WikiProject iconTrains: in UK Template‑class
WikiProject icon
 Trains Portal
This template 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
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Associated projects or task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by WikiProject UK Railways.

Scope - Underground, Light Rail[edit]

I have added a section to hold cancelled/abandoned projects.

I think this template should not include purely London Underground projects, as this is adequately covered by Template:Closed London Underground stations. Not sure about light rail - I don't know what other editors think? Cnbrb (talk) 11:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your thinking seems reasonable, assuming you're including projects that actually have pages. As for light rail, I guess it depends on how many there are. Primefac (talk) 11:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, absolutely, that's the intention. Someone else has added more items including one redlink, so I don't know if the intention is to create a page or if it should be removed? Cnbrb (talk) 11:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think WP:WTAF comes into play here, especially if it's a cancelled project. Primefac (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; I notice that the timescale of the new section is long: it includes the Leeds and York Railway, promoted in the 1840s - at which time the Railway Mania was in full swing. During this period literally hundreds of railway schemes were devised that never managed to obtain the all-important Act of Incorporation; several that did get their Act didn't make it as far as cutting the first sod, let alone run an inaugural train. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that had also occurred to me. We could propose a cut-off date but it would have to have some relevance - perhaps the 1923 Grouping, or nationalisation in 1947, or privatisation in 1997? Don't know where the line should be drawn, but I agree, including every last branch line scheme since 1850 is probably not useful. Cnbrb (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed versus "Proposed"[edit]

Some of the projects in proposed are pie in the sky ideas or 20+ years away - R25 is basically just a crayon* of an orbital railway line around London for goodness sake. Other projects have had no news/updates for years. Where's the line for actual proposed projects and long term projects? Do we need to split this?!

Crayonista, n. One who performs strategic transport planning with a box of coloured crayons, using them to draw lines on a map, without thinking through the implications. Turini2 (talk) 08:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there are a few like that. It may be tricky to draw the line. I think each article would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. I would say that the R25 example is a very weak article based on a throwaway political slogan by Boris, and should be merged into Orbirail. Other articles do trace short-lived ideas that have more value. One man's crayon may be another man's blueprint. Cnbrb (talk) 10:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DfT Restoring Your Railway Fund[edit]

In 2020, several rail line and station reopening schemes not currently mentioned in the template (see the list here) have received small amounts of funding for initial feasibility studies from the Department for Transport's Restoring Your Railway Fund. Should they all be added bearing in mind that, for some schemes (such as Newcastle-Consett), we know almost nothing of their scope?

A feasibility study is just that, a study to determine whether a suggested project is feasible or not. It brings with it no commitment whatsoever. Feasibility covers such matters as what infrastructure will be required, obtaining the land (some former railway land has been sold and would need to be repurchased, some may have been built on and either the route needs to be diverted or the buildings demolished), where the money is to come from. It also covers benefits to the local area (and in a wider sense for routes that could be used as alternative or diversionary routes) and projected financial return. Feasibility studies are not expensive (unless they bring in a team of "professional consultants"), and don't incur the expense that an actual project proposal with all the surveying and architectural design would incur. The cynic would also say that a feasibility study allows a local authority to pretend that they are doing something where in fact they have no such intention. Many feasibility studies conclude with the opinion that the cost of the work outweighs the benefits. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that feasibility studies bring no commitment to implementing the project (and personally see the Restoring Your Railway Fund as a largely symbolic political gesture). My question relates more to whether the schemes which are getting funding for feasibility studies from this source should be included in the Proposed projects section of the template, bearing in mind that they have more mainstream political and financial support than some of the schemes currently listed in this section (e.g. reopening of the Somerset and Dorset Joint Railway and the Bordon Light Railway).
User:User.who.is.anonymous; (talk) 14:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Categories