Talk:Meigs Elevated Railway

Article recast. Monorail?
I couldn't make sense of this article when I first read it, so I've taken it apart and put it back together again with added info, headings, links to other articles and citations. I've removed the accuracy template, as unsupported contemporary assertions are now within block quotes.

I've challenged the categorization of the system as a monorail, even though it's common, because it contradicts the definition given by the Monorail article. This was a third-rail system, although the term is usually applied to electric railways.

There are some issues with content, but these would probably need original research to sort out. The subject could be the basis of a good book for someone to write:


 * The citations are still dominated by material promoting the scheme. There must have been contemporary critical analyses, but I cannot find citations. This system had several very obvious drawbacks, which it is difficult to describe without drifting into surmise. The permanent way was flimsy, and a challenge to maintain and repair. Passengers would have frozen in winter. If a load-bearing rail failed, a train would have been liable to jam on the track and one could imagine ladies in the dresses of the time being forced to descend a rescue ladder. And how could such a broken-down train be rescued? How was the fireman expected to get coal from the tender for the locomotive?
 * The description is dominated by nuts-and-bolts, with little about envisaged operations. Nothing about proposed signalling, passenger stations, timetabling or capacity.
 * I find it difficult to believe that Meigs intended the demonstration coach to be a model for one in actual service. Velvet upholstery, carpets, no heating or strap-hangers?? I've looked for evidence that his vision of an actual rapid transit coach was of something more practical, but couldn't find any.
 * The system failed because the Boston bankers told Meigs to go away. I understand that Boston politics helped the scheme to catch and hold the public eye in the first place, but I didn't want to get into the complexities and citation-hunting for that -even if Bostonian readers of the article might find it interesting. Have a go if you think you're hard enough.
 * Electricity. Meigs's hostility to electric traction is citable, but his motive is not so clear. I've come across the assertion that his system could have been redesigned to include an electric power supply and so his opposition was irrational, but I would like to see evidence or that. It's not so obvious to me that an electric power supply could have been safely added. Shubimperatrix (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Will try to improve this article
I'll try to update the Scientific American description, which contains obsolescent and unfamiliar terms, as well as supplementing the history and giving citations. I understand that the "Scientific American" text quoted was possibly copied verbatim from a "Meigs Family History and Genealogy" website, but the original text is in the public domain. So, copyright should not be an issue.Shubimperatrix (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)shubimperatrix

Cambridge Historical Commission
The "Cambridge Historical Commission" has a blog page on WordPress concerning this railway, which I've used as a citation. If this is an issue, please raise objections. The "Description" section is a monster, and challenging both to read and to edit. I've mostly left it alone, but at least the imperial measurements need to have metric equivalents. Have the copyright problems been resolved, as per the previous remark? It still looks like a cut-and-paste job from the Scientific American article or the Meigs.Shubimperatrix (talk) 11:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)shubimperatrix

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://meigs.org/meigs_elevated_railroad.htm?. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Lucas559 (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Edit in question.

Accuracy
This article states a good many things as fact, in Wiki's voice, that were plagiarized intact from a 131 year old Scientific American article, which itself appeared to source a bit too much to the inventor, but, more importantly, was based on current ideas on crash safety, to give but one example. Anmccaff (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Meigs Elevated 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/20050101062213/http://trainnet.org/Libraries/Lib003/MEIGS.TXT to http://www.trainnet.org/Libraries/Lib003/MEIGS.TXT

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) 23:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

"incendiary nature"
How could a fire not be of an "incendiary nature"? --Jtle515 (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The suspicion of arson was being referred to, but the term as used is confusing. I've edited it. Shubimperatrix (talk) 09:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)shubimperatrix