Talk:Cornwall Railway viaducts

message: I've decided to create an article charting all of the railway viaducts and bridges in the UK. as it is just started it needs heavy expansion etc. I am not sure what to do with individual articles listing railway viducts and bridges etc. See: List of railway viaducts in the United Kingdom. I hope the scope is not too big. Simply south 12:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Something's up with the formatting of this article; if the Contents box is visible there's no text going to the right of it, which results in effectively a blank page. Not good! Graldensblud 17:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How's that? (following intro tweaks...) -- EdJogg 22:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting

message: "The lease precluded the conversion of the broad gauge line to standard gauge, and the Cornwall Railway refused to pay for the widening of the viaducts during rebuilding to accommodate a double line of standard gauge tracks (it had been built as a single-track line)."
I'm confused by this. Replace "standard" with "broad" and it begins to make sense but as it stands it doesn't. I'm not sure enough of the facts to do the edit but here's my reasoning. The line was built as a single-track in broad gauge. The bridges and viaducts needed replacing and the Cornwall Railway wanted to take the opportunity to double the track but didn't want to go to the extra expense of a broad gauge double track, preferring a standard gauge double track, though the lease didn't allow the proposed gauge conversion. Comments? 83.104.249.240 (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''History'' section 

message: In the description of the Class D structures there's an incomplete sentence - an incomplete word, even. Has some previous edit gone wrong? 83.104.249.240 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well spotted!  I've put it right now. Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Constructional Features'' section 

message: Should the Calstock viaduct be on this page? Talskiddy (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is not a Cornwall Railway viaduct; it was built by the Plymouth, Devonport and South Western Junction Railway. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see now. 'Cornwall Railway viaducts' not 'Railway Viaducts of Cornwall'  :) Talskiddy (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Calstock?

message: I see that someone has reverted my edit about gangers. Could he help me to understand why?
I don't know if this comes from Mike Holgate's book -- the citations have all gone haywire at present -- but it is a common fallacy to equate "ganger" with "member of a gang". It is nothing of the sort, it means "working leader of gang of workers". Obviously it is possible that there were two actual gangers on the bridge when the fatalkties took place ... Mike Holgate seems to write sensational accounts of hair-raising events, and his understanding of the subtleties of railway work may, or may not, be complete.
Happy to have this clarified, and I hope to see a response in a few days time, but if not I shall re-revert it. Afterbrunel (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have found some original reports from the newspaper archive; I will edit the page so as to avoid any conflict about "gangers". Afterbrunel (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  You replaced the correct term "ganger" with "gang [member]". A ganger is effectively the foreman of the gang, not merely a member of it. For safety matters like this, it would have been that foreman who carried the responsibility (even if it hadn't been their mistake, it was their responsibility to check it). So this was specifically a criticism of the gangers in charge, not the general gang navvies. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not exactly; I agree "ganger" means "person in charge of gang" -- that was the point I was making in the first place. I have used the original text from the Times -- Holgate's book is just a lurid version based on that -- which said that the [single] ganger and the supervisor were culpable. That is the edit I made. Afterbrunel (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gangers 

message: Nearly all the citations have gone haywire at present, with red error reports everywhere. None of the cited books has a title. (I always find the Harvard citation system jolly hard work anyway.) I tried going back to earlier versions from months ago in case someone had inadvertently done this, but no joy. It may self rectify tomorrow ... but if not, has anyone any suggestions? Afterbrunel (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  The following day: this is still a problem; I don't know how it has happened. If iut doesn't rectify soon I will try to retrieve the proper references.Afterbrunel (talk) 08:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Has anyone got a solution to this (short of reconstructing them all one by one)? Afterbrunel (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you Mr Dingley Afterbrunel (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations gone wrong 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cornwall Railway viaducts. 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/20150402150934/http://rememberfalmouth.co.uk/view/278/ to http://rememberfalmouth.co.uk/view/278/
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) 07:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified