Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 36

List of rolling stock items in the UK National Collection
is persistently and wilfully violating WP:V in [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions/Leftboot83&namespace=0&offset=20160715151700&dir=prev their edits] to List of rolling stock items in the UK National Collection, and has descended to personal abuse - see User talk:Redrose64. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I have edited it to correct the mistake, 2500 is NOT at York, she was at Shildon (as per my first edit) and has been moved to Barrow Hill, as shown in this image: https://www.flickr.com/photos/108904076@N07/27408605993/in/dateposted/

Sadly cannot accept the truth despite me informing them that I cannot work out how to place a reference but they insist they are correct in undoing correct edits.Leftboot83 (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

There is just no reasoning with some people. Sadly they are proof of why railway enthusiasts get a bad name.Leftboot83 (talk) 22:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * 2500 would appear to be on long term loan to Barrow Hill (see here) from February/March 2015, and I've replaced the dubious ref at List of rolling stock items in the UK National Collection. The Railway Herald might also be a source for the move - there are some pictures of 2500 here, but it's not a magazine I subscribe to. It's very frustrating that the NRM does not keep its collection details up to date (although they managed to put a twitter feed out to say that 2500 arrived at Barrow Hill, but with no details of the duration of the loan...). However, the frustration is no excuse for the tone of Leftboot83's comments and edit summaries. I'll be leaving them a message on their talk page shortly... Robevans123 (talk) 11:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Rail Usage Stats
Hello all. I've just been updating some stations without 2014/2015 stats and there are some missing on the Great Eastern Main Line. The stations between Liverpool Street and Shenfield now have Railexits as a parameter instead of usage1415 which renders the date differently. Also each stat has a citation attached to it - is the new way of labelling station stats then? Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This is something incorporated into by, I think, . -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think this was me. I've only made edits to automate tube usage and DLR usage stats.--DavidCane (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Template:2015 railway accidents
A discussion is taking place at Template talk:2015 railway accidents as to whether or not the 2015 Wootton Bassett SPAD incident should be included on that template. Input from members of this WP is requested. Mjroots (talk) 09:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Meon Valley Railway
The article is largely unreferenced. I've suggested an improvement drive at talk:Meon Valley Railway. Any volunteers to help improve the article? Mjroots (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Pagoda Platform Shelter
There is a new article on the Pagoda Platform Shelter favoured by the GWR. It particularly needs more links in from other articles. Mjroots (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Linked Monkton & Came, Upwey Wishing Well Halt, Radipole, Coryates and Stanley Bridge to start. Britmax (talk) 17:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Appleford. -- Red rose64 (talk) 06:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Fairford (cycle shed) and Foley Park Halt. Britmax (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Denham Golf Club seems to be a variant with a gabled roof, instead of the usual hip roof. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Cinque Ports Light Railway
The Cinque Ports Light Railway article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 07:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

More undiscussed moves
Once again, is moving pages without discussion and for the flimsiest of reasons. Today, they [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Nathan_A_RF?limit=2&offset=20160813193000 moved] to Redwing Line stating "Local knowledge and timetable and picture references say that this is the "Redwing Line" (https://www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/upload/public/attachments/1214/redwing_line_timetable.pdf)". Now, surely "Local knowledge" files in the face of WP:NOR? -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Definitely; no reference, no move. Given how often the TOCs change their branding (anyone remember the Harlequin Line?), I'm leery about having the articles at the brand-name rather than the factual titles for even the reasonably well-established line names like Bittern Line or Maritime Line, let alone fly-by-night rebrands like this. &#8209; Iridescent 21:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've only seen it referred to as the Great Northern Great Eastern Joint Line (I think that's the title) in RAIL. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Which is historically inaccurate for the Peterborough-Spalding stretch. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * FWIW, if this is anything to go by, Lincolnshire Council have gone overboard making up cutesy names for all the rail routes that pass through the county. (The CrossCountry Birmingham to Stansted route is apparently the "Renaissance Line"; I can think of no towns I associate more with the flowering of European culture than Birmingham, Melton Mowbray and Peterborough.) Expect more page moves to names which only exist in the council's PR department's heads. &#8209; Iridescent 22:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * So Hull is now on the ECML? I think just from that we can discount anything Lincolnshire ever say about stuff. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, Hull is part of the ECML franchise and served (at least nominally) by VTEC trains, so I think we can allow them that one even if it's not technically accurate. &#8209; Iridescent 09:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I should have posted in my original post above. -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Is it now time to take Nathan A RF to ANI and request that he is banned from moving pages? Mjroots2 (talk) 06:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If he has been notified of this discussion and continues to move pages inappropriately then definitely. Thryduulf (talk) 08:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * He's been warned under threat of a block, and blanked the warning. That means it has been read and understood. Mjroots (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, if he has continued after that warning then he should be blocked. Thryduulf (talk) 15:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Merge proposal/Deletion
Does anyone have any strong feelings about either merging or even deleting this article; South Yorkshire Railway and River Dun Company into South Yorkshire Railway? The second is far more comprehensive and the first only amounts to a couple of lines. Thanks.The joy of all things (talk) 07:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The reason I ask, is that I am not too proficient at the myriad of companies and I wish to be sure that there is not some sliver of history I am forgetting/ignoring. Ta. The joy of all things (talk) 07:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd say it could be merged and turned into a redirect. The Cranbrook and Paddock Wood Railway is a redirect to the Hawkhurst Branch Line. This would be a similar situation. Mjroots (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Railways around Peterborough
From the above discussion, I have discovered that we have articles contradicting each other. There is the Peterborough to Lincoln Line, the diagram of which matches Jowett, p85. Then there is the Lincolnshire Loop Line article, which suggests that it was possible to take the first junction north of Peterborough and get to Spalding. Jowett pp 85, 87, 72 shows this line as going to Wisbech and Sutton Bridge. The junction at Peterborough on Lincolnshire Loop Line is all wrong, and Peterborough Crescent was not at the position shown on that RDT. Mjroots (talk) 08:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The RCH Junction Diagram for Peterborough shows the M&GN (yellow) diverging from the Midland (green) at Wisbech Junction. The GNR is in orange, but Werrington Junction (where the GNR line to Spalding and Boston diverged) is just off the top. The RCH Junction Diagram for Bourne, Spalding etc. goes no further south than Tallington on the main line and Littleworth on the Boston line. There is no RCH Junction Diagram covering the intervening stretch (incl. Werrington Junction), since these diagrams were to illustrate junctions between different railway companies. -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed. The Midland and Great Northern Joint Railway RDT has it correct. The closed line between Peterborough and Spalding on Lincolnshire Loop Line did not exist. That diagram needs redrawing. Mjroots (talk) 10:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * appears to have introduced the error with this edit. Mjroots (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Will fix it after work this evening. Useddenim (talk) 17:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's getting there. I've removed Peterborough Crescent, but the M&GN junction still needs redrawing. Mjroots (talk) 10:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Peterborough Crescent was on the Midland line, to the south-west of the present station (formerly Peterborough North). If the M&GN line is to be included, the Midland line needs inclusion also, it is a close parallel with the ECML. So what we're after is something like this, tilted 45°. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Alternately, the complications of the Midland line can be omitted and the junction shown as a single bridge. Mjroots2 (talk) 06:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, we need to do something about the Midland line. The way that has drawn and annotated it, it appears to be part of the ECML - which it was not. To the north of Werrington Junction, the Midland (that's the one which passes through Walton and Peterborough Crescent) continued parallel to the ECML to about Helpston, before swinging away to the west. To the south of Peterborough Crescent, the Midland dipped down and then swung east to run parallel with the Great Eastern, passing under the ECML to join the GE just west of Peterborough East. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I hope it is now all fixed to your (collective) satisfaction? Useddenim (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think so. -- Red rose64 (talk) 07:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Dinmore Tunnel
Dinmore has two single bore tunnels; one built in 1853 and the other in 1891. Shouldn't the article be Dinmore Tunnels? If everyone is happy I will sort it out. (PS _ Trackmaps and Network Rail docs state Tunnels not Tunnel) The joy of all things (talk) 13:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Original comment struck from Dinmore Tunnel Talk Page, removed because of contravention of WP:MULTI. In Trackmaps mapping, Network Rail documentation and common sense in that there are two tunnels - should this article not be called Dinmore Tunnels? If no-one disagrees, I will move and re-title. The joy of all things (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC) - Reposted by The joy of all things (talk) 20:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The article is currently Dinmore Tunnel. Thryduulf (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * So is that yes, no or indifferent? I am saying it should be changed to a plural. I'm sorry; I don't understand your point. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was literally just linking to the article for ease of reference here, not attempting to express and opinion or make a point. Thryduulf (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah! Sorry - I should have linked that myself. My bad, sorry. Regards.The joy of all things (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * We currently have Woodhead Tunnel but Standedge Tunnels. We need some consistency. Optimist on the run (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've looked up some more examples: Ampthill Tunnel, Linslade Tunnel, Copenhagen Tunnel and Harecastle Tunnel (canal) are all multi-bore. Other than Standedge, I can find no others that are referred to in the plural. Furthermore, there we also have Channel Tunnel, which I've never heard referred to in the plural, even though there are two railway tunnels plus a maintenance tunnel. Therefore I'd be inclined to keep Dinmore Tunnel in the singular, and move Standedge Tunnels to Standedge Tunnel for consistency . What do others think? Optimist on the run (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd generally agree that the singular title is more generally used, including multibore tunnels, even when bored at different times. I'd leave Standedge Tunnels as it is though. There is the original Standedge Tunnel (canal) followed by two single track, now disused, railway tunnels, and finally a double track railway tunnel (still in use). It would seem odd change to Standedge Tunnel. I wouldn't change Mersey Tunnels for similar reasons.
 * Dinmore Tunnel seems to be referred to in both the singular and plural. I can't see any compelling reason to change it. Robevans123 (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point about Standedge Tunnels referring to the canal tunnel as well - I've struck my suggestion above. Optimist on the run (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You had already raised this question at Talk:Dinmore Tunnel. So now there are two threads, in contravention of WP:MULTI. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes - sorry. I was unaware of WP:MULTI. I apologise and will take that on board for the future. I did mean to say that I had raised the issue on the Dinmore Tunnel Talk Page and the royally messed it up. Apologies again. Regards.The joy of all things (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Good points all. The tunnels on the ECML south of Welwyn were all bored at different times and we do call them the Channel Tunnel even thought they total three bores? I assumed Dinmore was an isolation. Clearly not.The joy of all things (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Having looked at lots of article titles relating to tunnels on Wikipedia (unrestricted to function or geography), it is clear that in the majority of cases articles named in the plural are about tunnels arranged in series rather than in parallel, or are about parallel tunnels serving different modes (as at Standage). There are exceptions though, including Oxendon Tunnels. The split level tunnel(s) at Patchway (the only example I can think of off the top of my head) do not have an article of their own and text in other articles describing them is inconsistent. The biggest temporal gap between bores running between the same points I can think of is the Blackwall Tunnel (the bores are far from parallel, even though both pairs of mouths are adjacent) is firmly at the singular, as is the only UK-example of a twin-bore* Y-shaped tunnel - Limehouse Link Tunnel ( I know it's cut-and-cover but I can't think of the correct word ). I have not investigated, for any case, whether the article title matches common and/or official usage. Thryduulf (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes - local/official usage should also be taken into account. It seems that all English road tunnels are singular but the Brynglas Tunnels (near Newport, Wales) are not... I can remember them being built and can attest that they've always been called that both locally and officially. -:) Robevans123 (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Meaning of "sub surface" in the context of stations
At Urban rail in the United Kingdom, is insisting on the inclusion of. I left a note at User talk:Roscomoner, subsequent to which (who had no edits until today) re-added exactly the same text. Neither of them seems willing to provide a source. -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd certainly disagree with that, because it implies that the London Underground SSL is not subsurface, and also there are plenty of other stations which could qualify. Birmingham New Street could probably qualify as sub-surface. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "Built into a cutting next to a tunnel" is not sub surface, no. Britmax (talk) 10:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Related: keep a watch out for edits like these. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Redrose64, I saw the message you left on my page. There are no reliable sources that state which London Tube station's are below ground. I think one would have to look at the image of a station carefully and decide weather it is below ground. Although I have provided a source on the London Underground page, it has many problems for example, it states that the Hounslow West and Paddington tube stations are above ground. There is also another image on Google stating similar information. I can clearly see on the images of Queen's Park, Wembley Central and Bow Road are below ground. Their platforms are cut at least a few metres below the surface and they are at least partially if not fully covered from the Sky anyway. It also says on other Wikipedia pages related to Metro systems in Britain that a station can be open to the sky and still be considered Sub surface.

Kind Regards Roscomoner (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 's comments are in relation to my reverts of [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Roscomoner?offset=20160723070000&limit=5 these five edits], which directly relate to my comment of 18:29, 19 July 2016 above.
 * Making your own assessment of whether a station is below ground or not is very much a violation of the policy on original research. We need reliable sources that have already made such an assessment, per the policy on verifiability. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Further to which, "sub-surface" has a specific meaning in this context, which certainly doesn't include open cuttings. Describing Finchley Road station as "sub-surface" just because it's below ground level is like saying that Holme is "underwater" because it's below sea level. &#8209; Iridescent 22:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Here’s a WP:RS: . Unfortunately, out of print. (And for the record, it lists as ‘surface’.) Useddenim (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * For deciding whether a station is underground, why not look at a rail atlas? Finchley Road is definitely a surface station, albeit on the subsurface railway. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

What about Wembley Central, It looks like it has been built in a tunnel. Roscomoner (talk) 07:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Roscomoner, you've been warned more than enough now and by responding here you're clearly aware of this thread. If you use your own invented definition of "sub-surface" in any Wikipedia article without providing a reference to a publication which describes that station as being sub-surface, I'm blocking you from editing Wikipedia. (I'll repeat this warning on your talk so you can't say you didn't see it.) To answer your specific question, Wembley Central is not by any possible definition "sub-surface" since it's well above ground level; that thing that to you "looks like a tunnel" is the base of the Station Square development which is built above the tracks. (It's deceptive, as you go down stairs from street level to the platforms, but that's because the entrance is from a road bridge over the tracks, not because the railway is below the ground.) &#8209; Iridescent 09:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Liverpool Street = sub-surface, ironically. Muffled Pocketed  10:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I suspect that is the LU platforms, although the platforms of the main line station are distinctly below street level, like those of Paddington are.

Appendix D of this TfL document (starts on the last line of PDF page 24) lists London Underground-managed stations that are defined as "sub-surface" for the purposes of section 12 of the Fire Precautions (Sub-Surface Railway Stations) Regulations 2009). Although the document is written for a specific purpose and may be a sub-set of stations. Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, LST mainline too, as you say, for the purpose of fire regs. That's why smoking has been forbidden there for many years before the rest of (most of!)'the network. Muffled Pocketed  09:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Appendix 1 of this document (starts on pdf page 118) is a better source for all TfL stations that are "enclosed" for the meaning of the above regulations. I'm still looking for other TfL-served stations. Thryduulf (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I was just asking a question. Surely you can't block me just for posting on this thread. The only reason why I am aware of it is because I saw it in my Notifications. Roscomoner (talk) 11:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You've been notified at least three times: first, with ; second, with ; third, with . Anyway, we can't block you merely for posting on this thread (so long as your edits respect WP:TPG), but if you persist with edits, that may be grounds for a block. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, where did suddenly spring from? Several edits on 24-26 March 2016, some more on 5 April, all to towns in Northern England - then nothing until today when they chance across the "is Bow Road underground or not?" matter. -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Or more accurately, "with the sole exception of Poppleton railway station, every edit ever made by DevonshireBred has been to a page edited by Roscomoner either shortly before or shortly afterwards". Roscomoner, can you give me any good reason I shouldn't block your accounts and hardblock your IP address? &#8209; Iridescent 09:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Ignoring the sockpuppetry and back on topic
Following an IP edit at Circle line (London Underground), I attempted to come up with a list of stations which were underground so that we could, at least for that article, get an answer. The article lead says there are 21 stations below ground, of the 36 (counting Paddington twice) on the line. The routemap however shows 20 subsurface stations, and the adjacent prose states there are 35 stations on the line. Absolutely none of this is cited. Can we please come up with a list of which stations are underground and which aren't, or at least decide how many stations the Circle line actually has? -mattbuck (Talk) 14:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I imagine the discrepancy comes from how one treats the Praed Street platforms at Paddington; is it a cut-and-cover station which is slightly exposed, or a surface-level station which is mostly covered? I suspect (without checking) that you'll find a roughly even number of sources giving both answers, so as with "is Paddington one station or two?" there really is no right answer, and it probably needs an explanatory footnote. &#8209; Iridescent 15:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ground level at Praed Street is roughly where that pale grey girder (just above centre of pic) is; it's also about the level of the camera - the upper third of the pic is above ground, the lower two thirds is below. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, so is it sub-surface (as our multi-accounted friend would no doubt argue, and as it's currently shown on the RDT), or a surface station that just happens to be in a roofed brick-sided cutting? &#8209; Iridescent 20:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We've got another one, Central line. from almost nine years ago stood unopposed until  when I was mysteriously named as the instigator. I suggest that all unsourced claims about the number of stations above or below ground be removed until a reliable source is provided for each claim. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough but such removals need an edit summary explaining that this is now an agreed policy in the light of the above discussion. If editors (expecially IPs) go around deleting stuff without any explanation it looks like random vandalism and will get reverted by those not in the know. -- Alarics (talk) 11:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. I can make a good case for giving the amount of track on each line that's above and below ground—one of the striking things about the London Underground is that less than half of it is actually underground—but I really can't imagine any reader will ever want to know the number of stations. I would say keep it out even if a source can be found, and if the stats must be kept then shove them into the midden at London Underground infrastructure with all the other Fascinating Facts rather than keeping them on the main articles. &#8209; Iridescent 15:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm getting fed up with edits . -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

TfL have responded to the FOI request I sent and provided a list of all their sub-surface stations. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/section_12_stations_served_by_tf. Thryduulf (talk) 09:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Although in some ways that is equally problematic, since if we treat that as definitive we end up saying that Shoreditch High Street railway station—which is very obviously elevated, given that Wheler Street runs under the platforms—is "sub surface" because TFL counts its "concrete box" design as "tunnel". &#8209; Iridescent 10:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Traingate
Please join a discussion at Articles for deletion/Traingate about the recent incident involving Jeremy Corbyn. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Routemap RfC
If anyone cares, I've opened an RFC on the conversion of route diagram templates to the Routemap format here. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 06:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It's worth everyone interested in RDTs having a look at this as one of the options is for all RDTs to be converted to the new format, an inevitable precursor to the phasing out of  which most of us are more comfortable with. One question which occurs to me is whether an RfC can be used to force through such a radical change. Lamberhurst (talk) 10:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's only a hypothetical intended to clarify the previous RFC, which was not widely advertised and has a pretty vague closing comment. (It is worth noting that many of the participants in the previous RFC said that Routemap's syntax was to them easier than that of BS-map.) Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 10:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * (By the way, BS-table was deprecated in 2011, while its successor BS-map is obviously still recommended for use. Just to clear things up if you mixed up the template names. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 10:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC))


 * Please can we keep discussion in one place - the RfC - per WP:MULTI. -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Overcrowding
I've just created Train overcrowding in the United Kingdom, which I think was long overdue for creation. Andy Dingley has added to the talk page a set of possible directions for improving it: would anyone be interested in working on expanding it?

There are also, I think, interesting articles waiting to be written on classes of train tickets and seat reservation.

-- The Anome (talk) 12:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I have just commented on the talk page if this is really notable for a stand alone article, it may be "interesting" but that doesnt make it encyclopedic and is something that can be dealt with in one paragraph at something like Rail transport in Great Britain. MilborneOne (talk) 12:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Classes of train travel - and by implication the tickets for those - are already covered on articles like First class travel; Passenger car (rail); Travel class. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Location of a station
How much of a station do we consider when we say that such-a-station is "in" a particular county? See [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dean_railway_station&action=history&offset=20160830140000&limit=4 these four edits] and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Hampshire_railway_stations&action=history&offset=20160830140000&limit=2 these two] where there is disagreement between self and. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd say that usually the location of the station buildings and the approach are the key elements. There's also a clue in Network Rail's official name - Dean (Wilts). The only reason for giving details on a border is if it has some notability regarding rates/maintenance/funding etc. It's not like it's a building where a border passing through puts different parts into different legislative areas that have different rules (taxes, sunday licensing etc). Robevans123 (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Obviously I would differ. To me a station is a station; the sum of all the different parts. But the key part is surely the platforms, that is where the trains stop and it is just about the only part guaranteed to be there for all stations. Many stations don't have station buildings. Others have station buildings that are now in other use. Others don't have anything recognisable as an approach or even, in a few cases, road access. Yet others have multiple approaches from different directions. If you go down the "station is the station building and approach" route, you are going to end up with a raft of special cases. I'd suggest that we say a station comprises tracks, platforms, any station buildings, any approaches, and anything else that would reasonably appear to a user to be part of a station. And if that crosses a boundary, so be it; it isn't unreasonable to describe the fact and include the article in multiple templates and cats. Incidentally that is what I have been doing for years without previous disagreement, on both UK and Swiss stations.
 * Moving onto the specific station (Dean), what triggered me to check the station location on the OS election maps web site was that I had cross-loaded a photo from geograph to commons that clearly showed an large "Welcome to Hampshire" legend on the platform nameboard. You can see the picture in the article. So the ambivalence as to which county the station is in is a real world thing, not a WP artifact. We need to reflect that. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 08:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm with Chris j wood. It's one of those minor, somewhat interesting facts about the station; and the current writing, "Whilst the station building is in Wiltshire, the platforms straddle the county boundary with Hampshire" seems appropriate and proportional. I can't for the life of me see why we would not want to mention this. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Venn Cross railway station is/was another boundary-straddling example within our pages. These geographical eccentricities are interesting and noteworthy. Johnlp (talk) 10:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd missed the "Welcome to Hampshire" sign, and a little bit more research showed that the village is also split by the border. So I'm reversing my original choice. You might find this report a better ref than the ordnance survey ref, particularly pages 4 and 5 (which includes a map showing the county boundary):
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11:33, 31 August 2016 (talk • contribs) Robevans123 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I've added that cite -- chris_j_wood (talk) 12:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that it shouldn't be mentioned in the prose. If you (look at, there are three items changed: (i) the content of the borough parameter in the infobox; (ii) the navboxes; (iii) the categories. None of these is in the article prose. Indeed, the sentence "Whilst the station building is in Wiltshire, the platforms straddle the county boundary with Hampshire." - mentioned by Tagishsimon - is completely untouched. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but I'm with Chris on this one. Johnlp (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't specifically commenting on the text (and neither was User:Johnlp). My change of opinion was prompted by a bit more research and User:Chris j wood's arguments (which mention templates and categories). But just to be absolutely clear, if information is notable enough to be included in the introductory paragraph and is adequately referenced, then it is correct to include that information in the categories and navboxes (which can be considered navigational aids), and infoboxes (which summarise the article). Why should one unitary authority (Wiltshire) be deemed more worthy of inclusion in these items than the other (Hampshire)? Oddly enough, Network Rail's station info says that the station is near Salisbury, but in Hampshire (even though the full name includes "Wilts"). There are many examples of tunnels and bridges (and even some settlements) that straddle borders and are categorized and templated as such.
 * BTW I find edit summaries such as "please read what I drew attention to" faintly irritating - I thought the purpose of edit summaries was to explain what you have added or changed - not give a schoolmasterly finger-wagging to the naughty boys in the back row. A simple "clarified the nature of my question" would suffice. Robevans123 (talk) 08:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * BTW I find edit summaries such as "please read what I drew attention to" faintly irritating - I thought the purpose of edit summaries was to explain what you have added or changed - not give a schoolmasterly finger-wagging to the naughty boys in the back row. A simple "clarified the nature of my question" would suffice. Robevans123 (talk) 08:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Identification
Hello Can anyone possibly identify the rolling stock that is shown in the links at Talk:Charlevoix tourist train? It could be that it came from France rather than from England Peter Horn User talk 21:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Routebox rows for types of stock?
In, has added a row with the link   which displays as GWRElectrostar. Quite apart from the note that this is "Weekday Peaks Only" - something we've been discouraging - do we really want to specify the type of rolling stock? This is sure to vary with maintenance and availability - one train that I often get to Oxford might be formed of a, , or even a HST. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that they should be shown, but only in certain circumstances, eg. in the North for services that are run with the Northern Electrics brand. For example, if station A has two services, with one (electric only) going to station B as the final destination, and the other (not electric) going to station C, but still share other stops between the junction, then it should be listed as such, if you get what I am saying?


 * Same goes for the GWRElectrostar services (which is how they are branded officially), which have a different destination to the Greenford line services, despite servicing some shared intermediate stations before the junction. (Superalbs (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC))


 * No, sorry but these are summary routeboxes. there are enough hassles with people trying to include route frequencies and exceptions into these boxes without trying to introduce what rolling stock is used - regardless of whether the class 387 are the main designated stock to be used on a branded service.  By all means add this information to the text, assuming it's referenced but not in something used for summary purposes only. Nthep (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * What matters isn't the type of stock, but the route. The existing row covers Greenford branch services, so if there is another route regularly serving the station it ought to be listed separately (and described by route, not by stock), but if it is a peak-hours only service it wouldn't appear in the summary box. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree - while I'm a bit of a routebox completionist, specifying stock type is not a suitable use. The only place the new 387 services should show up is at Hayes & Harlington, where the routebox should now show "Terminus OR (whatever the next station is to the west)" now rather than "(station)". -mattbuck (Talk) 18:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

London Underground naming conventions (yet again)
Notification of the latest round of this inanity. ‑ Iridescent 20:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Undiscussed page moves, railway stations
FYI, User talk:Amakuru. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. How unfortunate that we can all have a go at for a number of minor RDT moves, but when an admin comes along and overturns what has generally been consensus (at least on this page), there's nothing doing even though these are all undiscussed moves for which WP:NATURALDIS does not provide a basis for the action which has been taken. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Speaking for myself, I don't really see the two as analogous—with the branch line/Branch Line issue, there's a clear right and wrong way to do things depending on whether something is part of a proper name or not, but I find it very hard to have an opinion as to whether Victoria Park railway station (London) is better than Victoria Park (London) railway station, provided we're consistent. &#8209; Iridescent 21:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you feel that Amakuru has been "dealt with" too leniently, or that the block on Nathan was unjustified?
 * I've not had much chance to look at the dispute involving Amakuru, so I won't say whether the page moves were justified or not. However, Amakuru is a an administrator, which means he has already gained the trust of the community, and even if the page moves were unwise, a bit of a gentle trout is all that is required. We all make mistakes. (Of course, if the page moves continue without further discussion further sanctions may be required, but I'm sure that won't be necessary.)
 * On the other hand, Nathan (I won't ping him again) has repeatedly ignored warnings about many aspects of his behaviour, as can be seen in several discussions above, as well as in the history of his talk page. I'd hoped to avoid blocking him, which is why I suggested banning sanctions above, but in the line of his continued behaviour I felt I had no choice. I felt a short block of 24 hours would be insufficient, as he would likely spend the time requesting unblocking, rather than reflecting on the reason for the block. An indefinite block, however, could be seen as too strong - I genuinely feel Nathan has something to offer the project if he can mature a bit.
 * It is perhaps an unfortunate coincidence that both these cases came to a head at around the same time yesterday, but as Iridescent points out, they are both very different. Optimist on the run (talk) 08:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Amakuru hasn't been "dealt with" at all, so far as I can see. I have no objections to what has happened to Nathan, but I see little difference with what Amakuru has done. He has moved a number of pages relating to closed stations without discussion on the basis that the National Rail website doesn't show the disambiguator as we do, overlooking the fact that NR doesn't have information about closed stations. In such cases, the approach agreed in Newport (Shropshire) applies, so that we wouldn't have Higham (Kent) railway station and Higham railway station (Suffolk). Lamberhurst (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I still don't see the two situations as analogous. As best I can tell, Amakuru made what he thought was an improvement, and when challenged stopped doing it in order to have a discussion about whether it was appropriate; Nathan made what he thought was an improvement, and when challenged announced that "I like to be perfect and I don't like other people's opinions" and carried right on doing whatever he felt like. (Per my previous comments, I have absolutely no opinion about where the disambiguator goes in article titles, provided whatever we do we do it consistently, although since we follow NWR's nomenclature for open stations—e.g. Gillingham (Dorset) railway station rather than Gillingham railway station (Dorset)—it seems logical to use that style for all GB station articles so as not to have two different systems in operation.) &#8209; Iridescent 09:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * A single approach has unfortunately not found consensus, see for example Fairfield. Lamberhurst (talk) 09:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I only just noticed this conversation going on. I think probably there is a wider discussion to be had on this, because it's an issue that comes up a lot. WP:UKSTATION doesn't actually tell us how to disambiguate UK stations, so we're relying on past convention to determine what to do. Now as I see it, and how I believe ambiguous stations have always been named since Wikipedia began, is that we divide ambiguous stations into two categories:
 * if National Rail applies it's own disambiguator to the station name, as we see at Newport (Essex), and can be established by going to the station page on their website, then we put it in the middle. Because in essence we are saying "this is a railway station called Newport (Essex)" and we will thus name it Newport (Essex) railway station. In some cases, this disambiguator will not match the in-house disambiguator that Wikipedia would use. For example Sutton (Surrey) railway station. It's not in the modern county of Surrey, so we would disambiguate it with (London) if we were doing this ourselves.
 * On the other hand, if the station is unambiguous within the UK, but is ambiguous with other stations worldwide, then we should use the more standard Wikipedia format of disambiguating at the end. Thus we have Belmont railway station (Sutton) rather than Belmont (Sutton) railway station. Because we are not saying "this is a railway station called Belmont (Sutton)", we are saying "this is a railway station called Belmont, but because there are others so named aroudn the world, we need to disambiguate on Wikipedia by appending the locatino of (Sutton) on the end". There is an important distinction between those two cases, which I think has been misunderstood over the years, and why some people think that all UIK stations use the unusual format for disambiguation.
 * Personally I think this system makes a lot of sense, is consistent with our other guidelines, and there is no ambiguity. Putting disambiguators in the middle of the name even when National Rail does not do so, is confusing for readers, because they may conclude that what is shown is a National Rail name when in fact it is just our internal disambiguator.
 * Finally, all the articles I moved last night were reversions of moves that were done in the last few months, and in all cases the articles had been stable at their old title for many years previously. I therefore think it was justified to move them back, and there should have been move requests or, even better, a clarification of the guidelines in order for those moves to be made. Thanks! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Relevant to this discussion, I move protected Newcourt (Exeter) railway station today after it had been moved for the third time. Mjroots (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Camden Town tube station
FYI, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

(Branch) Line or (branch) line
Is there a consensus somewhere for use of upper case Branch Line in article titles? There is another rash of page moves with the justification "Capitalisation to match other UK rail lines (excluding LU)". Nthep (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not as far as I know, and I've slapped a final warning on for continuing his activities in moving pages without discussion. -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Given Nathan's insistency of making moves without discussion, his refusal to drop the stick at Talk:Rugby–Birmingham–Stafford Line, and the suggestion here that he may raise the same discussion yet again next year, is it worth requesting a community ban at WP:AN, banning him from moving pages or discussing moves? Optimist on the run (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that he's now ignored at least two "any further undiscussed page moves will lead to a block" warnings, I'd say that if he does it again the time has come for him to be shown the door. With 1500 edits and over a year's activity, his "I'm a new user who doesn't understand your policies" routine is wearing very thin—"I like to be perfect, and to be honest don't like other people's opinions" and Wikipedia is not a combination which is likely to work. &#8209; Iridescent 07:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Look, I only wanted information in that topic, not to move RBS to BLL. Please will you understand that! The fact that changing lower case letters to capitals is an "non-discussed move" is also preposterous. Okay, if every single page move needs to be discussed, I will do so from now on. Also, I have only edited RDTs since I started and have no comprehension of any "WP:..." things, so that's why I don't understand. Please stop making up things that aren't there. (and would somebody please tell me whether "Branch Lines" or "branch lines" is correct!?) Nathan A RF (talk) 12:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As I suspect you already know perfectly well, given that it's been regularly explained to you, it depends if it's part of a proper name or not—there's not supposed to be a consistency in capitalisation of "branch" and "line". @Nathan A RF: to make this absolutely clear so there's no confusion, until further notice, if you move any page in the article mainspace without there being a previous discussion of that move and said discussion resulting in a clear consensus for that move, you will be indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia without further warning. &#8209; Iridescent 14:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I feel he's used up all his warnings. I cautioned him about capitalization on September 21st (although not specifically for Branch Lines). I also mention his lack of edit summaries, and in the 250+ edits he's made since then, only abut 1 in 6 have a description (and about 80% of those were page moves). Frankly, any editor who has to have the majority of his edits scrutinized doesn't belong here. Useddenim (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * At the moment, I am trying to transfer all RDTs to the relevant formats and categories. 80% haven't been page moves, and the few that have have only been small capitalisation edits. I thought that these small page moves wold be alright, but as it seems that all page moves have to be "discussed" first, then I will not move anymore pages without discussion. On my word, if I do, you may suspend my moving privileges (use that as a quote). Nathan A RF (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Given your propensity for Capitalizing Everything, you are awfully close to making even all of your ‘minor’ edits controversial. 19:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Please don't remove the collapse options from large RDTs like you did and, or make inconsequential edits such as . Lamberhurst (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And also on the RDTs (if you are not blocked from further editing), please do not put the name of a single station into the call to UK-railway-routemap as you did at Template:Southampton Lines and elsewhere. If UK-railway-routemap is given the optional parameter it is the name of the railway, not the name of a single station. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * … Another 130 edits and only 5 summaries: if I don’t see an immediate change, I’m going to make an WP:ANI request for a block because of WP:disruptive editing. Useddenim (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Why? Do I have to always include a summary? I'm only changing the formatting on the RDTs so that they look nice and have the proper categories. Why are you reporting me? Nathan A RF (talk) 06:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes you do. Nathan, you haven't been blocked yet because we genuinely think you have something to offer, but Wikipedia is a collaborative project and we can't accommodate people who refuse to work with others—"ignore all rules" doesn't mean "I can do whatever I like". You're not just on thin ice, you're on cracked ice; please start actually listening to what people are telling you. (You may find it helpful to go here and select "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary".) &#8209; Iridescent 06:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I would love to join this page and start making amazing RDTs but I always get put down for my ideas that I have. Please, let's just start again and see what I can do? Take a look at my WCML project on my sandbox and see (Oh and I am only removing the collapse options on the RDTs so that they are only restored if necessary. It saves having wasteful code on some). Nathan A RF (talk) 08:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * One "amazing thing" you could do is quit marking all your edits as minor (including the above comment!). Are you conducting some kind of experiment to see how many policies you can break before you get blocked? &#8209; Iridescent 16:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * His behaviour has continued unabated, therefore I have blocked him for a week. Optimist on the run (talk) 17:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , I will not edit your talk page as you have requested that it be left, but if you are finding editing Wikipedia stress-inducing, perhaps you should find a different hobby. I do not mean that in any attempt to get rid of you - as I stated elsewhere, I believe you could do a lot of good here if you channelled your efforts appropriately - but because quite frankly no one should get that worked up over someone being wrong on the internet. If you wish to continue to contribute to Wikimedia but find Wikipedia stressful, perhaps you might find your calling at Commons, where we attempt to be mellow. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Do we need to nudge with a further 24- or 48-hour block? (at line 23) doesn’t suggest a willingness to work cooperatively, and his shows a definite unwillingness to discuss things. Useddenim (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Look, I said I will get around to it; it's just pretty hard to do with hardly any free time and any understanding of the RDTs you are talking about. Nathan A RF (talk) 06:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And I am only blanking my talk page because I have acknowledged those sections and can now move on. Nathan A RF (talk) 06:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Most people leave threads on their talk pages for a few days or weeks (even longer in some cases), if only to give other people time to read the comments. I find it somewhat disconcerting to find that the thread that I wish to add further comment to was removed just minutes after your last comment there. Not everybody edits every day; some people log in just once a week because of other commitments. WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE: in the case of my own talk page, threads are archived by a bot after 73 days (one-fifth of a year) of inactivity. -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Non-English station names
I'm sure that it was agreed that where a station has two names, an English one and a non-English name, we would use the spelling that is actually used by the railway, even if that is technically incorrect. claims. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In this particular instance, given that at ga:Aiseag a' Chongail Gaelic Wikipedia use the same spelling as Scotrail (and also use A' Chonghail for the name of the town), I think we can assume that in this case Scotrail have the name correct. &#8209; Iridescent 17:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I would say the name of a station is whatever the owner says it is, regardless of whether the name makes sense or not. --  Dr Greg   talk  18:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not as simple as that, unfortunately, as the legacy of BR, NWR, multiple TOCs and assorted regional transport authorities, means that in some cases the owner uses more than one name for a station, or the name on the signs doesn't match the name on the timetables; Farnborough (Main) railway station, Hillingdon tube station and Hull Paragon Interchange are a few that spring to mind where there's no single "correct" name, and where the name on the station signs doesn't necessarily match what you'll see on the timetables or hear on the onboard announcements. Scotrail has an additional layer of issues, as every station now has an alternative name in Gaelic, and given that a lot of these stations are in places which don't have a name in Gaelic (e.g. Stow railway station) there's not necessarily a "correct" translation. &#8209; Iridescent 19:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but the Irish (ga) Wikipedia is hardly the source to use to prove a point about Scottish Gaelic. It's like looking at the Dutch Wiki to prove a point about English spelling. Most likely the Irish Wiki copied the error from the English one. Akerbeltz (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC) That aside, the variation in Gaelic place names on signs is slowly decreasing as there is now a go-to authority for place names. So it really becomes a question of "in an argument over French spelling, do you go with the sign or the Academic Française"? Akerbeltz (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup, my mistake. Here's the place in question on the Gaelic Place Names database. &#8209; Iridescent 19:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * But we're not talking about the place name, we're talking about the name of the station, as put into the other_name parameter of . This photo, although not entirely clear, shows that the middle word is "a'", not "na". -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's called inflection. Whether you spell it A' Choingheal or A' Chonghail, the A '  + Ch makes it crystal clear that the noun is feminine. No two ways about it. It therefore is obligatory that in the genitive (i.e. after another noun like Ferry or Bridge) it becomes na and without the h after the following consonant. The sign (like a few others) was probably created by someone with extremely rudimentary Gaelic looking up words in a dictionary, finding Aiseag for ferry and A' Chongail for Connel and sticking the two together. It was then not proofread by someone fluent and stuck on the sign. It's like putting up an English/German sign at Great Portland Street by looking up groß and Straße and making it Groß Portland Straße, completely oblivious to the fact German grammar demands groß to be große here. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, proper names should be spelled in the way that the person who invented the name spells it, even if that is grammatically incorrect. (And I mean the name of the station, not the name of the location.) We should go by what is in reliable sources (for the station name) and not attempt to correct what we think are errors. Of course, if we find two reliable sources that disagree with each other, we need to decide which one takes precedence. (And all other names should be mentioned in the article and have redirects.) --  Dr Greg   talk  18:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, in this case the station name IS the location name. Connel Ferry, like a great many other place names, are so old we have no idea who "invented" them. It's like trying to nail down who invented the word "Birmingham". Akerbeltz (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * My point is, if there was a station in Birmingham that every reliable source named as "Burmingem Station", then that would be its name, even though that's not the correct spelling of the city.--  Dr Greg   talk  19:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And my point is that the Gaelic on signs is (at least for now) not the most reliable source, certainly not over an official place names authority. It is literally one swallow, nay, a sad looking ruffled chaffinch. I wish Gaelic had the kind of speaker base where we could say 450 books say A and only 290 say B but we don't... Akerbeltz (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Blanket ban on Ellis' Railway Encyclopaedia as a source?
See Templates for discussion/Log/2016 October 11 Andy Dingley (talk) 00:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

RDT formats?
I have seen how many different varieties of RDT layouts there are and I don't know which would be right. I have my own certain way of doing things and so do others. For example, I have heard from Useddenim that the Scottish RDTs have a 4 | gap and a blue arrow. Should there not be uniformity between all railway line RDTs as all of them would be simpler and (in my and two others' opinions) look nicer rather than (in the example above) not be all aligned to one side? Nathan A RF (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:Consensus. It is not for you (and two others) to dictate how any given Wikiproject should style their Route Diagram Templates. Useddenim (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not think that me and my two friends should set the style, I just want to ask other people as opposed to yourself, as this question was based on something you told me. So are there any opinions or comments. Is there a set style or should there be/not be? Nathan A RF (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * How about some examples of the layouts that are being discussed? Keith D (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The major differences are Useddenim (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC) , I understand that you are trying to put your point across but this is a question I asked to other people, not just you. I was asking about certain formats to see if there should be one in Scotland or not. You can't just reply to a question asked about you, it's like if someone drove the wrong way down a road, someone else went to ask which way it is and the first someone delivers their opinion straight away. Thank you for what you have put above though. Nathan A RF (talk) 06:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Since nobody has replied as of yet, I would suggest that this Scotland thing is only supported by yourself? I will wait and see though if anyone else supports this. In the meantime, is this sort of what could be implemented on RDTs? Nathan A RF (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not keen on the changes. I prefer them as they are. Remember you Changed the Thirsk to Malton RDT? The style is set out by the template and I do think that blue is better than red. I concur with Useddenim. The joy of all things (talk) 17:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Still waiting for some examples of route diagrams so can compare the 2 styles. Keith D (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Something of this type was what I would suggest be how things would be aligned and suchlike. Nathan A RF (talk) 06:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Can you show what it would look like under the Scottish scheme so we can compare the 2 systems. Keith D (talk) 09:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Some real examples: Useddenim (talk) 10:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for the examples, can now see what we are talking about. The one in the middle with the blue arrows showing the line direction shows that you are giving a line name and makes it much clearer than the one without the blue arrows. Keith D (talk) 11:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The blue arrows are okay in some senses but look at the bottom line in the middle RDT. It is clear that the line is going downwards and there is no need for the blue arrow. The right alignment in that case makes the name too far away from the actual feature too. Who came up with this "style"? Nathan A RF (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Having looked at a few Scottish RDTs and the history, it seems that user is responsible for the "style" that is used on Scottish templates. Can we get his/her opinion? Nathan A RF (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The middle RDT was part of an exercise around eight to ten years ago to develop articles and RDT for most of the Historical Scottish Railways. These were developed when there was little else to compare against. It should also be noted that the other two RDT are for operating lines/locations.
 * A few years later User:Axpde (amongst others) changed the definitions/names of some icons. More recently User:Useddenim has been "smoothing" the diagrams.
 * Of the three given above the centre and right hand one are contemporary whilst evolving independently.
 * User:Nathan A RF, be careful when considering the look of an RDT as what you see on your device will be subtlety different on other devices due to screen resolution, OS, Browser, orientation. When I first looked at the discussion on my Android smartphone the Paddington RDT is broken with the individual lines and the other two were not initially visible. Once found only the Nassau Street RDT displays uncorrupted. I have no idea how these are displayed on Apple devices.
 * I am not convinced changing the look of the Historical Scottish Railway RDT will have any added benefit.
 * --Stewart  ( talk |  edits ) 08:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Narrow Gauge RDTs
On the subject of RDTs, I've raised a question at Template talk:Talyllyn Railway RDT about whether narrow gauge railways should be red or blue. Discussions there please. Optimist on the run (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Moved from Template talk:Talyllyn Railway RDT for wider exposure

Query - should the main running line be red rather than blue, as the TR was not a light railway? Optimist on the run (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Route diagram template/Catalog of pictograms states:
 * (My emphasis added.) Although many narrow gauge lines were also light railways, the two are not the same. So, despite what and some others may insist, red icons would be correct here. Useddenim (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The Leek and Manifold Valley Light Railway, a narrow-gauge subsidiary of the North Staffordshire Railway, is shown in blue on, , . -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As is the Ffestiniog Railway on the Template:Ffestiniog RDT, Template:Cambrian Line, Template:Conwy Valley Line, Template:Bala and Festiniog Railway and more. Blue is used to distinguish narrow gauge, light rail, tramways, metros and other non-main lines from the standard railways despite what the pictograms page says. Nathan A RF (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Template:Railway line legend, which is linked to at the top of most RDT's, and therefore the page that casual readers are most likely to turn to, states that the colour scheme is red for a "Heavy rail or freight line", and blue is for a "Light rail/Medium capacity or metro line". I have no strong preference to narrow gauge railways in either colour, but if we keep them as blue I propose that we update the legend for blue to "Light rail, narrow gauge or metro line". Optimist on the run (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Template:Railway line legend, which is linked to at the top of most RDT's, and therefore the page that casual readers are most likely to turn to, states that the colour scheme is red for a "Heavy rail or freight line", and blue is for a "Light rail/Medium capacity or metro line". I have no strong preference to narrow gauge railways in either colour, but if we keep them as blue I propose that we update the legend for blue to "Light rail, narrow gauge or metro line". Optimist on the run (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Merthyr Line
Could someone who knows something about the Valley Lines (I do not) take a look at Merthyr Line? This is embarrassingly out of date, talking about forthcoming events in 2008. (On a random dip-sample, this seems to be a common problem in South Wales; Newport railway station talks about forthcoming development in 2009-12, Butetown Branch Line says electrification is due to start in 2014, Ebbw Valley Railway says "no decision on the link will now be made before March 2011"... Someone probably needs to go through them systematically.) ‑ Iridescent 18:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

WCML definition RDT discussion
There's a discussion going on about the definition of the West Coast Main Line and the RDT at Talk:West_Coast_Main_Line if anyone is interested. G-13114 (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I was hoping for some more input. G-13114 (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Edits by Teabagishere
FYI, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains. -- Red rose64 (talk) 01:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Long term vandalism to Ffestiniog rolling stock and other articles
Over the past few months, there's been a series of vandalism attacks on various railway related articles, often based on Ffestiniog rolling stock articles, by what appears to be a single user. The user makes the same changes with regular monotony - by claiming locos of a specific class are preserved when they're not, or that (for example) Festiniog Railway Princess is in operational condition, or making up new names for them. LB&SCR E2 class (the prototype for Thomas the Tank Engine) is another article to be regularly affected, which leads me to think that the perpetrator may be juvenile. They use a range of IP6 addresses which change regularly, but and  both have many contributions to show the range of the problem. I've done a couple of long term range blocks, I suspect the user will return once the address has changed again. The user has made no attempt to communicate on talk pages or their own user talk pages, or requested any unblocking. My policy has been to Revert, block, ignore, but I'm wondering if semi-protection of the most frequently affected pages would be better. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Optimist on the run (talk • contribs) 23:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just realised I'd forgotten to sign this! Optimist on the run (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Last Passenger Service
FYI, Talk:British Rail Class 45. -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Croydon tram derailment
Slightly off-topic, but still UK rail related - 2016 Croydon tram derailment. Mjroots (talk) 12:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)