Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 29
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | → | Archive 35 |
Anon edits
Anonymous user 195.158.81.110 has made a lot of edits, putting in the interchange figures into the infoboxes on a lot of station articles. Trouble is they've made a complete mess of lots of them, like this edit for example. Could someone clear up after them. I would do it myself, but I'm busy in real life. So I thought I would alert people here. And to be honest I'm not too keen on having the interchange figures in the infobox unless they're significant for some reason. They just add more clutter. G-13114 (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- @G-13114: Why is that Birmingham New Street example "a complete mess"? The two parameters are both valid. --Redrose64 (talk) 04:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Look more closely. G-13114 (talk) 09:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could just explain what you think is wrong, rather than being deliberately cryptic. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- The edit looks fine to me too. Not sure what the problem is. Mjroots (talk) 20:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- I too can see nothing wrong with that edit. It seems like the only problem is your objection to the interchange figures, which has nothing to do with the anon's edits. Personally I think that interchange figures should be in the infobox where they are significant, but trying to claim interchanges are not significant at Birmingham New Street of all places is just not credible as it is the hub for both the Cross Country network and the West Midlands local services. Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- I am referring to the messed up formatting which need fixing. You all must be looking at something completely different to me! G-13114 (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm looking at the link that you gave above as "like this edit for example". There's no messed up formatting that I can see, and no subsequent edit, which implies that you didn't need to fix it. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- I can clearly see the numbers out of alignment with the 'interchange' wording, on that and numerous other articles. So unless I'm imagining things, I can only imagine that you haven't looked at the article, and only looked at the edit. I'm not sure how to fix it, and I haven't had time to investigate. G-13114 (talk) 10:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm looking at the link that you gave above as "like this edit for example". There's no messed up formatting that I can see, and no subsequent edit, which implies that you didn't need to fix it. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- I am referring to the messed up formatting which need fixing. You all must be looking at something completely different to me! G-13114 (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- I too can see nothing wrong with that edit. It seems like the only problem is your objection to the interchange figures, which has nothing to do with the anon's edits. Personally I think that interchange figures should be in the infobox where they are significant, but trying to claim interchanges are not significant at Birmingham New Street of all places is just not credible as it is the hub for both the Cross Country network and the West Midlands local services. Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- The edit looks fine to me too. Not sure what the problem is. Mjroots (talk) 20:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could just explain what you think is wrong, rather than being deliberately cryptic. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- Look more closely. G-13114 (talk) 09:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Leaflet For Wikiproject UK Railways At Wikimania 2014
Hi all,
My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.
One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.
This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:
• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film
• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.
• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.
• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____
• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost
For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Slip distants
I'm planning a major rework of the slip coach article soon. To that end, can anyone point me to a photo of a slip distant which could be used in the article? Mjroots (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- The best set of photos I've seen are these. Whether Adrian would release them I've no idea. Nthep (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- An alternative would be to ask someone to draw one for you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- The GWR was the most keen on slip working, the GWR also ran a greater brake vacuum. Are these two related? Was the greater braking reserve this potentially offered of any benefit to guards working the slip brakes? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- I am unfamiliar with GWR and slip coaches. But to me it looks that more brake capacity (more vacuum) would not help this process. It only gives the operator (be it the guard or the main train) more safety margin. Using a bigger brake capacity, by plan, could be discomforting for the passengers. Slopes change this reasoning.
- More the opposite: taking a longer distance for the uncoupling point makes the brake process less tight i.e. it allows for more subtlety. As Neil Armstrong said: "when in doubt, land long". And after all, slopes absent the coach will stop anyway.
- I don't know the figures, but a long braking approach also allows more time the points to be switched (after the main train) so that the slipper can reach its own platform. Another interesting issue: later the brakes were designed to be "fail-safe", so any uncoupling would automatically invoke an emergency brake. Slipping would have to by-pass this, or predate it. -DePiep (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- GWR slip coaches used the automatic vacuum brake just like any other passenger train on a non-Westinghouse line. Each slip coach also had its own guard, who might join the train at the beginning, or at the last normal stop before the slipping point. The slip coach was equipped with a large vacuum reservoir, and a special brake pipe connection which had two modes - a normal mode and a slip mode. When the train started out, the brakes would be in the normal mode, whereby a parted coupling would divide the brake pipe, destroy the vacuum and stop both portions. As the train approached the slipping point, the slip coach guard would ensure that the necessary vacuum was available in the vacuum reservoir, then switch the brake over to the slipping mode, where the brake pipe now had a self-sealing joint. At the appropriate place, he would pull the slipping lever, which lifted the coupling of the train coach off the drawhook of the slip coach; the brake pipe would part and seal itself straightaway. The slip guard would then use the brake handle in the slip coach to admit a small amount of air, slightly applying the brakes; as it coasted along, he would watch for the proper stopping place, controlling the deceleration with his vacuum brake handle. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- Why not [1] -DePiep (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- This was written rude. I meant to say that this is good enough to be added to the page. -DePiep (talk) 09:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- Except that it's not good enough - it's entirely unrefd, and I can't find the books where (about a year or two back) I read up on GWR slip coach working. I might have got some detail wrong - the changeover of the brake mode might have been made at the last "normal" stop. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- Doesn't the specially hinged drawhook drop (slipping the coupling) rather than the coupling being lifted off a standard drawhook? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- Also, weren't pairs (or more) of slip coaches sometimes used? In such case, only the first needs to be slip-equipped, the trailing coach just needs enough lamp irons for the extra slip tail lamps. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- To your first q: you may be right; as I say, I've lost the book concerned. To the second: yes, slip portions could be up to four coaches long and only the leading coach of the portion needed to be slip equipped. The maximum length of the slip portion was governed by the capacity of the vacuum reservoirs to release the brakes on the non-slip coaches. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- Except that it's not good enough - it's entirely unrefd, and I can't find the books where (about a year or two back) I read up on GWR slip coach working. I might have got some detail wrong - the changeover of the brake mode might have been made at the last "normal" stop. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- This was written rude. I meant to say that this is good enough to be added to the page. -DePiep (talk) 09:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- Why not [1] -DePiep (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- GWR slip coaches used the automatic vacuum brake just like any other passenger train on a non-Westinghouse line. Each slip coach also had its own guard, who might join the train at the beginning, or at the last normal stop before the slipping point. The slip coach was equipped with a large vacuum reservoir, and a special brake pipe connection which had two modes - a normal mode and a slip mode. When the train started out, the brakes would be in the normal mode, whereby a parted coupling would divide the brake pipe, destroy the vacuum and stop both portions. As the train approached the slipping point, the slip coach guard would ensure that the necessary vacuum was available in the vacuum reservoir, then switch the brake over to the slipping mode, where the brake pipe now had a self-sealing joint. At the appropriate place, he would pull the slipping lever, which lifted the coupling of the train coach off the drawhook of the slip coach; the brake pipe would part and seal itself straightaway. The slip guard would then use the brake handle in the slip coach to admit a small amount of air, slightly applying the brakes; as it coasted along, he would watch for the proper stopping place, controlling the deceleration with his vacuum brake handle. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Subterranea Britannica discussion
I started a discussion regarding the links to http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/ (with Template:Subbrit at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Subterranea_Britannica. I figured this notice would help provide people with some more insight than me. Thanks. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Template:Disused-stations has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Redrose64 (talk) 08:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Further to the above, please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Subterranea Britannica. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Harmful website
What do people think of the www.globalrailnews.com links added in some of these edits. I went to http://www.globalrailnews.com/2014/06/12/gnwr-granted-access-to-west-coast-main-line/ and later on, when my virus scanner (McAfee Security Scan Plus) started as scheduled, it complained thus "Threats Detection. Harmful websites: 1. These websites you've visited put your security at risk: globalrailnews.com" --Redrose64 (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Me too (Norton Internet Security: "download.adobaaoan.us/Flashplay/Lem/App/MD/UK/auload.html?installer=Flash_Player_11_for_Other_Browsers&browser_type=KHTML&dualoffer=false has been blocked"). -- Alarics (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's published by Asif Ahmed of Rail Media, Coalville (Rail-Media.com, RailwayPeople.com, therailengineer.com ,RailStaff.co.uk , Rail-News.com, GlobalRailNews.com, RailStaffAwards.com, RailHRAwards.com, railsafetysummit.com, bettervaluerailway.com). His profile photo on LinkedIn is probably enough to set Norton off! Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- It used to be rail.co.uk - it's definately a legitimate website, many UK rail companies advertise on it, and its sister sites. Probably a false positive or was hacked?Prof.Haddock (talk) 09:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Barton House Railway
The Barton House Railway article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots2 (talk) 10:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Station disambiguation (June 2014)
I notice that TBM10 (talk · contribs) has recently moved Alresford (Essex) railway station to Alresford railway station (Essex), and Alresford (Hampshire) railway station to Alresford railway station (Hampshire). This, to me, goes against the consensus that was agreed three months ago at Talk:Reedham (Norfolk) railway station#Requested move and Talk:Whitchurch (Hants) railway station#Requested move 2, and which has been implied at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (UK stations)#Disambiguation II (other places as well, can't remember where).
Rather than have yet another WP:RM discussion for Alresford, can we at least agree that the March 2014 discussions were not specific to those two stations, but apply to the whole of Great Britain? Then we can get it formally laid down at WP:NCUKSTATIONS. Please note that the {{stnlnk}} and {{s-rail-national}} templates both expect the parenthetical disambiguator to occur before the word "railway", i.e. {{stnlnk|Alresford|Essex}} displays Alresford and links to Alresford (Essex) railway station. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hello, I moved the pages as I felt they followed the format of Broad Street railway station (London). That is, the name of the subject of the article is "Alresford railway station" - they are not actually called "Alresford Essex railway station" etc - and then the disambiguation is necessary in the parentheses at the end. Of course, if there are consensus guidelines on this, which I were not aware of, I would be happy to revert the moves and apologise for the inconvenience! --TBM10 (talk) 10:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- National Rail uses Alresford (Essex) and it makes sense if the other heritage Alresford followed suit. Please do revert the moves. In future, in case of doubt, a move can be discussed here. Lamberhurst (talk) 12:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the consensus from March should apply to all railway stations in Great Britain unless there are issues which make a particular station an exception to the general rule (which should be explained on the relevant talk page and consensus sought for a move). I see no such issues with the railway stations listed in this section. I support this being added to the naming conventions WP:NCUKSTATIONS to make it easy for people to find and refer to. Thryduulf (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- TBM10 (talk · contribs) has moved them back;
Thank you, TBM10. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- I see that Prof.Haddock (talk · contribs) has moved Marsh Lane (Leeds) railway station to Marsh Lane railway station, Leeds. This is yet another variant; we need to get it formalised. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- I was following the pattern I had seen on other articles, eg villages of the same name eg see Weldon, Welton, Newland (eg see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)). In terms of the Marsh Lane example, I don't favour the Marsh Lane (Leeds) station form because it looks as if it might be representing an official name, whereas the "station name, place" form doesn't.
- Summary opinion - I prefer forms with the disambiguation on the end of the title, not in it. Unless that represents the common/official name.
- In support of the comma form over the brackets form - the comma form is standard on other built structures eg churches - eg see St. John's Church , St. Peter's Church etc. Prof.Haddock
- However if I was disambiguating using companies, the brackets form seems to make sense eg to use Leeds Central railway station (NER) but not Leeds Central railway station, NER. Not sure how objective these choices are.Prof.Haddock (talk) 09:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- I doubt whether "Marsh Lane" on its own was the principle name by which the station was known when there was also Marsh Lane and Strand Road. I would not at all be surprised to see Marsh Lane (Leeds) on tickets. I don't believe churches are a useful point of reference given that in the majority of cases the church's name incorporates the place name in its name. Similarly with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), stations are not places and, in any event, we have our own naming convention specific to the UK and referenced above. Lamberhurst (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Butt (1995, p. 140) gives just one name: Leeds Marsh Lane, but lists two stations with that name. Since both are covered by the same article, then per WP:NCUKSTATIONS we should name it Leeds Marsh Lane railway station which is currently a double redirect via Marsh Lane (Leeds) railway station to Marsh Lane railway station, Leeds. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note I have seen Leeds Marsh Lane in use elsewhere (texts eg Ken Hoole)- but haven't seen examples of official use. In this case it appears an appropiate name not needing disambiguation (you could make the move - I don't have the permissions) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof.Haddock (talk • contribs) 12:30, 19 June 2014
- Thanks; I've moved it to Leeds Marsh Lane railway station. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note I have seen Leeds Marsh Lane in use elsewhere (texts eg Ken Hoole)- but haven't seen examples of official use. In this case it appears an appropiate name not needing disambiguation (you could make the move - I don't have the permissions) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof.Haddock (talk • contribs) 12:30, 19 June 2014
- It must be silly season for page moves contrary to established practices. I've just found that Milford railway station and Milford railway station (disambiguation) were moved to Milford Railway Station and Milford Railway Station (disambiguation) respectively, by StudiesWorld (talk · contribs). I can see no valid reason for this, so I've moved them straight back to where they came from. However, recently created redirect Milford railway station, Surrey was moved (by the same user) to Milford Railway Station, Surrey - moving redirs is rarely a good idea, see Wikipedia:Moving a page#Moving redirect pages; and moving it back may compound the problem, so I've left that alone. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I noticed the mentioned editor making capitalisation changes - don't we have a standard on this? Can't find anything in Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Manual of style and the link on the UK page is read. I thought it was to use lower case 'railway station'. If we have standard I'll inform the editor.Prof.Haddock (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)(Answered below)
- I can confirm that
{{Quick-Stations}}also shows "Leeds Marsh Lane" (p. 243). Such a name would follow the logic of Leeds Hunslet Lane. What do think, Prof.Haddock? Lamberhurst (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)- Yes (see reply above to Redrose) Prof.Haddock (talk) 12:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Redrose64: I am sorry. I misunderstood the naming conventions. StudiesWorld (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Butt (1995, p. 140) gives just one name: Leeds Marsh Lane, but lists two stations with that name. Since both are covered by the same article, then per WP:NCUKSTATIONS we should name it Leeds Marsh Lane railway station which is currently a double redirect via Marsh Lane (Leeds) railway station to Marsh Lane railway station, Leeds. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- I doubt whether "Marsh Lane" on its own was the principle name by which the station was known when there was also Marsh Lane and Strand Road. I would not at all be surprised to see Marsh Lane (Leeds) on tickets. I don't believe churches are a useful point of reference given that in the majority of cases the church's name incorporates the place name in its name. Similarly with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), stations are not places and, in any event, we have our own naming convention specific to the UK and referenced above. Lamberhurst (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- I see that Prof.Haddock (talk · contribs) has moved Marsh Lane (Leeds) railway station to Marsh Lane railway station, Leeds. This is yet another variant; we need to get it formalised. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Another undiscussed move
Prof.Haddock (talk · contribs) has moved Hull Victoria Dock railway station to Victoria Dock railway station after giving just twelve minutes notice on its talk page. This move doesn't go against WP:NCUKSTATIONS per se, but it does mean that the name used by Butt (1995), which is "Hull Victoria Dock", is no longer the name used for our article. I'm not going to move it back unilaterally; I'm not even going to start a WP:RM to put it back unless others also feel that it was an incorrect move. Please discuss at Talk:Victoria Dock railway station#Move to Victoria Dock railway station. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Also Hull Victoria Pier railway station to Hull Victoria Pier ferry office Keith D (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Renaming of Proposed rail infrastructure in the United Kingdom subcategories
Please see my proposal to rename Category:Proposed rail transport in England, Category:Proposed rail transport in Scotland, Category:Proposed rail transport in Wales, Category:Proposed rail transport in Northern Ireland, Category:Rail Infrastructure projects in the United Kingdom Category:Transport projects in London & Category:Proposed transport projects in London; all subcategories of Category:Proposed rail infrastructure in the United Kingdom Hugo999 (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- The proposal is to be found here. Lamberhurst (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Editors with an interest in Network SouthEast may be interested in this...
A book called The Network Southeast Story 1982–2014, which was co-authored by Chris Green and which looks set to be the definitive work on both NSE and its post-privatisation franchises, has just been published. My copy has arrived, so I am tempted to start a major overhaul of the article. Any assistance will be welcome, especially regarding structure and what to include. (Don't want to get too detailed!!) I won't be starting immediately, and I might start in a user sandbox. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 10:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- Actually I have started already! See this inaccurately-named sandbox. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 13:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- A quick comment: when referring to nationalisation, the link is generally to the Transport Act 1947 which created BR. We don't have a separate page for it. Lamberhurst (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- Cheers – I'll tweak the link when I get home. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 16:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- A quick comment: when referring to nationalisation, the link is generally to the Transport Act 1947 which created BR. We don't have a separate page for it. Lamberhurst (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Llancaiach Branch
The RDT diagram for the vanished Llancaiach Branch line in South Wales is very inaccurate. Can anyone confirm this and sort it out? See Talk: Llancaiach Branch.Ntmr (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Spaces in numbers
I've notice that some articles on the various British Rail Class xxxx locomotives / units have spaces between the class identifier and individual locomotive / unit and some don't. Can we please standardise this with the space retained between them, as carried on the various locomotives / units in question. This only applies where the class number is given, not a D or E prefix number, thus D5385 and 27 061, not D 5385 and 27061. Mjroots (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Vale of Rheidol Railway stations at CfR
Category:Vale of Rheidol Railway stations is up for renaming. Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Hull to York Line
Hull to York Line has been nominated for deletion here Keith D (talk) 08:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Move proposal: template {RailGauge} into {Track gauge}
I initiated this move proposal in Template talk:RailGauge#Requested move. Please take a look and join if you are interested. -DePiep (talk) 23:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Ticket Platforms
- Ticket Platform (platforms outside stations used to check tickets - eg non-corridor coaches - no embarkation or dis-embarkation allowed) would make a good article if anyone would write it.. I have several references to specific examples (Hoole's Railways of York goes into specific details) but don't have an overview. Also all my examples are from the NER.
I don't even know if they were used outside the NER, let alone in other countries..
If anyone could start a reasonable broad article it would be much appreciated. Prof.Haddock (talk) 01:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- An article (which needs some work) exists at Ticket platform. Lamberhurst (talk) 06:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'll look into this to see if I can add anything (especially refs). I can think of a few examples, such as Monument Lane railway station and somewhere in South London (Vauxhall? Battersea Park? Queenstown Road?) at one time. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 08:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- A useful source could be the article in the Railway Magazine from November/December 1948 which mentions Oxford and Willesden. Could it be the case that they originated on the GWR? Lamberhurst (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- The GWR's constituents certainly used ticket platforms in the 1840s and 1850s. Plymouth Millbay certainly had one as did Truro. They seldom lasted long. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Buxton (Midland) had an excursion platform to prevent day trippers and regular passengers from mingling and this was described in some MR internal documents as Buxton ticket platform. Nthep (talk) 09:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- A true ticket platform has no public access; they were not shown in public timetables, nor in most railway atlases. Stations like Vauxhall were used for ticket collection purposes, but were not true ticket platforms because it was possible to book a ticket to Vauxhall, and alight there. Most descriptions of the Tay Bridge disaster - such as those of Prebble and Rolt - mention that the tickets of passengers not travelling beyond Dundee were collected at St Fort, but again, that was not a ticket platform but a convenient place for staff to walk along the non-corridor train, checking tickets - it being the last local station before Dundee (and coincidentally, the last stop before the train moved onto the bridge). Several stations (such as Blackpool Central and the erstwhile Blackpool Talbot Road) had excursion platforms, but these were extra platforms to cope with holiday crowds. They differed from the main platforms primarily in having a lot less covered accomodation. Curiously, the present Blackpool North is the former Blackpool T.R. excursion platforms - the "old" main plats having been redeveloped. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- Buxton (Midland) had an excursion platform to prevent day trippers and regular passengers from mingling and this was described in some MR internal documents as Buxton ticket platform. Nthep (talk) 09:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- The GWR's constituents certainly used ticket platforms in the 1840s and 1850s. Plymouth Millbay certainly had one as did Truro. They seldom lasted long. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- A useful source could be the article in the Railway Magazine from November/December 1948 which mentions Oxford and Willesden. Could it be the case that they originated on the GWR? Lamberhurst (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- ..I didn't spot Ticket platform - made the redirect now.Prof.Haddock (talk) 06:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'll look into this to see if I can add anything (especially refs). I can think of a few examples, such as Monument Lane railway station and somewhere in South London (Vauxhall? Battersea Park? Queenstown Road?) at one time. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 08:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Category:Beeching closures in England
This category contains a lot of stations. For entire lines that closed it may make sense to remove the stations and just add the parent category for the stations.Prof.Haddock (talk) 06:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Care should be taken here as a line would only have *closed* as a result of Beeching if goods services had already been withdrawn or were not provided in the first place; this would mean that the tracks would have to have come up not long after passenger closure, therefore excluding those lines which remained open for one reason or another (e.g. Varsity Line between Bletchley and Bicester). Lamberhurst (talk) 07:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Thameslink move
- (Move log); 04:27 . . D47817 (talk | contribs) moved page Thameslink (train operating company) to Thameslink (train operating company historic) (Thameslink name is going to be reactivated by the Thameslink (train operating company current))
Now, the name that has been chosen here makes no sense - we don't call something "Unknown (film 1995)" or "Prism (album Katy Perry)", so at the very least it should be moved to "Thameslink (historic train operating company)" and the current one moved to "Thameslink (train operating company)" (how many people are going to search Thameslink and want the old one, really...). However, I'm not a fan of "historic TOC". Perhaps "Thameslink (1997-2006 train operating company)" or something? -mattbuck (Talk) 07:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Agree that the current franchise ideally would adopt the Thameslink (train operating company) name, and the older one the name suggested. The Thameslink (train operating company historic) name was inspired by Transdev (historic). I did to-and-fro between the name selected and the name suggested above.
- But before this can happen, I believe articles with wikilinks to the old franchise, need to have their links amended so they continue to point to the old article, hence why I went down the disambig path with the Thameslink (train operating company) article. But if these can be identified, once a name has been settled on, I am quite happy to perform this task. D47817 (talk) 09:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think the current TOC should be Thameslink (train operating company) and the former one Thameslink (former train operating company) or Thameslink (train operating company 1997-2006). Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
The article currently at Thameslink (train operating company current) should move to Govia Thameslink. This is precise enough to be unambiguous and is natural disambiguation. MRSC (talk) 06:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- Result Per consensus, old article has been renamed Thameslink (train operating company 1997-2006), all articles with wikilinks have been amended. Request has been made to admin to rename Thameslink (train operating company current) to Thameslink (train operating company). Thanks to all who contributed. D47817 (talk) 09:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- The current franchise article should be at Govia Thameslink, not the ambiguous and parenthetically disambiguated Thameslink (train operating company). See WP:PRECISE and WP:NATURAL. MRSC (talk) 09:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- The article name should be as close as possible to the trading name. While the company's legal name is Govia Thameslink Railway Limited, it would appear there will be no mention of Govia in the trading name. The Go-Ahead announcement [2] states the old Thameslink brand will be reactivated. In much the same way as the London Midland article name reflects the trading name, not the legal name of London & Birmingham Railway Limited.
- The xxx (train operating company) format is used in the Southeastern, Southern and Valley Lines articles. Yes it is a bit clunky, but at least it is consistent and concise. D47817 (talk) 10:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- But in this case it would not be precise. Govia Thameslink, or indeed Govia Thameslink Railway, is unambiguous. These terms appear in various sources. [3] [4]MRSC (talk) 10:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- Although as the brand is not fully apparent, I'd suggest a move back to Govia Thameslink Railway and wait and see what actually emerges. MRSC (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- But as stated, the article name should as close as possible reflect the brand name. The rolling stock, staff uniforms, station announcements, timetables etc, it appears will be branded as 'Thameslink' and the article name should reflect this.
- Suggest we wait for 24 hours before reverting, to see if other editors have an opinion to try and gain a consensus and hopefully make the next move final. D47817 (talk) 11:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- The relevant guideline here is WP:COMMON, which would place the article at Thameslink. As that is ambiguous, we apply the convention established by this WikiProject (I can't remember where, sorry) and disambiguate train companies as "(train operating company)". This then conflicts with the previous TOC so we need to determine whether there is a primary topic and if so what it is. The previous TOC is clearly not going to be the primary topic given that it hasn't existed for about 8 years, leaving just the current/future TOC and the dab page and I can't see how the dab page being primary will help anyone here. So that leaves the new TOC's article at Thameslink (train operating company) with a hatnote to the former TOC. We should have redirects from Govia Thameslink and Govia Thameslink Railway as official names are always going to be plausible search terms. Thryduulf (talk) 12:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- Suggest we wait for 24 hours before reverting, to see if other editors have an opinion to try and gain a consensus and hopefully make the next move final. D47817 (talk) 11:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- The old article has been renamed Thameslink (train operating company 1997-2006). All articles that have links to this article per [5] have been amended accordingly. So in theory the Thameslink (train operating company) name is now vacant and can be become the primary name for the new company's article, should that be the consensus of the project with a Distinguish hatnote back to the old article. D47817 (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Ultimately we should wait until probably end of August for them to announce properly what the new train companies and sub-brands are going to be called. Simply south ...... time, department skies for just 8 years 20:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
The brands have now been properly announced here (Page 3 http://assets.goaheadbus.com/media/cms_page_media/1222/GTR%20franchise%20presentation.pdf ) - therefore the page should be called GTR (Govia Thameslink Railway), unless a specific article for the Great Northern TOC is being created (it will no longer branded as Thameslink) JaJaWa (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- I agree and have since moved it. I have also created Thameslink (disambiguation) to help to sort the mess of links. Simply south ...... time, department skies for just 8 years 10:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Govia Thameslink Railway sub-brands
Now that the name has been resolved, should separate articles be created on the Thameslink and Great Northern sub-brands? Perhaps only sections are needed at the Thameslink and Great Northern Route articles. What do others think? And what of the Southern and Gatwick Express articles? Simply south ...... time, department skies for just 8 years 19:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Sheffield to Hull Line
Sheffield to Hull Line has been nominated for deletion here. Keith D (talk) 08:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
More on line definitions
I've been working on a project to categorise every UK train on Commons, and realised that if I want other people to follow it I need to be able to provide exact definitions. To that end, I am slowly working on generating a list of what, for the purposes of Commons, are the definitions of every line (see c:Commons:UK Train Categorisation for progress so far. I would prefer if people not edit it though, as I feel it's better to have one person get the thing done for consistency)
I've worked my way up from Cornwall and have reached south London, and am now considering the London Overground routes. Now, we can all agree that the North London Line runs from Richmond to Stratford (except when it ran to Woolwich), and that the West London Line is Clapham to Willesden. But what exactly counts as the East London Line? It's clear to me that the ELL runs at least from Highbury to New Cross, New Cross Gate, and Queens Road Peckham. But what about the bits beyond that to West Croydon, Clapham Junction and Crystal Palace? Are they still "East London Line", or is that just a "service line", and they should in fact be (respectively) Brighton Main Line (Sutton & Mole Valley Line beyond Selhurst Jct), Inner South London Line and Outter South London Line?
I will likely return with more similar questions in the future, but for now please discuss the ELL. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- If in doubt, stick to the official definitions: the ELL is the original LUL line between Shoreditch and New Cross (ref) plus the phase 1 and phase 2 extensions (ref p. 9-10). As a side point, I notice on your commons link that there's a mention of a certain "Carstairs to Edinburgh line" under the WCML, is this not a commons invention for what is generally known as the North Berwick Line? Lamberhurst (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- If that's part of the North Berwick Line, then I'm happy to change it. Someone created that category years ago, and I don't really know much about Scottish stuff (yet) so never thought to gainsay them. That said, from the North Berwick Line article, that looks suspiciously like a service line. Just from looking at a map I'd have thought the NBL was just Drem to North Berwick (which appears to be the North Berwick Branch). -mattbuck (Talk) 14:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's the former Caledonian Railway Main Line and is also known as the Glasgow to Edinburgh via Carstairs Line if that works better. Lamberhurst (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- To return to the ELL issue, I certainly think that NWX would be on it, as would NXG, but beyond that seems dubious. But if we do include to WCY and CYP then we should include to CLJ for consistency. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- If that's part of the North Berwick Line, then I'm happy to change it. Someone created that category years ago, and I don't really know much about Scottish stuff (yet) so never thought to gainsay them. That said, from the North Berwick Line article, that looks suspiciously like a service line. Just from looking at a map I'd have thought the NBL was just Drem to North Berwick (which appears to be the North Berwick Branch). -mattbuck (Talk) 14:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
The ELL is a tricky one as the recent reopenings now take on what was the North London Railway's approaches to Broad Street thence via a new section and onto the East London Line proper. The original ELL ran from Liverpool Street to New Cross and New Cross gate (although certainly the GER ran services to what is now East Croydon). This is all reflected on the East London line page with then and now maps ( although I note the new section which joins Peckham Queens Road to the ELL is not featured yet).I think West Croydon, Crystal Palace etc are not valid in this entry other than to say that services using the ELL serve these locations.Davidvaughanwells (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- Having looked into this further, I have realised that the "Outer South London Line" is just a service, which operates on parts of the Crystal Palace Line. This actually makes things a lot easier in regards to the whole BML/OSLL distinction. I will go with the following definition of "Highbury & Islington (south-side) to Old Kent Road Junction, New Cross and New Cross Gate." -mattbuck (Talk) 14:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have nominated the OSLL article for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- You'll get my support. The associated disambiguation pages - South London Lines and South London Line would also need to to be changed, e.g. become redirects to the ISLL. Lamberhurst (talk) 11:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should move ISLL back to SLL? I believe it was only moved there to disambiguate from OSLL. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I would agree with that. The article seems to have been moved without any discussion in 2009. Lamberhurst (talk) 16:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should move ISLL back to SLL? I believe it was only moved there to disambiguate from OSLL. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- You'll get my support. The associated disambiguation pages - South London Lines and South London Line would also need to to be changed, e.g. become redirects to the ISLL. Lamberhurst (talk) 11:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have nominated the OSLL article for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- This line change has been implemented, OSLL article deleted and ISLL moved to SLL. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Thameslink
OK, here's the big one... Thameslink. Do we say that Thameslink is the entire line from Bedford to Brighton, or do we split it as follows:
- Midland Main Line - Bedford to Dock Junction and St Pancras high level
- Thameslink - Dock Junction to Blackfriars
- South Eastern Main Line - Blackfriars to London Bridge
- Brighton Main Line - London Bridge to Brighton
I have so far gone with the entire BDM-BTN as Thameslink, but I'm open to suggestions. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- This is more complex. I would distinguish between the "Thameslink Core" and the "Thameslink Network". The core would be between Canal Tunnels Junction and Blackfriars Junction (including St Pancras, Farringdon, City Thameslink and Blackfriars). The network would include the routes which you've mentioned plus others such as the Sutton Loop which see Thameslink services. Lamberhurst (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- I certainly don't include the Sutton Loop Line in "Thameslink", though quite what counts as the Sutton Loop Line is a bit debatable - I believe some people have said from Streatham only, though quite what that leaves the section of Blackfriars-Streatham as I don't know. I agree that all those are in the "Thameslink network", and possibly calling the central section the "Thameslink Core" (lots of RS for that!) makes sense as disambiguation. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- So go ahead and split this one? -mattbuck (Talk) 12:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Isn't the central core from St Pancras to just beyond Blackfriars also referred to as the City Widened Line(s)? Simply south ...... time, department skies for just 8 years 18:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
By 2017 the meaning will become even more slippery with incorporation of GN services. Difficultly north (talk) Simply south alt. 14:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I have split this to Midland Main Line (Bedford to Dock Jct and St Pancras High Level); Thameslink Core (Dock Jct to Moorgate and Blackfriars); South Eastern Main Line (Blackfriars to London Bridge) and Brighton Main Line (London Bridge to Brighton). -mattbuck (Talk) 12:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
"Brigg line"
Taking advantage of this discussion to put forward another line for debate, we don't currently have an article for the ex-MS&LR route between Sheffield - Gainsborough Central - Brigg - Cleethorpes, except as the "Grimsby branch" of the Sheffield to Lincoln Line. There are increasing references to it as the "Brigg line". Any thoughts? Lamberhurst (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- That route is part of the original GCR main line - the part west of Gainsborough (Central) is the former Sheffield and Lincolnshire Junction Railway and east of Gainsborough is part of the former Great Grimsby and Sheffield Junction Railway, which both amalgamated with the Sheffield, Ashton-under-Lyne and Manchester Railway to form the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Cross Country route
The bigger big one. Single route or a right mess of various lines. I'd think...
- Bristol to Birmingham Line (?)
- Birmingham to Derby Line
- Midland Main Line
- Wakefield Line
- York and Selby Lines (though I'm a bit dubious about this being a "line" as it seems to be more a network)
-mattbuck (Talk) 17:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- I would go for Bristol-Birmingham-Derby as the "core" route with numerous others as part of the network. If I'm not mistaken, it's a combination of the Bristol and Gloucester Railway, the Birmingham and Gloucester Railway plus the Birmingham and Derby Junction Railway. York & Selby is a bit of a mess taking bits from the Huddersfield Line and the Caldervale Line. I'm not so familiar with this part of the country but I wonder to what extent this article is largely reflecting a service pattern. Lamberhurst (talk) 11:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- The Leeds area is a mess generally. Caldervale line, Ilkley line, Shipley line... the articles are all service lines, but I don't know what else to go with there.
- As for the XCR, the problem is that there's no clear thing to call the parts of it. Is Bristol to Birmingham its own line, or is it just Bristol-Gloucester and Gloucester-Birmingham? We don't have good articles for these -mattbuck (Talk) 13:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- On commons there is Bristol-Birmingham-Derby Line which I think works but doesn't have its own equivalent here. Lamberhurst (talk) 13:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Valley Lines
Valley Lines I suppose might also be problematic. I have gone for the following definitions:
- Butetown Line - Cardiff Queen St to Cardiff Bay
- Cardiff City Line - CDF to radyr via Danescourt
- Coryton Line - Heath Junction to Coryton
- Maesteg Line - Bridgend to Maesteg
- Merthyr Line - CDF to Aberdare and Merthyr Tydfil via CDQ
- Rhondda Line - Pontypridd to Treherbert
- Rhymney Line - CDF to Rhymney
- Vale of Glamorgan Line - CDF to Bridgend via Llantwit Major, including to Barry Island and Penarth.
This does alter what enwp thinks (everything starts at CDF and includes CDQ), but I think it's the most sensible way. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- There are a lot of things that include the Ebbw Valley Line in the Valley Lines. Simply south ...... time, department skies for just 8 years 18:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Liverpool, Manchester and Cheshire
I have reached a new problem - the "Chester to Manchester Line". The article refers to there being two lines (via Frodsham or Delamere). The southern one is the Mid-Cheshire Line, but does the northern one via Frodsham have a better name? Also the "ppLiverpool to Manchester Line]]" probably needs a rename as this is about two parallel lines - the Chat Moss route and the other one, which afaik doesn't have a convenient name. I really don't know much about the area, so would welcome suggestions on how to proceed. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Birmingham to Peterborough
I saw this and thought I'd chip in. The Birmingham to Peterborough Line article has bugged me for a while. It seems like a wikipedia invention to give a name for bits of track that don't really fit into anything else. The route is used by cross country freight and passenger services. However nearly all of them travel beyond Peterborough to places like Stanstead airport and Felixtowe, so ending the route description at Peterborough seems a bit arbitrary. Maybe it could be renamed as the Birmingham to East Anglia route or something. G-13114 (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- We currently have the Birmingham to Peterborough and Peterborough to Ely lines, but that doesn't make sense to me. I'd think Ely to Birmingham, as this matches the up/down direction of the WAML, ECML and R-B-SL. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Of further note is quite what the western end should be listed as - New Street, or Water Orton Junction? -mattbuck (Talk) 19:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- New Street makes sense. As it's where the services start from. G-13114 (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, but we are not concerned with services, we are concerned with the lines they run on. That an operator runs a service from Birmingham to Ely does not make that a distinct railway line (if it did, we'd continue to Stansted). As an example, the South Wales Main Line begins at Wootton Bassett Junction, not London Paddington, and it ends at Swansea, even though some trains go further. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Also agree that New Street is the logical start point and would be in favour of merging the two articles. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, but we are not concerned with services, we are concerned with the lines they run on. That an operator runs a service from Birmingham to Ely does not make that a distinct railway line (if it did, we'd continue to Stansted). As an example, the South Wales Main Line begins at Wootton Bassett Junction, not London Paddington, and it ends at Swansea, even though some trains go further. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- New Street makes sense. As it's where the services start from. G-13114 (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Of further note is quite what the western end should be listed as - New Street, or Water Orton Junction? -mattbuck (Talk) 19:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Doncaster/Lincoln/Peterborough
- split out as discussing a different line - see also #GNGE Merge
The same would apply to Doncaster/Lincoln/Peterborough discussed further above, it's just a question of finding an acceptable name: Doncaster to Peterborough via Lincoln Line? Lamberhurst (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Sources refer to it as the GN/GE (Joint) Line. Yes, neither the GN nor GE exist anymore, but nor does the Great Western or Midland and we still have the GWML and MML. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- You're quite right but, in that case, would it not be better to use Great Northern and Great Eastern Joint Railway, given the high chances of an eventual merger between separate articles? Lamberhurst (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Sources refer to it as the GN/GE (Joint) Line. Yes, neither the GN nor GE exist anymore, but nor does the Great Western or Midland and we still have the GWML and MML. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
West Coastway Line
Here's one that should be relatively straightforward. How far does the West Coastway Line extend? Is it Brighton/Portsmouth or Brighton/Southampton? The reason I ask is that I came across Southampton to Fareham Line and was about to propose its merger with the WCL when I noticed a discussion on the WCL's talk page which raises doubts. Any ideas? Lamberhurst (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- I've gone for Southampton to Brighton, including branches to Portsmouth, Bognor and Littlehampton, but I'm happy to alter it. I just went by what the article said. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
York & Selby Lines
York & Selby Lines is up for deletion here. Lamberhurst (talk) 09:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Since we seem to agree this is a made-up network, what should we split it to? I personally consider the following as read:
- Harrogate Line - York to leeds via Harrogate
- East Coast Main Line - York to Selby Junction
- Possibly the following?
- Huddersfield Line - Manchester to Leeds to York via Huddersfield and Church Fenton
- I'm not sure what to make of the rest of it though. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- It would be useful if Prof.Haddock could answer this as he has knowledge of this area. The Caldervale Line would fit in somewhere as would the Leeds and Selby Railway. I'm undecided on deletion; if it gets close, I may !vote. Lamberhurst (talk) 13:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- The basic service described in http://www.wymetro.com/TrainTravel/traintimetables/yorkandselby/ (Leeds to York, Selby, and Hull) would be under Hull and Selby Railway , Leeds and Selby Railway, , and York and North Midland Railway (section to York), plus the "Church Fenton - Micklefield" line which I don't think has an article but is mentioned in the latter two links.
- The extended service covers most of northern england . Blackpool, Newcastle, Manchester etc .. I'm not going to attempt to answer that part.
- There is/was a "York and Selby line" .. a direct line from York to Selby (via Naburn railway station). Now closed after the Selby diversion was built, now a footpath. This was part of the line known historically (NER/LNER) as the "York to Doncaster branch", (Act was N.E.R.(York and Doncaster Branch) 1864 Act (c.xlix)). In many books you will see this also called the Shaftholme junction-Selby -Selby-Chaloners (Chandler's) Whin junction section of the ECML, or variants. The bottom section still exists. An article that hasn't been written yet. Briefly mentioned in the ECML article.
- IMO the best page currently to make a redirect to would be the History section of the ECML article. I don't really accept that the term "York to Selby line" has any other encyclopaedic meaning. I think the Wymetro timetable has been taken too literally, and misinterpreted.
- As a disambiguation page I'd link to History section of the ECML (for now), and also mention that the term is used as the name for a set of services by Wyemetro.Prof.Haddock (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Proposed Crossrail article splitting
I've proposed to split the Crossrail article into infrastructure and operator. Talk:Crossrail#Split article to Operations and Infrastructure. Likelife (talk) 10:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Confused about infoboxes
I've been trying to improve West Somerset Mineral Railway and any help would be appreciated. At the moment I'm confused about infoboxes. It currently uses Template:Infobox rail standard gauge which appears to be a special case of Template:Infobox rail, but should I be using Template:Infobox rail line or something else? I've added a map to the current one but I can't get it to centre or resize (to fill up the space). Any advice or help appreciated.— Rod talk 16:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- The alignment is a problem with the image itself; it has white margins above and to the right. It should be cropped and reloaded as a new version over the old one. -- Dr Greg talk 17:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Harmful website II
Further to my report at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 29#Harmful website, the same anti-virus software has complained about the two ELs at the bottom of NBR A class. The relevant parts of the message are "Issues found.", "Threats Detection 1 issue found", "Harmful websites: 1 These websites that you've visited put your security at risk. • brdatabase.info". --Redrose64 (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Extra logos for stations
Do we want extra logos in the infoboxes of stations, like this? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Not in my view. It's just typography, isn't it? And doesn't add any information that isn't already there with the standard notation. Johnlp (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, railway enthusiasts. This old AfC submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable topic that should be kept and improved? —Anne Delong (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Anne Delong: For something like seven months from July 2013 to February 2014, there was a hoaxer who repeatedly made false edits primarily to pages like South West Trains and British Rail Class 458, which has made me (and possibly others) very suspicious of claims concerning the future deployment of these trains. But assuming that 94.5.102.98 (talk) is not the same person, this AfC submission isn't worth a separate article: however it could become a paragraph in British Rail Class 458; but if it is the same guy, speedy it as
{{db-hoax}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)- Well, I have no information about this, so I will do nothing. It will be deleted soon anyway unless someone knowledgeable merges the content. Thanks for taking time to check it out. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
George Whale at AfD
George Whale is up for deletion, please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Whale. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
IP adding timetable information.
IP 151.224.250.139 has been adding a lot of unreferenced timetable information to articles, and some of it looks dubious. Could someone knowledgeable check it out to see if it's accurate? G-13114 (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- There are also some registered editors making similar edits on the same set of articles. The pattern tends to be that one day they make edits concerning a particular service, then a few days later make further edits which effectively countermand the first ones. A few days later, the cycle begins again. The contrary edits are sometimes made by the same user ID as the originals, sometimes different. I believe that they're all the same person, and moreover, are the same person that has been doing something very similar to the routes out of Liverpool Street to Clacton and Norwich; and out of Paddington to ?? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Northern Ireland railway stations without coordinates
Just in case anyone here has the inclination and the time to reasearch these, I thought I'd let you know that there are a still quite a few articles about railway stations in Northern Ireland that are still lacking coordinate data. Please see User:The Anome/Disused and heritage UK railway stations still lacking coordinates#Northern Ireland for a list. -- The Anome (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Waverley Line and potentially other articles - possible copyright violation
As of last week, the Waverley Line has been flagged as having a copyright violation by using pages from the Disused Stations website, according to Baffle gab1978 (talk · contribs). Simply south ...... sitting on fans for just 8 years 13:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- I've had a look, and it doesn't seem to be a recent incident, rather, a slow burn over a number of years. Baffle gab1978 points out in this edit the similarity to http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/n/newcastleton/ - if you go to that page and search for "Beeching Axe", you find
The Waverley Route was included in the list of passenger services to be withdrawn under the ‘Beeching Axe’. In October 1966 British Rail gave notice to close the line from 2 January 1967, with closure notices posted at all stations. A brief reprieve was announced, and the situation was on hold pending review; however on 15 July 1968 the Minister of Transport, Richard Marsh, gave the final order that the line would close in January 1969. A huge public outcry ensued, and there followed a high profile campaign to save the line. This ultimately was unsuccessful in preventing the closure.
- where our article has
The line was included in those where passenger services were to be withdrawn in the Beeching Axe. On 17 August 1966 British Railways gave formal notice to close the line from 2 January 1967, with closure notices posted at all stations on the line. As 508 official objections were lodged against the closure within the required 6 weeks of the closure notice being issued; a reprieve was announced and the situation was on hold pending review which resulted in a public hearing being held in Hawick on 16 and 17 November 1967. On 15 July 1968, the Minister for Transport, Richard Marsh, gave the final order that the line would close on Monday, 6 January 1969. A public outcry ensued and there followed a high-profile campaign to save the line; including a petition delivered to 10 Downing Street on 18 December 1968. This was unsuccessful in preventing the closure.
- I've marked the duplicated words and phrases like this, with differences of punctuation and capitalisation ignored. I've been through some of the article history, and what is particularly curious is that I can't detect a single moment when a straight text copy occurred. It's all gradually converged and diverged, but the closest match that I can find is after the edit of 09:09, 22 May 2011. It's as if www.disused-stations.org.uk have copied their text from our page. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Doesn't really look like a copyvio to me. G-13114 (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Borderline copyvio? (no pun intended). Could easily be fixed by changing a number of words, surely. -- Alarics (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- If you don't think that it's a copyvio, the actual report is at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 August 14#Waverley Line; see WP:CP#Responding before posting there. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Borderline copyvio? (no pun intended). Could easily be fixed by changing a number of words, surely. -- Alarics (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- This is actually called close paraphrasing - when done to this exent it's a sort of copyvio - as there is no original thought or real work. Generally works should be written "in ones own words".
- It might be worth asking the site editor if they would release the text. Those the style of text would probably not fit an encylcopedia. Dissapointing photocopied £5 note.Prof.Haddock (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
People here might be interested in the article I've just created on Mark Carne, Network Rail's new chief exec. Any improvements would be welcome, especially if anyone has a subscription to any of the magazines and can find any more details, and if anyone can think of an interesting hook, feel free to nominate it for DYK. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Snow Hill Lines RDT
Would it be possible for someone to create a RDT for the Snow Hill Lines? I made a diagram map for the article a while ago, but I don't have the skill to make a RDT, otherwise I would do it myself. G-13114 (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Template:Snow Hill Lines RDT has been created. Please note, links need checking, and it is far from complete, as closed stations and lines need to be added in. @G-13114:, maybe you can work on it from here. Mjroots (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Current fleet list problem
Can someone help with the issue raised at DB_Schenker_Rail_(UK)#Current_fleet - the problem I have is that this info never becomes stable. It constantly changes, and any historical info is lost. I couldn't find any guidelines on "list documenting the present" - but the activity seems flawed, in the context of an encyclopaedia.
Specifically the fine detail is a big issue, but the whole picture of describing only the present with no info on the past is a more fundamental problem. Some guidelines on fleet lists could help. Currently the article is mirroring the ABrail database, with some lag - could we not just link to the thing ?
I left a note at the talk page above - outlining what I though should be covered, as a starting point. Prof.Haddock (talk) 15:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Try these: WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTSTATSBOOK; and if the info is unsourced, WP:V/WP:NOR --Redrose64 (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Churnet Valley Railway
The article Churnet Valley Railway has recently gained a lot of material which seems promotional and speculative. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- A fair amount of it is genuine but not properly cited at the moment. If I get time over the weekend I'll have a better look and trim/expand/cite as appropriate. Nthep (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- The article still has problems. Recent attempts to clean it up have been reverted. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- We should be wary about discouraging CVR volunteers from contributing to the page; I'm sure they mean well and more often than not the information submitted is correct and just needs a reference. I would suggest using {{citation needed}} tags where appropriate instead of just reverting. Certain sections of the page, i.e. rolling stock, could be hived off to their own separate pages as is done on Swanage Railway. Lamberhurst (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- This is the edit. It stuffs far too much trivia into the infobox and capitalises all the section headings. A
{{dead link}}was removed from http://steamrailwaylines.co.uk/page9.htm which for me displays "Server Error 404 - File or directory not found. The resource you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable." which for me is a textbook case of a dead link. Some content is moved about, but very little is done that is constructive and not blatant PR hype - '2013: Winner of "ACES Best Dinner Award 2012"' - really? Zero sourcing is provided, secondary or otherwise. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)- Discouraging, no, I know what you mean. The Swanage Railway is not far from here and the volunteers work hard. Sadly we cannot favour any group too much though. In a world where others would not widen such holes in the dam we could, but in this world... Britmax (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- I would have been inclined to have kept the information reverted by this edit. Perhaps I'm overly keen on these sorts of facts but I think it provides a better overview of the CVR's development than just route openings. Some heritage operations run for years without any openings but are nevertheless making progress. One edit that certainly should be reverted is this one by User:Aaron-Tripel which cancelled out Nthep's efforts at cutting back on unnecessary detail. Lamberhurst (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Discouraging, no, I know what you mean. The Swanage Railway is not far from here and the volunteers work hard. Sadly we cannot favour any group too much though. In a world where others would not widen such holes in the dam we could, but in this world... Britmax (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- This is the edit. It stuffs far too much trivia into the infobox and capitalises all the section headings. A
- We should be wary about discouraging CVR volunteers from contributing to the page; I'm sure they mean well and more often than not the information submitted is correct and just needs a reference. I would suggest using {{citation needed}} tags where appropriate instead of just reverting. Certain sections of the page, i.e. rolling stock, could be hived off to their own separate pages as is done on Swanage Railway. Lamberhurst (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- The article still has problems. Recent attempts to clean it up have been reverted. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Hastings Line
I've got the Hastings Line article at GAR at the moment, I need bit of help in referencing the last paragraph of the "Electric era" section. Any readers of contemporary magazines able to provide refs will have my thanks. Mjroots (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Terry Miller
Hi folks, are there any railway historians among you who might be able to dig up some more info on Terry Miller (engineer), Chief Engineer (Traction & Rolling Stock) at BR (1968-1973) who had a significant hand in the creation of the HST. Perhaps some of the railway magazines from the era mentioned him in coverage of the development of the HST, for example? At the moment, I've got some coverage in books about the HST and BR, which covers what he's most notable for, but most of the background is based on primary sources. Any assistance would be much appreciated. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Identify this.
Does anyone know what class of DMU is in this photograph so I can categorise it? G-13114 (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- It's one of the Metropolitan-Cammell types: Class 101, Class 102 or Class 111 - the squarish windows on the front and the rubber-mounted aluminium-framed windows on the sides are identifying points. These three classes differ only in the make of engine (AEC, Leyland or Rolls-Royce respectively), and the engines were mounted below the floor; so without the actual coach number, I can't be any more precise. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- We can date it to within a few years: the shed code 21F is stencilled on the buffer beam. That code was only used by one depot, Walsall Ryecroft, and then only between June 1960 (previous to which it was 3C) and September 1963 (after which it was 2G). --Redrose64 (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- According to the author, it is a Class 101 DMU. Simply south ...... sitting on fans for just 8 years 20:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Recent edits - British Rail Class 89
I've just undone a Friday night edit to this article (restoring the infobox) to the previous version. Then had a look at the edit before - I think it's a good faith edit, but not completely sure - lots of rejigging, but also a section called "Principal data" had been removed completely. Robevans123 (talk) 08:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Photo identification: what's the loco
See File:Cardiff 9 75510 1.jpg. Both locos are definitely Class 47; my question is, what are the loco numbers? They're too blurred to make out, but the one on the right has a very long nameplate. For the date of 1975, there are only three candidates for such a long name: 47 484 (ex-1662) ISAMBARD KINGDOM BRUNEL; 47 078 (ex-1663) SIR DANIEL GOOCH; 47 079 (ex-1664) GEORGE JACKSON CHURCHWARD. No steam seems to be leaking between loco and coach, or between the two coaches, so steam heat is probably not in use, so either it's an electrically-heated train or it's summer and the heating is not switched on. The front coach (a Mark 2c BSO) is dual-heated, and so any of the three locos could heat it; of these, 47 484 was converted from steam to electric heat in 1973, and 47 078/9 were still steam heat at this time. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, those specific loco numbers may be of little consequence in the context of the bigger picture... the image was uploaded to commons by Gbs1000 (talk · contribs) who also uploaded something like 70 images in the last two days, not one of which has been categorised (other than the first one mentioned, which I catted myself). Plenty to do here, especially as the dates all seem to be faked: no way were File:Manchester Vic 8 84.jpg and File:Blackburn Station 1976.jpg taken on 6 September 2014 or 9 September 2014, for instance - the first shows a Bury-line electric in what used to be Platform 5, so is pre-Metrolink; and the second is Blackburn as it was when I commuted from there in 1983-84 (it's been modified and then rebuilt since). --Redrose64 (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- An interesting group of photos but difficult to use without a bit more info. Managed to put some broad categories on File:Chipping Norton3 6 62563rev.jpg. Does the name mean it was taken on 3rd June 62? Seems about right for this photo and a sample of the others. Some have only a four digit number, and they also seem about right for the year. The given dates are a bit strange - I guess they are scan dates. As well as the 2014 ones there's a batch from 2005. Robevans123 (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- The Commons Upload Wizard populates the date field automatically from the file's metadata, so I'd wager that that's the reason for the odd dates. Rob's suggestion of scan dates would make sense. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- The absence of dates from the images imho presents no obstacle to their use. GWR 5101 No. 4142 was scrapped in June 1964 so the 1962 date would fit. It's also worth noting that the uploader/author is Geoffrey Skelsey, a railway historian who often contributes to BackTrack. Lamberhurst (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Mr Skelsey (Gbs1000 (talk · contribs)) has added many of the photos to various railway station articles. The captions he's added confirm the interpretation of the date from the filename. Let's hope he uploads more photos. Robevans123 (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Re those captions. He's wrapped many of them in
<center>...</center>, I don't think this is normal practice. He's also moved a lot of images from their previous positions in the body sections, either cramming them all into the lead, or moving all to a gallery, contrary to WP:IG. Those that weren't put in a gallery have often been left-aligned. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)- Sounds like a little cleanup is necessary, but we should try not to begrudge new editors for creating a little extra work for us while making useful, good-faith contributions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- Re those captions. He's wrapped many of them in
- Mr Skelsey (Gbs1000 (talk · contribs)) has added many of the photos to various railway station articles. The captions he's added confirm the interpretation of the date from the filename. Let's hope he uploads more photos. Robevans123 (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- The absence of dates from the images imho presents no obstacle to their use. GWR 5101 No. 4142 was scrapped in June 1964 so the 1962 date would fit. It's also worth noting that the uploader/author is Geoffrey Skelsey, a railway historian who often contributes to BackTrack. Lamberhurst (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- The Commons Upload Wizard populates the date field automatically from the file's metadata, so I'd wager that that's the reason for the odd dates. Rob's suggestion of scan dates would make sense. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- An interesting group of photos but difficult to use without a bit more info. Managed to put some broad categories on File:Chipping Norton3 6 62563rev.jpg. Does the name mean it was taken on 3rd June 62? Seems about right for this photo and a sample of the others. Some have only a four digit number, and they also seem about right for the year. The given dates are a bit strange - I guess they are scan dates. As well as the 2014 ones there's a batch from 2005. Robevans123 (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Another user - Palmpilot99 (talk · contribs) - has very similar editing habits. Even the filenames of the uploaded images seem to follow the same pattern. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- And if you look at the uploaded images on Commons the author is Mr Skelsey again... Robevans123 (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- The images uploaded are now all sorted. If anyone can help with identifying early DMUs, the images needing to be looked at can be found in c:Category:Unidentified diesel multiple units of the United Kingdom. Lamberhurst (talk) 13:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- And if you look at the uploaded images on Commons the author is Mr Skelsey again... Robevans123 (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
