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 - November 2009 November 2009 - February 2010 February 2010 - ? 2010 -

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 60 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I'm just testing the water here at the moment, but would anyone be interested in a project meet-up? A chance to meet other editors face-to-face, to discuss Wikipedia matters, and/or just have a good time socially. The meeting would be somewhere in the UK, at a date and place to be decided, possibly a railway centred location (e.g. the National Railway Museum or Severn Valley Railway just to give a couple of suggestions). If there's any support for the idea, I'd be happy to help organise something. Any thoughts? —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(a) yes (b) Didcot Railway Centre. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and we could pop round your place for a barbecue afterwards. :o) -- EdJogg (talk) 10:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fun - I'd request nothing before the end of September. Oh, and, although it may be stating the obvious, there should be easy access by rail... -mattbuck (Talk) 17:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may be interested, depending on commitments. Mjroots (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto -- EdJogg (talk) 10:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea. I doubt I'll be able to make it (too much going on at present), but I fully support the idea. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just let people know, I haven't given up on the idea, but I'm going to be busy most weekend until Mid-November or so, then it'll be the run-up to Christmas, so it'll probably near the beginning of next year. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 09:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it's sunny outside now - and I hear the whistles tooting... --Redrose64 (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What happens generally at Meetups? Simply south (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best to have a look at WP:MEETUP which also has a list of recent and upcoming meetups. Nearly a year ago I went to London 26, and there was dinner and beer (both self-bought), discussion and, well, meeting other Wikipedians. The next UK one is London 38 followed a week later by Cambridge 9. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe i will try one. I'm not sure on when or if i will go to a London Meetup yet. Simply south (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The RSSB website has been completely remodelled, so none of our links there work any more. Since we were using them to verify technical data about most classes of train, that's a lot of dead links to fix. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this something a bot could handle? Mjroots (talk) 05:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. User:H3llBot is the closest we have at the moment, but it can only replace archived links and tag everything else. Since these haven't be archived as such, it would need some new code. I suppose we could try asking the bot's owner about it. It's a pity the links aren't cited via a site-specific template or we'd only need to update that, but these all use the generic {{cite web}}. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'd like some clarification regarding line names. Specifically quite which of the following we believe should be articles/commons cats. I've bolded the ones which are current.

• Bristol to Taunton Line
• Bristol to Exeter Line (previously a commons cat, not to be confused with Bristol and Exeter Railway. We also have an article on disused stations on this line.)
• Reading to Plymouth Line
• Reading to Taunton line (previously a commons cat)
• London to Penzance Line
• Taunton to Exeter Line
• Exeter to Plymouth Line

There was a proposal on Talk:Reading to Plymouth Line to split this, but nothing ever came of it. Can we please come up with a consistent naming solution? -mattbuck (Talk) 13:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had my say on the proposed split ("don't") when it was first mooted, and my comments on the talk page still stand. Note that the Exeter to Plymouth Line is known as the South Devon Main Line in Wiki Commons. It also shares part of its route with the Riviera Line. Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Great Western Main Line might be important as well. Simply south (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest that we study the maps in the relevant Quail/Trackmaps atlas: the most recent is

  Yonge, John (2005) [1989]. Jacobs, Gerald (ed.). Railway Track Diagrams 3: Western (4th ed.). Bradford on Avon: Trackmaps. ISBN 0 9549866 1 X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

  Against each line, there is an "Engineers Line Reference", the key to these being opposite map 1. From these, we can then use the line descriptions shown, or a shortened form. Thus, on maps 5/6 we see that the route between Bristol and Taunton has code "MLN1" (and from other maps we see that MLN1 is also borne by the route from Paddington to Bristol via Bath, and Taunton to Plymouth. The description for this is "Main Line: Paddington - Plymouth Stn West Com"; so the Great Western Main Line article is best for these stretches. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody know when Neyland railway station closed? Butt is silent on the matter; it's shown as open in a 1955 rail atlas, but closed in a 1967 edition; and it's not in the Beeching report. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clinker (page 102) gives 2 December 1963 (goods) and 15 June 1964 (passengers). Lamberhurst (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid I don't have Clinker: please update article (infobox, text, category) --Redrose64 (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Lamberhurst (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved Bathgate railway station to Bathgate railway station (1986) so i could move the new station to its new location. However looking at the RDTs around that area as well as the dates, it looks as though the 1986 station is both Bathgate (Upper) railway station and a station that opened on its own. Further the variuos places seem to indicate it was opened by the Edinburgh and Bathgate Railway but other areas indicate Upper was. But other areas again indicate that Upper was opened by the Bathgate and Coatbridge Railway. And Monkland Railways somehow fits in this as well

All the articles and templates that are confusing me are: Bathgate (Upper) railway station, Bathgate (Lower) railway station, Bathgate railway station (1986), Template:Bathgate and Coatbridge Railway, Template:Edinburgh to Bathgate Line, Template:Bathgate stations and Template:Airdrie-Bathgate Rail Link.

Can someone help me understand what is meant to go where and perform the second uncontroversial move? Simply south (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Butt:

• the original Bathgate station was opened by the Edinburgh & Glasgow Rly 12 Nov 1849, renamed Bathgate (Upper) 1 Aug 1865; closed 9 Jan 1956.
• the station opened by the Monkland Railways in 1856 was originally simply Bathgate, becoming Bathgate (Lower) 1 Aug 1865; closed 1 May 1930.
• a third Bathgate station was opened by BR 24 March 1986

According to the Ian Allan pre-group atlas, the Lower station was to the west of the Upper, and on the same line; although there was a triangular junction between them, with the line from the southern corner leading to Armadale and to Whitburn.

According to Awdry:

• the Monkland Railways (note plural, as per Cambrian Rlys) was absorbed by the Edinburgh & Glasgow Rly 31 Jul 1865
• the Edinburgh & Bathgate Rly (opd 12 Nov 1849) was leased to the E&G from the start - thus Bathgate (Upper) was built by the E&B but operated by the E&G
• the E&G was absorbed by the North British Rly on the day after absorbing the Monkland, ie 1 Aug 1865
• no mention of any Bathgate & Coatbridge Rly - but Awdry does state that the E&B was extended to Coatbridge 11 Aug 1862

--Redrose64 (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Building on the above, there would seem to be at least four Bathgate stations according to Cobb's atlas, plus the new one:

• the first Bathgate closed in c. 1870;
• Bathgate (1986) opened on the site of the first Bathgate;
• Bathgate (Upper) situated slightly to the south of the first Bathgate, open between 1849-1956;
• Bathgate (Lower) situated further north, open between 1856-1930; and
• Bathgate (2010).

Cobb's Atlas puts Bathgate (Upper) slightly to the south of Bathgate (1986) at NS975684. I can find no record of a "Bathgate and Coatbridge Railway"; the companies mentioned by User:Redrose64 are all correct. Template:Bathgate and Coatbridge Railway is incorrectly drawn, but Template:Bathgate stations is mostly correct but the position of Bathgate (1986) is not right. Template:Airdrie-Bathgate Rail Link is a simplified version. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, so we end up with five stubs. I'm half tempted to suggest merging them all to Railway stations in Bathgate, which would at least have the advantage of putting them all in a historical context in relation to each other. Oh well... what can we find out about the one that closed around 1870? And would Bathgate railway station be better off as a disambig page rather than pointing to the new one? Alzarian16 (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, the Bathgate and Coatbridge Railway railway finished at Polkemmet Junction, with Bathgate (Upper) being a E&BR station - now sorted. As far as a 1870 station is concerned, I can not find any reference in Butt, so would have to defer to those who have Cobb. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 22:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess. Redirects were all left pointing is silly directions, which I've tried to fix. At the very least, Bathgate railway station needed to redirect to either (a) the article about the current station or (b) the disambiguation page, but it did neither. --RFBailey (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I've moved Bathgate (New) railway station to Bathgate railway station as per above. The talk pages could probably also do with sorting out, but I'll leave those till the articles have been merged and sorted out. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 05:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have editted the route maps to reflect the mve by Tivedshambo. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 12:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles now edited. I have left Talk and User pages. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 18:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, I think that Bathgate railway station should be the title of the article about the current station, as that is most relevant to the general public at large, but an admin will need to move it. (Unfortunately, I made a typo when I attempted to move it myself.....oops.) We have an RDT on a disambiguation page, which people may object to. I'm not sure that separate articles are needed for the 1986 and 2010 stations: (i) they have the same name; (ii) one is a direct replacement for the other; (iii) any usage statistics etc. for the new (2010) station will presuambly be taken from the 1986 station. With the historical stations, the situation is much less clear-cut.

A similar situation (two articles where only one is needed) is happening at Drumgelloch railway station. A merge proposal was made several months ago, but was never acted upon. --RFBailey (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, I've made a merge proposal (to have a single article for the 1986 and 2010 stations) at Talk:Bathgate railway station. --RFBailey (talk) 03:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again at Cobb, the first Bathgate station closed in c. 1870 would seem to have been resited south to become Bathgate (Upper). Is there no reference in the relevant Regional History of the Railways volume or railway magazines from 1986 about this? Re the merge, given that Bathgate (Upper) merits its own article, why not Bathgate (1986)? I would avoid grouping of stations on different lines built by different companies in one article; it just creates bigger messes for someone else to clear up later, see Marlborough railway stations for a perfect example. Lamberhurst (talk) 07:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the general public are likely to be concerned, the 1986 and 2010 Bathgate stations are on the same line, and the fact that they were technically not built by the same company (thanks to privatisation) doesn't seem relevant. The primary topic of the two articles is essentially the same. The historical situation isn't comparable, as for a 74-year period there were two coexisting stations. (See also my comments below.) --RFBailey (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - No. Both for Bathgate and Drumgelloch, but for different reasons.

Bathgate - I go with the arguement put forward by Lamberhurst and would prefer to avoid the issues raised with merging all these articles.

Drumgelloch - Drumgelloch (New) railway station is almost on the site of the Clarkston (B&CR) railway station, which is significantly distant (at least 1/2 mile) from the old Drumgelloch railway station. There is a stronger argument to merge Clarkston with the new station.

--Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 11:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why geographical location should be the deciding factor, given that we're talking about locations at most a few hundred metres apart. In the case of Bathgate, there is a continuous history of the current station and its immediate predecessor dating back to 1986, and then a clear break in the history going back to when the last of the earlier stations was closed. In the case of Drumgelloch, that name was first used (AFAIK) in 1989, and has been used continuously since then (save for the temporary closure during the construction of the Airdrie-Bathgate Rail Link. Geographical location seems to be the only thing that Clarkston (B&CR) and the new Drumgelloch stations do have in common. Most of the information about the modern history of the 1980s stations is equally relevant to the 2010 stations (e.g. service patterns, usage statistics, station codes, etc.), and having separate articles would, to my mind, lead to unnecessary duplication.

I'll express my usual concern that we should remember that the articles are meant to be intended for a general audience, not just rail enthusiasts, and thus modern-day information should be emphasised. --RFBailey (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To emphasise my point about the commonality of the 1986 and 2010 station articles, I've created a userspace version of a merged article: User:RFBailey/Bathgate railway station. I suggest people compare it to the existing articles on the 1986 and 2010 stations. There is really very little difference between the content of the three articles! --RFBailey (talk) 03:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto Drumgelloch: see User:RFBailey/Drumgelloch railway station. --RFBailey (talk) 04:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no for Drumgelloch. If anything Drumgelloch (New) should be merged with Clarkston (B&CR) because they are on the same location. The previous Drumgelloch station is a separate distinct entity.

If you follow the arguement of RFBailey is to its conclusion we will now start merging stations all over the world - Tyndrum, Argyle Street with Glasgow Cross, Finnieston with Exhibition Central, Bowling, Partick West and Partick Central, Maryhill Central and Maryhill, Warrington Bank Quay and Warring Central, Wigan Wallgate and Wigan NW.............. Better still why not just merge stations in a village/town/city to the artice for the location. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pencefn (talk • contribs)

Why merge Clarkston, they were two completely different stations. Simply south (talk) 12:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Part of me is inclined to agree with Simply south, however the 2010 Drumgelloch station is essentially on the same site, and folowing the argument set out by RFBailey they should be merged. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 14:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but Stewart/Pencefn seems to (i) not understand my argument, (ii) have totally ignored my point about content rather than geographical location being a deciding factor, and (iii) have drawn a bunch of false analogies (e.g. Wigan/Warrington).

While the two stations in Drumgelloch are separate entities in the sense that they are not at the same dot on the map, they are both called "Drumgelloch", serve the same purpose, and the articles will have almost exactly the same content (at present, most of which is about the reopening of Airdrie-Bathgate and the station being relocated). Content should be the overriding factor: there's no point having two articles that more-or-less duplicate each other. That is certainly not the case with the two Wigan stations, or the two Warrington stations; furthermore, in those cases, the stations coexist as distinct entities (Wallgate wasn't closed and replaced by NW).

On the other hand, apart from being at similar locations, what exactly do Clarkston and Drumgelloch have in common? --RFBailey (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take the points from RFBailey

• Drumgelloch (New) is a development on the Clarkston (B&CR) site, and just because someone decided to call it Drumgelloch does not ingore that the sire was previously Clarkston. Also bear in mind, that it is only recently that the name for the new station became Drumgelloch. In the early stations of the project, it was called Katherine Park. Would we be have this discussion is that name had prevailed??.
• These stations are not being relocated. They are new stations (improved, new facilities, etc.) on new sites. The infobox for one station will be inaccurate and misleading for the other merged stations.
• The articles should remain separate, and a major part of the issue has been lazy editting.
• Yes - I do not under the arguement RFBailey is proposing as it is illogical
• The analogies are not false, bacause even though RFBailey can not see it, this is what his reasoning is proposing

The issue we have here is that there should be different articles, and they should be editted to cover the issues relevant to the station under consideration, not overlap into issues that are more appropriately covered by other articles. For example, how much of the A2B project information is duplicated in all the Bathgate lines stations and the North Clyde Line article, when it properly linked to the root article. This is not an argement for merging, rather ensuring that the individual articles cover the specific station, not others. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 16:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know what I'm arguing for--I don't need you to take it out of context and claim it has implications which it doesn't have, nor do I need you to suggest I "can not see it".

Wigan/Warrington are not an analogies for Bathgate. In that instance, as I said, there are two stations with separate histories, serve separate routes (especially in the case of Warrington), and both coexist as separate entities. That is not the case with Bathgate: the 2010 station is a direct replacement for the 1986 station (it opened more-or-less immediately after the other one closed), assuming its name and its role. As for Drumgelloch, if they had changed the name we would have a different situation, but the fact is that they didn't. In both cases, even if lazy editing is accounted for, mention of the A2B project and the fact that the stations were relocated and expanded will still be the most notable thing that ever happened to them, and if separate articles are deemed appropriate, then this information will need to be included in both. Consequently, this will result in significant overlap regardless.

Also, I don't buy the argument about infoboxes: the purpose of those is to summarise information, not tell the whole story by themselves. Take Wolverhampton railway station for instance: it currently has six platforms, yet a few years ago it only had three, but the events that led to that situation are too complicated to describe in the infobox. If the stations were expanded with new facilities but kept on the same site, would that mean that separate articles would be deemed necessary? The net result would be the same, though. --RFBailey (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to find some other example of relocated stations. The ones I can thinbk of off the top of my head are Redditch (relocated twice, one article), Wrexham Central (one article), Morecambe/Morecambe Promenade (two articles) and Sheringham/Sheringham (North Norfolk Railway) (two articles, though in this case both are still in use). I'm sure there are other examples. Personally I'm inclined to say merge the two articles together as one station is a direct replacement for the other, though as Morecambe shows there's a case for keeping them separate. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 21:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To add my ha'penny worth, I would disagree with RFBailey's point that content rather than geographic location is the deciding factor. In my mind, it's quite the opposite given that the content of an article will inevitably change over the course of time. The relevant question is therefore whether the relocation of the station is so minor as to make another article redundant. I would take as examples Hurst Green and Quainton Road, both of which were relocated a couple of hundred metres and do not justify separate articles. The same approach would apply to stations reopened on the same site or similar sites as an earlier closed station on the same line, for example High Rocks and Haggerston. If the new Drumgelloch/Bathgate stations are merely a resiting exercise or a redevelopment on the same site, then I would be inclined to merge them. If not, let's have separate articles. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the examples of Hurst Green, Redditch and Wrexham Central are particularly relevant here. The Morecambe articles could also be merged: for 26 years prior to its closure, the former Morecambe Promenade station was known simply as "Morecambe", so the renaming wasn't at all related to its relocation. --RFBailey (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I GIVE UP: RFBailey is insistent on merging articles for two distinct entities - i.e. Bathgate (2010) and Bathgate (1986), whilst arguing against merging two articles that could be consider the same - i.e. Drumgelloch (New) and Clarkston (E&BR). As far as I am concerned his illogical arguements will diminish the clarity of the resultant information, and result in subsequent confusion. If he wishes to go ahead - so be it, and Wikipedia will be the poorer for it. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 09:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure why you think I'm being illogical. Consider the following hypothetical situation: in a particular town, there is a department store, say John Lewis. This year, their store is relocating to a new building half a mile away. On the site of the new building, there was historically another department store, but this was demolished 50 years ago. According to your reasoning, the historical department store and the new John Lewis are the same entity (cf. Clarkston/Drumgelloch), yet the two John Lewis stores are distinct, even though they share the same attributes apart from where they are located (cf. Bathgate). Now do you see my point? [Note: I'm not suggesting individual branches of department stores merit their own articles!]

Besides, wouldn't the best way to avoid confusion and improve clarity be to make sure that any articles are coherent and consistent? A sentence which says "The new Drumgelloch station is located on the site of the former Clarkston (E&BR) station which closed in 1956" would surely describe the situation clearly enough? --RFBailey (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarkston/Drumgelloch (New) has a precedent with Stobcross/Finnieston/Exhibition Centre. New station built substantially on the old site. People who will have used the old station will recognise the re-opening of a station on the site.

Bathgate (1986) and Bathgate (2010) existed at the same time with trains to the 1986 station passing the 2010 until it opened. The commuters of Bathgate will condiser the 2010 station a separate entity.

John Lewis is not a valid analogy. Whereas there are articles for railway stations across the UK, there are no articles for individual John Lewis stores (or not that I could find).

But as I said before just get on it your own way, leaving the articles in illogically structured. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 08:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing should be moved until consensus has been achieved, which I don't believe is yet the case. Lamberhurst (talk) 11:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe department stores wasn't the best example (but I did remark this was a hypothetical example, and that I wasn't suggesting that individual stores merited articles, and there is nothing special about John Lewis). My point wasn't about what deserves an article, it was about what can be considered a single entity. I was trying to illustrate in another context why there is continuity between the two Drumgelloch stations, but not between Drumgelloch and Clarkston. And my point about coexistence was about being open simultaneously--new buildings don't just appear with the wave of a magic wand. (Your remark about coexistence is just unnecessary pedantry.)

Of course the Bathgate commuters know that the station has moved, but they are the same group of people that used the station's predecessor. (Thus the 1986 Bathgate station's user statistics are relevant to the 2010 station.) Compare this with Clarkston, which closed such a long time ago that it's unlikely there are many of its users still around. --RFBailey (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have an example: on 7 December 1970 the original Falmouth railway station was closed and replaced by a new Falmouth station half a mile up the line - both were named Falmouth, and by the argument that "if one station replaces another of the same name on the same line, they should share an article", there should be one article.

However, on 5 May 1975, the original Falmouth station reopened (the 1970 station being renamed The Dell at the same time) - so by the argument "different locations, different articles", there should be two articles, which is what we actually have: both are still open (although not under those names). --Redrose64 (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how this helps--there are two stations currently open and with different names, so there is no contest that there should be two separate articles in this case (even if each was once called simply "Falmouth" at some time or other). --RFBailey (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should have asked: if Wikipedia had been around, what would we have done in 1970? If we had put the new station on the same article as the old, what would we then have done in 1975? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the 1970 situation, I would have described both stations in the "Falmouth railway station" article, just as I think we should do now with Bathgate and Drumgelloch. As for 1975, a second article would become necessary, with a separate article entitled "The Dell railway station" mentioning it was previous called "Falmouth", and the "Falmouth railway station" article mentioning that it was closed 1970--1975 and the name used elsewhere. (That said, I don't envisage Bathgate (1986) being reopened, although trying to predict the future can be a dangerous idea--people probably said that about Falmouth in 1970.) --RFBailey (talk) 23:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The convention seems to be that if a station was first opened before 1923, we put it in Category:Former (pre-grouping railway) stations (such as Category:Former Midland Railway stations); if first opened in 1923-47 period, we put it in Category:Former (post-grouping railway) stations (such as Category:Former London Midland and Scottish Railway stations). But I don't know the equivalent for a station first opened in or after 1948, such as Bristol Parkway - there are quite a few of these (even after we exclude the pre-1948 stations closed and reopened after 1948). Tivedshambo (talk · contribs) suggests Category:Railway stations opened by British Railways, which I am basically happy with; but we both note that this does not adequately cover stations first opened post-privatisation (such as Aylesbury Vale Parkway). Opinions? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Railway stations opened post-privatisation. Simply south (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We would need to work "UK" or "GB" or "British" into that somehow, otherwise it could cover any country's railway stations. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Railway stations opened post-privatisation in Britain. Simply south (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds a little unnecessary to me: presumably Category:Railway stations opened in 1990 (picking a year at random) and the like adequately cover this situation. Ignoring the grey area of 1994/95, any article in such a category would automatrically fall into either the BR or post-privatisation category. (This is distinct from the pre-1948 situation, as in those days there were multiple possibilities for a given year.) --RFBailey (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(A "UK" or "GB" caveat is needed for that remark, of course, but at the risk of opening a can of worms, maybe there should be "UK railway stations opened in [year]" categories? --RFBailey (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A category already exists under Category:United Kingdom railway stations opened since 1948 which includes Category:Railway stations opened by British Rail, Category:Railway stations opened by Network Rail, Category:Railway stations opened by Railtrack and Category:Railway stations built for UK heritage railways. Lamberhurst (talk) 11:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Oh, cool. I didn't know about those. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These would appear to do the job (so I'll withdraw my suggestion and close up the can of worms before they start breeding....). It would help, of course, if those categories were properly populated: many stations that belong in these categories are missing from them. --RFBailey (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on new articles Sir Haydn (locomotive) and Edward Thomas (locomotive), expanding them and giving them proper references since their creation in the last couple of days or so by User:Peterjhw07. I'd like to nominate them for Did you know, with the hook "...that Talyllyn Railway locomotives No. 3 Sir Haydn and No. 4 Edward Thomas both hold the almost uniqueunusual distinction of carrying the same number though the ownership of four different railway companies". However, I've never looked at DYK before, and having seen the process for the first time, feel a little intimidated :-) Is there a DYK expert who's willing to assist me through this? Also, a fresh set of eyes looking through these articles would also help. Thanks. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 16:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can verify that they retained their original numbers under four different owners, but not that this distinction was unique. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I left it as "almost unique". I'm sure one of the books states that these were the only two locos to hold this distinction, but I can't find the reference at the moment. I'll keep looking. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 16:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've given up trying to find the citation - no doubt I'll find it when it's too late. In the meantime I've tweaked the proposed hook to "unusual". —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you ref the "four railways, same pair of numbers" fact to Davies et al. 1966, p. K265 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDaviesFirthLuckingThomas1966 (help) in addition to Holmes, you should be OK. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't got Davies so I'll take your word for it, but done. Incidentally, I like that form of referencing; I'll apply it to the other citations. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 18:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK process has been improved considerably over the past few years, so you should get the hang of it fairly quickly. Provided you have a cite for the hook, you shouldn't face any problems. Unfortunately, this is the sort of claim that would be difficult to confirm -- consider how many railways and locomotives worldwide -- yet without it the hook is rather less 'hooky'. (That doesn't mean it wouldn't be selected though.) -- EdJogg (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mjroots (talk · contribs) has scored over 200 DYKs, several of them on railway topics - I'd say he's an expert on getting them through. If this particular item isn't solid enough for a main-page DYK, you could try Portal:Trains/Did you know candidates. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that this is off-topic but does it matter if an article is heavily reliant on one book? Simply south (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC) I wonder what a yopic is? ;p Simply south (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]

(ec) Hmmm, well I suppose if you add my created/expanded to the nominated ones it might just top 200. Anyway, to the subject in question, I'd say the suggested hook has potential, but what about adding in the timespan? The one book shouldn't be much of an issue as it's certain to be a RS. Mjroots (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think I've got them in the system, though there are some contradictions in the instructions. Watch this space as they say. As for me, I'm off to enjoy an extra hour in bed :-) —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 22:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to include the |article2= parameter. I've sorted that out and the DYK credits so that you both get credited for both articles. Suggestion re hook: Wikilink each word in "four different railway companies" to each of the owners in turn? Mjroots (talk) 08:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that be a bit WP:EASTEREGGy? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tivedshambo, I've changed the DYK credit as you 5x expanded both articles as well as nominated them. The expansion credit outranks the nomination credit. Mjroots (talk) 08:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the altered hook in as an ALT1. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone knows Barnetby railway station can they answer image query on Talk:Barnetby railway station. Keith D (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the article Hackney Central railway station, the infobox claims it reopened in 1980, but it is categorised as reopening in 1985. Does anyone know which (if any) of these is correct? --RFBailey (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto Hackney Wick railway station. --RFBailey (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're both shown as open in the 1980 (3rd) edition of the Baker Rail Atlas. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 18:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the categories to 1980 on both stations. A source for the opening date would be good though! --RFBailey (talk) 00:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done 12 May 1980 according to Butt. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have raised a merge prop at Talk:WD Austerity 2-8-0#Merge. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Another at Talk:LMS Fowler Class 3F#Merge. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't see why you need to do this. The BR ex-WD Austerity 2-8-0 article describes those taken into stock by BR. The WD Austerity 2-8-0 describes those in stock by the War Department. Although all of the former belonged originally to the latter, they are different classes because they are owned by different companies (and one which is not a successor to the others). See for example how the British Rail Class 77 is separate from NS Class 1500. Tony May (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to the reply which I left at WT:RAIL#Merge proposals. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Further information: Oxshott railway station

Bringing this up for discussion in order to assess consensus on whether a stand-alone article is justified.

On 5 November, a lorry fell off a railway bridge near Oxshott railway station and landed on a passing passenger train, causing 5 minor and two serious injuries. My view is that the unusual circumstances of the accident give notability, partly due to the fact that railway carriages are not designed to resist weights in excess of 25 tonnes being dropped on them from a height of some 10 metres. A lack of deaths does not mean a lack of notability here.

Sources

• BBC
• RAIB
• Surrey Advertiser
• Surrey Advertiser

To avoid the wikidrama that was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Oban derailment and its subsequent deletion review, I propose that the creation of this article or not is discussed at WP level, and that the article is only created if it is demonstrated that there is consensus that it should be. Mjroots (talk) 12:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support creation, as proposer. Mjroots (talk) 12:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• To date we have only news reports and industry-specific sources, and much of the former is fairly light on detail. With no evidence of the lasting impact or international coverage that the WP:EVENT guideline suggests as factors in determining notability, I have to oppose creation of a separate article at present. If something important happens later as a result of it we can take another look, but this is too soon. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Het Nieuwsblad coverage (Belgium). Mjroots (talk)

• That goes a long way towards answering one of my concerns, although at 103 words it probably wouldn't be considered significant coverage. However, it still doesn't answer the problems of meeting the WP:PERSISTENCE and Wikipedia:GEOSCOPE subsections. Four days after the event, coverage is already starting to slow down, and aside from the temporary closure of the line and the damage to the units, there isn't much evidence of lasting impact either. Bear in mind that I'm usually criticised for supporting event articles that most others would oppose; I don't think this would survive the inevitable AfD. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose lacks long term notability, will be forgotten in a couple of weeks as with most bridge strikes/crossing incidents WatcherZero (talk) 14:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait -- since the RAIB are investigating this, their findings should determine the coverage we give. The particulars of the accident are quite unusual -- what are the chances of randomly dropping a lorry off a bridge and landing on a train? -- and the passengers should be glad that the lorry hadn't fallen 30 seconds earlier, as the train would have then piled into it, no doubt causing greater damage/injury. The bridge had been examined in the wake of the Selby incident (as mentioned in the BBC coverage), so it might be that the RAIB demand all brick overbridges to be additionally protected with crash barriers, or the like... THAT would certainly demand a separate article. -- EdJogg (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait and see: at present a paragraph (or two) in the Oxshott station article should be sufficient (possibly with a redirect from 2010 Oxshott rail accident or some such). However, if it transpires that this incident has far-reaching, long-term consequences (although that seems unlikely to me), then perhaps thought can be given to a separate article. --RFBailey (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (Just to note that the station article already includes appropriate coverage, with references. -- EdJogg (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

• In which case, the status quo should be sufficient. --RFBailey (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, coverage is at British Rail Class 455 and New Guildford Line too. Mjroots (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I would suggest that those two should be heavily summarised (especially for the 455 article, as the class of train involved is barely relevant) and use the 2010 Oxshott rail accident redirect as a 'main' link to the station article. -- EdJogg (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ed, no objections from me if you want to do some trimming. BTW, I found a useable image of the accident and added it to the Oxshott station article. Mjroots (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Excellent find! Other two articles now trimmed... -- EdJogg (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Someone tried to add something to South West Trains, but they put it in as part of the Rolling Stock section and it had so many errors that I reverted it rather than trying to correct it, and I doubted whether it was needed in that article too. David Biddulph (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Our local freebie paper gave it front-page coverage with a colour pic of the crash scene. They rounded some of the figures (and said the lorry "tumbled", "crashed" and "bounced off the roof"!) but the story was largely correct; however, that entry in the SWT article was appalling -- even the date was wrong! -- EdJogg (talk) 00:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait. No evidence of lasting WP:EFFECTs yet, which is likely to be the only way this will ever justify a stand-alone page. And the sort of effect I am on about is bridge design change as suggested above, not the damaged units simply being kept out of service for months/years, or even written off. Otherwise, we would be writing articles for incidents like the time they dropped a whole Meridien? set off the jacks in a depot recently. I would however also say that the class page is the better primary location than the station for the material, given that it likely affects those for longer than the station, but I'm not particularly fussed about that. MickMacNee (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just to inform you, Foroa has made a mass move of Commons images from "railway station" to "train station" categories - [1]. I have asked him for an explanation, and ask here for more general consensus. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONGEST POSSIBLE OPPOSE, the correct term is "railway station" as it has been since the late 1820s. Thus the categories should be at "foo railway station". Mjroots (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG OPPOSE Railway station is the international term for a station. Likelife (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG OPPOSE -- I always thought 'train station' was the term used by the ignorant! HOWEVER, (COMMENT) consider the existing Wikipedia coverage "train station", which would count against this argument... -- EdJogg (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I suspect that's a "go with what nobody wants" compromise set up by Jimbo way-back-when to end railroad-railway-railroad arguments. See also Fixed-wing aircraft, locked at that title to stop people moving aeroplane to airplane all the time. – iridescent 17:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG OPPOSE - No "dumbing down" on Wikipedia, please! –Signalhead ^< T > 18:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow you guys... you don't need to go capsbold about it... -mattbuck (Talk) 17:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong (but calm) Oppose - I agree with everything above, except I didn't have caps lock on. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 18:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To all of you—discussing it here will make no difference since en-wiki decisions aren't binding on Commons. Y'all need to go argue the toss here. – iridescent 18:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue has been raised at Category talk:Victoria Dock branch line whether categories should be created for individual branch lines on the basis that readers will find them more easily that way. Comments would be welcome. See also Category talk:Hull and Holderness Railway and Category talk:Hull and Hornsea Railway. Lamberhurst (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that we already have RDTs, routeboxes and navboxes for this purpose; I myself created {{Railway stations in Oxfordshire}} and {{Closed stations Oxfordshire}}. I don't think we need a fourth way. I also see that there is a potential problem with small categories. I live in Didcot - within 12 miles of me there were once something like eight branch lines (only one, that to Henley, is still open), four of which were essentially single-station (unless we count the junction station as being "on the branch"). I don't think that Category:Abingdon branch line would be very useful. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might be useful for commons, but not especially here. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a little too specific to be much use. Categories with so few items just feel redundant to the processes we have already. I suppose a case could be made that they're permitted under Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, but I'm not convinced. Also worth remembering that many stations on branch don't have articles yet, and you can't have a redlink in a category. That said, if a line has enough stations with articles on it, it could be worth doing. Category:Heart of Wales line stations might be quite useful. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories at branch line level are over categorisation IMO. Apart from the obvious issue raised by Redrose of very small categories, I don't think the average user is going to search by branch line. By station name, yes; by county, yes; by company, yes; by line (branch or otherwise), highly unlikely unless I'm already in possession of the knowledge as to which line a station in on, in which case why am I searching by line? To me a horrible situation is (would be?) going to the category for the company only to find no stations listed in that category, just load of sub-categories of lines from which I have to plough my way through until I find the one I want. NtheP (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would look for the line cats rather than company etc. probably because I would not know which one to look for. I do not think it is over categorisation, some may be small but the lines can become sub-categories of the companies to make navigation easier. The articles covered under the present discussion have just the route boxes and the diagram on the line, though one of the lines has not got an article as yet, making getting the collection of stations even more difficult. Keith D (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions of lines can put some things into question. Some lines are physical as well as the services but others are just the services e.g. South Western Main Line, Thameslink. Simply south (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have nominated Category:Hull and Hornsea Railway for deletion here and would appreciate your support as it's a test case. Lamberhurst (talk) 13:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't support you as you engaged in major editing of the categories before proposing the deletion, against the terms of the proposal: Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress. Scillystuff (talk) 13:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please keep to the substance of the proposal rather than what I may have done in good faith, having misunderstood the rules in proposing what is my first ever deletion? Lamberhurst (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is likely to be an issue that prevents the CfD from going through, you are in the best place to revert the 'offending' changes you have made (just check your Contributions' page). This rule is in place to allow other editors to assess the viability (etc) of the cats, which they can't do if all potential cat members have been removed -- there is no way of discovering this subsequently. If the cats are to be deleted, whoever deletes the cats will most likely clean up the files too, so you shouldn't have to touch them again. -- EdJogg (talk) 15:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that this cat has been repopulated. -- EdJogg (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The National Library for Scotland has released a load of photos taken for the inquiry into the 1879 disaster on Flikr here. I haven't checked the copyright status but if they are on general release like this that they may possibly be available for use. NtheP (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at a couple and they are tagged "No known copyright restrictions". Given the date of 1879, the would seem to be firmly in the Public Domain now. I would think that the photos were originally Crown Copyright, which would have expired in 1929. Mjroots (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have separate articles for many individual preserved locomotives. Do we want to encourage the creation of articles on individual locos which have been scrapped? Example: LNER Class A4 4483 Kingfisher. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not as long as they meet WP:N and stuff. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing against them in principle, but hopefully they can be somewhat better than the example given there, which is an unsourced stub. Does that particular loco meet WP:GNG? Alzarian16 (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any great notability except it's claimed to be the last A4 in regular service which isn't much to shout about. I was thinking of redirecting the article to LNER Class A4. NtheP (talk) 08:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason why this locomotive cannot sustain an individual article, as long as all info is fully sourced and referenced. Heck, we've even got an article on an individual parcels van! Mjroots (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An (admittedly quick) search for online sources gave me nothing better than this. According to this self-published page it wasn't even the last in service, but joint last. I hope there are some decent sources offline... Alzarian16 (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Such as Boddy, M.G.; Neve, E.; Yeadon, W.B. (1973). Fry, E.V. (ed.). Part 2A: Tender Engines - Classes A1 to A10. Locomotives of the L.N.E.R. Kenilworth: RCTS. ISBN 0 901115 25 8. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)? Mjroots (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds promising. How much coverage does it give of the individual loco? Alzarian16 (talk) 11:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, because I don't have that book. Other possible sources are various magazines on UK-railway related topics - The Railway Magazine, Steam Railway etc., etc. My original comment stands. Mjroots (talk) 12:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case you didn't already know, I've been working with data released by OS for some time producing a glut of maps for the UK. There is a potential use for a variety of route maps and I can easily produce them if I know what is required. I notice that a very similar topic has been discussed here recently, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 18, but there is a slightly different emphasis: Those are labelled maps at the local level (as PNGs). What I would produce would be blank maps (as SVGs). These maps are useful in their own right and could easily have a legend, label etc added; this potential division of labour allows me to dovetail with Mertbiol's work (especially as my workflow is fast now).

As for the two example images, one shows the current routes operated by First Great Western. The second is a plain map of the network in England and Wales. Any feedback on their content would be handy. A bit of info on the data itself: Its from the OS Meridian 2 product and is not perfect unfortunately. Examples of problems: It doesn't include heritage lines or indicate where the tunnels are. It also includes several non-passenger lines such as the complex around Laira TMD. Marking the tunnels and non-passenger lines is doable but will take a bit of time.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good quality maps are always useful. They could do with a different colour to better differentiate between the railways and the Welsh border. Red to match existing route diagrams?

Also, would the FGW map be better if it only showed a part of the country, perhaps with a thumbnail to show the relationship to England as many county maps do, such as File:Devon UK location map.svg. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the TOC routemap - it would be better if they only showed the relevant section of the country, though obviously for ones like Virgin West Coast that's going to be pretty much all of it. I'd also make the English/Welsh/Scottish borders a bit less heavy. Also, why is Scotland a different colour? -mattbuck (Talk) 14:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding borders - I notice that besides the national borders, there are also English regional borders. These might be confusing because they appear to be the same dark grey as the railway lines (I know that "stroke:#646464"   and "stroke:#000000;stroke-opacity:0.75"   are not the same, but as thin lines, thay are barely distinguishable); plus, I don't think these borders are particularly relevant in a railway context. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some replies: The maps are only for England and Wales (which is why Scotland is different as an "other" area). I know that's far from ideal but I haven't actually got the full GB base sorted and it will do the job for demo in the initial discussion. I'd agree the map showing part of the country is superior (more relevant stuff is visible in the thumbnail). The regional borders are included to the base, as its easier to add too much then subtract then start with too little and add. I'm not sure what level of detail is wanted there - it might even be worth skipping the national borders.

As for colours, red as the default may be reasonable (railways are conventionally black - but that's only to avoid confusion with roads, not a problem here); that palette shift will also avoid the confusion with borders. A related question I have: What colour should the highlighted element be? I used approximation to FGW livery for that map. Would it be better to use a single colour for all maps or use an appropriate colour for the subject (when possible) - in which case I'd need advice on the colours should be.

In any case, I'll produce a more refined version of the FGW map, in response to this feedback (and anything else you guys can think of), in the next couple of days.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd always go for an appropriate colour - using the ones from the ProjectMapping site I linked you too would work, as they're fairly accurate to corporate colours. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done a revised one map for FGW: Changes - altered area of base map to just the region of interest, dropped the euro regions, altered the colours. The "other routes" colour is that of the route diagram #d77f7e; I'd be inclined use the primary colour (#be2d2c) of the route diagrams when there is no more appropriate colour.

Points to consider: Is adding an inset beneficial? Its obviously useful for say Merseyrail, and redundant for CrossCountry - I'm not sure about intermediate cases like FGW. Should all routes by that operator be coloured identically, or should barely used routes (such as the Dartmoor Railway) be shown as such? Also, I'm not sure using corporate colours will always work in all cases: Merseyrail is #ffb400  , which will contrast poorly. Maybe useful to add more to the background too (urban areas in particular, possibly county borders at non-national scales).--Nilfanion (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think they would benefit from having the main towns and cities marked on the map. G-13114 (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]