→Renewed merger proposal: Strongly Oppose |
|||
Line 144: | Line 144: | ||
:: Sources? Because we can produce plenty of plausible definitions for such a distinction, but they're just OR unless they're sourceable. |
:: 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? [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 13:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC) |
:: 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? [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 13:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC) |
||
[[ File:Mount_Pisgah_plane_looking_up.jpg|alt=[[File:Mount_Pisgah_plane_looking_up.jpg]]|thumb|200px|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.]] |
|||
[[File:Jefferson plane looking up.jpg|alt=[[File:Jefferson plane looking up.jpg]]|thumb|200px|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. [[User:Vogel Era|Vogel Era]] ([[User talk:Vogel Era|talk]]) 17:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC) |
:: 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. [[User:Vogel Era|Vogel Era]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Tevildo|Tevildo]] ([[User talk:Tevildo|talk]]) 21:01, 20 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. [[User:Tevildo|Tevildo]] ([[User talk:Tevildo|talk]]) 21:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC) |
||
Line 149: | Line 151: | ||
*'''Oppose''' as the creator of the article about the funiculars in Valporaiso, Chile - (and not a native spanish speaker) |
*'''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 [[User:JarrahTree|JarrahTree]] 13:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC) |
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 [[User:JarrahTree|JarrahTree]] 13:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC) |
||
*'''Strongly Oppose''' as being ignorant and naive. Strongly agree with reasons put forth by {{U|Vogel Era}}, but add to that let me answer {{U|Tevildo}}'s sophmoric assertion: |
|||
:<p>''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."''</p> |
|||
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 {{adr|Carbondale|PA}}, you can descend {{convert|400|-|500|ft}} 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 [[Lehigh Coal & Navigation Company|same important company]] only covered one and a third miles, and ''was operated funicularly'' in its early years, '''does not''' ''change them to equivalents''-'''<u>funicular is an operational MODE</u>, 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, {{U|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. // <b>[[User:Fabartus|Fra]]</b><font color="green">[[User talk:Fabartus|nkB]]</font> 00:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:50, 26 December 2016
Trains Start‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
- 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)
- 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 Template:Adr, 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)