Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lucy-marie (talk | contribs) at 18:03, 31 January 2008 (→Metric/Imperial system (Moved from Talk:WestCoastway line)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Trains: in UK Project‑class

Trains Portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Associated projects or task forces: /  This page is supported by WikiProject UK Railways.

Archives

September - December 2006 January - April 2007 April - June 2007 May/June - July 2007 August - September 2007 September - October 2007 October - November 2007 November 2007 - January 2008

• WT:RAIL
• WT:Rail

Balham station merge

A couple of days ago I merged Balham tube station and Balham railway station into Balham station, since they're a conjoined interchange complex and it's standard practice to cover those in one article. For anyone unfamiliar with the station, the two sections are co-located and the interchange involves a short flight of stairs from the rail station ticket office that leads directly into the tube ticket hall. It's a lot like Victoria station (and many others) though on a much smaller scale. Support or reject? --Mr Thant (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

As anyone with a knowledge of my history will be unsurprised to hear, strong support for the merge from me. I'd far rather have one long article than two stubs in every circumstance. — iridescent 21:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it should be a single article, as per Tottenham Hale station for example. – Tivedshambo (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on the merge. Should we have a very big article would could always break it out again.Regan123 (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Due to an ongoing edit war, i have requested protection until this can be sorted. Simply south (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages procedures for mergers,

Please see: Help:Merging and moving pages#Proposing a merger and post in Misplaced Pages:Proposed mergers#January 2008, and announce it in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Trains/Peer review#Requests on WikiProject Trains and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject London Transport#Requests... Above process has not been done. YET, the merger has taken place. Guidelines are clear and precise and are suppose to be followed. The merger templates placed in both articles in question, and all talk sections concerning the merger copied into one Talk page and referenced in the merger template. By announcing it in the Proposed merger page and in WikiProj pages will give others in the Trains and LT communities to review and comment. This process can take 1-2 weeks, sometimes longer. At this point, the discusion is closed and votes taken. THEN the articles are merged with no loss of history or aritcle information... and all Talk pages are merged as well... all images are recheck for any conflicts. But running rough-shod over the merger is not correct. LanceBarber (talk) 08:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that Mr Thant has remerged the articles shortly before page protection was applied, thereby effectively "hiding" the existing discussions on the validity of the merge behind the redirects (as well as, annoyingly, preventing me adding some new/better images to both pages today), and is rather pathetically arguing on my talk page that it's a case of "objecting" to the merge rather than going through a proper merge process, claiming - but not being able to cite - previous "agreement" elsewhere. If there has been such consensus, and the crietria for merging station articles is documented and clear - and can therefore provide a solid basis for a merge proposal - then fair enough, but this is all making a mockery of what should be the proper merge procedure. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I've started a formal merger discussion here --Mr Thant (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Cosy cliquey

To suggest that a 44 minute exchange on a Saturday night between four editors, not on any of the pages in question, constitutes the "clear consensus" claimed relating to the above merge is grotesque nonsense. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Proper merge procedure should be followed, as per LanceBarber's comment on Talk:Balham_tube_station. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Four editors agree on the merge... one objects. I think thats a majority decision, and clear consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olana North (talk • contribs) 08:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

To be fair - this wasn't exactly a formal discussion. It would be fine as support for a non-controversial change, but as there is clearly some dispute, a full discussion should take place, as I see it is. – Tivedshambo (talk) 09:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, this only became a controversial issue after the merge had taken place. What was done was to bring the page in line with what has been common practice elsewhere; co-located tube and railway stations have frequently been described in the same article (unless there has been enough content to justify a split). Remember that Misplaced Pages policy states that editors should be bold, unless a topic is likely to be controversial. Quoting from Help:Merging and moving pages:

Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed. If you think merging something improves the encyclopedia, you can be bold and perform the merge, as described below. Because of this, it makes little sense to object to a merge purely on procedural grounds, e.g. "you cannot do that without discussion" is not a good argument.

Bringing an article into line with similar ones should not be so controversial, and the fact that four editors agreed with the merge adds weight to the idea that this is a normal practice. Therefore I can see no reason why a formal merge discussion was needed here. The flawed "you cannot do that without discussion" argument seems to be in use here. --RFBailey (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Four editors, off the pages in question, "agreed" it in 44 minutes on a Saturday night. Hardly an open and wide-ranging debate. Subsequently, of course, if is clear that more than one person is objecting. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Railcard Template

I think the articles Young Persons Railcard, Senior Railcard etc would benefit from a template along the lines of {{Template:British railway ticket systems (computerised)}}. Any comments? More to the point, does anyone know how to implement it? TicketMan - Talk - contribs 16:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

How about a navbox with one for tickets covering the UK and tickets specifically for cities? Does it have to be limited to railcards? Simply south (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking along the lines of discount cards (for want of a better expression). For example the Senior Railcard article makes no mention at all of the other national railcards (YP, Family and Disabled). There are also the Forces Railcard, and the New Deal Railcard (issued by jobcentres) as well as various local cards (Heart of Wales, Cotswold) and of course the Network Railcard so it's quite a big topic in itself.

I can have a look through retail manuals etc to try and come up with a list of discount cards? TicketMan - Talk - contribs 17:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: To illustrate my last comment i've come up with this list of tickets that can be issued in TRIBUTE - note it is not definitive, as cards issued by councils and other agencies (for example New Deal Railcard and Forces Railcard) are not shown. See here. all are valid for 12 months. TicketMan - Talk - contribs 17:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There's also cards like Oyster card and ZoneCard. Simply south (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

In my view they are a whole different ballgame - railcards/discount cards entitle the holder to a discount, and as such I think they should be grouped together, if only to show readers the variety of schemes on offer. Oyster is a travelcard/payment card, and as far as I can tell so is Zonecard - in essence they are season tickets. TicketMan - Talk - contribs 19:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, TicketMan. I think a template with the different types of "national" discounted railcards would be a good idea , in order to link them together along with National Rail. As for season ticket cards such as Oyster card and ZoneCard, I think there's less need for a template linking these: it's more important that these are linked to the relevant PTE as opposed to each other. Divy (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The way i'm imagining it is a box with links to different discount fare schemes, with sections for National R/Cs (YP, Senior, Family, Disabled, Forces, New Deal) and, if considered appropriate Local R/Cs (Network etc). Maybe a list of 'See also' links will suffice, however the 'ticket issuing systems' template I cited above looks a lot better than any list of links, in my opinion. TicketMan - Talk - contribs 22:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

D'oh just realised I've somehow cited the wrong template above - should show this one - {{Template:British railway ticket machines (computerised)}}. Sorry for any confusion! I've had a go at producing a new template for Railcards - please have a look and provide some feedback: Template:National and regional railcard schemes in the UK. Note most of the regional schemes, to prevent redlinks link to sections of the article Concessionary fares on the British railway network for now. TicketMan - Talk - contribs 16:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Since there have been no objections I'll go ahead and insert the template into the relevant articles. --TicketMan - Talk - contribs 22:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've converted it to standard {{Navbox}} format - feel free to discuss/revert as appropriate. Tivedshambo (talk) 12:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Newport station

WP:RM Newport --> Newport (Gwent). See Talk:Newport railway station Simply south (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Bloxwich

I'm trying to find a citation for the opening dates for Bloxwich railway station (1989) and Bloxwich North railway station (1990). The Chase Line reopened in 1989 so I'm fairly certain of the dates, however they are the last things needing citations at List of West Midlands railway stations. Can anybody help? TicketMan - Talk - contribs 16:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed. Ref is Boynton, John. A Century of Railways around Birmingham and the West Midlands Volume Three 1973-1999. ISBN 0-9522248-6-0. – Tivedshambo (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. Had a feeling one of his books would cover it. TicketMan - Talk - contribs 17:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

When I originally created the page about 18 months ago, I got those dates from a book called "A-Z of Rail Reopenings", published in 1992 by the Railway Development Society (see the British Library catalogue). This was in the days when WP editors weren't demanding everything be sourced, so I didn't feel obliged to include a reference! Technically, I still have the book, but it's in an attic 3000 miles away from me, so it's not a lot of use right now..... --RFBailey 22:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Station disambiguation

This may have been discussed before. Do we have a recommendation for disambiguating station names? Suppose there are two stations called "Chigley". To disambiguate, do you name an article (a) "Chigley (Trumptonshire) railway station" or (b) "Chigley railway station, Trumptonshire"? To my mind, (b) is preferrable, and in line with how other geographical articles are disambiguated. However, (a) should be used if the official name of the station is "Chigley (Trumptonshire)". Any views on this? --Dr Greg (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I always thought a was widely used until i saw those in Sydney. Simply south (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Some are disambiguated by other items, such as the name of the line, an example being Bentley (W&WR) railway station. It would seem somewhat strange in that case to disambiguate by county, as the station site is within the West Midlands county today, but during its entire life from build to destruction it was within Staffordshire, meaning that Bentley (West Midlands) railway station just comes across as being very wrong (as it never was), yet Bentley (Staffordshire) railway station isn't right either. 18:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fingerpuppet (talk • contribs)

IIRC, the general style for naming places is Name, Locality so while for ticketing, etc. the name displayed would be "CHIGLEY (TRUMPTONSHIRE)" (truncation notwithstanding), the form "Chigley railway station, Trumptonshire" looks and reads better for Misplaced Pages's purposes. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the naming style, "Newport (Essex) railway station" is used as that's what appears in places such as the index to the National Rail Timetable; hence we have ended up with Swinton (Manchester) railway station, even though that's in the City of Salford(!).

Regarding the Bentley situation, perhaps "Bentley (Walsall) railway station"/"Bentley railway station, Walsall" would be a suitable compromise? --RFBailey (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Disused/Historical route info templates

An interesting debate has arisen over which route box template should be used to describe the route info for a closed station on an open or closed line. At the moment there are two: >{{Disused Rail Start}} and {{Historical Rail Start}}. The former came first, the latter was added by User:Dreamer84 as "'Disused' did not give enough scope on lines that were still open but with the occasional closed station"; see the debate here . In the interests of a uniform approach to closed UK lines, I think it's necessary to either choose one single template or to define parameters for when "disused" and when "historical" is to be used. I have used "disused rail start" for four reasons: (1) the term "disused railways" is accepted as the general term for describing closed routes (see here and here ) and closed stations and open routes; (2) "historical railways" is a misnomer in the sense that a closed railway line or station is not inherently historical in the dictionary definition of the term (here:); (3) Ordnance Survey refers to "dismantled" or "disused" railways", and (4) "disused railways" and "historical railways" have different connotations, the former giving the idea of a railway no longer in use, while the latter suggests (in my view) a special category of railways which are particularly known for one reason or another. I don't honestly mind which one is chosen, as long as there is a consensus on the matter. Ravenseft (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't really have a preference for either, but there is another thing to consider problem here. Some stations have closed and then re-opened, sometimes slightly along the line, Adwick, which I visited today is an example. The original station is both disused and historic(al) (in the non-notable sense), however Adwick Railway station is in fact open. Talltim (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

As several of us within WP:TIS have been working our way round Scotland (User:Dreamer84 on the ex G&SW routes; User:Signalhead in the Western Highlands; and myself more recently with the ex-Highland Railway routes) and have been attempting to provide not only the current arrangement, but also the context in which the line was built - specifically the originating company. The quotation from Dreamer84 summarises the reason for the current use. The dictionary definition above includes belonging to the past and in my mind the information given is historical as the railway company refered to is in the past. --Stewart 20:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the POV on "historical railways". Historical railway is the correct term when it is used to refer to the company that built the line, such as the Great Western Railway or the Glasgow & South Western Railway. Modern spin is to give a line as name such as the "Badger line" - I don't know whether that line exists - but it may. Paisley Canal railway station is an example of what is now a rebuilt terminal station on a line now known as the Paisley Canal Line; however the line was built by the Glasgow and South Western railway (G&SWR), so the historical template (correctly) refers to the preceding and succeeding stations on the G&SWR) which are not the same as the current stations. I consider that there are valid uses for "historical railways" and "disused railways".Pyrotec (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If historical railway is a US term, not used in the UK, why are there books such as:

• Simmons & Biidle (1997). The Oxford companion to British Railway History: from 1603 to the 1990s. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Hammilton Ellis (1959). British Railway History: An outline from the Accession of William IV to the Nationalisation of Railways. Vol 1. 1830-1876 & Vol. 2. 1877-1947. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.
• David & Charles's "A Regional History of the Railways of Great Britain.

Pyrotec (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that both templates link to the same category, so its not that big an issue. That said, to me historical says to me the early railway companies, such as the Liverpool & Manchester, Stockton & Darlington, Surrey Iron Railway, Canterbury & Whitstable etc. One thing I have noticed is that many stationboxes do not show the changes through the years, such as change of owner, change of previous/next station etc. Check out the stations and halts on the Hundred of Hoo Railway to see what I mean. Mjroots (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have always had doubts as to the usefulness of having the previous/next station boxes providing historical information, either on articles about closed stations, or about open stations with closed lines. The fundamental problem is this: it has to be obvious exactly which part of history, or what year, the box is referring to. For instance, consider Derby. The main line south of Derby has, since opening, been operated by the Midland Counties Railway, Midland Railway, London, Midland and Scottish Railway, British Railways/British Rail and Midland Mainline (ignoring the present-day operator). That's one problem. Second, what the next station down the line has been will have varied throughout time, too. Having these boxes whilst simultaneously dealing with these issues could potentially lead to having incredibly large templates which dominate articles. I advise caution! --RFBailey (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The principle I have followed when adding {{Historical Rail Start}} to articles is to add the original company and adjacent stations. I also add an indication if the line to the next/previous station is still open; and if the next/previous station is still open. Carmyle railway station is an interesting case in point here as the Glasgow Central Railway to Newton railway station is closed, whilst both stations are open.

The key here is that the line/route/original company in the previous/next box is linked and the history of the route, opening, closing, amalgamation, takeover, current operations is (should be) provided - see Aviemore railway station and Inverness and Perth Junction Railway as an example. Even better in this case as a Heritage Railway operates here as well. --Stewart 10:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Previous/Next Station Boxes

I can't find any discussion on here regarding a standard for previous and next station boxes. I was prompted to look at this by RFBailey's cautionary words about historical previous/next station boxes in certain circumstances leading to the potential for huge templates dominating articles.

I believe the reason, certainly in the case of Manchester Victoria is because of the way station boxes are strictly sitting with route definitions, and editors have perceived a need to create a box for each "route" without an evaluation as to whether or not the definition of that route is accurate. This has created huge duplication and it's misleading for a user following a route using the previous / next station boxes as their source of reference.

I would suggest that the whole concept of previous/next station boxes in relation to routes is examined to try and eliminate this huge duplication. (The definition of some of the routes out of Manchester Victoria needs very careful evaluation as well. I'd like to work on this after I've finished the Caldervale, and I have a few ideas for definition, but I believe that they should go up for discussion first.) I would suggest that one previous and next box per physical line per operator is all that's needed. Bigpants (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree here regarding the current opeators of stations. I have noticed especially on the CrossCountry routes that multiple (stopping) patterns are given. At this point the information is starting to provide timetable-like information. --Stewart 10:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The situation could be eased by removing the operator/line from the stationbox. That way all that needs to be shown for each station box is previous/next station(s). IMHO a separate box is required each time there is a change, with dates (as per Hundred of Hoo stations). Mjroots (talk) 10:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

An example - Paddock Wood

Preceding station	National Rail			Following station
Tonbridge		From October 3 2002 Network Rail		Marden Beltring & Branbridges

Thus giving the complete history of the station, with all changes when they occured. Mjroots (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yuck! In my view, having a separate entry for every company (each one running an identical route) is definitely not what the route box is for; that sort of information can be provided in the text. --Dr Greg (talk) 12:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment, but it ends up too unwieldy. Also the previous owners of the line are not disused, but defunct (which is actually what the link is says). You may also get examples where the station/line has changed ownership but the previous company is not defunct. Talltim (talk) 13:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Glasgow Central station has quite a big preceding / following station info box, but I believe it is still acceptable. Its not too overwhelming in respect of the information provided about the station. The same comment also applies to Manchester Victoria station.Pyrotec (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with "yuck", and refer everyone to my remarks above. --RFBailey (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

A simple soultion, if possible. If everyone is fed up on space, could the rail boxes be designed so that they can be hidden like navboxes? Simply south (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of hiding/showing them if possible. I must admit that I've rather given up on editing these as everyone seems to have their own idea of what should be in them. My preferred version is just one line per TOC per physical route, and no wrapping in the box to fit in slow/fast/named services. Compare Exeter St Davids last year with how it is now. Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Geof. There's just not much mileage in showing stopping patterns unless there's an actual physical difference in the route taken (and then it's different line anyhow). Mackensen (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Citations for List of UK railfan jargon

For those of you who don't have List of UK railfan jargon on your watchlists, an ultimatum from another experienced editor has been placed on the talk page that all unsourced definitions will be removed from the list in February. A similar message was added to List of U.S. railfan jargon at the same time; I've gone through a stack of references to add citations to that article, but as I know much less about British railway practice than I do about US practice, I would strongly encourage editors in this project to chip in and add references as appropriate. I'll be looking through what I have, but any help in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Slambo (Speak) 19:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys,

Further to what Slambo said, the page (aswell as the US one) has also been exported over to TrainSpottingWorld, where we are a lot less strict on citations, particularly with things like this - as it's what we exist for!

So, in future, if you can't reference something, please add it there!

Oh and Slambo, don't worry - i'll with what I can here!

Thanks all,

Bluegoblin7 20:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've put a few suggestions on that article's talk page.Mjroots (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Co-located tube and railway stations

Following the ongoing debate about at Talk:Balham station#Merger which shows no sign of ending any time soon, I've done some research on where we have either one or two articles describing such situations. The results of this are presented in my userspace at User:RFBailey/Interchanges.

This is part of an attempt to put to rest once and for all the question of when single articles are needed, and when not. My view is that a single article is all that is required unless the page size guidelines justify it (e.g. the old 32KB limit is exceeded: see WP:SIZE), or the complexity of the stations concerned demand it (e.g. Kings Cross St Pancras). Neither of these appear to apply to Balham.

Members of this project are invited to comment. (Please continue the discussion on this page!). Thanks, --RFBailey (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

West Hampstead railway station comes to mind here. When you start to read the article it appears to refer to all three stations in this area, however further down the wikilink to West Hampstead tube station, with this article covering the Thameslink and North London Line stations. The platforms here are probably closer than in some London Termini. Mention is made of the interchange possibilities and extension to the Chiltern Lines.

My view is that duplication of information across co-located articles is avoided. This could lead to contradictory information if edits are not kept up to date. --Stewart 08:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Where stations are co located having one article does make more sense to me. But we may need to change article titles to better reflect the status. Where stations are very closely related, like Balham, West Hampstead, Vauxhall then to me having an XXXXX stations are article with appropriate redirects makes sense. For some large stations with extensive histories this may not always work but we can bring WP:SUMMARY into play in those cases. Regan123 (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It would seem that the majority of articles are OK 'as-is'. The West Hampstead stations are clearly separate entities, and deserve to be treated independently. The two Balham stations are also clearly separate, but built next to one another, so the present article title is wrong: it should be "Balham stations". But I think I would prefer to see them dealt with in separate articles too. There is little point having multiple articles for places such as the Bakerloo stations between Queen's Park and Harrow, Greenford, and Ealing Broadway (which is missing from your list) as they are clearly single stations, sharing platforms and/or tracks. However, where there are adjacent stations built by different companies that are connected -- Balham and Paddington (Circle/District) being two obvious examples -- the history of these stations might be better served by having split articles.

EdJogg (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The point isn't that they're separate stations, I'm aware of that. The point is that, because they are co-located, there is material that is common to both stations, and would therefore need to be duplicated in both articles. Also, the presence of the interchange is one of the most important things about somewhere like Balham.

I've added Ealing Broadway to the list; I missed it because I was working through Category:London Underground stations (and its subcategories), from which it was missing! --RFBailey (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:LT founder - The rule has always been join the articles together. The only exceptions are when the article becomes to long or the stations are physically seperated from each other. Unisouth (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

As a rail buff, my view would be different (and would have nothing to do with article size): Stations that were built separately and/or built to be used by separate services should have separate articles, unless the stations are now part of the same rail system. Examples: T-Centralen should only have one article, even though the Blue Line station was built much later than the Green/Red line station, because the entire complex is used by the Stockholm Metro; Powell Street Station should, in principle, have separate articles for the BART and Muni Metro stations, even though they are located in the same tunnel structure and were built at the same time, because they were built to be used by the separate services and still are so used. (In that particular case, I think a good argument could be made for the single article that currently exists there, but in general I think physically separate stations used by separate services deserve separate articles.) --Tkynerd (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As anyone who's watched the saga at Railway stations in Cromer will be unsurprised to hear, I'm in favour of keeping the articles together when possible in cases like Ealing Broadway where there's interchange within the building. For stations like West Hampstead, Kings Cross/St Pancras, Vauxhall where the stations are right next to each other there's enough of a grey area that I'd keep them separate, and certainly keep such dubious alleged "interchanges" as Bow Road/Church, Hammersmith, Tower Hill/Gateway and Southwark/Waterloo East separate. If anyone wants to open a fresh can of worms, if we're treating the Bakerloo and Northern platforms at Charing Cross as a single station, we really ought to treat Bank & Monument as one as well, since the platforms are nearer and interchange is easier at the latter. And we haven't yet got started on Paddington... — iridescent 19:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to everybody for their comments. I must confess to having said "oh no" to myself, when I read the comment which began "As a rail buff ". We should remember that we are supposed to be writing for a general audience, not for (fellow) "rail buffs". While I must confess to being one myself, when writing these articles I try to remember that things should be written from the point of view of a general reader. Unfortunately, this is something which seems to be lost on some editors to railway-related articles.

The San Francisco case cited seems to be a clear-cut case of precisely when articles should definitely not be split. Practically everything that needs to be said is common to both parts, so a single article makes perfect sense.

Also, the person who commented about "rules" should be aware that there aren't any rules as such; what this exercise was partly meant to do was to demonstrate what existing custom and practice is, and from that to try and determine some guidelines in order to avoid future incidents such as this.

Incidentally, we already do treat Bank and Monument stations (and Paddington) with a single article. --RFBailey (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that we should be writing for a general audience, but there's no point in pretending that we know as little about the issues involved as a general audience would. In the case of Powell Street Station, the best arguments for keeping this as a single article are, IMO: (1) there's not enough material to justify either article on its own; (2) the two stations share a ticketing facility (the concourse level described in the article). However, I think the second consideration is more important here, and if the two stations had separate entrances and ticketing facilities, I think they would need separate articles, even quite short ones.

Another consideration (arguing against myself now): If, say, Balham station were split into separate articles, where would the Balham station link then go? As an editor who works on disambiguation as well, my feeling is that having dab pages for the many stations that would need this treatment might be a bit much, and arguably would make the articles less useful for readers. But having a redirect to one of the station's articles also results in usability problems and has the potential for move-warring *shudder*.

Ultimately, I think my main point is that some kind of logical principle, rather than article length, should dictate how we handle these articles. --Tkynerd (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Places which should link to railway stations

I've made a list of places in Great Britain that should link to their local railway stations:

User:Edward/station links

Feel free to add links to these places and remove them from the list.

This list was generated automatically, it might include articles that have the same name as a station, but are not about the location of that station. Please check. Some of the stations are disused. Hope this is helpful. Edward (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sectionised the list and made a few changes. --Stewart 14:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a pity no attempt whatsoever was made to disambiguate so many pages. For example 'Valley' links to the physical-geographic term. I did some dags, but got fed up in the end. --Jotel (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Colours and slam door trains

I just thought it would be easier if i placed two different topics under one title

Do people think that the colours list above for the TOCs should become a sub-page of the project? Simply south (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that seems like a good idea. I was about to archive this talk page anyway, so I can create a subpage when I do that. --RFBailey (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've created the list: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject UK Railways/Colours list. Comments and corrections welcome! --RFBailey (talk) 02:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And a reason i kept it back here before was because of the possible clash of NXEC and NXEA. Simply south (talk) 11:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Could i request that someone create an article on the colloqialism of Slam-door trains? Simply south (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"Colloquialism of slam-door trains"? What do you mean exactly? --RFBailey (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I mean that there are numerous classes of trains or trains together colloquially known as slam-door trains or along the lines of this. Simply south (talk) 11:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the term at least partly synonymous with British Railways Mark 1? (though I note that doesn't use it anywhere) --Mr Thant (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Not quite: that is mostly true of the DC EMUs found on the old Southern Region, but there were (and still are) other trains with slam doors, based on the Mark 2 and Mark 3. --RFBailey (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

How strict is the definition of UK?

Does the UK Railways Wikiproject cover the Isle of Man and Channel Isles? If not, should it do so? What is the situation with Eire, which was part of the UK until 1923. Should this be the Great Britain Railways Wikiproject? Mjroots (talk) 08:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you might be opening a can of worms there! I can see your point, the history of the railways upto 1923 should be in the UK one, maybe... Talltim (talk) 09:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about Ireland, but the talk pages of articles such as Isle of Man Railway and Alderney Railway are already tagged as being within the scope of this project. Tivedshambo (talk) 09:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like this subject needs further discussion. I'm minded to make a proposal that this wikiproject covers all railways in England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Eire, Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. This needs to be thoroughly discussed and a consensus reached before any changes are made though. Any articles already tagged can stay tagged for now, until consensus is reached, but no other Irish, IoM or CI railway articles should be tagged until such consensus is reached. Would this discussion be better on here, or a dedicated sub page? Mjroots (talk) 10:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been through the talk archives, A question about the Isle of Man was asked in the most recent archive, but not answered. Mjroots (talk) 11:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this. I think that we must be careful to stress that any labels are geographical not political! For myself I would have thought that from a geographical standpoint, Isle of Man and Channel Island railways would be best covered under the umbrella of UK railways - don't know about Ireland though - what about starting an Irish Railways wikiproject? Would it be possible to change the name of the UK railways project to "Railways in the British Isles" or some such? This would cover all bases surely (do Irishmen regard Eire as located in the "British" Isles though? - this may be a ticklish and sensitive subject and I apologise if I have already unknowingly trodden on anyone's toes here!)

Mjroots - thanks for letting me know about this discussion. I'm not an IOM resident but have always had a huge affection for the IOM railway system (I first encountered it in about 1970 - just after most of it closed!). Best Witchwooder (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

British Isles naming dispute makes interesting reading but I think it is ultimately unhelpful. "Railways of IONA" sounds weird to me. "Railways of the British Isles and Ireland" would cover it I think but is a bit unwieldy - I'd settle for that though! Best Witchwooder (talk) 14:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Witchwooder - this is not about politics; Firstly it's geographical - the British Isles as a whole are a defineable area. Secondly, it's historical - whether those in Eire like it or not, for centuries the history of their country was inextricably linked with that of the United Kingdom (just stating a fact here}. The British Isles includes Eire, so it would be covered by that title.

Re the Irish railways Wikiproject, that can be something for the future. If the consensus is to expand the coverage, then all the railway related articles will need tagging and assessing. The new tags should bring in more members to this Wikiprject. Irish railways can still be split off at a later date. Mjroots (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been bold and made a couple of proposals and created a subpage for the discussion here! Mjroots (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Metric/Imperial system (Moved from Talk:WestCoastway line)

what is the policy of using the metric/imprial system around here. Some of the articles such as East coastway line only use Km where a this one the West coast wayline only uses Miles and Chains. Standardisation needs to occur regrding these articles. Also as this is not just UK wikipedia or US wikipedia or EU wikipedia. A convertion to the metric system or imperial system is needed depending on the system chosen.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This has already been talked about Lucy-marie as you should well remember (here), the UK railway uses the imprial system for distances (miles, chains and feet) so that is the correct units of measurement to use on WP - so until such time as the UK railways convert... SouthernElectric (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not here to start another war I am here to try and standardise the units and in accordance with the way units are presented. Work out the best way to represent both the metric and the imperial as Misplaced Pages is for the whole of the world and not just england. The units used in england may be principly miles and chains. If so why aren't all uk articles on this issue in this system and why is there no metric equivelent in bracket afterwards.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles are supposed to be optimised for readers. Most readers of UK railway articles will be from the UK where the imperial system is used for distance and as such articles should reflect this. Whilst recognising that this isn't just "UK wikipedia", it is not appropriate to try to find some global standard for this as any standardisation would disadvantage readers. UK railway articles should use imperial with a metric conversion following if appropriate. See the {{convert}} template for some ways of doing this. Adambro (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also add that the next two largest populations most likely to read this (English language) version of Misplaced Pages are those from the USA and Canada - both of those countries still use the Imperial system (not sure if Australia still does?). SouthernElectric (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

"I am not here to start another war ..."! Would you like me to copy/paste extracts from the previous discussions here for all to see. I think that it has been made quite clear to you on several occasions what the policy is, and to come here (yet again) and feign ignorance is quite breathtaking. Please remember WP:POINT. Olana North (talk) 08:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me but please assume good faith and if necessary read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. I am here to try and find a way to sort out a problem with in uk trains articles through discussions and certain languge above does not contribute to a discusion on the content, in a civil manner.--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If there is a problem (with WP) it's people who know nothing about the subject (in question), interfering and then trying to play the WP rules against those who do when the answer to the 'problem' raised is not what they want... SouthernElectric (talk) 10:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"I am here to try and find a way to sort out a problem with in uk trains articles ...". I think that the WP:CONSENUS is that there is no problem. The only "problem" if one exists is your WP:POINT, and trying to make an issue where other editors disagree. Apart from you, all the other editors agree that the UK should use imperial units ... there is no problem. Accordingly, please direct your efforts to other more pressing issues for the UK train projects, of which a list can be found on the project home page. Olana North (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the arguments regarding the imperial system, I am just querying why east coast way and west coast way templates use diffrent units. I am also querying why there is no metric equivalent in brackets. As that is usually standard practice on all articles. I am not here for personal attacks, could users please refrain, from attacks and the past and discuss the issue at hand.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I would agree with Adambro that UK rail articles ought to use imperial units first, but it is also desirable that there is a metric conversion in brackets afterwards. Is there a consensus to agree with this? And if there is, should we state this as project policy on the project page or an appropriate sub-page?

P.S. As many readers won't know what a chain is, I would suggest that any measurement in chains should always be followed by a conversion (to yards or fractions of a mile, as well as metric.) --Dr Greg (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Why?! This is an encyclopedia and thus people can (re)search what they don't understand or know - putting "chain measurement" into the WP search box results in this page, chains as a unit of measurement being the top level search result. There is another issue here and that is (as I said in the original discussion) one of readability, articles can soon become a jumble of bracketed alternate facts, far from enlightening they just end up confusing. I'm not suggesting that equivalent units should not be used along side, just that it should not be policy but down to common sense and section consensus. SouthernElectric (talk) 14:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The aricles should avoid where possible confusion, ambiguity and unecessary linking away from articles. I do not see why if chains are to be the principle units, miles and the metric units cannot be included in addition.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Because it's not needed and could well affect the clarity of the article. If you read a book and don't know what a word means you look it up in a dictionary, you don't expect there to be a definition of the words meaning on the page of the books - never mind next to the said word - why should WP be any different in this respect? SouthernElectric (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That creates a disparty of information uecssarily. As was said earlier few people will know what chains are and yards should be included. Metric units are by convention placed next to the imperial units, I cannot see a problem with aditional information on the pages.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You have already being told why. SouthernElectric (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The dictionary argument while valid, fails to address that people will not know what chains are or what the equivelant convertions to yards or metric are. Without geting out calculators and pencils and searching for a converstion formula. I cannot see a rational for not wanting to avoid ambigutity and remove any possible confusion and at the same time improve the article acesability.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The point is, if people were then to use the info here elsewhere they would still need to convert as the units (if metric) would not correspond to other sources of information or worse the INDUSTRY norm. How many times is someone going to have to keep telling you this People who don't know what a "fishplate" is will look it up, why do you think people can't look up what a "Chain" is? I would agree that there is an argument for all relevant railway route/line articles to have a link to a ready-reckoner type conversion table were a conversion can easily be made. SouthernElectric (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If you use {{convert}}, then there is an option to wiki-link the unit, which you can do the first time. JonoP (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes that is all well and good but in some cases, such as where a lot of measurements are listed or there are layout formatting considerations) doing so just makes for a more confusing article. SouthernElectric (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Surly sticking to just one set of measurements which few people have an good understanding of is a bad thing.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Project-Class rail transport pages
• NA-importance rail transport pages
• NA-Class UK Railways pages
• NA-importance UK Railways pages
• All WikiProject Trains pages