Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the discussion archives 5 of WP:Rail from August generally (one June) to September 2007.

Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Do

ray me far so la te do... ahem...

Do you think this project needs a to-do list? Simply south 13:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If I may build on that remark, and if a recent arrival might make a observation, I think there is a need to get on and do something, and if a to-do list would help, yes. There seems to be an enormous amount of work that needs to be done that has been found by the robot. It's surely important for the credibility of this group to reduce that volume. Every time an outsider comes here and reads "Citation needed" or the like, that weakens the likelihood that they will ever come back to Wikipedia Afterbrunel 16:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
My time using and editing Wikipedia is a bit limited at the moment, particularly as I am part way through a house move, and am very busy with work - however I would welcome the addition of a "to do" list. I will gladly help out in whatever way I can. I am still new to Wikipedia and perhaps lack the confidence to do a lot of editing etc, however would gladly help out with assessing articles etc, which I presume is done against the set of criteria established for this project? I think all I need is a little guidance in where and on what my time would be best focussed to assist the project. Again I would imagine that this is more likely to be reviewing existing content than creating new articles?ColourSarge 18:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Have had a stab at re-writing the introductory paragraph to the main page for this project as per the request from Geof Sheppard in the task list. Much of it has been copied from WikiProject Physics as I thought that was a particularly good intro - if anyone else can do better feel free to have a stab yourself...ColourSarge 12:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


Birmingham and Derby Junction Railway

Birmingham and Derby Junction Railway is in need of a route-map, if anyone feels inclined. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 13:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Export points of interest as KML; see them on Google Maps (coordinates revisited)

Pages with lists of coordinates, marked-up using {{coord}}, can now be exported as KML (for use in Google Earth or NASA World Wind, for example) via Brian Suda's site, in this format:

http://suda.co.uk/projects/microformats/geo/get-geo.php?type=kml&uri=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherton_Tunnel_Branch_Canal

The same URL can be pasted into Google Maps as a search string, and will show the locations, as push-pins on a map

(I requested a template which will generate such links, for any page on which it appears. The template {{kml}} was created - and promptly nominated for deletion!) Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 13:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Tripcock

What is a tripcock braking system? Simply south 09:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a safety device used on the London Underground before the current automatic systems came in. A tripcock, with a lever hanging down , would be mounted on the front bogie of a train. A piece of lineside equipment called a trainstop would have a T piece, raised when the relevant signal was in the On (Danger) position, A train passing the signal at danger would cause the tripcock to come into contact with the trainstop and cause a full emergency application of the braking systems on the train. See Train stop Britmax 00:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Would it be worht making a stub out of Tripcock then ? Or is it this Moorgate tube crash#Moorgate control Pickle 17:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


|It might be but personally I'd expand the trainstop article . Although the trainstop system was expanded to dead end tracks after Moorgate they had been fitted to stop signals for some time. Other precautions adopted after Moorgate were the fitting of more sand drags and steel cages at dead end lines. A temporary measure until the work could be done involved bringing trains to a halt at the outer home signal in the approach to a terminal station, then allowing them to enter the platform from a standing start so that the speed of the train into the platform could be regulated. Britmax 19:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject UK Trams

I think that a Wikiproject UK Trams might be in order at the present time. There are already several Wikiprojects that cover trams, but all seem to be rather blank in the UK area. There are hardly any articles on trams, and those that there are, are either stubs, lacking factual references, or are complete so that they only need to be edited to add specialist information. I have almost single-handedly revamped the National Tramway Museum Page, and it would be hard to believe that a couple of months ago, it was a stub. Please rally your support or opposal here. The project would cover all trams, both modern and heritage, proposed and forgotten, built and demolished. The page will be started in due course here. - Bluegoblin7 14:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Please update this section if/when the project gets off the ground (as I can't cope with watching the 'proposed Wikiproject' page... ...far too many edits going on!!)
EdJogg 18:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
A suggestion for an alternative name, perhaps Wikiporject UK Light Rail?
ColourSarge 12:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Or even Wikiproject! ColourSarge 12:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes it might be a good idea - please discuss on the project oage/talk page that i have set up in my userspace. The link is here for anyone who can't be bothered to click above. Coloursarge will you be adding your name? - Bluegoblin7 13:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I think WP:UK Trams is clearer, and requires less explanation to outsiders (ie 'what is light rail?'). It also avoids the possibility of including the various Colonel Stephens light railways! UK Light Rail could be a project in itself, and there's no reason why light rail systems shouldn't be handled by either the UK Trams or UK Railways projects. (Sorry, there's no discussion area on your project page yet...)
EdJogg 13:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah! There is now a discussion page! Bluegoblin7 13:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, one reason why a certain light rail system couldn't really be handled under UK Trams is that it is not a tram system, rather an automated mass transit system. However, there is still plenty to be covered. Simply south 14:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
A main project page has been started at User:Bluegoblin7/WikiProject_UK_Trams if anyone is interested. It may move over to the main Wikipedia soon, as there is now quite a bit of support. Please join and contribute! Bluegoblin7 19:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC) The page has now moved to WikiProject_UK_Trams - Please Sign Up!!! Bluegoblin7 08:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Just incase the above post is unclear, the project is live at WP:UK Trams! Bluegoblin7 18:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Railway liveries of the UK

Can someone take a look at this? Much of it is inaccurate, and none of it reads like something out of an encyclopaedia. It also seems to concentrate on the current state of affairs, with a little reference to the future, and looks to me as though it could never be more than a "spotter's guide". I invite anyone to fix it up if they feel they can get it beyond a "Know Your Livery" state. 90.203.45.143 19:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this meets the notability requirement of Wikipedia; in my mind the information is (should be) covered in the articles on the railway companies. Alternatively, it could be merged with Summary of Train Operating Companies in the United Kingdom.
If it is to stand, then it needs to be much more comprehensive - FGW's multitude of inherited liveries are ommitted and phases such as "Northern Rail have no paintshops, and, as such, have around 5 different kinds of liveries" need sorting out. But then what of British Rail and all the earlier companies? Geof Sheppard 07:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The Summary of Train Operating Companies in the United Kingdom appears to suffer from the same problem, i.e. anything older than (this year?) the present is not in it.Pyrotec 20:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I've put up a number of UK transport-related stub types for renaming, rescoping and/or deletion; a number of ad hoc renamings and creations have left this hierarchy in a very inconsistent state, please comment, and help resolve, one way or the other. See Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/August/20. Alai 22:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Shortcut: WP:UKT

May I ask how this relates to WP:UK Railways? It seems to stand for WP:UK Trains, which isnt this wikiproject, and the shortcut would be more suited to the newly created WP:UK Trams from now on.

If no-one objects I will change the shortcut, or will make it into a disambiguaton page if there are minor objections. Bluegoblin7 11:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree that 'WP:UKT' might more logically point to Trams, and (new?) WP:UKR might point here. However, you must wait for input (and agreement!) from other UK Rail project members before proceeding with any such change, or you could seriously annoy a lot of potential friends! And don't bother with a DAB page -- that defeats the benefit of a shortcut!
EdJogg 11:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I will wait until more people respond. And yes, your shortcut for WP:UK Railways makes more sense here, rather than WP:UKT! Bluegoblin7 11:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd assume the T is inherited from our Ultimate Lords and Masters at WP:TWP. FWIW, there seems to be no consistency in the use of Trains vs Railways/Railroads in naming - witness WP:TIJ and WP:NZR. Stupid question, but without WP:UKT as a shortcut, what are we going to use here? I doubt the Ukrainians would voluntarily give up WP:UKR, which would just leave us with the unintuitive WP:Rail — iridescent (talk to me!) 12:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Guess who didn't look at the shortcut list... Oops! EdJogg 12:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Admitedly, the following isn't that short, but we're using WP:UK Trams, so why don't you use WP:UK Railways? UKT is more suited to trams, not trains, especially seeing as the project doesn't have anything to do with the word trains in it! (I mean the project name, and I KNOW railways are trains, but you get what I mean...) Bluegoblin7 12:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Or even WP:UK Trains! Bluegoblin7 12:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
But that's longer than 'WP:UKRail', and is not an enticing proposition.
I'm afraid that, without 'WP:UKR' being available, this may be a lost cause.
EdJogg 13:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Under inspection of UKR though, could they not use RoUK? Or Even RUK? Makes more sense with their project. What else can trams use though? In theory, railways can have a lot, and anyway, shouldnt the project it apllies to most have the shortcut? What do we have without? The untuitive UK Trams, not exactly that much of a shortcut. Bluegoblin7 13:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

(reindent) How aboutWP:UKRWP or WP:TWPUK? Even though we have hardly any dealings with them, we are technically a subproject of WP:TWP — iridescent (talk to me!) 14:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:TUK is not taken, as in Trams UK, maybe? Simply south 00:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
If it means an end to this discussion (which is needlessly diverting effort from article writing), then it's fine by me! Remember it is really only project members who are likely to type it: it just needs to be something short and memorable; if it's also relevant, that's a bonus! --EdJogg 07:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, we'll use that. Thanks for the input! Bluegoblin7 17:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Station articles

Hi all, I'm not a member of this project but I've noticed that there are articles for a couple of stations - Skipton railway station and Gargrave railway station. There doesn't seem to be anything noteworthy to these articles and I was just wondering if anyone thinks they should be there? To me they don't seem to satisfy WP:NOTE. Thanks -- JD554 15:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes - per long standing policy all stations (but not tram stops) are notable. It's fairly easy to expand a UK railway station article (even the strip-of-concrete-in-the-middle-of-nowhere stations like Brigg) since Middleton Press and Connor & Butler's books between them cover virtually every mainland railway station; those that haven't been expanded are those that no-one's got round to yet. (Have a look at my expansion of Cromer, for example, to see the before-and-after of a station article-expansion) — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Covering "virtually every mainland railway station" rules them out as a source for the purpose of notability (but not for verifiability), as they evidently lack the selection criteria necessary. That said, many stations have played an important role in their community, and there is often more to say than simply "This station is here. It was opened ages ago, closed for a while, and reopened a bit later." There is no "all X are notable" rule anywhere in Wikipedia. Rather, the rule is that there must be enough to say about a subject that is not basic information (such as location, facilities, service, etc.), idiosyncratic (stories such as a driver who regularly collected a mug of tea while in motion, or how the station cat lost its tail), or of little interest to anyone outside of a small circle (track layout, location of pointwork, location and dimensions of the footbridge/barrow crossing). It is believed in good faith that this is achievable with most stations, and particularly so with those that were closed and put to alternate use rather than simply being demolished. 90.203.45.210 19:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree with that at all. Every passenger station — even (perhaps especially) the tiny remote village stations — are (or were) pretty much by definition the focal point - and often the reason for the existence of - their local community. Wikipedia has dozens, if not hundreds, of "all X are notable" rules; all members of a national, provincial or state legislature, all bands with two album releases on major labels, all first-class cricketers etc etc etc. We tend to bunch the disused stations by branch, as in Hammersmith & Chiswick branch, due to the practicalities of expanding the individual stations, but I see no reason at all why we can't cover every station.
Your point about reliable sources is a silly straw man argument; nowhere do I suggest the Middleton Press books are a reliable source for notability, dur to their laundry-list nature, but they're a perfectly valid resource for expanding articles. Every railway station ever opened in the UK was:
  • the subject of extensive parliamentary debate;
  • the subject of local planning & land-ownership disputes;
  • (in pre nationalisation days) a major financial investment and reported as such in the financial press;
  • covered at length in both the local press of the area served and the specialist railway press, as well as generally in the national press, on its opening;
  • Often, particularly in the early days, a significant piece of engineering in its own right and covered as such in the media;
  • Tangentially covered in local news (as a setting for other events) throughout its existence
  • If closed, the subject (again) of extensive press coverage — and if still open, either an undoubtedly significant part of its community, or the subject of yet more press coverage as a proposed station closure.
I don't understand why we're having this discussion. You may as well AfD Tooting & Mitcham United because their article isn't as long as Arsenal — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that part of the reason for this argument rearing its ugly head again is that a very large number of (UK) station articles (and, dare I whisper tram stops?) amount to little more than very basic travel information -- if it weren't for the plethora of templates, they would be very short stubs. This is not to say they should not be retained, but the impression gained is that the station is non-notable as 'no-one has written anything worthwhile about it'. At some stage, the project will need to grasp the nettle and tackle these stubs (As a first stage, I would suggest merging any closed stations into their appropriate railway line article, unless large-enough articles to stand on their own.)
EdJogg 22:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I've expanded Skipton to a valid article. While I freely admit it's done to make a WP:POINT, I think it's a valid one — this is a station I know nothing about, in an area I know nothing about, on a line I know nothing about & have no reference books on, yet I've just expanded it to five times its previous length based solely on a google search on the name, a process that can be done for any station; there's just so many of the blighters that it takes a while to work through them. I wholeheartedly agree with EdJogg that we need to grasp the nettle and start expanding more of the open stations. If we each did, for example, one per week for a couple of months, we'd make a significant dent in the backlog — iridescent (talk to me!) 14:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
In my Late and humble opion i offer you one classic example - Jordanhill railway station - do i need to say more Pickle 14:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Hear, hear! let's get on with sorting out all these stub articles - not just the stations but the goods sheds, junctions, engine sheds, and all the other little articles that someone has created to give total coverage without ever completing the article to even "start" class.
In the last couple of months I have got rid of about ten stubs and I have my sights set on more. Some have been merges with similar pages (e.g. Devon and Somerset Railway), others have been proper rewrites (e.g. Weston Milton railway station - the architypal 100 yard concrete strip on a single track branch). It can be done, just have the confidence to start the work and others will come along and help with copy checking and extra snippets. Geof Sheppard 07:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

colours

A problem that has been nagging me for a while is i can't find a definitive (lol) list of what colours are meant to be used for each TOC, old train co's, open access operators, heritage lines, etc (ie via "rail line", "s-rail" and other templates). with the arrival of several new operators latter this autumn, I've attempted to catalogue what we've got so we can decide a) if any are too similar, b) what ones to give to new operators, c) what free ones are left for the future, etc

NB – secondary / on top colours used around Glasgow, Edinburgh, Cardiff, Leeds (WYPTE)

current TOCs

Open access, etc

Future TOCs

Heritage

  • Generic heritage - █ #000000

Defunct TOC (post privitisation)

Historic (BR era)

Historic (big four)

Historic (pre grouping)

Scotland

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

Other

West Midlands

Glasgow

London

  • DLR - █ #009999 - from TFL
  • “Bury-Altrincham” - █ #00ff80
  • “Eccles” - █ #0080ff

Nottingham

Sheffield

Tyne and Wear Metro

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

any additions to the above would be welcome (i've left out Northern Ireland and Ireland for now), and when we're done i'll copy this grand list over to Template talk:Rail line where a vauge list already exists. thanks in advance Pickle 07:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Colours - Does it matter?

I should have said first that a lot of work has gone into collecting this information into one place. So it is useful in that respect.Pyrotec 18:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it matters if the colours are duplicated; as color-coding is used for several different purposes. To take just {WPTIS}: For historical (pre-grouping) companies, colours were chosen for the Caledonian, the G&SWR, the North British, etc, and these are used on route maps and on stations, particularly before & after station info-boxes. For joint lines, the colours were added together. Another set of colours were chosen for the marketing line-labels, e.g. Inverclyde line, Ayrcoast line, etc, and these are used at major stations; and at minor stations with the before & after station info boxes. Yet another set of colours in used for TOC's; but we don't have TOC's on historical route maps; or at minor stations. Again, from a route map point of view, it does not matter if, say Scotland, Greater Manchester, Centro, etc, use the same, or different colours; as these systems are not necessarily connected. I agree that it makes sense for common colours for the big four - LMS, GWR, LNER, SR as these covered wide geographic regions; and for TOCs covering wide geographical areas. But, does it mater (to take a made up example) if a line on the Isle of Wight, a line in Manchester, a line in Aberdeen and a regional TOC that does not visit these areas have the same colour?Pyrotec 16:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

: It doesn't really matter. What i was really getting at was twofold a) the index of colours needed updating (thanks for the thanks) and b) there are a few specific issues that IMHO really need some resolving.
1) SWT and Virgin XC are both a very similar red, and run next to each, it doesn't look great (similar situation in Scotland i presume with First Scotrail, its the same at Gatwick airport too).
2) when someone tried to change the island line to SWT red when the island line TOC changed it got reverted (say no names), we could do with some sort of consensus on what should happen
3) east midlands trains was is in a future services box on st pancras station down as red - we've got 4 current (Virgin, SWT, Gatwick express and First Scotrail) TOCs using red
4) if we do move to s-rail, do we really want each VT1 thorough VT8 having a different (scarce colour) when we don't for other line (see Crewe railway station as a good example of the contrast, by comparison something like Amtrak use the same colour for everything (see Pennsylvania Station (New York City)).
5) If (given all the red!) we are short of distinctive colours, do some rather obscure services need their own colours (ie the Night Rivera, the Dutchflyer, stanstead express, etc esp when other comparable services ie the Caledonian Sleeper don't)
6) the FCC having half its routes in one colour (pink/purple and blue) has since been changed by another user.
7) some common agreement on how to handle some of the odder services/colours - eg the odd shuttles by spot hire companies, the blanket use of black for all heritage railway, the blanket use of that navy blue for all old closed lines ever (esp down here in the south - you've that yellow slightly further up north)
Pickle 01:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree, I don't like the blanket yellow, in Scotland. Whenever I see it, it gets changed to one of the historical company colours. Thanks for the explanation, I don't tend to do anything after the privatisation of BR, so I don't tend to look at the new stuff.Pyrotec 08:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Route Maps/Closed station articles

Does anyone know of a guide to writing route maps? I want to learn how to do it and start off with the Lambourn Valley Railway which should be a very simple one to learn on.

Also, I've got three disused station articles to consider, one for between Reading and Taunton on the Reading to Plymouth Line, one for the Didcot, Newbury and Southampton Railway and another for the LVR. Is there any advice for writing such articles?Grizzlyqi 17:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at Lanarkshire and Ayrshire Railway. There is a template for the route map. This is a complex route (see Killin Railway for a simple route map). Select any of the stations on the closed section (Uplawmoor to Ardrossan) for some ideas on disused station articles. --Stewart (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Wow! How to put someone off editing routemaps! Something of the scale of Lanarkshire and Ayrshire Railway is not for the faint-hearted! Have a look at some of the branch/secondary lines on {{Railway lines in South-East England}}. Something like Marlow Branch Line is about as complex as I would expect any newcomer to tackle manually, and you can easily copy any interesting components to your map.
As for closed stations, for an alternative approach, gathering many stations for a single stretch of railway into a single article, have a look at: Disused railway stations (Bristol to Exeter Line), Disused railway stations (Exeter to Plymouth Line), Disused railway stations (Newton Abbot to Kingswear Line), and Disused railway stations (Plymouth to Penzance Line). Where you have very little information about the closed stations, this approach avoids lots of itty-bitty stub articles.
EdJogg 18:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, grouping the stations into one article was what I wanted to do. Is it ever considered practical to give disused stations a historical s-rail box? This might be useful for some of the stations at major closed junctions (I'm thinking Savernake Low Level, served by the Berks and Hants plus the Midland and South Western Junction Railway) especially those served by more than one company. I shall take a look at the Marlow article.Grizzlyqi 18:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I try and avoid the s-rail debate...however, if a closed station has enough information to support a decent (ie non-stub) article, then there's no reason why such navi-templates should not be used for the closed station. My gripe is where station stubs (whether closed or open) comprise nothing more than a series of templates, with no worthwhile descriptive text.
Where closed stations are grouped onto a single page, there is no need for a navi-box, as the relevant information is quite clear from the routemap and supporting text.
Good luck! (Warning - editing routemaps is addictive!) - EdJogg 23:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Check out WP:TRAIL for the index of icons and some examples. There is a programe for creating routemaps (spoorstrip) or you can copy and paste from the index. They can range from the very simple to the very complex (i've reputation for the latter!) so do what ever you are happy with ;)
As for how to handle closed stations, there are two schools of though. One that has come from the south west is outlined above, and works well for them. Over in the south east, where for a variety of reasons there seams more to write about these stations (and several online sites elsewhere do extensivly) then we've gone for individual station complete with navigation boxes (don't mention the dreded "s-rail" that for the rest of the world and UK metros, not us) for example Cuckoo Line or Westerham Valley Branch Line.
Pickle 01:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I write mine by hand in a text editor, paste them into the page, and then keep clicking the "show preview" button and tweeking them until they are right. But I must admit that the complicated ones I sketch out on a piece of paper first. Draw a grid of squares three columns across (or wahtever) and sketch each icon into a square, then work out what the codes are that represent the different elements. If you get something not quite right, don't forget that there are a lot of us who will happily correct them for you! Geof Sheppard 13:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have now produced my first route map. Would anyone care to take a look and give advice/edit for improvements (which will I will take a close look at to learn from). The article.Grizzlyqi 17:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the advice guys. I've already had a go at some of the more difficult junctions on the Reading to Plymouth Line which has given me some more experience. However, that map is getting longer and longer and I'm sure there are some more closed stations that are yet to go on. I have suggested on the talk page that the Taunton to Plymouth section be moved to the Bristol to Taunton Line which would also be more in-keeping with the historical development of the two lines, so input there (I know there has already been a lengthy discussion) would be valuable.Grizzlyqi 10:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

station infoboxes

Another question for you fine folks (its been one of those weeks!). On the Romney, Hythe and Dymchurch Railway what infoboxes should we be using for the stations. Technically the current usage of {{tl:Infobox UK station}} is wrong as it cites National rail in the standard display. Do we have either a) some sort of heritage rail station infobox for heritage and other type stations (like the RHDR) or b) can we have some sort of switch statement that "turns off" the national rail link. ??? Pickle 04:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at Rhyd Ddu railway station, specifically this edit when the previous infobox for heritage railway station was substituted for the standard UK infobox. This previous infobox has now been deleted. I had previously put the Heritage station infobox in last August. I call not find at present the discussion that resulted in the Heritage template being deleted. --Stewart (talk) 06:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Ahh thats what i was thinking of. Can Slambo (as an admin - or anyone else similarly qualified) view it from the deletion logs ? Pickle 07:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

London railway station move

I have put this up for WP:RM but with moveoptions. See Talk:London railway station#2007 requested move. Simply south 10:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Distances on maps and in general

On maps I would like the opinion of this project on weather they should be included on templates. My opinion is only the name of the station or tunnel or junction should and no distance or historic information etc should be included either. Also when talking about distance of tracks and distance of stations form a main terminus shouldn't it primarily be in the metric system as the UK officially uses the metric system and all other train articles (bar USA) are in the metric system. many thanks--Lucy-marie 16:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Distances are useful and informative. You are expressing a POV, which is frowned on in WP. The fact is that the UK is NOT a metric country when it comes to distances. Road signs quote distances in miles, and speed limits are also given in miles per hour. The railways in the UK also based distances on miles. The sub-division of miles used by the railway is primarily chains, but yards and feet are also is regular use. The reason for having distance information on the maps is because they are diagrammatic and not to scale. Hence having the distance information gives a reader a clearer idea of how far things are apart, which is not always evident on the map. I note that Lucy-marie is "under 25" and seems to think that wikipedia should satisfy this group of people alone. The fact is that people of all ages read wikipedia, and some (myself included) like to see distances on the maps. The uses of miles/chains for the UK railways is based on the fact that that is the measurement system used!!Canterberry 16:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely giving a POV in a discussion is where I am meant to give the POV and placing a POV through an article such say this is the most fantastic thing on the plant. That is frowned upon and not the above comments. Any way the uk is officially a metric country it did so when it joined up to the EU. road signs are a tiny exception to the rule. originally the rails roads and all forms of transport would have been based on the imperial system but things have moved on and the rail industry uses metric if you talk to people working in the industry such as track laying and so on because all of the trades associated have gone metric. I know my father is an electrician and my grandfather a glass fitter and general contractor. The only reason metric is not used exclusively is because of cost (which in my opinion is a smokescreen for people hanging on to a dying thing just like the pound. But that is just my opinion). So I say to avoid all possible conflict on templates at least lest have no distances. I also thin that metric should come first when quoting distances but this will probably be contentious.--Lucy-marie 16:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Lucy, you expressed a POV in the wrong way by removing the distances WITHOUT prior discussion. Also, you clearly have not spoken to anyone in the railway industry. I have worked for the railways in the UK for 18 years, and I can tell you that miles/chains are the "standard" for track. The only exception is the overhead electrification. Also, the UK is not a metric country by any stretch of the imagination. When you are old enough to enter a public house, try ordering a "litre of beer" ... the landlord and the rest of the pub will enjoy a real laugh at your expense.Canterberry 16:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

See wiki bold for the original edits it is perfectly fine, what I did. I shall order a shot and receive a 35ml shot pubs do sale in metric. Also I can order a glass of beer and shall receive 568ml which is what they have done in Ireland. The Uk is a metric country weather you like or not officially only three countries aren't and the are the USA Burma and Liberia. see [|metric system] --Lucy-marie 17:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The UK primarily does not use the metric system especially regarding transport. In some areas, the metric system is more often used. Most schools teach in metric units supposedly so that the UK can increase the use of the metric system in the future. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 17:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The issue with Lucy-marie is becoming a nuisance. Enough people have stated that the UK transport industry (roads and railways) uses miles rather than kilometres. She may not like it, but that it is a clear fact, and is supported by more editors than support her view in regard of metric units. The point now is that there is more support for the use of miles, and Lucy must now accept this, else her edits must now be considered vandalism, as she is clearly in a minority on this issue.Canterberry 17:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Just because you dislike someone's opinions and they stick to their ground and stand up to you does not make them wrong a user with a differing opinion has a s much right as you do to express their opinion and no single or group of editors owns any articles, also no single editor has the right to say what is and isn't vandalism that is clearly set out in policy. --Jjamesj 18:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


FWIW, railway distances (except on the single High Speed Line) are expressly not signed in metric measurements - check the mileposts along your local railway line. As I've said before, I do think it makes sense to give metric measurements as well as miles/chains to make comparison with foreign routes easier, but miles should definitely be the primary unit. Incidentally, the idea that "Britain became metric when it joined the EEC" is a complete myth; the EU has no power to impose this without unanimous consent of all 27 governments (including Britain), which has (obviously) never been given, and the official EU policy (restated less than two weeks ago) is "There is not now and never will be any requirement to drop imperial measurements". While Lucy-marie's changing this may have started off in good faith, to carry on doing so now she is aware that it is against both clear consensus and WP policy, is beginning to border on disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and I'd urge her to stop, as if it continues it may well end in a block. — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
As for the EEC and metrification in the UK, as you say the EEC had nothing to do with the UK going over to a decimal system, indeed the decimal currency pre dates the UK membership of the EEC (now EU) by some five years whilst the decision was taken two years previous to that - when Charles De Gaulle was still saying his famous "non" to the UK's wish to joint the EEC. (SouthernElectric 15:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC))

This is why there is a call for no distances to be mentioned on templates so that no arguments and confusion can be caused as different parts of the same system use different units, there is also a misquotation of the user, the user stated the UK "officially" became metric which is true as it was written in to the treaty. The phrase "There is not now and never will be any requirement to drop imperial measurements" is a misrepresentation of the article it does state dates which were imposed for Britain to go metric, so at some point Britain was legally obliged to go metric. The threats made by other users such as blocks and that she is being disruptive are unwelcome as they them selves could be done under point by victimising this user.--Jjamesj 18:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Lucy (and your possible sock-puppet Jjamesj) should be aware that WP runs on consensus. This means that where there is a clear majority of editors in favour of a point, then then everyone must go along with that decision. Reading through all the posts on this and other pages (East Coastway Line & West Coastway Line), there is clear support for the use of imperial values for railways and transport in general. Your point about the use of the metric system has been made, but the view is that we stick with miles (and chains and yards and feet) for railway distances. You continued arguing will not change this "consensus" view, and is now becoming disruptive. More time is being spent arguing this point that doing actual productive edits.Canterberry 18:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I have been looking at the contributions of Jjamesj and Lucy-marie and I note a pattern of behaviour that is exactly what I would expect from a sock-puppet. They have both made edits to other articles on the same day (Crossrail, Yearbook, East Coastway Line, est Coastway Line) and supported each other in order to make a point (classic puppet behaviour). Do other editor agree with my assessment that there is enough evidence to make a report under Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets?Canterberry 18:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Already reported here — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Standardisation of regional line templates

Looking at templates after raising a question on freight and disused lines, I have realised that no two templates are the same in the layout. I know this doesn't seem to make sense at the moment but I am talking about templates showing the names of different lines and also their grouping. One splits the passenger\mixed lines into effectively primary, secondary and tertiary. The rest are split into simply Intercity main line, main line, commuter line and rural line, although one of these templates also includes freight and disused lines, and heritage lines.

(please note, do not add tl as i am trying to illustrate this literally, intead of going to every single template.)

Simply south 21:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The Scottish one at one time had the Historic lines (some now disused) included, but these were split off into a separate template at the end of May 2007.
--Stewart (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I am in two minds on this one. Yes, I agree that we should "standardise" where possible, and templates are the place to do that. On the other hand, something tells me that the different parts of the country are quite different to each other, and so perhaps we shouldn't be too worried that the templates are all different. I think the important thing is that the templates for each part of the country are clear and relevant to their particular area. I think we should have some "standard" categories such as "Heritage", "Freight/Disused" and "InterCity" but after these I think that we need a range of other categories from which we can select the ones most relevant to each area. As an example take "Commuter Lines". Great for the SE and London, but as for Wales and the West Country ... I think we are trying to push a square block into a circular hole. Perhaps we can "brain storm" this by drawing up a list of possible names for categories, selecting the best ones, and then applying them to the templates in a sensible way. Okay, not quite the rigid standard that some purists might want, but at least we will have templates with common categories, and then with categories selected from a list that everyone understands and accepts. Canterberry 21:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the SW/GW zone template, the commuter and rural lines could all be merged into a single section for branchlines. Also, the distinction between InterCity lines and mainlines seems rather loose and difficult to define. The only objective distinction I could make is the lines served by InterCity during the sectorised BR years but the SW/GW zone template includes most of these lines as simply mainlines.
I think this could be solved by having 5 basic and simple categories:
  • 1. Mainlines - these would include all lines served by fast/semi-fast trains.
  • 2. Branchlines - lines that branch from another line to a particular destination.
  • 3. Minor lines - those that have light traffic or serve only small destinations such that they cannot be called a mainline but yet are not a branchline because they are connected to the network at both ends.
  • 4. Heritage/preserved lines - private railway lines operated using historic traction.
  • 5. Disused lines - those no longer in use.
Other possible line types that wouldn't be included in all templates:
  • High speed lines - the CTR and other lines as and when they are built.
  • Private lines - those not owned by network rail but neither are they heritage railways.
(I'm sure some would want to add to this list).Grizzlyqi 22:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd throw in freight-only lines as a separate category as well. And I foresee hours of editwarring over what constitutes a 'minor line'. (Waah! The Stockport to Stalybridge Line connects to the West Coast main line and the Transpennine line, how dare you call it a minor line just because it only has one passenger train per week!) Incidentally, I think the templates look great — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we are moving forward! I have some ideas, but they can wait for now. I just wanted to say that I reject the idea of following the "Network Rail"/"Railtrack" system. Yes, it gives consistency, but Network Rail and its predecessors (Railtrack, BR) changed their minds over such things every five minutes, and I believe that we something a little more stable and certain. I intensely dislike "Main Line" as it too ambiguous. I know its not popular, but I really do like "Primary" and "Secondary" as I think it gets away from "old school" railway terminology such as "Main", "Branch", "Commuter" etc.

Actually, I do like "Branch", but with certain caveats (it must be a "named" branch line). Okay, here are some lists:

InterCity Lines - I like this, but now that this "brand" has been lost, perhaps it ought not be used.
Main Lines - OMDB (Over My Dead Body) - I totally hate this name, it is much too ambiguous.
Commuter Lines - OK, but solely for London/SE
Rural Lines - WTF (What the F***) is a "rural" line ... I really, really, hate this.
Primary Lines (or Routes) - Personal favourite, but I know others are cool.
Secondary Lines (or Routes) - I also like this, but I know it has little support.
Branch Lines - Supported
Freight Only/Disused Lines - Supported
Heritage Lines - Supported

I will keep thinking about this, as I think there is a strong consensus that we need to resolve this issue ASAP, so that we can move on to other project matters.Canterberry 00:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Disused lines could be interesting. Can I give an example - Aberdeen Railway - this Historic Scottish Railway, has a section which is still in use (as East Coast Main Line, Edinburgh to Aberdeen Line and Caledonian Sleeper), a section which is now a heritage line (Caledonian Railway (Brechin)) and the remainder disused. This article gives the historical information. With the reopening recent work in Central Scotland - Stirling to Alloa, and Airdrie to Bathgate - the previous disused line will be revert, whilst the Historical Line article will develop. --Stewart (talk) 06:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Disused lines are going to be a pain however we approach them. Take, for example, the M&GNJR; the single line between Melton Constable & Cromer alone will simultaneously be a disused railway (Melton-Holt), a heritage railway (Holt-Sheringham) and a "true" branch line (Sheringham-Cromer), and that's a pattern that will be replicated across the country. (I pity whoever takes on the task of sorting out the Liverpool St-Stratford-Epping-Ongar railway, with its heritage sections, London Underground stretch, mainline-BR section plus the Stratford to Leyton curve which went from pre-grouping passenger route to BR freight-only route to lifted altogether in the 1970s — and try explaining Verney Junction to someone not familiar with the quirks of railway operation.) There will be no clean way to template all of these lines, and I think we just need to settle on a least-worst compromise — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Precisely the point I was making with the Aberdeen Railway. And if I was considering railways in the east of London, I would hesistate at the way forward for the North London Line through to North Woolwich --Stewart (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Just take a look at this map, one of the most accurate maps of current, closed and heritage railways I know of. Just consider that all of those disused lines will have to be included and many of them in more than one section of the template. Perhaps the templates can just link to a list article for disused/heritage railways (I assume there must be a seperate template in existence on the heritage railway article anyway). This would save a lot of work and make the template more accessible. The more cluttered it is the less value it has.Grizzlyqi 20:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit lat eon this one, i think in the past, when I converted several of these to the "v-d-e" look asked some pointed questions on various talk pages (esp here. As above its very difficult to set one standard nationwide. The Scots, have got ahead of us all with their expansive listing of closed lines, and have shown how big it can get! On one hand i like the central England one (ie listing disused and freight). I think its really useful to keep the colours on the Scottish and Welsh templates for commuter routes. However the geographic breakdown as down in London and the south east is also very useful when one thinks about how the lines work in those areas. I is really hard to propose on solution that will address all needs and network rail's offering (primary, secondary, London & SE commuter, rural, and freight) doesn’t solve the issue either but gives us an external sources for categorising the lines.... Thus I’m interested to hear other editors thoughts but cautious and doubtful as to how we can effectively move forward.
Pickle 23:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

UK Railway Junctions

This has been listed above as an important article. Does this mean junctions with no station, or just junctions (Named places where lines meet? Britmax 21:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_5&oldid=1182052931"