Talk:Snailbeach District Railways

Use of Discussion Page
In that Wikipedia is intended as a reference work, the main article should be used only for the unquestioned history of the original railway until the controversies regarding the restoration proposals are cleared up. The discussion page should be used to clarify contentious matters. Users are requested not to delete entries from the Discussion page unless they are willing to provide the reasoning behind their actions, and preferably not to post anonymously. RGCorris (talk) 12:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Below is copy of ORIGINAL UNADULTERATED POST by RG CORRIS on the 6th August, this is the TEXT moved from the article page to here for discussion, if you don't believe me look in the history tab it gives some background'''

Contentious statements moved from article - "As no physical evidence of this restoration is yet visible, the credibility of the scheme has been questioned[1], and many seasoned enthusiasts doubt the scheme exists. It should be noted however, that enthusiasts on said forum are creating assertions based on evidence which can be described as being anecdotal at best."

The entries on National Preservation have been deleted by the moderator so this reference is no longer valid.RGCorris (talk) 08:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The accuracy of these statements has been questioned and I have placed them here until the matter is clarified -

"As of November 2007 plans are at an allegedly advanced stage to rebuild and reopen as much of the original line as possible in stages as a heritage passenger service. Initially it will use the private Tarmac owned land from Callow Hill Minsterley, following the old track bed to Callow Lane, followed by rebuilding the road bridge and towards Snailbeach, a distance of about 1.6 km. Construction of the revised line has been deferred from its planned start in 2007 and is due to start during 2008.

'''A new company was formed for the intention or reopening the line. SNAILBEACH DISTRICT LIGHT RAILWAY LIMITED was formed on 17/07/2006 later to be renamed on 25/01/2007 to SNAILBEACH DISTRICT RAILWAYS COMPANY (1873) LIMITED.  A feature of the revived line was to have been a restored Baldwin 4-6-0PT ex WD tank locomotive (one of the Palestine batch from 1917). The locomotive has been restored in Asia to very high standards to be as near as possible a replica of number 4, which ran on the line until its closure. However this is now expected to be sold to an overseas private buyer in mid August 2008, changing hands by October 15th, and will therefore not now be available for show or running on the line.'''

'''The revived SDR will be built at dual gauge 2 ft and 2 ft 6 in and will operate with steam from the first day of opening using either the Hunslet built HE 3903 (ex Statfold) or an 0-4-0 O&K (1902) Feldbahn which has been renamed Dieter. It will also feature an ex Philippines Plymouth diesel locomotive as well as ordering 2 new steam locomotives.'''

As no physical evidence of this restoration is yet visible or has been provided by the instigators, the credibility of the scheme has been questioned[2], and many seasoned enthusiasts doubt the scheme exists.

The instigators of the restoration have been allegedly involved in instigating litigation to at least one preservation based internet discussion forum for comments from members[3] [4].

'''Below is the discussion as developed. Very illogically, reading the above all becomes clear Scarborough Billy (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC).'''

RGCorris as far as the trustees of the SDR are concerned there are no controversies only those invented by critics looking to make trouble. It does not matter what proof is put on the SDR site it is torn to pieces by critics on one or other of the private hiding holes. What are we supposed to do put up a statement and back it up with a sworn statement. All we would like is to be allowed to continue our work on the land sponsored by Tarmac and be left alone to do it in peace. Certainly all this rubbish does nothing to aid UK Railway Heritage. Perhaps we should start asking proof of all statements made on other railway projects in the UK.(Snailbeach (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

For security I have removed the address range (Snailbeach (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

This IP address belongs to Mrs Marites Johns - Director of Snailbeach District Railway - she did not sign in (Snailbeach (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

This information is publically available.

http://www.cqcounter.com/whois/?query=sdrailway.org --Natpres (talk) 10:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC) Amended for security reasons (Snailbeach (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)) This is a public site and we don't want the script kiddies in our IP range poking about. What purpose this serves is beyond us we have never hidden our IP addresses as NatPres says they are publically available (Snailbeach (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

Questions regarding validity of restoration
The SDR has for the 4th time tried to place items in defense on this site each time they are deleted - what are the critics afraid of. (Snailbeach (talk) 00:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)) Even this line has been removed on three occasions.

Snailbeach, please provide evidence to substantiate your claims. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an area for un-verified claims8 10 Brass Cleaner (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me we are a private company we don't have to prove anything to people with stupid names write to me and tell me what you want. There was much substantiated proof on website until you forced its removal. You nare the ones who need to provide the proof for the lies and libel being written. You are not moderator of this page. Copied and pasted to SDR website in case of removal) A Wikipedia page is not the place to provide proof. (Snailbeach (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC))

Contentious statements moved from article - "As no physical evidence of this restoration is yet visible, the credibility of the scheme has been questioned, and many seasoned enthusiasts doubt the scheme exists. It should be noted however, that enthusiasts on said forum are creating assertions based on evidence which can be described as being anecdotal at best."

The entries on National Preservation have been deleted by the moderator so this reference is no longer valid.RGCorris (talk) 08:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The accuracy of these statements has been questioned and I have placed them here until the matter is clarified - What statements and by whom (Snailbeach (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)) conclusive proof of the SDR intentions were always listed on the SDR Website are we supposed to provide an affadavit for every statement made yet detractors can say what they like against us. (Snailbeach (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC))

"As of November 2007 plans are at an advanced stage to rebuild and reopen as much of the original line as possible in stages as a heritage passenger service. Initially it will use the private Tarmac owned land from Callow Hill Minsterley, following the old track bed to Callow Lane, followed by rebuilding the road bridge and towards Snailbeach, a distance of about 1.6 km. Construction of the revised line has been deferred from its planned start in 2007 and is due to start during 2008.

A feature of the revived line was to have been a restored Baldwin 4-6-0PT ex WD tank locomotive (one of the Palestine batch from 1917). The locomotive has been restored in Asia to very high standards to be as near as possible a replica of number 4, which ran on the line until its closure.

The revived SDR will be built at dual gauge 2 ft and 2 ft 6 in and will operate with steam from the first day of opening using either the Hunslet built HE 3903 (ex Statfold) or an 0-4-0 O&K (1902) Feldbahn which has been renamed Dieter. It will also feature an ex Philippines Plymouth diesel locomotive as well as ordering 2 new steam locomotives. (2ft 6in never claimed by SDR as to be part of building schedule what source it was not SDR - only one person suggested this to SDR but it was never adopted as company policy. (Snailbeach (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC))

As no physical evidence of this restoration is yet visible or has been provided by the instigators, the credibility of the scheme has been questioned, and many seasoned enthusiasts doubt the scheme exists.

(SDR has never claimed building started we had problems over security and sharing access with the working quarry, this was not legally resolved until July 2008 - construction under SDR was supposed to have started before end of 2008 and was factually documented on the companies website. I see no references to official SDR statements here only dubious unproven statements from other places. (Snailbeach (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC))

Again Snailbeach, unsubstantiated claims made on your own private website can hardly be described as fact. There remains no physical evidence in the public domain that proves your claims. 8 10 Brass Cleaner (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC) With respect Brass Cleaner you have not emailed me anything to to show what is on our website is inaccurate. (Snailbeach (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

The instigators of the restoration have been allegedly involved in instigating litigation to at least one preservation based internet discussion forum for comments from members ." RGCorris (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC))] National Preservation Hired a very well known solicitor who also checked the content. None was found to libellous —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natpres (UTC)) • contribs) 10:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The referred items were confirmed by the SDR barrister as being libelous and written without any substantiated evidence. This is the 3rd time this has been added by SDR and each time removed - what are the people here afraid of. I have taken a copy of this page before alteration and will place it on SDR website for people to read. (Snailbeach (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC))

Snailbeach, and Nat Pres, the opinion of council is an irrelevancy. You make me laugh!8 10 Brass Cleaner (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

So Brass Cleaner in addition to your other faults you are an expert on the law. What is legal is totally relevant to both NatPres and SDR IT is not for you to decide.(Snailbeach (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC))

Brass Cleaner stop editing people towards SbOv if you want to post there fine but lets see the proof of your assertions first. Nothing on this page proves the SDR or anything else is in doubt. Hows the view from your office in Pontesford. (Snailbeach (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC))

LOL, visitors to both this discussion page, and SnailbeachOversite are more than capable of making their own mind up. As a member at Snailbeach Oversite, I recall very few assertions, and lots of logical thinking attached to many searching questions.

May I also take the opportunity to remind Snailbeach that his(?) edits and additions are availible for the whole world to see on the both the Article Page and Discussion Page history. It makes interesting reading for the observer. !8 10 Brass Cleaner (talk) 08:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC))

The SDR website will get back to its job in hand setting out to do what we started to do - build a private railway. We have to build a security fence as part of our contract with Tarmac we are then free to start construction. (Snailbeach (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)) The Snailbeach District Railway is currently being converted into a private trust (with all assets and land) to ensure the railway is built as the originator intended. Snailbeach suffers a terminal illness and wants to ensure even if he is not able to witness the completion himself, what he planned is concluded. Edited by Rolf Director of SDR all SDR Directors have access to this user account (Snailbeach (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

External Links - Snailbeach Revival Webiste. [sic - spelling]
Brass Cleaner is not an authority - yes the SDR website is trying to defend itself in the totalitarian views of a few on a secret website. We were forced to remove our site as Snailbeach Overview steals the posts and articles to fuels its libel. Brass Cleaner has no authority other than himself to make these assertions. (Snailbeach (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)) I am seeking the moderators view on this ridiculous page which like the list SbOv has gotten out of hand (Snailbeach (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC))

User Snailbeach persists to insist that www.sdrailway.com is a site for revival of the SDR, its current state is some sort of site to gripe about people who question the revival. I have removed narrative by Snailbeach as it was untrue, but have left a link so visitors can see for themselves. 8 10 Brass Cleaner (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to remind users that as an encyclopedia, wikipedia relies on honest users who can substantiate claims made. 8 10 Brass Cleaner (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Please substantiate your claims Brass Cleaner our claims can be substantiated by contracts, bank statements and such it you do not like what we say on SDR website stay away. (Snailbeach (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)) 99% of information on Wikipedia is written by users whose word is good enough (Snailbeach (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

Snailbeach, I question your claims, to date I have seen no evidence to back them up. My comment is put up or shut up.8 10 Brass Cleaner (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)You do not belong to SDR website so how can you judge we will not put up a story and endorse it with a sworn statement/affadavit. Your own company has requested I ban you from our site, which you are well aware of. If you have irreputible proof that the SDR is not going to be built then email it to me for public comment on the SDR (Snailbeach (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

8-10-Brass Cleaner, Perhaps you could think of a more original joke next time. Your 'claims' are dumbfounded [sic - meaning!]. What right have you to criticize/crucify us? I therefore request that the link to "SnailbeachOversight" be removed as the group does not represent a balanced point of view. It should be noted also that most users on SnOv are dishonest [sic - libel] and that such claims CANNOT be substantiated. (Snailbeach (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC))

As you want fairness, as www.sdrailways.com does not represent a balanced point of view either, it too has been removed. Its either both sides of the argument to present a unbiased point of view on the page, or neither. As I said put up or shut up 8 10 Brass Cleaner (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for changing the Snailbeach Oversight link to an incorrect one, this was as a result of a change of group name on my yahoo groups page from Snailbeach Oversight to a defunct group called Snailbeach interest. Curiouser and curiouser... WaltTFB (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Link moved from main article as at present it does not work - RGCorris (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Official revival website - requires registration

Link moved from main article as at present it does not work - RGCorris (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Is the SDR revival real? - requires registrationSnailbeach District Railway took over this list October 4, all messages and user list are now in the hands of the appropriate authorities.

Discrepancy
British quarrying and mining narrow gauge railways gives 2 ft gauge. The article Snailbeach District Railways gives gauge. Which one is right? Peter Horn User talk 00:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Restoration
Moved from main article as inquiries in Switzerland have been unable to verify this story -

"Dieter Bühler and Kurt Brugger of the Snailbeach District Railways Company Ltd began plans to restore the railway in 2008, but both were killed in a collision with a lorry, near their homes in Switzerland. According to local press reports, they were travelling together, from near Berne to Snailbeach to commence restoration works Ref: Lorry crash kills rail men, John Kirk, The Shropshire Star (online edition), April 19, 2008."

RGCorris (talk) 13:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

"Restoration" section removed
For the reason I gave in the edit summary: Wikipedia articles should not contain self-references (ie references back to Wikipedia), which includes Talk pages. I know nothing about the Snailbeach line (past, present or future) so can't do any further editing. However, given the need for third-party sources, any future information added should include at least some references to publications not directly connected to any restoration effort. Railway media, established newspapers, radio and TV shows, solidly-based websites... all of those would do. Loganberry (Talk) 01:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)