Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2009, 1

RailDriver contested prod

Another editor left a note on my talk page recently about the RailDriver article's potential speedy deletion. There has been some improvement and removal of the prod notice, but this article is still considered a candidate for AFD. The main contention is that of verifiability and making it seem less like advertising. I located a few other independent sites that discuss the product and listed them on the talk page, but there is a note there that if the article isn't further improved soon, it will be sent through AFD. Slambo (Speak) 11:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem looks like one of notability - I think you should list third party references to this product on the main page eg http://www.uktrainsim.com/index2.php?form_reader=raildriverreview

http://jmri.sourceforge.net/help/en/html/hardware/raildriver/index.shtml or even http://www.virginmedia.com/games/inpictures/gaming-controllers.php?ssid=4 (maybe not that one)

I'd also suggest adding it to the category Category:Train simulation video games even though it's really an add-on - so that poeple can find it..

The article may be a bit over detailed to be honest.

Bits like "It is light enough to move around but heavy enough to stay in place while in operation." make it sound like an advert - I'd cut that if I were you.

If you want someone else to try to rewrite it I'll have a go - but to be honest if the 'wiki-lords' are feeling uncharitable I doubt it would pass an AFD - even if rewritten - why not check to see if the person who has suggested it for deletion feels it is notable enough to be worth working on, or do they intend to propose it for deletion anyway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carrolljon (talk • contribs) 21:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I did note the sources posted on the talk page, but as I have no particular interest in the product and cannot understand why it has a page and why it was ever assessed as B class, I am not interested in rewriting it. Perhaps it could be merged into another page with game controllers. Currently it is too much like an advert. Also the pivture is unlicensed and should be deleted, unless someone proves the correct licensing. See Wikipedia:Image use policy.

Jezhotwells (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest a merge to Train simulator (see other talk page), I too have little interest in this and don't really know enough about the topic to say whether or not it's worth keeping. I would guess that the article is too long and detailed as is. Still I would suggest holding off an AFD until someone turns up who actually knows about train sim. software. I've left links to here on the relevent software pages. Hopefully someone with an interest will notice and fix it up. I've added a 'advert' tag to said page, though given the limitations listed in the article it's not a very good advert; it definately can't be described as advert-spam as is. I suggest waiting a bit. Carrolljon (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think a brief listing at Game controller#Others might be best. There are a few other such controllers found at GoogleJezhotwells (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree.Carrolljon (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added short links at Train simulator and Game controller (as a subset of "Instrument Panels"

For me that would be enough - the products main page is linked to.

That just leaves the page itself. I'm happy to leave it (an AFD if that is proposed) to someone impartial now the item has a brief mention in the relevent places.Carrolljon (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is now listed at AFD. Slambo 42 (unprivileged login of Slambo) - T 16:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

And to think this was once a DYK article. This can't be good. ----DanTD (talk) 13:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Category - rolling stock leasing companies

Question - is there such a category - I can't seem to find anything?? If not where should the new category go - category experts please.Carrolljon (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC) UPDATE Category:Rolling stock leasing companies now exists - if anyone can add to it etc. Thanks.Carrolljon (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops

It seems there are now two categories - I need to do a merge - any advice on which to keep and which to delete - the choice is Category:Rolling stock leasing companies or Category:Rail transport leasing companies. Thanks.Carrolljon (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

merged - getting one deleted now.Carrolljon (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Category renaming proposal

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 January 23#Railroad categories --NE2 07:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Question - locomotion capital

Does anyone know anything about Locomotion Capital - as far as I can tell it was a joint venture between Vossloh and Angel Trains - My guess is that is was absorbed into Angel Trains cargo (european leasing company) - but as I said I can't find much more. It really should have at least a stub article - Thanks.Carrolljon (talk) 22:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Diesel Traction Group pages

The original page Diesel Traction Group has been moved to Diesel Traction Group (NZ) with a disambiguation link to Diesel Traction Group (UK). The British Rail Class 52 page has also had a link placed on it to Diesel Traction Group (UK) in the hope that such a page will eventually be written, meanwhile the Diesel Traction Group (NZ) page is being expanded. PatrickDunfordNZ (talk) 04:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Frank Smith (fireman)

The article Frank Smith (fireman) was recently reviewed through AFD and closed as a no consensus based on the signifigance of having participated in an historic event, the last steam powered train run in the UK. However, it appears that his run may not have been the last. I was wondering if somebody from Wikiproject trains with some familiarity with steam locomotive service in the UK could have a look at the material in the article and on talk:Frank Smith (fireman) and shed some light. Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 09:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Timetables

This i just a small question based on past experiences on Wikipedia. Its probably just minor but i just want clarification as to what counts as original research when referencing timetables. Also, should timetables be used as references? Simply south not SS, sorry 14:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Passenger timetables: sufficient for the existence of a station or named train, unless there's evidence otherwise. Employee timetables: sufficient for line names, track geometry, signaling, etc. --NE2 15:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move notification

I have requested the move of Empire Builder to Empire Builder (Amtrak). Reasons given at the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

AFD for Frank Smith (fireman)

There is currently an AFD for Frank Smith (fireman) - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Smith (fireman) (2nd nomination) which is discussing the last steam powered train service in the UK. As this AFD involves rail transport, your opionions would be valuable in the AFD. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Science Park MBTA station

I have a question about naming conventions for train stations. the current page Science Park/West End (MBTA station). They MBTA just recently added "West End to the signs at the station, but they have also stated that "West End" will not be added to mbta maps or to other documents.Should thsi page be named Science Park/West End (MBTA station) or just Science Park (MBTA station)? --Found5dollar (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Milestone Announcements

All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page. Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project. No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work. Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 22:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Train wikiproject?

So this project is basically a central area for people to help with improving train articles right? Can anyone join? I railfan frequently and am interested in the history of trains. GNRY09 (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. You can. the list of members is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Trains/Members and there are lists of things to do starting at Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains -see the task force sections, or you could just start writing and improving articles on train subjects that interest you. If you are new the Wikipedia:HELP gives a massive amount of info on writing articles etc

If you get stuck in general - you can ask questions at Wikipedia:Questions, there's also the Wikipedia:reference desks for topical questions.

If you write an article why not tell us about it here and someone will probably have a look at it and maybe add even more useful info to it. Good luck.Carrolljon (talk) 05:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Now that we are on the subject, wouldn't it make more sense to call this WikiProject Rail transport? It does not just cover trains but many other vehicles as well e.g. trams and certain types of ferry. Simply south not SS, sorry 23:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

That would have been a better name I think - but renaming it now might be difficult, or at least time consuming. Still if you want to propose a rename I will support you.Carrolljon (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Might as well.

Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 05:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Should this project be renamed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Rail transport to to the massive scope it covers, beyond trains and that? Simply south not SS, sorry 23:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This suggestion has come up before and the biggest reason not to go through with the move is the number of pages that would need to be updated. I'm still undecided but leaning toward the rename because of the scope that we've worked with for at least as long as I've been involved (wow, more than four years already!). The assessment categories already use the suggested new name (i.e. Category:Start-Class rail transport articles), so it might not be so bad as all that. Slambo (Speak) 11:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a new wrinkle for the valuation pages (see section above), simply because I would want to make sure that this rename doesn't happen after I move them. --NE2 11:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Assuming the rename happens - if someone can point me towards a list of all the templates the project uses I would volunteer to change the text in those.

I assume some redirects would have to be made, and maybe some catagory names changed. - I believe there are 'bots' that can be programmed to change for instance all examples of "category:wikiprojecttrains" to "category:wikiprojectrailtransport" - does anyone know about this?

What else would have to be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carrolljon (talk • contribs) 16:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It is possible to get a bot to change all links to a new place as well so the task may not be so burdened. Simply south not SS, sorry 17:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Cydebot does category replacement after a CFD discussion, and would probably do it without if we agreed to rename the project, --NE2 05:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Weak oppose I see the logic in the move but Trains seems so much more evocative. Trainspotting not railtransportspotting and I used to play with trains not rail transport vehicles as a kid (still gaze at them longingly). But, note that this is just a pro-forma weak oppose! --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 16:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(sounds like someone needs to break open their piggy-bank. it doesn't have to be "..used to..")

PS Why isn't there a railway modelling project - and does anyone have any thoughts on adding subsections of "scale models of." into locomotive/carriage etc articles - is it too trivial?Carrolljon (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Wall Street already emptied out my piggy bank. Sigh! --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 19:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There is the Rail transport modelling task force. Generally adding scale models sections to articles is considered much like adding popular culture sections to articles. Many editors discourage this because they think it introduces a vast amount of {{trivia}} that does not substantially add to the narrative; we don't really need to know all of the manufacturers and available models throughout the years of the EMD F7, for example. I would usually agree with this except in rare cases such as on Pioneer Zephyr where a very limited number of models have been produced commercially. Slambo (Speak) 19:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Railfanning, not trainfanning --NE2 19:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

LEGO trains, not LEGO rail transport :) ++Lar: t/c 03:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Train-spotting not rail-spotting -- isn't that enough justification for a move on its own??
:o) EdJogg (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I have created a few articles about rail lines, and wondered if they were within the scope of this wikiproject. Apparently they are, and the name of the project does not adequately reflect its intended and actual scope. --Una Smith (talk) 03:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• neutral leaning to a weak oppose - no compelling reason either way, so it's busywork. This is project space, not article space, so names are not as important as they are in articlespace. Interested editors are almost certainly going to find the project from an article banner, so it could be called xyzzy and it would still work out fine. That said if there's consensus, and if someone wants to AWB everything, great. ++Lar: t/c 03:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- I started neutral, partly due to the amount of work required in changing pages, but on balance I think that 'rail transport' is a more scholarly name than 'trains' (one talks about 'playing trains', for example) and -- more impotantly -- more accurately reflects the scope of the project. This latter point is entirely in keeping with Wikipedia's policy on article naming.
  EdJogg (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose -- No need to rename; "Trains" is more invocative and catchy; "rail transport" sounds snooty.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 23:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rogers Locomotive and Machine Works

User:Bedford has nominated Rogers Locomotive and Machine Works for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Another merger proposal

Back in January 2009 I requested that Boston and Maine Railroad Depot should be merged into Reading (MBTA station) since both stations are one in the same. Since it doesn't seem like anybody has been paying attention, I thought I'd address the issue here. I'm also going to bring this up on WikiProject NRHP. ----DanTD (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Makes sense to me if they're the same structure, or on the same site. Mackensen (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

SNCF station templates

fr:Gare de Bordeaux-Saint-Jean and most of the French rail stations have great templates allowing to show the services that serve a specific station. Is there any way that we can make S-line work with SNCF stations? Thanks. gren グレン 19:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Sure, the only issue is upkeep. Mackensen (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• Follow-up: It would help to find some definition of "lines." Those templates show the TGV (for example) going every which way, without much explanation. Mackensen (talk) 12:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

A great loss to any article bearing them. Either put these services in prose or a bulleted list but not an S-line table. If you must ruin articles by adding these monsters make it so they are hidden by default. All articles I have created and maintained do not have these templates on purpose as they do not offer any advantage over prose are cumbersome, are not esthetically pleasing are full or brands which are not wikilike and pretty much every property of these templates is unappealling. Gare de Pontoise is an example of how it ought to be done to avoid the Playmobil table. a simple navigation table at the bottom of a line's article (for the SNCF it is a nationally numbered line or a service) witha link to the line's article on a station's article. If there is no line article, red link to encourage edition. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

List of defunct United States railroads

I've been thinking about this article recently. It will never be fully complete, and any attempt to complete it will be pretty thoroughly unmanageable. I've come up with a possible solution: split it by decade, for example list of defunct United States railroads (1990-1999). Every railroad that operated or owned trackage during that decade would be listed. Does this sound like a good idea? --NE2 04:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, perhaps in conjunction with the existing list. ----DanTD (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the existing list is feasible. There seems to be, at an absolute minimum, 10000-20000 defunct U.S. railroads, which would put it right at the top of Special:LongPages. --NE2 05:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Surely the answer is simply to split it into alphabetical subpages? These could be further split as required. The existing list page would act as master for all the others and explain the scope for inclusion on the list. (I'm sure I've seen this kind of splitting elsewhere, on lists of railway stations, maybe?)

Splitting by date sounds awfully difficult. During (1990-1999) for example, are you only going to list railroads that became defunct during that period? If so, the article title should reflect that, as in list of defunct United States railroads that became defunct during (1990-1999), since, with the previous title, any railroads that were defunct prior to 1990 could legitimately be included in the list!

The previous scopage of "Every railroad that operated or owned trackage during that decade would be listed." seems flawed, unless it is again implying that the railroads listed will have become defunct during the period (this is not clear).

EdJogg (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

One of the main problems is that there are just so many that nobody's tried to complete the list. Splitting it by letter does nothing to make it easier, while splitting by date means that you only have to deal with a small period. I actually meant to title it list of United States railroads (1990-1999). --NE2 12:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It might be more practical to abandon a national list and focus on state-level lists. List of Michigan railroads, is more or less complete (it lists all companies which actually operated). Mackensen (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Regional Railroad of the Year and other similar boxes

I question whether we should have boxes like the one at the bottom of Wisconsin and Southern Railroad. It doesn't seem that being given one of these awards is important enough to call that much attention to. --NE2 06:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to disagree. Only one railroad company per year is so named, which makes a succession box logical for navigation. It's important enough for at least one of the railroads so honored to note the honor on its locomotive cabs. I don't remember which one at the moment (I think it was one that operated around New York). Slambo (Speak) 11:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Steam traction technical details

Hello I am about to start improving the tractive effort article - unfortunately I don't know a lot about steam engines - specific it is clear that a steam engines tractive effort (when using a connecting rod type drive) would vary as the drive wheel rotates.

If anyone has any expert knwoledge on this - specifically the things steam engineers do to minimise or work with this effect - then it would be good if they could improve that section with more info, or alternatively leave links to sites dealing with this aspect on the pages talk section so that someone else could incorporate it. Thanks.87.102.43.12 (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Drawn images of liverys - conflict over removal

As described at Talk:CrossCountry#removal_of_picture there is some disagreement over the value of the 'computer drawn livery images'. I would suggest their blanket removal - others want to keep them - or start some project of standardisation.

My arguments for removal are fairly clear at the link above. ThanksFengRail (talk) 01:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the type of image I wish to remove:

As a suggestion - British Rail corporate liveries covers BR liveries in detail with references - note that the paint decription codes are provided. Inclusion of RAL (color space system) ,Pantone or British Standards color number or the equivalent would be important. Maybe a Post privatisation British railways corporate liveries page would be a good idea?FengRail (talk) 01:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 January 27#All livery image files for Toronto subway and RT stations (result: kept). All digital rendition of existing architectures, including those trivial part such as livery design and name tag image files are tolerable within Wikimedia. So what are you waiting for? Let's make Wikipedia a more artistic and pleasure place. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

File:TTC North York Centre Station - Digital Rendering.PNG

Are they accurate? If so, I don't see the problem. They're probably too simple to be copyrighted, and do a good job of showing what a train will look like (rather than just the head-on angle shots so popular with railfans). I see the above "North York Centre" as much more of a problem, since it seems to be "bloat" without any benefit. --NE2 02:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually I'm the one who nominated the deletion for that station name tag rendition. This will serve us the precedent (though I imagine there's more nominations of the same respect before). Instead of nominating some random file, you should bring up a new consensus to establish a new policy "against" these unofficial second rendition by enthusiasts (be they Wikipedian or not) if you really think they're inappropriate in Wikimedia, I will vote for you. I do not prefer double standard, if either one is kept, the others should be kept as well not matter their purpose to exist is to offer eye candy for the related article. If the discussion generally agrees the inappropriateness, delete them all for good, and no files should be grandfathered. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a big difference between an image that shows what the train looks like and one that simply shows the station name on a tiled wall. --NE2 03:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, bring a new discussion in the general policy page and decide what's appropriate and what's not. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 03:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the argument that states "they show what they look like" - the images don't in my opinion give a realistic impression of what they look like. (especially because the pictures are totally flat with no perspective)

As to their use as a demonstration of the colour scheme I am more sympathetic - but the bitmap does not give any clue as to the type of paint - was it gloss, metallic, etc - what about metal trains - on the image they will look - grey? silver? from photograph it is easier to tell all these things due to reflections etc/

There are also issues of reliability of these self made images - which nobody who wants to use them has yet been willing to address.

Also I made the argument on the other page that if these images are ok, then a photo of model train makes a better illustration. - being three dimensional and professionally produced. Repeating my rhetoric again - does anyone seriously expect that an image of a model train makes a suitable illustration for an article on the "1:1 scale" model?

That sums up my point of view. Please feel free to copy it to the 'village pump' if you wish.FengRail (talk) 03:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Just assume how the opposite will counter in the discussion:
User A: "They're harmless. Considering the capacity of Wikimedia has been increased considerably, their size is extremely tiny and makes no difference to delete them."
User B: "I'm living there and encounter with the real object everyday. I can prove the accuracy of the rendition."
User C: "the entity the files represent is enough significant, they deserve to be kept."
User D: "If enthusiasts want to contribute free content like this, why not let them?"
These are the reasons that the Toronto subway and RT stations livery rendition to be kept. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 05:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The trademark concern is not relevant here, as we are not engaging in trade. We have a proposed guideline for that: WP:SOSUMI. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep The purpose of the images, is to provide a guide of what the trains look like, showing the whole train - a photo rarely does this. They are a good addition to the pages, providing a new medium of viewing the trains. Some are more detailed than others (showing First Class, disabled and bike space etc.). If you want lots of photos, go to one of many websites. Regards, Btline (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Image creator

Curiously the creator of many of these images appears to have requested their deletion see User_talk:Unisouth#My images deleted and User:Unisouth - though I may have misunderstood that message. I have tried to contact them about this discussion anyway. (I'm not attempting deletion - just suggesting that they are unsuitable for the train articles - perhaps that amounts to the same thing)FengRail (talk) 04:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I have supposed to be retired but this conversation is very hard to ignore. The original intention was to provide simple diagrams that shows off what the livery and the train looks like. It was never supposed to be 100% accurate. I believe they are OK for what they are but if you lot disapprove then delete them at will, I don't mind, in fact I want them removed because I don't want to share them now I am retired. Unisouth^(A•C) 08:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

To be blunt, you have no "veto power" over their use: Wikipedia:Revocation of GFDL is not permitted. --NE2 08:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modeling 2' gauge railroads --NE2 04:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

List of common carrier freight railroads in the United States

I have redone this list, and I believe it to be almost complete. If people can check railroads that they're familiar with, that would be great. There are possibly a few outdated reporting marks, and Conrail doesn't seem to have one since 1999 (how can that be?). --NE2 22:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, Conrail was broken up and sold to NS and CSX in 1999. Textorus (talk) 08:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, it still performs switching and terminal services in the North Jersey, Philadelphia, and Detroit areas. --NE2 08:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Bombardier Innovia

The Bombardier Innovia article has been tagged as falling under TWP. It's not clear from the article whether or not this is a train. No rail gauge is mentioned in the article. Trains run of rails, right? If it ain't on rails (Maglev excepted) it's not a train. Seems to me that this is more like a guided bus than a train. What do other editors think?

We have Las Vegas Monorail and Montreal Metro which are essentially the same setup (do these look like rails to you?) – I'm inclined to say keep it. – iridescent 00:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

My first article in EnWiki

Please check up Lanskaya article and {{Saint Petersburg Finlyandsky - Beloostrov through Sestroretsk}} on grammatical and spelling errors. I'm study English, and its my first experiment in EnWiki. Thank you.--Andrey! 16:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreyA (talk • contribs)

I like your template : {{Saint Petersburg Finlyandsky - Beloostrov through Sestroretsk}} - : the numbers are they 'distance markers' - in kilometer - it should say "distances between stations are in kilometers" as some people use miles as well.

In what place of a template it to make?--77.241.45.18 (talk) 07:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)--Andrey! 07:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be at the bottom in small print - like this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ASaint_Petersburg_Finlyandsky_-_Beloostrov_through_Sestroretsk&diff=271346564&oldid=271339747 —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 14:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to correct your grammar on the article.

Thanks. I hope works was a little.--77.241.45.18 (talk) 07:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)--Andrey! 07:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

When it says On 4 Aug, 1951 in 1 hour and 30 minutes the electric... is this 1.30am (or pm) (see 12-hour clock)

After midnight.--77.241.45.18 (talk) 07:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I got stuck on the introduction a bit - not knowing the area personally.

I hope to photograph area in a sunny day.--77.241.45.18 (talk) 07:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)--Andrey! 07:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The input on it is carried out from under the bridge, the two-mid-flight ladder blocked by the high arch barrel.

Does the track go over a bridge, under a bridge? Is there more than 1 bridge? I could tell if I had a map.

A has drawn a site plan.--77.241.45.18 (talk) 07:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)--Andrey! 07:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Across the station will held line of creating a high speed rail line between Saint Petersburg (Finlyandsky Rail Terminal) and Helsinki

Does the high speed line go through the station? or nearby?

High-speed trains will pass station without a stop.--77.241.45.18 (talk) 07:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)--Andrey! 07:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope you find my corrects helpful and not confusing.FengRail (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, it is very useful.--77.241.45.18 (talk) 07:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)--Andrey! 07:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Question:

The direction platform to Saint Petersburg a straight line, lateral, an input on on it is carried out from Serdobolskaya street and from the Bolshoy Sampsonevsky prospect.

Does this mean the same as:

"There are entrances to to the Saint Petersburg platform from Serdobolskaya street and from the Bolshoy Sampsonevsky prospect"?

Also - I still can't underdstand " the two-mid-flight ladder " - are these staircases - or someting to do with the electricity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 15:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review request

Please would someone have a look at Mid-Norfolk Railway, which I am trying to improve. I think it's around GA standard now, but any advice/suggestions welcome. Thanks. DiverScout (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This request was answered, in some detail, by FengRail (talk).

The responses are more appropriate to the article concerned (and will eventually be 'lost' into the auto-archiving system) so I have been bold and moved them (verbatim) to a new section on Talk:Mid-Norfolk Railway.

May I say that the article is one of the best (and certainly one of the most comprehensive) I have seen concerning UK heritage railways. Congratulations to the editors concerned.

EdJogg (talk) 10:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Please, help me to tell it in English

I wish to write in article Sestroretsk rail station about the reason of creation of a line - transport any cargoes to and from Sestroretsk armory. Whether will correctly tell:--Andrey! 13:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The line has been constructed for service of trains Sestroretsk armory.

I have corrected your English so far. "Devastated" is not the right word, possibly you are trying to say that it was "abolished", "disbanded", or "closed down"? Are you intending to add more text? Pyrotec (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your work. The company experienced financial problems since 1980 and in 1985 was unable to pay their bills. It is pertinent to whether "devastated" substitute for "go to smash"? I will append the article.--Andrey! 16:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

British Rail Class 60

Request for help - the figures for continuous tractive effort just don't seem to add up (multiply) - see the talk page for details - is it me, or a typo, or what.?

If any Class 60 or engineering experts can sort this one out please.. Thanks.FengRail (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Newsletter

[Simply south's messages reformatted for readability --NE2 06:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)]

Do you think this project should have its own newsletter although i wonder how it would be arranged and get out to people and if so what should it be called the star? SimplysouthnotSSsorry 13:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Would this newsletter have spaces between the words and paragraphs, or is the above a representative sample of what is proposed?Pyrotec (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I am just being funny in the wording but i do imagine that the same as all other newsletters it will have spaces in between words and paragraphs but then again it could be written like this you never know. Simplysouthisthisabuffet? 17:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's simple: If you want to tell us something, use a way we can understand you. I'm not willing to guess what you're talking about! axp_de^Hello! 17:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

As the one who suggested SS bring this here, I'd support this (with spaces) as a way both of notifying people of what the assorted subprojects are up to, and of advertising TWP/UKT/TIJ to people who don't necessarily know they exist but will see the newsletter on talkpages and (hopefully) think it looks interesting. I assume it would be something similar to WP:LT's Metropolitan newsletter. – iridescent 17:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

In reply to Axpde I just thought i would change from the norm. This doesn't have to be so serious all the time.

I'm not sure on the design but do support if it goes ahead. Also, i am wondering how it could be done as it is a task too big to be done by someone alone. Simplysouthisthisabuffet? 17:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

There are other newsletters, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Newsletter/February 2009 and I know that WP Cheshire have a similar one. If were are going for a "respectable" newsletter of this type (e.g. WP GM, WP Cheshire, The Metropolitan, etc) then that is fine - if its a "thingy" with no spaces between the letters - forget it.Pyrotec (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. If it had a list of all the new articles produced within the scope of the project - that would be useful. On the other hand we could just use this talk page as a notice board .. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 19:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Instead of a simple newsletter here-it-is, should it have its own name? E.g. Rail today, rail riviera, the star, something imaginative? And formatted with dashes, miss NE2. Simplysouth is this a buffet? 19:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The Rocket if you want to be boring, Parallel Lines if you want something a bit cooler sounding. – iridescent 20:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Remember that we need people to write this. WikiProject U.S. Roads has a newsletter for a while but replaced it by a "blog" of sorts because people got tired of writing the newsletter. As for a list of new articles, you can always look through Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Rail transport articles by quality log. --NE2 22:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

My gut feeling it that a reasonably large chunk of it would write itself, as it would replicate content from the portal (featured articles etc). Simply South is already the de facto editor of WP:LT's newsletter after the departure of Unisouth, so I assume he appreciates what's required. – iridescent 22:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Feedback Requested - Adding information to {{Infobox rail}}

Hi, I have made a request for the addition of several data elements to {{Infobox rail}}. These optional elements would provide editors with the ability to capture pertinent corporate information about the railroad (such as Type, financial information, number of employees etc.) in a manner consistent with articles on other companies ({{Infobox Company}} was the template for these additions). As this template falls under your project, any feedback from interested editors is more than welcome at the the relevant talk page. Many thanks! - Richc80 (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Indian locomotive article needs help

If anyone in the project is inclined, this listing in AfC needs some help: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Submissions/WAG Indian railways. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Standard naming convention for rail accidents

Please note that based on changes to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) in July 2008, I moved a bunch of articles about rail accidents to the standard Place name rail accident format instead of haphazard variants such as "train accident", "rail crash" and "train wreck". Specific names associated with notable events, such as "disaster" where appropriate, or specific types of accidents such as "derailment", "collision", or "level crossing accident" could be used instead of the more generalized "rail accident." This series of moves is inconsequential, but nobody objected to the moves that were done in July, or to the change proposed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (events) where I suggested this action. I am therefore finishing the job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kivel (talk • contribs) 02:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, when you make dozens of page moves & edits within minutes, I don't see how anyone could object(!) Additionally, all of your train wreck page moves were 'hit-and-runs', that is you had not recently contributed to the articles you moved, and yet you did so without discussion or consensus, as is recommended. Linking to Wikipedia:Be bold is so ironic, since that page stresses politeness, considering the common good and advises against reckless editing. Finally, can anyone reconcile these conventions you discuss here and its conflict with the naming convention for disasters, that states that all articles concerning individual disasters should be <<year>> <<place>> <<event>>? I understand that not all wrecks are disasters, but when they are, should we have a different naming convention? Or not? Comments welcome! Highspeed (talk) 05:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Aboard! 20th Century American Trains --NE2 09:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Rail liveries

I just created a category Category:Rail liveries, currently very bare. I'm thinking about making an article "Post 1945 European rail liveries" or something similar, I'd certainly appreciate any overview articles anyone else can write. I think the article British Rail corporate liveries is a fairly good example of this type of article, both in scope, and coverage.

I would guess that relative broad based articles, both in terms of timescale and geography would be the way to go here, given the relative triviality of the topic.

FengRail (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

redirects History of rail transport in germany

Epoch I to Epoch V redirects created - should anyone wish to link these terms from an article etc. FengRail (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Are these terms in wide use? I can't find anything in books. --NE2 22:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Seem to be widely used, (maybe you should have tried setting the language to german?)

It does look like the terms are in more common use amongst railway modellers than other areas...

I'm not sure what nuances the phrases would carry in germany - at a guess equivalent to "BR green period" or "Big four period" (UK terminology)?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs) 23:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Mmmh maybe the terms are not right, I'll see if I can find out..FengRail (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The terms are fairly widely used. Particularly found in catalogues for model railway items. Mjroots (talk) 06:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Then it might make sense to use them in an article about modeling German railways, but not necessarily in a general history article. --NE2 08:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, you seem to be right. I made this mistake too, not being a native german speaker.

It does seem that the "epoch" terms are specifically used for model railways, and invented for that purpose , ie http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epoche_(Modelleisenbahn)

This means that the article needs reformatting, I'll broach the ssubject on the talk page of History of rail transport in germany.

Nevertheless it does seem that the terms have slipped into english usage (by the side door), so I would suggest at least giving them a mention in passing in the re-formatted article.

I would imagine the best place to continue this discussion would be at Talk:History_of_rail_transport_in_Germany#epochFengRail (talk) 13:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move/split of Hiawatha article

(cross-posting from Talk:Hiawatha (Amtrak))

"The article as named is a misleading conflation of two different services. In the 1970s Amtrak operated a Hiawatha on the Chicago-Minneapolis route. This was a direct successor to the old Milwaukee Road brand. Separate from this is the Hiawatha Service, an umbrella term for a number of trains on the Chicago-Milwaukee corridor (which have at times had their own names). I would suggest treating the newer Chicago-Milwaukee Hiawatha Service (Amtrak) as its own concept in its own article, with links back to this article discussing the old Hiawatha, which really died off with the North Star. Note that Amtrak refers to the current service as "Hiawatha Service" on its website: [1]. Mackensen (talk) 12:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)"

Comments and brickbats much appreciated. Mackensen (talk) 12:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've done it. The article is at Hiawatha Service and (mostly) discusses the Chicago-Milwaukee corridor. Whether a separate article at Hiawatha (Amtrak) is necessary is debatable; the article at North Coast Hiawatha could expand to cover the history. For now it redirects to Hiawatha Service. Mackensen (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation of named trains

I recently ran into the article Shenandoah (B&O) and was confused by the article name. General disambiguation practice would suggest that it is better to disambiguate the article with something like (train) or (passenger train). Looking through some categories reveal that there are a bunch of solutions out there:

• Golden Rocket (passenger train)
• Mercury (NYC)
• Meteor (St. Louis-San Francisco Railway)
• Morning Star (SSW passenger train)
• Nancy Hanks (train)
• Xplorer (United States)

My suggestion would be to use Nancy Hanks (train) as the standard solution. If there are several trains with the same name they would then disambiguate into (passenger train)/(freight train) (or whatever they are). If several passenger trains have the same name they would disambiguate using company name (SSW passenger train)/(B&O passenger train). This is just what I came up with from the top of my head. Comments or suggestions? /Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Mercury (NYC) and Xplorer (United States) should be renamed Mercury (NYC passenger train) and Xplorer (NYC passenger train) respectivley. I've already split the Cannon Ball (passenger train) into three railroads(Boston and Maine Railroad; Long Island Rail Road; Norfolk & Western Railway), despite the fact that neither the original link, nor the railroad-specific links have articles yet. The reason I did this, was because they're not the same train. ----DanTD (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

But if there is just 1 train called Mercury why not just call it Mercury (train)? The other solutions produce unnecessarily complex article names in my opinion. No need to disambiguate more than necessary. Cheers/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Haven't there been other trains that include "Mercury" in their names? In any case, I just found two different Columbian passenger trains, one of which was owned by the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad and is named appropriatley, and the other was owned by the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad, but is simply named "passenger train." Unless the Milwaukee Road train is an extension of the B&O train, the Milwaukee Road one should be renamed according to it's railroad. ----DanTD (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

My intention was not to discuss this specific case. If there are several passenger trains with the same name they should of course be disambiguated, probably by company as you suggest. But in those cases where there is just one train, do you agree that "Train name (train)" is a good solution or would you prefer "Train name (NYC passenger train)" in every case? Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about every case, but "Xplorer (United States)" could refer to anything in the United States. There's a Recreational vehicle manufacturer named Xplorer. As for "Mercury (NYC)," the "NYC part could also appear to be New York City, rather than New York Central Railroad. ----DanTD (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me throw my hat in here. This discussion needs to consider what would happen to Amtrak services, which are disambiguated as Name (Amtrak). Following this principle, trains could be called Name (Operator), which would give us Mercury (New York Central)/Mercury (NYC). I'm loath to the use the full names--we could wind up with some really long titles! Mackensen (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, disambiguation through the use of operator should be avoided. In general the disambiguation word should be something that says what the article subject is, not what it belongs to. Musicians are for example disambiguated as "Name (musician/artist/guitarist)" and not "Name (music/The Beatles)". In the same way the best solution for trains (in my opinion) would be Nancy Hanks (train) or possibly Golden Rocket (passenger train). I'd prefer "Name (train)" but "Name (passenger train)" is a lot more common right now. If several trains have the same name they could then be disambiguated further (using either country or operator). Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, Mercury (New York Central) looks good enough to me. I could also suggest Xplorer (New York Central) as well. It's always good to check and see if there are any trains in any countries that have the same names, even if there are no pages for them yet. Another thing, Mackensen, this could really work into your plans regarding the various Hiawatha trains, past and present. ----DanTD (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I find a solution like Mercury (New York Central) problematic for two reasons: it diverges from the dominating disambiguation practice (to use a generic class like Seal (mammal) for physical things) and it makes the title unclear (for all I know it could be about Mercury poisoning at the New York Central station). Is this a suggestion just for cases where there are several trains with the same name or would you suggest that we rename Nancy Hanks (train) Nancy Hanks (Central of Georgia)? Cheers/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The only "New York Central Station" around is Grand Central Terminal, more commonly known as Grand Central Station. Therefore the scenario you're talking about is unlikley. Something like that would be more like Mercury poisoning at Grand Central Terminal or Mercury poison attack at Grand Central Termina(see Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway). Assuming there's no other train named Nancy Hanks, I can live with Nancy Hanks (train), as well as Nancy Hanks (passenger train), or Nancy Hanks (Central of Georgia), but the last two should redirect to the "train" if this is the case. ----DanTD (talk) 12:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Noone seems to have any problem with using "Nancy Hanks (train)" as the disambiguation standard in those cases where there is just one train with a particular name. It's short, clear and to the point. In the more complicated cases, perhaps we can agree on a flexible solution where both "Nancy Hanks (Central of Georgia train)", "Nancy Hanks (CG train)"and "Nancy Hanks (United States train)", "Nancy Hanks (US train)" are possible (depending on what works best in the specific case). Does that seems like a workable solution? Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:36, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Rail Yards

Category:Rail yards created to cover all types of 'rail yard'.. Already added articles I could find to it. FengRail (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

At the same time List of rail yards made (from the German wikipedia page linked from it). Note the European bias..

American, African and Asian rail people have fun expanding this.. Good luck. 20:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Merger on MARC

Found another potential merger of a historic and a commuter railroad station, this time on the MARC Brunswick line. Gaithersburg (MARC station) with Gaithersburg B & O Railroad Station and Freight Shed. Evidently at least one of the two buildings in the historic former B&O station and freight shed is operated by MARC. I've already addressed the issue on the proposed mergers page. ----DanTD (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Valuation reports now sorted by state

I've sorted the non-Class I ICC valuations by state, essentially providing a snapshot of the short lines in each state ca. 1918. If you'd like any of the valuations transcribed (those with separate article links have them) or any of the partial transcriptions expanded, let me know and I'll see what I can do. --NE2 16:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Bombardier

• Bombardier → Bombardier Inc.
• Bombardier (disambiguation) → Bombardier

A rename related to Bombardier has been proposed at WP:RM, see Talk:Bombardier

76.66.193.69 (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Map style for short lines?

Before I make more, is there anything that can be improved about the map in Yreka Western Railroad? --NE2 19:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd add a couple of place names, just to give some frame of reference to the reader; I'm left looking at that and thinking "well, where is this?". It might also be worthwhile doing a close-scale map of the route as well, as at the scale you're using there's no sense of curves etc – see this or this for examples of ultra-short independent spur lines (both just knocked up in Paintbrush without fancy mapping software). As I'm always saying, with very large and very small systems, our standard ways of handling maps and diagrams breaks down. – iridescent 20:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

In this case, for a close-up map, a modified topographic map might be best. For the current map, would you put city names in the same text style as the railroad names, or do you think that would be confusing? --NE2 05:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with an ultra-stripped down topographic map along the lines of the Ramsgate map I link above (in that case the only features are land/sea; in this case I'd imagine it would be clearing/forest/hills. How about using italic, or a different color, for the city names? (I do think you're right in going with a map rather than our standard diagrams; even though it's standard to use a diagram, for short railroads like this a diagram which will just consist of a line with a dot at each end is a waste of space.) – iridescent 13:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I added city names to the YW map, and made a map for the Willamette Valley Railway. Right now I'm going to concentrate on this style, giving a general idea of where the railroad is; someone else can do a more zoomed-in view if wanted. --NE2 15:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

RDT

I have been adding "RDT" to applicable templates to help distinguish them from other templates and now more as a norm to show they are RDTs (or Route Diagram Templates). Although i did not propose this, i carried it out being bold and thinking it was uncontroversial. Similar suffixes to the same types of templates have been added (not by me and even some with the suffix RDT not by me either) such as "map", "route map" and "route diagram". As recently this has been questioned, could i ask for people's opinions at Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template#Suffices. Simply south (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Categorization of current railroads by former system (North America)

I just added some to Category:Companies operating former Baltimore and Ohio Railroad lines, and I'm wondering what people think about this category. I personally like it, but there are some issues to work out: which companies get them, and what stage in their evolution do we go by? For instance, it would be silly to have one for Chessie System, because it would be redundant to B&O/C&O/WM. Conversely, a Union Pacific category might be more useful with only lines it controlled before 1982 (when it acquired the MP and WP). Also, spin-offs that were acquired by another system might pose a problem: is the Columbus and Greenville Railway ex-Southern, ex-Illinois Central, or both? --NE2 03:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting concept you've got there. Are there other categories like it for other railroads from the "golden age?" Would passenger, commuter, "light-rail" and tourist railroads also be included in this category? ----DanTD (talk) 04:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea; I just expanded a category that already existed. (On the other hand, Category:Spin-offs of North American railroads and Category:Predecessors of North American railroads are mostly my creation.) I'd probably cut it off at freight, but passenger might actually work fine here. (But, for instance, would the SIRy be B&O? The LIRR PRR? The Atlantic City Line PRR, Reading, or both?) --NE2 06:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, since the LIRR was a railroad of it's own before PRR bought it, I'm not so sure it would qualify for a category like "Comanies operating former Pennsylvania Railroad lines." However, Metro-North might be okay for "Companies operating former New York Central," "...New York, New Haven and Hartford," and/or "...Erie-Lackawana lines," if those are the ones that run through Rockland & Orange Counties. I'm sure Metra woud qualify for plenty of Comapnies on ICC, C&NW, CB&Q, The Soo Line, Milwaukee Road, and the like. MARC would be good for PRR & B&O, of course. It also has me wondering about Cleveland's RTA Rapid Transit, as well as the line used by Strasburg Rail Road and Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania. ----DanTD (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much every line was a "railroad of its own" at first. The Harlem Line was the New York and Harlem Railroad, later acquired by the New York Central Railroad (and leased but never consolidated). --NE2 18:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point. There's something else I've always noticed, which could be considered for such a decision; Practially every book that has ever covered the history of the Long Island Rail Road has a great deal of material on the PRR's affiliation, while books covering the PRR itself, barley mention the LIRR. It's almost as if they're treated like a neglected adopted son of the Pennsy Railroad(I almost described them as a bastard sone of the PRR for a moment). The thing is, LIRR was around before, during, and after Pennsy, whereas SEPTA, and MARC both of which operate on former PRR lines have only been around as commuter railroads for 25-30 years. BTW, I see that you've already created a category for Companies operating former Pennsylvania Railroad lines, as well as one for New York Central RR lines. Kansas City Southern Railway? The only former NYC lines I could possibly imagine them using must be in Western Illinois, and even those I would've expected to be former Nickel Plate lines. ----DanTD (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The ex-Gateway Western Railway, since merged into KCS, owned a portion of the Big Four's original St. Louis line from East Alton south to the TRRA in East St. Louis, where SPCSL (now UP) got the parallel ex-Alton Railroad. [2] is a pretty good map showing this. --NE2 23:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I've completed the categorization of current common-carrier U.S. freight railroads. Former railroads, if categorized likewise, should probably be in separate categories so that the case of current railroads that formerly operated lines of a company can be dealt with. --NE2 22:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Question

Would Louisiana and Delta Railroad fit under the Category:Companies operating former Southern Pacific Transportation Company lines, or does the existing SP category suit it just fine? ----DanTD (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It certainly fits in both. --NE2 23:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

in re: Railway Stations in Chicago, Illinois

Anyone have any idea what the sorting mechanism has placed Union Station (Chicago) in the C section and not the U section? --Christopherbailey (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Union Station (Chicago) Category:Railway stations in Chicago, Illinois (please link)

See this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Union_Station_(Chicago)&action=edit&section=9

{{DEFAULTSORT:Chicago}} probably does it.

either remove it or replace [[Category:Railway stations in Chicago, Illinois]] with [[Category:Railway stations in Chicago, Illinois|Union station]] in the categories section of the article - see if that works...FengRail (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Vote on date autoformatting and linking

The Vote on date autoformatting and linking is now open. All users are invited to participate. Lightmouse (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Definition of 'motion'

Steam enthusiasts talk about the 'motion' of a steam locomotive (well, we do in the UK at least!) but I don't know how this is defined. Something should be added to the glossary, and the Steam locomotive components page too (plus motion, while you're at it!)

EdJogg (talk) 10:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"Motion" in this context means the arrangement of connecting rods, valve gear etc on a steam locomotive. Mjroots (talk) 06:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, that's about the level of my understanding too! :o) I'm hoping that someone can lay their hands on a more precise definition that we can use as a reference from WP. (In which sense it is actually no different to the other jargon found on our terminology pages.) EdJogg (talk) 09:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what you're asking - the definition in Glossary_of_rail_terminology#M was a little wrong - the 'motion' (note the quotes) is the valvegear plus connecting rods and Coupling rod eg

Motion (UK): the connecting rod, coupling rods and valve gear that connect and direct the force of a steam engine's pistons to the crankpins and hence the driving axles

erm - is that an accurate enough definition - in other words - everything that moves on a steam engine excluding the wheels and the engine themselves - ie the stuff that hypnotises people when they watch it.213.249.232.187 (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The entry in the Glossary resulted from my original question above. Before that, there was no definition. EdJogg (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you wanted reference

http://www.mda.org.uk/railway/railobjm.htm :

motion: The pistons, connecting rods and valve gear of a steam locomotive. (from The Railway Dictionary, An A-Z of Railway Terminology, Alan A Jackson, Alan Sutton Publishing, 1996)

It's in the references I supplied for Talk:Glossary_of_UK_railway_terminology many moons ago.. :)

Same place has definitions of "motion bracket" and "motion plate" so maybe it's a genuine technical term.

User:FengRail

How does the valvegear "connect and direct the force of a steam engine's pistons"? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hear, hear. I preferred the previous definition -- I'm not convinced we need to mention crank pins or axles ('wheels' would be more accessible, perhaps?)

Also, are the coupling rods strictly part of the 'motion'? That Railway Dictionary quote (which we should be using as a reference, remember!) doesn't mention them. It is interesting that that definition correlates to the parts which make up the actual "steam engine"(s) of the locomotive (a discussion which has rumbled on and off for ages over at steam engine!)

Going one stage further, anyone have a clue as to when the term came into use?

EdJogg (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not the coupling rods are part of the motion could be a subject for decades of debate..

As for "that connect and direct...." that was a flurry on my part, perhaps I overdid it?

Motion is also mentioned at Steam_locomotive#Running_gear "This includes the brake gear, wheel sets, axleboxes, springing and the "motion" that includes connecting rods and valve gear"

I suggest redirects to Steam_locomotive#Running_gear, I've added to Motion disambig.

No idea when this term came into use, is it a UK only term - if so what do rest call itFengRail (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

is this ok? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glossary_of_rail_terminology&diff=281897409&oldid=281895146 FengRail (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

British Rail Class 24

I just gave this article a B rating - I think it may deserve an A, but that probably requires a second or third opinion.FengRail (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Australian electrics

Trying to find Class 7100 electric [3] [4] at Pacific National - the templates Template:AusLocos and Template:VRLocos are confusing - lots of locos turn up at the latter - but the company doesn't exist anymore, and the former has hardly any locos at all in it.

I'm not even sure if there is an article or not. The loco is not listed at "Pacific National".

Anyone know?

At the same time I'd like to suggest categorisation by gauge in the Aus. articles, helpful to those who don't know it very well. Thanks.213.249.232.187 (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

{{TrainsWikiProject}}

Could i please ask an admin to move this to {{WikiProject Trains}}? The reason is that i would like to set up the article alert subscription (or someone else could) but this actually has a major impact on other child and related projects who are grouped under this one. Many rail related changes are not shown under those projects. Simply south (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a redirect there... --NE2 19:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the new alert system cannot work with a redirect there (for example see here). It would have to be moved to that page. Simply south (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Since {{WikiProject London Transport}} is not a redirect, that's not the problem. I don't know what the problem is, but it has nothing to do with {{TrainsWikiProject}}, which isn't used by the London one. --NE2 20:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

And it seems to have worked - what's the problem here? --NE2 20:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That is because after the error was created, the template for London Transport was moved to correct this. To prove this, i will place the subscription. (Note:Changes may take a few hours) Simply south (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you read the whole thing... "If your project banner does not follow the standard naming scheme (e.g. Template:WikiProject Yellow tulips), specify the correct banner in the subscription template (banner parameter)." --NE2 20:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, i missed that (could have saved a page move). Simply south (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Template help, again

Once again, I need help fixing a template, this time it's Template:S-line/MNRR right/Harlem. What I've been trying to do is to split the template between the current terminus at Wassaic and the former terminus at Chatham, and it didn't work. The routebox within the infobox at Fox Chase SEPTA Station should give you an idea of what I'm trying to do. I asked for help from WP:NYCPT, and nobody there is doing anything for me. ----DanTD (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Rail tracks

The articles Rail track and the obvious related stuff are a bit confusing - with the same topic being covered on multiple articles - for example "fishplates" are covered on at least three articles - rail profile fish plate and a gallery at rail profile.

In the short term I intend to tidy them into Rail tracks with subpages Railway rail, Railroad tie (sleepers), Rail fastening systems, fishplate and continuously welded rail. (other articles such as rail gauge seem ok.) Is that ok?

In the long term any suggestions as to organisation of content?FengRail (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Railway companies establishment/disestablishment years

If anyone has a reliable source for these it would be appreciated if you could verify and cleanup the articles listed here. Thanks! --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 07:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Need routebox help

I finally created the Highbridge (Metro-North station) article, as much of a stub as it is. Now, will somebody tell me how to add the "Employees Only" note to the routebox on the Yankees-E. 153rd Street (Metro-North station) article without messing the thing up? So far I've only been able to add it to the Morris Heights (Metro-North station) routebox. ----DanTD (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Done it, but it probably needs cleaning up a bit. The documentation is in template:s-line, i.e use "note= a note" for left hand side and "note1= another note" for right hand side box.Pyrotec (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Căile Ferate Române for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

New timeline of Class I railroads (North America)

I just finished a timeline of Class I railroads in three parts (due to size): 1910-1929, 1930-1976, 1977-present. It's certainly not complete; I listed the most serious omissions at Talk:Timeline of Class I railroads (1910-1929). If you know any of these or see anything else missing, please help, but make sure your information is correct, and try to keep it to mainly physical changes that affected the entire system of a railroad or former railroad. (Regulatory changes such as Staggers could make up another whole list!) If anyone has access to volumes of the "Annual Report on the Statistics of Railways in the United States", please let me know and I'll see if you can help.

Hopefully this will be of use in clarifying historical matters. --NE2 09:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Historic photos available

Adapted from WT:SHIPS
New Zealand's Alexander Turnbull Library has placed some historic NZ photos on Flickr The Commons with no known copyright restrictions. These include some of New Zealand railways. Very easy to upload to commons using the Flickr tools. Mjroots (talk) 11:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Images should be tagged {{PD-NZ}} and added to commons:Category:Images from the New Zealand National Library. Gwinva (talk) 00:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Pacific Railway

I have nominated Canadian Pacific Railway for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Future public transportation templates

All the {future ____ public transportation} templates ({{future australian public transportation}}, etc) are being replaced by {{future public transportation|country= }} (see discussion at Template talk:Future public transportation). Is it ok if I collapse the list of templates at Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Article templates? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Valencia historical trains/trams

I have uploaded several scanned slides on the regional meter gauge trains around Valencia. These pictures where taken in 1981 and 1987. See (Commons:Category:Ferrocarrils de la Generalitat Valenciana). These pics where taken partly in the FEVE period. (With the FEVE logos) There are several issues:

• These where taken at the narrow gauge station on the North side off the city. I dont know the name of it. Now the trams make a U-turn at the same location.

• I dont know anything about these types of train. A description would be usefull. Some may even be from pre FEVE times.

• I dont know any Spanish, but a Spanish description would be usefull.

• The Category is unclear: Does the "FGV" refer to railway company running these trains now -or- To the railways in the Generalitat Valencia? In the first case I would put these pictures under the FEVE category (and maybe create a FEVE subcategory) In the second case I can leave things as now.

Greetings,

Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Copied to WT:SPAIN Mjroots (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

stnlnk vs rws templates

Just found that there is a {{rws}} template that seems to do the same job as {{stnlnk}} in displaying station names. Necessary duplication?

EdJogg (talk) 12:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've redirected the new one to the old one. Simply south (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. EdJogg (talk) 08:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Issues with VIA FP9ARM picture article - Need a third party resolution

I received a message from 67.193.221.128 who blatantly accused me of "Shameless Self-Promotion" over this image that I grabbed from flickr (the person I uploaded from isn't me near the begining of April. Thinking the response was just a troll, I responded likewise, reverted, and went on with my life. Now I have User:Jsp3970, who is also accusing me of "shameless self-promotion," and uploaded his own pic to "stop a possible revert war." Again, I "commented" and reverted it back. Now I have 67.193.221.128 again undoing my edits, and thats when I noticed something.

File:VIAFPA9RM6309.jpg, which I "replaced" with my flickr find, was taken by User:Jsp3970. It's about a year apart, and the size differences is...great.

Now I want this to end. I would like a third opinion on the matter. According to the Wikipedia:Image_use_policy under Rules of thumb, #3 states: Upload a high-resolution version of your image whenever possible. Comparing File:VIAFPA9RM6309.jpg and this image, yes, the handcart should've been outta the way, but still, you can see the difference. The focus should be on improving the article, and I feel my Flickr find helps by allowing viewers to see a FP(ARM in the best picture possible in the article (of course, I do invite Jsp3970 to contribute better quality FP9ARM pics if he can to beat the one I got; no shame). --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 08:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Contacted those involved as well.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 08:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

File:VIA GM FP9.jpg is clearly preferable to File:VIAFPA9RM6309.jpg. No comment on the interpersonal dispute (because I can't be arsed to read through it). --NE2 09:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Scratch that - the choice is between File:VIA Rail FP9ARM 6303.jpg and File:VIA GM FP9.jpg. I'm not a diesel expert, but I'd say the 6309 photo has better lighting and shows the locomotive better. --NE2 09:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with NE2 -- I'm not an American diesel fan (I mean, I'm not a great fan of American diesels!) but File:VIA GM FP9.jpg is certainly the best of the three. Note that if all three were placed in Commons (where they should be) a commonscat link would allow immediate access to the other pictures from the article. (And yes, I have checked and seen who has bothered to put them there already!)

EdJogg (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with EdJogg; likewise, I've no great interest in North American diesels, but (the handcart aside) the 6309 photo is better lit and illustrates the overall shape of the loco far more clearly. – iridescent 18:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind showing everybody where on the list Jsp3970's image is? Because I don't see it where the tag says it is. Granted your image is of higher quality, but that doesn't mean the other one should be dumped over an edit war whether he started it or you started it. I agree with EdJogg. They should all be placed in the commons. ----DanTD (talk) 10:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Potential legal threat made against me --NE2 12:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

FAR of BC Rail

I have nominated BC Rail for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ukrainian Railways

Ladies and gentlemen, while you're working on nuisances such as British_Rail_Class_24, the article on the busiest, largest and arguably most important railway system in Europe, with thousands of locos and hundreds of thousands of employees, remains a miserable stub for more than 2 years. Thank you for your attention. Ukrained (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing stopping you writing an article. I know nothing about Ukrainian railways so I wouldn't even try. This is the English language Wikipedia, so by definition we get more people working on articles about English-speaking countries because people generally work on articles about their local area. For what it's worth, Germany (33,897 km, 74.73 billion passenger/km) and France (29,488 km, 78.46 billion passenger/km) both have larger and busier systems than Ukraine (21,891 km, 53.23 billion passenger/km). – iridescent 23:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean passenger/kilometres not passengers per kilometre. Otherwise, yes Ukrained should get some like minded freinds and improve the article. The encyclopedia anyone can edit, remember? Britmax (talk) 08:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point, now fixed – 78 billion passengers per km would be fairly impressive.. But yes, what Britmax says – improve the article. It needs to be pointed out that the Ukrainian and Russian versions of this article are equally poor quality, despite them presumably having far more sources to draw on than we do. – iridescent 10:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'd just add a general hint regarding Wikipedia etiquette to user Ukrained and suggest that if you want an article improved, asking like this probably won't help your cause. In a few short lines you've combined a "cry wolf" heading (ie 'IMPORTANT NOTICE'? Why is your point more important everyone else's?), you've the insulted BR loco article editors, made gratuitous use of caps and bold, and ignored the order of the talk page to slap your request at the top of the page. I'm hardly encouraged to expand the article after a request like that. Zzrbiker (talk) 11:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

) I was just trying to draw Wikipedians' attention to an evident misprioritization here, not to insult anybody. Articles on both French and German railways are developed far beyond Ukrainian one. I thought this is an All Trains Wikiproject, dedicated to all railways, not British Trains or EU Trains. Not to mention that UA railways are one of Europe's important "bottlenecks". Sad to say, but users who got me wrong are just not good in prioritizing their Wikiefforts:) Thank you for your time, Ukrained (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Those who work for corporations in exchange for a wage can be exhorted to "prioritise their efforts". I didn't get where I am today without prioritising my efforts, Reggie. ("Great! Super!")

However a realistic fact about this project is that people here are unpaid volunteers and pretty much set their own agenda. There is no systematic way of sweeping through all the subjects in the world; we cover the things we know about, care about and/ or are curious about (and sometimes these areas overlap). If you tried to impose plans on these people some of them would just disappear, while others would ask for payment then disappear. The model railway writer Cyril Freezer once wrote, "people who say 'someone should do something about this' ought to be reminded that they are also 'someone'.

I refer the honorable gentlemen to the reply I gave some moments ago. Britmax (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:Future public transportation

This is up for deletion. In my opinion i find it a very important template, although it could be reworded according to comments on the deletion page. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Future public transportation. The scope possibly also encompasses other related articles. Simply south (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Boiler problems

Boiler is rated at "High" importance within this Wikiproject, and has been selected as appropriate for the WP 0.7 DVD (and is therefore regarded as among the most important articles in the encyclopaedia) yet it is only rated 'start' class.

For some time I have been aware of the problems with the boiler article. It is still a mish-mash of water-heating and steam-generating tasks, without really covering either effectively, nor making the distinctions between the two functions clear. The article is not well-structured and really needs re-building to a form that matches its importance as a 'main' article.

In recent months the picture has been complicated by the creation of boiler (steam generator) in an effort to resolve the problems mentioned. Unfortunately, this is also in need of much the same work, and as an added problem, duplicates much of the 'steam-generating' material in boiler. In an effort to move things along, I have started a discussion about a proposed (re-)merge of boiler and boiler (steam generator) (see Talk:Boiler#Proposed Merge) and would welcome other editors' views.

Andy Dingley has made huge progress in creating and bringing up-to-scratch articles on the many sub-types of boiler (mostly sub-types of the fire-tube boiler) and is continuing with his excellent work when time permits. I have been helping out where I can (although I know little about the subject); but neither of us feel qualified to tackle the re-build.

Is there anyone around who feels they can take this on? Or at the very least, can propose a new structure for the articles that we can work on collectively?

EdJogg (talk) 09:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Canada class 2

Template:Canada class 2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. NE2 19:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects?

Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Railway Signalling Template

The Railway signalling template Template:Railwaysignalling has a section for interlockings, which currently lists at least 3 interlockings (Lever frame • Solid State Interlocking • Westlock Interlocking - "Signal box" is also listed but I don't think that counts). I am aware of a number of other interlocking products/types - e.g. relay (free wired or WESTPAC style).

The Interlocking page mentions four types of interlocking: Mechanical interlocking, Electro-mechanical interlocking, Relay interlocking, Electronic interlocking.

1a. Is the list in the template supposed to be a list of interlocking products, types of interlocking or both? 1b. Should "Signal Box" be removed?

2. Should there be separate articles to cover such things as Relay interlocking, Electronic interlocking etc?

3. Should there be separate articles to cover various interlocking products?

4. I have a little knowledge about interlocking and can create paragraph size stubs to cover a number of interlocking products and/or types. Is this useful?

Mdt3k (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This is tricky. I felt a bit uneasy when the Westlock link was added to the template, because I thought it might open the floodgates to having every interlocking product on the market listed. That is clearly not practicable.

The four generic types of interlocking you've listed probably don't justify having their own articles at present - they are adequately dealt with as sections within the interlocking article. They could be split into separate articles later if enough information was added to justify it.

A fair point, I will see if I can add anything meaningful to the interlockings article Mdt3k (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

As regards the template, I wonder whether there's another word that could replace "Interlockings" as a section heading, that would cover the articles "Signal box", "Interlocking" and "Lever frame", etc. Something along the lines of "Control Centres", maybe? (I realise that interlockings can be remote from the signal box/control centre, but it's just an idea.) –Signalhead ^< T > 20:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Some of the old issues of Trains have introductory "ABC's of railroading" columns. One of them (June 1994) includes interlockings, and is about train movement authority in general. Also described are CTC, Rule 251, TWC, DTC, Form D, and yard limits, as well as how track workers are protected. It might make sense to combine "Systems" with "Interlockings" and "Train protection", and then split it based on whether the article is about a type or implementation. --NE2 21:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll put my hand up to adding Westlock to the template as SSI was there, which is what prompted my appearance here. If it's not intended to be a product list, perhaps it would be best merged into one of the other sections as NE2 suggests? I think a list of products is a reasonable thing to document, provided they've got an article to describe them. Mdt3k (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

MBTA Providence/Stoughton Line glitch

I see a problem with the western terminus of the Stoughton Branch of the MBTA Providence/Stoughton Line, most notably in the article on Canton Center (MBTA station). It still includes Providence (MBTA station) as one of the two termini, when it should only include Stoughton (MBTA station). Meanwhile, every station between Sharon (MBTA station) and South Attleboro (MBTA station) only has Providence as the western terminus. I tried to looks for the template on this, but I can't find any MBTA templates. ----DanTD (talk) 23:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

LACMTA Expo Line page title

Was checking out the page to get some updates on construction, when it struck me that this page is named inconsistantly with other LACMTA Metrorail articles. Other articles use a Metro X Line (LACMTA) format. I was thinking that the article should be moved to Metro Expo Line (LACMTA) for consistancy, but wanted input before making such a move.oknazevad (talk) 07:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

How about Expo Line (LACMTA)? --NE2 07:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It'd still be inconsistant with the rest of the Metrorail articles, though, all of which follow the same format.oknazevad (talk) 07:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Decided to Be Bold and moved the page to Metro Expo Line (LACMTA).oknazevad (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Line–Train disambiguation

I am pondering what to do about Line A and A Train, both of which are disambiguation pages. My instincts tell me they should be merged together because the terms could be used interchangeably. (It is possible that since I am a New Yorker, only I would have this view. If that's the case, I apologize in advance.) The same would go with other possible pairs such as 6 Line/6 Train; B Line (currently redirected to Bee line)/B Train. My question is, should they be merged at all and into what title? At worst, entries would be duplicated in both sets of pages. I need this guidance in order to update and monitor such disambiguation pages. Thanks. Tinlinkin (talk) 08:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Since they are disambiguation pages, having seperate pages for distinct terms is ok by me. That said, chances are likely that there is going to be duplicate entries on both pages, which is fine, as someone might search for either term and would be served by having the appropriate article they are looking for be at whichever disambiguation they enter.

What bothers me more, though, is the combined disambiguation for B Line and bee line, as "B Line" isn't simply a "variation" of "bee line" as the current disambiguation claims. Using the letter usually indicates an alphabetic scheme, while "bee line" has it origins in beekeeping and navigation. They are quite distinct terms, and shouldn't be combined on one page.

So, to summarize my thoughts, A Train and Line A (and similar pairings) should be kept seperate, with entries appropriate to both on both pages, while Bee line should be split into two seperate disambiguations, with only the entries that actually spell out "Bee" in their names remaining at the current page.oknazevad (talk) 10:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on the separation of B Line and Bee line. But what about cases where X Train is simply a train running on the railway Line X and there is no other disambiguation for X Train? I would redirect X Train to Line X. If X Train has other disambig entries, there would be a "see also" section with a link to Line X or the entry:

• a train operating on a railway line called Line X

What do you think? Tinlinkin (talk) 00:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd be wary of confusing "line" and "train" in redirects if only for the fact that they mean very different things in NYC Subway contexts (check the nomenclature article for more info). A link at a disambig page is probably the best way to go.oknazevad (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

In a bit of follow-up, I have separated Bee Line from B Line. Apparently they were merged in early December a mere 13 minutes after the merge was proposed. oknazevad (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. As you can see through my edits, I have not been rushing to process these articles yet. Tinlinkin (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion (station)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newbridge on Wye railway station --NE2 18:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Lists of former railroads

I've recently redone the lists of defunct railroads for Alabama, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. For Indiana, I added another "system" column that's not in the others. What you you guys think of this format? Can anything be improved? --NE2 12:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks good so far from what I've seen. The charts ought to be added to other chapters. I want to see what you plan for New York, and other state lists. ----DanTD (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Future Rail proposals

The Category:Future public transportation (which are largely rail projects, say 2/3) has subcategories by country eg Category:Future public transport in Norway, but each of these should have a subcategory for modes of transport eg a Category:Future railway projects in Norway, which would then link to Category:Rail transport in Norway as well as the “Future Public …. Category. Similarly for Road by country for future roads/highways and future bus proposals.

This would make it easier to find local projects and also mean that the articles for a particular country would be apparent to interested people who could update and correct them. The present categories are too wide in scope (though could be retained in addition to the "by country" category). NB: some rail proposals will be for new freight or mining lines.

Similarly the Category:Future railway stations has only country subcategories for Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. It should be split by country (and perhaps major city where there are major future proposals; eg there is Category:Future transport projects in London), and each made a subcategory of the “railway stations” category for that country/city – for most there is no link at present. NB: Have also added as subcategory the existing Category:Proposed railway stations in the United Kingdom. Hugo999 (talk) 06:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Transition to {{WPBannerMeta}}?

What about transition of the project's template code to {{WPBannerMeta}} and renaming into {{WikiProject Trains}}? SkyBon^{Talk\Contributions} 18:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Only if the standard template can handle the subproject coding... --NE2 20:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It can handle subproject Task force coding incl. Task force importance. SkyBon^{Talk\Contributions} 06:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT for railroads?

Would anyone have a problem with the standard DEFAULTSORT for railroads being the title without commas or conjunctions, and with an extra space before the "Railroad" or "Railway"? For instance, Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway, Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad, Chicago and North Western Railway, and Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad would be "Chicago Milwaukee St. Paul  Railway", "Chicago Milwaukee St. Paul Pacific  Railroad", "Chicago North Western  Railway", and "Chicago Rock Island Pacific  Railroad", and would appear in that order in categories such as Category:Former Class I railroads in the United States. --NE2 15:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If there are no objections 24 hours from now, I will start testing this with the former Class I railroads. If that goes well, I'll add it to the manual of style for this project. --NE2 20:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - The prevalence of commas and "and"s (including as ampersands) in older railroad names means that they could easily overwhelm and disrupt a logical alphabetization. Makes sense to me to skip over them when alphabetizing.oknazevad (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've gone through everything in Category:Former Class I railroads in the United States; are there any objections to the way I sorted them? --NE2 21:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

They seem to "march" very nicely now! A definite improvement. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The extra space seems to be superfluous. Was there any specific reason for it? I saw a recent edit to an article I built, Sussex Railroad, that introduced a defaultsort with two spaces between Sussex and Railroad per this new guidelines here. It has the unfortunate effect of alphabetizing Sussex Railroad above Sussex Airport (New Jersey) in Category:Transportation in Sussex County, New Jersey. This isn't desirable. I'd suggest deleting the extra spaces. --Rkitko ^(talk) 13:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The extra space puts Sussex Railroad above Sussex Mine Railroad. I see how it can be imperfect in non-railroad cats; maybe it would be best to use a sortkey in those cases, since most of the categories are railroad-related. --NE2 20:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Why would it be desirable to have Sussex Railroad alphabetize above Sussex Mine Railroad? The sortkey for non-railroad categories seems like an imperfect work-around that could muddle things in the future. Just doesn't seem logical to have a nonstandard defaultsort with an extra space when the benefit isn't immediately obvious, and where it requires extra effort on non-railroad categories. --Rkitko ^(talk) 20:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems pretty obvious that Sussex should be above Sussex Mine, and any other railroad that begins with Sussex. --NE2 21:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

To elaborate, if I may, the "railroad" or "railway" at the end of most railroads name is a given in most contexts, and is usually dropped in naming them. This defaultsort does just that in rail categories, which brings them in line with the most expected order, essentiall bringing WP:COMMONNAME to the category.oknazevad (talk) 01:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem obvious to me. And it has the unintended consequence of messing up other categories. The most parsimonious solution seems to be a sortkey in the railroad categories only, using the names as you see fit according to your guidelines; that way you won't mess up other categories or have to use an unnecessary sortkey for non-railroad categories. I don't see any consensus to bring WP:COMMONNAME to categories and regardless, the common name of the Sussex Railroad is not just "Sussex," nor is the common name of the Sussex Mine Railroad "Sussex Mine." --Rkitko ^(talk) 01:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that the vast majority of categories on railroad articles are either railroad-related or will not be affected by this sorting, so a DEFAULTSORT makes sense. It's rare that one comes across a situation like this, where the name of the railroad is a single word that other members of the category also begin with. It you look through Category:Defunct New Jersey railroads, you can see how the railroads beginning with "New" are all sorted by their component words rather than what punctuation or conjunctions they have, and then New York Central Railroad is before New York Central and Hudson River Railroad. --NE2 02:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Lynchburg Northeast Regional Service?

According to Amtrak, a new train from Lynchburg,VA to Washington will be put into service this October. Most people agree that this will be another Northeast Regional train and that it won't terminate in Washington but rather continue all the way to Boston, but there is no proof Amtrak's going to do this yet. Do you think it's safe to assume that this train will be a Northeast Regional? I can't imagine it being called anything else, even if it did terminate in Washington. I would like to start editing the templates to show the Lynchburg branch, but I'm not sure if I have enough evidence to back this up. If there are any other references out there besides the Amtrak announcement please post them. Murjax (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Just wait until it starts... --NE2 19:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Train Wrecks

I saw that the metro wreck that happened in DC was added quickly, but figured I would pass along to you all about the train wreck that happened last Friday. Incase you all would like to create an article on it. I don't do much writing anymore, but thought this might be something important to write about. I did add it to the Train wreck list though. [5]--Kranar drogin (talk) 04:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Here's the article, for anybody who's interested. In the meantime, I wonder if anybody has ever considered articles on the 1950 LIRR train accidents in Rockville Centre and Kew Gardens Stations. ----DanTD (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Italian locomotives

Is there an article that covers the class of loco that 655 175 belongs to? This was the loco (appears at 1m09s) involved in the accident at Viareggio last night.

Italian Wikipedia seems to have a comprehenive article. [6] Edgepedia (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

And a translation can be found at FS Class E656. Edgepedia (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, both articles updated. Mjroots (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

RR History needs help!

History of rail transport in North America could be the worst article on an important topic I've ever come across in Wikipedia, and History of rail transport in the United States comes pretty close! The former appears to have started as a badly written term paper, dumped in wholesale and then wikified with little improvement (it starts with 1865, and then moves swiftly to 1829 in England). And the latter is just pathetically short-- there's a better history at Rail transport in the United States, which optimistically starts with Further information: History of rail transport in the United States, even though there is, in fact, less info there.

I know that historic overviews are hard to write, but these articles seem too important to be allowed to languish is such a sorry state. I'm sorry to carp, but this really isn't my area of expertise, otherwise I'd be happy to work on them. -- Mwanner | Talk 12:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It is ridiculously bad, isn't it? From the first section, where Stephenson's "rocket" (sic) is described, the paragraph continues: "..his design needed only wood or coal and water for power. This made the feasibility of cost effective rail production a possibility." Huh?

Remembering the narrative is currently in England, the next sentence is rather confusing: "In 1860, there was only approximately 30,000 miles (48,000 km) of rails, which predominantly existed in the Northeast, South and Midwest." OK...I but didn't think England was quite that large! (Lands End to John o' Groats is about 840 miles, so 30,000 miles is the equivalent of a 35-track main line from one end of the country to the other! Actually, checking History of rail transport in Great Britain 1923–1947 there were 19,585 route miles in 1923.)

Being serious now, this article needs a re-write from the ground up, and it needs someone with a passion for the history of US railways to write it. That's how the GB equivalent now stretches to five articles, and even then the coverage is patchy (hence scanning two articles before the mileage figure was found.)

I am rapidly realising that WP is a good source for detailed information, but sometimes hopeless for the higher-level coverage.

EdJogg (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I might have a go at this. If I don't, others may find timeline of Class I railroads (1910–1929) and related articles useful for getting a general feel for the evolution of U.S. railroads. --NE2 14:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I started on it, but I seem to have hit a wall. Anyone else want to help? --NE2 16:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

CONT icons

The CONT icons are being renamed, please see User:Chrisbot for more details. In the mean time all users are asked to use the icon names that are shown at User:Chrisbot/Work status even if it seems illogical. They will change from time to time so please check every time before you use a CONT icon. It is in the good cooperation of all that this will work out. ChrisDHDR 16:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Rail transport in India FAR

I have nominated Rail transport in India for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Infobox trouble: company or railroad?

A peculiar problem has cropped up on Indian Railways. The article at present uses the company infobox, which does not provide rail-related details. On the other hand, the rail infobox leaves no scope for providing all the details of the company. Should more parameters be added to the rail infobox template to solve this problem? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

One possibility would be a separate section to talk about the company's finances in detail, with infobox company there. I was doing this on BNSF Railway but got sidetracked and never actually wrote the section. --NE2 14:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Are all private railways notable?

In particular, I'm not sure about Meadows and Lake Kathleen Railroad. --NE2 16:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

While not commenting categorically, this example doesn't seem to be too notable, no. The only real notablity that it may seem to posses is its status as a minimum gauge railroad, which may be unique in Oregon, but it doesn't assert that in the article. Seems to me to be borderline at best, but I'd say hold off on deletion, as it may turn up in some tourist-train-related travel guide or article. Could use alittle more NPOVing, too. oknazevad (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Chemins de Fer de Provence

I've tried to improve this article by adding a diagram. It needs to be normally displayed as collapsed at the moment but I've got something wrong in the coding and can't work out what it is. Would an editor experienced in this sort of thing take a look and tweak it please? Mjroots (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done I fixed it myself :-) Mjroots (talk) 07:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Snowplows/Snowploughs

The snowplow article says nothing about rail mounted snowploughs. Per the talk page are there any editors who can expand the article? Mjroots (talk) 04:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I wish I could. The most I can do there is add another image I have. ----DanTD (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

MARC Color bars

User:007bond has created two separate pages for the MARC Brunswick Line and Penn Lines, yet the color bars for stations along these lines continues to lead users strictly to the main article. How can they be relocated to the specific lines? ----DanTD (talk) 21:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Fishplates

Re the article on joining rail tracks by means of fishplates (Fishplate).

I am rather surprised to find that flitchplates are not mentioned at all, as I understood that "fish" is a colloquial and quick way to say "flitch." GGBiscuit (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Flitch beam makes reference to "flitch plates".

If you have a reference for your assertion, feel free to include it.

EdJogg (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Virgin Pendolino nameplate

Do you need further name plates of the Virgin Pendolino trains? I have a picture of the nameplate of the Virgin Enterprise. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 00:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

DLR rolling stock

I would like to suggest adding technical information regarding the DLR rolling stock like the speed, etc. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 00:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Irc Channel

Are you still using the IRC channel #wikipedia-trains-en? If you are what time are most of you guys are on that channel? --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 00:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Washington Metro GAR notification

Washington Metro has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Can someone help me find a book?

The only early "Annual Report on the Statistics of Railways in the United States" that Google Books does not have is the 28th report for the year ending June 30, 1915. It would be very much appreciated if someone could check whether a local library has it and get some information from it about the Class I railroads for User:NE2/Class I table, List of Class I railroads, and Timeline of Class I railroads (1910–1929). --NE2 02:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Allegedly the local university has a run from 1911-1953, but I don't know when I'll get a chance to get over there. Mackensen (talk) 02:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Requesting assistance

Can somebody help at User talk:Wuhwuzdat#Reporting marks? He seems to think the Illinois Railway Museum has reporting mark IRYM. --NE2 19:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

See page 8, of appendix A, Here. WuhWuzDat 19:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Those "railroad codes" are not all reporting marks. For example, they list CSX, not CSXT. --NE2 01:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Can you comment on this template I've made

Hello WikiProject Trains. You have been invited to join WikiProject trains, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the Train-related articles on Wikipedia. You received this invitation due to your interest in, or edits relating to or within the scope of the project. If you would like to join or just help out a bit, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of project members. If you know someone who might be interested, please pass this message onto others by pasting this code into their talk page: == [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Software|WikiProject train]] Invite == {{subst:Software train|~~~~}} Thanks, Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 16:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Pictures request

I would like to request the following pictures

• Interior of the Virgin trains Pendelino
• London Overground Turbostar train

Thanks,
Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 16:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)