Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 51

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 45

←

Archive 49

→

Redirect London Tilbury and Southend Railway

The plan is:-

to take the existing article called London Tilbury and Southend Railway and rename it London Tilbury and Southend Line(s)
take the article on the pre-grouping company (1854-1912) and transfer from my sand box to a full article called London Tilbury & Southend Railway
The links for stations and locomotives will presumably direct to the London Tilbury and Southend Line(s) which won't be wrong as such but the new London Tilbury & Southend Railway will be better - is there a way around this?
Improve the history of the London Tilbury and Southend Line(s) to cover the Midland, LMS and early BR days e.g. 1912 onwards.

The question I have are: What is the protocol for renaming (and please see talk page for other naming options) What is the protocol for getting the new article up - does it need reviewing first?

Please feel free to look at the work in progress (assuming that is possible).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Davidvaughanwells/sandbox

--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

So, as far as moving is concerned, we need:

@Davidvaughanwells: is that correct? I'll take a look if this conforms with article title policies, and if you confirm it is what needs to be done I can give you a hand. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, on further look:

1) Unless you can convince me that the WP:COMMONNAME for the modern railway line is Essex Thameside (or something else, really, so long it is a valid title), it probably needs to stay at the current title.

2) your point 1) refers to a redirect - am I correct in deducing that you would want to move your sandbox to that redirect?

3) Nothing links to either of "London Tilbury and Southend Line" or "London Tilbury and Southend Lines" (per the respective Special:WhatLinksHere pages); so no issue on that front, although the proper title would likely be in sentence case so in all likelihood "line"

4) For others, there's a discussion at Talk:London,_Tilbury_and_Southend_Railway#Requested_split_Feburary_13_2020.

Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @RandomCanadian:, I think you need to consider the history of the network and how wikipedia treats geographical lines else where. The London and Tilbury and Southend was a railway company and developed the route. Historically the line has until recently always been known as the London Tilbury and Southend but its history after 1912 was under the Midland, LMS and British Rail. So to be clear the article I have written is on the early history of the route and the pre-grouping company and the current page only gives that the briefest of mentions.

If we take the neighbouring Great Eastern Railway its geographic scope is covered by a number of line articles such as Great Eastern Main Line and this is mostly consistent through Wikipedia. Therefore renaming it to London Tilbury and Southend lines is consistent with how wikipedia has dealt with railway history.

I concede there is potential for confusion and I can just copy my work into the current article and then start working on the later history as and when I get round to it. I am concerned that other well meaning editors could pollute the article with post 1912 material so a copy and paste over the rudimentary early history of the current entry has its merits (and looks like less work).

--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 09:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Have to say, I prefer your seperate article version. A hidden note to other editors to add post 1912 info to the older article should cover it. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Davidvaughanwells: The alternative would be to have a separate article using parenthetical disambiguation, something like "London, Tilbury and Southend Railway (pre-grouping company)" (do we have some other examples of this kind of stuff just so we can compare for consistency's sake?); and then leave a note at the top about it in the article about the modern primary topic. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

We don't need the disambiguator. Davidvaughanwells's original proposal is just fine. One article about the railway company up to 1912, and one about its lines, although there is a possibility these could be dealt with separately. Mjroots (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mjroots: So the course of action would be

London, Tilbury and Southend Railway -> London, Tilbury and Southend line (and either suppress the redirect immediately or G6 it thereafter to make way for no. 3, whichever is more convenient)
Fix the links to London, Tilbury and Southend Railway (there's 400 of them; [1] - somebody with AWB would be the fastest way to fix this)
User:Davidvaughanwells/sandbox -> London, Tilbury and Southend Railway

? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Move the railway title to the lines title. Fix the links, checking whether any to remain pointing to an article about the company, if they do the leave them. Then get a friendly admin (*cough*) to move the sandbox to the company title, sorting out the offending G6 at the same time. Mjroots (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The fact is I could spare you the G6 (this is still active for a wee bit); but ok, when I get time for it, will be a happy distraction from current pursuits. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Do you have any clue why the inconsistent capitalisation on Template:Railway lines in London? We need to pick one for consistency. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

As for the moves, that should be

Done. I'm working on fixing the redirects. If I'm not done tonight I'll probably leave a request at AWB so they can finish. There was a template which might account for a substantial portion of the 400 links. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Additionally there are the odd cases like Becontree which refer to the line in the period when the line was owned by the Midland railway; those I'm not touching for the time being. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I've done a fair bit. There's Category:Former London, Tilbury and Southend Railway stations (done as far as Ockendon) which will need some more thorough checking than the rest. And then all the modern day articles are also annoying because in addition to the templates (which I've corrected), many of them have route boxes at the bottom. Guess that would be a task best suited for AWB. The rest will have to be done manually, though it's not that bad, there's only about 200 articles still to check. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Right now I'm busy with some things for off-wiki matters, but when I get a bit more time I'll go through all the articles that have a link to the railway page and verify them; though I think a decent part of the problematic links have been dealt with after the AWB request. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I have worked through the rest of the stations and checked the individual locomotive class entries.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Trainset - what does it mean - revisited

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 49#Trainset - what does it mean? There is an IP insisting on the inclusion of this column with its misleading header at Great North Eastern Railway (history). The problem affects eight articles that I can find, and the IP is using that as justification for its retention here. Should we keep the column, and if so, can we find a meaningful name for it? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

If I understand this correctly it's for families or types which consist of multiple classes. For example the classes 700, 707 and 717 are all part of the Siemens Desiro City family. I think that column is quite useful but I would name it "family name" (as in {{Infobox train}}) or just "family". --PhiH (talk) 13:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it's shorthand for loco plus coaches e.g. Class 91 + MkIV coaches to be either a "class 91 set" or a "mark IV set" but I can't find a sourced definition. I'd vote for removing the uses. Nthep (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@Redrose64: All you said was that "trainset" was a bad term, which I ultimately agreed with because it looked American and sounded more appropriate for Hornby models than for actual real-life sets.

You didn't say not to try out any alternatives (like plain "set"), however better or worse they sounded. Is trying out alternatives not being bold, as encouraged by the Wikipedia community?

In any case, this column - with whatever's the best heading for it - should be there for TOCs that use or have used InterCity 125 HSTs and InterCity 225s, because it doesn't feel right not having the respective components of these trains (power cars and carriages for HSTs; electric locos, carriages and DVTs for IC225s) grouped together and named accordingly.

I note you have no objection towards "family". Except, of course, the components of HSTs and IC225s *don't* form families, like DMUs and EMUs. 2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:538:28DC:A138:47CB (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:BOLD is one thing. Persistently reverting the addition of a tag that asks for clarification is quite another. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@Redrose64: "Persistently"? I only removed this tag twice. If I was persistent, I'd have removed it at least five or six times by now - and I wouldn't stoop *that* low.

With all the respect in the world... you probably should have chosen a better adverb there. :) 2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:538:28DC:A138:47CB (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Back on topic... I still believe this column should be there for TOCs that use or have used HSTs and IC225s.

But "trainset" is far from the best heading for this column - and it seems *any* heading containing the word "set" is a no-no. "Family" isn't the best heading either because, again, the components of HSTs and IC225s don't form families like classes of DMUs and EMUs.

These components *do* form trains, however. "Train" on its own certainly doesn't look American - and it's a lot, *lot* less Hornby-sounding than anything with the aforementioned 'S' word. What's more, the IC125 and IC225 articles begin "The InterCity 125 is a diesel-powered passenger train" and "The InterCity 225 is an electric high speed train" respectively. And of course, the IC125 is the High Speed Train (the IC225 is a high-speed train too, of course, but not *the* High Speed Train).

There could be better headings still that I can't think of at this moment in time. But I have to admit, if it turns out that "train" isn't even the slightest bit better a heading than anything with the 'S' word, I'll be pretty surprised.

Once again, I do think this column should be there for TOCs that use or have used these particular trains. Not having this column, and instead having these trains' components scattered around the table (with notes like "Used with Class 43 power cars" or "Used with Mark 4 carriages and Driving Van Trailers"), just doesn't feel right. 2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:538:28DC:A138:47CB (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you Train0824 (talk · contribs)? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Whoever you are referring to isn't me. In regards to your other message on my talk page, I only removed the template because it was already listed once. You don't need the same template next to the same word more then one time on each page. It's pointless and obnoxious.-Train0824 (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

You should not be removing maintenance templates that direct people to an ongoing discussion until the matter is resolved. To do so persistently is disruptive. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Redrose64:I only removed the 2nd or 3rd ones on a page, I kept the 1st one on the page as I've said multiple times. You don't need to have the same template next to the same word multiple times on the same page. -Train0824 (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Train0824: Yes you do. That way WP will keep track of all "unclear" terms until they are resolved. And not everyone reads all of every page. Bazza (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Again with all due respect, that's the second time you've used "persistently" when perhaps you should have used an alternative adverb.

Why not "repeatedly", for instance? That makes clear that someone has done something more than once - but doesn't always imply that someone has done something five or six times at least. On the other hand, "persistently" usually *does* imply that someone has done something five or six times at least - when, in actual fact, they might have done it only two or three times.

The written word *does* have its quirks, you know. Not to mention its disadvantages compared to the spoken word. :) 2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:805D:CB02:C0A2:1953 (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I Googled "trainset". Lots of Hornby and Brio, none of the big stuff. There is an entry in Wiktionary, but it is unreferenced and possibly a WP:NEOLOGISM. Using the term in this way looks like WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. If you stepped back, rather than persist in disruptive editing, and explained what you think "trainset" means, when it should be used and why you think it's useful it might help. You will still need references from WP:RELIABLESOURCES though. Bazza (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't the one that was editing disruptively, when I reverted the edit I explained my reason multiple times. The other people reverting the edits were not explaining. Also, you saying "not everyone reads all of every page" goes directly against your policy of only having one link for something per page, so that doesn't make any sense. -Train0824 (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Train0824: It's not my policy. Bazza (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bazza 7: With all due respect, I think you might have rushed to conclusions about me there.

"Trainset" was already in most of the articles concerned when I first edited them - the only one I actually added it to was the GNER article, and *only* because I wanted consistency with the articles for GNER's successors. When I added it, I didn't know it had previously been objected to - and, again with all due respect, how *was* I supposed to know this?

Also, on only two occasions did I remove "clarification needed" tags - and both times, from the GNER article. I'll admit I shouldn't have done it the second time, when I was trying out plain "set" instead of "trainset".

Look, I've come to wholeheartedly agree that "trainset" isn't a good term to use in any article related to British railways, because it looks American (indeed, it turns up in articles such as Amtrak and Long Island Rail Road, which obviously are written in American English to begin with) in addition to sounding more appropriate for toy trains than for real-life ones. If the clear majority of users agree on this - if indeed not everyone - then really, is it even worth attempting to define "trainset"?

I've also come to agree that *anything* with "set" in it doesn't work, again because it sounds more appropriate for Hornby than for real life. And I have suggested an alternative term up there that doesn't use that word - which, I have to say, no-one seems to have noticed because there hasn't been any obvious reaction to it yet...

And, most recently, I've looked over some of the articles concerned - specifically, the ones about TOCs that don't/didn't operate HSTs or InterCity 225s - and come to the conclusion that "family" might work better than "trainset" in these articles, because just about all the locos, DMUs and EMUs these TOCs operate(d) are part of families (Sprinter, Networker, Bombardier Turbostar, Siemens Desiro, Stadler Eurolight/UKLight etc.). I certainly haven't seen any long-established users object to "family", nor do I see anything ambiguous about this term. I have, however, erred on the side of caution and kept the "clarification needed" tags.

I may be misguided, I may even be cheeky. :) But I've seen far, *far* worse people do far, *far* worse things on Wikipedia - and get away with it, too... 2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:805D:CB02:C0A2:1953 (talk) 01:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Some of the pages so tagged (list) use the word "Set" instead of "Trainset". This is also ambiguous; let's consider Class 800. In this class are coaches numbered 811001, 812001, 813001, 814001 and 815001. Those five coaches are semi-permanently coupled, and constitute one unit, numbered 800001. In this context, the term "set" may be used as a synonym for "unit", but its meaning is that of a single group of five specific coaches, not a collective term for all of the coaches that constitute the whole class. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. I've just noticed that Maurice Oly (talk · contribs) has made edits like this - altering "Family" to "Trainset" and also adding the {{what?}} tag which leads straight here, which is verging on WP:POINT. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

That is crazy. Family is perfectly acceptable! Trainset (which I'd personally say was two words) is for the # of such items you have in groups, so rakes or multiple units, rather than individual carriages. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I've just changed "trainset" back to "family" on the Chiltern Railways article while, again, erring on the side of caution and keeping the "clarification needed" tag.

At the risk of creating even more trouble here, I think these are pure rushes of blood to the head on Maurice Oly's part. It certainly would help if they participated in this discussion themselves. 2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:FCAC:B17A:1FEF:6EAB (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I find "family" as ambiguous as "trainset". What does it actually mean? Is it a marketing or brand term which the TOCs and/or manufacturers use? That applies to some of the examples above, such as HST, Networker, Bombardier Turbostar, Siemens Desiro, etc. Bazza (talk) 14:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bazza 7: I respect your view - but I don't think "family" is ambiguous at all, and it can be defined much more easily than "trainset".

Quite simply, a family is a group of similarly-built DMUs/EMUs/locomotives, usually all built by the same manufacturer (but not always, as in the case of the Networkers).

And it turns out the manufacturers themselves use this term too. From Bombardier's site:

"The AVENTRA family offers a range of features including speeds ranging from 145 km/h to 200 km/h; traction energy savings; optimized reliability, cost and performance due to Bombardier's design-for-maintenance philosophy..."

(https://rail.bombardier.com/en/solutions-and-technologies/urban/commuter.html).

And from Siemens' site:

"Greater comfort, a higher level of safety, and outstanding reliability: With the trendsetting Desiro family of trains, you're perfectly equipped for the future."

(https://www.mobility.siemens.com/global/en/portfolio/rail/rolling-stock/commuter-and-regional-trains/desiro.html).

2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:FCAC:B17A:1FEF:6EAB (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

So it's a manufacturer's marketing term. Except when it isn't, as you pointed out. Which means it's ambiguous. I'm starting to understand, though, that this is branding by manufacturers or TOCs, so I will suggest "Brand" as a heading and wait for someone to point out exceptions to that, or not. Failing that, "Common name". Bazza (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bazza 7: With respect... how do you know it's *purely* a manufacturer's marketing term just from those two links, which I only added as evidence that the manufacturers use the term (in response to you wondering if they did or not)?

Magazines use the term too - and I, for one, have no way of knowing whether or not they use it *because* the manufacturers do. Anyway, from the August 2016 issue of The Railway Magazine:

"South West Trains has ordered 30 five-car EMUs from Siemens, which are part of the 'Desiro City' family and similar to the Class 700 units being built for Govia Thameslink."

(https://www.railwaymagazine.co.uk/461/first-views-of-swts-new-class-707-emus/)

And from issue 796 of Rail, 16 March 2016:

"The engineering and maintenance structure of Virgin Trains' East Coast operation is very different to its West Coast operation, which is completely contracted out to ... Alstom/Bombardier for its Voyager family."

(https://www.railmagazine.com/trains/current-trains/vtec-s-hsts-life-begins-again-at-40?p=4)

Also, when I said "but not always, as in the case of the Networkers", I didn't mean "if they were built by more than one manufacturer, then they don't make a family". When BREL/ABB were promoting the Class 165s, 166s, 365s, 465/0s and 465/1s, and Metro-Cammell/GEC-Alsthom were promoting the Class 465/2s and 466s, is it not plausible that both manufacturers used the term "Networker family" in the corresponding materials? (And for that matter, is it not plausible that the magazines - and, indeed, Network SouthEast themselves - also used these two words together at the time?)

2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:FCAC:B17A:1FEF:6EAB (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Redrose64, Bazza 7, Train0824, PhiH, Nthep, Mattbuck, Maurice Oly, and anyone else who is or might be familiar with this discussion: I am taking no further part in it, and also I'm steering clear of all articles related to British railways for the time being.

This situation just seems to be getting more ridiculous by the hour - and more ill-tempered, too. No-one seems to be agreeing on *anything*, and it seems that any attempt to move things forward - like Mattbuck offering a possible definition of "trainset" (regardless whether it's worth defining or not), or me trying to make clear what a family is - is as successful as San Marino are at football. It seems, too, that edit wars are on the verge of developing on some of the articles concerned - like the Greater Anglia one - and, in turn, blocks being handed out.

Call me a drama queen, but this isn't the kind of situation that's particularly good for my sanity. Therefore, I'm bailing out of it while the opportunity is there. How the rest of this discussion pans out shall remain a mystery to me (it'll be archived eventually, obviously), and if it turns out that there *is* a productive outcome after all (like a term that everyone *can* agree on, or the deletion and prohibition of "trainset" columns, "family" columns and the like from these tables), well, it's likely that it'll be a while before I see it for myself.

So, to quote Douglas Adams: so long, and thanks for all the fish. 2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:8D6F:3572:F58D:DADD (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

As a contributor who has been inserting this 'Trainset' column into a lot of the UK railway articles, I do feel that the column is necessary and useful and with there being articles on certain families (such as Bombardier Voyager and Bombardier Aventra), the fleet tables should reiterate this. With that being said, I am all for changing the term 'Trainset' to 'Family' as well because when comparing these two, the term 'Family' indeed makes a lot more sense and this term is already more widely used than 'Trainset' ever was. --SavageKieran (talk) 10:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Railway modelling: 2 mm scale

Does anybody have issues of British Railway Modelling, Model Railway Journal or Railway Modeller that have features on 2 mm scale? Perhaps you can use those to improve the article 2 mm scale. Even if you can't, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2 mm scale. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

ukrailnews.com

An editor has inquired about the reliability of ukrailnews.com. Input would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#ukrailnews.com. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

RM needs more input

The discussion at Talk:2015 Wootton Bassett SPAD incident#Requested move 8 May 2021 would benefit from additional input. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Great British Railways

Now would be a good time to start prep work on Module:Adjacent stations/Great British Railways. If we get the functionality of the module figured out, we should have at least two years to ensure that templates are transitioned smoothly. (For those unfamiliar with the module, see Template:Adjacent stations and Module:Adjacent stations). Cards84664 14:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Brecknell Willis high speed pantograph

Brecknell Willis high speed pantograph, Brecknell Willis high reach pantograph and Brecknell Willis low height pantograph have been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brecknell Willis high speed pantograph. I'd be astonished if at least the high speed pantograph was not notable, but the subject is poorly covered in google-indexed web pages so if anyone has knowledge and especially sources that cover this, please comment at the AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Leamington Spa General

The template Template:Coventry to Leamington line RDT has the current Leamington Spa railway station as Leamington Spa General. Does anyone have a reference for it being called this, and/or for what dates? G-13114 (talk) 12:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

According to Butt (p.140), the history of its names:

1 Oct 1852: Leamington
12 Jul 1913: Leamington Spa
25 Sep 1950: Leamington Spa General
1968: Leamington Spa

(For Butt, use the {{Butt-Stations}} template.) -- Dr Greg talk 13:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Quick (p259) gives the same dates other than the last one where its no more specific than timetables between 1964 and 1976 still referred to it as General, this might not be how it was signed etc. Also notes that from 1887/8 to 1947/8 Bradshaw called it Leamington Warwick Old Road. Nthep (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The suffix "General" was often used as a disambiguator by the Great Western Railway and British Railways (Western Region), particularly where the other company's (or other region's) station was close by. In this case, Leamington Spa (Avenue) was right next door; similar pairs of adjacent but differently-named stations occerred at the next three major stations to the south, Banbury General/Banbury Merton Street; Oxford General/Oxford Rewley Road; and Reading General/Reading Southern. Other examples include Wrexham General and Chester General.

Some of these still use the suffix: in other cases there does not seem to have been an "official" date when the work "General" dropped out of use. For instance, tickets issued at Banbury in the 1980s still showed "BANBURY (GENERAL)" (on an Edmondson-size ticket) although the station's nameboards had lost the "General" suffix some time in the 1960s. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I already wrote about this, see Talk:Leamington Spa railway station#Split. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I've updated the article with the information you've provided. G-13114 (talk) 00:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Locomotive origin?

The locomotive in this photo has conflicting info in separate Wikipedia articles. The Waterford and Tramore Railway article claims it was built in 1847 for the Liverpool and Manchester Railway (which had been absorbed into the Grand Junction Railway in 1845 and that company had been absorbed into the LNWR in 1846). The Bury Bar Frame locomotive article states that it was built for the London and Birmingham Railway in 1837. Which is correct? Mjroots (talk) 11:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The picture was copied from John Speller's website. He has an interest in early locomotives and describes it Edward Bury 2-2-2 tank No. 4, built for the Liverpool & Manchester Railway in 1847 and in use on the Waterford &Tramore Railway until 1905. Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Baxter, in

Baxter, Bertram (1978). Baxter, David (ed.). British Locomotive Catalogue 1825-1923, volume 2A: London and North Western Railway and its constituent companies. Ashbourne: Moorland Publishing. pp. 12–17. ISBN 0-903485-51-6. OCLC 60034556. OL 25663325M.

does not show the L&M as having any 2-2-2 from Bury - there are 2-2-2 from other manufacturers, and there is only one loco from Bury (Planet type 2-2-0, no. 26 Liver built 1833 sold 1837). Baxter also does not show any L&M loco as having been built after 1846. However, the L&B was a prolific user of Bury locos, and that firm supplied eleven 2-2-2, nos. 100-110 in 1846 (Baxter pp. 28-29).

Baxter does not cover Irish lines, unfortunately. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Casserley (1974 pp=91-92): 1st three "stopgap" locos 3*Bury 2ndHand from L&NWR orig L&BR 1837 2-2-0 tender converted 2-2-2 WT @ Wolverton. In poor nick and replaced by Fairbairn's 1855? with No. 4 only retained as spare until 1906 (last working?). Was held for poss. preservation but scrapped c. 1912. My understanding is The L&MR generally shunned Bury (at least directly) but the L&BR loved him. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all. @Djm-leighpark: would you please make the necessary corrections to both articles using that source you mention? Mjroots (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

A quick read of the W&TR implies a number of updates, but I my memory is shot and there were quite a few railways round Waterford. (I've recently stubbed Waterford/Mallow and not fully sorted that yet). I think this was the railway where they imported MGWR Class E's by running them down the road. I think its also got a preserved section I was on in 2010 but I am a tad concerned I might be mistaken nad mixed up. But I will try to alter. May also have details from a Dawson book at a guess, I think he does Bury Bar Frames. I don;t have all the references on the W&TR article. @Geof Sheppard if I have done anything in a week feel free to kick me. Thanks. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The Bury bar frame locomotive article had issues with the caption only and I've tried to address that con commons and and by re-captioning the image. The article contains general references but no specific citations so its a bit of a basket case really. (As it happens I have temporary access to one of the references as a library book and Lowe's 2014 edition so I might try to look at that but I'm way off course. I'm refreshing the W&TR as a work in progress; it contains several errors. The W&TR is not partly preserved ... I was thinking of the Waterford and Suir Valley Railway. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, there is explicit mention in:

Jack, Harry (2001). Greenwood, William (ed.). Locomotives of the LNWR Southern Division. Sawtry: RCTS. pp. 96 99-100. ISBN 0-901115-89-4.

concerning the rebuilding of at least nine Bury-type 2-2-0 to 2-2-2T, sale of some of them to Fairbairn and subsequently three to the Waterford & Tramore Rly. Details are not clear, so I won't try to untangle it. Not all of the Bury-type locos were actually built by Bury: six firms supplied a total of 60 2-2-0 locos of Bury design, of which 27 were built by Bury themselves. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

82.10.86.69 again

Please can I have some help dealing with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/82.10.86.69 who is back inserting unsourced and frequently trivial information and reverting away from the consensus about it. I've dropped them a level 4 warning, but as it's my edits in a lot of cases they are reverting I don't want to take action myself. Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

DfT categories

Hello, I just spotted someone adding one of the sub-categories of category:Railway stations by Department for Transport category to an article. These used to be added automatically by {{infobox GB station}} but since the merge to {{infobox station}} these are no longer being populated. The entries in the categories are the ones filled by {{infobox London station}}. Keith D (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Yep. I did point it out almost a year ago, amongst other things; but there are those who do not wish me to mention what I felt about the whole business. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that saga from last year, and have updated my knowledge of it just now, and I have to say it looks like a typical piece of Wikipedia make-work, with little discernible gain and lots of minor but annoying issues such as this one. — Amakuru (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Kingsway tram station

Noted in news: [2] ... anyone interested if seeing if relevant to Kingsway tramway subway. I've got about 3/4/5 articles I'm messily stacked on already ... and not sure if its a straightforward update. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The article is wrong about it being the first time in 70 years, someone has posted a series of photos on Flickr of an organised visit there in 2009. Quite likely wasn't the only such visit. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

British Rail Class 447

The unreferenced British Rail Class 447 article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Its gone --Davidvaughanwells (talk) 14:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

AfD

Denton railway station (Lincolnshire) has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

"Daventry Parkway Project" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Daventry Parkway Project. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 15#Daventry Parkway Project until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy notification only. This proposal has no evidence of wider acceptance or notability, so may safely be skipped if busy. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Great Western main line

I am going to give it a day or two but I am going to be bold and move this page to capitalise. If we look at MML - Midland Main Line or West Coast Main Line or East Coast Main Line or even Great Central Main Line they are all capitalized. Even Bonnie Scotland has Highland Main Line in capitals. This article does not. I strongly feel we need consistency. I raised the issue on the talk page quite a while ago and a few agree with me GRALISTAIR (talk) 11:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you too, but be prepared for pushback. There are one or two editors who are really keen to decapitalise almost everything, railway lines among them. There have been several quite contentious discussions in the past 2-3 years. Thryduulf (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @GRALISTAIR: You need to give it more than a day or two: not everyone has time or is inclined to visit their favourite Wikipedia pages daily. A couple of weeks would be more accommodating. There's been a history of pages yoyoing back and forward between having "main line" capitalised or not. Although I prefer "main line", I'm not fussed if it's "Main Line", as long as there's consistency in article titles and links. I suggest, though, that some references are obtained to show that there is more use of "Main Line" than "main line": we work on WP:RS rather than our own likes. List of railway lines in Great Britain shows 22 with "main line" in their name. All but five are capitalised, the exceptions being South Western main line, Brighton main line, Chatham main line, South Eastern main line, and South Humberside main line. Advanced search reveals the following with lowercase entries: Great Western main line, Caledonian main line, South Western main line, Brighton main line, South Humberside main line, TransPennine main line (redirects to Huddersfield line), South Eastern main line. It looks like the current flavour is for "Main Line". Advanced search also lists templates which are lowercase: Template:Great Eastern main line RDT, Template:Chatham main line, and Template:South Eastern main line. Bazza (talk) 12:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Adding WP:RS: Network Rail call it "Great Western Mainline", so following WP:RS suggests we should use the current redirect at Great Western Mainline for the main article. They also have "West Coast Mainline" and "South West Mainline", but "Chiltern main line" and "East Coast Main Line", so should we stick to WP:CONSISTENT, or follow WP:RS? Bazza (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding "Mainline" vs "Main Line" we should follow the sources. This is going to lead to inconsistency but that can't be helped when the real world is inconsistent. Thryduulf (talk) 12:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed - I will probably give it at least a month unless someone else does it first GRALISTAIR (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I swear I am not fussed either way but there should be consistency. I raised the issue on GW main line talk page a few months back. Consistency is my beef GRALISTAIR (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I mean in meandering I noticed on the page Rail operating centre it refers to West Coast Route Modernisation. How far do we take this whole thing? Why is Route capitalised? Why is Modernisation capitalised? For that matter why is Coast capitalised? So should WCML read West coast main line? Perhaps I have lived in the USA way too long! GRALISTAIR (talk) 13:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

WCRM is the name of a project, so is a proper noun, and thus capitalised. FWIW I agree with capitalised Line - the Line is part of the name. LU's insistence on lower-case has always peeved me. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth I 100% agree that the current guidelines on capitalisation are ludicrous, and clearly unfit for purpose if they produce the results that we have seen. They only exist because of a few editors have a bizarre obsession with the issue! G-13114 (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Move request initiated at Talk:Great Western main line#Requested move 11 July 2021 Mallaeta (talk) 06:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Given the above RM gave a clear result, have opened another RM to cover he remaining articles with main line in lower case. Mallaeta (talk) 11:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Merchant Navy Class

The SR Merchant Navy Class article (FA class) currently only mentions one incident, that involving the broken axle on Crewkerne. I'm not sure that it had anything to do with the performance of the unmodified locomtives, which it is currently a subsection of.

There are other accidents and incidents involving the class which are not mentioned. I propose to move the subsection containing the Crewkerne incident to a become a retitled "Accidents and Incidents" section immediately above the "Withdrawal" section and add some other incidents I can verify, unless there are any objections. Mjroots (talk) 11:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

RM notification

FYI, there's a requested move discussion underway at Talk:South Western main line#Requested move 20 July 2021. G-13114 (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Carriages or Cars

While both tend to be used interchangeably at least in informal discussions, is the correct name in the UK for passenger stock carriages or cars? Formal sources such as Angel Trains, Department for Transport, Eversholt, Hitachi, Porterbrook, Rail Magazine, Rail Technology and The Railway Magazine appear to largely use carriages in both titles and text. Customreed (talk) 05:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

My thoughts are in UK, that is {{use British English}} articles, carriage is the more generally used term. Exception include when referring to an N-car multiple unit, and possibly some station signage where the car abbreviation for carriage might be used. When TOCs and there automation are communicating with passengers the term coach is often used: You are in coach 7 of 9 was one of my more rarer but favourite announcements on Southern. I have a feeling in America car would more often be used. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

There is no one-name-fits-all term in the UK, each railway had its own preference. London Transport and its predecessors (except the Metropolitan Railway) consistently used car for electric multiple-units. The Pullman Car Co. always used car whatever the traction type. Elsewhere, the term car was normal for sleepers and stock with non-trolley refreshments: dining car, kitchen car, restaurant car, sleeping car. Other types might be car, carriage or coach depending upon the railway (the LNER always used carriage, the GWR always coach). I shall look deeper when get home from work. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd forgotton all about buffet cars and the like. From an older work (1914 refering to 1874) I note sleeping saloons was a term in use for sleeping cars (albeit convertable to seating).[3]. Actually the same publication refers to sleeping cars on the Irish Mail, restraurant cars and has a picture of a post office van (coach).(https://archive.org/details/cu31924030117307/page/n465/mode/2up?q=sleeping). Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC) Also a reference to sleeping-carriages from 1890 published by K. Baedeker, Leipsic. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

My understanding is that early passenger vehicles were generally "carriages":

We entered the carriages of the first train - George Henry Gibbs, opening of the GWR, 1838
A saloon carriage, very handsomely fitted up, was built for her use - Daniel Gooch, describing arrangements for Queen Victoria's train journey, 1842
I think when people are sitting on a long bench across a wide carriage... - Joseph Locke, evidence to the Gauge Commission, 1845
...select his carriage and seat according to the hints previously given - The Railway Traveller's Handy Book, 1862

I also thought that "coaches" were usually open saloons and cars came with the American influence on the Underground, but...

The Duke of Wellington's private coach - Illustrated London News, 1897
The South-Eastern Railway Company has just placed upon the rails a vestibule train... of eight cars - Illustrated London News, 1897

Since then the terms have become mixed up which brings us to the inconsistent place were are in today.Geof Sheppard (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Public address system as safety feature

In some articles, e.g. British Rail Class 323, British Rail Class 332, British Rail Class 333, public address systems are included in the infobox as safety systems. While systems such as AWS and ATP definitely are safety systems, is it a bit of a stretch to include a public address system? While PAs may be used in the aftermath of an accident, it’s more of an incidental rather than the primary function for which they exist.

I would have though that safety systems are those items which prevent or mitigate the impacts of an accident, which a PA system isn't. The cites used to back up their inclusion in these articles mention them as features of the trains, but not safety features. Customreed (talk) 06:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Customreed. But in any case, don't all modern trains have public address systems? If so, is it worth mentioning them at all? -- Alarics (talk) 12:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Certainly not classifiable as a safety feature. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, tricky. On aircraft, PAs are considered as a safety feature. An aircraft with a non-working PA system is not allowed to fly with passengers on board. Mjroots (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Safety features are those devices or systems whose primary purpose is to prevent accidents. They're not a modern development: these days we have TPWS, ATP etc. but more than a hundred years ago the Great Central Railway (Reliostop), Great Western Railway (ATC), Metropolitan District Railway (train stop) and North Eastern Railway (Raven's fog signalling apparatus) were all developing and installing methods for warning a driver that they were approaching a signal at "danger", or of stopping a train that passed such a signal, or both. The MDR system is still in use, the others were replaced by a development of the Hudd system (AWS), itself some eighty years old.

On trains, PA is almost always used to provide general information: welcome on board, the next stop is X; we are now arriving at X; the buffet service is now available; we are sorry for the delay, this is due to a late-running train in front. I've never heard it used in a safety context. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

"Please mind the gap between the train and the platform edge." "If you see something that doesn't look right, speak to staff or text the British Transport Police on 61016. See it, say it, sorted." Those seem safety-oriented, but not critical to the safe operation of the service. Rcsprinter123 (natter) 22:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Those are automated public-service announcements, and their effects are limited: if they are disobeyed, the train won't stop unless another independent action - such as pulling the emergency handle - is taken. People can still fall into the gap, people still ignore things that "don't look right". There's a bag in a luggage rack - does it belong to a legit passenger halfway down the carriage, or is it a bomb left there by somebody who got off three stops back? People don't want to cry wolf on that.

Unless you're familiar with what "looks right", something that is perfectly normal to railway staff may look distinctly odd to an observant but uninformed traveller. I'm used to a yellow stripe above windows and at the top of doors to mean "first-class seating", but many Chiltern Railways trains have yellow stripes at the top of some (not necessarily all) doors in the standard-class areas instead of the first-class. If a train has yellow stripes on all the doors, that would mean that all the seats are first-class, which would certainly be something that doesn't look right, so should I text 61016 for that? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a bit of a diversion. I am in agreement that PAs should not be listed as a safety system. Rcsprinter123 (cajole) 00:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Alarics, public address systems have been a standard feature on all trains for decades, certainly since the 1970s. Mjroots, a train with a non-functioning PA system may be deemed unfit to carry passengers, but there are dozens of similar items that would have the same effect; broken headlight, door not locking, faulty windscreen wiper etc. Doesn't mean that they are all classified as safety features though. Customreed (talk) 05:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Wester pipe railway

I saw this tweet and it seems that we don't have an article for what I shall call the "Wester pipe railway" for want of a better name. An interesting industrial railway in the far north of Scotland. It is some 7.8 kilometres (4.8 mi) long and the motive power is tugboats. Exists solely to facilitate the manufacture of pipes for use by the North Sea oil industry. Plenty of photo's on Geograph - follow the railway inland on the map to see more. Mjroots (talk) 09:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Intriguing. When you say the motive power is tugboats, how does that work? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Apparently the tugs pull the pipes out to sea, and further sections are welded on at the other end. Line is dead straight for this reason. Mjroots (talk) 10:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

There is a stub on de-wiki - de:Subsea 7 Pipeline Bundle Fabrication Site. Mjroots (talk) 10:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

this link Subsea 7 gives some information. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Dore and Totley railway station

Dore and Totley railway station has been moved to Dore & Totley railway station by Brampstone, but I can't find any discussion similar to that for the move in the opposite direction done in 2008. Have I missed something? This most recent move is a bit strange as the article's text hasn't been altered, and its first image clearly shows the station name plate as Dore and Totley. Bazza (talk) 09:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Brampstone has also replaced "and" with "&" in several other railway station article titles (see contributions), giving only "WP:&" as the reason. -- Dr Greg talk 11:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The National Rail web pages for those stations agree with the use of "&" instead of "and". --David Biddulph (talk) 13:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: Thanks. I noticed that afterwards too. Northern Rail, which manages the station, uses "&" on its website, but "and" in the real world on the station's nameplates. I was mainly concerned about the complete lack of discussion by Brampstone about something which had been changed the other way in the past. Is there a rail-topic MOS on this anywhere to give some guidance? Bazza (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Two more have been moved, Hatfield & Stainforth, and Cark & Cartmel. The joy of all things (talk) 06:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

As mentioned above both National Rail and Northern Trains used the ampersand ('&)', not 'and'. As they own / manage the asset, they will know what the true name is. No different to how the & is used in companies. e.g. Bristol & West, Carnival Corporation & plc and Tate & Lyle. Brampstone (talk) 06:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Brampstone: I've already noted above that Northern Trains are inconsistent in their usage. There is more confusion at Hatfield station (no Stainforth on its sign) and Cark (missing Cartmel on its signage). My original reason for raising this, though, was the lack of any discussion or explanation why you did the move. A single line on this page giving your reason might have been helpful, and courteous. (And the text on article pages for stations named above are now out of step with their titles.) Bazza (talk) 08:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

What is actually shown on the signs on the station platforms? I'm sure that was the convention that we always followed in the past. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

[4] this shows and, though I am not sure how old the image is (the article was written in 2014). [5] This one is from 2018, and this [6], is 2019. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 08:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Article name should reflect what it says on the tin, i.e. what the station signs says, so if Dore than Dore railway station, if Dore & Totley than Dore & Totley railway station, if Dore and Totley then Dore and Totley railway station. What somebody inputs into a computer at National Rail or Northern Trains potentially with possibly no local knowledge is irrelevant. Customreed (talk) 05:24, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

For consistency, using "and" seems like the better option, since this is what the ampersand stands for anyway, and since titles in an encyclopedia are usually written out and not abbreviated. There's no policy which suggests giving precedence to official names unless those are also the ones in common usage (and even then, I'd argue that, in what should be a relatively uniform topic, consistency is more important). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Trying to make sense of succession on a rail line

I'm a bit confused, hoping someone can help me make sense of this. I wrote a Module:Adjacent stations/Tyne and Wear Metro last year and basically I'm not sure if I've got the left/right lines right. So a route map is the picture on the right. Here is a conversion someone made from {{s-line}} to the adjacent stations module. Originally it would've said, for the Green line, "Previous: Haymarket. Next: Central" for example. Now it has the order swapped around. I dunno if that's inherently a problem, but I guess the crux of my problem is which is "left" and which is "right"? Or does it not matter?

Similarly, I was looking at converting Newcastle railway station#Tyne & Wear Metro, where it currently looks like: which is obviously not right (Central -> Monument isn't going towards South Shields on the map). Is this just a case of swapping order during the conversion, or should the module and existing usages be swapped, or...? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't have much experience with these templates, so can't provide help on the technical side of things, but regarding the first question, "which is left and which is right", it doesn't really matter, so long you're consistent. Although trying to keep this in harmony with the actual way things are IRL seems like the better option (so what is on the left side of the map should be "left", i.e. Green line: left is towards Airport, right towards South Hylton; Yellow line: left towards Regent Centre, right towards South Shields). Whichever direction is chosen will lead to an interesting conundrum around Newcastle city centre. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

For the Tyne and Wear Metro, I'd say the green line should be previous towards Airport and next towards South Hylton, as that makes previous towards the top left and next towards the bottom right. The Yellow line should be set-up so that previous and next are the same where the routes are shared, which means previous is towards St James and next towards South Shields. This does unfortunately mean that left will be next between Longbenton and Monkseaton and between Park Lane and Pallion, but the alternative is having left being next between Monument and Noth Shields and the entire rest of the green line - having one section counterintuitive is unavoidable for lines that have a 180° or greater turn. Thryduulf (talk) 10:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Individual locomotive articles

An editor User:N1TH Music has been creating a number of articles about individual railway vehicles and locomotives. So far we have

This AfD for two Class 02 locomotives
This AfD for random items of LU tube stock
Individual articles about the two British Rail Class 01 locomotives which I have redirected to the parent article.

This one British Rail Locomotive 02 003 is more interesting, though. There is more information and sources about this one, because it's preserved. I know we have articles about individual preserved locomotives (obviously notable in the cases of things like Mallard, City of Truro, or DELTIC, more dubious in others). How should these articles be approached? My reasoning is that on the basis of this one I could write an article about pretty much any preserved diesel locomotive (and probably quite a few that aren't, either - for example D326, the Great Train Robbery locomotive). Black Kite (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Most individual locomotives are not particularly notable, certainly not an insignificant shunter. The ones you mention all have notabilty as individuals, fastest steam loco, first to exceed 100mph (allegedly) and so on. In the absence of any genuine notabilty, information about individual locos should be incorporated into the class articles. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Note that said user has indicated that they are going to create many more articles of this type [7]. Black Kite (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Why? Seriously, s/he should be actively discouraged from creating pointless articles and pointed towards adding relevant information to the existing class articles. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Hence my reply to them. Black Kite (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Following copied from my yalk page to keep the discussion coherent:

Hello It's me, N1TH Music the guy who's been writing individual locomotive articles, I've read the Section you and Black Kite have made to "Project UK Railways" and I understand that you don't really want me making more of these, I think if I'm not mistaken that it's ok to make articles about the most notable individual locomotives so the way I see it, stuff like 442 001, 314 209 390 033 "City of Glasgow, ect. but I have a few questions. 1. It's hard to see what is the line between a useful article about and individual locomotive and a useless one, does it have to be preserved or does there have to just be something special about it warranting an article, for example 314 209 is the only remaining 314 unit and it's being hydrogen converted, is that enough? is my existing article about 02 003 which Black Kite called "more interesting" enough or are neither of them enough. In addition I read the Wikipeida instructions that say what articles should be on wikipedia and stuff like that. It makes a point saying that just because something is true and is sourced does not mean it should have an article, just because it can does not mean it should, but it also said that articles on wikipedia shouldn't be too long. If I were to take all the information and sources I put on 02 001, 02 003 and 02 004 and put it all on the Class 02 article, the article would be very long and wouldn't be very user friendly and I only wrote aritcles about the 3 units that got TOPS classifications, If I wrote about all 20, the article about class 02 would be immense. You might tell me then it's too much information but the way I see it, there are some people who only want skin deep information about the class but there are others who might want to learn about a single unit. In this case the person who wants to learn about the class will be confused and maybe even lost about the Giant article that has a lot of information and the person who wants something specific must go searching through said giant article for the little specific information they want. There are 2 solutions, one is to just not jam pack the article with tons of information, but then the person who wants to find out something specific will have to look through the source material or go on FlickR and I know from experience, trying to find information that only Wikipedia's source material has is incredibly annoying. And that's the soul reason I began editing on wikipedia, I wanted to add information so if someone added it it's there, I felt it would be better to make new articles about these locos then it would be to make the existing articles titanic in size. The other solution is what I did, but I understand your point, not all Locomotives need an article, there are 996 Class 08 locomotives, most of those don't matter, maybe a list simply listing and talking about the simple most basic facts would be a simple Idea, I know you did that twice with the class 47 and class 37 and those are great articles, maybe that's a solution, but I would please like you to reply to me on my talk page what you are ok with me writing and what you're not because I don't want to be a rulebreakerN1TH Music (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Neither 442001, 314209, nor 390033 are individually notable. If a locomotive or unit has some claim to fame that differentiates it from the rest of the class, that is something that can be mentioned in the Class article. Black Kite (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- Put simply, this is an encyclopedia, not a repository for every last piece of information about individual items of rolling stock, no matter how insignificant. The key thing to bear in mind is that the subject has to be notable, not just another item in a long list of identical (for all practical purposes) items. Your point about 08s is very relevant, who wants 850 separate articles all saying more or less the same thing? The same thing applies to the class 02s, if on a smaller scale. There were ony a few of them, they did nothing special in their careers, all of which can be summed up in one article. The 37s and 47s (and some other classes) warrant a bit more information because the various sub-classes were created to fulfill different roles. Hence my two lists to help clarify the situation. The 02s were shunters and remained shunters. There are enthusiast pages on the web that carry the sort of detailed information that an enthusiast like yourself might want to know, see for Class 66 for instance. There may be one for class 02s, and other classes that you are interested in, that would welcome the in-depth information you have. --Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

For info, N1TH Music's editing has been raised at WP:ANI. I've made a suggestion there as to how to deal with this issue. Mjroots (talk) 06:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Railway Driving Motor Car

This was up for PROD and earlier today I've dePRODed and added a little content and its raised a couple of thoughts in my mind, some of which area UK relevant. (1) Should the article be kept at or is it covered elsewhere. (2) Are there examples of single cabbed EMU's ... do some of the hybrid REP hybrids count? Was there an example of that in Canada in a travel TV program (great railway journeys or whatever). (3) Is their a list of abbreviations for British Coach type classifications ... e.g. TSO for Trailer Second Open. ... etc. etc. etc. and the SR unit type classifications ... e.g. 4COR, 3NOL, 5WES ... etc. All just thoughts. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I've answered one of my questions here by finding: British Rail coach designations; a slight issue being a lack of references: I had a very quick very squint online but no luck ... so I'll try to keep my eyes open at some offline books. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)::Apologies to all for not reading this thread or the PROD rational in totality. Whoops. Self WP:TROUT. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

This is now at Draft:Railway Driving Motor Car. Thryduulf (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Given I've dePRODed and did marginal improvement on same ... but decided not to take it farther ... felt I could take to draftspace and may obliqeete it. Got sort of wrapped on the knukles for it so unlikely to forget it. Been a bit of dog of a day with day breakdowns and stuff; so its not a day I'm too likely to forget. Thankyou for mentioning it here, I probably should have done so but I've been more emmeshed in commons. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Weedon

Just FYI, there has been some controversy recently at articles associated with Weedon railway station. There's a local campaign to reopen the station, and there's concern that its advocates are using wikipedia as a platform for promoting their campaign. It's something that people here should keep an eye on. G-13114 (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Is that the one where some pre-teen kid started a petition to reopen the station and got their photo in the local paper, as a result of which they now firmly believe that the station will definitely reopen next year/month/week? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

The article just needs keeping an eye on for over-enthusiasm. The editing is good faith, just a bit cavalier with solid facts. For the background that Redrose recalls, see User talk:HumveeHardhat and User talk:John Maynard Friedman#Daventry Parkway. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, the saga continues. Would interested editors add Daventry Parkway to their watch list. There is no such station so right now it is a redirect to a list of bidders for the crown. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

British Rail Class 507

I've reverted edits by MJ9674 saying that 507 006 has been scrapped. Have seen this reported by non-RSs, but if the information is going into the article then it needs to be referenced to a RS. Would suggest that the next edition of Rail magazine is likely to be a good place to look. Have also issued MJ9674 a final warning re the addition of unreferenced material to Wikipedia. They've been her long enough and had several low-level warnings about this so they should know by now what is required. Mjroots (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mjroots: I've managed to find a proper-looking source; see [8] although it merely says that it will not return to service (which is the same as far as the edit in the article is concerned). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Liverpool Street freight trial

The Liverpool Street railway station article mentions a class 769 freight trial due to take place in 2020. Did it ever happen? Is there now a regular freight service to Liverpool Street or has the pandemic put paid to that and we should amend the article?--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 08:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Don't actually know if this went ahead; the 6 May issue of Rail Magazine states that the Rail Operation Group has ordered Class 769 for freight services into Liverpool Street.^[1] The joy of all things (talk) 09:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Modern Railway's August issue syas that 'Orion has paths for the Gateway service from the December timetable' and that their Scottish service will start first.^[2]

References

^ Clinnick, Richard (6 May 2020). "GBRF mobilises ex-commuter 319 for Euston freight trial". Rail Magazine. No. 904. Peterborough: Bauer Media. p. 15. ISSN 0953-4563.
^ "Anglo-Scottish debut for Orion". Modern Railways. August 2021. p. 21.

Opening date of Church Brampton station

Could someone here with sources check the opening date of Church Brampton railway station? As someone edited it a while back to claim it opened in 1912, when my sources say 1881. G-13114 (talk) 10:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Quick states it to be 13 May 1912,^[1] but that's the only source I have. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 12:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

What's the sources that say 1881? That sounds like a Butt-ism in assuming that all stations on a line opened the same day as the line. Quick and the contemporary Northampton Mercury report agree on May 1912. Nthep (talk) 14:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Butt says May 1912. — Voice of Clam 17:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

References

^ Quick, Michael (2022) [2001]. Railway passenger stations in Great Britain: a chronology (PDF). version 5.04. Railway & Canal Historical Society. p. 126. Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 November 2022.

Return to Redhill station

I have spent many a frustrating time at Redhill station, and at times even more on the Redhill station article. The issue here is the repeat insertion of Sexy Simon's photo to Redhill railway station bby an anon IP. Now many of Sexy simon's photo's, many of which are excellent, are are inserted to station's and they are mostly the most appropriate image. No problem. But a problem occurs if there is a dispute; and the IP tries to keep forcing it in. There are no consequences for the IP if they keep pushing, but considerable risks for a established user who resists. And if the IP wins because of anonymity advantage that sets a bad precedent. Now while there are no guidelines against this it does seem inappropriate. Now if you look at myself and images of stations (or anything) in Dublin analysis would show I have a "go to" whose likely to be the photographer of choice .... for example using File:The Streets Of Dublin - Spencer Dock Luas Stop.jpg for the replacement image at Spencer Dock Luas stop when the prior image likely was in breach of copyright. But I think I'll generally use the best available. Be grateful if others keep a look/eye on this. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

We can always semi- the article. Other option is a PBLOCK for the IP. Looks like a rangeblock may be required for that, the calculation of which is above my skill level. Mjroots (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Just plug the IPV6 IP into the {{IPvandal}} template; which should give you:

2a00:23c5:6488:1501:e8fc:6d39:489:2fe9 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (i.e. older IP, appears stale)
2A00:23C5:D019:3700:E840:DE9:920:B3AF (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (current one)

with a helpful link to the /64 (/64 is always the first 16 hexadecimal digits; i.e. Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:D019:3700::/64 in the case of the second one). Seeing the wide spread of the two IPV6s, this might need a larger rangeblock if they keep persisting (Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 would catch both of the above (see Help:Range blocks/IPv6); although that might be a bit wide. SP is easier if it's only one article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The trouble with SP is that it prevents all IPs from editing. Fine if there are several IPs involved, but unfair when only one is causing issues, which is what PBLOCK is for. Mjroots (talk) 08:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mjroots: The other option is to do a partial block for a wider range than those I give, but that would first require that the current disruption persists even after a smaller range-block. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Looks like a /44 range but, unless I’m mistaken, it’s only three edits, two in July and one in September. Is the use of admin tools really necessary here? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

East Coast Main Line diagram

I've redrawn the East Coast Main Line diagram to include the Werrington Dive Under. If any editor feels they can make a neater job please feel free to do so. Mjroots (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I've tweaked it a bit more. It would be possible to produce a neater diagram with the introduction of some new icons - vSHI2gnl-, vSHI2g+nl-, v-SHI2gnr and v-SHI2g+nr all need the horizontal equivalents creating. CONTfq needs a version creating to go from thin line to full, as do all equivalent CONT arrows. Mjroots (talk) 14:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy links: File:BSicon vSHI2gnl-.svg, File:BSicon vSHI2g+nl-.svg, File:BSicon v-SHI2gnr.svg, File:BSicon v-SHI2g+nr.svg. Some would probably just need to be rotated and checked to see if they match correctly with others. when rotated. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: - any idea where to file requests for new icons. Can't seem to find any links over at Commons. Mjroots (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Having asked, I've found it. c:Talk:BSicon/New icons and icon requests. Will head there and ask. Mjroots (talk) 14:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Different issue, but the lines around Edinburgh are incorrectly shown. In particular, there are no "Lothian lines" which fork off between Portobello and Joppa. See here. I would change it myself but I've never got to grips with the new routemap format. Lamberhurst (talk) 10:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Lamberhurst: - I'll take a look tomorrow, internet connection permitting. Been having issues recently in that respect. Mjroots (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Lamberhurst: - I've taken that line out. Am I correct in thinking that the junction immediately below Portobello is Portobello East Jn, and that immediately below Musselburgh (new) is Niddrie East Jn? If so, those lines at the left of the diagram don't meet. Mjroots (talk) 08:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mjroots: - that's correct. The lines to the left of the diagram only meet via Millerhill at NT334713. Lamberhurst (talk) 09:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Lamberhurst: - so which wikilinks do we keep? Mjroots (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mjroots:It depends on the level of detail intended. Looking further down around Durham and Ferryhill, it's quite detailed. If this approach were to be followed, the section on the left would have to be redrawn to show: (1) the line forking after Newcraighall with an arrow pointing south for the Borders Railway, (2) another line continuing parallel to the ECML for Millerhill depot which rejoins the ECML after Musselburgh and (3) a partly disused line running south-west from Millerhill to represent the existant headshunt at Millerhill Junction and the disused Glencorse Branch. If, however, a low level of detail is called for, the diagram can be left as is. Lamberhurst (talk) 13:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I've removed any suggestion that the two lines link directly. Mjroots (talk) 14:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move: High Street (Glasgow) railway station

Hello everybody. Just to let interested parties know I have created a Requested Move discussion at Talk:High Street (Glasgow) railway station for it to be retitled High Street railway station (Glasgow). Please head over if you would like to discuss the proposal. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (report) 01:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Please see the RfC here on the wider issue of disambiguation and whether our existing guideline correctly reflects the position. Lamberhurst (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

[1] Clinnick, Richard (6 May 2020). "GBRF mobilises ex-commuter 319 for Euston freight trial". Rail Magazine. No. 904. Peterborough: Bauer Media. p. 15. ISSN 0953-4563.

[2] "Anglo-Scottish debut for Orion". Modern Railways. August 2021. p. 21.

[3] Quick, Michael (2022) [2001]. Railway passenger stations in Great Britain: a chronology (PDF). version 5.04. Railway & Canal Historical Society. p. 126. Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 November 2022.

[1]

[2]

[1]