Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

S-Rail template

The old route information on the St Erth railway station page (and a couple of others in Cornwall) has been changed to use the S-Rail template. I cannot see many stations outside the London area which use this style of template.

It has made these information tables much larger and created extra lines for all the different stopping patterns. In particular Virgin Trains now have two lines for trains to Glasgow or Edinburgh via one route, and Glasgow and Aberdeen via another. There are only three trains a day from St Erth to Scotland - one to Dundee and two to Glasgow!

Unless someone can show how to reduce these to the simpler versions used previuosly, where each operator need just one line per route, then I propose to revert these pages to the old style. Geof Sheppard 08:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

its the (very hard and complex) work of Mackensen. I can see where your coming from, it has increased the size of the data shown. On the other hand there is large project to replace the current rail line template with s-rail (the tube and dlr has been done, and lots of other metros across the world). IMHO despite this increase its worth sticking with S-rail because globally across UK railway stations pages (all 2,000 odd of them) it does offer more features over rail line. Pickle 10:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
But why has this been started in the first place? While I realise standardisation can be a good thing, I have counted up a total of 84 seperate templates that have needed to be created just for the National Rail network alone. And that is just up to now. I have no objection to using the s-rail template as a header, but why are templates needed for every company and every route, when the {{rail line}} template is available, and flexible enough to be used to show any route of any company? Hammersfan 08/03/07, 14.50 GMT
This was a massive change to make without agreement. I'm happy enough to use S-Rail, but not if it means all the baggage that Mackensen has added. Who wants to know about each VT service that they can change with every new timetable? - it gets close to breaking the "WP is not a timetable" rule. It has added a huge block towards the end of every major station on the WCML: only the most dedicated of readers will want to see anything beyond it. --Concrete Cowboy 17:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There's been ample discussion at WikiProject trains. I'm rather put out no one informed me of the discussion here and that I had to stumble on it myself. I would also note that I immediately responded to Hammersfan's initial query (see [1]) but received no response in return. S-rail/s-line is the work of many people over the past several months and not just me, and has received considerable support. I confess I was quite surprised when I received this note from Hammersfan on my talk page [2]. I hope the forthcoming discussion is a bit more collegial than that. Mackensen (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

If this [3] is the discussion we're talking about then I'm not sure what we're going to accomplish. That edit had stood for several weeks. Suddenly Hammersfan reverts with no edit summary. Now, we're all free to edit each other mercilessly but it's clear that Hammersfan's idea of "discussion" is to go through my edit history and revert blindly: [4]. If you consult my talk page you'll see that I've engaged in discussion with many editors about these templates, including Hammersfan, though he never actually responded to me (and then had the gall to claim that I'd never responded to him, and that I had in fact removed his query, which is completely untrue). I would appreciate a response from someone on these matters. Mackensen (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

IMHO we in the UK are far behind on this one. s-rail is being used all across Wikipedia particularly in the states, the tube, etc - IMHO it offers a lot more flexibility than "rail line". A simple station on a simple line (ie station b on a line from a to b to c) is relatively simple (and "rail line" suffices) but I've encountered many stations in "my patch" (Kent and SE London) where "rail line" has reached the limits of its usefulness. Granted some debate is needed around the obscure services, but IMHO the users out there can quickly see if a railway station well connected, etc without Wikipedia becoming a timetable. Pickle 13:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I've finally got around to having a go at implementing this in my patch down south here (South East - Essex, Kent, Sussex, etc) and Hammersfan has reverted all my edits without so much as an edit summary. I could really take this wrong way and throw my toys out of the pram. But what the **** have i done wrong to warrant this kind of witch hunt against all the edits I've done. IMHO the rail line template has reached the limit of its technical abilities, and i feel s-rail offers the simplicity and usability that i want to show the data i want to show to the users. Is there some sort of lack of consensus in the UK rail community (Not on the tube, Tyne and Wear or the rest of the world it seams) or even rejection of s-rail ??? Comments from all editors on this would be welcome before i go off and bite Hammersfan head off, perhaps unjustifiably ???Pickle
You're not the only one. I've had encounters with Hammersfan and his edit reversions – we had a spate of nigh-on edit-warring about 'fictional rail boxes' and redirects related to the WP:THOMAS articles and going against project policy. Thankfully that seems to be in abeyance now, although we have had to re-revert some of his changes several times. Seems a shame really as some of his edits have been quite useful. EdJogg 22:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Hammersfan replied at my talk apge;

I completely disagree with your view regarding the {{rail line}} template. I have seen how complicated the s-rail template is - I did a count of how many individual templates were required to set up the routes that had already been set up, and it came to over 80. Is this a reasonable use of resources in your opinion? I don't believe it is, especially given that individual templates need to be set up for individual routes, leading to multiple templates for each TOC. By contrast, the rail line template, and its half-dozen or so variants, can (and has) been used for any route of any operator. My further objections include the fact that the s-rail template does not sit comfortably on pages - because most of the National Rail station articles are stubs, they have a lot of white space at the bottom of the page due to the station infobox. the rail line template adapts itself to fit into the white space left by this, while the s-rail template cannot adapt itself due to the way it is set up, and so it sits at the bottom of the page leaving a large, ugly white gap. Also, s-rail is being added in apiecemeal fashion - if you are going to do this, it needs to be done to the whole network. Your argument appears to be that everything needs to be standardised. Fine, then standardise it. Do the lot, all at once, not one little piece at a time. The excuse from the individual who started all this the first time this came up was "I like to edit Wikipedia". That's fine. So do I, but I like to edit with the purpose of adding something to Wikipedia. To me, this just seems to be editing for the sake of editing. There is no valid reason I can see why s-rail is better than rail line. Saying "it's on other rail systems" is akin to saying "he's doing it so we should too". Why? If there is a valid reason why rail line should be replaced by s-rail, then please try and convince me. I am open minded and am willing to be convinced if the argument is valid, against what some people may have led yo to believe. However, I have spent the last few days editing stations on the Iarnrod Eireann network successfully using rail line - this template works, of that I am convinced. If you think I am wrong, convince me otherwise. Hammersfan 29/03/07, 12.22 BST

You raise some very good points. IMHO i like the whole "to wards" part as it (for my patch) tell you what is London bound or coast bound. s-rail at first raise quieter a bit of complexity which is a fair comment. on the other its advantages (EGA when TOC get re-branded, etc are appealing). on the other hand "rail line" only has sufficient template to do "two to one" (or vice versa), beyond that it has reached it limiters. As for how it works on pages, 'fair cop guv', when s-rail is done as tube it floats well like rail line, but for normal rail lines it does float awkwardly). re implementation, i started small to understand before attempting Theo more complex, you call for mass co version is understandable but arguable impractical. Thus to me the reason for it are; a) TOC is left in the header section, b) easy mass champagne via transclion. Pickle 01:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I accept that having the final destination included may be useful (although it could be claimed that this starts to lead it towards "Wikipedia is not a timetable" problems). Your argument about the limitations of rail line can be countered by looking at the Rail transport templates category which shows the variation that is possible. Rail line is also highly adaptable - to accomodate new TOCs, all that needs doing on rail line is to change the name in the route field and the colour (should a change of colour be warranted). Is it not the case that new templates would need to be set up to create the route templates using s-rail? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick? Hammersfan 30/03/07, 09.50 BST
Let me make a few technical observations. First of all, it's incorrect that the s-rail construction can't float: {{s-start}} can take the parameter noclear=yes which allows this. I added this after my objections to making clear the default action of that template were overriden. Now, I'm not sure about your second question. If it was the case that a new TOC took over a franchise from an old TOC, the old templates could simply be moved from the new name to the old one; few changes would be necessary. Best, Mackensen (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
An added bonus, of a sort, is that from whatlinkshere you know the location of every succession box involving that particular line/service. Mackensen (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
a) the towards part is really useful as the custom of left is up (or right) and right is down is sometimes confusing, or at worst case certain places (eg south London line) the direction appear to swap over. Other more extreme example would be somewhere like Margate where London is accessed both way (one to Charing Cross, one to Victoria). To me this is useful and encyclopedic information, rather than a timetable.
b) noclear=yes - thanks for that Mackensen, that could make this more workable.
c) TOC replacement - as i haven't seen it been done yet I'm not sure which will be easier for this purpose.
d) row span and current rail line templates - my point is that rail line is great for a station with a few services/routes/lines but once you get tot he point where you are trying to create the rowspan effect in one of the columns, rail line (see Category:Rail_transport_templates) only offer this effect with two lines at a time, with only one option "three to one" for when you have 3 lines. Thus to me s-rail offers considerable flexibility here. I have to admit that when there are numerous lines, and TOCs the "s-rail" system makes these major stations route boxes look clear in the article and the code (appears) easier to grasp and edit than a (seemingly) complex mess of "rail line" with various "route2=" "col=", etc.
Pickle 16:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The thing is though that very few services and routes will have more than two lines through one station - let me use the example of our conversation regarding the Orpington service, most of which travels down the South Eastern Main Line. While I will admit that s-rail is good for a limited network, such as the one operated by c2c, which has clear termini and single routes, for such a widespread network such as the one operated by Southeastern it would be so difficult to create templates for every single route. As regards the changes in TOC, while none have occured yet, we have five that finish this year:
As I understand it, new templates would need to be created to replicate the s-rail templates that (if they were created) would display the routes of these operators to reflect the new operators, and any changes in routes that would come with the new franchises. With rail line, all that would need to be done would be to change the name of the operator in the route field. Hammersfan 01/04/07, 21.55 BST
Hammersfan makes some valid points, but three things strike me;
1) while Hammersfan makes well reason and explained objections is this a consensus by UK railway editors to stick with rail line or not ???
2) how can we (in the UK railway realm) ignore/justify our stance the apparent consensus that the rest of Wikipedia is moving to s-rail
3)The implicit discussion here around these reasonings, is what do we want / what are the limitation we want upon both rail line and s-rail. Its clear that both can do much but different editors would like constraints upon usage. There thus appear a lack of clear guidelines. eg the VXC details in the South West as detailed above.
I would thus like some thoughts from other editors on these matters so some consensus and guidance could be developed to enable something useful to come of these discussion and avoid future problems.
Pickle 20:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I've reinstated this talk section from the archive as i feel (rightly or wrongly) that I'm awaiting consensus on this matter, which as far as i can tell is 1 for and 1 agianst.... Pickle 03:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Station links - why?

While there might be good reasons for converting to S-rail, perhaps we should step back a little and take in the bigger view. Just what is the purpose served by these tables at the bottom of every station article?

The tables are placed in the navigation area at the bottom of the page and appear to do several things:

  1. List and link to articles for the preceding and following stations on each route
  2. List and link to articles for all the routes serving the station
  3. List and link to articles for all the operators on each route
  4. Often state the ulitmate destination of a route (especially with S-rail)
  5. Often provide extra lines for different stopping patterns
  6. List and link to articles for heritage railways at the station, with their adjacent stations
  7. Often list closed lines that used to serve the station, with their adjacent stations

Many of these objectives are also met by the station infobox or in the text of the article. We also need to remember the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. To paraphrase Wikipedia is not a travel guide: an article on Paddington should mention landmarks such as the Grade 1 listed train shed, but not the telephone number or street address, or the price of a café au lait in The Lawn. Such details are, however, very welcome at Wikitravel. Most editors also follow the logical extension of this, that Wikipedia is not a timetable.

So let us examine the seven objectives listed:

  1. This should be the true function of these navigation boxes.
  2. This should be in the text of the article, but is not strictly necessary in a station navigation box. Anyway, it is duplicated on some pages by route or area navigation boxes, e.g. {{Cornwall railway stations}}.
  3. Again, is this something that is needed in the navigation from an article about a station? If this is deemed to be encyclopedic information then it should be in the text and possibly in the infobox at the top of the page, rather than the navigation box at the bottom.
  4. This has proved inaccurate with complex routes, such as Cross Country, where trains serve a multitude of destinations. Again, a route-based navigation box listing stations in georgraphical order can help, otherwise it could be covered by stating eastbound, westbound, etc. Saying that a route is "towards Ormskirk" assumes that all readers know where Ormskirk is.
  5. Does the inclusion of all these stopping patterns turn the article into a travel guide and timetable?
  6. See above, a heritage railway is just another operator.
  7. Not widely used, and I have yet to see a clear way of listing closed stations on open lines. I think this information should be in the text of a history section, rather than in a navigation box. It might be difficult to link to all the individual adjacent stations, but then perhaps we should be questioning why they have individual articles anyway: are they notable? For a closed line they could be listed in the line article, e.g. Ilfracombe Branch Line; for open lines, unless they are truly individually important, then they could be grouped in their own article, e.g. Disused railway stations (Bristol to Exeter Line).

So lets look at a typical busy station, Exeter St Davids. The station navigaton links are currently:

Preceding station National Rail National Rail Following station
Tiverton Parkway   First Great Western
Reading to Plymouth Line 		  Dawlish* or
Newton Abbot
Taunton   First Great Western
Night Riviera 		  Newton Abbot
Tiverton Parkway   Virgin Trains
Cross-Country Route 		  Dawlish* or
Newton Abbot
Exeter Central   South West Trains
West of England Main Line 		  terminus
or Exeter St Thomas
Exeter Central   First Great Western
Avocet Line 		  terminus
or Exeter St Thomas
terminus
or Exeter Central 		  First Great Western
Riviera Line 		  Exeter St Thomas
terminus
or Exeter Central 		  First Great Western
Tarka Line 		  Newton St Cyres
* Not all trains call at this station

These could be removed to just leave the area template {{Devon railway stations}}, or replaced by a minimal navigation box with a line for each route and just a link to each adjacent station, irrespective of the stopping patterns:

Preceding station National Rail National Rail Following station
Tiverton Parkway   Reading to Plymouth Line   Exeter St Thomas
terminus   Riviera Line  
Newton St Cyres   Tarka Line   terminus
Exeter Central   West of England Main Line
and Avocet Line 		  terminus

Being bold! ... Geof Sheppard 13:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Support (the final, simplified, table view) -- even though it's a huge amount of work to implement!
  • Shorter, neater, avoids repeating TOCs multiple times; MUCH more obvious which lines the station exists on
  • Avoids need to update tables when train operator changes names (the stations are unlikely to change lines :o) )
  • Provides EASY way to link in closed stations – where appropriate, an extra line row may be added linking to the Disused railway stations (A to B Line) article, indicating the preceding/following stations 'ever' (ie whether open or closed -- I would suggest this is only required where an adjacent closed station exists!)
EdJogg 13:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
There has not been any real discussion of this issue. I notice that someone has now moved the station links for Par railway station up into the body of the page, placing it in a new section called "services". I have not done a revert as I thought other editors might like to look at it and comment. Geof Sheppard 07:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The heading 'Services' make some kind of sense with the existing content, and has the benefit of lifting the box out of the dreaded navibox zone. However, it is not compatible with your revised (simplified) table, that I prefer (see above). Hopefully we'll get some more input on this from other editors... -- EdJogg 08:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I created the 'Services' section at the Par railway station article and moved the infobox there. I did that preparatory to creating a word picture of services in that section, which I havn't yet got around to. There is precedence for this way of using a services section plus word description plus template; the article on London Paddington station has been structured this way for some while. For an example of it applied to a smaller station, see Goring & Streatley railway station.
The idea that the template is purely a navigation feature has never really appealed to me, principally because I don't see why we would want a construct that just allows you to navigate to the next stations up and down the line. If that is all it does, I would vote to drop it altogether (health declaration; I've never been a great fan of navigational templates at the end of articles anyway). It seems to me that what the box does bring to the party is measurable contextual information; it gives a clue as to whether we are talking about a major station or a lineside halt, a complex junction, or whatever. Hence my inclusion in the Services section. But obviously the fact that I feel the need to add a word picture means it is not complete for that purpose.
On the other hand, I do prefer Geof's slimmer 'route based' infobox over the current 'service based' boxes, because:
  • it is slimmer,
  • it avoids a lot of ambiguity about what constitutes different services,
  • it lessens the confusion between a Wikipedia encyclopedia article and a timetable.
I actually don't think using your slimmer approach conflicts with my feeling that the box should be in the article, rather than at the bottom. Perhaps the title 'Services' could be improved. 'Context in the route network' is really what I'm aiming at, but not exactly very snappy. -- Chris j wood 11:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I've been holding off replying to this for a while, as it deserves a good reply.
AFAIK its pretty universal to use some form of "rail line" template across the world, so any decision should somehow reflect these world wide standards.
Technically (and its done elsewhere in the world) the "rail line" table can be moved elsewhere in the article; as its been mentioned, its done well in many of the London station articles (which are longer) to a "services" area, alternatively (in the states in places I think) it can be moved to the station infobox - I’m no coder so I don't how technically we do this but I know its been done. Anyway location within article is not the same as a deeper (I’m all for "thinking big" and "being bold") debate about weather they should be there at all.
Templates like "{{Cornwall railway stations}}" may work for the SW but in my end of the world (Kent) there 122 (last count) of railway stations (see Category:Railway stations in Kent).
I suppose it depends how you as a user feel about how you interact with each respective line/service. On the tube, I think the whole "s-rail" thing works well because of the identity of the lines. I'm not sure that there is the same identity elsewhere. On some lines, where there is only one service, the whole rail line thing works well. However we've had some debate about what lines to list out of a major London terminal (London Bridge), since there is a main line, with numerous branches off, and copious services that vary from peak to off peak. The current compromise is to link to the mainline article rather than have dozens of articles. However stateside the Americans have listed ever named passenger train (most aren't even 1 train per day).
Of course "Wikipedia is not a timetable" but IMHO showing stuff like the next and previous station along a stretch of track is notable. In my end of the world particularly I think it would be incredible useful to show (which to me is achievable technically via "s-rail" which direction is London bound and which is coast bound. Its particularly useful as Kent is east of London but, as you move around towards Sussex, London is north and then west when you get to SWTs, thus some stations have London on the left and other London on the right. I think its very useful (encyclopaedic and notable) to have this information in the article - and a routebox is the easiest and consistent way to deliver this information across the 2000+ railway station articles.
As for closed stations, with the recent development of "WP:TRAIL" route maps, I think each rail line article can suitable show the closed stations. However some areas (esp Scotland IIRC) have put closed stations in route boxes, I’m not that fussed that they have (again helps the user place the closed and open stations in context). In London where often the closed station have articles on them (where as far as I can tell further out they tend not too) its particularly useful.
As for the "new look" "rail line" proposal, while it is short and simple (always remember K.I.S.S.) but IMHO you've stripped the TOC's which I really don't like (s-rail nicely groups them together under subheadings which appeals to me). Where you've put two liens in the same row where they share next and previous stations, we've done this with London Bridge before so no problem with that from me. I'm dubious about persudo TOC's like the Night Rivera (but if people decide by consensus they want these included lets included it) but I think we need to included the UK's intercity network; be it VSC, WCML, ECML, FGW, Trans Pennine, etc.
On the technical point about "slimness", as I understand, Makensen designed "s-rail" aesthetically to span across, but it has the option to "noclear" (or something) so it can "float" in the middle.
I hope I’m not being to negative, but i was looking originally for consensus to move to "s-rail" following a small edit war around Hammersfan who objected (he has the right too) and it appears that people generally have "issues" around what we (in the UK) are doing with routeboxes through the current "rail line" template, and its good to get an idea about what the consensus is and the standards people would like to follow. I'm well aware what my work for the tube, may not work for commuter land or the rural parts of this isle. Fundamentally I still really like the "towards" part and that really why I’m being so awkward (that and it doesn’t seam to have bothered others worldwide!).
Pickle 14:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Pickle, I'd like to contribute to the question as to whether we should switch to "s-rail" but the example quoted at the top (St Erth) seems to have been reverted. Can you point me to an example of the s-rail templates as applied to a reasonably complex station (the sort where you need to look at a timetable to see if the next train going the right way actually stops at the station you want to get to), as opposed to one on something like the tube or the DLR (with clearly identified lines with a standard stopping pattern). An artificial setup on a talk page would be fine if you are having problems with reversions on real articles. Thanks. -- chris_j_wood 17:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
A very good question. Personally I tend towards the compromise as currently seen with "rail line" at London Bridge station currently (but that doesn't address the question of will the next train on X line stop at your station);
Preceding station National Rail National Rail Following station
London Blackfriars   First Capital Connect
Thameslink 		  East Croydon
London Cannon Street
or
Waterloo East 		  Southeastern
Greenwich Line 		  Deptford
  Southeastern
South Eastern Main Line 		  New Cross
Terminus   Southeastern
London Bridge to Tunbridge Wells
(via Redhill and East Croydon) 		  Norwood Junction
Terminus   Southern
Brighton Main Line 		  New Cross Gate
Waterloo East   Southern
Caterham Line/Tattenham Corner Line 		 
Terminus   Southern
South London Line (Inner) 		  South Bermondsey
previously it looked more complex (the guy who did it only altered the southeastern services, the southern services are equally as complex) like this (at one point)
Preceding station National Rail National Rail Following station
London Blackfriars   First Capital Connect
Thameslink to Brighton 		  East Croydon
Waterloo East   Southeastern
South Eastern Main Line
to Orpington or Sevenoaks 		  Hither Green
Waterloo East   Southeastern
South Eastern Main Line to Ashford International
Hastings Line to Tunbridge Wells or Hastings 		  Orpington
Waterloo East   Southeastern
Bexleyheath Line to Dartford
Dartford Loop Line to Gravesend 		  Lewisham
Waterloo East   Southeastern
Greenwich Line to Gillingham 		  Greenwich
Waterloo East   Southeastern
Hayes Line 		  Ladywell
Cannon Street   Southeastern
Greenwich Line to Plumstead
Cannon Street Loop (via Dartford Loop Line and North Kent Line
Hayes Line 		  New Cross
Cannon Street   Southeastern
Cannon Street Loop (via North Kent Line and Dartford Loop Line
Greenwich Line to Dartford 		  Deptford
Cannon Street   Southeastern
Ashford via Maidstone East Line to Ashford International 		  West Malling
Terminus   Southeastern
London Bridge to Tunbridge Wells
(via Redhill and East Croydon) 		  Norwood Junction
Terminus   Southern
Brighton Main Line 		  New Cross Gate
Waterloo East   Southern
Caterham Line/Tattenham Corner Line 		 
Terminus   Southern
South London Line (Inner) 		  South Bermondsey
as for an s-rail example, Makensen did start on network rail from Euston before Hammersfan stopped him. Here is how it did look (best UK example as many templates need to be set up to make it work to start with).
{{s-start}}
{{s-note|text=[[National Rail]]}}
{{s-rail|title=Virgin Trains}}
{{s-line|system=Virgin Trains|line=VT5|previous=Watford Junction|next=|rows2=5}}
{{s-line|system=Virgin Trains|line=VT4|previous=Watford Junction|next=|hide2=yes}}
{{s-line|system=Virgin Trains|line=VT8|previous=Watford Junction|next=|hide2=yes}}
{{s-line|system=Virgin Trains|line=VT6|previous=Watford Junction|next=|hide2=yes}}
{{s-line|system=Virgin Trains|line=VT7|previous=Watford Junction|next=|hide2=yes}}
{{s-rail|title=First ScotRail}}
{{s-line|system=First ScotRail|line=Lowland Caledonian Sleeper|previous=Watford Junction|next=|rows2=2}}
{{s-line|system=First ScotRail|line=Highland Caledonian Sleeper|previous=Crewe|next=|type=North|hide2=yes}}
{{s-rail|title=Silverlink}}
{{s-line|system=Silverlink|line=Watford DC|previous=South Hampstead|next=|rows2=2}}
{{s-line|system=Silverlink|line=London to Northampton|previous=Harrow & Wealdstone|next=|hide2=yes}}
{{end}}
IMHO one should a) note that in this version the Virgin services were split up into each "VTX" route, and b) the code looks nicer.
BTW here is the current Euston
Preceding station National Rail National Rail Following station
Terminus   Virgin Trains
West Coast Main Line
Intercity services 		  Watford Junction
Terminus   First ScotRail
Lowland Caledonian Sleeper 		  Watford Junction
Terminus   First ScotRail
Highland Caledonian Sleeper 		  Crewe
Terminus   Silverlink County
West Coast Main Line 		  Harrow &
Wealdstone
Terminus   Silverlink Metro
Watford DC Line 		  South
Hampstead


For a busier "s-rail" example check out Pennsylvania Station (New York City), and note the treatment of Amtrak versus local commuter services. Compare this to the other major New York terminal (Grand Central Terminal) with no intercity services.
hope that helps Pickle 09:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Railway Station signs

I have taken pictures of some railway station signs and wondered if you wanted them. One example is below. Please get back to me at User talk:ACBest Many thanks, Damon Powell ACBestMy Contributions 18:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Gainsborough Central sign.jpg

There are already some Scottish Station signs in Wikipedia.
Image:060719-1332 Img 2877.jpg
Image:PartickPartaig.jpg
I am not sure how many are already loaded onto Wikipedia. --Stewart 19:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Cool, i will load mine to the commons then ACBestMy Contributions 07:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Canals project?

Is there a sister project for canals? Andy Mabbett 22:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No? OK, is anyone interested in starting one? (Or for "UK waterways", to include navigable rivers.) Andy Mabbett 00:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. I would certainly contribute, but I don't really have the time to be a founder member... Let me know if you get something going. EdJogg 00:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I would certainly support such a proposal. "UK Waterways" is probably a good name that gives a reasonable scope for the project. Adambro 07:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, both. Please add your support at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Waterways of the United Kingdom. Andy Mabbett 14:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

UK Rail project template

This user is a member of WikiProject UK Railways

Would this be more representative, more iconic - if the image was of Rocket or some such, rather than something with more resemblance to a German ICE? Just a thought, Lynbarn 14:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought it looked vaguely like a 125. Simply south 16:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well this is what it would look like with the Rocket

File:DSCN0417-s-rocket 800x600.JPGThis user is a member of WikiProject UK Railways

Simply south 16:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)




I was thinking more of something like:

This user is a member of WikiProject UK Railways






Lynbarn 22:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The new version looks much better, nice work. Adambro 21:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
...however this icon is already used by the WP:TRAINS 'Locomotives task force', so it would not be appropriate to use to represent UKRAIL on the article project template. EdJogg 22:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Yipes! Should i revert? Simply south 00:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

What about using an image of Trevithick's Penydarren locomotive? That predates Rocket by a quarter of a century? Geof Sheppard 07:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Locomotive trevithick.jpg

Like this one from Richard Trevithick's article? EdJogg 09:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That's the fellow! Geof Sheppard 13:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)






Yes, that looks good! Lynbarn 13:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This user is a member of WikiProject UK Railways

So should i change it or does someone else want to? Link Template:User UKRail.
Simply south 16:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Done! Thanks, Lynbarn 21:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note, do you want to keep the same image on the {{TrainsWikiProject}} template, or should I update it to this new image? Is there a version with a transparent background that would work better? Slambo (Speak) 11:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
On yet another related note, does anyone have any good reason not to change the (frankly hideous) current {{UK-rail-stub}} template as well? I do realise that this is Wikipedia's "generic" rail stub logo, but the current version looks like the love-child of an APT and the Gatwick Express. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD discussions on assorted SR loco lists

There's currently an AfD discussion going on on whether to keep assorted lists of SR locos. I'm not canvassing for either side; while I personally think they should definitely be kept for reasons given on the AfD, I can see the argument for deleting them as well. As presumably the people most likely to be interested in the lists - and most likely to be in a position to give an opinion on the matter - are going to be WPUKR members/fellow travellers, you might want to take a look and say your piece one way or the other, especially given that whatever's decided here is going to have a precedent-setting knock-on effect on all other UK rail lists. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Distances between stations on route diagrams

What is an appropriate level of precision for distances between stations shown on route diagrams?

I am asking because I see from the West Coastway Line article that the distances are shown down to three decimal places, implying accuracy to one metre. I feel this degree of precision is unnecessary? Furthermore, having so many digits after the decimal point just clutters the display and makes the figures harder to read.

In the example of West Coastway Line, I changed the precision to one decimal place, implying accuracy to 100 metres which I think is fine pretty well everywhere. (An exception might be City Thameslink and Blackfriars.) However, my change was reverted.

I had taken my cue from the German Wikipedia, the originators of the drawing tool - here's an example showing the precision to one decimal place. It would be a big pity in my view if this excellent drawing tool we now have available is overused to the extent that we end up with a mass of clutter.

Anyone have any views please? --A bit iffy 17:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I've commented on the article talk page to keep the discussion in one place. Adambro 18:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
As British railways are generally measured in miles, this is the unit that I have used and with metric quarters, e.g. 0.00, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, etc.. The second decimal place is used so that the column is properly aligned. I have noticed some artciles have used miles and chains (does every reader understand "m" and "ch", I wonder?), but the template implies kilometres, although this is not mentioned in the legend. Is there a concensus on this? Geof Sheppard 07:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Miles to the quarter (as Geof uses) sounds sensible to me, its not over the top accuracy but gives a good idea to everyone of the distances. I personally have no idea what chains are, I didn't even know what "ch" stood for until now, and I'm guessing there's 100 to a mile since I've only ever seen 2 digit numbers at most. A lot of people I doubt will know what a chain is, since they're not really used in the UK as far as I am aware. --Simmo676 08:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
No real passionate opinion, but a) 3 decimal places is going OTT, b) miles and chains is how every railway line (bar the CTRL) was built (***in the UK***) Pickle 08:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I thought railway mileposts always showed to the nearest quarter mile, so there's a great deal of sense in continuing this on the routemaps. More context for the reader!
It's quite possible that there will be questions about our non-use of SI units, so I don't think we want to aggravate things by using 'archaic' units. Incidentally Tarka Line has a route map that includes distances in quarter-miles and with a suitable 'miles' column heading.
I did not know what a chain (unit) was until I looked it up recently. I was using a reference from a book published in 1980: "...the halt was sited 47 chains south of Bath Road Junction..." It turns out this is a smidgen short of 1 kilometre. (How's that for mixing units?? :o) .)
Should we mention chains in the Legend? Anyone researching is likely to be using reference books that use miles and chains, so a small note of the equivalents in miles and km would be helpful.
EdJogg 08:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I am working on a map for the L&B in which I am using miles chains from the Up terminus, with wikilinks to miles and chains in a footnote. (see here). I think it works quite well. (I should have added in a heritage railway context - Lynbarn) Regards Lynbarn 12:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Certainly for heritage lines, chains are fine - metric would look incongruous.--A bit iffy 14:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The reason that I use miles and quarters is that this is the format used on railway mileposts and in the Naetwrok Rail Timetable - an easily available and on-line reference work. Miles and chains (i.e. miles and 1/80s) are used in working timetables and in the Network Rail asset register - that is the funny number that you see painted on bridges, e.g. a structure marked FAL 1m 60ch is one mile and 60 chains (1.75 miles) along the Falmouth branch. Geof Sheppard 12:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Do the railway line maps conflict with WP:NOT?

There has been a lot of debate/reverts/revisions/edits to the Northern City Line map in recent times. Today, there has been more and I have been in discussion with Hammersfan on this (see our talk pages). Anyhow, the discussion ventured into the realms of WP:NOT, and at this point it started me thinking. The question I ask is whether the maps can be considered as violating WP:NOT#MIRROR, WP:NOT#REPOSITORY or possibly WP:NOT#INFO. I would argue that it could be easily argued, and demonstrated, that the content of the maps can be found in the public domain. Almost every train operating company in the UK publishes similar maps to that which we are producing in their timetables, and on their websites. All we are doing is replicating it on WP, which is a WP:NOT whichever way you slice it. So, if we are to keep the maps, then we need to agree first and foremost on how to avoid the WP:NOT ruling. Taking the approach of making the maps like those found on London Underground trains, then we are just replicating that. If we add more detail and show all of the junctions etc., then we are are trying to create versions of the "Quail Maps" produced by trackmaps. I think we need a clear argument for why the maps do not conflict with WP:NOT (whichever flavour you care to quote). Canterberry 17:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a detailed explanation of the legal ground in chapter 7 of Maxwell Roberts' Underground Maps After Beck. The rail companies own copyright on the style of the maps, but not on the geographic information. Transport for London (and probably other rail companies) takes the view that any diagrammatic map using a single diagonal angle is a violation of copyright; however the companies do not own copyright on the facts, and as long as a designer could show they had a clear intention to design their particular diagram from first principles, a copyvio claim would be vanishingly unlikely to be upheld (Quickmap did challenge TfL and win the right to re-draw their own version of the LU map). As none of the rail companies are losing in any way - if anything, Wikipedia's generating custom by informing people of station locations and running times - I can't imagine them objecting in any case. In fact, one could probably make a reasonable case for reproducing the "genuine" maps as fair use (although I'm not sure I'd want to be the one to try). It might be worth writing to the respective TOC's PR departments and asking them to confirm they have no objections.
As regards WP:NOT, I don't think it applies here; reprinting timetables is one thing, but the line diagrams are simply a way of saying station A follows station B & summarising what a line covers, so it's useful and hardly indiscriminate information — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Canterberry makes some valid points that are worthy of discussion, however, I think User:Iridescenti has hit the nail(s) on the head. None of the ToCs can claim copyright on the geographical arrangement of the railways of this country, and we are merely presenting this in graphical form. As for the "Quail Maps" comparisons (I have not seen the publications before)... My sources are a number of Ian Allan publications showing the full rail network, and other reference works that descibe individual lines, etc. Yes, we are reproducing the information shown by the Quail Maps, but the whole of Wikipedia is doing this in some form or other, since everything in WP must be in the public domain (or it is likely O.R.).
Interestingly, for copyright reasons we cannot use the LT roundel to indicate that a station is an interchange with Underground services. It could be argued that this policy is not actually in LT's favour, since people viewing our maps will not see the instantly recognisable symbol that advertises their product for them.
EdJogg 22:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Reproduction of material isn't the problem here. The problem is the quantity of material being produced: just because something exists doesn't mean it is encyclopaedic. If all the line diagrams are doing are showing that station A follows station B, are summarising what a line covers, are unobtrusive and do not dominate an article, then they are very useful and don't violate any part of WP:NOT. However, if they start showing every single junction, closed station, connecting line, and so on, and start taking up ludicrous amounts of space, then they are getting ridiculous. This one is quite acceptable, where as this, this or especially this are excessively detailed. Obviously a lot of hard work went into them, but some sort of guideline needs to be developed in order to avoid such over-the-top efforts being wasted in future. --RFBailey 22:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree about (for example) the Brighton Main Line one - in my opinion, two parallel lines, one with blobs and one without, take less space and are less confusing than "the line diverges into fast and slow lines north of Coulsdon; the fast lines (also known as the Quarry Lines) cross the slow lines and run partly in tunnel to a point immediately north of Redhill, whilst the slow line calls at three intermediate stations and also leads to junctions to two other passenger lines and a disused siding". I don't see how this is any different to, for example, TFL's treatment of the Metropolitan Line on their in-car diagrams - us & TfL have independently come to the same conclusion that this is the least-worst way to describe a semi-fast line. (edited to add) I probably would support taking the miles & chains off the diagrams, though — who outside the railways industry even knows what a chain is these days? Personally I think all our measurements should be in m/km to allow comparison with European networks. — iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I partially agree about distances: chains should not be included, but miles are OK, alongside kilometres, but including them both in the tables would add extra clutter. Regarding the Brighton Main Line, I wasn't claiming that the text was perfect, and showing the parallel lines through Redhill is one of the diagram's better aspects. However, because of the excessive detail elsewhere, attention drawn away from it. Some specifics I feel are unnecessary:
  • the various sidings;
  • the River Ouse crossing (maybe mentioning the viaduct would be more relevant);
  • other lines crossing the route;
  • the blue East London Line connection: just mentioning the interchange should be enough;
  • at Clapham Junction, mentioning "SWT suburban lines from Shepperton, Strawberry Hill, Hounslow, Staines, Windsor and Reading";
  • the disused stations.
Members of this project should remember that we're supposed to be writing an encyclopaedia, not a compilation of track diagrams. --RFBailey 23:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I think we're still 'finding our feet' with these maps. Fundamentally they fulfil two purposes: (i) to list the stations served by a particular train service, and (ii) to describe a section of railway line between 'A' and 'B'. For the first, a simple 'string and blobs' diagram will suffice; no closed stations, junctions or anything else. This comes closest to replicating what is provided by the TOC websites, and the nearest to violating WP:NOT. For the second, there is no harm in providing a fair amount of detail, since the interested reader may be wanting to research the history of the line, the context of particular stations/features/junctions with regard to others, or to use a printout while on a train journey so that what is seen out of the window may be understood.
Currently, closed stations in the West of England are being described on pages such as Disused railway stations (Exeter to Plymouth Line), avoiding the need to include this information on the main article map and providing a means of describing many stations that would otherwise only exist as stubs.
This is a sensible approach for a long stretch of line, where a fully-populated routemap would be overpowering. However, for shorter lines, such as the many branch lines and secondary routes, a combination of service, historical and track-layout information is justified to provide the correct context for everything and give the complete picture.
(BTW - I agree about the sidings on Brighton Main Line, that is a bit too detailed. However, indicating traction depots and freight installations, junctions and intersecting lines is not unreasonable, since they could legitimately be described within the text, and may be put in context far more easily using the map.)
EdJogg 00:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
You think the Brighton one's confusing, just wait until 2010 when we get the unified London Overground system with eight different terminii, and including the mess of disused stations, multiple renamings, flyunders and opened-closed-reopened-in-different-location junctions that constitutes the Gospel Oak to Barking Line — iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
That's precisely the problem: if we start including the level of detail I described above to something like that, then we're doomed. EdJogg is right that we're "finding our feet" (I haven't figured out the code for them yet): that's why we need guidelines for the use of these templates. But if an "interested reader" is really that interested, then there are plenty of sources (books, maps, etc.) that they can use, in addition to Wikipedia. While the diagrams are good, they are no substitute for a real map! --RFBailey 12:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Some of the problems we are describing stem from a generally poor understanding of what these Line articles are for. The Great Western Main Line, in particular, is in the middle of a phase of splitting and merging to get the right balance. Too much covered in one article clearly makes the maps too long. On the other hand, the titles and scope of each article needs to bear some resemblence to an entity that exisits outside of Wiki. Are the lines to be covered in terms of Network Rail routes and lines; with Route Utilisation Strategies; with train services; with historic cmpanies or conventions?
If we have a clear idea of the scope of the articles, then perhaps we can reach a concensus on what is included, both in the article and in the supporting maps.Geof Sheppard 12:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Major stations template

The template {{Major UK railway stations}} is growing again. Since it had a major revamp following considerable debate in April 2006, various stations have been added to it, and it's in danger of overgrowing once more. Members of the WikiProject are therefore requested to join in this discussion. --RFBailey 17:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Barnstar?

Here is a sample of one I have created:

The Rail star
{{{1}}}


Also, the train is supposed to look like it is coming out of a tunnel (might as well use the hole in the middle!) Can we decide whether to use it or not please? Thanks!! ACBestMy ContributionsAutograph Book 08:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice idea, although I would prefer a steam engine picture. Alternatively, how about a (barn-)star in the middle of a spoked wheel?
EdJogg 08:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I too would prefer a steamer, but that it isn't really globally representative, The thing that (almost) all railways have (or had) are - tracks. Maybe we should just have a pair of rails (with ties/sleepers) dissappearing into a Barnstar Tunnel... Just a thought, regards, Lynbarn 13:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

If proposing one, possibly think about placing it on Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals under as a WikiProject award proposal. Secondly, shouldthe miage be another of the old time greats? Simply south 13:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Would be an in-joke only suitable for UK use but how about the old Red Star logo... If we're going to go with a train, my vote would be with Mallard (although, surely it ought to be a Eurostar) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Can we concentrate on improving the articles, rather than self-congratulation? --RFBailey 16:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
We can do both... although there is a serious point - since there are only a limited number of major rail editors all of whom should be regulars here anyway, is there really any need for a separate award? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
A trifle harsh, I fear, RFBailey, I think I prefer to look at this as a matter of mutual appreciation, rather than self-congratulation. True, it's not necessary, but does a little thanks and recognition once in a while do any of us any harm? Regards, Lynbarn 20:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Just discovered that we do already have an official railways barnstar courtesy of our bitter rivals transatlantic collaborators WP:TWP (on WP:PUA, rather than the main barnstars page) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The Railroad Star
Well, how about that? Pretty much exactly what I had in mind (see my earlier comment! -- I had considered suggesting a connecting rod too :o) ). To be fair I had probably seen this barnstar some 6-8-10 months previously but I did not consciously recall it when I made my comment above.
If we were to have a UK star featuring a loco, it would have to be a GWR 4-6-0...
...although I'm not sure there were any GWR 4000 Class locomotives called Barn Star...
EdJogg 00:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Name changes and others

Just to inform you, i have done various page moves (5 in total) for various stations which have effectively had their names changed.

There may be other changes as well, for example improved Lakenheath services. This however does not just affect 'one'. For other changes see Changes to National Rail timtable from Sunday 20th May 2007. Simply south 20:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"Improved Lakenheath services" - that wouldn't take much! Has it risen from the current five trains per direction per week? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
7/week. Should i painstakingly list all the changes it says or leave people to check for themselves? Another example is GNER has a half-hour service proper now between Leeds and London. Simply south 20:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks on a quick skim through that the only significant changes aside from the Essex renamings are the new routes in Scotland & Wales. Although the changes to the Penzance sleeper service look dubious to me - a sleeper service where you have to change trains after 3 hours? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Rapid transit

UK rapid transit article now created. Needs heavy expansion. Rapid transit in the United Kingdom Simply south 16:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

NRT

How about we create an article on the NRT (National Rail Timetable)?

The last ever one came out last week, and i have my copy if you want any pictures.

(and by god its heavy! 3000+ pages) ACBestMy ContributionsAutograph Book 07:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this notable?? The very fact that it will no longer be produced ... implies that it is no longer relevant. I think it would make a poor article, that means nothing to most people. Canterberry 08:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree - I don't think it's a notable publication. --A bit iffy 08:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
It's certainly notable; whether we can source enough of its history to make a good article remains to be seen. Andy Mabbett 09:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd be more inclined to have a more general History of British railway timetables article. If you asked me to name a notable rail timetable, I (and I suspect most others) would immediately think Bradshaw and not the NRT — iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

As a quick aside, I'd like to get a copy for myself, but I don't see where I can purchase one online. The last issue that I've got dates to the late 1980s. Being a crazy 'Merkan, it's not carried in my local bookstores. AdThanksVance. Slambo (Speak) 15:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Slambo, I've sent you a private e-mail about that, but the latest version is available for download from Network Rail's website (not the National Rail website). In response to the discussion above, I don't think a National Rail Timetable article is viable: what would it say? --RFBailey 16:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I can see the viability of an article along the lines of the existing section in George Bradshaw, about how the format of timetables changed from Bradshaw, through the BR timetable, to the current version - but I agree that an article on the NRT would basically be a "The NRT is a timetable for National Rail" dicdef - it doesn't really have any history that I'm aware of. There might be something notable about it that I'm not aware of (the first timetable generated by computer, or something) but I'm not aware of it — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Tunnel template

{{Infobox tunnel}} may be of use. Andy Mabbett 16:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Station stubs & categories

A couple of days ago I ran a count on Category:London railway station stubs and noticed that around 75% of its members were also categorised as Category:Railway stations in London. To make the situation consistent, I did an AWB run through the remainder to add the category to the 40 or so that were missing it (aside from a couple of goods yards etc, where it wouldn't have been appropriate). However, I've noticed that some of them have since been reverted, as category duplication.

While I agree that it is technically duplicating categories, I do think it's better this way. Otherwise, in the (reasonably likely) event that an article is expanded and the {{london-railstation-stub}} tag taken off, then should the person removing the tag forget to manually add the category, the article will be left totally uncategorised (or with an inappropriate category such as Transport in Havering with no other categories to qualify it). Also, by removing the parent category it removes the station from the Railway stations in London list, which I - and I suspect a lot of others - work from; at the moment, we have an odd situation where, for example, South Acton railway station isn't listed as a London railway station.

Does anyone have any thoughts on the matter? I'm more than willing to set up an automated run through the stub category and delete the parent category from all the articles, but as I say above I don't think it's a good idea so won't do it unless there's a very strong consensus or someone has a good reason I haven't thought of. Alternately, if we do want the double-categories for the station stubs I'm more than happy to add the parent category where it's missing on station articles for the rest of the country, but again won't do it unless there's a consensus to — iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Can I have an English translation please ;-) Canterberry 18:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Translation

My vote is to keep them as Category:Railway station in... so that people looking in the category page see a full list of the stations. The Stub categories are markers for us editors to remind us that some need work on them; if people delete the Railway station in... category then they should go to the Stub category page and make that a sub category of Railway stations in.... so that you can follow a link from the main Category:Railway stations in... page (Hmm, I see what you mean about translations!)
Anyway, can I propose a different question? What are we doing about reducing the number of stub station articles? We did a clean-up to move them into regional sub-categories some time ago, but we don't seem to have reduced their number by very much. Geof Sheppard 13:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see there's any problem. It cannot be classed as category duplication because the categories are for different purposes. Category:Railway stations in London defines the articles as London stations, Category:London railway station stubs additionally identifies them as stubs. As you point out, the article could be promoted out of the stub category at any time, whereas the station category should be persistent.
I strongly suggest that you un-revert those 'duplicate category' changes, and make a note on the user talk pages concerned.
EdJogg 13:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The two categories do indeed serve different purposes, so having an article in both is not technically duplication. However, any article in Category:London railway station stubs should clearly belong to Category:Railway stations in London. If an article is expanded so that it is no longer a stub, then it should be removed from the stub category and stay in the stations category.
Incidentally, I've left a message for the user who removed the "parent category" from South Acton, although perhaps somebody ought to have done this already! --RFBailey 14:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I deliberately didn't notify them until I could see a consensus one way or the other - it might have been that I was telling them off for doing something everyone else here approved of. Since there seems to be a clear consensus here, at some point I'll add the appropriate Category:Railway stations in xxxxx for the stubs in the rest of the country that are missing it.
As regards expanding the articles, when I see one that's expandable I'll do so (see Cromer, for example), particularly if I have an appropriate book to hand, and if I see one that's missing (a surprising number, particularly the disused stations, still don't have pages - I was shocked we didn't already have Heathrow Junction) I'll create at least a stub. Unfortunately, a lot of stations will remain permanent stubs as a lot of them don't have anything more to say than opening date and operator - what is there to say about, for example, Brigg? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, well I don't know if this will help or not. The reason I removed Category:Railway stations in London from South Acton wasn't anything to so with its stub status at all. It was because it's already included in Category:London Overground stations, which is a subcategory of Category:Railway stations in London. In such a clear hierarchy of categories (Category:London Overground stations > Category:Railway stations in London > Category:Railway stations in England > etc) it seemed unnnecessary for Overground stations to be included in Railway stations in London. However, on closer examination, it looks like some London Overground stations are outside London (e.g. Watford High Street) so it looks like the London Overground stations category is not a direct subset of Railway stations in London, but an overlap. DrFrench 15:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I see. Regarding the London Overground stations by category, I don't like the idea of this: it sets a precedent for categories for stations served by each train operating company, which would always overlap considerably. (That, and the fact that some people have tremendous difficulty in deciding what a TOC actually is: see this for example.)
Regarding expansion of stub articles, it's definitely something that needs to be worked on. Iridescenti is right that some articles will never grow beyond stub status, but others will. Another problem is that some articles are beyond being a stub, but are full of cr*p. When following the link to Brigg above, I found the Barnetby article: the section about a clairvoyant predicting a train crash is terrible! Then there's also the problem (in common with a lot of railway articles), that they appear to be written "by trainspotters, for trainspotters". Everyone needs to remember that we're supposed to be writing an encyclopaedia! --RFBailey 16:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The general rule I try to follow when expanding station stubs is:
  1. Who built it?
  2. Why was it built?
  3. What's unusual about it?
  4. What's changed over its life and why?
  5. Is there anything particularly unusual about the service pattern? (eg, Reddish South and Shippea Hill are notable for the sheer weirdness of their service patterns)
  6. If it's closed, why?
The resulting article will still be stubby, but at least covers every point likely to be of interest to someone who stumbles on it through a "random article" surf.
Oddly enough, I can actually find sources for the Barnetby clairvoyant story (scroll down the article for an impressive list of references - anyone have 1980s back issues of Rail Enthusiast to check if these stories did actually appear?
As regards the categorisation, I'm working down the list of stub types; I've so far done London, Kent & East Midlands. For some areas such as Wales & Manchester, I'll just put the articles into the broader category (eg, Category:Railway stations in Greater Manchester) rather than the individual counties/boroughs as I'm not confident as to which counties/boroughs all the stations should be in — iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the translation iridescenti. It seems to have started a lively debate. Have to say that I am still not much the wiser, and whilst categorisation interests me, I am still on a learning curve. Still, at least some clever bods have put in their twopeneth. Cheers. Canterberry 19:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Regarding expanding station stubs and missing station articles, don't forget there is another valid approach: grouping them on the historical railway line article, for example: Disused railway stations (Exeter to Plymouth Line)‎
EdJogg 00:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

England and NI done; I'll have a crack at Scotland and Wales at some point. Where a child category such as Category:Disused railway stations in Somerset existed I've categorised as that alone, for everything else I've categorised as Railway Stations in.... I think we ought to have a separate {{UK-disused-railstation-stub}} template to make them easier to find (a lot of the disused station articles are in a very sorry state) - does anyone have an opinion on this? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Grand Junction Railway route map

I've started a route map at Talk:Grand Junction Railway. Feel free to improve it! Andy Mabbett 19:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me... Is there any way to colour code the sections to show dates of opening, or does it only do red? Someday, I really need to figure out how that map thingy works... — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Railway Line Articles : Suggestion for a Standard Table of Contents

<deep breath>Okay ... here is something to get your teeth into.</deep breath> I would like to suggest a Standard Table of Contents for railway line articles. I have been contributing (mainly maps) to a number of articles in the south-east and east of England, and have noticed a very wide range of ways in which the contents are organised. Some have the train service at the start, other at the end. Some begin with a history, some do not. Others have details on the infrastructure (track, signals, electrification etc.) but it is "here, there and everywhere". I would like to see the articles better organised and conforming to a Standard Table of Contents. I believe that this would make the articles more consistent, and ensure that when authors make contributions that they are more likely to put things in the right place. It will also improve readability, as readers will get familiar with the layout and know where to find information. I would not intend this be a rigid and absolute guideline, but more the help make the articles more consistent. Authors will always be able to add more headings, but hopefully in a more logical and structured way. To get an idea of what I am thinking of, take a look at the Medway Valley Line, where I have tried to re-structure it in a more logical fashion (but still a work in progress). Anyone been having similar thoughts ... or am I just barking up the wrong tree??

I would try to keep the number of sub-headings to a minimum, especially if each introduces just a sentence or two. You could look at Maritime Line for an alternative structure. Geof Sheppard 07:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Bearing in mind that the term Medway Valley Line is a modern marketing invention and is not an article about a historic railway company I happy to accept it as a sort of model for writing about railway lines. However, I don't think that we should be forced to use it when we write about the historical railway companies. Interestingly, I'm not familiar with the line, so I don't know what historical railway companies were involved in the line; and rather surprisingly the article fails to mention them other than a passing reference to electrification in 1939, by the southern railway company, and a further electrification by BR under the 1955 plan. Sorry to be unkind, but what sort of model article has no history. At least it quotes Butt, so I could use Butt to find out more about the line. Pyrotec 20:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
With respect to service pattern I would suggest that to provide a historic context, the years of operation of the service pattern is added. See Langside railway station to see what I mean. This format would easily transfer to line articles. --Stewart 22:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_3&oldid=1136046864"