Talk:Rail transport in Great Britain

Country / Region Naming of all UK/GB/NI/Ire Rail & Rail History Pages

was "Proposed move back to rail transport of Great Britain"

There has been some to-ing & fro-ing of the names of pages, and a number of users have expressed an interest, or have work affected by any changes. So this is a suggested location for a discussion & documentation of the naming of this set of pages. See also Talk:History of rail transport in Great BritainEdit & comment away.

Proposals

It's getting a little hard to follow who supports what, and exactly what the issues are. So could I invite you all to add plans to, comments on, and votes for, a range of naming plans found at:

Talk:Rail transport in the United Kingdom/Alternate naming schemes

thanks, --Tagishsimon 08:28, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Discussion

Duncharris's 16:15, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC) message kicking off the latest rounds of the discussion:

The UK has two separate rail systems. They are not connected, they are not even the same gauge. They are not run by the same people, and they have different histories. For that reason, they should be split atleast into rail transport in Northern Ireland, though it may be possible to discuss the Irish situation by itself. Either way, the move from Great Britan to United Kingdom was wrong. Duncharris 16:15, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

Zoney 16:31, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC), on Talk:History of rail transport in Great Britain

This should remain at History of rail transport in Great Britain - Ireland is a seperate rail system - different history. Even the gauge is different. Don't forget Ireland was all one administration when rail in the island began. Zoney 16:31, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd suggest separate articles on History of rail transport in Great Britain and History of rail transport in Ireland (that's all Ireland), since the two histories are very different and the gauge difference is a major distinguishing feature. Treating Ireland as one makes sense since IE also runs some of the passenger services to Belfast and all the freight services in NI. Arwel 21:01, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I would agree with this proposal. Split 'Great Britain' and 'Ireland', since we are talking about developments on the geographical entities, not on the political ones. 'Great Britain' is the correct name for the largest of the British Isles. —Morven 21:30, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I must disagree. As this is a part of the Rail transport by country series, it is nonsensical to have it as 'Rail transport in Great Britain' as I have already pointed out there is no such a country as 'Great Britain'. Also there are many countries which have separate rail systems. For example India where several different systems on different gauges exist. And (correct me if i'm wrong) but doesn't each Australian state have a raiulway system on a different gauge (or at least used to) G-Man 12:01, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As this is a part of the Rail transport by country series. Perhaps that is part of the problem? Arwel & others point that the Ireland railways are integrated, and separate from the GB railways. I'm not convinced a) that we should allow the putative Railways by Country scheme to force our hand; nor that we could not go in a GB direction without emperilling that project. -Tagishsimon

I agree that the it makes sense to have separate history pages for Britain and Ireland. But I dont agree thet the main pages should be split into 'Great Britain' and 'Ireland', although we should point out that Northarn Ireland,s railways are separate from the main network G-Man 11:30, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree that page for British railways (current situation) should be Rail transport in the United Kingdom rather than Great Britain. But while Northern Ireland can probably be discussed in context of the British railway network on that page, Rail transport in Ireland should remain as is due to the linked nature of the rail network in 'Ireland' (the island/non-political country).

Zoney 13:55, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Previous Discussion

Earlier debate under the title Naming'

Shouldent this be moved to Rail transport in the United Kingdom as that is which country this is talking about. There is no such a country as 'Great Britain'. Great Britain is an island not a country. G-Man 18:40, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd be happy with that change; I don't have a strong preference either way & am willing to be led, but I deplore the fact that we seem to use GB and UK interchangably. --Tagishsimon 18:44, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I moved it - there are some redirects to fix if you want to help! Thanks, The Trolls of Navarone 18:51, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Fitting in Northern Ireland

Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are now covered together in the History of rail transport in Ireland, due to the common history (and until 1922, by which time most railways in Ireland had been built, common administration). There's large gaps to be filled.

In fact, I've also covered the island as a whole in Rail transport in Ireland - because for all intents and purposes it's the one rail system. (Shared/common traction/rolling stock, cross-border services, same unique gauge, etc.) Also the term 'Ireland' refers to the geographical island. A seperate article could still be added at Rail transport in Northern Ireland to focus in more on the internal NI services and stations. (also situation with Translink, AKA UTA MarkII or bus company running trains). But seeing as I don't live in the North, someone else can tackle this!!! It could of course just be added to the main article.

It's not really possible to have a 'solely' Republic of Ireland article, unless the trains vanish at the border, people from the Republic never use NIR services and NIR and IÉ never make joint stock purchases or share locos / rolling stock.

So there's the rationale behind the current situation.
Zoney 11:34, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Zoney (who knows more about Ireland than me!). However, we must point out why Ireland is covered in one article, (for geographical, historical and operational reasons) i.e. not sectarianism. I think perhaps rail transport in the United Kingdom should be a small article explaining the differences. I've also altered the rail transport by country to reflect this with Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland both linking to Ireland. Duncharris 12:54, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)

Duncharris, I've simplified that (nice but a tad heavy on the PC - kinda MAKES it a sectarian issue!) to the following, which is nicely ambiguous (people from NI can choose Ireland or United Kingdom). Ideally the subject (NI railways) should be covered from both points of view - as part of British rail network (or seperate but grouped with it), or as part of an all-island network in Ireland - in each article.

• Ireland: see Rail transport in Ireland
• The Netherlands: see Transportation_in_the_Netherlands#Rail_transport_(heavy_rail) and other sections of that article
• United Kingdom: see Rail transport in the United Kingdom

Hope you agree that this ambiguity in the page is warranted, sufficiently NPOV and handy.

Zoney 14:04, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes and no.

Due to the peculiar history of the United Kingdom there are several rather incoherent levels of political government, geography, etc. Although the history is slightly entwined at some points, (e.g. NCC being owned by the Midland/LMS), they are still very much separate.

The main Great British system, has 16,536km of track (98% of the UK total), and the smaller system in Northern Ireland which has 357km (2% of the UK total) CIA factbook. The Republic of Ireland has 1,947km track.

I propose the following:

• rail transport in the United Kingdom should be a short article (2-3 paragraphs?) explaining the differences between the two main systems. I can't see how a good article can be written on this without splitting it straight away into Great Britain and Northern Ireland anyway.
• rail transport in Great Britain should be the article as it is now on the island of Great Britain (which btw should include the Isle of Wight, Anglesey and Holy Island, Anglesey, as they are part of England and Wales). In this article, reference should be made to the Ireland article(s)...

I'm less sure about Ireland. There is scope for one or two articles, and I think this is a separate subject to be discussed. There is however, an important distinction to make between the Republic of Ireland and the island of Ireland. There's also the possibility of having a hierachy with more detail lower down. The problem comes when one has to describe how they are owned and run with two different systems.

Regarding history, early history is more entwined, and in particular whether one considers the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland or the later United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. But its probably better to deal with them as you have.

As regards political correctness, Wikipedia has to be politically correct. To be honest, its not that difficult (just requiring a footnote for example), and the troubles in Northern Ireland require some tip-toeing round and being explicit when referring to geographic areas and not the geographic-political spaghetti in these waters.

And G-Man, the comparison with Australia isn't valid, since Australia is geographically one entity with several gauges, whereas the UK is two separate geographical entities with two separate systems.Duncharris 11:27, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Regards political correctness, my theory is that the situation described above is sufficiently ambiguous (i.e. have UK and 'Ireland', and cover NI differently in both, and/or link from both to seperate NI article if created by an NI enthusiast) and doesn't upset anyone enough to warrent any kind of disclaimers and such. I'm not against PC per se, its simply that sometimes it shouldn't be needed - i.e. it's used because something needs changing. In the case above, Rail transport by country was actually creating an issue, hence the need for the disclaimers!

Zoney 11:39, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

With respect, I disagree. I think we need to be absolutely specific and not ambiguous as this communicates the information better. Duplicating articles isn't a good idea unless you have a summary and main article in a hierachical structure. With what you're suggesting, the hierachy isn't there. The issue of sectarianism is there, is not going to go away. Pretending there isn't an issue in itself may cause problems.

As for rail transport by country, would it be better then to move it to rail transport by region? That way the trans-European networks transport routes can be described, for example.

Anyway, we need a way forward... Duncharris 12:42, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

---

Listing of Franchises / TOCs on this & other pages

Apologies - I put in a list of TOCs and websites, before noticing there was a link to a page on TOCs.

Still, the thing probably needs better arranging ... should this page:

• List by TOC
• List by Franchise
• Not list but link to another list?

As it was, t'other list, the long winded List of companies operating trains in the United Kingdom seems to have an index of Franchises, though apparantly it doesn't believe in Railfreight Companies. (And who does, come to that. But they still exist).

The TOC list on this page has website links, which I think are in order.

Also, I think we need pages for, and links from this page in the listing at the bottom, to all the rest of the machinery - SRA, Office of the Rail Regulator, and anything else that seems relevant.

Finally, a pointer to the rail.co.uk site would probably also not go amiss. --Tagishsimon

Birmingham Metro query

, but underground city- centre running suggested for new lines)

Why was this removed? Mr. Jones 12:37, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Local Metros

I've renamed the "Underground Railways" paragraph "Local Metro systems" as only a small amount of the named systems is actually underground (except the Glasgow Underground). Much of the London Underground is actually above ground, only the Loop and Link of Liverpool's Merseyrail is underground, none of Manchester Metrolink, and not much of Tyne and Wear Metro. -- Arwel 19:06, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Easter hack - Major Stations, and Companies

I hacked the page a bit yesterday, since it looked very messy to me; in particular I brought the history section up to the top so we start with a decent article; then dive into the various sections, many of which are pointers to other places.

I'm tend to think we should be looking at getting rid of the list of Major Stations, and the list of Companies. There is a page on (I forget) Francheses, or companies ... ideally this page should be structured to list Franchises; Company running the franchise; ultimate owning company; and length of franchise ... sadly the SRA website is fairly useless and this data is not easily available from there (given that a load of franchises changed owner / were renewed at the start of April) --Tagishsimon 18:49, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Station names - a need for consistency

The London stations follow a format of "Place Railway Station" for an article on just a mainline station and "Place Station" for an article on a station that serves both mainline and the London Underground. Would it be worth extending the nomenclature to stations outside London for consistency? Timrollpickering 09:29, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm for consistency, and think I started to edit a couple of stations, probably prematurely (i.e. before having assayed the situation or drawn up a plan. And then my heart sank at the effort and I went off and fiddled with the UK railway station pages instead. I tend to think we should have their atricles under a canonical naming scheme, but also that we should deliberately cater, by redirects, for the other very common phrasings for stations - "London Waterloo", Edinburgh Waverly". I'm happy to join in the effort. --Tagishsimon

And in addition, the msg:LondonStations should be combined with msg:UKrailwaystations, and the latter message taken off all London stations to avoid the current proliferation of mesages. Even though I'm guilty of that proliferation... --Tagishsimon

We do however have potential problems with other cities where the station also houses local metro and tram services. Can I suggest we again follow the London precedent of "Place railway station" for railway only, "Place metro/tram station" (or whatever the local system is called) for local metro/tram systems and "Place station" for pages on combined complexes? I'd rather have agreement on this before we all go and start relocating pages. Timrollpickering 17:57, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You have my agreement on it; I think it's probably settled. --Tagishsimon

• >1 mode of transport = station
• =1 mode of transport = named station (i.e. railway station, tram station, metro station, underground station, &c.)

List of historic companies

Care to talk about it? --Tagishsimon. Is there any possibility we could move toward hiving off more lists to self-standing pages?

Erm possibly, I dont see whats wrong with having it here mind. But I surpose that might be an idea G-Man 22:39, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't particularly perturb me, but I should point out that these are (all?) operators in Great Britain only (not all UK). Now one could include Northern Ireland historic operators (though that's hazy as most operated cross-border services) but worse still, until 1922 the 'United Kingdom' operators included of course, operators from what is now the Republic of Ireland. If including NI does one just include operators such as the Great Northern Railway (Ireland) and Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway (mostly in Donegal) - or do we include ALL pre-1922 'Irish' (and thus British/UK) operators such as the Great Southern and Western Railways, County Donegal Railways (operating from Derry).

Perhaps you can see the slight discontinuity in having a 'historic companies' section on the United Kingdom page (note that with the history page there is no problem as it is indeed Great Britain, with a seperate (all) Ireland page). Perhaps it's of no consequence and should continue to be simply the Great Britain operators. Sorry if this is just stirring it up!

Zoney 14:50, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Further to the above: having in my possession the complete list of all railways involved (ie those that went in and those that didn't go into) the Grouping (ie the Railway Magazine of the year it occurred), I started to rewrite the lists. It is obvious that this it going to make the article very unwieldy, and I had just started to think that I might hive them off, when I saw these messages. It will be just as easy for me now to do that. Peter Shearan 14:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Other

Can't understand why the official regulator is the "Office of the Rail Regulator" - in keeping with the naming of other regulators, surely they should call it Offtrack! Would be a lot more apt... GRAHAMUK 12:09, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Older debates

Are the Descriptions of British Political Parties Neutral?

moved as this debate is thought to refer to content which has since been edit out of existence --Tagishsimon

Is the first major paragraph (with the 'post-Thatcherite' and 'New Labour' stuff really an unbiased view of things? Also, should this really be almost the first thing a reader finds out about the railway? dmp

Good point, its fixed now G-Man 00:23, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't think "Tory" or "New Labour" are particularly POV (the parties and their members use the terms often). "Post-Thacherite" isn't POV either, that I can see. I think the term NL should be kept as the new doctrine of the party ('the third way', speaking broadly) permits privatisation and does not push for re-nationalisation; highly relevant to the state of the BRS. However, the fact that JM's government was post-Thacherite seems irrelevant.

On another note, it might be mentioned that some have suggested railway privatisation was a parting shot from a government that knew it would be defeated: a disaster in waiting for the next administration. I suspect that's a rather biased way of putting it, so I'd like to hear alternative views. Mr. Jones 13:48, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Reorganization

Reorganised following the results of the vote in Talk:Rail transport in the United Kingdom/Alternate naming schemes in which it was decided by a majority of users to seperate these pages geographically for the British Isles, not by nation state. —Morven 06:09, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

Cross-Country Route

Shouldn't the Cross-Country Route be more clearly brought out in the listings. It's only just behind the big 4/5 in importance and is a 'cinderalla route' only because it goes through 5 control areas :-) Linuxlad 11:31, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK I've now stubbed Cross Country Route Linuxlad 13:27, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Duplicate article?

Now here's a pretty mess! Here's a pretty how-de-do! (Gilbert & Sullivan, in case anyone thinks I'm going up the wall). This article is almost exactly the same in much of its content as History of rail transport in Great Britain, especially as far as the lists of early, pre-grouping railways are concerned. In fact the history article is more verbose and less list-like, and does refer to this one - it also ignores much of what isn't GWR! - but it can mean that changes are not included in both. Does anyone have any comments to make? Peter Shearan 14:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Closed railways

Currently we have a nice clear table which lists all the open rail routes with an implied order of descending importance, from High Speed Main Lines down to Rural Lines. Then finally we have Closed Major Routes. This suggests that we need to add one or more sections for smaller closed routes. I have recently created a page for the East Southsea line and I see that others have created many similar pages. There is a nice list of 16 lines on the Colonel Stephens Railways page, most of which are closed. So there are plenty of existing pages that could be linked. The simplest thing might be to have new section "Closed Branch Lines". I don't mind starting it but I wanted to ask for others' opinions before doing so.

I see that the table is replicated on many other pages using a template called Template:britishmainlines. I must admit that I don't fully understand that mechanism, but it seems to be misnamed and should be something like britishraillines. I assume that I need to make any additions to the table by udating the template in order for those changes to propogate to other pages?

2023 Ticket offices closure proposals

Do we need a section in here on the proposals or a page on the proposals themselves? JamesVilla44 (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Could feasibly go into History of rail transport in Great Britain 1995 to date. However, it's only a proposal, so until anything is actually announced, it might be WP:TOOSOON to put into station articles. If RDG back down at some point, then we could say - with a reliable source - that: In 2023, the Rail Delivery Group proposed to close the station's ticket office. However...; if not then we can cover the closure on individual stations with reliable sources when it happens. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

As @Mattdaviesfsic said, a mention in the history article is reasonable, as is a mentioned (already existing) in Rail Delivery Group. However nothing more needed as yet. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if it's a national proposal or not: but one thing is certain, it's not just a few stations. Great Western Railway, for example, intend to close all ticket offices, including Paddington. So I don't think that adding a paragraph to hundreds of individual station articles is appropriate. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC)