Talk:List of British heritage and private railways

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of British heritage and private railways article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains: in UK Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Midland Railway – Butterley#Golden Valley Light railway stock|Golden Valley Light Railway]] The anchor (#Golden Valley Light railway stock) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

item from 2005

I feel that the length of this list without a break precludes ease of amendment-making. I am trying to divide it, so that the English list (and then later the others) will be broken down into Standard-gauge, narrow gauge, and miniature. That will mean that the list doesn't have to specify which gauge (and in any case it is hit-and-miss now, since only a few are so described).

I have a fairly comprehensive set of books to enable me to make these changes; there is any case some website which do help to put on the various lines' websites some basic information. I have begun to do this as I go down through the list.

I hope this will help those seeking the relev--John 17:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)ant information.[reply]

Peter Shearan

Standard Gauge list for Wales

The Llangollen Railway and Pontypool & Blaenavon Railway should be shown as Standard Gauge not Narrow Gauge.

Bridgend Valleys Railway should be added under Standard Gauge.

Dave Everall. Project Manager. Bridgend Valleys Railway Co Ltd

List or table?

Would this list be better in table format, e.g.

Name of Line	Location	Length of line	Number of Stations

Maybe also comments on whether they have steam and/or diesel traction? Thryduulf 21:53, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. A "sortable" wikitable would be a very helpful way of presenting this information. Does anyone have the knowledge, expertise, time, please?--Harkey (talk) 07:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree, a table would be good; I might attempt that soon, section by section. Can't promise it will sortable at first, I've not done one of those from scratch before. I would also include columns for 'connection to the network', 'original operating company'. Swiveler (talk) 00:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conwy Valley Railway

This either does not exist, or links to the wrong place, as it points to the Network Rail line to Blaenau Ffestiniog. John 17:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshire wolds

Yorkshire wolds railway has been removed from the list as it is not a heritage railway, its at the discussion stage and is unlikely to go anywhere, no land has been bought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dace83 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Including proposed lines?

Is this a List of British heritage and private railways? If so, should it include numerous "proposed" lines? That seems a bit of Crystal Ball gazing to include them here, unless and until there is something concrete in place (pun not intended). Following another editor's exampl, I have removed the Welsh side of the Wye Valley railway from the list, but before removing any more, I thouight I should see what others think. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've pulled one off as it appeared to only exist on Wikipedia. I'd certainly suggest that such fantasy-schemes be removed altogether, with active schemes being split into a proposed section? DiverScout (talk) 11:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

royal docks railway in london

I believe there is a railway with a terminus at North Woolwich station in East London. This might be worth a mention in the article as it is the only semblance of a heritage railway in greater london Unsigned comment by User:81.132.220.172, 12:10, 28 April 2010

I'd heard about this proposal, which would have been a temporary heritage line for the 2012 Olympics. Last I heard this was a dead duck, having been refused permission and with North Woolwich now being asset-stripped. DiverScout (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spurious claims about branches operated in their entirety

Several lines on this list make claims to operate branches in their entirety, when they clearly do not. Indeed I just deleted one such claim for a line that only operates as a centre and stub out of one station. I feel that the majority of these claims are misleading, if not simply factual nonsense. I mean, as the Wymondham to Dereham line was built independently of the Dereham to Fakenham section, should the Mid-Norfolk Railway claim to operate one whole branch and be restoring a second? DiverScout (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Claims to fame

I see an editor has been removing recent attempts to add "claims to fame" from the list. I agree with this, but wonder why other lines seem to be being allowed to retain their claims? If we're not having them, surely they all need to go? I will action this soon unless discussion shows contrary views or someone gets there before me! :) DiverScout (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that they fit in with WP:Source list. I noticed the addition of one, so I removed it again, plus any others in the same section. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These really do seem to be a recipe for disaster and propose to delete all notes and claims. These "facts" should be on the articles about the railways, not cluttering up what is supposed to be a basic list. I would also intend to remove the "near" claims. A railway either is in a town/village or it is not. "Near" is a subjective that can be explored on the articles about the lines or communities concerned. DiverScout (talk) 13:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've done two sections already; the format I used is: name of railway or similar (linked); nearest settlement; county. If people are interested in the actual location, they can click through to the relevant page. I've also limited it to one link per entry, rather like MOS:DAB does.

For some years I have noticed that some people habitually put the word "near" into a UK postal address; it used to be that the Royal Mail specifically stated not to do that, but they don't give that instruction any more. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland

The sticky one. There is a tiny stub list for railways in Northern Ireland, then an incomplete mention on this list. How should this one go, as I don't think it would be all that politic to copy the lines here and redirect the other page. Should we just link through to that page? DiverScout (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be merged with the NI page under a new title: List of heritage and private railways in the United Kingdom or similar. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of British heritage and private railways. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://geocities.com/summerleetrams/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.greatorme.btinternet.co.uk/Tramway.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070609212632/http://www.steam.dial.pipex.com/internat.htm to http://www.steam.dial.pipex.com/internat.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong title: should be "UK heritage and private railways"

The list is of railways in Great Britain AND Northern Ireland. Therefore UK is a better term than British.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.153.227.213 (talk • contribs)

Not at all. 'British', meaning of the state of the United Kingdom, not of the island of Great Britain. 5.64.137.139 (talk) 11:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Crown Dependencies (and British Overseas Territories?) are not part of the UK. -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 12:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List or table? revisited

@Mattdaviesfsic: has suggested that this page should be re-structured as a table. Now I like writing complicated tables, but in this instance I believe it would be inappropriate, because:

The list does not currently include numbers or dates (except for occasional notes)
Re-ordering by name would not produce an order of any great significance (except to help find an item, and Ctrl-F will usually get you there)
Items in a table take more space than items on a list, so the page would get even bigger
To keep the information currently provided by the headers, there would have to be extra columns for Country, Area and Type, making the table both wider and more repetitive
The item name and the location would naturally be placed in separate columns, making the table wider
It would be harder to include the pictures without giving undue prominence to the rows they belong to
Adding or updating items in the source editor would become more complicated and error-prone (I can't speak to the Visual Editor, I never use it)

Advantages to converting the list to a sortable table include:

Being able to bring all the entries of one type (eg Miniature railways) together
Possible addition of columns with sortable data such as dates for opening/closing, {{coords}}, mileage, or {{track gauge}}

On the whole, and reining in my enthusiasm for multi-column monstrosities, I would rather this page remained in its current list format. -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 13:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Valley link

@Mattdaviesfsic: Did this update not fix the link? The section "Golden Valley Light railway stock" does not exist, but the section "Golden Valley Light Railway" seems appropriate as a wikilink from this list. -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 11:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that, but as it was not the same wording I wasn't sure. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page Previews error

When I hover the cursor over the link 'Heritage railways' (pointing here) within the title of Template:Heritage railways in Scotland the following error sentence appears inside the page preview:

wt2html: wikitext limit exceeded

ZandDev (msg) 16:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, noticed it too, not sure how to correct it, I assume it has something to do with the interactive map, potentially overloading something? Or it could be something else. Dank Jae 22:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raised it at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#British heritage railways page preview error Dank Jae 22:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting "North England" Subsection

I feel like the "North England" subsection is a little long. I tried splitting it myself into "North West England" and "Yorkshire & North East England" subsections to make them align more with the Regions of England, but due to a number of reasons – one of which being that I didn't seek consensus on the issue – the edit got reverted.

With that, I'm going to ask you and see if there's consensus behind making such a division. I feel like it would work, but what do you all think? 174.0.253.201 (talk) 22:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]