![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | ← | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | → | Archive 55 |
Recently there has been some disagreement as to what name should be used in the opening sentence and at the top of information boxes of rolling stock articles British Rail Class 222 and British Rail Class 810. Given that this affects multiple articles, have brought here to try and gain as many views as possible.
Some think it should be the family name; e.g. Electrostar, Voyager, AT300, while others the operator assigned name e.g. Capialstar, Meridian, Aurora for the class 378, 222 and 810s respectively. Both are already mentioned in other sentences in the respective lead sections, and linked in the case of the former.
Obviously using an operator assigned name is only possible where the entire fleet is operated by one operator as is the case with the 222, 378 and 810 fleet. Would not be possible in articles like the Class 800 article, as while LNER use the Azuma branding, it is not used by GWR who also operate them.
These are the options, please add if there are more:
For mine, Option C, clean and simple and can be applied to all classes regardless of whether they are part of a family or nor or have a name or not.
Metro140 (
talk) 04:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC) Option B compromise change of vote in the interests on having a clear consensus.
Metro140 (
talk)
04:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
I personally think Option B is the best, purely because they're names that are used on the railway. TOCs will specify units under their brand name as they are friendly names that won't confuse the standard traveling public. GWR, for example, use IET for their Class 800/802s as they're easy to remember. [1] In that article, IEP and IET is mentioned, but no Class 800/802. For the Class 222/810 with EMR (which has been a topic of debate recently), they mention the class number briefly, but do use the brand name. [2] As you can see, the brand is mentioned first and then the class. Especially seeing as the new 810s are called "Aurora InterCity trains" and not "Class 810 trains" or "Class 810 AT300 trains". We also have to remember the family name is in the infobox.
Overall, it should go like this:
Sorry for the lengthy post, but I think this is a very important topic to stop confusion! -- ChrisRCentral ( talk) 06:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Here are a few examples of what I'm trying to put across:
The only time I see the family name being useful is for when a TOC orders a unit and it isn't named yet, or the TOC decides to use the family name as its brand/doesn't apply a brand name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisRCentral ( talk • contribs) 18:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I too would go for Option B and the reason for that is as follows,
Within the very definition of Wiki being an online encyclopedia, it should to all intents and purposes be filled with content with that brief in mind.
I can use an encyclopedia to find out about any topic but it should not be in so much detail that it confuses those not au fait in the specific field any given article talks about (or at least not within the title, sub-text or info box).
So you have to look at it from the POV of the everyday punter, and with that in mind it's best to remember that TOCs specifically use the brand names in marketing and info (PIS,CIS, Menu Cards) in order to differentiate.
Prime example is that VT/AWC use the Pendolino and Voyager brands to save confusing customers especially as the layout of the trains are different, the on-board service is different and the routes they serve are different.
So on balance you would make the assumption that if I was a member of the public and Googled "new EMR trains" and clicked through to wiki, the info should be there and in line with what the TOC's branding is, as if I called up EMR and asked "what provisions are there on the AT300 for disabled passengers" the would more than cause more confusion than resolve.
Further to this both customers, platform staff, depot staff and train crew almost always use the term "Azuma" when referring to the AT300 products within LNERs rolling stock portfolio and I'd wager it's the same across most TOCs.
I've provided the "Azuma" brand guideline link to help illustrate this link between the language used around rolling stock, this isn't anything new and for scope you can take any example of this method of company to customer communications from as far back as "The Big Four", BR, Sectorisation and Franchising (Flying Scotsman, The Coronation Scot, Networkers, Wessex Electrics etc, etc, etc)
Slidesauce ( talk) 07:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
For me, Option A is the best option. In my opinion, the family name should be made clear and if they happen to have a brand name assigned by their operator, it should be made clear as well, but not by replacing where the family name should go. For this reason, I wouldn't want B because the family name for the 810 units isn't Aurora for example. That being said, I wouldn't mind seeing C either to avoid further confusion in the future, but for me A is the best option. -- SavageKieran ( talk) 15:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I choose Option B, as it is the name most often encountered, and also usually found in marketing and information from official sources. Superalbs ( talk) 15:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I am going for Option B as I have looked at numerous marketing material from Eversholt Rail, East Midlands Trains, Hull Trains and East Midlands Railway and I can confirm that these units are called Meridians and not voyagers. HunsletMid ( talk) 18:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
The fact you have not contributed to this discussion, that is easily disprovable - I posted at 09:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC) and I'm still waiting for Metro140 ( talk · contribs) to either revert their edits, or respond explaining why they thought that editing through semi-protection was justifiable, when that semi was intended to deter precisely the kind of edit which they made.
References
With the conversation having gone cold, we are probably at the point where most editors who are going to express an opinion have done so, here from what I can work out this is who thinks what. Option D has had gained no support, so we can safely eliminate that one.
Apologies in advance if I have misrepresented or omitted any editor's vote, I would be surprised if I haven't missed something, would appreciate somebody else running their eye over my workings. It seems to be a shootout between options B and C. I am happy to compromise and move my vote to Option B if that helps gain a consensus that we can move forward. Metro140 ( talk) 05:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Only just seen the mention in this talk page now, and apologise if it seems like I was being despondent, I stated my position and that was that, I didn't want to get into arguments. Also further to the point of SPAs I understand the issue faced by Wiki in that regard and have now added my previous edits to my user page and will now after being involved in this discussion continue to contribute to the UK Railways Wiki pages and I'm currently working to gather information and update pages for stations on my local line.
That aside, regardless of the outcome of this discussion I think its only right to thank people for their time and contributions, and hopefully we can build a better resource for all as a result. Slidesauce ( talk) 02:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Given that option A is out of the picture and it is between options B and C, I will happily change my vote to option C if that helps to gain a consensus. -- SavageKieran ( talk) 19:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Option B please - noting that if that's what the public call them, that's what they'll want to see on the wikipedia page. "Oh look it's an Azuma!" Turini2 ( talk) 22:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
With the conversation having gone stone cold and likely to die without a result unless resuscitated, this I believe is the current status. While I would prefer option C, in the interests of obtaining a clear consensus, I will change my vote to B.
Can somebody else please run their eye over my calculations and then take it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure? Metro140 ( talk) 04:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
There has been a discussion about "when identical trains have different marketing names for different TOCs". We could do something like this
The British Rail Class 800 is a type of bi-mode multiple unit train built by Hitachi for Great Western Railway (Intercity Express Train) and London North Eastern Railway (Azuma).
There is then the problem of units that don't have a different marketing name. The example below uses Avanti West Coast to show what could happen if a TOC which operates an identical unit to other operators does not have a marketing name.
The British Rail Class 800 is a type of bi-mode multiple unit train built by Hitachi for Great Western Railway (Intercity Express Train), London North Eastern Railway (Azuma) and Avanti West Coast.
For units which are operated by a single operator the example below would apply.
The British Rail Class 810 Aurora is a type of bi-mode multiple unit train built by Hitachi for East Midlands Railway.
I think that these examples make it clear as to which operators use which operating name (E.g Azuma and Aurora) and could possibly cause less confusion. I do think that both Option B and Option C are good but both have there problems. This is how the info boxes could look with the operating name made clear next to the operator(s) or if operated by a single operator made clear in the title. I look forward to reading peoples opinions on what I have discussed in this edit. E.Wright1852 ( talk) 17:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
I have changed my Opinion to Option B. E.Wright1852 ( talk) 18:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
There's been a derailment at Kirkby. [1] Not sure what class of train is involved though. Mjroots ( talk) 20:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Mjroots, Murgatroyd49, and Thryduulf: Somebody (not me) bothered to create an article here... As I said I have my reservations about that. @ Isufferfromlag: FYI, since you're the article creator, take note of the above. Also, do take notice of copyright restrictions requiring pictures uploaded here. File:Merseyrail 507006 crashed at Kirkby.png and File:Merseyrail 507006 shown serverly damaged at Kirkby.jpg need a) more complete source information and b) probably deletion. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 23:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
{{r with possibilities}}
(to the list article) - or maybe as a valid search term? If that's the case I'm likely to just boldly redirect it. Otherwise...
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs)
23:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
References
There's been a developement. The Liverpool Echo reports that the train driver has been arrested on suspicion of reckless endangerment. A highly unusual development for a British railway accident. Does this push the accident above the threshold of notability for a stand-alone article? Mjroots ( talk) 09:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
My project on the LTS Line rewrite has been coming on nicely in the sandbox (and I have been copying any recent changes over in parallel).
However I have come across something weird - when I display in article form there are several sections missing (7.1.4 July 1922 timetable jumps to freight in the 1980s/1990s but when I go into edit there the missing sections are. I also note that I am unable to edit certain sections from section 7.
HAs anyone come across this before? I have tried copying to word and deleting toe content - saving - then re-importing.
Have I run out of space and need to part publish what I have done? A lot of this is Work in progress still.
The link to my sandbox is here - grateful for any help
/info/en/?search=User:Davidvaughanwells/sandbox
Thanks-- Davidvaughanwells ( talk) 20:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
]]
instead of }}
so a template wasn't closing properly.
Nthep (
talk)
21:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)Can editors keep an eye on 103.100.11.3 ( talk · contribs), who is trying to put the Shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes and various other violent incidents into several underground articles and edit-warring over them with multiple editors. These include Northern line, Victoria line, District line, (with the charming edit summary " it's an important paragraph you idiot..") Jubilee line and London Bridge station (citing something to Metro and saying " it's a good source", while WP:RSP says "Generally unreliable: The reliability of Metro has been compared to that of the Daily Mail and other British tabloids. Articles published in the print newspaper (accessible via metro.news domain) are considered more reliable than articles published only on the metro.co.uk website."). I am particularly concerned over this edit saying the 21 July 2005 London bombings were "not a failed attack", which suggest this editor is here to push a particular POV. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Thameslink#Thameslink_core for a discussion on merging Thameslink and Thameslink core. - mattbuck ( Talk) 20:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
An editor has requested for British Rail Class 373 to be moved to Eurostar e300. Since you had some involvement with British Rail Class 373, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so).
An editor has requested for British Rail Class 374 to be moved to Eurostar e320. Since you had some involvement with British Rail Class 374, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 13:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone know how to fix the template displaying Northern Route 7 within various articles, but the one I have seen is in Shipley railway station? The template spreads across the whole page and is distorted. The original template pointed to the Cumbrian Coast Line which I have now fixed, but it is still malformed. Also, it says that Northern Route No. 7 is the Settle-Carlisle and the Bentham Line? is this right? I would have thought Morecambe line was proper? Any thoughts/help is gratefully received. Regards. The joy of all things ( talk) 07:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I haven't created a new article in a while. I've just created at new station for St Neots South railway station as this is one of two proposed sites. However it is a separate proposal to the reopening of Tempsford so I just wanted to indicate it is not a duplicate. Difficultly north ( talk) Simply south alt. 22:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
This is a small dispute that I guess could welcome some outside consensus. I think this article firmly belongs in the Category:East West Rail due to East West Rail being its successor and proposes to reuse most of its route and all of the historical connection. The alternative argument is that it is only historical and people could get confused with the current project. What do people think? Could people please discuss this at Talk:Varsity Line#East West Rail Category. Difficultly north ( talk) Simply south alt. 18:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
On Sapperton Railway Tunnel there is an uncited statement "It was found that the concrete had deteriorated and would not support the loads required for an index of more than 5". Does anyone know what this means and could clarify it or provide a source? There are a few other uncited claims in the section on "Construction, engineering, and maintenance difficulties" & several deadlinks - it would be great if anyone from this project could help provide citations for these.— Rod talk 17:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
A request has been made to move the 2015 Wootton Bassett SPAD article. Please feel free to join The discussion. Mjroots ( talk) 04:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Currently there are a number of naming conventions for former railway companies that operated entirely in England. We have:
Obviously the the GB or UK dab is required for companies that operated beyond England's borders, but for consistency we should have one style that applies across the board for those that operated exclusively in England. For mine the (England) das is preferable. Thoughts? Riorgisinx ( talk) 05:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | ← | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | → | Archive 55 |
Recently there has been some disagreement as to what name should be used in the opening sentence and at the top of information boxes of rolling stock articles British Rail Class 222 and British Rail Class 810. Given that this affects multiple articles, have brought here to try and gain as many views as possible.
Some think it should be the family name; e.g. Electrostar, Voyager, AT300, while others the operator assigned name e.g. Capialstar, Meridian, Aurora for the class 378, 222 and 810s respectively. Both are already mentioned in other sentences in the respective lead sections, and linked in the case of the former.
Obviously using an operator assigned name is only possible where the entire fleet is operated by one operator as is the case with the 222, 378 and 810 fleet. Would not be possible in articles like the Class 800 article, as while LNER use the Azuma branding, it is not used by GWR who also operate them.
These are the options, please add if there are more:
For mine, Option C, clean and simple and can be applied to all classes regardless of whether they are part of a family or nor or have a name or not.
Metro140 (
talk) 04:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC) Option B compromise change of vote in the interests on having a clear consensus.
Metro140 (
talk)
04:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
I personally think Option B is the best, purely because they're names that are used on the railway. TOCs will specify units under their brand name as they are friendly names that won't confuse the standard traveling public. GWR, for example, use IET for their Class 800/802s as they're easy to remember. [1] In that article, IEP and IET is mentioned, but no Class 800/802. For the Class 222/810 with EMR (which has been a topic of debate recently), they mention the class number briefly, but do use the brand name. [2] As you can see, the brand is mentioned first and then the class. Especially seeing as the new 810s are called "Aurora InterCity trains" and not "Class 810 trains" or "Class 810 AT300 trains". We also have to remember the family name is in the infobox.
Overall, it should go like this:
Sorry for the lengthy post, but I think this is a very important topic to stop confusion! -- ChrisRCentral ( talk) 06:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Here are a few examples of what I'm trying to put across:
The only time I see the family name being useful is for when a TOC orders a unit and it isn't named yet, or the TOC decides to use the family name as its brand/doesn't apply a brand name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisRCentral ( talk • contribs) 18:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I too would go for Option B and the reason for that is as follows,
Within the very definition of Wiki being an online encyclopedia, it should to all intents and purposes be filled with content with that brief in mind.
I can use an encyclopedia to find out about any topic but it should not be in so much detail that it confuses those not au fait in the specific field any given article talks about (or at least not within the title, sub-text or info box).
So you have to look at it from the POV of the everyday punter, and with that in mind it's best to remember that TOCs specifically use the brand names in marketing and info (PIS,CIS, Menu Cards) in order to differentiate.
Prime example is that VT/AWC use the Pendolino and Voyager brands to save confusing customers especially as the layout of the trains are different, the on-board service is different and the routes they serve are different.
So on balance you would make the assumption that if I was a member of the public and Googled "new EMR trains" and clicked through to wiki, the info should be there and in line with what the TOC's branding is, as if I called up EMR and asked "what provisions are there on the AT300 for disabled passengers" the would more than cause more confusion than resolve.
Further to this both customers, platform staff, depot staff and train crew almost always use the term "Azuma" when referring to the AT300 products within LNERs rolling stock portfolio and I'd wager it's the same across most TOCs.
I've provided the "Azuma" brand guideline link to help illustrate this link between the language used around rolling stock, this isn't anything new and for scope you can take any example of this method of company to customer communications from as far back as "The Big Four", BR, Sectorisation and Franchising (Flying Scotsman, The Coronation Scot, Networkers, Wessex Electrics etc, etc, etc)
Slidesauce ( talk) 07:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
For me, Option A is the best option. In my opinion, the family name should be made clear and if they happen to have a brand name assigned by their operator, it should be made clear as well, but not by replacing where the family name should go. For this reason, I wouldn't want B because the family name for the 810 units isn't Aurora for example. That being said, I wouldn't mind seeing C either to avoid further confusion in the future, but for me A is the best option. -- SavageKieran ( talk) 15:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I choose Option B, as it is the name most often encountered, and also usually found in marketing and information from official sources. Superalbs ( talk) 15:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I am going for Option B as I have looked at numerous marketing material from Eversholt Rail, East Midlands Trains, Hull Trains and East Midlands Railway and I can confirm that these units are called Meridians and not voyagers. HunsletMid ( talk) 18:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
The fact you have not contributed to this discussion, that is easily disprovable - I posted at 09:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC) and I'm still waiting for Metro140 ( talk · contribs) to either revert their edits, or respond explaining why they thought that editing through semi-protection was justifiable, when that semi was intended to deter precisely the kind of edit which they made.
References
With the conversation having gone cold, we are probably at the point where most editors who are going to express an opinion have done so, here from what I can work out this is who thinks what. Option D has had gained no support, so we can safely eliminate that one.
Apologies in advance if I have misrepresented or omitted any editor's vote, I would be surprised if I haven't missed something, would appreciate somebody else running their eye over my workings. It seems to be a shootout between options B and C. I am happy to compromise and move my vote to Option B if that helps gain a consensus that we can move forward. Metro140 ( talk) 05:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Only just seen the mention in this talk page now, and apologise if it seems like I was being despondent, I stated my position and that was that, I didn't want to get into arguments. Also further to the point of SPAs I understand the issue faced by Wiki in that regard and have now added my previous edits to my user page and will now after being involved in this discussion continue to contribute to the UK Railways Wiki pages and I'm currently working to gather information and update pages for stations on my local line.
That aside, regardless of the outcome of this discussion I think its only right to thank people for their time and contributions, and hopefully we can build a better resource for all as a result. Slidesauce ( talk) 02:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Given that option A is out of the picture and it is between options B and C, I will happily change my vote to option C if that helps to gain a consensus. -- SavageKieran ( talk) 19:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Option B please - noting that if that's what the public call them, that's what they'll want to see on the wikipedia page. "Oh look it's an Azuma!" Turini2 ( talk) 22:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
With the conversation having gone stone cold and likely to die without a result unless resuscitated, this I believe is the current status. While I would prefer option C, in the interests of obtaining a clear consensus, I will change my vote to B.
Can somebody else please run their eye over my calculations and then take it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure? Metro140 ( talk) 04:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
There has been a discussion about "when identical trains have different marketing names for different TOCs". We could do something like this
The British Rail Class 800 is a type of bi-mode multiple unit train built by Hitachi for Great Western Railway (Intercity Express Train) and London North Eastern Railway (Azuma).
There is then the problem of units that don't have a different marketing name. The example below uses Avanti West Coast to show what could happen if a TOC which operates an identical unit to other operators does not have a marketing name.
The British Rail Class 800 is a type of bi-mode multiple unit train built by Hitachi for Great Western Railway (Intercity Express Train), London North Eastern Railway (Azuma) and Avanti West Coast.
For units which are operated by a single operator the example below would apply.
The British Rail Class 810 Aurora is a type of bi-mode multiple unit train built by Hitachi for East Midlands Railway.
I think that these examples make it clear as to which operators use which operating name (E.g Azuma and Aurora) and could possibly cause less confusion. I do think that both Option B and Option C are good but both have there problems. This is how the info boxes could look with the operating name made clear next to the operator(s) or if operated by a single operator made clear in the title. I look forward to reading peoples opinions on what I have discussed in this edit. E.Wright1852 ( talk) 17:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
I have changed my Opinion to Option B. E.Wright1852 ( talk) 18:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
There's been a derailment at Kirkby. [1] Not sure what class of train is involved though. Mjroots ( talk) 20:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Mjroots, Murgatroyd49, and Thryduulf: Somebody (not me) bothered to create an article here... As I said I have my reservations about that. @ Isufferfromlag: FYI, since you're the article creator, take note of the above. Also, do take notice of copyright restrictions requiring pictures uploaded here. File:Merseyrail 507006 crashed at Kirkby.png and File:Merseyrail 507006 shown serverly damaged at Kirkby.jpg need a) more complete source information and b) probably deletion. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 23:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
{{r with possibilities}}
(to the list article) - or maybe as a valid search term? If that's the case I'm likely to just boldly redirect it. Otherwise...
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs)
23:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
References
There's been a developement. The Liverpool Echo reports that the train driver has been arrested on suspicion of reckless endangerment. A highly unusual development for a British railway accident. Does this push the accident above the threshold of notability for a stand-alone article? Mjroots ( talk) 09:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
My project on the LTS Line rewrite has been coming on nicely in the sandbox (and I have been copying any recent changes over in parallel).
However I have come across something weird - when I display in article form there are several sections missing (7.1.4 July 1922 timetable jumps to freight in the 1980s/1990s but when I go into edit there the missing sections are. I also note that I am unable to edit certain sections from section 7.
HAs anyone come across this before? I have tried copying to word and deleting toe content - saving - then re-importing.
Have I run out of space and need to part publish what I have done? A lot of this is Work in progress still.
The link to my sandbox is here - grateful for any help
/info/en/?search=User:Davidvaughanwells/sandbox
Thanks-- Davidvaughanwells ( talk) 20:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
]]
instead of }}
so a template wasn't closing properly.
Nthep (
talk)
21:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)Can editors keep an eye on 103.100.11.3 ( talk · contribs), who is trying to put the Shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes and various other violent incidents into several underground articles and edit-warring over them with multiple editors. These include Northern line, Victoria line, District line, (with the charming edit summary " it's an important paragraph you idiot..") Jubilee line and London Bridge station (citing something to Metro and saying " it's a good source", while WP:RSP says "Generally unreliable: The reliability of Metro has been compared to that of the Daily Mail and other British tabloids. Articles published in the print newspaper (accessible via metro.news domain) are considered more reliable than articles published only on the metro.co.uk website."). I am particularly concerned over this edit saying the 21 July 2005 London bombings were "not a failed attack", which suggest this editor is here to push a particular POV. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Thameslink#Thameslink_core for a discussion on merging Thameslink and Thameslink core. - mattbuck ( Talk) 20:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
An editor has requested for British Rail Class 373 to be moved to Eurostar e300. Since you had some involvement with British Rail Class 373, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so).
An editor has requested for British Rail Class 374 to be moved to Eurostar e320. Since you had some involvement with British Rail Class 374, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 13:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone know how to fix the template displaying Northern Route 7 within various articles, but the one I have seen is in Shipley railway station? The template spreads across the whole page and is distorted. The original template pointed to the Cumbrian Coast Line which I have now fixed, but it is still malformed. Also, it says that Northern Route No. 7 is the Settle-Carlisle and the Bentham Line? is this right? I would have thought Morecambe line was proper? Any thoughts/help is gratefully received. Regards. The joy of all things ( talk) 07:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I haven't created a new article in a while. I've just created at new station for St Neots South railway station as this is one of two proposed sites. However it is a separate proposal to the reopening of Tempsford so I just wanted to indicate it is not a duplicate. Difficultly north ( talk) Simply south alt. 22:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
This is a small dispute that I guess could welcome some outside consensus. I think this article firmly belongs in the Category:East West Rail due to East West Rail being its successor and proposes to reuse most of its route and all of the historical connection. The alternative argument is that it is only historical and people could get confused with the current project. What do people think? Could people please discuss this at Talk:Varsity Line#East West Rail Category. Difficultly north ( talk) Simply south alt. 18:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
On Sapperton Railway Tunnel there is an uncited statement "It was found that the concrete had deteriorated and would not support the loads required for an index of more than 5". Does anyone know what this means and could clarify it or provide a source? There are a few other uncited claims in the section on "Construction, engineering, and maintenance difficulties" & several deadlinks - it would be great if anyone from this project could help provide citations for these.— Rod talk 17:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
A request has been made to move the 2015 Wootton Bassett SPAD article. Please feel free to join The discussion. Mjroots ( talk) 04:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Currently there are a number of naming conventions for former railway companies that operated entirely in England. We have:
Obviously the the GB or UK dab is required for companies that operated beyond England's borders, but for consistency we should have one style that applies across the board for those that operated exclusively in England. For mine the (England) das is preferable. Thoughts? Riorgisinx ( talk) 05:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)