Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways

Timetable change 21 May 2023

You guys know the drill. The new timetable is out, and TOCs have changed service patterns and added new routes across their networks. Please remember to update the source for services when reflecting these changes on the respective TOC articles, as was advised many times before on this Talk page (i.e. here). Jalen Folf (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

You mean as was not done just now at Southern (Govia Thameslink Railway) by @Techie3? 10mmsocket (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Working on it. Did not know that I need to update the sources. Techie3 (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for that, it was just too much of an immediate coincidence to ignore. Thanks for replying in such good spirit! 10mmsocket (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

EWR route update

The route update report has been released on the East West Rail here. Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 14:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Possible merger of Coventry branch line articles

I just saw this in the local press Residents asked to choose a new name for Leamington railway line which says that there is a competition for a new name for the line between Leamington Spa and Nuneaton via Coventry. However, we currently have two articles covering this route, the Coventry-Nuneaton line and the Coventry-Leamington line. If these become treated as a single route, then would that require the merger of these two articles under whatever name is chosen for them? G-13114 (talk) 12:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Having only skimmed the two articles, there may be some merit to this. Currently trains run from Nuneaton to Leamington Spa via both lines. Presumably the Service upgrade section on the Coventry–Nuneaton line page applies to both lines? Garuda3 (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

It's one service running over two lines. They were built at different times by different companies, although they both became part of the London & North Western Railway (LNWR) at an early stage. First was the Warwick & Leamington Union Railway, incorporated in 1842 to build a line between Coventry and Leamington Spa; it was opened in 1844, and subsequently absorbed by the London & Birmingham Railway (which amalgamated with others to create the LNWR in 1846). Second was the Coventry & Nuneaton Railway, authorised in 1846 as a L&BR subsidiary to build a line between those two towns; it was opened in 1850 by which time it was wholly part of the LNWR. I don't think that through trains ever ran between Nuneaton and Leamington except as specials and excursions. If a timetabled service ran, there should be information in two books in the Middleton Press Midland Main Lines series: Rugby to Birmingham and in Coventry to Leicester. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

How to handle cases of new station on new site, reusing name of station closed >30 years ago

This must have happened before? Right now, a new Winslow is nearing the end of construction phase a good mile from the original site and due to come into use late '24 or early '25. There are plans for a new Tempsford and (another!) short move for Bedford St Johns is being proposed. So how are these cases to be handled? Taking Winslow as a "for example", I can think of two three options:

1. have both stations in the same article, with two infoboxes. [I have boldly done this for now, so the effect can be seen.]

(a) Old station first, new station second

(b) New station first, old station second

2. Move (most of) the current article to Winslow railway station (1850–1968) and start a new Winslow railway station with new content only (apart from an {{about}} hatnote.

3. Have both stations in the same article, with a single infobox that describes primarily the modern station, with info about the old station in the "Key dates" and giving OSGRs for both locations (but {{coor}} only for the new one). (this option added 11:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC))

For Winslow, I think option 2 is best, but mainly because the history is extensive and the distance between sites is not trivial. For Bedford St Johns, option 1(b) because the move minimal. For Tempsford, probably 1(b) as well because the history is minimal. Has it really not arisen before? Was there any discussion or did we just drift into it? Is there a reasonable rule of thumb we can establish? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Is it simple enough to say "if the station is opening on the same site of the old station then the article is re-used/extended, otherwise a new article is created." After all, it is a new station, it just happens to be using the name of the old station and nothing else. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

...and then if it's on the same site and the same article then convention seems to be to cover both in the lead, then list the old, then list the new. Se 10mmsocket (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

We have done this before, several times. For the same site, the answer is: one article, and one infobox. The infobox has provision for multiple dates, so you can show the closure and reopening. Exanples include Bicester Village, Bridgeton, Cressington, Kenilworth, Rotherham Central. For different sites, it's normally two articles, for example Haddenham→Haddenham & Thame Parkway, but sometimes it's one article and one infobox, like Redditch (which was apparently relocated three times). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

This came at least once in the states, and we opted for the second solution: Lincoln station (Nebraska) and Lincoln station (Nebraska, 1926–2012). New building, new alignment. Mackensen (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I would advocate one infobox on one page, for all three of said stations, along the lines of Redrose's example of Redditch. If the name changes, then a new article should be started (see Dalcross railway station, for when Inv Airport opened, but I assume that for all three the names will remain the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattdaviesfsic (talk • contribs) 21:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you all for the replies and comments thus far.

@Mackensen:, thank you, that is as per my Option 2 and makes a lot of sense to me. IMO, it allows the original station and its history to have due coverage it its own article; the new station gets its own article with elbow room to develop in the future.

@Mattdaviesfsic: So (again taking Winslow as a "for instance"):

• Does it not matter that the new station is a mile and 55 years distant from the old, with an abandoned line and a housing development between.
• At "platforms =", is it one [old site] or two [new site]? Presumably from 2025, the latter (thus losing the historical figure, which is certainly interesting).
• Should the map show the old location in central Winslow or the new location on its western edge? When the new station comes online, the latter presumably – but that leaves readers wanting quickly to see where the old station was having to follow the links from the grid reference.
• Does it not matter that the history of the old station (as listed at "Key dates") are no more relevant to the new station than are those for Verney Junction, not a lot further to the west?

Is it really enough that it has the same name, serves same town, is on the same alignment (extensively rebuilt) that we should want to shoe-horn them together? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi John Maynard Friedman,

• In terms of the infobox and the platforms parameter, it could easily be, for instance - 1 (old site)</br>2 (new site).
• Per examples such as Redditch, Bloxwich and Ivybridge railway station - which were relocated but kept the same name - the map in the infobox (if desired) should show the location of the new station, with the old station being referenced in its own History section.
• The key dates can easily refer to both - in 2025 it would say "relocated and reopened", or something like that.

Hope that makes sense. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 07:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe that {{ubl}} is the preferred means of listing multiple values for one item in an infobox. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 08:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, MOS:NOBR is the relevant guideline. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm against the idea of using two infoboxes in one article. The problem is that unless you have a huge amount of prose information for the station on its earlier site, the second infobox will be pushed down the page by the first (more so if viewed ion a widescreen monitor), and its top won't align with the start of its text unless you resort to using {{clear}} before the heading of the second station, which could cause a huge blank space in the article. It's better to put all the information into a single infobox. We do have some cases where a resited station has one article for each incarnation, but other than Haddenham, I'm having difficulty finding some. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I tried it at Winslow to demonstrate the effect for this discussion but it was so horrible that I have already reverted. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

In the case of Bedford St Johns, the existing situation is that the two stations on different sites have one shared article, so when the station is resited again (which apparently won't be a return to the original location), it should keep the single article - unless we find a geat deal of info for each of its three locations and if split as a consequence of that, it should really be three ways rather than two-and-one. Assuming we retain one article, the History section can have three subsections, but they should be arranged chronologically. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's an easy one: the proposed move is probably no more than 50 metres northwest (on disused sidings at 52.130529, -0.470435, if anyone cares to look), still essentially the same site. I mentioned it primarily as an edge case test for any rule of thumb we devise. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Option 3

I have added retrospectively 3. Have both stations in the same article, with a single infobox that describes primarily the modern station, with info about the old station in the "Key dates" and giving OSGRs for both locations (but {{coor}} only for the new one) above, sorry should have done that first time around. --11:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I suggest coord for both, but {{coord|...|display=inline,title}} only for the current location.-- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 14:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Evesham Vale Light Railway

The Evesham Vale Light Railway article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 11:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

TOC Fleet tables

Users may be interested in Murgatroyd49's thoughts at Talk:Great Western Railway (train operating company)#Current Fleet table about fleet tables on TOC articles. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Platform layouts, again: June 2023, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Template:NRtimes

{{NRtimes}} on the face of it should be a good thing - an easy way to link to a National Rail timetable for referencing purposes. Except it does nothing of the sort. It just generates some text. No link to the actual online timeable, so a 0/10 score for supporting WP:V. Any thoughts on getting rid of it, or improving it so it does link to an actual timetable online? 10mmsocket (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

If it can be updated to include links to timetable PDFs, and archive links, then I’d definitely keep it. Otherwise, it should not be used until it supplied verified info. Danners430 (talk) 08:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I've just had a look, and the template is unlikely to be usable now because the PDF versions of the latest (May 2023) timetable now have names rather than just numbers (e.g. "001 London to Barking, Upminster, Basildon, Grays, Tilbury, Southend Central and Shoeburyness.pdf" rather than "001.pdf"). Timetable website is here. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 08:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I feel a TfD coming on... 10mmsocket (talk) 17:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The template did at one time generate a useful link, but three things happened: (i) the template should have been periodically amended for the changes in May and December each year, but (judging by the page history) has not been since May 2015; (ii) the change in filename format as noted above; (iii) this edit six weeks ago by Techie3 (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The original links do not work anymore, so that is why I removed them. Techie3 (talk) 03:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Request for new photographs: Boxhill at the National Railway Museum

Boxhill

Boxhill is a LB&SCR A1 class "Terrier" tank engine and is part of the national collection at the National Railway Museum in York. Unfortunately for the last 20 years it has been on display in the Learning Platform part of the museum, the layout of which meant that it was impossible to take a good photo of the locomotive. The only pictures of Boxhill on Commons are from the early 2000s.

According to this tweet, Boxhill has been moved into the Great Hall and now has pride of place on the turntable. I don't know what the long term plans for the loco are, but it seems unlikely that it will stay there for more than a few months. So if you're visiting the NRM over the summer, please do take some pictures and upload them to Commons. This could be our once-in-a-generation opportunity to get some decent photos for Wikipedia before Boxhill is relegated to the Learning Platform again!

Thanks and best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 07:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

National Rail Contracts

There has been some dispute in various articles as to whether TOCs operate franchises or concessions. The answer is a combination of concessions and National Rail Contracts, but not franchises.

Pre COVID-19, most TOCs operated franchises, being responsible for both revenues and costs and either paying a paying a premium or receiving a subsidy, the amount being predetermined when the contract was signed. A few let by local authorities, e.g. London Overground and Merseyrail, were and remain as concessions with the authority responsible for revenues and the TOC only the cost base.

With revenue evaporating in the early days of the first lockdown in 2020, that would have resulted in all franchised TOCs collapsing within days, the franchise agreements were terminated. TOCs then operated Emergency Management Agreements and now National Rail Contracts. When operating franchises, TOCs bore revenue risk and were responsible for fare setting etc, something that the DfT now does, with the TOCs remit only being to operate services in return for a management fee, much like was, and still is, the case for those TOCs operating concessions.

Hence what was the TransPennine Express franchise is now the TransPennine Express rail contract. Airpopg (talk) 02:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)