Talk:West Midlands Metro/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Proposal for a map to be made

Hello.

I propose that a map of the Midland Metro be made for this article. I am proposing this because I haven't seen such a map for the article. MattFisher 19:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm maing such a map right now, including the proposed extensions and stations (as of 2004). ivers 10:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Maps vs templates

Shouldn't the maps on this page be templates? Andy Mabbett 18:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

City Centre Viaduct

An article in Local Transport Today (April 2007) stated that a new development adjacent to Snow Hill Station in Birmingham will be implementing a viaduct that will eventually be used by the Midland Metro to access the City Centre of Birmingham. Until that time it will be used as a public footway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.65.150.50 (talk) 12:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

• • The vidauct is part of the snow hill construction, will take trams from st chads will use viaduct stopping above snow hill station before joining te road section at bull st {Ucebaggie (talk)}

Text dump

One or more Anon users has recently dumped a pile of text here, which might be copyvio, or might be new content, intended for use in the article. Either way, it's not discussing the article, so I have moved it to a page where it can be looked over, and used or deleted as appropriate. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Closure date of GW main line

I removed "The former railway on the Metro Line was closed between 1972 and 1992" because of uncertainties about exactly when the northern section actually closed to freight. Haskanik (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

If the records are correct then it wasn't closed, it was suspended, which is a bit of an "oops" because anyone who inherited control of the railway company could decide to unsuspend it and evict people who have borrowed the trackbed (and adverse posession doesn't apply to railways created by act of parliament....) 81.2.110.250 (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC).

Operating speed

The table on this article says 'operating speed 35km/h / 22mph' - well glancing through the drivers window today I saw that needle above 50km/h - besides, 22mph is ridiculously slow, those trams do at least 40mph, which is over 60km/h. Tom walker (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The 20 km end-to-end journey on Midland Metro Line 1 takes 35 minutes, making the average 35 km/h. Is it sensible to state the operating speed as the maximum speed? Haskanik (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Generally, the operating speed is the speed the trams run at between stops, not the average of the speed over the entire journey, including all those minutes stationary at stops. The operating speed of a Virgin Pendolino is 125mph, but if you took all the slowing and stopping into account it would be more like 80! Tom walker (talk) 09:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed to match other Wikipedia pages/styles and give top speed. If the average journey time is of interest quote that somewhere in the article 81.2.110.250 (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed again due to vandalism (reverted the revert of all the corrections). If you have a problem with this please escalate to a Wikipedia administrator [[[Special:Contributions/81.2.110.250|81.2.110.250]] (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)]

Tone

I do not question the accuracy of the data, but the tone of the eace seems relentlessly negative. Is there really NOTHING good to say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.162.100 (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The page was very biased and I've set about correcting some of that although it seems we have a vandalism problem and someone trying to keep it negative. There is still plenty of negative stuff (and some more that wants putting in about the launch period - including what the NAO had to say about it). I've added lots more citations and I'm hunting down some of the others to try and at least anchor the article in fact, and preferably official data and academic data not the local news rag 81.2.110.250 (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Tram Number 9

Maybe there should be some mention to the fact that Tram Number 9 is named Jeff Astle in his honour? His name appears on Tram 9, which is the Number he was famous for wearing when playing for West Bromwich Albion

Seems to have been fixed Alan Cox (talk) 12:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Complaint

A reversion complaint about the behaviour of Haskanik has been raised Alan Cox (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Opinionated statements

Here's some information about some "opinionated statements".

Statement: "Details of any payments made are not known."
Explanation: Centro have not disclosed what money was paid by Altram in respect of late opening.
There's a fog surrounding the topic
http://www.nce.co.uk/big-bill-for-late-midland-metro/832833.article

This information ought to be FoI'able.(www.whatdotheyknow.com), ditto any environmental info. There is a noise policy too but I can't find an online copy of it. 81.2.110.250 (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Turns out the info is actually in the press, link added. Alan Cox (talk) 13:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

and as that in itself affects Line 1's cost, it justifies the statement "The outturn cost of Line 1 is also not known".
The cost was further obfuscated by moving items from the construction phase, to post-opening 'major' and 'minor' works capital programmes

Wikipedia requires referenced reliable sources not speculation or own research. The article needs a journal or other good quality reference for this. The national audit office reviewed the Midland Metro a short while after opening and had some things to say. I'll be going through that material soon to add relevant bits to the article. Have to see if they have anything to say on that subject. Alan Cox (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement: "However, no evidence of need, or cost saving, was offered."
Explanation: Centro's press release doesn't explain how track sharing saves "up to 20 per cent", nor does it explain why the scheme is necessary.
Nor, if it was necessary, why there'd be a need to build extra track, if sharing was not used.

I have verified the source of the claim is a Network Rail and Centro joint study. If sharing was not used there would be one track for the tram and one for the railway. Alan Cox (talk) 12:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement: "In the construction of Line 1, "Centro took a contrary view of track sharing, having an expensive flyover built at Handsworth"
Explanation: One of the most expensive structures on Line 1 is the viaduct at Handsworth, created solely to avoid trams sharing tracks with heavy rail.

2008 is about the time the rail folks started to actively talk about putting the railway back on that route in order to free up desperately needed capacity and move some existing freight only routes to mixed traffic. That part of the context probably wants working in as with the TWO lapsing this year, the rail folks angling for it back and the possibility of thousands of tons of steel going that way it makes it clear the tram proposal is pretty much dead 81.2.110.250 (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Centro aren't too keen on disseminating their original estimate for Line 1 ridership.
However, a reference to "up to 15 million" passengers a year can be found at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1850372.stm

Statement: "The fare scale was originally intended to be broadly comparable with buses, but this proved to be unfinanceable".
There's some background at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2736605.stm
where it states "Fares are now set to rise to recoup some of the revenue."

Not a perfect reference but a good one so I added it in place of the fact tag Alan Cox (talk) 12:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement: "In 2006 Councillor Gary Clarke, chairman of Centro-PTA, stated that Metro would 'make a real impact on our campaign to cut congestion for everyone'."
Actuality: Midland Metro patronage amounts to two journeys per inhabitant per year (http://centro.journalistpresslounge.com/centro/uploads/research/Annual%20Stats%202005-06.pdf).

Detailed modal shift data from Government added. Probably the bit at the top (Clarke quote etc) want to move down into the general modal study bit Alan Cox (talk) 12:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope that will do for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haskanik (talk • contribs) 15:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Is the 2 trips per imhabitant per year really a meaningful number given that the west midlands is a large area with one tram line that serves a narrow band of users. It would be very very interesting and informative however if the figures for percentage of journeys on that corridor by car/bus/tram were cited anywhere in the transport studies ? Alan Cox (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion Area For 3O

I'll be happy to provide a Third Opinion, per request. however, I'd like to make a couple of requests while I review the debate:

• can someone provide me with clear diffs for the versions in contention? it's a bit hard to suss it out from the discussion above.
• can I ask each of you to be a bit careful with discussion? Again, from a quick glance at the above it seems like you are each chopping up each others' comments, point by point, and maybe forgetting to sign your own comments. this makes it incredibly hard for me to follow the discussion and tell who is arguing what and for what reason.

thanks! --Ludwigs2 22:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping Haskanik would chip in when his ban ran its course. I think I've covered all the problems but I was hoping he'd list any that still concern him now his ban has expired Alan Cox (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

block, not ban. bans are permanent. I'll wait a bit to see what happens then. --Ludwigs2 23:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Some deficiency notes below - by no means exhaustive.

Haskanik (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Environment

Someone stated that
"For that reason, Midland Metro carbon dioxide emissions are likely to be significantly higher than portrayed"
amounted to crystal ball gazing. However, it's based on historical data, for which references are given. There's no getting away from load factors in emissions comparisons. Haskanik (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately load factors have little to do with emissions. Load factor per vehicle versus intended load factor per vehicle does - but the Metro is reaching that quite clearly. Load only matters if you run lots of excess half empty services which they don't.

There are lots of factors that matter significantly - weight of vehicle per passenger carried, existence of regenerative braking, stops made, gradients, efficiency of power supply and vehicle drive mechanisms etc.

The vehicles are not under-loaded - in fact they are usually near full, most journeys are long (so you don't get the case of the vehicle being empty for half the jouney as is common on many routes).

Basically the comparisons are dubious - the Midland Metro actually operates like a Metro not a tram service and you want metro style comparative data (or in fact even better would be real published data).

In short the claims about carbon emissions in the article are bunkum and pure speculation.

The journey data tells a rather more intersting story of course - most people travel the full length of the line, so in fact they'd have been far more sensible to have just put the railway back with a few less stops than the tram, "route sharing" for freight would just work and the vehicles would have been cascaded standard railway stock.

81.2.110.250 (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"most people travel the full length of the line"

The line is 20.2 km long. Average journey length is about 11 km, according to Centro.

So there seems to be a disparity.

I'll see if I can dig out the exact numbers that can be put onto wikipedia (the stuff I have isn't republishable on here). 81.2.110.250 (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"The vehicles are not under-loaded - in fact they are usually near full"

It's not too difficult to estimate the available seat and standee kilometres. The calculation doesn't support the idea that the vehicles are "usually full".

Comfort loading 81.2.110.250 (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

A Google search for "comfort loading" yielded zero relevant results. It means whatever someone wants it to mean. In any event, it's not too difficult to estimate the available seat-only kilometres. That calculation doesn't support the idea that the vehicles are "usually full".

Haskanik (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"Unfortunately load factors have little to do with emissions."

What's being examined, is emissions per passenger kilometre.
It should be obvious that, in general, this is highly sensitive to load factor.

In general no. It is sensitive to *vehicle* load factor. If you don't meet the intended user level but run less services your emissions numbers will be good. The only case where total loading becomes really significant is when you are considering full lifetime environmental costing, and there is no public data to even speculate on that. I don't believe there even is a costed energy plan for end of life disposal of all components which would be needed to compute it. So I disagree 81.2.110.250 (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

What is being compared is traction emissions. There is no value in attempting a distinction between load factor and "vehicle" load factor.

Haskanik (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

There is because only including vehicle loading gives a right answer. Until we have a clear answer there is nothing that can be put in the article Alan Cox (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs *FACTS*. I would suggest the way to actually get real data is to FoI Centro. That would give quotable answers. I have btw updated this area more as Centro now claim simply to be 'zero emission at source'. 81.2.110.250 (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The "Metro is green" claim has not been rescinded, as far as is known.
Haskanik (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I quoted the Centro page - which nowdays says 'Zero emission at source'. The FoI query will I hope give further answers that can be referenced and used by Wikipedia. I will also look into National Express literature post that change as I carry on trying to sort the page out Alan Cox (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"the Midland Metro actually operates like a Metro not a tram service"

The two metro systems in the emissions comparison had the highest user carbon figures, so if Midland Metro is "like" them, there may not be good news.

I don't care if the news is 'good' or 'bad'. At an general level a heavily loaded bus (not a minibus) beats most metro systems for emissions and many rail systems for passenger use (a high density coach on a motorway at full load is under 30g/p/km on some quoted figures, and represents a lane kilometre of road traffic removal). I care that the data quoted in Wikipedia is verrifiable and accurate. 81.2.110.250 (talk)

Comparing full coaches with average occupancy cars is plainly absurd.

Haskanik (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's far from absurd. to do such comparisons when studying transport policy. This is getting off topic however. For a statement on the metro emissions we need actual numbers for the metro from an appropriate third party source that can be referenced. 81.2.110.250 (talk) 10:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Haskanik (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

One way to find out - FoI request made: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/information_on_midland_metro

FoI request fobbed off: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/information_on_midland_metro

Haskanik (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This should give the required answers fairly quickly providing WMT are in a helpful mood, or a bit longer if not Alan Cox (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

WMT is not the same body as WMPTE.

Haskanik (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

They will hold the relevant data I think, we shall see - its a constructive way to get the info, fingers crossed Alan Cox (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous edits, 17-19 January 2010

A large number of edits were made an anonymous user on 17 to 19 January 2010. Unfortunately, many of them were detrimental to quality.

Here's some examples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Midland_Metro&oldid=338654258
annotated by the anon user with "The 1999 study is questionably valid with modern electromagnetic track brakes but the general points I've left as accurate"
Material removed at this edit included a link to a general study of tram safety in streets. Topics mentioned in the study included vehicle mass, stiffness, and geometry, and injuries caused to pedestrians.
The statement, "The 1999 study is questionably valid with modern electromagnetic track brakes" is irrelevant. The report is concerned with a range of tram-related safety issues, not the safety aspects of electromagnetic track brakes.
It is not even clear what the anon user means by "modern" electromagnetic track brakes, or how they are better than older ones of the same type.

Then perhaps you should do some research. The study you quoted is totally obsolete for modern technology 81.2.110.250 (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The 'modern technology' isn't specified or explained by Mr 81.2.110.250. And there's nothing new about electromagnetic brakes - or the laws of friction.

Haskanik (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Friction doesn't apply in the same way here - the modern emergency braking systems (see Track brake use electromagnetic braking against the track not through the wheels. All of this wants modern study data - I don't have a problem with the direction here, my personal opinion is likewise that trying to stuff trams down those narrow streets is daft as a brush but Wikipedia needs a third party referencable source, preferably a neutral one. Ditto one for the fact the roads down there are narrow/curved. Incidentally one environmental group claims the unsuitability of the trams is due to the grades but I've not found a citable reference for that either yet. Alan Cox (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"the modern emergency braking systems (see Track brake use electromagnetic braking against the track not through the wheels...The study you quoted is totally obsolete for modern technology"

The picture of "modern technology" in the linked article is of a PCC streetcar bogie, at least 60 years old. As already said, there's nothing new about electromagnetic brakes - or the laws of friction.

Haskanik (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Midland_Metro&oldid=338649257
annotated by the anon user with "Actually no the references are about the original line 1 (Feb 1991) not as claimed the extensions - remove it"
Material removed at this edit included a link to a record of Parliamentary debate on Midland Metro extensions, strongly suggesting that the anonymous user has not read or understood the reference.

I read them all, they did not seem to say what you claimed 81.2.110.250 (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest repeatedly reading the article, until it sinks in.
Haskanik (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok I see a reference to the extension, and to an MP making complaints that constituents were not heard, I don't see a reference to Robert J Tarr's statement. Agreed that the Hansard reference and complaints in parliament are relevant so I'll put them back. Do you have a ref for R J Tarr's statement - as its a living person any statement of this kind really needs to be referenced to keep the lawyers away. Alan Cox (talk) 01:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Midland_Metro&oldid=338648716
annotated by the anon user with "Remove bias and strange claim about 'obscure parliamentary', keep the ref as its right for the dispute".
Again, the anon user apparently hadn't read or understood the linked article.

Again your material is misleading and incorrect. No 'obscure' procedure was used. I consulted Hansard on the matter and normal procedures were followed 81.2.110.250 (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Use of locus standi to attempt to restrict people's rights in this way was almost unprecedented. Try (re-)reading the article.

Haskanik (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Again you need to provide a referenced third party backing to this c.laim. I would however refer you to the Locus Standi Reports on Private Bills in Parliament (HMSO) 1990-01 to 2005-06. No challenge to Locus Standi was filed against the bill in question - in other words not one member considered it to be necessary to raise the matter with the court of referees. Alan Cox (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Midland_Metro&oldid=338658759
annotated by the anon user with "(Walking and cycling:) Remove speculative and irrelevant material"
Encouragement of walking and cycling is a goal stated in Centro documents, but there are no specifics.
Removal of relevant material about this topic is not good.

Wikipedia policy is clear - it isn't a place for individual views or private speculation. Material should be properly referenced and relevant - so the no cycles policy is relevant. 81.2.110.250 (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If Mr 81.2.110.250 understands that "Wikipedia isn't a place for individual views or private speculation", why post comments such as

"so in fact they'd have been far more sensible to have just put the railway back with a few less stops than the tram, "route sharing" for freight would just work and the vehicles would have been cascaded standard railway stock."

right on this page.

Haskanik (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

On the *TALK* page, it's an opinion and so it's not a piece of material I have put on the article, because it has no referencing to support it. Alan Cox (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Midland_Metro&oldid=338661073
annotated by the anon user with "Put in the true top speed not a fake one"
The 'true top speed' was already in the article, under "Vehicles and services". The anonymous editor entered the same maximum speed in the operating speed field in the infobox. On the talk page it was stated, "Fixed to match other Wikipedia pages/styles".
Not all light rail articles follow the anon user's preference. 'Operating speed' is an ambiguous term.
Manchester Metrolink page infobox: does not have an operating speed value. Has an average speed and a maximum speed.
Sheffield Supertram page infobox: does not have an operating speed, average speed, or maximum speed.
If it's important to have the 'top speed' in the infobox, I'd suggest creating a labelled field for it.

Wikipedia has a general style here - follow it. If you want more clarity you need to raise a discussion on the general issue in the appropriate place, or you could have changed it to quote both rather than reverting all the work. 81.2.110.250 (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Midland_Metro&oldid=338655024
annotated with "(Line Two (Wednesbury - Brierley Hill): remove biased 'sieze' replace with compulsory purchase)"
The word "seize" is in the linked article.
"As well as the compulsory purchase at Dudley Port, another £10 million would be used to compulsory purchase other land required for the Brierley Hill extension."
This is grammatically incorrect, and not necessarily understood outside of the British Isles.

The article was better before these edits.
Haskanik (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Seize is a loaded term, and inappropriate for Wikipedia policy. I see no grammatical error either, enlighten me, would you prefer a more old fashioned "for the compulsory purchase of" 81.2.110.250 (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

And I've wikified Compulsory Purchase so people can look up the term Alan Cox (talk) 12:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

But the linked Wikipedia article uses the word "seize" twice in its opening sentence. According to the anon user/User:Alan Cox/AC81, "seize is a loaded term, and inappropriate for Wikipedia policy".

In general, it's better not to use two long words where one short word will do. Anyway, at least 'AC81' now knows what 'eminent domain' is.

Haskanik (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest you either help work to improve the article (there is tons of stuff it is short including some of the highly anti- stuff you seem to love - notably the worries about cyclists and rails for the Wolverhampton loop want writing up. Failing that don't revert stuff - find evidence and references, or take it to Wikipedia dispute procedure. Simply reverting work you don't like is vandalism. 81.2.110.250 (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm just reverting badly written, politically correct, irrelevant, and factually inaccurate material.

Haskanik (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Edits by AlanCox, 25-26 January 2010

A large number of edits were made by an anon user from 81.2.110.250, and User: Alan Cox. It seems that two users are making edits in concert, or more likely, that the same person is responsible for the whole frenzy. For ease of reference, I will refer to the author(s) as '81AC' or 'AC81'.

Note to 3O reviewed - Alan Cox and 81.2.110.250 are the same - I just mislaid the password for a while Alan Cox (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

81AC's edits have had a deleterious effect on both accuracy and readability, and the sheer number makes detailing and unpicking too lengthy to be practicable. As of revision 340174131

In your remarkably biased opinion Alan Cox (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Midland_Metro&oldid=340174131

the page has

• broken links,
• baffling continuity
• misspelling, and
• irrelevant, wrong, and invented claims.

I'll give some examples (not a comprehensive list).

Broken links:
See the mess at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Midland_Metro&oldid=340174131#References

I tested each link I added. If one is broken then tag it or fix it don't just vandalise the work done Alan Cox (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

All tested and fixed Alan Cox (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If each link had previously been "tested" when being added, why did it take 17 minutes to fix them?

Haskanik (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Baffling continuity:
"Currently (2010) the Midland Metro is described as "Zero emission at point of use" (that is emissions occur at the power station) and references to green power have been dropped.[54].

Centro has (or publishes) virtually no information about their extent."

Disagree its baffling, but no objection to clearing wording suggestions Alan Cox (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Carbon dioxide and local air quality are separate issues.

Haskanik (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Misspelling:
"Centro Stategic Case"
"neccesarily"

Correct policy would be to correct the spellings not revert all the work done. Alan Cox (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I have corrected the two mis-spelling noted and also spellchecked the rest of the page fixing some truly awful spelling errors (Jewellry Quarter, loadspeakerr, ... in the version you reverted back to, which you apparently didn't notice Alan Cox (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant, wrong, and invented claims:

May I suggest you refrain from making defamatory remarks about other users. Alan Cox (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"No mention is made in the study of Evergreen 3 which will see many local trains currently using Snow Hill terminate at Moor Street Station instead."
(Irrelevant. In any case, the future use of bay platforms at Moor Street has not been settled, as there are competing claims by Bordesley Curve trains)

Wrong again - it's settled and its highly relevant because the usage data is not allowing for the change in destinations. It's also referenced that it is going ahead. You've again failed to provide a reference to your claim Alan Cox (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"Settled and highly relevant"?

According to

http://centro.journalistpresslounge.com/centro/news/index.cfm/fuseaction/details/id/4DE92BF3-13D3-97AA-2D1ED3004C1FF274/cnt/1/ref/main/type/News%20Releases/ses/1.cfm

"The creation of new rail lines into Birmingham Moor Street station, known as the Camp Hill Chords, would also be part of a package of rail network improvements which would be essential in making the most of the High Speed Rail link in the city centre."

i.e. Centro are still promoting the Camp Hill (Bordesley) Chords. That would suggest that *nothing* has been "settled".

Haskanik (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"According to official government data 17% of passengers moved from car to metro in the first year of operation with the figure rising to 37% in 2006. This represents a 20% modal shift from car to metro or about 600,000 journeys."

(Wrong. The 37% isn't "official government data", it's Linda Waltho getting her facts wrong in public. I don't know Walt Hon earth is wrong with her.
And if 600,000 journeys represents a "20 per cent modal shift", that puts total usage as 3,000,000, not 5,000,000.)

It's official referenced government data from parliament. If you diaagree with it provide proper referenced third party material supporting the other claim and we can reference both. Putting in your own opinion is not Wikipedia grade material. See policy

Alan Cox (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I have changed this to say "It was stated in parliament that..." which hopefully reflects the provenance of the data better. DfT data would be even better but I've not found any yet. I shall have another dig at some point as I imagine its buried in there somewhere. Alan Cox (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

So, it wasn't "official referenced government data" from Parliament.

And how does 600,000 divided by 20% equal 5,000,000?

Haskanik (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"One of the most notable incidents took place in the summer of 2001, when electrocution risks due to improperly installed cabling forced closure of the Wolverhampton section"
(Invented. The linked article makes no reference to cables having been improperly installed.)

So add a fact tag to indicate it needs a further reference. I've just not had time to put the report in

Adjusted to only quote what the press statement directly supports until such point as I dig out the report. Alan Cox (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit 340028886
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Midland_Metro&direction=next&oldid=340028886
saw AC81 asserting Midland Metro has seen 8% compound growth for several years:
"Midland Metro carries about five million passengers annually (2005), with an 8% year on year increase from 2003, about one third of that predicted by Centro in the planning stage."

and a few hours later, contradict his own edit (340118419):
"Midland Metro carries about five million passengers annually and this number appears to have reached a plateau, about one third of that predicted by Centro in the planning stage." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Midland_Metro&oldid=340118419

All this added nothing to users' understanding. The 8% compound growth was pure invention. And 'reaching a plateau' implies ascent to a certain level, followed by constancy. The time series reality does not correspond with the claim.

The compound growth is directly referenced material, as is the plateau in the report. So the material I quoted is correct. Your comments on interpretation of that material are your own assumptions and research which is NOT acceptable for wikipedia. I later located even more updated material so referenced that instead as better referencing Alan Cox (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"Directly referenced" nonsense. Because it's *not possible* for ridership to be both "plateauing", and increasing at 8% compound.

Haskanik (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason to leave the page in such a state. Users, and other editors, deserve better.
Haskanik (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverted. Please stop vandalising the page. You have replaced large amounts of corrected material with broken links, incorrect data and defamatory material. (PS 81.2.110.250 and Alan Cox are the same, I just had to go dig my password out as I lost it for a while) .

I have reversed your vandalism. If you wish to fix typographical errors then change them by editing the page further. If you continue in your current fashion then this will have to go to the Wikipedia dispute resoolution process. Alan Cox (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I won't correct deliberate sloppy editing, bad spelling, eccentric interpretations of links, or anything of that ilk. I'll just remove it. It's way too much trouble for anyone to read, or untangle the mess.

Haskanik (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry you've decided to act that way I shall continue going back to the corrected version (instead of reverts of yours to bogus data, wild speculation and typos on key names). Alan Cox (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Guys, I'm trying to help you out here, so I'd appreciate it if you'd stop arguing with each other and give me the info I need for a proper 3O. otherwise I'm going to have to give up and suggest that you seek informal mediation. I don't want to offer an opinion in the middle of a knock-down-drag-out. --Ludwigs2 20:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Deficiencies of the article as viewed at 11 Mar 2010

Additional to those mentioned earlier.

Clumsy prose

"The BCCE includes heavy and complex pedestrian cross-traffic, narrow streets, difficult gradients, and abrupt turns.[citation needed] which must be considered to reduce the risk of an Tram Accident."
Um, abrupt turns reduce the risk of a tram accident?

Fixed 81.2.110.250 (talk) 11:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

BCCE Extension map

It shows stops at 'St Chads' and 'Snow Hill'.
Why?

I assume the author added snow hill in order to make it clear how they joined. Alan Cox (talk) 11:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

BCCE cost

"The current cost estimate is £55 million for the new route and £65 million for nineteen new trams and for platform extension works[30]."

In that case, how much is for

• breaking the lease on the existing trams, and
• extending the depot?

Haskanik (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I have not seen any breakout of this or even confirmation that there are fees involved for the existing tram lease. Without suitable citations I see no way to add such info. 81.2.110.250 (talk) 11:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Deficiencies of the article as viewed at 20 Feb 2010

checked against:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Midland_Metro&oldid=345099037

There are various problems with the content of linked articles changing or disappearing altogether, clumsy and difficult prose, and factual accuracy.

In your opinion ... Alan Cox (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Accessibility 'minor' exemption

"Line 1's trams have a minor exemption from the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 1998 as they do not have suitable handrails in all required locations."

If someone depends on an accessibility feature that isn't present, its absence isn't a "minor exemption".
"Minor" is POV of the author.

Suggest just removing the word "minor". The original wording implied it was serious as was utterly misleading. Stating what the issues are without 'minor' will leave it obvious but for the user to interpet not have stated at them

81.2.110.250 (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The original wording didn't imply anything. It just stated Line One vehicles didn't meet accessibility regulations. As previously indicated, the lack of such features is "serious" for people who are depending on them to be provided.
Haskanik (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

A technical detail about handrail positioning is not serious. If it was a serious problem then the exemption wouldn't have been granted. 81.2.110.250 (talk) 11:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

DONE: Simply removed the word minor Alan Cox (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Noise, vibration, and antisocial behaviour

"People living near Line 1 have attempted to obtain compensation for noise, vibration, and antisocial behaviour, but what settlements have been reached is unknown as Centro do not report any claims and the concessionaire has signed confidentiality agreements with the small number of complainants involved."
Though described as "small" in the linked document, the number of complainants involved appears to be as unknown as the claim details themselves. "Small" appears to be conjectural POV.

Small is clearly stated in the reference, which is from official sources. Therefore the number of complainants is "small". The reference is clear. Provide an alternative reference of similar status if you dispute this. Claiming otherwise without documentary reference is the POV. 81.2.110.250 (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, David Gilroy Bevan got his estimate (£60 million) for the cost of Line One from an official source.

That source - Centro - turned out to be wrong about the cost, number of passengers, and financial performance.

So perhaps "official" sources aren't more reliable than "unofficial" ones.

"The reference is clear"

"Clear", as in "not actually saying how many complainants there were".
Ten? Fifty? One hundred? Five hundred?

Haskanik (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The reference says "small". Anything else is speculation. If you've got a particular personal noise vendetta against Centro this isn't the place for it. 81.2.110.250 (talk) 11:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Track sharing

"The 20% saving estimate was established in a joint study with Network Rail, however the report also stated that 'the potentiality of the plan is yet to be known since there are still more issues to be resolved regarding the dangers of track sharing'"

The link is to a press release about the report - not the report itself, whose content appears to be secret.
And it's unclear where the quote
"the potentiality of the plan is yet to be known since there are still more issues to be resolved regarding the dangers of track sharing"
comes from.

See the reference. You need Rail Business Intelligence. 9th April 2008. pp. 7. The report btw isn't "secret" it is copyright but you can 'order a copy' via FoI request just that then isn't sharable so everyone has to order their own. 81.2.110.250 (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

At the time of writing, the quote isn't usable - the title/authors/publisher of the document aren't even known.
Haskanik (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Its a well established journal. May I suggest a library 81.2.110.250 (talk) 11:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"Studies on behalf of the authority"

"Very large cost escalations encountered in British light rail projects, and doubts about economic and transport benefits have led to the demise of Centro's phased large scale development. Studies on behalf of the authority place the blame with central government policy [45]"

The link isn't to a study "on behalf of the authority".
It's to the opinion of a private individual.

Suggest remove entire "Very large cost escalations" claim as its unsubstantiated by references other than this. That or provide references 81.2.110.250 (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

DONE - removed unreferenced material Alan Cox (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Lapsing of Transport and Works powers

"The transport and works orders for most of the routes expire in 2010, and will need to be renewed by parliament or the powers in them lapse."
This statement isn't correct.

Will double check 81.2.110.250 (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"Originally the Midland Metro claimed be 'green'"

Midland Metro opened in 1999.
The operator, Travel Midland Metro, claimed "Metro is green!" in 2008.
So far as is known, Travel Midland Metro has not rescinded the claim.
Consequently, the phrase "Originally the Midland Metro claimed be 'green'", appears to be inaccurate.

Unless can provide a current reference (ie an up to date press release or current web page) saying they do then its fact. If there is a current 2010 era citable reference then change it to claims .

81.2.110.250 (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"Originally" implies the claim dates from the time the Metro opened.

Haskanik (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Shrug, changed to state 2008. Alan Cox (talk) 11:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"Centro measures Midland Metro noise and vibration"

"...on a regular basis as documented to the Department for Transport"
"Measurement" of noise and vibration generally involves systemic quantification. I'm not sure how sending someone on a tram, without equipment, every two months, amounts to a measurement system for noise and vibration.

POV on your part. If the DoT state the noise is measured then it is measured. Full details of the measuring are in the document and its not just informal but formal requirements that are covered 81.2.110.250 (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"In order to reduce customer complaints"

"...about noise and vibration, especially on the street running section, workers re-ground rails over four nights in December 2007."
Logic problem. Whether customer complaints were the sole or primary reason for remedial action, isn't ascertainable from the link.

Suggest remove railgrinding information - its irrelevant to an encyclopedia anyway as its just a routine process 81.2.110.250 (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

DONE - will remove railgrinding irrelevance Alan Cox (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Five Ways section

"By January 2010, reference to the Five Ways section had been removed from the project page on the Centro website.[27]. The revised business case states that this section has been dropped from the current plan as the New Street to Snow Hill section was the priority for investment [28]."
The claim isn't supported in the linked document, which mentioned Five Ways not once.

See 5.14, 5.16. If you like you could rephrase it as the city centre bit having been prioritized, rather than the other bits having been deferred, I'm sure Sir Humphrey would approve 8) 81.2.110.250 (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"No mention is made in the study of Evergreen 3"

"which will see many local trains currently using Snow Hill terminate at Moor Street Station instead [29]"
The linked page doesn't mention Snow Hill once.
Haskanik (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The documents referenced from the linked page do 81.2.110.250 (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Could also directly reference the bits if you want or articles on it eg

http://birminghamcentral.blogspot.com/2010/01/evergreen-moor-street.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.2.110.250 (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Edits by AC81, 21-22 March 2010

I posted some notes on edits made on 21 March by Mr Cox.
He appears to have ignored (or not read) them, resuming his editing bout on 22 March, with familiar consequences.

(On previous occasions, Mr Cox has failed to read or understand references. The evidence is on this page.)

Please stop making unfounded allegations. You've already been blocked for several days Alan Cox (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll give a couple of examples - as usual, there's too many to detail.

• Having previously argued that "sieze" (sic) was against Wikipedia policy, he's now claimed that the word "yardstick" is 'UK idiom': http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Midland_Metro&diff=next&oldid=351333374
  It isn't.
  It's well understood outside the United Kingdom.
  For example, "So, what really is the ultimate yardstick here?"
  from
  http://www.philippinedailymirror.com/opinion/columnists/juanl-mercado/770.html
  Pointless editing of "yardstick".
  Yet Mr Cox can't be bothered to punctuate his own sentences.
  
• Mr Cox states that Centro's Wednesbury - Brierley Hill - Stourbridge Rapid Transit map "does not show what is claimed or state it - remove original research":
  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Midland_Metro&diff=prev&oldid=351333374
  Mr Cox doesn't say whether he's seen the map.
  I don't see how anyone could fail to spot the five railway junctions on it.
  No "original research" required.
  The reference supported the text in the article.

  The map does not state the number of crossings or make it clear which are at grade crossings, and that was the least of the problems with your submissions, which included unreferenced potentially defamatory statements and still does Alan Cox (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Haskanik (talk) 02:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Changes To Haskanik's Updates

Haskanik: Please read up on Wikipedia policy !

'Policy' appears not to support using weasel phrases of the type such as: "It was stated in parliament that 17% of passengers moved from car to metro in the first year of operation with the figure rising to 37% in 2006"

because this just identifies the place something was said, rather than who said it.

Without following the reference, it could have been the House of Commons tea lady who did the stating. Indeed, the HoC tea lady might well have the accuracy edge over the honourable member for Stourbridge.
Mr Cox had previously worded this as,
"According to official government data 17% of passengers moved from car to metro in the first year of operation with the figure rising to 37% in 2006"

The claim that it was 'official government data' wasn't weasel, just bogus.

Then provide a reference stating it is bogus *AS WAS ASKED* Alan Cox (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, I can't see how it's Wikipedia 'policy' to the misrepresent the view of a private individual as being studies of behalf of a public body.

As is the case with http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Midland_Metro&oldid=340257415#cite_ref-43

Haskanik (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced various bits of referenced material removed by Haskanik because it apparently doesn't suit his personal worldview. I've also removed various "implies..." weasel wording, bogus quoting and other style violations. I've removed some uncited claims that are potentially defamatory. Material of that nature *needs* references. The "per metre" claim I've also deleted because the cost isn't for just new route so it isn't per metre and makes no sense to compare it with that when presenting a balanced viewpoint.

The entire life cycle section is unreferenced and still contains an "implies". It needs to be referenced or removed. This is an encyclopedia not a discussion of future research topics.

Other point - the Book reference for the study on the effect of the tram needs a date and context. If as it seems it predates the actual data then it needs putting into context as a prediction not as data.

Alan Cox (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Mr Cox has it the wrong way around.

The 'Book reference' does not predate the Metro's opening.

Thank you for claifying that - so why does your text say 'predicts' not 'measured' ? Alan Cox (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It's Ms Waltho's "37%" claim which predates the actual data.

Calling Ms Waltho's figure W, see below.

To quote Harper and Bird:

"The approximate breakdown of forecast patronage was as follows:

Bus transfer 50%

Car transfer 36%" (C)

"Generated trips 11%

Park and ride 1%" (P)

"Other 2%"

with the data post-opening from respondents being

previously used bus, 42%

previously used train, 19%

previously used car (as driver), 12%

previously used car (as passenger), 1%

previously bicycled, 1%

previously walked, 0.5%

other, 2.5%

did not make journey, 22%"

i.e.

(W) = (P)+(C), possibly by accident if Ms Waltho has just misread "17%" as "37%"

Let (A) (previously used car) = 13%, and

(B), previously used other public transport = 61%.

B divided by A gives 4.69

In English - for every previous car user, there were between 4 and 5 previous bus/train users.

Centro's website currently claims 17% for :"previously travelled by car", not 13%.

The Light Rail Transit Association website claimed 14% in May 2000.

Whatever.

The statement "the shift from existing-bus-and-rail to tram being about three times as large" works for the LRTA, Centro website and Oscar Faber figures.

Haskanik (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

PS: I note that the reference for the car journey conversioncost claim doesn't even contain the words "car journey" or anything that appears to back this up. Can you clarify where this claim comes from or remove the section

Alan Cox (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Figure 3-7 of the (linked) Semaly document gave capital-cost-per-overall-passenger-journey for various operators, with Midland Metro being the worst performer, and IdF the best performer. As might be expected, to determine capital-cost-per-journey-that-is-partly-or-wholly-mode-switched, journeys not partly or wholly mode-switched are excluded.

"The 'per metre' claim I've also deleted because the cost isn't for just new route so it isn't per metre and makes no sense to compare it with that when presenting a balanced viewpoint."

The wording that Mr Cox objected to was: "The 'requirement' for new trams further inflated the BCCE cost estimate, to £120 million, or £85,000 per metre."

I'm not sure how Mr Cox can object to long division. Or perhaps he can, judging by his repeated insistence that 600,000 divided by 20% equals 5,000,000 ("This represents a 20% modal shift from car to metro or about 600,000 journeys").

The cost includes the new trams so it isn't per metre. The cost minus the tram cost would give a meaningful per km figure which could be compared with say the Semaly document and would be useful Alan Cox (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Centro stated the extension is 1.4 km long, and that it needs new trams to operate it.

If the cost is £120 million (i.e. disregarding the more recent £127 million, and the £9 million 'viaduct'), that makes the cost £85,000 per metre.

It's made *perfectly clear* that £85,000 per metre includes rolling stock.

There doesn't appear to be any dispute that the new trams, depot alterations, and break of lease costs, would be wholly avoidable, by not implementing the BCCE.

Haskanik (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

That rolling stock includes new stock for the existing route part of the service, so no it isn't a meaningful measurement for comparison with other projects or to provide insight really is it ? Alan Cox (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The noise section also appears to be incorrect, in that the 2007 DFT response explains precisely how noise is handled. Nor would there be a reason for Centro to put noise info on their website anyway. That area needs reworking perhaps to extract the detail from the report.

Alan Cox (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to the impression given by Mr Cox, the DeltaRail document did not "explain precisely" how noise is "handled".

Centro's noise monitoring (section 4.1) merited just 3 lines, and vibration monitoring (section 4.2), just 2 words, namely: "See 4.1".

Actually it says a lot more, you need to read through the document in more detail (particularly the appendices). The data you seem to be quoting is merely how they check trams and not the route itself. It's also why I removed the railgrinding entry as its just routine (see sect 8). The actual process for route checking is documented in 1.1 (Powers)

which btw also covers the basic requirements for the extensions (NIR etc) Alan Cox (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Most people would prefer recent information to old information.

In that respect,

information (or more correctly "non-information") provided by Centro directly to Mr Cox in 2010

should be at least as relevant as

information provided via an intermediary (DeltaRail) to DfT in 2007.

Mr Cox recently made a FOIA request concerning emissions and noise.

In response, Centro stated they held no information concerning his request.

Which is waiting the Information Commissioners attention as it seems to conflict with the DeltaRail statement, concession deed and other things Alan Cox (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"Nor would there be a reason for Centro to put noise info on their website anyway."

Mr Cox is entitled to his opinion. However, as Centro produced a 45-page Environmental Strategy, and lauded the environmental benefits of its projects, it might be expected that they find space to provide information about noise and emissions on their website (or at least somewhere).

The fact they have not done so isn't Wikipedia material. The fact some existing body is cross they have not done so or has criticised it would be (eg the Greenwashing section where you redid the energy claims and linked to references from green groups). Same problem as with Linda Waltho's material - it needs to be an external source saying Mrs Waltho got her sums wrong Alan Cox (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Haskanik (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Accident and Safety Data

I've removed the Amsterdam study reference again and replaced it with a UK one that shows quite different things. The Amsterdam one is simply not relevant to the UK or indeed for statistical purposes to anything as it studies only 12 cases

Specificially - It studies 12 accidents so isn't remotely statistically valid - Of those 12 the road design (ie local factors) where the main cause of ten of the accidents studied. - The paper merely quotes the reference being used (the RvTx study) - The RvTx study it references is again largely about local factors and between 10 and 20 years ago

It would be interesting to find if there are any general studies into fatalaties/accident for trams but Wikipedia TramAccident doensn't seem to have any. Alan Cox (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Still digging on this. I'm not entirely happy with the table in the new reference either as it appears to have questionmarks but in the other direction. Basically we seem to have

DoT 2007 Light Rail lumped in with rail and very safe but not that year as safe as busses. They give figures on deaths/journey km etc and travel time per 1 in a million chance of accident. This one doesn't break out light rail but its a serious study with proper academic analysis.

French data - but they lump light rail in with guided busways etc - shows its very safe

Amsterdam 1980-99 data says somewhat different things but puts a lot of them down to local road layout and the like

UK report - says the light rail is fantastically safe but doesn't have much to say on methodology or origin of data for light rail alone. Also comes from the PTEs as evidence for a government report which is about light rail. while its simply accepted in the report that seems of lower quality than the DoT data.

I'm not sure any of this really adds t the Midland Metro article any way so perhaps the best would be to lose it. Nothing is certainly far more accurate than the bogus use of the Amsterdam data

Alan Cox (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Edits by AC81 in May 2010

(to 21 May 2010)
(1) In an edit summary on 21 May
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Midland_Metro&action=historysubmit&diff=363372966&oldid=363372757
AC81 (Mr Cox) stated, "One of the points of the BCCE is to link the railway stations so please stop removing the info"

I think it's fairly obvious that these details are already well indicated. For example, the 20 May version
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Midland_Metro&oldid=363270990)
has

"However, by September 2008, the council's interest had shifted from the 'full' BCCE to a shortened version providing a link between New Street and Snow Hill stations (which do not have a connecting train service)"
Haskanik (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit lost in the voluminous politicial mechinations there IMHO. 81.2.110.250 (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Midland_Metro&action=historysubmit&diff=362411654&oldid=361799512
introduced the wording
"In 2003-4, Centro submitted plans for the full Birmingham City Centre Extension to a public enquiry. At the time it was costed at £72 million"

But this isn't correct.
At the time of the public enquiry (sic), Centro were using figures of around £55 million for the BCCE.
The figure of £72 million became known, after inquiry submissions had closed.
Haskanik (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks sensible 81.2.110.250 (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

(3) In an edit summary
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Midland_Metro&diff=next&oldid=363270990
Mr Cox objected to the wording "but no source was given" stating "If you want that there you need to add it to almost every other Post reference".

In most cases, references to Birmingham Post articles allow a statement to be sourced to someone or something.
But in this instance, the Post's phrasing

"It is estimated that the increases in service will take an estimated 420,000 car journeys off the road each year"

doesn't allow identification as to who is doing the estimating.
Haskanik (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The Post is the reference in this case. Tagging it for who ? seem sensible and I'll have a dig see if I can find the same claim anywhere else too. 81.2.110.250 (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Other item where you aded a {{cite}} tag I'm not sure we need one given the project start date is in the article but we could cite the various sources that construction started in 1995. eg http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/midland/. I suspect that even if it had not then the metro was created by an act including noise rules while the noise regs are a regulation so the act would trump it (express will of parliament over implied will). 81.2.110.250 (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

PS: Any reason for keeping the blank 'Technical Data' section 81.2.110.250 (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Noise settlement

"DeltaRail states that the concessionaire has paid off a small number of complainants. The settlement is linked to a confidentiality agreement so the exact numbers are unknown."

This is conflation of separate issues. Why would confidentiality agreements include a term forbidding the concessionaire from disclosing the quantity of agreements?
Haskanik (talk) 21:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The confidentiality agreement chooses to do so. Why it does so isn't documented. I can think of several reasons but I have not found the actual intent (evil or otherwise) documented. 81.2.110.250 (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Modal shift to bus

"For comparison modal shifts to bus are typically in the 5-6% range"
That range is the view of one contributor, contained in the report referenced by Mr Cox (AC81)
(online at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmtran/378/378ii.pdf).

Another contributor (to the same report) gave different figures for trolleybuses in Arnhem and Salzburg.

And the Commission for Integrated Transport quoted differently as well.

So the comparison is rather more involved than portrayed.
Are the comparisons being made with a segregated trolleybus, or a minor Centro 'Showcase'-type bus scheme?
Haskanik (talk) 21:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - Perhaps we need an 'estimates for the modal shifts from bus are in the range of A-B ? 81.2.110.250 (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

We walk if it all goes wrong

Might be worth talking about the New Street to Snow Hill bus shuttle as evidence that we also walk if it all goes right as that got axed in 2008 through lack of use.

Other bits on the status of extensions

http://www.birminghampost.net/news/west-midlands-transport-news/2010/05/18/birmingham-metro-extension-facing-axe-in-government-spending-review-65233-26465631/

81.2.110.250 (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That article is pure speculation. There has been no official announcement that it the project is in jeopardy. NRTurner (talk) 08:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Modal shift II

See Modal shift to bus, above
http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/researchandlibrary/2010/11810.pdf
http://www.urbanhabitat.org/node/344
Haskanik (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

City centre bike parking

Someone removed text, stating, "Removed info about St Georges/Snow Hill having no bike parking. Who would cycle to the city to catch the metro?!"

Well, there's (well used) bike parking at Birmingham New Street, and Wolverhampton High Level station. So I'm sort of baffled by the contributor's reasoning. If someone can explain it, there's white space a-waiting.
Haskanik (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

File:BSicon uABZa.svg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:BSicon uABZa.svg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Ridership figures

Midland Metro carries about five million passengers annually - about one third of the original estimate - and makes substantial losses.

The tram is usually crowded when I get on it. Last time, it was quite a squeeze! So, unless the designers got confused about how many passengers it could carry, I don't see how they could have made such a bad estimate. So can we have a source for these figures? --Sam 18:16, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The 15 million is in the original proposal and discussion, the 5 million in the figures published for use. Remember that the vehicles now run at a less regular interval than originally planned and are shorter. The published trend data doesn't see the figures reaching 15 million for some time (DoT estimate is 228% growth for the metro by the mid 21st century which would put it under the target). The 15 million also assumed the other routes being built which didn't occur and no doubt involved the usual copious padding for political purposes. 81.2.110.250 (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence of the trams being shorter than originally planned? Everything I have (in terms of construction and pre-opening publicity) shows trams of about the size of the current ones. Aboodoo (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

---

The offical Department for Transport ridership figures for Midland Metro published on 26 August 2004 show the following: 1999/00: 5.4 million; 2001/02: 4.8 million; 2002/03: 4.9 million; 2003/04: 5.1 million. (what happend to the 2000/01 figures I have no idea).

Ian.

I've added the 2009 data from the BCCE case - that states it is 5 million in 2009 and seems to have reached a plateau Alan Cox (talk) 12:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Map

What does the letter 'S' in a Green Circle on the map / line diagram indicate? There is no mention of it on this page, nor on the legend which the map links to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojo29 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 24 April 2007

I think it would be fair to say that the legend is pretty lacking in its coverage, as illustrated by the "needs updating" tag at the top of that article. A more comprehensive list can be found at Wikipedia:Railway line template#Catalog_of_pictograms. According to that list, the symbol indicates an interchange station, probably referring to the possible connections with bus services. Adambro 10:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

S in a green circle is a suburban railway, from the German S-bahn symbol Aboodoo (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

I want to once again raise the issue of neutrality in the article. Recent additions have been relentlessly negative, and it would be appreciated if some of the claims could be checked against the sources and any original research or unsourced material be removed. I also wonder if some of the information is unencyclopaedic in nature or goes to an unnecessarily high level of detail.

I have flagged the article as requiring a neutrality review, and would appreciate any help in reviewing it. If the Midland Metro is really the failure that an editor of this article believes, I would also expect there to be other reliable sources or articles which state this. NRTurner (talk) 10:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I called for a major rewrite of the article months ago, its bloated, massivley offtopic and lacks the factual content of much smaller articles on other systems. I have tried to amend the outrageous or unsubstantiated claims as they are added but rewriting the article to perhaps a third of the size is a daunting task. Theres a lot of traffic figures that look shocking but compared to other networks are average. WatcherZero (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

"If the Midland Metro is really the failure that an editor of this article believes, I would also expect there to be other reliable sources or articles which state this."

The article doesn't express an opinion as to whether trams are a good or bad idea, or whether Midland Metro is, or isn't, a failure. At the time of writing, the word "failure" appears just once, in the sentence "Technical and maintenance failures, and vandalism, have led to some service disruptions."

I'm curious why this type of information should be censored.

"I have tried to amend the outrageous or unsubstantiated claims"

What outrageous or unsubstantiated claims?

"Theres a lot of traffic figures that look shocking but compared to other networks are average."

The article doesn't express an opinion on the traffic figures being "shocking". It just states what they are, and what Centro said they'd be.

"its bloated, massivley offtopic and lacks the factual content of much smaller articles on other systems"

I reviewed the other British light rail articles, and cannot see any deficiency in factual content in this one.
If someone can improve the article by adding more technical information, I suggest they go right ahead.

Haskanik (talk) 22:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Midland_Metro&oldid=402524258

The page has 30+ watchers, but no-one identified missing factual content, etc, in the three months since a neutrality check was put on it.

I'm aware of one oddity: "Fifteen percent of trips were previously made by car, representing an estimated 1.2 million journeys."

The reference is broken, but can be found at

http://www.centro.org.uk/metro/metroservices.aspx

"15% of the 5.2 million passengers transfer from their car to Metro for their journey which means that an estimated 1.2 million car journeys are taken off the West Midlands' congested roads each year."

It appears in a primary source, and is of interest as a claim. But I'm having difficulty understanding how it can be true. The data seems out of date and a bit suspect: 5,200,000 times 0.15 does not equal 1,200,000. I'm leaving it in for now, if anyone can explain it, please do.

Haskanik (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Can I add that I also agree the article is bloated, overly negative (when, as a Wikipedia article it should be simple, factual and neutral) and also states a lot of negative things which are not unique to the Midland Metro, in a way which would make it seem the Midland Metro is the only system with these problems. Everything in Metro land is pretty rosy when compared to Edinburgh, or example...

• Ridership Estimates are always inflated in UK transport projects, due to the appraisal process, which is incredibly flawed. However, this is not the place to discuss the appraisal mechanism. I think I'm right in saying that only Manchester Metrolink and Croydon Tramlink met their initial ridership estimates
• "Optimism Bias" inflates costs on all transport projects, road and railway
• The nature of bus operation in the UK means there is a fare disparity between bus and tram, despite the same operator providing tram and most bus services. In Manchester it is also often cheaper to travel by bus
• The 2% modal share of tram in the West Midlands should be put in context of it only being one line in a huge urban area. Its modal share on the corridor would make more sense
• Modal shift figures from public authorities are often suspect. I have no idea why, given that they tend to do proper traffic and public transport surveys
• As I recall, the cost of Line 1 was £145 million, on a fixed price contract which Altram struggled to keep to. References would be in old copies of Tramways & Urban Transit which I might not even have any more...

Aboodoo (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

"Ridership Estimates are always inflated in UK transport projects, due to the appraisal process, which is incredibly flawed. However, this is not the place to discuss the appraisal mechanism."

Well, the appraisal mechanism was not discussed in the article. Also *not discussed* were: whether optimism bias increases costs; whether it is cheaper to travel by bus in Manchester; whether Manchester or Croydon met their initial ridership estimates. Etc.

So I don't see the relevance of these observations.

Haskanik (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Just chiming in, as someone who randomly stumbled upon this article, that it strikes me as having a strong negative bias as well. It begins in the very first paragraph with the statement that the Metro's ridership is "about one third of that predicted by Centro in the planning stage" -- that sounds terrible, but if you check the BBC article cited as a source, it actually says that the original projection (15 million) assumed the opening of other routes. It's a bit of a misrepresentation, then, to claim that the line hasn't reached its ridership projections when those projections were for a larger network. Also, the "Environment" section appears to be entirely negative, and it mostly dwells on extremely minor issues that arise in almost any public transport project. Is it really the case that the tram has had no environmental benefits at all? 81.129.76.201 (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

"Is it really the case that the tram has had no environmental benefits at all?"

I reported the available factual data. If you have additional factual data, why not add it?

"It's a bit of a misrepresentation, then, to claim that the line hasn't reached its ridership projections when those projections were for a larger network."

That would indeed have been misleading. However, Centro's forecast was for 15 million passengers for Line One *standing alone*. In other words, not as part of a network.

Haskanik (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite?

I think this article is in need of a serious rewrite. It reads like a denunciation of the Midland Metro and Centro at present. It is in serious breach of WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH at the moment I would say. G-13114 (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

This is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Midland Metro if anyone's interested. G-13114 (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- Alarics (talk) 07:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't share the opinion of User: G-13114 that environment or economic issues are "marginally relevant". Why are the names of individual trams (etc) more important that the finances of the entire project?

Fares are discussed in other public transport articles, and affordability is a live issue. I can't see any reason for keeping verifiable information on such topics out of an article, just because some person or group doesn't like it.

This is supposed to be an online encyclopedia usable by ordinary people, not just trainspotters, etc. And it's rather arrogant of a contributor to describe someone else's work as "crap"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWatcherZero&diff=483939850&oldid=463488233

while adding incorrect information. Take the recent edit by User: G-13114, in which "the eastern suburbs" was replaced with "Castle Bromwich":

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Midland_Metro&diff=483842779&oldid=483842063

The 2011 boundary of Castle Bromwich ward can be viewed at:

http://www.solihull.gov.uk/Attachments/Castle_Bromwich_WP.pdf

Like most of his/her comments, User: G-13114's claim that the article had 'POV analysis of "every" single press release' is garbage. Centro alone have produced dozens of press releases, the vast majority of which were not referenced in the article.

Haskanik (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course the economics are of some importance, and that is why there is now a section headed "Economics", which mentions (for instance) that the subsidy for this system is higher than for other UK light-rail systems. The article is now much improved and more NPOV than before. You can nitpick about individual small edits, but you do your case no service by saying that another editor's comments are "mostly garbage". There can be coverage of fares of course, but it must be done in a neutral manner, not in the relentlessly negative and biased tone that previously characterised the whole article. I don't see anything in the article as now revised that can reasonably be described as appealing to "trainspotters" and not ordinary people. It gives a fair and balanced overview of the subject, including reported criticisms where appropriate. -- Alarics (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

"I don't see anything in the article as now revised that can reasonably be described as appealing to "trainspotters" and not ordinary people."

Well, for example, the current version some makes reference to rolling stock and overhead line equipment being replaced, but does not explain the reasons. Claiming that giving the reasons makes for a "relentlessly negative and biased tone", is absurd. Would mentioning that thousands of people starved to death in North Korea, give a "negative and biased tone" to an article on that country?

Another example. "The Birmingham Post reported that the BCCE would remove around 420,000 car journeys per year from the roads". That is not going to have meaning for the casual reader, without context.

Haskanik (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The "relentlessly negative and biased tone" was in my opinion very subtly constructed, by someone who skillfully searched through and aggregated 22 years worth of material, starting from a letter to a local paper in 1990 which gave an optimistic forecast of the line's profitability (this was coupled with a mention of the writer's present-day position in another organisation). --Ning-ning (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion about how the article was constructed, and how a forecast made by Michael Parker was optimistic.

But I didn't offer an opinion on the forecast. I concentrated on adding facts about the vehicles, engineering, ridership forecasts, environmental data, etc. Why some people take a dislike to particular facts, seems to be beyond rational explanation.

Haskanik (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The consensus, if judging from the multiple comments above, was that the article was in need of some major surgery. There is no way that this was an acceptable wikipedia article. It violated WP:NPOV, WP:OR, MOS:OPED and WP:SOAP for starters, most of the stuff deleted violated at least one of these policies. It is now far more concise, relevant and neutral. There are of course well documented criticisms that have been made of the MM, such as that it hasn't (yet at least) lived up to its original expectations, such as here for example, and they should be included where relevant, but that doesn't mean we need to fill up vast tracts of the article with complaint after (obscure) complaint, as was the case before. I was using the other articles on light rail systems as a guide such as Manchester Metrolink, Sheffield Supertram, Croydon Tramlink and Nottingham Express Transit for example, and I don't see a lot of the topics that were included here being included in those other articles. G-13114 (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The article was in need of major surgery, when it had large amounts of text lifted verbatim from the Centro website. Topics covered in the Centro copyvio text were carried over into the revised version, examining both sides.

Vast tracts of Wikipedia are filled up with details of Doctor Who episodes, but I don't see you objecting. You haven't explained why factual data about environmental performance of a public transport system is less suitable for inclusion. Your claims about WP:NPOV, WP:OR, MOS:OPED and WP:SOAP are unsupported by specific examples, and I find your North Korean attitude to *factual content* disturbing.

Haskanik (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, and according to this and this Clock Garage was in Castle Bromwich. Assuming that that is the same Clock Garage they referred to. G-13114 (talk) 03:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

If someone tells you that "nuclear" is spelled "nucular", do you believe them? The Clock Garage is not in Castle Bromwich.

Haskanik (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

(od)I see Haskanik is identifying themselves as the author of "particular facts". I don't take a dislike to particular facts, but here they were weaved into an article like this was, researched and edited with a great deal of effort and skill over a period of years, when the author hasn't made significant contributions to other articles. --Ning-ning (talk) 06:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion. But I think, for example, that

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Express_West_Midlands&oldid=281208263

is a heck of a lot better than

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Express_West_Midlands&direction=prev&oldid=281208263

Following its revision, the Midland Metro article listed third party claim and counterclaim. Previously, it was largely a sort of Centro press release. In fact, large parts of it were literally a Centro press release. It's interesting that the grader from WikiProject Trains seemed to be much bothered about that at the time.

Haskanik (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, you replaced a Centro press release with a section about how it was "sometimes particularly challenging" to travel on the upper deck of an NXWM bus. Neither version is good. Ning-ning (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/midland/

  Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 11:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Midland Metro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.petergould.co.uk/local_transport_history/fleetlists/birmingham1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Midland Metro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120725102813/http://centro.journalistpresslounge.com/centro/uploads/imagelibrary/WtoBHill%20watercolourMap.jpg to http://centro.journalistpresslounge.com/centro/uploads/imagelibrary/WtoBHill%20watercolourMap.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Midland Metro. 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:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6NA5SosVg?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bankofengland.co.uk%2Feducation%2FPages%2Finflation%2Fcalculator%2Fflash%2Fdefault.aspx to http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/education/Pages/inflation/calculator/flash/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130301092209/http://www.centro.org.uk:80/metro/CityCentreExtension.aspx to http://www.centro.org.uk/metro/CityCentreExtension.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320215236/http://www.rail.co/2011/03/31/new-rail-station-entrance-boosts-access-to-birmingham/ to http://www.rail.co/2011/03/31/new-rail-station-entrance-boosts-access-to-birmingham/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080123114603/http://www.opsi.gov.uk:80/si/si2005/20051794.htm to http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20051794.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140316021020/http://www.centro.org.uk/metro/other-metro-extensions/birmingham-eastside/the-details/ to http://www.centro.org.uk/metro/other-metro-extensions/birmingham-eastside/the-details/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140808044716/http://www.railpro.co.uk/magazine/?idArticles=612 to http://www.railpro.co.uk/magazine/?idArticles=612

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 04:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)