Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 14

Naming of British rolling stock articles

I raised this originally on the "British Rail Class 377" talk page but another editor suggested raising it here as it is probably generic. To quote from my original posting:

Why does the title include "British Rail" (capital B, capital R) - when the Class 377 was ordered after the break-up of British Rail which was completed in 1997? I would agree that "Class 377" on its own as an article title could do with some qualification to associate it with British rolling stock, but naming it after a defunct organisation seems to lack rationale, other than backwards compatability with pre-privatisation rolling stock articles. -- Timberframe (talk) 12:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe the main reason is that new units are still being numbered under the old system. 'If it isn't broke, don't fix it', according to the saying. If another descriptor were decided upon, we'd then have to decide which pages get the new descriptor and which get the old one, a distinction that wouldn't please everyone and could just end up confusing editors and readers alike. There have been discussions on this before (can't find where in the archives, sorry), but we didn't get as far as deciding on a better descriptor for new stock, and personally I'm happy with the existing system. If however you have some specific ideas, I'd be eager to hear them. Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 10:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree the capital 'R' is dubious - nevertheless we are still using the 'British Rail' classification system. ie title="class 337 under classification system introduced by British Rail" - in that sense the article name is completely correct.

Also it makes things easy to find and classify (for those that are old enough to remember BR)

The alternative is "maker name"+"maker number/name" ie "Alstom Coradia" instead of "BR Class 180" - I'd be open to changing to a new method - Has this been discussed before?FengRail (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

A couple of editors have suggested this has been "talked to death" before - somewhere in the archives by now, so I'm happy to go with the flow. -- Timberframe (talk) 01:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

1955 Modernisation Plan (links required)

Today I noted that there was no apparent link to the BR Modernisation Plan of 1955. Further investigation showed that there actually was, and that it was mis-spelled. Hence I have created 1955 Modernisation Plan to replace it and link to the correct subsection of the correct BR history article (which covers the Plan).

A wiki-search results in about 1500 hits for 'Modernisation Plan', and although there are some that do not relate to the BR plan, the vast majority do. I have fixed the first 35 or so that came up in the search (out of the first 40 hits). Within this number I found articles linking to no-longer existing subsections of the British Rail article, and some linking directly to the new subsection (where the redirect now points). I would suggest that ALL linked references to the Modernisation Plan should use the redirect, since that will allow correct re-routing should someone decide to create a stand-alone article in the future.

Please note that, if we apply GA/FA article standards, all articles that mention the Modernisation Plan should link to the redirect (or the article), since the term would be unfamiliar to the majority of readers and hence require explanation. At least 20% of the articles I edited mentioned the Plan without linking anywhere.

I am not familiar with AWB to implement a mass change, and anyway, the current capitalisation is horribly inconsistent (it should be M~ P~).

Please keep an eye out when you are editing articles and fix any links that you find.

Thank you. EdJogg (talk) 13:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with the title. British Rail Modernisation Plan would IMHO be better. Not usre how many people would remember (or agree) with the association with 1955 (the year the report was published). Bhtpbank (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

As a standalone article, I agree that that would probably be a better title. The occurrences I replaced were a mixture of "modernisation plan", "1955 Modernisation plan", "1955 BR Modernisation Plan", "Modernisation Plan of 1955", etc, etc. I found an existing link 1955 Modernisation plan (used in two places), created a corrected version of that and ran with it. In due course the redirect could be further renamed, if appropriate. Initially the problems are: not linked at all, linked to wrong article, linked with inconsistent capitalisation. An added complication is that the report was actually published in December 1954, although practically all instances regard it as the 1955 Plan (as does the Railway Archive, which I checked against before setting off). To start with we need to locate where all the links should occur, and make sure they are there and correct.

EdJogg (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thunderbirds

Does anyone think that we need a new page for Thunderbird locomotives - there is a listing for it on Thunderbird - disambiguation but not page. thoughts? lordmwa (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No. (and definately not a list...)

If there is a better term for 'locomotive used to rescue failed train' I'd be interested to know what it is.

That said there is an article Banking engine - so maybe an article is justified - seek a second opinion - but please don't name it "thunderbird"...FengRail (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

"Thunderbird" is a recognised term -- check out the Glossary of UK railway terminology entry for a ref.

If there is enough (sourced) information to justify an article, then I don't have a problem with Thunderbird (locomotive) as an article title, but does it really need an article? I would suggest it starts as a subsection (of Banking engine is probably as good as any) and expands out as required.

EdJogg (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected... Actually I remember the 'proper' term - it's Rescue locomotive - it might be a good idea to check with N. Americans and other english speakers first (on the main wikiproject-trains talk page) - see what they call it.

Rescue locomotive should be a justifiable article. Apart from class 57/47/67 pages - where else could it be linked from? lots of potential links, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=rescue+locomotive&fulltext=SearchFengRail (talk) 01:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The first time I came across the term "Thunderbird" for a rescue loco was with reference to the Class 73s intended to rescue Eurostars (although on at least one occasion we towed a defective '73 back from Crewe to North Pole on the back of a 373!); the original SciFi Thunderbirds were operated by "International Rescue" and I assumed the term was coined in connection with the international nature of the Eurostar. -- Timberframe (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I've just looked at that reference again, which is a 2004 press release from Virgin Trains (http://www.virgintrainsmediaroom.com/index.cfm?articleid=585). Since the locomotives have all been given names from the TV series, there is no doubt about the term from Virgin's point of view, and it would have been natural for the name to become generic subsequently. The question is, was the term in use before this point...? (One for Balderdash and Piffle maybe?)

EdJogg (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The term was in use well before this 2004 release. It was common parlance on Eurostar commisioning runs on WCML, ECML and around Dollands Moor in the 1990s. I can't say whether the term was in use even earlier, but I'm sure others can. As for whether an article is needed / justified under that name, one point to consider is that the term appears in several locations, without explanation, within the pages of Wikipedia; an explanation is required for the unfamiliar reader and the easiest and most concise way to do this would be to link each occurrence to an article or at least a redirect page. There are also plenty of examples of its use in respected publications so WP:N and WP:V can be satisfied. -- Timberframe (talk) 10:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Slam Door

This phrase is mentioned on many relevant pages, but for someone that doesn't know what it means its a bit ambiguous. Do we need an article? Although the actual concept is simple (i.e. a hinged door!) it could also include the reasoning for getting rid of them and the regulations that covered their replacement. Unfortunately I don't know enough to create the article myself (but if no-one else volunteers am prepared to give it a go). Thoughts Talltim (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually i thought of previously starting an article on this but have been unsure whether to do so or how to write it. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_9#Colours_and_slam_door_trains. Simply south not SS, sorry 17:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

When you're working out where to put it, consider other 'carriage door technology', such as sliding and plug doors, window bars to protect silly punters' heads, and those leather straps used to lift/lower windows on old carriages! (etc, etc I am being serious.) Thinking wider, how about the move from wooden to steel to monocoque construction, gas to electric lighting, emergency facilities, provision of toilets/catering/seating, how all this came about as a result of accidents...

Just some thoughts for making up a 'complete article', although I'm not sure what you'd call it.

EdJogg (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The steady growth in size of windows over time, internal carriage doors, the effects of air-conditioning systems on the design of doors, injuries caused by alighting from moving trains, the rise and fall of the railway compartment, the Hackney murder and subsequent introduction of the Muller's Light (makes mental note to fill in those redlinks!), single-panel vs folding doors… – iridescent 21:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It should have train at the end as they were called that. It shouldn't just focus on the door. Simply south not SS, sorry 21:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Simply South, in the back of my mind was a redirect from 'slam door stock' (eg) to the appropriate section of this new article. As I said, I was being serious -- there are a huge number of related topics to do with carriage design and safety that could usefully be brought together.

EdJogg (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Should i start something on it and someone else help fill in the detail? Simply south not SS, sorry 23:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

An article on slam door stock would be useful. We in the UK know what is meant, but would a reader in the USA, Australia, China etc know? Mjroots (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose Railway carriages with manually operated hinged external doors would be the "correct" terminology. But that is a dreadful title. I do like Train doors (or Doors on trains) though. – iridescent 20:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with "EdJogg" above - if there is an article it should cover full range of doors - maybe as an addition to Passenger car (rail) and Coach (rail) I'd really want it to explain "plug doors" and "sliding doors" as wellFengRail (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

How about two articles here, one on slam door trains and another on train doors? I see these two proposals above. Simplysouthisthisabuffet?

I wouldn't recommend two articles - I'm not sure that one alone on 'slam doors' could be justified. If it's to be an article on train doors it might as well be expanded to other transporation types - eg bus, and aircraft doors?

How about a mention in Glossary_of_UK_railway_terminology (for plug doors too) - you could link thus Glossary_of_UK_railway_terminology#S. ?

Hint - make links to Slam Door or whatever - and create a redirect to Glossary_of_UK_railway_terminology#S at that page - then - if an article is created the links will already go to the right place..FengRail (talk) 23:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I've done that... Now you can link at will in articles from 'slam door'.

Anyone want to do the same for 'plug door' and explain at the same time what it means for me.?FengRail (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)]

A "plug door" is unhinged; it slides out like a sink plug, then across horizontally. You see them a lot on aircraft and on new build trains. The advantage is that they present a streamlined surface when closed as there are no protruding hinges or depression between sliding surfaces; the disadvantage is that there are more parts to go wrong.

A slam door is essentially a synonym for "hinged door"; outside the context of railways, I doubt there's enough to sustain an article. – iridescent 12:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but it could be a subsection of a more wide-ranging page.

I'm not convinced that the glossary definition of slam door (on UK glossary page) is adequate, either:

"Slam Door - refers to non-automated passenger carriage doors."

I thought that the doors on Mk 3 coaching stock (as used on HSTs) was 'non-automatic', but I didn't think such coaches were included when considering 'slam door stock' (which is, as I understand it, anything of Mk 1 vintage, including EMUs).

EdJogg (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I have found one news report on the final days of the slam door train, archived in Bnet. Simplysouthisthisabuffet? 16:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Mk 3 coaches have slam doors too, though you are right when that they are not specifically meant when the term 'slam door stock' is used - maybe someone who knows exactly which classes comprise 'slam door stock' could add that to the glossary

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Stroudley's Improved Engine Green

FYI, I have just created a redirect for Improved Engine Green, for use on Stroudley-era LB&SCR articles. EdJogg (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of such things, you've prompted me to create a category Category:Rail liveries, currently very bare. I'm thinking about making an article "Post 1945 European rail liveries" or something similar, I'd certainly appreciate any overview articles anyone else can write. I think the article British Rail corporate liveries is a fairly good example of this type of article, both in scope, and coverage.

(duplicate message left on main wikiproject trains talk page)FengRail (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

TOC Table extra info?

I saw some stuff from the ORR today and can we add the below seeing as there is data for it... Passenger journeys (million) Passenger kilometres (million) Timetabled train kilometres (million) Route kilometres operated Number of employees

If people agree i will edit the template and put it all in as i know where the info is lordmwa (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea - can you input the reference for this.

What do you mean by that? lordmwa (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The web reference, or publication reference - for the info - can you type it in?FengRail (talk) 21:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

the file with all the data in is here lordmwa (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, did the same site have data going back to the companies inceptions - I would be nice if the data could be colleted over their entire history.

The discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_rail#Addition_of_Corporate_Information_to_Template should be of interest to you if you are not already aware of it. Specifically I'd like to see a passenger-km subsection in the infobox - as this gives some indication of the size of the operations of the company. (which isn't always clear from geographical info alone.)

See First Capital Connect for a sample - i edited the info table and put the data in here so people can have a look. If anything needs changing i can do that before adding data for the other companies lordmwa (talk) 09:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If there are no views on this i will start updating the rest of them at the end of the week lordmwa (talk) 09:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Grand Northern and Grand Union

I have suggested a merger of Grand Northern Trains with Grand Union Railway. Please could you provide input at Talk:Grand Northern Trains. Simply south (talk) 00:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Station disambiguation

I notice that the three Whitchurch station articles, which cover stations in Cardiff, Shropshire and Hampshire, have been renamed from Whitchurch (Hampshire) railway station etc., to Whitchurch railway station (Hampshire). The editor quotes WP:DAB for the logic behind this move, but in this case I don't think it has been applied correctly. The stations are called "Whitchurch (Hampshire)" etc. in Network Rail's timetables (and presumably on tickets and signage too), and therefore the original article naming makes sense to me. Any thoughts? Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Whitchurch (Hampshire) definitely makes more sense. Disambiguation policy doesn't take precedence over the stations' common, real-world names. David Arthur (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:47, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

2007-2008 usage

This is now up, as of yesterday. See Rail Reg's usage page and click on the appropriate document. Simply south (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

All the stations with over 10 million usage are now complete lordmwa (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

All the stations with over 5 million usage are now complete and im finished for the night =P lordmwa (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

260 station photographs left to go

There are 260 National Rail stations left without a photograph. For a list see User:Edward/National Rail stations without a photograph. Edward (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You might want to ask at the relevant WikiProjects for the worst offending areas (looks like Kent and Glasgow). Even people with no interest in trains would probably be willing to take a photo next time they pass through. – iridescent 19:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Anglesey's done: I'd gone to take pictures last month but hadn't uploaded them yet. I've removed them from your list.Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I can try and help with this. DeMoN2009 17:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move (Newcastle Central railway station → Newcastle railway station)

There has been a request made to move and rename Newcastle Central railway station to Newcastle railway station. If anyone here would like to get involved, please see here for the discussion which led to the request and here for the requested move poll. There have previously been lengthy discussions regarding the name of the article; these can be seen here and here. Regards, Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Anglesey Central Railway

Some of you may be thinking "oh, it's him and that article again", but after some recent work on it I feel it may be ready for Featured Article status. Before I take that leap, a peer review would be greatly appreciated. Any and all suggestions/comments would be welcome.

Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit late but:

"but the 2008 business plan merely shows the route as non-operational" - shouldn't 'shows' - be 'showed' - also isn't the non-mention of anything in the business plan a non-notable infomation thing,..?

 Done - but I've kept the reference to the 2008 plan. I think the non-mention is notable when it was mentioned in the previous two plans. Ansbaradigeidfran (talk)

"...an interest in restoring services. Alternative proposals have been made by Sustrans to use the route ..." - shouldn't that be ", an alternative proposal has been made.."

Hm... I felt that they made different proposals over the ten years or so, as opposed to adapting one proposal. I'm not sure. Ansbaradigeidfran (talk)

I'd prefer an explanation of sustrans in the text eg "the sustainable charity 'Sustrans' .. " - also definately in quotes - ?

 Done - explained, but why should it be in quotes?

What the article really needs is older images, particularily images of the chemical plant trains, if they can be got.FengRail (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any free images to put in the article, but there are some at [1] I agree there's a lack of images from 1940-2000, but that's mainly because of the gulf between old public domain images and the arrival of digital cameras. Ansbaradigeidfran (talk)

"As part of the Beeching AxeBeeching plan

Beeching Axe links to the article on the subject, yet Beeching plan is a redlink.

Who is 'Captain Rich' ?

 Done My sources state/imply that he worked for the Board of Trade, but I haven't found anything about him as a person. I've made it explicit (in the first mention of him) that he surveyed the line for the board of trade, rather than suggesting the association. Ansbaradigeidfran (talk)

Comment - more often than not people from the 'royal corps of engineers' acted as advisors to the main engineer - since at the time they were the only people in the country who had experience building structures - I wondered if this person had the same background.

Other things I wanted to know:

What wagons/contents were transported for Octel

 Done (kicks self) Yes. A very glaring omission. Ansbaradigeidfran (talk)

What of the lines architecture - was it traditional north Wales style - if so what is that. How much was there. There are 7 stations (?) - briefly what facilites where at each station - was every station single sided, wood platforms or other?

Traditional north Wales style? I honestly couldn't say. Holland Arms, Llangwyllog and Rhosgoch stations' buildings were replaced by the LNWR (as mentioned in the article), so I assume they'd be more similar to other local lines than those built by the ACR. I'd intended to give detailed accounts of the stations and their facilities in their respective articles, when I get around to it. I'm not sure how much detail would be needed in the railway's article, however. Ansbaradigeidfran (talk)

Would it be possible for the track plan to include passing loops etc for such a simple line.?

Bridges - how many, brick, stone or steel - type..

In short an infrastructure section.

That's an interesting suggestion, and an aspect that I hadn't really given much thought to. I'll muck about with the track plan a bit, but (at the moment) I'm at a bit of a loss as to how to cover infrastructure as detailed as bridges without straying into original research. Ansbaradigeidfran (talk)

I'm sure it wouldn't be 'or' - they will already be on an 'OS' map.. That said if there are tens of little bridges/crossings etc it could be tedious to mention them all... something like "there are N minor bridges and X level crossings on the line" + whatever bigger structures...FengRail (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

(Added proper commons link to Anglesey Railway track) - a whole category for the railway would be a good idea.

 Done - new category Ansbaradigeidfran (talk)

Images - the images of the railway (current) are very narrow in view - it's difficult to get a feel for the surrounding lanscape - wider angle views - eg preferably from a hill etc would be a good idea - images that show >100m x 100m

Very good suggestion. I'll see about getting some taken over Easter if I can. Ansbaradigeidfran (talk)

FengRail (talk) 02:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

RDT

I have been adding "RDT" to applicable templates to help distinguish them from other templates and now more as a norm to show they are RDTs (or Route Diagram Templates). Although i did not propose this, i carried it out being bold and thinking it was uncontroversial. Similar suffixes to the same types of templates have been added (not by me and even some with the suffix RDT not by me either) such as "map", "route map" and "route diagram". As recently this has been questioned, could i ask for people's opinions at Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template#Suffices. Simply south (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Cheap Day Return

I've just discovered the existence of the redirect Cheap Day Return, which was pointing to Aqualung (album), Cheap Day Return being a 1' 21" track on the 1971 album by Jethro Tull. (It is also the name of a(n unrelated?) novel by R. F. Delderfield).

Since I suspect that its usage is rather more prevalent in UK passenger railway circles than either of the alternatives I have been bold and changed the redirect to Train ticket. There may be an even better destination, in which case please feel free to amend it again.

EdJogg (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

surely a disambiguation would be better? lordmwa (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Mmmh - I made it into a disambig... You might have made a simple mistake though - note the title is capitalised ie "Cheap Day Return" not "Cheap day return" - this definately suggests a book or album title - the ticket type I don't think would be capitalised like that?FengRail (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys! (The thought had crossed my mind...)

I don't think I have made a mistake, since it is the name of a specific type of ticket, like Supersaver, Apex Return, Travelcard, etc

But is there a better destination (for the DAB page ticket entry) than train ticket, which is a relatively new and relatively short page?

EdJogg (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

British Rail brand names - not listed - is it a brand name?

Saver return has an article - maybe Category:British Rail ticket types is needed?FengRail (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not a brandname it is a technical description of the type of ticket. Firstly it is a return ticket (there and back, as opposed to one way); secondly, it is a day return, so both journeys have to be made on the same day; and thirdly the word "Cheap" implies that there are some restrictions on use, for example the ticket cannot be used during peak travel times, or before a certain time in the morning. The tickets were (obviously) in use before 1971 and Jethro Tull has copied the name. Interestingly, the novel was written in 1967, the band was formed in 1969 and the song came out in 1971. Most likely the name of the ticket dates to the 1960s.Pyrotec (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, surely 'cheap' only implies that it costs less than other tickets? EdJogg (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You're too trusting. That implication of 'cheap' may well be what the marketing people wished you to believe. The 'small print' is the one that gets you - typically they couldn't be used before 9:30 in the morning, or between 16:00 and 18:00. You get a cheap ticket, BR gets bums on seats in off-peak hours when trains (particularly London commuter services) were empty. What BR definitely didn't want was cheap ticket holders clogging up commuter services - if you were caught you had a pay the full price single fare - no Penalties in those days. Nowadays, in the privatised system cheap tickets means advance purchase (APEX), months in advance.Pyrotec (talk) 08:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the restrictions. As a rail traveller, the simple fact was that if you wanted a ticket that cost less you had to wait until 9:30 before you could travel...

EdJogg (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Colours to use on template rail start

Hello,

I just added a stub for the disused Six Mile Bottom railway station. In doing so I tidied up some related articles.

But I don't know really what to put in the box for station links. In particular:

• What colours should I use? I can't find any guide that says what should be used, if any.
• Should I list the disused station Fulbourn that used to be the next stop, or the current station Cambridge which is the current next stop (and terminus) after Dullingham?

Use historical info - ie the next station used or disused - if the station was active the situation would be different.

• Should I list the current operator on that line (even though the station is disused)?

No - not relevent - unless proposals by the operator exist to reactivate etc.

• Is there a convention for the order to list stations e.g. towards the major destination ("Up" line first, in this case Cambridge). But then if I put Fulbourn instead of Cambridge, that becomes less clear.

Thanks in advance for your advice. Happy to receive it on this page but a quick note on my user page would be helpful. SimonTrew (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways/Colours list. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 21:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I have put it in BR Eastern Region colours since that;s what it was when it closed. Is that right? I don't know if you missed the last Q or just don't know, is there a convention on the order to list stations (Up/Down line)?-- assuming the absence of overriding information of course. SimonTrew (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Using colours of last operating company/organisation makes sense.

UP/DOWN - no idea , sorry FengRail (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

British Rail Class 24

I just gave this article a B rating - I think it may deserve an A, but that probably requires a second or third opinion.FengRail (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

List of SR Merchant Navy Class locomotives

There is a slight problem with this list. The scrapped locomotivess have links to the shipping lines they were named after, while the preserved locomotivess have links to the articles on the individual locomotives. For consistency, I propose that all links should go to the articles on the shipping companies. There should be hatnotes on the shipping company articles pointing to the individual locomotive articles as appropriate. All individual locomotive articles should mention the shipping company they were named after, and link to that article. What do other editors think? Mjroots (talk) 08:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

agree - it's just wrong. You don't even need to ask really.

For some reason "Aberdeen and Commonwealth" links to "Hamburg Sud" - but that article makes no mention of it, I've changed that.

Also links such as Holland-Afrika Line shouldn't direct to Nedlloyd - they should link to the hypothetical article title, which should redirect. If the article Holland-Afrika Line is ever made the link will then direct correctly.FengRail (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I've change the other links that linked directly to articles that have no information on them eg Lamport and Holt Line redirected to Maersk - not very useful - at least a red link is honest.FengRail (talk) 13:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Admin assistance please

User:SimonTrew, who is an inexperienced editor, created the Newmarket and Chesterford Railway Company article, with Newmarket and Chesterford Railway as a redirect. He has now reversed the situation, but by a c&p method. Thus the edit history will be lost/fragmented. Can an admin please rectify this situation? Mjroots (talk) 04:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 05:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Extreme categories

Two new categories ahve been created:

• Category:Extreme reaches of National Rail
• Category:Extreme reaches of National Rail in England

I'm not sure what value these are going to add as they can only ever contain about four entries each. I removed the former from articles that were also tagged with the latter, but I notice that my edits have been reveresed. Before we get into an edit war over this, can anyone offer a reason why we need both categories on one article, when one is a sub-category of the other? Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought these would be better as a list, though lists and categories aren't mutually exclusive —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 12:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Cheltenham High Street

Does anyone have a book or anything that states this station actually existed? I found out about it from the Gloucestershire Warwickshire Railway map, where it's redlinked. But it's not on a map from 1953, and we don't appear to list it elsewhere. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've just been informed that it did exist, on the line to Winchcombe. I can't provide any refs at the moment, but I've got a pre-grouping atlas and similar which I'll look at tonight. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 12:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems to have been a short-lived halt open between 1908 and 1917 [2], which would explain its absence from the 1953 map. Lamberhurst (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The strange thing is that there is no high street in cheltenham on the line. Still, thanks for confirming it existed. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This page seems to give more info about its location: [3], possibly near a bridge over the High Street? Lamberhurst (talk) 09:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Jowett's lists it as High Street Halt on the GWR line and High Street Goods on the LMS line - two separate stations. Mjroots (talk) 07:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Duplicated template?

I have just found a recently created {{Rws}}. Is this different in any way to the long-established {{Stnlnk}}? Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There was only a difference in the categories. I have redirected the new template to the old one, with a slight mod on the old one. Simply south (talk) 14:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

We must have the same thought processes, or at least the same watched pages Geof -- I asked the same question on the WP:Trains talk page at about the same time!

Thanks for sorting this. EdJogg (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hornby merger

There are currently two similar articles covering the Hornby company: Hornby Railways and Hornby Trains. I've started a discussion regarding merger here. Incidentally, I'm not sure if model railways fall into this project, but I've decided to mention it here anyway. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 22:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally i would say that it is within the project's scope, just like a certain UFO. My understanding is this project covers all rail transport related articles to the UK. Simply south (talk) 09:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Kent & East Sussex Railway

I've been expanding the article (more still to do). What is the consensus to splitting section 3.3 off into a new article? That section has plenty of scope for expansion still. If left, it could start to dominate the article. Sections 3.1 and 3.2 can stay in the current article as they are relatively small and not likely to grow significantly although the original K&ESR freight stock is still to be added in a narrative form to section 3.1. Mjroots (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely split! I think that's the most thorough coverage of any heritage railway here. EdJogg (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, any thoughts on a title? How about "Rolling Stock of the K&ESR"? Will split tomorrow, am heading off to bed now. Mjroots (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

That title would be fine if you split the whole of section 3. To be strictly accurate for just 3.3, perhaps append with "(heritage railway)"? With K&ESR in full it will be an impressively long title!:

• Rolling Stock of the Kent & East Sussex Railway (heritage), or maybe
• Heritage railway rolling stock of the Kent & East Sussex Railway??

Tricky!

EdJogg (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

My 2p worth: keep it in the article, but move it to the end to form a de facto appendix, so the article isn't interrupted by the long list. See the "Derivation of street names" section in Noel Park for the sort of thing I mean. – iridescent 22:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The section is almost at the end of the article already. There's only the small section on twinning with the CFBS after it. The history flows nicely as it is, as the twinning was done after a lot of the rolling stock was acquired. Mjroots (talk) 04:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I tweaked Edjogg's suggested title a bit, and have moved the section into a new article. Mjroots (talk) 07:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Heritage Railways in the UK

I'd like to suggest that all articles on Heritage Railways in the UK use a standardised format for individual items of rolling stock. Doing this would make editing of articles easier when items are moved between different railways. The format currently in use on the Bluebell Railway and Kent and East Sussex Railway is the format that I would suggest. Mjroots (talk) 05:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:Major UK railway stations

Another can of worms has been reopened again: see Template_talk:Major_UK_railway_stations#Birmingham and feel free to join in..... --RFBailey (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Alphabetical listings

There are a number of alphabetical listings of railway stations, such as UK_railway_stations_-_B. They seem to use fairly inconsistent formatting and templates.

I'm working on a linked open data project for UK railways at http://ontologi.es/rail/ and as a consequence have enough data to easily create new versions of these alphabetical listings in an automated manner. Is this something that people would like me to do? Tobyink (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Answers below please...

North Staffordshire Railway route map

Hi

would somebody (or bodies) be kind enough to review my first attempt at drawing a route map. It can be found here. Eventually I'll add it to the NSR article but I'm sure what I've done can be improved upon.

So that my understanding on creating maps is increased, rather than edit the map could any suggestions for changes be placed on my talk page.

If you want an online source to compare against then there is one at http://www.lnw1.demon.co.uk/nsrsg/map/systemmap.htm

Thanks NtheP (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You've obviously put a lot of effort into creating this map, and you seem to have the hang of it, but my first comment would be that the route map template, as its name suggests, is intended for showing routes, as opposed to entire networks. A template as large as that is just too cumbersome to include in an article.–Signalhead ^< T > 15:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree, however it was suggested to me that such a map ought to be included with the main article. I don't know, what's the consensus? NtheP (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No doubt the stations will all be linked. It just needs a tweak to remvoe the break at the Leek & Manifold section. As to whether or not it should be placed in the article, there's always WP:BRD (or suck it and see). I'd suggest having its normal display as collapsed and placing it at the bottom of the article. I thought I'd done some complicated diagrams (Réseau des Bains de Mer, Chemin de Fer des Côtes-du-Nord) but that is some going! Mjroots (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

National Rail Enquiries

The National Rail Enquiries article is in serious need of help. I don't know whether the article is a copyvio or not, but even if it isn't it's written like an advert with how-tos and at least one section in the first person. Thryduulf (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Also see the related article, National Rail Communication Centre, created by the same user. EdJogg (talk) 09:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've nominated that article for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Rail Communication Centre. Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Docklands Light Railway GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Docklands Light Railway for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Pyrotec (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Bluebell Railway van identity?

I recently took a photo on a PMV on the Bluebell Railway. It is in SECR maroon with a lime green door one end. Located in sidings on the Ardingly branch. Vehicle bears number 153 at opposite end to green door. Is this the vehicle identified as SECR 1953 in the Rolling stock of the Bluebell Railway article? I'll upload it to Commons once I know its true identity so that it can go in the article. Mjroots (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Malfunctioning bot

Please can an admin have a look here and put an end to this bot which has no shut-down button. The bot's admin appears unconcerned. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I saw this earlier today, and thought it was malfunctioning, but it seems to be a two stage process to swap the names of icons as per discussion here. I agree it could have been done in a simpler way, but as the disruption is only temporary, I think it's better to let the bot finish rather than leave the task half-complete. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 21:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This really got me yesterday. I spent a long time redesigning what is now Template:Ipswich to Ely Line RDT and about 20 minutes after I had finished about 7 hours of tweaking the bot came in and stuffed it up. And because the icons were wrong it was incredibly confusing what was going on. There was nothing saying what was happening-- nothing on the Bot's page or the talk page except for a STOP from April. Personally I am an incrementalist and while I edit in very small doses every change must stand on its own feet, it is not acceptable to do this as a three point turn leaving it in an indeterminate state in the mean time. ChrisBot's author asked how I will do it, well if AWB cannot swap two terms in one go then don't use AWB. Manually I can edit an article and change the l to r and the r to l in one go, why can't a bot, why does it have to do this CHRISBOT substitution nonsense?

I still find that the lack of discussion (I have read all the discussions people have pointed at is a bit disconcerting. The admins' discussion of the bot was basically about its operation i.e. will it do what it is intended to do, and (rightly) not about whether that intention was reasonable, which was presumably taken as already having consensus. Personally I am not so sure. "left" and "right" from driver's POV makes sense with branches but not with continuations because they are not with respect to the driver, they are with respect to the reader of the page. To define an "upside down" coordinate system is fine (personally I would have had the driver driving UP the page so that up was up and down was down etc, but no point arguing that now), but it doesn't help with continuations and other features that have no meaning to the driver's perspective.

Anyway, what will be most interesting is when the main continuation icons are changed over, I can see some havoc then. Personally I think it would be best too CHANGE THE ICONS FIRST, NOT LAST, thus as articles are moved over by the bot they become RIGHT rather than WRONG. The initial wrongness of so many diagrams will probably act more as a hint that something is going on, and Chris has improved the edit summaries left by the bot and what is on the bot's page and talk page. SimonTrew (talk) 11:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Coordinate systems on RDTs

Is there any guidance on how to lay out RDTs with respect to "up" and "down"? As far as I see there are at least four coordinate systems:

• "Screen" coordinates where "up" is "nearer the top of the display".
• "Railway" coordinates where "up" is "towards the more prominet terminus/destination"
• "Driver" coordinates where "up" (forwards) is "as seen from the point of view of a driver driving DOWN the diagram
• For many lines, "up" is "more north" and "down" is "more south", though of course many lines do not run even approximately north-south.

Obviously not all of these can be reconciled.

For a good example see Template:Ipswich to Ely RDT. This has Cambridge and Ely at the top. I don't know for Cambridge-Ipswich or Ely-Ipswich which wasy is "Up" and which "Down" in rail terms since all three towns are of roughly equal prominence, certainly as railway junctions. (Cambridge not quite so much any more, but I think cambrige is "Up" from lines coming in from the north). On the Template:N&CR RDT and Cambridge to Mildenhall railway, parts of each of which are incorporated on this diagram with some small features omitted, the lines run in the opposite directions than they do on the more detailed articles. N&CR runs pretty much south-north so we put north (Newmarket) at the top, but Cambridge-Mildenhall is prettyu much west-east and I image "up" was Cambridge.

Obviously in some cases something has to give. I know that Thameslink (whatever it is called now) as platforms A and B in London since there is no real sense of "Up" and "Down" in the railway sense.

I imagine this has been chewed over before, any pointers? If there is not one already, I think a short article explaining it would be useful to make one explaining the general recommendations. I would be happy to draft one for comment-- no doubt many others would be able to cite numerous exceptions etc.

Thanks in advance SimonTrew (talk) 11:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a good question. I remember that the rule was once the most important end of the line at the top, but that as a single rule seems to have shrivelled away now. I think that the best option is to have Northern/Western-most end at the top since the diagrams are essentially maps: this is due to the fact that in Western civilisation North is at the top and so we start reading at the "North-Weastern" (top-left) corner of the page. ChrisDHDR 09:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Well it used to be the expression "up to London" i.e. London is always the "up" line. So if you went up to Cambridge University you went down to Cambridge on the train, and if you got sent down you went back up to London. But of course that is not very helpful if the line does not go to London, e.g. who could say for Glasgow-Edinburgh which was the more prominent/important? I am just guessing here but I think Glasgow is a lot bigger than Edinburgh, but of course Edinburgh is the capital city (and the line between them is pretty much east-west so using geographical north is little help there). Obviously one has to use common sense in these cases, e.g. that East Coast Main Line services continue to Glasgow from Edinburgh, but then a West Coast Main Line service might equally continue to Edinburgh from Glasgow (I don't think any currently do but they change so often I wouldn't bet on it).

I was wondering whether it would be possible to write a bot, a bit like ChrisBOT, that could automatically invert an RDT so there would be two versions, one with up going one way and one with it going the other. That would be rather cool and no doubt the table template could be augmented so that readers could have a button to flip between the versions. That is just a kinda idea and am not necessarily suggesting someone goes do it BUT if the icons are consistently named I imagine it could be done quite generically, it just needs flipping the up/down cont icons and of course reversing the order of rows in the table. There is probably more to it than that, that I haven't thought of yet (e.g. subtitles of lines etc) but I am sure you get the idea. SimonTrew (talk) 12:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Expert needed re Crow nest junction

I stumbled across the article Crow nest junction created today by an editor who has otherwise only been involved in vandalising other British railway-related articles. It was a total mess, containing a lot of text clearly cut & pasted directly from the Hindley railway station article, but I am not able to determine whether the remainder is pure mischief or a badly-written but well-intentioned attempt at starting a valid article. Please could someone more knowledgable on the content matter have a look to determine whether it just needs tidying up or whether it should be deleted as vandalism. Thanks. --DAJF (talk) 11:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Are railway junctions generally sufficiently notable to have Wikipedia articles? Mjroots (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally I would say no, or at least not always. However, I've raised this before, without consensus being reached. See also Category:British railway junctions. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 18:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say junctions aren't notable unless there are reliable sources to establish the notability of a specific junction. Junctions can usually be written about within some other article about a line or an adjacent station. --Dr Greg (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

80100

Please see the discussion at Talk:BR_standard_class_4_tank#File:Standard 4 No 80100.jpg re my nomination of File:Standard 4 No 80100.jpg for deletion on the grounds that the image misrepresents fact. Mjroots (talk) 11:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

CONT icons

The CONT icons are being renamed, please see User:Chrisbot for more details. In the mean time all users are asked to use the icon names that are shown at User:Chrisbot/Work status even if it seems illogical. They will change from time to time so please check every time before you use a CONT icon. It is in the good cooperation of all that this will work out. ChrisDHDR 16:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

If the need ever arises in the future to swap the names of two icons, a better way needs to be found than this, which has caused a lot of confusion. Much of the confusion was due to not knowing which articles had been swapped and which hadn't, and the icons themselves being out of date half the time, with lots of diagrams showing the wrong arrows and nobody sure whether that was intentional or not. Some bot swaps may have been undone by confused editors and might still be wrong now.

First of all there is the issue of whether there was adequate consultation before this went ahead. I think it really should have been discussed at all the Wikiprojects that use these icons including Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains in Japan, this page (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Trams, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transport in Scotland, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Waterways, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany, as well as any foreign-language Wikipedias which use these icons.

However, all that could have been avoided by introducing some new names for the swapped names instead of recycling the old ones. As a simple example if we had swapped CONTl for a new icon called CONT_r, with both the old and new icons in existence throughout, there would have been very little confusion, I think. CONT_r is probably a poor name, but any name ending in "r" that is not already in use would do. --Dr Greg (talk) --Dr Greg (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I can only agree with what Dr Greg says, and also jump a little to Chris's defence. I am sure Chris very much had good faith to get these right.

I was editing the route diagram at Ipswich to Ely Line and as luck would have it, and about five minutes after finishing the edit to try to make it just look nicer aesthetically and also be more intelligible, ChrisBot came in and changed all the arrows around. And I did not know what was going on as, of course, I had checked it along the way and everything was fine and there was nothing I could do to get it right because at that point exCONTl and exCONTr both pointed the same way. (I forget if it was left or right and have also left a comment on UK Railways project enumerating four coordinate systems used to mean "up" and "down" and thence "left" and "right" and their are probably more I didn't think of at the time). So it certainly did confuse me and after seven hours of trying to get the diagram right-- these things are not simple to edit-- suddenly to find it is wrong five minutes after you think you have it all perfect is quite surprising. I am an incremental editor so each change along the way made an improvement not a backward step, and then suddenly it looked worse than I left it.

In Chris's defence he did three things. He improved the bot's edit summary so that human editors may have a clue what it was up to. He added mre information on his own user page and the bot's user page (and talk pages). And he wrote WP:OWNFEET (which I have since edited, though I am not entirely happy with it, my faults not his) which puts down the general principles that edits have to stand on their own feet and you can't take one step back to take two foward (reculer pour miuex marcher, I think Napoleon said). So, I know that Chris is a good faith editor trying to make WP better.

The swapping problem is really a structural one, and surely cannot be confined to this project. If WP or Wikimedia Commons have no way of just being able to swap two names over, requiring a three-point-turn during which things are invalid, that really should be addressed by the developers. I do agree that this could have been done better and I think Chris would agree with that too, in his reflection, I bet sometimes he wondered why the sky fell in on him when he was trying to make WP better. I think he did the right thing to start with the lesser-used icons (the t and ex etc), I think he did the wrong thing to change the icons last instead of first. Had the icons been "wrong" first it would have given a clue that something was afoot, before the bot ran to make them "correct" again. Of course we can argue forever whether the change was necessary at all, but it's done now.

I know (and it is public knowledge because the conversation is on my talk page and chris's talk page) it was in good faith to make Wikipedia better, which is what I think we all are trying to do. I agree that with greater discussion we could probably have planned a migration route that was less destructive, but I also know from editing other articles nothing to do with ailways that you ask advice on a talk page and get very little response, then when you take WP:BOLD the sky falls in, and really some of the blame there must lie with people who say they are active in a project but actually say and do nothing to help it until something goes wrong at which point the sky falls in. I imagine partly that happened in this case. I am not particularly a railway nut, I just edit the bits and pieces I know about my local area.

Best wishes to you all SimonTrew (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I have no doubt Chris acted in good faith (as WP:OWNFEET demonstrates), and my comments above are intended constructively to avoid problems like this in the future. --Dr Greg (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Greg I certainly took it that way, and if anything I said suggested otherwise I can only apologise-- I know how sometimes things when written can seem really harsh whereas if they were discussed over a pint or whatever they would not sound harsh at all. Also I wanted to try to gather a summary of Chris's and my discussions since they are rather spread across our user talk pages and on article talk pages-- each individually are in appropriate places but sometimes it is useful I think to summarise where we stand (or at least where we think we stand). A simple suggestion that has not yet been commented on yet is to change the icons (or other content if that is the case) first instead of last. I am not sure why Chris chose to change them last but this kinda meant that the articles started off "right" then went "wrong" then "wrong, in a different way", then finally "right". Had they been changed first they would have just all immediately have been "wrong" then as the bot worked through would become "right". While still not perfect, this would perhaps have been less surprising and at least then the bot is putting things right rather than putting them wrong (inevitably causing human editors to revert/undo or whatever and then of course it becomes wrong again once the icons change at the last step). But swapping is hardly exactly a new concept in computer science and WP/Commons really should have some way to sort it out. I was thinking, for example, there are probably analagous situations with road signs depending on right and left hand traffic. (But I gave up trying to edit in that area as any changes I made tended to get knocked down and I just never really got what I regarded as simplifications accepted into the article.)

Best wishes and keep the faith eh! SimonTrew (talk) 11:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Lots to say! I've been quite occupied these last days so sorry for not replying sooner even tho I did a couple of edits. Firstly I now use your way to update icons, changing tCONTl and tCONTr to CHRISBOT and CHRISBOT2 (see User:Chrisbot/Work status for updates); it definitly works better, reducing the number of stages to two and so hurring up the process, so thanks Greg (is just Greg okay?). Secondly I consider that enough was done to talk about the change: WP:RDT and WP:RDT/C are the centralised debating pages, anyone who wants to talk a part must just go there. This is not a hidden location, nor only open to a selective group. Thirdly, now to Simon, I never think that an automated tool will be made to swap two images: it's too rare a case to make a fuss and even then how would the actual links be changed? Finally I must say that both of you have been so kind, giving constructive comments (not finger pointing ones), which is always the best way to improve (or else why would WP:ER exist?), and even if I was at one point I was having suicidal thoughts (ie. quit/abandon bot/never do anything even likely to be controversial again), your compliments got me thru it all. But now, I must say, don't be surprised if you see me again as the problems have just begun and now I have to tackle the main CONT series (which is more harder than you think).ChrisDHDR 20:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

What is so different about it? -mattbuck (Talk) 20:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted image

Can an administrator please look into reversing the deletion of File:Beeching.jpg (an image of the great man himself which features in his article) on the basis that it is a "historically significant fair use image"? It was previously restored in 2007 by User:G-Man. Lamberhurst (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure we currently have any admins. You may want to ask Slambo over at WP:RAIL to have a look. – iridescent 19:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm an admin, but I suggest your first route should be to discuss it with the user who deleted it, i.e. User:MBisanz, as I'm unwilling to overturn the decision made by another admin without very good reason. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 06:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Now resolved. Lamberhurst (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Reassessment of Ffestiniog Railway

Ffestiniog Railway has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Railways in the Isle of Man

User Gordonastill (contribs) has been expanding coverage of railways in the Isle of Man. He is new to Wikipedia and doesn't seem to have quite grasped WP:CITE yet. There are quite a few articles that need tagging and assessing. He has uploaded a number of images which could be candidates for moving to Commons. He could probably benefit from a bit of mentoring from a keen supporter of this WP. Mjroots (talk) 11:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Running powers

Bumped into the phrase 'Running powers' on an article upgrade at Bricklayers' Arms and realised it was probably unfamiliar terminology to non-railway types. Hence it now exists as a redirect to Arrangements between railroads#Trackage rights (along with Trackage rights and Running rights).

It would be worth checking 'your' articles for this term and linking accordingly.

EdJogg (talk) 08:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

12 carriage limit

The page Desiro#South_West_Trains talks about how multiple working 450+444+450 and 444+450+444 "exceeds the 12 carriage limit" - I can't find any reference to this limit on any other page. Who set it and why? -mattbuck (Talk) 11:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

12 cars would be the practical limit, dictated by the length of some platforms (the centre platforms at Waterloo, and those at Southampton and Bournemouth used to daily handle such trains made up of two 4TC's and a 4REP). i don't think it's an official limit as much as a practical one but I could be wrong. Britmax (talk) 11:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Some Waterloo-Portsmouth trains were/are made-up of 3x4-car unit. I suspect that platform lengths played a major part in the decision to build 4-car sets to run in multiple, as opposed to three-car (eg like the DMUs used on the WR, for example, although service frequency is another consideration). Some of the intermediate stations on the Portsmouth route (Rowlands Castle?) are too short for a 12-car train IIRC, but that in itself wouldn't stop Control from timetabling a longer train. EdJogg (talk) 12:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes when they put the same 12 cars on the semi fast you'd end up looking at the side of the cutting when you knew the front of the train was in New Milton. I think it also used to happen at Christchurch but I'm not sure. Britmax (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The last two combinations are possible, but cannot run in service today. The reason for this is due to the electrification system. A 4-car 450 draws 1500 A, and in 12-car formation can draw a maximum of 4500 A. A 5-car 444 draws 1800 A, and in 10 car formation can draw 3600 A.

A 450+444+450 combination could take 1500+1800+1500 = 4800 A, but this exceeds the maximum limit set by the on-board computer of 4500 A. So, it would be restricted to 4500A, and hence its performance would be less than that required to achieve the section running times (SRT's) in the Rules of the Plan. Bhtpbank (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

One more thing, the settings of the circuit breakers that feed current to the track would be likely to trip for currents above around 5000 A, which is what a Class 442 used to be able to draw. Bhtpbank (talk) 13:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this information available in the Southern Region Electrification article (eg) (where we could link to it)? If not, it certainly should be! (Thanks, Bhtpbank; you can see that none of us was thinking of electrical limitations...!)
-- EdJogg (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

southeastern

Ive started changing the railstarts to B0C4DE please help change all their station to this Ive done the Hayes Line so far... Im doing this to represent southeastern as the yellow left the braning years ago Likelife (talk) 10:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Help! need the national rail colour document template changing to the new colour for southeastern, Ive tryed but it will not work. Likelife (talk) 12:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Butt-Stations

Hi. I'm from polish language wikipedia and translate artikules from english into polish and find something like that {{Butt-Stations}} what is this and what it doing. By the way in Poland we have wikiproject about railways pl:Wikiprojekt:Linie kolejowe, would you like cooperating with us? Yusek (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It refers to Template:Butt-Stations, a reference to an English book:

Butt, R. V. J. (October 1995). The Directory of Railway Stations: details every public and private passenger station, halt, platform and stopping place, past and present (1st ed.). Sparkford: Patrick Stephens Ltd. ISBN 978-1-85260-508-7. OCLC 60251199. OL 11956311M.

"Template" in English is "Szablon" in Polish -- Dr Greg  talk  17:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks all, by the way its huge book, by the why a know what is template.Yusek (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Coordinates of rail accidents

Currently, some 60 UK rail accident articles have no geographic coordinates locating the point of the accident. Locations can very often be ascertained from accident inquiry reports, many of which are available from railwaysarchive.co.uk. Any assistance in adding coordinates greatly appreciated. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Does it have to be a lat/long coordinate, or will an OS grid ref do? It's much easier for me to work out the latter, given that for England & Wales I have a complete set of recent (major revision within last 25 years) OS 1:50000 maps, and lack just four sheets (81, 102, 113, 114) for the One-Inch Seventh Series. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

A grid ref is fine, Use {{oscoor}} to generate the link, and then use the generated link to generate the coordinates. No reason both can't appear in an article. Mjroots (talk) 11:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Railway Clearing House junction diagrams on Commons

There are 158 of these in the book reprinted by Ian Allan in the early 1980s. All exist on Commons (scanned and uploaded over a year ago, not by me). For an example, see commons:File:Carlisle RJD 001.jpg. I have been working through these carrying out the following tasks, both to ensure correctness and for ease of locating relevant ones for you to place in articles.

• The filenames were chosen by the uploader - whilst these are not always very meaningful (often, two or more widely separated locations are placed on the same page), they do have the merit of being based on the page titles in the original book. Unfortunately, a number of spelling mistakes were made.✗ Not done - I have left these alone; file renaming is an involved business.
• The file descriptions were sometimes blank, or very different from the map depicted. Done, all fixed.
• The dates, when not blank, were invariably shown as 1914, which was the original publication date of this reprint; but many of the diagrams had been prepared and published earlier than that, the earliest being 1901. Done, these now show both years where applicable.

Regarding categories - they were all in commons:Category:Railways Junctions Diagram 1914 and I have been moving each one of them to at least two subcategories:

• one based on the page number, for ease of locating by those editors who have the book - there are four of these sub-categories, with about forty diagrams each. Done
• one or more based on the pre-1974 county containing the junctions or stations. Done
• one or more based on the post-1974 county containing the junctions or stations. Doing...
• one or more based on the pre-grouping railway which owned (or co-owned) at least one of the lines or stations. Doing...
• several were already in specific categories for towns, stations etc.; most of these have been left alone.

--Redrose64 (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Image:Thames tunnels.svg

This image needs updating, to reflect the opening of High Speed 1 and the DLR extension to Woolwich Arsenal. I'm useless with graphics--any volunteers? Thanks, --RFBailey (talk) 15:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It could do with the Richmond Tunnel as well. People always seem to forget that one, presumably because we don't have an article on it. – iridescent 15:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

People don't necessarily forget about it; many of us have never heard of it! It's not on my A-Z (edition 7, 2007) - exactly where is it, and what is its purpose? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

According to the caption for File:Richmond tunnel entrance.JPG (an image at Commons) it is an abandoned railway tunnel. Does the diagram show closed tunnels? (Seems like an article is needed, as Google is not awash with references to it.)

(Other images: 1, 2; all three by Iridescent!)

EdJogg (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Image descriptions don't say that it's "an abandoned railway tunnel"; they say "abandoned tunnel under the Thames and Richmond Railway Bridge", so abandoned tunnel yes, tunnel near railway line yes, but railway tunnel not necessarily. Whilst the London Underground did get to Richmond, it was over surface lines (involving a bridge over the Thames at Kew), and I have never come across any scheme to extend the District to Twickenham, Hounslow - or indeed Heathrow Airport. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right, just read it too quickly (doing two things at once!) -- EdJogg (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, remembered that the District did get to Hounslow, via Acton Town, in 1883 - their route was of course shared with the Picclydiccly Line from 1933, finally being transferred in 1964. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

As a side issue, wouldn't it be helpful if the graphic image file description included a key to the numbers?

EdJogg (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to mention that the image used to appear on the article Tunnels underneath the River Thames. A key can be found on this old version (i.e. the version before I edited it earlier today). I was able to update the article but not the map, so commented it out. --RFBailey (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Richmond tunnel, there doesn't seem to be a lot of resources known to Google about it. The most reliable reference is on the website of the Greater London Industrial Archaeology Society (GLAIS) [4] which describes the structure on the south side of the river as "Access Turret for Water Main Tunnel" (map link). Wikimapia describes it as an "abandoned foot tunnel" in it's entry [5], which cites a book 'London Peculiars: curiosities of a capital city', by Peter Ashley. Amazon reviews for this book cast doubt on it's reliability as a source in all respects, and so it would seem more likely to me to be a water tunnel. I cannot see a foot tunnel at this location being especially desirable given the pre-existing Richmond Bridge at a more useful crossing point (there doesn't appear to be any contemporary development around the tunnel entrances). Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a document in the National Archives at Kew referring to a water mains tunnel at Richmond.[6] —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 18:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look in an engineering book i own (Civil Engineering Heritage: London and the Thames Valley) and it too refers to a water mains tunnel at Richmond. Simply south (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:British Rail sectors

This template is confusing and inaccurate, as it implies more sectors than there were. The business sectors were:

Passenger:

• INTERCITY
• Network SouthEast
• REGIONAL RAILWAYS (in Scotland this was branded SCOTRAIL, not a separate sector)

Freight:

• Railfreight Distribution (some locos carried a Railfreight General livery)
• Trainload Freight (with sub-sectors)
• Freightliner

Parcels:

• Rail Express Systems

In preparation for privatisation, Trainload Freight was divided up into three geographic units, Load-Haul, Mainline Freight and Trans-Rail, which were all bought by EWS and re-merged. They were not part of BR's business-led sector structure, but, along with Railtrack and the franchises, were imposed by government as part of the privatisation process.

Could someone improve the template? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.240.226 (talk) 10:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Line usage

Similar to the templates that people helped me with for the list of heritage stations, i have created {{UKsta-u}} and {{UKsta-u A}} for lines to show the usage of each station over the years. This idea was first thought of by User:Geof Sheppard. Please see Esk Valley Line (once i have updated it) for how to do it, under the section Usage. Simply south (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I take it that as each year's figures are released, another column is added. The table is going to become rather wide. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It does work. For an example of it without being in the new format, see Tarka Line#Passenger volume. It may need a little tweaking but it works. Simply south (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see that you've altered the width from 100% to 40%. But why is it necessary to specify the table width at all? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It aligns it in the centre and looks nice to me but if there is consensus i will delete that part. Simply south (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You can do that without specifying width by using the align attribute thus:

{| class="wikitable" style="margin: auto;" align=center

--Redrose64 (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks good, though how many years are we going to show? 5,10,20? we could have e.g. 1980-1981 1990-1991 2000-2001 then the 5 most recent years, its the easiest way to show short and long term usage. Mark999 17:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The usage is only available since 2002-2003. Unless can you find a source for those years\decades? Simply south (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

After about 12 years the table won't fit on a 1024x768 screen (like this laptop!)

I know that's thinking ahead rather, but I would suggest implementing a series of collapsible tables that each handled ten years. (I am assuming that Wikipedia will be updated 'indefinitely'!)

Since the information will be of limited interest to the majority of readers (I suspect) the articles will be neater if the tables are collapsed by default, and revealed on user selection. If this is implemented now it will be clearer to future editors what to do.

EdJogg (talk) 09:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

An interesting idea! The blank column for "next" year's figures suggest that there could be an issue when the template is updated. But it sure beats doing them all by hand - thanks.

The original idea was to show more detail than could be accommodated in the infoboxes for stations where there are large number of interchanges, see Plymouth for example. I then had the idea of putting them on the self-contained lines in the south west so that trends across stations could be seen, which is where this new template comes in. The Riviera Line dosen't follow this pattern but was split in two because of the nature of the line.

I had been thinking about rolling them over a five or six year period - as a new year comes in then the old year would drop off. Doing them by hand allowed a slightly different approach depending on whether they needed to sit alongside maps or infoboxes; if there was too much white space then they could always have an image dropped alongside.

One improvement... the numbers would be easier to read if they were right aligned.Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

British Rail ref check please

An anon editor has added this reference to British Rail. I have tried opening the web link, but the page load is not completing. I do not know whether there is a problem with the destination server, or if it is a local firewall/access problem that only affects me.

Could someone please check the validity of this reference?

EdJogg (talk) 09:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Link works fine for me. I've archived it using WebCite so you can see the contents at http://www.webcitation.org/5kuMV7NxJ. Regards. Adambro (talk) 09:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I too can get through, but whilst the doc is interesting, it doesn't back up the statement in the WP article that it's placed next to. For a start, it doesn't mention John Major at all; and the word "Conservative" comes up exactly once, in the first paragraph; and there doesn't seem to be anything about "improvement in passenger services" save in the sentence 'Railtrack’s 1998 annual report admitted "operating shortfalls," and acknowledged that "passenger satisfaction levels do need to improve."', which was after Blair's government arrived. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I'll have to take a look at home, as I still can't see the content, although I can access the WebCite site OK. EdJogg (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Date of closure

What is policy for the closure date for stations/lines/services? Is it (a) last day of service or (b) first day of no service. There is a discussion on this tucked into the lower-left corner of

• Rose, Douglas (2007) [1980]. The London Underground: A Diagrammatic History (8th ed.). London: Douglas Rose/Capital Transport Publishing. ISBN 978-1-85414-315-0. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

I believe that a similar treatise has appeared in most editions. Reading through it rather leads me to favour (a). --Redrose64 (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a date that is WP:Verifiable; and one of the major sources on railway station is Butt, R. V. J. (October 1995). The Directory of Railway Stations: details every public and private passenger station, halt, platform and stopping place, past and present (1st ed.). Sparkford: Patrick Stephens Ltd. ISBN 978-1-85260-508-7. OCLC 60251199. OL 11956311M.. It tends to be the last day of service. However, cases do occassionally arise where different sources give different dates. Possibly, problems of this nature might occur where the last official day of service was a Sunday and that line or station did not traditionally operate Sunday services.Pyrotec (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

What about when a station remains "open" for goods traffic after its closure to passengers? This can be several years later in some cases. I favour the practice of using the date for passenger services in the categories but with both dates in the infobox and a full explanation in the text.Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)