Archives

April – 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 - April 2013 April 2013 - September 2013 September 2013 - February 2014 February 2014 - June 2014 June 2014 - October 2014 October 2014 - January 2015 January 2015 -

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

We have some users, such as Tempest3K (talk · contribs) and MadSquirrel (talk · contribs) that believe that the information on the preserved HST prototype should be included in British Rail Class 43 (HST) and (apparently) not in British Rail Class 41 (HST). HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs), you mentioned that you wanted to go through these articles properly, how about it? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the value in mentioning the prototype in the Class 43 article, but there's enough detail to justify a separate article. And the 125 Group (who are operating the prototype) refer to it as 41001. I've been meaning to overhaul the HST articles for ... a long time. I knocked together bibliography last year if that's helpful to anyone. There's lots of overlap between the articles, but if they were all done properly to fit in with each other there's plenty of scope for all the articles we've got and probably a few more (the background, including BR modernisation/the APT/etc, is probably worth an article in its own right). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be some detail of the prototype on the main Class 43 page. It is, after all, given TOPS class 43/9, which justifies its inclusion. There's not really much more than a "mention in passing" of the prototype. I agree that the prototype content on the 43 page doesn't need expanding, but it does nonetheless need to be included for completeness.

Disclosure - I'm a member of the 125 Group and a member of the GCR(N), although I wasn't involved in the restoration project I do volunteer on running days with 41001. But it was to some extent the Wikipedia articles that sparked my interest in it, so as far as I'm concerned the info on 41001 should stay on the page. Squirrel (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But why can't you put the detail on British Rail Class 41 (HST)? It is much more relevant. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MadSquirrel: Nice to meet you. I'm also a member of the 125 Group, though thus far the extent of my involvement has been a few cheeky photos at the open day at Etches Park last year. I agree with you that it's well worth having some information on 41001 in the Class 43 article, but given that Class 41 has its own article, we should attempt to just summarise the key points in the 43 article and point readers to the 41 article if they want to know more. The two paragraphs that are in there at the minute are probably about right. We don't it to dominate the article, because the main focus of that article should be on the production version. For an analogy, consider how much weight the APT should be given in the main article on the HST—definitely relevant and worth summarising, but the detail should be reserved for the APT's own article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with @HJ Mitchell: on this one. The prototype needs to be mentioned in passing on the Class 43 page, with references to the Class 41 page for full detail. What we've got now is just about right. The mechanics of the Class 41 prototype and Class 43 production locos are pretty much the same (indeed 41001's engine, S508, came out of a production loco).

There are some differences, the cab obviously, the prototype has buffers which were removed from the production loco, the prototype has both ETS and ETH supply whereas the production only has ETS, and the B end driving position was removed from the production loco. But it certainly deserves the brief mention on the 43 page. It's fine as it is. Squirrel (talk) 12:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Scotsman first steam locomotive to 100mph? I'm pretty sure it wasn't. Doesn't that honour fall to City of Truro? Mjroots (talk) 13:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the distinction is one of perceived authenticity - the LNER had a team of professional test personnel who used calibrated equipment that recorded the speed continuously, whereas the GWR's claim was based on calculations made by the journalist Charles Rous-Marten, who although reputable, did not have access to high-quality test equipment - he habitually recorded the speeds of the trains on which he travelled, using a stopwatch and the quarter-mile posts (900 divided by the time in seconds for the quarter mile gives the speed in mph). Since his speeds are only given at quarter-mile intervals, and not continuously, there has always been some disagreement over the interpretation of his timings. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done

• File:VTEC IC225 crossing viaduct.jpg
• File:Virgin HST swish.jpg
• File:87008 City of Manchester (9370433605).jpg
• File:General Motors EMD Class 66 No 66595 (9474461176).jpg

Any idea where these are? -mattbuck (Talk) 13:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:VTEC IC225 crossing viaduct.jpg looks like 54°28′38″N 1°33′09″W / 54.477296°N 1.552626°W / 54.477296; -1.552626 ... Croft railway bridge over the River Tees. Not very excellent bridge photo here: [1]; more useful ones here: [2] --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, thanks Tagishsimon. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of late many articles seem to be acquiring lists, sometimes very long lists, of accidents, not only the Railway company home pages but also individual classes of locomotive, probably other places too. Is there an argument to suggest that these are over dominating the topics? The notability of Rail accidents is undeniable, but these lists do seem to be unbalancing the articles. Would it be better simply to have links to lists of accidents under a reasonable number of categories rather than the lists in so many places? It seems to me to does give the impression that most interesting thing about railways is railway accidents, which might well be true of the red top press, but maybe not ideal for a balanced encyclopedia. 212.159.44.170 (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the railway is one of those items where it rarely makes the news unless bad things happen. Accidents are notable occurrences, and should be covered. The question is, as you state, where. I'd say for instance that the Pacer fire at Nailsea was notable for the class and for the location, but probably not for the TOC. There needs to be an avoidance of synthesis. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In what way are accidents "not ideal for a balanced encyclopedia"? We cover it all, good and bad. That is how balance is achieved. Mjroots (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have time to stand back and take an overview of Great Western Railway (train operating company)? It seems to have accumulated a lot of cruft, unsourced in some cases, as well as some material that seems to me to violate WP:NOTTIMETABLE. I don't really have time to get to grips with it properly, plus I am not absolutely certain what the ideal TOC article should look like. -- Alarics (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you were. Others now seem to have the matter in hand. -- Alarics (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to comment on the renaming discussion going on at Talk:Pomona Metrolink station. G-13114 (talk) 09:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 2014/15 statistics will be released on Tuesday. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 21:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are now out, I am having trouble updating the statistics for a few stations, Manchester Piccadilly station, Euston railway station, Lancaster railway station. I add the figures but nothing extra shows up for some reason. Anyone have any ideas? Absolutelypuremilk (talk • contribs) 11:22, 15 December 2015‎

Usage1415 is not currently a parameter of {{Infobox GB station}}. I don't have time to fix it right now - it should be a simple fix though. Optimist on the run (talk) 11:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah that makes sense, thanks! Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly for {{Infobox London station}}. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which raises the question: do we need a separate infobox for London? Merging the two would eliminate the need to update both each year. Optimist on the run (talk) 12:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you could just add (say) ten years to the template each time. Note that the London infobox has information on the attached tube station. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well anyway, the parameters have been added now. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 14:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the parameter for lowusage has not been updated and so e.g. Wrexham Central is not coming up with the correct figures, although the others have (and thanks for those) Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, the statistics are now out, so if we could all pitch in and do a few stations then hopefully we can get most of the stations sorted out fairly soon. http://orr.gov.uk/statistics/published-stats/station-usage-estimates Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see the general trend is up, though London Bridge is falling down [3] Optimist on the run (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now the link is down. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 15:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With the deletion of York & Selby Lines, it's unclear to me what we call the line between Leeds and Church Fenton. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 13:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Leeds to Church Fenton Line? Actually, maybe we should reconsider the deletion of the York & Selby article, it did have its uses. G-13114 (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's the related question of Leeds-Selby. Mackensen (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the National Rail designation, the section from Leeds to Hull via Micklefield (and Cross Gates) is known as the Selby Line. I would have a preference for avoiding the use of "York & Selby Lines" which was a Wiki-invention. Lamberhurst (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely was not a Wiki invention. This terminology has been used by the West Yorkshire PTE (Metro) since the eighties at least and is still being used on their timetables to this day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:F684:580:B055:C953:1A5E:A824 (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me, thanks. Mackensen (talk) 13:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presuming these lines have been covered by Mitchell & Smith, what titles are they covered under? Mjroots (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Middleton Press have covered those lines yet. If I go to their home page, and under "Search our Index to Stations" search for stations like Cross Gates, Garforth, Micklefield, Church Fenton, Ulleskelf, Bolton Percy, none of relevance come back. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relatedly, the National Rail designation says that Leeds-Micklefield-Scarborough is the "York Line". We don't really have coverage for Church Fenton-York (not a large section), but the northern piece is covered by York to Scarborough Line. Mackensen (talk) 13:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ORR refers to stations like Cross Gates, Garforth and Micklefield as being on the Leeds to Colton Junction Line, the line that branches off towards South Milford, Selby etc as on the Hull to Micklefield Line and Church Fenton and Ulleskelf also on the the Colton Junction Line (at least, according to the latest 2014/15 usage document before it was taken down). Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 17:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are the interchange statistics really necessary for stations? It makes the infoboxes very difficult to read and build up an idea of what is going on. It's not particularly relevant for most people who just want to know how busy a local/often visited station is and want to know what the trend is. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favour of the idea being discussed on the infobox template talk to have the list collapsed by default. I think that interchanges are a useful measure, but they shouldn't be shown by default. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is a very good idea, I will post on there. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find them pretty confusing to be honest. I think if we are going to have them, they should be in a separate section rather than interlaced with the main usage statistics. And they should only be used on stations which are significant interchange stations, rather than be used by default. G-13114 (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's the number of passengers who changed rather than exiting/entering, and you're quite right, places like Yatton don't need interchange statistics, but Bristol Temple Meads does. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So would everyone be happy with having the list collapsed by default but still there? (Assuming that someone knows how to do that!) Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say show the latest figure outside the collapse (if possible), but otherwise yes. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that makes sense. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added this discussion to Template talk:Infobox GB station Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MULTI, I have removed the duplicate posts from Template talk:Infobox GB station#Interchange statistics. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edit Redrose64, did you also have any thoughts on the interchange statistics? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion underway regarding deletion of the newly created BR Standard 4 2-6-0 76084 article. Please join the discussion. Slambo (Speak) 16:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as nomination withdrawn Optimist on the run (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Waterhouses (County Durham) railway station is proposed for merging to Waterhouses, County Durham. Please discuss at Talk:Waterhouses, County Durham#Merger Discussion. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that people here take a look at the discussion going on at Template_talk:Infobox_GB_station#Usage_section. Your input would be useful. Specifically, the proposal that was rejected here a few years ago to remove all but this year's station usage figures has been revived. G-13114 (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the proposal being discussed is to hide [default setting], not remove, previous years' usage. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]