Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 16

Class 313 dispute

Hi, a dispute has erupted at the Class 313 page over images, and I was hoping some other interested parties could help us reach an agreement.

• Talk:British_Rail_Class_313#Image_dispute

-mattbuck (Talk) 19:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom

Discussion over what is notable enough for inclusion and what isn't has been dragging on for a while now. I've proposed a set of notability criteria at Talk:List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom#Formal proposal where opinions on the proposal are welcomed and hopefully consensus can be reached. Mjroots (talk) 09:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Propsed guideline re the notability of railway accidents

Please see WP:RAILCRASH, where I've put together a proposed guideline re the notability of articles about railway accidents. Discussion at WT:RAILCRASH please. Mjroots (talk) 10:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Staions opened in 2010?

Can someone investigate why a large number of stations are incorrectly attached to the (non-existant) category British railway stations opened in 2010 please. It must be a template error, possibly the infobox, but I don't have time to investigate at the moment. Thanks. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 22:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, see Template talk:Infobox GB station#British railway stations opened in.... --Redrose64 (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I checked out one (one only), Kings Norton railway station. Simply by adding and removing the 2007-08 usage data from the info box will switch on and off, respectively, the category British railway stations opened in 2010. The infobox must be very badly behaving for it to do that. Pyrotec (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

? Page number in MacDermot book - History of the Great Western Railway, volume II 1863-1921

Does anyone have a copy of MacDermot, E T (1931). History of the Great Western Railway, volume II 1863-1921. London: Great Western Railway. & be willing to look up a page number for me? The information about the Somerset Bridge which says "Isambard Kingdom Brunel designed a brick bridge, known as the Somerset Bridge, with a 100 feet (30 m) span but a rise of just 12 feet (3.7 m). Work started in 1838 and was completed in 1841. Brunel left the centering scaffold in place but was forced to remove to reopen the river for navigation, and the foundations subsequently moved. Brunel removed the brick arch and replaced it with a timber arch in 1843. This was in turn replaced in 1904 by a steel girder bridge, although the original abutments are still in place." has now been used on the article about the River Parrett and I am trying to get this ready for nomination at FAC, but I know a reviewer will say we need to have a page number & I do not have access to a copy of the book. Any help appreciated.— Rod ^talk 19:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

135 for the construction of the masonry bridge in 1838-41; 136 for the foundations moving in 1843; 136-7 for the substitution of the masonry arch by the timber arch between the masonry abutments in 1844; and 137 for the 1904 new steel girder bridge. However, it seems that the foundations had begun to move before Brunel removed the centring: it was in order to safely reopen the river for navigation that he decided to remove the masonry arch. nb original MacDermot, not Clinker's revision --Redrose64 (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for speedy & helpful response. I will add p135-137 & tweak the text as you've indicated.— Rod ^talk 19:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Top Gear Race to the North GA review

The Top Gear Race to the North article is listed as of interest to this project. The GA review has been put on hold for seven days to allow editors to deal with the issues raised at Talk:Top Gear Race to the North/GA1. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 12:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:Bigfour

A link to South Eastern and Chatham Railway has been added to the {{Bigfour}} template (see change here).

This seems sensible since it is a list of the main constituents of the companies at the Grouping, and the Southern already listed LSWR and LBSCR. Should this list still include SER and LCDR, themselves constituents of the SECR?

EdJogg (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes because these railways still existed on 31 December 1922; they were not constituents of the SECR, they were its owners. The SECR is often wrongly believed to have been an amalgamation, but it was a working agreement. The SER and LCDR continued to own the infrastructure, whilst the rolling stock was transferred to a jointly-owned organisation, usually described as the "South Eastern and Chatham Railways Joint Managing Committee", which sold the tickets, ran the trains, deducted running expenses and shared out the remainder on the basis of 59% to the SER, 41% to the LCDR. Essentially it was the reverse of the present arrangement, where we have one company owning the track and several running the trains: the SECR situation was two companies owning the track, one running the trains. The Railways Act 1921 lists the SER and LCDR as constituents of the SR. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with Redrose64, all three should be listed. NtheP (talk) 11:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Title of Leamington_to_Rugby_line

With reference to Leamington_to_Rugby_line is there a reason why this article title is "Leamington to Rugby line"? The railway was built as a branch from Rugby to Leamington, not vice versa: and when it was doubled, the work proceeded from the Rugby end. In railway operating terminology, the line ran down from Rugby to Leamington.

I strongly feel the title should be changed to "Rugby to Leamington line" to reflect the original construction and the terminology used by the LNWR, LMS and BR.

Any thoughts, anyone? Please reply on the article Talk Page Talk:Leamington_to_Rugby_line or to my Talk Page Andy F (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Identify structure? is it a turntable or ??

Hello can someone identify this structure - it's located on the south side of the old hull and barnsley railway at the location of the springhead works. I've worked out that it lies where the springhead sidings once were.

There are some images here: File:SpringheadSidingsDisusedCircularRemant.JPG - this image geotagged.
File:SpringheadSidingsDisusedCircularRemant2.JPG
File:SpringheadSidingsDisusedCircularRemant3.JPG
File:SpringheadSidingsDisusedCircularRemant4.JPG - fastenings best visible on this image - Can get a close up if that helps.

The aerial view via multimap is interesting : [1]

A few points - the location is definately in the sidings - there was a turntable at the works but that was north not south of the line. A map from 1923 shows just sidings here - nothing else of note. As far as I know the sidings and works were run down post 1923, and haven't been used for anything else since (BR put a coal distribution siding here at some point though - not sure where)

Clearly the thing is circular like a turntable - but it seems too small for anything bigger than a tank engine. Fastenings on the concrete surround appear to be for rail holders. Also if you look at the aerial view (link above) you will see that the concrete 'pavement' has shrubs growing through the cracks. Surrounding the structure (it's the vaguely circular bush on the right there's another circular bush on the left) there appears to have grown shrubs in a circular ring around it through the gabs between the slabs. Part of the concrete ring is just visible in the middle - it's ~15yards diameter - it appears that the concrete slabs were cast in radial sections around it. I've found no record of anything like this here - and don't even know what it's for. Any ideas? Thanks.Shortfatlad (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Was there anything of military significance nearby? The concrete "rim" looks like it could have been a guide-rail for artillery or a heavy anti-aircraft gun of some kind. – iridescent 01:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No military stuff I know of, but that might be worth looking into - there were various anti-aircraft emplacements in hull during wwii - I'm aware that AA guns emplacements existed in Hull at that time - I don't think that's the answer since the thing doesn't feel like a wwii object (ie seems to be part of the whole concrete pavement rather than a rushed job) - also I think the yard would have still been in use in the 1940's so I'd expect they would put a gun somewhere else - there were other places not already in use. Plus I'm fairly certain there are bolts for rail fastenings on the rim.87.102.67.84 (talk) 10:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Also it would be a fairly massive gun. (and the foundations don't look like they;ve been built to survive recoil) (That said it been reported that two 12" railway guns were located on the line (to shell the docks if the Germans invaded) during WWII - but I can't see why they'd build a permanent point for one - since the idea is that they are mobile?87.102.67.84 (talk) 10:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Could it be the base for some kind of crane or other loading equipment? The outer concrete ring could support a rail on which stabilisers ran as the crane turned. (Just a thought.)

Incidentally, you might get a better answer by taking this to one of the UK rail forums.

-- EdJogg (talk) 12:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't look like any of the usual AA emplacements. They were distinctive: a small mounting ring of bolts with a steel base bolted to it, blast-proof (ie concrete) ready-use ammunition lockers nearby, and usually dug into a pit. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

A diameter of "~15yards" is approx. 45 feet, which was quite a common size for turntables in the mid to late Victorian period; it would suit the modestly-sized engines of that era, 0-6-0 and 2-4-0. Consider that Matthew Stirling's H&B "B" class (LNER J23) 0-6-0s (55 built 1889-1908) had a total wheelbase of 35'11+1⁄8", and a length over buffers of 48'8+1⁄8". --Redrose64 (talk) 13:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably a really stupid idea, but could it be the remains of an underground water or diesel tank poking through? The "rail fastenings" might actually be where a lid was once attached. I could imagine BR filling the tanks with earth following the closure of the yards to stop kids falling into them. There's nothing immediately obvious on the 1948 OS map but the resolution isn't great. – iridescent 12:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your ideas - I revisited and am just as confused: First of all there is another concrete foundation structure consisting of two parallel lines. About the same height as the ring. Additionally there is an outer ring - that is to say the concrete pavement ends in a ring around the inner ring I already described. Because of being covered with moss and brambles it isn't clear on a photograph : I've made this diagram to show what is there:

click to expand

Additionally there were two capstans - the first File:Railway capstan.jpg is around 50m west, and may not be related, the second File:HingedCapstan.jpg File:HingedCapstan2.jpg (front and back views) is right next to it. It seems to have been an electrically operated capstan on a considerable hinge (rear view shows step down gears and attachment , front view shows capstan itself). I've never seen one of this type before. I've three ideas based on suggestions:

1. Not an AA emplacement (there was an AA battery nearby so no need for one here) - but a 'home guard' type land artillery emplacement - such as those that used old WWI naval 10" guns - it's definately pointing in the right direction for the humber and docks in case of invasion - the circular structure might give traverse, not convinced - foundations look a bit weak - searchlights and barrage balloons have also been suggested - don't think this is the answer either.
2. The Calvert lane coaling stage could be another possibility - this was described as being "fed by coal wagons unloading under gravity" - if the parallel concrete lines are foundations for the wagon track they could have unloaded from the higher side onto the circular structure - maybe the circular structure had a moveable chute (rotatable) - seems an unlikely explanation for the circular part. The crane suggestion also makes sense - but the info I've got suggests it was more automated.)
3. The turntable - find the extra ring makes the potential turntable a lot bigger (the structure is certainly post 1923) - I'd guess that the well built inner concrete ring was used to fix the bearings for the turntable. The parallel concrete structure might be a conduit for a chain drive for the turntable?? Also fits well with the nearby capstan (either for turning or dragging engines out) - however it doesn't seem to be documented (which would be unusual), and would be yet another turntable in the area.

Additionally I measure the fixing bolts on the circular concrete - not conclusive - distances usually more than 5'. (Don't seem to match my original rail fastening idea anyway - that must have been wishful thinking)

I've still no real idea what it is. Any suggestions welcome.Shortfatlad (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion here. I doubt there's an airship connection given the proximity to the railway line - "flammable gas" and "flying sparks" are an uncomfortable mix - but they could easily be the concrete bases of metal storage tanks or grain silos. – iridescent 13:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, those airship bases are interesting. I didn't think of grain storage - there's a lot on the river hull (and it's about the right size), there are similar round seed oil tanks near the river too. eg http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&ll=53.752349,-0.330448&spn=0.001107,0.005268&t=h&z=18 It could be the base of a diesel tank, or maybe a coal silo (or maybe even something like cement). This ones not a full circle though - I still need to explain that - I'll have to find out more about coal storage facilities.87.102.67.84 (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

My thought was that if it's a grain silo (or coal, come to that) next to the railway line, the "rails" could be traverse guiderails for a movable chute of some kind which was used to fill railway boxcars - that could explain the distorted shape.

It might be worth checking with Middleton Press to see if they've done one of their photo-books on the line yet (they're working through the country line-by-line and I think started in Cornwall and worked out from there, so not sure if they'll have reached Yorkshire yet). If so, they generally manage to round up every historical feature and OS map along the line. – iridescent 15:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You could try contacting the new Hull History Centre to see if they have any knowledge of the structure or information that may help to explain what it is. Keith D (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I'm already planning a trip there when time and other things permit. I'm going to try the old 1:2500 OS maps first to see if they turn up an answer, and take it from there.87.102.67.84 (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

New photos - help yourselves

Preserved British_Railways Standard 7MT 70013 Oliver Cromwell) on the North Norfolk Railway on 11 March 2010.

Preserved British_Railways Standard 7MT 70013 Oliver Cromwell at speed heading Down the ex-GER Ely-Norwich line near Hethersett on 11 March 2010.

Top: BR 7MT 70013 hauling a special to celebrate reconnection of the North Norfolk Railway to the national system following reinstatement of the track across the level crossing at Sheringham. The train ran down from London Kings Cross via Cambridge, Ely, Norwich and Cromer through to Holt (the NNR terminus). The return retraced the route to Norwich from where the train ran back up to London Liverpool Street on the ex-GER mainline via Diss. Andy F (talk) 09:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Lower: BR 7MT lcomotive number 70013 'Oliver Cromwell' passing Hethersett (near the outskirts of Norwich) on the the ex-GER Ely-Norwich line with a special train heading for the North Norfolk Railway on 11 March 2010 to celebrate re-connection of the NNR to the national railway network.

PS Please drop me a line on my talk page if you use these photos. Ta. Andy F (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Congrats. on the new crossing. Norwich evening news has a copy of a video [2] (those who like the whizz-sound of steam escaping should turn the vol. up - looks like most the population of Norfolk turned out :) 87.102.67.84 (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, a significant proportion of Sheringham's population was at the level crossing when I drove past. And there was a long traffic jam further along the A149 coast road where the NNR crosses on an overbridge. A good day out. BTW if anyone has suggestions for additional categories, drop me a line on my talk page. Andy F (talk) 11:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hawkhurst Branch Line

The Hawkhurst Branch Line article passed its GAN yesterday. The only realy problem is that the lede needs to be expanded. Help in pushing this towards FA status in time for the article to be the day's FA in June 2011 (50th anniversary of closure) would be appreciated. Copyediting and perhaps a peer review may be in order. Mjroots2 (talk) 10:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Commented there.87.102.67.84 (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Great Northern Route

I've expanded the Great Northern Route page to try and bring it up to the standard of the Thameslink page. Hope there aren't too many mistakes. Ajcoxuk (talk) 14:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Mystery object - resolved - almost

File:Calvert lane map.jpg

OS map - click to expand

Thanks for your help with identifying the mystery object (3 sections above) - I found this map (right) almost immediately when I looked (lucky!). Clearly the structure was part of a coaling stage with conveyor belt. If you guessed right have a gold star..

Oddly the railway tracks were on the same level (no sign of those), no on the embankment (maybe this means the capstans I mentioned were contempary and used for shunting - seems likely to me..) I'm still no entirely sure how the whole setup worked - would 1970's coal wagons be side or bottom discharging? Not sure why they needed a crane and a conveyor..

If anyone can add any more I'd be interested to hear. (Especially if anyone knows were I could find similar images of a 'rotary coal discharging stage' - doesn't have to be from the same place._. Cheers.Shortfatlad (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Coal wagons were typically chosen according to the unloading facilities known to be available. In the 1970s, coal wagons could be side, end or bottom discharge, the latter could be flat-bottom or hopper wagons. The ubiquitous steel-built 16-ton mineral wagon, TOPS code MCO or MCV (of which some 250,000 were built in the 1950s) was still in common use, and most of those were fitted with all three types of door, although they weren't hopper wagons. Some coal-unloading plants picked up the whole wagon and tipped it sideways, so the type of doors was immaterial. When this happened, in some cases the wagon was raised a substantial distance, in others it wasn't.

You really need photos of the facility in use in order to be sure... --Redrose64 (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - A question that should be helpful if anyone can answer is "Did BR operate/own coal distribution centres in the 1970s?" - or "How do I find out which company would be operating on that site in 1971?" (I think I need a 1970's yellow pages perhaps?)87.102.67.84 (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Or a trade directory, such as Kelly's Directory. Mjroots (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Mmmh I just noticed that there is a Powell Duffryn house on the right hand side of the map.. Not sure this will help at the period in which the NCB existed (probably built and named in honour of.. rather than belonging to.. may help a bit in my search though).87.102.67.84 (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the image was deleted - seems the wikipolice can't cope with something that is licensed for non-commercial use only. For the record - it showed the structure was part of the "calvert lane coal depot" in 1970 - and incorporated a conveyer - which either was moveable or fed to the top of a movable shoot or movable thing for directing the coal to circularily arranged coal bunker things..Shortfatlad (talk) 03:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The map was part of an Ordnance Survey map wasn't it? They are covered by Crown Copyright so you should be able to use a small extract in an article with the appropriate documentation. you probably can't use it on a talk page until 50 years after publication, when Crown Copyright expires. Mjroots (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

There was an appropiate license attached - that for "non-commercial research" with the appropiate license "©Crown Copyright. Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey®" and so on. All which falls well withing the 'Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988' (A single copy cut to 1/4 the size showing only the relevant parts) - the problem is that wikipedia won't allow that. Even though I clearly stated that it was for use on a talk page. (Can't show that now since its been deleted)... So I've still got a perfectly legal copy, but you can't see it :(

Shortfatlad (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The map could be used in an article, but not on a talk page. Was the feature there in 1960? a map of that date is copyright expired and can be freely used. Mjroots (talk) 08:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure. Didn't check 1960s maps - though it really was for use on a talk page - to help identify the structure - it's probably not notable enough to warrant an image in an article. Probably the use as a coal distribution centre is worth a one sentence mention. Thanks anyway.Shortfatlad (talk) 12:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

s-rail faulty parameter

This edit to Windsor & Eton Riverside railway station changes the succession box from rail-line to s-rail, and in the process has relocated the LSWR station as the terminus of the GWR line from Slough, rather than the line from Staines!

I've had a quick look at the immediate templates but they are far too alchemic for me to try and fix.

Could someone who understands s-rail please fix this? -- EdJogg (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'd revert, since there doesn't appear to be anything wrong with the old version, except that "Terminus" isn't italicised - but it's easy to fix: just remove |next=Terminus entirely.

I never use the s-rail stuff if I can help it, it's overcomplicated with all the subtemplates. --Redrose64 (talk) 01:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I never touch these boxes now, although I used to; I let other people get excited about them. I happened to notice the fault by chance. It's now been reverted, and 'Terminus' adjusted (easy fix, thank you!). -- EdJogg (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

2008-2009 usage

Usage figures for this period are now out. Here as usual. Simply south (talk) 14:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll update my bot and run that when I have more time available to do so. Adambro (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Btw because of the blunder with the station opening categories, remember that with the infobox, the changes have been reverted but nobody has been bothered to sort that out. Simply south (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to revisit the station opening categories issue sometime, I can't remember the exact details of what happened and what needs doing. In the meantime, updating my bot for the new stats was a trivial affair so I've set that running. The current rate is about one article every 10 seconds. We've got in the region of 2,500 stations so the run will take over seven hours. Since I would like to keep an eye on what it is doing on a semi-supervised basis, that will only run when I'm around to monitor it so I'll get that done probably tomorrow but could be a little later. Once the run has completed, there will probably still be a few which the bot wasn't able to update for a variety of reasons and so I'll post a list of articles the bot has skipped for me and/or others to work through. Adambro (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You'll also need to programme your bot for {{infobox London station}}. Simply south (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

template:S-rail-national

I am confused about the use of this template. Is this now the recommended template for UK stations to show the lines which serve it? I have been unable to work out how to set-up the old destination stations that used to appear in the 'left' and 'right' templates, see Template:S-line/FCC left/Cambridge for an example that used to work, but now doesn't.

Any ideas? Ajcoxuk (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You should direct your question to User:Mackensen who created the template. I would also be interested to know how its parameters can be modified to incorporate disused and historical routeboxes. Lamberhurst (talk) 08:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I asked User:Mackensen about the template:S-rail-national and he confirmed it was a simple proxy for template:S-line with some renamed parameters and System fixed to 'National Rail'. See the two templates for documentation on their use. Using the parameter 'status' you can set it to Disused or Historical and then a different set of templates controls the line names, branch names, colours, etc. If you search for 'template:National Rail Disused' and 'template:National Rail Historical' you will see the list of templates and can add your line to them. It appears that the 'towards' feature seen in the examples for template:S-line has not been implemented. No expert here, but hope that helps. Ajcoxuk (talk) 10:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Disused station

Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_March_30#Category:Defunct_railway_stations_in_Kingston_upon_Hull - the individual case is unimportant. I was wondering about the naming - there must be other examples of stations (that don't exist) with articles. "Disused" seems to be not quite the right term - perhaps "defunct" is? - any suggestions ? Has this come up before? A solution ? Thanks.Shortfatlad (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The {{S-rail-national}} has two options for such stations, "Disused" or "Historical". May "Historical" be appropriate in this case? Ajcoxuk (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't personally apply the "historical" label to anything that closed post circa 1948 (nationalisation), maybe even post circa 1923 (grouping). Thryduulf (talk) 10:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"Historical" can be taken two ways - Bristol Temple Meads is historical in as much as it is old and has a notablly historic design. I would prefer to use the word "closed". "Disused" is fine if the station is still standing (for example, Ashburton), but is not really correct for one that has been demolished (such as Beambridge). Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

What about Otterspool in Liverpool, which is long closed as a stopping point, but on a line that's still busy. Is the platform disused, or the line not-disused? Clearly we need a way of categorizing those for "Don't try and catch a train here", but equally this shouldn't imply that there are no longer trains passing it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Geof. "Closed" appears to cover every scenario in which it would be used, although "Defunct" would also be acceptable. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

As the one who actually set up the categories in question, there was a reason for using "disused"; it was for standardisation with the categories used by other countries' rail projects, eventually leading to the discussion here. Prior to that, a mix of "abandoned", "disused", "former" and "defunct" was used across the project. I've no particular objection to WP:UKRAIL declaring UDI from WP:RAIL on this particular issue if you feel it's warranted, but it would be worth notifying them at the very least, otherwise they're likely to come in and revert any changes back. "Defunct" is the "official" Wikipedia terminology, but at the moment only the US and Japan seem to use it; in light of that, if it's to be changed, I'd vote for "Defunct". – iridescent 13:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Good - I was thinking using defunct would be a good idea, and there was consensus for this - I could prepare a list of mass categories for renaming assuming no objections.

Potentially the category "Defunct stations of XX" can be subcategorised if needed eg to distinguish demolished, derelict, or stations that have been used for other purposes eg private dwellings, community facilities etc.

Using defunct as in "defunct for railway use".

Can I proceed with mass renaming procedures then eg Category:Disused railway stations in Bedfordshire to Category:Defunct railway stations in Bedfordshire ? Shortfatlad (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd support that, definitely, especially since the ultimate parent category is Category:Defunct railway stations. However be aware that you'll also need to change every article in which any of the categories appear. It would probably be worth putting a "formal" discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion before you make the moves, so the people who will inevitably come out of the woodwork to complain can't say they weren't warned. User:BrownHairedGirl is usually very good at advising on how to carry out a bulk category rename without annoying people. – iridescent 16:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I second Iridescent's comments. The categories should be changed for all the reasons above, and you should formally discuss it first to prevent unjustified reverting by users who aren't involved in this discussion. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes ok. (I believe User:Cydebot does a lot of the heavy lifting). I'll put in the formal request in a few days at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion - but wait a bit here in case there are any suggestions of a better way to do the categorisatio or opposition.Shortfatlad (talk) 16:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Can I ask if this should just cover Categories, or are railway lines also included? Ajcoxuk (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

My personal opinion would be that a disused line is, well, disused, so the "a station can be defunct but still be in use as a goods depot etc" problem won't arise. The categories probably ought to use "Defunct" for everything that's no longer in use for the purpose described in the article, for consistency. – iridescent 17:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I was just considering renaming station categories so far - if there are similar things for railway lines then that could be considered too if wanted - but it's not something I had considered.Shortfatlad (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

There's one 'erratic' Category:Former single platform tube stations is it ok to change this to Category:Defunct single platform tube stations too?Shortfatlad (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

For the record I've generated a list here listhere - I've done all the British Isles including the republic of Ireland. It should be 100% error free...Shortfatlad (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Also Thrydulf has suggested elsewhere using "closed" - would this be a better cover-all title than defunct (some people find the word "defunct" 'odd' apparently) Shortfatlad (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd be opposed to "closed". As per previous comments, the station can no longer be in use as a station, and thus "defunct", but not "closed". Watford West in Hertfordshire, for instance, is very much defunct but not technically "closed" as it still appears in the Network Rail list, and still gets served by a rail replacement bus, or those stations in Manchester and Croydon which are defunct as railway stations but whose buildings and platforms are still in use as tram stops. – iridescent 19:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that point - in a broad sense the station is closed - ie you can't stand on the platform.? "Defunct" or "Closed" both seem techically ok to me for broad categorisation - but somepeople don't seem to like "defunct" it being a 'strange word' - It could be a good idea to use 'closed' instead as per plain english.Shortfatlad (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC) It's also category:closed railway stations rather than category:closed stations which is a get out clause for buses etc..Shortfatlad (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I've made a worldwide list and posted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains#Station_categories_for_renaming - it would be better to sort all out at once.Shortfatlad (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Why the need to change something which has worked so well for the past 6+ years? The reason why "disused" was chosen is that it denotes something which is no longer used, thereby covering both OOU lines, extant trackless lines and those which have long disappeared. Lamberhurst (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

See section C2.C - to use consistent naming - the parent category is Category:Defunct railway stations and the parent of that Category:Former buildings and structures by building type - it's housekeeping. 77.86.62.23 (talk) 10:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This is certainly not a speedy rename and should be discussed at categories for discussion as both names are established. Keith D (talk) 10:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 1#Category:Disused railway_stations in the United Kingdom Shortfatlad (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Succession boxes

There are users who are replacing the {{rail start}}/{{rail line}} style succession boxes with the {{s-start}}/{{s-rail}}/{{s-line}} style. Is there consensus for this, or a guideline that I've missed somewhere? In some cases, such as with this edit, content is being lost in the process. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know of any guidelines on this, but this just looks like bad editing. Likelife (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a belief evidently held by some editors that {{s-rail}} is somehow "better" than the {{rail line}} boxes. The automation of {{s-rail}} has some advantages, but also adds several layers of complexity, and in reality there is very little difference between their outputs. Attempts at implementing {{s-rail}} before have been controversial, and no consensus on its use was ever obtained. (Previous discussions are in the archives of this page.) --RFBailey (talk) 04:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Categorisation of rail accidents by type

Please see a discussion I've just started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Categorisation of rail accidents by type. Thryduulf (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Nick Pigott

The article on Nick Pigott, incumbent editor of The Railway Magazine, has been PRODded. Would anybody like to give it a going-over? --Redrose64 (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

An editor of several national magazines in his time should be notable enough to sustain a article. I'm minded to de-prod. The article appears to conform to WP:BLP at the moment. Mjroots (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Significant expansion has now occurred. Thanks to all those who've fleshed this out. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a decently written article, but I'm a little concerned that all the sources used appear to be related to the topic (they're either written by Nick Pigott himself or by Peter Semmens, who appears to be a colleague at the magazine). I'm sure the topic is notable, but the sources don't really show it just yet. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed cull of entries from List of rail accidents (2010–2019)

I've proposed a cull of entries from the list, reasons explained at the talk page. Please feel free to comment there. Mjroots (talk) 09:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Railway stations on the Hull and Hornsea Railway

Hi. An editor (User:Shortfatlad) has recently merged nearly all of the individual station articles on the Hull and Hornsea Railway into the main article. I reverted his changes and in the comment asked that he discuss the merge before repeating it. Unfortunately he reverted all of my changes without offering a wider discussion than the comments he posted to my talk page. I believe he is wrong, but am not going to start an edit war over it. However, I have created or added to over 500 station articles and it would be a shame to see them all merged. In past discussions, such as that for WP:Articles_for_deletion/Shottle_railway_station the consensus has been to keep the individual article. However, the user who merged the articles has also made some good arguments for doing it his way. As I have not been given the chance to oppose the merger on the individual article pages, could I have the opinion of the WikiProject members on merging small station articles into single reference works and on what should be done over the Hull and Hornsea Railway in particular? Thanks Scillystuff (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all merger is not deletion. The information already in the article merged was used and was useful. Secondly the material you post is effectively "given away" see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles Quotes:

• "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here."
• "If you do not want your ideas (for article organization, categorization, style, standards, etc.) challenged or developed by others, then do not submit them."

I have used the material already submitted constructively, I have not criticised or thrown it away. Additionally please read in full what I have said on your talk page; I have given you a full explanation of the reasoning why I WP:BOLD and did not discuss before - it is in fact suggested at Help:Merging

I'm sorry to be unfriendly in this - but "wikipedia is not a discussion board" - It is in fact disruptive to expect to be consulted on every change made to articles. If I cannot constructively edit articles in the UK railways field without having to check with everyone first for permission I will take this to WP:ANI - I am not prepared to explain basic wikipedia principles over and over again. Again I apologise for being so unfriendly and pre-emptive but this project needs to get its hat on about stub article growth, and take some action about it to reverse it.Shortfatlad (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

If there's not much to say about the individual stations, I'm all in favour of merging into the article on the line. I think a single article in which people can compare all the facts about the individual stations is far more useful than a dozen very short stubs. I'd actually go further and say that there's a case for single "Railway stations in town" articles in cases when a town is (or was) served by multiple stations but none of them are particularly architecturally significant or have any major history; there's an experimental treatment by me of how this kind of merge would work in practice at Railway stations in Cromer. – iridescent 21:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

That seems one good way to do it - by the way you can categorise redirects - which can help with indexing the different elements of the article see Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects - ie the redirect Cromer High railway station could have Category:Former Great Eastern Railway stations - it works - but only to a certain extent (unidirectional) -since the categories do no show up on the main page - but if someone is searching for articles using categories it can be helpful.Shortfatlad (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I know a perfect memory is inexcusable but I believe it was User:Iridescent who in a previous discussion on this same topic a few years ago said "Yes - per long standing policy all stations (but not tram stops) are notable." :) Scillystuff (talk) 11:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely; I'd be the first to argue against deletion of articles on stations. That is not what's being discussed here; what's in question is whether "one long page" or "lots of short pages" is the best way to present the information. – iridescent 12:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I wish it was being discussed. "Simply do not make incorrect reverts with incorrect and misleading edit summaries" isn't a discussion, especially as the edit summary was word for word what had been proposed and followed for years on this very talk page. I know merger isn't the same as deletion, but there is a vast difference between your treatment of Railway stations in Cromer where the individual stations still have an article each and the current treatment of stations on the Hull and Hornsea Railway where full page articles have been replaced by a paragraph in a table. I would have kept this to the talk page of any of the articles merged if I had been allowed. Scillystuff (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Please, Shortfatlad, if I hadn't have wanted you to be pre-emptive, I wouldn't have posted on your talk page that this discussion was here within minutes of writing it. What you have started is an immense change to how individual stations are described and is worthy of discussion. I have no vested interest, if the station article structure I had first edited had been single line articles listing all stations I would agree immediately with what you have done. However the existing structure for the majority of the country is individual articles. There is a precedent for geographical stub articles, such as hamlets, bridges and railway stations to be non-notable but retained. Unless you intend to branch out beyond East Yorkshire and merge most of the other station stubs in the UK into single line centric articles then at some point in the near future someone (not me) will write all of the individual articles again, just so it matches the rest of the country. Please feel free to take it to WP:ANI if you think I have done anything other than ask for a open and reasoned discussion of a major change on a knowledgeable forum in order to reach a consensus. Scillystuff (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Simply do not make incorrect reverts with incorrect and misleading edit summaries. eg That's all I ask. Read the links I gave you on your talk page - two describe policy, the other is an essay. Shortfatlad (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk page. Please, could we keep this forum for discussing the policy and allow room for someone else to comment? A comparison for discussion, your new link to Ellerby railway station and a copy of the original it replaced. Scillystuff (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

ok . In the case of the ellerby station it duplicated information in burton constable station remove that duplication and there is a one paragraph article - one of the reasons why to treat these stations in the same article.Shortfatlad (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you do something about Idle railway station, Thackley railway station, Eccleshill railway station - each basically replicates the other, yet there is no article link for the line. This is a prime example of a set of articles requiring some sort of merge. There's about sentence worth of unique information in each of those articles - why not make an article on the two lines (Bradford, Eccleshill and Idle Railway and the Idle and Shipley Railway) and avoid all that repetition?Shortfatlad (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The line article will come in due course (time willing). But that's three stations out of a current 90 disused station articles in West Yorkshire alone (and there are an additional 50 without articles). West Yorkshire is one category out of 49 in England and that's just the disused ones. That's a task force sized job and there are few enough people contributing railway articles as it is. That doesn't mean you are wrong, it's just an illustration of the size of the change you are proposing and why I didn't want policy to be set by a series of unchallenged merges. Scillystuff (talk) 12:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the change to Ellerby and would invite User:Shortfatlad to undo the remainder of his changes until consensus is reached on this sensitive question. Every railway station is notable and with a bit of effort can be made the subject of a worthwhile article. I fail to see any benefit in merging station articles into one piece. On the contrary, it prevents their future organic growth and serves to discourage the few editors who contribute their time into developing them. Lamberhurst (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The stations are not notable - there is virtually no coverage of them significant or otherwise even in quite specialised publications. It doesn't help if people are going to assert notability with no evidenc: If you think they are notable because you have evidence that can prove it please supply the references or sources you have - its basically annoying when you assert notability yet in reality no useful sources exist - posting them on the Hull and Hornsea Railway talk page would be a good place if you have some.Shortfatlad (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to pull you up right there before you go any further. Passenger stations are always presumed notable on Wikipedia; WP:GNG is "two non-trivial mentions in independent reliable sources" and there's a reasonable presumption that every station will have that, even if it's just "New station opens" and "Station closes" in the local paper. What is at issue is how the information is arranged, not whether information is included; if you're actually removing content, the only thing that will happen is that you get reverted and blocked for disruption. – iridescent 19:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear what you mean by presumption of notability: see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Transportation Subway and railway lines generally survive AfD, but individual stations are questionable.

A topic needs "significant coverage" that's not two mentions in the inside pages of a local paper.

It's easy for you to show that some article almost meets reduced standards for inclusion - but that doesn't make the article any longer or more detailed What exactly is the point of trying to justify a one sentence stub? Shortfatlad (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

By way of comment to the above - the areas that I have mainly worked on are Oxfordshire (where I live), Berkshire (the county that my current home town used to be in), Gloucestershire (I used to live there) and Buckinghamshire (it's just next door, and User:OllieFury invited me to help out with Bucks). In all four counties, I found - before I had created even one article - that the normal treatment was one article per station. There are always exceptions to the rule, and in the case of these four counties, there are just six stations covered by a line article instead of a station article: they are all to be found at Disused railway stations (Didcot, Newbury and Southampton Railway). I should mention that there is a suggestion to create separate articles for these stations, see the talk page. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

By the way there's yet another way to do it Disused railway stations (Bodmin to Wadebridge line) (similar articles exist eg Disused railway stations (Exeter to Plymouth Line) Disused railway stations (Newton Abbot to Kingswear Line)) - this looks like a good way to present the information - though I think even this could be merged into the article on the line.Shortfatlad (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

These articles were created due to a dearth of available information about the stations, but do not preclude individual articles being created if new information is found in the future. Suggesting they be merged into the main article on the line is frankly silly -- they exist as separate articles since they would make the parent (line) articles much too large. Separating 'live' from disused stations like this is a sensible way of segregating articles according to the needs of the users. -- EdJogg (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Iridescent asked me to comment. Railroad stations are permanent physical structures of major community importance, active or inactive, about which is is always possible to find references. As a result, there is a firmly established consensus that they are always appropriate for separate articles if the information can be verified they always get articles. The only reasons I can see for a merged article is as a preliminary step if nobody wants to write the individual articles, or as an exception if nothing other than the bare names are known, but neither of these is likely to be the case, certainly not in the UK, where they are quite sufficient interested people at WP and abundant reliable information sources. (I'm not one of them, but that makes no difference). There are many things I think notable where the community does not have consensus to treat with individual articles; there are many things which I do not, but where it does. I have been know to argue for a change in the consensus in both types of cases, and sometimes even convince people, but I consider it disruptive to merge or unmerge multiple articles without that. The rule for merges as for other edits is BRD. Unless they get consensus, either explicitly or by silence, they do not get merged. The only good thing about merges where there is not consensus is that they are so very easy to revert. In this sort of situation, what the project things is not definitive. WP projects are not independent. They make proposals if they like, but the community as a whole has to accept them--sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn;t. If the project were to change their own consensus on this, they'd have to make a case for it--and based on multiple previous afds, I would be very surprised if they obtained general agreement. If anything, the trend since that consensus was established several years ago is to more readily accept articles of similar individual buildings of community importance. DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

User:Scillystuff wisely suggested making some sort of guidline proposal: here's one

1. Don't create articles which the notability of which can't be easily asserted using standard wikipedia guidelines.

If (you think) a topic should be covered somewhere in the encyclodia then place it in the next nearest notable article (ie go up the tree - building>>station>>railway line>>railway company>>etc until an article that is broad and notable enough is found to contain the info)

(suggestion if a full and detailed (ie long) article on a topic - then - maybe - it just isn't notable.)

2. If an article comes up for deletion - and it is not easy to show why it should exist then don't oppose the deletion but instead propose a merge of the information into an article that is not likely to be deleted.

3. Leave current articles as they are and don't worry - rome wasn't built in a day.

4. Don't think that any decisions (about what articles can exist) will be accepted in the whole encyclopedia - experience shows that this just leads to dissapointment later on. (mass deletions and other unpleasent things - it has happened before on this and many other wikiprojects - don't make this obvious error)

Wikiprojects are for manual of styles, resources, clean-ups and 100 other useful things - but they do not make policy - for this you must use WP:VILLAGE PUMP

-===========please comment or alter or whatever Shortfatlad (talk) ============

Just to say that if anyone puts (2) into practice, you can expect to find yourself instantly blocked for disruption. – iridescent 21:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

k. lost me there what's the problem with merging info, or was it something else?Shortfatlad (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Because merging during deletion creates attribution dependencies, meaning the original article can't then be deleted. This is what you can look forward to if you try it. – iridescent 21:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I meant propose to merge the article, rather than deletion - (obviously since the redirect is still useful). Still I hadn't considered that good point. (modified) [3]

Why are you comparing this page to a place in India? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

All stations are notable. End of. No guidelines needed. User:Shortfatlad is sailing very close to what might properly be called disruptive editing. Lamberhurst (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Stations are considered notable for the reasons outlined by Iridescent and DGG above. Individual articles, even those that are the briefest of stubs, provide frameworks from which an interested editor may make further developments. If all data for a series of station has been collected together in one encompassing article it may discourage that development.--DavidCane (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Having been away for a while and still in catch-up mode, I think I need to comment here that there should be an article for all of the stations even is they are only stubs, there is no need to merge them up into the line articles and any station articles that have been redirected restored. All of the station articles would meet notability criteria as they can be found in multiple published sources. The individual station articles are useful for holding detail of the station which will show up on external sources such as Google Earth rather than people getting a line article which they have to extract information that they may be seeking. Even is there is not much information they allow categorisation, are image holders and allow navigation along the line from station to station using the succession boxes. It is a pain in the neck travelling along the line to find that you end up in a line article rather than the next station article. Keith D (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

DGG and Keith have got it exactly right. Sorry Shortfatlad, but in this case it would be preferable to retain the individual articles. A better way forward might be to expand the articles with wahtever relevant content is available. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I thank all of the users who have explained in this discussion precisely why every railway station is notable and therefore deserves an individual article. Former branch lines in Oxfordshire such as the Banbury and Cheltenham Direct Railway, Buckinghamshire Railway, Watlington and Princes Risborough Railway and Wycombe Railway have individual articles for each of their stations. The articles are at varying stages of development but I find all of them either satisfactory or on the way to being so.

I hope that eventually Wikimedia Commons will have pictures of every former railway station in the UK, both as it was when in railway service and as the site is now. I hope it will also have historic track and signalling diagrams, even if they show only the very simplicity and lack of features that characterised some wayside stations and halts. That much pictorial or diagrammatic information will be much better presented in individual articles. I see no disadvantage in creating those articles as stubs now and leaving them to grow.

I suggest this would be especially helpful to less experienced users, for whom trying to add to large article can be a relatively daunting prospect whereas adding to a smaller one is a lot simpler and more approachable. (There is a world of difference between knowing about the subject of an article and knowing how Wikipedia works!) My guess is that keeping former stations in separate articles may foster more contributions and quicker growth than merging them into one article for all the former stations on a particular line.

I have contributed to most of the articles about individual villages and hamlets in Oxfordshire. I find it simple and helpful to be able to link the article for any village that had a railway station straight to an article about that one station. I suggest it is less satisfactory to have to link instead to some portmanteau article in which that village's station is a mere paragraph.

I find Scillystuff's point about stub articles for villages and hamlets also very helpful. The fact that many small places have only a stub article is no reason to merge them into groups, so why merge articles about railway stations? Why not help to expand those articles instead? Trying to mass-merge articles and then argue about it with lots of fellow-users who disagree risks creating a war of attrition that diverts too much time and effort away from our prime task of expanding Wikipedia.

I assume good faith on the part of both Shortfatlad and everyone else in this discussion. However, I suggest that alongside good faith the discussion needs good grace: the grace to accept that there is no consensus for merging individual station articles by line and that each of the Hull and Hornsea Railway's stations should have its own article. More importantly, this should not be a victory or defeat for any party in the debate. The real beneficiaries of such a gracious acceptance would be Wikipedia and its readers. Thank you.

Motacilla (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

As there has been no further discussion in the last 5 days and the consensus is to retain the individual station articles, even if they are currently just stubs, I have reverted the redirected articls to their original state. Keith D (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Drawings held at the National Railway Museum

If writing about proposed design details for unbuilt locomotives, do drawings and documents held in the NRM archives constitute WP:RS, or is it WP:OR? Please see recent edits to these articles, and their talk pages: BR Standard Class 7 (talk), Class 6 (talk) and Class 8 (talk). --Redrose64 (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Such material risks falling within WP:PRIMARY and would therefore need backing up by reliable secondary sources. Lamberhurst (talk) 08:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Please could somebody offer advice at Talk:BR Standard Class 6#Sub-frames? It's like I'm the only one who believes that WP:V is important. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Standardisation of terms: Car, Carriage or Coach?

User:Pedantic of Purley has recently made an edit to Thameslink Programme in which the terms used to indicate train length have been "standardised" on Carriage. So what was 4-car, 8-car etc. has become 4 carriage, 8 carriage etc. Similarly any reference to 4 coach, 8 coach etc. has also bee changed to use carriage.

My view is that the term 4-car is the more common usage. But nevermind, I have only worked on the railways for 20 years, so who am I to question?

Anyhow, has this "standardisation" been agreed by the Project? When and where was it agreed and, more importantly, are all editors aware and ensuring that when they edit articles that they are compliant? Bhtpbank (talk) 06:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Totally oppose standardisation. There is no "standard usage" across Britain; passenger trains in London are invariably made up of "cars" (an Americanism inherited via Charles Tyson Yerkes by way of London Transport), while services in the North and Scotland use the British English "carriage". – iridescent 06:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no real need to standardise since all of the terms are clearly well-used and there's a lot of regional variation. If we had to standardise, I would probably favour "car" as this is what most magazines and stockbooks seem to use. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a previous discussion at Talk:Northern line#Car or carriage? which kind-of faded out. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

On the Underground they are officially known as cars, for the reasons stated above. BR has used signs saying '2-car stop', '3-car stop', etc, but will still refer to coaches or carriages in signs and information boards.

I would oppose standardisation, but I don't think there is a need. The above-mentioned changes that prompted this thread seem wrong to me. EdJogg (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I too oppose this standardisation on wikipedia - at least until the international rail industry standardises! it would be like standardising caboose and brake van to one common term. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose too, A lot of people I believe are unconciously using car as an abbreviation of carriage not conciously as the americanised proper name itself. On the difference between Coach and Carriage use im more fuzzy. Are people using coach where its an unpowered unit rather than a multiple? WatcherZero (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. There is no standard useage. Southern EMUs and DEMUs were always referred to as x-car units. Mjroots (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Even within one railway the terms differed; and some otherwise-reliable authors could not make up their minds. Michael Harris, for example, wrote a book titled Gresley's Coaches (1973, David & Charles). Upon updating it to bring in the post-war stock, he retitled it LNER Carriages (1995, Atlantic Transport Publishers).

As has been mentioned, London Transport use the term "car" pretty much exclusively; but what is less well known is that this applies only to the E.M.U. stock - until 1961, LT still had a certain amount of loco-hauled stock, for the Aylesbury services; and these were normally termed "coaches". --Redrose64 (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been working on List of Talyllyn Railway rolling stock for some time, aiming to bring it up to WP:FL standard, and have used both coach and carriage, simply to avoid repeating the same word to often. Calling historic vehicles like these "cars" would be completely inaccurate. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose the needless standardisation. It's not really a technical term, where particular factors might require specific usage, but a descriptive one. --DavidCane (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose if the suggestion is that it applies to all railways.

I think that this has been entirely misunderstood. Firstly, I was merely trying to standardise within a single article. I was never suggesting a standardised terminology across the UK. That would be difficult since it is generally accepted that "car" which is an American term is used on the Underground due to its American routes but carriage and coach are certainly used when referring to National Rail.

Secondly I wasn't too concerned what was standardised on but to refer to it in three different ways in the same article just makes it look as if it was badly written by a committee that cannot agree amongst itself.

I would make the point (as an ex-railwayman who worked on the customer interface part of the railway - not as an engineer in the background) that there is commonly an "in house" terminology and a completely different terminology for use when communicating with the general public. Therefore arguments about 4-car stop notices and suchlike do not really hold water in my opinion. But never mind, who am I to question ?

At the risk of stirring things up even further I would say the entire thing is a non-issue started up by someone who has read something into this that simply isn't there. This should never even have been posted here in the first place. It is an non-issue as far as UK railways are concerned. The original comment and edit only related to Thameslink Programme and putting on the talk page for that article would be the appropriate thing to do instead of this over-reaction. --Pedantic of Purley (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"[...] makes [the article] look as if it was badly written by a committee that cannot agree amongst itself." Unfortunately, that describes a lot of Wikipedia articles, and ones about railways seem to be especially prone to that, I'm sorry to say. --RFBailey (talk) 05:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment All Wikipedia articles are written by committees. You join that committee when you click on the [edit] button. Mjroots (talk) 07:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment Of course. But as part of that committee one hopes to strive to achieve what is best for the committee (and the people it serves). Committees should work with a common purpose towards a common goal. Articles which look like a half-hearted effort to cut and paste individual members contributions don't serve the reader as well as one which looks seamless and gives an air of authoritativeness.--Pedantic of Purley (talk) 08:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

We should use the term that WP:RELIABLE sources use for the subject. If writing about the passenger vehicles of the LMS for example, the most reliable source for this would be the trilogy by Bob Essery and David Jenkinson who use "coach" pretty much all the time - except where dealing with certain vehicle types - "Sleeping car", "Dining car", etc. On the other hand, pick up Jenkinson's solo work British Railway Carriages of the 20th Century - Volume 2: The years of consolidation, 1923-53, which also deals with LMS passenger stock - and he calls them "carriages", again, except when discussing sleeping cars, kitchen cars, etc. So if the same fact could be referred back to both these works, either "coach" or "carriage" would be permissible; there is no need to be consistent within an article, but per WP:V there is a need to be consistent with the cited sources.

Turning now to Thameslink Programme specifically. Looking at where "12-carriage ..." appears in the text, a number of the references (where any are cited, that is) are to external sites which have moved or disappeared. However, in Thameslink Programme#British Rail plans I find the phrase "by allowing 12-carriage trains", and the reference given states "The scheme will also allow 12-car formations" (under sub-heading "History of Thameslink 2000"). Therefore, "12-car" would have been perfectly valid at this point in the article. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I take your latter point but the reference was to a site called railwaypeople.com. Personally I feel that this just emphasises that "car" is a term commonly used by railway staff in the same way that perversely a railway line can be a road and power often doesn't refer to power as most people understand it but motive power or traction which is what Joe Public would call the engine and other words are more bizarre still like "consist" which to a railwayman is a noun. The people involved in this discussion are probably familiar with railway terms. The average person in the street has images of a thing with four rubber tyres and a steering wheel when one uses the term "car". I can't really believe we have got so worked up by this. I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedantic of Purley (talk • contribs) 16:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! Mjroots (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the Spanish Inquisition should not have been needed here. But I think Pedantic of Purley has a valid point: switching between three different terms for the same thing in the same article is unnecessary, plain inconsistent, and potentially confusing to a reader. As someone who writes on technical subjects, I know that consistency is very important. And we should always remember (as I've been saying on the project page for years!) that we should be writing for the "average person in the street", not ourselves.

My point about committees was not so much that railway articles being written by a committee is a problem per se, but having them written by "a committee that cannot agree amongst itself" is the problem, as evidenced by this discussion. --RFBailey (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

What Pedantic of Purley conveniently forgets is that his edit explicity stated in the edit summary that this was about standardising the terms used. This point is agreed upon above in the discussion regarding what the "average person in the street" would understand. So the idea that this has been blown out of all proportion and should not have been raised is utterly flawed. The discussion has been valid, and useful, and has shown that we probably ought to be more careful about terms that we use and not to mix them in an article. It has also shown that Pedantic of Purley idea's on editting need to be reviewed. Wikipedia is a community, and working together comes with the territory. Like it or not, Wikipedia is very much like a committee. We must work together and remember the principles of the community and ownership of articles (there is none!). Bhtpbank (talk) 07:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Corridor connection

The article Corridor connection has been created. There are many pages which mention this, so link away...

EdJogg (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Mass copyvio and deletion warning from your about-to-be-demonised local commons admin

Hi guys. You are really not going to like this one...

I've been going through the uploads of Duncharris on Wikimedia Commons and have found a truly massive list of images that are either out and out copyright violations or missing permission/sources. To give an idea, of his latest 500 uploads, pretty much all the ones which weren't from flickr or already deleted I found had insufficient permissions. So far from the 2nd 500 it's 100% of the non-deleted ones. To give a flavour of the problems we're looking at here, have a two examples:

• File:53804 & brake van.jpg (used on 1 page) - sourced to a non-existant gallery, no evidence of permission (never seen a fotopic image which isn't all rights reserved, not sure if it's even possible).
• File:350110 at Stafford departing for Brum 29Oct2005.jpg (used on 5 en.wp pages) - specific source dud, but other images from the set are all rights reserved. Image claims permission via commons:User:L.m.k/E-Mail Andrew Maycock, however having checked with the OTRS team, this is insufficient unless the original emails are forwarded to OTRS, as, while AGF is all well and good, from a legal standpoint it's like painting a target on your ass as anyone could have written the email.

I'm not trying to delete all his stuff, but you would be well-advised to check your articles for his images (especially ones dealing with older locomotives - steam and first generation diesels), as they may be usable on en.wp under fair use guidelines, or you may be able to find permissions I missed.

Thanks. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• A minor point, having looked into one or two of his uploads previously (now deleted ones I think) the gallery you describe as "non-existant" almost certainly did exist at the time of the upload but has now disappeared from the internet. Thryduulf (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

  I quite agree, they probably did, and if they didn't it's likely as the result of a typo, which can happen to anyone. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

User is retired. Plenty of notification on his commons talk page, but would it be worth trying an e-mail? Mjroots (talk) 09:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I have tried emailing Duncharris, have not tried emailing the fotopic people he got photos from. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Action required

Unfortunately, DuncHarris managed to find an exemplary set of photographs, to the extent that many of those deleted were used as the article's lead photograph in an Infobox. There are about 20 on my watchlist alone, so affected. Commons has lots of modern or preservation-era photographs, but those deleted were mostly proper archive shots -- rare on Commons. The copyright stance by Wikipedia, while understandable, is particularly unhelpful in this respect -- the articles are much the poorer now.

We've got a lot of work to do recovering from this, in particular, there must be a huge number of locomotive articles that are now missing an infobox image and need urgent attention.

EdJogg (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

If it's helpful, I'm happy to undelete images so they can be copied over here and used under fair use guidelines. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. What kind of fair usage rationale would we be able to use? A few of the pictures (well, at least one that wasn't deleted by Monday, but was due to be) were over 70 years old but had no definitive source information; but most were simply 'historic' shots from the 50s and 60s. While un-recreatable now, they may not be strictly unique and irreplaceable. (Another problem, of course, is remembering what the photos looked like -- although I can remember two very well.) -- EdJogg (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Something along the lines of providing historical context which would otherwise be missing. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I haven't forgotten this, but have been rather busy off-Wiki at present. -- EdJogg (talk) 12:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

...we my have an even better alternative -- see "Thank God for Geograph!!", below -- EdJogg (talk) 08:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Red for Danger

Has anyone got a copy of Red for Danger by L T C Rolt? If so, could you please check whether a bridge collapse at Caersws in 1868 is mentioned. The Disasters on the Severn article entry needs referencing as to the exact date. Mjroots (talk) 05:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I might have one somewhere, but won't be able to check until next week. --RFBailey (talk) 05:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not mentioned, at least in the Chronological index. Historic Railway Disasters by O.S. Nock doesn't mention it either. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 07:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Be aware that different editions of Red for Danger have different accidents listed. The Penmanshiel Tunnel collapse and the somewhat earlier train fire at the same location are not listed in later copies (see article's talk page, I think, for some discussion on this from a few years back) but they are in my copy. (Have added a note to my ToDo list to look in my copy, but don't hold your breath!)

On the other hand, Googling revealed "A Review of British Railway Bridge Flood Failures" by Duncan W Reed which lists it as 1st Feb, and also gives some explanation. Since there was a second bridge collapse due to flooding, on the same day (apparently), this should help your research. -- EdJogg (talk) 09:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Not in my RfD either (which is a 4th ed: authors Rolt & Kichenside, pub. David & Charles 1982, 2nd imp. 1984). I have left my observations at Talk:Disasters on the Severn#Caersws 1868. ThreeFour different versions, and only three facts in common: it was at Caersws, it was in 1868, the driver was killed. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I should have mentioned I'm using the David & Charles 3rd edition, 1976. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 10:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Oneupmanship? -- my copy is the 1966 'revised and reset' 2nd edition (Pan Books). Unfortunately, the Caersws incident is not listed in the index nor the main text of this either. -- EdJogg (talk) 23:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If I wanted to go in for oneupmanship, I'd have used my leather-bound edition with gold leaf and personal dedication from the author ;-) —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 05:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned the authors on mine because all the Geoffrey Kichenside material has been excised from the edition currently available. Don't really know why, but some time in the 1990s they went back to Tom Rolt's final version, which was, I think, the 2nd edition. Thus, when dealing with RfD it is very important to show which edition you're using, not just the edition number, but the years and authors too. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Found it! In RfD 4th ed (details above), in chapter "Bridge Failures - Storm and Tempest", on p. 106 tucked in between Norwood 1891 and Carr Bridge 1914 (those are in the index, but Caersws isn't...) - I shall put more info on the article's talk. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Well found! A friend of mine has various books on the Cambrian - if I get the cahnce at the weekend I'll have a look and see if I can find out anything else. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 06:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I knew my memory wasn't playing tricks on me. Mjroots2 (talk) 06:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

No luck with the books I'm afraid - the ones I was thinking of only cover the coast (Aberystwyth-Pwllheli). —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 22:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

A rather belated note to point out that no date is given by Rolt. In fact, the entire entry is this sentence: On one occasion a sudden flood undermined the approach embankment to the bridge over the Severn at Caersws during the night, causing the wreck of an early morning goods train and the death of the engine crew. (Page 106, Red for Danger, David & Charles, Second impression fourth edition, 1984) Andy F (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Ditto, 1986 Pan edition (based on New extended edition published by David & Charles 1966). A version with no index. Pyrotec (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Please can we avoid duplicating information here and on the talk page of the relevant article? If any more info is found, please put it directly on Talk:Disasters on the Severn#Caersws 1868. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)