User talk:Davidvaughanwells

Your first article

You asked me for feedback on your first article. It is fine, I did some clean up on it but it was a great first article and thanks for making Wikipedia a little bit bigger, better and more comprehensive. Keep going and you will keep learning. Do be aware of the rules around 'Notability' because it can be disheartening to create an article and then see it removed again which was a problem I had early on. This page covers issues relating to creating new articles and may be worth a look if you have not already seen it. PeterEastern (talk) 07:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Davidvaughanwells, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Redrose64 (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Felixstowe Beach railway station

Re this edit - please could you add page numbers? This will aid the verifiability. Thanks --Redrose64 (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Red Rose, I have only just spotted your comment and will try and fix this in the next few weeks. Pressure of work etc! david

Red Rose - I have added some additional text and added page numbers as you suggested.Davidvaughanwells (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I have used the {{cite book}} and {{harvnb}} templates to give the references a consistent format, and reduce the amount of duplicated information. I've also expanded the Adderson & Kenworthy ref, based on this page. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Havefield tramway

See Talk:Patrington#Tramway - the Hull Times article was more helpful than I had expected. I've uploaded a scan of it to flickr if needed - there was also an image of the locomotive and wagons in the article. Links are on the talk page.Oranjblud (talk) 01:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tramway publication

Yes I've no objection to any publication. I don't need any name check so please leave me as "a/our correspondent" or whatever fits best.

If an electronic version is available I would look at it - if so an email attachment to ihull182@yahoo.co.uk will reach me. I don't need a printed version.

If anymore clues or potential leads come up please leave a message on Welwick or Patrington - I'd be happy to attempt to follow those up.Oranjblud (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(the email works) - I don't know if I mentioned this before, but if you are still researching the tramway it could be worth contacting the "East Yorkshire Local History Society" EYLHS. http://www.eylhs.org.uk/ If you haven't already A newsletter is publisher twice a year - and it might be possible to add a request for info - but I'm not a member so I don't know if they would do this. There's a 'Hedon & District Local History Society' as well but I haven't been able to find contact details. I've also contacted Hedon museum as well, just in case.Oranjblud (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Got the article - no problems and didn't see any errors at all.Oranjblud (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good news! hopefully it will jog someones memory too.Oranjblud (talk) 12:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Melton railway station

Hi, at Melton railway station, you have added some text, and have referenced some of it. Unfortunately, there are problems.

The first is that the ref style is inconsistent with the rest of the article: I have converted the Cooper refs to Shortened footnotes, but unfortunately you have not provided page numbers: please would you add those in place of the {{page needed|date=September 2012}}

The other problem that I can't fix concerns this edit. One of your two refs is given as <ref name=rgi20111020 />; unfortunately, there isn't a matching <ref name=rgi20111020>...</ref> anywhere else in the article for this to link to, so there is an error message in the references section: The named reference rgi20111020 was invoked but never defined (see the help page). If you click that bluelink it gives advice on fixing it. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also with Woodbridge railway station a page number is needed for the Cooper ref. Regarding your edits to that article: you've used three different date styles, none of which are permitted under WP:DATESNO. January 1st 1927 should be 1 January 1927; 28th January 2003 should be 28 January 2003; 01/09/2012 may be either 1 September 2012 or 2012-09-01, but since this access date is used twice, they should match each other; and December 13th 2010 should be 13 December 2010. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


York engine sheds and locomotive works (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Southern Railway, Great Northern Railway, Great Eastern, North Eastern Railway and Firebox

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Pyewipe Junction engine shed, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welwick railway..

Just got your message by chance, as I had mostly stopped editing. Interesting to hear that it close due to 53 floods. If you hear about any local leads I'd probably be interested to look into it. the email ihull182@yahoo.co.uk should work if you need it.Oranjblud (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The cite journal template

Hi, when you add references using {{cite journal}} or related templates, as you did here (and in several other edits), please note that the |page= and |pages= parameters are mutually exclusive. If you are citing a single page, use |page=; if you are citing multiple pages, use |pages=. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Date formats

Hi, further to my comments at #Melton railway station above, I see that several of your recent edits such as this one have used ordinal numbers in dates, e.g. "the 29th August 1913"; please see WP:DATESNO. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies I usually use the format in the reference material - will try harder in future. By the way why have you removed the Great Eastern Railway category from the various stations I'd applied it to? These were all GE stations at some point so it seems appropriate.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 10:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did, for example here. There is no need to put them in Category:Great Eastern Railway if they are already in Category:Former Great Eastern Railway stations since the latter is a subcategory of the former. There is more at WP:DIFFUSE. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough point. Thanks.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Red I have noticed that a number of literary references seem to have broken recently (Great Eastern Railway Page/Felixstowe Branch Line page) - any ideas what has happended? Also periodically the cite journal template seems to be unavailable - is this something you have experienced.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by the literary references being broken?
In what way is the {{cite journal}} template unavailable? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A number of references now read thus: ^ Quayle, H.I.; Bradbury, G.T. p. 17. Missing or empty |title= (help) When I have tried using the cite journal reference it does not always come up when I select it. It seems kind of sporadic. and I cannot work out why. --Davidvaughanwells (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At Felixstowe Branch Line, the {{cite book}} template was being asked to do things that it wasn't designed for. In the past, it would fail silently; but a few weeks ago it was upgraded to show error messages when there were problems. I have made several amendments and there are no longer any red error messages in the references. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed up the red error messages on Great Eastern Railway too. When you use {{cite web}}, the |title= parameter is mandatory. I'm still unsure what your trouble with {{cite journal}} is, since none of the problems that I've just fixed involved that template. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


US Army Class S160

Hi, re this edit - are you sure there were only eight? See

  • Boddy, M.G.; Brown, W.A.; Neve, E.; Yeadon, W.B. (1983). Fry, E.V. (ed.). Locomotives of the L.N.E.R., part 6B: Tender Engines - Classes O1 to P2. Kenilworth: RCTS. pp. 98–107. ISBN 0-901115-54-1. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

where a total of 210 are listed - and that's just those used on the LNER. Others were osed on the GWR, LMS and Southern. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Red Perhaps I should have been more clearer (and will shortly amend to try and remedy confusion). The eight I refer to here, were the ones accepted into service by Stratford Works - other works throughout the UK accepted other members of the class. I don't have access to your book immediately but if it states more locomotives were dealt with at Stratford works then please feel free to amend as necessary. --Davidvaughanwells (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Wood Street

Hi, re this edit: the reason is in the edit summary of my edit. Specifically, see WP:DIFFUSE: since Category:Railway depots in London is a sub-category of Category:Railway depots in the United Kingdom there is no need for it to be in the latter.

Also, please don't post messages to User:Redrose64, but to User talk:Redrose64; and use the "new section" tab rather than editing an unrelated section. If there is no "new section" tab, it's a fair bet that you're not on a discussion page. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noted thanks--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 23:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SBN numbers for books

Hi, re this edit - see the template documentation where it describes how to handle a SBN - in other words, do this. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC) thanks--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Victoria Park and Bow Railway station has been accepted

Victoria Park and Bow Railway station, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

j⚛e deckertalk 20:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ipswich to Ely line

Do you have access to the Gale News Vault? I get it via my library card. May be useful for fleshing out some of the earlier accident details. Mjroots (talk) 06:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of it!--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well it's a good resource for researching articles. First off, do you have a library card, and which library? I might be able to find a link for you once I know this. Mjroots (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly not - having a full time job, full time family and full time model railway means I rarely get time to go to the library! If I did it would be York library. Let me know anyway (as long as it is not wasting your time) as I certainly want to do some research one day. I'd really like to know a bit more about the plane landing on the line at Fulbourn as well (if you have the time!). --Davidvaughanwells (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Get a library card anyway. It gives you online access to a vast range of resources. Mjroots (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't know that - thanks.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

magazine template

Last, First (10 January 2016). "Title". Magazine. Vol. 4. Location: Publisher. p. 17. Retrieved 10 January 2016.

Eastern Counties Railway references

Hi, re edits like this - two things:

  1. the |pp= parameter is for multiple pages, as in |pp=1, 4 or |pp=2–3. For a single page number, use the |p= parameter, as in |p=1 or |p=3.
  2. if you use {{sfn}} you don't ned to worry about reference names, they're automatically generated. So instead of <ref name="Allen 1955 2">{{harvnb|Allen|1955|pp=2}}</ref> you would put {{sfn|Allen|1955|p=2}}

--Redrose64 (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I copied this from the GER article as it already had the Allen book referenced, but I think I will use SFN in future.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Southeastern articles

Hi David, thanks for your contributions to articles about Southeastern stations. There is no need to duplicate detailed information about British Rail and the TOCs across each station article - this is better covered under the article for the relevant line, or the franchise, as a whole. Crookesmoor (talk) 16:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had a good think about this one and I thought that many people might just look up the station rather than the line and may miss that raft of information. I agree it does make the articles - if one reads them all a tad repetitive but to the casual user who may only look up one station should feel the benefit.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see you've already removed it. Please consider restoration based on my above argument. I don't believe in edit wars and will leave to to you. --Davidvaughanwells (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Counties Railway

I noticed you are expanding the article. Hansard should have plenty to say on the subject. I used it when expanding the Hastings Line article. I note also that Allen states a number of windmills had to be demolished to construct the line. I have all five volumes of Ken Farries' work on Essex windmills, so might be able to supply further details in you could tell me which parishes were affected. Mjroots (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Horatio Love

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Horatio Love requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fenchurch Street Station

Hi David, I've done a bit of cleaning up of Fenchurch Street Station and added some more information about its 20th century history along with the comprehensive work you did for the 19th and early 20th. It's probably not too far off sending for a good article review, but could you quickly have a look and check everything looks okay? Though I travel on the former GER line from Liverpool Street quite a bit to see family in Colchester and beyond, I don't think I've actually taken a train from Fenchurch Street, and the only reason I think I would is if I had to meet somebody at Lakeside and didn't fancy driving there. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ritchie - The second paragraph in the introduction is wrong and needs changing (it may have been there sometime tbh)- I'll try and post something tonight. One thing I am unclear on is whether any trains connecting to ocean liners ever ran from the station. They generally ran from St Pancras but if there was something that ran from FS then its worth recording. We are mid decorating so its difficult to lay my hands on the two Peter Kay books I own on the early years of the LTSR but one of my intention was to add further material when time permitted.
I was a bit disappointed you deleted my peak hour summary table to be honest - I thought it showed very clearly the different terminating locations which gets a bit lost in the text.
I see you have put the current operation at the front of the section - I have generally in my various station entries tried to develop a constant style in sub headings based around Opening/Early History - Pre Grouping - Grouping - Nationalisation - Privatisation with services post past and present put separately (but that's my nerdish interest coming to the fore).
Whilst interesting the Franz Muller murder link is spurious - at least 20 minutes out of FS by my reckoning.
These are minor whinges as overall I think you have improved the article. I checked a couple of other London termini (Euston and Charing X) and thought this was now a far better offering. Thanks.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. Don't worry about whinging, if we didn't do that articles wouldn't get improved!
In terms of structure, I've got a fairly consistent way of doing things which seems to work (though don't take what I say as gospel); I assume the casual reader will want a basic description of where the station is and where it serves (think of the stereotypical American tourist saying "can you tell me the way to Lie-chester Square?") and then the hardcore enthusiasts will stick at it until they get to the the "meat" of the article once we're past the basics. Elephant & Castle tube station and Dartford Crossing follow this format, though Westminster tube station and Hammersmith & City line don't, while Oxford Street is a bit of a mixed bag.
I think the problem with the summary table wasn't to much the table itself rather than thinking why did we need a table for this year specifically over all the others. As we tend to limit lists to specific sections or articles, it seemed easier to leave it out and work around it for the time being.
As the P&O terminal at Tilbury was used for ocean vessels, significantly for mass emigration to Australia, it would have been possible to board a train at Fenchurch Street to Tilbury Riverside and travel to one of these. However, I'm not sure how I can write that up in a way that's relevant to Fenchurch Street that doesn't duplicate some of the articles elsewhere. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re table - because that's the Bradshaws I had and it was the last summer before the Big 4 took over--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Newmarket and Chesterford Railway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Braithwaite. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Davidvaughanwells. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bentley Church railway station

I notice that just over a year ago you added some information about the Hadleigh Branch to the Eastern Union Railway article. There are two references: "Richard S, Joby (January 2000). "Brassey, Bruff, Locke and the Norwich Extension". Great Eastern Journal. 101: 26." and "Moffat, Hugh (1987). East Anglia's first railways. Lavenham: Terence Dalton Limited. pp. 176–180. ISBN 0 86138 038 X." Do either of these have anything to say about the location of Bentley Church station? Efficacy (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have the first 140 Great Eastern Journals on a CD from which the following have been lifted (although its largely supposition). Well worth joining the society for a year to get hold of this members only item - learned a few things about Bentley station as well.

From Journal 93

"Bentley Church (journal 88.43). Clinker's entry for this station gives nothing more than its name and the date of its last timetable appearance (December 1853) and this is in itself significant - it is Clinker's normal practice when one station is replaced by another to include a footnote saying "replaced by....to south" or similar. The absence of such a note suggests that Bentley Church was not an earlier station replaced by Bentley. Looking now at some notes I made many years ago from some early timetables we find that Bentley first appears in a Bradshaw for January 1847 (not having been in one for June 1846) and appears consistently thereafter. The only change in name is from Bentley to Bentley Junction by January 1853.

I did not note a separate Bentley Church station in any of these timetables, although I was concerning myself only with the main line. The suggestion therefore is that Bentley Church was one of those very short-lived stations which appeared in this period, perhaps only locally advertised or at best appearing in a footnote to the timetable and probably only served on market day. But where was it? Looking at a modern OS map, the church at Bentley is just south of the Hadleigh branch, but close also to the main line. The nearest points on the main line are a road overbridge over a cutting and a footpath at the south end of this cutting, neither very promising looking sites for a station. However, on the Hadleigh branch there is, just north of and within 200yds of the church, a level crossing and I would plump for this point (map ref. 119383) as the site of Bentley Church Station".

Journal 91 "Brian Andrew 16 November 1996. My family connections with Bentley Village, Station and the Hadleigh branch go back a good many years but I have never heard of a station called "Bentley Church". Neither had I seen any reference to it in print until David Chappell's enquiry in the Clearing House (Journal 88.43). Bentley Station was about 1½ miles by road from the parish church and opened on 1 June 1846. It was included in the first EUR timetable but Bentley Church was not, which would rule out the 1853 closure of the latter through the opening of another station nearby. The only other station in the area was Capel, another 1½ miles to the west from the church, which opened with the Hadleigh branch on 21 April 1847 and actually stood within the Bentley parish boundary. (The thought of Bentley having three stations is intriguing, to say the least!). A look at a map shows that the basic road network in the area has changed very little since the mid-to-late 19th century and there has never been any obvious road access between the church and the main lines, although the distance between them is small. (the nearest connecting point is at Bentley (or "Tollemache's") Bridge, some ¾ mile to the north). Mr Chappell indicated that the station is shown as being next to Bentley so is it possible that it was on the Hadleigh branch? The most logical site would have been at Bentley Church level crossing where the branch crossed Hall Road - the parish church being across the road from the crossing bungalow which still stands - unoccupied and overgrown - just beyond the apex of the old "triangle". I do not know of any other railway relics in the vicinity. Having mentioned the triangle, I wonder if any information exists on the northern line which is said to have left the main lines just south of Bentley Bridge and permitted direct running between Ipswich and Hadleigh. The cutting is still there but from what I have read, the track was either taken out of use by 1904 or never laid at all and I have found details hard to come by. Could Bentley Church Station have been provided for the direct services and closed through lack of use?"

MOFFATS BOOK Hugh Moffat's book on p181 there is a photograph of a rather ornate gatekeeper's cottage "at Church Farm Crossing, Bentley". Could this have been the location of the mystery station?

DO let me know if you find anything else.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elmswell railway station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frederick Barnes. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Davidvaughanwells. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Norwich Victoria railway station

You added some tonnages for 1958 for the four Norwich stations (under this revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norwich_Victoria_railway_station&diff=prev&oldid=683509782). The column for Thorpe doesn't appear to add up - do you know which figure needs to be adjusted? Thanks! Tim Goodwyn (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Davidvaughanwells. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Davidvaughanwells. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Alexandra Dock engine shed (Hull) has been accepted

Alexandra Dock engine shed (Hull), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Dan arndt (talk) 23:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Botanic Gardens

Hi; thanks for improving the Botanic Gardens TMD page. There is one issue though; Ref no. 4 needs a page number and I do not have a copy of Yeadon's. Could you insert the page number, please? Thanks and regards. The joy of all things (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Its on my list and I have also just acquired last day allocations as well.Davidvaughanwells (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Springhead Engine Shed, Hull has been accepted

Springhead Engine Shed, Hull, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Hitro talk 10:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Frederick Barnes (architect) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Frederick Barnes (architect). Thanks! Legacypac (talk) 06:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Frederick Barnes (architect) (February 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure. Note to reviewers: do not leave copyright violations sitting in the page history. Please follow the instructions here.
You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work. SportingFlyer T·C 22:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Davidvaughanwells! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! SportingFlyer T·C 22:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Frederick Barnes (architect) has been accepted

Frederick Barnes (architect), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Legacypac (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Colchester Carriage Servicing Depot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greater Anglia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Greenwich station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page South Eastern Railway.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bishopsgate (Low Level) railway station

I want to follow up on some of my questions for Bishopsgate (Low Level) railway station, as I've still yet to find the answer to them. Here is the plan that I'm working from.

"Between November 1872 and January 1874 the station, acting as a temporary terminus, handled traffic off the Enfield and Walthamstow lines."

So, this sounds like from 1872 (until 1891) the first two rails in the cut were the 'local' lines, and these were located to the north in the cut. It looks like the Down Local platform - which would have been adjacent to the station down in the cut - was accessible (by subway) from within the new goods yard. It appears from some of the plans that this subway might have been within the southeast corner of the goods yard on the ground floor under the ramp up from Wheeler.

  • 1. My first question, though, is if the Commercial Street access hadn't yet been built - I'm just assuming this was a later construction; if I'm wrong, let me know - how would one have gotten to the Up Local platform which would have been adjacent to the southern most rail in the cut?
  • 2. The article then later goes on to say that the two through rails in the south of the cut were added in 1891, and that an access/ticket office was added on Commercial Street. Though, it looks to be - and maybe this should be clarified - that the access for the Down Main would have only been accessed from the Commercial Street access as the Up Main was quite a bit further east adjacent to the south side of the cut. So, Can you confirm that the Down Main and the Up Local were an island platform between the Local and Main rails accessible only by an access in between Norton Folgate and Commercial Street, that the Down Local was accessible only from the Goods Yard (via subway), and that the Up Main was only accessible from Quaker Street?
  • 3. Finally, and this is kind of unrelated, but the plan shows - and current aerials show - lines further east past Brick Lane (in the cut further north than the locals) actually going UNDER the goods yard. Did these lines communicate/were they accessible from the goods yard at all? What were they used for? I find it interesting these aren't even mentioned despite being shown as a significant part of the surrounding envinroment.

Thanks. --Criticalthinker (talk) 06:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to find a few more pieces of material that helped a bit, but left some questions. As it relates to my first question, were the "local" or "main tracks" built first? It appears that the "local" pair of tracks is now called the "main" and the "main" is now called the "electric." It matters when each pair was built, because it clears up which pair of platforms was built first. As written, the article would seem to imply that the local pair and main pair were built at two different times, but knowing the Commercial Street section wasn't built until the 1890's, the only two platforms which could be reached before then are what is labeled on the diagram as the Down Local adjacent to the station and the Up Main accessed from Quaker Street.
Long story short, I need to know 1. which pairs of platforms were built together, 2. how and from where was the platform adjacent to the goods station accessed (it appears to be from the goods station, itself), and 3. was their any pedestrian access to the suburban tracks under the station? To add even more confusion, the diagram on the Great Eastern Main Line article appear to show the old low-level station only accessed from the Main (now Electric) tracks furthest from the goods yard.--Criticalthinker (talk) 09:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The tracks between Liverpool Street and the newly-built flyover to the west of Ilford were redesignated during the electrification works just after Worls War II. The former "local" lines (the middle pair as far as Bethnal Green) became the "through" lines, now known as the "main" lines"; and the former "through" lines (the southern pair) became the "local" lines, now known as the "electric" lines. The northern pair, which swing off towards Cambridge at Bethnal Green, were known as the "Suburban" lines, as they still are. These ran below Bishopsgate Goods in a tunnel, and Bishopsgate Low Level had its two platforms in that same tunnel. See if you can find Cecil J. Allen's The Great Eastern Railway, there is information in chapter 15. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will see what I can do. I am not from the UK, so not sure where I'd even begin to look, how much it would cost, etc. Anyway, this raises additional questions, then, knowing that there were platforms actually under the goods yard in the cutting underneath the station. --Criticalthinker (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind part of that. I see that what was confusing me is how the article is organized, which is why I plan to rearrange some things and make some of the language more clear. I see the first four platforms for the four Local and Main tracks upon the station's opening are the four in the main cutting. Three of these were accessed from Commercial Street to the east, and the fourth (Up Main) was accessed from Quaker. The next two platform came in 1891 when the two Suburban lines were added through the basement level/cutting directly beneath the Goods Yard. So there were six total platforms. So I'll need to change that in the infobox where it currently reads 4. I wonder if there are any pictures of the suburban platforms? I don't believe I've even seen any good pictures of the basement levels of the goods yard, let alone of the platforms there. --Criticalthinker (talk) 09:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good photos are unlikely, because of the tunnel nature - it would have been rather dark down there in the days before fluorescent lighting. It wouldn't have been as smoky as a normal tunnel - locomotives working trains through these two platforms were required to be equipped with condensers, just like the steam locos of the Metropolitan Railway before electrification. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, to be clear, there were six platforms in the station and not four, correct? And from where were the suburban platforms underneath the station accessed and exited? The article appears to say these suburban platforms had a ticket office on Commercial Street, so I can imagine a set-up in which passengers were funneled out through a tunnel onto the Down Local platform in the open-air cut and then up to Commercial Street. Yard plan. --Criticalthinker (talk) 07:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The plan at subbrit shows the entrance to the suburban line platforms on the northern side of Commercial Street, just north of the down suburban platform, with passageways to that and the up suburban. One is marked "Subway to Pass*** Station" (part of the third word is unclear). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Middleton Press book Liverpool Street to Ilford book has a good plan of the two separate booking offices. The original booking office was on the Liverpool Street side of Commercial Street and was accessed through two passages that ran adjacent and on either side of the main line. It straddled the four lines with stair cases down to three platforms. I doubt many joined trains at the other platform as its a short walk to Liverpool Street - passengers would have exited on the staircase that remains today. The Commercial Street entrance on the opposite side of that road also had a booking office and tickets from there were stamped CSO to differentiate them from the other booking office (presumably for audit purposes). The plan in the book, which I assume is a blow up from the plan Redrose64 is referring to, shows passenger would enter the CS booking hall, turn right down some stairs to a sub landing - there also appears to be some exit steps back up from that to CS). The passage to the platform is down some further steps (heading away from Liverpool Street) and a right then left turn give the passage a kink. On this plan is written to Passenger Stn. the S in stn being partly obscured by a line representing a wall. --Davidvaughanwells (talk) 08:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The subbrit plan that I refer to is the one linked in the original post and also the post of 07:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Middleton plan is clearer - the ticket office in the sub brit plan is right of the C in Commercial Street.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've nearly got this from the further descriptions you all gave. The Local lines and its two platforms came first before the completion of Liverpool; the Main/Through lines and platforms to the south came soon after upon the completion of Liverpool; finally, the Suburban lines and platforms were added through the cutting underneath the station in 1891. The two Local line platforms and the Down Main platforms were accessible from an access and office built above the cutting west/south of Commercial Street. The Up Main was west of Wheeler and accessible from stairs down from Quaker Street. The office and access for the Suburban line platforms were inside the Goodsyard complex on the ground floor off Commercial Street. If this is all correct, then I only have one last question. Were the Local and Main/Through lines and platforms built simultaenously, or did the Local line and platforms predate the Main/Through? I realize that at most we're talking two or three years between the two, but I'd like to nail that question down specifically so I can set this up chronologically on the article. --Criticalthinker (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have dug out the London Rail Record issue that covers the station. When it started operating it had three platforms and this continued when operation through to Liverpool Street commenced in 1874. Thus the new tracks which started operating around the same time (cannot find an exact date) only had one down platform and no up platform. This was later added and opened on 8 May 1875.The CS Ticket office was in the goods yard building as you state.

One other thought -a table detailing the line names and when they changed may be helpful? --Davidvaughanwells (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be helpful; maybe something modeled after the articles for the stations of Sydney Trains where you have a "Platforms and Service" section (e.g. St James station). Though, even just writing out things chronologically in a "History" section would be a huge help. We also need to change the infobox to say it ultimately had 6 platforms, but that's something I can do as it wouldn't require additional sourcing than what's already present on the article.--Criticalthinker (talk) 11:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just coming back to bring this to your attention, again. A table would be nice and a rewrite of the article that keeps things chronological. --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did change the info box but thought you were doing the rewrite (?).....will add the running line names table to my list as can be used in the Bethnal Green article. Let me know if you are doing a re-write. Incidentally I also now have Jim Connor's book on Disused stations in east London which covers the station. --Davidvaughanwells (talk) 11:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather you do the re-write since you have the source material. I just wanted to give you some pointers on how to arrange things so as to be consistent with other similar wiki articles, because as it is set-up, now, it jumps around a bit. For instance, I'd make a "history" section chronologically spelling out its expansion and subsequent disuse, then a "description" section describining its set-up at its largest usage (i.e. 6-platform, 3-lines era of the station), then probably a "Platforms" section, though, that's a bit more complicated. And then finally a "Today" section describing what's left of it.--Criticalthinker (talk) 04:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George Hudson

Hello, I am contacting you about an edit you made to George Hudson in 2014. In this edit you added a short ref to Beaumont 1993 but there is no actual source for that. Could you take a look to see if the problem can be resolved. Many thanks. Keith D (talk) 15:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can only assume it was a mis-type. Have changed to 2003--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I did not know if there was another book from 1993. Keith D (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited London, Tilbury and Southend line, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British Rail Class 70.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sudbury railway station - "Historic services - July 1922" section

Hi. This section of the Sudbury railway station article, which you added on 27 Jan 2020, seems to me excessively detailed and of very niche interest for a general page about a station. I've never seen anything quite like it on other station pages, and it's quite hard to read. Do you think perhaps it would be more appropriate to briefly summarise the services, rather than infodumping the entire timetable? I feel like if anyone actually wants to know the precise times of the trains from a hundred years ago they should be consulting a source more suited for that (e.g. Bradshaw) rather than Wikipedia... Quaestor23 (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Quaestor23 for your question. I stopped editing Wikipedia some years ago so if you feel the article is inappropriate then feel free to edit or delete it. Its kind of you to raise this with me.
I had actually written the article for something else (never published) and thought it would be a nice thing in the Sudbury article to try and deliver a better understanding that it was a busy country station 100 years ago. Davidvaughanwells (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Malton railway station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page North Eastern Railway.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Knapton railway station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page North Eastern Railway.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LNER Encyclopedia

Hi David, I'm worried that you might have a bit of standard text or something that you are reusing like a template, which contains the misspelling "Encylopedia". I've corrected it in a few station articles recently (example) and I think it might be coming from you, though I would not swear to it in court! If you do have a standard text chunk, though, you might want to check this. Sorry to be a nuisance; hope this helps. Cheers DBaK (talk) 12:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I will check back on the pages I have used it on. Davidvaughanwells (talk) 09:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic, thank you so much. With luck I may have caught most of them but a look from you would be great. Cheers DBaK (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bishopsgate railway station

Hey, can you go read my follow-up questions and comments on the Talk:Bishopsgate railway station page? I do not understand why "bridge" is being used for what is a subterranean line. I'm not sure why the East London Line is even being mentioned in your reply since it ended at Shoreditch. The "new extension to Liverpool Street" are the old suburban GER tracks you're talking about, right? Criticalthinker (talk) 03:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - sorry about the delay in replying but I only occasionally dabble in Wikipedia today. on 10 September 1876 the ELR extension to Shoreditch opened and that included a new junction on the Great Eastern Main Line. This was used by both passenger and goods trains with the latter shunting and reversing at Liverpool Street station. Early services included the LBSCR Liverpool Street to Croydon and the SER Liverpool Street to Addiscombe services. When the ELR was taken over by the Metropolitan Railway regular passenger services terminated at Shoreditch whilst special passenger and goods trains continued to 1966.
Shoreditch Tube Station closed in June 2006 and the line through there was then raised from its original level so that it could pass over the Great Eastern Main Line on a new bridge. This now serves Shoreditch High Street railway station. Perhaps we should remove the sentence about the bridge from the article if yo feel it is causing confusion.
The "new extension to Liverpool Street" I think refers to the original building of Bishopsgate Low Level and Liverpool Street? The GER had outgrown their original terminus at Bishopsgate High Level so 4 tracks were built from Bethnal Green to Liverpool Street. These are the currently known as the electric and main lines. Two more lines were opened in 1891.
Hope that helps. Davidvaughanwells (talk) 03:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this didn't really address the question on the talk page. It's a single sentence I'm having an issue with, and it involves the older intfrastructure, not anything involving Shoreditch.
"The new line into Liverpool Street paralleled the viaduct so a number of goods facilities were demolished or altered at this time. A large bridge was constructed where the new line passed under the Braithwaite viaduct."
Actually, now that I'm reading it, I think I understand what the article may be getting at, here, but it feels strangely worded. I think what you're saying is that when the suburban lines were built through the site of the goods yard, that they demolished some of the structure on the south end to construct the suburban tunnel using the cut-and-cover method and then rebuilt the floor of the yard as an internal road through the goods yard (see page 119). In any case, the suburban line are subturranean/below grade, so it feels a bit inaccurate to describe the portion of the rebuilt station over the tunnel as a "bridge." I've removed that from the article, but will leave it up to someone to come up with some better wording for this rebuild. Me? I'd simply say that a tunnel was built under the goods yard adjacent to the cut for the suburban line.

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]