Talk:Cromford and High Peak Railway

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

Uttoxeter link[edit]

My recollection is that the Ashbourne-Buxton line (which was axed in the early 50s I think) continued southwards to Uttoxeter. Could someone check and add if correct?Linuxlad 08:56, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I now have some info from David Moore (Churnet Valley guru) on this.


Later (much :-)) - we seem to have lost the Ashbourne- Uttoxeter info - I've put some of it back, but haven't reinstated the story of the through trains from London to Buxton which ran for a time, because it's probably been filleted off somewhere else by now. Could someone who has been keeping better tabs on it please check Bob aka Linuxlad (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2013 update - This is now covered by Ashbourne Line Chevin (talk) 13:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

adhesion-hauled v loco-hauled[edit]

we need to separate adhesion-hauled from locomotive-hauled - which could be rack and pinion (eg Snowdon Railway is 1 in 8 average, 1 in 5.5 steepest, I read) Linuxlad 11:53, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

route via Fernilee[edit]

I've put a line in about the section down the Goyt Vally, and written that this was abandoned in the late 1800s - this is from memory (where _is_ my copy of Rimmer!). Can others please correct if wrong.Linuxlad 14:13, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  1. I've corrected your Goyt Valley note (with the aid of Mr Rimmer), also added a few other notes.AHEMSLTD 19:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Ah Ladmanlow - the name had all but faded! Nearly as evocative as Minninglow. Bob aka Linuxlad.

Engineers[edit]

Can we clarify who were the engineers for the line - my memory was that it was the Jessops - (And indeed there is a plaque on a bridge near the junction at Parsley Hay to this effect I recollect). But I gather that William Moorsom may also have had a role - if so, what??Linuxlad 09:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Jessops certainly surveyed and built the line. I think Moorsom must have come in later, or assisted, as he was in Nova Scotia until about 1831-2 (The dates are not very clear) If there were two William Scarth Moorsoms it throws my research into a tizzy, but I don't think it likely Chevin 09:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've added a note on Josias to the article on William, and set a reference-in via a redirect. But, problem, according to a canals web ref, Josias died in 1826, so he couldn't have done more than get the line surveyed, the bill through Parliament in 1825, and start the opening up. Linuxlad 10:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hum. A problem. I've confirmed the date of Josiah's death on a geneology website. Moorsom initially worked for or with the Stevensons, so they might have been approached in the first instance. Josias was the second of eight children, maybe one of them was also an engineer. Also I haven't been able to find out exactly when Moorsom left Canada. A bit more reasearch to do, I guess. Incidentally I've found a fascinating page on the Wirksworth website. Chevin 14:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Update 2013: Moorsom became the manager later. I think there is some ref to him in page revisions later than this one. Chevin (talk) 13:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proper Route Map?[edit]

Can anyone create a proper route map, and get in the northern/southern extents, and if possible, connect it up to real railways? (Killers Hill and Ravenstor Incline link to the Steeple Grange/Ecclesbourne Valley respectively). Cheers, Bluegoblin7 17:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, 'when I were a lad', my parents had a map (half inch Bartholomews (on cloth, late 50s/early 60s, but probably based on a pre-war survey, I guess) which had an extension shown from Wirksworth up to the line near Middleton. I gather this was never built (it would probably have needed another incline) but was proposed - anyone (Chevin??) able to shed any light. Linuxlad (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen something somewhere but I assumed it was the Steeple Grange Light Railway? I'll have to go up to Wirksworth sometime and ask a few questions Chevin (talk) 09:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just bought a copy of Geoffrey Kingscott's "Lost Railways of Derbyshire." In it he says the Steeple Grange was orginally a quarry line. However, he also notes that an inclined plane was built from the CHPR but never used. This was around 1857 but I'm not sure about his idea that it was to connect with the Wirksworth Branch to Duffield. I think it also mentioned in Sprenger, H., (1987) "The Wirksworth Branch" It may been part of the complex politics of the area at that time, a "stopper" by the LNWR against the Midland's plans to gain access to Rowsley by their own route. Certainly it would have been unusable for passengers, since they would have to walk behind the train on any inclines (See the Leicester and Swannington Railway ) However when the Midland gained full control of the Ambergate line it would have been superfluous. Chevin (talk) 14:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chevin,
Perhaps I could shed some light, being a volunteer at the EVR (the subject of Howard Sprenger's The Wirksworth Branch.). From Wirksworth station, there is an old quarry line that heads north, up the (current) uk's steepest preserved incline. it's 1-in-30 average, with 1-in-27 at the steepest point, if I remember correctly!
At the top of the workable incline, there is a small halt called Ravenstor (i'll send a link to a pic soon!). From there, the company that built the EVR was offered 1 million (in the currency of the day) to build up the hill and connect with the CHPR. This they did. It is unclear whether or not the link was ever used - the gradient being as steep as there was. There is no evidence of a winding house, so either a cable was bought from Middleton Top (unlikely - the two companies were still opostition!) or it used Gravity Shunting, again unlikely.
The Steeple Grange Light Railway is a light railway, again built for access to a quarry, but it is on the other side of the stone centre. The two lines were never linked.
If you do need to know more, Sprenger's publication is very useful, and I will also suggest that you join wirksworth's yahoo! group if you need answers - we're all friendly, don't worry! link ---> http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wirksworths_railway
Hope this helps!
Bluegoblin7 14:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems bogus[edit]

Not only did the C&HPR have the steepest adhesion worked incline of any line in the country, the 1 in 14 of Hopton, it also had the sharpest curve, 55 yards (50 m) radius through eighty degrees at Gotham.

Leaving aside the small matter of narrow gauge railways there were standard gauge feeder curves below 100 ft radius in various places (eg Vivian works to GWR) 81.2.110.250 ([[User talk:81.2.110.250|talk]) 20:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)][reply]

A quick search finds the following statement in "The Cromford & High Peak Railway" by A. Rimmer, 1956. "Gotham Curve, only 2.5 chains in radius, turns the line through 80 degrees. This, of course, is the reason that only 4-wheeled wagons are permitted south of Friden, and even these grind and groan as they are pulled slowly round the curves. Gotham Curve has been stated to have had no fewer than 11" in superelevation at one time, while another source claimed that the superelevation was 5.5", and a check rail was provided." If I can't find a reference to it being THE sharpest, I'll simple rewrite it as given above. (I'm not sure who put in that statement.) Hogyn Lleol (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I wonder if this is the origin of the statement? Hogyn Lleol (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That says "main line", there are lots of industrial curves sharper - and docks etc. The gradient one is also wrong btw - Fawley Hill is 1 in 13 adhesion worked (but again not UK mainline - its Sir William McAlpines' private railway). For anything that was 'main line' (ie British Rail) I could believe it 81.2.110.250 (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cromford and High Peak 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) 19:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

Does anybody else feel that there are a few too many links at Cromford and High Peak Railway#External links? I'm not saying that all of those that don't satisfy WP:ELYES should be removed, but I do think that all those that go against WP:ELNO should be removed, plus some more besides. Do we really need as many as 133? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, yes! 133 external links must be some sort of record. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Further reading section could probably be pruned too. Neither section needs every possible piece of other information about the line listing. All the maps for example could be reduced to a single link to the NLS interactive maps where people can scroll the line for themselves. Nthep (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm disappointed that someone should so casually dismiss "All the maps for example could be reduced to a single link to the NLS interactive maps where people can scroll the line for themselves". Brief study would have shown that the final two entries do just that, one at 6" scale the other at 25" scale. The preceding 16 maps are taken from 1880s editions OS maps and are not scrollable as a single entity but have to be explored one by one. They are a significant resource because they show the line north of Ladmanlow still in use and the routes subject to later bypasses and quarrying in their entirety.
However, I've made a safe copy of the lot, so people can chuck away whatever their whim dictates.DavidAHull (talk) 07:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FWIW DavidAHull and I discussed this at User_talk:DavidAHull#Cromford_and_High_Peak_Railway. I think his plan is eventually to distribute these links to other subsidiary articles but for the record I concur with the expressed opinion that there are too many at the moment. Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
re the maps. All the first series 6" maps have recently been uploaded to Commons (exampleFile:Map of Derbyshire OS Map name 008-SE, Ordnance Survey, 1882-1896.tiff) so if appropriately categorised on Commons could be linked in this article with a {{commonscat}} link. Nthep (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! Constructive info rather than drive-by moaning, yippee. I would be pleased to co-operate with appropriately categorising them on Commons and linking them to articles. What is "appropriate", how do I "categorise" them then how will I link them other than a list of 16 links - one link to a list of 16 or individual links to each map as the text flows or as appropriate to subsidiary articles or some other way? A first glance at the map of the northern end of the line shows that some combining has taken place (hooray) but I haven't yet found how to zoom in (boo). I'll keep exploring. For what it's worth, my original aim was to collect info on the line before putting finger to keyboard; when I got into finding material I found the astonishing amount you see before you, it just growed and growed. As above, I've now learned my lesson and put it somewhere where it won't upset people. It never occurred to me that a community of encyclopaedia compilers could object to stuff being found and assembled as work in progress.DavidAHull (talk) 09:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please bear in mind that no article is ever finished so if all editors dumped their research material onto the page it would just lead to a heap of incomprehensible stuff for the reader. Sub pages in your own userspace are the best place to store stuff.
Putting all the maps into one category is easy, the possible fly in the ointment is going to be Commons' user attitudes to a category called Ordnance Survey maps of the Cromford and High Peak Railway or whatever. Sometimes simple things can be a red rag and end up in disputes (a bit like how this discussion started :-) ). I'll create a category and if it gets deleted we'll try something else. Nthep (talk) 12:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Category added at Commons and included into the article using {{commonscat}}. Nthep (talk) 13:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DavidAHull: If what you are "doing is assembling resources before (re)writing the article" and "to collect info on the line", then if you don't want to put such sources in your user space, the place to put them is on the article's talk page - i.e. here. Indeed, the purpose of an article's talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article (see WP:TPG, first paragraph).
Also, I resent your accusation of "drive-by moaning". I might not have edited the page very often, but I've had it on my watchlist for years, and I have noticed the recent swelling of the ELs with increasing dismay to the point that I felt that something had to be done. I could have deleted the lot. I didn't. Even if some of the links do get removed from the page, they're not lost forever, since the page history will record previous versions. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nthep:"Please bear in mind that no article is ever finished so if all editors dumped their research material onto the page it would just lead to a heap of incomprehensible stuff for the reader. Sub pages in your own userspace are the best place to store stuff." Good point, I only saw it as potentially interesting, not as potentially confusing. Thank you. I've put it out of sight and will incorporate as references as writing progresses. Thank you for the map category. I've had a first look at it, my first reaction is that it has some strengths and some weaknesses compared with the NLoS versions. I'll comment further when I've got to grips with it. DavidAHull (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cromford_and_High_Peak_Railway&oldid=1206828903"