Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 39

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

→

Article title versus text, thoughts on decapping.

I have been thinking about the decapping saga. I'm not sure if this is the right place to put it but.... Is there not a case to say that a title of an article should be treated differently in regards to capitalisation, then the text of the article? What I mean by this is; someone on here (I forgot who) said that a name could only be treated as a noun if it was consistently capitalised in sentences and in the text of the article. But I'm not sure I agree with this stance. The reason why, is that many books on railway lines use the capitalised form of 'Line' in the book titles and in chapter headers, but use the lowercase form of 'line' in the text. So a distinction is made between the title and the text. One of the justifications used for decapping articles here, is that mentions of the line in question in the text of books often uses the lowercase form, whereas the book titles normally use the uppercase. So is there not a case for replicating that here, and using the uppercase for article titles but lowercase in the text? Does this make sense? G-13114 (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Please read the Wikipedia policy on article titles, specifically the WP:TITLEFORMAT section. Wikipedia article titles are written in sentence case, not title case. This is policy, and not a matter that can be dealt with here. RGloucester — ☎ 21:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

It is worrying that G-13114 keeps arguing for caps instead of first reading and understanding policy like WP:NCCAPS. In future discussions I will try to remember to also link WP:TITLEFORMAT which says it much more concisely. ClemRutter similarly. Mjroots at least argues "These are all Proper Noun Phrases" when he argues for caps. Dicklyon (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I would add that while I can't read minds and thus motivations, what this looks like to me is "I desperately want to keep capitalizing. I didn't get my way at RM, so now I'm going to try to incite my wikiproject into rebelling with me to keep capitalizing in our articles where ever we can until we're forced to stop." If there's an element of that at play here, it needs to come to an end right now. See WP:CONLEVEL, WP:GAMING, WP:FORUMSHOP, WP:OWN, and WP:FAITACCOMPLI, plus the entire suite of guidance we have at WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, WP:NOT#ADVOCACY, WP:FANATIC, WP:STICK, WP:GREATWRONGS, etc., etc. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia does this because it uses MediaWiki rather than C2. Once upon a time, wikis (which were new) auto-linked words and phrases by automatically adding square brackets around any 'likely' link terms, often those entered in CamelCase. C2 did this. It was soon realised that this was a bad idea (as were several other aspects of C2 that changed in MediaWiki). For any popular wiki, a link should be accessed more than it is defined. So rather than linking anything that looks like a title, a better and "version 2" wiki should support the body text as much as possible and rely on manual hinting for where to link.

So in MediaWiki, links aren't titles, they're snippets of body text that just once get to be titles. Thus they use lower case or Sentence case, rather than Title Case, and they also support easy piping and the auto-piping trick to hide disambiguators with the least effort. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice about adminship to participants at this project

Many participants here create a lot of content, may have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Narrow-gauge stuff

The RFC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Hyphen in titles of articles on railways of a narrow gauge closed with a long statement that included the highlighted conclusion that "article titles should use narrow-gauge, except for proper or common names where a contrary use has been established". Presumably he means only where it's used as an adjective (attributively) before a noun, as in "narrow-gauge railway", "narrow-gauge line", or "narrow-gauge locomotives". So I moved back all the ones that Bermicourt took the hyphen out of, and some others. Dicklyon (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

EMU identification

A request from Commons:User talk:Pkbwcgs: can someone identify the type of unit in this photo please? Appearently it's either a Class 375 or Class 376. Optimist on the run (talk) 13:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Answering my own question, I'd say it's not a 376, as the doors are flush with the side of the train, whereas photos of the 376 show them recessed. Unless of course it's something completely different. Optimist on the run (talk) 13:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

There's a carriage number, but it's blurred, can anybody work it out? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

It's either a 466 or 465 - it's not a 376 due to the flush doors, and it's not a 375 because the 375s have rectangular door windows, not curved. By weight of numbers I say 465. I think the number on the side is 65715, which resolves to 465916. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Harling Road accident, April 2016

Consensus is against the creation of an article. Accident is covered in relevant articles on line and DMU class. Mjroots (talk) 06:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Earlier discussion here

The RAIB have now released their final report into the accident.

Is this accident notable enough to sustain a stand-alone article? Mjroots (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Gut feeling no but I am not a great fan of recording accidents anyway. My feeling this is not notable enough. Wasn't there a similar incident on the Sudbury branch a few years back? --Davidvaughanwells (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

That accident was due to the lorry driver misusing the crossing (no permission to cross obtained). This one was due to a signalman's error (permission to cross granted when it shouldn't have been). Mjroots (talk) 06:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Also a no from me. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

And from me. Level crossing collisions are common (which is why Network Rail is spending eye-watering sums of money closing them). This got some attention at the time, but even in the railway press it's little more than footnote now. The only way this would attract sustained coverage is if there were some sort of long-term and wide-reaching consequences. An obvious example is Railtrack taking maintenance in-house after Potters Bar—that would likely have made Potters Bar notable even if the loss of life hadn't been. If the RAIB recommend a complete overhaul of user-worked level crossings or farmers' crossings (and that recommendation is taken up by NR/ORR/DfT), and that attracts in-depth coverage, that would make it notable but they stopped quite a long way short of that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I would say no. Accidents have BLP concerns, so the barrier to clear for creating an article should be higher, such as if the accident is a significant event in the history of British railways. For example, the Hatfield rail crash's main notability is its trigger point as the contribution to the collapse of Railtrack and the subsequent turnaround of standards. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mass RM request

See Talk:Thornbury Branch Line - another rehash of the uncapitalising line saga. Mjroots (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Not a rehash, not a saga, but another step in reducing over-capitalization. Even though it's hard to imagine how these could be controversial, especially in light of discussions above, I'm doing it through RM discussion as you suggested. Dicklyon (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

And again you've done a mass move request*, despite opposition at the original RM on talk:Redhill–Tonbridge line to mass moves. All such RMs should be individual to the page the RM refers to, and this WP should be notified of all such RMs to give editors the chance to participate. I notice that you later filed a second RM on the Redhill–Tonbridge line, which was only successful due to complete lack of notification to members of this, the Kent and Surrey WPs. Mjroots (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

*I missed this word in my original post, added it so that the post is factually correct. Mjroots (talk)

Notification was provided. Have you not seen the huge thread above where Dicklyon has provided notifications of the various discussions occurring? Indeed, he even sought wider participation, and later posted a list of all the discussions open. If you're going to accuse an editor of impropriety, at least make an attempt to ensure that the accusation has some sort of basis in fact. RGloucester — ☎ 17:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@RGloucester: - there is NO notification that the Redhill to Tonbridge Line article was subject to a third RM request in four days posted on this talk page. Therefore my statment, at least in part, stands. I didn't realise that the huge discussion above had some RMs chucked in. It was getting too long to read and from first glance was merely more dead horse beating, which I decided to stay away from. Mjroots (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, there was a notice. Dicklyon posted a list of active RMs, which included that one. I already linked it above. I'll do so again. The other two RMs were withdrawn by Dicklyon because of procedural objections by you, and a few others. You requested a one-page RM, and indeed, Dicklyon acquiesced to your request. Even when he does this, you lash out at him? RGloucester — ☎ 17:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, he does. Dicklyon (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Doing a search of the text currently on this talk page brings up no mention of "Redhill" between 26 January and my post earlier today. So where is it then? Mjroots (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

In this diff I replaced the manual list with a link to where such things are kept current; you can also read there about how to make sure you get changes to show up on your watchlist. Dicklyon (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Are you deliberately going out of your way to find technical ways to hide the start of new discussions, and of where those discussions are located? And when an editor then flags such discussions on a project page, they are accused of "canvassing".

A project-wide bulk issue, such as page moves, should take place on the project page, where it is most obvious to all. Especially when it comes at the end of a long series of such. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, I accept that this WP was notified (some days after) that the third RM request had been filed. Removal of text from talk pages such as this makes it much harder to find things. One shouldn't have to rely on digging through the page history to find out things about discussions currently on the page. Mjroots (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Come on, Mj, these were all advertised in the standard ways, at WP:RM, on the affected articles and talk pages, in the project alert system, and discussed here, and when Useddenim requested, also explicitly here on this project talk page, for a few days when you were actively editing, and then a more general mechanism was described in case you weren't already looking at alerts. It's not my fault you ignored it all. But in the process, it became clear that you are about the only person willing to still argue to capitalize these descriptive titles. Time to give that up, maybe? Dicklyon (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

See the discussion on my talk page at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Redhill.E2.80.93Tonbridge_line (permalink), where I have again urged those all involved to follow WP:MULTI and use centralised discussions to resolve these issues.

Multiple individual discussions on the same issues principle are a sure path to creating frustrated editors, frayed tempers, and resultant drama. This saga is already showing many of the characteristics of those protracted disputes which end up at Arbcom with vast screeds of evidence and allegations, inducing headaches and leading to unwelcome outcomes for many of those involved.

I have no stake in any of this, other than a hope that all the editorial talent here can be used to produce a stable consensus rather than an extended diversion of all this talent into accusatory wrangles at drama boards and probable sanctions. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC) Yes --5.142.235.215 (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Mjroots, it seems to me that Dicklyon has been sensitive to your objections ... continually. Tony (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

That one closed as "Move all per overwhelming consensus", and so they're now all lowercased. There are still about 10 Xyz Branch Line articles to go, and none of them appear to be proper names when I look in sources (most have mixed caps, mixed other names, etc.). Should I list them like above, or start another RM, or just go ahead and move them? Dicklyon (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Just move them, or list them at WP:RM#TR and cite that closure. This WP:FILIBUSTER stuff on the part of a handful of over-capitalisers has run its course, exhausted everyone's patience, and wasted a tremendous amount of time, re-re-re-resisting the same kinds of moves no matter how many times the resisters don't get their desired result (see WP:TE and WP:ICANTHEARYOU), launching repeated frivolous dramaboard actions, etc., etc.. None of these antics had any effect on the outcome and it's time they stopped. "Move all per overwhelming consensus" is the end of it. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I went a head and listed those in the discussion above, along with a bunch of others, and after a week with no opposition moved them. This prompted some pushback on just a few "named" lines (not these branch lines), which is fine; so I'll start a few RM discussions instead of a bunch. It still seems to me that claiming "proper name" when sources show mostly lowercase is silly and time-wasting, but at least it's only a few now. Dicklyon (talk) 05:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

So here's discussion of one what was moved and moved back: Talk:Sutton_Park_Line#Requested_move_4_March_2017. Also Talk:Cambrian_Line#Requested_move_4_March_2017. Dicklyon (talk) 05:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

If someone could move this comment to a more appropriate place I'd appreciate it, I'm writing from a mobile and can't find anything on this talk page using it.

London reconnections has a new article it in the South eastern route study, and it's notable that in the NR map, all the line names are capitalised. http://www.londonreconnections.com/2017/kent-route-study-part-1-london-bridge-metro-services/. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Tyne and Wear Metro

Recently, I've been doing a major overhaul of the Tyne and Wear Metro article, which had been in a pretty sorry state for years, and also the associated Tyneside Electrics article. I've improved both massively, but it's far from complete, any help would be appreciated in bringing them and the various sub articles up to scratch. G-13114 (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

How long before Dicklyon renames it to Tyne and Wear metro? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

If you were just planning on improving the article, great. If you were planning to take it to GA, your book sources might need more precise citations so that people can accurately fact check. For example, the whole of the first part of the "History" section covers 100 years over 5 pages of one book and (seemingly) all of another. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Passenger usage statistics, 2015-16

With the update on Yorton railway station, I think all the UK mainland mainline station articles have now been updated for the latest usage stats. Shout if you find any gaps. Johnlp (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

And it only took several months. Oh well, it'll be the LT stats next, I suppose. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

It might be worth considering if there's a way to provide stats via a template, so that when new stats are released, you only need to update one or two templates instead of updating hundreds of articles. Something similar exists for local government district populations. See {{English district population}}. A template that worked like this could then be included in the station infobox template code. -- Dr Greg talk 20:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not just hundreds, but 2,557. If all these figures were in one template, then every article would be carrying 2,556 figures that were irrelevant. Then there is the processing time to pick out just the one relevant figure. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Is there some way to perform a lookup against a table, or link from Wikidata (where I guess it would be easier to mass import the data)? Thryduulf (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

We could use something similar to Module:HK-MTR stations or Module:Rail transport colors. I don't think there are Wikidata properties for traffic statistics yet. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 04:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if template writer extraordinaire Cyberpower678 could advise any further? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

If we are talking about Lua modules, Green Cardamom is the better person for that.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 13:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll pass on this one as I've never done something like it and currently busy with another programming project. If it's an external link template I have the methods and can do it quickly. The Lua forum takes requests for help. -- GreenC 16:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

See also Wikidata:Property proposal/patronage. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 01:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

NRstn and NRrws

Further to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 37#Cryptic templates - NRstn and NRrws, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 April 5#Short-form station link template. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Passenger usage statistics template

I have tried to improve the usage statistics table at Highland Main Line#Usage but I have not been successful. First I tried to fix the link to Perth station, which links to the one in Australia, but couldn't figure out how to do this in the template and secondly I added usage statistics for 2015/16 but these do not show up. Ideas? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I've updated the templates {{GBsta-u}} and {{GBsta-u A}} to support this.-- Dr Greg talk 00:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but it now appears to be displaying the wrong year - it is saying the last year was 2016/17 not 2015/16. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

That must mean that there are too many columns of data being supplied from the article. One of those columns must be incorrect and will need to be deleted and the columns to the right of that shuffled down one. (I could temporarily hide the 2016/17 column (until this year's figures are published) if you like, but that won't put the data in the correct columns.) -- Dr Greg talk 18:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I think I've solved the problem now. Someone had edited the template on 15 May 2016 which had relabelled all the columns incorrectly. I've now restored the correct column labels. It's possible that anyone who's made use of this template since 15 May 2016 may have put data into the wrong columns, believing them to be correct. -- Dr Greg talk 00:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if there is a way of upgrading my template so that it is easier to scroll along the columns without the template taking over the whole article. We can only add columns for so much longer. Simply south ...... time, department skies for just 11 years 18:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

MOS:SCROLL appears to forbid scrolling (except in some special cases). I don't know if it's technically possible or not. If there were consensus to do so, the oldest columns (e.g. more than 10 years ago) could be removed (by removing the oldest parameters starting with {{{u1}}} from {{GBsta-u A}}, not by editing all the articles that call it). -- Dr Greg talk 19:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Technically, it's easy: just wrap the table in <div style="overflow:scroll;">...</div>, for example

Cell 1	Cell 2	Cell 3	Cell 4	Cell 5	Cell 6	Cell 7	Cell 8	Cell 9	Cell 10	Cell 11	Cell 12	Cell 13	Cell 14	Cell 15	Cell 16	Cell 17	Cell 18	Cell 19	Cell 20	Cell 21	Cell 22	Cell 23	Cell 24	Cell 25	Cell 26	Cell 27	Cell 28	Cell 29	Cell 30	Cell 31	Cell 32	Cell 33	Cell 34	Cell 35	Cell 36	Cell 37	Cell 38	Cell 39	Cell 40	Cell 40	Cell 41	Cell 42	Cell 43	Cell 44	Cell 45	Cell 46	Cell 47	Cell 48	Cell 49	Cell 50	Cell 51	Cell 52	Cell 53	Cell 54	Cell 55	Cell 56	Cell 57	Cell 58	Cell 59	Cell 60	Cell 61	Cell 62	Cell 63	Cell 64	Cell 65	Cell 66	Cell 67	Cell 68	Cell 69	Cell 70	Cell 71	Cell 72	Cell 73	Cell 74	Cell 75	Cell 76	Cell 77	Cell 78	Cell 79	Cell 80	Cell 81	Cell 82	Cell 83	Cell 84	Cell 85	Cell 86	Cell 87	Cell 88	Cell 89	Cell 90	Cell 91	Cell 92	Cell 93	Cell 94	Cell 95	Cell 96	Cell 97	Cell 98	Cell 99	Cell 100

but as noted by Dr Greg, MOS:SCROLL comes into play. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Midland Railway War Memorial and Midland Hotel, Derby

Hello! I've been working on these two articles over the weekend. Does anyone have any useful sources or additional information they contribute? Sadly, there doesn't seem to be as much to say about the Midland's war memorial as there was about the NER's so another FAC looks unlikely. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Glossary of railway terms

Is there any appetite in the project to create one of these? During a GA review (Talk:Marylebone station/GA1) it became evident that a number of technical terms are used which perhaps don't need an article of their own but could be defined in a glossary, e.g. take Glossary of football terms as an example. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

If you want to write one yes - alternatively a link to one on the net with an explanatory shove - "There are a number of technical terms in this article that are explained here - http://www.railway-technical.com/newglos.shtml " may be an alternative. Or is it appropriate to explain them briefly in the article?--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

A brief explanation in the article would be very handy. I'll start one later if no-one gets to it first. I have no in-depth knowledge in this area, hence my suggestion that for the thousands of railway articles we have, it may be helpful to people like me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

There is already an article - Glossary of United Kingdom railway terms. Nthep (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be very technical - more enthusiast in its current form--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Woot. Ritchie333 you may be interested in this... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm struggling to write a definition of "chord" as defined in railway terminology - ie: a line joining two legs of a junction. I can find blogs and forum posts, no problem, but nothing we'd actually define as a reliable source. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

RAIL and The Railway Magazine have extensively covered the Ordsall Chord. I'm sure somewhere in there is an explanation of what a chord is, but do you really need a source for a plain-English translation of a technical term? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

An illustration as applied to railways would be very helpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333 is this any good? *Trains Magazine I know its American but......The joy of all things (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

That's chord used in defining the curvature of a line but not the term Richie is looking for (I think). The thing about the term Richie is looking for i.e. a, normally short, line connecting two others has been in use virtually since the dawn of railways. I can find reference to chord lines in railway journals from the 1830s where the use of the term seems unexceptional and not requiring any further explanation. Nthep (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333 The Rambling Man is the diagram too complicated? Ref would be Trackmaps Eastern 2016 pages 16 & 25 (978-0-9549866-8-1)

Not quite sure whether you are after a definition or a referenceable (and understandable) example of usage. If the later will do, there is this from an Accident Report of 1924 (the only instance I threw up by searching within railwaysarchive):

Between Borough Market and Metropolitan Junctions, the base of the Cannon Street triangle, the Company's line runs roughly in an east (London Bridge) and west (Charing Cross) direction.. There are four running roads at Metropolitan Junction named from the north side of the line as :-up local, down local, down main, and up main ; but a short distance east of the box the northern pair diverge northwards on a curve of about 8 chains radius towards Cannon Street Station No. 2 box, while the southern pair continue towards London Bridge. The up east line, that concerned, laid upon the east side of the first-named pair, completes the western chord of the triangle

Report on the Accident at Metropolitan Junction on 13th September 1924 (http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=2373)

If not, not.. Rjccumbria (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

It works for me, and certainly illustrates the idea very nicely, much clearer than just assuming a reader understands chord in a railway context. Thanks for your work! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I got given a dictionary of railway terms a few years back, I'm sure things like chord would be in that. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Moving forward on Line case

see Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Article alerts#RM for Requested Move discussions in progress and recently closed.

The one-at-a-time RM discussions are attracting almost no participation. It seems that it would be more efficient to have a sort of triage process, where we list articles that have capitalized Line, and get quick opinions to (a) keep it that way, (b) downcase it, (c) discuss it, or (d) discuss in groups. I could organize such a process, or someone who is more into the UK trains could. I suspect most articles would be decided without much overhead, within a few days, and if we get some moves wrong and subsequently get an objection those could be reverted if necessary and discussed. I'll be happy to help or stay out of the way if someone else wants to take it on. Otherwise I can make a fleshed-out proposal here. Contact me by talk or email if you'd like to help. Dicklyon (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Candidates to look at

There actually aren't a whole ton of line articles that are capitalized. At least half are already at lowercase (and if some of those are wrong, we can fix those, too, of course). I went through the first 5000 hits for intitle:line and found just these that I think are capitalized rail lines in England not already under discussion (though I haven't looked closely enough to verify even that much);

(all candidates are now moved into sections below; feel free to comment or move them)

Note that I am not saying these should be downcased. Just that they should be looked at, so we can decide which are obviously proper names, which are obviously not, and which we want to discuss. We could take our time, let editors move these into categories such as "leave capped", "downcase without discussion", "discuss individually", "discuss in groups" (e.g. a group of branch lines) or something like that, and get this done fairly quickly with opportunity for input from all and less overhead than full RM discussions, yes? Dicklyon (talk) 06:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Let's give this a try. Anyone who wants to make a good-faith effort to propose dispositions, just drag from the list above into a section below. Keep in mind that there's not a big cost for errors, as they can be revisited, reviewed, reverted if we don't get it right the first time. And I will not be executing any moves from these ~~without discussion; this is just some starting discussion~~ unless they sit in the "clearly just descriptive" section without any opposition for a week. Dicklyon (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Uhm, I don't know how you came up with it, but Bristol City Line was a shipping company, not a railway line. I've struckthrough above. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I came up with the list by a quick shallow search for Line in title and England in article, hoping to find rail lines in England, but noted that "I haven't looked closely enough to verify even that much". Thanks for checking and marking that one. Dicklyon (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Proper name – leave Line capped

Avocet Line – almost already capped in books and news.
Bittern Line – marketing name, capped in most books and news
~~Bristol City Line~~ – a shipping company
Chase Line – most commonly capped in books and news
Chiltern Main Line – mostly capped in books and news
Far North Line – uniformly capped in news, often enough in books
Forge Valley Line – news – books – few mentions, more capped
Lavender Line – only one in news, and most in books thus.
Looe Valley Line – news – books – mostly capped in books and news
Narborough Railway Line – seems to be the proper name of a Norfolk Wildlife Trust preserve
North Downs Line – pretty consistently capped in news and books
Northern City Line – about 2/3 capped in books and news; close enough
Potteries Loop Line – usually capped in sources for over a century
~~River Line (East Sussex) – pretty consistently capped in books~~ a river.
That's funny. I was looking at sources for an actual British rail line called the River Line, but that's not what that article is, and that is not among the rail lines on the River Line disambig page. Maybe some day it will have an article. Dicklyon (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Riviera Line – rare in books; usually capped in news
- Disused railway stations on the Riviera Line
St Ives Bay Line – community railway; pretty consistently capped in books and news
Sprat and Winkle Line - As a suggestion, would Sprat and Winkle Line not be a proper noun as it is an applied name in the form of a nickname rather than descriptive of it going between two places? Neither end of the line is called Sprat or Winkle. (viz ECML, WCML, Wherry Lines, Bittern Line etc)The joy of all things (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

OK by me. I see it capitalized in books for the last 25 years (but not before), and in 2 of 3 news items. Close enough. Dicklyon (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Stour Valley Line – news – books – mostly capped in news, but not in books of any century
Tamar Valley Line – news – books – 2/3 capped in news, mostly capped in modern books
Varsity Line – mostly capped in both books and news
Watercress Line – uniformly capped in news and books.
Wherry Lines – marketing name, capped in most books and news

Clearly just descriptive – downcase line

Uncertain – discuss individually

Cambrian Line

Optimist had my move to lowercase reverted (see User_talk:Anthony_Appleyard#Move_of_Cambrian_Line_to_Cambrian_line), so we should discuss. Maybe not start today, as the revert used up today's RM date on a procedural RM to revert, at Talk:Cambrian_Line#Requested_move_27_February_2017. Dicklyon (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Capitalise to Cambrian Line (also Cambrian Coast Line and Heart of Wales Line) as proper noun phrases, per sources. Also this is not one of the form "Far Twittering to Oysterperch line", a simple geographical descriptor, it is a name invented specifically to name the line, not merely to describe a route - and such will tend to be proper noun phrases, thus capitalised, just as the simple descriptors will tend to be uncapitalised. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion opened at Talk:Cambrian Line#Requested move 4 March 2017. Dicklyon (talk) 05:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Gilling and Pickering Line

No problem with the downcasing, but older sources list it as Gilling and Pickering line (my emphasis). Howat (1990 & 2004) in the Railways of Ryedale (definitive account of the line), Hoole 1976, Suggitt 2005 (though he varies over three pages) and this WWT, TR&FOTNER. More modern variations differ wildly. No preference on any really, but the NER who built it called it X and X, not X to X. The joy of all things (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that some of the "to" lines are more common with "and" or dash, which are more symmetric. In the Line downcasing discussions I've been suggesting the dash as alternative, since a big multi-RM closed in favor of dash for such things several months ago, and I moved a bunch more without opposition since then; so dash leads to more consistency. But that's a weak reason, and I have no objection to "and" or "to" if that's what people (and sources) prefer. Individual discussions are fine for such; or we could group some "to" lines and discuss them all in one place. There are about 10 such open, see current list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Article alerts#RM. Dicklyon (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Penistone Line

About half capped in news, half in books; per MOS:CAPS, lowercase default seems reasonable.

Shotts Line

Uniformly lowercase line in books, but capped in recent news about the "Shotts Line electrification contract". Dicklyon (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Uncertain – discuss in groups of similar items

Group 1

Group 2

Settled

Left capped

Cross-City Line

Since there have been various viewpoints already on this interesting case. I did just open an RM discussion; please comment: Talk:Cross-City_Line#Requested_move_11_February_2017. Dicklyon (talk) 05:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Closed as no move. Dicklyon (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Downcased

Moved as "clearly just descriptive" without opposition or further discussion

Arun Valley Line – news – books – 70% or more lowercase in books and news
Caledonian Main Line – usually Caledonian main line in books; half in news
Cranleigh Line – Usually lowercase in books; half in news
Dundee and Forfar Direct Line – usually Dundee and Forfar direct line in books; no news
Haddington Line – Usually lowercase in both books and news
South Eastern Main Line – most often South Eastern main line in both news and books; also South-Eastern main line and south-eastern main line; less often capped.
Tees Valley Line – news – books – lowercase in 20th c books, absent in news
Teign Valley Line – news – books – mostly lowercase in books and news

Fallowfield Loop Line

Capped in one book ("off-road cycle path conversion of the Fallowfield Loop Line") and one news item (The Complete Guide to: Great british bike rides), and doesn't appear otherwise (no lowercase loop line). More typically it's just "Fallowfield Loop", and in all cases it's more often about the bike path than the railway. The article lead says "Fallowfield Loop railway line". The case for capitalizing Line is weak; the case for even having the word line is weak. Probably "Fallowfield Loop", or "Fallowfield loop" as in in old railway magazines, is better. Dicklyon (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed on losing "line" - see Pudsey Loop. The joy of all things (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Fallowfield Loop is the article on the bike path. The line is "Fallowfield loop" in the only hit in Google books in the last 50 years. From books it appears that "Fallowfield line" is what it was called. I think we should just move it to there, yes? Dicklyon (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Moved back to whence it came for now: Fallowfield Loop railway line. Dicklyon (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

West of England Main Line

This appears to be officially named 'West of England Line' during the Network SouthEast era so should retain its capital L but loose the word 'Main'. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Or more commonly downcased as "West of England line", per 80% of books and nearly as much of news. Similar, perhaps not quite as overwhelming, lowercased "West of England main line". Pick one, and fix the case. Happy to discuss. Dicklyon (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

RM is open at Talk:West of England Main Line#Requested move 12 March 2017. Dicklyon (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

moved to West of England line. Dicklyon (talk) 02:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Great Western Main Line

Pretty mixed; probably should be lowercase main line.

Well Great Western is definitely capitalised, and I'd say the rest is too. It's a proper name, not a descriptive one. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

'Great Western Main Line' is a name used by Network Rail. As Matt says, Line is being used as a proper noun. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

At the page about it, Network rail calls it Great Western Mainline (in the title), Great Western route, and Great Western railway, and Great Western line, and just Great Western. Where are you seeing that they call it Great Western Main Line? Dicklyon (talk) 03:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

RM is open: Talk:Great Western Main Line#Requested move 9 March 2017. Dicklyon (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

moved to Great Western main line. Dicklyon (talk) 02:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Marshlink Line

As previously discussed, either Marshlink line or just Marshlink, since Line is not part of its name.

I tried Marshlink but User:Ritchie333 reverted; so maybe Marshlink line? Discuss, or just do it? Dicklyon (talk) 04:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: A random sample of sources (eg: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]) uses "Marshlink line", and with nearby railways we have South Eastern main line, Ashford to Ramsgate (via Canterbury West) Line, East Coastway line and Maidstone line, though I notice a number of the articles with "line" in lower case were moved very recently, so I would say there is no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

No way should you "just do it". You have been asked before to discuss first, yet once again you moved without first obtaining positive consensus. It is becoming increasingly apparent that you are determined to move pages, no matter what others might think, by the expedient of trying again repeatedly until others give up. Continuing until you are the WP:WINNER is not the Wikipedia way. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm actually quite interested in what others might think, and frustrated at not being able to get much input for the process. Dicklyon (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The lack of response would suggest to me : "it ain't broke, don't fix it". As one of the principal contributors getting this article to GA status, I have to say I was more concerned that the railway's history from the mid-19th century to the present was complete and factually accurate, and whether or not the "L" in "line" should be in caps is kind of at the bottom of priorities. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with "if it ain't broke don't fix it". But this one is broke, along with several others, per WP:TITLEFORMAT and MOS:CAPS. Note that of the "random sampling" that you linked, 4 out of 6 use lowercase line. Dicklyon (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Ritchie333. RM discussion started at Talk:Marshlink_Line#Requested_move_9_March_2017. Dicklyon (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

moved to Marshlink line. Dicklyon (talk) 02:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Portsmouth Direct Line

Lots of variations in sources, esp. Portsmouth direct line and Portsmouth Direct line

Actually, it appears to be majority Portsmouth Direct line, sometimes quoted as 'Portsmouth Direct' line, so I went ahead and downcased line. Let me know if there's any objection and we can discuss. Dicklyon (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Moved to Portsmouth Direct line. Dicklyon (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Sutton Park Line

Previously downcased line as uncontroversial, reverted at request from G-13114. Dicklyon (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion opened at Talk:Sutton Park Line#Requested move 4 March 2017. Dicklyon (talk) 05:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Moved to Sutton Park line. Dicklyon (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments on multi-article moves

Note that this is the default, per instructions at WP:RM, when multiple article titles raise the same issue. It's a hassle for the community and for RM admins to re-re-reconsider redundant move requests, whether there's a tediously bewildering array of simultaneous ones, or an interminable line of them one after another month after month. Demanding individual RM listings for pages that do not raise unique issues is a WP:GAMING, WP:DE, and WP:OWN ploy, since most RM participants will rapidly tire of this as noise, while those hell-bent on doing something against MOS, AT policy, or the naming conventions will gain the upper hand, because only they will be obsessive enough to follow and participate in all these discussions. As posts on this page demonstrate, they'll actively canvass each other to do so. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 09:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, Cross-City Line, which I did as a single since it seems kind of different, just closed as no move, because most editors are weary of these one-at-a-time discussions. Railfan Optimist on the run, "a regular user of the line for the last 20+ years" got several "per him" supports from other railfans to treat it as a proper name, even though sources mostly don't. I don't think this kind of very-local consensus to overcapitalize does any part of the project any good, but I can accept that one as a loss (it's interesting, too, that the sources they quote don't use a hyphen, but there it is). Most of the others, whether single or multi, weren't lines he regularly uses, I guess, so they went through without opposition, for the most part, or only from the general over-capitalizers Mjroots and G-13114. So about 50 or so recently fixed, and the project is starting to look more consistent, less discordant with the rest of Wikipedia. Still a bunch to consider, like in the lists above. Any help or advice on how to proceed would be appreciated. Dicklyon (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Another way forward

I have come here from the ongoing move request at Penistone Line. I find the use of source counting as a foundation for content problematic. It gives no regard to the quality of the various sources being counted. Another problem that has occured in this case is that there has been two lines named after the village of Penistone. Thus not all the sources found in a simple search may necassarily even apply to the argument at hand.

I have found a single definitive source that may apply in many cases. The National Rail Enquiries have published a list of about 50-100 Named railway lines and not all cases include the word 'Line' within them. It (for obvious reasons) only applies to lines that have a timetabled service running the full route. However it is harder to dispute than relying on the English language skills and railway knowledge of random journalists and authors. Eckerslike (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Already pointed out and discounted, I fear: it is amazingly easy to dispute. The problem (which it takes some time to come to terms with, personally speaking) is that WP views on 'quality' of source discount evidence taken from publications by the owning organisation, by local government, or any any other body that might think the entity being capitalised important. The same argument may be used to discount specialist publications (including books) because being written by and for specialists they will give undue importance (things can get very snidey at this point and the concept 'railfanboy' be thrown about). WP guidelines also discount references in the local paper (because WP is not written in newspaper style). All that may end up meaning that the source to whose style the locals should defer may well be some tourist guide which in real life they would regard as very low-quality (for content at least). Unfortunately those are the rules. Rjccumbria (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Queen(')s Road Peckham

I have started a discussion about redirects to Queens Road Peckham railway station and the road it is named for at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport#Queen(')s Road Peckham. Your comments are invited there. Thryduulf (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Goodrington carriage holding sidings

Hello, I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines on notability with railway sidings, but when I came across Goodrington carriage holding sidings, its notability seemed of concern. Do we generally create articles for sidings? I can't find any information online about them to satisfy GNG. The content could be merged to Paignton railway station or Goodrington railway station. Thanks. Jolly Ω Janner 04:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

LordSavage1997 (talk · contribs) has been creating lots of articles for railway depots, some of which are, shall we say, somewhat minor. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, this doesn't even have a single secondary source, it only has references from RealTimeTrains! Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Nominated for speedy deletion as lacking notability. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

With this result. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the net result of that deletion is

negative. Wikipedia can put up with a few non-notable pages as the price for articles that otherwise wouldn't be written. Useddenim (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not exactly a case of WP:BITE, but it would hardly be the first time that an overly-enthusiastic new(ish) editor just needed some guidance. Useddenim (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing that can be tidied up at a later date. It probably has a place somewhere, but that place might not exist yet. It's articles about people and companies and Internet memes etc that I worry more about. An article about a railway sidings isn't going to cause any major problems if it sits there for a while while we decide what to do with it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

He's back! Mjroots (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the inclusion of goods depots, engine sheds and carriage sidings in the context of the nearest station is acceptable in providing a more rounded history of the railway in a specific geographical area. In this case the Goodrington entry should be included in Torquay station. Larger Engine sheds should have their own entry, smaller ones not...but where to draw the line?--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I've just been looking at some of the articles created by LordSavage1997 (talk · contribs) and to which {{rail-stub}} has been applied (despite the existence of stub templates which are much more suitable). There is so much that is just plain wrong (such as putting a Somerset station into Category:Former North Eastern Railway (UK) stations) that I really think that they will all need to be thoroughly checked. If this user is guessing the former railway companies - who knows if they're also just guessing the dates and locations as well? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

If you bothered to check the references then I think you'll find that my dates are all the same as the ones on the sources. The Category:Former North Eastern Railway (UK) stations is a copy and paste error because the external links are saved as a template on my phone. The location is definitely not a guess because the sources give the lat, long coordinates which are copied into the OS grid reference to convert it to a 6 digit grid reference. The name of the station is Googled so I can find out whether the station was located in a village, hamlet, town etc and I can find out which county it is in. Unfortunately, the sources don't state the owners so I have to go off who the previous station on the line was owned by. Before you judge my page in the future, make sure that you get your facts right first.--LordSavage1997 (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

If you don't want us to judge your articles, please make sure that you get your facts right in those articles. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Davidvaughanwells brings up an excellent point about goods depots (I'm including stations which only handled goods traffic in this), engine sheds and carriage sidings. This is probably as good an opportunity as ever to thrash this issue out.

Subject to the usual rules of WP:V and WP:RS, I'd say that all goods depots and goods stations are likely to be capable of sustaining their own article. Large marshalling yards (e.g. March) should also be capable of sustaining an article. Smaller ones (e.g. Tonbridge West), not so. The majority of engine sheds (including modern TMDs) are also going to be likely to be capable of sustaining their own articles, but not the very small ones. So I propose that an engine shed must have had an allocation of 20 locomotives/multiple units to reach the threshold to have an article. Smaller sheds can be covered in articles on the railway station which they were located at. Which brings us to Carriage Sidings. My gut feeling is that the majority of these are not going to be capable of sustaining a stand alone article. They should properly be covered under the nearest station article. Redirects should be created as appropriate. Mjroots (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Now that sounds like an excellent compromise. Useddenim (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. --Davidvaughanwells (talk) 07:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

That's absolutely fine. --LordSavage1997 (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and for sidings perhaps the threshold should be that it is normal to find operational rolling stock at any time of day. For example Fairwater Yard usually has a couple of dozen wagons and some snow ploughs, whereas Goodrington carriage holding sidings is empty for most of the day so probably doesn't qualify. Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Geof Sheppard Based on present usage yes, but I would suspect in the days before wide car ownership (aka happy days) those sidings were quite full on summer weekends and bank holidays. Perhaps one of our Wikipedia colleagues more versed in things Great Western can advise (or update the entry?)--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

It's unrealistic to state that a sidings must be occupied at any time of day in order to count. The whole purpose of a sidings is to stable trains when they're not in use, so often sidings activity is periodic or sporadic. A commuter travelling past sidings in the morning and evening may see them utterly empty (Eg,Grove Park, Welwyn, Letchworth, Cambridge, etc) because they're riding the trains that otherwise stable there. And yet during the day when they are at work they won't see that they're rammed full with trains being cleaned and remarshalled. Similarly they're busy during the night. Also some goods sidings are active only on the build up to nights and weekends. If you want a yardstick, surely the size, significance and use of them is more important than the fact they're occupied all the time? Dr Sludge (talk) 09:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't want to be awkward, but it's hard to break the habits of a lifetime: If the criterion were to be occupation, is there any way of determining this that would not be open to objection as original research? Rjccumbria (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

If you really want to spend time, there will almost certainly be contracts in the public domain between NWR and the TOCs regarding stabling fees and access charges that establish exactly who uses what and when. Whether it's a worthwhile use of anyone's time to do so is another matter—realistically, hardly anyone is ever going to read the articles. Even Temple Mills, probably the most high-profile of all TMDs owing to its (a) stabling the Eurostar fleet as well as the usual Greater Anglia EMUs and locos, (b) being in (relatively) central London, (c) being clearly visible from both a heavily-used commuter line and a busy A-road and (d) being on the Olympic site with all the publicity that entails, averages only 20 views a day. (That the sources don't exist, even in specialist magazines, is a strong indicator that even the hardcore subscribers to Rail Enthusiast don't generally care.) I know the aspiration is that every topic, no matter how obscure, should be covered if the sources exist (I'm responsible for such riveting reads as Quainton Road railway station and Hellingly Hospital Railway), but in practice anyone who's interested in carriage sidings to that level of detail almost certainly already knows where to find the information more quickly and without Wikipedia's restrictions on images and sourcing. ‑ Iridescent 22:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

There are some good points there. I was trying to think of a way to distinguish between regularly used sidings and ones which are only used infrequently. Sidings used by a significant number of trains on a regular basis would certainly be notable. Perhaps the criteria could be the size and number of sidings, while recognizing that there will always be execptions? I offered Fairwater as something that I would describe as 'notable' whereas Goodrington, in my view, is marginal (it's probably had about 60 busy days since it was built!) while the sidings at Bridgwater (about 50 trains per year nowadays) would not be notable unless considered as part of the railway station there. Geof Sheppard (talk) 06:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Do we need a standalone article for Thornton Fields Carriage Sidings, Gidea Park Carriage Holding Sidings, Colchester Carriage Servicing Depot, Ipswich TMD, Upminster Depot, and Shoeburyness Depot, to name but a few? --TBM10 (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Shoeburyness and Upminster, probably yes; Upminster Depot is the easternmost point of the London Underground and the shed is quite an interesting building in its own right, while Shoeburyness Depot doubles up as the junction between the NWR network and the weird railway network of Pig's Bay (where all kinds of oddness ranging from bomb-testing to loco decommissioning takes place). As a very rough rule of thumb, the sources probably exist for a stand-alone article on any actual railshed, and probably don't for most sidings. (Per my comments further up, whether it's a worthwhile use of anyone's time writing about a loco shed, unless it's something that's had something noteworthy happen there or has been converted to noteworthy purposes, is another matter.) ‑ Iridescent 19:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Trainspotting

Do we need to have trainspotter's logs like this? I removed it once, but Teabagishere (talk · contribs) reverted me. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Generally no, yes on very limited occasions (such as if footage of loco A at station B was included in a significant film, the station was the last-ever stop on the last run of a particular class of locomotive before it was scrapped, or something particularly noteworthy happened which receives wide press coverage in its own right like the ill-fated attempt to run an HST through to Okehampton). At the very least it should be strongly discouraged. ‑ Iridescent 22:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Generally no. If a loco was involved in an event that received significant coverage in non-specialist reliable sources, particularly if we have an article about the individual locomotive, then it might be worth considering. If the only sources are specialist ones, then it is very unlikely that it will be notable enough. In this case, I'm not even convinced of the reliability of the source. Thryduulf (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The 3F locomotive in general ran a section of the last passenger train on the former SM&JR network which i consider to be a significant event Teabagishere (talk) 08:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Teabagishere: Why do you think that is a significant event? For example, did this get coverage in non-specialist reliable sources? Thryduulf (talk) 08:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)7

The running off the last passenger train on any metals should be considered a significant event as it can be considered the end of an era. I have another source for being a book focused one byfields history but at present i cannot gain access to it. If you prefer i could change the source to the book when i have access? Teabagishere (talk) 12:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

In an article about the line, noting the date of the closure to passengers and is certainly encyclopaedic and noting any events associated with this may be appropriate, depending on details. However the last passenger train on a line is not really significant for the article about the rolling stock. Thryduulf (talk) 13:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I can think of at least three articles I have contributed significantly to, which have entries that might be considered trainspotterish. Some of which have been there for a good few years. I think recording the last locomotive type is a nice additional touch as well. I don't see this is an issue as the stock types that work the line are an important part of its history (as are timetables see above.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with line articles stating past/present regular stock, nor the first/last trains; but I think that (for example) the fact that a class 150 used the Henbury Loop Line carrying passengers is notable for the line, not for class 150s. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The question concerned an article about a class of locomotive, not an article about a line. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

look if its causing that much of a problem i will change it back; i originally thought you problem with it was that it was not sourced which is why i reverted it and added a source. I wasn't aware it was considered Trainspotting and i thought it was an interesting fact that someone might appreciate.Teabagishere (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

That was my point Redrose64. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

What class of DMU?

What class of DMU is this? Mjroots (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

British Rail Class 114 possibly? They worked around Lincolnshire. Need my magnifying glass.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Definitely a Class 114, I am reminded of my comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 35#Stations to be identified - the 114s were based at Lincoln for pretty much their whole lives, so Heckington is right in their stamping ground. Why a 114 and not a Class 108? Because there are four and a half windows in the centre section between the two passenger doors, the 108s had three and a half. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks both, correct category entered at Commons. Mjroots (talk) 05:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Dutch Flyer

This appears in many route boxes throughout the East Anglian region e.g. Cambridge railway station which apparently is the terminus of the Cambridge to Amsterdam service (next stop Dullingham). Personally I think this is some bit of railway company advertising and feel they should be removed. The Ipswich - Cambridge line (next stop Dullingham) is also correctly covered in the same box. Opinions?--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Totally agree with removing it. Dutchflyer isn't a TOC of any kind and doesn't even use exclusive trains, it's purely a discount scheme for Greater Anglia passengers travelling to Harwich if they book a Stena ticket at the same time. One might as well say that Eurostar's "any station in Belgium" offer means Eupen railway station is a Eurostar terminus. I note we don't give similar treatment to the Fishguard boat trains at (e.g.) Cardiff Central, even though they have a much better claim to be separate from their parent TOC's services. ‑ Iridescent 19:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of this has been attempted before, for example at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 23#Train operating company; Talk:Train operating company#Suggestions for cleanup-editing; Template talk:Current UK TOCs#Dutchflyer - pretty sure there was at least one more. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Pending any last minute disagreements then I intend to start removing Dutch Flyer from all East Anglian entries. Appreciate help from anyone out there who fancies joining in. Should they re-appear I would appreciate some back up to get the entry re-removed.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Done--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 12:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Or not - Redrose64 has reversed the Stratford entry with no explanation so presumably will be reversing the rest. I am sure you'll quote some piece of obscure Wikipedia law at me but please feel free to explain why it should remain.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Davidvaughanwells, the edit reason was "please don't break routeboxes". Your edit broke the routebox. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Sigh - then why not fix it rather than reverting. I think I need a rest from Wikipedia I'm obviously getting too wound up.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. Why not WP:PREVIEW your edits before saving? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

SR Bulleid pacifics: Unrebuilt vs Unmodified

FYI, Talk:SR West Country and Battle of Britain classes#Unrebuilt vs Unmodified. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Wood Siding bridge

To try to stop this thread being repeated ad infinitum, does anyone have any idea when the bridge which carried the Brill Tramway over the GWR (more-or-less above the remains of Dorton Halt) was demolished? I have what's probably every significant work on the Brill/Wotton Tramway, and AFAIK none of them give a date for the demolition of the bridge (as opposed to the station structures on it), but it may well be mentioned in a book on the GWR or the Chiltern Main Line. Per my comments on my talk, I think it unlikely that it would have been demolished at the time the track was lifted—not only would it have entailed closing the main line underneath while works took place, but it would have served an obvious useful function as a pedestrian and livestock route between the two sides of the cutting below. (As you're presumably all aware, the Big Four, BR and Railtrack/NWR have all had a longstanding aversion to demolishing infrastructure unless it becomes absolutely necessary to do so.) However, it's definitely no longer standing, so it must have either been demolished, collapsed or been bombed at some point. Because the quirk of ownership whereby it was leased to the Met rather than bought outright, with a clause in the lease that ownership reverted if train services stopped, the bridge would have been in the ownership of the O&ATC rather than London Transport or the GWR. It's just about possible that the O&ATC had it demolished immediately to avoid having to pay maintenance costs, but I can't imagine the GWR being pleased at having to shut the main line while works took place. ‑ Iridescent 18:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Was it an iron or steel bridge? The remaining abutments seem to belong to that type. This illustrates a "half-bridge" being removed on the Stammerer's Delight. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Certainly metal; there's a photo of it here (the platform was on the bridge for no good reason I can think of). I'm not doubting that it was removed, since it clearly was, but doubting that it was removed as soon as the line closed. ‑ Iridescent 22:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The bridge was constructed by the GWR circa 1908 (I assume). Its wide shape could be explained by the GWR constructing the bridge slightly larger than the O&ATC's property boundaries. The bridge would remain the property of the GWR after the closure but the land on top of the bridge would belong to O&ATC until the winding up in 1937 (presuming that the auction in 1936 was only for infrastructure). A vendor on eBay has an undated photo of the site for sale; facing towards the GWR line it shows a wooden fence and a large verge- looking at the Google streetview the fence has gone and what appears to be an access road down to the cutting has been built. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

'course I'm making assumptions here about ownership. I'm guessing that the removal is quite recent, and associated with the work on the access road. The present bridge, at SP674 153, appears to be bridge number 16994 at Woodsiding in Network Rail's catalogue. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 10:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)