Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AlgaeGraphix (talk | contribs) at 20:15, 26 May 2022 (→‎Template:Milton Keynes-East Croydon service RDT). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

Bridge=viaduct?

Various claims have been made about "the [|second|third] oldest operational railway [bridge|viaduct] in [the world|a country]", such as at Skerne Bridge, Bassaleg Viaduct and Carrollton Viaduct. Now the Skerne Bridge has two additional arches for pathways either side of the river arch; the Bassaleg Viaduct has four equal arches, two over a river and one each over a pathway and a road; the Carrollton Viaduct is a single arch over a river but there is an additional arch through the masonry-walled approach.

Am I therefore correct to disregard any distinction between bridges and viaducts, and treat them as a single class of structure? Or is there a useful, valid line to be drawn somewhere between a single (main) arch bridge, and a multi-(equal)-arch viaduct? --Verbarson talkedits 18:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A viaduct is a type of bridge. The Skerne Bridge would probably classify as a viaduct, just like the Royal Border Bridge does. See Viaduct. Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 21:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A viaduct is a minumum of three arches. Mjroots (talk) 06:20, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whose definition is that? Institution of Civil Engineers, Network Rail, OED? -- Verbarson  talkedits 08:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to HS2 "A viaduct is a type of bridge, made up of multiple spans and connecting two points of terrain." That's a reasonable match to the dictionary definition "a long bridge-like structure, typically a series of arches, carrying a road or railway across a valley or other low ground." and the Wikipedia definition "A viaduct is a specific type of bridge that consists of a series of arches, piers or columns supporting a long elevated railway or road. Typically a viaduct connects two points of roughly equal elevation, allowing direct overpass across a wide valley, road, river, or other low-lying terrain features and obstacles." Seems pretty clear to me. 10mmsocket (talk) 10:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the Carrollton Viaduct is a single arch (though there is also an arch through the approach embankment), whereas most of the Thames 'bridges' are multi-span, the distinction appears to defer more to custom and practice than to any definition.-- Verbarson  talkedits 14:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the USA. Nothing about the USA is consistent or sensible. The is the UK railways wikiproject so we should restrict our geographical scope when looking for clarity. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My original issue was international, so maybe there's no international agreement to be had. -- Verbarson  talkedits 17:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That shows the value of going back and re-reading the original question! 10mmsocket (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, the term "viaduct" is usually (but with exceptions) applied to railway bridges and most commonly associated with the brick arch type which sprang up in the 19th century (the term being derived from the ancient aqueducts). But as there's no authority that determines what is a viaduct and what is a "mere" bridge, and these things are usually locally named, inconsistency is bound to creep in, especially over the course of 200 years. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are too many sections in far too many poorly written articles about UK rail lines

There is an individual who has never been hauled in over the way they have made an absolute pig's ear of so many articles about British railway companies and the lines they operated. There appears to have been no understanding about [[1]], writing in a concise style, avoiding repetition, and sticking almost every paragraph under an obscure section header. You lot at the WikiProject UK Railways should have stopped this person from adding so much awful writing to so many articles. Just try reading them on a mobile, it's almost impossible to get to the point. Some have a section header for just one or two sentences. They're shocking. I've given up reading them. They're verbose, pompous, use out dated language and often show a lack of knowledge about the subject because there times when things contradict themselves or the chronology flip flops between different time periods. The sad thing is because no one stopped this individual they're managed to make so much crap it'll be a decade of work cleaning it all up. I'm so fed up with their drivel I've stopped reading British railway articles. They're that bad.146.200.202.126 (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I've also found some of these articles annoying to read and unencyclopedic due to all the headings. Couple of points though, 1) how can anyone sort this if you don't tell us the individual who is writing these articles 2) anyone can edit Wikipedia, why not help rewrite them? NemesisAT (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who is the editor and what are the articles? Give us this then we can review and engage. Believe me I'm an editor who is not afraid of removing large amounts of unsourced content / original research from whole swathes of articles. For example, compare any UK fire service article now with their state about 18 months ago before I started editing them. The OR and trivia is long gone. I'm happy to help but only once I know who/what we're dealing with. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This has come up before here where the editor in question was identified. There is an issue here but it's difficult to see how it can be dealt with easily. Lamberhurst (talk) 08:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So just to be clear the exact same IP address made the exact same claim in February 2022. Nobody had the courtesy at the time to notify the author in question @Afterbrunel, about whom allegations were being made? Nothing was done by anyone at the time [presumably because nobody saw it as a pressing problem] and it seems nothing has changed in the meantime, and Afterbrunel continues to add properly sourced content to articles that is rarely if ever challenged? Am I correct? 10mmsocket (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure those articles are as issue-less as you seem to think. If nothing else, the section headers could use being made more encyclopedic (ex. Boddam branch line). There are also some tone/sounds-like-OR issues (ex. Clearly the dominant reason for making the branch line was access to the hotel. as well as some amount of details which might not be very appropriate for the scope of an encyclopedia (ex. the whole of Miss Kate Campbell was appointed manager, at £100 a year, though Miss McKilliam was in overall charge, and a golf professional, Alex N Weir formerly of Arbroath, was appointed, at £70 a year. The opening day was 1 March 1899. The 3 ft 6 1⁄2 in gauge tramway opened in June. It operated on 500-volt DC current from the hotel's 33 kW generator, A laundry was built on the site; it also served the needs of the Palace Hotel, Aberdeen, as well as those of the GNoSR generally. The tariff for August and September was 15s per day on the first floor, 14s on the second floor, 12s on the third floor and 10s 6d on the fourth, inclusive of breakfast, lunch, afternoon tea and dinner; provision of a [coal] fire in the room cost extra. After five months of operation the results were described as "most encouraging" and the hotel committee decided to keep it open though the winter, at a reduced rate of £2 10s per week. could probably be significantly trimmed if not entirely removed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And then there are indeed some sections which are entirely unsourced, ex. Boddam_branch_line#The_line_today. That, like some more of the content, might be more appropriate for a railway enthusiast audience than for a general encyclopedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Discussing the state of a disused line today isn't exactly specialist railway enthusiast content, I think that it is of interest to a general audience and should be included. NemesisAT (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The level of detail provided might or might not be excessive (as elsewhere in the article, see for example the long description about how much a room on each floor cost) is what I'm saying; and on top of the fact that section is entirely unsourced, certainly warrants a closer look. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's unwarranted in the context. It sets the context of the nature of the hotel which the branch line was supposedly there to serve. G-13114 (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I could make a few comments.
1) In railway company history articles, one option would be to group topics and minimise the section headings. Inevitably this would lead to massive chronology problems, and in discussions elsewhere it has been stated by others that a chronological sequence is more "natural". That inevitably means that topics change frequently as the narrative progresses: in 1888 the Chairman resigned; in 1890 the XYZ branch line was opened; in 1891 there was a fatal train crash. These topics don't lend themselves to being grouped, except in the trivial case of making a heading: "The 1870s"; next heading: "The 1880s"; next heading: "The 1890s". Some editors have attempted this, but imho it doesn't work.
2) Unsourced sections: these are quite numerous, and are usually original research. Very often this is enthusiastic descriptions of what might be seen today, or rather ten years ago when someone went out and had a look. When I make a major edit on an article, I think it is bad manners to delete soemthing that someone else has written. Any reader can see that it is unsourced, and will understand it for what it is, and I usually move on.
3) The level of peripheral detail in the Boddam branch is quite simply based on what material is out there to use. The idea is to make an interesting article, and incorporating some level of entertainment is essential. The Boddam branch deserved an improved article, but there was precious little interesting material out there about the strict railway aspect of it. People who have written commercial books incorporate this kind of peripheral material for the same reason; Wikipedia isn't exempt from the need to be attractive to readers. Afterbrunel (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much to say about the rest, but I'll reply to point no. 1: chronological ordering is not the only way to organise an article. In fact, most articles are not solely organised chronologically, but rather in broader sub-topics (which may, in turn, be themselves organised chronologically, or not). To take an unrelated example, World War I is divided into different sections, according to what is covered within. The sections about technology and war crimes are organised independently from the rest of the history, while remaining internally chronological. This is equally possible for railway articles. To take the GWR, which I already mention, the "History", "Geography" and "Operations" sections are all in their own order, without the need to mix them up. And grouping of content can often be done with more useful titles than simply temporal markers (as the GWR article shows). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance we can build up a hit of articles to work on? 10mmsocket (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we're solely interested in articles by this one editor, the whole list amounts to 924; and if you exclude those which are only redirects, or which are not about railways at all, the number is closer to 700; and not all of these will have had significant involvement to the point of bringing about the kind of slightly annoying issues identified above. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The content is mostly ok and well sourced. And the user has uploaded a lot of generally well made maps to illustrate the articles. He just seems to have a particular style of arranging the articles which some people find annoying. There's also an issue that maybe some of the content is duplicating that elsewhere. Maybe it could do with some work, but it's not really what I would consider a top priority, If others disagree than go right ahead and be bold. G-13114 (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That particular style of arranging the articles is not helpful to the readers (as it lacks any organisation) and is also discouraged by MOS:OVERSECTION. An example of how things should be done is probably something like Great Western Railway, if that helps. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very useful, thank you. Is there any formal guidance within this project on article layout (I'm being lazy - I haven't looked!!) 10mmsocket (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have hoped Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Style advice might be useful, but there's nothing there about layout specifically. Otherwise a look through the rest of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Trains#Good_articles is never a bad idea. I'll note that most of them include at least a "history" section, no matter what exactly they're about (Anglesey Central Railway; Staten Island Railway; Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock and Ayr Railway), and some form of description of the route (under varied headings, from the obvious "Route" to stuff like "Branches and stations" or "Topography". Although there are other articles which have had the same "bad section headers" issue, ex. Grand Crimean Central Railway (although, to be entirely fair, that one might be due for a GAR in any case). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The important thing about sections isn't how many there are, it's what's in them: One train, one track, one section. SN54129 19:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Serial Number 54129: The point of sections, like chapter titles in a book, or headers in an academic paper, is organising the content so that readers can more easily make sense of it by giving a split-second overview of what is being covered. In that sense, while, yes, the number of sections isn't usually an issue, there are usually good reasons why appropriate subdivisions (as are indeed present at Signalling block system) should be used. And they also make finding specific information much easier. Compare this with the current state of that article. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's important not to go overboard here. @Afterbrunel: has done some great work to improve many articles which were no more than stubs and has uploaded a good many useful images and maps. Writing articles about closed lines is not an easy subject, especially where - like with the Boddam branch - the sources are few and far between. Yes, there may be issues with article structure and notability and I would recommend that Afterbrunel look at some of our featured articles on closed lines such as the Brill Tramway and good articles like the Hawkhurst branch line for inspiration. Lamberhurst (talk) 10:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Have to agree that overall I've enjoyed reading historic railway articles on Wikipedia (and I suspect Afterbrunel was behind a lot of these). I was able to help a little with newspaper sources for the Boddam Branch closure (see Talk:Boddam branch line). NemesisAT (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you both for those kind words. Incidentally it is good to know that someone is actually reading these articles; there are times when I wonder if it is only me and some copy-editors who read them. May I trespass on your good offices to ask: -- the talk pages of many articles state that the article is somehow under the auspices of this or that project, in some cases three different projects on the same article. Are all of these projects active? I look in vain on their home pages for a list of "We have done this in the last three months". And in many cases they have awarded an article stub class, or recommended a map or something, when these enhancements have been done, and they don't seem to update their evaluations. As I am not a member of their task force, I can hardly do that myself.
    And finally I had a look at the Hawkhurst branch. May I draw your attention to the fact the section "Present-day scene / Remains" ends with a statement in the present tense, citing a book published in 2003. :-) Afterbrunel (talk) 06:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you can update anything you like. Memberships don't mean owt here. Rcsprinter123 (rhapsodise) 11:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Railway pubs

Hi all. Bit of an odd request for this Project, but I wonder if anybody might have, in any of their books or other reliable sources, a suitable reference for the following assertion I would like to make in a pub-related article I'm planning: "Railway stations and pubs have a long mutual association". I'm thinking of pubs and hotels built close to stations, generally soon after the railway arrived in a town/village/whatever, rather than pubs-on-a-station like at Stalybridge. It's one of those things that feels like conventional wisdom, but I would prefer to have a ref to back it up rather than boldly saying it! I can't find anything suitable in my collection of railway books, which admittedly isn't the largest. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 12:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Railway hotels are much easier to write about than pubs. I suspect there's some good references in the various articles, e.g. two that spring to mind because I have stayed in them so often are the Midland Hotel, Manchester and St. Pancras Renaissance London Hotel (both built by the same railway company). However there's dozens of railway hotels listed at British Transport Hotels, which may provide some valuable pub-related references for you to mine. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Thomas's excellent book "Yorkshire's Historic Pubs" details The Station Inn at Ribblehead (originally The Railway Inn) opened in 1875, specifically to service railway passengers.[1] The joy of all things (talk) 13:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Barnes Wallis in Howden is next to the railway station, and was originally opened as The Railway.[2] The joy of all things (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The same book as above states that The Fox on Holgate Road in York (just behind the old Carriage/BREL/ABB works) was refurbished in 1878 specifically as a "railway boozer". Opened originally in 1776.[3] The joy of all things (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Check out Stockton and Darlington Railway. From memory, before the concept of 'railway station' was developed, the pubs were natural stopping places for passengers - try some of the external links. The article itself mentions that on the opening day, Locomotion No 1 was coupled to the train at Mason's Arms Crossing (anyone going to bet that wasn't a pub?), and "Innkeepers began running coaches, two to Shildon from July, and the Union, which served the Yarm branch from 16 October. There were no stations" (end of 'Early operations'). So innkeepers even ran their own trains - I wonder where they terminated? -- Verbarson  talkedits 15:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, this is Britain. "X and pubs have a long mutual association" is probably true for many values of X, from football to bare-knuckle fighting, hunting to civil disobedience, roads to canals to railways to long-distance paths. It might be quicker to list items not associated with pubs. (Even Temperance Mission Halls were probably built near pubs!) -- Verbarson  talkedits 15:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've just pointed a dead link on Skerne Bridge to an achive version here. At the foot of page 12: "The S&D Railway Sub-Committee met on the 23 June 1826 and decided to build three inns to serve the new railway line." Pubs and railways were hand-in-hand from the very beginning of passenger traffic. -- Verbarson  talkedits 19:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The S&D (and a few other pioneer railways) used inns as stations because that was the way that the stagecoaches had operated. There were no purpose-built stagecoach stations: so the idea of a purpose-built railway station was somewhat novel. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks everybody for your input; some interesting thoughts and sources. Verbarson's point about pubs being associated with most things is fair; funnily enough, in Brighton (the article I am planning is "Pubs in Brighton"), the road running down to the sea from the station had 15 pubs ... and 4 temperance hotels! Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 08:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I remember reading that the Railway was the most common pub name in Manchester, once. Whether that's the case, or whether many of them have been converted to nonsenses like the Bannister and Shamrock, I don't know. Black Kite (talk) 12:22, 27 April 2022‎ (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about pubs but Carter's Illustrated History of British Railway Hotels starts with the sentence: "The railways pioneered the hotel industry in Britain and spent 145 years as hoteliers."[4] Nthep (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And St Pancras Station is designed specifically to store barrels of beer. -- Verbarson  talkedits 19:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The idea was to get as much money from the business traveller as they could. The businessman with a 9 am meeting in a town some distance from home could, if there was one early enough, catch the first train of the day and arrive tired and annoyed, likely to lose out on the potential deal. Or, he could travel the evening before, stay the night in the hotel and arrive nice and fresh and full of get-up-and-go to clinch the best possible terms. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ Thomas, Peter (2005). Yorkshire's historic pubs. Stroud: Sutton Publishing. p. 88. ISBN 0750939834.
  2. ^ Pepper, Barrie (1990). The best pubs in Yorkshire, including Cleveland & Humberside. St. Albans: Alma. p. 27. ISBN 1852491019.
  3. ^ Pepper, Barrie (1990). The best pubs in Yorkshire, including Cleveland & Humberside. St. Albans: Alma. p. 142. ISBN 1852491019.
  4. ^ Carter, Oliver (1990). An Illustrated History of British Railway Hotels, 1838-1983. Silver Link. p. 5. ISBN 978 0947 97136 6.

Move of Cross Country Route

Could any interested editors check out the recent discussion under Talk:CrossCountry NE–SW route#Requested move 15 February 2017 regarding consensus (or lack of) to move that article to a new title. Rcsprinter123 (message) 19:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Class 99

A new Class 99 locomotive is to come into service in 2025. This brings with it a problem for us. The current British Rail Class 99 article covers the ships that were previously allocated TOPS numbers. I suggest that we deal with this similarly to the way the British Rail Class 70 was dealt with. British Rail Class 99 is moved to British Rail Class 99 (ships), with the current title becoming a dab page. The article on the new locomotives can be housed at British Rail Class 99 (locomotive). 07:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to create the article at a more generic name first before we start moving articles around. We've seen before that proposed Class numbers can change (i.e. Class 66). Black Kite (talk) 07:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite: The source of that tweet is a prominent editor in the railway press. He knows what he's talking about. Class 99 is backed up by Rail Business Daily. Mjroots (talk) 08:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the gun has been jumped (not by me) and class 99 now refers to the new locomotive. Nthep (talk) 11:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Murgatroyd49 was unaware of this discussion and would like to comment. Mjroots (talk) 15:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of this discussion I'm afraid. I don't regularly monitor this page. The reason for not going down the dab ship/locomotive route was that the vast majority of readers will be looking for the loco page. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We can leave it as it is for now. Each article has a hatnote pointing to the other. Mjroots (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move the loco class 99 page to British Rail Class 99 (Stadler) and make a disambiguation page for all the class 99s TheScottish801 (talk) 08:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why? How many other Class 99s are there? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, anyone typing "Class 99" into Wikipedia is going to find themselves looking at German steam locomotives, so it is certainly worth having a dab page at Class 99. There's no need to disambiguate British Rail Class 99 with "Stadler", though. Black Kite (talk) 09:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fairy snuff. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DAB page created. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since the German page has so few views, I've renamed it and moved the dab page to Class 99. Black Kite (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the locomotive page has been moved yet again, I've now move protected it at admin level. Any further move will need to be done via WP:RM. Mjroots (talk) 11:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wasn't aware it would be considered a controversial move given that a train is either a multiple-unit or a locomotive plus carriages or wagons, and this is very clearly an article about a locomotive (as evidenced in the discussion above. So (train) didn't seem logical, whereas (locomotive) did. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@10mmsocket: - I'm not singling anyone out. You obviously made the move in good faith, but it is time the article stopped moving about. The current title is good, so maybe we can now work on expanding the article as information is released about this new class of locomotives. Mjroots (talk) 12:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Line

With the announcement that the Elizabeth Line is to open on 24 May, we have an opportunity for an ITN appearance. Crucial to this is to ensure that everything is referenced properly. Mjroots (talk) 09:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking good. I've just had a quick scan through the article and make the following comments:-
Design and infrastructure section, there is an unreferenced paragraph in the "name and identity" subsection. In this case, given the illustration, we can apply WP:BLUE. In the "rolling stock" subsection, city.am seems to be to be a good enough source. The tag could probably go. The "planned service" subsection is entirely unreferenced. This will need to be addressed. The last sentence of the "ticketing" section, para 1, is unreferenced and outdated. The "further proposal" section is unreferenced, although there is a link to the main article. Again, references will need to be provided. It's nearly there, and there is time to fix before the 24 May. Mjroots (talk) 06:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Salisbury rail crash

I've opened a discussion at Talk:2021 Salisbury rail crash#Reporting II re the gutting of the first paragraph of that section and loss of context. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source discussion

Hello, a discussion has been started here concerning the reliability of the Railscot website for use as a source. Please contribute if interested, thanks. Crowsus (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Selby Line & Hull and Selby Railway

Hello, wondered if people could look a the recent changes to Selby Line & Hull and Selby Railway which has effectivelly gutted the history of the Hull and Selby Railway and placed it in the Selby Line. I was debating if this should just be reverted. Any thoughts? Keith D (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments at User talk:Mattdaviesfsic#Hull and Selby Railway, Selby Line. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be reverted and discussed. Mackensen (talk) 00:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably explain the reasoning... in my mind:

  1. the H&SR is the company that opened the railway line in 18 something-or-other
  2. the SL is the railway line the company opened which continues to be in use by HT/NT/TP etc.

With this in mind I thus carried out some copy-editing, which in fairness was probably not the right thing to do straight off the bat. In hindsight, it might have been better to carry out a discussion. Apologies for the inconvenience and my stupidity... Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 05:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As there has been no action to sort out the mess, I have reverted the changes. Please discuss such major changes on article talk pages before making large changes. Keith D (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

King's Cross & St Pancras International

Hi, there is a discussion about the naming of KXSP in the new tube map over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London_Transport. Please join in if you wish. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 06:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons Category placing in station articles

Hi, I have started a discussion over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stations#Commons_Category_placing_in_station_articles about this. Please feel free to join in. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

London Paddington station merge proposal

Hi, I have started (or rather, restarted) a discussion about a proposal to merge the three pages pertaining to London Paddington station. If you would like to contribute, head over to Talk:London_Paddington_station#Merger proposal. Thanks. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Milton Keynes-East Croydon service RDT

As from the May 2022, Southern have reduced their West London Line service between ECR and MKC to terminate instead at WFJ. Quite a few station articles along the route still have the {{Milton Keynes-East Croydon service RDT}}. Is any there reason not to create a new Template:Watford Junction–East Croydon service RDT and update the intervening stations to use it?

More fundamentally, do we really need RDTs for services? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways&oldid=1090001561"