Talk:Ingatestone railway station

Electrification
is in such poor English that it's difficult to comprehend what is meant. Besides being unsourced and vague ("60 odd years") it's technically inaccurate too. The three wires are not "Contact, Earth & Return Wires", but from bottom to top, are correctly known as the Contact, Support and Catenary wires; and, since the drop wires are not insulated from the others, all wires are energised at 25 kV. The return path is via the running rails.

Information about a change in the electrification should really be on the article about the line, because it's unlikely to be specific to this one station. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Request to edit
Why is this article still protected? Nothing has been posted here in talk for nearly two years. Whatever the dispute has been, surely it's moot by now - and there's plenty of misplaced italics in the text plus an erroneous date. Harfarhs (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Padlock-dash2.svg Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 20:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This article - like several others about stations on the railway line between London Liverpool Street and Ipswich - was [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Ingatestone+railway+station protected for one week] in an attempt to halt the frequent editing to the train services information: at least four different editors - both logged in and not - were altering the information, often in contradictory fashion, sometimes several times a day. It was difficult to work out who was correct and who not, since none of the edits gave a source, and few of them used an edit summary - even when they did, it never said why an earlier edit was "wrong". This was a repeat of an editing pattern that had occurred in November-December 2013, and although little actual reverting had occurred, it was to all intents and purposes a content dispute. I felt that it was safest to put the section back to a version that had been stable for several months, give the page a one-week full-prot, and see if the disputants could resolve it on the various article talk pages. So far, the only talk page posts related to these protections, other than this thread, have been at Template talk:Great Eastern Main Line RDT and Talk:Ilford railway station, and in no case has anybody said exactly what changes are required. They just want unrestricted permission to edit the article with no promise that the dispute will not resume. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)