Talk:Elham Valley Railway

Name
The article "Elham valley railway" has been redirected here with all information. Spagus


 * probably (see MoS somewhere) be named "Elham Valley railway" Pickle 10:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * On second thoughts, since it was an SER line rather than an independant company, "Elham Valley line" might make more ssnse. Pickle 10:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Instruction at Harbledown
I've removed an instruction from Harbledown and given the label its own line as on Firefox anyway it was leaving gaps in the line above on the diagram. However my lack of local knowledge means I don't know which of the adjacent junctions is Harbledown so maybe someone who does know could wade in? Britmax (talk) 08:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
Move Parsecboy (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this article had been moved some time this year. However, all the sources I have is that this railway was built and ran thoughout it's life as a 'heavy' railway. In the 'Lost Railways of Kent' Leslie Oppitz (quoting 'The Elham Valley Line by Brian Hart in places) states that although a Light Railway Act was passed in 1881, but because of the competition between the SER and the LCDR, the "...SER assumed ownership of the Elham Light Valley Co and agreed to build the line as double track and to the same standard as the existing track. Parliment approved the modified bill by an Act dated 1884..." i.e. from 1884 this line was not a 'light railway'. All the internet sources (listed below) refer to this line as the Elham Valley Railway.

http://www.elhamvalleylinetrust.org/1884-1947.htm http://www.barham-kent.org.uk/Rail%20Services.htm (Repeats what I said above) http://www.undergroundkent.co.uk/etchinghill_railway_tunnel.htm http://www.elham.co.uk/Elham/Elham%20Valley%20Railway/Elham_Valley_Railway.htm http://www.kenelks.co.uk/railways/elham.htm

I therefore propose that this article be moved back. Edgepedia (talk) 07:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

National Archive records can be found here

"The Elham Valley Railway Company was incorporated under act of 18th July 1881. Under act of 28th July 1884, rights and powers of Elham Valley Railway Company were transferred to South Eastern Railway Company."

but also (and see first section here on the talk page) perhaps Elham Valley Line would be better. The reference book which seems to be the source for everyone is Elham Valley Line by Brian Hart Edgepedia (talk) 14:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Just removed 'However if it was built as a light railway, under the Light Railways Act 1896, it could not be considered an integral part of the SER network.' The 1886 Act was passed nine years after the line was opened, so how was it relevant? Edgepedia (talk) 16:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Found it! The Act was the Railway Facilities Act of 1870. Edgepedia (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think there's a lot of merit in your suggestion to move the article back to its original title of "Elham Valley Railway". Just looking through Brian Hart's book, the first proposal for the line surfaced in 1865, with the prospectus headed the "Elham Valley Light Railway Company" (the Various Powers Act 1884 gave permission to build the line). However, the references to "Light Railway" cease once the company is absorbed by the SER upon completion of the line. It's also worth mentioning that the other works on this line (Oppitz, Forwood & Edwards) don't use the term "light railway" either. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's been a week and we've got no other interest, so I've proposed the move. We need an admin to move it back over the redirect. Edgepedia (talk) 12:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Stations
I've created articles on all stations that didn't have an article, and expanded that on Elham from Mitchell & Smith. Feel free to expand and improve them from other sources. Mjroots (talk) 17:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If I can find any other suitable sources, I'll have a look. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Editing
WikiProject Military history categorizes this as one of their articles that needs a little editing in terms of fixing grammar mistakes. I revised over this page today, and fixed all I could find, but I’m not sure...it still seems like a previous editor just took all the facts they could find about the topic and threw them into one page. I haven’t done much research on the subject of the article, so I won’t know how to fix those mistakes, so I was hoping someone else could. Please notify me if you’re able to fix this article. Ma nam is geoffrey (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


 * You haven't fixed any grammar, but you've added Americanisms such as "Forms of media such as", said "that consisted of weapons such as" instead of simply "including" or "During this time" instead of simply "when" and spelled "authorised" the American way. This is an article about a British railway, and should used British English. I don't think these are improvements, so I'm afraid I'll have to revert. I've gone through the article and tightened up a bit of the prose; there can't be too much wrong with it as a number of experienced editors have looked at this recently and done quite a few fixes. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just fixing what I could. I didn’t realize that. I just thought some of it was written rather poorly. Ma nam is geoffrey (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


 * You can fix some of the issues mentions in Talk:Elham Valley Railway/GA1. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  22:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Standard gauge
Surely WP:BLUE applies here? The SER, SE&CR, SR and BR(S) are all companies that operated standard gauge railways. The only time we need to cite a gauge is when it is "non-standard" for the area it is in, such as the Lynton and Barnstaple Railway, a narrow gauge railway in standard gauge territory. Mjroots (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I've just been through records in Hansard, the London Gazette and The Times archives, the latter of which has the complete bills for the railway as they were read verbatim c. 1880. None of them mention this, not because it's untrue but because nobody thought it important to clarify beyond that it would plug into the rest of the network. I found one sources which suggested it (eg: "to construct the line as double track to main line standards", where "main line standards" obviously means standard gauge, if that helps. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Section 1 of the Gauge Act 1846 forbids the future construction of any railway for the conveyance of passengers on any gauge other than 4 feet $8 1/2$ inches in Great Britain and 5 feet 3 inches in Ireland. Section 2 of the same Act allows exemption for any Railway constructed or to be constructed under the provisions of any present or future Act containing any special enactment defining the gauge or gauges of such railway or any part thereof . What this means is that if a post-1846 Act authorising a new railway does not explicitly state the gauge, it is implicitly to have a gauge of 4 feet $8 1/2$ inches. Presumably the problem is that we are being asked to provide a citation for the omission of the gauge from the Elham Valley Railway Act - I don't think that there will be such a source. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I found a source shortly after I wrote the above comment and it's now in the article. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  18:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)