I've been having some arguments when reviewing good article candidates about the structure of railway station articles, specifically how they handle the present and history. The obvious way to handle articles is to do it in chronological order - start with the first opening and work forward in time from there. However I find that this buries what must be the most important part of an article - what it's like right now. Details about, say, the platform layout of a tube station, may be hidden amongst several paragraphs worth of history, and are very difficult to pick out. My general preferred layout is:
Description
Services (including routeboxes)
History
Future
Optional: Incidents, popular culture
Do we have any structural guidelines for how to lay out a station article? If not, should we create some? I'm also interested in how to apply this to a disused station, as clearly the services section doesn't apply and for many the description would be "it's not there anymore". While usually the description of a disused station would be the last bit of the history section, for stations where the line has since been reopened this doesn't work so well as there's significant post-closure history of the site. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I think your proposed format is fine for small stations but may not always work for bigger ones. But that brings me to ask a bigger question - what about other railway facilities nearby. Ipswich railway station for instance now includes sections on the largely disappeared goods yards and sidings as they were (are) an important part of the railway scene. One could argue that the article could now be called Railways of Ipswich or something similar as it is not just about the station but I have to say that I feel Ipswich Railway station is an adequate name.
I don't agree with your statement that the description of the station as it is today is the most important part of the article, but there and then I am generally more interested in the history. Euston for instance seems a far more interesting place before its 1960 make over. You are right that some articles confuse the history and the layout and broadly I support your proposal. Davidvaughanwells (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
To be fair I'm probably more interested in the history too, but I figure that most people who look at the article are intending to travel to/from it, so the current status is most useful. Also, once you have an idea of the current layout, it makes writing the history section a bit easier.
I wouldn't try to impose this across all articles - there will always be special cases - but I think that it works as a guideline structure. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Given we have to keep telling people not to write as if it's a travel guide, I assume they do. Either way, I would say that the present is the more important section (well, probably behind services, but you know...), even if it's not the most interesting. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I have just done a limited survey of a number of stations (about 5) and they seen to be fairly consistently laid out -
Intro
History
Present layout/description
Services (I sometimes add a section on historic services here)
1. Description 2. Services 3. History 4. Future 5. Optional: Incidents, popular culture 6. Routeboxes makes sense to me - I always scroll to the bottom to look at them, and it surprises me when they're not there. JaJaWa |talk18:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Routeboxes should be with the services section as per WP:ORDER. I'm always surprised to find them separated from the section which actually describes the service pattern. Lamberhurst (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree completely - the routebox is clearly relating to services, though interestingly some US articles put it in the infobox. It's always seemed odd to have routeboxes outside this section. As an added bonus, it means more space for pictures in the main body. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
On the subject of routeboxes in infoboxes, there's an ongoing discussion about modifying {{Rail line}} so that it can be incorporated into {{Infobox station}}, thereby creating the possibility for our infoboxes to become like the US ones. I can see this becoming as problematic as the creation of the parameter allowing for the rdt to be hidden in the infobox. Lamberhurst (talk) 09:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
@Redrose64 - I know, I was expressing surprise that they used it for that! Personally I wish people would spend less time recording changes in timetable etc and more on improving the historic sections of stations.Davidvaughanwells (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
@Redrose64, "using Wikipedia as a travel guide" isn't the same as "using Wikipedia for travel guidance"; people certainly do use it for the latter regardless of whether we want them to or not. This can encompass anything from "Does 'for Liverpool Airport' mean a short walk to the terminal or will I need to get a bus?" to "is there a news kiosk at Dovey Junction?" to "why are there three stations called 'West Hampstead'?" and all the other queries that National Rail Enquiries doesn't answer but people might want to know. I've always thought the idea that "it's useful" is an argument to avoid to be absolutely spurious; Wikipedia exists as a service to its readers, not its writers, and if there's evidence that substantial numbers of the readers find it interesting that Borough is the only station on the London Underground not to contain any of the letters of the word "Wikipedian" then that fact ought to be included even if it offends sensibilities. I do agree that a one-size-fits-all pattern isn't going to work; even with the smaller stations, for some stations the history is the important thing and the service pattern can be summed up in a dozen words (cf Sheringham), while for others the "history" will be "BR plonked a strip of concrete and a couple of benches at the side of the line to serve a recently-opened housing estate" and of little interest to anyone. ‑ iridescent15:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Where am I? ("Oh hell someone uploaded 100 photos of Westerns to Commons" edition)
The first, and possibly the third, would appear to be one of the two "Western Requiem" railtours of February 1977, from Paddington to Cardiff and the Welsh Valleys [1], [2]. On the second trip, D1010 apparently failed and was taken off at Cardiff. As the loco is detached from the train, I would hazard a guess that this is where the photo is. Optimist on the run (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it can be Cardiff Central, and nor can the photos be the same place - the track layout is different. And both appear to be the end of a branchline. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
The first one looks like Ebbw Vale, but I certainly wouldn't put any money on it. It would probably be worth asking at WP:WALES to see if anyone recognises any landmarks. ‑ iridescent17:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone know where I can get a photo showing the true extent of the Glenesk Bridge in Dalkeith? I am so far only able to find pictures on the top of the bridge and not beneath it or from nearby. I am trying to write a basic article on it. Thanks. Simplysouth ......time, deparment skies for just 9 years16:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Is that the one here or here? I'm hoping to get up to go on the new Borders Railway before Christmas - if it's not too far from the nearest station I should have time to break a journey for some photos. — An optimist on the run! (logged on as Pek the Penguin) 08:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Optimist. Thanks if you can. It is the first one. The second is of the Lothianbridge viaduct. Actually I have been in that area but I didn't have time to go to the bridge. From the Geograph pics it looks best if you access it from Ironmills Park but you might be able to get a view from the Eskbank side. I would say it would be a 20 mins to half hour walk from the station. If you want to see my mess of an article, see User:Simply south/Glenesk Bridge, Midlothian although it is obviously still under construction. Simplysouth ......time, deparment skies for just 9 years10:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Flying Scotsman first steam locomotive to 100mph? I'm pretty sure it wasn't. Doesn't that honour fall to City of Truro? Mjroots (talk) 13:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I think that the distinction is one of perceived authenticity - the LNER had a team of professional test personnel who used calibrated equipment that recorded the speed continuously, whereas the GWR's claim was based on calculations made by the journalist Charles Rous-Marten, who although reputable, did not have access to high-quality test equipment - he habitually recorded the speeds of the trains on which he travelled, using a stopwatch and the quarter-mile posts (900 divided by the time in seconds for the quarter mile gives the speed in mph). Since his speeds are only given at quarter-mile intervals, and not continuously, there has always been some disagreement over the interpretation of his timings. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I can see the value in mentioning the prototype in the Class 43 article, but there's enough detail to justify a separate article. And the 125 Group (who are operating the prototype) refer to it as 41001. I've been meaning to overhaul the HST articles for ... a long time. I knocked together bibliography last year if that's helpful to anyone. There's lots of overlap between the articles, but if they were all done properly to fit in with each other there's plenty of scope for all the articles we've got and probably a few more (the background, including BR modernisation/the APT/etc, is probably worth an article in its own right). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
There needs to be some detail of the prototype on the main Class 43 page. It is, after all, given TOPS class 43/9, which justifies its inclusion. There's not really much more than a "mention in passing" of the prototype. I agree that the prototype content on the 43 page doesn't need expanding, but it does nonetheless need to be included for completeness.
Disclosure - I'm a member of the 125 Group and a member of the GCR(N), although I wasn't involved in the restoration project I do volunteer on running days with 41001. But it was to some extent the Wikipedia articles that sparked my interest in it, so as far as I'm concerned the info on 41001 should stay on the page. Squirrel (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
@MadSquirrel: Nice to meet you. I'm also a member of the 125 Group, though thus far the extent of my involvement has been a few cheeky photos at the open day at Etches Park last year. I agree with you that it's well worth having some information on 41001 in the Class 43 article, but given that Class 41 has its own article, we should attempt to just summarise the key points in the 43 article and point readers to the 41 article if they want to know more. The two paragraphs that are in there at the minute are probably about right. We don't it to dominate the article, because the main focus of that article should be on the production version. For an analogy, consider how much weight the APT should be given in the main article on the HST—definitely relevant and worth summarising, but the detail should be reserved for the APT's own article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm with @HJ Mitchell: on this one. The prototype needs to be mentioned in passing on the Class 43 page, with references to the Class 41 page for full detail. What we've got now is just about right. The mechanics of the Class 41 prototype and Class 43 production locos are pretty much the same (indeed 41001's engine, S508, came out of a production loco).
There are some differences, the cab obviously, the prototype has buffers which were removed from the production loco, the prototype has both ETS and ETH supply whereas the production only has ETS, and the B end driving position was removed from the production loco. But it certainly deserves the brief mention on the 43 page. It's fine as it is. Squirrel (talk) 12:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Great Western Railway
Does anyone have time to stand back and take an overview of Great Western Railway (train operating company)? It seems to have accumulated a lot of cruft, unsourced in some cases, as well as some material that seems to me to violate WP:NOTTIMETABLE. I don't really have time to get to grips with it properly, plus I am not absolutely certain what the ideal TOC article should look like. -- Alarics (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The South Eastern Main Line is closed between Dover and Folkestone due to damage to the sea wall. This is likely to last until at least the end of February. Should the two RDTs covering the SEML be altered to reflect this? Mjroots (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
No, any more than we would alter the RDTs due to holiday blockades or overnight engineering work. The line is not disused, even if it is currently impassable. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
For info, no alterations were made to the relevant RDTs when the Oxted line closed in February 2014 and the Stainforth line via Hatfield colliery closed in 2013 after landslips. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I'd oppose changing the RDT if it's only projected to be a two-month closure. The precedent this would set would entail changing the London Underground, Strathclyde, GWR and Merseyrail maps every few days, since there's almost always at least one station or section of line on each of them closed for refurbishment at any given time. (And I dread to think what updating {{Manchester Metrolink}} in real-time would entail.) ‑ Iridescent22:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
@Iridescent: - I would not want to change RDTs for planned short-term closures (i.e. weekend engineering works). Longer term closures do warrant marking, such as that affecting the line between Oxford and Bicester in the recent past. The question is, what is "long term"? A month? Two , three, six or twelve months? Mjroots (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I'd say as a rule of thumb, six months or up and probably twelve. Bicester-Oxford is something of a special case, since that's closed to be replaced by a new line so would have needed rewriting anyway, but assuming the floods in the North don't let up any time soon, we're likely looking at a lot of short-to-medium-term line closures for emergency engineering work, and that's quite aside from all the shutdowns currently ongoing in the South (try getting a train to Gatwick Airport, for instance), and London Transport's rolling close-and-upgrade programme (Holland Park tube station is closed until at least August, for instance). If you want to rationalise "don't change the templates", then in most of these cases the line is still there, it just doesn't happen to have trains on it. ‑ Iridescent23:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Further to the above discussion, I've added a diagram to the Ihrhove–Nieuweschans railway article, showing the line closed with the bus replacement service between Leer and Bad Nieuweschans. Closure scheduled for the next 5 years or so due to a ship removing the bridge over the Ems. Mjroots (talk) 15:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Of late many articles seem to be acquiring lists, sometimes very long lists, of accidents, not only the Railway company home pages but also individual classes of locomotive, probably other places too. Is there an argument to suggest that these are over dominating the topics? The notability of Rail accidents is undeniable, but these lists do seem to be unbalancing the articles. Would it be better simply to have links to lists of accidents under a reasonable number of categories rather than the lists in so many places? It seems to me to does give the impression that most interesting thing about railways is railway accidents, which might well be true of the red top press, but maybe not ideal for a balanced encyclopedia. 212.159.44.170 (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately the railway is one of those items where it rarely makes the news unless bad things happen. Accidents are notable occurrences, and should be covered. The question is, as you state, where. I'd say for instance that the Pacer fire at Nailsea was notable for the class and for the location, but probably not for the TOC. There needs to be an avoidance of synthesis. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
In what way are accidents "not ideal for a balanced encyclopedia"? We cover it all, good and bad. That is how balance is achieved. Mjroots (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
What 212.159.44.170 meant was that in an article about the history of a railway, or the development of a locomotive class, a minor accident may not be "notable" enough to be mentioned. Obviously "Porter Bloggs tripped and stubbed his toe" isn't; Quintinshill / Armagh / Clapham Junction obviously are; it's a matter of degree, and of significance. But even Clapham Junction isn't especially relevant to a London and South Western Railway article; it could equally have happened elsewhere, and there was nothing specific about it to the LSWR main line.
Leeds to Church Fenton Line? Actually, maybe we should reconsider the deletion of the York & Selby article, it did have its uses. G-13114 (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
According to the National Rail designation, the section from Leeds to Hull via Micklefield (and Cross Gates) is known as the Selby Line. I would have a preference for avoiding the use of "York & Selby Lines" which was a Wiki-invention. Lamberhurst (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think Middleton Press have covered those lines yet. If I go to their home page, and under "Search our Index to Stations" search for stations like Cross Gates, Garforth, Micklefield, Church Fenton, Ulleskelf, Bolton Percy, none of relevance come back. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
The ORR refers to stations like Cross Gates, Garforth and Micklefield as being on the Leeds to Colton Junction Line, the line that branches off towards South Milford, Selby etc as on the Hull to Micklefield Line and Church Fenton and Ulleskelf also on the the Colton Junction Line (at least, according to the latest 2014/15 usage document before it was taken down). Simplysouth ......time, deparment skies for just 9 years17:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
The Lickey Incline on the Birmingham and Gloucester Railway was worked by American Noble 2-4-0 steam locomotives from the 1840s (despite Brunel & Stevenson saying it couldn’t be done); see Norris Locomotive Works. But was the Likey Incline (1 in 37.7) ever worked as a cable railway as was oriinally envisaged when the line was authorised in 1836? Neither article is specific. And when was the railway opened from end to end? The Belmont Plane on a Pennsylvanian canal was sucessfully demonstrated in 1836 though there was still scepticism that locomotives could operate on an incline (of 1 in 15?). Hugo999 (talk) 10:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Best book for this is
Long, P.J.; Awdry, W.V. (1987). The Birmingham and Gloucester Railway. Gloucester: Alan Sutton. ISBN0-86299-329-6.
you could also try
Whishaw, Francis (1842). The Railways of Great Britain and Ireland (2nd ed.). London: John Weale.
I'm certain that both say that it was always steam worked, and I'm also certain that both give opening dates. Don't recall reading about cable haulage in either one. Please note spelling of Stephenson, also that the early locos on the Birmingham & Gloucester were Norris 4-2-0, not Noble 2-4-0 --Redrose64 (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Interchange statistics
Are the interchange statistics really necessary for stations? It makes the infoboxes very difficult to read and build up an idea of what is going on. It's not particularly relevant for most people who just want to know how busy a local/often visited station is and want to know what the trend is. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm in favour of the idea being discussed on the infobox template talk to have the list collapsed by default. I think that interchanges are a useful measure, but they shouldn't be shown by default. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I find them pretty confusing to be honest. I think if we are going to have them, they should be in a separate section rather than interlaced with the main usage statistics. And they should only be used on stations which are significant interchange stations, rather than be used by default. G-13114 (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
My 2c worth is that this data is interesting as it gives a better idea of total station usage. BUT if it has to go in the infobox at all, it should have a separate section. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
At the risk of courting unpopularity (and certainly not wishing to offend) most of this article seems to be a general re-hash of material which I assume (but have not looked for) is covered in the station edits for the featured areas. Whilst a moderately useful summary, it will need to be kept up to date when timetables change e.g. Leeds in December 2018. Whilst I understand some people are happy to do this, I would make a plea for more effort to be put into historical research on small stations across the country many of which have poor coverage e.g. Horsforth railway station. I do acknowledge that we all have our own interests however and would not want to discourage people.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
@Redrose64:I think you missed the point - I am not interested enough in it but ireluctantly acknowledge other people are. As my post states, and I think it does belong here, that we rail contributors should be trying to improve the accuracy (or complete lack of) much historical content. Cheers (and thanks for your tireless edits on my contributions)--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Now, I start to remember. We were delayed so we couldnt complete the circuit via Newcastle. In the original plans I had the idea of going to Hadfield/Glossop and taking a walk in the Hills.Smiley.toerist (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
It would appear Cross Country Route has reached the transclusion limit (presumably due to the map). Looks like we'll have to hive the diagram off to another page and create a reduced version or something. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
It's hit that limit at least twice before, somebody then sorts it all out, then somebody else adds more detail w/o understanding why the detail has previously been removed. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Edits like this are like using a teacup to bail out a sinking boat. You need to find the hole and fix that - and it won't be in lightweight templates like {{rws}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I see that some time ago someone subst'ed the map template rather than transcluding it, but we've got the problem again. As the OP suggested, it may make sense to move the map off into another page, for now at least. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I recognize that not everyone likes {{Routemap}} and the new syntax but converting the Cross Country map would dramatically reduce memory usage and solve this problem. Mackensen(talk)15:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
As at least a temporary fix I've moved the route diagram out to a separate page (Cross Country Route diagram) so that the rest of the templates in the article (including reference citations) can be displayed. If someone wishes to improve the links and formatting they are, of course, welcome to do so. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I created a new category in the Commons as the (2008 in rail transport in the United Kingdom) is getting quite large. I reduced it a bit by moving some to the London subcategories (main stations). Maybe some other subcategories should be created. 2008 on the London Overground? The other later years are also big and should tackled. I prefer a systematic approach.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Rodw brought this article to my attention as needing inline citations. Frankly it's barely an article at all currently, but I was wondering whether it even should be. The only place I've ever heard it mentioned is by the CRP. The track it covers is, apart from Castle Cary to Upwey, is entirely subsumed by the Wessex Main Line and the Berks & Hants Line. Does anyone know when the term "Heart of Wessex Line" came in to being? Is there a different name for the Castle Cary to Weymouth bit we should be using? -mattbuck (Talk) 21:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
In answer to your second question, no there isn't. Here is National Rail's named lines and I would see if Network Rail's RUS for Great Western or similar had the same evidence if the website wasn't mucking up. Simplysouth ......time, deparment skies for just 9 years21:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I have been working on an article about Davyhulme Sewage Works, which had an internal railway from the 1890s until 1958. Details are mentioned in the text, and details of the 17 locomotives used are included in their own section. Should I add the article to WikiProject UK Railways, and if so, which banner do I use? Bob1960evens (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that makes sense. With hindsight, I think what was bothering me more than consistency was that surely there never was a "South Eastern Railway, UK", that being an invention for WP. I do think it needs moving, and agree that it and the North Eastern Railway can be moved as primary. Nortonius (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
It's BR's generic departmental livery for coaching stock: rail blue, yellow and black in the usual places, red where grey would have been. Oh, and it's a Park Royal Class 103 so is probably nos. RDB975089/90. These were "Track Recording Cars" based at RTC, Derby according to
Fox, Peter (1984). Departmental Coaching Stock (1st ed.). Sheffield: Platform 5 Publishing. p. 60. ISBN0-906579-37-6.
Basically, as the new Edinburgh Trams had opened a new tram stop right outside the station, also called Haymarket, I thought it should be treated as a multi-modal station, in the same vein as West Croydon station, and moved the article to Haymarket (Edinburgh) station, as the Haymarket station space was already in use, and it was in line with the article disambiguation conventions. But someone yesterday objected, and moved it back to Haymarket railway station. So your thoughts would be appreciated on the talk page. G-13114 (talk) 13:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Doncaster-Swinton is a mystery. There are just two open stations: Conisbrough and Mexborough. The ORR usage report groups them with "Swinton - Brocklesby Jcn", which includes the South Humberside Main Line to Barnetby. Various Network Rail documents [6][7] refer to this as "Doncaster South Yorkshire Junction to Swinton Junction" but this is more descriptive than a proper name. Mackensen(talk)19:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
It would be conjectural and descriptive, but how about Swinton to Doncaster Line, describing the entire piece? That would at least group the related content in the same place, and could be easily renamed if a more official name is discovered? Mackensen(talk)13:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Please can an admin have a look at Great Grimsby Street Tramways where text taken from Grimsby District Light Railway (where it had been since 2006) has been deleted as a copyvio on the basis that a page on a wiki-clone site created since 2007 had the same text. Full details on the talk page of the first article. As a non-admin I can't undo the deletion by an admin who didn't bother to reply to the message on the talk page. It would be a shame to lose the text wrongly expunged. Lamberhurst (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
@Lamberhurst: You should have discussed this with Diannaa first as the deleting admin. She will be aware of this discussion now, so we may as well continue here. I'm not minded to take any action until there has been full discussion. Mjroots (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I have restored the material. Sorry for the mistake. The bot got the source wrong. I hunted for it on Wikipedia, but since the material had already been removed from the source page, I did not find it (and unfortunately didn't notice the note on the talk page). Copying within Wikipedia is of course permitted, but attribution is required. At a minimum, we are supposed to do this by saying in the edit summary on the destination article which article we copied the material from. There's also templates available, which should have been used in this case. This problem would have been avoided if that would have been done. I have restored the material and added the required attribution, but note there's a problem with the citations. I have taken a guess at what they are supposed to be, but if someone could check, that would be great. — Diannaa (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I'd say if it can be sourced yes, since the information does no harm and is potentially useful to readers. (People may want to know if a former station is now retail premises and thus open to the public, for instance, or be interested in what proportion of former Great Fooland and Barshire Railway stations are now private residences; it's not our job to tell readers what they ought to consider important.) "If it can be sourced" is the key phrase here, and a photo on its own is certainly not a reliable source in the Wikipedia sense. ‑ Iridescent01:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Not admissible I'm afraid. First, it's sourced to Wikipedia and so goes against WP:CIRCULAR; second, as noted above a photo is not a reliable source in the Wikipedia sense. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
If a historic building is now a private residence, that fact is generally worthy of mention and not a violation of the resident's privacy. If we state who lives there then that's intrusive.
In this case: Its for sale, making it trivial to find info from estate agents. Calling an estate agent a reliable source is a contradiction in terms, but does allow us to say "it is for sale, as a residential property". I'm not sure if that is worth mentioning - the station master's house is now a house? What a surprise! :) What happened to the rest of the station is more significant.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Per the earlier consensus established either here or at TWP, I've redrawn the two RDTs covering the SEML to show the line as closed between Folkestone and Dover. Apparently the original wooden viaduct has rotted after a mere 170 years and the whole of that stretch of line will need to be rebuilt. This means that the line will have been closed in excess of 6 months by the time it reopens.
Now, where can I find an image of the original wooden viaduct before it was infilled. Sure I've seen one in a book somewhere. Mjroots (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I held off replying until I looked at my copy of Green, Chris; Vincent, Mike (2014). The Network SouthEast Story 1982–2014. Hersham: Oxford Publishing Co. ISBN978-0-86093-653-4.. I'm inclined to agree with your suggestion, as the technical specs given in the book make it clear there were minimal differences betweeen the three classes. It does though raise the issue of what to do with British Rail Class 204, which was used for two different sets of units at different times. The following table (for ref purposes, it is Table E1, p.204) shows the technical details of each class, and proves that they were more or less identical...
@Hassocks5489: The Class 203s (6B) units originally had buffet cars. AFAIK, they were recoded 5L when the buffet cars were withdrawn in the 1980s. As for the class 204 article, it could be split, but that's in the medium to long term. I recently acquired Robertson, Kevin; Abbinnett, Hugh (2012). Southern Region DEMUs. Hersham: Ian Allan Publishing Ltd. for a bargain £5. Plenty of info there to do all SR DEMUs justice. That, combined with Beecroft's excellent book on the Hastings Units will be the basis of the new article. I'll probably make a start towards the end of the week. Mjroots (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Good stuff; I will keep an eye on it. Looking again at the table, I see at the bottom "Source: Colin Marsden", but whether it's based on personal communications with the authors or one of his many books I can't tell (I can't see any of his books listed in the bibliography). Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!)22:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Class 201 or 6S: short frames (56'11" instead of the normal 63'5"). No buffet.
Class 202 or 6L: long frames (63'5"). No buffet.
Class 203 or 6B: long frames, buffet.
That's all the difference that there really was, until the 1980s when shortages of certain types of car forced exotic formations and some of the class codes got repurposed. Even before that, the disbandment of three 6S units early on released eighteen trailer cars, only twelve of which were required to form the 3R units (later Class 206) the remaining six (three each TFK and TSO) were spares. If one of these short-frame cars was formed into a long-frame 6L unit, that unit would remain as 6L. Removal of a buffet car from a 6B unit and its replacement by a TSO (of either length) caused reclassification to 6L. 5L was a later code caused by insufficient cars needed for complete 6L units to be formed. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
There were a few other minor differences, which will be covered. 6B units were higher lower geared (& faster) on introduction. Mjroots (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
No. But I've now found it in Beecroft - p. 23, apparently the standard gear ratio was 65:16, with the 6B units having 61:20 "when new, but were subsequently fitted with 65:16".
I must buy that 2012 book - I have met Kevin Robertson several times, and even been to his house near Petersfield (his garage is full of second-hand railway books). The books he has written are generally well researched. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I've made a start. Please restrain yourselves from editing the article for now. I'll expand the article more tomorrow. Mjroots (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I've bashed the new article into something resembling a shape. There is still material to be carried over from the existing articles, so these can stay for the short term. I'm leaning towards leaving the navbox links unchanged until such time that the existing articles are converted into redirects. Please feel free to rip my work to pieces as usual improve the article as you see fit. Mjroots (talk) 09:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Could I ask project members to look over this new article to make sure I haven't made any omissions, errors of fact or interpretation. Any and all edits welcome! I will be finishing it off tonight. Thx, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!)13:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Cheers; I've given them a mention under Class 411 (on the basis that those units usually operated the Kent boat trains, I believe) while I look for more info. Neither Green & Vincent nor the NSE Handbook cover them, unfortunately. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!)23:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
They're not GLVs but MLVs, Class 419. They had two motor bogies (compared to the single motor bogie of a Class 411 motor coach) and were powerful enough to haul a substantial tail load. Having batteries, they were often used on non-electrified lines such as those to Folkestone Harbour. I imagine they might move wagons between main line and harbour, to save on the cost of bringing in a shunter. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure they got used on the Gatwick Express services because of their extra luggage capacity, hence GLV (Gatwick Luggage Van). BTW, it was Dover that had non-electrfied lines. The Folkestone Harbour Branch was electrified.Mjroots (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
The table of stock types seems to omit loco-hauled coaching stock. This was used on several routes before new multiple units were built.Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
IIRC the depots with the largest allocations of NSE-liveried coaching stock were Cambridge and Old Oak Common, and they were mainly the older types - Marks 1, 2, 2a, 2b. Those at Old Oak were mainly used on the twice-hourly fast services to Oxford, and a seven-coach train often included some Mark 1 corridor seconds. This was also one of the last regular jobs for Class 50. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I have just found photos have been removed from Woodbridge and Melton station pages all of which I felt helped illustrate the nature of those stations. Is this a decision that has been made in Wikipedia I am unaware of or has the editor decided unilaterally that they should be removed? --Davidvaughanwells (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Further to my last comment - I see that one of the relevant edits was this one. Another argument for removal of the "gallery" here is that it was a single image, for which the normal image markup would have been much more suitable. --Redrose64 (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I think the Melton photo was one of my earliest additions and generally I include them within the text. So that I am clear then - adding photos in the sections of text or info boxes is fine but adding a gallery is not and there should be a link to Commons. Thanks for your help.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 13:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
That's right. Occasionally there is a legitimate reason to include gallery tags, but it's pretty rare, and general photos of a station would not be such a circumstance. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I am trying to ascertain the position of the original Lewisham station. Until today I always thought the existing station was the original but the copy of the 1857 accident report (http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/BoT_Lewisham1857.pdf) suggests its between the new (present) station and Blackheath. I am assuming it was located on the other side of the Lewisham Road bridge but would appreciate confirmation (with source?).--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Old OS Maps - a link from the geohack page - is your friend. This, with luck, will confirm that the station was to the east on t'other side of a road ... the station is labelled and you can just about see it at the resolution offered by the mapping site. --Tagishsimon(talk)09:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
