Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:37, 2 August 2021

v t e WikiProject UK Railways
	Home Discussion Assessment Categories Lists Rail colours Templates Members

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

Archives

V · E Index Archive 1: Apr – Dec 2006 Archive 2: Jan – Apr 2007 Archive 3: Apr – Jun 2007 Archive 4: May – Jul 2007 Archive 5: Aug – Sep 2007 Archive 6: Sep – Oct 2007 Archive 7: Oct – Nov 2007 Archive 8: Nov 2007 – Jan 2008 Archive 9: Jan – Feb 2008 Archive 10: Feb – May 2008 Archive 11: May – Jun 2008 Archive 12: Jun – Aug 2008 Archive 13: Sep 2008 – Feb 2009 Archive 14: Feb – Nov 2009 Archive 15: Nov 2009 – Feb 2010 Archive 16: Feb – May 2010 Archive 17: May – Oct 2010 Archive 18: Oct 2010 – Jan 2011 Archive 19: Jan – Apr 2011 Archive 20: Apr – Jun 2011 Archive 21: May – Sep 2011 Archive 22: Sep 2011 – Jan 2012 Archive 23: Jan - Apr 2012 Archive 24: Apr 2012 - Feb 2013 Archive 25: Feb - Apr 2013 Archive 26: Apr - Sep 2013 Archive 27: Sep 2013 - Feb 2014 Archive 28: Feb - Jun 2014 Archive 29: Jun - Oct 2014 Archive 30: Oct 2014 - Jan 2015 Archive 31: Jan - May 2015 Archive 32: May - Aug 2015 Archive 33: Jun - Nov 2015 Archive 34: Nov 2015 - Mar 2016 Archive 35: Mar - Jul 2016 Archive 36: Jul - Nov 2016 Archive 37: Nov 2016 - Feb 2017 Archive 38: Feb 2017 (Decaptilising lines discussion) Archive 39: Feb - May 2017 Archive 40: May - Sep 2017 Archive 41: Sep 2017 - May 2018 Archive 42: May - Jul 2018 Archive 43: Jul - Aug 2018 Archive 44: Aug 2018 - Apr 2019 Archive 45: Mar - Aug 2019 Archive 46: Aug 2019 - Feb 2020 Archive 47: Feb - Jul 2020 Archive 48: Jul 2020 - Jan 2021 Archive 49: Jan - Mar 2021 Archive 50: Mar - May 2021 Archive 51: May 2021 - Oct 2021 + LTS discussion Archive 52: Nov 2021 - Mar 2022 Archive 53: Mar - Oct 2022 Archive 54: Oct 2022 - Jan 2023 Archive 55: Jan - Jun 2023 Archive 56: Jun 2023 - Jan 2024 Archive 57: Jan 2024 - Aug 2024 Archive 58: Aug 2024 - present

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

• WT:UKRAIL

Redirect London Tilbury and Southend Railway

The plan is:-

1. to take the existing article called London Tilbury and Southend Railway and rename it London Tilbury and Southend Line(s)
2. take the article on the pre-grouping company (1854-1912) and transfer from my sand box to a full article called London Tilbury & Southend Railway
3. The links for stations and locomotives will presumably direct to the London Tilbury and Southend Line(s) which won't be wrong as such but the new London Tilbury & Southend Railway will be better - is there a way around this?
4. Improve the history of the London Tilbury and Southend Line(s) to cover the Midland, LMS and early BR days e.g. 1912 onwards.

The question I have are: What is the protocol for renaming (and please see talk page for other naming options) What is the protocol for getting the new article up - does it need reviewing first?

Please feel free to look at the work in progress (assuming that is possible).

https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Davidvaughanwells/sandbox

--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

So, as far as moving is concerned, we need:

1. London Tilbury and Southend Railway moved to London Tilbury and Southend line
2. User:Davidvaughanwells/sandbox moved to London Tilbury and Southend Railway

@Davidvaughanwells: is that correct? I'll take a look if this conforms with article title policies, and if you confirm it is what needs to be done I can give you a hand. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, on further look:

1) Unless you can convince me that the WP:COMMONNAME for the modern railway line is Essex Thameside (or something else, really, so long it is a valid title), it probably needs to stay at the current title.

2) your point 1) refers to a redirect - am I correct in deducing that you would want to move your sandbox to that redirect?

3) Nothing links to either of "London Tilbury and Southend Line" or "London Tilbury and Southend Lines" (per the respective Special:WhatLinksHere pages); so no issue on that front, although the proper title would likely be in sentence case so in all likelihood "line"

4) For others, there's a discussion at Talk:London,_Tilbury_and_Southend_Railway#Requested_split_Feburary_13_2020.

Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @RandomCanadian:, I think you need to consider the history of the network and how wikipedia treats geographical lines else where. The London and Tilbury and Southend was a railway company and developed the route. Historically the line has until recently always been known as the London Tilbury and Southend but its history after 1912 was under the Midland, LMS and British Rail. So to be clear the article I have written is on the early history of the route and the pre-grouping company and the current page only gives that the briefest of mentions.

If we take the neighbouring Great Eastern Railway its geographic scope is covered by a number of line articles such as Great Eastern Main Line and this is mostly consistent through Misplaced Pages. Therefore renaming it to London Tilbury and Southend lines is consistent with how wikipedia has dealt with railway history.

I concede there is potential for confusion and I can just copy my work into the current article and then start working on the later history as and when I get round to it. I am concerned that other well meaning editors could pollute the article with post 1912 material so a copy and paste over the rudimentary early history of the current entry has its merits (and looks like less work).

--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 09:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Have to say, I prefer your seperate article version. A hidden note to other editors to add post 1912 info to the older article should cover it. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Davidvaughanwells: The alternative would be to have a separate article using parenthetical disambiguation, something like "London, Tilbury and Southend Railway (pre-grouping company)" (do we have some other examples of this kind of stuff just so we can compare for consistency's sake?); and then leave a note at the top about it in the article about the modern primary topic. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

We don't need the disambiguator. Davidvaughanwells's original proposal is just fine. One article about the railway company up to 1912, and one about its lines, although there is a possibility these could be dealt with separately. Mjroots (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mjroots: So the course of action would be

1. London, Tilbury and Southend Railway -> London, Tilbury and Southend line (and either suppress the redirect immediately or G6 it thereafter to make way for no. 3, whichever is more convenient)
2. Fix the links to London, Tilbury and Southend Railway (there's 400 of them; - somebody with AWB would be the fastest way to fix this)
3. User:Davidvaughanwells/sandbox -> London, Tilbury and Southend Railway

? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Move the railway title to the lines title. Fix the links, checking whether any to remain pointing to an article about the company, if they do the leave them. Then get a friendly admin (*cough*) to move the sandbox to the company title, sorting out the offending G6 at the same time. Mjroots (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The fact is I could spare you the G6 (this is still active for a wee bit); but ok, when I get time for it, will be a happy distraction from current pursuits. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Do you have any clue why the inconsistent capitalisation on Template:Railway lines in London? We need to pick one for consistency. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

As for the moves, that should be  Done. I'm working on fixing the redirects. If I'm not done tonight I'll probably leave a request at AWB so they can finish. There was a template which might account for a substantial portion of the 400 links. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Additionally there are the odd cases like Becontree which refer to the line in the period when the line was owned by the Midland railway; those I'm not touching for the time being. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I've done a fair bit. There's Category:Former London, Tilbury and Southend Railway stations (done as far as Ockendon) which will need some more thorough checking than the rest. And then all the modern day articles are also annoying because in addition to the templates (which I've corrected), many of them have route boxes at the bottom. Guess that would be a task best suited for AWB. The rest will have to be done manually, though it's not that bad, there's only about 200 articles still to check. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Right now I'm busy with some things for off-wiki matters, but when I get a bit more time I'll go through all the articles that have a link to the railway page and verify them; though I think a decent part of the problematic links have been dealt with after the AWB request. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I have worked through the rest of the stations and checked the individual locomotive class entries.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

British Rail Class 447

The unreferenced British Rail Class 447 article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Its gone --Davidvaughanwells (talk) 14:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Kingsway tram station

Noted in news: ... anyone interested if seeing if relevant to Kingsway tramway subway. I've got about 3/4/5 articles I'm messily stacked on already ... and not sure if its a straightforward update. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The article is wrong about it being the first time in 70 years, someone has posted a series of photos on Flickr of an organised visit there in 2009. Quite likely wasn't the only such visit. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Great Western main line

I am going to give it a day or two but I am going to be bold and move this page to capitalise. If we look at MML - Midland Main Line or West Coast Main Line or East Coast Main Line or even Great Central Main Line they are all capitalized. Even Bonnie Scotland has Highland Main Line in capitals. This article does not. I strongly feel we need consistency. I raised the issue on the talk page quite a while ago and a few agree with me GRALISTAIR (talk) 11:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you too, but be prepared for pushback. There are one or two editors who are really keen to decapitalise almost everything, railway lines among them. There have been several quite contentious discussions in the past 2-3 years. Thryduulf (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @GRALISTAIR: You need to give it more than a day or two: not everyone has time or is inclined to visit their favourite Misplaced Pages pages daily. A couple of weeks would be more accommodating. There's been a history of pages yoyoing back and forward between having "main line" capitalised or not. Although I prefer "main line", I'm not fussed if it's "Main Line", as long as there's consistency in article titles and links. I suggest, though, that some references are obtained to show that there is more use of "Main Line" than "main line": we work on WP:RS rather than our own likes. List of railway lines in Great Britain shows 22 with "main line" in their name. All but five are capitalised, the exceptions being South Western main line, Brighton main line, Chatham main line, South Eastern main line, and South Humberside main line. Advanced search reveals the following with lowercase entries: Great Western main line, Caledonian main line, South Western main line, Brighton main line, South Humberside main line, TransPennine main line (redirects to Huddersfield line), South Eastern main line. It looks like the current flavour is for "Main Line". Advanced search also lists templates which are lowercase: Template:Great Eastern main line RDT, Template:Chatham main line, and Template:South Eastern main line. Bazza (talk) 12:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Adding WP:RS: Network Rail call it "Great Western Mainline", so following WP:RS suggests we should use the current redirect at Great Western Mainline for the main article. They also have "West Coast Mainline" and "South West Mainline", but "Chiltern main line" and "East Coast Main Line", so should we stick to WP:CONSISTENT, or follow WP:RS? Bazza (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding "Mainline" vs "Main Line" we should follow the sources. This is going to lead to inconsistency but that can't be helped when the real world is inconsistent. Thryduulf (talk) 12:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed - I will probably give it at least a month unless someone else does it first GRALISTAIR (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I swear I am not fussed either way but there should be consistency. I raised the issue on GW main line talk page a few months back. Consistency is my beef GRALISTAIR (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I mean in meandering I noticed on the page Rail operating centre it refers to West Coast Route Modernisation. How far do we take this whole thing? Why is Route capitalised? Why is Modernisation capitalised? For that matter why is Coast capitalised? So should WCML read West coast main line? Perhaps I have lived in the USA way too long! GRALISTAIR (talk) 13:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

WCRM is the name of a project, so is a proper noun, and thus capitalised. FWIW I agree with capitalised Line - the Line is part of the name. LU's insistence on lower-case has always peeved me. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth I 100% agree that the current guidelines on capitalisation are ludicrous, and clearly unfit for purpose if they produce the results that we have seen. They only exist because of a few editors have a bizarre obsession with the issue! G-13114 (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Move request initiated at Talk:Great Western main line#Requested move 11 July 2021 Mallaeta (talk) 06:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Given the above RM gave a clear result, have opened another RM to cover he remaining articles with main line in lower case. Mallaeta (talk) 11:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

AfD

Denton railway station (Lincolnshire) has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

"Daventry Parkway Project" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Daventry Parkway Project. The discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 15#Daventry Parkway Project until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy notification only. This proposal has no evidence of wider acceptance or notability, so may safely be skipped if busy. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Merchant Navy Class

The SR Merchant Navy Class article (FA class) currently only mentions one incident, that involving the broken axle on Crewkerne. I'm not sure that it had anything to do with the performance of the unmodified locomtives, which it is currently a subsection of.

There are other accidents and incidents involving the class which are not mentioned. I propose to move the subsection containing the Crewkerne incident to a become a retitled "Accidents and Incidents" section immediately above the "Withdrawal" section and add some other incidents I can verify, unless there are any objections. Mjroots (talk) 11:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Royal Scot identity swap

Dinoboyaz (talk · contribs) is claiming, without any evidence at all, that the LMS Royal Scot locomotives nos. 6100 and 6152 did not exchange identities permanently in 1933. I have provided sources to show that they did (and can provide more if necessary), but with these edits, Dinoboyaz continues to insist that they are right and I am wrong. Essentially, they are flouting WP:V and denying the accuracy of books written by Bob Essery and also books published by the RCTS. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• There's nothing to deny: while I admit I haven’t read those books, they may not be accurate. I ordered them myself to look at it, but a fellow on discord confirmed the identity swap being permanent is a myth. Also, Locomotive Services Limited has logs that would confirm if the locomotive went to America. Dinoboyaz (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• The sources you gave may not actually prove anything anyway Redrose64: they may have just mentioned it without providing evidence of the fact.Dinoboyaz (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Dinboyaz, nevertheless they are two published sources from sources normally accepted as reliable. "A fellow on discord" doesn't have the same standard of reliability. If you want to disprove the information, the onus is on you to provide reliable, verifiable sources to support your assertion. Then we can all assess the relative values of each. Nthep (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Reliable or not, they don’t prove anything. It’s actually debated among people too. Just using a source doesn’t prove it happened. Dinoboyaz (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

And neither does a debate prove the opposite either, so instead of offering opinions from "mates on the internet" produce some reliable sources that refute the claim Essery et al make. Nthep (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Just word of mouth isn’t reliable, true. What we really need is hard evidence they swapped identities. Dinoboyaz (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

If the source has no hard evidence, that counts it as a myth, it's just a saying that it happened, no hard-line or substantial evidence to prove it, just like Robin Hood. Around the time of King John's reign he was getting robbed and the poor were getting paid, and people talked about a Robin Hood, it got passed down and it's a myth, there's stuff which kinda show that it could've happened, but yet again there's other stuff showing that it never happened. Dinoboyaz (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

A reliable source stating this fact is the evidence we need on Misplaced Pages. We might have to discuss if a specific source is reliable but we don't have to trace back the sources that reliable source used. --PhiH (talk) 08:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

There can't be a dispute here if one fellow has sources and the other hasn't. That goes to the core of Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. Essery may be wrong, or an inferior source. I can't speak to that. However, what's required at this stage is either a source that explicitly states Essery is wrong, or a source that contradicts Essery and is evaluated as more reliable. Otherwise, there's nothing to do here. Mackensen (talk) 01:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Not all sources are reliable: I looked online to find out. All of them said that the identity swap was permanent, but none provided any evidence to prove it. Like I said, without sufficient evidence, no source can be taken as fact. Dinoboyaz (talk) 02:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Dinoboyaz, this would be a very good time for you to provide sources, evidence, or anything other than an unsupported assertion. Mackensen (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Don’t you see, there are no sources I’m aware of that prove or disprove it, I looked. All of them said that they swapped identities, but didn’t provide any specifics. I’m waiting for a book that could provide the answer we’re looking for, but I never said it didn’t happen: I just said there’s no proof it did, which there isn’t. It’s that simple. I suggest a compromise. Dinoboyaz (talk) 03:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Why do you persist in stating that there's no proof it happened, when a reliable source stated it did? Unless you have solid evidence that the book is unreliable (and that doesn't include what some bloke down the pub on social media told you), it should remain in place. If there is reasonable doubt from another reliable source, we can state both sides. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 07:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

We don’t even know what’s in that book: it could just mention they swapped permanently without providing evidence for it. Like I said, no matter how reliable a source is, it can’t be considered reliable if it just says stuff without providing sufficient evidence for it. I emailed the Royal Scot Locomotive Turst, they met provide some info. Dinoboyaz (talk) 08:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

In this video, Chris Eden Green actually states that 6100 and 6133 never returning to their original identities is nothing more than a belief, with interpretation being left up to rivet counters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-AKdB7S4LU&feature=youtu.be

Before you say anything about videos, Chris Eden Green does a lot of research, he’s as reliable as you can get. Dinoboyaz (talk) 08:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

.... So lets actually see the quote from the transcript from 07:55 to 08:17 is: "... the tour was such a big deal that it seems to have sparked a conspiracy theory when the engine came back her identity would have been swapped back to the Kings Dragoon Guardsmen but there remains a long-standing belief that once she became royal Scot she stayed that way though identity clarification is left entirely open to interpretation by rivet counters". Am I mis-interpreting this or is Chris Eden Green calling Dinoboyaz a conspiracy theorist? Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

..... You're missing the point: it’s not about conspiracy, it’s about the fact Chris Eden Green is a reliable resource. He made this video before I learned it was actually a myth they never swapped back.Dinoboyaz (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• There have been a number of cases in the past where "reliable" sources have proved not to have been, by which time their information has been repeated many times. The poster boy for this is the previously-well-regarded "What Happened To Steam" books, which were later debunked as having huge amounts of fictional information; by that time that information had been repeated in publications by many others who would be regarded as reliable, such as the RCTS. The difference there however is that the people who debunked WHTS did so by unearthing historical documents which proved the information to be false. Here, as far as I can see, we've no such documentation, simply assertion. Black Kite (talk) 10:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • While you have a point, you can’t deny there’s no official-known documentation they stayed swapped after the tour. It’s that simple: a lack of documented proof means it can’t be confirmed or denied whether the swap was permanent. Dinoboyaz (talk) 10:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

You still haven’t cited a source that justifies your assertion that it was a myth. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Neither has anybody cited a source that justifies they did swap identities, even Rose's sources may not have done that, so it can’t be proven or disproven. Dinoboyaz (talk) 10:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

We know they swapped for the tour. That's a well sourced fact. We also have sources that say they did not swap back (here's a few more ). We don't have any reliable sources that show that they did. I can't find any sources that explicitly say that the Statue of Liberty is not made out of sushi rice, either, but I don't need to because there isn't any reliable information claiming that it is. Black Kite (talk) 10:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I’m aware they swapped for the tour, but what you just provided can’t prove they never swapped back because it’s only previews. I looked through the former and they just said the swap was done for the tour, nothing about never swapping back. The second one doesn’t show anything for me. What exactly are you trying to show me? What is the exact evidence you’re talking about? Dinoboyaz (talk) 10:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

As far as I’m concerned, they don’t provide any direct evidence either, which further means they can’t confirm the swap was permanent. So in essence, you actually don’t know if they never swapped back. Dinoboyaz (talk) 11:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Both of those (well-regarded) books that I've linked say that the swap was permanent (and there were more book sources, but those didn't have pageview in Google Books) . There are two further book sources linked in the 46100 article. That's at least four. How many reliable sources say they did swap back? Zero. So it doesn't actually matter if you think they swapped back, without any actual evidence of that the articles will follow the sources we have. Black Kite (talk) 11:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

you're being a hypocrite: you claim nothing I have proves they swapped back but your sources don’t prove anything either. You keep providing stuff that says they never swapped back but doesn’t provide any proof they did. Show me something that does provide proof they did, not just saying they did without proving it. Dinoboyaz (talk) 11:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks now, nice. Misplaced Pages works on reliable sources. Reliable sources have been provided to show they didn't swap back. You have provided no reliable sources to show they did. Therefore, this conversation has reached its end, I think. Black Kite (talk) 11:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

No it hasn’t, because your sources prove nothing: they just say it happened. Next time you provide a source, consider that first. What's needed is some physical evidence, such as build numbers on the frames. Do any of your sources state something like that? Dinoboyaz (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Dinoboyaz, please drop the stick. Nobody here is agreeing with you, and you are not going to change anyone's opinion. If you continue arguing, people may stop assuming good faith with you any more. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 12:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

There’s nothing to drop, not until a source that does more than just say the swap was permanent is brought up. It’s that simple: show me a source that says the swap was permanent and actually provides evidence to back it up, and I’ll have a reason to drop it. Dinoboyaz (talk) 12:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)