Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Franchise changeover

The franchise changeover is finally happening on November 11. For those staying up to make the changes, here are a few things to bear in mind:

What needs to be done

Just remember...

  • There is no immediate rush that all the chages be made immediatley. Make sure all changes you do are accurate, to prevent editing one page several times. Using the "show preview" button is the best way to acheive this.
  • Officially the franchsies start at 2am, but there shouldn't be any harm in edits being made before then.

I hope this advice has been useful. --Jorvik 19:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've used AWB to update the Birmingham area station articles, replacing Central Trains with Londom Midland (except for historical contexts) - I can carry on with other articles that link to Central Trains later. – Tivedshambo (talk) 07:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I have done Central Citylink. Dewarw 10:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

We can also now change many details on the new TOC's pages eg route detail etc. I have started this. Dewarw 10:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the Selly_Oak_railway_station article, the final paragraph of the main introduction states that "Selly Oak Station is equipped with real-time information departure boards which were installed in 2006 by London Midland." Presumably the departure boards were installed by Central Trains as the London Midland franchise was not active in 2006? If I am correct please let me know and I can correct this and keep an eye out for any others that have slipped through the net...ColourSarge (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I have just effectively reverted it back to Central Trains here as it seemed most likely. Simply south (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Fab, thanks Simply south. ColourSarge (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

TOC colours

Can we decide what colours for TOC templates, please? C80815 for ACC seems standard, but what others? --Quentin Smith 14:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

LM will either be 000000 (black) or 70BC1F (a shade of green). Is it possible to do dual colours? Or which one? Simply south 15:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
So far, 008000 (green) seems to have been used for London Midland (for instance at Birmingham New Street. Have the others been used anywhere? --RFBailey 15:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I got the shade of green from e.g. Park Street railway station. Simply south 15:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I see. Which version do people prefer? It would make sense to go for a shade which resembles one used by London Midland themselves. (I don't like the black, but either of the greens would be OK by me.)
Also, for East Midlands Trains, User:Year1989 has been changing the colour to FFA500 (orange)--this seems reasonable, although some discussion of it would be nice. That leaves London Overground--what's happening there? --RFBailey 17:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Answering my own question, London Overground seems to have FF7518, another shade of orange. --RFBailey 17:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Orange seems to be used for East Midland's Intercity services whilst a shade of blue is used for the rest, according to the route maps on the East Midlands Train website. Simply south 17:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm User:Year1989. Sorry I did not disscuss this before changing East Midlands Trains infoboxes. I did not know that this page existed to talk about these matters. Orange seemed like the logical choice to me, as red could be confussed with other comapanies. Maybe a different colour for the non-mainline services would be better? Year1989 18:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I think just one colour is fine for both. --RFBailey 22:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
London Midland use 76B41F for the shade of green on their website. If a consensus can be reached as to which shade to use, I'm happy to go through and update using AWB On the other hand, given the name, I'd like to see Crimson Lake ;-) – Tivedshambo (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
London Midland's colour - 76B14F - is the same as the Mersey rail wirral line colour we use, and on Liverpool Lime Street, is a bit confusing... ACBestDog and Bone 19:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, as far as I can tell from a small sample, the Wirral Line stations have 008800 for the shade of green on the previous/next boxes, while the bar at the top of {{Merseyrail Wirral Line}} is in 4CC417. So there shouldn't be a problem with 76B41F for London Midland. (After all, it is the colour they actually use.)
So to save confusion, I suggest we have:
London Midland: 76B41F (green)
East Midlands Trains: FFA500 (orange)
CrossCountry: C80815 (dark red)
London Overground: FF7518 (orange)
Is that OK with everyone? --RFBailey 22:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Looks good to me. – Tivedshambo (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
70BC1Fvery small chance.......... :p
Anyway or would Cobalt blue (0047AB) be better for EMT? Simply south 00:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Cobolt Blue could cause confussion with other blues out there. i.e. First. Maybe blue could be used for the "Connect" services if they are going to be organised that way. Year1989 00:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The orange has been implemented on many station articles, while I don't believe that the blue has, so I'd rather stick to the orange. (I'll ignore the remark about the green.) --RFBailey 00:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I've done an AWB run through the London Midland articles, and set the colour to 76B41F green. --RFBailey 05:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Well done, and thanks - I'd have done the same but didn't have the opportunity to log on last night. – Tivedshambo (talk) 08:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Full (Updated) TOC and other railway companies\organisations Colours List

Open access, etc

Future TOCs

Heritage

  • Generic heritage - █ #000000

Defunct TOC (post privitisation)

Historic (BR era)

Historic (big four)

Historic (pre grouping)

Scotland

  • G&SWR - █ #66ba5a
  • Caledonian - █ #496799
  • “Great North of Scotland” - █ #cecece
  • “Highland lines” - █ #cecece
  • “Joint Caledonian and G&SWR” - █ #517a6a
  • “Joint NBR and Caledonian” - █ #556920
  • misc/various Scottish - █ #ffff00
  • North British Railway - █ #556920
  • North British Railway - █ #8f691e

Other

West Midlands

Glasgow

London

London Underground

Other London

  • “Bury-Altrincham” - █ #00ff80
  • “Eccles” - █ #0080ff

Nottingham

Sheffield

Tyne and Wear Metro

  • Green - █ #5bac26
  • Yellow - █ #fabb00


Discussion

This is an updated list that Pickle made back in September, does everyone now agree with the colours shown above? Mark999 12:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That is a lot of work! I would guess NXEC be some form of Dark Red, similar to GNER but perhaps we should await the rolling stock or nearer when the company changes over next month. I've also changed the title as not all of the above are TOCs. Simply south 13:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Pity all of these can't be centralized...Mackensen (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
0000CD #for NXEC? ACBestDog and Bone 18:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Any particular reason for that choice? We don't yet know what NXEC's colour scheme will be--either for the livery on the trains, their printed publicity, or their website. --RFBailey 19:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
All signs are that National Express will be keeping GNER’s colours for the moment — I wouldn’t be surprised if they didn’t repaint anything until the Intercity Express comes through. David Arthur 23:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

(un-indent) Having noticed that First ScotRail has three entries on that list, I've done another AWB run to set all of them to #FF80C0 (pink). --RFBailey 03:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There is an omission from Open Access - the North Yorkshire Moors Railway is an Open Access operator, granted only on the Esk Valley Line but shouldn't it be included, with its own colour? Or is it lumped in with heritage? XTOV (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure on that. It probably couldn't hurt to give it its own colour but what are the official colours?
I am not sure that the NYMR yet has an official colour in that sense but it is about to appear in the 8th edition of the 'Great Britain National Rail Passenger Operators Map' where it is shows as a pale green. The map will appear on the National Rail website at this url some time in early December (replacing the 6th edition). Until then the new map can be found on the creators own websire here. XTOV 13:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
If however you base the colour on coach livery then there is plenty to chose from: BR 'blood and custard' (carmine and cream), BR maroon, BR blue and grey, Pullman livery and LNER varnished teak, sets of all these colour appear on the NYMR regularily although currently only the three BR liveries appear on NR, if I had to suggest a single colour I would go for either BR carmine or BR maroon - if they are available. XTOV 14:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
With no adverse comments over 24 hours, I have added the NYMR to the Open Access section above with a colour that is intended to be BR carmine - any improvements in the match are welcome. At least it is different from Northern Rail. XTOV 19:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Another thing - back to the colour of NXEC. It seems that the official colours are dark grey, light grey and white according to this. Also will may to think about 'one' in the near future. Simply south (talk) 13:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to be a pain in the backside but with the Merseyrail ones I've noticed that the colour is yellow. Fair enough but on all maps up here in the area they operate there's colours specific to the lines that they operate, a green for the Wirral Line and a blue for Northern Line services. I just thought that for stations that are under two lines it adds a certain distinction between the two such as at Moorfields (I'd altered the colours before I'd seen this page) and I feel given the colour scheme is a Merseyrail system (and has been since I was a kid who'd sit on the train pointing out stations to my mum and getting her to ask me to find them!) it's better that the colours used for each line is used on here. My opinion, that's all Stuey 182 (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

NXEC colour

Which colour is it? In preliminary we have put it blue for now (0000CD). On their website, at least the writing and map seem to be in red, so ... (FA0000). According to a recent article, this, it is to be dark grey, light grey and white, so ... (D3D3D3). Simply south (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It may change with the commencement of the franchise, but I would stick as above. Dewarw (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
While the new colour is okay, the new brand for NXEA seems it is going to be exactly the same. We need to think of two slightly different colours or shades or we will be in trouble. Simply south (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmmmm, the colours are red, blue and grey. So what about blue for NXEC (like the old GNER colour) and red for NXEA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewarw (talk • contribs) 17:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think i am being difficult but it would be a good guess future operations would look similar. Btw, see here for a better picture. You can also see a comparison, at least between the engines. Simply south (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

FCC Colour

{{rail start}}
{{rail line|previous=''Terminus''|next=[[Stevenage railway station|Stevenage]]|route=[[National Express East Coast]]<br><small>[[East Coast Main Line]]|col={{NXEC colour}}}}
{{rail line one to two|next1=[[Stevenage railway station|Stevenage]]<br><small>(Pick up northbound<br>Set down southbound)</small>|next2=[[Grantham railway station|Grantham]]|previous=''Terminus''|route1=[[Hull Trains]]<br><small>[[East Coast Main Line]]<br>Limited Service|route2=[[Hull Trains]]<br><small>[[East Coast Main Line]]|col=2E8B57}}
{{s-rail-next|title=FCC}}
{{s-line|system=FCC|line=Peterborough|previous=|next=Finsbury Park|type2=one}}
{{s-line|system=FCC|line=ECML|previous=|next=Finsbury Park|type=King's|type2=Cambridge}}
{{s-note|text=When Grand Central services start}}
{{rail line|next=[[York railway station|York]]|previous=''Terminus''|route=[[Grand Central Railway|Grand Central]]<br><small>[[East Coast Main Line|London-Sunderland]]|col=2C3838}}
{{end}}

Above is the station succession box for King's Cross. Please note the s-rail templates included for First Capital Connect, a single operator, having two colours. Was it agreed somewhere that the different services of one operator would be given different colours? Hammersfan 14/12/07, 16.26 GMT

UK Train data panels

In order to provide a consistent view to non-railway enthusiasts it would be helpful if a general direction for the data in the UK Train 1 Infobox could be discussed. My proposals are:

Proposal

  1. That the panel reflect the loco "as built", and changes are described in the article.
  2. Where there is no data or some item was not fitted, it is omitted from the panel
  3. That imperial units are given, with SI equivalents in brackets
  4. That operators reflects current operators. This may prove too difficult, but I don't see the point in putting "British Railways" in alsmost everything, and then deciding on which operators to put in the Class 66 (the first, all of them, the current ones?)

Comments and ideas appreciated.Romfordian (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Re the last one, maybe 'operator when first in service' (who presumably ordered it) and 'present operator' (who have to keep it running!) with any in between put in the text. Otherwise they seem rational. --AlisonW (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I think there needs to be a "Built for" box. For example, the Class 14's spent most of their lives in either industrial ownership or Heritage but they were built for (and by) British Railways, going back into steam days, the WD 2-10-0/2-8-0's spent most of their lives working on British Railways but were built for the War department by who ever had the skill! SouthernElectric (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that a "Built for" box may be good - to replace the operators box, but what should go it there - were the 1955 modernisation locos built for BR (the organisation), the BTC (who set the policy), or HMG (who prvided the funds)?
The BTC was abolished prior to 1955, so it was not the operator - best to put BR in the "Built for " box as operator.Pyrotec 18:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The first operator, otherwise some of the currently built (post 1994) stock would have names of leasing companies! SouthernElectric 17:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Having thought about this today, I think that the idea of "initial operator" would fit well with the rest of the data being "as built" (see original post).Romfordian 21:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


Perhaps an additional entry of "Number preserved" would also be good, giving a quick idea of how easy it would be to see one today.
Actually that might not be a bad idea, make it the last box (so it can expand downwards without affecting other content within the table) then it can contain a 'list' of preserved examples - perhaps each number being wiki linked to the Heritage railways page or site? SouthernElectric 17:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
added to template for a trial - put it on the Cl.24 page, but have linked to exisiting list rather than trying to pack everything into the box - the entry in cl.24 gives all the necessary details and links.Romfordian 21:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
One of the reasons why I suggested an area where preserved example can have their running numbers placed within the info box is because it would (hopefully) move people away from having this data in tabulated form within the main article where it can take up a disproportionate amount of space and if anywhere other than at the bottom of the page can disrupt the readability of rest of the article. SouthernElectric 08:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Further to the above please see the test in by sandbox for how it might work. SouthernElectric 12:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Re #3 - surely modern locos are built to metric measurements, in which case the metric unit should be quoted first, and converted to imperial. Mjroots (talk) 09:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point, although how true for UK locos it is I don't know. 67s are probably metric, being built in Spain, but 66s? D/EMUs are probably metric tho and you are right, the info box needs to be customisable to allow for both. Talltim (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Contributions by Anonymous editor(s)

Could someone please look at the contributions of 85.92.190.81 and 90.203.45.244, particularly similar diffs such as [1]-[2], [3]-[4] and [5]-[6]. This convinces me that this is one and the same user, though he/she denies it. See also the discussion on my talk page. As I am unwilling to get further involved in an edit war with this user, I'd like someone else to decide how to proceed. Thanks. – Tivedshambo (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how you're proceeding, but if you don't give it a rest, my next stop is to report you for WP:HA. 85.92.190.81 19:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
We have to remember that anonymous editors are, and should be, allowed to edit Wikipedia, and also that not everyone has the luxury of a static IP address. I have, however, previously requested that 90.203.45.244 create an account to save him/herself hassle, and I agree that it is likely that 85.92.190.81 is the same person. While I can't say a lot for this user's demeanour, I do actually agree with many of their edits: the Cardiff-Nottingham issue was briefly discussed here (and there is no "line" as such), there's nothing wrong with the edits to Transport in Wales as far as I can see (and, to be honest, User:128.240.229.67 isn't exactly well-behaved), while there is a tendency to use the line diagrams to show excessive detail (although I really have no opinion regarding the Stourbridge map).
Anyway, is this really an issue for the Wikiproject? Isn't somewhere like WP:AN the right venue for discussions like this? Regardless, I can't see that any other "action" is necessary: we can't force an anonymous editor to have an account if they don't want one. --RFBailey 20:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
AN won't want it; this really is simply a content dispute, though one that this project can probably mediate better than anyone else. Mackensen (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't recall any policy which says that anonymous users can't look at the contributions of other users, and engage in editing of the same pages. I hardly think that I and 90... are the only people with shared interests in railways and Wikipedia (-: It's not something that WP:AN need get bogged down with. That said, I'm not overly sure that it's something that a WikiProject need get bogged down with either. 85.92.190.81 20:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Without wanting to descend into pot-kettle territory, User:128.240.229.67 is now creating more lovely work for us to do. Sigh. 85.92.190.81 20:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I've protected Transport in Wales for 24 hours. Mackensen (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - it wasn't my intention to get at any anonymous editors, just to get second opinions, though my wikistress levels did rise dangerously high. Editing after a heavy bout of shopping before Christmas is not a good idea ;-)  – Tivedshambo (talk) 23:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
This might prove illuminating ... User_talk:Canterberry ”I shall be contributing to this website [7], and using a few new socks to modify/alter/remove information from Wikipedia.” 82.22.91.177 23:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, while it's possible, I don't recall Canterberry ever having any interest in Nottingham, he tended to stick to the south coast. Can I take the opportunity to remind everyone what can happen when you start seeing sockpuppets without enough evidence... — iridescent 00:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Blimey. Looks like I've missed a party here :) - though it appears that no sooner is 128.240.229.67 blocked, User:128.240.229.68 repeats the same edit. Now that I am referring to the Noticeboard. 90.203.45.214 (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

In an attempt to end at least some of the warring between these anonymous editors, I've nominated Cardiff Central to Nottingham Line for deletion, so that a formal decision can be made. – Tivedshambo (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Haven't we already decided this? The only major dissenting opinion I can see in the edit history comes from User:Welshleprechaun and the user in the 128.240.229.6x range abusing a series of computers at the University of Newcastle, the latter of which has been making large quantities of POV and inaccurate edits all over the place. I also somewhat object to the labelling of what appears to me to be counteracting the actions of a rogue editor as an "edit war". 90.203.45.214 (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"Line" articles

In connection with the above debate about the Cardiff Central to Nottingham Line, I've done a run-through of the "Railway lines in X" templates, to see if there are any other problematic ones. I've just moved Leicester to Lincoln Line to Nottingham to Lincoln Line, as the Leicester-Nottingham part is actually the Midland Main Line (or Ivanhoe Line). --RFBailey (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I find the multitude of Line articles that has been spawned, especially as a result of the new CrossCountry franchise very fustrating. If one appelation was satisfactory for the various operations undertaken by VXC centred on Birmingham, why do we need many articles for the various operations undertaken Arriva CrossCountry. --Stewart (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
We don't--that's the problem! --RFBailey (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, thankfully there don't seem to be any more such non-lines kicking around. --RFBailey (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Varsity Line RDT

I have been working on a template of the Varsity Line, including historical, current and proposed parts. Comments welcome. Simply south (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks good so far. A couple of comments on the Bletchley area - the high level station shown as lightly shaded - there was never a station here in the past as the line crossed the WCML on the level in days when through passenger services operated - is it worth adding that this high level station is a proposal?
Also, with regard to the flyover, there was (and presumably still is unless track has been lifted) a link from Fenny Stratford to the WCML northbound, towards Milton Keynes Central station. Is there a way to show this? ColourSarge (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Just looked on Google Earth and this link is not still there. If it ever existed it's now under MK's industrial estates. Britmax (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
According to sources there used to be a direct service to Bedford from Bletchley, as a branch of what is now the WCML*. Here is what the new version would look like if i added it (Bletchley area that is - maybe this should also be added to the other diagram showing this).
Varsity Line
 Fenny Stratford
West Coast Main Line
Bletchley
West Coast Main Line
Newton Longville
(proposed)
 Newton Longville landfill

Here's what it would look like. Btw, have i got Newton Longville station proposal and Newton Longville landfill in the wrong places? Simply south (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally I would suggest this way:

Varsity Line
 Fenny Stratford
West Coast Main Line
Bletchley
West Coast Main Line
Newton Longville
(proposed)
 Newton Longville landfill

The curve looks a little less strange, but I would still check that the link existed. Thoughts? Britmax (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally a quick look at the OS website confirms that the line crosses the WCML at Bletchley, then passes north of Newton Longville and then end in the middle of nowhere west of there. So your "Bletchley - Proposed station - landfill" order looks about right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Britmax (talk • contribs) 16:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC) I went back to sign but the bot beat me to it! Britmax (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

*I've just made a sudden realisation thath i have put something totally wrong in my reply above. I am stating the obvious by accident (Marston Vale Line) Simply south (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC).

I've just looked at Google Maps (is that the same as Google Earth?) and the freight line ened just on the outskirts of Bletchley and is think it is likelt the proposal will be further along so i will probably switch the two. Simply south (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


The village of Newton Longville lies off the track to the south, between the WCML and the end of the line. If the end of the line is the infill site as seems likely you are right as it is. Incidentally I've revised the layout at Bedford to reflect your correctionf (for which thanks). The Hitchin line seems to have cut across the southern tip of the triangular junction and crossed both the north - to west and the Varsity line on the level. Limitations of the template system means this is as near as I can get. Britmax (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


Ooops, my mistake - sorry to Britmax and Simply South. There was never a link between Fenny Stratford and WCML northbound, I was thinking of the link between the Oxford branch and WCML northbound, which is still there.ColourSarge (talk) 11:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Resetting border... I also remember somewhere reading about that Goldington Power Station, east of Bedford, was linked to the line? Not sure exactly where it would fit on the diagram, or what form the link took (loops, sidings, branch etc)...ColourSarge (talk) 14:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Engine sheds category

I notice that there is a request at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy to rename...

Category:Railway engine sheds to Category:Railway depots. The category Category:Rolling stock depots is absent, the subcategory Category:Railway depots in the United Kingdom isn't divided to either the engine (locomotive) depots and the rolling stock depots.

There are two opposers now, but we might still need to consider the naming of these categories. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I missed the request at /Speedy but I would have opposed it, a 'Railway Depot' is a modern generic term which could cover much more than simply engine sheds, including goods depots. The name 'depot' is totally inappropriate if applied to historic engine sheds or the even earlier 'engine stable'. XTOV (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Because of the opposition it was moved to discusion: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 12. All comments are in opposition. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

New Locomotive Infobox with advanced features. Your sugestions please..

I am working on a new loco infobox. My goal is to add as many automatic features as possible making things easier on the editor meanwhile providing as much information to the reader as possible. Bottom line is less work for the editor, more enjoyable experience for the reader. Updates since its conception are on WT:TWP. Basically, I have taken care of most of the North American related stuff.. What I would like is some input from the UK to make this template even more universal and useful across the pond.

So far I have all of the popular US and Canada locomotive manufactures but I would like to have a list of some of the popular UK loco builders. I've noticed there are loads of them! I can't possibly fit them all so the most popular ones will be best to start with. Whether they are still operating or not, the best of the best is what I need. The editor will benefit from being able to add something as simple as | builder = <builders name or initials> and the template will fill out the information for a wikilink to the proper article. beats having to enter links yourself. If the link should change, update the template and all the pages are updated as well.

As it sits now the UK crowd can benefit from the Auto-AAR to UIR and Auto-UIR to AAR feature. In example, If I enter "| aarwheels = B-B" in the template data the template automatically enters the UIR Class equivalent, Bo'Bo', or "| aarwheels = C-C" auto adds Co'Co', etc.. I am still working on the UIR to AAR converter at the moment it should be done shortly..

Apart from the builders list is there anything else that you could suggest making this template more useful you guys?

tnx: --DP67 (talk/contribs) 15:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


I'm not sure. Most of our trains over here, at least on the national network, are multiple unit trains altthough there are quite a few long-distance trains which may count. Could DMU and EMU be included? Simply south (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Done.. There is an option for Multiple unit now. "multiunit = emu" and "multiunit = dmu" both providing auto-links to the appropriate article. If none of the above, "multipleunit = <multi-unit type>", provide your own custom description and/or link to the article of your choice. (Slambo code fixed that issue.)
--DP67 (talk/contribs) 19:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
There is a problem, unless I'm missing something, with the auto wheel arrangement function, B-B (and C-C) are not the same as Bo-Bo (and Co-Co). For example, there are/where both B-B and Bo-Bo locomotives in the UK and Europe so automatically changing B-B into Bo-Bo will cause the wrong wheel arrangement to be displayed on some classes! SouthernElectric (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know that, I"m not saying you're wrong but WP is of course is where I've gotten the info. I know what a B-B and a C-C is, but I haven't a clue what a Bo-Bo is except for what I'm told here. I have no idea what a Co-Co is other than what I learned here. If it's wrong, I'll change it. For my own sanity what is the difference between the two? Someone may need to change the wording on the UIC Class list because both instances are close enough to confuse the unknowing. See below..


UIC classification

"Bo'Bo' " means there are two bogies or wheel assemblies under the unit. Each truck has two individually-driven powered axles (i.e., via traction motors). Three-quarters of all modern locomotives (as well as the power cars of self-propelled trains) are configured in either this or the "B'B'" arrangement. Many types of tram use this arrangement.

"Co'Co' " means there are two bogies or wheel assemblies under the unit. Each truck has three individually-driven, powered axles (i.e., via traction motors).

AAR wheel arrangement#C-C

"B-B" means there are two identical trucks, or wheel assemblies under the unit. Each truck has two powered axles, a currently-popular configuration used in high-speed, low-weight applications, such as intermodal trains. Examples include the EMD GP (General Purpose) units.

"C-C" means there are two identical trucks, or wheel assemblies under the unit. Each truck has three powered axles. Examples include the EMD SD (Special Duty) units. This is a currently popular configuration used in low-speed, high-weight applications, such as unit coal trains. See also Co-Co.

--DP67 (talk/contribs) 22:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


Taking a four axle locomotive as an example; A Bo-Bo locomotive has two bogies each having two axles - each axle is driven by an individual traction motor/source, with a B-B locomotive it has the same layout as above but both axles in the bogies are driven by the same traction motor/source (ie. the axles within the bogie are linked by cardian shaft or what ever). SouthernElectric (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, so an AAR B-B is essentially a UIC B'B' and not Bo'Bo' is that correct? The way that the B-B is worded they both sounded the same. I'll work on rewording the AAR text to reflect that in a B-B configuration each bogie has a common traction motor, both axles of each bogie are driven by gears and not one individual traction motor per axle (or something to that effect) I've never noticed that before.. Never had the chance to shove my head under a GP38 to notice, I had always assumed each axle had their own motor.. Just to clear up more of my confusion it appears that an AAR A1A-A1A and UIC (A1A)(A1A) are pretty much identical as is an AAR B-A1A is virtually identical to a B'(A1A). Hopefully I've gotten those two right.. LOL
Thanks for clearing that issue up for me. DP67 (talk/contribs) 02:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Birmingham Snow Hill Lines

Hi! I've just noticed that Snow Hill Lines redirects to a page on the B'ham to W'ter via K'ster page. This is technically not right. However, a page on "the snow hill lines" would be good, in my view, as they are notable. Any thoughts? Should I remove the redirect? Btline (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The main line was to Wolverhampton Low Level railway station, that B'ham to W'ter via K'ster line was a branch leading off it; in the other direction they went through the tunnel past Birmingham Moor Street station. Pyrotec (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed - the Birmingham Snow Hill-Wolverhampton Low Level Line was the original main line in that direction from Birmingham Snow Hill. (Please accept my apologies for correcting the link to Wolverhampton Low Level above.) Perhaps change the redirect to a disambiguation page, listing lines from Snow Hill? However, they are all listed from the main Snow Hill article anyway. <User:Fingerpuppet> 09:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
There should probably be a disambiguation page in any case, because of the Snow Hill tunnel in London, which ought also to be listed on such a page. --RFBailey (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting my redlinks - I did not know that someone had already produced the articles. In summary the Snow Hill Lines should (1) be a redirect to Birmingham Snow Hill-Wolverhampton Low Level Line, or (2) a disambig page pointing to Birmingham Snow Hill-Wolverhampton Low Level Line and the Snow Hill tunnel.Pyrotec (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
And the Snow Hill tunnel in London needs to link back to Birmingham's tunnel of the same name which also was a cut a cover tunnel and also reopened. What a pity, Birmingham's tunnel was cut first, it opened in 1852, but it did not get its roof until 1874: we let that other lot in first.Pyrotec (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

What I actually meant were the current Snow Hill Lines. Wster to Bham via Kiderminster is one yes, but there are also the Leamington and Stratford Lines to meantion in an article called "Snow hill Lines." Btline (talk) 11:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, the disambig page will solve all these needs. Change the redirect to a diambig, and list the lines. Here's an example: Ministry of Defence.18:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyrotec (talk • contribs)

A new wiki specially for Trains...

Hello readers of WikiProject UK Railways!

I just wondered if any of you would be interested in joining up to Train Spotting World, a wiki just for railways and similar things! We are also in the process of setting up several "Workforces", similar to WikiProjects, and were wondering if anyone wanted to help!

Various Wikipedians have gone over there, including myself, User:Tbo 157, User:Slambo, User:EdJogg, User:Timtrent and User:S.C.Ruffeyfan.

If you want more info, or have joined up and want some guidance, let me know here or there on my talk page!

Thanks,

Bluegoblin7 18:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that the intention is NOT to 'poach' editors from WP -- you are needed here!
All the listed editors are still active at WP, but TSW allows a little more creative freedom...
Feel free to join us editing in both Wikis.
EdJogg (talk) 02:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:First logo cropped F.gif

File:First logo cropped F.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


I think I've fixed the logo f.u.r. Dewarw (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Isle of Man

Greetings all, apologies if this has already been discussed but where do the railways of the Isle of Man fit in to the scheme of things? I know that IOM is not part of the UK politically, but its inclusion could surely be justified geographically? It is a very interesting mix of heritage railways, disused railways and tramways. Best Witchwooder (talk) 16:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Caldervale Line

I'm sticking up my hand to do a complete re-write on the Caldervale Line as my first project. December's timetable change has brought in a new service from Hebden Bridge to Leeds via Dewsbury (which is the Huddersfield Line). This will also need cross-referencing. I'm therefore thinking of changing the map to chop all references to the Huddersfield Line and Huddersfield at Brighouse which is essentially in the middle of two triangular junctions linking the two routes.

The route description looks like it's been lifted from an old book's line description. I have current sectional appendicies for the whole route and so I'll probably re-write the route description completely.

Any suggestions as to any further improvements while I'm at it?

Bigpants (talk) 07:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this what used to be referred to as the 'Calder Valley line back in BR's day, if so be aware that all these 'route' articles are not (and should not) be aimed at just those wanting present day service/route information, many people want/need historical information - if these articles only cover the current day services I can see parallel articles being created with the resultant waste of time and resources that will occur when the inevitable "Merge" template gets added to them. SouthernElectric (talk) 11:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
So the first problem is how does the writer define a route. Do they use present-day services to define how they write the article or do they define it some other way?
I'm going to start on cleaning up the article, I'll stick it in my sandbox and any comments will be welcome. Bigpants (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
As a followup, I'm about 20% complete in the re-write of the page. It's turning out to be quite a bit of an opus so I'd appreciate any comments to make sure this Caldervale Line re-write (WIP) is going in the right direction. Bigpants (talk) 03:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:UK light rail

I have put this up for merge with Template:Britishmetros. See Template talk:UK light rail#Merge. Simply south (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I overhauled UK light rail and restored Britishmetros, although maybe it should be slimmed down to just the metro systems without the trams or changed per the discussion? Simply south (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Query on lines between Sheffield and Dore

Its a pretty specific query, but a railway person may know more than a Sheffield person. As a slight divergence from this query, would this be right place to put this sort of thing as the pages' discussion pages link to project pages? Talltim (talk) 17:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Stourbridge Town Branch Line - again

Sorry to keep raising this subject, but the template for this article is still the subject of an edit war. I've given up reverting it, though I did try to clarify consensus here. Could someone independent please confirm that there is consensus, bearing in mind previous discussions on the talk page and here. In the mean-time I'll request further protection of the template. Many thanks. – Tivedshambo (talk) 09:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've had a look at the links provided by Tivedshambo and read through the article and its discussion page. I am by no means an expert on the conventions used within Wikipedia as I am somewhat of a novice editor. So instead of getting involved with the technical aspects, I reverted to my primary state of a wikipedia reader in order to try and come to a decision on this. The route diagrams which show just the line from ST to SJ, and the ones which show this route plus a junction to the mainline for ECS workings are in my opinion flawed. There seemed to be a consensus in the discussions that the purpose of the route diagram is to summarise the route being described, and in my opinion the examples I mentioned above are overly-simplistic. They do not reveal for example that it is possible to change trains at Stourbridge Junction to reach other destinations. Instead they seem to indicate that the line is an isolated segment of track, with no passenger interchange at either end. Additionally I feel that the diagram should include detail on local topographical features encountered by the route, as this helps to put the line into its local geographical context.
Therefore, as a wikipedia reader, I support the route diagram that shows: The route from SJ to ST, plus the disused extension to Stourbridge Basin; the main route through SJ station; The connection between the branch and main lines; the roads, watercourses etc encountered by the route. ColourSarge (talk) 11:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Talk:North_London_Line#Merge_NLR_with_NLL There's a discussion on merging North London Railway with North London Line, but only two people are involved so more input is needed. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 00:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yet more Cromer

You are all cordially invited to offer your thoughts on what the freshly merged unified article on the Cromer railway stations will be called, here. As whether the three articles stay merged and if so what the end product is called will set precedents for other "existing station/line/junction near a disused one" situations across the UK, this isn't the trivial content dispute it appears to be at first glance. And if anyone has any improvements to the still slightly rough-edged article (currently at GAC), do feel free. (Yes, I know the diagram shows the Cromer tunnel as passing over the GER lines not under them. Someone with a better image-editing program than my MS Paint can fix it.) — iridescent 17:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Tonbridge or Tunbridge (Wells)??

Can a few knowledgeable editors please review the recent edits by Jrstroud88 (talk · contribs)? I was alerted to the changes from the North Downs Line article, where, apparently, before 1994, trains went to Tunbridge Wells, rather than Tonbridge. Now I travelled on this line quite a lot in the 1980s and I always thought the timetable, train indicators, station announcements, etc said Tonbridge. A second example is that the Redhill to Tonbridge Line now goes on to Tunbridge Wells. Further examples, picked at random, show that the Hastings Line goes to 'Tunbridge Wells and Hastings', etc, etc. Each page I have looked at has had 'Tunbridge Wells' added.

This person is a new editor, and all the changes have been made in the past two days.

EdJogg (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi EdJogg. I've also noticed these changes and was a little mystified, because I have never heard of NDL services terminating at Tunbridge Wells. I've had a brief scout around on the internet and the earliest NSE network map I can find is from 1991-92 which definitely shows NDL services terminating at Tonbridge. [8]
The editor has been extremely busy over the past two days and has even changed the NDL route map template! The editor is certainly not a novice, and obviously has edited WP before.
Mertbiol (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Here are two further maps: 1989 [9] and 1986? [10]. I will revert the changes and copy these to the NDL talk page. Mertbiol (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm glad I wasn't dreaming...
Though it still leaves a heap of edits by this person unchanged.
EdJogg (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Not any more... :o)
However, there are still a number of changes to stations relating to services via Sevenoaks, Folkestone, Dover Priory, etc which I have not reverted as I have no idea whether the changed or the unchanged text is correct! Perhaps one of our south-eastern contributors can double-check?
EdJogg (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on that part of the world, and I'm therefore not in a position to judge whether Jrstroud88's edits were correct or not. However I find it very concerning that all his edits have been undone, often with no explanation, and that no attempt appears to have been made to communicate with him (or her - it's difficult to use pronouns with unknown users). He/she has not even been informed about this discussion. Remember, Please do not bite the newcomers. – Tivedshambo (talk) 08:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Quick OT in here, the pronoun to use in this case is 'they'! Talltim (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Your concerns are noted -- particularly the lack of notice to the user themselves. It is unusual for me to be 'bold' like this. Usually I would raise concerns with the user in question, and wait for a response. However, in this case many of the edits, while presumably 'good faith', were veering dangerously towards vandalism and needed urgent attention. It struck me that here was someone living in Tunbridge Wells, or, more likley, Penshurst, who wanted to raise the profile of his locale: hence changing 'Hastings Line' to 'London - Tunbridge Wells - Hastings Line', and renaming the 'Redhill-Tonbridge Line' as the 'Penshurst Line'.
If you look at (his) contributions, you will see that there are quite a number that I have NOT reverted. Essentially, I only reverted an edit if I was reasonably certain that it had introduced misleading information. Otherwise I left them (as in the Sevenoaks- and Dover-related edits), and requested the assistance of other editors here. (For example, I googled several variants of 'Penshurst Line' before deciding that this was terminology only seen on WP mirrors and an inappropriate replacement).
EdJogg (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I have discovered the origin of the confusion. The hourly services run by Southeastern along the Redhill-Tonbridge line to Horsham originate at Tunbridge Wells on weekdays (the XX52 departure).[11] (Obviously this does not affect the pre-1994 NDL timetable, in which services from Redhill terminated at Tonbridge or justify renaming the Redhill-Tonbridge line the Redhill-Tunbridge Wells line.) Mertbiol (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:First logo cropped F.gif

File:First logo cropped F.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_8&oldid=1144080072"