Talk:List of books in The Railway Series

Page Title

Should this be at List of Railway Series books (reversing the redirect) or possibly List of books in The Railway Series?

Just a thought - does anyone know more about WP naming policy? Mdcollins1984 20:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't know about policy, but the former might need to be changed - I'll leave this to someone who's sufficiently bothered by it :o)

As for the second alternative, reordering the words like that strictly reduces the list to a set of 40 books, as would the addition of 'The' after 'of' in the present title. Alternatively, adding the word 'canon' at the end would restore the meaning to cover what is currently on this page (List of books in The Railway Series canon is slightly more precise than the present title) but is a bit long-winded!

EdJogg 17:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Directly-derived works - The M&S 'The Railway Stories' series

The following section was created within The Railway Stories.

Unhelpfully, when M&S re-published these versions (as described below) they also used the title 'The Railway Stories'.

Since the article describes the audio versions of the original books from The Railway Series, coverage of these derived works is inappropriate there.

The section has been copied here pending a decision on whether (and where) these and other directly-derived versions should be described. (All relevant articles ignore their existence at present.)

Marks & Spencer - 'The Railway Stories' Books

In the 1980's, Octopus Books published several paperbacks containing stories from The Railway Series for Marks & Spencer, under their "St Michael" label. Unhelpfully (for the purposes of this article), the series was also titled: The Railway Stories.

Each book contained all the stories from three of The Railway Series books using the original text and illustrations. The book format was different from the original books: a more conventional 'portrait' shape, with a picture on each page above its text. The cover background was a distinctive ' pattern. The Rev. W. Awdry was identified as author, but the preface to each book was omitted.

Curiously, only six of the first eight books of the Series were covered; the two books omitted being the two specifically about Thomas. This choice could not have been influenced by the Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends TV series, whose first season covered the same eight books, as the TV programme was not aired until two years later.

Two books were published:

• Vol 1 (1982)
  • The Three Railway Engines
  • James the Red Engine
  • Troublesome Engines

• Vol 2 (1982) - ISBN 0862730546
  • Henry the Green Engine
  • Toby the Tram Engine
  • Gordon the Big Engine

The books were available individually, or as a boxed set (of two).

Ladybird books

I've just remembered (and seen on Amazon) the Ladybird books that were published as a spin-off from the TV series. I 'believe' these are the original books, albeit containing stills from the TV series, and rebranded (book one is Edward, Gordon and Henry [1].

There seem to be many other books etc available: should they be placed in merchandising articles? Mdcollins1984 11:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear...

This page is exploding. It's getting way too much to have every single book with a link to The Railway Series listed in detail.

I propose the following:

• All 40 Railway Series books remain, of course
• The three books currently listed as "non-fiction" also remain, as they are often-referred to sources, and their relationship is very direct
• All other books either be removed completely, or listed without headings, with minimal detail.

Any thoughts before I enact this off my own bat?

Gonzerelli 00:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

For once I disagree with you. For example, I found the newly-added information about the Bad Days for Thomas... books to be helpful, as I have not (yet) encountered these books. It was interesting to see the safety messages Christopher Awdry had attempted to cover.

In terms of just listing the books; that can be done anyway on the authors' own pages – as is already the case (especially with C. Awdry).

However, if you are concerned that the page is getting too long, I would propose splitting into two:

1. List of The Railway Series books – for the forty books directly from the series
2. List of books related to The Railway Series – for any others we care to add, starting with the three non-fiction works at the top of the page.

I think we've been quite restrained so far; for example: each of the 33+ books in the Asterix series has its own article in WP! The level of detail is probably about right, although none of us has got round to linking all the characters properly.

EdJogg 01:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images

The use of images not in compliance with our fair-use criteria or our policy on nonfree content has been removed. Please do not restore them. -M^ask? 23:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

At present, these images do not meet the requirements for non-free images since they do not state a 'fair-use rationale' -- this is not surprising since this was not a requirement when they were up-loaded. This issue is being addressed, but will take a while to complete.

However, on this page the images provide a valuable aid to navigation: for anyone not using the TOC, it is much faster to identify the pictures concerned than to read the titles. They are certainly not merely 'decorative'.

Also please note that this is more than 'just a list'. This page was created to discuss all of the the books in one place, rather than having separate articles for each book. If the latter situation prevailed, it would be perfectly permissible to use the fair-use images, since each page would be describing a single book. If necessary, this article may be split into 45 sub-articles, so that the book images may be re-used. However, I trust that common sense will prevail, and the former page layout may be restored once the images meet the necessary 'rationale' criteria. (They appear to meet the other nine criteria already.)

EdJogg 00:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC) (for WikiProject Thomas)

They also fail to give adequate critical commentary on the images, which can really only exist on an article about that specific book, and valuable aid to navigation for those who dont want to read sounds a lot like "decoration". The removal of them from this page was just clean up from the more massive removal last month. here is a list of other straggler pages if you want to lend a hand.-M^ask? 05:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This poses bigger issues for the other WP:THOMAS articles. I have posted a number of questions at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#WikiProject Thomas and use of non-free images to try and clarify the way forward for this Project. Advice and contributions would be welcome.

EdJogg 10:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thomas and Victoria Cover Art

I have found the Cover art for Thomas and Victoria [2]. Felt I should let people know - Bladez636 3:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Wisbech and Upwell Tramway

The Wisbech and Upwell Tramway article claims a different inspiration for the Toby character. See http://www.lner.info/co/GER/wisbech/wisbech.shtml and especially http://www.lner.info/co/GER/wisbech/toby_mavis.shtml Please feel free to put this in the article. I also see that there is no clear link to this article from the Rev Awdry's article. 89.243.189.97 (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The article on Toby the Tram Engine has been updated recently, and should answer your question more fully. Awdry was inspired by visiting the W&UT, but he first saw the J70's at Great Yarmouth, and went to the W&UT later.

EdJogg (talk) 11:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Emneth, where the Rev was a vicar, was very close to W&UT. I havnt worked out yet if he moved there before or after inventing Toby. 78.149.181.41 (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Notability and primary sources tags

I see that notability and primary sources banner tags have recently been added to the article.

While the refimprove tag was constructive, it seems to me that these latest two just reflect poor research (or none at all). But wp:creed#14...

The primary sources tag appears to be pure speculation (one could ironically even call it original research, but poor research at that). Not one of the references given in the article is a primary source.

But more important, even if the speculation is correct (that is, if material in the article is based on editors reading the books themselves), that policy reads in part ...primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia... A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. (my emphasis)

In terms of this policy, primary source references are (if the speculation by the tagger is correct, and I think it is) exactly what is needed to improve this article according to policy, and by discouraging people from adding them, this tag is purely counterproductive, particularly in view of the existing refimprove tag. I will remove it shortly if nobody objects.

The notability tag fares no better IMO, but the policy is less clear. I may raise this on a suitable policy or guideline talk page, perhaps wt:Notability and/or wt:Stand-alone lists. Watch this space. Andrewa (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there are no inline cite to primary sources. However, reading the article it is abundantly clear that this article is constructed almost entirely from material taken from the books themselves.

Yes, we can -- with care -- use primary sources. However, "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." The overwhelming majority of this article is drawn from the books, or an unstated source with such important details as "Policeman Len appears in every story, disciplining or helping the children as needed." and "The 'Works' Diesel appears briefly in this book, as the engine who brings the Christmas tree from the Other Railway." I'll tell you what: This article is a stub augmented by a database listing of basic book details (see WP:NOT) and details dredged from the books, the cartoon and fan comparisons of the two. If you'd find it more palatable, I'll mark a few items as cite needed, let them sit for a week to see if there is a reliable source discussing which book was the first to end with "The End" and remove them if no such source arises. Then I'll mark more and more info for shorter periods of time. In a couple of months, we'll take a look and see if what's left isn't a database listing. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like a waste of time to me. Do you have any particular clause of WP:NOT in mind?

If your goal is WP:AfD, I'd suggest you don't edit it at all. That might well be seen as disruptive and/or pointy. Instead just take it to AfD as is.

I have now raised this at the relevant WikiProjects. [3] [4] Andrewa (talk) 05:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The wording of {{primarysources}} is spot on in this case; the article does rely too much on primary sources, and doesn't have enough secondary or tertiary sources, making it end up reading like a fan wiki, rather than an encyclopedic article. Piling more primary stuff in there won't help with that. If anyone wants to add more detail they should probably write about the books in separate articles (assuming they pass WP:GNG), and leave this one as an overview of the series (development, reception, commercial, influence etc.), using reliable sources to give a balanced look at the topic. Take a look at some featured and good ranked novel articles (e.g. Seekers (novel series), A Song of Ice and Fire, Twilight (novel series), Harry Potter) for the direction the article should be moving towards. ‑‑Yodin^T 15:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, but I'm glad this has been struck out. The use of some primary sources is valid here, and probably even essential, and so references to them should be added IMO. That was my point regarding the primary sources tag. Andrewa (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Looking a bit more closely, there is already an article on the series itself; take a look at some featured lists instead; it definitely needs an expanded lead section, using reliable secondary sources, and, given the number of books, should probably switch to a table, or something along the lines of {{episode list}} if necessary (assuming such a thing exists for books). ‑‑Yodin^T 15:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree with all of this. The parallel to an episode list is a very good one IMO... exactly the same principles should apply.

I had a look for a corresponding template for book series lists, but Category:Article namespace templates is woefully undeveloped... it should have as subcategory for list templates, for example... nothing. I'm guessing it does not exist. Andrewa (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, of course this would be made better with the addition of secondary sources. However to propose deleting this list as being of questionable notability, because it relies too much on primary sourcing!

There's also the problem for Thomas that many details of the books have been changed, incorrectly, in the past because the rush to "secondary" sources (i.e. easily available online primary sources from big current media corporations) has over-emphasised recent TV and film versions over the original books. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I did not propose deleting the list. I have noticed that Thomas articles attract LOTS of fan cruft drawn from primary sources. One basisfor sort the cruft from the meaningful is secondary sources. Billy the Boxcar was first seen in series 21, first heard in Thomas Goes Quantity Surveying and is officially introduced in series 22? This book is the first one to end with "The End"? This is all beyond trivial and clogs up article after article. Yes, you can point the the original books/shows and say, "Gee, if you compare series 21 to the 20 series before it, this is the first time we see the blue boxcar and if you compare that blue boxcar with the one talking in the movie it's probably the same one and..." Heck, let's get into details about the structure of trains: wheel configurations, possible antecedants, likely track guages... It's like we're talking about Dora the Explorer's shoe size and using her accent to guess her country of origin.

Yes, there is cruft in other articles (I haven't looked at the Bond list, but it doesn't surprise me). There are certainly other articles with misspellings, bad grammar, unsourced guesses and outright vandalism. Should all articles have fancruft, misspellings, etc.?

This article might work as a table, stripped of 95% of the notes and all of the OR/SYN. Maybe it is a separate article, maybe it is a table in another article. I'll continue pecking away at the fancruft/SYN as I feel like it. If there is material I remove that anyone feels is important, discussion is always an option. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Remove OR/SYN by all means, assuming of course that you have sufficient knowledge of the subject to identify it.

But this article already works, as do the James Bond and Asterix articles. It's not perfect; As you say, it's obvious that it's largely based on primary sources. Do you have access to any of these? If so, please provide as many of the missing references as you can. That would be a very valuable contribution.

But if (as I'm afraid I suspect) your intention is just pecking away at it until you've removed 95% of the notes, while making no attempt to add references, I strongly suggest you think again. Much better that we add the references. Andrewa (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Very good point, User:Andy Dingley. We are dealing with a fictional universe here, and like most of those, there are inconsistencies and retcons, and not all of the attempted retcons work. That's a major reason that references to primary sources are important even if, as here, the source at first seems obvious.

That's worth its own section in fact. See #Primary sources below. Andrewa (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Notability

The relevant guideline is WP:LISTN.

Google books gives over 1,000 hits for "The Railway Series" [5] but most of these are various editions of the books themselves. There are plenty of references to these books as a series there too, but many of them are based on Wikipedia, which raises some issues.

Google Scholar does better, [6] 83 results with a significant number relevant.

Any suggestions as to more relevant searches? But even on these I think we have a case for removing the notability tag. Andrewa (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Note also the parallel drawn above to the Asterix series, I'd suggest that eventually, each of the original Railway Series books at least will have its own article, each of them with a plot summary referenced from primary sources.

See List of Asterix volumes for the corresponding page regarding the Asterix series of books. Andrewa (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Removing the tags

Interested in any further comments, particularly from User:Yodin. But in that there has been no reasonable objection, I still propose to remove the tags, leaving only the refimprove. Andrewa (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I have now removed the primary sources tag. I would also have removed the notability tag, but User:Maclean25 just beat me to it. Andrewa (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Table suggestion

It was suggested above that a table format might be appropriate, and the question was asked as to whether a suitable template exists to create one.

It seems likely that no such template exists. List of James Bond novels and short stories does not use it if so... it uses simple Wikitext table syntax.

(And just BTW, it lists plot details similarly to this list, many if not all of them from primary sources. But it does have quite a reflist, including both primary and secondary sources.) Andrewa (talk) 03:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

List of Asterix volumes and List of James Bond novels and short stories are both good examples; would you be willing to do a similar thing here Andrewa, with a table? As for your request for more comments above Andrew, I'm ok with removing these tags as long as we bring up the standard of the article too! SummerPhDv2.0 - I agree with you on the fancruft - thanks for cropping it as you have - but we're all on the same side here, and Andrewa is showing loads of enthusiasm to fix what I think we're all agreed is at the moment a pretty bad article (though not one to be deleted). If anyone wants to save the info, then please migrate it to a fan wiki (Wikia seems to have at least 2: here & here), where fans can go to find this level of detail; the aim of lists like this is to give a much more general overview as with the examples above. Cheers! ‑‑Yodin^T 21:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

More than willing Yodin ... let us see what we end up with when SummerPhDv2.0 has finished their current program. I might even see whether I can interest one of our template writers in creating a suitable template. It would make future maintenance of the article a lot simpler. Andrewa (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Another related task is adding some (sourced) plot summaries to List of Thomas & Friends episodes, which might give me some experience with tables of this sort. Comments at Talk:List of Thomas & Friends episodes#Plot summaries. Andrewa (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye on the page @SummerPhDv2.0:; following Andrewa's suggestion above, have you finished your initial clearback, to let us reformat the article? ‑‑Yodin^T 10:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't wait for me. There is too much garbage here for me to do it alone in any kind of reasonable time frame. Every time I stop by, I pick a section at random and find that someone finds something in that book "very reminiscent" of something they half remember, the book is "probably" the basis for one of the cartoons, unsourced setting years and other such cruft. As always, if anyone sees me remove something that they feel is significant and/or can source, have at it. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

My problem is that I see a risk that you will remove material that can and should be sourced. I haven't seen you do this I admit, but I have no time to check your contributions individually, and my experience with contributors who describe the work of others as garbage, cruft and fancruft leads me to fear this very much. I hope I am wrong.

I don't want any sort of edit war. So my intention is to wait until I have some time and the article seems stable, and then make a judgement as to which is the best version of the article as a basis for development. Hopefully it will be the then current version, and none of your work will be wasted. Andrewa (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

There is a risk that I will remove material which may be correct, non-trivial and sourceable. There should be room in your mind for the competing risk that the article contains material which is incorrect, trivial, original research, guesswork, fancruft and/or garbage. Wikipedia is not meant to be a random collection of facts about a subject. If you see material that has been removed that you feel may be significant, I would encourage you to look for a source. My general rule of thumb is that anything that no secondary source has discussed, it is likely trivial. Which book was the first one to end with "The End"? That is not encyclopedic. Is it best described as "trivia", "cruft" or "garbage"? It's a moot question. It is unsourced and not of general interest to the average reader. There are fan wikis dedicated to this series of books/cartoons/films. They are free to discuss every jot and tittle (and the fonts selected for same) of every early version of every poster for every cancelled episode if they would like. That is simply not in our scope. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Cruft etc

Replying to User:SummerPhDv2.0 03:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC):

There is indeed room in my mind for such things, and I agree that all such things should be removed. I will indeed find sources for anything I deliberately reinstate.

No, it's not garbage. But it may not be appropriate for Wikipedia. Our policy is to assume that it was added in error rather than in malice, and insulting those who added it may be fun but it is not helpful. I'd avoid the term unless it really is garbage, such as nonsense inserted by a vandal.

Similarly, I'd avoid the term fancruft or even cruft, particularly in your edit summaries. These terms appear nowhere in our policies or guidelines as far as I can see, so it's far more helpful to use the terms that do relate to the relevant guidelines (and only those, citing ones not relevant to that particular edit is not helpful either). This helps us all to avoid inadvertently reverting good edits, and probably far more important, it helps future contributors to find their way around our guidelines and get up to speed on what is acceptable.

(But some of the essays on cruft and fancruft are recommended reading if you use the terms at all. They do appear regularly in essays and discussion. Whether they are helpful even there is controversial.)

I'm not sure whether the factoid about The End is encyclopedic or not. There is much about the development of the author's thoughts that is encyclopedic. the conflict with artists, particularly over the realism or otherwise of Percy the Small Engine for example, appears in many reliable secondary sources. It would depend on exactly how the decision to include The End was made, and on whether this is documented in sources. Agree that without this information and a source, it is removable. But it's not garbage. It may well be WP:OR, or it may just be encyclopedic but unsourced. I do not at this stage know, and neither it appears do you.

I applaud your hard work and willingness to discuss, and hope you find this helpful. Andrewa (talk) 07:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC) Intent

To be clear: Much of the original research and synthesis that accumulates in kids' media articles is of no value to us. That is not to say it was created maliciously. Rather, it was likely created in ignorance of our policies and guidelines. Intent has nothing to do with value.

Yes, it is theoretically possible that any or all of the bits and pieces in various kids' media articles are from reliable secondary sources. It is possible they are from respected academic journals discussing the developmental impact on children reading the words "The End" at the end of a children's book. It is far more likely that the overwhelming majority are things someone noticed and wanted to share. They may be correct or not, but there is nothing to indicate that these factoids are significant.

We have three basic ways to approach this:

1) Ignore it. "Wikipedia: The encyclopedia that isn't an encyclopedia."

2) Identify and carefully screen each piece. Can I find a source for this? Can I deduce an argument for why the model of car that might be in an illustration might be relevant? Meanwhile, the cruft indiscriminate accumulation of insignificant details continues.

3) Apply a coarse screen. Is this basic information (author, date of publication, etc.)? Is its relevance obvious to the general reader? Is it likely to be simply factual (i.e., not synthesis or other original research)? If it fails on any of these, it needs work. Past experience shows that tags on kids' media articles are generally ignored. I am removing unsourced material. Feel free to question/revert/source/clarify as you see fit. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

It is deeply pejorative to take a slab of content and simply write it off as 'kids' stuff' and fancruft, just because it's not Batman.

The content on the Skarloey / Talyllyn and the Arlesdale / R&ER should be restored. This is stuff that was written by Awdry himself, as a contemporaneous record of the early preservation movement. Particularly for the Talyllyn, it's possible to put individual names on the characters drawn. Particular events, buildings, even the documentary filming, are based on real events.

Anything post-Awdry though, do what you like. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not "writing anything off" as kids' stuff. The article concerns a line of children's books and, by extension, the children's television series based on them. As a result, it attracts lots of edits from children. Some of the content they add is not within the scope of our mission. Most of it is unsourced. Some of it is clearly original research and trivial. If you see something removed that you feel should remain, feel free to question/revert/source/clarify as you see fit. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

References needed

Primary sources

As observed above, much of this article as it was is clearly based on primary sources.

It is particularly important that we add references to these, for two reasons:

• Unsourced material may be removed.
• The fictional universe of Sodor is not entirely consistent. It's important that we identify exactly which version is being described.

Watch this space! Andrewa (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Thomas and the Great Railway Show - Clive Spong "rule" break claim

In the notes section for Thomas and the Great Railway Show it states that "Clive Spong broke a major rule in this volume. All the engines at the National Railway Museum, except Rocket, are illustrated with faces. The Rev. W. Awdry had insisted that engines should not have faces, unless on Sodor." Now I think I have read before, possibly in Brian Sibley's biography of the Rev. Awdry, that Awdry did indeed not want engines to be depicted with faces outwith Sodor. However this "rule" had been broken several times before this by Spong and earlier artists including in books by the Rev. Awdry. As early as 1952's Toby the Tram Engine, we see Toby with a face on a railway in England. In The Eight Famous Engines the Sodor engines are seen with faces on the mainland at the end of the book, though whether Awdry intended the "rule" to be applied to his fictional creations when they were not on Sodor is debatable. More significantly in 1963's Stepney the "Bluebell" Engine there is a scene of Stepney - like the engines in Thomas and the Great Railway Show a case of a real-life engines appearing in the books with a face - coming to Sodor passing through a station with diesels who have faces and another (famous) scene with faced steam engines being scrapped. In the context of the book, these scenes must take place on the UK mainland rather than sodor. At least two Christopher Awdry books illustrated by Spong had broken the "rule" prior to this book - Gordon the High Speed Engine - where engines are seen at Barrow with faces - and very prominently in Toby, Trucks and Trouble with the flashback scenes set on the LNER featuring several engines with faces. Thus it is unfair to highlight the breach in the supposed rule in the book and I would suggest that this claim is removed. Dunarc (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC) amended by Dunarc (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I have also thought of another couple of exceptions, including a very early one. In 1950's Troublesome Engines when Percy is purchased the workshop he is bought from (which presumably was not on Sodor) features him and other engines with faces. Enterprising Engines features scenes of Diesels with faces on the mainland in the scene depicting Oliver in hiding. Thus it is pretty clear that by the time of Thomas and the Great Railway Show, the "rule" had been broken several times by the illustrators of the Railway Series, including Reginald Dalby and Peter Edwards, and so Clive Spong's decision to show faced engines hear was not novel, and therefore I really do not think it is justifiable to include this claim. Dunarc (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Troublesome Engines - date

Is there any source for the 1930s date claim made here? The fact that Sir Topham Hatt is referred to as The Fat Controller in the book, would seem to suggest that it is dated after the creation of British Railways, placing it after 1948. Dunarc (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I am changing this as I have fished out my copy of The Island of Sodor: Its People, History and Railways and the Awdry brothers state that Percy came to Tidmouth in 1949, meaning the events of the book must take place in that year. Dunarc (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Old Stuck-Up date

Under Toby the Tram Engine it states "Old Stuck-Up which takes place in 1976". However the entry for James and the Diesel Engines dates it to having "possibly taken place before the real 40125 was withdrawn from service in May 1981 and scrapped in December 1983" and later in the same entry claims 1983. I think this needs standardised. Unless there is any evidence for the 1976 date I think the 1983 date is a safer bet. Dunarc (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Map

There was also a good-sized fold-out companion map published some time before the Rev stopped writing the books; I had a copy as a small Mr Larrington. Mr Larrington (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)