Talk:Railway electrification in Great Britain

message: Also as a To Do, I'm slowly adding links to this article where ever an GB article mentions "railway electrification" - i think I've covered most of the southern region and East Anglia but haven't really got beyond that. 
: Main Lines - done
: London - done
: South East England - done
: East England - done
: South West England
: Central England
: Northern England
: Scotland - done all current lines, haven't said "not electrifed" on all non electrifed lines (have in glasgow area)
: Wales
Pickle 14:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Links from other articles

message: I really must leave you two to work out how best to tackle this article (as I know precious little about electrification!), but I've had one more idea, which is perhaps more radical than the others...
How about splitting-off the whole of the "Systems no longer used" section into a new article titled: History of railway electrification in Great Britain?  The existing 'History' section would then link ('Main article:') to the new history article. It could also form the basis for that article's introduction.
The remaining article would then cover just the existing systems, thus allowing the different bits to fall into natural sections, as you have already identified.  You should find that it could be formatted conventionally, using more headings and fewer bullet points!
You would need to provide a link ('Main article:') back from the History article for the current systems, or the History article would be incomplete, but this would only need the smallest of summaries (eg literally just a bulleted list of the different systems covered ?). 
The 'History' page might even be able to incorporate the contents of Suburban electrification of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway which you have such reservations about.
So there you go, what might be considered a 'parting gift', as I'm going to have to remove these pages from my watchlist at the weekend: I'm not getting on with other things I should be doing!!  Feel free to drop a note on my talk page when you've done the bulk of the work and I'll gladly do some proof-reading for you.
Cheers -- EdJogg 21:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your help, a fresh pair of eyes aproaches the topic difrently and provides a very useful insight into it. I'm not sure yet what is the answer. I'll be sure to let oyu know when we've got somewhere! Pickle 21:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Different split?

message: I have a question which arose from reading the London Underground article, which skips across the traction current supply topic. I have heard that the choice of four rails instead of three in London was due to legal reasons; there was some legal or regulatory ban on having third rails at a higher voltage than 500 (I guess), but this was not sufficient for the purpose at reasonable cost. So the fourth rail was invented, keeping each rail within the regulations, and giving a greater combined voltage. And this of course has major benefits in reducing stray currents. But I have no reference for this, and in fact have never read it anywhere - it is just verbal information. Does anyone know any more? Patche99z 15:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While LUL (well its predecessors) got to the electrification first (on a big scale in the UK anyway). AFAIK there was no legal restriction (i haven't read about one and I've done some limited digging on this subject but i could be wrong). Any such law would have had to have been repealed by time of the third rail pioneers pre WW1 (eg the Liverpool overhead railway was built in 1893 and was third rail electrified from the start). In London LSWR pioneered third rail (at 660V IIRC to start with) while LNWR was interlinked with the tube so went 4th rail.... Pickle 07:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason for the 4th rail was solely down to concerns over corrosion of the tunnel linings that were made out of iron from stray direct current.  The idea of having two rails to get a higher voltage would not have played a part in the decision. At that time the voltage chosen for the traction supply was determined by the rated voltage of the motors on the train.  This in turn was limited by the insulation requirements, a higher voltage requires more insulation, and affects the size of the motor.  At this time, motors were still in their early development stage and a larger motor (that a higher voltage would have meant) would simply not have fitted on the train in any practical form. In terms on any legal issues, you have to remember that electricity was still a "new thing" and would probably have meant something quite scary to an ordinary person.  So they would have probably not gone anywhere near anything electrical.  So the risk of someone getting electrocuted was slim.  Also, people would have taking a different view on things. If you went near the railway and got hurt, then it was your own stupid fault, and you got what you deserved.  How times change!! Sheepcot 09:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As an aside, most people who get killed by electrocution from the conductor rails are children playing on the railway.  More often than not this also coincides with the school holiday period.  It also relates to when children may be staying away from home at their relatives and are unfamiliar with the conductor rail system. Where I lived, all of the schools were visited by the Police at least once a year to warn of the dangers of the railway, including the live rail. In the UK the railway has to spend a huge amount of money on fencing to keep idiots from hurting themselves or doing acts of vandalism. Compare and contrast this with most of the rest or europe.  Yes, the vandalism is still a problem, but the railways are mostly unfenced. The view is that you should not trespass on the railway, and that if you injure yourself, then its your responsibility, not the railways. Europe is better than the UK in this respect ... people have to take responsibilty for their safety, unlike the UK, where we like to keep lawyers in a job. Sheepcot 11:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you both for clearing that up - the two arguments  on state-of-the-art and the  "new thing" state of the safety laws related to it all are both very convincing. It seem I have had an urban myth in my head all these years... Patche99z 15:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: London Underground fourth rail voltage

message: I'd prefer to have "Systems no longer used" after "Existing systems".  What do others think? Biscuittin (talk) 15:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of paragraphs 

message: Should there not be some reference in this article to the Volks Electric Railway in Brighton? It is the oldest operating electric railway in the world...Duncanbourne (talk) 13:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Volks Railway

message: I can't see anything about this NCB line. Have I missed it?
http://railways-of-britain.com/Harton.html
Mixino1 (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No it has been forgotten ... one more item for the "to do" list. Olana North (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Harton Electric Railway

message: In passing I cut the favoured phrase "a plethora of". "Railway electrification as a means of traction emerged.." Railway electrification is not a means of traction. "committee agreed 1500 V DC overhead as.." needs an on or a chose.and so on--SilasW (talk) 11:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thorough Clean-up/Rewrite needed

message: I've noticed that parts of this article has AC as an abbreviation, and other parts a.c. Can someone please please point me to what's prefered? Edgepedia (talk) 13:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AC or a.c. 

message: Some mention in the article might be made of Stratford station in London, which uniquely has four different electrification types. 25kv 50z AC OHLE for the mainline platforms, LU 630v DC fourth rail for the Central and Jubilee Lines, 750v DC bottom contact third rail for the DLR and 750v DC top contact for the North London Line. Thryduulf (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Gee, that's interesting <stifles a yawn>. Perhaps you ought to nominate it for a DYK slot <struggles to avoid entering a coma>. Bhtpbank (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stratford 

message: I propose that Railway electrification in Great Britain - conductor rail systems is merged into this article, for the following reasons:
* It seems to duplicate information already in this article
* We don't have separate articles for overhead systems in Britain
* The article is largely orphaned, whereas this one is well-linked
Thoughts welcome. NRTurner (talk) 11:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing I found in that article which wasn't in this was was Volk's Electric Railway, which I've just added to this one. I suggest that we delete Railway electrification in Great Britain - conductor rail systems. It's an unlikely search term and a fork of this article. Edgepedia (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal - conductor rail systems 

message: Does the term "Great Britain" encompass the Isle of Man, and should the Manx Electric Railway be mentioned? Mjroots (talk) 08:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Strictly speaking no, see Terminology of the British Isles, but to intents and purposes why not. 91.109.197.112 (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Isle of Man

message: The idea that the article needed a thorough rewrite from schoolboy essay style, has led to no action, for example the cliché "U-turn" should go; the change of favoured voltage was not a U-turn (that is a sudden reversal of direction) but the adopting of an technological improvement. --92.238.57.195 (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No U-turn 

message: There have been several announcements in 2010-11 which would be relevant to include in this article. Perhaps it could be a 'future development of electrification' section? See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-12606470 for announcement today that London to Cardiff will be electrified, for instance. DewiMR (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am planning a new article for this. Biscuittin (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Created Proposed railway electrification in Great Britain. Biscuittin (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  New plans 2011 

message: I find it rather strange that the tramway system in Blackpool is included here. It is a street tramway, not a railway. On the basis of this logic, why not include London or Glasgow's trams. I suggest that this section should be delted.Pandondene (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  All the open light railways and tramways are included in the list as they are all forms of rail electrification, Blackpool is also notable for being a unique voltage in the UK WatcherZero (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  In that case, the entire article should be re-titled to include the words light and tramway. As it stands it is mis-leading since it is generally accepted that a tramway is NOT the same thing as a railway. Anyone else agree?Pandondene (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

text: "Rail transport is a means of conveyance of passengers and goods by way of wheeled vehicles running on rail tracks" WatcherZero (talk) 03:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Don't see why not.  Why not be WP:BOLD and add it? 109.156.49.202 (talk) 14:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blackpool Tramway? 

message: I think this section needs expansion.  I agree that long-distance routes like London-Brighton might have to be converted to 25kv but I see no reason to convert suburban systems which don't generally exceed 70 mph. Biscuittin (talk) 08:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any reliable sources? I haven't seen any. Edgepedia (talk) 13:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean sources about not converting to 25kv?  I think its fairly obvious the London Underground is not going to be converted to 25kv. Biscuittin (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future of third rail 

message: I have reordered the article to place existing systems ahead of former systems, and higher voltage systems ahead of lower voltages which again tends to put the more popular ones towards to front. Facts and figures has gone to the end of the article, but some key facts are now also in the lead. I have promoted the 'future or 3rd rail' section and renamed it as 'proposed developments' and suggest we detail very brief summaries of all impending projects. I hope these changes are considered an improvement and will make it more useful for people who are interested in the current systems and their future as well as for people interested in the history of the subject. PeterEastern (talk) 08:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, by reversing the order, you have completely screwed up the article as references within the text now point the wrong way as (for example) something refered to as being 'below' is now actually above (and vice versa).  I would have restored normallity by reverting the edit but unfortunately too many other edits have taken place for this to be done.  109.156.49.202 (talk) 13:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reordering 

message: I think that the image in the lead section should show both overhead line and third rail electrification at the same spot, to illustrate the two main systems. Something like this image but a bit brighter/clearer. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't much like that one, you can hardy see the overhead wires. There's already a photo illustrating the third rail in the third rail section. Seem as the overhead wire is far more extensive and covers much more of the country, I though that was most typical. G-13114 (talk) 00:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mean that we should use that specific image, which is why I qualified it with "but a bit brighter/clearer". What I meant was that we should locate an image which contains those elements: overhead electrification and third-rail electrification in the same picture. At present, the lead image shows only OHLE, and so is atypical for the bulk of the country south of the Thames, and some other areas. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The only place I can think of where they run together is where the Watford DC line runs alongside the WCML. G-13114 (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The London Overground system isn't exclusively one electrification system, so there must be other places - changeover points like  or  for instance. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section image 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Railway electrification in Great Britain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071229005530/http://www.dft.gov.uk:80/about/strategy/whitepapers/whitepapercm7176/ to http://www.dft.gov.uk/about/strategy/whitepapers/whitepapercm7176/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090827075926/http://www.nedrailways.com:80/html/merseyrailkeyfacts.html to http://www.nedrailways.com/html/merseyrailkeyfacts.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070312075305/http://www.lyrs.org.uk:80/page14.html to http://www.lyrs.org.uk/page14.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060715004654/http://www.lyrs.org.uk:80/page14.html to http://www.lyrs.org.uk/page14.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: All seem OK. Dr Sludge (talk) 11:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Railway electrification in Great Britain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20160117023312/http://www.lyrs.org.uk/page15.html to http://www.lyrs.org.uk/page15.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems OK Dr Sludge (talk) 11:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Railway electrification in Great Britain's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "networkrail.co.uk":
From Network Rail: 
From Electric Spine: 
From List of proposed railway electrification routes in Great Britain: 
From Manchester Victoria station: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Railway electrification in Great Britain]] 

message: To Do! Lawrence18uk (talk) 20:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Western Electrification