Talk:Herne Bay Pier

Track gauge question: Herne Bay Pier Tramway

On British narrow gauge railways an odd track gauge of 3ft 4 1⁄2in is mentioned for the Herne Bay Pier construction railway (Herne Bay Pier Tramway) and doesn't have a source. A forum states 3ft6in. Not a valid source, nothing else could be found on the internet. Does anyone have a source for the exact track gauge?--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

There is (or was) a picture of the sail bogey on the wall of Herne Bay Museum, and there may be information next to that picture. Most of the exhibits at the museum belong to Herne Bay Historical Records Society and one of the members might be able to help you about the gauge. The pier had the sail bogey, then it had two successive electric trams - I don't know whether they used the same rails. I can't remember where I got the gauge information from when I created the article - possibly it came with the above-linked image of the sail bogey, which was sent to me by a member of the HBHRS. --Storye book (talk) 08:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

This topic talk is expanded at Talk:British_narrow_gauge_railways#Track_gauge_question:_Herne_Bay_Pier_Tramway. Please continue there. (to prevent further split talk). -DePiep (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Herne Bay Pier. 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://web.archive.org/web/20081201195948/http://www.kent.gov.uk/filmoffice/news-items/ken-russell-returns-to-herne-bay/ to http://www.kent.gov.uk/filmoffice/news-items/ken-russell-returns-to-herne-bay/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070615080735/http://www.hernebaypier.co.uk/history.htm to http://www.hernebaypier.co.uk/history.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100821120208/http://www.hernebaypiertrust.co.uk/page6.htm to http://www.hernebaypiertrust.co.uk/page6.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101028065439/http://canterbury.gov.uk/main.cfm?objectid=1274 to http://www.canterbury.gov.uk/main.cfm?objectid=1274
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717220942/http://www.toutfait.com/online_journal_details.php?postid=4307 to http://www.toutfait.com/online_journal_details.php?postid=4307
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101130112617/http://canterbury.gov.uk/main.cfm?objectid=3802 to http://www.canterbury.gov.uk/main.cfm?objectid=3802
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717220942/http://www.toutfait.com/online_journal_details.php?postid=4307 to http://www.toutfait.com/online_journal_details.php?postid=4307

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) 16:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Pier head safety

Please discuss further comments on pier head safety here, before editing the article further on this subject. The original conservation appraisals found the pier head strong enough not to need demolishing, and we have a citation for that in the article. I dived it in the 90s, and it was fine then. If you know something we don't, please provide a citation to that effect, otherwise your edit may be deleted. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Please use citations

Please note that edits which make significant changes to the text, even edits made in good faith, may be reverted if they are not accompanied by authoritative and verifiable citations. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, please discuss here on the talk page before adding controversial edits. The pier is a stub, in that the full-length pier no longer exists. A pier in this context is for mooring ships and offloading passengers. The present pier is a stub in that it can no longer fulfil the full pier function. It is not "the land end of the pier", because there is no longer any full-length pier for it to be a "land end" of. Even if you are too young to remember the full-length pier, you can still see the isolated far end of it and the huge gap in the middle, so you can be under no delusion that what we have is a mere stub of the pier proper. Storye book (talk) 09:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)