Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 2

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

TWP importance ratings for BR locomotives and rolling stock

In working through Category:Unknown-importance rail transport articles, I've almost reached the more than 300 articles listed there that are named "British Rail ____". Since I'm not as familiar with British locomotives and rolling stock as I am with North American stock, I'd greatly appreciate it if some of your project team members would jump in to help with the importance grading on these articles for the TrainsWikiProject template (but please keep in mind that this importance is among rail transport topics worldwide). Thanks! Slambo (Speak) 21:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If no one does anything have a go (good old nag ;) )at me in a few weeks time when i *might* have some more time to give it a bit of lookover Pickle 20:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

InterCity East Coast franchise

Do you think this was too early that i created an article on thisas the bids for this had been submitted yesterday? Simply south 21:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

No, not really considering we have the whole second box attached to the "British TOCs" template


Pickle 14:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Usage stats

I've been busy updating all railway station articles with the latest (2004-2005) usage stats. For every page in the categories:

Where the page has an info box with old usage stats, I've updated them from the latest Office of Rail Regulation stats. I've made in the region of 400 updates which equates to 16% of the 2502 stations in the ORR document. So that is how many had the old stats.

Some of the articles had the new stats but didn't have exits0405 or lowexits0405 so the text at the bottom of the info box would be incorrect. I suspect there are many stations in Wales and Scotland without info boxes. Adambro 21:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Further to my previous comments, I'd welcome opinions on whether the 2004/2005 data should replace the 2002/2003 data, or should be in addition to it. My opinion is the former. This is because both datasets only give a basic idea of station usage anyway and also because "the methodology for calculating station usage data has improved since the 2002-03 data were calculated"[1], which I would suggest makes including both figures for the purpose of providing a comparison of the usage not very useful. Adambro 15:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
IMHO over the long term i don't it would be useful to have a long list of annual usage over the years. if there was a notable shift between years or over time (eg new town built, or something major) the station article would surly discus it and cite the data. Pickle 16:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I've being bold and removed the old data from some articles where it facilitates making the info box simpler (changing from 'usage' to the more common 'exits' variable). The intention is to ensure a consistent style of station articles. Adambro 16:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

another move

if anyone is interested, WP:RM London to Ashford to Dover Line --> South Eastern Main Line. Simply south 20:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Electrification

Is there any reason why on articles for lines which are "notelectrified", the "not" is in bold? Chris cheese whine 20:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That was probably me, and i only did it in an area where most of the line were electrified to highlight their unusual status compared to their neighbours (eg Marshlink, Oxted, GOBLIN, etc). Where electrification is rare (eg Scotland, beyond Glasgow) i haven't done so. Its part of my to do list about rail electrification you can find at the talk page of Railway electrification in Great Britain. Pickle 21:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Categories

A few questions about this list....

1) It is noted that the list is 'incomplete', but how complete is it expected to be? I can see the benefit of not listing every 'by county' sub-cat, but are there any others that should be excluded? Perhaps an explanatory sentence at the start of the list to define its scope would be helpful – having just looked, there is NO indication of its scope at present, just the implied assumption that the cats are related to the project in some way.

2) What is the significance of a bold title? Should all parent cats be in bold, or which? Again, a note at the start of the list would be helpful.

3) What is the significance of 'Disused railway goods stations in the United Kingdom'? This is in the list, but not as a cat. If it is a proposed or anticipated sub-cat, then it would be better to show it initially as a red-link. Otherwise, ...?

EdJogg 14:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I was fed up hunting around in the old list, so I thought that it would be worthwhile breaking it down into sub-sections. I did a trawl through the "high level" categories and included the subcategories that seemed most likely to be needed - either by editors wanting to find suitable categories for new pages, or by people looking for certain types of article. Just starting at Category:Rail transport and browsing can be pretty frustrating - I know!
The bold lines were inserted purely to make it easier to find the larger categories. Initially I was going to keep it to just the first level of bullets, but that didn't work for the Big Four companies.
Thanks to everyone who has spotted (and sorted out) any odd errors. It would be useful if we could look at our articles and check that the categories are appropriate/not too high level/complete. That way we can encourage more readers of our project's articles. Geof Sheppard 08:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have revised the introductory text to state the scope of the list and indicate the formatting conventions used. I hope it is useful as a set of FAQs rather than just being a case of 'stating the obvious'! EdJogg 09:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed template deletion

The {{Stn_art_lnk}} template has been proposed for deletion - the "Wikipedia is not a timetable" discussion of last year rears its head again!

Please join in with the discussion. Geof Sheppard 08:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Result was to keep! see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 26#Template:Stn art lnk Pickle 10:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Stn art lrnk

I have proposed that the template Template:Stn art lrnk be merged into Template:Stn art lnk. Please see my comments on Template talk:Stn art lrnk. Adambro 19:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Crossrail boxes

Rather late to be posting this. Crossrail is a scheme that has proposed to run services between Maidenhead, Shenfield, Heathrow and Abbey Wood via new tunnels through central London. Is it pre-emptive to suggest placing the boxes as the scheme status is not yet known? This seems to be a similar situation to WSMR. Simply south 23:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

"Pre-emptive" is an understatement. Maybe when the TBMs have been booked, but they absolutely not be there yet. Chris cheese whine 00:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Whilst Crossrail seems to be a long way off, could someone clarify for me what Simply south means when he says "placing the boxes". What boxes? Adambro 22:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I was meaning this (taken randomly from Romford):
Preceding station National Rail National Rail Following station
Chadwell Heath   Crossrail
Proposed 		  Gidea Park

That is, before they were reverted twice. Simply south 23:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with my understanding for this issue Simply south. I would certainly agree with the view of Chris that it is far too early to be including these on articles. Crossrail is a very long way off, the "most optimistic construction timetable would see Crossrail 1 opened around 2015" (from the Crossrail article), so I don't think we should be including the proposed route on stations for a good while yet. Routes and stations served are likely to be subject to change and as such I would suggest its better to keep this on the Crossrail article for the foreseeable future. Adambro 23:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I'm going to add my two penneth to this. While I accept that Crossrail is a little bit up in the air right now, and that any start of service is some years in the future, there has been nothing said categorically that it has, or will be cancelled. As a consequence, I think it is appropriate to put the route on the pages of the stations it affects, with the added proviso that it is put in nice big black letters that Crossrail is Proposed (I have done something similar to the pages of stations that Wrexham & Shropshire are planning to use). Given that the Crossrail route is pretty much confirmed, as is a draft service pattern, I think this is fair. Hammersfan 14/03/07, 11.30 GMT
Nothing has been said categorically that it will open either. WP:CRYSTAL. The big bold letters then only adds more prominence to it, elevating it above the services that do exist. Ideally, the WSMR shouldn't be there, but that is rather less harmful as they should be up and running by the end of this year (though they also said that last year - I'm hoping it's not an ill omen ...). The current service tables should be just that - for current services. Defunct lines should be dealt with in prose, and the proposed service shouldn't be on the station articles in the first place. Chris cheese whine 11:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Class 378

I would appreciate people going to the Class 378 page and giving their opinion on the AfD debate. Thanks Hammersfan, 11/03/07, 21.10 GMT

WP:TRAIL

Main page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/TRAIL

This lovely new-fangled method for beautifying the layout of railway lines has landed, and as usually happens with these things, everyone will start using it in their own style and to their own rules, so I suggest we come up with some standard for how we are going to lay these out on UKR topics in a consistent manner. I have started a page for this at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways/TRAIL. Feel free to throw stuff in. Chris cheese whine 18:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite a few of the Scottish Lines have now migrated to this layout - both existing (including Cathcart Circle Lines; Argyle Line; Far North Line) and Historic (City Union Line; West Highland Railway; Aberdeen Railway). You will see that the header of this have different colours reflecting either the Scotrail line colour or Historical line colour. The header template Template:BS-header has been replaced with Template:UKrail-header which includes a second field for line colour. --Stewart 19:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Good touch. I assume when you say not, you mean now. I see a couple of things on there which spur me into putting some effort into trying to pull a standard together (use of open/closed stretches, major/minor stations, etc.). :-) I'll take this into account. Do we have colours in mind for lines that aren't already coloured? Chris cheese whine 19:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
'not has been corrected to now. --Stewart 20:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose this would be complicating things but do all routes have to be in dark red? Simply south 19:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I certainly like the new line template, started working with it in my sandbox. I would agree that we need to develop some consensus on how we use it though. Whilst developing a line, I keep asking myself what I should be including. I suspect we are all going to have different opinions so it would make sense to try to come to an agreement on such issues.
After seeing some work Stewart was doing in one of his sandboxes, I drew a similar diagram of the Penistone Line, showing the stations along the route. I traced the route from Google Earth. What are peoples opinions on such diagrams?
In response to Simply south's comment, I think the previously mentioned template, Template:UKrail-header, will allow you to use different colours where appropriate. Adambro 19:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Apologies, I misunderstood Simply south slightly. I can't think of a feasible way to do different route colours myself. Adambro 19:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Quote: The header template Template:BS-header has been replaced with Template:UKrail-header which includes a second field for line colour. :-)
My thoughts on what to include depends very much on scope. So, for instance, stations on the ECML might be linked with a summary strip that shows only the important stations, while the one on the ECML article has a longer call list. The articles on the route to Cambridge and the Hertford Loop can include the commuter stations, which we could then leave out of the ECML strip. All down to discussion, though. Need to figure out how to allocate the colours for those which aren't already colour-coded. In the meantime, I'd welcome contributions on the sub-page if anyone's up for it. Chris cheese whine 19:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
For the record I have a Worksheet at User:Pencefn/Historical Scottish Railways which helps me to keep track of the progress on the development of Scottish Historical Railways. This provides me with links to the various Sandboxes (Worksheets). User:Signalhead is systematically working through the currently open Scottish Railways. --Stewart 20:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I added my thoughts at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/TRAIL page. --Simmo676 20:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Great Western Main Line

The scope of the Great Western Main Line article is under discussion. It currently covers Paddington to Bristol; Reading to Taunton; and the Cornish Main Line (which, for some reason, starts at Taunton!). The South Wales Main Line, and some other less obvious routes that the SRA deem to be part of the GWML, already have their own articles.

The question is: should the South Wales route be merged with the GWML (which would bring it in line with the ECML/WCML articles), or should the West of England routes be separated out for clarity, although this could give rise to a naming conflict with the SWT West of England Main Line - a topic discussed a couple of years ago with no action taken.

The thoughts of other UK Railways Project members would be appreciated. Geof Sheppard 13:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Accident at Sonning Cutting

Hello All, I've just started a new article Railway accident at Sonning Cutting about the well-known accident there which occurred in 1841. I don't know anything about railways, almost all of the content derives from contemporaneous articles in The Times, but it struck me as an interesting story. Probably badly written and too long, but anyway, it's there for anyone to do anything they like to it (or blow it away, if it's of no interest). Regards, Nick. Nick 18:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

As usual, sources need to be cited, therefore you have to reference each resource in the text using e.g.<ref>[http://www.blah.com Blah]</ref>, which produces [1], followed by at the bottom of the page a References section, underneath put <references/> which produces

References

  1. ^ Blah

Simply south 19:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move: Grayrigg derailment -> Cumbria rail crash

I have proposed that this page is moved and cited WP:NAME which I believe supports it. I would welcome the views of other editors at Talk:Grayrigg derailment. Adambro 17:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn proposal as it seems extremely unlikely that consensus will emerge in support. Adambro 14:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sheffield Midland station and {{stn art lnk}}

Following the TfD, there is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Sheffield Midland station about including the links. Adambro 12:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_2&oldid=1036699545"