Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains

Active discussions
WikiProject Trains (Rated NA-class)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
TWP discussion archives
Three rail tracks 350.jpg The Trains WikiProject
General information
Main project page (WP:TWP)  talk
Portal (P:Trains) talk
Project navigation bar talk
Project participants talk
Project banner (doc) {{TWP}} talk
Project category talk
Manual of style (WP:TWP/MOS) talk
Welcome message talk
Assessments (WP:TWP/A) talk
Peer review (WP:TWP/PR) talk
To do list talk
Daily new article search search criteria talk
Task forces
Article maintenance talk
Assessment backlog elim. drive talk
By country series talk
Categories talk
Images talk
Locomotives talk
Maps talk
Models talk
Rail transport in Germany talk
Monorails talk
Operations talk
Passenger trains talk
Portal talk
Rail transport modelling talk
Timelines talk

Station ridership: boarding and alightingEdit

As I've been creating railway station articles, I've been using this dataset published by MLIT, a Japanese government agency. It gives the number of passengers getting on and off at most (if no all) stations in Japan. However, I've come across another dataset published by JR East (one of Japan's many rail operators), which gives the number of passengers that are boarding only. Take Shin-Urayasu Station for example: the JR East data for 2016 gives 55,729 passengers, which is cited in the article. Meanwhile, the MLIT dataset gives 109,912 passengers for the same year, which is roughly double of JR East's. I've found that there's a mix; some articles are reporting both boarding and alighting, while others are reporting just boarding. I've even found articles that have taken MLIT's numbers and just divided it by two. So, in the infobox of the articles, which number do we report?

Closure of 2019 station layout RFCEdit

I have noticed a few people removing station layouts per this 2019 RFC. While I'm not opposed to the removal of layouts for minor stations, I looked at the RFC and the closing statement contradicts the option favored by most RFC participants.

The editor who closed the RFC, Mgasparin, wrote in the closing statement that: So, it appears that the general consensus here is that station maps should be removed in their entirety per NOTGUIDE. This is not supported by even a head-count of !votes. There are only four !votes which agreed with complete removal, three of which were the first !votes to be cast in the RFC. Eight other !votes clearly expressed a preference for "No general policy". By head count alone, the consensus should have been "No general policy". And, reading the comments, those who !voted for "No general policy" advocated for the removal of many station layouts, except if they were unusual enough or covered by reliable sources. I'm bringing this up only because I'm seeing people citing this RFC as a reason for removal. epicgenius (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Also pinging Davey2010 and Terramorphous, the editors in question who are removing the layouts, and Kew Gardens 613, who brought my attention to this possibly discrepancy on his talk page. I'm pinging Ymblanter as well, since he replied to the thread on Kew Gardens 613's talk page. I think it may be worth holding another discussion to clarify whether the outcome of the RFC was properly assessed. epicgenius (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Personally I see no issue with that RFC nor it's closure. Consensus was to remove these unless supported by sources etc which none of these are. By now I've removed these from a good 500-800 articles as well as had 3-4 templates deleted. Consensus was to remove these period, I certainly don't believe we should start another RFC because a few disagree with the consensus from the last one. –Davey2010Talk 18:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Davey2010, that is fair. I'm not opposed to removing completely unsourced layouts, but I do think we should keep the prose portion if possible, tagging with {{cn}} as necessary. epicgenius (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
The prose sections are all being kept, I'm simply removing the tables underneath these, The prose whilst unsourced is still useful and IMHO should under no circumstance be removed. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 18:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
FYI I'm currently reinstating prose that has inadvertently been removed with the tables in a tiny few articles, Currently going through contribs so it'll take some time, Like I said above prose should stay whether it's sourced or not. –Davey2010Talk 19:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Davey2010Epicgenius Yeah I spoke with Davey about the close when I did it and he had no problem with it at the time. Honestly, I can barely even remember it now but if it was good then I'm sure it's still good. Mgasparin (talk) 20:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I have become agnostic on the issue, if we are decide to remove all the platform layout tables or whatever, that's fine; I'll even help. However, let's please adhere to the decision consistently across all pages and systems regardless of what it is and clearly define what is a "major station" that warrants leaving the layouts as is. Terramorphous (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
If I'm reading the RFC correctly, the consensus was to delete the tables where the layout was relatively simple, e.g. a platform and two tracks. On the other hand, there wasn't consensus for deleting tables for stations that served as transfer stations, or where the layout was more complex. epicgenius (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I read it as the diagram being removed from ALL articles irrespective of what the station is, Platform tables would be fine tho. –Davey2010Talk 23:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Epicgenius's interpretation (delete simple layouts, keep complex ones) which is also consistent with past discussions at this project. As a good rule of thumb: anything with 1-2 tracks, or 3-4 tracks with 2 side platforms, is simple enough to replace with a single sentence. Anything more than that would probably be well-served with a layout. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
@Davey2010: Then you read it wrong; Epicgenius has interpreted it correctly.AlgaeGraphix (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC) AlgaeGraphix (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Well given we all seem to have different interpretations of it maybe another RFC would be best, Certainly don't agree with it but it is what it is. –Davey2010Talk 19:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I think a fresh RFC with actual options would be best and I volunteer to help draft one. Mackensen (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Mackensen, I agree. I think a clarifying RFC would be helpful. epicgenius (talk) 23:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Preparing for an RFCEdit

I want to start by clarifying a few things from above. I don't think there's any disagreement that station layouts, as described in prose, should be included with an appropriate level of detail. What does need discussing is when tables or templates depicting these layouts are appropriate. First, I think when we talk about layouts and diagrams we're talking about two different things:

  1. Platform layouts: the HTML table-based platform layouts found in the main body of articles. Example: Bound Brook station#Station layout.
  2. Track layouts: the Routemap/BS-based track layouts found either in the main body of articles or sometimes included within the station infobox. Example of the former: Springfield Union Station (Massachusetts)#Station layout. Example of the latter: Dempster–Skokie station.

Beyond that, some station articles have lists of station exits. There's no uniform style for these but see Bakchon station#Exits for an example. Anything else? Mackensen (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, I am not so sure about the prose for the station layouts. If it referenced, yes (and I am willing to make concessions on which sources are reliable here). If it is not referenced, we probably need to discuss.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
I think we should clarify that station layouts and lists of station exits are distinct from prose talking about station designs and exits. Prose descriptions, such as in 72nd Street station (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line)#Exits, should stay, though the extent should depend on how reliably sourced it is, as with all other articles. If something's referenced only by an unreliable source, or not referenced at all, it could be removed as in all other pages. epicgenius (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
I believe the whole issue started from Beijing Subway stations like this one which are not sourced at all.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, these probably need to be removed completely. Perhaps the layouts and exit tables in such articles can be replaced with a sentence or two of prose, although these would also need reliable sources. epicgenius (talk) 18:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
I think it needs to start from a position of having reliable sources; prose or graphic doesn't matter. For example, in the examples at the top of this section, I would be in favor of removing absolutely every single one of them except probably the very first paragraph in Springfield Union Station (Massachusetts)#Station layout. The default position should be to have no station/track layouts in my opinion, unless adequately sourced. Otherwise it begs the addition of of original research; it's pretty much the epitome, as far as I can see, of the sort of topic that attracts well-meaning but inappropriate fancruft. I personally despise the {{routemap}} based diagrams; they almost invariably do an end-run around policy by including a level of detail and a deficit of references that would have an equivalent paragraph of prose deleted in a heartbeat for running afoul of WP:FANCRUFT, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NOTDIR. I don't know how you would word that in an RfC though. Perhaps "Descriptions and/or diagrams of station layouts are discouraged, unless the subject has unusual historic or operational characteristics that have been noted in reliable sources" or somesuch. I would endorse that wording anyway. Everything with two tracks and two side platforms and the like, that's just garbage though, save it for the travel guides. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Regarding reliable sources, I think for basic claims like the platform layout it shouldn't be a too high of a priority, it usually is verifiable through pictures of the station or satellite images, and if we really needed an inline source an WP:ABOUTSELF generally exists and is sufficient. For the examples given at the top, I generally agree they could be removed, as long it's replaced with sufficient prose, except for more complicated layouts like Springfield station, but it still needs a good cleanup (take out the track layout outside the station, and cleanup the prose). I wouldn't agree of having nothing at all regarding station layout, as it reduces reader understanding especially for those hard of sight, since they can't look at the station picture to understand how it looks. Jumpytoo Talk 00:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
I personally despise the {{routemap}} based diagrams; they almost invariably do an end-run around policy by including a level of detail and a deficit of references that would have an equivalent paragraph of prose deleted in a heartbeat for running afoul of WP:FANCRUFT, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NOTDIR. - With all due respect, I do not think preference for which type of map to use should be relevant for such an RFC. This RFC needs to be relatively narrow in scope, and I agree that information should be backed up by reliable sources per WP:V/WP:OR. However, it really shouldn't go beyond the issue of whether such layouts are appropriate. epicgenius (talk) 03:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your feedback so far. It's my impression that there are really three questions (platforms, tracks, and exits) and that everyone's opinion varies between the three. I've read over WP:RFC and I think the best course of action would be separate RfCs, either running together or one after the other. Each would propose a single question, such as "Should HTML table-based platform layouts be included in station articles?" Mackensen (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mackensen, Epicgenius, The Wicked Twisted Road, Jumpytoo, Just wondering - Given I've removed many track layouts/exits from articles would these need to be reverted?, Also to my knowledge I've now had 3 track layout templates deleted too,
FYI here's a list going back to May (however pre-2020 I believe I used different edit summaries as never did an RFC first. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 16:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Davey2010, well, the purpose of the RfC is to formally document the consensus around adding/removing layouts. If you're not being reverted that suggests the likely outcome of the RfC. Mackensen (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Ah okay thanks. –Davey2010Talk 16:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Can I confirm diagrams such as at File:Limerick junction incomplete track diagram.png are out of scope for these purposes ? I'd like scope boundary of RFC to be explicitly defined. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
    Djm-leighpark, yes, I think they would be. Mackensen (talk) 13:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, I think the scope would be explicitly {{routemap}} type layouts, station diagrams, and exit tables. I don't think we even need an RFC for the prose or for images. For prose, it's pretty much explicit that you would need reliable source. On the other hand, I oppose outright deleting content just because it's unsourced (instead preferring {{citation needed}} for such matters), but that is altogether another problem. epicgenius (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC: platform layoutsEdit

Should articles about railway stations include HTML table-formatted platform layouts (example: Bound Brook station#Station layout)? Mackensen (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

  • No in most cases: The majority of stations are simple layouts with 1 track / 1 platform, 2 tracks / 2 side platforms, 2 tracks / 1 island platform, or 4 tracks / 2 side platforms. For these, the station layout can be expressed in prose without any confusion to the reader, and a table-formatted layout is not useful. For a small number of complex stations - particularly those with multiple service patterns - a table-formatted layout can be useful. Hoyt–Schermerhorn Streets station is a great example of a table and an RDT being used to display complex service patterns and a complex track/platform layout. These platform layouts should be removed from articles by default; they can be kept or added on a case-by-case basis for complex stations. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Only if difficult to explain in prose: Most cases can be described in prose + a picture of the station, but for the complicated cases (I'd say a rule of thumb is at least 4 tracks and/or 2 platforms), when there's something unusual, or when the service pattern is complicated a table would be helpful. However, we shouldn't be removing existing platform layouts unless the editor writes sufficient replacement prose, they aren't that harmful compared to other issues. Jumpytoo Talk 01:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • No, never: I've come to view these as a real problem. They're difficult for editors to maintain; they're never cited to sources, reliable or otherwise; and they pose multiple challenges on the accessibility front (use of colors, presentation of data in a tabular format without fallback). Discussing which services use which platforms is a level of detail that we shouldn't provide, even in prose. Mackensen (talk) 12:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • No in most cases. Such layouts are usually not needed to describe articles where there's a single platform and 1-2 tracks, or two platforms and 2-4 tracks. The inclusion of such layouts in minor stations might result in an outcome that falls afoul of WP:NOTGUIDE, since they usually don't help readers' understanding of the article. However, they're useful in depicting complex stations visually. Regarding the concern of route details - in the majority of articles with station layouts, the service pattern is relatively fixed, so maintenance is not a big problem. epicgenius (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment @Mackensen: Does this extend to the work of platform-less tables on station layouts such as Tokyo Station? Cards84664 20:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally No. Especially if it is a simple 2 to 4 track/platform layout. For complex stations maybe a Route diagram template is better. Terramorphous (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally no, especially if easily described in prose and/or an image caption/alt text. In cases where it is difficult to describe in prose, then in at least most cases an RDT-style diagram is better than the the table layout. This includes the examples at Hoyt–Schermerhorn Streets station#Station layout where the addition of line/service names to the RDT would make the table redundant. See for example Stratford station#High level platforms for something that would be nearly impossible to render in the table format. Thryduulf (talk) 12:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC: track layoutsEdit

Should articles about railway stations include route diagram template-based track layouts (example: Dempster–Skokie station)? Mackensen (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

  • No in most cases: As with platform layouts, most stations (like Dempster-Skokie) are simple enough that such a track layout is not needed. For some stations with complex track layouts (that are discussed and reliably cited in the prose), a track layout RDT may be useful. Examples of the latter type are Hoyt–Schermerhorn Streets station (a major junction) and New London Union Station (where different sections of platforms are arranged around a level crossing). As with platform layouts, the default should be to remove; they can be kept or added on a case-by-case basis where they are useful. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • No unless notable or to show platform layouts: Station articles should be focused on the station, not the surrounding track layout. But, if there is RS notability or the platform layout is so unusual it can't be depicted in prose/HTML table, then track layouts could be used to improve understanding. Jumpytoo Talk 01:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes (where notable): Unlike platform layouts, track layouts provide useful information the about railway operations and capacity. This does not refer to very basic layouts that aren't notable such as the example shown above. Separate SVGs instead of RDTs would be better though but are of course harder to create.--PhiH (talk) 06:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • No in most cases: I agree with Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) that these are a useful supplement to the prose in cases where the track layout is complicated or unusual. Mackensen (talk) 12:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, where notable. For simple track layouts without any major junctions, I'd remove these completely. However, I do think we should retain complex track layouts, even those with interlockings, if they are important to the subject of the article itself and are referenced in prose. In many cases, the interlockings are directly related to the stations to which they are adjacent, although this is not always true. epicgenius (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes when Notable: A picture is worth a thousand words. Terramorphous (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
  • In some cases. Where the layout simple they aren't needed, but where the layout is particularly notable and/or complex then they can really add to the article. Thryduulf (talk) 12:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC: exitsEdit

Should articles about railway stations include tables or lists of entrances and exits (example: Wudaokou station)? Mackensen (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

  • No tables; lists okay in cited prose: Tables like those on Wudakou add nothing of value to the article, yet take up a great deal of space. Listing all the destinations around an exit also violates WP:NOTTRAVEL. Discussion of station entrances/exits as part of the physical station design (rather than acting as a travel guide) in cited prose, however, is a good thing. Hoyt–Schermerhorn Streets station is again a good example; Hynes Convention Center station is another case where discussion of the entrances/exits serves to inform the reader about the station design rather than to serve as a travel guide. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Prose only: Tables of exits have poor usefulness and is makes the article a travel guide. Brief prose for smaller stations ("The station has four exists around an intersection", "The exits are at the south end of the platform"), and more elaborate prose when possible & citable (ex. history) should be preferred. Jumpytoo Talk 01:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • No tables; lists okay in cited prose: I agree completely with what Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) wrote. A prose discussion is fine and should be subject to the usual editorial process. Mackensen (talk) 12:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • No tables; prose okay. I also agree with Pi.1415926535. Sourced paragraphs talking about station entrances and exits as a part of the station design are just a part of describing the station itself. These don't necessarily violate WP:NOTGUIDE like the tables do. epicgenius (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • No tables; lists sparingly; prose okay. Per epicgenius sourced prose is fine in most cases. Lists should be used sparingly and only when they add significantly to the prose. Tables take up a lot of space while adding no significant encyclopaedic value. Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

3rd rail speed recordEdit

I'm trying to find a reliable source for the claim at Third rail#Safety and Railway speed record#All passenger trains that "The world speed record for a third rail train is 174 (108 mph) km/h attained on 11 April 1988 by a British Class 442 EMU.". I have found it [on page 104 of this pdf], however that document dates from 2012 and the whole paragraph is an exact match for one that has been in our third rail article since 2009 so using that would be citogensis. The claim in our article originated with this anonymous edit in November 2007]. The SquareWheels website page at [1], updated in September 2007 but present in 2006 also [2] claims 109 mph set by a 442 on 11 April 1988. However I don't know how reliable it is. The 1 mph difference in speed given (our 108 mph is calculated from a km/h figure and so likely just a rounding difference) suggests it shares a common origin with our article rather than being a direct source.

Complicated things is this 2016 forum post, quoting an earlier (but unavailable to me) newsgroup posting,[3] claiming an unofficial(?) record of 117 mph at Staplehurst "in the build up to the Eurostar build." so probably circa 1990. I've not been able to find the provenance of that or any reliable confirmation of it. Thryduulf (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Thryduulf, the National Railway Bulletin, published by the National Railway Historical Society, appears to substantiate the claim in a 1988 issue: [4]. I can't view the whole document, unfortunately. Mackensen (talk) 02:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
That is a useful find, thank you. If we can't find anything better, that snippet view will probably be enough to cite it. The Internet Archive has copies of other editions of the relevant publication (National Railway Bulletin", but not the one required (Volume 53, probably number 1 but possibly number 2). Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

De Akkers metro station crashEdit

It has been proposed that the De Akkers metro station crash article is merged into the De Akkers metro station article. Discussion at talk:De Akkers metro station. Please feel free to contribute. Mjroots (talk) 06:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

UK station editsEdit

Please can someone take a look at recent edits by (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? I don't understand their purpose and they may not be helpful. Thanks, Certes (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Update to peer review pageEdit

Hi all, I've boldly updated your project's peer review page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Peer review) by updating the instructions and archiving old reviews.

The new instructions use Wikipedia's general peer review process (WP:PR) to list peer reviews. Your project's reviews are still able to be listed on your local page too.

The benefits of this change is that review requests will get seen by a wider audience and are likely to be attended to in a more timely way (many WikiProject peer reviews remain unanswered after years). The Wikipedia peer review process is also more maintained than most WikiProjects, and this may help save time for your active members.

I've done this boldly as it seems your peer review page is pretty inactive and I am working through around 90 such similar peer review pages. Please feel free to discuss below - please ping me ({{u|Tom (LT)}}) in your response.

Cheers and hope you are well, Tom (LT) (talk) 23:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Need help finding RS for 2 gauge model trackEdit

Rail transport modelling task force is inactive, so pinging this larger group for assistance with a query I posted there. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

One-person operationEdit

I've just gone through and changed the One-person operation article (formerly at One-man operation) to use gender neutral language where possible and appropriate (I think I got it all, but double checking would be good). However the article as a whole is in a dreadful state with very poor writing, out-of-date sections (some five years out of date), and woefully under-referenced. If anyone is looking for an article to improve then this one would certainly benefit. Thryduulf (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Redlinks to S-line templates in articlesEdit

These search results show about 14 articles with redlinks to S-line templates. I figured that someone here might be able to fix them more adeptly than I would. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Well, Bochum is a bit of a mess. I'll start with that. Mackensen (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  Done with the rest. Cards84664 00:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Brilliant! Thanks all. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Return to the project page "WikiProject Trains".