Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 56

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50←Archive 54Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57Archive 58

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Platform layouts, again: June 2023, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Template:NRtimes

{{NRtimes}} on the face of it should be a good thing - an easy way to link to a National Rail timetable for referencing purposes. Except it does nothing of the sort. It just generates some text. No link to the actual online timeable, so a 0/10 score for supporting WP:V. Any thoughts on getting rid of it, or improving it so it does link to an actual timetable online? 10mmsocket (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

If it can be updated to include links to timetable PDFs, and archive links, then I’d definitely keep it. Otherwise, it should not be used until it supplied verified info. Danners430 (talk) 08:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I've just had a look, and the template is unlikely to be usable now because the PDF versions of the latest (May 2023) timetable now have names rather than just numbers (e.g. "001 London to Barking, Upminster, Basildon, Grays, Tilbury, Southend Central and Shoeburyness.pdf" rather than "001.pdf"). Timetable website is here. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 08:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I feel a TfD coming on... 10mmsocket (talk) 17:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
The template did at one time generate a useful link, but three things happened: (i) the template should have been periodically amended for the changes in May and December each year, but (judging by the page history) has not been since May 2015; (ii) the change in filename format as noted above; (iii) this edit six weeks ago by Techie3 (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
The original links do not work anymore, so that is why I removed them. Techie3 (talk) 03:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Request for new photographs: Boxhill at the National Railway Museum

Boxhill

Boxhill is a LB&SCR A1 class "Terrier" tank engine and is part of the national collection at the National Railway Museum in York. Unfortunately for the last 20 years it has been on display in the Learning Platform part of the museum, the layout of which meant that it was impossible to take a good photo of the locomotive. The only pictures of Boxhill on Commons are from the early 2000s.

According to this tweet, Boxhill has been moved into the Great Hall and now has pride of place on the turntable. I don't know what the long term plans for the loco are, but it seems unlikely that it will stay there for more than a few months. So if you're visiting the NRM over the summer, please do take some pictures and upload them to Commons. This could be our once-in-a-generation opportunity to get some decent photos for Wikipedia before Boxhill is relegated to the Learning Platform again!

Thanks and best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 07:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

TOC Fleet tables

Users may be interested in Murgatroyd49's thoughts at Talk:Great Western Railway (train operating company)#Current Fleet table about fleet tables on TOC articles. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Tables are useful, but should be simplified with the number of columns reduced. Having columns for Class, Image, Number, Carriages per set would be suffice. It doesn't need all the other columns nor the hideous computer generated images of every class length. What is at First Great Western Link#Rolling stock and Virgin CrossCountry#Final fleet is much better. Airpopg (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

National Rail Contracts

There has been some dispute in various articles as to whether TOCs operate franchises or concessions. The answer is a combination of concessions and National Rail Contracts, but not franchises.

Pre COVID-19, most TOCs operated franchises, being responsible for both revenues and costs and either paying a paying a premium or receiving a subsidy, the amount being predetermined when the contract was signed. A few let by local authorities, e.g. London Overground and Merseyrail, were and remain as concessions with the authority responsible for revenues and the TOC only the cost base.

With revenue evaporating in the early days of the first lockdown in 2020, that would have resulted in all franchised TOCs collapsing within days, the franchise agreements were terminated. TOCs then operated Emergency Management Agreements and now National Rail Contracts. When operating franchises, TOCs bore revenue risk and were responsible for fare setting etc, something that the DfT now does, with the TOCs remit only being to operate services in return for a management fee, much like was, and still is, the case for those TOCs operating concessions.

Hence what was the TransPennine Express franchise is now the TransPennine Express rail contract. Airpopg (talk) 02:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

A bit of a mix up here I think. A franchise was a set of services within a specified geographic area. A franchise agreement was the "contract" between the DfT and the TOC to deliver those services. You're right that the EMAs have now been replaced by contracts, but that contract is a document, so TPE (for example) doesn't operate the TPE Contract, rather TPE has a contract to operate (or deliver) a set of services in a specified geographic area. To me that is still the TPE franchise. It now has a contract to operate the franchise rather than a franchise agreement to operate the franchise. What it definitely doesn't have is a contract to operate a contract. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
But I am with you though. There are no franchisees any more, just National Rail Contract (NRC) holders. Where franchise still has relevance though in our TOC article is in describing the set of services and geographical area specified, e.g. the TransPennine Express franchise area. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

What constitutes an incident?

I just removed two incidents from Class 802 (diff). I did this because I considered them to be trivial and not newsworthy WP:NOTNEWS - one was a breakdown, the other a derailment - but nobody was injured and there was no damage to the train involved, nor the rail infrastructure.

I really think we should have a documented guidance and examples in this project guidance on what is and is not notable. Thoughts? 10mmsocket (talk) 06:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The evacuation happened when the trainsets were in the early stages of their service. Arguable as to whether or not this incident should be included. The derailment should be included IMvHO. Mjroots (talk) 12:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree that some kind of guideline is needed, and across the pond too. I think there are two separate issues: when is an incident notable enough for a standalone article, and when is an incident, regardless of the first question, relevant/due enough to be mentioned in a related article. On the first, my personal rule of thumb is that the incident killed someone or had some obvious lasting impact. On the second, I think the incident has to have an obvious relationship to the rolling stock, such as a design flaw. Routine reporting isn't enough. Mackensen (talk) 12:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The URLs for these references at Cutty Sark for Maritime Greenwich DLR station are all dead. They appear to be created by Template:Infobox London station but that then appears to be calling yet more templates and my willingness to abide by SOFIXIT only extends so far. Somebody who actually knows how it all works needs to repoint them when they have a moment. Thanks. XAM2175 (T) 17:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Barton line

Hello, on the Barton line article there has been changes to the stock used in the article, but no change to the reference. Has anyone got access to the cited source to see what it gives?

"May Milestone for MML Timetable". Modern Railways. No. 872. May 2021. p. 23.

Thanks. Keith D (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Maurice Oly might, he's done a sterling job with updating various changes from such magazines...! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't have access to that issue as I have not bought it.
Somebody else might have access though. Maurice Oly (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
@Keith D: Perhaps we could use this? Its from friends of the barton line and backs up the changed infomation.[1]
Given what I've read on that website I don't think issue 872 of Modern Railways backs up the changed infomation. Maurice Oly (talk) 19:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Many thanks. I have used that ref for the current situation of the stock in place of the Modern Railways ref. Keith D (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Local Train and Bus Information - Friends of the Barton Line". e-voice.org.uk. Retrieved 2023-07-01.

Discussion at Template:Infobox station

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox station#Move map, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Mackensen (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Eurostar

Eurostar has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

2023 Ticket Office closure proposals

Do we need a section in an existing article on the proposals or a page on the proposals themselves? JamesVilla44 (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Now being discussed at Talk:Rail_transport_in_Great_Britain#2023_Ticket_offices_closure_proposals. Let's keep it in one place... 10mmsocket (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Ok JamesVilla44 (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Every UK train company and railway station article fails WP:V

Based on the discussion above about Table National Rail timetable,, it seems that there are 1,339 articles that now fail WP:V because they rely on this template. It just gives a text reference that bears no relation to actual reality. The template isn't fixable so that means 1,339 articles are unreferenced as far as their service table goes.

Take a random station like Hadley Wood railway station. The reference generated says "Table 24 National Rail timetable, May 2022". However the actual timetables at National Rail cannot be verified from that information. You have to go to NR timetables - https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/travel-information/timetables/ - then click on Great Northern - https://www.greatnorthernrail.com/travel-information/plan-your-journey/timetables#timetable (which has now gone to Great Northern's own website) and then click on Table B Stevenage - https://timetables.greatnorthernrail.com/GN/#/timetables/2092/Table%20B

I'm not suggested we replace it now, but it would be useful to do in December maybe when the timetables next change. Thoughts? 10mmsocket (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Note: this refers to the #Template:NRtimes discussion above.  Dr Greg  talk  15:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Every UK train company and railway station article fails WP:V - 1.3k is only about half of all the railway stations (almost 2.6k) in the UK so that's hardly fair.
I don't mind which timetable is used in all honesty; Aaroncrudge has done a great job of updating a significant number of stations' service sections (and I've done a few across the Far North of Scotland, though little in comparison). I'll be belittled for saying this, but verifiability does not mean things need to be internet-published, so - although a link would be helpful - IMO the template used is not that much of a 'sort it out asap' issue (although, yes, TOC timetables can be used, and are probably more helpful in many regards). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattdaviesfsic (talk • contribs) 15:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Are the ones I’ve done good updates? JamesVilla44 (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Absolutely, yes. So long as any updates have a source to support it, it's all good. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Verifiable doesn't mean "verifiable in one click". Thousands (perhaps millions) of articles have dead links which need a visit to archive.org or similar to verify; we rightly don't delete their claims. It's a non-urgent usability issue, but not a WP:V failure. Certes (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
The articles are verifiable, you need to go to the National Rail timetable from May 2022 and find table 24. That it's not available online like this does not make it unverifiable, any more than citing a book is unverifiable. You have (effectively) been given the title, author, and page number; the rest is up to you. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Possible merger of Coventry branch line articles

I just saw this in the local press Residents asked to choose a new name for Leamington railway line which says that there is a competition for a new name for the line between Leamington Spa and Nuneaton via Coventry. However, we currently have two articles covering this route, the Coventry-Nuneaton line and the Coventry-Leamington line. If these become treated as a single route, then would that require the merger of these two articles under whatever name is chosen for them? G-13114 (talk) 12:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Having only skimmed the two articles, there may be some merit to this. Currently trains run from Nuneaton to Leamington Spa via both lines. Presumably the Service upgrade section on the Coventry–Nuneaton line page applies to both lines? Garuda3 (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
It's one service running over two lines. They were built at different times by different companies, although they both became part of the London & North Western Railway (LNWR) at an early stage. First was the Warwick & Leamington Union Railway, incorporated in 1842 to build a line between Coventry and Leamington Spa; it was opened in 1844, and subsequently absorbed by the London & Birmingham Railway (which amalgamated with others to create the LNWR in 1846). Second was the Coventry & Nuneaton Railway, authorised in 1846 as a L&BR subsidiary to build a line between those two towns; it was opened in 1850 by which time it was wholly part of the LNWR. I don't think that through trains ever ran between Nuneaton and Leamington except as specials and excursions. If a timetabled service ran, there should be information in two books in the Middleton Press Midland Main Lines series: Rugby to Birmingham and in Coventry to Leicester. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Articles are primarily about the physical railway lines, and not the services that operate on them. See no need to merge just on the basis that at the moment a through service operates on both. Airpopg (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Sometimes articles are also created on the service that runs through them. Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 22:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
But they probably shouldn't be. It takes a pretty notable service to have its own article. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The new name has been announced as the Elephant & Bear Line according to this article. Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 08:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Scraping the bottom of the PR barrel aren't they? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
It says it was selected by public vote, but I have my doubts this will become the common name. Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

WNXX - reliable source?

A while ago I started a discussion at the Reliable Sources noticeboard regarding the use of WNXX as a source for edits in UK Rail articles. The discussion was archived without a consensus ever being reached, and WNXX is still being used to cite changes.

Personally I would be against its use, as it’s almost impossible to determine what form, if any, of oversight there is on the website, editorial or otherwise, which would mark a regular news outlet as reliable.

What’s the opinion here, before I reopen the discussion at the noticeboard? Danners430 (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

  • Without a subscription it is not really possible to evaluate the reliabilty of the information. I get the impression it is one person's obsession, there is no reference to any other contributors. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
    People have said that people contribute information and other information is scraped from railway computer systems - but I can’t verify this… and if it really is only one person managing the site, I’d argue that doesn’t really constitute editorial oversight… Danners430 (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Just courtesy pinging @TimMassey and @XAM2175 as they were involved in the original discussion Danners430 (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
  • I have been subscribing to wnxx.com for a number of years and repeat here that the information it provides is solid, reliable and trustworthy. If the website cannot verify a piece of news, it is marked as being more speculative then solid info. The section of the article I edited today referenced two pictures taken of a re-painted locomotive - this factual, no controvsey involved. Most reliable info on news for the UK rail industry is behind some sort of a paywall - I am thinking 'Rail Magazine', 'Rail Express', etc so accessible references can be problematic one way or another. User:TimMassey — Preceding undated comment added 21:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
    Please do understand that the paywall isn’t the issue here - it hinders us verifying the source of the information and whether it can be considered reliable, but a paywall in and of itself doesn’t contribute towards a source being reliable or not.
    The difference with Rail Express or Rail Magazine is that they are editorial pieces of work, which certainly from what we can see from outside WNXX is not. Danners430 (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
    Many of the 'news' items in RailExpress are written by the publication's editor - does this meet oversight requirements? TimMassey (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
  • I was also involved in the original discussion; I don't think WNXX being paywalled is an issue, but I still stand by my opinion that WNXX might be a self-published/user-generated source. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 01:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
    In my experience it is a reliable source, but it doesn't really fall into the Wikipedia criteria of what a reliable source is. Tricky one. Black Kite (talk) 08:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
    This was my concern - it may be reliable, but can it be considered a reliable source by Wikipedia’s definition? I personally don’t believe it does, as there doesn’t appear to be editorial oversight, and the information there is mostly user contributed. It may as well be a community forum at that point… Danners430 (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
    The information provided by contributed by user's is nornmally backed up by photographic evidence, as per the citation I made in the UK Class 93 article. Does that make it less valid? TimMassey (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
    I cannot understand the phrase provided by contributed by user's is nornmally backed up. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

It's been nearly a week now with no discussion - So far I get the feeling that consensus is that while WNXX is reliable in the sense that the data provided is accurate, it cannot be classed as a Reliable Source by Wikipedia's definition due to the lack of editorial oversight. If this is the case, then I would start removing such sources - but I'm hesitant to do so until a true consensus with WikiProject members is reached. Danners430 (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

It certainly does not fit the WP definition of a relaible source. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
I think it's probably best regarded as a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE that is at least generally accurate. So it's fine to use it as a reference for simple facts if no better source exists, but if no better source does exist then it's often going to be questionable whether the information is WP:DUE. Thryduulf (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
I’d argue it can only be considered a primary source if it’s disclosed that the information being published comes from said primary source - yet there’s no way of verifying where information comes from. Danners430 (talk) 13:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes and no. Traceability is relevant to reliability not really primariness, and it's pretty clear that at least most of the information comes from railway computer systems and/or direct observation (given the examples of information from there being corroborated by such sources). As long as we are content the information in a specific case is reliable (in the sense of accurate) it doesn't really matter whether the information came from computer system A or computer system B in a similar way to when "a spokesperson for the government" says something it doesn't really matter (usually) which particular spokesperson (or even which department's spokesperson) said the given thing. Thryduulf (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
I do however have an issue with one point you make there - “direct observation” - that could definitely be construed as falling under WP:OR… Danners430 (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
That's not what original research means, as explained at the start of the page you linked to. If a person or other source we trust to be accurate says "I saw the Flying Scotsman hauling a NYMR train when I was at Whitby yesterday", then it is not original research to say report any of that in the article, because it is verifiable that the sources said such a thing. It cannot convey notability, and doesn't necessarily belong in the article (e.g. it might not be WP:DUE), but those are completely different things.
Original research would be me or you saying the same thing on here, because we are not reliable sources and our statements cannot be verified. Thryduulf (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
WNXX is in the same category as iMDB which is widely referred to in articles but is deprecated as a reliable source, being largely UGC. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
WNXX and IMDB are not really very similar. The latter is deprecated because it's frequently inaccurate and unverifiable, the former is opaque about how it can be verified and difficult to verify which means that although it's verifiable it's not often verified (the two are not the same thing, policy cares about the former). When information is attempted to be verified though it normally stands up as accurate. Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Fractions in category names

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Fractions in category names. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Move at Middleton Junction and Oldham Branch Railway

Someone has suggested a move at Talk:Middleton Junction and Oldham Branch Railway . Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 12:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Route diagram template

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template#RfC: deprecation of BS-map , which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Mackensen (talk) 02:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Following on from the RFC, a batch of BS related related templates have been nominated for deletion here. — Voice of Clam (talk) 06:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Abbey Foregate station

Has anyone got a copy of Butt handy and quote me chapter and verse for the opening and closure of Abbey Foregate station in Shrewsbury. There are no proper citations in Abbey Foregate. Thanks in advance. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Opened 1 June 1849, renamed Abbey Foregate Platform c. 1900, closed 30 Sept 1912, According to Butt, page 11. — Voice of Clam (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Quick (p411) says first appeared in LNWR WTT June 1868 but not mentioned again until March 1869. Shown as a ticket platform on the Wellington line with alighting only from 1866. First appeared in Bradshaw April 1867. Closed 30 Sept 1912. Known as Abbey Foregate Platform from 1890 (LNWR company handbook). Nthep (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks, both of you.Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 September 7

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 September 7#Template:Cross Country Network, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Mackensen (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Longest UK train (in 1930)?

This BBC story - Why Henry Ford imported a Cotswold cottage to Michigan - provides a citeable claim that a 67-wagon train was the longest ever seen in the UK by 1930 (caption of fourth image, excluding video clip). This strikes me as unlikely. Did GWR 0-6-0PT No. 1962, built in 1889 and presumably re-boilered and pannier-tanked under Churchward or Collett, really set that sort of record? It sounds more like something Ford himself told the newspapers, who failed to take a pinch of salt in their eagerness to print a superlative.

Our article Foss Cross railway station puts the date at 1929, and mentions the size and weight of the train, but not the record. An article in The Henry Ford online archive repeats the figures, and appears to have the original photo, but not the superlative. Are there any other possible sources to back up such a claim? -- Verbarson  talkedits 21:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

The archive article states that the stones filled 67 cars, but does not state that all of those were pulled in a single train. The BBC wouldn't know one way or the other either. I don't think you can take this record at face value, but there may yet be other sources. Rcsprinter123 (engage) 23:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't know about GWR claims, but the LNER Class P1 2-8-2 (introduced 1925) was designed to haul 100-wagon coal trains between New England marshalling yard (to the north of Peterborough) and Ferme Park marshalling yard (between Hornsey and Harringay), a matter of some 73 miles, on a daily basis. A typical coal wagon of the period had a tare weight of about 7 tons and a capacity of about 10 tons, and a brake van weighed 20 tons, so the gross weight of the train (excluding loco) would be around 1,700-1,750 tons. The effective length of such coal wagons when coupled was about 20 feet, brake van slightly longer, so 100 wagons plus a brake van would be some 670-675 yards. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Henry Ford and his agent in England Herbert F. Morton were irredeemable liars, particularly when it came to either buying exhibits for undervalued prices, or for Barnum-like over-promotion of his exhibits. Ford in particular was a racist snob and to anyone whom he saw as his inferior he simply didn't recognise that truthfulness was at all necessary. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
See the first entry at each of q:Henry Ford#1910s and q:Henry Ford#1920s; perhaps Ford wished to invent history. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
On closer examination of the photo in the archive, the loco is No. 962. This is one of the GWR 1076 Class built by Joseph Armstrong in 1874. -- Verbarson  talkedits 09:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Somewhere in my library there is a 1930s GWR press photo of a 28XX 2-8-0 at the head of a 100 wagon train. Something that is reproduced in miniature at Pendon. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Having approached the article's writer, I learned that the photgraph had the claim scribbled on the back of it!
I have found this source online for 100-wagon trains; also Holcroft[1] mentions 70-100 wagon trains, at an earlier period (1900-10). -- Verbarson  talkedits 16:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
I note that the caption in the BBC article has been amended to read "...one of the longest..." -- Verbarson  talkedits 09:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Must be a secret wikipedia editor in the Beeb newsroom. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Holcroft, Harold (1957). An Outline of Great Western Railway Locomotive Practice. London: Locomotive Publishing Co Ltd. p. 108.

Merseyrail definition discussion

There's a discussion going on about defining the Merseyrail network Here. G-13114 (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Great British Railways

There is a discussion at Talk:Transport in England#Great British Railways "will", which may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

TOC websites blocking foreign connections

This is a heads up for anyone in this WikiProject not in the UK, like myself. Today, I tried to verify a service change to Merseyrail only to find the company's website blocked my connection with an Error 1005. I'm not sure if any other websites for TOCs in the UK also do this, but if this happens to you, do not report the issue and hold off on any relevant editing, unless you can find another source to verify. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The Internet Archive is often a useful way to get around geographic restrictions, although isn't guaranteed to be up-to-date. Although being based in the UK I can't easily verify if this works on this occasion. Thryduulf (talk) 21:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Actually, I have to withdraw my suspicion of "only accepting UK connections". I checked the same website from another device on a different network and it connected just fine. Turns out, the site was just blocking my normal network's ASN. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't know what "Error 1005" might be - the HTTP status codes run from 100 to 599. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
It’s a Cloudflare error, apparently, triggered when a user doesn’t have permission to access a certain webpage. I don’t know why my network got it when I tried to access the Merseyrail website. Jalen Folf (talk) 12:15, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

"Accidents and incidents" in articles

Hi all - is there an agreed threshold for inclusion in an "Accidents and incidents" in a train article? Injuries, deaths, derailment, investigation by the Rail Accident Investigation Branch? I was reading the British Rail Class 375 and none of the incidents had injuries, although in one, the train did derail. I was tempted to be bold and remove the other 3, but thought I'd ask here first.

IIRC, plane articles require a death as a result of an accident for inclusion. Turini2 (talk) 08:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The plane spotters are a bit more nuanced than that. See WP:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents#Aircraft articles. Thincat (talk) 09:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
With the safety record of the railways in the UK, if we required deaths there would be almost no accidents listed... Perhaps better to go with something along the lines of being a notable event in the media, causing injury, or initiating an RAIB investigation? Danners430 (talk) 09:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
RAIB investigaion would definitely class it as notable. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
RAIB are duty bound to investigate virtually everything so that isn't an indication of notability. The outcome of an RAIB investigation might be more of an indicator e.g changes in design, major changes in working practices. Nthep (talk) 09:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Virtually everything, but not everything. As pointed out by Danners430 (talk · contribs), given the safety record of the railways, if it made the media it will almost certainly trigger an RAIB investigation so that woud be a good starting point. How many investigations conclude nothing needs to be done? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I think this discussion is intended to be about whether an accident/incident should be included in an existing article, not whether an article should be written about the incident. Thincat (talk) 09:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I think most of us understand that - the notability requirements for inclusion in an article are obviously much lower than those required for a standalone article. Danners430 (talk) 09:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I suggest the following qualifications for inclusion.
  • Major consequences - death, major property damage, long term line closure
  • Lasting influence - changes of design or policy as an outcome
  • Newsworthy - possibly trivial, but notable for other reasons (eg didn't a DLR train miss the platform with royalty on board?)
Anything else is not encyclopaedic material. Accidents happen, but if there are no significant consequences they don't need to be listed. -- Verbarson  talkedits 10:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
That seems like a reasonable set of criteria. Do we have lists of accidents and incidents in the UK that include the non-article-worthy ones? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom. There are also various others in Category:Lists of railway accidents and incidents in the United Kingdom and subcategories, some with titles suggesting overlapping scopes. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
By this definition, none of the accidents or incidents on the British Rail Class 375 page would be notable. Would others agree with that? (I would!)
  • On 8 November 2010, a passenger train operated by unit 375 711 overran Stonegate station, on the Hastings Line in East Sussex, due to low railhead adhesion in the leaf fall season and maintenance errors in respect of the train's sanding apparatus. The train continued to slide beyond the station for 2 miles 36 chains (3.94 km). Following the incident, Southeastern reduced the interval that the sand hoppers were to be refilled from seven days to five days.
  • On 24 November 2014, the front carriage of unit 375 611 caught fire from faulty electrical insulation pots at Charing Cross Platform 6. There were no injuries, though both the track and leading carriage required repairs, part of the rail being melted.
  • On 26 July 2015, units 375 703 and 375 612 formed a train that collided with a herd of cattle on the line at Godmersham, between Wye and Chilham, Kent. The leading carriage of 375 703 was derailed. There were no injuries amongst the 70 passengers and crew on board.
  • On 5 January 2018, unit 375 815 hit a fallen tree near Herne Bay. Though damage was sustained to the leading carriage, there were no injuries.
  • On 24 October 2018, shortly before midnight unit 375 301 leading 375 906 hit a car abandoned on a level crossing between Teynham and Faversham. The car caught fire and the leading carriage of 375 301 sustained damage to its corridor, bogie and coupling.
Turini2 (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure either 2018 incident should be included, but the others do feel encyclopaedic to me.
Arguably the 2010 incident had lasting influence in terms of changes to procedures, similarly the 2015 incident report recommended changes to the design of the train (fitting of obstacle deflectors) and clarifications to rulebook procedures/definitions. I can't see how the 2014 incident would qualify under this proposal though. Thryduulf (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
2010 was a change to procedure, not policy. It was no more significant than ensuring your car's screenwash is kept topped up.
If the 2015 accident led to actual design changes, they should be mentioned and referenced.
Additional qualification for inclusion: all incidents should be referenced. -- Verbarson  talkedits 12:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
@Verbarson Actually I do have a slight addition - maybe something like "major structural damage to train" - i.e. if a unit or carriage had to be scrapped? Turini2 (talk) 11:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps change Newsworthy to specify how newsworthy - a local newspaper will report on something as simple as a train overshooting a platform, but it won’t be picked up by the national news for example. Danners430 (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
There are broadly four types of articles that might contain lists of accidents and incidents - rolling stock articles, station articles, company articles and line articles. I'm not certain the criteria should be the same for all of them, given an event may be notable in one context but not another. For example the 2018 Lewisham train strandings should definitely be mentioned at Lewisham but doesn't appear to be linked from the TOC's article. Thryduulf (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
The 2010 Stonegate incident resulted in a very large fine for Southeastern as far as I remember. The July 2015 incident is the most serious to involve the class so far. Mjroots (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Those incidents would be encyclopaedic if those details were included. An incident that had some sort of lasting significance (eg something had to be redesigned, major changes in working practices, possibly rolling stock scrapped) would merit inclusion in my opinion, but (as written) the examples above are textbook indiscriminate lists in the same way as "in popular culture" sections. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
So following the above, a slightly expanded proposal on @Verbarson's points for inclusion of an train accident/incident in an article (not for a standalone article).
  • Major consequences - death/major injuries, major property damage, major structural damage to train/scrapping of train, long term line closure
  • Lasting influence/significance - major changes of design, working practices or policy as an outcome
  • Newsworthy - trivial, but notable for other reasons (e.g. DLR train missed the platform with royalty on board, IRA bomb etc)
  • Well referenced - national and local news coverage preferred over specialist rail media or primary sources (e.g. RAIB report)
Any thoughts? Turini2 (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm not averse to including anything that got a full RAIB report (ie not a safety digest or part of another report), especially if the report contained new or significant recommendations. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
I would argue that safety digests are also occasionally worthy of inclusion - by no means all, but we shouldn't just blanket exclude them. Plenty of safety digests have been notable. Danners430 (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
The issues with "anything that got a RAIB report" is there are definitely things that have them, that don't have major consequences, have lasting influence/significance or are particularly newsworthy. (e.g. a near miss at a level crossing, for example) They are a high quality primary source, but I think we should be looking for secondary sources to decide whether or not something should be included in an article. Turini2 (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
RAIB reports are beside the point. Their grounds for selecting an incident to report on are different from Wikipedia's notability requirements. If an incident is notable by WP's standards, then an RAIB report - or digest - would be a good (though not necessarily sufficient) source, but if it isn't notable, then even a 200-page RAIB full report will not make it so. -- Verbarson  talkedits 18:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Except Wikipedia’s notability requirements don’t necessarily apply here - we’re not discussing what incidents should have an article of its own, rather what incidents deserve a paragraph in a related article. Danners430 (talk) 18:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
We are discussing what Wikipedia's requirements for listing an incident should be (in the context of WP UK Railways). They will not be the same as RAIB's, nor, I grant you, as restrictive as those for full article notability. -- Verbarson  talkedits 18:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
I think any incident in which the train is brought out of service should be able to be added but, perhaps instead of what accidents should class as accidents, we should instead focus on guidelines on when to use what types of accidents would make sense? For example, you wouldn't say a minor bump such as the one British Rail Class 777 had recently is notable on the East Coast Main Line (or other main line services), however it is notable (in my opinion) in the context of a closed network like Merseyrail.
The whole discussion of what should be allowed gets very context dependent, I'd also put forward the idea of "remodelling" how we state accidents. instead of going in depth over each accident, especially if similar accidents happen frequently, we could start following how the Kirkby railway station notes previous accidents with the buffer, just noting the year they happened, and what happened.
If all else fails, we could also just move to doing TOC/Accidents articles, so then the original articles remain mostly clear, but then there are places for the incidents/accidents to be noted? --- 𝓙𝓪𝓭𝓮 (Talk) • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂 01:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Network SouthEast station signs

For major stations, NSE had some free-standing signs giving the station name, eg: . Obviously Guildford has one, I know of one at Eastleigh and one at Bristol Temple Meads. Does anyone know of any others still surviving? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

There's still one in my home village of Hassocks, on the east side (village side): Google Maps link. Shockingly I've never photographed it, despite going past it at least twice a day for about 30 years. There was also one on the west side, but that has long gone. I presume it is because both station approach roads are very long. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 11:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Edit to add: I've always associated them with stations that have long approach roads off a major road, where the station needs to be advertised clearly from the main road. Arundel is another example, and it still has a classic NSE-era one (Google Maps link); Pulborough has a modern version, not the "chunky" NSE type. Balcombe has one at the pedestrian steps down from the main road to the overbridge. Other stations with long approach roads might be worth considering. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 11:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Useful to know, the one at Guildford would just come into that designation as the sign is on the corner to the approach road. The one at Eastleigh is (was possibly) right by the station. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Follow up, the Eastleigh "lozenge" version has gone, replace by the simpler version Google Maps link, like Arundel. It's the six-sided lozenge support version I am particularly interested in. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
I associate the lozenge supports with major stations in the "South West Division", so to speak (i.e. present-day SWR network). I chose a few at random to look at on StreetView. Woking lost its lozenge at some point since September 2022 (link). Nothing on either side at Surbiton. Just a "normal" one at Weybridge, Petersfield, Portsmouth and Southsea, Portsmouth Harbour (new in 2022!) and Havant north side, although the south side has a four-sided one (rare!). Lozenge survived at Fratton in 2022. I don't recall ever seeing one at any Brighton Line/"South Central" stations, with which I'm more familiar. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 13:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
I've been hunting round Hampshire and not found any, except one on the down side at Southampton Central. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
If there was one at Bristol Temple Meads then it isn't a Network SouthEast sign! Bristol was managed by the InterCity Sector. Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Good point! Must be older than I thought. Can't be InterCity as all the others I know are at NSE stations. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Would anyone chat in a dedicated UKRail (or general Rail) channel on Wikipedia:Discord?

Question in title mainly,


Just trying to gather a quick consensus if people would use a channel before I ask the discord mods if we could perhaps get one made. If there is already places we are talking off-wiki let me know though. ^^ --- 𝓙𝓪𝓭𝓮 (Talk) • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂 01:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I have expressed my opinion of discord in the past. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
I’d be interested certainly - but I would say that wikipedia-related discussions should stay on Wikipedia, so there’s full transparency as afforded to us by talk pages and page history. A discord would be nice to discuss non-WP items, or to notify people of a discussion on WP though. Danners430 (talk) 17:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm a member of quite a few discord servers, several of them railway related. I'm not a member of the Wikipedia Discord server as I don't believe that having such a semi-official space for discussions is a good thing for a healthy project (iirc one of the weather-related projects (tropical cyclones?) got into a bit of bother regarding canvassing, etc. An entirely unofficial place for Wikipedians to chat about non-Wikipedia related matters would be a different matter. Thryduulf (talk) 10:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Personally, kinda agree with these comments, though, i think for quick questions/very short discussions discord could be not only easier but better. but for long term discussions, I agree, using Wikipedia is better. Personally, I'd use it like how some of the WP:VG crew use it, just mainly letting people know of discussions or discussing semi related things over discord. --- 𝓙𝓪𝓭𝓮 (Talk) • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂 00:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Railway station article photographs

I'm on a minor crusade to improve the infobox images on the various railway station articles. Too many of them feature a picture of a train with bits of platform. I am hunting for images of the actual station buildings, on the lines of London Underground station articles. Any assistance in this would be appreciated. See, for instance, the one at Woking. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

That is the standard that I try to employ on the railway station articles that I regularly edit. The infobox should show the station; a picture of a train might be useful in a 'services' section lower down the page. If there stations that are particularly in need of new images, perhaps you could list them here? Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Will do as I come across them. Dormans and Hurst Green for starters. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Winchfield, Spondon, Willington Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Tilehurst Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
It's a little harder for stations without buildings, but yes - 100% agree! Will keep an eye out. Turini2 (talk) 12:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I've got a folder full of station pics in the "Wikipedia Stuff" folder on my PC. Probably about 100 stations in all, and all focusing on the stations/platforms rather than trains (train photos go on my Flickr photostream!). I'll just finish uploading some other stuff to Commons, then I'll make a start on the stations this afternoon. I have both Dormans and Hurst Green, funnily enough. @Murgatroyd49: feel free to grab anything suitable you find here/ Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 13:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll have a look through. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I've uploaded all I have (more than I thought, as it happens!). Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 20:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I've made a start! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Engineering diversions

At Seven Sisters station, Slowmetal17 (talk · contribs) plus an IP (who may be the same person) are insisting on adding a temporary engineering diversion to the routebox. I'm certain that some years ago we agreed that routeboxes were for normal timetabled services. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:35, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I don’t know about previous consensus, but I’d certainly agree that route boxes should be for regular services only - same way as timetables should show regular and not peak time services. Danners430 (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Somebody (admins who have edited this page revently include HJ Mitchell, Mackensen, Mjroots, Nthep, Thryduulf and Voice of Clam) please revert this and protect. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
HJ Mitchell got the revert, I've semi'd for 2 weeks. Mjroots (talk) 14:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Reverted and IP blocked for disruption. If it was just the account, I'd say it's a content dispute but logging out to edit war is disruptive. I'm sure it wouldn't take long, if necessary, to establish a consensus on the content matter. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you HJ Mitchell and Mjroots. I'd have replied earlier, but was at the dentist and I'm still feeling funny. Does WP:DRUNK apply to novocaine? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Ask Star Mississippi! (context). Thryduulf (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Oh there was another one fairly recently where I had a gem. I clearly need time off novocaine and nitrus. Heal gently @Redrose64 and thanks for the reminder laugh @Thryduulf Star Mississippi 22:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

John Bate

A few years ago, one of the mainstream railway journals, probably Railway Magazine or Steam Railway, had a long article about John Bate, former Talyllyn Railway chief engineer. Does anyone know which magazine this was and when? Any other off-line articles would also be useful, if RS. Thanks. — Voice of Clam (talk) 08:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Follow-up - I've found the article: Railway Magazine September 2018. However if anyone knows of any other articles please let me know (I have most books about the Talyllyn, including John's own Chronicles of Pendre Sidings). Thanks. — Voice of Clam (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi all, what is the difference between the different templates used to link to station articles, and which is the best one to use: { {stn|blah} }, { {rws|Blah} } or { {stnlnk|Blah} } ? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

{{rws}} redirects to {{stnlnk}} so in effect they are both the same - ie they link to Blah railway station. {{stn}} simply links to Blah station. It depends what article you want to link to. — Voice of Clam (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Many thanks, I hadn't sussed the subtleties. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Ticket offices closure proposals

With the proposed closure of ticket offices abandoned is there any need to mention on individual stations articles? For mine stations articles should be about events specific to that station rather than high level network wide ones.

Likewise when it comes to services, articles should mention services that do or did operate, but not ones that were planned but never eventuated, e.g. Blackpool North railway station makes no mention of the Grand Central services from London that were set to start in 2020. Pleterbubb (talk) 03:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect a station or even a train operator article to mention the bulk ticket office closure proposal unless that particular one was notably different from the vast majority.
I'm uncomfortable with a lot of proposed services appearing in articles. If they are just proposals they often fall foul of WP:CRYSTAL so wouldn't be included, but when they are cancelled do they become notable? There must have been hundreds over the years, most of which don't get listed. I'd even be wary about listing short-lived services that ran for a year or two and then disappeared. Geof Sheppard (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Back in July, Mattdaviesfsic (talk · contribs) and myself removed paragraphs about ticket office closures from a number of station articles, the reasoning partly being WP:TOOSOON, but mainly that the change was not specific to that station. For example, all GWR ticket offices were listed for closure, not just the tiny ones in Berkshire but all the way up to and including Paddington, which has one of the busiest ticket offices in the entire country.
Have they been creeping back into the station articles? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Underneath the arches

In urban Britain, railway arches are almost ubiquitous. Searching online finds no end of shops in arches, cafes in arches, businesses run in arches, light industry in arches, arches for rent - almost all contemporary. There is a song and a film about them. My mum used to buy my underwear in railway arches (M&S, Brixton).

But railway arches have been around for at least 187 years. Short Brothers built balloons in them around 1900. A search on WP finds them all over the place, but the information is all scattered. Does any one know of a history, or other deeper analysis, of railway arches? Sadly, this documentary is focussed on the homeless people in the arches, not the architecture - but they are still part of the bigger picture.

So: a book? website? PhD thesis? Photo essay? Radio or TV documentary? Is there anything out there that gives the arches the attention they surely deserve? -- Verbarson  talkedits 23:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Reposted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport -- Verbarson  talkedits 16:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Streetcars

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Streetcars#RFC: Notability and Tramlink stops, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Thryduulf (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Interchange figures for ORR estimates of station usage

Is the 10% threshold established in 2018 for inclusion still suitable for current times? JamesVilla44 (talk) 11:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. G-13114 (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on the withdrawal of TPE Nova 3s

There’s a discussion now ongoing at Talk:TransPennine Express about the withdrawal of the Nova 3s which may be of interest to some contributors Danners430 (talk) 21:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Missing images

Anyone else having trouble seeing images from Commons in articles? They suddenly disappeared about 20 minutes ago. I just get blank spaces where they should appear. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@Murgatroyd49: For future ref, this isn't really a UKRAIL question (unless the only affected pages are those within this WikiProject) but is much more a matter for WP:VPT. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 12:16, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

National Rail Enquiries have changed their website, and all the links using three-letter station codes are now broken or only partially functioning. For example, Didcot:

It looks like a massive job to fix these up, given that there are something like 2,500 stations. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 22:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

2582 to be exact, listed on my subpage - User:Mattdaviesfsic/Station editing/Progress. Template:Brldb_prim is the key thing that needs updating, as that is what forms the first part of Template:Stn art lnk. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 22:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
WP:URLREQ can deal efficiently with this sort of change. Certes (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes, but requests there are best if we can provide a before/after pair that is consistent, such as the hostname changing but the path and filename are unchanged; or the hostname and path changing but the actual filename is unchanged. In this case, everything from the hostname through to the filename has changed, so we need to provide a full set of 2,582 translations, for which the filename part will be like
  • DID → didcot-parkway
  • OXF → oxford
  • PAD → london-paddington
  • CTW → church-oswaldtwistle
As the last example shows, not all are obvious. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 00:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
I think the vast majority will be quite easy to convert if you have a list of the 3-letter codes and station names, as they do seem to have been consistent on the ones I've looked at so far. All the single word ones will simply be the decapitalised word, and the majority of the others will be the decapitalised words separated by hyphens (even for longer ones - i.e. SKN -> st-keyne-wishing-well-halt). As your last example shows, the ones with ampersands or "and" seem to dispense with it (i.e. TUT -> tutbury-hatton). Other link-words are included, though (i.e. RAV -> ravenglass-for-eskdale, GLT -> glenrothes-with-thornton). The ones with disambiguators seem to simply include it (i.e. ADC -> adlington-cheshire, SMG -> st-margarets-london). I haven't found any that fail this methodology yet. Black Kite (talk) 01:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
As an exercise, I downloaded the list from the ORR site into Excel and it took me about 10 minutes to convert. (1) Strip parentheses and apostrophes (2) replace " and " with a single space (3) replace spaces with hyphens (4) lowercase everything. It even worked for the Heathrow stations (HXX -> heathrow-terminals-2-3-rail-station-only). The ORR list only has 2,578 stations though, so I presume it's missing the last four to open. (Edit: it was actually missing the last 7 to open, so I now have 2,585 in the list - not sure what the 3 extras are, though I suspect Corfe Castle and Bishop's Lydeard are two of the oddities). Black Kite (talk) 01:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Two failures noted so far. My conversion produced CSD -> cobham-stoke-dabernon, it's actually cobham-stoke-d-abernon. But that's a very odd one. Also the full stop in the middle of Leuchars for St.Andrews needs stripping, no idea why it's there to be honest since all the stations that start with "St" don't have it. Black Kite (talk) 02:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Completed file available here. Black Kite (talk) 02:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/live-trains/departures/DID redirects (in the HTTP 301/302 sense) to https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/live-trains/departures/didcot-parkway/ so it may be possible to perform a simpler conversion. Certes (talk) 11:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Ha, so that was a waste of time! It might come in useful at some point though. Black Kite (talk) 13:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

DFT station categories

In United Kingdom railway station categories and numerous UK railway stations articles, we have the DFT category section. As noted in the main article itself, it may be outdated as of November 2022, is it possible that we can find an updated version, whether through a freedom of information request or other method of getting this information as otherwise the purpose the DFT category inclusion is trying to serve is not sufficiently verifiable. JamesVilla44 (talk) 11:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the DFT has updated station categories since 2009, so unless the DFT updates the categories (which it should imo) we can't make any updates.
Though a Freedom of Information request might be worth a shot though. It should be noted we have a very anti rail and pro road DFT right now so I don't expect any changes to station categories to happen anytime soon. Maurice Oly (talk) 13:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Mattdaviesfsic/Station editing

Hi everyone, Over the last few so and so's (what feels like 16,000 years), I've been working through various stations (in the Highlands, given it's best to start at one end of the country), improving their information, structure and sourcing, as per the above link.

Recently there has been discussion around the "Passenger volume" tables. I first saw it at Falmouth Docks railway station (I think), and thought "That's not a bad idea actually", so I incorporated that into these edits.

Recently some of them have been removed given there's not been a clear consensus for these edits (intrusive thoughts made me want to write "Imagine how Wikipedia would look if we needed to do everything by a WikiProject consensus! - but I didn't). Hence I'm tasked to ask whether this is the best thing since... I don't know... some of these pages were created?

There has also been discussions around WP:NOTSTATS, and I'm happy to add explanatory notes like that at Kinbrace railway station to explain the data and provide background, which was already done at Falmouth Docks railway station.

Please do say - if you care at all - if this is great or is inherently flawed. Or even, if you want to help in some way with my station editing, which would be fantastic because I can't do it all by myself, of course!

Thanks Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 13:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Of course, I will remove the ones so far if consensus be so. However, note the other edits involved so I'm happy to remove them if necessary, otherwise reversions may mean the loss of intermediate edits. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 13:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

British Rail Class 390

I am somewhat bemused to see that the 390s are listed as being within the scope of WikiProject London Transport. A quick check on similar trains (800s etc) indicates it is peculiar to this class. Am I missing something or was someone being a bit zealous? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Murgatroyd49: It's not our call, you should direct your query to WT:LT. That said, the banner has been in place for more than fourteen years, being added with this edit by Tyw7 (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
I forgot the exact reason for that grading but the Class 390 serves the West Coast Main Line, which terminates at London Euston and serves several London stations. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
I was just curious. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at WikiProject Trains

I know a lot of us follow both topics, but I didn't until I was pinged...! There's a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Trains about the naming of articles - British Railways or British Rail... as this topic predates my involvement with the project, would anyone be able to offer historical insight at the original thread regarding this naming convention? Danners430 (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Chafford Hundred - Lakeside or not?

The article Chafford Hundred Lakeside railway station has been moved - once again - to Chafford Hundred railway station, this time by Sunil060902. As the National Rail Enquiries still shows the "Lakeside" suffix, is anybody in a position to visit the station to confirm what the signage actually says? There is a sort-of discussion at Talk:Chafford Hundred railway station#Name. Also notifying Ritchie333 and Timrollpickering who have carried out previous moves. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking at google maps The station signage hasn't got the Lakeside suffix Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Looking at the move in 2019, it was probably done because I visited the station and couldn't find a definitive source that had "Lakeside" in the timetable. The operator's site, c2c, says "Chafford Hundred" only. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello Redrose64 and all. I wanted to see for myself, so visited the station today, for the first time since the Pandemic. I have already uploaded some pics to Wikimedia Commons, [1], and I reproduce thumbnails below.
  • Barking platform indicator, showing "Upminster, Ockendon, Chafford Hundred, Grays"
    Barking platform indicator, showing "Upminster, Ockendon, Chafford Hundred, Grays"
  • Chafford Hundred platform sign, saying, in small font, "for Lakeside" (ie. not an unusual case at all for a station sign saying "for Somewhere Else"
    Chafford Hundred platform sign, saying, in small font, "for Lakeside" (ie. not an unusual case at all for a station sign saying "for Somewhere Else"
  • Chafford Hundred roadside double arrow sign (no "Lakeside")
    Chafford Hundred roadside double arrow sign (no "Lakeside")
  • Chafford Hundred station entrance (no "Lakeside")
    Chafford Hundred station entrance (no "Lakeside")
  • Welcome to Chafford Hundred station sign in c2c "house" style (no "Lakeside")
    Welcome to Chafford Hundred station sign in c2c "house" style (no "Lakeside")
  • Chafford Hundred station car park sign (no "Lakeside")]]
    Chafford Hundred station car park sign (no "Lakeside")]]

So, an open and shut case, right? Except for this one sign (just one!), in National Rail "house" style:

Chafford Hundred Lakeside sign in National Rail "house" style

Anyway, that's the signage evidence available, so really five signs against one in favour of plain "Chafford Hundred". Hope I've presented the evidence in as neutral fashion as possible. Best, Sunil060902 (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_56&oldid=1204212051"