Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

Nocton railway disaster

Could someone who has more experience with names move this article? Disaster seems a bit overzealous for a crash which killed 1 person. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I suggest either Nocton rail accident or Nocton rail crash, see Category:Railway accidents in England. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Done --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Cleaned the article up a bit- the BBC article describes the B1188 road as a dead-end road leading to an industrial estate whereas it's the Sleaford road, and the closest approach of the B1188 to Nocton and the railway line doesn't look like a plausible location for a 20-foot fall onto the line. Any ideas? Ning-ning (talk) 12:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The BBC got it a bit wrong. RAIL magazine issue 431 describes it more accurately:

"The driver should have taken a bend to the left but instead continued straight on down a short vul-de-sac before smashing through a brick wall and falling on to the railway. The bricked-off cul-de-sac was originally the through road over the railway but was taken out of use more than 30 years ago as the road - the B1188 - was rerouted."

(Typed this from an offline copy, so any errors are mine not theirs.) There's also an aerial view of the crash site showing how this all fits together. The road runs alongside the railway for a short distance and the gap between them narrows, which is why the distance looks too small at the closest point. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks- I think I can see the point on Google maps- there's a disused road leading away from the entrance to Cliffside Windows to the railway, and continuing beyond- a train is just visible at that point. Ning-ning (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I carefully positioned the lat/long in the coord so that in Bing maps the lower point of the balloon was as close as possible (to 4-dp accuracy) to the site of the aforementioned removed bridge. You probably need to zoom in a bit. It may be positioned slightly differently in other mapping services, since they apparently can't agree on the position of the Greenwich meridian. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Zooming in reveals the concrete blocks Railtrack put in place to prevent a repetition. Ning-ning (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
That would make sense. There was some of criticism after the event that warning signs on the main road and a concrete barrier protecting the track had been removed in prior years, so retrospective action was always likely. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Manchester Ship Canal Railway

The Manchester Ship Canal Railway is currently a section of the article on the canal itself. Surely this system deserves an article of its own? Mjroots (talk) 23:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest just creating a categorised redirect (ie Wikipedia:Categorizing_redirects#Subtopic_categorization), unless it is expanded beyond 3 paras.Imgaril (talk) 11:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, that could be done - but the system was big enough and important enough that it really should have its own article. Unfortunately, I don't have the book sources to even contemplate making a start on it. Mjroots (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Vale of Rheidol Railway

Could someone please have a look over the Vale of Rheidol Railway article please? There are various things that need improvement. I would do it myself but my involvement in the organisation could compromise neutrality!  Willsmith3  (Talk) 20:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


Port Glasgow Upper

There is a page describing Port Glasgow Upper station which closed in 1959 which has notes asking for verification. In my reference books such as "Railway Passenger Stations by ME Quick" I have been unable to find any reference to a passenger station with that name. A check on "google" has found reference to a goods only station at that location. Can any one confirm whether there was a passenger station of that name or if not suggest that the page is deleted and other references to that name (such as on adjacent stations) be deleted. [[Steamybrian2 (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)]]

455 question

I noticed something a bit strange when reading RAIL 679 - on page 50, there is an image of 2 455s arriving at Waterloo. The second carriage of the second unit clearly has a different roof to all the other carriages - does anyone know why this might be? -mattbuck (Talk) 18:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep, even without seeing the pic, I'd be pretty sure that it's a 455/7 - each unit of this sub-class was built with just three cars, but before entry to service was made up to 4 cars by using one of the intermediate trailers which had already been removed from the class 508 trains. The 508s were built with four cars, and originally worked out of Wimbledon depot; they were later transferred to Birkenhead, but the requirements of the Wirral & Mersey routes were for three- or six-car trains, not four. You may not have noticed that there are 43 units in class 455/7, and 43 in class 508. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Mystery Scottish photograph

Where is this?

I've just come across this picture of two trains passing at an island platform somewhere in the Highlands in the 1980s. It's claimed to be Dalmally railway station, but as this station has two platforms with a pasing loop in between, it must be somewhere else. Anyone know where? Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

My bet would be either Arrochar and Tarbet or Ardlui. Both of these had chalet style station buildings although the one at Ardlui has been demolished. Britmax (talk) 08:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Is this helpful? Britmax (talk) 08:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Ha! Asymmetric chimney pots! Britmax (talk) 08:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Too open an aspect and background does not look right for Arrochar and Tarbet or Ardlui (looking in either direction). My guess would by further up the West Highland line - Rannoch, looking south, perhaps, before the footbridge was installed. --Stewart (talk | edits) 11:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
It's Bridge of Orchy. Compare with: [1] –Signalhead < T > 17:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Not sure - but not certain enough to disagree, I have been looking at the pictures I took in 2006 at BofO and in 2008 at Rannoch. In both cases I find it difficult to match up the background. Either location the right hand train is heading towards Fort William. --Stewart (talk | edits) 18:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I am daft, I have just looked at the infobox image at Rannoch again. There are sidings on the west side of the station. None are present in the mystery image. I concur with Signalhead - it is Bridge of Orchy. --Stewart (talk | edits) 18:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I've corrected the categorisation in Commons and added a note to the file. Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I have now corrected the filename. Cheers! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Following a comment I posted on his Flickr site, the originator has retitled his Flickr record. --Stewart (talk | edits) 20:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

AfD of GWR 6800 Class 6880 Betton Grange

The GWR 6800 Class 6880 Betton Grange article has been nominated for deletion.

Slight snafu. Was nominated in 2008, nomination was not properly closed. Has now been closed on a procedural basis, with the article retained. Nothing to see. Move along now. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Another AfD

New articles for Maid Marian (locomotive) and Holy War (locomotive) have been jointly nominated for deletion. I've added a couple of refs and cleaned them up, but if anyone can find additional reliable sources, this would be helpful.—An  optimist on the run! 11:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

BR Class 405

I note that we now have two articles, SR Class 4Sub and British Rail Class 405, and that the former was created mainly by pasting material from the latter (compare SR Class 4Sub with this. Do we really need separate articles? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Clearly not. I suggest the article ought to be British Rail Class 405, with SR Class 4Sub simply a redirect to it. -- Alarics (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Crystal Palace to Beckenham Junction

Does anyone know if there's any name for the line between Crystal Palace and Beckenham Junction? Best I can come up with is the West End of London and Crystal Palace Railway, which seems unlikely to still be current. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any current name for it, or for any of the lines in the area, e.g. the Addiscombe branch. There are local historians connected with Crystal Palace Park and the museum there who would have the answer. Ning-ning (talk) 22:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
The Quail/Trackmaps book (vol. 5, diagram 4) has the line name as "Crystal Palace", and the engineer's ref as BBJ (Balham Jn - Beckenham Jn). --Redrose64 (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Thanks. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Aston to Stetchford

New query, what line is the bit from Aston to Stetchford on? Branch of the Cross-City, branch of the Rugby-Birmingham-Stafford or its own individual name? -mattbuck (Talk) 00:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I presume you mean Stechford (without second t)? The ELR for the line is SAS, for Stechford and Aston Line [2]. An optimist on the run! 05:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Categories for renaming

Category:Railway stations in London and Category:Railway infrastructure in London have been nominated for renaming to Category:Rail transport stations in London and Category:Rail transport infrastructure in London respectively. Please discuss at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 November 16#Railway infrastructure in London. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Buying a steam engine

As the end of steam approached on BR how did you go about buying an engine? Was everything available or just specific engines? Where engines were bought for preservation was there any criteria on which ones e.g. state of repair? NtheP (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The keywords to get you started here are "Barry Island scrapyard" and "Dai Woodham", eg. [3]. EHope that helps! —Sladen (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Not all preserved steam locos were rescued from Barry, but a large proportion of former GWR locos were, as were a fair number of former SR locos. Only one LNER loco was rescued from Barry: LNER Thompson Class B1 (6)1264. Some were bought direct from BR; for example, David Shepherd bought both 92203 and 75029 in full working order. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
History of Butlin's Railways gives some details of the purchase of engines, from the various BR region's stores controllers. Ning-ning (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
thanks for the replies. Dai wood ham and the other scrap merchants must have dealt direct with BR so why couldn't anyone else? My curiosity was raised by a picture of 45110 sat at Lostock Hall bearing a notice to the effect of "this loco has been purchased for preservation. Please do not strip bits off it." That must have been a direct deal so who with in BR?
Stores Controllers. The engines, as accounting units, were too large and visible to be dealt with informally. Ning-ning (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC) Box Tunnel Strategic Reserve illustrates this point. Ning-ning (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Woodham Bros. weren't the only scrap merchants to buy old steam locos, there were dozens of others, such as Cashmore of Newport, Booth of Rotherham, Cohen of Kettering, etc. In general, these scrap merchants (Woodhams included) didn't buy "ten steam locomotives"; they bought "1000 tons of scrap metal" - they didn't really care whether they were getting locomotives, coaches or wagons. The thing that made Woodhams different from all the others is that they just put all the engines into sidings, instead of breaking them up within a week or two of arrival. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Thinking of the two scrap merchants who hoarded their engines (the other being the later Vic Berry of Leicester, who built pyramids of asbestos-contaminated diesels, and then opened his yard to the paying public) they both owned old marshalling yards, and had the space to hoard stuff. I get the impression a yard like Cashmore's had restricted space. Ning-ning (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I recently came across a small book published by the South Devon Railway Association about their GWR 1366 Class number 1369. This was purchased directly from BR and driven under its own power from Wadebridge to Totnes. The book includes copies of the documentation that BR used, including some interesting contract clauses, one of which was something like "you may not do anything with this engine that brings British Railways into disrepute"! Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Did they mean bringing BR into disrepute by using it to run a better service? Ning-ning (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox UK rail accident

Template:Infobox UK rail accident has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox rail accident. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Redrose64 (talk) 14:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Greater Anglia TOC and Greater Anglia franchise

As I'm sure your all aware the Greater Anglia franchise has been awarded to Abellio for just two years. The website: [4] and the parent company's website [5] says the TOC will be called simply Greater Anglia but the article's name: Abellio Greater Anglia doesn't suggest this, while Greater Anglia links to information about the franchise. With that in mind, I propose that TOC article is moved to Greater Anglia, maybe Greater Anglia (Train Operating Company) and the franchise article is moved to Greater Anglia Rail Franchise. Any thoughts? Likelife (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Ely West Curve

An editor working on the Ely, Cambridgeshire article has asked me whether this curve is unique or significant or otherwise notable enough to include in the main article. I've done a brief web search, and I don't think it has any especial notability now, but maybe the circumstances of its construction might have some interest. Does anyone have any ideas? Ning-ning (talk) 09:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly unusual, and quite possibly unique in Great Britain. I've had a look through
  • Allen, Cecil J. (1956) [1955]. The Great Eastern Railway (2nd ed.). Hampton Court: Ian Allan.
and can't find a mention in the main text. There are several problems with this book though - the index is scanty; not every route is covered; and the history of any given route seems to stop at its opening. As a result, the chapters that ought to cover it (those on the Cambridge-Norwich route, and that on the GN&GE Joint Line) ignore it completely. The chronology near the back doesn't list it, but it is shown on the fold-out map inside the back cover. The oldest rail atlas in my possession that does show it is
--Redrose64 (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I should soon be able to get access to some books and back issues of the GER Society's magazine, so hopefully will find something on it. Ning-ning (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for this Ning-ning. Whilst looking for something entirely different, I found a paragraph on the Adelaide Loop (Ely West Curve) in VCH (1953). Four paragraphs further on we are informed that "(Queen) Adelaide, about 2 miles out, is entirely modern, and named from a public house". The West Curve is also mentioned in a Network Rail Route Plans 2009 Route 5 document --Senra (Talk) 23:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I seem to recall that when researching the Charles Fryatt article, there were issues of the Great Eastern Railway Magazine available online. Mjroots (talk) 12:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
@Mjroots: Thank you for the hint. Following your lead, I used a Google site search on "site:www.york.ac.uk/inst/irs" using the term "Ely" which returned two results
The former has some worthwhile insights into 13th-century transport in Ely. I also used a Google site search on the same site with the terms "Adelaide" and "West curve" with no relevant results. Still, thank you for taking an interest --Senra (Talk) 13:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
@Senra, no problem. I've notice you've been improving the Ely article as it's on my "watchlist". Are you pushing for GA/FA status? Mjroots (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Indeed I am although there is no deadline. Just plodding on. We have had the first peer review and we are working through those comments now. Please do join the fray. Any contributions, comments, derision and praise are all very welcome --Senra (Talk) 14:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I seem to recall a section on the rationalisation of Ely's railways in the 1980s in The Railway Data File. Leicester: Blitz. 1999. ISBN 9781856054997. including some stuff about the West curve, but unfortunately my copy of it is 90 miles away right now so I can't check it any time soon. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in joining this conversation. In answer to the original query, the provision of a curve to avoid reversing at a station is by no means unique (e.g. Swansea, Carmarthen, or Waterford in Ireland), though I agree the layout is more unusual at Ely. OR/Personal recollection: I seem to recall that this was originally double track, but singled during the Ely resignalling/electrification during the early '90s. I note the Ely article doesn't mention this electrification - maybe it should as it presumably had a positive impact on journey times to London ({{cn}}). An optimist on the run! 17:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion about "unusual, and quite possibly unique" refers to its shape - rather like a balloon loop. Curves as avoiding lines are quite common - we have two of them right here in Didcot - but most form triangles, which the curve at Ely does not.
In The Railway Data File it's the chapter "Single-lead junctions" on p. 113, specifically the lower-left and lower-centre diagrams and the six-line caption to those. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Didcot curves aren't to avoid reversing, though I get what you mean. My point was that the functionality (rather than the layout) is fairly common. With regards to the layout though, I have a feeling that it's not unique, but I'll have to think about it. Gloucester springs to mind (pre various closures), but I don't think it was quite the same. An optimist on the run! 17:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Some of my thoughts arising from the above
  • Ely, Cambridgeshire: We are very interested in someone including prose comparing timetabled journey times between Ely and Cambridge in the Ely article. Perhaps steam, diesel, electric or 1850, 1900, 1950 and 2000?
  • Ely, Cambridgeshire: If the west-curve is not unique, unusual will do and rare would be better (cited of course).
  • Ely, Cambridgeshire: Is there a citation for construction of the loop in 1890? Erm, yes. VCH (1953) says 1890
  • Railways in Ely does not mention the former Ely and St Ives Railway. If it did, would that mean that Ely was at one time an interchange to six different compass points? How unusual is that?
  • How difficult is it building a railway line on fen land? Do you have to drive in piles or something? Has there been any notable line (rail? Not sure of the correct term) subsidence in the area?
--Senra (Talk) 21:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Six compass points certainly wasn't unique, and not particularly unusual either. Off the top of my head I can think of Crewe, Lincoln, Oxford, Preston, Rugby, Spalding and York with six each; Carlisle had seven - and Cambridge managed eight (routes to St Ives, Ely, Mildenhall, Newmarket, Sudbury, Bishop's Stortford, Hitchin, Bedford).
I wouldn't say that piles were necessary over fen land. In the 1820s, George Stephenson demonstrated that piles were unnecessary when he floated a railway over Chat Moss. His example was ignored by Brunel, who did use piles for the first section of the GWR (much of which ran along the flood plain of the Thames), and they caused so much trouble that they were either pulled out again or driven further down, out of the way. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm off to the library later today. I will see what Oppitz, Leslie (1989), East Anglia railways remembered, Countryside Books, ISBN 1-85306-040-2 has to say about the west curve --Senra (Talk) 01:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Queen Adelaide is alive, and well known to those of us who work the route. It is documented in the Network Rail Sectional Appendix Anglia Route AR2 at EA1162 Seq 002 (p 118). Queen Adelaide is an area just north of Ely North Jn, where three level crossings (Peterborough, Kings Lynn & Norwich routes) are grouped closely together along Ely road (B1382). You can see this on [Flashearth] - The 'X' is centred on the crossing officially known as "Queen Adelaide (Lynn)". If you zoom out a tad you will be able to see the loop mentioned earlier.
  • Re Subsidence - the Fen Line from Cambridge to Kings Lynn sits mostly on black peat, I'm told by NR P-Way guys. Subsidence is an ongoing issue, with a TSR of 60 mph in place on the single line section between Blackhorse Drove & Hillgay at the moment due to a 'rough ride'. The peat has dried out due to the lack of rain, and the road has become extremely uneven. No sooner do the tamping machines finish levelling the track in one place than they are called out again for another - a bit like painting the Forth bridge. HTH. Fu Manchuchu (talk) 13:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
The AR2 at EA1162 Seq 002 stuff is a little beyond me but the subsidence is interesting. What does TSR mean? --Senra (Talk) 17:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Found AR2 at EA1162 Seq 002 in [6] though AR2 at EA1161 Seq 015 is prettier - he he --Senra (Talk) 17:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Ely North Junction (Plate III) is also known officially at various times as Ely North Curve and Ely West Curve (from Adderson, Richard; Kenworthy, Graham (2002 (reprint)) [2000]. Mitchell, Vic (ed.). Eastern Main Lines: Ely to King's Lynn including the Stoke Ferry Branch. Eastbourne: Middleton. p. Plate III. ISBN 1901706532. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)) --Senra (Talk) 17:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
TSR = Temporary Speed Restriction. An optimist on the run! 17:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Elsenham station level crossing accident

OK, whilst accepting that the vast majority of accidents where pedestrians are killed crossing railway lines are non-notable, recent developments mean that the tragic accident at Elsenham in 2005 may now reach the threshold of notability. A brief summary of the accident is that two children were struck by a train and killed at Elsenham in December 2005. There was no interlocking on the wicket gate to prevent it being opened when a train was approaching. The accident led to a network-wide reassessment of level crossing in the UK, the installation of a footbridge at Elsenham. It was announced today that Network Rail are to be procecuted over the incident. This, I believe, raises the article above the threshold of notability.

Raising the issue for consensus as to the desirability of the creation of the Elsenham station accident article or not. Mjroots (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that the accident was notable. Whether it should have an article of its own, or be expanded within Elsenham railway station (which is otherwise a rather poor stub) is debatable. An optimist on the run! 17:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Per the running optimist, I'd keep it in the station article until we have enough length to move it to its own article. Agreed it is now notable enough, but I'd be guided by content length. --Tagishsimon 17:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I concur. -mattbuck (Talk) 04:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I've created the page as a redirect for now, without prejudice to full expansion later if necessary. — An optimist on the run! 06:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Road Train!! - geograph.org.uk - 638536.jpg

Here's a question for you all - what is this Class 450 unit doing in the car park of Alresford station on the Watercress Line? -mattbuck (Talk) 04:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

And the answer is given at the source of the photo! Mjroots (talk) 05:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Hm, wonder why that didn't transfer to Commons. -mattbuck (Talk) 05:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Birmingham Moor Street photos

Could an uninvolved editor have a look at the pictures at Birmingham Moor Street please - the article is being swamped by them. They need pruning down to the most essential ones only, and the rest putting in the gallery (bearing in mind the advice here), or removing altogether. I'd rather not do it myself, as mine is one of the photos in question and I don't want to appear biased. Thanks. — An optimist on the run! 22:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I've pruned them back, and removed the gallery. All but one (File:Moor street station disused platforms.jpg) of the removed images is on the commons available from the "Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Birmingham Moor Street railway station" link - the missing one needs to be moved to the commons. Not sure if your image made the cut, Optimist. Moor Street surely is such a lovely station. Moor Street to Marylebone is like stepping back in time after Euston to New Street, so much cheaper, and not much slower. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. — An optimist on the run! 07:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

ID needed

Can somebody here identify the big yellow thing in this photo? Passenger trains I can do, but maintenance stock is out of my comfort zone. I have more photos of it that I'd like to upload, but they're not much good if I don't know what it is! Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

If you magnify the area between the signal post and its access ladder you will see that it identifies itself as a Rail Grinder. See here. Britmax (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Running numbers are DR79262 (left-hand vehicle) and DR79272 (right). Above the words "Rail Grinder", it says "RGH20C", the manufacturer's type code, using which Google has found the maker's blurb, also this and this, where "Machine No. 2" presumably refers to DR79262/72. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I was sufficiently intrigued by it being big and yellow to take a photo of it. I now know what a Harsco Rail Grinder is, so thanks guys! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

user:Chip123456

A new user, Chip123456 (talk · contribs) is enthusiastically editing articles, but not improving them - I've had to revert or undo most of their edits. They seem to be under the impression that Wikipedia articles need to detail exactly how to get to Chippenham, which stations are called at en-route and which of them are MAJOR and which minor. Please could someone better at such things than me give them some advice, hopefully they'll become a valuable contributor. Thryduulf (talk) 13:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

InterCity 125

Hi guys, I mentioned a while ago that I'd like to expand and improve the article on the InterCity 125 (and/or possibly British Rail Class 43 (HST)), hopefully to the level of GA or even FA. I've got a few books from the library, but most of the technical stuff is going way over my head. Would anyone here be up for working with me and writing some of the technical stuff while I focus on things like the history? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Harrington Hump

If anyone would be so kinds as to subedit Harrington Hump, I'd be obliged. Should anyone have a photo to post of an instance of the said Hump, I'd be as amazed as grateful. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Prepare to be amazed... — An optimist on the run! 16:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Whilst we're on the the subject of this, are the raised ramps on the London Underground, for example at Kings Cross on the Victoria Line or London Bridge on the Northern Line, Harrington Humps? Simply south...... "time, department skies" for 5 years 20:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Great minds think alike! I've asked the same question on the article talk page, but nobody knowledgeable has replied their yet either.Thryduulf (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Amazed & grateful; thank you for the edits, the photo and the DYK. I was having a very foggy brained day yesterday; not sure what I'd come up with. I'll jump up & down on the Victoria line hump at Kings X this evening, but I don't think it's a glass reinforced polymer construction. In which case presumably it's just a hump, rather than a Harrington? --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

By the magic of the interweb, I can answer the Victoria line question: they are not Harrington's, merely Humps. Key documents from the contractors, t'other contractors (also this), and some input from TfL and again, TfL (accessibility, page 4). All fingers point to The Rail Vehicle Accessibility (Non Interoperable Rail System) Regulations 2010 ("RVAR 2010") and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Duly added to the Victoria Line and to HH. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Possession

I have an inkling we need an article on Track possession or Possession (rail track), but don't know enough about the subject. It seems to be a notable concept in the management of rail infrastructure. Thoughts? Anyone with any knowledge or sources in this area? --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Or Track Possession (railway) even. Can't really help as I spend my whole life trying to stay OUT of the damn things. They can be fairly complicated. But if you suffer from insomnia this Rulebook Module ought to solve it .... details on a T3 possession can be found at http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/Rule_Book/Rule%20Book%20Modules/T%20-%20Track%20and%20Signalling%20Work/GERT8000-T3%20Iss%203.pdf Fu Manchuchu (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Varsity Line / East West Rail needs an update

The project was approved by in the Autumn Statement and I'm currently updating the articles that mention it, like the Varsity Line, East West Rail Link and Bletchley railway station articles. Some help would really help speed things along! Thanks! Likelife (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Coal stage - those with long memorys

Some may remember a question Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_16#Identify_structure.3F_is_it_a_turntable_or_.3F.3F about a mystery turntable like object. Someone has recently posted images of what it was on flikr - see http://www.flickr.com/photos/62160118@N04/6136698940/ - it was a coalstage after all - the turntable thing was a rotating conveyor thingy - you can see the powered capstan in the photo, in front(below) of the discharge pit pictured here a few decades on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HingedCapstan.jpg .

Case solved. Seems these things were installed all over the country during the second half of the the 20th Century. Not very glamorous and soon (almost) forgotten. For the curious there's a picture of a similar (rotating conveyor) but less complicated setup at lincoln in http://www.rmweb.co.uk/MI2.pdf on pages 27 and 28. If anyone wants to sell me a book on this subject please do, otherwise I'm done. Don't forget to have a happy Xmas though (those who are still young enough to stomach the festivities). To the rest of you a happy new year.178.78.88.12 (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

This is not a coal stage but a yard used by one or more private coal merchants. Coal stages are for filling locomotive tenders or bunkers. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Melbourne Line

Hi, could someone who actually knows about this please work on this article - I moved it from Melbourne Military Railway, which was just about the southern section between 1939 and 1944, and added a brief bit to the lead, but I don't really know anything about it. It might be worth merging in Sinfin Branch Line. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Notability of TOCs

In early 2010 there was brief discussion about notability standards for articles about TOCs. As part of that I drafted a proposed set at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways/TOCs. Discussion on it never seems to have actually happened, as the issues that sparked the discussions fizzled away.

Currently there doesn't seem to be any need to have a specific set of guidelines, and so I'm mentioning the page just as a headsup to its existence should discussion on the topic ever restart. Thryduulf (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a Butt?

If anyone has a copy of Butt, R. V. J. (October 1995). The Directory of Railway Stations: details every public and private passenger station, halt, platform and stopping place, past and present (1st ed.). Sparkford: Patrick Stephens Ltd. ISBN 978-1-85260-508-7. OCLC 60251199. OL 11956311M., could they look up the opening dates for the following stations please?

These are required for the table in Slow Train, and can also be added to the articles themselves (Pye Hill and Somercotes has conflicting information). Many thanks.  An optimist on the run! 07:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Redrose64 (talk) 09:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks.  An optimist on the run! 09:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed stations

I've just noticed an article created by Biscuittin (talk · contribs) on Proposed railway stations in England. I am wondering what other people think about it. It might be good as an overview but then again unless there is something substantial it brings into question what should be included. Or is the article not needed? Simply south...... "time, department skies" for 5 years 18:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The difficulty is avoiding WP:CRYSTAL arguments. I'm not doubting that the sources are reliable or that someone has had the idea but how solid does it have to be so that it's not something, somebody thought up one day? Looking at the article it mentions a proposal for Thames Valley Park that is 13 years old - surely something to apend to the article on TVP? If the station ever comes to fruition then it becomes part of the history section on the station. There are historical sites that were considered or desired for stations but didn't happen e.g. Mallerstang on the Settle & Carlisle - should that go in the list because an RS can be produced to support it or does it become a note in an article on either (or both) of Mallerstang or S&C? To me a stand alone article is just too fraught about what constitutes a valid proposal. NtheP (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I accept that the entry for Thames Valley Park Station is probably a dead duck but I still think the article is useful for more recent proposals which do not yet have pages of their own. Biscuittin (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I have moved the TVP station info to Thames Valley Park as suggested. Biscuittin (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Reculver railway

Can anyone tell us more about Reculver's railway history please? When built, by whom and any notable events connected with it? If you have access to sources which we may not have, as always, be bold and edit the article <smiles sweetly> --Senra (Talk) 10:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Damn. I should learn to read. There does not appear to be a railway at Reculver, Kent :( Sorry to have been a bother --Senra (Talk) 10:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

There's a railway nearby (see map), but I can find no evidence that there was ever a station there. This seems odd, as it looks like the sort of place that would have had a small halt in the past, and it's quit a long way from Birchington to Herne Bay.  An optimist on the run! 11:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
A house at Brook Lane (along a short lane leading from the bridge over the railway) looks like it could be a station house. Ning-ning (talk) 13:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
According to
  • McCarthy, Colin; McCarthy, David (2007). Waller, Peter (ed.). Railways of Britain: Kent and Sussex. Hersham: Ian Allan. maps 6,7,8. ISBN 978 0 7110 3222 4. 0710/C1. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
there was never any station between Herne Bay and Birchington-on-Sea. No station named "Reculver" is listed in Butt (1995); it would be on p. 195 if it had existed. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
The line that passes through Reculver is the Chatham Main Line. Mjroots (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

(←) A goods station was opened at Reculver on 6 August 1864 by the LC&DR. It was most likely connected with the Herne Bay, Hampton & Reculver Oyster Fishery Company for which a ¾-mile branch had been built to Hampton Pier for oyster traffic. The goods station appears to have been an attempt to develop the oyster traffic. The branch was closed in 1881, by which time the oyster company had most likely gone out of business. Reculver was also proposed to be served by the SER's 'Canterbury & Kent Coast' line which was proposed in 1884, but never realised. This would have branched off from its Ashford line at Grove Ferry and Upstreet to serve Reculver and Herne Bay. This information comes from Gray, Adrian (1984). The London, Chatham and Dover Railway. Rainham: Meresborough Books. pp. 132–133. ISBN 978-0-90527-088-3. Lamberhurst (talk) 09:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Presumably the juntion would have faced London. Looks like the {{Chatham Main Line}} diagram needs to be amended. Mjroots (talk) 09:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Wow! All good stuff. Not bad considering I thought there was no railway at Reculver. Thank you all --Senra (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Simply amazing! The info is detailed and doesn't read like an invention - but, I can find no trace of this Reculver "branch" on e.g. Ordnance Survey maps of the time, or later. (see www.old-maps.co.uk, find the most useful, contemporary maps by searching "Reculver" and "Hillborough"). Is there a practical alternative source? (e.g. A Vision of Britain doesn't seem to have anything helpful for this) Even though the line was fleeting, it should show on those maps. I haven't yet found a sufficiently detailed railway company network map that might show it either, is there one? Could the "branch" in reality have been little more than a small "goods depot" on or near the main line? What to make of it? Nortonius (talk) 12:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm reading it that there was a branch to Hampton pier - cf File:OS map Hampton 1878 114.jpg (thank David Biddulph!) but a Reculver branch never got off the drawing board. There was a goods station on the main line going past Reculver. Does that help? --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, thank you, that helps a lot - I'd say "done and dusted"! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 14:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC) (though I may also be "Notorious"! :o) )
Not quite "done and dusted" yet. I've added the branch to Hampton Pier to the {{Chatham Main Line}}. Tagishsimon, are you saying that Reculver Goods Station was actually on the Chatham Main Line@ If so, was it before or after the junction with the line to Hampton Pier? Mjroots (talk) 07:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, you're quite right, I meant only as far as the initial enquiry was concerned. If it helps, I've peered closely at 19th century Ordnance Survey maps of the area dated after 1864 (via Old-Maps.co.uk): there's no sign of a line to Reculver, either extant or lifted. Also, the most likely locations for a station on the main line look to be adjacent to Sweechbridge Road or Brook Lane, or at a point on the main line roughly due south of Reculver, but I can't see any clear sign of any goods station having existed. Presumably it would've required a siding or two? Just throwing it in, hope it helps! Nortonius (talk) 08:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I've moved the Hampton Pier branch to its correct position west (not east) of Herne Bay (compare the map already mentioned with the known position of Herne Bay station. Therefore any goods facility for Reculver would be after both the junction and Herne Bay station.
McCarthy & McCarthy's book doesn't show the Hampton pier branch. This demonstrates that they omit some information, so it's possible that my earlier comment (15:20, 17 December 2011) is not entirely factually accurate and that some facility may have exised btwn Herne Bay and Birchington, also overlooked by McCarthy & McCarthy. Does anybody (Lamberhurst maybe?) have a copy of Cobb's atlas handy? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the correctio, Redrose. Re the goods station at Reculver, large scale Ordnance Survey maps of the period would probably give the best chance of confirmation. Mjroots (talk) 06:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

(←) Cobb's atlas (2006 ed.) doesn't show the Hampton Pier branch or the goods station. To be fair, Gray mentioned that the line to Hampton was a very obscure branch about which very little is known. Large scale OS maps may indeed be the best bet, especially as there appear to be a number of potential sites for a goods station. Lamberhurst (talk) 17:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

How to write a decent article on a station?

I susepect we have discussed this or at least parts of it before, but have we ever come up with guidelines on waht and what not to put in articles on stations? Location, history, services (taking WP:RECENT) into account is all ok but what about things like facilities? What should go in and what shouldn't? To me and I freely admit to being in the less is better camp here much above existence of ticket office and I think it's a) trivial and b) reproducing information from the station's station information page at www.nationalrailco.uk which we already link to in the infobox. As an example this is the list that has been the subject of a minor edit skirmish on Chippenham railway station

  • Ticket desk
  • Short stay car park
  • 2 long stay car parks
  • Cafe
  • 2 waiting lounges
  • On - Platform staff desk
  • Bike parks
  • Seating areas
  • Vending machine
  • Bus park
  • Taxi Rank
  • Toilets
  • Newspaper rack
  • Lost property
  • Self - Service ticket machines
  • Meeting point
  • Announcements
  • Electronic Display Screens
  • Wheelchair crossing
  • Customer boarding assistance

I don't have any rancour towards the editor (User:Chip123456) who added it because as he has rightly pointed out, similar lists exist on loads of other station articles so why not this one. To me it just looks like space filling and also open to lots of problems about keeping it up to date.

I appreciate it's likely to vary depending on the size of the station but is there any sort of concensus that can be reached about what is appropriate and what isn't? NtheP (talk) 12:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Much of that is too much detail (WP:NOTGUIDE), and these days much is standard. What would be better is to determine which features are standard at each of the United Kingdom railway station categories and only note significant departures from this provision on the individual articles, and then only in general terms - indeed some items like newspaper racks are so trivial and ephemeral that they don't need a mention anywhere imho. Similarly if a station's facilities have markedly changed at any point, the change should be mentioned (but normally not in detail) in the history section of an article (e.g. The original ticket hall and waiting rooms were closed in 1967 and demolished circa 1980.). I suppose a good guide would be that inclusion in sourced prose is OK, but if there is nothing more than a bulleted list then it's not a notable feature of the station. Thryduulf (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be good to add ticket desks and things like that. Maybe I did put a bit too much.--Chip123456 (talk) 09:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Quintinshill rail accident

There's an unverified claim in the Aftermath section that says

"At the Board of Trade inquiry the most controversial evidence was that of Hugh Urquhart, the out-door engineering chief of the Glasgow and South Western Railway, which exercised powers over the last eight miles of shared track from Gretna Junction to Carlisle. Urquhart reminded the inquiry that at certain times of the day this was one of the busiest stretches of double-line railway in Britain. While not condoning the short-cuts and fatal mistakes made by the signalmen Meakin and Tinsley, he said he was concerned that they should not be made scapegoats for errors made by higher-ranking officials. He claimed that the real cause of the bad practices was the fact that the last two express trains from Euston – the 11.45 to Aberdeen and the 12 midnight to Glasgow – were chronically bad time-keepers. This resulted in very unorthodox shunting procedures around Quintinshill"

Another editor has commented on this on the article talk page and I agree with him, that the report of Col Druitt [7]] makes no mention of any evidence being given by Urquhart either on this subject or any other. The only place I've ever seen comment on the late running of the two trains being a contributory factor is in Nock's Historic Railway Disasters but he doesn't attribute this thought to Urquhart. Can anyone supply a source for the comments made (or for that matter the next section regarding Urquhart's involvement in Tinsley's early release)? NtheP (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Archiving time

Due to the size of this talk page (currently up to nearly 70K), would anyone object if I cut the archive time on this page down to (say) 1 month (it's currently at 2)? this would greatly benefit those of us with slow network connections.  An optimist on the run! 11:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

No objection here. Times can always be tweaked as necessary. Mjroots (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Reduced to 30 days.  An optimist on the run! 11:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Review of Transport#Rail within Ely, Cambridgeshire

(This may be the incorrect place so do feel free to move it to a more appropriate venue) Would a kind soul from this project please review the Transport#Rail section of Ely, Cambridgeshire as part of its peer review ahead of my proposed FAC? --Senra (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

✗ Not done :( --Senra (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Advenza

Accoridng to http://business.highbeam.com/435290/article-1G1-112090385/advenza-almost-ready-go advenza was to apply for a license in Jan 2004, but according to the 1st supplimentary license agreement (Mar 2004) http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/s22-avden_1sa_apagre.pdf (page2) the original agreement was date Nov 2003. I expect Rail Business Intelligence to usually be accurate, oddly I cant find the original aggreement on the http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/ website. Can someone explain the inconsistency to me . Is there a real difference between a "operator's licence" and "track access agreement" (they already had a "safety case") - if so where/who hands out the "operators license" ? Mddkpp (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

More foreign imports

On the subject of Euro things - if anyone lives near Redcar and can get photos of the ex-NSB Di8 locomotives for the steelworks for use in the article that would be much appreciated - especially post-repaint or with the new stickers on.. Thanks.Mddkpp (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

BR Departmentals

diff Someone seems certain that the DB Schenker Company Train should be in Category:British Rail Departmental Units - apart from not being a BR vehicle - as far as I know it doesn't have a 9xx TOPS code.. Feedback please - surely there is a better category? Also should British Rail APT-E, Parry People Movers be in it. Plus does New Measurement Train have a TOPS code?? Mddkpp (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Easily fixed, thank you for spotting that. I've added a everything else from the Template:Network Rail Departmental Multiple Unit Classes into Category:British Rail Departmental Units (along with a couple of others). If there's anything that only consists of a single-vehicle (eg. locomotives, or bubble-cars, MPV DR98008, etc—rather than semi-permanently-fixed-rakes of other vehicles) you're welcome to help remove/split those, leaving it just as multi-vehicle departmental consists/units.
I suppose would could also rename to something like "Category:Multiple-vehicle rail configurations operated on the British railway network regularly intended to work under Officer's Special, permissive and Engineer's regulations". The EWS Company Train is an inspection saloon, much like 975025 Caroline and such. However, yes, inspection saloons do get used for other purposes, be it Keith Heller's retirement bash, or the honeymoon after the Wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Lady Diana Spencer. —Sladen (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
ok So Parry People Mover is the odd one - apart from being a single unit (that could be ignored ie the template title "Network Rail Self-propelled vehicles" would work for instance) - as far as I know it's never had a departmental use - or at least that's as much as the article says. I know nothing. I'll remove that one.
The other one is APT-E - I'd think that is a prototype but not a departmental - ie I'd assume a 'departmental' has some works or testing value (other than to test itself)?? - also isn't the list post-privatisation.?
Changed the display name of Template:Network Rail Departmental Multiple Unit Classes added Class 97, also note that British_Rail_Classes_445_and_446 is already categorised as British Rail Class 920, British Rail Class 935 - so the main doesn't have to be categorised - it's optional
Please check APT-E in the template - I think it's in the wrong place - I've added it to Template:British Rail Locomotives.Mddkpp (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The Parry PPM50 was given a departmental number 999 900 while it passed Governmental main line commissioning tests (as it was a new builder rather than an existing manufacturer they were more stringent in testing) and still retains it being used for trial services (therefore avoiding some red tape on line vehicle safety commisioning). Its production siblings PPM60's were give the class numbers 139 001 and 139 002. WatcherZero (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I have removed both types of APT from Template:British Rail Locomotives because both were multiple-units, not locomotives. APT-E was only ever used for testing. It belonged to the Railway Technical Centre (i.e. the research department) at Derby, but was never given visible numbers in the departmental series. It's possible that departmental numbers were allocated for internal purposes, but I've never seen any published. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Loco builders plates -do BR / post-BR standards exist?

In British Rail Class 70 it claims (via dead link) http://chrisperkins.fpic.co.uk/p62035929.html that the locomass is 135t. Other sources give 129t [8] and the fuel cap is 6000kg... Is it a standard for the builders plate to include the mass of the fuel as well?Mddkpp (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about builder's plates showing weights... they typically give the maker's name, serial number (where applicable) and date. TOPS information panels, which are normally a vinyl sticker, always show weights.
In the UK, the weight of rail vehicles is typically given in working order, i.e. filled with fuel, coolant, lubricant, etc., and for vehicles which carry a payload (coaches and wagons), there will normally be two quoted weights: fully loaded, and "empty" - empty being empty of passengers or goods, it still means filled with fuel etc.
Be wary of weights given as "t" because this is the abbreviation for three different units of weight, and it's not necessarily clear whether the unit that is meant is the metric tonne (1000 kg), the British (long) ton (2,240 pounds (1,020 kg)) or the USA (short) ton (2,000 pounds (910 kg)). --Redrose64 (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Class 66 example
Actually I don't think I meant "builders plate" ie see image. Question remains - is the "tonnes" figure empty full or somewhere in between?Mddkpp (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Full I believe, the manufacturers brochure states a maximum weight of 129.6 tonnes but the fuel capacity is listed as 6,400 litres on the continental version or 5,670 litres in the UK making the uk version about 0.8 tonnes lighter on fuel alone, assuming other minor lighter differences the dataplate on the 66 pictured looks right for the 'wet' or fullly fuelled weight, (as opposed to 'dry' weight which is the weight without fuel or cargo). The US version weight is listed as 126 tonnes which looks like the dry weight unless for some weird reason its a unit error and its been calculated using Long tons. WatcherZero (talk) 07:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
6000 kg for a fuel cap? Do they make it out of neutron star matter? The one on my car only weighs a couple of ounces.  An optimist on the run! 08:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Cap being short for capacity, of course! Mjroots (talk) 11:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Class 47
Discrepancies between weights of locos built for different countries is easily explained by the different railway systems giving different specifications. In hotter countries the radiators will be larger, as will the coolant reservoir, both of which add to the weight. Such items as couplers vary greatly, and the weights of these can be substantial. The typical Class 66 of EWS has a Buckeye coupler which can be swung to one side to expose a conventional drawhook for a screw shackle coupler. Where a country (or operator) uses only one coupler (Buckeye or otherwise), the swinging arrangement is unnecessary and the coupler will weigh less.
The Class 66 example image is definitely not a builder's plate, but a TOPS information panel, which shows data that is important to the person in charge of rostering a train (curiously, not the loco power output). These have been in use since the 1970s, but the colour has varied, and the layout has changed slightly too.
The top row shows on the left the TOPS class (Class 66), and on the right the "A" means that this loco has air brakes for the train (other codes are V=vacuum, X=dual air/vacuum, O=none). According to
which is the earliest edition to describe these panels, the weight is "always in working order". The British convention is that "in working order" means with full tanks, etc., as I described above. The need to weigh with full tanks is because it is the maximum weight which is crucial, because this is what is judged against the strength of underline bridges. The ETH index shows the amount of current that can be drawn for the electric heating of carriages, etc.; an ETH index of 0 means that there is no ETH supply. RA 7 is the route availability - this is dependent upon weight, number of axles and total wheelbase but does not take height or width into account.
In the pic of a Class 47 at right, you will see that forward of the cab door, and below the window, is a builder's plate (elliptical, with black background). This shows "Brush" (the loco builder) "Sulzer" (the engine manufacturer) "No. 524" (the Brush serial number) and "1964" (the year of construction). The TOPS information panel is below the loco number, and is in the style of the early 1980s - white on blue with rounded corners. Note here that the brake type upper right is "X" for dual brake, and the ETH index is 66 - the scale is that if you multiply the ETH index by 6 amps, you get the maximum current, so ETH 66 means that electrical power at 1000 volts is available up to 396 amps. Coaches have ETH indices too, which shows how much current they draw, and the sum of those for the coaches must not exceed that of the locomotive. Below the TOPS panel is the depot allocation - SF for Stratford. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much for both people who explained it was a full weight. That makes sense if GE/Freightliner is quoting empty weight. Thanks.83.100.227.241 (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Class numbers - here we go again!

Direct Rail Services have just ordered some new Vossloh Eurolight locomotives[9], and I can foresee a PowerHaul-style mass debate about designations within Wikipedia emerging soon, so maybe we should settle things ASAP?

Should we treat the new EuroLight locos like the EMD JT42CWR family, with separate articles for the type as a whole and the UK ones, or are we going to take the GE PowerHaul single article path, and pretend every loco of this type worldwide is and will forever be "British Rail" on the grounds that internal consistency within Wikipedia overides WP:Verify and WP:RS? At the moment there are separate articles on Vossloh Eurolight (the type of new loco as whole) and a new one on British Rail Class 68 (based on enthusiast speculation as to what the locos might be numbered).

Personally I'd think it makes sense have two articles, as trying to pretend the German Eurolights are BR locos is bonkers - but see PowerHaul! Wheeltapper (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe its perfectly fine to have a family and a class page for foreign vehicles which may be sold to many countries, there are usually minor differences between each customers specification and of course their history in service. As to the slighly modified version of the 66 to be sold in Europe as 66 its been dropped from development leaving the only 66 on the continent (France, owned by Angel) the ones built for the UK anyway, all the others are class 77 or other number. WatcherZero (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I thought it had been established that "British Rail" refers to the organisation that established the system of classification of locomotives, DMUs, DEMUs and EMUs, not the orperator. Two articles is a sensible way to go. Mjroots (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
The last discussion seem to be split into different viewpoints on that - I find it counterintuitive and would prefer something like GB Class 70, "BR" or "British Railway" makes me think about the nationalised company rather than a generic "railways of Britain". I agree there's no issue with two or more articles. We even have family articles for purely UK machines like Bombardier Voyager or Networker (train).
Re the British Rail Class 70s - I think a separate article for the class as a whole is now justified - though more info on the Turkish and Australian locomotives is needed. It's not clear if any narrow gauge locomotives have been built. GE list 3 powerhaul types [10] PH37ACmi, PH37ACi, PH37ACi and that doesn't include the a narrow gauge PH37ACmai. There's no reason not to have separate articles per operator/country if there's enough info as is already the case with other exported types eg EMD G16, EMD G26. However with no narrow gauge version built yet, and very little info coming out of Turkey it might be worth waiting a bit until UGL has actaully built one, or TCDD gives theirs a class number (their yearly reports are on the web - and will list all the types they operate - however publication of that may be months away)Mddkpp (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
More For the record the (prototype) Turkish powerhaul's are series DE 37000 - it's 37001 since in Turkey they count from 001. You can see some images here http://www.demiryoluportali.com/forum/index.php?topic=394.0 - I don't know yet if it's built to a wider (UIC-505-1) gauge or not. If I can find something more official than a forum I'll start the "family" article for "GB Class 70".Mddkpp (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
More more Google tells me it's officially DE37000 see http://kurumsal.tcdd.gov.tr/home/detail/?id=1208 (right at the bottom). I'll do the article tomorrow for the super-class if no one has written it by then..Mddkpp (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The general article GE PowerHaul now exists, as does the more UK specific British Rail Class 70. I haven't got a solution for the obvious contradiction in the name as I can't think of a better one. Sorry.Mddkpp (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

And there was much rejoicing. Wheeltapper (talk) 09:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
That seems to have pretty much solved that one, at last. I recall something similar being tried and challenged at PowerHaul (locomotive) last year, so let's hope it sticks this time - there's substantially less duplication, so hopefully it will. (I've updated that redirect by the way.) Alzarian16 (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:DB_Schenker_Company_Train#Facts

The issue is the modification of the EWS Executive train for push pull working - one source says the Class 67 (67029) was fitted with a TDM decoder (I assume this means using existing cabling as per Mk3/Class 86 sets), whilst User:Sladen is convinced that the set was modified with additional cabling for the AAR system - this would mean modifications to the DVT. (We both agree that for the Wrexham and Shropshire sets AAR mods were used). An archived source sort of supports the AAR theory but isn't explicit enough esg-rail

Does anyone have a reliable source specifically for the company train. I seem to remember coverage in the rail press but I don't own any of the old issues. I think it was made 2005 or earlier.Mddkpp (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Update Simple solution - this image http://www.rail-net.co.uk/jpgpage.php?picid=2901&storyid=178 shows 67029 connected to the company train with AAR cables.. However the far RCH jumper has been heavily modified (see the thick cable coming out of a box along with the normal RCH cable) - no other Class 67 seems to have this - if anyone knows what it is etc please leave a message on talk of EWS Company Train.Mddkpp (talk) 14:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Road bridges in RDTs

Do we want to encourage or discourage the indication of motorway crossings in RDTs? See recent edits to First TransPennine Express and Template:Manchester to Preston Line, and other past edits such as those to Template:Wirral Line diagram, Template:Chester to Manchester Line, Template:Northern Line diagram. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't bother putting them in when I did {{Cross Country Route}}, but I guess it depends on the level of detail, and besides, some motorway crossings might actually be notable. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
(e/c) It all depends on context. I've included the A64 bridge in Template:Derwent Valley Light Railway, as it's a significant part of what is now a very short line. On the other hand, it wouldn't be appropriate to add it to Template:West Coast Main Line as it would become hopelessly unwieldy. In general, a short line can have more detail, a long line should be as simple as possible.  An optimist on the run! 20:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
There is an anon editor who changes IP address whenever somebody reverts him. I suspect an WP:agenda account: he wants to get motorways accepted, so that in turn roads will be accepted, which will then justify the mention of the A41 in Wirral Line. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Not convinced it is a good idea. On {{Wirral Line diagram}} three motorway crossings are shown, however given the linear diagramatic nature of this diagram, I am not convince the M53 and M56 crossing add anything to the diagram. --Stewart (talk | edits) 21:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd lean towards the inclusion of motorways on diagrams. As to the complexity of diagrams, this depends of the line in question. One approach is to have a generic and a separate detailed diagram as was done on the East Coast Main Line. Minor lines benifit from detailed diagrams IMHO.
Another possible approach would be for station articles to have a detailed diagram covering the line from the station before to the station after the station the article is about. Although I accept that this may not be practicable with major junctions and/or large stations. Mjroots (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Not this again! These diagrams are RAIL diagram templates (the clue is in the name). Road bridges, whether it's motorways, A roads, B roads, occupation bridges, foot bridges don't interact (generally) with the railway therefore they are an irrelevance. We are not producing scale maps here or "what to see mile by mile on the LMS main line" but a rough diagram do aid assistance in understanding a route or company's lines. There are instances when such features would need to be mentioned e.g. is sighting under a bridge was limited and led to an accident or special feature e.g. Radstock and the need for locomotives with a very restricted headroom, but in the vast majority of cases they are unexeceptional and should be left off.
I do have some sympathy for Mjroots suggestion about station level diagrams but I would be very cautious about their use, I really would hate to see them becoming a "feature" of every station article as the templates are restrictive and the best that can be obtained is something akin to a signalbox diagram. NtheP (talk) 11:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
The diagram on the Marden rail crash article gives some idea of what such a diagram mmight look like, except that it need not show double track separately, as in that diagram, and that the diagram only covers the line between two stations (whereas if that were the diagram on the Marden railway station article, it would need to show the line between Marden and Staplehurst too. Both those articles have station track layout diagrams, somewhat akin to signalling diagrams except that no signalling is shown. I'd like to see more of these diagrams, but accept that recent consensus was against the general introduction of more of these types of diagram. Mjroots (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
The track layout diagram on the Marden rail crash article illustrates what can happen when RDTs are used for a purpose they were never intended for: the misuse of diagram symbols. Signal positions have been indicated on that diagram by a triangular symbol, but clicking the 'Legend' link at the top of the same diagram brings up a key showing that symbol to represent a summit. On another track layout RDT, I've seen Up and Down lines indicated by red and blue colouring, contradicting the legend.–Signalhead < T > 20:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
That's part of what WP:BOLD and WP:IAR are for. If you read the article and diagram together, then the relevance of the locations becomes clearer for those who are not familiar with the area. I'd better not mention the diagram on the Réseau des Bains de Mer article then... Mjroots (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can see though, neither WP:BOLD nor WP:IAR promote putting blatantly contradictory details into articles... Diagram says one thing; the key says another. I do agree that track layout diagrams can enhance an article but RDTs aren't the proper way to produce them. For one thing, track layouts are best orientated left to right, not top to bottom.–Signalhead < T > 21:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Back to the point - my question concerned RDTs for lines, not stations, and was provoked by the addition of just one or two bridges to RDTs that previously had none. If the line crosses several motorways, but only one motorway bridge is shown, why should that particular one be treated specially? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Another example - this now has exactly one road bridge, for a route that in reality crosses motorways five times, and dual-carriageway A-roads several more. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Not any more it doesn't. It'ss this type of unecessary detail that just clutters these diagrams up. They get longer and longer till in quite a few caes the diagram is longer than the text of the article. NtheP (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
That's because no one's bothered doing any text for Cross Country Route to match my stupendous and roadless diagram :p. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

If the bridges are a unique feature in themselves e.g. Chalfont Viaduct then the crossings should be kept. Oh and NtheP, RDTs are to do with all modes of transport i.e. ROUTE diagram templates. This discussiion may be applicable to them. Simply south...... "time, department skies" for 5 years 22:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok I stand corrected on that point, but I retain my position that a feature that has no interaction with the subject of the RDT should be omitted. That stands regardless of the mode of transport e.g. I would not expect or wish to see rail bridges on motorway diagrams. NtheP (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

We need a resolution here: 86.175.37.1 (talk) has been adding more motorways --Redrose64 (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

As above, "the relevance of the locations becomes clearer for those who are not familiar with the area". Most people are familiar with the route of the M6. Nobody has a clue about the path of rail lines, and the geography is mostly hidden on maps produced by train companies, so knowing what's parallel and what crosses will help people with a route.
Note also that in the case of the M25, this essentially is the boundary of London, and that London Transport Fare Zone 6 almost exactly corresponds to the motorway. In this case, having it on is an important signifier that a station is inside or outside the city.
Thirdly, bridges and tunnels over roads or water are usually the most notable features of a railway. They directly influence the path of the route, and are certainly what adds most to the construction cost.
As for "why should that particular bridge be treated specially?" - being incomplete isn't an argument against inclusion. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort for those that know the subject well. Feel free to add any missing ones.
On the subject of "a feature that has no interaction" - that's just an assumption on your part. Somebody's decision to take a train or not can be directly affected by the availability of an alternative (ie road) route. Or vice versa.
I think the best solution would be to make it line-specific. As somebody said above, shorter lines will definitely benefit from the helpful additional detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.37.1 (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

This is still happening. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Give it up. You've asked and failed. Consensus is not with you. There is nothing wrong with the principle of adding info to a diagram. Quit reversing stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.37.60 (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
there's no concensus to add in either. NtheP (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
If I may close this...
I think that, in general, roads are not especially useful to the routemaps, although there are come cases where it may be otherwise. So, is it useful for say the M5 to feature on a map of the South Wales Main Line? I would say no. What relevance to the line does the M5 have? It just happens to be in the way at one point. It's not even relevantly in the way: the M5 was built over a preexisting tunnel through a hill. The tunnel is possibly notable on the diagram, but that it goes under a motorway is not. Similarly, the M5 and the Severn Beach Line - the M5 was built after the line, and that the motorway crosses the line is incidental to both line and motorway.
On the other hand, there are circumstances where particular features might be warranted - for instance if the motorway causes a deviation in the line from an old route.
That said, all these things are dependant upon the level of detail of a given map. If the map is including level crossings and the like, then yes, a motorway is probably notable. If however it's just a map without notice of any other geographical features, pretty much just stations and junctions, then what purpose does a motorway icon serve? The argument of London was given, and I am sympathetic to that, but a better solution would be to simply use the dotted border icons to denote the city boundary.
To sum up, in general there is no reason to use motorway icons on a map of the line, unless you are going into lots of detail about the geographical features of the line anyway. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_22&oldid=1166145312"