Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Made up stuff?: new section
Line 149: Line 149:
*[[Warrington station group]]
*[[Warrington station group]]
What? This is made up stuff right? There is no such thing on Network Rail's website. The articles serve zero purpose - it's enough to say on one station article that the other is nearby. Do we need these? [[User:10mmsocket|10mmsocket]] ([[User talk:10mmsocket|talk]]) 20:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
What? This is made up stuff right? There is no such thing on Network Rail's website. The articles serve zero purpose - it's enough to say on one station article that the other is nearby. Do we need these? [[User:10mmsocket|10mmsocket]] ([[User talk:10mmsocket|talk]]) 20:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
:I doubt it's made up, but it seems unlikely it's notable. -''[[User:Mattbuck|mattbuck]]'' <small>([[User talk:Mattbuck|Talk]])</small> 21:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:12, 17 April 2023

Shortcut

Birmingham New Street Signal Box

If anyone's interested and available on the 31st, NR are balloting for tickets for tours. See here for details. I'd love to but I can't make it. Would be great to get some interior photos for the article though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is, I believe, to be the subject of an upcoming episode of The Architecture the Railways Built. I might have misinterpreted a trailer that definitely depicted that highly-distinctive SB. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, excellent! I love that programme. Tim Dunn is a little over-exuberant for my taste but he visits some fascinating places. He partly inspired me to rewrite Bennerley Viaduct. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer over-exuberant to dull and boring and soporific! GRALISTAIR (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HJ Mitchell: It was tonight's episode, and should be repeated within the week. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm watching it on UKTV Play now. He covers Lincoln as well, a city close to my heart! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah damn, I wish I was free for it. XAM2175 (T) 11:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was a lottery with 7000 applicants for 60 spots in the end. Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 00:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abbeyhill Junction

hello, I've been trying to add refs to articles that have not had refs for many years. I found one to add for Abbeyhill Junction for basic verification but am unsure whether it is really notable. I'd appreciate you improving the article if possible, thanks. JMWt (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't consider a simple junction as notable unless there was something unusual in its operation or it was the scene of a notable happening. I think it would be best to combine it with Abbeyhill railway station. Geof Sheppard (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Especially so in view of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 53#Railway junctions at AFD. Of the 19 junctions taken to AfD on 21 September 2022, eight (Arkleston Junction; Crow Nest Junction; Hest Bank North Junction; Hest Bank South Junction; Neasden Junction; Pouparts Junction; Shields Junction; Woodburn Junction) closed as delete; two (Fawkham Junction; Narroways Hill Junction) closed as soft delete; three (Grand Junction, Birmingham; Madeley Junction, Staffordshire; Southall East Junction) closed as redirect; four (Aynho Junction; Droitwich Spa Junction; Fort William Junction; Worting Junction) closed as merge; and just two (Weaver Junction; Westerleigh Junction) closed as keep. To survive, an article on Abbeyhill Junction needs to aim at those last six as a target, ideally the last two. It's a big ask. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And indeed, this one was also taken to AfD, where earlier today it closed as merge. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should unmanned be undone

While I broadly support the aims of WP:GNL I find that this edit (diff) rankles a little. Am I wrong to think that "manned" and "unmanned" are practically reserved language in the (British) railway world - just as it is in the aviation industry, e.g. Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). Should unmanned station, unmanned signalbox, unmanned level crossing, be terms that are preserved not replaced in UK Wikipedia articles? 10mmsocket (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't view those forms as generally being terms of art or other kids of reserved language, so I'm not troubled by the change. They simply reflect the default use of language at the time they came into use. XAM2175 (T) 11:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Use common sense, like these reliable sources have:
Bazza (talk) 11:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't "common sense" – you're working backwards from dictionary definitions, which is pointless because the discussion relates to the continued use of those terms, not their meanings, and those definitions aren't reliable sources for anything other than their meanings. I'd especially note that most of them give examples relating to spaceflight, which is a field to which the WP:GNL policy is explicitly applied. XAM2175 (T) 12:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look at some evidence:
It's clear that "unmanned" is not reserved language and so there is no reason for Wikipedia to avoid using gender neutral language for British railway topics. Thryduulf (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I feel (for example) describing a station as an unstaffed halt reads just as well as describing it as unmanned. I wouldn't go out of my way to switch to GNL, but I certainly wouldn't revert a change. — Voice of Clam (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone, useful opinions. Like I said, I have no issue with the GNL initiative and now see that "unmanned" is not something to die in a ditch over! --10mmsocket (talk) 06:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WWII Crash of Liberator bomber on Norwich City station?

In a letter to The Critic issue of of 1 April 2023 the writer tells us that in their house "Wikipedia is avoided as much as possible, and rudely labelled “Wankipedia” as it is load of old cock". Quite right too. The problem is that our article Norwich City railway station mentions (unreferenced) a deliberate crash of a Liberator bomber on the station to avoid loss of life. Two "proper history books" mention no such thing. I've put more information on the talk page. Could someone correct our grievous error (or find a source for information that has been challenged)? Thincat (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have found this report of a crash that may match the description. May not be a RS, but could point to better sources, if true. -- Verbarson  talkedits 23:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, even though it's a blog, it looks very credible to me and the photo of the plaque is helpful. It could well be the source the IP used who added the claim to the article. It looks as if the letter writer's "proper history books" are incomplete! Thank you a lot for finding this. Thincat (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks even better than I originally thought (I was on my mobile, wishing I was asleep!). I have followed the link to the crash page on the 458th Bombardment Group website, where a lot of the info was found. If it all comes together, Accidents and incidents involving the Consolidated B-24 Liberator is missing that crash too. -- Verbarson  talkedits 10:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that crash page is worth reading all the way through. Thincat (talk) 11:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, check the issue date of The Critic. There's probably a very good reason two "proper history books" do not mention the event. Mjroots (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it to the Liberator accidents list page, not including the sensational claim that it hit Norwich Cathedral - that would not have been forgotten so easily! The 'proper history books' mentioned are both railway histories. I imagine that a plane crashing in a distant corner of a goods yard in time of war is not notable as far as railways go, but judging from the sources it was locally quite notable and is still remembered in Norwich. -- Verbarson  talkedits 19:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer technology in 1913

I have posted a question about the decoration of a loco tender in 1913 using decals. If anyone has expert knowledge of this, their contributions would be gratefully received. -- Verbarson  talkedits 08:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which loco?

From the file's description: "A trainload of coal comes off the northern end of the High Level bridge in Newcastle, presumably coming from the Durham coalfield and heading to one of the Tyne Valley power stations." Photo taken in 1982. To my untrained eye it looks like a British Rail Class 56, but is it? Cheers, MinorProphet (talk) 07:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the vent panels I'd say definitely a 56 rather than a 47. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Class 56 for definite. There are several features which distinguish it from a Class 47 - the large bodyside grilles, the smooth cab roof without a ventilator, others that can't be made out in that photo. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bogies appear significantly different between the two classes, as well. XAM2175 (T) 15:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for all your expert observations. I'll update the description. MinorProphet (talk) 11:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RealTrainTimes for Service tables

For a while, when it comes to the service tables, I've always known that we've used both the eNRT and the listed Timetables on the TOC websites to verify timetabled services. However, I've seen some editors also insist on using the RealTrainTimes website for changes, which I believe is unreliable as it only relies on constant updates of active units and almost never matches official schedules. Now I wonder what everyone else's stance on sourcing this website is: reliable or unreliable? Jalen Folf (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy pinging FusionZenFlame to this discussion as it appears this is an ongoing issue at TransPennine Express and possibly other TOC articles. Jalen Folf (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No matter what they still call at specific stations full stop. Its like me saying im on a newcastle - Liverpool lime street service stopping at Dewsbury and your saying it doesnt when in fact it does. Not all services call at it but some do which can be explained by *Irregular Service*. Same goes with Lea Green and Northallerton. You also say using real life information is wrong like going to real station is wrong? It will tell you the exact same information. FusionZenFlame (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the reason why we call it "off-peak" tables. It doesn't necessarily imply the non-existence of service to a station on a particular service, even if it's during the peak hours; we're simply trying to display what a typical service outside of peak hours would consist of. From how I've seen your edits on these articles, it looks like you're trying to base your edits on personal experiences as well, which is also not permitted according to our policies against original research. For now, I will leave it to other editors to assess whether your edits fall under the WikiProject's definition of "off-peak calls", as I've been trying to tell you. Jalen Folf (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But what your saying about what i am trying to do is half right and half wrong. I get that i can not use my own personal experiences in editing a simple article. But what your getting wrong is these trains still operate to these stations certain times of the day anyways. I do also understand that whoever first made the edit to the Newcastle - Liverpool Lime street section must of only used one service to base it off which is completely wrong as the service calls at many other stations which i "additionally" added. NOT AS REGULAR CALLING POINTS FOR ALL SERVICES. For irregular services. If you wanna continue believing im wrong then go ahead. Check this video link before you say anything else. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxWWxlstlNY&t=281s *Correct as of April 2023* The timetabled routes will show you what i have been trying to do. FusionZenFlame (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FusionZenFlame is right. What he has been saying about the services is correct as of April 2023. OwenDrury360 (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC) — OwenDrury360 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
At least someone bloody agrees with what im trying to say! Thanks Owen. :) FusionZenFlame (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weirdly, this account was created precisely two minutes before it posted this comment. XAM2175 (T) 21:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yea i noticed that, Weird. But im still right nonetheless. FusionZenFlame (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless it has changed, and it could've recently, the problem with Realtimetrains is that the data pertaining to a particular query, only stays active through a url for around six weeks after it occurred, which has made linking to it as a citation problematic. After the time has elapsed, the cite will show no data, which means the data is unrealistic, whereas the eNRT timetable will be extant for the period displayed (IE May to September (or whatever)). I understand that RTT is up-to-date, but do we need that level of detail? The articles are not timetables, and they need Reliable Sources. RTT fails on this, not because it is untrustworthy, but because the data is deleted after six weeks. The joy of all things (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RTT just label what trains are doing what routes and give active journeys. Understandable that this can be wrong at times which i do believe, As many cases on the detailed section a trains journey comes up with no report which means it has failed to track a certain train. Like you said they get rid of their date after a certain period which is shameful as you will not be able to view past journeys, only future journeys........ FusionZenFlame (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on your point regarding excessive detail, but should you be in a position where verifiability is the only thing preventing use then I can confirm that the Wayback Machine will preserve the RTT pages for individual trains (one from 17 Jan 2023 as an example). I've not tried it with other forms of query result but in theory they should also work. XAM2175 (T) 22:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That goes back to my point of seeing trains calling at specific stations in real life and wether or not they are calling at extra stops or running a regular service. FusionZenFlame (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Realtime trains can tell us that on this date this service ran using this unit and called at these stations at these times. It is no indicator of whether those occurrences are normal or abnormal, save for the recording of lateness as with this instance or this one. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still want to know who removed every limited calling point on the article as that has been on for ages. FusionZenFlame (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You’re welcome to look at the page history where every edit is recorded. Danners430 (talk) 12:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if perhaps you're conflating a few separate things, @JalenFolf, when you say as it only relies on constant updates of active units and almost never matches official schedules. RTT is an accurate primary source for the timetables of individual trains inasmuch as it's a direct reproduction of the TRUST timetable feed up to a few moments before you run your query, so if it lists a station call for a certain place at a certain time then it's reflecting what TRUST thinks will be happening based on how Network Rail have uploaded the timetables. It can, however, differ from National Rail Enquiries and station/TOC information systems for same- and next-day alterations because contractual limitations prevent RTT's use of the Darwin customer information data feed. Similarly, timekeeping records for each train are reproduced from Network Rail's data feeds (primarily train describer berths, but also TRUST direct reports manually entered by signallers).
It's also, arguably, an accurate quasi-primary source for the rolling stock allocated to any given train (so long as the "pathed for" field is ignored) because it blindly repeats the information it receives from TOC control systems – but we avoid using it as the source for generalisations about the stock that operates a particular route for that same reason, and we especially avoid using it to draw conclusions about whether certain types of unit can work in multiple with each other.
However, detail at the level of individual trains is generally too insignificant to include in articles, and it's hardly practical make a general claim about the service based on looking at lots of services on RTT if you then have to cite all of those services individually, so it doesn't make a very good source in aggregate. Are you able to give a quick summary of the dispute at the TPE article so I can check my reasoning? XAM2175 (T) 22:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair argument but RTT still tracks real trains moving even with a few errors now and again. But even with them errors the train would still be running right? FusionZenFlame (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The claim is that Lea Green, Dewsbury, and Northallerton are served irregularly during off-peak hours between Liverpool Lime Street and Newcastle (no comment on other changes being reverted). Assessing both eNRT and TPE's own timetables for Mon-Fri 0930-1600 (one of the standard off-peak periods), I see no calls at these stations on those specific services. This is why I'm also claiming original research is in question here: some edit summaries clearly show user experience at one of the stations. Also, in regards to RTT, what's the point about using a source when it's gone after some time without archival? Jalen Folf (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then am i meant to put (Limited) then. Cause all 3 stations are served on this specific route. Just not by all services. FusionZenFlame (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On a note of pedantry, "original research" is a special term of art for Wikipedia. The spirit of the WP:OR policy is to prevent introducing unpublished ideas or arguments into Wikipedia. I recommend reading the footnote to the first para of the OR policy. Citing personal experience is not OR if it might feasibly be published somewhere; it's just a bog-standard WP:V problem in the meantime. Doesn't seem like a big difference, but important in the same sense that good-faith edits cannot be vandalism even if they make a right mess of things.
As to what's the point about using a source when it's gone after some time without archival}; it's news to me if that's a problem for us here. It's not a million miles away from citing newspapers, really – after all, how accessible would old editions of them be if they weren't being routinely archived?
We do arrive at the same conclusion though – there's no real way of verifying those additions, should they be made to the article, short of sending the reader away to flip through scores and scores of RTT pages. Is it really the case that no other sources exist though? XAM2175 (T) 22:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Before this gets too far, the matter was brought up six months ago at RSN and notified on this very page, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 54#Realtime Trains as a reliable source. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will still keep my opinion after reading the 2 comment argument. FusionZenFlame (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a "2 comment argument", it's a notification posted on this page about a lengthy discussion elsewhere, and there is a link to that (archived) discussion in the very first sentence. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion did arise on rather different terms, in that it primarily considered unit allocations rather than timetable data, and in the case of a single record rather than the aggregate, but Thryduulf captures the gist pretty well all the same: It's reliable within its limits (which are explicitly noted in various places on the site) but not particularly useful for writing an encyclopaedia. Archive.org and similar can get around the transitory nature of the information if necessary, but I can't see why it would be - anything notable enough to be mentioned in an encyclopaedia article would be covered in the (railway) press or other static source. XAM2175 (T) 23:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I started the thread which Redrose64 linked to above, but - FusionZenFlame - no one is doubting the usefulness of RTT. However, data being deleted after a few months, as well as micro level detail, makes it unsuitable for Wikipedia. I would suggest (and it's not that much trouble) using the train companies' timetables, or the Network Rail WTT, as they clearly give long-term information. If anything, it's easier to use these to identify limited calling patterns as it's a more helpful layout!
As Geof Sheppard pointed out on the thread Redrose linked to, If it is the calling point information you want then use the official railway timetables; if it is the rolling stock information then I would want to see it corroborated from a printed source or more permanent (non-fan) website. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 06:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Im not gonna sit here and continue to say that what im seeing on a stupid timetable is right. Cause i know what im seeing is what actually happens and nobody can accept that. FusionZenFlame (talk) 11:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And what you say about use train comapnies timetables still shows what im claiming does happen in that a service calls at 3 stations NOT ON ALL SERVICES. Im still going to see this wikipedia article as wrong full stop unless a timetable change happens where the train service stops calling at the 3 stations all together. FusionZenFlame (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could have easily messed it up and saying it calls at the 3 stations and that they are served on all day trains when in fact they are not. But like i have said 10+ times just because no one is accepting that im saying a (limited) calling point should be shown is right then i just wont use wikipedia to get information ever again. FusionZenFlame (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Throwing tantrums is not a good way to get people to help you. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can view me like that, thats your choice. But i know how i am thank you very much.... FusionZenFlame (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I already know that nobody wants to accept my views and i can easily see that. FusionZenFlame (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cause i know what im seeing is what actually happens and nobody can accept that. No, I think that most people here can accept that those station calls are being made. I have no difficulty with it myself, given that I've boarded one of those trains at Northallerton. The problem is that the information published on Wikipedia is meant to be verifiable: [Wikipedia's] content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, or experiences. Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. This means that a reader of our articles should be able to check any fact we publish against a source already published by a trustworthy provider even if that provider is occasionally wrong. The overall intent is that the only errors on Wikipedia will be those made by other sources that we've repeated, which is still not ideal, but less bad than Wikipedia editors introducing new errors of their own making.
Your passion is commendable, and RTT is generally trusted within limits, but – as we've already described – it's exceptionally difficult to use as a source in Wikipedia articles because it only shows data for one train at a time, or for one station for one span of time not exceeding 24 hours. How can we say that those stations are served consistently across the months and months for which the timetable is in use if all we can do is link to RTT for one day? Should we follow each of the three stations in the list with 200 separate RTT links and expect readers to check all of them to be sure that those station calls aren't just a short-term variation?
Instead, thinking outside the box, perhaps you could consider contacting TPE and asking them to update their published timetables? XAM2175 (T) 13:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, on that note i will in fact contact TPE about their next timetable change and seeing what is done to each service. Then i can see what changes and what stays the same and then edit the services that need slight adjustments. Also to add to your first point i am thankful that your one person who originally believed that my claims are correct but not as of the given time on the original article. Even ive boarded the Newcastle - Liverpool Lime street on the full route and it stopped at every stop that also included the ones i added. Once again i am greatful to have someone that believes what i am doing was intentionally correct as of April 2023. FusionZenFlame (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Next routine timetable change is in December, so I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.
And, for the avoidance of doubt, even though I believe your information is correct and being added in good faith, I agree with the other posters here that without a better source your changes do not belong in the article. XAM2175 (T) 13:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was May 2023? FusionZenFlame (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
... yes, as a matter of fact. For some reason I thought it had just happened. XAM2175 (T) 15:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
hahahahahahahahahahaha FusionZenFlame (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Made up stuff?

What? This is made up stuff right? There is no such thing on Network Rail's website. The articles serve zero purpose - it's enough to say on one station article that the other is nearby. Do we need these? 10mmsocket (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it's made up, but it seems unlikely it's notable. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways&oldid=1150380745"