Talk:St Michael's Mount Tramway

The gauge

@DavidAHull: Hello,
Re St Michael's Mount Tramway#Gauge. The photographs in both of the two references show a track gauge almost as wide as the about 5-foot (1.52 m) wide tunnel itself, giving visual credence for a 1,372 mm (4 ft 6 in) gauge and thus eliminating the two much narrower track gauges. Examine carefully.

Peter Horn User talk 15:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)7

I have obeyed. What's more, I had come to the same conclusion when I examined one of the photos in the original Semmens article. However, for Wikipedia purposes, who are we to conclude that two sources are wrong? The slight evidence supporting the narrower gauges is contained in one of the films where men are un/loading; their proportions give some credence to a 2ft something gauge. By adding the bit about the remnant on the quayside I half hope someone will take a tape measure and answer the riddle. On the theme of unclarity, the sources I cite give three opening dates: 1876, about 1900 (Semmens) and 1912 (without going back in and checking exactly.) The OS map I have linked to clearly shows the tunnel, if it is dated before 1910 (which I think it is) that corroborates the first two. Semmens got his data from a guided tour by the site manager, with access to Lord St Levan, but they could all have been wrong. Once again, who are we to say for Wikipedia purposes?DavidAHull (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to wait for that guy with the tape measure to find out what is the current track gauge. It may well be possible that there were two prior conversions. Btw, 4 ft 6 in gauge railway#End of Scotch gauge favours 4 ft 6 in (1,372 mm) Peter Horn User talk 18:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, 4 ft 6 in gauge railway#End of Scotch gauge does favour 4'6", but its cited sources are Hows, so they don't really bring anything extra to the party. It is possible that there were one or even two conversions, but no source hints at it. I have Semmens' 1964 article in front of me, his photo on page 587 resembles one by Hows, taken with the curve near the foot of the line in the background. If the tunnel was 5' wide in 1964 and remained so in 20xx then 4'6" would get my vote without hesitation. What we really need is someone to take a few photos with everyday objects next to the track or an adult standing with one foot on each rail, together with a clear measurement, we could then put this to bed. It is very rum how an experienced author such as Semmens, writing in a Journal of Record could be out almost by a factor of 2, and the other author being near Semmens but different again. I'm going to email the National Trust to see if they have anything definitive which they could send me. This is fun! DaveDavidAHull (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)