Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject UK Railways: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:59, 14 November 2008 editThe Anome (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators252,962 edits == Approximate coordinates for disused stations == I've made a list of approximate geographic coordinates for disused stations, extracted from the http://www.npemap.org.uk/ URLs linked from those page← Previous edit Latest revision as of 06:52, 27 December 2024 edit undo10mmsocket (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers42,288 edits →Too soon / WP:CRYSTALBALL: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject UK Railways}} {{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject UK Railways/Navbox}}
{{Shortcut|WT:UKRAIL}}
{{Archive box|]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]<br>]
{{tmbox | text = '''This WikiProject ] on the WikiProject report at the Signpost on 30 May 2011'''}}
}}
{{Archive box|search=yes |collapsed=yes |bot=MiszaBot II |age=30 |units=days |index=/Archive index | {{Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive list}}}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 90K |maxarchivesize = 90K
|counter = 13 |counter = 58
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(30d) |algo = old(30d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
{{Shortcut|WT:RAIL|WT:Rail}}
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes

}}
== The ] ==

Hi All,

:I am creating a wiki all about Transport in The UK. As this WikiProject is about UK Railways, it would fall under the scope of the UK Transport Wiki. If you are interested please leave a message on my user talk or on ] user talk.

] <sup>]</sup> 09:15, 4 June 2008 (BST)

== Assessment - Final Stages (less than 350 articles) ==

Many thanks to all those that have worked to give all of the UK related articles an initial assessment. Over the last few months the number of articles to be rated has plummetted from over 1500+ to just todays figure of about 350. We now need only a small push to get all of the UK articles assessed. Once complete the work required to assess newly added articles will be minimal and the more important work can begin on getting the articles improved, starting with the highest priority ones. Well done everyone for you efforts, we are in the final straight.] (]) 07:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

: Now just 325 left to do and articles begginning with the letters "S", "T" and "W". Please help to complete this important exercise. It will help us to prioritise our work in developing articles. ] (]) 19:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:: Now fewer than 300 articles, and just "S" and "T" outstanding. ] (]) 11:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

::: Now fewer than 250 articles. ] (]) 14:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

:::: Sorry, I've just added one to the list (I don't want to assess articles I created myself) ;-) &nbsp;—&nbsp;]<sub>&nbsp;(]/])</sub> 16:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

::::: Assessment now completed. We have zero articles left to assess. ] (]) 08:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::Good work, all! ] (]) 11:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

] has now issued an indefinite block to ] and the total is now 76 un-assessed articles. The indefinite block is rather strange, as
] not only raised a complaint, but handed down the block too. Its all too "Judge Dredd" like for my taste ... a case of the defense attorney becoming the judge and jury in a case. ] (]) 18:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
:Pigsonthewing only added the template after Olana North was blocked by ]: . The template had already been added by Olana North, but was removed as the user was not blocked at the time: . —] 17:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations to everybody as all articles tagged have now been assessed on quality. There is now only the 70+ to be judged on the importance to the project. ] (]) 20:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

== Image needs replacement ==

Hello all...

An image used in the ] article, specifically ], has a little bit of a licensing issue. The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive. It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard. As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article. If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.

You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.--] (]) 01:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

: A new photograph of this station has just been added to Geograph: http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1000863 ] (]) 23:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

:: I added the photograph to the article. ] (]) 07:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

== Railway station articles missing geographic coordinates: you can help! ==

I've made a list of UK railway station articles which are missing geographic coordinates, which you can find at ].
There were 1243 such UK railway station article missing geographic coordinates, as of the time of writing.

You can also find similar articles using the ] tool, using
.

These articles are currently marked with {{tl|coord missing}} templates, which need replacing with filled in {{tl|coord}} templates containing their latitude/longitude data. You can find out how to do this at the ]. Please let me know if this is useful! -- ] (]) 23:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

:...or better still, replaced the template with coordiantes in the 'latitude' and 'longitude' parameters of the station infobox. (Don't know your coordinates? Find the station on Multimap and the coordinates are stated at the bottom of the page). ] (]) 12:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

::There is a searchable online set of OS maps from the 40s/50s such as which mark old railway stations. ] (]) 15:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Note: all currently-operated UK railway stations should now have been automatically geocoded by my bot, so the only stations left should be historical stations. Nevertheless, Beeching to the contrary, they're all part of UK railway history, and they all need geocoding. -- ] (]) 12:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

::::Would it be possible for the bot to go through stations with existing gridrefs and convert these automatically to coords, leaving the gridrefs entry in place? Apologies if the bot is already doing this. ] (]) 12:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::I believe that those listed do not contain grid references, either; the bot should have checked them for this when it tagged the articles. Providing National Grid references is OK when only grid refs are easily available, because the bot can automatically perform the conversion at a later date; however, when both are available, adding ] lat/long (as used on Google Maps, Multimap etc.) is always best. -- ] (]) 14:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

The RAIB final report has been released. ] (]) 13:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

== Line from Finsbury Park ==

Does anyone know what this freight line is from Finsbury Park to just east of Highbury & Islington? For the complex (perhaps too detailed but it is clear), i have created {{tl|FP-H&I RDT}}. ] (]) 20:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

== Sectional appendices ==

Would it be acceptable to cite sectional appendices as sources for line speeds and track layout? I am thinking this would not be acceptable as they are "PRIVATE for use of authorised persons only" but anyone can buy them online now.] (]) 10:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

:I'd say yes, but you may be better to take this question to the Help Desk. ] (]) 11:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

== ] ≠ TSY ==

I notice that has been changing the text of the SYPTE links on station infoboxes to TSY. The PTE is still SYPTE, TSY is a brand name not used solely by SYPTE and isn't the same as the PTE. I know, I work there! Is it worth me reverting them all? ] (]) 15:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

== X to Y Line ==

I recall in recent months there was a discussion on a talk page about whether articles should be named "X to Y Line" or "X-Y Line". But I can't find the discussion or remember its conclusion. Does this mean anything to anyone? --] (]) 12:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

::I also vaguely remember the discussion, however I cannot get excited as to whether it is "X to Y Line" or "X-Y Line" and be content if the titles (whichever form they currently use) are left as is. --]<small><font color="maroon"><sup> '''(] | ])'''</sup></font></small> 13:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

== Coordinates now located for 233 disused railway stations ==

I've now matched the list of Misplaced Pages articles about UK railway station lacking geographical coordinates with the list of articles at the SubBrit disused railway station archive, and produced ], which lists both, together with the coordinates for each station. -- ] (]) 19:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

== List of LMS locomotives as of 1947-12-31 ==

Not sure if this is part of your project but I came across ], it had two date entries in the intro ''LMS locomotives as of ]-]. This date is significant because ] of the Big Four occurred the next day, ]-].'' which I changed to ''31 December 1947. This date is significant because ] of the Big Four occurred the next day, 1 January 1948. ''. The date representation should really reflect the British date usage and the manual of style indicates that the XXXX-XX-XX should not really be used. The article originator has reverted the change without explanation. The article name should also be changed to ] but I just thought I would bring it to the notice of the project before nominating it for a move to see what the opinion is of others. The article see also indicates that lists of LNER, GWR and Southern using the same date format are also planned. ] (]) 16:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
:An alternative approach would be to have a ], which would avoid the need to have four separate lists for each of the "Big Four" and a fifth list for independant companies which were absorbed into British Railways on 1 January 1948. ] (]) 09:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
::That wouldn't really solve the problem--the issue here seems to be the formatting of the date in the article title, not the subject of the list. An alternative title would be "]", which avoids the problem of "31 December 1947" vs "1947-12-31". --] (]) 02:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

::: Assumes (a bad thing) that you known that 1948 was when nationalisation occurred. ] (]) 10:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

:::: That's true, but if you don't then 31 December 1947 is just a random date and therefore not notable, it may as well be a list of locomotives on 1 July 1937 or 13 November 1938. ] (]) 08:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

:::::Exactly. --] (]) 14:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

==LMS Sentinel 7164 AfD==

The ] article has been AfD'd. ] (]) 07:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

:Highly unlikely that notability could be proved for this loco.
:Article has been 'preserved' at the companion Wiki, by user ] (]).
:-- ] (]) 11:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

== Blackpool ==

Should the T in in tramway be capitalised? See ]. ] (]) 13:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

== When rail articles face deletion ==

Misplaced Pages has necessarily stern rules about notability and verifiability which do not always sit well with (eg) a railfan or train enthusiast community. A couple of years ago, maybe a little less, was started as a companion wiki, populated to a great initial extent with properly licenced WP articles as a basis. Since then it has "rescued" a good number of articles that were in danger of deletion. Word of mouth has spread this around many WP rail enthusiasts, and there has been quite substantial work by many of them to enhance the site along different lines (pun intended?) from WP.

When a rail article faces deletion at Misplaced Pages please feel totally at liberty to migrate that article to Train Spotting World (giving the correct credit to Misplaced Pages under the GFDL).

This has just happened with ] as has been stated a little bit above this note, and thus an article that is not at all notable here is preserved there.

The challenge is letting folk here know about the service without the perfectly reasonable question "is this spam?". It would be very useful to rail enthusiasts to know about a substantially more relaxed wiki, but, not unreasonably, WP is hesitant about such links to other sites. Of course, if Train Spotting World were, at some future point, entered into the WP interwiki table that would solve the matter. ] (]) 14:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

:I think it's a good thing that the article has been copied over to TSW. That way the editor who created it won't feel that their work has been a total waste of time. It should be noted that when I notify an article has been AfD'd, it is not canvassing for a vote one way or another, but merely a courtesy to the relevant WikiProject. ] (]) 15:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

::I agree with you completely in all the points that you make. I would never dream of suggesting, btw, that you were canvassing "votes", since a neutral announcement of "this is happening" is precisely that.
::How can TSW's existence and much more relaxed approach be publicised without the very real potential danger of accusations of spam? The site wishes to work alongside WP as an adjunct to it for editors whose enthusiasm is far broader than correctly notable and verifiable articles here. ] (]) 15:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

:::For the benefit of anyone who might need it, articles deleted from Misplaced Pages (other than attack pages, copyright violations and libels) don't just vanish into the ether but go to the retirement home of , should anyone need the text of deleted articles for whatever reason.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font style="font-family: Lucida Handwriting, Segoe Script"><font color="#E45E05">]</font><font color="#C1118C">]</font></font><small>&nbsp;15:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)</small>


== EWR 2024-2025 consultation ==
::::Never knew that. It's an interesting place as a repository, but it doesn't allow edits. ] (]) 16:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


The non-statutory consultation on updated proposals for East West Rail, running from Nov 2024 to Jan 2025 has been released today. . ] (]) <small>Time, department skies</small> 11:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::First I'd heard of it, too. But it wouldn't be much of an ''archive'' if you could edit it...


* There is a ] debate at ] on whether material on a non-statutory consultation should be included. Please contribute towards a consensus, as presumably the principle has wider significance. --] (]) 14:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::...Oh, I see what you mean -- ''TSW'' allows editing and can hence keep the article 'alive'.
:::::] (]) 19:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


== 2324 station usage ==
::::::GFDL still applies there, though, so (provided it's credited etc etc) you can take the text of a deleted WP article from Deletionpedia, complete with Wiki-markup (under the "view source" tab), and import it into another Wiki (or back to Misplaced Pages, for that matter – if the article was speedy/prod deleted rather than via AfD, you're perfectly within your rights to repost it as ] only applies to material deleted via AfD).&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font style="font-family: Lucida Handwriting, Segoe Script"><font color="#E45E05">]</font><font color="#C1118C">]</font></font><small>&nbsp;22:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)</small>


The new station usage figures from the ORR will be released on Thursday 21st November. ] (]) <small>Time, department skies</small> 14:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
===AfD notification section?===
Should there be a section somewhere where AfDs can be notified to the Project? Either a section on the project page or a permanent section on this talk page that is not to be archived. ] (]) 08:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


== Which sort of DMU is this? ==
== Canterberry/Olana North ==


]
As the people who worked most closely with him, throwing this to everyone here (particularly users like EdJogg who worked closely with him) – I've just noticed the thread a couple above this, and I think it's time to unblock ]/], provided he and ] agree to stay well away from each other. The ] is now more than a year old; the block on him was IMO intended to be indefinite meaning "unspecified" rather than "infinite"; Lucy-marie, the other party in that dispute, is unblocked and (more or less) a model contributor; I'm not aware of anything particularly disruptive from any of his accounts since then (listed ] if anyone wants to review the histories more fully); and he always did some good work cleaning up loose ends on Southern, NSE etc related articles that nobody else bothered with. Anyone have any thoughts? (Canterberry, feel free to comment here as well. Obviously, if there's a consensus to unblock you and you ''do'' go back to hassling L-m, I'll reblock and rangeblock your IP as necessary, but I assume you have enough sense not to; if you do come back I'll also warn her not to bait you either.)&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font style="font-family: Lucida Handwriting, Segoe Script"><font color="#E45E05">]</font><font color="#C1118C">]</font></font><small>&nbsp;01:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)</small>
I've come across this photograph on Commons, and I would like to identify which sort of DMU this is so I can categorise it. ] (]) 15:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)


:Probably a ] - see also {{Commons category inline|British Rail Class 105}} ] (]) 15:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:(Seeing as how I'm mentioned...) Not sure which thread you mean. I've never understood why the punishments were so harsh, which is (one reason) why I had been supporting him. The general feeling I had from reading the admin comments was "this editor should never be allowed back on Misplaced Pages", and this didn't seem fair. Anyway, I have no problem with him being unblocked, and if he should return I hope that he will learn from the various previous experiences, recognise when a discussion is heading in an unfortunate direction and learn to step away.... ] (]) 01:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
::Just looking at other articles, ] and ] look closer. Not my area of expertise though ] (]) <small>Time, department skies</small> 16:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Certainly not a 104 or 108, they have 3 windows across the cab front. ] (]) 16:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::: It might be a {{brc|112}}? Though I'm not sure how to tell. ] (]) 18:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Not easy, they have the same bodyshells, it's the power trains that vary. ] (]) 18:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
* Two digit headcode box, it's a 112. ] (]) 21:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*: Or a 113, but you'd need to know numbers to tell that, they're the same bodyshells. ] (]) 21:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*::The 105s also had 2 digit headcodes ] (]) 21:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*It's definitely a Cravens unit (all Cravens DMUs had that window arrangement, which was not used by any other builder), so we have five potential classes: {{brc|105|n}}, {{brc|106|n}}, {{brc|112|n}}, {{brc|113|n}} or {{brc|129|n}}. 129 may be eliminated as being the wrong coupling code and the wrong part of the country; 113 may also be eliminated as they all had four-character headcode boxes mounted in the roof dome, and two marker lights above the buffers. Class 106 all had four marker lights and no headcode box, as did the earlier Class 105 units. However, the later Class 105 units had a front-end appearance identical to Class 112: two marker lights and a two-character headcode. I don't recall coming across the use of Class 112 on the former Great Central main line, it's most probably a Class 105. --] &#x1f339; (]) 22:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)


== Requested move at ] ==
::No objection to Canterberry being unblocked. Olana North should stay blocked as a sockpuppet. As stated above, any problems and the block can be reinstated by an admin. ] (]) 08:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


See ]. ] (]) 15:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::: No, no, no!!! No person shall bo doing anything of the sort, lest they wish to incur the same treatment. WP policy is quite clear on this, and I refer you to ] which states "sock puppet uses are forbidden and warrant aggressive approaches to protect the encyclopedia from their actions". The words "aggressive approaches" are bought to your attention. This means ZERO TOLERANCE. The community must stand firm and resist any attempt to unblock any of the accounts listed as being operated by ], and ] is one of many as shown by this {{Category|Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Canterberry}}. I shall use WP policies to <s>achieve a proscecution against</s> prevent any unblocking. ] (]) 09:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC) ]
::::Hmm, is that a legal threat? I think ] could apply here. ] (]) 09:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


== Too soon / ] ==
:::::I am rather inclined to suggest that ] should be applied here, instead. It contains some very good advice, and Pigsonthewing, who has a history of 'issues' with Canterberry (and others?) would do well to heed it. ("Let he who has no sin, cast the first stone..." ??)
:::::I note from ]: "...in ''extreme cases'' being banned from Misplaced Pages." (emphasis mine). My POV is that Canterberry was NOT such an extreme case (AFAIK), and therefore the discipline applied was excessive. My reading of ] does not suggest the level of intolerance proposed by Pigsonthewing.
:::::] (]) 13:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


I am minded to nominate the following for deletion (or blank and redirect) as they have been created way too soon, but wanted to sound out my learned fellows in the project:
:::::: The block that I imposed on {{vandal|Olana North}}, and hence {{vandal|Canterberry}} although he was already blocked), MUST stay in place as I did so after obtaining the explicit consent of the WP community via the appropriate channels (] and ] . I refer you to the relevant block logs. ] (]) 14:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC) ]
*]
*]
*]
] (]) 08:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


:I also noticed these, but was hesitant myself on nomination cause at the time, it had been less than an hour since creation. I am not opposed to someone nominating for AfD either; I would assume the creator of all 3 pages (the same user for all 3, to add) was not aware of the policy and just assumed the new TOCs would have the same name, when even we don't know what they'll be called when the new contracts take effect. ] ] 11:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
== Approximate coordinates for disused stations ==
::or indeed IF new contracts are awarded, given the political intent to cease the whole privatisation idea. ] (]) 13:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
I've made a list of approximate geographic coordinates for disused stations, extracted from the http://www.npemap.org.uk/ URLs linked from those pages: see ]. Many of them are up to 1km off from the real coordinates of the station. Would this data be useful for geocoding articles that are currently lacking geographic coordinates? Would anyone be interested in spot-checking some of them to check for systematic errors in my conversions? -- ] (]) 16:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
:::This is a courtesy ping to {{u|Naleork}}. As the user who made these three pages and also added ] categories to the relevant articles, what are your thoughts on this? ] ] 23:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::: is reporting that the private operators will cease and the government, through ], will take over. If we are going to have articles for potential operators, most of which won't get off the ground, ], ], ] etc, the Virgin one having already survived an AfD, don't see why not for operators that will commence per reliable sources.
:::::The TOCs will have the same names as the trade marks are held by the Department for Transport. Hence why when ], ] and ] were nationalised in the last couple of years, the name and branding was transferred from the private to the government sector operator. ] (]) 23:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::We have no way of knowing what they names will be yet. It's way to soon for articles and it's way too soon to put them in the Toc Template. ] (]) 06:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 06:52, 27 December 2024

WikiProject UK Railways
Shortcut
This WikiProject was featured on the WikiProject report at the Signpost on 30 May 2011

Archives
V · E
Index

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.


EWR 2024-2025 consultation

The non-statutory consultation on updated proposals for East West Rail, running from Nov 2024 to Jan 2025 has been released today. See here. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 11:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

2324 station usage

The new station usage figures from the ORR will be released on Thursday 21st November. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 14:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Which sort of DMU is this?

I've come across this photograph on Commons, and I would like to identify which sort of DMU this is so I can categorise it. G-13114 (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Probably a British Rail Class 105 - see also Media related to British Rail Class 105 at Wikimedia Commons 10mmsocket (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Just looking at other articles, British Rail Class 104 and British Rail Class 108 look closer. Not my area of expertise though Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 16:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Certainly not a 104 or 108, they have 3 windows across the cab front. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
It might be a Class 112? Though I'm not sure how to tell. G-13114 (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Not easy, they have the same bodyshells, it's the power trains that vary. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Two digit headcode box, it's a 112. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    Or a 113, but you'd need to know numbers to tell that, they're the same bodyshells. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    The 105s also had 2 digit headcodes Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
  • It's definitely a Cravens unit (all Cravens DMUs had that window arrangement, which was not used by any other builder), so we have five potential classes: 105, 106, 112, 113 or 129. 129 may be eliminated as being the wrong coupling code and the wrong part of the country; 113 may also be eliminated as they all had four-character headcode boxes mounted in the roof dome, and two marker lights above the buffers. Class 106 all had four marker lights and no headcode box, as did the earlier Class 105 units. However, the later Class 105 units had a front-end appearance identical to Class 112: two marker lights and a two-character headcode. I don't recall coming across the use of Class 112 on the former Great Central main line, it's most probably a Class 105. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:City Line (Merseytravel)

See Talk:City Line (Merseytravel)#Requested move 18 December 2024. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Too soon / WP:CRYSTALBALL

I am minded to nominate the following for deletion (or blank and redirect) as they have been created way too soon, but wanted to sound out my learned fellows in the project:

10mmsocket (talk) 08:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I also noticed these, but was hesitant myself on nomination cause at the time, it had been less than an hour since creation. I am not opposed to someone nominating for AfD either; I would assume the creator of all 3 pages (the same user for all 3, to add) was not aware of the policy and just assumed the new TOCs would have the same name, when even we don't know what they'll be called when the new contracts take effect. Jalen Barks (Woof) 11:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
or indeed IF new contracts are awarded, given the political intent to cease the whole privatisation idea. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
This is a courtesy ping to Naleork. As the user who made these three pages and also added WP:TOOSOON categories to the relevant articles, what are your thoughts on this? Jalen Barks (Woof) 23:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Every national news agency and industry publication is reporting that the private operators will cease and the government, through DfT Operator, will take over. If we are going to have articles for potential operators, most of which won't get off the ground, Go-op, Virgin Trains, Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway etc, the Virgin one having already survived an AfD, don't see why not for operators that will commence per reliable sources.
The TOCs will have the same names as the trade marks are held by the Department for Transport. Hence why when Northern Trains, Southeastern and TransPennine Express were nationalised in the last couple of years, the name and branding was transferred from the private to the government sector operator. Naleork (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
We have no way of knowing what they names will be yet. It's way to soon for articles and it's way too soon to put them in the Toc Template. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)