Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 50

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45←Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52→Archive 55

Rolling stock lead sentences

Recently there has been some disagreement as to what name should be used in the opening sentence and at the top of information boxes of rolling stock articles British Rail Class 222 and British Rail Class 810. Given that this affects multiple articles, have brought here to try and gain as many views as possible.

Some think it should be the family name; e.g. Electrostar, Voyager, AT300, while others the operator assigned name e.g. Capialstar, Meridian, Aurora for the class 378, 222 and 810s respectively. Both are already mentioned in other sentences in the respective lead sections, and linked in the case of the former.

Obviously using an operator assigned name is only possible where the entire fleet is operated by one operator as is the case with the 222, 378 and 810 fleet. Would not be possible in articles like the Class 800 article, as while LNER use the Azuma branding, it is not used by GWR who also operate them.

These are the options, please add if there are more:

  • Option A: family name irrespective of whether there is an operator assigned name that can be used, e.g. British Rail Class 378 Electrostar, British Rail Class 222 Voyager, British Rail Class 810 AT300
  • Option B: operator assigned name, e.g. British Rail Class 378 Capitalstar, British Rail Class 222 Meridian, British Rail Class 810 Aurora
  • Option C: just use the class without any name, e.g. British Rail Class 378, British Rail Class 222, British Rail Class 810
  • Option D: use a combined name, e.g. British Rail Class 378 Electrostar/Capitlstar, British Rail Class 222 Voyager/Meridian, British Rail Class 810 AT300/Aurora Metro140 (talk) 03:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

For mine, Option C, clean and simple and can be applied to all classes regardless of whether they are part of a family or nor or have a name or not. Metro140 (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC) Option B compromise change of vote in the interests on having a clear consensus. Metro140 (talk) 04:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I personally think Option B is the best, purely because they're names that are used on the railway. TOCs will specify units under their brand name as they are friendly names that won't confuse the standard traveling public. GWR, for example, use IET for their Class 800/802s as they're easy to remember.[1] In that article, IEP and IET is mentioned, but no Class 800/802. For the Class 222/810 with EMR (which has been a topic of debate recently), they mention the class number briefly, but do use the brand name.[2] As you can see, the brand is mentioned first and then the class. Especially seeing as the new 810s are called "Aurora InterCity trains" and not "Class 810 trains" or "Class 810 AT300 trains". We also have to remember the family name is in the infobox.

Overall, it should go like this:

  • Use the brand name first if there is one. Will probably be the name that is most familiar with everyone.
  • If there is no assigned brand name, use the family name if it can be cited and verified. Then people will know what to expect.
  • If no brand or family name is known, just use the class number as you don't have any more information to go by.

Sorry for the lengthy post, but I think this is a very important topic to stop confusion! --ChrisRCentral (talk) 06:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Here are a few examples of what I'm trying to put across:

  • Class 170 "Turbostar" - As Turbostar is both the brand and the family name, it should stay as Turbostar[3][4]
  • Class 701 "Arterio" - Even though the family name is Aventra, South Western Railway call them "Arterio"[5], so the term "Arterio" should be used as it is the brand.
  • Class 80x "grouped" pages - Where there is a unit used by multiple TOCs, it should be referred to "Class 800" (As it is a group) and then in the TOC details section, it should mention the brand names (as, for example, GWR[6] and LNER[7] have brand names for them. Adding the family name here, would again confuse people.

The only time I see the family name being useful is for when a TOC orders a unit and it isn't named yet, or the TOC decides to use the family name as its brand/doesn't apply a brand name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisRCentral (talk • contribs) 18:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I too would go for Option B and the reason for that is as follows,

Within the very definition of Wiki being an online encyclopedia, it should to all intents and purposes be filled with content with that brief in mind.

I can use an encyclopedia to find out about any topic but it should not be in so much detail that it confuses those not au fait in the specific field any given article talks about (or at least not within the title, sub-text or info box).

So you have to look at it from the POV of the everyday punter, and with that in mind it's best to remember that TOCs specifically use the brand names in marketing and info (PIS,CIS, Menu Cards) in order to differentiate.

Prime example is that VT/AWC use the Pendolino and Voyager brands to save confusing customers especially as the layout of the trains are different, the on-board service is different and the routes they serve are different.

So on balance you would make the assumption that if I was a member of the public and Googled "new EMR trains" and clicked through to wiki, the info should be there and in line with what the TOC's branding is, as if I called up EMR and asked "what provisions are there on the AT300 for disabled passengers" the would more than cause more confusion than resolve.

Further to this both customers, platform staff, depot staff and train crew almost always use the term "Azuma" when referring to the AT300 products within LNERs rolling stock portfolio and I'd wager it's the same across most TOCs.

[8]

I've provided the "Azuma" brand guideline link to help illustrate this link between the language used around rolling stock, this isn't anything new and for scope you can take any example of this method of company to customer communications from as far back as "The Big Four", BR, Sectorisation and Franchising (Flying Scotsman, The Coronation Scot, Networkers, Wessex Electrics etc, etc, etc)

Slidesauce (talk) 07:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Metro140: Having started this discussion, you should not have then made these edits. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Option D is the worst, and most confusing, option. Probably the best option is A as that will have the link to the manufacturer. Different brand names can be introduced in the sections of the article dealing with the different operators. That should get round the problem identified by Slidesauce. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
What problem? I look at his argument and he's saying the problem is by calling it by its family name. As I've mentioned and Slidesauce has, EMR and other TOCs have their own branding for a reason. I think we should put ourselves in the shoes of the average Joe and how they're not going to care about the family name, but will care about the brand name. Quoting slidesauce, ""what provisions are there on the AT300 for disabled passengers" the would more than cause more confusion than resolve". You're going to cause so much confusion if someone who doesn't know a lot about trains starts calling it by the family name. As Slidesauce has said, imagine the average Joe reading this and then using it on the phone to the TOC. You're going to confuse the TOC and the person calling. It doesn't matter what we personally want, but we have to be responsible and considerate to the standard public. This is, after all, a global wiki. --ChrisRCentral (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Any average punter looking up LNER's Azumas will look at the section marked LNER and discover that company calls them Azumas. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm confused to how and why you think this is a problem? That's the name given to the units by LNER, so that's what they should be called? As Slidesauce has said, "Further to this both customers, platform staff, depot staff and train crew almost always use the term "Azuma" when referring to the AT300 products within LNERs rolling stock portfolio", so why should we, as a global education tool, refer to them in other ways which could mislead and confuse the average person? I'd suggest reading the rest of the talk page as the general consensus seems to be Option B, with certain exceptions where Option C would be the best. --ChrisRCentral (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

For me, Option A is the best option. In my opinion, the family name should be made clear and if they happen to have a brand name assigned by their operator, it should be made clear as well, but not by replacing where the family name should go. For this reason, I wouldn't want B because the family name for the 810 units isn't Aurora for example. That being said, I wouldn't mind seeing C either to avoid further confusion in the future, but for me A is the best option. --SavageKieran (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so let's take your logic of using the family name. It might work for the 810 (Which it doesn't, because EMR have named them themselves)[9], but does it work for anything else? No. The Class 222's have never been called Voyagers. Voyager is a brand name of XC and VT/AWC of the units used on the west coast.[10][11] I've looked at both Eversholt (ROSCO)[12] and EMR (TOC)[13] and they don't refer to them as Voyager, so I'm unsure how you can verify or cite they are called "Voyagers". Eversholt quote them as "part of Bombardier’s Class 22 X high speed diesel electric multiple unit range"[14] Also, are we saying now that the class 395's should be called AT300? Or the Class 180 should be called Coradia? No. Because in reality, this is not what they're called. --ChrisRCentral (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I lend my support to what ChrisRCentral has said and would also like to point out that it is of paramount importance that Wikipedia caters to those who are not experts in the field that they are searching for. As such I think it is key to the success of clarity that we use the format set out in Option B as it caters best to the users who are not clued up in the specifics of this subject field. Slidesauce (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the 222, I was going off the Bombardier Voyager article, which states that the 222 is a Voyager variant just like the 220 and 221 units, hence why I believe this should be made clear on the 222's article rather than using the Meridian term if it can be mentioned below as the brand from EMR. I also believe and have never thought that the 'Voyager' term is not a brand and I think Avanti and XC are just using the family name for the units from Bombardier, meaning that the 220 and 221 units have no brand unlike the 222 units. In reality, the 395 units are AT300s and this is clarified on the Hitachi A-train article with citations, though they are also branded as Javelins by Southeastern. I hope my viewpoint makes sense as to why I believe Option A is my preferable option. --SavageKieran (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
A page that when looking at specific areas is not cited, whereas myself and ChrisRCentral have cited source for our reasoning, "We do not conduct original research - we report on what reliable sources have already determined, and we state our sources." - Redrose64 Slidesauce (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
The Hitachi Rail EU website explained the AT300 (Intercity High Speed) term for their trains and it states that the Class 395 and Class 80x units are part of this same family. Though, it seems this website has got an error 404 at the moment, but this was what I saw on the website when I last looked a few months ago. Hopefully the website comes back live as I would think this would be the most accurate source considering it is from Hitachi themselves, who were obviously the ones who built the 395 and 80x units.[15] --SavageKieran (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I am in agreement with Slidesauce. I've had a quick look through the Voyager page and if you look at the citations (specifically 7, 8, 9 and 10), all of those either say "Meridian" or "Voyager-like". This means they are not Voyagers and that the fact they are stated as 'Voyagers' is factually incorrect. Also, the family may be A-Train for the Class 395's, but looking at, again, Eversholt (ROSCO) and Southeastern (TOC), specify that they are not called AT300s. Eversholt do not specify a name[16] and Southeastern specify them as "Javelins"[17]. Furthermore, these pages are meant to be cited and factually correct to share the truth, and using statements such as "I think Avanti and XC are just using the family name for the units from Bombardier, meaning that the 220 and 221 units have no brand unlike the 222 units." can't be proved. Unless you can cite this, I don't think it should be used as justification for an argument towards Option A as it is purely an opinion, not a fact. --ChrisRCentral (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I never said my statement wasn't a fact, it is just my opinion. I guess I just thought it would be obvious that the 220 and 221 units do not have a brand considering they are in the Bombardier Voyager family and they can't be branded as their same name as their family, though obviously this isn't fully clarified. Though regarding the 395 and 80x fleet, I will argue and say that Hitachi have clearly stated that the 395s and 80x fleet are all part of the AT300 family on their website (as I cited above though the website seems to be down at the moment). This being said, I don't think it really matters that Eversholt don't refer to them as this, as I would think Hitachi would be able to justify what the units they built are called, unlike Eversholt or Southeastern who didn't build the units. It's unfortunate that the Hitachi Rail EU website is down at the moment otherwise the citation I put above would make this clear and would clear up what I am saying and that is that the 395 and 80x are AT300s as part of the A-Train family, with their separate brand from their respective operators. This is my overall opinion for me picking Option A. --SavageKieran (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
That may be correct, however, these are the family names and not what they are called. Please refer to my previous statement where I state, "You're going to cause so much confusion if someone who doesn't know a lot about trains starts calling it by the family name." I have cited so many times and justified why we shouldn't use family names, however, I'm not saying they're not important. It is, in my opinion, better to have the leading bar as information which the standard public are going to understand, rather than them having to read through the article to find what, say, EMR are calling the 810s. For example, If I go to a train station and I see a Class 810 pull into the station and I'm mildly interested in trains, but don't know a lot, I'm going to search for Class 810 on the internet. If they are being called "AT300s" and I then start using the term AT300 when calling up EMR, they're going to be very confused and will correct me to use the brand name, they use. Essentially, we are a public service for education and yes, we should stating all the facts, but we shouldn't be misleading people. Yes, there are exceptions to the rule and I will update my original post to explain and justify these. --ChrisRCentral (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
You do raise a great point; it may be too confusing if the passenger doesn't know too much about trains and railways. Continuing your scenario then, what if I was a passenger trying to look up information about a GWR Class 802? Once they find the article, they will see the 'AT300' and won't see the 'IET' brand initially and this is because we can't use the 'IET' brand as the family name of the Class 802 because this brand isn't used by any other operator of the Class 802 and is just used purely by GWR. Because of this, maybe it means Option C is the best way forward for all of the articles. This option isn't incorrect and cannot possibly cause any confusion to anybody and even if A or B is correct, it could be too confusing so maybe C is the best way because it is simple. Don't get me wrong, I would prefer Option A and I have already said why, but maybe it is for the best that it is Option C instead. --SavageKieran (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
This is the one time we agree on grouped pages, I've updated my original post to reflect and give examples of outliers such as grouped pages. Let me know what you think of these. --ChrisRCentral (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
But all Class 800 sets can be, and are officially referred to as 'IET' as well.[18] Superalbs (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
For the sake of the simplicity and again, at the risk of confusing standard public, we should stick to what the TOCs officially call them. LNER's sets are called "Azuma" and GWR sets are called "IET"s. It could be mentioned further down the article if that can be cited and verified. --ChrisRCentral (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree, as that seems to only refer to another internal name, which itself refers to the name of the procurement programme. So I would again reiterate that the public facing names should be used, strengthening the cause of Option B. Superalbs (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I choose Option B, as it is the name most often encountered, and also usually found in marketing and information from official sources. Superalbs (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I am going for Option B as I have looked at numerous marketing material from Eversholt Rail, East Midlands Trains, Hull Trains and East Midlands Railway and I can confirm that these units are called Meridians and not voyagers. HunsletMid (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment Call me a cynic, but is anyone else under the impression that this is a discussion where there are more accounts commenting than there are actual people? Black Kite (talk) 23:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
    People agreeing on a certain topic? Wow, shock horror! In all seriousness, get a global moderator to check the IP addresses of accounts if you're that concerned. I for one have my account and only my account. --ChrisRCentral (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
    Oh, indeed - there's always the chance that the editing patterns just look incredibly suspicious, rather than being incredibly suspicious. Black Kite (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
    @Black Kite: The facts are that ChrisRCentral (talk · contribs) has made exactly one edit outside of this section, and Slidesauce (talk · contribs) has made none at all. WP:SPA springs to mind here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
    @Redrose64: So what you're implying here is that just because I am a new user with very little edits, I have no voice and that I'm a WP:SPA. The whole point of this discussion was to do what was best for the general public, not for what everyone's personal interests are. The fact you have not contributed to this discussion and the only time you have said anything, is to comment on the state of accounts is deplorable. I have justified my position each time and also correctly cited everything to back up my opinions, with fact. If this is how the WP:UKRAIL community wants to act and treat new members who want to make a difference, then good luck to you all. Just remember that you are a global education tool and that power should not be abused. --ChrisRCentral (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
    Oh, it's not just UKRAIL - you'll find that much of the Wikipedia community is suspicious of people who appear out of nowhere to make several passionate remarks about a matter with which they had previously shown minimal interest, particularly when they have made no edits to articles, and registered their accounts mere minutes before making their first talk page edit. Talk pages are, in general, not the first place that a newbie goes to. As for The fact you have not contributed to this discussion, that is easily disprovable - I posted at 09:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC) and I'm still waiting for Metro140 (talk · contribs) to either revert their edits, or respond explaining why they thought that editing through semi-protection was justifiable, when that semi was intended to deter precisely the kind of edit which they made.
    While I am here, will you please respect WP:LISTGAP, in particular by matching the indent style and not leaving blank lines? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
    I merely reverted to how the article had stably stood for at least 10 years up until last November. But as it is bothering you, I have reverted. Although it does appear from this discussion, that it will only be short term, the British Rail Class 222 Voyager format appears unlikely to prevail. Metro140 (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option B when there is an operator assigned name as we are an encylopedia for the general public, not just enthusiasts. Option A is fine when there is no operator assigned name or there are multiple operator assigned names for the same train. SK2242 (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I think the two things we should prioritize here is (a) implementing a unified style across all classes and (b) making the brand names (whatever the TOCs call the units) clear. (The former I value as it will save confusion in cases such as the Class 800 (and the Class 222, for that matter, as it has also been called "Pioneer" units).)
Therefore, Option C is the one I support. This would allow for a simple and consistent style no matter how many brands there are or aren't. Partly as compensation though, we should require mentioning both the brand name and the family name in the lead section (in bold) and the infobox (a new parameter will have to be created for the brand).
As a less preferable alternative to Option C2, I would also like to propose the Option B2: list all brand names used for the class. Mentioning the family name in both the lead section (in bold) and the infobox should be mandatory in this case too.--YTRK (talk) 11:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Please have a look at my opening comment, I've had a think about how some of the outliers could work - specifically grouped pages, such as the Class 80x, which multiple TOCs lease. Let me know what you think! --92.13.14.227 (talk) 11:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Um, are you ChrisRCentral? If you're referring to this[19], I can't really agree with you.
You are pushing for option B citing the viewpoint of laypeople (this argument I do agree), yet for certain classes (those that more viewers are expected) you feel mentioning the brand names in the body would suffice. Why is this?--YTRK (talk) 12:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Option C for me is the best, keep it simple. Whenever I see a train I always know it by class and not by its brand or family name. E.Wright1852 (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
@YTRK Yes, that was me, I don't know why I wasn't logged in. The only reason I say that is because unless you want to take the time separating out all of the pages into individual pages, be my guest. Having a grouped page, as I've mentioned, is an outlier. It's better than putting "British Rail Class 800 IET & Azuma". This is the only exception to the rule I would make. If it was up to me, I wouldn't have the grouped pages at all and would have separate pages for "Class 800 Azuma" and "Class 800 IET" for consistency as that's how most pages are already, take the Class 222, Class 395, Class 378, etc. I wouldn't, however, expect people to manage that, plus it's a separate conversation altogether.
@E.Wright1852 We need to stop thinking about what we want, but what the general public would understand. I agree with you, that I tend to know units by numbers, but names are, in my opinion, easier to remember than numbers. Plus, TOCs tend to like to refer their units to brands first and then numbers second (if they have brand), so it would be more beneficial to the public than just numbers. I think the Azuma is the best example of this as more people know the Class 800/801 as "Azuma" than Class 800/801. I've mentioned it before, but we are a global wiki to serve everyone, not just ourselves as railway fans. --ChrisRCentral (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I think that Option C seems the best solution. Remember, we are just talking about the infoboxes here and I see no reason why the title of the infobox should be different to the title of the page. If the page is 'British Rail Class 999' then the info box should be 'British Rail Class 999'. There are plenty of other places in the infobox and on the page where we can define family, brand and even pet names if people have reliable citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geof Sheppard (talk • contribs) 17:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Please read carefully the title on this section of the talk page as it is "Rolling stock lead sentences" and therefore refers to what the name of the train would read in the lead sentence and info box. As has been mention the flow of determining this would be as followed under Option B:
  • Use the brand name first if there is one. Will probably be the name that is most familiar with everyone.
  • If there is no assigned brand name, use the family name if it can be cited and verified. Then people will know what to expect.
  • If no brand or family name is known, just use the class number as you don't have any more information to go by.
If this flow is used it best serves the brief of what Wikipedia is supposed to do: "as we are an encyclopedia for the general public, not just enthusiasts."
So please read the options, criteria and other evidence carefully and remove yourself from the perspective of an enthusiast before making a decision.
I would also request that you sign your post as is the status quo throughout this discussion in the name of uniformity and transparency.
Slidesauce (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
@Slidesauce I do agree with your point. The article titles are always, for example "British Rail Class 810". They don't mention the family or brand name in the title. The articles can still have the brand and family name in them but it seems like it would be a lot less confusing for people if the title of the introduction and infobox are just the same as the title of the article. Therefore Option C seems to be the best solution. E.Wright1852 (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
But the title of an article is just that, a short title for the article. The lead sentence should include a bit more information, such as what the trains are actually officially known as in day to day use, rather than just a classification. A brand name used by train companies is relevant and important here, but I don't believe that the family name would be, hence why I chose Option B. Superalbs (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
@ChrisRCentral "British Rail Class 800 IET / Azuma" would be the end result in option B2. Could you please elaborate on why you are giving up when there are multiple names despite the view that the brand names are important? In my opinion, the brand names not being where they would normally be would result in a bigger confusion, both for readers and editors; consistency is important.
Just to clarify though, my preferred option is Option C with mandatory mention of brand and family name in the lead section and the infobox (perhaps I should have called it C2?).
With B2, I admit, people may find it slightly (but only slightly) confusing; with C, you could write the TOC names in the sentences (lead) or beside the names in brackets (infobox). There is also the problem with new rolling stock where we don't know if there is no brand name or just no brand name yet; using the family name in such cases is problematic and I suspect this occuring at the Class 810 article to have been the cause of the recent conflict.--YTRK (talk) 11:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
@YTRK I'm pretty fed up of having to justify myself again and again when people haven't read my comments properly. Stop with this Option B2 and C2, it's not helping anyone make a decision. Also, I stated "Having a grouped page, as I've mentioned, is an outlier. It's better than putting "British Rail Class 800 IET & Azuma". - nowhere do I suggest that this B2 is a good idea. If you read through every post above and, with other people providing supporting evidence such as Superalbs and Slidesauce, B is probably the best for consistency and for many other reasons. My favourites are:
  • Brand names are the names used in marketing by the TOCs themselves, which most people will come into contact with.
  • Most pages already have the brand name in the title and if the brand name is the family name, that is used. If it has been like this for approximately a decade, why do you feel the need to change it?
  • The standard public aren't necessarily going to remember the numbers of different units, so the names being pushed by the TOCs are more memorable, in my opinion. We need to stop thinking like enthusiasts and actually think about how the general public are going to think. For example, someone will probably search for "LNER Azuma" over "Class 800"
I don't get where you've got this idea that I have "given up" and how the Class 810 has no brand name yet. I haven't given up, I've just accepted that there are some exceptions to the rules. Also, if you look through the references, specifically 2, 9 and 13, you will see they do have a brand, they're called Aurora. For units which do not have a brand name yet, I've outlined in my original post at the top of this talk page section some examples of how different pages would work. --ChrisRCentral (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
@ChrisRCentral Could you please answer my question properly? To borrow your own words as you seem to have trouble understanding me, why you have "accepted that there are some exceptions to the rules" is what I have been asking for the past two days.
The reasoning for option B I perfectly understand and agree; that is, other than the consistency issue. As I've said yesterday, I feel that "the brand names not being where they would normally be would result in a bigger confusion, both for readers and editors". If you are trying to persuade me, why don't you start by responding to that, rather than repeating points that I have already declared support for.
For Class 810, I am very well aware that they do have that brand now. The Aurora brand, however, was only announced last October. Until then we had AT300 on top of the infobox, and edit wars have been occurring starting from the very next day of the change. I hope, though, when this discussion is over, such conflicts will be avoided, or at least stopped speedily.--YTRK (talk) 10:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option C per WP:CRITERIA, in particular the idea of using recognizable but concise names, as well as for consistency. We have British Rail Class 143 (Not "British Rail Class 143 Pacer"); and so on. Adding specific nicknames given by operators or constructors is unlikely to help our readers if they're searching for an article title (which is different from mentioning the nicknames as alternate titles [i.e. "also known as..."] or elsewhere in the article). Since that is how the article title is gotten to, that should also be how it is in the lead sentence/infobox (per MOS); with again no objection to having alternate names elsewhere or otherwise presented. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
    RandomCanadian, I don't believe anyone was suggesting renaming the articles. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Option B(ish). I should be clear upfront that I am focussed solely on manufacturer/TOC names, nicknames like "shed" have no place in the first sentence. There are several distinct scenarios I think we have here:
  1. The train has no recognised brand or family
  2. The train has a family but no distinct brand (Class 458)
  3. The train has a single brand distinct from the family (Class 378)
  4. The train has multiple brands (Class 800).
Scenario 1 is clear - no name: British Rail Class 999. Scenario 2 is also clear, you use the family name: British Rail Class 458 Juniper. Scenario 3 I think the sensible thing is Option B - they are known by the brand, and if the TOC and manufacturer agree on what to call them then we call them that, even if they are part of a family with a different name: British Rail Class 378 Capitalstar.
This brings us to Scenario 4, that of the godforsaken IET/Azuma/whatever else we're calling these trains today. For 222s I think it's clearer - apart from their brief dalliance with Hull (four units, later moved), they have always been Meridians, and so WP:COMMONNAME would seem to apply and they become scenario 3. 800s... we have two competing names, both with large fleets, both current. I think the simplest solution here would be to just accept the difference, British Rail Class 800 IET / Azuma, or something like British Rail Class 800, known alternately as the Intercity Express Train (IET) or the Azuma. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
The "also known as" solution is the one which is probably the best IMH for the scenario you describe. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.gwr.com/about-us/media-centre/news/2015/july/new-fleet-of-trains
  2. ^ https://www.eastmidlandsrailway.co.uk/intercity
  3. ^ https://www.crosscountrytrains.co.uk/on-board-with-crosscountry/our-trains
  4. ^ https://www.westmidlandsrailway.co.uk/sites/default/files/assets/download_ct/20200528/PhgaRUzlxg4HxfT8TsGPED7uMhvLWCePxvRhYRj-dN8/rolling_stock_may_20.pdf
  5. ^ https://www.southwesternrailway.com/travelling-with-us/our-trains/arterio
  6. ^ https://www.gwr.com/about-us/modernising-gwr/iet
  7. ^ https://www.lner.co.uk/the-east-coast-experience/azuma-trains/azuma-is-here/
  8. ^ https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/487664/response/1183441/attach/5/LNER%20Brand%20Guidelines%20June%2013%20LR%20Redacted.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1
  9. ^ https://www.eastmidlandsrailway.co.uk/intercity
  10. ^ https://www.avantiwestcoast.co.uk/onboard/about-our-trains
  11. ^ https://www.crosscountrytrains.co.uk/on-board-with-crosscountry/our-trains
  12. ^ https://eversholtrail.co.uk/fleet/class-222/
  13. ^ https://www.eastmidlandsrailway.co.uk/intercity
  14. ^ https://eversholtrail.co.uk/fleet/class-222/
  15. ^ http://www.hitachirail-eu.com/products/our-trains/at300-intercity-high-speed
  16. ^ https://eversholtrail.co.uk/fleet/class-395/
  17. ^ https://www.southeasternrailway.co.uk/tickets/more-ways-to-travel/high-speed
  18. ^ https://www.gov.uk/government/news/report-132020-collision-and-derailment-at-neville-hill
  19. ^ Class 80x "grouped" pages - Where there is a unit used by multiple TOCs, it should be referred to "Class 800" (As it is a group) and then in the TOC details section, it should mention the brand names (as, for example, GWR[6] and LNER[7] have brand names for them. Adding the family name here, would again confuse people.

Status update

With the conversation having gone cold, we are probably at the point where most editors who are going to express an opinion have done so, here from what I can work out this is who thinks what. Option D has had gained no support, so we can safely eliminate that one.

Apologies in advance if I have misrepresented or omitted any editor's vote, I would be surprised if I haven't missed something, would appreciate somebody else running their eye over my workings. It seems to be a shootout between options B and C. I am happy to compromise and move my vote to Option B if that helps gain a consensus that we can move forward. Metro140 (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

HunsletMid has declared their support for option B here. Apart from that I think Metro140 is correct, but please could someone else double check?
That said though, with two users being suspected of being single-purpose accounts and another whose (few) edits comprise of possible vandalism, taking the numbers by face value hardly seems like a good idea. (Even without that, polling is discouraged in the first place.)--YTRK (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Only just seen the mention in this talk page now, and apologise if it seems like I was being despondent, I stated my position and that was that, I didn't want to get into arguments. Also further to the point of SPAs I understand the issue faced by Wiki in that regard and have now added my previous edits to my user page and will now after being involved in this discussion continue to contribute to the UK Railways Wiki pages and I'm currently working to gather information and update pages for stations on my local line.

That aside, regardless of the outcome of this discussion I think its only right to thank people for their time and contributions, and hopefully we can build a better resource for all as a result.Slidesauce (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Just an update as to the consensus of the whole discussion. We are still welcoming everyone's opinions and encourage every to participate. E.Wright1852 (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
When are we making a decision on this? The investigation has concluded and it's been a few days since anyone has contributed. I'm more than happy to wait a few more days for any editors who want to chime in, but I believe we have a consensus. --ChrisRCentral (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Given that option A is out of the picture and it is between options B and C, I will happily change my vote to option C if that helps to gain a consensus. --SavageKieran (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

SavageKieran If you would like to change your vote then please feel free too. As for coming to a consensus I think that the discussion should be closed by a senior editor/admin so that the consensus is fair. E.Wright1852 (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Option B please - noting that if that's what the public call them, that's what they'll want to see on the wikipedia page. "Oh look it's an Azuma!" Turini2 (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Status update 2

With the conversation having gone stone cold and likely to die without a result unless resuscitated, this I believe is the current status. While I would prefer option C, in the interests of obtaining a clear consensus, I will change my vote to B.

Can somebody else please run their eye over my calculations and then take it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure? Metro140 (talk) 04:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

HunsletMid has since been NOTHERE blocked indef. SK2242 (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Change my vote to Option C as least likely to cause confusion. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
I've just updated the vote count based on the last couple of comments. I've removed HunsletMid and moved Murgatroyd49's vote to option C. With this being said, option B still seems to have the majority vote. --ChrisRCentral (talk) 11:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Just to clarify, for someone who's new to this thread and doesn't want to wade through the whole thing, is option B for things like "British Rail Class 390 Pendolino"? And would option c eliminate well-known examples like that? If so, I vote for option B. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, as "Pendolino" is the brand name used by the TOC, that would be used. Other examples include "British Rail Class 222 Meridian" and "British Rail Class 801 Azuma". Option C removes any name and just has the class number, so for example "British Rail Class 390". --ChrisRCentral (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Problems arrive when identical trains have different marketing names for different TOCs, a problem that could be compounded if/when the franchising scheme collapses and all the services are run ORR. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Option B. Any "problems" caused by multiple names can be simply resovled by e.g. "British Rail Class nnn FastTrain or SpeedyWheels, previously also branded QuickSprint and SuperFast". Thryduulf (talk) 13:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Can also be resolved by appropriate redirects. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Redirects will be needed regardless of what option we choose here, and don't have any impact (positively or negatively) on any problems that may or may not exist as a result of multiple names. Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Just updated the stats - 9 votes for option B and 6 for option C. I think that's a pretty good consensus to close this and make the final decision. Please let me know if anything is incorrect --ChrisRCentral (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

There has been a discussion about "when identical trains have different marketing names for different TOCs". We could do something like this

The British Rail Class 800 is a type of bi-mode multiple unit train built by Hitachi for Great Western Railway (Intercity Express Train) and London North Eastern Railway (Azuma).

There is then the problem of units that don't have a different marketing name. The example below uses Avanti West Coast to show what could happen if a TOC which operates an identical unit to other operators does not have a marketing name.

The British Rail Class 800 is a type of bi-mode multiple unit train built by Hitachi for Great Western Railway (Intercity Express Train), London North Eastern Railway (Azuma) and Avanti West Coast.

For units which are operated by a single operator the example below would apply.

The British Rail Class 810 Aurora is a type of bi-mode multiple unit train built by Hitachi for East Midlands Railway.

I think that these examples make it clear as to which operators use which operating name (E.g Azuma and Aurora) and could possibly cause less confusion. I do think that both Option B and Option C are good but both have there problems. This is how the info boxes could look with the operating name made clear next to the operator(s) or if operated by a single operator made clear in the title. I look forward to reading peoples opinions on what I have discussed in this edit. E.Wright1852 (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I have changed my Opinion to Option B. E.Wright1852 (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding classes with multiple brands, something along the lines of "The British Rail Class 800 Azuma or IET..." (as proposed by Thryduulf) ought to come out to follow the definition of option B provided at the very start of the discussion by Metro140. On the contrary, some examples provided by supporters of option B starts with "The British Rail Class 800..." and lacks the brand name at the very start, which looks more like a variant of the option C. What shall we make of this?--YTRK (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
I've mentioned a solution to this before, which is to split groups of units into their own individual pages. It might create more pages, but it stays true to option B and also means if someone searches for something like "LNER Azuma" or "Class 800 Azuma", they'll be taken to the Azuma page instead of a group page with every TOC who uses them, on. You could link these pages together by having a "Also used by" section at the bottom and link the different pages. It's slightly more work, but simplifies it for the public. --ChrisRCentral (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
The option below would fully support Option B
The British Rail Class 800 Intercity Express Train or Azuma is a type of bi-mode multiple unit train built by Hitachi for Great Western Railway and London North Eastern Railway.
I really like how both brand names look next to the British Rail Class. I have also updated my sandbox examples to show what the infoboxes would look like. View Here. E.Wright1852 (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Derailment at Kirkby, Merseyside

There's been a derailment at Kirkby.[1] Not sure what class of train is involved though. Mjroots (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

There's a list article for this somewhere. Not sure it warrants an independent article at this stage - WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS the things in my mind so far. Open Train Times has "DMIC" near Kirkby which is likely some jargonish abbreviation the signallers just came up with for the situation ("D" stands likely for 'derailment' or something). And all further services for the day are cancelled, per the same site. The technical information given (per the same source) is that it's timetabled for an "EMU at 75 mph [max speed]"; that could be a Pacer (if they haven't retired all of them yet) or something else. Anyway, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
It's on the List of rail accidents (2020–present). Mjroots (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
From the photos it's either a 507 or 508, there's a certain amount of damage to the platform at Kirby. The leading car appears to have hit an overbridge after derailing. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
This (supposedly, I assume, based on data from the TRUST/TOPS or something internal industry system) has "2K48 1835 Liverpool Ctl - Kirkby operated by 507006 / 507021 which were the units involved." - so that would be a class 507 indeed. The cause of the derailment seems to be that the train overran the end of the track (went through the buffer), and for some reason additionally damaged the overbridge at the corresponding end of the station. Something might come out of this (TPWS, which is supposed to prevent this kind of thing, is reportedly installed on that line), but we're probably in TOOSOON territory - also noting it only appears to be reported by local news so far. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
I've added the information in the list; this picture clearly has the "507006" visible on the left side of the cab. There's also a picture lower in that thread of 508101 involved in a similar incident sometime in the 90s (at the same location?) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mjroots, Murgatroyd49, and Thryduulf: Somebody (not me) bothered to create an article here... As I said I have my reservations about that. @Isufferfromlag: FYI, since you're the article creator, take note of the above. Also, do take notice of copyright restrictions requiring pictures uploaded here. File:Merseyrail 507006 crashed at Kirkby.png and File:Merseyrail 507006 shown serverly damaged at Kirkby.jpg need a) more complete source information and b) probably deletion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this is very much WP:TOOSOON at best. There is nothing the in the article that isn't more than adequately covered at the station, operator and EMU articles. Thryduulf (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Do we have any reason to warrant keeping it as an [assuming we're not in plain WP:CRYSTAL territory] {{r with possibilities}} (to the list article) - or maybe as a valid search term? If that's the case I'm likely to just boldly redirect it. Otherwise... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
I think a redirect to either the list or to the station is probably the best. Thryduulf (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
The method used to get the article into main space is highly dubious and ground for immediate deletion. An old disambig article was overwritten then moved to this name. Somebody has been reading Special-purpose acquisition company, methinks. Redirect. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
@John Maynard Friedman: There's no doubt we're redirecting this but the question is where - to the list or to the station? Both seem equally plausible targets. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
After a bit of investigation for consistency's sake:  Redirected - to the list article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Images deleted from COmmons as unambiguous copyright violations. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
@Mattbuck: Thanks. So that means this is likely resolved for the time being. Given that this has only attracted very minor attention in places like the BBC or elsewhere; unlikely anything further will come out of it, so also likely resolved for the times future too. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Can we please be on guard against editors adding unit numbers to the Class 507 article, the station articl and the list where there is no corroboration by the source used. The Liverpool Echo source I used originally does not identify the unit by number. Forums, as we all know, are not reliable sources. Mjroots (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
To be fair this is more of an issue of too much detail, the unit number not being particularly important (as can be seen from the few secondary sources we have not reporting it) - the pictures could theoretically count as WP:PRIMARY, I guess. Will keep an eye out, though. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian: I'm of the opinion that this is the sort of information that should be included. But, policy must be adhered to. The RAIB are investigating, and this information will come out in a form that we can use in the fullness of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk • contribs) 06:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
The RAIB have finally announced an investigation, identifying the unit involved. Mjroots (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Traynor, Luke; Gibbons, Lottie. "Live as Merseyrail train derails and hits bridge at Kirkby station". Liverpool Echo. Reach PLC. Retrieved 13 March 2021.

Driver arrested

There's been a developement. The Liverpool Echo reports that the train driver has been arrested on suspicion of reckless endangerment. A highly unusual development for a British railway accident. Does this push the accident above the threshold of notability for a stand-alone article? Mjroots (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Not yet, IMO. Presumption of innocence. Has anyone even been charged? WP:not news. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Driver released on bail whilst enquiries continue. I wasn't implying guilt, just reporting the fact that an arrest has been made. There is some background which I'm aware of, but the source is not one we can use. If there is a charge, then it will likely be reported by a useable source. Mjroots (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Once there is an outcome to the enquiries (either charges or release without charge) reported in a suitable source then it will be appropriate to document that in a section of the article about the station (probably), class or operator. Kirkby derailment should be retargetted to that section if written though. Thryduulf (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Sandbox help

My project on the LTS Line rewrite has been coming on nicely in the sandbox (and I have been copying any recent changes over in parallel).

However I have come across something weird - when I display in article form there are several sections missing (7.1.4 July 1922 timetable jumps to freight in the 1980s/1990s but when I go into edit there the missing sections are. I also note that I am unable to edit certain sections from section 7.

HAs anyone come across this before? I have tried copying to word and deleting toe content - saving - then re-importing.

Have I run out of space and need to part publish what I have done? A lot of this is Work in progress still.

The link to my sandbox is here - grateful for any help

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Davidvaughanwells/sandbox

Thanks--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Davidvaughanwells: You'd got some mismatched brackets ]] instead of }} so a template wasn't closing properly. Nthep (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks @Nthep:. --Davidvaughanwells (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

103.100.11.3

Can editors keep an eye on 103.100.11.3 (talk · contribs), who is trying to put the Shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes and various other violent incidents into several underground articles and edit-warring over them with multiple editors. These include Northern line, Victoria line, District line, (with the charming edit summary "it's an important paragraph you idiot..") Jubilee line and London Bridge station (citing something to Metro and saying "it's a good source", while WP:RSP says "Generally unreliable: The reliability of Metro has been compared to that of the Daily Mail and other British tabloids. Articles published in the print newspaper (accessible via metro.news domain) are considered more reliable than articles published only on the metro.co.uk website."). I am particularly concerned over this edit saying the 21 July 2005 London bombings were "not a failed attack", which suggest this editor is here to push a particular POV. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Thameslink#Thameslink_core for a discussion on merging Thameslink and Thameslink core. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move discussions: British Rail Class 373, British Rail Class 374

An editor has requested for British Rail Class 373 to be moved to Eurostar e300. Since you had some involvement with British Rail Class 373, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so).

An editor has requested for British Rail Class 374 to be moved to Eurostar e320. Since you had some involvement with British Rail Class 374, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Shipley railway station

Does anyone know how to fix the template displaying Northern Route 7 within various articles, but the one I have seen is in Shipley railway station? The template spreads across the whole page and is distorted. The original template pointed to the Cumbrian Coast Line which I have now fixed, but it is still malformed. Also, it says that Northern Route No. 7 is the Settle-Carlisle and the Bentham Line? is this right? I would have thought Morecambe line was proper? Any thoughts/help is gratefully received. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 07:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

it's the same with Northern Route 6 template. I thought it might be the style parameter but doesn't appear to have worked. You might want to ask at WP:VPT. Nthep (talk) 08:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The whole article rendering is awful, and least on my current screen in where I do tend to use particularly wide screens. I'd love to take time digging into this where I am essentially an enthusiastic amateur but there's other stuff I should be doing today and there are people who understand this stuff a lot better. Consideration should be made to using this collapsed in the infobox if this over-dominates the prose, the same applied to over dominant nav bars in my opinion.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
It's the inline parameter that causes this design. @AlgaeGraphix: --PhiH (talk) 09:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The joy of all things: I have amended {{Northern (train operating company) route 7}} to stop it forcing the template to display inline, which is intended for use inside infoboxes etc rather than on the article. Rcsprinter123 (rap) 10:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Rcsprinter123 Thank you; (and a big thank you to the wider community who have responded here), I wouldn't have been able to work that out, or I would have a total mess of it.The joy of all things (talk) 10:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Unless anyone objects, I am going to rename it from Bentham Line to Morecambe line? I have seen it listed as the Little North Western Line, the Morecambe line, the Leeds-Lancaster line, etc. But I have never seen it listed as the Bentham line, though I could, of course, be completely wrong. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 10:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Seems to be used as a marketing name. Rcsprinter123 (articulate) 11:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing it. Actually the inline parameters had only been needed for List of Northern Trains routes where I have added them manually. --PhiH (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

EWR St Neots South

I haven't created a new article in a while. I've just created at new station for St Neots South railway station as this is one of two proposed sites. However it is a separate proposal to the reopening of Tempsford so I just wanted to indicate it is not a duplicate. Difficultly north (talk) Simply south alt. 22:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm concerned that this article breaches WP:crystal and WP:not notable. It doesn't exist and may never exist (since the EWR/ECML junction station may be Tempsford 2.0). But I suspect that the media will reference it so I suppose having a 'safety net' is probably enough justification. But it is a dubious precedent to set. Comments? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
It really is a case of WP:crystal, after all there are many things that might happen but probably won’t. Unrealistic to have a separate article about it at this stage as it is covered by the comment in the Tempsford article. At this stage convert it to a redirect page is probably the best solution. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Varsity Line - EWR

This is a small dispute that I guess could welcome some outside consensus. I think this article firmly belongs in the Category:East West Rail due to East West Rail being its successor and proposes to reuse most of its route and all of the historical connection. The alternative argument is that it is only historical and people could get confused with the current project. What do people think? Could people please discuss this at Talk:Varsity Line#East West Rail Category. Difficultly north (talk) Simply south alt. 18:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The zephyr in the egg-cup is that these are parallel topics (rather than there may be any confusion) and neither is a subtopic of the other. I guess a similar question would arise as to whether Great Central Main Line should be included in category:High Speed 2 (as of now, it isn't). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

On Sapperton Railway Tunnel there is an uncited statement "It was found that the concrete had deteriorated and would not support the loads required for an index of more than 5". Does anyone know what this means and could clarify it or provide a source? There are a few other uncited claims in the section on "Construction, engineering, and maintenance difficulties" & several deadlinks - it would be great if anyone from this project could help provide citations for these.— Rod talk 17:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The "index" might be referring to Route availability. A source would likely be a railway document or some report about the tunnel, which I don't have access to so can't help on that. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes. The "indices" are given in a reference included much further down the article.[1] Thincat (talk) 11:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move

A request has been made to move the 2015 Wootton Bassett SPAD article. Please feel free to join The discussion. Mjroots (talk) 04:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Railway company naming convention

Currently there are a number of naming conventions for former railway companies that operated entirely in England. We have:

Obviously the the GB or UK dab is required for companies that operated beyond England's borders, but for consistency we should have one style that applies across the board for those that operated exclusively in England. For mine the (England) das is preferable. Thoughts? Riorgisinx (talk) 05:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Dabs follow the the rule of most sufficient, usually the largest entity i.e. UK. I think South Eastern Railway (England) is wrong. It only needs to be disambiguated to England if there are two South Eastern Railway's in the UK. The same should be the rule for all other articles, it would be a very simple rule. Start at UK and work down to through the national sub-divisions.- X201 (talk) 08:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
A fixed rule might need exceptions as the disambiguation might need to be different depending on (1) which country/countries a railway operated in, and (2) what it is being disambiguated from.
A Great Northern Railway can be found in the USA, Ireland and England among other places. So Great Northern Railway (UK) is definitely wrong, and Great Northern Railway (Great Britain) might not be clear enough for people who don't understand the difference between GB and UK. For what it is worth, my preference would be for England or the equivalent when appropriate, but UK for lines crossing borders. Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Further thoughts... WP:PLACEDAB says first choice is the country, which would mean England (a country) is preferable to UK (a sovereign country)... I think. Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
(UK) is rarely going to be the best choice for rail transport companies given GB and Ireland are completely separate systems and pre-1922 there was no division between NI and ROI - and even that date is not hard and fast e.g. the Great Northern Railway (Ireland) operated on both sides of the border and was jointly nationalised by Ireland and Northern Ireland in 1953. I prefer (Great Britain) where this is not ambiguous, as that it is going to be the most consistent across companies. Thryduulf (talk) 09:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Always exceptions, though: Island Line, Isle of Wight. Bazza (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Given that Island Line lists the railway line on the Isle of Wight, the brand used on the Isle of Wight (why this is a single article for the independent TOC, SWT brand and SWR brand and not 2-3 separate ones like is usual for TOCs/brands I'm not sure) and a line of Hong Kong's MTR I'm not sure why this is an exception? Thryduulf (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
In the case of the South Eastern Railway, as that was the original company of that name, shouldn't it have claim to the title without disambiguation? Mjroots (talk) 06:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Mjroots, being the first doesn't give it claim to the title without disambiguation. It would need to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC which it is within the UK, but not on a global scale, presumably why it was disambiguated in 2005.[2]. Riorgisinx (talk) 07:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_50&oldid=1027808797"