Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 47
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 40 | ← | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 |
I am slightly unhappy here. User:IamMattDavies is adding stations that are not least-used stations to the "Other least used stations in the county / region" section of the table at Least used railway stations in Great Britain#List of Least Used Stations by county. This includes stations that have over 100,000 passengers annually and there were even some stations which had over 500,000 annual passengers according to the 2018-2019 statistics mentioned at the "Other least used stations in the county / region" section at the table at Least used railway stations in Great Britain#List of Least Used Stations by county. So, I decided to remove those stations and replace them with stations that are properly "least-used". However, User:IamMattDavies decided to revert those changes. User:IamMattDavies said that they were formerly least-used and that may have been true but Wikipedia articles are supposed to be up-to-date and this means they should be referring to 2018-2019 railway statistics. It is misleading to have out-of-date information. When someone looks at "Other least used stations in the county / region", they are going to think that this has the latest information on which stations in the county are least-used. For example, it is misleading to say that Wakefield Kirkgate railway station is one of the least-used stations in West Yorkshire when it received 524,960 passengers in the 2018-2019 statistics. It may be worth mentioning that they were formerly least-used stations but it is misleading to say that Wakefield Kirkgate railway station or Farnborough North railway station is a "least used station" when they got over 500,000 passengers in the 2018-2019 statistics. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- Totally agree. In the case of Wakefield Kirkgate, it's never been remotely true; the only reason it ever showed up near the bottom of the tables was that NWR used to ticket just to "Wakefield", not to Kirkgate and Westgate. Including it in a "least used" list is akin to claiming that Paddington is permanently deserted besause FGW tickets invariably show "London Terminals" as the destination. ‑ Iridescent 21:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- (adding) And he's also using his own hobbyist website as a source, I notice. Revert, warn, and hopefully we won't need to block; this appears to be a very editor who's working in good faith and doesn't understnd that Wikipedia's rules on accuracy and sourcing are much stricter than those of other similar sites. ‑ Iridescent 21:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- I have reverted the editor and gave them a level 1 warning for adding improperly sourced material. Pkbwcgs (talk) 07:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- The more I look at it, the more I think it may be necessary to do a WP:TNT deletion. It's a valid topic—the annual press coverage of the least-used station gives it notability—but this page is a hopeless mix of original research and dubious sourcing (
A station is considered a Least Used Station as defined by these three criteria: They usually have low patronage, usually under 1000; They are far down the statistics provided year-by-year from the Office of Rail and Road (ORR); They have a strange sense of tourism
?) and trying to salvage those parts which meet Wikipedia's standards would likely be more work than rewriting it from scratch using reliable secondary sources. ‑ Iridescent 08:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)- @Iridescent: Agreed. We don't have articles like Least used railway stations in USA, Least used railway stations in China or Least used railway stations in India. It may be a valid topic but I think that it needs to be rewritten from scratch. The article is an absolute mess. I am going to send it to AfD. Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- I have sent it to AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Least used railway stations in Great Britain. Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- I get the impression that the media paying attention to such things (and thus making them 'notable' in Wikipedia terms) is a purely British phenomenon; certainly growing up in the US, I never saw any kind of least used station/airport/whatever list. (There are some nominal 'railway stations' in North America—e.g. Blue River station, which has two trains per week in each direction, serves a community with a population of 260, and requires 48 hours advance notice from anyone planning to get on or off—which likely go an entire year without a single passenger.) Googling least used station seems to back that up; every hit is about British (and specifically Britain not UK) stations. On a related note, Geoff Marshall—which I'm compelled by WP:AGF to pretend to believe isn't a blatant autobiographical puff-piece—could probably be safely disposed of as well. ‑ Iridescent 08:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Iridescent: Agreed, I think that it is only a British thing and least-used stations in Britain is not a notable topic outside of Britain. I am also considering sending Geoff Marshall to AfD. Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- The only thing with Geoff Marshall is that he visited all the stations in the United Kingdom and broke the world record for visiting all the tube stations in the fastest time. Otherwise, I would have sent it to AfD because the 157,000 YouTube subscribers doesn't make him notable and the books he written and his total views does not make him notable. Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Breaking the tube station record isn't as impressive as it sounds, as the transfer of the ELL to London Overground had reduced the number of stations and also reconfigured the optimum route for visiting every stop. The record he set was promptly broken by someone else. (At the time of writing the record is held by these guys.) ‑ Iridescent 08:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Iridescent: I think that before Geoff Marshall gets sent to AfD, I think that All the Stations needs to be sent to AfD. It is a train enthusiast's own project to visit all the railway stations in Great Britain and Ireland. That is not a particularly notable thing and the content is very minimal apart from a big table which shows which stations Geoff visited on which day. The more I look at it, the more I feel that this just got to go to AfD. It is only WP:FANCRUFT. Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Breaking the tube station record isn't as impressive as it sounds, as the transfer of the ELL to London Overground had reduced the number of stations and also reconfigured the optimum route for visiting every stop. The record he set was promptly broken by someone else. (At the time of writing the record is held by these guys.) ‑ Iridescent 08:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- The only thing with Geoff Marshall is that he visited all the stations in the United Kingdom and broke the world record for visiting all the tube stations in the fastest time. Otherwise, I would have sent it to AfD because the 157,000 YouTube subscribers doesn't make him notable and the books he written and his total views does not make him notable. Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Iridescent: Agreed, I think that it is only a British thing and least-used stations in Britain is not a notable topic outside of Britain. I am also considering sending Geoff Marshall to AfD. Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- I get the impression that the media paying attention to such things (and thus making them 'notable' in Wikipedia terms) is a purely British phenomenon; certainly growing up in the US, I never saw any kind of least used station/airport/whatever list. (There are some nominal 'railway stations' in North America—e.g. Blue River station, which has two trains per week in each direction, serves a community with a population of 260, and requires 48 hours advance notice from anyone planning to get on or off—which likely go an entire year without a single passenger.) Googling least used station seems to back that up; every hit is about British (and specifically Britain not UK) stations. On a related note, Geoff Marshall—which I'm compelled by WP:AGF to pretend to believe isn't a blatant autobiographical puff-piece—could probably be safely disposed of as well. ‑ Iridescent 08:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- I have sent it to AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Least used railway stations in Great Britain. Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Iridescent: Agreed. We don't have articles like Least used railway stations in USA, Least used railway stations in China or Least used railway stations in India. It may be a valid topic but I think that it needs to be rewritten from scratch. The article is an absolute mess. I am going to send it to AfD. Pkbwcgs (talk) 08:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- The more I look at it, the more I think it may be necessary to do a WP:TNT deletion. It's a valid topic—the annual press coverage of the least-used station gives it notability—but this page is a hopeless mix of original research and dubious sourcing (
- I have reverted the editor and gave them a level 1 warning for adding improperly sourced material. Pkbwcgs (talk) 07:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- I agree it should be deleted, at the very least the "by County" section, which looks like WP:SYNTH. The overall concept may be notable as the press do cover it, but possibly as a section in some other article not a standalone. — Amakuru (talk) 09:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Don't agree about Geoff Marshall or All the Stations though. That project received significant coverage in the media and they appeared on TV shows and so on, so it's notable. — Amakuru (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- I have nominated All the Stations for deletion and cited WP:FANCRUFT in my rationale. I am not going to nominate Geoff Marshall for deletion as I still think that he is notable because of him appearing on TV shows. However, Geoff Marshall appeared in a very few TV shows but for now I will think about it but I am not going to nominate Geoff Marshall for deletion. Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Except WP:FANCRUFT is an essay and not a valid deletion reason in itself (as it says, it simply means that fancrufty articles may fail other deletion criteria). All The Stations was covered in major media (there are links from the Times, Telegraph, Guardian and national UK TV). Black Kite (talk) 09:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Exactly. @Pkbwcgs: I thought this discussion was about the least used stations list. I can't support deleting All the Stations, it's a clear GNG pass,so not sure why you're confusing the discussion with that. — Amakuru (talk) 09:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Amakuru: I have withdrawn All the Stations. I still disagree that "it's a clear GNG pass" but I withdrawn it. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks @Pkbwcgs:. Personally I'm not in much doubt that both Geoff Marshall and All the Stations are independently notable - he has received reliable-source coverage for other projects such as the tube challenge too (and even though you and I may think that's fairly unremarkable and WP:FANCRUFT-like, the test is whether it's received significant coverage, not whether we think it should have received such coverage). Someone did make a point about merging Geoff Marshall and All the Stations together, which per WP:PAGEDECIDE might be a valid question. I still think there is probably enough independent material to maintain both though... As for least-used stations, the concept itself does receive significant coverage, e.g. [1][2] but I don't think is worthy of a full list with county-by-county breakdown (and the latter is a concept which really is specific to Marshall, without any claim to independent notability). So would support a deletion and maybe cover the top few entries briefly in one of the other articles on UK stations. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Amakuru: I have withdrawn All the Stations. I still disagree that "it's a clear GNG pass" but I withdrawn it. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Exactly. @Pkbwcgs: I thought this discussion was about the least used stations list. I can't support deleting All the Stations, it's a clear GNG pass,so not sure why you're confusing the discussion with that. — Amakuru (talk) 09:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Except WP:FANCRUFT is an essay and not a valid deletion reason in itself (as it says, it simply means that fancrufty articles may fail other deletion criteria). All The Stations was covered in major media (there are links from the Times, Telegraph, Guardian and national UK TV). Black Kite (talk) 09:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- I have nominated All the Stations for deletion and cited WP:FANCRUFT in my rationale. I am not going to nominate Geoff Marshall for deletion as I still think that he is notable because of him appearing on TV shows. However, Geoff Marshall appeared in a very few TV shows but for now I will think about it but I am not going to nominate Geoff Marshall for deletion. Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Don't agree about Geoff Marshall or All the Stations though. That project received significant coverage in the media and they appeared on TV shows and so on, so it's notable. — Amakuru (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Lint errors
Does anyone know why Romford railway station, Maryland railway station, Manor Park railway station, Forest Gate railway station and Chadwell Heath railway station are showing up on this lint errors page for misnested tags. I had a look and none of those articles seem to have misnested tags. Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- Same thing going on with Kirknewton railway station. It is showing up on the misnested tags lint errors page but for no reason. Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- The last one could be the extra italic markup before <small> tag in
{{rail line|previous=''<small>''Connection at<br>Midcalder Junction''</small>|next={{Stnlnk|Newpark}}|route=[[Caledonian Railway]]<br /><small>'''[[Cleland and Midcalder Line]]'''</small> |col={{Caledonian colour}} }}
- Keith D (talk) 12:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keith is right: that wikitext rendered as <i><small></i>...</small>, which is misnested. This should fix Kirknewton, and this edit to {{LCR lines}} should fix the Crossrail stations. Certes (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- Using the small template helps avoid that sort of thing. It's much more obvious when a template error has been made. Bazza (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keith is right: that wikitext rendered as <i><small></i>...</small>, which is misnested. This should fix Kirknewton, and this edit to {{LCR lines}} should fix the Crossrail stations. Certes (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keith D (talk) 12:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Canterbury and Whitstable Railway
I've currently got Mitchell & Smith's Branch Lines Around Canterbury out from the library. There's material that can be incorporated into the Canterbury and Whitstable Railway article. Give the way that Middleton Press organise their books, it would be much easier to cite the book if I convert all book citations to the {{sfn}} format. Are there any objections if I do this? Mjroots (talk) 12:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- OK. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- As there have been no objections, I've converted the references. There's one {{cite journal}} ref, not sure whether this works with sfn so have left it. Mjroots (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
FAC that might be of interest
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Midland Railway War Memorial/archive1. For anyone who might be interested. All feedback welcome. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Tivoli railway station
I intend to create articles for all redlinks on the {{Closed stations Kent}}, but there's one that is proving very hard to pin down. Tivoli railway station, in Margate. All I can find is that it (probably) opened in 1846, and took its name from the Tivoli Gardens. There is an unreferenced claim on {{Kent Coast Line}} that it closed in 1872. Can we crack this tough nut? Mjroots (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- It opened on 20 July 1848 according to a report in the Kentish Gazette for 25 July 1848. A single platform with steps at the entrance to the Tivoli Gardens. From 1868 the only mentions I can find are for excursions to Margate races. The last mention of trains using the station I can find is for Whit weekend 1871 in the Thanet Advertiser (27 May 1871). Nthep (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Opened 1 December 1846, closed c. 1872, and also known as Hall by the Sea, according to {{Butt-Stations}}. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 20:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- The Kentish Gazette report for the opening is specific that 20 July 1848 was the first time trains used the new station. I'm afraid the Butt reference sounds like another example of the author assuming all stations on a line opened on the same day as the line opened. Croughton, Kidner & Young doesn't help except on dates but gives a grid reference of TR35266989. Nthep (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- I'd take a contemporary newspaper report as having more weight than a book published decades later. Nthep, would you care to start the article? Mjroots (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- I'll have a look later today. Nthep (talk) 09:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- It's mentioned in Quick (p. 398) as a non-timetabled stop: "permission to Mr Divers (owner of gardens?) to erect this given 6 July 1848 (SE); first used 20 July 1848 (Kentish Gazette 25th); adverts seen suggest spring and summer use by evening trains; last adverts seen to mention trains appeared in 1867 (Gardens closed 14 September that year – Thanet Advertiser, 21st); Gardens continued to be advertised in 1868 but no mention of trains". The mention of "Hall by the Sea" by Butt is incorrect as this refers to another station (LCDR), also in Margate, which never saw trains and was later reused as a dance hall. Lamberhurst (talk) 12:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- I'll have a look later today. Nthep (talk) 09:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
- I'd take a contemporary newspaper report as having more weight than a book published decades later. Nthep, would you care to start the article? Mjroots (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- The Kentish Gazette report for the opening is specific that 20 July 1848 was the first time trains used the new station. I'm afraid the Butt reference sounds like another example of the author assuming all stations on a line opened on the same day as the line opened. Croughton, Kidner & Young doesn't help except on dates but gives a grid reference of TR35266989. Nthep (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
- Opened 1 December 1846, closed c. 1872, and also known as Hall by the Sea, according to {{Butt-Stations}}. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 20:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
OK, article started. Nthep (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Naming of halts?
Should Black Dog Halt railway station include both "halt" and "railway station" ? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. Since this is our convention for those UK stations that retain the 'halt' designation (e.g. Coombe Junction Halt railway station) it would be perverse not to apply it to historic stations as well. ‑ Iridescent 12:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Cambridge South railway station has been demerged from Transport in Cambridge as construction of the station has been approved and funded. JeanPassepartout (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- Whilst I do agree the station needs its own article, I disagree it has been approved, with my reasons given on the article talk page. Difficultly north (talk) Simply south alt. 23:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Train Operating Companies
It seems that HM Government are taking over the running of trains from all TOCs. I would suggest that we do not make any changes to station articles etc removing TOCs from those articles. We may need to amend articles relating to current TOCs covering the suspension of their franchise due to the coronavirus outbreak. Mjroots (talk) 09:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Is the take-over confirmed yet? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- It is not a take-over (yet) the franchise agreements have been suspended and the TOCs are effectively on management contracts for the next 6 months. No changes to station articles needed. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Franchises suspended to prevent collapse of TOCs. (Sky News). Mjroots (talk) 11:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- But the TOCs are still running the services, just under a management contract, BBC News Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, it's only the financials that are being borne by the Government. The Sky link even says "In case operators choose not to take part in its "Emergency Measures Agreement", the government's Operator of Last Resort will take over the franchise." I wouldn't change any station articles etc. Black Kite (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- But the TOCs are still running the services, just under a management contract, BBC News Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Franchises suspended to prevent collapse of TOCs. (Sky News). Mjroots (talk) 11:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- It is not a take-over (yet) the franchise agreements have been suspended and the TOCs are effectively on management contracts for the next 6 months. No changes to station articles needed. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Butt template
Hello all, I am after some help. In the last few days, various {{sfn}} citations have gone into a deprecated state (over 47,000 articles, some of them about UK railway stations). Most can be sorted by amending the sources and adapting the Wikicite parameter (which I believe is deprecated anyway). The issue is the Butt template (Template:Butt-Stations), which is something I cannot solve. I have tried amending the template at source, but what I have tried does not work and I am loathe to make it worse. Can anyone help? Sample article pages are Bakewell and Balerno. Thanks. The joy of all things (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- Never mind; it seems to have resolved itself, but the list is still extant Category:Harv and Sfn template errors. Tried purging and refreshing, but ah......! The joy of all things (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- Probably some of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Footnotes&action=history
- This stuff's unfixable. It's locked down to a clique, they don't want help, they code like it was 1990 and haven't a clue about testing. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yep, that's it. Thank you. The joy of all things (talk) 04:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- There are several threads on this matter, at (for example) WP:ANI, WP:VPT as well as the talk pages for some of the directly-relevant templates and modules. It seems to have started at Module talk:Footnotes#broken harv link reporting. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yep, that's it. Thank you. The joy of all things (talk) 04:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Ely Railway Station and Railways in Ely
I would like to combine these articles and improve the content. Do we need two separate articles on this? Guidance please.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- I assume you mean railways in Ely? That's a nice little article, but I can't see anything there that wouldn't fit in the station's article. There are towns whose railway history is worthy of a standalone article if someone wanted to dig up the sources (Swindon, Derby, Crewe, Eastleigh, York, possibly a few others) but a village-sized city in rural Cambridgeshire isn't really one. The content is worth keeping, though; I'd hate to see it lost altogether. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks (header corrected) - would not want to lose any material but a thorough tidy up and expansion I think would be worthwhile.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- There is information included in the Railways in Ely page that wouldn't necessarily fit into the railway station article. The Railways in Ely page is in need of some citations though. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- Personally I would rather use the "railways in Ely" title but we collectively made a decision that each current station should have its own article. I think that can be extended to take in existing and former goods facilities (see Ipswich railway station), operations etc. There is a "railways in Newmarket" article but that maps the relationship between the various stations in that town and is worth keeping. I cannot see that here.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 11:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Railway stations in Newmarket, to be precise. I agree that it has a reason to exist. I am much less convinced by the case for railways in Ely, it is not exactly Clapham Junction, is it? It seems to me that the purpose could be served better with an RDT like template:Railways around Cambridge. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Personally I would rather use the "railways in Ely" title but we collectively made a decision that each current station should have its own article. I think that can be extended to take in existing and former goods facilities (see Ipswich railway station), operations etc. There is a "railways in Newmarket" article but that maps the relationship between the various stations in that town and is worth keeping. I cannot see that here.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 11:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- There is information included in the Railways in Ely page that wouldn't necessarily fit into the railway station article. The Railways in Ely page is in need of some citations though. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks (header corrected) - would not want to lose any material but a thorough tidy up and expansion I think would be worthwhile.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- Some ten years ago, somebody - possibly Andy F (talk · contribs) - asked me to improve Railways in Ely. I started something at User:Redrose64/Sandbox2 and ... kinda forgot it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Metrolink RDT
Does anyone here have the necessary skills to update the Template:Metrolink RDT, to reflect the recent opening of the Trafford Park Line? I would attempt it, but it's a complicated map now, and I have little idea how to approach it. G-13114 (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Lists of station masters.
Someone has been adding lists of former station masters to lots of station articles. Like here. I must admit I'm a bit dubious as to whether these lists add anything of encyclopedic value to articles, especially the smaller articles. What do others think? G-13114 (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- It's Andrewrabbott (talk · contribs), and they have been doing it for over two and a half years. The earliest list of theirs that I can find is the one at Inverness railway station, added in August 2017 with this edit. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- Cant see any encyclopedic value in the list unless they are otherwise noteworthy which is unlikely. MilborneOne (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- I’ve been directed here after noticing this as an issue on York Station. As with other articles none of the names are linked to articles and for those that have citations they are from old local newspapers, so not really evidence of individual notability. Verifiability is also a concern as many of the names and dates lack citations, some of this could be addressed by copying in citations from related articles (the ones which state previous or subsequent stations) but as the sources require subscription access it would take more effort to verify them first. I have attempted to find sources for some of the names without success possibly as one newspaper article suggests (Yorkshire Post: 19 Jan 1954) station masters couldn't talk to journalists and are therefore often referred to anonymously. The initial lists may have been correct? but it seems as though they are based on original research, and as some of the subsequent additions are questionable and may be the result of joke edits it makes me think the article would be better off without such lists. EdwardUK (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Could understand their inclusion if at least some were notable people who had articles, but these are just lists of non-notable employees and is of no encyclopedic value. Is like a list of branch managers at your bank, sure there have been many of them over the years, but are they notable? Basically this is WP:LISTCRUFT. Support their removal. Ligtomet (talk) 04:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed - it's unlikely that the station master has notability. That's not to say they're always non-notable, but it would be situational - if I saw a claim "David Bowie was stationmaster of Durham from 1978-80" then it's perfectly valid for David Bowie, but I'd be tempted to think that's trivia for Durham unless they did something noteworthy as stationmaster. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- Notability is a high bar, for having an article. The bar for inclusion of names is much lower; basically just that it be reliably sourced. If all we know about the person is the name, that's still OK. Dicklyon (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a place for random lists of non-noteworthy persons, I cant see any evidence that lists of stationmasters is something that appears in reliable sources about stations and not just random newspaper reports. MilborneOne (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- I think that if a station master subsequently rose to high office - such as General Manager - we might mention them on the article for the station where he was station master. An example would be Frank Potter of the Great Western Railway, who joined the company in 1869; between 1881 and 1888 he was station master successively of Shrivenham, Castle Hill, and West Drayton. He continued to rise through various positions on the GWR until he became General Manager in January 1912, dying in office on 23 July 1919. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a place for random lists of non-noteworthy persons, I cant see any evidence that lists of stationmasters is something that appears in reliable sources about stations and not just random newspaper reports. MilborneOne (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- Could understand their inclusion if at least some were notable people who had articles, but these are just lists of non-notable employees and is of no encyclopedic value. Is like a list of branch managers at your bank, sure there have been many of them over the years, but are they notable? Basically this is WP:LISTCRUFT. Support their removal. Ligtomet (talk) 04:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- I’ve been directed here after noticing this as an issue on York Station. As with other articles none of the names are linked to articles and for those that have citations they are from old local newspapers, so not really evidence of individual notability. Verifiability is also a concern as many of the names and dates lack citations, some of this could be addressed by copying in citations from related articles (the ones which state previous or subsequent stations) but as the sources require subscription access it would take more effort to verify them first. I have attempted to find sources for some of the names without success possibly as one newspaper article suggests (Yorkshire Post: 19 Jan 1954) station masters couldn't talk to journalists and are therefore often referred to anonymously. The initial lists may have been correct? but it seems as though they are based on original research, and as some of the subsequent additions are questionable and may be the result of joke edits it makes me think the article would be better off without such lists. EdwardUK (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Bilingual station names
Some years ago it was agreed that we would only show a station's name in two languages if the station nameboards also showed two languages - for example, at Cardiff Central railway station we also mention the Welsh form Caerdydd Canolog. I'm sure that for proposed/unopened stations we would wait until there was some firm physical evidence of the second name before adding it into the article. Where was all this written down? See Talk:Cardiff Parkway railway station#Naming. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- Whatever our policy is, we're inconsistent to the point of arbitrariness when it comes to how we deal with Welsh and Scottish station names, both in terms of whether the Welsh/Gaelic name goes in the lead text or in the infobox, and whether it includes the Welsh/Gaelic for "railway station" or just the place name. (Compare Haymarket railway station, Glasgow Queen Street railway station, Newport railway station, Swansea railway station and Holyhead railway station.)
- On the specific issue of Cardiff Parkway, provided either NWR or the Welsh government have announced what the Welsh-language name will be, I'd see no issue with including it; given that all Transport for Wales signage follows a standard "English in black, Welsh in blue" dual-language format (even for places like Chepstow and Severn Tunnel Junction where Welsh hasn't been spoken in a millennium), we can assume with absolute confidence that the signs will show the name in both languages. ‑ Iridescent 14:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- Not just Welsh and Scottish Bazza (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Removal of diagrams?
I have noticed that increasingly there have been side-on train diagrams plaguing most UK railway company and train articles. Is there really any point in these cluttering images? I notice that they make tables particularly difficult to read, and don't really add anything to the article. I can see the appeal of a single livery-neutral diagram of each type of train, which would make sense on the train's specific page to show the shape and details, but having sometimes ten of these is excessive (with some having multiple versions of the same livery, with different lengths or even different branding).
Given that the diagrams already reside in the train specific category on Commons, is there really much point on replicating them all on the Encylopedia page as well? Thoughts please...Superalbs (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- While I can understand the benefit of having a diagram in the absence of actual photographs, agree it's a bit of an overkill to have them on articles that are already well illustrated. On some articles, (e.g. classes 319, 377, 455) where every livery carried (including the most minor of changes) or set length is represented, it's getting a bit ridiculous. Some classes have had over 20 liveries, can't see it being of any value to illustrate every one. Then there are others like 373 that are microscopic to the point of being useless.
- At the very least, we should at least be applying the same policy as with images, i.e. a finite number that are representative, rather than seeking to include every livery or carriage number combination. My preference would be to do away with these diagrams entirely and leave them on Commons. Ligtomet (talk) 04:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- As someone who has used these diagrams outside of Wikipedia, I tend to feel that what you want is the driving car and a trailer car, and that with that you can then get whatever use you want out of it. They work for 2-4 car trains, but after that it just gets too small to be useful. Class 170 I saw had one of every length and livery, and that seemed excessive, but I'm unsure quite where to draw the line. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- I vote for removing them from the articles but having a specific link to the appropriate Commons categories. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- As someone who has used these diagrams outside of Wikipedia, I tend to feel that what you want is the driving car and a trailer car, and that with that you can then get whatever use you want out of it. They work for 2-4 car trains, but after that it just gets too small to be useful. Class 170 I saw had one of every length and livery, and that seemed excessive, but I'm unsure quite where to draw the line. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- Admittedly I thought this was our old friend Tony May which was another reason for the reverts, That aside personally I think all diagrams on train articles should remain however those on train company articles should be removed,
- The diagrams sort of show a better side view/livery of the train and unless you do it as a panoramic view then it's sort of impossible to do a side photograph of it/them. –Davey2010Talk 10:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- What we should be avoiding is repetition: a Class 165 in Great Western livery looks almost exactly the same as a Class 166 in the same livery - it's only the proportion of opening windows to non-opening that differs. But what is the purpose of these diagrams? If the object is to depict every different livery, then they belong on the articles for the TOCs - where there should be no more than one class for each livery. If the object is to show different formations, that they belong on the articles for the classes - but only one livery for each formation. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe the author of most of these diagrams (@WestRail642fan:) is best to ask, as to what purpose they are actually meant to serve? Superalbs (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- The diagrams are potentially very useful to people looking at photographs or video and trying to identify rolling stock, locations and dates. Or for railway modellers. As such they are the kind of information you would expect in a encyclopedia. I vote that they should stay.78.33.185.122 (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- How can they be used to identify locations? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Promise not to tell anyone? Livery identifies franchise. Franchise narrows down the area. eg shot of class 319 in Northern livery is unlikely to be on the Midland Mainline 78.33.185.122 (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- That seems to be an argument that, given a random picture, seeing a photo of snow will help you determine that the picture is of Norway. I mean, it's technically true in a purely probabilistic sense, but I'm not sure the diagram of the train helps - you already know the train's in Northern livery, you have a photo of it! -mattbuck (Talk) 21:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Norway is, I think, a bad analogy. The point is that by coming to Wkipedia, you can tell that it is Northern livery. If you already knew what livery it was, you wouldn't need to come to Wkipedia to identify the livery, in the same way that if you knew that you were looking at the Norwegian flag, you would not come to Wkipedia to identify the flag. 78.33.185.122 (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- That seems to be an argument that, given a random picture, seeing a photo of snow will help you determine that the picture is of Norway. I mean, it's technically true in a purely probabilistic sense, but I'm not sure the diagram of the train helps - you already know the train's in Northern livery, you have a photo of it! -mattbuck (Talk) 21:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Promise not to tell anyone? Livery identifies franchise. Franchise narrows down the area. eg shot of class 319 in Northern livery is unlikely to be on the Midland Mainline 78.33.185.122 (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- How can they be used to identify locations? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Know what? I'll remove my diagrams, screw you guys WestRail642fan (talk) 10:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- User:WestRail642fan - Alls Redrose and Superalbs are asking you is what the diagrams serve, If you look directly above you'll see I support their usage...... –Davey2010Talk 10:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- Honestly, i really dont care anymore, you lot moan when i add my diagrams, now i want to actively remove them, you wont let me. WestRail642fan (talk) 10:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- I value the diagrams and all their livery forms and if I would like to see anything undone, it is your 'screw you' words. A better framework for the debate is whether they should go on a wikipedia main page or somewhere else [is a sub page a thing?] and how to make them readily accessible. It's great that you do these, WestRail642fan, they have their place.78.33.185.122 (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- WestRail642fan no one's moaning tho?, Some people object to them and some people are okay with them ....., unfortunately at present there is no consensus to remove them
- So could you kindly explain what you believe the usage is for these ?, Again for the record I support keeping these however you need to explain why you feel they should be kept, Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 11:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Davey2010:, you didn't finish the above message? Superalbs (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
British Railways Pre-Grouping Atlas and Gazetteer
While fixing up incorrect citations (see above, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Broken short references in train-related articles) I've noticed that there's real variance in how we cite the British Railways Pre-Grouping Atlas and Gazetteer, by W. Philip Conolly. There are three different citation templates floating around for different editions:
- {{IanAllan-PreGroup-Atlas}} (lists 3rd-5th edition, including multiple impressions of the 5th edition, used in one article)
- {{Conolly-Atlas}} (5th edition from 1967, used in one article)
- {{IanAllan-PreGroup-Atlas1998}} (5th edition, 9th impression, from 1998, used in 51 articles)
Beyond these, there are numerous citations to what appears to be a 1997 or 2004 reprint of an edition published in 1958; but it's unclear which edition (if it really is 1958, then it's not the 5th edition, which I gather was published in 1967). Could familiar enough the work's publication history and changes between editions, and/or in possession of one of these latter-day reprints, please help me clear this up? Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 04:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- I have a copy which describes the editions as:
- First published 1958
- Second edition 1960
- Third edition 1963
- Fourth edition 1965
- Fifth edition 1967
- Reprinted 1972
- Reprinted 1973
- Reprinted 1976 (twice)
- Reprinted 1980
- Reprinted 1988
- Reprinted 1997
- ISBN 0 7110 0320 3
- Copyright Ian Allan Ltd 1958/1997
- Hope that's of some help Nempnet (talk) 08:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- That's very helpful, thank you. And to be clear, the 1997 reprint, despite the copyright notice, is of the 5th edition? Mackensen (talk) 13:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, that is correct, it says fifth edition on the front cover as well Nempnet (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Stay away from the 1980 and subsequent reprints. Earlier editions, and early printings of the fifth, were printed from five plates - black, brown, red, green and blue (the brown plate was altered to orange by the time of the 1976 printing). The 1980 reprint used the same plates as the 1976 reprint, but the printers were more careless with the registration than they had been in the past, and so it exhibits real howlers like the Caledonian line at Aberdeen coming in to Waterloo and not the Joint station, which left the Deeside line floating at Ferryhill Junction, unconnected to the rest of the network. The 1988 is just as bad. For the 1997 reprint they had lost the original printing plates and so prepared a set of four CMYK plates by scanning a copy of the 1980 or 1988, without correcting the registration errors. The CMYK printing introduced a new registration problem, so that some lines which had been a solid green now showed yellow fringing along one edge and cyan fringing along the other. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, that is correct, it says fifth edition on the front cover as well Nempnet (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- That's very helpful, thank you. And to be clear, the 1997 reprint, despite the copyright notice, is of the 5th edition? Mackensen (talk) 13:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Tyne & Wear Metrocars renaming discussion
There's an ongoing RM discussion going on at Talk:Tyne & Wear Metrocars#Requested move 11 April 2020 if anyone's interested. G-13114 (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Great Western Railway renaming discussion
FYI there is a move discussion relating to the Brunel GWR and the modern GWR TOC. Talk:Great Western Railway (train operating company). -mattbuck (Talk) 15:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Can anyone please help with find sources and references for Birmingham New Street railway station as per Talk:Birmingham New Street railway station/GA1; I am currently struggling to find time; I am currently very busy which means that I am not very active on Wikipedia so I really don't have the time to be spending hours looking for references and sources. I still want this GA nomination to continue and I have done all the improvements which were possible in the extremely limited time that I have. Any help would be very much appreciated. Thanks. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Headcodes
I've been looking at the New Guildford line article and there is a great screed about the headcodes displayed by various services on the line. When were headcodes last actually in use? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- Well they're still in use in the timetables, just not displayed on the train's head anymore. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- I meant when last displayed on the train. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- On the former Southern Region, the "headcode" shown in the working timetable (WTT) is not the same as the headcode shown on the train. At one time, the last two digits of the WTT headcode was the same as the train's headcode, but that is no longer the case. The train's headcode has always been a route code, which for Waterloo-Oxshott-Guildford is 42. This is still displayed - just much smaller that was the case until the 1980s. See for example File:ClaygateRly02.JPG. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- So it does, hadn’t really noticed. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- On the former Southern Region, the "headcode" shown in the working timetable (WTT) is not the same as the headcode shown on the train. At one time, the last two digits of the WTT headcode was the same as the train's headcode, but that is no longer the case. The train's headcode has always been a route code, which for Waterloo-Oxshott-Guildford is 42. This is still displayed - just much smaller that was the case until the 1980s. See for example File:ClaygateRly02.JPG. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- I meant when last displayed on the train. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'd chop most of that paragraph out; the four images used as "sources" are (a) a dead link (b) an image that's incredibly difficult to see and it's not clear where it's taken (c) an image that doesn't exist on the target site, and (d) an image that's irrelevant to the article. Black Kite (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- I agree, I’ll set about it later. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Right, I've had a major go at the article and tried to sort out the refs and irrelevancies. Any complaints or criticisms? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- I agree, I’ll set about it later. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Over the past 11 years, there have been occasional discussions at Talk:Sutton and Mole Valley lines about splitting the article. No one can think of a reason why this article exists, google hits mostly trace back here, and the general consensus has been that it should be split into its component parts - perhaps to Portsmouth Line, Wallingford Line, Epsom Line, Bookham Branch Line and Dorking Line. However nothing has happened. I was considering doing it, but I'm not really an expert on South London railways and the split would produce five fairly repetitious stubs. Is anyone here able to help? -mattbuck (Talk) 09:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Have kicked off a clean-sheet discussion at Talk:Sutton and Mole Valley lines#May 2020 Split Proposal. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Merger discussion for LMS Patriot Class 5551 The Unknown Warrior
An article which may be of interest to members of this project—LMS Patriot Class 5551 The Unknown Warrior—has been proposed for merging with LMS-Patriot Project. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Detail of line diagrams
An editor has recently added details of level crossing arrangements to the {{West Somerset Railway map}}, things such as "open crossing" and "AOCL". This has added more lines to what is already a lengthy diagram. When I removed them it was reverted with a comment that they are "Important detail. Gives view into the railway's crossing technology and shows crossing types that are rare on the national network."
Do these details feature on other diagrams? I don't recall seeing any. Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- There are nine RDTs that include this information (including this one); all Welsh mineral railways or minor branch lines, with the bizarre exception of the Channel Tunnel. Personally I'd get rid of all of them, as I can't see any good reason to include such detail; 99.9% of readers aren't going to have a clue what "ABCL" etc mean let alone care which gates are manually operated, and the exact nature of each crossing is not something that is of any particular relevance to the line. In general, if we wouldn't consider discussing something in the text, we wouldn't include it in the diagram. ‑ Iridescent 16:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- All we need to show on the diagram is that there is a level crossing. No need to go into the intricacies of types of level crossing. Mjroots (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Nine years back we had an individual who loaded RDTs with level crossings, it may be the same person returning. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 20#Level crossing icons in RDTs and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 20#Detail on RDT's. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Given the industry is slowly removing level crossings do we actually need to record them all? To prevent Wikipedia becoming out of date someone should ideally stay on top of this. I would say only record level crossings where they are historically relevant (sadly generally accidents) or locally controversial (long gate times annoying car drivers) examples. I would say the all we need about them otherwise would be along the lines off "In 2020 there are eight public road level crossings on the Felixstowe Branch" (fictional example).--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 07:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think that's the job of Wikipedia, which is intended to be a general purpose encyclopaedia. Unless individual level crossings are significant somehow (Ufton Nervet, Hixon and Elsenham are ones that come to mind, plus maybe the first examples of each type in an article about level crossing types) then any detail is really for a more specialist publication I would say. Thryduulf (talk) 13:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Given the industry is slowly removing level crossings do we actually need to record them all? To prevent Wikipedia becoming out of date someone should ideally stay on top of this. I would say only record level crossings where they are historically relevant (sadly generally accidents) or locally controversial (long gate times annoying car drivers) examples. I would say the all we need about them otherwise would be along the lines off "In 2020 there are eight public road level crossings on the Felixstowe Branch" (fictional example).--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 07:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Nine years back we had an individual who loaded RDTs with level crossings, it may be the same person returning. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 20#Level crossing icons in RDTs and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 20#Detail on RDT's. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- All we need to show on the diagram is that there is a level crossing. No need to go into the intricacies of types of level crossing. Mjroots (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't mind level crossings being included when they are important features of the line's engineering, but including the extra detail adds complication and length to the diagram. It is interesting that this only features on a small handful of diagrams.
Following this discussion I tried to remove this again, leaving an edit summary that this detail should be in the article text. But to no avail, it's been undone again, even if the edit comments don't explain this. Geof Sheppard (talk)
Now you see them, now you don't. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- I've protected the template at template editor level. That should be an end to the issue. Mjroots (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- A permanent block on "normal" editors (like me) as punishment for one person's transgression. Bit unfriendly. Bazza (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Bazza 7: - It is unlikely that the template is going to need much change, is it not? Barring the closure of the WSR, I don't see that there will be much need to make any changes. With the template protected, it stops the temptation to edit war, and removes the need for an admin from having to get their banhammer out. I take the view that I don't block editors if it is at all avoidable, but won't hesitate to do so if necessary. An edit request may be made at the talk page using the {{edit protected}} template if there is a need to make an amendment. Mjroots (talk) 07:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- I have no idea whether that specific template will need a change, or not; my comment was more to do with an unending group punishment to deal with just one transgressor, pain in the proverbial though they may be. Making the "protection" permanent is a slippery slope. I've always thought that the banning of specific editors was a tool for precisely the occasions you are trying to deal with. Bazza (talk) 09:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Bazza 7: you mean a partial block, right? I've never done one before, and can't find any admin instructions on how to do it. So I've asked for assistance at WP:AN. If the editor in question can be prevented from further disruption then I'm amenable to removing template protection. Mjroots (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- I have no idea whether that specific template will need a change, or not; my comment was more to do with an unending group punishment to deal with just one transgressor, pain in the proverbial though they may be. Making the "protection" permanent is a slippery slope. I've always thought that the banning of specific editors was a tool for precisely the occasions you are trying to deal with. Bazza (talk) 09:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Bazza 7: - It is unlikely that the template is going to need much change, is it not? Barring the closure of the WSR, I don't see that there will be much need to make any changes. With the template protected, it stops the temptation to edit war, and removes the need for an admin from having to get their banhammer out. I take the view that I don't block editors if it is at all avoidable, but won't hesitate to do so if necessary. An edit request may be made at the talk page using the {{edit protected}} template if there is a need to make an amendment. Mjroots (talk) 07:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- A permanent block on "normal" editors (like me) as punishment for one person's transgression. Bit unfriendly. Bazza (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Category:Railway stations in the United Kingdom opened in the 2010s has been nominated for delete
Category:Railway stations in the United Kingdom opened in the 2010s, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for delete. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Yarmouth station
At Talk:Yarmouth station#Requested move 19 May 2020 there is a proposal to move the article about the disused station in Massachusetts away from the base title in favour of a disambiguation page. The discussion has also suggested moving the article about the disused Yarmouth railway station on the Isle of Wight to either Yarmouth railway station (England) or Yarmouth railway station (Isle of Wight). Please leave any comments in the linked discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 09:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Railway station patronage stats
The following is copied from the Rutherglen railway station Talk page to a more appropriate forum:
I realise that only five years patronage results are currently shown to avoid cluttering the side bar. Has there been any previous discussion on replacing such sidebar content with a separate section comprising a graph covering multiple years? Would this be an overkill? Has it been tried on any other railway station pages? I am all too familiar with irrelevant charts that already litter Wikipedia pages. I am raising it here because I am unaware of any active discussion page covering such subjects.
Annual rail passenger patronage
 | Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
DMBanks1 (talk) 23:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Are you intending that your change be applied to all 2,500 articles for GB stations? If so, this is entirely the wrong venue; WT:UKRAIL would be much more appropriate, possibly with notices left at WT:LT, WT:RAIL and WT:STATIONS as well. But if you are intending that your change be applied only to this one article I would oppose it on the grounds of inconsistency. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Redrose64: Your insight is much appreciated. As you can guess, I am totally unfamiliar with UK railway stations, and how the Wikipedia format developed. I raised it as a trial balloon because when I glanced at the Rutherglen side panel, I didn't give the stats much thought. However, when I looked at the bar graph, I was seeing a story emerge. Since I have little knowledge of Glasgow, I am now curious as to the dramatic increase in ridership up to 2014/15, and why it has since started to drop off. I expect the present covid-19 crisis will see the current year decimated. I had not considered other UK railway stations, but no doubt they equally have a story to tell. We more easily grasp images than narrative. However, as already stated, would a bar graph be an overkill? Do other Wikipedians believe that this information could be better presented? If so, what would be the best format?DMBanks1 (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I've just read through previous discussions, much of which was argumentative and at cross purposes. These comments primarily dealt with the cluttering of the infobox itself, where positions varied from displaying 5 years, 3 years, 2 years, or 1 year. A suggestion was to have an "open" button within the infobox that would then display a total of 5 years or all historical data.
The following arguments were presented against graphing the historical date within the body of the article (with accompanying comments to explain trends):
- Wikipedia guidelines prohibit. (unsubstantiated, and the use of bar and line graphs to convey pertinent information can be found in numerous Wikipedia articles).
- Difficult to find respective section. (response: "Contents" table listing would direct to this section)
- Overpower small articles. (many of us have previously resolved when editing place articles. Have the information in a compressed form with an "open" button for viewing)
- 5 raw numbers are easier to understand than a simple graph. (not to the average person; not even to those of us with an accounting background)
The argument against any change to the status quo:
- Too much work to change 2,500 articles. (answer: keep status quo while gradually introducing compressed content comprising bar/line graph to body of each article. If it takes years to complete, does it matter?) DMBanks1 (talk) 03:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- Some artcicles already give the statistics in tabular form in a section called something like 'Passenger volume'. This allows a wider span of years and is also useful in showing the volume of interchange passengers. For example, see Truro railway station.
- I would be quite happy to have just the most recent year in the Infobox where this more extensive data is given. Geof Sheppard (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
The Truro chart has not been updated since 2011. If this data had been graphed, we would now have:
Passenger volume
Truro is the busiest station in Cornwall.
| Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
Services
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
However, to address the concern that the graph might overpower smaller pages, it could be hidden:
Passenger volume
Truro is the busiest station in Cornwall.
| Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
Services
DMBanks1 (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- As an amateur statistician, I altered
|type=lineto|type=rect. The former gives a misleading impression that there was a steady increase (or decrease) over the period of one year. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)- From an updating point of view, updating 3000 articles is a right pain. Is there any way we could dump all the data into a template and then call that template on every article based on the three letter code or something? That way we not only keep all the data in one place, if we want to make there be a standard format (five years say) then that is automatically pushed out everywhere. You could have extra parameters for start year and data range perhaps if some articles warrant different things.
- Not sure what the issue is with a line chart? -mattbuck (Talk) 23:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- See bar chart#Usage. For our data, the concept of a point between 2004/5 and 2005/6 is meaningless, so the x-axis is a discrete variable, not a continuous variable. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hm, I get your point, but I disagree - time is a continuous variable, the fact that we have one point per 365 days is unfortunate but acceptable. Line charts always involve interpolation - if they don't then really you're just using a scatterplot. Heck, I'm not really averse to using lines in certain places for discrete data such as London Underground lines, though not usually as the primary chart type, but say to add a target line or something. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Time is continuous, but when you group together all the events of one year into a single vertical height, it becomes discrete. See Discrete time and continuous time#Graphical depiction; we could use a stepped graph but not a continuous graph. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- You're conflating Wikipolicy and a random article with no citations or basis in real-world dashboarding. I do this stuff professionally, and while I would never use a smoothed line chart, a straight line chart is perfectly acceptable for showing something which evolves over time - it's clear that the values are at the tickmarks, and that what comes between is interpolation. In the end what's right is what the end user finds easiest to digest. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Time is continuous, but when you group together all the events of one year into a single vertical height, it becomes discrete. See Discrete time and continuous time#Graphical depiction; we could use a stepped graph but not a continuous graph. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hm, I get your point, but I disagree - time is a continuous variable, the fact that we have one point per 365 days is unfortunate but acceptable. Line charts always involve interpolation - if they don't then really you're just using a scatterplot. Heck, I'm not really averse to using lines in certain places for discrete data such as London Underground lines, though not usually as the primary chart type, but say to add a target line or something. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Sounds like an ideal case for Wikidata. Store the data there along with the station code, use a module here to call the desired years. Nthep (talk) 08:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- See bar chart#Usage. For our data, the concept of a point between 2004/5 and 2005/6 is meaningless, so the x-axis is a discrete variable, not a continuous variable. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Thameslink icon Appearing in Route Diagrams
Hi there, I was wondering if anyone knew anything about the 
Thameslink logo appearing on route diagrams? I've so far seen it on High Speed 1 and Southeastern High Speed. Obviously Thameslink is an important commuter line in London but does it diserve it's own pictogram? fyi: you can see all the pictograms here. Mindi Crayon (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- I honestly had no idea it had a logo. I'd imagine that's the TOC logo though, rather than the line logo, so should go. I'd probably also get rid of the Eurostar and BR logos on the interchanges for the HS1 map at St Pancras - either it's a diagram of the international service, in which case it doesn't need the Eurostar logo, or it's for the national service, in which case it doesn't need the BR logo. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- There was a bunch of RDTs which received the Thameslink logo earlier this year, this being an example. Objections were rebuffed with the explanation that "The Overground and Elizabeth Line/TfL Rail services are also part of National Rail, and Thameslink has much more in common with them than a standard suburban rail service due to it's high frequencies of service". I agree they shouldn't be there. Bazza (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Proposed merger of North Berwick Line and North Berwick Branch
Please see Talk:North Berwick Line. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Image captions
Recently I've noticed that someone (User:SK2242) has been going through a lot of the infoboxes for trains in the UK and modifying the main image caption from a generic one to an oddly specific (and not strictly accurate one) with captions like 96006 at Stanmore in 2014 seen here. First of all, I don't think this looks good as some people might not know what those unit numbers mean, as it is unexaplained, and it is also inaccurate as they are only using the unit number of the first unit, when often they are coupled to another unit at the rear whose number we don't know. I think it would be better if we stuck to generic captions like "A 1996 Stock at Stanmore in 2014", which is more accuarate. What do others think?
Another example is the caption here, which says TfL Rail 315829 at Stratford in 2017, despite the fact that the train is clearly 8 cars (2 units) long and so we don't know what the other unit is.
Using generic captions would avoid this issue. Elshad (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia should be written from the viewpoint of the reader not being an expert, articles should be as accessible to as many people as possible. Using unit numbers without explanation and context in the photo goes against that. Which caption is more use to readers? DP/216/1 or James Bond's Aston Martin DB5? - X201 (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- Generic captions should be the preferred option unless it is obvious, such as in a loco class article. eg: “50019 at Blah” in the Class 50 article. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- Agree with all these points. Elshad (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- See @Elshad: You agree with their point, but then blatantly ignore it when you edited the 315 and 387 articles which had obvious captions. Oh and by the way, how about discussing this on my talk page first before bringing this to the project. SK2242 (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- I too agree with the above. Even in the loco class article the caption would be better as "Class 50 locomotive 50019 at Blah", but even then "A class 50 locomotive at Blah" is better unless the specific loco/unit has some clear relevance (which should be noted). Thryduulf (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Agree with all these points. Elshad (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Generic captions should be the preferred option unless it is obvious, such as in a loco class article. eg: “50019 at Blah” in the Class 50 article. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Liverpool and Manchester and Stockton and Darlington
There's a couple of points come up on the Stockton and Darlington Railway (S&DR) (FA/high class) and Liverpool and Manchester Railway (L&MR). I've reverted an edit to the lede on the S&DR and I'd like to check a peer review on that. In terms on the L&MR I'm uncomfortable with the usage of "inter-city" and also the discussions on the talk page are challenging "first railway" somewhere in the article. I like additional eyes on this. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- The S&D certainly can't be described as the first inter-city railway, if that's what you're implying, as neither Stockton nor Darlington are cities. Being pedantic, although the L&MR is often described as the first inter-city railway, neither Liverpool nor Manchester had been given city status when it opened. I would put the first cities joined by rail as London and Coventry, with the opening of the London and Birmingham railway in 1835 (Birmingham wasn't a city then either). However this is pure OR. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 17:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Voice of Clam: Djm-leighpark's post above is merely a notice. Please comment on the original thread, to avoid a discussion fork. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)x
- I appreciate that, however as I was going off on a different tangent it seemed more sensible to keep it here. Please don't feel you have to police every discussion on here. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 20:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Voice of Clam: Djm-leighpark's post above is merely a notice. Please comment on the original thread, to avoid a discussion fork. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)x
Bit of a slogging discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern Rail Services and probaby should be looked at at project level given the closer chose not to hold their "result is delete" decision; and possibly needs scrutiny from WikiProject level. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Incident at Chalfont & Latimer station
There was an incident at Chalfont & Latimer station on 21 June which resulted in two trains ending up metres from each other and damaged trackwork. My addition of this incident was reverted, so I've opened a discussion at talk:Chalfont & Latimer station#Accidents and incidents re its reinstatement. Please feel free to contribute. Mjroots (talk) 04:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Ely Goods yard
Can anyone help with a closure date and source for Ely Goods Yard. --Davidvaughanwells (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Definitions
Are these correct?
| line | a section of track between A and B, or a service between two or more destinations |
|---|---|
| Railway or Railroad (Capitalized) | a company involved in rail transport |
| railway or railroad (lower case) | a section of track, or a service |
| route | a service that follows part of, or one, or more lines or railways |
| network or system | a group of routes or services |
AlgaeGraphix (talk) 12:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- All of those are very vague terms to be perfectly honest with no special definition. Heck, a Route in Network Rail means roughly 1/6 of the entire country. A line I would say doesn't include services, and there's a difference between the railway and a railway. As for network that tends to mean either every bit of track in the UK, or all those covered by a single TOC. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- All of them can vary. "line" can indeed mean a section of track (e.g. Great Western main line) a service (e.g. Circle line (London Underground)) or to bother a physical line and a service that runs over that line (e.g. the Severn Beach line service starts at Bristol Template Meads, the physical line starts at Narroways Hill Junction).
"Railway"/"Railroad" can mean a company (e.g. London and South Western Railway, or the very different type of company South Western Railway (train operating company)) exclusively, or a combination of organisations and physical infrastructure (e.g. West Somerset Railway) can refer to a for-profit company, a charity (properly the West Somerset Railway Association), the line it operates and/or the service it operates on it), some authors make a distinction between upper and lowercase while others use them interchangeably; e.g. it is possible for there to be a Great Western Railway service operating on the West Somerset Railway.
"Route" can mean a large group of lines (e.g. Network Rail's Scotland route), a specific way to get from A to B, a physical line or part of it (e.g. "Woodhead route" can mean either Sheffield to Manchester via the Woodhead line, the Woodhead line or just the closed portion of the Woodhead line).
"Network" means either a group of physical lines (e.g. the British mainline network), a group of services (e.g. the Cross Country network), or a combination of these (e.g. the TfL network is: the tracks owned and operated by London Underground, the services London Underground operates over Network Rail, the services operated by TfL Rail and London Overground and the entire DLR; or just those parts owned by TfL, or just the parts operated by TfL (e.g. the LU/NR boundary is some distance north of Amersham), or some combination of these). "System" can refer to the collection of physical infrastructure that uses the same (or compatible) technology, or the collection of physical infrastructure operated and/or owned by the same organisation, Thryduulf (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
How notable is this? "Projects classified as “unachievable” by the government’s Infrastructure & Project’s Authority"
Shock exclusive! Major infrastructure project will not be delivered on time / within budget!!!
I wondered about adding this news to East West Rail but am not altogether convinced that it is notable.[1] Tell us something new already! [Full disclosure: my motivation to want to add it to East West Rail is ideologically suspect: this was the project taken from NwR and given to a group with no rail experience who would prove that the typical delays and cost over-runs are just down to lack of entrepreneurial get-up-and-go. So schadenfreude. So it probably fails wp:NOTFORUM ]. What to people think?--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ Rob Horgan (14 July 2020). "HS2 among five major projects identified as 'unachievable' by government: Five major infrastructure projects, including High Speed 2 (HS2), Crossrail and the East West Rail (Western section), have been classified as "unachievable" by the government's Infrastructure & Project's Authority (IPA)". New Civil Engineer.
Sapperton Railway Tunnel
Could any of the experts on here help with Sapperton Railway Tunnel? There are several uncited claims about restoration work over the last 20 years, but the main thing I don't understand is about "route availability index" & the link to concrete loading.— Rod talk 18:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Farringdon–Herne Hill line missing
I have noticed that there is no article describing the railway line between Farringdon and Herne Hill. Routemaps usually link to Thameslink but since that is only a service or brand there is no actual description of the line.--PhiH (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Isn't that the Sutton Loop Line? -mattbuck (Talk) 21:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- No, it's the route through Snow Hill tunnel (London). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
The line is partly covered here: London, Chatham and Dover Railway#Second London line. I would suggest to extract that section and create the new article Farringdon–Herne Hill line.--PhiH (talk) 08:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Is this actually Durham?
.jpg){kind=link}
Can anyone identify where this actually is? -mattbuck (Talk) 23:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Certainly not Durham. There are no low arches like that at either end [3] [4]. If it's on the ECML then it's probably looking north, unless the train is in reverse formation. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 06:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- User.who.is.anonymous suggested on the talk page that it was Birmingham Moor Street, but an HST going that way seemed unlikely to me. It is a 2+7 rake, which I think means ECML is unlikely. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Cross-country HSTs were 2+7, so it could be the ECML from Doncaster northwards. Black Kite (talk) 08:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Definitely not Moor Street (Bordesley viaduct) which is blue brick rather than stone. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 08:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Aha! Is it not this? Wicker Arches, Sheffield. Makes sense for a Cross-Country HST set as well. Black Kite (talk) 10:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think so. It doesn't have the protruding layer of stones between the arches and the top of the parapet. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 14:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- There's only one first-class coach, and the catering vehicle is a TRSB, behind which are five second-class coaches; all of these are consistent with a cross-country set. These worked out of Laira and St Phillip's Marsh depots. In blue and grey days, they were used on only two basic routes: (i) Bristol (or beyond) to York (or beyond); and (ii) Bristol (or beyond) to Manchester. Use over the ECML between York and Newcastle occurred several times daily. I think that they were formed the same way around as the other Western Region sets, that is, with the second-class at the western end. This would indicate that the train in the pic is heading north-eastwards somewhere between Penzance and Aberdeen (it won't be on the Manchester-Birmingham New Street leg, there's no electrification).
- I don't recall a HST ever running through Birmingham Moor Street/Bordesley on a regular working. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- As someone who used XC regularly in the 80s, they often used to end up the wrong way round, though. I suspect taking a random entry/exit into/from Newcastle was often the culprit. Black Kite (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- This is definitely a British Rail InterCity train. It looks to me like something on the ECML near Alnmouth (north of Newcastle) I'm not sure we should be using such an old photo. --Exodus662 (talk) 09:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Exodus662: Nobody is doubting either that it's British Rail or that it's Inter-City (for those of us who were around at the time, both of those are totally obvious). The question was:
Is this actually Durham?
- therefore, it's the location that is being questioned. I fail to see why the age of the photo should be a factor. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)- @Redrose64:I can see that, but all it means is that we should be using a newer photo of this bridge, with a current CrossCountry or LNER train going over it --Exodus662 (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Exodus662: Where are you suggesting that a newer photo be used? Bazza (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Bazza 7:Whichever article(s) it is in use on. My mistake if this picture is not in use on any articles.--Exodus662 (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Exodus662: It is indeed your mistake. A glance at the "File usage" section of the picture's page will show it's only used once, on this talk page as part of the question, which is now enjoyably answered. Bazza (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Bazza 7:Whichever article(s) it is in use on. My mistake if this picture is not in use on any articles.--Exodus662 (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Exodus662: Where are you suggesting that a newer photo be used? Bazza (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Redrose64:I can see that, but all it means is that we should be using a newer photo of this bridge, with a current CrossCountry or LNER train going over it --Exodus662 (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Exodus662: Nobody is doubting either that it's British Rail or that it's Inter-City (for those of us who were around at the time, both of those are totally obvious). The question was:
- This is definitely a British Rail InterCity train. It looks to me like something on the ECML near Alnmouth (north of Newcastle) I'm not sure we should be using such an old photo. --Exodus662 (talk) 09:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- As someone who used XC regularly in the 80s, they often used to end up the wrong way round, though. I suspect taking a random entry/exit into/from Newcastle was often the culprit. Black Kite (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think so. It doesn't have the protruding layer of stones between the arches and the top of the parapet. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 14:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Aha! Is it not this? Wicker Arches, Sheffield. Makes sense for a Cross-Country HST set as well. Black Kite (talk) 10:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Definitely not Moor Street (Bordesley viaduct) which is blue brick rather than stone. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 08:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Cross-country HSTs were 2+7, so it could be the ECML from Doncaster northwards. Black Kite (talk) 08:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- User.who.is.anonymous suggested on the talk page that it was Birmingham Moor Street, but an HST going that way seemed unlikely to me. It is a 2+7 rake, which I think means ECML is unlikely. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- It's Sheffield, 53°23′22.7″N 1°26′59″W / 53.389639°N 1.44972°W. Bazza (talk) 11:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I think you're right (and I was all set to blow the dust off my VHS driver's eye view of the ECML tonight). — O Still Small Voice of Clam 13:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thankyou all, especially Bazza 7 - I have updated the file accordingly. Voice of Clam, just because we found the answer is no reason not to get out your video! -mattbuck (Talk) 21:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I think you're right (and I was all set to blow the dust off my VHS driver's eye view of the ECML tonight). — O Still Small Voice of Clam 13:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Deletion discussion for some preserved locomotives
The following deletion discussion is in progress: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LMS Ivatt Class 2 2-6-2T 41241 which also includes a second bundled example. I you have any views on the matter, positive or negative, or can identify similar precedent decisions please consider contributing to that WP:AFD. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)