Talk:Edinburgh, Leith and Newhaven Railway

Route Diagram
Had a look at this today. Not as simple as I had thought. More thought is required. Commented tag now in the article. --Stewart  ( talk |  edits ) 15:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Take as long as you need. Let me know if you need any help. --John (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See what you think of this. [[Image:Edinburgh rail old.png|thumb]]. --John (talk) 22:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added an edited version to the article. It's maybe a little bit crunchy, I should have rasterized at a higher value. I may redo it if I get the chance. --John (talk) 03:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you redo the map with contrasting colours? It's difficult to tell the brown from the grey and the two reds from each other. AsparagusTips (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments arising from GAR
It would be interesting to have some expansion of the sourcing comment. I regard the Railscot site and The Illustrated History of Edinburgh's Railways as pretty good and reliable sources. I can see the merit in getting multiple sources for contentious or controversial claims, but I am struggling to see it for this article; as long as reliable sources are provided, what's the problem? --John (talk) 01:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's put it another way. The article was created on 19th and submitted for GAN on 22nd? The grammar is good, it is neutral and the prose is good. It has fifteen in-line citations, three of which come from RailScot - which I happen to agree is a reliable source; one from a youth club web site to verify that one station is currently in use as a youth centre; one from a web site on Leith Citadel railway station, which is more of an External link than a citation. You use Peter Stubbs' web site as a citation for rediscovery of the southern entrance; it is an interesting web site and its probably acceptable for that purpose, but unlike Railscot, it does not list its references.


 * The article is some way between a C-class article and a B-class article. It is currently classed as C-class, but I shalln't object if it is reclassified as a B-class article; but it is not a GA-class article. The article is not much longer than Leith Central railway station, which is currently a Start-class article, but that is somewhat under referenced. I'm not asking for multiple sources, I'm asking for sources and an adequate scope. RailScot and SubBrit would normally go into the External links section; but as SubBrit has information on the Scotland Street tunnel that probably does not exist elsewhere, I would accept SubBrit as an in-line citation for post-railway use of Scotland Street tunnel, etc. The Scotland Street tunnel linked to Waverley railway station at right angles to the through lines, but that is not in your article. You mention the Granton boat trains, but the significance is greatly underplayed: the link stopped because the Forth Railway Bridge was built, but that's not in the article. The more I think about it, you have in terms of scope a Start-class article that is referenced by about ten to fifteen minutes of google searches. You have Awdry, Jowett & Smith and Anderson in the sources, but they are not cited as references; were they added as an after thought or did they get copied and pasted from elsewhere? The Glasgow and South Western Railway is a better article than this, and it is only start-class, I must re-assess it to night.

The following references cover the line (in full or part), I verified them to night; and I suspect that you probably could have got these references from RailScott:


 * I'm happy to work with you to create a GA-class article, but this article is not anywhere near GA class.Pyrotec (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * To avoid any doubt, I'm not "attacking" the article as such; the article is generally good. I casting doubts on the wisdom of submitting an article to GAN which was less than a week old; which was of limited scope and used a limited number of web-based references. Pyrotec (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your insightful comments. The 90 degree link at Canal St is mentioned, but only in the connections section. I look forward to improving this with you. --John (talk) 07:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Narrative logic
I don't like putting spoiling remarks in the face of an article, so this is here:

An early part of the text reads

''The Act of Parliament to allow building of the railway received its Royal Assent on 13 August 1836. A further Act of Parliament on 1 July 1839 authorised an extension to Newhaven.''

So in 1836 the line was authorised to go from Edinburgh to Newhaven (and Leith), and in 1839 an extension was authorised, to, er, Newhaven.

(This correctly reflects what Awdry says, but hey, Awdry is just an Encyclopaedia, i.e. a tertiary source like Wikipedia, anyway. And Awdry is no stranger to inaccuracy.)

If that's right, it needs to be explained, but it isn't what Smith & Anderson, Carter or Paterson say, and their story stacks up much more logically. I wonder why their material is ignored?

In fact nearly all the citations on the page are to other tertiary sources, or are only supporting very narrow sections of the story.

Still, I liked the Wikilink to mushroom in case anyone interested in railway history was uncertain what the term means.

There are a number of other unusual ways of expressing the story in this article. Time for an edit? ... Afterbrunel (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I have had a shot at improving this.


 * I am rather uncomfortable with the map; the colour coded key is discouraged by Wikipedia guidelines; I don't know what the broad pale green line is supposed to represent. Pale green is "Tunnel 1847" but it obviously isn't that. I applaud the provision of a map, but maybe this one could be improved a little ... ? Afterbrunel (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

diagram links
References to the Duke of Buccleuch's harbour tramway lead to the page of the Duke which does not mention the tramway. Can the link be removed or prove a source of evidence to the tramway, which we know existed. AsparagusTips (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)