although it seems to be failing) is (a) explain why Brill was important enough that when they petitioned the Duke, he listened (the traditional way to make money out of a new rail line is to buy a plot of land, run a rail line to it from a population centre, subdivide the land into lots and sell it to commuters; by connecting all these existing villages without expanding them, the Duke was going about the whole thing ass-backwards); (b) explain how the town had been wrecked in the 1600s and never recovered, and thus was quite small and isolated in the 1800s; (c) explain why bricks were so significant to the town, which becomes important later on; and (d) explain why Wotton House and the land around it had suddenly become so important to the family once they lost all their other land and houses. (The scale of the properties they lost can't be overstated; Buckingham Palace is called that for a reason.) – iridescent 16:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments from Moni3 

message: I do not have my copy of the book any more but according to my copy of Football Grounds of England and Wales by Simon Inglis the spoil for Stamford Bridge came from the District line. Of course it could have come from more than one place, there was a lot of railway building going on in the area. Britmax (talk) 07:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd removed it already; although I can source it, the dates don't add up for either the Metropolitan nor the District Lines. If it came from the Met, why would they be shipping their spoil to a site miles from the actual diggings, which wasn't connected to the area by rail so would have needed a fleet of carts? If it came from the District Line, what happened between the digging of the District Line in the 1880s and the building of Stamford Bridge in 1905? My money is on the Stamford Bridge spoil coming from the Piccadilly Line, and on the clay from the Met and District workings being fired into bricks. – iridescent 12:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wolmar (p. 36) says it was from the original Metropolitan line working, but does not give a source. Stamford Bridge was an athletics ground before Chelsea moved there, but that did not open until the 1870s and maps of the 1860s show the site as a market garden, a place not likely to be desirous of a load of dodgy sub-soil. --DavidCane (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The soil at the layer at which the sub-surface lines were dug is clay, and for a project which needed many million bricks it seems crazy for them to have dumped it anywhere, let alone somewhere like Chelsea which would be a logistical nightmare today, let alone back then. The more I think of it, the more sure I am that the Stamford Bridge earthworks were the spoil from the deep-level tunnel through Kensington which became the Piccadilly Line, and the MR spoil became Paddington Station and its associated embankments. – iridescent 23:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

text: In fact, thinking about it further: the original Metropolitan Railway subsurface section was 5 km long, at its narrowest was 7 m wide (broad gauge, remember…), and would have had to have been a minimum of 4 m high to accommodate GWR stock. That makes a minimum of 140,000 m3 of earth displaced for the tunnel alone, not allowing for the stations themselves or for the wider sections of tunnel. Quite aside from the logistics of transporting between half a million and a million tons of soil across London by road—and the rather unlikely idea that what was then a prosperous suburb would welcome a huge mound of rubble, heavily contaminated with industrial waste, raw sewage, and half-decayed corpses—the volume is out by a couple of orders of magnitude. – iridescent 10:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Spoil used for Stamford Bridge

message: Wow, who woulda thought so much can be said about a six-mile rail line! This article is very impressive in scope and attention to detail. Outstanding work.  -- œ™ 11:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Just some feedback

message: There is an awful lot of passive voice on this article. It really needs a good cleanup to favor the active voice. I fixed the capitalization; Brill Tramway is correct, but the tramway. --John (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a grammar expert, but I understand that passive voice is a lot more common in British English than American English. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 21:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: According to whom? I'd be surprised if that was true. If anything my impression is the opposite, not that it makes any difference to our efforts to improve the article. --John (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, to clarify myself, I meant that it's more likely to be considered incorrect in the US than in Britain. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 21:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passive voice 

message: The external link to the Roger Marks 
photograph site
rotted near the start of this year. Is any new address for it known?
RAClarke (talk) 09:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Disused Rail Photos

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Brill Tramway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110611063724/http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=6464 to http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=6464
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified