Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

Routeboxes

Firstly let me apologise for edit warring with various IP editors over railway station articles. I have been contributing to Wikipedia for nearly six years and believe the vast majority of my input has been positive, including on dozens of UK rail articles.

I do think there should be some guidelines around the use of routeboxes on station articles.

Foremost, editors should remember the article is about the station and not the timetable and all of its nuances. Readers can refer to official websites such as National Rail for detailed timetable information. Thus, I do not think limited services should be shown, and only the usual off-peak weekday routes should be in the routebox.

The definition of limited services is open to debate but I would suggest that a service that represents less than 20% of the station's overall week's worth of trains might be worthy of a mention in the article body but not its own routebox. Even if a limited service is operated by a different TOC than the usual one, this is hardly worthy of note to the degree of an entire routebox. An example would be Gidea Park which sees two Colchester services per day but these represent less than 20% of the station's usual service. The fact the Colchester trains are a different TOC is perhaps worthy of mention in the article prose, but not its own routebox. On the other hand, the one train per day at Eccles Road that is operated by East Midlands might seem to be "limited" but it isn't in the context of the station's total service, and therefore should be shown.

Sunday-only services should also be classified as limited and therefore omitted from routeboxes, as this is just one day out of seven in the week and therefore unlikely to represent more than 20% of the station's trains. An exception would be a station only open at weekends, such as Lakenheath, whose seven Sunday trains make up 78% of the station's total trains.

Finally, it becomes complex and confusing to show every possible "route" and therefore the routebox should show the line(s) the station is on and it's position on the line(s) it is on. For example, for Shenfield it is desirable to show the "route" as "Great Eastern Main Line" rather than "Liverpool Street to Ipswich/Liverpool Street to Colchester/Liverpool Street to Clacton/Liverpool Street to Harwich"...etc. In that vein, Shenfield is the last station on the Shenfield to Southend Line, with services then joining the GEML towards either Romford or Stratford. This is made clear in the article body. Hopefully we can reach some consensus over these points and improve the focus and readability of these station articles. --TBM10 (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Can of worms... check.

Note to editors: this is in reference to Redrose64 fully protecting Stratford station for a fortnight due to edit warring over routeboxes.

I will first outline my own position on matters, before commenting on others' opinions.

My view is that routeboxes should show major service patterns per TOC route. This doesn't mean showing every variation, but it should show the ones which are frequent services. For instance this is the current routebox from Patchway:

Preceding station	National Rail			Following station
Filton Abbey Wood		Great Western Railway Taunton - Cardiff Central		Severn Tunnel Junction
		Great Western Railway Portsmouth Harbour - Cardiff Central
		CrossCountry Manchester Piccadilly - Cardiff Central (Limited service)

This shows that the standard services are PMH-CDF and TAU-CDF, with next stops at STJ and FIT. Note that this does not show the daily CDF-BPW-TAU service, nor the CDF-PIL-TAU service, though both are mentioned in the prose. The prose also mentions that the southern endpoints of the services are not always the same, but Taunton and Portsmouth are the regular ones, so they go in the box. In addition there's a limited XC service MAN-CDF, calling at the same stations. This is included because it's the only XC service at the station, and is thus designated "Limited service". I would say there's a possible reason to include the Pilning service, but only on the grounds that that is the only service Pilning ever gets. I don't suggest that the route linktext be the line, unless the service is limited to that line. So for say Redland you can use Severn Beach Line rather than Bristol Temple Meads - Severn Beach on the grounds that that route is the Severn Beach Line; but at Patchway the routes cross several different lines, so you link the one it's on at that station and give the service route as the text instead.

I would not advocate any hard and fast rule about percentages, I think that generally common sense should prevail. But I would say that if a TOC stops at a station, it should be represented in the routebox. Regarding the Stratford case, I would not include that service as very few Norwich trains call at Stratford, and there are plenty of other AGA services listed on the Great Eastern. If however London-Norwich was run by Babellio Breater Banglia, and BBB stopped one train per day at Stratford, I would include it, but with the note "Limited service". Note though that my view is that routeboxes per TOC route should be considered. The London-Norwich doesn't make it on the grounds that there are plenty of other long distance services on the GEML, but I would for instance include services via Gainsborough Central, despite those being only one day per week (again, note limited service). -mattbuck (Talk) 11:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd go for anything that rationalises some of the examples like Manchester Victoria. Nthep (talk) 11:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Broadly agree, though I must say I don't agree that a half of all Sundays services (2tph) that call at Gidea Park, Harold & Brentwood should be left out because they don't call the rest of the week. Surly a service that contributes to 50% of service should be included - I wouldn't even call it limited - just a different service pattern for a day. I'd say the same for Sydenham with its Sunday 2tph Tattenham Corner services. Likelife (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You can always handle it with a split like below. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Preceding station	National Rail			Following station
Terminus		Great Western Railway Severn Beach Line		Shirehampton
St Andrews Road
Severn Beach

Deciding what goes in the routebox on the basis of what is considered as a "frequent" or "infrequent" service is inviting trouble, even more so when percentages are thrown in and we all start poring over timetables to work out whether that Sunday local service can be given its own entry. Unless there is a clear rule on what is to be included, edit warring will continue unabated. Why not just mention unusual service patterns in the text of the services section and keep the routebox simple? Lamberhurst (talk) 13:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

That's what I have been trying to do: keep the routebox simple and mention infrequent or unusual services in the main body, such as has been done at Seven Kings with the one Greater Anglia train per day. --TBM10 (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Some of the discussion on the Shenfield situation, such as whether Southend services should show as "terminating" at Shenfield or continuing towards Liverpool Street are at User talk:TBM10#Your unnecessary edit changes!. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mattbuck: @Likelife:, I absolutely completely agree with both of you with these route boxes, limited services (if their a different TOC's) should certainly be shown. However @Mattbuck: I would say include Norwich services at Stratford though, mainly because they call there every hour during off-peak and they have been shown in routebox in the past. And yes @Nthep: Manchester Victoria route boxes could definitely be reduced down as that is what I call every iteration of the timetable. @TBM10: @Lamberhurst: have you even read anything me or Mattbuck (talk · contribs) or Lamberhurst (talk · contribs) or David Biddulph (talk · contribs) have said on this page or on User talk:TBM10#Your unnecessary edit changes!. To me it seems as if both of you haven't even listened what so ever and personally it should be made compulsory for routeboxes to show their limited services if its a different TOC's, that's the reason why we have different TOC colours isn't it? @TBM10: ok if the Shenfield Metro service was AGA and as well as the Southend and Colchester services are then I would say don't include it in routebox and only include it in the prose, but as the Shenfield Metro is not AGA, then the limited AGA services should get their own route box, especially since its National Rail as well, whilst TfL Rail is Crossrail.--Hs2107 (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I would make the point again that the article is supposed to be about the station itself. Readability and aesthetics of the article are improved by having as simple a routebox as is necessary. Why have three, four or five routeboxes/variations when you can have one, and why repeat information that is generally explained in the prose? Chelmsford is a good example where we have concisely shown the various routes under the "Services" section of the prose, and a nice simple one-line routebox shows the position of the station on the line. The reader of this article gets a nice concise picture of the station and its importance in terms of the number of trains and destinations served, and can refer to the official timetable for more detailed information about calling patterns, etc.
One train per day, and Sunday-only services, in the context of the whole week's timetable are limited services, of limited interest, and whether they are a different TOC is irrelevant. Mention them in the prose, and don't repeat it unnecessarily in the routebox. --TBM10 (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@TBM10: I have to say it once again, having to get all my anger out towards you! The whole point of Wikipedia is not just to show the proceeding/following station that's the reason why we have colours in the route box isn't it? I am sorry but a disagree with you, there is however certain stations that I agree with such as the Crouch Valley Line at Wickford, I agree showing it as the Terminus as the off-peak timetable shows it terminates there, however Shenfield I disagree with you because the off-peak timetable shows that Southend Vic services do not terminate at Shenfield and routeboxes are meant to be showing train services, that's what they have always shown quite frankly! Its only inner-city services such as TfL services that show proceeding/following services, not main line National Rail services. --Hs2107 (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Plymouth accident, 3-4-16

A minor accident has occurred at Plymouth today leading to 18 people being injured. One train was an IC125 set, including power car 43 160. The other looks to be a Class 150 or similar. Can anyone identify it? Mjroots (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Judging by [1] I'd say 150219. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's definitely a Class 150/2 so with those two figures visible, we can construct the unit number, but nothing to indicate which car (52219 or 57219) was damaged. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

You lot are good. I wasn't even sure it was a 150! Mjroots (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I've added an "accidents and incidents" section to the Class 150 article. It is sorely in need of expansion. Mjroots (talk) 07:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

A bit of OR, but I've had a quick look through List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom since 1985, and cannot find any other incidents involving a class 150. If this is the case then they've had a remarkable safety record in their 30+ year history. Optimist on the run (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I've managed to find another one. Mjroots (talk) 12:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

There seems to have been an incident involving 150126 at Sutton Coldfield on 13 March 1994 [2] - the page gives very few details other than a grainy photo. There's a forum discussion here. Optimist on the run (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Nothing in The Times. Mjroots (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

This website claims three Class 150 vehicles have been withdrawn due to accident damage. Mjroots (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Apparently there was an accident at St Helens Central on 11 November 1988 with a fatality. The report is not downloading for me. Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The current Platform 5 omits just two Class 150 cars, nos. 52209/12. The other car from units 150209/12 (nos. 57209/12) is in use as a centre car in units 150925/6. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I've now got the St Helens link working. 150 209 was involved. Mjroots (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Categories order

My attempts to put the categories on UK railway stations into what I thought was a more logical alphabetical order, have been rebuffed by User:Redrose64 on the basis that this discussion is a consensus for the order he is advocating, the methodology of which IMHO is unclear, to be maintained. From my perusal, this discussion appears only vaguely related, being a high level discussion about auto-sorting categories by a bot that doesn't particularly pertain to UK stations. In the interests of harmony, thought it best to try and gain a consensus, given that there are a number of formats floating around.

I have built Version 1 an example of how I am assuming User:Redrose64 believes it should stand, by using the current version of Carlisle railway station with a few more fields added from Garsdale railway station and Glasgow Central station to make more inclusive. Version 2 is set out in alphabetical order, the only variation made from this is to put the opening and closing dates in chronological order.

Version 1

• Category:Railway stations in Cumbria
• Category:Former Caledonian Railway stations
• Category:Former Lancaster and Carlisle Railway stations
• Category:Railway stations opened in 1847
• Category:Railway stations closed in 1970
• Category:Railway stations opened in 1986
• Category:Network Rail managed stations
• Category:SPT railway stations
• Category:Railway stations served by Abellio ScotRail
• Category:Railway stations served by Northern Rail
• Category:Railway stations served by Virgin Trains
• Category:Union stations in the United Kingdom
• Category:Carlisle, Cumbria
• Category:Buildings by William Tite
• Category:Grade II* listed buildings in Cumbria
• Category:Grade II* listed railway stations
• Category:Dog monuments
• Category:Beeching closures in England
• Category:1847 establishments in England

Version 2

• Category:Beeching closures in England
• Category:Buildings by William Tite
• Category:Carlisle, Cumbria
• Category:Dog monuments
• Category:Former Caledonian Railway stations
• Category:Former Lancaster and Carlisle Railway stations
• Category:Grade II* listed buildings in Cumbria
• Category:Grade II* listed railway stations
• Category:Network Rail managed stations
• Category:Railway stations in Cumbria
• Category:Railway stations opened in 1847
• Category:Railway stations closed in 1970
• Category:Railway stations opened in 1986
• Category:Railway stations served by Abellio ScotRail
• Category:Railway stations served by Northern Rail
• Category:Railway stations served by Virgin Trains
• Category:SPT railway stations
• Category:Union stations in the United Kingdom
• Category:1847 establishments in England

I am guessing editors may have other options. So what do we think is the better option, or what other changes should be made? 7ten (talk) 02:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

AFAIK, Wikipedia has no guidelines about the order of categories. Remember that their purpose is to bring readers to the articles, not the other way round, so the order makes little difference. Also tools such as HotCat add new categories on the end, and trying to maintain an order for all articles would be an extremely time consuming and (IMO) pointless exercise - certainly nothing worth edit warring about. Finally some categories are added automatically by templates within the article, so would be to leave them unsorted. Optimist on the run (talk) 05:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus for alpha sorting of categories. The most usual order for the cats of UK railway stations is basically one of descending order of relevance - the facts that is a railway station in Cumbria and a former Caledonian Railway station are very much defining characteristics, and are a lot more relevant that the facts that it is a Beeching closure in England and a building by William Tite. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

My preference is for alphabetical. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

My preference is chronological, but as long as the cat appears somewhere, it doesn't really matter if they're all jumbled up. Mjroots (talk) 10:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm with Redrose64. Most pertinent first; a form of Inverted pyramid writing. Clearly sometimes will beg questions of precidence, but if it avoids front-loading with "dog monuments", it's a price worth paying. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Prefer alphabetical. While there maybe a case for listing categories in order of relevance, assessing this and getting an across the board consensus would be near on impossible.

For example, how should the train operating companies be listed? Alphabetically, by the number of trains that serve the station, with the company that manages the station listed first...the possibilities are endless. And then should the Carlisle, Cumbria category be considered more relevant than the Grade II* listed railway stations etc. There may be hundreds of categories in use, the combinations are endless. This seems to be reflected by different methodologies applied, e.g. Bristol Temple Meads railway station is different to Penzance railway station which in turn differs to York railway station. As it stands, I wouldn’t know where an additional category needs to be slotted in. So while not the greatest issue, in the absence of any better suggestion agree with sorting alphabetically to bring consistency. Morr747 (talk) 04:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Within my preference for most relevant first, there is latitude: I put all TOCs alphabetically, after the cat for the year of opening. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Road numbers in RDTs

Where roads are shown in WP:RDTs, should the road number be given as a plain link (like this or this), or as an image with the appearance of a road sign (like this or this)? I prefer the former (on grounds of accessibility and aesthetics but also on the grounds that these are rail diagrams, and to show road numbers in an eye-catching way is WP:UNDUE); whereas Nathan A RF (talk · contribs) prefers the latter. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

If, and that is a big if IMO, they are considered necessary then they should be plain link. Just because BS images for fancy signs exist does not mean they have to be used. Nthep (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I prefer the simple (former) look, but the question I would ask is what roads should be included? I presume motorways are probably significant as their size implies there must be a fairly significant bridge or tunnel required to carry the railway, but B-roads I'm not so sure... --TBM10 (talk) 06:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@TBM10: This was previously discussed here in December 2011 and May 2014, where the consensus seems to be that it depends on the level of detail in the RDT and the significance of the road in question. Lamberhurst (talk) 07:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Lamberhurst. I am also re-writing {{UK road}} to used text instead of images (seeTemplate:UK road/sandbox); I have the core done, but need to work on scaling. Useddenim (talk) 10:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Per Nthep, plain links only in rail diagrams. Fancy links should be restricted to road diagrams. Mjroots (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Plain links only, for accessibility and readability reasons. And further, whilst white on blue with the symbol of a dual carriageway and bridge for motorways is quite common (see Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals), in about half of Europe a green background is preferred. The Vienna convention is nowhere near being adopted worldwide (see US freeway signs or Australian motorway signs), so using blue with a bridge is far from universal in English speaking countries.

Uh, that's why the template is called {{UK road}}... Useddenim (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Uh, Uh, my point was concerning the appearance and not the mechanism - it doesn't matter what you do with the template - someone could still stick something like into any RDT if they have the nous to find or create the file... Robevans123 (talk) 09:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

And to follow up on what has been said before about whether roads should even be shown, I'd say only significant crossings should be included. I did think of Spaghetti Junction as a good example - both notable and has historical significance to transport in an industrial hub of the industrial revolution (there are even canals below the railway).

I notice spaghetti junction is used here for the Cross-City Line around Birmingham, which seems to be a reasonable place to include it in an RDT.

However, looking at that RDT in detail I do wonder what the other motorway crossings add to the article. Taking it further, do the tunnel symbols help? And I seriously wonder about the symbols for car parking and the limits of the Centro area. However, I'd be tempted to keep Lickey incline, again, a significant part of transport history.

Presumably the purpose of an RDT for a railway line is to give an overview of the line and to act as a nav box to significant components of that line (connections to other lines, stations, and goods depots). If you put more and more information into an overview it becomes less effective as an overview.

Perhaps a good question to ask when adding items to an RDT is whether Harry Beck would add it? I'm just off to remove some road symbols and level crossings I added to some transport templates and railway route diagrams... Robevans123 (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

A good rule-of-thumb would be to ask, "Is it mentioned in the article?" If yes, then it certainly is appropriate to show it on the diagram. The degree of detail can also be related to the scope and scale of the route diagram. Two extremes would be Railways in Bridgwater RDT and East Coast Main Line diagram. Personally, I feel that the inclusion of motorways/major highways is helpful to orient oneself. It's far easier to spot a highway on Google or Bing maps than a rail line. Car parks could be helpful to someone looking at a transit line, but it often devolves into an edit war trying to remove them... Useddenim (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Useddenim: Sorry - meant to say that my comments were entirely directed to RDTs when applied to lines. For a small section of a line at a junction or a town then the choice of symbols etc is entirely different. Railways in Bridgwater RDT is a thing of beauty and entirely appropriate here.

Your point on using motorways/major highways to orient yourself is entirely valid, but I could claim that using rivers and canals works for me, or that boundaries of UK ceremonial counties help me envisage where the line is. Or I could claim that RDTs are terrible for representing West/East lines and we should have an option to display them horizontally. And yes, some readers may find the parking information useful (the parking symbols on the Birmingham Cross-City Line are a bit on the large side and only seem to be used on this particular RDT) - but (as I don't currently drive a car) I'd like to know if there are bus stops at the station. Someone looking at a transit line might well be distracted by all the closed stations and goods terminals and want rid of them. The East Coast Main Line diagram includes opening and closing dates for some (not all) stations. The Cambridge to Mildenhall line shows distances of stations from Cambridge. I'm sure that I've seen an RDT that has travel times between stations but I can't find it at the moment.

I would hold up the Wolverhampton to Shrewsbury Line RDT as a good example of a complicated line that would be ruined by any addition of car parks/rivers/roads/level crossings/distances and so on.

I think my point is that there are many options of what could go into RDTs for lines, and it would be good to aim for a touch of consistency by reaching a consensus on what should be included and what should be omitted (while still allowing people to be bold if they can justify doing something different). Robevans123 (talk) 09:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

As has been said above, there are times when the inclusion of roads can be justified in RDTs, and times when they can't. For example, rural light railways with lots of level crossings can justify their inclusion, but you wouldn't want every single road on a diagram covering a main line.

I still think that it would be useful to have a detailed diagram in each station article covering the line between that station and the next, as I mentioned in December 2011. The diagram would look something similar to that used in the Marden rail crash article, but would obviously cover Paddock Wood to Staplehurst if it were in the Marden station article, or Tonbridge to Marden and Paddock Wood to Beltring / Horsmonden if in the Paddock Wood station article. Mjroots (talk) 09:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I really like the idea of a detailed diagram for each station. The discussion in 2011 was before my time, but I tempted to start with Llantarnam. Many years ago I trainspotted at the signal box just north of the station. We used to get up early to catch a Warship Class diesel coming down the mineral line from the (old) Cwmbran station. We got to know the signalman and got to pull some levers. Even got to "drive" a train with a couple of bulk flour wagons into the sidings at Burton's Biscuits factory at Llantarnam.

Reminiscing aside, the article on Llantarnam could well include Llantarnam Junction and Llantarnam Signal Box on the RDT and also a brief section on both topics. Probably neither would be notable enough for their own articles but it would be good to briefly describe their purpose somewhere in Wikipedia.

Also agree with Mjroots on level crossings etc - even added some myself (and a couple of sidings into quarries) to the Princetown Railway RDT a while ago. On a line with a few stations I don't think they distract the reader. Basically, I think the more stations you have, the less extra features you should include, and when you have more than 10 stations it's time to be ruthless!

The RDT for the Welsh Marches Line has always bugged me. There are about 17 open stations and about 10 connections to open lines. However, there are about 10 river connections, 35 closed stations, 17 connections to closed lines and a few tunnels etc thrown in. The RDT is significantly longer than the article...

Now, I think these extra features should be covered (but elsewhere). Two of the constituent lines are referenced and have detailed route diagrams (the Pontypool, Caerleon and Newport Railway - which forms the last ~10 miles of the line isn't mentioned - something else to fix...), but its article does include the details.

I've created a simplified version of the RDT here. Only one river - the Wye - just need to check that the river is the England/Wales border at river bridge.

The simplified RDT is about a screen high (on my monitor) and noticeably shorter than the article. Comments are welcome! Robevans123 (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Awaken the Dragon

Hi all. Thought you might be interested in this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales/Awaken the Dragon. It's a month long (bilingual) editathon/competition aimed at improving coverage of Wales on the english and welsh wikipedias and is open to all. Points (and prizes) are available! Coverage in number of areas that may be of interest here are:

• welsh railway station stubs (Category:Wales railway station stubs), of which there are over 300
• missing railway station articles (listed here), of which there are more than 350
• core transport articles for improvement including railway lines and stations (listed here), - which attract lots of points!

As you can see, there's lots to do... Diolch and thank you! Robevans123 (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

BTW, the main purpose of the editathon is to improve coverage of core Welsh articles, so if you are thinking of working on the core articles, these are eligible for lots of bonus points in the Core Attack (which runs to the end of the month). From 20th April there will be a focus on missing articles (Wales in Red) - details to follow. Robevans123 (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Even if contests aren't your thing we welcome anybody to contribute towards this as a participant too. So if anybody just feels like a quick 1.5 kb expansion of a railway station stub, or cleanup/improvement of a core article etc this would be greatly appreciated and will all count towards the big main list of work.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

What am I?

An old GER railway carriage now used as a shed in Waterbeach.

I know where I am (about 400 metres from Waterbeach railway station on the Cambridge-Ely line), and I think I'm an old GER coach (but my photographer is really a GWR person and is a bit vague on old carriages...). Can anyone confirm or add more details? Robevans123 (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Not on the Vintage Carriages Trust database under Waterbeach. I've emailed them in case it is either unknown to them or has been moved from elsewhere and their database needs an update. Will report back if I hear anything from VCT. Mjroots (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Being in ex-GER territory does not necessarily mean that it's an old GER coach, it could be from any railway, even those that did not serve Cambridge or Ely. The length (five compartments) implies a four- or six-wheeler, and the arc roof implies 19th century, but a few railways were still building arc-roof six-wheelers after WWI.

The raised waist panels with the rectangular mouldings are distinctive, and are very similar to those of the four-wheel five-compartment third illustrated at the top of p. 6 of

• Jenkinson, David (1988). British Railway Carriages of the 20th Century - Volume 1: The end of an era, 1901-22. London: Guild Publishing. CN 8130. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

This photo is of an old Midland and Great Northern Joint Railway (M&GNR) coach, but according to

• Wrottesley, A.J. (1981) [1970]. The Midland & Great Northern Joint Railway (2nd ed.). Newton Abbot: David & Charles. ISBN 0-7153-8173-3. LCCN 80085502. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

there weren't any coaches built new for the M&GNR - all of theirs (upwards of 200 at times) were either inherited from constituents like the Eastern and Midlands Railway, or transferred in by the Midland Railway (MR) or by the Great Northern Railway. Those waist panels are not MR features. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Word from the VCT is that it was previously unknown to them. A trust member will investigate. Will let you know if I hear more. Mjroots (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I was thinking of knocking on the front door of the house and seeing if they knew anything. It's quite difficult to find the sight (go into the far left corner of the car park for St John's, Waterbeach, and look over the wall...). Let me know if they need any help finding it. I was there trying to get a photo of the site of Waterbeach Abbey when I spotted the coach - much more interesting than a grassy field where the abbey used to be... Robevans123 (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Here? 52.26324°N 0.19349°E / 52.26324; 0.19349 --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Keep an eye on the VCTs website carriage updates page. Something might show up. Mjroots (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Just preventing early archiving. Mjroots (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Ditto --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Ditto. Mjroots (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Would now be the moment to point out that Waterbeach is on the line from the Midlands and North to the former train ferry port at Harwich, and thus it could plausibly have come from anywhere in Europe that used standard gauge? If it were a Deutsche Reichsbahn carriage which got stranded on the outbreak of war and auctioned off, it might explain why you can't find it in GER records. Does it have any legible markings on any surviving metalwork? ‑ Iridescent 21:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any passenger coaches brought over by train ferry - with the notable exception of the Night Ferry service, train ferry usage between Great Britain and mainland Europe was confined to freight stock. Even on the Golden Arrow and its counterpart La Flèche d'Or, passengers transferred from train to ferry (and vice versa) on foot, the coaches remained on land. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Rather odd working

Can anyone explain File:From_the_bridge_at_Palmers_Green_railway_station.JPG? Seems an odd movement. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

That's just up the road (well, up the rail) from Bounds Green Depot, which always has an eclectic collection of stock strewn around; it's almost certainly going to be an assortment of damaged stock being taken off for refurbishing. ‑ Iridescent 15:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal - detailed RDTs for station articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As I mentioned above, I think that it would be useful to have a detailed RDT for station articles, covering the station in question and the next station either side (or next station for termini). I have come up with three different methods of presenting the detailed RDTs.

Option 1

This uses a single line RDT regardless of how many tracks there are.

Option 1
to Tonbrigde B2160 Maidstone Paddock Wood Medway Valley Line Hawkhurst Branch Line Queen Street Willow Lane Lesser Teise Spenny Lane B2162 Collier Street Greater Teise Pattenden Lane Marden B2079 Maidstone Road Wanshurst Green Road Clapper Lane Staplehurst A229 Maidstone Road to Pluckley

Option 2

This renders double track and single track lines separately. Could possibly be used for four track lines.

Option 2
to Tonbridge B2016 Maidstone Road Paddock Wood Medway Valley Line to Maidstone West Hawkhurst Branch Line Queen Street Willow Lane Lesser Teise Spenny Lane B2162 Collier Street Greater Teise Pattenden Lane Marden B2079 Maidstone Road Wanshurst Green Road Clapper Lane Staplehurst A229 Maidstone Road to Pluckley

Option 3

Similar to option 2, but uses the parallel line system. Would probably be better suited to four track lines. Note that if Option 2 or Option 3 is approved, Option 1 would be the default for single track lines.Note that this diagram is drawn using the new system. It could just as easily be drawn using the old system. Neither is "better" than the other for these small diagrams and it a matter of creator's choice. (Thank you Useddenim for drawing this)).

Option 3
to Tonbridge B2016 Maidstone Road Paddock Wood Medway Valley Line to Maidstone West Hawkhurst Branch Line Queen Street Willow Lane Lesser Teise Spenny Lane B2162 Collier Street Greater Teise Pattenden Lane Marden B2079 Maidstone Road Wanshurst Green Road Clapper Lane Staplehurst A229 Maidstone Road to Pluckley

Please state whether you oppose the proposal, or support Option 1, Option 2, or Option 3.

Comments

Presumably you intend using one of these at Marden. They're all too complicated - we don't need anything beyond either Paddock Wood or Staplehurst in any of them, the Paddock Wood layout is superfluous in the last two, the middle one is way too wide. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

If we can gain consensus, then one of the three will be the diagram for Marden. Not quite sure what you mean by "don't need anything beyond Paddock Wood or Staplehurst", but in both cases, the road overbridge is very close to the station. Paddock Wood is missing a crossover at the top of the diagram to show how trains from the Maidstone West branch access the up line beyond PW, but that need not bother us here. Mjroots (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a need for any of these at Marden, if, judging by the RDT, it's a standard two platform station with two roads. None of these diagrams tell me anything helpful about Marden station, although they do tell us something about Paddock Wood, which is of course pretty much irrelevant to Marden. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Mattbuck: - if adopted, the aim would be that each station article would gets its own RDT like the example given. This would enable the reader to follow the line from station to station and in effect create a very detailed RDT of the line, but without the issues of size that having a very detailed RDT of a main line would entail. It wouldn't be too onerous a task, as each station's diagram forms part of the diagram for the station either side of it.

Of course, the Marden RDT could be expanded to include former sidings etc, as already shown on the Marden and Staplehurst articles. But individual station RDTs are probably best discussed at the article talk pages. The first step is to thrash out whether or not we add this style of RDT to articles or not. Mjroots (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I may be a lone voice in this but I think this is an appalling idea for most articles. As mentioned above in most cases this is going to add zero knowledge to the reader and seems a vanity exercise in who can master the rdt syntax. Many modern stations consist of little other than running lines and some sidings for stock storage etc. If there is a real need to show what was extant at a certain time then upload a map image showing the facilities. Old OS maps are covered by the Crown Copyright rules At least those will be to scale and sourced. Nthep (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Currently the only upside to this I can see is that it provides a long thin thing on the side to match up the historic service routeboxes which are long and in the middle. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

If you think this is a bad idea, then by all means say so with a clear Oppose. I won't mind, honestly. Personally, I can see merit in the idea, but appreciate others might not. Should we decide not to proceed, then I will gracefully accept that the idea did not gain favour. I respect the opinions of you all, and no offence will be taken. Mjroots (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

For simple locations, not really necessary (but tell that to the the guys who are creating platform layout diagrams for every mtero station on earth). For more complex areas, but all means. Any my preference is for Option 3 because Option 2 tends to be about 50% wider for the same layout. Option 1 tends to overload the diagram with the roads at the expense of the line. (See {{Duckmanton Junction}} and {{Railways in Bridgwater RDT}} for a couple of examples of where these ‘close-ups’ are appropriate.) Useddenim (talk) 21:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose as general principle unless there is some specific reason a particular station article needs such a detailed map. Don't get me wrong, I like in-depth articles, but RDTs are entirely unnecessary for most stations. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose as a general principal. If there is a need to show a complex layout at a given point, and and RDT is the best way to show that, then the best format for that particular location should be used. The vast majority of station articles will not be improved by the addition of an RDT of any sort and it will overwhelm shorter ones. Fundamentally, Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopaedia not a railway atlas. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose These diagrams are not good as track plans. If you need to see the former layout of a station you are better off with the old OS maps that can be linked directly or through sites like Disused Railways. Britmax (talk) 12:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

One final comment: I hope no one takes the above to mean that RDTs cannot be used in station articles; merely that they are not necessary in most instances. Useddenim (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Useddenim: - No, the proposal was specifically for detailed RDTs in station articles covering the station and line to adjacent stations. RDTs such at {{Workington stations}} were not covered by the proposal and are both useful and useable. Mjroots (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Accident near Harling Road, 10 April 2016

As many of you are aware, on 10 April a Class 170 DMU collided with an agricultural tractor and trailer on a user-worked level crossing near Harling Road, on the Breckland Line. The tractor driver was seriously injured, the train driver and several passengers also sustained injuries.

Given the lack of deaths, I held off creating an article, but new information has now come to light. The tractor driver had telephoned for, and been given permission, to cross the line. Given the circumstances now know, has this event moved far enough up the notability ladder to deserve an article? Mjroots (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't rush to, until the RAIB report is published. Until then I doubt that any useful sources will be available in order to write a useful article. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: - There are already plenty of useful sources, including the EDP, BBC, Rail magazine and RAIB. Unlike the Dalfsen train crash, the train, although severely damaged, was not derailed and there were no deaths, which is part of the reason I held back. Of course, a lack of deaths ≠ a lack of notability; although the more deaths there are the easier it is to make a case for notability. Most level crossing accidents are the fault of the driver of the road vehicle. This is an exception. Mjroots (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

We don't know that. We know little more than "train hit tractor". Until the RAIB report is published, we're most unlikely to see RS that say anything more than this.

The linked post from the RAIB saying "we will investigate this" meets GNG, but that's not enough to make an interesting article, nor enough to meet localised notability standards for a railcrash. There's enough to justify writing the article, if you wish, but not enough to encourage it. Until the reason behind this comes clear, I'd rather shampoo the cat. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The linked RAIB news story clearly states "The tractor driver was given permission to cross the line". That absolved him of blame. Unless the train passed a signal at danger (highly unlikely, otherwise we would have heard about it by now), that put the blame squarely at the other end of the telephone. Mjroots (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

It might be noteworthy for the line page or the 170 page, but otherwise there's no notability at this point. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd put a section on the line article for the moment. If the line has lots of tractors crossing it, then maybe that's a relevant hazard for the line. It seems to have no specific relevance to the stock. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Open day at St Philip's Marsh

I'm sure mnay of you know, but there's an open day on bank holiday Monday at Bristol St Philip's Marsh depot. Another Wikipedian and I will be there and I was just curious whether anyone else was planning to attend. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I work 12:00 to 16:00 on Mondays, bank hols (except Christmas Day) included. So no can do. BTW I know who that "another Wikipedian" is, they told me about it on Facebook. And on the train after m:Meetup/Oxford/38. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Thinking about it. Not sure what's actually going to be there though. I think a Hymek was spotted in the area yesterday, but some of the steam has dropped out. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=125529 Mjroots (talk) 20:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Not much steam. Quite a few heritage diesels and HST power cars from most of the current operators. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Sutton (Cambridgeshire) railway station

FYI, Talk:Sutton (Cambridgeshire) railway station#Name. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

SECR K Class

Copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains -mattbuck (Talk) 06:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 18, 2016

FAC has been averaging fewer than 7 promotions per week for a while now, so the Today's Featured Article selections have to go further and further back. Brian has scheduled this one for May 18 ... but I see that the lead ends with "as of 2011 is operational", so this one hasn't been updated in a while. Could someone have a look please? - Dank (push to talk) 01:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't have time to edit it properly at the moment, but the loco seems to be currently operational on the Swanage Railway [3]. Optimist on the run (talk) 12:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps. - Dank (push to talk) 12:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I saw the post at WT:TWP and have updated the article. Mjroots (talk)

David Brewer, railway photographer

Has anyone else seen this BBC news story about David Brewer, a former railway worker who has now photographed every station in the UK? Is there some way we could reach out to him to ask if he would be willing to donate his images? -- Markshale (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Template:Major railway stations in Great Britain

Template talk:Major railway stations in Great Britain#It's that time of year again. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Stations to be identified

Here are two stations which I haven't been able to identify with certainty. The first could be Southampton Central but it would be good to have confirmation. The second is less clear; possibly on a Cornish branch line? Any ideas? Lamberhurst (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Southampton Central?

Cornish halt?

I'm not sure that the headcode in File:34004 at Tonbridge railway station (1960s).jpg is right for Southampton, I think that it's Victoria-Dover via Tonbridge or London Bridge-Ramsgate or Dover via Chislehurst Loop and Chatham. So we're looking for a station in Kent with four tracks but two platforms, such as Folkestone West, Headcorn, Newington, Paddock Wood, or Tonbridge.

The unit in File:Class 114 DMU at unidentified station.jpg is a Class 114, so Cornwall is extremely unlikely - the 114s were based at Lincoln for pretty much their whole lives (a few were at Darnall (Sheffield) for a couple of years), so didn't work much further to the south-west than Nottingham. Why a 114 and not a Class 108? Because there are four and a half windows in the centre section between the two passenger doors, the 108s had three and a half. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The first is Tonbridge. Peter James (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Second that! Mjroots (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot to both. I will see if I can track down the station in the second image based on Redrose64's useful indications. Lamberhurst (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Previous/Next station boxes

Hello, all; fully aware that the boxes have been described on the talk pages before, but when I have glanced through the archives, I haven't found the answer to the following question;

Does it bother no-one else that they do not run in a linear format? EG; you click on the next box to the left and instead of displaying the station you have just hyperlinked from on the right, it displays it on the left. Example here at Wokingham Station - it shows Reading on the Left for the North Downs line but in the same box shows Reading on the right for the Waterloo to Reading line, even though both lines approach from the south east and east respectively, merge and continue westwards from Wokingham.

I am just being pedantic, or does this bother other people too? Best wishesThe joy of all things (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

It's impossible for that not to happen - consider a route from Salisbury to Southampton, and suppose that we start at Waterloo, going left towards the west. So at Salisbury and at Southampton, your train comes in from the right and leaves to the left. No problem. If you go to Salisbury from Southampton via Millbrook, you're still coming in from the right, so at Romsey you have Mottisfont to the left. However there are also trains via Eastleigh - to keep with the route, your train needs to go right from Southampton to Eastleigh, and then to Romsey. The train then resumes the route via Mottisfont, but now Mottisfont needs to be on the right. The Reading issue is due to the North Downs Line service heading west (down) at Reading and south (down) at Redhill. Unfortunately in any system with loops and the like, there's always going to be this issue. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

London Tilbury and Southend Railway

The current entry is more focussed on the modern operation which, whilst known by many as the London Tilbury and Southend, it is not a history of the actual London, Tilbury and Southend Railway. I hope to provide a more historical LTSR entry later in the year and re-name this entry. This has been raised before on that talk page but nothing has happened. Opinions? What should the existing entry be renamed as? Does anyone belong to the LTSR society and could help ? --Davidvaughanwells (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I have to disagree here, surely a separate article "History of the London, Tilbury and Southend Railway" could be created? Good luck with it though. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Could it be worth having the modern content at London, Tilbury and Southend Line and the company history at London, Tilbury and Southend Railway? Lamberhurst (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - I favour Lamberhurst's suggestion personally although I have been considering Fenchurch Street lines.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Please don't invent names. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought we need a whole separate article, but perhaps a thorough clean-up of the current article such that it more clearly distinguishes between a section on the history of the actual company and its line, and the modern route. --TBM10 (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it is worth separating them out #TBM10 as most (not all) British Railway companies have specific pages dedicated to them and the Midland (1912-1923),LMS (1923-1947) and British Rail and the private sector all have seen significant changes on the LTS route/line. My feeling there should be a brief summary of the key points of the LTSR on that page and a link to the fuller history. If we were starting Wikipedia from scratch we would then have an LTSR section on the MR/LMS/BR and various privatised TOC pages and that might happen one day (having just looked at the LMS page its a way to go). For now though concentring the rest of the history in a geographical setting (although perhaps not Fenchurch Street lines) seems more logical to me, but my mind is still open.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the answer is in the intro to the current page - London Tilbury & Southend Railway Company--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 09:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

If it is to be done in a separate article, I would prefer the name "History of the London, Tilbury and Southend Railway". --TBM10 (talk) 06:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Lamberhurst has hit the nail on the head. Mjroots (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Preston-Liverpool Line

A new article, Preston-Liverpool Line, has been created by NeB rolyaT (talk · contribs), who also claims to be the owner. I fear that its scope largely duplicates other articles, such as Liverpool to Wigan Line and Blackpool to Liverpool Line - do we really need all these? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

No - there seems to be a confusion between services and lines here. The Blackpool branch Lines page also exists.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Midland Metro tram stops deletion proposal.

The old tiresome (and mostly resolved) debate over whether tram stops should have articles has been raised again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brindleyplace tram stop (2nd nomination). You might like to go and comment. G-13114 (talk) 12:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Some others on the same system have been WP:PRODded, as have several on the Edinburgh system. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Mass roll-up of narrow gauge categories

FYI: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 20#2 ft and 600 mm gauge railways Andy Dingley (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Related FYI: Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#What a drag. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Southern (TOC)

Southern are cutting 350 trains a day. Might be worth keeping a weather eye on Southern (Govia Thameslink Railway) and articles covering affected lines, including the Redhill to Tonbridge Line and Seaford Branch Line, which are rumoured to be having all services cut. Mjroots (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Wharfedale Line - addition of new rolling stock to article

An IP has added three new rolling stock rows to Wharfedale Line (diff). Colour me unconvinced. Grateful if someone knowledgeable could check it out. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

None of the three has a commons category for that particular class on the Wharfedale Line. Suggest we revert until evidence can be provided for the claim. Mjroots (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The 321 and 322 mostly work the Leeds-Doncaster service but there is a limited diagram i.e. perhaps one return service per day on both the Airedale & Whafedale lines - if that's enough to qualify for the infobox then so be it but they are certainly not a predominant class on either line. By the same logic classes 142 and 144 should still be included. As for 158s I'm not aware of them being regularly diagrammed for the Wharfedale line. Nthep (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC) - an Airedale commuter.

I can confirm that Class 333, 321, 322, 158, 144 and 142 have previously been diagrammed on the Wharfedale line, Uunfortunately I can offer no evidence for this as timetable diagrams are considered commercially sensitive and therefore not publicly available. In addition this is based on the past diagrams I worked with during the competition phase for the latest Northern Franchise award, as the company I worked for did not win the competition I cannot speak for current diagrams. Mehar Xull (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

SEML diagram

moved from User talk:Jc86035

I've reverted your edits. You are well aware that there is no consensus for the conversion of diagrams to the routemap format where there is not a size issue. Cease and desist! Mjroots (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

IIRC, conversion was acceptable for size or technical issues: in the case of {{BS-2}} diagrams, {{Routemap}} is far superior with its L3~~L2~~L1~~L0! !icons~~R0~~R1~~R2~~R3 format instead of icons|L1|R1|L2|R2|R3. In this particular case, there’s almost 100 unnecessary {{Pad}}s in the {{BS-map}} version (not to mention other PITA formatting). Useddenim (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps this discussion should be taken to WT:RDT (or maybe just WT:WikiProject UK Railways‎ as other countries don’t seem to have any strenuous objections to {{Routemap}}). Useddenim (talk) 23:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mjroots:I don't think hitting the template limit is an absolute prerequisite of conversion. For an RDT this big, the stats of both versions already tell which one is superior:

	BS-map	Routemap
CPU time usage	2.503 seconds	1.093 seconds
Real time usage	2.861 seconds	1.350 seconds
Preprocessor visited node count	50613/1000000	4338/1000000

Not every reader has a decent computer and broadband ISP. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@Useddenim: - if the pads are unnecessary, why not just remove them? Suggest this it taken to WT:UKT for further discussion. Mjroots (talk) 05:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I should have been clearer: the {{Pad}}s are needed in the {{BS-map}} version to simulate colums that are predefined in {{Routemap}}. Useddenim (talk) 10:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mjroots: I converted it purely because I was going through route diagrams using {{Convert}} instead of {{BScvt}}, and it had a distance column on the left as well as on the right; so I thought "why not let's turn it into a Routemap so it has an actual table column instead of padding". I don't see why you're so vehemently against my conversion of it, particularly given that it loaded quite slowly in the first place. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 07:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Apologies if I am mistaken, but I thought you had participated in previous discussions re the use of routemap, hence the second sentence in my original post. The reason I, and others, are against the conversion of diagrams to routemap generally is that you need a degree in computing to edit said diagrams after conversion, whereas the existing diagrams are relatively easy to edit. I accept that where size is an issue, routemap overcomes this and is the solution. FYI, there are three draft detailed diagrams for the West Coast Mainline (due to size issues). These could be combined into a single detailed WCML diagram which would complement the detailed diagram for the East Coast Main Line. I would have no objection to this diagram being created using routemap. Mjroots (talk) 07:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mjroots: I'm not sure it's particularly easy to modify in its BS-map form either (especially with the unconventional padding templates all over the place), but okay. I'll fix the convert templates in the SEML diagram at some point. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 08:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I guess we could just add |dist-left= and |dist-right= to the BSn-2 set of templates, but keeping the current order of the numbered parameters it'd probably end up being more arcane than the left-to-right Routemap syntax, even with its heavy use of symbols. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 08:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mjroots: I don’t understand your claim that ‘you need a degree in computing to edit said diagrams after conversion’. Icons are separated by \ instead of |; overlays are specified by !~ rather than |O[insert number here]=; and the text column separator is ~~, not |.

Column counting not required. Useddenim (talk) 10:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@Useddenim: Would it make more sense to have this discussion at WT:WikiProject Trains? While this concerns a UK route diagram, decisions about RDTs affect more than the UK's railway articles. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 12:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

We can notify TWP of this discussion. Useddenim - that is the first time I've ever seen an explanation of how routemap works! Re the padding, do I understand that it can be eliminated by editing the template by using a different number of rows?

The draft detailed WCML templates I mentioned are at draft:WCML South, draft:WCML Central and draft:WCML North. They still need a bit of work to bring them up to the standard of East Coast Main Line diagram though. Mjroots (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mjroots: I don't think using a different number of rows would make any sort of difference to needing the padding, as it mainly exists due to the lack of columns (both distance columns and the leftmost note, which exist in Routemap, are missing from the BSn-2 series). If it really is the first time you've seen an explanation, you probably didn't read the documentation… Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 08:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

No, I didn't read the documentation because I didn't know where to find it. I first became aware of routemap when the Hastings Line diagram was altered and I needed to amend it. Couldn't work out how the hell to do it so I reverted the undiscussed change and edited the original diagram, which is easy to understand, edit and check. Mjroots (talk) 08:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

My model railway layout
To fiddle yard Scenic break Loop recently removed Closed line

OK, I've tried creating a diagram with routemap and succeeded with some difficulty. Comments it is impossible to shift a column half to the left - you have to shift all other columns half to the right. When hovering over an icon, it does not display what it is, unlike when using BSmap. Mjroots (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Example
vSTR vSTR\dSTRq shifted ½ column to left dSTRq\vSTR shifted ½ column to right vSTR

I'm not sure what you mean by ‘it is impossible to shift a column half to the left’; see the diagram to the right.
Agreed, the lack of a tooltip is a deficiency—perhaps Jc86035 or Sameboat could add that to the module? Useddenim (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Did a very preliminary change to Module:Routemap/sandbox which shows popup tooltip of the base icon only, if overlaid. You can see the sandbox result in Template:Routemap/testcases. It would take me unknown amount of time to learn how to show all overlapping icons in the tooltip. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Good enough for me!! Useddenim (talk) 04:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sameboat: I've modified the tooltip so that it includes all the icons in a stack.

@Useddenim and Mjroots: Could we start an RFC on the technicalities of converting different sorts of diagrams (e.g. {{BS-table}}-based, BSn-2 needing the other three columns, …) to Routemap, just to clear things up? Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 09:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Jc86035: To avoid edit conflict I just mention here instead of editing the sandbox: 1) Remember line 140 also has the same if statement of icontip as line 132 you just modified, but we can probably remove line 140 and change icontip to link at the next line. 2) To avoid confusion with the "+" sign in BSicon which stands for "from", I recommend replacing it with different sign to denote "overlay" such as the word "under" or a "<" sign. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 10:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest the : symbol as a separator. Useddenim (talk) 12:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sameboat and Useddenim: I've changed the separator to a semicolon and controlled for situations where the bottom icon has to be an overlay. (The <center> tag at line 34 is also gone.) Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 09:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mjroots: You could also add extra backslashes to the right of the existing icons instead of the left, I guess. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 09:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The semicolon works for me nicely. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 10:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Jc86035: - by all means start an RFC. My position hasn't changed. Unless there is a compelling tecnical reason to force the use of Routemap, the use of BSmap or Routemap should be down to the creator's choice and not be changed from one to the other without good reason. Mjroots (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mjroots: There is already a very strong technical reason for this: Routemap consumes much less bandwidth of both WM server and end-user (more important to those with limited bandwidth plan) than parser-function-based BS templates. When I forced this switch from BS row templates to Routemap on Chinese Wikipedia, very few complaint about it but now the usage is abundant, module: Routemap is currently transcluded by more than 1800 articles, more than those transclude BS-table/BS-table1/BS-table3 combined (1074 articles). The concern of comprehending the Routemap markup is a very weak argument because of the almost linear translation from BS row template markup. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

West Coast Main Line diagram

Further to the discussion above, I've managed to create Draft:West Coast Main Line diagram using Draft:WCML South, Draft:WCML Central and Draft:WCML North as a guide. It still needs polishing to bring it up to the standard of East Coast Main Line diagram. Once this is done, it can be released into mainspace. Mjroots (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

A few thoughts:

• Bakerloo line shares track with Watford DC, it's not a separate line and it certainly doesn't go into a tunnel north of Queen's Park.
• Should Northampton be shown? I'd have thought Northampton Loop Line would be better.
• There's a fair amount of inconsistency with CONTs showing either "to X" or "Y Line".
• Probably needs a HUB around Glasgow Central.

-mattbuck (Talk) 06:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, great, some constructive criticism. I wasn't sure about the Bakerloo line as the draft WCML south is has a missing icon. I believe the Northampton issue was previously discussed and it was decided to keep is as some WCML services serve the town. It doesn't really detract from the diagram having it there. As for the inconsistency with CONTs, feel free to change - I only used what was there. My preference is for linking to named lines where possible, even at the expense of redlinks. As for Glasgow Central, I can certainly add a hub. The diagram needs a lot more polishing, as a look at Jowett will tell. Mjroots (talk) 07:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I've copied the above comments to Draft talk:West Coast Main Line diagram. Further comments re the diagram, errors, suggestions etc there please. Mjroots (talk) 08:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Template:Stockport, Timperley and Altrincham Junction Railway

If this is an historic railway, why is Manchester Metrolink shown as a connecting line? Useddenim (talk) 10:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Er, because you drew it like that? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I was simply extracting the diagram from the article and creating a separate template. Useddenim (talk) 11:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, so presumably you copied it from Stockport, Timperley and Altrincham Junction Railway - which is the only article that now transcludes your new template. In which case, you are in violation of WP:CWW and WP:PROSPLIT. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, get off your high horse. As recently as 3½ months ago the topic was discussed and the consensus was that RDTs are better as stand-alone templates rather than embedded in articles. So, unless you have a constructive answer to the question… Useddenim (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

That's not the point: I have no objection to separating them off to templates - what matters is that you failed to give attribution, as is required by the CC BY-SA license under which Wikipedia pages are published. This is what WP:CWW is all about, and it is also covered by the third paragraph ("To conform with Wikipedia's licensing requirements, which require that content contributors receive attribution ...") of WP:PROSPLIT.

To the original question: if you look at the page history, you will see that the RDT was added in this edit at 19:00, 27 April 2011 by Britmax (talk · contribs). The label on the left-hand side, "Manchester Metrolink", was never present in the embedded RDT at Stockport, Timperley and Altrincham Junction Railway - but it is in Template:Stockport, Timperley and Altrincham Junction Railway, therefore, it was added by the only editor of that template, Useddenim. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Redrose64: As for the attribution issue, just put {{Copied}} on the talk pages and be done with it. It's not like it's the end of the world if Useddenim didn't link to the original article in his edit summary. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 09:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, get out the razor and start splitting hairs: the original diagram showed the MSJ&A in blue, which implies a metro or light rail line, such as Manchester Metrolink. Useddenim (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

WCML RDT

Some substantial changes (and edit warring) have taken place on the WCML RDT in the past few days. The changes made by Nathan A RF (talk · contribs) have the effect of removing quite a bit of detail from the template. It would be useful to have another set of eyes having a look at this, given the importance of the route. Lamberhurst (talk) 08:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

This user has something of a habit of making WP:BOLD changes. I suggest revert and discuss. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I noticed a pagemove to Rugby to Birmingham to Stafford Line, which seemed an unlikely name. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Yep, which I reverted, see User talk:Redrose64#RBS move. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Rugby-Birmingham-Stafford Line

There is another debate on the talk page about the naming of this article. Suggestions welcome. Optimist on the run (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

This has now been elevated to a WP:RM, see Talk:Rugby–Birmingham–Stafford Line#Requested move 9 July 2016. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Bolton-(up)on-Dearne

It seems that Bolton-on-Dearne has been renamed Bolton-upon-Dearne. Does anybody have a reliably-sourced date for that? See Talk:Bolton-on-Dearne railway station#Name. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

No. Not an RS, but 2008, maybe around 4 April. [4] ... or possibly yes, in Railway Passenger Stations in Great Britain - A Chronology 2nd supplement, from The Railway & Canal Historical Society, which gives 3 April 2008. background to source --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

BRS/Birmingham Loop Line renaming reminder

Just a reminder of the ongoing renaming discussion at Talk:Rugby–Birmingham–Stafford_Line#Requested_move_9_July_2016. G-13114 (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)