Is there any reason for retaining the year-old Article alerts thread at the top of this page? For some reason, Miszabot seems to be ignoring it. If it's not required, I'll archive it manually. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 08:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Article alert bot is currently down. Hopefully it will be up again at some point in time. Worth keeping for now. Mjroots (talk) 06:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it will work with this project as all articles under our banner are included in the TWP umbrella. Article alerts only seems to work when banners are separate. Simply south (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I've manually archived it.[1] If and when the Article alerts bot starts working for this project, it may be worth adding the information as a {{tmbox}} or similar at the top of the page. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 08:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I followed the photo to its source, and discovered a contributor to the Geograph project, Ben Brooksbank, who states this 'about me':
"Retired Medical Scientist, keen photographer for 64 years. Taken photographs, primarily of scenery and railways, in Britain and abroad, in colour since 1953 (slides, prints since 1980), digital since 2003). Several thousand photographs to offer.
Keen to fill up grid gaps and to be able to discuss content. Lifelong Railway Enthusiast, in recent years concentrating on Closed Stations -- as well as Open ones."
Now, Geograph photos are free to use (once transferred to Commons, for which there is a utility to assist) so we have a wonderful resource at our fingertips without the worry that the photos will be removed from beneath us. You'll need to do a bit of digging, as there are pictures titled such as "Bala Junction Station, with train" which shows a very clear BR Standard 4MT (with small tender), or Blackwell: summit of Lickey Bank, with Up express which shows an LMS Black 5 on an express. Presumably Ben would be willing to help locate specific requests...?
I think there was a recent thing to transfer all geograph images to Commons, so an image you want may already be there, just uncategorised. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think every geograph image has been transferred. Geograph has over 1.8 million images, wheras Commons has over 271,400 of them. Mjroots (talk) 13:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
The Commons Geograph collections sits at around 480k once you add in all those in subcategories, so a sizeable proportion of the total. I understand that the work to add to that is still ongoing. Adambro (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
This particular Geograph contributor has had his photos published in Mitchell & Smith's branch lines series, as well as on Nick Catford's website, so we are quite lucky to have his images. On another point, many of Ben's images are being uploaded into Commons with either unhelpful file names or categories or both. I've been going through the station images on Commons to get them into some order, but it would be useful if other users could help out when they see one of Ben's images - such as this one: File:Lickey 1822768 99cf0436.jpg - which are just chucked into generic rail categories. Please can we also avoid calling stations "train stations". Lamberhurst (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I totally agree with not using the term "train station" (where did that come from?). Railway station is the term in use since the 1820s, and should be used at all times. Mjroots (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm a Geograph member, so I've messaged Ben and pointed him to this discussion. He may have some questions to ask us, and we might be able to persuade him to join us. Mjroots (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I was in contact with him a couple of weeks ago. He is looking for a senior Geograph administrator to advise him on the kind of images which the project would be most interested in. He has quite a sizeable collection as you can imagine. Lamberhurst (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I've had a reply from Ben, and he tells me he's registered an account on Wikipedia - Inchmole (talk·contribs). He says he is willing to assist with specific requests for photographs at the moment, and may get involved with this Wikiproject at a later date. Mjroots (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Infobox for rail lines
I have noticed a number of problems with the embedding of a route diagram in the {{Infobox rail line}} template where the route icons do not fit together causing gaps in the line. This usually occurs with the wider route diagrams. An example of this is here which is particularly bad. I have removed the embedded route diagram from the infobox on a few articles that I have spotted the problem on. Should we be discouraging, or removing altogether, the practice of embedding in the infobox because of this problem or is there some solution with the pictograms that can be used to circumvent the problem. Keith D (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, there are a couple things you can do. There's a helper template, {{infobox rdt}}, which helps format a route diagram for use in the infobox. The other is to simply increase the width of the infobox so that it can handle the template. I've done both on Heart of Wessex Line (see [2]). Mackensen(talk)22:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Don't really understand the first one on a first read but stretching the infobox is not really useful as that makes it too wide you would expect an infobox of around the 250px mark. Keith D (talk) 23:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, the infobox is now the same width as the route diagram. To my mind that looks better than a 250px infobox followed immediately by a 400px route diagram, but that's me. Mackensen(talk)00:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Separate from. Consider this one, where widening up to close the gaps would make the infobox so wide that it swamps the proper text in the lede and elsewhere - see the previous version. There are IP editors (poss all the same one) who have been going around adding {{Infobox rail line}} to every rail line article in sight. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Everything needs checking, proof-reading, etc. please be bold and do this. It most probably also needs a better introduction, categorising, and simplifying in places. Please discuss any significant changes on the talk page first though. Some suitable examples of articles and sections for some or all the different levels would be possibly useful as well (see WP:AIRCRASH for how examples help). Thryduulf (talk)
If you've been around here for a while (and got a good memeory), then you will remember that two years ago we were discussing the need to get our most important articles to – at least – Good Article status.
Well after a lot of work, Great Western Railway has finally made it. The big learning curve was that it needed to be treated as an introduction to a lot of topics, each of which needed its own article. There was no way that sensible outlines of, say locomotive, carriage and wagon design, could fit within the main article. Indeed, even now there is a ripple on the discussion pages about how much detail there should be on branch lines.
I found this photo on Commons, which appears to show a 156 at Barmouth in 2001. Can anyone tell me what company ran this service, what company the train was owned by, and whether 156s often visited Wales? The Class 156 article doesn't mention Wales anywhere. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
The livery appears to be the same as in this image (right) from Commons showing a 156 operated by Central Trains in Express Regional Railways livery (see Central_Trains#Fleet:_March_1997.
Linking this discussion with the one above about Geograph, here is a selection taken Barmouth: [3] . And here is one by Ben Brooksbank [4]Andy F (talk) 08:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Webster, Neil; Hall, Peter; Fox, Peter (2001). British Railways Locomotives & Coaching Stock 2001. Sheffield: Platform 5 Publishing. p. 199. ISBN1 902336 19 4.
has:
156415 r* RE P CT TS 52415 57415
which decodes as "Unit no. 156415 is fitted with Radio Electronic Token Block (RETB) equipment, has 72 seats (instead of the normal 74) in the DMSL car, is in the obsolete Provincial Express livery (Light grey/buff/dark grey with white, dark blue & light blue stripes), is owned by Porterbrook Leasing Company Ltd., is operated by Central Trains, is allocated to Tyseley (Birmingham) and comprises DMSL car 52415 and DMS car 57415". I think the problem with the article not mentioning Wales is down to depot allocation. Since the beginning of sectorisation, trains were increasingly concentrated on depots dedicated to particular classes, rather than depots close to where the trains actually operated. In the days of traditional DMUs, Central Wales services were mostly operated by Chester depot; but when the Class 150/1 began to be used in C. Wales, they remained allocated to Derby, and Chester was closed. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I've created an article on 99 010 Invicta. Can anyone provide a reference for her TOPS Number? Did these appear in old ABCs or other spotters books? Mjroots (talk) 11:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
British Rail Class 99 cites The Allocation History of BR Diesels and Electrics (Third and Final Edition), written by Roger Harris in 2004, as a reference for the numbers. I don't own the book so I can't be sure if it verifies 99010, but I'm sure someone does. There doesn't seem to be anything useful on Google. [5][6]Alzarian16 (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Platform 5 spotters books never listed ships. Ian Allan ABCs for BR (and predecessors) did not list ships in the same publications as locomotives, this is the case right down to the final edition (1989), and to misquote Nelson, "I see no ships" in the revived Ian Allan Rail Guide 2010 (ISBN978-0-7110-3457-0). Apart from that, I've got a booklet:
Burbage-Atter, M.G. (2001). "5. Maritime: Ships, Ferries and Inland Waterways". A Complete Guide to Ian Allan Publishing, part one: Ian Allan ABC Pocket Books (Third ed.). Leeds. ISBN0 9518921 0 X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
in which I see that Ian Allan did produce the equivalent of spotters guides for ships at sporadic intervals, such as The ABC of British Railways Steamers which appeared in June 1953 and May 1962. There seem to have been a wide variety of these, but they mostly dried up after about 1966. Considering only the 1968-72 period, you could try:
These were by either B. Moody or D. Hornsby, and were hardback with dust wrapper. Remember that although TOPS classes were issued for locomotives in 1968, TOPS numbers were not used until 1972, so the order of the sentences
"With the introduction of TOPS in 1968, Sealink ships were classed as locomotives for TOPS purposes, being allocated Class 99. Invicta was allocated TOPS Number 99 010. On 23 May 1970, Invicta was chartered for a trip to Ostend, Belgium. She made her last revenue-earning voyages on 8 August 1972."
I just like to request a class 172 image as their is none for the Class 172 article. They are now in passenger service on the Gospel Oak to Barking Line and I will try to take a photo if I'm in that area, but just in case you see one first it would be appreciated. Likelife (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
If/when I go on my next London jaunt I intend to do Gospel Oak-Barking, but I'm slow getting photos done. 3k backlog atm. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Naming convention (stations)
Whilst not wishing to stir up a hornets nest, would it possible to reach a consensus on the adoption of the naming convention for UK stations? The guidelines, which may need some updating, seem to have stalled in 2007 as a result of objections from now retired users. Adoption of the guidelines would prevent the current proliferation of different variations in station names, sometimes in contradiction to their official names. Lamberhurst (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Commons livery cat naming conventions
Hello everyone, I've been gradually sorting out the Commons UK train photos into operator and livery cats. However, I'm unsure quite what to call some of them. For instance, should it be "Trains in First Group Dynamic Lines livery" or just "Trains in Dynamic Lines livery"? For the Stagecoach ones it's obvious as they don't appear to have any special names, but I'm getting confused when I get to the First stuff. Can anyone give some advice? See commons:Category:Train liveries by company. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd also like some advice on a few other names, mainly for defunct TOCs such as Anglia Railways - I've identified three distinct Anglia liveries, but I'm really not sure what to call them. For now I'm going with "Anglia Railways white" for the 170, and will likely go for "Anglia Railways striped" for the DBSO and unsure about the 153. Did these ever have official (or at least commonly used) names I could use? -mattbuck (Talk) 00:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd just call it "Anglia Railways". The distinguishing feaure of ARs livery was the specific shade of green. Mjroots (talk) 04:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
In that case, the Dynamic Lines livery would be the same as the Local lines livery which would be the same as the City Light/Dynamic Blocks liveries. They are 3 different liveries, even if they do use the same shade of green. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Another issue is what to do when TOCs change name. As is, I have One separate from NXEA, but Hull Trains not separate from First Hull Trains. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I would keep Hull Trains as one category, but because its gone and changed the trains as well as the livery for the second time I would have different category's, one for the Hull Trains livery class 170s one for the Gold, Gray & Green livery class 222s and one for the Neon livery 180s. Likelife (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
The categories (for liveries of FHT trains) will currently be (for FHT) 170s in Hull Trains green and white, 180s in FG Dynamic, 180s in FG barbie, 222s in FHT green and grey. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I live in Didcot, and long ago gave up trying to rationalise all the different stripe/blob variants that FGW have used. I knew it'd get ridiculous when "fag packet" arrived. We get the occasional relief by seeing a class 31 in full 1970s-style rail blue on a test train. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
It might upset a few Welsh speakers, but this is the English language Wikipedia, therefore there's a good reason to use the English spelling. There is a precedent with Aberdovey railway station, though there may be some counter-examples around as well. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 17:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
That's precisely the point: This is English Wikipedia and the English name always takes precedence, partly for consistency. The Welsh name would of course appear below the English name, using the 'other_name' parameter in the infobox.–Signalhead< T >17:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi everyone, another Commons issue for you - TransPennine Express vs First TransPennine Express. en.wp uses the latter as the article, yet Commons (mostly) uses the former. Can we standardise this to the First TPE version? -mattbuck (Talk) 21:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Not sure about that; TPE is the route, and FTPE is the company that happens to operate it currently. It's not so obvious here as the articles are quite stubby, but imagine what that precedent would do to West Coast Main Line/Virgin Trains, for instance. – iridescent14:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
On the London Underground S Stock article its claimed that the trains will start at the end of this month, but the BBC report a few months ago said they will start in September just on the Met line. Does anyone know when they will actually start service?Likelife (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
TfL seems very cagey about the actual start date; if you look in their press archive they don't seem to actually give a start date. If the introduction of the London Underground 2009 Stock on the Victoria is any indication, they'll introduce one train initially which will only run in off-peak periods, to avoid any nasty surprises if it doesn't work properly. (Certainly if I were LT I'd start it on the Chesham branch or as a Rickmansworth-Watford shuttle, so if it breaks down there's no risk of it shutting the Chiltern Main Line or grinding to a halt in the middle of King's Cross.) There may not be a clear "start date" as such. – iridescent13:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The article - Alnmouth claims the station was renamed Alnmouth (for Alnwick) in 2003, but East Coast along with National Rail and Northern refer to the station just as Almouth see here, here and here. But the station signs say Alnmouth (for Alnwick) Which is in this image. I believed the station was Alnmouth (for Alnwick) but now I'm unsure. Also if the station is (for Alnwick) should the article be moved accordingly? Best - Likelife (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I'd say it's just "Alnmouth" unless you can find a formal announcement somewhere that the name changed. "Foo for Bar" on the signs doesn't necessarily mean that's the name of the station; the signs are for the convenience of people who might not necessarily realise where they're meant to get off. (See also Greenhithe for Bluewater.) What does the sign over the door (as opposed to what's on the platforms) call it? – iridescent13:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I haven't been since they rebuilt Greenhithe, but I found a image of the new building with the sign [7] saying Greenhithe for Bluewater on the entrance.Likelife (talk) 13:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
All London terimi stations should they all have London in the title?
Meadowhall Interchange (Interchange I understand this has a bus station, but so does Stratford station right out side the station, so should this be also called Interchange?
"for xxx" is a suffix normally shown on signs, possibly in timetables, but not necessarily used officially. The usual sources give just two names for my local station (without or with the totally unnecessary "Parkway" suffix), but there is plenty photographic evidence for the full name in days of yore being "Didcot Junction for the Didcot Newbury and Southampton Railway", which is simply never shown in full in prose. In certain circumstances "for xxx" may be useful for dab purposes. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Redrose that we shouldn't be using "for" unless there's a disambiguation reason or it genuinely does form the official name, appear in the timetable etc. Going by a strict "what does the sign say?" rule would mean chaos when it came to things like City Thameslink for St Pauls Cathedral. – iridescent17:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, but how do we determine if it does form the official name? The Alnmouth and Greenhithe signs has for xxx in the same size witting through out the station, while St Albans doesn't have City anywhere I know of in the station and Again what about the stations with London in the title? Likelife (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The starting point would be to see if it is in a verifiable source such as {{Butt-Stations}} or a railway mag, see for example Aynho for Deddington. As Network Rail don't publish press releases every time they change a station's name, I would go for the name actually shown on the running in boards over the toc/NR website. If a disambig is needed and the official websites don't help, then it should be by county or, if in the same county, operator. I think the disambig should be in brackets after the station name, but consensus has not been reached on this point on the naming convention page. Lamberhurst (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
User:79.66.48.54
Over the last few days a series of edits have been made about railways in the Liverpool area they are reminiscent of a user who I think was blocked in the end. The edits make tends to make some pretty strong claims and lack references. He is on his 3rd IP address today. Have a look at Merseyrail for an example. I've had a quiet word but am really not in mood to deal with him ATM. If someone could take a look.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree im getting exasperated at this user with multiple IP's, have tried to work with them in the talk page but im one step away from losing my temper and resorting to an edit war with them. The person is editing my talk comments as well! WatcherZero (talk) 00:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I think he is back as User:86.137.75.132 he seems to be using a map to justify mods to the Wapping and Waterloo tunnels, when the map seems to show an additional station on the Northern Line. I have used my three reverts. I think he has done 4 now.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd just like to say that I've been watching the various articles on the railways around Liverpool now for quite a while now and I'm going to have to agree with your thoughts on that IP address. The edits seem to be very Waterspaces-esque with the niche topic of the tunnels and the use of incorrect term, 'Merseyrail metro'. I've just had to revert/cleanup completely, removing nonsense, his additions to the tunnel pages again. Raywil (talk) 00:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
He has a website in which he expounds his views. He does seem to want to dig a lot of tunnels. If he starts quoting the image then this is my own OTT plan using all the old lines without digging any new tunnels. So it not worth anything as a ref.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Glad to see he's been blocked instead. Doubt it'll be long before he finds a new IP address though. I've seen his website before, as well as his protests on the Liverpool wiki: [8][9][10]. Here's another version of the map you added: [11]Raywil (talk) 01:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I think we just need to wait and see. He does seem to have put a lot of effort into his work. I try not to use Wikipedia to promote mine if I do please slap me on the wrist. Currently I'm trying to get Deutsche Bahn to say whether or ot they have considered region EuroTunnel services to the UK as they have proposed a London service and to quote me for leasing an ICE3 for a one off Germany-Liverpool-Germany run!--Kitchen Knife (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I think it's best to give it a bit of time. I'm away next week anyway so I probably won't be very active. Hope there's no more trouble next week. Raywil (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
There is also a variant using the line pictgrams as per Keighley railway station that an IP has just started adding to articles. This is probably more useful that the platform layouts mentioned previously. Keith D (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not keen on either. While the Keighley example might be neater it doesn't actually tell you much e.g. which platform is which and the diagram is way too wide. NtheP (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree their crossing the line from Wiki as an information resource to passenger information provider, they are also large and ugly. WatcherZero (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd say they have a very limited use for stations with unusual layouts, such as the cross-over platform at Cambridge, or (outside this project's scope), Limerick Junction, but otherwise they're non-encyclopedic trivia. Otherwise, we're in danger of just copying Quail maps. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 22:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I would say how about simply including a external link to National Rail enquiries station maps? But they dont give platform uses so probably not worth bothering. WatcherZero (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Ugh - these just do not do anything for me. Very clunky and really this should be discouraged, and existing examples removed asap. --Stewart(talk | edits)18:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
IMO both. I can just about live with the track plans if they are like Cranbrook i.e. small and discreet, not like the Keighley or any of the others on Worth Valley stations one which are far too big/wide and obtrusive. NtheP (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Personally I don't think the diagams do track plans, rather than route diagrams very well. I'm not convinced that individual station track plans (which is what the platform diagams are, after all) add anything to the articles. And the kind of maze we will end up with when someone gets to the bigger stations I just don't want to think about so I'm with Pencefn here. Britmax (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
There's a big difference between Cranbrook-style track plans which actually help in describing the layout, and West Acton-style which add very little. If the Keighley track plan is too large, it can be collapsed. Personally, I find track plans for complicated layouts - such as Cambridge and Reading - very useful. Lamberhurst (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why not. A map of the track layout in an article about a station? It hardly seems unreasonable, though I agree not all stations need it. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
The RDT is limited to a max of 9 columns, so you wouldn't be able to do London Liverpool Street for example. Another use of track diagrams is in railway accident articles such as Marden rail crash - the diagram there is not comprehensive, but does show the relation of various places to each other. Mjroots (talk) 06:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
RDT is not limited to 9 columns, it's just that no one's yet made a template for 10+ column diagrams, but there's no reason you couldn't create one. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Explanation of LO stop signs
While at Shepher's Bush I noticed some curious London Overground stop signs. They had "Class 378 3 car", "Class 378 4 car" then "Class 378 T3 car", "Class 378 T4 car" and also "Class 378 S car" - what do the last three mean? -mattbuck (Talk) 23:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
As you are probably aware, on stations where the entrance/exit is roughly central, both platforms will have a set of numeric car stops, positioned half a unit-length apart. So if the station is served by trains formed of 3-car units, the 3/6/9 car stops will be 1+1⁄2 car lengths apart. The idea is to get the train to stop so that passengers at the front have the same walk to the exit as passengers at the rear.
Where car stop signs have a class code, this often means that the station is served by more than one class, and those classes have significantly different car lengths. Class 378 cars are about 20m long, so I suspect that the station is also served by units having 23m cars - the difference in length over a 9 car train amounts to 27m, more than one car length.
Afraid I can't help with T3/T4, except that I do know that some Cl. 378 units were delivered with only 3 cars instead of 4, the fourth to be added later. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't know the layout of Shepherds Bush, but could the T be "terminating"—that is, far enough back to allow access to the reversing crossover? – iridescent15:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
According to that, Shepherd's Bush is at 4 m 15 ch, and there is, apparently, a leading crossover 29 chains south at Kensington Junction for Richmond (3 m 66 ch), also a scissors crossover 1 m 17 ch north at St Quentin Park (5 m 32 ch). Which platform are the 3T/4T on, and do they face trains proceeding normally, or "wrong-line"? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
However, Does anyone here know of the maths, demensional information that would allow these to be plotted accurately
on drawings?
I've found a model for current practice ( BS 113 Flat Bottom type) and for GWR type switches...
However I've NOT as yet found a sutiable model/dimensional table for the semi curved REA designs used by companies OTHER than the GWR.
Is someone able to provide this information in a format that's wiki compatible? (like a scan for Wikisource?)
What I'm trying to find is the original data-set Templot might be based on , because Templot isn't 'free' software.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
First GBRf is now GB Railfreight
I understand that First GBRf is not part of the First Group any more - but part of the Eurotunnel group or whatever they are called and is now known as GB Railfreight. So should there be a new article or should First GBRf be moved to GB Railfreight? Along with this a lot of articles need their links changed from First GBRf. Thanks - Likelife (talk) 08:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Future Development
Given the on going disputes regarding the Victoria Tunnel and Merseyrail. I think we need a policy on what constitutes a proposal we should include. I suggest that the suggests should be limited to those from Government, Local government organisations, ATOC, Network Rail and organisations with the money to pay for the work where the proposal has appeared in newspaper or professional journal.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 12:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Public service produced or commissioned by a charity or pressure group from a proffesional organisation would be my definition. WatcherZero (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
2008/09 Station Usage statistics need another pass
The ORR made a mistake on the intial release of 2008/2009 Station Usage statistics, The ones published 25th March-9th April double counted Advance Purchase (‘Apex’) which particularly affects intercity tickets and intercity hubs inflating the hubs usage. The difference is quite large for example Glasgow Central was 28.126m on wiki entry buts now 27.584m in ORR statistics, Manchester Piccadilly was 22.026m and is now 20.132m, London Euston wiki page says 31.179m in reality its 27.499m.
We need the Bot to run again updating all the stations with corrected 08/09 numbers.
Further to the above: the Railway Clearing House produced a series of junction diagrams, 158 of which were published in book form: for example, File:Carlisle RJD 001.jpg. Diagrams in this series have been added to many UK and Ireland railway articles.
An issue related to the Festiniog Railway has been raised at WP:ANI. It concerns the addition of an external link to Festipedia to the {{Festiniog Railway Company}} template. Maybe a link to Festipedia could be in the External Links section of the Festiniog Railway article, subject to consensus. This issue may be better being discussed here or on the article's talk page rather than at ANI. Mjroots (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
A quick flickrsearch reveals many images of this particluar unit, including some of the derailment itself. A quick message to the owner of a suitable image may persuade him / her to release a copy under a commons-compatible licence. -=# Amos E Wolfetalk #=-
I know stations are considered inherently notable, but does this extend to stations that never opened? I'm asking because I recently found Leven (East Yorkshire) railway station, a stub with no references for which I can't find any information whatsoever. Would this be considered notable in its current form or not? Alzarian16 (talk) 12:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Oddly the reason that uncompleted stations were not built can sometimes make them more notable than stations that were finished. Britmax (talk) 12:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, but the course of action proposed by Alzarian16 is entirely correct, especially as the railway line article is a stub itself. It's highly likely that the only references you'd be able to find for the stations would be the same as available for the never-built railway -- stations that aren't built on a railway that is might be notable, but I suspect unbuilt stations on an unbuilt railway would never reach such dizzy heights. -- EdJogg (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Last night, or the night before, there was an appeal on BBC South Today for people with railway track going spare. An enthusiast group want to reopen the Somerset & Dorset all the way from Poole to Bath. They have rebuilt Shillingstone railway station, with about enough track to stretch from one end of the platform to the other, but that's about it. So, a station built but unopened. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Interesting one. My favourite of the type was always Lullingstone station in Kent, which has a page here, but we don't have an article on that. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
To be accurate, Shillingstone is not an unopened station. It was open on the S&D for just over 100 years, and is now re-opened as a heritage railway attraction in its own right, although the shunter + box van + 50yds track combination is not yet open to public service...but they have a 9F (92207) which is being restored from ex-Barry condition, and they have the trackbed (currently a cycleway), and lots of vision. (Visited there on way home from Great Dorset Steam Fair on Sat.) -- EdJogg (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I've redirected the six North Holderness ones since no-one's objected. If anyone does object they're free to revert me. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
If you remember the old Ian Allan abc Combined Volume, you'll recall it went out of production after the 1989 edition. But apparently they have revived the series, with:
A set of scales with a brass plaque showing BR (S) ownership; they're designed to weigh up to 28 lbs. in a brass scoop. Whatever they were used to weigh must have been in the form of powder, granules or lumps, and presumably non-edible (because the scoop is untinned brass). Any ideas? My original surmise was coal, but someone pointed out that weighing out a tender full of coal at 28 lb at time is ridiculous. Ning-ning (talk) 08:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Do you have a photo, also decription of the location where they were found/installed?
No photo at the moment, but may be able to snap them tomorrow or Tuesday. Came from a Pevensey car boot sale, no provenance but not only have the brass plaque but also a serial number on a separate tag, so presumably standard railway issue. Maybe they are from a staff canteen then! Ning-ning (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
UK Railways articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the UK Railways articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
The great What/Where/Why game - Now in one thread!
I've taken the liberty of grouping all these threads. Please feel free to add your own requests here. Maybe we could set up a dedicated page for this? -mattbuck (Talk) 23:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
DMUs in Devon
Where am I?
Hi everyone. Just sorting out some stuff on Commons, and I came across the picture on the right. Can anyone work out where it is? The sign's too blurry to read, but it's C... Halt, allegedly in Devon. Source comes up as 582 DNS error.
The neatly mown and edged grass, with picnic tables, suggest to me that this may be on a preserved line, possibly in its early days, rather than a halt nearing closure. There's a photo of Clearbrook Halt here (sixth photo), though taken from the other direction. Certainly the shelter is different. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 05:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Ooh, well found. There are enough discrepancies between the two images (position of trees, type of shelter etc.) that it's looking likely that this isn't the one. However, as far as I'm aware no preserved station fits with what's visible of the name, so where does that leave us? Alzarian16 (talk) 06:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Follow-up: I just discovered Colesloggett Halt (over the boundary into Cornwall), which seems to fit with a lot of what we have: single-platform preserved line station with the right sort of name in the South West. However, that station appears to have opened in 1993, so would require a serious redating of the image. Alzarian16 (talk) 06:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Nice job guys, I didn't expect such a quick response. As noted all 158s on Commons are now classified by livery and operator, apart from the two mentioned previously. Onwards! -mattbuck (Talk) 11:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, it's the uploader here. The original source link is now dead. Story behind that is this: I spoke to Paul Miller, the photographer, who had a bunch of historically unique train photos on ringo.com (see here -- if you're a train geek (or even a closeted train geek like me), some of that will get you pretty damn excited). As the site was going to close when I found his stuff, I asked him if he would consider contributing his stuff under a free license and since he wanted to see his stuff to live on, he agreed. Anyway, if the original description on ringo.com said that it was in Devon, then I put that on the description on the Commons. I can be pretty certain this was on a preserved line, due to the age of his other stuff. We don't need to speculate, though, because I'm a friend of his following our first exchange and I just fired off an email asking him where it was taken. I'll get back to you. :) Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 22:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I got an email back from him. I'm actually pretty impressed at your detective work. ;) The station is indeed Colesloggett Halt. He tells me that the units are 52054 and 53980 (52054 nearest camera). The shot was taken around 1997. Cheers! :D Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 11:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Right, that's one sorted out. Interesting to note that this exercise has actually benifitted the page Colesloggett Halt railway station, which previously had no image! Regarding the Darlington 158 shot, it appears to already be a member of Category:TransPennine Express so is half way there already. The livery looks like old Northern Spirit red with TPE branding, but it's not a certainty. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi everyone. Can anyone tell me what company started the metro red or red and grey liveries? I've seen photos of them on Northern and ATN trains. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
The red and cream in the upper picture is that of West Yorkshire PTE (trading as "Metro"), which began to replace the previous Verona green and cream on buses at the time of deregulation in Autumn 1986. It was first applied to trains with British Rail Class 144 as built 1986-7, then British Rail Class 155 nos. 155341-7 (see here) also as built 1988; then Class 141/1 upon conversion from 141/0 in 1988-9 (previously, class 141/0 had been the only trains to bear the WYPTE green and cream). It kind of spread from there. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Strange carriages at Bounds Green
Seeing the picture and query up there has made want another mystery solved. I normally pass these railway carriages during a commute every now and then and i am wondering what they were and what are the purposes of them. Sorry for the quality but as you can see these photos were taken through a train carriage window.
Judging by the B4 bogies, body shape and roof profile, these are conversions from redundant Mark 2 series stock. Although blanked over, the window shapes are visible: their proportions suggest the earlier (ie non air-conditioned) varieties, Mark 2/2A/2B/2C. The window spacing further suggests former first-class vehicles.
The one in the third picture has passenger doors at the far end which are of the normal width (not the wrap-around style), so it's either Mark 2 or Mk 2A (to determine which, I'd need to see inside). Nearer to the camera, there are side doors suggesting a brake vehicle, so given the window spacing it could be a BFK; but could also be a BSO, because prior to Mark 2B, the BSO used the BFK bodyshell.
The one in the second picture does not have the doors of a brake vehicle, but the large windows visible for the major portion of the length, suggest either FK or FO; it has the large wrap-around doors of Mk 2B onward, and since there are too many roof vents for a Mark 2C, it is definitely a former Mark 2B FK (there were no FO until Mk 2C), and so when new was numbered in the 13476-513 range (Lot no. 30789 Derby 1969). --Redrose64 (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Very detailed. Looking elsewhere suggests that they are one or more out of 6352, 6353, 6354, 6355, 6358, 6359 and on the first link, a contributor concurs with it being Mk2a FK (later Mk2a CK) and the others perhaps being Mk2 BFKs. Perhaps you can piece out which photographs are which ones (they don't appear to move much!). —Sladen (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Looking at pic 2 again, this shows the number 6353 in blue numerals on the red band just to the left of the second OHLE mast from the right. According to a Platform 5 coaching stock pocket book of 2006, that makes it ex-13478 & 19478 (19478 being the number following conversion from FK to SK in 1985 - nb not CK, that would be a 7000-series number), which fits my earlier deductions, Watson. However, P5 also state "Mark 2A. Lot no. 30774 Derby 1968", which would suit former numbers 13434-63 and also a different type of doors. I'm staying with Mark 2B FK on this one. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with that. The appearances are quite distinctive. A 303 is extremely similar to a 311, but none of the latter were ever allocated to the London Midland Region, whereas several 303s were transferred there, supposedly to replace the 506s on the Manchester-Glossop-Hadfield route, after that was converted to 25kV, although they did operate on other routes too, almost interchangeably with the 304s after the latter were reduced to 3 coaches. This one bears the GMPTE "wavy M" logo just to the left of the BR "arrows of indecision" below the first passenger window.
The two 310s on the right may be distinguished from the basically similar 312s by the shape of the recess below the central window: it's wider than it is tall, whereas on a 312 it's taller than it is wide. These two also retain the wrap-around cab windows that they were built with, something the 312s never had; later on, the 310s were modified to match the 312s in this respect. Note also that the headcode box of the right-hand unit shows three white spots, instead of the two found on all locos and most other EMUs. This feature was only found on 310s and 312s, and then at only one end of each unit: it means that the closest coach is a DTC; the one in the middle has two white spots, so is a BDTS. First-class commuters were advised (by posters on the stations) to watch for two or three dots, so that they could dash for the appropriate end of the platform. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Not much else it can be. As far as I'm aware no other units with sliding doors were painted into that colour scheme. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Don't think so, although that was my first thought too; the architecture is the same, but Darlington is a much darker brick. – iridescent06:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
That's Commons with their obsessive rules and ludicrous bureaucracy, not en-wiki. There's a reason sensible people don't go near Commons. – iridescent16:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh please. COMMONS has excessive rules and ludicrous bureaucracy? We have about 10% of the # of policy pages of en.wp. En.wp has massed bureaucracy - arbitrations, dispute resolutions, etc. Commons has an admin noticeboard, that's about it. As for our "obsession" with rules... we care mainly about copyright, which is something we should all be concerned about, as having unfree images used with gay abandon tramples on the concept of a "free encyclopaedia". -mattbuck (Talk) 16:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
PS: Can you not group all of these as one big thread? It means the bot won't archive any of it as long as there's even one recent comment in any of the threads. – iridescent16:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I grouped them together to stop the page being overrun with random ones. Maybe we should just create a subpage for them. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Bah, I hate original upload log - it just tells me whoever uploaded it wasn't a commons user. Commons uber alles! -mattbuck (Talk) 01:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
It's not Gospel Oak, though; it's Barking, Platform 1. The signal number, UR906, allowed me to positively identify the location.–Signalhead< T >08:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The orange and brown one is definitely GMPTE. This livery was applied to 142 001-014 when new, and they went to Newton Heath (NH). I commuted on them at the time, and a proper letdown they were too. We wanted the Class 104s back - they didn't pitch, squeal on curves (such as when entering Bradshawgate Tunnel in Bolton), they had proper seats not bus seats and you could see forward through the cab and... (moan gripe complain)
The "Skipper" livery was applied to 142 015-027 from new, and was supposed to be reminiscent of GWR colours. Ha ha. After a short stay at Laira (where the complaints about flange squeal were at least acted upon), they got sent to NH (poor us) or Heaton, but were not repainted immediately.
To complete the picture, the remainder of that first batch, 142 028-050, went to NH but were two-tone blue from new (like this).
No attempt was made to reserve orange units for GMPTE services - they were often seen on the Preston-Colne route, which was operated by NH depot but was entirely outside the PTE area. On any route, when a four-car train was called for, there was a good chance that the liveries would not match. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
It's retrospective in the sense that the colour scheme was a throwback to previous eras by using the chocloate and cream livery of the GWR. NtheP (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
That makes a lot of sense, although I'm not entirely sure we should include it in the caption without further explanation. Thanks for the reply. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion they'd be better off deleted altogether. They aren't actually articles about the lines themselves, but about a couple of current services that run down the lines. They're both unsourced and seemingly non-notable so there's no particular reason to keep the edit history, and I can't imagine them as plausible search terms either. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
In the current Rail (magazine) (issue 653) the MD David Shipley for Chinese Sourced Railway Equipment says that the Polaris and Pacemaker trains will be in the UK in 2012 but has not said what TOC would operate them. There is already some detailed info in Rail Mag (with images) and I'm thinking on creating a article or should I wait for more info? Likelife (talk) 08:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
We'd have to go with fair use images, which is unfortunate, and they'd have to be in temporary names, but I say go for it. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I've only created the Polaris (train) article because I've heard more about this than the others. I found more tech info than I thought I would which is mostly in the infobox.Likelife (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I've linked it from the Grand Central Railway article which already mentions the trains. While I doubt Grand Central's current financial situation would allow them to purchase new trains from CSRE I would be interested to see which TOC puts an order in. NRTurner (talk) 12:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah so would I. Its most likely Alliance Rail Holdings for their proposed open access services as they do have a picture of them on their website but I'm really clueless about the 2012 running though.Likelife (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Mjroots (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Done - Both articles have been moved. –Signalhead < T > 18:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
![[11]](http://www.liverpoolwiki.org/Merseyrail?action=Files&do=view&target=Merseyrail_wishlist_map.jpg){kind=link}
