Jump to content

Talk:Tram/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Buenos Aires Subway

Just wanted to add, since I see it everywhere and I don't understand why: The Buenos Aires subway is referred to as "Subte" everywhere in Wikipedia. "Subte" is an informal abbreviation of "subterráneo", spanish for "underground". However, Polish trams aren't referred to as "tramwaj", nor Czech subways referred to as "podzemní". Therefore, I don't understand why don't you just call it the Buenos Aires Subway or the Buenos Aires Underground. Am I right or is this just a personal paranoia? - 190.19.15.125 (talk) 03:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Cable assisted

The following was added in a way that broke the page factoring:

Cable-assisted electric tram

Unique of its kind is the Trieste-Villa Opicina [1] electric tram.

I have not a clue if it is unique or not, but I've put it here so that it might be dealt with by someone who does. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Desire

I desire to know why a particular play about N.O. is not included in the literature section.Kdammers (talk) 01:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It's already there. Am I misunderstanding your inquiry? --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 02:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of ISBN 90-9013935-4 & adjacent Ref

I'm strongly protesting against the removal of my more than ten months without objection stated reference -(and next sentence)-, that was recently reinserted by Dirk Beetstra after ample discussion. - I'd like to learn from opinions by experts in LRT, who will light upon this imo unfortunate action by user:Fram, and referenced against my earlier remarks from September (a week: 7-15) last year above.
I would really like to see it objectively replaced again with estimable compliments: D.A. Borgdorff, retired Railway Engineer by 86.83.155.44 (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this I have several questions to you:
  1. It still is not clear to me why in a general article about trams mentioning the about 150 trams in The Hague is important. Were those the first articulated trams world wide? What makes those 147 trams so special to insert that line in that section of the article?
    → Yes, the first big RCT chopperpulsed articulated LRT series.
  2. Then something about the book. On July 21 you wrote about it " .. this reference written primarely by mr.Dr. Ploeger .." [2] but a week later you wrote " .. I'm the writer and mr.dr. Ploeger co-author only as editor in collaboration." [3] That's confusing to me. Can you explain how both statements can be true?
    → See for equal answers: talk:List of town tramway systems.
  3. It seems you are especially disappointed about the reference to your own book is removed, since you hardly complain about the related statement about the about 150 trams being removed as well. If that information would be re-inserted, do you think it really needs a reference otherwise other people might not believe is or is it somehow disputed?
    → In the header I'm clearly complaining about ref incl. sentence.
  4. Do you know where this book can be found in public libraries inside but especially outside the Netherlands?
    → Because 100+ Dutch refs in HGA - TUDelft & Royal Libraries.
  5. Do you know how many books were printed and if it is still for sale?
    → A couple of hundreds in autumn 2000 by Van Stockum: = No.
  6. Is this book completely in Dutch or is there also an English section in it?
    → Mostly Dutch. See also: talk:List of town tramway systems.
  7. If it is completely Dutch, don't you think it would be better to have an English source if a reference is needed? This is the English Wikipedia and only a tiny percentage of the readers of this article will be able to read Dutch.
    → There are only a few such books, and it's one of these.
  8. Do you mind if the text of this topic is changed a little bit so the ISBN number is no longer a link? With the current link it can be seen as just another try to get your book under the attention of the readers of Wikipedia.
Best Regards, Robotje (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
@ Robotje:→ However, I "do regard" this questioning an inquisition, but responded on the page: talk:List of town tramway systems, as well as here. D.A. Borgdorff - retired Eur Tramway P.Ing = 86.83.155.44 (talk) 11:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I have returned the reference since it illustrates that the situation for tram networks is quite different in the low countries, compared to e.g. US, UK and Germany. The paragraph could be expanded. While the exact number of articulated trams in The Hague is not very interesting, other facts probably are, e.g. the art on the Rotterdam trams. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you mr. Den Broeder; since last decade there's a revival again in LRT worldwide, and so I replied further to the above on the Admin's Noticeboard. Meanwhile, I'll remain yours truly D.A. Borgdorff MASc FRIEN 86.83.155.44 (talk) 23:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC) i.c. reference to the expert user:Slambo.
Can Guido tell me if he ever read the book, and if so, how long ago he read it? - Robotje (talk) 05:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Drop the attitude. The ISBN is right there. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 06:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Since my name was mentioned here, I'd better pop in to clarify my involvement. On September 13, 2007, I saw that the footnote section was duplicated and removed the duplicate section. The same day, I also fixed the WikiProjectBannerShell usage on this talk page. My edits had nothing to do with the reference in question. I have not had a chance to review the reference to judge its relevance in this article. Slambo (Speak) 10:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Amazing how the same reference can now be used to illustrate a completely different point. Guido, have you indeed read the book? Or do you use it as a reference no matter what the contents are? This is a book about one tram type used in The Hague, not a general reference for trams in the Netherlands and Belgium. Is there really no more authoritative, general, or perhaps English language source about the trams in Belgium and the Netherlands? Your "see also" that you added in the reference is completely useless of course, since that "article" is a copy of the Wikipedia article, and Wikipedia is not a reliable source to use in other Wikipedia articles. Fram (talk) 07:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, according to De Volkskrant in 2003, the tram networks in the Netherlans were not really thriving, but are slowly disappearing. So we have a reliable and more recnt source which directly contradicts your statement in the article. Onlymore recently seems the situation to be changing, as more and more cities have plans to create new tramways (see e.g. "Trouw" of February 2008 [4]). But this same article also indicates that this is only following the example set by France, Spain and Portugal. So perhaps a section onTrams in continental western Europe, with a more general, recent and easily accessible source (if possible in English) would be more useful than what we have now... Fram (talk) 08:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to improve the article further, and replace sources with better ones if you have them. However, do not show bad faith but respect other users. As far as Dutch newspapers go, I find Trouw generally more reliable than De Volkskrant. I am not aware of any period in the last half century when trams in the Netherlands were on the decline (some fluctuation is always possible, of course), and I frequent all Dutch cities with tram networks. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 09:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I have changed the section to a more general section on the revival of tram networks throughout Europe, with four different recent sources. Sourced info on other European countries is of course more than welcome.Fram (talk) 10:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The article now suggests that the tram disappeared entirely in the Netherlands. This is not good. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Now clarified. Fram (talk) 11:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
On your user page, I found you to be addicted to comics, but not an expert in Heavy or Light Rail Transit, seeing that you wrongly decapitalised Tram to simply tram etc. Apparently mistakenly doing so and not really understanding the very importance of this Ref. worldwide, no member of involved Projects here, like colleague Slambo cum suis, while I from early 1970 onwards dealt with concerns like La Brugeoise et Nivelles SA. = BN (now Bombardier) and SA Ateliers de Constructions Electriques de Charleroi = ACEC (now Alstom) in resp. those cities from your country of birth: Belgium. With the last firma I was pioneering to introduce Thyristor Powered Electronics in collaboration with VDE/VDI and KEMA certifying Institutions & you still been decapitalizing that important abbriviations ?? I'm a professional, not hobbyist ... you should be proud of your frontline country, formerlier products still are worldfamous, not only exclusively in The Hague for almost sixty years now. Regards from: D.A. Borgdorff - e.i. - not being a IP doctor but PE 86.83.155.44 (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Post Scriptum: I'm expecting you: Sir Fram, to reinserting all six deleted references in the articles involved. → 86.83.155.44 (talk) See e.g. my nl:user:86.83.155.44/Bibliografie with 330 refs and except more than 5 archives in Universities.
You mean my move of History of Trams to History of trams[5]? Right... As for "the very importance of this ref worldwide", no, I don't see that importance, and there is no evidence at all that this ref has such importance, only your opinion as compilator of that reference. The rest of your post is highly irrelevant. I will not reinsert the deleted references. Fram (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, my work was earlier referenced as "archive" in the Standard Tram Book ISBN 90-802514-1-0 among some other more scientific sources, albeit ample discussed about in the Dutch wikipedia too. As before: D.A. Borgdorff QED Eur Ing PE by 86.83.155.44 (talk) 12:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The ISBN you give is for "130 jaar tram in Den Haag - Materieeloverzicht", a 1994 book which can hardly reference your 2000 book and which is definitely not the "standard tram book". I can't find any result for a book called the "Standard Tram Book", by the way... And what do you mean by "referenced as 'archive'"? Fram (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately have to repeat myself: I don't state "book" from 2000, but archived "work", only e.g. in HGA; other refs are to be found in (Dutch) article nl:GTL8 and my talk pages. That Hague LRV-PCC series are an international recognized Standard Articulated Power Equipment Traction Motors more than 60 years still running, all to AQAP Mil-specs unbeated and everlasting, in comparison with equipments from other consortia like Siemens. All specialists do know these facts and Universities came from around the world to learn from the HTM prominent experience. Obviously you haven't noticed those fundamental historical revival here. Read those - sometimes very mathematical - 300+ refs first, if you wish. Meanwhile, I'll remain truly yours: D.A. Borgdorff e.i. 86.83.155.44 (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC) (edit conflict)
See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Streetcars#History of Trams too.
This whole discussion started about the line "Since 1981 onwards, nearly 150 articulated LRV-trams of the last kind are e.g. to be found in The Hague Netherlands." in combination with the reference "Ref.: HTM LRV GTL8 / D.A. Borgdorff / The Hague - 2000 / ISBN 9090139354 " Bringing up in this discussion the point of an 60 or 80 years old Standard Articulated Power Equipment Traction Motors doesn't seem to be relevant for a section about articulated trams. More important is, what makes the 147 trams in The Hague so special to mention them in a general English article about trams in the section about articulated trams. See my question number 1 I wrote on this page half-a-day ago: Were those the first articulated trams world wide? What makes those 147 trams so special to insert that line in that section of the article? - Robotje (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, they were the first big advanced articulated PE-impulsed series in Europe, so as examples for other series in the world, by design from the last quarter of past century with bold, and skilled innovations included, like there PCC car predecessors. Very modern, but fail safe and everlasting. Y's D.A. Borgdorff 86.83.155.44 (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC) - corrected dAb 86.83.155.44 (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It would be better if you not repeated yourself but instead answered the question. We are not discussing the importance of the The Hague trams here, but of your book. I know by now that copies of your book can be found in the Community archive of The Hague, in the library of the TU Delft, and in the Royal Library of the Netherlands. All this doesn't mean anything. That the book is also extensively discussed on the Dutch Wikipedia is equally unimportant, certainly when I haven't found any evidence that their conclusion about it is any different from mine (or that the reason for all that discussion is any different from the reason we are discussing it here). All those universities that come from around the world, all specialists that know these facts... hasn't any one of those used your book as a reference in an article or book which we can verify? Fram (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
After your last addition[6]: well, you just showed us that on that talk page, you started to mention your book out of the blue as well, as a reply(?) to a three months old post. This only shows that you mention that book as often as you can, not that it is used by others as a reference ever, anywhere. Fram (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, about that reference, I have the following questions:
  • Does a book have to be a standard tram book to be allowed as a reference?
  • Does it correctly attribute the sentence which is should attribute?
The point that there are only 30 copies available, or that it is a self-published source are not in order here. First, of English PhD-theses there are generally only 3-4 copies available, does that mean that they are incorrect, and can't be used as a reference (Wikipedia:Verifyability -> verifyability, not verified)? Secondly, the book is published by a group of people involved in trams, that to me does say that it is a suitable source, DAB may have a conflict of interest (and should as he did here now mainly 'suggest', but editing with a conflict of interest is not forbidden here, it is merely discouraged), it certainly is not original research (or 'synthesis' of data, Robotje found another source (on a personal website of someone), without references, which states the same number (147 to be correct) .. I am actually curious which data is more old .. and where one or the other found the data).
So it boils down to 'is the sentence appropriate'? I did feel that it showed a bit of a specific case, which seemed informative (though we can dispute that). --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Very sorry to interrupting, but 30 copies were only to be regarded to the translated classified EMG book of Vallée. - About this here mentioned HTM LRV GTL8 book were a couple of hundred copies available, exclusively sold for ƒ 35,75 in the autumn 2000 catalogus of Van Stockum Booksellers store: The Hague. dAb 86.83.155.44 (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
A book does not have to be a standard tram book, but our WP:RS clearly says that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I have no way of knowing if the "Vereniging de Haagsche TramVrienden" has such a reputation. (It certainly has no internet presence outside discussions or mentions of this book on Wikipedia). Looking at WP:V, "self published sources" (which this is) "may only be used as sources about themselves", which did not happen here. WP:V also says that "editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality". To use a Dutch language source as a source for an example is not the best use of a non English source. Finally, and most importantly, this example did nothing to make this article better and seemed to be only introduced to add a reference to this non notable book. Anyway, if you for some reason feel the need to add that one city has 147 trams of one type to the general article on trams, there is a much better source available: the website of the community of The Hague[7]. It is in Dutch as well, but apart from that, is is a much better source for this info since it is easily accessible for everyone, and published by a reliable source. If, on the other hand, you want a source that discusses the use of high floor articulated trams (or light rail vehicles), this English language study pdf[8] with a discussion of the Dallas network may be of more use to most readers here. Fram (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Apparently, you mr. Fram haven't read those books and said refs, where the answers are to be found, including the (mathematical) formulation of socalled traction equations, fail safe calculations, EMC/EMP impacts, design criteria, pros & contras of current international series, bogie/springs/truck/brakes and carbody strength by final elements calculations, distribution of load/weight resilient axial/wheel performances, application. This all apart from advanced calculation of revolutionary power electronics, high energy transformation with reduction of losses, redundancy, spikes, all very complicated circuitery, RCT-resonant pulse regulation, polar/flux caracteristics, energy savings up to ⅓, et cetera more calculations. There is so much more to count, e.g. catenary and pantograph, sparking, net-distortion and so on. Kind regards: D.A. Borgdorff Traction Eng. 86.83.155.44 (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Since your replies have less and less to do with the topic of discussion, I'll not bother replying to your posts anymore until you make useful contributions again. This is getting quite ridiculous. Fram (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, 86.83.155.44, could you please try to be on topic, we are talking here about the appropriateness of this item here (on tram, and for now on tram only), etc. There are some very clear questions here to you, and I would like you to answer those. And please do not assume which books Mr. Fram did or did not read. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
What does this inclusion about "ridiculous" mean? I was requested about the contents of my book which are revealed ample above and now to be mentioned that this works and refs are nothing, wherein all what matters is stated clearly, I can't follow you anymore. For about 11 months now, nothing was wrong whith those references, and suddenly they became questionable: after a wrong deletion, I got interrogated if I were a pupil, and the erasers got away with it while I'm publishing more data ?? — I clearly stated the book to be a compilation, because the papers involved are more than 10 meters of archives ... IMHO the discussed refs are in place where they stood, impeccable. I'd very like to learn of your further question though. D.A. Borgdorff 86.83.155.44 (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I suggest a main article Articulated tram, which is now a mere redirect. Other types have main articles as well, and it seems to me that there is plenty of information on this type. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 17:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Guido, This may be useful, but is not really relevant to this discussion. Fram (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Borgdorff, you are defending the effort you put into this book, and the scientific depth it has. But the questions were if the example, referenced by the book, was special enough to be included (there are enough other examples of high floor articulated trams, some of them with easily accessible English language sources, and it is unclear why an example is needed anyway), and if this example was used, if your book was acceptable as the best reference for it. As has been shown, there are other references for the fact which are much more accessible (your book is very hard to access for anyone outside the Netherlands, which is of course by far the biggest group on the English language Wikipedia for an article that is not specific about a Dutch subject either), and it is unclear whether your book can be considered a reliable source in the Wikipedia definition of the term. You claim that the book is of worldwide importance, but even after it was asked repeatedly, you have been unable to present us with even one article or book (not a Wiikipedia article or discussion) that uses your book as a reference or discusses your book. If we add all this to the fact that you had used this same book as a reference for at least seven articles on the English Wikipedia, and that, as you showed above, you also mentioned it at article talk pages without any indication as to why the book was relevant for the discussion, my only conclusion is that you are violating our conflict of interest guideline: "Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged." Your material is apparently not notable, and the amount of self-citation or in this case self-referencing is excessive. Fram (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
It may be notable in a more detailed context. Hence my suggestion, which could lead to a solution that satisfies everyone who is interested in the topic. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 20:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't thnk it is the job of Wikipedia or its editors to trry to satisfy people by suggesting articles where they can add their own books as references. Fram (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
This obsolete questioning was done before 4th of Decemember 2007 on my Dutch talkpage. There are only a few such books elsewhere, reason for the extensive litt. list of 300+ international refs and remittal to several archives. Because you still find my justified specialist sources not notable (enough) no seriously review will be possible that way. Indeed: my work is rare, but very reliable, the said commonly ample reflist is included, most of them but paper from a time without any internet at all.! The crossrefs I already stated before as well. Still kind regards: D.A. Borgdorff s.t. 86.83.155.44 (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I have not made any comment about your sources, and you have not answered any of the questions. I have checked the archive of your Dutch talk page, and their are some questions about these references. Your answers there don't answer my questions here though, and are not understandable for non-Dutch speakers anyway. Since you are unxilling or unable to answer these questions, I'll presume that this book is not used as a reference work anywhere, and that there is no need to use this book as a reference on Wikipedia anywhere except articles on the The Hague tram network and its trams. Other uses of this book can only be considered as self-promotion, intended for your own benefit and not that of Wikipedia. I'm done with this. Fram (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Again you stated to be unwilling, but in the field of (production of articulated) Rail Equipment, my name, authority & works are undisputed. I was strangely forbidden to give socalled selfrefs, and now that I'm following this advice, it's wrong too ? — Of course my books, and more: certain refs, are objected in University colleges, because they were learned from our experiences, e.g. being the basis of books abouts power electronics afterwards from 1976-78 on, while we started earlier from 1970. In 1978 November 23, the very first meeting in this field took place at THE = Eindhoven University of Technology now, or TU/e department EMV, where prof.ir. J.A. Schot & ir. L.J. Tummers, vice-CEO of Philips NatLab, and me were guests of honor. – If you still can't comprehend, let it be. Most respectfully yours: D.A. Borgdorff e.i. MASc PE 86.83.155.44 (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC) → refs enough I thought.

Addendum: some probably appropriate answers to above mentioned, but similar questions by user:Robotje are to be found on talk:List of town tramway systems. As before: D.A. Borgdorff s.t. 86.83.155.44 (talk) 12:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If this discussion continues, in the current manner, then I shall raise it at the Admins noticeboard. Olana North (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

on the wishlist: economy of trams, price of construction and operation

That's my improvement suggestion if someone is interested. And maybe comparing the efficiency of different generations of trams could also be interesting. "Capital cost is higher" -> how much is it exactly? Roads and buses also need to be built and maintaned. How much less is the running cost overall? After how many years does it pay back the difference? Here are some links that may help: Fuel economy, Fuel efficiency in transportation, Fuel economy-maximizing behaviors, Fuel efficiency, Fuel efficiency in transportation, Low-energy vehicle bkil (talk) 21:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Add one: Light rail bkil (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Tram-train

Why does the "Tram-train" section mention Switzerland? I know of no Swiss system like this, nor does the Tram-train page mention any operative system in Switzerland.--Ami in CH (talk) 06:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Nonexistent NPOV dispute?

There's an NPOV dispute marker on the "Demise in the UK" section....

.... but no dispute here on the talk page. Or on either of the archived talk pages.

That doesn't seem right. Could someone either delete the dispute marker, or actually put some complaints up on this page? 69.202.70.158 (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the POV tag. The section isn't perfectly written nor is it referenced, yet when it was tagged in August no justification for the POV accusation was offered.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction.

The article states 'The Upper Silesian Industrial Region currently has the world's largest tram network.' but later goes on to say 'The largest tram network in the world is in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia' under Electric (trolley cars). Can this be fixed, please? I'm not sure which is correct, although I've heard the Victorian one been quoted a fair bit. 144.139.71.221 (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Current manufacturers

Oregon Iron Works is the only current US manufacturer of streetcars according to my knowledge (see e. g. http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view//buy-america-tram-unveiled.html). Perhaps it should be added to the list of manufacturers. Does anybody know of another US manufacturer? (Bombardier is Canadian, but they don't built streetcars in North America right know, AFAIK). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.62.199.146 (talk) 12:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Electric tram

I suggest an article only about electric trams.--Nopetro (talk) 14:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Pros and cons of tram systems

I believe a new section/s named "Operations of Tram Systems" / "Comparison to other rail transit modes" should be created which incorporates many of these facts. (L blue l (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC))

North America / Europe moveto / merge

These sections will be moved to and merged with the related pages if there are no objections.(L blue l (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC))

Merges etc

I have started completing some merges and have expanded the Tram and light rail around the world section as i believe this section was to small as people missed it and just added to the main article instead of there locally specific article. I don't believe having mains and submains is the right way to do things but i am not sure what could be done to fix this. Any ideas are welcome. (L blue l (talk) 11:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC))

Connection to trainrails

In the article, there is no mentioning of the possible connecting to railways. Particular for freight transfer (which uses large loads that are not easily moved), a railconnection is particularly useful. See also: CarGoTram

Note: the size of tramrails is also not given here, according to http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_are_train_tracks_the_width_they_are , the width of trainrails is 4 foot 8,5 inch or 1,4351 meters. Not sure what the width is of tram tracks. The height of train/tram tracks is also unclear to me.

217.136.150.215 (talk) 09:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Tram weight troughout history

In the article, it is unclear what the weight was of trams in the past. Also, the engine power and total carriage capacity is not mentioned. How does these relate to the current trams ? 81.245.93.161 (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hearse trams - please expand!

I just added a Design subsection on hearse trams and mortuary stations in Milan and Turin, but it seems there was a lot of those in many other places. There also seems to be a lot of pictures. Spamhog (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

tramcar

The only people that travel in tramcars are those who ride in omnibuses, in the lead the word needs moving into a footnote or people not familiar with the word tram who read this article could be mislead into thinking it is in common usage. -- PBS (talk) 04:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Overlapping lists

Currently we have two overlapping lists, which makes for very difficult maintenance (since any changes should to be updated on the individual city's page too, hence any updates need to be applied in three places). This overlap virtually guarantees that there will be out-of-date or inaccurate content. Somebody put a mergeto template suggesting that the list of tram systems on this article should be merged into List of tram and light-rail transit systems. I think that's a good idea; it would declutter this article, and make the list easier to work with. I'd like to do it soon. Obviously there would be a link from this article to the list. Any comments / criticisms / complaints? bobrayner (talk) 07:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I merged them, per the merge request. The list on this article was pretty incomplete and had a few quirks and duplicates; but I did find a few bits & pieces that could be added to List of tram and light-rail transit systems. bobrayner (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead Section

The lead section needs to be shorter and the picture removed/moved. 60.226.113.111 (talk) 12:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it needs shortening but I don't see any need to remove the picture. It is quite representative and any good infobox would also have an image at lead section level. De728631 (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the picture should stay there and that Tatra T3 should be the one for the obvious reason of being the most succesfull type, however there are better T3 pictures. I don't know which to choose, I invite you to propose one of those at commons.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, if you ask me, I'd suggest this one. It's a pretty good image of a double set where you can also see the doors. De728631 (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Still, it is the rear view, I think thirst the face should be shown, not the ass ;) Cimmerian praetor (talk) 15:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
You've got a point there. How about that image then? De728631 (talk) 15:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

List of manufacturers

A list of manufacturers would be educational. -- Beland (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

There is one, here: List of tram builders. It's not very easy to find, because it's linked from very few articles, but is listed in the (overly long) "see also" section of the Tram article. The information had been included as a section in Tram until last April, when an editor removed it and made it a separate article. SJ Morg (talk) 08:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Advantages/disadvantages and references

An edit of mine was reverted recently: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tram&action=historysubmit&diff=432148248&oldid=431831953 with the following comment: "Un referenced (being clumsy is not a reference)."

I believe the gentleman/gentlewoman has never crossed tracks laid on sloped stone pavement (such as these: http://vladimiryosifov.blog.bg/photos/57118/ul_%20Yanko%20Sofiiski%20voivoda,%20Lozenec,%20Sofia/pl_%20Jurnalist,%20Lozenec,%20Sofia%203.jpg) in rainy weather on a bike and does not know how slippery they become. There are even advice pages on the subject: https://www.bv.com.au/general/bikes-and-riding/10429/ . Furthermore, most of the existing list entries also did not have references attached, so they should also be counted as un-referenced. If a reference is needed, the above link should suffice. And finally, given that bicycles slipping on tracks is a common situation, I'm inclined to take the edit note as an insult. 89.190.197.130 (talk) 09:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Image overload

Does anyone else think there are far too many very similar images on this article? IMHO at least one third of the images could be cut from this. Any thoughts? G-13114 (talk) 23:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I think that half the images in the first half of the article can be culled (I don't like images on both sides, which can give a narrow column of text), but then there are others that are lacking a specific picture. Two examples are "Types of Propulsion", which lacks images for Horse-drawn, Steam and Cable-pulled (with the first two having examples in the previous section), and the "Old tram stop on-demand notifier" might nicely illustrate "Tramway operation". That probably means that about a third of the images should go, along with the gallery (a couple of those, such as "Tram tracks can be hazardous to cyclists" and "Tram accident in Amsterdam" could be redeployed (both into "Disadvantages")). Tim PF (talk) 11:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok I've done a big cull of excess images. We didn't really need a dozen totally randomn, repetitive and mostly out of place images. I've tried to make the images relevant to the section they are illustrating, rather than a randomn jumble. I hope it is an improvement. G-13114 (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Was it necessary to delete Tatra T3, the model that was manufactured in the largest numbers?Cimmerian praetor (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok I put it back in the 'worlds biggest tram system' section because this was the most relevant section I could find. G-13114 (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Adding content and links about Transport

Dear Madam/Sir

We would like to add some content to your website which we believes adds to, and enhances the knowledge already posted on Wikipaedia. . Our core business is education about transport related subjects, but in addition to teaching, our aim is to make it easier for transport planners, academics, social workers and other members of the public to have easy access to quality peer reviewed research papers and reports that help them with their jobs. It is not our aim to promote any one academic Journal or Transportation Institute, but rather the advancement of academic knowledge on Transport, Public Transit or other.

To this end, I seek your advice on how we ago about adding either a link or well thought-out knowledge to your site. I have been looking at your site and External Links and References appear to be suitable.

As an example, I have chosen tram as a subject heading. Attached is a link that will take you to 358 peer reviewed academic journal articles from Journals, The Transportation Research Board and Transportation Institutes around the world. Every single article that appears on World Transit Research has been approved by the Journal or institute in question.

http://www.worldtransitresearch.info/cgi/query.cgi

How do we go about getting permission to add this to Wikipedia. I am aware we can add information, but I thought I would try writing to you first to ask your permission rather than find a link we placed on your site later redacted.

If you require any further information, or if you have any queries for me, I would be only too happy to try and resolve any issues you might have?

Many thanks and regards Pauline Forbes (talk) 04:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Pauline Forbes

Links to that site would violate multiple Wikipedia policies, including multiple parts of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Specifically, Wikipedia is not a repository of links or a means of promotion. WP:NOT is a core policy of the project and is non-negotiable. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Kolkata new tram.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Kolkata new tram.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 19 September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • 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.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Untitled

someone rotate the picture of the tram so it is right side up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.196.55 (talk) 01:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Dubious

Everytime I see this statement in this article it bugs me:

In North America trams are generally known as streetcars or trolleys; the term tram is more likely to be understood as a tourist trolley, an aerial tramway, or a people-mover.

It seems this is a rare reversal of Wikipedia's usual systemic bias, as I don't think anyone familiar with American and Canadian usage would write this. To anyone I know of, "trolley" refers distinctly to the now-defunct vehicles that you would only see in museums or ride at amusement parks or other places with a primarily touristic orientation. Ditto with "streetcar", which always makes me think of the play (Although I suppose in New Orleans, where they never went out of service, people still refer to them that way).

"Tram" would generally refer to the ones in cities overseas (although I've referred to the TTC vehicles as trams on visits to Toronto, without anyone looking at me strangely). The similar modern vehicles used in more and more American cities are generally referred to as light rail, not just as a whole system but, I've noticed, individually ("You can't park here, the light rail is coming"). The Wiktionary entry seems to support this as a distinctly American usage, perhaps in recognition of the fact that such systems do not always use streets as their rights of way). Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The term was used for the historic vehicles was it not? But not necessarily for the modern light rail vehicles. So I don't see how that is not correct. G-13114 (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Because no one calls a modern vehicle a trolley or streetcar...that sounds distinctly archaic to most North Americans. It would be more accurately phrased as "In North America trams were generally known as streetcars or trolleys in the early 20th century; modern vehicles are referred to as "light rail," both individually and as a whole."

The article has to reflect that trolleys were already becoming less widespread by even the 1920s and few were left by the middle of the century; therefore several North American generations have grown up without a need to use a word for them regularly. Instead of reviving the old one, or using a term with foreign connotations, they adapted a new word for the purpose. Daniel Case (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Really? "Gotta dash, or I'll miss the light rail"? — The San Francisco Bay Area has at least three light rail systems, but I've only ever heard one of them called "light rail". —Tamfang (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, what are the other ones called? I admit that often they use the name of the operating agency, or whatever clever name it's come up with for the system. But in Newark, New Jersey, the one I'm most familiar with, the two-line system (partially underground as it used the city's old subway system) is referred to, when above ground, as "the light rail". Daniel Case (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Muni (San Francisco Municipal Railway, which also operates busses; the rail part is formally Muni Metro but I don't remember hearing that in real life either); BART; and I don't remember what the one in Sili Valley is called. —Tamfang (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, it would seem to me that where a local transit system has its own name which gets widely used, that takes precedence, just as people in Boston refer to the T. But newer ones in cities like Denvery and Charlotte which have no such transit history generally seem to be referred to as the light rail regardless of the name of the agency. Daniel Case (talk) 05:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this discussion about American terms being conducted by Americans, or is there some international confusion?
Trams in America were almost universally called “streetcars” from at least 1900, past the 1950’s when they were largely discontinued, and well into the 1960s. I suspect that “horsecars”, which date to before 1860, were originally “streetcars”, and the “horse” came into usage after electrification, to indicate the prior vehicles. A “retronym”?
I’m not sure that “streetcar” has a “distinctly archaic” meaning to many Americans, although they were generally were in the past. Most of the people I know would refer to a modern light rail system as a “streetcar”. However, I am old (60) and obsolete. And our system was modern when discontinued. Possibly more important, there are no modern light rail systems anywhere near me (Chicago), so the streetcar vs light rail politics have not really happened here much. Purely POV.
Trolley refers to the pole(s), but was generally used derisively for low budget vehicles or systems. The “Toonerville trolley” comes to mind. “Trolley”buses did not (do not?) share this insulting meaning.
As to modern “trolleys” and “trams”, go to the tourist district, or amusement park. Stay away from rush hour. Amusement vs transportation. A Source Monster (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Even though streetcar use has drastically declined in the United States, most any American knows what a streetcar is. In NJ where light rail systems are becoming more popular, you would say that light rail operates partially as a street car. Tram is a foreign word that I personally had not even come across until reading about a Brazilian system maybe a year ago; even after encountering the word I didn't know what it meant and I have to disagree with Daniel Case that most Americans actually would. And I am very cultured and would say I'm more familiar with internationality than most of my American counterparts.

As for the term trolley, I can't speak for other cities I am unfamiliar with, but SEPTA still runs various trolley lines in Philadelphia and they are referred to as such. So no it is not a purely antiquated term.

69.141.137.152 (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

"Trolley" may be familiar, but iin a descriptions of electric traction it is ambiguous, as it can be the term for an old-fashioned contact supply running on the catenary or the term for a streetcar with electric traction.--Ulamm (talk) 01:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I think I didn't know the word streetcar until I well after I moved to San Francisco, where they exist but are rarely called that. —Tamfang (talk) 03:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Sarajevo

The two first electric trams with overhead lines, as are Mödling and Hinterbrühl Tram (1883 – 1932), and FOTG (since 1884) in Frankfurt am Main (later and now incorporated by Frankfurt's general tram system) had no horses in reserve and therefore worked with electric traction all day (FOTG initially with half an Hour's break at noon) and all year. So I can't understand, why Sarajevo (opened in 1895) should have been ahead with permanent electric traction.--Ulamm (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, most sources on the internet suggest that the 1885 trams of Sarajevo were hauled by horses:
http://www.virtualnosarajevo.com.ba/st_subs/tramvaj_e.htm
Even other wikipedia pages about Sarajevo confirm this:
Sarajevo Tramway
The german wiki about Sarajevo trams writes electric trams were introduced in 1895:
Straßenbahn Sarajevo
Without researching the topic further, I would say this might be a linguistic mix-up between "trams" (as in horse trams or "Strassenbahn" in german which can mean any kind of tram) and the more specific "electric trams".
--Hamsterhamster2002 (talk) 11:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
When I started this thread, there were two mistakes in the Wikipedias: The English article took the opening of the horsetram for the start of electric service, and the German list of trams took the conversion to electric service fo rthe opening of the line.--Ulamm (talk) 14:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Then the whole "Sarajevo had the first electric trams on the continent of Europe, with a city-wide system in 1885" sentence in the Electric (trolley cars) is a mistake, isn't it?--Hamsterhamster2002 (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Largest tram system.

I'm undoing the edits made over the last few days on this page and Trams in Melbourne regarding biggest networks as part of the WP:BRD cycle. Sofia doesn't have the largest network, and the sources given don't support the claim, the source says; "As at 2006 trams transport passengers on 17 lines of total length of 308 km on a single track at average operational speed of 12.56 km/h. A total of 176 trams operate on workdays." and at no point claims Sofia's to be the largest in the world. Melbourne has 250km of double track, making the system almost twice the size. We have two sources at Trams in Melbourne both stating Melbourne has the largest network in the world, one from Yarra Trams and the other from Wiener Linien, both reputable sources.Liamdavies (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Image queue

I moved, formatted and added pictures to the page, there was a huge stacking problem which I've now solved to an extent, but to avoid (or at least mitigate) stacking and general layout issues at high resolutions (1920*1080) I had to remove a number of images, so I'm creating an image queue here (I've put them in a gallery to avoid stacking on the talk page).

Trams in Glasgow, filmed by the Mitchell & Kenyon film company in 1901 or 1902[1]

I've also done a very minor copyedit, when/if the page gets big enough to fit these in they should be put back in the page.Liamdavies (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

More pictures that have been removed from the page as they had nothing to do with the sections they were in. Images should be used to help explain and highlight, not just because they fit (Wikipedia:NOTREPOSITORY & Wikipedia:MOSIMAGES#Images).

Tram in İstanbul (passing Hagia Sophia, Feb 2013)

I've also removed the entire "Gallery" section following the same principles as above.

I hope no one has a problem with this, I know I'm being rather BOLD, but feel it's the right formatting thing to do.Liamdavies (talk) 08:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Glasgow Trams c1902 – Phantom rides on trams around the city". Scotland on Screen. Creative Scotland, National Library of Scotland and Education Scotland. Retrieved 26 April 2012.

In Saskatoon, Sk...

In Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, There used to be streetcars that ran off of electricity for some time up until the early seventies... I remember seeing them when I was a youngster way back in about 1969 or so... Can somebody from Saskatoon that's on this wikipedia tell me more? Thanks,

Michael (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you are recalling trolleybuses, not streetcars, since the List of street railways in Canada article says Saskatoon's streetcar system closed in 1951 (but does not cite a source), whereas the List of trolleybus systems in Canada says the trolleybus system lasted until 1974. SJ Morg (talk) 10:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:German inventions

No, and you're just the perennially inaccurate Europefan sock returned yet again. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Unhelpful infobox

Although I usually favor infoboxes, the one recently added was singularly unhelpful. It described an odd, uncharacteristic vehicle in Melbourne (Australia) that has been called a "tram", but which is not very representative of most such vehicles in the world. It is pointless to summarize the wide range of trams with a single non-representative vehicle, with generic descriptions such as "Wheels: 8+" and "Axles: 6+". This infobox conveyed little useful information, was misleading, and did not help the reader to understand the subject matter at all. Please don't re-add it, when it serves no useful purpose. Reify-tech (talk) 05:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. G-13114 (talk) 08:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Uncharacteristic, in your view, but as I understand it is one of the main tourist attractions in Melbourne, and is THE symbol of the city. It is of the upmost importance that all articles have a readable summary of their characteristics on their respective pages. The useless information you describe is a starting point. Aneditor (talk tome) 00:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
If it is significant in Melbourne, I suggest that the picture be added to an appropriate article on Melbourne transit. Trying to summarize all the world's trams in an infobox intended to highlight a single machine's design is a near-impossible task. One ends up resorting to uninformative generalities like "Wheels: 8+", "Axles: 6+", "Tracks: 2", and "Fuel source: gas on Melbourne trams and petrol on all other trams worldwide". (By the way, I've been to Down Under twice, and the vast majority of trams I rode or saw in Melbourne were electrically powered.)
There are good reasons that articles like Boat, Bus, Truck, Bicycle, Motorcycle, Snowmobile, and Sled don't have an infobox in the lede section; they are all survey articles covering many different vehicles in a category. While infoboxes can be useful, a vaguely generalized or misleading one doesn't help the readers of a survey article. It would be more productive to focus on improving articles about specific tram systems, rather than trying to force all trams to fit the Procrustean bed of an ill-suited infobox. Reify-tech (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Also, I think it is misleading to use a different name to defend edits made under your name User:Fremantle99. Please feel free to use the Melbourne picture you uploaded in a more appropriate context, and cease trying to cram it into an inappropriate and unhelpful place. Reify-tech (talk) 04:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Furthermore, I now see that you are competing in the Wikipedia:WikiSnap Challenge which you yourself created, and for which you wrote 99% of the page content. Your self-professed goal is "to add a photo and an info box to all submissions that do not have one". But please refrain from overzealous and futile attempts to add your photos and unhelpful info boxes in ways which do not actually improve Wikipedia. Your rules do say "No cheating", and posing as another editor does edge over the line. Good luck to you in your future efforts, but keep in mind why we are here. Reify-tech (talk) 13:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Photo - "Old tram stop on-demand notifier"

It is vital that this photo captionAlbert Isaacs (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC) (which appears under "Etymology and terminology") be expanded so as to explain fro which system the nifier is from.Albert Isaacs (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

"NCL as explanation for decline of streetcars?

"In most North American cities, streetcar lines were largely torn up in the mid-20th century for a variety of financial, technological and social reasons, mainly as a result of the Great American Streetcar Scandal""

[[dubious|most system's deterioration began well before NCL/GM involvement, and NCL et al affected only a small number of systems.}}. Is there any serious transit scholarship that believably suggests otherwise?Anmccaff (talk) 05:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Steel vs Rubber quote

  • Steel wheels on steel track create about one-seventh as much friction as rubber tyres on bitumen, thus creating dramatically less pollution when carrying the same load.[1][2]
  1. ^ Interview with The Hon. Tim Fischer on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Radio National Breakfast program on Monday 1 August 2011 regarding his book Trains Unlimited.
  2. ^ Fischer, Tim. "Trains Unlimited in the 21st Century - Tim Fischer - eBook". Harpercollins.com.au. Retrieved 2015-03-08.

This is, simply put, completely misleading. Steel-on-steel has about 15% of the "rolling resistance," but that isn't how "friction" is being used here...at least I hope it isn't, that's down near the technological literacy level of a "Math is hard" Barbie. This also neglects the fact that pneumatic tires are an integral part of the suspension system, while steel ones, for practical purposes are not, and further ignores the issues this causes, and the fact that many solutions involve introducing damping material to the wheels..i.e.trading off efficiency for comfort or quiet. It also neglects the power distribution losses, which can be substantial off-peak, and glosses over the greater weight of the usual streetcar.

Real-world BTU/Passenger miles figures are available from several sources. Chester and Horvath's paper [[9]] suggests that, when all energy uses are considered, streetcars might be behind diesel buses in many cases.Anmccaff (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

(Undid revision 655208860 by Anmccaff (talk) Two references for this are included!)

No. You have a reference by Tim Fischer, backed by an interview of... Tim Fischer, talking about Tim Fisher's book, by the look of it. That is, at best, one reference...and it remains to be seen whether it's a good one.

To begin with, it's redundant. Other points on the bullet list cover the -possible- energy advantages of electric traction.

Next, it's at best sloppy terminology, and at worst inaccurate. "Rolling resistance" is not quite the same thing as "friction", and even if there is a an overall efficiency advantage (there isn't necessarily) for steel over rubber wheels it neglects the usually greater suspension damping losses of the steel-wheeled systems, as well as flange friction losses on curves, etc. It also ignores the fact that many "steel" wheels were, in fact, composite.

Next, it ignores the rest of the respective systems. Depending on how the power is generated and distributed, how consistent the loading on the system is, and so forth, and electric system can be noticeably less 'green' than an IC one...at least if we look at actual systems in practice. Take a look at Chester and Horvath, for example.

Finally, what expertise does the author bring to the table? That is, what makes this a source worth citing? Anmccaff (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear Anmccaff,

Thank you for your valuable information of the subject (ignoring the tome in which it was written). May I suggest t4hat you use your obvious knowledge on this subject to write a revised version for insertion?

YoursAlbert Isaacs (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

As I've said, I see this as essentially redundant. I do not see a point it adding, again, a bullet point which is essentially a re-phrasing of another...well, at least an other; it may not be the only re-told story among the bullet points. Anmccaff (talk) 04:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe that there was a monorail tram/streetcar/monorail system in new jersy. where was it.

Jim Platt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.248.1.246 (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Rogers

Am I reading this wrong, or is Mr. Rogers' Trolley not really a trolley, but a cable car? Or is a cable car a type of trolley? I didn't really see the differences addressed overtly in the article--just that trolleys have electricity overhead, and cable cars have the cable below. If that's all there is to it, Mr. Rogers' trolley is not a trolley. --Mrcolj (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC), native San Franciscan who has never understood the difference, and asked many times.

(Added 2015-05-19:) Plainly, both types run on rails. I'd say that the overhead power wire and its pole or pantograph distinguishes a trolley among the better-informed public. A cable car has has no propulsion ("traction") motor on board, is not powered directly by nearby electricity, and has no pole nor pantograph on top. The cable, which is under the slot in the street, moves continuously. To move the car, the cable is clamped by a very impressive and substantial mechanism below the car. It's manually operated; most of it is normally hidden. The cable is pulled by a big, powerful electric motor, gearbox, and big pulleys inside a building put up for that purpose.

I didn't understand the weird misspelling "Wrogers". Fixed it. It looked insulting. Nikevich 23:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Language use and power supply

Perugia Tram

I've been trying to translate an Italian language article about an urban tramway. Unfortunately I don't have a scientific education. Actually my Italian is pretty basic too ... but it looked interesting.

I'm trying to find words in English to describe how the tram collected its power. I DO NOT want to use words that would delight the jargonistas but cause puzzlement to the interested generalist. This Wikipedia thing is about sharing knowledge,: not about showing off superior knowledge of specialist vocabulary. BUT nor do I want to use words that someone who understands the subject would say misrepresented how the thing worked.

Anyhow, here is the translation I came up with (with the original wiki text below, but please ignore that unless you read Italian). Does the English text make sense to someone who knows about electric trams? And if it doesn't, what would, please? And thank you.

"The tramway used electric power collected from overhead contact wires with a maximum of 550 volts."
"La tranvia era a trazione elettrica, con alimentazione a filo di contatto e presa di corrente con trolley ad archetto, alla tensione massima di 550 V."

Regards Charles01 (talk) 06:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks. Regards Charles01 (talk) 08:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Tram. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tram/Archive_3&oldid=1036691598"