Talk:Funicular

External links

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)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Tagged (without explanation or rationale) on 24 June 2006 with this edit; closed (without archiving) on 8 July with this one. Archived by Moonraker12 (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

---

I think that a cable railway is distinct from a funicular, the former being a general means of transport thorugh a city, the latter being to overcome specific grades and usually at a unifiorm inclination. (Should not be merged) - Leonard G. 22:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose -- Distinct concepts, as stated above. Atlant 23:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Not! -- Funiculars are pretty specific styles of incline transport. The Cable Railway article is thin and only shares some like items.--Magi Media 19:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Note: See the discussion at Talk:Cable railway as well. Gwernol 14:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

---

This was closed on 26 July 2006 with this edit. Archived now. Moonraker12 (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Claim of world's shortest

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)

another meaning

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)

Example bloat...?

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)

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)

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)

(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

Private Funiculars

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.

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)

Great Incline

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)

A proposal

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)

Article Title Needs Change

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

History

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

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)

Prof. Thaddeus Lowe

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)

Hong Kong?

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)

Zakopane

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)

Haifa

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)

What is a funicular?

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)

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)

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)

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)

Gateway Arch

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

Renewed merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There was no consensus to merge. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

---

I propose that Cable railway be merged into Funicular. I note that this merge was proposed several years ago and rejected, but, as a non-expert, there doesn't appear to be a clear enough distinction between the two concepts to warrant separate articles. If the articles are to remain split, I think that we should establish some criteria for deciding between the two, with appropriate external sourcing - at the moment, the only source we have is a German book; I don't deny this is a reliable source for the German terms, but, if the terms are really distinct in English, an English source should be available. I don't believe the combined size of the two articles would be an issue - if it is, the lists and photo galleries in both articles can be trimmed down to include only the most significant examples. Tevildo (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Tevildo (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support, unless anyone can give a pre-existing definition for their differences, based on WP:RS. We've seen "differences" claimed before, based on length, gradient or freight use, but I can see nothing to give these a basis in independent sources, rather than WP:OR. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. A funicular railway is one where two vehicles counter-balance each other with a rope or cable that goes from one vehicle up the incline and round a horizontal wheel called a sheave and back down to the other vehicle. The vehicles may be of similar weights and the system powered by a motor (for example, the Wellington Cable Car in Wellington, New Zealand) or of uneven weights where loaded vehicles pull empty ones up (for example at Denniston, New Zealand). Other inclined tramways may be powered by winches - often a single vehicle on a single track pulled up and lowered down by a winch at the top of the incline (for example, the former Patent Slip in Wellington, New Zealand). Another variation is an endless ropeway system (for example at Millerton, New Zealand) where a long cable travels down one track and back along another with small wagons clipped onto the ropeway and dragged along - empty ones in one direction and full ones the other. Endless ropeway systems may be on inclines, or may run along the flat (for example, from the mines at Denniston to the top of the Denniston Incline), or over undulating ground. Endless ropeway systems may be powered (for example, between the mines and Denniston Incline) or self acting (for example, the later incline system at Koronui, New Zealand). The San Francisco (USA) and Melbourne (Australia) cable car systems run over undulating ground, are cable railways, but are certainly not funiculars. Umm, have I just outlined an explanatory article? Vogel Era (talk) 11:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Sources? Because we can produce plenty of plausible definitions for such a distinction, but they're just OR unless they're sourceable.

Also, there are still some unclear cases. A two car water balanced system is a funicular - but what if it's a continuous rope too? When do these "non funiculars" stop being funiculars and why? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

First of two cable inclines, where in this is a funicular operation? It is capable of offsetting heavy weights with counter-weight operation, but to co-ordinate such a back load over nine miles of operation would have been very difficult in 1846. Telegraph was still in the future as was electric lights, microphones, and so forth. comment -- telegraphy predates 1846. even electric telegraphy came along in the 1830s. & the 1st practical electric lighting system (arc) was also in existence by about 1805.

Second cable section in saw-toothed return track of the Mauch Chunk Railroad built ca 1847.

I have studied railway transport technology for many years. The terms I have used are the standard definitions in used by railway engineers, often for over 100 years. I did not invent them but don't have time to write a fully referenced article today. I am merely flagging this because a whole lot of stuff will need disentangling if these quite different terms get merged. Vogel Era (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

As Andy says, if these are indeed "standard definitions", it should be trivial to find a reference for them. We don't need a "fully referenced article" on the distinction, just one (English) citation for it. Tevildo (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Merge -- The distinctions are slight. One might make a split between systems that are counterbalanced and those requiring haulage (by a stationary engine) or braking to prevent a descending heavier truck going too fast, but this is more a matter of degree than principle. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as the creator of the article about the funiculars in Valporaiso, Chile - (and not a native spanish speaker)

However - I also believe that the distinction between the two needs to be further clarified a lot more and the vogel era explanation here is something to take notice of - regardless of the outcome of this proposal JarrahTree 13:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose as being ignorant and naive. Strongly agree with reasons put forth by Vogel Era, but add to that let me answer Tevildo's sophmoric assertion:

if these are indeed "standard definitions", it should be trivial to find a reference for them. We don't need a "fully referenced article" on the distinction, just one (English) citation for it."

There are many "Crystallized Knowledge" topics, as psychologists term them, which are so elementary in the specialized area of knowledge that they are mere conventions. But by themselves, they really don't warrant a web page, news article, nor book. Instead they are meat in such books defining other materials. The MOS is not fond of DIC-DEFs, and most essentially fall into that category to the specialist. Many may seem trivial distinctions to the ignorant, like this one. The distinctions are not insignificant within the grander world. Bundling such cable inclines as those pics I've provided at right, with funiculars is simply as correct (and convenient) calling red — blue,or Orange. No way, no how.

• To merge cable railways with Funicular is to confuse and obfuscate their very important engineering differences. Consider important historic cable railways such as the Ashley Planes (1844) and the Mauch Chunk Railroad (1827, cablized 1847). Both those use a pusher cart called a 'barney' to safely move one way loads. While the Ashley Planes were capable of running two way operations, neither cable lift in the Pisgah Ridge were designed to travel downhill—like cable railways in the Delaware and Hudson system, those at Weatherly and Beaver Meadows, or Penn Haven, cable railways were often designed with a gravity road down track and a cable lift system. Others were designed for down and back operation, like a yo-yo. This is in essence the same system as many cable systems used in shaft mining. If you take a tour of the coal mine at Carbondale, you can descend 400–500 feet (120–150 m) in such a train and see there is no funicular balance yourself. Each were controlled by operators managing operations necessary at the time, just like Ski Lifts are today.

There is nothing wrong with a short concise clear article, so please stop complicating matters by combining that which should be left alone. Read some 1911 Britannica articles (or really, any encyclopedia) to see many short article examples. A NINE MILE cable railway such as the nation's second railroad, the Summit Hill and Mauch Chunk Railroad have nothing in common with Funicular operations and counterbalanced loads.

That another cable railway by the same important company only covered one and a third miles, and was operated funicularly in its early years, does not change them to equivalents-funicular is an operational MODE, not a type applicable to all cable railways, if you think about it. In short applications, funicular operations are quite practicable, as for example the inclined canal boat lifts built into a historic New Jersey canal system (IIRC: The Morris Canal-or one paralleling it?).

Bottom line, Tevildo, if you don't know the topic, please don't nominate stuff from ignorance. And suggesting this kind of change because you're ignorant, also says you are too lazy to research the topic, and lack consideration for the time you cost to those of us who must deal with such questionable actions. // FrankB 00:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• So:

• What is the definition of a funicular vs. a cable railway?
• What is your source for this?

Because in the absence of both of these, your comment boils down to "Funiculars are the ones that I think are obviously funiculars", and as I'm sure Tevildo would be happy to explain to you, that's just not good enough for Wikipedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't thing there's much for me to add here. Fabartus would be well-advised to look at WP:V, and the earlier comments - if the distinction is so clear and obvious, why has nobody been able to come up with a reference for it? I freely confess to being ignorant of the topic - I would hope that Wikipedia should be able to correct my ignorance by providing appropriate sources to which I can refer. No matter how vociferously expressed, one or two editors' personal opinions do not count as such sources, neither do they provide grounds for having two separate articles which cover what appears to be, to the unenlightened, the same topic, terminological niceties notwithstanding. Tevildo (talk) 14:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

* STRONGLY OPPOSE -- as above, so below. a 'funicular', in this sense, is a specific sub-type of cable-railway, NOT a synonym. & it is a sub-type worthy of its own article; particularly as said article has already been written. this is wikipedia, not reader's-digest-"condensed"-wikipedia... :p

...& quite frankly i find the arguements professing "not to see a difference" disingenuous, at best. ESPECIALLY after the carefully outlined explanations provided both here, & in the articles themselves; but perhaps the articles were not as clear on that point, before this debate got started? the merge suggestion was clearly a "novice" move, as far as railway-knowledge is concerned. Lx 121 (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

So, please help out this ignorant "novice". What is the definition of a funicular vs a cable railway? What is the source for this? WP articles are not adequate sources.

The best definition I can find, i.e. that with the fewest contradictions against clearly named sites, is that a "funicular" is a primarily passenger-carrying incline railway built from the Belle Epoque period onwards (i.e. once locomotive haulage is established for almost everything else). Note that this is not based upon inconsistent technical detail aspects such as tailropes excluding a construction from being a funicular, or that water balance is essential to be one. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

comment - then you you are being "highly selective" in choosing which sources & which facts to ignore. a quick & simple perusal of online dictionaries makes it pretty clear that "funicular"-type railways generally involve the use of counter-balanced pairs; whether 2 cars, or car & weight.

& your arguements to the contrary have consistently ignored this; &are pushing into epistemology now. ask any competent rail entusiast to explain it to you, if you really & truly still "don't get it". because you are the only one here who doesn't.

the discussion has reached consensus: merge is no. for multiple reasons, which i feel no need to repeat again. but my personal fave is this: "funiculars are clearly a distinct SUB-TYPE of cable railway. as such, they merit their own article." the goal of wikipedia is not "let's lump all the shit together into one big article". Lx 121 (talk) 04:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Please indent your replies, to make it easier for editors to follow them.

I'm still waiting on a definition of "funicular" as distinct from "cable railway", and particularly incline elevator. Your "comment" section above seems to have ignored the points made, because " counter-balanced pairs" is not at all the same thing as requiring the use of water balance (as has been put forward as a defining characteristic). Counter-balancing is common in cable railways too - although not all of them, and often not an exact counterbalance. Some cable railways for minerals lowered their payload (and so ran as out of balance pairs, just lifting the empties) but others needed to raise their loads and so needed winches.

I don't disagree that funiculars should be their own article, but before we can support that in a suitable manner, we have to identify what we're regarding as funiculars and what we're not. Otherwise we would be better treating them all in one article. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Still waiting on a definition...

So far we have claims that "funiculars" are distinguished from cable railways by having some or all of the following features:

• Called a "funicular" in some official title.
• Uses two cars
• Uses balanced cars, rather than winching
• Uses water balancing
• No continuous loop tail rope
• Has permanently attached cars
• Passenger, but not freight.
• Short
• Steep

A tourist railway of the 1880s, rather than a pre-locomotive era common carrier railway from the 1830s

Now most of these don't actively contradict, but I can think of exceptions (both "funiculars" that don't and "cable railways" that do) for pretty much all of these definitions. I'm also still waiting for anyone to provide sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia and find the logic of this discussion interesting to watch. I'm not sure when the talking stops and someone starts to make changes that 30% to 60% of contributors to the discussion disagree with. Do the majority rule, does logic rule, or does the person who keeps going the longest ultimately determine whether articles are combined or remain separate? And why do people advocating keeping things separate need to have exhaustive lists of cited references to support their views while those advocating merger need none?

I understand the root of 'funicular' is simply 'wire' - which might be interpreted that any transportation device that involves wires is a funicular (in other words, all cranes, elevators, aerial ropeways, street cable tramways, balancing inclines, winched inclines, and cable-hauled vehicles running on inclined I-beams). I think such a merger is about as useful as insisting that all motorbikes, motor cars, Formula 1 racing cars, and taxiing aircraft are homogenous identical forms of transport because they all run on tyres along the ground - and should be grouped into a single Wikipedia article. I note that not many books on motorbikes include upfront, clear definitions of motorbikes that differentiate motorbikes from taxiing aircraft to prevent confusion among their readers.

I consider that an article that differentiated between different wire-driven transport along the lines of my earlier comment (with funicular railway as just one specific category within it) would be the best way forward, perhaps written by someone with a good knowledge of all of them and who can select the best examples from around the world to illustrate it. However, I have other urgent historic heritage projects to complete for museums and won't be writing the necessary article any time soon. Nor do I plan to spend half an hour a day, every day, for the next year, keeping on with this discussion. :-) Vogel Era (talk) 10:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for a more reasonable contribution than certain other editors to this topic. On your first point, WP:MERGECLOSE is the relevant article. The discussion should continue for 30 days - after that period, if there is a consensus to merge, then the merge may take place. It may be necessary to obtain a formal assessment of consensus from an administrator. If there's no consensus to merge, then the status quo will prevail. The discussion can be continued as long as necessary to obtain consensus. On the substantive point, as I see it, there are two issues. The first is the definition of "funicular". Our main policy is WP:V, on verifiability. Ideally, all factual statements on Wikipedia should be verifiable - that is, it should be possible for a reader to find an independent source for the information. This isn't necessary for statements that are obviously uncontroversial (see WP:SKYISBLUE), but it would appear that the definition of a "funicular" isn't in that category, so it should be sourced. To use your analogy, it's more like the difference between a motorbike and a moped, the latter having several precise statutory definitions (which differ with jurisdiction), which are cited in our article. Is there a general glossary of railway terms that defines the term "funicular"? If so, then a reference to it should be all we need.

The second point is, even if "funicular" can be defined adequately, do we need two separate articles on the general subject? At the moment, we have three articles - cable car (railway), covering cable-hauled railways in general (including those that run on the level), cable railway, and funicular. I can see the case for keeping inclined and non-inclined railways of this type separate - I can't really see the case for keeping funicular and non-funicular inclined railways separate, even if we can find an unambiguous definition. If the title is a problem, then something other than "funicular" might be appropriate for the name of the merged article - Incline railway (which currently redirects to "cable railway"), Inclined railway (which currently redirects to "funicular"), or Railway incline (which doesn't exist at the moment), perhaps? Although they might be taken to include rack-and-pinion inclined railways as well as wire-hauled examples... Tevildo (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

By popular request, here is an essay to differentiate just two terms:

The Wikipedia article on Funiculars usefully distinguishes between funiculars - which have a rope from one vehicle that goes up around a pulley and back to another vehicle - and inclined lifts, which do not have a balancing vehicle but are moved up and down by a winch. Confusion has arisen because a writer from Wellington, New Zealand (where I live) has added a section called "Private funiculars" and proceeded to describe the inclined lifts that are common in our city. These are commonly referred to in Wellington as "private cable cars" and generally involve a vehicle on rollers being winched at low speed up or down an I-beam. There is typically no railway track involved so they cannnot be called railways. The material needs to be moved to the "inclined lifts" section of the Funicular article, with a note that these are commonly referred to as "private cable cars" in Wellington, New Zealand - if citable published references allow for the addition.

Looking through my library of railway and tramway books, I note that writers tend to describe a vehicle and explain what it is and why it is. They don't publish definitions of all types and place them alongside each other - which is what I think Tevildo is wanting to see. NZ historian Graham Stewart in his book for tourists The Kelburn Cable Car (Published 2001, Grantham House Publishing, ISBN 1-86934-085-X), on page 25, describes the current cable car (which came into service in 1979) as a "standing funicular". It uses the double flanged wheels of a 2-rail system descibed in the funicular article - with abt points at the halfway mark. John Keating, in his book Mind the Curve (Reprinted Transit Australia Publishing, 1996; ISBN 0-909459-19-3) on the history of Melbourne's cable trams, on page 7 gives a description of how a cable tram worked. To paraphrase: Midway between the rails of each track is a slot below which an "endless cable" [a loop of wire roughly twice the length of the tramway - outbound, and back again on the return track] runs continuously. When a tram want to move, the tram gripman tightens clamp which grabs the moving cable and the tram starts with a jerk and runs at cable speed. To stop, the gripman releases the grip and lets the cable go, applies the car's brakes and the cable car stops. The cable keeps on running. (At no point in Keating's book does the term funicular appear.) In contrast, when the Wellington Cable Car - a funicular according to suburban tram historian Graham Stewart - comes to a halt, absolutely nothing in the system is moving. The original Wellington Cable Car, in service from 1902 to 1978, was built as a cable tramway (just like Melbourne's. It was going to be running downhill on one track and back up the other like all other street cable trams (personal knowledge, I haven't written up and published the research yet). But before it came into service it was partly converted into a funicular railway. An extra wire rope was added to lock two cars together making them a funicular, and a reversing mechanism had to be added to the rope propulsion system (company records). Graham Stewart describes it (p. 25):

"Although designed as a true cable tramway, the two cars were joined together by a second wire rope known as the tail-wire. The cable was independent of the main drive cable and ran round a drum at the top so that one car balanced the other. Only the descending car gripped the driving cable and, as it was pulled down the track, it hauled the ascending car by the tail-wire. Therefore the term "cable car" [referring to a Melbourne type system] was really a misnomer, as the tramway was technically a funicular worked on the counterbalance principle. But the trams retained and used the true cable tram grippers and brakes."

Thus tram expert Graham Stewart has reserved the term funicular in his book only for systems where a fixed rope goes up from one car around a pulley and back to the other. [Both ends are fixed, hence the use of the term "standing" - a nautical term for a rope fixed at one end - in his description of the modern Wellington Cable Car.] Mr Stewart is clear that cable trams without this feature are not funiculars. The fascinating thing about the original Wellington Cable Car (1902 to 1978) is that it was both a cable tram and a funicular - possibly unique in the world, as such.

In conclusion, the literature published by tramway experts is clear that street cable tramways (like Melbourne's) are not funiculars, and funiculars (like the modern Wellington Cable Car - 1979 to the present) are not street cable tramways. Neither can be put into a Wikipedia article that says one is the other. The unique hybrid of the 1902-1978 Wellington Cable Car could happily be mentioned both in an article on funiculars, and in an article on street cable tramways.

It's a long story to prove from the published literature what the meanings are of the different kinds of cable-operated railway and tram systems. In the above essay (with cited references), I have only disentangled two terms - funicular and cable tram (and by quadrupling this essay's length I could make the case stronger and cite more published references). I don't think it would make good reading for the general public but in this discussion nothing is accepted without "hard evidence". A book-length essay would be required to set out the proofs of the meanings of the terms describing all the other variations on railways, tramways, inclines, and the many different ways that cables were and are used to move vehicles of all sizes (carrying passengers, coal, ore, and freight) along the flat, up and down hills, or up cliff faces. Inclines may be operated by cable, rack, or Fell centre rail systems. We really are comparing motor bikes, F1 racing cars, and taxiing aircraft - all running on rubber tyres on the ground. Not motor bikes versus mopeds at all. Regards, Vogel Era (talk) 10:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

So what's the difference then between a funicular and a cable railway?

You've mentioned street cable cars - I don't think anyone has ever claimed these to be funiculars, on account of their detachability from the cable. But there are cable railways, particularly the early ones, which are much closer to the generally accepted funiculars. Why (as has been claimed) does a looped tail rope stop something being a funicular? There are plenty of these, even water balances, which are regarded as funiculars. Why must a funicular be balanced? Where's the source for "funicular" implying balance (thus two cars, maybe even water balance) and anything that involves winching cannot be a funicular? In particular, is a funicular, built as a water balance but later converted to electric winching, still a "funicular" or not? Some of the WP definitions claimed here say not, but this would be a surprise to those funicular operators. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Where is a reference that a funicular railway must have the properties I have diligently reported? Here→ (as explained above). I have been been involved in editing Wikipedia for only about a month. I am interested to see how this issue concludes. Can the systems and culture of Wikipedia produce coherent correct information, or will the system be overwhelmed by its limitations? Vogel Era (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

On the "Wikipedia culture" issue, our goal is indeed to produce correct information, but our policy is to only include verifiable information, a term which has a fairly specific definition on Wikipedia. See WP:V for the details. The basic point is that any non-obvious statement should be referenced to an appropriate reliable source. In this case, we have general dictionaries that could be cited for the simple statement "Funicular = Cable railway" (and, indeed, sites such as this which make the same statement, although I wouldn't characterize that particular site as an obviously reliable source). If this statement is incorrect, then the alternative - that a funicular is distinct from a cable railway - needs citation. There are plenty of railway glossaries out there that define such esoteric terms as "splitting distant" and "consist" and "superelevation" - is there one that defines "funicular" with sufficient precision? If so, a reference to it is all we need. If not, then we shouldn't, as Wikipedia, be making the distinction - the statement may be true, but it's not verifiable. Tevildo (talk) 09:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

This (Funicular Railways, John Woodhams, Shire (1989), ISBN 9780747800408) is a concrete example of a citation: "The term 'funicular' is often associated with the little cliff railways still to be found at a number of seaside resorts, yet strictly it also covers all forms of cable-worked lines." One up for our side, I think. Tevildo (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I have been working on a diorama for a transport museum rather than researching this topic. My library is mainly focused on early period railways, particularly those of New Zealand built and operated during Premier Julius Vogel's public works programme of the 1870s, and I happen not to have a general railway encyclopedia or dictionary.

In his book, Graham Stewart refers to the old Wellington Cable Car system with tail-rope fitted as being "technically a funicular", and that when it was a cable tramway only it was not a funicular. Your reference seems to starts with funicular, and then seems to imply that other (in fact any) railways with cables can also be referred to as funiculars. My view (unsupported, since researching the necessary references is not a personal priority right now) is that general and technical terms are being conflated in this discussion on funiculars. The words 'stress' and 'strain' have general common meanings in everyday English. Those exact words also have specific technical meanings among engineers, that are far more limited in scope than the common meaning. Funicular has the general meaning 'wire', and is used by building architects to describe certain kinds of wire-supported structures, and in common terms to describe railways that have wires. Funicular has the specific technical meaning to describe the railways with two balanced vehicles - as described in the original Wikipedia article on funicular railways (2-, 3-, and 4-rail versions).

I note that the writer of the article on funiculars seems to share my views, despite not taking a big part in the discussion. I have no 'axe to grind' on this issue. Funicular railways (technical term) are a subset of cable-operated railways (an unsupported statement on my part, for reasons given earlier). If it is decided to describe all types of cable railways as subsets of funiculars as proposed, at some stage there will be a need to switch it around again - probably once a good number of people familiar with railways - and with libraries of citable references ready to hand - join in a discussion like this. Better still, someone will write a referenced article that sets all this out (perhaps along the lines of my initial outline in that first post). Anyway, I will leave the discussion at this point and perhaps look in from time to time over the next year to see what happens to the Wikipedia general articles on railway topics. Best regards, Vogel Era (talk) 08:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

References

OED

Just chipping in: The Oxford English Dictionary includes one definition of "Funicular (noun)" as being "Funicular railway". "Funicular (adj)" is defined (in the most relevant of the three senses) as " Of or pertaining to a rope or its tension; depending on or worked by a rope.", and includes: "funicular railway: one worked by a cable and stationary engine; a cable railway.". I don't think this moves the discussion on much, but thought as I'd found the definitions I'd share them. PamD 09:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The OED is rarely useful in such cases. It's an etymological dictionary not a technical one.

My copy (the big 1933) gives, "Funicular railway: One worked by a cable and stationary engine; a cable railway." and its first use is from the 1880s - 50 years after the peak of cable railways. So maybe there's a historical distinction between them? The cable railways (pre-locomotive) of the 1830s taking that name and the purely scenic tourist mountain climbers of the Belle Epoque becoming funiculars to distinguish themselves. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Another six months and still no definition to tell them apart

An inclined elevator/lift, or is it a funicular, or is it a cable railway, or is it all of them?

@Andy Dingley, it may be that as funicular has a Latin root (OED Latin fūniculus, diminutive of fūnis rope.) that the European Continentals adopted it because it translates easier than "cable car".

comment -- what makes you think "the continentals" needed to "translate" the term from an english source? :p Lx 121 (talk) 04:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I suspect that there is no clear definition for either being a subset of the other because English often does this and has two words for the same thing or very similar things. It may also vary by region as well as time, and trying to make a firm distinction is like arguing that tram and trolley car are different things (That problem gets more difficult when one looks at the difference between some light railway systems and some trams networks. They can often be quite similar particularly when in the central areas the trams run underground and in the outskirts tend to be next to the road rather than on it). There is a similar debate over what academics call ethnic cleansing and what they call genocide a quote that sums it up is "literally and figuratively, ethnic cleansing bleeds into genocide, as mass murder is committed in order to rid the land of a people" (Norman Naimark).

Keeping the articles cable railways (17k), Funicular (33k), Incline elevator (5k), implies a difference (OR?) when one article without even deleting duplication would make an article of only about 55k. One advantage of merging Incline elevator into either of the other two articles is that it would fulfil WP:TITLEVAR and get rid of one elevator/lift divide. -- PBS (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

comment -- using this same arguement, clearly we should also merge elevator into the same big lump. it too runs on rails, & is pulled by a cable. :p

the goal of wikipedia is not "let's lump everything together! ^__^" the goal is to provide useful, readable articles, for END-USERS. [User:Lx 121|Lx 121]] (talk) 04:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

---

https://welovebudapest.com/budapest.and.hungary/retro.railways.budapest.s.historic.funicular — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.63.30.201 (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

definitions

https://www.google.ca/search?num=100&newwindow=1&client=ubuntu&hs=XdJ&channel=fs&q=Funicular definition&oq=Funicular definition&gs_l=serp.3..0j0i22i30k1l9.1147584.1151363.0.1158553.11.10.0.0.0.0.928.2891.0j1j3j2j1j0j1.8.0....0...1.1.64.serp..3.8.2883.iRnWiyfE6fI

also, try the french & german articles on the same subject.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funiculaire

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standseilbahn

Lx 121 (talk) 04:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

And another six months...

If I can chip in on this, I would also oppose this merger, as I don't think the subject is best served by having a bloated 55Kb article covering in full some (but by no means all) aspects of cable transport, all on one page. Articles of 5, or 17, or 33Kb seem plenty big enough without being confronted with a wall of text about a whole range of somewhat-related subjects. And 55Kb is about the size we should be thinking of splitting an article up, not aiming for!
I don't see that these two subjects duplicate or overlap each other significantly (or if they do, the overlap can be as easily fixed by trimming as by lumping them together) or that either is too short to stand alone. Contrariwise I think the difference between the means of traction (gripping, or counter-weighting) affects the layout, mode of operation and choice of where to employ them enough to make them discrete subjects.
OTOH I have sympathy with Andy's point about definitions: The term “Funicular” does have two distinct meanings; a broad definition that covers all rope-hauled transport (from the Latin) and a more strict one referring to the type of cliff railways described above. For that, I have John Woodhams Funicular Railways, which says outright “The term 'funicular' is often associated with the little cliff railways still to be found at a number of seaside resorts, yet strictly it also covers all forms of cable-worked lines”. He then has chapters on The Funicular Principle, The Inclined Plane, Cliff Railways, and Cable Tramways. And the terms funicular, cable railway, incline, cliff lift, and cliff tramway do seem to be used interchangeably.
I noticed that there was a discussion (mentioned here) about this at WP:Project Trains some time ago. The conclusion was that we needed an umbrella article on cable-hauled railway in general, with subsidiary articles on (specifically) Incline Railways, Funiculars, and Cable Railways. (see here).
So, Rather than merging stuff into here, maybe it'd be better to split what's here already into something on the funicular principle (a general article on the concept) and something on funicular railways in particular (ie those according to the strict definition here). Or we could move this page en bloc to “Funicular railway” and redirect Funicular to Cable transport, which is already exists as a general article on the subject (though it includes aerial tramways as well). Anyway that's another story; as far as this proposal goes, I'd be against it. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Our goal here is not to write an article covering everything that goes by the name "funicular". This is an article about a certain topic, and that topic is "cable-hauled cars that run up and down steep tracks in counterbalanced pairs". Even though "funicular" is the title of the article, there are other things called funiculars that should be covered in different articles such as Cable railway or Incline elevator. –dlthewave ☎ 13:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I also oppose this merger. Whilst there is certainly some overlap between different forms of inclined transportation (I, for one, don't really get the distinction between funicular railways and, provided they use counterweights, inclined lifts), we do need to draw boundaries somewhere otherwise we end up with a huge unwieldy article. And there is a clear difference between funiculars and cable cars (in the San Francisco sense) and an even bigger difference between funiculars and cable cars (in the 'dangling off cables' sense). Cable railway is a more general term, that can be used for both funiculars and cable cars (SanFran) and sometimes even for cable cars (dangling), although I'm not sure I buy that. It can also be used for other less common systems, like inclined lifts without counterweights. In the end, this is an editorial decision not an 'I have a rock-solid definition that covers all cases' decision, and in order to keep our article readable we have to make judgement calls. So long as we are up-front in the article about this, and discuss possible overlaps and contrary indications, there is nothing wrong with that. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 11:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

A rather definitive source

This extensive book: Pyrgidis, Christos N. (21 April 2016). Railway Transportation Systems: Design, Construction and Operation. CRC Press. ISBN 978-1-4822-6216-2..

It contains a rather good chapter the matter in question -- Cable railway systems for steep gradients (ch. 10). 3 distinct classes of transportation are defined there:

• Funicular (non-detachable cable-propelled vehicles for steep gradients)
• Cable railway (detachable cable-propelled vehicles for steep gradients)
• Inclined elevator

--Vаdiм (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reisszug

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

External links modified

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)

Cites needed for dogmatic statement

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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) 

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

@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)

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)

• @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)

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)

• @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)

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)

@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)

• @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)

@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)

• @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)

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)

@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)

So, what is a funicular?

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)(Arcay 2003)

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:

... 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), disagrees with the former two. Although this source may NOT be regarded as reliable as the other two: (Pyrgidis 2016) and (Arcay 2003).

References

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Marocchi source

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)

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)

(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)

Inclined elevators

As per (Strakosch 2010): 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)

Here is a definition from an American National Standard by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers

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

And TCQSM:

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)

Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual

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

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)

References

Sources

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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

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

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Gravity inclines in mines

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)

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)

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)

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)

Vivian Quarry, a water balance incline

• 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)

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)

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)

Ongoing disruption.

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)

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)

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)

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

• 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)

• 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)

Electric drive winches the cable and turns the pulley

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)

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)

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 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)

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