Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 32

Missing early SR EMU articles
We appear to be missing articles on the following EMUs, built for the introduction of electric services on the Southern in 1925. These units were built in 1928:- These units were built in 1929:- These units were built in 1930:-
 * Units 1285-1310, 3 coach units built new by Metropolitan/Midland.
 * Units 1025-37, 2 coach trailer units built for use with the above, converted from LBSC nine-compartment third class carriages at Lancing.
 * Units 1201-??, 4 coach units converted from ex-LSWR carriages.
 * Units 1496-1524, 3 coach units built new by Metropolitan/BRCW.
 * 1401-95 and 1525-34, 3 coach units converted from SECR four/six-wheel carriages at Ashford/Lancing.
 * Units 1051-1120, 2 coach trailer units built for use with the above, converted from LBSC nine-compartment third class carriages at Lancing
 * Units 1601-30, 3 coach units converted from ex-SECR carriages.
 * Units 1631-57, 3 coach units converted from ex-LBSC carriages. Units 1797-1801 were constructed in 1931/32
 * Units 1658-1671, 3 coach units converted from ex-LSWR carriages.
 * Units 1121-67, 2 coach trailer units formed from an ex-SECR and an ex-LSWR carriage.
 * Units 1168-80, converted from ex-LBSC carriages, including the LBSC overhead electric units.
 * Units 1901-08, 2 coach units, ex-LBSC overhead electric units
 * Units 1773-85, same origin as 1658-71.
 * Units 1707-72, 3 coach units converted from ex-LBSC carriages, including the LBSC overhead electric units.
 * Units 1121-67, 2 coach trailer units formed from an ex-SECR and an ex-LSWR carriage.

Those in red take their class designations from Southern Electric by G. T. Moody. I would suggest that other classes were similarly designated. Mjroots (talk) 17:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Many (but by no means all) of the 3-car motor units and some of the 2-car trailer sets were reformed from 1941 onwards, into the 4-Sub units, and so they are summarised at SR Class 4Sub. The history of these is very complicated, and I refer the reader to
 * for the fullest story. Moody was published in 1957 and is decidedly scanty where it comes to these units; he is also the only author who uses terms like "1201 Class" etc. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Another possible source is The Steel Highway, by C J Allen published in 1928. uploaded some photos from it to Commons in 2010. Mjroots (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * They might have been there once but most of my Commons uploads have been deleted under COM:URAA. It's why I stopped scanning. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not all of them have been deleted. There's a nice picture of two 3-car units with a 2-car trailer set between them at Orpington which I've added to the South Eastern Main Line article. do you still have the book? If so, you might be in a position to start an article. Given RedRose64's comment above, maybe a generic article could cover all units introduced in the period 1925-34 - Early SR electric multiple units. Mjroots (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I support the need for a holding article Early SR electric multiple units. There are plenty of other units that fall into the realms of this article:
 * Units 1579 - 1584 (1937)
 * Units 1593 - 1599 (1934)
 * Units 1702 - 1706 (1927/28)
 * Units 1786 - 1796 (1931)
 * Units 1797 - 1801 (1932)
 * Units 1901 - 1908 (1929) = 2-SL (South London Line 2-Car) --> Became Units 1801 - 1808
 * Units 1909 - 1912 (1930) = 2-WIM (Wimbledon to West Croydon 2-Car) --> Became Units 1809 - 1812
 * Units 1891 - 1899 (1935) = 6-PAN
 * It does get very complicated by the fact that there was a re-numbering of units. Bethayres (talk) 10:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the 6-PAN units should be grouped with the others listed above. Not only were they express units instead of suburban, but their control systems were totally incompatible with the suburban units. The 6-PAN units were compatible with the 6-PUL, 6-CIT, 5-BEL, 4-COR, 4-RES, 4-BUF etc. although they primarily worked with the 6-PUL and 6-CIT units, having many features in common besides the control system. We already cover them at SR Class 6Pul. The two-car units described by some authors as 2-SL and 2-WIM - originally 1901-12 later 1801-12 - also have their own articles already, SR Class 2SL and SR Class 2Wim.
 * No, what would make more sense is to have one article for the "normal" pre-war suburban units (including those converted by the LSWR) - that is, 3-car motor units in 1201-1801 series and 2-car trailer sets in 989-1200 series, and exclude all other types from this. -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Per Redrose64 - this is where the gap in our coverage would seem to be. Said article would include the history of the ex LBSC overhead electric carriagess up to the point that they were formed into the 4SUBs. Mjroots (talk) 11:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur, but it is interested to note that a lot of the unit series mentioned above are already listed under the 4SUB article. Do we leave that information/list with the 4-SUB article, duplicate it or move it? Bethayres (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As I noted at 19:01, 20 May 2015, many of the 3-car motor units (i.e. units 1201-1800) and some of the 2-car trailer sets (i.e. units 989-1200) were reformed from 1941 onwards, into the 4-Sub units (i.e. units 4131 et seq.). I also mentioned that they are summarised at SR Class 4Sub. -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Another good reference is * - Bethayres (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Must not forget this one either * - Bethayres (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've got Rayner & Brown (1983). Apart from the introduction, it doesn't cover the pre-1941 picture at all, which is what we are lacking. It also doesn't have much on the reformed units, except for the new-build augmentation trailers. Most of it concerns those units where all four coaches had bodies built new from 1941, which we cover at British Rail Class 405. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It would seem that between us we've got enough sources, before we even start looking online. Anyone willing to make a start? Mjroots (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It would seem that between us we've got enough sources, before we even start looking online. Anyone willing to make a start? Mjroots (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I've made a start in my user space. Will work on it over the next couple of days between the various motor races that are on. Mjroots (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've got as far as I can. Not much on the net at all, mostly concerned with 4SUB and later, or the LBSC overhead electrics. There are a couple of gaps that need filling - units 1311-1400 and 1535-78. I'll have a re-read of Glover to see if I have missed anything. If anyone can add in details from other sources I'd be grateful. Expansion of what is already there is also welcome. Proto-article is at User:Mjroots/Early SR electric multiple units. Mjroots (talk) 08:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Did the South Bermondsey accident in 1947 involve a 3-car or 4-car unit? Mjroots (talk) 09:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither - despite the caption, it's not an electric train in the photo. First, there are no windows on the coach end - all SR electric units had two, one on the left (as you face forwards) for the driver and a corresponding one on the right, which was slightly smaller as it opened outwards. Second, the coach number is 619, which is in the series for steam-hauled thirds (1 to 2600) - electric stock was numbered from 8001 upwards. Specifically, it's an ex-LSWR 56-foot 2nd/3rd class lavatory composite (Drawing 1302) built October 1909, original no. 168, renumbered 2411 in 1912, later declassified to lavatory third and renumbered 865. At Grouping it became SR no. 619 (Diagram 17), and was damaged at London Bridge leading to withdrawal in January 1947. This isn't the first time that I've noticed that the photos in "Trains in Trouble" don't match the captions. -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If nobody else is going to expand on what I've created so far, them I'm minded to move this into mainspace as SR Class 3Sub. Mjroots (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 3Sub is not an official SR code. The motor units were simply "3" and the trailer sets "2", with the working books showing either "3", "6", or "8" (in a small number of cases "9") according to the desired train length. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A fair few book sources refer to "3SUBs". As they became 4SUBs when gaining an extra trailer, it seems logical to me to use 3Sub as the title. Mjroots (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The term is also linked from the British Rail EMU navbox. Currently links to the 4SUB article but that's easy to fix. Mjroots (talk) 09:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Now in mainspace at SR class 3Sub. Mjroots (talk) 05:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Why am I here?
According to the original photographer this is a Virgin Trains East Coast service crossing the Tay and entering Perth. I can't work out what it would be doing there--any takers? Mackensen (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * From what I understand, VTEC operate services via Perth, but not across the Tae, which appears to be on the line to Dundee. I'm going to say engineering work. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * VTEC operates through both Perth (London-Inverness service) and Dundee (London-Aberdeen service). The river in this picture is not wide enough to be the Tay at Dundee. The Tay does also flow through Perth but the main line appears from the map to stay entirely on the west side of the river and does not cross it. The Dundee to Perth line does cross it, however. The picture's geolocation seems to confirm that it was taken on the west side of the Tay entering Perth on the line from Dundee. So I suggest this is an Aberdeen-London train diverted via Perth on its way from Dundee to Edinburgh. I note that the photo was taken on a Saturday so it could indeed be a weekend engineering diversion. -- Alarics (talk) 08:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Definitely Perth, on the Perth-Dundee line. It's a pity the question wasn't raised earlier, as working information could be got from realtimetrains.co.uk, but only for a week after the event. Optimist on the run (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Where am I, Royal Mail DMU edition
I've made a tentative identification of this DMU as a Class 114 converted for mail service in the late 1980s (the image is grainy, but I think I can make out 55930). Assuming that's true, where is this parked? Mackensen (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks a bit like Leeds. North concourse at the end of the platforms and the back of the Queens hotel on the left. Before the 2001 rebuild this area was all parcels traffic. Nthep (talk) 09:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Clearly Leeds. The building in the background is now the western entrance.  This is the former mail terminal, and which used to be part of the former Leeds Central Station along Wellington Street. This area was swept away by the re-modeling to create extra platforms for the Wharfedale and Airedale lines. Bethayres (talk) 10:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Mr Update!!! is back
The editor sometimes known as "Mr Update!!!" is back, see [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_British_heritage_and_private_railways&curid=248580&action=history this lot]. Typical habits are addition of pure speculation, mainly concerning what heritage railways could do in future; bad grammar, often including the misused word "respectively"; and edit summaries consisting solely of the word "update", variously capitalised and with up to five exclamation points. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Trouble with RDTs
OK, can't get my head round this. I've simplified the South Eastern Main Line RDT, but managed to lose the "V.T.E." links off the display. I've created South Eastern Main Line diagram, but if I try to get the headers the same as East Coast Main Line diagram, the whole RDT fragments. Any assistance with this would be appreciated. Mjroots (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * takes two parameters: the first is the displayed title; the second is the template name, minus the Template: part. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, you should probably be using the newer template… Useddenim (talk) 04:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Should we merge Ilkeston Junction and Cossall railway station into Ilkeston railway station?
The two stations are on the same site on the same line, and the precedent on Wikipedia seems to be to treat this as a reopening of the old station. The name is somewhat different (although no more unusual than various similar truncations of station names in the last 50 or 60 years), and in fact looking at Category:Reopened railway stations in Great Britain I can see that there are at least two stations which closed and reopened under a different name that we treat as the same: Ashchurch for Tewkesbury and Coleshill Parkway.

(I've proposed the merge this way round as obviously the merged article will have to use the modern station's name.) 86.130.177.23 (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Station opening dates
Does anyone know of a list somewhere with all the opening dates of UK stations? I know that in principle one is constructible, but ideally I'd like to avoid going through all 3000 stations to pick out the date. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but what I want is just a table of them. I'm not looking for information on one station, I want a complete list which I can manipulate and sort in Excel. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless you trawl through the various railway station opened in Categories, I'm not sure what to suggest. Trundleage is a good website that shows roughly what date future stations could open. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 20:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Who Am I? Where Am I? What Am I?
We have so many different Who Am I? Where Am I? What Am I? sections, I was wondering whether we should have a separate archive dedicated to this or some sort of seperate service of the WikiProject dedicated to this. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 20:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Branding
Seeing as both of these are to do with branding, I've linked them together. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 20:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

First Great Western rebranding
Apparently, First Great Western are to be rebranded to Great Western Railway. We already have an article on the original company, so a new title will be needed at some point in the near future. I'd suggest that Great Western Railway (TOC) might fit the bill. Mjroots (talk) 09:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is already under discussion at Talk:First Great Western and the thread immediately above. See also Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 7.
 * It is the fallout of a WP:CFORK a few days ago, during which the creator of some very untrue actions, somewhat puzzling when the only edits I had made to the article in question were (i) adding  (for which [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=thanks&user=Devonexpressbus I was thanked]); (ii)  omitted by  and (iii) fixing up a . Notice that despite the accusations made against me and others, the only [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GWR%28Great_Western_Railway%29&action=history substantial content removals] were made by the person who created that article in the first place. -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Great Western Railway (train operating company) as with Southern (train operating company) and Southeastern (train operating company) per WP:ACRONYMTITLE. Lamberhurst (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We should probably wait until there is more information. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 20:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Please can we avoid split discussion? -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Southern sub-brand of GTR
Southern is to become part of GTR. Please see Talk:Southern (train operating company). Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 19:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Trains on the Manchester, South Junction and Altrincham Railway
There's a couple pictures of British Rail Class 304s from the 1980s and 1990s on the portion of the Manchester, South Junction and Altrincham Railway which is now the Manchester Metrolink Altrincham Line. I'm unfamiliar with how to categorize a disused line. What do we call the portion of the MSJ&AR between Altrincham and Manchester? Thanks for any guidance, Mackensen (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The MSJA had two lines, a main line and a branch. The main line connected the LNWR (ex-Manchester & Birmingham) at Manchester London Road with the LNWR (ex-Liverpool & Manchester) at Liverpool Road Junction, and is still open throughout for NR services. The branch was the line between Castlefield Junction and Bowdon, most of which is now Metrolink, but the portion between Castlefield Junction and Cornbrook East Junction is still NR, for the route via Urmston. The only bits that are actually disused are the portions between Cornbrook East Junction and Old Trafford Junction (about 27 chains), and from Altrincham station to Bowdon (about a quarter of a mile). -- Red rose64 (talk) 00:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * thank you, and please forgive me for being dense. Would it be accurate to describe that train (from 1990) as being on the "Altrincham Line"? Mackensen (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Horsham to Tunbridge Wells via Gatwick and Redhill
It seems that at some point there was such a service that, depending on which unreliable source I read was either operated at Southern in one direction and Southeastern (or South Eastern Trains) in the other, or as Southern west of Redhill and Southeastern (or SET) east of there. I discovered this when investigating why Ifield railway station was in category:Railway stations served by Southeastern (I've now removed it) despite no mention of that TOC in the prose. The South Eastern Trains and Salfords railway station articles still talk about such a service in the present tense. Some cleanup is obviously needed, including checking categories, but I don't have time to do it myself I'm sorry. Thryduulf (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that the service was existing and was running, and was therefore operable, and thus directed. In terms of the operator, thus said train was more probably, and highly unlikely to have been, depending on the provider, to have been investigated during the recourse of this subject matter. Clearly, and very un-obviously, the whole issue merits a performance appraisal, and also, and without prejudice requires a most definite but altogether checking and elimination or additional categorization. I am fully, but hardly, in agreement with the approach that you suggest and with which I am fully non-plussed about. Very good indeed. Rhubarbs Cat (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, this service did exist and is sorely missed. For more info see here, here and here. The service was operated by Southeastern and ceased in 2008. Lamberhurst (talk) 08:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Tangmere's SPAD
Some of you may be aware of the recent SPAD by Tangmere. Due to developments since, I believe that this incident is now notable enough to sustain an article on Wikipedia. The 2015 Wootton Bassett SPAD incident has been created, and collaboration in improving the article is requested. Mjroots (talk) 09:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Do we need a category for railway accidents caused by SPADs? Mjroots (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I would say that it is a WP:DEFINING characteristic, so yes. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Working on the KISS principle, Category:SPADs ? Mjroots (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * After some thought I've gone with Category:Railway accidents involving a SPAD. Mjroots (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Needs to be renamed as 'incidents'. Or simply SPADs. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of them are accidents, and I'm sure that the incident at Wootton Bassett wasn't a deliberate act. Therefore "accident" is a reasonable enough word to use. Mjroots (talk) 12:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Accident implies there is no blame to be apportioned. Regardless of whether a driver intended to pass a signal at danger (and I'm not sure anyone's that stupid), in the Tangmere case the crew bear responsibility for the SPAD due to their actions disabling the AWS. This was not an accident. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Accident implies no such thing. Pick up a book like Red for Danger by L.T.C. Rolt; Historic Railway Disasters by O.S. Nock or Obstruction Danger by Adrian Vaughan, and you will find dozens of occurrences where blame may fairly be apportioned being described as "accidents". The official reports into these were written so that a cause may be found; this often means that somebody (or some people) were found to be to blame; yet the writers of these reports still use the term "accident". -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with Redrose64 that accident does imply blame (and/or cause), be it human error, or mechanical/electrical or systemic failure. However, accident does imply damage to humans, property, or livestock, so it would be incorrect to describe the Wootton Bassett SPAD as an accident (see Andy Dingley's comment above). But also agree with Mjroot's comment that the majority of SPADs (on wikipedia) are indeed accidents - AFAICT the Wootton Bassett article is the only one that did not result in an accident. Also worth mentioning that out in the "real world" the majority of SPADs are incidents (that do not result in an accident) - but almost all of these are not notable enough to warrant a wikipedia article.
 * So what to do? One possibility is to rename the category to Category:Railway accidents and incidents involving a SPAD. Alternatively, rename the category to something like Category:Railway SPADs and add two sub-categories Category:SPAD accidents and Category:SPAD incidents. The Category:SPAD incidents would be rather small but it would be available for other SPAD incidents that are notable (possibly other incidents such as the Wootton Bassett SPAD, or other SPADs that resulted in significant changes to signalling methodology). Robevans123 (talk) 11:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said at the article's talk page, I see no mileage in creating a category that is likely to remain at one article. Whilst not ideal, the category is the most appropriate one that we have. I agree with Robevans123 that the majority of SPADS, even high-ranking ones, are not going to be notable enough to sustain an article. This is the exception to that rule. Mjroots (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The neutrality of the article is being disputed. Input from members of this WP is welcom at the article's talk page. Mjroots (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Lea Valley Lines
It's been brought to my attention that the Lea Valley Lines article gives a distorted view of what the rail industry thinks of as the Lea Valley.

Our current system is this:
 * Great Eastern Main Line - Liverpool Street to Norwich via Stratford
 * West Anglia Main Line - Liverpool Street to Cambridge via Tottenham Hale
 * Lea Valley Lines - Everything from Liverpool Street and Stratford to Enfield, Chingford and Cheshunt via any route
 * Hertford East Branch Line - Broxbourne to Hertford East
 * Fen Line - Cambridge to King's Lynn

According to and other previous posts, the definitions should be:


 * Great Eastern Main Line - As current
 * West Anglia Main Line - LST to King's Lynn via Tottenham Hale
 * Lea Valley Line - Clapton Junction to Cheshunt via Tottenham Hale, possibly including the line to Stratford
 * Southbury Loop - Hackney Downs to Cheshunt via Southbury
 * Hertford East Branch Line - Rye House Junction to Hertford East
 * Enfield Town Branch Line - Bury St Junction to Enfield Town
 * Chingford Branch Line - Clapton Junction to Chingford

Does anyone have any references for this? -mattbuck (Talk) 19:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree, the article Lea Valley Lines does include more lines than it really encompasses. The definitions that you have given are more aligned with my own view of this area. I see the "core" section of the Lea Valley Line as being between Coppermill Jn and Cheshunt Jn, and this restoration of this to it's former 4-track glory has been debated for many, many years. The lines from Clapton Jn to Coppermill Jn and from Stratford to Coppermill Jn are not really part of any other line/route, and feed services into the Lea Valley, so it makes sense to include them too. I'm not sure if the line to Chingford once included the Clapton Jn to Coppermill Jn section, if so, then it would make more sense to include that under the Chingford article. Then the Lea Valley line would really just cover the Stratford - Coppermill - Cheshunt section.Bethayres (talk) 09:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Just realised we do have a Hertford East Branch Line article, which states it runs from Broxbourne to Hertford East. That seems reasonable enough to me, though the lead does say it could be seen as part of the Lea Valley Lines. Further, the WAML article leaves the route to Cheshunt as mainly on the Lea Valley article. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Btw, there's also a Southbury Loop, a Chingford Branch Line and a Enfield Town branch. Lamberhurst (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hm, I've never seen those ones before - are they actually linked anywhere? The naming is a bit inconsistent, so perhaps that should be standardised (Southbury Loop Line; Enfield Town Branch Line). Can we therefore say there is no such thing as the "Lea Valley Lines", and that, like the Outer South London Line, it's an invention of Wikipedia? -mattbuck (Talk) 20:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If anyone has the relevant pages of Quail to hand, how is the line described? Lamberhurst (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The Lea Valley line does exist, to state otherwise is ridiculous. For starters, Network Rail refers to it for it's plan to reinstate 4-tracking along the line. Rhubarbs Cat (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting that the grouping of "Lea Valley LineS" is an invention, not that the Lea Valley Line singular doesn't exist. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree - I developed the individual pages for Southbury Loop. Chingford and Enfield branches as the Lea Valley entry was too high level to catch the different history of the various lines. I left it as some people recognize the name and I am reluctant to delete other people's entries. The actual Lea Valley route is the West Anglia Main Line but I also think the name Lea Valley Lines was a marketing invention of one of the ToCs.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Can we include the Stratford branch as Lea Valley Line? It's certainly not WAML or GEML. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The Lea Valley is not a marketing invention of the TOC's ... the group Railfuture recognizes it see here http://www.railfuture.org.uk/eastern — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bethayres (talk • contribs) 11:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm saying the grouping is an invention, not that the Lea Valley Line is! -mattbuck (Talk) 11:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The Stratford branch was the original Northern and Eastern line and existed way before the route via Hackney. That aside I agree with Matt about lea Valley Lnes (nte plural)--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 12:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

TILBURY TANKS
I was wondering whether anyone had a complete list of the names given to the Tilbury Tank 4-4-2T locos of the LTSR. I have compiled a partial list but have a number missing.Thanks.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There are at least three published lists:
 * but I don't know how accurate they are - all of these authors have made mistakes elsewhere. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I must have been having a senior moment as they appear on wiki. Not sure of their accuracy however.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have four articles: LT&SR 1 Class; LT&SR 37 Class; LT&SR 51 Class; and LT&SR 79 Class. However, they all show just one name for each loco, whereas both Rush and Baxter state that several locos were renamed, and it appears that in most (all?) cases, Casserley & Johnston give only the final name. There are several clear discrepancies between Rush and Baxter though: for instance, no. 9, shown by Casserley & Johnston as Tilbury Docks is shown by Baxter as being originally Purfleet, renamed Tilbury Docks in 1911; and whereas Rush agrees with Baxter on the original name Purfleet, he shows the 1911 name as Black Horse Road. I'm trying to compare the three, but choosing one as the definitive list is getting into WP:OR territory. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have picked up that 40 was originally Black Horse Road and then became Benfleet, 42 was Commercial Road and became East Horndon and 45 was originally Burdett Road and became Shoeburyness all around 1911. I also know that 18 was named Burdett Road and 22 was Commercial Road so did that change names at the same time - I did not remember to note the source when I scribbled these down but will post when I remember. Its not one of the books you mention. Also intrigued as to why.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Baxter shows twelve engines as being renamed, and Rush shows thirteen. Neither give a reason. There are also discrepancies in the second names, and in the years of renaming. Those that they agree on are: no. 18 Shoeburyness became Burdett Road; 40 Black Horse Road became Benfleet; 42 Commercial Road became East Horndon; 45 Burdett Road became Shoeburyness; 51 Tilbury Docks became Purfleet; 58 Hornsey Road became Hornsey; 62 Camden Road became Camden, all in 1911. They disagree on the year for no. 55 Wellington Road became Bow Road - Rush says 1903, Baxter shows 1911. In three cases the second names differ: no. 9 Purfleet became Tilbury Docks (Baxter) or Black Horse Road (Rush); 13 Benfleet became Black Horse Road (Baxter) or Commercial Road (Rush); 22 East Horndon became Commercial Road (Baxter) or Tilbury Docks (Rush), but they are all shown as 1911. The one that is given by Rush but not Baxter is no. 60 Highgate Road became Highgate in 1911, where Baxter shows it as always Highgate Road. This leaves one, no. 80 - Baxter shows it as originally Southend-on-Sea, becoming Thundersley in 1910, but Rush shows it as originally Thundersley, renamed Southend-on-Sea in 1909 for the Imperial International Exhibition, reverting to Thundersley by the time of the Coronation of King George V, i.e. by 22 June 1911. As for Casserley & Johnston, the names given match up with the final names listed by Baxter, except for no. 60 which they show as Highgate. Baxter makes one clear error: no. 25 is given as Stratford (the name also given for no. 47) where Rush and Casserley & Johnston show no. 25 Stifford. There are also inconsistencies which may be typos: Rush spells Ockendon as Ockenden and omits the full stop in St. Pancras; Casserley & Johnston add an apostrophe to Earls Court. The word Road found in several names is always written in full by Baxter, but it is contracted to Rd by Rush in one case (Wellington Rd) and by Casserley & Johnston in two (Black Horse Rd, Commercial Rd) - all of these may be for space reasons. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Redrose.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have found another list in London, Tilbury and Southend Railway by HD Welch (1951 Oakwood Press). All locos named Road have Road written in full. Spellings - St. Pancras, Earl's Court and Ockendon. 9 & 51 exchanged names in 1911, 13 & 40 exchanged names in 1910, 22 & 42 also exchanged names in 1910, with 55 Wellington Road changing to Bow Road in 1902. In 1911 58 was renamed from Hornsey Road to Hornsey, 59 from Holloway Road to Holloway and 62 Camden Road to Camden. So a minor pattern for the last three but another incomplete list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidvaughanwells (talk • contribs) 20:17, 12 July 2015
 * Baxter shows twelve engines as being renamed, and Rush shows thirteen. Neither give a reason. There are also discrepancies in the second names, and in the years of renaming. Those that they agree on are: no. 18 Shoeburyness became Burdett Road; 40 Black Horse Road became Benfleet; 42 Commercial Road became East Horndon; 45 Burdett Road became Shoeburyness; 51 Tilbury Docks became Purfleet; 58 Hornsey Road became Hornsey; 62 Camden Road became Camden, all in 1911. They disagree on the year for no. 55 Wellington Road became Bow Road - Rush says 1903, Baxter shows 1911. In three cases the second names differ: no. 9 Purfleet became Tilbury Docks (Baxter) or Black Horse Road (Rush); 13 Benfleet became Black Horse Road (Baxter) or Commercial Road (Rush); 22 East Horndon became Commercial Road (Baxter) or Tilbury Docks (Rush), but they are all shown as 1911. The one that is given by Rush but not Baxter is no. 60 Highgate Road became Highgate in 1911, where Baxter shows it as always Highgate Road. This leaves one, no. 80 - Baxter shows it as originally Southend-on-Sea, becoming Thundersley in 1910, but Rush shows it as originally Thundersley, renamed Southend-on-Sea in 1909 for the Imperial International Exhibition, reverting to Thundersley by the time of the Coronation of King George V, i.e. by 22 June 1911. As for Casserley & Johnston, the names given match up with the final names listed by Baxter, except for no. 60 which they show as Highgate. Baxter makes one clear error: no. 25 is given as Stratford (the name also given for no. 47) where Rush and Casserley & Johnston show no. 25 Stifford. There are also inconsistencies which may be typos: Rush spells Ockendon as Ockenden and omits the full stop in St. Pancras; Casserley & Johnston add an apostrophe to Earls Court. The word Road found in several names is always written in full by Baxter, but it is contracted to Rd by Rush in one case (Wellington Rd) and by Casserley & Johnston in two (Black Horse Rd, Commercial Rd) - all of these may be for space reasons. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Redrose.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have found another list in London, Tilbury and Southend Railway by HD Welch (1951 Oakwood Press). All locos named Road have Road written in full. Spellings - St. Pancras, Earl's Court and Ockendon. 9 & 51 exchanged names in 1911, 13 & 40 exchanged names in 1910, 22 & 42 also exchanged names in 1910, with 55 Wellington Road changing to Bow Road in 1902. In 1911 58 was renamed from Hornsey Road to Hornsey, 59 from Holloway Road to Holloway and 62 Camden Road to Camden. So a minor pattern for the last three but another incomplete list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidvaughanwells (talk • contribs) 20:17, 12 July 2015

FAs
So, it seems that this WP doesn't want more FAs then? It's gutting when you put a load of work into an article, then it doesn't get promoted just because people cannot be bothered to participate in the FA process, despite notification that the article is at FAC. Mjroots (talk) 07:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that they are more concerned about the content of routeboxes (see above)! - Bethayres (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * So it would seem. Mjroots (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, don't blame me, I participated. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem I believe is that there aren't too many people on this project with FA experience. Lamberhurst (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * About half of TWPs FAs fall under this WP. Mjroots (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality issue
An editor has challenged the neutrality of the 2015 Wootton Bassett SPAD incident article. Discussion is ongoing at the talk page. Please join the discussion so that consensus can be formed and outstanding issues dealt with. Mjroots (talk) 06:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Ian Allan has died
Sadly, Ian Allan has died. You way wish to watch his newly-created biography for vandalism. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Likely to be plenty of material in the railway press over the next month with which to improve the article. Mjroots (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Gerrards Cross Tunnel
The Gerrards Cross Tunnel collapse happened 10 years ago today, and yet the article is in a poor state. Other than the supermarket opening in 2010 you would be forgiven for thinking that it only happened about 3 months ago. Almost everything is about the initial aftermath, and despite claims in the lead I would expect the HSE to have reported by now. I'm too busy with arbcom stuff currently to spend much time sorting it out, but work needs to be done. Thryduulf (talk) 10:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You might well expect the HSE to have issued their report within 10 years, but they have not, it seems. It is due to be published later this year, apparently.  See

WP:SHE for steam locomotives as well as ships?
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style Andy Dingley (talk) 10:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project
A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest (if such a copyvio is present). --Lucas559 (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Northern Electrics page
The page Northern Electrics (Northern Rail) was recently created. Please comment here if you think this new page is noteworthy: Articles for deletion/Northern Electrics (Northern Rail).  JaJaWa &#124; talk  05:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

File:West Coast Main Line service pattern diagram.svg
An anon left me an. I've begun to revise the map now but the Midland services are particularly messy. I checked the official Midland timetables but am even more confused. Can somebody verify that info? Thanks. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 14:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Hastings Line FAC2
I've re-nominated the Hastings Line article for FAC. It failed last time due to a lack of reviews, so I'd appreciate some support this time round please. Mjroots (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Usage
Can someone tell me where I can find the usage parameters in Infobox London station? Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 11:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * was doing something with these about three weeks ago. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * To save needing to manually enter the usage in every article's infobox, the parameters from 2010 onwards have been automated. This use switching to check if the article is about a tube station (looks at the  parameters to see if any of them are  ) and if they are, then uses the article name to select the usage value from a sub-template containing all of the data for a single year - an example would be Tubeexits2014.--DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you please do the same for railexits\railusage? It would save a great load of trouble for both that Infobox and Infobox GB station. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 14:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Chilham derailment
Members of this WP may be aware of a derailment at Chilham yesterday. Although moderately serious, I'm not sure that an article is justified. A little weight for the case for an article are reports that the cattle had been reported to be on the line an hour before the accident. Mjroots (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I would say that unless something major comes of it (the farmer being billed for the cost of a locomotive, or something), "train derails after hitting cow" is never going to be notable unless it causes fatalities or serious damage. The current BBC story includes "see also" links to Train derails after hitting cows at Welsh Hook, Train stranded after hitting cows on tracks near Oxford, Train derails after hitting cows in Yorkshire, Train crashes into herd of cows in Dorset and Delay after cows killed on track; skirmishes in the ongoing war between cattle and trains aren't particularly unusual even in Britain with its fenced railways, and in other countries are so routine it doesn't even make the news. – iridescent  17:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's hardly a Polmont, is it? More likely scenario is the farmer billing Network Rail for the loss of his prize-winning, expensive, pedigree cattle. After all, fencing is their responsibility. Mjroots (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Meh, NWR and their predecessors have been successfully fending off liability claims since 1830. "If I said 'remember that train crash?' to a local who wasn't actually involved in it in five years time, would they know what I was talking about?" would seem to be a reasonable rule of thumb. – iridescent  18:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's probably the biggest event in Godmersham since the war! Mjroots (talk) 11:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, not at all notable enough for its own article, or probably even a mention in related articles unless there's a "list of train/cow incidents". -mattbuck (Talk) 14:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's notable enough to be mentioned, which it is at the relevant list, station, line and class articles. Mjroots (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * According to The Railway Magazine, August 2015 (p. 10) the breakdown crane was brought from Bescot. In the old days there'd be one at Ashford, and probably one at Ramsgate too. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I heard that the undamaged second unit was rescued by the Hastings Unit! Mjroots (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

RAIB are investigating. I agree it isn't notable enough for its own article however. &mdash; An  optimist on the run! (logged on as Pek the Penguin) 12:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Ffestiniog Railway Prince - 1863 or 1864?
Can someone clarify when the Ffestiniog Railway's Prince was built? Ffestiniog Railway rolling stock gives 1863, but Festiniog Railway 0-4-0TT gives 1864 (cited from - a book I don't own so can't check the accuracy). The FR's websites have conflicting information: and. Can a FR expert help here please? Thanks. Optimist on the run (talk) 12:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Three locos were ordered in one batch, but they no longer carry their original numbers, which confuses the sequence. Nº3 Mountaineer (Nº1 then) was the first to arrive, followed closely by Nº1 (Nº2 then) The Princess (now in the cafe), in July 1863, with the first steam-hauled public trains in October. The delay was because the original domeless boilers were prone to priming when running on the rough track and they were refitted locally with domes before entering service. The domes were probably made by Englands of London, as the boilers, but there's some vague claim they were made entirely locally by someone like De Winton. Nº2 (Nº3 then) The Prince and Nº4 Palmerston arrived in 1864. Work on them may well have started in 1863 but (possibly delayed by the dome issue) they didn't arrive until 1864. They were all cabless, tenderless, side tanks at this time. Mountaineer was originally number 1 and The Princess 2 (the order of their arrival), but they were renumbered later on – I'm not sure when, but it was before Mountaineer's early scrapping in 1879, thus before the main rebuilds (I've sometimes heard that the renames and renumbering were at that time, which doesn't make sense). The names also shortened and the style of the nameplates changed, which I think was done when the side tanks were removed, as the very large original nameplates would no longer fit.
 * The larger Welsh Pony and Little Giant were ordered later as a separate batch and arrived in 1867, with saddle tanks, tenders and spectacle plates, but no cab roof.
 * Rebuilds followed in later years, mostly when boiler replacements were needed, acquiring the tenders, cabs, horseshoe ballast weights and finally the real saddle tanks by the 1890s.
 * Quine's book is a good one if you're modelling these locos and need that much detail. Otherwise it's more than many people will need. I've read someone else's copy, don't have my own. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I've used 1864, but put in a note to clarify the discrepancy. Optimist on the run (talk) 07:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Rocket as first standard gauge loco?
"It was also the first successful steam locomotive to run on 4 ft 8 1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) standard gauge track"

Per these additions

Is it useful to imply that Rocket was "the first" in this way?

See also Reliable_sources/Noticeboard Andy Dingley (talk) 13:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Define "successful". There were certainly other syandard gauge locomotives before then, Locomotion No. 1 probably being the best known. &mdash; An  optimist  on the run! (logged on as Pek the Penguin) 14:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's just one part of it. Rocket ran for maybe a year before a substantial rebuild, then only a few years after that before being sold off to backwater mineral lines. Sans Pareil, the "loser" at Rainhill, ran locally for 15 years. So in what way is Rocket "first" or "successful"?
 * As you note, there are a dozen or more working Stephenson gauge locos before Rocket, most of which were built by Stephenson senior. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

New Category?
Hi all. I am thinking of starting up a new category with a title along the line of "Branch Lines in the United Kingdom". Can anyone think of any reason I shouldn't? Or think of a better title? Cls14 (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Is this really necessary? In the absence of an accepted definition of a branch line, such a category would have most if not all railway lines other than main lines. In addition, I believe Network Rail has another means of classifying lines. Lamberhurst (talk) 15:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's why I ask questions, to get the feedback. Thanks. I'll leave it :-) Cls14 (talk) 08:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Nottingham station
If a station is multi-modal, is it not normal procedure to have both transport modes under one article? Just we seem to have Nottingham railway station and Nottingham Station tram stop. Surely these should both be merged into Nottingham station? I've raised the question at Talk:Nottingham railway station. G-13114 (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily - see for example Euston railway station and Euston tube station. Optimist on the run (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Tube stations and tram stops are not comparable. Just as we don't have a separate article for East Croydon station tram stop or Manchester Victoria Metrolink, so two separate articles for Nottingham station and its tram stop are unjustified. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The relevant examples are Birmingham Snow Hill, Manchester Victoria or Wimbledon, where there are rail/tram interchanges. G-13114 (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * - the original question as I understood it was about multi-modal stations generally, not specifically tram-train stations (although I realise Nottingham falls into this category). Also I wasn't drawing any conclusions, just stating a fact. I'm neutral on the merger proposal. Optimist on the run (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, it's a shared article. For some London terminal stations, there are separate articles; this is usually for WP:SIZESPLIT reasons. Not all London termini are split in this way: see e.g. Paddington or Waterloo. -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that the reason for the split was that it used to be Station Street tram stop, which could be argued to not be part of the station, but instead be an out-of-station interchange, a la Hackney Downs/Central. Now that the tram stop is literally on top of the railway, I think it makes sense to merge them. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

If any of you is an admin, could you move the page for me, as I tried to do it myself and it wouldn't let me. G-13114 (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ essentially re-doing the move that had made at 22:58, 4 April 2006, see logs for [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Nottingham+railway+station Nottingham railway station], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Nottingham+station Nottingham station], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Nottingham+Railway+station Nottingham Railway station]. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Merger complete. G-13114 (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)