In edits like these, Class380 (talk·contribs) is insisting on the inclusion of a column named "Trainset" and a link to a class of rolling stock that is different from those shown later in the same rows of the table. Should we have this column, and if so can we either use a more meaningful column header or at least provide a link to a page that explains the term? To a younger person, a "trainset" is a box containing a dozen or so pieces of track, a toy locomotives and some carriages and/or wagons. This is clearly not what is intended: but the only other meaning that I am aware of is a fixed-formation rake of carriages, such as a multiple unit. So a class 507 trainset is no more nor less than a class 507 unit. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dinoboyaz (talk·contribs) is claiming, without any evidence at all, that the LMS Royal Scot locomotives nos. 6100 and 6152 did not exchange identities permanently in 1933. I have provided sources to show that they did (and can provide more if necessary), but with these edits, Dinoboyaz continues to insist that they are right and I am wrong. Essentially, they are flouting WP:V and denying the accuracy of books written by Bob Essery and also books published by the RCTS. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
There's nothing to deny: while I admit I haven’t read those books, they may not be accurate. I ordered them myself to look at it, but a fellow on discord confirmed the identity swap being permanent is a myth. Also, Locomotive Services Limited has logs that would confirm if the locomotive went to America. Dinoboyaz (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Dinboyaz, nevertheless they are two published sources from sources normally accepted as reliable. "A fellow on discord" doesn't have the same standard of reliability. If you want to disprove the information, the onus is on you to provide reliable, verifiable sources to support your assertion. Then we can all assess the relative values of each. Nthep (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Reliable or not, they don’t prove anything. It’s actually debated among people too. Just using a source doesn’t prove it happened. Dinoboyaz (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
And neither does a debate prove the opposite either, so instead of offering opinions from "mates on the internet" produce some reliable sources that refute the claim Essery et al make. Nthep (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
If the source has no hard evidence, that counts it as a myth, it's just a saying that it happened, no hard-line or substantial evidence to prove it, just like Robin Hood. Around the time of King John's reign he was getting robbed and the poor were getting paid, and people talked about a Robin Hood, it got passed down and it's a myth, there's stuff which kinda show that it could've happened, but yet again there's other stuff showing that it never happened. Dinoboyaz (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
A reliable source stating this fact is the evidence we need on Wikipedia. We might have to discuss if a specific source is reliable but we don't have to trace back the sources that reliable source used. --PhiH (talk) 08:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
There can't be a dispute here if one fellow has sources and the other hasn't. That goes to the core of Wikipedia:Verifiability. Essery may be wrong, or an inferior source. I can't speak to that. However, what's required at this stage is either a source that explicitly states Essery is wrong, or a source that contradicts Essery and is evaluated as more reliable. Otherwise, there's nothing to do here. Mackensen(talk)01:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Not all sources are reliable: I looked online to find out. All of them said that the identity swap was permanent, but none provided any evidence to prove it. Like I said, without sufficient evidence, no source can be taken as fact. Dinoboyaz (talk) 02:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Don’t you see, there are no sources I’m aware of that prove or disprove it, I looked. All of them said that they swapped identities, but didn’t provide any specifics. I’m waiting for a book that could provide the answer we’re looking for, but I never said it didn’t happen: I just said there’s no proof it did, which there isn’t. It’s that simple. I suggest a compromise. Dinoboyaz (talk) 03:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Why do you persist in stating that there's no proof it happened, when a reliable source stated it did? Unless you have solid evidence that the book is unreliable (and that doesn't include what some bloke down the pub on social media told you), it should remain in place. If there is reasonable doubt from another reliable source, we can state both sides. — O Still SmallVoice of Clam07:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
We don’t even know what’s in that book: it could just mention they swapped permanently without providing evidence for it. Like I said, no matter how reliable a source is, it can’t be considered reliable if it just says stuff without providing sufficient evidence for it. I emailed the Royal Scot Locomotive Turst, they met provide some info. Dinoboyaz (talk) 08:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
In this video, Chris Eden Green actually states that 6100 and 6133 never returning to their original identities is nothing more than a belief, with interpretation being left up to rivet counters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-AKdB7S4LU&feature=youtu.be
.... So lets actually see the quote from the transcript from 07:55 to 08:17 is: "... the tour was such a big deal that it seems to have sparked a conspiracy theory when the engine came back her identity would have been swapped back to the Kings Dragoon Guardsmen but there remains a long-standing belief that once she became royal Scot she stayed that way though identity clarification is left entirely open to interpretation by rivet counters". Am I mis-interpreting this or is Chris Eden Green calling Dinoboyaz a conspiracy theorist? Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
..... You're missing the point: it’s not about conspiracy, it’s about the fact Chris Eden Green is a reliable resource. He made this video before I learned it was actually a myth they never swapped back.Dinoboyaz (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
There have been a number of cases in the past where "reliable" sources have proved not to have been, by which time their information has been repeated many times. The poster boy for this is the previously-well-regarded "What Happened To Steam" books, which were later debunked as having huge amounts of fictional information; by that time that information had been repeated in publications by many others who would be regarded as reliable, such as the RCTS. The difference there however is that the people who debunked WHTS did so by unearthing historical documents which proved the information to be false. Here, as far as I can see, we've no such documentation, simply assertion. Black Kite (talk)10:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
While you have a point, you can’t deny there’s no official-known documentation they stayed swapped after the tour. It’s that simple: a lack of documented proof means it can’t be confirmed or denied whether the swap was permanent. Dinoboyaz (talk) 10:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Neither has anybody cited a source that justifies they did swap identities, even Rose's sources may not have done that, so it can’t be proven or disproven. Dinoboyaz (talk) 10:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
We know they swapped for the tour. That's a well sourced fact. We also have sources that say they did not swap back (here's a few more [1][2]). We don't have any reliable sources that show that they did. I can't find any sources that explicitly say that the Statue of Liberty is not made out of sushi rice, either, but I don't need to because there isn't any reliable information claiming that it is. Black Kite (talk)10:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I’m aware they swapped for the tour, but what you just provided can’t prove they never swapped back because it’s only previews. I looked through the former and they just said the swap was done for the tour, nothing about never swapping back. The second one doesn’t show anything for me. What exactly are you trying to show me? What is the exact evidence you’re talking about? Dinoboyaz (talk) 10:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
As far as I’m concerned, they don’t provide any direct evidence either, which further means they can’t confirm the swap was permanent. So in essence, you actually don’t know if they never swapped back. Dinoboyaz (talk) 11:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Both of those (well-regarded) books that I've linked say that the swap was permanent (and there were more book sources, but those didn't have pageview in Google Books) . There are two further book sources linked in the 46100 article. That's at least four. How many reliable sources say they did swap back? Zero. So it doesn't actually matter if you think they swapped back, without any actual evidence of that the articles will follow the sources we have. Black Kite (talk)11:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
you're being a hypocrite: you claim nothing I have proves they swapped back but your sources don’t prove anything either. You keep providing stuff that says they never swapped back but doesn’t provide any proof they did. Show me something that does provide proof they did, not just saying they did without proving it. Dinoboyaz (talk) 11:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Personal attacks now, nice. Wikipedia works on reliable sources. Reliable sources have been provided to show they didn't swap back. You have provided no reliable sources to show they did. Therefore, this conversation has reached its end, I think. Black Kite (talk)11:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
No it hasn’t, because your sources prove nothing: they just say it happened. Next time you provide a source, consider that first. What's needed is some physical evidence, such as build numbers on the frames. Do any of your sources state something like that? Dinoboyaz (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
There’s nothing to drop, not until a source that does more than just say the swap was permanent is brought up. It’s that simple: show me a source that says the swap was permanent and actually provides evidence to back it up, and I’ll have a reason to drop it. Dinoboyaz (talk) 12:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
OK, I've seen enough here. Consensus is that reliable sources say the swap was permanent. Whether it was or it wasn't is immaterial. Dinoboyaz has been warned to drop the WP:STICK on pain of being indeffed. Should the stick be picked up again, ping me and I'll get the banhammer out. Mjroots (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
If 6152 and 6100 didn’t swap back to their identities after the American Tour, why is there a pic of the former after the tour? Dinoboyaz (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
What pic? In any case, the number 6152 didn't vanish - it was applied to the loco that had originally borne the number 6100, so it was perfectly possible to take a photo of a loco bearing the number 6152 at any time between 1930 and 1948. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Pics like that one. And besides, keeping a swap of identities permanent would make no sense: the swap between Duchess of Hamilton and Coronation wasn’t made permanent when the former returned from America, so why would they keep the swap between 6100 and 6152? The swap was only made because 6100 was being overhauled at the time: the LMS had no reason to keep it permanent.Dinoboyaz (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
What are you trying to infer from that photo? That a locomotive numbered 6152 existed after 1933? That is not in doubt. What aspect of that photo indicates that the loco depicted is not the one built in 1927 and originally numbered 6100?
And like I said on WikiProject UK Railways, if the source has no hard evidence, that counts it as a myth, it's just a saying that it happened, no hard-line or substantial evidence to prove it, just like Robin Hood. Around the time of King John's reign he was getting robbed and the poor were getting paid, and people talked about a Robin Hood, it got passed down and it's a myth, there's stuff which kinda show that it could've happened, but yet again there's other stuff showing that it never happened. Dinoboyaz (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Stock tables in rolling stock articles
Many UK rolling stock articles have tables that are either totally or largely uncited. An example of the former is British Rail Class 142#Fleet details, where there are two tables that have never been cited and there has been some edit-warring replacing one uncited table with another uncited table. An example of the latter is British Rail Class 43 (HST)#List, while partially cited, also has large amounts of uncited text, making it manifestly unreliable.
Sometimes in magazines there are full disposition tables or in the Platform 5 books that are published annually, these can be considered reliable, but the piecemeal way in which the above two have evolved is not. So, should we keep uncited tables or remove them? Metro140 (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree that uncited tables should be removed and replaced with sourced ones. There is no evidence of tables being exempt from WP:V in any policy. SK2242 (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
@OhKayeSierra: "restore original title, moved earlier today as part of a content-forking" The old title has been there for years and follows the naming conventions for British railway stations. The reason provided at RM was obviously incorrect. --PhiH (talk) 05:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't think so, unless a move war breaks out. I suspect the user who requested the move was either unaware of the naming conventions, or getting confused about the content split (which has now been redirected back to the original article anyway). — O Still SmallVoice of Clam11:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Sheffield via Rugby Central
Yesterday at about 20:12 (whilst riding in the late-running 20:07 Banbury to Didcot), I noticed in Banbury depot a stabled train comprising two units, both of which had the destination "99 Sheffield via Rugby Central" on their front (northernmost) indicators. Do Chiltern Railways know something that we don't? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Sometimes staff put random destinations on, for example in the last few days of GWR Class 143s, I saw both Crewe and Maesteg, while they were in Devon. Superalbs (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, but Class 143 did actually run to Crewe and Maesteg on a regular basis at some point in their past. The DMUs used by Chiltern Railways have not previously operated to Sheffield, and indeed the oldest (Class 165) were built something like 21 years after Rugby Central and the line through it were closed.
Also, class 143 have roller-blind destination indicators, which are provided with a wide variety of potential destinations; all of Chiltern's DMUs have electronic displays, the driver keys in a code and the display shows the route number, destination and any appropriate "via" locations. Whilst it's conceivable that an old roller blind might be transferred to a newer unit, modern electronic displays simply didn't exist when Rugby Central was open, so none should have it programmed in. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Redrose64 Only just seen this and I know the answer - it's a "hidden extra" in the Class 165 software. There's a secret code which you can type into the PIS which brings up the whole of the old Marylebone to Sheffield route. The stops are Aylesbury, Rugby Central, Leicester North, Loughborough Central, Nottingham Victoria and Sheffield Victoria. Black Kite (talk)13:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Just out of interest, although it has been demolished since, the Great Central bridge over the West Coast Main Line was still there when I lived in Rugby in 1995. Britmax (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone have the June 2018 issue of Railway Magazine? There was a five page feature on Vic Mitchell in that issue. Mjroots (talk) 07:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Let me see now ... my records show that starting from January 1935, I'm missing January 1936, May and September 1937, May and October 1940. So I should have June 2018 somewhere, this may take some time. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
The RM has a digital archive which is quite inexpensive for existing subscribers. Alas, my paper magazines go in the recycling once read, and I don't currently have digital access but if you're struggling I could renew it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?11:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
As you will have noticed, the redlink has turned blue. Mitchell was an early director of the revived Festiniog Railway, so books covering that subject may be of use in expanding the article. I would expect fuller obituaries to be published in the railway press in due course, so again, hopefully more material to expand the article with. Mjroots (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Another task that will need doing is to link the article from the various cites of his books. Could this be a task for a bot? Mjroots (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I've expanded the article from the obit in Steam Railway. It's been assessed as a stub(!) by two WPs, but no TWP assessment. Would someone please assess for our WP against the published criteria? Mjroots (talk) 08:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
If anyone's interested, I've just renewed my subscription to the RM digital archive (had to wait to get my subscriber number from the print copy when it came through the door this morning). Happy to rummage if anyone has any requests. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?16:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Let's keep the discussion in one place, and if there's no broader question then it's probably best discussed on the article talk page. Mackensen(talk)14:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
SK2242 Although I can't view the article I found this on the Rail Business UK facebook page. It matches the first paragraph exactly so I would say that it is indeed a direct copy. Thanks E.Wright1852 (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
The Llangollen Railway has appointed receivers. Might be worth having a few more eyes on the article and its associated RDT lest some over-eager editors start writing that it has closed permanently. Obviously this is a possible outcome, but nothing is confirmed yet. Mjroots (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Butt Stations
For a long time, we've had a template, {{butt-stations}}, which cites Butt, R. V. J. (1995). The Directory of Railway Stations: details every public and private passenger station, halt, platform and stopping place, past and present. I have used this as a go-to source for station opening and closing dates all over the place, and have not doubted its factual accuracy. However, Psulagain has drawn my attention to Railway Passenger Stations in Great Britain - A Chronology, published by the Railway and Canal Historical Society in 2019. I did a spot check, and for example, it claims Ashford International railway station partially reopened after the Eurostar upgrade on 4 September 1995, which I have never seen before. Does anyone else have any thoughts as to which sources we should use? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)18:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm not directly familiar with either the society or the work. I do note that previous editions were published in book form and can be found in libraries, while the society itself is non-profit, and its journal is also held in a few libraries. It seems to me that they're comparable to the Railway and Locomotive Historical Society and its journal Railroad History, which is considered reliable. I did a cursory search on JSTOR and and articles from the Journal of the Railway and Canal Historical Society are indexed in bibliographies and cited by articles in other academic journals. This doesn't go to the reliability of the book itself, but to the reliability of the publisher. It would seem to be a good source for all post-1995 openings and closings, and for pre-1995 if someone doesn't have access to Butt. Mackensen(talk)18:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Regarding it claims Ashford International railway station partially reopened after the Eurostar upgrade on 4 September 1995, I wouldn't expect Butt to have covered that, since his book was published in 1995 and there is a note on page 4 that this edition contains changes up to and including 31 December 1994. Most of Butt is reliable, but anomalies have been found so it's not 100% accurate. The RCHS are, generally speaking, reliable. I don't know about the RLHS.
One thing that trips up some people is that different works use different conventions for opening and closing dates. First, opening dates may be shown (particularly in newspapers) as the date when the local mayor cut the ribbon; but serious railway works (including Butt) almost always use the date when passengers were first able to travel on a scheduled service (not counting free rides as part of the celebrations) - the two may differ, with the ribbon-cutting being anything up to a week before or a month after the first scheduled service; so of these, the first-scheduled-service convention is most useful for our purposes. Second, closing dates may be shown as the last day that scheduled services ran; or as the first day without a scheduled service - Butt follows the latter convention, as do several other works; but in
Rose, Douglas (December 2007) [1980]. The London Underground: A Diagrammatic History (8th ed.). Harrow Weald: Capital Transport. ISBN978-1-85414-315-0.
(and other editions), Rose (who is very reliable) uses the last-day-of-service convention, and goes into great detail to explain why.
Another thing that some people don't appreciate about Butt is that he considers only passenger services. Until the 1960s, most stations offered passenger, parcels and goods facilities, and these rarely ended at the same time so Butt cannot be used as a source for "complete closure". It's often difficult to discover when a station closed for parcels or goods, partly because of the relative lack of specialist works, but also because different traffic categories (coal, general goods, livestock, milk, oil, parcels, perishables, vehicles) may have ceased at different times, and there are a number of cases where a station carried on handling one category long after the passengers and all of the others had vanished. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
General comment but Butt has several instances that I have found of assuming that all stations on a line opened the day the line did. I would always prefer Quick - which shows it's sources - over Butt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nthep (talk • contribs) 21:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm always puzzled by the way so may articles quote Butt. I would always prefer a well researched local line history over a generalist publication. Geof Sheppard (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
I personally write articles using Butt, but also noting any discrepancies if other sources disagree. Agree that a local history is likely to be more accurate. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Manchester Metrolink infoboxes
I'm looking to finish up the merge of the Manchester Metrolink infoboxes. So if I understand correctly, Manchester Metrolink articles tend to use two separate infoboxes in the same article for the Network Rail station and the Metrolink station. Example at Manchester Piccadilly station the first infobox is for NR (though it has the Metrolink icon in the top right and some ML details like the number of platforms), and the Metrolink infobox is at Manchester_Piccadilly_station#Piccadilly_tram_stop. Similar pattern for Manchester_Victoria_station#Victoria_tram_stop.
Other countries/locations seem to do it differently (one infobox for all services, eg Union Station (Los Angeles)). Wanted to get some feedback on if it might be better to have the details in the main infobox instead (much seem to overlap anyway, though some thought may have to go into passenger numbers), with the section just having an image and route map? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReader, I've seen both approaches, depending in large part on whether a merged infobox will be clear to readers. Seoul Station, for example, has several infoboxes. With Zürich Hauptbahnhof and Zürich HB SZU, a merged infobox was split (along the article), but that approach was especially valid because SBB, et al, really do regard them as separate stations. The various subway stations that surround Pennsylvania Station (New York City) are also entirely split. I think so long as they're in the same article separate infoboxes are fine. Mackensen(talk)20:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Bombardier Transportation
Since Bombardier Transportation no longer exists after being acquired by Alstom SA, I ask this should we change the manufacture for the class 730 Aventra and the Aventra family to Alstom SA?
I know changing the builder for the Aventra family page may cause issues, since the Class 710 and Class 720 Aventras were built by Bombardier Transportation and not Alstom, but could we find a way around that.
Please don't rewrite history. If the company was called Bombardier Transportation when the units were being built, that is the name we should use. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Maybe a nomination at Articles for Deletion would gain a consensus on whether to delete, split, etc, or whether the grouping of lines is acceptable for an extra standalone article. Incidentally, I must say this page has the largest gallery I have ever seen. Rcsprinter123(reason)19:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
It's certainly at the wrong place, as it should be Windsor Lines with no disambiguator. It's potentially a useful article I guess, but would imagine it would be fairly duplicative. Incidentally, I just removed the gallery. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Groups of lines can be relevant in some cases. This one is just a copy of the existing articles, not even slightly reworded: [3][4][5] --PhiH (talk) 10:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Strongly oppose: These are three distinct railway lines with their own history. The three articles should remain separate. If the Windsor lines are notable, it's possible to to create a short article as an overview. --PhiH (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Moved from User talk:Redrose64 § Explain this