Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 2

message: In working through :Category:Unknown-importance rail transport articles, I've almost reached the more than 300 articles listed there that are named "British Rail ____".  Since I'm not as familiar with British locomotives and rolling stock as I am with North American stock, I'd greatly appreciate it if some of your project team members would jump in to help with the importance grading on these articles for the TrainsWikiProject template (but please keep in mind that this importance is among rail transport topics worldwide).  Thanks!  Slambo (Speak) 21:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If no one does anything have a go (good old nag ;) )at me in a few weeks time when i *might* have some more time to give it a bit of lookover Pickle 20:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TWP importance ratings for BR locomotives and rolling stock 

message: I've been busy updating all railway station articles with the latest (2004-2005) usage stats. For every page in the categories:
*:Category:Railway stations in England (Except sub category :Category:Railway stations in London which will take me a bit longer)
*:Category:Railway stations in Scotland
*:Category:Railway stations in Wales
Where the page has an info box with old usage stats, I've updated them from the latest Office of Rail Regulation stats. I've made in the region of 400 updates which equates to 16% of the 2502 stations in the ORR document. So that is how many had the old stats.
Some of the articles had the new stats but didn't have exits0405 or lowexits0405 so the text at the bottom of the info box would be incorrect. I suspect there are many stations in Wales and Scotland without info boxes. Adambro 21:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further to my previous comments, I'd welcome opinions on whether the 2004/2005 data should replace the 2002/2003 data, or should be in addition to it. My opinion is the former. This is because both datasets only give a basic idea of station usage anyway and also because "the methodology for calculating station usage data has improved since the 2002-03 data were calculated", which I would suggest makes including both figures for the purpose of providing a comparison of the usage not very useful. Adambro 15:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO over the long term i don't it would be useful to have a long list of annual usage over the years. if there was a notable shift between years or over time (eg new town built, or something major) the station article would surly discus it and cite the data. Pickle 16:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've being bold and removed the old data from some articles where it facilitates making the info box simpler (changing from 'usage' to the more common 'exits' variable). The intention is to ensure a consistent style of station articles. Adambro 16:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage stats 

message: if anyone is interested, WP:RM London to Ashford to Dover Line --> South Eastern Main Line. Simply south 20:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  another move 

message: Is there any reason why on articles for lines which are "notelectrified", the "not" is in bold?  Chris cheese whine 20:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was probably me, and i only did it in an area where most of the line were electrified to highlight their unusual status compared to their neighbours (eg Marshlink, Oxted, GOBLIN, etc). Where electrification is rare (eg Scotland, beyond Glasgow) i haven't done so. Its part of my to do list about rail electrification you can find at the talk page of Railway electrification in Great Britain. Pickle 21:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electrification 

message: The  template has been proposed for deletion - the "Wikipedia is not a timetable" discussion of last year rears its head again!
Please join in with the discussion. Geof Sheppard 08:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Result was to keep! see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 26#Template:Stn art lnk Pickle 10:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed template deletion

message: I have proposed that the template Template:Stn art lrnk be merged into Template:Stn art lnk. Please see my comments on Template talk:Stn art lrnk. Adambro 19:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stn art lrnk 

message: The scope of the Great Western Main Line article is under discussion. It currently covers Paddington to Bristol; Reading to Taunton; and the Cornish Main Line (which, for some reason, starts at Taunton!). The South Wales Main Line, and some other less obvious routes that the SRA deem to be part of the GWML, already have their own articles.
The question is: should the South Wales route be merged with the GWML (which would bring it in line with the ECML/WCML articles), or should the West of England routes be separated out for clarity, although this could give rise to a naming conflict with the SWT West of England Main Line - a topic discussed a couple of years ago with no action taken.
The thoughts of other UK Railways Project members would be appreciated. Geof Sheppard 13:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Great Western Main Line

message: Hello All, I've just started a new article Railway accident at Sonning Cutting about the well-known accident there which occurred in 1841. I don't know anything about railways, almost all of the content derives from contemporaneous articles in The Times, but it struck me as an interesting story. Probably badly written and too long, but anyway, it's there for anyone to do anything they like to it (or blow it away, if it's of no interest). Regards, Nick. Nick 18:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As usual, sources need to be cited, therefore you have to reference each resource in the text using e.g.Blah, which produces Blah, followed by at the bottom of the page a References section, underneath put  which produces
===References===
Simply south 19:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Accident at Sonning Cutting

message: Simply south 19:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I have proposed that this page is moved and cited WP:NAME which I believe supports it. I would welcome the views of other editors at Talk:Grayrigg derailment. Adambro 17:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Withdrawn proposal as it seems extremely unlikely that consensus will emerge in support. Adambro 14:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move: Grayrigg derailment -> Cumbria rail crash 

message: Following the TfD, there is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Sheffield Midland station about including the links. Adambro 12:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sheffield Midland station]] and {{tl|stn art lnk}}