Could someone have a read of the South Tynedale Railway article with an eye to potential copyvios? I'm not awake enough to be certain but it feels like it's the sort of bloggy style prose that one would find on the railway's website. Thryduulf (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Thryduulf I had a poke around, doesn't seem to be from their website, or any other I can find. I even trawled through the Wayback Machine, but zilch. I do know what you mean about the feel of it, and I could be completely wrong. Perhaps if it was lifted from a web-source, that webpage has long-since been removed from the www? I do think the article needs work and citations; I did add one cite and tidied a little. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 13:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
I Googled a few random sentences from it, and the only one that got a hit was the first sentence of the "Developments" section. That, and the following few sentences, are taken from this 2012 blog (which admittedly might have been written have been written by the same person). As with so many UK heritage railway articles though, much of it is very out of date and lacking in sources. Mwsmith20 (talk) 16:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
See British Rail Class 390#Names. I think this is the perfect example of what Wikipedia should not be. It's not a directory, nor a collection of indiscriminate information / trivia. I think this example fails WP:DETAIL. In my opinion we should trim the section right back to just a handful (less than 10) of notable names, i.e. namings that resulted in press coverage rather than just entries in a single (list) reference. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
I disagree - I think the content has its place when it is sourced. Being selective could be seen as us being subjective. Garuda3 (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
In general, I think that section has far too much detail, much of it transient in nature (as shown by the frequency of renamings). My only hesitation is that in this case, it is well sourced / referenced and is (currently) up to date - albeit with a risk of that not being maintained. There is a vast number of railway articles which have excessive detail which is not sourced and is also hopelessly out of date (e.g. see many heritage railway articles). On that basis, I'm very supportive of reducing unnecessary detail, but this article wouldn't be remotely near any list of worst examples. Mwsmith20 (talk) 10:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
We do this for some steam loco classes, e.g. List of GWR 4900 Class locomotives, but the majority of named steam locos tended to be named when new, or almost-new, and also tended to keep their names until withdrawal. That said, some classes (e.g. LMS Royal Scot Class, nos. 6125-49, and LNER Class A4) did have a disproportionately-high number of renamings.
I have noticed that in modern times (like, from about 1990 on), locomotives and multiple-units were often named with a lot of publicity, particularly in local press, and a few years later the names were quietly dropped, by which time the local interest had also vanished. Names do tend to be a lot more transient than they once were. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
As long as it is cited, which this appears to be, see no problem. Keeping track of contemporary namings / denamings is easily done with several of the industry magazines having sections in each edition that track. Either include them all or none at all, trying to decide which are notable and which aren't would be impossible. Of more concern are the lists, of which there are many, on railway articles that have existed for years uncited and while perhaps correct at the time of writing, are now horribly out of date. Symondsyat (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
RAIL magazine 17 April 2024
Hi,
Does anyone have access to a copy of the 17 April 2024 edition of RAIL magazine please? If so, could you tell me the page number of the article by Philip Haigh on the recent proposals for Kent–Gatwick services? I would like to complete the following reference:
Haigh, Philip (17 April 2024). "NR explores resurrection of direct Kent–Gatwick trains". RAIL. No. 1007.
Hi,
I’ve recently been doing some work on the Redhill–Tonbridge line. I have struggled a little to find good photos to illustrate the article and I wondered if anyone had any pictures of the line in their own collections, that they might be willing to upload to Commons? It would be great to have some photos of passenger and goods trains from before 2008 (including steam, diesel and electric locomotives/multiple units). I’d also be very grateful for any pictures of the station buildings and signal boxes at Nutfield, Godstone, Edenbridge and Penshurst.
Thanks and best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 15:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
When would you say would be the best time to create an article on this station? I have information about when Alconbury Weald new development was built and when the station was roughly first proposed, as well as news articles saying consideration may be applied after the new election (obviously since happened, but not sure about the application). The station is to be located between Huntingdon and Peterborough, probably served only by GTR. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 13:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
For "conversation", read "full-blown thirty-day formal WP:RFC". With everybody who doesn't give a tinker's cuss for railways, least of all British ones, getting involved. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Mjroots – that was my intention when I started adding to it yesterday with books from my collection. Ideally, if other editors could add their own books/sources, it would become a go-to reference for anybody seeking to expand a station article. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!)18:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
I've added the UK-related Middleton Press books I own to the page. Please add those you own. If already listed just add your name to the existing entry. Mjroots (talk) 08:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Question about categories
I notice that The Little Chinese Engine (talk·contribs) is modifying a number of UK train articles and changing the category "Locomotives introduced in YYYY" to a different date. What is the accepted convention? He/she is using the date that manufacturing started, as opposed to the date the first unit was delivered, or the date the first unit started testing, or the first unit entered service? IMO it should be one of the latter three not the one they're all being changed to. Thoughts? Should the changes be reverted? 10mmsocket (talk) 17:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
OTTOMH I'd expect "introduced" to be the date the first example entered revenue service. I don't immediately recall any discussions about this though. Thryduulf (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
What Thryduulf said. For steam locomotives, most books give only one date, but it is not always easy to obtain a date that is consistent between different railway companies; two different books may give two different kinds of event as the date when the loco was new, and some even give dates without stating exactly what event is being dated. Where the kind of event is stated, I have seen the following:
Physically completed, except for painting
Painting completed
Left the manufacturer's premises
Arrived on the customer's tracks
Testing completed
Entered revenue-earning service (which may be described as "entered traffic")
Date that payment was completed / date that the loco was added to stock (i.e. added to the asset register)
These events did not necessarily occur in that order: some railways only paid for locomotives once a "trial mileage" had been attained, and this would be accumulated in normal service, not on dedicated test runs. Some split the painting stage - painting with primer coats, then testing out on the line, then painting with finishing coats. Timescales could be quite lengthy, especially with modern trains that are stuffed with electronics. For example, London Underground 1995 Tube Stock began delivery in December 1995, testing began in early 1997 but the first train entered service in June 1998, so this for me would be a 1998 introduction. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Based on the cooridnates in the articles, Ashley Down is just north of Ashley Hill so should be between there and Horfield on the diagram. I'll leave making the edit to someone who understands the RDT syntax Thryduulf (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Isn't Ashley Down station on the same site as Ashley Hill (literally the same old platforms being dug out and refurbished). It's not in the location that recent road-centric Bristolians would generally think of as 'Ashley Down'. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
If the coords in our Ashley Hill railway station and Ashley Down railway station articles are correct, the new station is a little (1.62 arcseconds, or about 50 metres) to the north of the old. But it's very close: 50 metres is about two coach lengths, so there is probably an overlap of the respective platform ends, if not the bulk of the platforms. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
The page for the new Ashley Down station says that in January 2018, it was revealed that plans had been revived to reopen the station... A reference in the MetroWest article clearly states that it is built on the same site.[1]
50 metres is shorter than the new platforms. It is also closer than Warren Halt was to its 1912 replacement at Dawlish Warren, and they are both covered by a single article.
Agree 100% with Geof. If I remember correctly, the access to the new station will be the same as for the old station. Also worth noting that the article for the new station is essentially a WP:CONTENT FORK from the old one by Mattdaviesfsic last year after removing the redirect to the older station. Lamberhurst (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
June 2024 timetable updates?
I'm surprised some TOC articles have not been updated to the June 2024 timetables. Is there anyone in this WikiProject willing to make these changes? Jalen Barks(Woof)22:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Do we have guidelines, or established consensus, on the very prominent photos that go in the UK rail-related infoboxes, be it stations, or rolling stock, or other? I ask because the image on the left has been on Norwich railway station for some time. It's 16 years old but it is clear and shows the building well. The image on the right, added yesterday by @LeadPoisoning is 5 years old, but to me it's inferior because of the "clutter". By that I mean the parked cars and the prominence of the street furniture, especially the lamp posts, which obscure and distract from the building. I think the original is better so I have reverted and encouraged LeadPoisoning to discuss on the article's talk page per WP:BRD. Whether that discussion takes place there or here I'm keen to know whether such things are covered by existing guidelines/consensus. An infobox image is so important to the article as it's the first thing a reader is likely to see. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
As per MOS:IMAGEQUALITY, images showing the station "hidden in clutter, or ambiguous; and so on—should not be used unless absolutely necessary". The image on the left of Norwich Thorpe is better for me not only because of the lack of clutter but also the light and perspective is clearer. Lamberhurst (talk) 10:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
I think it varies - in this case the older photo is better but if the station had substantially changed, I would go for a newer photo even if it was more cluttered as it is more representative of the subject as it is now. Garuda3 (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree. The 2008 picture (wait, 16 years ago????) has better quality, has blue skies and has less cars. The only thing I can see that has changed in this pic is the Pumpkin café which has since been turned into an M&S for a short while. In other words, barely anything has changed (at least from this angle) since 2008. It may also be recommended to check out this Google Street View link from July 2024JuniperChill (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
I am failing to see any 'drastic' changes between the two dates, and I agree that the earlier image is a better photograph. A primary image (eg the infobox image) for an article on a current subject (eg a station that is still operational) should reflect the current state of the subject, but that does not compel us to provide regular updates. (Would they be annually? Monthly? The ultimate solution would be a live webcam!) Significant rebuilding or redecoration should be recorded, but in this case I see no need to change the image of a building, the front of which has not changed much in 138 years, let alone the last 16.
You should generally use the best image available. It only matters if it is old if the station has changed significantly in appearance, and that doesn't seem to be the case here. 16 years ago is only 2008! G-13114 (talk) 12:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
I have added pre-grouping info for August 1921 based on values drawn from the Signalling Record Society line data (Q127932823) pages, and extended that to the grouping era for companies that exclusively became part of one of the big four.
But what would be most appropriate for sections operated by joint railways in 1921 -- eg the ones returned by this query tinyurl.com/mwpuvswb -- for joint railways that were 'inherited' by more than one of the 1923 Big Four ?
Only one joint railway - the Portpatrick and Wigtownshire Joint Railway - was explicitly named in the Railways Act 1921, and it was to be grouped into the LMS - not surprising, as all of its pre-group co-owners were LMS constituents. For the other joint railways, two situations emerged straight away:
All of the pre-group co-owners were constituents of the same post-group railway (e.g. the Great Northern and Great Eastern Joint Railway): the joint railway was implicitly grouped along with its co-owners
The pre-group co-owners became constituents of different post-group railways, so the joint railway continued to exist, albeit with new co-owners
The Transport Act 1947 avoided these problems by explicitly naming all the joint railways, even those where all co-owners were to become part of British Railways alone.
It appears that our list at List of constituents of British Railways#Joint railways isn't entirely complete. The definitive list is the one in the original text of the 1947 Act, which may be found at the Third Schedule to the 1947 Act. This includes a catch-all clause Any other body whose members consist wholly of, or of representatives of, two or more of the above mentioned bodies., something lacking from the 1921 Act. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Following on from Redrose64's post above, what about pre-grouping joint railways, such as the London and North Western & Great Western Joint Railway? Mjroots (talk) 04:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
The news article, after explaining that the two companies involved are the LNWR and GWR, says "built expressly for the joint railway companies", I think meaning built jointly to the order of both companies, not a joint company. Nthep (talk) 15:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
@Mjroots: I have a feeling that jointly-owned ships come into a different category than jointly-owned railway lines. They did exist: the LNWR and L&YR had several jointly-owned ships, working out of Fleetwood and other ports.
I think you probably need to read up on the service of ferries 'cross the Mersey that served the landing stage at Monk's Ferry (Birkenhead), to find out the actual ownership of these vessels. All I really know is that: (a) when the GWR and LNWR jointly purchased the Birkenhead Railway in 1860, the locomotive, carriage and wagon fleets were split up (for example, the GWR got 21 locomotives out of 42), so the ships owned by the Birkenhead Railway may also have been divided up, each ship becoming wholly owned by one partner or the other; (b) when Birkenhead Woodside railway station was opened on 1 April 1878, Birkenhead Monks Ferry railway station was downgraded to a goods station, and the small fleet of three railway-owned vessels that had served Monk's Ferry were redundant - of these, Thames was later sold to the London, Tilbury and Southend Railway, whilst Severn and the other one were eventually moved to Carlingford Lough. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
I light of the above information, I've altered the list of ship launches to link both companies individually. Mjroots (talk) 05:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
@Barrymarkd may not be an experienced Wikipedia editor, but it is clear that he knows a lot about public transportation systems. He has tried a couple of times to reference his own self-published book How To Build A Metro. Yes I know it rings WP:COI and WP:SPS alarm bells, but go take a look, it's very interesting and well written. It is within the WP:SPS guideance to allow referencing to self published works by knowledgeable authors and in this case I think it's something that we could use. Thoughts? 10mmsocket (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
My question then, if {{stnlink}} does basically nothing, why have it, if we can just use normal [[ ]] wikiliks? Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. About me; Talk to me. Farewell fellow editor... 22:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
It exists because some editors prefer it as it is easier to type. Personally I just use plain wikilinks, but my preference is no more or less valid than any other editor's. Thryduulf (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
If you prefer writing links out in full, you can use {{subst:stnlnk}}. For example {{subst:stnlnk|Birmingham New Street}} expands to [[Birmingham New Street|Birmingham New Street railway station]]. — Voice of Clam (talk)08:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
I've come across this photograph on Commons, and I would like to identify which sort of DMU this is so I can categorise it. G-13114 (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
It's definitely a Cravens unit (all Cravens DMUs had that window arrangement, which was not used by any other builder), so we have five potential classes: 105, 106, 112, 113 or 129. 129 may be eliminated as being the wrong coupling code and the wrong part of the country; 113 may also be eliminated as they all had four-character headcode boxes mounted in the roof dome, and two marker lights above the buffers. Class 106 all had four marker lights and no headcode box, as did the earlier Class 105 units. However, the later Class 105 units had a front-end appearance identical to Class 112: two marker lights and a two-character headcode. I don't recall coming across the use of Class 112 on the former Great Central main line, it's most probably a Class 105. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
.jpg)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Now in the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC) 
