Talk:Lauterbrunnen–Mürren Mountain Railway

Cog Railway?
According to Tramways and Light Railways of Switzerland and Austria (see citation in article) the upper section of this railway is an electric tramway with no indication that it is a cog railway. And the 5% maximum gradient quoted both in the original article and that book is well within the limits of adhesion for an ordinary electric railway. So I have removed the reference to cog railway. -- Chris j wood 13:58, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, the upper section is indeed an adhesion narrow gauge railway, no cog. Gestumblindi 22:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The funicular will close
The funicular was effectively used to transport the trains from Lauterbrunnen to the line, how, I have no idea. In fact, this line is strange exactly because it has no connection with the world other than the funicular.

The funicular will close next year to be changed with a "cable passenger telepheric". During he transition (between 1 May and 9 December) passengers must use the Stechelberg-Mürren telepheric, and the Grütschalp-Mürren line will have a less frequent service (because, as said, after Grütschalp you can't go anywhere without the funicular, except by foot).

Aerial tram?
Why change "cable car system" to "aerial tram"? Here they're known as cable cars! Thrapper 22:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Cable car is ambiguous - please see Cable car which is a disambiguation page. Lots of transportation systems relying on cables are called "cable cars", so the more specific term Aerial tramway is appropriate here, especially since the funicular it replaces could also be called a cable car - and you don't want to write "a cable car replaced by a cable car" when the replacing transportation system is something very different... 00:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Debatable point. Personally I had no clue what an aerial tramway was until I clicked on the link - it doesn't help if noone understands what it is.  The system being replaced could be called a funicular, or a cable train, but I would never call it a cable car.  As far as I'm concerned a "tramway" runs on rails, and doesn't hang from a cable.  Calling it "aerial" implies (to me) that the rails are suspended in the air and the tram runs on top of those rails.  Maybe this is a regional issue, but this particular system is in Europe. Thrapper 23:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Article name
In 2013, this article was moved from Bergbahn Lauterbrunnen-Mürren to Lauterbrunnen–Mürren mountain railway. However, I think that Bergbahn Lauterbrunnen-Mürren is a proper name and as such shouldn't be translated into English for the article name - like Matterhorn Gotthard Bahn (not "Matterhorn Gotthard railway") or Chemins de fer du Jura (not "Jura railways"). However, there doesn't seem to be a consistent approach? There's also Brienz–Rothorn railway, or Rigi Railways... Gestumblindi (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with keeping the name in German. But if people feel compelled to render it in English, we ought to use what the management website calls it: Lauterbrunnen-Mürren Rail & Cableway.
 * Regarding the ownership: It looks like the owners now call themselves Jungfrau – Top of Europe or the Jungfrau Railway Group, depending on where you look on their website. Eric talk 17:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lauterbrunnen–Mürren Mountain Railway. 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/20140203005147/http://www.jungfrau.ch/en/sommer/company/rail-cableways/blm/portrait/ to http://www.jungfrau.ch/en/sommer/company/rail-cableways/blm/portrait/

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) 13:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Gradient
Inclination for cohesion driven railways are always given in promilles, expediently and consistently! And it is also concensus among Swiss Railway articles. -- ZH8000 (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It might be common practice in Switzerland, but this is not the Swiss Wikipedia this is the :en Wikipedia. I was unfamiliar with he ‘per thousand’ symbol (and I have been around a while) and had to google it (once I figured out how to enter it). In English usage it is considered obsolete and archaic, so it should not be used in the :en Wikipedia as few people understand it; no keyboard supports it and very few character sets include it. If you must insist, then obtain a consensus (as WP:BRD requires). Expressing the gradient as ‘5%’ is almost universally understood. 148.252.129.216 (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Can you read a simple diagram? WP:BRD is the other way around; actually, you have to provide evidence for your bold change. Therefore I filed you for 3rr.
 * You are obviously not an engineer, i.e. an "amateur" (lit. somebody who loves the subject) at best. Of course, engineering has its own nomenclature and signs, since centuries, obviously, necessarily and inevitably. Not to admit this commonplace truth is just plain ignorance.
 * But well, just a few very fast examples:
 * ‰ ... quote: "Tunnel and railway gradients (in some countries in Europe)"
 * List of spiral tunnels and tunnels on a curved alignment
 * Siemens, a producer of trains ... "For example, it was possible to start and accelerate the 5,500-ton train from a standstill on a gradient of over 12 ‰."
 * e.g. Israelian Railways ... all ix are expresed in ‰.
 * etc, etc, and so forth.
 * -- ZH8000 (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * No. I don't have WP:BRD the wrong way around - you do. You first introduced the per thousand designation with this edit (thus you made the B).  109.26.169.68 reverted the edit (the R) suggesting that part of what you did was vandalism. I assume it was because it appeared as though you had changed '5%' in to (what looked like) '50%', as few people are familiar with the per thousand symbol (and, as I said, I had to google it - I can't even include it here as it appears in precious few character sets).


 * To try and claim that someone else changed the per thousand symbol as a bold edit to '%' is just plain deceit when the edit history clearly shows otherwise. The responsibility for satisfying the 'D' part of WP:BRD rests with you. Whining off to WP:3RR does not change that (and no one infringed it anyway).


 * The 'per thousand' symbol is sufficiently unknown among the general English speaking readers that its use here is not appropriate while the universally recognised '%' provides exactly the same information.


 * For the avoidance of doubt, I am not 109.26.169.68. It turns out that we are not even in the same country. I am 148.252.129.216 though (that's dynamic IP addresses for you over which no one has any control). 85.255.237.126 (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In English, grade (incline) is typically expressed as a percentage, or sometimes in degrees, at least in general use and road signage. I for one have never seen it expressed as per thousand. In any case, WP articles are not written for a railway engineer audience. See here for a start: Grade_(slope). It also appears that Swiss railways use signage that shows a percentage over a distance: Commons:Category:Railway_slope_signs_in_Switzerland Eric talk 17:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: part of a post to WP:ANEW copied here as it is relevant to issue at hand.


 * Begin quote


 * The concept of the '‰' symbol is more correctly referred to as the 'promille' (olde English) or the 'permille' (later usage, from the same derivation as 'percent' for the '%' symbol). Both the symbol and the word used to describe it are considered archaic in English usage and I have certainly never seen any paper use it other than one on the discussion of the symbol itself. The terms are so archaic that no (paper) English dictionary published in the last 70 years or so even includes either word (or any variation of spelling). Some on-line dictionaries do include it but they do not appear to agree on the spelling, and [in] some cases the meaning. I note that the Wikipedia article on the subject notes this as well.


 * I do not understand the obsession with using an archaic method of expressing gradient when the universally understood '%' gradient precisely expresses the point attempting to be conveyed. TheVicarsCat (talk) 12:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * End quote

86.174.153.3 (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)