Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways

Road bridges in RDTs

Do we want to encourage or discourage the indication of motorway crossings in RDTs? See recent edits to First TransPennine Express and Template:Manchester to Preston Line, and other past edits such as those to Template:Wirral Line diagram, Template:Chester to Manchester Line, Template:Northern Line diagram. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't bother putting them in when I did {{Cross Country Route}}, but I guess it depends on the level of detail, and besides, some motorway crossings might actually be notable. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) It all depends on context. I've included the A64 bridge in Template:Derwent Valley Light Railway, as it's a significant part of what is now a very short line. On the other hand, it wouldn't be appropriate to add it to Template:West Coast Main Line as it would become hopelessly unwieldy. In general, a short line can have more detail, a long line should be as simple as possible.  An optimist on the run! 20:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

There is an anon editor who changes IP address whenever somebody reverts him. I suspect an WP:agenda account: he wants to get motorways accepted, so that in turn roads will be accepted, which will then justify the mention of the A41 in Wirral Line. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Not convinced it is a good idea. On {{Wirral Line diagram}} three motorway crossings are shown, however given the linear diagramatic nature of this diagram, I am not convince the M53 and M56 crossing add anything to the diagram. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 21:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd lean towards the inclusion of motorways on diagrams. As to the complexity of diagrams, this depends of the line in question. One approach is to have a generic and a separate detailed diagram as was done on the East Coast Main Line. Minor lines benifit from detailed diagrams IMHO.

Another possible approach would be for station articles to have a detailed diagram covering the line from the station before to the station after the station the article is about. Although I accept that this may not be practicable with major junctions and/or large stations. Mjroots (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Not this again! These diagrams are RAIL diagram templates (the clue is in the name). Road bridges, whether it's motorways, A roads, B roads, occupation bridges, foot bridges don't interact (generally) with the railway therefore they are an irrelevance. We are not producing scale maps here or "what to see mile by mile on the LMS main line" but a rough diagram do aid assistance in understanding a route or company's lines. There are instances when such features would need to be mentioned e.g. is sighting under a bridge was limited and led to an accident or special feature e.g. Radstock and the need for locomotives with a very restricted headroom, but in the vast majority of cases they are unexeceptional and should be left off.

I do have some sympathy for Mjroots suggestion about station level diagrams but I would be very cautious about their use, I really would hate to see them becoming a "feature" of every station article as the templates are restrictive and the best that can be obtained is something akin to a signalbox diagram. NtheP (talk) 11:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The diagram on the Marden rail crash article gives some idea of what such a diagram mmight look like, except that it need not show double track separately, as in that diagram, and that the diagram only covers the line between two stations (whereas if that were the diagram on the Marden railway station article, it would need to show the line between Marden and Staplehurst too. Both those articles have station track layout diagrams, somewhat akin to signalling diagrams except that no signalling is shown. I'd like to see more of these diagrams, but accept that recent consensus was against the general introduction of more of these types of diagram. Mjroots (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The track layout diagram on the Marden rail crash article illustrates what can happen when RDTs are used for a purpose they were never intended for: the misuse of diagram symbols. Signal positions have been indicated on that diagram by a triangular symbol, but clicking the 'Legend' link at the top of the same diagram brings up a key showing that symbol to represent a summit. On another track layout RDT, I've seen Up and Down lines indicated by red and blue colouring, contradicting the legend.–Signalhead ^< T > 20:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

That's part of what WP:BOLD and WP:IAR are for. If you read the article and diagram together, then the relevance of the locations becomes clearer for those who are not familiar with the area. I'd better not mention the diagram on the Réseau des Bains de Mer article then... Mjroots (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see though, neither WP:BOLD nor WP:IAR promote putting blatantly contradictory details into articles... Diagram says one thing; the key says another. I do agree that track layout diagrams can enhance an article but RDTs aren't the proper way to produce them. For one thing, track layouts are best orientated left to right, not top to bottom.–Signalhead ^< T > 21:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Back to the point - my question concerned RDTs for lines, not stations, and was provoked by the addition of just one or two bridges to RDTs that previously had none. If the line crosses several motorways, but only one motorway bridge is shown, why should that particular one be treated specially? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Another example - this now has exactly one road bridge, for a route that in reality crosses motorways five times, and dual-carriageway A-roads several more. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Not any more it doesn't. It'ss this type of unecessary detail that just clutters these diagrams up. They get longer and longer till in quite a few caes the diagram is longer than the text of the article. NtheP (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

That's because no one's bothered doing any text for Cross Country Route to match my stupendous and roadless diagram :p. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

If the bridges are a unique feature in themselves e.g. Chalfont Viaduct then the crossings should be kept. Oh and NtheP, RDTs are to do with all modes of transport i.e. ROUTE diagram templates. This discussiion may be applicable to them. Simply south...... "time, department skies" for 5 years 22:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok I stand corrected on that point, but I retain my position that a feature that has no interaction with the subject of the RDT should be omitted. That stands regardless of the mode of transport e.g. I would not expect or wish to see rail bridges on motorway diagrams. NtheP (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

We need a resolution here: 86.175.37.1 (talk) has been adding more motorways --Redrose64 (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

As above, "the relevance of the locations becomes clearer for those who are not familiar with the area". Most people are familiar with the route of the M6. Nobody has a clue about the path of rail lines, and the geography is mostly hidden on maps produced by train companies, so knowing what's parallel and what crosses will help people with a route.

Note also that in the case of the M25, this essentially is the boundary of London, and that London Transport Fare Zone 6 almost exactly corresponds to the motorway. In this case, having it on is an important signifier that a station is inside or outside the city.

Thirdly, bridges and tunnels over roads or water are usually the most notable features of a railway. They directly influence the path of the route, and are certainly what adds most to the construction cost.

As for "why should that particular bridge be treated specially?" - being incomplete isn't an argument against inclusion. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort for those that know the subject well. Feel free to add any missing ones.

On the subject of "a feature that has no interaction" - that's just an assumption on your part. Somebody's decision to take a train or not can be directly affected by the availability of an alternative (ie road) route. Or vice versa.

I think the best solution would be to make it line-specific. As somebody said above, shorter lines will definitely benefit from the helpful additional detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.37.1 (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

This is still happening. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Give it up. You've asked and failed. Consensus is not with you. There is nothing wrong with the principle of adding info to a diagram. Quit reversing stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.37.60 (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

there's no concensus to add in either. NtheP (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

If I may close this...

I think that, in general, roads are not especially useful to the routemaps, although there are come cases where it may be otherwise. So, is it useful for say the M5 to feature on a map of the South Wales Main Line? I would say no. What relevance to the line does the M5 have? It just happens to be in the way at one point. It's not even relevantly in the way: the M5 was built over a preexisting tunnel through a hill. The tunnel is possibly notable on the diagram, but that it goes under a motorway is not. Similarly, the M5 and the Severn Beach Line - the M5 was built after the line, and that the motorway crosses the line is incidental to both line and motorway.

On the other hand, there are circumstances where particular features might be warranted - for instance if the motorway causes a deviation in the line from an old route.

That said, all these things are dependant upon the level of detail of a given map. If the map is including level crossings and the like, then yes, a motorway is probably notable. If however it's just a map without notice of any other geographical features, pretty much just stations and junctions, then what purpose does a motorway icon serve? The argument of London was given, and I am sympathetic to that, but a better solution would be to simply use the dotted border icons to denote the city boundary.

To sum up, in general there is no reason to use motorway icons on a map of the line, unless you are going into lots of detail about the geographical features of the line anyway. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Reculver railway

Can anyone tell us more about Reculver's railway history please? When built, by whom and any notable events connected with it? If you have access to sources which we may not have, as always, be bold and edit the article <smiles sweetly> --Senra (Talk) 10:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Damn. I should learn to read. There does not appear to be a railway at Reculver, Kent :( Sorry to have been a bother --Senra (Talk) 10:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

There's a railway nearby (see map), but I can find no evidence that there was ever a station there. This seems odd, as it looks like the sort of place that would have had a small halt in the past, and it's quit a long way from Birchington to Herne Bay.  An optimist on the run! 11:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

A house at Brook Lane (along a short lane leading from the bridge over the railway) looks like it could be a station house. Ning-ning (talk) 13:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

According to

• McCarthy, Colin; McCarthy, David (2007). Waller, Peter (ed.). Railways of Britain: Kent and Sussex. Hersham: Ian Allan. maps 6,7,8. ISBN 978 0 7110 3222 4. 0710/C1. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

there was never any station between Herne Bay and Birchington-on-Sea. No station named "Reculver" is listed in Butt (1995); it would be on p. 195 if it had existed. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The line that passes through Reculver is the Chatham Main Line. Mjroots (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

(←) A goods station was opened at Reculver on 6 August 1864 by the LC&DR. It was most likely connected with the Herne Bay, Hampton & Reculver Oyster Fishery Company for which a ¾-mile branch had been built to Hampton Pier for oyster traffic. The goods station appears to have been an attempt to develop the oyster traffic. The branch was closed in 1881, by which time the oyster company had most likely gone out of business. Reculver was also proposed to be served by the SER's 'Canterbury & Kent Coast' line which was proposed in 1884, but never realised. This would have branched off from its Ashford line at Grove Ferry and Upstreet to serve Reculver and Herne Bay. This information comes from Gray, Adrian (1984). The London, Chatham and Dover Railway. Rainham: Meresborough Books. pp. 132–133. ISBN 978-0-90527-088-3. Lamberhurst (talk) 09:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Presumably the juntion would have faced London. Looks like the {{Chatham Main Line}} diagram needs to be amended. Mjroots (talk) 09:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow! All good stuff. Not bad considering I thought there was no railway at Reculver. Thank you all --Senra (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Simply amazing! The info is detailed and doesn't read like an invention - but, I can find no trace of this Reculver "branch" on e.g. Ordnance Survey maps of the time, or later. (see www.old-maps.co.uk, find the most useful, contemporary maps by searching "Reculver" and "Hillborough"). Is there a practical alternative source? (e.g. A Vision of Britain doesn't seem to have anything helpful for this) Even though the line was fleeting, it should show on those maps. I haven't yet found a sufficiently detailed railway company network map that might show it either, is there one? Could the "branch" in reality have been little more than a small "goods depot" on or near the main line? What to make of it? Nortonius (talk) 12:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm reading it that there was a branch to Hampton pier - cf File:OS map Hampton 1878 114.jpg (thank David Biddulph!) but a Reculver branch never got off the drawing board. There was a goods station on the main line going past Reculver. Does that help? --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, that helps a lot - I'd say "done and dusted"! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 14:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC) (though I may also be "Notorious"! :o) )

Not quite "done and dusted" yet. I've added the branch to Hampton Pier to the {{Chatham Main Line}}. Tagishsimon, are you saying that Reculver Goods Station was actually on the Chatham Main Line@ If so, was it before or after the junction with the line to Hampton Pier? Mjroots (talk) 07:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you're quite right, I meant only as far as the initial enquiry was concerned. If it helps, I've peered closely at 19th century Ordnance Survey maps of the area dated after 1864 (via Old-Maps.co.uk): there's no sign of a line to Reculver, either extant or lifted. Also, the most likely locations for a station on the main line look to be adjacent to Sweechbridge Road or Brook Lane, or at a point on the main line roughly due south of Reculver, but I can't see any clear sign of any goods station having existed. Presumably it would've required a siding or two? Just throwing it in, hope it helps! Nortonius (talk) 08:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the Hampton Pier branch to its correct position west (not east) of Herne Bay (compare the map already mentioned with the known position of Herne Bay station. Therefore any goods facility for Reculver would be after both the junction and Herne Bay station.

McCarthy & McCarthy's book doesn't show the Hampton pier branch. This demonstrates that they omit some information, so it's possible that my earlier comment (15:20, 17 December 2011) is not entirely factually accurate and that some facility may have exised btwn Herne Bay and Birchington, also overlooked by McCarthy & McCarthy. Does anybody (Lamberhurst maybe?) have a copy of Cobb's atlas handy? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the correctio, Redrose. Re the goods station at Reculver, large scale Ordnance Survey maps of the period would probably give the best chance of confirmation. Mjroots (talk) 06:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

(←) Cobb's atlas (2006 ed.) doesn't show the Hampton Pier branch or the goods station. To be fair, Gray mentioned that the line to Hampton was a very obscure branch about which very little is known. Large scale OS maps may indeed be the best bet, especially as there appear to be a number of potential sites for a goods station. Lamberhurst (talk) 17:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a Butt?

If anyone has a copy of Butt, R. V. J. (October 1995). The Directory of Railway Stations: details every public and private passenger station, halt, platform and stopping place, past and present (1st ed.). Sparkford: Patrick Stephens Ltd. ISBN 978-1-85260-508-7. OCLC 60251199. OL 11956311M., could they look up the opening dates for the following stations please?

• Wyrley and Cheslyn Hay
• Littleton and Badsey
• Pye Hill and Somercotes

These are required for the table in Slow Train, and can also be added to the articles themselves (Pye Hill and Somercotes has conflicting information). Many thanks.  An optimist on the run! 07:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Redrose64 (talk) 09:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.  An optimist on the run! 09:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Review of Transport#Rail within Ely, Cambridgeshire

(This may be the incorrect place so do feel free to move it to a more appropriate venue) Would a kind soul from this project please review the Transport#Rail section of Ely, Cambridgeshire as part of its peer review ahead of my proposed FAC? --Senra (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

✗ Not done :( --Senra (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

How to write a decent article on a station?

I susepect we have discussed this or at least parts of it before, but have we ever come up with guidelines on waht and what not to put in articles on stations? Location, history, services (taking WP:RECENT) into account is all ok but what about things like facilities? What should go in and what shouldn't? To me and I freely admit to being in the less is better camp here much above existence of ticket office and I think it's a) trivial and b) reproducing information from the station's station information page at www.nationalrailco.uk which we already link to in the infobox. As an example this is the list that has been the subject of a minor edit skirmish on Chippenham railway station

• Ticket desk
• Short stay car park
• 2 long stay car parks
• Cafe
• 2 waiting lounges
• On - Platform staff desk
• Bike parks
• Seating areas
• Vending machine
• Bus park
• Taxi Rank
• Toilets
• Newspaper rack
• Lost property
• Self - Service ticket machines
• Meeting point
• Announcements
• Electronic Display Screens
• Wheelchair crossing
• Customer boarding assistance

I don't have any rancour towards the editor (User:Chip123456) who added it because as he has rightly pointed out, similar lists exist on loads of other station articles so why not this one. To me it just looks like space filling and also open to lots of problems about keeping it up to date.

I appreciate it's likely to vary depending on the size of the station but is there any sort of concensus that can be reached about what is appropriate and what isn't? NtheP (talk) 12:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Much of that is too much detail (WP:NOTGUIDE), and these days much is standard. What would be better is to determine which features are standard at each of the United Kingdom railway station categories and only note significant departures from this provision on the individual articles, and then only in general terms - indeed some items like newspaper racks are so trivial and ephemeral that they don't need a mention anywhere imho. Similarly if a station's facilities have markedly changed at any point, the change should be mentioned (but normally not in detail) in the history section of an article (e.g. The original ticket hall and waiting rooms were closed in 1967 and demolished circa 1980.). I suppose a good guide would be that inclusion in sourced prose is OK, but if there is nothing more than a bulleted list then it's not a notable feature of the station. Thryduulf (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be good to add ticket desks and things like that. Maybe I did put a bit too much.--Chip123456 (talk) 09:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed stations

I've just noticed an article created by Biscuittin (talk · contribs) on Proposed railway stations in England. I am wondering what other people think about it. It might be good as an overview but then again unless there is something substantial it brings into question what should be included. Or is the article not needed? Simply south...... "time, department skies" for 5 years 18:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The difficulty is avoiding WP:CRYSTAL arguments. I'm not doubting that the sources are reliable or that someone has had the idea but how solid does it have to be so that it's not something, somebody thought up one day? Looking at the article it mentions a proposal for Thames Valley Park that is 13 years old - surely something to apend to the article on TVP? If the station ever comes to fruition then it becomes part of the history section on the station. There are historical sites that were considered or desired for stations but didn't happen e.g. Mallerstang on the Settle & Carlisle - should that go in the list because an RS can be produced to support it or does it become a note in an article on either (or both) of Mallerstang or S&C? To me a stand alone article is just too fraught about what constitutes a valid proposal. NtheP (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I accept that the entry for Thames Valley Park Station is probably a dead duck but I still think the article is useful for more recent proposals which do not yet have pages of their own. Biscuittin (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I have moved the TVP station info to Thames Valley Park as suggested. Biscuittin (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Quintinshill rail accident

There's an unverified claim in the Aftermath section that says

"At the Board of Trade inquiry the most controversial evidence was that of Hugh Urquhart, the out-door engineering chief of the Glasgow and South Western Railway, which exercised powers over the last eight miles of shared track from Gretna Junction to Carlisle. Urquhart reminded the inquiry that at certain times of the day this was one of the busiest stretches of double-line railway in Britain. While not condoning the short-cuts and fatal mistakes made by the signalmen Meakin and Tinsley, he said he was concerned that they should not be made scapegoats for errors made by higher-ranking officials. He claimed that the real cause of the bad practices was the fact that the last two express trains from Euston – the 11.45 to Aberdeen and the 12 midnight to Glasgow – were chronically bad time-keepers. This resulted in very unorthodox shunting procedures around Quintinshill"

Another editor has commented on this on the article talk page and I agree with him, that the report of Col Druitt [1]] makes no mention of any evidence being given by Urquhart either on this subject or any other. The only place I've ever seen comment on the late running of the two trains being a contributory factor is in Nock's Historic Railway Disasters but he doesn't attribute this thought to Urquhart. Can anyone supply a source for the comments made (or for that matter the next section regarding Urquhart's involvement in Tinsley's early release)? NtheP (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Archiving time

Due to the size of this talk page (currently up to nearly 70K), would anyone object if I cut the archive time on this page down to (say) 1 month (it's currently at 2)? this would greatly benefit those of us with slow network connections.  An optimist on the run! 11:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

No objection here. Times can always be tweaked as necessary. Mjroots (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Reduced to 30 days.  An optimist on the run! 11:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Quintinshill

I am pleased to see that someone has agreed with me as regards Hugh Urquhart.

There are no records of him in the newspaper reports at the time and a search through other railway archives fails to confirm that he was ever employed by the G&SWR.

Is this a mischevious posting?

What is the procedure for taking unverified statements down?

GC Jack GC Jack 16:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GC Jack (talk • contribs)

We just edit it out. I'm going to give it to the weekend and if there's nothing postive then out it comes. I suspect the additions were originally made by someone doing geneolocial research into the Urquhart family and making 2+2=5. NtheP (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The preferred action upon encountering unverified statements is to find a reference that supports the statement, per WP:V, and add the reference to the appropriate place in the article (WP:CITE). If you can't find anything (and from the above it appears that you have tried and failed), you have two choices: either remove the statement, or leave it in place, adding a {{citation needed|date=January 2025}} immediately afterwards, like this. Note that the last option should not be used on contentious unverified statements concerning living people, see WP:BLP, but Urquhart is unlikely to be still alive, 97 years on. You could also look through the page history to determine who added the statement, and drop a note on their user talk page asking what their source was. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

This is too big to leave with a {{citation needed}} on it. There's not much doubt that Urquhart was a senior member of staff on the GSWR or at least that section in LMS days as he's in the surviving LMS pay books as someone who was a high earner, but we are talking here about alleged statements made during the inquiry he made about the cause of one of the worst accidents on a British railway and also how he subsequently got the time served in prison by one of the guilty signalmen reduced. I've looked at a number of sources both on and off line and nothing supports these statements. As I mentioned in my first posting the only person to question the late running of the trains as a factor is Nock and he makes no suggestion that the thought was owed to Urquhart. Col Druitt's report doesn't even mention Urquhart giving evidence so unless he was called at the coroner's inquest (again something I can't disprove or more importantly from a WP perspective) prove then it's very dubious hearsay. I've also established which editor made the edition but they don't appear to have edited since last September so I don't hold much hope out of getting anything there. From the pattern of edits by this editor thye were mostly about various members of the Urquhart family hence my geneological comment - perhaps family folklore ("Uncle Hugh was a main witness at the inquiry")? I am proposing though to put the "offending" text onto the talk page so that it can still be seen which is better than it being totally invisible. NtheP (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust Nock that much; just spent a couple of hours trying to figure out an assertion he made, only to realise that it was not only mechanically impossible, but also contradicated by two photos on the same page. Ning-ning (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to :-) NtheP (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I have the Coroner's Court details. No mention of Urquhart. Thanks for the detail on his position on the LMS I will let the G&SWR Assn know he existed! Whether he helped in the early release is pure conjecture in my opinion and cannot be verified. I also agree that Nock is not a good source. I have been researching this and other accidents and there are many myths about Quintinshill it will be good to see this one laid to rest. GC Jack 15:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a PS. There was a lot of disquite in the industry generally - especially in the Unions about the prison sentences. I wonder if Urquhart was part of that and perhaps exaggerated his involvement later in life. There were some press comments about the extra traffic and in the B.o.T report it states that it was up by 40% GC Jack 11:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GC Jack (talk • contribs)

Thanks for taking the Uqurhart section out. GC Jack 14:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GC Jack (talk • contribs)

Reference needed

Has anyone got a copy of JAB Hamilton's Disaster down the Line (also published as British Railway Accidents of the 20th Century)? There's a mention of the Royal Scots survivors of the disaster being mistaken for POWs and being pelted by the crowd but I can't find it online and need a page reference and a bit more detail of this incident. NtheP (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Advenza

Accoridng to http://business.highbeam.com/435290/article-1G1-112090385/advenza-almost-ready-go advenza was to apply for a license in Jan 2004, but according to the 1st supplimentary license agreement (Mar 2004) http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/s22-avden_1sa_apagre.pdf (page2) the original agreement was date Nov 2003. I expect Rail Business Intelligence to usually be accurate, oddly I cant find the original aggreement on the http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/ website. Can someone explain the inconsistency to me . Is there a real difference between a "operator's licence" and "track access agreement" (they already had a "safety case") - if so where/who hands out the "operators license" ? Mddkpp (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Class numbers - here we go again!

Direct Rail Services have just ordered some new Vossloh Eurolight locomotives[2], and I can foresee a PowerHaul-style mass debate about designations within Wikipedia emerging soon, so maybe we should settle things ASAP?

Should we treat the new EuroLight locos like the EMD JT42CWR family, with separate articles for the type as a whole and the UK ones, or are we going to take the GE PowerHaul single article path, and pretend every loco of this type worldwide is and will forever be "British Rail" on the grounds that internal consistency within Wikipedia overides WP:Verify and WP:RS? At the moment there are separate articles on Vossloh Eurolight (the type of new loco as whole) and a new one on British Rail Class 68 (based on enthusiast speculation as to what the locos might be numbered).

Personally I'd think it makes sense have two articles, as trying to pretend the German Eurolights are BR locos is bonkers - but see PowerHaul! Wheeltapper (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe its perfectly fine to have a family and a class page for foreign vehicles which may be sold to many countries, there are usually minor differences between each customers specification and of course their history in service. As to the slighly modified version of the 66 to be sold in Europe as 66 its been dropped from development leaving the only 66 on the continent (France, owned by Angel) the ones built for the UK anyway, all the others are class 77 or other number. WatcherZero (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought it had been established that "British Rail" refers to the organisation that established the system of classification of locomotives, DMUs, DEMUs and EMUs, not the orperator. Two articles is a sensible way to go. Mjroots (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The last discussion seem to be split into different viewpoints on that - I find it counterintuitive and would prefer something like GB Class 70, "BR" or "British Railway" makes me think about the nationalised company rather than a generic "railways of Britain". I agree there's no issue with two or more articles. We even have family articles for purely UK machines like Bombardier Voyager or Networker (train).

Re the British Rail Class 70s - I think a separate article for the class as a whole is now justified - though more info on the Turkish and Australian locomotives is needed. It's not clear if any narrow gauge locomotives have been built. GE list 3 powerhaul types [3] PH37ACmi, PH37ACi, PH37ACi and that doesn't include the a narrow gauge PH37ACmai. There's no reason not to have separate articles per operator/country if there's enough info as is already the case with other exported types eg EMD G16, EMD G26. However with no narrow gauge version built yet, and very little info coming out of Turkey it might be worth waiting a bit until UGL has actaully built one, or TCDD gives theirs a class number (their yearly reports are on the web - and will list all the types they operate - however publication of that may be months away)Mddkpp (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

More For the record the (prototype) Turkish powerhaul's are series DE 37000 - it's 37001 since in Turkey they count from 001. You can see some images here http://www.demiryoluportali.com/forum/index.php?topic=394.0 - I don't know yet if it's built to a wider (UIC-505-1) gauge or not. If I can find something more official than a forum I'll start the "family" article for "GB Class 70".Mddkpp (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

More more Google tells me it's officially DE37000 see http://kurumsal.tcdd.gov.tr/home/detail/?id=1208 (right at the bottom). I'll do the article tomorrow for the super-class if no one has written it by then..Mddkpp (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The general article GE PowerHaul now exists, as does the more UK specific British Rail Class 70. I haven't got a solution for the obvious contradiction in the name as I can't think of a better one. Sorry.Mddkpp (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

And there was much rejoicing. Wheeltapper (talk) 09:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That seems to have pretty much solved that one, at last. I recall something similar being tried and challenged at PowerHaul (locomotive) last year, so let's hope it sticks this time - there's substantially less duplication, so hopefully it will. (I've updated that redirect by the way.) Alzarian16 (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

CrossCountry and IP 194.9.188.22

The IP 194.9.188.22 keeps inserting unsourced POV criticisms of this TOC. They have been repeatedly reverted by me and others. I put a warning on his/her user page twice, but the disruptive editing continues regardless. The criticisms may well be justified but they would have to be ascribed to some respectable commentator. The IP does not seem to want to take on board the fact that Wikipedia itself cannot be seen to be making such criticisms. The IP is registered to an ISP in Staines. Could somebody who is an administrator please do something about this case? -- Alarics (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Warned them with {{uw-npov3}}. Take it up to a final level 4 warning if they do it again, and if that doesn't stop them, let me know, or report it at WP:AN.  An optimist on the run! 20:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page for 1 week. That will stop IP edits, at least. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it's a very small IP range, so rangeblocking might be a better option than semi if this persists. I'll watchlist the article, but I'm not very good at keeping up with my watchlist at the minute. Feel free (anyone) to ping my talk page if there are more problems. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

More foreign imports

On the subject of Euro things - if anyone lives near Redcar and can get photos of the ex-NSB Di8 locomotives for the steelworks for use in the article that would be much appreciated - especially post-repaint or with the new stickers on.. Thanks.Mddkpp (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

BR Departmentals

diff Someone seems certain that the DB Schenker Company Train should be in Category:British Rail Departmental Units - apart from not being a BR vehicle - as far as I know it doesn't have a 9xx TOPS code.. Feedback please - surely there is a better category? Also should British Rail APT-E, Parry People Movers be in it. Plus does New Measurement Train have a TOPS code?? Mddkpp (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Easily fixed, thank you for spotting that. I've added a everything else from the Template:Network Rail Departmental Multiple Unit Classes into Category:British Rail Departmental Units (along with a couple of others). If there's anything that only consists of a single-vehicle (eg. locomotives, or bubble-cars, MPV DR98008, etc—rather than semi-permanently-fixed-rakes of other vehicles) you're welcome to help remove/split those, leaving it just as multi-vehicle departmental consists/units.

I suppose would could also rename to something like "Category:Multiple-vehicle rail configurations operated on the British railway network regularly intended to work under Officer's Special, permissive and Engineer's regulations". The EWS Company Train is an inspection saloon, much like 975025 Caroline and such. However, yes, inspection saloons do get used for other purposes, be it Keith Heller's retirement bash, or the honeymoon after the Wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Lady Diana Spencer. —Sladen (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

ok So Parry People Mover is the odd one - apart from being a single unit (that could be ignored ie the template title "Network Rail Self-propelled vehicles" would work for instance) - as far as I know it's never had a departmental use - or at least that's as much as the article says. I know nothing. I'll remove that one.

The other one is APT-E - I'd think that is a prototype but not a departmental - ie I'd assume a 'departmental' has some works or testing value (other than to test itself)?? - also isn't the list post-privatisation.?

Changed the display name of Template:Network Rail Departmental Multiple Unit Classes added Class 97, also note that British_Rail_Classes_445_and_446 is already categorised as British Rail Class 920, British Rail Class 935 - so the main doesn't have to be categorised - it's optional

Please check APT-E in the template - I think it's in the wrong place - I've added it to Template:British Rail Locomotives.Mddkpp (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The Parry PPM50 was given a departmental number 999 900 while it passed Governmental main line commissioning tests (as it was a new builder rather than an existing manufacturer they were more stringent in testing) and still retains it being used for trial services (therefore avoiding some red tape on line vehicle safety commisioning). Its production siblings PPM60's were give the class numbers 139 001 and 139 002. WatcherZero (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I have removed both types of APT from Template:British Rail Locomotives because both were multiple-units, not locomotives. APT-E was only ever used for testing. It belonged to the Railway Technical Centre (i.e. the research department) at Derby, but was never given visible numbers in the departmental series. It's possible that departmental numbers were allocated for internal purposes, but I've never seen any published. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Loco builders plates -do BR / post-BR standards exist?

In British Rail Class 70 it claims (via dead link) http://chrisperkins.fpic.co.uk/p62035929.html that the locomass is 135t. Other sources give 129t [4] and the fuel cap is 6000kg... Is it a standard for the builders plate to include the mass of the fuel as well?Mddkpp (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about builder's plates showing weights... they typically give the maker's name, serial number (where applicable) and date. TOPS information panels, which are normally a vinyl sticker, always show weights.

In the UK, the weight of rail vehicles is typically given in working order, i.e. filled with fuel, coolant, lubricant, etc., and for vehicles which carry a payload (coaches and wagons), there will normally be two quoted weights: fully loaded, and "empty" - empty being empty of passengers or goods, it still means filled with fuel etc.

Be wary of weights given as "t" because this is the abbreviation for three different units of weight, and it's not necessarily clear whether the unit that is meant is the metric tonne (1000 kg), the British (long) ton (2,240 pounds (1,020 kg)) or the USA (short) ton (2,000 pounds (910 kg)). --Redrose64 (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Class 66 example

Actually I don't think I meant "builders plate" ie see image. Question remains - is the "tonnes" figure empty full or somewhere in between?Mddkpp (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Full I believe, the manufacturers brochure states a maximum weight of 129.6 tonnes but the fuel capacity is listed as 6,400 litres on the continental version or 5,670 litres in the UK making the uk version about 0.8 tonnes lighter on fuel alone, assuming other minor lighter differences the dataplate on the 66 pictured looks right for the 'wet' or fullly fuelled weight, (as opposed to 'dry' weight which is the weight without fuel or cargo). The US version weight is listed as 126 tonnes which looks like the dry weight unless for some weird reason its a unit error and its been calculated using Long tons. WatcherZero (talk) 07:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

6000 kg for a fuel cap? Do they make it out of neutron star matter? The one on my car only weighs a couple of ounces.  An optimist on the run! 08:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Cap being short for capacity, of course! Mjroots (talk) 11:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Class 47

Discrepancies between weights of locos built for different countries is easily explained by the different railway systems giving different specifications. In hotter countries the radiators will be larger, as will the coolant reservoir, both of which add to the weight. Such items as couplers vary greatly, and the weights of these can be substantial. The typical Class 66 of EWS has a Buckeye coupler which can be swung to one side to expose a conventional drawhook for a screw shackle coupler. Where a country (or operator) uses only one coupler (Buckeye or otherwise), the swinging arrangement is unnecessary and the coupler will weigh less.

The Class 66 example image is definitely not a builder's plate, but a TOPS information panel, which shows data that is important to the person in charge of rostering a train (curiously, not the loco power output). These have been in use since the 1970s, but the colour has varied, and the layout has changed slightly too.

The top row shows on the left the TOPS class (Class 66), and on the right the "A" means that this loco has air brakes for the train (other codes are V=vacuum, X=dual air/vacuum, O=none). According to

• British Rail Motive Power Combined Volume 1978. Shepperton: Ian Allan. 1978. p. 7. ISBN 0 7110 0851 5. CEX/0478. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

which is the earliest edition to describe these panels, the weight is "always in working order". The British convention is that "in working order" means with full tanks, etc., as I described above. The need to weigh with full tanks is because it is the maximum weight which is crucial, because this is what is judged against the strength of underline bridges. The ETH index shows the amount of current that can be drawn for the electric heating of carriages, etc.; an ETH index of 0 means that there is no ETH supply. RA 7 is the route availability - this is dependent upon weight, number of axles and total wheelbase but does not take height or width into account.

In the pic of a Class 47 at right, you will see that forward of the cab door, and below the window, is a builder's plate (elliptical, with black background). This shows "Brush" (the loco builder) "Sulzer" (the engine manufacturer) "No. 524" (the Brush serial number) and "1964" (the year of construction). The TOPS information panel is below the loco number, and is in the style of the early 1980s - white on blue with rounded corners. Note here that the brake type upper right is "X" for dual brake, and the ETH index is 66 - the scale is roughly that if you multiply the ETH index by about 9 amps, you get the maximum current, so ETH 66 means that electrical power at 1000 volts is available up to 600 amps. Coaches have ETH indices too, which shows how much current they draw, and the sum of those for the coaches must not exceed that of the locomotive. Below the TOPS panel is the depot allocation - SF for Stratford. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for both people who explained it was a full weight. That makes sense if GE/Freightliner is quoting empty weight. Thanks.83.100.227.241 (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

London Underground

I keep deleting a completely unsourced section headed "The PMF Methodology" and it keeps being put back in. It was first put there (along with the paragraph after it, headed "Project Management Maturity at LUL", which does have some sources) by an editor with the name "Pmfteam", who sent me an email implying that if I did not work for LUL I was not qualified to edit the text! This user was chastised on his/her user page by David Biddulph for having a name clearly related to the organisation being written about, and subsequently blocked altogether. The latest re-insertion of this material is by an IP registered to Transport for London.

My own feeling is that both these paragraphs are fairly meaningless "internal" management-speak jargon on a rather non-core aspect of the subject of the article. Clearly this is a very important, high-traffic article and arguably quite long enough without this sort of abstruse guff. What do others think? -- Alarics (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I don't see the need for this paragraph. How many people actually know what 'Project Management Maturity' is? Its pretty much just jargon and that's coming from an rail enthusiast. Likelife (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Direct them in the first instance to the message below the "Save page" button and also to WP:OWN. If they insist on its inclusion, point them to WP:V and WP:NOT. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Both are verifyable ie "Project Management Maturity at LUL" and "Project Management Framework".

If it is to be in it needs to be written in english not bullet points, and the coverage be relavent and encyclopedic - the part which says "The latest official assessment, in February 2010, certified LUL at a P3M3 maturity level of 3[66] (out of a maximum score of 5). This conclusion was reached by an external consultancy,[67] following a survey of some 200 project staff. The certification was observed and endorsed by the APM Group.[68]" seems reasonable - the rest I saw not - however it lacks context, especially regarding what it is actually describing. I'd have to agree with removing the lot at present.

It should also be noted that if they are saying they work for LUL then they have WP:COI issues, and seeing as it is clearly affecting their judgement this means no editing - though suggestions on the talk page for additions should be welcome.

I should note that the current article doesn't seem to make it that clear that the PPP ended eg http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/modesoftransport/londonunderground/management/1580.aspx I leave a message on the talk page about that.Mddkpp (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree it's verifyable but it's not encyclopedic. I don't really see project management maturity as a topic to be covered about any organisation that employs project management unless of course it's something that is notable about that organisation e.g. has been lambasted for poor project management in the past and showing it's maturity level as part of it's repsonse to that. But it's not a standard item. NtheP (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Some of the offending material has now gone, but there is still a subsection London Underground#Project management that includes what I consider to be guff. If anyone agrees with me they are welcome to telescope it or even delete it altogether. I might be in breach of the 3RR rule if I did it myself. -- Alarics (talk) 08:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it - one interesting bit (and the only "reliable non primary source" given was http://www.railpro.co.uk/news/?idArticles=912 - which claims £400million saving - yet this was not mentioned .. why? I'd like to note I'm deleting it because it's guff as stated above -especially the 7 point plan - the £400 million figure may well be notable - something like "...has improved its project management .. savings of 400million .. " 212.50.175.66 (talk) 06:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The verbiage about PMF metholody has been re-inserted by an IP. I have deleted it, and added an explanation on the article's talk page. Is there anything else we can do? Can somebody please keep an eye on this? I do not have time to watch it constantly. -- Alarics (talk) 10:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It has been re-added yet again. The IP has now admitted on the article's talk page that he/she works for LUL and implies that those who do not work for LUL should not tamper with his/her verbiage. Of course this is more or less the exact opposite of WP policy. How can we get the message across so that this endless reverting does not go on and on? -- Alarics (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Alarics - THE WC policy ALSO says that should be willing to talk and listen to other editors before you make decisions of deleting stuff. As explained before (3rd time now) we are a team of 15 people working on this, all verifiable work so, it would be much appreciated if you stop deleting our work as it's based on fact and not fantasy or anorak-speak. The Network Rail page has references to GRIP which is their project management methodology. I don't see you getting upset with this. Anyway, as discussed previously I'm happy to explain to you what the work is as long as you're willing to listen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.79.208.20 (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

And there is putting it into context. If you want to add in that LUL has been criticised in the past for it's project management ability (or lack thereof) then add that in and it starts to make sense if it's in the context of this is what has been done to remedy the situation. As it stands it's jargon ridden (and as a project manager myself I would question why it has taken 15 of you to come up with what is a pretty standard lifecycle model that you could have bought off the shelf?) and meaningless. Even if you apply the context then it does not need to be as long as it is and should be a lot shorter. "In the past(date) LUL has suffered from poor project management.(reference) It has addressed this by developing a project management framework(reference) and external audit now(date) rates its P3M3 maturity as 3 as opposed to 1 before.(reference)" It doens't need detail of the content of the framework, or how it was reviewed or anything of that nature. NtheP (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:DB_Schenker_Company_Train#Facts

The issue is the modification of the EWS Executive train for push pull working - one source says the Class 67 (67029) was fitted with a TDM decoder (I assume this means using existing cabling as per Mk3/Class 86 sets), whilst User:Sladen is convinced that the set was modified with additional cabling for the AAR system - this would mean modifications to the DVT. (We both agree that for the Wrexham and Shropshire sets AAR mods were used). An archived source sort of supports the AAR theory but isn't explicit enough esg-rail

Does anyone have a reliable source specifically for the company train. I seem to remember coverage in the rail press but I don't own any of the old issues. I think it was made 2005 or earlier.Mddkpp (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Update Simple solution - this image http://www.rail-net.co.uk/jpgpage.php?picid=2901&storyid=178 shows 67029 connected to the company train with AAR cables.. However the far RCH jumper has been heavily modified (see the thick cable coming out of a box along with the normal RCH cable) - no other Class 67 seems to have this - if anyone knows what it is etc please leave a message on talk of EWS Company Train.Mddkpp (talk) 14:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Northern Hub

Just wondering should an article be made for the Northern Hub project or should it wait until its confirmed? Likelife (talk) 09:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

If it gets a writeup in Modern Railways, The Railway Magazine or similar, then yes. Otherwise all we have are WP:PRIMARY sources. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The plans have already been described in detail both in Modern Railways and in RAIL. Unfortunately I do not currently have time to do anything about it. -- Alarics (talk) 14:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

OK thanks, and I can confirm its been in RAIL. If no objections I'll create it when I have time to. Likelife (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It's been on just about every rail related news site, and the BBC! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-15062142 I don't think this article will have any notability issues...Mddkpp (talk) 05:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Having read the Beeb article and the page on Network Rail's website, I'm still unsure what exactly is being done, apart from building new track from Manchester Piccadilly to Manchester Victoria and increasing the frequency of trains in the north west. Both articles are thin on details so it might be a struggle to get much of an article going unless there's more available. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

There is, but as I have already stated above, it is in the railway press, not on line. -- Alarics (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a little more info at page 2 "the solution" it includes a lot of station work in Manchester, the line you mention, plus several track schemes very briefly described at http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/6474.aspx - mostly "de bottlenecking" - I believe the reason for the current level of vaguery (in the "public domain") is that the goverment hasn't yet written the check for all it - though the ordsall curve is confirmed. -

For the "Ordsall Curve" (£85m) little more here and manchester station improvements eg there's a fairly detailed article here http://www.therailengineer.com/2011/06/29/manchester-united/ - these improvements have also been called the "manchester hub" (google this for more results). I think there are more than a dozen other improvement projects lumped together as part of the scheme. See the map on http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/6474.aspx ie for not a lot of detail on these

If you really need to dig see http://www.networkrail.co.uk/uploadedFiles/networkrailcouk/Contents/Publications/Route_Plans/Route%20Specifications%202011%20London%20North%20West.pdf "Route Specifications 2011 – London North Western" which lists all planned and proposed route improvements including "control period 5" Some also are within "NE region" link see - note that these links only give vague specifications on a per line basis - they don't describe the actual work to be done to obtain that.212.50.175.66 (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Train operating company

This article was seriously out of date. I have made a start on updating it but help would be welcome. Also, if anyone has some extra spare time, it lacks references. -- Alarics (talk) 08:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Another line name needed

What is the line between Chester and Crewe called? I tried on the ELineRef website but couldn't find it. Is it just WCML, or does it have its own name? -mattbuck (Talk) 19:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

ELR is CNH (Crewe North-Holyhead). Traditional line description in Quail (vol 4 map 35C) is "Crewe and Chester Line". --Redrose64 (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

So if we believe the ELR, that would imply the North Wales Coast Line extends to Crewe instead of to Chester, alternatively we need a new article Crewe and Chester Line. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Well the Engineers' Line Reference is really just their own system for them to be able to locate structures - eg, you'll probably find a bridge/tunnel/crossing somewhere with CNH-14 written on it. It doesn't relate to the formal name of the line. Quail is more likely to have it right because they derive their information from the NR Sectional Appendix, but unfortunately I can't confirm this as it's not my area and I don't have a Sectional Appendix for the route. I would expect Crewe & Chester Line is most likely to be correct. Fu Manchuchu (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Scotland's Railways saltire

Just a quick question, what is the proper name of the new ScotRail saltire livery? I've seen it alternately called "Saltire", "Scotland's Railways" or a few variations on these. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I've dropped a note at WT:TIS#New ScotRail livery. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)