Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways

File:Norton Fitzwarren crash (1940) diagram.svg

Is this diagram correct?

At my Commons talk page Tabletop has stated that the diagram is incorrect. "The correction is to the green square-ended Home signal on the Fast line opposite the yellow fish-tailed Distant Signal on the Slow line. This Home signal should definitely be another fish-tailed Distant coloured green."

I just converted an existing jpeg (since deleted) to SVG and don't have access to a source to verify which is correct. They also propose a second diagram ("It would also be nice to have a second version of the picture which would have had a reasonable change of alerting the driver of the trains that he was reading the wrong signals....") but my thinking is that would be original research? Thryduulf (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Tabletop is probably correct. A bigger issue is that the diagram needs to be rotated 180° to make sense. Mjroots (talk) 04:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

It's a good diagram, but needs a couple of corrections;

1) The lines are labelled incorrectly. The accident report (and Red for Danger) refer to them as Mains & Reliefs, not Fasts and Slows - this seems to be an inaccuracy in the Wiki page.

2) It's wrong to call them (trap) as well as catch points in the description for the diagram. The accident report never mentions trap points. Wiki's own definition of trap points is "Trap points are used to protect main railway lines from unauthorised vehicles moving onto them from sidings or branch lines". That's clearly not the case here. Dr Sludge (talk) 08:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

1)The GWR always referred to 'main and relief' lines rather than 'fast and slow', in fact this continued well into BR Western Region days.

2) These are definitely not catch points. That term is used to describe points that prevent runaways on gradients. Trap points prevent unauthorised moves onto a running line as was the case here.

Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

They might be what we understand as trap points, but the report (which I linked below) uses the term "catch points" several times: initially on page 1, paragraph 2 "at the catch points protecting the Down Main"; right through to page 10, para. 3 "this and other catchpoints". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

There's a diagram in

• Nock, O.S.; Cooper, B.K. (1992) [1966]. Historic Railway Disasters (4th ed.). London: Book Club Associates. p. 136. CN 6843.

which has the same south-at-top orientation, but the signal types and positions both differ. Official accident reports usually have a diagram or map of the location, often at the back as an appendix; this one doesn't, possibly because it was wartime and everything was in a hurry, which might also explain the typewritten (instead of typeset) text. Layout and signals are described on pages 2-4. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Great Western main line detailed diagram

I've knocked up a detailed diagram of the GWML. It's not that much bigger than the existing diagram, so rather than a separate diagram (ECML, WCML), would it be in order just to update the diagram on the GWML article? Mjroots (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

No objections posted, so I've updated the existing diagram. Mjroots (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Norton Bridge - closed?

Does anyone know if Norton Bridge has officially closed yet? The article states it will close in October, though with bus subsidies lasting until 2019. The official closure pdf [1] states "not be before 15 October 2017", though it is still available as a destination according to National Rail. Optimist on the run (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes; it was ratified by ORR on 26th October. ‑ Iridescent 07:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Ironic that the closure notice has to be displayed at Barlaston and Wedgwood as they are both on permanent bustitution. Nthep (talk) 09:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Or "Wedgewood", if you're the ORR—nice to know the heirs to Beeching share his attention to detail. ‑ Iridescent 09:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Edits by Moylesy98

Please would somebody assist in advising Moylesy98 (talk · contribs) what is acceptable and what is not. They are persistently adding content that goes against (in alphabetical order) WP:GNL, WP:NOR, WP:NOTBLOG, WP:NPOV, WP:PRIMARY, WP:RECENT, and WP:V. This is a long-term issue: recent example here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a persistent problem and wants some sort of agreement to sort it out. That said though, I would support some of their additions, including this one. AIUI, Clun Castle has been out of service without restoration for 50 years and is finally complete - that's worth including in an article on that loco (maybe not on the Castle class, but it would be on List of preserved Castles and certainly on Clun). If the issue here is poor sourcing, then fix the sourcing question, don't just blank worthwhile content - it cannot be hard to source this. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)::

Advice given. Mjroots (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Is this a suitable source? Mjroots (talk) 13:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Another source here. Optimist on the run (talk) 13:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Guess which locomotive is on the front cover of Steam Railway issue 473? Mjroots (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

A Deltic? Optimist on the run (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I said Steam Railway, not Heritage Railway! Mjroots (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

More Line capitalization issues

Since the "Line"/"line" naming issues were discussed here, editors watching this page may be interested in this discussion on WT:TRAINS. Jc86035 (talk) 11:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Interchange stats

Can somebody remind me what the consensus is for interchange statistics in infoboxes? I only ask because Special:Contributions/79.78.95.153 has just done a bunch of them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

... and Charlesdrakew has reverted them without discussion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I've no idea what the consensus is, but I agree 100% with removal. Entrances/exits is measurable, but for these London interchanges the IP was adding them to, the ORR figures are meaningless since there's no way to measure who changed where on a route with multiple possibilities. ‑ Iridescent 21:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Not agreeing with the method of calculation doesn't seem like an appropriate reason for not including them. In any event the entrances and exits are simply estimates, just like the interchanges are.