![]() | 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 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 |
A while back, I updated a bunch of London station articles with reliably-sourced timetables because I was fed up with people randomly changing them to what they think is right, presumably by looking at the departure boards once or twice. Since then, people change them all the time, making them out of date - this is particularly troublesome for those that are at WP:GA status and above, because it makes them fail the verifiability (and hence the GA) criteria. I can go through the latest timetables and properly source everything again (indeed, this is probably the right action) but that's a long and laborious task. In the meantime, is a fully-verified, but slightly behind the times set of services better than a possibly newer but also possibly wrong set? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
I've nominated the Category:Railway accidents involving a disregarded signal for renaming. Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 November 2#Category:Railway accidents involving a disregarded signal. Mjroots ( talk) 18:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
As I'm sure many of you are aware, there was a derailment and subsquent collision at Salisbury yesterday - 2021 Salisbury rail crash. This brings up the question as to whether or not the Salisbury rail crash article needs to be moved to 1906 Salisbury rail crash. Also, I've created {{ 2021 Salisbury rail crash RDT}} but it needs tweaking to include the navbar with the v.t.e buttons. Had a try myself but getting error messages all over the place and it's breaking the template. Mjroots ( talk) 08:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fixed. (By converting to Template:Routemap; by all means revert if you don't like that method.) Bazza ( talk) 09:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the page title, I've created a redirect at 1906 Salisbury rail crash that can be easily overwritten if we decide to move the page. Whether too move is tricky - it's obviously far too soon to know the long term significance of yesterday's crash, but it's clearly above average and the most significant since at least Carmont/Stonehaven, however the 1906 accident was also more significant than average and had long-term significance. So I'd say the primary topic is either the 1906 accident or neither accident (i.e. create a disambig). Searching the Railways Archive for Salisbury also finds 1856 buffer stop collison, 1885 collision and derailment 1898 collison and 2010 collision with a road vehicle, which with the 1906 and 2021 accidents might make a useful list. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Robins ... was not accustomed to passing through Salisbury at speed. Indeed, he had quite possibly never worked a passenger train that was booked to pass non-stop. Robins was not a regular L12 driver, his own engine was T9 No. 283. The latter, with its lower centre of gravity, might just have escaped disaster, and being used to this engine, Robins may have misjudged in the darkness, the speed of the larger and more powerful L12.-- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 22:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi all. Just over from the Cricket Project. The above chap played first-class cricket but was also a notable railway industrialist, so I'm just leaving him here if anyone wishes to expand his article. Cheers, StickyWicket ( talk) 21:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello! I don't usually edit pages related to UK Railways, but I wanted to share that I've created the article Passenger train today, via a split from Train. I'm not very familiar with passenger trains in the United Kingdom, so if anyone here is interested in helping expand the article, that would be great. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 17:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place re the use of notes in the article on the recent train crash at Salisbury. Please feel free to join the discussion. Mjroots ( talk) 06:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
A user has suggested culling parts of these articles and has started a thread here Talk:Stratford TMD. Please feel free to comment. -- Davidvaughanwells ( talk) 17:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
British Rail Class 901, British Rail Class 930, British Rail Class 931, British Rail Class 932, British Rail Class 933, British Rail Class 937, British Rail Class 951 and British Rail Class 960 have all been nominated for deletion. Mjroots ( talk) 19:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Is there any reason why the LTS redirect thread at the top of this page has a do not archive tag attached to it? There's been no discussion for nearly nine months. Unless there's a good reason, I'll archive it manually. — Voice of Clam 14:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Copied, edited for clarity, from my post at Talk:Doe Lea branch line:
I wonder whether anyone here knows anything more, and whether there should be an article or list about mothballed lines, or a definition somewhere of what is meant by the term in the context of UK railway lines, even if Network Rail don't use it? Or perhaps there is, and I just haven't found it (in which case perhaps it should be linked from that dab page at
Mothballing?)
Pam
D 11:59, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Mothballing (disambiguation) has a link to Wiktionary, which says :
(transitive) To store or shelve something no longer used. Synonyms: store, shelve, set aside, defer. "They mothballed the old version after the new one came out."
(transitive, figuratively) To stop using (something), but keep it in good condition.
—The dictionary definition of Mothball at Wiktionary
I would add very figuratively, as in the case of the Varsity Line which was "mothballed" between Bicester Town and Bletchley – but by the time the East West Rail project finally got green-lighted, the trackbed had returned to nature. The East West Rail Alliance is currently restoring this section at cost of about £1 billion. We must have godzilla moths around our way! -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 12:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
When COVID-19 lockdown related timetable cuts were introduced in 2020, a number of stations ceased to be called at by some operators. As it was presumed this would be temporary, with the services to be reinstated, rightly the articles noted this and the relevant service navigation boxes and categories retained. But now we are back to normal (or as normal as we are likely to get with the seemingly permanent drop in commuter patronage) with these calling have not been reinstated.
Case in point being CrossCountry that had a handful of services calling at stations such as Filton Abbey Wood, Guildford, Patchway and Wilmslow until withdrawn in 2020. As services have not resumed to these stations in the current or next timetable that runs to May 2022, should the articles reflect these service withdrawals as permanent? Being bad news, an official announcement is never likely to be ever be made, nor is it ever likely to be reported by news outlets or industry publications, as it is just a continuation of the status quo. Prepopots ( talk) 04:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
In the succession box at the end of each TOC article, is it necessary for the names of the franchises in the "preceded by" and "succeeded by" columns (so to speak) to be in bold, non-italic, default-size text like the corresponding TOCs immediately above, e.g. for First Capital Connect:
Or are there grounds for having the franchise names in small text (but still bold and non-italic), like so:
If I may offer a personal opinion here, I think the box looks that bit better with the franchise names in small text than it does with both the franchise names and the TOCs in bold, non-italic, default-size text.
And if I may, I'd also like to question the application of WP:ACCESSIBILITY here. I certainly don't deny that small text should be used sparingly, and should not be used in elements that already use a smaller text size, like infoboxes and reference sections. And there's certainly no reason to use it in any of the tables in these articles (rolling stock, services, etc.). However, succession boxes use the default text size - and are as many people expected to read these boxes as are expected to read the lead, the main text, and the tables?
Of course, none of this is said with any disrespect intended towards the rules or those who set them, or those who are visually impaired. Nor do I disrespect those who have the opposite opinion to mine - that is, these boxes look better with both the franchise names and TOCs in bold, non-italic, default-size text than they do with the franchise names in small text.
Really, all I'm seeking here is complete clarity. :) 2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:44A4:D45:EA04:A0B0 ( talk) 08:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I am drafting an armorial of railways in Britain. Robin S. Taylor ( talk) 16:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Robin S. Taylor: - when you say "railways" may tramway companies had their own coats of arms. As trams run on rails, they should also be includable. Mjroots ( talk) 19:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I wish to bring project members attention to the Railway Preservation Society of Ireland article. I have a declared COI having been a member of said society for a short while, and am PBLOCK'd by WikiProject UK Railways member Mjroots and am unable to work to correct issues except via discussion via {{ request edit}} which tends to have a long queue. Due to COI issues, possible disruption, and perhaps desires to take subtle and not so subtle sideswipes at how the society is run I have concerned with the editing on the article; in particular between the base at Whitehead (UK Ulster) and Dublin. There is also a desire to re-introduce a stocklist tables which I recall was scummered by those dealing with problematic editing on the Article. I would appreciate neutrals looking at the matter. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 23:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
I have started a draft article on the Northwest electrification scheme. I know we already have a few articles on various upgrades e.g.
but this is the latest. Any feedback on any other new articles that are needed? GRALISTAIR ( talk) 12:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
So according to British Railways Past and Present no 40 Cheshire page 101 Congleton railway station once had a goods yard. [1]
I am just wondering if the goods yard at Congleton Railway station was Brunswick Wharf which is where trains on the Biddulph Valley line terminated.
Does anybody have any sources to say wether the goods yard at Congleton railway station was called Brunswick Wharf? Maurice Oly ( talk) 20:31, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
References
Hi everyone, is anyone creating anything along these lines? There are already lists for England and Wales, but Scotland seems to have been forgotten about? Mattdaviesfsic ( talk) 07:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi everyone, could someone potentially advise if this is notable enough for inclusion? Of course, if you wanted to help expand it, do add any info (with citations of course!). Link to the draft is here. Mattdaviesfsic ( talk) 16:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
I haven't been able to find any free to use photographs of the new Soham railway station which opened recently. Are there any photographers here who live in that part of the country who could take one? G-13114 ( talk) 13:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
I've noticed that the photos of Darnall station in Sheffield are very lacking with the current view from a passing train with a weird angle showing the station. The photos on commons are not any better. Perhaps someone from Sheffield could upload a better photo to improve the article? Difficultly north ( talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 22:08, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Most of the train operating company articles have a "Past fleet" section, generally arranged in table format with one or more rows for each Class. Most, if not all, include a column on where particular unit(s) in a Class went after the ToC. This information also exists in many/all of the individual Class articles. And that causes a problem as there is no single system of record. For example: One editor might interpret the ToC article column to be where the unit(s) in a class went to immediately after the ToC, while others might treat it as where the unit(s) are now. Also, with two lots of information to maintain, those can quickly become out of sync (especially as most entries are un-cited and based on personal knowledge).
My suggestion is to remove the column of information about individual units from the past fleet table in each ToC article and to focus effort instead on keeping the Class articles up to date and properly referenced.
Thoughts? 10mmsocket ( talk) 07:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
The is a discussion at Talk:Locomotive Services#Controversial move undone regarding article content and name (Parent group vs TOC etc). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 10:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I've been scrolling through some of the rail pages on Wikipedia recently, and I've been puzzling over whether the stock pages need to be renamed. For example, units like the 800/801/802/803 etc etc never operated under BR (and probably never will - if anything it will be GBR. So, should they be renamed to:
Any comments or suggestions (or links to really old discussions about why they are named this way) would be really appreciated as I don't see any benefit of them staying like this. Mattdaviesfsic ( talk) 17:15, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
There is a discussion regarding the Class 456 train's withdrawal at Talk:British Rail Class 456#Withdrawal details. Your input would be appreciated. Thanks. XtraJovial ( talk) 02:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
At British Rail Class 309, Neith-Nabu ( talk · contribs) and B.w1203 ( talk · contribs) (the latter with a clear WP:COI, because they were known as Clacton Express Preservation Group until 18 January 2022) are insisting on the inclusion of this reference, which supports the claim that the unit is for sale but is a link to a web page that is blatantly asking people to donate via JustGiving in order to raise the money required. Such links, if used as external links, are explicitly forbidden by WP:ELNO#EL4. Should this be permitted as a reference? -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 13:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
RedRose has, once again, refused to engage in any civil discussion on this matter on local Talk pages. Are you referring to any previous occurrences - which ones? Where exactly did I refuse? I would point out that this page has 232 watchers, whereas Talk:British Rail Class 309 has 21 - fewer than one-tenth as many. This issue does not affect just the BR class 309 article, so it is appropriate to raise the matter somewhere more general.
As editors at this project were heavily involved in a discussion on this topic a few years ago, you may be interested in this proposal to deprecate the chain as a unit of measure on articles about British railways. Kahastok talk 17:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I have noticed the articles on railway UK lines often have far too many sections. They are almost like concepts or ideas rather than well order relevant paragraphs compiled into sections. Take the article on the Varsity line, it has 21 sections, some of which eg "The wartime curves after the war", "Nationalisation", are no more than two sentences. There are countless other articles in the same mess. Whoever was allowed to edit like this has made a right pigs ear because first, as there are too many sections, the headers are meaningless and hard to fathom what the section is about, second many of the sections just repeat what other sections have said albeit in a tautological manner. The information is there it just needs editors who understand the subject to consolidate topics together and not leave articles reading as if they are someone's stream of consciousness. 146.200.202.126 ( talk) 10:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Discussion at the time was that it was too soon to create an article. The driver of the train involved has now been charged in connection with the crash. Is it now appropriate to create an article, or do we need to wait for a conviction? Mjroots ( talk) 16:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
All can now be revealed. Driver was using mobile phone whilst driving. Convicted on all charges. I'll write the article over the weekend. Mjroots ( talk) 18:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Rainhill Trials § Requested move 22 February 2022.
Hallucegenia (
talk) 12:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, should {{ Adjacent stations}} be embedded in {{ Infobox station}} as per Hellifield railway station? The use of this causes small text to be used in the infobox and is against accessibility rules. Keith D ( talk) 18:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
<small>...</small>
tags from {{
rail line}} transclusions, I won't stand in your way. You'll need a consensus aside from
MOS:FONTSIZE to justify it, however. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 20:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
<small>...</small>
tags, (or the {{
small}}
template) everywhere. What it does prohibit is their use where the default font is already small, such as in infoboxes. So there's no need to remove these tags when used outside infoboxes. --
Dr Greg
talk 22:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Happy to remove. Xbhpnvs798 ( talk) 12:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
I've just noticed that Template:Most and least-used stations in the United Kingdom (which I wasn't aware of until it was nominated for deletion) has not been undated since 2018-19 and so is out of date. I don't have time (particularly given very limited template skills) to update this myself right now, but it should ideally be done. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
The article Caledonian main line has three associated RDTs: {{ Caledonian Railway (Carstairs to Greenhill Junction) RDT}}, {{ Caledonian Railway (Carstairs to Carlisle) RDT}}, and {{ Caledonian Railway (Carstairs to Edinburgh) RDT}}. They were all removed in 2015 and not re-added. Would these still be useful to the article? Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
In the s-rail service navigation boxes, services are shown as being operated by Transport For Wales (i.e. the government agency) and not the train operator, Transport for Wales Rail. This is being driven by the toc field that only allows the TOC to be added as unlinked text. Presumably this is a back of house change that needs to be made so that when Transport for Wales is entered it defaults to the train operator not the agency. Any ideas on how to have fixed? Leadelape ( talk) 04:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Kirkby train crash has been nominated for deletion. — Voice of Clam 22:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Is the death of a station cat trivial? See Talk:Lancaster railway station#Please don't treat articles as personal fiefdoms 10mmsocket ( talk) 13:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm doing some citation checking at Wolverton and Wolverton Works. I had hoped to find at Crewe Works a citation I need, only to find it in an even worse state, pretty much lacking in any detailed citations. So if anybody fancies doing some heavy lifting, this is an article in need of some TLC. I have more than enough to do at this end of the line. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 17:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
How did locomotives that were scrapped before the introduction of TOPS such as the MetroVick Co-Bo locos get given a TOPS class? e.g. Class 28 for the MetroVicks. From my understanding the Co-Bos were withdrawn and scrapped in the late 1960s whilst TOPS came later in the early-mid 1970s. Please don’t forget to mention me in your replies. Cheerio! Slender ( talk) 10:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
For info, the RAIB have published their final report into the Stonehaven derailment. Mjroots ( talk) 07:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
© Crown copyright 2022
You may re-use this document/publication (not including departmental or agency logos) free of charge in any format or medium. You must re-use it accurately and not in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and you must give the title of the source publication. Where we have identified any third party copyright material you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This document/publication is also available at www.gov.uk/raib.
Checking www.therailwaycentre.com/Resource_data/AllTimeShedCodes.pdf for a citation at
Bletchley TMD, I reached a site that doesn't look right. I have changed this citation to say url-status=dead but other articles need checking too, I suspect. According to {{
duses}} (
therailwaycentre.com
) we have over 250 citations of it. Direct access to www.therailwaycentre.com/ redirects to some commercial site; the link to AllTimeShedCodes.pdf invites you download who knows what. According to
whois, the domain:
Hours of fun for anyone who enjoys that sort of thing. "I'm out". -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 16:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Is this http://www.railway-centre.com/ the website everyone is referring to? Difficultly north ( talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 18:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
I doubt that anyone interested will miss it but just in case: arising from discussion above, GreenCbot is changing (or has changed) the citations of that cite to url-status=usurped
. --
John Maynard Friedman (
talk) 23:31, 26 March 2022 (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 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 |
A while back, I updated a bunch of London station articles with reliably-sourced timetables because I was fed up with people randomly changing them to what they think is right, presumably by looking at the departure boards once or twice. Since then, people change them all the time, making them out of date - this is particularly troublesome for those that are at WP:GA status and above, because it makes them fail the verifiability (and hence the GA) criteria. I can go through the latest timetables and properly source everything again (indeed, this is probably the right action) but that's a long and laborious task. In the meantime, is a fully-verified, but slightly behind the times set of services better than a possibly newer but also possibly wrong set? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
I've nominated the Category:Railway accidents involving a disregarded signal for renaming. Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 November 2#Category:Railway accidents involving a disregarded signal. Mjroots ( talk) 18:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
As I'm sure many of you are aware, there was a derailment and subsquent collision at Salisbury yesterday - 2021 Salisbury rail crash. This brings up the question as to whether or not the Salisbury rail crash article needs to be moved to 1906 Salisbury rail crash. Also, I've created {{ 2021 Salisbury rail crash RDT}} but it needs tweaking to include the navbar with the v.t.e buttons. Had a try myself but getting error messages all over the place and it's breaking the template. Mjroots ( talk) 08:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fixed. (By converting to Template:Routemap; by all means revert if you don't like that method.) Bazza ( talk) 09:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the page title, I've created a redirect at 1906 Salisbury rail crash that can be easily overwritten if we decide to move the page. Whether too move is tricky - it's obviously far too soon to know the long term significance of yesterday's crash, but it's clearly above average and the most significant since at least Carmont/Stonehaven, however the 1906 accident was also more significant than average and had long-term significance. So I'd say the primary topic is either the 1906 accident or neither accident (i.e. create a disambig). Searching the Railways Archive for Salisbury also finds 1856 buffer stop collison, 1885 collision and derailment 1898 collison and 2010 collision with a road vehicle, which with the 1906 and 2021 accidents might make a useful list. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Robins ... was not accustomed to passing through Salisbury at speed. Indeed, he had quite possibly never worked a passenger train that was booked to pass non-stop. Robins was not a regular L12 driver, his own engine was T9 No. 283. The latter, with its lower centre of gravity, might just have escaped disaster, and being used to this engine, Robins may have misjudged in the darkness, the speed of the larger and more powerful L12.-- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 22:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi all. Just over from the Cricket Project. The above chap played first-class cricket but was also a notable railway industrialist, so I'm just leaving him here if anyone wishes to expand his article. Cheers, StickyWicket ( talk) 21:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello! I don't usually edit pages related to UK Railways, but I wanted to share that I've created the article Passenger train today, via a split from Train. I'm not very familiar with passenger trains in the United Kingdom, so if anyone here is interested in helping expand the article, that would be great. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 17:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place re the use of notes in the article on the recent train crash at Salisbury. Please feel free to join the discussion. Mjroots ( talk) 06:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
A user has suggested culling parts of these articles and has started a thread here Talk:Stratford TMD. Please feel free to comment. -- Davidvaughanwells ( talk) 17:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
British Rail Class 901, British Rail Class 930, British Rail Class 931, British Rail Class 932, British Rail Class 933, British Rail Class 937, British Rail Class 951 and British Rail Class 960 have all been nominated for deletion. Mjroots ( talk) 19:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Is there any reason why the LTS redirect thread at the top of this page has a do not archive tag attached to it? There's been no discussion for nearly nine months. Unless there's a good reason, I'll archive it manually. — Voice of Clam 14:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Copied, edited for clarity, from my post at Talk:Doe Lea branch line:
I wonder whether anyone here knows anything more, and whether there should be an article or list about mothballed lines, or a definition somewhere of what is meant by the term in the context of UK railway lines, even if Network Rail don't use it? Or perhaps there is, and I just haven't found it (in which case perhaps it should be linked from that dab page at
Mothballing?)
Pam
D 11:59, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Mothballing (disambiguation) has a link to Wiktionary, which says :
(transitive) To store or shelve something no longer used. Synonyms: store, shelve, set aside, defer. "They mothballed the old version after the new one came out."
(transitive, figuratively) To stop using (something), but keep it in good condition.
—The dictionary definition of Mothball at Wiktionary
I would add very figuratively, as in the case of the Varsity Line which was "mothballed" between Bicester Town and Bletchley – but by the time the East West Rail project finally got green-lighted, the trackbed had returned to nature. The East West Rail Alliance is currently restoring this section at cost of about £1 billion. We must have godzilla moths around our way! -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 12:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
When COVID-19 lockdown related timetable cuts were introduced in 2020, a number of stations ceased to be called at by some operators. As it was presumed this would be temporary, with the services to be reinstated, rightly the articles noted this and the relevant service navigation boxes and categories retained. But now we are back to normal (or as normal as we are likely to get with the seemingly permanent drop in commuter patronage) with these calling have not been reinstated.
Case in point being CrossCountry that had a handful of services calling at stations such as Filton Abbey Wood, Guildford, Patchway and Wilmslow until withdrawn in 2020. As services have not resumed to these stations in the current or next timetable that runs to May 2022, should the articles reflect these service withdrawals as permanent? Being bad news, an official announcement is never likely to be ever be made, nor is it ever likely to be reported by news outlets or industry publications, as it is just a continuation of the status quo. Prepopots ( talk) 04:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
In the succession box at the end of each TOC article, is it necessary for the names of the franchises in the "preceded by" and "succeeded by" columns (so to speak) to be in bold, non-italic, default-size text like the corresponding TOCs immediately above, e.g. for First Capital Connect:
Or are there grounds for having the franchise names in small text (but still bold and non-italic), like so:
If I may offer a personal opinion here, I think the box looks that bit better with the franchise names in small text than it does with both the franchise names and the TOCs in bold, non-italic, default-size text.
And if I may, I'd also like to question the application of WP:ACCESSIBILITY here. I certainly don't deny that small text should be used sparingly, and should not be used in elements that already use a smaller text size, like infoboxes and reference sections. And there's certainly no reason to use it in any of the tables in these articles (rolling stock, services, etc.). However, succession boxes use the default text size - and are as many people expected to read these boxes as are expected to read the lead, the main text, and the tables?
Of course, none of this is said with any disrespect intended towards the rules or those who set them, or those who are visually impaired. Nor do I disrespect those who have the opposite opinion to mine - that is, these boxes look better with both the franchise names and TOCs in bold, non-italic, default-size text than they do with the franchise names in small text.
Really, all I'm seeking here is complete clarity. :) 2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:44A4:D45:EA04:A0B0 ( talk) 08:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I am drafting an armorial of railways in Britain. Robin S. Taylor ( talk) 16:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
@ Robin S. Taylor: - when you say "railways" may tramway companies had their own coats of arms. As trams run on rails, they should also be includable. Mjroots ( talk) 19:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I wish to bring project members attention to the Railway Preservation Society of Ireland article. I have a declared COI having been a member of said society for a short while, and am PBLOCK'd by WikiProject UK Railways member Mjroots and am unable to work to correct issues except via discussion via {{ request edit}} which tends to have a long queue. Due to COI issues, possible disruption, and perhaps desires to take subtle and not so subtle sideswipes at how the society is run I have concerned with the editing on the article; in particular between the base at Whitehead (UK Ulster) and Dublin. There is also a desire to re-introduce a stocklist tables which I recall was scummered by those dealing with problematic editing on the Article. I would appreciate neutrals looking at the matter. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 23:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
I have started a draft article on the Northwest electrification scheme. I know we already have a few articles on various upgrades e.g.
but this is the latest. Any feedback on any other new articles that are needed? GRALISTAIR ( talk) 12:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
So according to British Railways Past and Present no 40 Cheshire page 101 Congleton railway station once had a goods yard. [1]
I am just wondering if the goods yard at Congleton Railway station was Brunswick Wharf which is where trains on the Biddulph Valley line terminated.
Does anybody have any sources to say wether the goods yard at Congleton railway station was called Brunswick Wharf? Maurice Oly ( talk) 20:31, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
References
Hi everyone, is anyone creating anything along these lines? There are already lists for England and Wales, but Scotland seems to have been forgotten about? Mattdaviesfsic ( talk) 07:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi everyone, could someone potentially advise if this is notable enough for inclusion? Of course, if you wanted to help expand it, do add any info (with citations of course!). Link to the draft is here. Mattdaviesfsic ( talk) 16:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
I haven't been able to find any free to use photographs of the new Soham railway station which opened recently. Are there any photographers here who live in that part of the country who could take one? G-13114 ( talk) 13:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
I've noticed that the photos of Darnall station in Sheffield are very lacking with the current view from a passing train with a weird angle showing the station. The photos on commons are not any better. Perhaps someone from Sheffield could upload a better photo to improve the article? Difficultly north ( talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 22:08, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Most of the train operating company articles have a "Past fleet" section, generally arranged in table format with one or more rows for each Class. Most, if not all, include a column on where particular unit(s) in a Class went after the ToC. This information also exists in many/all of the individual Class articles. And that causes a problem as there is no single system of record. For example: One editor might interpret the ToC article column to be where the unit(s) in a class went to immediately after the ToC, while others might treat it as where the unit(s) are now. Also, with two lots of information to maintain, those can quickly become out of sync (especially as most entries are un-cited and based on personal knowledge).
My suggestion is to remove the column of information about individual units from the past fleet table in each ToC article and to focus effort instead on keeping the Class articles up to date and properly referenced.
Thoughts? 10mmsocket ( talk) 07:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
The is a discussion at Talk:Locomotive Services#Controversial move undone regarding article content and name (Parent group vs TOC etc). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 10:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I've been scrolling through some of the rail pages on Wikipedia recently, and I've been puzzling over whether the stock pages need to be renamed. For example, units like the 800/801/802/803 etc etc never operated under BR (and probably never will - if anything it will be GBR. So, should they be renamed to:
Any comments or suggestions (or links to really old discussions about why they are named this way) would be really appreciated as I don't see any benefit of them staying like this. Mattdaviesfsic ( talk) 17:15, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
There is a discussion regarding the Class 456 train's withdrawal at Talk:British Rail Class 456#Withdrawal details. Your input would be appreciated. Thanks. XtraJovial ( talk) 02:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
At British Rail Class 309, Neith-Nabu ( talk · contribs) and B.w1203 ( talk · contribs) (the latter with a clear WP:COI, because they were known as Clacton Express Preservation Group until 18 January 2022) are insisting on the inclusion of this reference, which supports the claim that the unit is for sale but is a link to a web page that is blatantly asking people to donate via JustGiving in order to raise the money required. Such links, if used as external links, are explicitly forbidden by WP:ELNO#EL4. Should this be permitted as a reference? -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 13:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
RedRose has, once again, refused to engage in any civil discussion on this matter on local Talk pages. Are you referring to any previous occurrences - which ones? Where exactly did I refuse? I would point out that this page has 232 watchers, whereas Talk:British Rail Class 309 has 21 - fewer than one-tenth as many. This issue does not affect just the BR class 309 article, so it is appropriate to raise the matter somewhere more general.
As editors at this project were heavily involved in a discussion on this topic a few years ago, you may be interested in this proposal to deprecate the chain as a unit of measure on articles about British railways. Kahastok talk 17:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I have noticed the articles on railway UK lines often have far too many sections. They are almost like concepts or ideas rather than well order relevant paragraphs compiled into sections. Take the article on the Varsity line, it has 21 sections, some of which eg "The wartime curves after the war", "Nationalisation", are no more than two sentences. There are countless other articles in the same mess. Whoever was allowed to edit like this has made a right pigs ear because first, as there are too many sections, the headers are meaningless and hard to fathom what the section is about, second many of the sections just repeat what other sections have said albeit in a tautological manner. The information is there it just needs editors who understand the subject to consolidate topics together and not leave articles reading as if they are someone's stream of consciousness. 146.200.202.126 ( talk) 10:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Discussion at the time was that it was too soon to create an article. The driver of the train involved has now been charged in connection with the crash. Is it now appropriate to create an article, or do we need to wait for a conviction? Mjroots ( talk) 16:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
All can now be revealed. Driver was using mobile phone whilst driving. Convicted on all charges. I'll write the article over the weekend. Mjroots ( talk) 18:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Rainhill Trials § Requested move 22 February 2022.
Hallucegenia (
talk) 12:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, should {{ Adjacent stations}} be embedded in {{ Infobox station}} as per Hellifield railway station? The use of this causes small text to be used in the infobox and is against accessibility rules. Keith D ( talk) 18:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
<small>...</small>
tags from {{
rail line}} transclusions, I won't stand in your way. You'll need a consensus aside from
MOS:FONTSIZE to justify it, however. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 20:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
<small>...</small>
tags, (or the {{
small}}
template) everywhere. What it does prohibit is their use where the default font is already small, such as in infoboxes. So there's no need to remove these tags when used outside infoboxes. --
Dr Greg
talk 22:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Happy to remove. Xbhpnvs798 ( talk) 12:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
I've just noticed that Template:Most and least-used stations in the United Kingdom (which I wasn't aware of until it was nominated for deletion) has not been undated since 2018-19 and so is out of date. I don't have time (particularly given very limited template skills) to update this myself right now, but it should ideally be done. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
The article Caledonian main line has three associated RDTs: {{ Caledonian Railway (Carstairs to Greenhill Junction) RDT}}, {{ Caledonian Railway (Carstairs to Carlisle) RDT}}, and {{ Caledonian Railway (Carstairs to Edinburgh) RDT}}. They were all removed in 2015 and not re-added. Would these still be useful to the article? Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
In the s-rail service navigation boxes, services are shown as being operated by Transport For Wales (i.e. the government agency) and not the train operator, Transport for Wales Rail. This is being driven by the toc field that only allows the TOC to be added as unlinked text. Presumably this is a back of house change that needs to be made so that when Transport for Wales is entered it defaults to the train operator not the agency. Any ideas on how to have fixed? Leadelape ( talk) 04:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Kirkby train crash has been nominated for deletion. — Voice of Clam 22:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Is the death of a station cat trivial? See Talk:Lancaster railway station#Please don't treat articles as personal fiefdoms 10mmsocket ( talk) 13:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm doing some citation checking at Wolverton and Wolverton Works. I had hoped to find at Crewe Works a citation I need, only to find it in an even worse state, pretty much lacking in any detailed citations. So if anybody fancies doing some heavy lifting, this is an article in need of some TLC. I have more than enough to do at this end of the line. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 17:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
How did locomotives that were scrapped before the introduction of TOPS such as the MetroVick Co-Bo locos get given a TOPS class? e.g. Class 28 for the MetroVicks. From my understanding the Co-Bos were withdrawn and scrapped in the late 1960s whilst TOPS came later in the early-mid 1970s. Please don’t forget to mention me in your replies. Cheerio! Slender ( talk) 10:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
For info, the RAIB have published their final report into the Stonehaven derailment. Mjroots ( talk) 07:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
© Crown copyright 2022
You may re-use this document/publication (not including departmental or agency logos) free of charge in any format or medium. You must re-use it accurately and not in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and you must give the title of the source publication. Where we have identified any third party copyright material you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This document/publication is also available at www.gov.uk/raib.
Checking www.therailwaycentre.com/Resource_data/AllTimeShedCodes.pdf for a citation at
Bletchley TMD, I reached a site that doesn't look right. I have changed this citation to say url-status=dead but other articles need checking too, I suspect. According to {{
duses}} (
therailwaycentre.com
) we have over 250 citations of it. Direct access to www.therailwaycentre.com/ redirects to some commercial site; the link to AllTimeShedCodes.pdf invites you download who knows what. According to
whois, the domain:
Hours of fun for anyone who enjoys that sort of thing. "I'm out". -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 16:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Is this http://www.railway-centre.com/ the website everyone is referring to? Difficultly north ( talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 18:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
I doubt that anyone interested will miss it but just in case: arising from discussion above, GreenCbot is changing (or has changed) the citations of that cite to url-status=usurped
. --
John Maynard Friedman (
talk) 23:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)