Talk:Furzebrook Railway

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Length of the line[edit]

Sources seem to vary on the length of this line. The article says 3.5 miles in the infobox, a statement that wasn't sourced by its author, but which I believe reflects a figure in The Railways of Purbeck (as referenced in the article). The web page from The Purbeck Mineral & Mining Museum referenced in the article quotes 4.75 miles.

But The Railways of Purbeck also implies a whole series of pits served by branches, the furthest of which (Povington) is over 5 miles from Ridge according to my OS map. So both 3.5 and 4.75 miles look suspect as a maximum extent figure including branches. Unless Povington wasn't rail served, in which case 4.75 miles might be reasonable. Anybody know for sure?. -- Chris j wood 16:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Povington was served by the line, there were also 2 branches serving mine shafts around East Creech, the total track length including the branches is nearer 7 miles, but not all at the same time! Cheekylittlemonkey81 (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Furzebrook 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]