Would it be useful to have links from pages for each three letter code (which is typically already a disambiguation page) to the station concerned? Currently, implementation is hit and miss: EDB has a link to Edinburgh Waverley railway station but BOD does not link to Bodmin Parkway railway station. There is an authoritative list of such codes on ATOC's website [1] or I am sure they can be got from DfT seeing as they have made sets like NaPTAN available. It may also be desirable to create a list along the lines of List of Amtrak station codes. DWeir (talk) 23:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Certainly a list would be very useful - many is the time I've looked up our article to find the code of a station. Redirects, hatnotes and links from the TLA dabs are probably a good thing too, although I'm less certain of this. They're rarely going to be the primary usage but some will be used and consistency is good. It would probably be useful to create a specific redirect template, along the lines of {{R from airport code}}, to categorise them. Thryduulf (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I was actually thinking about this yesterday, I think is a good idea, but is it needed for every station? Likelife (talk) 08:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd question whether it's worth the effort. Airport TLAs are quite well known, as they're prominent on luggage tags and tickets, but I'd wager 99% of rail users never know the TLA for even the stations they use every day. (Someone might talk about "flying from LHR to CDG"; nobody outside Network Rail would ever talk about "getting a train from GLQ to WVH"). – iridescent16:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Thats true its only FCC which I know of who put the codes on their network map and i'm sure most people ignore it. Likelife (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I must be in the 1%, but then again, I only got to use the codes on the National Rail's journey planner website, as most of my regular stations were unique by their TLA. I would never use the codes in conversation (or IATA codes, except perhaps JFK), and I'd only use them in a text message (or perhaps an email) if I had a reasonable expectation that the recipient was likely to know what it meant.
Having said that, it's used in the {{infobox station}}code parameter, so why not have a list, and add them to TLA (dab) pages. My only comment for the latter is that we use some concise label such as (BR station code) along the lines of (IATA code). Tim PF (talk) 23:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
These diagrams could be improved by addition of signalling, buildings etc, but before we get that far in, I'd like some feedback on whether or not these diagrams are a desirable addition to articles. Mjroots (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
As a general rule, I'd say use single-image diagrams rather than RDT. Because MediaWiki treats each part of an RDT diagram as a separate image, they're painfully slow to load if you don't already have the elements in your browser cache (try loading Isle of Wight Railway over a phone or a dial-up connection). For stations that don't have an unusual arrangement of lines, I'd question whether it's necessary; remember that we're trying to give the readers a summary of key facts, not everything-ever-written, and while a diagram of the passenger platforms is certainly useful to general readers for a station with a non-standard layout like Cambridge, I'm fairly confident that the overwhelming majority of readers would have no interest in knowing the precise layout of the coal sidings. – iridescent16:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with iridescent. Like other discussions there have been on this page e.g. bridges and L/Cs on RDTs I think a plan is an over proliferation of detail in the vast majority of articles. There's also place in time to consider; if it if felt that a plan is absolutely necessary - do you show the station as it is now, or as it was at it's peak or at some other time? If a layout plan is necessary, and there are cases where it would be appropriate, then it's an annoying limitation of RDTs that they require a vertical layout as opposed to a horizontal one; that's one of the reasons why I did a freehand sketch for Waterhouses (Staffordshire) railway station so I could have the horizontal orientation. NtheP (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
One advantage of the vertical layout is that "up" and "down" can be correctly shown. As for single image diags, where we going to get them from? What about licencing? Signal diagrams from BR and previous companies are likely Crown Copyright, which means any dated post 1960 are in copyright atm. The diagrams I have created have a date on them so there can be no chance of confusion with the current layout. Mjroots (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
It's impossible to copyright geographic fact (which is why TFL's permanent barrage of complaints about Wikipedia's tube maps are always brushed aside); a single image knocked up in Inkscape is no more or less a copyright violation than a composite image composed of RDT elements. The kind of diagram at Waterhouses (Staffordshire) railway station and Limerick Junction are the kind of diagram I'd consider would be most useful to our readers. – iridescent18:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I can't get on with Inkscape at all, blooming useless program if you ask me, although others seem to get on with it OK. Another advantage of RDTs is that they are easy to amend should that prove necessary. Mjroots (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I did have the idea of printing out the diagram and converting it to an image, but it won't work as you lose wikilinks. Tried doing it in word but the diagram broke due to overlays. Looks like RDT is the only way it's going to work and still give a consistent appearance with other diagrams. Mjroots (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
None of the diagrams did it for me, sadly. I would be interested in seeing scaled diagrams of station layouts, but have no interest in the schematic diagrams yielded by RDT. That would especially be the case with respect to Marden rail crash, where I'm used to the scaled drawings found in rail accident reports. Producing something which is not to scale for such an article is, for me, much less than helpful. --Tagishsimon(talk)11:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Just a minor request
Does anyone have any info on the exact date of opening of Canary Wharf DLR (not 1987 please, more 1991) and Pudding Mill Lane with references? Simply south......digging mountains for 5 years20:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Butt (1995) p.52 has Canary Wharf as "OP 2 April 1991; (OP) 27 August 1991" where "(OP)" is Butt's shorthand for "Date of Opening to Regular Passenger Traffic after having previously been open on a restricted basis". He doesn't list Pudding Mill Lane. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Opinions on the level of detail required for a Wikipedia station article
I've been looking through the articles for stations in the West Midlands, and I'm wondering, are the opening times of a ticket office really appropriate for a Wikipedia article? Particularly where the opening times are entirely unremarkable? The article I'm looking at is Adderley Park. Would other editors remove this information? jdan (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
If (a) the opening hours are unusual (say, for one morning per week, or for 24 hrs 7 days), and (b) the information is sourced, then fine; otherwise remove. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, watch out for WP:recentism too - info like that usually ends up making a rod for someones back - it's near impossible to keep that level of detail up to date as well.Imgaril (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks. Was pretty sure it should go but I'm not as clued-up as many other editors, so just checking people agreed. jdan (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Please don't do that. Would you remove a "citation needed" tag because nobody has bothered to find a reference - it's a similar thing. Templates like this exist to alert editors and readers to problems.Imgaril (talk) 12:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
As far as I know, you are the only person who is disputing the title. This is not a strong case for a "disputed title" tag. Biscuittin (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Except that the rest of the planet doesn't use "British Rail Class 70" - it's not the official name, and and not the common name. It fails Wikipedia:Verifiability. :(
There has been a long discussion about names for British Railways/British Rail/post-privatisation locomotives in general. I'm not happy about locomotives which were introduced by British Railways being labelled "British Rail" but, in the interests of standardisation, I have accepted a compromise. Biscuittin (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
No, it's not a similar thing to deleting a {{citation needed}} tag. The real point is that these 3 {{disputed title}} tags were left on the articles, even after there was a long discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways, which could gain no consensus to change this naming convention. If you wish to resurrect that discussion, then that is the correct forum, not here, as it affects more than just these three locomotives. Tim PF (talk) 23:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
But it also affects the 20 or so multiple unit classes introduced since privatisation. Should we tag all of those too? The current tags have spectacularly failed to alert editors to the problem as Imgaril wants them to - this is the first discussion on the topic in several months, and most of us here were involved in the last one. (I also support the format linked above, but it was soundly rejected when I proposed it at the last discussion.) Alzarian16 (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
If the editors wont fix an issue then the readers need to be alerted to any issues. Maybe you need new editors? Imgaril (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit-conflict) I've just (tried) to Revert per WP:BRD. Please discuss. Ugly and inconsistent for no reason. but it looks like it's going to need an admin to clear up. There's a reason we try to discuss this kind of thing first. —Sladen (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
We have discussed it ad infinitum at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways without reaching a conclusion. That's why I decided to be bold. You say " Ugly and inconsistent for no reason". Please explain what you mean. There is a good reason, namely these locos have nothing to do with British Rail. Biscuittin (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit-conflict) "Ugly"—long-winded: much longer title (approximately twice the length), and containing (Capitalised Parenthesis), this causes the page title/URL to detract from readability as it over-powers the content; since it can be avoided easily in this case there isn't really a benefit. "Inconsistent"—four pages named using a different schema. They stick out like a sore-thumb and the poor editor is left trying to remember what syntax is in use. If you believe that the locomotive types have nothing to do with a "British Rail", then it's your job to convince other people of that. To myself, the name makes perfect sense—especially in the case of British Rail Class 59 where there have been so many owners/operators yet always running on the same metals (except for the single Class 59 that went to Germany). —Sladen (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
As and aside, if it is decided to use country to disambiguated, it probably should be "United Kingdom" and not "Great Britain". I believe that wikipedia allows (UK) too, but I can't find that link. Don't blame me if I'm wrong about that.
The reason for that is because it is NOT A BRITISH RAIL LOCOMOTIVE...
For Sladen's benefit - the reasons for changing are given above in this section - but to summarise - the use (specifically) of British Rail means that the title is imprecise. More importantly it fails the general standards for using common, and/or veryfiable names for titles. No reliable source uses "British Rail class 70", and no "trainspotter" source uses it either -
I think we should use one of the common names for this locomotive. One alternative is "GE Powerhaul locomotive" which matches a consistent set Category:GE locomotives the other commonly used name is "Freightliner Class 70" which also matches another set of the form "Company + Class" - eg Midland Railway 115 Class and many others. so there are at least three options with multiple variations for tweaking, maybe too many options ?Imgaril (talk) 19:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I will explain the thinking behind my preferred title. "Class 70" - I don't think many people will disagree with. "Diesel locomotive" - I think the title should give the reader an idea what the article is about. "Class 70", on its own, might be a ship or a tank or anything. "Great Britain" - it is necessary to disambiguate because other countries use the TOPS system. Biscuittin (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Class 70 would of course be preferable, but there are ambiguity issues, which is the reason that Class 70 itself is a disambiguation page (and the same applies for virtually all "Class XXX" titles). I also agree that "TOPS" is of little help because it a system, rather than a schema built with that system (the schema in this case being the British Rail-originated Classification system)—in the same way, XML is not a schema, it is a system for making schemas. —Sladen (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I've copied the above discussion over her because it affects more than just the article it was being discussed on. This is a BRD issue, and we are now at the D part. I can see some good point being raised in this discussion, and it may be that we can find another way to title articles covering rolling stock introduced after the privatisation on British Rail in 1997. Mjroots (talk) 05:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't see why the naming convention for post-privatisation locos has to be the same as that for pre-privatisation locos. Normally, when a railway changes hands, the naming convention changes too, e.g. LSWR S15 class, SR U class, BR standard class 5. We don't go on calling them LSWR just because the track once belonged to the LSWR. Biscuittin (talk) 08:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree with Imgaril's proposed Freightliner Class 70. Although Freightliner is the only company operating them at present, it is quite possible that other companies will order them in the future and there will be multiple owners, as with Class 66. Biscuittin (talk) 08:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I continue to advocate my own proposal: Class 70 diesel locomotive (Great Britain). Sladen objects to the length of it but I think a title should inform non-technical readers what the article is about. "Class 70", on its own, may be meaningful to railway enthusiasts but not to everyone else. Biscuittin (talk) 08:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm still for retaining the current system, or at worst going to some other standardised system for all TOPS classes. When I first came upon the BRCX articles, I didn't think of it was "British Rail" the company, I thought of it as in railways of Britain. As far as I'm concerned, the current system is just fine, and deviating from it when the general system is still in place will just annoy and confuse. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I think this argument would carry more weight if the title was "British Railways" rather than "British Rail". A railway is a railway but a rail could be a handrail. Biscuittin (talk) 10:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Please let sleeping dogs lie, and let us get on with improving railway articles, of which very many require considerable attention. -- Alarics (talk) 12:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
OK. Can we declare this discussion closed and stop adding "disputed title" tags to the articles, at least for a limited period? Biscuittin (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
There is a subtle difference in the capitalisation of "British Rail" (the nationalised railway concern) and "British rail" (a rail from Britain). But "British Railways" was the earlier name of "British Rail", whilst "British railways" are railways in Britain. It was posited as a possibility in March, but that part of the previous discussion above petered out. Tim PF (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Seriously, I think British railways (small "r") would be the best bet because it covers both pre- and post- privatisation locos. Biscuittin (talk) 09:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I think the problem is that new editors keep reviving the discussion without being aware of the previous discussions. Perhaps it would be useful to put a note about this on the talk pages. Biscuittin (talk) 12:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
The idea of getting standard form is good, but not if we use an standard that applys to a completely different time period (ie British Rail) - it's not clear to me if it's actually necessary to mention in the title that it's 'british' ..
There are multiple good titles for British Rail Class 70 that are in common use, and accurate etc - that would be easy to fix. As for the other twenty articles mentioned - I don't know about those - perhaps if people could list them and say what are the proper titles for those then it might be possible to find a pattern and agree on some standardisation. It may not be possible to standardise fully - there already are are range of names used for titles including 'Country + class' 'manufacturer + tradename' and 'manufacturers product code'
Imgaril: The current article naming system used is not "Country + class" and it's not "manufacturer + tradename" and it's not operator + something. What it is is "classification scheme + number in scheme". The classification scheme here is that standardised by British Rail (the British Rail Class[ification] scheme). To my knowledge the British Rail Class[ification] is still in-use (regardless of the mainframe/servers/programs such as TOPS, or spreadsheets, or pieces of paper that it's written on). Hence type 66 in the British Rail Class[ification] is named British Rail Class 66.
The problem is that "British Rail" clearly implies "British Rail", not some obscure classification scheme. The pattern I see ( eg LMS Stanier Class 5 4-6-0, British Rail Class 37 makes me expect that the first bit refers to the railway company that used the loco) - as far as I know all other names match this pattern - ie the first name is the company who used it. In the case of these later things, that isn't the case.
I've already mentioned that nobody else uses "British Rail Class 70" - so it fails simple guidlines such as using the common name, and being verifyable.Imgaril (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Sladen, I haven't had the opportunity to visit Sodor recently. Has the Fat Controller introduced any new locomotives since Privatisation? :-) —Optimist on the run (the admin formerly known as Tivedshambo) (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Optimist: yes, but rumour has it that they still continue to use the same compatible numbering scheme as always. Biscuittin: I think if it was a realistic candidate it would not be a redlink. —Sladen (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
At the risk of veering wildly off the topic (which is getting rather repetitive), the locos on Sodor were almost all second-hand. The one new locomotive since Privatisation was a steam loco, built on the island. (I refer to the books not the later TV series).
Interestingly (bear with me!) Privatisation does not appear to have impinged on the island's railways yet. The books written since 1994 (by Christopher Awdry) do not make reference to it, whereas I'm sure his father (Rev W) would have done so, had he still been writing, in the same way he referred to the Nationalisation of the region's railways in book 3 of the series. I write 'interestingly' as I've not previously seen anyone raise the issue of BR's privatisation in relation to Sodor -- I suspect the Sudrians would have arranged a management buyout! -- EdJogg (talk) 00:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
At least as far as Network Rail nomenclature here are some examples of use One, Two, Three. All demonstrate everyday language usage of 'Class xx' without company name, manufacturer or British Rail. However as mentioned in previous discussion I still believe that BR is the best way to disambiguate from the naming of classes in other countries using TOPS systems because its the verbal common usage in this country and what people search for when looking for the article even if historically now factually incorrect. --WatcherZero (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I think there is broad consensus that the present title (while it has its faults) is the best we can do. However, Imgaril is implacably opposed to it and will not accept the consensus. Imgaril's argument is that nobody outside Wikipedia uses the the title British Rail Class 70. Can anybody answer this criticism? Biscuittin (talk) 08:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I have suggested Class 70 diesel locomotive (Great Britain) but that was rejected as too long and untidy. How about Class 70 diesel locomotive (gb)? Biscuittin (talk) 08:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm comfortable with "British Rail Class xxx", because I understand that the system was originated by British Rail, even though they are now long defunct. An alternative would be Class 70 diesel locomotive (UK), rather than GB as a disambiguator, and similar names for the other affected articles. Mjroots (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
There is a clear distinction between UK, which includes Northern Ireland, and GB which does not. Northern Ireland is a substantial area. Invoking every island, however small, is just nit-picking. Biscuittin (talk) 21:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
That was written with tongue firmly in cheek. I think we've argued long enough over this. It is now time to make a decision. Mjroots (talk) 05:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't a theory which says "UK" can't be used because not all stock can run everywhere in the UK also prevent the use of Great Britain, as third-rail stock can't run (of its own accord) in Scotland? Of course, this overlooks the fact that absolutely no stock can run on "British Rail", and things like Powerhaul never have been able to. Maybe we should tell the government to renationalise, not for political reasons but simply because it would suit Wikipedia's naming policy? Wheeltapper (talk) 13:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
To summarise and answer several points made above:
Third rail can be extended, electric units can be hauled over non (or differently) electrified lines, so that is irrelevant to the naming scheme.
Regarding GB/UK:
Whatever the scheme discussed here is called, it applies only to Great Britain.
Northern Ireland uses a different scheme
If a National Rail line was built on the Isle of Mull (or one was built by someone else but which had through running with Network Rail lines) the rolling stock would be classified in the scheme used in Great Britain.
If an NIR-operated standard gauge line was built in Northern Ireland and rolling stock imported from Great Britain used on it, then they would be renumbered from the Great Britain scheme to the Northern Ireland one.
If a different operator ran either new line and there was no interrunning then neither classification scheme would (presumably) be used (cf Eurotunnel Class 9).
Thus using a naming scheme including "UK" would be misleading and/or factually inaccurate.
Simply renationalising the railways wouldn't necessarily solve the debate, as the new national operator would probably continue to use the existing classification scheme (due to switch costs), and rolling stock would continue to be numbered in the same British Rail Class(ification) scheme they are today (which is not operated by NR but by a private company (Atos Origin?)).
The only ways for an external party to solve this (afaics) would be for
a reliable source to regularly and formally use a dismabiguator (but as none need to distinguish "Class XXX" any further this is unlikely), or
to start a new scheme that includes all post 1994 rolling stock and officially announce it's name (while a new scheme will probably have to happen eventually I wouldn't hold your breath, and there is no guarantee it will include anything built before the date of it's introduction).
So in reality we need to solve this internally: The only way I can see this will happen is for someone to come up with a new naming scheme that consensus agrees is better than the current one - which by definition means something that has not been proposed before and which takes into account the reasons why people have voted for and against all the previous proposals (none of which have got a consensus among even those who think the current system needs changing). Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
For classes introduced post-1994, article titles shall be of the format "(Class number) (type) (Great Britain)". Mjroots (talk) 05:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Support. Logical, explains to the reader what the article describes, fits in with all the relevant policies and guidlines (WP:COMMONNAME, WP:DISAMBIG and WP:V spring to mind) and avoids the current problem of using "British Rail" where they never operated the class. Length isn't a problem compared to some articles I could name. The last time I proposed this it was shot down in flames - I wonder if this will go better... Alzarian16 (talk) 05:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. The existing long-established system works fine, and is clearly understood by all concerned. I do not think a case for changing it has been made. If it works, don't fix it. -- Alarics (talk) 06:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
(point in minor sarcasm) The issue I have is that I clearly understand the usage "British Rail" to be wrong for classes introduced post privatisation.(ends) More importantly the article are not here just for "railfans" or the benefit of members of this project - to very loosely paraphrase - the titles should be understandable and be of singular obvious meaning to those 'not concerned' ie the unwashed masses.Imgaril (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
That's an interesting idea - I'd support Mjroots proposals above, but the subtle capitalisation change may offer a useful compromise, though I think it's obtuse.Imgaril (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Support - I suppose it's technically factually inaccurate to use 'British Rail' when that is the name of a government-owned company which in fact didn't even exist when the stock came into service.jdan (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay then, I suppose it's technically factually inaccurate to use 'British Rail' when that is the marketing name of the body legally know as the British Railways Board, which in fact didn't even exist when the stock came into service. jdan (talk) 11:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - consistency. But, if we are going to change, how about "Network Rail Class xx" - it is, after all, NR who continue to maintain the rolling stock database that is the direct descendant of TOPS. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
No, because those have now become "Network Rail" classes, NR having taken over from Railtrack. I like Redrose64's suggestion, if we have to change at all, but I would still say it is better to leave things as they are. -- Alarics (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Comment to Redrose One basic principle of naming is that common names are used, which of course should be veriyfiable. Using "Network Rail" is uncommon at the least, the other issue is that it's not obvious to non-UK rail interested persons ... The articles should be named so that they are of easy use to somebody from a foreign land with english as a second language - that's one good reason in support of using a name that includes GB or UK or similar.
Oppose. Proposal is longer than it needs to be, and less succinct. The current British Rail Class[ification] XXX or suggested Network Rail Class[ification] XXX are both accurate, in reflecting the numbering schema in which the following XXX falls. "Network Rail" through does not give any indication of geographic location. —Sladen (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Rather than 'Network Rail', which would indeed imply also needing to change some to 'Railtrack' too, why not 'National Rail'? After all, using Network Rail/Railtrack doesn't *really* make that much sense, since those companies are/were in charge of the infrastructure rather than the services or rolling stock. 'National Rail', on the other hand, is, I believe, I brand name under which ATOC advertises the rail network as a whole. It therefore seems to me to refer more strongly to rolling stock than 'Network Rail' would. I think the meaning is also more clear to non-rail people than 'Network Rail'. jdan (talk) 11:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Support. I'm all for anything that (a) doesn't make a Class 70 look like a BR design and (b) doesn't expect every reader to be able to distinguish between British Railways/British Rail/Railtrack/Network Rail. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
To Jdan: The problem with "National Rail" is that it begs the question "Which nation?". Wikipedia is supposed to be international. To get round this, we could have "National Rail (GB)". Biscuittin (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
True. Though on that basis we'd also have to dismiss 'Network Rail' and 'Railtrack' surely, as they also don't reveal anything about the country in question. jdan (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
'Network Rail' and 'Railtrack' are company names which are, as far as I know, exclusive to Great Britain. "National rail" is a general term which could be applied in any country. Biscuittin (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I've been comparing loco articles with lorry articles, e.g. Scania 4-series and Volvo FH, to see if this would help. The lorry articles contain very little information about where they are used and I suspect the level of standardisation in lorries (apart from left-hand or right-hand drive) is quite high. Locos (especially for Britain with its limited loading gauge) would be quite heavily customised so different articles for different countries are more relevant. Biscuittin (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
To a certain extent it is changing: see the JT42CWR (Class 66) which is all over Europe (and Egypt), or Powerhaul in Turkey (a Turkish built loco to a US-produced design is listed under the name of a British company which was effectively defunct a decade before the loco was even thought of?), Gautrain, Thai Desiros, and even things like Traxxen and Tauri. Wheeltapper (talk) 22:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Support - as per Alzarian16. British Rail is at best misleading, at worst outright wrong, and as time goes on it will only get even more wronger - and more stark raving bonkers. The argument that BR made the numbering system requires a far too complex an explanation and a peculiar level of specialist knowledge of both Wikipedia and British railway history (and BR's 70s were something else anyway!). The real world isn't designed around what is easy for Wikipedia to categorise, and we should deal with reality rather than try to deny it. Wheeltapper (talk) 22:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - I go away for a week and you guys do this... I accept that the naming system is not optimal in that it possibly introduces names that are not used elsewhere, but it does have the advantage of being consistent. The problem with British railways class is that you could then say that all pre-TOPS trains also fall in there, including all things like Midland Railway Class 5416351.2, and try renaming them too. It would be a mess. The current system is not perfect, but it works well. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
With nothing added to the debate for three days I think weve reached the same impasse as the last two times this vote was held, with six in favour and six opposed theres no consensus for a change in policy. I imagine we will be having this debate again before long though. --WatcherZero (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
What is needed is an information notice on the talk pages of all affected articles, explaining why the article is named that way, and that there has been no consensus to change it despite numerous debates on the issue. Mjroots (talk) 04:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
The reason why the "problems with the current titles" have not been addressed is that most of those people voting no don't agree that there is a problem, and/or they believe that any problems/disadvantages of the current title format are outweighed by the advantages of things like consistency [this taken from the comments associated with votes opposing change in the last few votes]. It is just as correct to say that the disadvantages of all the proposed new titles have not been addressed by those repeatedly proposing them. Thryduulf (talk) 10:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Leicester to Burton upon Trent Line
I've revised existing articles for stations along the Leicester to Burton upon Trent Line and added articles for stations that didn't yet have one. I've ensured each article has a Template:Rail line, but Moira needs a three-to-two version to include the junction with the Ashby and Nuneaton Joint Railway. If such a rail line template exists, please will a fellow-editor direct me to it? If it does not, please will an editor more skilled than I kindly create one?
The line diagram includes a Stag and Castle Inn station or halt but gives it no redlink. I have therefore not created an article for it. Was this an LMS railmotor halt?
Also, an old Ordnance Survey map indicates that Ashby-de-la-Zouch once had a separate station for the Derby to Ashby branch. It seems to have been short-lived: was this an LMS railmotor halt?
An 1886 electrotype of an Old Series map with railways inserted to May 1884 shows a station at Merry Lees, between the Bagworth and Desford stations. This seems to be in the right area for the "Stag and Castle Inn" station. A probable New Series (no date, but it's attached to the OS of 1886) shows only one station at Ashby, on the Derby line, which I assume is the one still extant. The map's a wreck of a wall map, made from several maps glued together; in the gap between two maps there's an 'extra" station for Moira, north of the junction- don't know whether this is real or an artifact of the bodge-job. Ning-ning (talk) 12:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
With regards to succession templates, it may just be easier to create your own - I've done that in the past when you get annoying things. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll have a go but I need specifics - assuming that there are three stations on the left (A, B, C) which are all the same height, a central "route" column being full-height, and two stations on the right (P, Q) I need to know the relative heights of those two. Which of the following is it intended to be like?
There is a second station marked at Moira, immediately north of the junction between the line and the A&NJR, and half a mile south of the Swad loop. Ning-ning (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Thankyou for everyone's comments. RedRose's option 1, with equal height cells, sounds simplest and therefore visually most desirable. Having great crested newts is a privilege, not an infestation, regardless of how they may complicate rail reopenings. And don't get me started on lovely rare bats appropriating disused tunnels! :o) Motacilla (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Done, see {{Rail line three to two}}. Note that although only one colour is allowed, each colour column is split into six. This is because the only way I could get it even was to use six rows (6/3=2 and 6/2=3). Since there is neither "previous", "route" nor "next" information for rows 2 & 6, I needed to insert something. I decided that repeating the colour for every row, rather than using rowspan=6, was easiest. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
The line also had a spur put in which latterly served Vic Berry's scrapyard (the one with the pyramids of coaches). I don't know the date of construction, or whether it was post-closure of the GCR, but the spur survived for some years after Berry's closure. Ning-ning (talk) 08:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
"Stag and Castle" appears to have been a temporary halt, replaced by Merry Lees, opened 17 July 1832, closed 28 February 1871, possibly unique in being operated by a female station master, Mary Argyle, for the entire period. Info from "Railwaywomen" by Helena Wojtczak, ISBN9781904109044. Ning-ning (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
It migth depend on how the MR recorded openings and closings - if they say it closed the day after the last train ran then 1 March makes sense. Wojtczak might have gone for the day the last train ran. NtheP (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of the railway company, Butt typically gives opening dates as "first day of public service", and closure dates as "first day without service". Both dates often show discrepancies with other publications: the opening date recorded by some books may actually have been the formal opening, the public service having begun the day before - or up to a week afterwards. According to a Daily News quote concerning the Central London Railway (in Day, J. "The Story of London's Underground", all editions) "When a place is royally opened it is not always really opened", the formal opening of the CLR being 27 June 1900, public services beginning 30 July - 33 days later. Books showing a variant closure date are likely to have recorded the last day with service. There's a nice little essay on the topic of closure dates in the lower left corner of "The London Underground: A Diagrammatic History" by Douglas Rose (ISBN978 1 85414 315 0). --Redrose64 (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
(od)Thanks- that would account for it. The mysterious second station at Moira appears to be "Overseal and Moira".Ning-ning (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Proliferation of rail accident lists
There seems to be an expansion of lists on UK rail pages of rail accidents. Some of the pages I have recently seen accident listings that don't seem to warrant them are on the pages for the East Coast Main Line and West Coast Main Line. There is little to connect the accidents that have occurred along a route with each other or the route itself. I don't think a list of air accidents would be appropriate for a major air route (e.g. Europe to US) so why do them for rail routes? Where will this end? - Lists of accidents on each of the pages for every rail company of Britain? This is in addition to the difficulties of keeping every list up to date (e.g. Quintinshill rail disaster fatalities have 226 on some lists and 227 on others.)
May I suggest the lists of rail accidents are removed from UK rail pages (unless the _cause_ of those accidents are all connected with some aspect of the subject of the page) and there is one list of UK rail accidents formatted as a table so it can be viewed in date order or mortality (or any other suitable column). i.e. amalgamate the pages List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom and List of United Kingdom rail accidents by death toll. I think I remember a comment saying the table isn't neat but it should not follow that multiple lists should be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2ghoti (talk • contribs) 12:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Can you give an example of one of the accidents listed that shouldn't be there - the ones I looked at seemed fairly objectively to be suitable (technically). ?
I have a subjective objection to East_Coast_Main_Line#Accidents - I find a table sortable by body count to be basically crass, though I'm sure that wasn't the intention. West_Coast_Main_Line#Accidents isn't that bad though I would have assumed a chronology by date ascending..
There probably is a better way to deal with this information. One possibility is additional categorisation by location of the accidents, and links to them. However I do feel we should cover all the major accidents - so maybe the list as at "West Coast Main line" would be inevitable.
The point about lists on every relavent page is a valid one. To avoid this I'd suggest the use of categories. Nevertheless accidents need to be mentioned - it's not clear to me how to prune the lists, when most included fatalities.Imgaril (talk) 12:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Any Railway Operating Division buffs here? I'm trying to find evidence or not that Midland Railway 2441 Class were used by the ROD in France in the First World War. I know that a number of LMS Fowler Class 3F were used in 1940 but it has been suggested that 2241s were also used 1914-1918. None of the online sources I've read support this but I was wondering if any printed sources can shed any light. NtheP (talk) 18:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
If there were, it'd surely be in
Hunt, David; Essery, Bob; James, Fred (2004). Midland Engines no. 5 - The Johnson '2441' Class Goods Tank Engines. Didcot: Wild Swan. ISBN1 874103 94 1.
[quote]Railway Employment Records from 1833 to 1963 are available online for the first time following a digitisation project by The National Archives and family history website Ancestry.co.uk. The collection documents the history of the British rail service through the lives of its employees, containing records dating back to the invention of the locomotive in the early 19th century.[/quote]
What train is this?This could be the same train.I'm thinking something 414-418?
Can someone please tell me what class of train carriage 15159 was from? I found this picture of it at CHX in NSE livery, but can't find any information anywhere on what it is. Google is not my friend. The second and third images could well have been taken at the same time so might help. Identifying the class of the middle EMU from pics 2/3 would also be helpful. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
It's a SR design 1951-type 4-EPB BR Class 415/1 TS (non-open trailer second). In 1982, 15159 was in set 5034, while 14082 was a DMBSO (driving motor brake second open) of the same class in set 5041. Hope this helps. — Iain Bell (talk) 11:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
The middle train in the lower two pics is almost certainly a refurbished 4-CEP (Class 411). With that particular style of windows, the only other possibility is a refurbished 4-BEP (Class 412), but AFAIK those only worked on the Portsmouth line.
I would certainly agree with Iain Bell's suggestion of a SR-type 4-EPB (Class 415) - the small windows above the door droplights are a dead giveaway for SR-design stock post 1941, but I don't agree with the set numbers 5034 and 5041. The suggested date of 1982 is way too early, because (apart from the NSE "toothpaste" livery (introduced 1986), the right-hand train in the lower two pics is a "Networker" (Class 465) or (Class 466), introduced 1991. By that date the 4-EPB (Class 415) were on their way out, and set reformations were common. The 1991 Platform 5 combined volume has set 5464 as 14081-15166-15159-14082, and this set is last listed in the 1994 edition (the class went extinct during 1995). the date is thus between 1991 and 1994 inclusive. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
The Kent Coast Express stock consisted of 3 types - CIGs (sliding small windows above the large windows), CEPs (hopper window above large window) as seen in the photo, and VEPs (which had lots of doors). The EPBs (Electro-Pneumatic Brake) were suburban stock which were being taken out of service as the Networkers were introduced. The Networker in the photo is a BREL, so would probably be a first batch 465/0, or otherwise a second batch 465/1. Fu Manchuchu (talk) 13:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Approaching South Quay - the old (pre-October 2009) site. Looking west. The steel frame under construction and the white building beyond are on either side of Admirals Way. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely. We're looking west here, and Island Gardens is three stops east of South Quay.
To check, go to South Quay, click on the coordinates (which are those of the current station), click the "Bing Maps Aerial" link, zoom in a little: note how the DLR roundel, which marks the old station site, is somewhat to the left of the balloon which marks the present site]]. Then slide left a bit to get to the old station site centred; and go for the "Aerial" menu, and select "Bird's eye" in that. You should see the white building and to its right, the completed building for which the framework is shown in your pic here. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
SR-design (post-war all-steel) 2-EPB, Class 416/1. These were new in the 1957-9 period. The coach closest is the DMBS, that behind is the DTS. The set number is a bit hard to make out, might be either 5654 or 5664. These were formed 14560-16104 and 14570-16114 respectively. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Be careful: the SR-design 2-HAP (Class 414), 4-EPB (Class 415) and 2-EPB (Class 416) had the same design of DMBS, it was the trailers that differed. That black triangle didn't appear on 4-car units though - it was for platform staff waiting to load or unload parcels, and warned then that the rear coach had no brake compartment. Thus, it was found only on units with just one DMBS - two-car EMUs, and two/three-car DEMUs. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
No idea, but it's a lovely photo. Just shows what could be achieved back then, with a big enough negative, adequate daylight and taking your time. I can easily read the class descriptions on the carriage doors - shame I can't see any other local signage to give a hint as to location. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The loco is a Webb 4-cyl compound 4-4-0, and going by the height of the chimney and dome I'd plump for the "Jubilee" class, rather than the larger-boilered "Alfred the Great". The "Jubilee" class comprised 40 locos built 1897-1900, numbered 1901-1940, of which 1901/2 were originally 1501/2, and no. 1914 was later 1257. Most were rebuilt by Whale, Bowen-Cooke, Beames or Hughes as 2-cyl simple, "Renown" class. The station is a mystery though. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The lines on the right in the image terminate under the canopy - like a branch terminus - but I'd guess that the lines on the left are through.. The clock says 16.05 and the shadows are left to right - which I think means the view is looking northwards - does that help? Imgaril (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I think there are too many canopies for a branch terminus. Most likely it's a junction station like Crewe where there were both bays and through roads (but not Rugby: the arrangement is wrong for Rugby). The apparent "through" roads may be loops for the storage of spare coaches: this was definitely done at Crewe. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes I think I meant a through station with side terminal bay .. there's an unreadable sign that seems to be white text on a black ground - if it's a station name it's very short - 5 letters or less - though it probably says "exit" or "gents"Imgaril (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Here's another clue - the second carriage from the left (the 5-compt arc-roof 6-wheel Third, no. 501) bears the destination board "Crewe" between second and third doors, so if this isn't Crewe, it's somewhere which had direct services to Crewe. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
No loco allocations unfortunately, at least not prior to about 1939 and by then all the Webb compounds had gone. Not all loco sheds were at termini: Crewe wasn't a terminus, but had two sheds. However, the "Jubilee" class had 7-foot driving wheels, so are not likely to have been used north of Lancaster, nor on the Manchester-Leeds route. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree that this is a superb photo. As to where, my first thoughts were Chester - I don't know why, just something about it said Chester. NtheP (talk) 08:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
In http://www.mdrs.org.uk/documents/donkey131.pdf page 13- (see also British Rail Class 67) quote "..The exception is 67018 which was repainted in a bright orange-red last summer to mark the retirement of Keith Heller as the company's chief executive. Contrary to some reports, this shade of red is not that of DB Schenker but rather that used by Canadian National .." Can someone confirm this. Also does anyone know what actual colour it is? DB Cargo used to use RAL 3020 "Verkehrsrot" : is that the same as DB Schenker (UK) red ?? These are DB Schenker reds [6][7] which look the same to me, or maybe all are the same red - in which case wtf? Imgaril (talk) 09:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
It seems that Canadian National's red was pretty orange pre-1973 1 and has become more red, with variations. I presume the CN intention was to use a colour close to that used in the flag- "When reproducing the flag red at 100%, the closest colour from the pantone colour specifier is PMS032. When the flag red is used to reproduce screens, it is advisable to take PMS485 as this one maintains the integrity of the orange colour in the flag." 2. Ning-ning (talk) 08:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I had not twigged that it wasn't Verkehrsrot. I would have said that the livery looks closer to Canadian Pacific: [8]; then again, perhaps Canadian National is right [9] or it could just be the Flag of Canada colours. —Sladen (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Symbols, London Overground and National Rail
I'm starting a discussion here to talk about the Rail Interchange symbols on Template:Rail-interchange. Last week I added the National Rail symbol to the London Overground parameter to show the London Overground as also being part of National Rail. This resulted on some railway station articles in the National Rail symbol being displayed twice. This was quickly sorted out by me and Likelife (talk·contribs).
Days later however 129.31.18.83 (talk·contribs) removed the National Rail symbol resulting in some confusion on the articles between Redrose64 (talk·contribs) and Likelife. I later undid 129.31.18.83 which addede to the confusion. What should be done now?
Tfl's arguably confusing branding showing both symbols or just the LO or just the NR symbols gives no help. Knowing that LO is part of National Rail, I don't see the big need for the LO symbol at all. But I know some argue for it, so I would just leave it as it is currently as this does make it clear that it is part of the NR network. Saying that, we don't show other TOCs logos, so should we show the London Overground roundel? I don't see any purpose of doing it. Likelife (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Personally I do think that having any symbols is unnecessary, except in cases where two stations on different systems have separate articles (e.g. on the various West Hampsteads it's a quick visual reminder that you've reached the right one). I'm not on a crusade to remove all the symbols though: should people wish that, we can easily amend the infobox templates. My actions earlier today (that's today UTC, but yesterday BST) were to eliminate cases where the NR logo was shown twice in close proximity - I removed just one of them. Earlier this month, my symbol-related actions were primarily to get the {{R-I}} out of the |name= parameter, to avoid the locator map on London stations from being fouled up, as here - is the position of the station given by the red snooker ball, or one of the two logos? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Please, whatever is being done. Do it via the abstraction of the template rather than huge numbers of page hacks (allows tweaking in future without large numbers of edits). —Sladen (talk) 11:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I fail to see the point of adding the National Rail symbol to the London Overground symbol. Surely the discussion was hand many moons ago that, while LO is a National Rail operator, because it is part of TfL it should be treated differently (not something I subscribe to, but that's an old debate). The whole point of these symbols being available to use on templates was to show where there were interchanges between more than one system, hence why we have London Underground, DLR, Tramlink et al. Having two together as part of the same template will just cause confusion. Hammersfan 23/08/11, 14:25 BST
Who thinks it should be treated differently? I don't and the only people who really treat it different is TfL. And by treating LO different the same should be done for Mersey Rail. At the end of the day its a logo just like Southern's logo, TfL may think its right to remove the Double Arrow from stations but that just makes things more confusing. The NR logo and only the NR logo for all TOCs makes sense to me, maybe it is just me who it makes sense to. Also I don't really think it is necessary to have it in the info box, but saying that stations in Australia have there local logo (and a much more colour) on the infoboxes for example: Strathfield railway station. Likelife (talk) 08:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
That example may well fail WP:COLOUR, particularly the row which shows Blue Mountains Line - the contrast ratio is only 1.31 but should be at least 4.50. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
In general they appear to be right - the link they should have used is Wikipedia:Galleries#Image_galleries - which gives basic guidelines - in general galleries are not prohibited - but should not be used as an excuse for text, and not for pure decoration.
eg as an example that mattbuck changed old version - I think most people would question the value of two images of station signs. The actual station images (far left and far right) could have been useful - but 'abuse it and lose it'.. Overlong descriptions, and unencyclopedic prose are killers too. Generally I would only really recommend a gallery when the images illustrate something mentioned in the text when there is no space on the sides to put the images in, or maybe a series of historical photos separated by decades could make sense, but images of a small station from every angle are difficult to justify. Also in future please try the use of the template:gallery tag which works better.Imgaril (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
You know traveler100, there is something called common courtesy, which says that when you start a complaint topic about that user, you should notify that user. *cough*
In regards to your actual complaint, when I see no justification for a gallery I will remove it, as they are generally frowned upon. I accept that there are reasons to have a gallery - for instance the article on Silverstone circuit had (still has?) one to show how the track layout changed over the years. However, simply as a collection of images with no purpose other than to be a collection of images is not a valid reason. If you want to create a gallery, do it on Commons, that's what Commons exists for. But Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and a collection of images with no purpose does not serve an encyclopaedic interest - all they do is clutter the article. Links to Commons are sufficient for people who just want to see pictures. Prose and images should go together here - an article should have a balance of each, with prose describing the images and images illustrating the prose. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I came across this. As railway stations are notable, is there any UKT member in a position to pitch in and rescue the article? Mjroots (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Where am I supposed to leave comments? It's not in Wikipedia: space, it's in Wikipedia talk: space, so it doesn't have a separate talk page. Anyway. It's misnamed, for a start. Apart from the use of "Station", not "railway station", Butt doesn't list any station named St. Lawrence Junction; the best candidate is St Lawrence (Pegwell Bay), a.k.a. St Lawrence for Pegwell Bay, the latter of which matches the photo in the article draft. This station was opened by the South Eastern Railway in October 1864, and closed on 3 April 1916 (Butt 1995, p. 204). It's shown on Template:Ramsgate and Margate RDT. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Should that template be redrawn to show the alterations made in 1926, with the new Ramsgate station added in? Mjroots (talk) 07:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Redrose, just edit the article and make the necessary corrections with refs. The better shape it is in, the more likely it is to go live. Mjroots (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy with Redrose64's suggestion too. A hatnote can be used on the IoW station to avoid confusion once the article is live. Mjroots (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Oops, I had just changed the routebox to show the next station as Margate Sands (reverted having seen this). Does that mean that there was a station between Margate Sands and St Lawrence for Pegwell Bay? If so, then the routemap needs correcting. Mjroots (talk) 07:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Butt says "Tivoli, Margate SE / OP 1 December 1846; CL c.1872 [Also known as Hall by the Sea]". Butt's use of "SE", not "LCD", plus the word "Margate" puts the station firmly on the Margate Sands branch, that being the only SER route to Margate. I shall check my other books when off hols (yes! I take Butt on holiday with me!) - I've added a possible list at Talk:St Lawrence for Pegwell Bay railway station#Sources for construction of route. I ought also to get that Mitchell & Smith book - a trip to Ian Allan at Waterloo seems my best bet. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I seem to have become involved in an edit war at East Midlands Trains and British Rail Class 222 over the lead images. See EMT and 222 diffs. I contend that the old versions were better in both cases - in the case of BRC222, CC.2011 changed a perfectly well lit image to one with an overexposed sky, and a refurbished interior image to an old one which appears to be taken at night and so has strange lighting. In the case of the EMT article, the main picture was changed from a well-composed 158 to a different 222 with overexposed sky. I would ask someone else here to decide which they think are preferable, as I do not want to edit war. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
For what it's worth CC2011's image for east midland trains seems much better, (this is the current one so I do nothing). for the other I would take your image and add CC2001's carriage interior (your choice is a little too head on - I assume 3/4 profile is preferred). The carriage interior shot could be better..
I don't know if there is any policy regarding interior/exterior image in infoboxs - but it would be good to have one. One of each seems fine, though there are good (if subjective) arguments for only having a single image - mostly around having a single "recognisable" (or "iconic" image). I'd suggest File:222001 , Danesmoor.jpg if it didn;t have tree shadows on it. If it was me I'd use something like "claycross" (image right) - possibly cropped - you can see the whole thing.. Claycross - crop this? at 300pxImgaril (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
{{Infobox train}} explicitly permits the use of both exterior and interior images - the documentation lists parameters for both. Specifically, you would use |image= and |caption= (optionally |imagealt=) for the exterior, with |interiorimage= and |interiorcaption= (optionally |interiorimagealt=) for the interior. The optional parameter |imagesize= operates on both images. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I have been informed that Keith, aka Manstaruk (talk·contribs), died on Monday morning. He was a great supporter of the Ffestiniog Railway, both here and in real life, and though I never exactly saw eye-to-eye with him on-wiki, I would like to express my condolences to his wife, family and friends.
Here passes a Wikipedian and a train lover. One of us.
I'm looking to indulge my inner train spotter, and I'm hoping folks here can point me in the direction of some good sources. I'm interested in stations and locomotives in general, and I'd like to try and get Birmingham New Street station and InterCity 125/British Rail Class 43 (HST) to FA or at least GA.
So, can anyone suggest some good books on locomotives and major stations in general, and something more detailed that covers the InterCity 125/Class 43? Also, can someone explain concisely what the difference is between the 125 and the class 43? Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Haresnape, Brian (1983). British Rail Fleet Survey 5: High Speed Trains. Shepperton: Ian Allan. ISBN0 7110 1297 0. GE/0683. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
"125", short for "InterCity 125" was the marketing brand applied to the trains described by British Rail's boffins as the "High-Speed Train". Each train consisted of between five and nine (most often 7 or 8) passenger coaches sandwiched between two power cars. The official TOPS classification was class 253 for a train of 7 (or less) passenger coaches, or 254 for those with 8 (or 9) coaches. The individual power cars were Class 43, but the TOPS classification of the individual coaches was in the alphanumeric system used for coaches and wagons: for example, the first-class coaches were GH1G. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
So, the 125 is the whole train and the Class 43 is just the power unit?
I had volume 2 of the Richard Foster book on New Street (sold it)- if the other 2 volumes are similar in detail that'ld probably be a major resource for the article (I see it's in the bibliography). Ning-ning (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Done, see 
DLR roundel, which marks the old station site, is somewhat to the left of the balloon which marks the present site]]. Then slide left a bit to get to the old station site centred; and go for the "Aerial" menu, and select "Bird's eye" in that. You should see the white building and to its right, the completed building for which the framework is shown in your pic here. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC).svg){kind=small}
.jpg)
