Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Coordinates in route articles

This discussion is from the Night Riviera article. It raises the question of whether is reasonable to include coordinates in a route map, whether they should be in separate table, or are irrelevant to this sort of article. As this is also done in some other articles, and some people go around tagging pages as "coordinates missing", this could be a discussion which impacts a lot of articles.
You can compare the version with coordinates and the version without coordinates.

The removal of the geo. corordinates, in my mind, reduces the usefulness of this page. They allowed a user to switch to Google or Bing and see all the stations laid out in their geographical context. This is exactly what the {{kml}} was designed for: inside a section with a list or table of features. Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, but this is not "a list", or "a table of features". It is a route template diagram. A map. A map that is currently swamped by lots numbers that are not immediately usable, except via clicking in some other box, lower down the page. If coordinates really need to be in the article then it would be preferable to find another location to hide them out of the way. At the moment it distracts from the core purpose of the route map.
Wikipedia is about creating high-quality articles that stand on their own. If this article is printed, then the numbers cease to be useful because the (separate, hidden) {{kml}} link (hidden linking to the separate website does not work when printed). If a person wishes to find out the coordinates of the Penzance railway station, then the coordinates are already contained within that article. Simply duplicating information contained elsewhere merely introduces maintenance issues. —Sladen (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support removal distracting, consumes space, info is already in station articles, or should be. It's little effort to wikilink the stations. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support tabulation - I can see another argument involving User:Pigsonthewing coming this way. My view is that the coordinates should be tabulated separately from the map. Don't even consider removing them completely from the article lest you want an edit-war with the geo-coords people (they are a sensitive bunch). Bhtpbank (talk) 15:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support removal -- this is an article about a train/service, not a route. I have been persuaded that geotagging WP articles is a good idea, since it is then possible for articles about places to appear in external mapping applications automatically. That is not the case here. If the coords are to be kept, they should be placed in a collapsible section/table. That they might not appear in a printed version is no great loss to the article. EdJogg (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support removal as per reasons given above. Lamberhurst (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support removal of coordinates from the route diagrams. They should be inserted into the article in a separate section on the stations on the line, per the Chemin de Fer de la Baie de Somme article. Mjroots (talk) 07:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Timetable World

I'd like to add links to an external site (timetableworld.com) from each UK stations page and, in future, from various route-specific and railway-company-specific pages. Timetable World has obtained copyright release from Network Rail to reproduce complete timetable scans. Although the scans are free-to-use (as is the whole site) they are not the public domain, and consequently cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia (and are quite large too). I started creating links but these were quickly reverted. However, look at the page Clarkston_railway_station to see what I'm trying to do.

Is this usage appropriate? And, if so, how should I progress with adding the links? Shawmat (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just tried it from Clarkston railway station and the site shows a table with five rows, none are for a current timetable: the most recent is Dec 2007. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I can see what's intended but I'm not sure it works quite as it should. I tried Skipton and got five t/t from 1948 to 2007. But the first scan, from 1948, is not mapping a route just all the stations mentioned on the page many of which are connection departure/arrival points. That's not a route map in my mind. Personally I find the scans overly large and require a lot of scrolling across the screen as well as up and down. Finally I note that on the timetableworld home page is this 'news' item:-
"Wikipedia is an important source of reference information about stations, lines and historical railway companies. Wikipedia's open-edit model encourages subject-matter experts to contribute pages, and the English-language page count has now passed 3 million. Timetable World is in the process of adding external links to Wikipedia that will enable users to land at the most suitable page on our site."
which to me smacks of spamming. NtheP (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I do take NtheP's point about spamming: the form of the external link on the Clarkston article is rather too much like advertising to me (Historical timetables, maps and satellite imagery for Clarkston railway station. See Timetable World - The online collection of historical transport timetables and maps from around the world). That said, it seems like a potentially useful resource, provided they are reproducing materials with permission (linking to material which violates copyright is against the external links guidelines). --RFBailey (talk) 01:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly true that Timetable World contains no current timetables - that's deliberate, because it is supposed to be a historical resource. NtheP's comment about routes is also partially valid, because the historical map for the whole UK is not yet finished. But by following the 1948 timetable links for Clarkston, you CAN see its route. I can confirm to RFBailey that materials are reproduced WITH permission.

So, would a link that just said (Historical timetables, maps and satellite imagery for Clarkston railway station.) address the spamming concern?

Shawmat (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still have serious reservations. I remain against adding it as an external link to every station article. The same argument for adding the link to every article could be used for saying that a link to the National Rail Journey Planner ought to be added to every article (about an open station) so readers can look up current services from the station. NtheP (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm undecided about Timetable World but I don't think the comparison with the National Rail Journey Planner really stands up. We do link to the National Rail website for every open station, via links in the infobox. Adambro (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
fair point, I'd forgotten that. I still don't see what Timetable World offers other than scans of a few old timetables. The mapping I think is poor as I suspect with the timetables having gone through OCR it takes all the names and plots them onto a map - it's not a route map but a map of placenames on a page. NtheP (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
This smells distinctly spammy to me. I don't want to see a link to 'Timetable World' on every railway station article. A single link from the Public transport timetable article might be justified, but that's about all, in my view. –Signalhead < T > 20:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Adambro that it's not reasonable to compare Timetable World with the National Rail links: that latter is likely to be of use to a larger number of readers than just railway enthusiasts. Also, the Timetable World database at present seems rather haphazard and limited in scope: there are tinetables from around 2007ish, and scattered examples from the late 1940s/early 1950s. Also, care needs to be taken: for instance, I looked at the entry for Tipton; the recent timetable is for the current (former LMS) station, while there is an early 1950s timetable for the former OWW/GWR station. Perhaps Shawmat can tell us if Timetable World's collections will be increasing in size in the near future? --RFBailey (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Timetable World is still at an early stage, having been launched only in May 2009, but you do have to start somewhere. And I do think a lot has been achieved in six months.

So, my aim has been to get a complete set of timetables from late 40's indexed and uploaded (the start of nationised BR) and a historical map produced. The timetables are done, indexing is half-done and the historical map preparation is well under way, but only available for one timetable (Scotland 1948). I want to complete this work before adding more timetables, but I am currently working with two organisations to provide more (and rarer) material.

My idea is to add links from Wikipedia for those areas where the indexing is complete. When the indexing is fully complete, it then become easier/quicker to add additional material, and there shouldn't be anything more to do to bring the additional material to a Wikipedia audience. Shawmat (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This is potentially a very useful source of information which would help to more accurately identify the historical services which used to serve existing and disused stations. It's clearly not WP:SPAM as timetableworld is not selling any products as such, nor would a link mainly serve to promote the site. However, as others have pointed out, the range of timetables on offer is currently quite limited; perhaps the answer would be to link from only those station articles for which there are at least say two BR or earlier timetables? The mapping definitely needs to be improved though. Lamberhurst (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Lamberhurst. I agree that 2+ timetables should exist before a link would be inserted - in fact, there are 3 for the Clarkston example mentioned above, from 1948, 1963 and 2007. You only see a few rows because it is not a junction. And I'd encourage people to look at the historical mapping available for the Scotland 1948 timetable, which shows the path as well as stations. One thing the historical mapping doesn't do is show connections with other/untimetabled lines, because the data volumes in Google Maps would degrade performance too much. However, once the historical mapping is complete, I'll release it as a KMZ file that can be viewed in Google Earth. Scotland is done, and looks great in Google Earth, but I do want to finsih the UK before releasing it. Shawmat (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom

This article attracts a variety of [what I consider] trivial incidents which are unreferenced and [I believe] not notable. I would like to establish some guidelines; accordingly I have started a discussion at Talk:List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom#Criteria for inclusion. I have also informed the non-IP users who have contributed to that article during the last six months. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Links to places

I am under the impression that railway articles which mention places in the context of a route or line should, in general, link to the station article rather than to the town article. By this I mean that we would use 

{{stnlnk|Aylesbury}} to [[Rugby Central railway station|Rugby]]

and not 

[[Aylesbury]] to [[Rugby]]

I'm sure that I've seen it documented somewhere - but where? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Route diagram template#Hints --AlisonW (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
That says to link to the station, not the town. Mjroots (talk) 04:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough for open lines but when discussing reopening disused routes, taking for example "a new line following the former GCML alignment between Rugby and Aylesbury", would not linking Rugby to Rugby Central (rather than the town itself) presuppose that station's reopening and breach WP:CRYSTAL? Lamberhurst (talk) 08:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
That's different, if there's no station to link to, so the town is fine until the line is under construction. Mjroots (talk) 09:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Charles Fryatt

The Charles Fryatt article, previously a copyvio, has been deleted and rewritten from scratch. As such, it now needs (re)assessment. Mjroots (talk) 09:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Miniature Schools class?

Schools class loco?

I'm trying to accurately caption this photo (left), taken on The Orchid Line, Isle of Man, last month. The model is obviously of a Southern Railway loco, and carries the number and name 30940 St Leonards. I had assumed when I saw it that it was a Schools class, but according to this list, this class was only numbered up to 30939. So is this a Schools with a fictitious number and name, or was there another class of loco which started at 30940? —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 23:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It's fairly common practice to extend numbering sequences with fictitious names, etc (A1 Tornado springs to mind, but there are many others). I've asked Bulleid Pacific, our resident Southern loco expert, for comment, but he hasn't edited this week, so he may not answer quickly. EdJogg (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
The SR class were named after schools in the region, with a few extras. St Leonards School appears to be a girls' school in Scotland, so I would guess the name of the model refers to that nondescript place sandwiched between Bexhill and Hastings, East Sussex, and is "fictitious". Ning-ning (talk) 10:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Besides "Tornado", there's a GWR "Saint" under construction at Didcot which will be given the hitherto-unused number 2999, see GWR 2900 Class#Preservation. It's also common practice in the modelmaking fraternity to use the "next unused" number for a loco which you want to model, but also wish to apply a favourite name to, which was not borne by any actual member of the class.
It's a bit difficult proving a negative, but 30 years of study show me where to look for numbers that did exist. The highest number used by the LSWR was 773, which would have become BR 30773 (had it not been renumbered to 733 by the SR to release the number for a new "King Arthur"); so all higher numbers (up to 30999) must have been allotted by the SR, which limits the books to check through. I have looked in a reprint of the 1948 ABC Combined Volume, and also these:
  • Bradley, D.L. (1975). Locomotives of the Southern Railway. Vol. Part 1. London: Railway Correspondence and Travel Society. ISBN 0 901115 30 4. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  • Haresnape, Brian (1977). Maunsell Locomotives: a Pictorial History (1st ed.). Shepperton: Ian Allan. ISBN 0 7110 0743 8.
and for numbers in the block 30900-30999 we have the following:
--Redrose64 (talk) 11:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - that confirms what I suspected. I've captioned the photo accordingly. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 12:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Late as usual, but I concur that 30940 is a fictitious number for a Schools class locomotive. Although this is conjecture, it is probably named either after the shed of the same name (several of the class was based there), or St. Leonards-Mayfield School in East Sussex. The only problem with that is that the Southern was not given to naming their locomotives after girls' schools, so its probably the former. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I thought that the next member of the class was to be named St Trinian's. Mjroots (talk) 07:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Also late, but in Bradley (mentioned above), on page 28 I find that twenty Schools were ordered in March 1932 (at a time when engines previously built or ordered ran from 900 to 929), but this order was subsequently reduced to ten, nos. 930-939. Bradley does not state the numbers of the cancelled engines - one can surmise that these would have been 940-949; but I'm afraid that is WP:OR. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Notability Q

OK, I know that generally PMVs are not notable, but I think there may be an exception to this. I'm a little reluctant to create an article and risk an AfD on it so I'm running this past the WP first.

The PMV in question was a prototype. It carried the bodies of three Wiki-notable people. The vehicle has been preserved, and is currently the subject of a restoration appeal.

Given the above, would you say that there was sufficient notability to sustain a stand-alone article? Mjroots (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you be a bit more specific? That would probably enable a more useful discussion. Adambro (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
We have many articles specific to one particular type of coaching stock - or NPCCS - why are you afraid of AfD for a PMV article? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
To be perfectly clear, the article would be about an individual vehicle. SECR PMV No.132, not a type or class of PMV. See Rolling stock of the Kent & East Sussex Railway (heritage) for a brief history.
This looks promising. What other sources are there? Adambro (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
There's the Vintage Carriages Trust webpage and the K&ESR webpage online. Mjroots (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

What is a PMV? Simply south (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Parcels and Miscellaneous Van. Mjroots (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Simply south (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Generally speaking, a PMV is a four-wheel van without end doors. If there are end doors, it's a CCT (Covered Carriage Truck); and a CCT on bogies is a GUV (General Utility Van). However, the term GUV has been applied to all three groups - it's largely down to the individual railway's preference. The van concerned is mentioned at:
  • Jenkinson, David (1988). "Chapter 14: 'They also served'". British Railway Carriages of the 20th Century - Volume 1: The end of an era, 1901-22. Guild Publishing. p. 233. CN 8130.
  • Gould, David (1992). "Chapter 4: 4-wheeled Luggage Vans". Southern Railway Passenger Vans. Headington: The Oakwood Press. p. 31. ISBN 0 85361 4288. X50.
  • Tatlow, Peter (2000). Jenkinson, David (ed.). Historic Carriage Drawings - Volume Three: Non-Passenger Coaching Stock. York: Pendragon. pp. 40–41. ISBN 1 899816 09 7.
  • King, Mike (2003). "Chapter 12 - Luggage Vans and 'Covcars'". An Illustrated History of Southern Coaches. Hersham: Oxford Publishing Co. p. 183. ISBN 0 86093 570 1. 0304/A2. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
SR Diagram 960 covered SECR nos. 132,121-125/36-150/2-5/7/8/60-3/6-70/2-5/7/9-82 (built 1919, 1921-2) which became SR nos. 1972-2016. More were built by the SR to a slightly modified design, Diagram 3103. My suggestion: get together an article covering both of these, and have a special section on no. 132/1972. King actually uses the term "'Nurse Cavell' vans" when referring to the 45 ex-SECR vans (ie Dia. 960). --Redrose64 (talk) 23:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, plenty of sources available on the general diagram. What about creating this in the article incubator and working it up there? Mjroots (talk) 06:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Go for it, post the link here and I'll see what can be done to add backgrund on the type in general; I have very little on no. 132 specifically. So I see the following possibilities:
  • Article on no. 132 alone - difficult to justify, unless there is a lot of information on the three funerals
  • Article on SECR 32 ft Luggage Vans (SR Dia. 960); this is the minimum that I think should be covered by the proposed article
  • Article on both Dia. 960 and SR Parcels and Luggage Vans (PMV) built 1934-1951 to Dia. 3103
  • As above but include Dia. 3105 (plastic bodied PMV built 1943-4)
  • As above but include CCTs (known as Utility Van, "COVCAR" or "VAN U" by the SR) built 1928-1955 to Dia. 3101
  • As above but include 4-wheel Brake Vans ("VAN C") built 1936-1941 to Dia. 3091, 3092 and 3094 - possibly too broad

--Redrose64 (talk) 13:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The article incubator can be found at WP:INCUBATE. An alternative is to create a user subpage and work on the article there. Mjroots (talk) 13:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Re the above comments, "SE&CR Diagram 960 PMV" would seem a good title. Article to cover SE&CR Dia. 960 and SR Dia. 3103. The Cavell van to have its own section. Another section could cover other survivors - K&ESR has one, body at Bodiam station, underframe re-used for a 4w carriage. Mjroots (talk) 14:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll make a start as Wikipedia:Article Incubator/SE&CR Diagram 960 PMV. If you can contribute to the article please feel free to do so. Mjroots (talk) 14:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's a good title; 960 was the SR diagram number for the SE&CR design, not the SE&CR diagram; whilst PMV was the BR operators code. If including Dia. 3105, it's misleading to specify 960 in the title; so "SR 4-Wheeled Luggage Vans" covers all. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Final title can be sorted out later, and be discussed on the Incubator article's talk page. I've made a start, adding what details I can. Mjroots (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Fixed your link. Is there an article on all these types of carriages? Simply south (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The nearest we've got is the General Utility Van article. Mjroots (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Great North Eastern Railway (Alliance Rail)

Nominated for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great North Eastern Railway (Alliance Rail). Thanks. Adambro (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion concluded with a decision to merge to the as-yet-non-existent Alliance Rail, along with Great North Western Railway. Fences&Windows 15:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

2 things

Other projected companies

Looking at the deletion above has made me wonder about the future of what to do with Glasgow Trains, First Harrogate Trains and Humber Coast & City Railway, especially as there seems to be little new info on these. Simply south (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Humber & Glasgow would seem to fall foul for the same reasons as the Alliance Rail articles. First Harrogate is slightly different as it was a definite proposal that failed. Whether it meets WP:N is debateable. NtheP (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
There have however been proposals of a new company from Blackpool to Glasgow but I'm not sure whether that falls under this company. The proposal for that company still appears on the Renaissance Trains website although the other one seems to have disappeared. Due to this i am going to put Humber Coast up for deletion. Simply south (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
It might be better to have an article about Proposed open-access train operating companies in Great Britain where we could merge all these articles to. If an when any get lots of information or get approval they could then be spun out into separate articles. Thryduulf (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support that suggestion. Gather all the crud into one basket, check through for goodies later. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

An interesting idea, we should perhaps first establish an inclusion criteria if we went down this route to avoid it becoming an ever growing list of fantasies. An inclusion criteria for open access proposals could be a way of considering whether to have an individual article rather than combining all into one article. An application to the ORR, a successful application perhaps? Adambro (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think more useful would be criteria that defined a sliding scale of notability, whereby proposals are assessed and their 'score' determines what coverage they get - no coverage / mention in a list / coverage as part of a larger article / standalone article. See also WP:AIRCRASH and its (now mostly archived) talk for the guidelines for air accidents and incidents that I played a major part in developing that operates on the same philosophy. File:Notability pyramid.svg is a visual summary of this philosophy.
Regarding what the criteria should be, then as a first draft of my opinion -
  1. Running trains - definitely notable enough for a standalone article
  2. Permission received to run trains - notable enough for a standalone article in almost all cases
  3. An application made and being taken seriously by DfT - coverage on Wikipedia merited, probably as a section in a larger article, but possibly stand alone if there is a lot of encyclopaedic information about it.
  4. Application rejected after serious consideration - as previous
  5. Application dismissed out of hand - a section at most, possibly just mention in a list
  6. Application made but no information known about how seriously it is being taken - unlikely more than a section, perhaps not even that depending how seriously reliable secondary sources like the railway press are taking it
  7. No application made but significant coverage in reliable secondary sources - most likely just a section
  8. No application made, proposal is not new and is not getting significant attention, probably just a list entry
  9. Fairly new proposal, but has some detail and appears to be being taken seriously. List entry or section
  10. Proposal with little detail, but which is verifiable in reliable secondary sources and more than just 'floating an idea' to see how it is received - list entry only in most cases probably
  11. Proposal verifiable in reliable secondary sources but is little more than an idea - at most an entry in a list
  12. Proposal not verifiable in reliable secondary sources - no coverage anywhere (this should be non-negotiable per WP:V).
  13. Proposals that are verifiable, but which are not being taken seriously / clearly wont be going further / just an idea / nothing more than a call by a campaign group - no entry in this list, a mention on the article about the proposer, route, stations that would be served if it happened, and/or the rolling stock proposed to be used, if local consensus supports it. Inclusion or non-inclusion of one such idea should probably not be used as precedent for the (non)inclusion of a different one.
I want to stress this is a largely off-the-top-of-my head first suggestion based on my largely unthought-through opinion. It is here for comment and discussion not supporting/opposing. The numbering is solely for ease of reference when discussion them. 00:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
One thing that tends to happen is that many of the different proposals for a new open access operator are through one of a handful of companies, some of which (e.g. Grand Central) are already operating trains, while others aren't. For instance, the First Harrogate Trains proposal was really an offshoot of the pre-existing First Hull Trains. It perhaps makes sense to have articles for companies such as Renaissance Trains, Alliance Rail, etc., but not for individual proposals such as the Humber Coast one. Certainly, we don't need individual articles for some of the half-baked, never-going-to-happen-in-a-million-years proposals (the "ever growing list of fantasies" Adambro is referring to) that some of these companies seem to be proposing (e.g. ones that go against moderation of competition on the WCML, need extra line capacity on the ECML that doesn't exist, or would just never attract enough passengers). I think the above hierarchy is inherently sensible.
On a different note, articles deemed unnecessary should be merged and left with a redirect, rather than deleted. --RFBailey (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, now that we have the newly-merged Alliance Rail article, I suggest: (i) merging Glasgow Trains and Humber Coast & City Railway into the Renaissance Trains article; (ii) merging Grand Union Railway and Grand Northern Trains into the Grand Central Railway article; and (iii) merging First Harrogate Trains into the First Hull Trains article. Any comments/suggestions? --RFBailey (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Agree with all, in particular (ii) which I've been thinking about doing for some time now since it has become clear that the Grand Northern services will operate under the Grand Central banner. Adambro (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think this is a good idea. Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'll try and get to work on it when I get a chance--unfortunately real world commitments have to take priority at the moment! --RFBailey (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Gogar Interchange

Could i have help with sifting through the legal waffle for info on Gogar station? Also please see Talk:Gogar railway station. Simply south (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you might have answered your own question on the article talk page. Leave things as they stand and wait until it's been decided officially what the new name will be and change the articlke name then. You could add into the article now that the name is still up for grabs. NtheP (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Even if we wait until the signs have actually been nailed to the lamposts it might not be the end of it - I lived in Bolton when Lostock Parkway [where?] was opened. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I am also having trouble finding out whether it has been approved and the new system (what was the old one?) seems complicated from what I've read. Simply south (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Piped links

We have a user User:NE2 who is removing a lot of piped links, with edit summary "Fixed an improper bypassing of a redirect (see WP:R2D) or otherwise cleaned using AWB". Often this is of no consequence because a suitable redirect does exist; however in several cases one or more of the following is happening:

I'm sure that I came across one where the meaning of the article text is changed, but cannot find it again. What do others think? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)#

technically he's correct as per WP:EGG hovever it might be a bit over zealous and his arguement about LMR of BR as opposed to BR is weak IMO. The East Gloucstershire link in the Brize Norton article was valid as the EGR is a section in the Oxfrod, Witney & Fairford article i.e. where the link was pointing. Accepted that the section itself wasn't linked but to suggest that a redirect is created for EGR to point to this section is a bit OTT. NtheP (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I see that you've fixed up Brize Norton and Bampton railway station; that was just an example - there are several others (inc most [all?] stations btwn Oxford and Fairford). I guess the easiest to do is to create redirects to sub for those redlinks. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
either that or as I did use the full section link. Redirect has the one advantage that if anyone does write an article on the EGR then the links are all there. One thing I forgot to say earlier is that technically correct as NE2 is I think he's under a moral duty to improve wikipedia by his edits, not deduct from its content just to comply with MOS and on that I think he fails. NtheP (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I considered doing what you did: but I came across several edits like this which demonstrate that full section links are not immune either. So I created redirect pages for Witney Railway and for East Gloucestershire Railway which now have 19 incoming links between them, ie 19 redlinks created by User:NE2. I'm considering doing similar to fix up all the redlinks which have sprung up in articles that used to point at Stratford-upon-Avon and Midland Junction Railway but unfortunately that has no suitable section headings. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Additional:

--Redrose64 (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

User NE2 is an experienced editor and a frequent contributor / thread starter at the parent Trains wikiproject. (I haven't examined most of these changes though.) Redirects to an article section are encouraged over redirects to the article head, on the basis that when the section is expanded, it can expand into the redirect page, and existing article links already point to the right place. If there are no suitable headings, you can always use the {{anchor}} template; but I would suggest that the arrival of a redirect requires a heading to be created for it. EdJogg (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

A railway station is a railway station

One thing that irritates me is any article that begins something like "Trumpton railway station is a railway station..." which is tautologous. I asked User:Twiceuponatime (talk) to justify this phraseology being added to many articles, and the response was "I have added that as I think it is important to have a link to railway station in the articles, otherwise there is no definition of the term. I do agree that it is clumsy; can you think of a better way of doing it?" Any suggestions? -- Dr Greg  talk  19:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I think it is unncessary (stating the ***** obvious); interestingly "Railway station" is a piped link to Train station (see section above). Perhaps at some later date all the affected articles will get changed to "Trumpton railway station is a train station...". That at least will remove the tautology, but is it sensible .....(comment not safe for family reading). Pyrotec (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to restate my position: I think it is important to have a blue link to the definition of railway station; the question then is how do we do it? I accept that my usage (see Chathill) is clumsy, but criticism without offering an alternative solution does not put us further forward. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion - the page you mention presently states:
Chathill railway station is a railway station that serves the village of Chathill ...
Although located on the East Coast Main Line, the station is served by ...
Try this:
Chathill railway station serves the village of Chathill ...
Although located on the East Coast Main Line, the station is served by ...
--Redrose64 (talk) 09:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Why not
Chathill railway station serves the village of Chathill ...
Although located on the East Coast Main Line, the station is served by ...
Slight alteration of Redrose64's alt2. Simply south (talk) 11:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I've been pulled up before about wikilinking the bolded part of the introductory sentence. I can't find anything definitive; but at MOS:BOLDTITLE, there is a section "Links", stating "Use as few links as possible before and in the bolded title". --Redrose64 (talk) 12:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I think it's this you're referring to; Wikipedia:Linking#General points on linking style third bullet point - "Links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead." The footnote which I haven't copied over explains why. NtheP (talk) 12:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. The Chathill suggestion is good - put the link in the second sentence. I was trying too hard to make the articles start Article name is a blue link. Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

We don't have "train stations" in the UK. They are railway stations and have been since the first railways opened in the early 19th century. Any useage of "train station" in UK-related articles should be removed on sight. Mjroots (talk) 03:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines are pretty clear

Basically the blue link to railway station is not right - Please see Wikipedia:MOSLINK#Principles - two mistakes that everyone makes at first are shown above, these are:

  • Links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead
    • Also note: "When possible, avoid placing links next to each other so that they look like a single link" - this is a common errro too eg "Diesel Locomotive" is not a good idea. 83.100.138.149 (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
      • (i) We already mentioned not linking in the bolded text; (ii) There are no adjacent links in the above section. Where do you see it done? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
i. The MOS says "do not" going beyond just "avoid links in bold text" ii. Nowhere. Just thought I'd mention it.83.100.138.149 (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Have checked; and your first bullet point is just the same as that given by NtheP at 12:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, a duplicate point.83.100.138.149 (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "avoid linking terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia" - this is another common error - in other words - no link is needed to "railway station" - people basically know what a railway station is.83.100.138.149 (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
with the link from railway station being to train station, that's not necessarily a valid assumption :-) NtheP (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

British Rail Class 21

(duplicated at Wikiproject railways) Can anyone give more info on the new Class 21 - the page currently suggests a redirect to MaK G1206 - but I can't find anywhere it says that any of these were given the TOPS classification 21 ? 83.100.138.149 (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The MaK / Vossloh G1206 article states this in the lead. Mjroots (talk) 07:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I added that - but I could onyl find the single source linked... I tried to find a more definitive answer from Network Rail but couldn't. Also it's not clear why they were in the UK. Anyone know?Shortfatlad (talk) 14:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that was the train which towed the Eurostars out of the Channel Tunnel yesterday.Likelife (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
The Eurostar rescue locos are Eurotunnel Class 0001 which look very similar. I think the "class 21s" have been painted EWS red (or Angel trains livery), or possibly ECR silver. Vossloh/Mak locomotives all look the same to me...Shortfatlad (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh ok, I had no idea what class number it was, I only got a quick look at it on BBC News.Likelife (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
All traction units (whether locomotives or otherwise) must be TOPS registered in order to work over tracks managed by Network Rail, no matter how rarely they might be used. It's likely that the above locos were so registered some months or years ago, just in case they were ever needed.
Preserved steam locomotives, certified for main-line running, also have TOPS numbers - but you won't see them on the outside, they are inside the cab, either on the left side-sheet or under the roof directly above. For example, Tornado bears the (fictitious) BR number 60163 on the outside, but the official TOPS number 98863 in the cab. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Of course, TOPS numbers weren't just carried by locomotives. Ships had them too! Mjroots (talk) 07:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Did TOPS also apply to flying saucers? Simply south (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, if they had constructed a working prototype which ran on the railway, possibly; but did APT-E have a TOPS number? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Class 370 I believe. Mjroots (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
No, that was the production version (electric). I'm thinking of the gas-turbine one which was tested first on the Old Dalby test track, and then on the WR main line between Reading and Swindon, circa 1976. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Probably classed as a departmental - nine hundred and something (other APT test vehicles and the HST prototypes also were), but http://www.departmentals.com/search.php doesn't give any results.Shortfatlad (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Salisbury to Exeter railway line

Can I ask for some expert help? Several editors are working to try to get River Parrett ready for FAC. It includes a comment that the river is crossed by the Salisbury to Exeter railway line and a reviewer has suggested this should be wikilinked. Several articles have been suggested including London and South Western Railway, Bristol and Exeter Railway, Southern Railway routes west of Salisbury & West of England Main Line but none of these seem quite right. The bridge is at N50:52:16 W2:45:19 ST469082 - what would be the best link for this line?— Rod talk 11:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

That is the West of England Main Line, near to Crewkerne railway station. That would be best if linking in more modern terms. Simply south (talk) 11:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - now linked.— Rod talk 12:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Can I ask about another one from the same article which says "Below Langport, the river is crossed by a lattice girder bridge, carrying the Taunton to Westbury railway line, which approaches the crossing on multi-arched viaducts". The bridge is at N51:02:30 W2:50:07 ST415272 & I#d like to know which line to link.— Rod talk 14:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The current article to use is the Reading to Plymouth Line. Simply south (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again.— Rod talk 17:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Crown Copyright

Do closure notices produced by British Railways come under Crown Copyright? Mjroots (talk) 10:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they would be, but whether the copyright protection remains in force might depend on the date of publication. My understanding is that Crown Copyright is generally limited to 50 years after publication. Adambro (talk) 11:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
That's what I thought. In which case I can upload a full size version of File:K&ESR closure poster.JPG to Commons as it is now copyright expired. Mjroots (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 Done. Mjroots (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Brent Cross Thameslink

A new section on the proposed new station, please comment here. Likelife (talk) 19:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Penrith railway station

Is Penrith called North Lakes or just Penrith?Likelife (talk) 12:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

According to National Rail Enquiries, plain "Penrith". See Talk:Penrith railway station. Further, how many stations does Penrith actually have? A suffix would surely be superfluous. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
When you hear Penrith in platform announcements I think what you get is "Penrith for North Lakes" which I suspect guards shorten to Penrith North Lakes. NtheP (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Have just checked Virgin's website (they manage the station) and most of the text says plain "Penrith", but the map "Penrith North Lakes". I do think that the station nameboards should be used for verification; but that would be WP:OR. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
A quick goole search for images shows platform nameboards showing just Penrith. NtheP (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Right Transpennine say "Penrith North Lakes" on there timetables [1] but on there network map just says "Penrith" doing the opposite to Virgin. Yes they don't manage the station but this is confusing.Likelife (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Also the nameboards look quite old, dating from BR days as stations on the MML have the same type meaning they may not be reliable. Oxenholme for example says Oxenholme The Lake District on the sign but the station is known as "Oxenholme Lake District" dropping "The" from the name.Likelife (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The wider issue here is what are stations actually called? The Virgin web page clearly uses both forms - Penrith and Penrith North Lakes. Is the longer version effectively just a brand name? And what about historic names that remain in use? Please excuse my violation of WP:NOR but at least one Northern Rail guard announces Carlisle as "Carlisle Citadel". I read in a railway magazine that someone had recently seen Kirkby Stephen still listed as Kirkby Stephen West in a current official document. So I guess the answer to "Is Penrith called North Lakes or just Penrith?" is that it depends what you mean by "called"! --Northernhenge (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

According to R.V.J. Butt (1995) it was opened by the London & North Western Railway, in December 1846, as "Penrith" but was renamed "Penrith for Ullswater" in May 1974 by British Railways Board. Pyrotec (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it doesn't. It says:
PENRITH L&NW
OP 17 December 1846 L&C; RN Penrith for Ullswater BR; RF Penrith for Ullswater 6 May 1974 BRB.
PENRITH for ULLSWATER BR
RF Penrith; RN Penrith 6 May 1974 BRB.
Which means that the station was opened by the Lancaster & Carlisle Railway on 17 December 1846; the last pre-grouping owner was the London & North Western; it was renamed to Penrith for Ullswater by British Railways (Railway Executive) at some unknown date (ie between 1 January 1948 and 30 September 1953, the dates between which both BR and the RE existed); and renamed again to Penrith on 6 May 1974 by the British Railways Board.
However, that's not the issue. The issue is, "what is the current official name of the station, and by extension, what should the article be titled - 'Penrith railway station', or 'Penrith North Lakes railway station'?". Butt cannot help for stations renamed after 31 December 1994 - 15 years ago. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if this is any help but WEST COAST ROUTE UTILISATION STRATEGY BASELINE EVENT MAY 2009 includes a WEST COAST RUS BASELINE OUTLINE MAP which says Penrith. In contrast, Oxenholme Lake District railway station is on the map with its long name. --Northernhenge (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Butt-Stations

Hi, any one know about the {{Butt-Stations}} template. I want to know if ref=harv can be added for linking to it from Harvard style references without causing problems for any existing article usage. Thanks. Keith D (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I would go further. I would add all the {{cite book}} parameters which are not already used by {{Butt-Stations}} (other than those for the web such as |url= and |accessdate=, and those which are irrelevant such as |edition=) in such a form that they can be passed by the article as required. This would be done by adding these additional items into {{Butt-Stations}}:
|page={{{page|}}} |pages={{{pages|}}} |quote={{quote|}}} |ref={{{ref|}}}
Thus an article might have {{Butt-Stations|ref=harv}} or {{Butt-Stations|page=123|quote=CL 1 January 1960 BR}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
While we're on the subject: why not do same for the other templates for "standard" works, which I have hitherto been avoiding because of their inflexibility? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
They are not inflexible, they were created to make life easier for editors that use those references. The page(s) option has already been added (a year ago?) to some templates, such as "Awdry-Rail-Co", and I've just added it to Butt-Stations. I've also just added "ref=harv" to Butt and I'll check you a few articles just make make sure that there are no problems. Pyrotec (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Granted that some do indeed have the |page= parameter, those that have neither this nor |ref= are inflexible if they don't allow the editor to direct the reader to the specific page. {{Awdry-RailCo}} has both |page= and |pages=, but doesn't allow |ref=, so cannot be used for two-stage referencing and still allow the link from short note to full ref.
Another type of inflexibility is exhibited by {{Rolt-Red}}. There are errors in that template: the first edition, for example, was Bodley Head 1955 not Pan Books 1960; there was no fifth edition - current printings are basically the second edition, in order to omit all the Kichenside material. Aside from that, using the template as it stands implies that either (a) the fact is mentioned in every single one of six versions (which for post-1960 accidents it cannot have been) or (b) the editor has personally checked all of those, which most cannot (for example I only own the fourth edition - David & Charles 1982).
The rules say that we should state where we found the material. If I want to add a ref about an accident, I will check the specific edition of Rolt that I possess, and I shall want to mention both that edition alone, and also give a page number appropriate to that edition. So I'm sorry, I shall not use {{Rolt-Red}} on grounds of inflexibility.
I have been setting up a database of my library, which will eventually list every book that I own (there are thousands, no kidding). For each one, it lists all relevant data (anything which {{cite book}} could utilise) for the edition which I actually possess. When I view the entry for a particular book, it constructs an appropriate {{cite book}} template, which shows in a pane that allows easy copy-and-paste. There are also blank |page= etc. and a pre-filled |ref=harv, which can easily be amended or removed as appropriate when I paste into an article. Saves me the bother of manually constructing every time, but here's the point: it's flexible. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with your comments in respect of templates with multiple editions - that was probably not the way to do it. I happen to have the 1986 Pan version of Red for Danger - the listed "accidents" do very for edition to edition; and it does confirm your comment about the first edtion (1955 - Bodley head). However, for the single-edition templates, I don't follow your argument, you could modify any or all of those templates, including adding "ref" to Awdry. They are all based on {{cite book}}, but with many of the fields absent. There is no need for a separate personal database. Pyrotec (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, what about a project subpage where all books are listed using the {{cite book}} template. Each individual edition can have it's own entry. Mjroots (talk) 07:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the change, I tweaked it to be lower-case, and now works OK on the article that had the problem. Keith D (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles names where county needs to be distinguished

What's the preferred form for naming articles where you need to insert the county to distinuish the location? Is it:-

a) Foo railway station, Anyshire, or
b) Foo, Anyshire, railway station.

NtheP (talk) 09:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Name railway station, County / Name railway station (County) Likelife (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Unless, the railway station has the county name within its title. The GWR used to have two Somerton stations: Somerton Oxon and Somerton (Somerset). The former definitely did not have brackets - I have seen a photo (Mitchell, Vic; Smith, Keith (2003). Didcot to Banbury. Western Main Lines. Midhurst: Middleton Press. Figure 89. ISBN 1 904474 02 0. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)), but I don't know about the latter. There are at least two pairs of present-day cases: Adlington (Cheshire) and Adlington (Lancs); Gillingham (Dorset) and Gillingham (Kent). --Redrose64 (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
There's also Clapham (North Yorks) which is partnerless directly but distinguished from Clapham Junction and Clapham High Street. NtheP (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree that if a station is, or was, officially known as "Foo (Anyshire)" then the article name should be "Foo (Anyshire) railway station". But if the official name is/was simply "Foo" and disambiguation is required, then I think the article name ought to be "Foo railway station, Anyshire".
But there is a question of how to determine the official name. Many reference books refer to historical station names in the form "Foo (Anyshire)" or "Foo (GWR)", but it's not clear whether that really was the official name, or just that book's own disambiguation convention. I think in the very early days of railways there was no official disambiguation, and it was quite common to have more than one station with the same name, sometimes even within the same town (on different lines). -- Dr Greg  talk  19:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think if the station was known by the bracketed title at some point then it's ok. Grouping and then Nationalisation took care of lots as the new owners realised they needed to differentiate. The Foo (owner) situation is more difficult as I can't think of any examples where the owners did this off their own bat, and why should they, they were looking to promote their own station over any one else's. Take for example Launceston, I can't recall seeing any examples other than history books that refer to Launceston (SR) & Launceston (GWR). The two companies own documents just mention Launceston perhaps with a footnote in public timetables that it was a 5 minute walk to the other station. As we're in the position of the historians here I think might be unavoidable in some cases to use Launceston (SR) or Launceston (GWR) as long as the article makes it clear that the title is an artificial construct solely for the purposes of differentiation (which reminds me I've named an article as such and not made it clear in the article - must go and fix it). NtheP (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

In the case of Launceston, shouldn't we go by the company that opened the station - Launceston (LSWR)? Mjroots (talk) 06:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Please could people look at WT:TWP#Removal of WikiProject London Transport as a sub-project or part of the banner? Simply south (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


Cranbrook and Paddock Wood Railway

I've been bold and redirected the Cranbrook and Paddock Wood Railway article to the Hawkhurst Branch Line article. The C&PW article was an unreferenced stub, whereas the Hawkhurst Branch Line article is well developed and referenced, and currently nominated for GA status. I didn't see the point in going through the WP:MERGE process with this one. If anyone has any serious objections to my action I am willing to discuss it here. Mjroots (talk) 12:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Deltic names

Resolved
 – Redrose64 (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

As is well known (and documented, by the RCTS among others), the LNER named many of its 4-6-2 tender locos after racehorses. As is also well known, their successors, the Deltics, consisted of 22 locomotives, 14 of which were named after Army regiments; the other eight, the Finsbury Park allocation, were named after racehorses. In the British Rail Class 55 article, these names are all linked to the article on that specific regiment or racehorse.

I found that only four of the eight racehorse articles (Ballymoss, Crepello, St. Paddy and Tulyar (horse)) had links pointing back to the Deltic article; so I added them to the other four. Of these, two (Meld (horse) and Pinza) remain, whilst two (Alycidon and Nimbus V) were reverted by a user in Australia, because they are not referenced. I can find heaps of books which list Deltic names (20+ editions of the Ian Allan ABC for a start); but he wants evidence that it is these specific horses that the locos were named after; in particular, there have apparently been several racehorses named Nimbus; but the fact that this particular Nimbus had won the Derby just a few years earlier, and Derby winners feature prominently in the LNER tradition, makes it the most likely candidate. Does anybody know of a suitable source which gives more than (a) the loco names and (b) the bare statement "the ER chose the names of racehorses" (Haresnape, Brian (1984) [1982]. 3: Production Diesel-Electrics Types 4 and 5. British Rail Fleet Survey (2nd ed.). Shepperton: Ian Allan. p. 44. ISBN 0 7110 1450 7. CX/0684. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)). --Redrose64 (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I now have the sources required, and when I have finished (later this afternoon) all eight articles will have three relevant references. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

British Rail Class 60

Request for help - the figures for continuous tractive effort just don't seem to add up (multiply) - see the talk page for details - is it me, or a typo, or what.?—Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 19:44, 21 February 2009

I agree that the quoted figure is impossible because it exceeds the engine power output (see Talk:British Rail Class 60). I don't know where this exaggerated figure originated but it has appeared in various printed publications. Biscuittin (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
All I can think of is that rated power is much less than peak power (but run at peak power for too long and the engine soon breaks) - the tractive effort could be a peak figure - but..
Brush has a data sheet [2] but this doesn't resolve the problem - no speed for continuous tractive effort..
I think it's an original typo - possibly someone mixed up the figures for mph and k/h - ie divide 2700kW by 1.6 and get a slightly more realistic figure (or something)

Humber Coast

Following up my previous idea, Should Humber Coast and City Railway be deleted? Simply south (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC) (note: comment on the deletion page) Simply south (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge into Renaissance Trains first. Otherwise delete.87.102.67.84 (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
ditto First Harrogate Trains - a railway that never ran is definately not a suitable subject for an encyclopedia - merge and delete.87.102.67.84 (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
A railway that never ran may be a suitable subject for an encyclopedia. See Category:Railways authorised but not built in the United Kingdom. Mjroots (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, thanks for correcting me, and pointing out that category - which I didn't know existed.
Obviously there's a difference in scope between new track (that wasn't built) and a few slots on the timtable of a extant railway :)
Amazingly the North Holderness Light Railway has a link to www.northeasterntilecompany.co.uk which still sells what I always wanted. Now I don't have to sneak into Beverley station with hammer and chisel - however I do need £3040 for the map - contributions (charitable) welcome.Shortfatlad (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation of British Rail Class xxx articles

From the discussion above it seems that there may be a way to disambiguate articles about the various British Rail Class articles where the class designation has been re-used.

Proposal

Where a class designator has been re-used, such articles shall be disambiguated by the year of introduction. Thus:-

Opening for discussion, please indicate whether you support or oppose the proposal, with rationale for such support or opposition. Mjroots (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Support as proposer. Disambiguation by year of introduction is a neutral way to do this. Mjroots (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Again the articles themselves would be a good place to start the discussion - also the class 70 articles already have an alternative naming proposal - is this a replacement?Shortfatlad (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
For something that is going to affect many articles, a centralised discussion is better. If consensus is gained, this will replace the current proposals for the Class 70s, as it would apply to all BR Class xxx articles that need disambiguation. Mjroots (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I would have to Oppose this proposal, for the moment at least. I don't think there is any real need to be consistent in the disambiguation term across rail articles. It is better in my view to consider an appropriate term on a case by case basis so the term is the most helpful in the particular context. Describing the more recent Class 43 as "British Rail Class 43 (HST)" is more meaningful than British Rail Class 43 (1975). I feel it is better to distinguish by features that people might associate with a locomotive than dates of introduction which I think will be less widely known, although of course the general time period will probably be known. Adambro (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support but with comment: the HSTs were introduced in 1976, not 1975 (the article is inconsistent and poorly referenced). Being Diesel though, it's low priority for me... --Redrose64 (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Aren't the current titles more appropiate for a wider range of people - in fact more closely matching th guidelines at Wikipedia:Naming conventions - and they are mostly(?) consistent being of the form "British rail class XX (common name)" - the odd one out is the electric class 70 which doesn't have a common name - but does that matter? Of the 5 key terms in the guidelines Recognizable, Easy to find, Precise, Concise, Consistent the current names totally match the first two, give precise disambuations for the third, are as consise as can be (4th), and 5th already mentioned above. Replacing "warship" with "1960" is a step backwards for the first two points, and not a genuine improvement on the others --
Though I like the idea - I don't think removing the common name from the article title can be justified.Shortfatlad (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Are there any other examples ?Shortfatlad (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, that sounds like a challenge!
--Redrose64 (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
aside there seem to be some missing info in the articles - it's clear that British Rail Class D20/2 and British Rail Class 43 (Warship Class) should mention and link to each other clearly (but don't) and possibly even be merged (very difficult to name though) Do people old enough to remember regard these as "warships" too.?
I've added to Warship (disambiguation) maybe the D20/2's should be in there too? Also I think the similarities between classes 42 and 43 (old) should be more clearly mentioned in the articles - perhaps it's time to consider using original class names, or even double names in article titles?Shortfatlad (talk) 01:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
ditto for the two "Class 05" - from the articles I can't find any mention of what you said above - that isn't mentioned either - for these I'd think a disambig page would be a good idea - and changing the article British Rail Class 05 to something else (what? earlier name) - I don't know enough to suggest the solution.Shortfatlad (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with Adambro that common names are better disambiguators than the year of introduction. Thryduulf (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Clarification This proposal would only apply to articles where a class designation has been re-used. For those classes where there has been no re-use, no disambiguator will be necessary. Mjroots (talk) 07:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- as per Adambro. The problem is possibly even more deep-rooted in the HST vs Warship debate. I knew the HSTs as Class 253 (or 254) when they were introduced, and the Warships as, well, Warships! It was only when I started editing here that there was any confusion!! Using dates as suggested will be acceptable, however, where there are no common names available. -- EdJogg (talk) 10:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Taking this aside

in response to Shortfatlad (above). In British Rail Class D2/5, look in the infobox, second section, the row titled "Class". Also see:

  • Cooke, B.W.C.; Dannatt, H.M., eds. (1968). "Locomotive Notes". Railway Magazine. 114 (809). London: Transport & Technical Publications. p. 565, Reclassification of B.R. locomotives. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  • Hope, D.A.; Mallaband, P.; Belton, G.; Lissenden, R.A. (1969). "B.R. Locomotive Classification". Locomotive Stock Book 1969 (15th ed.). Kenilworth: RCTS. p. 38. 05 0-6-0 Barclay/Gardner; 0-6-0 Hunslet/Gardner {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  • Strickland, D.C. (1983). D+EG Locomotive Directory. Camberley: Diesel & Electric Group. p. 40. ISBN 0 906375 10 X. BR Class DJ14, later D2/5, 2/12A, TOPS 05 (shared with Hunslet D2550+) {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  • Haresnape, Brian (1984). "15 Andrew Barclay 204hp 0-6-0 diesel-mechanical". 7: Diesel Shunters. British Rail Fleet Survey. Shepperton: Ian Allan. p. 50. ISBN 0 7110 1449 3. GE/1084. The TOPS classification of 05 was shared with the Hunslet 0-6-0s of the D2550 series. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

The earliest of these is Railway Magazine Sep 1968. Of interest are the following entries:

Diesel Shunting Locomotives
Class Type H.P. Number range
05 Barclay/Gardner (0-6-0)
Hunslet/Gardner		 204
204		 D2400-D2409
D2550-D2618
Diesel Main-Line Locomotives
21 N.B.L./M.A.N. 1,000
1,100		 D6100-
22 N.B.L./M.A.N./Voith 1,000
1,100		 D6300-D6357
43 N.B.L./M.A.N./Voith 2,200 D833-D865
Electric Locomotives
70 Southern Rly./E.E. 1,470 20001-20003

There is no mention of the D600-D604 series of Warships. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I've fixed up the disambiguation links to the "warship" articles - but made no text changes.
As for the "Class 05"s - I've suggested on the relevent talk page that the article be renamed, and altered the lead to link to the other class 05s. Despite the different manufacturers and parts suppliers does anyone know how similar the two types were internally - ie substantially the same design, or different enough not to be suitable for merging the articles?Shortfatlad (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Classes 03 and 04 had both a common engine (Gardner 8L3) and a common transmission (Wilson-Drewry CA5R7), but BR saw fit to segregate them. However, the two types bundled as Class 05 had the same engine (the Gardner 8L3 again) but different transmissions (Hunslet made their own, whilst Barclay bought in the Wilson SE4CA4 transmission).
The common engines are not grounds for merging, because the same engine was shared by several different shunter designs of the 1950s - including British Rail Class 03, British Rail Class 04, British Rail Class 05, British Rail Class 06 as well as a number of types which were extinct by Autumn 1968 (Haresnape lists British Rail Class D2/7 and British Rail Class D2/12 as sharing the Gardner 8L3 engine; these were extinct in Nov 1967 & Dec 1967 respectively).
Of the four TOPS classes, Class 06 was an 0-4-0, and classes 03 and 04 were relatively common; my belief (nb: WP:OR) is that class 05 was a sort-of "miscellaneous" class for all the less-common 0-6-0 types with the 8L3 engine. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Loco Engineer categories

Concerning the people variously titled "locomotive engineer, "locomotive superintendent" or "chief mechanical engineer".

We have Category:British railway mechanical engineers, Category:Locomotive builders and designers, Category:Locomotive superintendents and Category:Mechanical engineers, possibly others. Some of these are sub-categories of each other. Some engineers are in two or more of these, and I think some sort of rationalisation may be in order; see WP:SUBCAT and WP:DUPCAT. This may be a WP:CFD issue, but I would like opinions here first. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Some of those categories need a little further categorisation eg Category:Locomotive builders and designers currently has 143 members - which should be further categorised.
I found another Category:Rail transport designers whose members can probably be merged into the sub cats of "Category:Locomotive builders and designers" or "Category:Rail transport designers" or others - eg George Hudson I wouldn't really call a designer?
The cat Category:Locomotive superintendents seems to need splitting and merging into Category:British railway mechanical engineers, Category:Australian railway mechanical engineers etc. - that's the major change I'd make. Second thoughts rename to "Railway superintendents and chief mechanical engineers" - and possible split into subcats by railway or country.
Renaming these set of category articles seems like a positive step - we have "railway engineers", "mechanical engineers", "builders and designers" all as titles for the categories. I'd suggest "locomotive engineers and designers" as a generic (this would need to be taken to wikiproject:railways as it affects non-british articles), possibly some extra cats are required for "railway civil engineers".Shortfatlad (talk) 09:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I guess we want the people placed in subcategories of "railway designers and engineers by railway" as well- I'll hold off creating those categories in case the title(s) needs changing.Shortfatlad (talk) 10:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I would hold off until more consensus is reached here. Adding categories is easy, but deleting them involves a lot more process.
I think when these categories first appeared there was some discussion about content. (Worth a scan of the talk page archives -- look at 'What links here' from the category page to get some clues.)
You need to be very careful that you don't end up lumping a member of Category:Rail transport designers into a category for loco designers when their role was civil engineering, rolling stock design, signalling, architecture... The difference between "Chief Mechanical Engineer" and "Locomotive Superintendent" is a little less clear; a CME responsibilities, by implication, also encompassed rolling stock and everything else -- how widespread was use of this title? As for sub-divisions, go easy. It may be helpful to subdivide, if there's an obvious subdivision, but we don't want to end up with a categories with names like "Chief Mechanical Engineers of constituent companies of the London Midland and Scottish Railway" (besides, this is already covered by an appropriate list, which is far more useful here).
EdJogg (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Regarding George Hudson, the article states: "With George Stephenson he planned and carried out the extension of the Y&NMR to Newcastle" (emphasis mine), so that's how he gets into the Railway Designers category. -- EdJogg (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Very few railway engineers were both civil and mechanical engineers. Brunel tried to be; and whilst his bridges stand to this day, look at the horrors purporting to be "locomotives" that the GWR had to open their line with (North Star excepted, which was not Brunel's in any case). So the first consideration should be to segregate on those grounds.
Of mechanical engineers, the CME's responsibilities would appear to be broader than those of the loco supt; but very often a locomotive superintendent would have carriage and wagon responsibility as well, such as Gresley on the Great Northern (a railway which never used "Chief Mechanical Engineer" as a job title). I read somewhere (danger: WP:V) that the very first person to be accorded the title of Chief Mechanical Engineer was Aspinall on the Lancs & Yorks (14 July 1886). I don't want to segregate people on the grounds of their job title; as mentioned above, I would like to distinguish those whose primary duties were in railway mechanical engineering specifically from the railway civil engineers, but I would also like to distinguish them from the other kinds of mechanical engineer. I see Category:Mechanical engineers as a high-level category, and articles should be placed in sub-categories wherever possible, the only articles in Category:Mechanical engineers directly would be those either for which no suitable sub-category exists, or those whose mechanical engineering feats covered many sub-disciplines.
If it is necessary to distinguish the purely locomotive engineers from those who also covered carriages and wagons, this can be done but needs a lot of thought, because many books can be slanted. Pick up a book like "Gresley Locomotives" (Brian Haresnape) and you get the impression that all he did was to design new locos. Try "The Locomotives of Sir Nigel Gresley" (O.S. Nock) and it seems that he also modified the designs of his predecessors. Go for "Gresley and Stanier: A Centenary Tribute" (John Bellwood and David Jenkinson) and we find that he had had a major part in carriage and wagon design for ten years before gaining the loco supt position - and he remianed responsible for C&W matters until his death. Of course, the primary task of the railway mechanical engineer (whatever his job title) was to ensure that the railway had sufficient locomotives, carriages and/or wagons (depending upon his remit) with which to operate its services. This could mean anything from patching up old stock, buying secondhand from another line right up to the design and construction of a totally new type. Unfortunately the popular view is towards the "new loco design" end of the spectrum. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
(indent) I've trapped one obvious categorisation error by making Category:Railway mechanical engineers by nationality - it might seem superfluous - but all the current member cats are mechanical engineers - this makes a space in Category:Railway engineers by nationality for civil engineers and any others that don't fit into the rolling stock design field.Shortfatlad (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

British Rail Class 70

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Clear consensus for earlier locomotives to be given title British Rail Class 70 (electric), no consensus for a name change of British Rail Class 70 (PowerHaul), current name fulfils most requirements of Wikipedia:Naming conventions - no change. Shortfatlad (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The reuse of TOPS classes has created a problem with the British Rail Class 70, where the designation has been reused for a class of diesel locomotives. It was originally applied to a class of electric locomotives.

Therefore, I propose the following:-

  1. British Rail Class 70 should be a dab page.
  2. The article about the electric locomotives be moved to British Rail Class 70 (electric)
  3. The article about the diesel locomotives be moved to British Rail Class 70 (diesel)

Opening this for discussion. Mjroots (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

A sensible suggestion - but I think the current situation with "Class 70 (old)" linked to from British Rail Class 70, and "Class 70 (new)" named British Rail Class 70 (PowerHaul) is preferable.
  • The 'PowerHaul' name seems to have entered regular use - so I think it should be in the title.
  • Current hat-notes put both articles within either 1 or 2 clicks depending on what is searched for. Thinks a separate disambiguation page is unnecessary.
Shortfatlad (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
The link from the PowerHaul title will become a redirect. PowerHaul may operate the locos now, but what about in 10, 15, 20 years time. The constant in this case is the powersource - electricity or diesel engine, which is why I suggested the disambig that way. Mjroots (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)`
Isn't "powerhaul" a tradename GE is using for the loco? ie [3] , for their agreement with Tulomsas in Turkey the press release also uses the powerhaul name [4] Shortfatlad (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If there is a primary usage for the title "British Rail Class 70", it's probably the newer diesel loco, especially since the ex-SR electrics were never actually given their TOPS codes in service. However, a disambiguation page is probably the way to go. (Any pre-existing page names should be left a redirects.) I disagree that "PowerHaul" should be in the article title: we don't have "Desiro" in the article title for the Class 350, for instance. --RFBailey (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree that the primary usage should be the new Diesel locos, but whilst the SR electrics never received TOPS numbers, they did receive this TOPS classification. Although renumbering with TOPS numbers did not begin until early 1973, the TOPS classifications were allotted in Autumn 1968, soon after the end of steam; and the SR electrics were withdrawn between October 1968 and January 1969. It's not unusual to refer to locos which never received TOPS numbers by their TOPS classifications; consider British Rail Class 52. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
If there are no objections I'll do the moves on Monday. Mjroots (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. --RFBailey (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
You might want to ask at the articles first - and maybe place a page move template on the pages first - since there don't seem to be any links from the article to here.87.102.67.84 (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
That is a technical objection by the way - the moves should be mentioned on the talk page first. Personally I prefer the current situation, but do not vocally oppose the move.Shortfatlad (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
That's not completely necessary: page moves can be made boldly. --RFBailey (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Still try searching for "Class 70 PowerHaul" the name in common use, vs "Class 70 diesel" ie Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Common_names - it's not clear why this needs to be changed to something else.Shortfatlad (talk) 07:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
There's still been no answer to my question above re ownership of the new Class 70s. At least diesel power isn't going to change, unlike the ownership. Mjroots (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
There's no rush, another week won't matter. I've placed requested move templates on the talk pages of both articles. The articles should show up at WP:RM#January 25, 2010 soon. Mjroots (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Something to consider: Class 70 is unique because it's the upper limit of TOPS diesel loco classes but has previously been the lower limit of electric loco classes. Re-use of TOPS classes will likely occur again in the future, however then it will surely be a case of old and new classes being either both diesels or both electrics, i.e. the disambiguator (diesel) or (electric) will only ever work for Class 70s. For consistency, a method of disambiguation should be found that will work in all cases. See also British Rail Class 43 (Warship Class) and British Rail Class 43 (HST). –Signalhead < T > 18:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The suggested disambig in this case works fine. Over at WP:SHIPS, we disambiguate by year of launch - SS Lesbian (1874), SS Lesbian (1915) and SS Lesbian (1923) (gotta love that name lol). Thus British Rail Class 43 (1960) and British Rail Class 43 (1975) may be another way to deal with disambiguation. Mjroots (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Mjroots has already suggested what I would have suggested myself: year of introduction in parenthesis. (He's not kidding about those ships, they really existed) --Redrose64 (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Disambiguation by year sounds perfectly sensible to me. (However, I can just imagine some nitpicker coming along and saying "TOPS classes didn't exist in 1941 or 1960 so that's a stupid idea", but that's not an especially good argument, in my view.) --RFBailey (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm a nitpicker but the class 43 by year sounds like a good thing to me. However I'm not sure this is the way to go on the class 70 disambig.Shortfatlad (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
British Rail Class 70 (1941) and British Rail Class 70 (2009) anyone? Mjroots (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Works for me.–Signalhead < T > 21:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
me too --Redrose64 (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
As this discussion has widened in scope, I've put forward a new proposal below. Mjroots (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
As there was unanimous support for the move of the article about the original locomotives, I've moved the article and converted the original title to a dab page, per the closing instructions. I'm unable to close the move request re the new Class 70 as support is not unanimous. Would another admin/experienced editor please close this one? Mjroots (talk) 07:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Done. This can be returned to later if a general standard for naming BR locomotives is agreed upon.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_15&oldid=1137360995"