Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 55

Archive 50

←

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Glasgow Central move request

There's a move request at Talk: Glasgow Central station#Requested move 21 January 2023. ---- G-13114 (talk) 12:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Loch Skerrow Halt railway station

There is a claim on Twitter that Loch Skerrow Halt opened in 1861 and was renamed in 1955, not that it opened in 1955. I don't have the sources to verify the claim. Can anyone verify which date is correct please? Mjroots (talk) 06:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Does this confirm that the station was extant in 1867? 10mmsocket (talk) 08:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Same book from 1874 10mmsocket (talk) 08:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

This book from 1878 show distances between Loch Skerrow Station and others on the line. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

It was a non-timetabled halt for long period and didn't appear in the public timetable until 1955. See Quick [1] Nthep (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Butt (p. 147) says Loch Skerrow PP&W 29 NX 66 OP after June 1861 Ppatrick; (OP)&RN Lochskerrow 13 June 1955 BTC. [Also known as Loch Skerrow Halt] which decodes as: The station named Loch Skerrow was on the Portpatrick and Wigtownshire Joint Railway. It may be found in Jowett page 29, within the 10 km x 10 km square denoted as NX 66. It opened for private use at some unknown date that was after June 1861 by the Portpatrick Railway. It was opened for public use and also renamed Lochskerrow on 13 June 1955 by the British Transport Commission. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Southampton Central railway station

An editor has added an exhaustive list of individual bus services at Southampton Central railway station on the grounds that some other station articles have such lists. I understood this level of detail was deprecated, there is adequate general mention of the bus services at the station. Comments are invited on the talk page Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Camden Highline

I've recreated the article based on new information and the general announcement that the site has been at least partly approved and gained planning permission. Could someone go over it and make sure it is up to standard? Thanks. Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 20:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Looks pretty good, thanks for doing this! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Grouping and nationalization parameters at infobox station

Hi, there's been an inquiry at the talk page for the infobox station template, where it was pointed out there's no documentation for the Pre-grouping, Post-grouping and Pre-nationalisation parameters. I'm vaguely familiar with what they mean, but I'm not sure I understand fully enough to add the appropriate documentation myself. Could an editor here provide the documentation at Template:Infobox station/doc? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

When would Post-grouping and Pre-nationalisation be different? Geof Sheppard (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

When it applies to non-UK stations, they would be alternate parameters. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I could document these myself, concisely and accurately. But given the treatment I received two or so years ago, I refuse to do so. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for nothing, I guess. However Geof Sheppard went ahead and added descriptions, which I appreciate. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Clarified the lables refer to UK stations. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

As a follow-up, the template could do with a post-privatisation parameter. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I am certain that this has been discussed (and rejected) before, and more than once. As I recall, the two main problems are that (a) many stations have had more than one TOC simultaneously; and (b) franchises are relatively short-term. What would we put for, say, East Croydon or Peterborough? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking of situations in other countries where railways have been nationalised and subsequently privatised, not just UK. eg Argentina. NB, East Croydon is easy: Network Rail/TfL. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

This is the WikiProject UK Railways page, what happens in other countries isn't relevant. As regards East Croydon - it isn't easy, you suggest Network Rail/TfL but somebody else might put Connex South Central, or Southern, or Govia Thameslink, or Gatwick Express. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

This may be the UK railways page but the template we are discussing is international. Which is why there is a pre-nationalisation parameter. Any parameters that don't apply to <country> can safely be ignored. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

In terms of a post-privatisation parameter it couldn't realistically be all operators serving the station - Liverpool Lime Street is currently served by seven operators - Avanti West Coast, East Midlands Railway, London Northwestern, Merseyrail, Northern Trains, TfW Rail and Transpennine Express. A further 14 (at least) operated trains there at some point - Arriva Trains Northern, Arriva Trains Wales, Central Trains, First North Western, First Transpennine Express, KeolisAmey Wales, London Midland, Merseyrail Electrics, Northern Rail, Northern Spirit, Virgin Cross Country, Virgin West Coast, Wales and Borders and Wales & West. Station operator would be more realistic, but some stations do have multiple operators (although I think 3 is probably the most). Thryduulf (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The parameter would be for station owner/operator. In the case of major stations with multiple services that would be Network rail. It was just a thought. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced editing and possible sockpuppetry

Two newly-registered editors have been making unsourced changes to timetable information in North West England train station articles. Obviously unsourced editing is to be discouraged, but so is sockpuppetry. Perhaps the good people of this project could keep a keen eye out

• Loll2023 (talk · contribs)
• TedsTrains (talk · contribs)

Thanks in advance. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock and Ayr Railway

Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock and Ayr Railway 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. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Loudoun Square station

This is probably not controversial but I just want to make sure. I have requested Loudoun Square railway station be moved to Butetown railway station, based on new information. See Talk:Loudoun Square railway station. Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 20:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 23 February 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus either for the proposed titles or any of the alternatives ("British Rail Pacer"). No such user (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

---

• Pacer (British Rail) → Pacer (train)
• Sprinter (British Rail) → Sprinter (train)

– The Pacer article was moved by an admin on 31 January following a requested move. The reason given was "Pacers weren't limited to British rail, and "xxx (train)" is precedent on WP", which seems entirely reasonable. The move was undone today 23 February with the reason "introduces inconsistency with Sprinter (British Rail)". Thus, the best way to eliminate such inconsistency is to move both articles to ".....(train)" and thus be a) consistent and b) in keeping with WP precedent 10mmsocket (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. The move to "Pacer (train)" followed an undiscussed technical move request filed by a single user, not a full RM process, and the admin involvement should not be taken as approval. I read the "Pacers weren't limited to British rail" rationale as meaning "other companies operated them too", but I view the inclusion of BR in the name as referring to BR's role in commissioning their development (and indirectly BREL's role in building most of them) rather than favouring any particular operator. Further, as illustrated by the fact that "Sprinter (train)" already redirects to a disambiguation, the "Sprinter" appellation is also and already used by three different types of rolling stock operated by Nederlandse Spoorwegen (the Dutch state railways), as well as a train service category in the Netherlands, a rail service in California, and a class of rolling stock used in Victoria, and I don't feel that BR's Sprinter has sufficiently-strong claim to be the undisputed primary topic. XAM2175 ^(T) 18:06, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral. Logic checks out, but I agree with XAM2175 that the original move was broadly undiscussed, without at least some approval. No opinion on the actual precedent or naming either way, though. Other - more modern - stock uses the manufacturer's name in the title, e.g. Siemens Desiro, Alstom Aventra, but whether that applies to more generic families I don't know. Does the WikiProject have naming conventions for this? Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
• Weak support. The base titles are ambiguous so both are dab pages; that's clearly a no-go so we have to disambiguate it to something. "Pacer (train)" is the most concise and probably the least ambiguous of the two options and we should favour concision per policy. But there was nothing wildly unacceptable about the previous title so if someone would lose sleep over this issue, I'd defer to them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The trains were built for the British Rail network and thus the articles should stay as they are.
  Given that XAM2175 has pointed out their are sprinter trains in many countries, I feel that also adds to why the Sprinter (British Rail) article should stay as it is named now. Maurice Oly (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support per NATURAL.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  WP:NATURAL says Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title, is sometimes preferred, which in combination with Adding a disambiguating term in parentheses after the ambiguous name is Wikipedia's standard disambiguation technique when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title (emphasis mine) would lead me to consider "British Rail Pacer" and "British Rail Sprinter" as offering the best balance of precision and concision that avoids falling back to parenthetical disambiguation. Those titles would also give consistency with the family-of-trains articles already mentioned by Mattdaviesfsic. XAM2175 ^(T) 22:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Sprinter (train) as ambiguous with (at least) NS Sprinter Lighttrain, Sprinter New Generation and V/Line Sprinter, all of which are trains. There may be a better disambiguator than "British Rail", maybe Sprinter (British train) but I don't personally have an issue with "British Rail", nor do I see why Sprinter and Pacer must use the same disambiguator. Thryduulf (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
• Comment (for now, until I've evaluated the points from both sides) I shall offer some history.
  The Pacer page was created by Ant1 (talk · contribs) as Pacer (train) on 25 September 2003, and the Sprinter page was created by Enotayokel (talk · contribs) as Sprinter (train) on 11 September 2006. There was another (not part of this RM nomination) concerning the Networker, created by APHST (talk · contribs) as Networker (train) on 6 October 2007. All of these names endured unchanged for many years.
  They were all moved by Buttons0603 (talk · contribs) on 18 May 2020: the first to British Rail Pacer at 19:01 (diff); the second to British Rail Sprinter at 19:02 (diff); and the third to British Rail Networker also at 19:02 (diff). Just under two hours later, the first two were moved again, this time by G-13114 (talk · contribs): the first to Pacer (British Rail) at 20:47 (diff); the second to Sprinter (British Rail) at 20:48 (diff); and the following day, the third was moved again, this time by Kalabkyng (talk · contribs), back to Networker (train) at 23:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC) (diff).
  Just over three weeks ago, the Pacer article (but not the other two) was moved by UtherSRG (talk · contribs) to Pacer (train) at 16:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC) (diff) following this WP:RMTR request by Tbf69 (talk · contribs) and today moved by XAM2175 (talk · contribs) to Pacer (British Rail) at 17:18, 23 February 2023 (UTC) (diff).
  My opinion - for the moment - is that all eight of these moves should have been discussed, and not carried out unilaterally (or bilaterally in the case of the 31 January 2023 one). I also feel that in retrospect, I should have move-protected them all following the three pairs of moves in May 2020. My bad on that one. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

  For my part, I considered that I was reverting an undiscussed move. I apologise if it appeared that I was performing an undiscussed move myself. XAM2175 ^(T) 10:24, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Good discussions and nice and polite too! Thanks to @Redrose64 for the history. I now see a different an much better way forward - to go back to the 2020 'British Rail Pacer' and 'British Rail Sprinter' names, or even 'BREL .....' That then fits will the common approach for naming trains families as 'Manufacturer + Family'. I do think the current names are wrong, and can see the confusion caused by '... (train', so this looks like a better way forward. Thoughts? 10mmsocket (talk) 09:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  Support 'British Rail Pacer' and 'British Rail Sprinter' (per my proposal last night :P ). I wouldn't use 'BREL', as there were some classes in those families that were built by other manufacturers. XAM2175 ^(T) 10:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  Support British Rail __ as well. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  Support British Rail as well. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

  Also supported below by XtraJovial as well. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 08:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support per norm --- Tbf69 P • T 10:28, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support Pacer move only. 'Sprinter' is a term used throughout the industry worldwide, so I feel that the proposed name change for that article would unnecessarily increase ambiguity. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 18:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  Fully understood. What about British Rail Pacer and British Rail Sprinter? 10mmsocket (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  Definitely better - I support both being moved in that instance. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 00:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose It's currently concise and unambiguous, why move it? Also the British Rail part is descriptive, not part of the name, so also oppose 'British Rail Pacer/Sprinter'. G-13114 (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose It is absolutely fine as it is. Roads4117 (talk) 12:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hazlewell railway station

Can someone with admin rights sort this copy and paste move out? G-13114 (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@G-13114 both cut and paste moves Hazelwell railway station and Moseley railway station undone. This is without prejudice as to what the articles should be named and is solely on attribution grounds. Nthep (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Abbeyhill Junction

hello, I've been trying to add refs to articles that have not had refs for many years. I found one to add for Abbeyhill Junction for basic verification but am unsure whether it is really notable. I'd appreciate you improving the article if possible, thanks. JMWt (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider a simple junction as notable unless there was something unusual in its operation or it was the scene of a notable happening. I think it would be best to combine it with Abbeyhill railway station. Geof Sheppard (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Especially so in view of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 53#Railway junctions at AFD. Of the 19 junctions taken to AfD on 21 September 2022, eight (Arkleston Junction; Crow Nest Junction; Hest Bank North Junction; Hest Bank South Junction; Neasden Junction; Pouparts Junction; Shields Junction; Woodburn Junction) closed as delete; two (Fawkham Junction; Narroways Hill Junction) closed as soft delete; three (Grand Junction, Birmingham; Madeley Junction, Staffordshire; Southall East Junction) closed as redirect; four (Aynho Junction; Droitwich Spa Junction; Fort William Junction; Worting Junction) closed as merge; and just two (Weaver Junction; Westerleigh Junction) closed as keep. To survive, an article on Abbeyhill Junction needs to aim at those last six as a target, ideally the last two. It's a big ask. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

And indeed, this one was also taken to AfD, where earlier today it closed as merge. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Should unmanned be undone

While I broadly support the aims of WP:GNL I find that this edit (diff) rankles a little. Am I wrong to think that "manned" and "unmanned" are practically reserved language in the (British) railway world - just as it is in the aviation industry, e.g. Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). Should unmanned station, unmanned signalbox, unmanned level crossing, be terms that are preserved not replaced in UK Wikipedia articles? 10mmsocket (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't view those forms as generally being terms of art or other kids of reserved language, so I'm not troubled by the change. They simply reflect the default use of language at the time they came into use. XAM2175 ^(T) 11:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Use common sense, like these reliable sources have:

• If a place is unmanned, there is nobody working there
• Used to refer to a spacecraft, or a place where military guards work, that has no people present to operate or be in charge of it
• Not having or not needing people to operate or work correctly
• Having a human operator or crew on board or on site
• To be present in order to operate [a machine or vehicle]
• Carrying or operated by one or more persons

Bazza (talk) 11:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

This isn't "common sense" – you're working backwards from dictionary definitions, which is pointless because the discussion relates to the continued use of those terms, not their meanings, and those definitions aren't reliable sources for anything other than their meanings. I'd especially note that most of them give examples relating to spaceflight, which is a field to which the WP:GNL policy is explicitly applied. XAM2175 ^(T) 12:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Let's look at some evidence:

• "Making rail Accessible" East Midlands Trains, 2016: 123 instances of "unmanned", 4 of "unstaffed"
• "Making Rail Accessible" West Midlands Railway/London Northwestern Railway, 2017: 0 instances of "unmanned", 68 instances of "unstaffed"
• "Cheshire Day Ranger" National Rail (undated) "Tickets can be bought at ticket offices at any staffed station or from conductors on trains when starting your journey from unstaffed stations..."
• "Design Manual for Medium to Small Stations" Network Rail, December 2022 0 instances of "unmanned", 2 instances of "unstaffed"
  • Every instance of "unmanned" on a google search restricted to site:networkrail.co.uk is related to "unmanned aerial systems" or "unmanned aircraft systems"
• "Travel is Becoming More Accessible - What About Rail?" RSSB, 2018: "However, any move to Driver Only Operation must be properly managed and the most appropriate arrangements will vary depending [...] whether stations are staffed or unstaffed [...]"
• "RDG Guidance Note: Winter Arrangements for Stations" Rail Delivery Group, July 2020: 1 instance of unmanned, 2 instances of unstaffed.

It's clear that "unmanned" is not reserved language and so there is no reason for Wikipedia to avoid using gender neutral language for British railway topics. Thryduulf (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I feel (for example) describing a station as an unstaffed halt reads just as well as describing it as unmanned. I wouldn't go out of my way to switch to GNL, but I certainly wouldn't revert a change. — Voice of Clam (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, useful opinions. Like I said, I have no issue with the GNL initiative and now see that "unmanned" is not something to die in a ditch over! --10mmsocket (talk) 06:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

WWII Crash of Liberator bomber on Norwich City station?

In a letter to The Critic issue of of 1 April 2023 the writer tells us that in their house "Wikipedia is avoided as much as possible, and rudely labelled “Wankipedia” as it is load of old cock". Quite right too. The problem is that our article Norwich City railway station mentions (unreferenced) a deliberate crash of a Liberator bomber on the station to avoid loss of life. Two "proper history books" mention no such thing. I've put more information on the talk page. Could someone correct our grievous error (or find a source for information that has been challenged)? Thincat (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I have found this report of a crash that may match the description. May not be a RS, but could point to better sources, if true. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 23:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, even though it's a blog, it looks very credible to me and the photo of the plaque is helpful. It could well be the source the IP used who added the claim to the article. It looks as if the letter writer's "proper history books" are incomplete! Thank you a lot for finding this. Thincat (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks even better than I originally thought (I was on my mobile, wishing I was asleep!). I have followed the link to the crash page on the 458th Bombardment Group website, where a lot of the info was found. If it all comes together, Accidents and incidents involving the Consolidated B-24 Liberator is missing that crash too. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 10:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that crash page is worth reading all the way through. Thincat (talk) 11:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Guys, check the issue date of The Critic. There's probably a very good reason two "proper history books" do not mention the event. Mjroots (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I've added it to the Liberator accidents list page, not including the sensational claim that it hit Norwich Cathedral - that would not have been forgotten so easily! The 'proper history books' mentioned are both railway histories. I imagine that a plane crashing in a distant corner of a goods yard in time of war is not notable as far as railways go, but judging from the sources it was locally quite notable and is still remembered in Norwich. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 19:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Birmingham New Street Signal Box

If anyone's interested and available on the 31st, NR are balloting for tickets for tours. See here for details. I'd love to but I can't make it. Would be great to get some interior photos for the article though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

It is, I believe, to be the subject of an upcoming episode of The Architecture the Railways Built. I might have misinterpreted a trailer that definitely depicted that highly-distinctive SB. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, excellent! I love that programme. Tim Dunn is a little over-exuberant for my taste but he visits some fascinating places. He partly inspired me to rewrite Bennerley Viaduct. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I prefer over-exuberant to dull and boring and soporific! GRALISTAIR (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: It was tonight's episode, and should be repeated within the week. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm watching it on UKTV Play now. He covers Lincoln as well, a city close to my heart! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah damn, I wish I was free for it. XAM2175 ^(T) 11:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

It was a lottery with 7000 applicants for 60 spots in the end. Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 00:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Transfer technology in 1913

I have posted a question about the decoration of a loco tender in 1913 using decals. If anyone has expert knowledge of this, their contributions would be gratefully received. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 08:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Which loco?

From the file's description: "A trainload of coal comes off the northern end of the High Level bridge in Newcastle, presumably coming from the Durham coalfield and heading to one of the Tyne Valley power stations." Photo taken in 1982. To my untrained eye it looks like a British Rail Class 56, but is it? Cheers, MinorProphet (talk) 07:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Judging by the vent panels I'd say definitely a 56 rather than a 47. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Class 56 for definite. There are several features which distinguish it from a Class 47 - the large bodyside grilles, the smooth cab roof without a ventilator, others that can't be made out in that photo. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Bogies appear significantly different between the two classes, as well. XAM2175 ^(T) 15:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks for all your expert observations. I'll update the description. MinorProphet (talk) 11:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Made up stuff?

• Wigan station group
• Warrington station group

What? This is made up stuff right? There is no such thing on Network Rail's website. The articles serve zero purpose - it's enough to say on one station article that the other is nearby. Do we need these? 10mmsocket (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I doubt it's made up, but it seems unlikely it's notable. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Redirect them to DAB pages Wigan railway station and Warrington railway station respectively. — Voice of Clam (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

On second thoughts, redirect to Station group (railway), possibly with the other groups mentioned if they are also unsourced. — Voice of Clam (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

That is eminently sensible 10mmsocket (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

They're not made up at all - they have separate National Location Codes, it's how the ticketing system works - but they do seem a little redundant to Station group (railway) in situations like this where the stations all begin with the name of the locality. The three that don't (Liverpool, Manchester and London) are not unreasonable, but I'd redirect the two you've mentioned as well as Worcester station group and Dorchester station group. Black Kite (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree with redirecting Dorchester, Warrington, Wigan, and Worcester to Station group (railway). Birmingham station group would also be an option for redirection under the all-prefixed-with-locality criteria, but that article is a little more comprehensive than the others (it had content from Railway stations in Birmingham city centre merged into it in 2017). I've no real opinion either way.

I notice that the same editor who created all these group articles also created ones for Bootle and Gainsborough, but these have already been deleted. XAM2175 ^(T) 22:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

RealTrainTimes for Service tables

For a while, when it comes to the service tables, I've always known that we've used both the eNRT and the listed Timetables on the TOC websites to verify timetabled services. However, I've seen some editors also insist on using the RealTrainTimes website for changes, which I believe is unreliable as it only relies on constant updates of active units and almost never matches official schedules. Now I wonder what everyone else's stance on sourcing this website is: reliable or unreliable? Jalen Folf (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging FusionZenFlame to this discussion as it appears this is an ongoing issue at TransPennine Express and possibly other TOC articles. Jalen Folf (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

No matter what they still call at specific stations full stop. Its like me saying im on a newcastle - Liverpool lime street service stopping at Dewsbury and your saying it doesnt when in fact it does. Not all services call at it but some do which can be explained by *Irregular Service*. Same goes with Lea Green and Northallerton. You also say using real life information is wrong like going to real station is wrong? It will tell you the exact same information. FusionZenFlame (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

But that's the reason why we call it "off-peak" tables. It doesn't necessarily imply the non-existence of service to a station on a particular service, even if it's during the peak hours; we're simply trying to display what a typical service outside of peak hours would consist of. From how I've seen your edits on these articles, it looks like you're trying to base your edits on personal experiences as well, which is also not permitted according to our policies against original research. For now, I will leave it to other editors to assess whether your edits fall under the WikiProject's definition of "off-peak calls", as I've been trying to tell you. Jalen Folf (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

But what your saying about what i am trying to do is half right and half wrong. I get that i can not use my own personal experiences in editing a simple article. But what your getting wrong is these trains still operate to these stations certain times of the day anyways. I do also understand that whoever first made the edit to the Newcastle - Liverpool Lime street section must of only used one service to base it off which is completely wrong as the service calls at many other stations which i "additionally" added. NOT AS REGULAR CALLING POINTS FOR ALL SERVICES. For irregular services. If you wanna continue believing im wrong then go ahead. Check this video link before you say anything else. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxWWxlstlNY&t=281s *Correct as of April 2023* The timetabled routes will show you what i have been trying to do. FusionZenFlame (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

FusionZenFlame is right. What he has been saying about the services is correct as of April 2023. OwenDrury360 (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC) — OwenDrury360 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

At least someone bloody agrees with what im trying to say! Thanks Owen. :) FusionZenFlame (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Weirdly, this account was created precisely two minutes before it posted this comment. XAM2175 ^(T) 21:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Yea i noticed that, Weird. But im still right nonetheless. FusionZenFlame (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Unless it has changed, and it could've recently, the problem with Realtimetrains is that the data pertaining to a particular query, only stays active through a url for around six weeks after it occurred, which has made linking to it as a citation problematic. After the time has elapsed, the cite will show no data, which means the data is unrealistic, whereas the eNRT timetable will be extant for the period displayed (IE May to September (or whatever)). I understand that RTT is up-to-date, but do we need that level of detail? The articles are not timetables, and they need Reliable Sources. RTT fails on this, not because it is untrustworthy, but because the data is deleted after six weeks. The joy of all things (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

RTT just label what trains are doing what routes and give active journeys. Understandable that this can be wrong at times which i do believe, As many cases on the detailed section a trains journey comes up with no report which means it has failed to track a certain train. Like you said they get rid of their date after a certain period which is shameful as you will not be able to view past journeys, only future journeys........ FusionZenFlame (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree on your point regarding excessive detail, but should you be in a position where verifiability is the only thing preventing use then I can confirm that the Wayback Machine will preserve the RTT pages for individual trains (one from 17 Jan 2023 as an example). I've not tried it with other forms of query result but in theory they should also work. XAM2175 ^(T) 22:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

That goes back to my point of seeing trains calling at specific stations in real life and wether or not they are calling at extra stops or running a regular service. FusionZenFlame (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Realtime trains can tell us that on this date this service ran using this unit and called at these stations at these times. It is no indicator of whether those occurrences are normal or abnormal, save for the recording of lateness as with this instance or this one. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I still want to know who removed every limited calling point on the article as that has been on for ages. FusionZenFlame (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

You’re welcome to look at the page history where every edit is recorded. Danners430 (talk) 12:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm wondering if perhaps you're conflating a few separate things, @JalenFolf, when you say as it only relies on constant updates of active units and almost never matches official schedules. RTT is an accurate primary source for the timetables of individual trains inasmuch as it's a direct reproduction of the TRUST timetable feed up to a few moments before you run your query, so if it lists a station call for a certain place at a certain time then it's reflecting what TRUST thinks will be happening based on how Network Rail have uploaded the timetables. It can, however, differ from National Rail Enquiries and station/TOC information systems for same- and next-day alterations because contractual limitations prevent RTT's use of the Darwin customer information data feed. Similarly, timekeeping records for each train are reproduced from Network Rail's data feeds (primarily train describer berths, but also TRUST direct reports manually entered by signallers).

It's also, arguably, an accurate quasi-primary source for the rolling stock allocated to any given train (so long as the "pathed for" field is ignored) because it blindly repeats the information it receives from TOC control systems – but we avoid using it as the source for generalisations about the stock that operates a particular route for that same reason, and we especially avoid using it to draw conclusions about whether certain types of unit can work in multiple with each other.

However, detail at the level of individual trains is generally too insignificant to include in articles, and it's hardly practical make a general claim about the service based on looking at lots of services on RTT if you then have to cite all of those services individually, so it doesn't make a very good source in aggregate. Are you able to give a quick summary of the dispute at the TPE article so I can check my reasoning? XAM2175 ^(T) 22:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Fair argument but RTT still tracks real trains moving even with a few errors now and again. But even with them errors the train would still be running right? FusionZenFlame (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

The claim is that Lea Green, Dewsbury, and Northallerton are served irregularly during off-peak hours between Liverpool Lime Street and Newcastle (no comment on other changes being reverted). Assessing both eNRT and TPE's own timetables for Mon-Fri 0930-1600 (one of the standard off-peak periods), I see no calls at these stations on those specific services. This is why I'm also claiming original research is in question here: some edit summaries clearly show user experience at one of the stations. Also, in regards to RTT, what's the point about using a source when it's gone after some time without archival? Jalen Folf (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Then am i meant to put (Limited) then. Cause all 3 stations are served on this specific route. Just not by all services. FusionZenFlame (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

On a note of pedantry, "original research" is a special term of art for Wikipedia. The spirit of the WP:OR policy is to prevent introducing unpublished ideas or arguments into Wikipedia. I recommend reading the footnote to the first para of the OR policy. Citing personal experience is not OR if it might feasibly be published somewhere; it's just a bog-standard WP:V problem in the meantime. Doesn't seem like a big difference, but important in the same sense that good-faith edits cannot be vandalism even if they make a right mess of things.

As to what's the point about using a source when it's gone after some time without archival}; it's news to me if that's a problem for us here. It's not a million miles away from citing newspapers, really – after all, how accessible would old editions of them be if they weren't being routinely archived?

We do arrive at the same conclusion though – there's no real way of verifying those additions, should they be made to the article, short of sending the reader away to flip through scores and scores of RTT pages. Is it really the case that no other sources exist though? XAM2175 ^(T) 22:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Before this gets too far, the matter was brought up six months ago at RSN and notified on this very page, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 54#Realtime Trains as a reliable source. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I will still keep my opinion after reading the 2 comment argument. FusionZenFlame (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not a "2 comment argument", it's a notification posted on this page about a lengthy discussion elsewhere, and there is a link to that (archived) discussion in the very first sentence. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

That discussion did arise on rather different terms, in that it primarily considered unit allocations rather than timetable data, and in the case of a single record rather than the aggregate, but Thryduulf captures the gist pretty well all the same: It's reliable within its limits (which are explicitly noted in various places on the site) but not particularly useful for writing an encyclopaedia. Archive.org and similar can get around the transitory nature of the information if necessary, but I can't see why it would be - anything notable enough to be mentioned in an encyclopaedia article would be covered in the (railway) press or other static source. XAM2175 ^(T) 23:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I think I started the thread which Redrose64 linked to above, but - FusionZenFlame - no one is doubting the usefulness of RTT. However, data being deleted after a few months, as well as micro level detail, makes it unsuitable for Wikipedia. I would suggest (and it's not that much trouble) using the train companies' timetables, or the Network Rail WTT, as they clearly give long-term information. If anything, it's easier to use these to identify limited calling patterns as it's a more helpful layout!

As Geof Sheppard pointed out on the thread Redrose linked to, If it is the calling point information you want then use the official railway timetables; if it is the rolling stock information then I would want to see it corroborated from a printed source or more permanent (non-fan) website. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 06:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Im not gonna sit here and continue to say that what im seeing on a stupid timetable is right. Cause i know what im seeing is what actually happens and nobody can accept that. FusionZenFlame (talk) 11:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

And what you say about use train comapnies timetables still shows what im claiming does happen in that a service calls at 3 stations NOT ON ALL SERVICES. Im still going to see this wikipedia article as wrong full stop unless a timetable change happens where the train service stops calling at the 3 stations all together. FusionZenFlame (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I could have easily messed it up and saying it calls at the 3 stations and that they are served on all day trains when in fact they are not. But like i have said 10+ times just because no one is accepting that im saying a (limited) calling point should be shown is right then i just wont use wikipedia to get information ever again. FusionZenFlame (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Throwing tantrums is not a good way to get people to help you. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

You can view me like that, thats your choice. But i know how i am thank you very much.... FusionZenFlame (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I already know that nobody wants to accept my views and i can easily see that. FusionZenFlame (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Cause i know what im seeing is what actually happens and nobody can accept that. No, I think that most people here can accept that those station calls are being made. I have no difficulty with it myself, given that I've boarded one of those trains at Northallerton. The problem is that the information published on Wikipedia is meant to be verifiable: [Wikipedia's] content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, or experiences. Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. This means that a reader of our articles should be able to check any fact we publish against a source already published by a trustworthy provider even if that provider is occasionally wrong. The overall intent is that the only errors on Wikipedia will be those made by other sources that we've repeated, which is still not ideal, but less bad than Wikipedia editors introducing new errors of their own making.

Your passion is commendable, and RTT is generally trusted within limits, but – as we've already described – it's exceptionally difficult to use as a source in Wikipedia articles because it only shows data for one train at a time, or for one station for one span of time not exceeding 24 hours. How can we say that those stations are served consistently across the months and months for which the timetable is in use if all we can do is link to RTT for one day? Should we follow each of the three stations in the list with 200 separate RTT links and expect readers to check all of them to be sure that those station calls aren't just a short-term variation?

Instead, thinking outside the box, perhaps you could consider contacting TPE and asking them to update their published timetables? XAM2175 ^(T) 13:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, on that note i will in fact contact TPE about their next timetable change and seeing what is done to each service. Then i can see what changes and what stays the same and then edit the services that need slight adjustments. Also to add to your first point i am thankful that your one person who originally believed that my claims are correct but not as of the given time on the original article. Even ive boarded the Newcastle - Liverpool Lime street on the full route and it stopped at every stop that also included the ones i added. Once again i am greatful to have someone that believes what i am doing was intentionally correct as of April 2023. FusionZenFlame (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Next routine timetable change is in December, so I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

And, for the avoidance of doubt, even though I believe your information is correct and being added in good faith, I agree with the other posters here that without a better source your changes do not belong in the article. XAM2175 ^(T) 13:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I thought it was May 2023? FusionZenFlame (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

... yes, as a matter of fact. For some reason I thought it had just happened. XAM2175 ^(T) 15:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

hahahahahahahahahahaha FusionZenFlame (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

• CU note The OwenDrury360 account above was, as some suspected, a sock of FusionZenFlame. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Rail transport in Wales draft

Rail transport in Wales has been created (now draftified from the mainspace), editors involved in this Wikiproject may be of interest of this draft, and any assistance is welcomed. Although I do wonder if Railways in Wales is more suited to the scope. DankJae 19:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

That looks very good. I suppose more could be said about the fragmented nature of the Welsh railway network, being effectively split into three disjointed bits, and the proposals to adress that, and the current (limited) state of electrification of the Welsh network, and the conversion of the valley lines network into a metro system. G-13114 (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Butt's 1995 directory?

Hi, awkward request I know, but I was wondering whether someone with Butt's 1995 Directory of railway stations could let me know - whether here or by email, I don't mind - what Butt's directory says about Attadale railway station. The history section is incredibly short there, as you'll see! If you have a copy but no longer need it...... *wink* (kidding, obviously). Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Did he write one in 1965? I never heard of it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

1995, sorry for the mistake. Knew it was something like that! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

All it shows is that the Highland Railway opened it in 1880. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for your help. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The generally-reliable book Vallance, H.A.; Clinker, C.R.; Lambert, Anthony J. (1985) [1938]. The Highland Railway (4th ed.). Newton Abbot: David & Charles. p. 39. ISBN 0-946537-24-0. shows that the Dingwall & Skye Railway (Dingwall to Strome Ferry) opened to passengers on 19 August 1870, but not all the stations opened at the same time - in particular, Attadale opened in 1880. The Dingwall & Skye amalgamated with the Highland Railway on 2 August 1880. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Quick's Railway Passenger Stations in Great Britain says may have opened as early as 1875/7 as a private station but opened for public use on 1 June 1880. Nthep (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Template:Rail infrastructure projects in the United Kingdom - current or proposed

Should we try and set a threshold as to what project counts as current and what still counts as proposed? E.g. Projects become current when, depending on the project, gains planning permission or passes TWAO or becomes current when construction begins. There has been some confusion over this in the past. Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 15:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

In my mind (and feel free to disagree):

1. Proposed - anyone can suggest something should happen, including Railfuture, Campaign for BT or whoever, even if it will never happen in a billion years for whatever reason;
2. Planned - the business-y stuff, business cases, funding promised, planning permission stuff given, etc; (IMO, "current" should be renamed to "planned", but that's a different matter)
3. Under construction - self-explanatory;
4. Intermittent testing phase (the phase being so short it would probably never see use on WP);
5. Open and ready for business.

As I say, feel free to disagree, but that's just my thoughts. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

In between Proposed and Planned you can have Feasibility study. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Good point, noted. I might clear that up actually. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Between Feasibility study you could have "aspirational" (better term needed) where there feasibility study has concluded the project would be a good idea but there is no money for it at the moment, and "safeguarded" where the line of the route has been protected but it's not going to be built in the short term.

I'd also consider splitting the "Proposed" category and start with "Suggested" for projects where there are calls and/or campaigns for the route/station but nothing more, and restrict "proposed" to schemes that have have official recognition as something worth considering. I'd put things like Brighton Mainline 2 into the "suggested" category and West London Orbital in "proposed". Thryduulf (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd suggest that we don't include "Suggested" in any template as it can apply to virtually any line or station. Come election time, you see every candidate in every constituency calling for station x or route y to be reopened. This gets a bit of press in local news and someone will use that as justification to include it in this template. We're supposed to be dealing with notable stuff not something "I think might get me a vote" or railfan wants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nthep (talk • contribs) 18:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I would draw the line more strictly, permitting a standalone article only to projects with funding. Although "aspirational" might be OK if there are firm published drawings. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I would not draw any firm lines, as which projects deserve coverage (whether that is a sentence, paragraph, section or article) depends on the coverage in reliable sources and the level of detail that exists about the project. Something that has been the subject of campaigns for decades should probably be mentioned somewhere, even if it's never progressed beyond "suggested", while not everything that gets constructed is not notable (e.g. a new siding). Thryduulf (talk) 08:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Good logic from Thryduulf, definitely agree with that. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 08:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Potential order

Probably doesn't warrant inclusion in a list/template, let alone a stanalone article, unless it's received considerable coverage:

1. Suggested - anyone can suggest something should happen, including Railfuture, Campaign for BT or whoever, even if it will never happen in a billion years for whatever reason (e.g., Brighton ML 2);

Stations/lines which may warrant their own article, depending on coverage:

2. Proposed - stuff that might be built eventually, but not been officially considered yet (as noted by Thryduulf (e.g., West London Orbital);
3. Feasibility study - including business cases etc (as noted by Redrose64 below);
4. Aspirational - project a good idea but lack of funding at the minute (e.g., Croxley & Watford link);
5. Route safeguarded for future use?
6. Planned - business cases, funding promised, planning permission stuff given, etc; (IMO, "current" should be renamed to "planned", but that's a different matter)
7. Under construction - self-explanatory;
8. Intermittent testing phase (the phase being so short it would probably never see use on WP);
9. Open and ready for business.

Station Service Patterns around Great Britain

Sometimes I question some TOCs and the strange service patterns on some of there major routes. I want to hear peoples thoughts on this matter? Should TOCs keep current service patterns are set a fixed one with limited, some times an hour or called at by all services. I generally wann hear what people think on this topic i came up with recently. FusionZenFlame (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@FusionZenFlame: Wikipedia is not a lobbying organisation. If you want a TOC to alter their services, try your local rail users group. There are quite a lot: these groups are recognised by Chiltern Railways. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you implying that WikiProject UK Railways is not high on the morning reading list of every TOC director in the UK? Surely they care deeply about what we discuss here. Heretic. Shame on you. @Mattdaviesfsic & @XAM2175 go get him! 10mmsocket (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Bold of you to assume I'm not a TOC director ;) XAM2175 ^(T) 10:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Redrose64. Also see WP:NOTAFORUM. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 05:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

On what you said i should check out and what I did. Making this a topic a subject of debate on my own talkpage is better than putting it on a page on something it is related to? FusionZenFlame (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Mangapps Railway Museum

The Mangapps Railway Museum article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 05:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Yup - when I nominated it, it was completely unsourced for 18 years… so well overdue something needing doing. Good work is now being done, and I’ll be joining in come the weekend, so I have no doubt the consensus will be to keep the article. Danners430 (talk) 06:21, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

J C Bourne

John Cooke Bourne (d.1896) is "best known for his lithographs showing the construction of the London and Birmingham Railway and the Great Western Railway." It seems to me that all of his pictures, including those associated with the railway histories, are now in the public domain. Some are in Commons, and of those some are flagged as PD. Is there a source all or many of his pictures? I'm particularly interest in illustrations of GWR buildings and bridges that no longer exist in their original state. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 14:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Would be a case of hunting through the British Museum and Yale Centre collections (and any others) to see if they have what you want on line. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

None in BM, nothing for download on BL, five images in Yale Collection. I was hoping for a scanned copy on something like Gutenberg (which doesn't have anything). -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 16:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Six here at 1024px or better 10mmsocket (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Editing from trains

All edits that come from the IP address range 185.104.136.0/24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are in fact coming from Icomera - a company who a few may know is the UK's leading provider of onboard passenger Wi-Fi on trains and buses. Icomera are kind enough to identify which TOC's customers are using a particular IP address. It's surprising (to me) just how many edits actually come from onboard passengers. I came across this because C2c was just edited by a passenger on a Greater Anglia train. I have taken the liberty of putting a public-ip header on a number of the talk pages for edits going back to later 2022. I suspect this is because I have too much time on my hands! 10mmsocket (talk) 09:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Not like there’s anything better to do today… takes cover Danners430 (talk) 10:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Why, is something happening? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, Flying Scotsman is doing 100th birthday trips up and down the Keighley & Worth Valley. Nthep (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Eurostar image dispute

Talk:Eurostar#Image removal some edit warring on this article by a new editor (also same editor logged out using IP) over an image of the Eurostar terminal in Amsterdam. I would appreciate further discussion from members of this project who collectively continue to do an amazing job of curating railway-related images. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

All sorted - sockpuppets now blocked. Thanks. --10mmsocket (talk) 09:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

TPE replacement

TransPennine Express is dead, long live TransPennine Trains. I have taken the liberty of creating the latter as a just-for-the-moment redirect to DfT OLR Holdings (along with Ltd and Limited variants). In the meantime we'll be wanting to crack on with Draft:TransPennine Trains until 28 May when the new TOC goes live. TPE have confirmed in their FAQ that little is going to change operationally, which means that some content will be able to be copied over from the original TPE article (remembering to include attribution as part of the copy operation). I'm thinking of routes and rolling stock as the obvious sections to copy. Volunteers form an orderly line.... 10mmsocket (talk) 09:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Timetable change 21 May 2023

You guys know the drill. The new timetable is out, and TOCs have changed service patterns and added new routes across their networks. Please remember to update the source for services when reflecting these changes on the respective TOC articles, as was advised many times before on this Talk page (i.e. here). Jalen Folf (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

You mean as was not done just now at Southern (Govia Thameslink Railway) by @Techie3? 10mmsocket (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Working on it. Did not know that I need to update the sources. Techie3 (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for that, it was just too much of an immediate coincidence to ignore. Thanks for replying in such good spirit! 10mmsocket (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

EWR route update

The route update report has been released on the East West Rail here. Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 14:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

How to handle cases of new station on new site, reusing name of station closed >30 years ago

This must have happened before? Right now, a new Winslow is nearing the end of construction phase a good mile from the original site and due to come into use late '24 or early '25. There are plans for a new Tempsford and (another!) short move for Bedford St Johns is being proposed. So how are these cases to be handled? Taking Winslow as a "for example", I can think of two three options:

1. have both stations in the same article, with two infoboxes. [I have boldly done this for now, so the effect can be seen.]

(a) Old station first, new station second

(b) New station first, old station second

2. Move (most of) the current article to Winslow railway station (1850–1968) and start a new Winslow railway station with new content only (apart from an {{about}} hatnote.

3. Have both stations in the same article, with a single infobox that describes primarily the modern station, with info about the old station in the "Key dates" and giving OSGRs for both locations (but {{coor}} only for the new one). (this option added 11:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC))

For Winslow, I think option 2 is best, but mainly because the history is extensive and the distance between sites is not trivial. For Bedford St Johns, option 1(b) because the move minimal. For Tempsford, probably 1(b) as well because the history is minimal. Has it really not arisen before? Was there any discussion or did we just drift into it? Is there a reasonable rule of thumb we can establish? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Is it simple enough to say "if the station is opening on the same site of the old station then the article is re-used/extended, otherwise a new article is created." After all, it is a new station, it just happens to be using the name of the old station and nothing else. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

...and then if it's on the same site and the same article then convention seems to be to cover both in the lead, then list the old, then list the new. Se 10mmsocket (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

We have done this before, several times. For the same site, the answer is: one article, and one infobox. The infobox has provision for multiple dates, so you can show the closure and reopening. Exanples include Bicester Village, Bridgeton, Cressington, Kenilworth, Rotherham Central. For different sites, it's normally two articles, for example Haddenham→Haddenham & Thame Parkway, but sometimes it's one article and one infobox, like Redditch (which was apparently relocated three times). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

This came at least once in the states, and we opted for the second solution: Lincoln station (Nebraska) and Lincoln station (Nebraska, 1926–2012). New building, new alignment. Mackensen (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I would advocate one infobox on one page, for all three of said stations, along the lines of Redrose's example of Redditch. If the name changes, then a new article should be started (see Dalcross railway station, for when Inv Airport opened, but I assume that for all three the names will remain the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattdaviesfsic (talk • contribs) 21:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you all for the replies and comments thus far.

@Mackensen:, thank you, that is as per my Option 2 and makes a lot of sense to me. IMO, it allows the original station and its history to have due coverage it its own article; the new station gets its own article with elbow room to develop in the future.

@Mattdaviesfsic: So (again taking Winslow as a "for instance"):

• Does it not matter that the new station is a mile and 55 years distant from the old, with an abandoned line and a housing development between.
• At "platforms =", is it one [old site] or two [new site]? Presumably from 2025, the latter (thus losing the historical figure, which is certainly interesting).
• Should the map show the old location in central Winslow or the new location on its western edge? When the new station comes online, the latter presumably – but that leaves readers wanting quickly to see where the old station was having to follow the links from the grid reference.
• Does it not matter that the history of the old station (as listed at "Key dates") are no more relevant to the new station than are those for Verney Junction, not a lot further to the west?

Is it really enough that it has the same name, serves same town, is on the same alignment (extensively rebuilt) that we should want to shoe-horn them together? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi John Maynard Friedman,

• In terms of the infobox and the platforms parameter, it could easily be, for instance - 1 (old site)</br>2 (new site).
• Per examples such as Redditch, Bloxwich and Ivybridge railway station - which were relocated but kept the same name - the map in the infobox (if desired) should show the location of the new station, with the old station being referenced in its own History section.
• The key dates can easily refer to both - in 2025 it would say "relocated and reopened", or something like that.

Hope that makes sense. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 07:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe that {{ubl}} is the preferred means of listing multiple values for one item in an infobox. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 08:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, MOS:NOBR is the relevant guideline. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm against the idea of using two infoboxes in one article. The problem is that unless you have a huge amount of prose information for the station on its earlier site, the second infobox will be pushed down the page by the first (more so if viewed ion a widescreen monitor), and its top won't align with the start of its text unless you resort to using {{clear}} before the heading of the second station, which could cause a huge blank space in the article. It's better to put all the information into a single infobox. We do have some cases where a resited station has one article for each incarnation, but other than Haddenham, I'm having difficulty finding some. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I tried it at Winslow to demonstrate the effect for this discussion but it was so horrible that I have already reverted. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

In the case of Bedford St Johns, the existing situation is that the two stations on different sites have one shared article, so when the station is resited again (which apparently won't be a return to the original location), it should keep the single article - unless we find a geat deal of info for each of its three locations and if split as a consequence of that, it should really be three ways rather than two-and-one. Assuming we retain one article, the History section can have three subsections, but they should be arranged chronologically. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's an easy one: the proposed move is probably no more than 50 metres northwest (on disused sidings at 52.130529, -0.470435, if anyone cares to look), still essentially the same site. I mentioned it primarily as an edge case test for any rule of thumb we devise. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Option 3

I have added retrospectively 3. Have both stations in the same article, with a single infobox that describes primarily the modern station, with info about the old station in the "Key dates" and giving OSGRs for both locations (but {{coor}} only for the new one) above, sorry should have done that first time around. --11:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I suggest coord for both, but {{coord|...|display=inline,title}} only for the current location.-- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 14:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Evesham Vale Light Railway

The Evesham Vale Light Railway article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 11:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)