Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 34

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36→Archive 40

Station article structure

I've been having some arguments when reviewing good article candidates about the structure of railway station articles, specifically how they handle the present and history. The obvious way to handle articles is to do it in chronological order - start with the first opening and work forward in time from there. However I find that this buries what must be the most important part of an article - what it's like right now. Details about, say, the platform layout of a tube station, may be hidden amongst several paragraphs worth of history, and are very difficult to pick out. My general preferred layout is:

  1. Description
  2. Services (including routeboxes)
  3. History
  4. Future
  5. Optional: Incidents, popular culture

Do we have any structural guidelines for how to lay out a station article? If not, should we create some? I'm also interested in how to apply this to a disused station, as clearly the services section doesn't apply and for many the description would be "it's not there anymore". While usually the description of a disused station would be the last bit of the history section, for stations where the line has since been reopened this doesn't work so well as there's significant post-closure history of the site. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I think your proposed format is fine for small stations but may not always work for bigger ones. But that brings me to ask a bigger question - what about other railway facilities nearby. Ipswich railway station for instance now includes sections on the largely disappeared goods yards and sidings as they were (are) an important part of the railway scene. One could argue that the article could now be called Railways of Ipswich or something similar as it is not just about the station but I have to say that I feel Ipswich Railway station is an adequate name.
I don't agree with your statement that the description of the station as it is today is the most important part of the article, but there and then I am generally more interested in the history. Euston for instance seems a far more interesting place before its 1960 make over. You are right that some articles confuse the history and the layout and broadly I support your proposal. Davidvaughanwells (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
To be fair I'm probably more interested in the history too, but I figure that most people who look at the article are intending to travel to/from it, so the current status is most useful. Also, once you have an idea of the current layout, it makes writing the history section a bit easier.
I wouldn't try to impose this across all articles - there will always be special cases - but I think that it works as a guideline structure. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Do people really use wiki as their travel guidance? I'd never though about that.Davidvaughanwells (talk) 09:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Given we have to keep telling people not to write as if it's a travel guide, I assume they do. Either way, I would say that the present is the more important section (well, probably behind services, but you know...), even if it's not the most interesting. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I have just done a limited survey of a number of stations (about 5) and they seen to be fairly consistently laid out -
  • Intro
  • History
  • Present layout/description
  • Services (I sometimes add a section on historic services here)
  • Future
This suggests someone at some point agreed this format and in retrospect I'm not sure I really see the point in changing this to be honest.Davidvaughanwells (talk) 13:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
@Davidvaughanwells: People shouldn't use Wikipedia (n.b. not "wiki") as their travel guidance, see WP:NOTTRAVEL also WP:NOTTIMETABLE. It is not our responsibility to keep pages up to date with the latest changes, nor should we attempt to. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
1. Description 2. Services 3. History 4. Future 5. Optional: Incidents, popular culture 6. Routeboxes makes sense to me - I always scroll to the bottom to look at them, and it surprises me when they're not there.   JaJaWa |talk  18:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Routeboxes should be with the services section as per WP:ORDER. I'm always surprised to find them separated from the section which actually describes the service pattern. Lamberhurst (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree completely - the routebox is clearly relating to services, though interestingly some US articles put it in the infobox. It's always seemed odd to have routeboxes outside this section. As an added bonus, it means more space for pictures in the main body. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
On the subject of routeboxes in infoboxes, there's an ongoing discussion about modifying {{Rail line}} so that it can be incorporated into {{Infobox station}}, thereby creating the possibility for our infoboxes to become like the US ones. I can see this becoming as problematic as the creation of the parameter allowing for the rdt to be hidden in the infobox. Lamberhurst (talk) 09:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
@Redrose64 - I know, I was expressing surprise that they used it for that! Personally I wish people would spend less time recording changes in timetable etc and more on improving the historic sections of stations.Davidvaughanwells (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
@Redrose64, "using Wikipedia as a travel guide" isn't the same as "using Wikipedia for travel guidance"; people certainly do use it for the latter regardless of whether we want them to or not. This can encompass anything from "Does 'for Liverpool Airport' mean a short walk to the terminal or will I need to get a bus?" to "is there a news kiosk at Dovey Junction?" to "why are there three stations called 'West Hampstead'?" and all the other queries that National Rail Enquiries doesn't answer but people might want to know. I've always thought the idea that "it's useful" is an argument to avoid to be absolutely spurious; Wikipedia exists as a service to its readers, not its writers, and if there's evidence that substantial numbers of the readers find it interesting that Borough is the only station on the London Underground not to contain any of the letters of the word "Wikipedian" then that fact ought to be included even if it offends sensibilities. I do agree that a one-size-fits-all pattern isn't going to work; even with the smaller stations, for some stations the history is the important thing and the service pattern can be summed up in a dozen words (cf Sheringham), while for others the "history" will be "BR plonked a strip of concrete and a couple of benches at the side of the line to serve a recently-opened housing estate" and of little interest to anyone. ‑ iridescent 15:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Where am I? ("Oh hell someone uploaded 100 photos of Westerns to Commons" edition)

-mattbuck (Talk) 14:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The first, and possibly the third, would appear to be one of the two "Western Requiem" railtours of February 1977, from Paddington to Cardiff and the Welsh Valleys [1], [2]. On the second trip, D1010 apparently failed and was taken off at Cardiff. As the loco is detached from the train, I would hazard a guess that this is where the photo is. Optimist on the run (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it can be Cardiff Central, and nor can the photos be the same place - the track layout is different. And both appear to be the end of a branchline. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
The first one looks like Ebbw Vale, but I certainly wouldn't put any money on it. It would probably be worth asking at WP:WALES to see if anyone recognises any landmarks. ‑ iridescent 17:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
A number of these images are from the Western Requiem railtour (more details here). It's likely to be one of the stations listed on that page. Lamberhurst (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Photo request

Does anyone know where I can get a photo showing the true extent of the Glenesk Bridge in Dalkeith? I am so far only able to find pictures on the top of the bridge and not beneath it or from nearby. I am trying to write a basic article on it. Thanks. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 16:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Is that the one here or here? I'm hoping to get up to go on the new Borders Railway before Christmas - if it's not too far from the nearest station I should have time to break a journey for some photos.  — An optimist on the run! (logged on as Pek the Penguin) 08:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Optimist. Thanks if you can. It is the first one. The second is of the Lothianbridge viaduct. Actually I have been in that area but I didn't have time to go to the bridge. From the Geograph pics it looks best if you access it from Ironmills Park but you might be able to get a view from the Eskbank side. I would say it would be a 20 mins to half hour walk from the station. If you want to see my mess of an article, see User:Simply south/Glenesk Bridge, Midlothian although it is obviously still under construction. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 10:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
@Simply south:, sorry, I'm unlikely to be there until next year now. I don't think I'll be free until Christmas week, and the trains then are likely to be too busy for pleasure travel. Optimist on the run (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks anyway. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 20:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Today's OTD (30/11)

Flying Scotsman first steam locomotive to 100mph? I'm pretty sure it wasn't. Doesn't that honour fall to City of Truro? Mjroots (talk) 13:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that the distinction is one of perceived authenticity - the LNER had a team of professional test personnel who used calibrated equipment that recorded the speed continuously, whereas the GWR's claim was based on calculations made by the journalist Charles Rous-Marten, who although reputable, did not have access to high-quality test equipment - he habitually recorded the speeds of the trains on which he travelled, using a stopwatch and the quarter-mile posts (900 divided by the time in seconds for the quarter mile gives the speed in mph). Since his speeds are only given at quarter-mile intervals, and not continuously, there has always been some disagreement over the interpretation of his timings. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Prototype HST

We have some users, such as Tempest3K (talk · contribs) and MadSquirrel (talk · contribs) that believe that the information on the preserved HST prototype should be included in British Rail Class 43 (HST) and (apparently) not in British Rail Class 41 (HST). HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs), you mentioned that you wanted to go through these articles properly, how about it? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I can see the value in mentioning the prototype in the Class 43 article, but there's enough detail to justify a separate article. And the 125 Group (who are operating the prototype) refer to it as 41001. I've been meaning to overhaul the HST articles for ... a long time. I knocked together bibliography last year if that's helpful to anyone. There's lots of overlap between the articles, but if they were all done properly to fit in with each other there's plenty of scope for all the articles we've got and probably a few more (the background, including BR modernisation/the APT/etc, is probably worth an article in its own right). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
There needs to be some detail of the prototype on the main Class 43 page. It is, after all, given TOPS class 43/9, which justifies its inclusion. There's not really much more than a "mention in passing" of the prototype. I agree that the prototype content on the 43 page doesn't need expanding, but it does nonetheless need to be included for completeness.
Disclosure - I'm a member of the 125 Group and a member of the GCR(N), although I wasn't involved in the restoration project I do volunteer on running days with 41001. But it was to some extent the Wikipedia articles that sparked my interest in it, so as far as I'm concerned the info on 41001 should stay on the page. Squirrel (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
But why can't you put the detail on British Rail Class 41 (HST)? It is much more relevant. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
@MadSquirrel: Nice to meet you. I'm also a member of the 125 Group, though thus far the extent of my involvement has been a few cheeky photos at the open day at Etches Park last year. I agree with you that it's well worth having some information on 41001 in the Class 43 article, but given that Class 41 has its own article, we should attempt to just summarise the key points in the 43 article and point readers to the 41 article if they want to know more. The two paragraphs that are in there at the minute are probably about right. We don't it to dominate the article, because the main focus of that article should be on the production version. For an analogy, consider how much weight the APT should be given in the main article on the HST—definitely relevant and worth summarising, but the detail should be reserved for the APT's own article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm with @HJ Mitchell: on this one. The prototype needs to be mentioned in passing on the Class 43 page, with references to the Class 41 page for full detail. What we've got now is just about right. The mechanics of the Class 41 prototype and Class 43 production locos are pretty much the same (indeed 41001's engine, S508, came out of a production loco).
There are some differences, the cab obviously, the prototype has buffers which were removed from the production loco, the prototype has both ETS and ETH supply whereas the production only has ETS, and the B end driving position was removed from the production loco. But it certainly deserves the brief mention on the 43 page. It's fine as it is. Squirrel (talk) 12:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Great Western Railway

Does anyone have time to stand back and take an overview of Great Western Railway (train operating company)? It seems to have accumulated a lot of cruft, unsourced in some cases, as well as some material that seems to me to violate WP:NOTTIMETABLE. I don't really have time to get to grips with it properly, plus I am not absolutely certain what the ideal TOC article should look like. -- Alarics (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

As you were. Others now seem to have the matter in hand. -- Alarics (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Pomona renaming discussion

You might like to comment on the renaming discussion going on at Talk:Pomona (Manchester) Metrolink station#Requested move 11 December 2015. G-13114 (talk) 09:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Deletion discussion for BR Standard 4 2-6-0 76084

There is a discussion underway regarding deletion of the newly created BR Standard 4 2-6-0 76084 article. Please join the discussion. Slambo (Speak) 16:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Closed as nomination withdrawn Optimist on the run (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

2014/15 NR usage statistics

The 2014/15 statistics will be released on Tuesday. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 21:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

They are now out, I am having trouble updating the statistics for a few stations, Manchester Piccadilly station, Euston railway station, Lancaster railway station. I add the figures but nothing extra shows up for some reason. Anyone have any ideas? Absolutelypuremilk (talk • contribs) 11:22, 15 December 2015
Usage1415 is not currently a parameter of {{Infobox GB station}}. I don't have time to fix it right now - it should be a simple fix though. Optimist on the run (talk) 11:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Ah that makes sense, thanks! Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Similarly for {{Infobox London station}}. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Which raises the question: do we need a separate infobox for London? Merging the two would eliminate the need to update both each year. Optimist on the run (talk) 12:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Presumably you could just add (say) ten years to the template each time. Note that the London infobox has information on the attached tube station. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Well anyway, the parameters have been added now. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 14:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

It appears the parameter for lowusage has not been updated and so e.g. Wrexham Central is not coming up with the correct figures, although the others have (and thanks for those) Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

And yes, the statistics are now out, so if we could all pitch in and do a few stations then hopefully we can get most of the stations sorted out fairly soon. http://orr.gov.uk/statistics/published-stats/station-usage-estimates Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I see the general trend is up, though London Bridge is falling down [3] Optimist on the run (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, now the link is down. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 15:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Waterhouses (County Durham) railway station

Waterhouses (County Durham) railway station is proposed for merging to Waterhouses, County Durham. Please discuss at Talk:Waterhouses, County Durham#Merger Discussion. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Infobox usage figures discussion

I would suggest that people here take a look at the discussion going on at Template_talk:Infobox_GB_station#Usage_section. Your input would be useful. Specifically, the proposal that was rejected here a few years ago to remove all but this year's station usage figures has been revived. G-13114 (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

No, the proposal being discussed is to hide [default setting], not remove, previous years' usage. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Collapsing tables

I think some of the long tables at the Birmingham Corporation Tramways article could do with being collapsed (specifically the tram fleet one) but I have no idea how to do it. Does anyone here know how to collapse them? G-13114 (talk) 23:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

G-13114, see WP:Wikitables and Help:Collapsing, but the short answer is add class="wikitable collapsible". Should also stop that table being circle line yellow... -mattbuck (Talk) 01:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Thankyou it worked. G-13114 (talk) 03:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
@G-13114: Please be careful that you don't violate MOS:COLLAPSE. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Hainault depot

For info: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hainault depot --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

SEML closure

The South Eastern Main Line is closed between Dover and Folkestone due to damage to the sea wall. This is likely to last until at least the end of February. Should the two RDTs covering the SEML be altered to reflect this? Mjroots (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

No, any more than we would alter the RDTs due to holiday blockades or overnight engineering work. The line is not disused, even if it is currently impassable. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
What did we do for Dawlish in 2014? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
For info, no alterations were made to the relevant RDTs when the Oxted line closed in February 2014 and the Stainforth line via Hatfield colliery closed in 2013 after landslips. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
but the Hastings Line RDT was altered for what was forecast to be a long-term closure (but turned out not to be). As also the de:Bahnstrecke Leer–Groningen RDT has been for a very long term closure. Mjroots (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I'd oppose changing the RDT if it's only projected to be a two-month closure. The precedent this would set would entail changing the London Underground, Strathclyde, GWR and Merseyrail maps every few days, since there's almost always at least one station or section of line on each of them closed for refurbishment at any given time. (And I dread to think what updating {{Manchester Metrolink}} in real-time would entail.) ‑ Iridescent 22:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
@Iridescent: - I would not want to change RDTs for planned short-term closures (i.e. weekend engineering works). Longer term closures do warrant marking, such as that affecting the line between Oxford and Bicester in the recent past. The question is, what is "long term"? A month? Two , three, six or twelve months? Mjroots (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I'd say as a rule of thumb, six months or up and probably twelve. Bicester-Oxford is something of a special case, since that's closed to be replaced by a new line so would have needed rewriting anyway, but assuming the floods in the North don't let up any time soon, we're likely looking at a lot of short-to-medium-term line closures for emergency engineering work, and that's quite aside from all the shutdowns currently ongoing in the South (try getting a train to Gatwick Airport, for instance), and London Transport's rolling close-and-upgrade programme (Holland Park tube station is closed until at least August, for instance). If you want to rationalise "don't change the templates", then in most of these cases the line is still there, it just doesn't happen to have trains on it. ‑ Iridescent 23:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Long term = 6mo + sounds reasonable. Mjroots (talk) 23:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Further to the above discussion, I've added a diagram to the Ihrhove–Nieuweschans railway article, showing the line closed with the bus replacement service between Leer and Bad Nieuweschans. Closure scheduled for the next 5 years or so due to a ship removing the bridge over the Ems. Mjroots (talk) 15:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Northern Railways

FYI, Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Northern Railways. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Accidents Sections

Of late many articles seem to be acquiring lists, sometimes very long lists, of accidents, not only the Railway company home pages but also individual classes of locomotive, probably other places too. Is there an argument to suggest that these are over dominating the topics? The notability of Rail accidents is undeniable, but these lists do seem to be unbalancing the articles. Would it be better simply to have links to lists of accidents under a reasonable number of categories rather than the lists in so many places? It seems to me to does give the impression that most interesting thing about railways is railway accidents, which might well be true of the red top press, but maybe not ideal for a balanced encyclopedia. 212.159.44.170 (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately the railway is one of those items where it rarely makes the news unless bad things happen. Accidents are notable occurrences, and should be covered. The question is, as you state, where. I'd say for instance that the Pacer fire at Nailsea was notable for the class and for the location, but probably not for the TOC. There needs to be an avoidance of synthesis. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
In what way are accidents "not ideal for a balanced encyclopedia"? We cover it all, good and bad. That is how balance is achieved. Mjroots (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
What 212.159.44.170 meant was that in an article about the history of a railway, or the development of a locomotive class, a minor accident may not be "notable" enough to be mentioned. Obviously "Porter Bloggs tripped and stubbed his toe" isn't; Quintinshill / Armagh / Clapham Junction obviously are; it's a matter of degree, and of significance. But even Clapham Junction isn't especially relevant to a London and South Western Railway article; it could equally have happened elsewhere, and there was nothing specific about it to the LSWR main line.
I agree with 212.159.44.170, and I look forward to his/her recommendation for how to implement this policy. Afterbrunel (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

More Where Am I?

This VTEC IC225 set is crossing a viaduct.

Done

This VTEC HST is at a station.
87008 is in the rain.
66595 is at a level crossing.

Any idea where these are? -mattbuck (Talk) 13:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

File:VTEC IC225 crossing viaduct.jpg looks like 54°28′38″N 1°33′09″W / 54.477296°N 1.552626°W / 54.477296; -1.552626 ... Croft railway bridge over the River Tees. Not very excellent bridge photo here: [4]; more useful ones here: [5] --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks Tagishsimon. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Anyone know the other three? -mattbuck (Talk) 21:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
66595 is working the 6Y49 Angerstein Wharf to Wool sand empties. Could this be Wool station? Lamberhurst (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Could 87008 be at Warrington Bank Quay? Lamberhurst (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

What am I called? (Leeds-Yorks edition)

158757 on an undisclosed line

With the deletion of York & Selby Lines, it's unclear to me what we call the line between Leeds and Church Fenton. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 13:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

According to the National Rail designation, the section from Leeds to Hull via Micklefield (and Cross Gates) is known as the Selby Line. I would have a preference for avoiding the use of "York & Selby Lines" which was a Wiki-invention. Lamberhurst (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
It definitely was not a Wiki invention. This terminology has been used by the West Yorkshire PTE (Metro) since the eighties at least and is still being used on their timetables to this day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:F684:580:B055:C953:1A5E:A824 (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Works for me, thanks. Mackensen (talk) 13:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Presuming these lines have been covered by Mitchell & Smith, what titles are they covered under? Mjroots (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Middleton Press have covered those lines yet. If I go to their home page, and under "Search our Index to Stations" search for stations like Cross Gates, Garforth, Micklefield, Church Fenton, Ulleskelf, Bolton Percy, none of relevance come back. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Relatedly, the National Rail designation says that Leeds-Micklefield-Scarborough is the "York Line". We don't really have coverage for Church Fenton-York (not a large section), but the northern piece is covered by York to Scarborough Line. Mackensen (talk) 13:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The ORR refers to stations like Cross Gates, Garforth and Micklefield as being on the Leeds to Colton Junction Line, the line that branches off towards South Milford, Selby etc as on the Hull to Micklefield Line and Church Fenton and Ulleskelf also on the the Colton Junction Line (at least, according to the latest 2014/15 usage document before it was taken down). Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 17:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I've created a stub at Selby Line and linked back to it from the stations in question. Mackensen (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The Lickey Incline

The Lickey Incline on the Birmingham and Gloucester Railway was worked by American Noble 2-4-0 steam locomotives from the 1840s (despite Brunel & Stevenson saying it couldn’t be done); see Norris Locomotive Works. But was the Likey Incline (1 in 37.7) ever worked as a cable railway as was oriinally envisaged when the line was authorised in 1836? Neither article is specific. And when was the railway opened from end to end? The Belmont Plane on a Pennsylvanian canal was sucessfully demonstrated in 1836 though there was still scepticism that locomotives could operate on an incline (of 1 in 15?). Hugo999 (talk) 10:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Best book for this is
  • Long, P.J.; Awdry, W.V. (1987). The Birmingham and Gloucester Railway. Gloucester: Alan Sutton. ISBN 0-86299-329-6.
you could also try
  • Whishaw, Francis (1842). The Railways of Great Britain and Ireland (2nd ed.). London: John Weale.
I'm certain that both say that it was always steam worked, and I'm also certain that both give opening dates. Don't recall reading about cable haulage in either one. Please note spelling of Stephenson, also that the early locos on the Birmingham & Gloucester were Norris 4-2-0, not Noble 2-4-0 --Redrose64 (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Interchange statistics

Are the interchange statistics really necessary for stations? It makes the infoboxes very difficult to read and build up an idea of what is going on. It's not particularly relevant for most people who just want to know how busy a local/often visited station is and want to know what the trend is. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm in favour of the idea being discussed on the infobox template talk to have the list collapsed by default. I think that interchanges are a useful measure, but they shouldn't be shown by default. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes that is a very good idea, I will post on there. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I find them pretty confusing to be honest. I think if we are going to have them, they should be in a separate section rather than interlaced with the main usage statistics. And they should only be used on stations which are significant interchange stations, rather than be used by default. G-13114 (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
It's the number of passengers who changed rather than exiting/entering, and you're quite right, places like Yatton don't need interchange statistics, but Bristol Temple Meads does. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
So would everyone be happy with having the list collapsed by default but still there? (Assuming that someone knows how to do that!) Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I'd say show the latest figure outside the collapse (if possible), but otherwise yes. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that makes sense. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
If anyone knows how to edit the inboxes, they can use Template:Collapsed infobox section begin to collapse sections Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I have added this discussion to Template talk:Infobox GB station Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:MULTI, I have removed the duplicate posts from Template talk:Infobox GB station#Interchange statistics. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your edit Redrose64, did you also have any thoughts on the interchange statistics? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
My 2c worth is that this data is interesting as it gives a better idea of total station usage. BUT if it has to go in the infobox at all, it should have a separate section. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Urban rail in the United Kingdom

I've started a debate on what should be included in the Urban rail article. Please see Talk:Urban rail in the United Kingdom#Other networks. Simply south ...... time, department skies for just 9 years 12:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

At the risk of courting unpopularity (and certainly not wishing to offend) most of this article seems to be a general re-hash of material which I assume (but have not looked for) is covered in the station edits for the featured areas. Whilst a moderately useful summary, it will need to be kept up to date when timetables change e.g. Leeds in December 2018. Whilst I understand some people are happy to do this, I would make a plea for more effort to be put into historical research on small stations across the country many of which have poor coverage e.g. Horsforth railway station. I do acknowledge that we all have our own interests however and would not want to discourage people.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
@Davidvaughanwells: per WP:MULTI, please discuss at Talk:Urban rail in the United Kingdom#Other networks, not here. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
@Redrose64:I think you missed the point - I am not interested enough in it but ireluctantly acknowledge other people are. As my post states, and I think it does belong here, that we rail contributors should be trying to improve the accuracy (or complete lack of) much historical content. Cheers (and thanks for your tireless edits on my contributions)--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Though I did (bleatedly) get the point you were trying tomake as well!--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 12:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

A proposal has been made to rename all Manchester Metrolink stations from the 'X Metrolink station' format to the 'X tram stop' format. A discussion is being held at Talk:Manchester Metrolink#Metrolink station renaming proposal.. G-13114 (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

SPT livery around Manchester

Any idea wich station? Not a Scottisch one as the SPT livery would suggest. This was taken with a rail trip around Manchester. I suspect we made an excursion to the Hadfield/Glossop line. One hour earlier these pictures were taken (File:Close to Manchester (1).jpg, thumb, File:Close to Manchester (1).jpg). I put a question about these pictures in the Village Commons.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

It's Carlisle Citadel. Compare File:SPT 156434 at Carlisle 2005-10-08 01.jpg. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree; also that church is Carlisle Cathedral. Mackensen (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Now, I start to remember. We were delayed so we couldnt complete the circuit via Newcastle. In the original plans I had the idea of going to Hadfield/Glossop and taking a walk in the Hills.Smiley.toerist (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Cross Country Route

It would appear Cross Country Route has reached the transclusion limit (presumably due to the map). Looks like we'll have to hive the diagram off to another page and create a reduced version or something. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

It's hit that limit at least twice before, somebody then sorts it all out, then somebody else adds more detail w/o understanding why the detail has previously been removed. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
And that's why I've had to revert your recent change to the page, as the {{rws}} template was not transcluded correctly. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Edits like this are like using a teacup to bail out a sinking boat. You need to find the hole and fix that - and it won't be in lightweight templates like {{rws}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I see that some time ago someone subst'ed the map template rather than transcluding it, but we've got the problem again. As the OP suggested, it may make sense to move the map off into another page, for now at least. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I recognize that not everyone likes {{Routemap}} and the new syntax but converting the Cross Country map would dramatically reduce memory usage and solve this problem. Mackensen (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
As at least a temporary fix I've moved the route diagram out to a separate page (Cross Country Route diagram) so that the rest of the templates in the article (including reference citations) can be displayed. If someone wishes to improve the links and formatting they are, of course, welcome to do so. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
And as even that separate page hit the template transclusion size changes after a number of changes by other edits, I have now split the diagram into two parts Cross Country Route (North) and Cross Country Route (South). - David Biddulph (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

2008 in rail transport in Scotland

I created a new category in the Commons as the (2008 in rail transport in the United Kingdom) is getting quite large. I reduced it a bit by moving some to the London subcategories (main stations). Maybe some other subcategories should be created. 2008 on the London Overground? The other later years are also big and should tackled. I prefer a systematic approach.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

2008 in rail transport in London swallowed a lot of UK images and has a lot of London big station subcategories.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Heart of Wessex Line

Rodw brought this article to my attention as needing inline citations. Frankly it's barely an article at all currently, but I was wondering whether it even should be. The only place I've ever heard it mentioned is by the CRP. The track it covers is, apart from Castle Cary to Upwey, is entirely subsumed by the Wessex Main Line and the Berks & Hants Line. Does anyone know when the term "Heart of Wessex Line" came in to being? Is there a different name for the Castle Cary to Weymouth bit we should be using? -mattbuck (Talk) 21:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

In answer to your second question, no there isn't. Here is National Rail's named lines and I would see if Network Rail's RUS for Great Western or similar had the same evidence if the website wasn't mucking up. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 21:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Great Western RUS and this Route Prospectus. All of it prove that it is indeed officially called the Heart of Wessex Line between Bristol and Weymouth. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 22:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Sheffield Supertram renaming proposal

You might like to take a look at the discussion here: Talk:Supertram_(Sheffield)#Requested_move_23_January_2016. G-13114 (talk) 11:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Davyhulme Sewage Works

I have been working on an article about Davyhulme Sewage Works, which had an internal railway from the 1890s until 1958. Details are mentioned in the text, and details of the 17 locomotives used are included in their own section. Should I add the article to WikiProject UK Railways, and if so, which banner do I use? Bob1960evens (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I've taken care of it. Mjroots (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I really enjoyed reading the article - so important to record these often overlooked parts of the industrial landscape.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

South Eastern Railway, UK or...

Hi, this drive-by edit of Reculver was intended to "fix" a link to South Eastern Railway, UK, by changing it to "South Eastern Railway, United Kingdom". I'm sure it was just a slip-up, but it did prompt me to think about whether "South Eastern Railway, UK", is the best name for that article. Looking at two examples that occurred to me – South Eastern Railway and North Eastern Railway – I wonder if it shouldn't be moved to "South Eastern Railway (United Kingdom)". But I've virtually zero experience in handling railway articles, I'm just putting it out there for the sake of consistency. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd agree with South Eastern Railway (United Kingdom). -mattbuck (Talk) 12:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm. Not the first time that Jaguar (talk · contribs) has been overenthusiastic/incautious with their WP:AWB edits. We may need to check for other links that have been similarly broken. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
North Eastern Railway (United Kingdom) looks unnecessary, given that it's the only "North Eastern Railway" article on Wikipedia. Similarly, for South Eastern Railway, UK, there's only a minor Canadian company which had the same name. I would suggest that for both the British companies are the WP:PRIMARY TOPIC. Lamberhurst (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Per Lamberhurst, both would seem to be the Primary use of the name. Mjroots (talk) 08:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that makes sense. With hindsight, I think what was bothering me more than consistency was that surely there never was a "South Eastern Railway, UK", that being an invention for WP. I do think it needs moving, and agree that it and the North Eastern Railway can be moved as primary. Nortonius (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Which livery?

?

Can anyone identify the livery of this DMU on the Chesterfield/Rotherham line sometime in the 1980s? Lamberhurst (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It's BR's generic departmental livery for coaching stock: rail blue, yellow and black in the usual places, red where grey would have been. Oh, and it's a Park Royal Class 103 so is probably nos. RDB975089/90. These were "Track Recording Cars" based at RTC, Derby according to
  • Fox, Peter (1984). Departmental Coaching Stock (1st ed.). Sheffield: Platform 5 Publishing. p. 60. ISBN 0-906579-37-6.
and there's a colour pic of that unit on the back cover. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Lamberhurst (talk) 08:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Station disambiguation brackets placement

I seem to remember that there was a convention somewhere that if we needed to disambiguate a station, the brackets should go in the middle of the name rather than the end. E.g. Earlswood (West Midlands) railway station, rather than Earlswood railway station (West Midlands). But I can't find that convention anywhere. Just the subject has come up at Talk:Haymarket (Edinburgh) station. G-13114 (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion might have been Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(UK_stations)#Disambiguation_II --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Is Haymarket station multi-modal?

You might like to see the discussion at Talk:Haymarket railway station#Naming.

Basically, as the new Edinburgh Trams had opened a new tram stop right outside the station, also called Haymarket, I thought it should be treated as a multi-modal station, in the same vein as West Croydon station, and moved the article to Haymarket (Edinburgh) station, as the Haymarket station space was already in use, and it was in line with the article disambiguation conventions. But someone yesterday objected, and moved it back to Haymarket railway station. So your thoughts would be appreciated on the talk page. G-13114 (talk) 13:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Origin of loco names

See Talk:LNWR George the Fifth Class#John Hick. I can't get the idea of WP:NOR in tandem with WP:V across here. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

What am I called? (Swinton-Doncaster edition)

Where am I?

The deleted Sheffield to Hull Line claimed the following segments:

Doncaster-Swinton is a mystery. There are just two open stations: Conisbrough and Mexborough. The ORR usage report groups them with "Swinton - Brocklesby Jcn", which includes the South Humberside Main Line to Barnetby. Various Network Rail documents [6] [7] refer to this as "Doncaster South Yorkshire Junction to Swinton Junction" but this is more descriptive than a proper name. Mackensen (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Mexborough-Swinton is part of what is known as the "Swinton curve" which linked the North Midland Railway at Swinton with the South Yorkshire Railway at Mexborough West Junction. It was reinstated in 1990 for Sheffield-Doncaster, Sheffield-York and Leeds services. Lamberhurst (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
@Lamberhurst: And Mexborough-Doncaster? Mackensen (talk) 04:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Difficult to find a name for this section. It's a remnant of the South Yorkshire Railway and is used for Sheffield-Doncaster services. The Sheffield-Swinton section of that service pattern is covered by Dearne Valley Line. I can only suggest Mexborough to Doncaster line or something similar. Anyone else got a better suggestion? Lamberhurst (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

It would be conjectural and descriptive, but how about Swinton to Doncaster Line, describing the entire piece? That would at least group the related content in the same place, and could be easily renamed if a more official name is discovered? Mackensen (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Fine with that as well. Lamberhurst (talk) 08:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I've created it, and left a note on Talk:Swinton to Doncaster Line linking back to this discussion. Mackensen (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Great Grimsby Street Tramways

Please can an admin have a look at Great Grimsby Street Tramways where text taken from Grimsby District Light Railway (where it had been since 2006) has been deleted as a copyvio on the basis that a page on a wiki-clone site created since 2007 had the same text. Full details on the talk page of the first article. As a non-admin I can't undo the deletion by an admin who didn't bother to reply to the message on the talk page. It would be a shame to lose the text wrongly expunged. Lamberhurst (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Lamberhurst: You should have discussed this with Diannaa first as the deleting admin. She will be aware of this discussion now, so we may as well continue here. I'm not minded to take any action until there has been full discussion. Mjroots (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
{@Diannaa:, whose name I mis-spelled the first time. Mjroots (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I have restored the material. Sorry for the mistake. The bot got the source wrong. I hunted for it on Wikipedia, but since the material had already been removed from the source page, I did not find it (and unfortunately didn't notice the note on the talk page). Copying within Wikipedia is of course permitted, but attribution is required. At a minimum, we are supposed to do this by saying in the edit summary on the destination article which article we copied the material from. There's also templates available, which should have been used in this case. This problem would have been avoided if that would have been done. I have restored the material and added the required attribution, but note there's a problem with the citations. I have taken a guess at what they are supposed to be, but if someone could check, that would be great. — Diannaa (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

London Trams

Hi, I was advised to seek advice and opinions here about Talk:London Trams#Name of the organisation. The main question is whether there should be an article on TfL's tram operations, separate from the one on Tramlink. Thanks. wctaiwan (talk) 23:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Current use of station building

Should we indicate the current use of a station building? RThompson82 (talk · contribs) insists that we do, yet seems unwilling to source it, and gave this reaction to my request on their talk page. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd say if it can be sourced yes, since the information does no harm and is potentially useful to readers. (People may want to know if a former station is now retail premises and thus open to the public, for instance, or be interested in what proportion of former Great Fooland and Barshire Railway stations are now private residences; it's not our job to tell readers what they ought to consider important.) "If it can be sourced" is the key phrase here, and a photo on its own is certainly not a reliable source in the Wikipedia sense. ‑ Iridescent 01:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Got one. There are a few others around if you want to see. Btw apparently there's talk of reopening this line -- a lot of its rails are still in place, its just overgrown with plants. http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/former-denby-railway-station/view/google/ --RThompson82 (talk) 02:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Not admissible I'm afraid. First, it's sourced to Wikipedia and so goes against WP:CIRCULAR; second, as noted above a photo is not a reliable source in the Wikipedia sense. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
If a historic building is now a private residence, that fact is generally worthy of mention and not a violation of the resident's privacy. If we state who lives there then that's intrusive.
In this case: Its for sale, making it trivial to find info from estate agents. Calling an estate agent a reliable source is a contradiction in terms, but does allow us to say "it is for sale, as a residential property". I'm not sure if that is worth mentioning - the station master's house is now a house? What a surprise! :) What happened to the rest of the station is more significant.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Saying it's a private dwelling is appropriate, emphasis on private rather than railway-owned. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Haverhill railway station

FYI, Talk:Haverhill railway station#Requested move 9 February 2016. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

SEML long-term closure

Per the earlier consensus established either here or at TWP, I've redrawn the two RDTs covering the SEML to show the line as closed between Folkestone and Dover. Apparently the original wooden viaduct has rotted after a mere 170 years and the whole of that stretch of line will need to be rebuilt. This means that the line will have been closed in excess of 6 months by the time it reopens.

Now, where can I find an image of the original wooden viaduct before it was infilled. Sure I've seen one in a book somewhere. Mjroots (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Found one! Mjroots (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Central line

FYI, Talk:Central line#Requested move 21 February 2016. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Flicker images of trains in Oxford

Some help is need in dating images see: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Flicker_images_of_trains_in_Oxford. Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Oldham Mumps

You might like to take a look at my comments at Talk:Oldham Mumps tram stop#Article split. G-13114 (talk) 12:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hastings Units

Currently, we have three separate articles (British Rail Class 201, British Rail Class 202 and British Rail Class 203) on the Hastings Units. I think that the could be much better handled by a single article covering all three classes, which were treated as one by BR for operational purposes. Raising for discussion, thoughts, comments and suggestions. Mjroots (talk) 11:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Slightly disappointed there has been no response. I intend to create a new article at British Rail Classes 201, 202 and 203, and merge info into it from each of the separate class articles, which will then become redirects. More new material will be added. Mjroots (talk) 13:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
No particular objection from me, but wouldn't it be easier to just put them under Hastings Units? G-13114 (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
No objection here to that title, but redirects will be created as necessary. We have the British Rail Classes 253, 254 and 255 article, which was the inspiration for the title I gave above. Mjroots (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I held off replying until I looked at my copy of Green, Chris; Vincent, Mike (2014). The Network SouthEast Story 1982–2014. Hersham: Oxford Publishing Co. ISBN 978-0-86093-653-4.. I'm inclined to agree with your suggestion, as the technical specs given in the book make it clear there were minimal differences betweeen the three classes. It does though raise the issue of what to do with British Rail Class 204, which was used for two different sets of units at different times. The following table (for ref purposes, it is Table E1, p.204) shows the technical details of each class, and proves that they were more or less identical...
Class Routes Max speed Built Cars 1982 1986 1994
201 Hastings Line 90mph 1957 6 Not shown Not shown 0 units
202 Hastings Line (with Buffet car) 90mph 1957 6 6 units 6 units 0 units
203 Hastings Line 90mph 1957 5 4 units 4 units 0 units
204 Hastings Line 90mph 1957 5 12 units 12 units 0 units
I'm not a rolling stock expert, so I've just presented that "as is"; hopefully it is of some use. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 20:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
@Hassocks5489: The Class 203s (6B) units originally had buffet cars. AFAIK, they were recoded 5L when the buffet cars were withdrawn in the 1980s. As for the class 204 article, it could be split, but that's in the medium to long term. I recently acquired Robertson, Kevin; Abbinnett, Hugh (2012). Southern Region DEMUs. Hersham: Ian Allan Publishing Ltd. for a bargain £5. Plenty of info there to do all SR DEMUs justice. That, combined with Beecroft's excellent book on the Hastings Units will be the basis of the new article. I'll probably make a start towards the end of the week. Mjroots (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Good stuff; I will keep an eye on it. Looking again at the table, I see at the bottom "Source: Colin Marsden", but whether it's based on personal communications with the authors or one of his many books I can't tell (I can't see any of his books listed in the bibliography). Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 22:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Class 201 or 6S: short frames (56'11" instead of the normal 63'5"). No buffet.
  • Class 202 or 6L: long frames (63'5"). No buffet.
  • Class 203 or 6B: long frames, buffet.
That's all the difference that there really was, until the 1980s when shortages of certain types of car forced exotic formations and some of the class codes got repurposed. Even before that, the disbandment of three 6S units early on released eighteen trailer cars, only twelve of which were required to form the 3R units (later Class 206) the remaining six (three each TFK and TSO) were spares. If one of these short-frame cars was formed into a long-frame 6L unit, that unit would remain as 6L. Removal of a buffet car from a 6B unit and its replacement by a TSO (of either length) caused reclassification to 6L. 5L was a later code caused by insufficient cars needed for complete 6L units to be formed. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
There were a few other minor differences, which will be covered. 6B units were higher lower geared (& faster) on introduction. Mjroots (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Really? Is that mentioned in Beecroft anywhere? --Redrose64 (talk) 01:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
It's in Robertson & Abbinnett, p17. Mjroots (talk) 06:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Has anyone got Welch, Michael (2004). Southern DEMUs. Capital Transport. ISBN 1-85414-287-9. ? Mjroots (talk) 07:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
No. But I've now found it in Beecroft - p. 23, apparently the standard gear ratio was 65:16, with the 6B units having 61:20 "when new, but were subsequently fitted with 65:16".
I must buy that 2012 book - I have met Kevin Robertson several times, and even been to his house near Petersfield (his garage is full of second-hand railway books). The books he has written are generally well researched. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I've made a start. Please restrain yourselves from editing the article for now. I'll expand the article more tomorrow. Mjroots (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I've bashed the new article into something resembling a shape. There is still material to be carried over from the existing articles, so these can stay for the short term. I'm leaning towards leaving the navbox links unchanged until such time that the existing articles are converted into redirects. Please feel free to rip my work to pieces as usual improve the article as you see fit. Mjroots (talk) 09:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Rolling stock of Network SouthEast

Could I ask project members to look over this new article to make sure I haven't made any omissions, errors of fact or interpretation. Any and all edits welcome! I will be finishing it off tonight. Thx, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 13:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I think there were some MLVs (GLVs) running in NSE colours, but not 100% sure. Mjroots (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I was correct, but what's the tank wagon doing behind them? Mjroots (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Cheers; I've given them a mention under Class 411 (on the basis that those units usually operated the Kent boat trains, I believe) while I look for more info. Neither Green & Vincent nor the NSE Handbook cover them, unfortunately. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 23:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
They're not GLVs but MLVs, Class 419. They had two motor bogies (compared to the single motor bogie of a Class 411 motor coach) and were powerful enough to haul a substantial tail load. Having batteries, they were often used on non-electrified lines such as those to Folkestone Harbour. I imagine they might move wagons between main line and harbour, to save on the cost of bringing in a shunter. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure they got used on the Gatwick Express services because of their extra luggage capacity, hence GLV (Gatwick Luggage Van). BTW, it was Dover that had non-electrfied lines. The Folkestone Harbour Branch was electrified.Mjroots (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
The Gatwick luggage vans were Class 489. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
GLVs were converted 2HAPs, MLVs are self-contained purpose built units. Nordic Dragon 09:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The table of stock types seems to omit loco-hauled coaching stock. This was used on several routes before new multiple units were built.Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks; I'm hoping to add coaching stock by this weekend, time permitting. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 14:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
IIRC the depots with the largest allocations of NSE-liveried coaching stock were Cambridge and Old Oak Common, and they were mainly the older types - Marks 1, 2, 2a, 2b. Those at Old Oak were mainly used on the twice-hourly fast services to Oxford, and a seven-coach train often included some Mark 1 corridor seconds. This was also one of the last regular jobs for Class 50. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Sir Anthony Hidden, QC

Sir Anthony Hidden , QC has died. Seems to me that he is notable enough to have an article. Mjroots (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

All I know him for is writing the Hidden report into the Clapham accident. Seems rather WP:BIO1E. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
It's probably what he's best known for in railway circles, but he had a long and distinguished legal career. Mjroots (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Yup. Lester Piggott, a Hillsborough case & others more than satisfy notability. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Photos being removed

I have just found photos have been removed from Woodbridge and Melton station pages all of which I felt helped illustrate the nature of those stations. Is this a decision that has been made in Wikipedia I am unaware of or has the editor decided unilaterally that they should be removed? --Davidvaughanwells (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It's unhelpful that @TBM10: did not explain his/her rationale for the removal of the images at Woodbridge railway station, but it may be in line with WP:IG and WP:NOTGALLERY. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, WP:IG is the relevant guideline; if the images are hosted on Commons: the normal practice is not to use a gallery, but instead provide a {{commons category}} template in the last section. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Duly added for Woodbridge railway station & Melton railway station. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Further to my last comment - I see that one of the relevant edits was this one. Another argument for removal of the "gallery" here is that it was a single image, for which the normal image markup would have been much more suitable. --Redrose64 (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I think the Melton photo was one of my earliest additions and generally I include them within the text. So that I am clear then - adding photos in the sections of text or info boxes is fine but adding a gallery is not and there should be a link to Commons. Thanks for your help.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 13:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
That's right. Occasionally there is a legitimate reason to include gallery tags, but it's pretty rare, and general photos of a station would not be such a circumstance. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Route Diagram Templates

BU Rob13 (talk · contribs) is apparently embarking on a crusade to delete RDTs that are only used on single pages: WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 20. Useddenim (talk) 23:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion consolidated at Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template#Route Diagram Templates

I have started a discussion about "BSn templates for use and BSn templates for substitution" at Wikipedia_talk:Route_diagram_template. Your opinion is welcome. Pldx1 (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Lewisham station

I am trying to ascertain the position of the original Lewisham station. Until today I always thought the existing station was the original but the copy of the 1857 accident report (http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/BoT_Lewisham1857.pdf) suggests its between the new (present) station and Blackheath. I am assuming it was located on the other side of the Lewisham Road bridge but would appreciate confirmation (with source?).--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Old OS Maps - a link from the geohack page - is your friend. This, with luck, will confirm that the station was to the east on t'other side of a road ... the station is labelled and you can just about see it at the resolution offered by the mapping site. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks #Tagishsimon --Davidvaughanwells (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_34&oldid=1188798543"