Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 57

Archive 50

←

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Passenger travel data maps

Map visualising passenger flow, using 2021/2022 ORR open data

I'm planning to import a set of 2,567 maps, of which the one above is the first, to Wikimedia Commons. There will be one for each current station in England, Wales, and Scotland.

The full set may be seen via [1].

I'd be grateful for comments on the description of the above image on Commons, and its caption on Birmingham New Street railway station, in order to develop a model which we can hopefully deploy to all, or most, station articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

It is difficult to see the routes where there are low flow volumes, even when opened full screen. Could you use something with a higher contrast? Geof Sheppard (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn't make the maps, but I can ask the person who did to consider using a different colour. Alterniatively, as both the data and code are open source, anyone else, with the relevant skills, may do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Why do we need this? Clicking on random stations, it appears that the same national routes are highlighted for most. Why should someone looking at an article for a station at one end of the country need to know that people from all sorts of other areas have bought a ticket to it - if that is what the map shows, because it's not really clear. Rcsprinter123 (chinwag) 22:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

They might be useful for the really busy stations, but for the majority of average or below traffic stations they seem pretty useless, since their usage is obviously to low to register as a visible line. G-13114 (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

We could use more local crops for smaller/ less busy stations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the data shows journeys in both directions, not just inbound travellers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Vehicle numbering

Hey all - in rolling stock articles, where is the line between useful technical numbers/data and far too much information?

To me, overly detailed explanation of individual vehicle numbering (e.g. British_Rail_Class_701#Vehicle numbering or British_Rail_Class_195#Vehicle numbering) falls into the latter category - it's highly specialised information more relevant to a database (WP:NOTDATABASE) or a technical audience. Whereas two GA articles of British Rail Class 455 and British Rail Class 700 have clear and simple fleet and formation tables that show relevant data without too much data.

Thoughts? Turini2 (talk) 12:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The vehicle numbers could be useful, but they would be better if combined into the table with the unit numbers. Although I do recognise that units often get reformed over time when it could get messy or need some footnotes. Geof Sheppard (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Useful... to who? To me, it's far too much detail for wikipedia in my opinion. Better left to technical manuals or something like LTSV Turini2 (talk) 20:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree - people that want that level of detail are likely to know of other sources for finding it. Whether it should be removed is a different question though! Mwsmith20 (talk) 11:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Having looked at the 701 article, I would be tempted to remove. For example, I have no idea what "diagram" means in the context of the table (not explained really). It is far too detailed and I imagine completely meaningless to the lay reader. Elshad (talk) 21:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

In a railway context, a "diagram" is not a technical drawing used for manufacture, but a general outline elevation and plan showing the positions of significant features such as cabs, doors, windows, seats and lavatories. It is primarily of use to the operator of the train, helping them to decide if a particular vehicle is suitable for a given job or not. Shown on the diagram are important dimensions, figures and other information useful to this task - such as overall length, width and height; total weight and axle loadings; seating capacities, wheelchair accessibility; maximum permitted speed, minimum track curvature; type of coupler, electrical and pneumatic connections.

Railway people might talk about a second class corridor coach as being Diagram 146 or Diagram 147 - the difference was solely in whether armrests were fitted or not. This might seem minor, but the presence of armrests in Dia. 146 meant that only three people could be accomodated across the seat instead of four, giving a total seating capacity of 48 or 64 respectively - a difference of 16 seats is something that is very important to those processing seat reservations. This is particularly significant if a group of six people want to share a compartment - seat numbers 7–12 are all in the same compartment for Dia. 146, but in Dia. 147, two are in one compartment and four are in the next.

A hundred years ago, the diagrams would be bound together as a diagram book, issued by a railway's headquarters to the main depots; updates were infrequent because of the cost of printing whole new books. Fifty years ago they were of a loose-leaf form enabling new diagrams to be added easily, and amendments to be made by simple replacement of the affected pages - an update might take days instead of years. Nowadays it's all digital diagrams on computer updated almost in real time, but diagram numbers still exist - now known as design codes (for example, Diagrams 146 and 147 became design codes AA201 and AA202 respectively). Until the 1980s, the differences needed to be quite major for a new diagram number to be issued - such changes as fitting fluorescent lighting in place of tungsten would go unrecognised in the diagram numbers, but removal of four seats to make space for a refreshment trolley would create a new disgram. With modern diagrams, two design codes may differ in a very minor way, such as the type of lock on the toilet door. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 12:14, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Well I've been bold and removed it - I will direct people here. (did we decide whether we liked the giant side on illustrations or not?) Turini2 (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Turini2 just a heads up, your edit summary has an extra "\" in it, causing a redlink Danners430 (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah that's frustrating I can't go and fix that afterwards Turini2 (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Wasn't sure if you were doing more articles, so wanted to let you know - no worries though Danners430 (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, I went through a few more articles - not sure who started adding extremely excess details regarding the exact number of seats per carriage of a train (e.g. British Rail Class 390 and British Rail Class 373), but I took the bold decision to remove that too. That's far too much detail!

Total number of seats on a train, sure! First class in carriages 1 and 2? Sure! A giant table comparing seating in individual carriages before and after a refurb? Def fails the NOTEVERYTHING criteria. Turini2 (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Northumberland Park in Tyne & Wear

Currently, I have found a few articles using S-rail that links to Northumberland Park station in London rather than Northumberland Park Metro station. Could someone please update S-rail to add this link? I've forgotten how to do it. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 14:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Jc86035 appears to be the primary maintainer of template:S-rail, but they haven't edited since the start of November. I've put a pointer to this discussion on the template talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/Guide#S-line explains how to fix such cases. It was intended for solving links to disambiguation pages but is equally applicable to fixing links to the wrong article if you can find them. If you have an example of a link that needs fixing, I'll be happy to help. Certes (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Free access to The Railway Magazine

FYI, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Free access to The Railway Magazine. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Hoy railway station opening date

Hi, I thought I'd post here to see if anyone has access to a source which might provide the opening date for Hoy railway station. I've mentioned the discrepancy on the talk page, but finding an actual reference seems to have eluded me so far! I'd appreciate any help. Thanks FozzieHey (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

1 October 1874. See my reply at the article talk page. Nthep (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Possible LTA discussion at ANI

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § 82.22.44.102. FozzieHey (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Image link removal at British Rail Class D16/1

re British Rail Class D16/1 and the photo linked as 10000 on the scrap line at Derby

This link (formatted as a reference) has now been removed three times:

"Flickr is not a reliable source"

" it’s not a reliable source, period. See WP:UGC"

"If we're not using it for verification, then it's not a reference - contents in a ref tag is a reference. If it's a "nice image" that adds content, then add it as content to the article. However, it is NOT a reference, as it fails WP:RS."

Should it be included or not?

I would support keeping it. It may not meet WP:RS, we don't require it to. For one thing there is no policy on WP stating that all references must each meet WP:RS. They might not achieve WP:V if they don't, but it's not justification for removing them. The content "between withdrawal and scrapping, 10000 spent some time in storage at Derby" is already sourced, but there is also value in linking to a photograph showing this, especially as it also shows one of the Bulleids behind it. This is a photo at Flickr. If not for the lack of a free licence here, we'd place the same photo on Commons and embed it in the article directly. But we can't do that, this is our nearest option. The third removal here and its edit summary really is clutching at straws: "It's a reference because it's a reference" and also failing to appreciate the need for free licensing on images that we host ourselves (I can't claim that this image would meet NFCC given that we already have other images).

Your comments please Andy Dingley (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Why not put it in the External links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redrose64 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

No objection to that. Using it as a footnote would be a possible too. But we deprecate inlined ELs and the 'external media' template has always been clumsy.

What I'm still not seeing here is how the suitability of the link (which no-one has presented any real argument against) seems to suddenly become unacceptable, just because of the format by which it's used. That's stretching WP:RS far beyond any real purpose it was ever intended for. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm inclined to agree with @Danners430:'s perspective here. I think a citation needed template is appropriate, as that indicates that the statement needs a citation to a reliable source. As you've said, the statement "between withdrawal and scrapping, 10000 spent some time in storage at Derby" is already referenced, and I'm not sure what else the photograph could be used to reference without relying on the WP:UGC description. I don't see any value in having two citations for the same statement in this case, especially when one is not an WP:RS. You mentioned that the photo also includes the Bulleids, now I'm not overly familiar with this area of content, but if that's identifiable by the average reader, then that may add some value in keeping the reference. In my opinion, having an image included in the article as opposed to it being linked to, makes a major difference to the reading experience, so I'm not sure if that's relevant in this case. FozzieHey (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment what is wrong with linking the photo from an "external links" section? Mjroots (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Should CTRL be put first in the lead or HS1?

Normally, regardless of the title, MOS:LEAD sections always contain the legal (possibly official) name first followed by the WP:COMMONNAME. So an article about Southeastern (train operating company) says

• SE Trains Limited, trading as Southeastern

While an article about a person will normally always display their real/legal/official/full name followed by the common name (article title) if appropriate.

I made this edit to HS1, swapping HS1 and CTRL before getting reverted. Is the case of HS1s alternative names different to Southeastern or Northern since these are companies (and will display their legal name not used in sources), but HS1 is a railway?

I also added Eurostar next to Network Rail in that edit. JuniperChill (talk) 12:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

HS1 isn't a company, so why? Where in MOS:LEAD is priority to legal names given? MOS:BOLDLEAD allows for the widely accepted name too, while MOS:LEADSENTENCE states that if the article title and legal name are related then the latter can be put first, like the UK's full name first at United Kingdom. TOCs probably refer to MOS:FIRSTCORP as it is a company, HS1 isn't. But have seen recent "official name-mania" being enforced across Wikipedia recently, so clearer guidelines are preferred. The infobox has National Rail not Network Rail, but if HS1 is part of another continental system would make sense to add something else too, but Eurostar itself isn't a "system"? DankJae 14:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I made the decision to withdraw my plan to swap CTRL and HS1 in the lead, since I thought legal/official names always goes first like in the case of Southeastern.

I also got Network Rail and National Rail mixed up, but I might be able to add Network Rail in the operators section but why isn't it there yet or a good reason is why? JuniperChill (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Neither National Rail nor Network Rail are operators. Network Rail do not own or manage HS1, their only connection to it is that a subsidiary company is contracted to act as infrastructure manager and to carry out maintenance. Thryduulf (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Thryduulf, the actual parameter changed was system not the operators one. But tbh, even if {{Infobox rail line}} gives National Rail as an example that isn't really a system either? There really isn't one other than just the Great Britain railway system? DankJae 16:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

(Also, Eurostar is not an infrastructure manager, and is merely an operator that runs on the line) Turini2 (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Southeastern (train operating company)

An editor has requested that Southeastern (train operating company) be moved to Southeastern (train operating company, 2021–), which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion.. Thryduulf (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:South Western Railway (train operating company)

An editor has requested that South Western Railway (train operating company) be moved to South Western Railway, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Unreferenced articles backlog drive

As you may be aware, there is currently a drive to reduce unreferenced articles on wikipedia (WP:FEB24). The List of closed railway stations in Norfolk is one of the oldest unreferenced articles. It shouldn't be too hard to fully reference it, should it? Mjroots (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

• Anyone who has a copy of RVJ Butt [2] would probably be able to source the whole thing. Black Kite (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'll try to get my hands on my Butt next week(!) — Voice of Clam (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  Quick is more reliable than Butt and it's freely available on-line here There's a template {{Quick-stations-5.05}} for it's use. Nthep (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, but trying to find my Quick doesn't have the same double-entendre — Voice of Clam (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  you didn't fancy a quickie in Norfolk then? :-P Nthep (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  As the first contributor of a book reference to the list, I've gone with {{sfn}} for book references. I've had a look at Quick, and it seems pretty comprehensive. A number of different sources is better than relying too much on one source. Mjroots (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Mjroots: Please could you give the specific pages, rather than the same range for all of them? You'll see how I did that for the Butt refs. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Redrose64: - that is a chapter entitled "The Marriott's Way". However, the relevant info is on the first two pages. Refs amended. Mjroots (talk) 12:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Voice of Clam: Everyone has at least one quick; I have twenty. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  There's an appropriate follow-up but I can't quite put my finger on it. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I love adding references and it is one of my pet peeves of articles in general without references. Pardon my ignorance on this, but is there a list of UK railway articles apart from this one that need attention? GRALISTAIR (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@GRALISTAR: I don't know if there is anything more granular than this, as these are not specific to UK rail, but the maintenance category Category:Unreferenced rail transport articles (and the related Category:Rail transport articles needing additional references) provide a starting point. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 14:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry @GRALISTAIR:, a typo in your username prevented the "ping" working. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 14:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

That is great thankyou and no need to apologize. GRALISTAIR (talk) 14:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

"route" parameter for services on station articles

Hi, @Skivermac16111994, has been massively changing the route= parameter at {{rail line}} from the name of the line to the destinations of the line on station articles (mainly those starting with "H" for now).
With some errors added along the way, for example they changed "Wirral Line (Chester branch)" and replaced it with "Hooton - Liverpool Lime Street or New Brighton or West Kirby" (trains don't go to the latter two from Hooton),[3] as well as "South West Main Line" replaced with "London Waterloo - Weymouth". Just raising due to the scale of the edits, but could be justified, but consensus first? Although using the destinations may require more maintenance and accuracy. The examples at {{rail line}} state the company and rail line (e.g. Great Western Railway Cherwell Valley Line ), not the destinations I believe?

Some of their edits local to me have some errors,[4] there may be more due to how many, but likely good faith! Thanks DankJae 22:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised at Skivermac doing this; I've constantly caught them making similar unreasonable edits at List of companies operating trains in the United Kingdom, both logged in and logged out. Regardless, yes, there needs to be a consensus for changes that affect historical names of train lines and other such names. Jalen Folf (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I’ve seen them doing it on station articles starting with F as well such as on Four Oaks and Five Ways. Unfortunate that they don’t have a user or talk page. JamesVilla44 (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Unless you are an admin, or have a valid alternative account, it is not a crime to not have a user page: this merely means that the user hasn't created one yet. It is also not a crime to not have a user talk page: this merely means that the user hasn't yet been sent any messages. But I don't know why you say that they don’t have a ... talk page - User talk:Skivermac16111994 has existed since 08:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC). Anyway, if you have concerns over the user's activities, send them a helpful message, observing WP:AGF. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh I didn’t see the talk page, thank you for pointing that out. That solves the concern I had that I wouldn’t be able to use a talk page to send them that helpful message. JamesVilla44 (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi James, any user will receive messages if you create a talk page for them when they don't exist. Although it does in this case :). Rcsprinter123 (pitch) 22:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@JamesVilla44: Even if a user talk page doesn't exist, you should always be able leave messages. The only time that you can't will be if the page is protected; and that is extremely rare for user talk pages.

Depending upon your skin and other preferences, a non-existent page may show preset text reading "Welcome to this talk page Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. Use this page to start a discussion about the edits made from this IP address. What you say here will be public for others to see. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several people." plus a button Start a discussion which may be clicked.

Whether you see that or not, you should still see an "Add topic" tab (or equivalent, like "New section" or "+") between the "Create" and "Tools" tabs; and even if you don't have that either, there will be some kind of "Create" or "Edit" tab near the top. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Levenmouth opening

I've updated the main project page but I will not have time to do the stations. Can someone update Cameron Bridge railway station and Leven railway station (Fife) that according to STV, the opening date will be 2 June 2024 for the whole line? STV report. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 12:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've done it myself afterall. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 21:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)