Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways

Requested move at Talk:National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers#Requested move 12 November 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers#Requested move 12 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. About me; Talk to me. Farewell fellow editor... 12:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Station page linking

Someone please tell me what the actual difference is between Purley and a plain Purley or Purley railway station in full. Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. About me; Talk to me. Farewell fellow editor... 21:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Between the first two, none. Which is used is just the personal preference of the editor writing that bit of content.

Between either of the first two and the latter one, it's just whichever works best in the context it's being used. Thryduulf (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

My question then, if {{stnlink}} does basically nothing, why have it, if we can just use normal [[ ]] wikiliks? Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. About me; Talk to me. Farewell fellow editor... 22:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

It exists because some editors prefer it as it is easier to type. Personally I just use plain wikilinks, but my preference is no more or less valid than any other editor's. Thryduulf (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I see Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. About me; Talk to me. Farewell fellow editor... 22:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Mattdaviesfsic: {{stnlink|Purley}} is shorter to type than [[Purley railway station|Purley]], plus you only need to write Purley once. But Template:Stnlnk has distinct advantages when it comes to disambiguation: some stations have the parenthetical disambiguator after the words "railway station". e.g. Gillingham railway station (Dorset) and Gillingham railway station (Kent); some have it before, e.g. London Road (Brighton) railway station and London Road (Guildford) railway station. But you don't need to know which format is used - the syntax is the same:

• {{stnlnk|Gillingham|Dorset}} → Gillingham
• {{stnlnk|Gillingham|Kent}} → Gillingham
• {{stnlnk|London Road|Brighton}} → London Road
• {{stnlnk|London Road|Guildford}} → London Road

Of course, if you want the words "railway station" to be displayed, using the normal wikilink is the way to go. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Aha, thx Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. About me; Talk to me. Farewell fellow editor... 23:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

If you prefer writing links out in full, you can use {{subst:stnlnk}}. For example {{subst:stnlnk|Birmingham New Street}} expands to [[Birmingham New Street|Birmingham New Street railway station]]. — Voice of Clam (talk) 08:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

EWR 2024-2025 consultation

The non-statutory consultation on updated proposals for East West Rail, running from Nov 2024 to Jan 2025 has been released today. See here. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 11:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• There is a WP:BRD debate at Talk:East West Rail#November 2024 Consultation on whether material on a non-statutory consultation should be included. Please contribute towards a consensus, as presumably the principle has wider significance. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

2324 station usage

The new station usage figures from the ORR will be released on Thursday 21st November. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 14:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Which sort of DMU is this?

I've come across this photograph on Commons, and I would like to identify which sort of DMU this is so I can categorise it. G-13114 (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Probably a British Rail Class 105 - see also Media related to British Rail Class 105 at Wikimedia Commons 10mmsocket (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Just looking at other articles, British Rail Class 104 and British Rail Class 108 look closer. Not my area of expertise though Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 16:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Certainly not a 104 or 108, they have 3 windows across the cab front. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

It might be a Class 112? Though I'm not sure how to tell. G-13114 (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Not easy, they have the same bodyshells, it's the power trains that vary. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• Two digit headcode box, it's a 112. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  Or a 113, but you'd need to know numbers to tell that, they're the same bodyshells. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  The 105s also had 2 digit headcodes Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• It's definitely a Cravens unit (all Cravens DMUs had that window arrangement, which was not used by any other builder), so we have five potential classes: 105, 106, 112, 113 or 129. 129 may be eliminated as being the wrong coupling code and the wrong part of the country; 113 may also be eliminated as they all had four-character headcode boxes mounted in the roof dome, and two marker lights above the buffers. Class 106 all had four marker lights and no headcode box, as did the earlier Class 105 units. However, the later Class 105 units had a front-end appearance identical to Class 112: two marker lights and a two-character headcode. I don't recall coming across the use of Class 112 on the former Great Central main line, it's most probably a Class 105. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:City Line (Merseytravel)

See Talk:City Line (Merseytravel)#Requested move 18 December 2024. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)