User talk:Our Phellap/2006

London railway stations

There is an active debate on talk:Victoria station (London) at the moment. However I think that it should probably be suspended pending the result of an agreement on a standard naming convention for all railway stations in Britain. The standard I quoted at talk:Waverley station is seemingly just defacto extrapolated from a standard adopted for LU stations. I'd set this up but I'm not going to get time over the next few days to do the necessary legwork in setting it up and advertising it, etc. Feel free to copy my table - though you could probably format it prettier and find a better way of noting about tram stops. Thryduulf 00:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PKP trains

Hi. In Poland we do not use "Class" prefix officially. Refering to Polish locomotives you say "lokomotywa EU05" (EU 05 locomotive). So I think there is no need of capitalising the first letter.
CCMichalZ 20:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Railway lines in Scotland

replied/wangi 01:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GB railway stations

Hi. I’ve just posted a request for comments at Talk:Nottingham station regarding the “service information boxes” in GB railway station articles. I’m not sure who the first begetter of these boxes was, but as I noticed you are a frequent contributor on rail-related topics I thought you might care to take a look. --Picapica 22:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Varsity Line

You might be interested in my latest update to Varsity Line#Prognosis. --Concrete Cowboy 18:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BR Subclasses

Anyway, I think we ought to be starting to write articles for subclasses, e.g. British Rail Class 66/0 to explain the subclasses. Get some room for some more photos and also more detail. Whatcha reckon? — Dunc|☺ 22:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

This is just a friendly message to ask you to remember to include edit summaries for you changes - even if they are just minor. Help:Edit summary explains their importance succinctly and clearly. Thryduulf 21:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:UK Major Railway Stations

Hi, would you mind having a look at the proposal I've put at Template talk:UK Major Railway Stations? Since I put it there, discussions have gone quiet, and I wanted to know what people thought about it. Thanks, RFBailey 10:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redhill to Tonbridge Line

(from west to east)

Redhill - Tonbridge

There is a railway line from Redhill to Tonbridge - notable for the straightness of its route. It don't seem to have a "... Line" article here and it seems to be missing from Template:Railway lines in South-East England. Have I missed it or has Wikipedia so far missed it?

It is also notable because it helps to explain the absence of a railway line between Westerham and Redhill. (If I write any more, you will suggest I go away and write the article!) -- RHaworth 09:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have writ it anyway - Redhill to Tonbridge Line. -- RHaworth 08:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

East of England railway lines template

Hi, i am trying to add the Hertfood Loop to the commuter lines but i cannot get it to line up properly so it looks like part of the line to the lft. Please help. Simply south 10:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Simply south 19:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates for stations by county

Hi, thanks for the aesthetic modification. I've changed the page to include both versions for comparison, although I think yours is better! I'll do the same to the West Midlands one shortly.

When I have time (over the weekend, possibly), I'll create similar templates for the other metropolitan counties (although Tyne and Wear will probably only take about two minutes!).

How long do you think I should wait before actually implementing them on the articles? (Just after an opinion, feel free not to answer!) --RFBailey 22:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me + formatting templates = bad

Could i have help with formatting of a template?

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Template:Cardiff, Newport and the Valleys railway stations - a problem for more details.

Simply south 15:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was trying to get it to look like the other templates, if rather botched. Simply south 12:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh Heritage Railways

Take the point; however the better way to do it would be to have the title text ("Heritage Railways in Wales") link to the relevant category, and remove (or unlink) it from the bottom. Not sure what utility is created by having links to heritage railway and the relevant home nation in the template. Relatedly, I've been thinking about doing an infobox for UK heritage railways, and would welcome any thoughts on content. I was thinking of - original opening; original railway company; grouping company; closed to passengers year; closed year; preserved year; length; no. of stations; main terminus; - as a starting poing, and would welcome comments. Ideally, I'll do this as a set of optionals, so only the info people actually put in appears. Mtpt 21:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, info box is up. See HERE for the template, and HERE for a test - figured it would be appropriate to use Talyllyn! Let me know what you thinkMtpt 11:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The option to add those kind of events is already in there - the "Preservation History" section allows you to put in text, seperated by a carriage returns, and there's a corresponding years field. It's the same format being used for the events section on the UK stations infobox. I'll draft up a guide to the fields to go on the Template page.

I'm not sure where this should be posted for wider comment? There doesn't seem to be a central point for Heritage Railways, the way there are WP:Trains and WP:UK Railways. Any ideas? If not, I'll probably just introduce it on a few discussion pages, and see what people think. Mtpt 16:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

London Underground 1956 Stock

Thanks for the pointer. Have corrected to link on the template so that it heads to 1959 stock.Jsp3970 00:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lynton & Barnstaple Railway

Hi, and thanks for your comments about the L&B article.

the L&B web site does have some information about the rolling stock, although little about the current engineering train vehicles, of which we are building up quite a variety - I will add more to the wiki article over the next couple of weeks if I can, and try to asnswer your questions.

exmoor NG is a yahoo discussion group you may want to subscribe to for more information.

I'm glad you enjoyed your visit to Woody Bay - please do call in again the next time you're passing! A third "new" (ex-Thorpe Park) carriage has just entered service - a combined 1st/3rd class - and we have two more ready to be rebuilt for passenger duty.

Regards Lynbarn 08:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More details are given in the new edition of Brown, Prideau and Radcliffe, but basically, 54, 61 & 62 are all former munitions vans, ex-RAF Chilmark. 50 is also ex-MOD. The L&B brought 8 coaches from the Thorpe Park theme park in about 1993/94. Three of these are running more or less as delivered, at the Lynbarn Railway, three were fully rebuilt by the L&B at Bratton Fleming, as coaches 1, 2 and (recently delivered) 3 and the remaining 2 are due for rebuilding in a similar style.

Hope that helps, Lynbarn 20:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The integrated DVT article

Thanks for your message. I examined both the DVT and the DBSO articles, and initially was going to integrate both of them, but there was a lot more detailed content on the DBSO page. As I said on the talk page of the new article, it wouldn't have made sense to put all those details into the new article. The DVT section of the new article is not missing any pertinent information compared to the standalone version. The only stuff I removed was that which was redundant to the other 3.

I realized that there are a series of articles on British Rail coaching stock. If there's the kind of information in the DVT article that there is for the DBSO article, then it makes sense for it to stand on its own. As it is now, the problem of having 4 different articles on the same exact thing (a control car) is resolved. I also put the commonscat template into the new article's DVT section.

Please let me know what you think. --Cacetudo 17:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that does make sense. I can't do it until tomorrow though. --Cacetudo 18:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, I reverted the DVT article and the redirects that point to it. I chopped the size of the DVT section in the control car article and added a "main article" link. On both the DVT and DBSO I've also added a dablink at the top which describes the situation. --Cacetudo 15:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail Class 43 (HST)

I noticed last night after shutting down my computer, I had not marked all the HSTs with new engines so just went to change my input and notice you have already. Thanks for you input. Best wishes. Nickg1980 12:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Heritage Railway

Hi Our Phellap, I love the Heritage Railway template. It looks very smart on the Corris Railway article and I've just added it to the Ffestiniog Railway too. Excellent work. I'm planning on adding it to further hertiage railway articles. Best, Gwernol 14:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, great idea - and I'm working on one for the L&B! Two suggestions if I may - could tyhe template allow colours to be selected to match the railway livery, and could the title bar text be centred? (I have done it manually, but it could be built-in.) Regards, Lynbarn 17:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Implemented box looks good - nice job! Mtpt 20:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:British Rail EMU

I don't know why you singled the classes I added to the template as there are others on the same template that fall under the same 'category' that you mentioned, ie that they were not the final TOPS class. The classes I added are legitimate and should be included as it is after all a list of TOPS classes. Jsp3970 14:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]