Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2009, 2

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


Reformatting of defunct railroads by state tables complete, and a deletion discussion

I've redone all the lists on Template:US railroad lists (except Puerto Rico) to include every defunct railroad I could find, and present more information about each common carrier.

Hence, I have listed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of defunct United States railroads. --NE2 16:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

FAR for article Franklin B. Gowen

I have nominated Franklin B. Gowen for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.Cirt (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion: rathole tunnel

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rathole tunnel --NE2 00:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible deprecation of the "Future" templates

I have started a discussion on the possible deprecation of the "Future" templates at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates. Since this project uses such a template, I invite everyone from this WikiProject to participate in the discussion. --Conti|✉ 11:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Provenance of images in Category:TrainWeb images

There are 110 images which have been tagged with {{Trainweb}} which has the licence text "This image comes from www.trainweb.com. TrainWeb allows it to be used for any purpose..." . It also adds them to Category:TrainWeb images.

However there are major problems:

  • The template fails to point out the third paragraph of their Photo Use Policy which states that the free use only applies to photographs to which they own copyright, which is indicated at the foot of each page. In order to verify copyright status, a valid back link would be required, but is currently not mandated.
  • TrainWeb publishes its photographs under a Creative Commons Sampling Plus 1.0 License, which was designed for audio works.
  • 39 files have a back-link to a webpage, all of which are to trainweb.org not trainweb.com
  • 53 only have a back-link to the image, of which:
    • 49 are to trainweb.org. I can find nothing on trainweb.com or trainweb.org that gives trainweb.com a right to sub-licence material on trainweb.org. In addition some of the trainweb.org users have their own copyright stance - e.g. Gene Dailey.
    • 4 are to trainweb.com. As trainweb.com uses a cgi-bin system, you cannot find the html page on which the image appears; this is necessary to find whether trainweb.com holds the copyright in order for the licence to be valid.
  • 18 have no backlink, although 7 are probably from trainweb.org/dansrailpix.

Altogether, only 4 images are from trainweb.com, 95 are from trainweb.org, and 11 have no provenance what ever. I believe all the images need either {{Trainweb}} replaced with a fair use template, or be deleted.

Action

Is it worth updating {{Trainweb}} to make it clear that:

  1. a valid back link to the trainweb.com webpage the image appears on is required; and
  2. it is only for images on trainweb.com, not trainweb.org.

Or are we better off take the template to WP:TFD? and the category to WP:CFD? Iain Bell (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest the first action, with the addition of requiring parameters to support the backlink and auto-tagging if this isn't provided. Then we can scan the tagged category and fix individuals, or tag them with the necessary degree of {{copyvio}} if necessary.
As this is a problem with the images, I see no reason to remove the template or category. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Railway post office notification

Railway post office has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. The Reviewer's (my) concerns are here. Pyrotec (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Cat:IATA-indexed railway stations

FYI, Category:IATA-indexed railway stations has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 04:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Rail transport photographers

FYI -- I Have just created Category:Rail transport photographers, having found that an article on H. C. Casserley has recently appeared. I have added Ivo Peters but I'm sure there are other names to add, if you could oblige...

EdJogg (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

R55 (New York City Subway car)

Hi, I am a member of the project Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles and I am trying to find references for the article R55 (New York City Subway car) as it is one of the longest {{unreferenced}} tagged articles that does not meet at least the barest minimum of verifiability. It has been tagged and completely without references since August 2006. It would be extremely helpful if anyone here had some references that could be added to the article to help support its verifiability and notability. Thanks for any help you can give, regards ascidian | talk-to-me 15:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Bluegrass Railroad and Museum

Looks like someone is putting a lot of POV in the Bluegrass Railroad and Museum; could use some more pairs of eyes.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 21:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Reverted to a much more neutral state, but further observation is probably needed. WuhWuzDat 01:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
POV editor is persistent, I have reverted several more times. He earned himself 72 hours off for sockpuppeting, any further occurences should be added to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Boilerwash. Keep an eye on this, I may be off-wiki for a while. WuhWuzDat 22:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Alphabetizing Amtrak templates

I just tried to alphabetize one of the Category:Amtrak railway line navbox templates, and it didn't work. What did I do wrong? ----DanTD (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Southeastern rail starts (UK)

I really do think the boxs need to be bule after all it's been three years since Southeastern started but we still have yellow in the boxes. I propose LightSteelBule in the boxes which produces this:

Preceding station National Rail National Rail Following station
Dunton Green   Southeastern
South Eastern Main Line via Paddock Wood 		  Hildenborough

This represents Southeastern as all their stations, publications and logos have bule in them.

This is the current version:

Preceding station National Rail National Rail Following station
Dunton Green   Southeastern
South Eastern Main Line via Paddock Wood 		  Hildenborough

Southeastern's branding is not yellow, that was South Eastern Trains it needs to change! Likelife (talk) 08:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It would actually be better to discuss this top at WT:UKRAIL. Also see Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways/Colours list. Simply south (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Likelife (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Train station names

I'm not a trains person but have been coming across multiple articles about U.S. NRHP-listed and other train stations and renaming them, while working on disambiguation pages like Union Station (disambiguation). I found my way to the proposal on naming conventions for stations, and opened a new discussion section at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (stations)#Historic or otherwise named stations. Please visit. doncram (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Article request

Here are the trains & railways related journals which are the most common in citation templates, but do not have a Wikipedia article.

You might want to create articles for these publications. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 11:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 20:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

category:Single platform tube stations

sladen (talk) is putting stations in the category:Single platform tube stations. I think this is a deleted category waiting to happen as they will be hard put to find enough stations to make the category useful. Opinions? Britmax (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Even though i just created the category, this does possibly border overcategorisation. Simply south (talk) 23:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
There are currently ten entries, which is plenty for a category. More questionable is whether 'single platform' is a sufficiently "defining characteristic" to be worth having its own category. If it is, then the matching 'two platform' and 'multiple platform' categories should be created to allow the other stations to be similarly listed. -- EdJogg (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how this is a defining characteristic. --NE2 01:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
The fact that over half of the entries are closed stations doesn't do much for its cause, IMHO. --RFBailey (talk) 01:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually it seems like there would be way too many entries. For example, Boston's Orange Line has ten. --NE2 02:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
However, I suspect the purpose of the category is for the London Underground only--hence the name "tube stations". --RFBailey (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
RFBailey is right and there is bearly any stations with single platforms out of 250 stations!Likelife (talk) 13:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Looking at Boston's Orange Line some of them are island platforms which count as two anyway. Britmax (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Each of those is a single island platform; you can't justifiably call it two platforms. --NE2 23:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
So how would passengers know which train to catch? "Northbound trains leave from the left-hand platform edge as you face the exit..." or "Northbound trains leave from platform 2" Hmmm. Maybe the cat name needs changing to "Tube stations with a single platform face", or better, add a parallel category for "Island platform tube stations", not forgetting "Former island platform tube stations" to cope with the Angel rebuild.
Sorry for being a tad flippant. I'm just concerned that we have enough definition problems here without introducing another one.
On a more practical note, why not add yet another column to List of London Underground stations for the number of platform/(face)s. This would allow readers to identify the current category members, and avoid the need to create the implied sibling categories for 2-, 3-, 4-, 5-, 10-platform stations.
-- EdJogg (talk) 00:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I like this solution, it makes the most sense to me. It allows for this information to be included while preventing overcategorization. (As an aside, Ed, typically, when there's a single platform between two tracks, the tracks are numbered to identify them.) oknazevad (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Has there ever been a category strictly for stations with one type of platform before? ----DanTD (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Ive never seen one! Likelife (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Oldfield Park railway station

Does anyone on this wikiproject have any reliable sources which relate to Oldfield Park railway station? I've been working my way through Wikipedia:WikiProject Somerset/Cleanup listing and trying to sort the problems but User:Erik9bot has identified Oldfield Park railway station as unreferenced and I can't find any sources to use to reference the information.— Rod talk 21:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, not a member of this project but I'm watching this page as I have a similar request to yours above. I've added a couple of ref's that I could find to the article, hope that helps? regards, ascidian | talk-to-me 23:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks.— Rod talk 07:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Any reason NJ Transit articles are labeled XXXX (NJT station) ?

After starting work on NJ Transit articles, I've noticed something strange. I don't see NJT used very often when referring to the Transit articles. Could they possibly be moved to (New Jersey Transit station)? A random reader wouldn't understand why they are labeled that way, and two, at first glance know what you mean. I was wondering if this has been brought up before?Mitch/HC32 19:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps because the abbreviations usually do just fine. You've also got them for LIRR, HBLR, NLR, NCS(which I think should've been kept), MBTA, SEPTA, PAT, CTA, VRE, and MARC, among other stations. Would you change those too? Come to think of it, I've got some redirecting links that I created and would like to abbreviate (Ridgewood (SSRRLI station), Brookdale (NY&F station), etc.). ----DanTD (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps because New Jersey Transit is not that long. Neither is the Long Island Railroad, or Metro-North (which is spelled out for any apparent reason. Metro-North is 11 characters, New Jersey Transit is 17, I mean the title isn't a reason for slowing Wikipedia.Mitch/HC32 21:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
This is a good enough reason to leave them alone as far as I'm concerned. Since you've done some work on NJT stations, I think I'll check some of it out. ----DanTD (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
No. I think people get confused with the title.Mitch/HC32 21:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Why would they get confused? If it's a railroad article it should be obvious(at least to citizens of the United States) that the abbreviation is for "New Jersey Transit." There's more confusion with PATCO(PATCO Speedline or Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (1968)), but even that's not much. ----DanTD (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
What local knows what NJT stands for. I live in Jersey :| - Mitch/HC32 21:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Then I can't believe they wouldn't be able to figure that out, especially since the abbreviation is also a logo printed right on the buses and trains. Hell, Long Island residents have no problem calling the Long Island Rail Road the "LIRR" for short. ----DanTD (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Well because everyone calls it the LI Double R. Here, we call it New Jersey Transit. On Buses here we call it NJ Transit.Mitch/HC32 21:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) I think Mitch may have a point, specifically, that in common usage, most usually say the full "New Jersey Transit" or "NJ Transit", the later being possibly the most common in print. "NJT" is a logical abbreviation, and I've seen it used in railfan contexts, but it's not commonly used in most contexts. So, per WP:COMMONNAME, it may make sense to make the switch.

That said, the current version is ok by me, as it is compact and easily understood, even if it isn't used as often as some of the others listed above. Those, btw, are commonly used in regular conversation. That is likely why Metro-North station articles are at that disambiguator, as "Metro-North" is what most call it for short, not "MNR" or some other abbreviation.

Anywho, just my $0.02. oknazevad (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

We going to discuss the idea and not argue about the community beliefs?Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 02:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

We did. The reasons for the current disambig initialism were explained and the choice reinforced. The discussion was pretty much over, actually. oknazevad (talk) 02:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
What decision, I thought I brought up the proposal for moving them :| - Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 02:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
You did. From the discussing contributors above, it seems we have one in favor (you), one opposed (Dan) and one neutral (me). Not a huge sample, true, but since there seems to be no clear consensus to move, the articles stay where they are. I agree that it's not a bad suggestion, and wouldn't have been a bad choice when the articles were first written, but the current NJT form has become established, and it's easily recognized enough to not need replacing. oknazevad (talk) 04:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree that no one ever refers to the railroad as NJT. New Jersey Transit is the most common followed by NJ Transit. New Jersey Transit Station, as in Summit (New Jersey Transit Station) is, IMO, the way to go. RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 07:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Probably would want the S in station decapitalized.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 13:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with the current form, but I'm a railfan, I can's speak for other people who may or may not recognize it. If you were to change it, I would use "NJ Transit", not "New Jersey Transit". That's unnecessarily long. Everyone knows the abbreviation for New Jersey. Murjax (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Miami Template Problem

I just split Tri-Rail and Metrorail transfer station into 2 articles creating Miami (Amtrak station) because they are actually 2 stations and Amtrak isn't in any way shape or form connected to the transfer station. They are just very close to each other. Anyway when I did this I found that all service box links still linked to the transfer station, even after I changed Template:Amtrak stations to link Miami to the correct article. I think I missed something here. Murjax (talk) 21:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure there's a problem? When a template is updated, the pages that use it will not be updated immediately (unless edited), and links transcluded by the templates can linger for some time after being changed. (It's something to do with batch processing, server workloads, and other stuff that shouldn't usually worry us!) Anyway, if you have changed a link on a template, expect to wait a while before worrying about whether it worked (I usually check back after a day or two!) -- EdJogg (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I would hope that's it. It's just that I've done similar stuff before and the changed took effect immediately. I'll wait and see what happens. Murjax (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Station location, please

The former Maine Central Railroad Depot in Brooks, Maine, USA is located along State Route 7, but I don't know anything more specifically (i.e. coordinates, street address, etc.). Do any of you have a map or directory that would include such a station? If so, please add coordinates to "(Former) Maine Central Railroad Depot" at National Register of Historic Places listings in Waldo County, Maine. Nyttend (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It's at 31 Veterans Hwy. See Brooks Preservation Society. I added the address & coordinates at the NRHP page. Caseyjonz (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Battery locomotive

As a result of helping rationalise Greenwood & Batley (manufacturers of "Greenbat" battery locos, among many other things) I realised that there was no apparent coverage for battery-electric locomotives, so I have added a small section under electric locomotive (it can be expanded by the knowledgeable in due course!)

A search reveals many references to battery locomotives, battery-electric locomotives and storage battery locomotives (this latter is particularly prevalent in certain articles on British law). Please make use of these redirects in your articles as appropriate.

EdJogg (talk) 00:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Storage batteries were also used in New York City, since Manhattan banned overhead wires, and some companies didn't want to go to the cost of installing conduit electrification for marginal routes. --NE2 07:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
From the number and variety of references, I think a separate article is called for -- which will also give us the opportunity of listing/linking major users. However, I must leave creation of that to someone else! -- EdJogg (talk) 09:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Category question

Okay, another question; Exactly which category would be appropriate for a proposed and/or never built railroad line? Because something like this would be good for an article on the R4 (SEPTA) line. ----DanTD (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

San Diego Trolley station articles threatend

Currently, there is a user who has been redirecting every single article on San Diego Trolley stations except for Union Station (San Diego), claiming that they're not notable, whether they are or not. Of those that are, I've made every effort to prove that they're notable, but he dismisses them, even going as far as to equating stations that serve major facilities such as colleges, hospitals, sports arenas, the US-Mexican Border, other transportation systems, and such with local ice cream stands. One in particular, Old Town Transit Center has wiklinks to Solana Beach (Amtrak station) and Union Station, but when he redirects that article, the routeboxes from that station get screwed up and goes to the main SD trolley article. Is there any way we can convince this user of the problems caused by these edits? ----DanTD (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Revert all redirects. AFAIK, there is long-standing consensus that all rail stations, regardless of size, are inherently notable and therefore article worthy. If the user coomplains about that guideline, then he should bring that discussion to this project.
As for that guideline, I agree with it, as WP:NOTPAPER reminds us, there is no limit to the number of articles on Wikipedia. Notability guidelines are not meant to limit the number of articles, but instead are meant to prvent the creation of vanity, promotional or other frivolous pet-project type articles. oknazevad (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. In the meantime, why can't I find the templates for the Orange Line? ----DanTD (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
UPDATE; Never mind, I found them. Now the left template has to be fixed. ----DanTD (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

San Diego Trolley Orange Line

While trying to fix a lot of the Orange Line (San Diego Trolley) station articles, I noticed an odd configuration regarding the western terminus of the line. According to this map, the western terminus is not at Gaslamp Quarter (San Diego Trolley station) but at 12th & Imperial Transit Center, which it runs through at first before looping around and terminating there with the Special Event Services line. Perhaps this can be fixed in a similar manner to some of the Chicago L templates. ----DanTD (talk) 18:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of bridges in Montreal/archive1. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 14:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Santa Clara (Caltrain/ACE station) and Santa Clara Depot

The two articles for Santa Clara (Caltrain/ACE station) and Santa Clara Depot look like they should be merged, but both articles are packed with detail. Anybody care to tackle this? ----DanTD (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Former railroads on templates

Should former railroads be included on templates like {{Pennsylvania railroads}}? There are over one thousand former railroads in Pennsylvania, and I can't see the template being that big.

Mostly unrelated, there's another reporting mark flareup at Wikipedia:Content noticeboard#Reporting marks. --NE2 19:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Considering that the template is currently filled with major carriers like the Pennsylvania Railroad, I don't see why they shouldn't be included. ----DanTD (talk) 20:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
How would you decide what railroads get included? How would you explain to someone why they can't have their article on the template? --NE2 20:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'd certainly leave the major ones on. But among the thousand plus other railroads you've got a tough call. There has to be some way of doing this without making the template too big. ----DanTD (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The other issue is that it's almost pointless to put the major ones in, since we're not going to be putting 14 templates at the bottom of Pennsylvania Railroad. --NE2 02:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Being that this is an encyclopedia, I'd argue a complete list (at least of lines notable enough for articles) really ought to be provided where possible to allow people to use Wikipedia as a research tool. DiverScout (talk) 08:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
You're looking for list of defunct Pennsylvania railroads etc. --NE2 08:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I think you've hit the nail on the head there. For clarity the template should simply link to the list. It could, possibly, include the most significant lines sorted by either length of line or length of existence, but you'd only want to include a small handful.
On the other hand, and please do not take this the wrong way, is it actually useful as a template? As a UK railfan I can see this template much as would a non-railfan, and our articles should be accessible for all (that's why you see me adding 'terminology' redirects every so often). This template is, to me, a collection of incomprehensible abbreviations. I cannot just 'browse' it to see an interesting article, and unless I hover on a link and look at the tooltip I have no idea what the abbreviations mean. I don't think this would meet accessibility guidelines. Would it be better with the railroad names in full, in a collapsible template?
On the flip side, I am frankly astonished that there are so many former railroad companies in one state! -- EdJogg (talk) 09:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Cosmetic restoration

Cosmetic restoration and 'cosmetically restored' are phrases that are frequently used in preserved railway circles, and it struck me that an explanation was probably in order. I have now created a redirect for the term, and applied a definition (unreferenced!) at Vehicle restoration#Cosmetic restoration. Please make use of the wikilink in appropriate articles, and if you care to refine my definition, or know of a better page for it to reside, be my guest...!

EdJogg (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

SEPTA MSHL Colors = Green not Brown?

I recently noticed that the color templates for the SEPTA Routes 101 and 102(Media-Sharon Hill Line) Trolleys are green instead of brown. I thought this was a glitch or an incorrect edit(maybe even vandalism), until I read updated versions of SEPTA's official website and found that they changed not only this system to green, but the SEPTA Route 15 heritage trolley as well. When did SEPTA change the color designation for Routes 101 & 102 from brown to green, and why can't we find the old brown designation on earlier versions of Wikipedia anymore? ----DanTD (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Naming articles about Russian train stations

See also: User talk:Ezhiki § Article names for Russian railway stations

In Russian, the term vokzal (вокзал) is used to refer to any major passenger train station. It seems that a convention has developed on wiki to translate vokzal as "terminal", even though some of those stations aren't literally "terminals" (because they are at the end of a line, and trains can continue thru the station). If you'd like to discuss this issue, please join the thread at Talk:Moskovsky_Rail_Terminal. Vmenkov (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

rail disaster or train disaster?

What would be an appropriate title in an article when it involves an accident? I believe that there should be a naming convention - and that "train disaster" is more appropriate rather than "rail disaster" as loss of life and material loss are more strongly connoted by the former than the latter. Any suggestions? --Gurubrahma (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that the words 'disaster' and 'accident' are counted as subjective. 'Derailment', 'Collision', 'Platform over-run', etc are much more descriptive of what actually happened ('accident' implies no-one was to blame, 'disaster' is subjective). Hence "<placename> derailment" would be an appropriate title, although you should be guided by the descriptions used by public media. -- EdJogg (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I say that it would depend on what country the article is based, In the UK we would say 'rail disaster' or just 'train crash'. Likelife (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
There is already a naming convention, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management/Naming - <<Year>> <<Place>> <<Event>>. Disaster is normally replaced with something more descriptive and less subjective.
In the Category:Railway accidents in 2009 we have 2009 Berlin train accident, 2009 Hunan train collision, 2009 Orissa train derailment, 2009 Rudine train derailment, 2009 Slovak coach and train collision, 2009 Viareggio train derailment and 2009 Washington Metro train collision. My guess would be that the first should be renamed. Edgepedia (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for all your comments - the usage of "train disaster" seems to be the most appropriate except for UK contexts. --Gurubrahma (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority GAR notice

Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Mexican railroad article up for deletion

The article for the Mexican railroad Línea Coahuila Durango is up for deletion for notability reasons. See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Línea Coahuila Durango.--Oakshade (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to this AfD nomination, the article has been expanded (a little) and notability established, and the result of the discussion was 'keep'. EdJogg (talk) 08:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I could use some assistance

Hello. I belong to WP:RLR and there has been a red link that I am unable to determine if it is correct or not [1]. Two pages link to Württemberg_Tss_4 and I'm not 100% sure if it is the same as the Württemberg_Ts_4. Can somebody confirm this one way or another? Thanks TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we add (Syracuse, NY) to the William F. Walsh Regional Transportation Center title?

I think it would be helpful if the article on the William_F._Walsh_Regional_Transportation_Center had (Syracuse, NY) added to its title. The category page http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Category:Amtrak_stations_in_New_York contains a listing for it under "S", but there's no way for a reader to know that it is the Syracuse station without clicking through.

Pyroglyph (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Unless that station is really known to people by that name, I suggest doing what I've done to other station articles in the past. Renaming to something more generic such as "Syracuse (Amtrak station)" or something similar that people would recognize. These names are often those found on the national register. They aren't necessarily found anywhere else in or around the station. Murjax (talk) 21:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Does this also mean we're going to take the Gateway Multimodal Transportation Center and change it back to St. Louis (Amtrak station)? If so, I'm not too fond of the idea, and if not, they why should we change it for Syracuse? ----DanTD (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
      • There are a couple things that should be noted about the Gateway Center. The first is most obvious is that you can see in the picture the name "Gateway Center". That tells you it's an active name and not just a national register name. The other thing is alternate names are mentioned in the article. What I'm saying about Syracuse is to leave it as is or add "Syracuse, NY" to it if there's enough reason to believe the name is "active". By active I mean the name is either boldly found on the building or is commonly used by the public. It's not active if it's only found on a small monument inside the building and just called a train station to everyone else. Murjax (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I took an Amtrak train to and from there not long ago. I was actually on the lookout for any alternative name, or for anything historic looking to take a picture of. It seems actively to be called the William F. Walsh Regional Transportation Center. The Centro bus center is a big part of it being a transportation "hub"; the Amtrak just stops there a few times a day, not necessarily within a two hour window of the scheduled time. There's a train platform but not a separate train station per se. I think you can't call it overall a train station; it is a transportation center. The name sounds like a mouthful, but that's what signage at the building and in nearby streets gives, and there seems to be no other name given. I think i also saw it mentioned in full name form in the Syracuse newspaper. I think a lot of money was put into the center somehow and there were expectations that it would be more of hub than it is, in order to justify the expenditure. For locals, the Walsh family name is synonymous with Syracuse city and area politics; two Wm Walshes have been Syracuse mayors and/or representatives to congress. The long name was part of the bill of goods sold to the public in putting a lot of money into it. So the long name seems to me that is what it is called locally. As opposed to the former East Syracuse location of Amtrak stop, which probably never got any serious money and might have been called the current Syracuse train station, almost apologetically (because it inconvenient and seemed out of the way and temporary and not deserving of a proper name). That said, I wouldn't mind seeing "(Syracuse, New York)" or "(Syracuse, NY)" appended to the article name, which would provide more sense in the category placement. I don't often navigate by categories though, and am not familiar with category appearance issues factoring into article naming decisions. Hope this helps. doncram (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Well with that information I would have to agree it's a valid name. I wouldn't have a problem with adding "(Syracuse, NY)" to the name, however I don't see how that's even needed because there isn't another transit center anywhere named after the same person. The location is obviously made clear in the article. Murjax (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

2009 Lößnitzgrundbahn head-on collision

Already raised at WT:GER, but assistance is required expanding the 2009 Lößnitzgrundbahn head-on collision article. Particularly needed is a short history of locomotive 99 1789-9. Has anyone visited the Lößnitzgrundbahn and bought a guide book with those details in? Mjroots (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Railway companies established in 1824

Attempting to create this category but found it had already been deleted by User:JPG-GR. I have raised it on their talk page am not getting anywhere; not sure what to do next; can anyone assist? Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 16:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I've just recreated it. Pyrotec (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Since it was deleted as a test page, there's no reason any further creation would be deleted as such unless it is a test page. --NE2 17:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Wellesley Hills MBTA & Boston and Albany merger

I just tagged Wellesley Hills (Boston and Albany station) for a merger into Wellesley Hills (MBTA station), since much of the history of the old B&A is tied into the contemporary MBTA station. Feel free to discuss them. ----DanTD (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: I also have a similar proposal for Palmer (Boston and Albany station) and Union Station (Palmer, Massachusetts), although there's a discrepancy in the years of origin. ----DanTD (talk) 05:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Template trouble again

The Category:Altamont Commuter Express templates somehow ended up on the main ACE article. Would somebody fix that? ----DanTD (talk) 17:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Locomotives by country category

There is a discussion on CFD about whether the subcatagories of Category:Locomotives by country should be Locomotives of Foo or Fooian locomotives. All comments are welcome. Iain Bell (talk) 11:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Amtrak's Cape Codder in Attleboro, Massachusetts

The article on the Amtrak Cape Codder (train) indicates that Attleboro, Massachusetts was where the line split from the Northeast Corridor. Was Attleboro (MBTA station) one of the stations used by that line? I tried to ask this on the station talk page, and nobody would answer me. ----DanTD (talk) 13:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Conversion of TrainsWikiProject banner to using WPBannerMeta

Any comments on converting the TrainsWikiProject banner to use WPBannerMeta would be welcome over here. -- WOSlinker (talk) 17:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

High speed trains

I've just started creating and populating a new category set Category:High-speed trains by country to suppliment and work alongside Category:High-speed rail by country. Obviously each train cat is a sub-cat of the 'rail' cat. I've done this to enable Category:High-speed trains to be better organised.

For those that are wondering what the difference is I think Category:High-speed rail in the United States and it's sub-category shows how this organisation can work.

Please feel free to help.Shortfatlad (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Distance From Terminal Field in Infobox

Would it be a good idea? I was thinking the field would state the name of the inbound terminal and the mileage from it. This obviously would be geared toward commuter rail station articles. Discuss. Murjax (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I presume you mean station infoboxes. This is featured in {{Infobox Norwegian station}} and {{Infobox T-bane station}} (Oslo Metro), where it works quite well. Arsenikk (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
That's exactly what mean. If it works well on those systems I don't see any reason why it wouldn't work for some of our commuter rail articles. Murjax (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Helsinki Central railway station

Why is the article called Helsinki Central railway station? The correct name for the article is Helsinki railway station. The term "central station" is not used in the Finnish name and/or practises, and it is not an official or unofficial name for it. The only place where the term "central railway station" is used are the English language station announcements in the Helsinki subway (and the subway station is Railway Square in both Finnish and Swedish). --Tve4 (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Railway locomotives by year of introduction

Just discovered Category:Railway locomotives introduced in 1950 and have created categories for British Rail Electric and Diesel locomotives and populated them. A couple of points, the supercategory Category:Locomotives by year of introduction does not exist. Can I just create it myself (assuming it is easy) ? Also any assistance in adding other countries locomotives; and British Rail steam would be appreciated if anyone can spare some time !!! GrahamHardy (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Creating the super category is no different to creating any other category/article. If the parent ('super') cat fits in with similar cats on different topics then you should be on reasonably safe ground (as you are here). For example, there is Category:Vehicles introduced by year, which I found by navigating up and down from the above '1950' category, and you can consider this a precedent. (I would check for several other 'by year' categories to see what the consensus is on the precise naming, but it can always be adjusted later if necessary.) -- EdJogg (talk) 12:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree that a super/parent category containing the individual year categories makes sense, and would aid in navigation. My concern, though, is the current name of the yearly cats. "Railway locomotives" seems pointlessly redundant to me, as "locomotive" is pretty much exclusively used to describe the motive power generation equipment on a railroad. Or, in other words, saying "locomotive" eliminates the need to say "railway" in the first place.oknazevad (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Adding more categories is a bit like meetings at work; they are an alternative to doing something useful. Bhtpbank (talk) 07:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I have already created Category:Locomotives introduced by year, and added it to the subcategories. I have also created some of the missing year categories, and populated them from the “<year> introductions” categories. So far all years between 1934 and 1999 exist, except for 1995. I also agree with oknazevad that the categories could have simply been “Locomotives introduced in <year>”. Iain Bell (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Sandite -- recent edit

Could I have views on this anon edit please? I've looked on line and found some interesting references, but nothing dating back that far -- earliest I found was 1998 in Hansard! When was Sandite invented (and by whom)?

EdJogg (talk) 15:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I've found this [2] which says that trials were carried out in 1976. Edgepedia (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
D'oh!! -- that's one of the main refs in the article...just didn't scroll down far enough! Grrr -- EdJogg (talk) 00:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Strikes me as obvious vandalism. Not that the inventor might have been named Andy Smith, but the "lives out his days in peace and quiet on the Bay of Bengal" bit is too silly to be taken seriously. Also, I'm pretty sure Sandites older than that, though regular, old-fashioned sand was long used for traction, so the point where the one supplanted the other may be fuzzy. Either way, Sandite is hardly a British-only substance, and the article really needs non-UK-specific material added. (Yes, I am the one who tagged it in the first place.)oknazevad (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I would dispute 'obvious' -- if it had been that obvious, I'd have rollback'd it immediately rather than asking here. I've seen other edits of a vaguely similar nature, where an unregistered editor, who clearly has 'inside knowledge', has added (technical) text to an article. We are supposed to treat such edits with good faith (only just re-read the guideline this week, but can't remember where!) rather than just deleting it off-hand.
Unfortunately my knowledge about Sandite is limited to what's in the article, so I can't help with non-UK info. -- EdJogg (talk) 00:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, "obvious" may have been too harsh. "Likely" would have been better. Sorry if you took that as a knock against you. It certainly wasn't meant that way. As an aside, your use of "dubious" to describe the addition was spot on. oknazevad (talk) 01:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Tacoma Link station articles need real routeboxes. Who can make some? ----DanTD (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Russian railways

Does anyone know any more about this creation [3] (Russian language links?)83.100.251.196 (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

FAR listing

I have nominated Manila Light Rail Transit System for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Arsenikk (talk) 23:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Chard Branch Line

Hi, Can any of you experts help with Chard Branch Line tags have recently been added saying it needs cleanup, clarification & has unsourced statements. I'm not expert on railways & wondered if someone had the expertise/sources to help?— Rod talk 12:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I've asked the poster of the improvement notice to provide more info on the changes needed, and also made a few minor changes..
One piece of information that does seem to be missing (ie references) is the extent of the reopening of the line - the article said between ilminster and chard junction, but was unreference - surely there must be a publication that contains the proposed changes?83.100.251.196 (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I think further references are required - specifically ones relating to specific workings on the line, dates of openings etc..83.100.251.196 (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
The information should be referenceable using the sources given at the end of the article...83.100.251.196 (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Northeast Regional S-line Template Problems

A few days ago Amtrak announced 2 Northeast Regional trains will run to and from Lynchburg, VA daily. Yesterday I edited the S-line template to include Lynchburg, however even though I edited the file to be the same as the other one that included Boston and Springfield, the template doesn't recognize the type as two stations and instead tries to link to "Newport News or Lynchburg (Amtrak station)". How do I link just Newport News and Lynchburg like just like Springfield, MA and Boston South Station are in the other template? Murjax (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

First, wait until it actually happens... --NE2 00:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to. I have proof of the service that will be running to Lynchburg now and you can even make reservations for those trains if you wish. The articles of the new stations being served also state the service doesn't start until October 1st so I doubt there would be confusion if the template was used now. Even if we did wait until then, we should have a working template sooner rather than later. Murjax (talk) 01:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I swiped the Northeast Regional Routebox from Alexandria, and used it on Union Station in DC and Bridgeport Metro-North Station for the time being. It's a temporary fix, but I'd like to be able to do the same thing to Metra Electric stations between the South Chicago and Blue Island branches along the main line, as well as the SEPTA Routes 101 and 102 stations where both lines run together. ----DanTD (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
UPDATE -- I just did this to every station except New Haven Union Station, because I knew I was going to have trouble with both splits. ----DanTD (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

October 1

Okay, since Lynchburg service starts today, would somebody tell us how to fix this problem now? ----DanTD (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Dammit, why isn't it possible to fix this template? Nothing north or east of New Haven Union Station can be fixed! ----DanTD (talk) 02:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm wondering if the template only allows it to be split once. Murjax (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
The splits on the local & express sections of the Metro-North Hudson Line convince me that it's possible to split templates twice, but I'll be damned if I knew how to do it. What I do know is that I was able to fix the templates at South Station (Boston) and Union Station (Springfield, Massachusetts), but nothing in between those and Bridgeport (Metro-North station). I've also had a problem fixing the template in the article on Belmont (CTA Brown, Red, and Purple Lines), and I've got a sandbox of experimental replacements. ----DanTD (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The Lynchburg or Newport News item needed an entry in Template:Amtrak stations, which I've taken care of. As it happens I passed through Washington on the Capitol Limited and I can attest that the service exists ;). Mackensen (talk) 22:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. So I take it that if I undo what I did with Springfield, MA & Boston South, Lynchburg & Newport News will show up properly. In the meantime, I still want to fix the routebox for Belmont Brown, Red and Purple CTA station. I thought I solved that problem when I fixed the one for Fullerton (CTA), but in this case lightning isn't striking twice. ----DanTD (talk) 00:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I think I've got it, if you want to check the article again. Mackensen (talk) 01:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
That worked. So did Boston South and Springfield. ----DanTD (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


Problems still not solved

I just realized every Northeast Regional station between Union Station (Washington D.C.) and Bridgeport (Metro-North station) only has Boston South Station as the northern terminus of the line, and neglects Union Station (Springfield, Massachusetts). ----DanTD (talk) 03:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Southern Railway's Spencer Shops

This article isn't terrible, but it could use some copyediting, especially for diction. Mangoe (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Cheyenne (Amtrak station)

I'm having trouble substantiating Cheyenne (Amtrak station). Amtrak's route map still shows Thruway Motorcoach service there from Denver, but Cheyenne isn't listed as a station, doesn't appear as an option for booking, and isn't one of the connections listed on the timetable for the California Zephyr. I tried checking on Coach America's website but I couldn't find specific fixed-route information. Now, Burlington Trailways (through Black Hills Stage Lines) does serve Cheyenne-Denver via Fort Collins, but its departure point is the Rodeway Inn. Mackensen (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Railroad History Database is worthless!

I've been trying to find references and links that I can use for articles such as Medfield Junction and the Boston and Albany Railroad's Newton Lower Falls Branch. I found very little, so I thought I'd look around for other nearby Boston Metro Area-related railroad articles, and of all things I came across was the Railroad History Database. And as I was reminded, no matter what you search for on that site, IT DOESN'T TELL YOU ANYTHING! So why do we bother using this as a reference? ----DanTD (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've found it to be useful as a starting point, but less so now that the Internet Archive has many old Poor's Manuals (which I believe that database is transcribed from). --NE2 09:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Every time I type something in there, all I get is "No records returned." ----DanTD (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Try "Boston & Albany". --NE2 07:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The same results. ----DanTD (talk) 13:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Without the quotes? --NE2 16:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I never thought of the quotes, so yes. ----DanTD (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
This is what you should get. Note the "P1868-69" - that means it's from Poor's 1868-69 volume. The 1860 volume actually has more history than any of the later ones, but only covers the northeast. --NE2 19:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree, that "database" is fairly useless. (The term "database" itself has become a meaningless term.) It's a tertiary-level reference, or worse. The Poor's books are very useful; they are secondary references. Of course, the primary references--the really good stuff--would be the official papers/records of the RR company itself, if you can find them... I wonder when the Archive, Google, et al will be scanning those. Caseyjonz (talk) 05:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Another station artricle merger(Indiana)

I just tagged yet another two station articles for merger; Big Four Depot (Lafayette, Indiana) into Lafayette, Indiana (Amtrak station). I found out about it on the commons, and I even showed a TrainWeb link proving they're one in the same. ----DanTD (talk) 13:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Individual locomotive articles

3265, 3801, 3820 and 3830 all need better titles which are far more descriptive. Something similar to LNER Class A3 4472 Flying Scotsman would be ideal. As I'm not too familiar with the subjects in question I'll leave the new titles to those who are. I'll notify the creator of this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 10:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

  • 3526 -> New South Wales C35 class locomotive 3526
  • 3265 -> New South Wales C32 class locomotive 3265
  • 3801 -> New South Wales C38 class locomotive 3801
  • 3820 -> New South Wales C38 class locomotive 3820
  • 3830 -> New South Wales C38 class locomotive 3830

See, for example, New South Wales C35 class locomotive. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess if you really wanted to, you'd change the article name to represent the railway and number as the class for New South Wales Government Railways locomotives can be determined, with only a few exceptions, simply by looking at the first two digits of the locomotive number. I don't know why articles have been created that name the state of NSW rather than the railway itself - unless someone thought that it was too confusing to recognise the transition from NSWGR to New South Wales Public Transport Commission to State Rail Authority of New South Wales. IMHO the correct way of labelling these articles that is most consistent with other locomotive articles on Wikipedia would be:
*3801 -> NSWGR 3801, or alternatively NSWGR C38 class 3801.
Just a point to consider however - are these locomotives individually notable enough to warrant their own article? As an Australian, I suggest not. Certainly 3801 has within Australia (or at least NSW) achieved a degree of fame as the star of the film A Steam Train Passes and also the locomotive for the Bicentennial Train and is worthy of an article in its own right, but 3265 or 3820? What's so notable that these locomotives need their own article, rather than their notable features being reported in their class articles?
Zzrbiker (talk) 11:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing. Just because a steam locomotive is preserved does not make it inherently notable. And, having read the articles, at no point do any of them, except 3801, assert their notability. I'd say the easiest solution to the originally posed problem would be to merge the individual articles into their respective class as part of a section called "surviving examples" or some such. oknazevad (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Preserved locomotives are likely to meet WP:N via WP:V. There are likely to be many mentions in books, magazines, videos, TV programmes etc. Mjroots (talk) 07:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I would have thought both the class and the individuals were proper nouns, and therefore should be capitalized per WP:CAPS. Arsenikk (talk) 10:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Named passenger trains in the US list

I'm finding the current organization of the named train lists cumbersome (e.g. List of named passenger trains of the United States (A-B), List of named passenger trains of the United States (C)). What I'd like to do is turn List of named passenger trains of the United States into the main page, and have it transclude individual sub articles for each letter (so, up to 26). I've created a few articles as a demonstration: List of named passenger trains of the United States/A, List of named passenger trains of the United States/B. What do people think? Mackensen (talk) 01:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Kind of mixed. I don't like the idea of having all named passenger trains in the US on one page. Breaking up some of the exisiting pages, on the other hand I'd consider. ----DanTD (talk) 05:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Articles aren't supposed to be transcluded like that. --NE2 07:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Sub-pages are not used in article space; besides, here you will have major problems coping with transclusions of the references. There are far too many trains to list on one page. What you need to do is create a table-of-contents template that can be used on each page and provide the continuity between the lists. Something based on {{CompactTOC8}} would probably do. (Don't forget to request deletion of those sub-pages once you're done.) This same template could potentially be used on the parent list page in place of the present direct links. -- EdJogg (talk) 12:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

LIRR/NJT/Metro-North style infoboxes are GONE!!

Okay, there's a big problem right now! Somebody deleted the Long Island Rail Road, Metro-North Railroad and New Jersey Transit-style parameters on the infoboxes!! What the hell happened today?! ----DanTD (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It's worse than I thought. Every station article in the country is having this problem!!! ----DanTD (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Calm down, it might be an after-effect of a change I made to {{Infobox Station}}. Looking now. Mackensen (talk) 01:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Got it--I missed a pipe link which broke the heading. Sorry about that. You might have to refresh your browser, but everything should be back to normal. Mackensen (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Eurasian Land Bridge- New article

I just posted a new article on the Eurasian Land Bridge. It appears that there may be more sources of information in railroad journals than in mainstream news sources. If anyone is interested, please see this section of the talk page for a list of information that the article is lacking but may be available in other sources. Thanks in advance. Cla68 (talk) 12:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

VIA Rail

VIA Rail has been requested to be renamed. 76.66.197.2 (talk) 06:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Паровоз П38

This article [4] and this article [5] don't exsist in the english wikipedia. I think they enough importance to be created in the english wiki. If you want a rough translation copy the name then paste it in the google search engine. - BennyK95 - Talk 21:48, October 29 2009 (UTC)

In the absence of any other work on this, I've taken the image from the Паровоз П38 article and inserted it in the 2-8-8-4 article in the English Wikipedia. - Zzrbiker (talk) 10:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

MBTA Fitchburg Line template

The current S-Line template for the MBTA Fitchburg Line should be switched, because it gives the appearence of running in the opposite direction. When I look at that thing, I swear I'm looking at another line going north from North Station. ----DanTD (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

category discussion

There is a category renaming discussion relevant to this WikiProject at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 26#More Locomotives. Hiding T 12:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

PATCO Speedline question

In the articles for 8th Street (SEPTA station) and City Hall (PATCO station) there's a slash through the closed Franklin Square (PATCO station) section of the routeboxes, yet I can't find any evidence of a strike-through text. Personally, I'd rather see a note saying "Closed 1979" on those portions, but I'd still like to know what's making that slash in front of Franklin Square station. ----DanTD (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

{{PATCO stations}} --NE2 22:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. Now I'm wondering what other templates have this format. I hope if I add a category there, it won't screw anything up. ----DanTD (talk) 22:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

TRE station renaming

I propose that all Trinity Railway Express stations between Fort Worth Intermodal Transportation Center and Dallas Union Station be renamed as ******(TRE station). Any comments on this? ----DanTD (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It would certainly be keeping with out usual conventions. I say go for it. oknazevad (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Done. I should do it to more of the DART Light Rail stations as well, but a lot of them aren't completed as light-rail stations yet. ----DanTD (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Can't disagree with that either. Though, the question is, dose one use (DART Light Rail station) or simply (DART Station)? And what about the other DARTs?oknazevad (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Most of the other DART's have nothing to do with the railroad. I just renamed a large number of DART station articles, but I've left a few of them aside. ----DanTD (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

DART Light Rail station issues

Just out of curiosity, is there any way that the DART light rail stations template could be arranged so that you could click on Park Lane (DART station) and St. Paul (DART station) without having to go to the dab pages? I admit that St. Paul Station is my fault though, because I renamed that and turned the old version into the dab page that it is today. ----DanTD (talk) 13:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes (probably). Let me review the state of the articles and I'll get back to you. Mackensen (talk) 23:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Okay, I've updated the default case. Everything except Union Station and Convention Center now points to [[Name (DART station)|Name]]. Some stations may need to be moved still. 23:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Caltrain & ACE color bars

Is there anyway these can be fixed? Just when I think I got the templates right, I end up screwing them up. ----DanTD (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Our most important articles

I've created a rough outline of the most important concepts in railroading at User:NE2/important railway articles. Please help by adding any other general topics I've missed. It would be nice if we could get together and improve some of these - more specific articles are easier and more interesting, but these need to be better. Are there any good books (or websites) that can be used as sources for expansion? --NE2 07:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The silence is deafening. --NE2 01:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd suggest Public transport as something you'd probably want in there, even though I take on board the fact that it's not exclusively rail related. Ditto for Public transport timetable, because timetabling is such an important part of any railway operation. Conversely, I don't know if bank engine is still such an important topic in the post-steam era. I guess it's a question of how you define 'importance', in a historical context for example, Fire-tube boiler is probably one of the most important developments in 200+ years of railway history, because it made steam locomotives viable and allowed horse-drawn wagon ways to develop into railways as we know them. Zzrbiker (talk) 10:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree about bank engine - that's something I threw in there to show what it would fit under. The ones I actually think are at the way top with respect to importance are now categorized in Category:Top-importance rail transport articles. --NE2 04:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Transit and commuter system article organization question

I wanted to get a few others perspectives on this. Recently, I reorganized the sections in the Long Island Rail Road and Metro-North Railroad articles to put current system service details, such as lines, before the history section. This has been reverted, on the arguement that providing such background is neccessary to understand the current services.

I disagree that the history is necessary to know about the current system. But more importantly, I believe that a first-time reader, knowing nothing about the system, would be far better served by learning what lines are part of the system and what areas are served first.

I wanted to know what others thought.oknazevad (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a very tough call, as it depends on the perspective of the person reading the article. Are they interested in the historic background of the line, or are they just wanting to check its current operations? Reading the LIRR article, I note that the history area is a relatively short summary with a link to a larger article on that specific topic (good idea), so in its current form it's relatively easy to skip past that section and get on to the current services. Personally I think the article reads better with the history explained earlier (it just flows nicely) but I'm not sure I agree with the idea that I can't really understand or appreciate the current services without having read about what the LIRR was doing back in 1834. As an alternative suggestion, would you be happier with having the history section at the start if it was a lot briefer (given that there's a whole separate article on it anyway?) Zzrbiker (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
The one thing that distinguishes the LIRR from other commuter railroad systems is that their history actually goes back to 1834. The others, including Metro-North, live off the remains of the "golden age" of railroading. ----DanTD (talk) 04:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. My view regarding the LIRR article was much the same, Zz, as having the separate history article means theain article won't get bogged down by it, so its early location is not an issue. And the relatively unique historical continuity of the LIRR is an important aspect of it.

The problem I often find with putting the history first in these articles, though, is that the sections tend to be the longest. Combining that fact with a placement before all other sections tends, in my view, to give short shrift to the fact that these are very much active railroads. The idea, as expressed by Dan, that these systems are mere shadows of former glory is a bit short-sighted, as they carry as many people, if not more, than their predecessors ever did on the same routes. Honestly, saying Metro-North merely "lives off remains" undersells it's own 25-plus year history, and the tremendous achievements that they've accomplished in restoring, even improving, upon the shattered system they inheritted from bankrupt concerns. These are modern, active systems, and shouldn't be relegated to a coda on history.oknazevad (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that the newer ones are shadows of their former glory. I just said their history is much shorter, and yes they do use lines, stations, and yards of former railroads. Metro-North does operate primarily on former New York Central, Erie Lackawanna Railway, and New Haven Railroad lines. That doesn't mean they're completley lacking a history. Not by a long shot. ----DanTD (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Request comments on signaling article scope

I'd like to solicit advice on how best to separate out content on home and distant signals from their current location; see Talk:Railway semaphore signal. Choess (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bishop's Stortford Ultra Light Railway --NE2 10:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Definition of high speed rail

Minor problem - it looks like numerous articles state that "The UIC defines high speed rail .. greater than 200km/hr ..." The UIC does not - the relevent UIC page notes that EC Directive 96/48 gives this definition. see Trans-European high-speed rail network for more details. I've corrected High-speed rail in the United States and High-speed_rail but others may exist. If you are aware of any similar assertations please correct them. Suitable references are http://www.uic.org/spip.php?article971 and http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31996L0048:EN:HTML

Shortfatlad (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Needless flagstop "station" articles

User M@sk has been busy creating "station" articles for what are no more than flagstops on the CN/VIA Rail line across northern BC; I've placed merge tags on a few of them but there's so damned many; this is overzealousness based on no local knowledge at all; places like Usk, Telkwa, Cedarvale, Kitwanga already have articles the "station" category could be placed on (actually they already have the "CNR railway stations" category, such that M@sk's "VIA rail station "category is redundant to start with). This is needless reduplication of articles based on...the presence of a flagstop, not even a building...for places the train doesn't even have a scheduled service (stop have to be arranged 48 hours before)....unless there's a building, as at McBride railway station, I see no reason for these articles to exist (and in some cases M@sk has ignored the pre-existence of other station articles which don't have "VIA" in their titles but which are the same station/flagstop.Skookum1 (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I say if they're for an active station, they'd have a good enough reason to exist. Inactive station articles, I'd be a little more selective about. -----DanTD (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
All of the station articles I created are for active stations served by the Skeena (train) or The Canadian lines. In the case of the Skeena many of these stops had actual station building built in the 1910-1915 time period, however for the communities that did not take off in population the building fell into disrepair and many are nothing more than the building foundation and an old platform at this point. If you go to the VIA website you can still purchase tickets to from each of these places. As for not being very familiar with the region that is correct, I lived in southern BC and Vancouver Island for some years before moving to the prairies. I have only traveled on the Skeena route once and The Canadian twice. So a local resident of Northern BC may be able to provide more details. I tried to leave the community articles alone since they talked about when the post offices were created, population changes, etc. Usk for example gets in to details on the river ferry [6] and flood in the 1930 that are independent of railway service etc. --M@sk (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Big problems with organization of signaling articles

We seem to have at least one extra signaling article. I think there is good cause to have North American railway signaling, but looking at North American railroad signals, it seems to me that most of the material in here is either already in railway signal, for is about practice and therefore belongs in the signaling article. I also suspect that the duplication goes well beyond here. Could we talk a bit about how these articles ought to be organized? Mangoe (talk) 01:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The two look like an obvious merge, unless I'm missing something. As for the generic railway signal the scope of this is so broad that usually problem exist with getting a good article - whereas the two NA articles you mention look like a good start (we also have problems with people writing articles from a particular geographical perspective - merging into railway signal would probably unbalance it.)
At first sight I'd suggest merging the two NA articles to make an even better one. Once that is done maybe worry about duplication with Railway signal (by the way those links shouldn't be bolded in North American railway signaling)Shortfatlad (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, a rename might be more applicable here. Most of North American railway signaling is devoted to what I'd describe as "railroad operation" rather than "railway signaling": the development of operating rules, timetable and train order, etc., although it does discuss blocks and block signaling. Perhaps it's a UK-ism to refer to these things in general as "signaling". That said, much of North American railroad signals could probably be merged into Railway signal and sub-articles spun off of that; for instance, there's a subarticle on Railway semaphore signals, but none on position light signals, color position light signals, etc. Such articles could safely absorb material from both the European-influenced Railway signal and North American railroad signal articles. The sections on signal mounting also look ripe for merger and probably don't require a subarticle. Why not start with that and then see what's left of the second North American article to dispose of?
And while I have your attention, could I ask again for eyes on Talk:Railway semaphore signal, proposing to pry "home signal" and "distant signal" out of that article? Choess (talk) 03:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I've given this a little thought, and quickly bodged out a rough hierarchy. Some of the items in the hierarchy will be sections of articles at the next level up, and some will be worthy of separate articles. Names are not final. See what you think.

  • Railway Operations
    • Historical development of railway operations
      • US
      • UK
    • Timetable/Train order
    • Signaling
      • Definition of aspect and indication
      • Signals (physical)
        • Appearances of signals
          • Early Mechanical (highball, board)
          • Semaphore
          • Color searchlight
          • Position light
          • Color position light
        • Mounting of signals
        • Applications of signals (home/distant)
        • Crossing signals
        • Signal rules
        • Aspect systems (speed vs route; can discuss divergence in NA vs European practice)
          • Manual block
          • Automatic block
          • Individual country/railroad rules
      • Control of signals
        • Automatic vs absolute (interlocked)
        • Interlocking
          • Mechanical
          • Electro-pneumatic
          • Electrical
          • Solid state
        • Centralization (CTC and successors)
          • various manufacturers and flavors
        • Track circuits
        • Cab signaling
        • Train control
          • various national flavors

Preceeding unsigned comment added by Choess (talk) 03:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

As usual, the section begins with the histoty of US and UK. It is getting very tedious having to remind "myopic" editors that there are other countries on this planet. It says everything about how sad Wikipedia is becoming. Bhtpbank (talk) 07:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, considering the earliest dvelopments in railroads actually took place in the UK and the US (simultaneously yet independantly, hence the divergence of terminology), there's absolutely nothing "myopic" about discussing the developments there that then spread to the worlds other countries. Overall, I think the proposed hierarchy looks exactly like a table of contents at a main article at Rail operations should. Naturally, due to length that would be inherent to such an article, some of those sections would be best served as subarticles linked from the main, but generally I like it. oknazevad (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
PS. I know my proposed title of Rail operations is currently a redlink, but I think that using "railway" doesn't reflect the main rail transport article title. In fact, Rail transport operations is probably the best title upon reflection, as it doesn't fall to one side of the UK/US terminology divide. oknazevad (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've given some thought to the hierarchy of signalling articles. I don't think we should worry too much at this stage about the articles lower down the chain as we could spend months debating them. If we can just reach consensus on what the high-level articles should be, it will be a huge leap forward.

I propose that the high-level articles be as follows:

  • (Rail transport operations)
    • Railway signalling
      • Method of working
      • Application of railway signals
      • Railway signal
      • Control of signalling
      • Interlocking
      • Train protection system
      • External signalling equipment

I've tried to group the subject matter into logical areas. Don't get too hung up about the titles I've used as these have not been finalised.

The purpose and scope of the above listed articles would be as follows:

Railway signalling - This is, and should remain, the top-level article on railway signalling matters. It sets out the need for signalling and the history of its development. It includes sections summarising the topics covered in each of the articles in the next level down.

Method of working - This article shall describe the various systems and rules by which railways are operated, e.g. track warrant control, single line token systems, CTC. This shall include any systems where physical signals are not necessary. An article along these lines already exists, titled with the Australian term "Safeworking" but it needs to be greatly expanded. There has previously been some discussion on this topic at Talk:Railway signalling#Safeworking/signalling topic organisation.

Application of railway signals - A new article, as has recently been proposed at Talk:Railway semaphore signal. This shall describe, in broad terms, the purpose of signals and how/where they are used on the railway.

Railway signal - This is an existing article. It should describe the different forms of signals, e.g. mechanical (semaphores etc.), colour light, position light, but not their meanings/applications (which will vary greatly from country to country). Cab signalling belongs one level down, underneath this article.

Control of signalling - This shall describe the buildings (e.g. control centres) from where the signalman/operator controls the signalling and describes the control/indication equipment that they interface with. An article along these lines already exists, titled with the British term "Signal box".

Interlocking - This is an existing article. It describes the function of interlocking and has descriptions of the various forms, e.g. mechanical, relay, electronic.

Train protection system - This is an existing article. It describes the various protection systems at a high level. More detailed articles on specific systems belong one level down, underneath this article.

External signalling equipment - A new high-level article, covering all trackside signalling equipment, other than signals and train protection systems. Subjects covered would include track circuits, axle counters, and methods of driving switches/points. Detailed articles would belong in the next level down.

As the above are all high level articles, there should generally be no country-specific information in them. As always, it will be necessary to watch out for well-meaning casual editors who do not understand the way that the articles are organised and will add detailed country-specific information where it doesn't belong.

The railway signalling navigational box should be adjusted to reflect the agreed hierarchy, with all the high-level articles linked in the left-hand column ("Railway signalling" would stay at the top).

Since railway signalling doesn't always involve signals, it is entirely reasonable that there be separate articles for both. This applies just as much to the lower level country-specific articles, such as the separate pairs of articles that presently exist for both US and UK practice. The 'signalling' articles describe the practices and equipment specific to that country, while the 'signal' articles illustrate and explain some of the commonly-found signal indications that would otherwise clutter up the 'signalling' articles. –Signalhead < T > 23:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

So speaks someone who knows what they're talking about. (Username is a bit of a giveaway!!) This seems a very sensible and well thought out structure. It makes a change that a high-level topic can be analysed and effectively sub-divided. The high-level articles Railway and train would benefit from the same care and attention. Fixing rail transport operations is a great move forwards. EdJogg (talk) 11:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
My main issue with this concerns the split between railway signalling and the proposed "application" article. I think a better way to deal with this would be to push the whole topic of train control (or whatever term we think fits better-- is this the same as "method of working"?) into its own article; that article would be the parent to timetable and train order and all the various operational methods, including railway signalling and the token-based systems. The latter article would lose the sections on non-signal-using operation. The various train control methods which use signalling would also keep their own articles. I'm also thinkin that dispatching needs to be fitted in here somewhere. Mangoe (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
That was sort of what I'd intended with my hierarchy; "railway operations" or whatever you want to call it would include an introduction to all different methods of getting a train from Point A to Point B without colliding with Object C. The present state of Railway signalling more or less corresponds with that at present, and Safeworking should probably be merged into that. I'm not sure I see the need for a child article aggregating all the methods of working that don't use physical signals (CTC is signaled; was that supposed to be CBTC/moving block?) but I guess I'm open to persuasion. Choess (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I did mean CTC; I was just giving a few examples of 'methods of working', some of which use signals and some that don't. I can see little benefit in separating off those that don't involve signals so that some would come under "railway signalling" and some under "railway operations". It's better to have all these methods listed in one place where the differences between them can be explained. To my mind, they all come under the umbrella of 'signalling'. I certainly don't want to see Safeworking merged into Railway signalling. Because "Safeworking" describes specific systems, the level of information is too detailed for what is the top-level overview article on signalling. At present, only a handful of systems are listed there, but there are many others still to be added. –Signalhead < T > 00:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah, OK, we violently agree on the first point. I misread your "shall include..." language as being exclusive of methods using signals rather than inclusive. I think I've wrapped my head around your ontology now: quite a bit of Railway signalling will have to be pushed down into the new "Method of working" article, but you've unflattened my hierarchy a bit at the top level, which seems good. Regarding Safeworking, the term itself and about 95% of the content seem to be generic; that is, someone writing in Australian English would presumably use "safeworking" to describe the method of operations of any railroad. (I'll let you judge the generic nature of the present content for yourself.) Almost the only part that's really Australia-specific is the outline structure itself. Maybe move safeworking to Railway signalling in Australia and then change the target of the redirect to methods of working? Choess (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be consensus for an article on Application of railway signals, so I've made a start. See what you think and feel free to expand it. Home signal and Distant signal now redirect to this new article, instead of Railway semaphore signal.–Signalhead < T > 23:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

New Page Rating

I have created a new page and would like it to get a rating from the Trains Wikiproject.

The page is called The Engine House.

Thanks. --Manor 7812 (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I set it to class C, importance mid (was B, high). It looks like an interesting museum; lots of room to improve the article. n2xjk (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Bo-Bo-Bo

Trivia question : Is there any classification system that distinguishes between:

? 77.86.42.133 (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Anon IP 79.* de-categorization of category:Preserved British steam locomotives at Wikimedia Commons

A persistent anon IP keeps removing the sub-categories and content of commons:category:Preserved British steam locomotives. They edit from the 79.*.*.* IP space (Tiscali, UK) but wander around within this range (79.67.170.195, 79.67.242.201), so they're hard to track. They refuse to log in (they claim not to have or want an account, I don't know how true this is, or if they're deliberately socking).

I've tried to start some dialogue on my own talk page , also with admin:Foroa, but they continue de-categorizing regardless. Their talk page edits (no formatting, messed up indents, no signatures) look (or are intended to look) like a naive newbie, yet they understand the Commons 'bots well enough.

The immediate problem is that Commons runs categorization 'bots. See commons:Category:Preserved_War_Department_steam_locomotives. One edit action, tagging a cat as "moved" will lead to a 'bot de-populating that category by recategorizing each of its content images. If the new cat is a merge to a larger cat, it's very difficult to reverse this operation.

Their actions have been to remove any categorization that indicates membership of the less absolute cats, such as category:Preserved British steam locomotives (or sub cats), similarly category:Historical British Railways steam locomotives. I haven't checked under category:Early steam locomotives, owing to lack of time. They've also bizarrely merged content from "British Railways steam locomotives" to "British Railways standard classes" (maybe they think BR didn't build anything else?!).

Their assertion is that the categories are "a real mess", which is reasonable enough. However their actions are losing information on preservation, mis-categorizing and generally making things worse, not better.

To achieve any real result here, I think we need to first agree some consensus on a useful category structure. I see maintaining the "Preserved" and "Early (1830 and before)" categorizations as useful. I admit I've never understood the "Historical" distinction, so that needed clarification at least.

Any help here? Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 11:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You could direct them here to discuss. Also direct them to Steam_locomotives_of_British_Railways#BR_standard_classes for an explanation of there error as regards the recategorisation that category.
It's clear that the changes were erroneous. If they're not understanding the error sometime it can be helpful to put a warning template on the talk page eg {{subst:uw-badcat}} The exclamation mark in the warning sometimes has a sobering effect.
One thing I don't understand is "category:Historical British Railways steam locomotives" - what purpose was this for ie what does "historical" mean.
If the situation continues I'd suggest Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism as the next step - IP range blocks on selected articles (eg any article with 'steam' in the title) are possible. This would be a last resort. Not sure how it being on commons affects things.
I assume they have stopped now?Shortfatlad (talk) 13:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Also do you need some help reverting the edits once the problem is over? (how many/much ?) - or can a bot do the reverts?Shortfatlad (talk) 13:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

I do see that some work needs to be done on these images. Proposals (for me to start/do)

  • Categorisation by wheel arrangement/tender (definately helpful)
  • Categorisation by passenger/freight/mixed used (will this be meaningful at all?)

Thus there would categories such as "LNER 2-4-2T locomotives" and "British 2-4-2T locomotives (supercat)" and "British 2-4-2T locomotives by company" (etc) ..

I'd also suggest renaming the categories "Historical .... locomotives" to simply ".... locomotives" and making "preserved .... locomotives" subcats of those categories. The term 'historical' seems superfluous.

What really needs doing is "locomotive by builder" and further "locomotives by type" cats seem necessary too. eg "Category:LNER Class A1/A3 steam locomotives" should be in at least two extra cats. I'm probably not knowledgeable enough to start that without extra research and learning. (volunteers?)

Any comments/objections ?Shortfatlad (talk) 14:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

A definition of "Preserved"

Do we already have a definition of "Preserved" ? Do we have at least a UK definition for it?

The question relates to commons:category:Preserved British steam locomotives, and its sub-cats. If we're going to start mandating their use, then we need to have a clearly understood meaning beforehand. At present it says this:

Preserved British steam locomotives, i.e. anything surviving after withdrawal as either the result of deliberate preservation (working or not), or (for historical record) period images of those between withdrawal and scrapping at places like Woodham's scrapyard.
These are subdivided into those built by big four companies (with their constituents included there as well - these may be split off later) (i.e. GWR, LMS, LNER, Southern) and British Railways types. Plus narrow gauge and industrials, and there are a couple of odds and sods (WD, Metopolitan Railway) in this category for the while.

Q1 - Should preservation also include static display, sectioning, storage awaiting restoration, and locos not on public display? (Pete Waterman probably has a couple of Coronations tucked away in his bathroom)

Q2 - For mainline steam, it seems clear enough from the post-'68 withdrawal. Grouping and pre-grouping companies beneath this seem reasonable too. What happens though about industrials and narrow gauge? The L&HR's Austerities have run for 30-odd years in preservation, longer than they were with the NCB. Would a 1980s photo of a working NCB Austerity though still be seen as preservation? If we regard "preservation" as being "return to service after withdrawal", how this that apply to narrow-gauge? Tallylyn seems obvious for inclusion, but what about the R&ER or the Vale of Rheidol, which never stopped working? WP:SNOW suggests that they "obviously" are, but it's hard to find a precise form of words for this, and we've already run into similar problems.

Q3 - Is a photo of Mallard in the '30s "preserved" too, because it was preserved in the future, or only if it's a post-'68 photo of Mallard? Presumably this is in the preserved category for a single loco-specific category (e.g. Mallard), but not for individual images of Mallard unless they're themselves in the preservation era. What about some little 57xx pannier though that's unlikely to ever warrant its own cat, but when the number's identifiable and that loco did later end up in preservation? Should that be included?

Q4 - Are we happy enough to include Woodhams, when many of those individuals didn't end up preserved? I'd be happy to have a general policy here that "Woodhams" as a cat belongs under UK preservation, but single images would generally not be so (they'd be under Woodhams though, thus transitiviely categorized). This could change for individual significant images, where a to-be-preserved loco has some stronger connection with preservation and its photo while at Woodhams is more directly relevant.

I'd also ask that we remember the main use of categorization at commons: it's about navigation structures to help find things, not rigid definition by taxonomy. Over-inclusion is usually better than under-inclusion, unless volume becomes a problem.

Comments please! Andy Dingley (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Yes. (if anyone wants to make "cat:locomotives undergoing restoration" I will support that) I assume that "preserved" included locomotives in various states of repair, provided that they are not due to be cut up.
2 Not sure - if the loco is in revenue earning service (unsupported by charitable donations) then I'd say it's not preserved. However if the locomotive appears unusually shiny eg Talyllyn (locomotive) and is very old then I think it's reasonable to label it preserved whether economic to run or not.
3. Wondering about this too. Go for inclusion eg pre-withdrawal images of preserved locos included. (as per make it easy to use cats)
4. Suggest category "images of british locomotives in scrapyards" (or something) (defunct british locomotives?) - bit fiddly, not sure of a complete solution - but would not want an image of a locomotive that was scrapped to appear in the preserved category.Shortfatlad (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
As a random observer, I'd say there's a problem with the original definition. The second part, "or (for historical record) period images of those between withdrawal and scrapping at places like Woodham's scrapyard", doesn't count as preservation in my mind, for if no effort was made to prevent the scrapping, then the units were certainly not preserved. A cat on preserved should certainly not include scrapped units, regardless of when the pic was taken. Pics of locos that were later preserved would work, though.
I would also say static displays do count, for although they are no longer functioning, they are a physical artifact of the period that has been prevented from destruction.
Finally, the "historical" cat seems to me to be the place to put images of locomotives that are no longer in current use, but aren't limited to preserved examples. This would be the place for images such as the ones I said shouldn't count as preserved, as well as any vintage shots of them at work. It'd be a huge cat, though, and may be best broken down into decades or other such time periods, as well as by passenger vs freight (a very good distinction for cats, btw).
Anyway, just my 2 cents. Or should that be 2 pence here?oknazevad (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm having second thoughts about by original distinction between "historical" and "preserved" above. Now I think that only pre-preservation images should be in the "historical" commons cat. Additionally where a "preserved loco" subcat exists then the supercat should again only have pre-preservation images.. Any other thoughts.. (consensus?)Shortfatlad (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Way I see it, "historical" should be for pictures of any locomotive that's no longer in regular service that were taken during the loco's service life. Subcats by era/type/builder/etc. can be made, and a single picture can be in multiple subcats as needed.
"Preserved" should contain pictures of individual locomotives for which specific effort was made to keep intact after their general service life ended, either as a static or moving display. If a picture depicts a locomotive during it's service life that was later preserved, it can be in both.
At no point should a locomotive that was scrapped be in "preserved", unless the scrapping was the unfortunate result of the preserver running short of funds and no longer being able to pay for upkeep. While it may no longer be preserved, it was for a time and therefore qualifies.
Just the way I categorize 'em in my mind. oknazevad (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Update

I've almost finished categorising commons:category:Steam locomotives of the United Kingdom (only 99 to go!). Now would be a good time to suggest any improvements to the categorisation system there (including a standardised naming style). Any suggestions or volunteers welcome.Shortfatlad (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Henley Branch Line

Requested move to Regatta Line. See Talk:Henley Branch Line. Simply south (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Unresolved station merger issues

I've suggested my share of article mergers recently, including The Big Four station in Lafayette, Indiana, which was successfully merged into the Amtrak article, and the Wellesley Hills Boston & Albany station which has not yet been merged into the MBTA article, but has at least been activley discussed. But right now, there are two others that have been overlooked so far;

Is there anyone willing to take a crack at these? ----DanTD (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: I took care of Santa Clara myself. Palmer shouldn't be such a problem after this, and I may even merge Wellesley Hills before there's even a concensus, something that I generally perfer not to do. ----DanTD (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Seems a safe bet if they're the same structure. Mackensen (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree, and I've merged Wellesley Hills just now. The only thing keeping me from merging the Palmer articles are the discrepancies in the years of origin. ----DanTD (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Do we have access to the Ochsner book? It seems to be the source for both articles. Mackensen (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Google books link: [7]. Ochsner says "apparently 1885." Mackensen (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
On the other hand, this says 1883-1884, while this says 1881. Mackensen (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I merged the two Palmer, Massachusetts station articles despite the dispute over the year it was established. I'll make a note of adding those references in the future. ----DanTD (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Lake Shore Limited

I've started a new article on the New York Central Railroad's Lake Shore Limited, but I'm having a devil of a time pinning down when it actually ended. It seems to be mostly a dead letter after 1956, and I couldn't find it in a 1958 timetable, but a source actually saying "ended on X date" would be better. Many thanks for any help rendered. Mackensen (talk) 02:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, if brief. One thing I would do, though, is change the disambiguator in the title to spell out New York Central. While an obvious reporting mark to railfan eyes, to the general reader, "NYC" would mean "New York City". oknazevad (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
In general these articles are disambiguated (I think) by the short descriptor, whatever that is. So, B&O, not Baltimore and Ohio. Amtrak, not National Railroad Passenger Corporation. Mackensen (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Usually, you'd be right, but in this case, the short form creates potential ambiguity, and therefore is a poor disambiguator.oknazevad (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Hrmm, and it hasn't come up with any of the other Central trains. On the other hand, the train always went to New York. Mackensen (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Virginia Service

I'm wondering what to do about the Virginia Service article. Amtrak doesn't appear to use this as a term of art (if it did before, I don't think it does now). It has useful information about past named services on the Washington-Richmond-Newport News corridor, but any current services should probably be covered (and are) in the Northeast Regional article. Most of the content could probably merge to Northeast Regional without doing too much harm. Mackensen (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say incorporate into the Northeast Regional. But, make it a separate sectio, for although increasingly popular, these trains are still atypical compared to the usual NEC trains, insomuch as they're non-electric, and operate on non-Amtrak or state-owned trackage. Also, they appear to have a different history than PRR/NH history of NEC.
That said, I'd also cut a LOT of the excess, non-encyclopedic detail, like which train number comes from which former named route, in favor of a quick note like "Previous services included such named trains as x,y,z". Afterall, is not a timetable (which is where one finds train numbers) nor a collection of every fact ever.oknazevad (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
This brings up, tangentially, the question of articles on individual trains on NEC. I'm in favor if there's prior history (like the Bankers), or there's some unusual circumstance (like the Colonial taking over the Newport News operation). Anyway, I like merging into Northeast Regional, but there might be room for a shorter, restructured article like Amtrak service in Virginia. I've been mulling one for West Virginia, to document the myriad Staggers-inspired trains operating there in the 1970s. Mackensen (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I think it's most telling regarding named trains on the NEC that relatively few outside of the railroader & railfan circles even noticed that the names were dropped, as they barely even noticed that the names existed! To me, the only truly important NEC names are the Metroliner, Acela Express, and Clockers, if only because they were full blown categories of service, not largely indistinguishable individual train numbers. Even in the Bankers, there was a train with identicle route and service that was only distinguished by the fact that it left an hour later. That's not really a different train, in truth. oknazevad (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This is done; consolidated down to a paragraph for now in the Northeast Regional article. It's all in the history if we need it. Mackensen (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Mackensen, I've just saved an old version from the history onto a Microsoft Word file, because somehow I have a suspicion there might be other articles that this could be used for. ----DanTD (talk) 13:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I suspect it could as well. I'm already working on the various Colonial articles. I think this is useful somewhere; I'm just not sure where yet. Like I said, it's all in the history where we can get it. Mackensen (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Downtown (Capital MetroRail station) --NE2 17:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I just found out that the results were Keep. Now I have a question; What were the original categories within the Category:Capital MetroRail stations? I restored that cat, but I don't know if I used the right ones in order to do so. ----DanTD (talk) 03:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Take a number. --NE2 06:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Attention Southern California based railfans: I just created three map templates tonight: 1)Template:Ventura County Line RDT, 2)Template:Riverside Line map, and 3)Template:San Bernardino Line map. All were made with the existing maps on their respected pages. Now, they can be used for the articles. ----DanTD (talk) 02:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC) ‎

'ALT' text for images

There is a move towards providing 'ALT' text for all images used on Wikipedia. This is text that will be displayed if the image is not displayable, or read-aloud if a screen-reader is in use by a user with impaired vision. WP:ALT explains further, and gives some hints about how to write the descriptive text. I don't think it is a requirement for Good and Featured Articles yet, but would be very surprised if it is not enforced before long.

(ALT text is also displayed (in IE, at least) when the mouse hovers over the image.) Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 12:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

{{Infobox locomotive}} has now been modified to support alt text, so you are encouraged to add it as appropriate.

BTW -- writing good ALT text descriptions is not easy, and will be even harder for us trying to describe locomotives! But it's still worth having a go...

(As an example, SR Merchant Navy class is the very first article to include the alt text in the infobox, but the syntax is the same as for any other parameter. On its talk page is a 'tool box' which includes a link to a web utility that will show the article's images and captions alongside their alt text. This requires the alt text to be saved in the article. To check before saving you'll need to turn off images in your browser and refresh the page.)

EdJogg (talk) 10:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I rarely take pictures strictly of locomotives, but if I can't write any ALT text for the images I've posted in articles, it would be interesting to see what is written by other users. In any case, I'm both intrigued and concerned(and a little worried) at the same time. ----DanTD (talk) 11:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Why should this be a worry? It is a good basic web design principle to include ways to maximise the accesibility of all parts of the site, images included. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 12:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it's a good idea. I just don't want the images to be deleted if they don't have these descriptions. ----DanTD (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think I've seen any suggestion of an image being deleted if it has no ALT text. There is a suggestion that the alt text should be added to the image file so that there is a default text wherever the image is used. Anyone can add the text, although I suspect there will evolve a group of editors who specialise in doing so as it requires a very particular style of writing. My comment regarding GA/FA articles is more the thought that in future the article would not be passed unless the images used do have alt text present, since these processes are intended to produce the highest quality articles.
EdJogg (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, then that's good to know. I'd still like to know what the descriptions of my images are going to be like if I don't fill them in. Wouldn't you? ----DanTD (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Alt-texts are required at FA and FL nominations, and lack of alt-compliance is a valid reason to delist such articles now. However, the requirement has not been enforced for GA, and probably will not be until a full revamp of the GA criteria is done again (the last time was in 2007). Arsenikk (talk) 09:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Jefferson and Cypress Bayou Railway

Apparently the original author has requested deletion - see the talk page. It looks like this can be cleaned up, but I'm not interested because I don't care about tourist lines. --NE2 16:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone keeps using anonymous logins to strip large chunks of detail out of Victorian Railways locomotive articles

Sigh

I've reverted, for at least the third time, a series of edits to these articles:

The same edit is being made again and again, but by someone who is not logging in and so there's no talk page for me to write to the editor on. I've written a request for the Discussion page for each article that they justify why they are removing so much information out of the articles. All to no avail.

What would you recommend I do next? I'm thinking that about the only thing that's likely to get through to them would be to put an instruction to discuss the edit in non-printing tags, ie put into the article: <!-- Please do not revert the last edit and instead go to the discussion page for this article to discuss the edit -->.

Comments/suggestions?

Zzrbiker (talk) 04:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that stopping edits like this tends to become more difficult than it sounds. Exhibit A. ----DanTD (talk) 04:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, so not much hope of making an appeal for Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Semi-protection then?
Zzrbiker (talk) 04:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
If it's still an issue I can semi-protect all of them. Mackensen (talk) 00:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks kindly Mackensen. If the revert happens again (here's hoping it doesn't), I might take you up on your offer. Zzrbiker (talk) 09:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Wishful thinking on my part. I've just reverted two edits yet again, another editor was kind enough to revert a third. Mackensen, if you could semi-protect these articles I'd be much obliged. Zzrbiker (talk) 12:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Done. Two weeks on each article. Mackensen (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, after Mackensen semi-protected the articles, I finally got a response from the anonymous editor, who conveyed his opinion (let's assume it's a he) that the article layout was "crap" and told me to "sod off". He also made a remark that suggested he'd wait until the protection on these articles expired and possibly edit again then.

From my perspective, I just want to see what others think of the disputed edits. The difference between reverts for the R class article can be seen here, with the anonymous editor's version being the more recent in the comparison.

In this and other articles, various editors had compiled details on the preservation status of the various remaining locomotives and in some cases, short histories of their careers in preservation. The anonymous editor simply stripped these details back to single line entries on their current status only. For the Victorian Railways R class article, a fact as notable as R 704 being exhibited at the Festival of Britain was deleted by this editor, but at the same time (unreferenced) facts as comparatively trivial as the maintenance problems of R 766 in 2001 were added. His edits also had numerous typographical errors, cited no references (his opinion was that as this information is all on the internet, we can find it ourselves) and made dubious, seemingly POV statements such as "Due to various reasons, one of which being apathy, the decision was made to discontinue the Steam operations." FWIW, I've noticed that his edits to Victorian Railways X class were quickly reverted by another editor, as was his last edit to the R class article.

Am I right here? My view is that with the lack of references for the few new facts provided, the typos, broken references on previous edits, and mostly for the large amounts of information removed, I can't agree that this editor's contributions have improved the article and find little if anything that I can salvage from them, hence my reverting to the earlier edits. Zzrbiker (talk) 12:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think on balance, you are. I've recently had a similar experience with an anonymous editor, who had a tunnel-vision approach to something close to his (and my) own experience, ignoring the NPOV / verifyability guidelines. Eventually, both the anonymous IP and a subsequent user account (s)he created were blocked for various indiscretions including the history of disruptive edits. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh dear, here we go again. Same anonymous editor, reverting the R class articlwe to the same edit full of mistakes, including reverting WP:MOS changes such as unlinking of dates. This editor seems to have no clue about the difference between an encyclopedia and a personal web page, as is evident by this edit to Victorian Goldfields Railway. Do we semi-protect the articles again? Zzrbiker (talk) 11:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

British Rail Class 21

(duplicated at Wikiproject UK railways) Can anyone give more info on the new Class 21 - the page currently suggests a redirect to MaK G1206 - but I can't find anywhere it says that any of these were given the TOPS classification 21 ? 83.100.138.149 (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggest this is kept in one place - WT:UKRAIL#British Rail Class 21 Mjroots (talk) 07:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Caltrain articles question

Hey. A little over a year ago a user split the station list/table for Caltrain into a separate article called List of Caltrain stations. The user had brought it up on the Caltrain talk page, but was advised against it. Nonetheless, the list was split out. I honestly think that the original advice was good, as Caltrain, being a single line, should have the station list on the single page. That is the case for other such systems, like the South Shore Line, and Caltrain's closest sibling, the Altamont Commuter Express. As additional evidence, the brief intro text on the list article is almost verbatim from the main article.

Unless I hear any objections, I have a strong urge to be bold and merge them without further discussion. oknazevad (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

So merged, boldly.oknazevad (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
This sort of issue is best discussed on the articles talk page, not here (although dropping by a notice about the discussion is also okay). Arsenikk (talk) 23:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

WPArkansas Bot can help you!

Hey I just wanted to drop a note here for a fyi. WPArkansas Bot has been approved to help tag any WikiProject, so I would like to know if you all would like it to help tag yours. It does 2 tasks: First it scans a stub category that is relevant to the project (in this case Category:Rail stubs) and makes sure that each article is added to the project and assessed as a stub; then it scans the unassessed articles (in this case Category:Unassessed rail transport articles) and automatically assesses the article based on what any other project has rated the article (if there is a rating, otherwise it skips that article). I think it would be a great help for you all, so please leave a message at my talk page if you would like me to run it on your project. Merry Christmas, -Coffee // have a cup // ark // 19:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Pacific Surfliner template

Hello, WikiProject Trains. You have new messages at Template talk:Pacific Surfliner.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

More on signalling articles

Further to the discussion above, I propose renaming two existing signalling-related articles. Both articles are high in my suggested hierarchy of signalling articles, coming directly under Railway signalling.

1st: Signal box → "Signalling control"

- I'm looking for a title that's broad in scope and doesn't favour any country's terminology. I considered "Signalling control centre" but that suggests a large modern facility in the same way as "signal box" suggests one that's small and old-fashioned, and the article is about more than just the physical buildings. Signal box, Interlocking tower, Area Signalling Centre etc. would all redirect to "Signalling control".

2nd: Safeworking → "Signalling block systems"

- Again, I'm looking for a generic title that's country-neutral. "Safeworking" is an Australian term, apparently equivalent to "method of operation" and "method of working" in the US and UK respectively. "Signalling systems" is one possible title, but is perhaps too vague. "Signalling block systems" sounds better, but might be confusing to some readers?

(I've added a comparison table of different block systems at Safeworking, but would appreciate if somebody with knowledge of American signaling systems could check the first four entries.)

Any views on the above article renamings welcomed.––Signalhead < T > 21:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Both renamings proposed above have recently been carried out by User:Ronhjones. –Signalhead < T > 01:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

TGV

Note: suggested rename to High-speed rail in France. See Talk:TGV. Simply south (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains/Archive:_2009,_2&oldid=1099844693"