Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways

Goals

Since the question has been raised above, and two or more editors have made suggestions, one of the best set of goals I have seen was produced by Rodw for WikiProject Somerset. It is:

Goals

Roughly in order of importance

1.  Done Get Somerset up to featured article.
2. Create articles on all important sub-divisions and places of interest in Somerset.
3. Maintain Portal:Somerset
4. Add basic data such as population and maps to all sub-divisions of Somerset.
5. Add at least one photograph to every sub-division and place of interest in Somerset.
6. Possibly create an infobox for places of interest with maps, visitor numbers etc.
7. Make History of Somerset, Geology of Somerset etc good, and ultimately featured articles.

My thoughts / comments

• The UK's railways has a number of era: Early railway companies, Big Four, British Rail, and post-privatisation structures; plus traction, e.g. locos powered by steam, diesel, electric; and multiple units powered by diesel or electric. These are the equivalent of Rodw's WP Somerset goal 7 - but we might not rank them 7th.
• It has, almost, a number of sub-projects, e.g. railway stations, Lines, Locos, multiple units, TOCs, etc.
• It has a number of (for want of a better term) article house styles, e.g. info boxes, images / photos and route diagrams, that add value to articles. These are the equivalent of Rodw's WP Somerset goal 4 - but we might not rank them 4th.
• There are also organisations like British Transport Police, ORR, HM Railway Inspectorate, British Transport Commission; and structures like canals, railway hotels, tunnels, bridges, etc, etc, that aught to fit in somewhere.

Suggestions

I suggest that Rodw's Somerset Goals could be reworked for UK Railways as a whole; and sub goals could be produced for e.g. early railway companies, Big Four, BR, Post-privatisation, locos, MUs, stations, Lines, TOCs, etc. The use of multiple goals provides scope for individual preferences, e.g. not everyone is interested in Big Four or current TOCs, or even the operators - stations, carriages, waggons, locos etc, could form part of some member's preferences.Pyrotec (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure goals are appropriate for most projects. On a project like this, most people are happily working away in their own specialist area and will carry on working in that area whatever the project's goals are. So, the project could declare that bringing British Rail to FA status is top priority - but I'll still carry on writing on disused stations, EdJogg on early steam locos, Simply south on the Docklands Light Railway etc etc etc - because we know we've more to contribute in these areas. Needless to say this is all just my personal opinion... (If we're going to have goals, I'd say top priority ought to be George Stephenson and cleaning up the very messy Network Rail.) — iridescent 22:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

But you could then argue 'what is the point of the project?' If everyone who expresses some affiliation with this project just carries on with his or her own interests, who is going to tackle the bigger topics? It is unreasonable to expect a single editor to tackle some of these, especially as they may not be aware of the areas of information that are missing from the article (available reference books may not cover the breadth or depth needed for a WP article).

So we have two questions: What sort of goals might inspire project members to get involved? and How can we maintain the interest so that subsequent goals can be achieved? For my part, the thought of having an article included for Main Page DYK or (more so) achieving GA or FA status, tends to push me towards completing it. But I guess that not all editors look for such 'accolades'.

EdJogg (talk) 23:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say what I see the points of the project are, are: discussing standards for consistency ("should we use chains as a measurement?"), and alerting others of things that need attention ("while writing Railway stations in Cromer I noticed the article on Cromer Tunnel is quite poor, but I know nothing about tunnels - could someone fix it?"). But this is getting off the point... Speaking of goals, add cleaning up Nigel Gresley to the list; I might have a stab at him some time myself, but I don't know much about steam so will probably make a lot of day-one mistakes. — iridescent 23:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

All of what is being discussed shows one of the real benefits of the assessment work. Once completed and audited for "correctness" (for want of a better word), then it will clearly indicate the articles that are important, and hence define the "goals" of the project. Olana North (talk) 07:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If the goals were set out similar to Somerset, i would guess it would look something like this:

Goals

Roughly in order of importance

1. Get Rail transport in the United Kingdom up to featured article.
2. Create articles on all rail topic related to the United Kingdom.
3. Maintain Portal:UKT P:BR
4. Add basic data, such as rail usage to railway stations, date built to railway locomotives etc.
5. Add at least one photograph to every appropriate article.
6. Update existing infoboxes.
7. Make History of rail transport in the United Kingdom, High-speed rail in the United Kingdom and all other topics etc good, and ultimately featured articles.

Remember these are only rough an just a mock up of Somerset. Simply south (talk) 08:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Job #1 looks to be creating the portal Portal:UKT... if we think we need one. Olana North (talk) 08:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The banner that started this discussion links to Portal:UK Railways. So we may have one of the goals part-achieved already.

EdJogg (talk) 09:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my fault, i thought the link already existed as a shortcut. I way meaning Portal:UK Railways. And can someone come up with more suggestions for goals. The above was just a suggestion. Simply south (talk) 09:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The portal was last updated in early October 2007, so its been over six months since it was updated ... perhaps its a candidate for deletion. If we cannot use the portal to advertise our goals and achivements, then perhaps we can do without it. Olana North (talk) 09:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Some portals are inactive for months before becoming active again e.g. P:LT so i would say do not delete. Simply south (talk) 10:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Some portals are inactive for months before becoming active again e.g. P:LT so i would say do not delete. Simply south (talk) 10:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll do some work on it later. By the way P:UKT is taken by UKTrams, so don't use Portal:UKT or it will be confusing!

BG7 10:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

P:BR<whistle></whitsle>Simply south (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I did suggest the possibility of a nested set of goals. There are no reason why there cannot be goals for the UK project as a whole. Goals for the early railway builders - someone was keen on George Stephenson; goals for post-privatisation network infrastructure operators (Network Rail and Railtrack - that's a tough one to prioritise). I like the Somerset goals (for Somerset), but they were put there: (1) for discussion and (2) to provoke those who don't like them to come up with a "better" counter-proposal. If the word "Goals" is a problem, lets have some other descriptors, e.g. targets, aims. Pyrotec (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Goals - 'Big Four' articles

Goals As we are the UK Railways Wikiproject, I'd say that the articles on BR, SR, LNER, LMSR and GWR should all be brought up to at least B class, if not GA. Maybe Network Rail could be included in this, but I don't know enough about the modern railway to say for sure. I sort of lost interest once all the slam door stock started disappering. What I'd suggest is that we have a month with each article being targeted for improvement. As we're halfway through May, that gives a couple of weeks before June starts, which could be the first of the months with a targeted article. Mjroots (talk) 06:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree that as a project we should have a "core" set of articles which we raise to the highest standard in terms of content and readability. I did a quick check, following on from a similar check done by another editor in a now archived discussion, and BR, GWR and LNER are all B class, LMS and SR are start class. Therefore if we do take the "one a month" approach, I would recommend prioritising LMS and SR in order to raise the overall average soonest.

I think that we need to agree "what great looks like" for these articles - not so much in terms of just the GA guidelines, but also in terms, perhaps, of what section headings we should have and what each section should include. The five articles each have different headings, but I feel a common theme would be beneficial to allow proper comparison. My starter for ten would be:

1. Introduction (obvious)
2. Geography (overall spread, areas of competition and monopoly, geographical quirks (i.e. LTS part of LMS in LNER area), overseas operations)
3. History (formation, early history, golden years, WWII, post-war)
4. Operations (premium services, pioneering use of technology, non-railway operations, most profitable services, quirky and non-standard operations (i.e. narrow gauge or rope worked etc), safety record)
5. Traction and Rolling Stock (locomotives, rolling stock, multiple units, liveries, works and depots)
6. Public Relations (advertising campaigns, public perception, branding etc)
7. Notable employees (general managers, chief engineers, but also for example drivers awarded for bravery in WWII etc)
8. Gallery (variety of images from across timeline and representing each of the sections listed above)
9. References, Further Reading, External Links (i.e. all the usual good stuff)

Clearly this can be improved upon, anyone care to comment? ColourSarge (talk) 09:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, your starter for ten only has nine items. I'd suggest that the tenth should be Accidents, covering major accidents, in a similar manner to articles on Airlines or Airports. Mjroots (talk) 09:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

There may well be others, but this looks like a fairly comprehensive set to start with. Where would 'Routes' go? Under 'Geography' or 'Operations'? EdJogg (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys, yeah I know my list only had 9 items (starter for ten being a University Challenge catchphrase, but you could argue that if you split References, Further Reading and External links into seperate sections as per the convention, it has 11! To answer your questions, I would imagine that Accidents would be included under Operations, where I noted safety record would go. This could include any major accidents that occurred during the company's lifetime, with links as appropriate to articles for each accident.

As for the routes, I would see this going under the Geography section if you mean describing the physical routes, i.e. "London Euston to Bletchley to Rubgy (with a loop via Northampton)...." with any notable services (notable in terms of premium levels of service, speed, length, number of portions included etc) going into the Operations section.

However as I said, these are only my opinions, if you feel strongly that either of your suggestions should form seperate sections, or if there are any others that should be included, then I'm perfectly happy with that - I think the key thing here is to agree a consensus among the more active members of the project (i.e. the ones who are most likely to re-format the articles) and agree that by putting them into that kind of format we would be likely to achieve GA status, and also be able to highlight any areas in which say the GWR article is fine but the LMS one is lacking.... ColourSarge (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Resetting the Indent.

OK I'm being bold! I've created my sandbox page and imported the current LMS article, I've also imported the headers I suggested above and am about to start on a reformatting to show what the "proposed" article would look like in comparison with the current one - should at least show whether its a sound basis for expanding articles up to GA status.

One thing that is obviously missing is an infobox - is there one currently in use for railway companies? I know there are for TOCs etc and for stations, but this really seems like an obvious oversight. I wouldn't have a clue how to produce an infobox, so would anyone with a better idea of the "how" care to have a crack?

Again, my suggestions for what to include would be: Crest or company logo; dates for created and abolished; acts of parliament which created and abolished the company; route mileage; track mileage; major consituent companies; no of stations operated; non railway operations (i.e. headline only so Hotels, Shipping; Road Haulage ; Airlines etc); General Manager / Chairman; Headquarters

What do you thinkColourSarge (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

OK I've now completed putting the existing article into the new format on my sandbox - a few obvious gaps show up straight away, particularly in Operations, Gallery etc while Traction and Rolling Stock and Notable Employees consist solely of lists to other articles. I'm going to take a break now, partly to give myself time to reflect on the new format, but also to allow time for other members of this project to have a chance to review and comment on the proposed format.... The article can be found here ColourSarge (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've had a quick glance over it (I think this is the link you meant to use), and your ideas for fleshing the article out read quite well. I don't have much knowledge myself of LMS (I'm starting on the ACR article and "working my way up"!) but I'll have a look now and again and make any suggestions that come to mind. Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops, yes, instead of a wikilink I appear to have done a knilikiw!ColourSarge (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

This article Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock and Ayr Railway, which has just gone through GA re-assessment, has an info box. Its an early company, and I did not produce it, but I do like it. Pyrotec (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That one uses {{Infobox UK railway}} which sits inside a routemap, so it might not be quite what you're looking for. EdJogg (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently tinkering with an infobox on a new sandbox page I've created to provide a re-written LMS page,here, which can then be compared to the version that has been simply re-formatted. I'm far from an expert in these matters though, so anyone with more experience is welcome to come take a look and give friendly advice on my talk page. Also I've left a note on the talk page for each of the Big Four highlighting this discussion and inviting contributions to the discussion. ColourSarge (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The infobox for "railroad" companies is {{Infobox rail}} – this is a stand alone box, rather that one that needs to be embedded in a route diagram. Track gauge is mandatory and there is space for a system map which is probably more appropriate for the larger companies. Watch out for "locale" which seems to mean country. Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Geof, yes I saw that one but wasn't too impressed with it really - thought it a bit too "yankish" for UK railways...I've had a stab at putting one together using a generic template on my "proposed rewrite" page,here, but for some reason it only displays three of the five sections I have created (you will see what I mean if you edit the page). Was looking for a project member with experience of creating infoboxes so we could have one which would work for the Big Four, but also for the predecessor companies... ColourSarge (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the missing headers. Not an area of my expertise, unfortuneatly. I notice that the examples on the template page only run to three headers too.

I have never been too happy with the railroad infobox, although it looks better now that the header is no longer black on gold! With my West Country interests I am a bit concerned that it may not really work for the GWR – the predecessors will be longer than the page, and as for "presidents"...! Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I created {{Infobox UK railway}} just before last Christmas as I was not too happy with the combination of {{Infobox rail}} and a routemap on the same page when I was working my way around the Scottish railway companies. The main reason was the two boxes on the right hand side were having on the body of the text and their differing widths. I do not have too much experience on creation of infoboxes, normally taking an existing one and using it as the basis of the the new one being created. --Stewart ^(talk) 18:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I've edited the code for {{Infobox generic}} to include the two missing sections, and it shouldn't have broken any other pages using the template (if they don't use them, it won't show up). Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Go Great Western!

When I looked at the Great Western Railway page, I felt that the B-class rating was not really deserved. Rather than downgrade it to Start-class, I have padded it out in as the first stage in preparing for a GA nomination. I have followed the ideas that are being tried above but found, as expected, that the GWR needs some different treatment to the "simple" (i.e. 25 year) histories of the other Big Four. Instead the treatment is more like that which will be demanded by the more complex Pre-grouping companies such as the Midland Railway and London and South Western Railway.

The sections that I have ended up with are:

• History – in my mind History must come before...
• Geography
  • Key locations
  • Engineering
• Operations
  • Passenger services
  • Freight services
  • Ancillary operations
• Traction and rolling stock
  • Locomotives
  • Carriages
  • Wagons
• Public relations
  • Tourism
  • Cultural references
• Notable people – technically Brunel was never an "employee"!
• References, etc.

The {{Infobox GWR}} has similarly been adjusted to suit the complexity of the GWR, combining the best bits of the trial LMSR infobox, the "railroad" infobox, and the UK stations approach...

• History – all dates have been kept to just the year in order to keep the box slimmer
• Constituent companies (with dates)
• Successor organisation (with date)
• Key locations
  • Headquarters
  • Workshops
  • Principal stations
• Route mileage (at various dates that link with the history and constituents)

Any more thoughts, anyone? Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Geof, looks good - only thing that was obviously missing straight away for me was the use of diesel railcars under the rolling stock section. But then that could be because I happen to think the GWR railcars were some of the best looking trains ever produced. ColourSarge (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The railcars (and steam rail motors) have now appeared in the Passenger Services section. No doubt they will be covered somehow when the Locomotives section is revised (coming soon...!). If anyone fancies a crack at the History section, this is still just a congeration of the odd paragraphs that were already there when we started the rewrite. If not then I will lock myself in a quiet room for a couple of days next month and see what I can do. Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The title of your edit above made me think about railcars - in fact I am sure I have seen pictures of them hauling milk / livestock vans, so I guess you could call them locomotives too. But why not include a section on experimental / pioneering rolling stock to allow this to be compared across the Big Four?ColourSarge (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

British Rail Class 21 (Vossloh)

I have been looking through the 2008 issue of the Locomotives and Coaching Stock book by Platfrom 5 and I cannout see any reference to this locomotive. I suspect that this is a "hoax" article, but would like others to confirm/deny the existence of this locomotive and that it does have a TOPS class of 21 allocated to it. If nobody responds, then I shall tag it up for deletion (preferably speedy). Olana North (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say hoax, but whether they (and other locos owned by Euro Cargo Rail such as some of the 66s) count at British Rail locos is debatable. This does bring up the 'what is British Rail' debate again, what is the difference between a 66 owned by EWS/ECR (never BR) and one owned by HKG for example? I can't confirm the detail in the article such as TOPS code, I'm afraid. The German ECR page http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_Cargo_Rail does mention the TOPS code. Talltim (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably not a deliberate hoax, more likely to be misguided. The reason given in the article for the class supposedly being given a TOPS code sounds a bit dubious to me, though; as far as I know, diesels aren't allowed through the Channel Tunnel under their own power, so why would they need to travel to Dollands Moor? --RFBailey (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

They would need a TOPS code if they are hauled on British metals, in the same way that freight and coaching stock has TOPS codes.

In terms of the article title, it is possible that "TOPS Class 21" would be more accurate, although whether anyone actually calls them that (which is how you should decide what the name should be) is another matter. (For that reason, NONE of the existing articles, includeing the Class 57s, should be renamed, as they form a cohesive set, even if in some cases the name is not 100% accurate).

EdJogg (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[additional] The problem would not occur if these articles had followed the US model, so instead of "British Rail Class 47" we would have "Brush Type 4", for example -- manufacturer then model, as for car articles. (Admittedly it's not quite so simple when the locos are actually built by BR...!) Maybe the same should be done here, article renamed Vossloh G1206 with the "BR Class 21 (Vossloh)" title demoted to a redirect?

EdJogg (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Be BOLD and move the article as suggested. --Stewart ^(talk) 16:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

We should need a Vossloh G1206 article sometime anyway, these locos are quite common (and owned by many operators) Talltim (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't let my suggestion stop anyone else from being bold...

Anyway, is the title "Vossloh G1206" consistent with other Vossloh locomotive articles?

(This is some distance from my normal editing areas, and also I have no more time to do it at present! )

EdJogg (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

There aren't any other Vossloh loco articles in the English wiki, (I was looking last week!) so we don't have a standard. There are a few articles about MaK locos (Vossloh's predecessor) which seem to be in their respecive owners grouping's.

I am in the process of translating the Vossloh G2000 article from the German wiki, so will need a common naming scheme soon.

I think Vossloh {model name} would be suitable, please could someone with the requitsite skills move/rename British Rail Class 21 (Vossloh) to Vossloh G1206 and I will do some tidying up of the article? Thanks Talltim (talk) 08:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Moved has been carried out as discurred above (even if I managed to make an error in wikilink to this discussion) --Stewart ^(talk) 16:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

thanks Stewart, I'll have get on with modifying it and adding the other owner's locos in now! Talltim (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone who helped in this. Olana North (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Specification vs. implementation-of-specification

← Just to reopen to discussion; there is already SNCF Class BB 61000 (French classification for Vossloh G1206); which is the same problem, but in reverse. We also have it with British Rail Class 66/EMD Series 66 (and now CD66). —Sladen (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point, now you have really confused issues, especially with regards to the CD66 article! Here's a suggestion (which is contrary to my previous one). We have a manufacturer's page for each loco model, and then also pages on operators (state or private) for each loco type (this brings up the problem, would the EWS/ECR Vossloh G1206s be British Rail Class 21 (Vossloh) or ECR Vossloh G1206 or something else? (they haven't given them their own class name)).

Feel free to disagree with this suggestion, I'm not sure I like it myself! Talltim (talk) 09:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Need to take a step back and consider WP basics. The main article should be about the general loco (Vossloh G1206). This should then contain information about who operates the locomotive and the differences between them. IF there is enough information about one particular operator's examples (as is NOT the case with the EWS ones yet) then this can spawn a sub-article, that can link back to the main article for all the technical details, design history, etc. Looked-at this way, there will never be a British Rail G1206, but there could be an ECR Vossloh G1206, IF there is sufficient text to warrant it.

EdJogg (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thats the conclusion I've come to too. Thus, for example EMD Series 66 would be the main article, with British Rail Class 66 (in this case) being a sub article*, the same as CD66 Talltim (talk) 10:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• I know wiki doesn't really work with nested articles.

List of current systems for electric rail traction

User:Berk2 has moved this article to Current systems for electric rail traction. I have placed the following questions on this users talk page for him to answer:
(1) Why was it not discussed on the talk page?
(2) Why wasn't a reason for the move was given?
(3) Why wasn't a tage placed on the page before the move took place, indicating your intention?
(4) Why did you not consult before making the move thereby acheive consensus.
I feel that it is unacceptable behaviour to move pages without prior consensus or a valid reasonb being given (i.e. reference to a Wikipedia policy). Olana North (talk) 07:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Moving a page is a normal editing action: not everything has to be listed at WP:RM first. In this case, the article is clearly a list, so "List of [...]" is probably a better title. Remember we're supposed to be encouraging editors to be bold: not stamping on them when they follow this. An expression about mountains and molehills springs to my mind..... --RFBailey (talk) 15:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

As you say an article that is clearly a "list, ought to have a title that starts "List of", so why change it??? Also, are you suggesting that WP:BOLD takes precedence over WP:CONSENSUS?? I thought that this place was a collaboration of effort. Also, with WP:BOLD must come responsibility, and surely giving an explanation and a reason is just plain being WP:CIVIL. Please correct me if I have interpreted the purpose of Wikipedia incorrectly. Olana North (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not suggesting that at all. And stop shouting about civility. If (s)he'd said to you, "F*** off, I can move whatever page I like, ha ha ha", that would be incivil. You're supposed to assume good faith. Anyway, I agree with you that the page move was unnecessary, so I've moved it back. --RFBailey (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The UK Transport Wiki

Hi All,

I am creating a wiki all about Transport in The UK. As this WikiProject is about UK Railways, it would fall under the scope of the UK Transport Wiki. If you are interested please leave a message on my user talk or on My UK Transport Wiki user talk.

Thanks - Dudleybus ^{Spake 2 me} 09:15, 4 June 2008 (BST)

First Harrogate Trains

Members of the project may wish to participate in the following AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Harrogate Trains. Thanks, --RFBailey (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Bristol Temple Meads

Bristol Temple Meads railway station is currently rated B-class, but recent edits have probably moved this close to GA. before I turn it over for a formal assesment, perhaps members of this project would like to take a look and see what else needs doing. Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting one, and it raises questions about the consistency of the assessement given to other GA rated articles on UK railway stations (Jordanhill railway station, London Paddington station, Preston railway station, Rugby railway station). The article on Rugby has only three references and has a tag stating that it needs more!! I like the maps of Preston, and something similar would really be good for a station like Bristol TM, which has had a lot of changes over its lifetime. I think it deserves a GA status, but it raise questions about whether some other deserve it. I think Rugby should be down-graded. Olana North (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree on both Bristol Temple Meads (i.e. is a good GA candidate) and Rugby (i.e. lacks references); but the only problem with Rugby is lack of references. I mentioned Inverclyde Line above. The same admin awarded GA status to both the Inverclyde Line and Rugby; and a challenge over the Inverclyde Line was not upheld. Perhaps we need to ensure that this admin does the assessment on Bristol Temple Meads.Pyrotec (talk)

I have just looked at Rugby railway station on the date that it was reviewed and there was only one reference, and yet the reviewing admin put "pass" against the "well referenced" criteria. I fully agree with Pyrotec that this reviewing admin should be asked to explain his decision. Olana North (talk) 07:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I am going to be slightly critical on the Description (not a typo). To me this section reads like a tour of the station. There are many useful facts that should remain such as the train shed having a notable roof and many things that could be left out. The sections could change slightly maybe with something about the facilities in a separate area. It also seems to read in this section that most of the facilities are located in the subway, which i think would be a rather odd place. Simply south (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, most of the facilities are indeed in the subway..... --RFBailey (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The last time I used BTM, before privatisation, most of the facilities were in the subway, including toilets; but there was bookstall/paper shop (either WH Smith or John Menzies - I forget which) at platform level.Pyrotec (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

As someone who uses BTM on a regular basis (last time a week or so ago) I can confirm that is where most of the services including coffee, ATMs, pasties, other food, toilets, lost property office etc are to be found in the subway & yes the newsagent is at ground level by the ticket office info boards. BTW I think the article is getting much better in the last couple of days.— Rod ^talk 19:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The description does indeed read like a tour of the station. The History section is aimed at people interested in why and how it became notable, the Description is for those who want to visit it now, so combines highlights of the surviving historical bits and information about how it works now. If you look back on the article history you will see that it was originally two sort-of lists which is a style that is unlikely to gain merit in a GA assesment. Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Services boxes on station articles

How should service boxes be arranged on station articles? In alphabetical order? - as there appears to be a lot of articles with them not in alphabetical order. For example in this article they appear to be in the number of services provided order. I know this is only a small matter but it would be nice to have continuity between articles. Which is the best / agreed way? Year1989 (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Alphabetical order (I presume you mean by name of train operating company) seems sensible as a general rule; however, it might make sense to separate out the "limited service" operators and put them after the main ones. So, in the Chinley example you cited, Northern would go first, with EMT and FTPX afterwards. --RFBailey (talk) 03:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

S-rail, yet again

Hello folks, back again. If memory serves, the last serious discussion of replacing {{rail line}} by {{s-line}} took place in in November of 2007. My impression of the discussion was that there was no real opposition to replacing one with the other, but rather concerns over the level of detail shown by the boxes (e.g. stopping patterns). As an outsider I'm neutral on that question; what goes for one rail system does not necessarily go for another. I do, however, think the time is right for replacement. During the last discussion, I and others introduced changes to the templates to accommodate this group. Among them was a fix for the large whitespace issue and the ability to suppress termini system-wide. Apropos of the discussion above, there's practically no difference between the route boxes for Chinley using {{rail line}} or {{s-line}}:

Preceding station	National Rail			Following station
Edale		Northern Rail Hope Valley Line		Hazel Grove or New Mills Central
Edale Limited Service		East Midlands Trains Liverpool-Norwich (Hope Valley Line) Limited Service		Hazel Grove Limited Service
Dore and Totley Limited Service		First TransPennine Express South TransPennine Limited Service		Stockport

Template:S-line-jnct

Preceding station		National Rail		Following station
Edale Limited service		East Midlands Trains Liverpool-Norwich		Hazel Grove Limited service
Dore and Totley Limited service		First TransPennine Express South TransPennine		Stockport

The primary difference, of course, is standardisation. Colours are defined centrally at {{National Rail colour}}, instead of on each article individually. If a TOC colour needs be changed, then that's one edit to one template, instead of hundreds of edits to hundreds of articles. It also means auto-linking for branches and stations, again defined centrally. In the long run this is a vast simplification of the template structure.

I'm coming here, hat in hand (as it were), to ask that this be given a fair trial. At the end of the day the articles will look the same. I'm not proposing that we show stopping patterns, nor that we display termini. Look at the example above: can you tell me which is which?

Thank you for your time, Mackensen (talk) 22:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this would make things simpler and I support using it. It would especially make things more simple with operator colours. The only thing is that there is nothing to say that an operators service at this station is a limited service but this could be added. Year1989 (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

While the output of the two methods looks pretty much exactly the same (especially now that {{s-rail}} has been adapted to make this possible), of course the code underneath making it all work is very different. The main difference between the two is that {{s-rail}} requires the setup of several subsidiary templates. However, if the proponents of {{s-rail}} are willing to contribute to assist with the enormous start-up costs of implementing this, then potentially we could go ahead.

One suggestion: in the following line of code

{{s-rail-line|system=National Rail|line=First TransPennine Express|branch=South TransPennine|previous=Dore and Totley|next=Stockport|note=Limited service}}

perhaps the "line" field should be renamed "toc" (short for train operating company) and "branch" renamed as "route"? Maybe a new "{{National Rail line}}" template with this functionality could be created. --RFBailey (talk) 23:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It goes without saying that I'll bear the costs of the transition, and I suspect others as well. S-line templates are descended from rail line, and the two can co-exist on the same page without difficulties. Many of the subsidiary templates already exist, created during the November discussion. Not having termini displayed eliminates much of the work in that area. National rail line could simply call s-line with different names, if necessary. Mackensen (talk) 00:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've called it {{s-rail-national}} and updated the example above. Mackensen (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks--that's a help. I think {{National Rail colour}} needs updating to reflect recent changes: see here for an up-to-date list. --RFBailey (talk) 01:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've updated it to include First ScotRail's commuter rail services (including the background colours, which was interesting to implement). Mackensen (talk) 01:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

....and I've further updated it, adding and removing some TOCs (RIP GNER :) ). --RFBailey (talk) 04:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Going forward, I think the sensible thing (if there is consensus to do so) is to pick a TOC, it doesn't matter which, and migrate its templates, making sure to get all the routes and nuances right. If the experiment goes all right then we can start talking about a larger rollout. We'll also have to discuss First Capital Connect, which is using its own instance of {{s-line}} and should probably be coordinated with the National Rail templates. Mackensen (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok looks like a good idea to me. What about starting with First TransPennine Express as their network isnt too complex but it should be enough to test it. Also wouldnt the above example need to be like this to show that the services are limited services? Otherwise this is not made clear.

Template:S-line-jnct

Preceding station		National Rail		Following station
Edale Limited service		East Midlands Trains Liverpool-Norwich Limited Service		Hazel Grove Limited service
Dore and Totley Limited service		First TransPennine Express South TransPennine Limited Service		Stockport

That makes it look more clear to me Year1989 (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps--that prompts a question from me. Is the whole service limited, or just service at this particular station or set of stations? Mackensen (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The route=South TransPennine<br>Limited Service bit seems to have screwed up the South TransPennine link. Perhaps this is ill-advised? Maybe the "route" field could have an optional "limited=yes" to produce a "Limited service" disclaimer? --RFBailey (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Its just this particular station the service is limited. Some selected East Midlands Trains services stop at the stations on the Hope Valley Line. Some only stop at Chinley. Selected First TransPennine Express services stop at Dore and some stop at Chinley or both. Year1989 (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

To clarify that, there are various "limited service" situations which could theoretically occur. Suppose the service box has been placed on the article about Station A, which on a particular line is preceded by Station B and succeeded by Station C. Then the possibilities are:

• • the whole line could have a limited service, in which case the service at A, B and C is limited;
  • the line sees a regular service, serving B and C ordinarily, but only occasionally serves A;
  • the line sees a regular service, serving A and and one of B/C ordinarily, but only occasionally serves the other;
  • the line sees a regular service, serving A ordinarily, but only occasionally serves both B and C.

How should we differentiate between these, without having "Limited service" all over the box?

Anyway, how should we define "Limited service" anyway? --RFBailey (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's been my understanding that this project, in dealing with these boxes, thinks in terms of "lines" and not "services." This may be a level of detail more usefully discussed in the article text; the primary purpose of the box is navigational. That being said, it would pose no special problem to add a "limited" field to the middle cell, although a more general "notemid" would be my preference. Mackensen (talk) 23:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree: I think having such information can make the boxes overly cluttered. --RFBailey (talk) 01:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Branch/route, like line/toc and system is part of the core group of parameters which define the line; it isn't meant to handle notes of this kind and route definition. Mackensen (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, "notemid" now exists. Mackensen (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thats better. Should we start implementing this now on the First TransPennine Express routes as I suggested? Or should we hold more talks first? Year1989 (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a better idea would be trial this on a certain line and not a certain opertor. If we trialed this on the Hope Valley Line it would be better. Year1989 (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me; let's go ahead. Mackensen (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hope Valley Line is more or less done, without incident. How do folks here feel about wider production? Mackensen (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The Hope Valley Line roll-out seems to be fine; there is one bug, though--the previous/next links are to "X station" rather than "X railway station", meaning that the links always go through a redirect.

Perhaps a good place to start would be where there are networks which are relatively self-contained, e.g. c2c, Merseyrail, or the Glasgow commuter network?

I'd be happy to help out, but I'm going to be travelling for the next five weeks, so my wiki-ing will be quite restricted during that time. --RFBailey (talk) 23:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That's more a feature than a bug--the station template looks for X station, then for X railway station. There's a bunch of articles out there which follow that convention, especially if they're mixed railway/tram/underground facilities. I noticed a bunch of X station redirects with nothing linking to them--they could probably be deleted, then it would link direct. Alternatively, the order of detection could be reversed. Glasgow commuter network would be a good test--I'm pretty sure the templates are prepared to duplicate the special colours for those lines. Mackensen (talk) 02:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The rollout of s-rail on the Hope Valley Line has worked perfectly. I am currently updating the service boxes on the line between Cleethorpes and Doncaster and Cleethorpes to Barton-on-Humber. I will update them to s-rail while I am doing this if it is ok everyone. Year1989 (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Usage stats update

05/06 usage update

I've just finished the London articles. So, by my reckoning, we have:

• Wales, South West, South East, and London regions completed.
• East Midlands, East of England, North East, North West, Scotland, West Midlands, and Yorks & Humber still to be checked.

Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Would a list of articles including the UK station infobox missing the latest usage figures be useful? Adambro (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would save checking articles that already have the figures. Something makes me think you know about category intersection jiggery-pokery or similar. (Venn diagrams drift into my mind...) Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Would a bot solve this menial task? Simply south (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It would, if a bot could do it. While competent at programming, I know nothing about Wikipedia's bots and operation (yet). Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't hold your breath for that. There was a discussion recently (now archived) about the use of a bot to give a basic assessment (importance=low) of unassessed articles, and nothing has happened. Olana North (talk) 07:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion was about adding a UK assessment where there was an WPT assessment, but UK assessment. There was a strong argument from someone that a bot might do it wrongly and that no assessment was better than a wrong assessment; and there were doubts expressed that a bot was capable of doing it. Overall, there did not appear to be any enthusiasm about doing anything in this area by bot.Pyrotec (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Precisely my point. Are you expecting more enthusiasm for a bot to do the infoboxes?? Olana North (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was suggesting that a bot carry out the updates to the infoboxes, rather just produce a list of articles for which the "usage0506=" parameter in the infobox is blank. Then a human can go through the list and update the figures manually. (This is clearly different from having a bot do assessments, as that is definitely not a mechanical task.) This is just the sort of thing bots are for. --RFBailey (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've left a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 23:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Just occurred to me - an alternative might be to adjust the {{Infobox UK station}} template temporarily so that any station with a blank usage0506 parameter is automatically categorised into (say) Category:UK stations without latest usage statistics. This would be a hidden category, which could be deleted when the work is complete. I'm busy over the weekend, but if people want me to go ahead with this, and there's no luck with the bot request, I can have a look at it next week. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 23:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've modded the template to populate said category when the latest numbers (06-07) are missing. Mackensen (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I see you changed the {{Infobox UK station}} for usage0607. Will the cat disappear if lowusage0607 was added? thie same should also apply to the other infoboxes with theses parameters. Simply south (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That could be done--what's the difference between the two? Mackensen (talk) 16:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Lowusage is for stations whose usages do not run into over 100,000. Simply south (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've inserted new code which should add the category only if both are blank. It'll take some time to propagate. Mackensen (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll apply the same to {{Infobox London station}} Simply south (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

An unfortunate side-effect in London is that all DLR and most LU stations also now have the hidden category and so are classed under this, i am meaning those which do not interchange with National Rail. Simply south (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, two possible outs: (1) there are ridership numbers available or (2) there's a way to distinguish non-National Rail stations internally. Given the mixed nature of the system I don't think #2 is practical. Are there data available for the Underground and DLR? Mackensen (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Stations on heritage lines, such as Tywyn Wharf, are also affected. I'd envisaged cut-and pasting the articles from the category to make a list, or maybe someone who knows more about the database can extract it another way. Either way, I think the category should only be temporary, and the template can then be reverted back. Stations which aren't applicable can be removed from the list manually. — Pek, on behalf of Tivedshambo (talk) 07:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

If anyone's interested, this could be extended further to a create another category, Category:UK stations without any usage statistics. Mackensen (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

06/07 on 06/08

What i have just found out is now all the stations need to be updated again as the 2006-2007 stats have just been released. See here (thanks to DrFrench and Pencefn for the link). Simply south (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't that kindof make you think there might be a better way of doing this? (eg an ext. link?) -- EdJogg (talk) 01:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

See above this.

I would just like to point out to take these new usage figure with a pinch of salt around London. The reason for the sudden changes at stations is due to the ORR's new methodology taking into account travelcards and other tickets, of which they did not in the previous years so it is likely the usage in the previous years is higher or different to what the current documents show. Also, they have been separating out group stations. Please look at the 2006-2007 station usage report. Simply south (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Humber Coast & City Railway

What should happen about this proposal? It seems to have fizzled out although it was proposed also as a subsidary of Hull Trains, according to some sources, and there is a current aspiration by Hull Trains for the lincolnshire services. Simply south (talk) 10:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a difficult one. There clearly is a proposal still, but it is unlikely to happen now. Btline (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that it appears to have been an idea of Renaissance Trains without any other companies' input, I suggest we merge it into their article. Alternatively, in the Hull Trains article, their current aspirations (re Harrogate, Lincolnshire) should be mentioned somewhere, and this could then be mentioned as an earlier, alternative proposal. (Personally, I think this service was a mad idea, and don't understand how they ever thought there was a business case for such a convoluted route, but that's just my opinion.) --RFBailey (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. But it is even madder for them to be pushing it now, as two other TOCs will be starting much faster services soon. Btline (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Reference desk

Resolved

A question [1] was asked on the reference desk and I thought someone here may be able to help provide and answer. - X201 (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidates

At the risk of being accused of canvassing, there are currently two UK railway related articles that Featured Article candidates. These are

• Talyllyn Railway (nomination), and
• LSWR N15 class (nomination)

These require any criticism, and hopefully support in order to get them to FA status. Any help would be gratefully received. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 10:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I gave my views on the Talyllyn Railway some time ago, which was that the references are too heavily reliant on a small number of sources that are repeated just for a different page or pages. Boyd and Bate are overused, and I suggested that the a,b,c sub-references be used a bit more. I would make the same suggestion again. I fully understand that the references are limited for such a specialised subject, but I think it could be neatened up. I have not read all of the article as it not an are that I feel able to comment on, but I think it looks damn good. Olana North (talk) 11:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Compass Tours

I have nominated this article for deletion. Please refer to the articles talk page for details. Olana North (talk) 09:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

List of heritage stations

To solve a problem that was discussed ages ago (at one of the talk pages of the UK railway stations), i have created a page to list heritage railway stations in the UK if anyone is interested (although no stations added as of this message yet). If anyone is interested please add. Simply south (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You need a definition of "Heritage railway station" now, before people start adding to it; is it all stations on preserved lines? (If so, would that include, for example, the new station at Holt?) Or is it all stations preserving most of their historic features, like Battersea Park - if so there needs to be a clear cut-off unless it's to end up with every Victorian building. Otherwise, it will end up as an indiscriminate list and deleted as soon as one of the deletionists stumbles across it. – iridescent 15:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I linked it to the heritage railway article in the lead, i suppose the name could change for something better but i can't think what at the moment. It is for all railway stations currently served by heritage railways, including some joint stations (e.g. Okehamption, Whitby, Smallbrook Junction). In answer, those on preserved railways. Hopefully it will not be an indisciminate list when i move it into main. Simply south (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, but its crying out to have the table headers and each entry as templates. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 17:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean exactly? It is as a few tables although it could be spruced up instead of being grey. Simply south (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I've done a quick demo by creating User:Simply south/List of heritage railway stations in the United Kingdom/tabletop. I'll look at an individual entry template later —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 17:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that saves a lot, i will apply to the rest. I wonder now what are appropriate columns, what are not and what can be added but i suppose that can be sorted later. I wonder if each row should be coloured according to the company or would this be wrong? Simply south (talk) 17:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding coloring, I think there are too many heritage railways for this to work. There are several hundred heritage railways, so there would be so many shades, it would be hard to distinguish them. Best, Gwernol 18:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) Ok, I've knocked up an entry template, and used it for Bridgnorth. The advantage of using these is that it'll make it a lot easier for adding or removing columns. I've fixed the coordinates to use the {{coord}} template. A few comments and suggestions:

• I don't see the need for the postcode column - I don't think it'll give anything that can't be gained from the coordinates
• I'm not convinced that arrivals/departures are necessary either - the few interchange stations that are on this list will almost certainly have there own article which can be used for this.
• Individual years for opening and closing should not be wikilinked unless part of a full date.

 —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 19:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Joint stations

On the suggestions, 1st one your probably right so this will be got rid of (unless its already been done so). 2nd one, there are other joint stations, not just the ones currently in the list e.g. Grosmont and Ravenglass, but then again... 3rd will possibly sort out later. Maybe another column should be added showing whether it is a joint station (simple yes or no). Simply south (talk) 20:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Alton railway station, Paignton railway station come to mind, along with the stations along the Vale of Glamorgan Railway, and shortly Matlock railway station. —Sladen (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Bodmin Parkway railway station, Blaenau Ffestiniog railway station and Aviemore railway station also come to my mind. --Stewart ^(talk) 21:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add them. Should i move the list to the main area now? Simply south (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Just trying to fix a bug which is causing it to call the coord template incorrectly. Can you put it off for a bit? —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 22:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed - move when you're ready. I suggest moving the templates first, so that you can rename them in the article before you move it. {{lhrs-top}} and {{lhrs-entry}} might be suitable template names. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 22:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're wondering why Northwood had ?,? for the coords, i am having trouble finding it so the question marks were put in on purpose until i can (or someone else can) find the coordinates. Simply south (talk) 09:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Resetting the indent.

Is it this Northwood Station you are after?? ColourSarge (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry clearly not the one above, but I think I have located it here. This location is adjacent to Northwood Lane, just north of a level crossing (as described in the station article) and if you look on the aerial photograph, it clearly shows not only the white edging to the platform (seen in the photo on the article) but also a steam locomotive passing through the station. ColourSarge (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Not the London Underground station. I was referring to Northwood Halt on the Severn Valley Railway. I know it is located somewhere in the Wyre Forest. Simply south (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject_Trains#Changes_to_the_assessment_scheme_proposed

As advised on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains page, there appears to be an energing consensus about a new C-Class of article, see here [2].

I note that the main WikiProject Trains page has already amended their assessment page, so I was wondering when the UK page was going to be updated and new guidance issued on the classification of articles. Olana North (talk) 07:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrexham & Shropshire Route

I have nomintated this article for deletion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrexham & Shropshire Route and the discussion at Talk:Wrexham & Shropshire. Adambro (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

High Speed 1

The new High Speed 1 line, ive looked at the article however there seems to be no sources that actually highlight which stations this line will be calling at. Isn`t this a bit premature to be stating a station such as Herne Bay railway station will be part of this line or indeed trains actually stopping there.

herne bay service box, highlighting a non-sourced information

Preceding station	National Rail			Following station
Chestfield & Swalecliffe		Southeastern Chatham Main Line - Ramsgate Branch		Birchington-on-Sea
Whitstable		Southeastern High Speed 1 London-Broadstairs (not yet operational)		Birchington-on-Sea

Your comments would be welcome please --Rockybiggs (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It's probably based on the the fact that the CTRL Domestic Stock trains (called the "Javelin") will be stopping at this station. Clearly, a place such as Herne Bay is not part of High Speed 1, but will be served by trains that use it. Olana North (talk) 11:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Books section

I'm certainly not going to unilaterally remove it if people find it useful, given that it's not doing any harm, but is the Books section really such a wise idea? There are literally thousands of reference books on railways (enough to keep an entire chain of shops in business selling nothing but), and there isn't really a "canonical" book or series, since the books are all so specialised. (The Capital Transport publications DavidCane and I rely on for south-east commuter lines are irrelevant to Ansbaradigeidfran and his Welsh articles, for instance.) It might be more use to have a "resources" section with external links to Middleton Press, Connor & Butler, Ian Allan etc with brief descriptions of what each deals with, rather than try to keep a publications list in order. Just a thought. – iridescent 13:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Fleet sizes etc.

UK rail articles are constantly under threat from the creep of unreferenced information. In particular I am concerned about details of the number of Class X trains which X TOC has etc. I've yet to see a reliable source cited for any of these values. I think we need to seriously think about removing all such information unless reliable sources can be found. I am currently not sure that this is possible, I suspect most of this information will be based upon unreliable sources such as train spotting blogs, forums or similar websites. Is there a reliable source for the number of Mk 3 coaches which National Express East Coast has in its fleet for example? Adambro (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It will presumably be in the annual reports of the ROSCOs and the stock leasing companies if someone really feels the urge to go look for it. I do not propose to do this myself. – iridescent 18:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Where do the number of types of trains per company come from? Then again, it may list these on their website. Simply south (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The books from Platform 5 are a reliable source, but like the usage stats, should only be updated annually, or when a new TOC is created etc. Other than that the European Railway Server maintains fleet lists to a good degree of accuracy. Olana North (talk) 19:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've made efforts to track down sources for most of this information and remain unconvinced that reliable sources can be found for much of it and in the absence of a citation for these values I feel it appropriate to remove the information. I will however look at each case individually. For example, the number of Class 185s which FTPE operate is likely to be mentioned in a press release somewhere but the number of Mk3 coaches that NXEC operate is not. I don't believe that the leasing companies will make this information available since this changes frequently. European Railway Server doesn't appear to be particularly reliable. Adambro (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The constant "updates" that we're bombarded with are indeed a problem. The Platform 5 books are probably the best source, so an annual update sounds sensible. Trouble is, the plethora of usually-anonymous editors who make these tedious updates (anyone else remember the stupid edit war over the Hull Trains Class 86?) will probably not be convinced. --RFBailey (talk) 09:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)