User talk:Signalhead/Archive 4

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

Interlocking tower / Signal box merger

I don't agree with your merger, but I don't feel like fighting it. I have removed all of the now blatantly "non worldwide" bits that I wrote from the page because they don't belong in an article about Signalboxes. Thanks for ruining my article, I was just about to get down to finishing it.Sturmovik (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You haven't made a single edit to "your article" since 17 July. –Signalhead < T > 16:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes I'm a bit lazy and I was actually found time today. Unfortunately since you decided to ruin it it looks like that won't be happening. I guess I'll be making some new articles on North American Intelrocking Machines and North American Interlocking Practice. BTW, Interlocking Tower should not point to Signalbox. There is more relevant information at the Interlocking page.
Instead of creating new articles solely concerned with North American practice, why not add some NA information to the existing articles, thereby improving their worldwide relevance? Of course 'interlocking tower' should redirect to 'signal box', since they are pretty much the same thing. They are both names for buildings where signalling control is exercised from, whereas 'interlocking' refers to the safety apparatus. –Signalhead < T > 17:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Signalbox is NOT the generic worldwide term. If there was a worldwide article on this you would have a point, but instead you want to shoehorn the North American information into the page devoted to the British Practice "signaling thinggie". A signalbox is not an interlocking tower and neither is a Strellewerke (or however its spelled). Each general practice is either unique enough for its own page or deserving of equal billing on a neutral globalized page.Sturmovik (talk) 17:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I have never claimed that 'signal box' is a generic worldwide term. No such term exists, but we have to call the article something. If you have a better suggestion, I'm happy to listen. –Signalhead < T > 17:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
My suggestion was to have separate articles for each major signaling practice.Sturmovik (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
BTW, don't think that any sort of consensus was reached. I didn't participate in the discussion as much as I could have because I didn't sense any urgency in the matter or threat of real follow through. Yeah that was my fault, but you shouldn't try to claim any high ground, especially when you won't even bother to my point about Interstates, Motorways and Autobahns all having separate articles. Anyway, let me know when you make a globally generic page and in the meanwhile you might want to buck up the Signalbox page a bit, its looking a little thin.Sturmovik (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Brotzman, four editors were in favour of the merge and two were against. That's as near to a concensus as we're going to get. You didn't bother to respond to my "car"/"automobile" comparison (that was way back in July), so it's a bit unfair to expect me to reply to yours instantly. –Signalhead < T > 18:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

3 Reverts rule

You have now reverted an article 3 times (token (railway signalling))and have thus breached the Wikipedia 3 reverts rule.

Wikipedia:Three-revert rule

A formal report has been made.

Please remember that you do not own Wikipedia or its articles. If you cannot live with this then don't bother to contribute.

86.133.161.143 (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh and you can't block me because my provider uses a dynamic IP address (that is it changes every time I log on). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.161.143 (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

When will you learn to read things properly? A breach of WP:3RR occurs when more than three reverts are made within a 24 hour period. I have reverted twice. –Signalhead < T > 22:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What are you on about?

Why have you asked me about the three reverts rule? I haven't made more than three reverts in 24 hours for some considerable time (and then it was in connection with vandalism so doesn't count anyway.)

I note that you have made some changes to 'token (railway signalling)', but much of what I added has remained. As I haven't reverted anything in that article, I am at a loss to understand what you are on about.

Why have you also decided to rake up some ancient edit. Are you trying to make some subtle point?

I B Wright (talk) 08:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, and when I hit the 'Save Page' and it takes me to your discusion page, all becomes a little clearer. Sorry to disillusion you but, not guilty I'm afraid. I B Wright (talk) 08:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC). And for the avoidance of doubt, I'm I.B.Wright whose computer IP address is 20.133.0.13 (talk) 08:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
That proves nothing, I'm afraid. Many people nowadays have access to more than one computer. –Signalhead < T > 08:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm very sorry you feel that way. I don't know what your problem is or anyone elses, but your evidence is wrong and certainly tenuous at best - and I don't have to prove anything, you are the one making unwarranted an malicious allegations, not me. With your apparent attitude (and it doesn't seem to have changed), I don't expect an apology. I edit Wikipedia when I am bored at work (which is often as I only get busy when things go wrong - it's what I do). I have far better things to do outside of worktime. Incidentally, I have no connection with the South West of England having never lived there and only ever got as far as Devon in my younger days. I am debating whether to file an abuse report against yourself. I B Wright (talk) 10:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Go for it. I have nothing to hide. –Signalhead < T > 11:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
The following is an extract from an e-mail received from Wikipedia that was received on yesterday afternoon. This extract particularly concerns you as it outlines the rules that you persistently ignore.
<Quote>
It is not acceptable for users to delete contributions from other users, unless such a contribution comprises deliberate vandalism of an article.
The required procedure should a user take issue with the factual accuracy or even style of a contribution is to append a [citation needed] tag inviting the other user to provide a citation or justification. Alternatively (and often more appropriately), the matter can be discussed on the article talk page.
It is completely unacceptable for a user to just delete material that he or she disagrees with no matter how much of an authority they think they may be on the subject matter. Such vandalism is called ‘blanking’ and is discussed on the Wikipedia:Vandalism help page. Blanking of material in the manner you described is against the principles on which Wikipedia is based. It is certainly totally unacceptable for any ordinary user to self appoint his or her self as any form of arbitrator as to what may or may not appear in Wikipedia. Where evidence of persistent blanking exists, we may consider revoking the ability of an offender to edit articles either temporarily or permanently.
</Quote>
Since you decided to play stupid games: what you started, I have decided to finish. As a result of the above response and your obviously arrogant attitude, I have now made a formal allegation (reproduced below). I B Wright (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
You received an email from Wikipedia? What's that supposed to mean? If you care to check WP:Verifiability, you'll notice that it says: Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed. It is not mandatory to place a {{Fact}} tag. If you wish to quote Wikipedia policy, kindly provide a link to the relevant part of Wikipedia itself, and not some supposed email that you made up. –Signalhead < T > 18:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Separate

Thank you. You have cured me of one of my few remaining problem words. Tom Green (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent!–Signalhead < T > 17:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Station Navbox position

I've noticed that there's some inconsistency in the position of the station navbox in the West Highland Line station articles (and probably others too). Do you have a preference? I feel it should always be right at the bottom of the page. –Signalhead < T > 14:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

My preference is to put it with the services section, as to my mind it gives information on services. --Stewart (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Grammar

Cheers, maybe one day I'll learn each other is not a compound. Tony2Times (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Allegation of persistent vandalism, abuse of other contributors, ‘ownership’ of articles and bringing Wikipedia into disrepute.

The text of my complaint is reproduced for your information.

<Quote>

I wish to make an allegation of persistent Vandalism against the owner of the account ‘Signalhead’ for repeated vandalism of articles, to which: deletion of material edited into those articles which Signalhead disagrees with their being there, such contributions being legitimate edits and not vandalism in themselves (other than Signalhead unilaterally deciding that he doesn't want them there).

The articles in question are on a railway subject matter and it is clear that Signalhead has unilleterally appointed himself as an ‘expert’ who has decided to ‘own’ the articles and persistently arbitrates on what material may or may not be edited into the article. I refer in particular to three articles, 'Home Signal'; ‘Token (Railway Signalling)’ and ‘Signal Passed at Danger’ (And I must thank Signalhead himself for providing the evidence of that last article where he tried to use a claimed erroneous edit as evidence of a false claim of sockpupetry – it has become clear that another contributor (or even contributors) feel the same way I do).

Whenever edits are made to those articles, Signalhead has often just deleted (vandalism:blanking) the edit claiming the information is just wrong or ‘erroneous’ without permitting any discussion on the point. Further the blanking takes place anything from a few minutes to a few hours which clearly demonstrates that Signalhead is watching the articles to make sure that no ‘unsuitable’ material is placed there and to ensure that he can delete any material which he believes is incorrect. This demonstrates an arrogant ‘know it all’ attitude to other Wikipedia contributors and is, against the principles on which Wikipedia is based. This unacceptable behaviour brings wikipedia into disrepute by discouraging legitimate contributors from actually contributing to the content of articles.

For my own part, I specifically refer to Signalhead’s blanking of an edit at 16:44 on the 15th September to article ‘Token (railway signalling)’, with an edit summary of ‘Removed Erroneous comments …’ because he thinks he knows better (vandalised within 4 hours). Signalhead also vandalised the article ‘Home Signal’ at 11:42 27th October 2007 when he blanked an edit from another contributor in the article with the familiar ‘Reverted erroneous edit’ justification, within 3 hours of the contribution, again because he claimed to know better. I reverted this blanking when I added an illustration that supported the blanked text. However, Signalhead just vandalised the article again by blanking the edit at 17:07 on the 27th October 2007 with a ‘Reverted to earlier and better version’ justification, less than 2 hours after the restoration. Signalhead did add something to the article discussion page, but regardless of that he had no right to just blank the contribution no matter how much of an authority he thinks he may be on the subject matter. He should have discussed the matter first and then the article should have been adjusted by consensus.

I note that another contributor has also expressed exasperation with Signalhead's persistent blanking and adjudication of article content in a somewhat more unorthadox manner.

I offer the short times between contribution and blanking and the blanking itself as evidence that Signalhead is watching ‘his’ articles and deleting any ‘unsuitable’ (in his eyes) content.

With Signalhead’s apparent familiarity of finding his way around Wikipedia, I find it hard to believe that he is unaware of the rules.

I must therefore insist that Signalhead’s editing rights be permanently revoked for the following reasons.

1. Persistent blanking of other contributors edits which constitutes persistent vandalism.

2. Arroganct contempt towards other Wikipedia contributors by adopting an attitude that he knows better than everyone else (which is a clear abuse of those contributors). Even to the extent of making false allegations to detract from his own violation of the rules.

3. Adopting a self appointed role of deciding what can and can’t be contributed to articles which he has decided to ‘own’ and thus …

4. Acting in a manner to bring Wikipedia into disrepute.

I B Wright (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

</Quote>

Glad you got that off your chest, eh? What a shame your 'report' wasn't taken seriously and got deleted. –Signalhead < T > 18:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Kaiser Naseem

yo why do you keep editing that page...im from pakistan i know more about mr. naseem than you do... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.234.34 (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

s —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.234.34 (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I know nothing at all about this person. The purpose of my edit was to clean the article up and to remove one statement that was in breach of Wikipedia's policy on maintaining a neutral point of view. Please always use correct capitalisation and punctuation in your contributions, and please also remember to sign all your comments on talk pages. –Signalhead < T > 20:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

again? whats wrong man?

Please see above. –Signalhead < T > 20:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

okay i'll change that sentence...other than that I think my formatting was better/neater. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.234.34 (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The formatting was a complete mess before I cleaned it up... The continuity of the lines was broken (probably the result of copying & pasting) and the headings did not comply with Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Once again, please sign you comments. –Signalhead < T > 20:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry bro but your English is wrong. its not On the MAy 29th 2002 issue...it's in the May 29th 2002 issue of so and so...As for the formatting, it looks much better double spaced. Please leave this article alone as there are many more articles which are of greater importance to you. I have done a lot of research on this person —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawn News Pakistan (talk • contribs) 04:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

man not in the may 29...its in the may 29th...AND why do you want that to be a separate paragraph...i didnt undo it cuz i wanted a compromise...please man don't do unnecessary stuff. i'll appreciate it. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawn News Pakistan (talk • contribs) 19:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

okay sorry bout that bro and thanks...btw i dont know how to sign —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawn News Pakistan (talk • contribs) 20:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

pyneapl under the c

somebody must've mentioned it's a yellow sub in the sun of this course we're on. be optimistic about what subbing is all about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MistyHora (talk • contribs) 06:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Errr..? –Signalhead < T > 20:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

GSM-R

Good Afternoon,

I would just like to ask why it is you keep deleting any form of addition I make to the GSM-R page.

I must admit that the first entry regarding funkwerk and their addition to the UK GSM-R market was bias towards Funkwerk. This is why I reworded this to only acknowledge the fact that Funkwerk were also taking part in trials in the Glasgow region.

You have removed this and the link to the funkwerk kolleda website posted in external links citing "Advertising" as your reson. However I disagree with this and would like to refer to the inclusion, in the previous sentence to mine, stating that Siemens Transportation Systems are doing trials.

The inclusion of Siemens links, in both the main body of text and a link to the STS website in external links, combined with only naming siemens associated companies and using Siemens GSM-R technology in pictures on this page also seems like advertising.

With the point of wikipedia being to inform without bias, I believe deleting any reference to funkwerk technology or trials which they are undertaking to replace it with only siemens marketing is counterproductive. Either the site should be free to name all companies whom are contributing significantly to the development of GSM-R for the UK market or it should not include any specific companies.

I look forward to hearing your views on this subject.

Many Thanks

ABuckley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.236.130 (talk) 13:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello,
Mentioning company names in articles is justifiable in many circumstances and so is linking to a company's website, e.g. if the article is about that company. Your earlier edits however, included words such as "market leader", "well known for offering the best service quality parameters" and "provide the highest security standards" and were blatantly intended to promote a particular company (which you presumably represent). Although your latest edits have left out those words, it still appears to me that your sole objective here is not to improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, but to advertise a business. See WP:NOT, WP:LINKSPAM and WP:COI for more information on Wikipedia policy. Here are some key quotes:
  • Wikipedia is not a directory
  • Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam.
  • Many times users can be confused by the removal of spam links because other links that could be construed as spam have been added to the article and not yet removed. The inclusion of a spam link should not be construed as an endorsement of the spam link, nor should it be taken as a reason or excuse to include another.
  • COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where an editor must forgo advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.
–Signalhead < T > 18:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Bathgate line platforms

Could you add the date of bringing into service to the infoboxes. --Stewart (talk | edits) 17:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think that a change to the number of platforms is a significant enough event to go into the infobox. I can't find any precedent for putting it in (see Gretna Green, Haymarket and Edinburgh Waverley for other recently enlarged stations in Scotland). –Signalhead < T > 18:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Fridn

An article that you have been involved in editing, Fridn, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fridn. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Livingston North railway station and User:Forthbridge

Hi - Can you have a look at the Livingston North article, especially the History section. Forthbridge (talk · contribs) who opened their account on 17 May 2008, but only started being an active editor today has concerns about the section being too wordly and added a cleanup template. I am relucant to remove detail placed by other about the construction of the 1986 station and the 2008 construction. I would welcome you casting your eye over the article. --Stewart (talk | edits) 21:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take a look. –Signalhead < T > 22:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Kirknewton railway station

Reference is made to the Footbridge at Kirknewton being removed during electrification. This is misleading. The footbridge had been removed by 1982 (I do not have an exact date) - some years before electrification of the Edinburgh branch of the Caley. An accommodation footbridge crossed the line at Midcalder Jct, this was removed at electrification. I suspect confusion between the two. Forthbridge (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

That's fair enough. If the article is incorrect then please go ahead and amend it (and provide a reference, if at all possible). I didn't write the bit about the footbridge; I know nothing about that. –Signalhead < T > 16:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Without a specific reference, would you recommend simple removal of the reference? I don't think that there's a need to refer to the bridge at Midcalder Jct Forthbridge (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You're allowed to remove unreferenced material from articles, but since that probably applies to the majority of information in the railway station articles, judgement is needed. If you know that some information is definitely wrong or is too trivial to be encyclopedic then I would support its removal. If you suspect that information is wrong but aren't sure, you should first tag it with {{fact}} then remove it if nobody provides a reference within a month or so.–Signalhead < T > 16:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll tag it first Forthbridge (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Bathgate Upper

Hiya

Can you look over my addition to the history of Bathgate upper? Need some tidying? Forthbridge (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Done some tidying up (mainly wikilinks), however with reference to Jowett, I can find not mention of a Bathgate North Junction. Help..... --Stewart (talk | edits) 22:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
"The Register of Scottish Signal Boxes" indicates that Bathgate West signal box (and presumably also the junction) was re-named Bathgate North in 1903. –Signalhead < T > 22:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Ah - so Bathgate North and Bathgate West are one and the same. --Stewart (talk | edits) 23:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Bathgate central box was adjacent to the engine shed. West box was at west junction (the line headed north along what is now Menzies Road) Bathgate North Jct was precisely adjacent to the end of Gardner place. There is no signalbox marked on the 1912 map, but it is called Bathgate North Junction. A line ran south and reconnected on an east facing junction near Boghead bridge and colliery, no name is given to this as a junction Forthbridge (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not hugely au fait with the history of Bathgate's railways earlier than the re-opening to passengers so it'll take me a while to get the geography clear in my mind. I need to spend a bit of time looking at Google Maps and comparing my diagrams to see how the railways fitted in. –Signalhead < T > 23:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If this helps, here's a link to an 1856 map

[1]

Upper Station does not as yet exist, although you can see where it will be situated. You can see the line from the west heading up toward Bathgate lower. Bathgate west junction began just where '733' is marked on the map. This twin-track chord merged with the exisiting line where the '728' is marked, this is named 'Bathgate North Junction' on later maps. Essentially, Bathgate West junction allowed traffic up to Eason and Balbardie, and the Monkland line without needing to reverse. Curiously, as far as I can tell, the junction present in this map was never 'named' as such. A signalbox existed at 55.9016°N 3.6463°W - just at the edge of what is now the roundabout between South Bridge street and Glasgow road Forthbridge (talk) 13:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That's brilliant, thanks. Sadly, Google Maps/Google Earth aren't much help, seeing as the resolution of the images around Bathgate is rubbish.–Signalhead < T > 19:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

To be honest there isn't a lot to see - you can (just) make out the line of the tracks by some trees, but development has obliterated most of what was. Give me a shout if you need any more info Forthbridge (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

From what I've learnt while trying to make sense of it all, the recently added historical information in the Bathgate (Upper) article doesn't seem to be correct. It states that the station opened in 1849 as "Bathgate" and was re-named "Bathgate Upper" in 1865; but weren't they actually two separate stations? The original "Bathgate" station was a terminus (at the same location as the present station), while "Bathgate Upper" was a little to the south, on the through route?
I don't know where Eason and Balbardie are; were they on the line to Avonbridge and Slamannan?–Signalhead < T > 21:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
My source for the E&B Bathgate station was {{Butt-Stations}}. There have been some mistakes in Butt, but I get the feeling here that the two Bathgate stations - E&B and C&B - were both called Bathgate until the NBR took over who then called them Upper and Lower. (mix gently with the E&B being taken over by the E&G just before the E&G was taken over by the NBR. Confused??? --Stewart (talk | edits) 21:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
So where does the original E&B terminus station fit in? Was it closed when Bathgate (Upper) station opened (on the through route)? Yes, I'm confused... (and I'm about to add to the confusion by bringing the many junction re-namings into the discussion) –Signalhead < T > 21:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Opening date

Is the opening date of 12 November 1849 for Bathgate Upper station correct, or does that date apply only to the original E&BR terminus? –Signalhead < T > 18:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Page 29 of Butt gives an opening date of 12 November 1849 (by the E&B, also referencing the E&G), subsequently renamed to Bathgate Upper on 1 August 1865. --Stewart (talk | edits) 18:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
So was 12 November 1849 the opening date for both stations (the terminus and Upper)? Or were they originally regarded as one station? Does Butt have separate entries for both stations? I'm confused, because I'd assumed that the original (1849?) railway to Bathgate approached the town from the east as a branch line terminating on the site of the present station. I assume that the railway was then extended west (in 1865?) as a through route, diverging from the original line just east of the terminus, and running via a new ("Upper") station.–Signalhead < T > 18:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
This 1856 map shows the through railway existing, but there is no Upper station yet, just the original terminus. –Signalhead < T > 18:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Butt show the original (E&B) station of 1849 being renamed in 1865. Just to confuse matters, Butt also shows Bathgate (of the Monkland Railways) - same name - opening in 1856, being renamed by the NBR as Lower on the same date as the E&B/E&G station was renamed as Upper. --Stewart (talk | edits) 19:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I think the map proves that Butt is, in this case, wrong and that "Upper" was really a new and separate station. What do you think?–Signalhead < T > 19:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll try and help a little. Balbardie pit was located more or less where Bathgate Sports centre is today. Easton was about 100 yards north of the A89, if you look at local live, find Hope Park Gardens. It was located in the wooded area adjacent. The course of the line is visible. Only the very start of the Balbardie line (as it heads due east then north) is visible now, as well as a section (in the form of trees) adjacent to the sports centre. Now on to the Junctions. 'Bathgate West' specifically refers to the junction immediateely to the west of the platforms at Bathgate upper. It connected with the line to Bathgate lower at Bathgate North junction. The main purpose of this double track spur (which made a triangular affair) was to eliminate the need to reverse trains to access the northern lines, specifically once coal output in the area was at its height. Remember that from Bathgate upper (location) lines spread to a sandpit (in the middle of what is now the golf course), Boghead pit opened (virtually at Polkemmet Junction) as well as sidings into the foundry (Bathgate Market is now on this site) - as well as all the small pits dotted along the branches.

Dates are a little hard to come by however. Bathgate West Jn (and the spur) did not yet exist in 1896 (although Bathgate upper did). Goods trains required to reverse at Polkemmet Jn - one example being the 9.50AM from Slammannan to Ratho, which reversed at Polkemmet Jn at 11.10, passing Bathgate upper at 11.15. In short, the original Terminus (Bathgate) closed upon the opening of Bathgate upper, as most services extended west or east, with very little 'Bathgate only' passenger traffic. Lower station, of course, became virtually moribund in the 1920s - closing to passengers at an early date. It was distinct from Upper in that it never had any form of service other than to/from Blackston Junction (For passenger traffic) indeed in 1896 it had three passenger services (with two additional trains on Saturdays). Forthbridge (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

So are we all agreed that Bathgate Upper station did not open as early as 1849?
Turning to junction names, and using information taken from "The Register of Scottish Signal Boxes", I've compiled a table summarising the signal box (and therefore junction) renamings that occurred in 1903 and 1920:
Before 1903 1903 - 1920 1920 onwards
Bathgate West ----------> Bathgate North -----------> Bathgate North
Bathgate East ----------> Bathgate West ----------> Bathgate West
Bathgate Upper ----------> Bathgate East ----------> Bathgate Central
West Calder Branch Junction --> West Calder Branch Junction --> Bathgate East
When referring to any of these junctions, it's important to take into account that they didn't have the same names throughout their existence, and more importantly so as to avoid confusion, that certain names applied to different junctions during different periods.–Signalhead < T > 21:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not before 1849. The difficult part is fitting all this in. For instance (in basic terms) none of the junctions matter to Bathgate lower (except Polkemmet for freight traffic) as all services arrived and departed to Blackston. It's possible to adequately describe this. There was never a passenger service over the 'NBR Loop line' (this is the section from West to North Jn as marked on various maps), so for all purposes, Bathgate upper passenger trains continued to Airdrie or Edinburgh. The relevance of the myriad of lines only matters from the freight perspective, and might be better described in a separate article on the 'Railways of Bathgate', while station descriptions are kept purely on a 'more basic' level...? Forthbridge (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Historical Bathgate

Hi, I am beginning to think that some alteration is needed on the pages on Bathgate. Would it be acceptable to refer to the historic stations in the context of 'their time' as opposed to adding information on 'former' lines. A separate page could be made encompassing the development of the railway in Bathgate as a whole, covering some of the more complex stuff. Any thoughts?Forthbridge (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Up to now, we've generally put the historical stuff either in articles detailing complete railways, or in the individual railway station articles. If you think you have enough material to justify a separate article on Bathgate's railway history then I would say go ahead and create it. The main thing is to get all the information typed in. It can always be split up and moved into separate articles at a later date, if necessary. –Signalhead < T > 22:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a think over what's (apparently) the best way to start. We are up against it when even Network Rail qualify opening dates with 'Probably' (as in the case of Livingston Station). Out of interest, 1862(ish) seens a reasonable date for the Construction of Upper Station - note that this is when the B&C (Or new Monkland line) reached Bathgate - this was not doubled until 1904. See preamble here: [2] Forthbridge (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that the Bathgate's Railway History article is a good way to go. I am rapidly getting out of my depth. However if Forthbridge (talk · contribs) is up for it I am happy to put in some time looking at how it reads. It is evident that Butt has been confused by the history. His sources have been:
  • Jowett, Alan (March 1989). Jowett's Railway Atlas of Great Britain and Ireland: From Pre-Grouping to the Present Day (1st ed.). Sparkford: Patrick Stephens Ltd. ISBN 978-1-85260-086-0. OCLC 22311137.
  • Bradshaw timetables (1887, 1910, 1922, 1938)
  • RCH information
  • Clinker's REgister od Closed Stations and Goods Depots in England, Scotland and Wales
  • Forgotten Railways, Volumes 1 - 12
  • A Reqional History of the Railways of Great Britain, Volumes 1 - 15
  • ... many periodicals from the first edition, inc Modern Railways and Railway Magazine
No wonder there are inconsistencies.
I think it is important that any information is well documented and if any of the maps can get into the article even better.
--Stewart (talk | edits) 23:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Are there any existing "[Town]'s railway history" articles that could act as a guide for consistency of naming, content and format? –Signalhead < T > 23:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Paisley railway station comes to mind - Eric144 (talk · contribs) has spent a lot of time on the various stations around the town, and also on the line articles. I think a series of diagrams - either custom made as in Edinburgh, Leith and Newhaven Railway or a series of route diagram templates, however I think in this case RDT will not do the evolution of Bathgate's railways justice. It might be worth contacting John (talk · contribs) (Guinnog in commons) to see it he can help with the diagrams as he produced Image:Edinburgh,-Leith-and-Newhav.png. --Stewart (talk | edits) 23:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


OK. I'll have a look at making a rough and ready sketch to show the lines, and I'll make a start on individual lines by mileage/location on my user talk page. 1896 WTT is source. When complete, text can be pulled into relevant live pages and amended as necessary. Forthbridge (talk) 08:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sheet 73 here [3] gives a good idea of the general layout of lines, and shows the branches to Easton and Balbardie.Forthbridge (talk) 08:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Livingston Station

Hi Thanks for that new page. One item of note. Livingston (New Town) did not exist when the original station was closed, and it served the small community of Livingston Station (which was subsumed into 'Deans' upon the deignation of Livingston New Town). I have added a small note onto the page. Let me know if you think any alterations are needed. Forthbridge (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Bathgate's History

I've made a start on my talk page of some text for the above. Very early as yet, but any comments (unfavourable or otherwise) regarding style and content are welcome. There will probably be too much information to start with, but that's the idea...!Forthbridge (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Station opening and closing templates

You may have noticed that I have started using station opening and closing templates. For example look at Lugton High. Initially I created templates for opening dates up to 1860, subsequently I have been creating the relevant templates as required. There are two categories that list the templates created:

Although I have been systematically working along lines as time allows, I also have been editting those which popup on my watchlist - as in Dalmally this evening. I have been working along the C&O from Oban, but went up the branch before heading east, running out of time that evening short of Dalmally.

These also provide links to the relevant commnons category for the particular year. --Stewart (talk | edits) 21:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Following the same principle - primarily for Laurencekirk - another set has been started - Category:Future railway station openings by year navbox templates. --Stewart (talk | edits) 23:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Is there a way perhaps to make all these templates take up less space at the bottom of the page? Just an idea, but could the "opened" templates be aligned to the left of the page and "closed" to the right? And could we do without the "years" links along the bottom of each template? –Signalhead < T > 23:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Just enquiring

Brief read of your porfile and just out of pure curiosity, how did you manage to visit so many countries and why don't you use two spaces after a full stop, surely this is a typing convention in the English language (whether English International or English American), or am I wrong, if so, please enlighten me.

Ta

Mtaylor848 (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

North Berwick Branch, North Berwick Line, North Berwick railway station

I have had a go at putting the relevant information into the appropriate articles today.

Williamstown and Dirleton had some historically info duplicated in the North Berwick article. I have also put links to the main article in the station articles.

{{North Berwick Branch}} and {{North Berwick Line}} have been changed from LUECKE/arrow >> CONT (cache and database will catch up soon!).

Can you give this the once over and tidy up bits where I should have moved info, or have created duplicated detail. Many thanks --Stewart (talk | edits) 09:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

SimSig

Hi the SimSig article has been nominated for deletion. The discussion is at deletion discussion. Guidelines for the process at Guidelines

I would urge contribution to the discussion. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

peak rail signalling plan

hello boss i like the redo of my signalling plan for peak rail sir!

could i have a copy please for the railways signalling website.

dominic peak rail s&t engineer

kestreleyes@screaming.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.6.149.17 (talk) 06:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Smile!

Hello Signalhead, Filper01 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks. Are you the user formerly known as Fila/Farlack etc.? –Signalhead < T > 14:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. But don't report me. Filper01 (Chat, My contribs) 14:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I won't report you as long as you behave yourself. Welcome back and happy editing.–Signalhead < T > 14:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
OK. Filper01 (Chat, My contribs) 14:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Filper01

Have you seen Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FilperBot I, especially considering this --Stewart (talk | edits) 16:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen it. Is there any evidence that this bot actually does exist? –Signalhead < T > 16:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Request was denied. --Stewart (talk | edits) 16:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I hope I don't get blocked. Filper01 (Chat, My contribs) 05:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:West Highland Line

Have a look at {{West Highland Line}}. Another editor has added mileages / times to it. Not sure it works. What are your thoughts? --Stewart (talk | edits) 09:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw it and I was sure you'd see it too. A step too far, I think. While there is some merit in including distances (as long as it's done consistently on all route maps), the journey times, which are never constant, will have to go. Similarly, showing features like viaducts would be fine if applied consistently. There really needs to be a full discussion at a higher level on laying down some agreed guidelines for all UK railway route maps. –Signalhead < T > 10:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Glasgow, Barrhead and Kilmarnock Joint Railway

Did well with {{Glasgow, Barrhead and Kilmarnock Joint Railway}} didn't I. Thanks for picking up the pieces.

PS - I still can not see the point of various German editors block renaming icons. This just irrates me, and does not anything apart form them feeling that their changes are better than the evolution that had occured. And it is being done very piecemeal. I suppose it keeps their edit count up.

--Stewart (talk | edits) 16:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Signalhead/Archive_4&oldid=1082585950"