This page 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. |
A couple of days ago I merged Balham tube station and Balham railway station into Balham station, since they're a conjoined interchange complex and it's standard practice to cover those in one article. For anyone unfamiliar with the station, the two sections are co-located and the interchange involves a short flight of stairs from the rail station ticket office that leads directly into the tube ticket hall. It's a lot like Victoria station (and many others) though on a much smaller scale. Support or reject? -- Mr Thant ( talk) 20:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Due to an ongoing edit war, i have requested protection until this can be sorted. Simply south ( talk) 02:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I've started a formal merger discussion here -- Mr Thant ( talk) 16:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
To suggest that a 44 minute exchange on a Saturday night between four editors, not on any of the pages in question, constitutes the "clear consensus" claimed relating to the above merge is grotesque nonsense. Nick Cooper ( talk) 22:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Proper merge procedure should be followed, as per LanceBarber's comment on Talk:Balham tube station. Nick Cooper ( talk) 09:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the articles Young Persons Railcard, Senior Railcard etc would benefit from a template along the lines of {{Template:British railway ticket systems (computerised)}}. Any comments? More to the point, does anyone know how to implement it? TicketMan – Talk – contribs 16:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:RM Newport --> Newport (Gwent). See Talk:Newport railway station Simply south ( talk) 21:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to find a citation for the opening dates for Bloxwich railway station (1989) and Bloxwich North railway station (1990). The Chase Line reopened in 1989 so I'm fairly certain of the dates, however they are the last things needing citations at List of West Midlands railway stations. Can anybody help? TicketMan – Talk – contribs 16:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This may have been discussed before. Do we have a recommendation for disambiguating station names? Suppose there are two stations called "Chigley". To disambiguate, do you name an article (a) "Chigley (Trumptonshire) railway station" or (b) "Chigley railway station, Trumptonshire"? To my mind, (b) is preferrable, and in line with how other geographical articles are disambiguated. However, (a) should be used if the official name of the station is "Chigley (Trumptonshire)". Any views on this? -- Dr Greg ( talk) 18:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
An interesting debate has arisen over which route box template should be used to describe the route info for a closed station on an open or closed line. At the moment there are two: >{{Disused Rail Start}} and {{Historical Rail Start}}. The former came first, the latter was added by User:Dreamer84 as "'Disused' did not give enough scope on lines that were still open but with the occasional closed station"; see the debate here User talk:Halowithhorns89. In the interests of a uniform approach to closed UK lines, I think it's necessary to either choose one single template or to define parameters for when "disused" and when "historical" is to be used. I have used "disused rail start" for four reasons: (1) the term "disused railways" is accepted as the general term for describing closed routes (see here [1] and here [2]) and closed stations and open routes; (2) "historical railways" is a misnomer in the sense that a closed railway line or station is not inherently historical in the dictionary definition of the term (here: [3]); (3) Ordnance Survey refers to "dismantled" or "disused" railways", and (4) "disused railways" and "historical railways" have different connotations, the former giving the idea of a railway no longer in use, while the latter suggests (in my view) a special category of railways which are particularly known for one reason or another. I don't honestly mind which one is chosen, as long as there is a consensus on the matter. Ravenseft ( talk) 19:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I have always had doubts as to the usefulness of having the previous/next station boxes providing historical information, either on articles about closed stations, or about open stations with closed lines. The fundamental problem is this: it has to be obvious exactly which part of history, or what year, the box is referring to. For instance, consider Derby. The main line south of Derby has, since opening, been operated by the Midland Counties Railway, Midland Railway, London, Midland and Scottish Railway, British Railways/ British Rail and Midland Mainline (ignoring the present-day operator). That's one problem. Second, what the next station down the line has been will have varied throughout time, too. Having these boxes whilst simultaneously dealing with these issues could potentially lead to having incredibly large templates which dominate articles. I advise caution! -- RFBailey ( talk) 23:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I can't find any discussion on here regarding a standard for previous and next station boxes. I was prompted to look at this by RFBailey's cautionary words about historical previous/next station boxes in certain circumstances leading to the potential for huge templates dominating articles.
I believe the reason, certainly in the case of Manchester Victoria is because of the way station boxes are strictly sitting with route definitions, and editors have perceived a need to create a box for each "route" without an evaluation as to whether or not the definition of that route is accurate. This has created huge duplication and it's misleading for a user following a route using the previous / next station boxes as their source of reference.
I would suggest that the whole concept of previous/next station boxes in relation to routes is examined to try and eliminate this huge duplication. (The definition of some of the routes out of Manchester Victoria needs very careful evaluation as well. I'd like to work on this after I've finished the Caldervale, and I have a few ideas for definition, but I believe that they should go up for discussion first.) I would suggest that one previous and next box per physical line per operator is all that's needed. Bigpants ( talk) 03:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Preceding station | Disused railways | Following station | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Tonbridge | May 31 1842 to September 24 1844 South Eastern Railway |
Marden | ||
Tonbridge | September 25 1844 to September 30 1892 South Eastern Railway |
Marden Yalding | ||
Tonbridge | October 1 1844 to December 31 1898 South Eastern Railway |
Marden Yalding Horsmonden | ||
Tonbridge | January 1 1899 to August 31 1909 South Eastern Railway and Chatham Railway |
Marden Yalding Horsmonden | ||
Tonbridge | September 1 1906 to December 31 1922 South Eastern Railway and Chatham Railway |
Marden Beltring & Branbridges Horsmonden | ||
Tonbridge | January 1 1923 to December 31 1947 Southern Railway Railway |
Marden Beltring & Branbridges Horsmonden | ||
Tonbridge | January 1 1948 to June 10 1961 British Railways (Southern Region) |
Marden Beltring & Branbridges Horsmonden | ||
Tonbridge | June 11 1961 to March 31 1994 British Railways (Southern Region) |
Marden Beltring & Branbridges | ||
Tonbridge | April 1 1994 to October 2 2002 Railtrack |
Marden Beltring & Branbridges |
Preceding station | National Rail | Following station | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Tonbridge | From October 3 2002 Network Rail |
Marden Beltring & Branbridges |
Thus giving the complete history of the station, with all changes when they occured. Mjroots ( talk) 10:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
A simple soultion, if possible. If everyone is fed up on space, could the rail boxes be designed so that they can be hidden like navboxes? Simply south ( talk) 16:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
For those of you who don't have List of UK railfan jargon on your watchlists, an ultimatum from another experienced editor has been placed on the talk page that all unsourced definitions will be removed from the list in February. A similar message was added to List of U.S. railfan jargon at the same time; I've gone through a stack of references to add citations to that article, but as I know much less about British railway practice than I do about US practice, I would strongly encourage editors in this project to chip in and add references as appropriate. I'll be looking through what I have, but any help in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Slambo (Speak) 19:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Following the ongoing debate about at Talk:Balham station#Merger which shows no sign of ending any time soon, I've done some research on where we have either one or two articles describing such situations. The results of this are presented in my userspace at User:RFBailey/Interchanges.
This is part of an attempt to put to rest once and for all the question of when single articles are needed, and when not. My view is that a single article is all that is required unless the page size guidelines justify it (e.g. the old 32 KB limit is exceeded: see WP:SIZE), or the complexity of the stations concerned demand it (e.g. Kings Cross St Pancras). Neither of these appear to apply to Balham.
Members of this project are invited to comment. (Please continue the discussion on this page!). Thanks, -- RFBailey ( talk) 03:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Where stations are co located having one article does make more sense to me. But we may need to change article titles to better reflect the status. Where stations are very closely related, like Balham, West Hampstead, Vauxhall then to me having an XXXXX stations are article with appropriate redirects makes sense. For some large stations with extensive histories this may not always work but we can bring WP:SUMMARY into play in those cases. Regan123 ( talk) 17:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I've made a list of places in Great Britain that should link to their local railway stations:
Feel free to add links to these places and remove them from the list.
This list was generated automatically, it might include articles that have the same name as a station, but are not about the location of that station. Please check. Some of the stations are disused. Hope this is helpful. Edward ( talk) 13:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I just thought it would be easier if i placed two different topics under one title
Do people think that the colours list above for the TOCs should become a sub-page of the project? Simply south ( talk) 19:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Could i request that someone create an article on the colloqialism of Slam-door trains? Simply south ( talk) 19:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Does the UK Railways Wikiproject cover the Isle of Man and Channel Isles? If not, should it do so? What is the situation with Eire, which was part of the UK until 1923. Should this be the Great Britain Railways Wikiproject? Mjroots ( talk) 08:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for discussing this. I think that we must be careful to stress that any labels are geographical not political! For myself I would have thought that from a geographical standpoint, Isle of Man and Channel Island railways would be best covered under the umbrella of UK railways – don't know about Ireland though – what about starting an Irish Railways wikiproject? Would it be possible to change the name of the UK railways project to "Railways in the British Isles" or some such? This would cover all bases surely (do Irishmen regard Eire as located in the "British" Isles though? - this may be a ticklish and sensitive subject and I apologise if I have already unknowingly trodden on anyone's toes here!)
Mjroots – thanks for letting me know about this discussion. I'm not an IOM resident but have always had a huge affection for the IOM railway system (I first encountered it in about 1970 – just after most of it closed!). Best Witchwooder ( talk) 14:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
British Isles naming dispute makes interesting reading but I think it is ultimately unhelpful. "Railways of IONA" sounds weird to me. "Railways of the British Isles and Ireland" would cover it I think but is a bit unwieldy – I'd settle for that though! Best Witchwooder ( talk) 14:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
what is the policy of using the metric/imprial system around here. Some of the articles such as East coastway line only use Km where a this one the West coast wayline only uses Miles and Chains. Standardisation needs to occur regrding these articles. Also as this is not just UK wikipedia or US wikipedia or EU wikipedia. A convertion to the metric system or imperial system is needed depending on the system chosen.-- Lucy-marie ( talk) 13:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not here to start another war I am here to try and standardise the units and in accordance with the way units are presented. Work out the best way to represent both the metric and the imperial as Wikipedia is for the whole of the world and not just england. The units used in england may be principly miles and chains. If so why aren't all uk articles on this issue in this system and why is there no metric equivelent in bracket afterwards.-- Lucy-marie ( talk) 20:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Please calm down and focus on the content not the contribuor.-- Lucy-marie ( talk) 21:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually I've now changed my mind about chains. Distances such as "10 miles 15 chains" probably don't need an imperial conversion, as most readers will interpret this as "10–11 miles" which is good enough, although a metric conversion would still be welcome in that case.
And I don't think conversion to metric should be mandatory. Some common sense is needed and there may be situations, as mentioned by SouthernElectric, where omission could be justified. For example, I'd accept their omission from line diagrams, to keep the diagram simple. Nevertheless, in my view, conversions ought to be the ideal to aim for, where feasible. It's not difficult, if you use {{ convert}}. We shouldn't expect our readers to get out their calculators to perform conversions themselves.
So when I said earlier that it should be "project policy", on reflection that was putting it too strongly. It should be a less prescriptive "recommendation" or some similar phraseology. (If we ever get a consensus view, which might be difficult!) -- Dr Greg ( talk) 18:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok....... Put Miles, Chains and Feet First. Then follow (if necessary) in brackets any metric equivalents. This should be optional. Most people reading English Wikipedia will be from the UK, USA and Canada that still use Imperial Measurements. Most other English speaking countries are from the Commonwealth, which although may be recently metrified, will understand Miles. PS: For heavens sake a yard is about the same as a metre- don't people have an imagination? Btline ( talk) 18:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has rather unfortunately turned into a slanging match. Everyone involved needs to take a deep breath, take a step back, and calm down. While User:SouthernElectric and User:Olana North (and, to a lesser extent, User:Pyrotec and User:Btline) are in the majority regarding the use of miles and chains, their behaviour towards User:Lucy-marie is unacceptable. Sarcasm and describing another user as "ignorant" are incivil, and bordering on personal attacks. Furthermore, a consensus is not a majority vote, and everyone needs to remember that. There are issues here that haven't been addressed (e.g. excessive detail). A consensus is not formed by certain noisy editors (you know who you are) shouting what amounts to "we're right, we've always been right, you must be stupid if you can't see that".
Also, whoever it was who claimed that "If you are reading a UK railway article, then the chances are very high that you will [know what miles and chains are]" doesn't seemed to have taken in my comments in this post; to reiterate, As I find myself pointing out repeatedly on this talk page, we must remember that the railway articles (along with articles on every other subject) should be written for a general audience, and that background knowledge should not necessarily be presumed. While it may be true that many readers of railway articles may be railway enthusiasts, it is not for us to presume that they are.
If the issue regarding {{ convert}} can be addressed (thankfully, this has been raised on the template talk page here), then hopefully that will solve some of these issues. Arguing won't. -- RFBailey ( talk) 02:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
OutdentWhat the industry uses and what is presented:-
The road haulage industry in the UK uses miles and yards. Articles on Wikipedia use miles/yards, with km conversion where appropriate.
The inland waterways industry (such as it is) use miles and yards. Articles are in miles and yards, with km conversion where appropriate.
The aviation industry uses nautical miles to measure distance of flights. Articles are in nautical miles, with conversion to statute miles and km as appropriate.
The rail industry measures in miles and chains... Mjroots ( talk) 17:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Adambro ( talk) 18:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly! Just what I said a few edits back!! Lets move on. Miles (Km) Btline ( talk) 19:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Laing Rail was recently aqcuired by Deutsche Bahn from John Laing plc. Does this mean that WSMR and Chiltern Railways are run by Deutsche Bahn directly or are they still run by Laing Rail? If the latter, i suppose that would now make Laing Rail a subdivision of Deutsche bahn. Simply south ( talk) 17:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
FWIW i've sent Fen Line Users Association to AFD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fen Line Users Association. Simply south ( talk) 14:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I notice that Adambro ( talk · contribs) has started to removed the {{ stn art lnk}} from railway station articles and placing the information (if not already there) in the station infobox. This means adding the coordinates to the infobox using the parameters latitude= and longitude= He has commented that a wider range of map options is available through the coords in the infobox, as is timetable/station info. Using stn art lnk could be seen to promote Multimap. Geof Sheppard ( talk) 13:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
What should be done about this template now? In all but one location, it has been replaced by whatever line that station is on. Should it be reapplied but with both templates? Or deleted\redirect? Simply south ( talk) 21:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
On another note, I have sent this to WP:TfD. Simply south ( talk) 22:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Would anybody like to do an article on the British Rail Universal Trolley Equipment which used to be so common on station platforms in the 70s and 80s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots ( talk • contribs) 11:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
A lot of TOCs only have this template because of a redirect. This has caused some problems in the past (eg a double redirect) which I sorted. However, to prevent this from happening again, I am gradually changing "British TOCs" to "Current UK TOCs" in TOC articles. Any help would be appreciated. Click here for the redirects. Thanks, Btline ( talk) 14:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed the large-scale adding of Underground/Metro/Tram (local rapid transit interchange ) locos to the railway diagrams. This are all each individually specifying the Image logo size in pixels. Would it be better to create a template eg. {{rail-interchange|underground}} have this template map to an appropriate logo + hard-coded size. Ah update to a logo, or size adjustment could then be done site-wide, just as with the other component images/SVGs used in the template diagram system. — Sladen ( talk) 16:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
There's also the issue of where they are used: I've gone through removing them all from Wolverhampton, as the mainline rail station is about a quarter of a mile from the Midland Metro terminus at St. Georges. This is pretty much the same distance apart as Birmingham New Street and the other end of the MM at Snow Hill, yet the odd purple dots haven't appeared next to BNS. Fingerpuppet ( talk) 23:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Please could someone request that User:Hammersfan provide edit summaries and/or mark minor edits. This editor has been making amendments to a lot of railway pages over the last few weeks, but rarely leaves an edit summary, nor marks small changes as being a minor edit. All in all, it makes it very time-consuming to ascertain what this editor has been doing. I did place a request on his talk page to this effect, but his behaviour has not changed. Olana North ( talk) 10:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I have come across some pictures in Wiki Commons that purport to show locomotives on shed at Exeter St Davids, however the background looks wrong to my eyes. I thought that perhaps it was Exmouth Junction shed (they are all Southern Region locos, mainly Bulleid pacifics), but I'm not sure. Could anyone who is more familiar with Southern depots please have look and let me know where they should be moved. Geof Sheppard ( talk) 14:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The South London Lines article is in need of attention. I've proposed a split, especially because the term "South London Line" is used just about exclusively these days for the inner route. -- Mr Thant ( talk) 09:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Template:Scottish Train Operators has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Oxyman ( talk) 00:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
See Talk:Sheffield Victoria Station. Simply south ( talk) 14:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I know nothing about railways or templates but I just came across what appears to be a broken template for the railway line on the South Wigston article, at the bottom. Would somebody here be able to fix it? Thanks. MorganaFiolett ( talk) 12:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Do we need a page on this? Talltim ( talk) 22:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
If a boiler pressure is quoted as 10 kg, is that per sq mm, sq cm or sq m? Mjroots ( talk) 14:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
This page 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. |
This page 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. |
A couple of days ago I merged Balham tube station and Balham railway station into Balham station, since they're a conjoined interchange complex and it's standard practice to cover those in one article. For anyone unfamiliar with the station, the two sections are co-located and the interchange involves a short flight of stairs from the rail station ticket office that leads directly into the tube ticket hall. It's a lot like Victoria station (and many others) though on a much smaller scale. Support or reject? -- Mr Thant ( talk) 20:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Due to an ongoing edit war, i have requested protection until this can be sorted. Simply south ( talk) 02:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I've started a formal merger discussion here -- Mr Thant ( talk) 16:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
To suggest that a 44 minute exchange on a Saturday night between four editors, not on any of the pages in question, constitutes the "clear consensus" claimed relating to the above merge is grotesque nonsense. Nick Cooper ( talk) 22:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Proper merge procedure should be followed, as per LanceBarber's comment on Talk:Balham tube station. Nick Cooper ( talk) 09:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the articles Young Persons Railcard, Senior Railcard etc would benefit from a template along the lines of {{Template:British railway ticket systems (computerised)}}. Any comments? More to the point, does anyone know how to implement it? TicketMan – Talk – contribs 16:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:RM Newport --> Newport (Gwent). See Talk:Newport railway station Simply south ( talk) 21:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to find a citation for the opening dates for Bloxwich railway station (1989) and Bloxwich North railway station (1990). The Chase Line reopened in 1989 so I'm fairly certain of the dates, however they are the last things needing citations at List of West Midlands railway stations. Can anybody help? TicketMan – Talk – contribs 16:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This may have been discussed before. Do we have a recommendation for disambiguating station names? Suppose there are two stations called "Chigley". To disambiguate, do you name an article (a) "Chigley (Trumptonshire) railway station" or (b) "Chigley railway station, Trumptonshire"? To my mind, (b) is preferrable, and in line with how other geographical articles are disambiguated. However, (a) should be used if the official name of the station is "Chigley (Trumptonshire)". Any views on this? -- Dr Greg ( talk) 18:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
An interesting debate has arisen over which route box template should be used to describe the route info for a closed station on an open or closed line. At the moment there are two: >{{Disused Rail Start}} and {{Historical Rail Start}}. The former came first, the latter was added by User:Dreamer84 as "'Disused' did not give enough scope on lines that were still open but with the occasional closed station"; see the debate here User talk:Halowithhorns89. In the interests of a uniform approach to closed UK lines, I think it's necessary to either choose one single template or to define parameters for when "disused" and when "historical" is to be used. I have used "disused rail start" for four reasons: (1) the term "disused railways" is accepted as the general term for describing closed routes (see here [1] and here [2]) and closed stations and open routes; (2) "historical railways" is a misnomer in the sense that a closed railway line or station is not inherently historical in the dictionary definition of the term (here: [3]); (3) Ordnance Survey refers to "dismantled" or "disused" railways", and (4) "disused railways" and "historical railways" have different connotations, the former giving the idea of a railway no longer in use, while the latter suggests (in my view) a special category of railways which are particularly known for one reason or another. I don't honestly mind which one is chosen, as long as there is a consensus on the matter. Ravenseft ( talk) 19:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I have always had doubts as to the usefulness of having the previous/next station boxes providing historical information, either on articles about closed stations, or about open stations with closed lines. The fundamental problem is this: it has to be obvious exactly which part of history, or what year, the box is referring to. For instance, consider Derby. The main line south of Derby has, since opening, been operated by the Midland Counties Railway, Midland Railway, London, Midland and Scottish Railway, British Railways/ British Rail and Midland Mainline (ignoring the present-day operator). That's one problem. Second, what the next station down the line has been will have varied throughout time, too. Having these boxes whilst simultaneously dealing with these issues could potentially lead to having incredibly large templates which dominate articles. I advise caution! -- RFBailey ( talk) 23:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I can't find any discussion on here regarding a standard for previous and next station boxes. I was prompted to look at this by RFBailey's cautionary words about historical previous/next station boxes in certain circumstances leading to the potential for huge templates dominating articles.
I believe the reason, certainly in the case of Manchester Victoria is because of the way station boxes are strictly sitting with route definitions, and editors have perceived a need to create a box for each "route" without an evaluation as to whether or not the definition of that route is accurate. This has created huge duplication and it's misleading for a user following a route using the previous / next station boxes as their source of reference.
I would suggest that the whole concept of previous/next station boxes in relation to routes is examined to try and eliminate this huge duplication. (The definition of some of the routes out of Manchester Victoria needs very careful evaluation as well. I'd like to work on this after I've finished the Caldervale, and I have a few ideas for definition, but I believe that they should go up for discussion first.) I would suggest that one previous and next box per physical line per operator is all that's needed. Bigpants ( talk) 03:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Preceding station | Disused railways | Following station | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Tonbridge | May 31 1842 to September 24 1844 South Eastern Railway |
Marden | ||
Tonbridge | September 25 1844 to September 30 1892 South Eastern Railway |
Marden Yalding | ||
Tonbridge | October 1 1844 to December 31 1898 South Eastern Railway |
Marden Yalding Horsmonden | ||
Tonbridge | January 1 1899 to August 31 1909 South Eastern Railway and Chatham Railway |
Marden Yalding Horsmonden | ||
Tonbridge | September 1 1906 to December 31 1922 South Eastern Railway and Chatham Railway |
Marden Beltring & Branbridges Horsmonden | ||
Tonbridge | January 1 1923 to December 31 1947 Southern Railway Railway |
Marden Beltring & Branbridges Horsmonden | ||
Tonbridge | January 1 1948 to June 10 1961 British Railways (Southern Region) |
Marden Beltring & Branbridges Horsmonden | ||
Tonbridge | June 11 1961 to March 31 1994 British Railways (Southern Region) |
Marden Beltring & Branbridges | ||
Tonbridge | April 1 1994 to October 2 2002 Railtrack |
Marden Beltring & Branbridges |
Preceding station | National Rail | Following station | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Tonbridge | From October 3 2002 Network Rail |
Marden Beltring & Branbridges |
Thus giving the complete history of the station, with all changes when they occured. Mjroots ( talk) 10:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
A simple soultion, if possible. If everyone is fed up on space, could the rail boxes be designed so that they can be hidden like navboxes? Simply south ( talk) 16:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
For those of you who don't have List of UK railfan jargon on your watchlists, an ultimatum from another experienced editor has been placed on the talk page that all unsourced definitions will be removed from the list in February. A similar message was added to List of U.S. railfan jargon at the same time; I've gone through a stack of references to add citations to that article, but as I know much less about British railway practice than I do about US practice, I would strongly encourage editors in this project to chip in and add references as appropriate. I'll be looking through what I have, but any help in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Slambo (Speak) 19:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Following the ongoing debate about at Talk:Balham station#Merger which shows no sign of ending any time soon, I've done some research on where we have either one or two articles describing such situations. The results of this are presented in my userspace at User:RFBailey/Interchanges.
This is part of an attempt to put to rest once and for all the question of when single articles are needed, and when not. My view is that a single article is all that is required unless the page size guidelines justify it (e.g. the old 32 KB limit is exceeded: see WP:SIZE), or the complexity of the stations concerned demand it (e.g. Kings Cross St Pancras). Neither of these appear to apply to Balham.
Members of this project are invited to comment. (Please continue the discussion on this page!). Thanks, -- RFBailey ( talk) 03:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Where stations are co located having one article does make more sense to me. But we may need to change article titles to better reflect the status. Where stations are very closely related, like Balham, West Hampstead, Vauxhall then to me having an XXXXX stations are article with appropriate redirects makes sense. For some large stations with extensive histories this may not always work but we can bring WP:SUMMARY into play in those cases. Regan123 ( talk) 17:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I've made a list of places in Great Britain that should link to their local railway stations:
Feel free to add links to these places and remove them from the list.
This list was generated automatically, it might include articles that have the same name as a station, but are not about the location of that station. Please check. Some of the stations are disused. Hope this is helpful. Edward ( talk) 13:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I just thought it would be easier if i placed two different topics under one title
Do people think that the colours list above for the TOCs should become a sub-page of the project? Simply south ( talk) 19:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Could i request that someone create an article on the colloqialism of Slam-door trains? Simply south ( talk) 19:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Does the UK Railways Wikiproject cover the Isle of Man and Channel Isles? If not, should it do so? What is the situation with Eire, which was part of the UK until 1923. Should this be the Great Britain Railways Wikiproject? Mjroots ( talk) 08:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for discussing this. I think that we must be careful to stress that any labels are geographical not political! For myself I would have thought that from a geographical standpoint, Isle of Man and Channel Island railways would be best covered under the umbrella of UK railways – don't know about Ireland though – what about starting an Irish Railways wikiproject? Would it be possible to change the name of the UK railways project to "Railways in the British Isles" or some such? This would cover all bases surely (do Irishmen regard Eire as located in the "British" Isles though? - this may be a ticklish and sensitive subject and I apologise if I have already unknowingly trodden on anyone's toes here!)
Mjroots – thanks for letting me know about this discussion. I'm not an IOM resident but have always had a huge affection for the IOM railway system (I first encountered it in about 1970 – just after most of it closed!). Best Witchwooder ( talk) 14:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
British Isles naming dispute makes interesting reading but I think it is ultimately unhelpful. "Railways of IONA" sounds weird to me. "Railways of the British Isles and Ireland" would cover it I think but is a bit unwieldy – I'd settle for that though! Best Witchwooder ( talk) 14:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
what is the policy of using the metric/imprial system around here. Some of the articles such as East coastway line only use Km where a this one the West coast wayline only uses Miles and Chains. Standardisation needs to occur regrding these articles. Also as this is not just UK wikipedia or US wikipedia or EU wikipedia. A convertion to the metric system or imperial system is needed depending on the system chosen.-- Lucy-marie ( talk) 13:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not here to start another war I am here to try and standardise the units and in accordance with the way units are presented. Work out the best way to represent both the metric and the imperial as Wikipedia is for the whole of the world and not just england. The units used in england may be principly miles and chains. If so why aren't all uk articles on this issue in this system and why is there no metric equivelent in bracket afterwards.-- Lucy-marie ( talk) 20:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Please calm down and focus on the content not the contribuor.-- Lucy-marie ( talk) 21:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually I've now changed my mind about chains. Distances such as "10 miles 15 chains" probably don't need an imperial conversion, as most readers will interpret this as "10–11 miles" which is good enough, although a metric conversion would still be welcome in that case.
And I don't think conversion to metric should be mandatory. Some common sense is needed and there may be situations, as mentioned by SouthernElectric, where omission could be justified. For example, I'd accept their omission from line diagrams, to keep the diagram simple. Nevertheless, in my view, conversions ought to be the ideal to aim for, where feasible. It's not difficult, if you use {{ convert}}. We shouldn't expect our readers to get out their calculators to perform conversions themselves.
So when I said earlier that it should be "project policy", on reflection that was putting it too strongly. It should be a less prescriptive "recommendation" or some similar phraseology. (If we ever get a consensus view, which might be difficult!) -- Dr Greg ( talk) 18:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok....... Put Miles, Chains and Feet First. Then follow (if necessary) in brackets any metric equivalents. This should be optional. Most people reading English Wikipedia will be from the UK, USA and Canada that still use Imperial Measurements. Most other English speaking countries are from the Commonwealth, which although may be recently metrified, will understand Miles. PS: For heavens sake a yard is about the same as a metre- don't people have an imagination? Btline ( talk) 18:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has rather unfortunately turned into a slanging match. Everyone involved needs to take a deep breath, take a step back, and calm down. While User:SouthernElectric and User:Olana North (and, to a lesser extent, User:Pyrotec and User:Btline) are in the majority regarding the use of miles and chains, their behaviour towards User:Lucy-marie is unacceptable. Sarcasm and describing another user as "ignorant" are incivil, and bordering on personal attacks. Furthermore, a consensus is not a majority vote, and everyone needs to remember that. There are issues here that haven't been addressed (e.g. excessive detail). A consensus is not formed by certain noisy editors (you know who you are) shouting what amounts to "we're right, we've always been right, you must be stupid if you can't see that".
Also, whoever it was who claimed that "If you are reading a UK railway article, then the chances are very high that you will [know what miles and chains are]" doesn't seemed to have taken in my comments in this post; to reiterate, As I find myself pointing out repeatedly on this talk page, we must remember that the railway articles (along with articles on every other subject) should be written for a general audience, and that background knowledge should not necessarily be presumed. While it may be true that many readers of railway articles may be railway enthusiasts, it is not for us to presume that they are.
If the issue regarding {{ convert}} can be addressed (thankfully, this has been raised on the template talk page here), then hopefully that will solve some of these issues. Arguing won't. -- RFBailey ( talk) 02:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
OutdentWhat the industry uses and what is presented:-
The road haulage industry in the UK uses miles and yards. Articles on Wikipedia use miles/yards, with km conversion where appropriate.
The inland waterways industry (such as it is) use miles and yards. Articles are in miles and yards, with km conversion where appropriate.
The aviation industry uses nautical miles to measure distance of flights. Articles are in nautical miles, with conversion to statute miles and km as appropriate.
The rail industry measures in miles and chains... Mjroots ( talk) 17:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Adambro ( talk) 18:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly! Just what I said a few edits back!! Lets move on. Miles (Km) Btline ( talk) 19:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Laing Rail was recently aqcuired by Deutsche Bahn from John Laing plc. Does this mean that WSMR and Chiltern Railways are run by Deutsche Bahn directly or are they still run by Laing Rail? If the latter, i suppose that would now make Laing Rail a subdivision of Deutsche bahn. Simply south ( talk) 17:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
FWIW i've sent Fen Line Users Association to AFD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fen Line Users Association. Simply south ( talk) 14:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I notice that Adambro ( talk · contribs) has started to removed the {{ stn art lnk}} from railway station articles and placing the information (if not already there) in the station infobox. This means adding the coordinates to the infobox using the parameters latitude= and longitude= He has commented that a wider range of map options is available through the coords in the infobox, as is timetable/station info. Using stn art lnk could be seen to promote Multimap. Geof Sheppard ( talk) 13:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
What should be done about this template now? In all but one location, it has been replaced by whatever line that station is on. Should it be reapplied but with both templates? Or deleted\redirect? Simply south ( talk) 21:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
On another note, I have sent this to WP:TfD. Simply south ( talk) 22:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Would anybody like to do an article on the British Rail Universal Trolley Equipment which used to be so common on station platforms in the 70s and 80s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots ( talk • contribs) 11:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
A lot of TOCs only have this template because of a redirect. This has caused some problems in the past (eg a double redirect) which I sorted. However, to prevent this from happening again, I am gradually changing "British TOCs" to "Current UK TOCs" in TOC articles. Any help would be appreciated. Click here for the redirects. Thanks, Btline ( talk) 14:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed the large-scale adding of Underground/Metro/Tram (local rapid transit interchange ) locos to the railway diagrams. This are all each individually specifying the Image logo size in pixels. Would it be better to create a template eg. {{rail-interchange|underground}} have this template map to an appropriate logo + hard-coded size. Ah update to a logo, or size adjustment could then be done site-wide, just as with the other component images/SVGs used in the template diagram system. — Sladen ( talk) 16:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
There's also the issue of where they are used: I've gone through removing them all from Wolverhampton, as the mainline rail station is about a quarter of a mile from the Midland Metro terminus at St. Georges. This is pretty much the same distance apart as Birmingham New Street and the other end of the MM at Snow Hill, yet the odd purple dots haven't appeared next to BNS. Fingerpuppet ( talk) 23:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Please could someone request that User:Hammersfan provide edit summaries and/or mark minor edits. This editor has been making amendments to a lot of railway pages over the last few weeks, but rarely leaves an edit summary, nor marks small changes as being a minor edit. All in all, it makes it very time-consuming to ascertain what this editor has been doing. I did place a request on his talk page to this effect, but his behaviour has not changed. Olana North ( talk) 10:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I have come across some pictures in Wiki Commons that purport to show locomotives on shed at Exeter St Davids, however the background looks wrong to my eyes. I thought that perhaps it was Exmouth Junction shed (they are all Southern Region locos, mainly Bulleid pacifics), but I'm not sure. Could anyone who is more familiar with Southern depots please have look and let me know where they should be moved. Geof Sheppard ( talk) 14:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The South London Lines article is in need of attention. I've proposed a split, especially because the term "South London Line" is used just about exclusively these days for the inner route. -- Mr Thant ( talk) 09:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Template:Scottish Train Operators has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Oxyman ( talk) 00:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
See Talk:Sheffield Victoria Station. Simply south ( talk) 14:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I know nothing about railways or templates but I just came across what appears to be a broken template for the railway line on the South Wigston article, at the bottom. Would somebody here be able to fix it? Thanks. MorganaFiolett ( talk) 12:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Do we need a page on this? Talltim ( talk) 22:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
If a boiler pressure is quoted as 10 kg, is that per sq mm, sq cm or sq m? Mjroots ( talk) 14:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
This page 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. |