Talk:3 ft 6 in gauge railways

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

CAP vs Cape

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TrackConnect&diff=prev&oldid=228017978

Hi TrackConnect. Please stop adding the idea that Cape Gauge is named after Carl Pihl to the

source for this. As far as I know, Cape Gauge was never known as CAP gauge and is named for its use in the Cape Colony, not for Pihl. I have already removed this once and asked you to provide a source before re-adding it. Please make sure you source this, since I strongly believe it to be untrue. Thanks, Gwernol 14:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

You mean "As far as I know" by you is a better source than the article Carl Abraham Pihl#Gauge controversy? TrackConnect (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Carl Abraham Pihl article says nothing about a "CAP" gauge or about the origin of the term "Cape gauge". However the book "Narrow Gauge Steam" by P.J.G.Ransom does give the origin of Cape Gauge as the Cape Colony. I'll add that reference to the article. Gwernol 15:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the burden of evidence for any material added to an article lies with the person adding the information. Any unsourced information can be challenged and removed. If someone removes your edit and asks you to provide a source for it, you should always provide a proper source before re-adding the information. See Wikipedia's core content policy on
verifiability for details. Thanks, Gwernol 15:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
p.15 of the PDF I provided mentions CAP-gauge. TrackConnect (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find this pdf you refer to, I have doubts about its reliability. Ottawakismet (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC) I believe you have incorrectly identified this source as a journal, whereas it appears to be notes presented at a conference, which is not at all the same thing. Either way, I think this source needs to be produced to back up the claim.Ottawakismet (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ottawakismet
User TrackConnect is not going to respond to your request - he was blocked in November 2010! He added his statement in 2008. The fact that you cannot find teh pdf is no reaseon to doubt its existance - you can at best add "dead link". I have reverted your changes. Martinvl (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CAP gauge or German Kapspur is related to C(K)arl Abraham Pihl and has nothing to do with the Cape which is folk etymology. Just follow the link to the PDF: https://web.archive.org/web/20070928003437/http://web.bi.no/forskning/ebha2001.nsf/dd5cab6801f1723585256474005327c8/a6cb7066ea59eda6c12567f30056ef4d/$FILE/A1%20-%20Bergh.PDF --2003:CD:F730:FB00:8520:E9F2:5A10:9196 (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Norway and Queensland

Who did the first 1067 gauge line?

Who influenced who?

  • Norway - On 23 June 1862 the narrow gauge Hamar-Grundsetbanen Railway was opened. What gauge?
  • Queensland Railways
    - gauge chosen 186x
  • Queensland Railways
    - opened 1865
  • Earliest mention (so far) of Carl Pihl in Australian newspaper re narrow gauge.

Tabletop (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First use stated to be by George & Robert Stevenson. Pihl worked for Robert Stevenson for two years, in the London office; then worked on the extension of the Ipswich & Bury Railway before becoming surveyor on the Norsk Hoved-Jernbane in 1851. Later returned to England and then Norway. Choose 3' 6" for two lines, the Trondheim-Storenbanen line and the

Charles Douglas Fox to see the "Pihl" system on the HGB and Storenbanen; and as a result Sir Charles Fox decided to build a railway in Queensland "built after the principles of the Pihl system". Sir John Fowler also visited Pihl and decided to use the "Pihl" system in India. George Laidlaw contacted Pihl, who sent him drawings and plans; which resulted in Sir Charles Fox & Sons building the Toronto and Nipissing Railway and the Toronto, Grey and Bruce Railway. CAPE gauge appears to be a misnomer - CAP gauge seems more relevant. Pyrotec (talk) 12:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

I am curious ... given the fact that Australia doesn't use the term "Cape Gauge" how can we possibly find a reference to the fact that we don't use that term? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.0.86.162 (talk) 05:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Similar gauges

Similar gauges of the Cape gauge are 1093 Swedish Cape gauge and 1100 German Cape gauge. 101.128.178.224 (talk) 09:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move proposal

  • Cape Gauge - is not a universally used term - and noting the WP:TRAINS project goes to some effort to distinguish between US and English usages (lists etc) to have an article with this title goes against the spirit of the WP:TRAINS project to identify variant usages throughout the world.

Narrow gauge in the UK and Australia is never called 'Cape Gauge' - it is a south african cultural issue, and should not be assumed onto parts of the world who do not use the term. Narrow Gauge is also a problem as in some parts of the world it is usually used for a range of less than 4.8 standard gauge gauges.

The lead paragraph should be re-written (regardless of the move) to indicate that the usage of Cape Guage is a limited synonym for narrow gauge - and not the other way round as it reads for the moment

Suro 09:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

It is not a South African cultural issue. South Africans use the term "Standard Gauge" when referring to "Cape Gauge" or 1,067 mm. German, Dutch, Norwegian also refer to "Cape Gauge". Googling for 1067mm gauge only returns 1.860.000 results while "Cape Gauge" search returns 13.100.000 results. --Aaron-Tripel (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This article is specifically about 42 and no other gauge. The term "narrow gauge" is a shorter way of writing "
    narrow gauge railway", which is not one specific gauge but anything narrower than 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm). --Redrose64 (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
In view of these comments (thanks) - I think there needs to be a more careful introduction then - it simply is not good enough as it is -
Suro 22:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually, at 3' 6", it is a
Indian gauge being used to refer to 5' 6" gauge railways in the Indian subcontinent. Mjroots (talk) 05:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Congo–Ocean_Railway

Congo–Ocean Railway is Cape Gauge, should it be listed in the Congos? Ottawakismet (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - it should be listed under Republic of the Congo, possible with "Congo-Brazzaville" in parentheses. This is to distinguish it from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaire), also known formerly as "Congo-Kinshasa". Martinvl (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Term Cape Gauge

Insufficient allowance for outside of the south african context, the point is that there are large amounts of 3'6 railway in the world that the term is not used. Despite the arguments given in 2012, the article is now written to give the idea that

  • (1) 3'6 gauge is cape gauge
  • (2) 3'6 gauge is Cape guage is what is named in rest of the world - in the lead

the etymology and the explanation below are insufficiently written to show otherwise, and now written as if cape gauge started there as well.

satusuro 01:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Disagree.

Apology, have changed text of lead to clarify the issue.
satusuro 02:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Disagree.

SatuSuro claims on various locations:
  • Narrow gauge in the UK and Australia is never called 'Cape Gauge' Not correct. See the railway gazette article above. The English http://www.internationalsteam.co.uk/ mentions cape gauge all over the site
  • it is a south african cultural issue, and should not be assumed onto parts of the world who do not use the term... / ...and confined in the main to South Africa. Not correct.
    • The Netherlands use the term universally: nl:Kaapspoor and: Museum R.T.M. Ouddorp Dit is de enige in Nederland overgebleven lijn op Kaapspoor, met een spoorwijdte van 1.067 mm (this is the only remaining (Dutch) line in Cape Gauge); Gemeente Tram Nijmegen ...Maar omdat Nijmegen al vol lag met 1067 mm rails, het zogenaamde kaapspoor, en omdat...
    • Germany uses the term universally: de:Kapspur and: Die Kolonialbahnen mit besonderer Berücksichtigung Afrikas ...dagegen ist in den britischen Kolonien wie erwähnt, die Kapspur ausschließlich zur Anwendung gelangt, ...
    • Furthermore, the Swedish, Norwegian, and polish interwiki links of the cape geuge articles also mention cape gauge and its history.
--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 11:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can pull out examples of usage that show usage that complies with the argument - there are other countries that are listed where the gauge is used, where the term is not usedsimple as that, so it is not universally used, a good reason to never apply names to gauges, there are always exceptions.

satusuro 13:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

We already discussed the countries where the term is not used (or an alternative name exists) and they are already (but not fully) listed in the nomenclature section. You still haven't addressed my other arguments. --Aaron-Tripel (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a term is in a language - it is hardly an adequate argument to say that the term is applied to 3'6 railways in that country where the language is - or used by the railway operators with that gauge - which is why having been through many government railway publications in australia which only use 3'6 or narrow... a magazine in australia might use the term - but it is pointless to say the term is used - because historically there is no sign of the term in the actual operators publications or working documents. Which is where your linguistic bent is taking you down a strange rabbit hole - just because a term is found in a language - does not mean that the operators or the actual railways with that gauge have historically used the term. Which is why I would suggest finding a 'name' for a gauge and finding evidence of usage across a range of languages and usages is one exercise - another is to find its actual use by the operators, and that is where the exercise on trying to keep the terms is going against what a good well written article can allow - the fact that a writer may pick up a term does not prove at all that the actual operators ever used the term.
satusuro 01:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Template RailGauge change

Template {{

Template:RailGauge#New feature: link the gauge size itself
.

Of interest: 3 ft 6 in (1,067 mm) ;-). -DePiep (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion and proposal to rename article to "Three foot six inch gauge railways"

My recent research already indicate that Carl Abraham Pihl wasn't the first person to implement 3ft 6 in gauge railways and that there is a much more "rich" history predating the 3ft 6in in the Cape Colony then was previously apparent in the Cape Gauge article (or to me). Moreover, the addition of several 3ft 6in engineers and their - extremely interesting - interpersonal influence also predate the Cape Colony railways. This influence is something to investigate further. Therefore my conclusion is that we should rename the "Cape Gauge" article to "Three foot six inch gauge railways" (However, I'm still very keen on discovering how far spread the Cape Gauge name actually is. I still think it is the most used and most (not THE) universal name for this gauge. Input welcome in the nomenclature section) --Aaron-Tripel (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Cape Gauge exists and the term is used in a major part of Africa and elsewhere. If the article is renamed to "3ft 6in gauge railways", hopefully with Cape gauge as a subsection, to be consistent the name
    Standard gauge, which is not universally used either, should then also be renamed to "4ft 8½in gauge railways" with Standard gauge as a subsection. (Good luck with that!) Either way, a major rewrite of most of the gauge articles may be required in the process. - André Kritzinger (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment - this is where the whole pack of cards falls over when the variant usages come into play - cape gauage is not universal, or narrow, broad or standard for that matter across all countries - it all depends where you are looking at it from - the one size fits all doesnt work. Cape guage was never used by the government authorities in the 50s in Australia - one thing I know for sure... to have a template, template table with that usage as universal is in fact wrong - however the exact same can happen for standard and narrow - as each country has slightly different usages.

Suggestion for the whole set of named gauges - as Andre says - a major rewrite could ensue - what concerns me as an editor and reader of article on wikipedia is that if I come across a usage of the word 'narrow' or 'standard in South Africa, England and the rest of the world - each country has potentially different usage - it has bothered eds before - and will continue to do so... A good resolution will need some careful consideration, and not in haste.

satusuro 00:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

  • I can agree with the proposed change. I worked with gauges through {{
    RailGauge}}, and these non-universal names (such as 'Cape gauge') have been bugging me ever. I never read a good border description for the usage of that name (outside of this talkpage now ;-) ), both in time, place & say culture. Coming from the other side, if there is only one railway company that never used that word for its 3 ft 6 in (1,067 mm), then we have a formidable reason for the move. After the renaming, a dedicated section can nicely describe what the name "Cape gauge" stems from and heads to. -DePiep (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
That's my point, actually. In South Africa 4ft 8½in gauge is referred to as broad gauge (breëspoor), not standard gauge (standaardspoor). The same is probably true for all named gauges. So it's not just a question of moving the Cape gauge article alone since the same reasoning will probably be applicable to them all. - André Kritzinger (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Propose central at
WT:RAIL for the others then? This one seems done. -DePiep (talk) 07:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Agree - As I have said for a few years now - 'naming' gauges by regional usage is a real problem - if this can be sorted out amicably, great!
satusuro 08:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
The
Cape gauge page is polluted now by its overall use for the 3 ft 6 in gauge. Way too many links to it thinking that Cape gauge is an official name for it. In other words, it has been used to mean "6 ft 3 in" all those years; we need to clean that up. A move would help, and adding a Cape gauge section allows us to go into detail. In the future that section could fork out into a main article, but that remains to be achieved (by content development). Otherwise, we'll be writing "exceptions" for the generic gauge for years. Explain and explain the "cape gauge" is not applicable for some gauge, mentioned in the page. -DePiep (talk) 12:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Looks like Aaron-Tripel is on the right track, then (I've struck the "oppose" on my first comment). I'd support renaming the article to a foot-inch title, but then all known names for the gauge should be dealt with in sub-sections, rather than separate articles. And the issue will have to be dealt with consistently, i.e in respect of all named gauges. Thus, merging articles about the same gauge rather than splitting them into separate list and names and whatever pages. - André Kritzinger (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see the comments here. In the next few days I will use all input here to enhance the article further. In the meantime, any input on history and different names is welcome.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could also move the page. I am reading a consensus here. -DePiep (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Cape gauge railway locomotives and Category:3 ft 6 in gauge locomotives are fit for merging too~, unless a Cape Gauge specification differs fundamentally. -DePiep (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Something to keep in mind: A LOT of articles contain link references to
Brunel gauge and other named gauges will be necessary in the respective foot-inch gauge or millimetres gauge articles for these links to be directed to. - André Kritzinger (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Eradication

Great. Your campaign to eradicate the name "

Cape gauge" back into all those infoboxes. When I'm done, please leave it be. -- André Kritzinger (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Removing the "cape gauge" from the infoboxes wasn't on purpose. In the
AutoWikiBrowser settings but partly due to a much needed wikibreak this code change wasn't addressed in a proper manner. I only discovered this omission recently. This issue will be fixed within several weeks so you can save yourself a lot of manual labour.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
The sense of 'eradication' was not the motivation of the original querying of the use of the termover a number of years, although earlier posts by myself would suggest that the usage was not; universal usage was not being listened to. The problem with the way that rail gauge was coded and viewed on wikipedia, variation and exceptions were no catered for. Since then the editors who have done all the very tedious and thankless work have modified gauage information to such an extent that the whole gamut of rail guage on wikipedia is now a better place - Aaron and depiep and friends should be complemented on a brilliant job well done. Of course it was the term was a south african used term and should be on those South African articles.
satusuro 23:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 3 ft 6 in gauge railways. 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.

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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More relevant link

{{Track gauge|1372mm|lk=on}}, ([[4 ft 6 in gauge railway]]) 1,372 mm (4 ft 6 in), (4 ft 6 in gauge railway) The "lk=on" should go directly to 4 ft 6 in gauge railway instead of to Toden Arakawa Line Peter Horn User talk 23:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:3_ft_6_in_gauge_railways&oldid=1197031751"