Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 58

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

South Tynedale Railway

Could someone have a read of the South Tynedale Railway article with an eye to potential copyvios? I'm not awake enough to be certain but it feels like it's the sort of bloggy style prose that one would find on the railway's website. Thryduulf (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Thryduulf I had a poke around, doesn't seem to be from their website, or any other I can find. I even trawled through the Wayback Machine, but zilch. I do know what you mean about the feel of it, and I could be completely wrong. Perhaps if it was lifted from a web-source, that webpage has long-since been removed from the www? I do think the article needs work and citations; I did add one cite and tidied a little. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 13:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I Googled a few random sentences from it, and the only one that got a hit was the first sentence of the "Developments" section. That, and the following few sentences, are taken from this 2012 blog (which admittedly might have been written have been written by the same person). As with so many UK heritage railway articles though, much of it is very out of date and lacking in sources. Mwsmith20 (talk) 16:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

This tool is the easiest way to detect borrowed content: Earwig. Rcsprinter123 (inform) 21:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Except that for some reason it doesn't find the page that my manual Google search did. Mwsmith20 (talk) 09:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Midland Mainline#Requested move 9 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Midland Mainline#Requested move 9 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. JuniperChill (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

Notability of UK stations

There is a conversation about the notability of UK stations ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Notability. Garuda3 (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

For "conversation", read "full-blown thirty-day formal WP:RFC". With everybody who doesn't give a tinker's cuss for railways, least of all British ones, getting involved. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

From the discussion at the RFC, the question arises "Would this WP benefit from having a page similar to WP:SHIPS/R?" Mjroots (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Re the above, is Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways/Sources supposed to be our version of SHIPS/R? Mjroots (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Interesting I never saw that before. Would be great to expand it. I'll have a dig for appropriate online sources. 10mmsocket (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Mjroots – that was my intention when I started adding to it yesterday with books from my collection. Ideally, if other editors could add their own books/sources, it would become a go-to reference for anybody seeking to expand a station article. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 18:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

On mobile so can't do much copy/pasting but I have a fair few books that might be helpful, though fewer that are about stations specifically. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I've created a shortcut WP:UKT/S. Mjroots (talk) 07:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I've added the UK-related Middleton Press books I own to the page. Please add those you own. If already listed just add your name to the existing entry. Mjroots (talk) 08:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Question about categories

I notice that The Little Chinese Engine (talk · contribs) is modifying a number of UK train articles and changing the category "Locomotives introduced in YYYY" to a different date. What is the accepted convention? He/she is using the date that manufacturing started, as opposed to the date the first unit was delivered, or the date the first unit started testing, or the first unit entered service? IMO it should be one of the latter three not the one they're all being changed to. Thoughts? Should the changes be reverted? 10mmsocket (talk) 17:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @The Little Chinese Engine as we're talking about you here. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

OTTOMH I'd expect "introduced" to be the date the first example entered revenue service. I don't immediately recall any discussions about this though. Thryduulf (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

What Thryduulf said. For steam locomotives, most books give only one date, but it is not always easy to obtain a date that is consistent between different railway companies; two different books may give two different kinds of event as the date when the loco was new, and some even give dates without stating exactly what event is being dated. Where the kind of event is stated, I have seen the following:

• Physically completed, except for painting
• Painting completed
• Left the manufacturer's premises
• Arrived on the customer's tracks
• Testing completed
• Entered revenue-earning service (which may be described as "entered traffic")
• Date that payment was completed / date that the loco was added to stock (i.e. added to the asset register)

These events did not necessarily occur in that order: some railways only paid for locomotives once a "trial mileage" had been attained, and this would be accumulated in normal service, not on dedicated test runs. Some split the painting stage - painting with primer coats, then testing out on the line, then painting with finishing coats. Timescales could be quite lengthy, especially with modern trains that are stuffed with electronics. For example, London Underground 1995 Tube Stock began delivery in December 1995, testing began in early 1997 but the first train entered service in June 1998, so this for me would be a 1998 introduction. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree. To me, introduction means the day it entered revenue service. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Eryholme–Richmond branch line#Requested move 13 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Eryholme–Richmond branch line#Requested move 13 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Ashley Down station

Ashley Down railway station needs adding to {{Bristol railway map}}. It is between Filton Abbey Wood and Stapleton Road, but there are two closed stations between them, so I am unsure exactly where it fits in. Mjroots (talk) 09:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Based on the cooridnates in the articles, Ashley Down is just north of Ashley Hill so should be between there and Horfield on the diagram. I'll leave making the edit to someone who understands the RDT syntax Thryduulf (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: - Done. Mjroots (talk) 14:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Isn't Ashley Down station on the same site as Ashley Hill (literally the same old platforms being dug out and refurbished). It's not in the location that recent road-centric Bristolians would generally think of as 'Ashley Down'. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  If the coords in our Ashley Hill railway station and Ashley Down railway station articles are correct, the new station is a little (1.62 arcseconds, or about 50 metres) to the north of the old. But it's very close: 50 metres is about two coach lengths, so there is probably an overlap of the respective platform ends, if not the bulk of the platforms. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  The page for the new Ashley Down station says that in January 2018, it was revealed that plans had been revived to reopen the station... A reference in the MetroWest article clearly states that it is built on the same site.[1]

  50 metres is shorter than the new platforms. It is also closer than Warren Halt was to its 1912 replacement at Dawlish Warren, and they are both covered by a single article.

  So, all in all, they should be a single icon on the railway map and the two articles should be merged. Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

  Agree 100% with Geof. If I remember correctly, the access to the new station will be the same as for the old station. Also worth noting that the article for the new station is essentially a WP:CONTENT FORK from the old one by Mattdaviesfsic last year after removing the redirect to the older station. Lamberhurst (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

June 2024 timetable updates?

I'm surprised some TOC articles have not been updated to the June 2024 timetables. Is there anyone in this WikiProject willing to make these changes? Jalen Barks (Woof) 22:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I am especially requesting this as Ashley Down opened recently and the Services table at Great Western Railway (train operating company) has not been updated to June 2024. Jalen Barks (Woof) 02:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Infobox photo guidelines

The original 16-year old pic

The recently-added 5 year old pic

Do we have guidelines, or established consensus, on the very prominent photos that go in the UK rail-related infoboxes, be it stations, or rolling stock, or other? I ask because the image on the left has been on Norwich railway station for some time. It's 16 years old but it is clear and shows the building well. The image on the right, added yesterday by @LeadPoisoning is 5 years old, but to me it's inferior because of the "clutter". By that I mean the parked cars and the prominence of the street furniture, especially the lamp posts, which obscure and distract from the building. I think the original is better so I have reverted and encouraged LeadPoisoning to discuss on the article's talk page per WP:BRD. Whether that discussion takes place there or here I'm keen to know whether such things are covered by existing guidelines/consensus. An infobox image is so important to the article as it's the first thing a reader is likely to see. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

As per MOS:IMAGEQUALITY, images showing the station "hidden in clutter, or ambiguous; and so on—should not be used unless absolutely necessary". The image on the left of Norwich Thorpe is better for me not only because of the lack of clutter but also the light and perspective is clearer. Lamberhurst (talk) 10:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it varies - in this case the older photo is better but if the station had substantially changed, I would go for a newer photo even if it was more cluttered as it is more representative of the subject as it is now. Garuda3 (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The 2008 picture (wait, 16 years ago????) has better quality, has blue skies and has less cars. The only thing I can see that has changed in this pic is the Pumpkin café which has since been turned into an M&S for a short while. In other words, barely anything has changed (at least from this angle) since 2008. It may also be recommended to check out this Google Street View link from July 2024 JuniperChill (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I am failing to see any 'drastic' changes between the two dates, and I agree that the earlier image is a better photograph. A primary image (eg the infobox image) for an article on a current subject (eg a station that is still operational) should reflect the current state of the subject, but that does not compel us to provide regular updates. (Would they be annually? Monthly? The ultimate solution would be a live webcam!) Significant rebuilding or redecoration should be recorded, but in this case I see no need to change the image of a building, the front of which has not changed much in 138 years, let alone the last 16.

Updated images are of course welcome in the Commons category, where they are already referenced by the article. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 12:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

You should generally use the best image available. It only matters if it is old if the station has changed significantly in appearance, and that doesn't seem to be the case here. 16 years ago is only 2008! G-13114 (talk) 12:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Joint railways after grouping

Over on wikidata I have been tagging items that are instances of ELR railway line section (Q113990375) with operator (P137) statements to indicate the companies most responsible for them.

I have added pre-grouping info for August 1921 based on values drawn from the Signalling Record Society line data (Q127932823) pages, and extended that to the grouping era for companies that exclusively became part of one of the big four.

But what would be most appropriate for sections operated by joint railways in 1921 -- eg the ones returned by this query tinyurl.com/mwpuvswb -- for joint railways that were 'inherited' by more than one of the 1923 Big Four ?

Did those joint railways continue to maintain a visible meaningful identity and presence? Or would it be more appropriate to mark such sections with eg operator (P137) = London, Midland and Scottish Railway (Q629139) and London and North Eastern Railway (Q1092839), perhaps with a qualifer like object of statement has role (P3831) = "joint owner" between 1923 and 1947. What would be most appropriate, accurate, and/or most useful ?

Thanks for any advice or thoughts.

(PS results of the query don't exactly match the data at pages like List of constituents of the London and North Eastern Railway, because (i) it's still work in progress; and (ii) the whole length of the modern ELR section has been included in the total mileage even if only a portion was actually operated by the joint company.) Jheald (talk) 14:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Only one joint railway - the Portpatrick and Wigtownshire Joint Railway - was explicitly named in the Railways Act 1921, and it was to be grouped into the LMS - not surprising, as all of its pre-group co-owners were LMS constituents. For the other joint railways, two situations emerged straight away:

1. All of the pre-group co-owners were constituents of the same post-group railway (e.g. the Great Northern and Great Eastern Joint Railway): the joint railway was implicitly grouped along with its co-owners
2. The pre-group co-owners became constituents of different post-group railways, so the joint railway continued to exist, albeit with new co-owners

For situation (2), the co-owners might agree to retain the pre-group name (e.g. the Midland and Great Northern Joint Railway), or might decide that the joint line could be better administered if it was included with other joint lines under a new blanket title (e.g. the Halesowen Railway, the Shrewsbury and Hereford Railway and the Shrewsbury and Wellington Joint Railway all became part of the London, Midland and Scottish and Great Western Railways Joint Committee - althogh the Severn and Wye Railway, which had the same co-owners, did not)

The Transport Act 1947 avoided these problems by explicitly naming all the joint railways, even those where all co-owners were to become part of British Railways alone.

An examination of List of constituents of British Railways#Joint railways will show the ultimate situation. Afrer nationalisation, a few railways remained jointly-owned by British Railways and London Transport (e.g. the Metropolitan and Great Central Joint Railway), but these were sorted out by the end of 1949, mostly by splitting the line into two, and assigning one portion to BR, the other to LT. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Thanks, that's a very useful start. A very useful checklist to see what joint railways still existing in 1947 I ought to be aware of.

So, apart from the London, Midland and Scottish and Great Western Railways Joint Committee (which seems to be the most obvious one of the 'Constituents of BR' page, are you aware of any other 'new' joint management organisations that existing joint railways got pooled into? Jheald (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

It appears that our list at List of constituents of British Railways#Joint railways isn't entirely complete. The definitive list is the one in the original text of the 1947 Act, which may be found at the Third Schedule to the 1947 Act. This includes a catch-all clause Any other body whose members consist wholly of, or of representatives of, two or more of the above mentioned bodies., something lacking from the 1921 Act. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Following on from Redrose64's post above, what about pre-grouping joint railways, such as the London and North Western & Great Western Joint Railway? Mjroots (talk) 04:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mjroots: I'm not aware of any joint railway of that name. Railways that were jointly-owned by the GWR and LNWR pre-grouping tended to keep the name of the original railway after the GWR/LNWR takeover - the Shrewsbury and Hereford Railway and Shrewsbury and Wellington Joint Railway that I mentioned earlier, also the Birkenhead Railway, Brynmawr and Western Valleys Railway, Shrewsbury and Welshpool Railway, Vale of Towy Railway, West London Railway, Wrexham and Minera Joint Railway. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Redrose64: - See List of ship launches in 1868 under 9 April. Two paddle steamers launched that day. Or have I misunderstood? Mjroots (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

The news article, after explaining that the two companies involved are the LNWR and GWR, says "built expressly for the joint railway companies", I think meaning built jointly to the order of both companies, not a joint company. Nthep (talk) 15:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mjroots: I have a feeling that jointly-owned ships come into a different category than jointly-owned railway lines. They did exist: the LNWR and L&YR had several jointly-owned ships, working out of Fleetwood and other ports.

I think you probably need to read up on the service of ferries 'cross the Mersey that served the landing stage at Monk's Ferry (Birkenhead), to find out the actual ownership of these vessels. All I really know is that: (a) when the GWR and LNWR jointly purchased the Birkenhead Railway in 1860, the locomotive, carriage and wagon fleets were split up (for example, the GWR got 21 locomotives out of 42), so the ships owned by the Birkenhead Railway may also have been divided up, each ship becoming wholly owned by one partner or the other; (b) when Birkenhead Woodside railway station was opened on 1 April 1878, Birkenhead Monks Ferry railway station was downgraded to a goods station, and the small fleet of three railway-owned vessels that had served Monk's Ferry were redundant - of these, Thames was later sold to the London, Tilbury and Southend Railway, whilst Severn and the other one were eventually moved to Carlingford Lough. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I light of the above information, I've altered the list of ship launches to link both companies individually. Mjroots (talk) 05:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Notability of Croydon Tramlink stops

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport#Notability of Croydon Tramlink stops that may be of interest to participants here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

I've nominated BR Standard Class 7 for a good article reassessment here. Interested editors are welcome to participate. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Passengers using Sheffield Victoria in 1981

Please see Talk:Sheffield Victoria railway station#Used in 1981. Can a reliable source be found? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Now in the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

RDT assistance required

I've created {{2024 Talerddig collision RDT}} for use in the 2024 Talerddig collision article. The top of the diagram needs tweaking so that the diagram displays in a similar way that {{2021 Salisbury rail crash RDT}} displays in the 2021 Salisbury rail crash article. If any editor is able to assist, it would be appreciated. Mjroots (talk) 10:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mjroots I've added the inline parameter, which is what I think you were looking for. Mackensen (talk) 11:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Mackensen, diagram is displaying correctly now. Mjroots (talk) 11:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Interesting book about South Wales Metro

@Barrymarkd may not be an experienced Wikipedia editor, but it is clear that he knows a lot about public transportation systems. He has tried a couple of times to reference his own self-published book How To Build A Metro. Yes I know it rings WP:COI and WP:SPS alarm bells, but go take a look, it's very interesting and well written. It is within the WP:SPS guideance to allow referencing to self published works by knowledgeable authors and in this case I think it's something that we could use. Thoughts? 10mmsocket (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

British Rail Class 555

There is a move discussion ongoing at British Rail Class 555 to move the article to Tyne and Wear Metro Class 555 which I would appreciate input in, as it was originally moved without discussion. Thanks. Danners430 (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Greater Anglia franchise railway stations has been nominated for discussion

Category:Greater Anglia franchise railway stations has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.. JuniperChill (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Northern franchise railway stations is also part of that discussion JuniperChill (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Seven Sisters station

Some people may recall Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 56#Engineering diversions. We now have a different username, Golden409bus (talk · contribs), insisting on adding unsourced train service content to the same article, Seven Sisters station. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)