Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2014

I know who has tons of info on Budd rail cars

I worked at a Budd plant in Shelbyville, KY from 1989-1999. My boss, William J. Davis came from the red lion plant to Budd in KY. He had tons of photos and knowledge of the history of Budd. More than what's included under the Budd Company wiki page. He was from Philadelphia but May still be living in KY.

Daniel McIntire — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmcintire01 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, whatever you got, go for it. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review for HS2

I've listed the High Speed Two article for peer review here: Wikipedia:Peer_review/High_Speed_2/archive1 - if anyone is willing and able to contribute it would be appreciated! SheffGruff (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Undercarriage and related pages

There is a request for multiple page moves at Talk:Undercarriage#Multiple_pages_move_request. You are invited to participate. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Chester Creek Railroad vs. Chester Creek Branch

User:PRRfan has recently suggested that the Chester Creek Branch article be merged into the Chester Creek Railroad article. I considered the opposite merge, but I could go either way, and have tagged both articles for merging. Any comments? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd favor a merge from "Railroad" to "Branch". The railroad didn't really have an independent existence-it was always a "paper" railroad operated by large companies. Choess (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, DanTD, why don't you go ahead and merge the two into Branch.PRRfan (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like I will. I'll just transfer more of the data from the railroad, and do just that. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE -  Done. I swiped some hidden text on the rail trail that's supposed to replace the branch so you people can use whatever elements of that you find necessary. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Wensleydale Railway

The article Wensleydale Railway may need monitoring, lest I hit WP:3RR. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Marseilles Metro station stubs

I AGF, but just bringing to editors attention a pile (at least 25) of un-sourced Marseilles Metro stubs created by new (?) editor Tomatooooeeeeesss (talk · contribs). I have also notified at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rapid transit . 220 of ^Borg 23:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

On French Wikipedia, there is already a similar set of articles, some of them referenced. In the near future, I will modify the relevant Wikidata pages to create interwikilinks between the two sets of articles. Bahnfrend (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

'Merci Beaucoup'! :-D 220 of ^Borg 07:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• Confirmed as a block-evading sock of Pumpie, I'm afraid. Please feel free to recreate any of the articles you think worth it (or to ask the deleting admin to undelete any you had worked on). Yngvadottir (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
• If User:Bahnfrend chooses to have the information restored, I will work with you to upgrade the stubs that were created. Sw2nd (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure whether there's a policy on undeleting articles that have been deleted because they were created by a sockpuppet. I take the view that articles about individual Metro system stations can be justified on the basis that Wikipedia has a gazetteer function. Perhaps the editor who deleted the articles could be asked to recreate them as new articles created by that editor, and then Sw2nd and I (who have previously collaborated on similar articles about Vienna U-Bahn stations) could then add some more content. I am aware of a reliable source (Groneck, Metros in France) that could be inserted as a reference in all of the articles, although I don't have a copy of it. Bahnfrend (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
    • They have to be done individually; you'd be better off recreating them yourself, giving priority to those that have sources on fr.wikipedia, since there was very little content and since the point of the blanket deletions is to deny. But the deleting admin is Mark Arsten; pinging him here to save a step, since he may have guidance. By the way, the user had moved on to Lyon Metro stations, such as Hôtel de Ville - Louis Pradel (Lyon Metro). (I sympathise with the "There's a book but I don't have it" situation; there's one on the Berlin U-Bahn that I can't get for love or money.) Yngvadottir (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
      • I would oppose the automatic recreation of articles created by a sock. If they pass the general notability guideline, then there will be real sources out there which discuss the subject in depth. Use those sources. If you don't have access to a source, wait for somebody else who does; do not assume that the sock must have been honest and wholly policy-compliant. bobrayner (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
        • I'm not suggesting automatic recreation. What I'm suggesting is that the editor who deleted a group of stub articles that have counterparts in French Wikipedia recreate them so that two editors, one of whom has identified a reliable source, can use them as the basis for further work, and link them with the French Wikipedia articles. Bahnfrend (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
          • If any of them pass the general notability guideline, feel free to create or recreate those, and those reliable sources can be used to build nice content. Recreating anything that has a counterpart in French wikipedia seems to be inappropriate, because French wikipedia itself is neither a source nor evidence of notability. bobrayner (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
            • A railway station does not need to meet the general notability guideline to qualify as the subject of a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is a gazetteer as well as an encyclopedia, and all railway stations worldwide qualify for an article on that basis. So, eg, the suburban railway station closest to my home has a Wikipedia article of its own, even though it is no more than a pair of platforms each equipped with a bus shelter. The geographic locations of all of Marseilles Metro stations can be found on google maps, which is a reliable source, and this page of the other reliable source I have identified shows the Metro's two lines with the stations arranged on them. All I am suggesting is that the deleted articles be recreated, so that two other editors who have volunteered to improve them can be saved the need to reinvent the wheel in relation to the necessary templates and initial information, etc. Bahnfrend (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
              • Railway station articles are not exempt from notability requirements. No policy or guideline says that, and the last time that notion was put to the community in an RfC, it was totally defeated. Also, Google maps is not a reliable source - for instance, it shows a station next to my inlaws' house but in reality they are a 2 hour drive from the nearest station. Even if Google Maps were a reliable source, all it says is "there's a station at location X" and that's hardly sufficient to write an encyclopædia article. Feel free to try another RfC though... or limit yourself to writing articles that pass the GNG, because they will have in-depth coverage by reliable sources. bobrayner (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I think Bahnfred is free to create whatever articles he likes; sockpuppets don't get a heckler's veto. Similarly, Bobrayner is free to open a proper deletion discussion for any article he chooses. While of course common outcomes aren't binding, the fact of the matter is that railway stations are generally kept at AfD. By all means we can spill more ink proving this again, or we can just write some articles and not cause a fuss. Mackensen (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

A new sock has appeared, creating articles on the Istanbul Metro: Special:Contributions/Letusssss. Be quick before someone deletes them, but as with the previous sock, the articles are one-liners, you might as well create them yourself/ves. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Streetcars on the move?

WikiProject Streetcars wishes to create a separate banner. Thoughts on this? Fremantle99 (talk) 03:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

No reason why they shouldn't. Mjroots (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Streetcars#Distancing ourselves from Wikiproject Trains. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Kolkata Metro

Could someone help out in that article?The history section is totally ripped off from this website,and it's not well written,but I can't put my finger on what exactly is wrong with the article.Guru-45 (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Pelham_Park_and_City_Island_Railway C-Class?

An article I've worked on a bit, Pelham_Park_and_City_Island_Railway, has a C-Class rating. Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Trains/Assessment#Quality_scale, it seems to me to meet the requirements for B-Class. I'm unfamiliar with the process for assessing quality; is there a way to request re-assessment? What sorts of problems do people see in this article which need fixing before the rating can be improved? -- RoySmith (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

@RoySmith: - Fails B-class on referencing atm. Once all pararaphs and sentences are fully referenced it'll be a B-class article. Mjroots (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, looks like I have some work ahead of me :-) I just found Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment/B-Class_criteria, so at least I've got a more clear target to shoot for. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Question

• {{BTC color}}
• {{BTC style}}

Excuse me. I hope to change parameter style of {{Infobox station}} at Line 2 Jangsan Station like the Nordhoff (Los Angeles Metro station) or Chatsworth Station. Already I'm make some template. What more do you need? Thanks. --Idh0854 (talk) 07:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Jangsan Station uses {{rail line}} which does not recognise any custom style templates or parameters; and the only colouring it gives are through its |col= and |lightcol= parameters. Nordhoff (Los Angeles Metro station) and Chatsworth Station don't use {{rail line}} - they use {{s-line}} instead, which has a very different syntax, and does provide custom styling through templates, in this case they are {{SCAX style}} {{Amtrak style}} {{LACMTAML style}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC).

AfD

The 2014 Chemins de Fer de Provence derailment article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Resources for Articles for Indian Railways

Most articles regarding Indian Railways quotes http://indiarailinfo.com/; http://erail.in/; http://www.irfca.org and travel websites like http://www.cleartrip.com, http://www.makemytrip.com, etc., as source. Though by far it may be accepted for map or creating route diagrams, but distance between any two railway stations or a length of a railway line largely differs with the Official website. Also the websites are mostly with user generated contents. So is the case of Indian Railways Fan Club (Indian Railways Fan Club), most of the web pages are have contents user-generated and casting doubts over verifiability and reliability, since they are neither accurate (to the most) nor updated. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 06:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it is not easy to find reliable sources online about the railways of India. However, there is a fair bit of source material available in print, especially about Indian railway history. See the list of books, etc, on this page and this page of the IRFCA website, and also the IRFCA's research guide. Additionally, there is the very useful India's Railway History: A Research Handbook by John Hurd and Ian J Kerr, and the Indian Steam Railway Society publishes an annual magazine that is worth a look; you can download it here. Bahnfrend (talk) 11:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

merge & delete "UK Ultraspeed"

Hi, I think the UK Ultraspeed article ought to be deleted and inserted to the Transrapid page in much much shortened form as a section. It's a maglev line proposal in the UK that at this time of writing has no chance of ever getting built. AadaamS (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding about new unannounced trains

With reference to the edits at Thoothukudi railway station and Aruppukkottai railway station, i was removing some contents like "Demand for new trains, Extension of trains, etc.," on the basis of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:CRYSTAL. These kind of information is present in quite a lot of articles related to transport of India articles particulary Indian Railways the most, since almost every city/town has its own demand of introduction of new trains/buses or construction of new lines, these are either speculative and unconfirmed. Those demands may or may not happen or even keep lingering for a indefinite period of time. Hence a concrete decision can be made on adding/removal of such informations in future. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 06:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

If there were actually a good sources where (for instance) a local politician demanded better services, it would probably be OK to add a little text about that - but it should be added as prose, and given appropriate context, instead of writing out a long list of speculative routes &c which probably misleads readers. bobrayner (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Denver RTD station name reformatting

I started a discussion about reformatting some station names in the Denver RTD system at Talk:List of Denver RTD light rail stations if anyone is interested in commenting. -Killian441 (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

2014 Talk Page Archive

Why hasn't a new talk page archive for 2014 been started yet? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 01:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Because it's a manual job to switch it over, and nobody remembered. These edits should do it. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

List of periodicals

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_railroad-related_periodicals pruned again satusuro 00:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

LRT stations

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (stations).

See also: Template talk:LRT Station/doc

PhilippineRevolution (talk · contribs) has started to change the title of all LRT station articles from “LRT station” to “LRT Station” which is at odds with WP:LOWERCASE. Does anyone else have a problem with this? Useddenim (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

@Useddenim: This page doesn't have many watchers. Suggest you inform WT:RAIL, WT:WikiProject Rapid transit and WT:STATIONS at the very least. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

@Useddenim: I am just following the naming of majority of LRT Station articles. So if I'm going to your lowercase argument, then a second parameter should not be observed and move all to "LRT station" and other articles such as those with "MRT Station" would be moved into "MRT station" as they also observe the same naming format?PhilippineRevolution (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Forget about on-wiki naming conventions. What do most sources call each station? bobrayner (talk) 04:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't add a upper/lower case switch to {{mrt}} because I didn’t find any any pages ending with “MRT station” when I created the template. It’s not for me (or you) to unilaterally dictate page naming for any given group of articles. I suggest that you just drop the issue as you’re not likely to gain consensus for your point of view. Useddenim (talk) 04:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I beg to disagree actually there is before but were redirected to the current "MRT Station" naming. So I say for future reference and backwards compatibility, we just add a second parameter to "MRT station" and this case would be closed. PhilippineRevolution (talk) 07:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

This image currently illustrates the tram stop article -- and I suggest here that LRT stops that are no more extensive than this stop don't merit being called a "station".

• Over at Talk:Mount Dennis LRT station#Discussion I sought clarification and discussion of the phrase "just like the majority of the LRT Station articles".

I suggested that there are several hundred LRT systems, world-wide, each of which has somewhere between a dozen or so and a couple of hundred stops.

I suggested that most of those thousands, or tens of thousands, of LRT stops won't ever be documented in stand-alone articles, because:

1. LRT stops that are merely a section of sidewalk, with a kiosk to keep the rain off waiting commuters, and a terminal where commuters can buy a ticket, or top up a smart card, don't merit the dignity of being called a "station";
2. LRT stops that haven't generated enough interest to have been separately covered in WP:reliable sources don't fulfill the general notability criteria of WP:GNG, so don't merit a stand-alone article;
3. There are probably hundreds of LRT stops extensive enough to be called stations, described in some detail by WP:RS, which we will nevertheless never cover in a stand-alone article, because the RS are in a foreign language, or they just don't have any wikipedia contributor interested enough in them to write that article.

As of 2014-02-17 how many of the thousands or tens of thousands of LRT stops have stand-alone articles? How many of them have names that include either "Station" or "station"?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I checked the Calgary LRT, and found that was a redirect to C-Train. That system has individual articles on all its stops -- some of which are intermodal terminals, where commuters can transfer from local buses, or inter-city travel, but others, like Banff Trail (C-Train), merely seem to be essentially kiosks with ticket dispensing terminals.1

For what it is worth, while the C-Train article itself refers to the stops as "stations", none of the stand-alone article contain either "Station" or "station" in the article title. Rather they all have the disambiguator "(C-Train)". Systems like this, where the standlone articles aren't explicitly titled "station", will skew any simple analysis of "the majority of the LRT Station articles". Geo Swan (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Determining how to name articles about stations cannot be done at a higher level than the system, because standards and conventions vary so much. To determine though how to name the stations on each system is pretty straightforward:

1. Ignore those stations/stops that don't meet the GNG, as things that do not and should not have aritcles are irrelevant to how we title articles.
2. Look at the sources - do they refer to the places the rail vehicle stops as "stations", "stops", "halts" or something else?
   • If there is a clear common usage, use that.
   • If the common usage does not match the official usage, then set up redirects from the latter.
   • If there is no clear consensus, go with what the operator uses and set up redirects from the other form(s).
3. For capitalisation purposes, look at the sources again. Do they treat the word "station" (or "stop" or whatever) as part of the proper noun? Do they refer to "Robert Street station" or "Robert Street Station"?
   • If there is a clear common usage, use that.
   • If the common usage does not match the official usage, then set up redirects from the latter.
   • If there is no clear consensus, go with what the operator uses and set up redirects from the other form(s).
4. Agree a standard disambiguator (often related to the name of the system) and either apply it to all articles or apply it only where needed and set up redirects where it isn't (e.g. if your disambiguator is "(Megatown Metro)" but you only apply it where the station name is ambiguous ("Monument station (Megatown Metro)"), then have redirects to undisambiguated articles ("Jimbo Wales Plaza station (Megatown Metro)" → "Jimbo Wales Plaza station").
5. Set up redirects from the names of the non-notable stations/stops/halts to the list of stations page (or another suitable target) using the same naming convention (e.g. "10th Street station (Megatown Metro)" → "List of Megatown Metro stations#Chartreuse line".

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations) for stable guidelines that have worked well for years as an example. Thryduulf (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Cape gauge

Cape gauge - I am re-listing the issues with this a year after the last discussion. It is not universally used in the real world, but somehow the article is now almost saying the issue as if 3'6 gauge was originally called cape gauge, that it started in south africa and any other location on the planet that doesnt use the term is an afterthought...

and the term has crept into templates as well - not wanting to even get into google hit or other spurious arguments, the point is that there are thousands of kilometres of rail lines of 3'6 gauge around the world that have never called their local 3'6 gauge railway by that name - either in written form or otherwise. The responses in 2012 were particularly dissapointing as thoise who shoiuld have known better opposed changing the title to anything else - and we still have a factual innacuracy sitting there and creeping into templates and lists as if it was the only term ever used for that gauge. satusuro 01:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Cape Gauge refers to 3'6" gauge railways in southern Africa only. Other areas (Australia, Japan, New Zealand etc.) are not Cape Gauge railways. Mjroots (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Not knowing the details of the issue at hand, this is an international encyclopedia written in the English language. The article & templates should be named for what is the international name of this gauge, whatever it happens to be. Other names should then link to that article. AadaamS (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Station infobox question

Could someone who is familiar with the infobox template for train stations, take a look at the s-line templates in the infobox at Andover (NJT station) take a moment to fix it and let me know what I'm doing wrong with it. I am sadly not as familiar with some of the parameters/syntax of this template, but tried to follow the instructions. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi ColonelHenry, I try and avoid the s-line template, but I've added the necessary entries to {{NJT lines}} [1], {{NJT stations}} [2] and created {{S-line/NJT right/Lackawanna Cut-Off}}. I've assumed the trains on this line will terminate at New York Penn Station; this is so, can you please create a redirect from New York Penn Station (NJT station) to Pennsylvania Station (New York City), if not please correct {{S-line/NJT right/Lackawanna Cut-Off}}. Before I go I will create {{S-line/NJT left/Lackawanna Cut-Off}}. Edgepedia (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Many thanks for your help. Right now NJTransit has not released much by way of details on the trains that would run on the line except saying 10-11 and as high as 18 trains per day. But the probability is that they would run direct into New York Penn station and/or to the Hoboken terminal. I will create that Penn Station redirect forthwith.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Station naming (again)

moved to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (stations)#Station naming (again)

Timestamp for archiving. — Revi_complaint? 17:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

RailGauge template feature proposal

Template {{RailGauge}} has a new feature planned to produce a link like: 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm). Discuss at Template:RailGauge#New feature: link the gauge size itself. -DePiep (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Adverse abandonment

I've created a several stubby new article titled adverse abandonment, concerning a legal process to force a railway company to forfeit real estate. If anyone can help improve it, please do. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 16/03

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Russian locomotive class P36. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Ideally, referencing needs to be at least one per paragraph, but it looks like some referencing issues have already been addressed. Possibly ready for release as it stands, any objections? Mjroots (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks better sourced than many other articles here on en:WP. AadaamS (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

S-Line template missing

Can anybody tell me where to find the S-Line templates for the Detroit People Mover? I'm trying to move all-related templates and stuff to a new DPM category. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The four main ones are Template:DTC stations, Template:DTC color, Template:DTC style, Template:DTC lines. There might be others. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

train gauge categories

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_20#Category:4ft 8⅜in gauge railways, Category:4ft 8⅜in gauge railways in Germany, Category:4ft 8⅜in gauge railways in Hong Kong. A question - how do we decide where to place a train gauge? Do we place it in metric and imperial? One? Both? Is it based on whether the country in question uses the metric system? Sorry don't know much about train gauges. Comments welcome at the CFD.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Commented there. I think we should put both imperial and metric same gauges in the same category, "by size". Those cultural differences, splitting category in two for their unit, do not help anyone. They will sort a bit strange, mm's and ft,in's mixed. That's all. -DePiep (talk) 15:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

That seems like a proposal to upmerge Category:Track_gauges_by_imperial_unit up; however these are already mixed in for example Category:Narrow_gauge_railways_by_track_gauge, so not sure if removing the metric/imperial split is useful. But, if you think it will get consensus feel free to nominate it for upmerge at CFD.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes a difficult and slowly moving issue. I envision Category:Narrow_gauge_railways_by_track_gauge being by size, listing both imperial and metric named pages & subcategories. (They must be sorted to absolute size, say in 0000mm). This is wehat I mean by "no cultural issues in a gauge size". The categories "... in imperial units" and "... in metric units" should go, disappear, and never be mentioned again. Because: if one searches a gauge size, one may not know whether to look in imperial or metric size category - so they must be together. This for all gauge sizes. -DePiep (talk) 16:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

the Narrow category does mix imperial and metric. If you want to sort by absolute size, be my guest, you can just use the category sorting to sort by metric size. Should there remain a category with ALL the gauges? If so, you should propose to upmerge imperial + metric categories to the parent. Not sure what the value is though, I could see it as useful to see which gauges are defined metrically and which are defined with imperial.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Cat name better be Category:Narrow gauge railways by size (there will also be a "... by country"). The parent category Category:Rail gauges by size contains the subcategories (narrow, standard, ...) and no almost no individual pages (just rail gauge). That covers exactly all, and only once. -DePiep (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done. I have renamed into Category:Narrow gauge railways by size, and mm-sorted all subcategory entries (4 digits, so 0600 mm sorts under 0). Also sorted this way: Category: Minimum gauge railways, Category:Broad gauge railways. At the moment these two do not have the "... by size" extra cat level. -DePiep (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I support the upmerge of imperial + metric categories to the parent category, sorted in mm.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I Oppose the conversion of imperial measurements to metric for categorisation purposes. It is not necessary and illogical. Most of the world's railways were built in imperial gauges. For those that were built in metric gauges (60cm, 750, 760 and 900mm, metre gauge etc), we cater for with metric categories. Mjroots (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• I agree in opposing an upmerge or for that matter a segregation of metric and imperial gauges. The categories should be by the gauge as specified, not as converted to the other system of units. Mangoe (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@Aaron-Tripel, Mjroots, and Mangoe: Please support/oppose (as the case may be) on the CfD discussion, since the closing admin will not take this thread into account. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Misunderstanding? The CfD is a proposal to change a single category name. That can be dealt with separately (for arguments go there). The "upmerging" discussion opened here is about keeping the categories Category:Track gauges by imperial unit and Category:Track gauges by metric unit or not. The upmerge would create one category with all gauge sizes, ft/in and mm titles together. (they could be sorted by size not alphanumerical). -DePiep (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Mangoe - Category names will not change. They stay as defined (in imperial or metric unit). It's just that these categories would be listed in one category, preferably sorted by size. It looks like Category:Narrow gauge railways by size.

That said, I find it useless or even misleading to keep imperial and metric units in separated categories. When one searches a size, one should not be required to know the unit beforehand. -DePiep (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Mangoe. All track gauges by size should be listed in the same category by size and not be segregated by imperial and metric. Also, only the track gauges that were first designed to be metric-based (1000, 750, 500, etc.) should be listed with the metric figure first followed by the imperial conversion in parantheses. Likewise, those track gauges that were first designed to be imperial-based (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm), 3 ft 6 in (1,067 mm), 15 in (381 mm), etc.) should have the imperial figure first followed by the metric figure in parentheses. If there is ever any confusion about whether to have imperial or metric first, I suppose a good rule to follow would be to ask yourself, "Was the track gauge first invented in the United Kingdom or one of its territories prior to 1900 A.D.?" If the answer is "yes," then list the imperial measurement first; and if the answer is "no," list the metric unit first. Weird ones like Bosnian gauge that are not based on imperial units or metric units could have metric listed first by default. Jackdude101 (Talk) 2:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I need clarification :-). We have Category:Narrow gauge railways by size with both units in the listed subcategory titles. All fine. In a more separate category tree, we have siblings Category:Track gauges by metric unit and Category:Track gauges by imperial unit (distictively, mm only or ft,in only in the subcategory titles listed). As it is. Right?

If I understand it well, the upmerge suggestion by Aaron-Tripel is to put all gauges from these two (imperial, metric) into the single parent (Category:Track gauge by size). It will look like the Category:Narrow gauge railways, but with more entries (no Narrow limit). No subcategory name will change for this. -DePiep (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC) minor -DePiep (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

New: Rail gauge categories (navbox)

I have created and added {{Navbox rail gauge categories}}, a navbox. E.g., Category:Broad gauge railways. At least it can give a more structured overview. I have added the scaled gauges to this mold, that was a bit an isolated category tree (with an other naming convention, visible). Improvements are welcome, but we better be very aware of definition creep for the categories. -DePiep (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:RailGauge update

I plan to update {{RailGauge}} in a few days. Some questions:

1. Formatting: all imperial sized above 2ft we format as "2 ft 6 in", not "30 in". Any suggestion for the 1ft – 2ft sizes (see these)? I guess "15 in" is iconic, but how about a "12+1⁄4 in" ?
2. Any article links to add? Currently we can have linkes like "750 mm (2 ft 5+1⁄2 in)". I will add those for inputs: Iberian, Russian, Bosnian, Brunel, Breitspurbahn, Toronto, Indian, Italian 3x, Swedish 3ft. The next are unclear, and could be not general (like, only used in a country or culture): Victorian, Irish, Pennsylvanian, Ohio, Scotch. If someone can show one to be stable & unconfusing, I can add that one. Sizes can be linked too, like 3 ft (914 mm) to three foot railways.
3. At the moment, articles are categorized for a certain set of gauges (for a cleanup action, ~2500 pages to check). That's all pages with these few gauges. See Category:Articles with template RailGauge that may need attention. Any other set of gauges you want to research this way?

Other planned changes are listed in Template_talk:RailGauge#Gauge proposals, March 2014. -DePiep (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Railway bridges

I've been on a bit of a rail bridge kick lately, writing/translating articles on various rail bridges around the world. I've been using Google Scholar to pull up peer-reviewed journals that describe bridges. I've also gone to Flickr and found old pictures of rail bridges and added them here and created articles. I was looking back at some of the Partnership pages here, and the Tropenmuseum has nice pictures of railway bridges built by the Dutch, that are now in Indonesia. Ask for details and I can show you examples. Anyone want to start coordinating this? Oaktree b (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

My most interesting find was the Dömitz Railway Bridge. Bombed during WW2, then each end of the bridge was in East and West Germany, so part was torn down, and it's now a bridge to nowhere. Oaktree b (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Stocklist templates

Hiya, there an a huge number of stock lists within scope of this project, and there seems to be no standard format for presenting them. I suggest we create a couple of templates which we can use to standardise the stock list presentation. Here are some typical columns

• Current Identity
• Previous Identities
• Year Built
• Builder
• Works Number
• Wheel Arrangement
• Gauge
• Original Owner
• Name
• Current Location
• Notes
• Image

what more need adding? Railwayfan2005 (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

By "stock lists", do you mean a list of individual locomotives owned or operated by a railway company? To me, these are often overcluttered with unnecessary detail which is very much the realm of a trainspotter's logbook, see Class 86 for example. We might even ask if such lists are necessary at all. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with Redrose64 that such lists are in violation of WP:NOTDIR (Wikipedia cannot and should not list everything that has ever existed). Mentioning individual locomotives is fine as long as each unit is supported by WP:RS. AadaamS (talk) 08:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I think stocklists are appropriate, as long as they are not too complex and are supported by (a) reliable source(s). An example of the sort of stocklist I have in mind is the one in WAGR S class, which is sourced to the leading reliable source on WAGR steam locomotives. Stocklists like that are useful, eg. to railway modellers. I also agree that it would be helpful to have a standard format for stocklists. However, I think Railwayfan2005's suggestion above is a bit too detailed. Some of Raliwayfan2005's suggested parameters (eg wheel arrangement, gauge) are better suited to an infobox, not a stocklist. A better example might be the format of the various stocklists in articles about WAGR locomotives (see Template:WAGR Locomotives for links to them). Bahnfrend (talk) 10:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Mere usefulness is not enough to include each and every unit of a locomotive series. That having a complete list of every model built might be useful for Toyota Corolla mechanic but not a reason to include it in this 'pedia. Also I think the article you mentioned places too much emphasis on nearly identical units, the list of individual units add no more information than is in the infobox, save for units having different names. It could have been summarised as "Two units are preserved, three units received extra large tenders" which would have been enough to give extra information beyond the infobox. AadaamS (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with stocklists for heritage railway articles. A standard format for such lists would be beneficial as it would allow easy transfer between articles. See Rolling stock of the Bluebell Railway and Rolling stock of the Kent & East Sussex Railway (heritage). Mjroots (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

We do get a lot of trainspotting anons who make edits like this. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Location quest, again

Once again, I'm trying to identify some railroad-related locations, and I need some help;

• 
  From what I can see of the lower half of the Ohio state route sign, it appears to be along Ohio State Route 91. I'll have to do a Google Maps scan for grade crossings like this.
• 
  Clearly somewhere on the Babylon Branch in the Town of Hempstead, New York, but I see few other clues of an exact location. As an ex-Long Islander, I really ought to know better.

So, who has some tips? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The left picture appears to be just south of Munroe Falls, Ohio on Ohio State Route 91. See Google Maps here: [3]. The Street View images show similar characteristics: two tracks, gated crossing, similar power lines, and Ohio 91 sign. There appears to be a newly constructed building to the right leading to some differences from the picture (such as an expanded driveway and the removal of the "Do not block drive" sign). Hope this helps. MountainRail (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The Ohio one is definitely Munroe Falls - it's the only matching crossing on 91. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The New York picture is of Wantagh (LIRR station). See Google Maps here: [4]. The photo was taken on the north side of the tracks next to the western overpass looking east. MountainRail (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, you beat me to it by ten minutes! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that worked. I saw something with a mock tudor exterior across from underneath the tracks and it turns out to be the Wantagh Inn. If nobody moved it yet, I'll start. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Naming rail gauge articles

About names for rail gauge articles (Category:Track gauge by size). Some strange names exist:

Fifteen-inch gauge railway

Two foot and 600 mm gauge railways

Two foot six inch gauge railways

Dos and don'ts: MOS:HYPHEN

1. 3 inch gauge 3-inch gauge -- is the unit written in whole word, then use hyphen
2. three inch gauge three-inch in gauge
3. 3 in gauge -- otherwise no hyphen.
4. 3ft gauge 3 ft gauge -- MOS:NUMBER use space
5. 2ft 6in gauge 2 ft 6 in gauge

WP:TITLE: no plurals when not absolutely needed

1. Two foot six inch gauge railways Two foot six inch gauge railway --singular

We do have freedoms: write "two" or "2" but do not mix as in Two foot and 600 mm gauge railways

What is good

Most mm-sized gauges are written correct (but have a plural):

750 mm gauge railways (but not plural)

Categories

1. Category names use the plural.

Category:Track gauge Category:Track gauges

1. In general, the category name shold follow that eponymous article name (into plural).

I think we should rethink the naming, and in the long run comply with MOS, and find a consistent naming where we can choose (e.g. spell out numbers?). -DePiep (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Not a very clear explanation this was.

Categories now are renamed following MOS. Pattern examples

Category:Track gauges -- plural (12 categories)

Category:2 ft 4 in gauge railways‎ -- units adjective spelling, MOS:UNIT (~200 categories)

Category:12 in gauge railways‎ -- unit adjective spelling, MOS:UNIT (~27 categories).

Article titles were not touched from here. -DePiep (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted website

A number of railway-related articles have recently been marked after this fashion by Cyberbot II (talk · contribs); similarly their talk pages. Alternative sources will need to be obtained. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with that website tbh, it looks like a perfectly legitimate magazine from what I've read. I find this all a bit suspect tbh. And rather annoying! G-13114 (talk) 13:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@G-13114: I see that you have reverted some of the bot edits. Have you made your concerns known (not to the bot operator, but to whoever blacklisted it in the first place)? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

No I haven't had time yet I'll look into it later. G-13114 (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I've found discussion of the blacklisting at [5]. Some of the discussion looks a bit techy and some a bit tetchy. NebY (talk) 15:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I asked for three urls to be whitelisted at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#www.railway-technology.com. Edgepedia (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@G-13114: It seems that unless we get this site whitelisted (or de-blacklisted), reverting the bot is futile, since it'll only do it again. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

If you revert the bot often enough, it might realise that it's futile, like the computer in WarGames. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there a simple way to list affected articles in this project? Then together we could check each one and get the links whitelisted. Edgepedia (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with User:G-13114. As far as I can see, railway-technology.com is a website that provides a reliable source of data that is often difficult to find elsewhere. Currently about 400 railway-related articles have been flagged by this bot, as shown here: [6]. Notifications include banner tags at the top of the article and not just on the talk page. This level of flagging seems to me to be unwarranted, and does not appear to have been properly debated before being imposed. If you wish to join the (limited) discussion there has been, it seems to be here: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Going_on_-_cbronline.com. Regards, Hallucegenia (talk) 08:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I have struggled with repeated links to airforce-technology.com which is among the External Links to many aircraft articles. I do not agree that airforce-technology.com is a WP:RS, it contains a lot of unreferenced information and sometimes wild speculation. Further adding such links also violates the WP:EL guidline which say that we can only add links to such sites if they provide information beyond what is required for an article to get FA status. Articles in airforce-technology.com seldom have a name of the author of the article. That hardly lives up to WP:RS standards. Another example: www.railway-technology.com/news/newsgermanys-vms-contracts-alstom-for-29-coradia-continental-regional-trains-4208585 here also lacks a name for the article's author. We cannot say that a source is RS from a respected authority in the field if we don't even have the author's name to go by. AadaamS (talk) 10:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

But we're not talking about External Links here. Most of the flagged articles, like Docklands Light Railway used as an example by RedRose64 above use railway-technology.com only as a source for inline citations. If you want to go through all 400 railway articles to find better sources for inline citations that have not been challenged for years then please do. Regards Hallucegenia (talk) 13:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC).

@AadaamS: Not citing the author does not make the source WP:QUESTIONABLE. The majority of the articles on BBC News Online don't have the authors cited. Lamberhurst (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone know where I can apply for them to be taken off the list? I added a lot of those railway-technology links myself because they contained useful information, they look like an industry magazine to me. I'm certainly not a spammer. I think this bot causing more havoc to wikipedia than any spammer could quite frankly! I'm quite busy with other stuff at the moment, so don't have much time. So any help would be appreciated. G-13114 (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

As noted above, MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#cbronline.com. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok I've raised it there. BTW I've found the relevant whitelisting page here MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#www.railway-technology.com. If anyone wants to chip in please do so. G-13114 (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the decision by some admin users to just sledgehammer the spammers by affecting tons of existing articles is just beyond me. If they want to ban a website, there should be a discussion to weight pros and cons to ban a specific website. If we have a discussion specifically about railway-technology.com and we confirm that the site is questionable, then fine. Don't just rolling everything up under some problems with cbronline.com. I have strongly raised the objection on those discussions already. Maybe more people should voice the concerns there too. I think this action to put on the blacklist was just being counter productive here. Z22 (talk) 04:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Urgent: MTA (New York City) dead links

There are a lot of dead links on MTA (New York City)-related pages because MTA recently moved all its pages to new URLs.

For example, the URL http://www.mta.info/nyct/facts/ridership/ridership_sub_annual.htm was moved to http://web.mta.info/nyct/facts/ridership/ridership_sub_annual.htm.

The URLs all have to be changed from http://www.mta.info/... to http://web.mta.info/...

This is urgent, as 500+ pages make use of the old http://www.mta.info/... URLs. Can someone with AWB do this? Epicgenius (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

This is the sort of job a bot can handle. WP:BOTREQ is the place to ask. Mjroots (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I've posted a request there. Thank you for pointing me to the right page, Mjroots. Epicgenius (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Help with editor determined to add his own photos to Japanese train articles

An editor has recently started replacing good-quality images in a number of Japanese train articles, with photos he himself uploaded, but which are unfortunately of poor to mediocre quality. I have reverted his changes on a number of occasions, as have other editors, but unfortunately he just reverts again without comment and appears unable or unwilling to communicate in any way, even after being asked him to comment, both on his Talk page and on the Talk pages of the relevant articles. I'm not happy with the choice of poor-quality images being added, but am unwilling to get dragged into an edit war, so maybe some of the editors from this project can have a look, and comment on the corresponding Talk pages or restore the better images where appropriate. The main pages concerned are:

• Talk:E233 series#Best choice of images (includes a Commons "Good Quality Image" that was replaced by an inferior alternative)
• Talk:E257 series#Best choice of image?

As a bit of background, the editor involved here, 銚電神, appeared on English Wikipedia only recently after being blocked indefinitely on Japanese Wikipedia for edit warring and sock-puppetry. --DAJF (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I seem to remember that this issue of someone replacing quality images of Japanese trains with inferior alternatives came up last year. I found it here in the archives. Is it the same person? G-13114 (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You're right, but I don't think they are the same person. This user is just determined to get all of his own photos all over Wikipedia articles regardless of the quality. --DAJF (talk) 13:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

AfD

The Barendrecht train accident article has been nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be merged intoList of rail accidents (2000–present) and the page should become a redirect there. Although I can see that the consensus is that the article will be kept. AadaamS (talk) 08:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

user 134.3.252.209 edits to Transrapid and Maglev

Hi, user 134.3.252.209 keeps adding the Kayrapid text over and over again to the Transrapid and Maglev articles. Is this something that should be escalated? This user has reveted 3 times on the Transrapid article, does this not violate the WP:3RR rule? Thankful for any input. AadaamS (talk) 12:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Three reverts is not "more than three reverts", which is what 3RR states. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the correction. This IP user has reverted the Transrapid article a fourth time now but more than 24 hours have passed. AadaamS (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Have you served a {{subst:uw-3rr}}? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Redrose64 no I haven't yet. I was looking for a bit of guidance as this is the first time I have encountered an editor constantly reverting like this. Having read the documentation for that template it looks like the correct thing to post to that user's talk page so that's what I've done now. AadaamS (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

That user seems to be using IP 91.10.95.248 as that user also reverts on Maglev and Transrapid articles. AadaamS (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

This user is now back as User talk:217.229.21.14, can we protect the Transrapid and Maglev page to only be edited by autoconfirmed users? AadaamS (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I semi'd both 1 week but didn't alter any content. I notice that the user has also made some very lengthy talk page posts. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I googled "Kay Uwe Böhm" because a lot of the text refers to blogs & articles individual, like email addresses he keeps reposting in commented wikicode. It happens there was a "Kay Uwe Böhm" user on de:Wikipedia: [7] and that user was blocked after 3 edits to German wikipedia. AadaamS (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that 91.10.83.108 (talk); 217.230.52.219 (talk); 91.10.117.50 (talk); 91.10.74.105 (talk); 79.255.123.238 (talk); 134.3.252.209 (talk); 217.230.38.212 (talk); and 91.67.19.253 (talk) are the same person. There are probably others. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Redrose64, yes I suspect this too, he's being helpful with tagging all his edits with that email adress he keeps writing into his posts. It can be searched for like this, that makes it easier to see when he starts vandalising again. Thanks for the help with the blocking, much appreciated. AadaamS (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

91.10.95.66 (talk) was active almost 16 months ago. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

railgauge template

Other opinions are welcome at Talk:Robert Stephenson#railgauge template about the use of the {{railgauge}} template. Edgepedia (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

And there always exists Template talk:RailGauge -DePiep (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Boston and Maine Railroad stations in New York?

The Category:Stations along Boston and Maine Railroad lines has categories for railroad stations in Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York. I know that B&M had stations in New York, but does anybody know why there aren't any articles on any B&M stations in The Empire State? Or perhaps some article on a former railroad station that's not categorized as being an ex-B&M depot? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 28/04

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Braswell Tunnel. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Identification needed for earthmoving train

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

What is this?

Hi train Gurus! Do any of you know what this equipment might be? I saw it at Ostbahnhof in Munich, but I didn't have time to ask any of the personnel about it. --Slashme (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello! I'm not familiar with German trains, but a quick Google search turned up the SPITZKE company: website here. These cars appear to be material conveyors and hoppers used for ballast cleaning. See the details here. Thanks! MountainRail (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I guess I should have looked that up myself :-/ I'll add the info to the picture. --Slashme (talk) 15:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@Slashme: It's a Plasser & Theurer MFS-100 which is a "Material conveyor and hopper unit for continuous loading and unloading with a storage capacity up to 68 m³, floor conveyor belt and a pivoting transfer conveyor belt at the front". --Redrose64 (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Oh, I see! Thanks for the correction. I've changed the description to reflect that it's made by P&T and supplied by Spitzke (as it's in Spitzke livery in my photo). Is that correct? --Slashme (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The Spitzke group carries out construction and maintenance of railway track, amongst other activities; so I don't think that Spitzke is the supplier - they are more likely to be the lessee (if the equipment is leased from P&T) or even the owner. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, yes, that makes more sense. --Slashme (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@Slashme: I put it in c:Category:MFS trains where there are plenty more. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Great, good move! --Slashme (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

So does somebody want to add a resolved tag on this discussion and close it? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A small problem

Hi,
Please see Template talk:Convert/TonCwt to t#Just curious. Peter Horn User talk 12:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Identification

What is this? It is a ballast wagon

Re Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Identification needed for earthmoving train above. It is a ballast wagon and therefore carries track ballast. Peter Horn User talk 13:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Peter, but apparently DanTD and Bobrayner don't want this to be discussed any more. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

If I would've known there were going to be people who had something else to say about it, I wouldn't have closed the previous thread on the subject. I was under the impression the issue was resolved and everybody was satisfied. Also, there's really nothing depriving editors from starting new threads on a subject. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@DanTD: The thing is, on this page, we don't normally wrap a thread in {{discussion top}}/{{discussion bottom}}: a formal closure of a discussion is very rare - in fact the last time that it happened was three years ago. Once discussion ceases of its own accord, we normally just let the thread stand until the archiving bot decides that it's past the age limit (currently thirty days after the last posting). --Redrose64 (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Trains At Wikimania 2014

Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

No article???

Someone's adding the article I wrote on the Ninth Avenue derailment to Template:New York City Subway - in error in my opinion - caused me to look at that navbox and determine that we do not have an article on the 1928 Times Square subway derailment. Really??? Does anyone know whether it once existed and has been deleted, and if so at what title? Yngvadottir (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks like no article indeed: History of the New York City Subway. Go ahead! -DePiep (talk) 12:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Yup, I found mentions of it there and in a couple of other places. But I find it hard to believe no one ever wrote it up. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

While we're on this topic, somebody should write an article about the 1991 Union Square subway derailment. It's partially explained in the 14th Street – Union Square (New York City Subway) article, but has no article of its own. Epicgenius (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Hah, you're right. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I corrected an error in my comment above. It's 1991, not 1993. Epicgenius (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 15/05

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/LB&SCR A1X Class W11 Newport. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It was copypasted to LB&SCR A1X Class W11 Newport. I've marked it for {{histmerge}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done. I removed the AfC template - I don't have the AfC tool to wrap that up neatly; plus I'm at work so subject to interruptions. If I messed up the merge in any way, let me know; doing those still terrifies me. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Such a pity that it was released into mainspace when it is completely unreferenced. Mjroots (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

It appears that The busman1982, having created the article in the AFC system, didn't wait for a formal AFC review but simply created another article in mainspace, identical save for the absence of {{AFC submission|ts=20140429105204|u=The busman1982|ns=5}} and the presence of <!--- Don't mess with this line! --->{{Unreviewed}} --Redrose64 (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 19/05

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MEMU Shed, Kollam. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Steam on the London Underground - a treat for those coming to Wikimania in London this summer

Transport for London will be running steam trains on the line past the Barbican Centre (the venue for Wikimania 2014 in London) on the Saturday before and Saturday of Wikimania. I've put the details I know at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport#A treat from TfL for those attending Wikimania. Thryduulf (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget to take some photos and upload them to commons ... Bahnfrend (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Categories for WP:Route diagram templates

I just took a quick look at Category:Rail routemap templates and noticed a horrible lack of consistency:

Naming	Pages
Templates for railway lines of the Country	1,014
Templates for railway lines of Country	723
Country railway line templates	513
Templates for railway lines in Country	352
Templates for railway lines for Country	94
Templates for railway lines in the Country	2
other	5

Any thoughts on standardization? Useddenim (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Note that Category:Rail transport color templates has standardized on the format “Country rail transport color templates”. Useddenim (talk) 03:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Naro-Fominsk rail crash

Assistance is sought in improving the Naro-Fominsk rail crash article. Editors that understand Russian will be at an advantage. Mjroots (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

NfD: Tacoma Streetcar

Tacoma Streetcar has been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tacoma Streetcar. JohnMcButts (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Trains At Wikimania 2014

Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

20-20 Vision - Talyllyn Railway

Hi all. We are asking around 20 wikis to create an article on Talyllyn Railway in their own language, and I wonder if we could have your help to inspire wikiprojects similar to this one on other language wikis? The railway is one of 20 articles on a little multilingual project called The 20-20 Vision of Wales Challenge. Or, if you speak other languages then please help by writing about Talyllyn. Thanks all; My Talk Page is quite useful if you need more info. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Lists of rail accidents

I've removed all unreferenced items from the List of rail accidents (before 1880). I tagged all but one item as far back as September 2010, the other item was tagged in April 2011. All removed items have been copied to the talk page, so the information hasn't been lost. They can be re-added once references have been found. This shouldn't be hard, as railway accidents were often reported in contemporary newspapers. I give fair warning that I intend to treat all other lists of rail accidents linked from Lists of rail accidents in a similar manner. Mjroots (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

All lists have now been culled of completely unreferenced entries. These have been placed on the relevant talk page to enable research and referencing. Some culled entries may not be notable enough for inclusion, but that is a different issue. Mjroots (talk) 08:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I've given the List of rail accidents (before 1880) a going over. IMHO, these lists are of the type that would benefit from the use of flagicons, but consensus is against them. Therefore I've come up with a solution to identifying the country where the accident took place. Your comments are invited before I rework other lists. Feel free to work on the lists yourself . Mjroots (talk) 08:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Naming convention for railway stations in India

As like for railway stations in UK and Poland, is there any naming convention exist for railway stations in India? One common guideline followed was "XXXXX railway station", i.e., Name of the railway station suffixed by "railway station" in lower caps. What about junction stations in India? Earlier there was a similar issue raised at India notice board and ended without a clear consensus, which resulted in existence of ambiguity of such pages. Articles on junction stations in India either has "XXXXX railway station" or "XXXXX Junction railway station"? In such cases, while editing or moving difference of opinion erupts between article creators of primary/major contributor of the article, as there exist no specific guideline(s) on relevant project page. How should they be named? If any guideline framed it'll helpful. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ)^(Support) 20:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

You already posted this at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (stations)‎#Naming convention for railway stations in India; per WP:MULTI, please can we discuss in one place? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Unidentified diesel locomotive issues

Since User:Michael Barera narrowed down a category on one of my images from "Unidentified locomotives" to "Unidentified diesel locomotives," it made me want to search for others.

• 
  "XT3?" Looks fairly identifiable to me.
• 
  Same one.

There are other trains with number that would seem to make them easy to identify. I also saw three others with bad names from Fiji that I'm considering renaming. Can anybody help with these? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The little badge on the front doesn't show "XT3" but "ХТЗ" - those are Cyrillic letters, Х Т З, and the Russian Wikipedia has a (redirected) page of that name, ru:ХТЗ, where we find that they are the initials of the first three words of "Харьковский тракторный завод имени Серго Орджоникидзе" or "Харьковский тракторный завод им. Серго Орджоникидзе". --Redrose64 (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and the first two syllables of "тракторный" - i.e. "трактор" - is pronounced similarly to "tractor"; I'm sure it has the same meaning. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Aha, so c:Category:Kharkiv Tractor Plant is one place to put them. The Ukrainian Wikipedia also has a (redirected) page, uk:ХТЗ, which is larger than the Russian one. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Awesome! I created Category:Unidentified diesel locomotives while creating the manufacturer-specific Category:Unidentified EMD diesel locomotives, which I created in part as a place to put eight photographs taken in the 1960s by my father and grandfather. If anyone could identify any of these eight locomotives (especially the Baltimore & Ohio and Pennsylvania Railroad E-units that are tantalizingly close to being easily identifiable), I would really appreciate it. Locations, railroads, dates (months and years, save for one "circa"), and even some specific trains are known, so hopefully these clues might help. Once again, I would really, really appreciate any identifications that can be made. Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Good for you. I can't identify that many of them, but some of them look vaguely familiar. In the meantime, I tagged two of those images for renaming, both of which are in Rail transport in Fiji, one of which was renamed, although one of them is an old DYK image, so I hope the redirect for this one doesn't cause any glitches there. That'll give me just one more to go. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Photo opportunity in Philadelphia

Apparently the first of the new Viewliner baggage cars is parked at the Race Street Yard adjacent to 30th Street Station. No idea how much longer it's going to be there. If anyone's in the Philadelphia area it'd be a nice picture to have. Mackensen (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Crap! Why is the good stuff so often in places I can never be? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 02:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Station disambiguation (June 2014)

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Station disambiguation (June 2014). --Redrose64 (talk) 09:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Subterranea Britannica discussion

I started a discussion regarding the links to http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/ (with Template:Subbrit at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Subterranea_Britannica. I figured this notice would help provide people with some more insight than me. Thanks. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Disused-stations

Template:Disused-stations has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Redrose64 (talk) 08:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Further to the above, please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Subterranea Britannica. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Trains At Wikimania 2014 (updated version)

Please note: This is an updated version of a previous post that I made.

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

South Africa streetcars: double-decked and on tracks?

I recently saw a picture book of South Africa c. 1960. It clearly had double decked city transport, and rail tracked vehicles doing that. The livery showed    below half and    top half. Any wikilinks? -DePiep (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Double-deck tramcars were quite normal for Great Britain back in the days before everybody except Blackpool got rid of them. Blackpool still run a few of their old double-deckers - the "Balloon" cars of 1934/35 (pic). --Redrose64 (talk) 23:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes. Have a look at the article for the National Tramway Museum. Britmax (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

From what I've seen, Hong Kong seems to have more of them. In fact I was always under the impression they got most of them from their former colonizers. As for South Africa, didn't they use the second deck to segregate non-white commuters? I remember reading "Horsecars, Cable Cars and Omnibuses," by John H. White Jr. or something similar, and it had a picture of a double-decker horsecar with racially segregated decks. I would think the same policies applied to the streetcars. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Double-deck tramcars appear to have been the norm in South Africa. I have created a number of articles about them. They can be found in Category:Tram transport in South Africa. All of the articles have an image, and also a commonscat link to more images on commons, many of which I uploaded myself. Bahnfrend (talk) 07:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. I just added the WikiProject Streetcars tag to that category. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks you all. Worth noting & categorising. -DePiep (talk) 23:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

OHLE Heights

One piece of information that seems to be missing from most line articles is any reference to the height above the rail of the OHLE. I did some search of the net and it seem not to be available there either. Is there any reason why? --Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not constant. The maximum height of the contact wire is limited by the maximum extension of the pantograph. The wire is raised at level crossings, to a minimum of 18 ft 6 in above rail level for 25 kV AC; and the wire dips down below bridges where clearance is tight: there is a minimum clearance of 8 inches between wire and structure, and 6 inches between wire and train, for 25 kV AC. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Is that 6 inches above the load gauge top. Is there a maximum. I'm trying to work out if there is an overlap between current WCML and HS2, I suspect that at a height which gives a small clearance for an HS2 would still be reachable with the standard WCML W10 Pantographs. If not then bigger pantos can be got for WCML trains See FAQ. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I've dug out my little booklet, known, I believe, as the "Blue Book" (it has a blue cover):

• Department of Transport (November 1977) [1947]. Railway Construction and Operation Requirements: Structural and Electrical Clearances (Third ed.). London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. pp. 6-10 and Annexure 'B'. ISBN 0 11 550443 5.

85 pence for 16 pages and three fold-out diagrams. I think it's available online as a scan, although I don't know where: it shouldn't be, because it's Crown Copyright, which will expire in 2027. I'm sure that there have been updates, but the essentials will be the same since the dielectric constant of air won't have changed much.

Anyway, the 8 inches (actually 200 mm) is the Static Clearance, defined as "the minimum distance required between the live parts of the overhead equipment (under any permissible conditions of maintenance and when not subject to uplift from a pantograph) and a structure or the earthed parts of the overhead equipment"; the 6 inches (actually 150 mm) is the Passing Clearance, defined as "the minimum distance required between live parts of the overhead equipment and any earthed material or rail vehicle, or between the pantograph and any earthed material, under any permissible conditions of operation and maintenance of vehicles, track, and overhead equipment". The only indication of a "maximum" that I can find is the 18 ft 6 in (actually 5600 mm) minimum headroom at level crossings. If we assume that the rail vehicle is 4 metres high, the pantograph needs to extend to at least 1.6 metres above that. I expect that all pantographs in current use can extend somewhat further: in depots, for instance, where people might be working at high level, the conductor wire needs to be raised quite a lot. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Available online here. It is still subject to Crown copyright but may be reproduced subject to certain conditions. Lamberhurst (talk) 11:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The max vehicle height for GC is 4.65m add the 15cm, comes to a nice round 4.8m giving a 800mm overlap between GC minimum and W10 minimum at crossing. As the smallest panto go up to 1.8 meters. It means that it should be possible to set OHLE height so that both could run on the same section of GC track on approaches to say stations, without modification. The rason I'm asking is that if the center 2 lines from DItton Junction to Edge hill where expanded to GC gauge to allow entrance to the Victoria tunnel, then the lines would still be usable by standard WCML trains, for BLOG HS2 Phase 2 Liverpool . --Kitchen Knife (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

What is GC? To me, that's the Great Central Railway. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

It is the loading gauge for High Speed rail see here Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The answer seems to be that the rail top needs to be atleast 1.62m below the current floor. So using slab track it's is about 2.10 that needs to be dug out. WOuld have though it cheaper than building a new tunnel.Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Archive naming at this talk page is breaking the search function

The archive names are unusual. This makes searches come up with nothing. Could someone please tak a look? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Mass creation of possibly problematic articles

A user raised the concern at my talk page: User talk:Anna Frodesiak#Superfast1111

I just looked at the last five of Superfast1111's creations and would like others to have a look.

I am grateful for his productivity. He is building the encyclopedia. But, he may need a bit of guidance when it comes to sourcing and content. Spot-checking his last five, concerns I see are as follows:

• References added are not inline, some of which do not support facts in the article (many seem to talk of cancellations only).
• Some references appear to be unreliable sources.
• I see a timetables added in one article: [8]. This was discussed and there was consensus to omit them. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2013#Timetables - existence and convention.

Many thanks if others can please take a look and give some feedback about this and guidance to our friend, Superfast1111. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for your concern Anna. Much appreciate it. I have not created a time table since the discussion but just writing the start & end time doesn't qualify as a time table does it?? If it still does then i apologize for it & will remove them from any subsequent article i create. Thanks for your help.

Superfast1111 (talk) 07:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this was created June 28, 2014 and contains a timetable. It seems to be a timetable because it says when and where the train leaves and when and where it arrives. That's a timetable, right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

That looks like a timetable to me.

If we had infinite resources, then I wouldn't mind including timetable information in articles which are otherwise quite small, because we don't have the size constraints of a paper encyclopædia. However, in reality, timetable information can change frequently; enthusiastic editors often add ephemeral information which later goes stale, and we don't have a horde of editors waiting to fix errors in last year's articles; so allowing timetables guarantees that we present readers with masses of factual errors. Running frequencies are less detailed and less volatile than timetables, so I'd be OK including running frequencies as a compromise. bobrayner (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Superfast1111 certainly does require a bit of guidance. He's been on a creating spree as I've noticed this week on AlexNewArtBot's India logs. My only message to him is calm down. Last time he was on a spree, he was repeatedly adding a plethora of images onto articles of Indian railway stations and messing them up inspite of repeated warnings not to do so. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• Anna Frodesiak, bobrayner, Rsrikanth05 - Firstly pls accept my sincerest apologies for my mistake. I seem to have mis - interpreted the consensus but no more. Marudhar Express was a tough article to create given that the train has three different routes for each day of the week but i'll go with bobrayner suggestions. Thank you for your help & concern.

Superfast1111 (talk) 05:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

No need to apologize. I'm happy it is all working out and that you are being so nice about it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

All of us make mistakes. Few of us accept and fix mistakes so quickly. (I'm still in denial). bobrayner (talk) 01:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Image removal

An unregistered editor, IP address 178.183.135.65], has repeatedly removed perfectly good locomotive images at Bavarian PtL 2/2 and Bavarian Gt 2x4/4, despite my request that he should discuss this at the talk pages before doing so again. The images are good quality photographs of modern H0 scale models of those locomotives and give a better idea of livery and detail than some of the old black and white photographs. They seem entirely appropriate to the articles concerned. If other editors concur, how do we take this forward? --Bermicourt (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The articles are about the locomotives rather than the models. How do we know that the "livery and detail" are accurate? bobrayner (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Bob, thank you. That is just the kind of intelligent question that I hoped to have from the editor have before he deleted the images twice in succession without discussion. As someone who has researched Bavarian locomotives, I can confirm the models are pretty accurate and the livery corresponds e.g. to that in the Nuremberg Transport Museum where they have both originals and models on display. In any case, unless there is sufficient material on the model(s) to create a separate article, the locomotive articles are a reasonable place to display the images. Not dissimilar to artist's reconstructions of historic objects which we already use quite freely. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

We then need a WP:RS to verify that the models are indeed accurate to the originals. I think it's reasonable to use images of reconstructions when no image of the original exists, it does not seem the case here. AadaamS (talk) 12:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I think images of special livery belong in the article of the train company and not the article of the locomotive. There were probably many kinds of locmotives painted in that livery so it's probably easier to have a good image of a real locomotive in that livery and then state which other locomotives used the same livery. AadaamS (talk) 07:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

In hindsight the point about livery may be a red herring. The simple question is: is it reasonable to have a good quality image of a model locomotive in an article about that locomotive, especially where the real images are poor quality black and white photographs around 100 years old? My sense is that this is reasonable as long as they don't dominate. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I would rather be content with a poor quality image of a real locomotive than a perfect image of a model. In fact it is not necessary to have any image at all and I would prefer to have no image to having a model train image, unless it be an image of some kind of replica in a museum somewhere. An alternative to add detail would be to have an image of the blueprints for the locomotive, provided they are in the public domain. AadaamS (talk) 12:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

A greater issue with both those articles are that they completely lack reliable sources, I have tagged both articles as unsourced. AadaamS (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

And I think the images in those articles are of sufficient quality. AadaamS (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

right-of-way

The usage of right-of-way and right of way is under discussion, see talk:Right of way (public throughway), where it is suggested that Right-of-way (transportation) also be merged into it, and the merged article be the primary topic. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Convert hundredweight changes

Template {{convert}} is used in several train articles as in this example from LSWR H15 class:

• {{convert|79|LT|19|Lcwt|t|1}} → 79 long tons 19 hundredweight (81.2 t)

This message is to let people know that I'm planning some minor changes for the template.

One issue is that the plural of hundredweight should have no "s". Also, there will be some minor changes regarding what input multiple units display, as shown in the following table. The "Old output" column has fixed wikitext showing what the template currently does, and the "New output" shows what is planned.

Convert	Old output	New output
{{convert|2|ST|5|Scwt|lb|0}}	2 short tons 5 hundredweights (4,500 lb)	2 short tons 5 hundredweight (4,500 lb)
{{convert|2|ST|5|Scwt|lb|abbr=on|0}}	2 short tons 5 hundredweights (4,500 lb)	2 short tons 5 cwt (4,500 lb)
{{convert|2|LT|5|Lcwt|lb|0}}	2 long tons 5 hundredweights (5,040 lb)	2 long tons 5 hundredweight (5,040 lb)
{{convert|2|LT|5|Lcwt|lb|abbr=on|0}}	2 long tons 5 hundredweights (5,040 lb)	2 long tons 5 cwt (5,040 lb)
{{convert|2|LT|5|Lcwt|3|qtr|lb|0}}	2 long tons 5 cwt 3 qtr (5,124 lb)	2 long tons 5 hundredweight 3 quarters (5,124 lb)
{{convert|2|LT|5|Lcwt|3|qtr|lb|abbr=on|0}}	2 long tons 5 cwt 3 qtr (5,124 lb)	2 long tons 5 cwt 3 qtr (5,124 lb)
{{convert|2|lt|5|Lcwt|lb|0}}	(not supported)	2 long tons 5 hundredweight (5,040 lb)
{{convert|2|lt|5|Lcwt|lb|abbr=on|0}}	(not supported)	2 LT 5 cwt (5,040 lb)
{{convert|2|lt|5|Lcwt|3|qtr|lb|0}}	(not supported)	2 long tons 5 hundredweight 3 quarters (5,124 lb)
{{convert|2|lt|5|Lcwt|3|qtr|lb|abbr=on|0}}	(not supported)	2 LT 5 cwt 3 qtr (5,124 lb)

Please let me know if there are any problems. Johnuniq (talk) 07:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Move proposal: template {RailGauge} into {Track gauge}

I initiated this move proposal in Template talk:RailGauge#Requested move. Please take a look and join if you are interested. -DePiep (talk) 23:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Content of interest on Commons from National Library of Scotland?

Not sure if this would be of interest, but the National Library of Scotland has recently uploaded about 130 images related to the construction of the Forth Bridge and the collapse of the Tay Bridge, two of the most significant rail bridges in Scotland.

See Commons:Category:Tay Bridge disaster and Commons:Category:Construction of the Forth Bridge.

Cheers, ACrockford (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@ACrockford: Great, Thank you - it means I can remove all these ELs --Redrose64 (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 09/07

Draft:SCNF class 141TB. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Countries

I notice that there seems to be a general tendency not to mention the country context in many British railway articles, whereas in articles on railways in other countries—even English speaking—it seems obligatory to do so. I think there is a touch of Brit-centric bias here, an assumption in a world-wide encyclopedia using a world-wide language that readers in other countries accessing enWP should automatically know the country of British often small lines and stations. This observation could of course concern many different types of articles on British subjects. My inclination is to add the country context into any article, other than those that could reasonably be considered a world-known location or subject. This, what I would consider (perhaps unintentional) arrogance, is even more prevalent in United States articles of all types. Any views? Acabashi (talk) 11:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, country should always be mentioned unless obvious. English Wikipedia simply means that this Wikipedia is in English, not that every subject has a connection to England or any other English-speaking realm. Let's assume that it's a result of negligence rather than arrogance. AadaamS (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

So long as we put just one country (don't really mind which): whenever I see "England, United Kingdom" I am reminded of certain primary-school children who would continue that with "Europe, Earth, the Solar System, the Milky Way". --Redrose64 (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there really is anywhere in the UK so obvious that a country name would be unnecessary. Take London, for example. There's also London, Ontario, isn't there? A more pertinent question is whether the name of the relevant county or equivalent should be included (as per London, Ontario, Canada). I note, eg, that the York railway station article says that the station is in North Yorkshire as well as England. Although I wouldn't suggest that stations in London, England, should always say that the station is also in Greater London, I would think that as a general rule county names should be included. Bahnfrend (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

For a non-native English speaker (such as myself) it's not easy to know whether North Yorkshire is in England, Canada or Australia. Do we expect readers to click through? For instance there also many settlements named York. So should we list county rather than country? As for London, regular use seems to be that whenever "London" is written, it's the capital of the UK that is meant, all other Londons are qualified with "London, Ontario" etc. AadaamS (talk) 08:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikilinks are your friend, see where [[York]] → York or [[London]] → London go to.

In {{Infobox GB station}} there are two parameters |locale= and |borough=. The former is for the place (town, village, suburb) that the station is in; the latter is documented as being "the lowest level of local government for the place where the station is situated". Both are usually wikilinked, so we might have e.g. |locale=[[York]] |borough=[[City of York]] or |locale=[[Kings Cross, London]] |borough=[[London Borough of Camden|Camden]] --Redrose64 (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

LT fractions

Can anyone interpret WAGR C class (1880) which contains these strange mixtures of decimal and fractional long tons in the infobox:

locoweight       = {{convert|19.2|LT}} (pre-rebuild)
tenderweight     = {{convert|5.95+1/2|LT|lk=on}}
locotenderweight = {{convert|25.15+1/2|LT|lk=on}} (post-rebuild)

They were all added in this July 2013 edit by a retired user. The "25.15+1/2" appears to be a simple addition of "19.2" and "5.95+1/2". Surely no document would give a tender weight as 5.95 LT 10 cwt?

Apart from wanting to clarify the article, my problem is that I plan to change {{convert}} so such mixtures are rejected in the future. That is, a fraction such as "25+1/2" would work, but "25.15+1/2" would give an error. The good news is that it will be possible to write weights as LT–cwt if wanted (see above). What should the infobox show in this article? Johnuniq (talk) 03:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that the 5.95+1/2 may have been an attempt to represent 5 tons 19+1⁄2 hundredweight. This is just speculation. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That must be right now I think about it. When convert supports it (soon), I'll switch 19.2 LT to 19 LT 4 cwt and 5.95+1/2 LT to 5 LT 19+1⁄2 cwt. Johnuniq (talk) 11:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Derailment in Montana

Yesterday, there was a freight train derailment in Montana. Nothing unusual about that you may think, just one of many and probably not worth more than a mention in the relevant list.

Normally, you'd be correct, but this particular freight train was carrying 6 brand new Boeing 737-800 fuselages as well as component for B747 and B787 aircraft. Three of the wagons carrying fuselages went down an embankment, with two of them ending up in a river. At least one of the fuselages shows clear signs of breaking around its circumference.

Is this accident worthy of a stand-alone article? Please consider it not just from the railway perspective but from the aviation perspective. We could have two, if not three brand new aircraft written off before they even flew. I'll inform WP:AV of this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

If the load had to do with the derailment, then more likely so. Are these exceptional transports (maybe an adjusted load gauge for the route)? -DePiep (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

These are everyday production aircraft subassemblies and components, not complete aircraft or parts of significant prototypes or anything like that. As such, from the aviation perspective they are not notable in their own right. Notability might arise if the accident has a notable knock-on effect, say to Boeing's ability to do business. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Let me advise Boeing that they add wings to their planes. Let me advise BNSF they stay away from air transport. Let me advise they push the "duck" button. -DePiep (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a footnote to the rail line article or BNSF article; while certainly interesting, it was just a derailment. Doesn't seem to have killed anyone, or caused any more disruption than any other derailment. I suppose it's only the monetary value of the lost goods is higher than usual. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I suggest writing an article on wikinews: in lieu of an article on Wikipedia. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks all, looks like consensus is against an article. It is mentioned in the List of rail accidents (2010-present). If you think that there are other articles that this should be mentioned in, please add the info there. Mjroots (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

If major recommendations and/or legislation develop from this crash then it might be notable, but we'll have to wait on the NTSB report. Mackensen (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Interurban

I'm interested in refactoring the Interurban article. Comments appreciated at Talk:Interurban#Proposed refactoring. Best, Mackensen (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible non-neutral research

I think that recent edits by Blythwood (talk · contribs) at Abbey Line, Birmingham New Street railway station, Broad Street railway station (London), Central line, Gill Sans, Metropolitan line, Wantage Tramway, Waterloo & City line may need review for WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. I don't see any new sourcing either. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

User:RalphOnTheRailroad/Sandbox/My Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway

Hi all, I accidentally discovered this cache of detailed articles lingering in a retired editor's userspace. Can someone with some knowledge merge them into the current versions of the articles? Best, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that would be fine. I got diverted to other research. Then I had to take care of my mother. I probably wouldn't get back to this for another year. RalphOnTheRailroad (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@RalphOnTheRailroad: I'm glad to hear you're interested in getting back and finishing them! I just assumed that you probably wouldn't come back, given that you hadn't edited in four years, but it's good to know that you're still around. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Small set of public domain early train images for re-use

Hi

Not sure if this is the right place or way to notify this, but I've recently changed the license on my vintage photograph collection to be Public Domain. Within the collection I have a really nice small album of early images of named locomotives and thought you may be able to make good use of them (some of the images are already linked from articles, but not actually uploaded to Wikimedia and displayed on the article pages).

See https://www.flickr.com/photos/whatsthatpicture/sets/72157624218631585

Whatsthatpicture (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Help needed: Illinois Central Railroad

I am working on a draft article in which the subject: Walter W. de Lacy was a prominent civil engineer and topographer of the mid 19th century. In his biography William F. Wheeler (1896). "Walter Washington De Lacy A Brief Biography As Given By Him In Several Conversations and From Other Sources". Contributions to the Historical Society of Montana. Contributions Vol. 2. 2: 241–251. Retrieved 2014-08-08. and other sources, it says that de Lacy was employed for several months on the Illinois Central Railroad being built in 1839. His biography says this was at (most probably) Jonesboro, Illinois. He had just completed a year of instruction in mathematics, engineering and topography at West Point. However, the Illinois Central Railroad article indicates this railroad was not chartered until 1851. I want to link to the proper article in the de Lacy article, so a link to Illinois Central Railroad would be incorrect if the charter date is actually 1851. Can anyone in this project provide some clarity here. Was the Illinois Central chartered in 1851, if so, was there a precursor? A similar question exists for the St. Louis, Iron Mountain and Southern Railway which de Lacy also worked on in 1839. Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• From looking at this, I think this might be a separate project altogether, possibly under the direct authority of the state of Illinois (see History of railroads in Michigan#The state fiasco for examples in Michigan), and Wheeler conflated the two. More information is needed. Mackensen (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The legislature chartered the "Jonesboro and Mississippi Railroad" in 1837, but it doesn't appear to be otherwise heard of. Perhaps this was an abortive attempt at constructing it? It had charter rights to connect with "the Central Rail Road", and apparently the legislature did charter an "Illinois Central Railroad" in 1835; it was never built, and the legislation was repealed and a new IC chartered in 1851. Choess (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@Choess - Thanks. The Illinois legislative reference is sufficient to support a footnote explaining the disconnect. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:RE-MV color

Hi WikiProject Trains. I've just come across Template:RE-MV color which currently contains (and has contained since its creation) "My Name is NIZAM UDDIN BABU.I am Bagladeshi.I live in Comilla in Chittagong District.I am Student of comilla Polytechnic Institute in Computer department". Obviously that content is incorrect, and the template should contain a colour code. But what colour should it be? In Berlin_Hauptbahnhof#Train_services, the "RE" services are coloured red, so should I make it red (i.e. #ff0000)? Or should it be something different? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 13:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

1. What does RE-MV mean? (related to template:RE-MV lines maybe?)

2. As it works now, it has no effect (style="background:nonsense text" does not produce any color). If you give it a color value, all uses must be checked because they may get that color - unintended.

3. Maybe do research through [WLH]?

-DePiep (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I've given it a color (which seems to be working) based off the code in {{Bahnlinie}}. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 14:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, how do you know that color is applicable in all template transclusions? -DePiep (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. Of course it's applicable - it would only be called when

{{S-line|system=RE-MV ...}}

is specifically added to an article. It's only used on eighty-odd pages, all of them German railway stations in the MV area. There may be cases where different lines in the region have different colors - some but not all other German regions do - but those are easily added lately. For now, this is better than either the previous spam, or a null template. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me repeat. 1. What doe RE-MV even mean? What does it stand for? 2. If you give it a color (from non=blank=transparent), how do you know that color was intended? 3. What did you learn from WLH? It was a spam page always, so turning it into a color was never checked by the invoking editor. -DePiep (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@DePiep: When I found {{RE-MV color}} and then {{RE-MV lines}}, I realised that {{RE-MV color}} was part of a standard "XXX stations/lines/style/color" rail succession template set, which was confirmed by looking at the WLH. ("RE-MV" stands for the Regional-Express train service in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern). I could have just had the template deleted as nonsense, but I thought since it had already been created, I may as well just set it to the right colour, but I didn't know what the right colour was, which is why I started the discussion here. (With regard to asking the editor who created the template what colour it should be, the fact that they populated the template with text suggests they probably wouldn't know, and they haven't edited since June 20 anyway, so if I left a message on their talk page, they probably wouldn't see it). Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 00:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

All clear. -DePiep (talk) 11:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that better than I could have, DH85868993. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Lac-Mégantic derailment

The TSB have released their final report into the accident. I've raised a question about its findings at talk:Lac-Mégantic derailment#Final report and welcome discussion there. Mjroots (talk) 09:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Briarcliff Manor

Hi all,

I saw on your project's "To do" page that you all intend to create a Briarcliff Manor train station article. I've been writing about the village and its related topics, and although I didn't think there was enough on the train station/library to warrant its own article, if you all have some knowledge or information that I don't, please do tell. Also, I'd be willing to add in what historical information I can find; I am also a member of the Briarcliff Manor-Scarborough Historical Society, so I can use their resources as well.--ɱ (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Really? Because I thought the fact that it was converted into a library made it somewhat more interesting, and thus more worthy of an article than most of the other former stations on the Old Put. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 11:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

West Coast Railways fleet details.

Good Morning,

I know NOTHING about Wikipedia, so I hope this is in the correct place. In the listings of WCRC's diesel fleet, you list 47787 "Windsor Castle" as becoming operational in 2008. I photographed the loco at Dingwall on 16th September 2007, working the Grampian Railtours trip to Dunrobin Castle. It was in ex-works condition and was un-named.

Hope this is of some use.

Dougie. plocktonrail@btinternet.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.64.178 (talk) 02:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

West Coast Railway Company. An image is added here. That File:47787_at_Rugby.jpg has metadata "8 May 2004" (unchecked), and was uploaded 31 May 2006. -DePiep (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Unused train/tram templates

Hi WikiProject Trains. (Now indef blocked) User:Appletreer created a whole bunch of train and tram templates which are all unused (see list below). Are these potentially useful, or should I nominate them all for deletion? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 10:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

You can delete them right away for WP:G5 (speedy). If you want to spend any more time on it, you can check for actual use in mainspace (and leave those alive). -DePiep (talk) 11:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Up for G5: Template:Mecca Metro color, Template:Mecca Metro lines: same editor, different sockpuppet username. -DePiep (talk) 11:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I decided to take them to TfD - see discussion. DH85868993 (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

What railway category is this?

Hi there. Can anyone tell me what category would the Sabah State Railway (SSR) fall into? I am thinking that it can be classified as commuter rail or regional rail or both. Issue is i added SSR to the page: List of suburban and commuter rail systems. But it was removed by User:Tafeax citing that SSR is a regional rail and not a commuter rail. Some reasons why I think SSR should be classified as commuter rail: 1) it links a major city (Kota Kinabalu) with outlying small towns. Although Kota Kinabalu is not such a big city, it is relatively much larger than all the other town in the system. 2) it is widely used by commuters - ppl working in Kota Kinablau but living in Papar, Beaufort, etc. 3) two stations are located within the city of Kota Kinabalu (Sembulan and Tanjung Aru) and a total of 3-4 stations are within Greater Kota Kinabalu area (Sembulan, Tanjung Aru, Putatan and Kinarut (arguably part of Greater KK). The closest thing i have to 3rd party source saying that SSR is a commuter rail is in this news article which says: "A huge explosion ripped through a commuter train with 200 passengers after it collided with a ... " - which was incidentally removed from the SSR article and replaced with an unsourced statement saying that SSR is a regional rail by the very same User:Tafeax. Sorry if this is the wrong place to post this. Any thoughts much appreciated. Thank you. ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 02:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a regional railway line with mixed passenger and goods trains. Commuter rail is about a specific train service, this article is about a railway line.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 08:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Sabah State Railway is not a commuter rail due to limited space and not-so-extensive network. A commuter rail should be a vital rail mode to connect the city center and suburban. Perhaps, SSR last terminus is Sembulan, 3km south of Kota Kinabalu city center. It also doesn't facilitate any service towards northern area (ex: Tuaran). SSR also doesn't contribute to Kota Kinabalu social and economic impact. Thus, it shouldn't be recognized as commuter rail or even regional rail. Maybe heritage railway suit the category in Malaysian context.Tafeax (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a separate rail service operated jointly with a tourism company known as the North Borneo Railway. Ya that is a heritage railway. But I am asking about the regular non-touristic railway service operated by Sabah State Railway. ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 13:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the difference between a railway line and a rail service. But a regional rail is also about a specific type of rail service, is it not? The regional rail article says: "Regional rail, also known as local trains and stopping trains are passenger rail services that operate between towns and cities." So I dont really understand your comment. There is no separate article yet on the rail service which operates on this railway line. There isnt even a name for the rail service which operates here. Afaik, there is only one regular rail service operating this line (beside the North Borneo Railway heritaage rail) So I just assume the service is also called Sabah State Railway. My query is whether the SSR rail service is a commuter or regional or what kind of rail service. ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 13:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Source from "A huge explosion ripped through a commuter train with 200 passengers after it collided with a ... " are very journalistic and shouldn't be the main source to describe the type of SSR train. IMHO, 'commuter train' in news report are misleading and should be refer as 'passenger train'.Tafeax (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I've seen news reports refer to Amtrak long-distance trains as "commuter" trains. Mackensen (talk) 13:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree its not the best source to support the statement, but at least its something, no? When the statement was edited to state that SSR is a regional rail instead, there was nothing at all to support that statement. ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 13:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

O'Hare Loop (CTA station) or O'Hare International Airport Transit System?

Somebody recently created an poorly written article called "O'Hare Loop (CTA station)." I think they have mistaken it for the O'Hare International Airport Transit System, so I'd like to call for a merge. However, I've considered the possibility this might've been a conditional adjustment to the aftermath of the O'Hare CTA station train crash earlier this year. Anyone from the Chicago area know the story about this? Lost on belmont, Zol87, and TheCatalyst31, I'm looking towards the three of you. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 01:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

That sure isn't part of the 'L', and I'm trying to decide if it's an outright hoax or if someone's confused the airport transit system for the CTA. I'm leaning towards the former, mostly because the airport transit system isn't a loop and O'Hare has no Terminal 4. I don't think it's even worth redirecting, since the title would be inaccurate in multiple ways. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that should be deleted as a hoax. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Based on the edit history he's also editing as 107.135.57.3 (talk · contribs). Those edits need to be checked. Mackensen (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I saw that. But I also saw that he changed O'Hare (CTA station) to O'Hare Loop (CTA station) then reverted it. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 12:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, no such station. The name is simply O'Hare. Epicgenius (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Who wants to close this up? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Grand Junction

Template:Grand Junction has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Consensus at the TfD discussion is leaning towards this template being kept and included in the Grand Junction Railroad and Depot Company article, but the editor who has tried to do that has been experiencing difficulties. Is any here able to lend assistance? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The difficulties have been resolved. No further assistance is required. The nomination for deletion has been withdrawn. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 02:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Wildcat Branch

Template:Wildcat Branch has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Consensus at the TfD discussion is leaning towards this template being kept and included in the Wildcat Branch article, but the editor who has tried to do that has been experiencing difficulties. Is any here able to lend assistance? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 01:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The difficulties have been resolved. No further assistance is required. The nomination for deletion has been withdrawn. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 02:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Beijing Suburban Railway templates

Hi WikiProject Trains. Should {{Beijing Suburban Railway}}, {{Beijing Suburban Railway lines}} and {{Beijing Suburban Railway stations}} be in Category:Beijing Subway templates (where {{Beijing Suburban Railway}} is currently located), or should they be in a separate category, i.e. Category:Beijing Suburban Railway templates? My guess is that they should be in a separate category, but I thought I'd check. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 11:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Infill station

I just upgraded Infill station from a redirect to an article. More eyes would be welcome, in particular, adding non-US examples.--agr (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've added some UK examples off the top of my head. I haven't got time atm to add references though. Thryduulf (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

How did we end up with the "Stations along X Railroad lines" categories?

I was trying to sort out some of the categorization mess of the various Silver Spring, MD stations and discovered Stations along Baltimore and Ohio Railroad lines. This does not, to me, make a great deal of sense as a categorization structure. The various new MARC stations, for example, have no historical connection with the B&O even if some of them are roughly where trains may have stopped in the past. Potentially some of the DC Metro Green Line stations qualify even though they don't serve railroad passengers at all. There are also a few towns on lines where there is no passenger service now and where there used to be a station. I believe there are a couple of stations on other railroad's lines which also served B&O trains.

Can anyone explain why we have this instead of the more obvious Category:Baltimore and Ohio Railroad stations? I cannot come up with a decent justification for the current criterion. Mangoe (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, since the more modern stations aren't B&O stations, that category would be inappropriate. The use of Category:Stations along Baltimore and Ohio Railroad lines makes much more sense, because those are the lines they're built along, even if they didn't exist during the heyday of the B&O. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 02:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the category you want is Category:Former Baltimore and Ohio Railroad stations, and I agree that it makes more sense than the "along X lines", which doesn't give a sense of original ownership. This would have the side benefit of matching the categorization scheme on commons. To be clear, I don't think we should have both sets of categories. Anything in "Former X stations" would be in "Stations along X lines" (with a few exceptions), and the new stations along historical routes really don't need to be so categorized. Mackensen (talk) 02:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

That seems like it would invalidate Category:Staten Island Railway stations and Category:IND Rockaway Line stations. Consider Edgewood (MARC station), which is a MARC station along a Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington Railroad line. It's not a PB&W station. Additionally, Frederick (MARC station) isn't a real B&O station, like the commons:Category:Frederick Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Station in that city's historic district. It's an imitation. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't think the "along X lines" scheme is useful and I would deprecate it in favor of "Former X stations". If Category:Staten Island Railway stations and Category:IND Rockaway Line stations don't actually contain what they claim to contain then they need to be renamed or refactored. I would expect Category:Staten Island Railway stations to contain stations served by the Staten Island Railway. If it contains anything else then it needs to be renamed. The IND Rockaway Line is a physical railway line, not a company, akin to the Northeast Corridor. It seems appropriate to categorize stations based on a physical line (see, for example, commons:Category:Stations on the Northeast Corridor). An equivalent scheme here might be Category:Metropolitan Subdivision, which is a physical line that former B&O stations are on. Mackensen (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but the IND Rockaway Line stations are made up of Former Long Island Rail Road stations, and Staten Island Railway stations are also Former Baltimore and Ohio Railroad stations. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is that a problem? Any former B&O station on the SIR could have that category added. Mackensen (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, with so many of them, they should keep the category they have. Plus, the still unbuilt Arthur Kill (Staten Island Railway station) has nothing to do with the B&O. I'd rather just see Staten Island Railway categorized as Companies affiliated with the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad (in fact, I'm going to remove a category from that). ---------User:DanTD (talk) 22:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, let's look at another example; When I originally created Category:Stations along Lehigh Valley Railroad lines, I originally created it as Category:Former Lehigh Valley Railroad stations, but I realized these were strictly New Jersey Transit stations built along those lines, so I renamed the category. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand this. Why does the NJT use of various ex-LVRR stations impact categorization? If the station is a former LVRR station, then it gets placed in Category:Former Lehigh Valley Railroad stations. If it's a new-build station not connected to the LVRR, then it doesn't. Same with Arthur Kill (Staten Island Railway station). Right now tt's categorized into Category:Staten Island Railway stations. That's exactly right. No further categories needed. To take two more examples, Roselle Park (NJT station) (built 1967) would be placed into Category:Former Central Railroad of New Jersey stations, while Union (NJT station) (built 2003) would not be placed in any former categories at all, since it originates with NJT. Mackensen (talk) 23:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

They weren't ex-LVRR stations. They were just NJT stations that were built on a former LVRR line. And for the record, Roselle Park (NJT station) was neither a former CNJ station, nor built along a CNJ-line, because it was built east of the Aldene Connection (see the map). ---------User:DanTD (talk) 23:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

That's my point. I know they weren't LVRR stations. Hence having them in an LVRR category is potentially confusing. Also, if Roselle Park wasn't a CNJ station, what was it? My takeaway from reading the article was that it was CNJ. I think it really would be best if stations were categorized based on past owners, regardless of whose line they abut. A secondary concern of mine is that the existing scheme essentially "freezes" the US railroad network at a given point (1960–1970) for a categorization scheme. Mackensen (talk) 01:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

In no way should Union (NJT station) have a category that says Lehigh Valley Railroad on it. Not just because it was actually built by NJT, not the LVRR, but because by the time it was built, the LVRR had been gone for decades and is irrelevant. Being along a former line of this-or-that defunct for decades railroad is not defining, and is overcategorization. Yes the former ownership of the line is defining for the line, but not for the station. That the station is in the category for stations along that line is sufficient.

And there's the inevitable question of which former owners to list, too. It may seem obvious to list, say, the CNJ for Raritan Valley Line stations, but what about something on the Bergen County Line? Do we list the Erie, or the Erie Lackawana? Or Conrail? Or do we go back all the way to when it was the independent Bergen County Railroad? As Mack says, we can't treat the era just before the state got involved as the default.

There's also a matter of triviality here. Many of these now defunct railroads stretched across many states, often as far west as Chicago, which itself has extensive commuter rail, some of it new services started up in the last decade or so. One plan is for a new service along CSX owned tracks. That those stations would be in the same category as ones in the Baltimore–Washington area because they're both along lines that happen to be owned by CSX is a trivial connection, when neither were actually built by the same company. I think we can drop these cats. oknazevad (talk) 12:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Why can't we just have two train categories for each of these articles: the current company that the station is operated by, and the former, defunct company? Epicgenius (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

That's what we do for UK stations: e.g. Oxford railway station is in Category:Former Great Western Railway stations (the pre-1948 company) and also Category:Railway stations served by Chiltern Railways Category:Railway stations served by CrossCountry Category:Railway stations served by First Great Western (the present-day operators of services from the station). --Redrose64 (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I really don't see any difference between what you're doing in the UK and what we do here. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 01:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a legitimate thing to include stations in categories for former operating companies. The problem with these cats is they include stations built long after the defunct company went ou of business, and so have no actual connection. The LVRR never had anything to do with Union (NJT station), so putting it in that category would be simply incorrect. If a modern RVL station dates back to the CNJ days, then including it in the categories for CNJ stations and NJT stations is fine, but no station built after the CNJ went out of business should be in any category with "Central Railroad of New Jersey" in its name, as those stations have nothing to do with that defunct railroad. oknazevad (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

For such cases, like Bristol Parkway railway station built on an ex-Great Western Railway line, we would not put them in Category:Former Great Western Railway stations but in Category:Railway stations opened by British Rail instead. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I see now. A station on a line operated by a defunct company doesn't belong in the category of the former company's stations if the station was built after the company no longer ran the line. Epicgenius (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• Wow! This seems like a gross case of overcategorizing, if you have to try and contrive all these suggested options. Delete the damn thing! Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not overcategorizing. If a station on a line is built after the company that formerly operated that line is dead, it shouldn't be listed in that company's category of railway stations. Epicgenius (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree with renaming the categories to "Former X stations". Has a consensus been reached here? The next step is to take this to Cfd, where consensus there would need to be reached as well. There are 45 categories with the naming scheme "Stations along X line", most of which are also within Category:Railway stations in the United States by company - so this should be the parent category brought to Cfd. --Scott Alter (talk) 00:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the proposal, although I would like to remove Category:New Jersey Transit Rail Operations from Category:Stations along Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad lines and Category:Stations along Central Railroad of New Jersey lines. Those railroads pre-date NJT and not all former Lackawanna or Jersey Central stations are owned by New Jersey Transit. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 01:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE - Tonight I created the Category:Stations along St. Louis–San Francisco Railway lines, however I certainly considered names like Category:Former St. Louis–San Francisco Railway stations, and even something like Category:Former Frisco Railway depots. One other thing I'd like to do is split off another section of Category:Stations along New York Central Railroad lines onto another former affiliate or predecessor... maybe for the Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad. My previous considerations were NYC stations in New York State and affiliates like the West Shore Railroad, but there are too many for the former and not enough for the latter. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC notification

See Talk:Boxcar#RfC: Merge Covered goods wagon article into Boxcar -- PBS (talk) 10:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

McCloud River Railroad engine #25 article

Just an addition to the article on McCloud River Railroad engine #25. It is now in excursion service out of Garibaldi, Oregon.

64.134.134.135 (talk) 02:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)steveberdrow@aol.com

What should go in the 'Route' box?

Please see Template talk:Rail line#What should go in the 'Route' box?. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

CFD for "airport railway station" categories

I only found this one today, but the airport railway station category list is under discussion for renaming. Please join the discussion. Thanks! Slambo (Speak) 15:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"City of" redirects

I haven't checked them all, but the "City of X" articles in general seem to redirect to the city itself instead of the corresponding train article. In the most questionable case, City of New Orleans redirects to New Orleans even though there is City of New Orleans (disambiguation) which kits the city, the train, the song, and a couple of other items. I was pondering asking at RFD to repoint som or all of these to the train articles, but I thought I'd better get some opinions here before going to that much trouble. Mangoe (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

They were all moved from the train articles, following a discussion a year or two back. It took me weeks to work out which links to City of New Orleans (etc.) were intended to be the train service, or the settlement. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Found them: Talk:City of Los Angeles (train)#Requested move and Talk:City of New Orleans (train)#Proposed move. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Tibbetts Rd New York City Subway

Just found Tibbetts Rd New York City Subway. I have no idea if it is notable or even at the correct name. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 07:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

This has got to be a hoax. Tibbetts Road is a residential street in Yonkers, and the closest subway station to that is Van Cortlandt Park – 242nd Street (IRT Broadway – Seventh Avenue Line). No evidence exists of an extension of the IRT Broadway - Seventh Avenue Line into Yonkers, and there's no possible way Amtrak could reach that part of Yonkers. The closest thing to anything railroad related there is the former New York and Putnam Railroad, and there was a Lincoln (NYC station) nearby on McLean Avenue. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 12:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've deleted it as such. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 12:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It's {track gauge}, not {RailGauge} any more

FYI: The template has moved. It is {{track gauge}}, not {{RailGauge}} any more.

There is no need to edit articles for this, old template name will be supported (forever). It's just that you'll see the new name in documentation and in talkpages. See this {TG] talk about the Move. -DePiep (talk) 21:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry to bother you again, but please note:

Today {{Track gauge}}, {{RailGauge}} requires the unit to be added:

write {{Track gauge|30 in}} not {{Track gauge|30}} (30-what?) any more.

-DePiep (talk) 20:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Category naming

About the maintenance Category:Articles that mention a specific rail gauge subcategories. See this talk for new category naming options. -DePiep (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Girgarre Railway Line

Dear train experts: Is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Girgarre Railway Line about a notable topic? It needs improved sourcing, but a fair amount of work has been put into it. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

On the face of it, the subject of the proto-article is notable enough. Referencing will have to be massively improved though. ATM, it's all rederenced to Wikipedia articles, which is a no-no. Mjroots (talk) 18:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, it seems Britmax has been improving it, so it won't be deleted for at least six months, which gives time to find some sources. Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Which train model on Granada train station, Spain?

Hi Wikiproject Trains,

Train at Granada train station.

I asked a train enthusiast on Commons, if he knew what kind of passenger train was seen in this picture (I am a train noob, just happened to take the photo)? He did not know, but adviced me to ask here. I hope that is OK, otherwise I will just ask at the (science?) reference desk. Thanks in advance, -- Slaunger (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@Slaunger: The loco just right of centre may be a RENFE Class 334. The fifteen coaches behind it I don't know about, but they look like they're not coupled to that loco. The six green wagons centre left are hoppers of some sort: possibly for carrying minerals like iron ore, or stone for track ballast.. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Redrose64! -- Slaunger (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

As for the coaches, that looks to me like a driving van trailer on the near end, with a rake of coaches hauled by a loco, presumably diesel, at the far end. I can't advise what type they are though. Thryduulf (talk) 21:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pneumatic Ballast Injection Machine

Dear railway experts: Is this old AfC submission about a notable topic? Should it be kept and improved instead of being deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 02:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: It could probably be merged to Stoneblower which is the older page by some two years. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Redrose64, for catching that. I have done the merge. I left out a little of the technical detail. Would you or someone else who understands railway terminology please check my work? —Anne Delong (talk) 12:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Zoo Station

Trains alerts won't pick up this RM, but affects 7 subway articles, so should be notified. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Internals of a control box

I got some photos of the internals of the control box of a recently restored General Railway Signal Co. semaphore signal. I believe these are not something we have a lot of, and they may be of interest. Also, someone on this WikiProject may be able to add information to the descriptions. Photos are in Commons:Category:Semaphore signal at Northern Pacific Railway Depot (Ritzville, Washington). Jmabel | Talk 03:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Unneeded mass deletion of content in Glossary of rail transport terms

There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding mass deletion of content. The thread is Unneeded mass deletion of content in Glossary of rail transport terms.The discussion is about the topic Glossary of rail transport terms. Thank you.

--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised that this was taken to ANI before coming here. Why would an administrator be more useful than the other editors on this project? Mackensen (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

It appears that ANI have rejected it. Not wishing to comment on all of Voidxor's edits (although the removal of Empty Coaching Stock was certainly improper), some of the items that had been added to that page were questionable; I removed one myself because it said "This term was coined in 2014 by a railfan named Gary Loveless." --Redrose64 (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised that the other editor hasn't been able to find the refs that I found in a very quick search in Google Books (with directly relevant results dating back to 1904). I'm adding refs and re-adding definitions that were removed (with appropriate references), and I suggest that other interested editors also re-add items with references. Slambo (Speak) 18:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Further update - I've been adding refs over the last week. The other editor has been working constructively in that time and a third editor has joined the collaboration to add references. With a little more work, we might even be able to get this up to Featured List status. Slambo (Speak) 15:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Axle Counting

Hey, i was wondering if anyone can help me. I was modifying and trying to improve the axle counting article, but i seem to be having issues with my references for citations. They are giving me errors at the bottom of the page. Can anyone push me in the right way in how to fix them?

Carlos118 (talk) 10:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Not much point if you're still editing it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

CTA Subway S-Line issues

I don't know about the rest of you, but when I see the caption in the S-Line of some CTA Blue Line station that reads "Milwaukee-Dearborn Subway," I expect that when I click that, to be taken to the Milwaukee-Dearborn Subway (CTA) article instead of the chapter about it on the Blue Line (CTA) article. The same goes for the CTA Red Line stations along the State Street Subway. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Prime example of this is the now closed Washington (CTA Red Line station), which contains links to both segments, but only leads back to the Red and Blue line articles. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Move of Port Authority Trans-Hudson

I nominated to move the article Port Authority Trans-Hudson to PATH (rapid transit) at Talk:Port Authority Trans-Hudson#Requested move 09 October 2014. I believe there is consensus that PATH is the common name for the system, but there are disagreements as to how PATH should be disambiguated. Any comment from members of this project would be helpful. Thank you. Tinlinkin (talk) 09:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of AC Locomotive Group for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article AC Locomotive Group, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AC Locomotive Group. Oleaster (talk·contribs) 12:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Station infoboxes up for deletion

People here may recall Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 March 2#UK + GB station infoboxes. Two GB station infoboxes not discussed at that time, {{Infobox closed London station}} and {{Infobox T&W Metro station}}, are now up for TfD, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 October 24#Template:Infobox closed London station and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 October 24#Template:Infobox T&W Metro station. The same TfD page has several other rail-related templates. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Essen-Dellwig Station and Essen-Dellwig Ost station

In the german Wikipedia these two stations are describeted in only one article (de:Bahnhof Essen-Dellwig), because the two stations are an interchange point with the busses and trams at bus/tram stop "Dellwig Bf." and are an interchange point between the two S-Bahn-Trains. Also the two stations and their history and their future can be described better in one article than two, see de:Bahnhof Essen-Dellwig. Maybe the two stations can be describted in only one article "Essen-Dellwig station" too.--Bahnfreund94 (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Just so that everybody else can find them easily, the English Wikipedia articles under discussion here are Essen-Dellwig station and Essen-Dellwig Ost station. The stations are about 300m apart and are not physically connected in any way. These are easier to understand as individual articles with the relationship shown, and there is no need to stuff everything into an omnibus edition. Why do they also use different kinds of infoboxes? Why did you not start this merge discussion at a station page, rather than at this remote location? Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah! I have you confused with User:Bahnfrend who is a frequent contributor.Secondarywaltz (talk)

Article on a Hungarian rail line proposed for deletion

Nyiregyháza-Záhony railway is unreferenced and in poor English. Can anyone supply sources and fix it up? Yngvadottir (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The article has equivalents on fr, hu and pl Wikis. Any French, Hungarian or Polish speakers able to bash it into shape? Mjroots (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Nyiregyháza-Záhony railway

I hate to dump this mess in your laps, but can you fix this? If not, it will be deleted in a few days. Bearian (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I already asked - see above. I may see what I can do using the French. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I dropped WP:HUNGARY a note. Mjroots (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Quintinshill centenary less than seven months away

Quintinshill rail disaster is B-Class. Can we get it to FA-class in time to be WP:TFA on 22 May 2015, that being the 100th anniversary of the accident? Discuss at Talk:Quintinshill rail disaster#Centenary TfA? please. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Correct the grade of the Budapest Castle Hill Funicular

There are multiple (unchecked) sources for the technical details. They all agree on one data: the length of the rail: c=95m.

They kind of agree on the height difference between the 2 "stations"*: 50-51m.

• ) note that besides the 1m difference it is also not clear whether it means that this is the height difference between the two end points of the rail(95m) or this is the height gain of the railcar (which has a length of 5-6m, so the path it rolls is less than 90m)

The different sources have different, contradicting figures for the grade. Some say it's 31.75deg, others that it's 48%.

I am going to show that 48% can't be right, and most probably 31.75deg is correct.

Let's look at a triangle: A is the lower station, B is the higher station, C is the imaginary right angle below B. The 3 sides of the triangle: CB=a (the height), AB=c (the length of the rails), AC=b.

If the 48% was true, then 48=100*0.48=100*(a/b)=100*tan(alpha). From this equation alpha=arctan(0.48)=25.64deg. Now let's look at the length of the railway and the height difference between the 2 stations: c=95m, so a=95m*sin(alpha)=95m*0.4327=41.11m which is 10m less then what we expected to get.

However if we assume the 31.75deg is correct: a=95m*sin(31.75deg)=95m*0.5262=49.99m which looks correct.

31.75deg is also supported by measuring the pictures taken of the coaches when they were taken for reparation. Side view of BS2 car side view of the Budapest Castle Hill Funicular car BS1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flocsy (talk • contribs) 18:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Pulling Power

I was told to ask this question here by Edgepedia two years ago.

Anyway, why did railmotors? have very limited pulling power? I'm asking because, well, I'm writing a series about an ex-Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Hughes railmotor replica and she's been designed to be able to pull a maximum of 9 to 12 trucks or coaches, unlike her prototype. However, I'd like to know why they weren't so strong before I can think of a reason why. Dinoboyaz (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Mainly because the engine portion of a steam railmotor was small by comparison to a normal locomotive. There are several factors to consider:

• boiler evaporation rate and working pressure
• number of cylinders and their sizes
• wheel diameter
• number of driving wheels in contact with the rail and the load on those wheels

The LYR railmotors (nos. 3 etc.) had a boiler pressure of 180 lb/sq. in. just like the later average-size locos of the LYR (such as a Class 27), but compared to Class 27, the boiler was considerably smaller (heating surface approx. 509 sq. ft. instead of 1210 sq. ft. - ratio 1:2.38), as were the cylinders (12x16" instead of 18x26" - volume ratio 1:3.66). The small size of the wheels (3'7 5/8" instead of 5'1" - ratio 1:1.4) would have increased the drawbar pull, at the sacrifice of speed. The railmotors had four driving wheels instead of six, but the adhesive weight was only 32 tons 14 cwt instead of 42 tons 3 cwt.

I seriously doubt that any railmotor could haul 12 (or even 9) coaches at anything more than walking speed - that's even if they could be moved. Those of the GWR could certainly handle one bogie coach and possibly a horse box or small parcels van as well, but the more vehicles that are added, the lower the speed capability. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• "why did railmotors have very limited pulling power? "

Because they didn't need any more than that. They pulled themselves and maybe a trailer coach. I think even a horse box would have been a rarity. So they just weren't designed to be able to pull any more than this. Power costs money and these were made small and cheap.

The figure you're looking for is tractive effort - what it can pull on a spring balance attached to the first trailer. As noted above, this is the product of the boiler pressure and the total piston area, multiplied by the "gear ratio" which depends on stroke length and wheel diameter and reduced by any inefficiencies.

It's worth noting that this doesn't depend on the boiler size. That limits for how long this peak tractive effort can be achieved, or how fast it can be maintained, but not the starting pull. If you compare some large industrial locos (like the Hunslet Austerity) to large express passenger locos, they're surprisingly similar. This is because the industrials have small wheels (low gearing) and their small boilers would then limit the sustained effort.

Grip is also a problem - at least if the loco is quite powerful. Small wheels improve the gearing for tractive effort, but they also reduce grip and risk wheelslip. As railmotors were so low powered, several designs ignored this and although I think the L&YR were an 0-4-0 power unit, the Kerr-Stuarts were only an 0-2-2 or 2-2-0 with two equally sized but uncoupled wheels. The Sentinel shunters have internal gearing (see steam motor) so have a reputation for moving extremely heavy loads slowly, but they're almost always limited by wheel slipping.

Many of the railmotors had limited footplate space and were difficult to fire. It's hard to simply shovel enough coal to keep them running at any sort of substantial output power. Not the L&YR Altcar Bob, but the vertical boilered types have very small grates that couldn't burn enough.

Twelve, or even nine, coaches is a long and heavy rake, especially loaded. Most stations of those days couldn't handle the length. Not only is these implausible to haul with a railmotor, it's hard to even see what the point would be. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

There's a nice overview of the various types used in Great Britain in

• Jenkinson, David (1988). British Railway Carriages of the 20th Century - Volume 1: The end of an era, 1901-22. London: Guild Publishing. pp. 257–268. CN 8130.

which covers 197 railmotors in total, more than half (99) belonged to the GWR, almost a quarter to the LYR (17), TVR (16) and LSWR (15) together, and the remaining 50 to 17 different undertakings. Unfortunately there are few dimensions. There is a photo of a GWR railmotor with a trailer, and a LNWR railmotor with trailer and horsebox. The two photos of LYR cars do not show trailers.

• Mason, Eric (1975) [1954]. The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway in the Twentieth Century. Shepperton: Ian Allan. pp. 134–141. ISBN 0-7110-0656-3.

has a fair amount of information, including the fact that a trailer was sometimes used, but there is no suggestion of more than one. John Marshall, in volumes 2 & 3 of his three-volume "The Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway" (David & Charles, 1969-72), gives main dimensions of the LYR railmotors, building and withdrawal dates and the routes that they were used on, but doesn't say anything about their haulage abilities, not even whether they hauled a tail load or not. There's not much about railmotors in Marshall that isn't also in Mason. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Railway wheel and Wheel profile

Where should these terms point?

• Currently Railway wheel is a redirect to Wheelset (rail transport) but I think it would be better targetted at Train wheel? Both articles could do with improvement.
• Wheel profile is currently a redlink. It is covered (partly) at Wheelset (rail transport), Train wheel, Hunting oscillation and Adhesion railway#Directional stability and hunting instability. Or maybe someone knowledgeable could write an article for it if there isn't one I've not found elsewhere? Thryduulf (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Train wheel is poor duplication that should simply be deleted.

There's little need for an article as "railway wheel". The differences between loco driving wheels and carrying wheels for rolling stock are so large that it's a minimum of two strongly distinct articles, with little overlap. I'd like to see wheel profile as a separate article, but that's not an easy article to write. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Well both Train wheel and Railway wheel are very likely search terms, so they need to be kept as blue links, either one redirecting to the other or both redirecting to the same place. If we have two separate articles then possibly have one as either an overview or disambig. Thryduulf (talk) 03:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Also Railway tires. There may be others linked from Template:Locomotive running gear. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

There is wheel tread, which redirects to a next-to-useless section at Rim (wheel)#Railroad usage. If/when we get a wheel profile article it would likely make sense to point it to a section there, but can we do better than currently in the meanwhile? Thryduulf (talk) 03:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Tour of Victorian railway works

Hi, I'd like to inform everyone interested that our South Coast Meetup in Eastleigh, Hampshire on 23 November 2014, includes a free tour of the Victorian railway carriage and wagon works. The tour starts at 2pm (meetup earlier at pub across road from Eastleigh railway station).

I do hope you can make it. -- Marek.69 ^talk 01:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately I've got to be in Warwickshire :( Thryduulf (talk) 05:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Me too. I'm operating a model railway layout at the NEC that day. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: I've found that there is an apologies list, which is probably a good place for your reply. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Manila Light Rail Transit System Line 2#MRT-2 or LRT-2?

There's an issue with this article. Currently, the article is at "Manila Light Rail Transit System Line 2". But on the rest of the article and elsewhere on Wikipedia, it's referred to as "MRT-2", not "LRT-2", because it's not "light rail" but is operated by the "Light Rail Transit Authority". Now, supposedly the official name is "MRT-2", but an overwhelming majority of WP:RS calls it as "LRT-2". Please go to there to help in sorting out the differences. –HTD 12:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

For all dicussions regarding this in order to honor the one talk page rule, may I suggest that all dicussions be made there. But to counter such here under the WP:TRAIN naming convention the common official name must prevail as would be seen in that article, and so MRT-2 is the rightful name as it is the common official name by the owner/operator and not LRT-2. But again any discussion with the matter must be directed to the page. PhilippineRevolution 13:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone from this WikiProject help in sorting this issue out? It evolved on how "official common" is defined. –HTD 14:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Operator colors in the Netherlands

Are there alternative colors for operators in the Netherlands other than Nederlandse Spoorwegen (NS) available for use with {{s-rail}}? The NS colors are blue and yellow, which are used for intercity and stoptrein services respectively. I would like to use alternative colors for the train services operated by Arriva in for instance the article Groningen railway station. Their trains in the provinces of Friesland and Groningen are red and white, but their trains in other regions are blue and white. The Arriva company color resembles teal (see also their logo). – Editør (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I've tried to resolve the issue, but I'm not sure I've created or moved all relevant templates. – Editør (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Railroad plough

Hi,

I believe the German railroad plough that was at Longmoor Military Railway is now exhibited at Marchwood Military Port. http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=sgfz65gwcyc1&lvl=19.62&dir=172.32&sty=o&eo=0&form=LMLTSN

Thanks,

Marc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.152.245.252 (talk) 11:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

MTA (New York)

Could members of this project take note that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority in New York is a state agency and not a city one, and also that the proper name for the agency is just plain "Metropolitan Transportation Authority" without any preceding "New York" -- although it's certainly OK to add "New York" if disambiguation is needed, as in "New York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority" of "the Metropolitan Transportation Authority of New York".

It looks to me like every NYC Subway station article has at least one example of "New York City Metropolitan Transportation Authority" in it. I've fixed a few, but it would be nice if members of this project could fix others when they're editing subway articles. Thanks. BMK (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Pertinent template and category discussions

There are a few TFD and CFD entries this week that should be of interest to project members:

• CFD - Rome Metro station categories (rename)
• TFD - Infobox Paris Network (merge)
• TFD - Infobox MTR station (merge)
• TFD - Infobox Manchester Metrolink station (merge)
• TFD - Infobox Ireland station (merge)
• TFD - Infobox Korean rapid transit line (merge)
• TFD - Infobox German railway vehicle (merge)

Please join the discussions. Thanks! Slambo (Speak) 16:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)