Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways

Tangmere's SPAD

Some of you may be aware of the recent SPAD by Tangmere. Due to developments since, I believe that this incident is now notable enough to sustain an article on Wikipedia. The 2015 Wootton Bassett SPAD incident has been created, and collaboration in improving the article is requested. Mjroots (talk) 09:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Do we need a category for railway accidents caused by SPADs? Mjroots (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I would say that it is a WP:DEFINING characteristic, so yes. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Working on the KISS principle, Category:SPADs ? Mjroots (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

After some thought I've gone with Category:Railway accidents involving a SPAD. Mjroots (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Needs to be renamed as 'incidents'. Or simply SPADs. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Most of them are accidents, and I'm sure that the incident at Wootton Bassett wasn't a deliberate act. Therefore "accident" is a reasonable enough word to use. Mjroots (talk) 12:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Accident implies there is no blame to be apportioned. Regardless of whether a driver intended to pass a signal at danger (and I'm not sure anyone's that stupid), in the Tangmere case the crew bear responsibility for the SPAD due to their actions disabling the AWS. This was not an accident. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Accident implies no such thing. Pick up a book like Red for Danger by L.T.C. Rolt; Historic Railway Disasters by O.S. Nock or Obstruction Danger by Adrian Vaughan, and you will find dozens of occurrences where blame may fairly be apportioned being described as "accidents". The official reports into these were written so that a cause may be found; this often means that somebody (or some people) were found to be to blame; yet the writers of these reports still use the term "accident". --Redrose64 (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Redrose64 that accident does imply blame (and/or cause), be it human error, or mechanical/electrical or systemic failure. However, accident does imply damage to humans, property, or livestock, so it would be incorrect to describe the Wootton Bassett SPAD as an accident (see Andy Dingley's comment above). But also agree with Mjroot's comment that the majority of SPADs (on wikipedia) are indeed accidents - AFAICT the Wootton Bassett article is the only one that did not result in an accident. Also worth mentioning that out in the "real world" the majority of SPADs are incidents (that do not result in an accident) - but almost all of these are not notable enough to warrant a wikipedia article.

So what to do? One possibility is to rename the category to Category:Railway accidents and incidents involving a SPAD. Alternatively, rename the category to something like Category:Railway SPADs and add two sub-categories Category:SPAD accidents and Category:SPAD incidents. The Category:SPAD incidents would be rather small but it would be available for other SPAD incidents that are notable (possibly other incidents such as the Wootton Bassett SPAD, or other SPADs that resulted in significant changes to signalling methodology). Robevans123 (talk) 11:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

As I said at the article's talk page, I see no mileage in creating a category that is likely to remain at one article. Whilst not ideal, the category is the most appropriate one that we have. I agree with Robevans123 that the majority of SPADS, even high-ranking ones, are not going to be notable enough to sustain an article. This is the exception to that rule. Mjroots (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The neutrality of the article is being disputed. Input from members of this WP is welcom at the article's talk page. Mjroots (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Trouble with RDTs

OK, can't get my head round this. I've simplified the {{South Eastern Main Line}} RDT, but managed to lose the "V.T.E." links off the display. I've created South Eastern Main Line diagram, but if I try to get the headers the same as East Coast Main Line diagram, the whole RDT fragments. Any assistance with this would be appreciated. Mjroots (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

{{BS-header}} takes two parameters: the first is the displayed title; the second is the template name, minus the Template: part. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course, you should probably be using the newer {{BS-map}} template… Useddenim (talk) 04:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Where am I, Royal Mail DMU edition

I've made a tentative identification of this DMU as a Class 114 converted for mail service in the late 1980s (the image is grainy, but I think I can make out 55930). Assuming that's true, where is this parked? Mackensen (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks a bit like Leeds. North concourse at the end of the platforms and the back of the Queens hotel on the left. Before the 2001 rebuild this area was all parcels traffic. Nthep (talk) 09:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Clearly Leeds. The building in the background is now the western entrance. This is the former mail terminal, and which used to be part of the former Leeds Central Station along Wellington Street. This area was swept away by the re-modeling to create extra platforms for the Wharfedale and Airedale lines. Bethayres (talk) 10:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Lea Valley Lines

It's been brought to my attention that the Lea Valley Lines article gives a distorted view of what the rail industry thinks of as the Lea Valley.

Our current system is this:

• Great Eastern Main Line - Liverpool Street to Norwich via Stratford
• West Anglia Main Line - Liverpool Street to Cambridge via Tottenham Hale
• Lea Valley Lines - Everything from Liverpool Street and Stratford to Enfield, Chingford and Cheshunt via any route
• Hertford East Branch Line - Broxbourne to Hertford East
• Fen Line - Cambridge to King's Lynn

According to [1] and other previous posts, the definitions should be:

• Great Eastern Main Line - As current
• West Anglia Main Line - LST to King's Lynn via Tottenham Hale
• Lea Valley Line - Clapton Junction to Cheshunt via Tottenham Hale, possibly including the line to Stratford
• Southbury Loop - Hackney Downs to Cheshunt via Southbury
• Hertford East Branch Line - Rye House Junction to Hertford East
• Enfield Town Branch Line - Bury St Junction to Enfield Town
• Chingford Branch Line - Clapton Junction to Chingford

Does anyone have any references for this? -mattbuck (Talk) 19:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree, the article Lea Valley Lines does include more lines than it really encompasses. The definitions that you have given are more aligned with my own view of this area. I see the "core" section of the Lea Valley Line as being between Coppermill Jn and Cheshunt Jn, and this restoration of this to it's former 4-track glory has been debated for many, many years. The lines from Clapton Jn to Coppermill Jn and from Stratford to Coppermill Jn are not really part of any other line/route, and feed services into the Lea Valley, so it makes sense to include them too. I'm not sure if the line to Chingford once included the Clapton Jn to Coppermill Jn section, if so, then it would make more sense to include that under the Chingford article. Then the Lea Valley line would really just cover the Stratford - Coppermill - Cheshunt section.Bethayres (talk) 09:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Just realised we do have a Hertford East Branch Line article, which states it runs from Broxbourne to Hertford East. That seems reasonable enough to me, though the lead does say it could be seen as part of the Lea Valley Lines. Further, the WAML article leaves the route to Cheshunt as mainly on the Lea Valley article. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Btw, there's also a Southbury Loop, a Chingford Branch Line and a Enfield Town branch. Lamberhurst (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hm, I've never seen those ones before - are they actually linked anywhere? The naming is a bit inconsistent, so perhaps that should be standardised (Southbury Loop Line; Enfield Town Branch Line). Can we therefore say there is no such thing as the "Lea Valley Lines", and that, like the Outer South London Line, it's an invention of Wikipedia? -mattbuck (Talk) 20:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

If anyone has the relevant pages of Quail to hand, how is the line described? Lamberhurst (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The Lea Valley line does exist, to state otherwise is ridiculous. For starters, Network Rail refers to it for it's plan to reinstate 4-tracking along the line. Rhubarbs Cat (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that the grouping of "Lea Valley LineS" is an invention, not that the Lea Valley Line singular doesn't exist. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree - I developed the individual pages for Southbury Loop. Chingford and Enfield branches as the Lea Valley entry was too high level to catch the different history of the various lines. I left it as some people recognize the name and I am reluctant to delete other people's entries. The actual Lea Valley route is the West Anglia Main Line but I also think the name Lea Valley Lines was a marketing invention of one of the ToCs.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Can we include the Stratford branch as Lea Valley Line? It's certainly not WAML or GEML. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The Lea Valley is not a marketing invention of the TOC's ... the group Railfuture recognizes it see here http://www.railfuture.org.uk/eastern — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bethayres (talk • contribs) 11:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, I'm saying the grouping is an invention, not that the Lea Valley Line is! -mattbuck (Talk) 11:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The Stratford branch was the original Northern and Eastern line and existed way before the route via Hackney. That aside I agree with Matt about lea Valley Lnes (nte plural)--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 12:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Mr Update!!! is back

The editor sometimes known as "Mr Update!!!" is back, see this lot. Typical habits are addition of pure speculation, mainly concerning what heritage railways could do in future; bad grammar, often including the misused word "respectively"; and edit summaries consisting solely of the word "update", variously capitalised and with up to five exclamation points. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Station opening dates

Does anyone know of a list somewhere with all the opening dates of UK stations? I know that in principle one is constructible, but ideally I'd like to avoid going through all 3000 stations to pick out the date. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

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. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but what I want is just a table of them. I'm not looking for information on one station, I want a complete list which I can manipulate and sort in Excel. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Unless you trawl through the various railway station opened in Categories, I'm not sure what to suggest. Trundleage is a good website that shows roughly what date future stations could open. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 20:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Trains on the Manchester, South Junction and Altrincham Railway

Class 304 at Brooklands

There's a couple pictures of British Rail Class 304s from the 1980s and 1990s on the portion of the Manchester, South Junction and Altrincham Railway which is now the Manchester Metrolink Altrincham Line. I'm unfamiliar with how to categorize a disused line. What do we call the portion of the MSJ&AR between Altrincham and Manchester? Thanks for any guidance, Mackensen (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The MSJA had two lines, a main line and a branch. The main line connected the LNWR (ex-Manchester & Birmingham) at Manchester London Road with the LNWR (ex-Liverpool & Manchester) at Liverpool Road Junction, and is still open throughout for NR services. The branch was the line between Castlefield Junction and Bowdon, most of which is now Metrolink, but the portion between Castlefield Junction and Cornbrook East Junction is still NR, for the route via Urmston. The only bits that are actually disused are the portions between Cornbrook East Junction and Old Trafford Junction (about 27 chains), and from Altrincham station to Bowdon (about a quarter of a mile). --Redrose64 (talk) 00:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: thank you, and please forgive me for being dense. Would it be accurate to describe that train (from 1990) as being on the "Altrincham Line"? Mackensen (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes --Redrose64 (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Should we merge Ilkeston Junction and Cossall railway station into Ilkeston railway station?

The two stations are on the same site on the same line, and the precedent on Wikipedia seems to be to treat this as a reopening of the old station. The name is somewhat different (although no more unusual than various similar truncations of station names in the last 50 or 60 years), and in fact looking at Category:Reopened railway stations in Great Britain I can see that there are at least two stations which closed and reopened under a different name that we treat as the same: Ashchurch for Tewkesbury and Coleshill Parkway.

(I've proposed the merge this way round as obviously the merged article will have to use the modern station's name.) 86.130.177.23 (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Branding

Seeing as both of these are to do with branding, I've linked them together. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 20:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

First Great Western rebranding

Apparently, First Great Western are to be rebranded to Great Western Railway. We already have an article on the original company, so a new title will be needed at some point in the near future. I'd suggest that Great Western Railway (TOC) might fit the bill. Mjroots (talk) 09:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Mjroots: This is already under discussion at Talk:First Great Western#Article name post September 2015 and the thread immediately above. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 7#GWR(Great Western Railway).

It is the fallout of a WP:CFORK a few days ago, during which the creator accused me of some very untrue actions, somewhat puzzling when the only edits I had made to the article in question were (i) adding a wikiproject (for which I was thanked); (ii) adding a link omitted by D47817 (talk · contribs) and (iii) fixing up a malformed redirect. Notice that despite the accusations made against me and others, the only substantial content removals were made by the person who created that article in the first place. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps Great Western Railway (train operating company) as with Southern (train operating company) and Southeastern (train operating company) per WP:ACRONYMTITLE. Lamberhurst (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

We should probably wait until there is more information. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 20:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Please can we avoid split discussion? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Southern sub-brand of GTR

Southern is to become part of GTR. Please see Talk:Southern (train operating company)#Sub-brand of GTR. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 19:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Who Am I? Where Am I? What Am I?

We have so many different Who Am I? Where Am I? What Am I? sections, I was wondering whether we should have a separate archive dedicated to this or some sort of seperate service of the WikiProject dedicated to this. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 20:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Horsham to Tunbridge Wells via Gatwick and Redhill

It seems that at some point there was such a service that, depending on which unreliable source I read was either operated at Southern in one direction and Southeastern (or South Eastern Trains) in the other, or as Southern west of Redhill and Southeastern (or SET) east of there. I discovered this when investigating why Ifield railway station was in category:Railway stations served by Southeastern (I've now removed it) despite no mention of that TOC in the prose. The South Eastern Trains and Salfords railway station articles still talk about such a service in the present tense. Some cleanup is obviously needed, including checking categories, but I don't have time to do it myself I'm sorry. Thryduulf (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that the service was existing and was running, and was therefore operable, and thus directed. In terms of the operator, thus said train was more probably, and highly unlikely to have been, depending on the provider, to have been investigated during the recourse of this subject matter. Clearly, and very un-obviously, the whole issue merits a performance appraisal, and also, and without prejudice requires a most definite but altogether checking and elimination or additional categorization. I am fully, but hardly, in agreement with the approach that you suggest and with which I am fully non-plussed about. Very good indeed. Rhubarbs Cat (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this service did exist and is sorely missed. For more info see here, here and here. The service was operated by Southeastern and ceased in 2008. Lamberhurst (talk) 08:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

TILBURY TANKS

I was wondering whether anyone had a complete list of the names given to the Tilbury Tank 4-4-2T locos of the LTSR. I have compiled a partial list but have a number missing.Thanks.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

There are at least three published lists:

• Rush, R.W. (1994). Locomotives and Rolling Stock of the London, Tilbury and Southend Railway. Headington: Oakwood Press. pp. 16–38. ISBN 0-85361-466-0. X53.
• Casserley, H.C.; Johnston, Stuart W. (1974) [1966]. Locomotives at the Grouping 3: London Midland and Scottish. Shepperton: Ian Allan. pp. 40–41. ISBN 0-7110-0554-0.
• Baxter, Bertram (1982). Baxter, David (ed.). British Locomotive Catalogue 1825-1923, volume 3A: Midland Railway and its constituent companies. Ashbourne: Moorland Publishing. pp. 39–41. ISBN 0-903485-52-4. OL 25432145M.

but I don't know how accurate they are - all of these authors have made mistakes elsewhere. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - I must have been having a senior moment as they appear on wiki. Not sure of their accuracy however.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we have four articles: LT&SR 1 Class; LT&SR 37 Class; LT&SR 51 Class; and LT&SR 79 Class. However, they all show just one name for each loco, whereas both Rush and Baxter state that several locos were renamed, and it appears that in most (all?) cases, Casserley & Johnston give only the final name. There are several clear discrepancies between Rush and Baxter though: for instance, no. 9, shown by Casserley & Johnston as Tilbury Docks is shown by Baxter as being originally Purfleet, renamed Tilbury Docks in 1911; and whereas Rush agrees with Baxter on the original name Purfleet, he shows the 1911 name as Black Horse Road. I'm trying to compare the three, but choosing one as the definitive list is getting into WP:OR territory. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I have picked up that 40 was originally Black Horse Road and then became Benfleet, 42 was Commercial Road and became East Horndon and 45 was originally Burdett Road and became Shoeburyness all around 1911. I also know that 18 was named Burdett Road and 22 was Commercial Road so did that change names at the same time - I did not remember to note the source when I scribbled these down but will post when I remember. Its not one of the books you mention. Also intrigued as to why.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Baxter shows twelve engines as being renamed, and Rush shows thirteen. Neither give a reason. There are also discrepancies in the second names, and in the years of renaming. Those that they agree on are: no. 18 Shoeburyness became Burdett Road; 40 Black Horse Road became Benfleet; 42 Commercial Road became East Horndon; 45 Burdett Road became Shoeburyness; 51 Tilbury Docks became Purfleet; 58 Hornsey Road became Hornsey; 62 Camden Road became Camden, all in 1911. They disagree on the year for no. 55 Wellington Road became Bow Road - Rush says 1903, Baxter shows 1911. In three cases the second names differ: no. 9 Purfleet became Tilbury Docks (Baxter) or Black Horse Road (Rush); 13 Benfleet became Black Horse Road (Baxter) or Commercial Road (Rush); 22 East Horndon became Commercial Road (Baxter) or Tilbury Docks (Rush), but they are all shown as 1911. The one that is given by Rush but not Baxter is no. 60 Highgate Road became Highgate in 1911, where Baxter shows it as always Highgate Road. This leaves one, no. 80 - Baxter shows it as originally Southend-on-Sea, becoming Thundersley in 1910, but Rush shows it as originally Thundersley, renamed Southend-on-Sea in 1909 for the Imperial International Exhibition, reverting to Thundersley by the time of the Coronation of King George V, i.e. by 22 June 1911. As for Casserley & Johnston, the names given match up with the final names listed by Baxter, except for no. 60 which they show as Highgate. Baxter makes one clear error: no. 25 is given as Stratford (the name also given for no. 47) where Rush and Casserley & Johnston show no. 25 Stifford. There are also inconsistencies which may be typos: Rush spells Ockendon as Ockenden and omits the full stop in St. Pancras; Casserley & Johnston add an apostrophe to Earls Court. The word Road found in several names is always written in full by Baxter, but it is contracted to Rd by Rush in one case (Wellington Rd) and by Casserley & Johnston in two (Black Horse Rd, Commercial Rd) - all of these may be for space reasons. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Redrose.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Routeboxes, June 2015

This activity has begun again, same two users: 151.224.250.165 (talk) and Ron4563 (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Also at it, but in a different manner, are 86.145.250.209 (talk) and David31584 (talk · contribs) - who judging by this edit, are the same person. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Since the edit-warring has continued, I have applied one week's Full protection to five pages (Shenfield railway station; Brentwood railway station; Harold Wood railway station; Gidea Park railway station; Romford railway station) because it is clear that there is a dispute over content which is not being resolved by discussion. This must stop. Hopefully we can arrive at a solution here which suits all articles on British railway stations.

Unfortunately it appears that in at least three cases (Brentwood, Harold Wood, Gidea Park) I protected the wrong version, since all three exhibit broken routeboxes, which means that I now need to seek consensus to fix these - perhaps by reverting to the last stable version. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Seven Kings is also under dispute. There is ONE Abellio train that calls at SK per day, yet it is being listed in the routebox. --TBM10 (talk) 05:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: - I see no problem with the routeboxes in the three articles you mention insofar as the all display correctly. If a fix is needed, I see no reason that it can't be done. Re the inclusion of Sunday only services, that's the bit that needs to be discussed, isn't it? Mjroots (talk) 06:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@TBM10: - In that case I'd say it's actually more important that it go in the routebox. If we were talking a slightly odd stopping pattern by the main TOC that happens once a day I'd agree with excluding it, but if it's a different TOC entirely it should be included. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Mjroots: They don't display correctly, for example at Brentwood railway station#External links, there is a superfluous narrow row which has a top border above "Preceding station" but not in the other four columns. This is due to David31584 (talk · contribs) dropping a {{rail start}} into the middle of the routebox.

@TBM10: I didn't protect Seven Kings railway station because its last edit was at 21:12, 16 June 2015 - something like 108 minutes before I decided to act. The five that I decided to protect had all been edited within the previous four (Shenfield) to twelve (Romford) minutes. If an edit - any edit, by anyone - had been made to Seven Kings whilst I was protecting the others, dropping notes on their talk pages and posting here, rest assured that Seven Kings would have been treated in the same manner. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I've took out the {{rail start}} from all three routeboxes. This is merely to fix the display issue flagged up above. It is NOT an endorsement of the current, or any previous, routebox. Mjroots (talk) 10:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Mjroots. You seem to have missed Gidea Park railway station#External links. Perhaps you got one of those "Sorry! We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data" errors, but didn't notice it. They're a lot more common nowadays, I think that I get one about 10% of the time. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done Mjroots (talk) 10:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@TBM10: - The thing I don't understand is the fact you keep reverting the edit to Seven Kings station, it should be shown because: The daily service that calls at Seven Kings is still operated by Abellio Greater Anglia, especially since the Shenfield Metro service recently transferred from AGA to TfL Rail, Seven Kings is still served by AGA, especially as Seven Kings is still shown on the AGA route map, also TfL Rail is under Crossrail and Abellio Greater Anglia is under National Rail so it should also be shown so people who are actually reading the article of Seven Kings station know the National Rail and Crossrail services that call here whether the service is one train per day or not! As Mattbuck said above if the daily service that calls at Seven Kings is operated by the same TOC that calls there frequently then I would agree in not showing the limited service, but as the daily service is a completely different TOC then I agree in showing in so people reading the article do not actually get confused! Ron4563 (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

My issue is that the routeboxes should not be used to show every possible iteration of the current timetable, which itself is of course subject to change. I consider the purpose of the routebox to show which line the station is on (eg the GEML), and what the preceding and following stations are on that line. Take Seven Kings, the following station is not Gidea Park. Another example I saw recently was one person added to the Liverpool Street routebox that the following station was Norwich! Limited services that call at the station can be mentioned within the article, but should not be in the routebox. The fact is that the preceding station to Seven Kings is Ilford and the following station is Goodmayes. That's what the routebox should show. --TBM10 (talk) 11:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe the point is that if services are now run by TfL Rail, this needs to be shown. Why are these changes being reverted? Lamberhurst (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly Lamberhurst I completely agree with you on that one, @TBM10: as all other services that call at Seven Kings are now run by TfL Rail then the daily Abellio Greater Anglia should be shown, no one even cares whether the service that calls there is one train per day or not, the thing that people want is for it to be shown in the route box and especially as AGA is a National Rail service not that Crossrail service, thats TfL Rail thats a Crossrail service, I mean if the limited AGA service that calls at Seven Kings was a TfL Rail service then I would agree in not showing because it would not be the point as they would be the same TOC as I said before, but as there two completely different toc's then they have the right to be shown! Ilford and Goodmayes are the preceding/following stations for TfL Rail, but I'm not talking about TfL Rail, I'm talking about Abellio Greater Anglia, the preceding for AGA at Seven Kings is Stratford and next at Seven Kings for AGA is Gidea Park simple as! And people who are reading the article will now get confused because it is not shown! Whoever added Norwich as the next stop at Liverpool Street is a bit ridiculous, but at Seven Kings the preceding and following stop for AGA services is not Goodmayes or Ilford, because no AGA stops at Goodmayes or Ilford. --Ron4563 (talk) 12:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

@TBM10: by the way I have not showed every iteration of the timetable! Ron4563 13:00, 20 June 2015

OK guys really, there is no need to have taken it this far, you see before you did that I and Ron4563 had resolved any issues in regards to those pages. Now today I wanted to see if I could edit where the Sunday services were going (Between London Liverpool Street and Southend Victoria) but couldn't do that because all the pages were locked, again there wasn't any need for this. I'm sorry that I should have probably said something earlier to avoid the lock down, but honestly the issue had all ready been resolved. I wanted to include the limited Sunday services between Romford and Shenfield on Sundays that are operated by Abellio Greater Anglia, which proves that Gidea Park, Harold Wood and Brentwood stations also had National Rail services and thus they each needed a rail logo and not just a Crossrail one. Unfortunately t the time, Ron4563 was removing all my edits for fear that they 'Wouldn't be seen for long', I told him everything would stick, as long as nobody else tampered with the entry. I'm not 100% on how these articles were done, so I had to copy and paste a few things from other pages, such as the Template:Rail-start command since I needed it to let people know that this was a National Rail service and not a Crossrail service, so yeah I was going into it blind, but I didn't mean to make a load of mistakes as if I could, I would correct them. Anyway, I do hope that this has cleared things up on the issue. D31 (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)David31684D31 (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

It's long been established that routeboxes should not attempt to cover every different variation in service. This means that we need to exclude some services, and the logical ones to exclude are those that form only a small proportion of the timetable for a whole week. Sunday-only services are a good example of this, since they cannot comprise more than 14% of the timetable. Similarly, trains that only run in the peaks, or those at the start or end of the day which do not run the full length of the line. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

@David31584: thank you I do hope it will clear up the issue and don't worry about the mistakes to the route boxes it wasn't initial and you don't need to edit the Southend service in the service section it's allowed there, I just hope that the limited/Sunday Abellio Greater Anglia services can be shown in the route boxes because as you said above they should be shown to prove National Rail services still call there Ron4563 (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Redrose64 you seem to be missing the point of what Wikipedia is, it's to inform people of these services. Take for example a very limited service that occurs daily on the London Overground between Wandworth Road and Battersea Park stations, one train calls there every day at an off peak time in the evening, however everyone agrees that the station still counts as a London Overground station, even if it is a limited service. It even shows up on the service boxes. Wear ever you like it or not these boxes are to inform people of what services are accessible from these stations, even limited ones, so removing limited services would actually not be a wise course of action and will just wind up with you having further disputes with other people. Ron4563 thanks again for your support, I may not be able to add wear the trains are going, but at least the actual service is now known to people, which is the important thing. Thanks again for your support. Once again I say that right now there is no need for those pages to have their edit options suspended as I said, the issue had been resolved.D31 (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)David31584D31 (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@David31584: its ok no problem. Ron4563 (talk) 09:37. 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: and @TBM10:, I find it very unfair that you will not show the limited National Rail services in the route boxes at Seven Kings, Gidea Park, Harold Wood and Brentwood, here are the following reasons for why it should be shown:

1. Abellio Greater Anglia is a different TOC than TfL Rail.

2. Abellio Greater Anglia is a National Rail not a Crossrail service, TfL Rail is the Crossrail service.

3. More people agreed with me to shown the service and some people have additionally tried to shown these services in the route boxes at these stations.

4. I have more reasons to prove why the service should be shown as you can see.

5. I am not showing every service from the timetable, I am only showing one service from TfL Rail and one from Abellio Greater Anglia, thats not every iteration of the timetable, there two completely TOC's! Also the following/preceeding stops for TfL Rail at Ilford/Goodmayes as I said, but not for Abellio Greater Anglia, the preceding/following for AGA at Seven Kings are Stratford/Gidea Park. NO AGA services stops at Goodmayes or Ilford.

6. An example like Seven Kings is Wandsworth Road and Clapham High Street stations, Wandsworth Road has 5 National Rail Southeastern services per week that call there and Clapham High Street is also the same (5 National Rail Southeastern services per week that call here), but you let them show their National Rail services in the route boxes and let them show their National Rail roundel signs on the top of the page as well as the Overground services that call there to, but with Seven Kings its served by Abellio Greater Anglia National Rail and Crossrail services, but yet your not even letting me shown the National rail roundel on the top of the page and the national rail service in the route box, especially as Seven Kings is served by more National Rail services per week that Wandsworth Road and Clapham High Street. A total of 6 National Rail services per week call at Seven Kings according to timetable.

7. An example like Gidea Park, Harold Wood and Brentwood is a good example David31584 said above and thats Battersea Park, that station has a total of 15 London Overground services per week that call there, but yet you allow them to be shown in the route box, but Gidea Park, Harold Wood and Brentwood have a much higher amount of Abellio Greater Anglia services that call there than compared to the amount of Overground services at Battersea Park, but you are preventing me from adding the National Rail route boxes at these three stations. Overall Gidea Park has 83 Abellio Greater Anglia services that call there per week according to timetable, Harold Wood and Brentwood have a total of 71 Abellio Greater Anglia services per week that call there according to timetable, but what I don't understand either is that the Overground roundel logo is allowed to be shown at Battersea Park as its a Overground station even if its limited. as well as frequent National Rail Southern services that call at Battersea Park. But as I said above Gidea Park, Harold Wood and Brentwood have way more National Rail services calling there than the amount of Overground services calling at Battersea Park, but yet you are preventing me from adding the National Rail roundels at Gidea Park, Harold Wood and Brentwood its just not fair!

8. If these National Rail services were shown people reading the articles will not get confused and would know the Crossrail and National Rail services calling there.

9. Finally every wiki railway article should be treated the same I am very disappointed!

Ron4563 (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Please don't say that we "allow" or "let" things happen. Wikipedia works by WP:CONSENSUS: a group of people discuss and agree some principles, which we are then encouraged to abide by. Consensus is not arrived at by re-adding when something that you added was reverted. I certainly never said that National Rail services couldn't be shown. As for other stations showing routeboxes in different ways - see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Finally: please indent your posts and be concise. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

What Abellio Greater Anglia Services?

I just want to ask this, why is there discussion about Abellio Greater Anglia services at Seven Kings? There isn't one. All services are transferred over to Crossrail and the Crossrail/TFL Rail Shenfield Metro. Abellio Greater Anglia services only call between Stratford and Romford and none of the stations in-between those locations. Perhaps in emergencies they could terminate at Seven Kings, but it isn't a regular or semi-regular service.D31 (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)David31584D31 (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

We're talking about what in general is suitable for inclusion in a routebox. Once that has been agreed, specifics can be discussed on the talk page of the article concerned. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@David31584: Trust me there is a Abellio Greater Anglia service that stops at Seven Kings because it is still shown on the route map, here is a link to prove https://www.abelliogreateranglia.co.uk/travel-information/journey-planning/network-map — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron4563 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 22 June 2015

I'm assuming this is you Rob who has replied to my message, you were not specific on the day and/or service that the train calls at, also I looked at the National Rail services (on National Rail's main website) for tomorrow (Tuesday 23rd June 2015) and there is no early services calling at Seven Kings. However, there is one early service that does call at Gidea Park on it's way to Colchester, but nothing can be done about it, until the suspention on edits is lifted, which should be later this week. One other thing I noticed was that link you provided apparently shows that Gidea Park, Harold Wood and Brentwood are stations that Abellio Greater Anglia services call at seven days a week, which contradicts the Sunday Only service that has been established.D31 (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)David31584D31 (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The link you gave was unavailable I'm afraid.D31 (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)David31584D31 (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@David31584: Hi I have the link here, this is the train that starts at Colchester and runs to Liverpool Street and it additionally calls at Gidea Park and Seven Kings (its the 0443 train right at the top of the page), check the link, then click on details on the 0443 to London and then click on calling points to see [2]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.224.250.165 (talk) 08:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

This is headcode 2F01, running Monday-Friday only, depart Colchester (platform 6) at 04:43, calls all stations to Shenfield (arr. platform 2 05:23, dep. 05:24) then at Gidea Park (dep. 05:31), Seven Kings (dep. 05:36), Stratford (platform 9, 05:42) and arriving Liverpool Street (platform 13) at 05:51. It runs at a time when very few people are awake, and is exactly the kind of infrequent start-of-day service that I refer to, the inclusion of which serves no encyclopedic purpose. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: The thing is what platform does this service depart from at Gidea Park and Seven Kings, does it depart from the up fast line (platform 1) or the up slow line (platform 3), also a train service is a train service whether its a Sundays only or one a day service its a service and thats that. The other thing people need to know is the fact that its the only National Rail Abellio Greater Anglia service that calls at Seven Kings, whether it's one a day or early morning, it should be shown because it is a normal service not the type of service that operates during times of engineering work, also the service runs on Saturdays according to the timetable [3], I suppose the service does not need to be shown in the Gidea Park route box because it already shows the Abellio Greater Anglia services that call there and also shows the national rail logo roundel, but with Seven Kings, it only shows the Crossrail service route box and only shows the Crossrail logo roundel, if the national rail service route box and roundel was to be shown at Seven Kings as well, I'd be more than happy. Ron4563 (talk) 12:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Considering as Wandsworth Road and Clapham High Street are mainly served by London Oveground services, with a limited early morning weekday only Southeastern service, they both also have a national rail roundel on top of both of their pages and show their national rail services in the route box as well as their Overground route box, but the same should apply for Seven Kings, it should show the national rail roundel and the national rail route box, especially as Seven Kings is served by National Rail services 6 times a week and the other two stations are only served by 5 national rail services a week. Ron4563 (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter which platform it uses, we do not construct routeboxes on that basis. But if you're that interested, the working timetable, Book LA01, shows (on pages 223-4, column 77) that it uses the "main" line (as opposed to the "electric" line) west of Shenfield. No platform numbers are given, other than those I gave above. The service does run on Saturdays, I made a mistake there - it's on pp. 347-8 col. 38. But that's not the point: the point is that we should not attempt to include every single train.

Wikipedia is not a travel guide, and is also not a railway timetable. If people want to know where trains stop, when, and on which platform, there are plenty of websites whose primary purpose is to give such information accurately. They are paid to keep this information up to date: we are not. Since it is not in our interest to ensure that pages are comprehensive, we have adopted the practice of showing a reduced amount of information for each station: which lines that the station is on, and which are the adjacent stations. If you have a ticket from Colchester to Seven Kings, and it is only valid on Abellio Greater Anglia services, that's honestly not our problem. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not trying to include every train timetable on wikipedia, I am only showing one limited westbound service that runs 6 times a week, the only thing i wanted to do was to show the national rail roundel at Seven Kings and the limited service from Colchester to Liverpool Street at Seven Kings in a national rail box, I'm not going to show anything about it at Stratford, Gidea Park or Shenfield because they already cover their National Rail services, I am only going to show just ONE services at Seven Kings, that is different to TfL Rail thats all, only just one iteration of TfL Rail and one iteration of Abellio Greater Anglia thats all, I will not include anything about platforms either. Ron4563 (User talk:Ron4563) 14:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I take an inclusive approach to timetable information. While most of the article's description should go on the standard service, mention should be made of oddities such as the one CrossCountry train which calls at Filton Abbey Wood. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

A mention of oddities in the prose is fine, but they do not belong in the routebox. The routebox should show only the standard stopping patterns of the majority of contemporary services (for currently open routes, disused ones are slightly different but off-topic for this discussion). Unusual and former routes should be shown only at junctions where they serve stations on different lines to main workings and only subject to local consensus. For example the single daily timetabled LO service from Wandsworth Road to Battersea Park could be included subject to local consensus (but I'd recommend against that one, instead the former service would be better included) but only because it runs on a different route not a different stopping pattern. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

FAs

So, it seems that this WP doesn't want more FAs then? It's gutting when you put a load of work into an article, then it doesn't get promoted just because people cannot be bothered to participate in the FA process, despite notification that the article is at FAC. Mjroots (talk) 07:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that they are more concerned about the content of routeboxes (see above)! - Bethayres (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

So it would seem. Mjroots (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey, don't blame me, I participated. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Part of the problem I believe is that there aren't too many people on this project with FA experience. Lamberhurst (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

About half of TWPs FAs fall under this WP. Mjroots (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality issue

An editor has challenged the neutrality of the 2015 Wootton Bassett SPAD incident article. Discussion is ongoing at the talk page. Please join the discussion so that consensus can be formed and outstanding issues dealt with. Mjroots (talk) 06:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Ian Allan has died

Sadly, Ian Allan has died. You way wish to watch his newly-created biography for vandalism. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Likely to be plenty of material in the railway press over the next month with which to improve the article. Mjroots (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Gerrards Cross Tunnel

The Gerrards Cross Tunnel collapse happened 10 years ago today, and yet the article is in a poor state. Other than the supermarket opening in 2010 you would be forgiven for thinking that it only happened about 3 months ago. Almost everything is about the initial aftermath, and despite claims in the lead I would expect the HSE to have reported by now. I'm too busy with arbcom stuff currently to spend much time sorting it out, but work needs to be done. Thryduulf (talk) 10:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:SHE for steam locomotives as well as ships?

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#WP:SHE for steam locomotives as well as ships Andy Dingley (talk) 10:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)