Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 3

message: Is there a sister project for canals? Andy Mabbett 22:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No? OK, is anyone interested in starting one? (Or for "UK waterways", to include navigable rivers.) Andy Mabbett 00:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea. I would certainly contribute, but I don't really have the time to be a founder member... Let me know if you get something going. EdJogg 00:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would certainly support such a proposal. "UK Waterways" is probably a good name that gives a reasonable scope for the project. Adambro 07:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, both. Please add your support at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Waterways of the United Kingdom. Andy Mabbett 14:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canals project? 

message: Would this be more representative, more iconic - if the image was of Rocket or some such, rather than something with more resemblance to a German ICE?  Just a thought, Lynbarn 14:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The new version looks much better, nice work. Adambro 21:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...however this icon is already used by the WP:TRAINS 'Locomotives task force', so it would not be appropriate to use to represent UKRAIL on the article project template. EdJogg 22:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yipes! Should i revert? Simply south 00:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Image:Locomotive trevithick.jpg
Like this one from Richard Trevithick's article? EdJogg 09:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That's the fellow! Geof Sheppard 13:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: On a somewhat related note, do you want to keep the same image on the  template, or should I update it to this new image?  Is there a version with a transparent background that would work better? Slambo (Speak) 11:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On yet another related note, does anyone have any good reason not to change the (frankly hideous) current  template as well? I do realise that this is Wikipedia's "generic" rail stub logo, but the current version looks like the love-child of an APT and the Gatwick Express. -  iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK Rail project template 

message: There's currently an AfD discussion going on on whether to keep assorted lists of SR locos. I'm not canvassing for either side; while I personally think they should definitely be kept for reasons given on the AfD, I can see the argument for deleting them as well. As presumably the people most likely to be interested in the lists - and most likely to be in a position to give an opinion on the matter - are going to be WPUKR members/fellow travellers, you might want to take a look and say your piece one way or the other, especially given that whatever's decided here is going to have a precedent-setting knock-on effect on all other UK rail lists.  -  iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD discussions on assorted SR loco lists

message: The template  is growing again.  Since it had a major revamp following considerable debate in April 2006, various stations have been added to it, and it's in danger of overgrowing once more.  Members of the WikiProject are therefore requested to join in this discussion.  --RFBailey 17:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major stations template 

message: Just to inform you, i have done various page moves (5 in total) for various stations which have effectively had their names changed. 
*Clacton ---> Clacton-on-Sea
*Frinton ---> Frinton-on-Sea
*Walton-on-Naze ---> Walton-on-the-Naze
*Whittlesford ---> Whittlesford Parkway
*Woodham Ferrers ---> South Woodham Ferrers
There may be other changes as well, for example improved Lakenheath services. This however does not just affect 'one'. For other changes see Changes to National Rail timtable from Sunday 20th May 2007. Simply south 20:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Improved Lakenheath services" - that wouldn't take much! Has it risen from the current five trains per direction per week? —  iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 7/week. Should i painstakingly list all the changes it says or leave people to check for themselves? Another example is GNER has a half-hour service proper now between Leeds and London. Simply south 20:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks on a quick skim through that the only significant changes aside from the Essex renamings are the new routes in Scotland & Wales. Although the changes to the Penzance sleeper service look dubious to me - a sleeper service where you have to change trains after 3 hours? —  iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name changes and others 

message: UK rapid transit article now created. Needs heavy expansion. Rapid transit in the United Kingdom Simply south 16:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rapid transit 

message: How about we create an article on the NRT (National Rail Timetable)?
The last ever one came out last week, and i have my copy if you want any pictures.
(and by god its heavy! 3000+ pages) ACBestMy ContributionsAutograph Book 07:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - I don't think it's a notable publication. --A bit iffy 08:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly notable; whether we can source enough of its history to make a good article remains to be seen. Andy Mabbett 09:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be more inclined to have a more general History of British railway timetables article. If you asked me to name a notable rail timetable, I (and I suspect most others) would immediately think Bradshaw and not the NRT —  iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: In reply to Slambo, I've sent you a private e-mail about that, but the latest version is available for download from Network Rail's website (not the National Rail website).  In response to the discussion above, I don't think a National Rail Timetable article is viable: what would it say?  --RFBailey 16:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see the viability of an article along the lines of the existing section in George Bradshaw, about how the format of timetables changed from Bradshaw, through the BR timetable, to the current version - but I agree that an article on the NRT would basically be a "The NRT is a timetable for National Rail" dicdef - it doesn't really have any history that I'm aware of. There might be something notable about it that I'm not aware of (the first timetable generated by computer, or something) but I'm not aware of it —  iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NRT 

message: may be of use. Andy Mabbett 16:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tunnel template 

message: I've started a route map at Talk:Grand Junction Railway. Feel free to improve it! Andy Mabbett 19:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me... Is there any way to colour code the sections to show dates of opening, or does it only do red? Someday, I really need to figure out how that map thingy works... —  iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grand Junction Railway route map 

message: <deep breath>Okay ... here is something to get your teeth into.</deep breath> I would like to suggest a Standard Table of Contents for railway line articles. I have been contributing (mainly maps) to a number of articles in the south-east and east of England, and have noticed a very wide range of ways in which the contents are organised.  Some have the train service at the start, other at the end. Some begin with a history, some do not. Others have details on the infrastructure (track, signals, electrification etc.) but it is "here, there and everywhere". I would like to see the articles better organised and conforming to a Standard Table of Contents.  I believe that this would make the articles more consistent, and ensure that when authors make contributions that they are more likely to put things in the right place. It will also improve readability, as readers will get familiar with the layout and know where to find information. I would not intend this be a rigid and absolute guideline, but more the help make the articles more consistent.  Authors will always be able to add more headings, but hopefully in a more logical and structured way.  To get an idea of what I am thinking of, take a look at the Medway Valley Line, where I have tried to re-structure it in a more logical fashion (but still a work in progress). Anyone been having similar thoughts ... or am I just barking up the wrong tree??
:I would try to keep the number of sub-headings to a minimum, especially if each introduces just a sentence or two. You could look at Maritime Line for an alternative structure. Geof Sheppard 07:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bearing in mind that the term Medway Valley Line is a modern marketing invention and is not an article about a historic railway company I happy to accept it as a sort of model for writing about railway lines. However, I don't think that we should be forced to use it when we write about the historical railway companies. Interestingly, I'm not familiar with the line, so I don't know what historical railway companies were involved in the line; and rather surprisingly the article fails to mention them other than a passing reference to electrification in 1939, by the southern railway company, and a further electrification by BR under the 1955 plan. Sorry to be unkind, but what sort of model article has no history. At least it quotes Butt, so I could use Butt to find out more about the line. Pyrotec 20:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  With respect to service pattern I would suggest that to provide a historic context, the years of operation of the service pattern is added. See Langside railway station to see what I mean. This format would easily transfer to line articles. --Stewart 22:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Railway Line Articles : Suggestion for a ''Standard'' Table of Contents