Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 45

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47→Archive 50

Stripping region from BR?

Is this a good edit?

Changing British Railways (Southern Region) or British Railways to the plain, and unspecific, British Railways. This is on loco articles for SR locos, with AFAIK no use outside that region.

I've seen a bunch of these recently, all from Vodafone IPs from Ireland. They ignore discussion attempts.

Thoughts? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Should at least be discussed, not a change that I can see any benefit from. Britmax (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
The contributor seems knowledgeable about British and Irish railways and rolling stock and has made many useful edits but these particular examples do not seem helpful. Perhaps the editor is trying to make the point that the locos were theoretically available for use in Inverness even if they never ventured north of London in practice. Wikipedia hasn't quite got its head around communicating with IPv6 editors who move around randomly within a /64 and may not see messages on the talk page of the last address they edited from. See also:
– Certes (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
If there is a specific edit that they are repeatedly doing which is disruptive then it might be possible to craft an edit filter to stop it - preventing IPv6 editors from removing the words "Southern Region" is certainly doable. Thryduulf (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
2A02:8084:6A80:5C80:B098:779C:6B1:A9 (talk · contribs) had joined the party. Have blocked and reverted. Can we get that edit filter sorted? Mjroots (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't have the skills to do that - ask at WP:EFR. Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Unless there's some way to restrict it to British Rail articles, a blanket filter on IPs adding/removing the term "Southern Region" from articles will be a recipe for complaints. Thanks to the unimaginativeness of 19th century civil servants and their tendency to use "region" instead of "county" or "province" when drawing lines on maps, there are a bunch of former colonies with administrative districts just called "Southern Region". ‑ Iridescent 14:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
There are certainly ways to restrict it to sets of articles, including page title and what was in the article before and after the edit (which I suspect can be used to restrict it to categories) - see WP:EFD#Variables. This is probably better discussed at WP:EFR though as users who actually know what they're talking about will be able to give better answers than I can. Thryduulf (talk) 14:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Chris0512

As some of you may know, Chris0512 (talk · contribs) was blocked a few weeks ago for being WP:NOTHERE. One of their habits was to frequently revert their own edits, sometimes days or weeks later. Reverting your own edits is not a crime; but two new users have surfaced today, with similar habits: Christo McBride (talk · contribs) and Scotlandinia (talk · contribs). Their edits are also primarily reverts, either to edits made by Chris0512 or to edits made by themselves. Does anybody else smell a WP:SOCK? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Pruning of Membership list

Should the project membership list be pruned to remove inactive members? If so, what sort of cut-off date should be used (e.g. no edits of any sort in the last 12 months)? At a quick look at the first few entries, about half of the members now seem to be inactive for various reasons.

Also a reminder that you can add yourself to the list, or update your details, if you haven't already. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 11:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Opening and renaming of Burnt Oak tube station

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Burnt Oak tube station#Opening, renaming and comment there. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Has anyone any reliable sources for the existence of the following stations or halts shown on Template:Cumbrian Coast Line RDT?

  • Coulderton (or Caulerton) Halt
  • Saltcoats Crossing Halt
  • Dunnerholme (or Dunnerholm Gate).

I can find nothing on the first two except railfan forum postings and on the last nothing except a single mention in Regional History of the Railways of Great Britain volume 14 that gives no dates or other information. Nthep (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

On Google Earth there's the obvious remains of a platform next to the level crossing at Saltcoats, so I'd be fairly confident that "Saltcoats Crossing" at least is genuine. It looks like there's a ruined platform at Coulderton as well, although given its location it could conceivably be part of the sea wall. ‑ Iridescent 16:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Dunnerholm Gate is referred to in Butt, R. V. J. (October 1995). The Directory of Railway Stations: details every public and private passenger station, halt, platform and stopping place, past and present (1st ed.). Sparkford: Patrick Stephens Ltd. p. 86. ISBN 978-1-85260-508-7. OCLC 60251199. OL 11956311M., Opened c.1850, Closed unknown. I can find no reference to the first two stations though. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 17:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Lost Railways of Cumbria (Gordon Suggitt, 2008) should list them if they did exist. Cumbrian railways tend to be badly covered as Ian Allan wasn't interested and the Middleton Press rarely get that far north. ‑ Iridescent 17:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
I suspect Butt is going off the Regional History and I have to say I don't find Butt particularly reliable having found too many other errors over the years. With all three the lack of contemporary or modern sources makes me very dubious about their existence when I can find sources to what you would might consider equally obscure stations like Kirkseaton and Whitbeck. No Bradshaw references, no contemporary newspapers, no listings (other than Butt) in any compendium of stations, not even listed by the Cumbrian Railways Association, I just find the absence of anything very strange. Nthep (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Jowett doesn't mention any of them. Mjroots (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Tony Dewick's Complete Atlas of Railway Station Names page 24 agrees with Butt in that it shows Dunnerholm Gate, but not the other two. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 19:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Local library got me a copy of Suggitt, none of the three are mentioned. Does anyone have access to a copy of Cobb? On the basis of the sources or lack thereof so far I'm inclined to remove Coluderton & Saltcoats at least from the RDT. Nthep (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Lamberhurst (talk · contribs) has Cobb but doesn't edit much at the moment. They may not be following their watchlist, but hopefully this mention will notify them by email. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Obviously not useful in terms of reliable sources, but I asked my grandfather (who is 96, but still very lucid) and who worked at Whitehaven station from the end of WW2 about these, and Saltcoats was the only one that rang a bell with him. As I say, not greatly useful but it may give an idea in terms of closure dates. Black Kite (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Livery diagrams

I happened across the removal of a set of livery diagrams recently. I observed [1] removal of Livery diagrams under the edit summary of caption. As may be guessed from my moniker displaying a location related to Havant it may not be surprising British Rail Class 158, British Rail Class 313, British Rail Class 377 and British Rail Class 442 are perhaps the most relevant modern units to me. I then deduce it is perhaps explained by [2], a good faith contribution by Tony May which has the edit summary Livery Details: please use photographs, not MS paint drawings. Points that strike me include:

  • Livery diagrams have been present on article for some time, is everyone happy with general removal or are there specific guidelines?
  • At least to me the display of such diagrams (viewed on a desktop) can be more of an issue when the units are of different lengths and may appear as different scales per Old revision of British Rail Class 377#Fleet details (3 car scale bigger than 3 car).
  • I'd observe the GWR livery at as displayed at Old revision of British Rail Class 158 on the monitor (and associated settings) really annoys me from a colour viewpoint. I am happy to admit to being colour blind aka colour defective and that image is I assume like a Manchester United home shirt (red) to a Bull (noted for red defectiveness).

I guess in general the livery diagrams can be useful though I might be concerned if they become obtrusive. An overview of people's thoughts and identification of policies and guidelines before a possible wholesale removal occurs might be a useful discussion. @Merlinhst7, Feathers44, Nightfury, Smithdo43172, N0thhan, and Redrose64: ... at a glance I think you are some people who may have been involved with these diagrams or placement or removal in one way or another and may not watch this page ... Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

The phrase 'good faith contribution by Tony May' strikes me as incongruous, given
Useddenim (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
@Useddenim: "Dirt digging" on someone all the way back to 2008 is uncollegial and unhelpful. Nothing older than about 2 years is very pertinent, and project pages like this are not a disciplinary forum anyway. User-conduct issues should go to WP:ANI or a more specific noticeboard, if you have recent evidence to present. Blatantly assuming bad faith] based on material over a decade old is just flat-out uncivil. I found your post jarring enough that it's worth saying this, even in an archived thread from a few months ago. PS: If you tried to pillory someone based on evidence this old at ANI, AE, etc., you'd actually get WP:BOOMERANG sanctioned for grudge-bearing and picking a pointless fight. Cf. WP:BATTLEGROUND.  — AReaderOutThataway t/c 10:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I guess I'm damned as I put it that way and possibly damned if I didn't. I can't be assumed to be neutral given some minor recent interactions and edits. From a content and policy viewpoint and it seems reasonable to raise it here ... as I was planning with GWR 9400 Class but Redrose64 solved the content issue very neatly first so job was a good one. Its also true I twigged the livery diagram removals from a quick scan of Tony's recent contribution edit history. But Tony may well be very correct in removing them for being obtrusive/whatever .... and I'm really interested in content comments regardless. I want to know what the community thinks is OK and what isn't and if necessary point me at the right policies/guidelines. Thanks.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    • There's been little response to this so far, though to be fair it is the easter holidays. Looking at the Class 377 I observe that there additionally exists (or has existed) Thameslink and GatEx liveries not depicted here ... and adding those to those already present would probably seem completely over the top to some people. However I also note the diagrams do also give an interesting impression of the nature of the unit not necessarily apparent from photographs. Used as a diagram to indicate the general appearance of a unit may also have utility, though for example to show a 377/2 with a pantograph and a 377/1 without one would I suggest have little merit, as would a diagram simply showing different a different number of coaches. In terms of Class 158/159 there might be a night contrast between a 3 coach coach 159 and a 3 coach GWR 158 using an intermediate driving car (but the diagram doesn't show this clearly and the latest GWR livery annoys me. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I've not been directly involved with any of this, or that I cannot remember... so cannot comment at the present time. Thanks Nightfury 15:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
      Also of note I probably wont have any time to action anything if needed, and if I was asked to. Thanks again Nightfury 15:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
      I agree that it is not good practice to show diagrams at different scales. A nine-car IET shouldn't be the same length as a 3-car DMU as sometimes happens. I'm also rather worried that some diagrams don't actually represent the classes that they claim to. on Great Western Railway (train operating company)#Past fleet there is a 143 masquerading as a 142 and the 150/1 is a three-car green unit but they were always blue two-car sets.Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
      Getting the lengths in proportion can be as simple as making the images all the same height, such as |x40px in this example. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Colchester engine sheds

I am currently writing an article on this subject. I heard through local sources late last year the diesel depot was returned to service late last year to service local DMus and to take the pressure off Crown Point but have not yet found (or missed it) any reference in Modern Railways or Rail magazines. Can anyone supply a reference? Also if anyone knows when it lost its allocation of Class 08 shunters that would be useful. Thanks --Davidvaughanwells (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

T.taylor1997

T.taylor1997 (talk · contribs) is persistently trying to add unsourced opinion and timetable information to Cannock railway station. I left them a note, which they reverted, and then told me to "sod off". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

This talk section was restored after this removal - X201 (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
And restored a second time. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Their IP sockpuppets continue to do this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I've put extended semi-protection on the Chase Line and Cannock railway station. We also need to look at the sock-puppetry issue. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 05:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Redrose64 and Ritchie333: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/T.taylor1997; for some reason no one else seems to have noticed the other account in the page histories? Jc86035 (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure we'd all noticed. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Redrose64's behaviour

Consistently removing relevant information from pages. In particular, I have recently updated the Cannock Railway Station page. All the information is true and can be sourced to Google maps, red rose claims to be an opinion. All other information I have included in recent days is in keeping with what was there prior, including times of the first bus and train service on a Sunday. In addition to this, I have been receiving persistent condescending and rudely blunt messages from this user. (talk) T.taylor1997 (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC) redrose64 (talk · contribs)

Cannock railway station - Courtesy link - X201 (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • [3] Thanks for raising this discussion here, because otherwise you're 4RR WP:EDIT WARRING and that's just blockable anyway.
Nothing you've added is WP:RS sourced, which is a problem too.
Really though, it comes down to what's "encyclopedic" and what's a travel directory. We are not here as a travel directory (we might link to one), largely because such information changes frequently and is almost always out of date here. I might keep the directions and major nearby cities (already here) and the Class 350 operations, but the rest I would remove too. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Can you explain these two edits (blanking Redrose's user page)? Particularly why edit their user: page, rather than adding something to their user_talk: page? Also why, after the first edit somehow didn't blank the entire page, did you go back and blank the rest of it? That's increasingly hard to support as an "accidental" blanking. If you're pulling stunts like that just to annoy another editor who you're edit warring with, then that's clearly blockable (no-one needs that). I'd support an indef block for it, TBH. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @T.taylor1997: If something can only be verified with Google Maps and no other source could provide the information, it probably shouldn't be in an article.
Wikipedia has a lot of policies and guidelines, two of them being WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources. Pretty much all of the prose in Wikipedia articles should be sourced. If it isn't, it is perfectly valid for another editor to remove that prose solely because it isn't sourced. (That an article already contains unsourced information is not grounds to add more unsourced information.)
Regardless of whether or not Redrose64 is being rude to you, you're still clearly in the wrong here, because you're persistently adding information that isn't referenced. Jc86035 (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I'd support the "0.6 miles" addition, even just checked from Google Maps, so long as there's some reason why it passes WP:UNDUE. A distance of 0 I can see (the station is right in the town square) or >5km (the station is awkwardly far, which does happen and is worth noting). But 0.6 miles? That's a pretty average sort of distance in the UK. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Another revert on the Cannock station article. I make that 4RR and a strong whiff of WP:NOTHERE. This needs kicking upstairs. - X201 (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked T.taylor1997 for 24 hours for blatant edit warring, what convinced me to block was this colourful outburst in response to a stock Teahouse message. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
The outburst was in response to RedRose64's "left them a note" diff mentioned above. - X201 (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh right. Even so, adding unsourced content, edit-warring over it, and then responding to a polite note with "sod off" is a reasonable reason to block, in my view. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree, it's more than enough. Was just clarifying the comment's intended target. - X201 (talk) 10:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

For the record, this editor also made an number of edits to Didcot Parkway railway station, which I reverted. Mjroots (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Olive branch extended. Let's see whether or not we get an appropriate response. Mjroots (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Indeffed - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/T.taylor1997. Black Kite (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Chase Line electrification

I have come to realise he May 2019 introduction of electrified services past Walsall is likely the trigger for some of this activity. I've add a sentence about this at Cannock; made Template:Chase Line collapsible and added it to that article which is a little right lopsided on a desktop and by efforts to fix that were unsatisfactory and a Gallery attempt looked awful so I gave up. I was also drawn to the external link which emphasised Train times over Station information which I wasn't happy about but that is more down to Template:Stn art lnk. I've sort of started an informal proposal on that template talk.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I've added a gallery to make it less lopsided; does it still look awful? Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 09:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
It looks a lot better, I think the px sizes chosen for the gallery and the addition of a third image helps. Not such how I missed there wasn't a reference section but I missed a title in a Cite as well so feeling rightly stupid ... however from a WP viewpoint we've collaberated together to improve an article ... which is good.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

IP and sock edits

I'm not interested in reviewing the edits myself, but perhaps someone else would like to check Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:2059::0/48 and Special:Contributions/75 bluesara. I think most of them were made in good faith, but I have concerns about the person's understanding of policy and their English ability. Jc86035 (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Class 799

We appear to be missing an article on the British Rail Class 799. Mjroots (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Does the article need {{British Rail DMU}} and/or {{British Rail EMU}} adding? Mjroots (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
EMU yes, as it will retain ts AC and DC capability, but probably not DMU, hydrogen is not diesel. British Rail HMU could be created, but with only a prototype so far, perhaps best to hold off until a fleet is ordered. Dbmchart (talk) 02:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Notability of railway stations

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Notability#Train stations and comment on the RfC that you find there. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Neith-Nabu

Please could somebody explain to Neith-Nabu (talk · contribs) that WP:V is policy. They are persistently and wilfully reverting sourced edits at Mid-Norfolk Railway. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Could someone explain to Rose that facts on here take priority over whatever fiction he is peddling. His repeated posting of absolute nonsense is, perhaps, in keeping with Wikipedia. However, it's not going to be allowed in this case. Neith-Nabu (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Until such time as you show any sort of source for your claim, I'm not interested in which one is "more right", I'm just looking at which one is showing any supporting evidence for it. Your edit-warring here is blockable, and I'd welcome that. None of us need this sort of nonsense. Now read WP:RS and WP:V and start following them, or you will be ending up blocked. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
I've posted a welcome notice and words of advice at Neith-Nabu's talk page. Hopefully it will have the desired effect. Mjroots (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Neith-Nabu (talk · contribs) has now been WP:POINTily removing the line/station status information from routeboxes. I have reverted all their removals. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
The thread at Talk:Mid-Norfolk Railway#Route boxes vs factual accuracy of Wikipedia has gone way off topic, since it is nothing to do with improving the article Mid-Norfolk Railway. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Further to the above, it seems that the dispute is surmountable. Neith-Nabu has engaged in discussion (talk:Kimberley Park railway station, talk:Wymondham Abbey railway station, talk:Middleton Towers railway station). The crux of the dispute seems to be how to handle lines that are open to freight, or are open to all traffic but do not carry a scheduled passenger service. I have put forward a proposal to deal with the issue at the Wymondham Abbey talk page. Neith-Nabu agrees with the proposal, but Redrose64 has not yet responded. Further input at the Wymondham Abbey talk page would be appreciated. Mjroots (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Image of PERTIS machine

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Talk:Spondon railway station#Image of PERTIS machine. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Template Whyte - deprecate?

Re: {{Whyte}} and changes like [6] [7]. @Railfan23:

I would list this at TfD, except that it wouldn't attract an audience who understand the issues. Like the narrow gauge argument, it's likly to get closed under WP:MACEDONIA or something irrelevant.

First problem is WP:EASTEREGG

[[0-4-0ST]]  →  0-4-0ST
{{whyte|0-4-0|ST}}  →  0-4-0ST

This gives us two adjacent bluelinks, which is recognised as a usability problem. Also (and there's no reason for this) the first link is now to "0-4-0" rather than the more specific "0-4-0ST" – and could even be a different article page. We already have pretty good endpoints, by sections and redirects, for the tank variants of common wheel arrangements. I don't see the rare case when this gives a better destination for a "back tank", "wing tank" or "well tank" as really justifying it.

Secondly, what does the template even do? Mostly it's an empty template, just re-linking from the same parameters. It re-targets the 4-4-2 link (there's a football page involved too, so Atlantics aren't the primary topic). But we can fix that by our general practice for disambiguating wls in place. There are also two diesel links redirected. The suffices are expanded through a case statement at {{Whyte suffix}}.

Many of the calls to this template are wrapped in a {{nowrap}}. If this is a good thing though, we should do that within the template, rather than having to wrap every use.

I see no purpose to this template, I don't like the splitting of the call parameters and I really don't like the adjacent links as a result. Should we use it?

Should we keep it? If we keep it, should we change how the links work? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd prefer to have separate links for the arrangement and suffix, rather that linking to the relevant section of the wheel arrangement article (even assuming that every wheel arrangement article has information about the T/ST/WT etc.). The adjacent bluelinks can be fixed by having a space before the suffix. I think it used to do this before the recent tweaks. I'd agree that using nowrap within the template is a good idea. Pinging User:Railfan23 ({{@}} isn't a notification template). — O Still Small Voice of Clam 13:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
If this is going to give two links, then I think it needs two changes:
Target the first link at [[0-4-0ST|0-4-0]]  →  0-4-0ST rather than just 0-4-0.
Reimplement the template, so that it auto-splits a single parameter, rather than needing that to be passed separately.
Overall I still don't like this, per EASTEREGG and how multiple adjacent links are visually confusing. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
That's the way it used to work - e.g. {{Whyte/sandbox|0-4-0|ST}} gives 0-4-0ST. I'll look at restoring that functionality later, and adding the space. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 13:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Space restored. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 14:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
But there shouldn't be a space between the notation and any suffix - 0-6-0PT, 0-4-0WT, 4-6-2T, 0-8-0ST etc. Mjroots (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

A few pages such as SNCB Type 12 appear in "What links here" for redirect 4-4-2, because #ifexist: records spurious links. This causes minor inconvenience to the disambiguation team. This change should solve the problem. Does anyone object to its release? Certes (talk) 10:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Naming for rail yards

The naming of UK rail yards is a mixture of upper and lowercase - Bescot Yard, Colwick marshalling yard, Erimus Marshalling Yard, Tyne Yard, Wath marshalling yard etc. Whilst I would say they are proper names, with forebearance to WP:NCCAPS, do we need to change these so that they all align? I am not strongly in favour of either variant (all caps or only first word in caps), but I feel they should all be styled in the same way. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

They should only "align" to whatever's right for them. If it's a proper name, then caps. If it isn't, or only half of it is, then only that much. Is there a list or a category of what needs checking? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Bescot Yard and Tyne Yard are definitely proper names (for example they were on road signs). I suspect that Colwick wasn't, and so on. Black Kite (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I am not making myself clear; how can we have Wath marshalling yard whereas Tinsley is listed as Tinsley Marshalling Yard with all caps? The only difference is that Tinsley is an area as apart from Wath which is a settlement. Either way, they should follow the same naming convention. So if is Bescot Yard, then it should be Wath Marshalling Yard or Bescot should become Bescot yard. I am on my mobile now, so to check for yourself, click on one of the yards linked in the first part of this section and scroll down to the category:Rail yards in the United Kingdom. The joy of all things (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I've just taken a quick look through Rhodes, Michael (1988). The Illustrated History of British Marshalling Yards. OPC. ISBN 0-86093-367-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help). The naming of yards is quite inconsistent. "Chigton Green Yard" and just "Chigton Green" are used commonly. "Chigton Green Marshalling Yard" is less commonly used. There is consistency mostly though in how a yard is named, once named. Capitalisation is used as proper names, at least where " Yard" or " Marshalling Yard" are part of the regularly used name, not merely a context in a sentence. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    What does it say for those yards that, although sizeable, didn't include the word "yard", such as Brent sidings or Dewsnap sidings (for which we don't yet have an article)? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Exactly; the same can be said of Dollands Moor Freight Yard - I have not seen any sources that have the word freight in the title when referring to Dollands Moor, but then I haven't seen every source out there. Paul Shannon's various books list it as Dollands Moor and the Trackmaps book 5 labels it as Dollands Moor Yard. Should they be in caps or not? To me, it seems odd that some of the others are labelled as Marshalling Yards and others as marshalling yards. As Andy Dingley states - the sources are inconsistent; so do we change or do nothing? personally, I am not going to be upset either way, it just seemed odd to me. The joy of all things (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

DLR rolling stock - B and P

I've started a discussion about trying to find a reliable source for the meaning of the B and P prefixes at Talk:Docklands Light Railway rolling stock#P and B. Please comment there. Thryduulf (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

DMU identification

Identify me!

Can any of the experts here identify what class of DMU this is so I can classify it on commons? G-13114 (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

That's a Tyseley Depot unit identification in the cab window and I only recall 116s being based there in the 70s that would match this picture. Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Ok I've categorised it. G-13114 (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Nigel Tout website

I've found a website run by a man called Nigel Tout, and it has a fairly large collection of railway photographs, some of which are historically quite interesting from the 1960s to 1990s which are available under the creative commons license, so they are free to use on wikipedia. Does anyone want to download them to the commons? I've uploaded a few, but to do all of them is a big job. I'm just putting this as a notification. G-13114 (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

It's a good site, which I've used in the past. I've created Commons:Category:Photographs by Nigel Tout - can you add them into there if I've missed any, to ensure we don't get duplicates. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 06:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
I've made a start. G-13114 (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 41#Large gallery from a little less than two years ago - it seems that PeterSkuce (talk · contribs), who has been absent for lengthy periods, is now active again. They seem to have resumed their previous behaviour, having added an image gallery to Great Central Railway (heritage railway) three times. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, Please can you explain the issue/problem that you have with my actions and behaviour, as I have actually included three photographs/images that were not taken by myself. Also note that the article was rather bare, there were no photographs of trains operating on the Great Central Railway. Finally please note that I have actually received a thank you for creating a gallery on the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway. Therefore how am I doing any harm, vandalism or wrong doing? PeterSkuce (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

PeterSkuce seems to be intent on giving WP:UNDUE to railway locomotives on a railway line article. On a locomotive article page the locomotive's the star, on a station page the station's the star, and on a railway line page aspects of the line should be to the fore with trains and locomotives not dominating. Excessive photographics and a gallery are to be avoided when possible with images located near to the appropriate section, however sometimes due to a long infobox on a short article a gallery may be a "poor man's" substitute.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Any I note I have actually included three photographs/images that were not taken by myself ... but I assume the other 6 of the nine in the gallery were by PeterSkuce ... I am not knocking the photo's and a reasonable number of images of subjects on commons is welcomed .... .... Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I think people have missed out this sentence that I wrote 'please note that I have actually received a thank you for creating a gallery on the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway'. PeterSkuce (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

While I WP:AGF and thank-you was received that Gallery has the same issue and I propose that is also removed. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I propose gallery be removed, PeterSkuce dose appear to be promoting his own images of locomotives. --palmiped |  Talk  20:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Looking at PeterSkuce contributions for June 2019 there are potential issues on some/many/most with galleries, inappropriate promotion of own select and selection of article images. I am not saying there is an issue with every contribution however we may need to review all the following: Amberley Museum & Heritage Centre, Amberley Museum Railway, Bickington Steam Railway, Bluebell Railway, Cleethorpes Coast Light Railway, Gloucestershire Warwickshire Railway, Great Central Railway (heritage railway), Gwili Railway, Keighley and Worth Valley Railway, Midland Railway – Butterley, Pontypool and Blaenavon Railway, Spa Valley Railway, Watford Miniature Railway, West Somerset Railway. I can likely see a WP:TBAN on adding images as likely the only pragmatic way forward; I get the feeling any olive branch loophole might be disruptively exploited.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I think people have missed out this sentence that I wrote 'please note that I have actually received a thank you for creating a gallery on the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway'. Also I am not damaging or destroying the articles and I am not deleting, removing or taking anything away from the articles. I am adding photos to the articles. I am not complaining to other photographers or editors on Wikipedia. I am not writing anything abusive, harmful or offensive on Wikipedia. I have not been adding any sexual remarks or swearing. I have not done anything negative, so why do you want to ban me? PeterSkuce (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Please can you explain to me how I can be in serious trouble just because I am adding more photographs and improving the articles? To me, you do not make sense that you are taking offence by me taking the time by spending hours of my day uploading images onto Wikimedia Commons and uploading some onto Wikipedia articles. As I have mentioned before, I am not deleting, removing or taking anything away from the articles. I am not touching the main text of the article either. PeterSkuce (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Please note that I did place a photograph that someone else took into the info box of the Great Central Railway Heritage/Preserved page and I also included three photographs that were not taken by myself in a gallery also on the Great Central Railway Heritage/Preserved page and finally I received a thank you for my edit for creating a gallery on the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway page;. I have not criticised other people's photographs or editing on Wikipedia. Therefore what have I done wrong? PeterSkuce (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Er, at least 7 reverts in the last two days? I'd go and read WP:BRD if I were you. If someone Reverts your Bold edit, then you Discuss it on the talk page - not carry on reverting because you think you're right. Black Kite (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Railfan23 thanked me for my edit on Keighley and Worth Valley Railway for the creation of the gallery of photographs and this was on Sunday 16 June. PeterSkuce (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

You've now mentioned that claim five times in this thread. Each time you do so makes it a little less credible. There is evidence that Railfan23 did thank you once, but no indication of what it was for. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks is that visible? OK, there's a button I'm never clicking again. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: If you click a "thank" link, it displays "(Publicly send thanks? Thank Cancel)", so you are being warned about visibility. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I'd always wondered about that, as I didn't know where it was "visible". But there's still a difference between "this action is visible" and "Here's a handy audit trail of all the other editors who are YOUR EVIL MEATPUPPETS" for use at ANI. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
WP:THANKS#Confirmation, third paragraph. Also, I've been thanked by all manner of randoms not all of whom should be considered my "evil meatpuppets". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Though some of us are... [8] — O Still Small Voice of Clam 13:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Cutting to the chase

PeterSkuce, we don't care if someone thanked you or not. You're welcome to upload as many photographs to Commons as you like, but anything added to Wikipedia is subject to consensus, and if there's a consensus that something isn't appropriate you can't keep adding it. I strongly recommend reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images even though it's long, and in particular the section Pertinence and encyclopedic nature, as you seem to be under a misapprehension about what we're looking for when it comes to images. We're not looking for as many images as possible, and we're not looking to illustrate every aspect of the article's topic; we're looking for a few, high quality, representative images to communicate key facts. (As a rough rule of thumb, if an article has more images than it has sections, then it's getting cluttered; if it has more images than it has paragraphs, then it's outright disruptive.) The reason articles have the {{Commonscat}} template at the bottom is precisely because we don't want many images on our articles and want to point people who are looking for multiple images to the appropriate place. Nobody here wants to block or ban you, but if you're not willing to follow our rules after having them repeatedly explained to you, that's what we'll have to do. ‑ Iridescent 18:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Identify loco

Identify me!

Can anyone identify what sort of locomotive this is so I can classify it? There's two more photographs of it here and here if that helps. G-13114 (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

It's one of the small English-Electric shunters. Quite obscure. One went into BR service as a class 01/5 and is still in department stock at Ardwick as Lancelot, although that's an 0-4-0 and only has a bonnet at the engine end. The main customer for these 0-6-0s was the NCB and they worked until the mines closed, just into the 1990s. Onllwyn Colliery and the Wernos washery had some, as did Nailstone (here). Some were also at Llanwern steelworks and Port Talbot and one of those (D1249) is preserved on the Pontypool & Blaenavon Railway. The West Somerset Railway have another (D1120). They're described as "diesel-hydraulics", but I don't know if this is a hydraulic transmission (or what type) or just a mechanical transmission with a basic torque converter. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
There's another preserved up in Scotland on the Keith and Dufftown Railway [9] Andy Dingley (talk) 22:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Ok do you know what category it would go under? G-13114 (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Actually I've found some very similar looking ones like this (which might even be the same one) at Category:English Electric locomotives so unless there's a specific category for them I might put it under that. G-13114 (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
It's on Commons, so they'll probably go for "Electric locomotives of England". I've stuck them into Category:English Electric locomotives and Category:Industrial diesel locomotives of Great Britain. If anyone can find the E-E class name for them, we could create something. Otherwise I think they're OK in that intersection. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
They're sometimes known as 'Hippos', but I think that name might only apply to the ones (British Steel, AFAIK) which were rebuilt with Dorman engines in the '70s. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Continual criticisms by Tony May

I am coming towards the end of my tether with Tony May (talk · contribs) for his continually crtiticism of my photographs, and those of other users, both here and on Commons (e.g. [10], [11], [12], [13], and the false implication that I "don't know what I'm doing"), together with several insulting references to WP:Vanity, e.g. [14] and [15]. Despite several warnings from myself and others, [16], [17], [18] he has recently resumed this behaviour [19], [20], [21].

I believe that further warnings will have no affect, and that only a topic ban, preventing him from criticising or removing photographs, will stop this behaviour. However as I am involved, I do not wish to take it straight to WP:AN without getting feedback from uninvolved editors first. Please let me know what you feel. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 17:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. I've somehow upset O still small voice of clam because I removed a couple of his poor photographs from articles. His reaction was to accuse me of being rude. Yet most people with sense agree with what I'm saying. I'm sticking to my stupid ban on removing Dave's poor photos and only talking about them on talk pages, even though Dave has now been completely banned, btw. Tony May (talk) 03:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Still back at Leander I would see comments like [22] So don't tolerate it then. If you don't want your photographs critiqued by someone who knows what "composition" and "exposure" mean, don't upload photos to Wikipedia. as unacceptable, particularly after the issue has been raised here. You do not need to make personal snipes like that to discuss the quality of a photograph.
Steam locos are poor models. They're too heavy to pose, they're steaming on particular days or not, whatever the weather, and the quality of their cleaning is due to how well they were prepared beforehand, not at the photographer's whim. So some days you can get a good photo, some days no-one will. As a result, we have better photos and less good photos but editors here do not get to make personal insults at others' photos, even when those aren't the best photos we have access to.
This is not a railways issue. Any more sniping like this and I'll be raising it at ANI. There's no excuse for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
THanks Andy. I'll try not to snipe in future, even when seemingly provoked by an off-topic comment by a user who refuses to discuss the WP:ONTOPIC discussion. In fact if you look at talk:Leander, I did say how good Dave's photo was, and how much of a shame it will be to remove it from the article. Respectfully however, on your point about skilled photography, I disagree with you. Yes, the weather can make a difference between a mediocre shot and a good shot. Cold days are best for water vapour. Sunshine is great. Storm lighting is the best. Composition doesn't depend on weather. Exposure depends on weather somewhat and there is a tendency for digital cameras to overexpose skies. But most of my criticisms have been directed at poorly composed shots, and even if you want to be charitable and talk in code to WP:AGF, you can't blame luck for that. The motion behaviour of trains is extremely predictable as they follow the rails. Finally, we accept "less good photos" when we don't have access to better ones, but we should strive for better ones if and when they are available, and that means making appropriate value judgements. Tony May (talk) 12:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Tony, saying a photo is "quite good" is a totally valueless attempt at a complement when the full sentence is "This is quite good, much much better in fact than the majority of Dave's photos..." and is then followed by a critique of the photo and a slagging off of their camera kit. It wasn't a complement. - X201 (talk) 13:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, as I said it is quite good and generally acceptable quality. I don't know what greater compliment (it's spelt with an i, btw) I can give. Anyway, as I've said, it's necessary to critique such photographs, and I think we have a slightly better one available. Tony May (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I notice how you avoid the point and are still of the opinion that it was a compliment (I did know it was spelt with an i btw). You seem to be still defending the comment though. Critiquing the image is fine, the personal comments and the tone are not. - X201 (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • When other editors upload poor images, let alone "not perfect" ones, then there's space for a discussion about the choice of images. There might (although this is going wrong here) room for a critique of those images, and objectively what is wrong with them. But when that descends into criticising their choice of camera, their newness here as editors, their personal competence as a photographer in general, then that needs to stop. It has already clearly irritated at least three editors and per WP:5P4 (which you've already been reminded of) that matters more than point-scoring over who's Eric Treacy or not (who was, BTW, working with much simpler equipment than most of us today). Andy Dingley (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
@Tony May: Presumably by talk:Leander, you actually mean Talk:LMS Jubilee Class 5690 Leander. I stand by my comment there, and if you don't like it, take me to WP:ANI.
Eric Treacy, I believe, continued to use quarter-plate after most other people had switched to 120 roll film. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
After reviewing Tony's comments hear and elsewhere, I very much doubt that his attitude will change. I've left a final warning on his talk page - if he carries on in the same way I'll request sanctions. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 18:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Can i also throw my hat in and mention that Tony has and continues to go on a crusade again any of my edits that include side profiles of mulitple units, constantly saying that MS paint diagrams aren't allowed on a profession wiki when all there doing is simply replacing the older diagrams by like File:Class_460_Gatwick_Express_Diagram.PNG. Seems like a case of double standards if you ask me. Edit: Forgot to add an example of one my my diagrams c:File:GA_Class_379_w-pantograph.pngDon't be afraid to be creative (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Wow, that guy seems like a piece of work - just looking at his contributions I've found loads that really need to be undone! Jeni (talk) 13:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

These personal attacks on me are unacceptable. I'm not sorry at all for removing User:WestRail642fan's low quality fan artwork. This is nothing personal against him; his fan art diagrams are better than others produce; I would remove images produced by others too. these are suitable for Wikimedia Commons, but they're completely unsuitable for a serious encyclopedia. Anything that looks like a personal crusade is merely becuase User:WestRail642fan has produced so many of these. Tony May (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC).

He's now on some kind of rampage to remove livery diagrams from articles - the sooner he gets blocked the better Jeni (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Calm down, it's hardly a rampage; I strongly suggest you have a look at some policies on no personal attacks and Wikistalking, because so far you have called me a troll and called for me to be blocked, and have refused engage in sensible discussion on talk pages. It's nothing personal against User:WestRail642fan - I would call for the removal of all badly drawn fan art diagrams, regardless of source, because they are unprofessional and unhelpful. Tony May (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
So why User_talk:Andy_Dingley#Fan_art_on_railway-related_pages? That looks like sheer WP:CANVASSing. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I think I've managed to revert all his removals from that rampagae, let me know if I've missed any! Jeni (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm normally quite strict on livery/trivia on train articles, but in this case the images give information and can be easily checked. If there are alternative images of better quality then I'm happy for those to be uploaded, but in the meantime I think the livery diagrams should stay. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
So while i'm happy people think livery diagrams should stay, at this point in time, i'm just not going to bother uploading them to the wiki pages, they'll be staying on Wiki Commons as per Tony's suggestion. Don't be afraid to be creative (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
These personal attacks on me are unacceptable If you can't handle being on the end of personal attacks, perhaps you shouldn't dish them out? Prt580 (talk) 06:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
What does Wikia have to do with anything? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, meant Wiki Commons. Don't be afraid to be creative (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I guess that you mean Wikimedia Commons (usually known simply as Commons). Please don't use the term "Wiki" to refer to one website or project. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Identify DMU

Identify me!

Can anyone identify what sort of DMU this is? G-13114 (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

British Rail Class 104, with that little grille on the front. BRCW-built and the BUT (Leyland) engine with the mechanical gearbox, so underpowered but easy to fix.
Although I don't know what one is doing over in the East. I thought they all worked the Pennines and Peak district? There's quite a few in preservation, several, appropriately enough, on the East Lancashire Railway. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Definitely a 104, I rode dozens of them when I lived in Lancashire. In 1976, allocations were to BG, BX, DY, HS, LO, NH, NL, NR, SF, TS. Class 104 cars allocated to NR (Norwich) were as follows - DMCL: 50544/51/9-62/71/8/9/81/3/7/8/90; DMBS: 50594/5; DTCL: 56185/8; TBSL: 59217/21/3/5-7/9 - that is, sufficient cars to form 7 three-car and 2 two-car units. The blue and grey three-car unit on the back is probably a Class 120. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Station opening dates

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Station opening dates --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Another identification needed

What am I?

Here's another DMU to identify, which was at Leicester station in 1985. I'm thinking it must be a Class 105 as that is the only sort I can find which has two rather than three windows on the cab end, which would have been in service at that time, but some of the features don't match with the other photographs of that class. G-13114 (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

British Rail Classes 112 and 113, British Rail Class 120. Looks most like the latter. Bazza (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) With that pushed-in flat face and the small windows, I think that's a Class 120; most of them had been exiled to Scottish branch lines by 1985 but there were still a few floating about. AFAIK by 1985 the only 105s still around were on branch lines in East Anglia.
Yes I think it matches the 120, I'll categorise it. G-13114 (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
120 – the Swindon-built ones, not Craven, so they had the headlamps rather than the code boxes. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
The thing that most easily distinguishes the Cravens units (Class 105, Class 106, Class 112, Class 113, Class 129) from the Swindon units (Class 120 & Class 126) is the relative widths of the two windows on the cab end and the central division between them. The windows are taller and wider on Cravens units than Swindon, and the division is very narrow (about one-sixth of the window width) - on Swindon units the division width is more than one-third of the window width. Headcode boxes and marker lights are not a good identification feature, Swindon units (even within one class such as 120) used three different styles, two of which were also used by Cravens. This unit is definitely a 120. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Ring road motorway bridges on railway diagrams

It has long been accepted ([2011], [2014], [2016]) that road bridges don't belong on railway route diagrams unless there is a compelling reason otherwise. Recently, a pair of IP vandals (46.226.49.230 & 216.82.243.88) added—curiously, only Ring road—motorways to (primarily Manchester-area) RDTs, most of which are historical lines that were succeeded long before the motorway era. An attempt to halt this resulted instead in a 24-hour block. Ritchie333 proposed to semi-protect the templates, and I second that, but am somewhat averse to doing the edits myself at this point.

Pinging Bazza 7/Dlohcierekim/Pi.1415926535/Redrose64 for comments/action? Useddenim (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Oddly, I've literally just undone the addition of a ring road to the Great Eastern main line RDT. I can see a case for the M25, as that's in most cases the de facto border of the Transport for London area in which different ticketing arrangements apply, but I can see no grounds for including other road bridges unless there's a very demonstrable significance. Revert them all unless the IPs (or someone) can make a very convincing case for keeping them; any railway line of any length at all is going to cross dozens of roads. (If we're going to be adding anything to the RDTs—and I am not proposing this—it should be county boundaries, not bridges.) ‑ Iridescent 20:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Let it lie for a while and the IP(s) will get bored. I have already stated that there are occasions when the inclusion of a major (e.g. motorway) crossing can help orientate the reader; similar aids can be seen in London RDTs where administrative boundaries are sometimes shown; or larger rivers. On larger-scale diagrams (e.g. stations, or branch lines) there's opportunity for more detail which can put perspective on line features such as tunnels or junctions. A blanket ban isn't useful. Common sense usually dictates what is helpful or not. County boundaries may or may not be useful, given that some counties are historic only and bear little relation to real life. That's my penn'orth, anyway. Bazza (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
[ec] I tried undoing the damage, and all I got for my efforts was a 24-hour block. It's a sad day when the admins side with the vandals. Useddenim (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm an admin, and I didn't side with the vandals. I was asked for a comment, which I duly made, and that made me WP:INVOLVED, so could then do nothing about either the block or page protection. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Brantham TMD

The Brantham TMD article is being discussed at AfD. Mjroots (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

London fare zones

A number of unregistered users have added a sizeable quantity of information to List of stations in London fare zones 7–W over the past few months. Is the article still accurate? Jc86035 (talk) 10:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Caledonian Sleeper incident

An incident occurred on the Caledonian Sleeper yesterday which resulted in the train failing to stop at Edinburgh Waverley station. The train was comprised of a Class 92 locomotive and Mark 5 stock. Forum rumour is that the brakes on the carriages were isolated, leaving only the locomotive brake operative. The BBC reports that the carriage brakes were able to be applied by the guard, thus stopping the train. RAIB have sent an investigator and are currently deciding on whether or not to launch a full investigation, issue a safety digest or take no action. My gut feeling is that there will be a full investigation.

Which brings us to how we cover the incident. At the moment, I'm not advocating an article. However, iff there is a full investigation announced, then one should be considered. For now, should we cover the incident by inclusion on the articles about the locomotive, train, carriages and station involved? Mjroots (talk) 12:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

My inclination at this stage would be not to mention it at all until it's clearer what happened. If it turns out to be a major undetected fault that results in the withdrawal of a class of loco or carriage, or the suspension of services, that's a different matter, but as it stands this is ultimately just a straightforward platform overshoot, albeit one that's more high-profile than most (they usually happen at remote rural stations where a driver who normally operates express services forgets that he's on the stopping service today). FWIW our article on Pewsey railway station, site of the last high-profile overshoot, doesn't mention the incident in its article. ‑ Iridescent 12:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
When in doubt, wait until the RAIB is out. —Sladen (talk) 12:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
However, to reduce the speculation, relevant bits appears to be a BBC article managing director for Caledonian Sleeper, said: "Our northbound Lowlander service into Edinburgh Waverley this morning overran the platform, due to an earlier operational issue at Carstairs." and another BBC article spokesman for Serco said: "We can confirm the emergency brake is what brought the train to a halt and was deployed by the train manager.". For context the northbound lowlander stops at Carstairs, a locomotive is brought on to the rear of the train for the haul to Edinburgh, the train divided, with the front half (original locomotive) carrying on to Glasgow, and the Edinburgh half reversing direction off to Edinburgh. The only major operation change in the last 100 years is the introduction of automatic couplers for the mid-point separation. Screw coupling and air brake lines still need connecting to the second locomotive. —Sladen (talk) 13:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't think an overshoot would be notable, unless (as Iridescent says) there was some major outcome of the investigation. Mackensen (talk) 12:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Possibly some of you are missing the point. It's not the overshoot that gives notability, but the cause of the overshoot. Think 2015 Wootton Bassett SPAD incident. Mjroots (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure that is is notable; it's certainly not unique. A similar situation happened at Lawrence Hill in 2000 when brakes weren't connected and tested properly at Bristol Parkway. This resulted in an actual accident, not just a SPAD, but only merits a single paragraph in Wikipedia. Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

RAIB

92020+Mk5 train in Polmadie TRSMD afterwards (OGL-3.0), via gov.uk

—Sladen (talk) 09:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Sladen. It would seem that an article can be justified. The RAIB don't raise a full investigation lightly. Mjroots (talk) 14:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Suggested title - "2019 Caledonian Sleeper overrun at Edinburgh Waverley station". Open to suggestions of alternative titles. Mjroots (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Do we need one? Per Iridescent's comments, I'm not seeing the long-lasting influences which go to make up notability for this sort of incident. An isolating cock was wrongly left isolated. Very likely a career-limiting move for someone, but it has happened before, it will probably happen again in the future, and I'm not seeing some fundamental change of practice emerging from it. I wouldn't oppose an article on this (I think RAIB implies RS to N level), but I sure wouldn't rush to write it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
This probably isn't going to reach the notability level of the Wootton Bassett incident, as the possibility of a prosecution here would seem remote. That no damage was done and no injury occurred should not detract from the seriousness of the incident. Mjroots (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes it has happened before, this event reminds me very much of Beattock 1971. If you have the third (1976) or fourth (1982) editions of Red for Danger, it's in chapter 11 ("Other People's Responsibilities ..."). I think that recent reprints lack this chapter, they seem to have gone back to a pure Rolt version, and expunged the material that was added by Geoffrey Kichenside after Rolt's death in 1974. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
So yes, there is an investigation, but, no, I still don't think it is really notable. It is certainly (and sadly) not unique in any way. Are we proposing articles for every full RAIB investigation? Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
No, Geof Sheppard, we are not proposing articles for every full RAIB investigation, although having one adds weight to the case for notability. Mjroots (talk) 11:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I think there is still a distance between where we can write an article (anything with an RAIB investigation would weigh heavily in favour of the letter of WP:N) and where we should do so. If you compare WP:AIRCRASH, it's largely based on whether an accident has lasting repercussions. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_45&oldid=1073378422"