Archives

September - December 2006 January - April 2007 April - June 2007 May/June -

ray me far so la te do... ahem...

Do you think this project needs a to-do list? Simply south 13:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I may build on that remark, and if a recent arrival might make a observation, I think there is a need to get on and do something, and if a to-do list would help, yes. There seems to be an enormous amount of work that needs to be done that has been found by the robot. It's surely important for the credibility of this group to reduce that volume. Every time an outsider comes here and reads "Citation needed" or the like, that weakens the likelihood that they will ever come back to Wikipedia Afterbrunel 16:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My time using and editing Wikipedia is a bit limited at the moment, particularly as I am part way through a house move, and am very busy with work - however I would welcome the addition of a "to do" list. I will gladly help out in whatever way I can. I am still new to Wikipedia and perhaps lack the confidence to do a lot of editing etc, however would gladly help out with assessing articles etc, which I presume is done against the set of criteria established for this project? I think all I need is a little guidance in where and on what my time would be best focussed to assist the project. Again I would imagine that this is more likely to be reviewing existing content than creating new articles?ColourSarge 18:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have had a stab at re-writing the introductory paragraph to the main page for this project as per the request from Geof Sheppard in the task list. Much of it has been copied from WikiProject Physics as I thought that was a particularly good intro - if anyone else can do better feel free to have a stab yourself...ColourSarge 12:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham and Derby Junction Railway is in need of a route-map, if anyone feels inclined. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 13:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pages with lists of coordinates, marked-up using {{coord}}, can now be exported as KML (for use in Google Earth or NASA World Wind, for example) via Brian Suda's site, in this format:

http://suda.co.uk/projects/microformats/geo/get-geo.php?type=kml&uri=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherton_Tunnel_Branch_Canal

The same URL can be pasted into Google Maps as a search string, and will show the locations, as push-pins on a map

(I requested a template which will generate such links, for any page on which it appears. The template {{kml}} was created - and promptly nominated for deletion!) Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 13:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is a tripcock braking system? Simply south 09:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a safety device used on the London Underground before the current automatic systems came in. A tripcock, with a lever hanging down , would be mounted on the front bogie of a train. A piece of lineside equipment called a trainstop would have a T piece, raised when the relevant signal was in the On (Danger) position, A train passing the signal at danger would cause the tripcock to come into contact with the trainstop and cause a full emergency application of the braking systems on the train. See Train stop Britmax 00:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be worht making a stub out of Tripcock then ? Or is it this Moorgate tube crash#Moorgate control Pickle 17:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

|It might be but personally I'd expand the trainstop article . Although the trainstop system was expanded to dead end tracks after Moorgate they had been fitted to stop signals for some time. Other precautions adopted after Moorgate were the fitting of more sand drags and steel cages at dead end lines. A temporary measure until the work could be done involved bringing trains to a halt at the outer home signal in the approach to a terminal station, then allowing them to enter the platform from a standing start so that the speed of the train into the platform could be regulated. Britmax 19:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a Wikiproject UK Trams might be in order at the present time. There are already several Wikiprojects that cover trams, but all seem to be rather blank in the UK area. There are hardly any articles on trams, and those that there are, are either stubs, lacking factual references, or are complete so that they only need to be edited to add specialist information. I have almost single-handedly revamped the National Tramway Museum Page, and it would be hard to believe that a couple of months ago, it was a stub. Please rally your support or opposal here. The project would cover all trams, both modern and heritage, proposed and forgotten, built and demolished. The page will be started in due course here. - Bluegoblin7 14:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Please update this section if/when the project gets off the ground (as I can't cope with watching the 'proposed Wikiproject' page... ...far too many edits going on!!)

EdJogg 18:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion for an alternative name, perhaps Wikiporject UK Light Rail?

ColourSarge 12:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or even Wikiproject! ColourSarge 12:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it might be a good idea - please discuss on the project oage/talk page that i have set up in my userspace. The link is here for anyone who can't be bothered to click above. Coloursarge will you be adding your name? - Bluegoblin7 13:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think WP:UK Trams is clearer, and requires less explanation to outsiders (ie 'what is light rail?'). It also avoids the possibility of including the various Colonel Stephens light railways! UK Light Rail could be a project in itself, and there's no reason why light rail systems shouldn't be handled by either the UK Trams or UK Railways projects. (Sorry, there's no discussion area on your project page yet...)

EdJogg 13:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah! There is now a discussion page! Bluegoblin7 13:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, one reason why a certain light rail system couldn't really be handled under UK Trams is that it is not a tram system, rather an automated mass transit system. However, there is still plenty to be covered. Simply south 14:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A main project page has been started at User:Bluegoblin7/WikiProject_UK_Trams if anyone is interested. It may move over to the main Wikipedia soon, as there is now quite a bit of support. Please join and contribute! Bluegoblin7 19:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC) The page has now moved to WikiProject_UK_Trams - Please Sign Up!!! Bluegoblin7 08:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just incase the above post is unclear, the project is live at WP:UK Trams! Bluegoblin7 18:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone take a look at this? Much of it is inaccurate, and none of it reads like something out of an encyclopaedia. It also seems to concentrate on the current state of affairs, with a little reference to the future, and looks to me as though it could never be more than a "spotter's guide". I invite anyone to fix it up if they feel they can get it beyond a "Know Your Livery" state. 90.203.45.143 19:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that this meets the notability requirement of Wikipedia; in my mind the information is (should be) covered in the articles on the railway companies. Alternatively, it could be merged with Summary of Train Operating Companies in the United Kingdom.

If it is to stand, then it needs to be much more comprehensive - FGW's multitude of inherited liveries are ommitted and phases such as "Northern Rail have no paintshops, and, as such, have around 5 different kinds of liveries" need sorting out. But then what of British Rail and all the earlier companies? Geof Sheppard 07:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Summary of Train Operating Companies in the United Kingdom appears to suffer from the same problem, i.e. anything older than (this year?) the present is not in it.Pyrotec 20:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've put up a number of UK transport-related stub types for renaming, rescoping and/or deletion; a number of ad hoc renamings and creations have left this hierarchy in a very inconsistent state, please comment, and help resolve, one way or the other. See Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/August/20. Alai 22:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask how this relates to WP:UK Railways? It seems to stand for WP:UK Trains, which isnt this wikiproject, and the shortcut would be more suited to the newly created WP:UK Trams from now on.

If no-one objects I will change the shortcut, or will make it into a disambiguaton page if there are minor objections. Bluegoblin7 11:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree that 'WP:UKT' might more logically point to Trams, and (new?) WP:UKR might point here. However, you must wait for input (and agreement!) from other UK Rail project members before proceeding with any such change, or you could seriously annoy a lot of potential friends! And don't bother with a DAB page -- that defeats the benefit of a shortcut!

EdJogg 11:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will wait until more people respond. And yes, your shortcut for WP:UK Railways makes more sense here, rather than WP:UKT! Bluegoblin7 11:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd assume the T is inherited from our Ultimate Lords and Masters at WP:TWP. FWIW, there seems to be no consistency in the use of Trains vs Railways/Railroads in naming - witness WP:TIJ and WP:NZR. Stupid question, but without WP:UKT as a shortcut, what are we going to use here? I doubt the Ukrainians would voluntarily give up WP:UKR, which would just leave us with the unintuitive WP:Rail — iridescent (talk to me!) 12:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guess who didn't look at the shortcut list... Oops! EdJogg 12:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admitedly, the following isn't that short, but we're using WP:UK Trams, so why don't you use WP:UK Railways? UKT is more suited to trams, not trains, especially seeing as the project doesn't have anything to do with the word trains in it! (I mean the project name, and I KNOW railways are trains, but you get what I mean...) Bluegoblin7 12:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or even WP:UK Trains! Bluegoblin7 12:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that's longer than 'WP:UKRail', and is not an enticing proposition.

I'm afraid that, without 'WP:UKR' being available, this may be a lost cause.

EdJogg 13:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under inspection of UKR though, could they not use RoUK? Or Even RUK? Makes more sense with their project. What else can trams use though? In theory, railways can have a lot, and anyway, shouldnt the project it apllies to most have the shortcut? What do we have without? The untuitive UK Trams, not exactly that much of a shortcut. Bluegoblin7 13:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(reindent) How aboutWP:UKRWP or WP:TWPUK? Even though we have hardly any dealings with them, we are technically a subproject of WP:TWP — iridescent (talk to me!) 14:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TUK is not taken, as in Trams UK, maybe? Simply south 00:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it means an end to this discussion (which is needlessly diverting effort from article writing), then it's fine by me! Remember it is really only project members who are likely to type it: it just needs to be something short and memorable; if it's also relevant, that's a bonus! --EdJogg 07:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we'll use that. Thanks for the input! Bluegoblin7 17:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I'm not a member of this project but I've noticed that there are articles for a couple of stations - Skipton railway station and Gargrave railway station. There doesn't seem to be anything noteworthy to these articles and I was just wondering if anyone thinks they should be there? To me they don't seem to satisfy WP:NOTE. Thanks -- JD554 15:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - per long standing policy all stations (but not tram stops) are notable. It's fairly easy to expand a UK railway station article (even the strip-of-concrete-in-the-middle-of-nowhere stations like Brigg) since Middleton Press and Connor & Butler's books between them cover virtually every mainland railway station; those that haven't been expanded are those that no-one's got round to yet. (Have a look at my expansion of Cromer, for example, to see the before-and-after of a station article-expansion) — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Covering "virtually every mainland railway station" rules them out as a source for the purpose of notability (but not for verifiability), as they evidently lack the selection criteria necessary. That said, many stations have played an important role in their community, and there is often more to say than simply "This station is here. It was opened ages ago, closed for a while, and reopened a bit later." There is no "all X are notable" rule anywhere in Wikipedia. Rather, the rule is that there must be enough to say about a subject that is not basic information (such as location, facilities, service, etc.), idiosyncratic (stories such as a driver who regularly collected a mug of tea while in motion, or how the station cat lost its tail), or of little interest to anyone outside of a small circle (track layout, location of pointwork, location and dimensions of the footbridge/barrow crossing). It is believed in good faith that this is achievable with most stations, and particularly so with those that were closed and put to alternate use rather than simply being demolished. 90.203.45.210 19:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with that at all. Every passenger station — even (perhaps especially) the tiny remote village stations — are (or were) pretty much by definition the focal point - and often the reason for the existence of - their local community. Wikipedia has dozens, if not hundreds, of "all X are notable" rules; all members of a national, provincial or state legislature, all bands with two album releases on major labels, all first-class cricketers etc etc etc. We tend to bunch the disused stations by branch, as in Hammersmith & Chiswick branch, due to the practicalities of expanding the individual stations, but I see no reason at all why we can't cover every station.

Your point about reliable sources is a silly straw man argument; nowhere do I suggest the Middleton Press books are a reliable source for notability, dur to their laundry-list nature, but they're a perfectly valid resource for expanding articles. Every railway station ever opened in the UK was:

• the subject of extensive parliamentary debate;
• the subject of local planning & land-ownership disputes;
• (in pre nationalisation days) a major financial investment and reported as such in the financial press;
• covered at length in both the local press of the area served and the specialist railway press, as well as generally in the national press, on its opening;
• Often, particularly in the early days, a significant piece of engineering in its own right and covered as such in the media;
• Tangentially covered in local news (as a setting for other events) throughout its existence
• If closed, the subject (again) of extensive press coverage — and if still open, either an undoubtedly significant part of its community, or the subject of yet more press coverage as a proposed station closure.

I don't understand why we're having this discussion. You may as well AfD Tooting & Mitcham United because their article isn't as long as Arsenal — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that part of the reason for this argument rearing its ugly head again is that a very large number of (UK) station articles (and, dare I whisper tram stops?) amount to little more than very basic travel information -- if it weren't for the plethora of templates, they would be very short stubs. This is not to say they should not be retained, but the impression gained is that the station is non-notable as 'no-one has written anything worthwhile about it'. At some stage, the project will need to grasp the nettle and tackle these stubs (As a first stage, I would suggest merging any closed stations into their appropriate railway line article, unless large-enough articles to stand on their own.)

EdJogg 22:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded Skipton to a valid article. While I freely admit it's done to make a WP:POINT, I think it's a valid one — this is a station I know nothing about, in an area I know nothing about, on a line I know nothing about & have no reference books on, yet I've just expanded it to five times its previous length based solely on a google search on the name, a process that can be done for any station; there's just so many of the blighters that it takes a while to work through them. I wholeheartedly agree with EdJogg that we need to grasp the nettle and start expanding more of the open stations. If we each did, for example, one per week for a couple of months, we'd make a significant dent in the backlog — iridescent (talk to me!) 14:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my Late and humble opion i offer you one classic example - Jordanhill railway station - do i need to say more Pickle 14:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear! let's get on with sorting out all these stub articles - not just the stations but the goods sheds, junctions, engine sheds, and all the other little articles that someone has created to give total coverage without ever completing the article to even "start" class.

In the last couple of months I have got rid of about ten stubs and I have my sights set on more. Some have been merges with similar pages (e.g. Devon and Somerset Railway), others have been proper rewrites (e.g. Weston Milton railway station - the architypal 100 yard concrete strip on a single track branch). It can be done, just have the confidence to start the work and others will come along and help with copy checking and extra snippets. Geof Sheppard 07:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really do hate to dig up this old chestnut but "it wasn't me"..

User:Geoking66 has recently edited {{tl:Infobox UK station}} to allow both "rail line" and "s-rail" to be displayed as part of the station infobox rather than separately (several areas of America do this). In the nicest way possible Geoking66 was "bold" and didn't ask anyone. I politely asked at his talk and at Template talk:Infobox UK station#S-rail because a) i don't think it looks good and b) the last two times a conversion to "s-rail" was attempted for UK railways it went down like a lead balloon with a lot of mass reverts.

Quick List of stations affect (AFAIK)

• Stoke-on-Trent railway station
• Crewe railway station
• Macclesfield railway station (not actually in the infobox)
• Higham railway station
• Dartford railway station
• Gravesend railway station
• Barnehurst railway station
• Slade Green railway station
• Tring railway station
• Berkhamsted railway station
• Hemel Hempstead railway station
• Watford Junction railway station

If one ventures to the end of Template talk:S-line#South_Eastern, you'll see User:Mackensen's thoughts on the matter, thus I'm asking

a) do we want "rail line" or "s-rail" to be in the infobox of UK stations???

If we do, we need to go round upgrading all infoboxes (like the joint tube and rail ones, closed station, closed London station, etc)

b) is there some sudden consensus to convert "rail line" to "s-rail"

Personally i really don't like the route box (rail line or s-rail) in the infobox and am tempted to go round mass reverting Geoking66's edits. Obviously I'm all for the s-rail template and am bemused why we in the UK stick our heads in the sand while the rest of the world happily uses s-rail ... ???

If we do want it in the infobox we then will need some standards to keep them narrow, and there are issues over the not taking across of closed lines/stations.

Be nice to know people thoughts on this matter....

Pickle 16:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll go ahead and re-post my thoughts here, for clarity. The ability to enclose services (route boxes) within a station infobox was added at the specific request of Wikipedia:WikiProject Washington Metro, and several users who worked on the PATH articles, as a precursor to the adoption of s-rail/s-line. This conformed to their existing usage. I've seen other groups adopt this style and others not. I don't think it makes sense for national railways; any sufficiently complex station will simply not look right. I certainly would not recommend that approach here.
• On adoption in general: if this project is going to go ahead it should be discussed here first, and any specific issues should be addressed now before going forward. That s-rail/s-line is an evolution of rail line is fortunate; the two can co-exist without breaking much of anything. Mackensen (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]