Trains: in UK

Trains Portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport Associated projects or task forces: /  This page is supported by WikiProject UK Railways.

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 -

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 30 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Hi All,

I am creating a wiki all about Transport in The UK. As this WikiProject is about UK Railways, it would fall under the scope of the UK Transport Wiki. If you are interested please leave a message on my user talk or on My UK Transport Wiki user talk.

Thanks - Dudleybus ^{Spake 2 me} 09:15, 4 June 2008 (BST)

Request for help - the figures for continuous tractive effort just don't seem to add up (multiply) - see the talk page for details - is it me, or a typo, or what.?

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:47, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

I've just discovered the existence of the redirect Cheap Day Return, which was pointing to Aqualung (album), Cheap Day Return being a 1' 21" track on the 1971 album by Jethro Tull. (It is also the name of a(n unrelated?) novel by R. F. Delderfield).

Since I suspect that its usage is rather more prevalent in UK passenger railway circles than either of the alternatives I have been bold and changed the redirect to Train ticket. There may be an even better destination, in which case please feel free to amend it again.

EdJogg (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

surely a disambiguation would be better? lordmwa (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmh - I made it into a disambig... You might have made a simple mistake though - note the title is capitalised ie "Cheap Day Return" not "Cheap day return" - this definately suggests a book or album title - the ticket type I don't think would be capitalised like that?FengRail (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys! (The thought had crossed my mind...)

I don't think I have made a mistake, since it is the name of a specific type of ticket, like Supersaver, Apex Return, Travelcard, etc

But is there a better destination (for the DAB page ticket entry) than train ticket, which is a relatively new and relatively short page?

EdJogg (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail brand names - not listed - is it a brand name?

Saver return has an article - maybe Category:British Rail ticket types is needed?FengRail (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a brandname it is a technical description of the type of ticket. Firstly it is a return ticket (there and back, as opposed to one way); secondly, it is a day return, so both journeys have to be made on the same day; and thirdly the word "Cheap" implies that there are some restrictions on use, for example the ticket cannot be used during peak travel times, or before a certain time in the morning. The tickets were (obviously) in use before 1971 and Jethro Tull has copied the name. Interestingly, the novel was written in 1967, the band was formed in 1969 and the song came out in 1971. Most likely the name of the ticket dates to the 1960s.Pyrotec (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, surely 'cheap' only implies that it costs less than other tickets? EdJogg (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're too trusting. That implication of 'cheap' may well be what the marketing people wished you to believe. The 'small print' is the one that gets you - typically they couldn't be used before 9:30 in the morning, or between 16:00 and 18:00. You get a cheap ticket, BR gets bums on seats in off-peak hours when trains (particularly London commuter services) were empty. What BR definitely didn't want was cheap ticket holders clogging up commuter services - if you were caught you had a pay the full price single fare - no Penalties in those days. Nowadays, in the privatised system cheap tickets means advance purchase (APEX), months in advance.Pyrotec (talk) 08:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of the restrictions. As a rail traveller, the simple fact was that if you wanted a ticket that cost less you had to wait until 9:30 before you could travel...

EdJogg (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I just added a stub for the disused Six Mile Bottom railway station. In doing so I tidied up some related articles.

But I don't know really what to put in the box for station links. In particular:

• What colours should I use? I can't find any guide that says what should be used, if any.
• Should I list the disused station Fulbourn that used to be the next stop, or the current station Cambridge which is the current next stop (and terminus) after Dullingham?

Use historical info - ie the next station used or disused - if the station was active the situation would be different.

• Should I list the current operator on that line (even though the station is disused)?

No - not relevent - unless proposals by the operator exist to reactivate etc.

• Is there a convention for the order to list stations e.g. towards the major destination ("Up" line first, in this case Cambridge). But then if I put Fulbourn instead of Cambridge, that becomes less clear.

Thanks in advance for your advice. Happy to receive it on this page but a quick note on my user page would be helpful. SimonTrew (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways/Colours list. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 21:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I have put it in BR Eastern Region colours since that;s what it was when it closed. Is that right? I don't know if you missed the last Q or just don't know, is there a convention on the order to list stations (Up/Down line)?-- assuming the absence of overriding information of course. SimonTrew (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using colours of last operating company/organisation makes sense.

UP/DOWN - no idea , sorry FengRail (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just gave this article a B rating - I think it may deserve an A, but that probably requires a second or third opinion.FengRail (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a slight problem with this list. The scrapped locomotivess have links to the shipping lines they were named after, while the preserved locomotivess have links to the articles on the individual locomotives. For consistency, I propose that all links should go to the articles on the shipping companies. There should be hatnotes on the shipping company articles pointing to the individual locomotive articles as appropriate. All individual locomotive articles should mention the shipping company they were named after, and link to that article. What do other editors think? Mjroots (talk) 08:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

agree - it's just wrong. You don't even need to ask really.

For some reason "Aberdeen and Commonwealth" links to "Hamburg Sud" - but that article makes no mention of it, I've changed that.

Also links such as Holland-Afrika Line shouldn't direct to Nedlloyd - they should link to the hypothetical article title, which should redirect. If the article Holland-Afrika Line is ever made the link will then direct correctly.FengRail (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've change the other links that linked directly to articles that have no information on them eg Lamport and Holt Line redirected to Maersk - not very useful - at least a red link is honest.FengRail (talk) 13:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:SimonTrew, who is an inexperienced editor, created the Newmarket and Chesterford Railway Company article, with Newmarket and Chesterford Railway as a redirect. He has now reversed the situation, but by a c&p method. Thus the edit history will be lost/fragmented. Can an admin please rectify this situation? Mjroots (talk) 04:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 05:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two new categories ahve been created:

• Category:Extreme reaches of National Rail
• Category:Extreme reaches of National Rail in England

I'm not sure what value these are going to add as they can only ever contain about four entries each. I removed the former from articles that were also tagged with the latter, but I notice that my edits have been reveresed. Before we get into an edit war over this, can anyone offer a reason why we need both categories on one article, when one is a sub-category of the other? Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought these would be better as a list, though lists and categories aren't mutually exclusive —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 12:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have a book or anything that states this station actually existed? I found out about it from the Gloucestershire Warwickshire Railway map, where it's redlinked. But it's not on a map from 1953, and we don't appear to list it elsewhere. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]