Talk:Corris Railway

Hughes links
You only need to link the first mention of something. :) More importantly, the "Hughes" page is such a gigantic (and horrible, to be honest) disambiguation page that you are probably better off creating a "Hughes (manufacturer)" or "Hughes (railway company)" or something along those lines and linking to that. I don't think anyone is going to find it by wading through the 32 people and companies listed on the Hughes page :( --Telsa 21:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Link was changed to Hughes' Falcon Works which has now been diverted to Brush, the successor company at the works. RGCorris (talk) 12:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Working towards Good Article status
I'd like to see this article progress towards becoming an officially recognized good article. We're recently got Talyllyn Railway to GA status, and are working on moving it further to becoming a featured article. I see no reason why the Corris Railway shouldn't at least get to GA, and the two make a natural pairing. I've started to expand the history sections of the article, with more to come. I'm also going to see if there are more pictures that could be used. I plan to broadly model the structure of this article on Talyllyn Railway. Any and all help is obviously very welcome. Thanks, Gwernol 02:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Count me in for helping on this one. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 05:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You are not going to achieve GA status by incorporating long-disproved errors by James Boyd in the article !! RGCorris (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to anything specifically? Whilst we should be aiming to get the article as accurate as possible, the important thing is verifiability, not truth. — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo (talk) 12:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a recognised problem with Boyd that he mixes unverifiable assumptions with facts without distinguishing between the two. Books by Gwyn Briwnant Jones and the Corris Railway Society have verified and corrected his errors. In particular Boyd is wholly in error regarding the parent company, Imperial Tramways, and its links to Bristol. These were correctly stated in the article and have been changed for Boyd's version. RGCorris (talk) 12:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Focus
I suspect this is going to open a large can of worms, but before going much further, what is the main focus of the article? Should it be about the present preserved railway (The Corris is a preserved railway... it is a short section of a 12 mile long line...) or more emphasis on the original (The Corris was a railway... A short section has been reopened...). With the Talyllyn, the two dovetailed into each other smoothly, however, I think this will cause more problems with the Corris. For example, in the info-box, is the terminus Machynlleth (as it was originally) or Corris (as it is now)? One solution, though rather drastic, may be two have separate articles, as is the case with Great Central Railway and Great Central Railway (preserved). What do people think? — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo (talk) 09:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The preserved Great Central is only a tiny portion of the original line, doing a very different job to the original, whereas the revived Corris has ambitions to re-open much more of the original railway (perhaps even to Machynlleth one day) and run it as similarly as possible to the original passenger operations. Certainly those of us who have rebuilt the railway see it as a continuation of the original line, as reflected in the loco and carriage numbering policy. I would therefore vote for keeping the article in its present form, to cover the whole history of the line from the 1850s to date. RGCorris (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, but until that time how should we emphasise the article? At present, according to the lead and info-box, it's a preserved line, with a terminus at Machynlleth. I know what it means, but it's confusing to a casual reader. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 16:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I have updated the terminus information to cover the former and present position, with both ends of the line now shown. RGCorris (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

More sections?
Just a thought - comparing this article with the Talyllyn Railway article - how about an "operation" section and an "literary reference" section (with the Awdry connection mentioned)? I'm happy to do some work on this if others agree. Best Witchwooder (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Loco No.8
Following erroneous edits stating the loco has been bought by the railway, this is not the case, as can be ascertained from the railway's Guidebook and Stocklist. The loco has been lent to the railway on long-term loan, and could be recalled by the owners at any time with reasonable notice. The railway's management decided to allocate the number 8 to it as the next available number in the list at the time it was originally lent, in the expectation that it would be at the railway for some considerable time and needed a number for identification. RGCorris (talk) 20:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, thanks for telling me. Now, when did it first arrive onto the railway? Dinoboyaz (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It arrived at Maespoeth on 12th August 2003. RGCorris (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

2 ft 2.5 in: special track gauge
The article mentions a track gauge of 2 ft 2.5 in. That would be an unique gauge (nowhere else in enwiki). Template Track gauge has a list of all defined (sourced) track gauges on enwiki, but this one is not in there. It is sourced so it could be added to the list, but it was never build. I'l change it into a regular Convert gauge, not using. This is also discussed here. -DePiep (talk) 21:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for converting the RailGauge template to Convert. That's really helpful. 2ft 2.5in gauge was used on a few industrial lines - I believe it was used at Votty & Bowydd Quarry in Blaenau and underground at one or two collieries. I can probably dig out sources to confirm this. Railfan23 (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If you can source some info about other railways, could you add them to List of 2 ft 3 in gauge railways please, as it has a section on similar gauges. Thanks. Optimist on the run (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And then please also use  in the sourcing article, so it will automatically appear on the todo category. -DePiep (talk) 08:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Morben Wharves (Cei Ward)
The article suggests that "It is thought that the tramroad never reached Morben" and quotes Peter Johnson's "An Illustrated History of the Great Western Narrow Gauge" (2011) as the source, although without specifying a page reference. On page 15 of that book it states that "It is likely that the line beyond Derwenlas was not built." Certainly there is no evidence for the section from Morben Wharves to Garreg (Cae Coch), or the branch along Penffordd Newydd, being built, either on the ground or in historical documents, but the section from the wharves at Derwenlas (Cei Ellis and Cei Tafarn Isaf) to what the original plan calls "Morben Whafs(sic)" (Cei Ward) not only can be seen on the plans for the Aberystwith(sic) and Welsh Coast Railway, but more crucially the A&WCR had to install a rail-to-rail level crossing at Cei Ward where it crossed the tramway route there. According to "The Cambrian Railways Volume 1" by Rex Christiansen and R W Miller (1967) page 63 the "..Cambrian's working timetables showed the level crossing with the Corris for many years afterwards."

The 1858 plans show "Morben Whafs" to be sited on the Dyfi just downstream of Plas Llugwy on the opposite (north) bank, lying below Morben Hall and Morben Farm, and some way short of what is now Morben Isaf caravan park. Had the line to Garreg been built it would have passed close by Morben Isaf, but it almost certainly terminated at Cei Ward - Morben Wharves. It is even possible that an extension along the river bank to Llyn Bwtri (a bend on the river below Pennal) where there was a boatyard may have been built without official approval - there is an embankment along the river that could have been a tramway formation, but may have simply been a levee. RGCorris (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Cae Goch
The article states "...down to the wharf at "Cae Goch on the River Dovey" with a short onward branch to Morben". Cae Goch (Red Quay) is well downstream of Morben, shown on the 1858 plans as being below Dovey Castle, and close to the site of the A&WCR's Glandovey Station. This suggests erroneously that the contributor thought Cae Goch was at Derwenlas. RGCorris (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)