User talk:Signalhead/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



OK, then. Signalhead 16:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


I really have no wish to get into a major dispute. But Auschwitz I, which is the camp in the photo at the top of the article, was not an extermination camp. Auschwitz-Birkenau certainly was. But let us be clear as to what the article refers to, and indeed, what the Polish Government referred to. Both refer to Auschwitz-Birkenau, not to Auschwitz I.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 23:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The infobox refers specifically to the camps' (plural) status as a World Heritage Site. The photograph inside the infobox just happens to show the Auschwitz I camp. I would also draw your attention to the asterisk after the title in the infobox, and associated external link. Signalhead 23:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Freshman Guitars

Made some changes to the Freshman article. Check it out and see if it is ok. Garyguitarist 13:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say it's better now. Signalhead 20:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Inverness and Perth Junction Railway

Hi - as you have seen I have added a few more historic lines this evening. I would welcome you casting you eye over the Inverness and Perth Junction Railway. Decided that the Aberfeldy Branch was best incorporated.

My next targets are Perth and Dunkeld Railway and Scottish Midland Junction Railway to complete the route between Inverness and Perth, this will be followed by the Inverness and Aberdeen Junction Railway and associated lines heading east.. --Stewart 22:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Good work, as always, Stewart. Will keep an eye out for the new pages. Signalhead 22:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Chislehurst Junction

Thanks for the input into this article. Do you have a source for the information you changed? I was only going by the source I had, which was quite comprehensive in its coverage of the subject.  — superbfc talk | cont ] — 10:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

My information came from official documents describing the signalling and layout changes at Chislehurst Junction in 1959, 1983 and 1992/3. The Quail Maps will back me up on the correct nomenclature of the lines (i.e. Tonbridge Loops/Chatham Loops). That "Kent Rail" website, although very interesting, contains a lot of factual errors in relation to Chislehurst Junction, and these have found their way onto Wikipedia as a result of being the article's primary source. Kent Rail's layout diagram of Chislehurst even shows the signal box in completely the wrong place. Signalhead 20:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. If you have a source, please provide it when making edits. It is probably the most important policy of Wikipedia.  — superbfc talk | cont ] — 01:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikpedia is a collective project. There's nothing stopping you editing it yourself. I only reverted the changes you made as they contradicted a cited source. I think you should go ahead and do it.  — superbfc talk | cont ] — 23:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

More on Historical Railway Companies

Hi, Two more Historical Railways added today - Perth and Dunkeld Railway and Scottish Midland Junction Railway. Not happy with the SMJR route with respect to the lines to Newtyle. My information indicates that these lines were absorbed and "upgraded" to form part of the SMJR.

Also not sure how to develop an article for the SNER as it is essentially an amalgamation of various companies, prior to becoming part of the Caledonian Railway. Should there also be a section added to the CR article?

Your thoughts would be very helpful. --Stewart 21:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Fairlie (Low)

Can you help with this? RAILSCOT identifies a Fairlie (Low) station just to the north of the tunnel. Jowett identifies a Goods station as Fairlie Harbour. In 1971 Fairlie Pier station was closed, leaving the only remaining station Fairlie which at one time was called Fairlie High. Can you shed any light on Fairlie (Low)? Discussion with Dreamer84 has put a doubt in my mind. --Stewart 22:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Apart from on RailScot, I've never seen any reference to a Fairlie Low station, unlike Fairlie High which I can find numerous references to. It might just be an erroneous reference to Fairlie Pier, which would be like referring to Helensburgh Central as Helensburgh Lower. Signalhead 22:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

comment request

Hi there, would you be so kind as to provide an indepenant neutral opinion of the image Construccionkaiserrick.jpg at the section of the same name on the talk page of Richmond Medical Center here please? Thank you very much as this may help to alleviate a current debate over its inclusion.CholgatalK! 01:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Lanarkshire and Dunbartonshire stations

Thanks for correcting my typos - the dreaded copy and paste got to me and you then picked up some of my errors just before I did. --Stewart (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Pollokshields railway station

Hi Stewart. The above article currently has wikilinks to Shields Road railway station and Shields railway station, which redirect back to Pollokshields railway station. My first thought was to remove these self-links, or is it the intention to eventually have separate articles for each station? Signalhead 19:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that separate articles are appropriate for all three stations. Which is the ultimate to use I am not sure? I took the easy way out with Pollokshields railway station and redirected the other two to this one, however I think Shields Road railway station is more appropriate. There is also the issue of disambiguation with Pollokshields East railway station and Pollokshields West railway station. --Stewart (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Uplawmoor (L&A) railway station

An anonymous editor is stating that this station was closed due to a train crash. I cannot find any reference to a crash here. I have put a query on the talk page, can you help? --Stewart (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It's probably rubbish. I see that this edit is his sole contribution to date. Signalhead 21:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Crianlarich Junction

Thanks for the correction. Was a bit confused by the description in the Crianlarich Lower railway station article. For the area covered two boxes seemed a bit excessive. Having read the article again I guess this was my misunderstanding of the description, thinking that the Upper junction was the East junction. --Stewart (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Borlänge Airport coordinates are wrong?

Ref: Borlänge Airport Hello The coordinates are those for Arvika Airport some 160 km SW of Borlänge! I found that when I flew Google earth over my birthplace. Do you know how to change this? Regards Holger Joné

Stenbacksstigen 12 SE 181 62 Lidingö, Sweden Tel +468 76 61 261 mobile +4670 653 8150 E-mail: Homepage:[] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about that, sorry. Signalhead 20:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Check on my edit requested

I added an image to Centralized traffic control. I believe what I've said in the caption is correct, but I'm pretty ignorant of the subject, I just happen to have taken the photo. Could you please check my work? Also, you might want to click through to the image page on Commons and see if you can add usefully to the description. Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 01:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello. As I'm British, my experience of CTC is limited, but I understand CTC as being a system for controlling long and relatively featureless railways over great distances. The interlocking machine in your photo was clearly used to control a small, but fairly complex, localised area. Interesting photo, but I suspect that it isn't relevant to the CTC article at all but could be a useful addition to another article, possibly Interlocking tower. Signalhead 15:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


Please see this discussion: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MilesM11. It appears User:MilesM11 has modified his userpage to possibly attack you, against Wikipedia:User page policy. You're invited to comment. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 22:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for correcting my spelling. --Stewart (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Numbers of Platforms at Stations

I have left a message at User talk: following the reversion of the number of platforms at Waverley and Haymarket. This user has also amended the numbers at Thirsk and Markinch, however I do not have enough knowledge to be sure of thses. You might wish to take a look. --Stewart (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming the number of platforms at Waverley. It has gone quiet on the Haymarkey front after I post pictures of Platform 0 of the talk pages of those who were insist that there were only four platforms. --Stewart (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Yesterday and today, there has been an issue with at least three users randomly altering platform numbers on various railway station articles, the first one being User:Farlack913 who has a history of causing vandalism. Perhaps it's the same person using different accounts or not logged in? I reverted all his changes after checking the Quail maps. Signalhead 21:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Bo'ness and Kinneil Railway

Thanks for turning this round. Still having difficulty with the legacy arrangement back in the days of the Slamannan and Borrowstounness Railway‎. --Stewart (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Railway Signalling

I suggest you find out something about the subject before reverting articles to incorrect information. I B Wright 12:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Considering you are an active professional railway signalling engineer I find the above comment from I B Wright strange. --Stewart (talk) 12:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
If he is an active signal engineer (which I doubt) then how come he thinks all the lower quadrant signals were replaced by upper quadrant. They weren't except where lower quadrant signalled tracks were taken over by companies that had adopted upper quadrant. Those companies that adopted lower quadrant, stuck with them. Even British Rail stuck with them; railtrack stuck with them and even Network Rail has not abandoned them - at least not yet. I B Wright 13:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The anonymous editor added more factual errors to the Home signal article than he purported to put right. I will respond in greater detail on the article's talk page when I have time. Please tell me though, where exactly did I say that all lower quadrant signals had been replaced? With over twenty years' experience as a signalling engineer in the UK, I am well aware that this isn't so. Signalhead 14:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The edit you reverted to claimed that lower quadrant signals had been largely replaced by upper quadrant because of fail safe characteristics. That is quite untrue. As I said above they were only replaced if the controlling company taking over a line had adopted upper quadrant signalling. Noweher else were they replaced. You will note that provided a citation for his edit - something that you failed to do for your revert. You thus broke 2 Wikipedia rules (and replacing cited material with uncited inaccurate material qualifies as vandalism). As you reverted it, you take responsibility for it.
I have the book refers to and a few others besides. They all make reference to the heavy weighting of the spectacle glass for the lower quadrant signal precisely so that it is weighted to return to the danger position in case of cable failure. Such signals would not have survived into the 21st century if the situation were otherwise. Therefore your reversion was quite wrong. All it needs now is someone to put the citation in the right place. I B Wright 15:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you just admit that you are the anonymous editor? The references to the Cornish Main Line are a dead giveaway. Signalhead 20:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
If you think that that editor and myself are the only two people on the planet who are aware that much of Cornwall is lower quadrant signalled, you really should get out a bit more. I also noted that that editor responded to your points on the article discussion page. I note that that response and the entry in the history have been removed. I am aware that many people have found ways of removing evidence from the history, but if I thought it was you, then I would get your account blocked for a flagrant breach of the rules. I B Wright 17:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
For the record, if I log out, my sig becomes my IP address of: 18:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC). Oh look it's not even close.
My own IP address changes each time that I connect to the Internet. It is perfectly possible that yours does too. And I'm sure it was you who anonymously contributed some wildly inaccurate information concerning SPAD indicators a few weeks back, that I had to rewrite. Oh, and if you maintain that that is your true IP address, then I guess that makes you a serial vandal. Signalhead 18:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I did spot an error in the slotting of the 2 arm (stop/distant) but as the citation has it right, I assume it was a typo. I've corrected it. I B Wright 15:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I do not claim that the earlier version of the article was perfect, but I firmly believe that the recent change introduced more errors than it fixed. Trying to portray me as a vandal for reverting false information, citations or not, is frankly absurd and you are sailing dangerously close to being in breach of WP:CIVIL. Given that one single edit introduced so many changes to the article it leaves only two options: revert all, or trying to correct the changes. I chose the former because in my opinion, those changes made the article much worse. If the article had been altered over a series of edits it would be easier to deal with each point on its own. As it is, I will comment on the various points on the article's talk page. Signalhead 16:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I am nowhere near to being in breach of WP:CIVIL. Removing correct material that is cited is vandalism. ergo: you are a vandal. Now what are you going to do about it? I B Wright 17:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
To quote another user's comment on your talk page: "You seem to be confused... as to what vandalism is". Once this has all blown over, do feel free to apologise to me for your recent outbursts. Signalhead 18:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
You said: The edit you reverted to claimed that lower quadrant signals had been largely replaced by upper quadrant because of fail safe characteristics. If you take the trouble to check, you will see that I actually removed that piece of text from the article in a separate edit, at 22:31 on 25 October 2007. That was before you stuck your nose in, so I don't know what you're on about. Signalhead 16:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, but the original edit came from elsewhere. I merely reverted cited material that was deleted by a vandal. Further, in accordance with the purpose of the wikipedia environment, I'll stick my nose where I damn well please. If you don't like it, Wikipedia's own advice is, 'sod off' (not the exact words but that's the gist). Similarly, if you don't know anything about the subject (as you clearly don't) then leave the article to those who do. I B Wright 17:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Please keep a civil tongue in your head. Once you have calmed down, go and have a look at the points that I have raised in the article's talk page and then address them one by one. Signalhead 17:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Seeing as you think that I "don't know anything about the subject", let me just tell you that:
  • I am employed as a signalling design engineer, and have been for more than twenty years. - What about you?
  • I passed the Institution of Railway Signal Engineers' signalling examination, first time, at the age of 22. - You?
  • I have written several articles on various aspects of railway signalling, modern and old. One of these was judged by the Signalling Record Society as their best article of the year, winning me an award. - And you?
I guess that means U B Wrong. Signalhead 19:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I guess not. You don't know anything about the subject. I don't suppose your training and exams covered 19th century signal engineering - other than as a footnote.. I await your providing credible citations (and I note that the citation at the bottom of the article is not a credible one). By the way you reverted the article for a third time putting you in clear breach of the 3 reverts rule WP:3RR.
Your contention that most of the railway companies started out with lower quadrant signals and changed to upper is just plain absurd. Since the upper quadrant offers no justifiable advantage over the lower quadrant (other than being cheaper as it avoids using a relativley expensive casting for the spectacle glass), there is no way that the money men would have released funding for such a pointless exercise. And if the directors forced them to do so, they would be crucified at the next shareholders' meeting (which I have little doubt would be an extraordinary one).
The fact is that most of the companies who installed semaphore signalling installed upper quadrant signals right from the start. They did not replace lower quadrant for the reasons outlined above. The only reason upper quadrant was developed was, as I said, to avoid the expense of the spectacle glass casting. The spectacle glasses were built into the arm itself. Having paid out the money to install lower quadrant, there is no justification whatsoever to replace it with upper quadrant. There is no technical advantage. There is no operational advantage. There is purely a financial penalty. I B Wright 08:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that you actually read WP:3RR before you wrongly accuse me of breaching it. It says: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." Two things:
  • I have reverted the erroneous material three times, not more than three times.
  • My reversions were not made within a 24-hour period.
If this is a demonstration of your attention to detail, then it's no wonder you are introducing factual errors into articles.
If you will take the trouble to research early signalling, as I have done, you will learn that even as late as 1925 the Ministry of Transport's "Requirements" mandated that all semaphore signals, apart from three-position signals, are to operate in the lower quadrant. The advantages of upper quadrant signals were already recognised at that time, and it was the decision to abandon three-position semaphores that allowed the railway companies to begin converting their two-position signals to UQ type. Only the GWR stuck with its LQ signals. I urge you to take your head out the sand, stop spitting venom, and just accept that you have got it wrong. It's for your own benefit. Signalhead 11:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


Just so you know, awhile is a perfectly valid word in many contexts. Most of your edits seem to be changing this word in quotes, which is a no-no. CloudNine 23:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to avoid changing any that appear in quotes, unless the words were spoken rather than written. Signalhead 23:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ismism is a real religion.

I understand that Ismism dosent sound like a real reliegon but in all honesty it is. Please do not delete my contributions to the Ism page. Thank you.

Please provide a credible citation for that (and please sign your comments too). Signalhead 18:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism userbox

I saw your userbox saying your userpage was vandalized 8 times. If I were to edit that userbox to say your userpage was vandalized 9 times, would you revert it as vandalism? If you did, then you would then have to put down that it had been vandalized 9 times, in which case why would you even revert the edit? But if you didn't, that means it isn't vandalism, in which case your userpage would still have been vandalized 8 times, so it is vandalism, so it should be reverted. But if it is vandalism, it shouldn't be reverted because it's true. So, can you solve this paradox?Smartyllama 19:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think I'll ponder that if and when it happens! Anyway, thanks for putting it to me; you've made me smile. Signalhead 19:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Railway Signalling

Good evening!

I've not contributed to wikipedia for a while and will probably continue to not do so, but I'm just saying hello as an S&T man myself :-)

Cleaned up treadle (railway) a bit earlier.

--BesigedB (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello there! Thanks for dropping by my talk page. I hope that you can make some more contributions to the signalling articles here. Signalhead 23:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ismism (again)

Ok I was sent by my priest to add an Ismism page to wikipedia. My priest is however a technaphobe and is for the moment unwilling to get an e-mail so that you can confirm that Ismism is a real reliegon. I am attempting to get him to make an e-mail adress. Thank you for your cooperation.

Rusty Shakelford 18:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I really don't care. -- Signalhead (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Carstairs South v. Strawfrank

I will bow to your more recent knowledge, however I was taking information from O.S. Nock's book Electric Euston to Glasgow (Plate 18 and page 140) which identifies the junction as Strawfrank. When was it renamed (and why??) --Stewart (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The junctions were renamed in 1972 when the Carstairs area was resignalled and the mechanical signal boxes there (which were known by the old junction names) were closed. Strawfrank Junction became Carstairs South Junction and Dolphinton Junction became Carstairs East Junction. The Quail Map books show the current names as do official sources.
It's not uncommon for fairly obscure local names to disappear as part of a large resignalling scheme, in favour of better-known names with East/West etc. suffixes. As another example, Mossend East and South Junctions had formerly been called Fullwood Junction and Milnwood Junction, respectively. Signalhead (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for this - the 1974 O.S. Nock book chronicaling the electrification had confused me by refereing to the old name and I had not looked at the Quail Maps. --Stewart (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


than you for help in editing my page!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


I am experiencing a degree of fustration with this editor, as he is making inaccurate edits and not taking care when creating wikilinks and with his spelling. His recent comment about deleted images make me think that he is unaware of image policy. Your responses make me think have a similar fustration. Any thoughts? --Stewart (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I share your frustration. I've been keeping an eye on his edits, as I think you have been too. Although he has a history of blatant vandalism, his more recent troublesome edits appear to be the result of incompetence more than anything else. I've occasionally had to tidy up after the damage that he's done when attempting to edit infoboxes. He appears to be unaware of how to revert to an earlier version when he really messes up, or even that he can preview his edit before saving. When he realises that he's made a mess of it, he perhaps has a couple of goes at fixing it then gives up and leaves somebody else to sort it out. Signalhead 21:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Awhile verses a while

I've ran several changes you've made through formal grammar check and the change is personal preference on your part, not grammatically incorrect. IrishLass 21:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"For awhile" is never correct usage. I accept that 'awhile' can mean 'for a short time'. That means that 'for awhile' is equivalent to writing 'for for a short time'. Please read this. Signalhead 21:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
What you are apparently not understanding is that the passages have been checked via a professional grammar check and your changes are noted as personal preference. IrishLass 21:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I do understand what you said. Just type "grammar awhile" into Google and it is quite clear that 'for awhile' is considered bad grammar by many. It is not simply a case of personal preference, so why revert to a form of words that is considered incorrect by some to a form which is presumably acceptable to all? Signalhead 21:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Dundee and Perth Railway

Oops - thanks for correcting the title. I did the template yesterday whilst waiting for a flight home from Heathrow and as always I welcome your peer checking of my work. --Stewart (talk) 12:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Inverness and Aberdeen Junction Railway‎

Do you fancy looking at this route map. Jowett and RAILSCOT disagree with the branches off this route. --Stewart (talk) 12:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look over it and here are my comments:
  • Forres - the platform was within a triangular junction, with faces on all three sides (could be a challenge to depict on the map).
  • Kinross - should be named 'Kinloss'.
  • Junction shown at Mulben should be at Orton.
  • Keith - the branch platform is still used by First ScotRail trains - both 'blobs' should be coloured red.
Did I miss anything? Signalhead (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Changes made - Forres is a challenge. Still not sure which is more accurate - Jowett or RAILSCOT? --Stewart (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't have Jowett, so I can't compare the two, but I don't see anything obviously wrong on the Railscot map. Signalhead (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)