Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 54

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

There was a significant derailment in Carlisle last night (19 October) with loaded cement wagons falling off a bridge over the

It's been tweeted that a wheel developed a false flange, and was derailed on a set of points. Similar to the Llangennech derailment. Fortunately cement doesn't burst into flame at every opportunity. Mjroots (talk) 11:54, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

It's important enough for the RAIB to have released a preliminary assessment.-- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 12:01, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

looks to be more a press release than a preliminary assessment. Nthep (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Shall we link it then? Investigation into the derailment of a freight train at Petteril Bridge Junction, Carlisle, 19 October 2022. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Should we have a section somewhere about false flanges? Thryduulf (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: - the train wheel article would be a good candidate for information on a false flange to be housed. Mjroots (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

They have included the presumed reason for the derailment and a photograph of the culprit, which strikes me as unusual for their initial 'we are investigating' news story. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 14:17, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

It's uncommon but not the first time they've done that when the immediate cause is clear, more often is when they explicitly rule out things. What will take time here is determining the underlying causes - what had to happen to allow the wheel flats to develop to that extent. Thryduulf (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Even though I live in the USA, I am following the story closely. I am sure railway press articles will appear in RAIL and Modern Railways. I will help in anyway I can on articles related. GRALISTAIR (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to give your views over at the RS noticeboard here about RTT and whether you think it is reliable or not. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Have done so. For the record I consider it a VALUABLE resource but not RELIABLE enough for Wikipedia GRALISTAIR (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Having just moved house, I've discovered a few duplicates in my library, one of which is OS Nock's Railway Archaeology. Can anyone make use of it in writing Wikipedia articles? I'll happily post for free within the UK. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC) GRALISTAIR (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I moved house a few weeks ago and things are missing - like an almost-complete run of The Railway Magazine from 1925 to 1939. I can find the 1940-2022 issues (I think...) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I joined the 21st century on that front, I'm afraid. I like the paper magazine an still get it through the letterbox every month (though I switched to a digital subscription for RAIL) but it goes in the recycling when it's finished and I pay £2/month for access to the digital archive. @GRALISTAIR: consider it done; I'll try and get to the post office tomorrow. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:26, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@GRALISTAIR: It's on its way. Would appreciate it if you let me know when it arrives and I hope it's useful for article writing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely no problem. Will do. And many thanks once again GRALISTAIR (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Book arrived safely thanks GRALISTAIR (talk) 11:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

"For the transport ones among you, this article is currently a Good article, but also needs updating for South Wales Metro possible changes - I don't really like a GA to have a tag! I was considering delisting but thought this might be better/easier/quicker! Please do help update it, with sources, of course, if you can. Thanks." (Post from User:Mattdaviesfsic, copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales). — Voice of Clam 21:27, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Interesting problem has arisen, is the Metropolitan line a rapid transit system or a suburban railway? Answers please in the discussion on the talk page Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Something that came up on my talk page a while ago, was whether YouTube videos by Ruairidh MacVeigh could be considered a reliable source. He makes documentary style videos of many topics, usually related to transport I've always found them to be informative and accurate. On his personal website he describes himself as a 'transport historian, consultant and artist', and I've notices that he has published books on transport topics. What do others think? G-13114 (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

If you expand the Show More section of the accompanying write-up in most of the videos, it credits Wikipedia (and its references), which would make use of it deemed to be

WP:CIRCULAR, in my view. Sorry. The joy of all things (talk

) 21:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and given that the book gives every impression of being self-published, the policy at

WP:RS/SPS is also relevant. XAM2175 ^(T)

21:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing inherently wrong with using wikipedia as a means of finding sources and references, which is what I assume that means. G-13114 (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

No there isn't, for other works, but using his videos as a source for Wikipedia would clearly be a circular reference, which is not allowed (See

WP:CIRCULAR), which is why they/he cannot be labelled as a reliable source. Sorry. The joy of all things (talk

) 20:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@

talk

) 21:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Here. I don't think I should have put autumn statement now but what was the East West Rail Consortium is now the East West Main Line partnership and they refer to the project as such. Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 21:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

The cynic in me says it is never actually going to happen. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Oxford–Bedford nears completion; the big kafuffle is over the Bedford–Cambridge leg. --

talk

) 10:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Which is the bit that I doubt is going to happen, it's going to remain as the Bedford branch. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

OXF-BLE is already contracted and fully funded. BLE-BED already exists but could do with the kind of upgrade that wouldn't merit mention in the House. So the announcement is for BED-CAM, which was the candidate for cutting. Of course the speech announced lots of spending for after the election, when it is rather unlikely that this lot will be around to pick up the tab. --

talk

) 12:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I won’t do anymore edits on this then. I already edited two articles to reflect the new name.GRALISTAIR (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@

Sorry but even supposing that it is built, this is not going to be a "

Lamberhurst (talk

) 16:42, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree – in the absence of a definitive change this is premature, and even if a definitive change were to occur we wouldn't be bound to rename the article anyway (per

WP:NAMECHANGES). XAM2175 ^(T)

21:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Per the comments made here I have reverted the move, unless sufficient evidence can prove the renaming to be 'official', whatever that may mean. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I really don't know what's happened in the last couple of hours, there are page histories where the count of bytes added/removed simply doesn't tally. Example - how can a page start off with a negative byte count, and then have more than 70,000 removed from that? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:42, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Kitchen Knife has now reverted my mover back to the original (i.e., East West Rail), saying it was undiscussed. I'm not sure they were aware of this discussion and the fact that so many opposed the move to EWML, which is why I moved it back to EWR. Can't move it back now given how many times it's been moved! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 06:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, whatever Kitchen Knife (talk · contribs) did, the page history is now screwed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Looks like

East West Main Line after Kitchen Knife made the copy-and-paste move. --PhiH (talk

) 11:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks to Polyamorph for getting us as near as is possible to an unscrewed page history. Please can I appeal to everyone to obtain a clear consensus before movig that page again? As I understand it, EWML is a marketing name for a potential passenger service (not a main line) using EWR from Oxford to Cambridge and continuing beyond that stretch via existing railways. Certes (talk) 11:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@Kitchen Knife has now started a discussion at Talk:East_West_Rail#Requested_move_20_November_2022 seeking a rename to "East West Rail Line". There's also some blathering about "the clique" but their meaning is lost on me. XAM2175 ^(T) 13:42, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks all. I've also been accused of vandalism on behalf of said clique. Storm in a teacup. Polyamorph (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I have been away from Wikipedia for a while. Am I automatically back in the clique, do I have to reapply, or was I ever really in it in the first place? Glad to see in the short term that KK has been put on the naughty step. I see at WP:ANI that others had suggested a UK railways topic ban. That's an excellent idea IMHO. 10mmsocket (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

No. Page histories are still a mess. I am thinking of sending this to

WP:AN so that it can be sorted by somebody who is more familiar with fixing histories. Unfortunately, Anthony Appleyard is no longer with us. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk

) 20:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

This was dealt with as part of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Kitchen Knife. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I can only apologise for the mess I created. I referred to the wrong thing in the reasoning for the move but also thought the EWML consortium was the main project page, which is what I should have referred to. I've been away so I haven't been able to reply. Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 19:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, most of us have been there at one time or another. Thank heavens there are experts around who can sort us out! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Getting it wrong, knowing you are wrong, then asking for help (and maybe apologising) is both human and the decent. Believing you are right and ignoring anyone who says otherwise, other than of course accusing them of being in a clique, is clearly not decent. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Just to note, these are due to be released on the 24th. Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 19:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The stats are now live. Here for the statistics and charts and here for the raw data. Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 11:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

There has been some dispute on some articles as to whether interchange figures should be included or just straight boardings. Reference has been made to a previous consensus to not include, anybody aware of where this is? Colwest (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to Rugby railway station where they were removed, re-added by me and then removed again by @G-13114:, who mentioned this 'consensus' - G-13114 (or anyone else), would you be able to find this discussion? Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I think that this was Template talk:Infobox GB station#Interchange statistics, 2018. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that, appeared to peter out into a nil all draw. Probably worthy of a fresh discussion to see if a consensus can be reached. Colwest (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

A discussion on this is being conducted at Template talk:Infobox station#Station use statistics Colwest (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

There's an issue with the station usage figures at Carlisle railway station. There are two different figures for the 2018/19 stats in the article. Can someone please verify which one is correct. Thanks. Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Fixed it. Trawling through the spreadsheets, I found that someone had mixed up the 18/19 and 19/20 data and so duplicated the 19/20 data on 18/19 when I compared tables. The 2.074 million one is the correct one. Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 22:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

A proposal to merge the standalone Class 600 article into the main Class 321 article is under discussion at Talk:British Rail Class 321#Merge from British Rail Class 600. XAM2175 ^(T) 11:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Editors may wish to be made aware of ongoing

What you are doing to the GCR and various other miniature railway pages seems to be getting pretty close to

WP:BLANK 2A00:23C7:2222:8E01:B950:29E0:65D:53E4 (talk

) 18:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll let other editors decide whether I am deleting the content in accordance with policy... Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

It is very difficult to take seriously an editor who is creating multiple sockpuppet accounts, as well as editing logged out as an IP address. This page needs protecting for a while until the person involved gets bored. Mattdaviesfsic does a great job on UK railway articles. This article has no claim to any special treatment just because one person thinks they're being picked upon. 10mmsocket (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brunswick Green Doesnt Exist 10mmsocket (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The logged out IP address was me, I've never had an account before and am very new to the whole wikipedia thing. Purely here to try understand what is going on and why various pages pertaining to our community seem to be being vandalised. I now see that it is part of a wider programme of 'improvement' and hope I have managed to placate User:Mattdaviesfsicon the Beer Heights Light Railway page to allow the content to stay.

Reading the

WP:OR the 'Paris is the capital of France' example sticks out, in that (particularly loco lists) the information being refuted is verifiable, if not published. I would argue that it does not constitute research, as it is fact rather than opinion, and can be verified, if only by going in person. Minirail (talk

) 19:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, Minirail. Yes, I think the source you added in your edit to the BHLR was good and justified, thanks for that. Unfortunately the same level of information doesn't exist for the GCR. Original research (for which "having to visit a railway" is a good example) is an absolute pain at times but meh! Policy is policy. Thanks for actually reading the policy though, unlike some editors! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a personal connection to the GCR, but from what I can see, they have a group of regular and well meaning contributors who engage in keeping the page accurate and up to date.

I would be interested to see if there is any consensus on whether there is any merit in removing the information, simply because it does not strictly align with policy. The information provided is not, and has not been disputed, has it?

I would strongly argue that as the audience is so small, no harm is actually done to anyone by maintaining the page in the way it has been done for the last how ever many years. While understanding your quest to bring the entire of rail based wikipedia into line with policy it does seem to go against

WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, no? Minirail (talk

) 19:29, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTCOMPULSORY says that you cannot compel another editor to do more for the project than they themselves have chosen to do, which I suspect is not quite the meaning you're after given that @Mattdaviesfsic

is arguably implementing the bit about [focus] on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians by deleting material that other editors won't properly source.

Re the Paris example in

WP:OR

, you overlook the continuation of the sentence: the statement "the capital of France is Paris" does not require a source to be cited, nor is it original research, because it's not something you thought up and it is easily verifiable; therefore, no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it even if they are not cited. The statement is verifiable, even if not verified. (emphasis mine). There is another example somewhere about not needing to cite a source for "the sky is blue", on the same basis – but it's very difficult to apply the same kind of "most people already know and almost everybody can easily check" ideas to the current rolling stock situation in one very particular part of what is a, in all fairness, a really rather niche topic.

The opening paragraph to the verifiability policy (

WP:V

) builds on this:

In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, or experiences. Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.

I can understand that it seems unfair and discouraging for an article to suddenly come up for criticism on these terms after a long period of calm, but as policy stands there is no automatic protection for material that has survived x length of time despite not complying with some aspect of the rules; no doctrine equivalent to that of

WP:V

is clear: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material ... Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed....

It's also important to note that policy covers the argument advanced by one of the GCR contributors along the line that the article serves as a repository of information on the railway's operations, as can be read at

policy on notability (WP:N)

 – but for the avoidance of doubt that's not a road I'm particularly inclined to set off down at this point in time.

I do, however, feel that it is absolutely correct to ask that contributors to the articles in question adhere at the very least to the basic policies of

WP:NPOV by only adding information that is cited to a reliable published source, and doing so in a dispassionate and neutral manner. XAM2175 ^(T)

21:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I note that one argument put forward in the various discussions is "What about other articles?" "If you delete this then surely you should delete the other stuff?". That argument and similar ones are discussed in

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Personally I think it would be great if all the articles could be tidied up and I'll consider doing just that. You have to make a start somewhere. 10mmsocket (talk

) 20:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I created these ages ago to show how much station usage has changed over the years and it has been implemented over the years on a few lines. Ideally I would like to expand to more articles but as the current template stands, it is becoming unwieldy, expanding off the page, only fixed by the hide function. Can anyone offer any suggestions on how to improve or even overhaul this? For example Highland Main Line, Gospel Oak to Barking line etc Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 23:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

A heckler from the back of the room shouts that the hide function is poor practice because it only works on the desktop version. As most readers are on mobile and are more sensitive to [aka intolerant of] having to wade through screeds of infobox before getting to any content, this is no solution anyway. --

talk

) 00:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

One solution might be to use Wikidata. If the usage figures are held on Wikidata, it should be possible to create a Lua module to pick up the most recent n years for the infobox on the Wikipedia article. Nthep (talk) 12:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Opinions to help establish consensus would be very welcome at Talk:High_Speed_2#Not_a_train_buff_article. Thanks in advance. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

b.t.w. - any idea why UK link doesn't show up in the Wikiprojects on the HS2 talk page? There's no direct link to this project, but it shows up on the talk page of other UK rail articles. --10mmsocket (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

It's there; you need to expand "Associated projects or task forces". Mackensen (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Aha - so it's collapsed. On some pages it isn't. I wonder if there's a collapse=no option. I'll take a look. Thank you! 10mmsocket (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

There is no such option. The collapse occurs automatically if any one or more of the many taskforces is specified - there are more than 25 of these. I won't list them all, but at Template:WikiProject Trains#Usage it's all those from |stations= downwards, except for the various "importance" params. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Every day is a school day. Thanks! 10mmsocket (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Is anybody able to give me a hand with the state of the 158 fleet details table? For a start, the SWR line is entirely missing unit numbers, and as a second matter there's an inconsistency with the total quantity of units – the infobox says 182 built (8 subsequently converted to 159) and 174 in service, but the quantity column in the fleet details table sums to 177 (inc. the 8 conversions) and thus 168 in service. Does this have something to do with GWR's pick-and-mix three-cars? (which would also explain how GWR's 158950–158951 and 158956–158959 came to exist, since the article doesn't specifically mention them at all other than in the details table). Cheers. XAM2175 ^(T) 18:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Going to ping @Maurice Oly: due to his admirable work in this area! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Just done some tidying with one of my books, but feel free to revert if I've missed anything! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I've taken the liberty of putting the Converted to 159 row back into the table for consistency's sake, but you've definitely improved it (and got all the numbers to add up!). I don't suppose you'd happen to know what makes the /8 subclass different, would you? XAM2175 ^(T) 19:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Different carriage formations I think:

/0 - DMSL/(MSL)/DMSL

/8 - DMCL/DMSL

Possibly different seating arrangements as well but not certain on that. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I thank you for pinging me into this and for you warm words about my work in this area.
I however can’t help here as I don’t recall seeing anything in any reliable sources that I know of that could help here.
The issue seems to have been partly fixed now. Maurice Oly (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

75 x Class 158 owned by Angel Trains setup as DMSLA-DMSLB - https://angeltrains.co.uk/fleet/class-156/ 10mmsocket (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

43 x Class 158 owned by Porterbrook - https://www.arrivatc.com/portfolio/class-158-refurbishment/ 10mmsocket (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

10 x Class 158 units owned by Eversholt setup as DMSL-DMS - https://eversholtrail.co.uk/fleet/class-158-freight-same-category/ 10mmsocket (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

According to

• Pritchard, Robert (2022). British Railways Locomotives & Coaching Stock 2022. Sheffield: Platform 5 Publishing. pp. 210–215.
  ISBN 978-1-909431-97-3
  .

all are Class 158/0 except for units 158901-910, which are Class 158/9. Note that the 3-car mixed units 158950 etc. are also 158/0 despite their unit numbers. All Class 158 units were built with one toilet in each car, but some 158/0 and all 158/9 have had the toilet removed from the 57xxx car. Class 158/9 also differ from 158/0 by having new Fainsa seating.

As regards 3-car units 158950 etc. these are first shown in the 2009 edition, so reformation began in 2008. They were produced by splitting some normal 158/0 units and attaching one car to each of several other normal units. The editions of 2009-11 show ten such units (158950-9), the editions of 2012-19 show twelve (158950-61), and the editions of 2020-22 show six (158950/1/6-9). A note shows that formations can be flexible depending upon when unit exams become due, and checking, I find that the donor units have varied: for example, in the 2010 edition, units 158952 and 158957 are shown as 57748-52762-57762 and 52749-52771-57771 respectively (there is also unit 158745 formed 52745-57745), whereas in 2011 the same three-car units are formed 57745-52762-57762 and 57748-52771-57771 respectively, also there is 158749 formed 52749-57749. The cars of the three units that were no longer listed in 2020 may be found under their original donor unit numbers 158745/7/9/50/60/2/5/7/9.

Class 159/0 (units 159001-022) were built as class 158 but converted before entering service, whereas class 159/1 (units 159101-108) were converted from 158/0 during 2006-07 by altering the seating layout. I'm sure that I have posted on this exact matter before, some time in the last five to ten years - but not on this page, it's not in the archives. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much, that's very helpful. On those grounds I've merged the /8 rows back into the main /0 section, and added an explanatory note to the GWR 158950-range row. XAM2175 ^(T) 14:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I see today is timetable change day and as a result a lot of timetable & route info is being changed in the various line and TOC articles. None of this excuses the need to provide reliable and verifiable sources, so please make sure there actually is a timetable reference for the new changes, and if you're re-using the existing reference then please change the access-date so at least we know it has been revisited/revalidated. Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I've done a bit of surgery on the Class 150 article and am hoping that somebody might be able to help me fill in a few gaps:

1. The specifications of the engine fitted to 150002 when built. BRB Diagram Book 220 gives it as "Rolls-Royce C6 305R" on sheets dated October 1984, but I can't find any information at all about its specifications (cylinder count and configuration, displacement, etc etc) or power output. Does anybody have anything on it?
2. Diagram Book 220 has the conversion to Class 154 shown as "B.R.EDU DERBY 1986". Can anybody give me explanation of what "B.R.EDU" means, and/or provide a more precise date?
3. The article cites Fox 1987 (Summer-Autumn '87 MU Pocket Book) as saying the new number was 154001, but I'm led to believe that it later became 154002. Can this be sourced?
4. Can anybody come up with a date for when the unit was given the "standard" Cummins-Voith powertrain on both vehicles and numbered back to 150002?

Thanks in advance. XAM2175 ^(T) 19:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• The 154 was definitely 154001 to begin with (I once travelled on it). Wether it later became 154002 I cannot say. Black Kite (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  Image of 154002 here, but the blurb on this photo suggests that 150001 -> 154001 and 150002 -> 154002, which I think is wrong. Every other source I can find (which are all railfan sites, and therefore may not be useful for sourcing) says that 150002 -> 154001 -> 154002 -> 150002. It does not appear that 150001 was ever renumbered. Black Kite (talk) 20:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  I think EDU refers to the Engineering Development Unit at what was, in BR days, the Railway Technical Centre in Derby. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 20:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  I have a run of the Ian Allan Combined Volume until it ceased after the 1989 edition, and a run of the Platform 5 combined volume from 1990 to 2022. According to these, unit 150002 (cars 55201/55401/55301) was given air conditioning in 1987 and renumbered 154001, at this time the original Rolls-Royce engines of 55201 and 55301 were replaced by Cummins (55401 initially retained its Rolls-Royce engine, but by 1990 had been given a Perkins engine). It seems to have run as a two-car unit at times, minus 55401. By 1989, 154001 had been renumbered 154002. Other than the air conditioning, modifications to become class 154 are unclear. Unmodified unit 150001 (cars 55200/55400/55300) had Cummins engines from the outset (as did all the production Class 150). 150001 was never converted or renumbered. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks @Redrose64. Diagram Book 220 details the 154 MS vehicle (that is, 55401) as having a Perkins 2006 TW-H engine on DR206 0A Issue 1 in October 1987 (as well as showing it as having been converted by EDU Derby in 1987, as opposed to 1986 for the DM vehicles). Are you able to provide a citation for the 154001 to 002 renumbering? It doesn't matter if the date is a bit imprecise, as at the moment it's not in the article at all.

  A date and citation for the "conversion" back to 150002 would also be greatly appreciated. XAM2175 ^(T) 18:22, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks @Hassocks5489. XAM2175 ^(T) 18:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I happened upon

Eek! At the very least it should be one of those click-to-reveal things on the page, i.e. not visible by default. Other lines show data but don't go back that far do they? I wouldn't object to it being trimmed / summarised / removed. 10mmsocket (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Definitely over the top, really only need the most recent statistics, if needed at all! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I feel like this discussion is related to my template discussion above. Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 21:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

NB that "click to reveal" only works on desktop. Mobile users get the full dump. Well I guess the left hand half, I'm not inclined to check. --

talk

) 00:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Can I please get a sense-check on the Class 730 article? The make-up of the order changed at some point but it looks like the article was only partially updated, meaning that the total number of units in the class will now be 84 (48 three-car, 36-five car) but the infobox numbers sum to 81 and the fleet details table sums to 93 (complete with 730/1 and 730/2 fleet numbers that appear to be unsourced). Thanks in advance. XAM2175 ^(T) 11:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Number that can be referenced is 84. Search deeper for the ROSCO Corelink Rail Infrastructure Limited and you'll find lots of confirmation that they are the owner. This article confirms the number 84. I suspect others will if you look on google. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Any editors wishing to provide a second opinion on this site? Looks a bit like

It is a society site so should be as a good as a society journal. It's biggest fault is that it relies on members reporting site visits so can easily get out of date. I regularly use it to check up on a particular vehicle, but don't think I've ever needed to use it as in a citation as I try to find something "official" from a preservation site or in a magazine. Geof Sheppard (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

From the footer of RHRP pages: "Information from Railway Heritage Register web sites must not be used in a commercial context without the written permission of the Railway Heritage Register." This seems a little broad, as it goes beyond copyright over the text, but if it is legally valid then the licensing of any information from RHRP is not sufficient for use in Wikipedia. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 22:55, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe you can copyright information or restrict its redistribution (provided it is reworded, of course). Garuda3 (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

True but to use it in a WP article, it has to be cited and user-generated content fails

talk

) 00:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Please take a look at

Rail operating centre is badly out-of-date (e.g. `"Functions will be transferred to Rugby ROC by 2019."). Can anyone kindly remedy this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I wish to create a Category for the railway stations in Cambridge. However, I am having trouble deciding what is the best way to disambiguate it. Should it be Category:Railway stations in Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, Category:Railway stations in Cambridge, England or Category:Railway stations in Cambridge, United Kingdom? Category:Railway stations in Cambridge, Ontario and Category:Railway stations in Cambridge, Massachusetts already exist. Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 19:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

For consistency, England Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree, England. XAM2175 ^(T) 12:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Even though other cities in England have the same level of category, e.g. here Category:Railway stations in England by city, I'd question their value when they only have a couple of entries as this one would. I don't object, just question. However, to answer your actual question - "England" 10mmsocket (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

We normally categorise to county level, in this case Category:Railway stations in Cambridgeshire, and only split further for Greater London and the metropolitan counties (e.g. Category:Railway stations in the London Borough of Ealing, Category:Railway stations in the Metropolitan Borough of Bolton). I do see that we have cats for some cities in non-metropolitan counties (Category:Railway stations in Bath, Somerset‎, Category:Railway stations in Bristol‎, Category:Railway stations in Exeter‎, Category:Railway stations in Kingston upon Hull‎, Category:Railway stations in Plymouth, Devon‎, Category:Railway stations in Southampton‎) and in the cases of Bath, Bristol and Kingston upon Hull this can be explained by the short lives of Avon and Humberside as counties. But it's more difficult to explain Exeter, Plymouth and Southampton, even less so in the case of Cambridge. I would say that this should not be created. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 11:24, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

There are 5 stations (2 former, 2 current, 1 future). Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 17:53, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

In which case, there are just two - because "Railway stations in ..." categories hold stations that are currently open; former stations go in "Disused railway stations in ..." cats. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 18:34, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Participants of this WP may be interested in hopping over to

I've started a discussion about the three HST articles, over at Talk:British Rail Class 43 (HST)#NOT a merge proposal.... Please do come over if you have any thoughts about the three articles mentioned there. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Is there a preferred format for the display of acceleration in customary units on the railways (or in the UK in general)? I've only ever worked in m/s² and I'd like to know what conversion to standardise on using, given that I've seen both ft/s² and mph/s used in articles here. Cheers. XAM2175 ^(T) 16:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• Note:
  WikiProject:Trains has been notified of this discussion. Mattdaviesfsic (talk
  ) 16:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

My immediate thoughts were that if the original figure is in m/s², then ft/s² is the logical imperial equivalent. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I think m/s^2 is the most appropriate. The majority of people around the world use metric. Garuda3 (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Near the beginning of every

RAIB report it states: "Metric units are used in this report, except when it is normal railway practice to give speeds and locations in imperial units. Where appropriate the equivalent metric value is also given." In practice, they give priority to train speeds in mph (and route distances in miles and chains

- that's hardcore imperial). I cannot find an instance of a calculated acceleration figure in a quick scan of recent reports; they prefer to state that the speed changed from x mph to y mph between two locations, or over a given distance.

Personally, I find mph/s far more meaningful than m/s², but then I remember the days when UK motorway distance markers were in furlongs. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 19:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

There's still a peg in the verge 16 times per mile, that's either half a furlong or 100 metres, not sure which. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

They're every 100m these days, with a location marker sign every 500m. Black Kite (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

See Driver location sign, though I've never heard them called 'Blakedale Posts', and I can't see that name in the sources... -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 21:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Here's a relatively recent British-authored report and it uses m/s² for both acceleration and braking calculations. 10mmsocket (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

%g (i.e. percentage of g, or 9.8m/s²) is also used a lot within the industry - e.g. 9% braking curves are often used for braking calculations. — Voice of Clam 21:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

That report takes its figures from French, German and Japanese sources. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 21:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt: I would be perfectly happy to use m/s² exclusively, though I'm not sure where that would stand with the

MOS:CONVERSIONS guidance. On the assumption that we should provide a conversion (and it's not like doing so hurts us) I favour ft/s², but I wanted to be sure that wasn't out of step with accepted practice. XAM2175 ^(T)

21:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Have we agreed on this. Is it m/s2, m/s2 + ft/s2, or m/s2 + mph/s? Some consistency in articles would be nice. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:20, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Just saw this at the top of the page; I've settled on using m/s2 + ft/s2, but I've only been applying it while making other substantive edits. XAM2175 ^(T) 20:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I posted this over at WT:TRAINS, but figured I'd drop a line here too. I just finally got around to creating a dedicated article for freight trains. This will change the destination of a lot of links, so I wanted to make sure people were aware. Please feel free to help improve the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Good start. I made a couple of small improvements. Hopefully others will chip in too. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I note that @Mattdaviesfsic: has been removing unsourced lists of rolling stock from various articles. Whilst this is not wrong per se, I am concerned that it leaves certain articles effectively inaccurate. Whilst articles like Locomotive Services Limited can be perfectly useful articles without a list of the rolling stock they own, an article like List of rolling stock preserved on the North Yorkshire Moors Railway now seems to indicate that the NYMR have two locomotives and four coaches, which is nonsensical. Meanwhile, if you were to visit the SVR today, you would have the choice of being hauled by four locomotives (steam 75069 and 1501, and diesels 40106 and 20048), none of which now appear in List of rolling stock preserved on the Severn Valley Railway. It would appear to be that if the articles are now simply wrong, it would be better to simply redirect them to the main preserved railway article until they can be fixed. Black Kite (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

It is absolutely right to remove unsourced content, especially the type of original research I'm calling trainspottercruft. If that leaves an article as an empty shell, then I agree it should be deleted and redirected. The bigger issue is

WP:NOTDIR. I think most of these articles are excessive and should be deleted. Just because we can list all the rolling stock at "xxx railway group" it doesn't mean that we should - whether they are referenced or not. 10mmsocket (talk

) 12:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Calling anything "cruft" is insulting and doesn't help us really. Sorry, not trying to pick on you as others do it too but I want to call it out as it's unnecessary. Garuda3 (talk) 12:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Noted. Thank you. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not certain to what extent the rolling stock articles are 'notable' enough for WP, but these are evidently the ones that fall prone to unsourced fiddling if they're not checked. Would be happy with a redirect to the main article depending on others' views - perhaps a short summary 'rolling stock' section on each railway's page would suffice? Whatever the outcome, the

WP:OR on these pages is certainly something to bin... Mattdaviesfsic (talk

) 12:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think lists of rolling stock are necessarily cruft - that implies very trivial niche information that practically no-one would be interested in, whereas these lists can be generally useful if properly written and sourced. However, I don't think they should be incomplete or actually wrong - that's no use to anyone. Black Kite (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Case in point, some of the content removed from List of rolling stock preserved on the Severn Valley Railway could have been sourced using this article. It feels like folks are being too quick to remove content without searching properly for sources first. Garuda3 (talk) 13:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

When I removed a largely unsourced section from Great Cockcrow Railway, I think, one of the 'opposers' suggested that "it can be useful to tell people what locos they can expect to ride on" (or words to that effect) - I mean, that's fine, but it was very much unsourced, and it's not really what WP is for! I think if they're sourced that's fine, but it does take some effort to find them (which of course, isn't really my duty - it's the onus of the editor adding it, if anything). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattdaviesfsic (talk • contribs) 13:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I think you intended to refer to Great Cockcrow Railway? - David Biddulph (talk) 13:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I did, thanks (and thanks to XAM2175 for correcting it!) Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 13:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I can very definitely understand the feeling that leads to referring to some of content we see here as "cruft". It's simply the reality that many aspects of the preservation scene attract large amounts of amateur and semi-professional coverage and have large followings of very enthusiastic people, and that shows in the nature of editing undertaken here – I mean, we have the Class 315 article semi-protected because we apparently can't even find one vaguely-reliable source that maybe even suggests that they've been withdrawn, but at the same time (and excuse my hyperbole) there are a small-ish number of "celebrity" locos that have reams of exceptionally-detailed prose written about every time in the last decade that their wheels have turned.

I can also agree with arguments leaning on

WP:NOTDIR, which I extended in the GCR

discussion to "and Wikipedia is also not a trainspotter's journal".

However, I don't necessarily object to that sort of content in principle, because I don't think that brief coverage harms the encyclopedia project as long as it is 1) factual, 2) neutral, and 3) reasonably current, or at least easily identifiable as potentially dated, and 4) reasonably stable. I consider point 4 there to be significant in NOTDIR terms; I do not object to an article listing stock that forms part of a trust's permanent collection, for example, but I'm much less inclined to be receptive of content that engenders continual fiddling such as timetabling, or the formation of rakes of hauled stock, or coverage of stock that happens to visiting in passing, etc etc. I'm also inclined to give a bit of leeway on the sourcing rules for basic statements of fact in this field if it helps address point 3 (currency of information) without impacting on neutrality or becoming the basis of original research.

On @

BURDEN of supporting additions to an article falls on the person making the addition, but I personally view the question of removing unsourced or questionably-sourced material that appears to have been added in good faith as including a modicum of simple diligence on the removing editor's behalf. For example, just in the last week or two I've intervened on two reversions of apparently "unsourced" changes that in fact turned out to be corrections that were supported by sources already in the article. At the same though, I can completely understand that being worn down by dealing with loads of obviously-unredeemable tripe might lead editors to be unwilling to invest any more time in doing the adding editor's work for them. XAM2175 ^(T)

14:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

There's a lot to take in here. Removing all this info feels like an overreaction though as there are likely to be sources out there that cover it. For starters,

LCR No. 29 has its own Wikipedia article with citations and so obviously ought to be listed here too. Garuda3 (talk

) 12:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

There are articles which seem to be a magnet for the trivial and unimportant. An entry for an out-of-service loco can attract content that is little sgort of blogging - dates when various components were refitted, loco presently in undercoat, awaiting steam trials, etc. Then the loco that is in service may be given an events diary of where the loco will be next week/month.

WP:RECENTISM covers this. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk

) 21:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware that I'm not the most popular editor with people in this discussion, but I do think "Redrose64" makes an important point here, that rolling stock pages shouldn't become de-facto blogs for individuals connected to particular railways. Having said that, I do however think that all the recent removals have been generally unnecessary and unjust, and that these articles still need to contain a comprehensive list of rolling stock on the railways. I think the easiest thing to do would be to place the offending articles in some sort category indicating that they need serious attention with regard to sourcing, and then editors such as myself can then work through them one by one. This would then negate the need for excessive removals. I have already tried to do this with the Dartmouth Steam Railway article (mostly successfully), however I have felt like King Canute trying to hold back the tide. GW1450 (talk) 13:16, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

This is a good idea. There is no need to remove infomation on locomotives as it is highly likely to cause harm, unlike unsourced additions to biography pages for example. Garuda3 (talk) 13:20, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Expanding on my comment above, I'm not saying we should encourage unsourced additions going forward but I see no need to go about removing such large chunks of content, especially as there are sources out there that could be cited to back it up. Garuda3 (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

• To get back to the point, what should be done about articles like List of rolling stock preserved on the North Yorkshire Moors Railway, which says in its lead paragraph that "There is a variety of preserved steam and diesel locomotives and diesel multiple units, passenger coaches and goods wagons" and yet lists only two steam engines and four coaches? I can't currently see any option but to redirect them, as they're not currently useful or accurate. Black Kite (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Primary sources such as this list of locomotives from the Severn Valley Railway website and this individual loco description from the Severn Valley Railway website could be (barely) accepted for a basic list that shows "stuff exists" but without the excessive detail in the description. It's not ideal IMHO but is preferable to blogs and enthusiast sites full of
    WP:RS, for example, this bit of Severn Valley Railway loco news from ITV. However, even then I think these lists should stick at "stuff exists" and nothing more. If the loco itself is notable then its own article (as pointed out above) can be extended with things like the ITV news article. Thus my proposal is to allow basic "stuff exists" tables supported by primary sources and reliable secondary sources, but any further detail should be discouraged unless the item of rolling stock in question has its own article or a section in the railway's own article. Thoughts? 10mmsocket (talk
    ) 14:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
    • Would second that, but if it becomes that almost none of it can be sourced, then I agree with Black Kite that it should just become a redirect, ideally to some prose or something similar on the main page. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
      • Yup. Agreed. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
    • I agree that 'stuff exists' is the right general approach. However we may be over-complicating things by looking for web-based secondary sources to confirm that rolling stock exists at a particular location. There are plenty of publications produced annually that list just that. To take one example, ST Publications' UK Preserved; my most recent copy is 2019 but it confirms the existence on the SVR of every resident loco that has deleted for the lack of a source in the recent housekeeping. Would anyone object to citing such a publication as a secondary source to justify reinstating those deletions (minus some of the accumulated wibble, obviously)? Robin84F (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
      • I think that most people would be very happy for you to do that (I certainly am), and obviously such publications are fine sources in general anyway. The web-based sources aspect comes into play for changes that happen to occur between publishing cycles – for better or for worse, readers and occasional editors have come to expect a certain promptness to our updates! XAM2175 ^(T) 18:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
    • Stuff exists is a good base for such lists. I see no problem with using the official Railway websites as a source, they should be reliable. What should be discouraged is the "visiting engines" and similar. After all what is the point of knowing that Flying Scotsman turned up on a railtour 20 years ago. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
      • Agreed with this. Garuda3 (talk) 15:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
      • Very good point 10mmsocket (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
    • I concur as well. XAM2175 ^(T) 18:22, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I have restored content at List of rolling stock preserved on the North Yorkshire Moors Railway with an additional source that I found fairly easily online. Could those removing this content please search for sources? Garuda3 (talk) 16:20, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The

onus is on those wishing to add or restore content to verify it, not on those removing material which does not comply with policy. Verifiability is not a "nice to have", it's a core policy. Anyone adding content without making any effort to to say where they found the information (or because they "just know") should expect to have it removed on sight. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

16:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings here. Some preserved line articles have become dumping grounds for unsourced trivia. My New Year Resolution was to remove the long list of visiting locomotives to the South Devon Railway, some of which came just for one day or weekend! However some of the information that has been removed was clearly correct and needs to be replaced (and given citations or lost ones restored). While we are doing that, can we take a good look at the length of the "notes" that accompany some of these locomotives and trim them down to a more appropriate size. Why a particular locomotive is preserved at a nearby location is notable. Every change in colour or boiler test is not! Geof Sheppard (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:BEFORE process at AfD. XAM2175 ^(T)

18:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this - I am indeed not intending to suggest that those removing content are acting against policy. However I am questioning if removal of such large chunks of content is beneficial to the wiki. This is content that has built up over years - there is no urgent need to remove it. I think working on adding sources and tagging/removing more dubious sentences/listings is a better way forward. I would also support removal of visiting locomotives as long as we have a consistent guideline on how long a loco has to remain at a particular site for it to be listed. Garuda3 (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to only update the rolling stock lists based on the official website or social media not news articles. E21thant1 (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Social media is not a reliable source, news articles generally are. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Indeed though I would make an exception for official social media accounts for heritage railways which ought to be as reliable as their respective official websites. Garuda3 (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Official social media of the railway not the public E21thant1 (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The Vintage Carriages Trust website is a useful one for referencing where individual items of rolling stock are, including non-rolling stock such as grounded vehicle bodies. Mjroots (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

• Take a look at what @Robin84F has been doing at List of rolling stock preserved on the Severn Valley Railway. That's getting pretty close to what other articles should look like. Good job! 10mmsocket (talk) 09:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, that's very much on the right path! XAM2175 ^(T) 10:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  Right track, surely! (sorry) Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  Get your coat... 10mmsocket (talk) 10:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  I would however note the "Past members of the SVR fleet" section; is this likely to attract much bothersome editing? XAM2175 ^(T) 10:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  Either way, I've just given the whole article a bit of a copyedit and would appreciate any opinions. I've made a new section on the talk page for it. Cheers. XAM2175 ^(T) 12:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, much appreciated and I've no issue with any of the changes. I've responded on the talk page and made a couple of updates. Some of the past members of the fleet were quite significant in the railway's history (46521 aka 'Blossom' appearing in Oh, Doctor Beeching! for example) so I think section does have some merit. However I was debating adopting a list format as used on the NYMR rolling stock page rather than a table with pictures, which would reflect its lower importance and perhaps discourage unnecessary editing. I would probably include 'resident between x date and y date' with a source, but maybe not even bother with 'now at the xyz railway' which then requires ongoing maintenance. Others' thoughts welcome. Robin84F (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what part of the page you are referring to but in general I'd avoid anything that talks about where the stock is now as that'll be hard to maintain. I would just put where it went immediately after leaving the railway. Garuda3 (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry, didn't include a link. I was referring to this section. I could include the information on where it moved to if it is in the source I am quoting. Obviously some of the larger former residents like 6960, 60009, 45690, 70000 and so on would have a link to their own pages where the ongoing history could be found. Robin84F (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, it's the ongoing maintenance that troubles me (as I've seen other editors put it; that sort of thing is an attractive nuisance that begets endless unsourced wikifiddling). Other than that I don't have any opposition to a simple listing of past locos, though – depending on the quantity involved – perhaps not all of them. Dates of residence and a brief statement of significance (as applicable) will suffice, along with the single next movement if it can be sourced, as you're entirely to correct to note that any loco notable enough to merit coverage of its continuing history will in the majority of cases be notable enough to have its own article. XAM2175 ^(T) 14:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  I've finished repopulating the List of rolling stock preserved on the Severn Valley Railway including sources. I've added a note in the preamble and the former residents' sections of what is and is not included, which hopefully will deter people from adding extra locomotives and so on. I'm happy for anyone to carry out further copyedits and for any suggestions for improvements and so on. Robin84F (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for doing this, @Robin84F. I've made a few tweaks:

  • Livery details like "early emblem" and "late crest" should be lower-cased;
  • Added a bunch of nowrap tagging to better control how longer names appear in narrow columns;
  • Changed things like GWR 43xx Class to GWR 4300 Class to match (what I understand) is the accepted style;
  • Gone through the references and changed |website=Severn Valley Railway official website to |publisher=Severn Valley Railway, then done the same for most of the other self-published sources;
  • Applied citation templates to the few refs that hadn't already been done, and;
  • Some other small style tweaks, nothing major.

  I do have some questions, though, for you and the group as a whole:

  1. Do the Ruston 165s have "correct" numbers? I gather that they weren't ever BR locos but the mix of serial numbers of fake pre-TOPS identities is a bit odd.
  2. Expanding on that point, it might be helpful to give the TOPS numbers in addition to the preservation identity, where applicable. I'm looking mainly at the Westerns as I type this, but I'll fully admit to being less-than-well-informed so I'm open to being told it's not a good idea.
  3. Some of the loco names are enclosed in quotes and some aren't (7802 "Bradley Manor" vs 50007 Hercules, for example). Is there are difference of some sort indicated by this, or a preferred style across articles?
  4. I'm still a wee bit concerned about the amount of potentially-dated status information, like the "under overhaul, repair or restoration" and "awaiting overhaul" categorisations as well as "Bridgnorth based"", etc. I can understand it's value, so I'm on the fence and I'd appreciate some opinions from others.
  5. And finally, both of the books listed in the sources can't be found by ISBN. At all. The ISBNs aren't obviously wrong; they just return no results. The books don't even appear by title in Jisc Library Hub or the British National Bibliography, which is exceptionally odd and suggests that either I'm doing something wrong or there's something amiss in how both publishers are providing cataloguing data to the British Library.

  Other than that, I'm pretty happy with how the article's turned out! XAM2175 ^(T) 14:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  Loco names should be italicised, not quoted: 7802 Bradley Manor, 50007 Hercules. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, will amend the article accordingly. Robin84F (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks @XAM2175. Responding to the points as numbered:

  1. The mix is odd but that's they would be seen by people at the railway. The Bewdley yard shunter was recently repainted in a Ruston-style livery carrying its works number (presumably meant to represent ex-works condition), the other two have carried the fictitious BR livery and numbers for many years. I think (open to correction) that it's normal practice to list locos by the number they currently carry (so 42968 has recently become 13268, 34027 will become 21C127 and so on).

  2. I would err towards not including them. The TOPS article doesn't lead to a list on Wikipedia that I can see and the NYMR rolling stock list which has a number of main-line registered locos doesn't do so.

  3. Done in line with @Redrose64's comment.

  4. The categorisation does need ongoing maintenance, although it's not onerous if kept at a simple is it working / being worked on / not being worked on level. On the other hand, it's probably useful information for a general user reading the page. The "Bridgnorth" and "Kidderminster" based was there historically and I'd be happy not to include it. Open to others' thoughts also.

  5. Looks like a problem with how they were catalogued (or not). The Jones ISBN number isn't found, but clicking the 'Find on Amazon' link found one copy and searching the internet by title finds other booksellers all quoting the same number. The ST publications number is definitely right, but maybe they didn't register it. Hopefully it doesn't invalidate the book itself as a source Robin84F (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  1 and 2. That's all fine then. In the particular case of (2) I've just switched my brain on and remembered that the Westerns never actually carried TOPS numbers. What I had in mind was something like you've already done in the SVR article – eg. D3022 (08015) – and that's something I'd personally want to see in other articles too.

  3. Excellent, cheers.

  4. Yeah, I lean towards thinking it's helpful too, so I've no real problem with keeping it in assuming that nobody else has concerns.

  5. I've no doubt that they exist, haha, but it's a problem I'd not expected to encounter. It's almost got me wondering if the publishers are on top of their legal deposit obligations... XAM2175 ^(T) 16:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  A book doesn't need to have an ISBN to be a citable source, it simply needs to have been published somewhere in the world. Books published before the late 1960s didn't have ISBNs, unless they got reprinted later.

  • British Rail Locomotives and other motive power: Combined volume. London: Ian Allan. 1967.
  • Bailey, M.R. (February 1968). British Rail Headcodes (5th ed.). Shepperton:
    ISBN 0-7110-0000-X
    .
  • British Rail Locoshed Book. Shepperton:
    ISBN 0-7110-0004-2
    .
  • British Rail Locomotives and other motive power: Combined volume. London:
    ISBN 0-7110-0008-5
    .

  The first and fourth of these are different editions with different content (particularly among the steam locos), one has an ISBN the other doesn't, but are exactly as valid as each other. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  For the avoidance of doubt, I know this and am not disputing it for a moment. I've cited a great number of books without ISBNs in my time here, and I own many more. I raised the issue simply because I found it curious for two books to have an apparently-valid ISBN that returns no results. XAM2175 ^(T) 17:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I would avoid anything that is changed too often such as the operational status and even liveries. A lot of the statements such as "last worked in 2000" are not showing citations so are presumably Original Research; even if we do have citations for such things, are they up to date? I don't think it is reasonable for us to pretend they all are. As for liveries, not all the cited sources give the current livery, while "LMS Black (on completion)" is a Crystal Ball claim.

Something that hasn't been discussed is the images. I have been resizing them on some of the West Country heritage railways so they don't take up too much space (the SVR ones are fine), but I find them rather odd in the centre of a table. Move them to the first column (or the last if you like) and it becomes much easier to read across each row.

Having sortable columns can be useful as numerical order might not be what some users are looking for. Geof Sheppard (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Some interesting points. Realistically, steam loco overhauls usually take years, not months. Most steam locos change livery once in a ten-year ticket at most. Information needs to be relevant, accurate, concise, and have citations, but if it is, then I don't see any reason to supress it on the grounds that it might change from time to time.

If images in the centre are to be avoided then personally I'd suggest they should go on the right. To me, the most important thing is the identity of the object being discussed and that should be the first item listed. The picture is an illustration forming part of the description of it.

On the specific items in the SVR list, I've endeavoured to avoid including anything which could be construed as original research. I've put a citation on the "Last steamed in 2000". 13268's livery does not qualify as

WP:CRYSTAL in my view, it concerns an anticipated event which can be verified (by the citation already given in the notes but now added to the livery column as well; that said, if others also feel it's an issue then I'd be equally happy with "N/A" for now and the information in the notes only). I'll leave things as they stand for now, but happy to make sortable, move pictures, delete livery and so on if there is a general consensus that that should be applied to all the other pages too. (Obviously I don't own the SVR page – anyone else can make the changes if they wish!) Robin84F (talk

) 23:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The Spa Road Junction rail crash article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 13:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Can the issues raised in the deletion discussion be addressed and the article be saved? Mjroots (talk) 13:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)