Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 59

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55←Archive 57Archive 58Archive 59

Are all stations in England to be in London?

Vincent60030 has undertaken a mass migration of stations from {{Infobox station}} to {{Infobox London station}}. Why? Because migrate infobox to London as contactless expansion. Eh? What is actually happening is that the Minister has announced that all stations are to be phased over to contactless ticket barriers, in a phased way, rolling out from London.[1] The idea that this makes them all London stations is risible. Next departure from London Bolton, anyone?

Such radical changes really should be proposed here first. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I’d heavily oppose this action - stations are not in London. If the reason for the change is because one infobox lacks a parameter, then an update to the infobox is required. If there weren’t already a discussion open I’d be mass reverting these changes. Danners430 (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
It's not even clear to me from the changes that there's a missing parameter. Mackensen (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
I was giving an example - I’ve no idea why the mass changes… at the very least it’s the wrong course of action Danners430 (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
I would like to point out that there has not been an issue when I have done so earlier to for example Gatwick Airport station. I don’t see why this is now an issue after 3 years. If it has to be strictly in London then Epping and Amersham would be a problem. Don’t forget Cheshunt is technically under National Rail territory yet it is included.
Streamlining doesn’t have disadvantages either. In the first place, the London boundary isn’t clear. Plus, the London Underground and Network Rail Map does update periodically to include these new stations. Here’s the link: Rail and Tube Services Map. It is a good official point of reference. In my opinion, the geographical representation in the London infobox is more enjoyable to a casual reader (and this should not be an atlas platform). There is also the step-free accessibility parameter which is not in the general station infobox, and it is going to be lengthy discussion to include these parameters. It’s more efficient to standardise it this way. Also, in my perspective, I did not make any major technical changes because most of the parameters I have kept accordingly. It is just a different template but describing the same things.
In the long term, I doubt contactless is ever going to reach really far locations and for that it’d be wiser to either keep a printed ticket system or make a uniform contactless system for the entire nation, no? Nobody wants to waste time upgrading the existing limited database like Oyster having issues now to include gazillion zones. If the “London” term should be criticised, why do it to London Luton, London Stansted, London Gatwick? A compromise may be, perhaps waiting for the new map to be released? VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 04:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Regardless of whether the "London boundary isn't clear", places like Bletchley and Southend (and for that matter Gatwick Airport) aren't in London by any definition you could use, so this change is just wrong. Edge cases can be discussed individually. Black Kite (talk) 07:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
I think it’s time to make one illusion go away… ScotRail just announced their own contactless ticketing system which is almost identical to Oyster. So sorry, it’s reached way beyond London already.[2] Danners430 (talk) 07:49, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
An additional comment would be that perhaps the compromise is to have a consensus on if contactless expansion does go that far, the limit of stations could be at each major terminal based on a certain commuting distance. for example Milton Keynes Central, Oxford, Cambridge, Chelmsford etc etc…then again, don’t forget East to West Rail is on the way and optics wise, wouldn’t it be better to include so? Plus readers may check which area the station belongs to in “local authority”. I really can’t understand why we can’t do so. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 04:23, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
OK. I have one overarching concern which goes beyond the details of the above disscussion. What on earth does contactless payments have to do with arbitrarily changing templates to suddenly put a station into London, thereby putting the “London Transport Hub” link against stations very much not in London? Danners430 (talk) 07:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Respectfully, There's no need to "compromise" in this case as far as I can see. Wikipedia works by WP:CONSENSUS and right now there's a complete absence of consensus for the addition of London infoboxes to stations outside of London. This needs to be undone. And if Gatwick has one that should be amended too. It's clear that as the network expands we may need the infobox to list certain London network attributes, but labelling these places as "London" isn't the answer to how to render them. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:03, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Absolutely. And I will start now on reverting all changes on the WCML north of Watford Junction. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)  Done --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:01, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Do we need WP:WATFORDGAP? :D Danners430 (talk) 12:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Watford railway station kindly exists for those who failed to mind the gap . 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:48, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
@Vincent60030: No, that would not be a reasonable compromise. A relatively trivial technology change to ticket barriers in England is being introduced over the next few years. That is not a valid reason to change all the infoboxes because you prefer the London one. (Which, by the way, has the wonderful concept of giving relative numbers of passenger increase/decrease but no absolute values. Primary school stuff!) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:01, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
And Scotland, as per cite - wouldn't surprise me if it rolls out nationwide over the next number of years... so definitely worth updating the "parent" infobox rather than changing Thurso to use London's template...! Danners430 (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
We could always rename the template to omit the word "London". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
And call it {{Infobox station}}? That will throw up a load of errors because (of course) the parameter naming is inconsistent – see this diff for St Albans City. Can we merge the templates? (and have mapframe and actual passenger figures). Or just phase out the London one, why do we even have it?
Anyway, I started to convert the MML stations to the normal infobox station, working out from St Albans City but I've only done that one and Harpenden before deciding that it is best I pause until the consensus is clear. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't want to go through all this again. It was originally filed by somebody who had never had anything to do with UK railway stations beforehand, and as far as I can tell, has not done so since. It spilled over into pages like Template talk:Infobox GB station#Unexplained changes with loss of functionality and Template talk:Infobox station/Archive 4#UK stations merge. Important questions were left unanswered, decisions were made unilaterally and steamrollered through. The whole thing made me extremely angry, and I'm still not over it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
I think we’re getting a little bogged down… perhaps it would help to take a broader viewpoint.
@Vincent60030, what was the reason for switching the templates? The reason for asking is so that we can assess whether it’s worth making a change to the existing infobox or some kind of merge. Danners430 (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

In the meantime, I am reverting all Vincet60030's changes, not least because they removed all the passenger movements data that other editors spent a lot of time and effort to update. This is essential infobox information. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I am very perplexed trying to understand how my edits removed passenger movement data when the values are the same. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 17:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
In many cases, the only information is the relative size of the increase or decrease, not the absolute numbers. That isn't always the case but it is not especially relevant: the primary issue is your decision to make a unilateral and needless change to a load of articles without checking here first. Yes, of course you can WP:BEBOLD but at the risk of having it all reverted. If you are going to do a lot of work, it is a good idea to look before you leap. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
@JMF: In many cases, the only information is the relative size of the increase or decrease, not the absolute numbers. Examples please? Particularly since in this edit, you wrote "reinstate passenger numbers", which Vincent60030 had demonstrably not removed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
True, I misread a decimal point as a comma (like railexits1920 = {{increase}} 1.139 as an increase of one thousand one hundred and thirty nine). I cannot tell a lie, I let my annoyance over a pointless, ill-justified and bot-like change get in the way of checking properly. I withdraw the allegation. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ "Trials for contactless ticketing in the North and Midlands takes another step closer" (Press release). 26 February 2025.
  2. ^ "Tap and Pay".

Move Ely to Peterborough Line

Ive proposed to move it to its other name - Hereward Line. Please see Talk:Ely-Peterborough line. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 21:34, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

The LNER J45 class (BR Class D3/9) lacks an image and reliable sources

The LNER J45 class loco page at British_Rail_Class_D3/9 lacks an image. Could a registred Commons user please upload the Public Domain image (dated 27.01.1949) at https://ba.e-pics.ethz.ch/#detail-asset=6e1c02df-78aa-4eed-a6ee-04a071e09bb9 to Wiki Commons, perhaps creating a sub category 'Category:London and North Eastern Railway diesel locomotives' in 'Category:London and North Eastern Railway locomotives'. The British_Rail_Class_D3/9 page could benefit from an image. The terms of use information is at at https://www.e-pics.ethz.ch/en/ba_use/ and the photographer is unknown (Unbekannt).

I'm not sure if the image hosting site is a reliable source. If it is considered reliable then the information about the antenna pins (translated from the German text) above the cab and the use of radio control (whatever that means) could be added to the article. Is the image hosting site considered to be a reliable source? 2A00:23C2:8B08:E501:C923:9C7:4EFE:5F2E (talk) 13:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

No, image hosting sites are WP:UGC. Danners430 (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
It appears though that the source of the description is the ETH Library, which looks to be a reliable source. Thryduulf (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Template changes

I've made some edits in the sandbox for Template:BRC - would someone be able to take a look at them? The main discussion thread is at Template talk:British Rail Class link#Addition of class names. Danners430 (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Can anyone have a look before I just deploy it? Danners430 (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Great British Railways

See Talk:Great_British_Railways#Status?. Waiting for an RS to report so the article can be updated. (that's a broad wink to any journalist watching). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I've restructured the article a bit and added a few more paragraphs on its current status. I've left a reply on the talk page about the article's current structure, and I'm interested in what others think about it. FozzieHey (talk) 20:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Welshpool and Llanfair Light Railway steam locomotive number 19#Requested move 28 March 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Welshpool and Llanfair Light Railway steam locomotive number 19#Requested move 28 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 12:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Discussion regarding the use of Template:brc and Template:RWS

There’s a discussion regarding the use of the BRC and RWS/Stnlink templates at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Trains. Danners430 (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Primary topic of Leven station

Someone has proposed moving Leven station and Leven railway station (Fife). See Talk:Leven railway station (Fife). Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 19:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Adding line background information to Kirkby train crash

I'm intending to nominate Kirkby train crash as a WP:GA fairly soon, but I'd like to add a bit more information about the line to the Background section. I don't think it is required per se, but it would provide a bit more context on the line before it was split at Kirkby. The section originally began with "The station opened in 1848 as a through station on the Liverpool and Bury Railway between Liverpool Exchange and Wigan Wallgate." However, I removed this as I couldn't find a source for it​ (I'm guessing this has been simplified somewhat, because it looks like Liverpool Exchange opened in 1850). I took a look at Liverpool and Bury Railway, but it looks quite complicated! This seems like it should be fairly easy to cite, and maybe I'm just looking in the wrong place. Is anyone aware of any sources that provide a basic history of a railway station such as Kirkby? FozzieHey (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Quick-stations-5.05}} p269 gives the opening date as 20 November 1848. Nthep (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
I've been meaning to look for some sources for the layout changes, but been rather busy of late. I've not forgotten though. — Voice of Clam (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Liverpool Exchange went through a complicated history. Early in its life, it was jointly-owned by two railways, who disagreed on many matters - they couldn't even agree on what to call their shared terminus in Liverpool. So you may find it described as Tithebarn Street in some books. See if you can get hold of
which covers the early history of the Liverpool & Bury Railway. Kirkby is listed as one of the original stations. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Thanks all, I'll try to get a copy of that book unless someone beats me to it. It should at least give us a short description of the history that we can add to the section. FozzieHey (talk) 11:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Leven railway station (Fife)#Requested move 19 April 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Leven railway station (Fife)#Requested move 19 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Valorrr (lets chat) 04:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I already said this in the topic above this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Difficultly north (talk • contribs) 17:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Name of line - Mid-Kent

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Mid-Kent line#Article name. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

RtM: Royston and Hitchin Railway with Cambridge Railway

fyi, there is proposal that these two articles be merged. See Talk:Royston and Hitchin Railway#Requested merge May 2025. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Merge proposal (London stations)

See Talk:Jubilee line#Merge proposal for unbuilt stations for a proposal to merge articles for four stations into Jubilee line. -- Verbarson  talkedits 17:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Infoboxes

This specifically refers to the infoboxes which show adjacent stations on services, and used on nearly every article. This discussion refers to the inclusion of limited services, and whether they are worthy of inclusion, and in which circumstances.

This is mainly to address a dispute around Southampton, where the majarity of Southern services call at Swanwick, Woolston and Southampton Central. There are other stations inbetween however, but no Southern services are scheduled to call at them. The big exception relevant to this discussion is Netley, served by two westbound services, one in the morning and one in the evening. Previously, on Swanwick and Woolston's articles, there was absolutely no mention of this, and no mention of the service on Netley's article. Therefore, following existing precedent on other similar cases (including, but not limited to Southern serving Bedhampton, and being mentioned on the pages of both Havant and Hilsea, and Southern serving Littlehaven and Ifield, mentioned on the pages of both Horsham and Crawley.

However, even after providing a source (which was to Southern's website) to prove this is the case, there has been a dispute, with user Danners430 arguing this is totally not needed, and reverting the edit on the page of Woolston (although not Netley and Swanwick as of the time of writing), in which I added a section which stated the preceding station was either Swanwick, or Netley, including a clarification the latter case was a limited service, including on more than one occasion.

What I think we need to define is what cases this is a neccessary thing to include. The main argument that they can sometimes be excluded can be very limited services which have no practical usage for the reader to know about, which can very much be the case in situations where the limited service is a parliamentary service only run to keep the line open, and we would be thinking about linking sections, such as a number in the north such as the Morecambe branch line, which has a single timetabled regular direct service from Bare Lane to Carnforth, instead of reversing at Lancaster first which all other trains do, with the Carnforth and Bare Lane articles needing that information removed IF (and only IF) the decision is made to officially restrict usage of limited services.

However, the reason why we should not neccessarily remove all cases are numerous. For one thing, the service at Netley is a legitimate additional peak hour service, that just by coincidence is operated by a different train operating company than the one which operated all off-peak services, and consequently it is reasonable to also mention from the adjacent station relative to the service, which is in that case scenario Swanwick and Woolston.

Some peak hour services also make up a significant portion of services during those times of the day, with half hourly services or more in some cases, such as on the Orpington branch line in London with frequent Thameslink services, but only during peak hours.

And the last argument I would put forward is that in some cases, all of the services at some stations can be limited services, so if in theory it was decided that adjacent station boxes can ONLY be used for regular and off-peak services, by definition , we would need to remove any mention of a station on an adjacent stations infoboxes, and consequently preventing the reader from being able to easily access them despite the stations being adjacant to each other on regular (I.E. offically scheduled and timetabled, to any extent) services (cases of physically adjacent stations but no regular services between them doesn't count in this scenario, even if the information may still be included in a historical section).

In general, I believe it would be best just to keep that information about limited services retained, given there is legitimate pre-existing precedent that does exist for inclusion, even if I acknowledge there is limited reason to exclude information under very specific circumstances, although I see absolutely no reason to ever exclude information such as limited services under every circumstance. Lawrence 979 (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

An aside, the source you give doesn't seem to want to reveal the existence of the Netley service on Safari and its validity expired yesterday. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
I do have an alternative source available, which is the PDF variant of the same timetable, which does itself have validity all the way up to December 2025 on the updated version. The PDF variant does include the information I am quoting from, as using the CTRL-F function (or using the built in function in the case of mobile devices) and typing in "Netley" will immediately reveal the information showing that Southern serves the station twice per day. ("Also calls at Netley 0606" and "Also calls at Netley 1749"). Lawrence 979 (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
For transparency, I have reported Lawrence 979 to WP:AN3 as they have reverted the page yet again, and are now at 4 reverts in the last 24 hours. I’ll have a read through this wall of text shortly. Danners430 (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
In response to the content dispute, it’s not just myself that disagrees - Murgatroyd above is also reverting you for the same reasons. Indeed, the initial discussion took place on their talk page.
My view on this matter is reasonably simple - the adjacent stations table and services field in the infobox should be used for regular services only. Irregular stopping patterns, such as peak time services, once- or twice-daily services or parliamentary services, should still be mentioned in the body of the article (let’s not hide genuine info), but shouldn’t be in the table or infobox, since they’re not representative of the normal service a station gets. Danners430 (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
If we are going to take up your viewpoint that limited services should NEVER be included in any table or infobox, we should wait to see if any other editors want to contribute, because that would be overriding large-scale and longstanding precedent for countless stations based on the viewpoint of a single editor, which I am sure would sooner or later land you in a dispute with some other editor, and the issue of stations which only receive limited services would need to be decided. For example, links to Faygate station on the Arun Valley line (with only 10 Northbound and 12 Southbound services or something along those lines) would likely have to be removed outright because there are only services to the station during peak hours (minus a midday service), and consequently there would be limited access to the article, which could end up leading someone just to nominate it for deletion if no one ever views it. And even then with your view on peak hour services, I can see where you are coming from with that, but that can mean excluding mention of services from an infobox which a station regularly received for approximately 30-40% of the day or something along those lines, which is a substantially representative of services which the station receives over the course of a day. In general, what you are doing with Woolston is basically ordering me to exclude it from a longstanding precedent that you want to unilaterally override, which is not how any site like wikipedia should work. Lawrence 979 (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
My friend… getting comments from other editors is precisely why I encouraged you to use these talk pages. I’m not ordering you to do anything - as of right now there are three editors in a content dispute, and this is being resolved by discussion. I have one view, you have another. That is why we use talk pages. Danners430 (talk) 22:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Fair enough, but until the day comes where everyone agree to your idea, articles such as Swanwick, Netley and Woolston should follow existing precedent on wikipedia when it comes to stations with a limited service, provided they are correctly sourced, and other stations nearby have very similar cases of limited services, such as Southampton Airport Parkway and Eastleigh, which technically fall into the same category as Netley, in that limited Southern (and GWR as well for that matter) services call at the stations three times per day on the exact same route (Brighton to Southampton), but still has links almost identical to the ones I put on Woolston on the articles for both Fareham and Southampton Central, and still clarified for them as limited service, just following older standards which probably need to be reviewed soon. So I can question what makes those articles acceptable but not Woolston's? Lawrence 979 (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
As of right now, we are still disputing Woolston. I have not looked at other articles in that region recently nor do I have any desire to do so. And as of right now, that dispute is not yet settled - and since you may have already broken WP:3RR I’d be very careful about more reverts on that page until the dispute is resolved - which will need input from others. Danners430 (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
They're not infoboxes. Infoboxes are the boxes top right of many pages. What you appear to be talking about is, strictly speaking, a succession box. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
OK, I acknowledge that, and in general, i often use the wrong terms everyday in the real world and on wikipedia. Of course the area we are actually talking about is the adjacent stations boxes, and more specifically, the variant used for national rail stations. The main thing we need to resolve is when, if ever, we can mention a relatively limited service in an adjacent stations box, which can range absolutely anywhere from a once-weekly parliamentary service to a full service, but one which only actually runs during peak times. Generally, there seems to be existing precedent to include them in most circumstances, but it seems like some want to banish them UK stations completely. Lawrence 979 (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
The purpose of these boxes is to present a typical service pattern, not every service pattern. Two peak-time only services that call in one direction only is not the typical service pattern and does not need to be included. Wikipedia is not a timetable. Thryduulf (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
There is already many examples of peak-time only services being included, provided they are always clarified very specifically as either "Limited service" or "Peak only". However, before June 2024, when Southern withdrew their service from every station between Swanwick and Southampton except for Woolston (upgraded to regular service) and Netley (retained limited services), every station did include Southern, but I do agree, Wikipedia is not a timetable, and if it was a comprehensive timetable, we would end up with an absolutely convoluted mess and a long list of adjacent stations when it takes into account early morning and late night services as well as peak services). However, based on existing precedent, there has generally for a long time been a case of selected limited services that do go alongside regular services in adjacent stations boxes, such as relatively regular peak services during the daytime, but I personally highly doubt that a one-size-fits-all approach would work out across the UK. In general, the main question is whether Woolston and the previous station being Netley on a "limited" number of trains counts as one example of an acceptable case, but generally most other stations include it, so there isn't a good reason for the status quo of Woolston having it banned due to an edit war (which was initially for not providing an additional source, and then for the source not being sufficiently accessible to all, even though that is the reality of many sources in all sorts of documents, then for disagreements about the purpose of the source, and was basically your fault as I was initially reverting after addressing the reason why my edit was reverted, but its obviously happened now) but other articles, such as Swanwick (which to be honest was an edit made by me at the same time as Woolston for the same purpose), or already well-established examples such as Southern/GWR services via Eastleigh. If Woolston stays exactly as it is, then those other aforementioned articles will have to change for consistency, I would suggest that a discussion could also be added to Woolston's page as well. Lawrence 979 (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
I have just taken a look at the services section for Southampton Central railway station and see several things that I think we could do better. The first that leaps out at me is the long list of '1 tph' services. The 'tph' is not explained (try using the {{abbr}} template), but is it really the best way of presenting this information? Perhaps it would make better reading if it was in prose: 'Services operate typically once every hour to...'
The positioning of the image is rather strange with all that whitespace above it. I am sure that a better image or two taken in daytime would illustrate the services better.
I am surprised that one line has 'Woolston or Southampton Airport Parkway' as the preceding station. These are on different routes so ought to have different lines using a 'rail line two to one' template insert.
In the succession box template, the columns are headed 'preceding station' and 'next station' so should have only one station in each row. So, to answer the question that started this discussion, the one station should be the nearest one, even if it has only a limited service. Another point to bear in mind is that the station with the limited service (Southampton Airport Parkway) will invariably have the limited service shown in its succession box, so the station which is served by all trains (Southampton Central) should have a link back to that station so that the navigation is bidirectional between the two pages. At the moment Woolston fails this as I can follow the link from Netley to Woolston but then not go back again.
I may have misunderstood the stopping pattern, but the Southern service at Southampton Central correctly shows Woolston as a preceding station as Netley is beyond Woolston. Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
I have made some edits to Southampton Central to reflect some of those ideas. I do agree though Southampton Airport Parkway for Southern should be in a separate box in preceding station given it obviously a different route. I also condensed the box, which consequently allows the London Victoria service to be merged into a single "West Coastway line" item on the list.
However, using two different stations in the same box isn't neccessarily completely the wrong answer in all situations, given in many examples, it relates to the next stations on a regular service but following the same route. For example at Fareham, the following station for Southern is "Portchester or Cosham", which is acceptable, given 1 train per hour calls at Portchester, and the doesn't and goes straight to Cosham, but both trains operate the same service to Brighton. However, that is only acceptable in the cases of regular services, so it doesn't apply to Woolston.
With that point about bidirectional navigation, the reason that doesn't work is because there was an edit which did allow that to work, and access Netley from Woolston's page (without going through Sholing first, but that is counterintuitive and obviously a no-no). However, for multiple reasons (first for being apparently unsourced, and then the source not being clear enough, apparently due to not working on the browser of an editor, and then because it was believed the edit was invalid due to relating to a limited service, causing me to have to stop trying before being blocked, causing this discussion to be opened in the first place), but the edit dispute only landed on Woolston, not Netley or Swanwick (despite that edit being near-identical to Woolston).
So generally, the best way to clear it up would be agreeing that edit should be reinstated based on the existing precedent and consequently consensus. That is in part because the purpose of my edit was in part correcting an edit from a user who went one step too far and removed Southern from every single station between Swanwick and Southampton (except Woolston because of its upgraded service), and removed Netley despite that station being the single exception and retaining a limited Southern service, unlike other stations such as Sholing. Lawrence 979 (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
So far, nobody in this discussion has agreed that your course of action is the way to go. So I’d hold off until such time as such a consensus has been agreed - because as of now, it doesn’t exist. Danners430 (talk) 06:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Well that is what I'll probably do, but that argument that "So, to answer the question that started this discussion, the one station should be the nearest one, even if it has only a limited service" does to some extent answer that question I put on this discussion, which I only started in response to my edits being reverted by you due to a unilateral belief that the edit was unacceptable, and ignoring other factors such as bidirectional navigation. Lawrence 979 (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm going to make one thing clear here, and it's the last I'm going to entertain on the subject. Your edits were reverted because two editors disagreed with your edits. It doesn't matter why - but we set out our reasons here and at Murgatroy's talk page. So far, you have yet to provide evidence of your so called "consensus" regarding how these tables are to be formatted. This is why this discussion exists - so that a consensus can be reached.
Given no consensus exists (unless you can provide the link to it), any editor is welcome to revert your edits if they disagree - the same way as any editor can revert my edits if they disagree. But per WP:BRD, that's the point at which the original editor starts a discussion - they don't accuse other editors of wrongdoing (which you have repeatedly implied, at least to my eyes, in your messages), and you don't edit war.
Please have a good read of WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:OWN. Danners430 (talk) 09:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, I know about that stuff. Otherwise I would have gone to revert the edit already, and you would have probably had another revert to do, something that I have not done as of the time of writing this comment. With one of those editors, the main reason originally was because of sources, which is fair enough when I didn't cite any additional sources, but then I cited an extra source, and kept reverting because they found it unacceptable because the information wasn't sufficiently clear for their liking, despite that often being the case with citations on wikipedia or the wider academic world, such as with book sources which someone may or may not own. Lawrence 979 (talk) 09:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Bearings on Britannia class

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:BR Standard Class 7#Variations and modifications: bearings. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Railway Heritage Register Online - broken links

I've recently discovered that references to the Railway Heritage Register Online website seem to have become broken links. Many of the UK "Rolling Stock of the....." articles are heavily dependent on these. I've certainly added many of these references to the Rolling stock of the Watercress Line article, all of which are now broken and need changing. I'm willing to tackle this for that article, but before I do so, I'm wondering if any of you clever people (who are far more experienced at this sort of thing than me...) might know of a quicker way of fixing them? I haven't managed to work out whether it's just part of the URL that needs changing, or a complete replacement. Mwsmith20 (talk) 16:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

If the pages are archived (e.g. on Internet Archive) or if there is a consistent new URL then you can make a request for a bot to update all the citations at WP:URLREQ. There is a backlog but it's typically only a few days. Thryduulf (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
It looks like they have done a complete rebuild of the database that feeds their website. I just tried an example and found that
  • Old http://www.ws.rhrp.org.uk/ws/WagonInfo.asp?Ref=6986 has become
  • New https://ws.rhrp.org.uk/WagonSurvey/displayvehicle.php?Ref=AO7JYKE2D04VN1C59QZX
So, no easy fix that I can see. Geof Sheppard (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
That's what I feared. Thanks for looking, Mwsmith20 (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
But an archive copy exists. Easier to automate a translation? -- Verbarson  talkedits 16:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
I suggest that we update the existing links to the archived versions en-masse so the references are working, without prejudice to manually updating to the live version. It looks like restricting the bot edits to URIs with "/ws/" would prevent any duplication of effort, edit conflicts, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
The archived copies might be out of date, so I think that it will need to be a manual job to amend to the fresh URLs. As I type this, there are 290 links to fix. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
The question is whether a broken link or a potentially out-of-date archive link is better in the interim pending a manual fix. My preference is for the latter. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Agreed. The links should be checked regularly in case they become out of date, but these broken links can be fixed by pointing to the archive for now. I've made a mental note to update the pages on my watchlist that use this source soon - they were all done about 18 months ago so are probably due a check anyway. Geof Sheppard (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
I've made a request at WP:URLREQ#Railway Heritage Register Online. Thryduulf (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
There are two Railway heritage Register Online folders that have been moved. In addition to the above wagon survey, there are carriage survey pages that start http://www.cs.rhrp.org.uk/se/ so I have added them to the request. Geof Sheppard (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
The archive request has now been carried out. Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
That's great, thank you for that (and to everyone else for their helpful comments) Mwsmith20 (talk) 11:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

What to do about Blyth and Blyth Bebside

Currently there are two different articles for Blyth railway station and Blyth Bebside railway station. The latter used to be called Bebside railway station, which is the name of the old closed station. That old closed station is given one small paragraph in the article. On Blyth railway station (closed), there is a paragraph about the new railway station, which has a merge tag. It's all very confusing and needs sorting out.

Suggestion 1

Keep it how it is.

Pros: less effort

Cons: stupid

Suggestion 2

Have three articles, two for the historical stations and one for the new one. Then we can also have a summary paragraph on the new one about the old ones.

Pros: very logical approach

Cons: the new station is just Bebside rebuilt to a certain extent, so this may not be very clear by doing this.

Suggestion 3

Have one article called Railway stations in Blyth, because if you look on google maps Bebside is one of those places that has a name but doesn't really exist. Even the nearby stores to what is labelled Bebside use Blyth as their place name, and google's boundaries of Blyth include Bebside. That one article could effectively be a summary style history of the three stations, then have one article for each station.

Pros: most sensible approach for describing the history and arrangement of stations

Cons: most effort and involves four articles for what is essentially two stations.

Look forward to hearing people's thoughts, JacobTheRox(talk | contributions) 10:07, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I think a merge is appropriate between the two articles, with a history section detailing the history of railway stations in Blyth, and the overall article's focus being on the new station.
Thanks! MelonLost (talk) 11:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Southern Railways V "Schools" class locomotive nameplates

I'm currently doing a bit of work on Malvern College. in the See also section, there is a link to List of SR V "Schools" class locomotives which states that the engine's nameplate was donated to the college and is now housed in its library. However, neither the mention, nor the List have a citation to confirm this. While I am sure it is accurate, it would be good to have a cite for verification. Does anyone know of a source that might give this? Thanks and regards. KJP1 (talk) 08:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

College magazine? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:06, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
The college website offers a virtual tour of many areas, but does not include (as I understand it) the War Memorial Library. Frankly, their current aesthetic does not seem likely to include relics of a 1930's steam loco; perhaps they've hidden it in a dark corner away from the camera.
There is also the Malvernian Society Digital Archives website, which offers the facility to search The Malvernian (college journal) and various other publications (including Blumenau's history) in greater depth than I have time for. (The journal search mechanism is over-fond of returning multiple duplicate hits). I shall add the URLs to the External links section. -- Verbarson  talkedits 16:03, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
I need to dig out my copies of The Railway Magazine from 1961-65. I'm sure that there was at least one item, with photo, showing a Schools class loco nameplate that had been mounted on the wall of a school hall. IIRC the school was presented with the nameplate by British Railways; if it was done for one school, why not for forty? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Many thanks indeed for the suggestions - very helpful. The Malvernian Archive in particular, is a great source and a very good addition to the article, even if it doesn't cover this specific. I'll keep looking, and User:Redrose64 if it comes up in your Magazine, that would be fabulous, although I think you are right and that they were donated to each named school, so the chances of the article covering the Malvern one are slim! Thanks and regards. KJP1 (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
In answer to RedRose64's question, old boy network? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Jellemdejong’s mass infobox image changes

Jellemdejong has changed a large number of infobox images (list below) to the works picture of the locomotive in question. I simply feel for such a mass change it would be worth getting comments, as personally I feel an image of the locomotive working is better. Articles:

Danners430 (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Personally I found it more appropriate to show a HD photo of the loco you're looking at (also handy if you hover over a link to one of the pages above). Not all the infobox photos are as clear. If it's not desirable to have the works photos in the infobox feel free to revert the changes I've made. Steamtraction (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
There are plenty of HD photos of the locomotives in preservation, and plenty that are good quality from when they were in main line service - but I don’t think it’s appropriate mass reverting without input from others :) Danners430 (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
I feel that works photos are appropriate for infobox images, for a number of reasons:
  • they are potentially of high quality, being made for publicity purposes (though this may depend on how many printing/scanning steps intervene before they get uploaded to Commons)
  • Photographic grey livery is designed to pick out the features of a locomotive clearly
  • They use side or front three-quarter eye-level viewpoints, to show the locomotive's proportions
  • They represent the loco in original condition - significant given the modifications applied to many locos in use and in preservation
  • They often have the background blanked out, removing distracting and unnecessary detail
Against works photos:
  • It may be hard to find a large, clean copy to scan
  • They are usually monochrome
  • They do not show the loco in a typical location or doing typical work
  • A locomotive (eg Flying Scotsman) may be best known in non-works condition, after modification or rebuilding
Given these latter points, my preference would be to use good quality, appropriate works photos in the infobox when available, and add other images elsewhere for illumination. -- Verbarson  talkedits 15:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Personally I think that the works photos are better for the articles infoboxes, of course supported by other images in the article itself, and should be kept, though this discussion should definitely have been had beforehand. MelonLost (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at British Rail Class 373

I've started a discussion regarding the power output of these units, as there is some contention around the voltage in the source. Would it be possible to get some additional eyes on the topic? Many thanks! Danners430 (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_59&oldid=1300175330"