Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 30

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32→Archive 35

Dates in RDTs

A contributor has been making numerous edits to Route Diagram Templates, most of which involve adding opening and/or closing dates to stations (often creating redlinks in the process by inserting the data in the wrong position). This raised the question in my mind:

  • Do station opening and/or closing dates even belong in diagrams?

This information should already be in the individual station articles, and (IMHO) if sufficiently notable to the line’s history, will also be in the main article that the diagram is for. Does anyone else have an opinion? Useddenim (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think these dates or grid references should be in diagrams. This detail should be in the station article and just clutters up the RDT making it hard to use. Britmax (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Britmax, although I didn't realise that grid refs were going in too; but in a very few cases (such as where a station has been re-sited), dates can be useful. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Certainly when a relocation involves a significant feature (e.g. on the opposite side of a junction), but the aforementioned editor has also been making edits like this and this for as little as 200 yards, or on the other side of a road crossing. Useddenim (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
See #Resited stations below.

On the other hand, such things as tunnel lengths and summit elevations—particularly when they don’t have their own articles—are certainly worthy of inclusion. Useddenim (talk) 02:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Dates are useful; they may be included. Grid refs should be confined to the station articles. Mjroots (talk) 07:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
As Paul Sidorczuk (talk · contribs) seems to have been editing in good faith, it's only fair that he should have the opportunity to see this conversation and comment. Mjroots (talk) 07:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I would also agree with Britmax. Btw, that GCML template is incorrect - the line started at Annesley South Junction; beyond to Manchester is the MS&LR part of which has its own article at Woodhead Line. Lamberhurst (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I think dates should be used where there is ambiguity - for instance there were several stations at Mangotsfield - but generally left out. Of course it depends on context. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

My response to the allegations made against me

Moved from User talk:Useddenim

You have raised a rather substantial subject matter query on this matter that has grown in length very quickly with posting comments from a number of members, that were made in response. It appears that I am the said scapegoat, so I will respond to one very specific matter that appears to form part of the accusation that has been made. It is stated that any matter of opening and closing dates should not appear upon a line template, as this information will be contained in the article itself on the railway station in question.

My response to this concerns those railway stations that do NOT have any published Wikipedia article, citing that of Dukinfield Dog Lane as an example of such a railway station that has NO article, that was only open from 1845 to 1847, but where this said date information could be useful to any railway historians.

May I ask that you be so kind as to discuss the matter with Way2veers as there is medical information about me upon his talk page amongst other items that you would find useful to discuss with him, prior to any final stricture is so to be applied to me. Howsoever, I will obviously accept any decision made by the moderators/administrators with good grace and as one who was afflicted by a major stroke at the age of 67 in July 2012 and a subsequent mini-stroke some ten months ago, where stress is a matter to be most guarded against, I hope to reach the age of 70 in April 2015 without any further medical problems than can be caused by matters such the stress caused to me by the matter in hand.

Paul Sidorczuk (talk) 10:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Paul Sidorczuk: As I said above, your editing seems to have been in good faith. Editing in good faith, even if it creates problems, is not something an editor will be censured for. There may be discussion (as here), but nobody is looking to see you prevented from participating in editing or discussing issues arising in the normal course of editing.
Take a look at {{Hastings Line}}, where you will see that dates are given for the opening and closing of Mountfield Halt. Note the way that they are presented. It will be a very rare case that dates will be needed in the title of a railway station article. Now that you are aware of this, then as long as you learn from the mistake there will be no need for any further action. We generally like to get along together here, so feel free to contribute as much as you are able. Mjroots (talk) 17:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed page moves

Agree wholeheartedly but my experience has been that a "softly, softly" approach works better as submissions in bulk lead to greater visibility and objections against one being copied across the lot. One solution could be to have a paragraph in the naming convention dealing with the issue. However, there is a conflict with the WP:London convention, although consensus indicates that the UK stations convention should prevail. Lamberhurst (talk) 20:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Travel advice, again

We have a new user, Railway56 (talk · contribs), who despite reverts by myself and others, insists on including travel advice in station articles, such as the best place to change trains. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Same user is now saying that advice on the fastest London-Reading trains is "vital travel information" at South West Trains. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
If I revert this, Railway56 (talk · contribs) will simply revert me again. What should we do here? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Westbourne Park

Just wondering, what was Westbourne Park station's three-letter abbreviation under British Rail? -mattbuck (Talk) 15:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Station infoboxes up for deletion

People here may recall Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 March 2#UK + GB station infoboxes. Two GB station infoboxes not discussed at that time, {{Infobox closed London station}} and {{Infobox T&W Metro station}}, are now up for TfD, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 October 24#Template:Infobox closed London station and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 October 24#Template:Infobox T&W Metro station. The same TfD page has several other rail-related templates. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

British Rail Class 55

I get the feeling that British Rail Class 55 is turning into a preservationist's blog and fansite. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. The sections on "Preservation" and "Operation after BR withdrawal" seem very light on references and go on a bit... The earlier section on Replacement is already marked as needing more references. It was interesting to see that GB RailFreight have been hiring one of the locomotives until quite recently. Robevans123 (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Lea Valley Lines

How can Clapton and Queens Road both be at 3 miles 78 chains on the same line? Useddenim (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't find evidence for a station called Queen's Road. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I have evidence of a station at that location called Queens Road. According to Brown (2006) it did not open. I think when creating the map, I did that distance by mistake. I'll correct the map. Simply south ...... sitting on fans for just 8 years 16:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:UK Railways articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Quintinshill centenary less than seven months away

Quintinshill rail disaster is B-Class. Can we get it to FA-class in time to be WP:TFA on 22 May 2015, that being the 100th anniversary of the accident? Discuss at Talk:Quintinshill rail disaster#Centenary TfA? please. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Rugby and Stamford Railway

A few years ago I proposed on the talk page of the Rugby and Stamford Railway article, that it would make more sense to merge the article into a wider Rugby to Peterborough Line article, which included the later cut off line to Peterborough, since that was the main line for most of the history of the line. But the person who wrote it objected. I forgot about it until now, but I thought I'd raise it again here to see if anyone had an opinion. G-13114 (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The line to Peterborough is already covered in the Northampton and Peterborough Railway. The Rugby & Stamford has a particular place in the railway history of this area. For these reasons, I would have a preference for keeping the article as is. Lamberhurst (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually it's not, there was a connecting line between Wansford and Seaton which was the main line for nearly a century, which isn't covered anywhere, the original route was only the main line for about 25 years, and the original company only existed for a few years before being absorbed by the LNWR. If we created a separate Rugby to Peterborough Line article it would duplicate much of this article which would be a bit pointless. G-13114 (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Looking at both articles, I can't see anything missing; it's possible to identify from the RDTs where one line joins the other. Another point worth mentioning is that it wasn't just a Rugby-Peterborough line, it formed part of the LNWR goods network feeding (notably coal) traffic from the joint line. Lamberhurst (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
There was a cut off line opened in the 1870s, which became the main line, while the original route from Seaton to Stamford became a branch line. The cut off line had three stations; Wakerley and Barrowden railway station, King's Cliffe railway station and Nassington railway station. G-13114 (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Station identification

The photo at right depicts (probably) an Arriva Trains Wales Class 158 at an unidentified station. The original gives no guidance on the location. Any takers? Mackensen (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep I've tracked it down: The destination board on the train says Birmingham International, that was a big clue. Secondly, the cyan colour scheme of the station is commonly used on stations in Wales. That was another big clue. So I've tracked it down to Tywyn railway station on the Cambrian Coast Line. Your picture matches up with this one. G-13114 (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Alternatively, follow the youtube link in the file description. The video is titled "Brel Class 158 No 158127 approaching Tywyn Station" - Same station, different unit. Robevans123 (talk) 08:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Locomotive weights - tons and cwt

Conversation moved to Template_talk:Long_ton#Locomotive_weights_-_tons_and_cwt Robevans123 (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The "Where Am I?" game again

Where am I? -mattbuck (Talk) 11:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Wimbledon - View taken from Platform 9, looking towards London. Train for Woking is on Platform 8. The line via Tooting is in the background, as is the former 1948 built art-deco style signal box (Wimbledon A). - 198.51.225.25 (talk) 12:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou unidentified person. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, how about this one? -mattbuck (Talk) 09:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
This one is definitely one of the stations on the Yerkes lines - the tiling is distinctive. The colour/pattern combination (broadly-spaced double black verticals, single black horizontals, white background) will be unique to one station. Now searching... --Redrose64 (talk) 12:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Elephant & Castle has the right colours (see File:ELEPHANT CASTLE-5 150210 CPS (4363460054).jpg) but the wrong pattern. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Could it be Warren Street (was Euston Road)? See Euston Road. Trouble is there's been a lot of retiling, not always matching the originals, and possibly done less faithfully in the walkways than on the platforms. Robevans123 (talk) 13:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I would suggest that it is a station on the Piccadilly Line to judge by the dark blue colour surrounding the top of the stairway leading to the platforms. 198.51.225.25 (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
No, I'm pretty certain that it's the Northern Line - the green colour visible around where the people are in the background is something that I strongly associate with the Morden extension stations. The line maps near them also look to be black topped too. We are looking at a crossroads of passages, and there aren't many stations that have that. Kennington would be my guess, but I'm not certain. Thryduulf (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
It looks like the current station is 9-10 stations from, including, the terminus. Stockwell? Piccadilly wouldn't work at the other ends and I don't think either Kings Cross or Caledonian Road work either. If we're doing Northern, what the passages at Kentish Town look like? Simply south ...... sitting on fans for just 8 years 20:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
From memory, there are no long horizontal passages at Kentish Town (the platforms are on different vertical levels). Thryduulf (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
How about Stockwell? Simply south ...... sitting on fans for just 8 years 12:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Not Stockwell. The interchange passage there has Victoria Line not Northern Line design. [1][2] I'm still thinking Kennington, as other parts of that station have the blue colour, but I've not yet found a clear picture of the interchange passage (I'd go and look myself if I wasn't ill). Thryduulf (talk) 13:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Other London Underground locations

Here are some other locations that need identifying. Some easy, some hard, some impossible and one that makes you shudder. Simply south ...... sitting on fans for just 8 years 20:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Identified

Tour of Victorian railway works

Hi, I'd like to inform everyone interested that our South Coast Meetup in Eastleigh, Hampshire on 23 November 2014, includes a free tour of the Victorian railway carriage and wagon works. The tour starts at 2pm (meetup earlier at pub across road from Eastleigh railway station).

I do hope you can make it. -- Marek.69 talk 01:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd love to, but unfortunately I have made plans for that day. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
@Mattbuck: I've found that there is an apologies list, which is probably a good place for your reply. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Resited stations

Stations in the Portskewett area

Moved from User talk:Useddenim

May I refer you to your recent reversion of my edit on both the Gloucester and Newport line template and the South Wales Railway template where I showed both of the stations that so existed there. I am fully aware that a comment has been made about settlement railway station sites constructed at different time periods that are in close proximity to each other on a recent discussion forum, but to my way of thinking, a distance of some 800 yards between the two sites at Portskewett is well outside that stated distance parameter.

You might well ask where I found the information that I used as a basis for my edit that you so reverted. I refer you to the Wikipedia article on Portskewett station in which the body text matter in the said article states....Between 8 September 1863 and 1886 the station was known as Portskewett Junction. The new station was at a location 800 yards east of the original location.

May I ask if you consider what I have said about the matter, noting that it was from a published Wikipedia article that was the required published source, and ask if I have submitted enough information that could cause your reversion edit to be so corrected, I note a precedent was set within the last week when my edit of Plas Power, subsequently reverted by you incorrectly as matter revealed from the evidence that I submitted, was then subsequently reverted back to what I had edited in the first place.

Paul Sidorczuk (talk) 09:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Even though a half-mile could be considered a significant distance (especially if one is walking to the station), it still only represents 1% of the 50-mile length of this line. In general I would be inclined to not show a topologically-identical resiting that is less than a couple of miles or a noticeable percentage of the line length, but in this case (assuming that I read the Portskewett railway station article correctly), it involved a move from at the junction to some distance away. Useddenim (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I am personally with Paul on this one. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I guess I didn’t make myself clear: when I updated the template today I restored Portskewett (original location)/Portskewett Junction to the diagram. Useddenim (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I just meant that to me that distance is enough to have both on the diagram. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Why not look at the sources? The obvious one is Richard Smith's Portskewett Railways (not bad, but it's annoying to have to buy two volumes to get a 1½ volume overall with a lot of duplication between them). This gives, "the station was relocated ½ mile east as Portskewett Junction and the branch to Portskewett Pier was added." The reason why is obvious: the first station was on the west side of the road bridge to Southbrook Farm, which the branch would then have to cut through, and as there was only little investment in the station so far it was simply easier to relocate it wholesale.
On a topographical map or as a history, this matters. On a purely topological route diagram, I can't see justification for it and it makes the route map needlessly more complex. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
One thing that is missing from the route map is the (closed) line to Blackrock Pier and the ferry to England. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: - fix it then! Mjroots (talk) 07:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to first discuss just what it needs fixing to. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Rishton railway station and its two station sites… a report on my visit made to the location to resolve a query.

Moved from User talk:Useddenim

Noting the recent discussions that have occurred on different locations of railway station in a settlement area, the matter of railway station sites in Rishton gleaned from a reading of the Wikipedia article on Rishton railway station poses a question worthy of discussion.

In that Wikipedia article, it makes reference to the first station site being situated in the area where the railway crosses Blackburn Road, whereas the currently open station now existing is at the end of Station Road. Noting the requirements of proof of clarity where template editing is involved, I took the opportunity today to make the journey to Rishton railway station and to evaluate the distance between the two railay sites involved. I must inform you that the distance involved is well over one mile. I felt that the rail ticket expense was worth paying in order to actually make a physical evaluation rather than just making reference to online maps.

Obviously the template on the East Lancashire line should most certainly incorporate an entry for the original closed station location of the first Rishton station because of the physical distance involved, but if such an amendment were to be made, I would obviously now prefer it to be done by someone of your status.

Paul Sidorczuk (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I decided to revert Paul Sidorczuk's addition today of [[Rishton railway station (1st site)|Rishton (1st station site)]] to {{East Lancashire Line}} on the grounds that it doesn't change the order of stations on the line. The relocation can certainly be mentioned in the station article (with a reliable source) and maybe in the line article too, but there seems little point in adding it to the diagram, in my opinion. -- Dr Greg  talk  19:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

British station pages moves

Just seen a number of page moves requested from "Foo railway station, Fooshire" to "Foo (Fooshire) railway station" on the ground that the national rail enquiry uses that form as a disambiguator and the argument I believe is that makes the name official. I looked at Seaford railway station, East Sussex and as far as I can see the station itself and the train operator southern dont use the construct Foo (Fooshire) so we are really introducing an artifical construct which doesnt follow normal convention. I would agree some of the stations should be moved but not to Foo (Fooshire). Has the project had a discussion and consensus on the Foo (Fooshire) naming? MilborneOne (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

We should have a serious discussion on what is accepted and what is not on the naming conventions. Simply south ...... sitting on fans for just 8 years 17:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
In recent move discussions (see for example Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 29#Station disambiguation (June 2014) and those linked from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 30#Proposed page moves), the name pattern "Xtown (Yshire) railway station" has been favoured. Today, Crookesmoor (talk · contribs) moved Cranbrook (Devon) railway station to Cranbrook railway station (Devon), without discussion. Its name was previously discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 27#Cranbrook railway station (Devon). Should it be moved back? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I thought it might be better to have Cranbrook RS (currently a disambiguation page) for the under construction Devon station and Cranbrook RS (Kent) for the closed Kent station. Crookesmoor (talk) 14:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I think this has partly been based on practicality - we use the {{stnlnk}} (and equivalent) templates a lot, and they will always link to "X railway station", so "X (disambiguant) railway station" is easier than "X railway station (disambiguant)". That said, we should always defer to NR where they make disambigations (eg Newport (Essex) railway station); and following the pattern they set out seems sensible. If there is a current station named X and a disused station named X, the current should be the main article, the old one disambiguated. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Practicality is a secondary consideration - where two stations with the same name are both currently in use we use the "Place (county) railway station" naming format because that is what Network Rail, National Rail and therefore the TOCs use when they need to disambiguate. If one station is open and the other closed, then the open station will almost always be the primary topic and the closed one should take a disambiguator - normally the official one if there was one. The "Place railway station, County" or "Place railway station (county)" should only be used if there was no official disambiguator and nothing better like the company would work. Thryduulf (talk) 15:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I can think of two recent examples where none of the above would work. Bathgate and Drumgelloch. Simply south ...... sitting on fans for just 8 years 15:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
@Crookesmoor: your comment "I thought it might be better to have Cranbrook RS (currently a disambiguation page) for the under construction Devon station" might be valid, if you had moved Cranbrook railway station to Cranbrook railway station (disambiguation) and then moved Cranbrook (Devon) railway station to Cranbrook railway station - but instead, you left the dab page alone, and moved the under-construction station to Cranbrook railway station (Devon). --Redrose64 (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
OK no problem. Crookesmoor (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I would have preferred waiting until National Rail created an entry for the station on its website. If it was without a disambiguator, the Buxton approach would seem to apply, i.e. without any disambig as it is the primary topic. In other cases, with a (Devon) or other disambiguator, it would be "Place (county) railway station".
@Simply south: As for Bathgate and Drumgelloch, these are exceptional cases discussed here before where a new station has the same name as an old station and is located sufficiently far enough away to merit separate articles. These will not arise often and the method of disambiguation chosen (year of opening of old station) appears to have worked. Lamberhurst (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Two-axle railway coaches

I have added a Commons:Category:Two-axle railway coaches (and Three-axle). Most attention has been given to locomotives but railway coaches also need classification.Smiley.toerist (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

In the UK, the usual terms were four-wheel and six-wheel. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
@Smiley.toerist: Please be careful how you categorise coaches. I've found a lot that you put in c:Category:Two-axle railway coaches that clearly had three or even four axles. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Former LNWR station? (second try)

There was a discussion three years ago in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 21#Former LNWR station?. Maybe new people have inspiration. Out of the old discussion I place this in 1900 - 1910.Smiley.toerist (talk) 16:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The emerging conclusion was Crewe, which I support. Comparison of the columns supporting the roof appear to be identical if you look at modern day pictures. I concur with the view that this is a view from the southern end of Crewe station looking north. If you were there today, the train would be a Pendolino bound for London. - Bethayres (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I think it was probably Crewe, if you compare it to this modern photograph taken from a similar position, and look closely at the pillars and lattice work. Although I would guess that old photo was taken in the 1890s prior to the 1902 expansion. G-13114 (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
If it is before 1902, it would probably be another type of engine as proposed. The gasligth and type of railway coaches would probably place it in the 1890s.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why it should be another type of loco. It has the front-end that is characteristic of the Webb four-cylinder compounds, which first appeared in 1897 in the shape of the "Jubilee" class that I mentioned previously. That's the earliest possible date. Most of the 4-cylinder compound locos (both "Jubilee" and the slightly larger "Alfred the Great" classes) were rebuilt as 2-cyl simple ("Renown" class) by the end of 1924, and the last remaining unrebuilt compounds ("Alfred the Great" class) were withdrawn in 1928. That's the latest possible date.
Of the other features that you mention, the LNWR used six-wheel coaches in significant numbers right down to the end - the last were built circa 1911; the LMS inherited a huge fleet of them (and not just from the LNWR), so the latest possible date is again some time in the 1920s, based mainly on the absence of LMS livery. Gas lighting on stations was by no means unusual, even in the 1920s: the last gas-lit station (Ilkley) was not converted to electric lighting until 1988. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
If you look at the modern photo you can see the raised roof area covering the footbridge, and the platform canopy extension, both of which were most probably added in 1902 when the Crewe station was enlarged, if you look at this old photograph from 1881 it shows Crewe station in it's pre-1902 state. So I think we can be pretty certain about the station. If that loco was in service in 1897 in the earliest as Redrose says then it would date it to somewhere between 1897-1902. So I think that wraps it up then. Crewe station between 1897 and 1902. G-13114 (talk) 16:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I updated the Commons. I could not find the precise engine subcategory if it exists. The next step is to rename the file. Suggestion: Crewe station around 1900.Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Rename notification

British Rail Class ES1 is up for rename again, see Talk:British Rail Class ES1#Rename to LNER Class ES1?. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Where am I?

Class 20 passing Steetley Colliery, date unknown.

This photo shows a Class 20 with a coal service passing Steetley Colliery, which as I understand it was just south of Worksop. This picture would have been taken before 1983 and the route was freight-only. It's now been re-activated as the Robin Hood Line, but using that name for this picture would I think be inaccurate. What was this line called at that time? Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 14:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

London Underground/railway stations

Someone has edited the List of busiest railway stations in Great Britain‎ and is insisting that it mentions that London Underground stations are excluded, Here‎. Do London underground stations count as being 'railway stations'? I thought they would be metro stations or something, so does this need mentioning? What do other people think? By the way the busiest London Underground stations have their own list already. G-13114 (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Is there a guildeline about whether "data" is singular or plural. I always use it as singluar (or a mass noun) so the change to use it is a plural looks utterly horrible - but is that just my personal taste? Thryduulf (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion data can only ever be plural, never singular. You can't have "a data", unless you are referring to the android. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I was speaking grammatically ("This data shows" vs "These data show") rather than the actual thing. In my book you have "data" (grammatically singular mass noun) comprising a "data point" (singular count noun) or multiple "data points" (plural count noun). Thryduulf (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't answer my question. G-13114 (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
It's Latin. Depending on the context, data can be either singular or plural; see wikt:data#Latin. When singular, it's feminine and the plural is datae; when plural, it's neuter and the singular is datum. See these declensions. For our purposes, treat it as neuter and so data is the nominative plural of datum. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Except this is the English Wikipedia not the Latin one! Thryduulf (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Ohh, right. Well in that case I consider that "this data" is preferable. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

So are London Underground stations 'railway stations' or aren't they? Which was my question. G-13114 (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Imho, "railway stations" in this context means national rail stations, so tube stations wouldn't be railway stations unless they have a national rail interchange. Lamberhurst (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
That's what I thought too. G-13114 (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I would be happy to support a proposal to move this page to List of the busiest National Rail stations in Great Britain or similar. Lamberhurst (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Good idea. Leave it out of the text, get it into the title, happy happy. And I support "this data" too. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd support that move too. Thryduulf (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

If we talk about railway stations in general, heritage stations would also be included but usage in them can't really be measured. Separately, I'm wondering if "List of the busiest National Rail stations in Great Britain" is rather redundant seeing as National Rail only refers to Great Britain. Therefore List of the busiest National Rail stations? Simply south ...... sitting on fans for just 8 years 12:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Well "national rail" sort of sounds like it just refers to rail within a nation. I think the GB bit is probably useful. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

In what way is the London Underground network not a railway? Railwayfan2005 (talk) 09:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It is a railway, but they are referred to as tube stations. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Routeboxes: bus services

Do we want to include bus services in routeboxes? See e.g. Farnham railway station#Services and Bordon railway station#Services. Personally, I would say no, since they are not rail services. If they are to be kept, I would still say that we should exclude services that no longer run (like that Stagecoach service on the Bordon article), because since 1986, bus routes have come, changed shape, and gone again like mayflies. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that occasionally bus services would be suitable for inclusion, and I say that the easiest way of determining which are suitable is ticketing - if you can buy a rail ticket to travel on the service it should be included, if you have to buy a bus ticket (including plus bus) then it should not be. Thryduulf (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
It's more than occasionally: the Plusbus scheme covers an awful lot of stations which would have to have routeboxes added to them if we're going to go down this route. I'm with Redrose on this one. Lamberhurst (talk) 13:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Don't include buses unless it's a rail replacement "we can't be bothered to close the station we just won't run any trains to it" thing. Buses should be mentioned on the station article, as a "bus routes X Y and Z" serve the station, possibly with detail saying where they go, but certainly no succession boxes. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
What Mattbuck says is what I was trying to say! Thryduulf (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
The concept of "rail replacement" covers not only the Norton Bridge situation where the station is not officially closed but served by buses (not provided by the TOC), but also the far more common scenario where a line or station is closed for works. This second situation has been considered here as non-encyclopaedic. I would therefore limit references to two situations: (1) the Norton Bridge case, and (2) where the TOC is organising regular non-transient bus services itself. In both cases, a succession box is not needed. Lamberhurst (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Disused stations

Lelant Wharf railway station

Does anybody have any evidence for the existence at any time of a station named Lelant Wharf? It's not mentioned in Butt, nor in MacDermot; although I can find a Lelant Quay on the St Ives branch - 1 mile 8 chains from the junction at St. Erth, according to MacDermot. This one isn't in Butt, so presumably was a goods station. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Quick only has Lelant (Lelant Halt between 1958 and 1969). A look at the 6" map on the NLS site shows that at some point there was a siding some hundreds of metres long from the station down to the wharf but it appears to have been cut right back by 1913. This link might help, see the section on Dynamite Quay. Nthep (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Additional - this report mentions the railway as well, see figure 1 and text. Nthep (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Here's a link to a 1940s 6" OS map at library of scotland [3]. It does show a branch to the wharf and some buildings,but not marked as a station as such. Robevans123 (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
No such station, goods or otherwise, in {{Clinker-Stations}}. Lamberhurst (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Queen's Road

In any edition of Brown's London Railway Atlas, there is a disused railway station that did not open located between tunnels south of Clapton station. However, I can't seem to find info on it anywhere else. There have been previous discussions on whether it existed here and here. Simply south ...... sitting on fans for just 8 years 20:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's mentioned in {{Quick-Stations}}, p. 324, as a Great Eastern station "built between Hackney Downs and Clacton" about 1894 but never provided with service." This is confirmed by Croughton & Kidner's Private and Untimetabled Railway Stations, p. 148, which gives the grid reference TQ346858. Lamberhurst (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

What am I?

I just won an ebay auction, and while the first image is consistent with the driver's compartment as shewn in plate 99 of Bruce's Tube trains under London[1], the second is most certainly not any sort of London Underground carriage. Any suggestions? Useddenim (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ Bruce, J. Graeme (1979). Tube trains under London (2nd ed.). London: London Transport. p. 100. ISBN 0-85329-095-4.
It's nothing British. There is an advert visible through the open door, it has "ja" in big red letters: could be German, or perhaps Austrian. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Or Swiss. Or Danish or Swedish or Norwegian or Dutch. -- Alarics (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
It could be ja. But I recall these chaps having a poster with a lower case j that used that font, and we can't see much of it. Britmax (talk) 10:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes; but I was basing my "nothing British" on the general styling of the train body, livery, and the exposed seat framing. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
You're probably right: for example, my first instinct that it was a Pacer was stymied by the wrong shape and the doors being in the wrong place. All this is Born of Frustration, and I'll have to Sit Down. Britmax (talk) 10:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
My guess is that the EMU isn't British - the way the platform is marked out doesn't look right to me. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Note also the non-British platform clock reflected in the train side. -- Alarics (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Infoboxes

I know a lot of people might not agree with my idea, but I plan on experimenting on a new UK infobox to replace the current 5 that cover stations in the UK. I know above all things need to be kept simple at the same time as including all information. I am just seeing if I can make it work. Any feedback/ideas would be helpful! Mark999 (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mark999: Could you please hold back on that for a bit, because there are some TfDs going through at the moment which could affect some of these. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
What is going through at the moment? Mark999 (talk) 00:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Have a look here, you'll find a whole bunch of stuff. Lamberhurst (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
What the Article Alerts page doesn't say is that {{Infobox GB station}} is itself one of the possible merge candidates. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Rolling stock of the Bluebell Railway

I was looking through the history of this page, and found a series of edits between 15th and 18th Dec 2014 by 81.99.47.184. At first I thought it might be the work of the same editor mentioned four posts above (series of deletions), but doing a diff and looking at the editor's other contributions, the changes are rather different. In trying to make the photos appear bigger they've changed "thumb" to "200px" throughout but also deleted all the photo captions at the same time (no clue as to whether this was a style choice or clumsy editing). Looking at an earlier version the captions seem useful. In amongst this series of edits, there are also some text edits that seem reasonable.

Not sure if all the edits should be reverted, left as they are, or photos & captions reverted but text changes maintained? If the third option, is there an easy way to do this? Robevans123 (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Since the images are all inside tables that have borders, the |thumb option was a bad choice in the first place (to see how bad this can look, see Mid-Norfolk Railway). If |thumb was only used in order to display a caption (see e.g. Swanage Railway), then no captions should be necessary, since the other columns in the same row of these tables should provide all the information that would otherwise be in a caption. The only point that I would make about the present image formatting is that |200px is perhaps too large - similar tables for other preserved railways normally have smaller images - such as |175px (Great Central Railway, Isle of Wight Steam Railway); |150px (Kent & East Sussex Railway, North Yorkshire Moors Railway) or even |120px (North Yorkshire Moors Railway). --Redrose64 (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the variety of examples - very useful. After having my head stuck into checking a number of (other) edits that seemed to pointlessly remove stuff, I immediately worried about seeing captions removed, but of course in a table there should be no need for them. Swanage Railway would be greatly improved if the captions were moved into the text boxes (and expanded a bit...). I'll have a go at trying different image widths on the Bluebell stock page sometime soon. Of course, it wont work for all displays (which is why I experimented with using percentage column widths for the table at GWR_5700_Class#Preservation). Robevans123 (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
On that last point, if tables have column widths specified, it's not a good idea to set all the widths, even if they add up to 100% - browsers aren't compelled to use the specified width, they might adjust it up or down. At least one column should always have an unspecified width, this allows the others to get as close as possible to the desired values and leave some flexibility. It's also not a good idea to fill a column of relative width with items of absolute width - in the case of that particular table, on my 1280px monitor I see a blank space to the right of each image, because the "Photo" column width is set as 15% and the individual images are set as 150px - I would remove the width specifier from the "Photo" column. I would also remove it from the "Notes" column, to give the flexibility that I mentioned without forcing that flexibility into a column that isn't suited for any width that doesn't come out as 150px plus padding. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks - I'd forgotten I had the 150px settings on the individual photos. Removed the Notes and Photos column percentages and it still looks the same for me! Hope it's better for you (and others). Robevans123 (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is; previously the column was 164-wide, that being approximately 15% of 1083px, the full table width. Now, the 150-wide pics sit snugly in a 156-wide column (2px each side is the default padding; 1px is the border) - I'm not sure where the extra 1px came from, but as I say, browsers will adjust column widths where necessary. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Just a note to say that I created the list with images at 150px. Plenty big enough to see without dominating the page. Mjroots (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
That would be this version... and the images do not have set sizes, all are |thumb which is 220px by default. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I must be getting old, memory seems to be failing. Anyhow, my comments re 150px still hold. Mjroots (talk) 12:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Long-running IP problem edits

Please take a look at Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 86.173.93.252

This is a series of edits from an anon editor in Lincolnshire. They consist of either trivial changes or else unsourced and frequently clearly wrong changes of fact. There is a pattern of long-term sneaking in of incorrect information: change #1 is tiny, a month later the larger change #2 happens and is justified on the basis of an incorrect fact snuck in with #1. See LMS Princess Coronation Class 6233 Duchess of Sutherland for an example.

Many, many warnings. No discussion. Zero discussion. Some rare comments in edit summaries, some URLs in edit summaries (these don't support the changes being made either).

Early examples, start of November, were here Special:Contributions/86.149.189.107 where it follows a pattern of section blanking and a summary " i have irased some non real information" Since then it has become more subtle.

Latest identity's edits are here: Special:Contributions/109.149.175.68

More eyeballs please. I would raise this as ANI but it's likely to get the, "This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit" or the "That edit looks OK to me here in Idaho" responses. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Also worth taking a look at Special:Contributions/86.143.46.87. Just undid a series of edits on GWR 5700 Class, but there are some edits on other pages that look similar to previous targets, like LMS Princess Coronation Class 6229 Duchess of Hamilton. All seem plausible at first glance, but never supported by references. Robevans123 (talk) 22:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the latest IP and used the mass rollback script on their edits (if anyone wants to restore any of them, feel free). @Andy Dingley and Robevans123: It might be useful if you could come up with a full list of their known IPs and favourite targets for tracking and identification and so that admins can calculate rangeblocks if necessary (though even excluding the 109 IP, a rangeblock that would catch all the IPs mentioned here would involve blocking most of BT! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
86.143.46.87 seems to be back as Special:Contributions/109.153.177.97. Again, they seem plausible, even possibly true, but unsupported by references, and of the WP:IDONTLIKEIT variety... Robevans123 (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Blocked. All but two of their edits appear to have been reverted, so I'll leave those two to your discretion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks HJ. Still working out what to with the remaining two... sigh... Robevans123 (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/86.143.46.87 was back again tonight. Andy Dingley's reverted most of the edits. I've done a second revert on The Titfield Thunderbolt (unsourced list of locos in film). Oddly, last edits on Somerset and Dorset Joint Railway and List of GWR 4073 Class locomotives were some perfectly sensible wikilinks. They appear to have been finished for the night, but on past experience, watch out for a possible session Saturday and/or Sunday either late afternoon or evening. Still working on a list of usual targets and known addresses. @HJ Mitchell: - where should I post it? Robevans123 (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

This works fine. I've blocked the IP for a month. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Our mystery editor seems to be back as Special:Contributions/86.162.159.142 ("you will accsept what i have done" and "leave my editing alone"). Some very similar looking edits that have been reverted many times before... I'd suggest doing a mass revert when they've finished for the night. It is taking too long to check if there is any merit in these edits. Robevans123 (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Article titles for early UK diesel classes?

What format do we want here, at the top of the infobox?

  • North British Type 2 diesel-electric, British Railways Class 21
  • North British Type 2 diesel-electric,
    British Railways Class 21
  • North British Type 2 diesel-electric
    British Railways Class 21

This is re: Special:Contributions/77.71.250.60 and some recent changes. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Certainly not the first one, that implies that it was all one name to a certain degree. I'm not bothered by either option two or three; both of those would work fine for me. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that other locomotives use the br tags for separators, be them steamers, electrics, or MUs. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Just use British Railways Class 21. The builder info follows further down in the table anyway. -- André Kritzinger (talk) 14:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Because of the way the tenders for these locos were issued, the two-part naming is crucial and needs to be preserved at the very top of thee article. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Option 3 is my preference. But would it be slightly better using {{plainlist}} rather than <br>? Better for accessibility. Robevans123 (talk) 16:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
As Robevans123 notes, accessibility considerations mean that some form of list is preferable to the <br /> tag. Either {{plainlist}} or {{ubl}} would be suitable. Going with Andy Dingley for a moment - how would we handle e.g. Class 40 and Class 50? Both were English Electric Type 4. But that aside, it's not always a good idea to put the manufacturer in the top cell: some classes (e.g. Class 08, Class 52, Class 56) were built at two or more BR works; some classes (e.g. Class 47) were built by both BR workshops and by outside contractors. Class 25 was built at BR Darlington, BR Derby, and Beyer-Peacock. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
The "Sodor Works Type 6" line belongs when they were designed by such a works, to meet one of the BTC contracts. So the 40s and 50s both belong with EE Type 4, as that's what they were. The TOPS class is there as a disambig (although why was it 50 rather than 49?). 08s are broadly pre-war, let alone pre-'55. Others weren't designed by one builder to meet a BTC Type spec, so shouldn't have a second name form. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Project banner?

Does this project need a project banner for article talk pages?

Or otherwise, does the |UK=yes on the {{TWP}} Trains project box need work, so that it actually does something obvious? Take a look at British Rail for an obvious example. As it is, this project just isn't getting linked from where it ought to be. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? It shows the appropriate message ("This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (marked as Top-importance)."), displays a suitable portal box ("UK Railways Portal"), and puts it in two cats (Category:B-Class UK Railways articles, Category:Top-importance UK Railways articles). --Redrose64 (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
What's wrong with it is that it only shows those links (and yes, those are the links I'm after) if you click the "Show" button. I just hadn't noticed that first time round.
So, to rephrase the question - should these project links be hidden behind a show/hide? It fooled me. I'm familiar with these subtle buttons, but I never expected to see one in a header box like this. If an editor is unaware that there's a "UK trains", not just "Trains", then would they be expecting there to be anything more to be revealed? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
The task forces etc. in {{WikiProject Trains}} are collapsed into "Associated projects or task forces:" when there are more than two; Talk:British Rail has three. Since this behaviour is not specific to WikiProject UK Railways, it's a matter for Template talk:WikiProject Trains, or perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains. The template can be modified so that collapsing occurs at a higher limit, by adjusting the parameter |COLLAPSED=0 - if this is altered to |COLLAPSED=1, collapsing will occur when there are more than three; |COLLAPSED=2 would collapse when there are more than four, etc. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Use of internal documents as valid sources

Could I request an independent opinion on the validity of some references please? Andrew4047 (talk · contribs) has made some updates to Talyllyn Railway regarding the operation of the line, and has replaced the existing references (to a book by David Potter, published in 1990) with internal operating instructions for the railway (see latest diff). My interpretation of WP:SOURCE would exclude internal documents as a reliable source, since they have not been "made available to the public in some form". As far as I am aware, the operating practices on the Talyllyn have not changed substantially since 1990, and the references in Potter seem to bear out the updates that Andrew4047 has made, so I fail to see why he is insistent on removing them However I have no wish to get into an edit war about this, hence I am seeking alternative opinions. Many thanks. Optimist on the run (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I am sure they would count as unpublished documents and as WP:SOURCE says "Unpublished materials are not considered reliable". MilborneOne (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
They almost certainly do not satisfy the policy on verifiability. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Is it worth asking him to make the document available on the Talyllyn's website? Lamberhurst (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Why not just keep both cites? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
As consensus seems to be that these are not reliable sources, I'm of the opinion that they should be removed altogether. Optimist on the run (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
There is no reason why all sources have to meet WP:RS. We are required to use RS (and these have to meet RS) to WP:Verify anything contentious. However for supplementary information we don't have to go that far. RS isn't a blanket ban on non-RS sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Right, I am a current operating volunteer on the Railway holding various grade cards in both the locomotive and traffic departments. I edit the Talyllyn Railway page on behalf of the Talyllyn Railway (although i am doing it off my own back). I keep deleting your references due to them being out of date. The edits I am making are due to incorrect facts, such as the statement on the page which says "The line is worked by Electric Key tokens" not entirely it isn't no. The top end of the line is worked by Staff and Tickets. It is my intention to give true and correct facts about the Talyllyn Railway, irrespective of linking correct sources or whatever else at the moment due to not having the latest publications about the railway. Im afraid operating documents cannot be released because they are private and not for publication. at the moment the page is in good shape and your input is greatly encouraged but maybe as your a life member of the TR you could do with updating your reference books of the TR ;). I apologise if this message seems somewhat blunt and rude but it isn't meant as such. lets keep the page correct with the full information rather than edited correctly to how Wikipedia wants it but actually giving incorrect views of how the railway runs and operates. regards and please try and see what i am trying to do. Andrew4047 (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
In the same was as your message "seems somewhat blunt and rude", I must strongly disagree. The requirement for Wikipedia articles to be validated by factual sources is one of the Five Pillars. I quote "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." If your information is not verifiable, then it has no place here. The operating documents of many preserved railways are published, so that is no argument. Rhubarbs Cat (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
In which case, delete the section entirely. If it can't be adequately sourced, then it has no place here. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I would in which case love to know which railways publish their current operating documents so perhaps you would like to tell us? however with the rule books and other operating instructions of the Corris, TR, Fairbourne, FR and Llangollen close by I can tell you all of them contain the words Private and not for publication. this may I say I nonsensical (for the way railways are looked upon)! a place where incorrect pieces of information can be deemed of a higher standard than the actual correct/factual information because the referenceable material has to be taken as gospel! Andrew4047 (talk) 00:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
@Andrew4047: Just because something contains the words "Private and not for publication" doesn't mean that it isn't available for checking. For example, the whole of the Network Rail Working Timetable (current edition, also the two previous editions) is on the Web. It says "Private and not for publication" right at the top of the first page of each section - see, for example, Section CC06 which covers the route between Shrewsbury, Aberystwyth and Pwllheli - right past the Talyllyn Railway's front door. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I could add to that by saying that it's a rare swapmeet or railway memorabilia sale that does not have working timetables, signal diagrams etc that are marked "not for publication". You see them on ebay all the time. This would probably make them just as "available" as a locomotive paper on the Far Twittering and Oysterperch Railway that went out of print in the 1950s. Britmax (talk) 09:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
working timetables are different as the information is already available in the public domain as timetables (although virgin seem not to know about the difference between the two as they still carry on with the stupid 'doors will close 2 mins before departure nonsense' instead of amending the public timings, however thats a different discussion entirely.. Ah but it will be impossible to find at those swapmeet/railwayana auctions in date operating notices! this is because the documents are private until they get rewritten or superseded and withdrawn. Andrew4047 (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_30&oldid=1144126956"