Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways

The UK Transport Wiki

Hi All,

I am creating a wiki all about Transport in The UK. As this WikiProject is about UK Railways, it would fall under the scope of the UK Transport Wiki. If you are interested please leave a message on my user talk or on My UK Transport Wiki user talk.

Thanks - Dudleybus ^{Spake 2 me} 09:15, 4 June 2008 (BST)

Approximate coordinates for about 500 disused stations

I've made a list of approximate geographic coordinates for disused stations, extracted from the http://www.npemap.org.uk/ URLs linked from those pages: see User:The Anome/npemap.org.uk URLs. Unfortunately, many of them are up to 1km off from the real coordinates of the station. Would this data be useful for geocoding articles that are currently lacking geographic coordinates? Would anyone be interested in spot-checking some of them to check for systematic errors in my conversions? -- The Anome (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

As I have been added the http://www.npemap.org.uk/ URLs to stations, I have been extracting the coordinates. I will have a look at what you have done over the weekend. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 17:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah! If you've got the coordinates, that would be much better than my hacked-up conversions. If you have either the easting/northing data (in any format) or latitude/longitude data (in any format), just put it up in plaintext on a wiki page (in any reasonably sane format), let me know about it on my talk page, and I can parse it and generate accurate geotags from that data. -- The Anome (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

If you have an OS Grid Reference, then {{oscoor}} will generate a link enabling the location to be found. Mjroots (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Not quite that easy. For example, look at Crawford railway station. I added http://www.npemap.org.uk/tiles/map.html#294,620,1 (well actually I had copied the code from Auchencastle railway station and not changed the URL - just corrected). I then went into the map and highlight the station symbol which gave me the latitude and longitude. A quick paste and copy got the coordinates into the infobox. So taking your list and a bit of manual work will get reasonably accurate coords into the infoboxes of disused stations. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 19:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

As a result of the above, and other geocoding activities, around 400 disused stations have had location coordinates assigned in the last two days. I've made a list at User:The Anome/Disused UK railway stations still lacking coordinates of the 631 remaining stations I can identify that lack coordinates. If anyone is interested in using the npemap.org.uk system to add "easting, northing" values to the ends of the lines in that page, I'll be happy to use my bot to geocode those articles. -- The Anome (talk) 11:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Second batch of disused station articles now being geocoded

Hundreds more disused stations have now been geocoded through this process, through the diligent and seemingly indefatigable efforts of several editors, and a second batch of candidate articles is now being processed. If any other editors want to contribute to this process, please see User:The Anome/Disused UK railway stations still lacking coordinates for the list of remaining un-geocoded disused station articles. -- The Anome (talk) 16:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

United Kingdom or Great Britain

Hi, I notice a lack of consistency here, on one hand a decision was taken to discuss the history and present day state of the railways by geographical division of Great Britain and Ireland but then we have the list of TOCs, the station list, the freight operating company list, the high speed rail article, the local rail transport list and the list of stations covering all of the UK. The rail network in Northern Ireland has very little in common with the National Rail network of Great Britain so I think the articles should be consistent and deal with Great Britain only. I understand there is a case for including all of the UK though as it is a single sovereign nation but then all of the UK could be discussed in History of Rail Transport in the United Kingdom. ZoeL (talk) 11:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

United Kingdom comprises England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.

Great Britain comprises England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Eire, the Isle of Man, the Bailiwick of Jersey and the Bailiwick of Guernsey.

As far as I can tell, this WP covers all the above. Mjroots (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find that's incorrect - Great Britain only covers England Scotland and Wales. It does not cover Northern Ireland (and certainly not Eire), nor the Channel Islands or Isle of Man, which are Crown Dependencies. For coverage of this wikiproject, see the previous discussion here. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 17:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tiedshambo, I suspect that Mjroots has mixed up the definitions, i.e. the UK definition appears against GB, and the GB definition appears against UK. I also accept the bit about Crown dependencies: UK = GB + Northern Ireland.Pyrotec (talk) 17:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Getting back on topic, I agree - railways, like a few other things, such as some sports, have always been more naturally partitioned geographically than politically. Partition the articles etc. into Great Britain and the island of Ireland.--A bit iffy (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Easiest way out is to have a separate WP for Irish railways, leaving England, Scotland, Wales, IoM and CI for us. Mjroots (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Where I put Great Britain above, I should have put The British Isles Mjroots (talk) 06:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

For clarity, all editors are invited to view this page Terminology of the British Isles which contains this excellent diagram. Bhtpbank (talk) 07:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

An Euler diagram clarifying the terminology.

  Geographic-only locations.

  Political entities (may also be geographic terms).

The use of the term "British Isles" raises potentially sensitive issues, and would be best avoided imho. Stick with the present and UK/GB. Lamberhurst (talk) 08:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That's what happens when you mix Geography and Politics. It should be borne in mind that when the railways were built in Ireland, that country was part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Now, leaving politics out of the discussion, we could split the Project in two - Ireland and the rest of the UK, (including CI and IoM). Alternatively, railways in Northern Ireland could fall under the remit of both wikiprojects. The third alternative is to maintain the status quo, and have WP:UKT responsible for all railways which fall in the area defined by the "British Isles" in the diagram. Mjroots (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

My first post here was not about the scope of this wikiproject but the lack of consistency in the articles . There is an article on Rail transport in Great Britain and History of rail transport in Great Britain but many other articles like Train Operating Company and list of stations and trains deal with all of the UK when the Norhtern Ireland network has very little in common with the National Rail network of Great Britain. ZoeL (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Taking the railways of Northern Ireland as an example, there is more than a passing relationship - until 1947 the Northern Counties Committee was owned by the LMS. Simply because the two networks are not physically connected does not mean they are not related. The Ffestiniog Railway has very little in common with the Kent and East Sussex Railway, they are not connected, use different track gauges and were built for different purposes - I doubt anyone would suggest we should create a project for Welsh narrow gauge slate-carrying railways and one for standard gauge passenger railways in the south of England. The project does not "own" the articles, we merely tag those which have relevance to the scope that has been defined by our members, and as a former component of a predominantly English company, the railways of Northern Ireland clearly fit within our scope. ColourSarge (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

So long as Northern Ireland remains part of the UK, then its railways fall within the scope of this project and ought to be tagged as such. User:ZoeL raises a valid point about NI coverage, and looking at Rail transport in the United Kingdom, it seems that NI has been grouped with Ireland on the basis that both are broad gauge. However, NI coverage in the article on Rail transport in Ireland is minimal to the point of non-existent. In the absence of an Irish rail project where the question could be raised, should (a) the situation be left as it is - accepting that although NI falls within this project's scope, it is better dealt with under an Irish umbrella, or (b) the NI content be moved to the UK articles? It's also worth noting the previous 2004 discussion. Lamberhurst (talk) 08:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The status quo should be maintained unless there is a consensus to do otherwise. Better to have the articles within the scope of one project than none. ColourSarge (talk) 11:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, the question was not about the scope of this project but consistency in the articles as some like Rail Transport in Great Britain and History of rail transport in Great Britain deal with Great Britain only and others deal with all of the UK. ZoeL (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It is better to deal with separately. This was what was decided at Talk:Rail transport in the United Kingdom/Alternate naming schemes four years ago. Tony May (talk) 09:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand the decision there but there are many articles that deal with all of the UK like List of companies operating trains in the United Kingdom. ZoeL (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

LMS article discussion

I have been doing quite a lot of editing on the article for the London, Midland and Scottish Railway recently and have added a discussion to the talk page here for other editors to comment before I continue. Your contributions would be welcome. :o) ColourSarge (talk) 11:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

LNER Peppercorn Class A1

Project members may be interested in a discussion taking place here about whether or not to consider 60163 Tornado as a member of the original class, or a replica. ColourSarge (talk) 10:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Despite all the newspaper reports, this is not the first British steam locomotive to be constructed for fifty years - we have the Iron Duke replica to use as a precedent. This is documented in the GWR Iron Duke Class article where it is given its own section that makes it clear that it was not part of the original construction. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Geof, thanks for that, wasn't aware of he Iron Duke article. I think the issue being discussed here though is subtly different. From the Iron Duke article I surmise that the replica was a copy of an pre-existing locomotive, a facsimile if you like. The contention in the discussion I have highlighted is that because Tornado is not intended to replicate any of the previous 49 locomotives, but rather to be a 50th produced to a modification of the original design, it is not a replica, but could potentially be viewed as a member of the class in its own right. ColourSarge (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the differences are sufficiently obvious, particular historically.

Getting slightly off track though, the Iron Duke replica did not run on the main line (wrong gauge obviously), and could also be considered a rebuild because it used an Austerity 0-6-0ST boiler. It is also a non-exact replica of a specific member of the original Iron Duke class, whereas Tornado is a generic replica of the original Class A1. Tony May (talk) 10:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Can I just point out that the original Class A1 was not produced by Peppercorn! Mjroots (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys, just to clarify, I was encouraging the debate on the article talk page, not here, and my statement above was to highlight what I perceive to be the substance of the debate to avoid ambiguity. The aim was to bring a wider audience than the 3 or 4 editors previously contributing to the discussion and therefore achieve a wider consensus :o) ColourSarge (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Issues raised at WP:AN/I Mjroots (talk) 08:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Template - Railway stations opened in 1803 (etc)

I'd like to draw your attention to this discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Template - Railway stations opened in 1803 (etc) I have just started. --Dr Greg (talk) 13:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for List of Talyllyn Railway rolling stock

I've been working slowly at improving this list for some time, and have nominated it for peer review, prior to hopefully bringing it up to Featured List status. Any re-assessments, suggestions or comments would be welcome. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 22:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Rapid transit

Could i just ask a question? How often is Rapid transit used in the UK as a term? I have hardly ever heard of it much until i came to Wikipedia, therefore i am certain it is not in common usage (especially being a UK Wikipedian). Simply south not SS, sorry 23:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

IMHO not often. I too would be interested in other peoples opinion Talltim (talk) 11:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard it being used here, I'm only familiar with the term having spent time in Toronto. I think that 'transit' is the part that's most foreign, as we speak of 'public transport', not 'public transit'. Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 09:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

To my ear, the word is an Americanism that has started catching on in the UK. There is the Nottingham Express Transit system.--A bit iffy (talk) 10:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I think in the UK we tend to refer to individual systems by their individual names, i.e. The Tube, Metrolink, Supertram, Tramlink etc - and collectively most of our "Rapid Transit" systems are Light Rail. It's a term that I have heard of, and I would know what it meant if asked, but it's not one I would use in the course of conversation about, for example, the London Underground (apart from anything I am sure I would be called to account for using the word "rapid" in connection with the Circle line!!! :oP ColourSarge (talk) 10:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

60163 Tornado

It's been suggested that this article may be close to GA status. Would anyone like to look it over and decide whethet it is worth nominating it for GA? Mjroots (talk) 06:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, not a comprehensive look but i had a brief one. If you are thinking of nominating the titular page, then i would say NO as it is a redirect! To be more serious on the actual article this is just my opinion but the Background section should have more references. Also, where did you get the diagram or did you replicate it off something or create it? Also, wouldn't it make more sense to move that into the design section? Just my thoughts. Its close. Simply south not SS, sorry 00:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I've not edited the article, so can't say where any info was obtained from. It was mentioned here that it may be approaching GA status, which is why I raised it here. Mjroots (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hellingly Hospital Railway

I've opened a peer review on Hellingly Hospital Railway – if anyone has any comments and/or suggestions, do feel free! Although it's short, and on a very obscure topic, I think this is actually quite a good article in striking the balance between "what would the general reader want to know?" and "don't oversimplify to the point of putting off people with specialist knowledge". Any comments welcome… – iridescent 20:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)