Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Nature of Integrated Kent Franchise

There seems to be some disagreement about the nature of the IKF. Let me nail my colours to the mast. The Integrated Kent Franchise is an amalgamation of the old South Eastern Franchise and the CTRL Domestic Services. For the purposes of accuracy on the succession box, I believe it is fair to treat the CTRL-DS as a franchise itself that simply did not run any trains. Is this fair, or am I talking out of somewhere unpleasant? Hammersfan 31/10/07, 13.19 GMT

I'd weakly support that - it's a bit of a messy solution but anything else would be even messier. — iridescent 13:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm looking at it as Southeastern aren't operating the same franchise as their predecessors, and so this has to be reflected. Hammersfan 31/10/07, 13.25 GMT
Kent is such a mess of repeated changes - and that's without even counting the CTRL and any forthcoming London Overground wanderings onto the Kent routes - that your "year zero" approach is the only workable answer that I can see. — iridescent 13:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the IKF is a direct replacement for the South Eastern/Southeastern franchise, with the CTRL services integrated into it. (Possible a few services on the boundary have been added or removed, I can't remember the details.) Consequently the IKF only has one direct predecessor to be displayed on the succession box.
However, this is yet another reason why I think succession boxes are a nuisance on the TOC pages. If the original franchises that were let at privatisation had been stuck to rigidly (and not only that, were clearly distinct from the companies operating them), it would be different. But no refranchising I can think of (except GNER) has been re-let directly without some major reorganisation being done, which makes for mayhem when an operator's "predecessor" (or "successor") are attempted to be described in something as succinct as a succession box. Complicated situations should be described properly in the text of articles, not in succession boxes. --RFBailey 00:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
All too often, I see authors carping on about including more and more details in infoboxes, navboxes, succession boxes, diagrams, charts, timelines, etc.; forgetting that when you've already got enough detail in these elements, there's this little thing filling the gaps between them you can use - it's called an "article" :o). The above point makes sense - while it may be useful to put basics into a succession box saying that (e.g.) First Great Western have inherited some services from Thames and Wessex and passed some over to Arriva, (brief) details of the franchise changes that brought about the current situation can and should go in the article body. Since it would indeed appear that IKF is basically the previous Kent routes with CTRL domestics thrown in for good measure, it makes the most sense to treat it as being the successor to the previous Kent franchise but with a new line added, which is precisely what it is, as opposed to treating the CTRL-DS as some separate unit which got merged with the old Kent franchise. In particular, AFAICT we aren't doing the same thing over the changeover of the EPS itself into St. Pancras. 85.92.190.81 17:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

SR type casing

See SR multiple unit numbering and classification

Is there a particular reason why these are in mixed-case? It seems more logical to me that they should be capitalized, being as they are abbreviations of other words rather than words themselves, e.g. CIG being C for Corridor and IG being the SR telegraph code for Brighton (Or Something™), and REP being R for Restaurant and EP representing EP brakes, etc. 85.92.190.81 18:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Given no objection in 30 days, I am implementing this change now. 85.92.190.81 17:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Project homepage redesign

I've created a draft for a redesigned main page of the project. It would involve moving the templates, categories and members lists to their own subpages. I hope that this will help the main page become clear and more concise. I would appreciate all comments, opinions and suggestions.

The draft can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways/Draft. Feel free to edit it.

Thanks, --Jorvik 20:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks good so far. Some minor changes needed and maybe sections on GA and FA? Simply south 21:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I've added GA and FA as well as FL under the heading Assessment. As for the minor changes, go ahead and chnage them! --Jorvik 13:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you think lists should be put on their own page? Simply south 20:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there's no real need for them to be on the main project page. --Jorvik 21:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I know it's been discussed before but I think the "Adopt an article" should be dropped; it's virtually moribund, and has the potential to encourage a WP:OWN attitude ("I wrote Hammersmith and Chiswick branch, how dare you change it without consulting with me when I'm clearly listed as its adopter..."). For articles with primary editors it should be pretty obvious from the history & talk pages who's done the work on them. — iridescent 21:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with that. I never really took off anyway, with only one name added. I've removed this, as well as the lists from the draft. --Jorvik 18:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been bold and implemented the new design, as there were no objections to it. --Jorvik 19:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Franchise changes

Discussion copied from Geof Sheppard's talk page for information...

Please can you leave them, its only 5 days and there are so many about, think it would be easier to leave them Mark999 14:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject UK Railways has always followed the WP:CRYSTAL process of not including future events unless they are notable, hence it is okay to create a page for a new franchise when it is awarded, but this information is not put into the station link boxes of individual station articles until the actual change. With the Virgin CrossCountry franchise changing to Arriva on 11 November 2007, that is when the changes should be made. Newquay railway station in particular does not need to change so early as Ariva does not Arrive there until next summer.
Similarly, I notice that the planned december changes to the First Great Western local services pattern around Bristol have started to appear. (Groan! I thought they had settled that last year!). IMHO this just confuses the station link boxes. Remember, Wikipedia is not a timetable Geof Sheppard 09:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Quick strawpoll

I've been reviewing some of my old railway articles and am coming to think that merging the three separate articles on the three Cromer railway stations (Cromer railway station, Cromer High railway station and Cromer Links Halt railway station) into a single article makes more sense given that only one of the three is still open and has taken on the business of all three; this would save the content-forking of the Other stations in Cromer section. Does anyone have any strong feelings for/against this? (I don't propose to do it anywhere like Gainsborough which still has two stations open, or Leicester where the closed stations have enough material that a merge would be very messy and make the articles overly long.) It seems that Cromer Links, in particular, is doomed to be a perma-stub as a stand-alone page, and even the fairly substantial Cromer High could just as well be served as a section on the current station; if anyone did feel the urge to expand either closed station, they could always be separated back out again. — iridescent 17:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No strong feelings either way, provide it is not used as a blanket precedent elsewhere. Other people have merged groups of stations, such as Disused railway stations (Bristol to Exeter Line), but I'm not sure whether that is universally applicable either.Pyrotec 18:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The reason I'm asking rather than just doing it, is because the three stations were on different lines so it's not as straightforward as the "single article on a disused line" precedents & I'm not sure it's been done before — iridescent 20:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I have just added the merge tags. Simply south 20:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
See also:here. Simply south 20:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Railway crash articles and synopsis

I'm at present working my way through the lists of crashes on List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom (in an attempt to make them more concise in their reading) and it's occurred to me that, although not technically biographies many of the articles or synopsis could pose the same issues that are raised in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons as some of those directly involved could still be alive - although most facts are taken from official reports etc, so the facts are not in doubt, there is still the possibility of 'sloppy wording' that could cause miss interpretation and thus controversial, contentious or even libellous content. Perhaps we need a simular template as to the "WPBiography" template as used on biographies of living persons, any thoughts? SouthernElectric 23:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC) edited @ 23:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Very good point. In addition, it should be borne in mind that the aims of railway accident investigation in the UK has changed. Until quite recently the aim was to find the cause and to stop it happening again; nowadays the Health and Safety at Work Act, etc, 1974 is being used as a means of finding 'culprits' to charge with criminal offences. So, yes we probably do need a box for all railway accidents after, say, 1980. It may be useful to have one for accidents that happened prior to that date as well.-- Pyrotec (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

S-rail redux

I don't want to raise a potentially ugly topic again, but if this project switched from {{rail line}} to {{s-rail}} these changes would've taken a fraction of the time. Changes like this [1] would be totally unnecessary. Now, I realize that means we don't get to inflate our edit counts any more, but I'd like to see a serious discussion of the matter. The last time (August?) this came up, the only real opposition I noted came from users who didn't want succession boxes at all...Mackensen (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I happened on Luton railway station, where there has been another silent edit-war, this one between Geoking66 (talk · contribs) [2] and Hammersfan (talk · contribs) [3]. Now, I'm going to paste the different boxes below so we can see easily what's being fought over:

  Preceding station     National Rail     Following station  
London St Pancras   East Midlands Trains
Midland Main Line		   Bedford
Luton Airport
Parkway		   First Capital Connect
Thameslink		   Leagrave
  Preceding station     National Rail     Following station  
Luton Airport
Parkway		   First Capital Connect
Thameslink		   Leagrave
Preceding station   East Midlands Trains   Following station
London-Nottingham

The graphical differences should be apparent: the second shows terminus information, and locates the name of the train operating company in the header instead of the route box. I submit that a casual viewer will not notice a significant difference, except that there's more information presented.

The really important changes are internal. The second box does not, for East Midlands Trains, define the route colour locally. That's done at a central template (Template:East Midlands Trains color). The termini, the line names, the station naming pattern-this is all done centrally. Once the initial templates are created, user modification is a snap.

I want to emphasize, again, that s-rail does not induce drastic formatting changes. It does not create lots of whitespace. It's derived from rail line and is designed to simply the per-article box as much as possible, while guaranteeing uniformity of appearance and easing maintenance. As I said, I'd like a fruitful discussion of this topic. Mackensen (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

(After edit conflict) The trouble is that the way {{s-rail}} works isn't necessarily well-suited to the intricacies of the British network. The biggest problem (in my view at least) is the "terminus information", i.e. the "towards" fields on the left and right: that presupposes that there is a primary destination at each end of every route. In a self-contained suburban system, like the London Underground, this works fine. In North America, with named trains (such as the Lake Shore Limited) or simple networks (like VIA's Corridor), it works fine too. However, let's consider the example of Watford Junction, which is on the West Coast Main Line, and its Virgin Trains services. In one direction, they all operate to London Euston, so saying "towards London Euston" is fine. But in the other direction, there are several destinations, including Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Manchester, Liverpool, Holyhead, Glasgow, etc. What should "towards" say there? Or should we have separate lines for each destination? Surely not. The CrossCountry network gets even more complicated.
Of course, I'm not suggesting that the {{rail line}} template system is perfect. If there is a way of suppressing the "towards" fields, then I might reconsider my position, but for the moment I remain unconvinced. --RFBailey 17:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, for one thing "towards" can show multiple destinations in the same box (e.g. X, Y, or Z). There's no upper limit on that either, although at some point it might become unreadable. That's certainly an argument for refraining from truly complex systems like CrossCountry. However, it's ideal for something like Silverlink, or c2c, and the two templates can sit next to each other just fine. Mackensen (talk) 17:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
It's also possible to show "abstract" destinations. For the inbound side on many Chicago L trains, it simply says "towards Loop." It could say "toward(s) destinations west" or some such, and only getting specific as lines branch off. Mackensen (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Having multiple "towards" would definitely be unreadable, so I don't think it's helpful to force that information to be included, like {{s-rail}} seems to do. And abstract destinations don't always make sense either: just saying "towards the north" at, say, Watford Junction isn't very helpful.
Considering the Luton example: obviously, defining the route colour centrally is the main advantage of {{s-rail}}. However, the {{s-rail}} version defines "East Midlands Trains" separately from "National Rail", which gives the impression that EMT is not part of the NR system (when of course it is). (However, this does seem to be caused by an unhappy marriage of {{s-rail}} and {{rail line}} in the same box.) The second problem is the "terminus information", that gives the impression that the route, the Midland Main Line, operates just between London and Nottingham. This is not true at all: it also has Sheffield as an equally-important destination. So, in my opinion at least, I find that the former template is much better, for now at least.
By the way, Silverlink no longer exists (as of three days ago!). --RFBailey 18:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, rest in peace Silverlink! First of all, I was simply reposting what was in there. Were I doing it, it would look like this:
    National Rail    
Preceding station   East Midlands Trains   Following station
London-Nottingham

Here, it's quite clear that EMT is part of the National Rail system. Now, the s-rail version is silent on the Midland Main Line, it's clearly dealing with just the branch. That's not how I would have done it; I'd have done this:

    National Rail    
Preceding station   East Midlands Trains   Following station
Midland Main Line

This makes it clear where the line sits within the greater system. Mackensen (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Taking a simple timetable like the EMT this may work, however when EMT then decide to stop London-Derby trains at Bedford, another line would be added to the table; The various calling patterns, etc as a station such as Crewe would be very messy. What added value is this given, the next station up (or down) the line that is used by the particular franchise is one thing, but multiple variations depanding on particular calling patterns............(add your own thoughts). I would follow the link to the on-line timetable.
I agree here: we should be showing the next stations up/down the line (i.e. largely geographical information) in the succession boxes, not calling patterns. If the article is to contain a description of typical calling patterns, then that's a different matter. (I'm not a fan of the 1tph, 2tph, etc. listings though, especially when "tph" is not defined, but that's another story.) Returning to the Luton example, Luton is not on a branch of the Midland Main Line, it's on the main route: it just so happens that in the current service pattern it's mostly the Nottingham trains that call there. But some trains to/from Sheffield and Derby stop there too, and some of those may not stop at Bedford either. Just saying "London-Nottingham" doesn't tell the story properly.
Also, having separate headings for each TOC will increase the size of the template. --RFBailey 20:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how this mitigates against s-rail: the boxes are "wrong" in either situation. I'm not suggesting that s-rail show calling patterns in this case, nor is anyone else. To reiterate what I said earlier, I'm not proposing that the displayed concept change. You're making an argument against succession boxes in general that applies equally to rail line and s-rail. Mackensen (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm quite happy with having succession boxes, but as long as they are not used to display calling patterns. What I hadn't realised was that the way the editor who has set up the succession boxes for all stations on the Midland Main Line has done it so that it does display calling patterns--I'm now fixing this. As I was saying, displaying calling patterns is misguided. --RFBailey 00:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for clearing that up. Mackensen (talk) 00:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Just because {{s-rail}} is there is no reason to use it, we could go down the line followed by an editor to add the route lines to the station Infobox. I for one would not advocate its usage. To my mind, it does not any encyclopedic content to the article; it does appear to add timetable information. --Stewart (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
If the article discusses service patterns then you're well into timetable territory already. I'm not advocating s-rail for its own sake; I'm suggesting that there are very real benefits from a switch, particularly where template maintenance is concerned. If you don't show the differing calling patterns right now, then why would you start doing so with the switch over?
As far as the station infobox is concerned, that's a non-sequiter. Someone could do that just as easily with rail line. The issues are totally separate. Mackensen (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for this. I had visions of wholesale changes to {{s-rail}} and expectations that the {{rail line}} would be superceded. Given the discussions above about using both together, I was not sure how the Historical Line info that is on a large number of Scottish stations would be handled. Therefore I am glad that the existing layout can be retained. --Stewart (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Clearly, template maintenance is the main advantage of {{s-rail}}. But the effort required to implement it may possibly outweigh that advantage, along with the other problems I have described. --RFBailey 20:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
To be sure, there's an initial start-up "cost," but it varies directly with the complexity, not size, of the particular line. c2c, for example, requires little or no time at all. Looked at another way, I can create the base line templates for c2c faster than someone with AWB can replace all the colours in every station box. After that investment, moreover, it's pretty easy to make needed changes. Mackensen (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

To answer an above question, it can be possible to suppress the terminus information, as I've demonstrated below. The code in question hasn't been merged to the actual template yet. This is controlled through the style template, so it operates at the TOC level. Thus you can turn off termini for, say, East Midlands Trains but not c2c. Mackensen (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

    National Rail    
Preceding station   East Midlands Trains   Following station
Midland Main Line
That's better! Would it also be possible to suppress the "branch" field? --RFBailey 00:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The branch field is optional. It gives you a finer-grained control over display/termini, but if not set it'll stay empty. Mackensen (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
So what about this?
    National Rail    
Preceding station   East Midlands Trains   Following station
Midland Main Line
--RFBailey 01:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
That renders perfectly fine. It's bare-bones, to be sure, but you've still got the benefit of centralized colours and automatic station-linking. I've merged the altered template code. Mackensen (talk) 01:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As a note, there's no real obstacle to "National Rail" being a defined system, and each TOC a line. With branches you can get fine grained if necessary. Here's Kensington (Olympia) using this concept (side by side with the Underground):

Preceding station   London Underground   Following station
Terminus District line
Preceding station   National Rail   Following station
Southern
London Overground
CrossCountry

The branches are of course optional. Mackensen (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that Mackensen and the other editors who are so passionate about S-Rail deserve recognition for the way that they have taken on board the problems that have been identified in applying that template to UK railway stations. We highlighted issues such as whitespace and terminal details, and they have offered us solutions.
I like the idea that the TOC is grouped at the top of its list of routes. I think we should lose the National Rail header. It doesn't do much except in big cities, and is a bit misleading when describing services rather than routes. There are some real problems with the branches once you get away from London as Wikipedians seem to like inveting new routes (See the discussion at Reading to Plymouth Line for example).
But the biggest problem is that we do not really understand or agree how the templates should be used. Routes? Services? Every stopping pattern? It is no coincidence that every time that S-rail is discussed a parallel discussion starts up about how to use the tool! Geof Sheppard (talk) 14:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Can we just use s rail on Londone Overground and Underground and DLR? then see how it works, then try and come up with comething everyone agrees with, I cant see the point in people making loads of edits if its just going to end up with an edit war. I just think we should focus on mapin the services that are about then work a way to improve it,Mark999 17:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark999 (talk • contribs)
I've introduced the s-rail/s-line template series to First Capital Connect and it works quite well. There are stopping, semi-fast, and fast line boxes with multiple termini endpoints and the Hertford branch works well. If someone can help with the Sutton Loop service that would be great. Geoking66talk 00:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

National Rail header

I'm not that sure that a header starting "National Rail" actually adds anything useful for the reader. Except for some metro/suburban routes all the rest are 'national rail' so those that aren't already have a correct header. ATOC themselves list who are franchised operators (which, btw, doesn't list London Overground or London Underground) so maybe we should user s-list and make our lives easier on the maintenance front? --AlisonW (talk) 13:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

First, on the subject of the header, in a way it is redundant; however, it does cut down on the number of headers in a box. The way {{s-rail}} works, if a it introduces separate headers for each "defined system". Thus if each TOC is a separate "defined system", on a station like Birmingham New Street with several TOCs, the number of extra headers in the template would increase its size even further.
Second, regarding London Overground and ATOC, the page you are citing is clearly out of date: while it doesn't list London Overground, it doesn't list any other of the new operators either (e.g. London Midland, Cross Country) while still having the old ones like Central Trains, Silverlink, etc. This list is also out of date. But looking at this, on the other hand, clearly suggests London Overground is a fully-fledged ATOC member. --RFBailey (talk) 20:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Virgin Cross Country

I've begun a temporary Virgin Cross Country article in my userspace at User:RFBailey/VXC. This is designed to replace the current article, now that the franchise no longer operates, and should be written from a historical perspective, covering the whole 10 years they existed. It's nowhere near ready yet, but any thoughts would be appreciated. --RFBailey 16:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A good start. If it's to be written from a historical perspective then you'll presumably you'd need more details on the fleet they operated throughout the franchise's lifetime, including British Rail Class 43s, British Rail Class 47s, British Rail Class 86s and so on, instead of the one they ended with? That might cause complications when it comes to detailing fleet size etc. Possibly a bit more about the DfT opting not to extend the franchise as they did with West Coast. Divy 21:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the encouragement! I was planning to include the 43s, 47s, etc. The "fleet size" in the infobox only makes sense for current TOCs--otherwise it's not clear which time period it's referring to, so that can go. --RFBailey 23:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I've had another go at this, so I encourage people to take a look. I've tried writing a "history" section, but think it needs to be a bit more balanced and include some more positives. (I had trouble thinking of any.....) It also needs references! --RFBailey 01:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Since I've had little response, I decided to be bold and have implemented the new version of the article. --RFBailey (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Valley Lines - split?

Should the Valley Lines be split? See Talk:Valley Lines#Split? Simply south 20:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

London Station Info boxes!

Please can we get rid of them!!! I really think they are horrible. Mark999 13:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you tell us which infobox you mean exactly, and what the problem is? --RFBailey 14:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
At a guess, I'd say {{Railway stations of London}} - while this is one discussion we definitely don't need to have again, I'm not a fan of it either under this title, as it's patently not a list of railway stations of London. — iridescent 20:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Why not just call it Template:London terminals, on the model of {{Chicago terminals}}? Mackensen (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Because they're not all terminals, that's why! (Please remember that UK railway terminology does differ from that of the US.) I think it may have been called "London major railway stations" or some such at some stage.
Actually, I suspect Mark999 means {{Infobox London station}}, given his modification to the similar {{Infobox UK station}} earlier today, trying to introduce London-related fields to that. This didn't work for technical reasons, so I reverted it pending discussion. --RFBailey 21:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, it looked like most of them were (what's the criteria, then?) Mackensen (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Vaguely, being in the centre and/or being generally important (e.g. Clapham Junction). --RFBailey 00:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Righto. Mackensen (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Succession boxes on station articles

The above discussion about the merits of the {{rail line}} and {{s-rail}} templates has brought to mind the following dilemma: what exactly are these boxes for? To my mind, they should be navigational templates, showing what the adjacent stations on either side are, on a particular route. In this way, they give primarily geographical information. Also, as succession boxes, they should be placed at the end of an article.

However, there is a growing trend to use them to demonstrate calling patterns, and place them in the "Services" section commonly found nearer the top of articles. I find this trend a worrying one. Take for example the Midland Main Line. Now, between London and Leicester there are various stations, which have a combination of regular and irregular services. For instance, Bedford has two trains per hour during Monday to Saturday daytimes in each direction: one to/from Derby and one to/from Nottingham. Typically, one will call at Luton, and the other at Luton Airport Parkway, to the south, while both call at Wellingborough to the north. However, at other times (e.g. peak periods, early mornings, late at night, on Sundays, as well as irregularly during the daytime), there are also trains from Sheffield, where the previous/next stations vary (e.g. some run fast to St Pancras, some run fast from Leicester, while others call at some intermediate stations). Now, if we're going to have something like this:

  Preceding station     National Rail     Following station  
Flitwick   First Capital Connect
Thameslink		   Terminus
Bedford St Johns   London Midland
Marston Vale Line		   Terminus
Luton Airport Parkway   East Midlands Trains
London-Derby		   Wellingborough
Luton   East Midlands Trains
London-Nottingham		  

then this only tells part of the story. However, if we were to use the succession box to tell the full story in all its gory details, we'd have something twice the size. So it is far better just to say in the succession boxes that the next station to the south is Luton and the next station to the north is Wellingborough. We can then explain in more detail in the text of the article, in continuous prose and proper sentences, that the services actually are, summarising the situation (e.g. general patterns, exceptions, anomalies) of a particular station's services.

What are others' thoughts on this issue? --RFBailey 01:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

  • For the US articles we've ignored calling patterns in the succession boxes. The Wolverine presents similar issues: different services call at different stations throughout southern Michigan. We saw the boxes as describing the line, and noted the patterns in the article text. I think is the right approach, especially given the overall complexity of the British network. Mackensen (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I’ve always seen the boxes as largely geographical. It is useful to indicate the companies operating each line, but there’s no call to separate multiple services that run along the same line (except, of course, at the station where they diverge), let alone start adding anything as ephemeral as stopping patterns. Similarly, placing them in the middle of the article gives far too much prominence to a navigational box. David Arthur 23:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I usually keep out of the arguments about these boxes, but I just looked at Reading railway station in connection with the following threads (Reading on routemaps should have an aeroplane symbol, as it has a shuttle to Heathrow, right? :-) ) and if that isn't a good argument for scrapping the boxes altogether, then I don't know what is. The pile of boxes is so long that I need to scroll on my laptop to see them all. They occupy the 'most important' part of the article, straight after the lead, meaning that much more important stuff is shoved well down the page. With a few decent references, this has enough 'body' and potential to become a Good Article, but the succession boxes would almost certainly prevent that.
Furthermore, it shows that the preceding and next stations include Oxford and Kensington Olympia!
</rant> EdJogg 14:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I find that these boxes are sometimes in the wrong place in articles. I believe they should be at the bottom. There are also being used to provide service patterns. Taking Reading as an example, since when did trains from Reading reach Kensington - AFAIK not since North Pole depot was created. Looking at other stations every possible next/previous station is listed on a particular route (providing timetable information), not forgetting comments like Mondays to Fridays Only. Returning to Reading, as well as moving them to the end of the article, I would also simplify them. There is not need to identify "London Paddington or Slough or Maidenhead" or differentiate between InterCity or Adelante services, and I just will not go into the multiple next stations on the Berks and Hants Line which add no value (just timetabled stopping patterns).
</rant> (as well) --Stewart (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Definitely a monstrosity! Probably better located at the bottom of the article, and simplified. Perhaps like this?
Preceding station   National Rail   Following station
Terminus South West Trains
Reading-Waterloo
South West Trains
Reading-Brighton
First Great Western
North Downs Line
First Great Western
Great Western Main Line
First Great Western
Reading-Plymouth Line
CrossCountry
CrossCountry
CrossCountry

--Mackensen (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


Many thanks Mackensen for doing this whilst I was crossposting to the talk page. It should be implemented asap. --Stewart (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


I’ve moved the box to the bottom of the page for Reading. Mackensen’s simplified version looks good, but I’ll leave that to someone more familiar with the intricacies of the Great Western lines. David Arthur 15:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks and well done (must get my crossposting under control) --Stewart (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
OK thanks for the tip! Obviously where a line diverges, such as at Loughborough; Nottingham for Erewash Valley Line & Nottingham to Grantham Line & Licoln Line; Belper (if Matlock services resume); Kettering (when Corby re-opens) multipple stations will need to be listed.

Amgmichael (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The Reading box looks like a considerable improvement. In answer to EdJogg and Stewart/Pencefn: there are still (a few) trains via Olympia (I used to catch them sometimes not that long ago), so that should definitely stay. One gripe: how do we remove the "(Surrey)" from after Guildford? ---- RFBailey (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've sorted Guildford it through modifying one of the s-rail templates. -- Simply south (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


Preceding station   National Rail   Following station
Terminus South West Trains
Reading-Waterloo
South West Trains
Reading-Brighton
First Great Western
North Downs Line
First Great Western
Great Western Main Line
First Great Western
Reading-Plymouth Line
CrossCountry
CrossCountry
CrossCountry

New version. -- Simply south (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

To change station links, add: | blah=[[blah (blah) railway station|blah]] (obviously without the add: and the <nowiki></nowiki>) to Template:National Rail stations. -- Simply south (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I had a complaint on one of my local pages that if the station did not have the county in brackets in its official name, then we should add it at the end so as not to suggest it did, e.g. "St Ives railway station (Cambridgeshire)" Geof Sheppard (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Is there any established convention for this? To comply with the general Wikipedia convention for UK places, it should really be "St Ives railway station, Cambridgeshire" in my opinion. (In case anyone didn't get the point, the station is not officially named "St Ives (Cambridgeshire)".) --Dr Greg (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
If you are considering combinations of open and closed stations (and I am looking at from the point of view of Scottish Stations)
Maybe a page could be create to capture the various exceptions. --Stewart (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, they just need to be added to Template:National Rail stations as they're discovered. That's probably easier than brainstorming them all right now (unless someone's memory is up to the task). Mackensen (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I have tweaked the template slightly (don't panic!). I have added a visible list of the stations with disambiguous names for which the template provides special handling. This seemed an obvious thing to do. This way, no-one needs to 'edit' the template just to see the exceptions. EdJogg (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This section starts with the question: what exactly are these boxes for but seems to have got sidetracked into some specific detail. Let's return to that question – as I hinted above, it is key to solving the S-Rail dilema.

I am still of the opinion that a succession box is largely redundant if there is a good navigation template. If this is arranged in station order by lines then problem solved, and a reader can see a much wider area than just one station either side.

The problem that I see with the route vs. operator arguement is highlighted by CrossCountry, and many of the stations that I try to keep tidy are served by that operator. It often has very different stopping patterns to the local operator. Take Birmingham New Street railway station for instance, where Virgin used to run non-stop to Burton-on-Trent while Central stopped at Water Oreton and Wilncote. It would have been odd to show the next station for Virgin as they did not stop there. Of course, now Arriva operates both services, so only one line is needed, yes? Hmm, does anyone who understands the area feel up to correcting New Street and the Cardiff-Nottingham Line article too?

S-Rail is promoted as making changes easier. Good navigation boxes can do the same, and don't run on for several screens! Geof Sheppard (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Cardiff Central to Newcastle Line

I have proposed that Cardiff Central to Newcastle Line, recently created by User:Welshleprechaun, for deletion. After all, it's not a physical line as such, it describes a service that operates once a day over other lines, that already have articles about them. Also, I don't want this to set a precedent for the creation of other, equally insignficant articles about once-a-day services all over the place--this would be ridiculous! --RFBailey 02:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Clearly someone has misunderstood the ‘line’/‘service’ distinction — it’s understandable, since the difference is often small in metro systems, where lines are most obvious. I can’t see any objection to the proposed deletion. David Arthur 02:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I have redirected to Cross Country Route for now, since it would appear that's the actual line being referred to. Of course, I'm now confused at the inclusion of the spurious South Wales details on the route map, which are most certainly not part of the Midland's route. 90.203.45.244 18:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable, and your point about the Midland Railway's route is an important one: modern operations often don't follow the lines that were built in the 19th century, and the "line" articles have to strike a balance in reflecting this. --RFBailey 19:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Cross Country Route seems to serve an awful lot of airports: is it strictly necessary to show them all?
EdJogg 20:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Much as I dislike clutter-spread, I'm actually inclined to keep them in this case as linking the regional airports to the main lines is such an important function of the CC route
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Iridescent (talk • contribs) 22:01, 15 November 2007
That's fine -- is it mentioned in the article? (I didn't read it :o) , I just noticed the widest-ever routemap, and wondered...) EdJogg 21:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I wondered about the airports when I created the route map template from the existing route map in the article, so I left them in as I was not sure of the reason that had led to them being added. Gloucestershire Airport is an odd one to include as it does not have any scheduled or chartered services. I was inclined to remove it but decided against at present. Bristol and Cardiff Airports are beyond the end of the routes cover (doesn't Cardiff have a closer station that is advertised for Cardiff Airport), whilst Birmingham airport has its own station on another route. --Stewart (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
We seem to have gone rather off-topic, but on this subject: shouldn't the aeroplane logo just be used for stations where there actually is an airport? For instance, there should be one at Birmingham International, but not at Doncaster. --RFBailey 21:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for hijacking the original thread!! EdJogg 01:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Cardiff Central to Nottingham Line is not a line but a route. Leicester to Lincoln Line again is not a line but a route, incorporating the Ivanhoe Line which historically runs from Burton upon Trent which in turn incorporates the Leicester to Burton upon Trent Line is there a chance these articles can be merged and the relevant articles deleted? Nottingham to Lincoln is a line, for which there is no article. And lastly can these be added to the Midland Main Line route. Thankyou in advance! Amgmichael (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear. It appears from history that User:Welshleprechaun is a known problem user, with quite a few spelling "fixes" contrary to the "style-of-origin" rule (in some cases using -ise on words which even in Proper English should be -ize), reformatting the date, confusing language, Wikipedia:tendentious editing, and some downright incorrect details (such as claiming Cardiff Central had two more platforms than it actually does). The Cardiff Central to Nottingham Line clearly shouldn't be there, but I can't think of a suitable target for redirection. CrossCountry perhaps? 90.203.45.244 (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
What ever happened to assuming good faith? --RFBailey (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Last time I checked, there's no need in the face of evidence to the contrary, and you don't need to look for evidence of sockpuppetry. 90.203.45.244 (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
All I was suggesting was that the creation of the Cardiff-Newcastle "line" article was a good-faith, if misguided, contribution. I had no reason to suspect otherwise. --RFBailey (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
No problem - I can accept it being a misunderstanding, though a deep dig through their contributions shows they have "misunderstood" quite a lot of things. While less than ideal, I'm repointing Cardiff-Nottingham to CrossCountry for now. If anyone else can provide a better target, they're welcome to change the redirect. 90.203.45.244 (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmmmm... Not good, please see spelling differences. However, as the article is UK based English spellings should be used not American English etc.) Although the OED favours ize (goodness knows why-it is horrible and is not what the word sounds like. Words with ise endings have a soft sound, not a hard "ize" sound-eg seize is hard, organise is soft-simple really!) the people of the UK prefer ise (see spelling differences) and so this should be encouraged. ize is not "proper English, ise is accepted by the OED, although it will nt be long before they change- most UK puplishers/printers use ise now (see spelling differences. Therefore, User Welshleprechaun may not be that bad!!!!!!!!!!!Dewarw (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Please try not to go off-topic! --RFBailey (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Without wanting to stray off-topic, the correct way of spelling here in Britain is thus:— Greek-derived words: organize; Latin-derived words: advertise. Merkins have a fondness for bastardizing cannibalising ruining good Latin words. :o) Here endeth the pedantry ... 90.203.45.244 (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am sorry, for going off topic, I just felt that it needed to be said! I feel that the article should be deleted really. It is/it is now pat of CrossCountry Dewarw (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Cross Country Route Template

I wondered about the airports when I created the route map template from the existing route map in the article, so I left them in as I was not sure of the reason that had led to them being added. Gloucestershire Airport is an odd one to include as it does not have any scheduled or chartered services. I was inclined to remove it but decided against at present. Bristol and Cardiff Airports are beyond the end of the routes cover (doesn't Cardiff have a closer station that is advertised for Cardiff Airport), whilst Birmingham airport has its own station on another route. --Stewart (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Found the relevant stations:

For this two of the stated airports have stations on other lines; two have bus connections from the stations noted and the fifth is midway between two without a public transport link (unless someone can find out otherwise). Consequently, I think the question should be asked again - How valid are these symbols?

Now I have had another look at the route map, how valid are some of the station around Birmingham (for example University, Barnt Green) at which the long distance trains do not stop. Same goes for around Bristol and (as previously mentioned) South Wales. And why had the Severn Beach Line been singled out for linking/junction when none of the connecting mainlines were not added.

Having created the template from existing work, I think there is a lot that needs to be done to it apart for the narrowing I had already made a start on. --Stewart (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that the "aeroplane" symbol should be used to indicate that there is an airport at a particular station, not just to indicate that a station happens to be the closest to a particular airport. --RFBailey 23:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
How close does the airport have to be to count as ‘at’ the station? Does the station have to actually be in the airport, as at Gatwick, or is a connection by people mover (as in Birmingham) sufficient? What about shuttle buses? David Arthur 02:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, the entries of {{UK Airport stations}} would be a good start. (I'm sceptical about Liverpool South Parkway and Paisley Gilmour Street though.) --RFBailey 03:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Liverpool South Parkway, like Luton Airport Parkway, has a dedicated shuttle to Liverpool John Lennon. As for Paisley, that also has a shuttle but in the next few years Glasgow Airport railway station will open so this will replace it. It may need updating. Simply south 12:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The difference is, Luton Airport Parkway is at the end of the runway, whereas Liverpool South Parkway and Paisley Gilmour Street are about three miles from the respective airports. --RFBailey 14:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to be pedantic in that Paisley Guilmour Street is only 1½ miles from Glasgow International by road, and Liverpool South Parkway is only 2. Also, i think one of reasons Liverpool South Parkway was built was for the airport. -- Simply south (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Not according to Google Maps, where I got the distances from, but I'm not going to argue it any more. And yes, the airport link was one of the motivations for building Liverpool SP. But, returning to the original point, I don't think that (for instance) Doncaster, Cheltenham Spa or Bristol Temple Meads qualify for an "aeroplane" symbol in a line diagram. --RFBailey (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
(Multimap for me, just being cheeky) True. I didn't know or think Cheltenham and Doncaster were near airports. Simply south (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I usually read an airport symbol on a rail/tube/tram route map as meaning that it is either in the Airport (eg. Gatwick, Heathrow) or has a specific airbus or connecting service (eg. Feltham, Luton Parkway). ymmv applies though! --AlisonW (talk) 01:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I have spent some time on narrowing and enhancing the route map template. Airport references have been removed and the links into the major lines added. --Stewart (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Looks good! --RFBailey (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Defunct companies and their owners

Do you think former companies, lets use tocs for now, should be added to templates such as:

v • d • e
National Express Group
United Kingdom bus operations:
International bus operations:
ALSA · Durham School Services · Eurolines · Stock Transportation
Railway operations:
Tram operations:
Defunct companies:
Annual revenue: £2,525 million GBP (▲ 4.1% FY 2006) · Employees: 43,000 · Stock symbol: LSE: NEX · Website: www.nationalexpressgroup.com

and

v • d • e
FirstGroup plc
United Kingdom bus companies:


International bus companies:
Railway companies:
Tram operations:
First London (operators of Tramlink)
Annual revenue: ▲ £3,708 million GBP (2007) · Employees: 74,233 (2007) · Stock symbol: LSE: FGP · Website: www.firstgroup.com

etc...? -- Simply south (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like an unreasonable idea. However, if the defunct TOCs were to be added, say, to the NatEx template, other former subsidiaries would also have to be added as well (Scottish Citylink is the first one I can think of). --RFBailey (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
For these companies it could work. I think that only compaines they have owned that have become defunct should be put on. However, companies which they have previously owned or had involvment with that have then been sold should not. This is becuase the template on that particlar page would have no relvance to the current situation. An example for National Express Group is Stewart International Airport. --Jorvik (talk) 12:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Bus Links/Ferry Links/Plus Bus

Is it okay/a good idea to add those links that are rail-bus/rail-ferry links (as in you can buy through tickets with your rail ticket) after all many are rail sponsored and it is explaining the services which are available at any given location? PlusBus I feel should be mentiond in the main text if it is available. What do you think? Amgmichael (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean mentioning the existence of such things in appropriate station articles? I can't quite follow what you mean. --RFBailey (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


Classes of travel on BR

The article on British Rail Mark 3 has been edited many times by a user who insists that the class of travel during the introduction of TS and TSO vehicles was Standard Class. They claim that Second Class is ambiguious.

As I see it, Second Class was in use on BR for many years longer than Standard Class ever was, and no Mark 1, 2 or 3 vehicles were ever build as Standard Class, only becoming that, after the name change. I cannot remember if Mark 4s were ever Second. Many other articles refer to vehicles as being Second Class, such as British Rail Class 304 and British Rail coach designations even refers to both Standard and Second.

My opinion is that the correct designation should be used for the correct time period. To call the Standard accomadation on the British Rail Class 390 Second Class would be wrong, much the same as to call the British Rail Mark 3 Standard at time of introduction is incorrect. 81.159.77.176 (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If "Second Class" was the term used when the Mark 3s were introduced, then that's what the article describing them should say. Does anyone know exactly when the term "Standard Class" was introduced? (Some time in the 1980s?) --RFBailey (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The rebranding of rolling stock started in the late 80s and was complete by the early 90s, I believe. I have protected the Mk3 article for a day to avoid any further edit-warring and have posted back to WP:ANI. ELIMINATORJR 23:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Definitely the article should use ‘second class’ if that is indeed what was used when the carriages were introduced, though perhaps with a note somewhere mentioning when it was re-named, and whether there were any associated physical changes. David Arthur (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the article conforms to that. The first paragraph is referring to the introduction of the Class 253/254 trailers (so should use 'Second') and then the 'Current formations' paragraph says ".. with an additional standard-class (formerly known as Second Class) vehicle". ELIMINATORJR 23:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
O.S. Nock book "Two Miles a Minute" (published 1980; ISBN 0-8505-9412-X); chapter 8 provides details of the HST refering to seating, for 72 second class passengers, with diagrams of the MkIII TSO when setup for 72 passengers. Chapter 10 gives details of the APT which also makes reference to second class. P.B. Semmens in his book "Electrifying the East Coast Route" (published 1991; ISBN 0-8505-9929-6) describes in chapter 8 the InterCity 225 trains. The associated diagrams of MkIV carriages refer to standard class. In summary, I would maintain that up to (and including) MkIII carriages were built with second class accomodation, whilst from MkIV were built with standard class accomodation. --Stewart (talk) 23:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
That concurs with what I would have expected. Presumably there was some press coverage in the 1980s about BR's decision to rename "second" as "standard"? --RFBailey (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Simmons, Jack & Biddle, Gordon (1997) The Oxford Companion to British Railway History: from 1608 to the 1990s. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-211697-5. states that 'Second became Standard in 1987.Pyrotec (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good enough to me. --RFBailey (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

London Overground

It is clear from WT:RAIL#London above that we all recognise London Overground is a part of the TfL / London mass transit. As the Overground has been fully incorporated into TfL's management of London transport, and there are no joint / shared services with other organisations then it would seem to me appropriate and correct to organise and mark route boxes for the Overground services (North, West, Watford DC, and Goblin) in the same way as we have always done for the Underground services. Similarly, since November 11th, it is also incorrect to is 2-into-1 connectors between Overground services and those still provided by 'national rail' TOCs. I would suggest that route maps are about the *services* that are available on those routes, and not about the *ownership* of the physical line (otherwise we would also include far more service and private sidings / connections too) and the use of s-line greatly assists in both the maintenance and ease of use (by the reader) of the information we present about each station. Further, whilst other (main) lines are clearly for mixed use, whilst there may be some freight traffic on sections of the London Overground it must now be defined as a 'suburban / metro service' rather than a general route (indeed whereas most other lines will have different stopping/express operations, the London Overground is an 'all the stations, all the time' operation. --AlisonW (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that s rail should be used on all London Over ground routes! ~~ Mark999 20:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark999 (talk • contribs)
Certainly it's used on the rest of TfL's routes without any difficulties. Mackensen (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
It is clear from WT:RAIL#London above that we all recognise London Overground is a part of the TfL / London mass transit. No, it's not clear at all, and who is "we"? The link quoted is just a summary list of all colours used on templates, nothing more than that.
Not sure who's written that, but I was pointing out that WT:RAIL#London clearly delineates London Overground services as part of the transport system of London (in same section as DLR, trams, water services, etc) rather than as part of the national rail services. --AlisonW (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
That was me, sorry. While it does clearly delineate it, I don't believe this was necessarily deliberate, nor should anything be inferred from that. --RFBailey (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Alison, are you talking about the succession boxes on station articles, or the line diagrams on line articles? I fail to see what "ownership" has to do with the succession boxes. Also, the line articles (say, West Coast Main Line) are often about the physical stretches of track, not just passenger services on them. --RFBailey (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't personally have a problem with using {{s-rail}} on London Overground routes. --RFBailey (talk) 20:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, I mean the "succession boxes" which instead of their original usage (succession of people holding a position) are being used to display information about the adjacent stations on a given route/service. ("succession" is clearly a mis-used term in this instance) --AlisonW (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, "succession box" is not a good name. Anyway, now we've cleared that up, what do you mean by "it is also incorrect to is 2-into-1 connectors between Overground services and those still provided by 'national rail' TOCs"? I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean here. --RFBailey (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I thought there were some 'live' uses, but I was noting the Kensington (Olympia) example further up this page where the Overground and Southern lines showed a single West Brompton succeeding entry. --AlisonW (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Great Central petition

There is petition to re open the Great Central Main Line the link is here [4].

Mark999 Mark999 16:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

NXEC template

Does anyone else have this problem (and i hope this displays correctly)? Also, does this depend on the browser? Also, is it best if i raised this on WT:RDT?

Simply south (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It’s displaying correctly for me in both Safari and Firefox — what browser are you using? David Arthur (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
IEEEEEESimply south (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm getting that problem too (on the article National Express East Coast), using IE7. But this should be discussed at WT:RDT--somebody there is more likely to be able to solve the problem! --RFBailey (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
OK. I will raise it there. Simply south (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Temporary Station Closures & Bus Replacement Services

I'm probably failing to follow the "Bold" guideline, but as a relatively inexperienced editor I don't want to rush into deletion of text that is factually correct, just ephemeral and not very interesting.

Some of the Styal line stations have paragraphs referring to very specific closures, for example the Burnage page contains :-

"The station at Burnage was closed from 29 January to 25 March 2007 whilst reconstruction of the platforms took place. A rail replacement bus service was provided to nearby East Didsbury railway station running at frequent intervals to connect with trains."

Does this kind of information really have a place in Wikipedia? Navrongo (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that for this station the Wikipedia entry could be:-
Reconstruction of the platforms took place between 29 January to 25 March 2007 which resulted in the temporary closure of the station.
An entry is also given in the Infobox. Does anyone know if there have been any other significant events (for example during the 1960's electrification)? --Stewart (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Having had another look, the 1958 reconstruction is referenced, although not specifically mentioned. I would go for a section about reconstruction covering the 1958 and the 2007 building works. Was there any other significant construction undertake following intially building up to electrification? --Stewart (talk) 22:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to delete material like this, aside from stations like Croxley Green and Reddish South, where the (lack of) service is important to their story. Probably every station in the country has been closed for repairs at some point. Without going through the edit history, my guess is that paragraph was originally a notice of intended closure (which might have been useful, if not strictly encyclopaedic), which was amended from present to past tense once it was over. — iridescent 22:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree with that: the sort of ephemeral, unencyclopaedic information Navrongo is referring to is the sort of thing we should be trying to avoid having--after all, Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. --RFBailey (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, here we are [5], [6], [7]. The first two were potentially useful information for someone searching on the station, and with the passage of time it just shifted to past-tense. It's now gone (but I suspect there are a thousand more like it lurking in the less-read stations). — iridescent 23:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
It has indeed changed tense over time, and it was me what dunnit. I can't say I care much for the paragraph now having been summarily deleted, and I will re-add it at some point in more generic style and also relating to the 1958 reconstruction as well. It seems that editors are told to be bold and to expand their station stubs into more worthy articles, but when they attempt just that they get spanked handies. Tch. I agree with the sentiments of Stewart below - if details of the closure and rebuilding of Burnage station aren't important, then why include them for the likes of Euston and St Pancras? Divy (talk) 09:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I csn not agree with the above sentiment. Taking Burnage as an example, the 1958 reconstruction was significant to its history whilst the 2007 work adds to this. I would maintain it is encyclopedic. The station we have now is not as originally built. Taking the above to its logical conclusion the rebuilding of Euston, Liverpool Street and St Pancras would not be included. --Stewart (talk) 06:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Just as we wouldn't record the 'redecoration' of a building we would record its 'renovation'. Maintenance, per se, of something isn't encyclopaedic, but work resulting in a different result to that which went before (longer platforms, better facilities, different access, etc) surely is. Oh, I don't see bus replacement services as useful unless running for a period of years --AlisonW (talk) 12:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)