Talk:List of Ffestiniog Railway rolling stock

Images

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)

Topsy

Topsy was built in the Boston Lodge Works, but not for the Festiniog Railway, but for Charles Easton Spooners private track. As such it does not belong in an article on FR rolling stock. See article at The FR Wiki --Keith 19:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Welsh Pony / Prince / Palemrston

In July 2010, the company General Manager put out some feelers to the FR Society community regarding the possible restoration of Welsh Pony. The response was very positive. NOW some detailed investigation has to be carried out BEFORE any major amount of finance is committed to its restoration. If the project is feasible, and finance gained, then it is hoped to have it in steam for its 150th birthday
Prince has for a long time been classed as the oldest working steam engine in regular service by various sources. Because its bolier ticket has expired, doesn't mean this promotionary title will be lost for ever.
Palmerston, delivered some time later, cannot take the title just because it was the next delivered. (spell corrected)--Keith 22:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

IP Edit reversions

Amendmentss made by "IP address only editors", which havn't been noted in normal company or supporter channels will be reverted until it becomes public knowledge. This would be under standard practice that the information is not verifiable. This is in particular relation to recent chnges in the status of locos. Welsh Pony is currently (23rd October 2010) under consideration to be restored. No official decision has been made, nor finance allocated, for such work. --Keith 20:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ffestiniog Railway rolling stock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060520110604/http://www.frheritage.org.uk:80/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?Home_Page to http://www.frheritage.org.uk./cgi-bin/wiki.pl?Home_Page

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

International rather than parochial systems

Is there a reason for describing some locomotives with the AAR wheel arrangement system rather than the international UIC classification of locomotive axle arrangements? This is a Welsh railway and the British convention is to use Whyte notation for steam locos and UIC for the rest. (Although diesel shunters with wheels coupled by external connecting rods often use Whyte notation.) This question was prompted because Vale 0f Ffestiniog is described as B-Bd but the AAR article does not describe the 'd' suffix. OrewaTel (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)