Wikipedia talk:UKRAIL

History of rail transport in Great Britain

Once GBR officially takes over from Network Rail and the lot, should we split History of rail transport in Great Britain again? Currently it is split as:

• Before 1830
• 1830–1922
• 1923–1947
• 1948–1994
• 1995–present

These are obviously split by periods of ownership (no major railways, free-for-all, Big Four, British Rail, privatisation). Having 1995–e.g. 2026 and 2027–date would make the 1995–2026 section only slightly shorter than the Big Four one and with a lot of history to cover. Obviously the new article would then possibly be quite short. Any thoughts about the best course of action here? There's also the risk that a future (but not that future) government reprivatises and then where to draw lines (if at all) gets very messy. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 10:24, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

IMO it's best to wait until there is enough content about the GBR era for a suitable-length standalone article. It's also tempting to wait until reliable sources define a specific date (if they agree on such) as the takeover will be gradual and messy in practice. Thryduulf (talk) 10:41, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I would start it from 2024, the election of the Labour government and the stated intention to privatise the railways with the launch of the bill, and the gradual renationalisation of rail contracts. That was a sea change in rail in GB and I think it's a good point to mark a new section. I don't think we should wait until GBR is formally established, i.e. full renationalisation. 10mmsocket (talk) 10:56, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Except that the process, inluding the choice of name, was started under the Johnson government a few years earlier. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:06, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Yup. But I still think that Labour's decision to renationalise is the logical breakpoint. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

It is an easily identifiable point I agree Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:14, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Actually, we could start in 2020. COVID was huge, and COVID (by some people's interpretation) caused nationalisation to be a given to the point the Conservatives were actually supporting it. That would also make a split less awkward because the new article wouldn't be so small. The problem is though, that the more we inch backwards, the smaller we make what is currently the 1995–present article. If we did 1995–2019 and 2020–present, that would make the former article only 14 years. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 20:19, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Displaying train frequencies less than 1 tph

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)

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

Lengthy articles

Suburban services on the Great Northern Route

The British Rail Class 313 and British Rail Class 717 did/have cover/covered services on the Great Northern Route originating at Moorgate towards Welwyn Garden City and Stevenage via Hertford North. The articles imply that the Northern City Line goes as far as these destinations and I keep trying to correct or expand upon these, only to be reverted. Could other people please comment? Also @ThatTransportEnthusiast and @10mmsocket Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 17:44, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I am well indeed aware of that.

In order to halt this back and forth reverting I have just piped the line links in the rolling stock sections for the 717 and therefore say things such as 'Moorgate to Welwyn Garden City' (NCL link) and 'Moorgate to Stevenage via Hertford North' (Hertford Loop line link).

Hopefully that clarifies things - cheers, ThatTransportEnthusiast (talk) 17:46, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I guess I need to clarify one thing. The Northern City Line is the branch line that runs between Finsbury Park and Moorgate. Everything north of Finsbury Park is the ECML, although the Hertford Loop to Stevenage branches off at Alexandra Palace. Whilst it it correct they both originate on the Northern City Line, the Northern City Line does not extend beyond Finsbury Park, even though the services do. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 17:58, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you are right there - however inserting multiple lines in the table would make it rather unorganised, hence my change to the table to make it just the routes the 717 operates (Moorgate to WGC and Moorgate to Stevenage via Hertford North), increasing simplicity.

The first link is to the NCL and the second link is to the Hertford Loop line. I see zero point to include the ECML as a link as the 717s travel on a small portion of the line (Finsbury Park to WGC as well as Stevenage station), so therefore the links included are the NCL and HLL. ThatTransportEnthusiast (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

In addition, the section of the table we are discussing about is titled 'Routes operated', not 'Lines operated', so therefore what should be put there are the routes (i.e. services) that the trains in question operate. ThatTransportEnthusiast (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

List of busiest London Underground stations

I'm too tired but thought I would raise it - these following pages are completely disconnected from each other in every way (apart from a limited mention in the "See also") - those being:

• List of busiest London Underground stations
• List of busiest London Underground stations (2024)
• List of busiest London Underground stations (2023)
• List of busiest London Underground stations (2022)
• List of busiest London Underground stations (2021)
• List of busiest London Underground stations (2020)
• List of busiest London Underground stations (2019)

Couldn't these be on one page like List of least used railway stations of Great Britain? Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 19:58, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I have boldly created this template and added it to all the lists above and to the National Rail lists

Let me know what you think. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Perfect Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 20:22, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Although thinking about it, should there be a category designation as well? (I never deal in categories so wouldn't know) Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 20:22, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I don't really them either. I created a couple and they got deleted, so I'll stick to what I change that sticks - if you see what I mean. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Merseyrail / Serco-Abellio

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)

Community railway lines

I understand that the community railway designation scheme ended as a result of the DofT's 2018 community rail development strategy, replaced by the current accreditation scheme for community groups. There is no longer a list of designated community lines and services. But I'm not in this world enough to be sure I've understood correctly.

If correct, should that lead to the deletion of Category:Community railway lines in the United Kingdom and its subcategories? They're potentially a bit WP:NONDEF regardless.

Cheers, Liam McM 09:51, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think so - if the scheme has only been altered and is materially the same insofar as the articles that fall into them, perhaps moving the category is more appropriate? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 10:00, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

The concept of a community railway line no longer exists. The scheme changed from recognising lines themselves to community groups based around railway lines. There is no one-to-one relationship between lines and community groups.

Could we move the category to Railway lines in community rail partnerships in the United Kingdom? A bit of a mouthful. And flick through the articles currently in the category shows that many don't even mention that they're in a partnership---again I think WP:NONDEF.

I would support a Community rail partnerships in Great Britain category. A quick search gives Devon and Cornwall Rail Partnership and Severnside Community Rail Partnership as potential members, and it's not out of the question that other partnerships would be notable enough to merit articles in the future. Edit: A broader category like Community rail groups in Great Britain might be better; able to include groups like the Skipton–East Lancashire Rail Action Partnership. Liam McM 12:25, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and created Category:Community rail groups in Great Britain

I have listed the category and its children for deletion: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 June 6 § Community railway lines in the United Kingdom. Liam McM 12:11, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Cleanup backlog

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)

Nexus website overhaul

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)

2024 Talerddig collision

The RAIB have released their final report into the 2024 Talerddig train collision. Many of the photos and diagrams are on an OpenGov licence and suitable for use here. If you feel the article can be improved by an image, feel free to improve it. Mjroots (talk) 10:24, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Incident in Bedford

Just a heads up, there’s already WP:OR being added to the Class 360 and likely Class 810 articles after this evenings incident in Bedford… Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:04, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

2026 Bedford train collision if anyone wants the article. Possibly ITN-worthy but we will have to wait and see. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 18:21, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

No WP:OR now, links added to both articles to the accident article. Mjroots (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

An issue re the identities of the trains involved has been raised at talk:2026 Bedford train collision#Trains involved. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 19:03, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Lines around Bedford

Is there any logic to justify the Bedford area RDT including a vast area beyond the Borough? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

The title of the RDT says Bedfordshire, so it is supposed to cover the county and probably needs renaming. On a separate note, some lines extent far beyond Bedfordshire whereas some lines are cut short. On the Varsity Line to the west, the last station in Beds is Aspley Guise, and then Woburn Sands is in Bucks. To the east, Bedford St John's is the last in Beds and then Willington is in Derbs. The MML to the South should include Luton and Luton Airport Parkway but only goes to Leagrave, and the only two stations to the north of Bedford actually in Beds are Oakley and Turvey. The rest are in Bucks and Northants. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 22:27, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

ah, on my mobile the title is truncated to just 'Bedford'. But it still seems rather excessive. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:39, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

A boundary could be added, like Template:Oxford area RDT. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Rather more usefully, it could be redesigned and reduced to "Railways around Bedford", like Cambridge, MK, Oxford etc. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:10, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Could we split the template into one for Bedford and one for Bedfordshire? JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 08:15, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. Let the existing one stand for wherever it could be useful but create a new one for just Bedford to include just Midland Road and St John's for now though when Universal happens, it would be reasonable to include it.)

The new EWR route heading north would need adding. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:41, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Or you could just create a new template just focusing on Bedford town. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 17:36, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I have since moved the original template to Template:Bedfordshire Lines RDT. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 14:45, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Tyne and Wear Metrocars still in passenger service

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)

S-Line Tutorial

Is there is tutorial on how to fix these templates? I cannot figure out why this won't work.

{{s-rail-national|hide1=yes|hide2=yes|previous=Cambridge South|next=Cambridge North|toc=Greater Anglia|route={{smalldiv|[[West Anglia Main Line]}}}}

Preceding station	National Rail			Following station
Cambridge South		Great Northern Fen Line		Cambridge North
		Greater Anglia Breckland Line
		Thameslink Cambridge Line			Terminus
		CrossCountry [[Cross Country Route| Hereward Line ]]		Ely

And I need to add this as well

Preceding station	National Rail			Following station
Terminus		Greater Anglia Ipswich to Ely Line		Dullingham or Newmarket

Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 14:19, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I fixed it. It turns out that for that one row that used s-rail-national it is not longer needed because the non-stop KGX train now stops at Cambridge South, meaning it's only one table row, not a split row, so the {{rail line}} template can be used. Like you though I'd love to know how work the rather too intricate s-xxxx templates. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2026 (UTC)