Talk:Dalkey Atmospheric Railway

Myth or fact?
To quote from p. 197 of: FIFTY YEARS OF RAILWAY LIFE IN ENGLAND, SCOTLAND AND IRELAND by Joseph Tatlow,

Director Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland and Dublin and Kingstown Railway; a Member of Dominions Royal Commission, 1912-1917; late Manager Midland Great Western Railway, etc.

Published in 1920 by The Railway Gazette, Queens Anne’s Chambers, Westminster, London, S.W.1.

“''The reason of the failure of the system on the Dalkey extension, Mr. Waldron tells me (and he knows all about his railway, as a Chairman should) was due to the impossibility of keeping the metal disc airtight. The disc, shaped like a griddle, was edged with leather which had to be heavily greased to enable it to be drawn through the pipe from which the air was pumped out, in order to create a vacuum, and the rats, like nature, abhorring a vacuum, gnawed the greasy leather, letting in the air, and bringing the train to a standstill!''”

Suckindiesel (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Longest operating?
It was not the longest operating railway (space), being under 2 miles, while the South Devon operated about 15 miles atmospherically. It was also not the longest-operating (hyphen) since it ran for 10 years while the French atmospheric railway at St Germain ran for 13 years. I wonder what was meant by the statement. JoeBrennan (talk) 01:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

possible sources
Migrating sources that were dropped into the article space even though they weren't integrated as in-line and it remains unclear if these sources have anything to do with the current prose



These sources should not have just been dropped into the article for "future use". Especially not as minor edit, as "Adding or removing references, external links, or categories in an article" is not a minor edit. Graywalls (talk) 10:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * This is obvious nothing but an attempt to WP:HOUND me and to interfere with the development of the current article which you have actually done. Murray has already been used, and it seems like in a red-mist removal the referencing has been broken by a disruptive removal.  I will continue improvements in a Template:Under construction.  While the 1941 letter of Pim is not in current prose, how Pim could not be mentioned in this article defeats me, Lyons title says all about the relevance, as does Murray and Shepherd.  ( I must confess I have just have a thought I have used Shepherd and attributed to Murray by mistake so will will need to check.  I have all 3 books but Murray is not to hand. All three cover the subject and will likely fill in some points and claims on the article that are currently not cited and one of which is I am certain is factually incorrect.}} Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * pffft, I edit on many rail articles. It is not a removal, because it was moved into talk so that it's available and preserved in talk for others to reference if desired. Sources that have not been referenced in prose shouldn't be inserted. The way in which you inserted is also not consistent with the accepted practices per WP:MINOR which specifically says not to add contents as "minor edits". This could cause major edits to be overlooked as minor and not noticed. I ask that you stop failing to assume WP:AGF. Graywalls (talk) 12:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * "Further reading", which is what several of these sources fell under, is a recognized part of an article's layout and structure: MOS:FURTHER. Many articles blur the lines between "References" and "Further reading", but that's an easy fix. Mackensen (talk) 12:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It was set aside in an easy to find way in talk; therefore nothing was lost from view. So, if that's the preferable way, go ahead and do the edits to improve it. When there are references in the prose, but they are not applicable to whats in prose, it leads to confusions. Graywalls (talk) 12:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Quite frankly I am slightly cutting corners by introducing these as sources, and the books all cover parts of the content, including some of the referenced content. It may be Shepherd will be removed if not used as Murray 1981 is better when I find it, and while Lyon does excellently at one point he didn't quite cover an unexisting sentence as it was wrote so I drew back from using him on that point.  It was Lyon who drew my attention to the Pim letter, which is really fascinating, though it may end up not be directly usable except as Further reading, somewhat neat as it is available online, albeit google only currently as far as I can tell.  I've now covered myself by an under construction.  the DW&WR reference in the article curreny is plain wrong as that company name was only adopted in 1860 but the associate sentence needs very careful wording and probably needs Murray to source an accurable sentence.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)