Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

CrossCountry and IP 194.9.188.22

The IP 194.9.188.22 keeps inserting unsourced POV criticisms of this TOC. They have been repeatedly reverted by me and others. I put a warning on his/her user page twice, but the disruptive editing continues regardless. The criticisms may well be justified but they would have to be ascribed to some respectable commentator. The IP does not seem to want to take on board the fact that Wikipedia itself cannot be seen to be making such criticisms. The IP is registered to an ISP in Staines. Could somebody who is an administrator please do something about this case? -- Alarics (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Warned them with {{uw-npov3}}. Take it up to a final level 4 warning if they do it again, and if that doesn't stop them, let me know, or report it at WP:AN.  An optimist on the run! 20:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page for 1 week. That will stop IP edits, at least. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it's a very small IP range, so rangeblocking might be a better option than semi if this persists. I'll watchlist the article, but I'm not very good at keeping up with my watchlist at the minute. Feel free (anyone) to ping my talk page if there are more problems. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

London Underground

I keep deleting a completely unsourced section headed "The PMF Methodology" and it keeps being put back in. It was first put there (along with the paragraph after it, headed "Project Management Maturity at LUL", which does have some sources) by an editor with the name "Pmfteam", who sent me an email implying that if I did not work for LUL I was not qualified to edit the text! This user was chastised on his/her user page by David Biddulph for having a name clearly related to the organisation being written about, and subsequently blocked altogether. The latest re-insertion of this material is by an IP registered to Transport for London.

My own feeling is that both these paragraphs are fairly meaningless "internal" management-speak jargon on a rather non-core aspect of the subject of the article. Clearly this is a very important, high-traffic article and arguably quite long enough without this sort of abstruse guff. What do others think? -- Alarics (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I don't see the need for this paragraph. How many people actually know what 'Project Management Maturity' is? Its pretty much just jargon and that's coming from an rail enthusiast. Likelife (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Direct them in the first instance to the message below the "Save page" button and also to WP:OWN. If they insist on its inclusion, point them to WP:V and WP:NOT. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Both are verifyable ie "Project Management Maturity at LUL" and "Project Management Framework".

If it is to be in it needs to be written in english not bullet points, and the coverage be relavent and encyclopedic - the part which says "The latest official assessment, in February 2010, certified LUL at a P3M3 maturity level of 3[66] (out of a maximum score of 5). This conclusion was reached by an external consultancy,[67] following a survey of some 200 project staff. The certification was observed and endorsed by the APM Group.[68]" seems reasonable - the rest I saw not - however it lacks context, especially regarding what it is actually describing. I'd have to agree with removing the lot at present.

It should also be noted that if they are saying they work for LUL then they have WP:COI issues, and seeing as it is clearly affecting their judgement this means no editing - though suggestions on the talk page for additions should be welcome.

I should note that the current article doesn't seem to make it that clear that the PPP ended eg http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/modesoftransport/londonunderground/management/1580.aspx I leave a message on the talk page about that.Mddkpp (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree it's verifyable but it's not encyclopedic. I don't really see project management maturity as a topic to be covered about any organisation that employs project management unless of course it's something that is notable about that organisation e.g. has been lambasted for poor project management in the past and showing it's maturity level as part of it's repsonse to that. But it's not a standard item. NtheP (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Some of the offending material has now gone, but there is still a subsection London Underground#Project management that includes what I consider to be guff. If anyone agrees with me they are welcome to telescope it or even delete it altogether. I might be in breach of the 3RR rule if I did it myself. -- Alarics (talk) 08:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it - one interesting bit (and the only "reliable non primary source" given was http://www.railpro.co.uk/news/?idArticles=912 - which claims £400million saving - yet this was not mentioned .. why? I'd like to note I'm deleting it because it's guff as stated above -especially the 7 point plan - the £400 million figure may well be notable - something like "...has improved its project management .. savings of 400million .. " 212.50.175.66 (talk) 06:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The verbiage about PMF metholody has been re-inserted by an IP. I have deleted it, and added an explanation on the article's talk page. Is there anything else we can do? Can somebody please keep an eye on this? I do not have time to watch it constantly. -- Alarics (talk) 10:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It has been re-added yet again. The IP has now admitted on the article's talk page that he/she works for LUL and implies that those who do not work for LUL should not tamper with his/her verbiage. Of course this is more or less the exact opposite of WP policy. How can we get the message across so that this endless reverting does not go on and on? -- Alarics (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Alarics - THE WC policy ALSO says that should be willing to talk and listen to other editors before you make decisions of deleting stuff. As explained before (3rd time now) we are a team of 15 people working on this, all verifiable work so, it would be much appreciated if you stop deleting our work as it's based on fact and not fantasy or anorak-speak. The Network Rail page has references to GRIP which is their project management methodology. I don't see you getting upset with this. Anyway, as discussed previously I'm happy to explain to you what the work is as long as you're willing to listen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.79.208.20 (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

And there is putting it into context. If you want to add in that LUL has been criticised in the past for it's project management ability (or lack thereof) then add that in and it starts to make sense if it's in the context of this is what has been done to remedy the situation. As it stands it's jargon ridden (and as a project manager myself I would question why it has taken 15 of you to come up with what is a pretty standard lifecycle model that you could have bought off the shelf?) and meaningless. Even if you apply the context then it does not need to be as long as it is and should be a lot shorter. "In the past(date) LUL has suffered from poor project management.(reference) It has addressed this by developing a project management framework(reference) and external audit now(date) rates its P3M3 maturity as 3 as opposed to 1 before.(reference)" It doens't need detail of the content of the framework, or how it was reviewed or anything of that nature. NtheP (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Northern Hub

Just wondering should an article be made for the Northern Hub project or should it wait until its confirmed? Likelife (talk) 09:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

If it gets a writeup in Modern Railways, The Railway Magazine or similar, then yes. Otherwise all we have are WP:PRIMARY sources. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The plans have already been described in detail both in Modern Railways and in RAIL. Unfortunately I do not currently have time to do anything about it. -- Alarics (talk) 14:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

OK thanks, and I can confirm its been in RAIL. If no objections I'll create it when I have time to. Likelife (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It's been on just about every rail related news site, and the BBC! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-15062142 I don't think this article will have any notability issues...Mddkpp (talk) 05:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Having read the Beeb article and the page on Network Rail's website, I'm still unsure what exactly is being done, apart from building new track from Manchester Piccadilly to Manchester Victoria and increasing the frequency of trains in the north west. Both articles are thin on details so it might be a struggle to get much of an article going unless there's more available. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

There is, but as I have already stated above, it is in the railway press, not on line. -- Alarics (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a little more info at page 2 "the solution" it includes a lot of station work in Manchester, the line you mention, plus several track schemes very briefly described at http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/6474.aspx - mostly "de bottlenecking" - I believe the reason for the current level of vaguery (in the "public domain") is that the goverment hasn't yet written the check for all it - though the ordsall curve is confirmed. -

For the "Ordsall Curve" (£85m) little more here and manchester station improvements eg there's a fairly detailed article here http://www.therailengineer.com/2011/06/29/manchester-united/ - these improvements have also been called the "manchester hub" (google this for more results). I think there are more than a dozen other improvement projects lumped together as part of the scheme. See the map on http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/6474.aspx ie for not a lot of detail on these

If you really need to dig see http://www.networkrail.co.uk/uploadedFiles/networkrailcouk/Contents/Publications/Route_Plans/Route%20Specifications%202011%20London%20North%20West.pdf "Route Specifications 2011 – London North Western" which lists all planned and proposed route improvements including "control period 5" Some also are within "NE region" link see - note that these links only give vague specifications on a per line basis - they don't describe the actual work to be done to obtain that.212.50.175.66 (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Quintinshill

I am pleased to see that someone has agreed with me as regards Hugh Urquhart.

There are no records of him in the newspaper reports at the time and a search through other railway archives fails to confirm that he was ever employed by the G&SWR.

Is this a mischevious posting?

What is the procedure for taking unverified statements down?

GC Jack GC Jack 16:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GC Jack (talk • contribs)

We just edit it out. I'm going to give it to the weekend and if there's nothing postive then out it comes. I suspect the additions were originally made by someone doing geneolocial research into the Urquhart family and making 2+2=5. NtheP (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The preferred action upon encountering unverified statements is to find a reference that supports the statement, per WP:V, and add the reference to the appropriate place in the article (WP:CITE). If you can't find anything (and from the above it appears that you have tried and failed), you have two choices: either remove the statement, or leave it in place, adding a {{citation needed|date=May 2024}} immediately afterwards, like this. Note that the last option should not be used on contentious unverified statements concerning living people, see WP:BLP, but Urquhart is unlikely to be still alive, 97 years on. You could also look through the page history to determine who added the statement, and drop a note on their user talk page asking what their source was. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

This is too big to leave with a {{citation needed}} on it. There's not much doubt that Urquhart was a senior member of staff on the GSWR or at least that section in LMS days as he's in the surviving LMS pay books as someone who was a high earner, but we are talking here about alleged statements made during the inquiry he made about the cause of one of the worst accidents on a British railway and also how he subsequently got the time served in prison by one of the guilty signalmen reduced. I've looked at a number of sources both on and off line and nothing supports these statements. As I mentioned in my first posting the only person to question the late running of the trains as a factor is Nock and he makes no suggestion that the thought was owed to Urquhart. Col Druitt's report doesn't even mention Urquhart giving evidence so unless he was called at the coroner's inquest (again something I can't disprove or more importantly from a WP perspective) prove then it's very dubious hearsay. I've also established which editor made the edition but they don't appear to have edited since last September so I don't hold much hope out of getting anything there. From the pattern of edits by this editor thye were mostly about various members of the Urquhart family hence my geneological comment - perhaps family folklore ("Uncle Hugh was a main witness at the inquiry")? I am proposing though to put the "offending" text onto the talk page so that it can still be seen which is better than it being totally invisible. NtheP (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust Nock that much; just spent a couple of hours trying to figure out an assertion he made, only to realise that it was not only mechanically impossible, but also contradicated by two photos on the same page. Ning-ning (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to :-) NtheP (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I have the Coroner's Court details. No mention of Urquhart. Thanks for the detail on his position on the LMS I will let the G&SWR Assn know he existed! Whether he helped in the early release is pure conjecture in my opinion and cannot be verified. I also agree that Nock is not a good source. I have been researching this and other accidents and there are many myths about Quintinshill it will be good to see this one laid to rest. GC Jack 15:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a PS. There was a lot of disquite in the industry generally - especially in the Unions about the prison sentences. I wonder if Urquhart was part of that and perhaps exaggerated his involvement later in life. There were some press comments about the extra traffic and in the B.o.T report it states that it was up by 40% GC Jack 11:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GC Jack (talk • contribs)

Thanks for taking the Uqurhart section out. GC Jack 14:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GC Jack (talk • contribs)

Reference needed

Has anyone got a copy of JAB Hamilton's Disaster down the Line (also published as British Railway Accidents of the 20th Century)? There's a mention of the Royal Scots survivors of the disaster being mistaken for POWs and being pelted by the crowd but I can't find it online and need a page reference and a bit more detail of this incident. NtheP (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The return of the Identify that Mk1 EMU Game

What class EMU is the one on the left?

Hi everyone, it's time for another round of identify that Mk1 EMU since mattbuck can't tell the difference. See the pictures and identify. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks like a 4EPB in the bottom photo. Mjroots (talk) 09:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Top one looks like a Connexy CIG. (My little aide-memoire for those 4 series coastal stock is..VEP=VERY many doors/CEP=few doors + Hopper upper small windows/CIG=few doors and sliding upper small window) Fu Manchuchu (talk) 13:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, left-hand EMU in lower picture is a Class 415 4-EPB, but of SR design not BR Mark 1. The giveaway for that is the presence of oval toplights above every door droplight, which are never found on BR Mark 1 doors (there are many other differences between the SR and BR designs, such as underframe trussing, body profile, rainstrip position, etc.).

Top picture is definitely BR Mark 1, more specifically either a Class 421 4-CIG or Class 422 4-BIG. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

@Fu: your aide-memoire is correct for later years; but the 4-CEP/4-BEP were refurbished in the early 1980s, prior to which their windows were the standard Mark 1 type with sliding vents. But you won't see a sliding-vent 4-CEP in Connex livery, that's for sure. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll go for a 421 of CSC, seems reasonable. Thanks. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Train operating company

This article was seriously out of date. I have made a start on updating it but help would be welcome. Also, if anyone has some extra spare time, it lacks references. -- Alarics (talk) 08:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, certainly seems to be I also think it might be in need of some tidying up, as alot of the information here is repeated elsewhere are you looking for help in certain areas or just looking for advice? LongRobin79(talk) 20:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Extended content

Would Add/Point Out list of suggestions for improvement of the page. Summary: Is the term TOC exclusive to the UK? - By which I mean should this page say TOC -Train Operating Company for UK TOC's See for French TOC's see ect. Expansion of the term Majority Franchise Better list of who is responsible for franchises Organisation Railway Network Set-up either cleaned up or made simpler to understand The list of which Government/Department is responsible for each franchise Is the list of TOC parent companies needed? Changes Could this be shortened? its very long and I would presume the information about these companies/franchises is held elsewhere Confirm the current list of TOC's and provide a source? Future TOC's - I don't believe that TOC's for re-let belong under this heading, maybe a TOC renewal header further down? Confirmation the "GO" is a TOC and not a travel/booking agent I don't believe the Sea Links Section has any relevance? Again is Dutchflyer a TOC? Should the Orient Express come under the railtours section? LongRobin79(talk) 21:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I've hidden the last post, because it duplicates a post on Talk:Train operating company, which is really the proper place for that. See also WP:MULTI. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Another line name needed

What is the line between Chester and Crewe called? I tried on the ELineRef website but couldn't find it. Is it just WCML, or does it have its own name? -mattbuck (Talk) 19:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

ELR is CNH (Crewe North-Holyhead). Traditional line description in Quail (vol 4 map 35C) is "Crewe and Chester Line". --Redrose64 (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

So if we believe the ELR, that would imply the North Wales Coast Line extends to Crewe instead of to Chester, alternatively we need a new article Crewe and Chester Line. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Well the Engineers' Line Reference is really just their own system for them to be able to locate structures - eg, you'll probably find a bridge/tunnel/crossing somewhere with CNH-14 written on it. It doesn't relate to the formal name of the line. Quail is more likely to have it right because they derive their information from the NR Sectional Appendix, but unfortunately I can't confirm this as it's not my area and I don't have a Sectional Appendix for the route. I would expect Crewe & Chester Line is most likely to be correct. Fu Manchuchu (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

According to route guides on Network Rail, the line is called the Crewe to Chester Line. Simply south...... having large explosions for 5 years 21:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

So what does NR say about the North Wales Coast Line? -mattbuck (Talk) 17:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

That's actually a good point. According to Network Rail RUS, the whole line between Crewe and Holyhead is all the same line. It is called the North Wales Main Line. Maybe merge the two. Simply south...... having large explosions for 5 years 21:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Now gone to move stage. See Talk:North Wales Coast Line. Simply south...... having large explosions for 5 years 22:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Name that station

Any ideas? I believe it's Sheffield but would appreciate confirmation. Lamberhurst (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The caption on it's use at Regional Railways says it's Lincoln. Can't confirm that but I am pretty sure it's not Sheffield. NtheP (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Lincoln Central to me (and I reached that conclusion before I saw the above). I recognise the platform, but you can see the reflection of the last three letters ("oln") of the sign in the cab window. The train's sign appears to end in "oln" as well, and compare the sign to File:Lincoln Central sign.jpg (Sheffield's is very different). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure? The platform has a prominent "7" sign, but Lincoln Central only has platforms numbered 1 to 5... Alzarian16 (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The platforms were renumbered in 2008. It's definitely Lincoln.–Signalhead ^< T > 23:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, see Quail vol. 2, map 27A: plats are 3 & 4 up bays on north side, 5 up main, 6a/6b down main, 7 down loop at south side. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

As with HJ, I recognised Lincoln before reading anything (high five). -mattbuck (Talk) 00:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Concur, Lincoln Central. See Google Streetview (from level crossing) for approximately the same image: [1] —Sladen (talk) 00:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Great work guys. I had ruled out Lincoln on the basis of the "7th" platform. Lamberhurst (talk) 08:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Another confused line name

The Glasgow South Western Line appears to cover both the old Glasgow and South Western Railway main line from Glasgow through Kilmarnock to Gretna, and the line from Kilmarnock to Stranraer. This doen'st feel like a good solution for categorising Wikipedia Commons, so is there another name for the Starnraer branch? Of course, things are even more confused by it running over the Ayrshire Coast Line between Troon and Ayr! Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

...and some trains to Stranraer run on the Ayrshire Coast Line between Glasgow Central and Troon via Paisley. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 15:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

.....This article seems to suggest to me that at one time the line may have been called "The Portpatrick Railway" - LongRobin79(talk) 21:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Only part of it was the Portpatrick Railway - the section between Challoch Junction and Stranraer, something like 7+1⁄4 miles. See RCH Junction Diagram 88, lower left. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

With a really great bit of timing, I read in Modern Railways that there is a "friends" group named for the Stranraer and Ayr Line. It kind of does what it says on the tin! Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Michael Schabas‎

There is an AFD on Michael Schabas. He was an owner of GB Railways among other things. I want to say he is notable. However, I couldn't find a references that had anything about him beyond a couple of sentences, so I said delete. Hoping someone here could find/know something about him. Bgwhite (talk) 09:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Aside whats here I seriously doubt there is anything notable about him. LongRobin79(talk) 21:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Please express your concerns on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Schabas, not here. Comments made here will not be taken into account when that AFD closes. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion has been relisted, so please cast your votes again there. Lamberhurst (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

NaPTAN refs in Infobox GB station

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox GB station#NaPTAN refs. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Bluebell line photos

What Bluebell station is this?

Can anybody identify where this luggage picture was taken? I thought it would be nice if at least one picture showed how they are attempting to create a historical setting. Cloveapple (talk) 06:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Horsted Keynes. See black oval plaque upper right. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it's HK. Platform 5 to be exact. Mjroots (talk) 09:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both. Cloveapple (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Blaenau Ffestiniog photo identification

I've found this photo on Flickr - definitely pd, so can be uploaded to Commons. Can anyone help identify more precisely which line it's on - the Ffestiniog Railway, the Festiniog and Blaenau Railway (before it was regauged to standard gauge), or one of the various quarry tramways?  An optimist on the run! 07:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It is the old F&B at the old Manod Viaduct, which was rebuilt as a stone viaduct when the line from Bala came into the town, converting it to standard guage. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 08:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - now uploaded.  An optimist on the run! 09:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Scotland's Railways saltire

Just a quick question, what is the proper name of the new ScotRail saltire livery? I've seen it alternately called "Saltire", "Scotland's Railways" or a few variations on these. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I've dropped a note at WT:TIS#New ScotRail livery. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The First ScotRail article states that 'the services will rebranded ... and will be marketed as "ScotRail: Scotland's Railway".' The citation from The Scotsman of 2008-09-23 doesn't seem to fully support that, but it does describe the livery as the "Saltire look".

However, First themselves seem to call it "unified ScotRail livery" - see their press releases Geof Sheppard (talk) 14:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Well ScotRail livery I currently define as the old ScotRail white/green/blue one. Guess we could go with Unified ScotRail but it seems a bit odd. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

While we're at it, is there an official name for the "Barbie" livery? I can't imagine that's what FirstGroup called it. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Hm, my 2010 DMU list says "ScotRail - Scotland's Railways". I think the "Barbie" thing was a bit of a fudge, as according to the same book that's just "First Group", but it's commonly known as "Barbie", and that seemed a sensible way to distinguish it from the many other FG liveries. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

There have been several variants of the indigo/pink/white livery. This one with the swirly stripes was officially named "Dynamic Lines". --Redrose64 (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

No argument on that one. So, to go back to the actual topic, Scotland's Railways, Saltire or what? -mattbuck (Talk) 16:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Believe it or not, First's bus divisions actually use Barbie in some semi-official publications [2]. For the new Scottish colour scheme I would personally favour Scotland's Railways, which seems to be the name used by the majority of railway industry publications, but Saltire would be fine if that's in more common usage. I don't like "unified Scotrail" since that seems to be a one-off invention by the current franchisee and could cause confusion with the previous ScotRail liveries. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

If you are talking about common use as per reliable sources "Saltire livery" is it eg or any other news report.

You may find this interesting http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/files/ScotRailGuidelines_Livery.pdf

It seems clear that TfS hasn't given it a name - they refer to the "ScotRail" identity, eg - TfS is pushing the brand name "ScotRail" (as per "British Rail") eg - they use the terms "Scotrail livery" and "Saltire livery" informally - there's no evidence for the livery itself having been given an official name of its own by TfS. I didn't find any reliable sources (eg papers, news) using "Scotland's Railways livery" - though the term "Scotland's Railways" is in common use as an alternative to "ScotRail"

It's worth noting that if you use "saltire livery" you avoid any confusion that can arise from the term "scotrail livery" - but there has been no official dictat requiring the people of scotland to adopt the use of a name.Mddkpp (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You might find http://msssa2009.creativebrief.com/cb/star-awards-09/design-excellence/redpath/scotrail.pdf interesting - it explains that "Scotland's Railways" is a 'tag link' or 'motto' to the brand 'Scotrail', and goes into detail on the new branding - however it doesn't give the livery a name.

Inventors of the branding scheme were Redpath Design Limited if you want to start sending off emails.Mddkpp (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

This is what Commons currently has for "ScotRail livery". -mattbuck (Talk) 12:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I emailed Redpath Design Limited who responded saying they do not know it the livery has a specific name, but that they referred to it as "ScotRail Livery" they suggest contacting either Transport Scotland or First Group, given they have no specific name for the livery it might be just as well referring to the livery as "ScotRail Livery". LongRobin79(talk) 12:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to change the Saltire images to ScotRail, because then we'd need to change the existing ScotRail ones too, but to what? Mind you, I don't think we've categorised any pictures of the pre-privatisation ScotRail livery yet, so what are we going to call that?

Wasn't that just as BR but with the name changed? -mattbuck (Talk) 14:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Why not call the "Saltaire" livery the "Saltaire livery" and then the problem doesn't exist? Mddkpp (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I think West Yorkshire Metro might be upset by the usurption of one of their placenames :-) But seriously I don't think it's our place to name a livery until Scotrail do themselves. If that means we have to use the more clumsy "livery carried by Scotrail trains" then so be it. NtheP (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that we just go with what makes sense. Preferably go with an official name (eg Dynamic Lines), but if that fails, go with what's sensible. Eg this train has an advert for the Birmingham Bullring, let's go with Birmingham Bullring livery. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure it's ok (and right) to use "Saltire" - its not as if we made it up yesterday. As noted abve The Scotsman uses it, as do a variety of news sources eg BBC, newspapers etc. - I'd put it in single quotes or something like that..Mddkpp (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

@Mddkpp: please note spelling, Saltire, not Saltaire.

@Mattbuck: the pre-privatisation ScotRail livery was like the InterCity livery, but with a blue stripe instead of red, see File:47702 Scotrail livery.jpg and File:Railway Station, Reading - geograph.org.uk - 663893.jpg. It's sometimes mistaken for the Regional Railways livery of the period, but notice that the ScotRail livery has dark grey where RR has dark blue. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

That's my thoughts too, but don't we call the InterCity livery "InterCity Sector livery"? ScotRail was its own sector...

Back to Matt's original point. Whatever the answer is, the Saltire livery is not a ScotRail livery, it's a First ScotRail livery. (Sorry if that sounds like an advert for food from a well known retailer!). Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry Geof but when reading this link Link it says in the "Background And Brief" section the idea of the design is to re brand ScotRail in line with the Scottish superbrands idea. and not change it wever time an operator changes. To this end Page 10 Rolling Stock - Livery suggests that the livery will not change if the operator does only the operator's logo will change. This suggests to me that FirstGroup and future operator will have no say in the livery of the ScotRail brand. Looking at other FirstGroup Liveries the current ScotRail one is probably not one that FirstGroup would have chose, however I did notice the other day that on train staff do wear the current FirstGroup Uniforms at the end of the above link the then transport minister Stewart Stevenson refers to the livery as the "unified ScotRail livery". There is certainly no clear evidence that the livery has any other name. LongRobin79(talk) 14:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a very intersting document. It states quite clealry that the intention is to retain the name ScotRail beyond future franchise changes. So if we now call the 'Saltire' livery 'ScotRail' we will need to find a new name for the pre-First Group ScotRail livery.

An aside: I noticed a page that says the X shape of the logo was influenced by BR's double arrow! Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

RAIL magazine seems to have generally been using "Scotland's Railways", although I did notice a "Scotland Railway's" in the last issue. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Dubious changes to station articles

Hi guys, could somebody give me a sanity check? JakeNeill1, currently blocked, has made a lot of dubious edits to facts and figures on station articles, such as big swings in passenger numbers and an unsourced claim that Glasgow Central is busier than Birmingham News Street. They give the impression of being made up, or being an opinion on the importance of one station versus another, but I'd appreciate if somebody familiar with these stats could have a look. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

All edits have been reverted, btw. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Penydarren/Coalbrookdale loco on main page

1803 loco?

I've raised a comment on Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors that today's OTD hook appears to be incorrect. The photo (right) shows the replica of the Coalbrookdale locomotive at Telford Central; as I understand it, the original may or may not have been built. Certainly it isn't a replica of the 1804 Penydarren loco the hook refers to. Could someone who knows more about the early history of these locos confirm this please?  An optimist on the run! 12:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, but WP is infamously unreliable for anything about Trevithick.

Almost nothing is known about any of these locos - except that this replica is sourceably (and not just by reading the captions) more like the Coalbrookdale and sourceably unlike the Penydarren. Of course Coalbrookdale also preceded Penydarren. We used to have more content, even a category, on Trevithick but it was deleted to make more space for rappers and arguments as to whether he was Cornish or not. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Just another boring usage error discussion

Does anyone know why the increase\decrease tags in both GB and London infoboxes are now displaying before each million, not after (this does not apply to low usage)? Is it due to my update in prep for later this month\next month? Simply south...... facing oncoming traffic for over 5 years 17:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 23
General information
Location	United Kingdom

Er... are you referring to the / which appear in railway station infoboxes like that at Nottingham railway station? For as long as I remember (2+3⁄4 years) these green and red triangles have been placed before the usage figures. The triangles are not some special part of the infobox, they're merely the result of putting {{increase}} or {{decrease}} in the same parameter as the figure, as in |usage0910={{decrease}} 6.219 (see here). If you put them after, you get odd effects as at right. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah but if you notice right now, the decrease arrow is before the million whereas in the past it was after the million.

The only ways that the triangle could appear after the word "million" are if (i) the |usagexxyy= parameter wasn't used, but instead the lowusage parameter was fudged - as in |lowusagexxyy=n.nnn million {{increase}}; or (ii) the infobox had the increase/decrease built in. I have been back through every revision of {{Infobox GB station}} from its creation in 2006, and can find no evidence that (ii) was ever provided. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as I recall, it's always been before the value. Maybe your memory's playing tricks?  An optimist on the run! 22:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Block evasion

I've been dealing with a guy for the last few days who keeps changing usage statistics and adding commentary about ticket barriers etc on various station articles, particularly those in Scotland. Kilwinning railway station and First ScotRail seem to be favourite haunts, but there are new ones with each block-evading IP. It started with User:JakeNeill1, who was briefly blocked, but has evaded the block through multiple IPs, so can folks here please keep an eye out for dubious edits by BSkyB IP addresses (usually starting 90.xxx... and 2.2xx.xxx..) to articles within this project's scope. Please revert and block on sight or report to AIV (and/or let me know). Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Help identifying a service

An EWS Class 90 doing...something.

Hello all. I've been working on clearing out commons:category:Unidentified trains and I've run across the image shown at right. I can tell that it's a Class 90 in EWS livery, but I was hoping someone could identify the coach it's pulling. I know EWS power helps out with the Caledonian Sleeper, but the livery doesn't look right to me and I'm feeling out of my depth. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me like a InterCity 125 coach in Virginish colours. Take that as a guess only, though. Someone who knows will be along in a minute. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a British Rail Mark 3 coach in Virgin CrossCountry livery. What an EWS Class 90 is doing with it is beyond me though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not VXC so much as general VT mk3 colours. I'd assume it's the extra mk3 set they occasionally put on (Fridays I think?). -mattbuck (Talk) 22:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Where's was the photo taken? --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I see that the picture is dated July 2009, although there's no indication of where it is. The DRS class 37 in the background might be a clue though. EWS-liveried Class 90s and Virgin-liveried mk3s were used on the North Berwick Branch for a short period around 2004, but apart from that I don't know of any workings that were booked for such a combination. Mattbuck's suggestion would seem to make the most sense right now. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Crewe railway station/Crewe Heritage Centre, looking north-west up the North Wales Coast Line, probably from the top of this building: [3]. I doubt it's going to be pulling it far, as the leccy runs out around the corner. —Sladen (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

There are similar photos on Commons, like File:90029 at Euston.jpg, but they're all of Mk3s in the silver Pendolino livery. The only photos I've seen of Mk3s in Virgin's old livery are of HST sets. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

There's File:VT_at_Crewe_station_2000.png --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Almost certainly an HST set. Unusual livery combination, though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Quite a few non-HST mark 3s were painted into Virgin livery back when loco-hauled sets were regular on West Coast services. Good example pictures include File:Virgin Trains class 87 & train.jpg and File:90015 'The International Brigades' at Carlisle.JPG. It wasn't too uncommon to see them paired with InterCity liveried ones prior to about 2002. I don't recall ever seeing a mixed-livery Virgin HST set, although First Great Western weren't averse to them. Alzarian16 (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It's very likely based on [4] that it was the last day of operations of the "Cargo-D" Virgin livery set "WB65", and it had probably been running Euston—Birmingham New Street all day, followed by a ECS working to Crewe, which is probably the occasion to merit this photograph. —Sladen (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If it is a HST set - which I doubt - it's incomplete. HST sets have a TF at one end and a TGS the other; here, there are too many windows for that to be a TGS, and a TF would have yellow lines at the top of the dark grey area, to denote first class. It's an open second, either a TS from a HST, or a loco-hauled Mark 3a TSO. The two easiest ways of distinguishing these are by the number (HST 42xxx, loco-hauled 12xxx) and by whether it has buffers or not (HST no, loco-hauled yes). Unfortunately both these features are too blurry to be sure. It's a pity that the coach end can't be seen, because the cables on the ends differ too: a HST has control cables at low level plus a three-phase 415 V AC bus line, whilst a loco-hauled Mk 3a has a 1000 V single-pole ETS at low level and RCH control cables at mid-height. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and the leccy goes on a bit further than "around the corner" - that OHLE structure is at approx. 158 mi 28 ch, but the wires go on to 159 mi 55 ch, that is 14 chains beyond Crewe Steelworks Junction, which is at the far end of Crewe Electric TMD. So, it's probably an ECS working to that depot. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Possibly. Based on [5] it should be one of 12017, 12054, 12059, 12097 or 12124. This [6] also supports that it was probably Friday 24 July 2009, in the evening arriving ECS from London. —Sladen (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Network Rail - Virtual Archive

There may be some gems at http://www.networkrail.co.uk/virtualarchive/ --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Where has this site been all my life! I hope that they plan to add to it the Paddington station bits alone have made my day! LongRobin79(talk) 10:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merger of station infobox templates

{{Infobox UK disused station}} and {{Infobox UK heritage station}} have been proposed to be merged into {{Infobox GB station}}. See here. Lamberhurst (talk) 14:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Note this is not just a merger but also a proposal to "remove navbox-like links" from the templates. Keith D (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

British Rail Class 172: Missing info?

Unless I'm missing something (possible!) this article doesn't actually say where the 172s were built, beyond "Bombadier". Derby is only mentioned in passing a couple of times. 86.186.54.115 (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You're right. Why don't you add it to the lead. -- Alarics (talk) 09:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Might want to take a look at this

I just thought I'd draw this to your attention. On the article Land speed record for rail vehicles I spotted that they have a German locomotive DRG Class 05 listed as the world speed record holder for steam locomotives rather than the Mallard which as far as I know is the official world record holder. Also the layout of the table is very confusing. I would raise this myself on the talk page. But I'm rather tired and I thought I'd raise it here first. G-13114 (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Clearly based on this [7], which appears to be a one-man hobby site (albeit with some respectable-looking sources) that challenges Mallard's record. He is prepared to concede a dead heat between Mallard and 05 002 at 125 mph. He reckons the documentation for Mallard at 126 mph is not reliable. Also the Mallard run was downhill while the German run was on the flat. Bit of an angels-dancing-on-a-pin thing. Obviously in the geopolitical situation of the late 1930s there would have been a great deal of national pride at stake on both sides. Curiously, the DRG Class 05 article itself does say that its record was beaten by Mallard. -- Alarics (talk) 09:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The author of the germansteam website appears to have based some of his conclusions on a "very close examination of a much larger high resolution temporary copy" of a "small copy of the dynamometer car trace" published in Baureihe 05 - Schnellste Dampflok der Welt by Gottwald. I interpret that statement as meaning that he scanned the trace from a book diagram, and then upscaled the diagram. He assumes that Gottwald's diagram is a true reduction of the original, then fails to take into account the errors introduced in first reducing and then enlarging a graph. The assertion may have merit, but the arguments on the website page lack coherence and rigour. Ning-ning (talk) 12:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not really the point though. The point is that Mallard is the 'official' world record holder. Whereas the claim of the German loco (which looks like a Dalek btw. Very fitting for something produced by a fascist dictatorship) does not have official status. One questionable enthusiast website is not really an adequate source! G-13114 (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

So edit out the references to the website (in at least two articles), restore Mallard to pole position and remove all flag icons from the Land speed record article, since they're wrong, and if the right ones are put in the page is going to look like a mini-Nuremburg rally. Ning-ning (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I've re-edited it. G-13114 (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

MML infobox gone!

Someone should take a look at Midland Main Line. The infobox seems to have died, I'm not sure how to fix it. G-13114 (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It seemed to die in this edit and so I've restored it to the pre-broken state here. The page is being further fiddled with as I write. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It apears the page had exceeded the template limit, and so it was refusing to display some of them. I subst'd some of the most basic templates (like {{rws}}), which seems to have done the trick. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Where's Thomas?

File:Thomas the Tank Engine 2007.jpg

Where's Thomas?

Another light-hearted photo question - can anyone identify this location?  An optimist on the run! 13:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Didcot? Although File:Didcot Railway Centre - geograph.org.uk - 1190848.jpg doesn't seem to show the iron lamp hut there in 2009. Geof Sheppard (talk) 14:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

With hindsight, the cooling towers in the background should have given it away! Thanks.  An optimist on the run! 15:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Deffo Didcot - I've just looked out my kitch window and the cooling towers match; I see that signal box twice a week when I go to Oxford; and here's another angle of the same s/b, l/c and trees. This is the shorter demonstration line along the north-western side of the site. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

My chums in the Firefly Trust always call this "The Branch Line". Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Class 458 - Request for consultation

Talk:British_Rail Class 458#RfC on inclusion of particular viewpoint on future lengthening of certain trainsets -- Alarics (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Categorisation of BR steam locomotives

Do the BR ex-WD Austerity 2-8-0 belong in Category:British Railways standard classes? Please comment at Talk:BR ex-WD Austerity 2-8-0#Category:British Railways standard classes. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Midland Metro

Not entirely sure if this is the right place to raise this, as I don't know whether this project covers light rail, but I thought it would do no harm. The article on the Midland Metro looks like it is in need of some serious attention. It is currently relentlessly negative in tone and reads like a denunciation of the system. I have tagged it with a WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH tag. I thought that I should bring this to your attention. G-13114 (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: I've deleted some of the worst excesses of the article. But there's still loads of unnecessary detail, which reads like it's been written by someone with a big axe to grind! Opinions or suggestions of what to do are welcome. G-13114 (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe Midland Metro is generally viewed as being one of the less successful light-rail schemes in the UK (although I must say it was packed when I went on it), and that fact might be mentioned briefly in the article if a reliable source can be found, but I agree there is far too much editorialising from a generally negative point of view. The facts in the article may be all correct but the way they are selected and presented is clearly biased. In fact some of it appears to me to teeter on the brink of "original research". I think quite a lot of the detailed whingeing could be deleted. The section headed "Environment" reads entirely like somebody who hates trams striving to put everything in the worst possible light. A visitor from Mars reading it would never guess that trams are universally regarded as being among the most environment-friendly forms of transport. The idea that "noise" is a significant negative factor in tram systems is new to me. I should be inclined to cut most of it. -- Alarics (talk) 07:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: On closer investigation there is quite a lot of original research. I have now removed a few of the more blatant examples of that and/or editorialising, but much remains to be done to make the article fair and neutral. -- Alarics (talk) 10:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking at Talk:Midland Metro, the project banners state that besides WP:UKRAIL, the article is supported by WikiProject Streetcars, WikiProject Rapid transit and WikiProject West Midlands, so you might like to drop a line at the talk pages of these WikiProjects telling them of this discussion (see WP:MULTI). --Redrose64 (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, thank you for the work you've put in. I've given it a good going over. I've deleted the entire 'Environment' and 'Economics' sections, as they were riddled with original research and were only marginally relevant, and I'm not sure how they could have been salvaged. I've deleted lots of the excessive editorialising and paragraphs giving POV analysis of "every" single press release, and cut it down to a more digestible size, giving only the relevant facts. I've reorganised some stuff. I'm not entirely sure what to do about the Altram section though. I cut out some OR. Some of the stuff in there could be relevant however if it was presented in a different way. Any ideas? G-13114 (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It reads much better now. Great job. I've just cut yet more irrelevant stuff. I have removed the POV and "synthesis" tags. -- Alarics (talk) 07:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Yup, that's a vast improvement! Shows what can be achieved when you really get stuck into an article. G-13114 (talk) 10:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

2010-2011 passenger usage

Now available. Rail Reg site. Simply south...... going on editing sprees for just 6 years (as of 28/03/2006) 14:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI

I just wanted to bring to folks' attention a serial sockpuppeteer who is making a nuisance of himself on articles within this project's scope. He's been fiddling with usage statistics and various other infobox fields on articles about the busiest stations in the UK outside London and adding original research, unsourced material and factual inaccuracies (among other things) to articles on various Scottish stations. I've semi-protected Glasgow Central station, Manchester Piccadilly station, and Birmingham New Street railway station for a month, which will hopefully deter him somewhat. If anybody comes across him, it's probably best to semi-protect the article or report it to me or WP:RFPP. More eyes would be appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you link to some sample edits, so that we know what we're looking for. I have seen usage-figure edits recently, but haven't bothered to check them. —Sladen (talk) 02:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

This sort of thing is a favourite, along with unsourced comments about ticket barriers, like this and usage on Scottish stations. Poor spelling/grammar and capitalisation mid-sentence ([8]) are quite common. I would suggest reverting any remotely questionable edit by an IP starting 2.2x.xxx... or 90.xxx... on any railway article—or, if you like detective work, the IPs are all registered to Sky and all geolocate to southern Scotland. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Flying Banana

My understanding has always been that the nickname "Flying banana" was applied by enthusiasts to the Intercity 125 sets because their power cars were originally more yellow than they are now, and the shape of the nose cone is faintly reminiscent of the blunt end of a banana. I am surprised to find at Glossary of United Kingdom railway terms no mention of this, but instead a claim that it means either:

(1) a GWR railcar from 1932 (cited to a passing mention at [9]), which is entirely news to me, but the claim is also made at GWR railcars (without being cited to any source); or

(2) Network Rail's New Measurement Train (NMT). This seems to make more sense, since the NMT is entirely yellow and has HST power cars, though I'm not sure that it does much "flying". And yet the source cited, [10], says its nickname is not "Flying banana" but "Top Banana".

None of this seems very reliable. Unfortunately I cannot find a source for my original understanding of the phrase, either, although it is mentioned at the disambiguation page Flying banana. Can anyone help? -- Alarics (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I've personally never heard of them being called that. They are not referred to as "Flying Banana's" in The Power of the HST's - C.J.Marsden though looking at 41001 it's easy to see how they could be. This you tube video refers to the NMT HST as being called "The Flying Banana", though that's hardly sufficient proof. LongRobin79(talk) 19:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I've seen it used to refer to the NMT a few times (not difficult to see why—it is bright yellow!), but it's very colloquial, and so not likely to appear in many high-brow sources I wouldn't have thought. I've never seen it used to refer to HSTs personally. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

My Railway dictionary (Alan A Jackson, 2006) says it's the railcar or BR HSTs, but the thing doesn't even mention the NMT, so it's not authoritative. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a lot of internal inconsistency here. The InterCity 125 article, which is linked from the dab page mentioned above, only mentions the name once, under the Network Rail section. It does then go on to say that it was previously applied to HSTs when first introduced by BR, which makes me wonder why it isn't mentioned in the "Introduction into service" section. The source supporting that paragraph is mostly hidden behind a paywall, but there's no indication that it mentions the nickname in either context. If Alan Jackson's railway dictionary gives the BR HSTs as a possible meaning, that's a good start, and I would suggest adding it to the glossary alongside the existing entries.

Going off on a tangent for a minute, am I the only one whose first thought on seeing this section heading wasn't trains but buses? Alzarian16 (talk) 02:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I always think of a Flying Banana as being a GWR railcar (personally, I think that in chocolate and cream they are really flying banana splits!). I remember the name being used with BR HSTs when the power cars were mostly painted yellow, so it doesn't suprise me if some people ahve revived the name for the all-yellow NMT. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

To me a 'flying banana' is a GWR railcar, specifically, one of the pre-war streamlined variety (nos. 1-18), because the cream area was a tapering curved surface (see here), particularly towards the vehicle ends. The wartime type with angular ends (nos. 19-38) weren't really banana-shaped. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

OK there is clearly not a consensus here to take any further action. -- Alarics (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

First Great Western Company Page

Hi, I have several times corrected the information displayed on the First Great Western page to reflect the correct location of there HQ as Swindon. Despite providing 2 references as well as being an ex-employee of FGW user:Pdiddyjr keeps reverting this to Plymouth based on the free post address for Customer Services. I have no wish to enter into an edit war and have created a section on the FGW talk page but he is not interested in listening to reason only reverting it to his claim. Can somebody here please advises me of the best way to approach his continuous edits? LongRobin79(talk) 12:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I've put references in to both Swindon & Plymouth o nthe FGW page and left a note on his talk page. NtheP (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance. LongRobin79(talk) 17:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

He seems to have been similarly confused regarding South West Trains, which he thought (probably for a similar reason) was based in Southampton. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

He appears to work on the principle he's right and if he's wrong then you must be too which is very annoying. To be honest some of his edits appear to be very petty for example Great Central Main Line has been edited to read Doctor Richard Beeching whilst I understand his logic but the page already linked to Richard Beeching and an edit was not needed since the link refereed to the person in question. but alas I don't have the time or the energy to go through all his edits. LongRobin79(talk) 19:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Requesting comments/copyediting

Hi, I spent the last few days rewriting Nailsea and Backwell railway station, fully-sourced and all, and then the past few hours creating Flax Bourton railway station (not so sourced). I'm considering whether the NLS article might be suitable for GA (never tried before, so unsure), and welcome opinions and general copyediting on both articles. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:WIAGA, then decide if you think the article is close. The only way to get a GA is to nominate the article, respond to points raised, improve the article further and then hopefully it'll pass. Good luck! Mjroots (talk) 10:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

At first sight, I would say that you need more sources. Mitchell & Smith cover both stations in their "Bristol to Taunton" book which was published in 2003, and the Oakwood book on the "Broad Gauge of the Great Western Railway, the Bristol and Exeter Railway and the North and South Devon Railways", published in 1985, could also be helpful. For the sources that are cited already, I noticed that the page numbers are missing from one or two. I would also avoid redlinking too much; it's not very likely that an article on Railfuture in the South West would be notable. By the by, I happen to think that it's actually quite difficult to get a station to GA, simply because in most cases there's only so much which can be written. That said, there are good examples from which you can take inspiration, such as Reading Southern and Brill. Lamberhurst (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

And indeed the most recent, Herne Hill railway station --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Jordanhill is another.  An optimist on the run! 16:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding sourcing, I don't have those books so I can't cite them. I can add page numbers to Oakley books, but that's about all. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Desiro City

If this is anything to go on, the concept art for the Desiro City shows it to be a Class 300, according to March Modern Railways. Simply south...... going on editing sprees for just 6 years (as of 28/03/2006) 22:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Concept art, it hasn't been assigned a class number, but it will probably be in the 300 range. I believe that is what the image was meant to reflect. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's likely to be a provisional number - they know it will begin with 3 (because dual-system EMUs [and AC-only EMUs] always do) but don't know anything else. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:UKRAIL assessment

I've started to assess the 1800+ UK-related articles in this WikiProject that are not yet fully assessed. Mostly the remaining ones require a UK-importance=low/mid/high/top to be added to the template on the talk page. I'm happy to continue this in slow time, but if anyone wants to help or can update records in passing that would be welcome. The article lists can be accessed via the project summary table on the assessment page welsh (talk) 06:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Long Ashton railway station

I was doing research for Long Ashton railway station, which according to Oakley was in use from 1926-1941. However, the Bristol Railway Archive says it was open as well from 1841-56 [11], apparently cited by Bristol Railway Panorama, about page 131 [12], when it was named Ashton. Our article on Ashton says it was a different name for Bedminster... Does anyone have this book, or more info? -mattbuck (Talk) 22:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Although there were at least ten stations which had "Ashton" as part of their name at some time, according to my sources only two were just "Ashton". The first is the GWR station on the Teign Valley Line, and the second is the B&E station near Bristol which was opened in mid-/late June 1852 and closed on 1 February 1856. There is an article on the second station in the RCHS Journal for November 2002 (p. 144-5) but I don't have this. Long Ashton railway station is on or near the site of the B&E station. Bedminster railway station first appeared in Bradshaw in June 1871 as "Bedminster" and was re-sited on 27 May 1884; it doesn't appear to have ever been known as "Ashton". Hope this helps. Lamberhurst (talk) 08:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It all seems to be a lot of conflicting sources :/ You know, sources can't even agree when the 20th century station opened, whether it was July or September. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Butt (1995) shows several distinct stations. Chronologically, and excluding those which are obviously not near Bristol (many are east of Manchester), these are:

• Ashton (113 ST 57), opened by B&E 14 June 1841, closed January 1856 (p. 20)
• Ashton 113 ST 57, opened by GWR 1871, resited and renamed Bedminster 27 May 1884, closed 30 April 1932 (pp. 20, 31)
• Ashton Gate Platform 113 ST 57, opened by GWR 15 September 1906 with limited service; opened for regular services 1 October 1910; closed 1917, reopened 23 May 1926, renamed Ashton Gate August 1928, renamed Ashton Gate Halt 29 October 1962, closed 7 September 1964, reopened 29 September 1970, closed by 1981 (p. 20)
• Long Ashton Platform *17 C2, opened by GWR 12 July 1926, renamed Long Ashton 23 September 1929, closed 6 October 1941. (p. 148)
• Bedminster *17 C2, opened by GWR 30 April 1932 (p. 31)

--Redrose64 (talk) 10:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Well it's the first and second ones I'd like to know about, specifically whether "Ashton" was in the same place as Long Ashton, and quite what happened with the Ashton-Bedminster one. I need to get my hands on that book. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Does Butt actually give more info than openings? Map references maybe, mileages? -mattbuck (Talk) 21:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Mileages no, which is definitely a lack. Map refs are present, but you need a stack of rail atlases because there isn't a uniform method, and Butt sometimes uses a map ref suitable for an atlas which doesn't actually show the station concerned. I've added the map refs after the station name, before the word "opened".

Those without an asterisk refer to Jowett - e.g. Ashton (the 1841-56 one) is shown as "(113 ST 57)" - 113 is the page number; ST 57 is the OS grid ref to 10 kilometre accuracy (so it's somewhere in the square bounded by grid reference ST500700 and ST600800), and the parentheses indicate that the station isn't actually shown in Jowett! Note that Ashton (the 1871 sta) lacks the parentheses, so it is shown in Jowett.

Those with an asterisk, e.g. Long Ashton Platform, which is shown as "*17 C2", are in Wignall, 2nd edition. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

In volume 1 of Cobb's Railway Atlas (2006), Long Ashton is shown (on page 94) as situated on the site of the former Ashton (B&E) station, sandwiched between (what is now) the A370 and Yanley Lane. The opening dates for the B&E station match those given above which were taken from Quick's Railway Station Chronology (2009), i.e. 1852-1856. In Clinker's Register of Closed Passenger Stations (1978), Long Ashton is said to have opened on 12.7.1926 on the "adjacent site" to Ashton (B&E) (page 19 and note 550). Cobb, Clinker and Quick refer to "Long Ashton Platform". Bedminster is shown some way to the east in Cobb's Atlas (page 118), separated from Ashton/Long Ashton by Parson Street. Lamberhurst (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I've rewritten the article to reflect what we've said here. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I have found a note in Railways in Avon: a short history of their development and decline 1832-1982 (Avon County Planning Department, 1983): Date opened =? Dates closed: passenger =1.1856; goods N.A.; entirely 1.1856. Notes=Long Ashton Platform built later on adjacent site. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

{{Infobox GB station}} Platforms

Question - at Parson Street, there are two platforms which see stopping trains, 3 with tracks and 4 total. Which number should be put in the infobox? -mattbuck (Talk) 21:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

2, i.e. the number of (individually numbered) platforms that are in use.–Signalhead ^< T > 21:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Template doc used to advise that this was the plats actually in use. It doesn't seem to show that any more; but I see that Template:Infobox London station#Data fields still states "The number of operational platforms. Do include platforms only occasionally used. Do not include abandoned platforms." so for consistency I'd follow that. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking about it more, and going to go with "4 (2 in use)" - no real reason we can't have non-numeric answers, it's not as if it will categorise it wrongly. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not think it's appropriate to put that level of detail into an infobox. Disused platforms should only be mentioned in the article text.–Signalhead ^< T > 12:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Demolished, sure, but disused? The station still has 4 platforms, that's not changed at all. We don't rely on stations to tell us the # of platforms, or Temple Meads would have 14 rather than 8 or something. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

A platform which still physically exists but which no longer has trains calling at it has officially ceased to be a platform, just as a station that has closed but remains intact has officially ceased to be a station. The National Rail website only acknowledges the existence of two platforms at Parson Street: [13]

We shouldn't assume that everyone who reads a railway station article on Wikipedia is a railway historian. Some may just be looking for current information such as services and station facilities. Those visitors aren't interested in redundant relics. Infobox details should be simple and concise; the detail belongs in the main article text. Trying to quantify the number of disused platforms at a station has the potential to throw up all manner of ambiguity: What if the platform has been only partially demolished? What if the whole platform is intact but the former trackbed has been filled in to platform level?

I suspect the best way to resolve this would be to change the infobox heading from "Number of platforms" to "Platforms in use", or else this discussion will keep coming up time and time again.–Signalhead ^< T > 14:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Minor usage query

I was having trouble finding the 2002 usage for Blackhorse Road and Harringay Green Lanes. Could anyone either suggest anything or update Gospel Oak to Barking Line#Passenger volume? Simply south...... going on editing sprees for just 6 years (as of 28/03/2006) 14:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)