Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways

When do "Names" sections become excessive?

See British Rail Class 390#Names. I think this is the perfect example of what Wikipedia should not be. It's not a directory, nor a collection of indiscriminate information / trivia. I think this example fails WP:DETAIL. In my opinion we should trim the section right back to just a handful (less than 10) of notable names, i.e. namings that resulted in press coverage rather than just entries in a single (list) reference. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree - I think the content has its place when it is sourced. Being selective could be seen as us being subjective. Garuda3 (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

In general, I think that section has far too much detail, much of it transient in nature (as shown by the frequency of renamings). My only hesitation is that in this case, it is well sourced / referenced and is (currently) up to date - albeit with a risk of that not being maintained. There is a vast number of railway articles which have excessive detail which is not sourced and is also hopelessly out of date (e.g. see many heritage railway articles). On that basis, I'm very supportive of reducing unnecessary detail, but this article wouldn't be remotely near any list of worst examples. Mwsmith20 (talk) 10:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:Other stuff exists and WP:General notability guideline. The real question is whether it is appropriate to use Wikipedia as a repository for this information. See WP:Wikipedia is not. Doubtless there are many other enthusiast sites where such detail is recorded. If enough people really really want Wikipedia to host this material, then it needs to be hived off into a list article, such as a list of British Rail Class 390 names, so at least it doesn't clog the main article with clutter. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

We do this for some steam loco classes, e.g. List of GWR 4900 Class locomotives, but the majority of named steam locos tended to be named when new, or almost-new, and also tended to keep their names until withdrawal. That said, some classes (e.g. LMS Royal Scot Class, nos. 6125-49, and LNER Class A4) did have a disproportionately-high number of renamings.

I have noticed that in modern times (like, from about 1990 on), locomotives and multiple-units were often named with a lot of publicity, particularly in local press, and a few years later the names were quietly dropped, by which time the local interest had also vanished. Names do tend to be a lot more transient than they once were. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

As long as it is cited, which this appears to be, see no problem. Keeping track of contemporary namings / denamings is easily done with several of the industry magazines having sections in each edition that track. Either include them all or none at all, trying to decide which are notable and which aren't would be impossible. Of more concern are the lists, of which there are many, on railway articles that have existed for years uncited and while perhaps correct at the time of writing, are now horribly out of date. Symondsyat (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

RAIL magazine 17 April 2024

Hi,
Does anyone have access to a copy of the 17 April 2024 edition of RAIL magazine please? If so, could you tell me the page number of the article by Philip Haigh on the recent proposals for Kent–Gatwick services? I would like to complete the following reference:

• Haigh, Philip (17 April 2024). "NR explores resurrection of direct Kent–Gatwick trains". RAIL. No. 1007.

Thanks and best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 19:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Probably. I have a digital subscription but not on this device. Give me 24 hours. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Mertbiol: Yes, I have a copy. The page is 52-53. See here to confirm. Rcsprinter123 (palaver) 21:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much @Rcsprinter123: You are a star!! Mertbiol (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Photos of the Redhill–Tonbridge line

Hi,
I’ve recently been doing some work on the Redhill–Tonbridge line. I have struggled a little to find good photos to illustrate the article and I wondered if anyone had any pictures of the line in their own collections, that they might be willing to upload to Commons? It would be great to have some photos of passenger and goods trains from before 2008 (including steam, diesel and electric locomotives/multiple units). I’d also be very grateful for any pictures of the station buildings and signal boxes at Nutfield, Godstone, Edenbridge and Penshurst.
Thanks and best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 15:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

There's a thread for this at Talk:Redhill–Tonbridge line#Request for photos. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Machynlleth Town railway station

I've proposed renaming Machynlleth Town railway station. Thoughts on the talk page would be welcome. — Voice of Clam (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Alconbury Weald station

When would you say would be the best time to create an article on this station? I have information about when Alconbury Weald new development was built and when the station was roughly first proposed, as well as news articles saying consideration may be applied after the new election (obviously since happened, but not sure about the application). The station is to be located between Huntingdon and Peterborough, probably served only by GTR. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 13:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

It certainly has widespread coverage from reliable sources, but at the moment I think it only merits mention in some other article, e.g. at List of proposed railway stations in England#List_of_proposed_stations_in_East_of_England and a more expanded mention at Alconbury Weald. I'd say when it gets to the point where concrete plans are submitted for approval it might be worthy of its own article. If plans get approved then it's definitely worthy. As an aside I'm staying 10 miles away from there for the next week or so. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it could also be mentioned in the old Abbots Ripton article which isn't far from the probable site. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 14:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)