Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Imberhorne North Halt, Bluebell Railway

This halt is getting several mentions in the railway press, yet we have editors who insist that it does not exist (latest deletion). The recent railtour by the Hastings Unit was advertised as running to Imberhorne North, and the Bluebell website has several mentions of Imberhorne North. Mjroots (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The article mentions "Imberhorne North of the cutting"- I would've edited it but I got confused- is Imberhorne north of the cutting or is Imberhorne North north of the cutting? Ning-ning (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Imberhorne is an area just south of East Grinstead. The Imberhorne Cutting is being excavated of landfill so that the Bluebell can reach East Grinstead again. Imberhorne North halt has been mentioned in the railway press (Heritage Railway, Steam Railway). Mjroots (talk) 07:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

LNWR ships

Andrewrabbott (talk · contribs) has created a large number of articles on ships operated by the LNWR. He is a new editor, and has only used one source when creating these articles, which are thus a bit stubby. I've expanded the TSS Duke of Clarence article. If any editor wishes to expand the other articles then it would be appreciated. Mjroots (talk) 07:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Swanwick

Hi, could someone with a copy of Butt let me know when Swanwick railway station was opened? The wikipedia page says 1888 and 1889, Hampshire Police Authority says 1888, Hampshire County Council says 1886 and the local history page says 1888. Thanks. Scillystuff (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Redrose64 (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, have found another source giving the opening of the Netley-Fareham line as 2 Sep 1889, so 1888 is highly unlikely (unless a Dartmouth situation existed). 1886 is clearly the date when construction began. Personally I'm always doubtful about Local History Society websites, however well-intentioned. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info and the edit. It's a shame Hampshire County Council is wrong, as Hantsweb is usually accurate on railway history. Scillystuff (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Mark 1 S1000S, East Somerset Railway

Are there any editors in the Somerset area who can get a photo of S1000S for use in the British Railways Mark 1 article please? Mjroots (talk) 09:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I take it that's a specific coach. Although I'm not in the area, it'll give me an excuse to get down there when the operating season starts in April, though it'd be helpful to know if the coach is likely to be in use, as photography inside the back of a carriage shed is difficult even if access is granted. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 06:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It is a specific carriage. Just restored and in service. Unique as it is the only fibreglass-bodied passenger carriage built by British Railways. Apparently there was a BRUTE-carrying van also with a fibreglass body, but this did not carry passengers. Mjroots (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Isle of Man Railway routes

Template:Isle of Man Railway routes is orphaned. Is it still wanted? I notice that the article Isle of Man Railway has a similar route plan, but without the closed stations. — This, that, and the other (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, the orphaned diagram is the one we should be using. Possibly with a change of colour from red to blue. The diagram used in the article is inaccurate at best. Mjroots (talk) 07:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Possibly use both. Have the current layout at the top. Move the section on history down the page and show the full network with that section. Although orphaned it is certainly not redundant. Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the route diagram to blue and reduced the width slightly. I've looked at it in the IOMR railway and to me having both diagrams in looks silly but I'll leave it others to make their own decision. I'd also suggest renaming the diagram Template:Isle of Man Railway RDT in line with most other diagrams NtheP (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually the RDT prefix has no consensus and i got scolded for doing mass moves on that. Simply south..... 20:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I did it, if someone wants to revert and scold me, feel free :-) NtheP (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Another disused railway template

Here's another template you might be interested in: Template:West Cumbrian Railways. It's orphaned, and I see there is no article or redirect at West Cumbrian Railway. I think this template, and the Isle of Man one about which I posted above, are the only two UK Railways orphaned templates on my list. Thanks, — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, someone put in a lot of work to create this. Seems a pity to waste it, even though it needs updating to include Workington North. Any suggestions anyone? Mjroots (talk) 09:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This was a diagram I created as a tool to help keep tabs on which old railway went where when I improved the template on Cumbrian Coast Line. If you wish I can transfer it to my page and you can remove it as a template. Britmax (talk) 11:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I am personally not in favour of hugely-complicated RDTs like this, or those found on many station articles in the Greater Manchester/West Yorkshire areas (see {{Manchester Lines North}} or {{Bradford Lines}} for example): they take up an awful lot of width; the geographical distortions necessary to fit into the restrictions of RDT render them tortuously convoluted; and even I with my stack of historic rail atlases have difficulty relating them to the "real" layout. The casual reader must find them incomprehensible. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

If a diagram gets too large, it can always be placed on a dedicated subpage - see Medway watermills and Template:Medway watermills diagram for an example. Mjroots2 (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Name that station!

The correctly rotated image, anyone recognise it?

The other image, supposedly of Birtley

A rather long winded series of events occurred on the commons in December over the naming of station Geograph-3343136-by-Ben-Brooksbank.jpg this image. It was uploaded as Monmouth Troy station. However, I am quite interested in local history and know that station isn't Monmouth Troy (see my talk page for why) so I notified the uploader, Chevin. He contacted the photographer on the Geograph site, Ben Brooksbank, who said the image was flipped the wrong way round so a new image was uploaded on the Commons and the original was deleted. So things got more complicated. So now there is a deleted image with a talk page full of discussion over what should be done with it and an image correctly rotated but with no mention of the fact that the identity of the station is in question. Could anyone help identify the station in this image? I also spotted another image uploaded by Chevin by Ben Brooksbank from Geograph, this one supposedly of Birtley railway station near Gateshead and Newcastle. It was nominated deletion a couple of days ago but all discussion has been towards keeping it. Does anyone know which station this image is of?

Ben Brooksbank has now identified the station as Brimscombe and I have requested a move. Chevin (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, WVRMad•Talk•Guestbook 15:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

British diesel and electric multiple units

This rarely-edited article has been bot-identified as an orphan, despite having been created back in 2005!

I'm not sure of its purpose, as other lists exist to cover the topic in more detail -- perhaps it is now better-used as a high-level article? Regardless, it needs someone to either give it the TLC it needs or put it out of its misery... -- EdJogg (talk) 14:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I've had a quick look through and it appears to be a an overview of the history and development of DMUs and EMUs in prose format, which is something that we don't appear to have elsewhere (we only have lists). I'd be tempted to split it into two articles, one for DMUs and one for EMUs so it fits the organisation of other multiple unit articles and fits better onto the templates. Thryduulf (talk) 14:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

If you do that, the Southern DEMUs fit better with the EMUs - there was much more in common between (say) a 3-H and a 2-HAP than between a 3-H and a Pressed Steel Class 117. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

A simple solution to the orphan problem would be to link the titles of {{British Rail DMU}} and {{British Rail EMU}} to this page. At present they have separate links to British Rail and to the generic DMU or EMU article. Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Trouble is that that would remove the links to British Rail and DMU/EMU from the template title.

I have expanded the article lead slightly to explain the article title. I have also added a 'Pre-Nationalisation' section (which you'll be able to expand to your heart's content!) since the article is 'British', not 'British Railways' -- this should ensure a more complete article once its done. (But I won't have the time to do what's needed to it, in the foreseeable future.) -- EdJogg (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done -- links added to 'Multiple unit', 'DMU', 'EMU', the two list articles, and several 'history' pages, so no longer orphaned.

While doing this it did occur to me that this was one of a series of missing articles, each charting the development of British locomotive, carriage and wagon design, etc (Won't be me writing those though!) -- EdJogg (talk) 15:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added the article to {{British Rail EMU}} and {{British Rail DMU}}. Simply south..... 16:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

7 1/4 Gauge Engines

Having recently joined Wikipedia, I have tried to help out as much as I can. I work at a 7 1/4 narrow gauge line called Moors Valley Railway, where we have the first 7 1/4 engine called Tinkerbell. This was the first engine ever to have been built for this gauge to fit people in rather than being built to scale. A small table is on the Moors Valley Wikipedia page, but I was wondering if Tinkerbell would be worthy of a separate page. If so I will type it up, I also have plenty of suitable pictures.
Thanks,
Lucas,

Lord Castellan Creed (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the loco would be notable enough to sustain a stand-alone article. Best way to approach this is to add the details to the article on the railway. If you are willing to release photos on a suitable licence for use on Wikipedia, they should be uploaded to Commons so that all language Wikipedias may use them. Mjroots (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply,

Some photos I have uploaded of some engines are below:

Tinkerbell - Here

Offa - Here

Alfred - Here

I will update the MVR page tomorrow when I have some time. Also should I upload ever photo I have of the MVR engines? I have several hundred.

Thanks,

Lucas

Lord Castellan Creed (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I don't think it will be necessary to upload every photo you have. As long as we have some good photos of each loco then that will suffice. Mjroots (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Category merge/rename proposal

Yesterday I raised a WP:CFM but forgot to notify the project. It's at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 18#Category:Former London and South Western railway stations. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

First Multiple unit? How controlled?

An anon editor recently applied this change to Multiple unit. This edit removes the (implied) assertions that the Liverpool Overhead Railway was the first overhead electric railway (the several built before it in Chicago were initially steam-hauled) and the first anywhere to use multiple units.

(I know most of that is not explicitly in the removed text, but my research has uncovered all this and I was going to incorporate some in a suitable new opening paragraph for the section.)

Each 3-car Liverpool Overhead Railway train had two driving motor cars, with an unpowered trailer car between them. The Sprague MU control system (which is essentially the focus of the edit) wasn't invented/applied until a few years later (the date is not clear), so how were the LOR trains controlled? And were there any other MUs that pre-dated them?

EdJogg (talk) 12:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Early MUs were controlled like early electric locomotives - the controller operated directly at line voltage, and so if more than one motor coach was to be controlled, there needed to be high-voltage cables between cars. I suspect that the LOR used line-voltage control. In London, one of the principal objections to the use of multiple-units on the Central London Railway was that the proposed trains would have used a line-voltage control system; this railway, like the City & South London before it, used locomotives to begin with. Despite this, the Waterloo & City multiple-units (1897) carried power cables through the train; they had Siemens equipment.

The Sprague system (first used in Chicago 1898) separated power from control; that is, the driver's controller operated separate control cables at a low voltage (e.g. 50 V or 60 V), and these control cables running the length of the train operated the contactors etc. in each motor coach. Line voltage was thus confined within each motor coach - from shoe to control equipment to traction motor. In London, the first railway to use the Sprague system was the Central London (experimentally from 1901, full service 1903). --Redrose64 (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course! (Obvious control method when you think about it.) I vaguely remember reading something about the power cables and passenger stock, at the London Transport Museum...

It would seem a fairly significant design consideration, so it is surprising that it is not mentioned at Multiple Unit. Almost equally surprising is that the Central London Railway article (which is Featured) doesn't mention the Sprague system. However, the 'Original rolling stock' section of Waterloo & City line DOES describe the original control, and also mentions that the Board of Trade forbade future installations of its type.

I have some Underground history books at home, so I'll have to see if I can add something to Multiple unit...

EdJogg (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

[Update] -- "Tube trains under London" (Bruce, 1968) is a gold mine of technical information and includes some details of the W&C and CLR control systems. The Waterloo & City trains had eleven 500V cables running along the roof -- no wonder the Board of Trade prevented any more built like that! Will add something in due course. -- EdJogg (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Page 11 in that book. For those who can't find a copy,

• Bruce, J. Graeme (1988). The London Underground Tube Stock. Shepperton: Ian Allan. ISBN 0 7110 1707 7.

is "a completely revised and updated version of ... Tube Trains Under London", but some material from the original is omitted. The relevant passage is not, and is on p.21. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

...and after posting the above I found that I have copies of both. Never knew they were related! -- EdJogg (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

First Diesel Multiple Unit? (etc)

Another editor has since intervened and provided a 'main' link to Multiple-unit train control, which is where the above text really belongs. (Saves me some work!)

But now it is glaringly obvious that there is no mention in 'Multiple unit#History' of when the first diesel (or petrol?) multiple units were made. I have looked around the related articles and can find no concrete evidence of 'the first', although the GWR railcars seem to be among the contenders! So, which was the first/earliest-known-to-Wikipedia?

The history also omits any mention of railcars, steam or otherwise, which were certainly fore-runners in concept; and auto-train working is also ignored (a 14xx and autocoach is functionally similar to a multiple unit!)

Were there any steam-powered multiple units? I am aware of the Sentinel for Egyptian Railways (an example of which is preserved at Quainton Road), although this is more of an articulated railcar than a true multiple unit (does it count?)

Thoughts? -- EdJogg (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Steam - the GWR railmotors were capable of being controlled by an auto-trailer. I suppose the same connections could allow one railmotor to control another, but I never heard of it being done.

Petrol/Diesel - I can't find my copy of

• Haresnape, Brian (1985). British Rail Fleet Survey 8: Diesel Multiple-Units - The First Generation. Shepperton: Ian Allan. ISBN 0 7110 1495 7.

which might help. I've checked through

• Davies, F.K. (1956) [1952]. White, D.E. (ed.). The Locomotives of the Great Western Railway, part 11: The Rail Motor Vehicles and Internal Combustion Locomotives (2nd ed.). RCTS. ISBN 0 901115 38 X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

It seems that of the GWR Diesel railcars, just over half were what we might term multiple-units, since nos. 1-17 could only operate singly - not only did they lack control connections, they also lacked buffers and drawgear. Nos 18-38 had normal buffers and drawgear, and also had electrical connections for remote control from a driving trailer (for some reason, the throttle was controlled by Bowden wire). Of these, the last four (nos. 35-38) were intended for use as two pairs - each had a single cab, the other end having a gangway connection. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

We do need to be clear on whether we are talking "multiple unit" or just "railcar". If the latter, then try checking the Colonel Stephens lines. The Weston, Clevedon and Portishead Light Railway bought a Drewry raicar in 1921 and then a larger second hand version which had been built for the Southeren railway in either 1927 (according to Wiki) or 1928 (according to the WCP Group). Other lines had converted Ford Ts, which I think were even earlier. Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

NB, RedRose and Geof got their edits in whist I was working on this -- it mostly relates to EdJogg's comments, but here it is just indented an extra level (or two).

Another editor? Moi? Late to the party, but I only just found this page via your own contributions and talk pages. I have (obviously) noticed your recent edits to Multiple unit, and I was wondering whether to raise it on your talk page or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains (since it's not a specifically UK issue). Well, I'm here now.

• Steam: I made this change, as a rail-car is not always the same as a single car MU, and nor is push-pull train operation an example of the use of Multiple-unit train control (so they are mentioned).
• I'm not sure that, without the benefit of hindsight, that it is at all obvious to control more than one railcar (or locomotive or trainset), so one cannot, without justification (ie historical sources), draw the conclusion that railcars were necessarily the forerunners of MUs (as it could equally be argued that autotrains were.
• Feel free to expand Multiple unit#History to include diesel history (with references wherever possible). What I did infer whilst editing the history in Multiple-unit train control is that Sprague's system was applied to diesels too (locomotives, if not DMUs). High voltage interconnections between cars may have come first, but you cannot do it with diesels; clarification would be useful.
• I'm glad you agree that the move of most of the history into Multiple-unit train control was the right thing, but what I was really wanting to do was to remove the unsourced Liverpool Overhead Railway contention out of the MU article, and you've gone and put it back in again. I won't take it out, I'd just go back and add {{clarification needed}} and {{citation required}} tags.
• I posited in my Multiple-unit train control edit that: The Liverpool Overhead Railway, which opened in 1893, was also an early user of electric multiple-unit trains.[2] It is not clear, however, if these used a system of multiple-unit train control before Sprague's invention; in their initial two-car formation, the rear motor coach may merely have been towed., the last part of which can easily be changed to RedRose's high-voltage supposition (once properly sourced).
• The National Museums Liverpool reference I added is problematical, as much of the text is rather too similar to the Liverpool Overhead Railway article, which makes me wonder: who copied whom?
• Finally (and back to the initial point), I'd be very happy to know that us Brits were first with at least a rudimentary form of [E]MU control, but I (personally) think that one really needs to get all the information with sources ready to roll on a thing like that, or one is likely to get some gung-ho American reverting your edits or a pedantic Brit adding 'citation' and other tags all over them.

Keep up the good work. Tim PF (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Tim, I'm glad you stepped in as it's clearly 'your area'. My initial edit/comment was in response to an anon editor removing a Brit claim in favour of a US one (don't read too much into that, but it looked like a fact was being removed and it needed fixing...)

I agree that proper citation is required, which is why I have not expanded much on the LOR text, frustrating though it is. However, we CAN write about the Waterloo & City trains with confidence, as that is described in the books mentioned above (just needs time...) It might be best, when the dust has settled, to list the missing fact areas on the talk pages. This thread has usefully identified quite a lot of things that we 'know' but can't yet prove. (I'm quite good at finding 'holes' in the history, but much less so at filling them!!)

With regard to Multiple Unit and Multiple Unit Control articles, it is probably best if we are not strict about the precise definition of a 'multiple unit' when dealing with the history. While I agree that railcars (when running singly!) do not count as MUs, the design factors affecting combination of passenger accommodation, power source and control position are the same, regardless of the power source. Furthermore, as RedRose64 noted, steam railcars could be powered from an auto trailer. The British Rail Class 121 (or 122) -- a railcar -- can be connected to a non-powered driving car. Does this combination count as a multiple unit? The 121 can (and has) also be used in place of a driving motor car at one end of (say) a 3-car Class 117, the other end of which is powered... So if the 121 can be multiple unit or railcar, I see no problem with doing the same (potentially) for any other railcar. The main distinction in these articles will be whether there was any possibility of remote control, so I think that comparisons with auto-trains (which were used by many British railways, not just the GWR), push-pull trains, Driving Control Trailers, and the like, is valid. Obviously, the main thrust must be about MUs, but comparisons are appropriate and helpful.

- - - - - brief pause while I raid the bookshelf - - - - -

RedRose64, thank you for the reminder about Haresnape's series. I have all but one, I think. Book 10 (3rd rail EMUs) history starts with Volks in Brighton, and then proceeds to the London underground lines. The LOR is frustratingly not mentioned, although there is a picture. In book 8 (DMUs), Haresnape makes similar points to me regarding railcars, (steam or other wise) and autotrains, and notes some of the factors affecting DMU design, such as the war, and the introduction of steam railcars by Sentinel and Clayton (both apparently using their road steam wagon engines as a basis -- that's a whole new thread for me!).... There is the slight problem that the series is, by definition, GB-centric, but that's a problem that others will have to resolve.

Phew. MUST put the books down or I'm not going to get anything else done today...! -- EdJogg (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay Ed, I'm not going to add any tags at the moment, but I'll see what gets changed in the next few days. See if you or RedRose can knock something into shape about the W&C line EMUs, even if it is 1897, as that would be the same time as Sprague. I wonder if your books actually refer, even obliquely, to an earlier version (eg "these EMUs appear to be an improvement on ...").

I agree that there is some blurring between railcars and DMUs, especially in the vernacular. I'd also say that both Class 121 and Class 153 when running singly may be referred to as railcars, but both are certainly of DMU heritage and can still operate in multiple, either driving or being driven. But is a three car articulated set a railcar? The articulated LMS railcars had 6 engines, so even if they couldn't work in multiple with other stock, they must have had some form of MU train control to handle the 6 engines.

I suppose that in the early 20th century, there was a fairly clear distinction between single (or articulated units) which couldn't work in multiple (but could pull other stock), and those that were designed as MUs. More recently, the technology to allow multiple working is relatively easy to add to all railcars (or trams), so I guess that almost all railcars are also MUs. I generally only think of a railcar in a historical context, the most common single car examples (121 & 153) are still DMUs.

The next articles to tackle are Railcar, Railbus and Rail motor coach (the last of which has a {{merge}} with Railcar and Multiple unit from May 2010), but perhaps not just yet. I certainly wouldn't want to merge any with MUs if they didn't have MU train control.

As for push-pull trains and control cars, I know that some use multiple-unit train control to control the propelling vehicle(s); the only funnies are the old steam locomotive types. I'd be interested to know if any control cars (DVTs and the like) are restricted to only controlling one propelling vehicle, as that would be remote-control without multiple-control.

Time for bed, said Zebedee. Tim PF (talk) 03:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

There are definite historical and constructional differences between railbuses and railcars, so these articles should not be merged anywhere. I think we have also established that the MU articles should be concentrating on those capable of multiple control, in whatever form, although relating to appropriate railcar or other technology to establish context, history and evolution.

As for the W&C tube trains... I don't remember mention of 'development from an earlier version'. The world's first tube (City and South London Railway -- 1890) used separate locos, and was "the first major railway to use electric traction" (quote from article). The Liverpool Overhead Railway (the first to use EMUs) dated from 1893, the Waterloo and City from 1898 (the WP article notes the 'novel' control method, although this is uncited). In the US, the Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railroad (1895) was the first elevated line in Chicago to be electrified, with Sprague's system applied 2 years later -- the WP article is woefully short of any clues regarding the stock used at opening and how controlled. The Central London Railway (1900) was upgraded to Sprague's MU operation in 1903, and was the first in Europe to be so controlled. Further research required...!

EdJogg (talk) 10:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I've found a pic in

• Day, John R.; Reed, John (2008) [1963]. The Story of London's Underground (10th ed.). Harrow: Capital Transport. p. 51. ISBN 978 1 85414 316 7.

which shows "a female gateman on the Waterloo & City Railway in April 1917". Note the bundle of thick cables hanging down just above her hat; she's in high-heel boots which won't help. H&S anyone? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Platform operation

Should i start a discussion on the trivial matter of which platforms are in use or not at stations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simply south (talk • contribs) 18:36, 20 January 2011

Sounds like you already have --Redrose64 (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

OOPS! Just a trivial matter in which some stations are "platforms in use=4 (3 operational)" with others being "platforms in use=2 (4 operational)". Maybe we could have some consistency somewhere? 19:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC) .....htuos ylpmiS

Assume {{Infobox GB station}} (where the parameter is |platforms=)... whoever is doing that could not have checked the resulting infobox where it would state

Platforms in use 4 (3 operational)

Since "in use" and "operational" are pretty much synonymous, this should simply be |platforms=3. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Typical me not being clear, yes that was what i was referring to. .....htuos ylpmiS 23:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Is the problem in confusing physical platform structures with the number that actually receive trains? Perhaps if the template just showed 'Platforms' you could then have an optional parameter for the small number of stations where the number in use was different? (Number of platforms gives an indication of the station size; number in use -- how many services it handles and/or how big it used to be.) -- EdJogg (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Manchester Victoria once had 17 plats (6 through, 11 terminal); by the time that I started using it regularly (1985), 4 of the terminal plats (1-3, 17) were out of use, and two (4, 10) were rarely used. Nowadays it's got 4 through, 2 terminal plus 2 metrolink. Would we put that as 17 (maximum), 13 (size before rebuilding), 8 (post-rebuilding max inc. Metrolink) or 6 (exc. Metrolink)? Personally I'd go for currently in use (w/o metrolink), no more, no less: 6. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"In use" and "operational" should mean the same thing. I can only think of one station where a usable platform is almost never served: Highbury & Islington, where platform 7 is on what's effectively a freight-only line. But do we need to make the distinction? No, because no reliable sources do and it's too much detail for an infobox anyway. There's very little case for mentioning unused but still extant platforms either, such as platform 5 at Birmingham Moor Street. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It's good to stimulate a debate! Those are useful examples that show the sort of information that should be in the text rather than an infobox. I think Simply South knows what to do now... --EdJogg (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Should i just alter the infobox to get rid of the "in use" part? .....htuos ylpmiS 23:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hold on - where is the consensus for this edit and this one? Regarding the second, the documentation states "The number of operational platforms. Do include platforms only occasionally used. Do not include abandoned platforms." which at least is unambiguous compared to the situation at {{Infobox GB station}}. Personally I would have left both templates alone ("Platforms in use") and brought the GB station doc into line with the London station doc. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Then of course you have places like Bristol Temple Meads, which if you just count facings has 9 (with 1 which is never used), but the platform numbering goes up to 15 (but curiously missing 14). -mattbuck (Talk) 21:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Platform numbering at Bristol TM is easy to understand. Odd numbered platforms are north-facing bays or the north end of through platforms, even numbered platforms are south-facing bays or the south end of through platforms. Platform 2 is not used (I think it's not signalled for pax moves, but I'm not certain of that. Platforms 14 and 16 don't exist - they would be the south end of the same island as 13 and 15, but this island is shorter than the others and the signalling permits only one train on each at a time. They are numbered as north-end platforms because they are located at that end of the station and 13 is effectively a north-facing bay. Thryduulf (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Isle of Man steam railway

Sorry... I found another orphaned template: Template:Isle of Man steam railway. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

And Template:Paisley stations. I would fix these up myself, but I really don't have much of a clue when it comes to railways. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

And Template:WCML. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:WCML still needs a fair bit of work on it. It doesn't quite reach either end yet, and I'd prefer to see a nice straight line for the main London to Glasgow route if possible. I suppose I could try to get it into a state where it could be incorporated into West Coast Main Line, but I'd have to remove much of the branch line detail (especially in the West Midlands), and I doubt I could do it anytime soon. Would it be better to almost start over with a straight line and just the main stations (ie those used by Virgin), allowing for about 4 lines to the left and 2 lines to the right for branches and loops, with labels on both sides. The history will still be there to re-add the removed information at a later date. Tim PF (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

British Rail Class 210 Infobox

The colour! (is it Fuchsia (color)) seriously I looked at a few and couldn't see a pattern -I'd prefer not to have the infoboxes colour coded/coloured, but if that is what people want could there be a standard set out. Or maybe the consensus is not to colour, who knows? please form a plan below, thanks.Sf5xeplus (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

There was a pattern, of sorts; have a look at these contributions. All bar one are the addition of an infobox; and in every case the infobox has |background=#D5005E ie  . Several of these have since been altered to a different colour, at least three being chosen - the only consistent ones are classes 401-405 which are now all |background=#008000 ie  . In no case has the |background= been removed to give the default light grey #eee   (nb when |background= is present, but blank, it comes out white) --Redrose64 (talk) 12:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Copyright concern at Tattenham Corner railway station

The Tattenham Corner railway station#Incidents section is exactly the same text as is found on the "Tattenham Corner (1993)" section of this H2G2 entry (which it cites as a reference). I have not investigated what direction any copying has been done in (if any has - could be the same author?), etc. This needs looking at and dealing with appropriately. Thryduulf (talk) 04:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The same page's entry for "King's Cross (1945)" is so very different from our own to suggest that if they are copying us, it's with a total rewrite. I suspect that our Tattenham Corner page may well be a copyvio, but I also suggest that H2G2 should not be considered a WP:RS because it's edited by its users.

H2G2 won't be around much longer to be a source, reliable or otherwise. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12265173 NtheP (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The article says the website will 'be disposed of', so I suspect that it will be moved as a 'going concern'. Since h2g2 was founded by Douglas Adams, there will be many fans who wish to make it survive. (Incidentally, I am NOT a contributor.)

Nevertheless, it is not helpful to us here (except as a source of 'facts' to find proper references for!)

EdJogg (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Templates for discussion

The WP:TFD of {{West Midlands railway stations (disused)}} was inconclusive, and it has been relisted. Your comments are invited there. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Future of Merseyrail

Kitchen Knife (talk · contribs) has suggested a partial split of Merseyrail. See Talk:Merseyrail#Future. Simply south...... 18:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Pontyclun station

Separately, Redrose64 (talk · contribs) has proposed a merger of a previous station with Pontyclun. Please see Talk:Pontyclun railway station. Simply south...... 18:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Route maps

First Great Western routes

Railways in England and Wales

In case you didn't already know, I've been working with data released by OS for some time producing a glut of maps for the UK. There is a potential use for a variety of route maps and I can easily produce them if I know what is required. I notice that a very similar topic has been discussed here recently, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 18, but there is a slightly different emphasis: Those are labelled maps at the local level (as PNGs). What I would produce would be blank maps (as SVGs). These maps are useful in their own right and could easily have a legend, label etc added; this potential division of labour allows me to dovetail with Mertbiol's work (especially as my workflow is fast now).

As for the two example images, one shows the current routes operated by First Great Western. The second is a plain map of the network in England and Wales. Any feedback on their content would be handy. A bit of info on the data itself: Its from the OS Meridian 2 product and is not perfect unfortunately. Examples of problems: It doesn't include heritage lines or indicate where the tunnels are. It also includes several non-passenger lines such as the complex around Laira TMD. Marking the tunnels and non-passenger lines is doable but will take a bit of time.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Good quality maps are always useful. They could do with a different colour to better differentiate between the railways and the Welsh border. Red to match existing route diagrams?

Also, would the FGW map be better if it only showed a part of the country, perhaps with a thumbnail to show the relationship to England as many county maps do, such as File:Devon UK location map.svg. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the TOC routemap - it would be better if they only showed the relevant section of the country, though obviously for ones like Virgin West Coast that's going to be pretty much all of it. I'd also make the English/Welsh/Scottish borders a bit less heavy. Also, why is Scotland a different colour? -mattbuck (Talk) 14:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding borders - I notice that besides the national borders, there are also English regional borders. These might be confusing because they appear to be the same dark grey as the railway lines (I know that "stroke:#646464"   and "stroke:#000000;stroke-opacity:0.75"   are not the same, but as thin lines, thay are barely distinguishable); plus, I don't think these borders are particularly relevant in a railway context. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Some replies: The maps are only for England and Wales (which is why Scotland is different as an "other" area). I know that's far from ideal but I haven't actually got the full GB base sorted and it will do the job for demo in the initial discussion. I'd agree the map showing part of the country is superior (more relevant stuff is visible in the thumbnail). The regional borders are included to the base, as its easier to add too much then subtract then start with too little and add. I'm not sure what level of detail is wanted there - it might even be worth skipping the national borders.

As for colours, red as the default may be reasonable (railways are conventionally black - but that's only to avoid confusion with roads, not a problem here); that palette shift will also avoid the confusion with borders. A related question I have: What colour should the highlighted element be? I used approximation to FGW livery for that map. Would it be better to use a single colour for all maps or use an appropriate colour for the subject (when possible) - in which case I'd need advice on the colours should be.

In any case, I'll produce a more refined version of the FGW map, in response to this feedback (and anything else you guys can think of), in the next couple of days.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd always go for an appropriate colour - using the ones from the ProjectMapping site I linked you too would work, as they're fairly accurate to corporate colours. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, done a revised one map for FGW: Changes - altered area of base map to just the region of interest, dropped the euro regions, altered the colours. The "other routes" colour is that of the route diagram #d77f7e; I'd be inclined use the primary colour (#be2d2c) of the route diagrams when there is no more appropriate colour.

Points to consider: Is adding an inset beneficial? Its obviously useful for say Merseyrail, and redundant for CrossCountry - I'm not sure about intermediate cases like FGW. Should all routes by that operator be coloured identically, or should barely used routes (such as the Dartmoor Railway) be shown as such? Also, I'm not sure using corporate colours will always work in all cases: Merseyrail is #ffb400  , which will contrast poorly. Maybe useful to add more to the background too (urban areas in particular, possibly county borders at non-national scales).--Nilfanion (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I think they would benefit from having the main towns and cities marked on the map. G-13114 (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Added a tweaked version of the FGW to the infobox in that article, got some of the others pending now (I'll upload and place in article as when they are done).--Nilfanion (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Sorry for the delay on this bit, too many projects on the go... I've uploaded maps for c2c and South West Trains. I also have the data sorted for all the other TOCs (need a bit of prep before upload - won't take long). The major tweak is incorporating data showing the Urban areas. My only real concern now is with the TOCs where the colour is pale. For instance, South West Trains is #f89245, which is not that clear IMO. I've tried giving the lines a black border but that's not ideal either - thoughts?--Nilfanion (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Where do you get your colour values from? Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways/Colours list suggests that South West Trains is #{{SWT colour}} ie #EE1C23 which isn't so bad. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that helps somewhat: The source was from the site Mattbuck mentioned here when I first raised it. Its still not perfect of course - the worst by far being Merseyrail ——— which is terrible. Some of the others look poor too. I suppose the easiest solution is if the WP colour does not work, just fall back to either black or the dark red of the route diagrams?--Nilfanion (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Strawberry Line (Miniature Railway)

I'm not sure if it really falls under this wikiproject, but I don't know where else to ask. Could someone take a look at Strawberry Line (Miniature Railway). I've stripped out a lot of advertising but it still needs major work including wikifying, finding references, adding a pic etc - that is if it is even notable enough for an article. It does claim "It is Britain's only commercial ground-level 5 in (127 mm) railway", but I don't know if that means much?— Rod ^talk 20:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I've just found out most of it is copyvio as well.— Rod ^talk 20:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Wondering about notability for this. Only reliable sources I could find online were this short piece in a local paper and a local news report about an accident there. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It certainly looks different, as ride-on railways go. Most are larger gauge or raised. This one, with its scale freight trains, is like a very large model railway you can ride on. (Jealous!)

Probably does warrant an article at WP, but not based on the current article which just doesn't stand up under WP rules. Originator not active on WP for several years, so we can't ask him for help. Maybe once they get their hump-shunting yard working someone can try again, 'cos I'd be surprised if there are any other 5" gauge hump shunting yards in existence!

EdJogg (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Going by what is said above, it may just pass the notability threshold. The best way to deal with the copyvio is for someone to write a new article on the temp page. Once that is ready the existing article can be G6'd and the temp article moved to replace it.

Maybe the article could be taken to AfD so that the consensus of the community can be gained as to its notability or otherwise. But I'm not sure how the article can be taken to AfD if editors won't be able to assess the notability or otherwise due the the blanking of the article by the copyvio template. Mjroots (talk) 07:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait a week before taking it to AFD? wp:NODEADLINE Yoenit (talk) 07:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey folks, we have the article history to draw on. This one was created in 2007 and the copyvio only appeared last year. The first occurrence was 30th May, by an anon editor, who basically copied the 'Railway' page from the website. This was removed within a week, and then replaced again at the end of August, and this is essentially the page as it is now, albeit with some of the text since wikified, ignoring the latest 3 edits. So, the article is a recent copyvio, but has been around some time.

Also removed during the anon editing was a link (http://www.rideonrailways.co.uk/page40.html). Scrolling to the bottom of the page you see the claim "Britain's only commercial 5" gauge ground level railway", the other railways described being private. -- EdJogg (talk) 11:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Some more coverage to add to the stuff I listed above, although it's not particularly in-depth: The Railway Magazine from 2005 (thank you Google Books). Ignoring the eminently fixable copyvio for a minute, perhaps this would be best off moved to focus on the currently-redlinked Avon Valley Country Park, for which more coverage exists ([1] [2] [3] etc), with the railway as a section. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all comments. I think the last suggestion is probably the way to go. Avon Valley Country Park is definitely notable & that red link should be turned blue. The railway would then be a section within it, which could be supported with the various sources identified above. The current railway article title could then be a redirect to the wider article.— Rod ^talk 12:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The copyvio has now been removed & Avon Valley Country Park now has an article - any help with both appreciated.— Rod ^talk 12:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking good. I would be comfortable redirecting the Strawberry Line article there. This might be useful, especially since I just noticed one of the links I gave was about a different park with the same name... Alzarian16 (talk) 13:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

If redirecting, the railway-related categories ought to remain on the redirect. However, I would suggest that the railway was of sufficient interest in its own right, although I appreciate that WP rules may not recognise this! -- EdJogg (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The Google Books thing is misleading. It suggests vol. 151 (2005) and page 50, but doesn't state which month; but it does show a contents page. I have The Railway Magazine for that year, and looking through them I see that the contents page shown is that of the January issue, but the item concerned is in the June issue:

• Bunyar, Bob (2005). Pigott, Nick (ed.). "Strawberry Cream". The Railway Magazine. Vol. 151, no. 1250. London: IPC Media. p. 50. {{cite magazine}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

--Redrose64 (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Gordon Hill wires

I have another mystery. At Gordon Hill there is an abandoned platform. There is no track yet it is wired as though it is a terminating platform. Why is this? Difficultly north (SS talk) 19:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably wasn't worth the effort of removing it. Remember the existing wire will have tensioning equipment at the end, and this would have to be repositioned, requiring design work, installation and testing, and probably another occupation of the main line. Removing the track, by comparison, is a relatively unskilled operation, and replacing a switch with plain rail requires little design effort. -- EdJogg (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I suppose the next question to ask would be when was the platform was abandoned. Simply south...... 13:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

What am I?

Can someone please identify the DMU in this image? My knowledge doesn;t extend to first-gen units. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably British Rail Class 104 (See File:Class 104 Longsight Diesel TMD (1).jpg for another example.) Key features to look for are the pronounced flatness of the cab front centre panels (the 'Derby' cab was more rounded); also the small route indicator above the cab. Nice pic of blue livery. -- EdJogg (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Definitely British Rail Class 104. The primary features are:

• it's got bogies, which eliminates the 4-wheel units
• it's not a parcels car, which eliminates classes 128, 129
• there are three windows, which eliminates classes 105, 106, 112, 113, 120, 123, 126
• all three windows are vertical, which eliminates classes 101, 102, 107, 108, 111, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 122, 124, 125, 127, 130, 131
• all three windows have level tops, which eliminates classes 103, 110 and the Derby Lightweights
• all three windows are the same shape and size, which eliminates classes 100, 109

That only leaves class 104. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I've expanded the description at Commons. Mjroots (talk) 08:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

...and I've added it to the BR Class 104 category. -- EdJogg (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Where am I?

Is this Basingstoke?

I've just come across this image in the Commons which claims to be a train taking water at Basingstoke, but I'm not so sure. There doesn't seem to be enough tracks in the background. Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The original at Geograph notes that the engine is a Standard Class 5 no 73085 and that the photo was taken on 27 July 1966. Also, the photographer has submitted nearly 11,000 photos to Geograph! That's not to say that the photographer didn't note the wrong details!!

The totem is SR-style, as is the rail-built signal (and the candy-stick lamppost?)...

EdJogg (talk) 10:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not the country end and there's a bridge at the London end. I've asked Dr. Clifton about the location in a message on geograph.org.uk. Scillystuff (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The bridge at the London end is an under-bridge, so it could be that end. Or could the Flickr photo be the London end? —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 09:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The Geograph caption says the train is Weymouth-bound. -- EdJogg (talk) 11:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

If it is heading towards London then I would expect to see junction signals for the Reading branch. Indeed, I would expect to see the branch! Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Branch train for Swanage at Wareham, Dorset

Dr Clifton has indicated that his records are incomplete for that day, but that his only other stop between London and Swanage that day was at Wareham. It's changed a bit in over 20 years, but it could be this, possibly looking the other way from this Commons image also taken by Dr. Clifton on the same day. Scillystuff (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

On behalf of Network Rail?

There is a person (who claims to have an Wikipedia account, but can't log in) who keeps changing images 'on behalf of NR and TOCs'. I first noticed this on the St Pancras Int article (see: Talk:St_Pancras_railway_station#Image_changing), now they have done the same on the EMT article see:Talk:East_Midlands_Trains#Image_change and I suspect others. Apparently just because they claim to be on behalf of NR we should just go by it, which has been said a number of times thats not going to happen. Is there anything we can do to stop this irritating editing?Likelife (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The IP editor 80.194.231.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been warned many times about this. Suggest the next instance is dealt with by a uw-(whatever)4im. Further trouble and its WP:AIV or WP:ANI. Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that info. Likelife (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Station Usage data 2009-10

Data is now up at ORR http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/nav.1529

I declare this years data fest officially open! I shall start today working from the most used down

lordmwa (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

For the first time, I am going to say maybe wait until May before adding as there are bound to be updates. Simply south...... 18:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be different people doing different things here. Some are just adding the new stats, others are adding new stats and removing the earlier stats. Others are also removing the arrow before the early stats and not replacing by a space. Need to be consistent with what is expected here or a tidy-up at the end of the changes. Keith D (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I've been adding the stats and including the arrows if the arrows are there from other years. I agree there does need to be a consistent pattern in adding stats and clarity that the stats include both exit and entries as some users have been only adding exits.Likelife (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we stop adding stats for a few months? In the previous there have been some changes in the figures once the final update in May has been added. This is only going to add more work. Another thing to say is, is anyone going to do another bot to add the stats at that time to cover the 2525 stations? Simply south...... 19:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

IP user 62.49.26.246 (talk · contribs) and Jollycam (talk · contribs) are undertaking manual updates. I have posted a link to this discussion on the associated talk page. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 22:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I've identified 3 other IPs and 11 other registered users who have added at least one instance of |usage0910= or |lowusage0910=. Should I grass them up? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

If there is consensus not to update the figures yet, the best way to ensure this is to disable the relevant code in the infobox (with an explanation why as a comment). -- Dr Greg  talk  22:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

This is relevant data from a reliable source - if users are happy to go through adding it, it's up to them. We can get a bot to add/update figures when the final results come out. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 06:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I will stop adding usage stats, until we can agree to start again. Waiting for updates is reasonable. Likelife (talk) 11:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Tag bomber

We have a user, Yh00157 (talk · contribs), who seems obsessed with the idea that articles are out of date, and is adding {{update}} to them, seemingly using a scattergun approach. Most, but not all, articles concern BR or post-BR locomotives and multiple units; most (if not all) concern classes which still have members in service. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

A look at that editor's contributions shows that they are not engaging when concerns are raised. I've given Yh00157 a final warning against tagging articles and not raising concerns on the talk page of the tagged article, or engaging with editors when issues are raised. Further disruption should be reported to WP:ANI for action. Mjroots (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I have undone all the tags I could find on the so called 'out of date' articles after User:Redrose64 had done the same thing on most of them, User:Yh00157 reinstated them. Even the Class 380 article was said to be out of date! Likelife (talk) 09:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That means 2 additons by YH00157, a 3rd addition put us firmly into WP:EW territory. Mjroots (talk) 09:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you also notice my note about his repeated changes to the British Rail Class 325 ancestry that I made on his talk page (User talk:Yh00157#British Rail Class 325 ancestry? Tim PF (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Tim PF, I did notice that, but it's not my area of expertise. Suggest raising at talk:British Rail Class 325 for discussion. Mjroots (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I did that a couple of hours ago, but I raised it here as it also looked a bit like WP:EW. You did see it, so that part is already taken into account. Thanks. Tim PF (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Cardiff Area

I've recently been working on improving the many South Welsh railway diagrams and have noticed that Template:South Wales Railway RDT, Template:Ebbw Valley Line RDT, Template:Cardiff Lines, Template:Rhymney Railway, Template:Cardiff Railway and Template:Valleys & Cardiff Local Routes all seem to contradict each other about the rail routes near Cardiff. I don't know whether anyone can help but it all seems a bit of a mess. It would be a great help if someone could help cleanup the maps (on the South Wales Railway RDT template, Ninian Park is shown as being closed). Would it be possible to have a standard map for Cardiff? Thanks, WVRMad•Talk•Guestbook 16:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the area well enough to do the changes unaided. However, firstly if the only problem is the "error" on Ninian Park being open instead of closed, that can be addressed quite simply by changing symbols so that the "colour" of that section of the relevant diagram switches from pink to red; and secondly, if you state which (if any) of those diagrams are correct for Cardiff that section of the diagram can be copied and pasted (same as plain-text can be copied and pasted) into a new diagram called {{Template:Cardiff area}} (or some other suitable name). Pyrotec (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be quite as simple as that, the whole area seems to be very approximate. Ninian Park isn't the only station that is shown to be closed which shouldn't, Cardiff Bay (used to be called Bute Street,) is also incorrectly coloured and it seems to lead onto Queen Alexandra Dock, which directly contradicts Template:Cardiff Lines which shows the docks to be open and linked by their own branch from the main line. As for just changing the colour, again - it's not as easy to fix as it might first appear - I think the whole route may be inaccurate as it shows the line passing through Cardiff Central before Ninian Park, which contradicts Template:Cardiff City Line, is their a branch from the commuter valley lines in Cardiff? Also, there are already several area templates (Template:Cardiff Lines & Template:Valleys & Cardiff Local Routes) so it would probably make things more complicated to just create another template - it's just that those two templates are so complicated they need to be deciphered first by someone who knows the are first! Finally, I'm not even sure we need to have Ninian Park, it's just a small commuter stop and most of the other 20 stations seem to have been omitted and should we just use a LUECKE to show that the area is too complicated to show in detail for a mainline diagram? WVRMad•Talk•Guestbook 11:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The credit for this Template:Paisley stations without question has to go to Pencefn, but I have done two or three changes to it, and that diagram was (in my opinion - I could be wrong) a condensation of individual diagrams prepared from the individual stations, some of which I did, followed by a "good clean up and polish". I'm not a "power user", but if you give me a diagram that is partially right and explain what changes are needed, I could do it in "slow time". I've also created a few of those symbols, but not for several years: a closed station junction is the same graphic as its open equivalent, it just has a different colour and a different name. So switching from a closed station to an open station is no more than replacing one symbol, such as File:BSicon eBHF.svg with File:BSicon BHF.svg, in the diagram with its equivalent. But I'm not trying to force you: I have plenty of other useful things to do. Pyrotec (talk) Pyrotec (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

We have a class number for Crossrail?

According User:Jellybabynet and the London re-connections blog, Crossrail intends to use 'Class 345' as the identification of its future EMU's - but there's no conformation from Crossrail as of yet. The User has created a rather 'empty' article which I think is a bit premature, so the question is, should it stay, or should it go?Likelife (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Given that crossrail may well use 377s as cost-cutting, I'd say delete. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal (Manchester Metrolink)

I've proposed merge of Chorlton High Metrolink station and St Werburgh's Road Metrolink station. Please comment at Talk:Chorlton High Metrolink station#Merge proposal. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

 Merged --Redrose64 (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Reading to Plymouth Line

Hi, I was hoping to get some guidance with Reading to Plymouth Line. This was recently split into three articles, making Reading to Plymouth Line a disambiguation page. All of the sub-articles have only been components of the route between Reading and Plymouth at one time or another. Since, for instance, the Exeter to Plymouth line can't be called the "Reading to Plymouth Line" but instead part of that line, Reading to Plymouth Line shouldn't be a disambig. What is needed is a summary article that explains the evolution of the line. I'm trying to piece together the history but could use some help getting started. Could someone here explain to me how the three sub-articles work into the history of the Reading to Plymouth Line? Thanks much, --JaGa^talk 18:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Really, have you read any of these articles (OK wikipeida is not a WP:Reliable source but it contains information)! Reading to Basingstoke was built by the GWR (Great Western Railway); (there was then a choice: Basingstoke to Exeter, via Salisbury and Chard junction, was built by the L&SWR; or Basingstoke, via Westbury, to Taunton and then Exeter was built by the GWR); and Exeter to Plymouth was built by the GWR. Then there was BR and these lines would have been regionalised, so the choice was Western region or Southern Region, and what did BR go for? They were certainly not built by Network Rail which has been in existence for a minor fraction of their existence (10% at most). Pyrotec (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hold on... Reading to Plymouth via Basingstoke? When did that service operate? The Reading to Plymouth line was indeed built in sections, but not in the fashion that you claim. I've put details at Talk:Reading to Plymouth Line#Route sections as first opened. The lines between Reading and Hungerford (opened 21 Dec 1847), and Reading and Basingstoke (opd. 1 Nov 1848), were both built by the Berks & Hants Railway, which was absorbed by GWR prior to opening. Only the portion between Reading and Southcot Junction (1 mile 64 chains) was common to both routes, as indeed it still is, and it's the Hungerford line, not the Basingstoke line, that forms part of the modern Reading-Taunton-Exeter-Plymouth route. At Nationalisation, the entire route became part of the Western Region for the simple reason that the GWR had owned the whole lot since 1876, and none of it was ever part of any other BR Region. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

So... what do you think should be done with, for instance, {{Railway lines in South East England}}? Other people have called "Reading to Plymouth Line" a Wikipedia invention. Should the link remain, or should it be broken down into the component links? Thanks, --JaGa^talk 23:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The only bit that is in the South East is Reading to Bedwyn, which I seem to recall was branded as the Kennet Line. It would make more sense than calling Reading to Plymouth a "local" line! Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

What would you think about replacing Reading to Plymouth with Reading to Taunton line? It has a section called Reading to Bedwyn. We could also use [[Reading to Taunton line#Reading to Bedwyn|Reading to Bedwyn Line]].--JaGa^talk 19:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, you could state in the article that most trains from London to Plymouth use this line between Reading and Cogload Junction. The question is though if a redirect would be best or if it should be deleted. ZoeL (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the article even needs to exist. Yes you can board a train at Reading and go to Plymouth but these services start from London, not Reading. The term Reading to Plymouth line seems to have been invented by wikipedia to describe the route taken by services running between Reading and Plymmouth. You can also board a train at Birmingham and go to Plymouth but I see no case for Birmingham to Plymouth Line I believe these articles are about lines, not individual train services. Details of this should be in First Great Western. ZoeL (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps an WP:AfD is in order. I'd be glad to start a discussion if those here think it might be appropriate. --JaGa^talk 19:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge of Euston

I have proposed a merge of Euston railway station and Euston tube station here simply because I don't see the need of two articles for interconnected stations. I'd be grateful for your opinions.Likelife (talk) 12:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

East Coast

On the East Coast page it is state that the East Coast (a company owned by the government) is the operator of the East Coast franchise. I'm not sure this is correct as the Railways Act 1993 explicity prohibits this. It seems to be more of a case that there is no franchisee and this will continue until a new franchisee is selected. I have posted here as this would also be relevant to South Eastern Trains and any future company owned by Directly Operated Railways. ZoeL (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

British Rail Class 70 (diesel)

British Rail Class 70 (diesel) was recently moved to Powerhaul (locomotive) on the grounds of WP:COMMONNAME and for international consistency. I reverted the move on grounds of consistency with other articles, but figure we should probably discuss it. Let us do so on the article's talk page. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This was already discussed per a WP:RM discussion at British Rail Class 70 (electric), and it was agreed that whilst the operator may change, the power unit will not, hence the name at British Rail Class 70 (diesel) to distinguish from the original Class 70 locomotives. Mjroots (talk) 10:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

York Racecourse railway station

Cross posted from my talk page:

Hi. Someone added some b&w images of steam trains passing the racecourse station, or what was left of it, to York railway station. It would be nice if they could be moved to a short article on York Racecourse railway station, but first we need to know when the station opened and closed. I've done some googling (see Talk:York railway station) but only came up with a few vague reminiscences, and the few railway books that I possess (including one which has details of the dates of Yorkshire station closures - Haxby, Copmanthorpe, etc.) don't help. If all else fails, I could try the local history people at the central library, but I thought I'd try you first. All leads gratefully received. Best. --GuillaumeTell 22:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

My suspicion is that this was just a horse dock rather than an official station, as none of the rail maps I've looked at show it, though if anyone has any better information, please let us know. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 10:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Not mentioned in Jowett's, which may just indicate it was not a public station. York Racecourse is some 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) south of York station according to the OS map, so it is a possibility. Mjroots (talk) 10:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

According to Butt opened in 1861 by the NER as Holgate Excursion Platform, renamed York Holgate Bridge by the LNER prior to 30 August 1923, at some unknown date renamed York Racecourse (Butt implies prior to nationalisation), closed in 1965. I'm not sure it passes WP:N and might be better as a section in York railway station. NtheP (talk) 12:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! That's more than I've been able to discover. I'm dubious about lumping it in with York station, as, although it was fairly close to the latter, it was a separate entity. As far as WP:N is concerned, it's a redlink in the List_of_closed_railway_stations_in_Britain:_W-Z#Y, which makes it as notable as, say, Wetherby Racecourse railway station - and there are three geograph photos of it - don't you think?. --GuillaumeTell 17:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Next station Whitechapel?

For some reason, on Old Oak Common, Acton Central, Shepherd's Bush and other LO stations the S-starts say that the next station Whitechapel, but its not been edited as that on the article. Can some help to change it so Whitechapel isn't the next, last and termini station. Likelife (talk) 12:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• It appears that it was something to do with user:Simply south's changes at Template:LOG stations, on 28th February as they were the only relevant change to the templates. I don't understand why they broke it, but reverting them has seemingly fixed the problem. I'll draw Simply south's attention to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I made those edits specifically because of changes on the East London Line. In fact the changes should not have mucked up other stations. Right now i have readded one of the edits, that hopefully shouldn't muck up anything. I was doing some to also avoid redirects. Oh and previously Whitechapel railway station was redlinked. Simply south...... 18:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I had also made changes to the left and right templates on the ELL. Simply south...... 18:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Dorking (Main) railway station

Is Dorking railway station now Dorking (Main) railway station? Please comment at Talk:Dorking railway station#Dorking or Dorking (Main)?. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Steam World magazine

Steam World magazine has been nominated for deletion at AfD. Comments there please. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Gerrards Cross

Suggested move. See talk:Gerrards Cross tunnel collapse. Simply south...... 23:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The 5th on the 6th of the 4th

I have just noticed that it will be the 5th year anniversary on the 6th April. Anything be done? Also, any update on a meetup? Simply south...... 22:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd still like to organise a meet-up sometime, but I'm so busy with real life at the moment, I just don't have time at the moment. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 08:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed rename of Chorlton-cum-Hardy railway station

There is a discussion about splitting/renaming Chorlton-cum-Hardy railway station at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greater Manchester. Any input would be appreciated. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 12:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Category scope proposal

I've propsed a change of scope for Category:Ships of British Rail at the talk page. Your views are welcome there. Mjroots (talk) 08:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Newcastle railway station

Please comment at Talk:Newcastle railway station/Archive 3#The name, part #302130. I don't want to describe the issues here: the talk page and the article history since the first edit of 29 March 2011 should tell you all you need to know. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Ordsall Chord

Something called the Ordsall Chord was awarded funding in yesterday's budget. Does anyone know enough about this to judge whether an article is in order? It's getting a lot of press, but I cannot find any details. Currently a WP:WHAAOE failure. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that's something in Manchester. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Its a short stretch of new track connecting Oxford Road and Salford Central, not really deserving of its own page. WatcherZero (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Do we have a suitable article to redirect the title to? It's getting a significant of mentions so we don't really want a redlink. Thryduulf (talk) 02:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that a section in the article on the line (or lines) concerned would suffice, with the redlink becoming a redirect/dab. Mjroots (talk) 07:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This has been mentioned in RAIL for years as a proposal that never quite happened, but never in quite enough detail to really justify a separate article. What we really need is something generic like Railways in Greater Manchester to cover all the non-notable lines in the region (like Railways in Plymouth does), but that would be a pretty big job. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It's very close to the Windsor Link (presumably the other side of Ordsall Lane). Is a chord so much smaller than a link? I note that the "Nuneaton North Chord" is noted on the West Coast Main Line, but points to Birmingham to Peterborough Line#Nuneaton North Chord (and clearly belongs to one or other of the two lines). Tim PF (talk) 11:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

See also Olive Mount chord. Britmax (talk) 12:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

There have been a number of proposals over the years to have a direct rail link between Manchester Piccadilly and Victoria stations. The proposed Ordsall curve would allow this (ableit on a rather indirect route) The Manchester Metrolink does this in an indirect way. This article is possibly (marginally) relevant Picc-Vic tunnel. G-13114 (talk) 13:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Railway Lines in Salford
Past, present and future
to Wigan Wallgate   to Bolton Great Moor Street to Wigan North Western   Little Hulton Ellenbrook Walkden Low Level Walkden High Level to Liverpool Lime Street Moorside to Bolton Barton Moss Worsley Swinton Dixon Fold Patricroft   Monton Green Pendlebury to Bury Irlams-o'-th'-Height Eccles Eccles   Clifton Junction Ladywell   Agecroft Bridge Weaste Weaste Brindle Heath Jct Agecroft Jct Langworthy Seedley Pendleton Pendleton Bridge Broadway Cross Lane MediaCityUK Harbour City   Salford Crescent Anchorage Salford Docks Salford Quays Windsor Link Exchange Quay Ordsall Lane   Oldfield Road Metrolink to Manchester Ordsall Chord Salford Central to Manchester Deansgate to Manchester Victoria

It is pretty much a mirror of the Windsor link and roughly the same length, together they form a delta junction but whether the Windsor link itself requires an article is debatable. Shouldnt these sorts of bits appear as notes on the line themselves pages? I mean the very illustrative image of the Windsor link pages shows how significant they are for local routes but insignificant in the larger network they are. WatcherZero (talk) 13:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that a railway 'link' is normally between two distinct lines. A 'Chord' is usually refers to the third side of a triangular junction. Not that railway naming has to follow dictionary definitions! Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This old map could possibly be helpful. The Ordsall Chord would form the vertical part of a triangular junction where the lines from Piccadilly and Victoria converge, allowing direct access between the two stations. The Windsor link merely allows trains from Bolton, Blackpool etc to run into Piccadilly, so I'm not sure how it's a mirror of it. Maybe it could get a mention in the articles about those two stations? G-13114 (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Or possibly this could be the appropriate article to mention it in Liverpool to Manchester Lines? G-13114 (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Salford Lines (future)
Salford Crescent Salford Docks Windsor Link Ordsall Lane Salford Central To Manchester (Deansgate)

As I have understood it for 25 years or so, a chord is a curve linking two existing lines. The two lines so linked may already form a junction with each other, in which case the chord creates a triangle, making through running possible without reversal; or they may run close to each other (possibly crossing at different levels), in which case a connection is created where none previously existed. Examples include the Hunts Cross Chord (Yonge 2005, map 40, line ref. AHX); the Oxley Chord of circa 1980-84; (Yonge 2005, map 21B, line ref. OXC) and the Hazel Grove Chord of circa 1984-88 (Yonge 2005, map 44A, line ref. HGC).

• Yonge, John (2005) [1990]. Jacobs, Gerald (ed.). Railway Track Diagrams 4: Midlands & North West (2nd ed.). Bradford on Avon: Trackmaps. ISBN 0 9549866 0 1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

I don't know why the Windsor Link isn't described as a chord (but see Hall 1995, p. 141: "BR ... proposed a new chord line, which became known as the 'Windsor Link'"). Possibly the non-use of the term "chord" was because of its length, possibly because of its shape (a straight with curves either end), possibly for publicity reasons (to the lay public, "link" sounds useful, "chord" is meaningless unless you're a musician).

• Hall, Stanley (1995). Rail Centres: Manchester. Shepperton: Ian Allan. ISBN 0 7110 2356 5. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

See RDT snippet at right - I believe that the "Ordsall chord" will be the bit I've added as a black curve. This is not so much a revival of the "Picc-Vic" scheme, which would have involved a tunnel under the centre of Manchester, but of the "Castlefield Curve" proposal of 1978 (Hall 1995, pp. 140–1, map p. 142). --Redrose64 (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If that is correct, then there's a bit missing from Template:Liverpool to Manchester Lines (in Liverpool to Manchester Lines). I think I have corrected the label for the Windsor Link, but I reverted my own (premature) edit to add the proposed chord once I saw your extract. Tim PF (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Liverpool to Manchester Lines (future)
Manchester Central G-Mex Metrolink station Salford Central Deansgate ( G-Mex) (proposed) Ordsall Chord Windsor Link Manchester United FC Halt to Bolton {Open Match Days Only)

It can be difficult comparing one with the other, because {{Salford Lines}} has west at the top, whereas {{Liverpool to Manchester Lines}} has east at the top; also, the line from Ordsall Lane Junction towards Deansgate is shown straight up-down on the former, but with a substantial left-right portion on the latter. Your addition of the Ordsall Chord did in fact match my belief as to its position - I've shown it in black at right - but you made an error in which line is named the Windsor Link, which I've now fixed. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd worked out the upside-down bit ok, but I think it was the lack of "to Bolton" at that point (plus thinking that the Windsor Link is used for Picadilly trains to get onto the original Liverpool & Manchester (Eccles) route as well as Bolton. Judging from the old map, I think the Ordsall Chord must be where we've both put it. Tim PF (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

From what I've seen in magazines, that looks about right. For the record, the project is also sometimes called the Ordsall Curve ([4]) or the Castlefield Curve ([5]) - perhaps these should be redirects as well. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Apparently the proposal actually goes back all the way to 1978, and was seriously debated in the House of Commons a year later [6]. British Rail actually received parliamentary powers to build it in 1979 [7], but it then dropped off the radar for about three decades until the Manchester Hub report revived it [8]. So maybe there is enough for an article after all. It would certainly appear to meet WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really convinced that very small sections of line like this and the Windsor Link are inherently notable. What is notable and deserves writing about (if it hasn't already) are the problems/inconveniences etc caused by the lack of rail routes between Piccadilly & Victoria, why they arose e.g. rivalries between companies, and what has happened since to remedy the situation. NtheP (talk) 09:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Not inherently notable, no. But look at the sources. Multiple news and feature pieces talk about the chord over a period of 35 years. Easily notable under WP:GNG. I've written a draft at User:Alzarian16/Ordsall Chord. It's not perfect, but I think there's enough there to justify starting an article.

That's a very fine article, Alzarian; thanks. Whilst I'm sure there are a number of other articles that could be improved given the funding of the chord, it would be good to see yours released into article space as soon as you like. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a decent article and it's well referenced but my point is that we shouldn't be having little articles about short sections of line when there is potentially a much better article waiting that addresses the history of railways around Manchester and why 170 years after the L&M links like the Windsor Link and the Ordsall Curve are only just being approved. This is an encylopedia and we should be looking to address a wider audience, not be so specialist that most casual readers are going to pass it by or of they do look at it wonder - so what's so special about this then? NtheP (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

One possible solution would be to create an article about the Manchester Hub project? Although to be honest I think as it has got loads of press mentions and is well referenced it possibly stands up on its own. G-13114 (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Personally I'd put all these little projects into a blanket "[History of] Railways in Manchester" article, subsectioned if necessary. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

A larger blanket article is a very good idea, but one which should stand indepedently from an article on the Ordsall Chord, which has enough content and sources to justify an article under any relevant guideline. (I've added some extra content from offline sources to my draft if anyone's interested.) Considering the lack of sources on the Windsor Link and Picc-Vic tunnel, they would be better candidates for merging. Other short lines such as Halton Curve and Olive Mount chord have articles with far fewer sources. Even the long-established Dudding Hill Line has received less coverage (only two of the 14 sources are independent and reliable). Alzarian16 (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, in the absence of any further comments, I decided to be WP:BOLD and moved my draft to Ordsall Chord. We could consider merging later, but at least we cover it in some form for now. It seems to have been worth it. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Good work! G-13114 (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice article. I couldn't quickly place the chord location from the article, so I've added a simple(ish) RDT based on the extracts above, would someone with better local knowledge make sure I have the cardinal destinations right? Thanks. Scillystuff (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

That looks about right, although Salford Crescent might be a better destination than Bolton as that line splits after Windsor Bridge Junction for Bolton and Wigan. Another point to consider (and it isn't just the new one that does this) is that Salford Central, despite being passed through by trains to Liverpool, receives no services on that line as the platforms are disused. Should we consider moving its location to be after the junction? Every other map I've seen (including Baker, Stuart K (April 2004). Rail Atlas Great Britain & Ireland. Ian Allan. ISBN 0860935760. and RAIL) do. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I've redrawn the diagram for clarity. Mjroots (talk) 07:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added coordinates pointing to the likely site of the chord, based on an unreliable source http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=375073 pointing to http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=307618 . I'll keep the coords undeer review, which is to say that if I can find better information on the actual plans, I'll update them. Thanks for the article, Alzarian16. Railways in Greater Manchester and History of railways in Greater Manchester are still to be desired, but even were they in place, the Ordsall Chord chord article would still be welcome. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Despite comment of Mjroots, the RDT still shows the line as passing through Salford Cen. AFAIK this station never had any platforms on the Liverpool line - at one time there were eight tracks, but there were only ever four platforms. Of these eight, the southernmost pair were the "fast south" (ie Liverpool) lines; the next pair were the "slow South" lines; then came the "slow North" (ie Wigan and Bolton) lines and finally the "fast North". The four "South" tracks never had platforms, being the ex-LNWR Liverpool & Manchester line (it was the lack of platforms on the L&M lines at Salford that brought about the opening of Oldfield Road); but the four "North" tracks each had a platform, these being the ex-L&Y lines. The southern four tracks were reduced to two by 1980, possibly when Exchange was closed; and the northern four were reduced to two in the 1980s in connection with the opening of Salford Crescent and the general amendment of the lines in the Deal Street-Agecroft area. The platforms on the "Slow North" lines were taken out of use, but remain in situ. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The clarity I introduced was the splitting of the text to the relevant side of the diagram that it related to. Mjroots (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The Ordsall Chord article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 08:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)