WikiProject UK Railways

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

Archives

V · E

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

Shortcut

WT:UKRAIL

Joint railways after grouping

Over on wikidata I have been tagging items that are instances of ELR railway line section (Q113990375) with operator (P137) statements to indicate the companies most responsible for them.

I have added pre-grouping info for August 1921 based on values drawn from the Signalling Record Society line data (Q127932823) pages, and extended that to the grouping era for companies that exclusively became part of one of the big four.

But what would be most appropriate for sections operated by joint railways in 1921 -- eg the ones returned by this query tinyurl.com/mwpuvswb -- for joint railways that were 'inherited' by more than one of the 1923 Big Four ?

Did those joint railways continue to maintain a visible meaningful identity and presence? Or would it be more appropriate to mark such sections with eg operator (P137) = London, Midland and Scottish Railway (Q629139) and London and North Eastern Railway (Q1092839), perhaps with a qualifer like object of statement has role (P3831) = "joint owner" between 1923 and 1947. What would be most appropriate, accurate, and/or most useful ?

Thanks for any advice or thoughts.

(PS results of the query don't exactly match the data at pages like List of constituents of the London and North Eastern Railway, because (i) it's still work in progress; and (ii) the whole length of the modern ELR section has been included in the total mileage even if only a portion was actually operated by the joint company.) Jheald (talk) 14:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only one joint railway - the Portpatrick and Wigtownshire Joint Railway - was explicitly named in the Railways Act 1921, and it was to be grouped into the LMS - not surprising, as all of its pre-group co-owners were LMS constituents. For the other joint railways, two situations emerged straight away:

All of the pre-group co-owners were constituents of the same post-group railway (e.g. the Great Northern and Great Eastern Joint Railway): the joint railway was implicitly grouped along with its co-owners
The pre-group co-owners became constituents of different post-group railways, so the joint railway continued to exist, albeit with new co-owners

For situation (2), the co-owners might agree to retain the pre-group name (e.g. the Midland and Great Northern Joint Railway), or might decide that the joint line could be better administered if it was included with other joint lines under a new blanket title (e.g. the Halesowen Railway, the Shrewsbury and Hereford Railway and the Shrewsbury and Wellington Joint Railway all became part of the London, Midland and Scottish and Great Western Railways Joint Committee - althogh the Severn and Wye Railway, which had the same co-owners, did not)

The Transport Act 1947 avoided these problems by explicitly naming all the joint railways, even those where all co-owners were to become part of British Railways alone.

An examination of List of constituents of British Railways#Joint railways will show the ultimate situation. Afrer nationalisation, a few railways remained jointly-owned by British Railways and London Transport (e.g. the Metropolitan and Great Central Joint Railway), but these were sorted out by the end of 1949, mostly by splitting the line into two, and assigning one portion to BR, the other to LT. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: Thanks, that's a very useful start. A very useful checklist to see what joint railways still existing in 1947 I ought to be aware of.

So, apart from the London, Midland and Scottish and Great Western Railways Joint Committee (which seems to be the most obvious one of the 'Constituents of BR' page, are you aware of any other 'new' joint management organisations that existing joint railways got pooled into? Jheald (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that our list at List of constituents of British Railways#Joint railways isn't entirely complete. The definitive list is the one in the original text of the 1947 Act, which may be found at the Third Schedule to the 1947 Act. This includes a catch-all clause Any other body whose members consist wholly of, or of representatives of, two or more of the above mentioned bodies., something lacking from the 1921 Act. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from Redrose64's post above, what about pre-grouping joint railways, such as the London and North Western & Great Western Joint Railway? Mjroots (talk) 04:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: I'm not aware of any joint railway of that name. Railways that were jointly-owned by the GWR and LNWR pre-grouping tended to keep the name of the original railway after the GWR/LNWR takeover - the Shrewsbury and Hereford Railway and Shrewsbury and Wellington Joint Railway that I mentioned earlier, also the Birkenhead Railway, Brynmawr and Western Valleys Railway, Shrewsbury and Welshpool Railway, Vale of Towy Railway, West London Railway, Wrexham and Minera Joint Railway. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: - See List of ship launches in 1868 under 9 April. Two paddle steamers launched that day. Or have I misunderstood? Mjroots (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The news article, after explaining that the two companies involved are the LNWR and GWR, says "built expressly for the joint railway companies", I think meaning built jointly to the order of both companies, not a joint company. Nthep (talk) 15:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: I have a feeling that jointly-owned ships come into a different category than jointly-owned railway lines. They did exist: the LNWR and L&YR had several jointly-owned ships, working out of Fleetwood and other ports.

I think you probably need to read up on the service of ferries 'cross the Mersey that served the landing stage at Monk's Ferry (Birkenhead), to find out the actual ownership of these vessels. All I really know is that: (a) when the GWR and LNWR jointly purchased the Birkenhead Railway in 1860, the locomotive, carriage and wagon fleets were split up (for example, the GWR got 21 locomotives out of 42), so the ships owned by the Birkenhead Railway may also have been divided up, each ship becoming wholly owned by one partner or the other; (b) when Birkenhead Woodside railway station was opened on 1 April 1878, Birkenhead Monks Ferry railway station was downgraded to a goods station, and the small fleet of three railway-owned vessels that had served Monk's Ferry were redundant - of these, Thames was later sold to the London, Tilbury and Southend Railway, whilst Severn and the other one were eventually moved to Carlingford Lough. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I light of the above information, I've altered the list of ship launches to link both companies individually. Mjroots (talk) 05:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox photo guidelines

The original 16-year old pic

The recently-added 5 year old pic

Do we have guidelines, or established consensus, on the very prominent photos that go in the UK rail-related infoboxes, be it stations, or rolling stock, or other? I ask because the image on the left has been on Norwich railway station for some time. It's 16 years old but it is clear and shows the building well. The image on the right, added yesterday by @LeadPoisoning is 5 years old, but to me it's inferior because of the "clutter". By that I mean the parked cars and the prominence of the street furniture, especially the lamp posts, which obscure and distract from the building. I think the original is better so I have reverted and encouraged LeadPoisoning to discuss on the article's talk page per WP:BRD. Whether that discussion takes place there or here I'm keen to know whether such things are covered by existing guidelines/consensus. An infobox image is so important to the article as it's the first thing a reader is likely to see. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per MOS:IMAGEQUALITY, images showing the station "hidden in clutter, or ambiguous; and so on—should not be used unless absolutely necessary". The image on the left of Norwich Thorpe is better for me not only because of the lack of clutter but also the light and perspective is clearer. Lamberhurst (talk) 10:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it varies - in this case the older photo is better but if the station had substantially changed, I would go for a newer photo even if it was more cluttered as it is more representative of the subject as it is now. Garuda3 (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The 2008 picture (wait, 16 years ago????) has better quality, has blue skies and has less cars. The only thing I can see that has changed in this pic is the Pumpkin café which has since been turned into an M&S for a short while. In other words, barely anything has changed (at least from this angle) since 2008. It may also be recommended to check out this Google Street View link from July 2024 JuniperChill (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am failing to see any 'drastic' changes between the two dates, and I agree that the earlier image is a better photograph. A primary image (eg the infobox image) for an article on a current subject (eg a station that is still operational) should reflect the current state of the subject, but that does not compel us to provide regular updates. (Would they be annually? Monthly? The ultimate solution would be a live webcam!) Significant rebuilding or redecoration should be recorded, but in this case I see no need to change the image of a building, the front of which has not changed much in 138 years, let alone the last 16.

Updated images are of course welcome in the Commons category, where they are already referenced by the article. -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 12:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should generally use the best image available. It only matters if it is old if the station has changed significantly in appearance, and that doesn't seem to be the case here. 16 years ago is only 2008! G-13114 (talk) 12:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Passengers using Sheffield Victoria in 1981

Please see Talk:Sheffield Victoria railway station#Used in 1981. Can a reliable source be found? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

– Now in the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Croydon Tramlink stops

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport#Notability of Croydon Tramlink stops that may be of interest to participants here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment

I've nominated BR Standard Class 7 for a good article reassessment here. Interested editors are welcome to participate. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RDT assistance required

I've created {{2024 Talerddig collision RDT}} for use in the 2024 Talerddig collision article. The top of the diagram needs tweaking so that the diagram displays in a similar way that {{2021 Salisbury rail crash RDT}} displays in the 2021 Salisbury rail crash article. If any editor is able to assist, it would be appreciated. Mjroots (talk) 10:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots I've added the inline parameter, which is what I think you were looking for. Mackensen (talk) 11:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mackensen, diagram is displaying correctly now. Mjroots (talk) 11:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting book about South Wales Metro

@Barrymarkd may not be an experienced Wikipedia editor, but it is clear that he knows a lot about public transportation systems. He has tried a couple of times to reference his own self-published book How To Build A Metro. Yes I know it rings WP:COI and WP:SPS alarm bells, but go take a look, it's very interesting and well written. It is within the WP:SPS guideance to allow referencing to self published works by knowledgeable authors and in this case I think it's something that we could use. Thoughts? 10mmsocket (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail Class 555

There is a move discussion ongoing at British Rail Class 555 to move the article to Tyne and Wear Metro Class 555 which I would appreciate input in, as it was originally moved without discussion. Thanks. Danners430 (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Greater Anglia franchise railway stations has been nominated for discussion

Category:Greater Anglia franchise railway stations has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.. JuniperChill (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Northern franchise railway stations is also part of that discussion JuniperChill (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways