Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2010, 1

New York Central Railroad

Anyone familiar with New York Central Railroad in the Buffalo area? Some references concern historical ROWs in Tonawanda and I am having a hard time locating them in the relevant current place names. Thanks. --Una Smith (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

NRHP-listed railroad stations

Is it normal to have a separate NRHP-focused article for a railroad station listed on the National Register of Historic Places, in addition to the standard station article? Please see Fairfield Railroad Stations and Fairfield (Metro-North station). --Polaron | Talk 03:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Usually, people merge the two. I've just tagged both articles for merging. ----DanTD (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Bruswick and Camden Lines renaming

Why don't the articles on the Brunswick Line and Camden Line contain (MARC) in their names? I'm thinking of renaming both of them. ----DanTD (talk) 13:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know that it's necessary if the names are unambiguous. Mackensen (talk) 13:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

What Mack said. Notice, for a similar example, that the only NJT line with NJT mentioned in it's article title is the Main Line (NJ Transit), as that is a common name, while, say Pascack Valley Line doesn't. oknazevad (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Penn Line name

I was thinking, in a similar, but opposite vein to Dan's above question, does the Penn Line article really need the (MARC) disambiguator in its name? After all the only other use on the disambiguation page is Penn Line Manufacturing, a relatively obscure model maker that's been out of business for nearly 50 years, and whose article is already disambiguated by the inclusion of the word "Manufacturing". Seems to me that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC tells us the MARC line should be at Penn Line, with a hatnote directing otherwise interested parties to the model maker. And since there's only 2 entries, one of which is clearly the primary topic (amd both of which are within the scope of this project, strangely), that no disambiguation page is even neccessary, as the hatnote would cover it. oknazevad (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC) PS, I posited a similar query at Talk:South Shore Line (NICTD) a bit back. Wouldn't mind more input there.

To remove (MARC) from the Penn Line would diminish the importance of geographic accuaracy. While the line is named for the Pennsylvania Railroad, which formerly operated on it, it's not in Pennsylvania at all. ----DanTD (talk) 04:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not what disambiguators are for. They are purely Wikipedia-specific additions to the common name to distinguish between similarly named things. For a surprisingly relevant example, Pennsylvania Station (Baltimore) sports that disambiguator, not because it isn't in Pennsylvania, but to distinguish it from other Penn Stations, like Pennsylvania Station (New York City) and Pennsylvania Station (Newark) (the later of which should be probably be swapped with the redirect at Newark Penn Station, as that is the common name, and is even written on the side of the building).oknazevad (talk) 20:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Oyster Bay Railroad Museum

I redirected the page Oyster Bay Railroad Museum to Oyster Bay Long Island Rail Road Turntable. After reading the target article over, I realized that it describes the general site of the turntable more than the turntable itself. I am thinking about making this redirect a permanent rename of the page, and rewording the heading of the page to comply. Before proceeding forward, I have decided to ask here. Any opinions?

Train2104 (talk) 00:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The turntable is listed separatley from the station as being part of the National Register of Historic Places, so I'm leaning against it. ----DanTD (talk) 06:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Another thing; The turntable and station are listed separatley as NRHP sites, but both are supposed to be included in the museum itself. ----DanTD (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Would one article with 2 distinct sections work? Train2104 (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The article was originally one, specifically for the Oyster Bay (LIRR station), until another editor split off the Oyster Bay Long Island Rail Road Turntable. If you want to contact somebody else on the issue, try User:Inoysterbay. ----DanTD (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of WikiProject London Transport as a sub-project or part of the banner

I know in the past i talked about the crossover of WPLT with TWP, the banner becoming part of the TWP banner. However now i think it is time for the banner to separate with the TWP bannner(s). I know that this would create a lot of work and clutter but one major reason is because the use of the LT banner in the TWP banner does not allow for Wikipedia:WikiProject London Transport/Article alerts. Simply south (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the {{ArticleAlertbotSubscription}} tag was missing from the Wikipedia:WikiProject London Transport. I have added this; so hopefully the alerts will start updating. --DavidCane (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Another problem is that WP:LT isn't solely about rail transport, so why should it be a sub-project? --RFBailey (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It is an associated project rather than a sub-project. On articles which are not rail related the separate WP:LT banner is used.--DavidCane (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Midlands Gateway

Please could someone with Irish knowledge have a look at Midlands Gateway ? The external links / refs seem to be very general or dead-links. Is this government project still current / in action ? thisisace (talk) 20:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

serious problem

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Yugoslavian issues on railway articles

Editor has brought to attention a variety of issues, including violations of WP:3RR,Assume good faith, Conflict of interest etc. I have left a message on the administrators incident noticeboard, as the problem is beyond the scope of this project

Hi guys. There is a pretty serious problem. I have made this template, Template:Urban Rail transportation in the former Yugoslavia, and in response to that a nationalist croat decided that it would be better off if he created this, Template:Trams in Croatia. Would it be possible to get any input from you guys? User Direktor has helped silence him in the past but the guy started edit warring recently. If some people here could provide some input it would be highly appreciated. (LAz17 (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)). Also, we have other similar templates: Template:Rapid transit in the former Soviet Union. (LAz17 (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)).

ok Can you explain the issue as it is as it relates to railways - as I see it both templates are at first sight acceptable types - both croatia and the former yugoslavia are/were recognised countries. Is there something else in the users actions that make cause for concern.?

eg there's no reason why an article about trams in zagreb with historical info shouldn't have both templates included at the bottom.Shortfatlad (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify reality for you this redirecting "trams in croatia" to your template is not helpful [1], and could be considered vandalism. At the same time the other user's edits are not helpful either, and also could be considered vandalism. [2]

So you are both in the wrong in the way you are acting. Specifically you have not assumed good faith about the other users creation of the template:trams in croatia - did you discuss with the other user before you blanked and redirected that article.? Do you have any other questions - you could try talking to each other, or request arbitration, or a third opinion.Shortfatlad (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You can discuss it here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Yugoslavian_issues_on_railway_articles and not on this page thanks.Shortfatlad (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. (LAz17 (talk) 05:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC))

Humber Coast

Should Humber Coast and City Railway be deleted? Simply south (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Its better if you direct your comment to the deletion page then here. I've moved it there. Simply south (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

List of alpine railways

I'm trying to write a list similar to List of railroad crossings of the North American continental divide for the Alps. If someone is interested here is a draft: User:Coccodrillo/List of alpine railway crossings. Coccodrillo (talk) 11:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Timothy Blackstone GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Timothy Blackstone for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

infobox help

I can not get both logo and image on the Beovoz page. Can someone help? I want to include both

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Train_Beovoz_1.jpg and
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Beovoz.svg

But, it won't let me do both. Here on the CTA page it would... [[3]]. Can someone help please? (LAz17 (talk) 02:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)).

First thing I note is that Chicago Transit Authority is using a different infobox template (Infobox Bus transit) which supports the use of a logo and an image. So someone would probably need to tweak the Beovoz artcle's infobox template (Infobox Public transit) to support that feature before you could do that. - Zzrbiker (talk) 03:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done It's a case of examining the template already in use in the article, and seeing what parameters it supports. As mentioned above, Beovoz uses {{Infobox Public transit}}, and examination of that template shows that the following image/logo-related parameters are available:

Name	Parameter	Required	Definition
Image	image	No	Filename of image for the header (typically a logo, but photo can be used if no logo is available)
Image size	imagesize	No	Size of image defined above; default:200px
2nd Image	image2	No	Filename of second image for the header (allows for use of a picture if the logo was used for the first image parameter)
2nd Image size	imagesize2	No	Size of second image defined above; default:200px
Caption	caption	No	Caption of the image (especially if an image was used for the second image where a logo and image are used)

So, I have added |image2=Train Beovoz 1.jpg. I'll leave you to judge whether |imagesize2= and |caption= are necessary. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK vandalisim watching

Hi there. Even though I am not a member of this project, I would like to tell you that I have improved (translated) a lot of Moscow Monorail Transit System, so it's now in queue 1 of the DYK queues. That queue will be on the Main Page in 27 hours, which will be the dead of night for me. Anyone care to watch for vandalisim in my steed?

Sincerly,

Buggie111 (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll try and keep an eye open for you and I hope others will. Just a quick tip from my own personal experience of getting three of my own articles to the DYK main page - the two that didn't have a picture featured on the main page were left alone, the one that did have a picture featured seemed to be the one that attracted the idiots and vandals. Hopefully as yours doesn't have a picture featured, it will be safe! - Zzrbiker (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I scored a main-page DYK just last friday. I was informed by a bot within a minute of it going up, and I checked my watchlist like a hawk every minute or so. Did it get vandalised? Did it fiddlesticks. Got about 450 hits though, so it's not like it was totally ignored. Maybe vandals are more interested in stuff that mentions sex and violence - railway matters are of little interest to them. But don't worry: I also have watchlisted Moscow Monorail Transit System. I've also watchlisted User talk:Buggie111 so that I'll know (by the message from User:DYKadminBot) when it's gone up. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sheesh, thanks for it.

Buggie111 (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, two edits in six hours. The Sept. -> September one is correct; we don't abbreviate month names in prose. The MIT/MITT one I wasn't sure about, so left alone. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I commented on the MITT user's talkpage. REverted the MITT part, but kept the link fixing. In Russia, it's one word.

Buggie111 (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Signpost

Hi. I'd like to do an article on WikiProject Trains in the Feb 15th Signpost. The purpose of these articles is to inform a broader audience about the existence of a project, its broad goals, challenges that the project faces, and ideas on how other editors can make use of project resources. If anyone is interested in answering a few questions on WikiProject Trains, please drop a note on my talk page. Thanks. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Propsed guideline re the notability of railway accidents

Please see WP:RAILCRASH, where I've put together a proposed guideline re the notability of articles about railway accidents. Discussion at WT:RAILCRASH please. Mjroots (talk) 10:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

More SEPTA dab help

Currently the R7 & R8 line templates lead to North Philadelphia (SEPTA station) rather than North Philadelphia (SEPTA Regional Rail station), where they should go. Could somebody fix that? The one for the Broad Street Line, on the other hand is just fine. ----DanTD (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed. Mackensen (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Colour Templates

I have created {{FGW colour}} and {{CrossCountry colour}}, I have been adding these to station articles, this will allow a more effective and quicker change when there is a operator change. I will do this for other operators and update articles. I am aware there is already one for EastCoast Mark999 13:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This is probably best mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways since it's a UK-specific issue. BTW I have put the special {{tlx}} template into your template names above, so that they show correctly without actually transcluding, and are also clickable. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

LACMTA train station articles

I'm bringing this here; not sure if there is a more appropriate forum, or if some rail-related MOS has guidelines on this. There are a couple of things. First, some articles have slashes between names, like 7th St/Metro Center (LACMTA station). That particular move cited the WP:MOS, but on metro.net none of the stations are spelled with spaces, so I'm thinking that the way the name spelled trumps the MOS. I've moved Imperial/Wilmington (LACMTA station) back to no slashes.

Second, several stations have names attached to the station, such as Pico (LACMTA station), 103rd Street-Kenneth Hahn (LACMTA station), the aforementioned 7th St/Metro Center station, and Imperial/Wilmington. In no-slashing I/W, I also removed the "Rosa Parks" part from it. Typically I usually don't hear the full name in everyday conversation; the only time I hear the name is during the automated announcements. So should we add/keep the extra name because it's the actual name, or leave it off per WP:NC(CN)? Whatever happens I just want it to be consistent. hbdragon88 (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Amtrak Cascades image question

User:Peterhuocean11 posted an image in the Amtrak Cascades article that has a renaming tag on it(File:HPIM3015.JPG), and justifiably so. But having never been to the Northwest, I'm not entirley certain on the location, which makes it difficult to suggest a name. I asked that user about the image, but so far have received no reply. Is this at King Street Station (Seattle), or is it someplace else? ----DanTD (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of High Speed 1

I have done a GA Reassessment of High Speed 1 as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article to be informative and well-written. It does not however, fully comply with the GA Criteria. As such I have outlined my concerns here. I have also put the article on hold for one week pending work. I am notifying all interested projects and editors of this event. If you have questions or concerns please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

RFC: High Speed rail speed internal definition

I think it would be a good idea for Wikipedia to have an internal definition for High Speed trains, see the High Speed rail talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

PS currently I'm suggesting 200 km/h.-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

3 Northeast US commuter rail related items

Well, these are fairly disconnected items, but I figured I'd save the bandwith and cover them in one post.

Firstly, I changed the colors at Template:MARC color for a few reasons. The big thing that bothered me was that the shades of orange used for the Brunswick Line and the Camden Line were too close, and could cause confusion, or present WP:ACCESS issues.

I don't think we need to be beholden to those colors anyway, as MARC/MTA Maryland has never been particularly consistent with them, unlike, say Metro-North, LIRR, NJT or SEPTA (though that's supposed to change, see my third item). The colors that were there were based on the map currently at the MARC website, but other recent maps have given separate colors to all three, or given them all the same color (as in the 2006 brochure I'm looking at as I type this). Schedules aren't printed with specific colors either.

With this change, our templates are now in line with the map at the main MARC Train article, which allows us a level of consistency.

Second item is also MARC related. While checking out the results of the change at Union Station (Washington, D.C.), the only station all three lines have in common, I noticed that the station succession box for the Brunswick Line has the terminus entry on the opposite side as the other two lines. Presumably this is to allow for stations that are to the east of the station to appear on the right, and on the Brunswick Line, WUS is the eastern-most station, while on the Camden and Penn lines, it's actually the western-most. All makes sense to someone who knows these things, but asthetically, it looks awful.

For MARC, a service where all its lines share a single, common terminal, an "inbound-outbound" dichotomy is a better choice. Just as all the lines converge at Union Station, all 3 succession boxes should converge on the same side.

Lastly, a heads-up for everyone. For those that don't already know, the Delaware Valley Association of Railroad Passengers is reporting that SEPTA is going to ditch the R# designations for it's Regional Rail lines in a few month. This is largely on the grounds that they don't reflect the operational reality of through-running of trains through the Center City Commuter Tunnel, which ever-increasingly does not stick to the R# pairing decided in the early 1980s.

I mention this because it just popped into my head while contemplating the MARC color situation, as, according to the reports, the colors currently shared by each half of the R# routes will be done away with as well. Generally, though, this is going to require a major overhaul of the SEPTA line articles, as essentially each one will have to be split in two. Associated things like the color templates for succession boxes will also need overhauls. It seems that we may have our work cut out for us, and we may need to start planning the changes now.

Anyway, just wanted to cover a few things.oknazevad (talk) 06:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The MARC Brunswick Line is in that position, because it heads east and west, and runs parallel to Amtrak's Capitol Limited. It should be left in the same position it's in now. ----DanTD (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand that, but my point is a MARC routes position compared to an Amtrak route, even one it shares rails with, is insignificant compared to its position relative to the othe MARC routes. In short, compare apples to apples.oknazevad (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not insignificant, because it's a question of direction. The Brunswick Line is still going outbound, it just goes east and west, compared to the Penn and Camden Lines which go northeast and southwest. ----DanTD (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's put it another way; If the Virginia Railway Express were to open up a third line leading from Union Station, and running southeast along the coast, the next station at Union Station would have to be on the right, regardless of where the Manassas and Fredericksburg Lines are placed. Or if you want a non-hypothetical example, you can just consider South Station, and even North Station in Boston. ----DanTD (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

When is non-standard gauge, standard gauge?

In the case of early historical locos, such as the Stourbridge Lion and the The Salamanca, what's the boundary between "standard" and "narrow" gauge?

Both of these examples were a few inches below "Stephenson gauge", but not significantly so. They had the same haulage capacity and curve radius as 4'8½" did. As they were also very early railways, these were the de facto standard gauge of that time and location anyway.

My concern is that clearly GF edits such as this are literally accurate, but misleading in the broader context of an encyclopedia. This wasn't a "narrowed-gauge" railway, where some standard gauge had been deliberately rejected in favour of a system trading lower capacity for easier routing or cheaper rolling stock, it was just a "standard-sized" railway pre-dating a firm consensus on the precision of the standard. While it's clearly necessary to explain this in the railway article, categorizing the locos in this way reduces their apparanet significance. With apologies to the WHR's humungous Garratts, "narrow-gauge" still has some connotations of the Skarloey Railway about it.

In the case of early lines where a "near-standard" gauge was used because there just wasn't a clear standard yet, I'd suggest we take a broad interpretation and treat them as being standard gauge, not narrow gauge, at least in the "soft" aspects such as categorization. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The edit was correct. Standard gauge is 4ft 8½in, no more or less. Any railway of less than Standard gauge is by definition Narrow gauge. Any railway of more than Standard gauge is by definition Broad gauge. Mjroots (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Toronto streetcar system line articles

Resolved

 – Infoboxes have been fixed --DanTD (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Some of the articles for individual lines in the Toronto streetcar system have gigantic infoboxes that overwhelm the text and I can't see what the issue is in order to fix it. YSSYguy (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I've seen them all and can't see a problem with any of them--you'll need to be more specific. --RFBailey (talk) 06:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it is a User preference issue; I never bothered to have anything other than the default viewing preferences and when I open the 509 Harbourfront article the infobox is almost the width of the whole article; the 501 Queen article is better but also very wide; it cramps the text and looks very odd compared to other articles. I checked one other article (502 Downtowner) and it has what I would consider to be the normal infobox width. Bear in mind also that different screen sizes compress the articles but not the infoboxes. YSSYguy (talk) 07:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The usual reason for this is a misunderstanding of the |image_width= (or equivalent) parameter, which is found in most infoboxes (although variously spelled, such as |imagewidth=, |image size= etc.). In many cases they can only handle a bare integer, so |image_width=275 works whilst |image_width=275px gives unpredictable results (including either very wide infobox or very small image); use of the form with "px" can also put the page into hidden category Category:ParserFunction errors and sometimes even show error messages in red. See, for example, this old version of Nigel Gresley. No error message, but the image (and hence the infobox) are overlarge, and if you have (my preferences → Appearance → Show hidden categories) set, you will see that the page is in Category:ParserFunction errors. Try the current version: the image and infobox are of normal size, and the page is not in that cat. However, {{Infobox rail line}} (the infobox used in 509 Harbourfront) uses a special template {{px}}, which I believe fixes things to make the presence or absence of "px" immaterial. 509 Harbourfront has |image_width=275px, and not only does it display OK for me, but it also doesn't show in Category:ParserFunction errors either.

Another case I have seen is where a long image caption is used. Some infoboxes will word-wrap; others won't. One case of not wrapping concerns the very infobox under discussion. See, for example, this old version of Greenford Branch Line. No error message, but the infobox is overlarge, because of the long caption which doesn't wrap. Unlike the Gresley case, this will not throw any errors, so won't show in Category:ParserFunction errors either. Try the current version: the caption now has a forced line break (by using <br />) and the infobox is of normal size.

It so happens that 509 Harbourfront has a very long caption. For me, it wraps to three lines with breaks as follows:

CLRV #4152 and PCC 4500 rest at Exhibition Loop. PCC

4500 is operating on the TTC's 509 Harbourfront Line on

May 17th, 2009.

Why this wraps for me, but Greenford Branch Line didn't, is a puzzle. Do you see the 509 Harbourfront infobox image caption on one row, or three? --Redrose64 (talk) 12:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I tried to fix the images and that failed. Then I fixed the image captions, and it worked, although I didn't fix the 509 Harbourfront Line infobox the way you described. Any others that need work? ----DanTD (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Task Forces

{{helpme}} I am proposing to create a task force called miniature railways for wikitrains project. this task force will improve pages about miniature railways and or create miniature railway pages.Manor 7812^☎ 15:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Please commonet on whether this is a good idea. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manor 7812 (talk • contribs) 15:05 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Task forces are generally a good idea. If a small group of editor wish to collaborate on a specific area covered by a WikiProject then a task force is a good place to start. A child WikiProject is a possibility if the task force grows big enough, or it may remain as a task force, as the members of that task force wish. Mjroots (talk) 10:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:Rinkai Main Line

Template:Rinkai Main Line, which is a navigation template for stations of the Keiyō Rinkai Railway Rinkai Main Line (a freight-only line), is not currently used in any articles and contains numerous red links (in fact, only two of the stations are blue-linked). I have no prior experience dealing with these types of templates, so I thought I would ask here: Should the template be deleted or kept and added to existing articles? Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Add the template to existing linked articles if not already done. Redlinks are not a problem per se, see {{Dutch Windmills}} - Drenthe is all blue, Friesland about half blue, half red, the rest of it is nearly all red. Red links encourage article creation. Mjroots (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added it to the Keiyō Rinkai Railway Rinkai Main Line article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I added it to the two existing station articles. Thanks for the help! Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

52nd Street Penn Station(Philadelphia) coordinates

I've been having nothing but trouble adding the coordinates for 52nd Street (Pennsylvania Railroad station), because GoogleMaps won't let me focus the specific coordinates on it, and stupid WikiMapia won't let me make an outline of where it used to be! ----DanTD (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

There there was any failure. I had errors with coordinates today too.--Andrey! 21:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Canada should convert from 1435 to 1676

Currently in Canada, trains cannot run as fast as either in India or Russia due to standard gauge and non-electrified and single-track and wind, snow and grade. Canadian National Railways, Canadian Pacific Railways, VIA Rail and BC Rail should convert from 1435 to 1676 and double-track and electrification 25kV AC 60Hz. 121.102.47.215 (talk) 06:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The Chinese, Japanese and Europeans all use Standard gauge for their high speed rail lines which run trains at speeds of over 300 km/h (190 mph). Its only worth upgrading track from metre gauge (or similar) to standard gauge for high-speed running - which is why the Shinkansen uses standard gauge. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

But wasn't the Shinkansen built as standard-gauge from the outset? I don't think it was converted, even though older lines in Japan are 3'6". --Redrose64 (talk) 10:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right that the Shinkansen was standard gauge from the outset. I meant that it is different from the older railways in Japan and according to the railway museum in Japan it was built as standard gauge as it wasn't possible to build a high speed line with 3.6" gauge. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I have just reverted, as have other editors, the same silly edit by user 121.102.47.215 who does not see to want to cooperate with other editors. In the absence of cited references, this looks like an extremely silly piece of original research and I am of the opinion that an administrator may wish to have a look at some of the other edits by this editor, which are probably equally devoid of any factual base. - Zzrbiker (talk) 12:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Standard gauge is too narrow for Canada due to wind, snow and grade. 121.102.47.215 (talk) 12:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Any evidence for this? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

For high-speed running Its only worth upgrading track from metre gauge (or similar) to standard gauge or broad gauge, or upgrading track from standard gauge to broad gauge for high-speed running 121.102.47.215 (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

So any sources? Or do we just have your word for it? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Phooey, Brunel had the right idea, long ago!

It's only worth upgrading track from one gauge to another if there's a strong business case for it, and that's only likely to be true if there is an existing mismatch of gauges. Much more significant for increasing line speeds is the easing of gradients and curves, by which time you're really talking about a new line rather than an upgrade.

EdJogg (talk) 13:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

In addition: electrification for high-speed running 121.102.47.215 (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Old image for Chicago Railfans

I've tried to ask some people on the Ogilvie Transportation Center page, but nobody will answer me. So is this image from Ogilvie, or is it from Wells Street Station (Chicago), the other C&NW station? ----DanTD (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe I'll send it in an e-mail to Metra and ask them. ----DanTD (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

List of Shanghai Metro stations

FYI, List of Shanghai Metro stations has been prodded for deletion.

70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the PROD, since the article is linked from hundreds of pages, and serves a definitely useful purpose. However, the page is currently just a very large template (250+ stations) and is at risk of being Speedy Deleted as having 'no encyclopaedic content'. The page needs converting into a conventional list, preferably within a table. A discussion about this is taking place at Talk:List of Shanghai Metro stations.

I would like someone else to take this on, please. I have commented as a member of this project, and because I tend to be anti-deletionist (and hence react quickly to such alerts), but beyond this I have no knowledge or particular interest in the subject matter, and hence I do not have the motivation to apply the effort needed to safeguard the article. -- EdJogg (talk) 11:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Where is the discussion in question? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I take it you found it? :o) (For anyone else who is still lost, try the talk page of the article concerned...)
-- EdJogg (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC) ...now ducking out of discussions, as there are plenty of others aware of the situation.

Future - High-speed rail with use broad gauge (proposal)

Future high-speed rail and freight rail with use broad gauge proposal

Proposal removed as inappropriate content

In short, take it to another website, this isn't the place. We are trying to write an encyclopedia that reflects what already exists, not discuss and critique proposals.oknazevad (talk) 05:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Offer of book on Indian railways

An Ip has posted an offer of books on Indian railways at WP:EAR#My book 'Indian Railways at a Glance'. I posted here as you might be interested. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Runaway train accidents

I was looking to find an article, or even a section within some article, discussing this type of train accident, but I have been unable to find any. Surely this is a topic worthy of its own article? __meco (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The Armagh rail disaster is probably one the the better known accidents of this type in the UK. See also Murulla rail accident, Gare de Lyon rail accident, 2010 Sjursøya train crash etc. (there are others if you use the search facility). Mjroots (talk) 05:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstood my objective. I'm looking for an article on a type of accident, not articles about accidents. __meco (talk) 07:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like it could be an interesting article. Why don't you write it? DiverScout (talk) 13:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not that much into trains and stuff. I just happened to be looking for it when I was working on the Sjursøya accident article. You know, there's the whole mechanics and engineering side to it. I'd have to take some classes before I could begin to assemble such an article! __meco (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

What about a category ? GrahamHardy (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I have created several new categories and established a parent hierarchy, Category:Transportation disasters by type. Category:Railway accidents by type can now be populated. I have added several articles to Category:Runaway train disasters. __meco (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added Abergele 1868 to Category:Runaway train disasters. I'll look at others later this week. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

changes/corrections to BC Rail lede

Please see Talk:BC_Rail#Lede_revised_-_time_for_the_truth.Skookum1 (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Should station articles (the Services section) include trains-per-hour figures?

Following some debate on our talk pages where a fellow editor and I agreed to disagree, we agreed to put the question to the project group for a consensus. We agree to abide by the outcome. In summary, here are the major arguments:

Pro

• It is of value to enthusiasts interested in the services, not just for travelers.
• It already appears on many station articles: eg Marylebone station, Euston station and Manchester Piccadilly station

Con

• WP:Directory
• The timetables change typically twice a year and it will be nearly impossible to ensure consistent and trustworthy maintenance for every station at every timetable change. For example, few if any of the present records give a date of application of the timetable being used.

Discussion

Comments? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Its useful to know these things when you travel to places and it helps you judge how serious a train service is between two places. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• In some areas, trains-per-day may be more useful. This includes areas with few trains (northern Scotland, western Wales) - say, anywhere with fewer than one per hour. In some places there may well be more than one per hour on average, but with such an irregular frequency that to say 1 tph or 2 tph might be misleading. At an extreme case: the infamous Reddish South and Denton (1 tpw) - I note that in Michael Portaloo's recent TV series, in order to get to Denton (a hat for to buy) he got off a different service at Fairfield. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Perhaps a template could be devised, with an "effective until" parameter. Then some date test could be incorporated so that if the current date exceeds the "effective until", the page could put itself into a category automatically, something like "articles with expired information". --Redrose64 (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think they should have train-per-hour on station articals at off peak hours, also it is very possiable to have correct info as the timetable dates change twice a year, but the actual times will change rarely maybe a min of every few years, (well for UK trains anyway). Pth apper on alot of pages like Clapham Junction with 100s of trains a day, Wellingborough and St Pancras, it is useful for the reader.Likelife (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Replying to Redrose a "effective until" is a good idea at least people would know if this info is up to date.Likelife (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Mostly because Wikipedia is not a timetable, but also because tph is a weak metric from a practical standpoint. It's a planner's metric, largely used to decide capacity while planning construction or schedules, not practical information of use in actually determining the level and nature of the service. Do we calculate it by averaging over a day? Do we make a distinction between peak and off-peak travel periods? What about stations that only have "rush hour" commuter service? How do we deal with a station in Montana that sees 1 train every 2 days? Does calculating the numbers ourselves run afoul of WP:OR? In short, it's just not a practical measure for many stations, nor do I see it as being of interest to a general audience. oknazevad (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The thing is if I want to find the train times from London Paddington to Oxford I can look those up in the timetable trivially. However if I want to see where the trains from London Paddington go and what level of service is offered from that station is offered to a variety of destinations you can see that with this metric. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

http://www.nationalrail.co.uk is the website for you to consult timetables, you wanting to trivialy consult timetables does not mean Wikipedia exist to provide that service. Wikipedia is not a timetable, as an encyclopaedia, frequency information is already unnecessary information, let alone timetabling. Use the appropriate website to do what you want to do. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 18:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia should be a timetable like that. IMO there is a difference between knowing that there are two trains an hour from Paddington to Bristol and knowing that one of them leaves at 10:15. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Eraserhead1 really. Oknazevad I can only speak for the UK stations like Lakenheath only has a few trains per week, this is mentioned by saying "Services at Lakenheath comprise one train in each direction on Saturdays and three trains in each direction on Sundays. There are no services on Mondays to Fridays" (with timing afterwards) and yes we do mostly only show typical off peak frequences, and no we don't average anything. The typical off peak service is mostly only on stations which are served at least hourly, which yes is not that common for alot US rail stations. I don't want stations to have xx02 but just to say 2tph to Caterham for example. For worldwide stations this could be different as all UK stations have articles while some countries don't. I think a station page should be on just that - the station, but not just the building and platforms but how many trains do serve the station. Yes Wikipedia is not a timetable, but having the number of trains serving is not a timetable as it doesn't show times, but the frequency.Likelife (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If its less than hourly (assuming there is at least a daily train) you can mention the number of trains a day to a given place, which is still useful. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Likelife. To clarify my position, I say include tph figures as they are interesting and useful, and presented in a unique way. Do not upload entire timetables, I'm not sure who got the idea that was even suggested, as it would be ludicrous. Basically, here's what I think station articles should have something like:

• 1tph to Crewe via Stafford.
• 2tph to Birmingham New Street via Rugby.
• 3tph to London Euston, two semi-fast, one stopping.

That would be for Northampton railway station. Peripheral information could be added where appropriate, such as Northampton's lack of a non-stop London service, as could information about rare trains, such as the one-a-day Virgin Trains service there. Tom walker (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose -- but where do you stop? I agree that such usage information is relevant, and gives an indication of how busy a station is, but how do you cope with the changing patterns from year to year? How far back in history do you go? To be worthwhile you would need to show both peak and off-peak information, and for a number of years -- possibly since the station opened. Is the current pattern of operations any more notable than those of previous years? Who is going to update the n-thousand station articles on each timetable change?

Aside from if it changed notably I'm not really sure why anyone would be interested where you used to be able to go from a station rather than where you go now. And while timetables do change slightly every 6 months, usually those changes aren't significant. For example from Oxford they last changed the frequency of services several years ago - and if there are a couple of extra trains a day in the summer rather than the winter both sets of figures can be displayed. e.g. you say 4 tpd summer/3 tpd winter. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

For a station that only sees a handful of trains in a day, or month, the tph figure is significant, as it is for major junctions (eg Reading/Clapham) but for these a break down per-route is overkill. -- EdJogg (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm definitely interested in where you can go by train from a station. For example from Oxford there are 4 tph south and 4tph north - even though there is only 1 line south and 3 lines north, and that is interesting. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I've typed a couple of long discussions here only to abandon them. I really can't see the difference between the trains per hour that call at a station and where they go (not a timetable), and the number of platforms at the station. They tell the reader about the structure and function of the railway station. Without an objective measure (such as train-per-hour or trains-per-day), we will end up with probably unreferenced subjective measures such 'frequent', 'busy', or 'limited'. Of course the information does need to be referenced and dated. Edgepedia (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that is the best justification I've heard, and is enough to make me change my mind and accept that we should have tph. Though I'm still worried about the calculation basis. Is it max rate, weekday 24 hour average, or 7-day average? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Most the stations I'm involved with trains run on a regular 'clockface', so calculation is easy. Some published timetables even had a thick line, a hour's sequence of trains and then the words 'and the same minutes past each hour until' (I'll find you an example if I can), although that seems to have gone out of favour. A local station Ashford International railway station#Services shows the off-peak service, and with the irregular service to Paris and Brussels by Eurostar shown by the number of trains per day. Anyone got an example of a station without a 'clockface' timetable? Edgepedia (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hanoi :p. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Same mins past each hour - how about UK National Rail Table 1? Not clockface - how about UK National Rail Table 109? Want any more? --Redrose64 (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Every station should have a description of its services; in some systems this is done my mentioning the systems or companies that serve the station, while others will have a more extensive coverage. Any station article aiming for GA should at least contain a mention of all routes and companies (along the line used in airport articles). Once this has been presented, I can see two areas where presenting a per-hour figure is encyclopedic. First, a typical commuter rail stations, which has a fixed-interval services (e.g. one train per direction per hour, with additional rush-hour services). The other is where the trains per hour is the limiting factor (e.g. the line/station has a capacity of 24 trains per direction per hour, which is fully utilized during the morning and afternoon peaks). Otherwise I think the exact nature of figures like this should be dealt on a case-by-case basis, and include the calculation basis. The peak-hour information is important because it says a lot about the dimensioned capacity of a station. For instance, and article could state the peak-hour frequency and any other defining metrics that are verifiable over time. Of course, the more volatile the information, the less we should consider including it. In my experience, timetables (and particularly frequency) are for the matter we are discussing now almost entirely stable, sometimes over the course of decades. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll

Could we have a quick poll please, to see if there is a significant majority for one or the other. Just add * Yes or * No and your sig. I'll tally. If you want to comment, put it in the Comment section --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• No --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• No oknazevad (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• Yes -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, however wp:voting is evil Edgepedia (talk) 13:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • But this is a straw poll, not a ballot. However wp:voting is not evil. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Maynard Friedman (talk • contribs) 12 49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• Yes --Likelife (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, but only for the major terminals. Inactive stations: No. --Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 13:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

What's an inactive station? One that's closed completely? In which case I agree. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Stations like Mount Tabor (NJT station), Garwood (NJT station), Breakneck Ridge (Metro-North station) and Appalachian Trail (Metro-North station) are definitely what I mean by inactive. Closed counts too.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 11:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Yes --Tom walker (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, where the article authors consider it significant, but not a mandatory requirement for all station articles. But dated using "as of xx, 2010" phrasing so as to make it useful, and cited to a reliable source. ++Lar: t/c 14:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, looks like the consensus is YES. I think we should also approve the provisos suggested by ++Lar and with an indication of time if peak and off-peak are notably different. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• No, as per the reasons given in opposes above - but if you must please use trains per day. This is a much easier measure and less problematic statistically - I really don't want to see tables giving tph for 14hrs - that path is surely the way to mass deletions of crufty content - also easier to give figures over long time periods - Another thing I really don't want to see is tphour/day for only the current year - as per wikipedia is not a blog/news site etc. Not a bad idea but please don't overdo.Shortfatlad (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Station categories for renaming

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#Category:Disused_station - the previous consensus was to use "Defunct station" - see here. Both "closed" and "defunct" seem sensible options.

I've made a list of all the non-open stations that don't use "defunct" here Defunct or closed - As such I'll post to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion for eventually block renaming. It's clear that the highest level category is Category:Defunct railway stations and that the subcategories should be in some way consistent.

Does anyone have any points to make or other ideas. Thanks.Shortfatlad (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

A lot of these former stations are active as stations of other railroads. Many Category:Former North Shore Line stations remain CTA "L" stations, The IND Rockaway Line took over many of the stations along the Rockaway Beach Branch and a lot of the Far Rockaway Branch of the Long Island Rail Road. MARC, NJT, and MBTA operate out of some former Amtrak stations in Maryland, New Jersey and Massachusetts, and in the case of Massachusetts, the Cape Cod Central Railroad also operates out of former Amtrak stations. So maybe this isn't necessarily a good idea. ----DanTD (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The ones in question are the "geographical area" categories (Category:Disused stations in Foo and so on), not ones that are still in use by another line. There's a slight blurring over what constitutes a "disused station", such as where former heavy-rail stations remain open but now only serve rapid transit or trams, but in general there's a pretty clear defunct/not-defunct line. – iridescent 22:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah. But the stations mentioned are defunct as North Shore Line stations. I'll definately not use "closed" then as that is not true.

If it's problematic I can restrict the renaming proposal to exclude those categories which are of the form "Former railway stations of line xxxx" - which is preferable? (renamed former to defunct or exclude from renaming?). Shortfatlad (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

ok new list mk2 I've removed the ones that are still open but under a different operator, and changed the renaming back to "defunct" since some of the sub-cats are not closed (as above) - if anyone can see obvious problems in there please say so - NOTE top of list are UK stations - for US/rest of world start at the bottom of the page and work upwards.77.86.62.23 (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 1#Category:Disused railway stations in the United Kingdom Shortfatlad (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Metrolink (Southern California)

Metrolink (Southern California) is being reviewed for Good Article status and only requires a few tweaks to pass. Please check out the review here and improve the article if possible. Thanks! Butros (talk) 11:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Modelling: T scale

Please could somebody assist in checking and referencing T scale? One recent editor has decided that my tagging of the article with {{unreferenced}} means that I want it deleted. Far from it - I want it kept, but in such a way that others don't have an excuse to slap a {{subst:prod}} on it. The main problem is a lack of English-language sources; further info at Talk:T scale. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

IRC?

Just as a question, is the IRC channel for this project ever used by anyone? I've checked a few times, but no-one's ever on. Thanks, C628 (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think I've been there in years, but I don't use IRC much anymore anyway. Mackensen (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

AFD notice

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purple Line (Namma Metro). NVO (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anaheim Canyon (Metrolink station) Mjroots (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Notification regarding Wikipedia-Books

Hadronic Matter An overview

An example of a book cover, taken from Book:Hadronic Matter

As detailed in last week's Signpost, WildBot has been patrolling Wikipedia-Books and searched for various problems in them, such as books having duplicate articles or containing redirects. WikiProject Wikipedia-Books is in the process of cleaning them up, but help would be appreciated. For this project, the following books have problems:

• Book:Transport (problems)

The problem reports explain in details what exactly are the problems, why they are problems, and how to fix them. This way anyone can fix them even if they aren't familiar with books. If you don't see something that looks like this, then all problems have been fixed. (Please strike articles from this list as the problems get fixed.)

Also, the {{saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of books (title, subtitle, cover-image, cover-color), and gives are preview of the default cover on the book's page. An example of such a cover is found on the right. Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class rail transport articles should have covers.

If you need help with cleaning up a book, help with the {{saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.

This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 00:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot ^{(owner • talk)} 00:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Missing rail transport topics

I've updated my missing vehicle topics page, including the section about rail transport - Skysmith (talk) 12:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Categorisation of rail accidents by type

Would categorising rail accidents additionally by type be beneficial do you think?. Some possible categories would be:

• Category:Buffer stop collisions
• Category:Signals passed at danger
• Category:Rail accidents caused by broken rails
• Category:Rail accidents caused by bridge collapses
• Category:Collision between rail and road vehicles
• Category:Rail accidents caused by intoxicated staff
• Category:Rail accidents caused by landslides

I'm not set on the naming, or saying the above is an exclusive list of causes, or that each cause should necessarily get it's own category, or be restricted to one category (e.g. an intoxicated driver could pass a signal at danger). The categories could be subdivided by date and/or location as well if needed. Thryduulf (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(I believe that this thread is related to #Runaway train accidents above)

For some years, I have been using the following categories (privately, and entirely off-wiki):

• Natural event, such as flood, storm, etc.
• Faults which cannot be blamed on individuals or companies, subdivided as:
  • Permanent way fault
  • Signal or Telegraph fault
  • Locomotive fault, or fault in traction or control equipment of multiple-unit
  • Rolling stock fault (other than Loco fault)
• Error by railway employee other than those below
  • Driver error (other than SPAD)
    • Signal Passed At Danger
      • Determined Drive-By (Adrian Vaughan's term for SPAD where driver made no attempt to stop)
  • Error by permanent way maintenance staff (other than Permanent way fault) eg. poor marking of temp. restriction
  • Signalman's error, or error by staff (eg. shunter) carrying out signalling duties
• Other Person's Error - error by someone not employed by the railway
• Other Person's Sabotage - any deliberate act by person not employed by the railway

--Redrose64 (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That seems like a good basis for a category structure here. Some of the names wouldn't work as category names here (e.g. "Determined drive-by" would probably be shouted down as a neoglogism, and "Other person's error" is far too general without any context), but that's minor. This isn't actually related to the runaway trains section above (I wasn't aware of it until you mentioned it), but I happened to be reading the Glasgow St Enoch rail accident article and noticing there wasn't a category for buffer stop accidents. Thryduulf (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The "names" are not set in stone.

As mentioned, DDB is Adrian Vaughan's term, but I can't recall if he first used it in "Obstruction Danger" (1989) or in "Tracks to Disaster" (2000).

"Other Person's Error" is a bit of a catch-all, for where the responsibility did not lie with railway staff, practice or property, and covers such things as non-deliberate (to exclude Ufton Nervet 2004) level crossing accidents (example: Hixon 1968), vehicles or other objects on the line by non-malicious means (Heck 2001) and fires not involving trains (King's Cross 1987).

Buffer stop accidents would be covered either by driver error or by locomotive fault, depending on the circumstances. Moorgate 1975 was most definitely a DE, and I would say that St Enoch 1903 was also. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps we also need to do some categorisation by outcome as well as cause. Bufferstop accidents are a definable type, but are not a cause. Similarly runaway trains are caused by various failures (mechanical or human). Rail accidents that lead to impacts on road or other non-railway infrastructure might be worth grouping somehow as well (e.g. bridge strikes like Eschede train disaster)? Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the category names, I understand exactly what the point of them is and agree we should have categories of that structure, but my point is the names are not suitable for Wikipedia categories. Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

This discussion needs to take into account the existing categories:

Railway accidents by type

Railway boiler explosions

Derailments

Train and rapid transit fires

Railway accidents involving fog

Level crossing accidents

Rail accidents caused by a driver's error

Railway accidents caused by signaller's error

Railway accidents involving a signal passed at danger

Runaway train disasters

Train collisions

Tram accidents

Railway tunnel disasters

__meco (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Assessing railway stations in China

I am planning an AWB run to assess for this project approximately 140 Stub-class articles about railway stations in China created by ChinaRailwayENGED (talk · contribs) in March (see contributions history for full list). I will add the following to each talk page:

{{TrainsWikiProject
| class         = Stub
| importance    = Low
| unref         = yes
| stations      = yes
| imageneeded   = yes
| infoboxneeded = yes
}}

or

{{TrainsWikiProject|class=Stub|importance=Low|unref=yes|stations=yes|imageneeded=yes|infoboxneeded=yes}}

Before I proceed, I want to check with the members of this project to confirm that an importance rating of 'Low' (based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Assessment#Importance scale) is appropriate. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

As there were no objections, I carried out the tagging as indicated above. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you add them to Wiki-China with the same class/importance? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Train crash in Italy

A train has crashed in Italy, killing 6 and injuring 20. Help in expanding the 2010 Merano train derailment article would be appreciated. Mjroots (talk) 09:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of flags in infobox rail accident

A problem has arisen which needs discussion re the use of flags in the {{infobox rail accident}}. The infobox says to use a flag shortcut for the country, such as Norway for Norway. Two editors have replaced this with Norway citing WP:MOSFLAG. Discussion was started on the talk page of the 2010 Sjursøya train crash article, but it needs discussion at a wider level so I'm bringing it here. Mjroots (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Both editors have now been informed of this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

To me, flags serve to draw the eye to a point where a nation is mentioned. In lists, the flags can be useful so that all the (eg) Norway entries may be spotted. However, on an article dealing with an accident at a particular location, there will usually be only one country involved (I don't know of any accidents which straddled a border, but it's an outside chance), so whilst the name of the nation may be important for establishing the locality of the accident, it's irrelevant to the overall picture, so the flag is redundant. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This kind of use of flags has been mostly deprecated all around wikipedia. While flags can be useful in longer list of countries, they are redundant in instances like this and only serve too give undue attention to one detail in the infobox. Rettetast (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I have notified WT:MOSFLAG. Rettetast (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment I'm neutral on this issue. I reverted the original removal of the flag because I had added it when following the instructions at the template when adding the template to the article. If consensus is that these should be removed from all uses of {{infobox rail accident}} then I support their removal. Mjroots (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This sort of flag usage has become less and less common across wiki as such Wikiproject TV,Film,Videogames and firearms to name a few no longer use flags as such.Gnevin (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks like consensus is that the use of the flag in the manner described at {{Infobox rail accident}} is now deprecated. Therefore the template instructions should be rewritten and the flag removed from all infoboxes. Mjroots (talk) 08:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Done by me and John (talk · contribs). Rettetast (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed cull of entries from List of rail accidents (2010–2019)

I've proposed a cull of entries from the list, reasons explained at the talk page. Please feel free to comment there. Mjroots (talk) 09:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Category transfer

Maybe I should've brought this up on the CfD board first, but I proposed that every image and category currently in Category:Images of railway stations should be moved to a new category called Category:Images of railway stations in the United States, and that "Images of railway stations" should be converted into a parent category of this, and similar categories covering stations in other countries. Comments? ----DanTD (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I just did it during the week, and I also added one for Australia. The United Kingdom is next. ----DanTD (talk) 23:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Réseau Breton diagram

I'm working on redrawing the Réseau Breton diagram to show the networks interaction with other lines. I've got the form right, but it needs tweaking and new icons creating to finish off. Input from other editors is welcome, for example, could the diagram be drawn better for Paimpol? Are the two greens sufficiently distinct for their meaning to be clear? Note Châteauneuf de Faou stations were adjacent, not cross-platform interchange. Mjroots (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Réseau Breton
CF de l'Ouest to Paris La Brohinière 129.3 km (80.3 mi) CF de l'Ouest to Brest Le Crouais 126.6 km (78.7 mi) St. Méen 122.7 km (76.2 mi) CF de l'Ouest to Ploërmel Loscouët 116.9 km (72.6 mi) Trémorel 113.95 km (70.81 mi) Merdrignac 104 km (65 mi) Laurenan 94.7 km (58.8 mi) CdN to Tréguier CdN to Plouha Paimpol 90.2 km (56.0 mi) Le Carguier 91.2 km (56.7 mi) Plounez 87.4 km (54.3 mi) St. Lubin-Le Vaublanc 87.4 km (54.3 mi) Lancerf 84.3 km (52.4 mi) Plémet-La Prénessaye 85.1 km (52.9 mi) Frynaudour 79.6 km (49.5 mi) La Chèze-St. Barnabé 80.5 km (50.0 mi) Pontrieux 74.9 km (46.5 mi) Ganland 76.5 km (47.5 mi) Pontrieux (halte) 73.8 km (45.9 mi) CF de l'Ouest to CdN to Plémy Loudéac 71.2 km (44.2 mi) CF de l'Ouest to CdN to Tréguier Brélidy-Plouëc 68.6 km (42.6 mi) St. Caradec 64.6 km (40.1 mi) Trégonneau-Squiffiec 63.3 km (39.3 mi) St. Guen 55.3 km (34.4 mi) Gourland 55.8 km (34.7 mi) CF de l'Ouest to Brest Mûr-de-Bretagne 50.7 km (31.5 mi) Morlaix 49.0 km (30.4 mi) CFA to Plouézoc'h CdN to Plouha Guingamp CF de l'Ouest to Paris 53.3 km (33.1 mi) CdN to Saint-Nicolas-du-Pélem Caurel 45.7 km (28.4 mi) Plougonver-Plourin 39.5 km (24.5 mi) Moustéru 72.1 km (44.8 mi) St. Gelven 41.8 km (26.0 mi) Le Cloître-Lannéanou 32.8 km (20.4 mi) Coat-Guégan 37.8 km (23.5 mi) Bon Repos 37.7 km (23.4 mi) Kermarzin 27.0 km (16.8 mi) Pont-Melvez 34.5 km (21.4 mi) Gouarec 33.6 km (20.9 mi) Scrignac-Berrien 23.6 km (14.7 mi) Plougonver 29.6 km (18.4 mi) Plouguernével 27.2 km (16.9 mi) Kervallon 19.8 km (12.3 mi) Les Mais 25.2 km (15.7 mi) CdN to St Nicolas-du-Pelém Rostrenen 21 km (13 mi) Huelgoat-Locmaria 15.8 km (9.8 mi) Callac 20.3 km (12.6 mi) La Croix Madelaine 17.3 km (10.7 mi) Poullaouen 10.8 km (6.7 mi) Le Plénity 13.0 km (8.1 mi) Maël-Carhaix 12.0 km (7.5 mi) Plounévézel 5.6 km (3.5 mi) Carnoët-Locarn 9.8 km (6.1 mi) Trébrivan-Le Moustoir 6.5 km (4.0 mi) Carhaix 0 km (0 mi) Port de Carhaix 5.7 km (3.5 mi) St. Hernin Cléden 11.9 km (7.4 mi) Motreff 12.9 km (8.0 mi) Spézet-Landeleau 16.7 km (10.4 mi) Gourin 20.0 km (12.4 mi) CM to Meslan Kerivarc'h 22.3 km (13.9 mi) Kerbiquet 25.5 km (15.8 mi) CFA to Rosporden Châteauneuf-du-Faou 27.9 km (17.3 mi) CFA to Landivisiau Guiscriff 31.6 km (19.6 mi) Langelet 31.9 km (19.8 mi) Scaër 37.1 km (23.1 mi) Lennon 35.6 km (22.1 mi) Coatloc'h 42.1 km (26.2 mi) Pleyben 41.1 km (25.5 mi) Kernéval 46.3 km (28.8 mi) St. Ségal 47.9 km (29.8 mi) CF PO to Paris Rosporden 49.75 km (30.91 mi) CF PO to Concarneau CFA to Landivisiau CF PO to Quimper Port-Launay 51.8 km (32.2 mi) CF PO to Landernau Châteaulin Ville 54.4 km (33.8 mi) CF PO to Quimper Châteaulin Embranchement 56.9 km (35.4 mi) Kerhillec 64.5 km (40.1 mi) Plomodiern-Ploéven 69.9 km (43.4 mi) St. Nic-Pentrez 75.6 km (47.0 mi) Argol 80.9 km (50.3 mi) Telgruc 83.1 km (51.6 mi) Tal-ar-Groas 89.1 km (55.4 mi) Crozon-Morgat 94.65 km (58.81 mi) Perros St. Fiacre 99.4 km (61.8 mi) Le Fret 103.0 km (64.0 mi) Penfrat 102.7 km (63.8 mi) Camaret 105.0 km (65.2 mi)
Metre gauge - closed RB Standard (ex-metre) gauge - open Dual gauge lines Other standard guage lines

All standard gauge lines should be red, I believe, as that is the standard across these templates. I would actually suggest as a color pallet: red for the standard gauge lines (the aformemtioned standard), blue for the meter gauge lines (they are a sort of light rail, for which blue is the standard on these templates), yellow for the dual gauge areas (as that way there's little chance of red-green color blindness issues by having them next to each other), and not using a fourth color to note the now-standard, former-meter gauge portions (note it in the text instead) as otherwise the strip map becomes too unlike other such strip maps to be clear to other users. If the portion that changed gauge truly needs to be illustrated, use a decidedly different color, like magenta, for contrast. Overall, though, I would (a) stick to the standard uses of the colors as much as possible, as that would maximize recognition, and (b) not use both red and green, as they inevitably would touch and that could cause acessability issues for red-green color blind users.oknazevad (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with that, adding the comment that I do find the two greens to be somewhat too similar as they stand. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The RB standard gauge line that is open is shown in red. If red was also used for other companies standard gauge lines, then it would not be easy to differentiate which is which, hence the change of colour. It is not such a problem with the metre gauge lines as it can easily be made clear which is RB and which isn't. The dual gauge lines also need to be differentiated. The diagram in preparation is trying to do this. OK, maybe the green needs to be changed to another colour (black?) to avoid colour blindness issues but I feel that three colours are justified here. As with other diagrams, using colours for uses not originally intended is fine as long as a key is provided with the diagram. Mjroots (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Corridor connection

The article Corridor connection has been created. There are many pages which mention this, so link away...

Note that this article is currently UK-centric, on account of the knowledge and reference sources of the originating editor, so rest-of-world information would be welcome.

EdJogg (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Copy edit request

I recently requested a peer review for an article I started, Ghost stations of the Paris Métro. The article was tagged as being within the scope of this WikiProject, and was assesed and given a 'B' on the project's quality scale. One of the suggestions from the peer review was to have the article's prose reviewed and a copy edit made by another editor. If anyone here would be willing to pitch in and assist with a copy edit (or any of the other peer review suggestions) I would really appreciate it. I hope that eventually the article can be taken to good article status. Thanks! --Aka042 (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:SNCF

It would be great to get some input at this TFD discussion if it is still open. Thank you! Plastikspork (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated SkyTrain (Vancouver) 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. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 11:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Metra station article disambiguators

Hey, I just noticed that the convention for Metra station articles appears to be to use "(Metra)" as the disambiguator, such as at Antioch (Metra). The problem with this, it seems to me, is that it doesn't actually state that the station is a station, running afoul of the intent for clarification that disambiguation is supposed to provide. In short, I think we should change them to read "(Metra station)" instead. Thoughts?oknazevad (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support Antioch (Metra station) --Redrose64 (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support. The current convention is to do Name (Operator station). Our articles on New Jersey Transit and the Metro North Railroad follow this practice. As an aside, I don't like that practice and would prefer non-parenthetical disambiguation (e.g. Antioch railroad station), but that's a different discussion. Mackensen (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support for the same reasons as Oknazevad and Mackensen, and I do like the practice. Also, if La Grange (Amtrak station) is owned by Metra, it should be renamed La Grange Road (Metra station), since that's the name Metra gives it, and from what I gather, also the name that Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad gave the station. ----DanTD (talk) 19:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Railway accident templates?

What do you think about the creation of a number of templates covering railway accidents by country? For example, the template for Italy could look like this:-

Note that I'm not volunteering to create all the templates. Another possibility is a series of templates for railway accidents by year, similar to those for aircraft accidents such as {{Aviation accidents and incidents in 2010}}. Both could be implemented if consensus can be found for them.

The template for 2010 could look like this:-

Mjroots (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Either could be useful and each has its advantages.

The country ones have the advantage of grouping accidents that occur under similar regulatory conditions, or lead to changes in said regulations, but there may be too many of them (as ideally there'd be one for every country), and some (such as one for countries with lightly developed rail networks) may be nearly empty.

By year navboxes would have the weakness of being more arbitrary (as the incidents may have absolutely nothing in common other than coincidentally occuring in the same calendar year), but the number would be more finite and each would be almost ensured to have entries. I think I would do the year navboxes first, but let's see what others say.

Either way, the inclusion criteria would have to be determined. I would start by only including incidents that have separate articles per the WP:GNG.oknazevad (talk) 13:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Generally separate articles yes. One of the Italian articles is via a redirect which is categorised as a railway accident in Italy. One would think that an accident as significant as that should be able to sustain a stand alone article. It's just a question of someone writing it. Mjroots (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the Modane railway disaster on the Fréjus railway was in France, not Italy. Removed from suggested Italy template. Mjroots (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The "By country" ones can be subdivided where necessary. I note that {{London railway accidents}} was created as long ago as 23 August 2006. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

the {{2010 railway accidents}} has been created and added to articles. Other year template need to be created. The 2010 template can be used as a basis for this. The relevant "Railway accidents in (year)" category will help to fill the template. Further thoughts on the country templates welcome.Mjroots (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

{{2000 railway accidents}}, {{2001 railway accidents}}, {{2002 railway accidents}}, {{2003 railway accidents}}, {{2004 railway accidents}}, {{2005 railway accidents}}, {{2006 railway accidents}}, {{2007 railway accidents}}, {{2008 railway accidents}} and {{2009 railway accidents}} created, need to be added to articles. Mjroots (talk) 06:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Will do as many as I have time for. C628 (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, anyone wishing to create more templates feel free, just user the previous year's template to create the year before's, and use the relevant cat to find the articles. Mjroots (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done That was more work than I expected...I'll probably take a few days off to do some content work, but I'd be happy to do more; might try creating a few if I have time. Since schoolwork will probably pick up a lot towards the end of the year, quick and mindless stuff like adding templates is probably all I'll have time to do anyway. Cheers, C628 (talk) 02:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Just created {{1999 railway accidents}} and wondering whether this template ought to be added to the Category:Railway accidents in 1999 or added to the category as a member, or both Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

In lieu of an answer I have just added as a member (though used the "τ" character as a sort key as per the categorisation help guidelines so that they appear at the end, Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I've remodelled {{1999 railway accidents}} so that the navigation is below, to declutter the title, and allow use of an hCalendar microformat, which I've also added. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Extended changes through to 2010 GrahamHardy (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

American transportation naming conventions

I'd like to re-open an issue I first raised in November 2007 (see here for old discussion): current naming practices for articles on American railway stations. At present we use parenthetical disambiguation by company: [[NAME (SYSTEM station)]] gives Battle Creek (Amtrak station). I find this approach problematic, especially when two or more systems run to the same station, as at La Grange (Amtrak station). La Grange is served by two heavy rail operators, Amtrak and Metra. La Grange (Metra) redirects there. I don't know who owns the station; I doubt it's either of the operators. In addition, we have numerous "Union Station" articles, disambiguated by location: Union Station (Chicago). Finally, we have station articles at their nondeterminate formal names: Kalamazoo Transportation Center and William F. Walsh Regional Transportation Center are two examples of this.

I've written up a bare-bones proposal at User:Mackensen/Naming conventions (US stations). The proposal in a nutshell: all stations are identified by their most common name, followed by "railroad station." In cities or towns with only one station, this would take the form of "Kalamazoo railroad station." In places with multiple stations, it would take the form "Chicago Union railroad station" or "Chicago LaSalle Street railroad station." Formal names for a station would be indicated in the text, but not the article title. This change would bring US articles in line with the rest of the encyclopedia. Mackensen (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't support this in 2007, and I don't support it now. In fact, I think other countries should add similar naming conventions to ours. ----DanTD (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize you had a problem with the idea then and I can't find where you expressed your opposition at the time. What's your problem with the proposal? Mackensen (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, but looking at your proposal, it fails WP:COMMONNAME. The word "railroad" is never used when speaking of New York Penn Station, (and the "Station" is always capitalized). Other proposed names are also unused constructions. I also think that, for an ambiguous station name like Hillsdale, for example, system name is the most logical disambiguator. At which point using the same form for all such stations in the same system becomes a matter of logical consistency. Multi-system stations, such as the various Union Stations are a logical exception, as choosing a single operator is difficult and they usually have notable proper names. (I wouldn't be opposed to switching some of the Union Sations so the city name precedes the term, but that's not part of this proposal.) oknazevad (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

So does the current system. If we gave everything just its common name (without qualification) we'd have utter chaos. The current system takes the common part of the name and adds "station" or "railroad station" to make it clear what we're talking about. Given that New York Penn is mixed use I'd be quite agreeable to calling it "New York Penn station" or "New York Pennsylvanian station". There has to be a rule though, otherwise we get absurdities like "Providence Station". Mackensen (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The issue is that whatever we put outside of the parentheses, we are claiming that it is part of its proper or common name.for the most part, in the US, stations are simply and commonly referred to by the geographic part of the name (town, neighborhood, road, etc), with "station" rarely used, and "railroad station" used in less than one percent of cases. The exceptions being large terminal and intercity stations which have a well known proper name. So while I could agree with, for example, moving Hillsdale (NJT station) to Hillsdale Station (NJT), adding "railroad station" outside the parentheses isn't a good idea. Mostly, though, I believe the current system works well for the most part, and the current questionable titles should be handled on a case-by-case basis.oknazevad (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I also oppose keeping NJT as train station names at that point (extending it back to at least NJ Transit), and locally its always been Edison Station, never railroad station (at least near me).Mitch32^{(Growing up with Wikipedia: 1 edit at a time.)} 22:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I find the US system works well. Per Oknazevad above, anything that goes outside the parenthesis should be part of the official name, and subsequently, capitalized. All else equal, shorter is better, thus "station" is better than "railroad station" for this matter. The current system is also excellent for disambiguation between two station with the same name, but on different systems. As for La Grange, this could easily be moved La Grange (station) to keep it neutral, if that was desired. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

There are two stations in La Grange though. The other is La Grange-Stone Avenue (Metra). ----DanTD (talk) 12:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

To further illustrate my point check out how many Forest Hill/Forest Hills stations there are in both the US and UK. Then, consider Mets-Willets Point (LIRR station)/(IRT Flushing Line) and Flushing Main Street (LIRR station)/(IRT Flushing Line). While you're looking at Flushing, consider all the other stations in both the past and present that have included the name Flushing, like Flushing-Bridge Street (LIRR station), Flushing-Broadway (LIRR station), and Flushing-Kissena (CRRLI station). As for Metra, you can't ignore the fact that there are more than one Lake Forest (Metra) station, and more than one Western Avenue (Metra) station. ----DanTD (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That article is located at Stone Avenue (Metra), so a hatnote on the "Amtrak" station will be fine. However, I'm glad you brought this up, because sooner or late there will be multiple stations with the same name, and then the current naming is excellent at disambiguation, either by system or line. Introducing a "system-neutral" naming will of course just make it more difficult to disambiguate between two stations with the same name. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record DanTD, most of the examples you cite are easily resolved (as I noted in 2007): Flushing Broadway (LIRR station) would become Flushing Broadway railroad station (or station). No one ever proposed calling it just Flushing. Mackensen (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I still say it's a bad way to do business, but as apparently I'm the only one who thinks so, I'll let it be ;). Mackensen (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Having arrived here on another errand and taken a look at this, I think you have a point. However, I am not an American. Globbet (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Agree with oknazevad and Arsenikk. Whatever we put outside of the parentheses, should be part of its proper or common name. Kalamazoo Transportation Center to Kalamazoo railroad station and Pennsylvania Station (New York City) to New York Pennsylvania station I find particularly disturbing.

Why don't we just stick with WP:COMMONNAME? Also, I've been dealing with the two-lines-serving-a-station problem by moving the pages to Name (train station) as seen here. Perhaps that could be a solution? --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 01:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Leon train crash

In List of rail accidents (pre-1950)#1944 is the statement "78 killed officially, maybe over 250; exaggerated estimates of 500-800 still seen in reference books. Date may be Jan 16", it is referenced but the reference does not support the statements. Most sources I have found (including List of train accidents by death toll) state 500. Anyone shed some light on this? GrahamHardy (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I have just checked the Spanish Wikipedia article (es:Accidente ferroviario de Torre del Bierzo de 1944) and it also puts the deaths as at least 500 and date as January 3rd... GrahamHardy (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The doubt in fatalities was added in this edit in February 2008 by an IP address (albeit a prolific one) GrahamHardy (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The doubt in the date was added in this edit in March 2009 by User:Tabletop due to the 16th January being cited in here GrahamHardy (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I intend to remove both the above doubts from the crash description; no evidence backs up the first claim; and the second claim is backed up by just one reference amongst many (which all state the date as being 3rd January) GrahamHardy (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have informed User:Tabletop via their talk page GrahamHardy (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

tiny little train stations

I recall a few years ago, a slew of AfDs about the notability of tiny train stations and stops. Today I was researching two small North American train stations, found them easily on Google maps, then did Google searches for them and lo, found an en.WP article on each. A bit stubby, but still very helpful. Thought I'd drop by and say thanks :) Gwen Gale (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

As someone who's just intentionally pushed one of the most obscure backwoods railway stations I could find through FAC to prove that there's always a story behind even the most obscure station, as long as you look hard enough, thanks… It's nice to know someone is reading the things! – iridescent 18:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Way to go (never mind seeing you pop up here)! The thought that there could someday be thousands of articles at that level about little train stations is fun to think about, there is indeed a meaningful story behind each and every one of them. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Locomotive diagram quality

File:Steam powered locomotive.png

Steam powered locomotive.png

A series of diagrams representing various locomotives have recently been added to Locomotive, Steam locomotive and Firebox (steam engine).

• File:Steam powered locomotive.png
• File:ICE EE powered locomotive.png
• File:EE powered locomotive.png
• File:ICE powered locomotive.png
• File:Locomotive fire tube boiler schematic.png

Although I appreciate the work that goes into such images, I'm concerned about their accuracy. There are just too many errors in them to really pass muster in an encyclopedia. The same question has already been discussed re the firebox image at User_talk:Andy_Dingley#Firebox Andy Dingley (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to put it diplomatically. These diagrams are so bad they should be deleted before they get loose. Globbet (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

So I have just reverted File:Locomotive fire tube boiler schematic.png to a previous version. Globbet (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

These images do point out a need for diagrams in these articles, and I appreciate the work and time put into them. I also agree with revert on File:Locomotive fire tube boiler schematic.png, the previous version is much cleaner. I would also like to point out that File:Steam_locomotive_scheme_new.png is a much better image then File:Steam powered locomotive.png. As for the Diesel locomotive, Electric locomotive and Gas turbine-electric locomotive. I have not found a replacement and would advice to not remove them until one is found or created. It would encourage others that see the images to attempt to improve upon them. I do not directly oppose removing it before hand, I simply suggest. (UPDATE: Delete them all and remove them from all articles.) Aalox (talk) 02:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey,

I just saw your postings, and I wish to make a few things clear. First and foremost, my initial attempt was to make a few images which are easy to understand (even for those that are not in any way aware of the specifics of trains systems, such as myself). The images were also made to be coherent and allow easy comparison between the train types; so far I have not yet found any images of the train types that do this (neither at wikipedia nor anywhere else on the web). As such, wherever possible I tried to keep the same train setup. The images you propose, aldough perhaps more accurate, also do not allow this. Where I state accurate, I mean correct in being an actual representation of a existing locomotive. As you know (probably much better than me), there isn't a "uniform" schematic for a locomotive, each one has a different setup. Thus, as an image to depict "a steam locomotive" I find my approach better in this sense. In addition, I find them difficult to understand, atleast for a regular browser of wikipedia, which generally doesn't spend too much time on each image; thus if it isn't clear right away, they won't bother with it anymore. Regarding the fire tube boiler, I find it regrettable the image has been reverted. The coloring was very confusing (at first it doesn't even seem like there is water in the firebox, rather just some pipes filled with water (ie such as cooling pipes, ...). The green and yellow sections were also very difficult to grasp (for non-train specialists).

KVDP (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Two of the many failings of File:Steam powered locomotive.png are that the annotations have been added, in English, within the diagram, and that the components are not actually numbered. The alternative, mentioned by Aalox, may be used on any language wiki, indeed, is already present on eleven!

This particular diagram is not of a standard suitable for WP, especially when a more comprehensive alternative is already available. Accordingly, I have changed the images on Locomotive and Steam locomotive. -- EdJogg (talk) 10:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I have just reverted File:Locomotive fire tube boiler schematic.png to a previous version.

Wow! I hadn't noticed that. I really, really hate editorial changes to images like that. If an editor wants to make a derivative image that's so different, then I wish they'd at least upload it under a separate name (and there's an easy template to link back). Andy Dingley (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I've just been looking at File:ICE EE powered locomotive.png, and while it looks superficially OK, I think we should be considering WP:OR issues here. I may be wrong, but what kind of (basically diesel-electric) loco has a longitudinally-mounted electric motor driving a mechanical gearbox on each bogie? The mechanical losses must be huge. AFAIK all the British Rail diesel-electrics I am aware of had transverse mounted traction motors driving the axles directly. The accompanying text also makes strange assertions about emissionless fuels...

EdJogg (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't go as far as "research".

Mind you, didn't some early Swiss locos use body mounted motors and jackshaft / coupling rod drives? Not sure if they had powered bogies though. The trouble with imposing strict "no content without citation" rules is that it can just encourage random factoids from the most obscure of corner-cases, hiding the broad truth behind a forest of obscure exceptions. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK British Diesel-electric and straight electric locos all had transverse traction motors, and bogie locos had the motor mounted on the bogie frame. However, few were direct drive: the only examples I can think of were on the London Underground where the high unsprung weight forced a change to geared motors. A few (all pre-1948) were jackshaft drive, such as these, whilst this one had a curious arrangement involving gears, quills, spiders and springs in order for the motor to drive the wheel spokes. Geared motors were far and away the commonest, and these could be either single- or double-reduction gear drive. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I know I didn't write that, but that was what I was thinking, and what I meant! -- EdJogg (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Again the same remarks as above are valid, if we start with putting in such complex mechanisms, the image becomes really hard to understand.

KVDP (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Your images are too complicated. They (particularly the diesels) show components that are irrelevant to the concept being explained, and could safely be omitted. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Found File:Diesel schema.gif on [4] to replace File:ICE powered locomotive.png. Still nothing as far as Electric locomotive and Gas turbine-electric locomotive goes.Aalox (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I doubt we're likely to find suitable diagram-level illustrations for either of those.

Electric locos just aren't that interesting in internal structure: their components don't have an interesting functionally-related shape and the flexibility of wiring between components means that their relative positioning isn't significant.

Gas-turbine trains are rare, thus there's no clear standard. Also most have been railcars and multiple-units, rather than locomotives. An illustration of such a railcar showing the relatively small volume required for the compact turbine might be interesting, but it's not the same as a functional block diagram.

Andy Dingley (talk) 12:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The amount of variance that these diagrams show from what is in most printed works (both in the appearance of the parts and their terminology) suggests to me that the artist didn't have access to these works, and guessed at a lot of it: hence they would be WP:OR. The exhaust-back-into-the-boiler problem might be explained by the artist having heard of the exhaust steam injector, which does in fact use the cylinder exhaust to force feedwater into the boiler; he then omitted the crucial component of the injector itself (not to mention the clacks). --Redrose64 (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I do not have any access to printed works especially focused on trains. As for "guessing" allot of it, this is true but only to some extent. I used common mechanical/electrical setups. I am intrested in the "exhaust-back-into-the-boiler"-problem you bring up. If you have a good picture of the system using the exhaust steam injector, we can use it to improve the image. KVDP (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The Injector is a strange device which is difficult to explain. Its purpose is to force water into the boiler against the pressure within; and following its invention saw much greater use than a pump, because it had no moving parts. The power source of an injector may be either live steam (direct from the boiler) or exhaust steam (steam from the cylinders is normally passed to the blastpipe and up the chimney, but a proportion may be diverted to power an exhaust steam injector. I suggest these books:

• Handbook for Railway Steam Locomotive Enginemen. Hersham: Ian Allan. 2006 [1957]. pp. 56–69. ISBN 0 7110 0628 8. 0604/A1. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Hollingsworth, Brian (1981) [1979]. How to Drive a Steam Locomotive. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. pp. 20–24. ISBN 0 14 005529 0.
• Semmens, P.W.B.; Goldfinch, A.J. (2003) [2000]. How Steam Locomotives Really Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 94–101. ISBN 0 19 860782 2.

Not sure about Hollingsworth, but the other two are still in print. The first one has many excellent coloured diagrams; Hollingsworth has black-and-white diagrams and photos, whilst Semmens & Goldfinch has a few b/w photos, just one diagram, and is mainly a textual description. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It's inappropriate to show injectors (and even the boiler feedwater system) in a top-level diagram intended for explaining the Steam locomotive in a general use encyclopedia, particularly when it has to be rendered at thumbnail size. It can't be done on the same page, and if the reader has to click through to read it, they'd be better served by clicking through to a decent article on boiler feedwater. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree on this Andy, indeed my schematic can never perform very well as opposed to other, more detailed schematics (focused on 1 aspect), however my images never intent this. Rather, it gives a general overview to quickly grasp the general workings of a steam locomotive, after which the user can look into more detailed schematics.

KVDP (talk) 12:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• File:Steam powered locomotive with steam turbine.png

No. Just no. These images are WRONG and have no place on Wikipedia or even on Commons. I'm sorry if this offends you, but your disrespect for accuracy and the careful work of others offends me. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• File:Smokestackless firebox V1.png

You'll really enjoy this one Andy: "the smokestack is welded shut at the top, and the exhaust gases are diverted to the steam inlet pipe; this increase the efficiency of the firebox"

Now, KVDP, I'm really, really, sorry, but we have got to remove all these images completely from Wikipedia/Commons. We all admire your enthusiasm and your desire to make these subjects more accessible for people with little technical understanding, but we cannot allow such error-filled diagrams to remain here in case anyone actually looks at them and believes them to be correct.

There is a view that says one can teach someone else to a level below that which you understand yourself. The problem is that if, like you, you do not have the knowledge in the first place, it is very difficult for you to assess whether what you are trying to teach is correct. I would strongly suggest that you try to pick one diagram that you wish to draw in simple form, and then you go and study everything about it, and then try to create a simple drawing for our use here. There are loads needed, but they require considerable technical understanding of the subject -- an incorrect drawing in an encyclopaedia is far worse than no drawing at all.

FYI -- There are two templates at Commons that other editors may care to deploy: {{Disputed diagram}} and {{Fact disputed}} (for the descriptive text, where appropriate).

EdJogg (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Do we need to go through a lengthy discussion about the merits of each of these files (there are quite a few)? Commons left navbar -> Toolbox -> Nominate for deletion seems appropriate to me. Some of KVDP's other Commons uploads are not mere naivety, they use the laxer requirements of Commons to incorporate OR & POV in the descriptions (some of which are article length). Globbet (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

FAO KVDP again... May I suggest you look on eBay (eg) for a book called "The Railway Data File". It is a 144-page hardback published in the UK in 1999 and includes loads of diagrams -- 30 pages on steam loco components alone. How I wish we could just nick them for use here! (Just to emphasise that we cannot simply copy them or redraw them directly for use here, before you start thinking of doing that!) -- EdJogg (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand that we can not put people on the wrong track, but I do try to make them as correct as possible, and I will keep working on improving them. In addition, if the links are removed from the wikipedia, few people will get to see them in the meantime as I work on them. I also accept a POV, disputed diagram, ... and other templates to make clear they are still a work in progress, and should not be considered correct. Please don't remove the images from commons, I spent a great amount of time in them already (+30 hours).

KVDP (talk) 12:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

We all understand that you have spent a great deal of time on these, that is what is so sad about them being based on your own imaginings -- had they been based on reality they would have been worth continuing with. You say 'few people will get to see them' if the links are removed -- that's the whole point, we need to prevent people from being misled by these diagrams as swiftly as possible. Also, Commons isn't the place for a 'work in progress'. Pictures can be linked directly from Commons (as they are here) and users will not see the cautionary banners that tell them the diagrams are only loosely based on fact. -- EdJogg (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Tagged for deletion at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Inaccurate railway locomotive diagrams Andy Dingley (talk) 23:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Some more I'm not really happy with: File:Tram and train undercarriage.png; File:Tram and train rail in trench.png; File:Steam engine valve gear plate.png - this last one seems to have the valve being driven off the crosshead and thus is in synch with the piston instead of being approximately 90° out of phase. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete them all. They are a HUGE violation of Wikipedia:No_original_research. These images include speculative modifcations and improvements to the historical orperation of locomotive engines that are creations of KVDP's original research, which is not allowed on Wikipeida. Additionally, this user has a history of attempting to legtimize impossible techonolgies, like here [Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alternative_ICE_fuel_generator] and is using wikipedia to backup his personal, and original research viewpoints on his website here http://kvdp.blogspot.com/. Wikipedia is for Historical and Factual information, it is an encyclopedia. It is NOT a blog, it is NOT consumer reports and is NOT a place to speculate on how to make more enviromentally friendly machines. Aalox (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Just looked at File:Steam engine valve gear plate.png. This is "A schematic showing a concept valve gear designed by User:KVDP. The valve gear is simple in design and could be used for appropriate technology (AT) purposes." Quite apart from the fact that it is technically inept, this is self-admitted Original Research and is surely against Commons rules too? These need to be purged ASAP. -- EdJogg (talk) 13:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Some others raised at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Inaccurate tramway rail diagrams Andy Dingley (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:JCW help

There's a new WP:JCW report. Out of the 500 most highly cited missing journals, here's a few that fall into your scope, or near your scope.

• Steam Railway
• Railroad History
• Australian Model Railway Magazine
• Journal of the Irish Railway Record Society

See the writing guide if you need help with those. Some of these might be better as redirects (Guide to redirects). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Trivandrum_Central_Railway_Station#Requested_move

A move discussion where your input may be useful. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

New category I made(and are considering renaming)

I recently created the Category:Stations along Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad lines, however considering that the similar category for the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad is named Category:Stations along Milwaukee Road lines, maybe the one I made should be renamed Category:Stations along Burlington Route lines. So should it be renamed, or not? ----DanTD (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Not much of a category guy myself (I almost never use them to navigate), but from my understanding, a cat should match the main/parent article's title as much as possible. Therefore, I say keep it at the long form title. The Milwaukee Road cat is a separate issue. As it is, it is misnamed, as the main article uses the railroad's full name. (Although I tend to agree with those who say the main article is misnamed per WP: COMMONNAME.)oknazevad (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

2010 Naugachia train derailment

The 2010 Naugachia train derailment article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Accident list renames

Can we rename the below to add 'notable', ie.

• List of pre-1950 rail accidents to List of notable pre-1950 rail accidents
• List of 1950-1999 rail accidents to List of notable 1950-1999 rail accidents
• List of rail accidents (2000–2009) to List of notable rail accidents (2010-2019)
• List of rail accidents (2010–2019) to List of notable rail accidents (2010-2019)

I am not discussing criteria for inclusion here; just trying to head off the casual contributer beleiving the lists to be comprehensive. I beleive such a rename has been suggested in the talk pages but has not yet been taken up.GrahamHardy (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• One thing which has prompted this is the suggestion in the 2010 Naugachia train derailment deletion discussion that an entry for it be added to List of rail accidents (2010–2019) despite there being no deaths. GrahamHardy (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• I like the idea, but maybe "major rail accidents;" sounds better to me... C628 (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• See WP:LISTNAME: Notability is assumed, and that word (or similar subjective words such as "famous," "noted," "prominent," etc.) should not be included in the title of a list article. –Signalhead ^< T > 18:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose name change per WP:MOSTITLE. Mjroots (talk) 09:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:LISTNAME is very clear on that 'major', 'notable', 'famous' etc is redundant. To quote the guideline: "Many lists are not intended to contain every possible member (e.g. List of people from the Isle of Wight obviously does not include all people from the island). Instead, inclusion on the list should be determined by the criteria above. Because of this, "notable" is assumed, and that word (or similar subjective words such as "famous," "noted," "prominent," etc.) should not be included in the title of a list article." Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:LISTNAME. (And, as a note, indenting comments isn't needed for a poll. Use the asterisk-for-a-dot method of individual entry. It makes it easier for the closer to follow.)oknazevad (talk) 14:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

LSWR L12 class proofreading issue:

LSWR and Southern Under the LSWR, the was outshopped in the LSWR Passenger Sage Green livery with purple-brown edging, creating panels of green.[1] This was further lined in white and black with 'LSWR' in gilt on the tender tank sides.

What was outshopped?

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.52.198 (talk) 05:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The locomotives were (fixed). Mjroots (talk) 07:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Stripping redlinks from navigation templates

I've just noticed some concerning edits, and seemingly a whole project dedicated to winding me up further 8-) Wikipedia:Templates with red links

This was in relation to one editor's clearly GF edits, particularly this to {{Ireland Steam Locomotives}} and discussed further here User talk:Kathleen.wright5#Stripping redlinks from navigation templates

The crux of this seems to be interpreting this section of WP:REDLINK on redlinks in navigational contexts:

Links in any of the various {{About}} and {{Otheruses}} hatnotes, in {{Main}}, {{Details}}, {{Further}}, and {{Seealso}} notes, as well as in "See also" sections, are meant to serve a navigational purpose. Red links are useless in these contexts; if possible they should be replaced by a functioning link, or else be removed.

To mean that redlinks shouldn't exist in nav box templates either. As discussed on the user talk (pasted below), I disagree with this in some contexts, specifically those that represent "structured lists" such as the loco class lists.

These templates and their redlinks have value to WP. They represent a structured naming system and most particularly the links between an article name and the short-form presentation of this article within its context. This is not a trivial choice, and it's by far best set-up by an editor (or small group) working on the template beforehand, so as to do it consistently and appropriately. Later editors may then create the article as time permits, but at least its naming will have some degree of appropriate structure and consistency. Stripping redlinks loses these suggested names. Article names for these complex nav templates are difficult, it's a bad move to push their creation onto a variety of article creators one-by-one.

Look at {{LNER Locomotives}} for an even stronger example and the link [[GCR Class 9F|N5]] N5. Without the redlink, how would the new article creator be guided to create under GCR Class 9F rather than LNER Class N5 ?

Comments please... Andy Dingley (talk) 10:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree with you. On such topics as locomotive classes, station names and so forth the redlinks serve a valid purpose, both in indicating which names should be used when creating articles, and in which articles in a field still need creating. There's a further valid purpose in that it can reasonably be assumed that all these redlinks will one day turn blue, and it makes life far easier once the new articles are created if the "what links here" is already populated. – iridescent 12:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The editor concerned may also have been guided by WP:NAVBOX#Properties, which states

Navigation templates provide navigation between existing articles ... Red links should be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles, and even if they do, editors are encouraged to write the article first.

and not be aware of the special policies applicable here, such as "all railway stations in the United Kingdom, no matter how tiny or how short-lived, are notable". Personally, I use the blue/red proportions of a navbox to show how much there is left to do; and I find that a navbox with lots of redlinks can be inspiration to create an article or three. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur, especially with Redrose on the last point. While I'm not involved in this project, I have interacted with Andy through my involvement in the WP AIrcraft Project (WPAIR). A couple of years ago, WPAIR greatly expanded our series of aircraft manufacturer navboxes, many of which have large amounts of redlinks even now. In the year after that, our aircraft articles expanded by several thousand, almost doubling our total in about a year. An effort last year at creating navboxes for aircraft engine companies has seen similar expansion (by percentage, not numbers), and this is an area which was greatly lacking in coverage. So, yes, I have good reason to believe redlinks are useful in navboxes! - BilCat (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

There nothing wrong with redlinks in templates - see {{Dutch Windmills}}. Any issues with articles at different titles can be addressed after article creation if necessary. Mjroots (talk) 06:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates with red links is not intended to provide a policy basis for deleting red links in templates. It is merely a project for identifying them and promoting their repair, which is usually best accomplished by creating the article for which the red link stands. However, we do propose as an option removing red links from templates if the links have been there for a very long time, and it does not appear likely that the article will ever be created (which should not be the case with articles on inherently notable topics). To the extent that it will take a long time to get around to creating articles on particular items within a larger set, you may want to consider creating meta articles listing and briefly identifying the members of that set, and providing a seed for more information to be added, until the individual member can be broken out into an article of its own. bd2412 T 15:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Century Flyer

There is a new listing in the National Register of Historic Places for the Century Flyer, a 24-inch guage train (See here). I was going to write the article. Would this be under your project? Thanks Einbierbitte (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, narrow gauge railways fall under the remit of this project. Mjroots2 (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Einbierbitte (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Falls of Cruachan derailment

The Falls of Cruachan derailment article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 06:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Now at WP:DRV. Mjroots (talk) 11:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Confusion, East Penn Railroad and Genesee & Wyoming Inc.

There is a link from Genesee & Wyoming Inc. to East Penn Railroad, but it seems to be incorrect. See Talk:East Penn Railroad for details. Perhaps someone can resolve the confusion.--DThomsen8 (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Commented on Talk:East Penn Railroad. C628 (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Annan railway station

I've edited this to correct a misleading impression given by the line template. However this introduces a new problem, with National Rail being referred to from the rail start template, for a long-closed statement. If someone who understands these templates could help out ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavateraguy (talk • contribs) 08:44, 17 June 2010

Fixed for you WatcherZero (talk) 09:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. The {{s-start}} doesn't sit comfortably with either {{Historical Rail Insert}} or {{rail line}}. The correct template to start the fresh box, and also be compatible with {{rail line}}, is {{Historical Rail Start}}; I have re-fixed. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Amtrak Navbox Template moved

I just moved scores of Category:Amtrak railway line navbox templates, but I found that many of them couldn't be moved, and probably should be fixed. Additionally, the one for the Hoosier State (Amtrak) should be renamed for capitalization. ----DanTD (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Castelldefels train accident

There seems to be no appropriate category within the Category:Railway accidents by type scheme at present. I notice even the "Type of incident" field in the infobox is empty, so some input seems to be needed from this WikiProject. __meco (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Technically, the incident was due to the passengers trespassing on the line. However, there is evidence that the management of the station (insofar as legitimate exits were closed off) was a major contributory factor, so it could be classed as a management failure. I don't see the need to classify every accident by type, in this case we don't have a classification and that is reflected in the infobox. Mjroots (talk) 08:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that, but I wonder if there aren't more accidents like this? In Norway there's a big problem with reindeer being killed by trains, sometimes scores of animals in the same incident. I don't think we have any appropriate articles even to mention this in. __meco (talk) 09:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Model rail

A proposal has been raised at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Model rail. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Rogers Locomotive and Machine Works scheduled for TFA on July 8

Just a heads up on this one. A couple weeks ago, since I was the main contributor to this article, another editor asked if I would like to nominate Rogers Locomotive and Machine Works to be shown on the Wikipedia Main Page as Today's Featured Article. I was a little hesitant, but said I wouldn't object if someone else nominated it. Now the article is scheduled for July 8.

I will be monitoring the article for at least part of the day. But, if anyone in TWP has some time on that day, please help out with reverting vandalism and fact checking on edits that are made on that day. Thanks. Slambo (Speak) 14:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Move request at Talk:South Shore Line (NICTD)

Section name says it all. Input appreciated. oknazevad (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Royal Docks Heritage Railway AFD

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Docks Heritage Railway. Simply south (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Alabama and Gulf Coast Railway

That particular article seems to be a major copyright violation. Most of it was copied directly from this and this. It looks to have been added by Randycarnley (talk · contribs), who appears to be the operator of the site it's copied from. If I understand correctly, that's still a copyvio, so what I'd like to do is cut it down to this, which is from way back in 2008, but is the earliest version User:Randycarnley didn't edit. Comments would be welcome. Thanks, C628 (talk) 21:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, some of the info there is useful. If you revert, would you be willing to incorporate info from that website in such a way that there is no copyvio? Maybe copy the 2008 article into your sandbox, make your additions and then replace the current article with the amended article. Things like cats do not come under copyvio, do they? Mjroots (talk) 09:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)\

Yeah, I'm going to try to rebuild it, probably in a more concise way, but I'm not going to just leave it sitting there, not when there's such a good source that pretty much fell into my lap. C628 (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

B&O Railroad Bridge over the Schuylkill River

I would appreciate some help and advice on the B&O Railroad Bridge over the Schuylkill River. I am including what I know or can reference at User talk:Dthomsen8/Rail Bridge for the convenience of other editors. My objective is to have an article for every bridge in Philadelphia over the Schuylkill River. For example, I created the Columbia Railroad Bridge article. Here are the questions I have:

1) Is it clear from the Philadelphia Subdivision article that this swing bridge is indeed a Baltimore and Ohio Railroad bridge, and perhaps as early as 1886, when the line opened? I looked at some of the references for the Philadelphia Subdivision article, but it wasn't entirely clear to me. Perhaps someone more familiar with reading this old railroad information can be helpful.

2) Should I change the name in the table from "Rail bridge" to "B&O Railroad Bridge" along the lines of the next entry in the table for the PW&B Railroad Bridge?

3) Is the information that I have included in the descriptions for the photos in Wikimedia Commons clear and correct? --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. Don't be confused by the reference to the Baltimore & Philadelphia; that was a paper corporation chartered to allow the B&O to build from Delaware into Philadelphia, and it was wholly a B&O subsidiary, the line was operated as an integral part of the B&O as soon as it opened, etc. The name change sounds reasonable. The caption information seems accurate as far as I can tell. The bridge appears to have been built in 1910, if you want to make it more specific; here's an article describing an upgrade to the bridge's miter rails and locking mechanisms and supplying the date, and here are some pictures of the miter rails. Choess (talk) 03:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, detailed response. I especially appreciate the date of construction, and information and the photo of the miter rails. That raises another question, is this swing bridge operational? It would appear so, and perhaps there is even a legal requirement to be able to open the bridge. Tell me more, if you can. (I hope you checked out my photos of the two swing bridges.)--DThomsen8 (talk) 11:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Please forgive the overly hasty reply above, I see that the upgrade article] has information about the operation of the bridge, including the possibility of fines if river traffic is impeded. I intend to create an article on the bridge, using this very helpful information. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I just added your article to the List of crossings of the Schuylkill River. You're better off asking Choess about the details than you are with me, but it would've been cool if they named it "Baltimore & Philadelphia Railroad Bridge" for some reason. ----DanTD (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"Baltimore & Ohio" is probably better; the fact that the B&O used different charters in Maryland, Delaware and Pennsylvania is pretty much inside baseball, and unlikely to have been reflected as a public distinction. The Corps of Engineers report for 1898, before the present incarnation of the bridge was constructed, already refers to it as the "Baltimore and Ohio Bridge". Choess (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your expert information. Look at User talk:Dthomsen8/Rail Bridge/B&O Railroad Bridge for my draft article on this bridge. Am I correct about the miter rails?--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

So the B&O Bridge and the Columbia Railroad Bridge aren't one in the same? ----DanTD (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE Never mind, I already found my answer, and corrected my mistake. ----DanTD (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Two more questions:

1) Is it possible to find some of the Federal Railroad Administration violations online, so they can be cited in this article?

2) Does the Corps of Engineers article cited, or another one, tell us when the earlier bridge for the Philadelphia to Baltimore rail line was built? The Philadelphia Subdivision article places it as early as 1888. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Vananchal Express,Uttarbanga Express train accident,Sainthia

We could use a bit of help with the name. Thanks train people. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Stations with two or more lines

Hello, I'm starting to look at some railway station articles in Warsaw and I have found that the (incomplete) structure is to create separate articles for the main PKP station and the independently run commuter railway (Warszawska Kolej Dojazdowa, which runs on completely different tracks throughout). The stations, however, are essentially the same stations. I don't really know the protocol for stations but wouldn't it be better to have these articles as one article. Cheers, Severo^TC 14:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds sensible, looking at Cannon Street Station, Bank-Monument station and Canning Town Station, if the stations have the same name. Edgepedia (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Alternative arrangements can be found at Charing Cross railway station and St Pancras railway station, but I can see there are good reasons in both cases for two articles. Edgepedia (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback so far - seems that single articles are the way to go (for now at least). A couple more questions if I may: what is the standard naming procedure for stations where the city name is different in the native language to English (if there is one)? Also, what to do with stations where the name is essentially the same, but styled differently (I thinking about Warszawa Gdańska station (Warsaw Gdańsk station) and Dworzec Gdański (Warsaw Metro) (Gdańsk station - Warsaw is implied)? Cheers, Severo^TC 09:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

BR Class 104 abbreviations question

Could somebody explain why some British Rail Class 104 abbreviations (those ending LC) are -LC and not CL? They are described as "... Lavatory Composite", so shouldn't the abbreviation be ...LC, not CL?

E.g. current listing for

• "30291 Driving Motor Lavatory Composite (DMCL) 4 50424–50427 L.M.R. three car sets".

Which part is wrong: the abbreviation or the description?

I've also posted this question in Talk:British Rail Class 104#Abbreviations.

No point in having 2 discussions, so please reply at the link above rather than here.

Thanks in advance, Trafford09 (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Lavatory last, and probably shown as DMC(L) too.

I've detailed my sources at the link above. If all agree, this should be standardised across all WP BR DMU articles. -- EdJogg (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Infobox problem

There's a problem with Template:Infobox Station or Template:s-start as used on Beverly Depot (MBTA station) and elsewhere. Under the Services banner, the next and previous stations are shown, but over the "previous" is a small empty box. Ma^t_chups 10:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to use {{s-start}} when the services are placed within {{Infobox station}}. Severo^TC 11:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem. There are many stations out there with that mistake that need to be cleaned up. Train2104 (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Rail Color Box for one-line agencies

Resolved

 – Redrose64 (talk) 21:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is it that the {{Rail color box}} entries for some single-line agencies lead to a box with the correct color border, but no fill?

Examples:

  PATCO Speedline

  South Shore Line

  Tri-Rail

Train2104 (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, what is that empty code box? Train2104 (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done Have fixed the background problem by removing certain line breaks from {{PATCO color}}, {{NICTD color}} and {{SFRTA color}}: basically, the <noinclude> must follow directly on from the "real" template content, without any intervening line breaks. The odd box was down to a similar issue with {{SFRTA lines}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh-oh. It looks like most of these problems were caused by me. Any chance this glitch exists on any of the California and Texas ones? ----DanTD (talk) 03:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Arsenal Bridge, a CSX Transportation bridge in Philadelphia

The Harrisburg Subdivision page mentions the Arsenal Bridge, a CSX Transportation rail bridge over the Schuylkill River and the Arsenal Interlocking. The "Arsenal" in the Philadelphia bridge name refers to the Schuylkill Arsenal, which was renamed the Philadelphia Quartermaster Depot in 1926. That is all I know about this bridge, but I need more information to create an article on this bridge. Can someone more expert about railroad bridges find something about this rather old truss bridge? --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That's the ex-PRR bridge to their Delaware Extension. Double-track, formerly electrified, formerly a swing span (now fixed shut). It looks like the current incarnation dates from about 1905. Choess (talk) 23:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

What I need is information about the bridge with a citation. The 1905 date seems reasonable from the appearance of the bridge. Of course I can create an article without citations, but I certainly prefer to have a good article with at least one reference. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Check the PRR Chronology for 1860 and 1862 for info about the original incarnation of the bridge, as built by Jacob H. Linville. Can't pin down the construction for the current one, but it's probably in the appropriate volume of Roberts & Messer's Triumph. Choess (talk) 06:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Messer, David W (1999). Triumph II. Barnard, Roberts and Co. ISBN 0-934118-24-8. seems to be the book you mean, and the Library Company of Philadelphia has it. --DThomsen8 (talk) 10:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it may be Triumph III (Philadelphia Terminal Division). If you can wait a few days, I can look at a copy and give full info. Choess (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I am off to the Library Company today, since I would like to see this series of books.--DThomsen8 (talk) 11:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Per Triumph III, the original Arsenal Bridge was constructed 1861 (p. 293) and put in operation 27 January 1862 (p. 286), single-track bridge, three wrought-iron spans on stone piers, central span a center-pivot swing span (p. 293). Rebuilt as double-track in wrought iron 1885-6 [earlier than I thought] as nine deck truss spans; three on the west approach, total 320', five on the east approach, total 320', and one center-pivot draw, 192'. (p. 294) Probably electrified 1937-8, but I'm having trouble pinning down the date of Delaware Extension electrification at present. Choess (talk) 04:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

See Schuylkill Arsenal Railroad Bridge --DThomsen8 (talk) 10:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I have this bridge as CSXPhiladelphia Subdivision in the new article, but it seems to me that is wrong. Can you clarify what you mean above by Philadelphia Terminal Division?--DThomsen8 (talk) 11:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Southampton Terminus Railway Station

Can this be reassessed please, a lot of work from a few people have gone into remaking this article. Southampton_Terminus_railway_station (Zeoace (talk) 10:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC))

Well it needs a lead. And ideally more sources. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Definitely more sources at a minimum; whole paragraphs are completely unsourced. It's also riddled with spelling mistakes and grammatical errors; phrases that make no sense ("the station length at this time was 250 foot long, which would offer tickets"?); overlinking (you can safely assume readers know where England and London are); and complete speculation ("rail operators would almost certainly wish to see the Northam triangle rail link reinstated"). As it stands, definitely still start-class. – iridescent 14:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have the right sources and there's a framework to start from, but:

• Succession boxes should go at the bottom.
• Section headings should only have the first word capitalised, except if a proper name is included.
• Have a look at some of the featured articles or good articles on stations for examples for what to work towards and have a look at Manual of Style for guidance on article presentation.
• Unless there's a particular reason to put it elsewhere, the TOC should be on the left, below the lead.
• There are a number of long, run-on sentences that need breaking-up into multiple sentences. For example, this:

  In 1895 the old engine sheds which were built back in 1847 were still heavily in use but as demands rose for goods, they were converted into a one road depot for freight trains, not only was the engine sheds converted, the original turntable was replaced with a open turntable which had radiating roads, coal stage, water Column(s) and crew bothy.

A bit of work and this could be improved to a B-class.--DavidCane (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You can find a list of featured articles on UK railway topics, incl some stations, here. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for the imput;

• Left TOC alone now.
• Removed Speculation of information on 'Future Train Station'.
• Got rid of the bullet point on 'Today'.
• Made external links look better.
• Removed the station length, as details of this can be found on Northam railway station - Northam railway station details are unneeded on this wiki page.

I am next week getting a few Southern Railway books to help try and build more on this article as at the moment most of this is information gathered from other websites.

(Zeoace (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC))

Hi Zeoace, lots of information, here, but

• I've been through and edited the dates into the British English format, and small numbers generally should be spelt out.
• See WP:NPOV and WP:Weasel words. Statements such as "To add confusion to the travelling public" (is that really the reason it was done, and do you have a reiable source that the "travelling public" was confused), "this was a final blow for the station". Adjectives such as "sadly" and "even" are expressing an opinion and need to be advoided.
• The sentence that starts "As road transport became more common" is unclear, and I'm not sure what you are saying.
• More references!
• Be careful with the links, I've just fixed turntable -> turntable (rail)
• units should be converted using convert template; I've just done it
• what's a crew bothy?

Edgepedia (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• • A "crew bothy" would be a mess hut or messroom where crews would make tea and eat packed meals. Mjroots (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Infobox station

The discussion here may be of interest to editors frequenting this board. d'oh! _talk 07:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Carpet railway

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The article Carpet railway has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references found no printed works that contained the phrase "Carpet Railway" as used here. There are severl mirrors and a few blog entires that use the term. The external link does not contain the word "carpet". Fails WP:V and WP:N

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the PROD notice and edited the text somewhat, but the article is still unreferenced and needs some help from more knowledgeable editors than I. The article could perhaps be renamed 'Birmingham Dribbler', since this is really what is described...

Incidentally, isn't this similar to the toy locomotive featured in The Railway Children (film)? This would help the notability!

EdJogg (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just read the beginning of the original book here(!) and the engine is quite important to the plot, and certainly seems similar to that described in carpet railway, although the books describe it as suffering a boiler explosion (which is also characteristic) that might have been beyond the scope of a home repair!

EdJogg (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If you have the Wordsworth paperback edition, the explosion is on p.10, and on p.13. Peter's Father prescribes "a bit of brazing, say, or some solder; and a new valve" and he does say that he'll "give up Saturday afternoon to it", so he's confident. We, the readers, share his confidence; particularly those of us who lost a father before he had a chance to mend all our broken toys.

Unfortunately, absolutely no mention of carpets; it's described as "a model engine". --Redrose64 (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just added {{Find sources|Carpet railway}} at the top of this section, for any people to search for further references. Trafford09 (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

US Train Wreck state category

Any ideas on whether specific Train Wreck articles be placed in the 'Rail transport in <State>' category or its sub-category 'Passenger rail transport in <state>', ie. in a member of Category:Rail transport in the United States by state or Category:Passenger rail transport in the United States by state, Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Since not all train wrecks involve passenger trains only, I would suggest 'Rail transport in <State>' --Redrose64 (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Loading Gauge

I have added lgauge to the Infobox rail line "lgauge=UIC GB+"

WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2010, 1

See High Speed 1 for an example. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Infobox width

The infobox trains, and infobox locomotive default width was recently (may) reset to 229, when it had previous been 300px as suggested at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes)#Design_and_usage. I changed it back.

There is now a discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_train#Image_size - though perhaps that should be carried out somewhere more central like Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes). Personally I think 300px may be a little large, but 229px is far too small.

Please make suggestions at the relevant talk page.Sf5xeplus (talk) 06:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Coordinates of UK stations

I am importing the railway stations in the UK into nl:wp (dutch wikipedia). We've tried to harvest the lat/lon coordinates from templates. Is there a list of coordinates of railway stations available? EdBever (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

If a station has a Grid Reference formatted with {{oscoor}}, clicking on the linked grid reference will give you the lat/long coordinates. See 2010 Little Cornard derailment for an example. Mjroots (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think that a list is available, otherwise we would have imported it. Railway station articles have their coordinates in either of two places: (a) in the infobox as a |latitude= |longitude= pair; (b) near the bottom of the article in a {{coord}} template.

You may have noticed that on many station articles, the coordinates are given to high precision, which suggests that somebody has obtained the coordinates using either a GPS system or used an interactive map with coordinates readout, and has entered the results directly into Wikipedia without understanding them. What I mean by "not understanding them" is that many coordinates seem to be accurate to five or six places of decimals; this is clearly overprecise since this gives an accuracy of less than one metre, when pretty much all railway stations are over 5m wide and over 50m long. High-precision figures can usually be safely rounded to three (four at the most) places of decimals.

Case in point: my local station has coordinates given as 51.61197°N 1.24348°W / 51.61197; -1.24348. A little playing about with an interactive map shows that the western end of the station platforms is at 51.61171°N 1.24490°W / 51.61171; -1.24490 and the eastern end is at 51.61056°N 1.24029°W / 51.61056; -1.24029. To me, 51.612°N 1.243°W / 51.612; -1.243 is accurate enough for most purposes. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally I disagree that 3dp is enough - I'd prefer to have the arrow actual on the station, that usually requires 4 dp.Sf5xeplus (talk) 06:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your answers. We have harvested all coords from the latitude/longitude parameters in the infobox, but we only had about 40% of all articles. I have since found an alternative source that fits our needs. EdBever (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You'll probably find that most of the other 60% have a {{coord}} somewhere, for instance Radley railway station which has

{{coord|51.686|N|1.240|W|type:landmark_region:GB|display=title}}

near the bottom (in the "External links" section). --Redrose64 (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

East Coast

Just suggested a move at East Coast Trains. See Talk:East Coast (train operating company). Simply south (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Article titles: debate on South African Railways Class NG G13

I'd like some group input on this subject, or at least some guidelines on how the Group interpret WP:TITLE when applying the rules to the naming convention of locomotive related articles. The debate on the articles talkpage as follows:

We have yet another shift/change of article name, now to the "claimed" official South African Railways Class NG G13. Yet on searching Google the results show that the official title is South African Railways Class NG/G13. Before anyone comes along and moves this article again - we presently have six redirects which don't work thanks to the current move - can we have some debate on what the article title should be? According to guide WP:TITLE, we don't need to name the article after the official name, but can use most popular searched for. I am also concious in this debate of other editors who have pan-wiki projects to sort locomotive articles on national basis: hence the previous inclusion of South African Railways in the title by one editor, over what seems the official SAR nomenclature for designation of locomotives. Personally, I have no fore thoughts, but would like to stop this continual "change the title" game and reach a thought through conclusion. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 13:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see some consistency across nations and companies, where similar names for the "class 12" and the "class 13" would be useful. However I can't see a great benefit to imposing this sort of thing internationally (or even across pre-1923 England), and there's obvious scope for trouble if that were attempted.

I think that what we need most at this time is a list of known railways and favoured formats for each (where such is known) as a sub-page under the project, which can then also act as a place to hang lists of references for when there is some clear advice as to which format is favoured. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a technical problem in using a slash. South African Railways Class NG/G13 is considered to be a sub-page of South African Railways Class NG. This is why ship articles are listed as MV foo etc and not M/V foo, which would be a sub-page of M. Mjroots (talk) 03:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Such problems aren't immediately obvious on the article page, but do become apparent on the associated talk page. For (admittedly non-railway) example, see Not / But (which looks fine), and then the associated Talk:Not / But (which at upper left has a link back to Talk:Not, which is the talk page of a completely unrelated article). --Redrose64 (talk) 10:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)