Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 53

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

→

Archive 57

Unknown livery

?

Can anyone identify the livery for the unit on the right at Morecambe Promenade in 1988? I believe it's a 108 on the left and a 142 on the right. Happy to be put right. Lamberhurst (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

It's a 144 on the right, could be a 143, but it looks like it is in Carmine and Cream livery of the WYPTE metro ( West Yorkshire). Unsure what the branding says though, that looks unusual, and the lower orange stripe was non-standard. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

There's an orange stripe on this one. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Yep: I have admitted being wrong on that! The joy of all things (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Lamberhurst: Wrong, and wrong: it's definitely a Class 104 on the left, and Class 144 on the right. As to livery, the 104 is wearing normal BR blue of the period from 1966 onwards; the 144 looks like it might be in post-1986 West Yorkshire Metro livery, as here, although the logo doesn't look quite right. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The logo looks alright to me, they were simply stuck on and ended up collecting dirt above and below the wording. As per here. Black Kite (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Aye; now I am on the big screen, it looks like a Metrotrain brand..... The joy of all things (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks to all. Glad I had it checked out here. Lamberhurst (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Railway station articles: Description sections

Hi everyone, as per Wikipedia:Be Bold, I have been through a number of articles and tried to remove the extremely vague description section on a significant number of pages. Some/most of these have been undone, so I wanted to look for any ideas as to:

• Whether they need sorting to remove the section (sorting all the information under specific headings) and
• How best to do this

I am fully aware of MOS:OVERSECTION but I just felt that perhaps it might be nicer to have it properly sorted (and yes, I probably do have OCD!) Any opinions on this welcome. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mattdaviesfsic: Please provide examples, preferably using WP:DIFF links for the removals or the reverts. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Redrose64:, see here:

• my change
• revert

etc etc. Of course, this is only for one page - I edited ~100 articles in such a way, from Penzance to Weymouth. Hope that helps? Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 13:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I see that you posted at User talk:Geof Sheppard#Umberleigh railway station regarding this. Was Geof Sheppard's reply not satisfactory? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Redrose64:, I did originally, but also wondered if anyone else had perspectives on this, so brought the issue here as well. I'm not saying that his reply was not helpful etc, but just thought it would be helpful to bring it to light a bit? Don't want to keep changing things if no one agrees... Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't think we need to remove the 'Description' section. This is an encyclopaedia so, in my opinion, a the description is an important part of the article. We don't need a separate "Facilities" and "Location" sections for an unstaffed halt in rural Devon. I also don't think we want to lose "Station buildings" into the "History" section (as happened at Eggesford). A single section addressing all those points serves better than two or three single-sentence sections.

I have been trying this year to find reliable citations for some of those same articles. Splitting the sections left some statements uncited again which I have fixed.Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Bridge=viaduct?

Various claims have been made about "the [|second|third] oldest operational railway [bridge|viaduct] in [the world|a country]", such as at Skerne Bridge, Bassaleg Viaduct and Carrollton Viaduct. Now the Skerne Bridge has two additional arches for pathways either side of the river arch; the Bassaleg Viaduct has four equal arches, two over a river and one each over a pathway and a road; the Carrollton Viaduct is a single arch over a river but there is an additional arch through the masonry-walled approach.

Am I therefore correct to disregard any distinction between bridges and viaducts, and treat them as a single class of structure? Or is there a useful, valid line to be drawn somewhere between a single (main) arch bridge, and a multi-(equal)-arch viaduct? --Verbarson ^talk_edits 18:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

A viaduct is a type of bridge. The Skerne Bridge would probably classify as a viaduct, just like the Royal Border Bridge does. See Viaduct. Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 21:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

A viaduct is a minumum of three arches. Mjroots (talk) 06:20, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Whose definition is that? Institution of Civil Engineers, Network Rail, OED? -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 08:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

According to HS2 "A viaduct is a type of bridge, made up of multiple spans and connecting two points of terrain." That's a reasonable match to the dictionary definition "a long bridge-like structure, typically a series of arches, carrying a road or railway across a valley or other low ground." and the Wikipedia definition "A viaduct is a specific type of bridge that consists of a series of arches, piers or columns supporting a long elevated railway or road. Typically a viaduct connects two points of roughly equal elevation, allowing direct overpass across a wide valley, road, river, or other low-lying terrain features and obstacles." Seems pretty clear to me. 10mmsocket (talk) 10:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Given that the Carrollton Viaduct is a single arch (though there is also an arch through the approach embankment), whereas most of the Thames 'bridges' are multi-span, the distinction appears to defer more to custom and practice than to any definition.-- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 14:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

But that's the USA. Nothing about the USA is consistent or sensible. The is the UK railways wikiproject so we should restrict our geographical scope when looking for clarity. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

My original issue was international, so maybe there's no international agreement to be had. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 17:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

That shows the value of going back and re-reading the original question! 10mmsocket (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

In my experience, the term "viaduct" is usually (but with exceptions) applied to railway bridges and most commonly associated with the brick arch type which sprang up in the 19th century (the term being derived from the ancient aqueducts). But as there's no authority that determines what is a viaduct and what is a "mere" bridge, and these things are usually locally named, inconsistency is bound to creep in, especially over the course of 200 years. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

There are too many sections in far too many poorly written articles about UK rail lines

There is an individual who has never been hauled in over the way they have made an absolute pig's ear of so many articles about British railway companies and the lines they operated. There appears to have been no understanding about [[1]], writing in a concise style, avoiding repetition, and sticking almost every paragraph under an obscure section header. You lot at the WikiProject UK Railways should have stopped this person from adding so much awful writing to so many articles. Just try reading them on a mobile, it's almost impossible to get to the point. Some have a section header for just one or two sentences. They're shocking. I've given up reading them. They're verbose, pompous, use out dated language and often show a lack of knowledge about the subject because there times when things contradict themselves or the chronology flip flops between different time periods. The sad thing is because no one stopped this individual they're managed to make so much crap it'll be a decade of work cleaning it all up. I'm so fed up with their drivel I've stopped reading British railway articles. They're that bad.146.200.202.126 (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I've also found some of these articles annoying to read and unencyclopedic due to all the headings. Couple of points though, 1) how can anyone sort this if you don't tell us the individual who is writing these articles 2) anyone can edit Wikipedia, why not help rewrite them? NemesisAT (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Who is the editor and what are the articles? Give us this then we can review and engage. Believe me I'm an editor who is not afraid of removing large amounts of unsourced content / original research from whole swathes of articles. For example, compare any UK fire service article now with their state about 18 months ago before I started editing them. The OR and trivia is long gone. I'm happy to help but only once I know who/what we're dealing with. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

This has come up before here where the editor in question was identified. There is an issue here but it's difficult to see how it can be dealt with easily. Lamberhurst (talk) 08:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

So just to be clear the exact same IP address made the exact same claim in February 2022. Nobody had the courtesy at the time to notify the author in question @Afterbrunel, about whom allegations were being made? Nothing was done by anyone at the time [presumably because nobody saw it as a pressing problem] and it seems nothing has changed in the meantime, and Afterbrunel continues to add properly sourced content to articles that is rarely if ever challenged? Am I correct? 10mmsocket (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure those articles are as issue-less as you seem to think. If nothing else, the section headers could use being made more encyclopedic (ex. Boddam branch line). There are also some tone/sounds-like-OR issues (ex. Clearly the dominant reason for making the branch line was access to the hotel. as well as some amount of details which might not be very appropriate for the scope of an encyclopedia (ex. the whole of Miss Kate Campbell was appointed manager, at £100 a year, though Miss McKilliam was in overall charge, and a golf professional, Alex N Weir formerly of Arbroath, was appointed, at £70 a year. The opening day was 1 March 1899. The 3 ft 6 1⁄2 in gauge tramway opened in June. It operated on 500-volt DC current from the hotel's 33 kW generator, A laundry was built on the site; it also served the needs of the Palace Hotel, Aberdeen, as well as those of the GNoSR generally. The tariff for August and September was 15s per day on the first floor, 14s on the second floor, 12s on the third floor and 10s 6d on the fourth, inclusive of breakfast, lunch, afternoon tea and dinner; provision of a [coal] fire in the room cost extra. After five months of operation the results were described as "most encouraging" and the hotel committee decided to keep it open though the winter, at a reduced rate of £2 10s per week. could probably be significantly trimmed if not entirely removed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

And then there are indeed some sections which are entirely unsourced, ex. Boddam_branch_line#The_line_today. That, like some more of the content, might be more appropriate for a railway enthusiast audience than for a general encyclopedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussing the state of a disused line today isn't exactly specialist railway enthusiast content, I think that it is of interest to a general audience and should be included. NemesisAT (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

The level of detail provided might or might not be excessive (as elsewhere in the article, see for example the long description about how much a room on each floor cost) is what I'm saying; and on top of the fact that section is entirely unsourced, certainly warrants a closer look. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's unwarranted in the context. It sets the context of the nature of the hotel which the branch line was supposedly there to serve. G-13114 (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps I could make a few comments.

1) In railway company history articles, one option would be to group topics and minimise the section headings. Inevitably this would lead to massive chronology problems, and in discussions elsewhere it has been stated by others that a chronological sequence is more "natural". That inevitably means that topics change frequently as the narrative progresses: in 1888 the Chairman resigned; in 1890 the XYZ branch line was opened; in 1891 there was a fatal train crash. These topics don't lend themselves to being grouped, except in the trivial case of making a heading: "The 1870s"; next heading: "The 1880s"; next heading: "The 1890s". Some editors have attempted this, but imho it doesn't work.

2) Unsourced sections: these are quite numerous, and are usually original research. Very often this is enthusiastic descriptions of what might be seen today, or rather ten years ago when someone went out and had a look. When I make a major edit on an article, I think it is bad manners to delete soemthing that someone else has written. Any reader can see that it is unsourced, and will understand it for what it is, and I usually move on.

3) The level of peripheral detail in the Boddam branch is quite simply based on what material is out there to use. The idea is to make an interesting article, and incorporating some level of entertainment is essential. The Boddam branch deserved an improved article, but there was precious little interesting material out there about the strict railway aspect of it. People who have written commercial books incorporate this kind of peripheral material for the same reason; Wikipedia isn't exempt from the need to be attractive to readers. Afterbrunel (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't have much to say about the rest, but I'll reply to point no. 1: chronological ordering is not the only way to organise an article. In fact, most articles are not solely organised chronologically, but rather in broader sub-topics (which may, in turn, be themselves organised chronologically, or not). To take an unrelated example, World War I is divided into different sections, according to what is covered within. The sections about technology and war crimes are organised independently from the rest of the history, while remaining internally chronological. This is equally possible for railway articles. To take the GWR, which I already mention, the "History", "Geography" and "Operations" sections are all in their own order, without the need to mix them up. And grouping of content can often be done with more useful titles than simply temporal markers (as the GWR article shows). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Any chance we can build up a hit of articles to work on? 10mmsocket (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

If we're solely interested in articles by this one editor, the whole list amounts to 924; and if you exclude those which are only redirects, or which are not about railways at all, the number is closer to 700; and not all of these will have had significant involvement to the point of bringing about the kind of slightly annoying issues identified above. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

The content is mostly ok and well sourced. And the user has uploaded a lot of generally well made maps to illustrate the articles. He just seems to have a particular style of arranging the articles which some people find annoying. There's also an issue that maybe some of the content is duplicating that elsewhere. Maybe it could do with some work, but it's not really what I would consider a top priority, If others disagree than go right ahead and be bold. G-13114 (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

That particular style of arranging the articles is not helpful to the readers (as it lacks any organisation) and is also discouraged by MOS:OVERSECTION. An example of how things should be done is probably something like Great Western Railway, if that helps. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Very useful, thank you. Is there any formal guidance within this project on article layout (I'm being lazy - I haven't looked!!) 10mmsocket (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd have hoped Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Style advice might be useful, but there's nothing there about layout specifically. Otherwise a look through the rest of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Trains#Good_articles is never a bad idea. I'll note that most of them include at least a "history" section, no matter what exactly they're about (Anglesey Central Railway; Staten Island Railway; Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock and Ayr Railway), and some form of description of the route (under varied headings, from the obvious "Route" to stuff like "Branches and stations" or "Topography". Although there are other articles which have had the same "bad section headers" issue, ex. Grand Crimean Central Railway (although, to be entirely fair, that one might be due for a GAR in any case). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• The important thing about sections isn't how many there are, it's what's in them: One train, one track, one section. SN54129 19:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Serial Number 54129: The point of sections, like chapter titles in a book, or headers in an academic paper, is organising the content so that readers can more easily make sense of it by giving a split-second overview of what is being covered. In that sense, while, yes, the number of sections isn't usually an issue, there are usually good reasons why appropriate subdivisions (as are indeed present at Signalling block system) should be used. And they also make finding specific information much easier. Compare this with the current state of that article. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

  I think it's important not to go overboard here. @Afterbrunel: has done some great work to improve many articles which were no more than stubs and has uploaded a good many useful images and maps. Writing articles about closed lines is not an easy subject, especially where - like with the Boddam branch - the sources are few and far between. Yes, there may be issues with article structure and notability and I would recommend that Afterbrunel look at some of our featured articles on closed lines such as the Brill Tramway and good articles like the Hawkhurst branch line for inspiration. Lamberhurst (talk) 10:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

  Have to agree that overall I've enjoyed reading historic railway articles on Wikipedia (and I suspect Afterbrunel was behind a lot of these). I was able to help a little with newspaper sources for the Boddam Branch closure (see Talk:Boddam branch line). NemesisAT (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you both for those kind words. Incidentally it is good to know that someone is actually reading these articles; there are times when I wonder if it is only me and some copy-editors who read them. May I trespass on your good offices to ask: -- the talk pages of many articles state that the article is somehow under the auspices of this or that project, in some cases three different projects on the same article. Are all of these projects active? I look in vain on their home pages for a list of "We have done this in the last three months". And in many cases they have awarded an article stub class, or recommended a map or something, when these enhancements have been done, and they don't seem to update their evaluations. As I am not a member of their task force, I can hardly do that myself.

  And finally I had a look at the Hawkhurst branch. May I draw your attention to the fact the section "Present-day scene / Remains" ends with a statement in the present tense, citing a book published in 2003. :-) Afterbrunel (talk) 06:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  I think you can update anything you like. Memberships don't mean owt here. Rcsprinter123 (rhapsodise) 11:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Railway pubs

Hi all. Bit of an odd request for this Project, but I wonder if anybody might have, in any of their books or other reliable sources, a suitable reference for the following assertion I would like to make in a pub-related article I'm planning: "Railway stations and pubs have a long mutual association". I'm thinking of pubs and hotels built close to stations, generally soon after the railway arrived in a town/village/whatever, rather than pubs-on-a-station like at Stalybridge. It's one of those things that feels like conventional wisdom, but I would prefer to have a ref to back it up rather than boldly saying it! I can't find anything suitable in my collection of railway books, which admittedly isn't the largest. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 12:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Railway hotels are much easier to write about than pubs. I suspect there's some good references in the various articles, e.g. two that spring to mind because I have stayed in them so often are the Midland Hotel, Manchester and St. Pancras Renaissance London Hotel (both built by the same railway company). However there's dozens of railway hotels listed at British Transport Hotels, which may provide some valuable pub-related references for you to mine. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Peter Thomas's excellent book "Yorkshire's Historic Pubs" details The Station Inn at Ribblehead (originally The Railway Inn) opened in 1875, specifically to service railway passengers. The joy of all things (talk) 13:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The Barnes Wallis in Howden is next to the railway station, and was originally opened as The Railway. The joy of all things (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The same book as above states that The Fox on Holgate Road in York (just behind the old Carriage/BREL/ABB works) was refurbished in 1878 specifically as a "railway boozer". Opened originally in 1776. The joy of all things (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Check out Stockton and Darlington Railway. From memory, before the concept of 'railway station' was developed, the pubs were natural stopping places for passengers - try some of the external links. The article itself mentions that on the opening day, Locomotion No 1 was coupled to the train at Mason's Arms Crossing (anyone going to bet that wasn't a pub?), and "Innkeepers began running coaches, two to Shildon from July, and the Union, which served the Yarm branch from 16 October. There were no stations" (end of 'Early operations'). So innkeepers even ran their own trains - I wonder where they terminated? -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 15:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

On the other hand, this is Britain. "X and pubs have a long mutual association" is probably true for many values of X, from football to bare-knuckle fighting, hunting to civil disobedience, roads to canals to railways to long-distance paths. It might be quicker to list items not associated with pubs. (Even Temperance Mission Halls were probably built near pubs!) -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 15:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I've just pointed a dead link on Skerne Bridge to an achive version here. At the foot of page 12: "The S&D Railway Sub-Committee met on the 23 June 1826 and decided to build three inns to serve the new railway line." Pubs and railways were hand-in-hand from the very beginning of passenger traffic. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 19:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The S&D (and a few other pioneer railways) used inns as stations because that was the way that the stagecoaches had operated. There were no purpose-built stagecoach stations: so the idea of a purpose-built railway station was somewhat novel. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for your input; some interesting thoughts and sources. Verbarson's point about pubs being associated with most things is fair; funnily enough, in Brighton (the article I am planning is "Pubs in Brighton"), the road running down to the sea from the station had 15 pubs ... and 4 temperance hotels! Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 08:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

• I remember reading that the Railway was the most common pub name in Manchester, once. Whether that's the case, or whether many of them have been converted to nonsenses like the Bannister and Shamrock, I don't know. Black Kite (talk) 12:22, 27 April 2022‎ (UTC)

I don't know about pubs but Carter's Illustrated History of British Railway Hotels starts with the sentence: "The railways pioneered the hotel industry in Britain and spent 145 years as hoteliers." Nthep (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

And St Pancras Station is designed specifically to store barrels of beer. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 19:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The idea was to get as much money from the business traveller as they could. The businessman with a 9 am meeting in a town some distance from home could, if there was one early enough, catch the first train of the day and arrive tired and annoyed, likely to lose out on the potential deal. Or, he could travel the evening before, stay the night in the hotel and arrive nice and fresh and full of get-up-and-go to clinch the best possible terms. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Move of Cross Country Route

Could any interested editors check out the recent discussion under Talk:CrossCountry NE–SW route#Requested move 15 February 2017 regarding consensus (or lack of) to move that article to a new title. Rcsprinter123 (message) 19:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Class 99

A new Class 99 locomotive is to come into service in 2025. This brings with it a problem for us. The current British Rail Class 99 article covers the ships that were previously allocated TOPS numbers. I suggest that we deal with this similarly to the way the British Rail Class 70 was dealt with. British Rail Class 99 is moved to British Rail Class 99 (ships), with the current title becoming a dab page. The article on the new locomotives can be housed at British Rail Class 99 (locomotive). 07:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to create the article at a more generic name first before we start moving articles around. We've seen before that proposed Class numbers can change (i.e. Class 66). Black Kite (talk) 07:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@Black Kite: The source of that tweet is a prominent editor in the railway press. He knows what he's talking about. Class 99 is backed up by Rail Business Daily. Mjroots (talk) 08:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, the gun has been jumped (not by me) and class 99 now refers to the new locomotive. Nthep (talk) 11:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe Murgatroyd49 was unaware of this discussion and would like to comment. Mjroots (talk) 15:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I was unaware of this discussion I'm afraid. I don't regularly monitor this page. The reason for not going down the dab ship/locomotive route was that the vast majority of readers will be looking for the loco page. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

We can leave it as it is for now. Each article has a hatnote pointing to the other. Mjroots (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Move the loco class 99 page to British Rail Class 99 (Stadler) and make a disambiguation page for all the class 99s TheScottish801 (talk) 08:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Why? How many other Class 99s are there? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, anyone typing "Class 99" into Wikipedia is going to find themselves looking at German steam locomotives, so it is certainly worth having a dab page at Class 99. There's no need to disambiguate British Rail Class 99 with "Stadler", though. Black Kite (talk) 09:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Fairy snuff. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

DAB page created. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Since the German page has so few views, I've renamed it and moved the dab page to Class 99. Black Kite (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

As the locomotive page has been moved yet again, I've now move protected it at admin level. Any further move will need to be done via WP:RM. Mjroots (talk) 11:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't aware it would be considered a controversial move given that a train is either a multiple-unit or a locomotive plus carriages or wagons, and this is very clearly an article about a locomotive (as evidenced in the discussion above. So (train) didn't seem logical, whereas (locomotive) did. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@10mmsocket: - I'm not singling anyone out. You obviously made the move in good faith, but it is time the article stopped moving about. The current title is good, so maybe we can now work on expanding the article as information is released about this new class of locomotives. Mjroots (talk) 12:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Salisbury rail crash

I've opened a discussion at Talk:2021 Salisbury rail crash#Reporting II re the gutting of the first paragraph of that section and loss of context. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Reliable source discussion

Hello, a discussion has been started here concerning the reliability of the Railscot website for use as a source. Please contribute if interested, thanks. Crowsus (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Elizabeth Line

With the announcement that the Elizabeth Line is to open on 24 May, we have an opportunity for an ITN appearance. Crucial to this is to ensure that everything is referenced properly. Mjroots (talk) 09:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

It's looking good. I've just had a quick scan through the article and make the following comments:-

Design and infrastructure section, there is an unreferenced paragraph in the "name and identity" subsection. In this case, given the illustration, we can apply WP:BLUE. In the "rolling stock" subsection, city.am seems to be to be a good enough source. The tag could probably go. The "planned service" subsection is entirely unreferenced. This will need to be addressed. The last sentence of the "ticketing" section, para 1, is unreferenced and outdated. The "further proposal" section is unreferenced, although there is a link to the main article. Again, references will need to be provided. It's nearly there, and there is time to fix before the 24 May. Mjroots (talk) 06:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Selby Line & Hull and Selby Railway

Hello, wondered if people could look a the recent changes to Selby Line & Hull and Selby Railway which has effectivelly gutted the history of the Hull and Selby Railway and placed it in the Selby Line. I was debating if this should just be reverted. Any thoughts? Keith D (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

See my comments at User talk:Mattdaviesfsic#Hull and Selby Railway, Selby Line. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it should be reverted and discussed. Mackensen (talk) 00:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I should probably explain the reasoning... in my mind:

1. the H&SR is the company that opened the railway line in 18 something-or-other
2. the SL is the railway line the company opened which continues to be in use by HT/NT/TP etc.

With this in mind I thus carried out some copy-editing, which in fairness was probably not the right thing to do straight off the bat. In hindsight, it might have been better to carry out a discussion. Apologies for the inconvenience and my stupidity... Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 05:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

As there has been no action to sort out the mess, I have reverted the changes. Please discuss such major changes on article talk pages before making large changes. Keith D (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

King's Cross & St Pancras International

Hi, there is a discussion about the naming of KXSP in the new tube map over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London_Transport. Please join in if you wish. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 06:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Commons Category placing in station articles

Hi, I have started a discussion over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stations#Commons_Category_placing_in_station_articles about this. Please feel free to join in. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

London Paddington station merge proposal

Hi, I have started (or rather, restarted) a discussion about a proposal to merge the three pages pertaining to London Paddington station. If you would like to contribute, head over to Talk:London_Paddington_station#Merger proposal. Thanks. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Template:Milton Keynes-East Croydon service RDT

West London Route
West Coast Main Line Milton Keynes Central Bletchley Leighton Buzzard Tring Berkhamsted Hemel Hempstead M25 motorway Watford Junction Greater London boundary Harrow & Wealdstone Wembley Central West Coast Main Line to Euston North London line to Stratford Grand Union Canal Shepherd's Bush Kensington (Olympia) West Brompton Imperial Wharf River Thames Brighton Main Line to Victoria Clapham Junction Wandsworth Common Balham Streatham Common Norbury Thornton Heath Selhurst East Croydon Brighton Main Line and Oxted line

West London Line
North London line to Stratford Bakerloo line Harrow │ Elephant & Castle Willesden Junction Watford DC line Watford Junction │ Euston West Coast Main Line via Watford Junction │ Euston Willesden Junction North London line to Richmond Mitre Bridge Junction Grand Union Canal Great Western Main Line Bristol │ Paddington North Pole depot North Pole Junction St. Quintin Park and Wormwood Scrubs overhead AC third rail DC changeover Great Western Railway goods line to North Acton Circle/Hammersmith & City lines Hammersmith │ via Liverpool Street link closed 1940 Uxbridge Road Out of station interchange Shepherd's Bush Shepherd's Bush (LU) Central line London & South Western Rly to Richmond via link closed 1916 Hammersmith (Grove Road)   Kensington (Olympia) link lifted 1992 District line to Richmond or Ealing Broadway Warwick Road goods yard Piccadilly line to Heathrow or Uxbridge District line via Earl's Court Piccadilly line to Cockfosters West Brompton District line to Wimbledon Chelsea & Fulham Imperial Wharf Chelsea Basin goods yard Cremorne Bridge over River Thames Battersea Latchmere Southwest Jct   South West Main Line to Waterloo   South London lines to Victoria   South London line to London Bridge   Clapham Junction   South London line and Brighton Main Line   Waterloo–Reading line South West Main Line to Weymouth

As from the May 2022, Southern have reduced their West London Line service between ECR and MKC to terminate instead at WFJ. Quite a few station articles along the route still have the {{Milton Keynes-East Croydon service RDT}}. Is any there reason not to create a new Template:Watford Junction–East Croydon service RDT and update the intervening stations to use it?

More fundamentally, do we really need RDTs for services? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Depends. What's the difference between a service, a route, and a line? The Elizabeth line article suggests it's a service running on several lines, and has an RDT (albeit misnamed); if it didn't then I expect one would be created. Bazza (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd say that no it doesn't need an RDT of its own, and certainly not for inclusion on a station article. What makes that service special, are we to have an RDT for every train which calls at a station?

Re Elizabeth Line, that is a whole project so yes I'd expect an RDT to show me where trains run from/to, and where they call along the way. I wouldn't however expect it to be included on every station: we have succession boxes for that. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree with @Mattbuck: - template is unnecessary and should be removed. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The reason that I asked the question was that I think it should be removed from the station articles too and not be replaced by the shorter one. Surely RDTs are for physical infrastructure, not the services that runs over them? Are there other examples? Plymouth-Newcastle cross-country? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 07:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree these should not be on station articles. There's no need if succession boxes are properly used. I don't agree, though, that RDTs should be used for physical infrastructure only. The definition of "route" appears blurred, as some of the service articles themselves show. For more complex services, often running on multiple physical lines - such as the Elizabeth line (running on GWML, Heathrow branch line, Crossrail, GEML), or Thameslink (Brighton Main Line, Midland Main Line, Catford Loop Line, East Coast Main Line, Cambridge Line, Arun Valley line, et al) - they can be helpful to illustrate the subject in hand. I prefer commonsense, which most editors here have in shedloads; if an RDT seems sensible, then one will be used, and if there's not general agreement there's always WP:BRD. Bazza (talk) 10:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes, I can see a fairly convincing case for an overview of the service route. Expecting visitors to follow next station after next station to achieve that is not very realistic. So does that mean we need an "all stations" RDT for London Northwestern and an "express stops" RDT for Aviva, alongside the WCML RDT? Ditto ECML, MML, GWML, etc etc services. Pandora's box indeed. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I have no problems with RDTs where relevant, for instance there (used to be?) a map of hourly stopping patterns out of Euston, which seemed reasonable. Just saying that one basically parliamentary train doesn't cut it. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Northern Line

Animal lover 666 (talk · contribs) has unilaterally moved this article to Northern line (disambiguation), which doesn't make sense - while there might be other claims to the primary topic elsewhere in the world, this would almost certainly require a discussion and consensus first.

I've told AL666 I'd like to roll back their changes in order that we can do this properly, but I don't know how to do that other than going through their contributions and hitting revert all over the place. Can anyone else assist? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to what your asking. It's worth saying, though, that Animal lover 666 moved Northern Line to Northern Line (London Underground), following the convention for the Circle and Central lines, and was doing a good job ensuring links and templates were not broken, and Northern line (disambiguation) updated. This seems to have been part of some otherwise constructive mass editing updating Module:Adjacent stations/London Underground, for which some thanks is probably due. I appreciate that they may have bold and jumped the gun, but in in good faith, but hope your reversions are likewise taken in good faith. Bazza (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The full version: I was in the process of converting Template:s-line-based succession boxes to Template:Adjacent stations-based. Going through the London Underground by line (and skilping stations with systems that don't have termini in the boxes), I finished with Bakerloo and started working on Central. I noticed the category which looked too ambiguous; a quick check revealed that the article on this line is disambiguated. Examining the names of the other lines, I decided to nominate 3 categories for renaming; the discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 9#Ambiguous London Underground line names. One user suggested that the articles should be renamed first (this comment seemed odd to me at the time) and an other user supported Central and Circle per the article titles and Northern per the disambiguation page. This is when I decided to move the Northern. I did my best to fix the disambiguation links - some were generated via a template which I couldn't edit myself, but a precise request got that handled quickly. I then did all the other templates and started working on articles, not quite realizing the magnitude of the job; eventually I asked for an automated fix for those. Animal lover |666| 16:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

(ec)Regarding the title, Circle line needs to be disambiguated because of the shape, while Central line needs to be disambiguated because of Central line (geometry) and Central line (medicine). The Northern line, like the Bakerloo line, District line, Piccadilly line, Victoria line and Waterloo and City line, doesn't - or at least one could make the argument it doesn't. In any case, the bigger concern is there was no move request filed, where people could discuss this issue and form a consensus and therefore I class it as a case of be bold, but not reckless. Regarding assuming good faith, this is why I assumed there was a RM and I simply queried why I couldn't find it (before being told there wasn't one). I think I have reverted the initial batch of changes, but I don't normally go around mass-reverting editors, so it would be helpful to check that I hadn't screwed anything up.

As a bit of advice, if you plan to make major (eg: affects more than 10 articles) changes to tube-related articles, you're best off putting a note on this talk page and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport. There are a number of longstanding editors who work extensively on the articles and templates on this topic, who keep an eye on those discussion pages, so squirrelling the conversation away in CFD with a one line rationale of "these line names are too ambiguous" is probably going to invite criticism from some quarters. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Britain's Railway Architecture & Heritage

I've somehow ended up with two copies of Yorke, Trevor (2013). Britain's Railway Architecture & Heritage'. Newbury: Countryside Books. ISBN 9781846743092.. Would anyone here like a free copy to use for improvements to Wikipedia articles? Happy to post within the UK at my own expense. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Looks like I missed the discussion, but sure I'm happy to improve my collection of railway sources Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: email me an address to send it to and I'll pop it in the post Saturday or Monday. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

London railway termini map... anyone willing to contribute to this map?

[also posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London] I noticed that there was no free map on Wikipedia showing the various railway stations in central London on a map, along with their lines and destinations. The closest I saw was this: File:Major railway stations of London map.svg, which is quite well made with a good map background and lines, but isn't complete (e.g. Moorgate is missing), outdated now (with opening of Elizabeth line) and it only shows a border for the City which doesn't tell much.

So I set out to create one myself using that SVG as a stepping stone. I don't know how to work with SVG hence I created my file in a separate software using layers in PNG format. The result was this: File:Railway stations, lines and termini in central London.png. My map shows quite clearly all the stations along with coloured lines (inc. the new Elizabeth line), the names/operators, and commuter destinations.

However I know it'd be best if that original SVG can be improved to bring it in line with that - the problem is I don't know how to do it myself so am requesting if others are willing to perform it. The changes that I see ideally need to be made to that SVG are:

• Update it to show the Elizabeth line railway track
• Add missing termini like Moorgate, as well as other stops in the area like City Thameslink
• Put accurate borders with purple outlines for the other boroughs in the area (Westminster, Camden, Lambeth etc.)

With an improved and complete version like that, we'd have a good raw map, and it can be used to create a version with coloured lines and operator/destination names as I did before with that PNG - as well as perhaps a version exclusively for long destinations to other UK cities. --Manche Captain (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd have a crack for you but it's a time issue for me. In the meanwhile I would recommend crossposting this to Commons:Graphic Lab/Map workshop where you can reach more SVG cartographers with the knowledge, or indeed try asking User:Hbf878 who created the original map of termini. Rcsprinter123 (report) 15:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Good recommendation to ask the original creator, but that user hasn't been active since last year so I wouldn't pin my hopes on that user. I'll crosspost to the Map workshop as a last resort if nobody here is available - partly because I think it's better to have someone with better inside knowledge about the topic. --Manche Captain (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Would we consider also adding stations such as Clapham Junction and Stratford? Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 16:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I would say we can definitely have a version that has those two stations as well. Though we have to try keep the map balanced by keeping it centred as much as possible on Charing Cross. --Manche Captain (talk) 10:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Hbf878 is still active on commons: see his page here. Lamberhurst (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Lamberhurst: No edits for over a year. So I can't really know if that person is active. --Manche Captain (talk) 10:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Editing an SVG isn't difficult, you don't need any special software - you can do it in a plain text editor such as Notepad/Wordpad (Windows) or vi (Unix/Linux). The main thing is to make sure that you're editing the SVG itself, and not the PNG rendering of that. At the file description page, click the image or the "Original file" link to display the actual SVG image, then save that to your device. If you open the image in your text editor, and the first few lines look rather like HTML, and somewhere near the start you can see the characters <svg then you have SVG. If it's all random characters, it's the PNG. As regards how to alter it, the SVG spec is here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I'm not particularly skilled at these computer software and stuff. Yes I am able to change text in an SVG for example, but it's important to note that in this case it doesn't involve simple edits like that but complex (drawing accurate borders, probably acquiring map data from OpenStreetMap if we were to expand the map area... those are entirely beyond my reach). --Manche Captain (talk) 10:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

London Overground Stations

Its been a long while but I decided to start creating my own articles again. I have started with doing the long overdue London Overground stations. However I think I have encountered a problem. I want to upload images by N Chadwick as they show the exterior of Bethnal Green in London Overground frontage. But I think the license may be too old or not applicable if I'm reading it right (as Upload Wizard does not allow Creative Commons below 2.5 and this is 2.0). Could anyone help or advise?

Here is one of two I want to upload

User:Difficultly north/List of London Overground stations - the list I created. I used the London Underground list as a template but I'm regretting it. It will all be fixed in the end. I have the stations in order but I'm still working my way through it.

Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 20:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

On the Geograph page you linked to above, there are instructions at the bottom of the page how to upload to Commons. In fact there's a link "directly upload this image to Wikimedia Commons" which looks like it will do all the work for you (I haven't actually tried it).  Dr Greg  talk  21:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@Difficultly north: Use this tool. It couldn't be simpler; just fill in the image ID. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@Difficultly north: The Geograph upload tool is fantastic. Basically all you need to do is add categories. Mjroots (talk) 06:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Railway electrification in Scotland

I am planning on writing an article on railway electrification in Scotland. Good idea/project - yes/no GRALISTAIR (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like a decent idea. Thers bound to be plenty of history, plus individual projects to look at e.g. the Edinburgh to Glasgow Improvement Programme, provision on the Borders Railway, the Levenmouth rail link, the Airdrie-Bathgate Rail Link and the recent announcement about the Fife Circle. Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 18:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I will make a start in my sandbox. I want to make sure it is well referenced etc. Also want to make sure I can add maps etc that are free use GRALISTAIR (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. I've added some electrification info to individual line articles but it makes sense to have an article that collects all of that together. NemesisAT (talk) 12:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Mick Lynch

Can we have some eyes on the Mick Lynch (trade unionist) article please. Attracting fly-by vandalism and breaches of BLP for obvious reasons. Semi-protection has been implemented which may help alleviate the issue. Mjroots (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Union leaders

Do leaders of the main railway trades unions in the UK come under this project or not? Mjroots (talk) 13:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Insofar as they are notable only for their Union activities (eg arranging strikes), rather than any Railway-specific activities (eg driving trains, or even driving up standards), then no. They may, of course, be mentioned in passing if appropriate in railway-related articles. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 15:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I realise that this is drifting into WP:NOTFORUM but I can't let a snide remark like that pass without comment. So just for the record, the objective of a Union leader is not to have a strike as it is the last resort. Their primary objective in pay/benefits negotiations is an amicable settlement. In the current dispute, that negotiations have broken down and a strike is in progress is equally the responsibility of the Minister who controls the (nationalised) TOCs and has mandated a real terms pay cut and a good public sector strike plays to its core vote. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, leaving the politics behind the current RMT dispute at the door. Let's stick solely to the question of whether leaders of major UK rail unions fall under the remit of this WP or not. Mjroots (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Ignoring the above, the answer to the original question is no, any more than this project covers the biographies of Richard Beeching, Grant Shapps, Ian Portillo or Isambard Kindom Brunel. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I am a union member and I once went on strike (with the full support of my employer - that's local government for you!) Arranging a strike is a complex and difficult matter, hedged around by legal constraints and striker reluctance, and I agree that it is not the outcome desired by the union or anyone else with any sense. It is, however, not a fundamentally railway activity, nor is most other union business. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 19:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Murgatroyd49: Beeching and Brunel do fall under this WP. Shapps and Michael Portillo do not. Shapps is a politician. Portillo is an ex-politician that has made many railway-related TV programmes, so a case could possibly be made for inclusion for TWP and UKT, but that is another discussion. This WP does cover quite a few biographies, mostly high-up people in railway companies. Union leaders seem to have been overlooked. Mjroots (talk) 06:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Aberdeen suburban rail closure date

Currently the closing date of the stations served by the suburban rail service in Aberdeen (Holburn Street railway station, Ruthrieston railway station, etc) has been put as 5 April 1937. In research for Transport in Aberdeen where I've added info on the subbie service, I found a newspaper report which says the last train ran on 3 April, not 5 April. Before I change more dates, is there a difference between the last service and the official closure date? NemesisAT (talk) 12:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Official closure dates tend to be given as the first day that trains did not run. April 3 was a Saturday so, assuming no Sunday service, Monday 5 April would be the day that the station was no longer open. Therefore it was still open on the 3rd, no scheduled service on the 4th and closed on the 5th. Geof Sheppard (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Is that an assumption we should be happy to make about there being no Sunday service? I don't know whether a 1937 timetable for this line or region is something it is possible to look at. Without one, I'd go with the RS (3 April) rather than the OR (5 April). Rcsprinter123 (chinwag) 16:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, a notice from 28 January 1937 states ...on or after 5th April 1937. On and from that date the following Stations will cease to deal with passenger traffic. I'm not sure about whether there was a regular Sunday service but the previous source from 5 April confirms that the last train was on Saturday 3 April. NemesisAT (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

We've discussed this before (though I cannot find where). The point made by Geof Sheppard above is normally how things are. Whitby West Cliff being an example; Bairstow States it closed on 10 June 1965, whereas Chapman and Hoole state 12 June 1965, the Saturday and Monday dates respectively.

I usually direct people to the box titled "Some thoughts on dates of closure" found in one of the lower corners of

• Rose, Douglas (December 2007) [1980]. The London Underground: A Diagrammatic History (8th ed.). Harrow Weald: Capital Transport. ISBN 978-1-85414-315-0.

Basically, there are two conventions: "last day of service" and "first day without service". Most books use the latter, but Rose uses the former and explains (very well, to my mind) why he chose this convention.

As regards the Aberdeen suburban service, Vallance shows that this was introduced (as a six-day service between Aberdeen and Dyce) in the 1880s, extended to Culter in 1894 and became seven-day in 1928. The Sunday service was withdrawn in 1930, but resumed (between Aberdeen and Culter) in June 1934, being withdrawn again in September 1936. According to Vallance, the Sunday suburban service was withdrawn "a few lonths later" than that, no exact date is given, but it is clear that there was no Sunday service at the end. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

My preference would be to have the closure date as the last day of service. If there is no standard for Wikipedia, I suppose we ought to specify what the "closure date" means in each case to avoid confusion for the reader. NemesisAT (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for this info by the way, very helpful. NemesisAT (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

The other side of this question--start date--was discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2019#Station opening dates. Incidentally, I think the informal convention for North American stations is the last day of service as opposed to the first day without service. Thus, for example, stations that lost service with the formation of Amtrak have April 30, 1971, and not May 1, 1971, as their date of closure. Mackensen (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

For info, this subject has come up here at least twice before - in 2009 and 2016. Last day of service seemed to be the majority view. Lamberhurst (talk) 08:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Length of articles

I would like to flag an issue here and receive the views of others. Is there a limit on article lengths? User:Ritchie333 has raised an objection to Hundred of Hoo Railway as he believes it exceeds the 10k limit (it's 33k) to which articles should apparently conform and on this basis it should be TNT-ed. Is there such a limit and do we have a policy of scrubbing well-written and referenced articles on this basis? Lamberhurst (talk) 13:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article size reckons 50k is the size where you should think of splitting the article into separate pages. This is only a guide and not an absolute. the Hundred of Hoo article is well within the bounds of what is reasonable. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Of far greater importance is WP:PEIS - an article that is too heavy on transcluded content (this will mainly be templates) will fail to render correctly toward the bottom, such as has been described in recent threads Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Broken template, Template talk:Reflist#Faulty in some articles? (where this edit was only a partial fix, moving the point where the problem becomes visible down to ref 736) and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Too many sock templates blew something up. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can make out, Hundred of Hoo doesn't appear to be in contravention, doesn't appear in the Category:Pages where post-expand include size is exceeded as far as I can tell. Needs someone with a better understanding of that problem to comment. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

There is indeed no PEIS problem with Hundred of Hoo Railway. It's not even a particularly long article - as I write this, it is 43,015 bytes of Wikitext, whereas today's featured article (The Thing (1982 film)) is 177,232 bytes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't really a complaint about the length; rather it was just a gut feeling that, as a reader of the article who just wanted to find a bit more about the history of the line, I found myself swamped with information that was too much to digest, and I could have probably been equally satisfied if the article was only a third of its current size. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Normally the lead of an article plus the infobox should give readers the most essential info about the topic. The lead of that article is quite short and maybe could be expanded? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

High Speed 2 Tunnels

I'm currently working on upgrading the article of the Chiltern Tunnel to make it beyond a glorified stub - does anyone have access to copyright-free images of the project/maps/diagrams/etc that can make the article more visually appealing? A photo of the south portal in it's current condition would be a priority, as I currently plan to use that in the infobox. I know there is a suitable image on the HS2 website but I thought it'd be better to ask to see if there are some easier-to-access/less copyrighted equivalents available. If similar images can be sourced for the other HS2 infrastructure pages (Northolt/Euston Tunnels, Colne Valley/Wendover Dean Viaducts, etc) as well, that would also be appreciated. MajorScafellPike (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@MajorScafellPike: - It might be worth exploring the Geograph website. All images there are on a Wikimedia Commons compatible licence and uploading to Commons is dead easy from Geograph, using the built-in link. If you know the National Grid Reference of the portals then it is very easy to find images on Geograph. A locality search also works. Mjroots (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip off - it hasn't yielded the sort of image I was after (probably because it's currently under construction and therefore not easy to photograph since it's in the middle of a massive building site) but it's given me something I can at least work with (probably for the body of the article rather than the infobox).

I'll have a look around for some of the other notable features on the line to see if anything comes up but as the Chiltern Tunnel is the "most underway" construction-wise I'm not expecting much as of yet - hopefully they'll run a press trip sometime soon so someone can add some on-site photos that we can use... MajorScafellPike (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Locomotives: it or she?

Recently at LNER Class A4 4488 Union of South Africa, there has been some dispute as to whether locomotives should be referred to as it or she. For mine definitely it, as locomotives are things, not living beings. Having a locomotive named after a male, e.g. GWR 6000 Class 6000 King George V, but being referred to as a she would make no sense. Yourdus (talk) 04:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

This "dispute" is mainly due to edits by SilverFox60017 (talk · contribs) that were against MOS:GNL, and there is a thread at User talk:Redrose64#Why. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Cleanup request on Northern Trains

I have left a message regarding a cleanup tag at Talk:Northern Trains#Cleanup tag for any interested editors. Long story short, the service tables on that page are a big mess and many routes violate WP:NOTTIMETABLE. Jalen Folf (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Self-resolved. Jalen Folf (talk) 03:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

This seems to be common on a lot of train operating company articles. Apart from the NOTTIMETABLE problem, they are often completely unreferenced with arbitrary service groupings so can look like Original Research. Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

CfD notices

Interested editors in this WikiProject are welcome to contribute to the CfDs I opened for Thameslink railway stations and Railway stations served by Crossrail. Jalen Folf (talk) 08:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Notice of RfC on notability of train stations

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability of train stations. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

The result of this was that they were not notable. Whats going to happen now? Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 21:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Note the outcome was not inherently notable not not notable. That means a station isn't automatically considered wiki-notable solely due to its existence and needs to meet WP:GNG for an article to survive AFD. UK railways are the subject of an immense amount of written material so the chances that GNG can be met about a majority of stations should be fairly high. For those that aren't then we'll possibly see a rash of redirects into articles along the lines of Stations on the X - Y line or a section of the article of the line/company itself. Nthep (talk) 11:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposed Merseyrail split

There is a discussion at Talk:Merseyrail#Split proposal on proposing whether it should be split into Merseyrail (brand) akin to ScotRail (brand), due to constant debates on the City Line (Merseyrail)'s status. Any interested editors are welcome. Thanks – DankJae 13:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Captions

Now and again, I've been editing captions as per WP:CAPTIONS, removing unit number information (and occasionally, the date and time) from captions of trains. To me, this isn't helpful to the general reader - as it's far too much information, is not succinct and is not relevant to the article at hand. A picture of a Class 345 train does not need to show the unit number, a six digit code that it not obvious to a general reader.

Obviously there are exemptions to this - such as a named train, or a particular train involved in an accident, for example. If nerds really want to dig down into the details - they can always click through to the image itself.

I do hope there's consensus that this is the right approach, following the MOS! Turini2 (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Jr8825 • Talk 16:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

...and to me also. The joy of all things (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Stationmasters

There was discussion here back in 2020 during which there was a slight consensus against including a list of every known stationmaster in station articles. I don't specialise in station articles but I tend to remove these lists when I see them, citing WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but I was reverted today at Long Eaton railway station by Mattdaviesfsic so I feel like the matter is ripe for discussion again. Personally, I think these lists add nothing of encyclopaedic value and are just cruft/trivia, usually sourced to passing mentions in news reports or genealogy sites but others may disagree. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I personally don't see the problem with listing them, provided it is adequately sourced. It is historical information so isn't going to change and become outdated. On the contrary, what I would remove from that page is the opening hours and number of ticket machines as that is subject to change in the future. NemesisAT (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I think Redrose64 suggested that if someone was independently wikinotable, then they should be included which makes sense. IMHO, the lists are not notable. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I would have to agree with HJM. Few of these people are notable. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of miscellania. There must be other sites for that kind of detail. (Ditto opening hours and ticket machines, if course.) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Also agree with the removal of information like ticket machines and opening hours. Wikipedia isn't a railway station directory either and that sort of information changes more quickly than an encyclopaedia can keep up with. The existence or closure of a ticket office is noteworthy but that's about all that needs to be said. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I did revert given a lot of the pages I edit do contain them as cited information which I am generally happy to keep. However, I do feel that perhaps the lists may not be necessary and would be happy to concede with removing them per reasons given. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

If a person is notable enough to have an article, a mention is warranted. But as in 99% of cases they are not, then these are just indiscriminate lists of non-notable people and should be edited out. In the same way that not every leader of a company is included in those articles, with only the notable ones mentioned. Dremoperd (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

There might be a case for some of the really large and important station to contain such a list. But I'm guessing that there aren't that many people who would want to know who was the stationmaster of Burton-on-Trent railway station in 1904! Indeed, these lists seem to take up a disproportionately large amount of space on some of the shorter articles to convey information which is of little interest or use. G-13114 (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I think a good rule of thumb would be not to mention stationmasters at any station unless they have an article or you can write at least a couple of sentences of prose about about them in relation to that station or an incident that they were involved in while stationmaster. e.g. if there was an accident at/near the station and the stationmaster did something verifiably noteworthy in relation to it then feel free to mention their name and that they were stationmaster when writing about the incident. Most stationmaster are completely non-notable and Wikipedia is the wrong place for lists of non-notable people. If there is a website that includes a reliably sourced list of stationmasters then it would probably be OK as an external link. Thryduulf (talk) 09:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Merger of Rail transport in the United Kingdom

Hi all, I've proposed here that Rail transport in the United Kingdom be merged into Rail transport in Great Britain and Rail transport in Ireland, since that page is essentially an extended disambig, and would duplicate the other two pages if extended. It would also not make sense to group it by nation, since the networks of GB and Ireland are completely separate, with very few connections between them, as far as the average reader is concerned. Pintodog (talk) 23:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Welwyn Garden City rail crashes

There's a discussion underway on whether to merge the article Welwyn Garden City rail crashes with Welwyn Garden City railway station. G-13114 (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

add myself

could someone add me or tell me how to add myself my interest would be BR sectors spesifically RES, thanks 2006toyotacorrola (talk) 09:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Done. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks mate 2006toyotacorrola (talk) 06:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Grand/Proof House Junction

There's currently some confusion at this deletion debate about what the big junction(s) east of Birmingham New Street are called. Whether it's Grand Junction/Proof House Junction, or whether it's multiple junctions without a single name. G-13114 (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Dalwhinnie derailment

The RAIB has released its final report into the derailment at Dalwhinnie on 10 April 2021. The investigation concluded it was a wrong side failure, caused by an incorrectly wired point motor. Is this sufficient to give enough notability for an article? Mjroots (talk) 05:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Not from a single source. The derailment is already noted in Dalwhinnie railway station, so you could add the details there. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 05:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Verbarson: - the derailment was reported at the time. I don't think that a lack of sources will be an issue. The question is "does the cause of the accident raise a relatively minor derailment above the notability threshold?" I think it does, as a wrong side failure is very rare. However, I'm not wasting my time writing an article only for it to go straight to AfD and get deleted. Mjroots (talk) 06:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mjroots: The RAIB website does link it to the Clapham Junction rail crash and the Waterloo derailment, so if you can build an article around the underlying causes of all of them together, that would be notable. Railway signalling (an article flagged as having issues anyway) talks about what should happen, but does not discuss what can go wrong. There is a gap to be filled. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 07:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The mention at the railway station does need to be expanded to at least give a better indication of the significance of the event. Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Railway junctions at AFD

Mattdaviesfsic (talk · contribs) has sent 19 articles about railway junctions to AFD - they may be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 September 21. They include a number of important junctions such as Grand Junction, Birmingham; Pouparts Junction; Weaver Junction and Worting Junction. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty finding sources for Grand Junction, Birmingham because of all the false positives referring to the Grand Junction Railway, but I'd be surprised if the claim to be one of the busiest junctions in the UK wasn't verifiable. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I worked hard on the Weaver Junction article and I am still waiting for one book to arrive to add even more secondary and tertiary sources. Thankfully, the decision was to keep it. I am a bit disappointed about Crow Nest Junction but such is life GRALISTAIR (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)