Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 52

Unsourced service updates
A while back, I updated a bunch of London station articles with reliably-sourced timetables because I was fed up with people randomly changing them to what they think is right, presumably by looking at the departure boards once or twice. Since then, people change them all the time, making them out of date - this is particularly troublesome for those that are at WP:GA status and above, because it makes them fail the verifiability (and hence the GA) criteria. I can go through the latest timetables and properly source everything again (indeed, this is probably the right action) but that's a long and laborious task. In the meantime, is a fully-verified, but slightly behind the times set of services better than a possibly newer but also possibly wrong set? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  20:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Are either better than no list? Thryduulf (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Stick with the fully verified stuff, but date it, Thus "With the introduction of the 2021-22 winter timetable on 1 November 2021, there are 2tph in each direction..." Mjroots (talk) 07:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that we agreed some years ago that train service information (including frequencies and stopping patterns) belongs on the article for the line or TOC, not on the individual stations. Otherwise we are committing ourselves to maintaining 2,500 pages twice a year; and WP:NOTTIMETABLE. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 08:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * NOTTIMETABLE says we can say "there are 2 tph to London" for example. What we can't say is "trains to London depart at xx:10 and xx:40 each hour". Mjroots (talk) 12:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

CfD
I've nominated the Category:Railway accidents involving a disregarded signal for renaming. Discussion at Categories for discussion/Log/2021 November 2. Mjroots (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Salisbury rail crash
As I'm sure many of you are aware, there was a derailment and subsquent collision at Salisbury yesterday - 2021 Salisbury rail crash. This brings up the question as to whether or not the Salisbury rail crash article needs to be moved to 1906 Salisbury rail crash. Also, I've created 2021 Salisbury rail crash RDT but it needs tweaking to include the navbar with the v.t.e buttons. Had a try myself but getting error messages all over the place and it's breaking the template. Mjroots (talk) 08:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed. (By converting to Template:Routemap; by all means revert if you don't like that method.) Bazza (talk) 09:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's fine. With a simple diagram like this, there is unlikely to be any need to edit it further. Mjroots (talk) 10:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless someone decides to completely redraw it, of course. Mjroots (talk) 07:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the page title, I've created a redirect at 1906 Salisbury rail crash that can be easily overwritten if we decide to move the page. Whether too move is tricky - it's obviously far too soon to know the long term significance of yesterday's crash, but it's clearly above average and the most significant since at least Carmont/Stonehaven, however the 1906 accident was also more significant than average and had long-term significance. So I'd say the primary topic is either the 1906 accident or neither accident (i.e. create a disambig). Searching the Railways Archive for Salisbury also finds 1856 buffer stop collison, 1885 collision and derailment 1898 collison and 2010 collision with a road vehicle, which with the 1906 and 2021 accidents might make a useful list. Thryduulf (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Salisbury 1906 does have long-term significance - it was covered in detail by Kichenside (Great Train Disasters), Nock (Historic Railway Disasters) and Rolt (Red for Danger). The accident also killed 28 people (half of the 48 passengers and four railway staff), and remains unexplained (like two other high-speed derailments that occurred soon after: Grantham 1906 and Shrewsbury 1907). -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Wasn't there a fairly recent re-evaluation of the 1906 crash and it was calculated that the locomotive involved was different to the type used previously and had a significantly higher centre of gravity? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * yes, 1906 having long term significance was my point. If either it or 2021 was just a minor event then primary topic status would be clear. Equally if either were as significant as say Quinitishill, Harrow and Wealdstone or Grayrigg then we wouldn't need a discussion, but we have an old mid-level importance event and a very recent event whose long term significance is not yet known making it tricky to judge which, if either, is primary. Thryduulf (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know about "fairly" or even "recent" - see
 * where we find Robins ... was not accustomed to passing through Salisbury at speed. Indeed, he had quite possibly never worked a passenger train that was booked to pass non-stop. Robins was not a regular L12 driver, his own engine was T9 No. 283. The latter, with its lower centre of gravity, might just have escaped disaster, and being used to this engine, Robins may have misjudged in the darkness, the speed of the larger and more powerful L12. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just me reading it recently then! Didn't realise the original version was 1967. Thanks. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just me reading it recently then! Didn't realise the original version was 1967. Thanks. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

James Kitson (businessman)
Hi all. Just over from the Cricket Project. The above chap played first-class cricket but was also a notable railway industrialist, so I'm just leaving him here if anyone wishes to expand his article. Cheers, StickyWicket (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Passenger train created
Hello! I don't usually edit pages related to UK Railways, but I wanted to share that I've created the article Passenger train today, via a split from Train. I'm not very familiar with passenger trains in the United Kingdom, so if anyone here is interested in helping expand the article, that would be great. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems completely skewed to North American practice, most of the lead section doesn't apply to much of the rest of the world. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The rest of the article isn't that bad. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Salisbury Rail Crash
A discussion is taking place re the use of notes in the article on the recent train crash at Salisbury. Please feel free to join the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 06:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Stratford Works and Stratford TMD
A user has suggested culling parts of these articles and has started a thread here Talk:Stratford TMD. Please feel free to comment. --Davidvaughanwells (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Noting that I did not suggested culling sections of the article without reason - merely bits that fail basic Wikipedia standards (no references, excessive details, copyrighted material)... Turini2 (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the late reply - I have been struck down by the dreaded lurgy. Define excessive? I think the allocation of engines to an engine shed is a key part of the story and its a summary of how that changed over the years. Its been there for several years and no one has yet objected and I am aware of at least two editors who have looked at the page and not found it a problem. I thought about the copyrighted material but seeing it was out there on the web anyway and the organisation that produced it does not exist and it was a leaflet rather than a book then who exactly is going to object? Its been deleted anyway but perhaps retaining the on line link would have been better so those interested could have still had easy access to the material. You also suggest there is more copyrighted material - such as?
 * You also mention original research - my main sources are the GER society journals, the books I own and anything available on the internet. Please can you be specific as to the original research you think I have done and I will try and answer your questions. As i said I have a few issues at the moment so may not be able to resolve quickly.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:MULTI this discussion should occur at Talk:Stratford_TMD, as you note above. Turini2 (talk) 09:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

AfDs
British Rail Class 901, British Rail Class 930, British Rail Class 931, British Rail Class 932, British Rail Class 933, British Rail Class 937, British Rail Class 951 and British Rail Class 960 have all been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You might want to see my comment at Articles for deletion/British Rail Class 930. No time to do this or actual in-depth searches for the rest now, but I assume the same idea applies elsewhere too. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Archiving
Is there any reason why the LTS redirect thread at the top of this page has a do not archive tag attached to it? There's been no discussion for nearly nine months. Unless there's a good reason, I'll archive it manually. — Voice of Clam 14:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The "do not archive" tag is past its sell-by date so go ahead. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've just archived it. Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 21:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It was added in by, reason not clear. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It was added as a reminder to check through all the existing links to make sure all pointed to the right place after the page moves. As ultimately someone else did the final leg of that, I just (ironically) forgot about removing the don't-forget reminder for myself... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

"Mothballed"?
Copied, edited for clarity, from my post at Talk:Doe Lea branch line:


 * What does "mothballed" mean, in the lead? None of the three articles at the Mothballing dab page helps. As a native English-speaker I read it as "preserved in full working order although not currently in use" (as in some of Lancashire's major museums such as Queen Street Mill at one point), but the article suggests that a tunnel has been filled in. If there is a specific definition of "mothballed/mothballing" in the context of railways lines, it would be helpful for someone to create an article, with sources, to explain and perhaps give examples.


 * I suggest that the word "mothballed" needs clarification, as this term is unlikely to be clear to all readers. Pam  D  11:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Googling found me this splendid non-reply to an FOI request, which says "Upon discussing your request with my colleagues in Network Rail, they have confirmed that the term ‘mothballed’ is not a phrase we use. Therefore, we do not have information on lines which are classed as ‘mothballed’. " It seems an interesting point, so I'll raised it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways for wider input.  Pam  D  11:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I wonder whether anyone here knows anything more, and whether there should be an article or list about mothballed lines, or a definition somewhere of what is meant by the term in the context of UK railway lines, even if Network Rail don't use it? Or perhaps there is, and I just haven't found it (in which case perhaps it should be linked from that dab page at Mothballing?) Pam  D  11:59, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding this use of Mothballing the DAB contains a link to some clever grammarly things that basically at wikt:mothball explains things like To stop using (something), but keep it in good condition. One can the old mothballing term to Wiktionary if/when necessary.  I'd see it as leaving infrastructure in place to allow for easier re-opening; this might be short of maintaining fully working order.  But that's a passing guess not a professional term. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I have always understood it to mean pretty much what you said in your first definition (and OED agrees - to stop work on an idea, plan, or job, but leaving it in such a way that you can start on it again at some point in the future). Here's a construction industry article which taks about mothballing construction sites during the pandemic, ready for work to begin later.  Here's one about mines, and on the railway side, here's a story about electric locomotives being mothballed for diesel due to the energy crisis.
 * What does seem to be the consistency is that the thing that has been mothballed can generally be used again without much preparatory work, which filling in a tunnel doesn't seem to fit. But here's a story about restoring the Fawley line, which has been partly built over.  Th Borders railway was described as restoring a mothballed line, but that cost £300m.  So there is obviously some element of something in a static non-working state, though there appears to be a large variation on how far from working order that state is. Black Kite (talk) 12:22, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Mothballing (disambiguation) has a link to Wiktionary, which says : "(transitive) To store or shelve something no longer used. Synonyms: store, shelve, set aside, defer. "They mothballed the old version after the new one came out."

(transitive, figuratively) To stop using (something), but keep it in good condition."

I would add very figuratively, as in the case of the Varsity Line which was "mothballed" between Bicester Town and Bletchley – but by the time the East West Rail project finally got green-lighted, the trackbed had returned to nature. The East West Rail Alliance is currently restoring this section at cost of about £1 billion. We must have godzilla moths around our way! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Temporarily withdrawn services
When COVID-19 lockdown related timetable cuts were introduced in 2020, a number of stations ceased to be called at by some operators. As it was presumed this would be temporary, with the services to be reinstated, rightly the articles noted this and the relevant service navigation boxes and categories retained. But now we are back to normal (or as normal as we are likely to get with the seemingly permanent drop in commuter patronage) with these calling have not been reinstated.

Case in point being CrossCountry that had a handful of services calling at stations such as Filton Abbey Wood, Guildford, Patchway and Wilmslow until withdrawn in 2020. As services have not resumed to these stations in the current or next timetable that runs to May 2022, should the articles reflect these service withdrawals as permanent? Being bad news, an official announcement is never likely to be ever be made, nor is it ever likely to be reported by news outlets or industry publications, as it is just a continuation of the status quo. Prepopots (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Update to remove those services not reinstated. They can be re-added if resumed. Mjroots (talk) 18:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree, should now be treated as permanently withdrawn, Congleton is another example. Can be added back if reinstated. Tessajead (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

TOC succession boxes
In the succession box at the end of each TOC article, is it necessary for the names of the franchises in the "preceded by" and "succeeded by" columns (so to speak) to be in bold, non-italic, default-size text like the corresponding TOCs immediately above, e.g. for First Capital Connect:



Or are there grounds for having the franchise names in small text (but still bold and non-italic), like so:



If I may offer a personal opinion here, I think the box looks that bit better with the franchise names in small text than it does with both the franchise names and the TOCs in bold, non-italic, default-size text.

And if I may, I'd also like to question the application of WP:ACCESSIBILITY here. I certainly don't deny that small text should be used sparingly, and should not be used in elements that already use a smaller text size, like infoboxes and reference sections. And there's certainly no reason to use it in any of the tables in these articles (rolling stock, services, etc.). However, succession boxes use the default text size - and are as many people expected to read these boxes as are expected to read the lead, the main text, and the tables?

Of course, none of this is said with any disrespect intended towards the rules or those who set them, or those who are visually impaired. Nor do I disrespect those who have the opposite opinion to mine - that is, these boxes look better with both the franchise names and TOCs in bold, non-italic, default-size text than they do with the franchise names in small text.

Really, all I'm seeking here is complete clarity. :) 2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:44A4:D45:EA04:A0B0 (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Heraldry
I am drafting an armorial of railways in Britain. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This could be a useful list. I'm curious why you chose 'Armorial of railways in Britain' when you refer to 'Railway heraldry in Britain' in the lead section. They need to be the same (I prefer the latter, simpler version).
 * The Great Western Railway should be in both pre- and post-Grouping if you are going to have different sections. You could have just a simple A to Z which wouldn't require the reader to know which period to look at.
 * Could you explain what the 'Fictional railways' list covers?
 * Geof Sheppard (talk) 17:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Armorial of X" is the standard title format for articles like this. I wanted to say "railways in Britain" rather than "British Railways" in case it was taken to mean that company specifically. I separated the Big Four because those tend to be the ones people most prominently remember. Alternatively I could have each one be the top of its own section being followed by the arms of all its predecessors. The fictional section only includes Sodor thus far. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Britain" is ambiguous. Do you mean Great Britain or the United Kingdom? And I agree with 's comment about the title: WP:COMMONALITY may apply, WP:COMMONNAME certainly does. Bazza (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of them are bogus, not having been granted by either the College of Arms or the Court of the Lord Lyon. Indeed, the Caledonian Railway's use of the Royal arms of Scotland was technically illegal. Authentic coats of arms were granted to the Great Central Railway, the London and North Eastern Railway and the British Transport Commission - I know of no others. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've mentioned the paucity of true heraldry in the lead paragraph. It will make blazoning and citation rather difficult compared to other armorial pages. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Given the history of the British Isles, the scope of the article should be something like "Armorial of railways in the British Isles". This would cover the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Irish Republic, the Isle of Man, the Bailiwick of Guernsey and the Bailiwick of Jersey. Mjroots (talk) 06:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Is the Cranbrook and Paddock Wood Railway includable? Mjroots (talk) 06:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * An aside to this topic is the format of the images used to represent the armorial. Most are photographs of casts or drawings, and the inconsistency within the list is probably not quite good enough (not that I would let it delay a move to mainspace). I have started contributing to this previously by making SVG crests for the Midland and MGNR (as have been included in Robin S. Taylor's list), but time has thus far prevented me from making a proper series for the rest of all the old railway companies. Just a note to say that eventually there will be an improvement... Rcsprinter123   (intone)  14:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that "armorial" is an adjective, not a noun, as in "Armorial Bearings of the Great Central Railway". -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia thinks otherwise. It seems like it's a British vs American thing. Bazza (talk) 10:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

- when you say "railways" may tramway companies had their own coats of arms. As trams run on rails, they should also be includable. Mjroots (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any tramway that had its own coat-of-arms, although many tramcars did bear a coat-of-arms. Tramways that were municipally owned - such as most British systems after about 1900 - would normally use the city or borough coat-of-arms perfectly legitimately. This wasn't the coat-of-arms of the tramway company, but of its parent municipality; and until the privatisations and "tendering out" of the 1980s it was possible in many cities and towns to see council-owned vehicles, such as dustcarts, bearing coats-of-arms. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Railway Preservation Society of Ireland
I wish to bring project members attention to the Railway Preservation Society of Ireland article. I have a declared COI having been a member of said society for a short while, and am PBLOCK'd by WikiProject UK Railways member and am unable to work to correct issues except via discussion via request edit which tends to have a long queue. Due to COI issues, possible disruption, and perhaps desires to take subtle and not so subtle sideswipes at how the society is run I have concerned with the editing on the article; in particular between the base at Whitehead (UK Ulster) and Dublin. There is also a desire to re-introduce a stocklist tables which I recall was scummered by those dealing with problematic editing on the Article. I would appreciate neutrals looking at the matter. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Upgrade and electrification Projects
I have started a draft article on the Northwest electrification scheme. I know we already have a few articles on various upgrades e.g.
 * Transpennine north railway upgrade
 * Midland Main Line railway upgrade
 * West Coast Main Line route modernisation
 * 21st-century modernisation of the Great Western Main Line

but this is the latest. Any feedback on any other new articles that are needed? GRALISTAIR (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've long thought there needed to be an article on the Bordesley Chords (aka Camp Hill Chords) in Birmingham, currently there's bits of information about it at the Camp Hill Line and Birmingham Moor Street railway station articles, but it could benefit from a dedicated article. Also maybe the bigger Midlands Rail Hub scheme. I could help out by making some maps and diagrams etc. G-13114 (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Congleton Railway Station goods yard
So according to British Railways Past and Present no 40 Cheshire page 101 Congleton railway station once had a goods yard.

I am just wondering if the goods yard at Congleton Railway station was Brunswick Wharf which is where trains on the Biddulph Valley line terminated.

Does anybody have any sources to say wether the goods yard at Congleton railway station was called Brunswick Wharf? Maurice Oly (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Don't know if this helps, but this webpage shows mapping from around 1910. The goods yard was on the north of the station, but there is also a single branch line to Congleton with another goods yard that faced onto Brunswick Street. If you use the blue slider function on the bottom left, it morphs from 1910 mapping to modern day satellite imagery. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As above, Brunswick Wharf was a separate goods depot about $3/4$ mile from Congleton station and wasn't on the same line. The line to Brunswick Wharf left the Biddulph Valley line at Congleton Lower Junction. The sparse passenger service over the Biddulph line continued from Congleton Lower to Congleton Higher Junction where a reversal was necessary before proceeding to Congleton station. Nthep (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks folks, that’s that cleared up.Also thanks to @ Nthep for dealing with the Disused Railways rail box on Congleton Railway Station. I had only put Congleton Brunswick Wharf there as I was unsure if Congleton was the terminus for Biddulph Valley line passenger trains. Maurice Oly (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Most railway stations (other than halts) had goods facilities until the 1960s - indeed, from the beginning of the railways until the mid 20th century, goods provided more revenue than passengers. The goods facilities at a station could in some cases be no more than a siding or two, but as common carriers, the railways were legally obliged to carry any size of consignment from one station to another. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 12:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that information that’s interesting. I learned something today. Maurice Oly (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course, for some really big stations, the goods facilities were on a nearby (but separate) site, such as at Paddington; this may have had a different name, such as Somers Town goods station, immediately to the west of St Pancras - its former site is now occupied by the British Library. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

List of proposed railway stations in Scotland
Hi everyone, is anyone creating anything along these lines? There are already lists for England and Wales, but Scotland seems to have been forgotten about? Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 07:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Had a bit of time on my hands to get it started so if anyone wants to take it on further... Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 12:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Automated Train Announcements - draft
Hi everyone, could someone potentially advise if this is notable enough for inclusion? Of course, if you wanted to help expand it, do add any info (with citations of course!). Link to the draft is here. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The AfC Jockeys won't like it as it standards, any may not like it. My favourites were 165/166's calling the honourable Betchworth Bletchworth; The complete failure of Southern 455's to miss one station, Clandon? ... the memory fades.  And Southern 77 to inform me I was in coach 7 of 9.  But probably I key point is you are focusing UK only on a worldwide title.  Capitalisation might be an issue also.  Thankyou. 16:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs)
 * A further issue will be a need to source this. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You also need dates, as not all units have the same announcements their whole lives. Also note that there are some special cases, e.g. Chilterns at Bicester village have announcements in Mandarin and (I think) Arabic that are different voices to the regular announcements. As it stands at the moment I see nothing in the draft that would guarantee passing A7 let alone surviving an AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:N, WP:V if you want to avoid WP:NOR, WP:FANCRUFT. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Photograph of Soham station needed
I haven't been able to find any free to use photographs of the new Soham railway station which opened recently. Are there any photographers here who live in that part of the country who could take one? G-13114 (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing showing on Geograph yet. Mjroots (talk) 12:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I took some on the opening day but haven't had chance to sort them yet. I'll see if I can get some up tomorrow or Monday. Thryduulf (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * it took longer than I hoped, but I've now put all my photos on Commons. See Commons:Category:Soham railway station. I've switched the image in the infobox to one of the platform, as I think that's the best I took, but I'm not going to object if you prefer one of the forecourt or similar. Thryduulf (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Darnall station photos
I've noticed that the photos of Darnall station in Sheffield are very lacking with the current view from a passing train with a weird angle showing the station. The photos on commons are not any better. Perhaps someone from Sheffield could upload a better photo to improve the article? Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 22:08, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I found one a bit better, not outstanding, but an improvement on what was there before. G-13114 (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A reminder that when looking for photos in the UK or Republic of Ireland, Geograph is a potential source. Mjroots (talk) 06:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good, thanks. Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 14:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Duplicated information - how to address?
Most of the train operating company articles have a "Past fleet" section, generally arranged in table format with one or more rows for each Class. Most, if not all, include a column on where particular unit(s) in a Class went after the ToC. This information also exists in many/all of the individual Class articles. And that causes a problem as there is no single system of record. For example: One editor might interpret the ToC article column to be where the unit(s) in a class went to immediately after the ToC, while others might treat it as where the unit(s) are now. Also, with two lots of information to maintain, those can quickly become out of sync (especially as most entries are un-cited and based on personal knowledge).

My suggestion is to remove the column of information about individual units from the past fleet table in each ToC article and to focus effort instead on keeping the Class articles up to date and properly referenced.

Thoughts? 10mmsocket (talk) 07:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, get rid of this. Many instances are unreferenced, and I can't see what the locations of ex-fleet stocks have to do with a train operating company. Bazza (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Agree, delete the column. As to where a class went to post their time with a TOC is best covered on the class articles. Anybody wanting to know which TOCs used a particular class will go to the relevant class article. Prepopots (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Locomotive Services Limited - discussions on controversial move and content
The is a discussion at Talk:Locomotive Services regarding article content and name (Parent group vs TOC etc). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Should the Unit/Loco pages be renamed?
Hi everyone, I've been scrolling through some of the rail pages on Wikipedia recently, and I've been puzzling over whether the stock pages need to be renamed. For example, units like the 800/801/802/803 etc etc never operated under BR (and probably never will - if anything it will be GBR. So, should they be renamed to: Any comments or suggestions (or links to really old discussions about why they are named this way) would be really appreciated as I don't see any benefit of them staying like this. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * National Rail Class __
 * Great British Railways Class __
 * Class __ (train)
 * If you look through the archives you will find countless discussions.. One example is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 20, and it links to one of the subsequent ones. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks David - unfortunately I am uncertain if opinions have changed given that discussion in particular was over ten years ago!
 * Probably irretrievable now, but I do wonder who it was who created the system in the first place...? Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there has been discussion more recently than 10 years ago - more like 2 or 3 at most. However, the primary argument for the currentl naming scheme is that is the British Rail classification system and anything like "National Rail" or "Great British Railways" would be anachronistic for classes that predate those organisations. "Class __ (train)" would be highly ambiguous with other countries' classification systems so some classes would require further disambiguation while others would have unnecessary disambiguation if there are no other notable things with that class number. Combined this would make the set of articles a complete mess naming wise. So essentially, until a new classification system is instituted the system we have is the best of all the alternatives available. Thryduulf (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The articles for the main-line diesel locos (classes 14 to 60) were created between January 2004 and February 2006. So far as I can tell, they all had names of that form from the outset; very few have been moved to another name, usually for disambiguation reasons, although British Rail Class 59 did get moved to some out-of-scheme name in June 2011 and moved back again nine minutes later. So it's certainly a long-established convention. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As has been said many times before, TOPS was introduced by British Rail, which is why post-BR classes are housed at "British Rail Class xxx" titles. The only viable alternative is to house them at "TOPS Class xxx" titles, but that would need a full discussion at WP level. Mjroots (talk) 06:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The current naming convention, while maybe not the best in every case is clear and unambiguous. British Rail identifies that the stock operateed on the British rail network rather than was operated by the company that operated from 1948 until 1997. Other jurisdictions use the owner or operator to disambiguate. So we could have the Porterbrook Class 385 or ScotRail Class 385, but then what of the Class 170 that is owned by multiple ROSCOs and has been used by over a dozen operators? All very messy, best to leave it as it is. Prepopots (talk) 07:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Remembering that WP article titles have a case style guide, I would interpret British Rail to mean the organisation which ran Great Britain's railway network from 1948 to 1997; whereas British rail refers (albeit in a short form) to that network itself, still in existence. British rail class xxx (or Class if you must) would thus overcome the naming conundrum being discussed. Bazza (talk) 10:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Except the name does come from the 1948-1997 operator, they developed the classification system that is still in use so it is correct in that regard. Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Class 456 withdrawal info
There is a discussion regarding the Class 456 train's withdrawal at Talk:British Rail Class 456. Your input would be appreciated. Thanks. XtraJovial (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

References that appeal for funds
At British Rail Class 309, and  (the latter with a clear WP:COI, because they were known as Clacton Express Preservation Group until 18 January 2022) are insisting on the inclusion of, which supports the claim that the unit is for sale but is a link to a web page that is blatantly asking people to donate via JustGiving in order to raise the money required. Such links, if used as external links, are explicitly forbidden by WP:ELNO. Should this be permitted as a reference? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 13:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I only have good intentions and when it was brought to my attention COI's I was happy to change things to better suit the policies of the platform. But the reality is, the vehicle is up for disposal, and it is an important thing that should be documented. Wikipedia is apparently a place for finding out information. So linking to our website was used for that as specifically we have detailed history pages on these units also. I believe my source should not be discounted as a reputable source of information just because we are also promoting the preservation of said vehicles. B.w1203 (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I sadly note that RedRose has, once again, refused to engage in any civil discussion on this matter on local Talk pages. The external link, to a reputable third-party source, includes the fact there is a campaign to save the unit, but also provides a reader-accessible reference replacing a paper reference for the fact that the unit it up for disposal.  This link has been added as part of my efforts to find and apply references to the article, which is flagged as needing the same.  I have directly stated that I have no COI, as I am not involved in any scheme relating to the unit and the claim that the link is to for a web page that is asking for donations is a false representation, as the link is to an independent on-line journal so it does not come under the claimed guidance. Neith-Nabu (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I would also like to kindly add, That when this was first flagged, I made an active effort to re-word the statement after to omit any such "appeal". I do not want issues or trouble, As a new user to the platform I feel Redrose is very much not understanding of the efforts I have tried to make to appear correct and after further reading I feel this person is breaking this wikipedia guideline, as I feel very "Bitten" by this user. WP:BITE B.w1203 (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * RedRose has, once again, refused to engage in any civil discussion on this matter on local Talk pages. Are you referring to any previous occurrences - which ones? Where exactly did I refuse? I would point out that this page has 232 watchers, whereas Talk:British Rail Class 309 has 21 - fewer than one-tenth as many. This issue does not affect just the BR class 309 article, so it is appropriate to raise the matter somewhere more general.
 * The webpage https://www.railadvent.co.uk/2021/09/appeal-launched-can-you-help-the-clacton-express-preservation-group.html has six paragraphs of text, of which four are devoted to the fundraising appeal. Do you deny that it exists primarily to solicit donations? Can you not find an independent reliable third-party source? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a page which is not acceptable or useful as a source, clearly, not only because it is an advert, but because listing which units of something are for sale or not is not the purpose of an encyclopedia (Wikipedia is not a resource for conducting business). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The Page now has a link to an article by Rail Express, a much more widespread, national reputable source that by all accounts is a lot less devoted to the sale. Also, I belive in good faith that simply stating a vehicle is for sale is not conducting business. If you were asking for prospective buyers to get in touch, that would be different. B.w1203 (talk) 12:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, you can state that a vehicle is for sale (with a reliable reference): what you can't do is conduct people to an external web page that is explicitly asking them to donate money in order to buy that vehicle. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. This transient information has no encyclopedic value. It violates WP:NOTNEWS (if it can even be called news, it is more like advertising). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The choice of that particular source especially with the prominence of the title was at best unfortunate. It was likely consequence of a press release.  The cite was poorly embellished which put emphaus on the title.  While such a cite might pass WP:V the promotionalism in the site ups the requirement to WP:RS in my view, which it would fail. In summary these problems are one of the reasons COI editing is discouraged, but I am pleased to note  has now made good faith declarations on the talk page and article page, though I do note this discovered COI editor may be inciting me to take Redrose to e.g. ANI. ... given the precedent of a UK Railways admin member WP:PBLOCKing myself at RPSI I believe there is a case for applying an indef pblock of B.w1203 here; though as involved I would not recommended Redrose does it.  While  has (finally) made an entry on the article talk page I think there may be a case of edit warring and personal attack again Redrose to the point where raising an ANI might be close.  If the EMU to preservation off Lavender I suspect Draft:Eastern Rail Services or Mid-Norfolk Railway in East Anglia, somewhat close to their home territory, might be strong candidates for a new home.  As they are mk.1 bodyshells mainline use seems implausible. I've had issues with Neith-Nabu before and may need to mull if going to the ANI or COIN board for checkout is appropriate at this point. Perhaps even a temp pblock here for the edit warring, though its unlikely to continue so perhaps not appropriate.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * After I pressed the submit button on the post about above I noticed Special:Diff/1067076786 this edit has just happened following this Special:Diff/1066825303 talk page entry by . Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Chains
As editors at this project were heavily involved in a discussion on this topic a few years ago, you may be interested in this proposal to deprecate the chain as a unit of measure on articles about British railways. Kahastok talk 17:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Too many British railway articles have too many pointless sections

 * . Mjroots (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I have noticed the articles on railway UK lines often have far too many sections. They are almost like concepts or ideas rather than well order relevant paragraphs compiled into sections. Take the article on the Varsity line, it has 21 sections, some of which eg "The wartime curves after the war", "Nationalisation", are no more than two sentences. There are countless other articles in the same mess. Whoever was allowed to edit like this has made a right pigs ear because first, as there are too many sections, the headers are meaningless and hard to fathom what the section is about, second many of the sections just repeat what other sections have said albeit in a tautological manner. The information is there it just needs editors who understand the subject to consolidate topics together and not leave articles reading as if they are someone's stream of consciousness. 146.200.202.126 (talk) 10:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You'll probably be unsurprised to see this was almost all done by one author . I pretty much always stick to North American railroad topics personally, but you are absolutely right that this needs a rewrite. The most glaring issue is that the editor seems to not understand that other levels of headers exist. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Kirkby derailment, March 2021
Discussion at the time was that it was too soon to create an article. The driver of the train involved has now been charged in connection with the crash. Is it now appropriate to create an article, or do we need to wait for a conviction? Mjroots (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Recused: Suggest wait:Wait: Although BLPCRIME may or may not apply I have a feeling it is better to wait: it also seems the RAIB report may also be holding: Others will likely determine differently. BLPO would apply to any article anyway. [[User:Djm-leighpark|Djm-leighpark] (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)  (Updated:Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)) - (Recusing to avoid more mind the gap problems) Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Current status by RAIB is "investigating". Agree re BLPO applying, but that doesn't stop us having an article. Mjroots (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've no strong feeling if BLPO is respected, though in some respects it looks like a didn't stop in time for whatever reason, and perhaps barely notable, though there were injuries. Mind you I did shout/!vote Wait. I'll soften that to Suggest wait.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The reason for the charge hasn't been made public in the media. Suffice to say it involves the driver doing something no driver should be doing whilst driving, according to forum chat. I've a feeling the RAIB report may be delayed until after the trial in March. Mjroots (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess it might be better to have the precise charge before proceeding. Possibly needs to make clear as of XXX not convicted and I guess due caution perhaps about name release, but perhaps that's me being over-cautious. Can't really have trial by forum. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The charge is "endangering the safety of people on the railway". Mjroots (talk) 17:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Mjroots: At the risk of falling into a mind the gap I'm recusing from this conversion to avoid being pblock'd on pep thingies including 313's which are a personal hate and I had to delete a mural of one from commons ... I think ... so yes definitely recusing. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Given how minor the incident was (not even notable enough for a separate page), I don't think there's reason to create a separate page on the driver. That would clearly be WP:BLP1E, and I don't see how this couldn't be covered to sufficient encyclopedic depth (an encyclopedia being a summary, not an indiscriminate compilation of everything that can be said about a subject) at the places where the incident is already covered (i.e. the Kirkby station article and the list of 2021 accidents). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The intention is to create an article on the accident. The driver need not be named in the article unless a conviction is secured. My feeling is that the criminal charge pushes this one well up the notability scale. Criminal charges are very rare following a railway accident in the UK, but not unknown (Quintinshill, Wootton Bassett). Mjroots (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I would like to comment that this incident is already on the limit of becoming WP:UNDUE at Kirkby railway station and additional information that might become available during a trial might tip it over the top. When fully resolved and RAIB report produuced it could be considered if appropriate to be merged.  Thankyou. (I am meant to be recused on the main subject). Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

All can now be revealed. Driver was using mobile phone whilst driving. Convicted on all charges. I'll write the article over the weekend. Mjroots (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Right, fling him in jail while you're doing it. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sentencing is in March. But as there is a conviction, the notability threshold has definitely been passed. Mjroots (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The Kirkby train crash article has now been created. I'm not overly familiar with the two lines involved, so would welcome the correction of any errors in that respect. Mjroots (talk) 08:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've made one adjustment in that regard - rail replacement arrangements transfer to the Ormskirk line; Walton and Rice Lane are on separate lines a short walk from each other. -- Michael Warren | Talk 09:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice work. I have added a link and short description of the incident (with attribution in the edit summary) into a new "Accidents and incidents" section in the Merseyrail article. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Is that the only accident Merseyrail has suffered? I do remember that there was an accident at Liverpool a while back which led to the death of a passenger trying to board a train. The guard was prosecuted, but I don't know which TOC was involved. Mjroots (talk) 12:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Good question, I'll take a look. I added the 2005 underground derailment at Liverpool Central which I remember happening. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Mjroots were you thinking of this accident? If so, I added it. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's the one. Mjroots (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * A search of the RAIB website reveals no other accidents. Mjroots (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The Railways Archive provides a couple more modern ones - Kirkdale 2009 and West Kirkby 2007. Birkenhead Park has been the site of at least three accidents 1892 (few details), 1897 and 1922. There were previous accidents at Liverpool Central in 1882, 1883, 1911 and 1937. I've not looked at other stations. Thryduulf (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, have done some more digging and added the two Merseyrail accidents to that article, making five in total. Mjroots (talk) 05:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Rainhill Trials § Requested move 22 February 2022
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Rainhill Trials § Requested move 22 February 2022. Hallucegenia (talk) 12:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Infobox services
Hello, should Adjacent stations be embedded in Infobox station as per Hellifield railway station? The use of this causes small text to be used in the infobox and is against accessibility rules. Keith D (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't know if there is guidance against it, but it seems to bloat the infobox unnecessarily. IMHO I don't think it is a good idea, especially since (most) UK railway station articles have a navbox on each page stating next and previous stations, and the line they are operating on. The joy of all things (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems to be more common in the railways of other countries, but the precedent for UK stations is clear for placement outside of the infobox. Maybe it would be worth getting something down in the guidelines regarding this if there is nothing already. Rcsprinter123   (spiel)  18:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I started a conversation on this (though more in general, not focused on UK stations) at WikiProject Trains. My preferance is outside the infobox as this allows more room for the tables and avoids overly long infoboxes. NemesisAT (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * comment - that information is archived. While there are some that disagree I find excessively large and garish and would likely prevent articles being assessed at higher than B class.  I suggest anyone considering these navbox's an improvement add them to 190th Street station which is exampled at WikiProject Trains/Assessment as GA class. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC) As against that London Paddington passed GA around Special:Diff/802379081 although the prose/navbox ratio was relatively good and not over-dominant. But I'd prefer it in services in the infobox.  Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No - it's an accessibility problem, see my comment at Template talk:S-line. If the text was enlarged to meet MOS:SMALL, you'd either have a very wide infobox, or a very tall one. Consider the box at Clapham Junction railway station and imagine trying to shoehorn that into the infobox. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict): ::Shouting won't help. Softening the artwork might help and reducing blocks of colours. The Clapham Junction article's a disgrace overall.  And not accurate, even outside the infobox.  Reducing and softening the colour bars in S-line might help.  It important to mind the gap on platform 7 if I remember correctly.  Why there is a piciure of a class 73 with no captioning of relevance to the station on that at the moment I have no clue whatsoever, well perhaps I do. At least its not shouting large logo. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Unrelated, do you prefer having the boxes merged (compare before and after so there are less lines of duplicate links?  Cards   84664   22:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed regarding accesibility. I'm not fond of 190th Street station from an accesibility point of view either due to having so many collapsible sections in the infobox, including one that appears to serve as a key for a symbol used above. NemesisAT (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This conversation seems to be jumping around a bit, but I have removed the excessive shrinking of text from Adjacent stations because it violated MOS:FONTSIZE. The change made the infobox at Hellifield railway station about one line of text taller (about a quarter-inch on my screen), FWIW. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm disagree about your opinion, displaying large text, I'm finding it more than a bit distracting. I could say that small text is usually better -Jjpachano (talk) 06:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You can disagree, but removing small text from infoboxes is not an option: WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Bazza (talk) 10:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So is that enough? if that's the reason, I'll go back to Template:s-line. -Jjpachano (talk) 13:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Which, to be clear, should be modified to match Adjacent stations. Accessibility is important, and the change isn't that significant. Mackensen (talk) 14:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * S-line has been updated as well, unless I missed one or more subtemplates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a third template, rail line, but those are manually invoked with and have to be removed one at a time. See St Pancras railway station.   Cards   84664   17:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ugh, a nightmare. That article is fine, since the template is used outside of an infobox. It looks like the vast majority, perhaps over 95%, of rail line transclusions are in UK rail station articles (holy snakes, there are a lot of rail stations in the UK!), where the station links are outside the infobox by convention. I'm seeing only a few places where rail line is used inside infoboxes, e.g. Cipete Raya MRT station and Praha hlavní nádraží. They are rare. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So because the font size is barely over 85% it doesn't matter if small is used? What happened to consistency? This change is clearly a case of all or none.  Cards   84664   19:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh well, we should be phasing out rail line in favor of Adjacent stations in the same way as s-line anyway, so I guess we'll get to that when we get to that.  Cards   84664   19:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If you would like to recruit a bot to remove all  tags from rail line transclusions, I won't stand in your way. You'll need a consensus aside from MOS:FONTSIZE to justify it, however. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There are several thousand articles about railway stations in the UK. The majority use a box for previous/next stations that is in the article body, not in the infobox. Rather than alter all of these articles, how about a CSS approach? That way, we only need to amend a small number of templates. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't forget that quite a few articles use small instead of ... 10mmsocket (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, a CSS approach will achieve the desired result with far fewer edits. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * MOS:FONTSIZE doesn't prohibit the use of  tags, (or the template) everywhere. What it does prohibit is their use where the default font is already small, such as in infoboxes. So there's no need to remove these tags when used outside infoboxes. --  Dr Greg  talk  22:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What purpose do they serve though? Why inconvenience readers with impaired vision with constantly changing text sizes. At least they know what to expect in the references section, but an in-article table - pretty much an infobox in its own right in the way these articles have been written - makes it very difficult to cope when font sizes are changing every few words. Have a care for those who can't see 100%. Accessibility should always trump pretty. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Happy to remove. Xbhpnvs798 (talk) 12:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Template:Most and least-used stations in the United Kingdom
I've just noticed that Template:Most and least-used stations in the United Kingdom (which I wasn't aware of until it was nominated for deletion) has not been undated since 2018-19 and so is out of date. I don't have time (particularly given very limited template skills) to update this myself right now, but it should ideally be done. Thryduulf (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Caledonian main line route templates
The article Caledonian main line has three associated RDTs:, , and. They were all removed in 2015 and not re-added. Would these still be useful to the article? Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that a detailed description of the route is already made in the article, I figure that a diagram is helpful, so I've added them back in. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Welsh station articles
In the s-rail service navigation boxes, services are shown as being operated by Transport For Wales (i.e. the government agency) and not the train operator, Transport for Wales Rail. This is being driven by the toc field that only allows the TOC to be added as unlinked text. Presumably this is a back of house change that needs to be made so that when Transport for Wales is entered it defaults to the train operator not the agency. Any ideas on how to have fixed? Leadelape (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is Template:National Rail lines. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 13:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Kirkby train crash
Kirkby train crash has been nominated for deletion. — Voice of Clam 22:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * nomination withdrawn. Nthep (talk) 10:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Trivia discussion
Is the death of a station cat trivial? See Talk:Lancaster railway station 10mmsocket (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If a reliable third party source sees it as noteworthy enough to report on it wouldn’t be trivial. SK2242 (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The Lancaster newspaper has reported it, but seemingly nothing geographically wider. Can you perhaps make your comments on the article's talk page? 10mmsocket (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Crewe Works
I'm doing some citation checking at Wolverton and Wolverton Works. I had hoped to find at Crewe Works a citation I need, only to find it in an even worse state, pretty much lacking in any detailed citations. So if anybody fancies doing some heavy lifting, this is an article in need of some TLC. I have more than enough to do at this end of the line. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I have loads of photos from 1970-1990 inside and outside the works but I doubt these are what we are looking for. I have various loco spotting society journals with visit dates and other details of works tours but I assume these are not sufficient either. We could also cite the "Equinox Running to Time Documentary showing the first Class 91 rolling out of the works - possibly GRALISTAIR (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

TOPS numbers on locos scrapped before TOPS.
How did locomotives that were scrapped before the introduction of TOPS such as the MetroVick Co-Bo locos get given a TOPS class? e.g. Class 28 for the MetroVicks. From my understanding the Co-Bos were withdrawn and scrapped in the late 1960s whilst TOPS came later in the early-mid 1970s. Please don’t forget to mention me in your replies. Cheerio! Slender (talk) 10:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The decision to use TOPS was taken in the late 60's and it was at this point that the class numbering system was devised (1-99 for locomotives, 100-199 for DMUs, etc.) in around 1969. At this point every class that then existed (including MetroVicks, as D5705 was still in service with Derby Research) was given a number.  Those that had all been retired did not. Black Kite (talk) 10:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Whilst the TOPS computer system didn't go into full use until the early 1970s, preparation for it had gone on for some time. The class numbers were devised during 1968; there's a list published in the September 1968 issue of Railway Magazine, and the 1969 edition of "British Rail Locomotives and Other Motive Power combined volume" shows class numbers for locomotives, but not multiple-units. Classes that were represented only by Departmental locomotives did not get TOPS classifications until some years later, when class 97 was introdicuced for these. The renumbering scheme for locomotives was devised later, being issued in January 1973 and implemented soon after, although it took about three years to complete.
 * As regards Class 28, these were withdrawn between December 1967 and September 1968, and since the TOPS classification scheme was prepared whilst some were still in service, it was natural for a class number to be allotted, although none would later be renumbered (this was also the case with several other classes). So the fact that D5705 was placed in Class 28 was nothing to do with being a departmental loco (it was transferred to the Research Department following withdrawal in September 1968) but because it was still in capital stock when the list was prepared. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * More information. The first list of TOPS loco classes was prepared in late 1967 and issued in July 1968, it was revised at least twice. The renumbering of electric locos was prepared from Feb 1971, issued 1 Oct 1971, renumbering actually commenced in Nov 1971 with 76050 (ex-E26050), and was completed in Aug 1975 with 81010 (ex-E3012). The renumbering of diesel locos was prepared later, issued 1 Jan 1973, renumbering commenced in Mar 1973 with 45101 (ex-96), and was completed in Dec 1975 with 45071 (ex-125). Most renumbering was carried out between Sep 1973 and Apr 1975. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed. There are also extant (I have a huge number in my possession back in the UK) of various society spotters books, magazines etc with the progressive TOPS renumbering. I dont suppose scans and uploads would be acceptable references though. GRALISTAIR (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Stonehaven derailment - final report published
For info, the RAIB have published their final report into the Stonehaven derailment. Mjroots (talk) 07:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)


 * 298 pages! Forgive me if I don't read it all at once. — Voice of Clam 09:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I read the synopsis, pretty damning. In my own role, the idea that an asset didn't make it into the asset management system, and so was never inspected, is pretty horrific. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There's some detailed coverage in Rail 953 and presumably next month's RM will have plenty to say. The report is Crown Copyright so I wonder if any if the images are available under the Open Government Licence? HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 10:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The RAIB reports page explicitly includes the statement "All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated" at the bottom. Does the Crown Copyright claim in the report itself override that? I suspect not and therefore I'd be inclined to hoover up some of the informative images in the report. 10mmsocket (talk) 10:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd say the opposite. The Crown Copyright in the report is document specific and overrides the generic OGL for the website, hence the website having the "unless otherwise stated" rider. Nthep (talk) 12:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Might be worth contacting them or the DfT's press people. I was under the impression that most things were supposed to be OGL these days, and some of the photos and diagrams would make useful additions to the Wikipedia article. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 12:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you are volunteering. Well done. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As the document says:"© Crown copyright 2022

You may re-use this document/publication (not including departmental or agency logos) free of charge in any format or medium. You must re-use it accurately and not in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and you must give the title of the source publication. Where we have identified any third party copyright material you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This document/publication is also available at www.gov.uk/raib."


 * It sounds reasonably flexible, but does it go far enough for Commons to be happy to accept the pictures, in terms of allowing downstream re-use? --Verbarson talkedits 13:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Those restrictions look to be equivalent to the Open Government License version 2 which Commons accepts as free. Probably worth checking there though. Thryduulf (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

therailwaycentre.com appears to be dead and taken over.
Checking www.therailwaycentre.com/Resource_data/AllTimeShedCodes.pdf for a citation at Bletchley TMD, I reached a site that doesn't look right. I have changed this citation to say url-status=dead but other articles need checking too, I suspect. According to duses we have over 250 citations of it. Direct access to www.therailwaycentre.com/ redirects to some commercial site; the link to AllTimeShedCodes.pdf invites you download who knows what. According to whois, the domain: Hours of fun for anyone who enjoys that sort of thing. "I'm out". --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Expires On 2022-11-04
 * Registered On 2014-11-04
 * Updated On 2021-11-03


 * Actually, that's now a dangerous link as it redirects to install an app on your phone if you access it from a mobile browser. We need to get it blocked/blacklisted as a matter of urgency. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Added a request at the blacklist. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You beat me to it, thank you. So is there a way of marking all 250+ references with Dead link without actually having to edit them - is there a dead link bot we can utilise? 10mmsocket (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Requested bot assistance at Link rot/URL change requests (seems to be [one] of the right places to ask) 10mmsocket (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:URLREQ is the correct place for usurpation requests (see also WP:USURP to get there). Blacklisting has downsides best reserved for special cases such as active spammers using IP hopping. -- Green  C  22:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If the website has been taken over then you want to set the status as "usurped" rather than "dead" so we don't actually link to it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @10mmsocket If you add the site to the blacklist, then it would make it hard to replace with archived versions because all web.archive.org links have the original URL in them. The solution is to provide an archive-url, not to remove the sources. Rlink2 (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Is this http://www.railway-centre.com/ the website everyone is referring to? Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 18:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, it would still be possible to add the relevant entries from archive.org to the whitelist. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, but perhaps it should be? It's not just a "typo squat" given the missing "the" as well as the hyphen – but the 'signage' looks like that used in the archived version of the original site, so could be a resurrection "under new management"? However, http://www.railway-centre.com/Resource_data/AllTimeShedCodes.pdf gets a 404, so definitely not the same thing as it stands. So at least right now, that rules out getting a bot to sneakily change the domain in all the citations.  --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I doubt that anyone interested will miss it but just in case: arising from discussion above, GreenCbot is changing (or has changed) the citations of that cite to url-status=usurped. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)