Talk:Ffestiniog Railway

Edit - 3 February 2004

The last edit to this page [1] seems to be a direct copy from http://www.festrail.co.uk/frhist2.htm Does whoever added it have permission to use this text if not it will be reverted G-Man 23:22, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Please note - offending page still exists but may disappear as it is on old host, now replaced by http://www.ffestiniograilway.co.uk/history1.htm --Keith 12:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, after having added innumerous innerwiki links to the apparently copyvio entry, I pressed "Save Page", only to get a conflict of editing message rendering most of my changes useless. <sigh>

-Itai 23:42, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Whoever swapped "name" for "title" for the company reference - would you consider putting it back to title. 'Title' is the correct word for the formal name. It's name is 'The FFestiniog Railway' by common use, its title is 'The Festiniog Railway'

Porthmadoc to Blaenau or v.v ?

Keith has changed the first paragraph to say that (correctly) the railway runs from Port to Blaenau, rather than the other way round. However, the station links, which show links to "previous" and "following" stations, are consequently now in the reverse order, and logically need changing. Hogyn Lleol 16:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Now corrected. Company material all originates at Port. In other documentation only a small number use BFf. The through route is via two unconnected (!) railways! Accepted that waggons used to run down to port, but most users now travel up (or out) from Port. (Keith)

I think vice versa: I don't see any argument for saying the railway runs from Port to Blaenau. Surely it runs from Blaenau to Port, as it was built to take slate, and the slate originated inland, and went to Port. Or, is it just an arbitrary decision, and the FR chose Port as the start? John 16:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The FR is part of a through route, in railway terms UP to Blaenau, UP to Llandudno Jnct, UP to Crewe and UP to Euston. Timetables traditionally show the down service first. So Blaenau to Porthmadog, please. NoelWalley 10:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah but the first section built was the Cob. — Dunc|☺ 19:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Correction - The Cob was built first (full stop.) The railway construction wasn't started for over 20 years later, and then the foundation stone was laid at Creuau 26/2/1833 by WG Oakeley (Creuau being above Tan-y-Bwlch). Mitigation work was carried out on the cob at this time. Keith 10:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The Festiniog has always referred to trains traveling from Port to BFf as UP trains and vice versa. This is because the main locomotive sheds and company headquarters have always been at the Port end of the line, and that's where trains originate from and return to. This continues to be true in the revived FfR. The railway's timetables have always showed trains from Port to Blaenau first; that's the accepted way of describing the line. Look at both contemporary and historical timetables and descriptions of the line; they almost universally describe the journey from Port to Blaenau. That's the way the Wiki should describe it too, IMHO. Gwernol 22:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Links to loco names

Rather than get into an "edit war" with Anthony, I thought it better to discuss this issue here. I removed the links that Anthony put on the loco names - for example linking "Princess" to Princess. My reasoning is that these should link to articles about the locomotives, not to articles about the names. Of course we don't have articles about the locos themselves, so we should leave them unlinked until/unless we do.

Anthony in his edit summary said "some people may want to know what the locos were named after". I disagree because they actually don't link to the things the locos were named after. For example, Linda was named after Linda Blanche Douglas-Pennant but the linked article has no mention of her, so its misleading to link there.

I also don't know that people would expect or understand that the loco name was linking to the person the loco was named after rather than more info about the loco. If we want to link to the person a loco was named after, wouldn't it be better to do it explicitly in the "notes" section, for example saying "Linda was named after Linda Douglas-Pennant"?

What do others think? Gwernol 17:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a table; why not create a new column titled "Named after" or some such? (Yes, I realise the table is already cramped for space, but the right-hand column can still afford to give up a little more.)

Atlant 18:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Gwernol is quite right, the links are useless and very misleading. I see little point in adding an explanation of the name within the table. There are many more important things that people might wish to know about the engines than an explanation of a name. Anyone who doesn't know what 'princess' means is unlikely to be reading the article. However, do they know that the engine is named in honour of the Princess of Wales? More specifically do they know that specifically it is named after HRH The Princess Albert (HRH Princess Alexander of Denmark who married Prince Albert in 1863), the new Princess of Wales in the very year that it was delivered to the Ffestiniog Railway, all the way from Caernarfon (the nearest railhead) on rough narrow drovers roads on a specially built cart hauled by a team of horses? And do they realise that it is very first narrow gauge (narrower than about three feet) engine built for service anywhere in the world? And do they know that Robert Stephenson said it couldn't be done? I could go on. It is only a table but it should not contain the inacuracies introduced by Anthony. NoelWalley 19:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent Changes

1. The FR diesel engine names were not specifically inspired by a main line steam class. ‘Upnor Castle’, was so named by its earlier owners and the FR agreed not to change it. When a second passenger diesel was bought it seemed natural to name it after a North Wales Castle.
2. The name ‘Vale of Ffestiniog is self explanatory putting a link to ‘Ffestiniog’ is unhelpful since it redirects to Llan Ffestiniog and the engine is not named after that village.
3. If the FR had intended in 1879 to name its new engine after Merlin (wizard) it would presumably have done so.
4. It would be more accurate to say that Taliesin is named after Taliesin the 6th century Welsh poet.
5. It would have made more sense to correct the typo: Moel Hebbog (Hebog) rather than perpetuate it at the linking!
I propose to make the needed changes.

re: Gallery

Does putting the pictures in a Gallery improve this article, which has been listed as a good article? This is a status we ought to be keen to protect.

• I'm tempted to think that a good article should have a small number of quality accompanying pictures where appropriate WITHIN the article. Quality not quantity. The temptation with a gallery is to open the floodgates to loads of pictures. There is no shortage of links to pics. Hogyn Lleol 09:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• I tend to think it doesn't. Right now - unless you have a really big monitor - opening this article shows no images at all until you scroll down. I preferred them on the right hand side as before. Gwernol 14:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• I also think it doesn't. 3-0. I have changed it NoelWalley 15:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I put the images in a gallery. They had increased to 7, despite the abovementioned precaution, and they were pushing the [[edit]] clickables away from their places into a pile. They were not accompanying particular paragraphs, they were all in a stack at the start of the page. Anthony Appleyard 05:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree about the edit links in particular, but I till think we need at least one image at the top of the article. I've moved the TanyBwlch image up, as I think it is the most representative one we have. However if anyone has a better image to put at the head, feel free to swap them about. Gwernol 10:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I found hardly any difficulty with the old arrangement of pictures, certainly nothing that resizing the window woudn't cure. However, I cannot see all the images in the gallery. Only one image is displayed, "M.E. with train" the others just the captions, not even the ability to click for a full screen image. I get the same result maximum window or with any size of reduced window. I get the same result with three very different browsers, Internet Explorer 6, with Mozilla Firefox and with Netscape 7.2. I get the same result with Broadband and with a dial-up connection. I get the same result on my wife's computer, which uses a wireless modem. I get the same result on a friend's computer in a different part of town. Its not just the FR article, I get similar results with other wiki articles that have a gallery. For me galleries appear to be a disaster. How do others find them? NoelWalley 05:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I've never had any problem with image galleries displaying. Looking at the HTML, the gallery is a table. Can you see the table containing the loco and station information properly? I can't think why the image table would be broken, but not those. Gwernol 11:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The table is clearly present, the light grey background to the six occupied cells is present, the captions are present in full (including links to L&B) but only the first picture, not because it is first but, I suspect, because it has a low bit size. In the gallery of Bangor, Gwynedd, two of the four are present (Pier and Coastline missing). NoelWalley 12:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... sometimes I've seen similar problems when images are displayed at particular sizes. I wonder if that's what's happening here. Noel, can you take a look at this page. Can you see the images in the gallery? Can you see them in the Image Table below? Thanks, Gwernol 12:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Just so, the gallery exactly as in the FR article. All six images show correctly in the table. Thanks NoelWalley 13:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

IMO the current arrangement (with only one image in-line) is good, leaving aside any problems you are having with the display of the images.

I have no problems with any image galleries. It sounds like a problem with your account. Have you tried viewing the page without being logged in. If it works fine then, it may be the skin or personalised JS/CSS files you are using.

If the problem still exists in different browsers and while logged out, then it m are you using the same ISP while viewing it. You don't use AOL (or another non-ISP on-line service provider who technically do not offer access to the Internet proper but a modified and limited version) by any chance? I believe AOL use compression techniques on images which can corrupt them sometimes.

I use BT Internet NoelWalley 13:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You could also try viewing one of the images that doesn't appear or the image: page for it directly within your browser to ascertain whether it is the image itself or something in the HTML.

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 13:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is a MediaWiki bug. Some images don't display for some users when they are at certain point sizes. I've seen this in the past elsewhere. Sometimes changing the image display size by as little as one pixel can stop the "disappearing image" problem. Unfortunately we can't change the image size in galleries. So I'm going to convert it to a table, which does allow control over the image size. Judgeing from Noel's reply above I think this will cure the problem. Stay tuned... Gwernol 13:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

References

This article has 60 references, however 'none are linked to any specific part of the text. For example what relevance is reference 24 (Dry Stone Walling (sic) by P.N. Jarvis) to this article. Althought the FR has numerous dry stone walls, and the high embankment - Cei Mawr - is a dry stone wall, there is no reference to this unique feature in the article.

Pencefn 07:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You touch on a general problem of the Wikipedia, a lack of citations. What we have is a fine bibliography, which should be described as such. References to specific sources ought to be given as well. There are many other notable features some also unique of the FR, its history, construction and operation which could and perhaps should also be described and referenced, but who is to do it? NoelWalley 08:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, maybe it should be retitled as such then.

With regard to many other notable features, we are then into the area where a considerable amount of this is already of the FR Heritage Group Wiki. Should there just be the link to it - as is already provided, and as I have done for the principle stations, or summarise (copy) the information provided there to expand the knowledge held directly on Wikipedia. Keith is very active on FR Heritage Group Wiki, being one of its minders and may have some thoughts on this.

Pencefn 13:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Popular Tourist Attractions

The Ffestiniog Railway is one of the most popular tourist attractions in Wales – discuss!

In 1964. FR Co. presented at Cardiff with Welsh Tourist Board’s award certificate for conspicuous service to Welsh tourism. (FR Mag No. 24)

In 1972. FR in fifth place in Wales Tourist Board report, after Caernarfon Castle, Swallow Falls, National Museum of Wales Cardiff and Conwy Castle. Great Orme Tram and Talyllyn come in at 15th and 17th position. (FR Mag No. 58)

In 1978. FR wins a British Tourist Authority Come to Britain Golden Jubilee Award – the only private railway to do so and one of just six Welsh recipients. (FR Mag No. 87)

In 1987. FR outright winner of 1987 Independent Railway of the Year award. (FR Mag No. 119)

After this date its the size of the many grants from Tourist Boards etc. that indicate the tourist importance of the line. NoelWalley 19:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Is the Railway in any "Top Ten Attractions"-type lists at present? Or has it been recently? How many passengers does it currently carry annually?

Location of Duffws

Hi, there seems to be some disagreement about whether Duffws is beyond the current terminus location or not. I'm pretty certain that Duffws was the Blaenau Ffestiniog terminus that was furthest from Porthmadog. Is this incorrect? Gwernol 21:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You are quite correct it is further but that does not make it beyond the present terminus because it was not on the present line and could not be reached by an extension of the present line. To reach Duffws (its station building is the public loo and a listed building in the carpark to the north of the present station) would require a branch to leave the present narrow gauge line and cross the standard gauge line before the present station is reached. So it is quite misleading to say it is beyond the present station because if it existed now it would be on a branch from the present line. The present FR platforms are not on the site of the former GWR exchange platform. It would be much more accurate to say that the present joint station is on the line of the Ffestiniog and Blaenau Railway than on the line of the FR to Duffws. NoelWalley 22:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

NoelWalley is quite right, of course. Duffws is now only "beyond" Blaenau Station in the loosest of senses, following the old FR track alignment. The current FR platforms and headshunt veer off in a different direction. Maybe someone can reword the note. Bill W. 28.8.06.

So it comes down to this, I think. Does the table only describe the Ffestiniog as it exists today, or does it attempt to describe the complete history of the line. If the former, then clearly I would agree with Bill and Noel. If the latter then I'd prefer to keep Duffws as the farthest terminus, as it was the indeed the furthest main line terminus of the railway. I'll argue that the article is about the complete history of the line so it should stay with Duffws after the current station. Just a thought, 17:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

O.K. But if one is talking abut the railway as it has been, rather than as it now is, please tell me when a train travelling from Duffws to Porthmadog Harbour station had a journey of 13 miles 75 chains? The Duffws milepost read 13 miles 32 chains and that was measured not from Porthmadog Harbour station but from a point on the far harbour beyond the Britannia Bridge. My reason for wishing to keep the present Blaenau station as the last entry is to visually record that it is the completion of the railway the building back to Blaenau - there really isn't a further 500 yards to go! For the same reason it would be silly to have kept the original datum and mileages for the operational railway after the construction of the deviation. But to give the impression that Duffws to Porthmadog was 13 miles 75 chains is also quite wrong because it never was that far. Whereas the journey from Porthmadog to the present Bleanau station is the longest FR journey there has ever been (Welsh Highland excepted). NoelWalley 18:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, you make an excellent point about what distance we would give to Duffws. Its hard either way. There is also something a little odd about saying that Duffws is closer to Porthmadog than the current station. After all I can get off the train at Blaenau , walk away from Porthmadog and end up at Duffws, which would seem odd if I'd read it was closer to the Harbour. Ah, a tangled web indeed.

One way to cut through this would be to separate the station table into two: one pre-deviation, one post (or to put it another way "historical" and "current"). That way both viewpoints would be represented. Would that be a clearer solution, I wonder? Gwernol 18:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

O.K. but the same user 84.9.61.232 has just decided that Tunnel Halt (Old Tunnel North) which has been under water for 40 odd years is nearer Porthmadog than Gelliwiog! NoelWalley 19:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Some interesting points there. I suggest we do the following, unless anyone objects: Duffws is reinstated before the current Blaenau station, with a note saying "on a different alignment". Blaenau GWR gets the same note. The distances are changed to: Duffws 13m60ch, Dinas 13m30ch. (I've checked the map, and 13m75ch for Duffws is indeed a wild over-estimate.) And we add a note below the main table explaining the change in zero point and the half-mile added to the route by the Deviation, and noting that the old mileage to Duffws was 13m32ch. This keeps all the stations in one list for now, unless anyone wants to split it into historical and current. As for Tunnel Halt, this was on an old alignment, and can therefore be treated like a branch line - you go along the branch first, then return to the beginning of the branch to continue along the main line, surely? AFAIAA, this is a common convention in rail timetables. This is a consistent rationale with having Duffws before the current Blaenau, Duffws being on its own "branch". Any comments? Bill W. 1.9.06.

Thanks for this Bill, I think your proposals are excellent and I would be happy to see them in place. I certainly have no wish to see two tables when one is coping so very well. Each would be the poorer without the other. On the matter of mileage, I suspect the old Duffws milepost (13¼ miles + 12 chains) was located near the foot of the incline, but I did not actually see it. Only a photo. NoelWalley 18:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Current measurments

The entire railway from Zero at the Porthmadog buffer stops to 13m 56c at Blaenau buffer stops was measured in chain (66 feet) lengths in 1991 by volunteers who spent 617½ man-hours measuring marking and recording the route and a further 212½ man-hours moving the mileposts etc. The story is told in FR Mag 137 and includes an RPS Timing Log for a meticulously timed run from Porthmadog to Blaenau, complete with measurements. I will shortly change several that are significantly out. NoelWalley 22:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Division of Article

When editing, an 'article exceeds 31K' warning is now being given. The article is anything but finished, much more needs to be said especially about the post 1954 period, the deviation and building back to blaenau. There as a need for a proper written description of the route and the many changes that have happened. The FR's unique locomotive fleet needs to be written about. So does the carriage and wagon fleet. May I suggest that the article be divided into perhaps as many as five?

1. The main article (almost all except the present tables).
2. Ffestiniog Railway Locomotives - the two existing tables
3. Ffestiniog Railway Coaches and Wagons (I will offer to set up two tables)
4. Ffestiniog Railway Route - the existing table.
5. Ffestiniog Railway Bibliography - The existing comprehensive book list.

Please discuss, NoelWalley 11:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Noel, don't worry about the 30K article size "limit". While in general its a bad idea to have really large articles, the 30K guideline is arbitrary and somewhat outdated. That said, it might make sense to create sub-articles. We should consider doing so based on readability and content rather than pure size.

The bibliography (in my opinion) needs to stay in the main article, with only selected references used to support any sub-articles. I would move both locomotives and carriages/wagons into a one sub-article (called "rolling stock"?) at least for now: they can always be split again later if necessary. For route, how about a variation of an earlier suggestion. In the main article we keep a simplified route list which shows the current open stations. The "route" article can then be historical and potentially show multiple different times. I'd love to include some maps, at least shcematic, of the railway. Again in the main article a map of the modern railway, in the "route" article maps of the original route and its historical variants.

Thoughts? Gwernol 11:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

That sounds great to me NoelWalley 11:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No, let's not split the article yet. It really isn't that long if you look at it (I suspect the article size includes pictures), and as long as there is a good contents box it's fine for a while yet. Hogyn Lleol 12:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI, the pictures are not included in the article size. I agree that there isn't a need to split the article based on its length yet. I'd argue its worth splitting it based on logical organization and in anticipation of future growth. I think there are people who'd like to find out about the railway as it exists today without all that "historical stuff" or long lists of rolling stock - perhaps the majority of tourists who might come to Wikipedia to read about the railway. Those (myself firmly included) who are railway enthusiasts who want every last detail of history and minutea of stock info (basically I'd like an updated version of Boyd online :-) can delve into the detail articles if we wish. Its no big deal right now, but makes sense to me at least. Best, Gwernol 18:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

With Noel's excellent addition of the rolling stock information, I believe its appropriate to split thhose tables out into their own article. The main article really is getting unwieldy. Unless I hear objections, I intend to do that soon. Gwernol 18:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Am a rare contributor to this bit so apologies for delay in coming back on this. We are, on our Wiki [2], are trying to cover a lot and spreading it out over a number of pages. We have sectional header pages for subsets like Loco's, Carriages, and stations, and with a further split for the Welsh Highland in the same areas. Any cross pollenating links are most welcome. (some contributors here also contribute there already) Personally, this page is very good at giving a reader a solid background to the railway. Our setup is more detailed and more extensive. (and to some extent over extensive in the Photo's area!) If this "page" gets too big then it may defeat the object. Keith 23:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

A Problem with 'references'

Something is going wrong with the numbering and I don't know how to deal with it, Help please NoelWalley 11:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain what the problem is? I can't see anything wrong right now. Best, Gwernol 11:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to trouble you, I have been our twice, just got back, problem seemed to be still there, I had earlier tried after first clearing temp files etc. I also tried using my firefox browser and also using a different computer. I have now tried again and it has cleared.

What happened was that of the twelve specific references, the first was numbered [13] and so on. The list contained them twice numbered 1 to 12 and then 13 to 24. In edit preview mode the showed correctly. I deleted one and once updated they appeared as [12] through [22] the history file showed correctly nunbered [1] through [12] so I reverted it. It reverted as [13] through [24]. Not a good day but all's well now. NoelWalley 13:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Ffestiniog Railway and proposed Category:Welsh Highland Railway

We're discussing some categories for both the FfR and WHR over on Talk:Welsh Highland Railway. Please feel free to join the debate there. Thanks, Gwernol 16:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Trimming of Notes on 16 September 2006 - Cae Ednyfed and Rhiw Goch

The notes for these two stations have been trimmed. As these stations do not have their own pages, this information is now lost, and I suggest that they informatin trimmed on 16 September is restored.

Pencefn 07:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Cae Ednyfed is within Minffordd railway station limits and is mentioned with a sub-heading on that page. I propose that we link Cae Ednyfed to that. More seriously, Wiki seems to have lost the page as at this moment!

Good idea, I have put second level headings into Minffordd and then linked into the Cae Ednyfed heading

Pencefn 12:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Rhiw Goch is mentioned briefly in the Penrhyn railway station page, which could be expanded and linked or even a separate page perhaps. However, the phrase trimmed was first added by me and I now feel I was mistaken. I can find no evidence for passing "during at least the first two years at least of steam operation". Rather the evidence suggests that until the opening of Minffordd (and not regularly even then), only Hafodyllyn/Tanybwlch was used to pass trains in steam days. NoelWalley 10:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The Ffestiniog website believes there is evidence; see [3] Gwernol 12:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Please note - offending page still exists but may disappear as it is on old host, now replaced by http://www.ffestiniograilway.co.uk/route.htm --Keith 12:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

As Steam traction was introduced in 1863 and the FR Website is indicating that Rhiw Goch was in operation 1836 to 1863, I would suggest that Rhiw Goch closed upon the introduction of steam. --Pencefn 12:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it extraordinary how little we know about what actually happened on a day to day basis between 1836 and 1863? Did one horse haul the train of 8 or 9 all the way from Boston Lodge to Blaenau and then ride all the way back down in the dandy? or did horses change over at the end of each stage? Each stage had its stables. What was normal? Regards, NoelWalley 13:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Picture of Boston Lodge Halt

The picture of Taliesin shunting in the Old Loco Shed is not that of Boston Lodge Halt.

Pencefn 08:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This is true. It was the closest decent picture I could find. If anyone has a picture of the halt itself they could upload, please feel free to replace it. By the way, that's me on the footplate on the left in that picture:-) Gwernol 12:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Not entirely true! This must be very near the location of that celebrated frequent manoeuvre of 1955, sorry I never saw it, nor the subsequent recreations, with the aid of a tow rope or chain, that managed to get Mary Ann, in her petrol guzzling days, from the front of the train to the back for the return run to Portmadoc! NoelWalley 12:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It was my understanding that the Chain Shunt was carried out at Pen Cob (avoiding the gate post!!), with the train being propelled from the Halt to shunt and then propelled back to the Halt for the return to Porthmadog. --Stewart 13:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Jolly Good, glad that's sorted out, never was sure, track was probably better there! Regards NoelWalley 13:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Len Heath-Humphrys and the Bristol Meeting

As an 18 year old, Len Heath-Humphrys organised the now famous Bristol meeting that in many areas was the start of the FR restoration project. Not to sure of all the details but it is an important part of the lead up to the start of restoration. Anyone care to comment, etc.

Stewart 22:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I do agree, Len certainly got things going. There is no actual mention in the text of the FR Society etc. I feel we need a whole section on the Society and it could be quite long. Ought it to be a separate article or not? Len had been working on 'the project' for at least nine months before the Bristol Meeting and had already had friendly contact more than once with Evan-Davies, the FR Co. Secretary and had written to all the major magazines. The Bristol Meeting in the club rooms of the Bristol Railway Circle, and attended by John L.H. Bate, A.C. Clothier, J.E.C. Forsyth, Allan G.W. Garraway, Frederick Gilbert, Leonard Heath Humphrys, H. Holcroft, B. Holyland, B.J. Loughlin, J.B. Lowe, J.C. Vic Mitchell, R.W. Winter and Lieut. Col. E. Woodhouse. Garraway had seen the F.R., together with Bill Harvey, a BR Eastern Region Motive Power Department colleague, whilst visiting Towyn in 1951. Len already knew much about the FR Co affairs and estimated £10000 to get line going. That meeting established the Bath Committee out of which came the meeting at Old Bull Inn, Barnet as follow up to Bristol Meeting. Legal Committee formed with Frederick Gilbert engaging his solicitor, Leslie Taylor Harris, to investigate FR Co’s. principal proprietorship. Following the Barnet meeting Leonard Heath Humphrys was called up for two years National Service. NoelWalley 06:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Introducing the Society is also an interesting facet. Not withstanding the setup of the FR - Festiniog Trust, Festiniog Railway Company, Ffestinog Railway Society, Ffestiniog Holdings, etc - Not sure when of the relative dates of constitution. However we are also into the area where Alan Pegler's father provided the finance for Alan to buy the company on condition that he immediately passed them onto the Trust. Moving onto the 1960's there is also John Routley's contribution in the Land Tribunal case.

We have a long way to go - as far as sub articles are concerned? Not sure how best to do this to make the information accessible in the most effective way.

Stewart 07:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Ffestiniog Expert Help Please

For some reason a North American Jeep enthusiast decided to write an article on the Frestiniog Dandy waggon. This person has also been known to speak of himself in the third person. After helping bring the article to it’s present state he finds a few questions answered (see Talk:Dandy waggon). One of the seemingly simplest questions is, what is the longest continuous stretch of rail for a horse to ride the Dandy Waggon? From what I gather horses on the Ffestiniog between 1844 (after the tunnel) and 1863 (before steam) are riding most if not all of the 21.5 km between Porthmadog and Blaenau. To the best of my abilities to gather information I think this might be the longest stretch of gravity rail ever to exist and would therefore also be the longest continuous stretch for horse to ride on a wagon he pulled to the top of a hill. If you can shed light on this I am sure the article would benefit from your knowledge and references. Thanks :) Jeepday 04:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No expert but try this:= There were 4 horse changing stations at Boston Lodge Halt(as terminus as it was then), Rhiw Goch, where there was a loop in horse powered days, Hafod-Y-Llyn (precursor to Tan-y-Bwlch), and Tunnel South Halt (Later location of Tunnel Mess during Deviation construction). These sites were supplied with horses from Cae Ednyfed, adjacent to what is now Minffordd station and Rhiwbryfdir which at the time was still a small community. There was a further small site at Tafarn Trip that provided horses to Hafod-Y-Llyn and Tunnel South. There was discussion recently on its precise location. (unknown)

Descriptions give impression of Horse being taken of front of Up train at the end of a section, and walking straight into the Dandy of a down train. To me this indicates the horse would only work 1 section rather than the whole line.

Query - was the owner at Cae Ednyfed also the owner at Rhiwbryfdir - if not then I think the horses would probably return to particular base

Keith 22:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Locomotive Manufacturer Category

Have added Category:Locomotive manufacturers of the United Kingdom as they have actually built at least 3 engines on site (1 by old company. and 2 under preservation) Keith 15:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Keith, I've moved the category to the Boston Lodge page, since that article discusses the building of the locos and seems more appropriate. Hope that's okay, Gwernol 18:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Dan, I would have thought to duplicate, rather than move, as the company was responsible for the building, rather than the actual location. Just like we'd attribute Brush building a loco, rather than Loughborough (???) Keith 06:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Route Map

I am testing a route map using a wiki subset - copmment welcome

Festiniog Railway
Only current extent of line is shown
Bala and Festiniog Railway Blaenau Ffestiniog Blaenau Ffestiniog North (LNWR) Blaenau Festiniog Junction Conwy Valley line Glan-y-pwll Works Dolrhedyn Road Tanygrisiau Llyn Ystradau Tanygrisiau Reservoir Gelliwiog sidings Dduallt Campbell's Platform Coed-y-Bleiddiau Garnedd Tunnel Tan-y-Bwlch sidings Tan-y-Bwlch  B4410  Hafod y Llyn Plas Halt Plas Private Rhiw Goch  A4085  Penrhyn Pen y Bryn Halt Cae Ednyfed Minffordd Cambrian Line sidings omitted Minfordd Yard Crossing Minffordd Sidings junction long siding disconnected stub Minffordd Crossing  A487  Boston Lodge Halt former locomotive shed Boston Lodge Works The Cob Pen Cob Halt Harbour Station being redeveloped to accommodate the WHR to Welsh Highland Railway

Keith 19:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, first off, Ffestiniog has 2 Fs, so name is wrong. Also, you appear to have repeated Harbour Station a few times. I have to say though, that it may be helpful to produce a simpler version as well, since I really don't feel that there's much need for most of that information. Also, is it possible to increase the font size slightly to be closer to the wikistandard? Good work though, it looks bloody hard to do to me. mattbuck 21:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply Sorry to correct you, but the Company that has operated the railway has been called the Festiniog (1F) for 175 years - see front page - the history of using 2F is marketing only in last 30 years. At the time of your message it was still undergoing construction and all sorts of things where in that are not now. I understand the wiki font size would be controlled from the sub-templates, which I have no control of Keith 15:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Please also note that [[Penrhyn]] is a disambiguation page and should not be linked to. DuncanHill 11:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply Initial links were just the place names with brackets - not meant to reference but will correct as it improves - still a WIP Keith 15:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the hard work that's been put into this, but this really is far too detailed - the WP:RDT templates are for route diagrams, not track layouts, therefore it is not necessary to show passing loops and sidings. A simple straight line showing Blaenau Ffestiniog at one end and Porthmadog at the other, with intermediate stations and main line connections, is all that is required here. As this is already shown on Image:FfestiniogRailwayMap.png, I see no reason for this template. – Tivedshambo (talk) 11:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply This is a tryout for using this same process within the FR wiki itself. Most maps do exactly as you say, this is intended to be a bit more detailed for that very reason. --Keith 15:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Route map, take 2

I'm fascinated by maps and diagrams, and the route diagrams of wikipedia are an interesting way to experiment with templates, so I tried to make a diagram for this line. The result is here: User:Circeus/temp (permanent link). I wasn't too sure how to deal with the stations between Glan-y-pwll and Blaenau Ffestiniog, so I just left them out (though Stesion Fein should probably be there). Garnedd Tunnel is probably in the wrong place too, since the festwiki was sometimes highly inconsistent in listing feature order. Finally, I couldn't determine if the Minffordd crossing was a specific road. Any thoughts? Circeus 21:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Festiniog v Ffestiniog

Re some comments on this page about usage of the single or double F versions

Top of head, I said the 2F was adopted about 30 years ago. Seeing the references quoted has made me look further, and read the relevant documents.

The company, which has always had a single F, looked at the matter around FRM 88, and thought of a cheaper way of changing to double without an Act of Parliament. It was reported that the idea was dropped by FRM 90, Autumn 1980.

The FRS magazine did not change from single to double until issue 145, Summer 1994, so references as they stand are invalid???? Keith 17:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It's all because of the Welsh. In Welsh, which is a phoenetic language, F is pronounced as V, while FF is F. mattbuck 17:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have now corrected the offending items - i.e. Pre issue 145 they are now Festiniog Keith 10:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Land Occupancy Act 1973

This act doesn't appear to exist (Google can find very little evidence of it). Should it be the Land Compensation Act 1973? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.66.227 (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

HMSO, the govt site cannot find an Occupancy Act either. Corrected to Land Compensation Act 1973, which is relevant Keith 10:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Heritage railway - following station

At the bottom is a small table with Preceding station, Heritage Railway and Following Station as headings. This makes no sense and I can't work out what it's for. --Tombomp (talk) 08:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been bold and deleted it. --Stewart ^(talk) 16:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Commons photos

Hi. Just thought I'd let you guys know that I've reorganised all the FR photos on commons (commons:Category:Ffestiniog Railway), and that I will be transwiking all en.wp FR images there. I spent the past 2 days uploading around 150 FR geograph images, so there may be something useful for you all there. Also, would anyone be able to organise the images into a sort of "virtual ride" gallery? -mattbuck (Talk) 14:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not think your removal of the gallery was appropriate. It was a small taster of what is available. Taking your comment to is conclusion, all the pictures would be removed and readers would have to go to commons. I think we have to consider the drop-in reader who will probably not go to commons, especially as the link(s) are "hidden" at the end of the article after a long reference list. Providing this taster will keep the reader interested enough to consider looking at commons, although images are several clicks away. --Stewart ^(talk) 15:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, though I think a few of those photos should be replaced with better ones. Do you have anything to say regarding the points I actually made above? -mattbuck (Talk) 15:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about the block uploading of Geograph images. I have seen other editors randomly upload Geograph images and use them to replace better images just because they are there. As regards putting images onto commons, I do not have a view either way. However a bot has move some of my images and in changing the name has potentially created difficulties when other images of the same subject are uploaded. I had created a name that indicated the date and that is was a combination image which would help users when getting to the Category listing as the detail is not visible (caption, etc) is not available as that point. Specifically I am thinking about the possibility of other liveries - past, present and future - and construction images. Including a date in the image name does help. The carriage images are one I constructed quite a few years ago for Festipedia and subsequently uploaded to Wikipedia. A virtual ride gallery sound like a good idea, however I am not sure how to construct it in the optimum layout.

Looking back at the gallery issue, I think a bit more thought needs to be used when creating one. Firstly - I do agree with you the best should be used - secondly some formatting is in order and the default setting are not really that good. The galleries at Minffordd railway station have been formatted and are far better than the one I created in January.

--Stewart ^(talk) 19:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding those carriage images, I don't see any particular problem - if someone takes another photo, we can always rename them. But the names they have now are less cryptic, which can't be a bad thing. I don't agree with replacing images with geograph ones "just because they're there", since a lot of geograph images are crap and they're small anyway. But the idea should be to put those images which best illustrate the article up front, and sometimes that's geograph. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Cei Mawr photo in the gallery

Been looking at the picture called "Taliesin and train crossing Cei Mawr". Firstly, I think we can do better than this (sorry Gwernol/Dan, whose pic it is) because most of the pic is greenery, but more to the point I'd put good money on the fact that this isn't Cei Mawr. Firstly, the trees (before they were cut) never reached that high, and secondly Cei Mawr has a low wall along its side. Hogyn Lleol (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I welcome you to edit the photos and update the geotags if you have any better idea of where they are. I just did the best I could :/ -mattbuck (Talk) 18:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The photo and caption is Gwernol's, so only he should edit the caption. I've contacted him and asked him to confirm the location. Hogyn Lleol (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

An apology

OK. I'd like to bring together a few disparate threads of conversation about my conduct regarding FR articles and images recently, since it's got spread to many places. I'd like to allow you all to read what has been said, and then allow me to apologise.

Minffordd Railway station

I removed a gallery of six images from Minffordd railway station, under the policy that Wikipedia should not have image galleries in articles. The following conversation is collated from my talk page and Stewart's.

I took the pictures of Minffordd railway station in January to illustrate the article - NOT to have them removed from the article. These images were deliberately taken for the article - not to be removed. The infobox image - of the two signs was specifically created for the infobox. I am reverting. --Stewart ^(talk) 20:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Your recent actions are make me serious consider whether it is worth my while even considering taking images and adding them to articles to improve them. I am seriously de-motivated. I was planning another photographic trip to the FR at the end of the month with the intention of fill some of the illustrative gaps in the various related articles, however I no longer see the point, as any work I will in improving the articles with images, will be undone. --Stewart ^(talk) 20:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but Wikipedia is not a repository of images and so galleries should generally be avoided. Images should be there to illustrate an article - maybe you could add your images to the page on the right hand side or something. The upper station image is more informative than the picture of the signs as an infobox image. I'm certainly not trying to say your images are bad - I transwikied quite a few, adding geocoding and stuff where necessary, because I like the FR. For that reason, I want to see its articles as among the best on wikipedia. And anyway, a content dispute on wikipedia is no reason to change your holiday plans. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

THe combination of the various images did illustrate the station. Your actions have seriously harmed the article as the various images improved the article. My de-motivation is complete and see no point in bothering adding any more FR images to Wikipedia - congratulations you have succeeded in stopping in adding any more images. Would you please delete all my Minffordd images as they are no longer being freely used and totally hidden for the casually reader. --Stewart ^(talk) 20:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

First off mate, take some time out. If you feel this strongly about it, you need some time to cool off. As for your images, the licences you put them under are non-revocable. Now, if there was a good reason for you to want them removed, I'd be happy to. But throwing a hissy fit because someone removed them from an article is not a good reason. Like I said, I'd be perfectly happy to have some in the article, just not as a gallery. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have added several of your images to the article as inline illustrations. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of the two galleries complete with their descriptive captions added to the article. I spent a lot of time ensure that context was provided - the length of the standard guage platform and abadonment of the south end beyond the overbridge. The relative position of the subway to the narrow gauge platform and the bus stop. All this is now lost, and a textual description would not do justice. The gallery function provided an ideal vehicle to provide this context.

Fortunately I did not go through with, but did edit the article to remove all images - as they are on commons so why bother - however I realised this was being too petty. Please reconsider and look at the totally of the two galleries (upper and lower sections) - including the captions - and you will see that you edit has resulted in a loss to the casual reader. I have no idea where you are located around the world, however think of a reader from say - North America - the images in the article would allow them to better visualise the station whilst reading the article. I repeat - look at this in the context of someone who is reading the article for education - how many of the images in commons will they actually get to - if any. Neither image left in the article does justice to context of the Minffordd complex. Nothing of the standard guage, the subway is not as obvious.

As I have previously indicated - you have (terminally) demotivated me from considering any further FR images for Wikipedia. --Stewart ^(talk) 20:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

As an FR signalman I have a series of considerably better images than the out of date image you have uploaded - however my demotivation means I will now not be uploading them. Maybe you could find a better one of the rebuilt signalbox - see Festipedia for what the box looks like following rebuilding. --Stewart ^(talk) 20:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I am truly sorry for any offense I have caused you - your photographs are indeed generally useful. However, of the six photos in the gallery, the ones I feel added to the article I have put back, with their full captions. The others I felt did not display any information which was useful to the casual user whose attention you covet. It is always a shame when wikimedia loses a contributor through some petty disagreement, as this is. I hope you do reconsider in time. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No doubt others will fill the gaps in the FR articles I have identified, however I feel that a considerable amount of the effort that I have put in is now undone. I do not think is as petty as you are making out. A lot of my personal life is vested within the FR. I have access to a very large archive of 1950 and 1960 photographs taken by my father and they a small part of the history of a small, but significant, narrow gauge railway that I love and actively support. That support extended into Festipedia and Wikipedia. I have recently been neglecting Festipedia to improve Wikipedia FR articles. Now I see it was wasted effort.

Wikipedia has not lost me as I am an active part of WP:TIS and been working through all the Historic Scottish Railway companies. --Stewart ^(talk) 21:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You feel a significant amount of your work has been undone? I removed a gallery from ONE article, and added half the images back, with their original captions. If I'm making this out to be petty, it's because it is. You are saying you will no longer contribute your images because they aren't all being actively used in articles. That is petty. You do not own articles. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

IF all you see is a few images being adding to the Minffordd article, I suggest you consider what that represents. This is not a quick geograph search for a few images that appear to fit.

What this represents is a scouting trip to determine the strategy of what I felt was appropriate to improve the article, then there is around a day of photography (plus an abortive day when the typical welsh weather washed out my attempts), there is then around another two evenings selecting and photoshopping the relevant images. This is before anything becomes visible to Wikipedia when they are uploaded. Yes I know I do not own an article, but when you have invested several days to get what is felt to be an appropriate number of images to improve and article it is particularly galling to see them being deleted at the click of a mouse. My next targets had been Penrhyn, Rhiw Goch, Plas Private and Plas Halt in a couple of weeks time. I repeat - to me this is not petty, your actions to me have deeply upset me and makes me wonder why I bother. I started working on the FR related articles to improve, correct and enhance them. Wikipedia works by those how have the knowledge adding to them to provide a comprehensive knowledge base. If editors have their contributions removed because other do not like it (especially without any pre-discussion on the relevant article talk pages) then those with the specialist knowledge and/or have invested time in the field will not bother and Wikipedia will be poorer as a result. --Stewart ^(talk) 22:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I am deeply impressed by the amount of effort you put into this. However, all wikipedia contributions should be within policy, unless there is very good reason. I honestly did not see a good reason to have such a large and obtrusive gallery in the article, and so I was bold and removed it. Had I known what you had invested in this, I would certainly have taken it to the FR talk page or some other such place. I agree that Wikipedia works by people with knowledge adding what they know, although hopefully backed up with sources, and you are obviously a knowledgable person on the subject. Me, I'm just someone who is juvenile enough to find watching steam trains a fun way to pass a holiday. I don't pretend to have expert knowledge, just what I've picked up over the years. Since you feel so strongly about this matter, I suggest we do take it up elsewhere - the FR talk page seems an ideal place for this matter to be debated, as we will pick up all the people who are interested in the FR but maybe don't watch the stations individually. I leave this up to you. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Categorisation of images on Commons

As part of my work on the FR photos on Commons, I created several categories such as Merddin Emrys and Porthmadog Harbour railway station, removing the images from the main FR cat as I categorised them. These quotes were taken from my commons talk page, Keith's commons talk page, and (after the indent reset), commons:COM:VP.

Matt, Surely all these transfers of category you are doing on Festiniog Railway items should be additional categories not "instead of"'s ? --Keith (talk) 00:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Generally, it's best if images are in a category that they are not also in that category's parent category. I plan to add a cat on engines of the FR and organise the images that way as well, for ease of use. Why in particular do you think that the images should be in both FR and station cats? -mattbuck (Talk) 00:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

My thinking is along the lines that it doesnt matter how many categories an article is in, as long as they are all relevant.

So taking to extreme, a example picture of

Image:S1_BWH10-8-02.JPG

This would cat as

Ffestiniog Railway -- as owner

Welsh Highland Railway -- as what it is operating on

Caernarfon -- as to location shot is taken

and, if cats exist for engines

Prince -- as subject of photo

The more relevant cats the better.

As to my inital reason for the comment, take for example

Image:Porthmadog Harbour railway station 02.jpg

Here you have removed Cat=FR, but actually left in the fact that it was taken on a Cat=Canon Powershot A20 ????? --Keith (talk) 07:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it's Porthmadog station implies that it's FR. I suppose Blaenau/Minffordd are a bit ambiguous, but otherwise the stations are all FR. If you wish to have them in the FR cat as well, by all means feel free, it would probably make my life easier for when I get done with stations and create the engine cats. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

But how can you say Porthmadog implies the FR - does not the town have any other station?? (rhetorical q! Yes 2 current, NR & WHR(P) and 2 former's Port New (first) and Port New (second)). There is no justification for removing the entries. The category policy on main wiki uses same idea - all stations are Cat=FR, as are all other items. I see you also "created" a category for "Stations of the Ffestiniog Railway" which seems a bit of a waste (I dont see any similar cats for other lines). Any item related to the FR should be contained within the Cat=FR group --Keith (talk) 10:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The cat in question is Porthmadog Harbour Station, not the WHR terminus or the mainline rail. As for stations of the FR, it seemed a reasonable way to group the stations together. As for your comment about en.wp, things work differently here. en.wp may have 20 articles on the FR, commons has around 100 images, and it will be more once I get going properly. An individual station on en has 1 article, and that's all. Here a station has more images, and so it makes sense to categorise them this way. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not denying the right to add the appropriate relevant station category, nor the multiples as you explain. I only complain on the grounds you have removed the basic category that is most commonly known to people. Ask me to name a station on the, say Bluebell line, or KESR, and even though I am interested in heritage rail, I couldn't tell you. Ask me to name 20 Heritage lines, and I could probably do a lot more. A picture may appear that is between stations, so what do you CAT as?? Ffestiniog Railway.

You appear to be making my argument for me there (with regards to "stations of the FR"). I agree there will always be photos between stations, and that these should just be generalised to the FR cat, but it also makes sense to group those stations of the FR together in the same way it makes sense to group the engines together. Maybe we should take this to COM:VP and solicit advice. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Again on the Loco side, making cats for the indiviual loco's may be deemed as "good", but I would suggest an additional general grouping category for "FR Locomotives" or possibly "F&WHR Locomotives"

--Keith (talk) 12:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

- Village Pump - Agreed - since you probbly know the proc better, please initiate --Keith (talk) 12:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've recently been working on commons:Category:Ffestiniog Railway (FR), trying to organise it (and geocode it). In the course of this, I came to a disagreement with Keith over how the images should be categorised. I created individual cats for the railway's stations, and then put them inside commons:Category:Stations of the Ffestiniog Railway, and moved the images from the main FR cat into the station cats. I further plan to create a category for the individual engines used. Keith however feels that while the images should be in the station cats, those cats should be in the main FR cat, and that the images themselves should also be in the main FR cat. We can't come to an agreement between ourselves, so we'd like to solicit suggestions from the community as to how it should be organised. Thanks. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to add to Matts' comment. I have no problem with his station category's. Originally the items were all under commons:Category:Ffestiniog Railway. He had removed this and replaced with relevant [[commons:Category:<station name>]]. I feel the user is more likely to know the FR reference, rather than an individual station reference. I have no problem with them co-existing, my complaint being purely the removal of commons:Category:Ffestiniog Railway Comments please --Keith (talk) 13:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

commons:Commons:Categories

I would go with mattbuck suggestion of the following hierarchy:

• commons:Category:Ffestiniog Railway

• commons:Category:Stations of the Ffestiniog Railway

• [[commons:Category:<station name>]]

• commons:Category:Engines of the Ffestiniog Railway

• [[commons:Category:<Engine type>]]

with majority of images in the 'leaf' categories. It is ok for an image to be in station and engine category, but not in commons:Category:Ffestiniog Railway. That way the parent category can be reserved for images that did not fit the tree. On the other hand such organization can make some of the images harder to find (due to more categories to look through), but this can be mitigated by use of well designed gallery (maybe Keith can be responsible for that). --Jarekt (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Jarekt, but I have a life, and that means not wasting time. Keith (talk) 08:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Having reviewed what is proposed hear, I am inclined to go with mattbuck and Jarekt. Sorry Keith but I have an aversion to items being categorised in a sub-category and the associated main category. It seems a bit incestious to me. For example, all pictures at Tan-y-Bwlch will be in the TYB cat. A locomotive at TYB will appear in the engine cat and station cat. The main root cat should have very few images in it.

Please note, Stewart, that none of these subcats existed 36 hours ago (pre 10-Aug-08), and are all the creation of Matt over a short period. During which time he was also tagging for deletion some photos courtesy of our own ACG which had been tagged incorrectly. With him also moving images across from main wiki, the gallery of FR photos that existed some time ago is now depleted tremndously. As I have said elsewhere, you now have the prospect of an image showing an FR engine, on the FR route, pulling FR carriages .... and not being classed an FR photo. This system automatically falls down with the acceptance above of images not within station area (harks back to the policy on Festipedia where that problem was sorted before we started) Keith (talk) 08:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow how an image would be "not ... classed an FR photo." Photos are considered to belong to their categories and all of their categories' supercategories. The images in (say) commons:Category:Road bridges in the United States are also in commons:Category:Road bridges and commons:Category:Bridges in the United States without having to be explicitly included in those categories. Powers (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrectly assuming that the user knows that. If I was looking for pictures of a particular railway, i would think there would be a category for this. Not typing in to find I have to look through a number of different categories to get what I want. Currently C:FR shows only 16 photos, and a link to stations, which, without checking has another 100 photos. Sorry but as said above "such organization can make some of the images harder to find (due to more categories to look through)" --92.2.198.176 14:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're free to advocate for a change in policy, but that's how we do things here. If you're looking for photos of a particular subject, you can go to the category page, and see if any of the subcategories fit what you're looking for. If not, you can look in the main category and see what's there. I don't see the issue. The alternative is to have supercategories with too many images in them to be useful. Powers (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The search button has a "Go" option and a "Search" option. The categorization is actually interesting for more reasons (interrelationships like "Cork" as a material and also the species that is the material; automobiles from 1943 and automobiles by model name, type of rocket, and what that one was carrying, etc) than simply displaying images. To limit the categorization to things that a Search button already do is the real redundancy problem. -- carol (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I would not used [[commons:Category:<Engine type>]]; I would use [[commons:Category:<Engine name>]] as is used on Festipedia - Stations and Locomotives which is are perfect examples of what mattbuck is proposing. --Stewart ^(talk) 18:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be careful, Stewart, in making comparisons between here and Festipedia. Where as this sub wiki is more for "media" files of "everything", Festipedia is more to record "information" of a very narrow field, with a specific historic bent. Keith (talk) 08:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There was a related discussion later:

Guys in order to add the Ffestiniog pictures to the Locomotives of the United Kingdom hierarchy they need to be moved to categories like Steam locomotives of the Ffestiniog Railway and Diesel locomotives of the Ffestiniog Railway. Are you happy to have this done? Does it help with the earlier discussion? Railwayfan2005 (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess that would be OK, though maybe a bit annoying. Wait a few days until I've finished uploading stuff. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier to have the categories now - then you can just add the images to them as you upload them? (PS Have I got the correct number of "F"s in the names?) Railwayfan2005 (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I want to finish my upload of this batch of images. After that I can see if any new locos need their own cats, and then sort accordingly. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I wirhdrew from this discussion, when it became obvious that User Matt Buck was going to do what he was doing under some Wikimedia policy. This now means that wheras a few weeks ago, Cat=FR on main wiki, had some fifty plus photos, it now has one, and that is under threat of deletion. He acted without any consultation in doing this, and his actions have annoyed a number of people connected with the railway, including one who has declared himself unhappy with Matt Bucks actions, and will not be contributing again. He is not happy with material being transferred from main wiki to wikimedia, but again Matt Buck is quoting policy. Personally, and prior to this I would not submit any photos due to the wiki policy which by the letter, means that my photos may appear in print without my knowledge. --Keith (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Commons is all about freedom for people to use your photos, it's kind of the point. Any image on here can appear in print without notification of the author. As for the FR cat on wikipedia, Wikipedia is not meant to host hundreds of images - the only images en.wp should be hosting are ones which are not free use. All other images should be on commons. Furthermore, there shouldn't be very few unfree images of the FR on en.wp, as apart from maybe ones taken of the construction of locomotives which can't be obtained elsewhere, they are all replaceable by free ones.

As for Stewart's issues with me, this stems from my removal of a gallery from Minffordd railway station. Galleries are discouraged by en.wp policy, and should be replaced by images at the sides of the page, and relevant links to commons. This gallery contained 6 images, all of which I had transwikied, and I felt the gallery itself didn't add anything to the article. Therefore I was bold and removed it. I got jumped on by Stewart for this. I appreciate that he put a lot of effort into getting those photos, but that does not allow ownership of articles. I re-added several of the more relevant images to the page, with their captions intact. It does sadden me that he decided to stop contributing FR photos over this, but I honestly don't see how I could have handled the situation any differently. If he's getting "terminally demotivated" over the removal of four images, then what more can I say?

Now, as for my categorisation of FR photos, we all work within policy, although commons is more mellow than en.wp. I agree that there are instances where it makes sense to have an image in a category and its parent cat, but having the 328 FR photos I have uploaded in the past 10 days in a single category would make it quite ridiculously hard to navigate. Let me give an example - there are now more photos of Blanche - one single engine, and not even a Fairlie - than there were of the FR in total before I started. Now, if you feel like getting on my back over this, then fine, that's your right. All I want to do is get on with my job here without all these petty arguments from Wikipedians who have come over just to complain I moved their photos. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and since I'm done with this batch, I'll change them to the cats you suggested Railwayfan. Thanks. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

And done. Click your own links and you'll see. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ffestiniog Railway rolling stock

I posted the following comment on Talk:Ffestiniog Railway rolling stock, and Keith replied on my talk page.

Just a note that Wikimedia Commons has a ton of FR images now, so there may be some images better than the current ones we're using (at least for the steam locos - photos are thin on the ground for others). Anyway, take a look at commons:Category:Ffestiniog Railway and see if there are any that should be changed. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but no thanks. Your attack, for there is no other word for it, on images and articles relating to the Festiniog has been without any consultation with the people who had been involved with the input over the past 3 years. At a point some 12 days ago 10th August infact, as can be seen on your own contribs log, you embarked on a "crusade" You have moved images to a wiki subsite, albeit under apparent policy, you have marked for deletion images that were not tagged correctly, which has caused people some speedy additional work to correct matters before they disappeared. You have added a varying number of your own pictures to this subsite, which dont "illustrate better", but make it more like your personal photo repository - and it nearly would have been, if you hadn't transferred other peoples pictures from wikipedia!. This action, in itself, leaves a lot to be desired. In your conversation with another contributor, the word demotivate has been mentioned. I can assure you, from correspondence, that he is not the only contributor who is annoyed/demotivated by your actions, and those people who contributed prior to 12 days ago, and are directly connected to the railway. You will find some will make the odd change, but nothing more. Please do not bother to try and defend your actions, as we are quite aware of them. --Keith 15:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

My response and apology

OK, now that I've got that all out of the way, I would like a chance to explain myself.

Let me first deal with why I moved images to commons to begin with. Wikimedia Commons is a repository of free media files, and the images can easily be used on any wikimedia project. The files I moved from en.wikipedia to commons were all freely licenced, and so were eligible for moving so long as the terms of the licence were not violated. I ensured that this did not happen (all attribution information was retained, and the licence was identical), the captions retained and in some cases expanded, and I added geocoding to the images so that they can be seen on Google Earth. I marked the images I had copied with {{nowcommons}}, and as Keith noted, they were deleted in accordance with the policy in such cases. This admittedly removed them from the en.wp Category:Ffestiniog Railway, and they were instead part of the commons category.

Now, let me deal with the Minffordd fiasco. As can be seen on {{cleanup-gallery}}, Wikipedia is not meant to contain galleries in articlespace. Such galleries should instead be on commons, under a similar name. It is my intention to create such galleries on commons, after I'm done actually uploading images. Anyway, the article on Minffordd station contained a gallery, and so I removed it as I did not feel it added anything to the article. I did not realise that there would be any objection to doing this, but I was obviously wrong. However, Wikipedians are encouraged to be bold, and thus I did what I felt was right. I would like to apologise to Stewart for appearing to disregard his contributions, and I in fact added several of his images back to the article, with their original captions. I did not realise at the time how much effort he had put into those photographs.

On to the categorisation problem on Commons. As stated, it is commons policy to categorise images as best possible, and to remove images from parent categories. I personally take exception to this at times, but in general I agree with it. Currently, there are 350 odd photos in the FR subcats on Commons - putting these into a single category would make it extremely difficult to navigate. I want to try and create a "virtual ride" as a gallery - a complete trip from Porthmadog to Blaenau - so that images taken between stations can be properly included, and not just in the locomotive categories.

Now, let me address this latest issue that Keith has put on my talk page. He refers to my "crusade" against the FR on Wikipedia. I resent this accusation. I put in this work because I like the FR, and I wanted to improve the way Wikimedia projects cover it. I have put more effort into Wikimedia these past few weeks than at any time in the previous year or two I've been here. I've been on Flickr, going through over 1000 images to find ones which are suitable, and then begging for them to be released under {{cc-by-sa-2.0}} or {{cc-by-2.0}}. Keith calls this my "personal photo repository" - I have uploaded about 50 of my own photos which seemed to make the cut. I've uploaded around 300 from other people. It's hardly personal. I then went through those to try and find images which best illustrated the subjects in question, cropping out extraneous details and the like. I don't do this to intentionally annoy people, I do it to try and improve the articles by providing images which better illustrated the subject.

There were some images which, yes, I tagged as lacking a source and/or permission. That's the way things are done - if we don't know the source of an image, if we don't have the permission to use it, we should not be using it. Images which lack source should have that corrected, and if it does not happen, they should be deleted. There is a seven day gap minimum between tagging and deletion, and the image uploader is notified, so it's not as if there was no warning.

I have one final thing to say on this matter. To any other contributor I have annoyed, please accept my apologies. Nothing I have done has been out of malice, spite, or anything but the best intentions and love of the Ffestiniog. I had no idea that trying to get more photos, categorise the ones we had, and following policy would be so controversial, and that is why I did not bother to ask on talk pages before acting. If you feel I have trampled over your contributions, then I did not mean to - I don't own these articles, and I'm not trying to dominate them with my work. I'm just trying to be the best wikipedian, and Ffestiniog fan I can. Also, to those of you who I may have spoken sharply to, my deepest apologies.

Thankyou. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Train Control

Sladen's edit was dealing with only one of the future scenarios, whereas it previously gave the situation as it stands currently. I have reverted it back, and reworded to make clearer. --Keith 09:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hiving off Stations and Quarry Tables

Given the article is now rather large (51k), I suggest :-

a) the table containing stations be hived off to a seperate file, ala WHR where similar has been done b) the table of slate quarries be hived off as well.

I think this would reduce article to a more manageable size, and still keep relevant data to hand if required

Comments please --Keith 13:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea. Hogyn Lleol (talk) 15:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I dont know how long I should give for comments, but I will wait a week fom the last comment, before proceeding as decided --Keith 07:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

One week mark is up and above changes have been effected. The page is still 41Kb in size! A new index page covering the main topics (and associated railways) has been created, amidst adversity from outside sources, at Ffestiniog Railway Index --Keith 08:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Due to wiki proceedure, that page cannot be used (!) so a template covering Festiniog & Associate Railways was created to do similar function - this has been rolloed out to all pages. --Keith 12:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Ffestiniog_Railway_Index

Request for assessment on this new article. Cheers.  Geaugagrrl  ☎ 02:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Please explain why this message appears here, (for another page), and who is expected to provide an assessment, and against what criteria?? I see this as a misuse of wiki-bureacracy --Keith 08:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

So an assessment was done, and before the bureacracy caused its deletion, it had been replaced by a template, as per suggestions. --Keith 12:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Accidents and incidents

Should the article have a section for accidents and incidents, such as this one?

Image deletion

Several FR-related images are for deletion at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:FRL-4H.jpg -mattbuck (Talk) 18:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ffestiniog 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/20050312074151/http://www.frheritage.org.uk/index.html to http://www.frheritage.org.uk/index.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 07:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I want Princess and Welsh Pony to steam.

I want Princess and Welsh Pony to steam again and have Welsh Pony's tender added, so that they can both steam again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.1.122.96 (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 5.4 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for discussion on how to improve the Ffestiniog Railway article. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• EoM Token exchange.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)