Talk:Funicular

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Funicular article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Trains Mid‑importance Trains Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for merging with Cable railway on 18 Dec 2016. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

The external links page is going to balloon if we are not careful-should links to individual funiculars be allowed, or should they just link from List of funiculars? John 18:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the uncited claim that the 66m funicular in Zagreb is the world's shortest. A short web browse found the details of a shorter one here. -- Chris j wood 19:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is another meaning of funicular, having to do with bridges, that wikipedia should also document. Some info: http://www.brantacan.co.uk/funicular.htm

64.160.39.153 03:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph starting 'Other funicular railways...' in section 'Funiculars of the world', and the gallery, are both starting to become over-large.

The Gallery has far too many images now -- most should just be in Commons -- and certainly doesn't require five of Ljubljana (one should be sufficient, as it is brand new). The gallery should illustrate significant features of funiculars in general, and specific features of particularly unusual ones, not just have lots of pictures of funiculars. I would suggest that at least half of those currently present do not illustrate anything unusual.

'Funiculars of the World' should only mention the most significant ones: longest, shortest, steepest, oldest, etc, together with some examples of specific types if not already amongst these. Most of the section is OK, but the 'Other funiculars..' paragraph is unhelpful as it stands: we have the List of funiculars now, but editors seem to be adding more and more in this paragraph regardless.

Perhaps someone with more knowledge of the subject could re-assess and suggest some inclusion criteria?

EdJogg 12:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes have addressed the worst of the problems. However, there are still 15 images in the gallery, which is probably excessive here. Many are already present on List of funiculars, and could be removed from the gallery, unless they are illustrating a particular feature, in which case there should be adequate textual description to support this.

EdJogg 11:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Gallery... (further thoughts)

Please compare the gallery for Tower Bridge with the one presently in this article. The Tower Bridge gallery has eight images which are quite distinctive, even at small size, and each shows a particular aspect of the bridge. Various editors have pruned images in the past when the gallery has exceeded eight pictures, the result being a steady improvement in the quality of the gallery.

EdJogg 08:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(i) Sometimes Gravity is used by pumping water into a tank on the top conveyance, then lowering it using a brake on the cable pulley while it descends and pulls the other conveyance up

(ii) I like galleries with lots of pictures .....82.38.112.68 20:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)mikeL[reply]

I have added a section re Private Funiculars, which are certainly funiculars, if not long enough to be a funicular railway. Here in Wellington, New Zealand there are 2-3 hundred to private houses and I certainly don’t want to list them, but the type should be mentioned. I have put in links to 2 manufacturers with good website pictures, as examples. I have no connection with either firm! NB; as discussed previously, many funiculars have 2 coupled cars, but some have one car and a counterweight and some (like these) just have one car perm. attached to a cable. NB: the New Zealand standard (NZS 5270) for safety checks calls them cable cars. The requirement for safety checks was put back after a death on one, and it was realised that the requirement had been dropped during legislative ‘reform’! Hugo999 13:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC) PS: there is probably one of these in Wellington that qualifies as the world's shortest funicular! See US or NZ.[reply]

She rode the elevators as if they were the grandly upholstered gondolas of a private funicular, swam alone in the undisturbed waters of the two swimming-pools, and strolled about the shopping concourse as if visiting her own personal bank, hairdresser and supermarket. (Ballard, J.G. 1975. High Rise.) Catena (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Incline of the Mt. Lowe Railway was a colaboration of engineering. This article says that the Incline was designed by Andrew Hallidie of the San Francisco Cable Cars. The Incline grading was really engineered by Chief Engineer David Macpherson, The three-rail was conceived by Lowe, and Macpherson implemented the design and layout. Hallidie engineered the mechanisms, cables, pulleys, motorization and all.--Magi Media 14:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm proposing a small re-organization of articles including this one at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains#Cable_railways:_a_proposal. I'd be grateful for your thoughts. Please post comment to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains#Cable_railways:_a_proposal to keep the discussion in one place. Many thanks, Gwernol 18:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be more specifically titled, namely Funicular Railway. The word Funicular is not exclusively used in the context of railways. It has wider use and Funicular Railway is only one use of several. Within the railway community the single word abbreviation may be commonly used, but within the structural engineering community (my own), it is also common to abbreviate Funicular Structure to just Funicular. The term should therefore have its own page so that readers are not confused between architectural "Funicular Structures" and railway applications. This is particularly important due to the fact that Funicular Railways are not actually Funicular Structures whereas suspended Cable Car/Aerial Tramway systems are structurally funicular.

To clarify this, could you please give a simple definition (or cite) for "funicular", as you see it here. Thanks. 23:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If you check the Wiktionary entry for the word Funicular you will find the general definition Of, pertaining to, resembling, or powered by a rope or cable, together with the railway usage listed as the main noun form. This seems to be quite appropriate and covers the structural engineering usage (which is certainly mostly Funicular Structure rather than just Funicular). The problem with the current naming situation here on Wikipedia will become evident when an article named Funicular Structure exists (I plan to put one together). If the single word Funicular is entered it should disambiguate between the railway and the structural usages, as well as the botanical.

From a structural engineering typology viewpoint a Funicular Structure is a structural configuration which experiences only tensile forces. The main field of application where this is relevant is that of doubly-curved architectural structures. Although the term originates from the idea of hanging ropes, we use it for stressed membranes too. Probably the most well known use of the term in architecture concerns the geometries developed by Antoni Gaudi. These are strictly Inverted Funicular but also called Funicular. The fundamental idea is to hang a network of cables or chains, with weights. This geometry is then inverted and built. The resulting compressive structure will then be in pure compression without bending for the dominant self weight load case. See the third paragraph of (strangely) the Artistic style section of the Gaudi article. In that description the word Catenaric is used rather than Funicular hinting at the relevance of Catenary curves. I've never heard the word Catenaric before, but Funicular is certainly the term of choice. A catenary is funicular, but not all funicular structures are catenaries.

Sorry for not being logged in. It is a long time since I last did and I'll have to look for my username. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.170.196 (talk) 08:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"If the single word Funicular is entered it should disambiguate between the railway and the structural usages, as well as the botanical."

Not according to usual wiki practice. Funicular railways, having been created first, gets Funicular. Funicular structure is simple enough (although not capitalised as Funicular Structure unless it should be treated as a proper noun). We would then add Funicular (disambiguation) as the {{disambig}} page. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree strongly. The title should be funicular railway. Surely 'funicular' is just shorthand for 'funicular railway'. Clarity is particularly important when using the term Funicular, as the word has different meanings and significantly the term is often misused, and some dictionaries do not have a correct definition under their 'funicular' entries (eg omitting the requirement of a pair of counterbalancing carriages). Misuse of the term to include any cable car for example is not unexpected funicular's etymology ("given the 1660s, from funicle "a small cord" (1660s), from Latin funiculus "a slender rope," diminutive of funis "a cord, rope," of unknown etymology...").

I propose to change the article title in about a month unless others persuade that it should remain as is in this Talk in the mean time. Glenn.mar.oz (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little bit confused by part of this but agree with your opinions regarding the appropriate way to structure the pages, and on the best disambiguation methodology. I, mistakenly, thought that terms which have both general and specific usage are disambiguated with the general term being a disambiguation page. My confusion is with your statement that being first is paramount. Are you sure about this? My interpreation of the Wiki help info is that such terms should have the single word bring up the most appropriate page, which might be a primary topic. Watergate was a good example of this. In the Funicular case the railway application is certainly likely to be the information expected by almost all people searching. Therefore, as it is a clear primary topic it should remain as it is with (in time) just a disambiguation link.

Thanks for the capitalisation correction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.170.196 (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may find this useful:
Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Naming_the_specific_topic_articles

AIUI, the rationale behind Wikipedia policies here is based on use cases: how readers might navigate, and minimising the risk of confusing them by where they land. This favours Funicular as the railway, in the idealised case. It's also how we've arrived, by order of page creation. If we weren't already in the idealised state then we might discuss renames, but we would start with this first article as having the simplest name, as an acceptable starting point. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Disagree. Anyone searching 'funicular' will easily & quickly navigate to this article whether it is titled 'Funicular' or 'Funicular railway', whereas the shortened 'Funicular' title has much downsides as I have written above, ie that the term is already mistaken etc and the more specific 'Funicular railway' should help correct this. Glenn.mar.oz (talk) 13:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't the Allegheny Portage Railroad steam powered? The location is difficult for water power. Pustelnik (talk) 12:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be keen to edit out "One of the most famous funiculars was...". It is both US-centric and an unsubstantiated subjective position. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junius (talk • contribs) 10:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article attributes the creation of the passing track to Prof. Thaddeus Lowe in 1893 - although the Tünel in istanbul was completed in 1875 and includes a passing track. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.201.151.146 (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know its current status, but in the late 1950s, the Hong Kong Peak Tram (that's what it was called) had two cable-operated rail cars counterbalancing each other. As I recall, above the "meeting point", there were two rails, and three or four below, but don't trust my memory. Maximum "tilt" was on the order of 30 degrees. Cars were open, and every seat had outside access. The thresholds of the entries (there were no doors) had an angled section that became more nearly horizontal at stations along the route. Along the trip, one really reclined in one's seat!

When one car stopped at a station (there were a few, perhaps four), the other stopped between stations, of course. Although starting and stopping were gentle, nevertheless when near the low end, the car would oscillate at roughly 0.5 Hz maybe two inches/five cm or so as the cable stretched and relaxed.

I no longer remember the details at the midpoint, but do recall that they were quite simple and well-thought-out.

I think the (English) name of the mountain was Victoria Peak, but am far from sure. Total elevation change was maybe 2/3 km, but that's just a rough guess. I do know that the view from the top was pretty special.

Machinery was, of course, at the top; huge cable drums, gearboxes, and a drive motor or two.

The ride was quite enjoyable, and not costly. (I was in the Pacific Fleet, US Navy, back then.)

It's conceivable that there was a telephone pair inside the cable, but don't trust that, either! However, there must have been an embedded signaling circuit to tell the machinery operator that it's OK to restart.

By the way, I really like pictures of funicular railways -- they are all different.

Regards, Nikevich (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems there is a funicular in Zakopane, Pl. Maybe someone would like to research this and add it to the general article? Cheers... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.13.109.76 (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haifa also has a funicular. It's underground, has six stops, measures 8000 meters long, and ascends 274 meters. It also holds a world record for being the shortest underground system in the world. (OK, Istanbul has it's short metro line, but the metro system in the city still covers more area). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.41.190 (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lead sentence defines a funicular as having a pair of vehicles: there is then the section "Inclined lift" which concerns systems with only one vehicle. There is a separate article Incline elevator (which says that "Unlike a funicular, an incline elevator does not have a passing loop and thus is operated with a single small tram.", which seems an incorrect distinction as plenty of funiculars have two tracks and no passing loops!).

If Inclined lifts are a special kind of Funiculars, then they should get a mention in that lead sentence. If they are something distinctive, then the section in this article should be merged into the existing Incline elevator, the redirects tweaked (Inclinator leads to Funicular at present), and text of both articles modified to show what the distinction is between the two things.

If it helps in discussion, the word "funicular" comes from a word for rope, and the OED defines it as "funicular railway: one worked by a cable and stationary engine; a cable railway", so it seems that the defining characteristic is that the car or cars is/are pulled up by a rope or cable. (And of course some, like the Lynton and Lynmouth Cliff Railway, have no stationary engine but are water-powered.) PamD 07:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's Cable railway which says "A cable railway (also known as an incline or inclined plane) is a steeply graded railway that uses a cable or rope to haul trains." and "A specific type of cable railway is the funicular, which is a cable railway with the cars permanently fixed to the cable.[2] Usually funiculars are self-contained and not connected to other railway networks." (with a reference to a German book). That suggests another defining characteristic. PamD 07:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's all been discussed before, of course: see Talk:Cable_railway#Funiculars.2C_Cable_Cars_.26_Cable_Railways and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains/Archive:_2008,_1#Cable_railways:_a_proposal. PamD 08:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that Incline Elevator section should not be in this article. Was going to edit that section (or add/replace with a new section) with the text below but then read this Talk page so am holding off. This proposed section would be useful as it should help correct this significant common mistake about funiculars, a mistake which does not seem to be described anywhere online (except in this Talk page). An example of such mistakes are probably in Wikipedia's other funicular article List of funicular railways probably contains several items which are not funiculars, based on the evidence that Katoomba's (NSW, AU) Scenic Railway was on the list as a funicular when it is not (I have just edited re that).

Draft incomplete text:

"  : == Incorrect use of the term Funicular ==

  : === Dictionary definitions of Funicular ===
  :Dictionaries commonly give an incomplete or otherwise incorrect definition of funicular.  For example, Collins English Dictionary's definition reads "funicular or a funicular railway is a type of railway which goes up a very steep hill or mountain. A machine at the top of the slope pulls the carriage up the rails by a steel rope". The essential element of a pair of counterbalancing carriages is typically omitted leading to the incorrect belief that any railway up a steep slope is a funicular. [... Followed by list of railway types that are not funicular...] "

Glenn.mar.oz (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the "Tram" inside the Gateway Memorial Arch in St. Louis should be considered? --BjKa (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Reisszug the oldest funicular, as claimed here? It meets little of the supposed definition for a funicular, as given above.

I agree it's old. I agree it's an incline elevator. I don't dispute it meets the definition for "first example of a {funicular / cable railway}". But if we are seeing funiculars as a narrow and distinct group, from some arcane definition, does the Reisszug meet it? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley:: I'm not impressed by this claim either. As mentioned above, the term funicular has two distinct meanings: As the Reisszug is a simply a rope-hauled trackway, it isn't a funicular in the strict sense (ie a two-car system operating by counter-weight); while in the broad sense (any rope-hauled trackway), funicular systems date back to the ancient Greeks, or (if they can ever show how the Sarsens were moved to Stonehenge) even the ancient Britons, so it is nowhere near the oldest either.

The best that can be said honestly is that the Reisszug is the oldest surviving rope-hauled trackway in Europe today: But as this somewhat optimistic claim has a source to back it, and the logical objection hasn't, I suppose we are stuck with it. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley:@Moonraker12: I think I would agree with Andy on this one. It is probably better described as a cable railway than a funicular, although it has sufficient funicular-like characteristics to merit a carefully written mention here; I'll have a go at that presently. Moonraker is probably correct in that this article is insufficiently circumspect about the age-claim stuff too; the actual Reisszug article (disclaimer: I wrote most of the words there) is rather more circumspect ('known'; and 'these dates mean') but in hindsight could probably be improved. Again, I'll have a go. However, let me emphasise, as I have above, that what we are trying to do here is find the best way of explaining something; what we are not trying to do is come up with a rock-solid taxonomy; that is not WP's job. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 11:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chris: My issue with the claim made here (and at the Reisszug page: I've raised the issue on the talk page there) is that the History section still opens with the claim that the Rz is the “oldest extant cable railway”.

If we are talking in this article about funiculars in the narrow sense (and there is a debate about that above) then the Rz simply isn't one, so the claim shouldn't be here at all.

If we mean funiculars in the broad sense (and we ought to have a page on that somewhere, if not here) then it's history shouldn't start with the Rz, it should go back to the beginning; and in that context the Rz doesn't warrant more than a sentence and a link (and certainly not a detailed explanation and speculation on what form it took).

So the claim either needs to go altogether, or the detail on the Rz needs trimming and the section needs expanding back to ancient times. IMO. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley:I'm not sure I follow. The first paragraph makes no pretention that we know that this was a funicular, it is quite explicit on that. In the context of the history and evolution of what eventually became the definitive funicular, the reference in the history is perfectly reasonable. And if there is relevant history that should precede that, then that too should be in the history. The unique thing about the Rz isn´t that we know it was first, there were almost certainly older lines in mines and such like, but that we know about and have a good source. That is the nature of human knowledge, I´m afraid. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 08:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why I've been tagged here and at Reisszug, but I'm happy for that article to claim almost anything for the Reisszug, including railway, definitely cable railway and even funicular (in the absence of a good definition at funicular). Maybe it's closer to our definition as incline elevator (if semi-balanced operation is a condition of being a funicular) but "incline elevator" is an unfamiliar term to readers and is getting close to OR as a wikineologism.

In this article though, I'm fussier (and yes, that means inconsistent). We should include it (it's a steep cable hauled railway and so early as to be significant). But I can't see it as meeting any of our likely definitions for "funicular" here. It's a precursor, not an early example of such. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley:Oops, sorry Andy, finger trouble there. I of course meant to reply to @Moonraker12:. To answer your specific point, yes, I´d agree with your point on precursor rather than early example. Wish I´d thought of putting it that way, but as you have ... -- chris_j_wood (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Funicular. 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:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120628225245/http://www.die-tagespost.de/Archiv/titel_anzeige.asp?ID=8916 to http://www.die-tagespost.de/Archiv/titel_anzeige.asp?ID=8916

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 23:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article says:

An inclined elevator, or inclined lift, occasionally inclinator, is not a funicular, since it has only one car carrying payload on the slope. The car is either winched up to the station on the top of the incline where the cable is collected on a winch drum, or the single car is balanced by a counterweight and operated the same way as a funicular with two cars.

This is a remarkably dogmatic set of statements which does not correspond with my understanding of the terms and which is, more importantly, completely uncited. Specifically:

• An inclined elevator is not a funicular. Really?. I've always seen them as overlapping terms with only a vague differentiation based on scale and technology. An inclined elevator may, or may not, be a funicular depending on the exact technology used. A funicular may, or may not, be an inclined elevator depending on its scale.

• since it has only one car carrying payload on the slope. There is no doubt that a line needs some form of counterbalance to qualify as a funicular, but I've never seen a reputable source anywhere that says that the counterbalance has to carry a payload. Many inclined elevators use a dumb counterweight running on tracks parallel (left, right, above or below) to the car, and surely that makes them funiculars as well as inclined elevators.

If there are good sources for this more dogmatic differentiation, lets see them. Otherwise we need to rethink. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 09:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the dictionaries I have looked at do indeed specify that a funicular railway has two counterbalanced cars. "funicular railway n. a railway that uses a cable to move carriages up and down a steep incline (such as a cliff or mountainside), with the ascending and descending carriages counterbalancing each other." from the online OED for example. Meters (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/funicular which quotes both Collins English Dictionary and Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition as supporting counterbalanced cars. Meters (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ chris_j_wood please check 2 sources listed at Funicular#Introduction --Vаdiм (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the changes here.

One small point I would question though: the definition seems to require balanced operation to be a funicular, which I'm OK with. However does this have to be balancing by a second car? I understand that there are some, Montmartre Funicular was mentioned, which are generally regarded as funiculars, yet they have a dedicated counterbalance, rather than using a second car for this. This could be covered by changing the current version from "pairs of vehicles" and " (c) counterbalance each other " to "are counterbalanced". It would be good though to still state that paired cars are the usual arrangement, but it's not an essential requirement. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the sentiment, but I thought this whole exercise was to put the definition onto a solidly sourced basis. The sources I listed specifically call for counterbalancing by a second car, not by a counterweight. Pointing to things that are called funiculars is not an acceptable definition. There are also things that are clearly inclined elevators that are officially (but incorrectly) called funiculars. The Edmonton funicular for example, is actually an inclined elevator. One car with no counterweight. I assume the cable is wound onto a drum as is any cable elevator. That is an inclined elevator by either definition of a funicular. And yet the City of Edmonton chooses to call it the "100 Street Funicular" https://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/city_organization/naming-committee-announcements.aspxa and the media follows http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/edmonton-funicular-launch-river-valley-stairs-accessible-1.4441601 . Meters (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if anyone can find a reliable source for funicular which includes the possibility of a counterweight rather than a second car then Andy Dingley's solution is perfect. Let's start looking everyone. Meters (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• There is an important difference between "funicular cars are counter-balanced by the other car" and "funicular cars are never counter-balanced by anything other than another car". You are hardly going to tell the Montmartre Funicular (which is a funicular, and counter-balanced) that it's not a funicular. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not telling them anything, but as I've pointed out, just because something is labelled a funicular does not make it a funicular, and is not evidence of what a funicular is. I'm also not adding my opinions of what is or is not a funicular to the articles. I agree with your definition, but someone asked for sources. I'm looking for sources.  

As for saying that the definitions don't rule out counterweights, well, definitions rarely say what things are not. The funicular definitions also don't rule out, say, giant helium-filled balloons pulling on the cables. You want to disregard the "by a second car" part of the definitions. Someone else might want to disregard the "counterweighted" part the definitions. And then we would be back to saying that all inclined elevators are funiculars. Meters (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Re: Montmartre Funicular. It's worth to note that the modern Odessa Funicular in Ukraine has a pretty similar design to the Montmartre Funicular: 2 cabins with their own counterweights run independently on their own tracks. Historically there were 3 different systems running at this place. The 1st one was a true funicular, the 2nd -- a cascade of escalators. The 3rd one is a dual inclined elevator (похилі ліфти in Ukranian) and their operators are called liftmen, which is confirmed by the local sources. Apparently the old name has been left just for it's a local landmark --Vаdiм (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: things are called funiculars, but they aren't. People are inclined to give the same names to things which look similar, even if they are quite different. Botany and biology are full of such examples. Here are a couple of different ones. There is an automated people mover at the Russian Sheremetyevo Airport. The news bulletings of the construction portal of the Moscow government do repeatedly call it a funicular. The same is about the aerial lift which is currently under construction in this city --Vаdiм (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that the basic problem here is that you are trying to find a clear distinction between a funicular and an inclined elevator that doesn't exist, because they are actually overlapping sets rather than mutually exclusive definitions. A term funicular has a fairly well understood technical definition (counterbalenced by cable; car(s) permanently attached to cable). I'm not sure that inclined elevator does, it is more a woolly case of age and scale. Many lines can be regarded as both funiculars and inclined elevators.

That isn't to say that all inclined elevators are funiculars, or that there aren't lines around that are called funiculars that are not. But that doesn't justify using a definition that isn't in common usage (as I believe the requirement to carry payload isn't) in order to turn a messy definition into a crisp, but ultimately erroneous one. I appreciate the existence of the two sources you refer me to above, but right now I'm having difficulty getting hold of them.

In the context of this list article, we do list former funiculars, so cases like Montmartre that unquestionably was once a funicular are non-issues even if you do not accept that the current use of counterbalances qualifies them as funiculars now. I think we should tread very carefully in delisting other lines, unless we are absolutely sure there is no counterbalance involved.-- chris_j_wood (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, why did you bother asking for definitions that support the claim that funiculars have two counterbalanced cars( If there are good sources for this more dogmatic differentiation, lets see them.) if you were just going to ignore them in favour of your unsourced opinion? I happen to agree that the counterweighted syatems should be considered funiculars, but that's not what the sources I am finding say. I provided a couple of sources, and I can provide more, that state that funiculars have two counterbalanced cars. What's your justification for imposing your opinion that such definitions are erroneous?

As for removing some of the entries, yes that's exactly what we should do, if we find that they do not meet the definition of a funicular that we are using in this article. This isn't a list of things that are called funicualrs, It is a list of things that are or were funiculars. (So, in the case of something that was was a funicular and was rebuilt as an inclined elevator, the original would be listed as a funicular and the rebuilt version would be listed as an inclined elevator.) There is indeed an overlap between inclined elevators and funiculars because of the varying interpretations, or in some cases erroneous or historic labeling. That does not mean that our article should have the same overlap. We should either settle on one definition and readjust the distribution of the entries as required (with an explanation in the articles that the naming and definitions can vary) or we should combine both inclined elevators and funiculars into one article (maybe Funicular and inclined elevator?) with different sections based on the mechanics: counterbalanced cars; one counterweighted car; one car with drum-wound (or other) cable take up; whatever else we might need for strange cases, for example the side-by-side cars with independent cables installation mentioned somewhere. It makes no sense to have separate articles if, as you say, they are actually overlapping sets rather than mutually exclusive definitions. Meters (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I never said I was ignoring your sources, merely that I was having difficulty getting hold of them. I have now acquired a translated copy of the second of these (Transporte_por_cable.pdf). I've no way of knowing how good the translation is, but I can see nowhere where it says anything about both vehicles having to carry payloads. Indeed the second sentence of page 23 appears to say about funiculars "Normally they use two vehicles", which surely explicitly admits that they don't always. I still havn't managed to find a copy of your first source; do you have any recommendations?.

Also I'm a bit puzzled by your reference to my unsourced opinions. You are quite correct, that is exactly what they are. I make no pretence otherwise. But this is a talk page where I'm discussing your changes, and my opinions (sourced or otherwise) are a perfectly valid reason to challenge your assumptions. I have made no changes to the article relevant to this discussion. What am I supposed to be providing sources for?. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 09:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Meters -- when chris_j_wood is reffering to a list that is apparently about the List of funicular railways and the relevant discussion at the Talk:List_of_funicular_railways#Inclined_elevators. As for funiculars vs. inclined elevators then I think both articles have got enough of mutual references. As a matter of fact the funiculars is already flooded with quite unimportant/irrelevant stuff. There is no reason make this case worse. Let's add a bit more clarity into this wiki.

A plain vertical elevator is a mode of transport there a cabin, among other variations, is pulled by a cable which either winched on a drum or counterbalanced by a weight. So what is an inclined elevator? Naturally -- an elevator which is inclined. Otherwise where to draw a line between these two? Anyway, this is just a speculation, as we aren't to invent definitions, we are to take them from verifiable/reliable sources -- Vаdiм (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

user:Chris j wood I didn't edit the article. I'm responding to the talk page thread where you challenged someone's remarkably dogmatic set of statements. You stated that that definition  does not correspond with my understanding of the terms and which is, more importantly, completely uncited. You asked for sources for the definition and I supplied some, and offered to provide more. For the third time, I personally agree that counterweighted cars should qualify as funiculars, but that's just my opinion, and I have not yet found a reliable source to support that opinion. We're trying to define what a funicular is, and for that we need reliable sources. Unsourced opinion, yours, mine, or anyone else's, are not helpful. Meters (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Meters. My apologies, I got mixed up thinking it was you who had removed the entry. I think my basic problem here is your statement We're trying to define what a funicular is. Wikipedia is a encyclopedia, not a taxonomy project. If something has a vague or woolly definition, so be it. Our job is to think up words to describe the nature of that vagueness or woolliness, not to continuously hunt for sources that we can use to justify a nice crisp definition. I think what we have done is discarded sources that don't answer the question what is the difference between a funicular and and an inclined lift (because there is no answer to that question) in favour of a couple of edge-case sources that supposedly answer it. I say they are edge case because (a) one is a book that I'm having difficulty finding in a library I have access to (it certainly isn't in Reading University's library), and (b) the other is a wayback machine archive of a paper written in Spanish that doesn't appear to say anything useful about this question. It is hard to find good sources for the fact that things are vague, but that doesn't mean that vagueness isn't part of the human condition, and hence of Wikipedia.

I'm kind of at a loss as to how to proceed here. I'm kind of averse to letting Wikipedia be subverted into using a definition that isn't in common usage simply because there isn't a better definition that is sourceable. And I guess from your comments you may feel something similar. I guess I could seek out some sources that don't define the distinction between funiculars and inclined lifts, and cite them as source for there not being such a distinction. What do you think?. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 10:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there is general misunderstanding here, as per WP:VERIFY: "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." and WP:NOTTRUTH: "The phrase "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" meant that verifiability is a necessary condition (a minimum requirement) for the inclusion of material, though it is not a sufficient condition (it may not be enough)." --Vаdiм (talk) 09:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Vаdiм. I'm perfectly well aware of WP:VERIFY, thank you. What I don't understand is its relevance here. Discussion pages are not content. Are you referring to some specific content that has been added without appropriate sourcing, or are you pointing out the obvious fact that this discussion has not yet got to the point where we should contemplate changing the content. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 10:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

However, as we are on the subject of sources, how about this one [1] that I have just found. It is in English, so no issues with translation. It is available on the web, so easily verifiable. It is from the web site of the OITAF, the International Organisation For Transportation By Rope, so it is reputable. And it is from their 2017 congress in Bolzano, so it is recent. And its says, inter alia, The inclined lift is actually a light funicular manufactured using lift components ... From the point of view of transportation engineering and political decision, there is no difference between a funicular and an inclined lift .... -- chris_j_wood (talk) 10:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@chris_j_wood Well done! That's not words, but deeds of a real Wikipedian. Let's scrutinize the document and then discuss it --Vаdiм (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Vаdiм. Thanks for updating the Pyrgidis source; I can now read at least the most relevant page. And what it says is The inclined elevator is a variant of the funicular. It operates with a single car. and or the vehicle is counterbalanced by a counterweight, hence the system operates as a funicular. Leaving aside the fact that there is a certain ambivalence between those two statement with regard to single car systems that are not counterweighted, I think that it is fairly clear that Pyrgidis does not support the statement in our article An inclined elevator is not a funicular. If A is a variant of B, A cannot help but also being a B. I will rewrite that section using the Pyrgidis and Marocchi as sources. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@chris_j_wood -- very good! Then you could read the rest of the page there the author puts inclined elevators in a separate category alongside with funiculars and cable railways. You should also notice that a pair of counterbalancing cars are essential for a funicular. BTW I've managed to mine some more sources on the matter. It takes some time though to contemplate on them ---Vаdiм (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Vаdiм. I've now updated as I promised above. Just seen your comment above after I made the changes, but I hope you agree that my words are a reasonable summation of what the two sources say. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with your last comments, there is no doubt that there is an element of internal inconsistency in both the two sources (Pyrgidis and Marocchi). Both start out with the premise that funiculars have two cars, but both immediately compromise that by talking about one car systems and even lines without counterbalance as being funiculars. Personally I think this simply reflects the fact the definition of these terms is somewhat woolly. All we can do is use the best sources available, and accept what they say in all its woolliness. Lets remember the purpose of WP is to help our readers understand the state of current understanding, not to advance that understanding by imposing some kind of hard taxonomy. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@chris_j_wood -- sorry I had to revert your changes as discussion is not finished yet. I do not think you're completely wrong, but the problem lies certainly deeper than it was described by the Marocchi source --Vаdiм (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As one can see at the previous topic Talk:Funicular#Cites needed for dogmatic statement there is still no consensus achieved on the definition on the subject.

A couple of rather reliable sources were found that have quite close definitions. So, as per a recent version of the Funicular:

A funicular employs a pair of vehicles which are pulled on a slope by the same cable which loops over a pulley wheel at the upper end of a track. The vehicles are permanently attached to the ends of the cable and counterbalance each other. They move synchronously: while one vehicle is ascending the other one is descending the track. These particularities distinguish funiculars from other types of cable railways.(Pyrgidis 2016)^[1](Arcay 2003)^[2]

It appears that The American Society of Mechanical Engineers in "The Giessbach Funicular with the World’s First Abt Switch" pamphlet does agree with a such definition:^[3]

... the “funicular” system, which employed two passenger cars attached to the same cable with a pulley at the top end, was especially attractive. It allowed counterbalancing of the two moving cars, one moving up while the other moved down and vice versa. The driving force came either from one car's ballast or from a steam engine turning the pulley.

Albeit yet another source found, (Marocchi 2011)^[4], disagrees with the former two. Although this source may NOT be regarded as reliable as the other two: (Pyrgidis 2016) and (Arcay 2003).

That's not though that appears to be so straightforward. Albeit (Marocchi 2011) appears of a lesser quality, it gives an indication that the definition quoted is not always regarded as an commonplace truth. Even (Pyrgidis 2016) is not always consistent in its reasonings.

It appears that there is no even a single alternative to funiculars as a two car system. For example, EU legislation gives yet another interpretation of this term.

Nevertheless, the two car definition appears to be more common among the academic sources. @Meters also confirms that a number of dictionaries prefer to use it instead of the others.

My suggestion is to stick with the two car definition instead of trying to prepare a sort of an "amalgamation" of every other alternative. Alternative definitions are to be mentioned as they are — as either coming from less reliable source or having some specific, non-academic or niche usage --Vаdiм (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask a simple question. Why do we have to have a definition?. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a taxonomy. If the sources indicate, as you seem to accept above, that there is no clearly defined hard and fast definition, then that surely is what our article should say. We can provide sources for that without any problems. And if it is the case that in the real world the definition is vague, any attempt by our authors to impose a clear definition fall dangerously close to original research.

The problem with the two car definition you propose is that it simply isn't clearly supported by the sources you cite. And you cannot just revert other sources because you think they are of lesser quality (see my points above). Need to ponder what to do next, but clearly cannot stand as it is, because the references cited do not support the text. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 10:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we have to have a definition?. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a taxonomy.
— User:chris_j_wood

It's true that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but Wikipedia articles should begin with a good definition.

BTW in this regard (Arcay 2003) is dedicated specifically to the problem of classification of cable transportation systems --Vаdiм (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, for now I've added in a cite needed tag, explaining why Pyrgidis is not an adequate source for the statement An inclined elevator is not a funicular (he actually says ''The inclined elevator is a variant of the funicular). -- chris_j_wood (talk) 10:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather leave funicular vs. inclined elevator for a moment, but see a note #Inclined elevators above --Vаdiм (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

However, as we are on the subject of sources, how about this one [1] that I have just found. It is in English, so no issues with translation. It is available on the web, so easily verifiable. It is from the web site of the OITAF, the International Organisation For Transportation By Rope, so it is reputable. And it is from their 2017 congress in Bolzano, so it is recent. And its says, inter alia, The inclined lift is actually a light funicular manufactured using lift components ... From the point of view of transportation engineering and political decision, there is no difference between a funicular and an inclined lift ....
— User:chris_j_wood

The source cited in this post is Cableways for urban transportation: History, state of the art and future developments by Andrea Marocchi.

Let's check this source in the light of WP:IRS:

• It is in English, so no issues with translation -- the WP guideline does not state the English is a prefered language for a source
• It is available on the web, so easily verifiable -- availability on the Internet doesn't mean a higher level of verifiability of the source
• It is from the web site of the OITAF -- OITAF is likely to be a reputable organisation, but the source does not presents an opinion of this institution. As it comes from its text the source is an opinion of an author of this publication
• it is from their 2017 congress in Bolzano -- the source dated 2011, not 2017

The publication doesn't heave any references, so it's not possible to check how does it rely on secondary sources. It's also difficult to check how it been vetted by the scholarly community. For example, Google Scholar gives only a single reference on this publication. In this regard it could probably be considered as an isolated study.

As a matter of fact, this publication looks more like an essay than a scholarly material. It is quite poorly structured, illustrated. Some of its parts are merely collection of facts and statements poorly related to each other.

As per WP:SOURCE

The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

• The piece of work itself (the article, book)
• The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
• The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)

All three can affect reliability.

So Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion.

In this regard the sources (Pyrgidis, 2016) and (Arcay, 2003) are of a superior quality than the Marocchi source. Both ones are dedicated to a descriptive classification various transportation systems. (Pyrgidis, 2016) is an extensive scholarly monograph published by a respected publishing house while (Arcay, 2003) is a University-level textbook,a collective work by the Coruña university scholars. Both sources have a substantial corpus of references to third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

--Vаdiм (talk) 13:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Vаdiм, but there is an awful lot of POV in that. A couple of points.

1. I have nothing against (Pyrgidis, 2016) and (Arcay, 2003) as sources, which is why I kept them in the version of the article you have just reverted. The problem isn't that they aren't good sources, the problem is that they don't support the text they are being quoted as sources for. Both of them clearly admit of funiculars with only one car, and Pyrgidis explictly says The inclined elevator is a variant of the elevator which clearly contradicts the statemen An inclined elevator is not a funicular that you reverted back into the article.
2. The Marocchi source is a perfectly good source. It is a symposium paper delivered to professional body. I think your views on how good it is a source are clear POV, but ultimately irrelevant because it doesn't in any way contradict what the two other sources say, which is that an inclined elevator can (in at least some circumstances) be regarded as a type of funicular.

--chris_j_wood (talk) 10:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Marocchi, 2011) is among the Other papers which have been submitted to the international congress, but will not be presented verbally by their author Papers of O.I.T.A.F.-congress 2011 in Rio de Janeiro. There is no evidence on how it was received at this congress, so, taking into account the aforementioned arguments, it's rather likely it presents an isolated study. As per WP:SCHOLARSHIP: If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content. --Vаdiм (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per (Strakosch 2010)^[1]: Inclined elevators were an outgrowth of the funicular railways that were quite prominent in the early 1900s, many of which have survived.... and An inclined elevator is a descendant of the inclined railway. In this regard when (Pyrgidis, 2016) is saying The inclined elevator (or inclined lift or inclinator) is a variant of the funicular then one should read it as "The inclined elevator if variation on the funicular". The rest of its text confirms inclined elevators and funiculars are different categories --Vаdiм (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a definition from an American National Standard by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers^[2]

elevator, inclined: an elevator that travels at an angle of inclination of 70 deg or less from the horizontal

And TCQSM^[3]:

inclined elevator -an elevator capable of both horizontal and vertical movement along a fixed path. Differs from inclined planes in that only one cabin is used and no attendant is needed to operate it.

Note the keyword elevator in both definitions --Vаdiм (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or TCQSM, 3rd Edition by the Transportation Research Board (one of seven program units of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine)^[3]:

funicular railway- a passenger transportation mode consisting of a pair of rail vehicles (or short trains) permanently attached to two ends of the same cable, counterbalancing each other. It may have a single track with a turnout or a double track. In the former case, wheels on one side of the car(s) will have double flanges, on the other side, no flanges. This system is used to overcome steep gradients. See also ropeway, inclined plane, and inclined elevator

One could find there many other useful transportation definitions --Vаdiм (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is a 'funicular' something which Reliable Sources describe as a funicular?
— User:Andy Dingley

Yes, at last such a source was eventually discovered, see #Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (TCQSM). What quite remarkable with it is that this academic work is an outcome of collective effort of a whole number of institutions. The definition there is quite clear. It's also quite remarkable that ASME, another institution, does agree this this definition.
— User:Vаdiм

Please don't quote other editors out of context, to make them look as if they're asking idiotic questions, and also to raise a context that's the precise opposite of what they clearly intended. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley If it's about me quoting you when I'm sorry that it might look so. First, I didn't mean it's something idiotic at all. Second, I'd probably misunderstood your sentence. On the contrary, difficult questions are good --Vаdiм (talk) 08:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said above, this 'at last' really worries me. It seems that you (and, I presume, others) have looked at lots of sources, most of which are unclear or ambiguous as to what the difference is between funiculars and other forms of inclined rail system (like inclined lifts, gravity inclines and inclined planes). Certainly that is my experience. Now you have found just one that gives a definitive answer, and you think that is the answer. But to me, that suggests this source is an outlier, and that the general consensus of all the sources is that there isn't a clear cut distinction. And that is what we should say in our article. As I've several time before in this thread, it is no part of WP's function to create a taxonomy where none exists; nor should we push an outlier taxonomy that is not accepted by most of our sources. I tried to make a start on changing the article to confirm to the 'no clear cut distinction' and got reverted by Vаdiм. @Andy Dingley, @Vаdiм - where do we go from here - chris_j_wood (talk) 10:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@chris_j_wood If you don't mind I'd suggest to leave this section to the discussion on "Gravity inclines in mines". If so, the you could move your post to another relevant section in this page --Vаdiм (talk) 12:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vаdiм - No problem - this ok? - chris_j_wood (talk) 14:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we were discussing sources in the previous section. Let's move it there --Vаdiм (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

it is no part of WP's function to create a taxonomy where none exists; nor should we push an outlier taxonomy that is not accepted by most of our sources
— User:chris_j_wood

For starters this "taxonomy" was not invented here, instead it's a representation of a quite established academic definition of the matter in question.

WP says a good definition is important and one could notice this article was falling apart without it. As it was pointed out some dictionaries were able to give their versions, but a selection of academic was scarce.

Indeed (Arcay et al, 2003) had specifically emphasized the lack of clear definitions in this field and they had applied some effort on observing and classification of various aspects of it. (Pyrgidis 2016) has made his own attempt in this direction.

(TCQSM) in this regard is a quite specific kind of work. It's an official publication authored by numerous institutions, and so it represents not only a great amount of work and knowledge in transportation, but also a solid amount of consensus on this field of knowledge.

What one could also see is that the other quality sources, albeit being not so specific, but do agree in general with TCQSM's definitions. TCQSM on the other hand, simply due to its nature, represents the terms which were agreed upon a much greater basis.

TCQSM claims itself, and not without a reason:

a comprehensive reference resource for public transit practitioners and policy makers. It assembled for the first time in one place a set of methods for evaluating the capacity of bus and rail transit services and facilities, and introduced a framework for evaluating the quality of transit service from the passenger point of view.

TCQSM isn't perfect though. Apparently one could find examples where its definitions struggle to work adequately. But as said, we aren't to invent something of our own --Vаdiм (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You seem keen to adopt TCQSM as the only permitted source, and to then take the narrowest possible interpretation in order to exclude as many examples as possible. This is wrong. That is not how we work, or at least should work.

The TCQSM source is simply too short to be a full definition covering all cases. It ignores many aspects: it is silent on whether a tail rope is required, forbidden or irrelevant. Whether a funicular may be braked from above or below. Whether balancing is the only motive power permitted, or whether water balancing is essential to a funicular. It also, literally, excludes the very common pattern of three rail funiculars, as these are neither a double track, nor with double flanged wheels. It also makes the specific claim that a single cable is used, excluding those with two cables and a braking drum (rather than a single sheave). Now whilst this is a reasonable claim to make for describing the canon funicular, I do not see it as strong enough evidence to exclude other funiculars. That is simply not what this definition is for, or is detailed enough to attempt to do, and to fillet articles on such a basis is to mis-use such a source. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You seem keen to adopt TCQSM as the only permitted source, and to then take the narrowest possible interpretation in order to exclude as many examples as possible
— User:Andy Dingley

This is misinterpretation of what I had wrote above. My reasoning was that TCQSM has significantly more weight and represents a wider auditory than the other sources discovered so far.

As to the definition: if something possesses all the attributes given by a definition then it belongs to the entity defined this definition. It doesn't matter if that something has got some other attributes as well. This way one can be, for example, a mode of transportation, a railway, a cable railway and a funicular simultaneously. --Vаdiм (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are removing other sources. This is what I mean by "only permitted source". Yet it is not a complete or unquestionable source.

You are also removing examples of funiculars (let's stick with Gütsch Funicular for the moment) and claiming that they are outside this definition. yet without any explanation or evident justification.

You seem to think that this single, terse source is the only possible definition of a funicular, and that it is also a complete definition for funiculars. Neither are true, particularly not the idea that something so brief can approach being a complete set of criteria, rather than a convenient description. You are misusing this source and you are blanking all other sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any sources on hands please bring them here. Let's review them --Vаdiм (talk) 09:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrgidis, Arcay and Marocchi have already been presented. But you chose to reject (and delete) them, over the opposition of other editors.

This should not be a contentious topic. There is no arcane research question as to the nature of the funicular, there is no political spin one way or the other. But we do need to do some editorialising here (which is why we're discussing it on talk: first, not pushing it directly into the article). Which aspects of which sources do we agree with supporting, such that we can produce a reasonably full definition. Also see my previous point that this definition may vary as to defining what a funicular is in an ontological sense, whether we describe particular instances as funiculars, and whether we list instances in lists or list articles. The last, in particular, may be a looser definition. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrgidis, Arcay and Marocchi have already been presented. But you chose to reject (and delete) them, over the opposition of other editors.
— User:Andy Dingley

One could check some sources with the Google Scholar for citation rates:

• Marocchi - Cited by 1
• Arcay - Cited by 3
• Pyrgidis - Cited by 9
• TCQSM - starting from 98 as per the topmost 2 entries then the whole list continues for the next 100 pages

Marocchi was discussed already. Arcay was an early approach to classification. It was used due to the lack of more reliable sources. Pyrgidis isn't bad actually. The section 10.2, The funicular (pages 251-259), does agree with the definition given, but there is some contradiction at the beginning of the chapter 10. Nevertheless, the Pyrgidis wasn't deleted from the article as it was referenced at the Funicular#Inclined_elevator. I do agree though that it can be mentioned at the Funicular's lead section.

The Giessbach article is also quite important as it's an official publication of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, in which they put the Giessbach Funicular to the list of Historic Mechanical Engineering Landmarks and where they give their own definition of a funicular. --Vаdiм (talk) 12:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Funicular&curid=50680&diff=848650704&oldid=848649502

Why are these now being excluded as funiculars? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They don't use a pair counterbalanced cars, instead a rope is paid out from a drum. They are a rather interesting (historical?) mode of transportation, but they are not funiculars --Vаdiм (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The text specifically said unpowered gravity planes. Which means that they were counterbalanced - empty cars were wound back up by heavier cars descending. The drum was there for braking, but it wasn't a powered winch and an unpowered winch is only good for one trip! Andy Dingley (talk) 16:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting thought. Do you have any reference? Actually isn't that important in this context if this system is either unpowered or powered. It's a bit of overstretch though to say the cars are counterbalancing each other in this case. The payload isn't moved in both directions. What also important is that the cars aren't permanently connected to the opposite ends of a same cable and an incline isn't always that steep. --Vаdiм (talk) 16:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Gordon Hatherill; Ann Hatherill. Slate Quarry Album (Second ed.). RCL Publications. ISBN 978-0-9538763-8-9. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |last-author-amp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help) would be an obvious start, although equally obviously it's focussed on the Welsh slate industry.

It is crucial that they're unpowered. Because that means they must instead be worked by counterbalancing (which you see as essential for inclusion as a funicular). Some were 'powered' by water balances on the cars, which are also within your definition of 'funicular'. Welsh quarries were on the sides of mountains and were arranged (with very few exceptions) that the recovered stone moved downwards from the quarry face to the dressing sheds and off for transport. It is not an "overstretch" to say that the cars counterbalanced each other, that is precisely how they worked. Nor is it true that the cars aren't permanently connected - in many cases the "car" was one of a pair of broad gauge cars working on the incline whilst the quarry trams of about 2' gauge were hand, horse or locomotive worked onto short sections of track mounted on these cars. Nor is it appropriate to say, "an incline isn't always that steep" as most of these were at 45º or more. You are making some sweeping statements about these inclines which are so far from accurate that I'd have to question whether you know anything about them at all.

We are still here stuck with a broken article and no definition of 'funicular'. We don't even have a meta-definition of funicular. Is a 'funicular' something which Reliable Sources describe as a funicular? Or is it something where the WP editor with the persistence has decided that it meets some arbitrary set of conditions for being a funicular?

Those conditions are as yet unclear anyway - and even if the article is being reworked to only include those funiculars which meet this freshly invented set, you're removing entries which do.

So is the Montmartre Funicular a funicular? Is the Vivian Quarry incline a funicular? (note that it also appears in the cable railway article where it's implied that it's winched by a stationary engine! Of course it wasn't. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is a 'funicular' something which Reliable Sources describe as a funicular?
— User:Andy Dingley

Yes, at last such a source was eventually discovered, see #Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (TCQSM). What quite remarkable with it is that this academic work is an outcome of collective effort of a whole number of institutions. The definition there is quite clear. It's also quite remarkable that ASME, another institution, does agree this this definition.

Nevertheless someone on Wikipedia wrote me that we need to be more presize in our interpretation of the sources. So I see the definition given in the article needs an improvement to comply closely with the source.

Now let me explain why I've removed the Gravity planes section from the article.

The section was based on one glossary. One could find there:

Self-acting incline or brake incline or gravity plane: a rope incline on which the weight of descending loaded wagons pulls up the empties.

In fact it's a whole another class of a Cable railways. Self-acting incline is also described as one of two types of the Gravity railroads. A couple examples of self-acting inclines or brake inclines are Bowes Railway and Denniston Incline.

My previous comment was about this kind of a system. The Vivian Quarry incline though depicted at your comment looks a bit different. Indeed its appearance looks quite close to a funicular. But should we judge by an appearance?

With regard to the (Hatherill) source I wonder if you could check a few things there.

• Does it have a detailed description of how the Vivian Quarry incline operates? The caption under the picture is saying it's a "water balance incline", but it isn't obvious from the picture itself.

• Does the source classifies these systems as funiculars at all?

To avoid possible misunderstanding it would be great if you'd put here some direct quotes from it. --Vаdiм (talk) 13:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My fault was that I wasn't accurate with the source as it says the funicular is a mode of passenger transportation.

BTW, I've found on the youtube a couple of videos which show how the Vivian Quarry incline works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UURiu444UYw&t=2m10s and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6r7mfXdsGVY&t=4m10s. As one can see the carts do not share the same cable. --Vаdiм (talk) 09:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it time for an RfC or whatever? I see edits like this as disruptive. Nor is it acceptable to just blank sources that one doesn't like and claim, "The sources are misinterpreted.". We still have no agreed definitions of either a technical funicular, or the inclusion criteria for this article or the list. To edit-war over other editors like this is not useful and needs to stop.

1. What is a "funicular", for the purposes of WP articles? Is this to be based on WP:RS describing the subject as a funicular, or on WP:OR to judge the subject as whether it meets some set of agreed criteria?

As things are, we seem to have Vаdiм chasing a set of criteria and excluding articles which describe themselves as funiculars throughout, and doing so on the most tenuous of grounds. This has to stop - that's a behavioural problem, not a technical one. Do not disrupt other editors while a discussion to resolve this is still ongoing.

2. What is this technical definition? It is no use parroting "We have the TCQSM source" when that is useful, but still very terse and not a complete definition for all the cases we can see even now.

3. What are our inclusion criteria? What are they (as they're likely to be different) for inclusion in the Funicular article as canonical examples, for describing subjects as "funiculars" in their own articles, and for listing them in the List of funicular railways list article?

In particular, there is the case where a century-old funicular (to the narrowest definition) has been rebuilt since and no longer meets such a narrow definition. Per the general principle of WP of being inclusionist and notability not being temporary, I would see these certainly as belonging to the list article, yet they're being removed one-by-one. If we are removing "Gütsch Funicular" from "List of funiculars", then something is going very wrong somewhere.

Thoughts? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, after all what was put at the #So, what is a funicular? I'm quite puzzled what else to say... Is it mere WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT?

BTW, What is wrong with the "Gütsch Funicular" from "List of funiculars"? --Vаdiм (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You removed "Gütsch Funicular" from "List of funiculars" here. You gave no reason for this, other than it not meeting your definition of what a funicular is, in some unspecified manner. If you are deciding that subjects like this should not be listed with funiculars, then your "definition" needs serious scrutiny. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try to make a search on this list? Was it really Gütsch? --Vаdiм (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, an RfC would be a good way to build consensus instead of this continuous back-and-forth among a few editors. I commented on it a while back and we don't seem to have moved forward since then. –dlthewave ☎ 20:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a lot to follow in the discussions above so a broader RFC should summarize the positions, but my interpretation of the sources is that anything included as a funicular must have two cars that counterbalance each other. Anything else fits in the broader definition of cable railway or possibly inclined elevator. Reywas92^Talk 18:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley you may be right with your comment. But consider the diagram of the "Engine-room of a funicular" down below. It's not a drum, but a system of pulleys, isn't it? --Vаdiм (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A user-created image on WP doesn't meet WP:RS. Also that doesn't look like funicular winch gear, it looks like a cable car. Even so, it still demonstrates my basic point: a water-balance funicular will have a single sheave at the top station, with the rope passing over it in a half-turn wrap; but a power-winched funicular needs more engagement with the cable than half a turn. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley If I understood correctly you reckon that they use a drum where the cable is coiled in a few complete turns around rather than pulleys where the cable doesn't make complete 360°.

Frankly speaking I don't think that a drum would be feasible in this case provided that a funicular needs both ends of the same cable hence the amount of the cable chafe in this case. Once you've mentioned WP:RS do you have any of them for your guess?

As for the pulleys then the Giessbach harvnb error: no target: CITEREFGiessbach (help) source clearly mentiones the vertical drive disk with three driving grooves (also the photos at the page 5 there). Incidentally cable car installations usually use horizontal pulleys which provides a natural spacing between the incoming and outgoing branches of a cable.

Albeit the diagram in question doesn't makes a note of its source it's apparently represents a common engine layout of a modern funicular. Please have a look, for example, at the engine room[2] of the Pfaffenthal-Kirchberg funicular (a fully fledged double funicular). The Petrin funicular is also using pulleys in its engine compartment.

The last but not the least is an illustration from an article about a funicular from the old (1986) Russian popular science magazine which closely resembles the diagram in question. Also you may also have a look through some photos at the commons:Category:Funicular engine rooms. File:Como–Brunate funicular October 2012 12.jpg is one of them.--Vаdiм (talk) 11:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this matter is quite clear. --Vаdiм (talk) 10:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]