Talk:British Royal Train

Trains: in UK / in Scotland Mid‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Transport in Scotland (assessed as High-importance).

LMS Jubilee Class 5593 Kolhapur

I found this recently, the inaugural run being at the head of HRH The Duke of Gloucester's Royal Train from Tyseley to Birmingham Moor Street on 5th June 1985., but after a cursory search I found no other clarification if this was just a royal train, or The Royal Train. MickMacNee (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GWR 7800 (Manor) Manor Class 7819 Hinton Manor

As above, foung this In 1990 7819 became part of a royal train once again, conveying HRH The Duke of Gloucester from Kidderminster to Bridgnorth for the official opening of the railway's boiler repair shop. The Duke drove 7819 for part of the journey. MickMacNee (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why was 72 / 5072 / 10504 / 804 scrapped?

It had been withdrawn for 50 years by the time it was scrapped in 1998, so had presumably been preserved. Why was it scrapped in 1998? 81.158.1.233 (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NRM

Perhaps the article should note the number of ex-royal carriages in preservation at the national railway museum in york .. maybe someone with a nrm guidebook that can be used as a reference ? Sf5xeplus (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment :

For the befit of the whole, Terry nyorks (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)I can assist here, based on some info available, but as the NRM is constantly changing the stock in York (between there and Shildon - not to mention the occasional loan), it is impossible to keep up to date! This of course applies to pre-grouping stock (i.e.pre 1947). Most of those are clerestory, though some Victorian (UK) ones are arc roof. You can find examples of many of these Clerestories, some beyond NRM, at https://www.flickr.com/search/?thumb=1&w=2031425%40N22&m=pool&q=Royal%20Train%20UK. Hope this helps.[reply]

(Maybe the wikipedia editors would care to tidy this suggestion into "official" form.) Terry nyorks talk) 18:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Messanine Zoo

all moot now

Hello Messanine Zoo, thank you for wanting to get involved with Wikipedia, and in particular, the British Royal Train article. Perhaps if you can share what you're trying to do with the article, other editors may be able to advise in a way that doesn't result in feeling the need to user the revert button (see Special:Contributions/Messanine Zoo). On Wikipedia we have several policies in this case WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE is probably important. Per WP:BRD, you need to open a discussion if you've been bold and it has been reverted/corrected; not simply use the undo/revert feature. If you're able to explain your wishes, I or another editor may be able to suggest a solution that also helps our readers. —Sladen (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Messanine Zoo, please could you try to find the time to respond here. —Sladen (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down, I was writing the reply when you posted a second time!

While you might disagree, I'm trying to improve the article, firstly by doing as the tag asked and giving it a proper summarising introduction, covering the main points. Regarding my revert, the image you restored is of no use to anyone - you state "This is here because it lists and shows most of the fleet as it was during 2012" - but in reality, even at full resolution, you can barely make out the design of any but the closet carriages. And if you can find a source that says that particular configuration was the usual one (which I doubt), couldn't that simply be related in text? I suspect that this is just a case of you wanting to include a photograph you yourself took. Please put personal views aside, and look at that image from the perspective of someone who is, apparently, meant to be gleaning something important from it. It's not even a particularly good image of 67026 due to the framing and blurring, better ones must be out there if it's decided this page must have a pic of 67026 on it (given how many images are already here, I chose not to include one). Messanine Zoo (talk) 00:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding. It's fairly hard to know what guidance to offer in the case of eg. [1] "remove {{whom}}{{cn}} - I am summarising facts already mentioned in the article, backed by sources (so tag them if they're incorrect)" as the word "supporters" doesn't appear else where in the article. For any particular images, hopefully they are ones able to give context based on those that are available for use and suitably licenced—the image with its caption "Typical 8-carriage royal train configuration of 2921, 2903, 2916, 2922, 2923, 2917, 2915, 2920 between top and tail royal Class 67s during 2012." might not be brilliant but is perhaps the only image available (bar the 1905 image) that shows the length/scale of a usual configuration. An image of the locomotive and three carriages perhaps doesn't convey scale or context in the same manner. Again, it comes back to WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE. —Sladen (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. You can see quite clearly where there is cited text in the article referring to the reasons why supporters think the train is worth the money. And quite clearly, the image is so poorly framed (almost head on) it's not even really illustrating the basic length against any decent reference point, not even in a 'poor is better than nothing' sense. If you seriously believe this is an important concept that needs illustrating here, I'm sure somewhere out there is a superior image of a train with 8 Mk3's that could be used instead. If useless is better than nothing is the standard, then there's a whole bunch of poor images on Commons which could be used here - under/over exposed or even blurred pics of museum stock for example. There comes a point where images are so crap, it's simply a distraction, and brings down the level of the article as a whole (not that that is really possible in this case anyway). Messanine Zoo (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Messanine Zoo, If you or another editor are aware of any other libre image showing the full rake please feel free to replace it. The image was taken expressly because there was no other libre image available, nor at attempts at obtaining one and getting it suitably licenced been successful. —Sladen (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any, but I have only looked on Commons. I'm sorry to say, but if that was your sole purpose in taking that image, you failed. Honestly, I don't think you're being remotely objective here. The picture is so poor it's not even possible to be sure the whole rake are Royal Train carriages (not that I am disputing that they are), and as for showing there's another Class 67 on the back, that's well into the realms of Loch Ness monster type guesswork. Messanine Zoo (talk) 01:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And as well as this issue of picking out single words that need citing, in an article which has entire sections without cites, I find your whole approach bizarre to be honest - in one edit you're spelling out links in full, like [[Silver Jubilee of Elizabeth II and privatisation of British Rail, even though from the context the shorter versions were fine, yet in other edits you're trying very hard to remove words apparently for brevity, to the point of creating made up terms like "Class 67006" in ways that completely obscure the full title of the link. If you've goal is to improve this article as well, can I ask that you not waste my time with what are essentially trivial complaints like this, and this image issue, until I've had a decent chance to get the article up to a half decent level of quality? You might think the issues you're objecting to are super-important, but in the grand scheme of the overall quality of this piece, they really aren't. Messanine Zoo (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Messanine Zoo, Wikipedia aims to ensure consist quality useful to our readers, and does so with a number of policies. Per WP:EGG and WP:NOPIPE we try to avoid abbreviations in prose, or piping or obscuring a wikilink when it is possible to use a wording that keeps it unpiped. —Sladen (talk) 01:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of which changes the fact that in context, "Silver Jubilee" or "privatisation of BR" was not confusing, whereas "Class 67006" is very definitely confusing. If there seriously is a rule which says Class 67006 is OK, but Class 67 No. 67006 is too long, then it's self-evidently stupid and should be ignored. But like I said, I seriously don't want to be wasting my time on this trivial stuff when the article is such a mess overall. Messanine Zoo (talk) 01:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And can you stop sending me alerts (and now thanks) too! They're annoying, not least because the system doesn't seem to work when things are happening fast. I'm here, I know you're here, I think we can manage without them until it looks like one of us has been kidnapped by aliens. Messanine Zoo (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sladen, I've rolled back all my changes. This is not a reflection on you, or some kind of tantrum, I simply realised after looking at it some more, that the article is so poor, nothing I really did today had any material impact on its overall quality, which was my original goal. If anything, I was wrong to begin by expanding summary intro first, since what I was summarising was not so much an article but a largely incoherent jumble of disjointed facts, extremely skewed to the last 50 years and the current train (vehicle list aside) - and yes, I'm aware that's a trait shared by most Wikipedia articles, some far more important than this one. I also strongly doubt that everything here comes from the few sources on the page either. And when I got to thinking what would be involved in writing it properly, particularly given how much omitted history there is, as well as all the things about the modern train that are not even mentioned, I realised there's no way I can take on such a task right now, mostly for time reasons, but also probably lack of sources too. I would prefer you not to reinsert my changes (although I'd say use as many of those images as is practical right now, they're the best ones in the Commons category), since I think the average reader is probably better served by having a quick scan of the page, which would take just as long as reading my intro and then being disappointed. As said, this is not a reflection on you, but nonetheless I urge you to reconsider re. my point about trivialities whether what you do is likely to help or hinder anyone who does actually have the time to dive in and rewrite articles like this. It's takes time, but so does having long back and forth arguments like the above, which is frustrating when the time taken on that doesn't reflect the relative importance of the issue. But honestly, seriously, that image is bad - there's no way it would remain in this article on a proper rewrite and quality review, even under the 'poor is better than nothing' standard. Messanine Zoo (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC) Scratch that, I've put back a shortened version of my intro, which still does the tag-requested job of covering the key points. Any more detailed without expanding the main article and it would be pointless though, so please no additions until that happens. Messanine Zoo (talk) 05:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on British Royal Train. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British Royal Train. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100209041840/http://www.mosi.org.uk:80/about-us/news/tornado-pulls-royal-train-into-mosi to http://www.mosi.org.uk/about-us/news/tornado-pulls-royal-train-into-mosi

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biodiesel

Biodiesel#Railway usage claims that the Royal Train has run on 100% biodiesel since 2007. Hairy Dude (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Royal Train Use" section

There has been some back-and-forth editing of the paragraph of text about its planned use for Op LB a couple of weeks ago, so I'm opening it up on the talk page to reach a consensus to the text's inclusion. Fyi XAM2175 (talk · contribs), Clattein (talk · contribs), Dale Arnett (talk · contribs), Pintodog (talk · contribs) Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 05:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that it should be mentioned but probably quite briefly, since it was definitely a part of those original plans and was widely reported to be so (up until the changes were publicised) Pintodog (talk) 06:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattdaviesfsic: The "back-and-forth editing of the paragraph" was only related to minor points of style, as far as I can see, rather than there being any dispute about its presence. Indeed it was added to the article in this edit within three months of the plan being reported in the Guardian back in March 2017 and it was still in the article immediately prior to the Queen's death. Clattein's removal on the 19th just gone is the first evidence immediately visible of anybody disagreeing with it being included. XAM2175 ^(T) 13:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Royal Train Use" cost control parliamentary permission accession update

an uncited and outdated sentence in the article presently reads "To control costs, Parliament permits the Royal Train to be used only by The Queen with The Duke of Edinburgh, or The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall." I assume that the parliament's policy, or at least its enforcement, is up-to-date regarding the King, the Queen Consort, and the Prince and Princess of Wales, but without a citation, I felt unsure about making the update myself and unclear on where to look to be more sure. Mattman00000 (talk) 11:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]