Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways. 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 1

←

Archive 4

→

S-rail (again)

I really do hate to dig up this old chestnut but "it wasn't me"..

User:Geoking66 has recently edited {{tl:Infobox UK station}} to allow both "rail line" and "s-rail" to be displayed as part of the station infobox rather than separately (several areas of America do this). In the nicest way possible Geoking66 was "bold" and didn't ask anyone. I politely asked at his talk and at Template talk:Infobox UK station#S-rail because a) i don't think it looks good and b) the last two times a conversion to "s-rail" was attempted for UK railways it went down like a lead balloon with a lot of mass reverts.

Quick List of stations affect (AFAIK)

If one ventures to the end of Template talk:S-line#South_Eastern, you'll see User:Mackensen's thoughts on the matter, thus I'm asking

a) do we want "rail line" or "s-rail" to be in the infobox of UK stations???

If we do, we need to go round upgrading all infoboxes (like the joint tube and rail ones, closed station, closed London station, etc)

b) is there some sudden consensus to convert "rail line" to "s-rail"

Personally i really don't like the route box (rail line or s-rail) in the infobox and am tempted to go round mass reverting Geoking66's edits. Obviously I'm all for the s-rail template and am bemused why we in the UK stick our heads in the sand while the rest of the world happily uses s-rail ... ???

If we do want it in the infobox we then will need some standards to keep them narrow, and there are issues over the not taking across of closed lines/stations.

Be nice to know people thoughts on this matter....

Pickle 16:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and re-post my thoughts here, for clarity. The ability to enclose services (route boxes) within a station infobox was added at the specific request of Wikipedia:WikiProject Washington Metro, and several users who worked on the PATH articles, as a precursor to the adoption of s-rail/s-line. This conformed to their existing usage. I've seen other groups adopt this style and others not. I don't think it makes sense for national railways; any sufficiently complex station will simply not look right. I certainly would not recommend that approach here.
On adoption in general: if this project is going to go ahead it should be discussed here first, and any specific issues should be addressed now before going forward. That s-rail/s-line is an evolution of rail line is fortunate; the two can co-exist without breaking much of anything. Mackensen (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Last time we debated this (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 3) there was a sub-thread that asked the question of why we had these boxes in the first place? While there were hardly enough answers to form a concensus, the drift of the answers suggested that (1) it was about putting the station into context with its route and surrounding stations (2) it worked better if it was in the "services" section rather than "external links" (3) it is not neded if duplicates information in an adequate area navigation box with a clear description of these things in the body of the article, again probably in the "services" section.

I have not changed my views since then, but I find that the articles that I have been expanding recently (take out the station box, put in a decent history, etc.) have mostly had the station box restored. What's even more worrying, is that stations such as Weston-super-Mare railway station now have extra lines to include the services that will be operated by Arriva when they take over the Cross Country franchise.

Can anyone convince me not to do some reverting? Geof Sheppard 12:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, in general succession boxes provide a useful snapshot of information. While there may be a write-up of the relevant information in the "services" section, a succession box summarizes that information graphically. In the same fashion, most of the information that you find in the station infobox is probably located within the article, but the infobox places it right there, and in a manner consistent across all articles. Mackensen (talk) 14:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

One of the good things (to em) that came out of the talk at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 3 was moving the rail line/s-rail box up to the services section. it keeps the box relevant and "grounded" with the actual services (I've "done" most Southern, southern, some SWT, island line, FCC, C2C and assorted others).

As to what the boxes should show, consensus didn't emerge (and still hasn't). Some places just show the main line, others show every service, some have compromises, etc - some have lots of "future" services(some a long way off, many not even "concrete").

On the issue of duplication, I'm all for standardised station infoboxes and some form of *separate* rail line/s-rail (with the services section). This provides consistency across the 2000+ (I'm really not sure what the number is) UK railway stations (then add the closed and heritage ones) and even abroad (???? knows how many worldwide). At the end of the day the layout of every railway station article does vary but the infobox and route box give you that consistency that Joe public really needs.

I've blitzed the Virgin Cross Country to (Arriva) Cross Country bit at the Weston article. That is really tacking the **** - that not how we've handeled TOC change overs in the past or all the other ones scheduled. All that should happen is on the anointed day a change from VXC to XC should be made (not sure about the colour either).

Pickle 01:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so we seem to be in agreement that the box belongs in the services section, but that still leaves the question of whether we can do something about all that whitespace that it generates.

I have made some changes to the boxes on the staions between Bedminster railway station and Weston-super-Mare railway station. Note that I have swopped the order of the operator and line as that gives, IMHO, a better link to the idea of these being services - and could (horror!) allow the combination of several operators where they have common sections of route, such as FGW and VXC west of Taunton.

Interestingly, this different format has created some extra boxes where there are regular services with differing stopping patterns - at Weston-super-Mare it has increased the table to five rows, but there are only five lines of text which is much better than the ten or so that would have been there in the past.

It doesn't work so well when it coincides with the station info box (e.g. Worle railway station), but as these statiuons are written in the order Intro - History - Layout - Services - Other the stations with longer articles are not effected. Note also a different treatment of the operator at Yatton railway station.

Okay folk, what do you think? Is this worth persuing? Geof Sheppard 07:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Its defiantly another take on it. Fundamentally of course I'm still convinced by "s-rail", stuff like the "noclear=yes" tucks it in, its ability to rowspan is great, etc - anyway the rest of the world as such has / is moving s-rail and we're not (never mind!). So, i like what you've done - the TOC's in your neck of the woods lend themselves to 3 letter abbreviations and thus what you've done works well (esp in the small brackets). Stuff like rowspan would help but thats beyond my coding abilities (and thats what s-rails for).

I don't think we should have different TOC's sharing boxes, a) we'ld have to lose the colour, b) it would be just confusing. My past talks with other editors, elsewhere (notably southeast London) have arrived at a different consensus re stopping patterns, probably more applicable given our vast number of suburban and metro services rather than the few services you might have - but i can see how the issue of operators like VXC with only 1 train every few hours on a particular route suddenly getting loads of boxes (see Crewe now).

I don't see a problem at Worle, the only issue that bothers me is perhaps your abbreviating of Weston! (lol)

Thus i wouldn't object to it if its like your 4 examples, if you want to roll it out. Pickle 10:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

One train every two hours? That's a frequent luxury :-) What about SWT with one train per week west of Plymouth - and that has different stopping patterns going down to coming up! Geof Sheppard 12:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Fundamentally, s-rail can handle different levels of stopping patterns. It's not incumbent, as part of the templates, to split Virgin Cross-Country into its component parts--although it is certainly an option. Mackensen (talk) 10:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

As i understood the debate back then, that was one of the large gripes editors had with the change over. ie its not the techncial side of it (which really appeals to me), its more this debate we're having here (agian) about what we should be showing - for which i think there are lots of ediotrs (who aren't reading / contributing to this page, who have differing ideas and practices in their patches... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pickle UK (talk • contribs) 11:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have taken the slim-line boxes down the line as far as Exeter St Davids railway station but, while I was away for a few days, Hammersfan (talk · contribs) reverted several of them to the longer versions, including lines for all the trains that run once a week or less! I reverted these after leaving a message on his talkpage, but he has reverted them again. He has stated on my talkpage that any change should be done across the whole country and trials such as this should be kept off the live pages. He also believes that the centre column should highlight the operator, not the route.

However my understanding was that we were being bold with the pages in our project and trying to find ways to improve them; furthermore it had been discussed here with no dissenting voices. What should we do next? Do I carry on with the work or go back to doing something less contraversial such as getting rid of all those station stubs (which is actually part of what I'm trying to do anyway!) Geof Sheppard 13:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

How to put this diplomatically.....

"Hammersfan" is, 'very attached' to the "rail line" template and how it is laid out in its current form. Previously he has been very 'fothright' in insisting we do not use "s-rail" in the UK (rather than what services are shown).

ironically in a talk page discusion with Hammersfan, about showing various srvices (London Bridge IIRC), he advocated the minimalist view....

its been, err, extremly challenging, to make headway with Hammersfan, but co-operation is possible, i beleive, if one jumps thorugh the right wiki hoops.

IMHO its a real shame that a much beter idea has been adopted worldwide and been ditched/put on ice for the UK, then you've come along with an equally plausiable (graphically, if not as extermly techncial as s-rail) good alternative, yet we're still ploding along with "rail line" encountering the same old problems...

"je ne sais pas" Pickle 23:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Je comprends! Some of the boxes have now acquired the Arriva Cross Country lines again, and we have the old question of the Night Riviera too – I don't see how this is different from a Great Western service from Paddington to Penzance.

While I have proposed this solution, it does not preclude S-Rail, it just means that we need the correct templates set up. My gripe was the way that it swamped the pages, especially places west of Penzance as they have three VT services to either Dundee or Glasgow and via either ECML or WCML. And then there is that darned SWT serivce! My interest is in what the pages look like, are they notable, and are they correct; the technical stuff like templates are just a way to achieve these ends.

At present we seem to have two people against the "slim line" view, both have been invited to discuss the matter here but neither have done so nor, I think, signed up as a project participant. Amongst ourselves, there are a smattering of "yes" or tentative "yes" and a large silent majority. I have drafts ready for the rest of the West Country lines to get rid of the stub statuses, but I am reluctant to post them if I am then going to spend half my life doing reverts. Geof Sheppard 07:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Je parle un petite peu francis ;)

re Arivva XC boxes - there is a clear consensus on these and i've removed all i can see.

Night Rivera - i'm not aware of that debate, i know the scottish sleepers are seperate...

i really don't see any other editor indicating what the consensus is as to what should be shown in this case, esp odd stuff like VXC services that are a few times a day, or even once a week SWT services. i know one school of thought is that silence is consenus, its risky.

i really don't know anymore .... Pickle 21:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Task Force

I have been requested to start a task force on Routemap Standardisation. After inconstancies and contradictions were raised on the route diagrams talk page. Are there any interested users?--Lisa666 19:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Im interested. I do agree that the route maps need sorting out. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 20:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Just as a general warning, you've biting off a big mouthful here (see the archives) - if you can find a standard format that would encompass Brighton Main Line, Docklands Light Railway and Metropolitan Line - not to mention lines like M&GNJR that loop back on themselves, have branches that cross over their own mainlines, and are currently partly disused and the open parts owned by multiple companies, good luck... — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, any distances should be in the form the railways use, coupled to the UK standard for transportation distances and not any arbitrary use of 'ISO' units. I would also suggest you read what has been said in the article/sub section you cite, reading any referenced users or articles so that you obtain an overview of the previous discussions and consensus. (SouthernElectric 20:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC))

I would also like to point out that while I'm assuming good faith, your account was created at exactly the moment Lucy-marie was blocked for sockpuppetry and your first edits have been to continue the conversation which caused her - um - enforced departure. I am perfectly willing to give you benefit of the doubt as someone else with a shared interest who has coincidentally logged on at this time, but if I see any indication of abuse (from any account, not just you) I will have a checkuser run, and if it shows any user involved in this conversation to be another Lucy-marie sockpuppet I will hardblock her IP, preventing anyone from editing Wikipedia from that computer, logged-on or not. — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

So how is this task force set up?--Lisa666 23:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Try asking the user that "requested" you to set it up in the first place. Surely they would have given you all the advice needed, and based that decision on your suitability to do it (i.e. had shown the attitude/aptitude to do it).Canterberry 08:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Mergers

In case anyone is not aware, see possible mergers at Talk:List of companies operating trains in the United Kingdom#Merge proposals and Talk:List of companies operating trains in the United Kingdom#Merge proposals (revised) Simply south 22:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Train Service : Frequencies/Timings

Do we really need to have detailed tables about the train service frequencies and times to every place between Lands End and John O'Groats! Okay, thats a bit of an exaggeration, but I think you know what I mean. Heres an example Arun Valley Line, and there are lots of other articles with similar tables. I think some general information is all that required. IMHO, large and detailed tables such as that in the example are simply "padding", and add little to the article. As SouthernElectric states here Talk:Arun Valley Line, the information gets out of date very quickly, and is more of interest to people wishing to make a journey, and the idea of a link to the Train Operating Company is a much better idea. I still think we need some "general" information on train services. Does anyone else have any strong views?? Canterberry 16:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The majority of the article, Arun Valley Line looks like information you would find in a train station. In my opinion, a detailed journey information table and the notice about the short platform is not encyclopedic. These can be changed to be encyclopedic. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 16:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Re short platforms - better now? (SouthernElectric 17:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

Thanks. I have cleaned it up a bit further. What do other users think about the journey duration table? I dont think they are very encyclopedic. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 18:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Why have you removed the bold from the short platforms paragraph, it's not only there as history (in which case I would have placed it in the history section) but as a means to warn people - if bold can't be used to emphases on wikipedia why bother having the option of using it? (SouthernElectric 18:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

A warning notice isn't really encyclopedic. Have a look at WP:NOT#GUIDE. If that doesn't help, then feel free to contact me. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 18:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well yes, and that's why I rewrote that part as soon as you pointed out the error but surely emphasizing something within the text is not making it a notice - which the original version most certainly is. How about this version, on my sandbox?

(SouthernElectric 19:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

Yes, I can't see anything wrong with the version in your sandbox. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 18:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think service pattern info should be above the "There are an average of three trains per hour to York and two trains per hour to Manchester" level, but that's just me. Anyone wanting a timetable can find thetrainline easily enough. — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Strayed a tad off the intended path, but some useful stuff. Anyhow, could we get a general consensus of whether or not, large tables to show the train service is supported, or whether something simpler is better. Let me put this another way, if I were to remove the tables from Arun Valley Line and replace them with some simple text, would it cause an edit war?? Similarly, if I found other articles with similar tables showing the train service in amazing detail, would it too cause an edit war. In other words, if I start deleting these tables from every article I find and replace it with some simple text, is it going to end back on this page with me trying defend my actions from other editors?? Canterberry 20:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The tables are clear and well-presented, but they're not really appropriate for an encyclopedia. As soon as a timetable change occurred, there would be a lot of editing involved, and checking the details would be a pain for anyone! I think this is verging towards 'travel guide' teritory, so I would say they can be removed.

SouthernElectric could always copy the information to a page at Trainspotting World, where the rules are less strict...

EdJogg 20:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

SORRY???? I'm not sure I know what you mean by that remark! (SouthernElectric 20:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

I was trying to be subtle! TSW is a relatively new Wiki, aimed at rail enthusiasts of all types. It uses the same MediaWiki software, and was 'seeded' with a number of articles from Wikipedia, but it is not an encyclopaedia, and is happy to provide a home for much material that, like these tables, is unsuitable for inclusion in WP (within reason!) I didn't want to write much lest people thought I was canvassing for potential editors! EdJogg 23:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

As I say, I think the service pattern's useful but not appropriate, and service levels should be one or two line "the station/line is served by 12 trains a day Xbound and 14 trains a day Ybound" or similar; people reading the articles are likely to just want a vague idea of how busy it is and don't need to do a "There are more trains from Aylesbury to Marylebone via Princes Risborough in peak hours but via Amersham off-peak" service pattern comparison. Aside from anything else, imagine keeping some of the "branchier" lines & stations up to date. — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks all. I think there is a broad agreement that the detailed tables describing the train service are OTT and that simplifying them should not mean that I incur the wrath of a thousand editors (a terrible fate!) Canterberry 21:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree wiht "Iridescent" and "Canterberry" - the table are WP:NOT and go OTT. delete them to tidy up the article (IIRC the north downs line has been similary afflicted) Pickle 00:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Been travelling today so missed this discussion. However have a look at Langside railway station. The service patterns here have an historical flavour, although I have yet to put a summary from my 1923 Bradshaw into the article. This is what I would expect to see. What I have difficulty with is the next/previous station information that details peak-hour services; semi-fast; stoppers, etc..... see Derby Midland railway station for Midland Mainline services. As soon as the stopping pattern changes or (as in this case) the franchise changes with a revised service arrangement this all changes. --Stewart^(talk) 01:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a discussion rumbling on higher up the page at #S-rail (again) which is related to this. There is a fine line between notability, good navigation links, and WP:NOT. I am happy that notable services are remarked, but this does not need a table, indeed is probably better without one. Despite trying to tidy up the station link boxes in "my" area and move these infrequent but notable services into the text, I have been reverted by people from outside of this project. My aims are to leave clear information and links for the core routes; other people think that a complex, longer list of stopping patterns and multiple links to the train operator are "better". Has there ever been a concerted effort to agree on what goes into these, if so where can I find it? Geof Sheppard 07:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Dr French

Anyone have any idea where DrFrench is?? He used to be a regular contributor, and a voice of reason. He has not made a contribution to WP since the middle of July. I trust that he is well. Not like a regular to stop making contributions without saying so, or that they are taking a break. Canterberry 23:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Euston railway station

This article is subject to addition of unsourced and liabelous materials, thus: The exterior of the shed is windowless dark brick and corrugated metal, more typical of an industrial estate than a major metropolitan building. The concrete-adorned square outside the front entrance is a popular stamping ground for beggars (who also frequent the station concourse itself to harrass customers of the rodent infested food court for money), and rough sleepers.

I have removed it as has User:Pickle UK. I would appreciate it if project members could keep an eye on this one. Thanks, Regan123 08:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have been watching this. I have posted a first stage vandalism warning on this users talk page. Canterberry 09:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

While this isn't it, there is a potentially valid section to be written in the article about the station being such a focal point for rough sleepers & child runaways. (I haven't been through Euston for a while, but AFAIK the machine by the pasty shop that directed homeless people to hostels & helplines is still in place.) — iridescent (talk to me!) 12:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Almost every London Terminal station, and others like Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow etc. have the same sort of problems. It is not like Euston is an exception. In fact, have been been to far more intimidating railway stations around Europe (Brussels is well known, and many Paris stations are not much better). Walking to my hotel in Rome from the station last year, I ended up in a red-light district with all many of ladies (and men dressed as ladies!!) offering their services. You don't see that at Euston!! Canterberry 15:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

As London stations go, in my experience (original research alert) Euston does have the worst problems, I assume due to the proximity to Camden with its dealers & prostitutes and the very wide concourse. I agree it pales into insignificance behind the Amsterdam Centraals and Leningradsky Rail Terminals of the world. While it's not a railway station, Port Authority Bus Terminal is one of the creepiest places I've ever been - like something from 28 Days Later. — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, can I ask anyone reverting this (or anything else) to post a warning on the talk page of whoever you've reverted? Once the IP's racked up four warnings (including a {{uw-npov4}} final warning), it can be blocked for breaching a final warning. The full list of warning is here and well worth bookmarking. — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Useful shortcut to remember: WP:UTM (short for User Talkpage Messages) - takes you to the same page.

(Anyone not know that you can just drop these shortcut codes into the search box on the left and hit 'Go'?)

EdJogg 16:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Virgin Trains merger

Merge proposal: Virgin West Coast into Virgin Trains. See Virgin Trains talk page for details and discussion. --Jorvik 19:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

British Rail Class 57 merger

Merge proposal: British Rail Class 57/0, British Rail Class 57/3 and British Rail Class 57/6 into British Rail Class 57. See British Rail Class 57 talk page for details and discussion. --Jorvik 11:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

To me it looks like they should all be merged into the one article but then merged with the British Rail Class 47 article (with a redirect from previous articles), they are hardly a different locomotive, just a derivative of the 'Brush Type 4' - a bit like the various boilers fitted to the LNER A3 class - the same locomotive just fitted with a different power-plant. The two classes, 47 & 57, are linked by a common history and should be considered together. (SouthernElectric 17:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC))

Future

I was just wondering whther an article should be created detailing all of the future NR projects and other such proposed schemes. Or is there a problem about WP:CRYSTAL? Simply south 12:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I dont think WP:Crystal is a problem as long as the future line has officially been confirmed. WP:Crystal tries to stop articles which are speculative. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 12:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright but do you think an article should be created (insert word here) the projects etc on NR? Simply south 12:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't quite understand your question above. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 15:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, surely any project that has been officially given the go-ahead is no longer a future project?! It's gone from being 'speculative' to actuality, of course the project could still flounder (eg. the 1970s Channel Tunnel project) but then any article started would still be a record of fact... (SouthernElectric 16:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC))

If you've got a cite for the proposals, then you can certainly describe them here. Whether they come off or not, the fact that the proposals had been officially announced would also be a matter of fact. EdJogg 16:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above. If there is a reliable source and a project has been officially confirmed, then I think it can have an article. Is this what you mean by, "Alright but do you think an article should be created (insert word here) the projects etc on NR?". As I said above I wasn't too sure on what the question meant. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 17:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

WOW!

Thanks ever so much for using my HST pic for the projects navigation template! I only just noticed! ACBest Dog and Bone 11:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Deviationism

This small stub article is about Stalinist Communism and the Ffestiniog Railway, subjects that are not, I'm sure, normally considered together.

Is the subject of "Deviatinists" and The Llyn Ystradau Deviation (there is a section in the Ffestiniog Railway article) worthy of an article of its own? Some before, during and after images would also be of use to illustrate this marathon ground breaking (literally) and inspirational effort. Perhaps there are some ex-deviationists among wikieditors? Regards, Lynbarn 23:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I am certain that no sane person looking for information on the construction of the Ffestiniog Railway would use "Deviationism" as their search term. Since the topic is already covered perfectly well at Ffestiniog Railway#The Llyn Ystradau Deviation, I say delete the railway-related material altogether without even a disambig link. You might want to slap a {{move to wiktionary}} on the remaining one-liner while you're at it. — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, an article on "Deviationists" is needed; and Deviationist is a term that I recognise in respect of the Ffestiniog Railway. However, Deviationist is merely a redirect page and the text that aught to be in it is in Deviationism. Possibly, the Ffestiniog text should be moved into Deviationist and the Stalinist Communism left in Deviationism.Pyrotec 08:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Train operating company articles

The discussion here has gone quiet: what do people think of my latest proposal? I think it more-or-less concurs with much of an earlier discussion which was never acted on. --RFBailey 04:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Rail ale trails

While working on my crusade to expand the South West England station stubs I have found myself looking at the impact of community railways and rail ale trails in particular. I know that these are no longer peculiar to Devon and Cornwall, so if you can add anything to the new page then please do so. Geof Sheppard 12:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

On the offchance, i keep finding a website which seems to do it on the Tarka Line in Devon. Simply south 13:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

London Transport line renaming

User:Sunil060902 has just renamed every LU line from Northern Line to Northern line etc with no apparent discussion or consensus to do so other then this festival of sockpuppetry , breaking dozens of links in the process. As there's no consensus as to what the proper form is - Capital Transport always uses upper case, TFL uses the lower case form, and Wikipedia policy would normally be to capitalise it as a proper name, does anyone have any opinion on this? I'm willing to rollback all the changes made, but don't want to do do so without a consensus as - while I don't agree with it - a case could be made for keeping them in this form. — iridescent 16:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

In British English, I would have thought "Northern line" would be correct since "Northern", is a proper noun but "line", is a common noun. This is like the word "station", which is a common noun and so "Euston station" would be the correct form. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 17:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Depends if you see, for example, "Jubilee" or "Jubilee Line" as the proper name. This is a very grey area - look at Category:Railway lines of England, Category:Railway lines of Scotland and Category:Railway lines in Wales and there's no consensus at all for England - albeit with what looks like a roughly 2-1 split in favour of the capitalised "Line" - and 100% capitalisation in Scotland & Wales. (Why are they "of" England & Scotland, but "in" Wales, come to that?) Skimming through an assortment of books, it looks like Capital Transport use the capital L whilst Ian Allan doesn't. The articles should probably all be standardised one way or the other. — iridescent 17:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I can see what you mean. I think it is more correct to use "Northern line" since this is what TFL use. In this case "Northern" is the proper noun while "line" is the common noun. This is correct in English usage. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 18:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I vote that the articles be reverted to capitalised "Line" titles. In common usage people are more likely to say "I'll take the Northern Line to Euston" than "I'll take the Northern to Euston". ColourSarge 12:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. In fact Im almost certain that more people say "Ill take the Northern line" as opposed to "Ill take the Northern", but that is spoken English. In my opinion, in written form, "Northern line" is correct. But of course, everyone has their own opinions. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 13:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Can i hold everything and point out that actually TfL use both "Lines" and "lines". I have especially noticed this on screen in the tube carriages showing the next station and what lines you can change onto. Simply south 13:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect programming, perchance? Once again Your Honour, I present exhibit B! Sunil060902 12:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

.

Can I also ask anyone taking part to have a read of this discussion, particularly the part about the "unconventional" edit histories of the various accounts involved - I think we may have another Lucy-marie come to visit us. — iridescent 17:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

My name is Sunil Prasannan, and I assure you I am a real person! I'm the "Sunil" of "Five years of exploring zones 1 to 4" fame several years ago on uk.transport.london :) Sunil060902 13:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Can't really find the best place but I find this:

Note: Although it is not grammatically correct, TfL nowadays seem to use mixed upper/lower case when referring to the line names on all literature, maps, signs and even labels on some trains. For example, the Circle line is always listed as Circle line, not Circle Line. However this does not extend to National Rail services, eg. the North London Line.

which seems to appear on every article on the underground lines to be intrusive and pointless and takes an extreme view on grammar rules. As others point out, if you need a justification from the rules of grammar, then there is one (the proper noun/common noun distinction). I propose to remove these notices. Cheers }JonoP 08:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No argument from me; as you may not be surprised to hear, I see no purpose whatsoever for this notice — iridescent 16:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree as I mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport#Naming of lines. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 16:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Redundant subpage?

Using Special:Prefixindex I found the following subpage to this project:

Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways/TRAIL

The last edit (other than fixing dates on a tag) was made on March 30 2007. Is this page still in use by someone? If not, should it be marked as historical, or deleted as an unused subpage? Jorvik 10:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

London Midland Sub-brands

This discussion has been copied from Template talk:British TOCs. --RFBailey 11:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I have just noticed that London Midland has sub-brands(Express and City), so I have created pages for them. Please help me add to them and get them up to scratch. Thanks, Dewarw 17:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The thing with this is we don't know yet exactly what London Midland's plans are, because they haven't started yet. I think it would be better to wait a while before creating pages for the two sub-brands until it's actually clear what they're going to do. The same goes for the sub-brands of East Midlands Trains. In which case it might be better to redirect these pages (removing anything relevant to the main article) back to the London Midland page. Hammersfan 25/10/07, 18.46 BST

Okay, I will re-direct the sub-brand pages for the other operators (Esat Midlands etc.). Dewarw 17:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

When the sub-brands are just the name of the company with an extra word attached, I don’t think a separate link or page is really merited. After all, it isn’t obvious that a train marked ‘Stansted Express’ is really part of one, but I don’t think anyone will have trouble working out that London Midland Express is part of London Midland. David Arthur 14:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but if the sub-brands become as notable as Central Citylink (which is notable enough for its own page) then we could. Dewarw 17:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It's debatable as to whether that it is notable enough: it falls under what David Arthur describes. --RFBailey 11:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally I was never convinced that a separate article for Central Citylink was necessary — a mention of how certain routes are branded would seem quite enough to me, since Citylink isn’t distinct in its management, its staff, its franchise, or its rolling stock. David Arthur 15:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Central Citylink is notable enough: Central Citylink have their own logo, own section of the web-site, are announced differently/ distinguished from standard Central services, are distinguished in the timetables as well as in the type of services they run. Therefore Central Citylink has' its own identity and is different to Central Trains.

Whether London Midland's sub brands are notable enough is debatable though We shall have to see. Dewarw 20:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you using the above text in italics, which quotes an article which was predominantly written by you, as evidence of notability? --RFBailey 04:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that Central Citylink is notable enough for its own page. Sure there's enough volume of text there at present, but a large proportion is duplicated from the parent page. Since Central Trains itself will need a major re-write within a few weeks, when the franchise finally ends, I would suggest the opportunity is taken to merge the two articles and remove all the other duplication that has drifted into the parent.

As for the London Midland sub-brands, the usual practice is to wait for an article to become uncomfortably large and then split-out subsections, rather than to try and bulk-out sub-pages from the out-set.

EdJogg 09:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Central Citylink is nowhere near notable. If it were, why doesn't the branding occur on the vehicles? It should be a section of Central Trains and be done with it. Divy 12:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

About the LM sub-brands, I agree. I do admit that I was wrong to create the pages, but all has been reversed now and I am not trying to recreate them. I have, in fact improved the LM article to show the relevant info clearly, and two maps* have been done (the third- of the entire route- is in production now).

However, I do think that Central Citylink does deserve its own article. The type in italics above is not actually quoted from the article, but is from an earlier discussion. The arguments do show that the brand is notable. I also have recently added more text to the article and have given some sources to improve its quality and viability. Originally, the article was a duplicate of the Central article with no sources or images, but it has improved now. It has a route map, images of rolling stock, and info about the start and end of the brand.

Do people like the colours on the LM maps? If not, contact the lab to get them changed, I tried to pick colours near to the current ones. Any ideas about the colours for the complete map, or shall we wait for LM to pick some colours? Dewarw 11:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The colours seem fine to me. The only problem is the mis-spelling of Rugeley. --RFBailey 15:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)