Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 41

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35 ← Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 → Archive 45

Can anyone help with some references?

I have been doing some cleanup for wikiprojects Bristol and Somerset and there a few issues with railway articles which would benefit from some expert help:

  • On Bristol and Exeter Railway page numbers are needed for MacDermot, E.T. (1927). History of the Great Western Railway. Vol. Vol I. London: Great Western Railway. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help) & MacDermot, E.T. (1931). History of the Great Western Railway. Vol. Vol II. London: Great Western Railway. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)
  • Bristol and Exeter Railway 4-2-4T locomotives needs inline citations
  • Great Western main line has citation needed tags for "where tracks are ten feet apart instead of the usual six" and various track widening. There is also a "relevant? – discuss" tag relating to "The railways returned to direct government control during World War II before being nationalised to form British Railways (BR) in 1948."
  • South Wales Main Line needs additional citations & has unsourced statements
  • St Philip's Marsh depot has an uncited section and a title needed for "Chartered Institute of Transport Journal, 37-38: 261, 1975"
  • Chard branch line has lots of "page needed" tags for Phillips, Derek; Eaton-Lacey, R (1991). Working the Chard Branch. Yeovil: Fox & Co. ISBN 1-870872-05-3., Phillips, Derek (2000). From Salisbury to Exeter: The Branch Lines. Shepperton: Oxford Publishing Company. ISBN 0-86093-546-9., Carter, E. F. (1959). An Historical Geography of the Railways of the British Isles. London: Cassell., Phillips, Derek; Pryer, George (1997). The Salisbury to Exeter Line. Sparkford: Oxford Publishing Company. ISBN 0-86093-525-6. & Cobb, Col. M. H. (2003). The Railways of Great Britain, A Historical Atlas. Shepperton: Ian Allan Publishing. ISBN 0-7110-3002-2.

If anyone can help with any these it would be really appreciated.— Rod talk 20:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

DMU identifcation

Does anyone know what sort of DMU this was? So I can put the photo in the right category. G-13114 (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Class 116. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Large gallery

Does anybody else feel that British Rail Class 319#Gallery is excessive? Several images are similar to other images - just different liveries or colours of seat cloth - there are even two near-identical photos of a universal accessible toilet. I tried removing the whole thing, on the grounds of WP:IG and WP:NOTREPOSITORY plus the fact that all these images are in c:Category:British Rail Class 319 or its sub-cats, for which the existing {{commons category}} provides direct access, but PeterSkuce (talk · contribs) reverted me. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, 100 % agree with the action you took. And I think it needs to go further. The whole 319 article has grown into a nerd race. The concept of 'refurbishment' seems to have become an excuse for a steadily growing collection of vanity photos (and this occurs to a lesser degree in other articles). But it isn't just photos, the 'Mother of all Infoboxes' has grown into a monster. Wiki is not the place to list every single carriage of every single unit - that is just trainspotter fodder. Fortunately most 'Class' articles have self-regulated, but for some reason this one has become bloated and really needs thinning out. For example, although 319s only have one brake system, there are three different types listed. We all understand what's happened, but it would probably baffle the uninitiated. Dr Sludge (talk) 08:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Agree , a gallery with every operator / sub-class / livery / refurbishment combination is OTT. There is ample space within the article to populate with more images around the prose where relevant, otherwise the commons link is sufficient. And yes way too much fancruft that is largely uncited.
Another section that seems to have got out of control is the mock ups of every livery combination that appears here, very pretty but what is the encyclopedic value, none I would suggest. Can't see what a whole lot of mock ups in the livery of the preceding operator add to this article. Finchfrog (talk) 10:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
When SWR put their livery on trains and someone makes a SVG of it then they're irrelevant, but for now they're fine. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Moylesy98 (talk · contribs) is at it as well. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I have done some editing to the gallery on the Class 319 Wikipedia page, so it does not have as many images/photos in it as it previously did. I quite like the gallery to remain on the Class 319 page as it does show the different interior refreshes/refurbishments and exterior bodyside liveries.PeterSkuce (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
@PeterSkuce: Out of a total of thirty images that you reverted back into the article, you have since added one more and removed ten, for a current total of 21. This is probably about 19 too many. Why don't you write some prose describing the variations, and use some of the images as illustrative examples? This is what WP:IG is all about. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, if you want galleries of images, Commons is the best place to put them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
And still they proliferate. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Not to worry, the gallery has gone and everything will be wonderful..... Oh but wait!! Now the page is filling up with photos. Didn't see that one coming, fnar fnar! Dr Sludge (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Whyte notation for diesel and electric locos

At the moment, all of our articles on British diesel and electric locomotives have a "Whyte notation" entry in the infobox (see, for example, British Rail Class 40). However, the text in this field is not actually Whyte notation, but instead a simplified version of the full UIC classification (in this case, 1Co-Co1 rather than (1Co)'(Co1)'). I think this is a potentially confusing situation, and that perhaps we should think about changing it. My suggestions would be, in order of preference:

  1. Remove the field altogether.
  2. Change the field name to something like "Simplified UIC".
  3. Put the correct Whyte notation in the field (for the Class 40, this would be "2-4-0 + 0-4-2").

I'd like to solicit the project's opinions on this question. Tevildo (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

We've had this issue before, but not gained any real interest in cleaning them up:
WT:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2017#Emptying of Category:Locomotives by wheel arrangement
WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 July 13#Category:2B locomotives
1Co-Co1 is the best known wheel arrangement for the Class 40, so it ought to stay. However it's not Whyte notation, it's Commonwealth notation. {{Infobox locomotive}} supports this with |Britishclass =. We ought to have UIC too, as the best-defined of the lot and fairly commonly applied to them. AAR shouldn't be here because it's too close to and commonly confused with Commonwealth, but is less expressive (it would be 1C-C1). Whyte just shouldn't be used for diesels here at all - who ever calls a 40 a 2-6-0+0-6-2? Even that is unclear, as does Whyte cover powered bogies (there's no definitive standard for this) and should that be 2-6-0+0-6-2, 2-6-0-0-6-2, 2-6-6-2, (2-6-0)+(0-6-2) or (2-6-0)-(0-6-2)? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the information - is it just a question of changing |whytetype= to |Britishclass= in the infoboxes? I'd be happy to do that manually if that is all there is to it, and consensus is in favour. Tevildo (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I did all the TOPS diesel classes last night. Of course someone has now started reverting them as "invalid". Andy Dingley (talk) 09:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again. I've done the electrics - let's hope there are no major disagreements. Tevildo (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh FFS! Now someone has gone through and changed them all to AAR. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    @Andy Dingley: That was Tony OU812 (talk · contribs), a newbie with 55 edits to their name, and possibly American given their other edits. I've reverted them. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    I've asked him nicely to stop. Mjroots (talk) 09:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Eastern and Midlands Railway

Needs attention - I created the TP but needs Project info. Atsme📞📧 03:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I've classed it as low importance for this WP. Can't see that it warrants mid importance. Mjroots (talk) 10:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

On-train automated information

FYI, Talk:London Underground 1996 Stock#Announcements. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC on WP:UKSTATION disambiguation

An RfC relevant to this project is taking place here. The topic is disambiguation in the WP:UKSTATION guideline.--Cúchullain t/c 19:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

62.151.64.39 and WP:COMPETENCE

62.151.64.39 (talk · contribs)

Raised at WP:AN#62.151.64.39 and WP:COMPETENCE Andy Dingley (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

"Remainder scrapped"

We have a regular situation in loco article infoboxes where we wish to state that one or two members of a class were preserved, all others scrapped. How should we word this? Should we be consistent in doing so?

There are several potential forms. Assuming a class of 16, which do we prefer?:

  1. "One preserved, remainder scrapped"
  2. "1 preserved, remainder scrapped"
  3. "1 preserved, 15 scrapped"
  4. "1 preserved, 15 scrapped"

There are three stylistic differences here:

  • Numbers in digits or words?
  • "Remainder" or a calculated total for the scrappees? If a number is given, does this need to be sourced?
  • Should a common term like "scrap" be linked, per MOS:OVERLINK?

Andy Dingley (talk) 12:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Option 1. Small numbers should be spelled out (MOS:SPELL09); use the word "remainder" (sources are unlikely to give a count, so calculated values are probably WP:OR); don't link "scrap". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't that be "Option one"? ;-) Also, depending on other values in the infobox, it may be better to use the second option (see WP:NUMNOTES about comparable quantities). Optimist on the run (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
This is |disposition=, not |number scrapped=. I'd see this as broadly text-based, not as a dimensioned fact. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
@Optimist on the run: Other than some of the post-1958 Diesels, there aren't many classes where the number preserved goes above twenty. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Option Five (a new one). Don't use |disposition= for classes of locomotives, only for individual locomotives (with values such as operational/mainline certified/on display/in storage etc.)
Rationale: we already have the |preservedunits= and |totalproduction= parameters which should be sufficient. If we really want to include the number scrapped, then we should have a separate parameter. It is probably ok to calculate the number scrapped as WP:OR specifically allows routine calculations WP:CALC - although there are corner cases that may go against that, for example, in the GWR 5700 Class there are 16 preserved locos that have been saved or are being restored, but there is another loco (No. 3612) that was bought for spares - it will never be restored, and is effectively disappearing as it's stripped of parts; is it preserved or scrapped or somewhere in between? Robevans123 (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Numbers in words if both figures are <10, in digits if either is greater. I'd be inclined to keep scrapped/operational numbers out of the infobox and explain them in the body text, as especially when you get to more modern DMUs/EMUs there's usually a Trigger's Broom situation rather than a straightforward scrapped/operational distinction—e.g. the London Underground D78 Stock were nominally scrapped, but those cars in the best condition were salvaged and are in the process of being coupled together to create new British Rail Class 230 units; is a unit scrapped or operational if it no longer exists but every part of it is still in use as part of another unit? Is Rocket operational, given that every part of it other than the wheels has been replaced or rebuilt at some point, and it's unlikely anyone would ever dare take it off its pedestal to see if it still works? Is Lion "preserved", given that it would certainly no longer function if anyone tried to steam it up? ‑ Iridescent 20:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Rocket / Lion? I remember seeing Lion in steam, and it's in better condition now than it was then, but Rocket has large pieces simply missing.
But then this is WP, where we managed to have a "Good Article" on the basis that the world's oldest operational steam loco was still working (unsourced, naturally) after "irreplaceable parts" had been stolen. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC on station naming

An RfC relevant to this project is taking place here. The topic is the minimum criteria for calling stopping point a station. Useddenim (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Norton Fitzwarren crash (1940) diagram.svg

Is this diagram correct?

At my Commons talk page Tabletop has stated that the diagram is incorrect. "The correction is to the green square-ended Home signal on the Fast line opposite the yellow fish-tailed Distant Signal on the Slow line. This Home signal should definitely be another fish-tailed Distant coloured green."

I just converted an existing jpeg (since deleted) to SVG and don't have access to a source to verify which is correct. They also propose a second diagram ("It would also be nice to have a second version of the picture which would have had a reasonable change of alerting the driver of the trains that he was reading the wrong signals....") but my thinking is that would be original research? Thryduulf (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Tabletop is probably correct. A bigger issue is that the diagram needs to be rotated 180° to make sense. Mjroots (talk) 04:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
It's a good diagram, but needs a couple of corrections;
1) The lines are labelled incorrectly. The accident report (and Red for Danger) refer to them as Mains & Reliefs, not Fasts and Slows - this seems to be an inaccuracy in the Wiki page.
2) It's wrong to call them (trap) as well as catch points in the description for the diagram. The accident report never mentions trap points. Wiki's own definition of trap points is "Trap points are used to protect main railway lines from unauthorised vehicles moving onto them from sidings or branch lines". That's clearly not the case here. Dr Sludge (talk) 08:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
1)The GWR always referred to 'main and relief' lines rather than 'fast and slow', in fact this continued well into BR Western Region days.
2) These are definitely not catch points. That term is used to describe points that prevent runaways on gradients. Trap points prevent unauthorised moves onto a running line as was the case here.
Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
They might be what we understand as trap points, but the report (which I linked below) uses the term "catch points" several times: initially on page 1, paragraph 2 "at the catch points protecting the Down Main"; right through to page 10, para. 3 "this and other catchpoints". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
There's a diagram in
  • Nock, O.S.; Cooper, B.K. (1992) [1966]. Historic Railway Disasters (4th ed.). London: Book Club Associates. p. 136. CN 6843.
which has the same south-at-top orientation, but the signal types and positions both differ. Official accident reports usually have a diagram or map of the location, often at the back as an appendix; this one doesn't, possibly because it was wartime and everything was in a hurry, which might also explain the typewritten (instead of typeset) text. Layout and signals are described on pages 2-4. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Great Western main line detailed diagram

I've knocked up a detailed diagram of the GWML. It's not that much bigger than the existing diagram, so rather than a separate diagram (ECML, WCML), would it be in order just to update the diagram on the GWML article? Mjroots (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

No objections posted, so I've updated the existing diagram. Mjroots (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Norton Bridge - closed?

Does anyone know if Norton Bridge has officially closed yet? The article states it will close in October, though with bus subsidies lasting until 2019. The official closure pdf [1] states "not be before 15 October 2017", though it is still available as a destination according to National Rail. Optimist on the run (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes; it was ratified by ORR on 26th October. ‑ Iridescent 07:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Ironic that the closure notice has to be displayed at Barlaston and Wedgwood as they are both on permanent bustitution. Nthep (talk) 09:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Or "Wedgewood", if you're the ORR—nice to know the heirs to Beeching share his attention to detail. ‑ Iridescent 09:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Edits by Moylesy98

Please would somebody assist in advising Moylesy98 (talk · contribs) what is acceptable and what is not. They are persistently adding content that goes against (in alphabetical order) WP:GNL, WP:NOR, WP:NOTBLOG, WP:NPOV, WP:PRIMARY, WP:RECENT, and WP:V. This is a long-term issue: recent example here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a persistent problem and wants some sort of agreement to sort it out. That said though, I would support some of their additions, including this one. AIUI, Clun Castle has been out of service without restoration for 50 years and is finally complete - that's worth including in an article on that loco (maybe not on the Castle class, but it would be on List of preserved Castles and certainly on Clun). If the issue here is poor sourcing, then fix the sourcing question, don't just blank worthwhile content - it cannot be hard to source this. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)::
Advice given. Mjroots (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Is this a suitable source? Mjroots (talk) 13:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Another source here. Optimist on the run (talk) 13:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Guess which locomotive is on the front cover of Steam Railway issue 473? Mjroots (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
A Deltic? Optimist on the run (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I said Steam Railway, not Heritage Railway! Mjroots (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

More Line capitalization issues

Since the "Line"/"line" naming issues were discussed here, editors watching this page may be interested in this discussion on WT:TRAINS. Jc86035 (talk) 11:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Interchange stats

Can somebody remind me what the consensus is for interchange statistics in infoboxes? I only ask because Special:Contributions/79.78.95.153 has just done a bunch of them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

... and Charlesdrakew has reverted them without discussion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I've no idea what the consensus is, but I agree 100% with removal. Entrances/exits is measurable, but for these London interchanges the IP was adding them to, the ORR figures are meaningless since there's no way to measure who changed where on a route with multiple possibilities. ‑ Iridescent 21:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Not agreeing with the method of calculation doesn't seem like an appropriate reason for not including them. In any event the entrances and exits are simply estimates, just like the interchanges are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.95.153 (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with removal of all but the most recent year, as this otherwise makes the figures difficult to read (and clutters up the infobox for mobile users). Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

RfC on Comma or parenthetic disambiguation for "small places"

 SMcCandlish has started an RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Comma or parenthetic disambiguation for "small places" to always disambiguate small places, such as railway stations, with commas rather than parentheses. Useddenim (talk) 13:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

New station usage figures

2016/17 usage figures are available here, let's see how many we can get updated today! More importantly, the London station infobox parameters railexits1617 and railint1617 don't seem to have been added yet, does anyone know how to add these to the infobox template? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Template changes done (I hope), & the relevant category generated too. Someone may want to check what I've done. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Yep that seems to work, thanks! Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

London Midland to WMR

In the updating of London Midland to West Midlands Trains/Railway, I have seen multiple variations used on titles and associated colours. For my own sanity (and clarification) are we describing the non-Euston services as West Midlands Railway, with {{WMR Colour}} as opposed to West Midlands Trains and re-hashing the LM colour which I have seen? I have seen four different varieties whereby the IP's have mostly changed the text in the body but not in the station boxes at the bottom of the article. Thanks. The joy of all things (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I've also seen changes which were so indiscriminate that they changed history and broke links (example). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
We shouldn't use West Midlands Railway, it's a dab page, and should stick with West Midlands Trains. There is a template associated with the latter: {{WMT colour}}, which redirects to {{LNW colour}}. AFAICT {{WMR colour}} was created pre-emptively back in August by Mark999 (talk · contribs) and used in a few edits like this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Ta - West Midlands Trains with WMT Colour it is then. Thanks. The joy of all things (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I've tried to make it consistent, and MainLine45 (talk · contribs) is undoing all my edits. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, didn’t realise I was breaking the rules, I will leave all to you to edit. --MainLine 45 (talk · contribs) 21:01, 11 December 2017
I notice that there seem to be a number (such as in the Telford area) where you've included West Midlands Trains but also left in the old London Midland. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I thought West Midlands Railway and London Northwestern were sub-brands of West Midlands Trains like Southern, Thameslink and Great Northern are subrands of Govia Thameslink Railway which are all have different colours for each brand. So my question is why should this be any different? West Midlands Railway is the brand for local services around the West Midlands were as London Northwestern is for fast and regional services out of London Euston or other branch lines that are not in the West Midlands. They are also listed as two different colours on National Rail maps on project mapping so effectively should be different colours as they are different brands with different logos, different websites. --MainLine 45 (talk · contribs) 22:02, 11 December 2017
First off, my apologies to MainLine 45 as I did not ping you with the above section; I had only noticed various IP addresses doing the edits and not you, so you were missed off, sorry. Second, the issue is one of clarity; we have about four to five different versions of colours and titles so that needs to be squared away.
Incidentally, station articles for Stafford and Hamstead (just two examples) use {{s-rail-start|noclear=yes}} as opposed to{{rail start}}, so when you type in the TOC, it is automatically wikilinked and West Midlands Railway wikilinks to a DAB page. To be honest, I do not know how to counteract this as I have tried various options that will not work. The colour does not display either as it is linked automatically to the TOC. Any ideas, anyone? Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
As evidence by this edit [2] on Walsall station (but not by me!). The joy of all things (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
So just to clarify, as I'm a bit confused. Do we just use West Midlands Trains, or use the two sub-brandings? Personally I would choose the former, as London Midland used to brand its urban local services London Midland City, but we never used that branding. G-13114 (talk) 10:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
When you get the colour strip showing up white, or a link that goes to the wrong page, it's an indication that the subtemplates of {{s-rail-national}} don't recognise the supplied value for |toc=. This can be fixed in either of two ways: (i) use a value that is recognised by those subtemplates, like this; (ii) add the appropriate entries to the subtemplates. The subtemplates concerned will be one or more of: Template:National Rail colour (for instance this edit); Template:National Rail lines; and Template:National Rail lines/branches. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the steer! Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 12:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure how that answers my question. Stations like Rugeley Trent Valley and Nuneaton for example are served by both West Midlands Railway and London Northwestern branded services, so would it just be easier to not use the sub-branding and just say West Midlands Trains? G-13114 (talk) 11:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Well as no-one's replied to my question I'll change any LM links I see to WMT. G-13114 (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I think it is now assumed to change all ex-London Midland stations to the WMT branding for now because the (s-rail) is too hard to change without changing the entire code so therefore all LM links must change to WMT. --MainLine 45 (talk · contribs) 16:05, 12 December 2017
Fixed issues with S-Rail pages. I have edited the National Rail Lines template adding a new redirect page called ‘West Midlands Railway (brand)’ so now when you type West Midlands Railway it should divert to West Midlands Trains. MainLine 45 (talk · contribs) 15:23, 15 December 2017

External links at Cromford and High Peak Railway

Talk:Cromford and High Peak Railway#External links. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Where am I?

Where am I?

Can anyone identify this location? At first glance there doesn't seem to be much to go on, but zooming in shows a sign that appears to be "danger - do not touch the live rail" on the left, and the yellow stair rails makes me think of Merseyrail. Any thoughts? Optimist on the run (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Doh - just noticed the coordinates are on the file page. It's Bromborough. Optimist on the run (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Newmarket

Talk:Railway stations in Newmarket#Split revival --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Charles Howeson

I've raised the question of whether or not ex-FGW boss Charles Howeson meets the threshold of notability for an article at WT:MILHIST#Charles Howeson. Opionions there please. Mjroots (talk) 09:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Goathland (Incline Top) railway station page move

See here for requested move for Goathland (Incline Top) railway station. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 23:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Customer satisfaction

Does anybody here have a subscription to The Times? Does it support this claim? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a subscription to The Times but five seconds of Googling produced an article from the Glasgow Evening Times and a press release from Network Rail which corroborates the claim in the edit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes - I have a subscription (you can get a two articles-a-day subscription for free, and no credit card details). No - the review of Simon Jenkins book does not say anything about customer satisfaction of any of the stations mentioned. Looks like the customer satisfaction is true but incorrectly referenced...
I have the book on order. Will check if it has anything to say on customer satisfaction. Simon Jenkins' selection of ten five-star stations in this review seems to be different from the top-ten he selected for the Guardian review... Robevans123 (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I have a copy of the book. As it happens, I have it almost right in front of me. When I've finished my war memorials project, I'd like to get back to writing about railway architecture. Anyway, it doesn't say anything about customer satisfaction; it's all about the history and architecture. Happy to email photos of the relevant pages if anyone wants them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Brundall to Great Yarmouth line

Does anyone have a reference for the opening date of the Brundall - Great Yarmouth section of the Wherry Lines in 1882? I would like to add some info to the Acle Straight article. Mjroots (talk) 11:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's one that says it opened on 12 March 1883 from Breydon Junction to Acle, and then to Brundall on 1 June. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Fourth opinion required

I have tried assisting at Talk:Ormside railway station but whatever I say, Riggers386 (talk · contribs) rejects my advice - it's even reached the point of denying that I have answered anything. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Is this right?

Someone just moved Broad Street railway station (London) to Broad Street railway station (England). This can't be right surely? G-13114 (talk) 10:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit: oh and they seem to be moving other ones as well such as Hatton railway station (Warwickshire) to Hatton railway station (England). G-13114 (talk) 10:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Looking at the editor's talk page, this arises from WP:UKSTATIONDAB, and in turn from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#RfC: UK railway station disambiguation. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
The RfC in question was flagged up on this page, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 41#RfC on WP:UKSTATION disambiguation. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
These are not good changes. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Line naming conventions - did I miss something ?

I just looked at the Mid Kent Line and saw that Dicklyon had caused the page to be moved to 'line'. There's mention in the history of a proposal not being objected to. Well I certainly do. All formal railway documentation uses 'Line' - For fun check out Network Rail's Route Utilisation Strategies, or any similar doucuments. Did I miss a discussion, in which case this needs to be sorted out? I note that many other similar pages have not been tampered with, for example the North Kent Line. Where's the logic in that? Dr Sludge (talk) 03:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Yes it's ridiculous, unfortunately we couldn't stop it. Rulez is Rulez regardless of common sense you see, that's the wiki way. The discussion is in the archives from last year. G-13114 (talk) 11:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks for that. But this is not about 'common sense', this is a matter of railway naming CONVENTION, about which the perpetrator clearly knows nothing. It is said that rules are for the obeyance of fools and the guidance of wise men. What sort of a rule can justify Wiki stating the opposite of what is correct ? I know this discussion is a well-trodden path, but surely it devalues Wiki if it is WRONG - that it says things that are at odds with the real world, just because of a 'rule'. Anyone with any knowledge of the subject will know from the title of the page that it is erroneous and sub-standard before they even start reading the body of the text - and may even be put off by it. The fact is that railway lines in the UK are capitalised in the same way as roads. Will the moron behind this go round fecking with Oxford street and Bond street next, because it is exactly the same thing? I have been a UK Train Driving and route instructor for 20 years, and I find it galling that some self-righteous sanctimonious troll can effectively spoil the work of many contributors by hiding behind some ridiculous 'rule'. Perhaps someone could explain to me the rule that 'couldn't be stopped'. Thanks. Dr Sludge (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
      • @Dr Sludge: I suppose it's similar to how even though e.g. if a national or regional train operator (in, say, Northern Ireland) consistently capitalized "Station" after station names, we wouldn't name the articles with capitalized "Station" if "Station" were considered not to be part of the proper name per WP:NCCAPS and WP:MOSCAPS. I have no idea whether it's correct to use lowercase "line" in this case but the guidelines say to refer to reliable sources targeted towards a general audience or something like that. Jc86035 (talk) 02:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • You think mere reality has any place on WP? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Well yeah, Amen to that. But but let me put this more simply. The UK railway system is owned and maintained by Network Rail. It is national policy that THEY decide the names of THEIR railway lines, so the opinion of some arrogant control-freak from a foreign land is irrelevant, whatever petty rules he invokes to hide behind. Dr Sludge (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
      • I have no real opinion on this, but I'd advise you to calm down. Do you really think the public cares about Line or line? IMO, as long as there is a redirect from one to the other that's all that really matters. Its just not worth getting irritated about it being "wrong" and generating pointless grief (and I mean that in BOTH directions).
What I will say on the substance of the matter is that WP is here for the general public, and if the general public doesn't use Network Rail's names, why should we? If you want to effectively challenge lower-case, that's the question you need to address: Its not just what Network Rail does, its what everyone else does too.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • OK, well thank you everybody for the wise words and advice. I think I can see where I need to go with this. Dr Sludge (talk) 10:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
FYI: User_talk:Amakuru#Newcourt_railway_station Andy Dingley (talk) 12:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, you seem to have missed many discussions, generally around a year ago, where the consensus was to not cap "line" except where it's part of a proper name, as evidenced my consistent capitalization in sources. The appearance capped in some official list is not a substitute for the usual criterion in MOS:CAPS. Where G-13114 says "we couldn't stop it", he means the consensus was against the specialist overcapitalization convention that had been used before. I'm sorry you missed all that and feel a need to go back there. Dicklyon (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • See 21st century books, for example. They use the hyphen, too. Or are these about something else? Most older books also do the hyphen and lowercase line. Dicklyon (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Given that the previous proposal was up on the project talk page for a week without objection, and that sources commonly support it, I went ahead and moved it back. Dicklyon (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:Disused railway goods stations in the United Kingdom

There are 24 pages in this category, named five different ways (six if one includes capitalization and ignores disambiguation)
Note: 12 more international and active pages added (second column)17:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC):

Xxx railway station (9)
Xxx Goods railway station (9)
Xxx goods station (8)
Xxx Goods Depot (3)
Xxx railway goods station (2)
Xxx railway station (goods) (1)
Other (4)

Aside for the last four that have unique names, these should probably be renamed in a consistent uniform manner. Should they all be simply Xxx railway station, or should the word goods be included in the name? Useddenim (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, the very first in the list (Birkenhead Grange Lane) was originally a passenger station, then continued as a goods station for over a century. I haven't checked any others. -- Dr Greg  talk  01:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Pretty much the same for Witney railway station (goods) except it was 97 years. The disambiguator is there because Witney railway station replaced it for passenger traffic. I think that at the time it was created (June 2009) there wasn't much precedent for naming goods-only stations. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Generally, it should be Foo railway station where a station saw passenger use, even if it was later downgraded to goods only, and Foo Goods railway station for those that were goods only. These usually had Goods as part of their official name. There will of course be exceptions, such as Dudley Freightliner Terminal and others. Bricklayers Arms really needs separate articles for the railway station and the area that took its name. Mjroots (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Slight modification, is should be Foo railway sation where a station saw passenger use or was intended to have this use - even if it didn't happen. Nthep (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
We would still need a disambiguator for Witney. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
The original Witney station could be dabbed by year of opening. Mjroots (talk) 10:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Surely we should go with whatever the sources say they were called. There wasn't consistency in their naming between different companies etc. G-13114 (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Sources show that the goods station at Witney was always named simply "Witney". Although this might seem ambiguous, if you consigned a wagon load of goods to that station from somewhere else - like Oxford - the wagon card would simply say "Witney", and the operating staff (shunters, guards, signallers etc.) would know from simple experience that a wagon consigned to Witney should be sent to the goods station, not to the passenger station. Similarly, a passenger train wouldn't be routed to the goods station. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

More naming capitalisation anomalies

Why 'Hayes line' but 'Addiscombe Line'? Colonies Chris (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Before we go through this yet again is there any chance we can resolve that either line or Line is OK and is not a reason to move an article. We're never going to get consensus for one as everyone can find numerous examples that disprove whichever case is being discussed so let's just accept it's an imperfect world. Nthep (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm neutral on the subject, but it's my understanding that it has all been discussed and certain principles agreed. I'd just someone to clarify if that's the case and whether this is an oversight that should be fixed, or not. If you've agreed to disagree, I'm happy to leave the whole thing alone. Colonies Chris (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
If you want to look at some of the previous discussions, try WT:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 37#Recent article moves removing capitalisation of 'line' and WT:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 38#Decapitalizing Line. Those might indeed tempt you to leave the whole thing alone. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Ivanhoe line

There seems to be a pattern that former 'branded' lines, such as this one, retain the lowercase 'line'. As as a marketing name, the 'L' should be capitalised, shouldn't it? Does being no longer in existence change that? Colonies Chris (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Colonies Chris: For marketing names where some/any(?) reliable sources use lowercase "line", it appears that what WP:MOSCAPS implies is that we should assume the operator uses or used title case, and that since the Wikipedia norm is to use sentence case we can/should ignore their capitalization as we like (where sources support it, anyway). I don't think it's a good idea to do it wherever possible even if only one or two RSes for a line or network use lowercase, and the recent RMs for metro lines might end up messing with real-world English usage, but it doesn't really seem like something to get worked up about. Jc86035 (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Wally Oakes

Wally Oakes has at last been given a headstone. He is buried somewhere in Crewe in the churchyard of St Matthew's Church, Haslington, Cheshire. Are there any members of this WP who can get a photograph of the headstone? Mjroots (talk) 10:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Another problematic station move

Camerton (LNWR) railway station has been moved to Camerton railway station (Cumbria). The problem is, that the station closed in 1966, and Cumbria did not exist until 1974. Why is it that people want to keep rewriting history? Suggest that the article is either returned to the LNWR title, or moved to Camerton (C&WR) railway station, reflecting the company that built it. Mjroots (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree - Cumbria and Cumberland are two distinct entities, and while people have got "used" to living in the former there is no formal divide and pre 1974 it is just factually wrong. The best source would be a contemporary BR timetable from the 1960s, which would have to have had some qualifier against the other Camerton station in Somerset Avon Bath and North East Somerset the Bristol area. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
It was Camerton, Somerset. Mjroots (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I've moved the article back to the LNWR title. This issue of rewriting history when moving pages really needs to be thrashed out. As far as I'm concerned, we do not rewrite history. Mjroots (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
A move request has been opened at talk:Camerton (LNWR) railway station. Opinions there please. Mjroots (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Restaurant Standard Buffet

The Restaurant Standard Buffet article has been nominated for deletion Mjroots (talk) 11:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Galleries in articles, again

Following comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 41#Large gallery, Moylesy98 (talk · contribs) (who was mentioned there) is now insisting on including a photo gallery at LMS Jubilee Class 5596 Bahamas. They have now made three attempts to add one; the third being immediately after starting User talk:Redrose64#Photos to Bahamas page. Their justification is "a page for sister engine Leander has got a photo section" (presumably they mean LMS Jubilee Class 5690 Leander), which as an argument is pure WP:OTHERCONTENT weakened still further when you consider that they added that gallery themselves. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

London Underground stations with related Network stations -- one Wikidata item or two?

Are there advantages to having separate Wikidata items for a LU station and a corresponding Network Rail station?

Or, unless/until a Wikipedia in some language decides to have separate articles, is it okay to keep the two together?

Are there some stations that are so integrated, that it would never make any sense to consider them other than as a single integrated entity?

Current state of play reviewed, and further discussion encouraged, at this thread on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport. Jheald (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Undiscussed page moves

A consensus was reached on this page on a number of occasions that we would follow the National Rail form of disambiguation for station names. We now have an administrator (Amakuru) running roughshod over this policy even in cases where the station name was reached following a RM discussion. I have reverted what I can but certain moves can only be done by an administrator. Is there someone out there who is willing to take a stand or are we now to consider that the National Rail approach is deprecated? Lamberhurst (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Lamberhurst, I believe this would be per the RfC last year which determined that the disambiguation style should be changed. Jc86035 (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Jc86035 that doesn't answer the question as the policy is now in WP:UKSTATION which indicates "use natural disambiguation if available". Lamberhurst (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@Lamberhurst: The guideline specifically deprecates the use of the parenthetical before "railway station"; I'm not 100% sure about this but I did note in the RfC (as did Amakuru) that the NR website and station signage often don't display the parentheticals so they're not strictly part of the actual station names. Jc86035 (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Railway stations served by London Midland

The CfD for Category:Railway stations served by London Midland has been relisted and is now at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 20#Category:Railway stations served by London Midland. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

"Chafford Hundred Lakeside railway station"

Has anyone actually got any sources that Chafford Hundred Lakeside railway station is actually called that by anyone other National Rail Enquiries (who presumably include the name so it comes up when people search for "Lakeside" in the same way they call Greenhithe railway station "Greenhithe for Bluewater")? The claim that the name has been changed is unsourced, and C2C (who operate the place) still call it "Chafford Hundred"; C2C's current Track Access Contract still calls it "Chafford Hundred"; the signage at the station still calls it "Chafford Hundred"; the ORR still calls it "Chafford Hundred"; indicator boards and on-train announcements still call it "Chafford Hundred"; Intu (owners of Lakeside) themselves—who would presumably have the most to gain by boasting of having a station named after them—still call it "Chafford Hundred"; TfL's map still calls it "Chafford Hundred"; National Rail's map still calls it "Chafford Hundred"; C2C's map still calls it "Chafford Hundred"; even bloody TheTrainLine still calls it "Chafford Hundred". I can't find a single press release or article about any name change—and neither C2C, Intu nor Thurrock Council are exactly shy about anything that will get their name in the paper. ‑ Iridescent 21:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Last time I went there, it was still called Chafford Hundred and came up as such on the announcements. I believe the route maps at Fenchurch Street, West Ham and Southend Central all say the same. I have moved the article and slapped a {{fact}} tag on the unsourced claim for "Lakeside" in the article body. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
A source is easy to find; in the infobox, click the "Facilities" link. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I can't have been that easy as there's still a fact tag in the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I see a few results putting the search term in quotes ("Chafford Hundred Lakeside"), but probably not enough to overstep WP:PRIMARYNAME. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 14:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
That'll be the "Facilities" link that leads to a redirect from "Chafford Hundred Lakeside" to "Chafford Hundred station, Burghley Road, Chafford Hundred, Essex, RM16 6QQ"? National Rail Enquiries regularly appends nearby landmarks to the station name to ensure the correct station pops up in the search box when people search for something (e.g. Greenhithe for Bluewater); it doesn't make it part of the name (especially not when NWR, the TOC, National Rail and TfL all concur that "Chafford Hundred" is the name), any more than Penryn should be renamed "Penryn for Tremough Campus" (which is what FGW's signage actually calls it). ‑ Iridescent 16:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Station moves

Does anyone know the current plans and status for moving from "Foo (Bar) railway station" to "Foo railway station (Bar)"? I ask because {{National Rail stations}} (used by {{S-line-national}}) only handles the old format. It still works after a station move because it finds the redirect which the move left behind. However, it doesn't work for cases such as Moulton railway station (Lincolnshire), which was never at Moulton (Lincolnshire) railway station. I could solve my immediate problem by boldly editing {{National Rail stations}}, but I suspect that it may be too early to abandon the old format and I would break things. Comments please? Certes (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Certes: I'm gradually working through them all, and progress can be seen at User:Amakuru/Disambiguated stations. It's quite slow going though, and can't be automated as each case has to be looked at individually. Seems like that station template could be improved to accept any format of disambiguation, as {{stnlink}} already does. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. Having done similar things on a smaller scale, I appreciate the difficulties (but don't have many useful insights). Stnlnk is causing problems with excessive #ifexist: calls, so I'd rather not go down that route. I'll leave things as they are until it's safe to change National Rail stations. Certes (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Stnlnk is currently having difficulties, and we may need to revert to an earlier version. Briefly: one or two well-intentioned people have recently been trying to make it do things that it was never intended for, such as guessing the name of the article from a number of possibilities. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Old loco ident?

Can anyone identify this? It's an unknown single at Riccarton Junction railway station in 1903.

Riccarton was an NBR line, on the Waverley route. So my thought was that this would be a Drummond 474 2-2-2 - see [3]. But there are visible front leaf springs, rather than a splasher sandbox. And is that a four wheel tender with outside leaf springs? Any thoughts? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Definitely, thanks. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

RfC on requested move of East West Rail Link to East West Rail

I have opened a request for comment on this proposal at talk:East West Rail Link#Requested move 14 March 2018: drop the "Link" as no longer in Common Name.
Your opinions are invited, please. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

County railway station navboxes

There are currently two competing naming schemes for these navboxes - "County railway stations" (e.g. Template:Kent railway stations) and "Railway stations in County" (e.g. Template:Railway stations in Bedfordshire). The former is slightly more common but not overwhelmingly so, see Category:English railway-related navigational boxes (which I've nominated for renaming to Category:Rail transport navigational boxes of England to match the UK, Scotland, Wales and London categories). There are also some outliers, e.g. Template:Borough of Scarborough railway stations and Template:Sheffield stations.

The naming scheme for closed station navboxes is clearly, "Closed stations County" (e.g. Template:Closed stations Oxfordshire) which is used by all of them in the category except Template:Disused stations on the Isle of Wight.

Which naming scheme should we be using? My personal preference is for "Railway stations in County", but this is very weak. Thryduulf (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree on Railway stations in County, for searchability reasons. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Using one of the two consistently probably matters more than which is chosen. I'd also go for Railway stations in County, because County railway stations might be mistaken to mean "stations on the County Railway" by a reader who overlooks the lower case r. (Most Cornwall railway stations were not Cornwall Railway stations, but some Devon railway stations were.) Certes (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, unless there are objections I'll move the County railway stations templates to Railway stations in County in a couple of days. Thryduulf (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I've just moved all-but-one of them, but I've not updated the transclusions. I'll leave that to someone with AWB or similar if there is any point in making the edit at all?

The exception is Template:Bristol railway stations as this "Railway stations in Bristol" is not an accurate reflection of this template's purpose. The template is titled "Railway stations served by Bristol area commuter services" but that seems a bit long as a template title(?), and I can't think of anything both shorter and appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 01:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I've updated the name= line in the templates, but the articles can happily continue transcluding via redirects. As for Bristol, I'd go with your long title. It matches the heading, and anything shorter would be vague or inaccurate. Certes (talk) 12:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. In the abscence of any other comments, I've moved the Bristol template to Template:Railway stations served by Bristol area commuter services despite it being long, and updated the name= line in the template. Thryduulf (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Capitalisation of UK railway line names

Not long ago, the word "Line" in a number of articles on UK railway lines has been de-capitalised. In some cases, this was clearly justified, in others the case was less clear. I recently found this list: http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/46418.aspx . Apparently, many commuter lines are "named railway lines" in the sense of brand names or product names (the fact notwithstanding that authors of news articles often ignore this), hence if we keep writing "East Coast Main Line", this list seems to suggest we should also write e.g. "Airedale Line", and the same applies to a number of other railway lines. I am not going to change the articles now, but would like to submit the above for consideration. --Schlosser67 (talk) 07:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

That page was mentioned during the (lengthy) discussion at WT:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 39#Moving forward on Line case. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, that discussion was already rather well hidden in the mists of time. Itis nevertheless interesting to note how inconsistently things are treated. The tendency to disregard qualified sources just because they may be too close to a subject is, at any rate, worrying. Naming conventions are a minor problem, but this practice carries a risk of actually getting things wrong, e.g. through misinterpretation. But such considerations may not belong here. --Schlosser67 (talk) 09:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Schlosser67 see here. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 12:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
BTW - the above is not because I agree, moreover just to point out that a discussion about the naming convention for Airedale line had already taken place. Whether or not it is right or wrong to capitalise does not matter; the guideline and the sources do not, so we do not. Amakuru's desire to look at the wording of WP:NCCAPS would perhaps lead to a better outcome or at least one where we can have clarity about the naming conventions to prevent these discussions coming up so rapidly after each other. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
This is the same one disruptive editor with an axe to grind, ignoring all subject knowledge or consensus amongst other editors. It's time to be discussing topic bans. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Again and again. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
As an aside to this, I've been starting to wonder if the wording of WP:NCCAPS for events and named entities may be due for some revision. Discussions at Syrian Civil War (which decided to retain caps), Civil rights movement (which decided to have it lower case, but acrimoniously so), Rwandan genocide (lower case too, which seems out of sync when you also have Rwandan Civil War etc.) It seems to me that these names, including Airedale Line etc, and even Northern Line, while they may be somewhat descriptive in nature, are nonetheless "titles" and a case could be made that they should be capitalised, even if sources don't consistently do so. Changing the style guide in this way would require an RfC and community agreement of course, which is why until we do that, I'm personally for naming things per WP:NCCAPS.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I would support that, the current state of affairs with capitalisation policy is an utter dogs breakfast, causing lots of aggravation all round and yielding utterly random and inconsistent results. I think there's a case to be made for consistency within categories. G-13114 (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I think that the line names are proper names, and should be treated as such, even if London Underground don't agree. This whole fiasco has dragged on way too long and led to complete disarray. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Lewisham incident, 2 March

Members of this WP may be aware of the incident near Lewisham where trains were stranded and subsequently abandoned by passengers with the third rails still live. Given that the RAIB have now opened a full investigation, should the incident be mentioned in the station article? Mjroots (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that it's really relevant to the station - the similar Kentish Town incident from a few years ago doesn't get a mention at Kentish Town station. If there isn't a dedicated article for these type of events (and I don't know of any sources that treat them as a class, although imo they should be dealt with that way otherwise lessons will not be learned), then I'd say the best place for a mention is the article about the operator. Thryduulf (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
The TOC wẹas prosecuted over the incident at Kentish Town, something which is still possible in the Lewisham case. Maybe this discussion should be broadened out to discuss whether or not passengers being stranded on trains which result in significant action occurring (prosecution, full RAIB investigation, death of person during self-evacuation etc) would mean that it is sufficiently notable to be worthy on a mention on station/line articles. Given the criteria above, the stranding of a train in the New Forest in late February is probably just below the threshold, despite the 15-hour delay in evacuating. Mjroots (talk) 09:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I can see the case for a mention on the line and/or TOC articles, but the absolute most I'd expect to see on a sation article would a single sentence linking to the paragraph elsewhere and even then only if the proximity of that station was noted as a relevant factor in reliable sources or the name of the station (not just the area) was the/a common way of referring to the incident in sources. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Should the Third rail article mention of the 'passengers dismounting from stranded train' scenario in its comments on safety? As I read that section it is concerned with the risk at stations and level crossings. Rjccumbria (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Apparently the incident involved evacuations from five separate trains. Might be an article in this, but probably worth waiting for the final report before writing it. Mjroots (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
There were nine trains involved, with passengers abandoning five of them. Covered in the Rail issue 848. Futher coverage expected in issue 849, at which point there will probably be enough info to write an article. Which brings us to its title. "2018 Lewisham multiple train strandings and evacuations"? Mjroots (talk) 04:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
@ mjroots. I'd support a separate article, based on your excellent job of the Wootton Bassett SPAD - a significant rail industry event.. There are several important topics arising at Lewisham that need to be aired: 1) Southeastern's continuing inability to run a coherent service during snow (This is avoidable if trains run continuously and through the night - Thameslink & SWT manage it). 2) Poor incident management - People should not have been left on trains for so long. This is for failures everywhere, not just in snow. Nowadays it is inevitable that people will-self evacuate if they know they are near a station and nothing is being done. 3) The scandalous Rail Industry policy of commuter trains "not needing" toilets - after several hours internment people were forced to soil themselves. If you start writing it I'm happy to add what I can. Dr Sludge (talk) 11:43, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
The sheer reckless stupidity of passengers self-evacuating onto railway lines without supervision - quite apart from the 750-volt third rail, what made them think that another train might not pass by on an adjacent line? Did they not also consider that their presence on a railway line would bring about the halting of all other services in the area, so imposing the same inconvenience upon other passengers. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
This forum discussion gives a good idea of how events unfolded. It is also an excellent example of how a forum can be a good source of reliable sources. Mjroots (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

We now have 2018 Lewisham train strandings up and running. Mjroots (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Coventry railway station

Talk:Coventry railway station (England)#Move. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Line/station templates always shown full size to mobile browsers, even with |collapse=yes}}

It doesn't seem correct to me that templates [for example the two on West Coast Main Line] should be shown at maximum size unless the reader explicitly requests it: indeed in most cases the templates are invoked with "collapse=yes" set. But for mobile browsers this is not happening, the template is always shown fully expanded. In the case of the WCML it is particularly bad, the user sees no useful text whatever for maybe four screens, then the lead para, then another three screens of even more detailed line diagrams. Most urban station articles have a "stations around" or "lines around" template, often near the top. As things stand, it seems to me, we are making many wp articles, but especially railway articles, a complete switch-off for mobile users. Is this a bug or a feature? Collapse=yes should mean yes no matter what platform is used, even 13½. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Stoke Gifford Depot

October 2016 - 800001 can be seen in the depot sidings in the background

Does anyone have a definitive source on when Stoke Gifford depot opened? I couldn't find anything giving an explicit date, and the only references to opening were a 2012 article (which cannot possibly give a date for the 2016/7 opening) and some news articles about the depot taking on apprentices. -mattbuck (Talk) 05:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

So how do we judge when a depot opens? Staff on site? Trains arrive? Trains being maintained? I'm not sure I know the answer, but the building work appears to have finished in March 2016 [4]
The plan was to finish in March 2016. Photos from early 2016 show the site looking superficially complete. Blogs talk about happenings at the already open depot in September, so I think it came in roughly on time but I don't have an RS to quote. Certes (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
There were certainly IETs using the depot by October 2016. Geof Sheppard (talk)

Ascot–Guildford line

Any thoughts on deleting or renaming the Ascot–Guildford line? Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

This article was undeleted and the AfD reset as No Consensus.
However the article is still about a service, not an actual line, and has zero supporting sources.
I suggest we replace the article with Ascot to Ash Vale Line (in whatever way we're naming things now), which should just be the bit between Ascot and Ash Vale, as the other bits are part of the North Downs Line or Alton Line.
Ping Geof Sheppard, Redrose64, Nightfury, Andy Dingley, Jclemens, Szzuk, Meanderingbartender, Mrmatiko. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, Ascot to Ash Vale line (without capping line) is frequent enough in sources, as is the dashed version; more consistent would probably be Ashton–Ash Vale line. Dicklyon (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Valoem seems to have found two reliable sources calling Ascot-Guildford a line, though I'm not convinced there isn't some citogenesis going on there. The 1984 book however is certainly pre-Wikipedia, does anyone have a copy? Geoffrey Body (1984). Railways of the Southern Region. P. Stephens. ISBN 978-0-85059-664-9. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Belatedly, yes. p36: "Ascot–Ash Vale Line. This link between the Reading and Aldershot lines was authorised in 1873, opened from Ascot to Sturt Lane on 18 March 1878 and from Frimley Junction to Ash Vale on 2 June 1879. It was electrified from 1 January 1939 and now [1984] has a half-hourly off-peak service between Ascot and Guildford with through trains to and from Waterloo in the business travel periods." (There follows half a page of route description, signalling arrangements etc., ending at Ash Vale station.) Happy to help with rewriting/adding to the article (presumably under the proposed name?) based on this source and anything else I can dig up in the books I have; just ping me. (Pinging Mattbuck, Geof Sheppard, Redrose64, Nightfury, Andy Dingley, Jclemens, Szzuk, Meanderingbartender, Mrmatiko) Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 19:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC) + also a brief mention as the "Ash Vale line" on p231 in the context of the Waterloo–Reading line. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 19:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Hassocks5489 so it refers to Ascot/Ash Vale, not Ascot/Guildford? Wonder why it got used as a citation then. Sounds good tome, one less service "line"... -mattbuck (Talk) 21:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

East Coast (train operating company)

Somebody please look at East Coast (train operating company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and decide if 2.24.142.61 (talk)'s edits are worth keeping. Discussions exist at User talk:Keith D#East Coast (train operating company) and at User talk:Redrose64#East Coast (train operating company). Notifying Keith D (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with either the current wording or "East Coast (the trading name of East Coast Main Line Company Ltd)" if the preference is to have the pagetitle appear first. Nthep (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
@Redrose64: I modified it to match the FGW article. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_41&oldid=1074877993"