Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives September - December 2006

Contents 1 TWP importance ratings for BR locomotives and rolling stock 2 InterCity East Coast franchise 3 Usage stats 4 another move 5 Electrification 6 List of Categories 7 Proposed template deletion 8 S-Rail template 9 Stn art lrnk 10 Crossrail boxes 11 Class 378 12 WP:TRAIL 13 Great Western Main Line 14 Accident at Sonning Cutting 14.1 References 15 Proposed move: Grayrigg derailment -> Cumbria rail crash

[edit] TWP importance ratings for BR locomotives and rolling stock

In working through Category:Unknown-importance rail transport articles, I've almost reached the more than 300 articles listed there that are named "British Rail ____". Since I'm not as familiar with British locomotives and rolling stock as I am with North American stock, I'd greatly appreciate it if some of your project team members would jump in to help with the importance grading on these articles for the TrainsWikiProject template (but please keep in mind that this importance is among rail transport topics worldwide). Thanks! Slambo (Speak) 21:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If no one does anything have a go (good old nag ;) )at me in a few weeks time when i *might* have some more time to give it a bit of lookover Pickle 20:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] InterCity East Coast franchise

Do you think this was too early that i created an article on thisas the bids for this had been submitted yesterday? Simply south 21:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

No, not really considering we have the whole second box attached to the "British TOCs" template

v • d • e Current scheduled passenger train operators in Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Domestic:	Arriva Trains Wales - c2c - Central Trains1 - Chiltern Railways - First Capital Connect First Great Western - First ScotRail - Grand Central2 - GNER - Heathrow Connect Hull Trains - Island Line3 - Merseyrail - Midland Mainline1 - Northern Rail Northern Ireland Railways4 - 'one' - Silverlink1 - Southeastern - Southern South West Trains - TransPennine Express - Virgin Trains (VWC - VXC1)
International:	Enterprise4 - Eurostar
Airport Link:	Gatwick Express - Heathrow Express - Stansted Express5
Sleeper:	Caledonian Sleeper6 - Night Riviera7
1 Ends November 2007 - 2 Starts 20 May 2007 - 3 Operated by South West Trains 4 Operated on the Irish railway network - 5 Operated by 'one' - 6 Operated by First ScotRail 7 Operated by First Great Western

Future passenger train operators and franchises in Great Britain
New Franchises:	Cross Country1 - East Midlands1 - InterCity East Coast - London Overground1 West Midlands1
Proposed open-access operators:	Glasgow Trains2 - Grand Union2 - Humber & City2 - Wrexham & Shropshire3
1 Starts November 2007 - 2 Proposed - 3 Awaiting Approval

Pickle 14:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Usage stats

I've been busy updating all railway station articles with the latest (2004-2005) usage stats. For every page in the categories:

• Category:Railway stations in England (Except sub category Category:Railway stations in London which will take me a bit longer)
• Category:Railway stations in Scotland
• Category:Railway stations in Wales

Where the page has an info box with old usage stats, I've updated them from the latest Office of Rail Regulation stats. I've made in the region of 400 updates which equates to 16% of the 2502 stations in the ORR document. So that is how many had the old stats.

Some of the articles had the new stats but didn't have exits0405 or lowexits0405 so the text at the bottom of the info box would be incorrect. I suspect there are many stations in Wales and Scotland without info boxes. Adambro 21:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Further to my previous comments, I'd welcome opinions on whether the 2004/2005 data should replace the 2002/2003 data, or should be in addition to it. My opinion is the former. This is because both datasets only give a basic idea of station usage anyway and also because "the methodology for calculating station usage data has improved since the 2002-03 data were calculated"[1], which I would suggest makes including both figures for the purpose of providing a comparison of the usage not very useful. Adambro 15:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

IMHO over the long term i don't it would be useful to have a long list of annual usage over the years. if there was a notable shift between years or over time (eg new town built, or something major) the station article would surly discus it and cite the data. Pickle 16:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I've being bold and removed the old data from some articles where it facilitates making the info box simpler (changing from 'usage' to the more common 'exits' variable). The intention is to ensure a consistent style of station articles. Adambro 16:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] another move

if anyone is interested, WP:RM London to Ashford to Dover Line --> South Eastern Main Line. Simply south 20:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Electrification

Is there any reason why on articles for lines which are "notelectrified", the "not" is in bold? Chris cheese whine 20:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That was probably me, and i only did it in an area where most of the line were electrified to highlight their unusual status compared to their neighbours (eg Marshlink, Oxted, GOBLIN, etc). Where electrification is rare (eg Scotland, beyond Glasgow) i haven't done so. Its part of my to do list about rail electrification you can find at the talk page of Railway electrification in Great Britain. Pickle 21:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Categories

A few questions about this list....

1) It is noted that the list is 'incomplete', but how complete is it expected to be? I can see the benefit of not listing every 'by county' sub-cat, but are there any others that should be excluded? Perhaps an explanatory sentence at the start of the list to define its scope would be helpful – having just looked, there is NO indication of its scope at present, just the implied assumption that the cats are related to the project in some way.

2) What is the significance of a bold title? Should all parent cats be in bold, or which? Again, a note at the start of the list would be helpful.

3) What is the significance of 'Disused railway goods stations in the United Kingdom'? This is in the list, but not as a cat. If it is a proposed or anticipated sub-cat, then it would be better to show it initially as a red-link. Otherwise, ...?

EdJogg 14:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I was fed up hunting around in the old list, so I thought that it would be worthwhile breaking it down into sub-sections. I did a trawl through the "high level" categories and included the subcategories that seemed most likely to be needed - either by editors wanting to find suitable categories for new pages, or by people looking for certain types of article. Just starting at Category:Rail transport and browsing can be pretty frustrating - I know!

The bold lines were inserted purely to make it easier to find the larger categories. Initially I was going to keep it to just the first level of bullets, but that didn't work for the Big Four companies.

Thanks to everyone who has spotted (and sorted out) any odd errors. It would be useful if we could look at our articles and check that the categories are appropriate/not too high level/complete. That way we can encourage more readers of our project's articles. Geof Sheppard 08:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have revised the introductory text to state the scope of the list and indicate the formatting conventions used. I hope it is useful as a set of FAQs rather than just being a case of 'stating the obvious'! EdJogg 09:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed template deletion

The {{Stn_art_lnk}} template has been proposed for deletion - the "Wikipedia is not a timetable" discussion of last year rears its head again!

Please join in with the discussion. Geof Sheppard 08:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Result was to keep! see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 26#Template:Stn art lnk Pickle 10:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] S-Rail template

The old route information on the St Erth railway station page (and a couple of others in Cornwall) has been changed to use the S-Rail template. I cannot see many stations outside the London area which use this style of template.

It has made these information tables much larger and created extra lines for all the different stopping patterns. In particular Virgin Trains now have two lines for trains to Glasgow or Edinburgh via one route, and Glasgow and Aberdeen via another. There are only three trains a day from St erth to Scotland - one to Dundee and two to Glasgow!

Unless someone can show how to reduce these to the simpler versions used previuosly, where each operator need just one line per route, then I propose to revert these pages to the old style. Geof Sheppard 08:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

its the (very hard and complex) work of Mackensen. I can see where your coming from, it has increased the size of the data shown. On the other hand there is large project to replace the current rail line template with s-rail (the tube and dlr has been done, and lots of other metros across the world). IMHO despite this increase its worth sticking with S-rail because globally across UK railway stations pages (all 2,000 odd of them) it does offer more features over rail line. Pickle 10:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

But why has this been started in the first place? While I realise standardisation can be a good thing, I have counted up a total of 84 seperate templates that have needed to be created just for the National Rail network alone. And that is just up to now. I have no objection to using the s-rail template as a header, but why are templates needed for every company and every route, when the {{rail line}} template is available, and flexible enough to be used to show any route of any company? Hammersfan 08/03/07, 14.50 GMT

This was a massive change to make without agreement. I'm happy enough to use S-Rail, but not if it means all the baggage that Mackensen has added. Who wants to know about each VT service that they can change with every new timetable? - it gets close to breaking the "WP is not a timetable" rule. It has added a huge block towards the end of every major station on the WCML: only the most dedicated of readers will want to see anything beyond it. --Concrete Cowboy 17:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There's been ample discussion at WikiProject trains. I'm rather put out no one informed me of the discussion here and that I had to stumble on it myself. I would also note that I immediately responded to Hammersfan's initial query (see [2]) but received no response in return. S-rail/s-line is the work of many people over the past several months and not just me, and has received considerable support. I confess I was quite surprised when I received this note from Hammersfan on my talk page [3]. I hope the forthcoming discussion is a bit more collegial than that. Mackensen (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

If this [4] is the discussion we're talking about then I'm not sure what we're going to accomplish. That edit had stood for several weeks. Suddenly Hammersfan reverts with no edit summary. Now, we're all free to edit each other mercilessly but it's clear that Hammersfan's idea of "discussion" is to go through my edit history and revert blindly: [5]. If you consult my talk page you'll see that I've engaged in discussion with many editors about these templates, including Hammersfan, though he never actually responded to me (and then had the gall to claim that I'd never responded to him, and that I had in fact removed his query, which is completely untrue). I would appreciate a response from someone on these matters. Mackensen (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

IMHO we in the UK are far behind on this one. s-rail is being used all across Wikipedia particularly in the states, the tube, etc - IMHO it offers a lot more flexibility than "rail line". A simple station on a simple line (ie station b on a line from a to b to c) is relatively simple (and "rail line" suffices) but I've encountered many stations in "my patch" (Kent and SE London) where "rail line" has reached the limits of its usefulness. Granted some debate is needed around the obscure services, but IMHO the users out there can quickly see if a railway station well connected, etc without Wikipedia becoming a timetable. Pickle 13:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I've finally got around to having a go at implementing this in my patch down south here (South East - Essex, Kent, Sussex, etc) and Hammersfan has reverted all my edits without so much as an edit summary. I could really take this wrong way and throw my toys out of the pram. But what the **** have i done wrong to warrant this kind of witch hunt against all the edits I've done. IMHO the rail line template has reached the limit of its technical abilities, and i feel s-rail offers the simplicity and usability that i want to show the data i want to show to the users. Is there some sort of lack of consensus in the UK rail community (Not on the tube, Tyne and Wear or the rest of the world it seams) or even rejection of s-rail ??? Comments from all editors on this would be welcome before i go off and bite Hammersfan head off, perhaps unjustifiably ???Pickle

You're not the only one. I've had encounters with Hammersfan and his edit reversions – we had a spate of nigh-on edit-warring about 'fictional rail boxes' and redirects related to the WP:THOMAS articles and going against project policy. Thankfully that seems to be in abeyance now, although we have had to re-revert some of his changes several times. Seems a shame really as some of his edits have been quite useful. EdJogg 22:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hammersfan replied at my talk apge;

I completely disagree with your view regarding the {{rail line}} template. I have seen how complicated the s-rail template is - I did a count of how many individual templates were required to set up the routes that had already been set up, and it came to over 80. Is this a reasonable use of resources in your opinion? I don't believe it is, especially given that individual templates need to be set up for individual routes, leading to multiple templates for each TOC. By contrast, the rail line template, and its half-dozen or so variants, can (and has) been used for any route of any operator. My further objections include the fact that the s-rail template does not sit comfortably on pages - because most of the National Rail station articles are stubs, they have a lot of white space at the bottom of the page due to the station infobox. the rail line template adapts itself to fit into the white space left by this, while the s-rail template cannot adapt itself due to the way it is set up, and so it sits at the bottom of the page leaving a large, ugly white gap. Also, s-rail is being added in apiecemeal fashion - if you are going to do this, it needs to be done to the whole network. Your argument appears to be that everything needs to be standardised. Fine, then standardise it. Do the lot, all at once, not one little piece at a time. The excuse from the individual who started all this the first time this came up was "I like to edit Wikipedia". That's fine. So do I, but I like to edit with the purpose of adding something to Wikipedia. To me, this just seems to be editing for the sake of editing. There is no valid reason I can see why s-rail is better than rail line. Saying "it's on other rail systems" is akin to saying "he's doing it so we should too". Why? If there is a valid reason why rail line should be replaced by s-rail, then please try and convince me. I am open minded and am willing to be convinced if the argument is valid, against what some people may have led yo to believe. However, I have spent the last few days editing stations on the Iarnrod Eireann network successfully using rail line - this template works, of that I am convinced. If you think I am wrong, convince me otherwise. Hammersfan 29/03/07, 12.22 BST

You raise some very good points. IMHO i like the whole "to wards" part as it (for my patch) tell you what is London bound or coast bound. s-rail at first raise quieter a bit of complexity which is a fair comment. on the other its advantages (EGA when TOC get re-branded, etc are appealing). on the other hand "rail line" only has sufficient template to do "two to one" (or vice versa), beyond that it has reached it limiters. As for how it works on pages, 'fair cop guv', when s-rail is done as tube it floats well like rail line, but for normal rail lines it does float awkwardly). re implementation, i started small to understand before attempting Theo more complex, you call for mass co version is understandable but arguable impractical. Thus to me the reason for it are; a) TOC is left in the header section, b) easy mass champagne via transclion. Pickle 01:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I accept that having the final destination included may be useful (although it could be claimed that this starts to lead it towards "Wikipedia is not a timetable" problems). Your argument about the limitations of rail line can be countered by looking at the Rail transport templates category which shows the variation that is possible. Rail line is also highly adaptable - to accomodate new TOCs, all that needs doing on rail line is to change the name in the route field and the colour (should a change of colour be warranted). Is it not the case that new templates would need to be set up to create the route templates using s-rail? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick? Hammersfan 30/03/07, 09.50 BST

Let me make a few technical observations. First of all, it's incorrect that the s-rail construction can't float: {{s-start}} can take the parameter noclear=yes which allows this. I added this after my objections to making clear the default action of that template were overriden. Now, I'm not sure about your second question. If it was the case that a new TOC took over a franchise from an old TOC, the old templates could simply be moved from the new name to the old one; few changes would be necessary. Best, Mackensen (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

An added bonus, of a sort, is that from whatlinkshere you know the location of every succession box involving that particular line/service. Mackensen (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

a) the towards part is really useful as the custom of left is up (or right) and right is down is sometimes confusing, or at worst case certain places (eg south London line) the direction appear to swap over. Other more extreme example would be somewhere like Margate where London is accessed both way (one to Charing Cross, one to Victoria). To me this is useful and encyclopedic information, rather than a timetable.

b) noclear=yes - thanks for that Mackensen, that could make this more workable.

c) TOC replacement - as i haven't seen it been done yet I'm not sure which will be easier for this purpose.

d) row span and current rail line templates - my point is that rail line is great for a station with a few services/routes/lines but once you get tot he point where you are trying to create the rowspan effect in one of the columns, rail line (see Category:Rail_transport_templates) only offer this effect with two lines at a time, with only one option "three to one" for when you have 3 lines. Thus to me s-rail offers considerable flexibility here. I have to admit that when there are numerous lines, and TOCs the "s-rail" system makes these major stations route boxes look clear in the article and the code (appears) easier to grasp and edit than a (seemingly) complex mess of "rail line" with various "route2=" "col=", etc.

Pickle 16:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"...easy mass champagne via transclion..." What???
Late-night editing is never a good idea, is it Pickle? (I know, see my contribs!!).
'Addicted to Wikipedia', me? Noooooooooooooooooooo!
EdJogg 08:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
(PS. The next sane editor to contribute here is welcome – indeed, encouraged – 
to delete this off-topic frivolity of mine :o))

Yes i was in the pub last night (my quiz team came 3rd) ;) - I should pay more atention to what the spell checker puts in when i spell check my posts. Cosnider me suitable chastised as i can't really remeber what "...easy mass champagne via transclion..." was meant to mean. ROFLOL! Pickle 16:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stn art lrnk

I have proposed that the template Template:Stn art lrnk be merged into Template:Stn art lnk. Please see my comments on Template talk:Stn art lrnk. Adambro 19:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crossrail boxes

Rather late to be posting this. Crossrail is a scheme that has proposed to run services between Maidenhead, Shenfield, Heathrow and Abbey Wood via new tunnels through central London. Is it pre-emptive to suggest placing the boxes as the scheme status is not yet known? This seems to be a similar situation to WSMR. Simply south 23:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

"Pre-emptive" is an understatement. Maybe when the TBMs have been booked, but they absolutely not be there yet. Chris cheese whine 00:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Whilst Crossrail seems to be a long way off, could someone clarify for me what Simply south means when he says "placing the boxes". What boxes? Adambro 22:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I was meaning this (taken randomly from Romford):

Preceding station	National Rail			Following station
Chadwell Heath		Crossrail Proposed		Gidea Park

That is, before they were reverted twice. Simply south 23:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with my understanding for this issue Simply south. I would certainly agree with the view of Chris that it is far too early to be including these on articles. Crossrail is a very long way off, the "most optimistic construction timetable would see Crossrail 1 opened around 2015" (from the Crossrail article), so I don't think we should be including the proposed route on stations for a good while yet. Routes and stations served are likely to be subject to change and as such I would suggest its better to keep this on the Crossrail article for the foreseeable future. Adambro 23:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm going to add my two penneth to this. While I accept that Crossrail is a little bit up in the air right now, and that any start of service is some years in the future, there has been nothing said categorically that it has, or will be cancelled. As a consequence, I think it is appropriate to put the route on the pages of the stations it affects, with the added proviso that it is put in nice big black letters that Crossrail is Proposed (I have done something similar to the pages of stations that Wrexham & Shropshire are planning to use). Given that the Crossrail route is pretty much confirmed, as is a draft service pattern, I think this is fair. Hammersfan 14/03/07, 11.30 GMT

Nothing has been said categorically that it will open either. WP:CRYSTAL. The big bold letters then only adds more prominence to it, elevating it above the services that do exist. Ideally, the WSMR shouldn't be there, but that is rather less harmful as they should be up and running by the end of this year (though they also said that last year - I'm hoping it's not an ill omen ...). The current service tables should be just that - for current services. Defunct lines should be dealt with in prose, and the proposed service shouldn't be on the station articles in the first place. Chris cheese whine 11:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Class 378

I would appreciate people going to the Class 378 page and giving their opinion on the AfD debate. Thanks Hammersfan, 11/03/07, 21.10 GMT

[edit] WP:TRAIL

Main article: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/TRAIL

This lovely new-fangled method for beautifying the layout of railway lines has landed, and as usually happens with these things, everyone will start using it in their own style and to their own rules, so I suggest we come up with some standard for how we are going to lay these out on UKR topics in a consistent manner. I have started a page for this at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways/TRAIL. Feel free to throw stuff in. Chris cheese whine 18:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite a few of the Scottish Lines have now migrated to this layout - both existing (including Cathcart Circle Lines; Argyle Line; Far North Line) and Historic (City Union Line; West Highland Railway; Aberdeen Railway). You will see that the header of this have different colours reflecting either the Scotrail line colour or Historical line colour. The header template Template:BS-header has been replaced with Template:UKrail-header which includes a second field for line colour. --Stewart 19:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Good touch. I assume when you say not, you mean now. I see a couple of things on there which spur me into putting some effort into trying to pull a standard together (use of open/closed stretches, major/minor stations, etc.). :-) I'll take this into account. Do we have colours in mind for lines that aren't already coloured? Chris cheese whine 19:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

'not has been corrected to now. --Stewart 20:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose this would be complicating things but do all routes have to be in dark red? Simply south 19:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I certainly like the new line template, started working with it in my sandbox. I would agree that we need to develop some consensus on how we use it though. Whilst developing a line, I keep asking myself what I should be including. I suspect we are all going to have different opinions so it would make sense to try to come to an agreement on such issues.

After seeing some work Stewart was doing in one of his sandboxes, I drew a similar diagram of the Penistone Line, showing the stations along the route. I traced the route from Google Earth. What are peoples opinions on such diagrams?

In response to Simply south's comment, I think the previously mentioned template, Template:UKrail-header, will allow you to use different colours where appropriate. Adambro 19:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, I misunderstood Simply south slightly. I can't think of a feasible way to do different route colours myself. Adambro 19:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Quote: The header template Template:BS-header has been replaced with Template:UKrail-header which includes a second field for line colour. :-)

My thoughts on what to include depends very much on scope. So, for instance, stations on the ECML might be linked with a summary strip that shows only the important stations, while the one on the ECML article has a longer call list. The articles on the route to Cambridge and the Hertford Loop can include the commuter stations, which we could then leave out of the ECML strip. All down to discussion, though. Need to figure out how to allocate the colours for those which aren't already colour-coded. In the meantime, I'd welcome contributions on the sub-page if anyone's up for it. Chris cheese whine 19:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record I have a Worksheet at User:Pencefn/Historical Scottish Railways which helps me to keep track of the progress on the development of Scottish Historical Railways. This provides me with links to the various Sandboxes (Worksheets). User:Signalhead is systematically working through the currently open Scottish Railways. --Stewart 20:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I added my thoughts at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/TRAIL page. --Simmo676 20:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great Western Main Line

The scope of the Great Western Main Line article is under discussion. It currently covers Paddington to Bristol; Reading to Taunton; and the Cornish Main Line (which, for some reason, starts at Taunton!). The South Wales Main Line, and some other less obvious routes that the SRA deem to be part of the GWML, already have their own articles.

The question is: should the South Wales route be merged with the GWML (which would bring it in line with the ECML/WCML articles), or should the West of England routes be separated out for clarity, although this could give rise to a naming conflict with the SWT West of England Main Line - a topic discussed a couple of years ago with no action taken.

The thoughts of other UK Railways Project members would be appreciated. Geof Sheppard 13:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accident at Sonning Cutting

Hello All, I've just started a new article Railway accident at Sonning Cutting about the well-known accident there which occurred in 1841. I don't know anything about railways, almost all of the content derives from contemporaneous articles in The Times, but it struck me as an interesting story. Probably badly written and too long, but anyway, it's there for anyone to do anything they like to it (or blow it away, if it's of no interest). Regards, Nick. Nick 18:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

As usual, sources need to be cited, therefore you have to reference each resource in the text using e.g.<ref>[http://www.blah.com Blah]</ref>, which produces ^[1], followed by at the bottom of the page a References section, underneath put <references/> which produces

[edit] References

1. ^ Blah

Simply south 19:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed move: Grayrigg derailment -> Cumbria rail crash

I have proposed that this page is moved and cited WP:NAME which I believe supports it. I would welcome the views of other editors at Talk:Grayrigg derailment. Adambro 17:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)