The line between Oxford and Bicester Town closed following the last service of 14 February 2014. It's not a permanent closure, but a long-term upgrade of the line that will last about 15 months. My edits to three station articles (Oxford, Islip, Bicester Town) were reverted; opinions please? --Redrose64 (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
If the IP's right and there's a replacement bus being provided, then perhaps we should note that; a replacement bus isn't quite the same as a total withdrawal (though my experience of replacement buses suggests that there's not much difference!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
If it is not possible to take a train from the station for two years, it is for all intents and purposes closed. I have reverted the IP. Lamberhurst (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I hesitated at removing the Oxford/Bicester service from the Oxford page because I felt that something different was needed, i.e. marking it as temporarily withdrawn but {{rail start}} doesn't provide for such a scenario. I don't think that moving it into "historical" or "disused" helps either. Any ideas? Lamberhurst (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
This is getting beyond a joke, see Islip and Bicester Town. What do I have to do to make sourced content stick? Not to mention the other fixes which were nothing to do with the service withdrawal. Please would some uninvolved admin decide on a WP:WRONG version, and then protect the article? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I reverted the IP but the IP reverted my revert, citing the very sources that his/her edit had removed!! How perverse is that? Someone fresh needs to get a grip on this. -- Alarics (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Mjroots. Now, as somebody who hasn't been involved up to the point of raising the prot level, please would you look through recent (i.e. on or since 14 February 2014) edits to Oxford, Islip, Bicester Town and assess which portions of these edits should be kept, and which removed? You may notice that the three articles are presently not in agreement. Please be aware that a simple revert-to-earlier-version on either Bicester Town or Islip will remove good edits. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
@Mjroots: OK, but they're still inconsistent: at Bicester Town and Oxford, most of these changes and this change have been lost, so the routebox has two rows for the service - current and future; whereas at Islip, most of these changes have been preserved, so the routebox has one row for the service - future. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
@Redrose64: I've reinstated most of the changes to the Bicester Town station article, and made an amendment in the infobox. Islip station's infobox has also been similarly treated. I think we are now getting some consistency across the articles. Moving on to the article about the line itself. The situation is that the line is currently closed to rail traffic, but both Islip and Bicester Town stations are open, albeit with buses replacing the rail service. IMHO, the rail line diagram should be amended to show this situation, with an appropriate note added to the diagram explaining this. We have (BUS) and (BUS2) available to use. Mjroots (talk) 10:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I think I'll leave it a few days, and see if any adjustments are needed. I've been kinda busy since 18:00: here, here and here. How can one user move 222 pages in eight minutes? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I've edited the template to add NR Usage 12-13 and its worked. However 11-12 has now disappeared on station articles. Could a user kindly help? Thanks Likelife (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
If I were searching for a photo of a class 319 on Commons, I'd expect there to be a main category for the class. Subclasses could cover operators, liveries and even individual units, but having the main category would be a Very Useful Thing, to paraphrase the Fat Controller. Mjroots (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
There is a main category, but in principle any photo of an actual train should be in subcategories. But do you have an opinion on sectors? -mattbuck (Talk) 22:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
No strong opinion, but no objection either. If people find such a category useful, then it's probably worth having. I note that there are no individual unit categories though. IMHO, the categories should include a space between the class and unit number if created. Mjroots (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I think there are a few round about, but I'm generally against them on the grounds that an individual unit is not usually any different from another. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Usage figures: how many to show in infobox?
The template {{Infobox GB station}} has provision for passenger usage figures for several one-year periods, going back to 2002/03 (excepting 2003/04). As I understand it, the longstanding convention is to fill in all of those for which figures are available, but to hide the older ones so that only the five most recent are displayed. This permits a quick comparison of recent figures without making the infobox unduly long. Unfortunately, I can't find where that convention was agreed upon. I would like a clarification, because of these edits. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Didn't we have an argument about this subject on this page last year? When someone wanted to remove the usage figures, but there was no agreement to it. I've never heard of that convention tbh. G-13114 (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
There was certainly a discussion at the GAN or FAC page for one or another of the stations (it may have been one of those in the Bristol area - Mattbuck (talk·contribs) has put most of them up for GAN at one time or another). IIRC, the reviewer questioned the need for any usage stats other than the most recent, but when it was pointed out that a single figure is meaningless alone, agreed to five. It passed as GA or FA, whichever it was, with five years visible. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I looked through the archives. And THIS was the discussion I remember. Basically there was no consensus to change the existing situation. G-13114 (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
May be we could show the last 5 but have an toggle in the infobox to show the full list of what is available. Keith D (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I've been considering this possibility off and on for about two years now. It could be done, but would complicate the internal workings of the infobox, and I'm not sure just how much extra processing time would be added. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Interesting traffic at Long Eaton
I was travelling from Long Eaton to Coventry on business on Monday; while waiting at LGE at about 0930, a Grand Central Class 180 came past platform 1 (eastbound, coming from the direction of Derby towards Trent Junction). Now, Long Eaton has to be a good 50 miles from the nearest place you'd expect to see a Grand Central train. A few minutes later, a Class 31 in Network Rail livery came past in the same direction hauling two coaches (also in Network Rail livery) that looked like Mk3 bodies but obviously weren't passenger coaches. Can anyone shed any light on what either of them were doing? The latter, I'm guessing, has something to do with Bombardier, whose Derby works are only a few miles away and almost always have Network Rail-liveried stock on the sidings just outside Derby station. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I know that FHT services were diverted into STP for a few days a while back, perhaps it had something to do with that? -mattbuck (Talk) 20:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Now, I'm not suggesting we necessarily delete these articles, but I do think they're rather misleading. Scratch that, I do think they should be deleted, or at least replaced with a disambiguation page. Ascot to Guildford Line has no references, and I can't see any obvious RS via a Google search. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I suppose I'd have to go for notability - Great Northern is regularly referred to in publications, the Sheffield ones I don't believe I've seen in print before, but are there more "official" names for them? -mattbuck (Talk) 22:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC).
The East Coast Main Line article claims that the ECML continues to Aberdeen. I find this rather dubious. Some ECML services continue to Aberdeen, but then some WCML services run to Fort William, But no one claims that the West Highland Line is part of the WCML. What do people here think? G-13114 (talk) 03:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, East Coast services run to Aberdeen and Inverness but the ECML ends at Edinburgh. Otherwise the Airedale and Harrogate Lines should also be included because East Coast run services to Skipton, Bradford and Harrogate. There is a clear distinction to be made between routes and services operated by TOC most associated with those routes. Nthep (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
The infobox at London Paddington station appears to be faulty. It won't display the usage figures for 1213 for some reason. I had a fiddle with it but couldn't work out how to fix it. Can someone with more skill than me have a look at it? G-13114 (talk) 10:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I've just noticed a couple of rather amusing errors with File:Paddington Station Panorama.jpg. One businessman is floating through the air, rather ghostly, in the centre of the picture whilst nearby a woman has gained another businessman's hand and legs. Simply south......disorganising disorganisation for just 7 years20:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
It's electrification of the line from Southampton to Oxford, Bedford, Midland Main Line, and also Leamington Spa, Coventry, Nuneaton. It's a pretty major project. It would also entail converting the line between Basingstoke and Portsmouth from third rail to overhead electrification. G-13114 (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I thought it was Basignstoke to Southampton and I thought It was going to be an oddity with both third rail and OHLE. Simply south......disorganising disorganisation for just 7 years19:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Map here. The Basingstoke to Southampton section is to be converted to AC as a pilot for other conversions. There was a report that suggested this a few years back, I see if I can find it. Edgepedia (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC) Here it is. Edgepedia (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
More up-to-date info here. At the moment NR are committed to Midland Main Line Electrification and remodelling Derby railway station. The rest is to be planned, and includes improvements such as increasing line speeds, track doubling between Kettering and Corby and some of the route between Coventry and Leamington Spa, and an additional pair of tracks between Syston Junction and Wigston Junction. Edgepedia (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
So does that mean that SWT or its successor is going to have to convert its whole fleet for the route to dual electric trains? Simply south......disorganising disorganisation for just 7 years20:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The DC British Rail Class 442s were neatly bumped off to the Brighton route a short while ago; the rest of the EMUs transiting between Redbridge/Millbrooke and Basingstoke are Desiro-based and have AC pantograph wells on the roofs ready and waiting. That said, as Edgepedia notes, it's slightly lower down the list than the MML electrification and Derby remodelling; and is only due for development during CP5. —Sladen (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
What is the name of the freight route that is meant to link up Felixstowe via Ipswich, Peterborough and beyond? Is this part of this project or separate? Simply south......discombobulating confusing ideas for just 8 years18:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I googled "freight route that is meant to link up Felixstowe via Ipswich, Peterborough" and at the top of the list was [1]. Doesn't seem to have a snappy title. Edgepedia (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
It is separate. I believe it's a new chord being built so freight trains from Felixstowe don't have to reverse at Ipswich when they're going towards Peterborough. It's called the Bacon chord. So called because it's being built over the site of a former bacon factory. There's a bit about it in the Ipswich station article Ipswich railway station#Ipswich Railway Chord (Bacon chord). G-13114 (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Timetable information, journey times, train routing and stopping patterns
In short, Towns21 (talk·contribs) is seriously annoying me: on station articles, they are persistently re-adding the same redundant information. This includes: train routing where there is only one possible route (if a train runs from Guildford to Waterloo via Epsom, is it also necessary to state that it runs via Leatherhead and Wimbledon?); stopping patterns and journey times that are more reliably obtained from the TOC's website. They are also changing valid unambiguous links like Manchester Piccadilly to ambiguous links like Manchester. With all this, they are refusing (by inaction) to discuss. Does anybody else feel that it's time to serve a {{subst:Uw-unsourced4}}? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
This editor has had many warnings about edit warring. Maybe only a sharp tap with the banhammer will get through to him. Mjroots (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Hastings line
In view of the protracted closure of the Hastings Line between Battle and Robertsbridge, I've reworked {{Hastings Line}} to reflect this. AFAIK, the line serving the Gypsum Mines is unaffected, as the landslips are south of the junction with the main line.
The article needs a lot of work, as there is much duplication and much omission. Anyone feel like collaborating with me to bash it into shape? On the plus side, there should be plenty of sources available. Mjroots (talk) 07:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't think this change is appropriate really. It's been closed a few months - that's notable for the article, but not the routemap. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I'd left it as I consider a temporary closure not worth a map alteration, but given recent statements that there is no forseeable reopening date, it is now worth making the necessary changes. The map can easily be changed once the line is fully reopened. Mjroots (talk) 10:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Someone uploaded this photo onto commons, but didn't categorise it. I wanted to categorise it, but I'm not sure which class it is. It is obviously one of the first generation DMUs. I think it might be a Class 115 but I'm not sure. can anyone help? G-13114 (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
No way is it a 115 - the frames are six feet too short, the body profile is curved throughout (instead of having a flat bit at window height), there are too few doors (2 per side not 7) and too many large windows (five, the 115s have none). It's a Class 108. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok thanks, I've categorised it now. Many of those first generation DMUs look nearly identical to the untrained eye! Actually I've noticed that there are lots of uncategorised new uploads HERE if anyone wants to help. G-13114 (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Between all of the line templates, there is no uniformity. Using Network Rail for all over the UK, the lines can more easily be assessed. The different categories I have seen are Primary, Secondary, Rural, London and South-east Commuter and Freight. For example, all Merseyrail Lines are Secondary and the East Suffolk Line is Rural. However there are some lines which have sections in two or more categories. For example, the Fen Line is both L&SEC and Secondary and Chiltern Main Line is all three of Primary, Secondary and L&SEC. There has been debate over which line is which. At least this would be more official. Difficultly north (talk) - Simply south alt.16:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, yes I was meaning the Railway lines in... templates. Replacing the character with these designations in the infobox had crossed my mind as well, as shown with what I've done with Fen Line. My source I was thinking of using for the designations\categories is here. Simply south......disorganising disorganisation for just 7 years21:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I thought that might be it. I've noticed the lack of consistency between them. They could probably do with some standardisation. G-13114 (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
It was meant as in lines connecting with other Regions of England other than major main lines. Since the Railway lines in... templates are based on the government regions I thought it was logical. G-13114 (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Waktin, Amy (15 May 2014). "Locomotive collision at Great Central". Loughborough Echo. Retrieved 16 May 2014. 12.30pm on May 12 … locomotive involved in shunting was Class 37, number 37 198.
Can anyone work out where these 444 internal shots were taken? The 2nd and 3rd are likely the same place, possibly PMH? Not sure about the first. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
That's Poole. Station building, curve, background buildings, etc. I can even see the Towngate bridge climbing in the background just to the right of the train. Britmax (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not so sure, I can't find that big white building you can see from the train, and while it's hard to tell, I think the train on the platform to the left is a 450? -mattbuck (Talk) 21:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The 159 is in the bay platform there. The white building is the building with the second billboard in the background. The corners nearly match and when you look from this photo, the L shape seems to match. The other white buildings are the hotel further down. Simply south......disorganising disorganisation for just 7 years22:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
[3] There's a scissors crossing between platform 1 & 2, then the junction to the sidings (to the right) and ladder to the Canterbury line (to the left). Edgepedia (talk) 06:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
These look like the same spot. The OHLE structure has a "C" prefix, which IIRC is the Liverpool Street-King's Lynn route. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Having pored over these for a while, I think it must be the junction between the Hitchin and Anglia lines south of Cambridge. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Identified by uploader as Romford, on the 315 page. Why he couldn't add that to the image description is beyond me... -mattbuck (Talk) 13:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Definitely. 100% sure on that... I have photos of the same train at the same location, taken from different angles on different dates. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
It's on a stretch of quadruple track, so it's east of Didcot (there is quad track for short stretches west of Didcot, but you don't get DMUs along there). The DMU has "Paddington" in the destination, so is on the up relief. The white building reflected in the windscreen suggests one of the Oracle buildings in Thames Valley Park, to the east of Reading on the northern side of the line. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
This one is also on quad track, heading towards Oxford on the down relief. It's Slough, almost exactly at the point where the Windsor branch diverges. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
New rail transport companies in Britain seem to be springing up all the time and Wikipedia is not keeping pace with them. Some recent ones are Beacon Rail Leasing, UK Rail Leasing and MDW Rail Freight. Should we have a page dedicated to companies? At present, they seem to be split between Rail transport in Great Britain and Rolling stock operating company. Do spot-hire companies count as ROSCOs? Biscuittin (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Are they all notable enough even for a list entry? I don't know whether spot-hire companies are technically ROSCOs or not, but it seems like its getting to the point that there are so many and sometimes so transitory that it's not necessarily encyclopaedic to provide a list of them all. Obviously some may be notable for various reasons, and we should list those (and maybe have articles). Doubly so if there is an up-to-date list elsewhere we can include as an external link. Thryduulf (talk) 13:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
As I understand it yes, short-term or even very short-term as in "I want one of those now please, for one duty". A definition ofthe term either here or on Wiktionarywouold be useful though.
There's been two attempts to remove this image from The Coronation (train). There is now an OTRS ticket about it, the basis for removal is that the headboard is not on LNER origin. The Coronation only ran between 1937 and 1939 and did not carry a headboard. The headboard shown is in an BR style but as BR never ran a train of this name so the headboard is likely to be a modern charter company production and therefore it's use in the article is misleading and inaccurate. I should add the correspondent is a former head of the NRM. Thoughts, my personal suggestion would be to remove without more verified information that it is accurate. Nthep (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
@Nthep: If you mean this edit and this one, neither was an attempt to remove the image from the article: both, on the face of it, were attempts to amend the filename - possibly a good-faith copyedit by Andrew Dow (talk·contribs). However, both edits left the files as redlinks, and neither had an edit summary explaining what they wanted to do, and so I reverted. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
That's acknowledged by the editor in question, but the intent wasn't to do that but to point out the deficiencies in the image. Nthep (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Using WP:BRD, I've remove the image from the page in the same way uncited text would be removed. There appears to be reasonable doubt that a headboard was carried by the train and without a source it souldn't be in the article. Nthep (talk) 09:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Brunel's gauge
A discussion is under way at Talk:Robert Stephenson about how to represent the 7-foot broad gauge that was used on the Great Western Railway; some sources state that this was 7 feet and others 7 feet 1⁄4 inches. We also have
MacDermot, E.T. (1927). History of the Great Western Railway, vol. I: 1833-1863. Paddington: Great Western Railway. p. 49. In laying the rails an extra quarter of an inch was allowed on the straight, making the gauge 7 ft. 01⁄4 in. strictly speaking, but it was always referred to as 7 feet.
So 7 feet was a common name for a measurement of 7 ft (2,134 mm). I checked my books and found ten references to this gauge; seven give the name and the other three the track specification.
Which should be used in the Robert Stephenson article? or elsewhere? I have thought of two considerations:
A metric conversion of 7 feet is 2.134 m; whereas that of 7 ft 1⁄4 in is 2.14 m; therefore if a conversion is needed for the name I would suggest precision is limited to 2.1 m; this would show clearly that this is not a accurate measurement.
Some sources say 7 foot, others 7 ft 1⁄4 in, and articles need to reflect the source that is cited. For the Great Western MacDermot p. 47 could be added to artcles to allow the use of the alternative (name or measurement).
Bearing in mind that the MOS MOS:UNCERTAINTY says "precision presented should usually be conservative", I suggest that the extra 1⁄4 in is not necessary in non technical article such as Robert Stephenson and the sentence be changed to ...had adopted the 7-foot (2.1 m) broad gauge... (with a link to the Brunel gauge redirect).
I leave this detailed comment here as I busy at the moment and need to take a break for a few weeks. I will come back here after I return. Edgepedia (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
7 ft 1⁄4 in is incorrect rendering of the measurement, it should always be 7 ft 01⁄4 in, which is better written as 7' 0¼". Mjroots (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
But the ¼ symbol looks much better to the eye. Assuming there's no accessibility issue with small text, I'm wondering whether or not 7 ft 01⁄4 in would work? It certainly looks much better IMHO. Mjroots (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
About writing 0+1⁄4 or 1⁄4: I'd like to learn what is preferred in writing imperial sizes. Any stable rule in the imperium? -DePiep (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
There are no accessibility issues with fractions, at least not for the quarter as required here, in the cases for which this would need to be used in the Brunel context. HTML works pretty well (and has done for 20+ years) with such. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
re the two Edgepedia proposals: I object to rounding the conversion into metric (rounding to 2.1 m). First of all, we must keep in mind that this is a definition, not a measurement. In a definition, rounding rules are not applicable as in a measuring. A definition has no error of measurement (by, ergh, definition). The definition even made it into law in 1846. So since it was originally defined "7 ft", we must convert it to "2133.6 mm". Again, no reason to make the metric less precise. Rounding to convey an "about 7 ft" definition is wrong, introducing OR. It helps that the number has a finite decimal numbers, in this case. (Actually, the "7 ft gauge" is converted to be 2134 mm. For now, I'll leave it).
Then, in time, the quarter inch was added to the definition (when?). In other words, "7 ft" became a name for a 7 ft 1⁄4 in gauge size definition (which converts to 2139.95 mm; we currently write 2140 mm). Brunel was breaking the law here? Since then, both "7 ft" and "7 ft 1⁄4 in" is used in sources (e.g., MacDermot) to refer to the "same" gauge. Only when describing the history of this gauge, one should be specific on which actual size is mentioned. Otherwise, we can use both names interchangeable to mean the same. If I understrand the sources well, the name to be used is "7 ft 1⁄4 in" (as that is the definition the tracks & stock were ordered by). As for conversion into metric, each should go with its own size in mm. So we can use 7 ft (2134 mm) and 7 ft 1⁄4 in (2140 mm). -DePiep (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC) (adjusted conclusion "So we can use ...", prevent useless confusion) -DePiep (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
In short: both "7 ft" and "7 ft 1⁄4" in can be used to describe Brunel gauge, follow the source. See them accepted as 'names'. One must be specific when the history is in play (before/after the re-definition). Conversion into mm, integer: 2134 mm, and 2140 mm. (todo: check {{RailGauge}} for all this; input option "7 ft exact" probably should go). -DePiep (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I've noticed that User:EP111 has been editing vast numbers of station articles, and moving the routeboxes to the bottom of the page. I thought these were supposed to be in the service sections on the longer articles. Am I right? I'm sure they're not much use at the bottom of a long article where no one will see them! G-13114 (talk) 01:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I've also spotted this and would agree that it makes more sense to have routeboxes in the sections referring to services. I can only imagine that User:EP111 has been moving them on the basis that as they are succession boxes, they must necessarily go below the external links section as per WP:LAYOUT. However, it is clearly stated in WP:SBS that succession boxes are "placed at the bottom of their respective articles (or sections where applicable)". I would therefore suggest reverting these edits where the article has a "services" section where the routebox would make more sense. Lamberhurst (talk) 07:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
User:G-13114, if you're going to reverse the positioning, to a "standardised" position (where, illogically, the one element doesn't end up being in the same place for every article), then please be aware that other edits have taken place at the same time. For instance, in the case of Stratford-upon-Avon railway station and Rugby railway station you've also deleted the National Rail tag in the External links section, which I've had to manually repair. That is rather than using the undo link, as you've done. EP111 (talk) 10:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
@Mattbuck: It's not exactly a template which is just applicable to services, either, though, as it also provides geographic context. Perhaps another method of positioning needs to be considered? EP111 (talk) 12:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
The way I've used it is, in the present, for services; and in the past for lines. For instance at Nailsea and Backwell, the FGW services show previous stations as Parson Street or Bristol Temple Meads (stopping patterns), but GWR shows Flax Bourton or Bedminster (previous station on the line). -mattbuck (Talk) 13:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Fair enough. As it's built into the infobox, it may be best to delete the {{stn art lnk}} tag from all station articles. Though, prior to doing that, it may also be useful to get the particular piece of replacement infobox text resized from small, so that it's also more readable to people with limited vision (as per a similar accessibility complaint about the UK place infobox image captions). I doubt that certain users would regard the link as superfluous, until the infobox is modified. Regards, EP111 (talk) 11:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Roads on RDTs
On WP:RDTs we tend to keep the roads to a minimum - but do we want road signs as well? See this revert by Bluebird207 (talk·contribs). To me, on a railway diagram, the significant features should be the stations and junctions - the links for these appear as plain text, whereas when road signs are included, their bright blue or green rectangles draw attention away from the important features - they're an unnecessary distraction. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll admit that I only started putting in the road badges because other users (I don't want to name names) were doing the same.
I don't think they're that distracting, TBH - although I respect your opinion, Redrose64, and the opinions of anyone else who does not agree.
May I ask, though, what you think about the inclusion of rivers and other waterways that run parallel to railway lines and are crossed by them several times along the way? They're bright blue, too. Bluebird207 (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Ditch the roads, ditch the river. Non-rail features should only ever be mentioned if they are significant. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't be so radical as to exclude all non-rail features. Showing how a line interacts with the natural landscape and other means of transport means can help to describe it, particularly where infrastructure such as viaducts, swing-bridges and level crossings have been provided. If all RDTs looked like {{Shotts Line}}, I would question whether it was worth including them in the first place. So, yes I would agree with Redrose64 not to overdo it with roads but I would include motorways and A roads and, for shorter branches, I wouldn't be against B roads and even minor roads in certain cases. Rivers and other waterways should always be shown if they are an important feature. For example, the River Witham is such an integral part of the {{Lincolnshire Loop Line}} in terms of the line's history and subsequent development that to exclude it would be unthinkable. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
To clarify, my primary dislike is the road signs like M11 - why should the links to road articles be more prominent than the links to station or line articles? I'm not keen on the inclusion of the road bridges either, but if they stay, I would like plain links for them, not roadsigns. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, like Lamberhurst, I would include the motorway and major A road crossings.
But I'm happy to lay off the badges for these roads, if the majority of other users don't like them.
And I apologise for being picky here, Redrose64, but the question about the inclusion of rivers and other waterways was aimed primarily at you (even if they're neither your primary dislike nor the main subject of this discussion). Bluebird207 (talk) 23:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Non-rail features - whether these be roads or rivers - can be useful to provide reference points, but they should not detract from the primary purpose of a railway RDT, which is to illustrate the rail line and its main features, such as stations. If the river or road dominates without good reason, the emphasis is wrong. At Template:Oxford area RDT, I omitted all roads, and included one true river bridge, because Iffley Halt was built at its western end; and two "canal" bridges (they're actually over Sheepwash Channel, an artificial part of the River Thames), because of Rewley Road Swing Bridge, which is a listed structure. At Template:Medway Towns RDT, I also omitted all roads but included a fairly long stretch of the River Medway. Those who know the area will appreciate just how significant the Medway is, not just for the development of the towns from Strood through to Gillingham, but it also affected the choice of route for the railway; it's broad, and it's tidal all the way up to Allington Lock. The River Cam is not tidal, and nor is the Stort Navigation. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
That said, you haven't deleted either of these rivers from the WAML template. ;)
And I think the Stort Navigation is reasonably important, actually. Before the line was built right alongside, it was a fairly prosperous waterway - income in 1838 was around £5,500, which would be over £500,000 today. Ten years later, after the line opened, that figure had fallen by more than half.
Well, it does look like most users don't like the badges. So I'm going to keep my word, and lay off them.
I'm also going to remove them from the templates that have them. And each time I do, I'll point to this discussion - just in case there are some users who like them and want them back. Bluebird207 (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Concerning this edit: I think you guys should settle on what icons for motorway crossings to use. (Not that I care much, nor do I know anything about British customs, just throwing in another topic for discussion.) FYI Currently, the set of generic icons is pretty extensive and coherent, while the array of other icons is in need of mass renaming and recolouring (i.e. (AKRZ-UKu) should be matched to (uAKRZu2)). YLSS (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
@YLSS: - really? The first icon appears to show a motorway over a heavy rail line that is in use, whereas the she second appears to show a disused motorway over a light railway or tramway in use. NOT the same thing! Mjroots (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
No, there aren't any icons showing disused roads (at least yet), except for (AKRZu) vs. (eAKRZu), and even that isn't actually true... The road colour in (AKRZ-UKu) is too close to (uSTR), so the creator of (uAKRZu2) used another colour for the road, with the suggestion that the older icon should be remade (I support that one — unless, of course, there will be a heavy demand for a patricular shade from this project). YLSS (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Pretty much all of them use a shade of blue for motorways and white for the most minor roads. In between they vary, for instance the Ordnance Survey uses: cyan for motorways; green for trunk A-roads; magenta for non-trunk A-roads; orange for B-roads; yellow for other tarred roads; and white for minor roads in towns, untarred roads, drives and tracks. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
GNGE Merge
I'd like to suggest that Peterborough to Lincoln Line and Doncaster to Lincoln Line be merged together to Great Northern and Great Eastern Line, or some other suitable name (if nothing else, D-L should be L-D based on up/down). I've seen a few articles on the line in RAIL, and it is referred to as a single line rather than two, and I think they call it the "Great Northern and Great Eastern Line" (or something similar). Having two separate articles does seem somewhat odd, I feel it's another instance of "service" lines being created.
For that matter, is there a better name for the lines around Leeds than Wakefield, Skipton, etc? The site I used for ELRs has gone offline so I'm a bit in the dark. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Do you mean Great Northern and Great Eastern Joint Railway? The problem with merging the Peterborough to Lincoln Line to that is that not all of the P-LL was ex-GN&GEJR - only the part between Spalding North Junction and Lincoln was. The P'boro-Spalding section was pure GNR from construction to Grouping.
As I see it, there are three possible names for any route: (i) the engineer's line reference (listed in the back of the Trackmaps "Railway Track Diagrams" books); (ii) the original owning company; (iii) the name used by the relevant TOC's publicity. Of these, (iii) is subject to change, and (ii) can be ambiguous - the Great Northern Railway built a lot of lines besides Peterboro-Spalding. If we consider only (i), then according to
we have WEB: Werrington Branch (Werrington Jn. - Spalding); SPD: Spalding South Jn. - Doncaster, Decoy North Jn.; SSE: Sleaford South Jn. - East Jn.; SNW: Sleaford North Jn. - West Jn. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Rail 746 p19 calls it the "Great Northern/Great Eastern line". Curious capitalisation, and we can probably drop the slash, but it seems to be a fairly common name. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Is it not arguably misleading to call it the GN/GE when that line no longer exists as the section between March/Spalding is closed and lifted? I believe for the same reason we don't use the Varsity Line when referring to the remaining open sections on that line. Lamberhurst (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
West of England Main Line, Midland Main Line... Both used to be much longer but still have the same name. As for Varsity line, that's essentially calling it the "Oxford to Cambridge Line", so I concur it wouldn't make sense to call it that when it no longer connects either. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I think the same logic would apply here: can you still call it the GN/GE if it doesn't connect March and Spalding? Lamberhurst (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I disagree, the GN/GE name is like "Midland Main Line" - it's a name based on a company which no longer exists, and the line has been cut short. In both cases, the name of the line is the same because it still in some manner makes sense, or is suitably removed from geographic problems. The MML still goes to the midlands, it just doesn't go to Leeds, which isn't in the midlands anyway. The Varsity Line however is another way of saying "the line connecting Oxford and Cambridge", because that is what Varsity means. We wouldn't call the Bristol to Exeter Line that if we took up all track except between Taunton and Weston-super-Mare. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
There is already a page called the Great Northern and Great Eastern Joint Railway which deals largely with the historical side of the line but also has updates as to what is extant today. In fact the later (post 1970) history could do with some further detail. Renaming the Peterborough - Lincoln and Doncaster - Lincoln sections as something similar would I think confuse matters. I would further add (and not wishing to offend anyone here) that both these articles are at best rudimentary. There is also an entry called the Lincolnshire Loop Line which deals with the Peterborough - Spalding - Boston - Grimsby line again which is partly open (and covered as part of the Nottingham - Skegness entry as well). My view is that Wikipedia must record the history but accepting that some lines will be better known locally by other names (The Tarka Line for instance) then some duplication should be made in these articles with links from the newer named pages to the historic pages and vice versa to ensure the reader has access to all available information on the line. So in this case I feel we should support keeping the Lincolnshire Loop LineGreat Northern and Great Eastern Joint Railway and the locally named/current reflection of the rail network as they are all valid entries.Davidvaughanwells (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I've recently created {{Disused-stations}} to create external links to the Disused Stations website, which contains primary source material and site recording notes. The template is documented and should be straightforward to use.
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Noted these are now online, and given that they are assumed to be definitive to 2012-2014 ish (the most recent updates were made in March 2014.)
These may be useful in confirming certain details of station layouts. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
