Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 46

Archive 40

←

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

→

Archive 50

Use of fan art diagrams to illustrate liveries already illustrated with photographs

Our old friend Tony May has returned and on his rampage to rid Wikipedia of things that he doesn't like. Must be the school holidays. Latest edits to British Rail Class 158 Jeni ^(talk) 23:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Jeni, my concern is that inclusion of poor quality fan art is detrimental to articles. All you can do is edit war and refuse to engage, and be unnecessarily aggressive. This is unhelpful. Please explain how this fan art is useful, and not better on Commons. Tony May (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Must we go through this every few months before you inevitably disappear again? Multiple editors have already disagreed with your WP:IDONTLIKEIT POV so I suggest you cease. Jeni ^(talk) 23:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The attitude of most editors seems to be "yeah, well they're not great but not terrible, not doing much harm and it keeps the creators happy". I assert that they are doing harm, because it makes the encyclopedia look unprofessional. There is no broad consensus across the Wiki for inclusion of fan art, unlike photographs which are included in most articles if available. There is an appropriate place for these, and that's on Wikimedia Commons. Tony May (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I am still yet to see this "artwork created by fans of a work of fiction and derived from a series character or other aspect of that work" that you keep speaking of. I do however see encyclopaedic diagrams that represent liveries in the real world. I also presume that you consider maps to be "fan art" when used in place of aerial photography? Jeni ^(talk) 23:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I think that might be the first time you have addressed the points I've made. Let's not argue too deeply about semantics. The diagrams are wrong - they cannot include logos for copyright/trademark reasons, and unhelpful. Maps serve a purpose that can't be covered other material and the comparison is illogical and only goes to show how little you can support your assertions with policy. We have photographs that cover the liveries already - we don't need incorrect diagrams. Tony May (talk) 00:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

An artist's impression is exempt from copyright unless it being used for "passing off". It is a far more protected privilege than a photograph. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Surprised this is still an issue. I dont really have anything else to say since i no longer post my diagrams here Don't be afraid to be creative (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Other than a vague handwave of "unprofessional" (why?), what's the problem with these? They're side-on, they're well-lit, they're a consistent pose between the different examples. Now I'd have no problem with a comparable set of photos of newly painted and freshly scrubbed stock outside a TMD on a nice sunny day, but we're unlikely to get anything comparable. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• For several weeks there was no problem. Then Cameron289 (talk · contribs) added this image in a manner that was not just inconsistent with the others in the section, but also untidy. Cameron289 had no previous similar edits (to any article) that I can find, so we can put this down to inexperience. I cleaned it up, without removing the image concerned, at which point Tony May (talk · contribs) jumped in, removing not just the new image but the whole section. In the last 12 hours, Tony May has removed the section twice, each being reverted by Jeni (talk · contribs) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Tony had done that to me many times Red, i'd update a page to include newer diagrams, then Tony would appear out of no where and remove them all, i'd revert them only for him to redo the removal and them send me a DM which basically told me to stop Don't be afraid to be creative (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Having looked at the Class 158 livery images I don't see why they would be considered 'unprofessional'; they are certainly not amateurish. They are of good quality and seem to be correct (I seem to recall the odd one on other pages that was probably created before any trains were painted and weren't quite right).

My main concern would be: why do we need both a two-car and three-car set in the GWR livery? They are the same livery so just the one would do. There aren't any other examples of three-car 158s in other liveries. Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• How, exactly, are these "unprofessional"? Are they inaccurate? Do they omit details which should be necessary? Are they coloured incorrectly? Is it necessary for them to have transparent backgrounds?

  If the format itself is the main issue, are we going to be removing all other 2D diagrams of physical objects? There are a lot of diagrams and maps on Commons which look more amateurish than these, to say the least. Jc86035 (talk) 11:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Technical illustrations, not fan art. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 20:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I can't see any particular problem with them myself, so long as they are put in an appropriate place, they look well done and accurate. It looks to me like there's a broad consensus against them being removed. G-13114 (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Don't have a problem with them, but think it should be one per operator, e.g. we don't need two and three-car GWR liveried 158s as suggested above by Geoff Sheppard or five and nine-car 800s or want two. three and four car 168s that are all operated by Chiltern Railways. 11Expo (talk) 13:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Just so that everyone knows and for the purposes of historical logging. The exact same conversation happening now at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 153#Use_of_fan_art_in_articles - X201 (talk) 13:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, crap. WP:MULTI fails again. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

See below:

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Tony May and persistent criticism and belittling of other editors on British railways. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Lead photo at Liverpool Street station

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Talk:Liverpool Street station#Lead photo. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Lincoln Central to Lincoln rename

In Special:Contributions/Ajw112390 a search-and-replace of "Lincoln Central"→"Lincoln" was performed. "Central" has been minimally restored in a couple of those locations (image names, citation quotes, historical discussion of Lincoln St. Marks vs. Lincoln Central). Could some more eyes do a double check and/or follow up with Ajw112390. Raising here because the search and replace hit multiple articles. —Sladen (talk) 06:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Position of the RDT, especially very large main-line ones: dispute resolution needed.

There is a dispute at West Coast Main Line over the position of the RDT. My attempts to engage at the talk page have not had any response. The issue is this: if the RDT is placed just below the infobox, full-screen users see just a small grey stripe but mobile users get screens and screens and screens of detailed track layout, before they see any body text, so I would expect few to bother reading further. A response at template talk:Routemap#Collapse function does not appear to work on m.wikipedia says that this fault is unlikely ever to be fixed. So (IMO) the workaround is to put the RDT at the bottom of the article. I would welcome the opinions of experienced editors.

If we are going to design the article to be hostile to mobile users (who are the large majority of our readers), we need a very good reason and I have yet to see one. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Note that Jc86035 has changed the way the RDT is displayed in the infobox since I wrote that, so it the question may not be as obvious as it was – the RDT seems to be displayed in full now in both versions. (I see also that this is a more condensed version of the RDT than it used to be). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• The question of infoboxes and mobile is broader than this project, and I'm surprised that Wikimedia hasn't taken the plunge with the rest of the internet and done a responsive redesign. I would note that at least in my own testing the article lead is displayed before the infobox, but then you do get the infobox with everything expanded (rolling stock is almost as bad an offender as the map). I think in a large article such as this one moving the RDT elsewhere is a reasonable choice; for many short articles, the RDT gets shoved into the infobox for want of an alternative. Mackensen (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Mackensen: Would a responsive design really help here? It's somewhat inevitable that line diagrams can be quite long, and moving the diagram would just kick the figurative can further down the screen. (Timeless, for example, uses a responsive layout, and at narrow screen widths it would still have this problem if it weren't possible to collapse the infobox section.) I think it would probably be worth reevaluating some of the mobile site customizations (though I did assume in the linked discussion that nothing would change in this regard). Jc86035 (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Jc86035: I'm assuming that under a responsive design collapsing would work. Otherwise, yes, that kind of tabular presentation is a real challenge on small resolutions. Mackensen (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• The mobile apps get around this by collapsing all infoboxes. I think a possible solution – without forcing any site configuration changes – could be to add an anchor and a link for Minerva and/or narrow screens only (e.g. something like "Press to go to the end of the diagram") so that users can skip the whole diagram if they want. Jc86035 (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Until a correction can be made to the underlying issue responsible for the problem, is there a consensus that the RDT needs to go at the end of all complex mainline articles in the meantime? I have in mind WCML, ECML, GWL at least. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree with that, it needs to be somewhere where it'll be seen otherwise what's the point of having it? I think we need evidence of more than one person objecting to it before any drastic changes are made. G-13114 (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Have you actually tried reading it on a mobile? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I can to a degree simulate mobiles on a desktop by reducing browser window size, going to [1], and the collapsing all the sections. Generally the sheet number of tables, route disagrams and other diagrams on the article is overwhelming to me. Some portions show badly on a mobile, such as the infrastructure section and the infobox. Others show badly on desktop notably the non-collapsed route diagram at Template:West Coast Main Line at the top of Old revision of West_Coast_Main_Line#See also which is duplicated in the infobox. Do I really need to have pictures of mk 2, 3 and 5 pictures thrust down onto my mobile that can't be maintained with accurate descriptions (Can I really get any of those coaches to all destinations?). So the article has multiple issues with developers giving too much weight in imparting geek information in tables and insufficient to average end user experience and requirements. Diagrams and images are meant to support associated text and not attempt to be star items. In summary this high importance article has issues and the B-Class rating I might argue in no longer accurate.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Slightly out of context for here but multiple route diagrams (and ugly navboxes) sometime prevalent on certain Irish Rail stations and for better or worse collapsed under the infobox works reasonably well for desktop though unfortunately displays expanded on mobiles. Placing in own section would give a better mobile experience but looks ugly on desktop.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Bow / Bethnal Green sockpuppet damage

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London#Bow / Bethnal Green sockpuppet damage. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

RFC on the use on livery art and other editor-constructed diagrams in articles

The consensus is to oppose A and support B.

Cunard (talk) 01:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In response to an argument that escalated to AN/I about the so-called "fan art" dispute, I proposed that an RFC should be held here, and it was suggested that as an uninvolved editor I try to come up with a neutral question to see if we can reach a community consensus. Here are what I think the questions are; a Yes or No or more nuanced answer on each is requested:

A. Does the use in articles of editor-constructed diagrams such as livery details violate WP:V when the diagrammed details are not verifiably sourced?

B. Should British railway articles be allowed to include galleries of livery detail diagrams, of the type that some have characterized as "fan art" (whether or not the included diagrams need to be "sourced" will be determined by answers to A).

Feel free to answer like "Yes A and Yes B" or answer one or the other, or both separately, and optionally qualify your responses in terms of visual impact, image quality, availability of quality photographs as alternatives, and whatever else you think is relevant.

Background

Some prior discussions that didn't converge:

• at WP:VPP
• at WP:AN/I
• above at project talk page
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 45#Livery diagrams (Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC))

Examples of articles and drawings that may have been in dispute already.

• British Rail Class 158 restoring section "Livery Details" with art.
• Old revision of British Rail Class 377 : Interesting as EMU lengths of 3,4,5 & 6 car and various liveries. (Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC))
• Great Western Railway (train operating company)#Current fleet : Not sure disputed but very different approach than dropping in a section. (Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC))
• feel free to add more

Pings

@Jeni, Andy Dingley, Tony May, Jc86035, Peter Southwood, Redrose64, G-13114, 11Expo, John Maynard Friedman, Jc86035, Iridescent, Geof Sheppard, X201, and Someguy1221: Ping the previous participants in these disputes. Dicklyon (talk) 02:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Neutral on both, as nom. Let me know if the questions are not neutral enough. Dicklyon (talk) 02:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral on A, No to B. Oppose on B. On A one would hope commonsense prevails but it sometimes doesn't and disputes arise. No idea about copyright hopefully I'm allowed to do a painted. The oppose on B is because a gallery of images of different sizes/resolutions/length typically disrupts the article appearance. However I would possibly not oppose limited use in tables or as a one of or perhaps in livery specific articles. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support A. These diagrams can be compared to an infobox with regard to the information they contain. Neutral on B. I do think the current ones kill the article appearance but other ones may not. A possible solution would be to hide them from immediate view. Almond Plate (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  It's not clear if Support A means Yes or No. Dicklyon (talk) 00:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet struck out Andy Dingley (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• If A means the images need to be verified then Support A. All content, text or images, should be capable of passing WP:V. On B I'm neutral. I'm not a fan of massive galleries like British Rail Class 158#Liveries and even the GWR article makes me uncomfortable. Representative samples showing what the unit look like I'm Ok with but not showing every variant depending on date, length of unit (do we really need both the 2-car and the 3-car version of the class 158?) or TOC (A 158 is a 158 regardless of which TOC is has been operated by, if I was that interested in the various liveries I'd be looking at the articles on the TOCs). Nthep (talk) 12:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose A, Support B. The images can very easily be verified, usually just by looking at a couple of the images included in the article, or if not then delving into the Commons categories. I see this as no different to a statement like "Kim Kardashian has two hands" - yes you could go trawling through literature to find someone who has specified that Ms Kardashian has not lost a hand and does not have a supernumerary one hidden somewhere, or you could just look at a photo. Wikipedia does not require citations of the patently obvious. I do not believe anyone is arguing however that these are 100% accurate, because we don't have access to the source livery files, but they show the liveries in a standard format which does not include extraneous detail like stations, trees, etc. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose A Support B No additional comments to add. Jeni ^(talk) 16:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose A, Support B - These drawings can be easily verified by simply looking at a photo of the unit with the livery in question. I personally don't mind the large galleries of liveries but if they get too big then they could perhaps be put in a collapsed table. Tom29739 ^[talk] 17:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• Probably not in a collapsed table: MOS:COLLAPSE. Bazza (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• A factor to keep in mind is that in the UK, the threshold of originality is much lower ("sweat of the brow") and while many of the liveries I've seen not meet US standards (meaning they are uncopyrightable in the US), they do pass the UK threshold and thus - even if placed in user images - would be considered not free. They can exist on en.wiki under a {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} tag. --Masem (t) 17:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
• Is there actually a dispute here? Did anyone but Tony have significant objections? No need to relitigate with a formal RFC over if not. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

So you're withdrawing your request to have me open an RFC about it? I think I'll go ahead and see if people from outside the project can bring perspectives, too. Dicklyon (talk) 02:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I had no problem with them, they're useful and informative, and provided any copyright issue is sorted as per Masem above, I'm fine with them. - X201 (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

They are still informative and useful depictions, and are easily verifiable by direct observation or by comparison with a photograph, regardless of any other possible methods of verification. If they are wrong this is also easily shown in a photograph. I have no knowledge of UK copyright law, so no comment on that aspect, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

It would be great if the drawings would link photos that they're based on. Do they? Dicklyon (talk) 05:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yes to B, no strong opinion of A (with no knowledge or comment on copyright matters), although think they are more useful in tables with fleet info rather than a long last as the 158 article had. They are informative and give an overview of livery not possible without large pictures. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 06:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • A - I think they meet WP:V as adjacent images show them to be broadly correct. The idea of linking the Commons page to an image to prove they are based on real examples is a good one.
  • B - I have no problem provided they don't take up a disproportionate amount of space. The examples on the Great Western Railway page have been through the mill of peer pressure to get them into a scaled and acceptable format so provide a good (but not necessarily only) model. Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Caledonian Sleeper

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Assistance is requested at Talk:Caledonian Sleeper#Hotel on Wheels. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

commented there. Nthep (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Capital letters in railway line article titles

What is the reasoning for various railway lines having different capitalisation in the titles? For example, Great Western main line and East London line do not capitalise "main" or "line", whereas Great Eastern Main Line and West Coast Main Line capitalise both. Is there an actual reason for this, or is this just due to lack of standardisation and consistency? ElshadK (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

There is a reason; a certain editor moved a number of articles and there has been lost of prior discussion on this very topic. Mjroots (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

That would be me. I was working toward consistency with guidelines such as WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, but that doesn't guarantee the same answer for all. In some of these cases, I was not involved, e.g. in downcasing and then upcasing Great Eastern without discussion (though sources mostly don't cap it). Great Western main line was downcased per consensus at the RM discussion on its talk page. You can check others for their respective histories. I agree there's work to be done. For some, like West Coast Main Line, book stats in recent decades support caps. For others, not at all. For the London Underground lines, I don't think I was involved, as there was a longstanding convention of lowercase line there already. Dicklyon (talk) 04:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is a perfect example of what happens when a policy is blindly and mechanically applied without regards for basic common sense, unfortunately wikipedia is frequently blighted by this sort of thing. G-13114 (talk) 12:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

A TfL lowercase convention which is entirely backwards. "Circle and District lines" fine but "Jubilee Line" as Line is part of the title... Ugh... Seriously peeves me that one. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Tfl, though, likes lowercase for "line" names. Bazza (talk) 15:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

TfL change their house style every time they appoint a new expensive design consultancy, and they change their capitalisation policy more often than they change their pants; while they currently insist on lower-case "line" in the past they've also insisted on capitalising "Line" and also went through a phase of always writing in ALLCAPS on everything public-facing. (Their current style guide includes some truly batty policies such as "'Capital' must always be capitalised when referring to London but always be lower case when referring to any other city".) Don't take anything they say as having any relevance at all to how Wikipedia deals with coverage of anything outside their specific remit; their diktats on casing are routinely and consistently ignored by the media (e.g. every single mention of the Elizabeth Line by the BBC). ‑ Iridescent 21:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I think a standard rule should be developed for all lines, with the exception of TfL lines as they explicitly use lower case. Personally I would capitalise, as they are proper names. We cannot rely on external sources for this (especially news outlets) as they are often written by careless individuals who don't take capitalisation seriously. ElshadK (talk) 20:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

That may be. As Wikipedians we should take capitalization seriously, and I do. I'm guided to avoid unnecessary capitalization by MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS, as informed by sources. There is no "blindly and mechanically applied" policy thing going on here. Dicklyon (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Electrostar diagrams

Over on the Bombardier Electrostar page, someone has added a "diagrams" section and filled the page with diagrams for every single Electrostar. For example, there are 5 Southern 377s alone. I am minded to delete this because I think it looks messy and does not contribute much to the understanding of the reader, but what to others think? ElshadK (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Per the discussion [#RFC on the use on livery art and other editor-constructed diagrams in articles] not yet archived from this page it is regarded as permitted ... however ... The existence of subpages for each constituent electrostar variant British Rail Class 357, British Rail Class 375, British Rail Class 376, British Rail Class 377, British Rail Class 378, British Rail Class 375, British Rail Class 387 nad Gautrain #Rolling stock and care should be taken not use this as an excuse for excessively duplicating images. I am currently finding the Bombardier Electrostar says very little about what makes an electrostar an electrostar and more about how many ways they can be painted.MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE and Wikipedia:Image dos and don'ts: Don't use images or galleries excessively. seem relevant. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The section title "Diagrams" seems confusing. I initially assumed that someone had listed the services operated by each unit. Certes (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Your welcome to remove some of the images if it makes the page tidier, i simply added all variants of the units for the sake of completionism Don't be afraid to be creative (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

To be clear if I goto that page I am expecting to read about the origin of the design, the modular concept, the build history, variants, problems and a lead into the replacement. Maybe also a comparison to the competing Desiro. The colours are of really a minor consequence. One diagram of a unit and one diagram for each coach type at the same scale might be more encyclopedic.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

West Anglia signalling - Cheshunt

I seem to have discovered contradictory dates re signalling in West Anglia. The text below is lifted from the Cheshunt station page.

In August 2002 signalling control was transferred to the Liverpool Street Integrated Electronic Control Centre (IECC), although the signal box officially closed on 24 May 2003.

I'd be grateful if anyone could help with correct dates or an explanation of why the signal box was retained for another 9 months. Thanks.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Signalbox.org suggests that changeover came in phases with some areas transferred in 2002 and Cheshunt in 2003. Certes (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Thanks--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 22:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

West Coast Rail / Avanti West Coast

The hat note on West Coast Rail says not to be confused with Avanti West Coast. Avanti West Coasts consists of ... a #Redirect back to West Coast Rail. Meanwhile an IP editor at Virgin Trains has just piped West Coast Rail to Avanti West Coast. Would someone in possession of the facts please resolve? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

According to a recent update to Avani West Coast (which is no longer a redirect, on mobile I can't see how that was done, a copy/paste move seems likely as the redirect as been reversed, needs checking):

The final brand name for the franchisee was revealed on 27 November 2019, as Avanti West Coast.

Tidying up needs doing? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Avanti West Coast is the operator (or franchisee) of the West Coast Partnership franchise in the same way that London North Eastern Railway is the operator of the InterCity East Coast franchise, c2c the operator of the Essex Thameside franchise etc. West Coast Rail was the working title for Avanti West Coast until its branding was revealed and is now correctly redirecting to Avanti West Coast. Pjeleide (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

So the key bit of information is that InterCity West Coast has been renamed as WCP. The DoT never ceases to amaze for its ability to waste time and money on pointless gestures. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm personally still a fan of the ORR being renamed to the ORR.... -mattbuck (Talk) 09:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

References

LNW colour in service templates

There is a proposal that LNW colour be changed to something more evidently different from AWC colour. See Talk:West Midlands Trains#LNW colour in service templates for discussion. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Template GBsta-u

At Highland Main Line and other articles transcluding {{GBsta-u}} I am not seeing any dates in the column headers. Thincat (talk) 14:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

 Works for me - did you click the "[show]" link? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I did but thank you, this has given me a clue.

The header row displays with: Windows, Chrome, mobile; Windows, Firefox, mobile; Android, Chrome, mobile; Android Wikipedia app; Android, Samsung internet, mobile and desktop; Android, Firefox, mobile and desktop; Windows, Edge, mobile and desktop.

And not with: Windows, Chrome, desktop; Windows, Firefox, desktop; Android, Chrome, desktop. Thincat (talk) 19:11, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I've now found all is OK if I am logged out. It's up to me to investigate. Thincat (talk) 19:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

In gadgets I had "Make sure that headers of tables remain in view as long as the table is in view (requires Firefox v59 or Safari)" turned on. Turning it off solves the problem. Thincat (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

NRM photos

As part of my clearing all my uploads from Flickr in anticipation of its likely demise, I've come across a big folder of photos taken at the National Railway Museum. Most of them are of topics for which we already have better photos so I don't intend to waste time going through them all adding correct descriptions and categories, but some of them (particularly those of Sir Nigel Gresley being dismantled in the workshops) might be useful to someone. If anyone wants to have a look, they're temporarily parked in commons:Category:NRM uploads by Iridescent; feel free to add proper descriptions and categories to anything you think might conceivably be of use to someone. ‑ Iridescent 16:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Format/Style of Services on Station pages

Hi all. The Wiki articles for UK rail stations are wonderful, they're often a much better source of information than say National Rail or the respective Operators' pages. However, there is serious inconsistency in the information provided about services; some pages have tables, others just blocks of texts, and a lot of it is seriously out dated (found one that was last updated in 2008!).

I think we can do better. What would be great would be a single, unified agreed format for that information to be in on every page. Is there any appetite to do this? I'm happy to lead on such a project.

On initial thought, something modelled on the table 'rail start' would be great, perhaps we could even simply just expand on that to include up-to-date service information (with frequencies for each of Peak/Off-Peak/Sat/Sun).

Very keen to hear your thoughts, and also to provide a mock up of the above. (Jx108 (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)).

Oh this is a minefield. The thoughts below relate to the station articles I have written.

• In the Services section:
  • The primary source of service explanation is the prose. They will be out of date almost immediately, but put an {{as of}} on it and it is just indicative, and that is fine.
  • The prose should explain service destinations and frequencies, and maybe local stopping patterns, but not in huge detail. For instance there are two trains per hour to Example Parkway. Most trains call at all stations but some omit Generalisation Avenue. Some trains continue on to Far-off Land.
  • I would generally explain only the off-peak frequency (eg 1000-1600 Monday-Friday). Explaining all services would be overkill, and WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE.
  • A brief summary of non-stop trains may occasionally be warranted, but not in any detail (eg three passenger services pass through non-stop each hour) to show that a line may be busy even if the station is not.
  • This should be done on a TOC-by-TOC basis. So if your station gets one MyTOC train per week, you should include that, even though the station gets 100 YourTOC trains per day.
  • Also note anything where the next station doesn't get frequently served by trains from your station. An example of this is Bristol Parkway and Patchway, which have I think one train per day between them despite being next along the South Wales Main Line.
  • General categories of rolling stock may be mentioned if you can find sources for it.
  • The succession box should show the next/previous station served on each major route. In the Bristol Parkway example above there would not be a box for Patchway-Parkway because it's not frequent enough to warrant it. Parliamentary routes however probably should be included here, for instance the Reddish South route would be listed at Stockport, as it is the only service on that entire line.
  • Buses do not need succession boxes, but a note of routes serving the station may be warranted.
  • All of this should be sourced to timetables.
• In the History section
  • There is no need for detailed service history, but a summary is useful. For instance In 1870 Example Parkway received 10 stopping trains per day towards Generalisation Avenue, with some trains extending to Far-off Land. By 1920 this had increased to 20 trains per day, plus peak-time fast services.
  • The routeboxes should show the next/previous station along each line passing through the station, and the date range that was valid for. The requirements for this is that there be trains which passed through both stations, we are not counting service patterns here. In the example above you would only get Next Station towards Generalisation Avenue in the Routebox, even though there were trains which went direct.
• In the Future section
  • The prose should mention if there are plans for significant changes to service provision.
  • The routebox should include significant extras, such as new stations or a new semi-fast service. It should not include items already included in the Services section.

Phew. Again, take nothing of this as gospel, these are just the rough rules I've been working to. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I think having an agreed format for station articles is a great idea. I agree with the comments from mattbuck and would just add that I think History should generally be the first section. Bellowhead678 (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Thankyou Bellowhead678. My preferred order of sections is:

• Lead
• Description
• Services
• History (people are more likely to know or see the current station, so having history afterwards makes sense to me as you can do things in reference to the current layout)
• Incidents (if applicable)
• Future

-mattbuck (Talk) 21:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

We've had discussions on these matters before. One thing that is clear is that it is not our responsibility to provide info about services: we must not be seen as a "go-to" website for people wanting the time of the next train. The TOCs do have that responsibility together with the obligation to ensure accuracy. Consider this: timetables change twice a year and there are over 2,500 railway stations in Great Britain (excluding London Underground), each with its own article. Who is going to maintain all of these? It's better to confine the detail (frequencies, stopping patterns, journey times) to articles about the line or the TOC - station articles may show the general pattern together with exceptions, such as the infrequent service at stations like Pilning or Sankey for Penketh. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

No argument from me there, train times are only relevant for very infrequently-served stations, if you have more than say four trains per week then forget it. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

As I've said previously when this has come up, I do feel it's a service to readers to give at least a rough indication of where the services from each station currently go (as opposed to the actual times), rather than just the next station in either direction and something like "Wessex Main Line" which will mean nothing to most readers. Yes, it's not really Wikipedia's place, but Wikipedia is nonetheless usually the first entry when people google a station, and "Is there a direct service to Edinburgh?"-type queries is something readers are likely to want to know. ‑ Iridescent 16:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I like the idea of a historical overview of services especially at stations where they have significantly changed over the years. Not too detailed though. An overview of current services is useful but needs to be kept realistic. In terms of order I always put history first in any entries I have significantly edited. With closed stations its not always easy to put in a description and again that's something that changes over time (e.g. Stratford railway station. I'd also like to put in a shout for recording nearby goods facilities both past and present with any significant traffic sources.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

My preference is for history first then current stuff later - it gives a logical, chronological order. (The station was built... it was enlarged... it was unstaffed... Now today you see...).

The services sections should have a short piece of prose to describe the service and then use the succession box as a summary. But don't list every variation of calling pattern, just the next adjacent station served by any train on that route.

I'm wary of too much detail about service changes in the History section. If someone writes that 'South West Trains stopped calling here in 2015' it suggests that they have called there since the station opened, even if they only started calling there in 2010!

Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with just the next adjacent station. To take an extreme example by that logic all we'd list under "services" for Waterloo would be "the next station for all services is either Vauxhall or Clapham Junction", which makes it sound like some kind of local halt. Obviously that's a strawman since any reader already knows its a major interchange, but for something like Hull Paragon or Liverpool Lime Street it's genuinely of both potential interest and potential use to readers to know that there are no long-distance services to anywhere north of the Liverpool–Manchester–Leeds–Hull line. Likewise, we have a duty to readers to try to explain to readers things like the incomprehensible messes of services at Gatwick Airport or Norwich. Ultimately the point of Wikipedia is to be useful to readers, not to adhere to some platonic ideal of a model article, and at least for the bigger stations that means answering "where do the trains from this place actually go?". ‑ Iridescent 17:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

In the prose you want to say that the train from Waterloo goes to Exeter or Portsmouth or wherever; but the routebox is meant to be this station and next station, so would mostly just be Vauxhall or Clapham Junction, but probably with a lot of boxes to say that for the various routes. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Many* service summary boxes include a section for local services and section for intercity services (usually different TOC). Each row consists of three cells: cell one is preceding station [poss more than one if next is sometimes skipped], cell two has three lines: the TOC, the line and the service (Euston–Glasgow Central or Edinburgh Waverley for example), then cell three has the following station or stations again depending which service. BTW, I notice some artices, Plymouth for example, have a service box in the History section and another in the current services section. I don't like this, or to be more precise, I don't like it if is encountered before the current services box – which is inevitable if we have History first in the article as proposed above – because it misleads the reader.

 • When I was refreshing Milton Keynes Central railway station#Service summary a few years ago, I searched for any standard or even convention for these boxes but couldn't find one. But searching around, I saw quite a few of these and decided that it is the style most useful to readers. It certainly solves the question posed above: I agree too that it is silly to give only the next suburban halt on the line - true but essentially trivial/useless information. I can understand an argument that this extended style strays into WP:NOTGUIDE but conversely, WP:Readers first. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

As John said, there isn't a problem if the box has separate lines for different service patterns. What I meant to describe as unacceptable is where we get multiple stations on a single line in the routebox. For example, the GWR entry in the Plymouth routebox could legitimately say

Previous station | Liskeard or Saltash or Devonport ... Next station | Ivybridge or Totnes or Newton Abbot or Exeter St Davids.

They are all valid calling patterns but just confuse things if someone is following a service along the line. Geof Sheppard (talk)

Quick's railway station chronology

Some of you may already be aware but the RCHS has made available free of charge Michael Quick's chronology of railway stations with opening and closure dates. The PDF may be found here. Lamberhurst (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Wrongly turning signals to danger after passing them

Apart from Signalhead (talk · contribs) - who hasn't edited in six years - do we have any signalling experts? See Talk:British Rail Class 442#Wrongly turning signals to danger after passing them. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I asked a signalling group and the units are now back in service, but I still can't get an answer as to whether this was an equipment or a rolling stock fault. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

18/19 stations still without updated figures

Redrose64 has helpfully created Category:UK stations without latest usage statistics 1819 which shows all the stations which don't have updated usage figures. For some reason the category isn't displaying, but you can search for it and it will appear. Bellowhead678 (talk) 12:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bellowhead678: it doesn't show because its a hidden category. You can set these to display via Preferences > Appearance then tick "show hidden categories" under "advanced options". Mjroots (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Bellowhead678 is going to discover a whole new world now ;-) - X201 (talk) 12:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

That's not a whole new world - THIS is Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

18 19 station usage

Just want to make people aware that it looks like the figures will be released on Tuesday. See here Difficultly north (talk) Simply south alt. 15:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I've sandboxed the necessary changes at Template:Infobox GB station/sandbox and Template:Infobox London station/sandbox. The GB one includes some corrections to this edit. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I am going to be updating loads and loads of station figures like I did in here and here back in 2018. I am quite aware of the release of figures tomorrow. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I hope the figures get completed. Its a mammoth task and quite a few people seem to stop halfway as there are roughly 2.5k NR stations in the UK. The figures will be released at 09:30. Difficultly north (talk) Simply south alt. 22:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I've put my sandboxed templates live, and you can monitor Category:UK stations without latest usage statistics 1819 and Category:London stations without latest usage statistics 1819. These are already populating, but may take a day or two to populate fully. Even when all the published stats have been entered, the cats won't be empty - consider Category:UK stations without latest usage statistics 1718 and Category:London stations without latest usage statistics 1718. I'm considering a method of marking stations that opened recently, or which are not yet open, so that they won't populate cats for years prior to opening. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and in light of consensus a few years back, please can we keep the number of displayed figures to five years? This may be done by moving the --> closing comment marker down one position when you add the new parameter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

It looks like Bellowhead678 has done a bunch. I don't mind who does it, but whoever does probably needs to know this discussion is here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Could you link to the discussion about keeping it to five years please? I think it's strange to have five values when there are only usage figures but ten values when interchange figures are included (i.e. five each of usage and interchange). Bellowhead678 (talk) 12:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Also Fulfo - heads up to this centralised discussion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not five values but five years. Thus, if interchange figures are shown, we have five pairs. There were several discussions, on this page and elsewhere, with the extremes being "show all figures" (and these go back to at least 2002-03) and "show only the latest figure". Five years was proposed as a compromise, and was accepted. Honestly, it feels as if I have to remind people every single year about this agreement. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

That's exactly my point - it seems silly to have five years rather than five values. I've had a check back and the last discussion about this was here which seemed to come to the consensus that it was better to hide earlier years rather than not display them. Bellowhead678 (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Would it be better to change the template to only display dates from 13-14 onwards? This would eliminate the need to comment out earlier dates. There could be a parameter (possibly |showall=yes) to display earlier dates if required (e.g Norton Bridge railway station). — O Still Small Voice of Clam 12:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

All the stations have now had their figures updated. I did 1,510 railway stations myself. Pkbwcgs (talk) 07:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations to all Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Modern Railways magazine

Is there any member of this WikiProject that has the January 2020 edition of Modern Railways magazine? Mjroots (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Category:London stations without latest usage statistics 1819 problem

It seems that Cannon Street station is showing up in Category:London stations without latest usage statistics 1819 even though it had its statistics updated. Does anyone know why? Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@Pkbwcgs: Cannon Street station#London Underground contains a second occurrence of {{Infobox London station}} which, being for a tube station, has no |railexits1819= parameter. It also appears in categories for earlier years. Certes (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@Certes: Is it not possible to merge the two infoboxes together? Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

A single infobox works for Blackfriars station and I don't see any obvious problems. On the other hand, Liverpool Street station avoids the categories, probably because its second infobox has no |railcode= parameter. Removing the railcode from Cannon Street station#London Underground should work and might be a better solution. Certes (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@Certes: Thanks. Removing the "railcode" parameter did the trick. Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I gone ahead and removed the railcode parameter for all of the London Underground stations. There were only 7 tube station that had the railcode parameter it shouldn't have been put in the first place. Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Linking to nonexistent stations

Can someone clear up why we must link to a station which doesn’t exist, e.g. Cowlairs on the Glasgow Queen Street page? Redrose64 seems to be getting quite upset about this... CrossHouses (talk) 13:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

CrossHouses, I would take the view that because it is a redirect with possibilities, a similar principle to WP:NOTBROKEN should be followed. There isn't any harm from having the link (the wp:PLA is followed), and if the article is ever written, it would be helpful for the author. Even if it just kept for continuity, I can't really see what harm is occurring from the link being there. Maybe the reader will click on the link, see it redirects to the line, and decide to write an article for us. (admittedly unlikely)

I would say if there is no chance of an article ever being written for the station, it should be removed, in a similar principle to redlinks.

Also, I'm not sure if there's policy that covers this, which might disagree entirely with my thoughts. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 15:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@The joy of all things: This edit didn't work, you need to make the link in a fresh line, not by modifying an existing line; and you also need to sign, again as a fresh signature not a mod.

Following on from the edit summary of The joy of all things, if you are going to mention an editing dispute in these queries, then you should provide detail, at the very least a diff of the disputed edit, so that other people are aware of what is disputed. So, this concerns this edit where CrossHouses (talk · contribs) delinked the station name in a routebox without explanation. Routeboxes exist so that we can navigate along a line from one station to the next - I know of no routeboxes where the station name isn't linked, although I know of several where it's a redlink. Since WP:REDDEAL applies to those, and that guideline explicitly permits the red link to exist in order to indicate that A new article is needed, it follows that if a redirect is created instead of a full article, that redirect should still be linked. Whether the link is red or a redirect, it allows the use of Special:WhatLinksHere in order to see how many inward links a potential new article might have. Delinking removes that option. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

As a rough rule when it comes to stations, if it ever had scheduled passenger service it's a valid redlink since it's always legitimate to assume that it was the subject of significant coverage on at least two occasions (when it opened and when it closed). The only exceptions I'm aware of are the temporary wartime halts which opened and closed in secret so aren't necessarily documented other than as entries on lists, and the WP:IAR exception of Church Siding railway station which was literally a pile of mud where trains stopped in the morning to pick up milk churns from the local farm and although it briefly appeared in the passenger timetable probably never once actually saw a passenger. ‑ Iridescent 21:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Of course, some stations never saw a passenger, yet they can still support an article. Mjroots (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

And some stations only saw one train. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 22:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Page move of Tyne and Wear Metro rolling stock

Someone recently moved the page Tyne and Wear rolling stock without discussion to Tyne & Wear Metrocars. I think this is wrong for a number of reasons. I started a discussion on the talk page. G-13114 (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Morfa Mawddach railway station

I'm having difficulties with Morfa Mawddach railway station, where DrFrench (talk · contribs) is insisting on a number of unusual changes. The recent discussion is appended. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Redrose64 § Your reverts on Morfa Mawddach railway station

You clearly have an issue with me and my edits. I do not appreciate being called a liar in edit summaries, especially when I am not guilty of the 'crime' you have accused me of. You claim I have 'expunged history'. I have not. I moved two references to Butts work from the infobox to the appropriate place in the main article of the text, where they should be located. There is no longer any reason for them to be duplicated in the infobox, as per WP:INFOBOXCITE which says references are "generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere. DrFrench (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@DrFrench: You have removed the information about the original name of the station, not once, but four times (at 00:30, 2 February 2020; 23:44, 2 February 2020; 17:50, 3 February 2020; and 21:12, 3 February 2020). Are you seriously claiming that the station was never named Barmouth Junction? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Er, no I haven't. Please demonstrate (using diffs) exactly what you think I have 'removed'. The article mentions the original name in the introduction and the main body of the article. I have added a reference to the original name to the manin body of the article. Per WP:INFOBOXCITE, the reference no longer needed in the infobox. DrFrench (talk) 07:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I have provided diffs, four to be exact, in my post of 22:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC); and one of the four was also given in the edit summary of this edit. Each one, if followed, shows your name as being the person who removed the original name of the station from the infobox. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. I thought you were moaning about the reference. Perhaps, if you'd said that earlier it would have been helpful... Perhaps, if you didn't revert edits simply becasue you don't like them... Perhaps, if you put something useful into the edit summary rather than accusing people of 'expunging history'... Perhaps if you fixed what you think is wrong rather than simple reverting edits... then perhaps, just perhaps, it would help the project. Oh and perhaps, if you didn't insult people in edit summaries it would help improve the atmosphere too. But then, you've got form for that, haven't you. Arrogance and rudeness may be your style. It's not mine. I sincerely hope that I never have to come across you again. DrFrench (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@DrFrench: Will you please look at what your edit has done to the infobox? You have separated the two dates by three lines of other material; and moreover, one date is in the right-hand column, the other on the left. The way I left it had both dates in the same column, and on consecutive lines; and this is consistent with virtually all other UK railway stations that have been renamed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

If you've got an issue with the infobox template layout or how the template works, then take it to the template's talk page and suggest changes there. DrFrench (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

In their most recent revert, DrFrench accuses me of WP:OWNing the article, yet they have reverted almost all of my recent edits - the changes that they have allowed to stand are (i) this removal of ([[Great Western Railway|GWR]]) (but none of the other changes made in that edit); (ii} this removal; (iii) this grammar fix. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Class 802 incident at Paddington

Yesterday, a Class 802 hit the buffers at Paddington. So far, the only source I can find is the Daily Express, which fails WP:RS. Does anyone else have a useable source? Mjroots (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, the Express has an article on it. hope this helps :) Don't be afraid to be creative (talk) 12:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

5705 or D5705?

To save time on future arguments, are green BR locos pre-TOPS numbered as "D5902" or "5902" ?

There's a series of these going on from our uncommunicative IP in Ireland. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

As per source. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 13:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I think this is more a stylistic thing than sourcing. It's easy to find sources that list them, but this would need one that says "D is part of the number" and that's rare. Really we need a consensus agreement that for our purposes here, we're happy to regard D as inherently part (or v.v.). Andy Dingley (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

They originally had the D prefix, but this was later removed, as mentioned at British Rail locomotive and multiple unit numbering and classification#Diesel locomotives. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

It says "the 'D' prefix was dropped" but this is an oversimplification. From August 1968, after all the steam locos had been withdrawn, the D prefix was no longer given in written records, but usually continued to be borne by the actual locos until their next repaint - thus it took several years for all the Ds to be eliminated. Some of the Class 35 and Class 52 locos (with their individual raised characters and cast numberplates respectively) did get the letter D painted over, after some attempts to remove the D with hammer and cold chisel left unsightly scars. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• This is less about how BR displayed them at the time, more about how WP should display them for future edits.

Use D prefix

Don't use D prefix

Use D prefix some of the time, maybe just for steam-era

I feel that we ought to do something rational and agreed beforehand though (and I'd support consistent use of the prefix) Andy Dingley (talk) 12:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

It is reasonable to use the designation which is in use at the time. Articles may refer to a steam loco both by its pre-grouping number and then by later numbers through to BR, and similarly a diesel may have various earlier numbers and then later a TOPS number. When referring to a particular event in the loco's history it is reasonable to refer to it by the number it carried at the time, rather than deliberately creating an anachronism. It's the same as what we do with a person who changes their name; for example, the article on Margaret Thatcher refers to her as Margaret Roberts where relevant, then as Thatcher in her later life. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

This is in reference to 'green era' only. Nothing to do with TOPS. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Same applies whichever era (though I think that the time when the D was removed was in the rail blue era, with odd exceptions of course). Use the number by which it was known at the relevant time. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Blue began in 1966, so for a couple of years all locos painted blue were also given the D prefix. Photos exist of green locos without the D, presumably these were locos given a partial repaint after August 1968. Andy Dingley's comment "Nothing to do with TOPS" is curious, since numbers like (D)5705 were dropped with the introduction of TOPS numbering. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with TOPS because after TOPS, the numbering becomes obvious. The question here (the only question) is how WP should represent numbers for diesels before TOPS, in the text of WP articles. The colour doesn't matter, nor do photographs - they can look after themselves. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

For what is it worth, the convention in Wikimedia Commons is to include the D when categorizing individual locomotives. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

A related problem is how do you represent TOPS numbers, as 5 figure numbers, eg 47373 or as two plus three, eg 47 690. There is no consistency on the real railway. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I know that the class designator was often (but certainly not always) separated from the fleet number on the actual locomotives, but in typeface, putting a space in always looks wrong to me as the "real" space wasn't actually a full character width. I always wrote and typed them without a space. TOPS didn't insert the space, either. Black Kite (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• I often write them with a half-width space: 44 011 vs. 44 011 but I'd tabulate them without any. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

The space (regardless of width) is insignificant (as far as TOPS records are concerned) and is used purely for human readability. Much like the hyphens (or spaces) in an ISBN. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

When locomotives were first renumbered a few appeared with a decimal point: 47.401. This was soon dropped. I agree that the space is irrelevant, I don't recall seeing it on any official documentation and seldom in books or magazines. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Initially, at last, the Ian Allen ABCs always quoted the numbers in 2+3 format. They gave that up some time in the 1980s. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

All Ian Allan (note spelling) ABCs from 1974 to 1988 inclusive used the spaced form. The 1972 edition used dots (as in 83.001), those of 1973 and 1989 (the latter being the final edition) used unseparated numbers. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I knew I'd get the ruddy spelling wrong! Must check if I still have a 1972 edition, don't remember the dots. The P5 1989 has the locos as 5 figs but the units as 3+3. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

It's noticeable that on the locomotives themselves, the use of the space declined over the 80s and especially the 90s. The 58s notably had the space, but by the time the 60s were delivered from 1989 it had disappeared [2], and of course the 66s, 67s etc. dropped it. At the same time, older locomotives that were repainted lost it as well (Virgin 47s, EWS locos etc.). Black Kite (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Eden Valley Railway link status

Can anyone confirm whether {{Eden Valley Railway}} is correct about there being an active link between the mainline and the Eden Valley at Appleby? The diagram has it, Quail trackmaps (vol 4, 2013, 34B) has it, but looking on Google Earth, in imagery dates 2019-09-20, Appleby East is quite clearly a junkyard with no track in place. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

In Quail vol 4 2018 page 36B, the link is marked as out of use. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)