Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2011, 2

Urbanrail.net

I was going to remove an urbanrail.net (http://www.urbanrail.net/) reference, per WP:SPS and WP:CIRCULAR, but then discovered that there are hundreds of references to the website, and several other references quoting books and other works by Robert Schwandl (its maintainer). Is it me being paranoid, or can anyone vouch for the website? Tim PF (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Schwandl has written several books; for instance I have one called Metros in Scandinavia. As far as I have been able to tell, it is as good a reliable source as any other railway book. I have not found any factual inaccuracies at all in there. If his web site is as reliable, I don't know, but I still haven't found anything erroneous there. The line of thought is that if a person is a RS for books, a web cite they keep in the same field is also RS. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You mention WP:CIRCULAR - why do you believe that urbanrail.net falls within "sources that mirror or use [Wikipedia]"? --Redrose64 (talk) 12:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Because it is unclear from where the information is sourced (although it clearly includes from third parties), and I thought I saw some similar wording to here (but I might have mixed that up with another reference). I may have another look in the next day or so, but even then, it might be a case of WP:COPYVIO here, rather than the other way around. Tim PF (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have some examples of similar wording? Plagiarism of wikipedia does happen, although I looked at a random handful of pages on urbanrail.net and they each had copyright notice (which named the author) predating most wikipedia content, which would be unusual compared to other sites which mirror wikipedia, but certainly doesn't rule it out. Where plagiarism happens, it can often span a "family" of articles - are there any particular areas of concern? Happy to have a closer look... bobrayner (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

No (as I wrote before, I might have mixed that up with another reference), and I note that the website's style is quite different. As for the copyright notice, I've just checked a few pages, and they all appear to have content that post-dates the copyright notice. Tim PF (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

railroadsignals.us

Hi railfans,

What is your opinion of the utility of railroadsignals.us? A COI editor added it to a bunch of pages today, which were promptly reverted. Researching shows it is on a handful of other pages. It likely passes WP:EL (though not WP:RS), but.. does it offer something that doesn't exist elsewhere? Are there copyright issues? Does it offer utility? It doesn't seem like outright spam, so the overall suitability is best left up to knowledgeable folks like yourselves. tedder (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Categories for stations which are no longer open

A WP:CFD regarding Category:Defunct railway stations and its subcategories has been raised at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 30#Category:Defunct railway stations. Please discuss there. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Didn't we just have one of these? —GFOLEY FOUR— 14:5Ĺ, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. I've added some links to the CFD discussion; please comment on this matter there, nůt here. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Reopened

• The above CFD closed as no consensus on some, cleanup on others and the closing admin has raised a fresh CFD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 June 7#Disused railway stations by country. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Information needed

I've started work on Canoe River train wreck. Sourced information will be welcome, and I'll double what I paid the last guys (unhappily, they did not get paid). Better yet, any images which are arguably in the public domain. I think I can get this at least to GA, maybe to FA, not sure yet. Please reply here, or better, on my talk page. Most of what I have is either contemporary clippings or is by Diefenbaker's biographers.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Athens Metro

An issue regarding the Athens Metro and ISAP articles was brought up at WP:AN#Athens Metro the other day. Although it was decided that no admin intervention was needed, these two articles may benefit from fresh eyes on them. Mjroots (talk) 05:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

East African railways and their ferries

I've created articles for Kenya and Uganda Railways and Harbours and the East African ferries MV Kabalega, MV Pemba, MV Uhuru, MV Victoria, PS Lugard II, PS Speke, SS Robert Coryndon, SS Rusinga and SS Usoga. I've also revised and expanded articles for the Uganda Railway, East African Railways and Harbours Corporation, Uganda Railways Corporation, MV Kaawa and MV Umoja.

However, the Kaawa, Kabalega and Pemba articles still lack a lot of basic technical data. I have been unable to find out what company in what country built them, at what dates and what their yard numbers, dimensions and tonnages are. There are also remarkably disparate claims as to how many railway wagons each ferry can carry – although of course this may depend on the length of the wagons.

The Uganda Railway also had paddle steamers called PS Stanley (1910) and PS Grant (1925) that I think plied the Victoria Nile and Lake Kyoga and PS Lugard (1927) that plied the Albert Nile until Lugard II replaced her. Unfortunately I've been unable to find enough material online to create articles for any of these ships, so I would be grateful for any help in this direction. Motacilla (talk) 13:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I've copied this post over to WT:SHIPS, where it may get better results. Mjroots (talk) 08:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I have a very practical guide to travel in Africa, from 1932 as I recall. I'll see what I can dig up. May be a few days.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I have recently created History of rail transport in Tanzania, which is mainly a translation of the Geschichte section of de:Schienenverkehr in Tansania. Similar articles about Kenya and Uganda are on my "to do" list. I also have copies of the two Permanent Way books by M F Hill, and Mohamed Amin's picture book, and will expand all three articles in due course using material sourced from those books. Bahnfrend (talk) 02:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have found my copy of The South and East African Year Book and Guide for 1932. There is at least some discussion of railways and steamers in Kenya, Uganda and Tanganika. If any of you would like to email me and state what you are looking for, I will be happy to send you some page scans. I bought the book at the Spui bookmarket in Amsterdam, of all places. Reference books always come in handy sooner or later!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Franco-crosti boilered 9F BR locomotives

I have no knowledge with which to evaluate the accuracy of this post at the Editor Assistance Request board pointing out an apparent contradiction or inaccuracy in BR Standard Class 9F 92020-9. See WP:EAR#Franco-crosti boilered 9F BR locos for details. I would be very appreciative if someone who knows something about trains could take a look at the article and thought this would be the place to ask. --Danger (talk) 15:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done, see here. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Shanghai Metro wikiproject

There's a proposal to create a Shanghai Metro wikiproject, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Shanghai Metro. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 08:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thorrington has two r's

Didn't want to change it if it was 'wrong' for a reason, but Thorrington has two r's Thorington_railway_station

Its right in the text, but the page title is wrong, and noticed it wrong on the Alresford rail page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.68.66 (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2011

• The best place for making observations like this is on the article's discussion page, i.e. Talk:Thorington railway station. I've copied the above to that page, and replied there. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Category:Standard gauge railways in England

I wondered why this category exists. Even deducting the former broad gauge GWR mileage that was "standardised" this must cover the majority of track in England. If you do include ex GWR broad gauge mileage then I would think that it would cover such a high percentage of English track mileage that it's not very helpful. Comments? Britmax (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It was created as part of the categorization of railways by gauge following disruption by a banned editor. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2011, 1#Track gauge issues for the full story. The category for the United Kingdom was split into three due to size issues (Northern Ireland does not use SG). Mjroots (talk) 12:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, RL took over yesterday. Thanks for the note, that does clarify things somewhat. Britmax (talk) 09:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Lackawanna Cut-Off

The Lackawanna Cut-Off article has been brought up at WP:DRN. Maybe some fresh eyes on the matter will help resolve the dispute? Mjroots (talk) 08:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

New article - 1944 Ilford rail crash

I've just started 1944 Ilford rail crash, moved Ilford rail crash into a disambiguation page and moved its content to 1915 Ilford rail crash. If anyone wants to add to my feeble stub, please do. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Track gauges and conversions: real or bogus

Please see Template talk:RailGauge#Verifiability. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Need help

Hi, I need to place {{WP India}} in Category:Rail transport in India . Can anyone help me ? --naveenpf (talk) 03:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it's been done. Mjroots (talk) 04:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Category:Indian regional rail systems

Anybody know why this is empty or what it covered? Simply south...... digging mountains for 5 years 09:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

No idea , but it's creator is now inactive. TfD candidate? Mjroots (talk) 10:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

At a guess, I'd say it had a similar purpose to Category:Zones of Indian Railways. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Lightweight rail

can someone cleanup Lightweight rail ? (or redirect it to light rail) It's up for deletion 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Redirect to British Rail Class 139 or Parry People Movers? It's what I get from a goggle search for "lightweight rail"? Edgepedia (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The article needs to be deleted because it contains a lot of original research and blatant bogus. Once deleted, a suitable redirect to light railway is most appropriate, as that article specifically deals with all types of rail transport considered "light", not just one particular model. Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The article looks like a direct translation of an earlier revision of the Norwegian article. It reads like a fanboy essay, and the user who wrote it maintains his own website on this type of trains. --Eisfbnore ^talk 17:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Now at Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lightweight rail Edgepedia (talk) 08:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Jericho Park (pre-MARC station)?

I've been doing some research for a future article on the Amtrak Chesapeake, when I stumbled upon a former railroad station in Maryland called "Jericho Park"(http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19801026&item=0020) between Odenton (MARC station) and the Bowie Railroad Buildings. It's mentioned in the segment on "Connecting Local Rail Passenger Services in the Northeast," and besides MBTA Commuter Rail and the Long Island Rail Road, it shows systems that evolved into Metro-North Railroad, New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, SEPTA Regional Rail, and MARC Train. So what was the story with that one? ----DanTD (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Dan, my assumption is that "Jericho Park" is a former name for what is now Bowie State (MARC station), since that station is on Jericho Park Road. I haven't dug anything up to confirm that yet. By the way, glad to hear you're working on a Chesapeake article! Mackensen (talk) 11:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
• Here's something: [1]. It's a PRR instruction for snow removal and such in the Chesapeake region from 1957. On page 19 it lays out the duties for a "M. J. Ameling" in Bowie, MD: "MP 116 to MP 121 Bowie Interlocking to Bowie Yard. Outlying Switches at Jericho Park, Bowie and Patuxent...Station Platforms--Jericho Park, Bowie and Patuxent."--Mackensen (talk) 11:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Gauge categories revisited

Should I add Category:Standard gauge railways in Canada to Canadian National Railway, despite the fact that they had 3'6" gauges on Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia in the past? Also, the Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne and Chicago Railway is listed as having standard gauge in the infobox, but has the category of a 4"10" gauge of some sort. What's up with that one? ----DanTD (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the idea behind the categories was that the referred to the lines, rather than the companies that operated them. As for the PFW&C, that needs the category altering. The 4'10" category is for lines above standard gauge but below 4'10½" gauge. Mjroots (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that the upper limit of the category is less than 4'11", so as to include Toronto gauge (58.875). Useddenim (talk) 12:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

That gauge should be under Category:5ft gauge railways. Mjroots (talk) 09:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Already been discussed and agreed upon. The 4-10 cat. is defined as This is a category for all railways above standard gauge (1,435 mm) and under 4' 11" (1,500 mm) gauge . You even agreed to the change yourself two months ago! (See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains > Toronto 4 foot 10-7/8 inch gauge > Category redefinition.) Useddenim (talk) 11:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

So I did! Oh well, put it down to a senior moment. Mjroots (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Metra experts needed

An anonymous IP(67.173.175.77) has been posting opening years throughout articles on Metra stations. While some of them seem plausible, others are doubtful, and in some cases don't seem right at all. Can anybody here provide concrete evidence of accurate original opening dates? ----DanTD (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Article Review: DB Citynightline

Hallo, I have changed the "DB City Night Line" article. Could anyone review it and maybe remove the "Stubb" comment? I would also be grateful for comments on it.

Another topic: The name "DB City Night Line" itself is wrong: The brand name is simply "City Night Line" without DB (the "DB XY is only used for what DB calls "Brands" like DB Regio. Products like ICE, IC, CNL, CallaBike etc. have no DB. Can anyone rename it?

Thanks for your help, --Alex 60489 (talk) 11:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alex, I've moved it for you. It would help in future when referring to an article to place it square brackets so we get a link to it - i.e. City Night Line.

It looks like a lot of work, but the first and biggest problem is the lack of sources. The policy here is everything is available in reliable sources. What is acceptable as a reliable source can be found at the WP:RS page, and how to cite these sources can be found at WP:CITE. It's important not to copy text but to re-write it with a neutral point of view. (See NPOV)

One question, I'm seeing [1] and [2] in the text. How did they get there? Edgepedia (talk) 11:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a translation of the German article right? I've added back in the two refs. We need to tag the source of this. Edgepedia (talk) 11:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I've put a hatnote on this article and CityNightLine. Have I got the relationship right ? Edgepedia (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Please remember to add links to the translated page - see Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia#Translating_from_other_language_Wikimedia_Projects - Template:Translated page and Template:Translation/ref can be used.Imgaril (talk) 09:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Also the article uses images from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:CityNightLine - but this page claims to be about the Swiss train service - can someone please sort out this category - there needs to be a new category.Imgaril (talk) 10:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Two proposed deletions :

Proposed deletion of List of World's Main locomotives

The article List of World's Main locomotives has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Synthesis/original research - no clear definition of "World's Main locomotives" - also an impossible article to complete if anything other than current locomotives are included, and would have related issues of keeping up to date if only current "Main locomotives" are included. Impossible to verify(?) - arbitrary list?

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Imgaril (talk) 09:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of World's main railway diesel engines

The article World's main railway diesel engines has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Synthesis/original research - no clear definition of "World's main railway diesel engines" - Impossible to verify(?) - arbitrary list? How is "main" defined?

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Imgaril (talk) 09:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Both are lists of unclear meaning which are either difficult to verify, or would end up as a list of practically (50% of) everything..Imgaril (talk) 09:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment

Good prods. I stumbled across those before and just walked away because it would have taken so much effort to fix/complete them. I think wikipedia is better off without them; they'd be a timesink (and a source of controversy) at best. bobrayner (talk) 10:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Barstow, CA Harvey House & Western America RR Museum revisited

Within the past two years, I was able to gain support for the merging of two stations into two others; In the Autumn of 2009, I called for the merger of Wellesley Hills (Boston and Albany station) into Wellesley Hills (MBTA station). The next year I revised my call to merge Marshall (Amtrak station) with the Texas and Pacific Railroad Depot (Marshall, Texas), and many of you convinced me that the Amtrak station name should be merged into the T&P Depot name. What both of these stations have in common is that the duplicates had the same addresses as the articles they were merged into. It just so happens that the Harvey House Railroad Depot in Barstow, California(http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=am/am2Station/Station_Page&code=BAR) has the same address as the Western America Railroad Museum(http://www.barstowrailmuseum.org/). So if the Barstow Route 66 "Mother Road" Museum, which shares the same building but not the same address isn't a factor, why can't the Western America Railroad Museum be a chapter in the Harvey House Railroad Depot? ----DanTD (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Dead links to NTSB reports

G'day all; like aviation-related articles, some rail articles use National Transportation Safety Board accident reports as sources. The NTSB changed all the URLs for these reports a few weeks back, with the result that when the refs are clicked a page saying "where's my cheese?" is now displayed. The old URLs are "ntsb.gov/publictn/[yyyy]/"; if you change this to "ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/[yyyy]/" as in this edit, the link will work again. I have done this about 15 times so far in air crash articles, maritime accident articles, rail-related articles and an article dealing with pipeline accidents, and it fixed the link each time, although in a couple of cases, for example as in this edit, I had to change ".htm" to ".pdf" as well. However you need to test the links as at the moment the NTSB website has a notice that only reports since 1996 are available so far, and I have found a couple of instances where reports dating from 1996 are not available under the new URL yet. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 01:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone with AWB may be able to help with this as well. Sigma helped me out when I needed a similar correction for a report linked from 50+ MBTA articles. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a job for a bot. try WP:BOTREQ. Mjroots (talk) 05:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

If you don't have AWB or a bot, the list is here. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Meon Valley Line - Wickham station

Although there was a Wickham station on this line there is no article (at least none than I can find) and all links reference Wickham station in NSW, Australia. I am happy to set up a stub for the UK Wickham station based on the limited information I have and fix the links. Not sure how best to name the station to differentiate from Wickham station in NSW. Phileadie (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations) - it would be Wickham (Hants) railway station. What books do you have? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

No books just an interest in disused railways in the South East and the information provided at Disused Station. I'm not an extensive wikipedian but keen for a small project. Phileadie (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well since we kind of stand by WP:V I've knocked up a stub from three books which I do have. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Since you both found it a little confusing, don't you think that "Wickham station" could use a disambiguation page? Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think I am confused? Anyway, no dab page should be necessary - just a hatnote on Wickham railway station. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. Same thing. Thanks. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Tornado Steam Locomotive

The name Tornado was suggested by Allen Levy a Director of New Cavendish Books in 1990.Narisa Chakrabongse Allen Levy's fellow Director was involved with the A1 negotiations at this time Originally in return for a £50,000 donation the locomotive would be named 'New Cavendish'. However formation of the A! Trust was in abeyance and it was Allen Levy who wrote to the then Chairman David Champion and suggested that the project would advance and be more marketable with the name 'Tornado' and the then committee endorsed this suggestion.

New Cavendish produced the original Covenant Forms for the eventual Trust. Both original sponsers attended the first chassis unveiling of Tornado at Darlington in 1996. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.108.196 (talk) 23:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see what your point is. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Representation of service details in station articles

I would like to improve the way train service details are represented in articles about railway stations in the Netherlands and other countries. Old revision of Groningen railway station is an example of the present situation, see the "Train services" section. It's very detailed, every station that you can reach directly from Groningen is listed. But I think especially the table looks horrible, and information is repeated in the succession templates in the same section. I've been testing some ideas on a smaller railway station: Old revision of Meerssen railway station. I've moved the station listings to the succession navbox. The station listings are collapsed for clarity. The navbox retrieves the lists of stations from templates (e.g. {{NS stops 32000}}) to make maintenance easier (if a station is renamed, you only have to change it in a few places). Before I do the same in other articles: do you think this is an improvement, and are there things that could be improved further? Probably the Dutch expressions "sneltrein" and "stoptrein" should be translated, and I'm not sure the train series numbers (32000 and 32100 in the example) should be shown. Markussep ^Talk 13:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

For a lot of stations in the US, the navboxes are compressed and put in the infobox, which clears the text area. See North Station for an example. Even though sometimes the infobox is longer than the article, I like that look. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Again the template is overloaded with extras. All that a succession box needs to do is say what the line is and indicate the previous and next station. Those articles that are linked from the template should contain the detailed information. Thanks for converting the NS infobox to a standard one. Sw2nd (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

One problem is that unlike in Germany and in the Boston example Pi quoted, in the Netherlands the train series numbers are virtually unknown to the public. You won't find them in the timetables on the stations, and train routes aren't known by names (like in Boston, or the London Underground) either. I agree with Sw2nd that detailed info should be in an article like Train routes in the Netherlands. But I guess it's not a bad thing to show the station listings in the station article as well, as long as it's the same data. It helps readers to see where you can go from a station at a glance. Markussep ^Talk 20:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia is not a timetable or Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Sw2nd (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you mean this section "Don't repeat information unnecessarily. If information is presented in an article on a line, it does not necessarily need to be repeated in an article about a station (or vice versa). Consider whether the information is appropriate to the station in particular, or the line in general, and place it accordingly. Links between articles should allow a reader to obtain all of the information." from the first guideline. Good point. We don't have articles for the individual train routes, and the Train routes in the Netherlands currently only shows the main intermediate stations. What do you suggest we do? Markussep ^Talk 08:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Dutch railway services seems to list all the stations, not only the intermediate ones. Fram (talk) 08:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice! I think the middle section of the succession template should link to this article, see what I've done at Meerssen railway station now. I modified the {{NS Sneltrein lines}} and {{NS Stoptrein lines}} templates for this (currently only for those two routes). Markussep ^Talk 08:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Markussep, that looks great! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2011/August/18#Rail_-.3E_Rail_transport — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imgaril (talk • contribs) 17:05, 28 August 2011‎

Category tree up for discussion

An editor has proposed changing the Category:Rail transport in the United States and subcategories to use the word "transportation" instead of "transport" using WP:ENGVAR as his rationale. This editor has made several other proposals related to categories for other modes of transportation as well. Please take a moment to join the discussion. Slambo (Speak) 11:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Lists of railway accidents - flags

Bobrayner (talk · contribs) has removed all flags from the various lists of railway accidents, claiming WP:MOSFLAG as the rationale. The recent RfC on the issue did not come down against such use of flags. As a number of lists are affected, this is best discussed in a central venue. Should the lists use flags or not? Mjroots (talk) 04:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:MOSFLAG, "In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when the nationality of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself." I think that that comment applies here. A comparative study of the frequency and severity of railway accidents in various different countries is one possible purpose of the various lists, and is made a bit easier with flagicons, in much the same way that analogue watch faces and dials make extraction of the information they are displaying easier to achieve than from digital displays of the same data. Bahnfrend (talk) 09:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I would disagree; there's nothing particularly "national" about these accidents unless you adopt a nationalism so broad as to require a cute little flag picture on every person, every place, every organisation, and every event. These are lists of railway accidents, not lists of countries or embassies (or even railway ministries) and they have been saturated with little pictures of flags. I would also point out that some of the flags were not even national ones.

Just in case anybody takes mjroots' comments at face value, let me clarify the history of this problem with some diffs:

• In May I removed flagcruft from a list of railway accidents. There's nothing particularly "national" about the accidents, and they failed on two separate points of policy at that time. The policy rightly said:

Do not emphasize nationality without good reason
Wikipedia is not a place for nationalistic pride. Flags are visually striking, and placing a national flag next to something can make its nationality or location seem to be of greater significance than other things...

— Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons

• Mjroots disagreed with my policy interpretation, arguing that the restrictions didn't apply because it wasn't a biographical article. This is incompatible with the actual text of WP:MOSFLAG at that time. Flags were reverted back into the article, and an RfC started.
• At the RfC, Mjroots proposed that policy be reworded to permit flags in lists like this. The proposal got six opposes and zero supports. (Other proposals to remove flags from lists got much more support). If the current text of WP:MOSFLAG gives some readers the opposite impression, perhaps the text should be fixed so it better reflects the consensus. I find it very difficult to reconcile that discussion with mjroots' comment above that "The recent RfC on the issue did not come down against such use of flags".

If mjroots would like to start a fresh discussion at WT:MOSFLAG, and make a second attempt at introducing something which was unanimously opposed last time, I would be happy to join that discussion. (It would be appropriate to notify all the people who opposed last time, to avoid giving the impression of making an end-run around an earlier consensus). Policies don't have to be set in stone, and consensus can change. However, at any future WT:MOSFLAGS discussion, as in this thread, I would oppose the ongoing proliferation of thousands of little flag pictures attached to non-national items, especially when these pictures replace rather than supplement the written name of the country. bobrayner (talk) 11:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Evidently there was already a discussion there. In any case, I don't think of the use of flags as an issue of nationalistic pride. I honestly doubt there are going to be that many people proud of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, or the Confederate States of America, but if the accidents took place in these former nations the flags should stay. ----DanTD (talk) 13:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I would support the use of a flag icon in lists. Aspects of WP:MOSFLAG itself are hotly debated and, whilst, there is generally agreement about certain excessive usages, there is clearly no genuine consensus about use in infoboxes or lists, so it should not be used to make blanket changes IMHO until such consensus is reached. --Bermicourt (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

My position is the same as Bermicourt's. Per WP:BRD, I've skipped the R bit and gone straight to D. It's not an issue worth edit warring over and something that wasn't formally decided at the RfC. Despite asking at AN several times, nobody actually closed the RfC. I suppose that defaults to "no consensus to change existing practice". Mjroots (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no comment about whether flags are appropriate and in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines in the various lists of railway accidents. However, I must comment that they have been an important identifier of the country in which each accident occurs. If the flags are removed, it is very important that the country name remains. Otherwise, key information is lost to our readers. Don't just remove the flag template, replace it with the country name. Truthanado (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Single track again

There are other features that have now been added to the RDTs such as level crossings and summits. I just think in some situations, not on all templates though, it may be useful to show when the track is a single track. I know this has been discussed a while ago but I would like like to reopen this debate again. I have created File:BSicon_STRs.png which someone kindly converted to .svg so it needs a little tweaking to make it continuous but what do others think? Simply south...... eating shoes for 5 years So much for ER 11:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Stourbridge Town branch line
Stourbridge Canal Stourbridge Basin Foster Street Stourbridge Town Parkfield Road Junction Road B'ham to Worcester via Kidderminster line to Birmingham Brook Road connection only for empty stock workings Stourbridge Junction B'ham to Worcester via Kidderminster line to Worcester via Kidderminster

Sounds like a good idea to me, though we will need an awful lot of icons, and your current version to my mind is quite a bit too wide. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I can see that icons for single line would be useful. The suggested one does not please the eye though. May I suggest an alternate red and white line, with red being ¼, white being ½ and red being ¼ the icon length. That way, the transition from double track to single track and back can easily be shown. Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Now uploaded a newer version of the PNG. Simply south...... eating shoes for 5 years So much for ER 20:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

While I think it's a good idea in principle, the use of hashmarks to show single track actually makes that portion of the diagram wider, which doesn't read as single track to me, as single track is inherently narrower. I think the icon needs a rethink, but sadly I cannot think of anything other than a thinner line, which would be difficult to distinguish and therefore useless. oknazevad (talk) 04:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree; the hashmarks are not a very clear symbol and lay readers might get the impression that it's something else entirely. These templates should be clear, readable, and unambiguous. Alternating/dashed lines are sometimes used to show infrastructure under construction. bobrayner (talk) 07:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Example
A single line B

 (POINTERl) and a text note should do the trick. Useddenim (talk) 12:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree - an arrow indicates a point, not a stretch. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no perfect solution. A thinner line may not be perfect - it may not always be clear to readers - but it's intuitive and it won't mislead anyone. bobrayner (talk) 13:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I always thought that  (KMW) and   (STRSUMMITl) were used to denote specific features, while the (POINTER) set was simply there to, well, point out a particular line on a complicated diagram.
Also, the French have created some thin-line icons, including   (STR-C) and   (STRq-C). Useddenim (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That looks fine to me. However, we should be wary of creating a zillion new junction images with all the permutations of single and double track... bobrayner (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree absolutely. Which I why I haven't put any of them into the RDT Catalogs (or even included into the BSicon Category). Useddenim (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I think there's a danger of the diagrams getting ideas above their station here (!) and turning into colossal complex track plans. For this reason I would avoid this development at all costs personally. Britmax (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Before anybody puts those french icons into catalogues, or seeks to create more in the same style, please be aware that they were created using Adobe Illustrator, and contain an awful lot of pointless code, including binary data. One vertical red stripe can be done using just three SVG elements - <svg ...><title>...</title><path ... /></svg> - and there is much, much more than that in these files. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The original version I suggested I thought would only really needed to the straight sections and I was trying to create the icon based off what I'd seen in the British Railway Atlas. Couldn't something similar be done (for those who have the book, I misjudged it)? Simply south...... eating shoes for 5 years So much for ER 19:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, thinking about it, Britmax is right. These are supposed to be quick reference diagrams, not full scale track maps showing every detail. Frankly, some of the grade crossings, overpasses, highways, etc could easily be removed as trivial. These were never meant to be that comprehensive. oknazevad (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with comprehensive, particularly for the smaller lines. Maybe one way around the issue is for each station article to have a detailed diagram for that stretch of line from the station before to the station after it, leaving actual line diagrams less detailed. Obviously it could get a bit complicated with junction stations, but maybe worth considering? Mjroots (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

One of the best things about these templates is that they're versatile. At one end of the spectrum they can show the entire network of a country; at the other end of the spectrum they're sometimes used for relatively local maps which are verging on track-layout levels of detail. Neither application is perfect but I think the current system is a good compromise, and it's nice to have the existing images in the toolbox "just in case"; removing them is unlikely to benefit us much and likely to amage some existing maps. bobrayner (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Heilmann locomotive

A bit of an oddity, a steam-electric locomotive. I've made a start at Heilmann locomotive, but assistance in further improving the article is welcome, particularly in expanding the infoboxes and fully describing the power system. Mjroots (talk) 05:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Well done - I think the common name/proper for the first one mentioned is La Fusée Electrique, (Le Fuséee is a transliteration of "The Rocket"). eg eg the name etc

I've added some external links - which contain more info if someone wants to use it in the article.

There's a stunning photo (with the Eiffel tower in the background for good measure) in [2] which contains a useful bibliography for anyone wishing to write the biography.Imgaril (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

... re the name . I added a link to [3] which is as reliable as french sources get I think, not sure where exactly I should have put the link.. Also see p.307 for a period link.

All (95%) the french language links use this, as did one portuguese reference.. There are a few french references that exclude the "electricque" (inlcuding fr:Jean-Jacques Heilmann (inventeur). Also note that the french transliterate "The Rocket" and call it "La Fusée" and not "La rocket" .Imgaril (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Which date of the race is correct?

I was asked a question on my talk page which is outside my knowledge:

There are many links that containing several different dates of the race between Tom Thumb (locomotive) and the horse. Wich date is correct August 18 1830 [4] [5] [6] or September 18 1830 [7] [8] or August 25 1829 [9]? If August 25 1829 is not the date of the race then there is a mistake in Wikipedia here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1829_in_rail_transport. Blast furnace chip worker (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If someone knows the correct answer or which source is the most authoritative (not necessarily one of those listed) to please post a reply on the article talk page: Talk:Tom Thumb (locomotive) -- PBS (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

New navbox

The purpose of this may not be clear to those not familiar with EU Directive 91/440 - A few are missing from Europe. I'm not sure if this would make any sense for N. American railroads since they own their own track, no idea about S. America. Please expand, correct etc.Imgaril (talk) 22:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice work. Am tweaking/expanding.

• Are the flags necessary?
• Are we only interested in national railway infrastructure companies, or is there room for regional/local ones? Flags might just work if we think in terms of national rail systems in just the way that EU rail regulation discourages ;-) but the template will get messy quickly if we add non-"national" infracos such as the Raaberbahn.
• Some organisations which count as infracos from a 91/440 perspective may also run some trains - for example Eurotunnel. Include them? Yes? No?

bobrayner (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't actually really like the flags as I don't recognise half of them..- I just bashed it out quickly - maybe the flags should be replaced with the country in brackets? eg how about this test ?

I need some indication of country as it's not clear that Správa železniční dopravní cesty is Czech or REFER is portuguese.. (I imagine I am not the only one).

I see no reason not to include more organisations, maybe there should be separate national and regional infrastructure sections. .. I don't really know just how many entries there would be if that would be done - are there any countries other than germany (maybe spain has a few extra including islands?) that have a lot of "state/city railway organisations" - if not maybe it is just a case of a separate template for those. There are also a few article existing about commercial companies eg COMSA, VolkerRail etc, though that list could get unweildy if it ever gets completed. Probably the template should be limited to organisations that own track, not companies that fix it. Imgaril (talk) 10:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The flagless version is better. Groovy.

Non-retail businesses are one of the areas where articles don't get created as often as they could. (One of my previous employers has over €100Bn of assets but it's still a redlink). If you picked a 1980s cartoon character at random, or a census-designated place in the USA, there would certainly be an article about it - and of course we get articles about every railway station, even ones that fall far short of the GNG - but out of all the railway construction/repair contractors that would pass WP:CORP I would be surprised if more than 1% had articles. Right now you could put all our articles on infrastructure contractors on a single line of that template, but if somebody actually got round to writing articles on them, they'd fill a whole page... bobrayner (talk) 10:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As for Eurotunnel - I'm not that familiar with it but I think the answer is yes seems to say that "Eurotunnel" is the 'infrastructure manager' I don't know if it is a subsidiary - there's also the "Channel Tunnel Intergovermental Commission" http://www.channeltunneligc.co.uk which I think is just a regulator . HS1 Ltd is also listed as a infrastructure manager section 2.3 (but they subcontract to Network Rail http://highspeed1.co.uk/what-we-do ) I think a link to High_Speed_1#Operators could be used for that.Imgaril (talk) 10:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking a template organization similar to Template:Professional Baseball, where nested groups of continent then country allow all leagues in a country (and level) might be a good idea. Just a thought. oknazevad (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a good idea (and a pretty template), but alas some railways span borders and wouldn't fit well into such a hierarchical scheme. bobrayner (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, those could go in a "cross-border" section. Of course, I'm not even sure what these organizations are. These are the agencies that actually own the RoWs and tracks, which then contract with the operating companies, correct? It was more just an idea for layout than any firm proposal. oknazevad (talk) 05:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

There's also a lot of tiny european countries which might make the template too long, but I'm not sure if I have understood correctly was was being suggested - I don't think it matters much - if you have more links for the infobox please add them - and the arrangement and format can be sorted out later once we know exactly how much of each type is there...Imgaril (talk) 19:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with the latter. But as for the template getting too long, we can always split it into multiple navboxes of more limited scope (like a dedicated European one) if need be. oknazevad (talk) 05:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably better to let it evolve. If the template gets too big, we can cross that bridge when we get to it (though we could save a lot of space by replacing full names with acronyms). Some of the European microstates either have no railways that would qualify for 91/440; others' railways are managed by a bigger neighbour... bobrayner (talk) 09:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Reply to oknazevad - yes - the tempate is (deliberately?) vague as to what it covers - currently it has the potential to cover "Rail network infrastructure companies" that own and operate the tracks, as well as those that make and mend the tracks (and some do both).. please feel free to add both.Imgaril (talk) 11:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Distributed traction

A request for an article distributed traction (I suppose a wiktionary definition might also be valid, but there is extensive scope for an article) - a start stub would help .. already several potential incoming links [10] with clear scope for growth. volunteers only please ! Imgaril (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Exapansion of LA County Metro Rail Stubs

Because all or most of the 70 Metro Rail station articles are stubs, it would be helpful to include a section for train departure times and distance from other stations. However, the format I am currently using (at Redondo Beach (Los Angeles Metro station)) seems kind of long. If anyone has a brilliant idea to shorten the long lists of departure times, I would be happy to hear from you before I go on to expand the other 69 articles. I've considered a stem-and-leaf plot, but in that case, it might not be easy to write the difference in time since the last departure. Thanks! Pkkao2 (talk) 03:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The easiest way to shorten the lists is to remove them entirely. The LA Metro station that you link seems to have an interval of about 15 minutes off-peak, which is sufficiently frequent that most people won't care about the actual times - they'll just turn up when convenient. Wikipedia is not a travel directory; and to my mind, adding timetable departure times falls foul of that. Sure, add a link to a website which gives the timetable - but if you add the actual times to the Wikipedia articles, they are likely to go out of date pretty quickly. Here in the UK we have two major timetable changes per year (May and December), plus two minor (June and September). I'm afraid I don't know how often the LA Metro timetable changes, but I'll warrant it's not set in stone. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. Including timetable information is likely to set us up for a sisyphean chore (and it practically guarantees that some articles will have the wrong times, sometimes). There are better ways we could spend our time; there are plenty of other rail articles out there which need the basics to be sourced or which need outright fiction or vandalism to be removed. Service frequencies are less dynamic though - it's probably reasonable to say "runs every 15 mins" and link to a timetable on an external site. bobrayner (talk) 11:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the timetable information should not be included. A brief summary, something down the line of "the station is served with a 7.5-minute headway during the morning and afternoon rush, with a 15-minute headway during the day and a 20-minute during the evening" is fine. Similarly, distances to all stations is not necessary, but mention of distance and time to end stations and central hubs is fine. Take a look at Mortensrud (station) for a similar station which has achieved GA status, and the type of information it contains. Unless a central hub or having a long history, a rapid transit station will normally not contain much more information than with Mortensrud. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

They run completely afoul of WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a timetable. I am going to remove them post-haste, as there's clearly sentiment against them here. oknazevad (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

While we're on the discussion of LA Metro Rail stations, maybe we should reformat the infoboxes so that the service templates are included in them. I offer my recent edit in Lincoln/Cypress (Los Angeles Metro station) as an example. One that really needs a lot of work, though is California State University, Los Angeles (Los Angeles Metro station). ----DanTD (talk) 20:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing while looking at the Redondo Beach article. Is their any reason that anyone knows of that the s-line templates aren't I. The infobox? If not, go for it Dan. oknazevad (talk) 02:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I should, and so should other editors. If I could, I'd also find a place for the sentences for the schedules too.

Green Line service hours are approximately from 5:00 AM until 12:45 AM daily.

If the old s-line templates are removed, there has to be a new place for sentences like that. ----04:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, are there s-line templates for the Harbor Transitway anywhere? If not, perhaps somebody should make some. ----DanTD (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It's already covered by the Silver Line succession boxes on the stations along the Harbor Transitwa, isn't it? After the creation of the joint Silver Line, the Transitway no longer appears on maps in a distinct color. And any other bus routes that ply the Transitway serve the same stops, so I don't think any distinct succession boxes are necessary. oknazevad (talk) 05:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Nah, the Harbor Transitway color bars appear to be either Bronze or copper(I can't tell). In any case, I'm going to start working on the Green Line next. ----DanTD (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The Harbor Transitway used to have a bronze/copper color, and the El Monte Busway had silver. But when the single through route Silver Line was introduced, the bronze was dropped and is no longer correct. As such, a separate s-line is not needed; the succession of stations is all one now. oknazevad (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, that should be good to know. Then again, Pacific Coast Highway (Harbor Transitway station) and Carson (Los Angeles Metro station) are still listed as if they're not part of the Silver Line. ----DanTD (talk) 18:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That's because the Silver Line doesn't serve those. They're also, strictly speaking, not part of the Harbor Transitway. They are on the 110 freeway, but not on the segregated roadway that constitutes the Harbor Transitway. They're served by the 450 express bus, which is not part of the MetroLiner BRT routes. As such, they don't need s-line templates. Actually, they had them, but they were recently, and correctly, removed. oknazevad (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Starting new articles on lines.

I am interested in starting new articles on extant and disused rail lines in the USA (on much the same way as every line in the UK has been described). This would enable articles on Depots to be linked to the line they are/were on, and predecessor and succesor railroads to be linked to them (see the UK Far North Line for a good example on this).

I propose to use the publicity maps produced by the railroads themselves in the 1930s to define which are primary and branch lines. The 1930s being the greatest extent of the railroad network in the USA.

When I first did work on Wikipedia this would have been relatively easy. Copy the format from an existing article and edit the text as appropriate. Now I find the existing articles so complex in structure that this is not possible. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why Wikipedia is losing editors.

I would appreciate someone contacting me on my talk page with advice on this issue. I particularly want to draft my articles over a period of several weeks in Word and then paste them into a Wikipedia editing page. This seems now to be a problematic method given the existance of transcluded boxes used to sumerise and illustrate the line.

Thanks in advance for the assistance

--Wickifrank (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

What makes it so difficult? You'll have to make your own route diagram templates, yes, but it's not hard to modify the code from an existing one. templates simplify a lot of the work, especially the s-rail templates.

I would honestly not recommend using Word. Instead, create a page in your userspace like User:Wickifrank/test page and use that to draft the article. When it's done, just move it to the name of the article you want.

I've personally copy-pasted a few stations articles and had a decent time of it. Let me know if you need any help. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with starting an article as a stub article, and then leaving to other editors the task of expanding it. All you need to do is include enough information in the stub article to prevent it from being deleted. In particular, at least one reference from a reliable printed source is highly desirable. Once you've created a few such articles, you can then use them as "copy and amend" precedents for your own further creations. Bahnfrend (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move: Chief Mechanical Engineer

The article Chief Mechanical Engineer has been listed at WP:RM. Please discuss at Talk:Chief Mechanical Engineer#Requested move. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

South Shore-NICTD experts needed

There are two images I was forced to add to the commons sooner than I wanted to;

• File:South Shore NICTD Train on Michigan City street; November 2006-2.jpg
• File:South Shore NICTD Train on Michigan City street; November 2006-3.jpg

I was hoping to give them better names before moving them there, but Fbot tagged them with orphan tags, which I know would've lead to deletion tags later on. What I need to know is the exact locations of each of these pictures. I uploaded two similar ones to the commons a while back, but after some examination, I was able to give them decent names before doing so. Originally all four had names that were worse than that("File:IMG some random numbers.JPG"). So can anybody tell me where these trains are, other than in Michigan City, Indiana? Google Street View isn't helping with those two. ----DanTD (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look. I'm also hoping to request filemover permission on Commons once I get to about 1600 edits (prolly within the month) and if I get that I'd be happy to move em. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay. The first is from about the corner of Chicago Street and West 11th, looking east down 11th. It's a few blocks east of the 11th Street station. Identified by Buffalo Street sign on the left and the curve in the foreground. I can't give you an exact camera location because of the telephoto, but that's pretty close.

Second is taken from about in front of the church at East 11th and Cedar Street. Identified by the reverse curve and the houses in background. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I see the blue house in the second one. I wasn't 100% sure this was the location, because the pic is on a slight grade, and the Google Street View makes it flat, with no evidence of the grade being smoothed out. ----DanTD (talk) 04:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It's also taken with a 135mm telephoto, which makes it different from the wide-angle Street View. Here's my backtracing of the image. The lower line is the stop sign at Lafayette and East 11th (south side) connected with the white sign at 11th, Cedar, and the church alley. The upper line is the corner of the blue house connected with the stop sign at Lafayette and East 11th (north side). Google Earth also shows a 7-foot dropoff between the camera location and the far end of the train, which explains the grade. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Steam Locomotives

We need to get more about my sub-topic (steam locomotives at portal:Steam locomotives), so I would like to request that the page have more content added. That would be a great help to the community! Thanks! Levonscott User talk:Levonscott User:Levonscott 04:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

New Photos for Hamilton Station, New South Wales

Hi. I would like to put some of my photos onto the page for Hamilton railway station, New South Wales. I haven't been able to work out how to add or change photos while adjusting a page. Could someone help me with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.26.241 (talk) 02:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You'll need to register an account before you can upload images. Mjroots (talk) 18:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

What distance from Obskaya to Harasaway?

I'm propose to discuss the contribution "00:20, 28 November 2010 BIL":

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Obskaya%E2%80%93Bovanenkovo_Line&action=historysubmit&diff=399234403&oldid=398992143

He put information that distance from Obskaya to Harasaway is 677 km. What is source of it? I have another information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timotv (talk • contribs) 11:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Here it says that the distance between Bovanenkovo and Kharasavey is 220 km. That makes the total distance Obskaya - Kharasavey 745 km. Markussep ^Talk 12:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

220 km it is unreal distance. Look at the map: http://wikimapia.org/#lat=70.732605&lon=68.6425781&z=8&l=1&m=b&gz=0;668957520;703981355;0;7789873;6976318;6509615;15106201;3145208;17687988;0

- 113 km, as you can see. The real railway path is calculating (rough) by multiplication by 1.2-1.3 (lay of land factor), 135.6 km total. But we must to use lay of land factor more than 1.3, notably 1.4-...-1.8 because I draw the very unlikely path on wikimapia composed of 3 sections only. So 113*1.8=203.4 km. But 220 km is too much. --Timotv (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

That unfortunately falls within original research. Further, straight-line distances are inappropriate - in Wikipedia articles, as with printed books, the distances between railway stations are given as measured along the railway track. Therefore you need for find a reliable source which either states the distance explicitly, or gives the distances from the end of the line of both of these stations, so that a simple subtraction may be made. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The most clever ? :) Bugaga.--Timotv (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

vocabulary of technical terms needed for categorys

Copy from the commons:Smiley.toerist (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I recently made a trip to the Givet - charleville-Mezieres railway. It is a old railway where points are served from a central ground frame. The transmission of the lever movement is very unusual. It is not transmitted with wires but with metal bars. I have uploaded a lot of pictures: see [11]. I see categorys for points and "Levers and drives for points", however no categorys for the transmission of movement/energy?. There where lots wire transmissions with wires but I can find no pictures in the commons about it. What is the correct name for this type of system? What are the names for individual parts like the 90 degree turns based on turning axe?

How should this type of system be metaclassified? Energy transmission system? We have electric transmission, High pressure air transmission, hydraulic transmission, moving belt transmission used in old factorys. Moving wire tramsmission and what about the brake in bicycles? I make the distinction between energie and signal transmission. The signal transmission is when local power is used and energy transmission is when al energy needed for the action is transmitted centraly. Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

On things like this, I often find it useful to turn for help to an appropriate WikiProject on the English-language Wikipedia. - Jmabel ! talk 17:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I suggest Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Here in the US, I'd call that a "mechanical interlocking". See [12]. (Note that in the US, we tend to blur the distinction between the interlocking machine, containing the logic to prevent signals and points from conflicting, and the interlocking plant as a whole, including those points, signals, and their controls.) "Rail transport traffic control" is probably the correct Commons category. In American practice, the metal parts transmitting motion are called "rods"; I believe the part making the 90-degree turn is a bell crank. I suppose the Commons category "Transmissions" could accommodate this, too; I don't know that there are enough pictures to inspire a really detailed subclassification. Choess (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Here in the UK, at those places where mechanical signalling is used, points are always driven by means of rods; wires are only used for signals. This is because the points require much more force to move them, and a wire would break under the tensions that are necessary. Furthermore, the points need to be both pushed and pulled - a rod can do this, but a wire cannot transmit a push, only a pull (signals operated by wires have a counterbalance weight mounted on the signal post which returns the signal when the tension in the wire is released). --Redrose64 (talk) 22:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Mechanical operation of points by the double wire system is common in mainland Europe (double wire because the points are pulled to move them in either direction). The system was occasionally used in Britain to overcome the distance limit imposed by the Board of Trade on the operation of mechanical points by rodding. The items that facilitate 90 degree turns in the rodding are called cranks.–Signalhead ^< T > 22:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I have created the category "Rod transmissions for points". Double wire systems can transmit a considerable force, but the wires have to move a lot more then than the rods to compensate. I suggest "Wire transmissions in railways" for the wire systems (For points and signals).Lets wait until there are pictures to classify.Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

MBTA Orange Line: Route templates

I've created a series of historical route diagrams showing the evolution of the MBTA's Orange Line. I would appreciate comments about where to place them here. Thanks! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Template problems, again

Will somebody fix the colors for Template:METRORail color? All the stations show up white, when the majority should be red. I'm also having trouble finding all the templates that should be added to Category:Minnesota rail succession templates, plus there are Long Island Rail Road and Metro-North Railroad templates that are neither line nor succession templates, and yet they are categorized as one or the other. These have to be moved and split off. ----DanTD (talk) 14:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I've done a quick color fix. Will match the website maps later. Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Named passenger train source(s)

For many of the Lists of named passenger trains in the US, Canada, and Mexico, I found this as a source. It's not necessarily complete, but it has some good info. Let me know if you find any of it useful. ----DanTD (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, for named UK passenger trains, see the November [sic] 2011 issue of The Railway Magazine, pp. 12-46 --Redrose64 (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Systematic deletion of images

User:SchuminWeb seems to be on an fair-use image-deleting campaign against a series of railroad articles. I have reverted some of them for discussion as I think his principles are not entirely consistent with the rationales he is using to justify their removal. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Railroad drumheads. Mangoe (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Deleting unused S-line subpages

I have started a discussion at TfD about what to do with terminal subpages of {{S-line}} that are unused. Feel free to comment. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 21:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Canada Line (Vancouver) Train Specs.

Hopefully someone here may be able to help, as the Rapid Transit project appears to be inactive. There is a current disagreement over the motors used on trains. The page has said for quite some time that the motors are Bombardier MITRAC. However, an editor has recently claimed (with reference to a vague claim on a linkedin profile) that the motor are Mitsubishi Electric (along with the HVAC system). Unfortunately I cannot find reference to either in reliable sources, and TransLink has taken down their canadaline.ca website. Does anyone know which is used, and for that matter have reference to all of the specs of the trains, as there currently is no references period. Any help would be appreciated. Ravendrop 21:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

LinkedIn is entirely a WP:SPS. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Template category name advice

I finally found all templates related to the Buffalo Metro Rail and added them to Category:New York rail succession templates, and there are enough of them to shift them to a new template category. My question is though, should I call this new category Buffalo Metro Rail templates, or should I go with Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority rail templates, in the event that Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority tries to install another railroad in Niagara Falls, New York, whether it's light rail, monorail, people mover, or even Bus Rapid Transit? ----DanTD (talk) 04:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

How about Category:NFTA templates to match the template names, or at least don't include "rail" with the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority, to allow for more flexibilty. Secondarywaltz (talk) 04:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds okay, although it might lead to the addition of other non-rail related NFTA templates added. I'm not sure if I want that or not. ----DanTD (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE - Aw, hell! If I can recommend a Port Authority Trans Hudson template that includes every branch of PATH, I shouldn't complain about non-rail-related templates here. "NFTA templates" it shall be. ----DanTD (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You're too quick for me. I was about to reply: You stated "whether it's light rail, monorail, people mover, or even Bus Rapid Transit". Why would you want multiple categories for one organization? But - never mind. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if NFTA had other rail systems planned for either Buffalo or Niagara Falls. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey doesn't just have PATH. They also have two AirTrains, and inherited switching and terminal railroads in the New York Tri-State Area(New York New Jersey Rail, LLC). ----DanTD (talk) 23:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Fall 2011 Photo Contest

WP:NRHP is having a Fall Photo Contest running from Oct. 21-Dec. 4, 2011. I'd like to encourage anybody who enjoys photography, as well as anybody who is interested in historic places to participate as a photographer, a sponsor, or both.

One way that an individual editor or a project can participate is to sponsor their own challenge. For example, somebody here might want to include a challenge such as "A barnstar will be awarded to the photographer who adds the most photos to the NRHP county lists of previously non-illustrated NRHP sites that include locomotives, rail cars, and train stations." To sponsor a challenge all you need to do is come up with an idea, post it on the contest page, and do the small bit of work needed to judge the winner(s).

Any and all contributions appreciated.

Smallbones (talk) 03:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

French railway signalling - to be modified

Hello,

I noticed a few mistakes in the French railway signalling page but I would like to have advice before initiating a modification.

In section : The signals for "sectionnement" ( in indications for electric locomotives) is correct but the comment "This sign indicates a change of electrical section (change of voltage)" is wrong. The sign indicates only that the engineer will have to open the main circuit breaker to cross a neutral zone with no electrical supply, but it does not mean that a change of current or voltage will follow. On the contrary, most often, current will be the same onwards. The two zones (the one that will be left and the one that will be reached) are fed by two different electric plants (or stations) and for AC current, the phase of one station may differ from that of the other station, which is why a neutral zone has to be implemented.

In the same section, the name of the two next signs (beginning of netural zone and end of neutral zone) are OK. However this comment is only partly correct "...electric locomotives must pass with the main circuit breaker open and pantograph lowered". Indeed main circuit breaker should be open, but there is no need to lower pantograph except if the sign "lower pantograph" is posted. As a consequence, this other comment is partly right "This sign indicates the end of a neutral zone; electric locomotives can close the main circuit breaker open and raise the pantograph". There is no need to raise the "panto" as it may already been raised. Of course, if the engineer has met a sign "lower panto", he will meet another sign "raise panto" after the section.

Hope my technical english is correct ;-) ...

Yves D - Oct 10th 22:11 Paris time

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.112.195.155 (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC) 

Yves, in the American practice I know of, the change of section would be known as a "phase break"; see Overhead lines#Neutral Section (Phase Break). I think changing the phrase "change of voltage" to "change of phase" would be the simplest way to correct the error there. Your second correction seems fine and consistent with the material in the Overhead lines article. Choess (talk) 23:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

GE Boxcabs

Can somebody try to find more info on the GE boxcabs? Thanks Jonathan is me (talk) 23:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Image discussion on Cardinal

I'd like to drum up some discussion at Talk:Cardinal (train)#Image to use in infobox about the sorts of images we ought to use in infoboxes about train routes. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The issue described seems to be pervasive: there are a lot of "pictures of train X" where the only evidence we have is to take the photographer's word for it. I would also note that given the current campaign against fair use every one of those images is likely to be deleted, so we probably should get ahead of the game and start hoping we have alternatives. Mangoe (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The campaigners do have a point--in a situation like that an image adds very little (leaving aside all questions of licensing). Another example would be Maple Leaf, where I was able to replace a Genesis noodling around Toronto with an F40PH crossing the Whirlpool Bridge. I'm trying to assess all the current Amtrak articles since free images should either exist already or can be easily obtained/created. Mackensen (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Holly Springs, Mississippi question

Hello, yesterday I edited Holly Springs, Mississippi, writing it was conquered in the civil war because it had a railroad intersection. Today I wanted to find out which were they. It was easy enough to find Illinois Central Railroad, and finally I tracked down Kansas City, Memphis and Birmingham Railroad as the earliest incarnation of the other line with a WP page. Trying to find its predecessor, I got to some wartime maps and discovered that none such appears there. [13][14][15][16][17] Is it a definite proof the line wasn't there? When was it laid and opened? trespassers william (talk) 01:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The answer to your question is that no, the line wasn't there, to the best of my knowledge. I think Grant moved on Holly Springs to cover Grand Junction, to the north, where the Memphis & Charleston crossed the line down to Jackson. Choess (talk) 06:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Geared steam locomotive

There are effectively no citations for Geared steam locomotive. Can someone add some? Thanks, Jonathan is me (talk) 01:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Airport railway stations

What are the criteria for inclusion in Category:Airport railway stations and its national subcategories? I see that Metro/Airport (VTA) is in Category:Airport railway stations in the United States, while Santa Clara Station (California) isn't - even though neither one is in the airport (San Jose International Airport), and the same bus (VTA bus 10) goes from one to the other via the airport. It seems to me that these 2 articles equally belong in this category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not an exact science, as there are surely border-line cases. Stations at the terminal/within walking distance will always be in the category, as would stations close with a dedicated shuttle service, such as Newark Liberty International Airport (NJT station) (people mover) and Rygge Station (bus). I would generally say that any station marketed as a airport station should be included, although there could be extreme cases which shouldn't. Individual stations may have been overlooked in the categorization process, or placed in a category by mistake. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It would appear that Metro/Airport (VTA) is meant exclusivley to be an airport railway station, simply by the name of the station itself. Obviously this is the case with Newark Liberty International Airport (NJT station), with or without the connection to AirTrain Newark. I can't say this for Santa Clara Station (California) (who messed up the Caltrain colors?), Jamaica (LIRR station) or Ronkonkoma (LIRR station), because neither of them were designed for rail-to-airport travel. Even if Ronkonkoma had a rail connection to Long Island MacArthur Airport, similar to AirTrain JFK it wouldn't deserve this category. ----DanTD (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I've always understood the category to mean a direct connection to the airport–either the station is in the same building, or there's a connecting walkway, or a dedicated shuttle bus (as with O'Hare Transfer (Metra)). Mackensen (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

In the case of the Santa Clara Caltrain Station, there is a dedicated shuttle bus - VTA bus 10, which is free, nicknamed "Airport Flyer", amd is run jointly with the airport. And unless you count the connection using VTA bus 10, Metro/Airport station isn't part of the airort, either. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, West Palm Beach (Tri-Rail station) also has connections to the Palm Beach International Airport via taxicab and bus lines, but even if they reopened Palm Beach Airport (Tri-Rail station) as a connecting spur, I wouldn't add the airport railway stations category to this one. It might be good for Palm Beach Airport station, though. From what I've read about Santa Clara Station, that pre-dates the Wright Brothers historic flight from Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina. In fact it dates back to the U.S. Civil War. As far as I'm concerned, that's immediate grounds for disqualification. ----DanTD (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

ShareMap as a tool to create railway maps

Hello, as a developer of ShareMap.org project I want to encourage all users of WikiTrains project to try this tool too create maps for their rail related articles.

ShareMap is a tool that allows to create map on CC-BY-SA license, you can find more information of ShareMap Wikimedia Commons and discussion page.

Recently ShareMap introduced Open Street Map import tool, so map creator doesn't have to draw railway lines, but can import lines from Open Street Map using XAPI queries.

ShareMap as community tool is still in beta phase, so any feedback is warmly welcome.

Example of railway map created with ShareMap:

--Jkan997 (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Lee480

Hello! a new user named Lee480 (talk · contribs) has been creating articles for what I believe are specific trains (not makes or models but a specific vehicle). I almost nominated the first one I found as an A1 but I'm almost positive it's about trains. I have no idea what to do with these articles as I'm not sure if there's a precedent that's be set for such articles (there's certainly no specific inclusion guideline for such). I thought this Wikiproject would know the best solution. I suspect that the user may be from Kawasaki Heavy Industries as all of the trains are manufactured by that company but that could be circumstantial. OlYeller21^Talktome 18:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Those fail notability by a massive margin. The only individual rolling stock that get their own articles is one-of-a-kind locomotives, private cars, or trainsets. I doubt they're working for somebody; it just looks like a railfan - definitely a local - with no concept of notability or RS. Notify the user, ask them to stop making the articles. Also take a look at WP:ASTRO for a similar situation we had recently. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not quite correct, there are a few individual items of rolling stock that get their own articles, such as the Cavell Van. However, these are the exception, rather than the rule. Mjroots (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

There are nine articles: C151A - 501/502; C151A - 503/504; C151A - 505/506; C151A - 507/508; C151A - 509/510; C151A - 511/512; C151A - 513/514; C151A - 515/516; C151A - 517/518. I've WP:PRODded the lot, stating "Single train, not sufficiently notable for separate article - info should all be on parent article Kawasaki Heavy Industries C151A". --Redrose64 (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, they've gone. A careful inspection of the final versions prior to deletion revealed that the only useful information on these articles, which did not already appear on the Kawasaki Heavy Industries C151A article, was the seating capacity. There was also some unsourced trivia "During the revenue service of 509/510, the train overrun by 3 cars at Yew Tee station", but nothing worth saving. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:Dutch Railway station up for deletion

{{Dutch Railway station}} has been nominated for deletion as being unused. This is a boilerplate template used to create a Dutch railway station article. It is either supposed to be substituted or used as a preload when creating a new article.

Does you project have an article wizard that loads this as a preload? Or do you have instructions on how to create an article with a substitution boilerplate for creating such articles?

65.94.77.11 (talk) 04:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comments at WP:TFD#Template:Dutch Railway station please. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Railway class disambiguation

It is very common for several countries or railway companies to have locomotives with the same class number on the lines of "Class XX". Generally these are disambiguated by inserting the company name in front e.g. "British Rail Class 25", "South African Railways Class 25" or "DRG Class 25". Where necessary, there is a dab page called "Class XX" which links to all the options. Recently "Class 66", which links to 3 locos and a submarine has been turned into a redirect to "British Rail Class 66" which itself appears to be a disputed title. Meanwhile the dab page has become "Class 66 (disambiguation)". This implies that the British Rail loco is more notable than the others, which seems dubious. Before this practice spreads, can we seek a consensus. My view FWIW is that, unless a loco is particularly famous, the dab page should remain at "Class XX". --Bermicourt (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this probably came about due to a dispute over exactly how to name British loco classes - British Rail hasn't existed for 15 years, and the Class 66 only came into being after BR was dissolved. There wasn't any consensus about how to rename things, or even if they should be renamed, but this might have been a casualty. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

(I've wikilinked the pages that Bermicourt refers to) Although the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 21#Article titles - Post-BR locomotives faded out some months ago, I've seen it flare up periodically on individual articles, see for example Revision history of British Rail Class 67. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Whilst the British Rail Class 66 may be the prominent use of "Class 66" amongst UK railway enthusiasts, we need to take a worldwide view of this. Therefore, Class 66 should be the dab page. Mjroots (talk) 06:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I favour the worldwide view. In German language rail-oriented publications, the expression Class 66 is used to refer to any EMD Class 66 type locomotive, not just the ones based in the UK. Bahnfrend (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The global approach is the only NPOV one we can take. Without wanting to stir up the debate again, the "British Rail" in "British Rail Class 66" is not a company name, it's the name of the classification system used. Thryduulf (talk) 00:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Fallen Flags image

I've gone over to the dark side and listed an image at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 November 11#File:Mkt153ags.jpg. I'd like to get some eyeballs here because I suspect we have other images with a similarly unclear status. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 13:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Related CfD

Hi there. I wanted to alert you folks to a related CfD I've created at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_November_12#Category:Alternatives_to_conventional_railways. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Indianapolis Union Station

I've opened a merge discussion for Indianapolis Union Station and Indianapolis (Amtrak station) at Talk:Indianapolis Union Station#Merger proposal. Comments welcomed. Mackensen (talk) 14:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Durango And Silverton K-18

Was there ever a class on Durango And Silverton called the K-18? I think I heard something about it once somewhere. Thanks, Jonathan is me (talk) 05:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested moves: Rail gauge vs Track gauge

Eleven articles and one template, all having "rail gauge" in their titles have been listed at WP:RM for renaming to the same titles but with "track gauge" instead, see Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions#November 25, 2011 and Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions#November 24, 2011. Please follow the "Discuss" links to leave comments. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Redrose has raised a concern that the requester may be a sock of banned TrackConversion (talk · contribs). If this is the case, then the RMs should be deleted. Mjroots (talk) 12:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Redrose has a good point - quite strange that a new editor should plunge straight into RFM on this topic that has been subject of unilateral action by sock puppets before. At the very least, the moves should be properly discussed here before we start moving categories around again. To that end I have placed a polite request on the talk page of the proposer to bring his logic and the discussion here. Can someone take action at WP:RM as well? --Bermicourt (talk) 13:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. The moves themselves are not necessarily illogical. We moved Rail gauge to Track gauge some while ago based on authoritative sources. We just need to watch the wholesale moving and recategorising of articles without proper consensus. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Utah Belt

I am very surprised, there is no page on the Utah Belt RR. Can I have a group of people help on making one? I just don't have the time to do it myself.

Please put your name here in alphabetical order if you're interested.

1. Jonathan is me

Thanks, Jonathan is me (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Making a Template

Hi all, I am not sure if I am on the right talk page (if not I apologise) but I need some help on finding the instructions on how to make a template about a railwayline. So far I managed to work on templates of single lines but when it comes to parallel or multiple lines and I need to use the various BS3-4-5 I can't just make it work. Anybody can direct me to the right help/instruction page?? or explain breifly how it works? Any help is appreciated! Thanks.--Sal73x (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

There are several pages, but the one to start at is WP:RDT. But the RDT icons are, generally speaking, not intended to distinguish between single and multiple tracks: see, for example, Template:West Wales Line RDT which is mostly double track, but some sections are single track - in particular, the route from Whitland to Pembroke Dock and all lines below Clarbeston Road. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! It's just what I was looking for. Will do some studing and have a go. Thanks again Redrose64.--Sal73x (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The RDT can be use to make diagrams of double track lines, see Marden rail crash for an example of this. Mjroots (talk) 07:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

One other H10-44

There is also a Milwaukee Road H10-44 in excellent cosmetic condition at the Brodhead, Wisconsin Museum. It sports number 781 and was built in 1950. I have no indication of operational condition but it sits on an isolated track with Milwaukee Road Caboose 01900.

Interesting. Can you give me a link to where you found out about this? Are you sure it's a H10-44? Jonathan is me (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Merge Old Orlando Railroad Depot into Church Street Station (Orlando)

Last month I called for the merger of Old Orlando Railroad Depot into Church Street Station (Orlando). Both article are for the same building, although the Church Street Station article focuses a lot on post railroad station development. So far I've received no reply. I'm also going to post this in the NRHP project. ----DanTD (talk) 01:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Ummm.......... I think the articles are the same.... Jonathan is me (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

They've only been that way since November 16, 2011, though(I thank you.). ----DanTD (talk) 03:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

List of trains Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy railroad had

We need a list of locos that the Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy railroad had. Jonathan is me (talk) 01:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about named passenger trains or the locomotives that powered the train? You seem to refer to both. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 05:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Mostly the locomotives that pulled them, but the "passenger" trains too. Sorry. Jonathan is me (talk) 06:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Chippenham railway station

I've added some more information to the Chippenham station on the services. (Chip123456 (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC))

Power

I'm a little bit surprised that the stats given for locomotives don't list maximum mechanical output power. Jack Waugh (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The {{infobox locomotive}} template has a parameter |poweroutput=

Power outputs are not often available for steam locomotives. A representative locomotive would need to be tested, either out on the line or on a stationary test plant. This could then yield several figures, such as the indicated horsepower and the drawbar horsepower. The actual figures are very prone to variation due to a wide range of factors, such as: time since last overhaul (stiff or loose bearings, steam leakage, limescale in the boiler); quality of fuel (coal is highly variable); quality of water; driving technique; etc. This is not to say that information is not available: accounts have been published of, for example, LNER Class P2 no. 2001 Cock o' the North achieving 2090 dbhp on road test in 1934 in England; but road tests of the same locomotive in France in 1935 produced figures between 1213 and 1847 dbhp.

They are more easily obtained for Diesel and electric locomotives, but the available figures often come from the manufacturer's information sheets, not from an independent tester. If used, caution should be exercised, because some mftrs give a maximum rating, some give a 1-hour rating, some a continuous rating.

When figures are available, you can put them in the |poweroutput= parameter, but they should be qualified, i.e. |poweroutput=3,000 bhp (2,200 kW) (1-hr). --Redrose64 (talk) 14:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

4-8-8-2

This page needs a lot of work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4-8-8-2. Jonathan is me (talk) 06:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not in bad shape really, but needs referencing. Mjroots (talk) 06:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess. But it's pretty small... Jonathan is me (talk) 00:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

routemaps have gained a blue background

Does anyone know why?©Geni 16:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Can you give an example? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I haven't found one yet although I haven't been through my whole list. So if you would please, that would be a help. Britmax (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

After some more poking I think issue is at my end. Template:Great Western Main Line diagram is an example. however it's only showing up in my opera browser so the issue is almost certainly local.©Geni 19:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I suspect the problem is on your end; I'm not seeing any blue either. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

UP Bailey Yard

It's pretty small... Jonathan is me (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It's actually a very respectable size. Better than some articles we have. Also, I hope you realize the irony in your sentence. ;) —GFOLEY FOUR!— 03:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

NRHP Station articles needing railroads

I should probably bring this to WikiProject:National Register of Historic Places as well, but there are at least a dozen articles about stations listed on the NRHP that have no railroads attached to them, mostly in New Jersey and Connecticut. They include the following;

• Great Meadows Railroad Station
• North Pemberton Railroad Station
• Pennington Railroad Station
• Deep River Freight Station
• Essex Freight Station
• Connecticut Valley Railroad Roundhouse and Turntable Site
• Forestville Passenger Station
• Housatonic Railroad Station
• Allamuchy Freight House
• Machias Railroad Station
• Rockland Turntable and Engine House
• Portland Railroad Company Substation

I could probably guess which railroads these stations belonged to, but that's about all I can do. And I'm probably missing some that aren't on this list. Does anybody else know which railroads they served. ----DanTD (talk) 14:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Deep River, Essex, and the CVR Turntable are all Valley Railroad (Connecticut). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew if some of them weren't properties from the "golden age" of railroading, they were built by their predacessors. ----DanTD (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Machias and Rockland were built by the Maine Central. I'll work on the others. Choess (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, here they are.

• Lehigh and Hudson River Railway: Great Meadows, Allamuchy
• Pennsylvania Railroad: North Pemberton
• Reading Railroad: Pennington
• New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad: Forestville, Housatonic (but see predecessor Housatonic Railroad for the latter)

All set? Choess (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

With the excecption of Portland, yes. I'm leaning towards either Boston and Maine Railroad or Maine Central Railroad, but I'm willing to consider others for that one. North Pemberton, I thought was either PRR, Reading, or PRSL. Admittedly I should've crossed a few of these off my list. ----DanTD (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. That was Portland Railroad, the local trolley/interurban line. Choess (talk) 05:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Good to know. We should add some of these details in the articles. ----DanTD (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Editprotected S-line template for circular parameters.

Main page: Template talk:S-line § Editprotected circular parameters

The current {{S-line}} does not have any option to hide the word "toward" which causes trouble to line without terminus such as loop or circular line. I want your comments on the new parameter to disable the word. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Notice: Turntable

Hi folks. I just wanted to make you aware of something I only recently became aware of myself. Turntable used to be a disambiguation page that included a link to Railway turntable. It's now been changed to a redirect to Phonograph, so railway articles should not link directly to it. [[Railway turntable|turntable]] is my recommended alternative, and a couple of days ago I fixed a number of railway articles by piping them to Railway turntable. Best regards, --Tkynerd (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It now links to Turntable (disambiguation), which is better. But you're right that ideally, nothing should link to it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It's been modified again to redirect to Phonograph.

But even if it redirected to Turntable (disambiguation), it should not be linked to directly as that is essentially a link to a dab page. [[Railway turntable|turntable]] is the right approach. --Tkynerd (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The Revision history of Turntable shows that (prior to Phonograph) it was a redirect to Turntable (disambiguation) for no more than sixty seconds, after which it became a redirect to Phonograph, this being considered the primary topic; the primary topic article has a suitable hatnote, in this case {{redirect|Turntable}}. A common practice with dab pages without a primary topic is that [[Foo]] is the actual dab page, and [[Foo (disambiguation)]] is the redirect to the dab page (see WP:DABNAME). In that way, when the dab page is to be deliberately linked, the link is made through the redirect, i.e. to [[Foo (disambiguation)]]; thus, any accidental links to [[Foo]] may be detected easily. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Before it was moved in July 2010 (see the revision history you linked to), Turntable was itself a dab page. I know, because I used to regularly fix links to it. I think Phonograph is the appropriate primary topic, but there was apparently no discussion to build consensus on that point, which troubles me, and it also troubles me that you assert that Phonograph is "considered the primary topic" when apparently no consensus on that point was ever reached. --Tkynerd (talk) 03:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It's been altered again. We really shouldn't ping-pong this redirect, but discuss it. Please note that per WP:MALPLACED, Turntable and Turntable (disambiguation) are the wrong way around. I'm going to invite the WP:WPDAB people over to comment. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about Turntable should occur at Talk:Turntable. Talk:Turntable (disambiguation) could be used to propose the move of the disambiguation page to the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion started at Talk:Turntable. --Tkynerd (talk) 04:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

My argument about Turntable linking to phonograph is that the two terms are not synonymous in the way the phonograph and gramophone are. A phonograph was originally a cylinder based machine. A turntable is certainly one component of a photograph but it is illogical to have all uses of turntable directed there.--Das48 (talk) 05:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that Turntable (rail) should not have been moved to Railway turntable: the commonly used name is "Turntable", not "Railway turntable". See Talk:Railway turntable. PamD 09:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I have made the following suggestions as Talk:Turntable if nobody has any objections I will go ahead with it:--Das48 (talk) 01:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest that the best answer would be to convert the present redirect page for Turntable into a short article - along the lines of Turntable - a revolving platform, table, stand, or disk of various kinds. Explaining that the term could be used in a variety of different ways, and giving the appropriate links. The article could cite the use of turntable in funerals, gunnery, photography, microscopy, shop window displays, as well as the common uses in railways and in recorded music. This short article would serve the purpose of a disambiguation page, but without being one so would not get on the WP:MALPLACED list. Would that be an acceptable alternative?

Discussion that involves this project

See here. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 05:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

NARA on-wiki ExtravaSCANza participation

Hey everyone. Please take a look at User:The ed17/NARA to brainstorm ideas and a structure on how we can help the National Archives ExtravaSCANza. My hope is that the success of this event will ensure that others will be organized in the future, even without Dominic as a Wikipedian-in-Residence, so we all benefit from the high-quality, formerly non-digitized media uploaded to the Commons. Thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)