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.
The article List of London railway stations primarily consists of a comprehensive list of all railway stations in the TfL area that have a National Rail service (i.e. pure Underground stations are omitted). Recently, a supplementary list Busiest stations by yearly passenger traffic was added by Shabidoo (talk·contribs), and I'm unsure whether it warrants inclusion. First, it has no context: it doesn't say which year the figures are for, nor whether they are entries, exits, interchanges or a combination. Next, it's selective: 36 stations are listed, but why should there be 36 and not, say, 35 or 40? Third, it's unsourced. Should we simply remove this list, or add the equivalent sourced figures, with indication of context, to the main list? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes - it's a bit of a mess as a supplementary list (and the figures appear to be quite old - possibly 2005-6?). I think I'd favour the second option "adding the sourced figures, with indication of context, to the main table". I'd suggest that it is best to use the "entry and exit" figures that are given on many railway station articles, with the Office of Rail Regulation spreadsheet as the source, with the latest (2013-14) figures (the downside being that it should ideally be updated once a year...) from station-usage-2013-14-data.xls.
My one concern is the size of the table - it currently has eight columns, which would increase to nine. The table already reduces the font size to 95%. It might be possible to tweak the width of some of the columns with short entries (eg station code, fare zone, year opened) but it would still be a bit tight. I'd suggest removing the Coordinates column - all of the other columns can be meaningfully sorted (eg by date opened, operator, London borough etc). Since the coordinates currently always break onto two lines, this would also have the advantage of making some rows only one line high. Robevans123 (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
It was sourced (check the history). I must have deleted the source in one of my edits. It was originally 25 stations (as is common on some list of "most used" or "most common" but I added ten more to include outer london stations and I forgot to shave it back down to 25. I think it would be a great idea to incorporate the data into the larger table. Shabidoo | Talk 18:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Station to be identified
??
Can anyone make out the station name on the board in this picture? It looks like two words, the second beginning with "De". Although not a British station, there is a tenuous link with the UK as the photographer was from Sutton Scotney. Lamberhurst (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
There's a picture here of "Devlali", now Deolali, which looks very adjacent. Johnlp (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
The footbridge is a pure southern region design, but the awnings of the station buildings suggest anything but.Rhubarbs Cat (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Definitely looks like Devlali to me. -- Alarics (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Here's another unidentified station. It's a SWT station with a canopy similar to that found at Hinton Admiral. Lamberhurst (talk) 12:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I put some WikiProject banners on its talk page. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I was hoping someone would know more about this - I found a note about it years back but never any more detail. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Wild guess - Doncaster Yards? I have seen 92s there on the odd occasion. Probably more likely to be WCML though.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I cannot assist with identifying the location, but I do question the usefulness of this picture. Putting aside the obvious (where is it?), the picture is blurred and poorly framed. What use does the project have for this photo?? I am quite sure that we can find many better examples of a Class 92 than this!!
I propose that this picture be put in the re-cycling bin. - Bethayres (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Following a landslip, the line is to be closed "for months" between Banbury and Leamington Spa. Should the route diagram be amended to show this? Mjroots (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't have thought so, for temporary closures (the BBC say weeks, not months, although there can only be speculation at the moment until the extent of the problem is revealed). Are there any precedents, e.g. the Hatfield Colliery slip, or the pre-planned Selby Bridge closure? Optimist on the run (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, there is a precedent, this edit I made to {{Hastings Line}}, when it was announced that the line would be closed "for the forseeable future". Obviously a better crystal ball was needed, as the line re-opened four days later. Mjroots (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd say don't change the diagram, though the article should certainly note it. Recentism aside, it's a major event. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps the diagram could have a slight re-tweak, so it's clear what the "closed since December 2013" is referring to; I presume it's the freight branch(?). —Sladen (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Probably as major - if not as dramatic - as the closure of the South Devon line last year. A printed First Great Western notice that I photographed at Oxford station at 10:30 yesterday said "Disruption is expected until 2359 on Saturday 7 February 2015"; however the BBC News (Oxford) last night said that it would be several weeks. CrossCountry have halved their service south of Banbury, with one per hour in each direction instead of two. They run with headcodes 1Znn in both directions instead of 1Mnn (towards Manchester) or 1Onn (towards Bournemouth). For example, the 08:45 Bournemouth-Manchester (headcode 1M34) is now the 08:45 Bournemouth-Banbury (headcode 1Z34). More at http://nationalrail.co.uk/service_disruptions/90845.aspx --Redrose64 (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
A real challenge: where am I GOING?
I know where I am, but where am I going?
Can anyone deciper the destination indicator on 465043 here? -mattbuck (Talk) 13:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
14 Sevenoaks via Lewisham. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Brilliant, thanks. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Further to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 30#Travel advice, again, Railway56 (talk·contribs) is once again adding superfluous routing detail to station articles. Their latest is to insist on the inclusion of info that trains from Bristol Temple Meads to Waterloo run via Clapham Junction, also that trains from Southampton to Manchester run via Reading. I have tried to get them to discuss, without success. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
They were given a block recently, but this was clearly ineffective since they're continuing with the same behaviour. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
The information I added on Reading Railway Staton I do not believe was excessive or inaccurate as above there was detail similar which was not added by me and was never questioned so I cant see how I did anything wrong explaining the Reading Waterloo Train links Reading with Richmond which is major station stop on the line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Railway56 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes it is, and I have removed it. -- Alarics (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you --Redrose64 (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Has anyone got photos of the reopened platform 20 at Waterloo?
Can't seem to find a photo of a SWT train in the ex-Waterloo International platform 20 that is free/Creative Commons, might anyone have one? Thanks. 85.210.25.135 (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm off out to take some now :) Thryduulf (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I might get to that in a few weeks when I head to Bristol, but more likely to be using Paddington. Perhaps on the way back. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Well I went to Waterloo, but there are no trains from platform 20 on a Sunday afternoon/evening so it was locked up. I got some photos through the gates though. I'll see if I can find when trains will be using it and try again then. Thryduulf (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
A quick look at RealTimeTrains suggests there are only three departures tomorrow: 18:05, 1835 and 19:20. I'll try for them if I can. Thryduulf (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I tried to have a look around Platform 20 a couple of weeks ago: it appeared usable (displays etc running), but was blocked off with barriers/shutters, both from Platform 19 and also the "front" labelled (IIRC) Platforms 21–25. —Sladen (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I managed to get photos of the 18:35 on Monday, I'll upload them tomorrow. Thryduulf (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Which is which?
I think one of these two locomotives at the Colne Valley Railway is the ex-Admiralty YD43, and the other is the Andrew Barclay locomotive, but which is which? Photos need adding to the table in the correct positions. Mjroots (talk)
The green one has a Ruston & Hornsby maker's plate on the cab side, so that's probably YD43. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, I've added the images. As noted in the article, there are about 8 months to obtain the missing images for the tables. Also, {{Heritage railways in England}} will need a "closed" section at some point. Other heritage railways have fallen by the wayside in the past, including Ashford Steam Centre, Dinting Railway Centre and others. Mjroots (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, they have, and others will doubtless go the same way: besides the expiry of a lease, one of the main reasons is a lack of funding; another is fall-off of enthusiasm as the founders grow older. This is why I am highly sceptical of edits that add unsourced speculative information about possible extensions to a heritage line like this or this. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
The little one is a Planet, built by F. C. Hibberd & Co.. I don't think any were built outside. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
In September 2015 the Borders Railway line will be opened. Of course this is the northern end of what used to be the Waverley Line. But then it was decided not to reuse this old name. I expect the article to be expanded in the months to come, including sections on timetable and rolling stock. May I ask for advice (including personal opinions) on how to best proceed.
one article -- keep the old article name Waverley Line and expand
one article -- change to the new name Borders Railway and expand
Of course the current article in its present state has deficiencies, let's assume for the sake of my question that they are going to be ironed out.--KlausFoehl (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I am starting working on trying to come up with a unified UK rail infobox to merge the 8 current ones together into one "Master" infobox as all said and done a lot of info is the same. Mark999 (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Please can we do this one step at a time? See previous section. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
As per Redrose64, The merging of Infobox closed London Station and Infobox London station will almost certainly require the creation of some new fields in Infobox London station, so it would be helpful if you could wait until that merge is complete. - X201 (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I am only going to do it very slowly and just have a play about first just to see (On my sandbox)Mark999 (talk)
Closed heritage railways in the British Isles
From the above discussion, what heritage railways have closed in the British Isles? For a start, we have
There used to be a set up at Starbeck near Harrogate but they moved to the Derwent Valley Light Railway. Shocking news about the Colne Valley.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Another one: Snibston Colliery Railway at the Discovery Museum in Snibston is due to close this year. Lamberhurst (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Selling the excellent Snibston Museum off for housing is a crying shame 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 11:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I've started the Ashford Steam Centre article. Editors with collections of contemporary railway magazines dated between 1967 and 1976 will be in a good position to expand the article. Mjroots (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
In the Northern Rail article Epm-84 (talk·contribs) has insisted that the "seats per unit" column is kept in despite that particular information not being included (last time I checked anyway) on the fleetlist any other TOC article. I've made this point and he says it isn't valid. I think the addition of that information (which is available on at least some of the articles for each class of DMU/EMU operated by Northern) isn't necessary and makes the first column very narrow. Epm-84 bizarrely suggested removing the "routes served" column to solve that problem - whereas I think that the "routes served" is much more relevant than seating capacity on the fleetlist. Every time I remove the information (which he said on the latest occurrence was vandalism) - he just reinserts it
Discussion on this topic can be found here for anybody interested! - Coradia175 (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
ScotRail or Abellio ScotRail?
I'm seeing a lot of inconsistencies here. Edinburgh Waverley says ScotRail, while Paisley Gilmour Street says Abellio SR, and I've been editing to just ScotRail. I accept that the article for the current franchise should be Abellio ScotRail. However, on station articles and articles about transport (Transport in Glasgow, Transport in Scotland, etc) surely it should be referred to as just ScotRail, keeping with its branding and common usage. Additionally it has the added benefit of not needing to edit if the franchise collapses. Likelife (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Well the previous franchise was First ScotRail, so clearly this should be Second ScotRail, the Dutch translation of which I assume is Abellio.
My opinion is that anything referring to trains and services should be "Abellio ScotRail", but the system as a whole should be referred to as "ScotRail", or even "Scotland's railways". -mattbuck (Talk) 07:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Abellio is the name of the Dutch company that has taken over the ScotRail franchise from FirstGroup. Hence First ScotRail and Abellio ScotRail. Mjroots (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Agree with the above two comments. Should Scotrail be a redirect to Abellio Scotrail? I'm thinking it should go to a disambig page. Lamberhurst (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I still disagree with that. London Overground isn't MTR London Overground even though like ScotRail the brand will stay the same. ScotRail is not branded as Abellio ScotRail anywhere, and no one outside the clued up group of rail people will ever know it as such. So I still say that on station articles ScotRail should be known simply as ScotRail as to branding. Likelife (talk) 08:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Unlike Overground, "Scotrail" is a term which, taken on its own, refers to a series of former operators of the Scotrail franchise or the Scots rail brand itself. A disambig is therefore needed. Lamberhurst (talk) 10:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Extremely disagree on the decision to change the redirect on ScotRail. All the station articles now link to that page so they should redirect to the current franchise operator. The Abellio ScotRail page should not be titled as such - the company should be moved to ScotRail or ScotRail (Abellio), in the same way that we had ScotRail (British Rail) and ScotRail (National Express) - these articles were not known as British Rail ScotRail or National Express ScotRail as they were not the TOC name. First ScotRail was different as the TOC was actually branded as that. Having a redirect to the current operator also works well as there is no need to modify all the station articles next time the franchise changes over (as I spent the past 3 days doings) although I appreciate if moving the current operator's article to this page works better. JaJaWa |talk 13:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
That's because the TOC is not called "Abellio ScotRail" - putting that in the article is incorrect. When National Express operated the franchise, I'm sure it listed ScotRail, not "National Express ScotRail". First ScotRail was an exception, not the norm. JaJaWa |talk 15:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
National Express didn't brand their service as NX Scotrail, they just branded it Scotrail. If Abellio brand theirs Abellio ScotRail that's what we should go with. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I've yet to see any proof of branding from Abellio itself. If Abellio Greater Anglia is anything to go by, unlikely that it will be just "ScotRail". Lamberhurst (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
@JaJaWa: - I never said that we should go by company registrations, I specifically said that we should go by however it's branded by the operator. That said, I stand on the opposite side when it comes to Govia Thameslink Railway - I don't believe we should split that into its constituent parts (Thameslink, Great Northern, etc) as it's still one TOC. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I think it will just be Scotrail then like the website a small "Operated by Abellio" so i'd say keep it as it is. Mark999 (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
ScotRail or ScotRail (Abellio) with a redirect form ScotRail would be my suggestion for the article title (as branded) as this works best for links and I would think most people would be looking for the current operator. Others could be listed at ScotRail (disambiguation) again? JaJaWa |talk 12:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
What works best for links is neither here nor there. Redirects are used for specific purposes per WP:POFRED. What has to be shown - and has not been so far - is that the term ScotRail is synonymous with Abellio ScotRail. Lamberhurst (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The ScotRail page is for intents and purposes a disambiguation page, I have reinstated the flag to show. While outwardly the franchise is branded as ScotRail, we need to distinguish it from the other ScotRail articles and Abellio ScotRail IMO is the most logical. Other alternative would be ScotRail (train operating company 2015-), but this is less desirable.
In a similar way that should the CrossCountry franchise pass to Abellio but the brand be retained, the current article would need to be renamed to distinguish, logically as Arriva CrossCountry, the new article would be named Abellio CrossCountry and CrossCountry would become as disambiguation page. D47817 (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, if nothing else I think we can say that "ScotRail" needs disambiguating, between the NX, First and Abellio franchises, as well as the BR sector and the whole idea of "railways in Scotland". -mattbuck (Talk) 21:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
In the CrossCountry example, CrossCountry (Arriva) and CrossCountry (Abellio) would make more sense to me as I feel like we are creating a new name for the TOC. I can however agree with the article being placed at Abellio ScotRail if that is the consensus, although links from station pages would make more sense in my opinion as [Abellio ScotRail | ScotRail] to reflect the brand. JaJaWa |talk 02:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
@Nthep: - all {{rws}} does is add a link to [[{{{1}}} railway station]], with the linktext {{{1}}}. You can have Nthep if you want, it will just produce a redlink. Regarding the question of article title,IIRC "Foo (MyRailCo) railway station" would be for disambiguation included in the station name, eg Newport (Essex), whereas "Foo railway station (MyRailCo)" would be for our own disambiguation, eg between stations in different countries. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
There's also {{StnlnkA}} which allows the disambiguator to be piped. Lamberhurst (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Route diagrams and accessibility (wheelchair) symbol
I was looking at some route diagrams and noticed the use of the wheelchair symbol for stations (eg at
Marshlink Line), and wondered what the criteria are for using this symbol? Is it purely on the basis of full step-free access around the station (and presumably with ramp access to trains with assistance from train and/or station staff)? I also note that the infobox for underground stations includes two fields for access and access notes. Should these be added to the UK station infobox?
Looking outside wikipedia, there isn't yet a clear standard emerging in the operator route maps. For example, the East Midlands Trains route map reserves the wheel chair symbol for "Fully accessible station with full-time staff assistance", although other stations on the map do seem to have step-free access. Presumably they are also taking other things into consideration such as braille signage, induction loops etc. Robevans123 (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
As wikipedia is not a travel guide why do we need to include the symbol as it doesnt appear to be a notable feature that needs to be on route maps. MilborneOne (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Icons like (ACC) were uploaded to Commons over seven years ago, so they're not new. Perhaps people are saying "they're there, and they're not up for deletion, so let's use them". --Redrose64 (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I would agree we should get rid of them. They're pretty meaningless unless it is specified exactly what they mean. And it is arguably too much detail for an encyclopedia, making it too much like a travel guide. G-13114 (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Get rid of them. Wikipedia is not a guide.Charles (talk) 08:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't find "Wikipedia is not a guide" a very persuasive argument. Wikipedia dispenses information on things, and the accessibility of a station is a characteristic that I hope we do / think we should cover in an article. As to the ACC symbol, I reluctantly concur these should be withdrawn in the absence of a criteria/definition ... but would rather we worked towards a definition such that they can be used. As an opening suggestion, we might rely on the networkrail station guide, accessibility section, "Step free access coverage"=Yes. (e.g. [3]). I accept others will see differently on both points. --Tagishsimon(talk) 12:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The tube map has two symbols - a blue symbol (as {{bs-q|ACC}) for step free access from train to street, and a white icon for access from street to platform. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The wheelchair symbols, even two of them, are a very crude indicator of accessibility - for example, London Bridge has step free access to both Jubilee and Northern lines but no step-free interchange between them (other than a ~400m walk along busy streets), Debden is step free eastbound but not westbound, Oxford Circus has step-free interchange between same-direction Bakerloo and Victoria lines but everything else invovles steps. Then you get stations like Elm Park that have a long, fairly steep ramp that is not step free but not accessible for some manual wheelchair users. See the separate and detailed step-free tube guide and avoiding stairs tube guide for examples from just one system. I don't see the wheelchair symbols as useful guides to anything in most circumstances at scales dealt with on Wikipedia, but there are probably some use cases. Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I would think that the accessibility issue is something that would be better dealt with on the station articles themselves. I've noticed on some Australian station articles they put a wheelchair symbol in the infobox like here. Maybe we could implement a more developed version of that? G-13114 (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Routeboxes should be as basic as possible, i.e. previous and next stations, line and TOC. No service variations, specials or Sunday services, otherwise there will be a need to update them constantly. There is a need on our part to define for the project's purposes what should and should not appear in a routebox as at present there is no guidance. This was raised here where I floated the idea that some form of guidance could appear on the page which is now a redlink on WP:UKRAIL, i.e. Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways/Guidelines. Lamberhurst (talk) 10:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Concur with Lamberhurst's comments. I would suggest that for each combination of line and operator there generally only needs to be one line in the routebox table (generated by either {{s-rail-national}} or {{rail line}}). Perhaps the problem of multiple lines at least partially stems from using {{s-rail-national}} (which although useful in doing a lot of the formatting work) doesn't (AFAICT) have quite the flexibility of {{rail line}}, for example, when listing more than one "previous" or "next" station.
There is certainly no need for extra information (as in the Manchester Victoria example) to include texts such as "Intercity Express Service" or "Monday-Saturdays only". This can be covered in the text descriptions of the services.
I've also wondered about the overall placement of the routeboxes. It seems quite common to have them in "External links", but it seems (to me) to be logical have them in the section called "Services" (or similar), and if no such section exists, then it can be created.
In the case of the Manchester Victoria example (where there are two sections (for "Network rail services" and "Victoria Metrolink station"), then moving (and splitting) the routebox would also have the advantage of maintaining the overall order of the article, keeping the routeboxes closer to the service descriptions, and splitting a rather long routebox. Robevans123 (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
@Robevans123: The {{s-rail-national}} type routeboxes can list more than one previous/next, but not in the same way as {{rail line one to two}} etc. - instead of a different template, you need to use more than one {{s-rail-national}} and supply some parameters which indicate how many rows are covered by each column. See for example the CrossCountry rows at Peterborough railway station#Route, where the first {{s-rail-national}} has the additional parameters |rowsmid=2|rows1=2 and the second {{s-rail-national}} has |hidemid=yes|hide1=yes to correspond with those; this causes the |toc=|route= and |previous= parameters to be ignored, so they may be omitted.
@Redrose64: Ah, thank you. I'd looked at the doc for {{s-rail-national}} (eyes glazing over and no examples). Also looked at some random instances using the template, but they all happened to not use the more advanced syntax. Good to have an example to look at. The doc at {{s-line}} (on which {{s-rail-national}} is based) also has some good worked examples.
I'm generally for routeboxes showing the stopping pattern/service rather than just the line route. That said, after a time (eg large interchange stations) they become unweildy and should be replaced by text. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I've just reverted a number edits by this IP as introduced subtle errors which appeared to be vandalism. Seeing the question being asked here, I'm not unsure to what degree the distribution is intentional, or just well-meaning. —Sladen (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I've just discovered an article called "Leigh (Greater Manchester) railway station". The station closed in 1969, 5 years before the county of Greater Manchester came into existence, so the station can't ever have been officially called "Leigh (Greater Manchester)". Butt (p.141) gives the most recent name of the station as "LEIGH [2] L&NW", meaning the 2nd station that the L&NWR named "Leigh". What would be an appropriate title for this article? -- Dr Greg talk 20:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I think that the (Greater Manchester) disambiguator is in line with the policy that says that we normally use modern names for local authorities, even for pre-1974 events. We could use its second-last name, i.e. Leigh and Bedford. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but this is Wikipedia's own disambiguation, not the official name, so shouldn't it be "Leigh railway station, Greater Manchester"? -- Dr Greg talk 22:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Redrose's suggestion provides a more natural disambiguation than appending a county to the station name which didn't exist during the station's lifetime. Lamberhurst (talk) 07:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Recently I picked up the West Coast Main Line service pattern diagram done by Tgtrains (no longer active) in 2010. I updated the style, clean up the SVG codes and fixed some typo. I'm quite happy with the result, but still open to suggestions. One particular issue is that I'm not too sure about the "minutes past the hour each service departs" from London Euston. I keep it intact anyway.
I wonder if I can do the same for East Coast Main Line. For that I need a base map which doesn't exist in Wikimedia or Google image search result. I don't trust myself in correctly interpreting the operators section in the article because it sounds as complicated as its West sibling. The closest thing I can get is file:Ecml.svg, but it doesn't distinguish between operators. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 09:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
(note to others: by "this talk page", John of Reading means Portal talk:UK Railways, where the two posts above were originally placed) --Redrose64 (talk) 11:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
@Sameboat: This looks a lot better with the curves/choice of type/spelling fixes. However, I did notice that you're using color gradients across the diagram which may confuse readers. For example, a reader glancing at the diagram may wonder if the services at say, Coventry and Nuneaton, are provided by the same operator. I believe that it is standard in route diagrams to keep the appearance of lines identical (not just in Wikipedia, but going back to Harry Beck's Underground Map). Cheers. Robevans123 (talk) 10:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Is it also worth adding the Southern service from Milton Keynes? -mattbuck (Talk) 11:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
@Robevans123: Gradient is gaining some popularity in denoting services of the same operator in transit diagram (mostly in bus or light rail services diagram), but monotonous is obviously more common. I agree the range of the gradient can be narrower/subtler if we don't wipe it out completely. If we add Southern service then obviously the gradient can't stay because it uses green livery unless we use yellow instead. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The style is good, but that service map is massively out of date. It still shows the LM London-Crewe service going via Northampton for example which it hasn't done now for a few years. And also the Glasgow/Edinburgh to Manchester service no longer runs via Bolton. I can see a few other areas where it is outdated as well. G-13114 (talk) 04:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I knew it considering how old the original diagram is. Can you do a more thorough check and list all the required revisions in bullet point so I can make change to each point precisely? Thank you. (P.S. Not to mention that many UK railway station articles are outdated as well such as Bolton Interchange.) -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 06:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Well from memory:
The LM London to Crewe service no longer calls at Northampton. Instead now runs direct from Milton Keynes to Rugby.
There are two hourly LM services from London to Birmingham via Northampton, rather that the one shown here, Plus an additional local service from Northampton to Birmingham, calling at all stops (I think!)
The First TransPennine service from Glasgow/Edinburgh to Manchester now runs via Wigan rather than Bolton. Although this might change back again once the Manchester-Preston line is electrified. But that's the situation at the moment.
The hourly VT service from London to Wolverhampton has been combined with the hourly service from Birmingham to Glasgow/Edinburgh.
There are also a couple of hourly CrossCountry trains running from Birmingham to Manchester via Stoke-on-Trent. But I'm not sure whether they should be included since they are part of the cross-country network rather than strictly WCML services.
Those are the ones I can think of, if that's any use. Others might be able to think of other changes. G-13114 (talk) 11:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
ECML
I can give you what I remember of GGN\GTR, FHT, GCR and VTEC
GGN\GTR
2tph direct Kings Cross to Cambridge which route wise follow the ECML as far as Hitchin before splitting
One of those extends as a slow train to King's Lynn after Cambridge calling at Cambridge North (when it opens), Waterbeach, Ely, Littleport, Downham Market, Watlington and King's Lynn
1tph semi-fast from King's Cross to Cambridge calling at Finsbury Park, Stevenage, Hitchin, Letchworth Garden City, Baldock, Royston and Cambridge
1tph "slow" from King's Cross to Cambridge calling at Finsbury Park, Potters Bar, Welwyn Garden City, Welwyn North, Knebworth, Stevenage, Hitchin, Letchworth Garden City, Baldock, Ashwell & Mordern, Royston, Meldreth, Shepreth, Foxton and Cambridge
1tph semi-fast from King's Cross to Peterborough calling at Finsbury Park, Stevenage, Hitchin, Arlesey, Biggleswade, Sandy, St Neots, Huntingdon and Peterborough
1tph "slow" from King's Cross to Peterborough calling at Finsbury Park, Potters Bar, Welwyn Garden City, Welwyn North, Knebworth, Stevenage, Hitchin, Arlesey, Biggleswade, Sandy, St Neots, Huntingdon and Peterborough
3tph from Moorgate to Welwyn Garden City calling at Old Street, Essex Road, Highbury & Islington, Drayton Park, Finsbury Park, Harringay, Hornsey, Alexandra Palace, New Southgate, Oakleigh Park, New Barnet, Hadley Wood, Potters Bar, Brookmans Park, Welham Green, Hatfield and Welwyn Garden City
3tph from Moorgate to Hertford North calling at Old Street, Essex Road, Highbury & Islington, Drayton Park, Finsbury Park, Harringay, Hornsey, Alexandra Palace, Bowes Park, Palmers Green, Winchmore Hill, Grange Park, Enfield Chase, Gordon Hill, Crews Hill, Cuffley, Bayford and Hertford North
1tph extends from Hertford North to Stevenage and Letchworth Garden City calling at Watton at Stone, Stevenage, Hitchin and Letchworth Garden City
FHT
1tp2h from Kings Cross to Hull Paragon calling at Stevenage (limited), Grantham, Retford, Doncaster, York, Selby, Howden, Brough and Hull Paragon (and Beverley, limited)
VTEC
The current diagram applies.
GCR
1tp2h Kings Cross to Sunderland calling at York, Thirsk, Northallerton, Eaglescliffe, Hartlepool and Sunderland
1tp2h Kings Cross to Bradford calling at Doncaster, Pontefract Monkhill, Wakefield Kirkgate, Mirfield, Brighouse, Halifax and Bradford Interchange
TBC when I remember other TOCs north of Doncaster. Simplysouth ......time, deparment skies for just 9 years 21:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Hastings Line
I've asked for a peer review of the Hastings Line article with a view to going for FA status in the near future. Improvements and comments welcome at the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Peer review now done, FAC to follow. Mjroots (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello, there was a TFD decision in November 2014 to merge the contents of {{Infobox closed London station}} into {{Infobox London station}}, I'm preparing to carry out that merge by making any article that uses {{Infobox closed London station}} use the main {{Infobox London station}} template instead. Most of the fields map over on a one to one basis, so there will be no visible difference. There are a couple of fields that don't have a direct match and I need consensus on how to transfer them.
As preparation for the merge, ceasing the use of fields on the closed London station template and using fields that are in the London Station template will make the transition smoother. The first example are the start and end fields.
The closed station template has start and end fields that are used to indicate when the station opened and closed. The London station template doesn't have these fields, it uses the years1/events1 fields instead. Some of the closed template articles use this method also. I'm looking for consensus to transfer all current uses of start and end to appropriate years/events fields.
e.g. Replace start = 1930 with events1 = Opened and years1 = 1930
I think this is the best route past this particular obstacle, and will help standardise the infobox code. This is an easy one to begin with, there are other more complex ones to follow. - X201 (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Agreed but it would be good to use the templates {{Start date}} and {{End date}}. As a side point, I wouldn't be surprised if {{Infobox London station}} is proposed for merger with the main GB template at some point. Lamberhurst (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Adding {{Start date}} and {{End date}} won't be a problem if you want them. - X201 (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, so long as it's being assessed on a parameter by param basis. I've seen TfDs merges go through with an assumption that since two templates have certain similarly-named params, they are necessarily used for the same purpose.
I've added the section below, because as you rightly point out, there's a size problem that needs to be resolved by the various train projects. - X201 (talk) 11:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
There's seems no objections to altering start and end to the years/events format so I'll start doing that now. I'll also add the start date and end date templates as suggested. - X201 (talk) 13:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
image settings
There will be no difference in articles that use the imagesize setting, as both infoboxes support this field. The problem arises, as @Redrose64: pointed out above, with articles that use the infobox's default image size. Its down to what you as project members want your infobox to look like.
I can only see three ways past this:
Accept that articles transferred from infobox closed London station to Infobox London station will have a larger default image size.
The associated projects will have to agree on changing the default image size for Infobox London station, to a size that is acceptable to articles that currently use either infobox. This will result in a simple swap over when the infobox is changed.
Place the imagesize field on articles that currently use the default setting of Infobox closed London station, so that when the article is transferred to the other template, the size of the image remains the same.
Infobox closed London Station data
9 articles use the imagesize field
116 use the infobox default image size.
I'm happy to go along with what the related train projects decide on. Please discuss images in this section.- X201 (talk) 11:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to set the image size field in all articles that use the default to 240px, so that there are no image size problems when the articles switch over to Infobox London station. This way is easy to disable in the future and will be quicker than trying to get a couple of WikiProjects to agree on a default image size, something that will be solved anyway when/if the global rail infobox is achieved. - X201 (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Unless there's a very good reason to force the size (such as with an upright image, to avoid it dominating the infobox), I don't see a need to use the |imagesize= parameter, and would prefer to simply leave the parameter as it is - whether that be absent, blank or explicitly set. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I've no problem with that, it will just result in articles that use the default image size having a default of 280px after they are switched to Infobox London station. - X201 (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
It was The wub (talk·contribs) who increased image and map width from 240px to 280px on {{infobox London station}}, to "make better use of space"; but which "space" (inside the infobox - or outside it?) isn't clear from that, and I can't find a related discussion. How about we reduce that to 265px, to match the infoboxes for outside London? Then, the closed London stations won't experience a 16% increase in width, but 10%. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
The intention was to use up whitespace inside the infobox. I'm totally fine with standardising on 265px though. the wub"?!" 14:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Is everyone happy with 265px being the solution? - X201 (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
This might be relevant. Alakzi (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'm happy with 265px. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Planner
The planner field is only used in eight articles. I suggest dropping this field, and in the articles where it is used, move the text into the prose of the article where appropriate. - X201 (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Would it not be better to substitute planner for original so that the information about which company proposed to open the station is preserved in the infobox? This same approach is used for {{Infobox UK disused station}}. See for example Lullingstone. Lamberhurst (talk) 07:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
If you're happy for me to do that, that's not a problem. I was avoiding it due to the fact that the template documentation seems to refer to specific roles. - X201 (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I'll start work on these and get them swapped over. - X201 (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Replacement
Just under a half of the articles use this field. Its used to show which station(s) replaced a closed station. This is an awkward one, it will either require a new field in Infobox London station, or a manual task of going through the 60-ish articles and moving the contents into the prose. I'm suggesting that this field is added to Infobox London station. - X201 (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
This field is present in 30 articles, but it appears to do absolutely nothing. I can't see any code in the template that references it. I presume it was intended to have a similar function to railstation but was never actually coded. Infobox London station has no equivalent field. I'm suggesting we remove this field. - X201 (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I've just done a bit of digging and this diff shows that the Tube Portal was made mandatory in 2009. In light of this, I think adding it as a new optional field in Infobox Lonodon station is the better idea. - X201 (talk) 09:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, on closer inspection, this field is not required. The London Transport Portal is mandatory on both templates, the tubestation field on the closed template, does nothing, and doesn't need to do anything on Infobox London station; because the portal is already displayed on it. @Redrose64: could you just double check this for me please, just to make sure I've understood it correctly, thanks. - X201 (talk) 09:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll remove any occurrence of tubestation in articles that use {{Infobox closed London station}} then. - X201 (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Ready
It looks like I'm at the stage where templates can be switched over. I'll do a dozen articles test to check that it works correctly, and I'll also paste the full list of articles here as a record. - X201 (talk) 09:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to start the tests now. I'm posting a list of all articles that used the closed template, in case a revert is needed for any reason.
I'm going to start the AWB run on this now, apologies if it fills up your Watchlist, but WP:MINOR says it has to be marked as a major edit. - X201 (talk) 08:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
This has now been completed, everything seems to have gone well. All of the articles listed above now use Infobox London station. Thanks for your help and assistance in getting this done. - X201 (talk) 08:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
MTR Crossrail page move to TfL Rail
Most of the incoming links to MTR Crossrail have been masked to read 'TfL Rail', which is what the operator will be known as. I originally titled this page MTR Crossrail - should it be moved, or should a separate TfL Rail page be created? This situation is equivalent to London Overground and London Overground Rail Operations Limited. JaJaWa |talk 01:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd say create a new page for TfL Rail, as this will be a transitory TOC name anyway. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Another Where Am I (Central Line edition)
On the flickr page, this claims to be Liverpool Street, but it's quite clearly not. It's a 92 stock train, so either Central or W&C. I'm thinking either Mile End or Waterloo? -mattbuck (Talk) 09:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
It's tagged on the Flickr page as Mile End, which looks to be right—nowhere else on the underground portion of the Central line has a platform wide enough and straight enough to get that view of the platform. It's certainly not Waterloo; you can see the Central line diagram template through one of the windows. Whether it should even exist is another matter, since I can't see any possible use for something this blurry and uninformative. – iridescent 12:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
After decades of writing software I'm always very reluctant to assume that just because I can't find a use for something, no-one else can either. It's aesthetically quite pleasing. There's certainly a possibility educationally for an article on platform safety screens and a contrast of "OMG! the 20th century Brits were such savages, how did any of them survive?"
As to location, then I think it's in that there London. I lose interest after that point, as it's all yuppies and morlocks down there. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I guess the user changed it after I posted. Thanks. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone know where I can find the equivalent of an engineer's line reference for the Ffestiniog/Welsh Highland/Welsh Highland Heritage Railways? -mattbuck (Talk) 12:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Quail vol. 4? I've not got the current (third) edition, but the second edition has the Welsh Highland on map 17D and the Ffestiniog on map 24J, including miles and chains for all stations and other significant features. Note that there are no ELRs because these lines were never BR/Railtrack/NR. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I figured someone must have a line reference, even though it wouldn't be a BR one. I'll have to see about getting my hands on that. Most stuff I can just get from the Railway Data website, but non-BR can be a pain. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Engineers line references were introduced by BR, I believe, so the FR/WHR wouldn't have one. The exception is the former trackbed of the Afon Wen to Caernarfon line between Dinas and Caernarfon, which may have a code, as I understand they are still used for closed lines, e.g. for former bridge maintenance. — An optimist on the run! (logged on as Pek the Penguin) 07:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Follow-up: Caernarfon to Dinas (and on to Afon Wen) is CNV ([4], from [5]). — An optimist on the run! (logged on as Pek the Penguin) 07:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Missing LSWR EMU article
Further to the above, we seem to be missing an article on the LSWR-built EMUs that were numbered E1-E84. The two car trailer sets that wee built later to work with them can also be covered there. Mjroots (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
The ex-LSWR units were renumbered 1201-84 (3-car motor units) and 1001-24 (2-car trailer sets) by the SR, they lasted until 1942 or so when they were reformed as 4-car units 4131-71, 4195-4234. The pre-1941 SR suburban units were essentially a continuation of the ex-LSWR units. I don't see a need for a separate article. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
So a redirect would handle it then? Mjroots (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
What stock is this?
Not quite where am I, but who am I? We know that it is near Strawberry Hill Depot, before the advent of the Class 455 and in 1986. Does anyone possibly know what this stock this is. The title is not particularly useful- "train near Fulwell Depot, 1986". Thanks! jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I think the old Thumpers (Class 205) had those black triangles on the front. Otherwise it could be the equivalent EMU (Class 414?) – I can't tell if it's a DEMU or EMU from a quick look. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 18:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
From about 1963, all 2-car and 3-car units had a black triangle, at one end only: it meant "no brake van at other end". It was for platform staff, to inform them which way along the platform they had to rush with a luggage trolley.
In this case, there are seven passenger compartments in the driving motor coach, so it's not a DEMU (classes 20x) since those had just 4 or 5 passenger compartments depending on the size of the brake compartment: the engine room took up the space of three passenger compartments. It's also not a 2-HAP or a "standard" 2-EPB since both of these had eight passenger compartments in the driving motor, the same as the 4-EPB driving motors.
What we have here is one of the ex-South Tyneside units built for the North Eastern Region in 1955 - these were transferred to the SR in 1963 and assimilated into the 2-EPB fleet as units 5781-95, becoming Class 416/2 under TOPS (even though they had ten fewer seats than the "standard" 416/2, units 5701-79); and were renumbered 6281-95 in 1984. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Wow. I am in awe as to how you managed to get that all from one photograph! That's very useful, thanks. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd say somewhere on the Midland Main Line because the photos either side of it on the Flickr photo stream it came from are at Loughborough and St Pancras. It could be Leicester, the tower blocks in the background seem to fit with this image from Google Street View. — GasheadsteveTalk to me 12:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
100% Leicester. Looking at the re-fueling point. Rhubarbs Cat (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Where am I, part umpteen?
OK, I know what it is, and I know roughly where it is, but where exactly is it?
Headcode indicates a Waterloo-Brentford-Hounslow-Richmond-Waterloo service. As I interpret it, we are approaching a station on a left hand curve. there is a road overbridge just before the platforms. Any guesses? Mjroots (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
No idea (not my part of the world, and before my time), but as there's a signal box and junction signal, I'll post a question on the signalbox.org forum, as they're good at identifying locations/boxes like this. — An optimist on the run! (logged on as Pek the Penguin) 11:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, and details gleaned can be added to the image description. Mjroots (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Consensus there [6] is that it's looking eastwards from Kew Bridge railway station towards New Kew Junction. David Woodcock gives additional information:
Almost certainly taken on 7 January 1928 when London suffered very serious flooding with, sadly, a number of deaths.
The electric train must be coasting through the flood with the hook switches pulled to isolate those sections of live rail - hook switches were pulled "live" in those days. It is possible that there is an assisting steam loco in rear, there would still have been a fair number of dual-braked ex-Brighton locos around in 1928.
The 1928 flood demonstrated the vulnerability of the District Railway between South Kensington and Mansion House, and the interchange with the deep-level tubes at Charing Cross (now Embankment), to flood water from the Thames. The subsequent anti-flood ARP arrangements remained operational, and were partially used at least once, until the Thames Barrier was built.
And this picture gives a very similar view (though in more favourable conditions) in 2008. Optimist on the run (talk) 21:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
(
Done Mjroots (talk) 10:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
