Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 24

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 20

←

Archive 22

→

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox GB station simple

Template:Infobox GB station simple 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) 00:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Herne Hill

Hello folks, I have been rewriting the article on Herne Hill railway station in South London for a while now and reckon it's finished - new photos, more information, clearer structure. Could anyone who is interested take a look and suggest/make changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy20000 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Only thing I might add, and who knows it might be (ir)relevant: there used to be sidings just north of Herne Hill station, between there and Loughborough Junction, alongside Shakespeare Road TQ318749; I remember seeing steel coal wagons like these (6th image down) painted a sort of pale blue lined up there when I were a lad in the 1960s, maybe the sidings were worked in conjunction with Herne Hill in some way, in days of yore? Not that I know anything about that! ;o) Nortonius (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added details of the former goods sidings to the History section. I found a collision report from 1960 that showed a map (see the refs). You also reminded me to mention the turnback siding opposite platform 4. User:Tommy20000 —Preceding undated comment added 22:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC).

And I've now added the details of that collision to the page. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy20000 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Personal preference, I would rather there not be a gallery per WP:IG et al, but generally good job. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, very pleased that helped! :o) Tell you what though, the plan in the accident report was a big surprise – I had no idea of the area of the sidings, having only seen a line of wagons from me bicycle on Shakespeare Rd! And there's a high brick wall along Milkwood Road, so nothing to see there, except an inordinate number of bricks – boring! Family trips on public transport were mostly south by train from Herne Hill, and north by bus, so I might never have seen the full extent. Glad I wasn't around for those accidents, I was born a few weeks after the last one! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Matt, I've removed the image gallery as per the guidelines. I suppose anyone who is really interested in what a foot tunnel looks like can just check the Commons! Nort, I'm glad you found the report interesting. I've added the map from the accident report to the main article since it's Crown copyright from 1960 and has expired. Hopefully other Herne Hill veterans will get a similar feeling of nostalgia! Tommy20000 23:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I have expanded the history section, checked all of the references and added a map of the track layout. I think it may be done! Certainly looking a lot better than it did a few months ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Herne_Hill_railway_station&oldid=458128822 Any further comments/improvements would be most welcome. Tommy20000 (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You probably want a longer WP:LEAD - Wikipedia:LEAD#Length says 2-3 paragraphs. The rest of WP:LEAD gives guidance as to what should be in the lead. Good work, btw; thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've lengthened the intro. I've also reduced the number of images and adjusted their placement to comply with guidelines. Tommy20000 (talk) 12:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

One sentence (about where conflicting paths occur north of Loughborough Jc) is not quite right in detail I think. I have explained on the article's talk page. -- Alarics (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point, I've changed the wording as you suggested. I've also uploaded a new track layout image that makes clear where everything is. Tommy20000 (talk) 12:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I have revamped the history section after checking local history books, etc, in Herne Hill's library. I've also added some new images and done a bit of rewording to make it more readable. I can't think of anything else that could be added, so hopefully this article should be finished (for now!). Any comments would be welcome. I'd also appreciate it if someone experienced in rating articles under WikiProject Trains and WikiProject London could have a crack at a formal assessment, which hasn't been done since 2007. Many thanks Tommy20000 (talk) 10:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I've dated and referenced the off-peak services section to the national timetable. Do you have a reference for the platform numbers? Also I'm not sure about Southeastern running services north of Blackfriars; I understood that these service were run jointly with FCC. Some of the sentences and phases in the Future section are unsourced. Edgepedia (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks to everyone who has chipped in so far. I've considerably expanded the article today after another trip to the library - there's now much more on the station's history and I've created a gif showing how the station's layout changed over the years. If anyone would like to look it over, please do so. Edge, I'm going to sort out the Future section with better references later.Tommy20000 (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and en passant, Tommy steered Herne Hill railway station to GA a few days ago. Congratulations for that ;) --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Two months after I first said I thought the article was finished and many edits later, I've put it up for FAC. Any and all feedback would be useful. Tommy20000 (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thorne and Hatfield Moors

I have been working on an article on Thorne Moors. It is by no means finished yet, but currently includes some details of the railway operations on Thorne and Hatfield Moors, including a table of the 23 locomotives employed between 1949 and 2006. Is it of interest to this project? (ie should I put a UK Railways widget on the talk page?) Bob1960evens (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Simply south...... going on editing sprees for just 6 years (as of 28/03/2006) 14:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Is this the same as Hatfield Moors? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Herne Hill railway station FAC

Herne Hill railway station is a featured article candidate. Please consider checking out the featured article criteria and joining in the HHRS FAC discussion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It was suggested in the FAC discussion that a custom diagram of the lines around Herne Hill would be helpful. I have created one and added it to the article, but there are two issues. The lines to/from HHRS aren't quite reaching the edges of the boxes; I've tried various layouts and can't find a satisfactory to way to show the lines crossing each other at the station. Any ideas? Secondly, the station blob for Loughborough Junction is entirely red (i.e. open), which suggests you can get a train from LJ to Denmark Hill. Does anyone know how to fade out half of the station icon? I've tried overlaying but had no luck getting it right.Tommy20000 (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why Herne Hill station needs to be X-shaped. The route from Loughboro Jct to Tulse Hill doesn't cross the route from Brixton to Beckenham Jct at right angles (or any other angle): there are two junctions (Herne Hill North Junc and Herne Hill South Junc), between which the four tracks run parallel, or as nearly so as the platforms and viaducts permit.

If you must use that shape, you should fill in the corners of adjacent squares using paired corner icons: (ÜWc23) above; (ÜWc12) to the left; (ÜWc34) to the right and (ÜWc14) below. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The review is just about done, and one of the delegates has asked for an image check. Could someone who knows what they're doing have a stab at it? Thanks. Tommy20000 (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

An image check at WP:FAC is normally done by one of the FAC regulars (such as Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)), they do a thorough search for copyright violations. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

HHRS has been promoted to Featured Article status. Thanks to everyone who chipped in; look out for the article on the front page on the station's 150th anniversary in August.Tommy20000 (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to say well done on your first featured article.:Difficultly north (talk) 11:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Major railway stations in Britain - inclusion criteria

There has been discussion in the last few weeks about the criteria for inclusion of stations in {{Major railway stations in Britain}}. Please comment at Template talk:Major railway stations in Britain#Revision time. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Midland vs. Great Central, which was more direct

In the 3rd para of Great Central Main Line, an editor has recently added that the Midland Main Line is "more direct" than the GC was, presumably meaning from London to the places (East Midlands and Sheffield) served by both. I take "more direct" to mean a shorter distance. Looking at a map, between London and Leicester, it does not appear to me that this is obviously so, but I can't find any source of the GC mileage figure. The Midland is 99 miles and does not look like a particularly straight line. Does anyone have the GC mileage to hand? And which GC mileage would be a more appropriate comparison, via Aylesbury or via Ashendon Jcn?

The article already mentions lower down that the London-Sheffield journey time on the GC's crack expresses in 1939 matched that of the Midland, so I think the implication of the "more direct" claim is misleading, irrespective of the actual mileage, and I wish to delete it. -- Alarics (talk) 07:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

There's not a lot in it. GC; Marylebone to Leicester 103 miles, Sheffield Victoria 164 miles. Mid; St Pancras to Leicester 99 miles, Sheffield (Midland) 158¼ miles. I don't think the GC routeing makes any difference. NtheP (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Alarics (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Unlike the other routes, GCR mileages were measured from Manchester (London Road), not from London. According to Trackmaps vol. 3 (Western), Marylebone is at 205 miles 77 chains, and careful checking of the maps shows that this is via Aylesbury and Amersham; checking other sources suggests that the 103 miles from Leicester to Marylebone quoted above is by the same route. If the train is routed via Ashendon Junction and High Wycombe, adding up several separate mileages (Manchester-Grendon Underwood Jc 159 miles 10 chains; Grendon Underwood Jc-Ashendon Jc 5 mi 77 ch; Ashendon Jc-Northolt Jc: 33 mi 69 ch; Northolt Jc-Neasden Jc: 6 mi 31 ch; Neasden Jc-Marylebone: 5 mi 11 ch) shows that Marylebone is 210 mi 38 ch from Manchester the "long" way. This is only 4 mi 41 ch different; Marylebone-Leicester would therefore be approx. 107.5 miles via Ashendon. GCR expresses not needing to call at Aylesbury would run this way, because if they ran over the shorter route they would be delayed by trains of the Metropolitan Railway, since the line between Harrow-on-the-Hill and Rickmansworth was double track until the early 1960s. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Great research, thank you. Not sure whether the 3h 6m London-Sheffield timing in 1939 would have been via Ashendon or Aylesbury, but anyway I have now deleted the "more direct" comment from Great Central Main Line because even if strictly true in a narrow sense it is clearly misleading insofar as it implies that the respective distances had anything to do with the closure decision. -- Alarics (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Another point is that the GC was heavily engineered and built as a very straight line, whereas the MML bends and curves its way north, the MML was never really able to compete on speed, which partly explains why it was partially truncated with the branch to Manchester etc closed. I often wonder why the GC wasn't kept open for expresses and the MML kept open for local trains and freight. The GC certainly had the edge in terms of engineering. G-13114 (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Beaching cited the reason for the closure of the line as unnecessary duplication of routes by other lines, whilst the GC was profitable, Sir Edward Watkin had trod on so many toes both during construction of the line as well as causing loss of trade to the other companies. Personally the loyalties of managment in the London Midland Region imo lead to the loss of freight, thus leading beaching to a rather biased decision. The GC offered continental gauging from the north of england to the Dover coast ironical, somthing most british lines don't offer today. Long Robin 79 (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Extent of the Sutton Loop Line

Just wondering, how far would you all say the Sutton Loop Line extends? The obvious candidates are Streatham - Wimbledon - Sutton - Streatham, or Blackfriars - Streatham - Wimbledon - Sutton - Streatham. I'm personally in favour of the latter, the article says the former. ELRs of course refer to about 20 different lines. I'm personally interested in whether Tulse Hill is on it or not - ELR says it's on the Herne Hill and Tulse Hill Line, which in turn connects to the Holborn Viaduct (Blackfriars) and Herne Hill Line at one end and the South Bermondsey Junction to Sutton (East) Junction at the other. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the latter would be more informative. The loop is a service, not a particular line, and cutting it off at Streatham takes it out of its context as a suburban service for central London, which isn't helpful for readers (particularly if, as proposed, the loop becomes Blackfriars - Tulse Hill - 'Loop' - Tulse Hill - London Bridge from 2018). One issue that I can see is with deciding how far north the loop should extend. If the loop is just a service, all the stations to Luton are as much a part of it as Blackfriars, but a reader might scratch their heads if somewhere in Bedfordshire is described as being on the Sutton Loop. Perhaps Sutton Loop could be rewritten to make it clear that it is a suburban service and not a line? This position can be supported by the fact that the lines making up the physical loop from Streatham are far older than any notion of the Sutton Loop, which only started in the early 90s when Thameslink introduced the service.Tommy20000 (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it makes most sense to describe the suburban loop as leaving the main Thameslink line at Blackfriars. Immediately south of Blackfriars, what is nowadays the Thameslink mainline turns off to go to London Bridge while the suburban line goes to Sutton and Wimbledon. So I agree that Blackfriars is the northern end of the loop, as the pattern of services is currently structured. Of course it all depends what you mean by a loop. Strictly speaking it is more of a lassoo. -- Alarics (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd say it is more of a backwards b or 6.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure the Sutton-Wimbledon-Streatham physical line is also referred to as the Sutton Loop so I would go with both but more emphasis on the physical line to Elephant. Simply south...... coming and going for just 6 years 22:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is a list of officially named lines from National Rail. Interestingly, the one through Birmingham is the Stour Line or Stour Valley and the one from Reading to Westbury is the Berkshire and Hampshire Line. The Luton to Sutton service is referred to as both the Sutton Loop and the City Metro. Simply south...... coming and going for just 6 years 22:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thameslink City Metro was the marketing name used by the previous operator (Thameslink, before the franchise was merged with W. Anglia into First Capital Connect) to distinguish the second-class-only suburban service from the mainline (Bedford-Brighton) service, to which some other name was given that I have now forgotten. This brand name was also painted on the relevant rolling stock, i.e. those Class 319s with no first-class section. I don't think this terminology ever really caught on with passengers or staff, and FCC abandoned it on taking over. Clearly it was a branding for a set of services, not a name for the physical route. -- Alarics (talk) 06:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested moves for Metrolink

Oldham Mumps railway station, Failsworth railway station] and Hollinwood railway station are up for RM. Please see Talk:Oldham Mumps railway station. Simply south...... always punctual, no matter how late for just 6 years 20:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Template move

Just an FYI, Template_talk:LUL_color#Requested move. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

What's that train?

On the Coventry to Leamington Line immediately south of Coventry station n 6 April 2008 is this. It doesn't appear to be a class I'm familiar with. I'm sure someone here will recognise it. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a 321 in Silverlink colours. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

That's just north of Coventry station actually. But I think mattbuck is right. Look at this photo File:Northampton station.jpg. Although it does appear to be going up the line to Nuneaton which isn't electrified somewhat oddly! G-13114 (talk) 12:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Central Six Retail Park is to the west of Coventry station, not the north (the line runs WbN-EbS through Coventry); although it is on the northern side of the line. Nos. 1 & 2 roads in Coventry North Yard are electrified, as is the Nuneaton line as far as the crossover (32 chains from Coventry North Jct) close to Coventry R.F.C.. It's feasible for a train to work along the Down Nuneaton as far as the crossover, in order to enter the yard from the north. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It's on the line to Canley, to the west of Coventry station; when I was on a course in 1999 I recall walking through the park on the other side of the railway and looking across (and down) at that trading estate. Britmax (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

London King's Cross railway station

I have posted a discussion on Wikimedia Commons about the recent renaming of this train station's category here. We could, of course, use this project's opinion in weighing in on the subject. All are welcome to contribute their viewpoint. Blurpeace 02:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm for King's Cross railway station as the undisambiguated version. Also on the basis that all other London termini are just "X (railway) station", not "London X (railway) station". -mattbuck (Talk) 11:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't see any need for the 'London' prefix either. G-13114 (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

They are referrred to as both. There are other Kings Cross stations e.g. Kings Cross railway station, Sydney. Simply south...... always punctual, no matter how late for just 6 years 12:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Kings Cross railway station redirects to London King's Cross railway station anyway. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

All the London termini named as "London xxx railway station" have redirects from the non-London "xxx railway station" form, and vice versa. Those where the Underground shares the same article have the various combinations of "station"/"railway station"/"tube station". Many have several others for variant capitalisation. Although King's Cross is not shared, it has rather more than the normal quota of redirects, mainly because of that apostrophe. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Today's Railways

The article Today's Railways has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no evidence of notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Redrose64 (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Railways Illustrated

The article Railways Illustrated has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no evidence of notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Redrose64 (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

East London line extension

Please can someone help me with this. I am being attacked by an IP for deleting a highly speculative assertion about the new platforms at Clapham Junction which is attributed merely to conversations with staff. I have tried to explain to the IP that this is not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes but he/she keeps reverting. -- Alarics (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

That modus operandi kinda reminds me of someone you and I have run into before. (Not an IP, though.) I'll have a look. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, not the same person I think, but I've commented there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm glad it's not just me. Different IP address (though in fact the original text came from Betathetapi545) but the same approach, same kind of personal remarks etc. Thank you both for your contributions there. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

In what I can only assume is a fit of pique, he/she has now gone through the article deleting everything else that was not sourced, even though not controversial and not challenged by anybody. -- Alarics (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup. :( Amusingly he is, of course, right in a horrible way. But I do hope he gets it out of his system soon as it's a bit of a pain and it's going to take a terrible long time to delete most of the encyclopaedia. I'll bring a flask of coffee and some sandwiches. DBaK (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

railway magazines

(see PRODs above) There's a lot that of magazine articles that pretty clearly don't meet notability guidelines - see List of railroad-related periodicals or Category:Rail transport magazines. Some may be borderline. Rather than list them all here please check the two links given for any that can be shown to be notable etc..Oranjblud (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I find all this rather surprising. I think I would have assumed that any mass-circulation magazine that gets distributed to every branch of W H Smith, as these two appear to do, was notable by dint of that fact alone. How do we judge the notability of a periodical? WP:N seems to be silent on the matter. Is the circulation a relevant factor? Does anyone know what is the circulation of these two magazines? I notice that Modern Railways and RAIL (magazine) and The Railway Magazine are not being proposed for deletion and that these three articles all mention their respective circulations in the infobox. -- Alarics (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

All of these PRODs will require review: I just found three which were ineligible for WP:PROD, because each of them had been PRODded before (one had even gone to AfD, closing as "keep"). --Redrose64 (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it being widely available or popular is not necessarily enough - historical importance, authoritativeness, and citation by reliable sources are amongst the key criteria - it is possible for a magazine to be popular, but by being 'average' or undifferentiated from others of its kind to fail to become notable. Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals), Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Newspapers.2C_magazines_and_journals. Oranjblud (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

That just seems wrong to me. How can something that is popular not be notable? How does that tally with all those articles about TV programmes, pop groups, movies, etc. which I have never heard of and which are surely "'average' or undifferentiated from others of its kind" but which WP apparently deems "notable", presumably because they are popular with a certain section of society? There seems to be a double standard at work here. I am troubled by what seems to be a determination to delete perfectly harmless articles that somebody might want to refer to, though admittedly the Railways Illustrated article needs drastic rewriting. -- Alarics (talk) 08:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This is being discussed at two places. See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains#railway_magazines. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Support - Alarics comments = specially in relation to the Australian magazines that have been targetted, I suspect no research was done on the actual magazines... See also the other place where this is being discussed... Satu Suro 10:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Avonmouth Light Railway

Does anyone know anything about the Avonmouth Light Railway? I found it on the 1914 area map, but never seen a reference to it anywhere else. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It's on p. 205 of Awdry 1990 - eight lines of text. Auth 12 Dec 1893 but not built; Light Railway Order 1 Dec 1903; purch. by GWR/LMS jointly 1926. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't have that book, care to create the article for me? -mattbuck (Talk) 23:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Swiss Cottage

I came across a merger proposal that seems to have ran aground that needs to be Reopened to determine things. See Talk:Swiss Cottage tube station. Difficultly north (talk) 11:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment Difficultly north. I'm not sure anything needs to be done other than comment on the (stale) discussion? However, would anyone else like to comment on the proposal at Talk:Swiss Cottage tube station#Merge from Swiss Cottage (Metropolitan_line) tube station? Edgepedia (talk) 12:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Where am I now?

I've come across this picture in the Commons. The file naming claims it to be Glasgow Queen Street, but the shape of the roof, the footbridge, and the (what I presume is a) signal box say it isn't. It is one of a large series of pictures taken in Scotland by an American tourist in 1982. Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

On the footbridge there's what appears to be a map of the station? (right of the advert)? Someone recognise it from this? Edgepedia (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this may be Edinburgh Waverley. The footbridge in the background looks very similar to the one here. Also if you look at this picture and compare the roof structures, they're virtually identical. The more recent picture shows a new platform over the most distant track in the older picture. This image shows a map of Waverley station - if you rotate it through 90 degrees and compare it to the possible map on the bridge in the original picture, then the grey and white areas correspond. Also the bridge in this photo looks identical to that in the original - it is possible that the wall to the left of the picture was reconstructed at some point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.94.137.1 (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I also think it's Edinburgh Waverley. Partly that map on the footbridge, but see the footbridge and roof in this pic. I think that this pic shows a view from the footbridge, looking in the opposite direction. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And another view. "Collect nine of these brands and get a month's free rail travel*". _{*Between Invershin and Culrain, not weekdays or Saturdays} Ning-ning (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:London Underground Tube Stations & Rolling Stock

Template:London Underground Tube Stations & Rolling Stock has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Simply south...... flapping wings into buildings for just 6 years 11:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

List of British towns with no railway station

List of British towns with no railway station has bee nominated for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British towns with no railway station. Simply south...... flapping wings into buildings for just 6 years 22:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

165019 impossibility

Back in 2009, I visited Marylebone and took some photos (right). Now, at 11:28 one 165 arrived and another 165 left on a different line. Unfortunately from my photos they both seem to be 165019. Can anyone work out what the second one might actually be? -mattbuck (Talk) 14:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that impossible. Perhaps the simple answer is that the views are from both ends of the train. Simply south...... flapping wings into buildings for just 6 years 17:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes; judging by the headlights, you snapped the upper one as it was approaching you, and you then revolved on the spot to get the rear of the same departure. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Dammit, I'm an idiot, I was thinking that I was on one side of the bridge for one and the other side for the other... *facepalms* -mattbuck (Talk) 18:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

User:D47817

I spotted a couple of large-diff edits from Special:Contributions/D47817 focused on GB railways and TOCs. These edits are well-intended, and WP:GOODFAITH, but on closer inspection have often removed large numbers of references (75–100%!) or replaced them with unformatted ones. I've started a conversation with User talk:D47817 suggesting smaller bitesize changes, and a focus on maintaining existing references and WP:LEAD length when making edits. I would appreciate any assistance in welcoming User:D47817 as I may not be around, and also in reviewing the ~200 edits so far to look for any that could benefit from addition work (either directly, or working with D47817). —Sladen (talk) 08:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge of two stations in Leicester

I've proposed that Leicester Campbell Street railway station be merged into Leicester railway station. Please discuss at Talk:Leicester railway station#Merge from Leicester Campbell Street railway station. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

IMECH -free !

This may be of interest - SAGE Publications is offering free online access till the end of Oct. They carry the full back issue range of all the Institution of Mechanical Engineers publications - both modern and old- for an overview see www.uk.sagepub.com pdf

http://www.uk.sagepub.com/archive.sp (the archives)
http://www.uk.sagepub.com/imeche.sp (modern)

Probably Journal of the Institution of Locomotive Engineers, 1911-1969 and Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part D Transport Engineering (filed under its successor Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering [1] to confuse you, as well as Part F: Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit as likely to be of interest. There is also a full set of Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 1847-1982.. This is a typical volume http://jil.sagepub.com/content/13/58.toc - it contains a lot of 'nuts and bolts', as well as some authoritative articles on locomotives in some cases. Quality varies, (eg Swindon built Warships should be the final word), whilst some articles are dreadful.. (there's a lot of other stuff published by SAGE too).

Sign up requires an email, user name - followed by email confirmation. no address or credit card required. Give a false name if you want... - Articles open in browser as pdf and can be easily downloaded as pdf.. (CTRL S shortcut when pdf is loaded full screen..)

Now you have no excess not to write more :) (until 1 Nov anyway).83.100.183.189 (talk) 23:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox TfL line nominated for deletion

Template:Infobox TfL line has been nominated for deletion. Please comment at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 October 24#Template:Infobox TfL line. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Class 125?

Could anyone please confirm whether this is a Class 125 (and if not what it is)? Lamberhurst (talk) 08:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not a Class 125 - they had coupling code Orange Star - this one is Blue Square. I can't nail down the type for certain, but the main features are the Derby Heavyweight-style front end, and the suburban layout (side doors to each seating bay). This makes it one of Class 115; Class 116; Class 117; Class 118; Class 121; Class 122; Class 125; Class 127. We've eliminated 125 already, and can similarly eliminate Class 127 too (these had coupling code Red Triangle). The roof dome has a small box, housing the destination blind; the headcode is 2-character below the windows, so we may eliminate those with the large box in the roof dome housing a 4-character headcode (classes 115, 117, 118, 121, 127). If you have this book:

Golding, Brian (1995). A Pictorial Record of British Railways Diesel Multiple Units. Chinnor: Cheona Publications. ISBN 1-900298-00-7. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

fig. 223 is the only possible match. There appear to be nine passenger doors, and no brake section is visible, so it's either the DMS of a Class 116 (Golding 1995, figs. 191/2), or the DTS of a Class 122 (Golding 1995, figs. 207/8). Class 116 were built in three batches, but the first batch did not have two-character panels; so this would be one of Class 116 nos. W50871-923, W51141-53 (Golding 1995, p. 85) or Class 122 nos. W56291-9 (Golding 1995, p. 86). Although originally allocated to the Western Region, many of these were based at Tyseley, which was originally a WR depot but transferred to the LMR in 1963. This, plus the overhead wires, mean that I suspect that it's it's working somewhere in the Birmingham area. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Impressive detective work. I would be tempted to conclude that it's a 116 on the basis of the description given by the the author of the original image who has indicated that it was taken in Chelmsford (at a spot described with precision and from which he has other images). The 116 class appears to have seen service on all regions (except SR) whereas the 122s largely worked the Birmingham/London areas of the WR. That would seem to tie in with this image at Southminster in May 1980. Lamberhurst (talk) 12:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

My Ian Allan Locoshed Book 1980 is dropping to bits!

abc British Rail Locoshed Book 1980. Shepperton: Ian Allan. 1980. pp. 41, 52. ISBN 0-7110-1008-0. IXX/0380. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

But it's true - the 116s were found on all regions (except the SR). The ER had four Class 116 sets in 1980, all of which included DMS cars from one of the blocks under discussion: 50844-59335-50897, 50845-59353-50898, 50865-59372-50921 and 50867-59375-50920 - all were at Stratford (SF), although the Locoshed Book records the third of these as SR (Southern Region) - but since the Martyn Hilbert photo linked above gives the number E50865 in the description, I presume that SR is a misprint for SF. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The circular masts tell me that this is on the Great Eastern and not somewhere in Birmingham. The route between Chelmsford and Colchester was known as the "Gap" as it was a section between two electrified areas (London - Chelmsford & Colchester - Clacton). The overhead mast on the left of the picture is almost readable and to me it look like the letter "A" on the top line. That would make this somewhere on the LT&S line. The line out of Liverpool Street has structures with a "B" prefix ... and that really looks more like an "A". Perhaps it's a Romford-Upminster DMU going back to its depot for maintenance?? Bhtpbank (talk) 11:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Two stations along side each other?

Bromham and Rowde Halt railway station and Seend railway station have placemarkers on Google Earth that are about 100 feet from each other. Is this a mistake??? --76.105.145.143 (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The Seend article was changed in July, giving a more plausible location. Is there anything else we can do? Edgepedia (talk) 07:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how often Google updates its database, or if there's anything we can do to give them a prod. User:Pigsonthewing is probably the best person for answering that sort of question. Optimist on the run (talk) 07:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes; I liaised with Google on this, but no; we can't get them to update outside their usual schedule. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

This is pretty much the same problem that 76.105.145.143 (talk) had raised four months ago at Talk:British Rail#Disused railway station site?. I fixed up our Seend article at the time, and don't see what else I should - or even could have done. What outside agencies do with our data is up to them: we can't force them to keep up to date - they'd be here till Doomsday.

In my last job I was responsible for installing the periodic updates for the Postcode Address File that we subscribed to. These arrived at intervals of three or six months; but you could guarantee that a few weeks after an update, somebody in sales would complain that it was "out of date again". The usual cause was that the customer had given the wrong address or postcode, but sometimes it was a customer who'd moved into a brand-new premises for which no postcode had yet been assigned; or it had been assigned, but after the last PAF update had been prepared.

We should only worry about keeping our own house in order. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Denvilles Halt

A quick heads up - Denvilles halt has been proposed for deletion. Lamberhurst (talk) 13:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Old station site?

It looks like there should be an article for a station at 55°33'31.66"N 3°52'15.89"W -- there was definitely a rail line going through there, and there appears to have been a building along side it and the nearby road (Station Road). The nearest town is Douglas, to the east. --76.105.145.143 (talk) 06:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Douglas West? I'm away from home this weekend so haven't got my usual reference materials to hand. Coord links are 55°33′31.66″N 3°52′15.89″W / 55.5587944°N 3.8710806°W. There doesn't seem to be an article about it, but then Wikipedia isn't finished yet. An optimist on the run! 07:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

There are a handful of station sites along that line that don't appear to have articles. --76.105.145.143 (talk) 08:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Worth looking at old OS maps, they show most of these old stations. The National Library of Scotland website is very good for this: [2]. It seems there are quite a few stations in that area that are lacking articles, eg Inches, Happendon (originally named Douglas), Ponfeigh, Sandilands etc. I'm not sure if there's an article about the line itself, or what the line is called. Some of the old maps label it as the "Muirkirk Branch" or the "Douglas Branch". There is a brief mention of the line here Caledonian Railway#Branches in Peebles and South Lanarkshire. --Vclaw (talk) 13:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Done There you go. I adjusted the coordinates a little, because the station was slightly to the south-west of Station Road, rather than directly adjacent to the end. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

LMS Hughes Crab

I don't want to edit war at LMS Hughes Crab but there is a paragraph:

42859 was due to move to Sellinge in Kent by end November 2012, but thieves had stolen the driving wheels in the first week of November, a matter of days prior to the locomotive being re-erected in preparation for road transport. The locomotive is now subject to court injunction whilst efforts are made to discover what has happened to the wheels.

which one editor insists needs no source. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can determine from reading things, this editor would be correct in that the wheels have been stolen; but I haven't found an RS yet to prove it, only forum postings. And even on there, there's a conflict as to whether they were stolen, or scrapped by the landlord, and indeed as to what else of the loco may have gone. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Some of the forum postings on National Preservation have been removed, presumably because they libeled the owner and the landlord. According to one posting, the injunction is to prevent the parts being scrapped; according to the ip it's to prevent the locomotive being moved. Ning-ning (talk) 10:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the subject, but it seems obvious that this is a contentious issue, especially if a court case is involved. Therefore a reliable source is essential. I've removed the offending paragraph - if it keeps getting replaced I will lock the article. An optimist on the run! 17:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

2.122.243.185 (talk) has now reverted four times in 24 hours, which to me is a clear WP:3RR vio. As an involved party I should neither issue a block nor prot the page, particularly in view of this message - it might seem like I was overreacting. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

At it again today (6.55). I've just trawled through the Lincolnshire Police website, and there's no mention of any theft of loco wheels. Ning-ning (talk) 08:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I see that their very first edit summary did include the case number from Luton County Court so if anyone wants to ring the court and quote that number you might get details of the injunction. NtheP (talk) 09:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

It still wouldn't be verifiable though. Mackensen (talk) 13:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I've raised the matter at WP:ANI#Court case edit warring. An optimist on the run! 17:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

(Reply to Mackensen) Not on the basis of just a phone call but assuming the hearing was in public which a phone call could elicit for you, then on payment of the appropriate fee you would be entitled to a copy of the order (Civil Procedure Rules Practice Direction 39A) which is verifiable and reliable. NtheP (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Rather than the bureaucratic message "Please read the policy on verifiability, and cite your sources. Stating "the information I have put is 100% accurate" is simply not good enough." I think it would have been better to just ask the person where he/she got the info from, and explain that we need the info in order to document the claim. Then help them work through it if they've got some reasonable lead that can be followed up. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 09:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I already did; and I still have no idea which "notes" these are. They were first mentioned with this revert, and although the article does have a "Notes" section, that contained nothing relevant at the time. If they're hand-written notes on a piece of paper in 2.122.243.185's home or office, they fail WP:V. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I think "the notes" refers to the edit summary 2.* wrote when s/he inserted the info about the court case in the first place.[3] It gave a case number, which is in principle verifiable. That message is still pretty ineffectual though: first because the "info" icon cues the person that the message doesn't contain any information (so they ignore it), second because the opening part of the message also looks like boilerplate, so they stop reading, third because the person was possibly not aware at that time of the existence of talkpages, and the enormous ISP template on the page obscured everything else. And by the time more contact had been attempted, the page was completely overloaded with templated crap and it became impossible to find anything in it that had actually been written by a human. You're of course not to blame for almost any of that. We're just screwing up as an institution. 66.127.54.40 (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

If this is such a big story, it will no doubt appear in the railway press shortly (I think Steam Railway comes out this week), which will be an RS that can be easily referred to by many editors in this project. If it's not a big story, then it's just trivia and shouldn't be in the article anyway. An optimist on the run! 16:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Steam Railway magazine is published this Friday, 7 December. Mjroots (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

There is now a post at Talk:LMS Hughes Crab#Supposed wheel theft. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The story has been covered in Issue 409 of Steam Railway. Suggest this WP:RS is used to reference the information. Mjroots (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Railway and waterways guide and map

I've put on Wikisource the full text by Joseph Priestley (the other one - manager of the Aire and Calder Canal) of Historical Account of the Navigable Rivers, Canals, and Railways, of Great Britain published in 1830. Obviously its main focus is the canals, but there are also 63 railways included, most of which would these days be called tramroads. It has a verbal description of the line of each railway/waterway, the parliamentary terms it was established by, usually an account of construction (there are some projected entries that never got built) and the rates charged for each type of goods carried. It was in its day a useful guide for any company wishing to move goods around and is still a fascinating insight into a very different world only 180 years ago. Its entries could be of use in editing Wikipedia articles.

Is anyone willing to help proof-read this book? There are about 600 pages to go! The project page is at Index:Rivers, Canals, Railways of Great Britain and the talk page gives some guidelines. There are quite a few specialised templates for wikisource, but you don't need to know anything more than editing simple wikipedia text for doing the first round of proofreading. I'm finding it's a fascinating way of learning more about the history.

I've also put on Commons a set of 6 scans of a map of Britain showing the waterways (and railways) as they were in 1830 by Nichols, Priestley & Walker. These are titled Map of Inland Navigation I to VI and could be useful for illustrations in articles about the railways and showing how railways and canals interacted before the dominance of the railways. Apart from showing the routes of some long-lost lines, it also shows the resources (coal, limestone etc.) that they were designed to service. If anyone wants a portion to illustrate a particular article I'd be happy to help.

If you want help use my talk page either here or on Wikisource. Chris55 (talk) 13:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

More puzzle pictures

A couple of London stations from Commons that need identifying. Any ideas? Optimist on the run (talk) 12:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The wartime one looks to me like the Cab Road at Waterloo. NtheP (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

here ? Edgepedia (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

That's what I thought. NtheP (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed you are all undoubtedly correct, I've also been looking at this image for a while and other users on external forums have also independently reached the same conclusion. The stonework and the roof (which can still be seen through the modern-day netting) are identical matches in both the original image and in the Google Street view image linked above. I have therefore updated the image description and geotagged it on Commons accordingly. Regards Rept0n1x (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I suspected this was Waterloo, but didn't want to lead people. Thanks for the confirmation.Optimist on the run (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course it is Waterloo. That's the way that you used to walk between Waterloo (Main Line) and Waterloo East stations. Nowadays, there's a bridge off the concourse ... but "when I were a lad" it were different! Bhtpbank (talk) 10:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

This one was on Annie Mole's Blog, but can anyone see where she's answered the question?

It's on the Central line (because of the rolling stock). The edge of the canopy matches that at Buckhurst Hill (See File:Interior of Buckhurst Hill station (Central Line) - geograph.org.uk - 1214620.jpg and South Woodford (See File:South Woodford stn north2.JPG). There may be others. Edgepedia (talk) 13:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

As there's currently some uncertainty as to the exact station, I have e-mailed Annie Mole directly. If she happens to get back to me then I will update the information on Commons accordingly. As far as I can see, I don't think the question was answered on the original quiz page on the blog. Regards Rept0n1x (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The canopy design could be any of the stations of the former Great Eastern Railway. You have to remember that this end of the Central Line was transferred to London Underground from the Great Eastern to free platform space at Liverpool Street. If memory serves me, it was also part and parcel of the program of electrification. Bhtpbank (talk) 10:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Looking at various pictures and comparing subtle clues such as the reflection of the station sign in the window and the trees in the background if it were down to just the two stations, I would say it is Buckhurst Hill. Simply south...... wearing fish for just 6 years 17:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Or Snaresbrook. Hmmm... Simply south...... wearing fish for just 6 years 18:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to say I didn't yet get any reply from Annie Mole. Although, like Simply south I also think it may be possible for us to settle this conclusively here instead, by looking at the minute details. Here's one reason why I think it might not be Buckhurst Hill though. I'm not sure of the exact terminology, but the horizontal "girder" that runs along the length of the platform, under the canopy looks like it consists of a sort of lattice of upside-down "V" patterns in this picture. Looking at other Buckhurst Hill pictures e.g. File:Buckhurst Hill stn look north2.JPG (showing both platforms), shows this girder as being solid, with purely vertical strengthening elements. (full resolution view needed) Now it may just be that one photo is showing a different end of the station than the other, but unless I saw a known photo of Buckhurst Hill with the same girder type as this unknown-location photo, I wouldn't be 100% convinced that it's Buckhurst Hill. I'm also investigating further. Cheers Rept0n1x (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I should also mention, I've yet to see the distinctive "V" lattice girders of the above photo in any photos of South Woodford or Snaresbrook. Whilst this by no means eliminates them, I would immediately favour a station for which any photo can be produced showing this type of "V" lattice girder under the canopy. Rept0n1x (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the Fairlop loop: File:Newbury Park eastbound.JPG shows these lattice girders and a dark roof, whereas File:Barkingside stn south.JPG, File:Fairlop south.JPG and File:Hainault station platform 2 look south.JPG have lighter roofs. However, the colour of a roof could change in a weekend.

I think these are all more likely candidates, due to the lattice-type girders. All we need now is some exactly-matching pic of one of these stations, showing something unique. Perhaps the arrangement of the tops of the five arched windows/doors and the nearby electrical box with the exact same wiring and/or the CCTV arrangement etc.. Even to see another pic with the orange cabling and "grid-cover" between the tracks would be good. I am continuing to search. Rept0n1x (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I still never found anything completely conclusive and I have to concede for the moment that it could likely be any of the four stations posted most recently above by Edgepedia. However my current favourite of the minute is Barkingside. Simply because of this photo [4] It's got the correct canopy and the correct girders. Also, it's the only one I've seen so far with the five rounded window/door tops in a row in conjunction with the slight but barely noticeable white staining on the brickwork. But crucially it's got the same CCTV set-up with as far as I can tell exactly the same camera pole and wire arrangement. The paint job on the ironwork does not match, but it's pretty irrelevant as the photos are three years apart. I am by no means convinced yet that this is the one, but it strikes me as possible. I have to leave it there for now, but in the meantime, happy hunting! Rept0n1x (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

On second thoughts, this doesn't match too well, due to the length of the brick wall. The wall ends to the right of the above photo, but it seems much longer in the Flickr picture. Also the first (leftmost) of the five brick arches in the Flickr pic is a door, but it's clearly a window in the above pic (you can see it through the train). Finally the camera poles do not look quite the same - ah well, back to the drawing board. :) Rept0n1x (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if we should like many other websites have a guess the station\location quiz as a side project :p Difficultly north (talk) 11:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It appears that the station is Newbury Park (eastbound platform). I finally found a "smoking gun" photo here:- [5] It's all there, the identically-shaped slight damage on the right-hand end of the leftmost girder (middle girder on our pic). The exact same wiring layout and alarm boxes on the wall. Identical arches (well the rightmost three of them anyway) with identical window panes. Also the dark roof as previously mentioned by Edgepedia & finally the grid cover and orange conduit between the rails. There is no doubt. Suffice it to say, I (like Edgepedia before me) had already narrowed the field down to just four possible stations with 99.9% percent confidence. I pretty much knew it had to be either Newbury Park, Fairlop, Hainault or Barkingside. All other stations on the Central Line east of Liverpool Street, apart from those four can generally speaking be easily eliminated, and indeed I systematically had done this. We were slightly unlucky in that none of the photos on Commons or Flickr show the exact part of the Newbury Park eastbound platform that we needed to see. On a second round of eliminations, I had managed to eliminate Barkingside (as described above). Fairlop's felt segments are too long. Hainault did not appear to have the correct door/window arch configuration. So by elimination alone, I'd come to the independent conclusion that it was very likely to be Newbury Park before seeing the above matching photo, and I then concentrated on finding any further photos of Newbury Park. Of course, seeing that above picture now pretty much confirms it. Thanks very much also to Edgepedia for the excellent detective work! I will update the description and categories on Commons shortly. Regards, Rept0n1x (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

That seems spot on - well done for identifying this. Some excellent detective work :-) An optimist on the run! 23:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Valley Lines

Template:Valley Lines 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) 19:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite of Template:Infobox Manchester Metrolink station, plus new features

Please comment at Template talk:Infobox Manchester Metrolink station#Rewrite, plus new features. Thanks. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

What defines a Valley Line?

Would anyone like to comment whether the Maesteg and Ebbw Vale Lines should be included in Template:Cardiff, Newport and the Valleys railway stations? Please see Template talk:Cardiff, Newport and the Valleys railway stations#Sources for Valley Lines. Simply south...... walking into bells for just 6 years 14:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Linking to railway station

Should we link to railway station via the redirect (i.e. [[railway station]]) or to railway station, bypassing the redirect (i.e. [[train station|railway station]]); or should we simply not bother linking it per WP:OVERLINK? Other relevant guidelines are Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking)#Redirects and WP:NOTBROKEN. There's a slow-burn edit war going on over this on several pages; I'm fed up with it so I've put a full prot on Sheffield station, which has attracted one of the highest number of recent edits over this small matter. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

From my experience, convention of the past seven years, the MoS and the other boat loads of styles, railway station should be linked thus: [[railway station]]. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 21:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not limited to the UK. User:SnrRailways appears to be on a mission to eradicate "train station" from usage on most articles in Wikipedia. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

As I see it either [[railway station]] or [[Train station|railway station]]) are equally acceptable. The small extra amount of text in "Train station|railway station" compared to just "railway station" is not going to cause confusion when in edit mode. What we do not need is an editor running about all over the English speaking wiki world pointlessly changing links just for the sake of it and based on some obsessive linguistic preference. That is just disruptive. When misleading edit summaries or pointless bits of copy editing are used to cover the removal of the horrifically offensive T word it looks manipulative. Out of respect for the original authors just leave working links as they are.--Charles (talk) 23:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

In general, [[railway station]] is preferable, if it has to be linked at all, for reasons given at WP:NOTBROKEN. An optimist on the run! 06:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Both are acceptable, but the point of redirects is to enable alternative wording to point to the same article. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Train station being an Americanism, railway station should be used on all UK articles, redirect or no redirect. Lamberhurst (talk) 08:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

'Depends upon local English, I'd suggest. In this case, Sheffield being in the place that brought both the railways and English to the world, it seems clear enough that it should be railway station. That isn't a double redirect, so it too is 'not broken' and shouldn't create a problem. However, I'm not on a mission with this and would also suggest that getting into edit-wars over one isolated article is unlikely to be the best use of oxygen. Although I don't really believe it's overlinking at present, in this case perhaps it may be wisest to just have no link at all; there are plenty of other wikilinks nearby which will enable any readers to get more information on what a railway station, or railroad station, is. SnrRailways (talk) 10:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The question is not about "train station" per se; it's long been agreed that the visible text for UK articles should be "railway station". The question is about the immediate link target: whether to go through a redirect or not. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTBROKEN there is no need to replace [[train station|railway station]] with [[railway station]]. I am very concerned that User:SnrRailways is continuing to make such changes after this discussion was started [6], and at a high rate without bot approval. Edgepedia (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Left a message on the talk page [7]. Edgepedia (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Seem to be a lot of articles stating "X railway station is a [[railway station]] serving X". Perhaps these articles don't need explanatory links at all. Ning-ning (talk) 10:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Yep, 'think we're in danger of perceiving an issue where there doesn't need to be one. Neither approach to linking is a 'problem', according to this consensus, so there's little point in a dispute. Again, we can probably safely just remove the link from this particular article, which seems to be the only one seriously contested, and move on. SnrRailways (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Compare the editing habits and writing styles of User:SnrRailways with those of User:Wedensambo. Same one-man mission to eradicate the words "train station" from all of wikipedia. Same smarmy non-answers in response to other editors' comments. Need I say more? Wink wink. 62.173.130.14 (talk) 14:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

That is just an assumption of bad faith. And an inference of sock-puppetry from an anomymous IP? 'Nice irony! No additional comment required.SnrRailways (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

62.173.130.14: if you have reasonable grounds to believe sockpuppety is the case, then take it to WP:SPI. In the meantime, it's unhelpful and unkind to insinuate such things without hard backing; see WP:CIVIL. Thank you. —Sladen (talk) 17:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing inherently wrong with editing as an IP. Sockpuppet or not the mass changing of links in Japanese articles by User:Wedensambo would seem to need approval. I am not sure what version of English is used in Japan but it looks likely to be US style.--Charles (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

As mass changing of links has resumed while this discussion is ongoing I have made a report at ANI.--Charles (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Leadership at UK Railways

Who are the leaders of this Project and to whom are they held accountable??

The lack of progress at British Rail and especially on the former Chairmen is a clear sign of poor leadership.

I ask that those in charge of this project explain themselves to the project so that they can be held accountable!! "Wikipedia" is not going to become a serious encyclopedia for those seeking knowledge if we do not get organized and have leadership.

I have already seen un-necessary defensive behaviour from a senior editor, and demand better from this group.Bhtpbank (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a senior editor in this project and I have no idea why he thinks that I am. I reverted his original post (check the history) because it was unaccountably offensive and degrading. This is mildly less so, but whatever. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Bhtpbank, and welcome to Wikipedia. As you're new here, it's hardly surprising that the emergent behaviours of this project are confusing and far from obvious.

There is no "leadership". There are no "senior editors". The most we have are "vested editors", who get to be allowed to swear at other editors (and I guess they get to wear some sort of vest). You're welcome to try and strip editors of their job titles, or to withhold salaries, but as we have neither, this isn't usually effective. Still, it works about as well as shouting at us does.

What there is instead is a self-organising anarchy, and some project efforts to make current progress visible. Not to direct effort, merely to make current achievements a little more obvious. From there on it's up to individuals. If one individual cares about fishplates, then fishplates get written about. If no-one has yet cared to write a biography of one or more of the Fat Controllers, then there won't be such a biography. Clearly you're interested in Sir Robert Reid, so there's a slot waiting for you at Robert Reid (railwayman). Major newspaper obituaries should be easily citable, so that's a stub article started in only a few minutes. You can work on developing it at leisure. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The original complaint seems to be that there is no article on Sir Bob Reid nor any list of BR Chairmen. Fair point. Perhaps there's a case to be made that this project should be more focused in the sense of prioritising tasks. One other point: I don't find Bhtpbank's original post to have been offensive and I don't think it warranted deletion as per WP:TALKO. Lamberhurst (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The closest we have is Category:British Rail people, which is a rather eclectic mix, to say the least. It gives some hint as to how patchy the engagement and interest in biographies. Personally I don't bother writing anything here if it's already well-covered by traditional sources, such as broadsheets. I only do obscure stuff.

As to deletion, then I wouldn't have deleted it, but I wouldn't have written that either. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Railway station articles: lists of bus routes

Please see discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport#Railway station articles: lists of bus routes. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Route boxes on station articles: contrast problem

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Route boxes on station articles: contrast problem. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Scottish passenger numbers

I've been gently updating UK station articles with passenger numbers when I have spare moments over recent months. I've noticed, virtually every time I've updated a Scottish station, that the passenger figures we have for the 2008-09 "transport year" seem to be inflated, and do not correspond with the ORR figures, which are the source for all UK passenger numbers. Does anyone know why this should be so? As far as I can see, this only happens with Scottish stations, not with those in England and Wales. Johnlp (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Earlier usage documents had figures sometimes adjusted throughout the year so sometimes the figures were different depending on what time of year you looked at it, although this did not just apply to Scottish stations. Then again, something could have gone wrong with AdambroBot which I will check discussions later. Simply south...... walking into bells for just 6 years 19:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Unknown LMS railcar

Apparently an experimental railcar was used on the Coventry to Leamington Line for a while in the mid-late 1930s, it is photographed here and there's more photographs here if you scroll down. I couldn't find any mention of it on the LMS railcars article, so I wondered if anyone here knew anything about it. G-13114 (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is going to be that much - that first article shows they were in service for about a year, and has a useful amount of information. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Railway companies occasionally allowed private enterprise to try out a new product on the railway, this allowed the manufacturer to demonstrate the product with a view to securing orders, and allowed the railway to evaluate the product without committing themselves. This was one such case - it was a joint project of Michelin, the LMS and Armstrong Siddeley. There is some information on these two railcars in

Richards, E.V. (1996). LMS Diesel Locomotives and Railcars. Locomotives of the LMS. Long Stratton: RCTS. pp. 195–9. ISBN 0-901115-76-2.

They entered service in September 1936 and seem to have been withdrawn in 1937. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Where am I today?

Here's another image that needs to be properly categorised in the Commons. My guess is its somewhere on the northern half of the WCML. There's a VT stop sign on the lamp post; what looks like a panel signal box on the right; and a distinctive building peaking out behind the Class 90. Geof Sheppard (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the eastern end of Edinburgh Waverley, with St Andrew's House visible on the left. See these views of the area [8][9] (with a Class 90 in about the same place). --Vclaw (talk) 18:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I concur. In the background you can see the edge of the portal of Calton Tunnel. Also visible is Regent Terrace. Bhtpbank (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Braintree line photos

Just a request, would anyone with modern photos of the Braintree line please upload them? Commons only has one that was taken in past 10 years and is over 2MP. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

There might be something here? G-13114 (talk) 12:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

USAmerican psuado history and bias

Again we have USAmericans altering factual information and replacing it with the fake history that USAmericans are taught in the article History of the London Underground we have the fake clain that the Atlantic Avenue Tunnel in New York City, opened in 1844 is somehow relevent to the underground railway and it is somehow the first it is not in reaql history or to people educated outside the USA the Wapping Tunnel in reality proceded it, how can we educate the USAmerican of real facts and prevent them from altering real facts and inserting their agena on this "encyclopedia" of course I am aware the encyclopedias in the USa probably do cotain lies such as this but wikipedia needs to contain real facts not agtendas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.163.45 (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)