Talk:Hull and Barnsley Railway

Trains: in UK Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).

Yorkshire C‑class Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Hull and Barnsley Railway is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Hull & Barnsley Railway.

Comment

(section heading added by Prof.Haddock (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]

I think the bit about the joint line is not quite correct and there is no mention of the branch to Doncaster York Road. I will try and correct this when I find a good source. The elegant joint line bowsprit bridge over the river Don is now a public footpath and a good place for photography of the Doncaster avoiding line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.15.84 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

How is that search for a source going?

And what is a bowsprit bridge?? Do you mean a bow-and-string bridge, often colloquially called a bowstring bridge? Afterbrunel (talk) 10:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eastrington

An IP user has added Eastrington to the diragram with the summary "Added Eastrington to the excellent route map. Left as a link to the village rather than a non-existant page about the former station.". I was wondering if this information is correct as there is an article on Eastrington railway station which is still open but it does not mention the Hull and Barnsley Railway as one of its former connections. Is this the same station or was there 2 stations there? Keith D (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Eastrington railway station that is still open (on the Selby to Hull line) was formerly South Eastrington. Eastrington station on the Hull and Barnsley Railway, was also known as North Eastrington. Svitapeneela (talk) 10:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information - I think that we need to clarify the 3 articles so that people know there was 2 different stations. Keith D (talk) 12:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find a reference at the moment but from memory the H&B station at Eastrington was simply called 'Eastrington'. When the NER absorbed the H&B in 1922, they had two stations serving Eastrington, so they were renamed North Eastrington and South Eastrington. XTOV (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2008

The former North Eastrington station now sits under Holmes park (Road) in the village, you could still see sections of the platform up until 2/3 years ago but these have now disappeared under new housing. The station house itself was removed in the late 60's early 70's 13th June 2008(UTC)

Error in grammer

Would that they could spell it "grammar"--SilasW (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

River Hull Swing Bridge HJS/22

Users may be interested to note that the bridge will be receiving major work on the May Day weekend... (80.193.99.43 (talk) 11:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Later features shown on line diagram

The article and the line diagram are H&BR, but at least two features are post-H&BR, the Spring Bank West connection into Paragon and Boothferry Park station. Should the map show them? Are icons in another colour needed to show track and stations built after a featured company closed.--SilasW (talk) 10:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest that you clarify this in the article as this seems a suitable article to mention these links rather than by creating separate articles for them. I will leave others to comment on the diagram colours and how to handle the situation there. Keith D (talk) 00:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've noted the two points on the line diagram whose waggles near Hull I straightened and made it a called in template rather than inline coding. The line, the pride of the Corporation when built, has a truly sad number of stations sans WP article and the article is singularly deficient in dates--SilasW (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Volkerail ?

Forgive me if I'm wrong but I thought the recent work was carried out by GrantRail. I've removed this link VolkerRail Ltd.

https://www.jobs-in-rail.co.uk/jobseekers/latest_news/?ID=192 "GrantRail Projects Division, as the Principal Contractor, will be supported by sister companies GrantRail Signalling and Fitzpatrick Contractors Ltd" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.232.187 (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.volkerrail.co.uk/bin/ibp.jsp?ibpDispWhat=object&ibpPage=S5_FocusPage&ibpDispWho=STNI_ITEMS%5El4120&ibpVersion=0&ibpZone=S5_GroupNewsb&ibpDisplay=view&

GrantRail has been rebranded - but at the time of the work was still called GrantRail. (I think) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.232.187 (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The work is on going - it was started while we were GrantRail but we're now VolkerRail so I think the link to VolkerRail should really remain as that's where any up to date information will be published as a result of the work. Trust me on this one, I work for VolkerRail! Zozzie 9t9 (talk) 08:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Springbank sidings

eg see this image http://d240vprofozpi.cloudfront.net/co/HBR/hbr_map.png The image (bottom right) expansion - seems to slightly over expand the size - in reality its ~ same size as sculcoates goods, but for a different purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.232.187 (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tenses

Could someone correct the chaotic timing in this?

"The Hull Docks branch was upgraded [in] 2007-2009 to .... . The work is being undertaken by .... and included the re-instatement .... ..... The completed works were opened in June 2008 by the transport minister ...."--SilasW (talk) 08:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Could someone correct the chaotic timing in this?" All of the above is correct - the upgrading was undertaken between 2007 and 2009. Work is still taking place on site however - small jobs such as stressing and snagging works are still on going. And the transport minister did indeed 'open' the enhancements last year! Zozzie 9t9 (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then the article, in an encyclopedia and not a collection of jottings no matter how true, should make that plain.--SilasW (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hull station names

When it functioned was the H&B station officially "Cannon Street" or "Hull Cannon Street" which is sometimes used nowadays? A similar question applies to Paragon station with the further complication that "Hull Paragon railway station" redirects to "Hull Paragon Interchange". Is that an official name or another example of the isolated city's pride which led to constructing the all-but-vanished H&BR?--SilasW (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hull Paragon station was changed to Hull Paragon Interchange when the new interchange with the bus station opened on 16 September 2007. Keith D (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that information about Paragon though information about the H&B seems rather sparse.--SilasW (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that information is sparse and it only gets mentioned in passing but I have tracked down the following which may be useful in building the article if you can get hold of it. HULL & BARNSLEY RAILWAY - RAILWAY MEMORIES NO. 12 1st Edition - 1999 ISBN 978-1-871233-11-7 Published by Bellcode Books. I think the author is Stephen Chapman. Keith D (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidently, Network Rail official correspondance still refers to Hull Paragon Station, at least a letter dated 14th January 2011 did - none of this interchange rubbish! Zozzie 9t9 (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see KuH libraries have about 6 titles for H&B (most with multle copies). My search on B's libraries for "Hull & Barnsley" got 200 assorted railway books. I might try the interlibrary scheme or renew my British Library ticket. 1st ed 1999 suggests rather long memories!--SilasW (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may be better off at Barnsley library at the moment as the Hull Local Studies collection is closed for the year while they prepare to move it to the new history centre that is being built. Unless the titles are in the normal stock you will not get them. Keith D (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Route diagram minor changes

[[1]]

Drax to Drax abbey - two stations - think I got the right one - former station not part of currently operated line
Changed selby to hull line (ie Hull to York line) crossing to under not over - think this is right - problem that it doesn't really exist now.. Does anyone know if it went over or under?
Complicated but - the line cross the selby to goole and terminates immediately - but the selby to goole doesn't exist anymore, Part of the drax run-around is on that line. There seems to be a short siding off the drax loop that crosses the former selby to goole.

Also BP saltend - no longer served ? As far as I know the tracks now end around hull docks, the branch that used to serve BP saltend now terminates the docks side of the separating drain at some scrap metal loading facility.Shortfatlad (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very wide section heading

It seems a recent editor has added a section "The Hull, Barnsley and West Riding Junction Railway and Dock company" which causes the Contents list in shown mode to display over part of the map template, in some systems at least. Could that editor try to fix the problem?--SilasW (talk) 10:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a (wiki) bug? I'm not seeing this on a variety of resolutions down to about 600pixels width.

Can you check and see if its a browser problem (ie IE7, firefox etc) - I can't see what to fix at the moment.

Also as to the map template I have some suggestions - the two sub-branches (bottom) have separate article - so maybe they shouldn't be shown - as is already done with the Hull and Barnsley and Great Central Joint Railway - just a link

I could (or someone else make) templates for those articles.

Also the old railway clearing house maps are (in my opinion) very good. Especially the Hull one which is much clearer than the template - but we don't seem to have a map for the middle (luckily fairly "straight" and non-complicated section from the wolds to southern yorkshire - maybe the template could just be used for this missing section and moved down the page to the relevant position.

I'd also favour splitting the template - eg hessle road junction pre and post the major (1968) changes there might be a good use?

(also can anyone find out what webpage this map http://d240vprofozpi.cloudfront.net/co/HBR/hbr_map.png comes from - I'd like to see if it's possible to get permission to use it as it would make a good replacement).

I'll have a go at fixing it when I know what needs to be done :)

10:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.67.84 (talk)

The answer is probably to drop the long heading in favour of a short heading something like History. Also in the lead the initial bold should be the title of the article "Hull and Barnsley Railway" and in brackets "formerly the long name". I cannot see a problem with the diagram showing the full line as that is what the article is about, though I did think of narrowing it be splitting the long name that forces the box wider than in should be but that causes problems with small breaks in the pictograms. Do not know how they work but if the long name can bs reduced there or split over 2 lines then the route diagram would be narrower. Keith D (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've always used bold in the lead section for the title and titles of redirects - the manual of style suggests using bold for "..the article title, and often synonyms", that's why both "Hull barnsley and west riding ......" and "hull docks branch" are bolded in the lead section.

The long name can't really be changed to history without other changes - since the history continues beyond that section ie post 1923 sections 2,3,4,5 and 6.

May be that is what is required for the title is ridiculously long as it is and needs to be shortened down to something sensible. Keith D (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the name of the company - not my fault - as I can't see a problem it's not easy to fix. I'll ask for help on this.Shortfatlad (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no physical problem for me with the page - the title is just too long and should be shortened to something other than the name of the company such as History and the name of the company used in the text only. If history is not appropriate then choose another short title or restructure the article so that history is a suitable heading. Keith D (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be possible to narrow the route diagram by a few more characters diff or diff (revert if not acceptable).

It can be made a little narrower by changing "not H&B" to "NER" which is probably more descriptive anyway.

Also , can you expand on the "splitting the long name that forces the box wider than in should be but that causes problems with small breaks in the pictograms" - I can't quite work out exactly what you were trying.

I can't see the 'small breaks in pictograms' described above - is this still happening?87.102.67.84 (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The diagram has changed it was when it had the long name in Hull and Barnsley and Great Central Joint Railway which I was thinking could be split onto 2 lines using [[Hull and Barnsley and Great Central Joint Railway|Hull and Barnsley and<br>Great Central Joint Railway]] but that introduced breaks in the pictograms. Keith D (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok so the route template is ok now?Shortfatlad (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about making the route diagram cover only 1885 to 1923, and using small pictograms to show the changes later on - for example the current diagram shows changes made in the 1970s such as drax but does't show that before 1968 the NER line from paragon to cottingham was separate from the HB line that goes through boothferry park - it's a bit confusing in that area.87.102.67.84 (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Railway Clearing House maps - these are from a book titled "Railway Junction Diagrams", published 1914 and reprinted in the early 1980s. The preparation date of each diagram is shown in its lower left corner for landscape-format diagrams, and the upper left corner for portrait-format diagrams. Every single one of the 158 diagrams is on commons, and is in the various subcategories of commons:Category:Railways Junctions Diagram 1914. The diagrams only cover areas where two or more different railway companies met, which is why the H&B between Hull and Carlton is not covered by such diagrams - there were no junctions along that stretch, not even at Eastrington/Howden. Those which do cover the H&B are found at commons:Category:Hull and Barnsley Railway RJD, and I see that these four are all in the article, so no more may be added from that source. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I had no idea that the missing map didn't exist - you've saved me a pointless and time consuming search (ie I was going to try to find it...) - thanks again :)

Shortfatlad (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I lied!

I've since found a fifth diagram near the end of the book, File:Brantcliffe, Dinnington, Northern Jn(Brathwell), Roundwood, Shireoaks, SOuthern Jn(Laughton) & Thrybergh RJD 156.jpg which I overlooked because it doesn't have any exclusively-H&B lines. In fact, it has two joint lines in which the H&B had a share. One, centre of the diagram and shown in yellow, is the Great Central, Hull & Barnsley and Midland joint line. The other is at the upper right of the diagram, in a curious white/pink/purple/white pattern. This is one end of the Hull and Barnsley and Great Central Joint Railway, the other end of which was at Aire Junction, between Gowdall Junction and Carlton; it is omitted from the diagram of that area presumably because it opened after the latter map was prepared. It is similarly omitted from the Doncaster area diagram, even though it passed from the middle of the upper side to the lower left. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hurray! I've added that to Great Central and Midland Joint Railway - the Great Central, Hull & Barnsley and Midland Joint Railway Committee article ~~does not yet~~ didn't exist, though it's mentioned at Hull and Barnsley and Great Central Joint Railway so I've made a redirect from Great Central, Hull & Barnsley and Midland Joint Railway Committee to there. Probably not the best way to deal with a joint line - but it's findable..

Also added the diagram to Great Central and Midland Joint Railway - a useful addition to that article.

Thanks for that. (This (H&B) article currently might be a little biased towards the Hull end - that's partially my fault - I haven't done as much reading on the "coal" end of the line - it singularily lacks adequate info on pits directly served, amongst other things. The more info on the barnsley end the better.) Thanks again.Shortfatlad (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I say that I think this is ridiculous - the software is designed to cope with all manner of things - including long section headings - I've tried to replicate any problem and failed. I honestly am starting to think that you are just taking the piss. And wasting my time. Thanks for that. Why not fix the historically nonsensical template instead of pissing me off? 87.102.67.84 (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I renamed the section to "The HB&WRJ Railway and Dock company" as the initalism was already used in the lead section, and many railroads use initalisms commonly. If people object to this, revert, I won't object. DES ^(talk) 01:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weedl?y Tunnel

The article seems to have roughly equal numbers of "Weedly Tunnel"s and "Weedley Tunnel"s. Some explanation is needed. Was the bore's name spelt variously by officialdom?--SilasW (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A check of the relevant 1:25 000 Ordnance Survey map shows that the railway ran along Weedley Dale between the tunnel in question (grid reference SE935331) and the next one to the east (SE947334). --Redrose64 (talk) 11:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you found, current OS has an "e" but what did the railway companies call it? There are several place spellings where a railway used another spelling (mainly in use or dropping of apostrophes) and there places whose spelling has changed, (often to match local pronunciation - Wyrardisbury to Wraysbury)--SilasW (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing logic

There is a section that says:

"In Hull the bridge over the NER main line at Hessle road was removed in 1962 as part of a scheme to reduce the number of level crossings in Hull - at this time the elevated section became connected to the Hull to Selby line at Hessle road junction."

Removing a bridge reduces number of level crossings?

I suppose I can see what is meant, but could someone who knows the background improve this explanation?

Afterbrunel (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

temporary fix [2] Sf5xeplus (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[3] does this make better sense? 83.100.230.57 (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

also I'm not sure if "electric staff working" was used - I understand that a form of tokenised working was used after 1992 (using staffs and not discs/keys etc) - but not sure if it was electric - if you've got a reference for that please add it thanks. On the other hand if you are sure it was electric staff but don't have a book reference for it please say so, and I can add a note about it. Thanks.Sf5xeplus (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

late answer - it was divisible staff working up to at least 2007 see [4] [5] both pages 6. Sf5xeplus (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hull docks enhancements

The dates from the references say finished 2008 including visit from a minister of state declaring it open. By 2008 the named work set out in the documents had been completed - ie removal of Ella Street Bridge, signalling, doubling, new bridge accross drainage ditch.. If they haven't finished we need a source, and also some indication of what they have been doing in the last 2 years.Sf5xeplus (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The work was not completed in 2008! It was officially opened in 2008 yes but the work was't complete. trust me, I was there! Zozzie 9t9 (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know what you mean - can you given details - the work looks complete (excluding the substandard remedial work on the Spring Bank bridge in 2010, which as far as I know wasn't anything to do with Volker Rail), and apart from tree cutting the line appears to be quite - does seem like any major work has been happening since beginning 2009 onwards. There's also this [6] page4 quote "6.3 The immediate future 2008-09 (Control period 3) The Hull Docks Branch capacity enhancement scheme already completed is a major step forward" - that's from Network Rail dated 19/11/2008. ? Sf5xeplus (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is still a TSR on Hull Bridge - this is from those who actually man the bridge. The work has not been signed off yet as its sole purpose was to remove this speed. Therefore, the work is not completed. And please stop chaning the dates to finish in 2008. I worked for VolkerRail and spent much of 2009 on the project completing major works and even went back in 2010 to assist despite having moved on to other projects. Zozzie 9t9 (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think getting the speed up on the bridge was ever the plan - ~~there was work to improve problems with track circuits on the bridge~~ my mistake - don't know what else they did there - it's probably impossible to get (permission for) trains going over the bridge fast - it's very old - and not built strong enough - if you look at the lattice you'll see its web is thin compared to modern standards (even compared to the newer disused wilmington bridge which has a shorter span). This page says the bridge was excluded from speed improvement plans [7] "With the exception of the River Hull swing bridge, line speed on the branch is to be raised to 30mph" So even if line speed on the bridge isn't up - this doesn't stop the official project being finished even if there is more work to do (which there always is)Sf5xeplus (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know if the "divisible staff working" has now stopped since the signalling system work - there was a question about it - see section above. Also does volker rail publish any newletters or documents about the work - I couldn't find much on their website - but if they do it would be useful - and if there is evidence it's easy to change.Sf5xeplus (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know the bridge very well - it made me a fortune in overtime! I can't really put a lot of the background to the work on here for fear of action to be taken against me! But, suffice to say, it was very problematic. Work was still ongoing into 2010 on a small scale - can we agree on this year for the article? VR staff were still regularly on site in that year - such was the disastrous nature of the project for VR.

And the staff was removed from the operation of the branch when the new signalling system was commisioned in September 2008 if memory serves me correctly. I think the case was still on the signal near Beverley Road though! Zozzie 9t9 (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There can't be details in that aren't verifyable from a source (eg network rail, volker rail etc) , see Wikipedia:Verifiability - I changed the text to say "formally open" in 2008, and a lot of the work had been done by then - ie the 'heavy lifting'. It also says work is still ongoing (though it would be good if there was a document that confirmed that)

I think I've got a solution though: I've attempted a fix - it now doesn't say it finished - but we have no information after 2008. (see [8]) It says when it started though

However someother stuff is missing too - I'm going to give you a list in case you have got a source

Question - the Network Rail part of the work cost £9.5 million - this figure keeps cropping up but it's not clear - or was the amount coming from one of the funders?
Did GrantRail get the contract for the ABP part of the work - if so need confirmation.
The new bridge on the doubled part on the East side of Hull - I used to have something that mentioned it - but I can't find it now - has anyone else got a source for that - it's the 'little one' over the drain that was needed because of the redoubling.
The figure of £12.5 million also keeps cropping up along with 13.1 million and one at £15.5 million - are these estimates - or different contributions/contracts or something else. Thanks.

Is the current version ok? are there any mistakes? Sf5xeplus (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a link here [9] which shows work being undertaken in mid-2009 - I realise that is blog though. A lot of supporting documents aren't in the public domain, and copies I still have can't really be placed there.

For now quick answers -

£9.5 million was the original contract value for the overall project.
GrantRail did not undertake work on the ABP part of the project - Trackwork of Doncaster did this.
GR did install the new bridge you mention. There should be information online... I'll look when I get chance.
All sorts of amounts kept croppping up - mainly as the project went tits up and costs began to rise. Last figure I saw was £19 million. It was hugely over budget and schedule.

The whole project was very drawn out - the swingbridge caused more problems than could ever have been imagined for instance. As 2009 drew to a close few hours were spent on the project with the site office being removed and things managed from Doncaster, VolkerRail's head office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zozzie 9t9 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll add something about trackwork of doncaster, if you got a link for their part of the work please add it, the rest is just icing on the cake. By the way I think it's common for the work to be officially declared "finished" before it is - think it even happened on High Speed 1.Sf5xeplus (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many railway projects are opened before they are finished; it's a contractual nightmare in many ways to try and define what is 'finished'. Projects like the Docks Branch upgrade can be open for traffic and fully functioning in operational terms before final signing off. The official opening special became something of a joke for staff working on the project! Zozzie 9t9 (talk) 11:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Why has {{Infobox rail line}} been used here? This article is about a railway company, but that infobox is for lines not companies; see Template:Infobox rail#Usage, and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 27#Template:Infobox rail. {{Infobox SG rail}} could be used, since it's essentially {{Infobox rail}} with the gauge pre-set. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I did that.. Actually the article is about the line and company - as evidenced by the content of the article - my only motivation was to incorporate route diagram and infobox.

The company infobox is relatively small (depending on the size of the image mostly)

It could make sense to place it at Hull_and_Barnsley_Railway#The_HB&WRJ_Railway_and_Dock_company

How about this as a solution to do both diff

I have no real preference of either of the 3 ways. So if it offends please revert.Prof.Haddock (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need two infoboxes, just one; but since the article is about both a company and a line, {{infobox rail}} (or the alternative {{tlx|infobox SG rail)) is most suitable. This infobox does not have provision for a RDT; but a RDT as complex as {{Template:Hull & Barnsley Railway}} isn't really suitable for enclosing in an infobox of any type. When it is desired to include an RDT, it's placed outside the infobox, see for example North Staffordshire Railway. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stairfoot

The map shows a short branch line owned by Hull& Barnsley Railway Company to a passenger terminal station at Stairfoot. I am unable to find any further information on this. Can you confirm this is correct.? (Steamybrian2 (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hull and Barnsley Railway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hull and Barnsley Railway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://archive.is/20130505093104/http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/content/detail.aspx?releaseid=3756&newsareaid=2&searchcategoryid=4 to http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/content/detail.aspx?releaseid=3756&newsareaid=2&searchcategoryid=4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hull and Barnsley Railway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924031829/http://www.hullcc.gov.uk/museumcollections/collections/search-results/display.php?keywordsorig=black&titleorig=&personorig=&placeorig=&dateorig=&materialorig=&accessionnumberorig=&collectionorig=&museumorig=&keywords=hull+barnsley&SearchSubmit_x=0&SearchSubmit_y=0&SearchSubmit=Search&newsearch=new&title=&person=&place=&date=&material=&accessionnumber=&collectionall=all&museumall=all&location=any&EMUSESSID=lo4us1vlgkniriaffnlta5s8k5&portal=9.0.3+en-gb+us+UNITED+KINGDOM+81C6BA0508EF25AEE0440003BAC324B1+9279308B58A10CA89B1C9F8D09183313D14391C387A41E67B0D3BA778F5798E2CCE7AD5A317F8C47B6E7DA1009767E3B2926C9A443E025D39B94D8CD12A85BC1DD30488F0E6DC65E1EFFF1C3AE4D2284A8F321467E713662&ImagesOnly=yes&Sender=List&Page=1&irn=54878 to http://www.hullcc.gov.uk/museumcollections/collections/search-results/display.php?keywordsorig=black&titleorig=&personorig=&placeorig=&dateorig=&materialorig=&accessionnumberorig=&collectionorig=&museumorig=&keywords=hull+barnsley&SearchSubmit_x=0&SearchSubmit_y=0&SearchSubmit=Search&newsearch=new&title=&person=&place=&date=&material=&accessionnumber=&collectionall=all&museumall=all&location=any&EMUSESSID=lo4us1vlgkniriaffnlta5s8k5&portal=9.0.3+en-gb+us+UNITED+KINGDOM+81C6BA0508EF25AEE0440003BAC324B1+9279308B58A10CA89B1C9F8D09183313D14391C387A41E67B0D3BA778F5798E2CCE7AD5A317F8C47B6E7DA1009767E3B2926C9A443E025D39B94D8CD12A85BC1DD30488F0E6DC65E1EFFF1C3AE4D2284A8F321467E713662&ImagesOnly=yes&Sender=List&Page=1&irn=54878

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Refactor

To a degree covered above about four years ago bu the current rendering is daft. Big white spaces. Its currently down on my hitlist as a rework to match something like North Staffordshire Railway as Redrose64 seems to suggest at #Infoxbox above. If I fail to do a reasonable job then note what the problems is and improve/revert. My mindset is simply mess ... sort. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simply moving both infobox's to the top and removing a clear has removed some bad rendering. I've changed the routemap template so it displays collapsed by default. To display uncollapsed by default use a second parameter of "collapse=" with nothing after the blank seems to work ok. Displaying the routemap uncollapsed by default is probably ok at the moment but is does risk push images on the right out of section. Given Keith D's revert of a further twiddle of mine with the infobox's I'm leaving stuff alone. I would also have considered making the section title "The HB&WRJ Railway and Dock company" as "History to 1922" and removing the text under it but that might be controversial. I'm only really hear to fix what was some poor issues with the rendering on certain desktop widths and yet again Template:Clear was probably the main culprit but having both infoxbox's at the top also likely helps and pulling one back down the article may again cause issues. I will conclude at this point. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Opening date

This may just be me, but I can't find an opening date for the line.

The narrative style as a whole is a bit eccentric, isn't it?

And what's a "plate side"? The majority (eighty eight) of the bridges were of plate girder construction with usually three plate sides (one central) supporting cross-beams on which the track was supported. Does this mean three plate main beams? Girders, if you prefer. Maybe that's just a transcription error from the original article. Afterbrunel (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]