Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 44

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40 ← Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 → Archive 50

Units and conversion

The RFC has been re-closed. Hopefully all are satisfied with the new closure. There is no need to prolong this discussion any further. Mjroots (talk) 12:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Steelpillow: Please clarify. Are you saying that if my sources use miles and chains for the distance of a station, I must convert them to some other unit (your "primary" unit, whatever that is) and then convert them back to miles and chains? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Please do not continue a closed discussion. I have created a new one for this topic. Yes, that is my understanding of MOS:UNITS. Assuming the topic covers a UK railway then the primary unit will be miles, presumably decimal. My interpretation of the MOS would be that you would only resort to miles+chains conversion if chains were an integral part of the topic under discussion and it would not make sense unless they were given. I am willing to be corrected, but that should be based on what MOS:UNITS actually says and not on what you might want it to say. It is not my intention to engage in such further discussion (I closed the last one precisely because I was uninvolved), so if others wish to re-evaluate my closing remarks and establish a different consensus, that is your affair. Hope this helps. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
@Steelpillow: Thank you for volunteering to wade through the large volume of comments. I also find the close unclear, and I hope that a polite request for clarification does not constitute continuing a closed discussion. Please can you provide a link to the "new one for this topic", as this may contain the information we are seeking? Certes (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Redrose64 posted in the same thread as the closed discussion. One is not supposed to do that. I gave the new comments a new topic heading - this one - that is all. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 06:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • What's the process for simply overturning this NAC as bearing no relation to the previous discussion, votes or any evident consensus? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Just ignore it. Let the people who maintain articles maintain them, and let the MOS warriors continue their battles elsewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I just re-read the close. The conclusion strongly relies on the concept of "defining". The problem with that is that searching this page shows "defining" is used only in the close. I don't have time at the moment to check, but if that is correct the close is a supervote and will be overturned. Johnuniq (talk) 23:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

For your information, I did not act wholly in isolation. See the associated request at WP:AN. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC) I also took note of this parallel discussion at WT:MOSNUM. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Steelpillow: Thank you for your misguided but good faith attempt to close the discussion. All it has done is to open another thread and impose your interpretation on the debate. The issues were quite clear before kind hearted contributors jumped in without understanding the background. I have made multiple comment on many of the threads helping out good faith editors understand the simple fact that for UK railways the primary units are miles/chain, and the conversions are courtesies to folk passing through. It is almost resolved then we have a new wave of helpers... I think your closure follows the pattern. Please agree to withdraw it.ClemRutter (talk) 08:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
No. Based on our policies and guidelines I drew an impartial baseline to work from. I also included guidance on how to approach changes and clarifications. What I have clarified in this thread is my own approach to it. I will not do more. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
The request stands. Your intervention was based on your solitary interpretation of some of WP policies. The policies have been actively considered by most of the experienced contributors for years and indeed and decades, and actively discussed on multiple talk pages, in order to reach the point we are at. ClemRutter (talk) 12:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone agree that the close was a WP:Supervote? An RfC is supposed to be closed by describing what other editors have decided on, yet the close relies on the term "defining" which is not mentioned anywhere in the discussion. In a comment (diff, later removed) Steelpillow says that the concept is in MOS:UNITS, presumably referring to "use the system of units that the topic was drawn up in". However, a close is supposed to assess consensus, not provide wisdom missed by the crowd. MOS is a guideline that a closer cannot interpret to overrule consensus. Steelpillow (diff) clarified "I also took note of this parallel discussion at WT:MOSNUM." Should a closer combine their interpretation of other discussions into the close? At any rate, in that parallel discussion Redrose64 (diff) answered "Miles and chains" when asked what units are used for railway engineering drawings. That would make miles and chains defining. Johnuniq (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

According to MOS:UNITS, "Quantities set via definition (as opposed to measured quantities) should be given first in the units used in the definition, even if this makes the structure of presentation inconsistent: During metrification, the speed limit was changed from 30 mph (48 km/h) to 50 km/h (31 mph)." Hope this helps. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 03:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
But that's inapplicable because we're not defining anything. Earlier on, it says
    • UK engineering-related articles, including those on bridges and tunnels, generally use the system of units that the topic was drawn up in ...
Railways are engineering. UK railways were mostly drawn up in Imperial units; current surveys use miles and chains for the positions of stations, tunnels, bridges etc. and such distances are verifiable. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree that this close bears almost no relation to the discussion. I don't think that Steelpillow was acting in bad faith, but in practice the close was neither accurate nor helpful and should be reverted and the comments placed as a !vote. Thryduulf (talk) 08:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: @Thryduulf: The challenge procedure is described at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. See also the comment on MOSNUM made by Kahastok in the sub-thread below. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
@Steelpillow: and anyone else. I have now formally asked for a review of this closure at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of NAC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways. Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
@Steelpillow: given the almost unanimous questioning of your close in this thread, wouldn't it be simpler for you just to admit that you made a good-faith error and reopen the discussion? Rather than insisting on people having to go through the hoops of challenging it?  — Amakuru (talk) 12:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
No. Comments here range from "I don't understand what he said" to "I disagree with what he said (unspecified)" to "I disagree with the MOS guideline". A discussion as long-running and contentious as this one can never be closed without such a chorus of "I don't like it", and that is not a consensus for anything. I would be prepared to consider making clarifications, but those would need more focused consensus on exactly what issues needed clarifying and how it could best be clarified. Now that the AN request has been raised, I think that is the better place to canvass an impartial view on that. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
There is absolutely no need to reopen the discussion. A re-closing by an uninvolved editor is fine, but we are awaiting Steelpillow's further comments at AN. Mjroots (talk) 06:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:SSF

I wonder if it might be helpful to draw fellow editor's attention to Wikipedia:Specialized-style fallacy? This expresses very well the views of those of us who believe that giving the distance primarily in chains in the lead of articles is unhelpful, even obstructive, to the general audience we want to reach. Conversely and equally [see WP:RSSF, same essay] , the 'defintion units should appear in the article. NB, I am not trying to reopen the debate here, just point editors to a good explanation of the conundrum. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

That would be to confuse presentation style and sourcing. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley:, I don't understand why you think that? Taking the example I built at Bletchley, the lead gives approximate familiar units for the general reader and the location gives precise chainage as per the source for specialists. So if I understand you [which clearly I don't], all three presentation styles are given but the definitive data is sourced. Could you elaborate, please? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
It's not clear what you mean, but you're citing an essay which is against project-specific approaches. So I can only assume that you're against some assumed project style. Then if you state those of us who believe that giving the distance primarily in chains in the lead of articles is unhelpful, you're invoking some group (who don't appear to exist here) who do want to give the distance primarily in an obscure and confusing unit. But no one is calling to do that.
What you've actually done, in Bletchley, is fine. It seems to be pretty much what people are advocating: recognise that sources supply these distances in chains, preserve the use of chains as the canon measurement, but limit their presentation in recognition that they are obscure. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
@John Maynard Friedman: What a wonderful way to camoflage a losing POV in a discussion! If it is linked in the {{convert}}template it is open to every reader with a hole in their maths education to reseach this further. It is hardly specialised - if every rail commuter comes across it on every bridge they cross- and every property owner in the (50 -13) states Public Land Survey System sees it on their property deeds. I believe that was the difficulty in rewriting these deeds that was given as a reason why the US should stick with the Imperial system- rather than going metric! And none of this is helping the task of writing the encyclopedia. Look to writing a little javascript and css if you want to fiddle with the presentation. ClemRutter (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
A similar example of a losing argument being turned into an incoherent essay is Wikipedia:Gave us cookies (which earns extra points for having Jack and the Beanstalk in the See Also section). I don't know if the Public Land Survey System is the reason the US never converted to metric (although you have to admire any article that references Spike Lee and Star Trek) but Americans should be aware that one of the reasons many other countries converted was because the US forced them to. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Eh, what? The metric system was a French invention, it spread around Europe in the 19th century mainly because of Napoleon. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Your use of the phrase “losing POV" illustrates perfectly why we are in this mess. The compromise I proposed would satisfy both parties and meet the both SSF and RSSF. But rather than engage, you prefer an ad hominem attack. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
@John Maynard Friedman: You are right the ad hominem attack was wrong. Apologies. The frustration is real though, this debate has passed though multiple pages, and what should be a simple issue has been continually extended with the introduction of more essays and interpretations, with more and more participants arriving trying to be helpful before they have read the complete back history. There are so many proposals on the table that I have lost track of which one is the current one. So a proposal to break the log jam. Delete all proposals and ask @Andy Dingley: or @Redrose64: to formulate a proposal and discuss that. I think, that enough experienced editors are up to speed to refine that, and achieve consensus if the topic stays still long enough in one place! ClemRutter (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, accepted. Actually that the way the RFC was closed meant that we all lost, IMO. I'm happy with your idea. Perhaps the starting point might be a kind of closing summary that we should have had (but not called that! I wouldn't ask anyone to carry that bag of rocks! I mean a rough distillation of the key points, ignoring the no-hope/'chorus of disapproval' proposals. I believe that there is already a clear consensus on the major issues).--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'm the right person to ask. However, having seen this proposal by Mattbuck (talk · contribs), I had decided to consider it properly the next day and almost certainly to support it unchanged. Unfortunately, I went out to work the following morning, only to come home and find this which completely went against Mattbuck's proposal (and a few others). I have more to say on this: I won't just now. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Having read the closure several times I am still no clearer on what it is actually trying to say is the outcome. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
I doubt that anyone does! I suggest we ignore it. I agree with Redrose64 that your proposal is the best one to emerge and I believe that it has broad consensus. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
So far as I understand it, it follows the MoS, which attempts to distinguish between quantities which were pre-defined, and those which 'just happened' and were subsequently measured (so - to get away from chains for a moment - evidence to the inquiry into the Tay Bridge disaster on windloading would be reported in customary units where engineers said what windloading they designed bridges against, but in metric when the Astronomer Royal reported what wind pressures had been measured. That seems a bit odd, but the MoS seems explicit that that is what is intended. (Furthermore, it gives no guidance on what system should be applied to quantities which are neither defined nor measured but the result of calculation (for example the windloading at which various experts thought the Tay bridge would have been expected to fail), but that should not be an issue for railway chainage)). Hence, the closeout argues, since railway chainage is just a measurement, it should be given in modern units, not featuring chains.
Perhaps there are countries in which railway features were just plonked down, and their chainage/position measured subsequently, but, as I understand it, most UK railways were originally heavily predefined by the detailed plans submitted with the authorising parliamentary bill. One would hope very few subsequent alterations 'just happened' without prior specification either , so it is far from clear why the closeout assumes UK railway chainages to be measurements of distances which had 'just happened '. If it is in error on that, then the MoS section to which the closure points supports the use of chains when giving chainages - and hence Mattbuck's proposal. Rjccumbria (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
I was heavily involved in drafting this section of MOSNUM.
The top of WP:MOSNUM says that it is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. This is important. It is not intended to create a strait-jacket, but also not a free-for-all that will be abused by activists on either side of the metrication debate. At the same time, it cannot possibly deal with every context-specific exception or difference. The lede to MOSNUM also advises consistency within an article.
Munro is a good example here - it was sorted by MOSNUM editors at the time. A strict reading of WP:UNITS says mountain heights should be in metres, but in that specific context - where we're dealing with a defined unit in feet and inviting readers to compare against it - it makes more sense to use feet. So we use feet. Similarly, with the wind loadings for the Tay Bridge disaster, it makes no sense to follow the rule religiously if that means switching systems between quantities that you're inviting the reader to compare. So don't do that.
Note that MOSNUM does not distinguish between calculated and measured quantities. Both are intended to be treated the same way.
But it seems to me that in this case the key rule is UK engineering-related articles, including those on bridges and tunnels, generally use the system of units that the topic was drawn up in, which originally came out of a dispute over the Edinburgh tram system. In this case, this means imperial-first in most cases and may legitimately be interpreted as allowing chains. Kahastok talk 21:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chains- the position on 8th August 2018

For those revisiting this page. here is a copy of the most recent closure.

...So analysing the general consensus here, I am going to close this as a combination of the most popular options.

"The use of chains as a unit of measurement in articles on railway lines and railway stations is appropriate, only where chains (or miles and chains) are given in the quoted source. Where chains are given as a measurement, then conversion shall be from miles and chains to both decimal miles and kilometres (two decimal places)". Black Kite (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)}}

Out of courtesy, ClemRutter (talk) 15:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

MTR Crossrail

MTR Crossrail, which currently redirects to TfL Rail, has been nominated for retargetting to Crossrail. I have instead suggested it should be retargetted to MTR Corporation. Please contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 August 31#MTR Crossrail. Thryduulf (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Stansted Airport Transit System track gauge

Heads up that I've started a discussion about the track gauge of the Stansted Airport Transit System as I've been unable to verify the 2.8m figure given (or any other value). See Talk:Stansted Airport Transit System#Track gauge. Thryduulf (talk) 10:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Excessive detail at Tackley railway station

I've started at discussion at Talk:Tackley railway station about what I consider to be excessive detail in the article regarding one event. Please take a look and share your opinions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

GWR 6800 Class 6880 Betton Grange, project milestones

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Talk:GWR 6800 Class 6880 Betton Grange#Project milestones. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Loco ID request - Maybe a D49?

Unidentified loco - maybe D49

Can anyone identify File:Spoorweg met locomotief, Bestanddeelnr 190-1075.jpg? It's Edinburgh Waverley station in 1934 and I think it's an LNER D49. But the number might be 240, which doesn't seem to fit with the lists. Also, did D49s have their safety valves on that platform in the cladding?

Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 13:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The number is 249, which is a D49/1, named Aberdeenshire, new February 1928 and delivered to the Scottish Area. The first twenty D49s had a casing around the bases of the safety valves; later on, these were gradually removed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

AfD notice

The List of railway stations in Kent has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Duplicate articles (or nearly so)

LMS-Patriot Project and LMS Patriot Class 5551 The Unknown Warrior. Someone with more expertise than me might want to try to sort that one out (I'm guessing one needs to be merged into the other). Black Kite (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I doubt that there is much to merge. LMS-Patriot Project is the older article by more than five years - it was created at 09:07, 25 February 2012 by Biscuittin (talk · contribs), whereas LMS Patriot Class 5551 The Unknown Warrior was created at 19:14, 11 June 2017 by Moylesy98 (talk · contribs). Now Moylesy98 has been mentioned on these pages before, they are notorious for using Wikipedia as a blog host (see for example the section Project milestones and indeed my post above). Looking at the page histories in more detail, only two people have edited both: Moylesy98 and MatthewAnderson707 (talk · contribs). The edits by MatthewAnderson707 were unrelated (in one case, some "See also" links were added; in the other, some categories), so they might not have been aware that the two articles were so closely related. Before creating LMS Patriot Class 5551 The Unknown Warrior, Moylesy98 had already edited the first article to add a photo and indeed made further edits to that article within minutes of creating the second article, so they must have been aware that two pages existed. I suspect a WP:CFORK situation. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
The later article is the better (and better sourced) one, so I'd suggest history merging the two, and leaving them at LMS Patriot Project ... would that be OK, do you think? Black Kite (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
It's not better sourced. Of the twelve references, no fewer than ten are to http://www.lms-patriot.org.uk/ or other pages on that website; one is to http://www.southdevonrailway.co.uk/sdr-engineering - all eleven of these are primary sources. The remaining one is https://www.railadvent.co.uk/2018/10/llangollen-railway-to-stop-work-on-steam-locomotive-no-45551-the-unknown-warrior.html but I can't check that since my browser refuses to fetch the page; it reports "This site can’t provide a secure connection
www.railadvent.co.uk uses an unsupported protocol.
The client and server don't support a common SSL protocol version or cipher suite. This is likely to be caused when the server needs RC4, which is no longer considered secure.". So we're down to just one third-party source, that one being dubious in itself. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:47, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
That final source loads fine on my browser. It is a news site that at first glance seems reliable but I haven't looked in detail. Can you load the Wayback Machine archive? Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Origin of the LMS system of loco shed codes

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Talk:List of British Railways shed codes#Origin of the LMS system. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

CfD notices

I have nominated Category:Railway stations served by Arriva Trains Wales for category renaming and Category:Railway stations served by Gatwick Express for deletion. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of all categories for stations served by a TOC has been proposed in these discussions, you may wish to comment on that suggestion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I think it would be better to have that discussion here. If that category gets renamed fine, but deleting a single category within the whole structure is not helpful. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree. Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
@Mattbuck: Are you referring to Category:Railway stations served by Gatwick Express which no longer exists on its own as a TOC? We don't need a category that doesn't exist as a TOC anymore. The other TOC categories are useful because they still exist. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
@Pkbwcgs: Mattbuck's comment was, I believe responding to mine. I was reporting the suggestion to delete made by DexDor in both discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Newsletter

I am going to propose that WikiProject UK Railways will have a newsletter. It will be related to the activity from this WikiProject as well as UK railways in the news. I don't know if anyone thought of this and I would be happy to send this newsletter out every two months. Thanks. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Wellington to Nantwich Railway

Notice

The article Wellington to Nantwich Railway has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

We already have articles Wellington and Drayton Railway and Nantwich and Market Drayton Railway - this ons is redundant to those

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

  • This has been deprodded by JoshuaIsTheFalco. If the article is deleted though it should be a disambiguation between the two as the term is well used in sources. Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Wellington to Nantwich Railway for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wellington to Nantwich Railway is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wellington to Nantwich Railway until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Merging naming conventions for stations

The following proposal of a merger of all naming conventions for stations affects this project. Please give your opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Merging naming conventions for stations. Keith D (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Categorisation of stations by TOC / franchise

There are currently three TOC-related categories at CfD (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 13#Category:Railway stations served by Gatwick Express, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 13#Category:Railway stations served by Arriva Trains Wales and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 16#Category:Railway stations served by Heathrow Connect]. As such I think it would be useful to have a comprehensive discussion about categorisation of railway stations rather than discuss individual categories within the tree.

As a starter for the discussion I propose some possible options below - they are not mutually exclusive and they are not intended as final answers or recommendations (in all cases I'm not proposing to distinguish between franchised, open-access, etc, operators). I suggest we agree on the structure first and then discuss the naming afterwards.

A - categorisation by current TOC and/or franchise

In all cases we could use either all that call at a station, or only the principal ones

B - categorisation by station manager

C - categorisation by former TOC and/or franchise

D - categorisation by BR region/sector

E - categorisation by grouping company

F - categorisation by pre-grouping company/companies

For sets D, E and F we could use all that apply, only the company that built the station, only the last operator (in the case of closed stations) or some combination. We would also need to decide whether to use those companies that served (all or just principal), owned and/or managed the station.

X - we should not categorise by any of the above.

Currently we seem to have a mix of A1, A2 and A3 plus one of E, F or Category:Railway stations opened by British Rail (depending when it opened). Thryduulf (talk) 16:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Support Options A and B and oppose the rest of the option as there is no need to categorise a former TOC which is not operating anymore. I am leaning towards strong support for Option B because it is more useful to have Category:Railway stations managed by Govia Thameslink railway rather than three other categories (Category:Railway stations served by Southern, Category:Thameslink railway stations and Category:Railway stations served by Gatwick Express). Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

    • @Pkbwcgs: note that I intended this as a discussion not a vote. Thryduulf (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

As I have understood it for nine years or so:

Returning to D/E/F. We should not need to list all pre-privatisation changes of ownership, since in most cases the category tree system adequately covers that - in the vast majority of cases, stations changed ownership because the railway that owned them was either absorbed by or amalgamated with another railway. So, as with Euston (already mentioned), there is no need to put it in Category:Former London, Midland and Scottish Railway stations because that is the parent of Category:Former London and North Western Railway stations. Categorisation by BR region is fraught with danger - some stations changed region (Marylebone, and the stations between there and Northolt Park changed region no less than three times each: ER → WR → LMR → WR). Then as explained on p. 57 of Bonavia, Michael R. (1981). British Rail: The First 25 Years. Newton Abbot: David & Charles. ISBN 0-7153-8002-8. LCCN 80041448., there were two kinds of Region after 1960 - one, based on geography, which maintained the infrastructure; and one, based on lines, which operated the services. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Think the status quo of only categorising current TOCs is appropriate. Categorising every TOC would be a bit over the top, some TOCs only served some stations very briefly, e.g. CrossCountry served the West Coast stations north of Crewe for only a few weeks back in 2007. The Greater Anglia discussion in 2014 occurred in the era when companies were free to brand as they saw fit. This is no longer the case, with the brand name being specified by the DfT and will transfer from the old operator to the new as was the case with London Overground and ScotRail. This has resulted in DfT specified brands being rolled out even when the incumbent has retained the franchise, e.g. Abellio Greater Anglia became Greater Anglia and First TransPennine Express became TransPennine Express when retained by the existing operators. So going forward the renamings should stop.
The invitation to tender for the East Midlands franchise (1.9Mb document) on page 100 states the franchisee will:
"Implement and maintain Neutral Branding and the East Midlands Railway Brand throughout the Franchise Term; and ensure that all rights in the East Midlands Railway Brand are capable of being designated as Primary Franchise Assets and transferred to a Successor Operator at nil value."
The theory of the 2014 discussion was that the franchises are more stable, whereas the TOCs change more often (although with contracts being for 7 to 15 years, not that often really). But that isn't the case. The franchise network has, and still is, an evolving beast. Today's CrossCountry map is vastly different from that operated by its predecessor Virgin CrossCountry. Likewise the areas served by the East Anglia, Greater Western, Northern, Thameslink, TransPennine Express and Wales & Borders have been sliced and diced over the years. And it continues, services will be added to and deleted from East Midlands next year, the West Coast map will change when HS2 opens, and consideration is being given to splitting Greater Western and Thameslink.
Agreee with A1, A3 (for Crossrail and London Overground), A4 (for Govia Thameslink and West Midlands) E and F, and oppose A2, B, C and D. Metro140 (talk) 00:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't particularly see the purpose of any of these categories. However I certainly disagree with the idea that it's relevant to have categorisation by current TOC but not by former ones. I'd rather argue that this is a case similar to actors by role, wherein we do not categorise actor pages based on their appearing in Friends. We also don't categorise the Class articles by TOC. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I suppose this is not really about brands or operators. The main benefit of any of these categories is that you can easily find other stations that are in the same geographical area, while brand or operator serve as a fair proxy for geographical area. I can well imagine that we categorize the stations by region instead of by brand or operator. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
    • We already categorise by county / unitary authority so I don't think region would add anything to that (it's independent of TOCs anyway). Thryduulf (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment The extent of the various franchises is reasonably stable, which changes is the operator. Thameslink is a railway; so is the West Coast Mainline, so is Chiltern. We should categorise by franchise, not by TOC. Categorisation by local authority is all very well, but is does not work well. Bromsgrove District has 5 stations - one on the Stratford Line, one on the Birmingham-Worcester Line, and the rest on two lines that fork at Barnt Green. They have little coherence, just happening to be within the district. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Tramlink naming

People here might be interested in looking at Talk:Tramlink#Merging_Tramlink_and_London_Trams_pages,_dropping_Tramlink. G-13114 (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

DLR disused railway line

Hi everyone; having a complete brain meltdown. I saw that the Docklands Light Railway station Canning Town, was on a disused line known as the Palace Gates Line. I thought that only extended between Bowes Park and Seven Sisters? I assumed that the former stations on the DLR line up to Stratford were on the former Eastern Counties and Thames Junction Railway; I am being a complete biff or was there another line called Palace Gates, because at least two other DLR stations have Palace Gates Line in the navboxes at the bottom of the page (Stratford and Stratford Market) which has led me to doubt myself. Thoughts? Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The Eastern Counties and Thames Junction Railway originally ran from North Woolwich to Palace Gates. I wouldn't say it was on the Palace Gates Line just because it was on a line that terminated at Palace Gates, as that implies that it was on the Palace Gates branch in Wood Green. (It would be like saying that King's Cross is a part of the Scottish railway network just because it has services to Aberdeen.) ‑ Iridescent 19:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
So they are wrong to state Palace Gates Line then? (In our opinion) The joy of all things (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion, definitely. It would be like saying that Ruislip Gardens tube station is on the Fairlop Loop. ‑ Iridescent 20:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Services ran from North Woolwich to Palace Gates via Stratford Low Level, Lea Bridge, South Tottenham and Seven Sisters. There is a video of a trip o the line in the 1960s here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27259L4WT-o Davidvaughanwells (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

List of largest towns in England without a railway station

The List of largest towns in England without a railway station article (which was for some reason not tagged for this project) was nominated for deletion a few days ago. The discussion is still open if you wish to express an opinion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

King's Cross Thameslink railway station

I'm just looking at station articles in this area, and I'm wondering if we really need a separate article for this. It was once part of King's Cross St Pancras tube station and now it is again since Thameslink has gone up to St Pancras mainline, and most of the prose can be merged into those articles (if not already there) without much difficulty. Or is it important to have an article for each station just to document opening and closing dates? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I've spent the last decade fighting the "every incarnation of every station needs a stand-alone article" hardliners and am usually one of the loudest proponents of merging station articles where possible, but in this case I think it makes sense to keep King's Cross mainline, King's Cross St Pancras tube, and Kings Cross Thameslink as three separate entities. KX has such a complicated mess of a history with all its relocations, reroutings and rebuildings, anything we can do to keep content out of the bloated main article should be welcomed. Bear in mind that most of the visitors to London King's Cross railway station are either (1) travellers wanting to know if there are direct trains from here to Huddersfield, (2) American Harry Potter fans wanting to know if this location they've read about is a fictional or a real place and (3) tourists trying to work out where the Eurostar check-in is; our core readership couldn't care less about access disputes between the Met and LNER, the history of the Hotel Curve, or why the platform numbering starts at zero, so we should be burying as much as possibly of that kind of thing on subpages where we can. ‑ Iridescent 14:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Understood, although I'd imagine such readers don't wander past the lead, or certainly the opening paragraph which says "trains to NE England and Scotland, not the Eurostar which is next door, oh it's very busy" and maybe something about Harry Potter a bit later on. I'm just wondering how to balance content between the three articles successfully. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I'd say just a one-liner "Thameslink trains used to stop at a station on the site of the old tube station" and a {{main}} template; certainly no more than the funeral station or York Road gets. Otherwise, you're getting into a long sidetrack about the Widened Lines and the relationship between the three Kings Cross stations. Ultimately, these are three stations which happened to serve the same place, not three parts of the same station; we wouldn't try to unify the articles on Manchester Piccadilly, Central and Victoria, or on the three West Hampstead stations or the four Hammersmith stations. ‑ Iridescent 16:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
King's Cross Thameslink railway station was never "part of" King's Cross St Pancras tube station, it was a physically separate station about a quarter-mile to the east. Met/Circle/H&C trains served (what later became) the Thameslink station from the opening of the Met in 1863, until 1941 when the present Met/Circle/H&C station was built. Getting from the 1863 station to the main line station involved an open-air walk on the surface, and it wasn't short if you had luggage. Really, the 1863 station and the main line station shared a name not because one was close to the other, but because both were in the King's Cross district of London. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Road signs in RDTs

We've got another outbreak of road signs in RDTs, this time mainly from 86.171.65.184 (talk) and 86.170.68.4 (talk) - who may be the same person - and may also be the same person as 81.129.155.96 (talk). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The state of Cardiff Central railway station article.

Out of all the articles on major UK railway stations, I would have to say that the one on Cardiff Central railway station is by far the worst, and in major need of a massive overhaul and expansion. I don't have any source material to hand to do much about it myself at the moment, but I think this article should be a top priority for this project to improve. G-13114 (talk) 08:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I've made a big attempt to get the article up to a vaguely decent standard. But there's probably more needs to be done. It's pretty poor form that such an important article was left in that state for so long mind! Many of the other South Wales ones aren't much better. G-13114 (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

RFC on the Varsity Line template

I have opened an RFC on which elements on template:Varsity Line RDT should be shown as "active". The issue is "as of which date".
See Template talk:Varsity Line RDT#Historical consistency between this template and the host article: RFC.
Please comment there. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Rail usage Stats update

Does anyone know why the latest batch of rail usage stats will not display on station articles? I have checked back through the archives and I cannot find anything that suggests there is some reason for them not to display (though I could have missed an important discussion). It is not limited to particular stations either; IE I considered that Leeds might have an bloat situation going on, but at Kirkstall Forge there is only one other stat for last year after it opened, and the new 2017-18 numbers will not display there either. Help? Thanks. The joy of all things (talk) 12:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I've changed {{Infobox GB station}} to display the 2017/18 stats. Some articles may take a few hours to update but can be purged by anyone in a hurry. Certes (talk) 12:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you; I had no idea that's what it was. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 12:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on interchange statistics

You might be interested in this discussion about how many years of interchange stats should be shown in station infoboxes. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Sections on tunnels and level crossings

I am seeking the opinion of the project on whether the addition of sections on tunnels and level crossings is too much detail for a general encyclopedia. An example is at Chiltern Main Line. Britmax (talk) 14:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

As a very general rule—not a set-in-stone policy—I'd say usually "tunnels yes, level crossings no". Almost every tunnel is a major infrastructure project in its own right, and because of the limits they set on train size and line expansion potential, they're of continuing significance to any given line. Unless the existence of a level crossing has particular significance to a given line (e.g. trains run at a drastically reduced speed owing to the level crossings, or there have been significant accidents at the crossing) they're probably not worth even mentioning and when they are mentioned, it should be in prose rather than table form. In any case, for long lines with numerous tunnels and crossings like Chiltern Main Line they should probably be separated off into separate "List of tunnels on the Foo Line" lists to avoid cluttering the main articles with information 99% of readers aren't going to want. ‑ Iridescent 19:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I'd go with Iridescent on this one. In the past couple of days I have noticed such tables appearing on other articles about UK railway lines, including London, Tilbury and Southend Railway#Level Crossings and Shenfield–Southend line#Level Crossings, always added by Alnitak3 (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
It very much depends on the line. For light railways, it can be useful to show level crossings and tunnels on diagrams, such as the diagrams for the {{Kent and East Sussex Railway}} and Mid-Suffolk Light Railway. For major main lines, then level crossings are probably not notable enough for inclusion. Secondary main lines and branch lines should be on a case-by-case basis. One way of handling tunnels in an article on a railway line can be seen at the Hastings line article. Mjroots (talk) 11:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
There's an increasing trend of pages being bloated by boxes, so I personally think that even tunnels don't belong in the main page. Certainly agree that level crossings should only be shown if there is a special interest. As an example, this would distort the Fen Line page if it were done, since there are SIXTY crossings between Kings Lynn and Cambridge! (It's damn flat out there). Dr Sludge (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
In flat terrain, level crossings are way cheaper than bridges (in hilly terrain, where the railway is often on embankment or in cutting, the converse is true). Where road traffic is not particularly heavy, it usually takes a major accident with subsequent sustained campaign to put in a bridge instead. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
@Mjroots: These weren't in the RDTs, but tables in the main article text. They have all been removed now, by Alnitak3 (who had added them in the first place); you can see the one that prompted this thread at this permalink. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Are there any articles on level crossings? Difficultly north (talk) Simply south alt. 19:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
There are a lot of articles about individual incidents at level crossings (e.g. Hixon rail crash), and lots of articles like Four-quadrant gate and E-signal about specific styles of crossing or pieces of equipment. Billups Neon Crossing Signal is the only article specifically about a crossing per se, and as the first modern barriers-and-lights crossing that's something of an exceptional case. I would imagine it would be literally impossible to write a Wikipedia-compliant article about a level crossing, even a high-importance one like Northumberland Park, since the sources won't exist either to write the article or to demonstrate notability. (One could maybe eke out a viable stub for the level crossings at Sheringham and Hampden Park, but those are both unique cases.) If you count the street-running sections in Weymouth or Grimsby as very long level crossings, those wouldn't be too difficult if one really felt the urge but I don't see what useful purpose it would serve ‑ Iridescent 20:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm late to the party, but I'd wager there's enough written about the level crossing on Lincoln high street to justify an article. You could probably put something together on a few other crossings given the Network Rail/BTP campaign on crossing safety. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Sure, and one could probably eke a stub out for the Red Cow in Exeter (which shuts every time there's a movement in or out of St Davids), the High Street crossing in Poole (which has a terrible safety record) and Thorpe Road in Staines (which is almost single-handedly blocking Heathrow Airtrack from being built). Whether we should have stand-alone articles on topics like this is another matter, since those few people who are genuinely interested enough in a level crossing to want to read about it will without exception be people who are aware of how to look things up on the Network Rail website and in local papers and consequently get information more up-to-date than anything Wikipedia can provide. (In this case, the usual issues with directing people to primary sources don't apply, since it's not as if there's competition between level crossings and we'd be privileging one provider over another.) ‑ Iridescent 16:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting that it would be a good idea to have articles on individual level crossings! ;) Rather I was remarking on the breadth of subjects that could potentially sustain a Wikipedia article. There could be value in covering these in broader articles but I can't imagine writing an article on an individual level crossing other than for the amusement value. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Rounding in rail usage stats

I've added 2017-18 usage figures to some stations in Cheshire. One thing I noticed while doing so is that some of the figures which are quoted as millions were wrong. For instance, Capenhurst had 0.220 for 2015-16 and 2016-17. The actual numbers are above 220,499, so should have been written as 0.221. I've corrected these where I've noticed them.

I've also added WP::COMMENT against each rounded figure to say what the actual number is. This is to make it easier for the next person to come along to check that I've got the rounding right.

As some of the old figures have been hidden, I've mangled the comments I've added for those to stop them closing the "real" comment.

Does this all sound okay?

To me, it would be better if the template itself could divide by a million and round the number off. I know you can do it with something like {{convert|220,814|mm|km|3|abbr=values|disp=out}}, but it makes the source messy. I don't know what drawbacks building it into the infobox templates may have, but taking the "divide by a million" task away from human editors seems like an advantage to me. Aoeuidhtns (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

{{round}} may be useful, followed by the number (in millions) and the number of decimal places, e.g. {{round|0.220814|3}} = 0.221. Certes (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
If we were doing that, it would be best to allow the figure to be taken straight from the spreadsheet as-is, without any pre-manipulation. This is the code:
{{#expr:{{formatnum:220,814|R}} / 1000000 round 3}} → 0.221
We could make a template for that, if there is consensus.
Please don't add the actual figures in comments (real or mangled). This is just extra clutter, and is more justification for the "all stats should be reduced to just one, if not removed outright" side of the argument (which has been going on for years). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Notification of RM: Harrington (Church Road Halt) railway station

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Harrington (Church Road Halt) railway station#Requested move 19 December 2018. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

RFD on East Coast Main Line diagram

There is currently a proposal to delete this at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 14#East Coast Main Line diagram. Useddenim (talk) 05:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Engine Sheds, TMDs,MPD

Colleagues I am currently writing a series of articles on Hull area engine sheds and have just realised that there is a stub entry for Botanic Gardens TMD.

I would like to establish a protocol for these sites as the current naming sometimes seems misleading and TMD seems too modern a term for depots that did not have modern traction. The general engine shed page is actually titled Motive Power Depot so more confusion!

My view is that engine shed is the correct terms for any location operating up to the end of steam in the UK (1968). I would suggest we adopt the TMD for anything opened after 1968.

However what do we do with sites where the site has been both - separate articles with links between them? Rename all as engine shed (which is the category they all fall under) as the majority of readers will not really understand the difference? Thoughts?Davidvaughanwells (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Other terms were used in the pre-diesel era: engine shed, locomotive shed, locomotive depot, motive power depot were all in use on various railways. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Botanic Gardens didn't survive long enough to be a "TMD", especially as that was generally reserved for depots with a mainline locomotive allocation, which it didn't have. "MPD", possibly ... "depot" would probably be best. Black Kite (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
I have some books from the period that list depot codes. The last time that the Ian Allan combined volume mentions BG was in
where the entry shows Hull (Botanic Gardens) TMD. By contrast,
  • Fox, Peter; Knight, Steven (1989). British Rail Pocket Book No. 3: Diesel Unit Pocket Book 1989 Edition (1st ed.). Sheffield: Platform 5 Publishing. inside back cover. ISBN 0-906579-90-2.
shows Botanic Gardens DMUD (Hull) which stands for Diesel Multiple-Unit Depot. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
For sites that have had multiple names, we should use the current/most recent name except (a) where a different name is clearly more common; or (b) when the article is exclusively about a time period when the current/most recent name was not in use - in which case we should use the name that applied for the majority of the time period the article covers (if there is one) or the most recent name used in that time period (if no names cover the majority). Thryduulf (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
I support Thryduulf's analysis. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
The problem there is that most books and magazines use the unambiguous portion of the name - in this case either Hull (Botanic Gardens) or simply Botanic Gardens, as in "When new, the units were allocated to Botanic Gardens, but some were later transferred to Neville Hill." Additional descriptive terms like TMD, MPD, etc. are rarely given. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Hmm interesting discussion thus far and I don't think there is any easy answer. I chose engine sheds as my favourite as theses description is what appeared on older OS maps, however having checked Toton out on OS today - no descriptor at all. I wouldn't expect Joe Public to be particularly interested in the difference between MPD, DMUD etc whilst acknowledging us rail orientated folks do. Not that keen on Black Kite's suggestion of depot as its too generalised and I think the USa sometimes uses this word to describe a railway station?
I am warming to Thryduulf's definition as a compromise although with Botanic Gardens as my work in progress example (on my sandbox page currently awaiting referencing) I feel engine shed better reflects its overall history than DMUD, TMD, fuelling and stabling point whilst acknowledging these names are more recent/current.Davidvaughanwells (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@Davidvaughanwells: my earlier comment was intended only as a way of determining which of several temporally separated names we should use, not what the names should be. Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Personally I prefer Black Kite's suggestion of just "depot". It's clear enough to the general public and anyone who cares about the difference between a TMD or an MPD or a DMUD will already know what they're looking for. As long as you leave redirects from all plausible titles, anyone who's interested will be able to find it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
To me, depot = a place to deposit goods, a parcel office. Wiktionary at wiktionary:depot doesn't support Black Kite's usage. Is this really common in the UK? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
D'oh! TMD = Train Maintenance Depot. <blush>. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
John Maynard Friedman Actually, it stands for Traction Maintenance Depot. Sorry and regards. The joy of all things (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
I knew that! I knew that!. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, in the UK "depot" in a railway context is used as a general term for any site (usually with a building large enough to contain at least some rolling stock) that is not a station where rolling stock is stored and/or maintained (even if the maintenance is nothing more than cleaning and/or refuelling). If there is no building and the site is small and/or parallel to running lines then "sidings" is the more common term. If the primary activity is loading or unloading of wagons then it's most commonly a "yard" if there is no more specific term. Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Given the category is Category:Railway depots in England perhaps we stick with that as a category and just adopt what the initial author thinks is the correct article title following some of the suggestions above? I'd also note that there are a number of station entries in this list where the station has a small local engine shed not worthy (at this point at least) of a separate entry. When ready I think I'll just copy my Botanic Gardens work (which I will get on with now) into the existing TMD entry. Happy new yearDavidvaughanwells (talk) 11:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I lean towards Thryduulf's proposal to use the most recent or most familiar name. Most of the ones that I have visited in recent years seem to be either a 'traincare depot' or simply a 'depot'. My main concern with the latter being the confusion with goods or other depots. We definitely should not shorten the name to 'TMD' or 'TCD'. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Cross-City Line reopening speculation

Could an uninvolved editor look through the recent changes at Cross-City Line, regarding a possible re-opening of the Walsall-Lichfield route. I can't find any specific mention in the referenced pdf to a rail re-opening, and in any case I don't feel it belongs on the Cross-City article anyway. However I've already reverted twice, so a fresh pair of eyes would be welcome. O Still Small Voice of Clam (formerly Optimist on the run) 14:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Voice of Clam Ref is on page 3 of Corridor D section (page 28 overall)
As to its validity on the Cross-City Line? It would be better suited to the Walsall/Chase Line article, but that is IMHO. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
JoshuaIsTheFalco (talk · contribs), one of our long-term WP:CRYSTALBALL-gazers, has been adding similar information to a number of articles related to railways in that area. For example, Brownhills railway station when the pdf doesn't mention Brownhills at all. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Tyne and Wear Metro/Merseyrail obsessive

Our resident Merseyrail obsessive appears to be back and is disruptively editing the Tyne and Wear Metro article again, as well as a few others. G-13114 (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:North Union Railway 1834 - 1889

I have redrawn this—topologically identical, but hopefully clearer—but the Euxton–Bolton section doesn't seem to agree with the information in the individual station (and other line) pages. Would someone with more knowledge in the area mind talking a look, please? Useddenim (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

It's in {{routemap}} format which is a PITA to fix. Here's a textual summary of the errors, from top to bottom, beginning at Euxton: Blackrod is missing, this was to the north-west of the triangular junction for Horwich Works. The corners of this triangle are: Blackrod Junction (NW corner); Horwich Fork Junction (SE corner); Loco Junction (NE corner). Horwich station was not on the triangle, but down the branch - there was no station on the triangle. The branch ran straight to Horwich station, with a further branch off that towards the south-east to serve the loco works. There was no triangle between the Horwich Fork Junction and Lostock Junction. From Horwich Fork Junction, a line ran south through Hilton House then Dicconson Lane and Aspull, joining the line from Lostock Junction to Wigan Wallgate at Crow Nest Junction, between Westhoughton and Hindley. This line (Lostock Junction - Wigan) was not Lancashire Union Railway - it was the Liverpool and Bury Railway. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I've had a go at this but I agree that Routemap isn't the most intuitive syntax. Please report any errors. In particular, I suspect I put Westhoughton in the wrong place. Certes (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Thank you for the explanation. And also to Certes, who got to the diagram before me. Useddenim (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Aha! this should clarify things. Useddenim (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Here's a RCH map of at least the southern bit: [1]. Being from a later era, it doesn't show which lines had been NUR. I've removed Westhoughton, split the two exit lines just south of Horwich marked "Liverpool and Bury Railway to Hindley" and made space for them to be corrected further. The left exit seems to be the line to Amberswood, with a chord onto the Wigan-Manchester line to enter Hindley from the west. The right exit is the line identified above via Hilton House and Dicconson Lane towards Atherton, with a chord to enter Hindley from the east. Was the Hilton House line part of the NUR, needing further detail on this diagram? Can we improve the duplicate descriptions? Any other errors? Certes (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
That RCH Junction Diagram is from 1895; there's a 1914 set on commons, of which the ones relevant to the NUR are: File:Euxton, Farington & Preston RJD 62.jpg; File:Boar's Head, Haigh, Hindley, Pemberton, Plank Lane, Strangeways & Wigan RJD 77.jpg; File:Adlington, Blackburn, Cherry Tree, Chorley, Hincaster Ingleton & Wennington RJD 103.jpg (bottom right). Unfortunately the 1914 set doesn't cover the former NUR south of Adlington, probably because there were no junctions between the LYR and other railways on that stretch, and they needed space in the book for other areas. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Lancashire Union Railway clarifies the left branch. The 1895 map and Blackrod both suggest that the Hilton House line was built by L&YR rather than a specific predecessor, so I've changed the destinations. Job done? Certes (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Almost. There should be a   (eABZg+r) just above Lostock Junction for the Liverpool & Bury Railway. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Done. I was wondering about that one but assumed it'd been left off to reduce clutter. From the maps, the junction seems to coincide with the station (probably a V with platforms on each branch), so I've drawn it that way. Thanks for the advice. Certes (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Which was the last station to be built on the WCML before Milton Keynes Central?

One for wannabe Pointless competitors out there! Having found a good source, I've just added a brief section at Milton Keynes Central railway station#History and development on how the station came about. I couldn't resist repeating the factoid that it was the first new station on the WCML "since the turn of the century". But it wouldn't be wikipedia if we couldn't supply the name and date of that previous station. But I don't know where to look for that info. Suggestions or better still answers welcome, with thanks! The first person with what is agreed to the Final Answer gets to update the article!!!--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Going to bed now, but off the top of my head if they opened a new station and the Birmingham "loop" counts, Birmingham Airport would be a candidate. Britmax (talk) 23:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
If the Brum loop counts, then Smethwick Galton Bridge is newer than BHI. Otherwise you have Euxton Balshaw Lane but that was built on the site of a previous station (wasn't it?). Black Kite (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Smethwick Galton Bridge and Euxton Balshaw Lane are both newer then Milton Keynes. If I understand the question correctly, we are looking for the previous station to open, in order to "prove" that MK was the first in the 20th C (which presumably rules out the Birmingham/RBS Loop). I don't know the answer, but will see if I can use my Butt to compile a list... O Still Small Voice of Clam 10:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I presume the Watford DC line is counted as a separate entity from the WCML in this regard (I'm not an infrastructure/route expert), because Headstone Lane was built around the start of WWI, I think – i.e. about 60 years before MKC. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 10:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. The exact phrase used in the source is "the first station to be built on the London-Glasgow line since the turn of the century". So two possibilities (a) accidentally on purpose ignoring the Birmingham loop or (b) MKC and BHI were competing priorities at about the same time and it was just how the cookie crumbled that BHI got built first. [I think we may assume that only main-line stations "count" (if there is a wikipedia policy against cherrypicking sources and definitions to get the answer you want, this source may well offend!) So when you get off out your Butt, we need to know which stations were built between say 1880 and 1980. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I tried Wikidata but its association of stations to lines isn't detailed enough. It also thinks the WCML consists of Scotrail HSTs in Hertfordshire, so I'm more likely to believe an answer pulled out of someone's Butt. Certes (talk) 11:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Apsley opened 1938, so Milton Keynes wasn't the first in the 20th century. There may be others. O Still Small Voice of Clam 13:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, only needs one adverse case to disprove a thesis. I shall take it out. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Where am I

Where am I?

My guess is London Bridge, but can someone confirm please? O Still Small Voice of Clam 13:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I think I'd agree with that, this image seems to match the area in the background towards the right of the photo. — GasHeadSteve [TALK] 13:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes; also resembles File:London Bridge station (16307840572).jpg. Certes (talk) 13:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the confirmation. Photo updated and renamed. O Still Small Voice of Clam 14:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Crewe open day

Open day at Crewe Diesel Depot, 8 June. Might be of interest to folks watching this page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

WP 1.0 Bot Beta

Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 06:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Navboxes proposed for deletion

Two navboxes, {{Railway stations in Nottinghamshire}} and {{Railway stations in the Borough of Scarborough}}, have been nominated for deletion by user:Zackmann08. Please see the discussions at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 1#Template:Railway stations in Nottinghamshire and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 1#Railway stations in the Borough of Scarborough. Thryduulf (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

British Rail Class 73

The recent edits by 79.151.200.21 could use some serious cleanup. Not a total revert, since they have in fact corrected some factual errors. But it's not well written, and does tend to deviate from the primary topic. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Where am I?

Where's this?

Possibly Crewe. Can someone confirm or otherwise identify please? — O Still Small Voice of Clam 14:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The Twitterati say it's the "Southend Upside Bays" at Crewe. Mjroots (talk) 08:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Definitely Crewe; you can tell by the distinctive red zig-zag struts. File:Crewe railway station - platform 3.jpg shows the same location as it now appears. ‑ Iridescent 08:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks - categorised accordingly. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 09:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_44&oldid=897300121"