Talk:Waverley Route

Riccarton Junction railway station in 2007

Nice to see such photo being added, but I feel it should be backed up by a paragraph describing the heritage activities around Whitrope Tunnel and Riccarton Junction. Certainly worth pointing out that the rails have been relayed there rather recently. -- Klaus with K (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well if that is that much information about why not start an article on Riccarton Junction railway station? Pyrotec (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I started a stub. Let's hope others pick up the baton and expand it. -- Klaus with K (talk) 13:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Great. I'll add some dates/history tomorrow.Pyrotec (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Line Closure

I remember shortly after the closure of the line there was an attempt to take it over and run it as a private railway. This would have been about late 69/early 70. It was led by the then producer of "Tomorrow's World". I was present at the meeting in Edinburgh (and became press officer for Fife) and it was put forward to us that the line would be run with DMUs bought from BR with enthusiasts specials hauled by steam. At the same time we discovered that to improve the case for closing the line, men and materials had been diverted to the West Coast Main Line, which was being upgraded, but were charged to the Waverley. This is one of the reasons it was losing money. In the end nothing became of the buyout as BR took fright and insisted on a large payment (I think it was £100,000) within a week just to keep the project open. Such a shame. It also appears that the council of Galashiels was against the project as plans for the engine shed, etc, were for other towns such as Hawick.

Williamgeorgefraser 18:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamgeorgefraser (talk • contribs)

I remember it well. Bob Danvers Walker. I was a young engineer, and got involved in a task force to design a power car with Brown-Boveri gas turbines under the floor to power electric motors. The idea was to use 2 of them to a train, or marshall conventional surplus carriages between them. There was also talk of a radio communication system instead of block signalling to drastically reduce signalling costs. I can't see the inspectorate allowing that at the time. One plan was for a 3-hour connection Carlisle-Edinburgh!--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 06:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Cutting the first sod

has happened yesterday. So apparently the project has officially started. Nevertheless I wonder how many more work starting ceremonies there are still to come, and when the big construction machinery is starting to roll. -- Klaus with K (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Links

There a numerous links in the map for stations/places that just point back to the arcticle itself. Not really helpfull as I still struggle to figure out where the line was running. I would appreciate a correction. Thank you. Drgkl (talk) 09:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Assessment

In march the section on historic operation was bannered to say This section may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience. . I have removed this banner, as I think it was an overly-subjective criticism. The closure of the line was always contentious, and the variety of traffic described gives a good background to that contention. I am not convinced that naming locomotive classes is sufficiently only interest a specific audience to warrant removal. WP is full of entire articles on US soap operas or minority interest musicians which undoubtedly only interest a specific audience . This was a railway line, and what it was used for, and how, is important detail.

The article is also bannered for lack of references, and I think that is a far more serious issue. I would have considered assessing this as a B, on the way to GA status, but it needs many more verifiable references for that. Contributor's own notebooks would be banned as Original Research, although contributing them to commons would muddy that water nicely, especially if it was someone else who cited them!

I enjoyed reading this article, and would like to see it reach GA, or even FA status in time for the re-opening. That would definitely get it onto the front page!--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 06:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I also agree that having blue links in the diagram loop back here is sad. I'd prefer stubs to redirects, even if they looked like French Drove and Gedney Hill railway station some material is available, like File:The Waverley Line - geograph.org.uk - 352051.jpg and File:The former Melrose Railway Station - geograph.org.uk - 255694.jpg for example. I added File:Geograph-3407628-by-Richard-Webb.jpg to the main article, for want of a Tynehead Station page. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 07:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Its only barely a C-class article, (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Trains/Assessment#Quality_scale) as there are whole sections devoid of references: the Line characteristics, Historic exploration and Line closure and beyond sections have none, but it could also be regarded as a Start-class article. I assessed it as C-class back on 8 August 2008, by the way, when it was a much shorter article. I could probably expand and cite some of the historical sections, but I'm not a "train spotter" so I'm not in a position to cite any locomotive details (and there is a lot of this detail). Its not something that I'm likely to be doing in the next couple months: but may be June onwards? Pyrotec (talk) 11:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Copyright concerns

This article was quite rightly flagged for similarities to various pages on the "Disused Stations" website. However, investigation suggests that the contributor of those pages - Nick Catford - may have copied from Wikipedia. The template at the top of the page traces the development of the content that is mirrored in one of those pages. When content is introduced and incrementally changed to be more like an external site, it is far more likely that the content on the external site was taken from us than the other way around. If evidence is found that any one of those pages predates the evolution of the content here, please retag with an explanation. Thanks much for keeping an eye out for copyright issues! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I am really unsure of that decision - the text at http://www.disused-stations.org.uk is readable - and each sentence follows on from the next.

In this article the flow of text is in parts junk as far as readablity goes - it has all the quality of a scrapbook.

Furthermore - the site "disused-stations" - clearly states it sources, and mentions when wikipedia content as been used eg http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/d/dalkeith/ "Edinburgh & Dalkeith Railway - Wikipedia (some text copied from this site under creative commons licence) " , it also has all the contextual information, maps etc to suggest that "work has been done there".

Conversely the text on this page has appeared "like magic" seemingly the work of considerable research, but the main body is completely unreferenced, and lacks any supporting info.

eg cf

Tracklifting had begun, but was temporarily halted in early 1969 while negotiations with British Rail were held to discuss buying the infrastructure by a private consortium, The Border Union Railway Co. Various options were put forward to keep the route open, such as singling large sections and reducing the number of signal boxes, and a 'basic' DMU service between Edinburgh from Hawick only; but this came to nothing. British Rail ceased negotiations on 23 December 1969 and formally announced this to the press on 6 January 1970, after requesting interest payments to keep the infrastructure 'in situ' while funding for the approximately £750,000 capital required was sought. Local authorities were also approached before and after closure to financially support a basic passenger train service; but this too received no support.

[..]

An inspection saloon ran over the route in on 1 April 1970 to allow contractors to bid for the demolition work. Track lifting started in earnest and trains could be seen undertaking dismantling duties. The Down line between Hawick and Longtown was lifted by April 1971, the Up line having been lifted as early as February 1970. The entire route between Longtown to Newtongrange was removed by early 1972. The final stretch between Newtongrange and Millerhill was closed on 28 June 1972 and removed soon thereafter.

with

Track-lifting had begun, but was temporarily halted in early 1969 while British Rail negotiated with a private consortium, the Border Union Railway Company, to discuss buying the infrastructure. Various options were put forward to keep the route open such as singling large sections of the track and reducing the number of signal boxes; however this came to nothing, and British Rail ceased negotiations on 23 December 1969 after requesting hefty interest payments to keep the infrastructure 'in situ' while funding of the required £1 million capital was sought.An inspection saloon ran over the route in early 1970 to allow contractors to bid for the demolition work. Track-lifting started in earnest, and trains could be seen from time-to-time on the route undertaking dismantling duties. The down line between Hawick and Longtown was lifted by 1 April 1972, the up line having been lifted by February 1970. The entire route between Longtown and Newtongrange was removed by early 1972. The final stretch from Newtongrange to Millerhill was closed on 28 June 1973 and removed soon after.

There is a little more info in one but other other seems (to me) much better written. I won't say which is which. Guess which is the copy! ;)

Nevertheless the text is now so mixed up on this page it is difficult to find clear copyvios. Maybe there was never a real issue anyway.Prof.Haddock (talk) 12:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Have you read the note collapsed in the template above? I've tracked where the content first entered in 2007 and how it was incrementally modified over the following years prior to the establishment of the other page presumably in 2011. It's far more likely that the website copied from us and made improvements than that multiple editors over a span of 5 years copied bits and pieces from that site with minimal differences that were eventually changed back. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah no I hadn't - see it now. I think the wikipedia page has lost some focus whilst growing since the original 2007 version [3] - probably due to being the work of more than one editor - giving it a patchwork feel that made me suspect it was copypaste.

You are right about the dates. WP is definitely earlier - the other site, originally at a different root ( http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/stations/sites.shtml ) seems to have had nothing about the Scottish line until it swapped to the new url root (around 2011).Prof.Haddock (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• So, we can continue with the copyedit, now? RGloucester — ☎ 18:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know.. yes please.. get back to work! Prof.Haddock (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for your investigation, Prof.Haddock and Moonriddengirl; it's much appreciated. :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

New article on "Borders Railway"

With the final track being laid on the Border Railway, shouldn't that have its own article? 86.182.40.246 (talk) 09:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, agree, particularly as the official Border Railway website is poorly designed, complicated to use and makes it difficult to obtain a clear, concise and informative overview of the history of the project 81.158.241.213 (talk) 12:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

No new article is necessary. Use this article. We don't create content forks. RGloucester — ☎ 14:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

What's a content fork? Please reply in plain English 86.172.23.32 (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

See WP:Content fork. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

After reading WP:Content fork I get the impression that creating a new article for Borders Railway is not outright forbidden by wikipedia policy. And there are other examples of separate articles on roughly the same thing, the quickest one I could find:

• Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway
• Glasgow to Edinburgh via Falkirk Line

Up front rejection without considering pros and cons, please not. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 12:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose – We don't need a content fork. This article is perfectly sufficient, and not nearly long enough to warrant a fork. The existence of other content forks does not mean more should be created. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. RGloucester — ☎ 15:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

This article as of now won't be sufficient within half a year from now. Quite some new content will be necessary. And the new rails have been given a different name and not Waverley Line.

I think your formalistic "We don't create content forks." is not the strongest of arguments, given that we have (arguably) two different things. One is the Carlisle-Edinburgh line closed in the 1960s, the other the Brunstane-Tweedbank line to be opened this year 2015. If they are amalgamated within one article, one of those things may loose out, and that may well be the old thing, if the article name happens to be changed to Borders Railway to reflect the situation from September onwards. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

No, nothing with lose out. Will simply maintain orderly content. The line is the line. If you want to rename the article, file an RM. If you want to add content, add content. That's that. No content forks will be tolerated. This article has never been sufficient, as it is largely unsourced and a stylistic mess. That can be improved by someone with knowledge doing a bit of writing. It cannot be improved by balkanisation. RGloucester — ☎ 17:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Suffice to say I disagree with those of your statements that stifle discussion and constructive activity. Have a nice evening. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 18:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe there could be scope for creating a separate article for Borders Railway on the same basis as has been done for Marston Vale Line and Varsity Line, and Oxted Line and Wealden Line, i.e. one article describing the historical route and another for the section which remains open and which is operated under a different name to that of the original line. The second article wouldn't be a content fork but a related subject per WP:RELAR. Lamberhurst (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose – It's the same railway. It doesn't ned two articles. This article is rubbish. The correct approach is to make this article not rubbish, starting with removing everything that is unsourced. We don't spread the rubbish around to multiple articles. RGloucester — ☎ 19:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

In the end before deciding on anything we should wait until much nearer the time when it will be announced what it will be called. Simply south ...... sitting on fans for just 8 years 21:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is any doubt that it will be called 'Borders Railway' (with the slightly annoying use of 'BordersRailway' in the logo). Take a look at the project overview. Robevans123 (talk) 12:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support - with the gap of a few decade between the closure of the Waverley route and the opening of the Borders Railway, I think that these can be best covered by two separate articles. The Waverley line would need to have a paragraph giving brief details of post-closure activities and the Borders Railway opening and operation, whist the Borders Railway article would need to have a brief history of the Waverley Route. Mjroots (talk) 09:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support - There is a large time gap (without services and even track) between the two railways and there are significant differences between the two lines:
  • Borders Railway is much shorter than Waverley Line
  • Borders Railway is mainly single line with passing points, Waverley Line was a double line
  • Borders Railway has no branch lines, much fewer connections to other lines, goods sidings etc
  • Many of the new Borders Railway stations are in different locations

Keeping to one article would result in a complicated route map showing old and new features along the route. As per Lamberhurst's comments it can regarded as two related (and linked) articles. I fail to see how a new article would spread the rubbish around - the new article could use the Line restoration section from Waverley_Line as a starting point. A new article would not stop anyone from making improvements to the existing Waverley_Line. Robevans123 (talk) 13:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I new article would result in an article we don't need, which is rubbish. This is one railway line, and it gets one article. The differences can be easily explained. There is not enough content to warrant a split. In fact, most of the current content in this article needs to be deleted as unsourced. RGloucester — ☎ 15:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

No, the unsourced material needs referencing. Mjroots (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The article itself needs to be rewritten with real sources. The existing unsourced material was not sufficient, and has been removed. Without any citations, there was no verification. There is no justification for leaving potentially incorrect information with no sources to back it up in the article. RGloucester — ☎ 17:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

In my judgement this massive delete (diff: [4] ) is borderline to vandalism. Referencing is required, not destruction. Please do revert. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 10:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

What if the information is false? Do you want false information in the article? We have no inkling of where this information came from. It might well be made up. There have been plenty of hoaxes over the years. WP:V is strict. If someone can provide sources, they should do so and re-add the information. Otherwise, the information isn't information: it is an unsourced story made up in someone's spare time. I would direct you to WP:BURDEN. My actions are entirely in line with the policy. RGloucester — ☎ 13:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

What's more, if you canvass editors again, you're going to be shipped to AN/I. 13:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The article has lost more than half of its content. In the light of this, what is anyones workplan for the next seven days? -- KlausFoehl (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I've been taking a look at the "Line closure and beyond" deletions and think this could easily be referenced by a variety of online resources (newspapers, BBC, etc), so I'll be taking a look at that. I don't have access to any railway history books covering that part of the country so can't offer much on the other deleted sections. Robevans123 (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Robevans123: I had a look at the "Line characteristics" deletion, easy enough to cover 80-90% of that with just one single reference. Regarding "Heritage activities", all information is found in the WRHA web site as well, but I wonder how fine a referencing granularity is required.--KlausFoehl (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes - I had a glance through that as well. I'd quite like to get another source as well. I'll take another look after doing "Line closure and beyond". Robevans123 (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Those are not sufficient citations. You need to link the exact page where the information is found. As it stands, the citation does not support the reference. It merely links to a main page with no information. All of that will be removed if you cannot source it shortly. RGloucester — ☎ 22:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@RGloucester: Why don't you engage in leading from the front and give an example of sufficient citations?--KlausFoehl (talk) 08:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't access to any sources, that's why. I presently live in a foreign country. Remember, the WP:BURDEN is on you to provide sources if you add material. RGloucester — ☎ 13:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

You can't really expect that of them, can you, Klaus? Their contributions are deletionist; no point in maintaining the encylopedia, when it can be deleted wholesale. After all, God wishes it to be so. Just ask them. ScrapIronIV (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@RGloucester: The difficulty to obtain paper stuff is not unfamiliar to me. Hence I mostly have to rely on web sources, which I presume you also can access. I have found that even small constructive contributions go a long way.--KlausFoehl (talk) 08:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Maps of Waverley Line and Borders Railway

The map currently used in the article shows a wrong alignment in the southern section. The corresponding article in the German wikipedia de:Waverley Line is currently being improved, and in that process two new maps have been created. One could certainly obtain corresponding English versions if one asked nicely. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The new maps are great - every railway line article would benefit from such a map! Could we get an English version of the 1969 map to start with? Do you know what the format of the source file is? My only (very minor) criticism would be the station symbol for Hawick - it is a little offset from the route. Thanks! Robevans123 (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I've passed your request on to the creator of these maps.--KlausFoehl (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, got it. I'm the creator of the map and will make you also English versions.--Pechristener (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The new maps are ready. I inserted the 1969 in the article, both maps can be found above. Please note that I misspelled (again) Waverley in the file name of the 2015 map, but the fix is already initiated. Please check the English of the caption and let me know if I have to fix something.--Pechristener (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. As per above, "station symbol for Hawick - it is a little offset from the route", but please wait in case there is further feedback on its way, so you only have to edit once.--KlausFoehl (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Pechristener: Thank you so much. Give me a day to check the English. Robevans123 (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@KlausFoehl: Regarding ..Hawick - it is a little offset..: I double checked, but it looked ok to me so I didn't touch it. Hawick was also in real a little offset of the general direction of the route, which had exactly at Hawick also a quite sharp bend. All together may trigger this 'offset'-impression.--Pechristener (talk) 05:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Pechristener: Hi there. Here are my comments - feel free to ignore or use as you think fit!

I'd change Stations / Stops to just Stations. Just a bit simpler. AFAICT all the active stations shown were really stations.

Change Before 1850 closed station and stops of the Edinburgh & Dalkeith Railway are not shown to Stations of the Edinburgh and Dalkeith Railway closed before 1850 are not shown. Reads better. Also note use of "and" rather than "&" - the use of "&" is somewhat deprecated - WP:AMPERSAND.

Change Junction or yard w/o passenger traffic to Junction or yard. Simpler, and if the junction was a station it would be shown as one of the symbols described above.

Change other railway lines, some already closed before 1969 to Other lines, some closed before 1969. Slighty simpler and note use of initial capital - matches other entries in the map legend.

Change other stations to Stations on other lines. More exact (we've not yet said the previous stations/stops were on the Waverley line, although it's implied), and again use of initial capital.

As to Hawick, I take your point on the station being in a sharp bend in the line. However, the size of the station is such that the bend in the line is not visible so it "looks wrong", even though it might be geographically correct. Always a problem in cartography where the size of the symbols for features is much bigger than the (scaled) size of the actual feature. Even the Ordnance Survey allows a lot of "artistic interpretation" to get things to look right!

As I said, please feel free to ignore/use my comments as you see fit. And thanks again for a great map. If you fancy doing some more UK railway maps, then the railways of South Wales would benefit and represent a real challenge (narrow valleys, often with two railway lines, a canal, and a river!). Robevans123 (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Robevans123:I have implemented all your suggestions. I also fixed the Hawick symbol since I came to the same conclusion as the Ordnance Survey. I keep in mind the railways of South Wales and will consider them in one of my next maping project.--Pechristener (talk) 12:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks! Robevans123 (talk) 12:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Waverley Line - substantial edit - seeking advice

As per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification points 1 and 4.2, I am seeking advice on this substantial [5] edit on Waverley Line. Discussion at Talk:Waverley Line please.--KlausFoehl (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

My main worry is that after more than half of the article has been deleted, no further action is being taken leaving the article in the current crippled state. I know that there are paper sources covering the disappeared content but this printed matter is unavailable to me. Given that some of the content in question dates back to 2005 when the formal citation rules were far less strict, I would have expected this content to be grandfathered, at least temporarily for the duration of activity on the article and not speedily removed precluding the outcome of any discussion. In any case I do miss action (or a work plan at the very least) that goes beyond "pressing the delete button". I am happy to help where I can.--KlausFoehl (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I shared your concern when I saw that such a large proportion of the article had been deleted, but it isn't reasonable to say that it had been "speedily removed", as the relevant sections had been tagged as unreferenced since August 2014. There was plenty of time for references to be added, if anyone had been sufficiently interested. The material isn't lost, and is available in the history so that it can be added back by anyone prepared to make the effort to find the references. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I am certainly interested, but sourcing paper references I currently cannot. The "speedily removed" refers to the recent talk page activity starting February 26th and the deletion happening only two days later on February 28th.--KlausFoehl (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Ideally, the info should be referenced. Given that there are many books on this line and that a number of magazines have covered it over the years, it shouldn't be too hard to do so. The Times is likely to have covered the closure and reopening proposals over the years too. I propose that the text is restored, but it is tagged as unreferenced. Any such text remaining unreferenced after giving editors a reasonable period of time to reference it, should then be deleted. I think two months would be enough, i.e. 1 June 2015. Mjroots (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I have been observing this article since August, when we dealt with a potential copy-vio. No sources have since been provided. Per WP:BURDEN, the content will remain removed until sources are provided. I have removed the content now because no sources have been provided since August when the article was tagged. We cannot have unreferenced and unverifiable, potentially false, information. It is WP:OR until it is sourced. Do not re-add the information without sources. If there are no sources, the content is not content, but a folktale that someone wrote in his spare time. RGloucester — ☎ 16:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC) RGloucester — ☎ 16:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Please stop editing against consensus; references will be forthcoming per the discussion. Content will be kept until June, after which it will be deleted if still unsourced. It will be tolerated. ScrapIronIV (talk) 16:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

According to whom, will content be "kept until June"? There is no content. It was tagged in August. There have been no references. None. WP:BURDEN is a policy. If you don't have any sources, it will remain out of the article. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS cannot override policy, i.e. WP:BURDEN. Regardless, there is no consensus. Nowhere was a discussion held about "keeping content until June". RGloucester — ☎ 16:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

See WP:OWN - there are more editors here than just one, and those singular editors need to realize that they do not create consensus by themselves. What can and can not be tolerated by them is irrelevant. ScrapIronIV (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Please stop edit-warring. It isn't a question of ownership. There is a clear policy at WP:BURDEN, and you haven't told us which part of that you fail to understand. I too would be pleased to see the content restored, but the way to do that is for someone to find the sources and then add the content with appropriate references. The material isn't lost; it's available in the history ready for when someone finds the sources. The relevant sections were tagged last August, and the article as a whole was tagged with {{Refimprove}} in November 2010, so no-one can reasonably be accused of undue haste in deleting the unsourced material. David Biddulph (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

While I understand WP:BURDEN, there is no need to gut the article. The sections were cherry-picked for removal, and entirely blanked. Sections were removed that had more recent requests for improved references, and older ones left behind. Perhaps the entire article should be deleted, by that logic. Ownership does apply when only one interpretation is permitted, rather than working collaboratively. A reasonable compromise was reached by others; I boldly reverted based upon the discussion on the talk page. Now, can we get back to finding references? ScrapIronIV (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It isn't "gutting" the article. It is removing unsourced material that has no basis in the factual. "Gutting" implies removal of something of value. Nothing of value was removed, because without sources, that stuff has no value. The WP:BURDEN is on the person who wants to re-add this content. If he cannot add it with RS, it will be removed. If you want the content in the article, you must provide references when you add it. WP:V is the pillar of this encylopaedia. No "compromise" was ever reached with anyone. Do not re-add text that has no sources. RGloucester — ☎ 17:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@RGloucester: - the reason I said the content should be reinstated is that by doing so it makes it easier to find references for the said content. Two months should be plenty of time to allow for this. Give people a chance to prove that their intentions are good. Mjroots (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Mjroots: and @RGloucester: For the instance of the "Line characteristics" section it was easy enough to review that one website (the WRHA website) already supports most of the facts. A few minor edits have happened after the "big delete", for those edits I contributed I am happy enough to loosing them -temporarily- to a global revert, as working on the original wiki text is less error prone.--KlausFoehl (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Klaus, I would be tempted to leave this. Removal of unsourced content tagged as such for a long period of time is entirely in accordance with policy and backed by Jimbo Wales. I would suggest concentrating your efforts on a new (referenced) Borders Railway article. I will back you in any attempt to merge or delete the separate article which you create. Lamberhurst (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Draft of Borders Railway article

I have created a draft of a possible Borders Railway article in my user space at User:KlausFoehl/Borders Railway.

I have been bold, but in doing so I have taken the discussion contributions on this talk page into account.

I have taken due care that the content be properly referenced. I do welcome my fellow wikipedians to constructively edit this draft. Please keep in mind that at a later suitable time this article may move into the main name space. If this is to happen before September, then the tense of the article will need to be adopted, as so far it has been written from the perspective of after the opening of the railway line.--KlausFoehl (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose and delete – This is a pure content fork, nothing more. These are the same railway. RGloucester — ☎ 22:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Proof by assertion -- KlausFoehl (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Reality is reality, dictated by God. There is nothing you can do to change it. RGloucester — ☎ 23:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

contributing to history

Regarding history sources, the only paper one I currently have, RAIL issue 770, shows photos with V2, J38, Class 40, Class 26, A4, Class 17 and A3 engines operating on the line. Maybe of some help for anyone tackling the reconstruction of such section.--KlausFoehl (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

A brief list of steam and diesel locomotives on the Waverley Line in the late 1950s and early 1960s can be found here: Robert Robotham: On the Waverley Route. Ian Allan, Shepperton 1995, ISBN 0-7110-2414-6. Express trains: A1, A2, A3 (the first A3 took over the main express trains in 1929) and Britannias, A4 and V2 occasionally and on excursion trains. Other passenger trains: A1 - A3, B1, V2 (local services from Hawick also with D49 and later Standard Class 4MT 2-6-0, 2MT 2-6-0 and 4MT 2-6-4 tank). Freight trains between Kingmoor and Millerhill: A1, A2, A3, V2, B1, K3, "Black Five" (occasionaly some other ex-LMS classes) pick-up freights with J37-J39, Ivatt 4MT. Regular steam operations ceased in the end of 1966. Diesels came at the beginning of the 1960s: Class 17 ("Claytons"), 24, 26, 27, 40, 45 ("Peaks"), 47. Hope that helps... --Wahldresdner (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a copy of this, but I've heard good things about the earlier edition. It might be useful for those who want to contribute to the history section. I live overseas, so I will not be able to purchase it. RGloucester — ☎ 14:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I used the earlier edition for the improvement of the german article (see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waverley_Line) and can confirm it a very suitable and well researched book. It is a very good source for all questions concerning the process of closure in the 1960s and the long struggle for re-opening including lots of details and facts from inside Westminster. For the older history the first edition only has a brief overview so other books might be more useful. Details of the locomotive history were not included in the first edition. --Wahldresdner (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that the new edition will have more on the earlier railway. It is coming out in a couple of weeks, so hopefully someone can get their hands on a copy. RGloucester — ☎ 17:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The new edition is to be released May 28th. I'm sure someone will be able to afford a copy. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 08:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Some questions

I'm working on getting this article up to standard before the scheduled opening of the Borders Railway. Three issues have cropped up and it would be useful to get feedback from other editors. First, the line is almost universally referred to as the Waverley Route. Any objections if I move the page to this name? Second, the section between Hawick and Carlisle isn't shown on the RDT, although it forms an integral part of the line. Should this be added? Third, there doesn't appear to me any justification for having a separate article covering the Border Union Railway which, unlike the Edinburgh and Dalkeith Railway, had no independent existence distinct from that of the Waverley Route. Lamberhurst (talk) 07:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Point one, "Waverley Route", if that is also the majority in sources that predate the WWW, then I am happy with it. Point two, as my feeble understanding is, the designation and marketing of "Waverley Route" did not exclude the right-of-way south of Hawick, hence I would be happy with an RDT all the way from Carlisle into Edinburgh. Point three, I do not have a formed opinion but a question. If Edinburgh-Carlisle is "Waverley Route", Hawick-Carlisle is "Borders Union Railway", is there a sister part to the BUR, a denomination covering Hawick-Edinburgh? -- KlausFoehl (talk) 09:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Edinburgh-Dalhousie was constructed by the Edinburgh and Dalkeith Railway. From there the Edinburgh and Hawick Railway (which redirects here) took it on to Hawick. Lamberhurst (talk) 11:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks RGloucester for taking care of the page move. I'm going to leave the BUR until this article is done. Maybe an RDT expert such as Useddenim could lend a hand in reworking {{Waverley Line}} to include the section in {{Border Union Railway}}? The complex junction south of Carlisle wouldn't be strictly necessary. Lamberhurst (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

recent IP edit

I have left a more explaining message on the IP talk page.

Dear User:157.203.255.1, regarding the recent edit [6] on Waverley Route from this IP which can well be a shared address, the content is welcome, provided

1. the text is not cut-and-paste from an existing publication
2. proper references are given

These requirements have not been met, hence the article had to be reverted to the previous version.

If you have questions on how to contribute, please make yourself known on Talk:Waverley Route

Copied from the IP talk page. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 08:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Structures on the Line

South of Tweedbank...

• 
  Hawick viaduct or Teviot Viaduct
• 
  Slitrig viaduct or Lynwood viaduct
• 
  Barnes/Barns or Stobs Viaduct
• 
  Shankend Viaduct
• 
  Whitrope Tunnel
• 
  Hermitage or Sandholm Viaduct
• 
  Liddel Viaduct at Mangerton
• 
  Liddel Viaduct (branch line)
• 
  Thistle Viaduct
• 
  Eden Bridge or Engine Lonning Bridge

Watching the statistics....

Checking at http://stats.grok.se/en/201506/Waverley_Route there are 8474 page visits recorded for 28 June 2015, which is about a hundred times the daily average.

Short of discounting the number as database error, I wonder what prompted that rush of visitors. Interestingly enough there is no spill-over into Borders Railway, and also Waverley Line and the interwiki link remain at their usual levels. A quick search did not bring up any linking from a prominent web page, be it within wikipedia or some general news item. And there is no tail into the following days.

Anyone have an explanation? -- KlausFoehl (talk) 07:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

If you enter "Borders Railway" into that well-known search engine beginning with G, this page is at the top of the second page of results, while our Borders Railway article doesn't appear until much later. A side question: why on the RDT is there a dotted line between Tweedbank and Melrose? Lamberhurst (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

So that explains why any G user is more likely to end up here. But I am still at a loss why 28 June 2015, and only on that day.

A side answer: the dotted line is down to me, on German wikipedia originally, to indicate the end of the stretch to be reconstructed. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 09:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't 28 June the day that the Tories decided to pull funding from everything except the GWML electrification? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

A few days before regular trains are starting on the Borders Railway, article visits have increased, see http://stats.grok.se/en/latest60/Waverley_Route for stats. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 13:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The last two months Waverley Line and Waverley Route had about 20 and 50 page visits per day, respectively. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 12:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)