Talk:Waverley Route

message: Nice to see such photo being added, but I feel it should be backed up by a paragraph describing the heritage activities around Whitrope Tunnel and Riccarton Junction. Certainly worth pointing out that the rails have been relayed there rather recently. -- Klaus with K (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if that is that much information about why not start an article on Riccarton Junction railway station? Pyrotec (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I started a stub. Let's hope others pick up the baton and expand it. -- Klaus with K (talk) 13:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. I'll add some dates/history tomorrow.Pyrotec (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Riccarton Junction railway station in 2007 

message: I remember shortly after the closure of the line there was an attempt to take it over and run it as a private railway. This would have been about late 69/early 70. It was led by the then producer of "Tomorrow's World". I was present at the meeting in Edinburgh (and became press officer for Fife) and it was put forward to us that the line would be run with DMUs bought from BR with enthusiasts specials hauled by steam. 
At the same time we discovered that to improve the case for closing the line, men and materials had been diverted to the West Coast Main Line, which was being upgraded, but were charged to the Waverley. This is one of the reasons it was losing money.
In the end nothing became of the buyout as BR took fright and insisted on a large payment (I think it was £100,000) within a week just to keep the project open. Such a shame. It also appears that the council of Galashiels was against the project as plans for the engine shed, etc, were for other towns such as Hawick.
Williamgeorgefraser 18:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember it well.  Bob Danvers Walker.  I was a young engineer, and got involved in a task force to design a power car with Brown-Boveri gas turbines under the floor to power electric motors.  The idea was to use 2 of them to a train, or marshall conventional surplus carriages between them.  There was also talk of a radio communication system instead of block signalling to drastically reduce signalling costs.  I can't see the inspectorate allowing that at the time.  One plan was for a 3-hour connection Carlisle-Edinburgh!--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 06:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Line Closure 

message: has happened yesterday. So apparently the project has officially started. Nevertheless I wonder how many more work starting ceremonies there are still to come, and when the big construction machinery is starting to roll. -- Klaus with K (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cutting the first sod 

message: There a numerous links in the map for stations/places that just point back to the arcticle itself. Not really helpfull as I still struggle to figure out where the line was running. I would appreciate a correction. Thank you. Drgkl (talk) 09:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: In march the section on historic operation was bannered to say This section may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience. .  I have removed this banner, as I think it was an overly-subjective criticism.  The closure of the line was always contentious, and the variety of traffic described gives a good background to that contention.  I am not convinced that naming locomotive classes is sufficiently only interest a specific audience to warrant removal.  WP is full of entire articles on US soap operas or minority interest musicians which undoubtedly only interest a specific audience .  This was a railway line, and what it was used for, and how, is important detail.
The article is also bannered for lack of references, and I think that is a far more serious issue.  I would have considered assessing this as a B, on the way to GA status, but it needs many more verifiable references for that.  Contributor's own notebooks would be banned as  Original Research, although contributing them to commons would muddy that water nicely, especially if it was someone else who cited them!  
I enjoyed reading this article, and would like to see it reach GA, or even FA status in time for the re-opening.  That would definitely get it onto the front page!--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 06:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree that having blue links in the diagram loop back here is sad.  I'd prefer stubs to redirects, even if they looked like French Drove and Gedney Hill railway station some material is available, like :File:The Waverley Line - geograph.org.uk - 352051.jpg and :File:The former Melrose Railway Station - geograph.org.uk - 255694.jpg for example. I added :File:Geograph-3407628-by-Richard-Webb.jpg to the main article, for want of a Tynehead Station page. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 07:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Its only barely a C-class article, (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Trains/Assessment#Quality_scale) as there are whole sections devoid of references: the Line characteristics, Historic exploration and Line closure and beyond sections have none, but it could also be regarded as a Start-class article. I assessed it as C-class back on 8 August 2008, by the way, when it was a much shorter article. I could probably expand and cite some of the historical sections, but I'm not a "train spotter" so I'm not in a position to cite any locomotive details (and there is a lot of this detail). Its not something that I'm likely to be doing in the next couple months: but may be June onwards? Pyrotec (talk) 11:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 

message: As per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification points 1 and 4.2, I am seeking advice on this substantial  edit on Waverley Line. Discussion at Talk:Waverley Line please.--KlausFoehl (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: My main worry is that after more than half of the article has been deleted, no further action is being taken leaving the article in the current crippled state. I know that there are paper sources covering the disappeared content but this printed matter is unavailable to me. Given that some of the content in question dates back to 2005 when the formal citation rules were far less strict, I would have expected this content to be grandfathered, at least temporarily for the duration of activity on the article and not speedily removed precluding the outcome of any discussion. In any case I do miss action (or a work plan at the very least) that goes beyond "pressing the delete button". I am happy to help where I can.--KlausFoehl (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I shared your concern when I saw that such a large proportion of the article had been deleted, but it isn't reasonable to say that it had been "speedily removed", as the relevant sections had been tagged as unreferenced since August 2014. There was plenty of time for references to be added, if anyone had been sufficiently interested.  The material isn't lost, and is available in the history so that it can be added back by anyone prepared to make the effort to find the references.  --David Biddulph (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am certainly interested, but sourcing paper references I currently cannot. The "speedily removed" refers to the recent talk page activity starting February 26th and the deletion happening only two days later on February 28th.--KlausFoehl (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ideally, the info should be referenced. Given that there are many books on this line and that a number of magazines have covered it over the years, it shouldn't be too hard to do so. The Times is likely to have covered the closure and reopening proposals over the years too. I propose that the text is restored, but it is tagged as unreferenced. Any such text remaining unreferenced after giving editors a reasonable period of time to reference it, should then be deleted. I think two months would be enough, i.e. 1 June 2015. Mjroots (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been observing this article since August, when we dealt with a potential copy-vio. No sources have since been provided. Per WP:BURDEN, the content will remain removed until sources are provided. I have removed the content now because no sources have been provided since August when the article was tagged. We cannot have unreferenced and unverifiable, potentially false, information. It is WP:OR until it is sourced. Do not re-add the information without sources. If there are no sources, the content is not content, but a folktale that someone wrote in his spare time. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

text: According to whom, will content be "kept until June"? There is no content. It was tagged in August. There have been no references. None. WP:BURDEN is a policy. If you don't have any sources, it will remain out of the article. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS cannot override policy, i.e. WP:BURDEN. Regardless, there is no consensus. Nowhere was a discussion held about "keeping content until June". RGloucester  — ☎ 16:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Please stop edit-warring.  It isn't a question of ownership.  There is a clear policy at WP:BURDEN, and you haven't told us which part of that you fail to understand.  I too would be pleased to see the content restored, but the way to do that is for someone to find the sources and then add the content with appropriate references.  The material isn't lost;  it's available in the history ready for when someone finds the sources.  The relevant sections were tagged last August, and the article as a whole was tagged with  in November 2010, so no-one can reasonably be accused of undue haste in deleting the unsourced material. David Biddulph (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: While I understand WP:BURDEN, there is no need to gut the article.  The sections were cherry-picked for removal, and entirely blanked.  Sections were removed that had more recent requests for improved references, and older ones left behind.  Perhaps the entire article should be deleted, by that logic.  Ownership does apply when only one interpretation is permitted, rather than working collaboratively. A reasonable compromise was reached by others; I boldly reverted based upon the discussion on the talk page. Now, can we get back to finding references? ScrapIronIV (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't "gutting" the article. It is removing unsourced material that has no basis in the factual. "Gutting" implies removal of something of value. Nothing of value was removed, because without sources, that stuff has no value. The WP:BURDEN is on the person who wants to re-add this content. If he cannot add it with RS, it will be removed. If you want the content in the article, you must provide references when you add it. WP:V is the pillar of this encylopaedia. No "compromise" was ever reached with anyone. Do not re-add text that has no sources. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  - the reason I said the content should be reinstated is that by doing so it makes it easier to find references for the said content. Two months should be plenty of time to allow for this. Give people a chance to prove that their intentions are good. Mjroots (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  and  For the instance of the "Line characteristics" section it was easy enough to review that one website (the WRHA website) already supports most of the facts. A few minor edits have happened after the "big delete", for those edits I contributed I am happy enough to loosing them -temporarily- to a global revert, as working on the original wiki text is less error prone.--KlausFoehl (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Klaus, I would be tempted to leave this. Removal of unsourced content tagged as such for a long period of time is entirely in accordance with policy and backed by Jimbo Wales. I would suggest concentrating your efforts on a new (referenced) Borders Railway article. I will back you in any attempt to merge or delete the separate article which you create. Lamberhurst (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Waverley Line]] - substantial edit - seeking advice 

message: I have created a draft of a possible Borders Railway article in my user space at User:KlausFoehl/Borders Railway.
I have been bold, but in doing so I have taken the discussion contributions on this talk page into account.
I have taken due care that the content be properly referenced. I do welcome my fellow wikipedians to constructively edit this draft. Please keep in mind that at a later suitable time this article may move into the main name space. If this is to happen before September, then the tense of the article will need to be adopted, as so far it has been written from the perspective of after the opening of the railway line.--KlausFoehl (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose and delete – This is a pure content fork, nothing more. These are the same railway. RGloucester  — ☎ 22:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Proof by assertion -- KlausFoehl (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Reality is reality, dictated by God. There is nothing you can do to change it. RGloucester  — ☎ 23:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft of [[User:KlausFoehl/Borders Railway|'''Borders Railway''']] article 

message: Regarding history sources, the only paper one I currently have, RAIL issue 770, shows photos with V2, J38, Class 40, Class 26, A4, Class 17 and A3 engines operating on the line. Maybe of some help for anyone tackling the reconstruction of such section.--KlausFoehl (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: A brief list of steam and diesel locomotives on the Waverley Line in the late 1950s and early 1960s can be found here: Robert Robotham: On the Waverley Route. Ian Allan, Shepperton 1995, . Express trains: A1, A2, A3 (the first A3 took over the main express trains in 1929) and Britannias, A4 and V2 occasionally and on excursion trains. Other passenger trains: A1 - A3, B1, V2 (local services from Hawick also with D49 and later Standard Class 4MT 2-6-0, 2MT 2-6-0 and 4MT 2-6-4 tank). Freight trains between Kingmoor and Millerhill: A1, A2, A3, V2, B1, K3, "Black Five" (occasionaly some other ex-LMS classes) pick-up freights with J37-J39, Ivatt 4MT. Regular steam operations ceased in the end of 1966. Diesels came at the beginning of the 1960s: Class 17 ("Claytons"), 24, 26, 27, 40, 45 ("Peaks"), 47. Hope that helps... --Wahldresdner (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a copy of this, but I've heard good things about the earlier edition. It might be useful for those who want to contribute to the history section. I live overseas, so I will not be able to purchase it. RGloucester  — ☎ 14:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I used the earlier edition for the improvement of the german article (see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waverley_Line) and can confirm it a very suitable and well researched book. It is a very good source for all questions concerning the process of closure in the 1960s and the long struggle for re-opening including lots of details and facts from inside Westminster. For the older history the first edition only has a brief overview so other books might be more useful. Details of the locomotive history were not included in the first edition. --Wahldresdner (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that the new edition will have more on the earlier railway. It is coming out in a couple of weeks, so hopefully someone can get their hands on a copy. RGloucester  — ☎ 17:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The new edition is to be released May 28th. I'm sure someone will be able to afford a copy. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 08:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  contributing to history 

message: I'm working on getting this article up to standard before the scheduled opening of the Borders Railway. Three issues have cropped up and it would be useful to get feedback from other editors. First, the line is almost universally referred to as the Waverley Route. Any objections if I move the page to this name? Second, the section between Hawick and Carlisle isn't shown on the RDT, although it forms an integral part of the line. Should this be added? Third, there doesn't appear to me any justification for having a separate article covering the Border Union Railway which, unlike the Edinburgh and Dalkeith Railway, had no independent existence distinct from that of the Waverley Route. Lamberhurst (talk) 07:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Point one, "Waverley Route", if that is also the majority in sources that predate the WWW, then I am happy with it. Point two, as my feeble understanding is, the designation and marketing of "Waverley Route" did not exclude the right-of-way south of Hawick, hence I would be happy with an RDT all the way from Carlisle into Edinburgh. Point three, I do not have a formed opinion but a question. If Edinburgh-Carlisle is "Waverley Route", Hawick-Carlisle is "Borders Union Railway", is there a sister part to the BUR, a denomination covering Hawick-Edinburgh? -- KlausFoehl (talk) 09:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Edinburgh-Dalhousie was constructed by the Edinburgh and Dalkeith Railway. From there the Edinburgh and Hawick Railway (which redirects here) took it on to Hawick. Lamberhurst (talk) 11:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks RGloucester for taking care of the page move. I'm going to leave the BUR until this article is done. Maybe an RDT expert such as Useddenim could lend a hand in reworking  to include the section in ? The complex junction south of Carlisle wouldn't be strictly necessary. Lamberhurst (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some questions 

message: I have left a more explaining message on the IP talk page.
Dear User:157.203.255.1, regarding the recent edit  on Waverley Route from this IP which can well be a shared address, the content is welcome, provided
# the text is not cut-and-paste from an existing publication
# proper references are given
These requirements have not been met, hence the article had to be reverted to the previous version.
If you have questions on how to contribute, please make yourself known on Talk:Waverley Route 
Copied from the IP talk page. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 08:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent IP edit