Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Compass Tours

I have nominated this article for deletion. Please refer to the articles talk page for details. Olana North (talk) 09:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Usage stats update

05/06 usage update

I've just finished the London articles. So, by my reckoning, we have:

  • Wales, South West, South East, and London regions completed.
  • East Midlands, East of England, North East, North West, Scotland, West Midlands, and Yorks & Humber still to be checked.

Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Would a list of articles including the UK station infobox missing the latest usage figures be useful? Adambro (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it would save checking articles that already have the figures. Something makes me think you know about category intersection jiggery-pokery or similar. (Venn diagrams drift into my mind...) Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Would a bot solve this menial task? Simply south (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
It would, if a bot could do it. While competent at programming, I know nothing about Wikipedia's bots and operation (yet). Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't hold your breath for that. There was a discussion recently (now archived) about the use of a bot to give a basic assessment (importance=low) of unassessed articles, and nothing has happened. Olana North (talk) 07:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The discussion was about adding a UK assessment where there was an WPT assessment, but UK assessment. There was a strong argument from someone that a bot might do it wrongly and that no assessment was better than a wrong assessment; and there were doubts expressed that a bot was capable of doing it. Overall, there did not appear to be any enthusiasm about doing anything in this area by bot.Pyrotec (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Precisely my point. Are you expecting more enthusiasm for a bot to do the infoboxes?? Olana North (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anyone was suggesting that a bot carry out the updates to the infoboxes, rather just produce a list of articles for which the "usage0506=" parameter in the infobox is blank. Then a human can go through the list and update the figures manually. (This is clearly different from having a bot do assessments, as that is definitely not a mechanical task.) This is just the sort of thing bots are for. --RFBailey (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I've left a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 23:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Just occurred to me - an alternative might be to adjust the {{Infobox UK station}} template temporarily so that any station with a blank usage0506 parameter is automatically categorised into (say) Category:UK stations without latest usage statistics. This would be a hidden category, which could be deleted when the work is complete. I'm busy over the weekend, but if people want me to go ahead with this, and there's no luck with the bot request, I can have a look at it next week. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 23:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've modded the template to populate said category when the latest numbers (06-07) are missing. Mackensen (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I see you changed the {{Infobox UK station}} for usage0607. Will the cat disappear if lowusage0607 was added? thie same should also apply to the other infoboxes with theses parameters. Simply south (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
That could be done--what's the difference between the two? Mackensen (talk) 16:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Lowusage is for stations whose usages do not run into over 100,000. Simply south (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've inserted new code which should add the category only if both are blank. It'll take some time to propagate. Mackensen (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll apply the same to {{Infobox London station}} Simply south (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
An unfortunate side-effect in London is that all DLR and most LU stations also now have the hidden category and so are classed under this, i am meaning those which do not interchange with National Rail. Simply south (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, two possible outs: (1) there are ridership numbers available or (2) there's a way to distinguish non-National Rail stations internally. Given the mixed nature of the system I don't think #2 is practical. Are there data available for the Underground and DLR? Mackensen (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Stations on heritage lines, such as Tywyn Wharf, are also affected. I'd envisaged cut-and pasting the articles from the category to make a list, or maybe someone who knows more about the database can extract it another way. Either way, I think the category should only be temporary, and the template can then be reverted back. Stations which aren't applicable can be removed from the list manually. — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo (talk) 07:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

If anyone's interested, this could be extended further to a create another category, Category:UK stations without any usage statistics. Mackensen (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

06/07 on 06/08

What i have just found out is now all the stations need to be updated again as the 2006-2007 stats have just been released. See here (thanks to DrFrench and Pencefn for the link). Simply south (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't that kindof make you think there might be a better way of doing this? (eg an ext. link?) -- EdJogg (talk) 01:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
See above this.

I would just like to point out to take these new usage figure with a pinch of salt around London. The reason for the sudden changes at stations is due to the ORR's new methodology taking into account travelcards and other tickets, of which they did not in the previous years so it is likely the usage in the previous years is higher or different to what the current documents show. Also, they have been separating out group stations. Please look at the 2006-2007 station usage report. Simply south (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject_Trains#Changes_to_the_assessment_scheme_proposed

As advised on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains page, there appears to be an energing consensus about a new C-Class of article, see here [1].

I note that the main WikiProject Trains page has already amended their assessment page, so I was wondering when the UK page was going to be updated and new guidance issued on the classification of articles. Olana North (talk) 07:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrexham & Shropshire Route

I have nomintated this article for deletion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrexham & Shropshire Route and the discussion at Talk:Wrexham & Shropshire. Adambro (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

List of heritage stations

To solve a problem that was discussed ages ago (at one of the talk pages of the UK railway stations), i have created a page to list heritage railway stations in the UK if anyone is interested (although no stations added as of this message yet). If anyone is interested please add. Simply south (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You need a definition of "Heritage railway station" now, before people start adding to it; is it all stations on preserved lines? (If so, would that include, for example, the new station at Holt?) Or is it all stations preserving most of their historic features, like Battersea Park - if so there needs to be a clear cut-off unless it's to end up with every Victorian building. Otherwise, it will end up as an indiscriminate list and deleted as soon as one of the deletionists stumbles across it. – iridescent 15:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I linked it to the heritage railway article in the lead, i suppose the name could change for something better but i can't think what at the moment. It is for all railway stations currently served by heritage railways, including some joint stations (e.g. Okehamption, Whitby, Smallbrook Junction). In answer, those on preserved railways. Hopefully it will not be an indisciminate list when i move it into main. Simply south (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks good, but its crying out to have the table headers and each entry as templates. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean exactly? It is as a few tables although it could be spruced up instead of being grey. Simply south (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I've done a quick demo by creating User:Simply south/List of heritage railway stations in the United Kingdom/tabletop. I'll look at an individual entry template later —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, that saves a lot, i will apply to the rest. I wonder now what are appropriate columns, what are not and what can be added but i suppose that can be sorted later. I wonder if each row should be coloured according to the company or would this be wrong? Simply south (talk) 17:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Regarding coloring, I think there are too many heritage railways for this to work. There are several hundred heritage railways, so there would be so many shades, it would be hard to distinguish them. Best, Gwernol 18:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) Ok, I've knocked up an entry template, and used it for Bridgnorth. The advantage of using these is that it'll make it a lot easier for adding or removing columns. I've fixed the coordinates to use the {{coord}} template. A few comments and suggestions:

  • I don't see the need for the postcode column - I don't think it'll give anything that can't be gained from the coordinates
  • I'm not convinced that arrivals/departures are necessary either - the few interchange stations that are on this list will almost certainly have there own article which can be used for this.
  • Individual years for opening and closing should not be wikilinked unless part of a full date.

 —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 19:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Joint stations

On the suggestions, 1st one your probably right so this will be got rid of (unless its already been done so). 2nd one, there are other joint stations, not just the ones currently in the list e.g. Grosmont and Ravenglass, but then again... 3rd will possibly sort out later. Maybe another column should be added showing whether it is a joint station (simple yes or no). Simply south (talk) 20:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Alton railway station, Paignton railway station come to mind, along with the stations along the Vale of Glamorgan Railway, and shortly Matlock railway station. —Sladen (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Bodmin Parkway railway station, Blaenau Ffestiniog railway station and Aviemore railway station also come to my mind. --Stewart (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to add them. Should i move the list to the main area now? Simply south (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Just trying to fix a bug which is causing it to call the coord template incorrectly. Can you put it off for a bit? —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 22:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Fixed - move when you're ready. I suggest moving the templates first, so that you can rename them in the article before you move it. {{lhrs-top}} and {{lhrs-entry}} might be suitable template names. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 22:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
If you're wondering why Northwood had ?,? for the coords, i am having trouble finding it so the question marks were put in on purpose until i can (or someone else can) find the coordinates. Simply south (talk) 09:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Resetting the indent.

Is it this Northwood Station you are after?? ColourSarge (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry clearly not the one above, but I think I have located it here. This location is adjacent to Northwood Lane, just north of a level crossing (as described in the station article) and if you look on the aerial photograph, it clearly shows not only the white edging to the platform (seen in the photo on the article) but also a steam locomotive passing through the station. ColourSarge (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Not the London Underground station. I was referring to Northwood Halt on the Severn Valley Railway. I know it is located somewhere in the Wyre Forest. Simply south (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

High Speed 1

The new High Speed 1 line, ive looked at the article however there seems to be no sources that actually highlight which stations this line will be calling at. Isn`t this a bit premature to be stating a station such as Herne Bay railway station will be part of this line or indeed trains actually stopping there.

herne bay service box, highlighting a non-sourced information

Preceding station National Rail National Rail Following station
Chestfield & Swalecliffe   Southeastern
Chatham Main Line - Ramsgate Branch 		  Birchington-on-Sea
Whitstable   Southeastern
High Speed 1
London-Broadstairs
(not yet operational) 		  Birchington-on-Sea

Your comments would be welcome please --Rockybiggs (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It's probably based on the the fact that the CTRL Domestic Stock trains (called the "Javelin") will be stopping at this station. Clearly, a place such as Herne Bay is not part of High Speed 1, but will be served by trains that use it. Olana North (talk) 11:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Books section

I'm certainly not going to unilaterally remove it if people find it useful, given that it's not doing any harm, but is the Books section really such a wise idea? There are literally thousands of reference books on railways (enough to keep an entire chain of shops in business selling nothing but), and there isn't really a "canonical" book or series, since the books are all so specialised. (The Capital Transport publications DavidCane and I rely on for south-east commuter lines are irrelevant to Ansbaradigeidfran and his Welsh articles, for instance.) It might be more use to have a "resources" section with external links to Middleton Press, Connor & Butler, Ian Allan etc with brief descriptions of what each deals with, rather than try to keep a publications list in order. Just a thought. – iridescent 13:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Fleet sizes etc.

UK rail articles are constantly under threat from the creep of unreferenced information. In particular I am concerned about details of the number of Class X trains which X TOC has etc. I've yet to see a reliable source cited for any of these values. I think we need to seriously think about removing all such information unless reliable sources can be found. I am currently not sure that this is possible, I suspect most of this information will be based upon unreliable sources such as train spotting blogs, forums or similar websites. Is there a reliable source for the number of Mk 3 coaches which National Express East Coast has in its fleet for example? Adambro (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It will presumably be in the annual reports of the ROSCOs and the stock leasing companies if someone really feels the urge to go look for it. I do not propose to do this myself. – iridescent 18:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Where do the number of types of trains per company come from? Then again, it may list these on their website. Simply south (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The books from Platform 5 are a reliable source, but like the usage stats, should only be updated annually, or when a new TOC is created etc. Other than that the European Railway Server maintains fleet lists to a good degree of accuracy. Olana North (talk) 19:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I've made efforts to track down sources for most of this information and remain unconvinced that reliable sources can be found for much of it and in the absence of a citation for these values I feel it appropriate to remove the information. I will however look at each case individually. For example, the number of Class 185s which FTPE operate is likely to be mentioned in a press release somewhere but the number of Mk3 coaches that NXEC operate is not. I don't believe that the leasing companies will make this information available since this changes frequently. European Railway Server doesn't appear to be particularly reliable. Adambro (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The constant "updates" that we're bombarded with are indeed a problem. The Platform 5 books are probably the best source, so an annual update sounds sensible. Trouble is, the plethora of usually-anonymous editors who make these tedious updates (anyone else remember the stupid edit war over the Hull Trains Class 86?) will probably not be convinced. --RFBailey (talk) 09:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Naming convention - halts

When it comes to naming an article concerning a halt, which standard formula is to be preferred: (1) x Halt railway station; (2) x Halt; (3) x railway Halt; or (4) none of the above. I had always thought it was (1), but am finding (3) on the basis that (1) is "tautologous" (see for example Bingham Road railway halt). I would imagine that it's probably best to have a standard approach? If so, how to proceed? Lamberhurst (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Or (3.5) "x railway halt". — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I have used (1). There is also the issue of the various templates that assume "railway station" suceeds the name of the station (halt). At present there are only a few exceptions. --Stewart (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Which templates please? I claim to have created a precedent in 2005 with Spencer Road railway halt (albeit just a redirect). In each case the railway company did not think that two platforms warranted the name "station" so they just called it an "halt". Halt however is a verb to most people so we add the word railway as an hint that this is a slightly unusual usage of the word. I have no objection to (2) "x Halt" but please not both "halt" and "station" in the title. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Could not find it last night (as it is not one I use) - but have done now, although it is not the one I had in mind. - Template:Stnlnk. --Stewart (talk) 08:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I am quite happy with "x Halt railway station" provided the station has "Halt" in its name – it certainly should not have "railway station" inserted in the middle. If Spencer Road Halt was its name, then Wiki conventions suggest that Spencer Road Halt railway station is correct, after all a halt, in railway parlance, is a small railway station. Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreeing with Geof: where "Halt" is part of the station name it should be capitalised and there is then no problem about Black Dog Halt railway station, for example. If it is not part of the name, I would suggest it is omitted in the same way that you would not refer to "Paddington terminus railway station"; equally Clapham Junction railway station is correct, but "Reading junction railway station" is not.
As 'halt' may be used to describe the type of station it would be reasonably used within a redirect but omitted from an article title.
The examples used (eg Bingham Road railway halt) highlight the need to check for consistency throughout WP. How many of these halts should be referred to as "xx Halt" because that is part of its proper name? If there is a need to identify a station as a 'halt' rather than a 'Halt', perhaps "xxx railway station (halt)" (with or without brackets) could be used as the article title.
EdJogg (talk) 07:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Anglesey Central Railway

Despite in my opinion being one of the best disused-railway articles we have – and the fact that it's been edited by some of WP's highest-profile editors, including the deputy director of WP:FAC and a number of the GA/FA regulars – someone seems to have taken a dislike to Anglesey Central Railway and is proposing it be delisted at WP:GAR. Personally I am totally baffled by this – I think it's coming close to FA status, let alone GA – but as the one who originally carried out the GA assessment, I might be biased in this. If anyone else has the time can they take a look and see if they can spot anything wrong with it? – iridescent 17:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The editor is not proposing it be delisted, he's merely raised a concern that the lede is too short for a Good Article. I have to say, I agree. The lede on the article is too short. It isn't a summary of the important aspects of the article's topic, per WP:LEDE. It would be relatively easy to expand the lede to 2-3 paragraphs that encompass the major points of the railway's history from the article. Why not just go ahead and do that? It would satisfy Dr. Cash, significantly improve the article, and improve its chances should you wish to propose the article at WP:FAC. It would certainly fail as an FA with the current lede, which would be a shame as the rest of the article is pretty good. Hope that helps, Gwernol 19:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Consistency in the naming of steam engine types.

I have observed that some articles on locomotive classes are labelled as follows SR N Class whereas others are SR Class V". One seems to be "Company Type Class" and the other "Company Class Type"Which is the preferred method, and if there is not one, then please can we agree on one in order to have consistency in naming. Olana North (talk) 19:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

My anecdotal experience is that the form: "Company Type Class" is the more common usage in British railway publications. I agree that consistency, Ralph Waldo Emerson not withstanding, is a good thing. A quick glance at the categories for the Big Four is interesting: Category:Great Western Railway locomotives and Category:London, Midland and Scottish Railway locomotives generally follow "Company Type Class", while Category:London and North Eastern Railway locomotives and Category:Southern Railway locomotives are more often "Company Class Type". Perhaps this reflects the naming conventions of the respective railways and we shouldn't strive for consistency across all UK locomotive articles? What do others think? Gwernol 20:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I would agree that the format varies with company and period. BR TOPS period would definitely be "Company Class Type" Talltim (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree that we should stick with whatever the different railway companys used when they were in existence. If this produces a mix, then so be it. Redirects can always be created for "Company / Type / Class" to "Company / Class / Type" and vice versa so either search term can be used. Mjroots (talk) 11:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Would it also be too much to ask that editors changing articles to "Class=C" alo add the "UK-importance=" to the article, and even better still assign it a rating. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Olana North (talk) 08:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Well I've changed many of them to Class C, and I ran the WP:1.0 bot last night to find that there were three Class C articles without UK-importance, I've since tracked down two of them and fixed that problem. But the count of Class C articles has gone up from 47 to 54. I've also done that for a number of other WikiProjects. You've obvious added the UK-importance on Taunton railway station and on Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine rail link which I overlooked. And the answer to your question is yes sometimes it is too much to ask; and sometimes it is not. Secondly, why the sarcastic message about C class articles, are you trying to make some point? Surely the comment about adding UK assessments applies to all class.Pyrotec (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
"Why the sarcastic message"? I am afraid that went over my head (of fine, soft, and rather lovely dark hair). Wot does "sarcastic" mean? Let me rephrase my comments, as I know that you think that you think you understand what I meant, but what you do not realsie is that what I said was not quite what I meant. If an editor is making a change to the class of an article, then checking that the article has a "UK-importance" tag would not take more than a few seconds, and adding it in if it were missing and adding an assessement would also not take more than a few seconds (less if you have "UK=yes|UK-importance=low" pre-pasted on the clipboard. I trust that this has clarified the issue. Olana North (talk) 19:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
WikiPedia seldom indicates the presence or absence of "fine, soft, and rather lovely dark hair", perhaps we need a template or a picture. In case of Taunton, it already had "UK-importance=", I just failed to spot it was blank. In the case of Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine I was doing WP Somerset, WP UK Waterways and WP Transport in Scotland assessments, I was probably not looking from a UK rail perspective, perhaps some of my hair got in my eyes. I'm not quite sure that I fully understand the "as I know that you think that you think you understand what I meant", but don't rephrase it for me, I'll do and do some UK assessments instead. Pyrotec (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Are we in a barbers\hairdressers here? I'll take a trim, front back and sides please. :p Simply south (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Rockwell Green, "City of Truro" & 100mph

Hi, Can I ask for some help? On Rockwell Green there is a long standing unsupported claim that it is the site of the first 100mph steam train. This appears to relate to GWR 3700 Class no. 3440 "City of Truro" & I've added a bit about this & how the claim is unverified but I can't find anything placing it in this village. Could any of you with railway history books help out with further details or references?— Rod talk 19:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added a citation to the most recent positive research that I am aware of. I wonder if the statement that "Rockwell Green is most famous for its railway bridge..." is tempting the WP:NPOV hardliners? I was unaware of the whole vilage until I was taken to see it by a local a couple of weeks ago, so I guess fame is relevant, but I do think the water tower is more interesting!Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - I've also toned down the POV "most famous".— Rod talk 11:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Usage statistics again

As was mentioned above in an earlier discussion, the method used for calculating usage statistics for 2006/07 has been changed from what was used in previous years (see [2]). It appears this is a change for the better, as the data is more accurate with regard to "group stations", although it still has limitations (especially regarding PTE-issued tickets/passes).

What we need to be careful of is presenting the two differently-obtained data types side-by-side without explanation. This has already been remarked upon here [3] [4] [5] regarding Liverpool Central; obviously usage hasn't jumped five-fold over the course of a year! How do people think this should be addressed? --RFBailey (talk) 11:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we could reflect this without making the whole infobox seem rather complicated. There is already a link to the ORR site and that directs people to the guidance notes.
I still think that it's wrong to contain two figures obtained by different means side-by-side without any sort of explanation, in instances such as this where the change in methodology has resulted in such a considerable change. If there is no room for an explanation (which there probably isn't), then it would be better, in my opinion, just to put the 2006-07 figure. --RFBailey (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
These group station changes do not explain this decline...
  2002-03 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
Lelant Saltings 17,001 18,281 23,774 653
Lelant 6,913 8,697 1,653 250
Carbis Bay 60,620 66,298 23,737 6,347
St Ives 213,397 220,300 171,281 117,131
As Lelant Saltings is a Park & Ride station with a train almost every half hour during the summer, this just doesn't seem right! Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd love to be able to offer a sensible explanation for this, but I can't. I expect it must be an error in their data collection somewhere. --RFBailey (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Reading the railway press, I believe that the way in which season tickets and passes are treated is one reason for the skewed information. Olana North (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Rail line

I have noticed that the template mentioned above can be very confusing as different articles have the preceding and following station looking at different directions of travel. Can we therefore agree on a standard direction for which these templates should be based on. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 10:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is going to be possible. What would the standard direction be? Traditionally it was "up from London" but this doesn't solve the problem. Let's say we have two lines, both originating in London. One goes to Luton, the other to Leighton Buzzard. So we can order line 1 as: London->Welwyn->Luton and line 2 as: London->Watford->Leighton Buzzard. Now we extend the railway system to connect Leighton Buzzard and Luton. What direction do we mark the two lines as? Is it London->Welwyn->Luton->Leighton Buzzard->Watford->London? Or is it London->Watford->Leighton Buzzard->Luton->Welwyn->London? What about the many railways that do not originate in London, what direction do they give? What about cross-London lines? There doesn't seem to be any single unifying and consistent direction that could be chosen. Best, Gwernol 13:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
That's precisely the problem. We should, however, check that single stretches of line are consistent with one particular direction, but it'll always be a problem at junctions. --RFBailey (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, I agree that a particular stretch of line between junctions should be internally consistent. It just can't be externally consistent because of the loop problem. Thanks for clarifying, Gwernol 15:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) This is something that has concerned me for some time. In my view there are three principles to aim for (but can't always be achieved)

  1. All lines through a station should go in the same direction -- you can't have one line going north-south and another going south-north.
  2. Adjacent stations on a line should go in the same direction
  3. Where possible put W/NW/SW on the left ant E/NE/SE on the right.

Do others agree these are all desirable? In practice I find that (2) is usually followed, but (1) is sometimes broken and (3) is often broken. (3) is probably less obvious -- some may want to use the established up/down convention for each line but I don't agree. The average Wikipedia reader, I suggest, doesn't care about "up" & "down", & doesn't even understand what they mean. Geography (E/W) makes more sense to me.

As has been pointed out above, it will be impossible to consistently apply the above principles (or any alternatives) at every single station. My suggestion is:

  • (1) must be applied at every station without exception
  • (2) should be applied along sections of track, but there will be some junctions where it will have to be broken
  • the direction of each section should be chosen to try to satisfy (3) at as many stations as possible (but there may be occasional exceptions)

Who agrees and who disagrees? --Dr Greg (talk) 12:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It is impossible to have all routes facing the same way if the station has some but not all services reversing. Bristol Temple Meads railway station, for instance, has services from Bath Spa to Lawrence Hill, from Lawrence Hill to Nailsea & Backwell, and from Bath Spa to Nailsea & Backwell. I do however agree that we should try to be consistent within each station's services.
If a route is linked in the middle column, as it usually is, then I have tried to keep each set of stations consistent with the route, so Bristol to Taunton Line stations have the station towards Bristol on the left, and those towards Taunton on the right. If it was called the "Taunton to Bristol Line" then they would appear the other way around. Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I thought that the template was for route, not service. This means that the fact that a service might reverse at a station is irrelevant for a route template. That doesn't alter the fact that some templates can get confusing with regards to direction. Talltim (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Reversals could be indicated like this:

Preceding station National Rail National Rail Following station
Bare Lane   Northern Rail
Morecambe Branch Line 		  Reversal
Heysham Port    

(although that might not look too good for a station with a large number of reversal services). Otherwise, reversals would have to be an exception. --Dr Greg (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we really need to indicate reversals--it sounds like overkill to me. Obviously, when you have complicated stations like Birmingham New Street or Bristol Temple Meads, there may well be more exceptions to the rules than not, but I don't think it should be a problem. I do think that keeping west-to-east going left-to-right is a sensible idea, where the line is on an east/west axis, though. --RFBailey (talk) 10:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It also occurred to me that a triangular station like Shipley would have to be an exception, too. --Dr Greg (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

A "reversal" template has just been put on the Bere Alston railway station page. The user does not appear to have signed up to this project so may be unaware of this discussion. I'm not going to revert it just yet as I don't think we have reached a concensus yet, but the use of two preceding stations and no next station soes look rather odd! Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
This looks really odd especially when considering with Calstock railway station as the direction has changed and the templates now fail to flow. My feeling is showing reversals here and Battersby Junction do not add to the articles. I feel that what has been done at stations such as Fort William railway station works. --Stewart (talk) 09:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Calstock railway station does now form an inconsistency. Sorry 'bout that. --Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 10:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
It looks like I might be in the minority here, but I still like the idea of showing reversals as it indicates the relative directions of services through the platforms, and it's the only way you could get my "principle 1" (above, 12:01, 15 July 2008) to work at stations with some services that reverse and others that don't. It depends on whether you interpret "next/previous" to refer to the services or to the tracks. Of course, if you do insert a reversal as I suggest, you also need to swap round other nearby stations for consistency. --Dr Greg (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Though I hadn't spared it a moment's thought previously (shame!) now that I see this I consider that reversal stations must be indicated in this way as, for all practical purposes, they are equivalent to terminus stations: in the same direction you can go to a number of routes. And I've never been happy with "next"/"previous" usage as it pre-supposes a line is operated in a particular direction or was built as such. Using the main compass points would be more useful imo. --AlisonW (talk) 08:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Preceding station   National Rail National Rail   Following station
Northern RailReverses direction

Incidentally, s-rail already does this. Mackensen (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If this is the the way we're going to go (reversing, that is) then I think we need to change the headers for this template so that we get rid of the "next" ... "previous" altogether. While we're at it, have we resolved the route/service/TOC dilema? That might need a fix too! We ought to look at this template from the point of view of a stranger to our rail system and try to understand (a) what they need. and (b) what they understand by the words and layout. Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The labels could be geographical, but they would vary station-by-station. E.g at one station they could be "Westbound"/"Eastbound" but at another they'd be "Northbound"/"Southbound", "Northwestbound/Southeastbound", etc, which would add an extra level of complexity. Or maybe just omit the labels altogether. Does, or could, s-rail cope with this, too? --Dr Greg (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Geographical labels sound like a good idea. 'Next' and 'previous' assumes that a traveller is going in a particular direction. Strictly, both stations are both 'next' and 'previous'; however, only one is the 'next westbound', or whatever. This is likely to be of more use, and would be more accurate.
Failing the use of n/s/e/w, could use eg "London-bound", "Bristol-bound", where this was more helpful. Angle bearings should be avoided if at all possible, for example, the Portsmouth Direct Line would use north/south indications rather than NE-SW).
Geographical labels would require more thought at major junctions. Guildford (Surrey) railway station would have both north/south and east/west routes, plus an additional (north-)east route (which terminates there). I realise that this may be used as an argument against having any labels at all... (although it must be clear what the tables are showing!)
EdJogg (talk) 14:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with using the 'up' and 'down' directions? Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing, maybe, provided it is clear where 'Up' and 'Down' go -- EdJogg (talk) 11:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. "Up" and "down" are terms that are meaningless outside of the railway industry, and are potentially confusing to the general reader, who we are supposed to be writing for. I don't think having points-of-the-compass labels is a particularly good idea either. --RFBailey (talk) 12:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I must be the only one that thinks that this topic is of little relevance in the larger pciture of what needs to be done in the project. It is an infobox ... get over it. Olana North (talk) 07:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
No, you're not alone: I wouldn't shed a tead if the whole lot were deleted. Usually I don't bother with these route box discussions. I was responding to what seemed a new slant. -- EdJogg (talk) 11:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I think this discussion has got rather bogged down in details, and is trying to come up with a general method of doing something for which no such method could ever exist. I'll just repeat something said a couple of weeks ago: We should, however, check that single stretches of line are consistent with one particular direction, but other than that, this seems to be needless fussing. --RFBailey (talk) 12:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
<RANT>I know that I don't really care about this issue, but when I see an article like Hoo Junction Staff Halt railway station, it makes my blood boil. There really is no need for these infoboxes when this is the use to which they are put. How about putting just 1% of the effort that gets used into the infoboxes into improving articles.</RANT> Olana North (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Yuck. I've tagged it for cleanup, as I wasn't sure where to start with it--it's such a mess. You're right--infoboxes/templates aren't meant as a substitute for a paragraph or two of prose, accurately describing the subject, which is what seems to be required here. And the title seems wrong, too. --RFBailey (talk) 02:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The Great West Main Line is very confusing regarding infoboxes. I'd like to change it so that the station to the Left is the one to the West, and right means East. Currently it's reversed due to the Up/Down info. It's extremely confusing - if nobody objects within a few days, I'm changing the lot - or at least as far as Reading. JameiLei (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There certainly sdeems to be more editing here than on a lot of stub pages within our project! I too sign up to the "...won't shed a tear..." school of thinking. West of Tiverton (and in many other areas) there are good navigation boxes that link between all the stations which are ordered by route and by geographic direction (Penzance on the left or Exeter on the right). Take a look at Plymouth railway station to see what I mean – they could have operators added without too much difficulty and then the Rail Line box could quietly disappear, and creating one for the Thames Valley would not be difficult. Of course people will then be saying "but we need standardisation between Devon/Dorset/Dakota/Dubai..."! (While you are at Plymouth, how about a little copyediting as I am trying to get this up to GA standard) Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Countries\Islands

Would it be a good idea to group the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands and possibly the Isles of Scilly as part of England when doing a template, or do them separately? I am now thinking of templates covering historical railways, just like {{Historical Scottish railway companies}} and now {{Historical Welsh railway companies}}. Simply south (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

What railway on the Isles of Scilly would that be then? <g> Mjroots (talk) 13:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Have you not heard of Scilly Rail then? :o) -- EdJogg (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, i got that wrong (grumble, grumble, grumble), but the rest needs to be considered. Simply south (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think many residents of these islands would be happy to be described as English - they're not even part of the UK (but see earlier discussion). You could have a separate template for Crown Dependencies, or label the English template as England and Crown Dependencies. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 20:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
So something like {{Historical railway companies in England and Crown Dependencies}} or even two separate templates with {{Historical English railway companies}} and {{Historical Crown Dependencies' railway companies}} (or similar)? Simply south (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to go for two separate templates, though {{Historical railway companies of Crown Dependencies}} might be less ambiguous, otherwise it tends to imply that it's the dependencies, not the companies, that are historical ;-) — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo (talk) 14:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Bluebell Railway

I've been working on this, converting lists to tables and addinhg photos. There seem to be two issues with the article though. A lack of references and a lot of opinion in the comments about various items of rolling stock. More photos would improve the article too. Mjroots (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the lack of references. Whilst it is currently rated as B class, under the new scheme its more of a C-class than a B-class; but with references it would possibly have a good chance at getting to GA-class. I'm not familiar with the line, but I should be able to have a go at some limited in-line citations on the "history" section.Pyrotec (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Preliminary Announcement: Wolfe's WikiWeek

Instead of a regular holiday this year, it's my plan to buy a 7-day All Line Rover ticket and travel around Great Britain by train. Why am I telling you this? Well, I'll be taking a digital camera with me and I intend to take as many photographs as possible that can be used on Wikipedia (mostly railway-related). I'm going to try and get what I can from Category:UK rail transport articles needing images, and I'm also inviting requests and suggestions.

-=# Amos E Wolfe talk #=- 19:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I have no specific requests other than that any pictures you intend to be used on Wikipedia are sharp, clear, bright, well framed, and have the subject matter as the main focus of the picture. In other words, please take your pictures carefully. There have been others that have assumed that they just because they have taken some pictures that this means automatic acceptance of them. Any pictures that are blurry, out of focus, poorly lit or simply irrelvant will not be accepted, and will almost certainly be reverted if added to any articles. Please take this as well-meant advice as I would not like to see your efforts wasted. Have a good week travelling. Olana North (talk) 07:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Going off at a tangent - this raises a good point. Are poor quality images better or worse than none at all? Personally I'd be inclined to keep a poor image (unless it's so bad that the context can't be determined), but if necessary keep the "image required" parameter as part of the project template on the talk page. Do you or anyone else know of any examples where bad images have been removed (rather than replaced)? — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we had an "incident" with User:Britishrailclass91 a little while ago. He took a lot of pictures one weekend, and then started to replace existing images on many articles. The problem was that they were in many cases of a lower quality than existing images. When the articles were reverted back to the original pictures, there was a lot of "dispute" and the 3RR rule was close to being violated. So, yes, I do have a basis on which to base the advice that I gave, as it would be preferable to avoid a repeat performanc of that with User:Britishrailclass91. Olana North (talk) 08:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that's not quite the same thing that Pek was alluding to--he's talking about low-quality images being added where none previously existed, rather that the above incident, where existing good-quality images were replaced with low-quality ones. I'm not aware of such a case off the top of my head (although I did once remove a map from the Merseyrail article which purported to show "the future of Merseyrail" [6][7]--the map was from 1885.....)
Anyway, good luck to Wolfe on his travels--hopefully we'll get some decent images we can use as a result! --RFBailey (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Island Line Trains

Moved from Talk:Island Line (train operating company).

This is going to sound like a pointless argument, but: shouldn't it be called Island Line Trains, not Island Line. The South West Trains-esque logo supports this, and it would avoid the tedious ambiguity between Island Line and Island Line. Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 22:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

As that's how it is now being branded [8], it would seem reasonable to move it, especially as it would help with disambiguating Island Line, Isle of Wight (about the actual line) and Island Line (train operating company). --RFBailey (talk) 03:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Island Line trains is part of the Stagecoach South West Trains Franchise which operates both South West Trains and Island Line services. I think that Island Line is closer to being a brand name than it is a franchise. Looking at the DfT website, the Island Line is shown on the same map as the South West franchise, so it is not a distinct and separate franchise, and I am not certain that is can be called a TOC either. This needs more research. Olana North (talk) 07:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Then calling it "Island Line Trains" would get around this quite easily--that way there is no need for any not-quite-accurate disambiguation. I'll go ahead and move it. --RFBailey (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
.....except that Kevin has already moved it [9]. --RFBailey (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles on Railway Junctions

There some articles relating to railway junctions. My question is what makes a junction notable. The article Hest Bank North Junction is an orphaned stub, and frankly is almost worthy of speedy delection. With the amount of junctions in the UK (both past and present), do we really need an article on each and every one of them! Olana North (talk) 07:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if there are any notable junctions, but this one certainly doesn't make it. It doesn't meet any criteria for speedy deletion, so I've PRODded it, as I don't think its controversial. — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo (talk) 08:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
There are only a few junctions which come to my mind as notable:-
  • Kinnaber Junction (its part in the Race to North)
  • Georgemas Junction (the most northerly in the UK - but this would be combined with the appropriate station article
Several in my local area are of note partly due to accidents that occured - Arkleston Junction, Shields Junction and Newton Junction. --Stewart (talk) 09:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Trent Junction and Clapham Junction are both covered, but again, as part of an associated (and/or closed) railway station (Trent railway station, Clapham Junction railway station). —Sladen (talk) 10:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I need to re-phrase my question. Are there any existing criteria for what makes a railway junction "notable" and therefore worthy of an article on WP?

I would suspect just the standard notability criteria: Significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I would interpret significant as meaning something more than just proof that it exists. — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Presumably, that is likely to mean that the junction in question is particularly large, strategically important, historically significant (e.g. the Grand Junction at Earlestown), or something significant happened there (e.g. a crash). If there is, as is the case with Trent Junction, already a related article covering the subject, then a redirect could be put in place. (However, if the junction is still there but the station isn't, maybe they should be named the other way round?) But clearly proof it exists does not demonstrate notability or justify the existence of an article. --RFBailey (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
On that note, I've created Trent Junction as a redirect to Trent railway station. (Reminds me of the alleged Nottingham schoolchildren's version of the Lord's Prayer: "...and lead us not into Trent station..." ;-) ) --RFBailey (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Sveeps Reviews

There is a discussion going on at the main Train Talk page [10] which people should be aware of as it affects the GA Rating of a number of UK articles. Olana North (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Railway station articles without photographs

As of 2008-08-06 there are 438 articles about railway stations that are part of the National Rail network and are missing a photograph. Here is the list: User:Edward/National Rail stations without a photograph. Edward (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Fictitious Liveries

I recently came across Image:Northernclass86.jpg, which was recently uploaded by User:Stethomson90. After a bit of googling (largely to stem my disbelief) I found it on a website entitled "Fictitious Liveries" [11]. Just to check I'm not completely mad, could someone confirm that it is indeed fictitious? Perhaps we should keep an eye out for this sort of thing--we have enough people uploading genuine pictures with dodgy copyright status as it is, without people uploading photos of trains that don't exist! --RFBailey (talk) 03:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Definitely fictitious (ther are several other variations of the same photo on the website with different liveries), and almost certainly a copyvio. I've deleted it. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 06:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
On a related subject, could someone have a look at the picture of a supposed Class 88 electric locomotive on List_of_British_Rail_modern_traction_locomotive_classes#AC_electric_locomotives. I don't know who added the item on this list, but the picture was uploaded by Hammersfan. I have never heard of a Class 88, and the ideas of converting a Class 58. Is this another fictictious locomotive?? Olana North (talk) 07:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Another copyvio [12], but as it's on Hammersfan's own website it's not our responsibility. I've removed the link to the picture. I've left the information in place, as there is an article about the proposed Class 88, but how accuarte this is I don't know. — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo (talk) 08:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh good, I wasn't going mad. Some of those fictitious liveries "photographs" are quite convincing, I must say. As for the Class 88, who knows? --RFBailey (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a very good website, and well worth a browse, but it proves that photographs alone can't be relied on to verify "facts". (For example, wasn't it a shame that the unique class 89 was cut up [13] ?!) —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 18:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, not again.....

I just found that someone has created the article Cardiff-Nottingham. This is a really rather similar article to one that was deleted last December, and after some discussions here we seemed to be generally not in favour of such articles (see this, this and this). Any suggestions? --RFBailey (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This should be deleted, whether it would be reasonable to speedily delete this or not I'm yet to decide. Adambro (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I nominated it for speedy deletion under WP:CSD G4 and in the time it took me to post a note on the author's talk page... the article was deleted. DrFrench (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
It might be worth removing the links on various station articles to the deleted article. This should remove some of the temptation to others to recreate the article. --Stewart (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
There's this one as well, also by the same author: Liverpool-Norwich. What should we do about that one, as CSD doesn't apply here?
The reason for him creating these is as part of an implementation of the {{s-rail}} templates on articles: I don't have a problem with this per se, but at the moment I'm trying to figure out how to remove the links from the articles! --RFBailey (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I've edited Template:National Rail lines/branches to remove the link to the deleted article, which will also have removed it from those articles. DrFrench (talk) 17:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for figuring that out--saved me head-scratching over it for a while. Regarding the Liverpool-Norwich article, I suggest it has a {{prod}} put on it, and the link is removed from the boxes in the same way. What do others think? --RFBailey (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, yes this was created for the s-rail templates. I think Liverpool-Norwich deserves its own article. It is a long route and must have some history to it? I suppose looked over wikipedia it does appear only "Lines" have pages and not routes. Year1989 (talk) 11:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the standard for the article titles?

I have noted that quite a lot of articles - for example Crewe to Manchester Line, Walsall to Wolverhampton Line, Stafford to Manchester Line, Nottingham to Grantham Line, Nottingham to Lincoln Line, Crewe to Derby Line - over the past few weeks are being renamed to meet the standard set by other articles. The associated text, route map templates, etc. have not been changed. However so many are being moved I wonder if this is a personal preference being expressed as it is resulting in a lot redirects and the text in the affected and linked articles not reflecting this change. All in all it is now looking very untidy. Any thoughts? --Stewart (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The same user, Year1989 (talk · contribs), as responsible for the articles discussed in the previous section, has taken it upon himself to move the articles Stewart mentions to titles such as Crewe-Derby Line. The reason given in the edit summaries each time has been "bring in line with other rail articles" (see log), although I'm not sure which ones he's referring to. It does seem like a personal preference being expressed here. Personally, I'm fairly apathetic about which is better, but perhaps we should agree on some sort of a standard. --RFBailey (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, whilst implementing s-rail I noticed that some articles had "to" and some articles had the "-". After a quick search I found that most articles (in the northern area) had the "-" so when I come across an article that has "to" I changed it to a dash. The dash does look better in the s-rail templates but it can be implemented so that the templates have a "-" but the articles still have "to". What do you think is best. Personally I think "-" looks better. A choice needs to be come to though as there are a lot of inconsistency on some rail related articles which i'm trying to iron out. Year1989 (talk) 11:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
We definitely need a policy. Look at the eastern/anglia region, a lot of their lines use the "-", but a lot of the Southern region ones use "to". Its clearly a bit haphazard, and I agree that we need consistency ... but is it really a major issue for the project?? Olana North (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, a policy is needed. As far as the name goes, one piece of pedantry: if we do go with a dash in the title, it should probably be an ndash, e.g. – rather than a hyphen e.g. -.
However, having looked at some of the articles, some of them are really a mess (e.g. Birmingham to Stratford Line), and we should also be careful about inventing names purely for the purpose of having an article about particular stretches of track. For instance, I'd be surprised if Rugby-Birmingham-Stafford Line is a name that is used by anyone other than Wikipedia. This is perhaps a more serious issue which needs fixing! --RFBailey (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Depending on whether you go left of right at Stechford, then its either the Stour Valley Route" or the "Grand Junction Route". Olana North (talk) 08:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I favour the ndash (hyphen); A-B strikes me as the railway that is between A and B, whereas A to B strikes me as the route from A to B (and not necessarily from B to A). It's subtle, but the ndash seems a bit "fairer". Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I second that, although I thought the 'ndash' and the hyphen were oh-so slightly different. Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 04:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
On a technicality, although en-dash is lexicographically correct, bear in mind that readers can access articles by typing the name in the search box. En-dash (–) is more difficult to type than hyphen (-); indeed many readers may not know the difference. So it would be easier to stick with hyphens, in article titles. On the other hand, you could use an en-dash, provided you also provide a hyphenated redirect. I don't see much point in renaming articles which already use a hyphen. And, to be honest, I see no urgency about renaming "X to Y" articles. Just something to consider whenever an article needs attention for other reasons, but if and when you do make a change, you ought to update the phrase "X to Y" throughout that article, at least. Of course if a line has an official name used by its operator, National Rail or its historical counterparts (or even a well-known but unofficial name), then that ought to be the article title. --Dr Greg (talk) 12:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sittingbourne and Kemsley Light Railway

An announcement was made today that the SKLR is to close at the end of the year. :-( Mjroots (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The ref's webpage suggets that they are putting up a fight, so it's best not to write them off just yet... EdJogg (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions of London termini

There's been a requested page move Talk:London King's Cross railway station#Requested move which raises an issue. There is an inconsistency amongst the names used on the articles of the various London termini. London King's Cross and London Waterloo, but Euston and Liverpool Street. Personally I think that all the major London termini should have London in the article title - but whatever the choice, I think a consistent approach is best. Any thoughts? DrFrench (talk) 09:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it should be London name station as opposed to name station (cf Manchester Piccadilly station, Glasgow Central station, etc.), but London Bridge station, not London London Bridge station! —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 09:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
The lack of consistency is appalling. Surely ALL railway stations should end in "railway station" so the names should be "London"+"station name"+"railway station" e.g. "London King's Corss railway station". On that basis, the requested move given above MUST be ospposed. Others would be "London Euston railway station" etc. Olana North (talk) 09:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
By general consensus, stations which are joint railway and tube stations do not have the railway suffix. The same applies to stations with trams - e.g. Sheffield station. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 10:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Good point. I was not aware of that consensus. Olana North (talk) 13:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, the articles should be named thusly, where x is the station name:
  • London x station - if London Underground station is included within the same article.
  • London x railway station - if London Underground station has a separate article, or no LU connection.
Would those be the correct naming conventions, perhaps? Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Does this have to revolve around the name of the whole article? Why not just leave the name, with each section on the station(s) having their corresponding names? Paddington station, for example, should just have London Paddington for the main national rail station and Paddington Underground for the tube, although with the H&C it makes things complicated. Simply south (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed guidelines

Although it's currently marked as inactive, I've been considering updating Wikipedia:Naming conventions (stations) for some time, and this seems like a good opportunity to discuss it. I've left my proposals for the guidelines on the talk page - any suggestions would be welcome. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 19:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

New coordinates available

User:The Anome/Railway station coordinates is a list of coordinates for all National Rail station articles that currently lack them, with the exception of the newly-opened Alloa railway station, for which I cannot find coordinates from any source, and Sutton (Surrey) railway station, which needs resolving, see above. The articles are listed by their current Wikipedia titles, after best-effort redirect following and disambiguation. -- The Anome (talk) 23:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

A Multimap search for its postcode based on its street address gives this approximate location.
This map of the route of the line suggests that the station is even more central within Alloa. According to this, "The new Alloa station is located at the old Alloa Brewery site in the centre of Alloa. [...] A new roundabout and access road have been completed and will provide pedestrian and vehicular access to the station and car park once the station is open. Drop off facilities and parking spaces for 50 vehicles will be available. [...] The adjacent ASDA superstore opened for business earlier this year."
A Google maps search for "Alloa Brewery" finds this location: 56°07′05″N 3°47′13″W / 56.118°N 3.787°W / 56.118; -3.787, which matches up with this: [14] Can someone who knows the area confirm the real location? -- The Anome (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
If I get the chance over the next week or so, this might be the prompt I need to travel on the line, having yet to experience it. --Stewart (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

User 83.67.55.217

This has made hundreds of edits to railway articles that should not have been done and were wrong. Also lots of historical railway service boxes have been deleted. See - Special:Contributions/83.67.55.217 What can we do? Can all edits be reversed at once to make it quicker to return articles to how they should be? Year1989 (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

After further checking some edits are ok. I will go through them and revert the ones that were unesessary. Year1989 (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I've also been through these, so hopefully that should be the end of this. --RFBailey (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

HI im the person who is making the edits my user name is Rail836755217 Rail836755217 (talk) 16:54,5 September 2008 (UTC)

All National Rail stations now geocoded

All currently-open National Rail stations should now have geocode tags. Please let me know if you find any errors. -- The Anome (talk) 00:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

British Rail Class 180

86.5.174.228 continues to remove sourced information about speculation that Arriva Trains Wales might have been going to get some 180s. Since they've not explained their reasons for doing so I have reverted this on a few occasions now and guess it would be helpful if others keep an eye on this article and this user's contributions in general. Adambro (talk) 09:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Mapping "official names" to Wikipedia articles

I've been going through the entire list of "official" National Rail station names, as given on the station list on their website, and mapped them to the corresponding Wikipedia articles. However, there are a few I'm still not sure about:

Can anyone help make the appropriate redirects, or create the appropriate articles? -- The Anome (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Coombe Halt - Almost certainly the same as Coombe Junction Halt
  • Dublin ports - There are no stations with these names as far as I'm aware. these are probably timetabling codes for Network Rail, for ferries from Holyhead. Stations in Dublin aren't run by NR.
  • Merryto(w)n - I'm not sure which is the typo.
  • Sutton used to be in Surrey, and is probably still referred to as such in some instances.
 —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 21:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Merryton

Merrytown according to ATOC, who presumably should know. – iridescent 22:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
But Merryton according to Ordnance Survey, who also ought to know. Hmmm. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 22:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
And Merryton according to Scotrail as well. Methinks we need someone in Larkhall to go take a photo of the sign. – iridescent 22:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
According to RAILSCOT and Jowett - {{Jowett-Atlas}} (page 24, J60) the junction on the site was Merryton. As there was no previous station on the site before the re-opening, it is unlikely to be listed in Butt - {{Butt-Stations}}. All the associated names around the station on the OS Map are also Merryton. Will try to get out there tomorrow to photograph the station signs. --Stewart (talk) 22:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
"Merryton" on the SPT network diagram (immediately to the right of the key box). If both the operator and the transport executive agree (and the BBC), I think that's enough. – iridescent 22:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Pictures to follow - Merryton is what the station sign says. --Stewart (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Pictures added that show the station name. --Stewart (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Nice work – that's going above-and-beyond! – iridescent 19:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Coombe Halt

"Coombe Halt" is here, according to the National Rail site: 50°26′42″N 4°28′55″W / 50.445°N 4.482°W / 50.445; -4.482, so that's resolved that one. -- The Anome (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This poor little station has had more names than passengers recently! The article shows a picture with the nameboard reading "Coombe Junction"; National Rail's timetable shows it as "Combe"; First Great Western calls it "Coombe Cornwall" on their website but "Coombe Junction Halt" its printed timetable. This last name was restored to it on 17 May 2008 according to this news release by the local rail partnership, which is why the article was renamed. A similar thing has happened to neighbouring St Keyne Wishing Well Halt railway station. Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Butt shows it as Coombe Junction at opening on 11 September 1879, and was renamed as Coombe (Cornwall) by British Railways (no date given). --Stewart (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
According to our Coombe Junction Halt railway station article and at least two of the references quoted, the station was opened in 1896. Butt is clearly incorrect as there was no junction here until 1901 and therefore, even if it had opened in 1879, would not have been called Coombe Junction! Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wooten Wawen

Another typo issue: Wooten Wawen railway station (from the National Rail site), vs. Wootton Wawen railway station (Wikipedia article title, and also Google maps): again, which is right? -- The Anome (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Wootton Wawen is the name of the village. I think the National Rail site is wrong on this one: if you look at the pictures on the "Rail around Birmingham" and "Warwickshire Railways" sites linked to from that article, that's the spelling that is used (although the Warwickshire Railways site spells it wrong in the captions, the photos themselves use the "ton" spelling. (I still have no idea how to pronounce "Wawen", and never have......) --RFBailey (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
This picture shows the actual station signage: the station is clearly called "Wootton Wawen", the same as the name of the village: the National Rail website name is clearly a transcription error. -- The Anome (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Mapping in JSON

I built a mapping a few months ago, I've just updated it for some recent moves. I've uploaded my data in JSON format to http://edwardbetts.com/stations.json Edward (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_12&oldid=1225339905"