Talk:Lynton and Barnstaple Railway

Merging the L&BR Trust article
It has been suggested that the trust article should be merged with this one.

This is the main article of a number relating to the L&B, but whereas this is primarily concerned with the history of the original railway line, the other is about a modern charity created to support the restoration. There is little information that is common to the two, and the main article is already around the suggested maximum size for an article, therefore I believe the two should remain as individual articles. Regards, Lynbarn 22:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose Merge - as per Lynbarn. I see no problem with keeping the articles separate, indeed, I can see no real reason why you might want to merge them.
 * EdJogg 01:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose Merge - for the reasons stated aboveOxyman42 17:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


86.136.173.80, I'm not sure that Wikipedia is the place for a request for information such as you have added re.Lew - it is after all an encyclopedia - to inform - and not a discussion group - to enquire - (despite this page), but I would be interested to hear other views on this. Regards, Martyn (Lynbarn) 29 December 2005

fair enough lynbarn, i'll keep my contributions stictly factual in future

by the way, what page are you referring to? if this () is a link it dosent work

The  isn't a link, it's short for Grin - I was alluding to the fact that these talk pages - connected to each Wikipedia article - do sometimes carry enquiries relating to the subject of the article!!! Martyn 16:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

ohhhh Doubledgedsword 17:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

pictures off the website
sice you're assistant webmaster for the website, are the pictures on there available to put up on wikipedia? if they are ill put some up straight away Doubledgedsword 18:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Probably, but I don't own the copyright on any of those currently shown. Also, they are mainly modern pictures, not so applicable to an encyclopedia entry, and as they are on the web site anyway, people can see them there by following the link. I have some others available though - I'll add some more in the next few days Lynbarn 18:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Aiming for Featured Article standard
I've been told this article is close to meeting Featured Article Status - although a few changes are necessary, some of which I have made already. It is also 33kb long, with is about 10% above ideal, so some trimming may be necessary. Will also press on with adding more citations... Lynbarn 21:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC).


 * You could make the article shorter by splitting off the part on locomotive/rolling stock into separate articles. Our Phellap 23:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Alternatively, there will come a time when it is natural to split the article into two, divided chronologically: one page describing the original railway (and stock); the other covering the re-born railway. Not sure how this would affect the 'featured' status! EdJogg 12:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

heritage rail template
It might be worth replacing the infobox rail template with Template:Heritage Railway as more information can be added about commercial and preservation history.

✅ Lynbarn

On a different note, why was the preserved L&B webiste link removed as spam? Nearly every heritage railway article has a link to the railway's official website, so why should the :&B be any different? Our Phellap 15:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The link is still there, but just via another article, following some discussions with User:NigelR (see also . It seemed not too bad to me, although he did point out that there were over 30 links in total in wiki, which I could see was a little extreme. Lynbarn 16:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Lynbarn

Terminus
In the infobox on this article it lists Woody bay as the terminus station, should it not readLynton and Lynmouth? I understand that woody bay is the center of the preserved operations but observe that this is cited lower in the same infoboxOxyman42 23:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing this out - it is not clear from the template which data relates to original and which to preserved status. it has been wrong for several months! I will correct it shortly. Thanks again. Lynbarn 01:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Perchance it is not dead but sleepeth
Please merge relevant content, if any, from [ Perchance it is not dead but sleepeth] per Articles for deletion/Perchance it is not dead but sleepeth. (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.) Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 11:07Z 

✅ Lynbarn 12:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Curves?
What was/is the radius of the sharpest curves on the line? Tabletop (talk) 11:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Brakes?
What kind of continuous brakes were used? Air? Vacuum or Unbraked? Tabletop (talk) 11:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Trainload?
What is the maximun weight of a train that needed to be hauled on this line. This has a bearing on the strength of the drawgear. Tabletop (talk) 04:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Tabletop, Please see the comment I have recently placed on your talk page. Many thanks, Lynbarn (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Geograph Pic
You may be interested in this picture of Narracott railway bridge on Geograph. (Sorry, don't have time to upload it to Commons.)

EdJogg (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Festiniog or Ffestiniog?
Section 2, History (para. 3) refers to "The Festiniog [Sic] Railway Company". Whilst some editors feel this should be "corrected" to the Welsh spelling now in common use, "Ffestiniog", the anglicised single "F" was actually the correct legal title of the company in 1898, when the L&B was constructed, hence its use herein.

Sic is a Latin word meaning "thus", "so", "as such", or "in such a manner". In writing, it is placed within square brackets and usually italicized – [sic] – to indicate that an incorrect or unusual spelling, phrase, punctuation, and/or other preceding quoted material has been reproduced verbatim from the quoted original and is not a transcription error.

I hope this serves to clarify this apparent error in the article. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Mixing fact and fiction
A number of edits have been made recently to pages such as Lynton and Barnstaple Railway and Rolling stock of the Lynton and Barnstaple Railway adding details of locomotives that do not and did not ever exist. These are reported in an alternative history at County Gate, a website featuring a model railway layout of the same name, which depicts a planned but NEVER BUILT extension of the L&B from Lynton to Minehead.

The model features alongside YEO, EXE, TAW, LYN and LEW, the real L&B locos, a number of locos which, although designed authentically, only exist in model form, and were never built or even designed in real life. The 2-6-0 0-6-2T locos "River Avon" & "River Brue" and the North British 4-6-4s "Axe" & "Lyd" exist only in the imagination of the modeller, (although the modern L&B does have a locomotive named AXE - A Joffre class 0-4-0 built in 1915 by Kerr Stuart for use by the French Army in World War 1, and the Ffestiniog Railway have a recently-built replica Manning Wardle named "LYD")

No diesel ever ran on the original L&B, "River Avill" was never therefore built by Armstrong Whitworth for use on the railway, and neither were any of the railcars depicted on the model or on the website.

I hope the above clears up the situation - Please do not add any details of locos, rolling stock, locations or events that may not be verifiable from sources other than the County Gate website without first discussing on this talk page. Thank You. Lynbarn (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Gauge
The book "Stockton & Darlington - One hundredd and fifty years of British Railways" says on page 100 that the L&B gauge is 2ft 0in. MountVic127 (talk) 04:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * That book is wrong. The gauge of the railway is . Opolito (talk) 05:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)