Jump to content

Talk:Borders Railway

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

Introduction

[edit]

This article has been started as a draft in user space. It is using present tense as it is written to be usable after the scheduled opening of the line on 6 September 2015. Template and category links have been included within nowiki tags. When making edits please make sure you do not break any of the referencing. Article and discussion contributions (both in constructive form only, please) are more than welcome.--KlausFoehl (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@KlausFoehl: you'll need to lose the bare url references. {{cite web}} is the one to use. At a minimum you need {{cite web |url= |title= |publisher= |accessdate=}}, other parameters may be added as required. Mjroots (talk) 07:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

<ref>{{cite web |url= |title= |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |date= |website= |publisher= |access-date=}}</ref>

@Mjroots: As I am using the same reference in different sections, how to avoid showing it up multiple times in the References section?--KlausFoehl (talk) 08:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
found something:
1st time: <ref name="XYZ">{{cite web}}</ref>
2nd time: <ref name="XYZ"/>
will try--KlausFoehl (talk) 09:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjroots: problem solved, sorry for the noise.--KlausFoehl (talk) 09:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, happy to help. Once you get used to it, referencing becomes second nature. WP:REFB may be of use. Mjroots (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to contribute but is it necessary to use <!--<ref> for citations? Can we not just use <ref>? [[User:|Lamberhurst]] (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Lamberhurst: The <!--<ref> is was old code, commented out (hence the <!-- -->), before I was pointed to use {{cite web}} and then rewrote the references. The old stuff I kept temporarily, just in case.--KlausFoehl (talk) 08:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on contents

[edit]
  • Is it worth mentioning the Border Union Railway regarding the Hawick to Carlisle extension?
    • As of now, the section in question is pleasantly short and concise.
  • Do we want to be more detailed on the prospective fares?
Yes, there needs to be a section on a possible extension to Hawick and Carlisle as this has been raised several times; here there could be a reference to the BUR but only a brief one as the main part should go into the Waverley Route article. There is alot more to be said about the Borders Railway. I will see what I can find and add. As for fares, has there been an announcement by Abellio? Lamberhurst (talk) 10:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did a web search. Nothing more recent than the Feb 2014 informations already referenced, although they do contain more details. No info (yet) on fare prices from Abellio.--KlausFoehl (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and such

[edit]

The templates {{Use dmy dates|date=April 2014}} and {{Use British English|date=April 2014}} have been activated, and {{British English|small=yes}} newly introduced. I am happy to discuss if anyone thinks that bringing all these templates in were over the top.

{{Template:Borders Railway}} has recently been included.--KlausFoehl (talk) 09:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

[edit]

Any suggestions on which photos to use from the large number on Commons? Lamberhurst (talk) 22:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite some photos showing construction, but I think one should aim at describing a running railway. There are not many photos showing tracks, very few with trains on tracks.
  • some flat sunshine
    some flat sunshine
  • unfortunate sun angle
    unfortunate sun angle
  • more sun please
    more sun please
  • more sun please
    more sun please
  • early stage
    early stage

These are some photos that might be useful beyond the construction/commissioning phase

  • get a train up there
    get a train up there
  • train emerging
    train emerging
  • train in cutting
    train in cutting

The photos I wish for are not there yet.--KlausFoehl (talk) 08:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some useful ones there. It could also be worth checking Geograph. Lamberhurst (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One or two images on Geograph: train at Stow, Stow rebuilding, and more, double-track at Shawfair, works at Galashiels, Gorebridge station, Newtongrange bridge, Eskbank works, Newtongrange works, Hardengreen bridge. Lamberhurst (talk) 07:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The first one train at Stow is quite nice, I like the colour (and compare it with one year earlier, could be a two image time line), works at Galashiels shows nicely the works, and Gorebridge station comes close to showing an operational permanent way.--KlausFoehl (talk) 12:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. a nice photo location, may become popular--KlausFoehl (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Route diagram template

[edit]

Unless there are any objections, I'm going to rework the route diagram template to adapt it more to the Borders Railway, leaving the historical detail to the Waverley Route diagram. Lamberhurst (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are discontinued stations, and former branch lines. Which ones do you plan to take out?--KlausFoehl (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of Jock's Lodge and Portobello in particular. Edinburgh Waverley needs to be horizontal in order to better show Portobello Junction. The new bridges/viaducts need to be shown, plus Falahill summit. I am also wondering if the closed branches are correctly indicated. I suppose the diagram is essentially a copy of {{Waverley Line}} and if so it's probably taken from the railbrit website which is not always accurate. Lamberhurst (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I used {{Waverley Line}} as basis, cross-checked with local knowledge (OS maps are helpful). Comments on your edit: the line from Millerhill to Sheriffhill is dismantled; should not the new route via Shankend take the straight line; Edinburgh Bypass also crosses the old alignment; the viaducts use the symbol that originally means "small bridge"; I suggest using BRÜCKE, small bridge would be BRÜCKE1. General comments: should one change the small red dots to the regular size red dots (change HST to BHF, as used for Tweedbank)? And I would prefer to have Edinburgh Waverley not horizontal but vertical, despite ECML being more important.--KlausFoehl (talk) 11:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. please get the sequence right: from North to South: Newcraighall; junction to Millerhill Depot; Shawfair; old Railway crossing; Edinburgh Bypass; old alignment from Millerhill -- KlausFoehl (talk) 11:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Legend
Up arrow to Dundee, Glasgow, WCML
 Edinburgh Waverley
Right arrow East Coast Main Line
 Brunstane
Left arrow
Edinburgh Suburban and
Southside Junction Railway
 Newcraighall
Right arrow Millerhill Depot, Waverley Line
 Shawfair
Edinburgh Bypass
Right arrow Millerhill, Waverley Line
 Sherriffhall
Glenesk Viaduct
...Hardengreen...
@Lamberhurst: Here is my suggestion for the top part of the Route Diagram.--KlausFoehl (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Lamberhurst (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I did not mean to omit Eskbank plus neighbourhood. I also have slightly reworked the template, i.e. using "BHF" big dots for all stations except for Stow, as Stow is slated for reduced service frequency.--KlausFoehl (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove the comment tags

[edit]

I am going to use tags with html comment syntax <!-- THIS IS A COMMENT --> for easy editor-assisted changeover between present and future tense. 

<!--1-->is<!--2 will be 3-->
<!--1 is 2-->will be<!--3-->

Until further notice, please do not remove these tags i.e. <!--1--> -- KlausFoehl (talk) 09:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. @Lamberhurst: Please take note of the recent edits. I changed present tense to future tense, adding tags where I did so. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 10:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Units and unit conversions

[edit]

I see both imperial and metric units used. Multiple conversions (and rounding) can lead to erroneous results, for example 17 km -> 11 mi -> 18 km. Hence I am suggesting that the values and units as given in the source are used (the template convert not being fed with already converted or rounded numbers).

And I have some questions:

  • Is railway infrastructure in the UK planned and engineered in m, km or in feet and miles?
  • What is used at the line side? Is it miles and chains also for new lines?
  • Does one write 2.5 miles, 2+1/2 miles, 2.500 miles, 2 miles 880 yards ... ?
  • If engineering units and "mile" post units were to differ, what would be best practice here on wikipedia?

Cheers -- KlausFoehl (talk) 08:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TO the best of my knowledge:
  • Rail infrastructure is currently measured in miles and chains, although it is expected that this will change if and when ERTMS is rolled out on a widespread basis. However, metric units are used in areas as civil engineering and rolling stock construction and maintenance. The industry rule book published by the Rail Safety and Standards Board uses metric measurements as the primary units for distances, although speeds are still shown in mph. The Rail Accident Investigation Branch also uses metric units by default, and translates the remaining Imperial terms where necessary.
  • Mileposts are in miles and chains for the time being.
  • According to MOS:FRAC, symbols such as ½ should not be used, with the preference given to 1/2.
  • I would probably need a specific example. Have the milepost details for the Borders Railway been published? I'm only aware of the Engineers line reference.
Lamberhurst (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the answer. So let's wait until distance posts are erected on the line side. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 13:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction section

[edit]

Having expanded the introduction, maybe on could include facts like rebuilt, longest rebuilt line, network connection in Carlisle in a concise way. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the tag. An article of this length's lead should comprehensively summarise the information contained with the article, whereas the present one does not. Please read WP:LEAD. RGloucester — ☎ 16:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Borrowing and translating a hook suggestion from de-wiki: Did you know that fifty years after having been designed UK's most uneconomic railway line, the Waverley Route is rebuilt as the Borders Railway. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would say "more than fifty years", "designated" instead of designed, "one of the most" and "will be partly rebuilt". Btw, there was a Portal:Trains DYK not long ago for Borders Railway under the Waverley Route article but it wasn't strictly accurate. Lamberhurst (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you decide to go this way, let me know as I can try to add refs and text backing up the uneconomic part. Lamberhurst (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please check the lead again, just in case I overlooked something as I ran into a couple of edit conflicts. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about DYK

[edit]

Well, there is the monthly DYK on Portal:Trains and the daily DYK section on the Main_Page. Possible hooks Did you know...

  • ... that more than close to fifty years (2015-1969=46 years after closure) after having been designated one of the most uneconomic railway lines, the Waverley Route will be partly rebuilt as the Borders Railway?
  • ... that the Scottish Borders, the only region of Britain without passenger trains, will see services restored with the opening of the Borders Railway?
    • http://www.campaignforbordersrail.org/ "Welcome to the website of the Campaign for Borders Rail (CBR), the grassroots group set up in 1999 to make the case for restoring rail to the Borders – the only region of Britain without passenger trains."
  • ... that the 98 miles double track Waverley Route is being reborn as the 30 miles single track Borders Railway?

@Lamberhurst and RGloucester: Please voice your opinion, rework the suggested hooks, add further suggestions. What do you think of adding a date request i.e. the 6 September 2015 opening date?

If we reach some kind of consensus, I would like to submit a DYK suggestion by tomorrow evening (Wednesday 10 June 2015, 5pm UTC) -- KlausFoehl (talk) 09:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. driver training has started, first images emerging -- KlausFoehl (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would go with your first option but I would say more than 50 years as the starting point would be 1963 when the Beeching Report was published and the line featured in it. To be completely pedantic, one could say "unremunerative" instead of uneconomic to use the terminology of the report. For the second option, I'm a little uncomfortable with the concept of a "region" which is unclear in Scotland. For the third option (and to be pedantic again), the Waverley Route will in my opinion only be reborn if it reaches Carlisle again. Lamberhurst (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The text of the third option could be reworded as "partially reborn". In any case, 98 mi are contrasted to 30 mi, and double track to single track, already hinting at slightly different scales. Second option, I do see that some definitions of "Borders" extend to the North Sea coast, hence include parts of the ECML. Given that the 'Did you know ...' in Portal:Trains/Did you know/May 2015 put the emphasis on a very large majority - "...that in June 2006, the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Act authorizing the reconstruction of the Waverley Line was passed by the Scottish Parliament by 114 votes to 1?" - I am happy to go for option one as it does not recycle that old punchline.

Did you know ...

Feedback welcome -- KlausFoehl (talk) 09:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would say "will be partly reopened" instead of "has been partly rebuilt". I would also go with your original suggestion, i.e. "after having been designated one of the most uneconomic unremunerative railway lines [in Great Britain]". We could have "reinstated" instead of reopened as you prefer. The concept of unremunerative won't be immediately clear for everyone and I think it's necessary to give a location. Lamberhurst (talk) 10:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mention Borders Railway early or late in the phrase? Most DYK phrases have the key item early in the phrase.
  • Mention Beeching Report explicitely?
  • What about unremunerative? - it is not a frequently used word. Because of that and also because it is the terminology of the report, I quoted it.

Did you know ...

Next iteration -- KlausFoehl (talk) 12:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest the following change: ", part of the Waverley Route has been rebuilt as the Borders Railway?" This is more fluent English. RGloucester — ☎ 15:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's better. Are we ready to put it forward? Lamberhurst (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am going for it. While I am doing the admin stuff, could you please double-check that statements relating to the hook's claims are properly referenced? -- KlausFoehl (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

What do folks think about reproducing here the Borders Railway logo (here) as has been done for other lines such as the Sunshine Coast Line? Lamberhurst (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it were clearly below the threshold of originality, then upload to commons would be appropriate. In any case I think it does fall under the rationale of fair use if used in the article. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 09:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded the logo on Wikipedia, with a fair use rationale. It cannot be uploaded to the Commons, as the threshold of originality under British law is very stringent. RGloucester — ☎ 18:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few questions and comments...

[edit]

..as they are encountered:

Some answers -
  • status can be removed;
  • this tends to indicate that there is a "depot" but it could be - as you say - just a stabling facility in which case the entry can be removed;
  • What about "single track except for three sections"?
  • The speed limit should be changed to 100mph but it should be in the text of the article somewhere. Lamberhurst (talk) 10:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Driver training is up to 90mph, news reports tell, but I presume that is due to the class 158 top speed. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 10:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've put in a reference to 90mph but couldn't find any more info about where exactly are the three stretches of line which can support this speed. Lamberhurst (talk) 11:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Status removed; "three double track loops" introduced - just short enough; 100mph not introduced as I only have the campaign web site as source; nothing done on the depot - as I suspect "depot" is a place where trains drivers can start and end their work day, from the seven points layout I do not see a shed (with rails inside) or a separate stabling area happening in Tweedbank. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 11:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that "three double track sections" is not ideal. It should say "passing loops", should it not? RGloucester — ☎ 15:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be short enough textwise. For these lengthy double track sections that trains can pass at speed BR did coin the expression "dynamic loop". Maybe include a piped link to loop? -- KlausFoehl (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the qualification is needed. It is mentioned in the passing loop article. RGloucester — ☎ 17:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies

[edit]

Someone needs to add somewhere that there are concerns over the timetabling and especially if anything goes wrong with the track as the reduced amount of double track and lack of turnback facilities will have an impact. There was also the death of a worker which led to a slight delay in building. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 01:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The death of the worker is mentioned in the "Works commence" section. I have to say that I haven't read about that timetabling issue, what I've seen is more about charter services and the focus on commuter services over other types of traffic. Lamberhurst (talk) 08:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only "controversy" I'd think is worth discussing from an encyclopaedic standpoint is the cut back in double track, and the lack of future-proofing for expanding to double track. I can see that this is already discussed, so there doesn't seem to be a need for an addition. Tabloid fodder controversies don't belong in an encylopaedia. RGloucester — ☎ 15:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've been following a documentary on YouTube and they mention it in there. I know YouTube isn't a reliable source but this is not a fan production. The documentary is called "Borders Railway - From Start to Finish". Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 16:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - there are five series of this programme, each with five episodes, can you remember which one you saw? Btw, I have tried not to cite print media because it tends to be rather sensationalist one way or the other. The Scotsman and its transport correspondent's articles are a good example. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Its an interview between the presenter Paul Brownlee and the chairman of the Campaign for Borders Rail Simon Walton in the latest episode (series 5 episode 6). Here is the YouTube link. The interview starts from roughly 44 secs until 4 mins 15. If you need the website for the series, it is www.bordersrailway.info Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 00:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've put it in a new section which brings together the various criticisms made of the project. Lamberhurst (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

[edit]

I made contact with the proprietor of the "Waverley Wanderer" channel on Youtube, and he graciously provided many good pictures for this article. They can be found in the Borders Railway category on the Commons. I've added a few already. RGloucester — ☎ 03:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good work sourcing this source. There are great viewing spots, a pity that in Scotland the sun is not always there where the photographer is. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 09:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some excellent shots there which make a real difference to the article. Lamberhurst (talk) 11:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, the pictures helped me as well to improve the article in the de-WP. --Wahldresdner (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BE versus AE (non-BE in general)

[edit]

Why are we using BE when one finds "Driver and conductor [sic] training begins on new Borders Railway" headlines? -- KlausFoehl (talk) 18:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The railway is in Britain, so the article uses British terminology. Other publications may well use other dialects, but here we apply MOS:TIES. RGloucester — ☎ 19:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just wanted to point out that the Borders Railways website itself (arguably one of our most authoritative sources) is using something else than proper BE. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, sourcing is irrelevant when it comes to English variety matters on Wikipedia. We follow our own WP:MOS on the matter. If their website made an error, that's their problem. RGloucester — ☎ 19:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article

[edit]

I'm getting ahead of myself here but after noticing that the FA for 6 September 2015 hasn't yet been chosen, I wonder if would it be possible to get this article into contention? Lamberhurst (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is highly unlikely that this article will be able to attain featured article status in the near term. Good article status, perhaps, but WP:FA is a whole different game. The most obvious problem is that the railway isn't complete, and that therefore the article cannot be stable. Regardless, in the current DYK submission, I've asked that the DYK be saved for 6 September, which will have much the same effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RGloucester (talk • contribs) 20:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I wanted to get Quintinshill rail disaster up to FA in time for 22 May 2015 but it never made it past B-class. I even tried calling in MILHIST. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good article status

[edit]

It seems that the GA review has closed, and that we've managed to get this article to good article status. I want to thank everyone that worked on the article, as it has come together very well. RGloucester — ☎ 19:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some fare information coming through

[edit]

On https://www.scotrail.co.uk/about-scotrail/news/borders-railway-fares one finds 

Friday, 19 June 2015
Here are details of the new Borders Railway fares. Tickets for journeys between new Borders stations and Edinburgh will be available to purchase by Friday 19 June.
Edinburgh to/from: 	Adult Single 	Adult Anytime Day Return 	Adult Off Peak Day Return 	Weekly Season Ticket
Tweedbank 	£10.00 	£16.00 	£11.20 	£64.00
Galashiels 	£9.30 	£14.90 	£10.40 	£59.60
Stow 	        £7.90 	£12.60 	£8.80 	£50.40
Gorebridge 	£5.30 	£8.50 	£6.00 	£34.00
Newtongrange 	£4.70 	£7.50 	£5.30 	£30.00
Eskbank 	£4.40 	£7.00 	£4.90 	£28.00
Shawfair 	£3.30 	£5.30 	£3.70 	£21.20
[...]

There are only "Edinburgh to/from" fares given, not enough information to replace the 2014 fare matrix, hence I am reluctant to throw that one out.--KlausFoehl (talk) 11:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fares information is outside our scope, just as train times are - in fact, more so, since they change more often. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that information. I do well understand wikipedia to be neither time table nor fare table. However, I think that a few numbers (that do not change) are justified, i.e. giving for Edinburgh-Tweedbank the 2014 fare info and the initially implemented price in 2015.--KlausFoehl (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

[edit]

I'm just wondering. What the heck is this about? E.g. [[British Rail Class 158|Class 158]] [[British railcars and diesel multiple units|DMU]]s <!--1 are 2--> will be <!--3--> used on the line, one of which <!--1 bears 2--> will bear <!--3--> special livery advertising the tourist attractions of the Borders. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 11:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One for KlausFoehl (talk · contribs) I suspect - they first appeared in this edit. Your example displays as "Class 158 DMUs will be used on the line, one of which will bear special livery advertising the tourist attractions of the Borders."; and I think that the idea is that when the railway opens, all the <!--1 will be removed, also everything from 2--> to <!--3--> inclusive, which will leave [[British Rail Class 158|Class 158]] [[British railcars and diesel multiple units|DMU]]s are used on the line, one of which bears special livery advertising the tourist attractions of the Borders. which displays as "Class 158 DMUs are used on the line, one of which bears special livery advertising the tourist attractions of the Borders.". --Redrose64 (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I introduced these, I mentioned them in Talk:Borders Railway#Please do not remove the comment tags, and the aim is for an easy changeover from future to present tense around 5/6 September. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly some additional content

[edit]

On http://www.bordersrailway.co.uk/ 03 Aug 2015: "The Borders Railway will be officially opened by Her Majesty The Queen on the day that she becomes Britain's longest serving monarch." -- KlausFoehl (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the big opening do is (re-)scheduled for September 9th (if still reigning, Elizabeth II will match Queen Victoria's reign on that day, and she will be on a steam special), what about shifting the DYK from 6th to 9th? Or a new punch line? The line itself is still opening to passengers on September 6th. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's 10 September. Based on the following dates:-
here are my calculations:
  • Queen Victoria's reign: {{Age in years and days|1837|06|20|1901|01|22}} → 63 years, 216 days
  • Queen Elizabeth II's reign on 10 September 2015: {{Age in years and days|1952|02|06|2015|09|10}} → 63 years, 216 days
--Redrose64 (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On that basis, she wouldn't overtake Victoria until 11 September? Lamberhurst (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See also this post on Elizabeth II's page. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Queen Victoria's reign: {{Age in days|1837|06|20|1901|01|22}} → 23226
  • Queen Elizabeth II's reign on 10 September 2015: {{Age in days|1952|02|06|2015|09|10}} → 23227
It must be calculated in days because of the anomalous leap years. The "9th" comes about because Victoria died part way through her last day, and so did not reign for the whole of the 23,226th day. DrKay (talk) 07:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is the attempt on Talk:Elizabeth_II#Incorrect date re Longest reign to calculate to hours accuracy. Bottom line there: it could be September 9th or 10th, several hours either side of midnight, we do not know. Now according to the press release "[..] Her Majesty has chosen to mark this milestone [..]" on September 9th.
  1. Back to my original question: shift the DYK from 6th (passenger services start) to 9th (Royal opening) or keep as is?
  2. Given this upcoming double celebration and the stir going with it, I expect the article page visits to rise above the current average of 100/day. Do we want to apply some extra TLC to the article? -- KlausFoehl (talk) 11:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would have a slight preference for keeping the DYK as it is as I think it's important to mark the date when services actually start and including EII's milestone shifts the focus to her rather than the Borders Railway. But that's my personal view, and others may well disagree. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My preference is also to keep the DYK as it is. Going by the current news coverage the events marking EII's milestone will be reasonably low key, while I still assume said milestone going to be mentioned on the Main_Page so she'll get due coverage. Having the DYK focus on the railway is something I agree with. Whether all these opening celebrations merit an extra section, that's something we can see after the events are over. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 13:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Visitor numbers - for the article

[edit]

Few day to go before regular service starts on the Borders Railway. Article visits have started to go up, see http://stats.grok.se/en/latest60/Borders_Railway for details. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 13:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With the start of passenger trains early September, the related wikipedia articles have had quite a few readers.
So let me say that all that work that went into these articles was well worth it. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some update: The last two months Borders Railway had just short of 100 page visits per day. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's to be expected. The novelty is starting to wear off now. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 17:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, nothing like the numbers in September. But it is reasonably close to constant, and compares quite nicely i.e. to http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/East_Coast_Main_Line where I think the ~200 daily visitors should be steady state. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 09:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures again

[edit]

Already some nice views (found on geograph). I see the potential for even better photos coming along. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 09:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

[edit]

Seeing as Edinburgh Crossrail was a precursor to this, it should be merged here. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 17:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for starting with a technicality, but how to merge without loosing or obscuring all that edit history for Edinburgh Crossrail? On the fact side, it certainly was something that existed for more than a decade. So I am leaning somewhat towards keeping. I am aware that now the Borders Railway is operational there is little talk of Edinburgh Crossrail, and the article does not reflect the current situation. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 13:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Edinburgh Crossrail will become a redirect, and since it won't be deleted, it will still have history. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, thanks. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 11:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've merged it under no objections.

In a seperate but related note, seeing as this has occurred, I have nominated the RDT for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 October 28#Template:Edinburgh Crossrail. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 22:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Electrification so far\Edinburgh Crossrail

[edit]

The line is not completely unelectrified. Electric service were provided on Edinburgh Crossrail before the whole line extended. And yet it seems difficult to find sources saying the line to Newcraighall was electrified. Can anyone find any? Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 14:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See here, p. 17. Afaik, Portobello-Newcraighall was electrified at the same time as the ECML; this source suggests 1991. Lamberhurst (talk) 08:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When Edinburgh Crossrail was put into place, I think that a chord was reinstated near Brunstane. Dunno if this chord is electrified. In any case passenger services to Newcraighall were DMU (at least initially - did that change with the electrification towards Bathgate?). Of course running under wires, but I'd say these belong(ed) to to the existing goods line to Millerhill - and to the ECML proper closer to Waverley. Given that no wires are strung above the new 2015 rails, I consider the current statement about electrification not wrong but misleading. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there are no wires above the new Newcraighall to Tweedbank section, I am changing back to "Unelectrified". -- KlausFoehl (talk) 12:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I didn't change it in the article, someone else did. Nonetheless, I think it is still worth mentioning. For many years, the Paisley Canal Line was electrified to a depot and then unelectrified for the rest of the line. If I remember correctly, diesel services were used throughout (until 2012) and the only electric services were empty stock movements. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 12:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Worth mentioning, probably, but putting it into the Infobox where entries better be concise? "Mostly unelectrified" or "Unelectrified*" maybe. Problem is: what do you designate as "Borders Railway"? Only the newly built line? Or the service running all the way into Waverley, the last stretch underneath OLE courtesy ECML? -- KlausFoehl (talk) 09:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, the latter. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 11:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Borders Railway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Map Error?

[edit]

Map shows 'Five circle Line' - should this not be 'Fife Circle Line'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.18.108.90 (talk) 10:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the uploader may be able to amend. DrKay (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean this map? It was created by Pechristener (talk · contribs) using outside data from OpenStreetMap, presumably the error is in that third-party source. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do mean that map [and had not noticed the others with apparently the same error], except that it shows 'Fife Circle Line', but the one linked in the article still shows 'Five Circle Line'. I would fix the link myself, but I am not confident of file location conventions for wikipedia.46.18.108.90 (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The link is fine. You're seeing a cached image saved in the cache folder of your device. If you purge your cache, you will see the new image. DrKay (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for the hint. Map error is fixed. I had to fix in total 5 maps.--Pechristener (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Operation section too long

[edit]

Hi @Crookesmoor:, I removed the fares table as I thought that wasn't encyclopedic. With that taken out do you still think it is too long? I think the length is okay now. NemesisAT (talk) 12:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Borders_Railway&oldid=1200267715"