Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 7

message: :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)
replies: text: Given no objection in 30 days, I am implementing this change now.  85.92.190.81 17:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SR type casing 

message: 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)
replies: text: Looks good so far. Some minor changes needed and maybe sections on GA and FA? Simply south 21:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Do you think lists should be put on their own page? Simply south 20:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there's no real need for them to be on the main project page. --Jorvik 21:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Project homepage redesign 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I have just added the merge tags. Simply south 20:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See also:here. Simply south 20:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick strawpoll 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Railway crash articles and synopsis 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Virgin Cross Country 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Well, the entries of  would be a good start.  (I'm sceptical about Liverpool South Parkway and Paisley Gilmour Street though.)  --RFBailey 03:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: (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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Looks good!  --RFBailey (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cross Country Route [[:Template:Cross Country Route|Template]]

message: Do you think former companies, lets use tocs for now, should be added to templates such as:
 
and
 
etc...? -- Simply south (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Defunct companies and their owners 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bus Links/Ferry Links/Plus Bus 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: O.S. Nock book "Two Miles a Minute" (published 1980; ); 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; ) 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Simmons, Jack & Biddle, Gordon (1997) The Oxford Companion to British Railway History: from 1608 to the 1990s. Oxford: Oxford University Press. . states that 'Second became Standard in 1987.Pyrotec (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good enough to me.  --RFBailey (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Classes of travel on BR

message: There is petition to re open the Great Central Main Line the link is here .
Mark999 Mark999 16:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Great Central petition

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: IEEEEEESimply south (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: OK. I will raise it there. Simply south (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NXEC template