Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways

This is a BRD discussion following a revert by @Geof Sheppard of my attempt to change some frequencies at Great Western Railway (train operating company) into fractions. My initial reasoning was that other service tables displayed such infrequent services as fractions of trains per hour without any issue, yet I also don't see a clear consensus preferring one format over the other. What's everyone else's opinion on this matter? Jalen Barks (Woof) 20:19, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

My gut feeling is that both 0.5tph and 1tp2h are fine, but anything less frequent or more complex should be in the latter format. Most importantly each article should use a consistent format. Thryduulf (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

The reason for avoiding '1⁄2 tph' (which I gave in my edit summary) is that trains come as whole units, not halves. Half a train per hour is a very different thing to 1 train every 2 hours. Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Not a huge fan of any, but as long as they're consistent I'm fine. However, what I do feel strongly about is that no such abbreviation should be used outside the one column in the services table. If it's in the column to the right, e.g. the notes column, then it should be written in plain English, e.g. one train every two hours / 1 train every 2 hours. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I have made Template:Trains per hour which handles this formatting automatically and uses {{Abbr}} to help readers. I'm not intending to roll this out without some kind of consensus but it would be an improvement imo.

{{trains per hour|1}} → 1 tph (abbr says train per hour)

{{trains per hour|2}} → 1 tph (abbr says trains per hour)

{{trains per hour|1|2}} → 1 tp2h (abbr says train per 2 hours)

{{trains per hour|3|2}} → 3 tp2h (abbr says trains per 2 hours)

The numbers format as well (except in the abbreviation), so:

{{trains per hour|1000|1000}} → 1,000 tp1000h (abbr says trains per 1,000 hours) – notice the commas, but that's a lot of trains (well actually it's still 1tph but whatever).

Anyone think this would be good to roll out? JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 21:49, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: {{tph}} is a redirect to {{talk header}}, but we can always ask at RfD JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 21:49, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

given {{tph}} has almost 500 transclusions it's very unlikely there would be consensus to retarget it to something more niche. {{TPH}}, {{t/h}}, {{railtph}}, and {{trainsph}} are available if a shortcut is needed though. If there is a consensus for this template then a similar one for trains per day would make sense too. Thryduulf (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

The template is perfect! And while I can't decide between the two (and yes, both can be shortcuts too), I think {{t/h}} and {{railtph}} are good shortcut ideas for this. Jalen Barks (Woof) 22:02, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@JalenBarks I've now added other times, so {{trains per hour|3|time=day}} renders 3 tpd (abbr: trains per day) and {{trains per hour|1|2|time=week}} renders 1 tp2w (abbr: train per 2 weeks). Maybe the template should be moved to {{trains per}}? JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 22:26, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

There's one other thing that needs to be brought up about this: at Great Western Railway (train operating company), it's displayed as, for example, "1 tp 2h" with two spaces. This shouldn't be too much of a problem when it comes to MOS:NUM, as was described in an earlier thread. Jalen Barks (Woof) 22:04, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

My understanding is that:

• There should be a space (ideally non-breaking) between the number and unit.
• There should be no spaces within the units

JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 22:28, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Agree with that. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:30, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Pinging: @10mmsocket @Geof Sheppard @JalenBarks @Thryduulf who have contributed plus @Redrose64 who I imagine may be interested

Now that we've had two weeks of the template being created and ready to go, could we start rolling it out in UK station articles? Ideally it would be used in all or none for consistency. The documentation has a couple of testcases. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 13:53, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with this. Jalen Barks (Woof) 15:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Looks good, let's do it... it also gives the opportunity for all the outdated timetable information to be updated... some stations in SW Scotland still refer to 2018 times! Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 16:21, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

On Herne Hill I had to find a way to include such information in an FA-friendly way, so I used this:

"Table 163". National Rail. 19 November 2025. Archived from the original on 20 April 2026. Retrieved 2 May 2026.

I think this is better than citing huge spreadsheets as the reader can actually go view the user-friendly(ish) data themselves without being swarmed by huge spreadsheets. I believe I could make this into a template too but the main issue would be generating archive.org links, which would be necessary as live train timetables will be vulnerable to link rot. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 16:32, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

To add to this the urls sometimes seem a little arbitrary. It's the first number that actually decides which timetable is shown, and the final component of the URL X is merely for the "loading X" screen and the short page title; you can change it to any string and it will work. Therefore, the user would, on any template, have to input both the timetable number shown to the public and the timetable number in the URL which would be inconvenient. It's not even linear so maths won't help. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 16:39, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Only thing I would add to this would be to add which edition of the timetable it is (e.g. that would be the May 2025 timetable). Other than that, looks good. Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 16:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

@JacobTheRox: just wanted to check if you had seen this and if it could be actionable? Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 22:07, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

I have created {{National Rail timetable}} with these parameters, including which timetable it is. I have used it on Herne Hill. It is not the most efficient but I just can't crack the url numbering JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 11:06, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Looks good. Go for it. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:28, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Update: I will begin rolling out at the end of July when I am a bit less busy. I want to just go for it and get loads of articles done rather than stalling because of irl commitments. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 21:52, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

I just need some clarification on this:

Is Merseyrail a train operating company? I personally think 'no', as it is a network/concession operated by Serco-Abellio, which in the article for that here on Wikipedia says that it is a TOC. Merseyrail functions similarly to the London Overground and the Elizabeth line, where:

• They will not be renationalised under Great British Railways as they are concessions/networks
• They are owned by the local government bodies for their respective cities (Transport for London for LO/EL and Liverpool City Region Combined Authority for Merseyrail)
• They are operated by separate companies (LO: First Rail London. EL: GTS Rail Operations. Merseyrail: Serco-Abellio. FRL and GTS are TOCs according to Template:Train operating companies in the United Kingdom, and they say so in their respective articles)

Can some people please give me some clarification on this as I am genuinely confused if Serco-Abellio is a TOC - I believe it is as Merseyrail will not be renationalised and it is a concession/network. Cheers, ThatTransportEnthusiast (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Pretty much the same for Lumo, Grand Central and Hull Trains (GC owned by Arriva, the rest by First) seeing as they will remain after nationalisation and are an open-access operator. However, the disambiguation tag for Lumo and GC are 'train operating company' rather than 'open-access operator' because readers (who are not into railways) are more familiar with TOC than OAO when I proposed to change TOC to OAO. I think a more accurate name (for those that need disambiguation) is 'train company', 'company' or even to use the legal name, as shown by London & South Eastern Railway rather than Southeastern (train operating company 2006-2021). For me, I used to think TfL operated buses in London, the EL, LO and LU. JuniperChill (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

The thing is that open access operators are made for a specific purpose. Merseyrail already existed as an entity prior to privatisation. GarethBaloney (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, however even though Merseyrail existed as an entity before privatisation - and even before 2003 when Arriva Trains Merseyside was a thing (an actual TOC) - it still brings up the question of if Merseyrail is a TOC as in 2003 it was handed over to a new joint venture Serco-Abellio. Merseyrail is a network/concession (similar to LO and EL) which is run by another company which is regarded as a TOC like FRL and GTS (in this case Serco-Abellio).

That is the confusing bit - as Merseyrail is a network/concession, shouldn’t Serco-Abellio be regarded as a TOC? ThatTransportEnthusiast (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

To any reader, 99% of people wouldn't know who operates Merseyrail - for most people, Merseyrail is the TOC (in their minds). Much the same as LO and the purple line as mentioned above. Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 20:21, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

So that falls under WP:COMMONNAME? Is Merseyrail the TOC?

I honestly think Serco-Abellio is the TOC as Merseyrail (as well as LO and EL) is a concession/network - therefore not a TOC.

But oh well, I still am genuinely unsure (facepalm). ThatTransportEnthusiast (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think people would think of LO and EL being a TOC, but would expect that its operated by TfL (as i said earlier). Likewise, many passengers think of Thameslink and Great Northern as a TOC when its actually a service operated by GTR. On a few occasions, I've seen Class 700s with Thameslink livery running as a GN service.

And WP:COMMONNAME is more to do with how reliable sources call something, which is often not the official/legal name. otherwise, we would have The Chiltern Railway Company Limited as the article title rather than just Chiltern Railways. JuniperChill (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

So therefore we keep Merseyrail as a TOC in Template:Train operating companies in the United Kingdom? ThatTransportEnthusiast (talk) 05:57, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I am bit confused, the company that operates on the network is "Merseyrail Electrics (2002) Ltd", that is the actual company here? Serco and Transport UK (not Abellio) are merely the joint-venture owners not the actual operator. DankJae 12:03, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the weird thing.

Serco-Abellio (the Wikipedia article) states that it is a TOC. The Wikipedia articles for Arriva Trains Merseyside and Merseyrail both state that Merseyrail is a concession... ThatTransportEnthusiast (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I think that article is merely about the co-operation between Serco and Abellio/Transport UK to set up joint TOCs such as Merseyrail Electrics Ltd. But "Serco-Abellio" is not a TOC, I don't think it was a company itself? The owners of Merseyrail Electrics are Serco Holdings Limited and Transport UK (Operations) Limited. Northern Rail Holdings Limited was owned by Serco Group plc and Abellio Transport Holdings BV. DankJae 12:21, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Alright, taking that into account - should Merseyrail remain on Template:Train operating companies in the United Kingdom? I still think myself that Merseyrail is not a TOC but I may be wrong.. ThatTransportEnthusiast (talk) 12:24, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

The UK Gov lists it under "train operating company" but yes under a concession rather than a DFT franchise. In the end, Serco-Abellio appears to not even be one company, so the actual Merseyrail company, called and branded Merseyrail, seems to fit more with TOC than a non-existent company? DankJae 13:02, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

You are right there - thanks for the clarification!

Serco-Abellio isn't really a TOC (it's a joint venture), but this reminds me of GTS Rail Operations, which is the TOC for the Elizabeth line and is owned by the Go-Ahead Group, Tokyo Metro and Sumitomo Corporation..

That also confuses me when we bring GTS into the mix. ThatTransportEnthusiast (talk) 13:09, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I assume a TOC has to be an actual company? GTS is the actual company, there is no Elizabeth Line Limited (?), but Merseyrail is the other-way round there is a Merseyrail Limited but no Serco-Abellio Limited. DankJae 13:24, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Alright then - I understand that!

To answer your question, there is no 'Elizabeth line Limited' :-) ThatTransportEnthusiast (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Correct - Merseyrail (a.k.a. Merseyrail Electrics 2002 Limited) is owned by Merseyrail Services Holding Company Limited, which in turn is 50% owned by Transport Uk (Operations) Limited and 50% by Serco Holdings Limited. So it is a TOC owned by a JV. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Now to really throw the cat among the pigeons, there is no such thing anymore as Serco Abelio and the article should be written as "was" not "is". The joint venture is Merseyrail. There is no separate entity called Serco Abellio. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:37, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you there, as there is no legal entity named Serco-Abellio Limited. The legal entity (and the operator) of Merseyrail is Merseyrail Electrics (2002) Limited (albeit jointly owned by Serco and Transport UK Group, just no longer as Serco-Abellio). If you want to rewrite Serco-Abellio to 'was' following this discussion, go right ahead! :-) ThatTransportEnthusiast (talk) 19:07, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I've tweaked it anyway DankJae 20:53, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for that! ThatTransportEnthusiast (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Companies don't need to be "Limited". For example, accountants, estate agents and solicitors usually have names like "Brown, Jones and Smith", no Limited. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Merseyrail is the name of the network with Arriva Trains Merseyside and Merseyrail Electrics the name of the concession holders (or contracted opeartors), in much the same way that London Overground is the name of the network and London Overground Rail Operations, Arriva Rail London and First Rail London have been the concession holders.

Companies always have a limited suffix, accountants, estate agents and solicitors are often limited liability partnerships and hence have LLC suffixes. Busineses with no suffix are likely either an unlimited company or sole trader.

In the context of this discussiion Serco-Abellio is an unincorporated joint venture. A look through the annual reports for the Merseyral Electrics and Northern Rail subsidiaries confirms that Serco and Abellio have / had a direct 50% stake in each anfd not through any entity named Serco-Abellio. Takaxtt (talk) 03:07, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

@Takaxtt: You have 76 edits to your name as I write this, and apart from two that were made just after you registered seven years ago, have only been editing for one week. The above is your first post to this page, but although the matter is still under discussion, I see that you have marched into eight different pages this morning (Serco–Abellio, Merseyrail ElectricsMerseyrail Electrics, Merseyrail, Template:Abellio, Template:Train operating companies in the United Kingdom, Arriva Trains Merseyside, Train operating company and List of companies operating trains in the United Kingdom) and altered them you suit your opinion. Please revert those edits and wait for consensus to emerge. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:03, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I have now reverted most of those edits from @Takaxtt, we need to wait for consensus in this discussion before anything happens. ThatTransportEnthusiast (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I think we have come to conclusion that "Serco-Abellio" wasn't a company? So that can be changed if being used to imply it is a company. Although is the issue with Takaxtt edits now whether to split Merseyrail Electrics off from Merseyrail? Would oppose a split, although not opposed with using "Merseyrail Electrics" to specify the company from the network if needed, although they call themselves just "Merseyrail", so not really needed?

Note there should be no redirects in templates (WP:NAVNOREDIRECT). Also Merseyrail Electrics as a redirect should probably redirect to Merseyrail not Arriva Trains Merseyside? DankJae 11:09, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

It was initially set to Arriva Trains Merseyside before all of this. Takaxtt then retargeted it to Merseyrail, Redrose64 said do not do that until a consensus is reached, therefore I reverted it to what it was before.

...and as for Serco-Abellio: as stated before, it is not a TOC, merely a joint venture. Merseyrail is also not a TOC as it is a concession/network. The real TOC in question is Merseyrail Electrics (2002) Ltd, as there is no legal entity named Serco-Abellio Limited. ThatTransportEnthusiast (talk) 11:23, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

The Merseyrail article covers both the network and its operator (i.e. rolling stock) which while legally "Merseyrail Electrics (2002) Ltd" operates under just "Merseyrail". DankJae 11:26, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Alright, I understand.

Conclusion: keep Merseyrail in the template ThatTransportEnthusiast (talk) 11:27, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Separate article is unnecessary as the company is unremarkable i.e. it does one thing and very little could actually be said about it in an article. I think the coverage in the one article is fine. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, which is why I would like to propose an idea:

Redirect Merseyrail Electrics to Merseyrail and replace 'Merseyrail' with 'Merseyrail Electrics' on the aforementioned templates.

I know there may be pushback on this, but this is just an idea that I had in mind.. ThatTransportEnthusiast (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Merseyrail Electrics is merely an accounting technicality these days - a name for a holding company. Stick with WP:COMMONNAME i.e. Merseyrail. It's not broken so leave it as is. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Alright then, discussion over. Merseyrail will remain as is on these templates. Thank you for all of the clarifications! ThatTransportEnthusiast (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

@Takaxtt has one again marched into some of these articles and stated that joint ventures have “no reason to be carried across” and has marked Serco–Abellio for AfD. This is really getting through my head - can someone more experienced assist me here please? @DankJae @10mmsocket @Redrose64 - I believe you three will be able to assist me here. I am not too experienced on this. ThatTransportEnthusiast (talk) 06:01, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

However I may be wrong about all of this so called “accusations”. I have only just woken up, which is the whole reason why I may seem “groggy” and “livid” when something negative happens… ThatTransportEnthusiast (talk) 06:12, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

While bold and early, I can see a point, the conclusion here so far was Serco-Abellio wasn't an entity, so kinda does have a deletion argument, even if it were re-titled Serco and Abellio joint ventures, and seems just have to wait for the AfD to go its course. In terms of the percentage of a theoretical JV, unless a source states the two would have made it 50:50 even if however likely, as it didn't happen we'll never know. I think most readers would assume it would be the likely 50:50 anyway if it is written as "Serco/Abellio" but cannot state a percentage without a (new) source.

I think there seems to be more clear opposition of splitting off or using "Merseyrail Electrics", rather than issues with removing "Serco-Abellio" for "Serco/Abellio"? DankJae 23:16, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Having already left a note on ThatTransportEnthusiast's talkpage, I have made a further attempt to explain. The basic problem is text being added that does not reflect what cites state, specifically making assumptions on joint venture shareholding percentages. Editor is assuming that all joint ventures, or potential joint ventures between Serco and Abellio would have been 50:50. The cites do not specifically state that, so we are getting into WP:SYNTH territory. Takaxtt (talk) 23:55, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

As discussed on my talk page, I have realised my error. Once again, apologies.

When I dig a hole into something, I persist. Being a neurodivergent person myself, I sometimes do not realise my errors and just decide to be an utter idiot and continue to 'persist'.

Once again, @Takaxtt, I apologise for this so-called personal vendetta. You were right in every single way. I did not realise my errors initially, and I praise you for correcting my errors. ThatTransportEnthusiast (talk) 11:58, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@10mmsocket, @JuniperChill, @Mattdaviesfsic, @Redrose64. Takaxtt, has since split off Merseyrail Electrics (train operating company). I believe there is opposition here to such a split? DankJae 06:42, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Takaxtt (talk · contribs) should have known that these edits were still under discussion and so would be controversial. I've reverted some of them. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:49, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

This dicussion was initaiated because an editor raised the question: Is Merseyrail a train operating company? The answer is no, it is a network. Merseyrail Electrics 2002 Limited, the Serco/Abellio joint venture, is the operator. What I have done is create a separate article for the operator, Merseyrail Electrics (train operating company).

There is precedent for this. For the other concession in the UK controlled by a local authority, London Overground, there is an artice is about the network, with seperate artcles for the concession holders. namely London Overground Rail Operations, Arriva Rail London and First Rail London. Hence these and not Londion Overground appear in the Template:Train operating companies in the United Kingdom navigation box. As it stood this was the only active UK TOC without an article.

The statement: Merseyrail Electrics is merely an accounting technicality these days - a name for a holding company is not correct. That is the case for a holding company that sits betwwen the ultimate parent and the operating company, but not the operating company, Merseyrail Electrics 2002 Limited, a company with a turnover of £220 million.

If we are going to only have one article where the network and operator share a trading name then we should be looking at merging the aforementioned London Overground articles and the various ScotRail articles; ScotRail (British Rail), ScotRail (National Express), First ScotRail, Abellio ScotRail and the current operator. as apart from a short period from 2004 until 2008, all traded under the ScotRail brand. If editors think a seperate article is not justified, then please initiate a WP:AfD.

The other issue that was muddying the water, i.e. whether there was ever any such thing as Serco-Abellio, has been dealt with, the aricle having been deleted with a unanimous consensus. Takaxtt (talk) 00:52, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Not that we should just disregard his comments, but the initiator of this section has since left the project. He did appear somewhat confused as to some of the differences between owner, operator and network. Takaxtt (talk) 01:00, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Other editors, not the OP, voiced opposition to a separate Merseyrail TOC article here. Just saying more seem to oppose splitting Merseyrail here, so may have needed a split proposal.

The TOC is the only operator on the Network and while its legal business name is "Merseyrail Electrics (2002)", it conducts its operations under just "Merseyrail". So can be argued to be in one article by that name as the two overlap. DankJae 07:41, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Still on holiday but thought I'd dive back in as I was mentioned. Merseyrail Electrics 2000 Ltd is barely worth more than a mention - it's a company setup to do one thing, i.e. run the Merseyrail network and nothing else. It certainly doesn't merit a separate article, just as (in my opinion) First London doesn't, nor its predecessor. It is covered adequately in the existing article. Less is always more. 10mmsocket (talk) 10:44, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

@10mmsocket, @Redrose64, is the article to stay or a discussion start on it? Otherwise, Merseyrail would need splitting to move information to it. DankJae 17:55, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd like it gone. It should never have been created IMHO. 10mmsocket (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

In fact for now I'd rather just draftify it. 10mmsocket (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Just merged it, it didn't expand much from what's already in Merseyrail. Any split should be formally proposed due to opposition raised. DankJae 23:41, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Good move, thank you. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:24, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

A consenus on this page does not overide the normal process to delete an article, i.e. by initiating a WP:AfD. Take it there please if you want the article deleted or merged.Takaxtt (talk) 02:11, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Nor does WP:IDONTLIKEIT override consensus, so redirection restored. Please continue to discuss here exactly why you think the split was correct. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi all. In August 2025 the total number of individual tagged issues on UKT pages hit 9000 for the first time. To be fair, the number of articles in the project has increased too but this will not account for this change entirely. You can see the updated graph of backlog over time to the right.

I have started trying to pick some of the low-hanging fruit, for example by fixing broken anchors and assessing article notability. This has made me think about how improving the quality of articles in the WikiProject comes with making small (but important) changes across articles as well as hugely improving and overhauling very small numbers of articles. If anyone has suggestions for how we can best reduce this backlog (a cleanup drive, automated or bot solutions, project policy changes...) this would be an interesting throught. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 13:54, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Any lists of said low hanging fruit? 10mmsocket (talk) 13:58, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

https://bambots.brucemyers.com/cwb/bycat/UK_Railways.html

The easiest are always, imo:

• Coordinates needed (82)
• Dead external links {{dead link}} (816) – many just need wayback machine links and you can summon a bit
• External link cleanup {{external links}} (2)
• Pages with broken anchors (see article talk page, remove when fixed) (66)
• Weasel-worded phrases (130)
• Notability unclear (28) – delete tag as unnecessary, send to AfD, or PROD
• Off-topic sections (3) – just delete it
• Trivia sections (2) – ditto
• Prose needed (1)

JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 14:02, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Amazing, thanks. Watch some of those numbers come down :) 10mmsocket (talk) 14:46, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Managed to do all 3 "year needed" ones. GarethBaloney (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• Also please note that "articles with potentially dated statements" is triggered by any {{as of}}, so for many articles is not actually a cleanup issue. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 15:37, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  JacobTheRox, 10mmsocket We could do a backlog drive, something along the lines of the Unreferenced articles project; they hand out a type of barnstar at the end of the drive, which typically lasts a month. The joy of all things (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  I Have tried to sort out some of the {{cites no sources}} articles during some of the above mentioned Unref Articles drives - for example, see the comment on the talk page of the Bracebridge railway station article. The joy of all things (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  @10mmsocket @The joy of all things I have made a table at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways/Opentasks#Cleanup backlog so we can keep track of who is doing what for each week (I originally thought the bot was monthly but it's not). I'm not sure if the categories are shown if they're empty but we can manually keep them in the table. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 21:14, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  JacobTheRox The Bambot updates every Tuesday, so come the 9th of June, it will show any articles that have been sorted in the Resolved Articles section which is at the very top. The joy of all things (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• Regarding the lone article with the viewpoints needed tag, it relates to the MTR Corporation's ventures in building shopping centres, not related to UK railways at all. I know it's an automated thing, but I think we can remove it from the list easily, right? GarethBaloney (talk) 17:03, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  Does the tag really make sense at all? What other viewpoints would there be? No opinions are discussed in the section. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 18:33, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  I honestly have no clue. Maybe ask the person who added the tag? Otherwise I'd say to delete the tag and maybe clean up the bits of promo in that section. GarethBaloney (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  I have looked at the Malton and North Driffield Junction Railway entry. The notice is asking for "The specific problem is: gives no indication of relative importance or use." The section lists locomotive classes that worked the line so basically I think we have a choice of passenger, freight, Holiday trains (the route was used by trains heading for Filey) and other special trains. I'd add a column and add one of these but some of it would be guesswork" Some entries do have pertinent entries.Davidvaughanwells (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2026 (UTC)#

  I personally think the Locomotives that worked the line section rather odd. Do other former lines have this? It feels very non-encyclopedic in this instance, and at the moment, poorly cited. I think this should be replaced with prose and with some more citations. The joy of all things (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  I agree and disagree with you. Someone has clearly put a lot of work into this and I never like to delete work (as long as its factually right. I've had it done many times to me and the feeling afterwards is why bother. However I agree there is probably too much spurious detail. Davidvaughanwells (talk) 12:08, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  the Silvertown railway station article has 10 references but lacks some and there is little early history of the line. I am happy to sort that one out over the next week or two as I have some appropriate reference sources. I will also expand Beccles railway station and add refsDavidvaughanwells (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  It's pretty shocking how a modern London railway station could have such a short article. Granted, it is closed but still.

  And here's another London station with a bad article, Northwood Hills on the Metropolitan line. GarethBaloney (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Out of interest what is the guidance of citations. There are times when I have used one citation to cover two paras but it seems some people toss citations around like confetti.Davidvaughanwells (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

There aren't any unless you're trying for FA-Class, which requires claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate also consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required. Basically: only worry about it if it's required by WP:V. Unfortunately there are people scattergunning {{cn}} onto any paragraph that has no ref, even WP:SKYISBLUE stuff. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

So, a month on. How are we doing?

• Coordinates needed – 39 (down 43)
• Dead external links {{dead link}} 811 (down 5)
• External link cleanup {{external links}} – 0 (down 2)
• Pages with broken anchors (see article talk page, remove when fixed) – 0 (down 66)
• Weasel-worded phrases – 146 (UP 16)
• Notability unclear 1 (down 27)
• Off-topic sections – 3 (no change)
• Trivia sections – 0 (down 2)
• Prose needed – 0 (down 1)

So we have made some headway. But let's also try some of the bigger problems:

• Cites unreliable sources – 89
• Clarification needed – 186
• Style editing needed – 27
• Vague or ambiguous time – 166

A lot of pages appear in more than one of the problem lists, so tackling one problem can solve several. It might even start to bring down the huge footnote problem totals (citations needed = 1,842; more citations needed = 1,892; page number citations needed = 419; lacks inline footnotes = 387). Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I think Redrose is also right that some CNs can be removed if they are for non-controversial information on lower-quality articles. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 14:27, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I could argue that these figures exclude articles that need cleanup tags, but don't have it. For instance, citation needed tags at the end of paragraphs. Its why a GAN can be failed even without the presence of cleanup tags (although there are other reasons why the GAN can fail, such as a very short stub to not meet the 'broadness' criteria) JuniperChill (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

As of yesterday (16 June 2026), Nexus, who operate the Tyne and Wear Metro, have completely overhauled their website. The new website is corporate-focused, with passenger information moved to a new "Travel North East" website. The old website used Drupal 10, and both new websites use WordPress.

They have not made the majority of old URLs redirect to corresponding pages on the new website (the few that they have considered redirect quite counter-intuitively), and only news articles from the past few months have been copied over. Also, since mid-2021, most archiving tools (such as the Internet Archive) have failed to effectively archive the main body of most pages on the old website due to a mix of Cloudflare challenges, as well as a script that fades the content in (the content is archived in the HTML, but invisible to the average user). As a result, the majority of citations for the Nexus website since mid-2021 are both dead and unarchived.

However, the old website has been made accessible from https://www-azure.nexus.org.uk/. This has not been advertised anywhere that I'm aware of, and I have no idea if this website is meant to serve as a temporary fallback during the migration or if it is meant to serve as a permanent archive, but it's the best we have for the time being. Every news article can also be downloaded as a single XML file from /news.xml, although this is not very user-friendly.

Because I'm not sure how long the old website will be accessible from www-azure, I'm not sure if it is a good idea to use it for citations, so I'm hoping for some guidance on that. If it is used in citations, I'm not sure whether to replace the original URL (since it is still the live website rather than an archived snapshot) or add it as an archive URL (since it isn't the original/canonical URL).

Until there is consensus on that, I'm going to manually go through any citations to the Nexus website, replace any that have a direct corresponding page on the new website with the updated URL, and mark any others with url-status=dead. I'm also going to contact Nexus at some point to ask if they have a permanent plan to mitigate link rot. HopperElec (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:URLREQ may be useful here. Certes (talk) 10:18, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Well spotted! It's a good idea to go through any relevant articles and redirect where possible to the new site. I wouldn't point at all to the azure site, rather I'd mark any that haven't ported across to the new site as dead and use the archive-url= function with wayback machine. 10mmsocket (talk) 10:46, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you reckon the Wayback Machine is still okay for archives made since mid-2021, where the page body is completely invisible but still there in the HTML? HopperElec (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

www-azure is now dead, unfortunately. I haven't had a chance to update any citations yet. HopperElec (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I've finally gotten round to contacting Nexus with a number of concerns about the new website, including those around archival. It tends to take them a while to respond but, once they get back to me, fingers crossed it's with good news. HopperElec (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Last week, and specifically last Friday, was the last official/guaranteed passenger service for the Tyne and Wear Metrocars. Early press releases from Nexus confirmed that they might be seen again after, although more recent press releases stated more confidently that last Friday would be the last time they would be seen in passenger service. As such, a number of premature edits have been made across pages related to the Metro, marking the old fleet as no longer in service. However, I am currently on board a metrocar in passenger service right now, and posts across social media also confirm that they are out in passenger service this morning. Of course, I can't revert the changes purely on those grounds per WP:OR and WP:UGC. However, I'm wondering if it would be reasonable to revert them on the grounds that the early press releases confirmed they might still be used in service after the official farewell? Or, ideally, can anyone find a reliable source for them still being in service as of today? HopperElec (talk) 06:38, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Maybe just tweak the wording on the articles to reflect what was actually said. I'll take a look. I'm back home next week for a visit, I hope I don't have to ride on one of the god-awful things, especially if it's warm! 10mmsocket (talk) 07:00, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I think it looks better now I have made changes to the Metrocar and Metro articles. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:27, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Finding a reliable source for 4024+4078 being out this morning (I see they've now failed and been taken out of service) might be tricky. However, the wording from Nexus was "The last few trains will be in service week commencing 22 June until 5.30pm on the Friday 26 June. Customers may still see the occasional 599 around the Metro system after this date, but this is their last guaranteed chance to travel on one." part of which I see is in the article. Black Kite (talk) 07:07, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Incidentally, 4020 is going to the North East Land, Sea and Air Museums today. Black Kite (talk) 07:09, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Never been - it's south of the Tyne in bandit country! Looks like and interesting place so I'll put in on my list, thanks. Will be good to see the train if it's put on display straight away. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:11, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

The museum is closed today and tomorrow "for contractors to install a new exhibit" (I wonder what?) so I'm guessing it should be on display pretty much straight away. Black Kite (talk) 07:21, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Chronicle Live have now published an article about the services today, reaffirming that they may still be seen in service.

Old Tyne and Wear Metro train spotted after last official week of service | Chronicle Live

It is worth noting that some permissions and exemptions for the old fleet are set to expire tomorrow night, so it will be worth keeping an eye on whether those permissions and exemptions get renewed for continued passenger service beyond tomorrow. HopperElec (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I doubt if they will bother renewing those, given that there are only 8 Metrocars left on the system. The permissions concerned are for travelling over Network Rail infrastructure, which only Green Line metro services need to do. They could still be used on the Yellow Line after that. The remaining cars are also going to run the railhead treatment trains, but they don't need to access Network Rail lines either, as they have their own RHTTs. Black Kite (talk) 12:27, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

The permissions are only for Network Rail infrastructure, but the exemptions I believe are for the entire network. I could be mistaken, though.

The Rail Vehicle Accessibility (Non-Interoperable Rail System) (Tyne and Wear Metro Metrocar) Exemption Order 2019 HopperElec (talk) 13:24, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

OK, exemption 3a(i) only applies to the stations on Table 1, which are the stations on Network Rail infrastructure. Similarly 3a(iii) applies to Stadium of Light, so ditto. 3a(ii) and 3a(iv) do appear to apply to the rest of the network, but were these issues fixed when they updated the stations for the 555s? Meanwhile, 3(b) I have no idea about! Black Kite (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Metrocars were in passenger service again today on the yellow line (I'm under the impression Nexus renewed their exemptions, although I haven't found a clear answer), so I would still advise holding fire on edits related to their withdrawal from service. HopperElec (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

The Yellow line doesn't operate on Network Rail track, so am I right in thinking no exemption is needed? 10mmsocket (talk) 07:41, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Depends if the exemptions that applied to the Yellow Line stations - 3a(ii) and 3a(iv) - have been renewed or if the issues that related to those exemptions were dealt with when the stations were modified for the 555s. One of the two must be true, unless Nexus are running the metrocars illegally. Black Kite (talk) 09:55, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

In quite a surprise, metrocars ran a passenger service from Regent Centre to South Hylton this afternoon. They didn't last long before being withdrawn, but this suggests they still have their Network Rail permissions too! HopperElec (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

And out again today on the Yellow line... Black Kite (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Someone has once again created Stepford County Railway, which I’ve promptly draftified as it was far from ready. Given we’re now on five creations, should this be salted? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:01, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I would imagine it is notable; it just needs the references to prove so. But good shout to draftify - definitely not ready Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 11:03, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that people keep recreating it in mainspace - from memory the last three attempts were all draftified from a bold mainspace creation, before being G13’d… wouldn’t it make more sense to salt the mainspace article to force drafting? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:05, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done Salted. Black Kite (talk) 11:15, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

@Black Kite Opinions on salting the draft page as well? Further recreation of the draft once its PROD expires is not going to be conducive to building a better a better encyclopedia, especially as List of Roblox games would be the first place for it to be included. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 15:29, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it can be ready; the coverage of SCR online is not in reliable sources. If this were brought to AfC today, I'd certainly consider rejecting rather than declining. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 11:19, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

It's not notable enough to be its own article, should be added to List of Roblox games. Fortek67 (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I believe that edits like those made by ~2026-33504-23 (talk · contribs), ~2026-33674-03 (talk · contribs), and ~2026-38001-92 (talk · contribs) are all related. This is the giveaway. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:16, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

To add to that, looking at the first diff the article was clearly generated by AI. It was now shortened but I wouldn't be surprised if it's still AI generated. Fortek67 (talk) 13:30, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Reading the lead and first paragraph of the Gameplay section, it has a strong AI tone. May be eligible for CSD G15. Fortek67 (talk) 13:33, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Well thanks @10mmsocket for the LLM Prod Fortek67 (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Best way to get rid of it - assuming of course nobody objects which they're willing to do (and if they're will to address the LLM content) 10mmsocket (talk) 13:49, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Hey, if someone is willing to take on the dumpster fire and actually turn it into a good article, they can be my guest! I'll be amazed, but you never know... Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:50, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

They can't remove the notice if they don't do anything. AI articles require usually rewriting or a very extensive cleanup. Fortek67 (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Why not create it as a redirect to the List of Roblox games and then protect it from editing except by established users? Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 12:53, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

That's what I said Fortek67 (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn’t be against that Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:16, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

A redirect would be fine if it is mentioned in the target article, but it currently isn't. It looks like the inclusion criteria there is that there is enough reliable sourcing to write a paragraph about the game, does that exist in this case (I've not looked)? Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

(e/c) Yes, that's the issue - List of Roblox games is a thoroughly sourced article - they even split primary and secondary sources out - and (you've guessed it) there aren't any decent sources for SCR. Black Kite (talk) 13:26, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Personally, I'll just stick to Train Sim ;-) Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:46, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

You have to got to be joshing me... the draft was just submitted to AfC... Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:40, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

... and promptly rejected for not being notable. Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 14:49, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Nice. In the meantime the AI prod has four days to go and counting... 10mmsocket (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

10mmsocket, next time in situations like these I recommend nominating the article for CSD G15, as it seems to be the only AI generated article by the user. The LLMPROD template you used is usually used in cases were a user mass created AI generated articles, where the template is mass placed on every article. Thank you though. Fortek67 (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

You may already be aware that text and (most) images on the gov.uk can be copied & pasted to Wikipedia because the OGL 3.0 Licence allows this. However, attribution must be provided, so make sure whenever you do this, e.g. as was recently done on the 2026 Bedford train collision article; where text was directly copied into the article from the RAIB preliminary accident report; that you should use the {{OGL-attribution}} template within the article to provide that proper attribution. I have just added it to that article (see how I have added it to the very first {{cite web}} reference), but if you have done any UK gov copy/pastes recently then I suggest you go back and add the attribution template in the appropriate way. Do shout if you're not clear on anything. Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:56, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Preaching at a church near Southend but live in London, so took the opportunity to pootle down to Southminster to tick off the line. Was wandering round as I noticed a couple of "History of Southminster Station" boards from the Essex & South Suffolk CRP. I have a couple of photos, so email me if you want to see them - but is there any consensus as using them as a reference for historic information on WP? Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 14:04, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure - yes, we allow offline sources etc. but offline sources can always be verified if an editor so desires by using libraries etc. But can that be done with information boards? Might be worth emailing the TOC (or whoever put the boards up) requesting a digital copy so it can be cited... Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:06, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

There is also {{cite sign}} for signs, plaques, and memorials that could be used here. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 14:20, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

The advantage of a sign such as in this case it that a photo can be taken and uploaded to Commons, then the url used as part of {{cite sign}} for verification. Mjroots (talk) 07:50, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Although do note that some signs can be copyright and/or contain copyrighted elements and so photos of them cannot be hosted on Commons. This is particularly ones that contain things other than text (e.g. diagrams, photos, maps). Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I notice a couple of stations (Glasgow Central today and there was one which escapes my mind now a couple of weeks back) now use this parameter in the infobox, making it look more GBR-y. What are the opinions of editors on this? Perhaps for stations *managed* by operators currently nationalised, stations could adopt the style? Or do people have other thoughts?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattdaviesfsic (talk • contribs) 20:58, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not keen. It depends upon the existence of Module:Adjacent stations/GBR. I find the whole adjacent stations thing impenetrable. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Putting it on a Scottish station is nonsense, especially when the full extent of where branding will be used is not yet known. I'd be prepare to bet it won't be used in Scotland (or Wales). I have reverted it on Glasgow Central. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

It may be a bit early, Cambridge South is the only station so far entirely GBR branded right? Better wait until it actually is on signs in stations, especially where the final signage is not clear. Edinburgh Waverly and Glasgow Central are NR-managed, but as above we'll have to wait and see what signage is eventually used, and with Gaelic? But surely, a ScotRail, TfW, NIR and some local ones should be made too as a result? Although once the disputed cross-border ones are clarified, one can assume any non-devolved in England will be GBR branded. DankJae 22:19, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, train folks,

I just noticed a new editor, User:Firefly330, who is making large, one edit changes to articles on transportation, whether by train or air. Knowing nothing about these subjects, I can't tell whether or not these edits are improvements, AI additions or copyright violations. At least one of them on an airport was reverted by a longtime editor here. If any experts here could scan some of these edits over, it would be greatly appreciated (see Special:Contributions/Firefly330). These articles don't get a lot of attention but this talk page does so I'm posting this notice here rather than on an article talk page. Many thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:21, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

@Liz: and other editors -

Looking, at random, at Special:Diff/1363651071, sourcing appears to be good but does use unreliable sources (I note YouTube and forums). CopyVios/LLMs are not my area of expertise so will leave that to other editors. Interesting to note the size of the additions straight away, though. Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 20:35, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I've added Cambridge East to the {{Ipswich to Ely Line RDT}}. Could someone please check that it is in the correct position please? Mjroots (talk) 06:15, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

That looks right to me. I think the plan is to build near the Sainsbury's roundabout on Barnwell Road, which is west of Cherryhinton former station. Although on the Ipswich line, the station's main purpose may be as an East West Rail turnback, for which the main Cambridge station is too congested. Certes (talk) 10:17, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Certes. I'm not over familiar with that part of the country. Mjroots (talk) 13:10, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I believe it is more a suggestion than a proposal, certainly not a plan. It won't happen unless the proposal to build a new suburb over the Cambridge Airport site gets through planning, which will be "controversial" as always.

My guess as to location would be 52°11′54″N 0°09′39″E. Big open space for sidings alongside. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:LMS Coronation Class § Tender water capacity. Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:50, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Blimey, that's niche... Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 20:07, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

This morning I have split out the old Template:TSGN and SE Stations into Template:Railway stations served by Greater Thameslink Railway and Template:Railway stations served by Southeastern, given that this was requested 2 years ago and no one objected (because it was an entirely logical thing to do). Now, of course, this means that every station with Southeastern services (across SE London and Kent) will need the navbox updating to the new one. If you can help, please do - it won't be easy to do it all single-handedly! Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 06:43, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@Mattdaviesfsic: - The Southeastern template has many stations missing for the South Eastern Main Line between Sevenoaks and London. Mjroots (talk) 06:56, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@Mjroots: - could you clarify which stations are missing? I haven't actually removed any, so whatever was on the old template will be on the new SE template. If you are referring to Dunton Green, Chelsfield, etc, they are on the Elmsfield Woods list. Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 07:03, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@Mattdaviesfsic: - Yes, but (AFAIK) they are also served by SEML services to Dover. Hildenborough is a possible omission too. Mjroots (talk) 07:24, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I've had a brief look at Realtime Trains and can't see anything other than Sevenoaks-CHX stoppers serving them, but could be wrong. Hildenborough is correctly placed on the Hastings Line branch. Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 07:34, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm sure Orpington at least is served by SEML trains. Mjroots (talk) 10:15, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm guessing the reason why GTR and SE were together in the first place was because both were owned by Govia. That's before SE was nationalised in 2021, followed by GTR a couple months ago. JuniperChill (talk) 10:20, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I fully accept that collisions between trains and cars on level crossings are not normally notable enough to sustain articles. There are a very few exceptions - Lockington and Ufton Nervet spring to mind. There was a recent collision between a car and train at Hoghton, Lancashire which I think may meet the threshold for notability. This is because of the failure of systems to fail safe. The RAIB are investigating. They state that "The evidence available to RAIB shows that the train had passed a green (proceed) signal as it approached the crossing. RAIB’s preliminary examination also found that the road traffic lights and audible alarm at the crossing had not been activated, and that the half-barriers were raised." So, do we create an article or not? Mjroots (talk) 10:47, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I still think its unlikely given that it only resulted in the death of the car driver and serious injury to the child. Its unlike Ufton Nervet which also caused deaths and injuries on board the train. I think it should be included in List of rail accidents (2020-present) given that this seems like a true accident (how many road crashes are true accidents these days?). Not to mention the heatwave at the time of the accident, which already meant a lot of delays and cancellations, plus the fact it only happened 6 days after the fatal accident in Bedford. JuniperChill (talk) 11:08, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

The number of casualties here is not relevant. Systems are supposed to fail safe. If the barriers don't go down and the lights don't work, the signal given to the train should be a red one, enabling the signaller to give permission to pass at red under extreme caution if necessary. That is not what happened here. Mjroots (talk) 11:12, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I have added it to the list of rail accidents article. I guess I meant to say that an article wouldn't be notable right now as its under investigation, and we even have articles on rail accidents that didn't result in death of even injury: 2015 Wootton Bassett rail incident, which was a SPAD. JuniperChill (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@JuniperChill: guess who started that article. Mjroots (talk) 12:01, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I would say let's wait until there are further press releases - the BTP confirmed that there is a criminal investigation ongoing, which may sway this towards being more notable... but for now I don't think it is. Perhaps a mention on the local page? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:12, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

BTP webpage about the accident. Mjroots (talk) 11:23, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

BBC story, 25 June, BBC story, 26 June. Mjroots (talk) 11:39, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I would say wait until more information is available. There is no rush, but if it does transpire fully that the failsafes were not working, that is notable imo. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 11:30, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

From what I've heard from trusted sources, it does go deeper... so I suspect once things come to light it will be notable. But I only have OR so nothing that can go on WP. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:31, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Eleven people died on level crossings in the last accounting period (April 25/ Mar 26). The vast majority of these will not be notable for an article, and I think would only be notable if there should be consequences to safety procedures or level crossing configuration (or, of course, if they result in an Ufton Nervet type accident). Having said that, like Danners430 I have also heard that there may be something unusuial about this one, so definitely best to wait. Black Kite (talk) 11:40, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@Mjroots: "If the barriers don't go down and the lights don't work, the signal given to the train should be a red one...". This is incorrect. AHBs are not interlocked with signals, as the signal may well be before the strike-in point of the crossing. If the crossing were to be proved down before a point where the train would have to start slowing for a signal, it would lead to very long closure times and impatient drivers weaving round the barriers. The crossing should have failed down if it had failed. This doesn't seem to be the case here but I am not going to speculate on the reason for this until the report comes out. — Voice of Clam (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes. It was pointed out in the Gibbens report on the Hixon rail crash that the important feature of automatic crossings that they are not protected by interlocking railway signals (para. 35); The most important feature of automatic crossings is that the half-barrier protection is not in any way related to the railway signals (para. 43); and By eliminating interlocking with railway signals, and relying only on the initiating treadle to give a signal to road traffic (but not to the train driver), automatic crossings are enabled to function in a "brisk operation" (para. 241). The report's recommendations (pp. 117-8) include nothing about the interlocking of railway signals with the state of the crossing. I'm not aware of the situation changing since; and Hoghton isn't on a high-speed rail route. So for the train driver to see a "green" is not unexpected. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Link to the actual report. So, we're saying that by design, AHB LCs are less safe than manual gates? Mjroots (talk) 08:32, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

By raw figures, yes. In 2013-2023 they represented 7% of all level crossings but 34% of train-vehicle collisions and 18% of fatalities at level crossings occurred at them (56% of fatalities were at footpath crossings, which represent 34% of level crossings). However looking deeper it's not that simple, as for example AHBs are much less disruptive than full-barrier crossings, and so will result in fewer accidents caused by frustration and will cause fewer drivers to divert onto lower-standard roads. Thryduulf (talk) 11:26, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

do we create an article or not? Not at the moment. All we can really say now is when the incident happened, what the casualties were, what the RAIB said (1-2 sentences), that the RAIB investigation is ongoing and the BTP criminal investigation is also ongoing. That's not enough material for an article but it is for a list entry. This might change after the RAIB report is released and/or after any prosecutions resulting from the BTP investigation are brought, but equally it might not. There is no rush. Thryduulf (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Wait for the RAIB to say whether or not it was remarkable and with significant consequences. WP:NOTNEWS. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:49, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

OK, I'll wait for the RAIB final report, then we'll revisit this. Thanks all for your feedback. Mjroots (talk) 06:18, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

As the title says, really. Lots of things that editors can be working on, which has been overhauled and updated. My progress on the station articles can be seen here, for reference purposes. JacobTheRox has also linked to the Bambots page on that tasks page, which lists the various maintenance- and cleanup- related tasks which can be done. Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 17:23, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I have been following @MRSC's excellent updates of the London Overground Liberty line article (and interfering where appropriate). Looking at the article I see it's a very short line that takes just 9 minutes from end to end. So one driver of one train drives 9 minutes, has a five minute turn around, drives back in the other direction, has a five minute turnaround, rinse and repeat. It seems like a horribly boring job - imagine training as a driver, hoping to get something nice and juicy then being given that! Anyway I digress from my question, which this article prompted.

Is there scope for a "List of United Kingdom rail routes by length"? So maybe the longest (dozen or so) routes undertaken by a single train, e.g. the CrossCountry Cornwall–Scotland route; and also the shortest routes undertaken by a single train, e.g. Liberty line, the Slough–Windsor line, etc. I think it might be really interesting to produce.

Thoughts? 10mmsocket (talk) 09:49, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

The problem with this is the definition of a route.

• Services change all the time, and this will probably get worse under GBR when we don't have operators arguing with the DfT about their responsibilities. For example, is London King's Cross – Inverness a route? It has a name and a daily service.
• You could do it by rail line, but then for many things that does not translate into practice. For example, the Canonbury Curve connecting Finsbury Park to Canonbury is quite short, but the trains that use it will be using the ECML and NLL as well. Equally, all Overground trains on the Mildmay and Windrush lines use at least two different railway lines of the North London line, West London line, South London line, Brighton Main Line, and Crystal Palace line.

I just can't see a way to decide how long/short a route is without copious amounts of OR and efns. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 10:05, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Good point. So maybe single timetabled train service, i.e. passenger gets on one end, gets off other end without actually changing trains? Then again that too is fraught with potential OR. Hmmm 10mmsocket (talk) 10:24, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

That's not always a single route, e.g. services that reverse en-route. It would also make the Glasgow Subway services much longer than the track length as they form a continuous loop. Several services out of Waterloo and Cannon Street (at least) travel around a loop and return back to the starting point without terminating, sometimes with quite a long common section (e.g. calls at Waterloo, Vauxhall, Clapham Junction, around a loop, via Strawberry Hill and calls again at Clapham Junction, Vauxhall and Waterloo as a single service.) Thryduulf (talk) 10:33, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

The only one we could definitely do is just the railway lines by their Wikipedia definitions, but define line as something containing at least one station entirely contained within that line or that line and a lower-importance line. The order of importance is [high speed line] – [main line] – [branch line] – [chord/connection]. For example:

• The liberty line has one entirely contained station (Emerson Park) and two non-contained stations (Romford and Upminster) Y
• The Waterloo & City line has two entirely contained stations (because neither end connects to another line) Y
• The Canonbury Curve has no entirely contained stations as Finsbury Park is on the ECML and Canonbury is on the NLL N
• The Crystal Palace line has one entirely contained station at Crystal Palace Y
• The Canal Tunnels have no entirely contained stations because Finsbury Park is on the ECML and St Pancras Low Level is on the Thameslink Core. N
• All stations on HS2 are interchanges and thus not entirely contained, but e.g. Curzon Street is primarily on HS2 with other less-important services so thus all stations are eligible Y

Under this definition, the longest line is almost certainly the WCML at 397 miles (the ECML is 393 miles). (in solidarity), JacobTheRox^{(talk|contributions)} 11:08, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

The shortest is, without a doubt, the Stourbridge Town branch line, at 62 chains (1,200 m) from the platform at Stourbridge Junction to the stop blocks at Stourbridge Town. It used to be slightly longer: 73 chains (1,500 m). The longest through service, until May 2025, was the once-a-day Aberdeen-Penzance service (CrossCountry). Three long-distance services are listed at Longest train services#United Kingdom. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm working on this article and unfortunately the following book is used four times without page numbers

• Phillips, Charles (2025). The Great Eastern Railway – From the Grouping to the Elizabeth Line 1923–2023. Pen and Sword Transport. ISBN 978-1036103606.

These were not available on Google Books and neither were chapter names/numbers. If anyone happens to have the book it would be amazing if you could find them for me! It's a relatively new book so there's a good chance no one has it, in which case it'll just have to stay that way or I'll probably cough up the money at some point. (in solidarity), JacobTheRox^{(talk|contributions)} 21:35, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

It's available (along with many other Pen & Sword and other railway books) on Perlego, which as a regular editor you can subscribe to for free via the Wikipedia Library.Mapleman7 (talk) 11:10, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

 Applied (in solidarity), JacobTheRox^{(talk|contributions)} 11:17, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Users of this WikiProject are invited to contribute to the discussion at Talk:London Underground#Should we add service tables somewhere within the general London Underground subject?, which regards whether a service table similar to those at TOC articles be included in the article somewhere. In solidarity, Jalen Barks (Woof) 00:11, 29 July 2026 (UTC)