Talk:Manx Northern Railway

Line/route map

I think that this is a welcome addition to the article - thank you Mjroots (talk)! I particularly lilke the way that Ramsey Harbour is shown as a branch, not as a continuation through the station as shown in the Ramsey line template (I will amend that template to be consistent).

I would like to discuss some points that this diagram raises however - I would like to see consistency maintained for all IOM railway templates.

1. Stations - I too attempted to make some distinctions between "major" and "minor" stations on the route but to be honest I came to the conclusion that, apart from the terminii and St. John's, I would show them as small stations HST as opposed to BHF. I think the route diagram looks better for this. In particular, I showed St. John's as two separate stations with no interchange (they were in close proximity but this does not constitute an interchange IMHO).

The station marked on the diagram as Jurby was actually advertised as "Bishop's Court" or "Bishopscourt" and has its own article (Bishop's Court railway station) and was open to the public in the 1930's

Knockaloe camp is shown almost as a siding - I think that this is probably a better description than as a station. (I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that there ever was a station there, the trains simply stopped at convenient points around the camp.)

Ballacraine Halt is shown as being between Crosby and Union Mills. I think this is a mistake. Crosby links to the town as opposed to the railway station article - I will fix this.

2. Other facilities/structures - I've already mentioned Ramsey harbour (see above). My understanding is that "Milntown oil siding" served Ramsey Power station and that's how it appears on my Ramsey line template. I will wikilink Glen Mooar viaduct. I also think that the River Neb bridges should be shown. Finally the Port Erin line is shown as "to Port St. Mary".

3. Colours - I actually quite like what MJroots has done here but, strictly speaking, my understanding was that blue was reserved for light railways/metro systems. I think that using the different colours adds value to the article though - opinions? If we were being very picky, the Foxdale branch was never owned by the MNR only operated by them - at first on behalf of the Foxdale Railway Co. Ltd. and the liquidators after this company went bankrupt.

Having previewed this, it seems like a criticism - sorry about this, that is certainly not my intention. I think that there is much that is good in this article (and much that wants improving in my contributions I'm sure!). I welcome any discussion on these matters - the IOM railways are very dear to my heart!

Best Witchwooder (talk) 09:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply - I showed Ramsey Harbour as a branch as it was not accessed via the passenger platforms, but from a set of points before the station. (Manx Northern Railway book by R Preston Hendry and R Powell Hendry, p20). I will alter St. Johns to show the MNR station as a HST at the next level above the IMR station, this is probably a truer representation. Will change Ramsey and Milntown to sidings rather than depots. Will change Port St. Mary to Port Erin. Colours - I can change the diagram to show the MNR and Foxdale as separate colours if required. Have already discussed reasons for using different colours on Witchwooder's talk page. Think there was one short lived halt not currently on the diagram - not sure of exact position, served a zoo or rare breeds centre or something? Mjroots (talk) 11:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The missing halt I suspect is Ballavolley which served a wild life park. See template:Ramsey line. With regard to colours, although the uses are not set in stone, clicking the "legend" link from the line diagram gives a contradictory key. - best Witchwooder (talk) 14:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that the MNR diagram should replace the Ramsey line template (with the best features of each retained). As I intimated above, I like the idea of using colours in this way. I propose moving the graphics to template:Manx Northern Railway and of superseding template:Ramsey line. Best Witchwooder (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Some more thoughts - Maybe a separate MNR template is required after all. The MNR template maybe should show the route as it was under the MNR and therefore features such as the oil siding (which was put in the 1960's) would be omitted. Best Witchwooder (talk) 13:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say retain the oil siding, but add a note on its opening date to the text. Mjroots (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

References

When starting this article I quoted the source material I used in the Reference section without specific inline references because it was a genuine agglomeration of information in all of these books, many of whom cross-referenced themselves. The layout of the references followed the Harvard system and were arranged alphabetically. No templates were used (nor were needed) to obtain an ordered and consistent listing. In-line references are good where there are specific facts to be quoted and are to be encouraged, but I think it is important to maintain an internal consistency within the article and not to unnecessarily duplicate information.

In making the edits I have, I hope to achieve this internal consistency like the original, and give the article room to grow in a professional looking manner that will eventually lead to GA status.

I have re-ordered the references into an alphabetical list and reduced the inline quotation to an author and year. The full reference can be obtained from the alphabetical list below. To utilise the full power of in-line references it would be nice to know the specific page from which the information is derived. In this case the in-line reference can state:

1. Winter (2007); p. 45
2. Winter (2007); p. 12-13

for examples. In addition this reduces the weight of text that has to be carried within the body of the article and eases future editing. As an example of where it might head I would like to refer to Preston railway station which is well on the way to GA status.

I offer these edits in the best of faith and hope that all editors that have an interest in this part of a fascinating rail system can agree on the way to GA status. My very best regards, Oxonhutch (talk) 09:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your comments about in-line citation and alphabetic source listing. Not sure why you do not like the use of templates. I have found the citation templates useful in ensuring that any references added are presented in a consistent way - I am not familiar with all the ins and outs of Harvard Referencing. Why are there templates out there if they are not to be used? Please enlighten me - I am always looking to improve my contributions! Best, Witchwooder (talk) 09:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Witchwooder and thank-you for your positive response. My problem with templates stems from many directions but mainly from the point that they are a crude and imperfect tool and the task can be achieved to a higher degree of style without their use – it just requires the editor to look carefully at the results. Specifically my issues are:

• They carry a lot of excess baggage that makes editing very hard – especially if used inline.
• They are not consistent in their rendition across different media. When one starts mixing web citations, journals, newspapers, etc. consistency just cannot be achieved.
• They have no subtlety. If a reference is slightly away from the norm they fall down – take my Ivo Peters book – it is the pictures that are numbered and not the pages.
• Start having multiple editions, editors and compilers, and one is forced to try and jigger the output from within the template, totally outside of what the original template maker would have envisaged.
• But most important, if one takes care – they are not needed and just encumber an otherwise simple text string.

I like references and think they are one of the most important parts of an article. I like to take great care of them and elsewhere they are one of my major areas of attention. My best regards, Oxonhutch (talk) 10:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your response - I will brush up on my Harvard Referencing! Best Witchwooder (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally I find Harvard referencing hard to follow. It is one system of referencing used on Wikipedia, {{cite web}} being another. Personally I prefer the latter, and have no problem with it being used inline (See MS Riverdance) - the trick is to open section to edit, then preview before editing!

References from the book by Winter:- p10-11 for all three. Mjroots (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Harvard referencing refers to two parts when specific: an inline reference (Bloggs 2008) and an alphabetic entry in the References section. As I said above, the initial work was a genuine agglomeration of all of the original references and the labour of love did not extend at that time to specific calls. I believe it should and that the article would be better for having inline citations.

Being a geologist and familiar with scientific journals I am familiar with the Harvard (Bloggs 2008) style but I know that many others are not and the Note/References approach is a way of gaining the maximum benefit from both systems. The notes are inline, short, easy to edit and follow, and the book or journal references are neat and alphabetical below. In this way a lot of structured information can be presented in a way that is informative and pleasing on the eye – qualities that I believe are part of the concept of ‘professional’.

I referred to Preston railway station because I believe this demonstrates where the system can lead in a positive way and can easily grow without becoming undecipherable. Tooth enamel is another good example of a heavily referenced article with inline notes and a Harvard reference list. The {{cite ____}} ‘methods’ are all forms of different citation templates which attempt to forge consistency – but, which for the reasons I outlined above, inevitably do not. I believe the MNR article is evolving in a positive direction. I would just hate to see it straight-jacketed at this early stage. In the meantime, I will endeavour to point to specific pages in my book collection from which I derived the information. Like all good things though – including references – it is best not to over-egg the pudding! My best regards Oxonhutch (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

MNR template talk page

I have started a talk page on the template - please see my latest comments there. Best Witchwooder (talk) 09:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal: Milntown Railway into Manx Northern Railway?

I propose to merge Milntown Railway into Manx Northern Railway. The short-lived spur called "Milntown Railway" was apparently a part of the Manx Northern main line from which it branched off and had no separate administration so that the content in the former article can easily - and perhaps even better since there is significant overlap - be explained in the context of the latter. Article size should be no problem. --Schlosser67 (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)