Talk:Bluebell Railway

message: This station is actually located in the neighbouring (actually almost attached) village of Sharpthorne. Perhaps that warrants a mention, maybe someone knows why it's called 'West Hoathly Station' when it's not actually in West Hoathly? Tom1234 17:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bluebell West Hoathly Station 

message: I've just tweaked the section that describes how the line is to be extended to East Grinstead.  However, I find it hard to believe that there is a 50m deep cutting on the line.  Also, the article does not mention how long the cutting is.  600 cubic metres of rubbish would correspond to a 50m length of cutting that was (eg) 3m x 4m in cross-section, which is rather more believable. Could this information be updated by someone 'in the know', please?
EdJogg 17:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now fixed. Thanks User:Steamybrian. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Picture here --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be a very good addition to the article. -- EdJogg (talk) 02:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It has a free licence. I can see just the place for it, but it would mean displacing an existing, perhaps not so informative, picture of the tops of some carriages. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean the "view looking south", I think that can be safely replaced. It might be more informative to have a picture much closer to the actual end of the site. This one just looks like some carriage sidings. -- EdJogg (talk) 10:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll get on with it. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rubbish-filled Cutting - How Big? 

message: Is there any particular reason why the article has two maps? They cover the same area, but one appears unfinished and includes tracks which were part of another line (the Croydon, Oxted and East Grinstead Railway). --Old Moonraker 13:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I thought this, especially since the area talked about next to the second (smaller, incomplete) map is in the main map, maybe it should be moved to where the second map is and the second removed? Bluebellnutter 16:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The line is still visible from the air: , and on the modern 1:25000 Ordnance Survey: TQ 414 127. I haven't the skill to change the route diagram, sorry. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done:   it wasn't as hard as I thought (but, as before, due acknowledgement to those who know how to do it properly!)  --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two maps 

message: I've proposed the split of the rolling stock because it is sufficiently large that it is starting to dominate the article. For an example of how such an article might look see Rolling Stock of the Kent & East Sussex Railway (heritage).
One major issue with the entries for the rolling stock is that they are all unreferenced. Online info about rolling stock may be found via this web page Mjroots (talk) 04:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the split. Polyamorph (talk) 09:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

text: is your friend for referencing websites. Generally you can get away with url, title, publisher and accessdate. The K&ESR rolling stock articl has a history of each vehicle, with each source referenced. If the Bluebell publish a stockbook that would be a good start, along with the websites linked for the website I posted a link to in my original post. Mjroots (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed split 

message: Do we really need this in the article, it doesnt appear to be particularly notable to the railway even with a mention in the Sun. Furious members of the public doesnt make it a controversy, and if you consider the number of times "members of the public were furious" in the 125 year history of the line it would appear to carry undue WP:WEIGHT within the article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it ought to be mentioned as a point in the "claims to fame" area, but I certainly don't see it as warranting a section of it's own. Bluebellnutter (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Changing the section title to "Incidents" would reduce its significance. It wouldn't fit in the 'claims to fame' section. which is about film and TV appearances. EdJogg (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say remove it completely. Having seen the article in The Sun (online) it is quite obvious from the photos that there are inaccuracies - the "officer" for example, is wearing the uniform of a corporal in the Military Police - and it only warrants a small article in any case. Not notable in terms of the Bluebell Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 07:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with removing it, its not very notable and besides The Sun is most certainly NOT a reliable source - they simply make stuff up to sell papers - sentences like "members of the public were furious" might be suitable for a rag like The Sun but not wikipedia. Ultimately this is not sufficiently notable. Polyamorph (talk) 09:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is likely to be reported in more reliable sources than The Sun. The next issue of Steam Railway magazine is out tomorrow (29th). If it is reported there, I'll let you all know here and we can discuss it further. We are not here to only report good stuff. If it is bad, it needs to be referenced (akin to WP:BLP) but just because it is negative shouldn't prevent it from being included. Mjroots (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just like to mention that the original point was notability re the railway nothing to do with negative or positive. MilborneOne (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Its inclusion is definitely WP:RECENTISM and from the long-term perspective it doesn't have a place. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Going back to the Steam Railway comment, is that actually a reliable enough source given that it also eminates from within the environs of the enthusiast market, and perhaps it could only be said to be truly notable if (when?) another major national publication takes it up? I mean, not everything in Steam Railway is always (a.) entered on Wikipedia or (b.) 100% correct. They have a reputation for being somewhat tabloid-esque in their reporting. Also, it probably depends on the weight of coverage given. Anything more than a decent sized article with picture might count, but if it's just a small box with about 50 words in it, does that count as notable enough? Not saying we shouldn't include it, just establishing as to how much coverage it would need, as obviously if we were to print everything with even a smidgen of coverage we'd be here forever... Bluebellnutter (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Steam Railway is a WP:RS. It has to obey libel laws like all other newspapers and magazines so wouldn't report such a story if it wasn't true. It has reported controversy at wartime weekends before, notably the appearance of some actors in Nazi uniforms. Heritage Railway magazine isn't due out yet. Let's see what is published first and go from there. Mjroots (talk) 05:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It really depends on how "furious" people got. The Sun has a way of exagerating things. I would imagine that most people would not really care less! It might however be worth having a section on the reinactments that take place at the Bluebell, if these are a regular event, and any controversies that they might have caused. Polyamorph (talk) 08:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I think, as I mentioned above, it would be best to add a section on the reinactments that take place at the bluebell, if this is the sort of thing they do regularly and are fairly well known. Then I think it would be notable to add the critisms including the spy shooting and the nazi uniform controversies, citing the Steam Railway magazine and other reliable sources if available. Polyamorph (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm wondering, is it worth having a general "criticisms" section? After all, there were also criticisms over the steam-only policy and the use of the class 73 on the Wealden Exclusive in March, so that's three before we even begin! Bluebellnutter (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, that sounds like a good idea. Mjroots (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So, anyone else think it would work? Bluebellnutter (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not against it in general but you have to be carefull about WP:WEIGHT as it sometimes attracts all criticism big and small and you have to make sure that a sense of balance is kept. Often one complaint is mentioned but not ten of thousands of other passengers who had a good time. MilborneOne (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely that's just a matter of policing it, though? If we restrict it to well aired grievances, over major issues such as the shooting, the Wealden exclusive and the steam-only policy, then it shouldn't be an issue. Individual grievances which don't hold so much weight can be easily removed, or even debate their merits on the Talk Page. Bluebellnutter (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes no problem I just wanted to make sure that it was clear that it just needs keeping an eye on. MilborneOne (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 2009 Spy "shooting" controversy

message: Given the continued progress of the extension northward, and the relative inactivity on the potential Ardingly extension or any fanciful notion of a southern extension, might it be worth creating a seperate section covering the extension toward East Grinstead, especially given the amount of material and news out there which isn't currently on this site? Perhaps even creating a seperate section for the entire northern extension since Horsted Keynes, giving a more detailed account of the work involved moving from Horsted to West Hoathly, then there to Kingscote. 
This could perhaps be linked in with a more detailed description of the line, with each section described in detail, including such things as gradients, landmarks, disused stations, bridges, tunnels, possibly signals etc? I just feel that there is actually very little on the current state of the railway, or detail on the route other than the stations on their own pages. Perhaps this could give a fuller description of what the line is like? As it seems that there is actually very little about the line, other than mention of the extensions, most of it is about the history of the society.
It would probably take some time, but I think would be ultimately worth it. Bluebellnutter (talk) 23:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps this particular page should concentrate on the activities of the Preservation Society from 1960 onwards, and everything else before then to do with the history of the line and its closure should be on a separate page entitled the Lewes and East Grinstead Railway. This page can then describe the route as it has been restored today by the Bluebell. Any thoughts? Lamberhurst (talk) 07:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that could work, focus this more on the society and create a page for the route. Any other opinions on this? Bluebellnutter (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a reasonable idea to divide the preservation and operation from the permanent way/track etc. MilborneOne (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, if there's general agreement, I can put together an article. I think it would be a good idea if the routemap used on this article (showing the whole line as built) should go in the Lewes & East Grinstead article and a new one put together for the Bluebell article, showing the line only as far as Sheffield Park, with more detail including e.g. overbridges and Hill Place viaduct. Lamberhurst (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a better idea I think, perhaps the Bluebell one could also cover (in addition to SP - EG) the line to Ardingly, given it's now owned by the society in full, incorporating Sheriff Mill viaduct et al? Bluebellnutter (talk) 12:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Northern extension vs other extensions 

message: Interesting though it is, the new 'Accidents' section highlights the need to separate the historical from the preserved.  I think it is a little unfair on the Bluebell to lump this section in, as it will draw the attention of readers away from the preserved railway. -- EdJogg (talk) 07:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the Accidents section into History and dropped heading level.  That should help.  David Bailey (talk) 08:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Must admit that the same thought had occurred to me... --  EdJogg (talk) 11:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's completely uncited anyway, unless a reliable source can be found to confirm the information then it should be removed anyway. Regards Polyamorph (talk) 12:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as I added the section somewhile ago, I thought I'd better provide the link to prove it happened. This link was directly off the Bluebell Railway website:
http://www.horstedkeynes.com/tragedy.html
Contains the story, as well as many other interesting articles.
Many thanks, TPEditor (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Accidents section

message: "Any extension would therefore mean a termination and a new station at Ardingly outside the National Rail boundary, or to build or tunnel at the roadstone terminal and join the branch to the west." I don't see why this is necessarily the case. I have seen written on railway blogs that the line could be routed round the roadstone terminal. It could certainly be shared into Haywards Heath - I believe that there is at most one train operating daily between Ardingly and Westbury. The difficulty comes with the politics of providing a platform at Haywards Heath as this would take car parking space. Crooked cottage (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ardingly 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bluebell Railway. 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/20110614015638/http://www.lewes.gov.uk/coun/planning/lewes_local_plan/written/written_frame.htm?cpt9.htm&re6 to http://www.lewes.gov.uk/coun/planning/lewes_local_plan/written/written_frame.htm?cpt9.htm&re6
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified