Talk:Elham Valley Railway

message: The article "Elham valley railway" has been redirected here with all information. Spagus
:probably (see MoS somewhere) be named "Elham Valley railway" Pickle 10:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thoughts, since it was an SER line rather than an independant company, "Elham Valley line" might make more ssnse. Pickle 10:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: I've removed an instruction from Harbledown and given the label its own line as on Firefox anyway it was leaving gaps in the line above on the diagram. However my lack of local knowledge means I don't know which of the adjacent junctions is Harbledown so maybe someone who does know could wade in? Britmax (talk) 08:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Instruction at Harbledown

message: Move Parsecboy (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's a lot of merit in your suggestion to move the article back to its original title of "Elham Valley Railway". Just looking through Brian Hart's book, the first proposal for the line surfaced in 1865, with the prospectus headed the "Elham Valley Light Railway Company" (the Various Powers Act 1884 gave permission to build the line). However, the references to "Light Railway" cease once the company is absorbed by the SER upon completion of the line. It's also worth mentioning that the other works on this line (Oppitz, Forwood & Edwards) don't use the term "light railway" either. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

text: It's been a week and we've got no other interest, so I've proposed the move. We need an admin to move it back over the redirect. Edgepedia (talk) 12:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: I've created articles on all stations that didn't have an article, and expanded that on Elham from Mitchell & Smith. Feel free to expand and improve them from other sources. Mjroots (talk) 17:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. If I can find any other suitable sources, I'll have a look. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stations 

message: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history categorizes this as one of their articles that needs a little editing in terms of fixing grammar mistakes. I revised over this page today, and fixed all I could find, but I’m not sure...it still seems like a previous editor just took all the facts they could find about the topic and threw them into one page. I haven’t done much research on the subject of the article, so I won’t know how to fix those mistakes, so I was hoping someone else could. Please notify me if you’re able to fix this article.
Ma nam is geoffrey (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't fixed any grammar, but you've added Americanisms such as "", said "" instead of simply "" or "" instead of simply "" and spelled "authorised" the American way. This is an article about a British railway, and should used British English. I don't think these are improvements, so I'm afraid I'll have to revert. I've gone through the article and tightened up a bit of the prose; there can't be too much wrong with it as a number of experienced editors have looked at this recently and done quite a few fixes. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

text: You can fix some of the issues  mentions in Talk:Elham Valley Railway/GA1. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing  

message: Surely WP:BLUE applies here? The SER, SE&CR, SR and BR(S) are all companies that operated standard gauge railways. The only time we need to cite a gauge is when it is "non-standard" for the area it is in, such as the Lynton and Barnstaple Railway, a narrow gauge railway in standard gauge territory. Mjroots (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. I've just been through records in Hansard, the London Gazette and The Times archives, the latter of which has the complete bills for the railway as they were read verbatim c. 1880. None of them mention this, not because it's untrue but because nobody thought it important to clarify beyond that it would plug into the rest of the network. I found one sources which suggested it (eg: "to construct the line as double track to main line standards", where "main line standards" obviously means standard gauge, if that helps. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Section 1 of the Gauge Act 1846 forbids the future construction of any railway for the conveyance of passengers on any gauge other than 4 feet  inches in Great Britain and 5 feet 3 inches in Ireland. Section 2 of the same Act allows exemption for any Railway constructed or to be constructed under the provisions of any present or future Act containing any special enactment defining the gauge or gauges of such railway or any part thereof. What this means is that if a post-1846 Act authorising a new railway does not explicitly state the gauge, it is implicitly to have a gauge of 4 feet  inches. Presumably the problem is that we are being asked to provide a citation for the omission of the gauge from the Elham Valley Railway Act - I don't think that there will be such a source. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a source shortly after I wrote the above comment and it's now in the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Standard gauge