Talk:Ecclesbourne Valley Railway

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

Electric stock[edit]

I don’t see any third rail in the photographs, so are they able to operate the electric stock, or does it just sit unused? David Arthur 19:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That confused me for a while - it isn't electric. The Class 489 is a modified electric coach, which was used in push-pull with a Class 73 electrodisel as traction, though the EVR uses a class 31. The LUL set that runs on there is a diesel driven maintenace vehicle. Chevin (talk) 09:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so the 489 had already stopped running as an EMU while it was still in service? David Arthur (talk) 14:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The class 489 unit was donated to the railway by Porterbrook Leasing in 2003. The train comprises of five passenger coaches which are essentially BR Mk.2f air-conditioned carriages plus a Gatwick Luggage Van (GLV). The GLV is a guards van with driving cab containing a control desk compatible with BR Southern Region electric and diesel stock. When delivered, the GLV still carried third-rail current collection equipment, but this was removed soon after arrival. The Mk2f coaches never carrried current collection gear and the 'shoes' on the DVT were designed to provide additional current collection at the opposite of the train to the class 73 locomotive that provided motive power. At Wirksworth, resident Class 31 locomotive 31414 has been converted to operate with the control system of the GLV, thus permitting push-pull operation using the GLV to control operation in one direction only. Following the opening of the section to Idridgehay, it is hoped that the whole set will be brought into operation at some point in the not-too-distant future. Nferguso wyvern (talk) 04:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

I'm now proposing a merger, after the AfD on WyvernRail was kept - even though the consensus was for merge!

Same terms as per the AfD.

Thanks,

BG7 11:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge - lack of sufficient reliable sources for a separate article. Addhoc (talk) 13:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No - this would be inappropriate. The Ecclesbourne Valley Railway is a quite separate entity from WyvernRail, and I believe a distinction needs to be made between the railway (in a historical, geographical and economic context - this entry) and the plc that currently holds the Light Railway Order (the WyvernRail plc entry). Regnerps (talk) 09:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How? Wyvern runs the EVR, and the EVR is run by Wyvern. If we want to go further, Wyvern and EVRA are entwinned together, Wyvern owns, EVRA provides. To get to Ravenstor, people must go on a platform shared by EVRA and Wyvern. I smell a rat.
Also, one source is hardly sufficient and reliable. Please rethink - and in the process make more edits acorss a wider scope than the EVR, and be here more than four days for your votes to be taken seriously :D!.
Thanks,
BG7 17:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - the corp. is not notable enough to sustain an article, outside of its involvement with the Ecclesbourne. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Within the UK independent railway sector, the public company associated with a line has usually been created when the activities of a preservation society has reached a stage in its development where it is necessary first to form a company to address fundraising through a share subscription and then act as a legal entity to address the statutory obligations associated with purchasing and running a railway.

WyvernRail’s incorporation predated the formation of the preservation society, the Ecclesbourne Valley Railway Association, by five years. WyvernRail was formed as a start-up business in response to the then forthcoming privatisation of Britain’s railways and was seeking to either lease the Wirksworth Branch or operate it under an ‘Open Access’ arrangement. In the contribution that I made, I alluded to the company’s prequalification to bid for a main line franchise and the company did also explore a variety of open access schemes during the 1990s. Unfortunately, as most of the details for these activities are buried in Board minutes going back a decade, I would be reluctant to mention them in an article as they would most definitely breach Wikipedia’s rules on referenceability, not to mention original research.

Even today, the company is rather different to other independent railway companies. WyvernRail operates a separate testing and training business which draws custom from railway engineering companies and still retains a declared intention to operate a community railway service once the whole line has been opened, thus providing a connection with main line services. This is not preservation activity and is undertaken at the risk of the company and not the preservation society.

When I submitted the original article, I deliberately stopped the narrative at the share issue in 2002, so as to avoid any danger of turning the article into ‘advertorial’. I acknowledge my potential conflict of interest and the present lack of detailed references and would like to rectify these weaknesses and develop the article a little more into a modest but informative piece. Constructive help from an editor in these respects would be sincerely appreciated.

Nferguso wyvern (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced. This article still doesn't have any notability. The consensus on both the AfD and here is merge. It will be done in a couple of hours... we've waited and messed around for long enough.
BG7 15:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BG7, Predictably you have jumped-in with your usual agressive stance. I am asking you very nicely to stay away from editing anything to do with WyvernRail or the Ecclesbourne Valley Railway. I dispute YOUR neutrality. Nferguso wyvern (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could I possibly ask how I have been aggressive... I don't see anything agressive about that. If you're going to make an issue, i'll get a 3rd opinion on the notability. Are you accusing several editors of being wrong?
Sorry, but I cannot be made to not edit things that I want... at least not by a non-admin/sysop. As you know, I also dispute your neutrality - how can a railway official not be showing WP:NPOV. It is very much a WP:COI and NPOV case. Merge taking place now.
BG7 18:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BG7, you already have a reputation for agressive editing - check your own talk page for at least two rebukes. I too want a third opinion, especially in consideration of your agressive comments to other editors for this railway. Do you want me to quote back to you the cases where you have been agressive? They're not hard to find. Nferguso wyvern (talk) 19:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - merge complete
Feel free to do so. But then again how many are over this article? 1 at the AfD. And, i haven't been aggressive to any editors of this page - just one on the AfD
BG7 19:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hazlewood[edit]

Just a note to point out that either "Hazlewood" or "Hazelwood" is correct. I think it likely the former is the traditional spelling but haven't had time to check, although I did a bit of research for the article for Hazlewood itself: Hazelwood vs Hazlewood: Indexes for the years 1000AD -1999AD include 64 records for the spelling 'hazlewood' and 18 records for the spelling 'hazelwood'. http://www.theoriginalrecord.com/. The station is also listed as Hazlewood in Butt, R.V.J., (1995) The Directory of Railway Stations, Yeovil: Patrick Stephens. Chevin (talk) 08:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it all depends what the article is going to be about. If we are going to write it about the station as it is now, almost non-existant (no platform etc!), then it should probably be "Hazelwood". However, if it is going to be the station throughout history, then "Hazlewood" would be more approriate, and the first sentence could always be:
Hazlewood Station, or in more recent times, Hazelwood Station, is the...
What do we think?
Also, this article is relating to the whole of the Wirksworth Branch, not just the modern preserved railway. Many articles link to it in the context of "The Wirksworth Branch". Therefore, I propose:
Change to Hazelwood
Create Hazlewood Station
Redirect Hazelwood Station to the above
Change the article to fulfil all these purposes, perhaps renaming to The Wirksworth Branch and including several sections.
Comments please!
BG7even 08:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Butt is wrong and should not be quoted. The station was always known as Hazelwood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regnerps (talk • contribs) 15:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note this anonymous author does not cite any authority. The Midland Railway timetable for 1867 spells it "Hazle" that for 1906 "Hazel". While the OED gives alternate spellings for "Hazel" or "Hazle" meaning a hard flinty sandstone (typical of the area) for the more common meaning of a "Hazel bush" it is equivocal. While it only gives the one spelling "Hazel", the references it gives include a variety of spellings. In truth, spelling was not an exact activity until the twentieth century. I believe we may conclude that either spelling is valid. After all, the correct spelling of Cowers Lane, adjacent to Shottle station, should be Cowhouse Lane. Chevin (talk) 12:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This may be a conflict between natives of the area and "incomers" 86.141.119.184 (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - I shouldn't have been so brief. It is true that the 1867 timetable (at the opening of the line) does spell it "Hazle", but as far as I can tell, all subsequent timetables spelled it "Hazel". For reference, I would give the numerous timetable extracts in my book "The Wirksworth Branch" (already cited). Likewise, photographic evidence shows that the station nameboard was spelt "Hazelwood" - see page 106 in the same book (2nd Edition). Howard Sprenger - aka Regnerps (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ecclesbourne Valley 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) 01:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ecclesbourne Valley 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) 15:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ecclesbourne_Valley_Railway&oldid=1196357514"