Archives

September – December 2006 January – April 2007 April – June 2007 May/June – July 2007 August – September 2007 September – October 2007 October – November 2007 November 2007 – January 2008 January – February 2008 February – May 2008 May – June 2008 June – August 2008 September 2008 – February 2009 February – November 2009 November 2009 – February 2010 February 2010 – May 2010 May 2010 – October 2010 October 2010 – January 2011 January – April 2011 April – June 2011 May 2011 – September 2011 September 2011 – January 2012 January - April 2012 April 2012 - February 2013 February 2013 -

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 30 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 5.

Can we block this IP address from editing now - its constant foolishness from someone who clearly doesn't care about wiki. Likelife (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 1: This belongs on WP:ANI, not here. 2: If you're proposing a block for someone, you need to provide diffs. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been blocking them on Commons and rolling back their edits when I see them, but they're not on a static IP so blocking an IP isn't helpful beyond stopping the current vandalism. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an isolated instance; I and others have been playing whack-a-mole with this vandal for some weeks now. Have a look at the contribs for 86.133.54.4; 86.158.99.51; 86.158.105.73; 86.158.105.162. Things to watch out for are:

• IP address is in the range 86.128.0.0 to 86.191.255.255
• IP address changes periodically, stable for a few days at most
• Focuses mainly on two groups of articles (but there are others):
  • articles about TOCs
  • articles about classes of multiple-unit
• addition of unsourced information that such-a-class of DMU or EMU is to be transferred to or from South West Trains; often a giveaway concerns EMUs which have an incompatible electric supply
• addition of unsourced information that further units are to be formed for a class which went out of production many years ago.

This edit is subtle, but has both.

I started off with the sliding scale of warnings like {{uw-unsourced1}} but soon I dropped the lower levels and went straight for {{uw-vandalism4im}}. If these were ignored, blocks started off at 31 hours and graduated to 1 week. These days I don't bother with either a warning or {{blocked}} - they just get a 1-week block followed by blanket reversion. A block for more than one week will have no additional effect since they have never kept the same IP address for more than about five days. A range block is out of the question since to catch all possibilities would mean hitting 2²² IP addresses - something like 4 million innocent bystanders. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A third group of articles was London tube stations (or mainline terminals with their tube connections) where the vandal was adding additional tube lines which don't serve the station in question. For some of the articles which have been the prime targets for this vandal, semi-protection has been applied for limited periods; this may need to be extended to a wider range of articles and to longer periods. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They seem obsessed with Northern and SWT. I saw them create Category:British Rail Class 155s in South West Trains Angular Surbiton High School livery on Commons... -mattbuck (Talk) 19:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's also been some hits on Scottish EMU images over on Commons. I suspect this might be an area which has fewer experienced editors patrolling. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully your new rollbacker rights will help. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We tried semi-protecting a few pages (see User talk:Redrose64#"Future fleet" section of various TOCs), but the result was that they turned their attention elsewhere. I only spotted that buses were being targetted after 86.165.95.25 (talk) made a few edits to Class 507, Class 508 etc. which were absolutely in line with the established habits ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5])

I think that if we leave the articles unprotected, especially South West Trains, the culprit will remain fixated on the same ones, and since our search target is smaller, they will therefore be spotted earlier. I've got every article in this list watchlisted, also all of the London terminals plus most of the TOCs and Underground stations. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like its getting to the point where we should be reporting them to their ISP. Do we know who that is and whether they're generally cooperative? Thryduulf (talk) 01:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ISP is BT. I don't know what their record is on reported abuse, but others may know. - David Biddulph (talk) 02:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BT customers can change their IP address just by turning the modem off and on. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 86.128.0.0/10 is a BT range; and yes, it's as easy as that to change IPs (same goes for several other broadband suppliers who use the Thomson TG585 router (or similar), such as PlusNet and O₂).

Anyway, here's the latest: 86.158.105.153 (talk) all blocked and rolled back. The biggest damage was managing to paste the whole of Virgin Trains inside itself. That done, they'll be discouraged for a few hours, so I'm off for a bath. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's today's: 86.138.65.201 (talk) --Redrose64 (talk) 10:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[[Category:British Rail Class 150s in South West Trains London Science Museum livery|150145]] - SERIOUSLY? -mattbuck (Talk) 12:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also 86.157.3.229 (talk) --Redrose64 (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Time for a recap. The IP addresses that I'm pretty certain about are: 86.133.54.4 (talk) (6 Jul 2013); 86.133.211.139 (talk) (7 Jul 2013); 86.152.140.173 (talk) (10 Jul 2013); 86.156.41.105 (talk) (15 Jul 2013); 86.157.2.131 (talk) (29 Jul 2013); 86.172.129.177 (talk) (2 Aug 2013); 86.158.105.138 (talk) (3 Aug 2013); 86.138.67.187 (talk) (4 Aug 2013); 86.165.95.37 (talk) (10 Aug 2013); 86.165.95.25 (talk) (10 Aug 2013); 86.158.105.84 (talk) (12 Aug 2013); 86.172.130.201 (talk) (13 Aug 2013); 86.172.130.164 (talk) (15 Aug 2013); 86.154.167.254 (talk) (22 Aug 2013); 86.158.106.40 (talk) (24 Aug 2013); 86.158.99.51 (talk) (26 Aug 2013); 86.158.105.73 (talk) (28 Aug 2013); 86.158.105.162 (talk) (29 Aug 2013); 86.158.105.153 (talk) (31 Aug 2013); 86.138.65.201 (talk) (1 Sep 2013}; 86.157.3.229 (talk) (1 Sep 2013). Mostly these geolocate to Northamptonshire.

After a few quiet days, I think they've switched Broadband supplier. 82.71.43.212 (talk) has several of the hallmarks, but that's not a BT number: it's Zen Internet Ltd. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

82.71.43.212 has been blocked six months, and they switched back to 86.157.3.229; after that was blocked, they began using 86.157.0.199 (talk) today. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Three more: 86.138.67.113 (talk) (4 Oct 2013); 86.158.105.64 (talk) (5 Oct 2013‎); 81.147.42.80 (talk) (5 Oct 2013). The last one geolocates to Towcester, which is in the usual area, and is also a BT number, but is static. I've served the usual 1-week block; and if that IP resumes next weekend, they'll get six months (like 82.71.43.212). --Redrose64 (talk) 22:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Five more: 86.156.172.50 (talk) (6 Oct 2013); 81.156.249.172 (talk) (9 Oct 2013); 81.132.21.185 (talk) (18 Oct 2013); 86.172.130.141 (talk) (26 Oct 2013); 86.154.165.236 (talk) (1 Nov 2013). --Redrose64 (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another one today: 86.152.179.14 (talk) -- Alarics (talk) 10:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redrose et al, have you considered several smaller rangeblocks aimed at small clusters of these IPs? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did consider that; but the IPs used are too scattered. Breaking down by /16 we have

• 86.133.54.4 86.133.211.139
• 86.138.65.201 86.138.67.113 86.138.67.187
• 86.152.140.173 86.152.179.14
• 86.154.165.236 86.154.167.254
• 86.156.41.105 86.156.172.50
• 86.157.0.199 86.157.2.131 86.157.3.229
• 86.158.99.51 86.158.105.64 86.158.105.73 86.158.105.84 86.158.105.138 86.158.105.153 86.158.105.162 86.158.106.40
• 86.165.95.25 86.165.95.37
• 86.172.129.177 86.172.130.141 86.172.130.164 86.172.130.201

and four others from two entirely separate ISPs:

• 81.132.21.185 81.147.42.80 81.156.249.172
• 82.71.43.212

Only two ranges (highlighted) stands out as both high-use and small enough to justify a long term rangeblock: 86.158.105.0/24 with 6 IPs, and 86.172.130.0/25 with 3 IPs - both work out at 2.344% of the range; but I'm reluctant to rangeblock those because these two account for just over a quarter of the IPs used (9 out of 32). The next that appears is 86.152.0.0/13 with 17 IPs - out of a range size of 458752 that's a very small percentage. Those apart, the only pattern that emerges is 86.128.0.0/10 which is way too broad to use even on a short term basis. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've just blocked 86.152.179.14 for two weeks, their latest claim was that the Class 395s were going to South West Trains next year. Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've highlighted this thread and briefly summarised the problem at WP:AN/I#Long term vandalism from a user with a dynamic IP address. With any luck someone will figure out a long-term solution. Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an experiment I logged off, did an edit on my own wifi, logged on to BT Openzone and did a further edit- two different IPs without leaving the house. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 12:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• New one: 109.150.210.242. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced by 109.150.210.242 (talk), and I was watching that user carefully for almost an hour. Yes, the edits all concerned the transfer of rolling stock, and all were unsourced, and some were unlikely (Class 444 or Class 450 to London Midland) but somehow they just didn't feel the same. In particular, South West Trains was not just untouched, it wasn't even mentioned once in all 13 edits. The IP address is very different from pattern (it begins 109 and not 86 or 81), and geolocates to Salisbury, not Northamptonshire. My verdict: good reverts, but hold off on the block until there's more convincing evidence, but a {{subst:uw-unsourced1}} may be warranted. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's him. Blocked 1 week. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again: 81.129.112.13 -- Alarics (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And once more: 213.121.14.122 -- Alarics (talk) 11:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our guy has not used a 213.x.x.x IP address before. However, belated merry Christmas to 86.133.211.143 (talk) --Redrose64 (talk) 11:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that 213.121.14.122 is being used by him. As well as the odd train related article it vandalises, he also vandalises the odd London bus related article. aycliffe^talk 10:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I blocked 213.121.14.122 (talk) as soon as I was certain - within ten minutes of the third of these edits. I don't update this section for every detected case; since we're on the subject, I'll add: 86.172.129.218 (talk) (first edit 20 Dec 2013); 81.132.176.5 (talk) (5 Jan 2014); 86.157.236.133 (talk) (6 Jan 2014); also 82.43.184.204 (talk) (first edit 24 Nov 2013) which seems to have been overlooked. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have a copy of This is Sealink by Brian Haresnape (pub: Ian Allan) to expand the various articles on the individual members of British Rail Class 99 with? Mjroots (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, all 14 members of Class 99 now have an article. Please feel free to improve from book sources if you can. Mjroots (talk) 09:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading at Edgware, Highgate and London Railway about how the line was used for LU stock movements between Highgate and Drayton Park. It further states that after the EH&LR was closed, the stock moves were carried out via the Widened Lines. However I can't work out how they would get back to Highgate, as as best I know there is no link from the Met or Thameslink to Northern Line. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine that they would begin by using the same route used by stock in Metropolitan Railway days; according to

• Day, John R. (1963). The Story of London's Underground (1st ed.). Westminster: London Transport. p. 74. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

"the stock was dragged up a sloping connection at Drayton Park and taken by steam power over the G.N.R. lines and the Widened Lines to Aldersgate."

After that, it could use the Metropolitan to get to Rayners Lane, or the Circle then District to get to Hammersmith. Once on the Piccadilly, it could use the connection between the Picc and Northern at Kings Cross to get to Highgate. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is an impressively roundabout movement. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the days when the ex-GN&C stock was still in use, the route from Drayton Park to Neasden was as above to Aldersgate, then via High Street Kensington, Acton Town, Rayners Lane (reverse) to Neasden. Apparently the stock was built to the full main line loading gauge, and so was too large to fit through the Baker Street-Finchley Road tunnels. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a read through

• Connor, Piers (1989). The 1938 Tube Stock. Harrow Weald: Capital Transport. pp. 85–86. ISBN 1-85414-115-5.

When the Northern City line was still open through to Finsbury Park, and it was still worked using Standard tube stock, its small fleet of that stock was drawn from the general Northern line fleet. This was maintained at Golders Green and Morden, one train being exchanged each day, hauled by a battery locomotive over the direct line between Finsbury Park and Highgate sidings. When the Standard stock on the Northern City was replaced by 1938 stock in late October-early November 1966, the existing transfer method continued until late September 1970, when the condition of bridges between Finsbury Park and Highgate forced the closure of that line. Six 6-car 1938 stock trains were then transferred from the Northern line to the Bakerloo, which henceforth supplied the Northern City line with trains; these were maintained at Neasden. Not-quite-daily, one train was exchanged using two battery locos; the route was over the Metropolitan line to Barbican (Widened Lines), then back through Kings Cross Suburban to Finsbury Park. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have added that. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a "cem-flo" wagon - the type involved in the Thirsk rail crash (1967)? Mjroots (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's the body type, although I'd want to check if the running gear (and particularly the braking) were exactly the same. I think (but haven't checked) that cem-flos were built under the mid-50s modernisation plans and so were all fully vac-fitted from the outset.

This one appears to have roller axleboxes, but I suspect there's also some preservation volunteer with a paintbrush daubing every last handle and round thing. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The solebar plates indicate that this was privately-built for a private owner, but otherwise the design is very similar to BR Diagram 1/272. This was a 20 ton Hopper Cement Wagon "Presflo", and all were vacuum-braked. 1920 were built by BR Shildon and four contractors between 1955 and 1961. Of these, 100 (numbered B888881-B888980) were built by Butterley, as was the one in the photo at right. A later development was the fly-ash wagon, some of which were slightly larger, and had eleven vertical ribs instead of nine. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking at the accident report. On page 4 we find that the cement wagons were on 15 ft wheelbase with a 27 ton capacity and approx. 8.5 ton tare, so are not the type shown in the picture, which has a 10 ft wheelbase, 22 ton capacity and 13.5 ton tare. Also observe that the diagram on p. 13 shows a handbrake wheel, whereas the type pictured right has a lever handbrake. The mounting method for the leaf spring suspension is also somewhat different, and this seems to have been a factor. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have created {{Bradshaws}}, which links to a specified station's page on http://bradshawsguide.org/ (That site is being built, so coverage is not yet complete. It already links back to Wikipedia from each station article.) The template is already in use on Arundel railway station and Ascot railway station. Please help to add it to articles about the other stations listed at http://bradshawsguide.org/stations/ Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody have a list of Directors of the London and North Eastern Railway? What I'm specifically after is the date that Eric Butler-Henderson ceased to be a Director, and whether it was due to age, ill health, dissatisfaction of the shareholders, or something else. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64:, do you have access to The Times archives via Gale News Vault (via library)? BTW, isn't Vicki Butler-Henderson a descendent - Granddaughter or Great-granddaughter I think. Mjroots (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I need to check on The Times. I strongly suspect the Vicki connection, hence Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport#Butler-Henderson. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for assistance via Heritage Railway magazine's facebook page. Mjroots (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Times of 2 June 1943 reports him as being re-elected to the LNER board. Johnlp (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do we want these? See Leatherhead railway station#Typical journey times and User talk:Towns21#Railway services at stations. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In short, no except for the old system of principle termini and tph to each. WP:NOTGUIDE. Simply south...... disorganising disorganisation for just 7 years 19:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TPH data would be better expressed in prose detailing the various services which use the station, although stopping patterns should generally be omitted - just say "Waterloo to Pwllheli via Galashields" when in doubt. Journey times should be for major locations, eg a branch line with just local trains would just give times to the termini. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rlwy, Rly, Rwy, or Ry? Useddenim (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]