Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Routeboxes, June 2015

I've recently discovered that references to the [https://www.rhrp.org.uk/ Railway Heritage Register Online] website seem to have become broken links. Many of the UK "Rolling Stock of the....." articles are heavily dependent on these. I've certainly added many of these references to the Rolling stock of the Watercress Line article, all of which are now broken and need changing. I'm willing to tackle this for that article, but before I do so, I'm wondering if any of you clever people (who are far more experienced at this sort of thing than me...) might know of a quicker way of fixing them? I haven't managed to work out whether it's just part of the URL that needs changing, or a complete replacement. Mwsmith20 (talk) 16:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:If the pages are archived (e.g. on Internet Archive) or if there is a consistent new URL then you can make a request for a bot to update all the citations at WP:URLREQ. There is a backlog but it's typically only a few days. Thryduulf (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::It looks like they have done a complete rebuild of the database that feeds their website. I just tried an example and found that

::* Old http://www.ws.rhrp.org.uk/ws/WagonInfo.asp?Ref=6986 has become

::* New https://ws.rhrp.org.uk/WagonSurvey/displayvehicle.php?Ref=AO7JYKE2D04VN1C59QZX

::So, no easy fix that I can see. Geof Sheppard (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::That's what I feared. Thanks for looking, Mwsmith20 (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::But [https://web.archive.org/web/20241213053441/http://www.ws.rhrp.org.uk/ws/WagonInfo.asp?Ref=6986 an archive copy] exists. Easier to automate a translation? -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 16:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I suggest that we update the existing links to the archived versions en-masse so the references are working, without prejudice to manually updating to the live version. It looks like restricting the bot edits to URIs with "/ws/" would prevent any duplication of effort, edit conflicts, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::The archived copies might be out of date, so I think that it will need to be a manual job to amend to the fresh URLs. As I type this, there are [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:LinkSearch?target=www.ws.rhrp.org.uk&limit=300 290 links] to fix. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::The question is whether a broken link or a potentially out-of-date archive link is better in the interim pending a manual fix. My preference is for the latter. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Agreed. The links should be checked regularly in case they become out of date, but these broken links can be fixed by pointing to the archive for now. I've made a mental note to update the pages on my watchlist that use this source soon - they were all done about 18 months ago so are probably due a check anyway. Geof Sheppard (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I've made a request at WP:URLREQ#Railway Heritage Register Online. Thryduulf (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::There are two Railway heritage Register Online folders that have been moved. In addition to the above wagon survey, there are carriage survey pages that start http://www.cs.rhrp.org.uk/se/ so I have added them to the request. Geof Sheppard (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::The archive request has now been carried out. Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::That's great, thank you for that (and to everyone else for their helpful comments) Mwsmith20 (talk) 11:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm currently doing a bit of work on Malvern College. in the See also section, there is a link to List of SR V "Schools" class locomotives which states that the engine's nameplate was donated to the college and is now housed in its library. However, neither the mention, nor the List have a citation to confirm this. While I am sure it is accurate, it would be good to have a cite for verification. Does anyone know of a source that might give this? Thanks and regards. KJP1 (talk) 08:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:College magazine? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:06, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::The college website offers a [https://www.malverncollege.org.uk/about-us/virtual-tour/ virtual tour] of many areas, but does not include (as I understand it) the War Memorial Library. Frankly, their current aesthetic does not seem likely to include relics of a 1930's steam loco; perhaps they've hidden it in a dark corner away from the camera.

::There is also the Malvernian Society [https://www.malverniansocietyarchives.co.uk/default.aspx Digital Archives website], which offers the facility to search The Malvernian (college journal) and various other publications (including Blumenau's history) in greater depth than I have time for. (The journal search mechanism is over-fond of returning multiple duplicate hits). I shall add the URLs to the External links section. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 16:03, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I need to dig out my copies of The Railway Magazine from 1961-65. I'm sure that there was at least one item, with photo, showing a Schools class loco nameplate that had been mounted on the wall of a school hall. IIRC the school was presented with the nameplate by British Railways; if it was done for one school, why not for forty? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Many thanks indeed for the suggestions - very helpful. The Malvernian Archive in particular, is a great source and a very good addition to the article, even if it doesn't cover this specific. I'll keep looking, and User:Redrose64 if it comes up in your Magazine, that would be fabulous, although I think you are right and that they were donated to each named school, so the chances of the article covering the Malvern one are slim! Thanks and regards. KJP1 (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::::In answer to RedRose64's question, old boy network? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Currently there are two different articles for Blyth railway station and Blyth Bebside railway station. The latter used to be called Bebside railway station, which is the name of the old closed station. That old closed station is given one small paragraph in the article. On Blyth railway station (closed), there is a paragraph about the new railway station, which has a merge tag. It's all very confusing and needs sorting out.

Keep it how it is.

Pros: less effort

Cons: stupid

Have three articles, two for the historical stations and one for the new one. Then we can also have a summary paragraph on the new one about the old ones.

Pros: very logical approach

Cons: the new station is just Bebside rebuilt to a certain extent, so this may not be very clear by doing this.

Have one article called Railway stations in Blyth, because if you [https://www.google.com/maps/place/Blyth/@55.1163412,-1.5376155,9323a,35y,351.19h/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x487e0d3290c43f55:0x215f59bf36cc3094!8m2!3d55.126957!4d-1.510277!16zL20vMDI4NnY5?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDUyOC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D look on google maps] Bebside is one of those places that has a name but doesn't really exist. Even the nearby stores to what is labelled Bebside use Blyth as their place name, and google's boundaries of Blyth include Bebside. That one article could effectively be a summary style history of the three stations, then have one article for each station.

Pros: most sensible approach for describing the history and arrangement of stations

Cons: most effort and involves four articles for what is essentially two stations.

Look forward to hearing people's thoughts, JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 10:07, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:I think a merge is appropriate between the two articles, with a history section detailing the history of railway stations in Blyth, and the overall article's focus being on the new station.

:Thanks! MelonLost (talk) 11:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Jellemdejong has changed a large number of infobox images (list below) to the works picture of the locomotive in question. I simply feel for such a mass change it would be worth getting comments, as personally I feel an image of the locomotive working is better.

Articles:

{{bulleted list|BR Standard Class 2 2-6-0|BR Standard Class 2 2-6-2T|BR Standard Class 4 2-6-4T (since reverted)|BR Standard Class 3 2-6-0|BR Standard Class 4 2-6-0|BR Standard Class 4 4-6-0|BR Standard Class 5|BR Standard Class 6|BR Standard Class 7|BR Standard Class 9F|BR Standard Class 3 2-6-2T}}

Danners430 (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:Personally I found it more appropriate to show a HD photo of the loco you're looking at (also handy if you hover over a link to one of the pages above). Not all the infobox photos are as clear. If it's not desirable to have the works photos in the infobox feel free to revert the changes I've made. Steamtraction (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

::There are plenty of HD photos of the locomotives in preservation, and plenty that are good quality from when they were in main line service - but I don’t think it’s appropriate mass reverting without input from others :) Danners430 (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I feel that works photos are appropriate for infobox images, for a number of reasons:

:::* they are potentially of high quality, being made for publicity purposes (though this may depend on how many printing/scanning steps intervene before they get uploaded to Commons)

:::* Photographic grey livery is designed to pick out the features of a locomotive clearly

:::* They use side or front three-quarter eye-level viewpoints, to show the locomotive's proportions

:::* They represent the loco in original condition - significant given the modifications applied to many locos in use and in preservation

:::* They often have the background blanked out, removing distracting and unnecessary detail

:::Against works photos:

:::* It may be hard to find a large, clean copy to scan

:::* They are usually monochrome

:::* They do not show the loco in a typical location or doing typical work

:::* A locomotive (eg Flying Scotsman) may be best known in non-works condition, after modification or rebuilding

:::Given these latter points, my preference would be to use good quality, appropriate works photos in the infobox when available, and add other images elsewhere for illumination. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 15:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:Personally I think that the works photos are better for the articles infoboxes, of course supported by other images in the article itself, and should be kept, though this discussion should definitely have been had beforehand. MelonLost (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I've started a discussion regarding the power output of these units, as there is some contention around the voltage in the source. Would it be possible to get some additional eyes on the topic? Many thanks! Danners430 (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I was idly looking at this article and noticed that two Class 31s were shown as being at the Wensleydale Railway, which is well out of date; they haven't been there for a number of years. 31454 is at Nemesis Rail in Burton, and 31459 is at Shackerstone. I found out where they were now, and changed it, admittedly with not great sources (a Railway Herald 2025 image for 31454, and the Facebook page of the company which is restoring 31459 at Shackerstone). This was reverted, so now it's wrong again. So (a) has anyone got any better sources than mine, and (b) has anyone got a copy of the June Railways Illustrated, which mentions 31454 being purchased by Nemesis Rail - I need a page number? Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:55, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:Page 10 - [https://issuu.com/mortons-digital/docs/railways_illustrated_june_2025_issue_20_page_fre/10 Third Class 33 looks set to move to Harry Needle?] Danners430 (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::Related threads also exist at User talk:Black Kite#Class 31 and User talk:Murgatroyd49#Class 31, these should have been mentioned. But one question that leaps out is: why was this not taken straight to Talk:British Rail Class 31 after the first revert? There has been nothing posted to the article's talk page since January 2024 - 17 months ago.

::Anyway, a photograph - whether posted on Facebook or printed in a magazine - is evidence that the locomotive was in a particular place on a particular date. It is not evidence that the locomotive is based there, permanently or otherwise - it might be just visiting. For example, LNER no. 4472 Flying Scotsman was at Didcot for the last two weeks of May 2025, but this was a temporary visit, so that people could see it with GWR no. 4079 Pendennis Castle, in commemoration of two events in May 1925: (i) the locomotive exchanges, when Pendennis Castle was loaned to the LNER for two weeks ending 2 May 1925; and (ii) the second summer of the British Empire Exhibition (9 May to 31 October 1925), when both Flying Scotsman and Pendennis Castle were among the railway exhibits on display. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Well indeed, but the point here is that the two 31s are *not* at the Wensleydale, which is what the article says, and haven't been for a while. Possibly it would be better to have nothing in that column rather than information which is incorrect. Unfortunately the WR's own website is a couple of years out of date (it says they have Classes 14/20/33/37, when it is correctly 14/33/37/47) but [https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/people/wensleydale-railway-expands-heritage-diesel-fleet-following-purchase-of-class-47-locomotive-4668766 this] is correct. Unfortunately, of course, we can't use a reliable source saying that the 31s *aren't* there to say where they *are*. Black Kite (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::The thing is, there is a reliable source they’re at Wensleydale… and there isn’t a reliable source saying they’ve left, at least as of yet… so we can’t really remove something that’s well sourced without a source counteracting the existing content. Danners430 (talk) 12:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::: Which is ridiculous, isn't it? (though I'd point out that (a) the reliable source saying they are there is 5+ years old, and (b) we do have a reliable source which I mentioned above that there aren't any 31s there). Also, there's a reliable source saying that 31454 "is" there - there are no sources for 31459 being there (it was, but that's not the point). Black Kite (talk) 13:28, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::The problem is the obsession with trying to emulate a newspaper with continually adding the latest news regardless of whether it is accurately sourced or not. As far as Wikipedia's encyclopaedic function is concerned, does it really matter whether a particular loco is at A or B at a given date? These things change with monotonous regularity. A classic case is a Class 45 that may or may not have been cut up years ago but there is no reliable source to confirm which is true. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::: That's true, but in this particular case my issue is not only that we are stating something on that page that isn't true, but the fact that it hasn't been for years. We should simply remove the location for those two locomotives IMO - at least a blank space is not incorrect. As for 45015, no it's still there at Shackerstone (along with 31459, ironically), so at least our article is technically correct there. Black Kite (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::But again - there’s a perfectly good source there, so removing it would require something to verify that the source is incorrect or has been usurped… Danners430 (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::: [https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/people/wensleydale-railway-expands-heritage-diesel-fleet-following-purchase-of-class-47-locomotive-4668766 This] states that the Wensleydale has mainline classes of 14/33/37/47 and does not mention 31s. Whilst the WR's website is out of date, their [https://www.facebook.com/p/Wensleydale-Diesel-Traction-Group-100057529595707/ Facebook page] is not, and also backs up the correct fleet. We also have evidence (whether reliable or not) that neither 31 is at Wensleydale. I think that's enough to at least remove the incorrect location, even if we don't replace it. Black Kite (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi all. I was bored of always having to manually cite the NESA and I'm sure I'm not the only one so I made the template {{tlx|NESA}} where you simply add an access date and a region and it cites the NESA.

Example:

Meldreth railway station has two platforms.{{NESA|LNE|access-date=22 June 2025}} outputs

Meldreth railway station has two platforms.{{NESA|LNE|access-date=22 June 2025}}

And the citation looks like:

{{reflist}}

I'm not going to actively replace it where the NESA has previously been cited but will just use it going forward. Hope you enjoy using at and feel free to try improve the template yourself! Thanks, JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 16:31, 22 June 2025 (UTC)