Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2008, 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


New station infobox concept

Taking a page from the WP:SHIP folks, I've devised a componen version of {{Infobox Station}}, with some documentation at {{Infobox Station Example}}. This makes the template modular, and permits the additional of multiple "sections" (i.e. passengers). It also allows greater customization: see State/Lake (CTA), where a custom variant of {{Infobox Station Header}} ({{Infobox Station Header CTA}}), allows the old-style display. Thoughts and comments? Mackensen (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. How would this work for Harlem-125th Street (Metro-North station), Fordham (Metro-North station), or a possible combination of Jefferson Park (Metra-CTA)? I still think the fact that both the old (UP-NW) and Blue Line share the same facility makes merging the two articles a good idea, and hope one doesn't mess up the other. And have you given any thought to adding NRHP parameters, as we've had in discussions in the past? ----DanTD (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, the two Metro-North stations wouldn't be affected at all. If we went ahead with the Jefferson Park dual article, I suppose the main change would be in allowing the CTA-style bars, and having two "Traffic" sections if someone can track down ridership numbers for Metra. Regarding NRHP, I can probably create a wrapper to just include the box within the table. Let me play with that and get back to you. Mackensen (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Check out Sebring (Amtrak station). {{Infobox nrhp}} fits into the new concept without alteration. Mackensen (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I've seen it. I was hoping it could be added to other historic railroad stations throughout the country. ----DanTD (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
It can; just use the base code from Template:Infobox Station Example, and add the nrhp infobox in the same fashion. Mackensen (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No good for Greenport (LIRR station). Not only did {{Infobox nrhp}} not blend in as well as it did for Sebring (Amtrak station), but the old Long Island Rail Road header no longer existed on the newer version. ----DanTD (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks Good —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zol87 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you fixed the problems with Greenport (LIRR station), Mackensen. I added the new version for West Palm Beach (Tri-Rail station), and I'm considering others, including Dwight (Amtrak station) and Strafford (SEPTA station). But could you fix the problems with the new infobox for Linden (CTA)? The passenger parameters keeps slipping out. ----DanTD (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I've fixed it. The NRHP template has to come last. Mackensen (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Good to know. I'm not the one who originally added the new infobox, but it's still good to know. ----DanTD (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I added the NRHP template last for Strafford (SEPTA station) and that was no good either. The NRHP template shrunk, and I can't spread it out to the width of the rest of the infobox. I had the same problem with Greenport (LIRR station). I'm still planning this for Dwight (Amtrak station), and a few Metro North stations, but I'd like to be able to make them work right before I do. ----DanTD (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Weird. I'll look into it. Mackensen (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Project Consolidation

I was just wondering about consolidating the US Railroads rather than having a page load of projects to sift through why not just one? The UP is one such example being as this railroad, as well as others serve half the country, is it really necessary to have every state chime in a stake their ground? Should we just have one project, one category, North American Railroad and be done with it rather than a page load of categories and a page load of project banners. It doesn't seem practical to me having so many projects staking claim.

--DP67 (talk/contribs) 04:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion may be appropriate for a few large modern railroads, but the much larger number of small local railroads (many of them historical) might be more easily accessible under the present system. Thewellman (talk) 08:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Rail industry award recipient categories nominated for deletion

Another editor has nominated all of the subcategories of Category:Rail transport industry award recipients for deletion as overcategorization. Please visit the deletion discussion page and make your opinions known. Slambo (Speak) 15:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

MBTA Newburyport/Rockport Line station article issue

I'm trying to create an article on Beverly Depot station on that line, however I ran into a problem when entering the next station info in the Infobox. This station is the last station (going outbound) before the line splits into two lines going to Newburyport or Rockport resepctivly. Now I've done an article on a station with the same situation once before and I used basicly the same method with this one. When I previewed the article though, I noticed that instead of showing the two next stations, it only showed one. I'm still new here, so I can't tell weather or not this is a template issue or not. Here's my work, see if you can help me with this. 

{{Infobox Station
 | name=Beverly Depot
 | image=
 | image_size=
 | image_caption=
 | address=12 Park St [[Beverly, MA]] 01915-4202
 | coordinates=
 | line=[[Newburyport/Rockport Line]]
 | other=
 | platform= 
 | tracks=
 | parking=
 | bicycle=
 | passengers=
 | pass_year=
 | pass_percent=
 | pass_system=
 | opened=
 | rebuilt=
 | ADA=
 | code=
 | owned=[[MBTA]]
 | zone=
 | services=
{{s-start}}
{{s-rail|title=MBTA}}
{{s-line|system=MBTA|line=Newburyport|previous=Salem|next=Monserrat|next2=North Beverly|type2=Rockport|type3=Newburyport}}
}}
'''Beverly Depot''' is a passenger rail station on [[MBTA Commuter Rail|MBTA Commuter Rail's]] [[Newburyport/Rockport Line]].<ref>[http://www.mbta.com/schedules_and_maps/rail/lines/stations/default.asp?stopId=19&lat=42.546907&lng=-70.885168] ''MBTA official website''</ref>

== References ==

{{reflist}}


== External links ==

* [http://www.mbta.com/schedules_and_maps/rail/lines/stations/default.asp?stopId=19&lat=42.546907&lng=-70.885168 Swampscott station official website]
* [http://www.mbta.com/schedules_and_maps/rail/lines/?route=NBRYROCK Schedule]

Murjax (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

  • {{s-line}} only shows one line and one set of stations. You have to string two or more s-line templates together to create a junction, like so:
{{s-rail|title=MBTA}}
{{s-line|system=MBTA|line=Newburyport|previous=Salem|next=Monserrat|type2=Rockport|rows1=2|rowsmid=2}}
{{s-line|system=MBTA|line=Newburyport|next=North Beverly|type2=Newburyport|hide1=yes|hidemid=yes}}

Hope this helps. Mackensen (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Changing things

(why am i editing at 5?)

Should there be a child project on rail transport in the US? Simply south (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I would be for it.. --DP67 (talk/contribs) 13:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Need input on a CfR

I recently nominated Category:Abandoned stations for renaming. A discussion about the most appropriate name for the category and about the scope of the category has arisen. Part of this is the question which term covers the status of these railway stations best: Disused? Defunct? Former? I would like to ask the members of this WikiProject for their take on this, at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 18#Category:Abandoned stations. AecisBrievenbus 23:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Union Station (Washington, D.C.)'s MARC Routebox

Something has always troubled me about the MARC Routebox at Washington D.C.'s Union Station article. If all the other stations on the Brunswick Line are listed from west to east, with DC on the right, then the DC routebox should be listed the same way. The fact that they all run north of the Potomac River shouldn't make any difference. Come to think of it, I've got similar issues regarding Pennsylvania Station (New York City). I wonder if Yonkers (Metro-North station) and maybe Croton-Harmon (Metro-North station) shouldn't be on the right side of the routebox. ----DanTD (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I kind of like the way we have Union Station's routeboxes set up. It has all of the next northbound stations to the right and all of the next southbound or westbound stations to the left. I think the templates for the Brunswick Line need to be reversed. Murjax (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, my problem was with the Brunswick Line. Otherwise I'm okay with it as well. ----DanTD (talk) 05:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I reversed the Brunswick Line templates. It looks better now. Murjax (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Looks exactly the same to me. ----DanTD (talk) 06:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
          • You won't find anything different on the Union Station article. I reversed the templates so that the routeboxes on the other articles of stations on that line match the set up of Union Station. For example, at Union Station, it shows the next outbound station on the right side of the routebox. When you look at the other articles, you will notice that this continues. The outbound stations are on the right and the inbound stations on the left. It looks good to me, is there something you think would look better? Murjax ([[User talk:|talk]]) 21:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
            • Brusnwick to the left, and Camden and Penn to the right would seem more acceptable. You've got the Amtrak Capitol Limited on the left, and the Brunswick Line shares a station with Rockville (Amtrak station). ----DanTD (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
              • I understand your point about the Rockville (Amtrak station), but if we adapting it to that is going to mess it up for the Union Station article. What if we reverse the templates for the Capitol Limited? That sounds good to me. Murjax (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
                • Capitol Limited runs west to east (left to right) and shouldn't be reversed along the whole line. Is there some odd turnabout occurring in the Washington area? Mackensen (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
                  • MARC's Brunswick Line runs in the same direction, which is why I'm trying to get somebody to reverse the templates just for that line. Murjax seems to think it will mess them up, but I disagree. They're already messed up for MARC. In fact, I'd say reversing the Capitol Limited Amtrak template will make things worse. ----DanTD (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
                    • What if we reverse all three MARC templates? It would turn the Burnswick Line templates back to the way we had them but since the other two would also be reversed, it would allow us to move all three stations which are currently on the right side of the routebox at Union Station and move them to the left. What do you think? Murjax (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
                      • No, the Camden and Penn Lines are where they should be. I was working on routboxes for stations along the Brunswick Line and I ended up putting them in the wrong direction. The ones at DC should be right as well. Oh, by the way, the VRE routebox at L'Enfant Plaza (Washington Metro) still sends users to the Union Station Subway, when they actually terminate at Union Station itself. ----DanTD (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
                        • Ok, I think I see your point now, so if we reverse the Brunswick Line templates back to the way they were and then move Silver Spring over to the left side, then I guess it will good. This was your original idea right?

Now about the VRE issue, that's not just L'Enfant Plaza (Washington Metro), there's something wrong with the templates on both lines that causes them to be sent to the Union Station (Washington Metro) page. I looked at the templates and even tried fixing it but I can't seem to find where the problem is on the template page itself. Murjax (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

MBTA Franklin Line map issue

The Islington station on the map in the MBTA Franklin Line article is misspelled. I couldn't find where to fix it so if someone who knows where this is, please fix it. Thank you. Murjax (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


User talk:Lordkinbote

This user was very active in train images and has left the project. Anyone who could write/replace his tagged images would be most appreciated. MBisanz talk 08:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You could try replacing them with tags similar to the one used on Image:GTW The International Limited.jpg. I agree that these images should be saved. ----DanTD (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

London

Members of WP:TWP are invited to join in this discussion at WT:RAIL. Thanks, --RFBailey (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


The Ghan

I've just completed a significant re-write of The Ghan after working on the Indian Pacific earlier this week and realizing that The Ghan article needed some work. I've raised some of mu remaining questions on Talk:The_Ghan and would appreciate any input, suggestions, etc. Travellingcari (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

R8A

Hi. Someone created a stub article on this class of NYC subway car. I've done some basic tidying etc. on the article, but as I did so, I noticed that the various templates used for the NYC rolling stock, and the St. Louis Car Company article which apparently made this car don't include this particular class. I'm not a train afficianado myself (ducks rapidly as used bogeys fly overhead...), so can I just leave this reminder here for someone more au-fait with the subject to have a quick review and see if anything needs amending ? Thanks. CultureDrone (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Task completed.--MrFishGo Fish 18:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Reminder of the Philip Greenspun Illustration project

Hi. You may be familiar with the Philip Greenspun Illustration Project. $20,000 has been donated to pay for the creation of high quality diagrams for Wikipedia and its sister projects.

Requests are currently being taken at m:Philip Greenspun illustration project/Requests and input from members of this project would be very welcome. If you can think of any diagrams (not photos or maps) that would be useful then I encourage you to suggest them at this page. If there is any free content material that would assist in drawing the diagram then it would be great if you could list that, too.

If there are any related (or unrelated) WikiProjects you think might have some suggestions then please pass this request over. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 16:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Westrail

I took a look at Westrail after SuggestBot left me a note. I'd love to work on it because it needs some serious help, but the vast majority of sources appear to be locked behind paid gates. Anyone have access to other sources of information? Travellingcari (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

IRC Channel available

For those of you interested I started an IRC channel for the trains project. Its irc.freenode.net - #Wikipedia-Trains-en --DP67 (talk/contribs) 23:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

High-speed rail in Europe

Can anyone lend a hand at High-speed rail in Europe? We've brought together all the individual countries' information, but need expansion on rail links, such as the Eurostar, that tie Europe together. Much appreciated Grunners (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Lost shortcut

I have just found out that there is a shortcut, WP:RR, leading to your main page. It is listed neither in your shortcut box, nor in the shortcut directory. It is quite old; it was retargeted from the Three-revert rule on 30 August 2005.

I thought I should write about it here before actually listing it, in case you would prefer it deleted. Personally, I like it, and I find it very relevant and intuitive. Waltham, The Duke of 14:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I see no interest... I am adding the shortcut to the box in your main page and to the relevant list; if you don't like it, you can, of course, remove it at will. Nice talking to you. Waltham, The Duke of 22:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

{{rail-bio-stub}}

A new stub template for biographies of people associated with the rails has been proposed over at the Stub sorting Wikiproject. If you would care to comment on the proposal, please do. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Philadelphia

City_Hall_(SEPTA_station) and 15th Street (SEPTA station) seem to have been written in complete ignorance of one another, implying that both stations serve both MFL and Broad street lines, and they don't link tot one another. I would fix it but I want to discuss first. --Quentin Smith 17:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a lot of these Philadelphia-area stations should be given back their previous names. If not, then at least there should be distinctions between city service and suburban service stations. Or maybe even combine the old and new names somehow. ----DanTD (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oregon Electric Railway Museum

A new article recently appeared at Oregon Electric Railway Museum. It needs categorization, project tagging?, and some work. —EncMstr 17:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I just threw two categories at it. ----DanTD (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wisconsin Central

I've opened a discussion on the status of the Wisconsin Central at Talk:Wisconsin Central Transportation--input would be much appreciated. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Article requested for more than a year; Tourist Standard Open End

Tourist Standard Open End is on WP:AR1, I belive this could be an redirect to Tourist Standard Open but I am not quite sure. Taemyr (talk) 13:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Tourist Standard Open (Trolley)) already redirect to Tourist Standard Open. Tourist Standard Open Buffet has its own article. The Coaching Stock of British Rail template mentions TSOB and TSOT, but not TSOE. TSOB is acknowledged here, though ... possibly some inconsistency in our template? I think for the moment we can redirect Tourist Standard Open End and Tourist Standard Open (End) to Tourist Standard Open. Which I will now do. and someone else can figure out if the article should be Tourist Standard Open (Buffet) or Tourist Standard Open Buffet --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I've added the explanations for TSOE and TSOD to the Tourist Standard Open page (with references) and updated the #redirect accordingly. I think TSOT should redirect to TSO and a sub section be added on the TSO page dealing with the various versions of the Micro Buffet. The Platform 5 reference lists the supposed TSOB vehicles as RMB. Off to commons to find some pictures. Railwayfan2005Railwayfan2005 (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

International Limited

Some aspects of the International Limited article don't add up: see my comments here for details. --RFBailey (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

News column on Portal:Trains

The news column on Portal:Trains hasn't been substantially updated in some time. It's not because there isn't news to include there, it's because I've found it very difficult since the new year to find time to make the necessary updates. So, I'm requesting the help of interested editors to fill in with news items. You don't even have to go search it out, since I've got several news items that I planned to add there.

Specifically (in addition to the two items that were already added by other editors):

Is there an editor here who can use these links and update the column and the archives with this information? I've been trying to keep the column limited to the six most recent news items (with everything put into the appropriate MONTH YEAR in rail transport archives), and writing a short paragraph to describe the event with links and footnotes as needed. The entries from before Dec 26 can be used as a model for the kinds of blurbs that I've been adding to the column. Thanks. Slambo (Speak) 21:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Interested parties can add the newsroom to their watch lists. I've copied these links there, updated the notes there to current procedures and added a link to it on the portal (and found another item in today's news feeds that should be mentioned). Further discussion can take place in the newsroom. Slambo (Speak) 16:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Vancouver SkyTrain - mass move

Would anyone object if i started moving all the stations to something like Royal Oak Vancover SkyTrain station? I am not meaning merging the number of articles into that one, i am meaning just standardising\disambiguating the stations. Simply south (talk) 12:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for posing the question first, rather than just moving the articles - and also for cross-posting to the Vancouver project. That aside, there's really no need for the move... disambiguation isn't used to standardize titles. --Ckatzchatspy 18:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
In the example i have given, there are other Royal Oak stations, such as Royal Oak tube station on the London Underground which is referred to as Royal Oak. There are many examples out there. Many metro systems have their own ways to disambiguate themselves from other systems e.g. Royal Oak tube station, Kawloon MTR station, Boulogne - Pont de Saint-Cloud (Paris Métro), Chinatown SMRT station etc. Simply south (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

New Infobox Problems

I've tried to convert a few more railroad station infoboxes into the current standard created by Mackensen, and many of these combine National Register of Historic Places infoboxes. However some as you'll find in the archives there are some I've had trouble converting, including Strafford (SEPTA station), and Farmingdale (LIRR station). What I often find is that the railroad-NRHP combo-boxes don't allow services and routeboxes. I actually had to take a routebox out of one in order to convert it to the new version. This would be a big problem for stations like Old Greenwich (Metro-North station) and Cos Cob (Metro-North station). ----DanTD (talk) 18:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Film added to Wikiproject

I'm not a member of this Wikiproject so I don't know if films related to trains, especially ones that include extensive footage of train-related subject matter, are applicable to this project, but for anyone interested I've added Buster Keaton's classic short film The Railrodder to the project. If films are not considered appropriate for the project, feel free to remove the banner. 23skidoo (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Process

I've created an article on the Chemin de Fer de Côtes du Nord, which is a FA on the French Wikipedia. I'd like to get this article to GA standard at least, if not FA. I've asked for a peer review (not sure if I should have!) and would like some help with the GA nomination process. Mjroots (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

New York, Pennsylvania, and Norfolk Railroad

I came across the NYP&N RR today. It seems to be the original line of the current Eastern Shore Railroad. There's an oblique mention of the RR on the Cape Charles, Virgnia page, but no mention of it in any other articles. I've added a redirect page but didn't alter the text on the Eastern Shore RR article yet. I added a lengthy note on Talk:Eastern Shore Railroad with some decent source information from the National Park Service, etc. I recommend that a RR editor follow up at some point. Since the line runs on the Delmarva Peninsula, for example, but the name includes NY and PA, I assumed that the RR would not be listed with railroads of NY and PA. Anyway, greetings from Erie PA WP. --Pat (talk) 04:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Rapid transit

WikiProject Rapid transit might as well be considered a defunct WikiProject because it hasn't had a significant amount of activity for a while. Standards need to be developed for rapid transit articles, however it is difficult to do when the project is no longer active. I am a member of the project and would like to get it up and running again, and would like any suggestions anyone may have. 03:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Is that project really inactive? I don't visit it often, but I have tackled a few rapid transit-related articles. Tell me something; How do you feel about a Chicago Area Public Transportation WikiProject? ----DanTD (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
As far as the inactiveness of the project, the project talk page's last three edits were in December, November, and September 2007, respectively. As far as a Chicago area project, I'm interested in participating, although I not entirely familiar with the Chicago 'L' seeing as how I live in Philadelphia. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
It could be that the activity just isn't being made public on the WPRT page; are editors working through the unassessed or unknown-importance categories? I've noticed a few more articles with the project tag in the unassessed trains articles category lately as I work through there.
The WP:NYPT project could be used as an example if a Chicago transit project is started. I'm within a day trip of Chicago up here in Madison, but I get down there so rarely these days (although it's about time for another pilgrimage to Rochelle if the weather holds up this week) that I wouldn't be able to contribute much beyond what I see in the rail press. Slambo (Speak) 19:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Using WP:NYPT as a model for a Chicago version would be a good idea. Although I've never been anywhere near Chicago myself, from what I've read, it appears to have a more extensive rail network than New York. I recently asked a user who knows the area better than I do about the Pingree Road (Metra) station, so I could finish that article up, and get a few others off of my hands. Although I'd agree that somebody from the region would know more about them than I do, in all the months I've covered them I've found tons of fascinating info about the Metra & L Stations, that shouldn't be overlooked. ----DanTD (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


NJT Style Template

I have made a style template for NJT but I'm having a problem with one thing. I don't know how to make the text white. Can someone please fix this? Murjax (talk) 01:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Cable railways: a proposal

We have a bit of a muddle amongst the articles dealing with cable hauled railways. The current articles are:

  • Cable railway which describes steeply graded railways using cable haulage to move rolling stock between levels. Currently the article mainly focuses on freight railways
  • Funicular - steeply graded railways with permanently attached cars, mainly used for passenger haulage
  • Cable car (railway) - cable hauled mass transit systems such as the San Francisco cable car system

There are also related articles like aerial tramway, gondola lift and aerial lift just to add to the confusion. I'd like to rationalize the articles about cable hauled railways so there are clear definitions of each and we can develop the articles appropriately. Here is my proposal, I'd love to hear from other interested editors:

None of aerial tramway, gondola lift and aerial lift are railway related. The reason is simple, they do not are not rail-guided. In effect, they are a cable-guided transport system. Whilst confessing a strong interest in these forms of transport, I do not beleive that they should be placed any where near any article to do with "railways" ... but having them as a "related article" would be acceptable. They are a class of transport, but are no a sub-set of the railways transport class. Olana North (talk) 08:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, I meant that they are related in the technical sense that they are connected via a hatnote on the Cable car (railway) article. See also the Blondin (quarry equipment) article though for where aerial tramways and railways definitely do merge. The world is always determined to defy rigid categorization schemes :-) Gwernol 12:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The subject of cable hauled railways seems to be broad enough that an "umbrella" article on the general principle seems worthwhile. We can then have specialized sub-articles on the particular forms of railway. I propose cable hauled railway as the umbrella article, with the following sub articles:

  • Incline railway - steeply graded, cable hauled railways primarily used to move freight wagons. Cars are not permanently attached to the cable. Mostly the contents of the current cable railway article. "Incline railway" seems to be the most common term used for these types of railway, at least in the UK, US and Australia.
  • Funicular - steeply graded, cable hauled railways with permanently attached cars, primarily for passenger service. This article stays as is, but we sharpen the definition somewhat
  • Cable railway - cable hauled passenger railways, primarily used for passenger mass transit applications. Cars are not permanently attached to the cable. This is a renaming of the current Cable car (railway) which seems awkward.

Does this make sense? Is there a better way to arrange these articles? Are there other categories of cable hauled railway we should include? Thanks for your ideas, Gwernol 18:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


Agreed with a minor suggestion - Cable railway is quite general and would seem to fit the title for the umbrella article better, I think Cable car railway is a better name for the SF type systems as per the lead sentence on that article. MickMacNee (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
That makes sense, thanks. Gwernol 21:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you proposing to do anything with aerial tramway, gondola lift, and aerial lift? —EncMstr 19:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't, mainly because I know almost nothing about these systems, and partly to limit the scope of the work. If anyone with knowledge of aerial tramways wants to tackle those articles at the same time, that would be great. I don't even know enough to judge if they need work or not :-) Gwernol 21:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The connection to aerial tramway, etc, is through the term 'cable car', which is not only used for the San Francisco (SF) -type tram car, but also for certain types of aerial cable transport systems. Unfortunately, the terms become very confused, as can be seen by the names of the different systems involved. (You will find evidence of my editing activity, trying to resolve some of this!)
As for the main thrust of this discussion, your ideas seem sound. I did some work on them a while back (when the articles were even worse!), with another editor whose name escapes me. Let me know if there are old or unanswered comments you need me to revisit.
EdJogg (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There are two such railways at Hastings - both called lifts - one now the steepest in the UK (although there were others steeper at one time). One of them is water-operated, in which tanks beneath the cars bring the uppermost car down against an empty one ascending. There doesn't seem to be much about this form of traction. Peter Shearan (talk) 07:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Help with new infobox

I have created a new Infobox railfanning location, but I am incompetent at making templates, so please improve it to death.--MrFishGo Fish 19:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

What's it's purpose? Railwayfan2005 (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Same as any infobox, to give readers a cursory glance at the infomation. I've applied it to some articles already.--MrFishGo Fish 03:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you're aware of this(or maybe you're not), but some existing railroad stations also double as railfanning locations. Perhaps it should also be combined with some existing railroad station infoboxes, the same way that many stations on the National Register of Historic Places have railroad station and NRHP infoboxes combined. ----DanTD (talk) 13:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
How does one propose to define a "railfanning location"??!!?? By all means, have an infobox for stations, junctions, crossings, bridges, or whatever, but "railfanning location" seems rather arbitrary. We should all remember that we're supposed to be writing a general encyclopaedia, not one "by railfans, for railfans". --RFBailey (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I said this before, but I will make it more explicit: I don't know what I'm doing. If someone can combine it with other infoboxes, please do. I realize that most railfanning locations have something else to them, and there are already perfectly fine infoboxes for those things, but look at the articles I am applying this too: Folkston Railfan Platform, Keddie Wye, Tehachapi Loop, Williams Loop. None of these are stations or bridges (although some have bridges as part of them), and all are clearly notable subjects, predominately as famous railfanning locations. If you think an Infobox Junction or Infobox Crossing (preferably both) is a better idea, make it! No one has yet.--MrFishGo Fish 16:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
There's a combination station and railfanning site that already exists at Homewood Amtrak-Metra Electric Station known as the Homewood Railroad Park. ----DanTD (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's lovely. Now, what about a railfanning site that's not a station, like the ones I listed?--MrFishGo Fish 18:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Bermuda Railway

An article that could be added to WikiProject Trains JGHowes talk - 12:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added {{TWP}}, to identify it. I'll let others do the assessment in due course! -- EdJogg (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Talyllyn Railway article submitted for good article status

After a concerted effort by a team of editors, we feel that Talyllyn Railway is now good enough to try for good article status. Editors who have not contributed to the creation of the article can help evaluate it at: Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations#Transport. Any thoughts on how to improve the article further, either through the formal GA review process or simply comments left on the article talk page, are much appreciated. Thanks, Gwernol 20:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

London Underground

I don't think i have made any significant contribution to this recently but this article has gone through a lot of changes substantially and so i feel it needs a reassessment. I don't think it ia A-Class anymore. Simply south (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Italian speaker required please

Is Engerth a Crampton locomotive, or a development of the Crampton locomotive? Mjroots (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The Engerth design is separate from Crampton's. It is an articulated locomotive design developed for the Semmering Railway. As far as I know there is no connection between Crampton and Engerth. Someone really ought to write the Engerth locomotive article... Hmmm... Gwernol 11:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

More new B&O passenger train articles

I've started Daylight Speedliner and Washington - Chicago Express; also expanded Shenandoah and Cleveland Night Express. Will add images soon. All are tagged {{TWP}}JGHowes talk - 21:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I was starting to think Cleveland Night Express (B&O) didn't have a link. I recently saved some images that may or may not be appropriate for some of those articles. ----DanTD (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Are the images on Wikipedia or Commons? Free license images would certainly be welcomed for these articles. JGHowes talk - 16:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about the Commons, but they are on Wikipeida. They're included in the ones I saved from deletion that were posted by Lordkinbote. Try seeing if any of them are good for those sites. If not, I can only apologize and say I tried to help. ----DanTD (talk) 04:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Consolidated gauge template

It took a while to get through the drudgery of adding all the needed labels, but I'm now ready to launch the consolidated gauge template that I mentioned here a couple months ago. The template is currently at User:Slambo/Gauge. I propose a move to Template:Gauge (or Template:RailGauge may be better to disambiguate it further) and then to work on replacing the templates in Category:Rail transport gauge templates with this new template. Any objections? Slambo (Speak) 17:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The template is now at {{RailGauge}}. Now to start substituting... Slambo (Speak) 16:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks great - thanks for creating this. There are numerous instances of the current gauge templates in use. If you'd prefer, I can write a script to do this automatically (under user supervision). It would save a lot of boring manual editing. Let me know if you'd like me to do that. Best, Gwernol 17:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
That would be great. In going through a few of the "What links here" pages, I found so far only one that had not been included in the consolidated template ({{1055mm}}); it's there now. Once all of the substitutions are made, we can delete the old templates. Slambo (Speak) 18:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm beginning to work through the template substitutions using MWU (a tool of my own devising). It will take a while, but should be much quicker and less error prone than manual editing. Hopefully I can get most of them this weekend. Best, Gwernol 20:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
10' and 2 metre gauge are missing from the template, also what about 3½", and 5" gauge (ridable miniature railways)?. Mjroots (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
There weren't templates for these gauges in the gauge template category, so they weren't added to RailGauge. How many places will need such a conversion? Slambo (Speak) 11:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
There is 1 2m gauge railway and 1 10' gauge railway that have an article that I know of, Both of these are in the British Isles, don't know about any abroad. There is a short list of 3½" and 5" gauge railways in the Ridable miniature railway article, one of which has an article, but this could expand over time. Mjroots (talk) 11:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
These are added now. Slambo (Speak) 15:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced around 3,000 instances of specific gauge templates with the new {{RailGauge}}. I'm going through and deleting the old templates that no longer have any links to them. Once that's done we should get a good idea what work remains to be done. Best, Gwernol 18:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, all done, finally. I've deleted all the old rail gauge templates as they are all now redundant. Everything uses RailGauge now. Gwernol 10:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Problem with template - when using the template for 600mm gauge, the conversion is giving a meaningless figure. {{RailGauge|600}} gives 600, whilst {{convert|600|mm|ftin}} gives 600 millimetres (2 ft 0 in), which is ⅜" out, but near enough. Can someone sort this please? Mjroots (talk) 07:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The old Template:600mm gave the imperial equivalent as "1 ft 11½ in". This is technically 597mm, but is usually given as the imperial conversion in sources. I agree that "1 ft 11.622 in" is an odd number to display. Converting it to "2ft" would be wrong, both because it is a larger error and it conflicts with sources. My proposed solution is to make 600mm another synonym for 597mm. Slambo, would this make sense to you? Gwernol 08:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
We could make that change, but I think 11⅝ would be better. Slambo (Speak) 11:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Does that mean we need a new category, 600mm gauge railways? At present, they are under 2ft gauge railways. Mjroots (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine with 1ft 11⅝ in. The categories are designed to be "gauges around XftYin" to avoid having lots of separate categories for gauges with only slight differences. So, Category:two foot gauge railways is defined as "This category contains articles about narrow gauge railways with a track gauge between 1 ft 10¾ in (578 mm) and 2 ft (610 mm) that have Wikipedia articles". Common parlance is to call all these gauges "2ft". Gwernol 13:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I've updated the output to show 11⅝. Slambo (Speak) 15:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Resolved

Another editor has suggested that the Burlington Northern Railroad article be merged into the BNSF Railway article. Please join the discussion. Slambo (Speak) 11:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Closed based on all the oppose statements. Slambo (Speak) 11:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Infobox image sizes

Keep an eye out for the image sizes on article infoboxes. If the image is way too big (like I saw today on Red River Valley and Western Railroad and Texas Mexican Railway), remove the "px" from the infobox image_size, logo_size and/or map_size parameter values as appropriate; the infobox already include the px automatically. It appears that a change was made in MediaWiki that prevents image size specifications like "200pxpx" from being interpreted as "200px". Slambo (Speak) 15:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Just found the same problem on my userpage -- two HUGE stars obliterating the entire screen (BulleidPacific's user page was similarly affected -- both now fixed).
Some admin needs to modify the documentation of certain templates. For example, {{click}} states: "The use of "px" at the end of the number is not necessary", whereas now it should say "px should NOT be added" (or similar). I'm sure that the MediaWiki bods didn't realise the side-effect of their change!
Any idea how many pages might be affected?
EdJogg (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Potentially, the majority of pages that use an infobox that allows a size parameter (which also includes {{Infobox Locomotive}} and many others; I just fixed Soo Line Railroad). There are a couple discussions going on WP:VPT already with most suggesting to remove the px on the affected pages. Slambo (Speak) 16:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I just took a quick scan through the first page of links to {{Infobox Locomotive}} and found only one that needed to be fixed there. I haven't walked through any other infobox links list yet. Slambo (Speak) 17:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
A similar quick scan through the first page of links to {{Infobox rail}} showed somewhere between 1/4 and 1/3 of them needed adjustment. Slambo (Speak) 17:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I've gone through several pages now, adjusting as needed. One of the links I ran across is on the bot request page, so this may be fixed more quickly soon. Slambo (Speak) 18:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
{{Infobox Station}} is affected too. Slambo (Speak) 18:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

More details and further discussion is now at WP:ClickFix. Slambo (Speak) 20:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Station is fixed (as of about seven hours ago) so any further instances won't break. Mackensen (talk) 11:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, I normally don't add image size parameters in infoboxes, unless an image is too big or too small. That goes for images I've found like in Babylon (LIRR station), Wantagh (LIRR station) and Woodside (LIRR station), as well as ones that I've taken like in Bayside (LIRR station), Great Neck (LIRR station), Port Washington (LIRR station), Patchogue (LIRR station), Port Jefferson (LIRR station), Greenport (LIRR station), Riverhead (LIRR station), Medford (LIRR station), and Ronkonkoma (LIRR station). Speaking of LIRR station articles, why havent articles like Bayside Station been reassesed yet? ----DanTD (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Opinions Sought on East Grinstead

One station options
 East Grinstead
Oxted Line
Closed curve
Bluebell Railway is reopening the line to East Grinstead
 East Grinstead
Three Bridges to Tunbridge Wells Central Line
Being reopened
Oxted Line
to Three Bridges
East Grinstead
Cowden
Two station options
 East Grinstead Low Level
Oxted Line
East Grinstead High Level
Closed curve
Bluebell Railway is reopening the line to East Grinstead
 East Grinstead High Level
Three Bridges to Tunbridge Wells Central Line
East Grinstead Low Level
Being reopened
Oxted Line
to Three Bridges
East Grinstead High Level
East Grinstead
Low Level
Cowden

Having drawn up new diagrams for lines which involve East Grinstead, I have encountered some disagreement with my ideas for the station layout there. A track passing from east to west passes above a track heading north to south, in such a way that the infrastructure of the high level station is directly above part of the low level station. The high level station has been closed since the 1960's and in fact no longer exists but the low level station is the terminus of a still open line. Limitations of currently available icons leave two paths available.

My personal take, the two station option, is that for practical purposes the stations are separate and their open / closed status can be shown, and the status of the two lines left more clear.

Others have taken the view that the stations are one, and that only the line from east to west and some redundant links have closed. So the stations should be merged as a split level interchange.

My reason for seeking additional views is that the current three opinions is too small; one more opinion would either leave me 3:1 against or 2:2 level, depending on which way it goes. So I have prepared these diagrams and will take the thoughts of others into account. Britmax (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I prefer the 'one station' options for the simple reason that the 'two station' options are not displaying correctly on my screen. The wrapping of the text is causing wide gaps to appear between each horizontal section of the diagrams. Signalhead (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I prefer the two station approach. The one-station arrangement implies that the tracks were on the same level. However, a 'proper' diagram might be in order here, since the routemap icons are not really doing the subject justice. As for which orientation, where possible, work with north at the top of the map! EdJogg (talk) 00:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

In the top diagram, the lower one is correct except there was no direct link to go from south to east. To do that required a reversal into the high level station. Mjroots (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

A map and diagram here [1] don't agree with you, I'm afraid. Anyway that's 4:2 agin me so the one station option goes into the diagrams ( and yes Ed I try to keep north at the top but the one that isn't is from the Three Bridges to Tunbridge Wells line where the subject line runs East to West). Britmax (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the two station diagram. As for the issue of North/South orientation, I thought it was the case that London was at the top. Olana North (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Britmax, cake a close look at the 1910 map on that link you gave. It clearly shows that the link from the south had no direct link with the line towards Forest Row. Mjroots (talk) 07:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
One station options
 East Grinstead
Oxted Line
Original Station
Bluebell Railway is reopening the line to East Grinstead
 East Grinstead
Three Bridges to Tunbridge Wells Central Line
Original station
Being reopened

And so it does. Not only that but as the station building and goods shed are clearly from the original station the one station options look more like this, diagrammatically. Thanks for the catch. Before you ask the Oxted line option is lying in a darkened room with cucumber slices on its eyes. The drawing board beckons... Britmax (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As a reply to Olana North the diagrams are longer vertically for a line of any length and part of an article. So they don't dominate the article, east - west lines are kept the focus of the diagram by rotating them through ninety degrees.I prefer east to the top but not everyone goes that way. Britmax (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Britmax, that diagram shows how it was. Now, with reference to which direction the lines should go, it's easy when you think about it. The Up direction should start at the bottom of the diagram and work upwards, whilst the Down should start at the top and work down. There will be exceptions of course, like the Medway Valley Line! :-/ Mjroots (talk) 08:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

Some help might come in handy over here at the assessment request. --Hirohisat 初夏 02:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Maryland Railstation Stub

When this stub is put into articles, it puts the article in the category "Southern United States railway station stubs". Now Maryland's postition as a "Southern" state is kind of controversial as Maryland is a mix of the Northeast and the South in cultural terms. However, the state is geographicly in the Northeast. I was thinking of changing that to either, "Northeastern United States railway station stubs" or "Mid-Atlantic United States railway station stubs". Give your opinions.Murjax (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Military railways (and use of trains)

I have started an article in my sandbox User:Mrg3105/sandbox for Military railways for what I think is a huge impact of rail technology on the military history for well over a century, and in the most important conflicts of modern period, but which is poorly documented. I am not an expert on the subject, and will scrape together sources here and there, but wanted to welcome one and all to edit this if they can until it can be placed into the Wikipedia. Thank you in advance--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This is quite timely... Having seen the Portal featured article about Trench railways it occurred to me that there should be some kind of category for 'Military railways'. This would link-in such otherwise disparate topics as railway gun, railroad plough, troop sleeper, and Longmoor Military Railway (that I can remember off the top of my head). As I had no idea what to call it, nor where it should go in the hierarchy, I thought I'd bring it here to float as an idea. Perhaps creation of an appropriate category can go hand-in-hand with development of the above article, indeed, it could be used to assist with topic collection.
EdJogg (talk) 12:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
If you have a look at my article, you will see that I have collected an amazing amount of references in various articles about railways and their role, but all too rare, short and usually unreferenced.
There are three distinct aspects to this category: technology specific to military railway use, the military users and railway units, and history of railways in the military.
I haven't got to them yet, but some vehicles used by militaries on the rails were quite unique and innovative in their own right.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
That's a big article! Re-inforces my thought that there needs to be a Category:Military railways, with sub-cats:
Category:Military railway equipment
Category:Military railway weapons
Category:Military railway lines
Category:Military railway units
Category:Military railway construction
Category:Military railway history
Category:Military railway operation
Category:Railway line demolition
Category:Air attacks on railways
Category:Railway networks in wartime....how's this?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure you can think of more!
PS - didn't see your edit summary until later. Will try to create 'soon', but don't hold your breath!
EdJogg (talk) 13:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks good...you know the topic better than I!! The only thing I would suggest is that we need to create the categories 'piecemeal'. 'Those that look after such things' take a dim view of sparsely-populated category hierarchies. -- EdJogg (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
You'll see that I have started by creating the first two, and part-populated them. Bear in mind that a category left empty for four days is subject to Speedy Deletion -- Cat:Military railways was deleted for this very reason, less than 2 months ago! -- so it is important to both create and populate a new cat before leaving it to fend for itself. Some of my assignments may be incorrect -- please feel free to adjust as appropriate. I won't create any more for now, as I think you are in a better position to do this yourself as you evolve your article. EdJogg (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
PS -- just found Category:Railway weapons (created in 2004!!) and its sub-cat Category:Railway guns, so I've added these to Category:Military railway equipment.
EdJogg (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Great start on an overview article. There are a few conversions that need to be standardized into a consistent format further down; I updated the first section discussing gauges with some strategies (list the full conversion for each measurement once and then use the article's preferred measurement only for subsequent lists, like I updated for 600 mm; this is similar to the preferred style for links). I try to add military railway subjects into the portal every now and then, so having a collection of categories would make them easier to find. Slambo (Speak) 15:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Help with "Infobox rail" and "no image.png"

Currently about 80 articles that use the {{Infobox rail}} calls it with "logo_filename = no image.png". It seems it was used to fix a problem with a large empty logo area in the old versions of this template. This is not needed anymore. Although I have left the code in the template to handle this call. Do not remove that code from this template for now, or we will instead get large empty spaces on those pages that call with "no image.png". I would like that people help out and change "logo_filename = no image.png" to be "logo_filename =" in the railway articles that call this template. When that has been done we can remove the handling code in this template. I have already fixed 29 articles but would like help with the remaining 80.

So if you are in the mood, do this: Go to Image:No image.png and scroll down to the "File links" section. Look for railway articles there. Most of the rail articles there use {{Infobox rail}}, {{Infobox Railroad}} or {{Infobox SG rail}}, if they do then change "logo_filename = no image.png" to be "logo_filename =".

Note! If the article is not using any of the boxes I just listed but instead are using a hardcoded infobox then do not remove the "no image.png". You can recognise that it is a hardcoded infobox by it using a wikitable instead and has style="something" stuff in the top. --David Göthberg (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the rest. I realised that if I turn off image loading in my web browser then I can load and edit pages way faster. (I got a rather old computer.) Why didn't I come up with that idea years ago? Darn.
--David Göthberg (talk) 09:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarification question

Was the Burlington and Missouri Railroad Company referred to here the same as the Burlington and Missouri River Rail Road referred to in the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad article? • Freechild'sup? 17:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ann Rutledge (Amtrak) Pre-Amtrak history needed

Why hasn't there been any info added on the pre-Amtrak history of the Ann Rutledge line? ----DanTD (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I can help. I've found that it does indeed go back farther than Amtrak, all the way back to Alton Railroad days.--MrFishGo Fish 14:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
It's a start. It should be noted that I've added a couple of categories to this, and sent the link to former lines of Chicago Union Station. ----DanTD (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

FA Review

TGV is now under review, for anyone who wants to comment on the review. Noble Story (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Signals and signs?

I'm not sure if this is the right place to suggest this, but I'd like to see an article describing what all the various trackside signs and signals mean. Maybe such an article exists and I just haven't found it yet? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a subject that needs separate articles for each country. Some already exist: British railway signals and North American railroad signals. –Signalhead < T > 16:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The North American one could use this as a reference and/or external link(http://www.trainsarefun.com/lirr/lirrsayvilleCPsign.htm). ----DanTD (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Rail passenger advocacy groups

I noticed that there's an article on Rescue Muni, the San Francisco rail-passenger group. Would it be all right to add an article on other such groups? Or is someone already working on this, under the auspices of this project? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmusser (talk • contribs) 17:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As long as it fulfills WP:CORP.--MrFishGo Fish 06:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Tri-Rail station opening date accuracy

More often than not, I'm beginning to have serious doubts about the alleged opening dates of many of the Tri-Rail stations that are listed. TrainWeb, the Dynamic Depot Map website, and one Wikipedia user convinced me that Hollywood (Tri-Rail station) was not built in 1989, as previously indicated, and now I'm having more doubts about Fort Lauderdale (Tri-Rail station). I'm sure you know by now that I foudn out that West Palm Beach and Deerfield Beach stations were also historic landmarks, that had duplicate articles. Is anybody checking on any of these? ----DanTD (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Userbox proposal

I'd like to propose this Userbox replacement for {{User Trains WikiProject}}. It projects a modern image of railroads as a 21st century mode of transport, yet is generic enough to be global, I think. JGHowes talk - 06:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This user is a member of the Trains WikiProject


  • Oppose - A Eurostar is a 20th Century train, not a 21st Century train. It is based on late 1980's technology, and was introduced into service in 1993 (thats 15 years ago). I think something a little more contemporary would be better if there is an identified need to change it in the first place. I can think of many new train designs that would fulfill the 21st century criterion. Olana North (talk) 07:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not because Eurostar isn't the most modern train, but because it just isn't a particularly good picture, especially in so small a thumbnail. If you arn't a railnerd, you might not even see its a train at all. Also, I would prefer a generic image like the current than a more specific one. Arsenikk (talk) 09:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- Userbox images are usually clearer as graphics, rather than photos: you have complete control over the background and the level of detail shown. Besides, the train in this image is too small -- it only occupies about one ninth of the picture. The current userbox icon shows an overhead electric-powered multiple unit, probably a high-speed type judging by the HST-style nose -- is that not a contemporary design? OK, so the colouring represents late-20th century BR Inter City Sector livery, but I'd rather that than the psychedelic schemes currently 'popular' in the UK. Perhaps re-visit this suggestion when rail transport and train have both achieved Featured Article status? EdJogg (talk) 10:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, Eurostar is the epitomy of how not to progress rail projects. You might as well put the APT in to at least get an ironic laugh out of those in the know. MickMacNee (talk) 23:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC).

Raleigh and Gaston Railroad

An article I tagged with your project. APK yada yada 23:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Amtrak routes

I've been tinkering with a replacement for {{Amtrak routes}} in my userspace. The new version (User:Mackensen/Amtrak routes) uses {{navbox}} and combines all the routes together, instead of showing just those regionally associated. Thoughts? Mackensen (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a good simplification of the templates, but we're not allowed to put fair use logos in templates. Slambo (Speak) 16:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Then we take the logo out ;). Mackensen (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
That's a disappointment. I like it, even more with the logo. My question is, would this apply to all Amtrak lines, or just those that go through multiple regions of the country? ----DanTD (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
All, I think. From a navigational standpoint it makes sense (to me) to have all the lines link to all the other lines. Regional linkage is preserved, of course. Mackensen (talk) 12:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Mackensen (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Great. They should've all been at the bottom of each page, though. I had to move a few of them there. ----DanTD (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Lists of railfan jargon

List of UK railfan jargon and List of US railfan jargon have both been AfD'd. Mjroots (talk) 05:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Locomotive article up for deletion

The article British Rail Class 37, 37427 is up for deletion for notability reasons. See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Rail Class 37, 37427. --Oakshade (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Named train article up for deletion

The article Saurashtra Janata Express is up for deletion for notability reasons. See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saurashtra Janata Express. --Eastmain (talk) 04:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Eastmain. Saved me a step. No evidence whatsoever of notability, happy to be proven wrong, however as I do love trains TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 04:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Talyllyn Railway - peer review

Talyllyn Railway, which I see in the main article of Portal:Trains at present, is currently undergoing peer review in order to bring up to FA standard. A huge amount of work has been done on this article, but it needs a push to get it over the final hurdle. Any help would be gratefully received. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 06:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Transportation minister

I just went through the links to Transportation minister, and a few new redirects to it to disambiguate as best as I could find. It seems to me that there should be quite a few more regions listed there as nearly every country has someone in an equivalent position (and those with states/provinces have even more subnational office holders). I've added a few as I found mention of them through the Whatlinkshere page, but I would welcome further input into the page format and content. Slambo (Speak) 18:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Station (Baltimore)=Baltimore Light Rail problems

Another problem with an infobox, this time for Baltimore Penn Station. The routebox for MTA Maryland's Baltimore Light Rail Penn Station-Camden Yards line should have Camden Yards station as the destination, but instead has Penn Station itself as the destination. Can this be fixed? ----DanTD (talk) 01:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits to the 4-6-2 page

Greetings all,

There have been a number of edits to the 4-6-2 page by an unsigned editor who seems to believe that this page should list builder's details for every Pacific locomotive ever built.

My view is that this is unnecessary trivia, and seems to fit the criteria listed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, specifically WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I believe these edits have greatly diminished the article's readability and given the large number of pages that deal with specific classes of 4-6-2 locomotives and details such as when/by whom they were built, they are entirely out of place.

While I am sure the page as it was could have done with a lot of improvement, I think it is now becoming unreadable. The information is unreferenced, and the editor seems to have responded to my comments on the Talk:4-6-2 page by telling me I have no idea.

Any suggestions on how to approach this? I'm sorely tempted to simply revert the entire page to prior to the current set of edits, and I note that one other editor has already done this for the New Zealand section of the article.

Zzrbiker (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Aaaaaargh! I think that reversion is the only answer (I think the 24 March version would be appropriate). On first sight I did think that making a separate list page with the information would do, but you cannot possibly list every 4-6-2 ever made individually!
Taking a more constructive approach, the first stage is probably to remove class-specific information to a page about the loco type concerned. These pages can then be linked from 4-6-2 and will remove most of the dross. It does not, of course, address the point that the writing style falls far short of WP standards, and we could simply use the argument of being unreferenced to remove it all. (Many editors would probably do just that.)
This is a contentious point, but do we need editors contributing large volumes of unsourced information that needs so much re-work? I suspect that other long-standing Wikipedians would put the quality of the encyclopaedia above volume of content, any day.
EdJogg (talk) 08:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I realise that the edits add additional information, but without appropriately cited references it's arguably worthless. You then have two alternatives - dilute the GA-worthiness of the article by having a lack of references, or remove the information altogether. The trouble with splitting the lists off into separate articles is you're then creating rubbish articles that lack notability and references.
I guess it then opens up the issue of what purpose the country-specific detail of articles like 4-6-2 or 4-8-4 serves. My view is that it's just to add a brief detail of how and why a locomotive type was implemented in a given country, and then link to a separate article (eg a locomotive class page or a railway company page) for more detail. My own edits on UK 4-6-2s are probably too detailed already for such a summary, but there was at least the notability of these locomotives in setting speed records.
I look forward to other editors contributing their views on this matter.
Zzrbiker (talk) 07:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Apex Union Depot

A new article I tagged with your project. APK yada yada 09:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Branford Steam Railroad

Whilst doing a general cleanup of rail-related articles in the name of WP:UKT, I've come across Branford Steam Railroad. Large chunks of it appear to be valid, but at least 50% appears to be cut-and-pasted from this website. As I freely admit that my knowledge of rail transport on your side of the Atlantic is virtually nil, I'm probably not best placed to clean it up - can anyone have a stab at it, since, copyvios aside, it does seem to be a pretty good article. — iridescent 20:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains/Archive:_2008,_1&oldid=1146745390"