User talk:Pencefn/Archive07Q4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents
The Archive of my Talk Page during October, November and December 2007.
Archive Index

Archives

Archive

Archives

Archive Index

Glasgow's Central station

Hi Stewart, Thanks for your note. I understand your annoyance. I also accept that Glasgow Central is known by several names: possibly Glasgow people know it as Central station (with or without a capital S), whereas I tend to call it Glasgow Central to distinguish it from, for example Greenock Central or Dumbarton Central. It appears logical to me to call it Glasgow Central station. Similarly, I would tend to use Gilmour Street, whereas, it is more formally Paisley Gilmour Street, or (better still) Paisley Gilmour Street station; and whilst you have a preference for Langside, Langside station would be better. Whilst I can understand your annoyance at the unagreed renaming of Central Station, that was its original name and it was changed (and reverted) at least twice without consensus; and we were told to discuss it at a UK level. This is being BOLD and it appears to to wikipedia policy. Yes, I would like to rename Bridge Street railway station to Bridge Street station; I was never consulted about the renaming and no consensus was ever sought, but I have more pressing things to do first. Both were station articles that I (and others) put a lot of work into; and their renaming caused me considerable annoyance. Some of those who did this renaming (I do not include you in this statement) are calling loudest to revert to their own station renamings; that, equally, had no consensus. Sorry, Langside to me is the site of a battle, not a (railway station), but change it if you feel that strongly.Pyrotec 20:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Paisley

Hi - Ta for updating Paisley, I was still in the throes of referencingf Paisley Canal, then I saw it had been done - I tohught I was going bonkers! Al the best!

Raymond —Preceding unsigned comment added by Okonski (talk • contribs) 15:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

re: Template:Lanarkshire and Ayrshire Railway Map

[1]: "Keep both widths and scales greater than zero and exactly the same in each template. For example, if width is 300, then all the scales must also be 300." - scale should be: scale=780. -- Zondor 16:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Haymarket Station

I am aware that there are 5 platforms in Haymarket. I was highlighting that there is an out-of-date photograph on this page which doesn't not show the new platform. The page states that Platform 0 is behind the photographer to the left - this is not true. Platform 0/1 have been remodelled since the photograph and would been seen from that viewpoint in a new photograph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.152.162 (talk) 10:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Darvel Branch

Good work on this - which one of use is going to get out with a camera to get Newmilns Viaduct? --Stewart (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I'm off work the week after next so I may try to get out there then (weather permitting!). Is Darvel Branch the last G&SWR article, or are there any more we've missed? Also, what's your thoughts on the remaining stations between Loudounhill and Strathaven? Put them in an article called Darvel and Strathaven Railway (don't think this was actually a 'real' title?) or stick them in another railway on the other side? The Hamilton and Strathaven Railway was freight only I think so might not be appropriate there, maybe on the 'Mid Lanark Lines'? Not sure myself. --Dreamer84 20:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Lanarkshire and Ayrshire Railway

It has occured to me recently that we could do with some more pictures for this. My initial thoughts turn to some of the major/notable structures:-

  • Kirkhill Tunnel;
  • the old Kirkhill "Swiss Style" station building;
  • the viaduct between Patterton and Lyoncross;
  • Lyoncross;
  • (we have Gree Viaduct south of Lugton);
  • the crossing of the GPK&AR; and
  • Kilwinning viaduct.

Given that you have some time off in the next week - thoughts? --Stewart (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Good thinking. I have a photo of the Kilwinning viaduct somewhere, don't think its particular great but it would do until something better can be taken. The GPK&AR crossing has been on my to-do list for months, just finding the effort to go out and get it (even though I only live 5 minutes away!). Will definately try to make the effort when I'm off.
I've also got a photo of the now demolished Giffenmill Viaduct, or rather half of it. Will see if its suitable. --Dreamer84 21:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Montgreenan

Thanks Stewart. Rosser 16:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Reading to Kensington Olympia

Trains get from Reading to Olympia via the following route: they leave the GWML at Acton, go onto the North London Line, cross what appear to be freight yards near Willesden Junction and then join the West London Line, before crossing the GWML again. This takes absolutely ages, as the train dawdles from the second it leaves the GWML, taking about an hour to reach Olympia from Reading. But that's how they do it! ---- RFBailey (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

St Pancras station

Hi. I realised that you reverted my edit to St Pancras station where I put the former services section in the history section to separate it from the Domestic services section. I am not disputing this move but can I ask you to provide a reason for your doing so. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 20:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and for the information. It may be a good idea to mention your concerns about the article on the article's talk page so that it can be discusssed. Tbo 157(talk) 20:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

St Pancras station

You write:

Great work on this article. It is now one of the best articles that is around. --Stewart (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. And for the work you have put into it. Still need to do some stuff; mostly cites my last section. But that will need to wait for another day now. -- Chris j wood (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

And at least I've managed to avoid mentioning the world's longest champagne bar :-) -- Chris j wood (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:North Clyde Line

I think your current edits for Finnieston Junction and tunnels are a little bit wrong (3 lines?). It's too late tonight for me to look at it further, but I'll browse tomorrow and give you some constructive feedback. Details of the Argyle Line should not be duplicated here but placed on the linked Template:Argyle Line. Good Night. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Moved our conversation to Template talk:North Clyde Line - Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your participation in my RfA


Click show to open your card! → → →

Collaboration

Scottish Railways seems to be a friendly collaborative project with a few users combining seamlessly without the bitching that can take place elsewhere. The original name of Template:Crossrail Glasgow(route) was to allow expansion and input by "the experts" like yourself, but, now that I understand the naming convention better, I see it was redundant. Railway line and historic information added to the template was what I expected you to know. Additionally, what is needed is the name of the junction east of High Street station where Crossrail starts. Perhaps I am missing something here, but I don't understand the relevance to "Crossrail" of some of the stations you added. Charing Cross, Bellgrove and Argyle are all existing stations that will not be impacted on by the proposed changes, with New facilities proposed on those lines at a relocated High Street, transfer to the Argyle line at Glasgow Cross and a turnaround on the North Clyde line before reaching the overloaded Finnieston Junction. Hopefully you will give me feedback on other projects I initiate. Thanks - Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

My contribution to Crossrail Glasgow was caused by not being able to follow the article without a diagram: and so I made one. In proposals like this it always seems the political considerations outnumber the practical and so realistically, until anything is approved, I wouldn't worry too much about the details. I wonder if the 2014 Commonwealth Games will provide some financing? - Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Inverness and Aberdeen Junction Railway‎

Do you fancy looking at this route map. Jowett and RAILSCOT disagree with the branches off this route. --Stewart (talk) 12:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look over it and here are my comments:
  • Forres - the platform was within a triangular junction, with faces on all three sides (could be a challenge to depict on the map).
  • Kinross - should be named 'Kinloss'.
  • Junction shown at Mulben should be at Orton.
  • Keith - the branch platform is still used by First ScotRail trains - both 'blobs' should be coloured red.
Did I miss anything? Signalhead (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Changes made - Forres is a challenge. Still not sure which is more accurate - Jowett or RAILSCOT? --Stewart (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't have Jowett, so I can't compare the two, but I don't see anything obviously wrong on the Railscot map. Signalhead (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Inverness to Aberdeen template

Thanks for finding a use for the work. I may still work on the current diagram (my preference is to see lines as part of a network rather than the isolated diagram there now) but will keep to the currently open lines. I'm a southerner but does having a father born in Kilmarnock help? (lol) Britmax (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Bedford St Johns

I am going to partly undo your linking on Bedford St Johns as i have included its former location and its current location. It was not originally on the link between the Marston Vale Line and the Midland Main Line. See Bedford St Johns railway station and for example here (?).

Simply south (talk) 01:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply Template:Aberdeen to Inverness Line and others

Yes I had my doubts about Methil, for the reasons you give. So no freight, then. What's your take on Raith's Farm a) being there at all and b)being there as it's built but not operational yet? As for your remarks on Glasgow, etc well, absolutely. Britmax (talk) 14:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

User:ScotRail421

This new user has recently made a series of small incorrect edits to UK railway station articles in the style of User:Farlack913. One and the same user, perhaps? Worth keeping an eye on. Signalhead (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Paisley railway station

Hi Stewart. I very recently edited this disambig page and added a few more stations. I see that a template will follow later. Just a comment, all the stations on it are passenger stations (more precisely passenger stations that may or may not have had an attached goods station). There were a few goods only stations: Paisley Greenlaw goods (G&PJR) was one, but there were others. Sorry if this messes up your progress: I assume the template was only going to cover only (passenger) stations? I'm not sure whether there is enough material to do individual goods-only station articles - this probably would be original research (which is not allowed in Wikipedia), but should we ignore their (previous) existence?Pyrotec (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Template still in production, however I will upload the current work. --Stewart (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Template added, but Paisley and Renfrew Railway still to be added. Not sure about Dykebar, Glennifer and Stanley - possibly they should be not be there. --Stewart (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
They were part of Paisley's urban railway network - even if they never had any paying passengers; and they are part of Paisley.Pyrotec (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Re the cross-edit, I was wondering how you managed to edit my change to the template so quickly. I like your version better as you have included Paisley Greenlaw goods. My suggestion now would be to place Paisley Hamilton Street above Greenlaw Goods, which means that Gilmour street either needs to move up a row, or one column across (or both). But I'm will not be doing any more work tonight.Pyrotec (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

pbdr stations

Thanks for all your help. Wikipedia can be a real fankle.

There was a discussion on the PBDR and it was agreed that we thought Foxbar station never existed despite it being mentioned on railscot. Neither Wham nor Gammel mention it. I asked on a local forum and no one had heard of it despite knowing about Glenfield and Stanely. I think it has been confused with Stanely which is in the Foxbar housing scheme. The discussion is at the bottom of this page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paisley_and_Barrhead_District_Railway

all the best

Eric (McCay)

--Eric144 (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

pbdr stations

Cheers. I will edit the other stations later. I am doing this because I asked permission to use these wonderful old photographs and it's good to have them linked from Wikipedia although I wouldn't upload them directly because I wouldn't know how to get through the copyright minefield.

--Eric144 (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Eric

Thanks, creating the stubs is at least half the work.

Eric

--Eric144 (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Arkelston

I started a new discussion here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paisley_and_Barrhead_District_Railway

cheers

Eric

--Eric144 (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

WMCL

Hi Stewart, Thanks for your note. I have commented further on the WCML talk page. The article is far from perfect, as it fails the test of verifiability due to lack of references; but I reject the description of it as some made-up romantic notion of how it used to be in the glory days of steam? I would like to see the article improved - by adding inline citations - and am willing to contribute. If that editor wants to make an article on Network Rail Route 16 then he is entitled to do so; but not by destroying the existing WCML article.Pyrotec (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)