Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30

Name that station

?

According to the information given by the Imperial War Museum, it's a London station from which these passengers were sent to be interned in the Isle of Man. Supposing they were travelling via the WCML and Heysham, this would then be "old" Euston pre-electrification. Can anyone confirm or correct me? Lamberhurst (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

There are other pictures of this event on 29 May 1940 on the Getty Images website with the double-deck buses used to bring the women and children to this station. It looks a lot more suburban than Euston would be. Johnlp (talk) 14:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Looks far too small for Euston and as this would have been a special, there's no reason why it would have to be using the regular mainline station. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
There's some photos of the old Euston Here I can't see any similarity between them. G-13114 (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
That's a pretty small station; there's no shelter at all over the two platforms shown. There looks like there's at least four tracks, so there could be a platform with a canopy over to the right. The track is not electrified so it's not Southern Railways or Underground. I had a look at Chigwell look and Hertford East look, it's not those, they have canopies. Johnlp, can you link to the other images on the website please? Edgepedia (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Of course, it could be a through station (two lines to the right) with a bay! The bay is likely to have gone now. Edgepedia (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
This and this should take you through to other views of the same event. I thought with the signals being lower quadrant that it might be GWR: perhaps Bourne End. Johnlp (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
The trees and cutting at left background are totally wrong for Euston, as is the track layout. Bourne End didn't have a bridge, but a level crossing.
The van in the end-loading dock is a Southern Railway GBL (Gangwayed Bogie Luggage): these had Maunsell-designed bodies built 1930-31 on recovered ex-LSWR underframes. SR Diagrams 3098, 3099 or 3100; van numbers 2281-2370, 2461-90. The SR used them mainly on the Western Section. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
The first of the two links in Johnlp's last post shows part of that SR GBL, and to its left, the end of a GWR "Python" - a four-wheeled covered carriage truck. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Another image from the same set --Redrose64 (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure this counts as well. Simply south...... cooking letters for just 7 years 20:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I've only been there briefly, but it looks rather like Crystal Palace to me. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I did some work in that area a few years ago but from what I remember, I disagree. I keep thinking however that a lot of it looks like Marylebone. Simply south...... cooking letters for just 7 years 21:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Is this and this related? Simply south...... cooking letters for just 7 years 21:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

OK. Try this one of Kensington Addison Road. Johnlp (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes that definitely looks like it, especially when looking at this image. In comparison, look at both the cabin and bridge near the top left of this image with the one top centre of the one here. I know this is slightly going off topic, I thought this was rather amusing. Simply south...... cooking letters for just 7 years 21:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Image 3140641 matches image 2660032 - look at the gas lamps. However, image 107707559 does not - the lamps are absent and the end-loading ramp is different. It's also shown as being at White City. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
There are lots of similarities. The differences in the gas lamps can be accounted for as 107707559 was taken 17 years later than HU36121. Simply south...... cooking letters for just 7 years 21:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I had initially ruled out Olympia on the basis that there would have been more buildings above the embankment to the left and the tall signal box at the end of platform 6 would have been visible. See here. The lamps do however match and the bays in 2660032 and 3325626 could be those which used to be situated on the west side of the station. Lamberhurst (talk) 08:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
That picture is looking south, whereas our one is looking north. Johnlp (talk) 08:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Rail start

Template:Rail start has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Redrose64 (talk) 10:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Bristol railways

What is the difference between the Greater Bristol Metro and the Bristol Metro (now renamed MetroWest)? Simply south...... cooking letters for just 7 years 18:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

There isn't one. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Might be of interest

I didn't set this up so I don't know much about it, but I thought I'd drop a link here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Railways/National Railway Museum editathon. It's obviously relevant to this project and people watching this page might be interested. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Christopher Blackett (1751-1829) ... played a major role in the development of railways

Christopher Blackett is currently a redirect to Blackett of Wylam.

But there is now a Wikipedia:Articles for creation submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christopher Blackett. This claims that "Christopher Blackett (1751-25 January 1829) was a Northumberland colliery owner who played a major role in the development of railways". The submission seems to have a substantial Wikipedia:COI issue between its author and the author of one of only two sources used, which may also be a Wikipedia:SPS.

Anyway this C Blackett fellow does seem to have been something to do with the early history of railways in the United Kingdom. The question is, how much? And, is now the right time for there to be a standalone article about him? Are there better sources around than the ones currently listed in the submission?

Thank you for your assistance. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

A Mr Blackett gets a passing mention on p. 24 of Tomlinson, William Weaver (1915). The North Eastern Railway: Its rise and development. Andrew Reid and Company.. Edgepedia (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Possble sources are The Times and The Newcastle Courant, both of which are available online to UK library card holders. Mjroots (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Extensive sources for William Blackett: Wylam and its Railway Pioneers by P. R. B. Brooks, Wylam Parish Council, 1975, The private railways of County Durham Chapter One The First Industrial Locomotives p3ff by Colin E Mountford, Industrial Railway Society 2004. These are two of several printed sources in which Blackett features. Blackett was responsible as owner and Brooks wrote this "On 25th June 1829 Christopher Blackett died aged 78. He had been instrumental in encouraging the development of locomotives and without his tenacity, the important experiments carried out might never have taken place".Robertforsythe (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Based on that I've tidied up the little article and placed your sources in further reading. I removed the link to how to buy the SPS; we have the ISBN for this. Do we have enough to move this into main space? Edgepedia (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I am about to head to North_of_England_Institute_of_Mining_and_Mechanical_Engineers and who knows might find a visual for Commons. There is no doubt this location will have plenty about Blackett including contemporary materials. Robertforsythe (talk) 07:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you all for the excellent feedback. I have accepted the article submission and am waiting for an administrator to delete the redirect so that the submission can be moved into mainspace. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I also offer the material in this link for consideration http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/Christopher_Blackett (which acknowledges Wikipedia as its source! but which could be sourced from printed texts). Robertforsythe (talk) 09:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Now that I am inside the Mining Institute may I recommend this link https://www.google.com/search?as_q=Christopher+Blackett&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=mininginstitute.org.uk&as_occt=any&safe=images&tbs=&as_filetype=&as_rights= Robertforsythe (talk) 10:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Anything which acknowledges Wikipedia as its source is forbidden per WP:CIRCULAR. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Change to WP:TWP template

I've proposed a change to {{WikiProject Trains}} which will affect how image requests pertaining to this project are categorized. Please see Template talk:WikiProject Trains#name of image request categories for discussion. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 02:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Benson Report

I came across this via Facebook/Heritage Railway magazine. A bit outside my area of knowledge, but I'd have thought it worth an article, with a link in the "See also" section of the Beeching Axe article. Mjroots (talk) 21:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Station sign

I've had this sign from a station on the Devon & Somerset Railway in a cupboard for many years. I bought it at a railway memorabilia sale for, if I remember rightly, 50p. The background colour is a very dark blue, almost black; the lettering may have been white once, but is discoloured. Can anyone identify what its provenance might be: it doesn't look like standard GWR issue. It is steel plate and measures approx 555 x 123 mm, and has a small flange at the top at 90° through which there are two bolts, one of which is sheared off completely. Johnlp (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

A specialist railway auction house such as David Lewis, Great Central Railwayana, Talisman or Rydeale Auctioneers would be best to advise you on this. Mjroots (talk) 22:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
It looks to be in poor condition, and is from a not very notable station, on a not very notable line that went nowhere. I think you would be best to keep it on your garage as the cost of your time and phone calls to ascertain its value will probably be greater than that from selling the sign. Unless you can find someone who lived in Venn Cross before it was closed by Dr Beeching ... they might give you a few quid. Bhtpbank (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not really looking to sell: just not sure how old it might be. I've seen it (or a similar one) in a 1966 photo of the station, where it's patently used as the equivalent of the BR totem sign. But that was the year the line closed. It'll go back in the cupboard in a few days and probably won't emerge for another few years. Johnlp (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
There is a photo of a Venn Cross sign on Flickr (with a girl standing in front)- looks to me as if it is a different sign, with raised lettering (the stains on the letters give this impression). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen that one: that's the standard GWR/BR running-in board, which is much bigger. If you look at the first Venn Cross pic on this site, my sign is the same as the one to the far left of the picture, halfway up a pole. Johnlp (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Right- I failed to register the dimensions you gave for your sign! Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

AFD

The British Rail Class 371 article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 05:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Seems fair enough. Hardly a notable article. Bhtpbank (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
This thread is just a notification. Please comment on the deletion discussion itself; the closing admin will ignore any comments made elsewhere. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Station naming guidelines

I noticed this discussion rather late which is of importance Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Train_stations_.26_subway_stations_and_precision. Simply south...... cooking letters for just 7 years 15:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Up and down

There's a discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#"Up" and "down" about the use of the words "up" and "down" for line direction. -- Dr Greg  talk  13:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

RFC: WP:MOSNUM

There are currently a number of proposals to improve the language at WP:MOSNUM relating to the use of Units in UK related articles. External opinion is invited at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#RFC: Proposals to rewrite WP:MOSNUM on UK units of preference. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Photo request

Does anyone have photos of Filton Junction railway station, or Filton Abbey Wood before the third track was laid? I'm close to finishing work on Filton Abbey Wood railway station, and some good historical images would be appreciated. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

There's a couple here commons:Category:Filton_Junction_railway_station G-13114 (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
One of those was taken by me, the other's already in the article. I was hoping for new ones. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

FGW Franchise wording

I seem to be in a bit of a dispute over the wording of the "future" section on stations served by First Great Western (see diff). The main issue is the exact wording of the first sentence, I favour

whereas Ibsiadkgneoeb suggests

  1. ^ "First Great Western bids for longer rail franchise deal". BBC News. 11 May 2011. Retrieved 27 April 2012.
  2. ^ FirstGroup to quit Great Western deal early The Guardian 12 May 2011
  3. ^ FirstGroup gives up First Great Western rail franchise early, saves £800m in payments to the government The Telegraph 12 May 2011

As this got to 2 reverts, I felt it best to bring it here. I feel my wording is best as, while I do not dispute that FGW did avoid a large amount of franchise payments, putting it there is speculation as to their motives, and we ought not to do that. We certainly shouldn't do it in articles which are not actually about FGW or the franchise process.

To forestall any suggestions that the section out to be removed entirely, in an article about a station it is useful to know who will be running trains from it. We have info about who used to operate the trains, be it the GWR, Western Region, whatever, so future operators makes sense. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Why not just "In May 2011 First Great Western exercised an option to terminate the franchise in March 2013" and leave out whatever the reasons for that might be, which, whether speculative or not, are not directly relevant to Bristol TM or any other specific station. If readers want to know more they can go to the FGW article. -- Alarics (talk) 13:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I think the original reason I included it was because the article mentioned the upgrade in several places, so it seemed to tie things together a bit more, and also it just made the paragraph flow better. But yes, that is an option. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I would omit the detail from the station articles: there are something like 250 stations served by FGW, so including details about franchising would lead to much unnecessary duplication. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
You could say the same thing about details like "amalgamated with the GWR", "line will be electrified as part of the Great Western Main Line electrification project". Things which could be repeated over tens if not hundreds of articles, but it's important for each and every one of them. A railway station would be pointless if no trains stopped there, therefore details of which trains stop there are important (while avoiding being a travel guide). Further, given that FGW manage the station, who runs the franchise is important even without the trains! I do understand where you're coming from, but I just feel it's better to provide information, even if it is duplicated on many articles. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I reckon it would be best to just say who runs it and leave out the detailed franchising stuff. The bit about payments looks rather like someone is trying to make an anti-FGW point, when the whole purpose of an option is that it is optional. Also, "In October 2013 a two-year franchise extension until September 2015 was negotiated" is incorrect - the latest (current) franchise is not actually an extension, it is a new franchise. See[1] (Also, "A railway station would be pointless if no trains stopped there" is not quite true; see Corporation Pier railway station and Dartmouth railway station). Wheeltapper (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I thought the same re the anti-FGW. As for extension, it's debatable, all the stuff I've read about in RAIL has been referring to it (and other similar agreements) as an extension. If we agree that who runs the station is important, and we agree that who ran it is important (no one would debate making reference to the GWR), then by extension who will run it is important. Possibly we could go with something along the lines of The Greater Western franchise is due to run until (whenever), and it is not known who will take over after, or when a competition for the franchise might begin. While I personally feel my original version is more complete and has better flow, I am open to compromise. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Isn't that a little pointless for a station (rather than franchise) article, as it applies equally to almost any GB station except St Pancras and Fishguard Harbour? Nothing in the paragraph in question is really about the station itself. FWIW, legally and commercially the latest deal is a new franchise, just one was that awarded to the same company as before; the previous franchise had been extended after the West Coast screw up, but couldn't be extended any further so a new one was needed. DfT announcement. I suspect the fact it is a direct award is causing the confusion. Wheeltapper (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Cranbrook railway station (Devon)

There is already an article for the closed Cranbrook railway station (in Kent). The new station in Devon will just be called "Cranbrook". Should this article (which I created) be titled Cranbrook railway station (Devon) or Cranbrook (Devon) railway station? Cheers. Crookesmoor (talk) 08:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hm. That's tricky, because the {{stnlnk}}/{{rws}} template would prefer Cranbrook (Devon) railway station, but the better title is Cranbook railway station (Devon). That said, if the Kent one is closed, I think that that should be the one which is moved, and the new station used as main article (with a hatnote). -mattbuck (Talk) 09:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Why would the better title be Cranbook railway station (Devon)? Seems to me like a wiki invention which goes contrary to how the railway companies actually named their stations when two or more had the same name. Lamberhurst (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
How about a disambig for both, moving the Kent one to "Cranbrook (Kent) railway station"? Crookesmoor (talk) 09:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I would agree with that. I would also suggest having a look at the national rail page and typing in "Whitchurch" in both 'from' and 'to' boxes to see what comes up. Why we are still debating this issue years after it was first raised is quite beyond me! Lamberhurst (talk) 10:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Done. Obviously the stations didn't coexist so just "Cranbrook" is the correct name for both, unlike the two Whitchurch stations today. Crookesmoor (talk) 10:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Our naming isn't actually consistent:

Given that the "Place (county) [railway] station" is what National Rail use shouldn't we standardise on that (with redirects from other forms of course)? Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, if the disambiguator is in official use (shown on station signs, in timetables etc.) the disambiguator goes before the words "railway station", but if it's one that Wikipedia has invented, it goes afterwards. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Current station signage will rarely if ever show the disambiguator due to the extra cost involved and the fact that the operator will usually only have one station of the same name. Lamberhurst (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
If we go by what the NR ticketing website shows (where unambiguously identifying the correct station is important) then the three Whitchurch and first three Newport should all be "Station (place) railway station". I'm not sure about the two disused stations on the IOW - where the disambiguated when open? Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
The RCH diagram uses the abbreviations for the Newport IOW stations which are currently in the article titles. Neither tickets nor images of the station help as they just show "Newport". Lamberhurst (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

RDT for Castleblaney, Keady and Armagh Railway

I've revised the Castleblayney, Keady and Armagh Railway article and am now trying to create an RDT for it. I'm having a couple of problems with it and would welcome help from a specialist. It is on this page until it's fit to publish.

Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I've lined it up vertically, using the minimum necessary width (5 cells instead of 7); to get the "to Newry (Newry and Armagh Railway" and "to Clones (Ulster Railway)" rows to line up with the "Armagh" row, I needed to change two icons from half-width   (exdÜWc2)   (exdÜWc4) to full-width   (exÜWc2)   (exÜWc4). I also created one icon   (exABZ3+1l) so that pink shapes could be used throughout. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Location map for proposed HS2 East Midlands Hub

Would anyone be able to create a location map for the proposed HS2 East Midlands Hub and link to it in the infobox? Similar graphics have been produced and uploaded to the commons here commons:Category:High_Speed_2 but I can't seem to find one for Toton. SheffGruff (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

WCML route diagrams

A few months ago, a few of us were working on route diagrams of the WCML, which were in draft format in my user space. Unfortunately, although we got a long way with them they never got completed. As I'm no longer very active on Wikipedia, and want to clear out a lot of old stuff, I've move these into the new Draft namespace, as Draft:WCML South, Draft:WCML Central and Draft:WCML North. They are available to be fixed/improved upon, if anyone is willing to do so. Optimist on the run (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I still have the books that I used to do the history of the DLR (although I never completed it). I would like to try and attempt my first ever featured article (in this case, a featured list). I was wondering if people could look over the list as it currently is and give a few pointers as to what to include in both the history and the station table. Have my attempts from before gone into too much depth? I must also point out that I never completed the history section. Whilst I am not claiming ownership of the article, I would like to do the effort. Simply south...... cooking letters for just 7 years 22:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Which article? Thryduulf (talk) 23:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry. List of Docklands Light Railway stations. Simply south...... cooking letters for just 7 years 23:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Good luck to that ... the priority for the project seems more focused on blocking an IP address (see above). Bhtpbank (talk) 00:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the sarcasm, it was very helpful. Regarding your list, the table does not show very well at a screen resolution of 1280*1024 - I'm not entirely familiar with how wrapping of wikitables works, but I'd say that it's better to have the dates wrap to 2 lines than to have 18 lines of note for Canning Town (many one-word), if possible.
Further, I'd say that the background is rather too detailed - the pre-DLR history is not particularly relevant, this is after all a list of DLR stations. However, I should point out that I'm not versed in FA/FL stuff. You might also want to consider trying to find better photos, as the ones at present are generally pretty low quality. I personally never understood the desire to have only station frontage pictures for these things, as that seems to be the least important part. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
There's a breakdown of the current screen sizes used to surf the internet at http://www.londonreconnections.com/2013/who-do-you-think-you-lr-2013-edition/, albeit for a different website. Do Wikimedia publish similar reports for en.wikpedia? Edgepedia (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Regarding text wrapping in tables - whether wikitable or not, most browsers will try to set the column widths to make best use of available space. In order to do this most efficiently, they need to have some degree of latitude - that is, there should be at least two columns where the width is completely unspecified: if there is insufficient space, the table will protrude beyond the right-hand margin. However, the algorithm by which they arrive at the final choice of column widths is complicated.
It is therefore best to have as few columns as possible that have a specified width. It is possible to set a column width in two main ways - explicitly, such as by using a style="width:100px;" attribute on a table cell; or implicitly, such as by putting something which can't be made narrower (like an image or some text enclosed in {{nowrap}}) into a cell. Therefore, to increase efficient use of space, avoid all explicit widths. Implicit widths can be tweaked too: in the case of images - is a given image size important, or can it be made smaller? Is nowrapped text really necessary - if not, don't do it (sometimes you can't avoid it, such as coordinates). But even coordinates may be made narrower, by switching from degree-minutes-seconds format to decimal degrees, also by carefully rounding to give fewer decimal places: remember that two places of decimals on a second of arc implies an accuracy of just 30 cm (one foot). Most DLR stations are bigger than that, even on 00-scale models.
The golden rule is: don't make any assumptions about how wide the end-user's screen is. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I have since deleted two columns by moving information around. I have found if I deleted width from the notes section, it tends to squash it and I really do not want that to happen. I've set my own screen resolution to give as close an experience to the above stated. At least for now you don't have to scroll. Simply south...... cooking letters for just 7 years 23:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll take a look when I'm back at work next week, but looking now on 1920 wide, the "other names" column is oddly very wide - even on Crossharbour it's a single line - which again causes bunching of text in the notes section. Perhaps this one should be set at fixed width. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I noticed one problem - you had the entire table's width set as 100, not 100%. That's fixed things a bit, though the notes column is still screwy. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Could someone tell me what is wrong with the images on the DLR list? "They are of poor quality" is not really that helpful unless you can give why and some ideas of what to replace them with. Simply south...... eating lexicological sandwiches for just 7 years 17:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The DLR list includes a number of badly composed shots which don't properly represent the subject-matter. Per WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE, the subject should not be "hidden in clutter, ambiguous or otherwise not obvious". Take for example, this one of East India DLR. Is a shot of a building site and cyclepath on the side of a busy road really representative of this station? Ditto London City Airport: why is this pedestrian tunnel used and not the better quality image of the platforms which are of some architectural merit? The list of stations should contain the best shot of each station that we have available. Lamberhurst (talk) 07:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, as a project we seem to have an obsession with entrances to London stations. Almost every single tube station's main picture is of a fairly generic frontage, from across a road and behind safety barriers. It tells you nothing about the actual station. Photos of the platform would be much better unless there is some particular architectural merit to the station which can be seen from outside (South Quay perhaps?). -mattbuck (Talk) 11:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
You mention tube stations and their platforms... there are notices on the platforms forbidding the taking of photographs, which is why we have so few. Popular belief is that it's anti-terrorist legislation - in fact, it's to prevent the train drivers from being dazzled or blinded by the camera flash - see Filming on the Tube item 5, third bullet. DLR stations are probably subject to the same rules. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Notices on platforms forbidding taking of photos? I have never seen that once, only the non-flash signage like all stations do. But if I'm honest I don't feel comfortable taking pictures at tube only stations apart from Metro land and at Epping. Likelife (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
They don't usually care, but some places they are a bit anal. TfL ID badges help. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
There was a story run in RAIL Magazine last year about this issue. Turns out that the British Transport Police don't mind photographers. More info here but I must admit that I don't know the situation on the Tube/DLR. Lamberhurst (talk) 10:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I believe that officially you're meant to get LU's permission to take photos, but generally they don't seem to mind too much. DLR... well, there's no one there to object to it. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Getting on topic again, I have changed quite a few stations to platform pics (and some entrance pics). At Westferry, I am trying to decide between File:Westferry station.jpg and File:Westferry DLR station.jpg. I was also having trouble with Poplar and Limehouse. There are a few other stations I was having trouble which to choose. Are there any specific stations I need to look at again and are any of the images better or worse than before? Simply south...... eating lexicological sandwiches for just 7 years 23:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Does this count as a a reliable source? Simply south...... eating lexicological sandwiches for just 7 years 22:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

oops

project tagging, I just ventured into a collection of untagged welsh categories - and suspect that I may have stepped outside the convention held here... I see good purpose in linking articles to the country - hence wales wikiproject, and had done trains without the uk=yes. If I add uk-yes for anything within the uk is that all that is needed ? just checking. satusuro 01:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC) doing it anyway satusuro 09:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Use |UK=yes for anything within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Additionally, use |Scotland=yes for anything within Scotland. Both have a related importance parameter: |UK-importance= and |Scotland-importance= which are not necessarily set to the same value as |importance=. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
do I detect an atlantic divide though? when i see [2] - as I see this I am wondering where or what is the correct form? satusuro 00:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
oh dear i detect a saga with this... [3] satusuro 00:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
At the risk of angry reaction, I have reverted your Category talk:3ft gauge railways in Wales example, for the simple reason that {{WikiProject Trains}} does not have a |Wales= parameter. But I do not see anything wrong with your Category talk:2ft gauge railways in Wales example. I'm not sure what |bycountry= is for, but Slambo (talk · contribs) (who adds {{WikiProject Trains}} to many talk pages) is likely to know. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
The bycountry parameter is for the rail transport by country task force. Pages within the task force scope give an overall view of rail transport within a single country, so I usually put the parameter on pages and categories that are titled like X topic in rail transport in country Y. It was originally formed to work on the rail transport in X series of articles, and extends over the categories that are separated by country as well. I'm pretty careful about adding only the parameters that are appropriate as I tag pages and update existing banners (like taking a second look at pages about Irish topics to only mark Northern Ireland pages as part of the UK task force, for example). It's pretty easy to add another country parameter to the banner, like we did recently for India, we just have to also add the associated task force and/or project links and categories. Slambo (Speak) 16:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses - and new years greeting to you all... Pity the info above wasnt more easily tracked... Suppose so few eds actually project tag talk pages these days, the glory seems to be in creating new categories and leaving the talk pages empty - a vast number of relatively recent gauge categories lie around with no attempt at project tagging as far as I can tell.satusuro 07:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Another location to be identified

?

Here is GCR Class 11E 430 Purdon Viccars at an unidentified location in 1918. Allocated to Neasden, it is known to have worked expresses from London to Sheffield and Woodford. I believe this is the old platform 4 at Marylebone, but it would be good to have confirmation or correction. Another image from the same set is here. Lamberhurst (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd concur with Marylebone. Compare the wall (especially in the other image you linked to) in the background with this You tube video from about 4'15". Nthep (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The Where am I? Quiz. Question 4: 1890 and WWII

A station in 1890, as seen on History of the London Underground and a west end bomb shelter. Simply south...... disorganising disorganisation for just 7 years

A tube station in 1890
West End London air raid shelter
I think these two were identified back in February last year as Marble Arch and Aldwych, see here. I didn't get around to updating the file descriptions on Commons and will do so now. Lamberhurst (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
However, I see that on Commons the identification of Marble Arch is disputed in favour of Queensway. Any thoughts? Lamberhurst (talk) 10:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I think the station sign behind the head of the man on the bench could be a bit of a giveaway. Britmax (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought I had already checked the archives through the file links but I obviously missed them. Simply south...... disorganising disorganisation for just 7 years 21:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The Where Am I? Game returns!

I'm in Cambridgeshire... but WHERE?

Can anyone work out where this NSE 101 was in 1990? It's somewhere in Cambridgeshire, but no further information. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I think I have a lead. According to this it was a special service that ran along the line between Cambridge and St Ives. This particular shot on Flickr is of the same train at Long Stanton railway station. Simply south...... disorganising disorganisation for just 7 years 22:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
The sticker in the window says "Railway Development Society", which is the former name of the Railfuture organisation that has the magazine Railwatch. Probably covered somewhere in their back issues. Johnlp (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The same unit appears in plate 87 of "Branch Lines around Huntingdon" by Mitchell and Smith. It is shown at Long Stanton and described as an RDS "special" from 24 March 1990 on the St Ives branch. However, the sticker in the front cab is centrally placed as per the image linked by Simply South and not as shown here on the left-hand window. However, this could very well be the rear of the unit as I don't see the driver. I believe this is the Up platform at Long Stanton showing the former telegraph pole just to the right of the DMU and the former goods yard behind with what looks like a car; Swavesey's remaining platform had more foliage, while Oakington would have shown the station building or platform fencing and Histon had a slight curve and more pronounced gap between platform and train. Lamberhurst (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I think looking through the photos at SubBrit, it is either Long Stanton or Swavesey, despite the curve as the foliage seems similar. Simply south...... disorganising disorganisation for just 7 years 22:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Identify these trains because I'm no good with pre-Sprinter stuff

Can anyone tell me what the two trains here are? I'm guessing a 117 and a 45? -mattbuck (Talk) 21:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Obviously a Peak (44,45,46) and a 45 is more likely for Bristol. Similarly it might be a 117, but wouldn't 118 or 119s be more likely around Bristol? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
The loco is definitely not a 44, none of which had headcode boxes. That type (central, split down the middle) was fitted to Class 45 nos. D31-67, D108-137 and Class 46 nos. D138-165 (poss. also D166). Class 46 is much more likely than Class 45, because in 1974, Class 46 were allocated to Bristol Bath Road (22 locos), Gateshead (24) and Laira (10), for the North East-South West services via Birmingham and Bristol; whereas Class 45 were at Cricklewood (11 locos), Holbeck (39) and Toton (77), and used on the Midland Main Line. The DMU is easier: although all the Class 117 units were sent new to Reading or Southall, by 1974 four units had been reallocated to Bristol. However, it has a 2-character headcode, so it's not a 117 or a 118, all of which had four-character headcodes. There is a unit number on the front, which looks like P581 - P means the Plymouth Division (other codes are B-Bristol; C-Cardiff; L-London), and unit 581 was a Gloucester RC&W Co. Class 119 formed W51067-W59426-W51095. DMUs allocated to Bristol Bath Road, March 1974: Class 116: 2x 3-car units; Class 117: 4x 3-car units; Class 118: 4x 3-car units; Class 119: 8x 3-car units plus two motors (which ran with a Class 120 trailer); Class 120: 5x 3-car units plus one trailer (used with Class 119 motors); Class 121: 4x single units, 1x driving trailer. Total: 77 cars, formed as 24 3-car units, 4 single units and a driving trailer. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, I'll go with 45 and 119 then. Thanks. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
As a sidenote, I should say that this is why I detest trains which look identical yet have different classes. The Thames Valley is terrible - can never tell whether something's a 165 or a 166 unless you actually see a number. 800/801 will likely be similarly hopeless... -mattbuck (Talk) 23:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I altered 45 to 46, because of their 1974 allocations (see above). Classes aren't based on appearance but on mechanical differences. To tell a 165 from a 166, look at the bodyside windows: if all are openable, it has no air conditioning, so is a 165; if only alternate windows are openable, it has air conditioning, so is a 166. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Why isn't IP 86.158.105.73 blocked yet?

Can we block this IP address from editing now - its constant foolishness from someone who clearly doesn't care about wiki. Likelife (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I've been blocking them on Commons and rolling back their edits when I see them, but they're not on a static IP so blocking an IP isn't helpful beyond stopping the current vandalism. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
This isn't an isolated instance; I and others have been playing whack-a-mole with this vandal for some weeks now. Have a look at the contribs for 86.133.54.4; 86.158.99.51; 86.158.105.73; 86.158.105.162. Things to watch out for are:
  • IP address is in the range 86.128.0.0 to 86.191.255.255
  • IP address changes periodically, stable for a few days at most
  • Focuses mainly on two groups of articles (but there are others):
    • articles about TOCs
    • articles about classes of multiple-unit
  • addition of unsourced information that such-a-class of DMU or EMU is to be transferred to or from South West Trains; often a giveaway concerns EMUs which have an incompatible electric supply
  • addition of unsourced information that further units are to be formed for a class which went out of production many years ago.
This edit is subtle, but has both.
I started off with the sliding scale of warnings like {{uw-unsourced1}} but soon I dropped the lower levels and went straight for {{uw-vandalism4im}}. If these were ignored, blocks started off at 31 hours and graduated to 1 week. These days I don't bother with either a warning or {{blocked}} - they just get a 1-week block followed by blanket reversion. A block for more than one week will have no additional effect since they have never kept the same IP address for more than about five days. A range block is out of the question since to catch all possibilities would mean hitting 222 IP addresses - something like 4 million innocent bystanders. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
A third group of articles was London tube stations (or mainline terminals with their tube connections) where the vandal was adding additional tube lines which don't serve the station in question. For some of the articles which have been the prime targets for this vandal, semi-protection has been applied for limited periods; this may need to be extended to a wider range of articles and to longer periods. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
They seem obsessed with Northern and SWT. I saw them create Category:British Rail Class 155s in South West Trains Angular Surbiton High School livery on Commons... -mattbuck (Talk) 19:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
There's also been some hits on Scottish EMU images over on Commons. I suspect this might be an area which has fewer experienced editors patrolling. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Hopefully your new rollbacker rights will help. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
We tried semi-protecting a few pages (see User talk:Redrose64#"Future fleet" section of various TOCs), but the result was that they turned their attention elsewhere. I only spotted that buses were being targetted after 86.165.95.25 (talk) made a few edits to Class 507, Class 508 etc. which were absolutely in line with the established habits ([4] [5] [6] [7] [8])
I think that if we leave the articles unprotected, especially South West Trains, the culprit will remain fixated on the same ones, and since our search target is smaller, they will therefore be spotted earlier. I've got every article in this list watchlisted, also all of the London terminals plus most of the TOCs and Underground stations. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like its getting to the point where we should be reporting them to their ISP. Do we know who that is and whether they're generally cooperative? Thryduulf (talk) 01:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The ISP is BT. I don't know what their record is on reported abuse, but others may know. - David Biddulph (talk) 02:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
BT customers can change their IP address just by turning the modem off and on. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, 86.128.0.0/10 is a BT range; and yes, it's as easy as that to change IPs (same goes for several other broadband suppliers who use the Thomson TG585 router (or similar), such as PlusNet and O2).
Anyway, here's the latest: 86.158.105.153 (talk) all blocked and rolled back. The biggest damage was managing to paste the whole of Virgin Trains inside itself. That done, they'll be discouraged for a few hours, so I'm off for a bath. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Here's today's: 86.138.65.201 (talk) --Redrose64 (talk) 10:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
[[Category:British Rail Class 150s in South West Trains London Science Museum livery|150145]] - SERIOUSLY? -mattbuck (Talk) 12:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Also 86.157.3.229 (talk) --Redrose64 (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
After a few quiet days, I think they've switched Broadband supplier. 82.71.43.212 (talk) has several of the hallmarks, but that's not a BT number: it's Zen Internet Ltd. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
82.71.43.212 has been blocked six months, and they switched back to 86.157.3.229; after that was blocked, they began using 86.157.0.199 (talk) today. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Three more: 86.138.67.113 (talk) (4 Oct 2013); 86.158.105.64 (talk) (5 Oct 2013‎); 81.147.42.80 (talk) (5 Oct 2013). The last one geolocates to Towcester, which is in the usual area, and is also a BT number, but is static. I've served the usual 1-week block; and if that IP resumes next weekend, they'll get six months (like 82.71.43.212). --Redrose64 (talk) 22:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Five more: 86.156.172.50 (talk) (6 Oct 2013); 81.156.249.172 (talk) (9 Oct 2013); 81.132.21.185 (talk) (18 Oct 2013); 86.172.130.141 (talk) (26 Oct 2013); 86.154.165.236 (talk) (1 Nov 2013). --Redrose64 (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Another one today: 86.152.179.14 (talk) -- Alarics (talk) 10:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Redrose et al, have you considered several smaller rangeblocks aimed at small clusters of these IPs? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I did consider that; but the IPs used are too scattered. Breaking down by /16 we have

  • 86.133.54.4 86.133.211.139
  • 86.138.65.201 86.138.67.113 86.138.67.187
  • 86.152.140.173 86.152.179.14
  • 86.154.165.236 86.154.167.254
  • 86.156.41.105 86.156.172.50
  • 86.157.0.199 86.157.2.131 86.157.3.229
  • 86.158.99.51 86.158.105.64 86.158.105.73 86.158.105.84 86.158.105.138 86.158.105.153 86.158.105.162 86.158.106.40
  • 86.165.95.25 86.165.95.37
  • 86.172.129.177 86.172.130.141 86.172.130.164 86.172.130.201

and four others from two entirely separate ISPs:

  • 81.132.21.185 81.147.42.80 81.156.249.172
  • 82.71.43.212

Only two ranges (highlighted) stands out as both high-use and small enough to justify a long term rangeblock: 86.158.105.0/24 with 6 IPs, and 86.172.130.0/25 with 3 IPs - both work out at 2.344% of the range; but I'm reluctant to rangeblock those because these two account for just over a quarter of the IPs used (9 out of 32). The next that appears is 86.152.0.0/13 with 17 IPs - out of a range size of 458752 that's a very small percentage. Those apart, the only pattern that emerges is 86.128.0.0/10 which is way too broad to use even on a short term basis. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

As an experiment I logged off, did an edit on my own wifi, logged on to BT Openzone and did a further edit- two different IPs without leaving the house. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 12:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not convinced by 109.150.210.242 (talk), and I was watching that user carefully for almost an hour. Yes, the edits all concerned the transfer of rolling stock, and all were unsourced, and some were unlikely (Class 444 or Class 450 to London Midland) but somehow they just didn't feel the same. In particular, South West Trains was not just untouched, it wasn't even mentioned once in all 13 edits. The IP address is very different from pattern (it begins 109 and not 86 or 81), and geolocates to Salisbury, not Northamptonshire. My verdict: good reverts, but hold off on the block until there's more convincing evidence, but a {{subst:uw-unsourced1}} may be warranted. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, that's him. Blocked 1 week. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Here we go again: 81.129.112.13 -- Alarics (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
And once more: 213.121.14.122 -- Alarics (talk) 11:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Our guy has not used a 213.x.x.x IP address before. However, belated merry Christmas to 86.133.211.143 (talk) --Redrose64 (talk) 11:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I can confirm that 213.121.14.122 is being used by him. As well as the odd train related article it vandalises, he also vandalises the odd London bus related article. aycliffetalk 10:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I blocked 213.121.14.122 (talk) as soon as I was certain - within ten minutes of the third of these edits. I don't update this section for every detected case; since we're on the subject, I'll add: 86.172.129.218 (talk) (first edit 20 Dec 2013); 81.132.176.5 (talk) (5 Jan 2014); 86.157.236.133 (talk) (6 Jan 2014); also 82.43.184.204 (talk) (first edit 24 Nov 2013) which seems to have been overlooked. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

British Rail Class 99

Does anyone have a copy of This is Sealink by Brian Haresnape (pub: Ian Allan) to expand the various articles on the individual members of British Rail Class 99 with? Mjroots (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

BTW, all 14 members of Class 99 now have an article. Please feel free to improve from book sources if you can. Mjroots (talk) 09:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Northern City Line stock movements

I was reading at Edgware, Highgate and London Railway about how the line was used for LU stock movements between Highgate and Drayton Park. It further states that after the EH&LR was closed, the stock moves were carried out via the Widened Lines. However I can't work out how they would get back to Highgate, as as best I know there is no link from the Met or Thameslink to Northern Line. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I would imagine that they would begin by using the same route used by stock in Metropolitan Railway days; according to
  • Day, John R. (1963). The Story of London's Underground (1st ed.). Westminster: London Transport. p. 74. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
"the stock was dragged up a sloping connection at Drayton Park and taken by steam power over the G.N.R. lines and the Widened Lines to Aldersgate."
After that, it could use the Metropolitan to get to Rayners Lane, or the Circle then District to get to Hammersmith. Once on the Piccadilly, it could use the connection between the Picc and Northern at Kings Cross to get to Highgate. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
That is an impressively roundabout movement. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
In the days when the ex-GN&C stock was still in use, the route from Drayton Park to Neasden was as above to Aldersgate, then via High Street Kensington, Acton Town, Rayners Lane (reverse) to Neasden. Apparently the stock was built to the full main line loading gauge, and so was too large to fit through the Baker Street-Finchley Road tunnels. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I've had a read through
  • Connor, Piers (1989). The 1938 Tube Stock. Harrow Weald: Capital Transport. pp. 85–86. ISBN 1-85414-115-5.
When the Northern City line was still open through to Finsbury Park, and it was still worked using Standard tube stock, its small fleet of that stock was drawn from the general Northern line fleet. This was maintained at Golders Green and Morden, one train being exchanged each day, hauled by a battery locomotive over the direct line between Finsbury Park and Highgate sidings. When the Standard stock on the Northern City was replaced by 1938 stock in late October-early November 1966, the existing transfer method continued until late September 1970, when the condition of bridges between Finsbury Park and Highgate forced the closure of that line. Six 6-car 1938 stock trains were then transferred from the Northern line to the Bakerloo, which henceforth supplied the Northern City line with trains; these were maintained at Neasden. Not-quite-daily, one train was exchanged using two battery locos; the route was over the Metropolitan line to Barbican (Widened Lines), then back through Kings Cross Suburban to Finsbury Park. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I have added that. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

1967 Thirsk rail crash

Is this a "cem-flo" wagon - the type involved in the Thirsk rail crash (1967)? Mjroots (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

That's the body type, although I'd want to check if the running gear (and particularly the braking) were exactly the same. I think (but haven't checked) that cem-flos were built under the mid-50s modernisation plans and so were all fully vac-fitted from the outset.
This one appears to have roller axleboxes, but I suspect there's also some preservation volunteer with a paintbrush daubing every last handle and round thing. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
The solebar plates indicate that this was privately-built for a private owner, but otherwise the design is very similar to BR Diagram 1/272. This was a 20 ton Hopper Cement Wagon "Presflo", and all were vacuum-braked. 1920 were built by BR Shildon and four contractors between 1955 and 1961. Of these, 100 (numbered B888881-B888980) were built by Butterley, as was the one in the photo at right. A later development was the fly-ash wagon, some of which were slightly larger, and had eleven vertical ribs instead of nine. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I've been looking at the accident report. On page 4 we find that the cement wagons were on 15 ft wheelbase with a 27 ton capacity and approx. 8.5 ton tare, so are not the type shown in the picture, which has a 10 ft wheelbase, 22 ton capacity and 13.5 ton tare. Also observe that the diagram on p. 13 shows a handbrake wheel, whereas the type pictured right has a lever handbrake. The mounting method for the leaf spring suspension is also somewhat different, and this seems to have been a factor. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Template for linking UK station articles to Bradshaw's Guide pages

I have created {{Bradshaws}}, which links to a specified station's page on http://bradshawsguide.org/ (That site is being built, so coverage is not yet complete. It already links back to Wikipedia from each station article.) The template is already in use on Arundel railway station and Ascot railway station. Please help to add it to articles about the other stations listed at http://bradshawsguide.org/stations/ Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Directors of the LNER

Does anybody have a list of Directors of the London and North Eastern Railway? What I'm specifically after is the date that Eric Butler-Henderson ceased to be a Director, and whether it was due to age, ill health, dissatisfaction of the shareholders, or something else. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

@Redrose64:, do you have access to The Times archives via Gale News Vault (via library)? BTW, isn't Vicki Butler-Henderson a descendent - Granddaughter or Great-granddaughter I think. Mjroots (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I need to check on The Times. I strongly suspect the Vicki connection, hence Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport#Butler-Henderson. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I've asked for assistance via Heritage Railway magazine's facebook page. Mjroots (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
The Times of 2 June 1943 reports him as being re-elected to the LNER board. Johnlp (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Typical journey times

Do we want these? See Leatherhead railway station#Typical journey times and User talk:Towns21#Railway services at stations. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

In short, no except for the old system of principle termini and tph to each. WP:NOTGUIDE. Simply south...... disorganising disorganisation for just 7 years 19:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
TPH data would be better expressed in prose detailing the various services which use the station, although stopping patterns should generally be omitted - just say "Waterloo to Pwllheli via Galashields" when in doubt. Journey times should be for major locations, eg a branch line with just local trains would just give times to the termini. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Correct abbreviation

Rlwy, Rly, Rwy, or Ry? Useddenim (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

R as an acronym, abbreviations are frowned upon. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, but it’s not necessary to spell out ‘Railway’ in full every time it’s used on an RDT, so what’s considered correct? Useddenim (talk) 12:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Most books concerning the railways of Great Britain that I've read use "R" if using initials, as in GWR or G.W.R.; "Railway" in full if the railway's name is also written in full (Great Western Railway) but either "Rly" or "Ry" if one of the words in the name is contracted, as in "Gt. Western Rly". I've certainly not seen "Rwy" other than in recent edits to Template:West Cumbrian Railways‎, and I don't recall coming across "Rlwy". --Redrose64 (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the books on my desk, both Hoole and Allen refer to some railways using acronyms, i.e. S&DR and LNER (Allen) or S&D and LNE (Hoole), although Hoole uses NER for the North Eastern Railway. However, others are in full on the first usage i.e. Clarence Railway, and then without the Railway e.g. Clarence; I've not seen this company referred to as 'CR'. Allen uses Rly in the index. Edgepedia (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
‘Rwy’ (and ‘RR’ for ‘Railroad’) are apparently Americanisms. Useddenim (talk) 14:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Station usage 2012-2013

Just giving advanced warning that this years NR station usage stats will be published on the 27th Feb. Simply south...... disorganising disorganisation for just 7 years 20:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Stafford Parkway railway station

An article that you have been involved in editing, Stafford Parkway railway station, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going to the article and clicking on the (Discuss) link at the top of the article, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Nthep (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles now merged. Nthep (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Page move

Whitchurch railway station (Shropshire) is proposed to be moved to Whitchurch (Shropshire) railway station. Lamberhurst (talk) 10:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@AmosWolfe: this thread is just a courtesy notification which the closing admin is unlikely to check; please put your !vote on the proposal itself. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Following the completion of the Whitchurch (Shropshire) move, the following have been proposed to be moved:
Lamberhurst (talk) 10:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Quick question, do any of these break templates like {{rws}}? Nthep (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
As currently named, none can use the {{rws}} template as the disambiguator comes after "railway station". However, if renamed as proposed, all will be able to use it, e.g. Whitchurch (Shropshire). Lamberhurst (talk) 11:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_27&oldid=1137360923"