Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2004 · 2005
January-June 2006
The Trains WikiProject
General information
Main project page (WP:TWP)  talk
Portal (P:Trains) talk
Project participants talk
Project banner talk
Project category talk
Manual of style (WP:TWP/MOS) talk
Departments
Assessments (WP:TWP/A) talk
Peer review (WP:TWP/PR) talk
To do list talk
Task forces
Article maintenance talk
By country series talk
Categories talk
Images talk
Locomotives talk
Maps talk
Operations talk
Passenger trains talk
Portal talk
Rail transport modelling talk
Timelines talk
edit · changes

Contents


[edit] Gauge Templates?

What are your thoughts about standardizing articles to use gauge templates? We've had {{Standard gauge}} in our template collection for a while, and I've recently added several templates for the commoner narrow gauges. I've been replacing non-templated gauge references with templates in articles as I come across them. I think this gives us a standardized look to railway articles, but I'd like to hear what others think about this.

In particular this brings up the issue of imperial vs. metric units. The gauge templates have both, usually in the order: imperial then metric. Some articles list gauges the other way around, or just have one or the other. I know that people have strong opinions about this, and I don't want to make changes that others object to. My personal feeling is that if the gauge was originally imperial - for example, standard gauge - then quote it as imperial then metric (1435 mm (4 ft 8½ in)), for metric gauges like metre gauge, do it the other way around (1000 mm (3 ft 3.3 in)) Thanks, Gwernol 16:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Generally, when I see standard gauge listed like the template output, I will substitute the template usage in its place for consistency. Please add the other gauge templates to Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Article templates and add <noinclude>[[Category:Rail transport templates]]</noinclude> (like on {{Infobox Locomotive}}) to the templates themselves. Your note about which measurement units come first presents an interesting question. It seems that we should also have {{standard gauge metric}} to show the output as 1435 mm (4 ft 8½ in). Slambo (Speak) 17:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I've added the Rail Transport templates category to my narrow gauge templates - they are already listed in the article templates. Gwernol 17:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

in general i would like to go for metric units, as it is standard now, and hence i think we do not need metric templates. you do not have to be a prophet to know that imperial units will die out and just "hard wired" things keep it from doing this now. 1.3 billion people have English language as their first or second language, and minimum of 1 billion of them do not even know what imperial units are. canadians, irish, british people changed a long time ago, even english and american experts have difficulties with this topic and sometimes crash space ships because of this ;) but i think it is to early to remove imperial units completely. but an article like rail gauges which is imperial(metric) and metric(imperial) all the time is just poor quality. it is not a question what it was stated in originally. you do not use mid age english either. english is a or the global language and should not use mid age measurement units known only in some parts of the united states as default. --ThurnerRupert 20:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Slow down here and let's reach a consensus first. Making unilateral changes like this has proven detrimental to the project and to individual editors in the past (take a look at the history of changing between BC/AD and BCE/CE units for years; see 1, 2, 3 and many others). I think the guiding document here is Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). The source documents that we're dealing with for American railroads are written almost exclusively (at least those in my own reference library) in Imperial and not metric units, therefore, we should list Imperial units first when we're writing about American railroad subjects. Slambo (Speak) 20:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Unit conversion often leads to loss in accuracy and certainly a loss of some original information - e.g. designs done by someone using customary US measurements will often use 'round numbers' in that system, which become arbitary and meaningless amounts after conversion. The present status quo is perfectly fine and should be retained, and any numbers that do not have conversions should have them added. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The present status is: state one time "metric (imperial)" and the other time "imperial (metric)". IMO this is poor quality. This leads to Exploration of Mars#Spate of failures. Slambo, it is just a measurement, you have to calculate with it, and it is not a religious thing like "BC". And therefor a worldwide standard exists. But Morven, i think you are right, rounding wrong would also be poor quality, but i would consider this a different topic. --FlyIn 13:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
morven, you end up with things like 3ft 3 3/8in (1000 mm) (example take from rail gauge), and with setting standard gauge to something us specific (the us are just a small part of america) you make articles like the london underground, DBAG_Class_425 inconsistent. here we always joke about rail gauge (the article itself) beeing an example of imperialism ;) --ThurnerRupert 04:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I change it back to the standard way, and if we reach a conclusion here, we make it non-standard again, ok? Maybe you would like to read "Speak in English, and Measure in Metric" in the meantime to make up your mind if you should create http://us.wikipedia.com solve the problem :) --FlyIn 13:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Even though I like the idea of http://us.wikipedia.org, most english articles have imperial measurements as source because metric measurement is so little used in the UK. Because there are articles on rialways/railroads from all around the world which at some point another use metric or imperial, I've created a 4ft8in template so that editors of articles on subjects which have sources that use imperial measurement can quote imperial first whilst the standard gauge template can be used for articles which have sources that use metric (say German or French railways). This is probably the best way to have both kind of sources quoted accuratly and removes the possibility of disputes. Enjoy, Captain scarlet 08:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the best solution would be for the primary measurement to be in the system in which it was measured. Therefore standard gauge would be noted in feet/inches because that is how it is specified. Mangoe 20:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
This issue has already been solved as there is Template:Standard gauge and Template:4ft8in available for whichever measurement system you use: imperial, or metric. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 23:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UK Railways Wikiproject

Hi all, since we now have probably more than a thousand articles relating to the railways of the UK alone I've decided to start a seperate Wikiproject to try and co-ordinate them a bit better. It's located at Wikiproject UK Railways t'is very basic at the moment and has only one member! But hopefully with people's help it'll be able to organise and make the articles on British railways both clearer and better structured and ultimately the most informative of any country in the world. If you know anything about railways in the UK or would just like to help out please head over and join and we'll be able to get a decent community going. ta-ta, --Achmelvic 10:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as the UK railway network.
There are two major systems in Great Britain (including IOW) and Northern Ireland. The systems are different; they is regulated differently, operated differently, run on different gauge track, and so have different rolling stock, and are not connected (trains can't swim). In short, specifying "UK" rail network is rather naive. Have one for GB and one for Ireland. — Dunc|☺ 10:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
This wikiproject is not about a single system at all, it is to try and allow a single place for these kind of topics to be discussed, just because it is a project on the whole of the UK doesn't mean that the articles will be structed that way. I'm hoping that it will produce a better forum for us all to discuss such issues and not have the current unhelpful situation of this same issue being talked about on the talk pages of different articles with no real connection or consistancy. Whilst i agree that there are two systems or networks the wikiproject is not trying to claim that there is only one at all, it's to co-ordinate articles better for the whole of the United Kingdom. Plus all other Wikiproject are the UK as a whole, not simply part of it --Achmelvic 10:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You've even got a third system coming along with the connected Welsh Highland and Ffestiniog Railways.--7severn7 18:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Regional Terminology Problem

I've started on a campaign to improve the Category:Railway signalling articles, and the terminology difference is starting to become a problem. My current strategy is this:

  1. Give each major type of working (e.g. Centralized traffic control) its own article.
  2. Keep railway signal as a separate article and have it deal solely with the different singal technologies, not with the ways the signals are used. (I've already made this change.)
  3. Leave the various national articles alone, for the most part.
  4. Try to eliminate some of the smaller articles which are essentially definitions with parts of other articles attached. See home signal and distant signal for examples.
  5. Turn the railway signalling article into a discussion of the most general principles, with links off to the other articles.

Right now, the problem is, on the most immediate level, that the central articles are centered on British practice. I suppose I can get past this except that the terminology conflict has reared its head again. For example, in Centralized traffic control it says that "The term CTC generally applies to a single track railway with crossing loops." In the usual perverse fashion, "crossing" and "loop" have almost opposite meanings in the USA, where we would refer to "passing sidings". It's particularly questionable in this article since CTC is (as far as I know) of American origin. In another instance we have interlocking tower and signal box, which appear on inspection to be, respectively, the USA and UK names for the same thing.

As it seems I will be end up creating articles in the course of this I would like some sort of organizing principle for the naming. I'm likely to us US names for things, and we are liekly to end up with even more of a hodge-podge of names than we have already. Mangoe 01:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

In other articles where there are regional variations this is mentioned in the text. If the variations are major then an entire section could be devoted to the description of the variations. SilkTork 20:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how a section of an article is going to fix some of these issues. When it's just one item and there's a simple substitution of names (e.g. the (train/railway station debate) I don't see much problem. (In that case I don't see much of an issue because "railway station" is perfectly uderstandable to Americans without explanation.) Even in the "truck/bogie" case it's possible to live with being stuck with "bogie" all the time.
The problem comes when the meanings only partially intersect. "Siding" and "loop" don't cover the same range of meanings, as far as I can tell. It's going to be really difficult to fix the Centralized traffic control article (and it needs a lot of help) with the mix of American and British terminology and the fact that crossing loop redirects to passing loop, the latter of which really seems to be about station layout in spite of the attempt to re-Americanize it with a not utterly pointful reference to Casey Jones. It's getting to the point where we'll need a separate article for each separate phrase, and the articles are going to be nothing but definitions.
While I'm at it, the nomenclature articles are a mess. At the very least they need to have entries for both British and American practice, whereas at the moment the American entries are almost entirely lacking. (I also think the lists are getting too long, but that's another issue.) Mangoe 22:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad some folks have already started discussing this. I posted the following on the Talk:Railroad switch page (that page is a good example of regional usage intermixing). Any further suggestions?

I understand that Wikipedia is a multinational project, and I've always tried to be sensitive to how countries outside of the U.S. use the English language (which, admittedly, we did not invent). I definitely don't go around editing articles to conform all to American usage. However, the radical difference in terminology between North American railroads and railways in the rest of the English-speaking world can lead to some very choppy and inconsistently-written Wikipedia articles. In most rail-related articles, it's very obvious that the articles were written by many different people, as terms, usage, and style vary wildly between paragraphs and even sentences in the same paragraph. Non-cohesive writing is, I believe, somewhat destructive to the sense of flow and order that should be in every Wikipedia article.

I'm not sure what the solution is--I hesitate to call for standardizing terminology to one standard or the other, and it's very cumbersome to put "U.S.: xxx, U.K.: yyy" (or the longer but more inclusive and accurate "North America: xxx; Commonwealth: yyy") at every point (no pun intended) in the article . Any suggestions? Or do you all vote that it's OK as is?

I'm going to place a copy of this post in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#The Regional Terminology Problem--the discussion's kind of started there. cluth 02:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It appears that in two sections below this one, User:JYolkowski said that Wikipedia:Manual of style#National varieties of English says that it's OK to be inconsistent across articles as long as you're consistent inside each article--and that it probably works best to defer to the style used first in each article. That makes sense, but it still presents problems in places like crossing loop that were mentioned by Mangoe above.
I'm cross posting this part of my reply to the Talk:Railroad switch page along with a note to continue the discussion here. cluth 02:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Teminology translator
(set of) points UK, Aus
switch, turnout USA

Should we (a) select regional terminology according to the guidelines, and (b) include "translation boxes" in the articles near the first uses of the words, as at right? — Philip J. Rayment 08:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trains article assessments

As part of the update to the {{TrainsWikiProject}} template, I've setup the project's article assessment categories and intro page. This assessment system is basically a copy of the assessment systems already used by some other WikiProjects, and I've gone through several hundred articles where the template is included and sorted them into the appropriate assessment categories (and found a few to nominate for GA status in the process). If you've got some time, take a look at the list of articles in Category:Unassessed rail transport articles and add the appropriate class parameter to the project banner template, following the guidelines on the assessment intro page. The counts at the top of the intro page and the log at the bottom are both automatically updated once a day.

I will be monitoring this category as well and assessing more articles as I have time. I haven't added the importance scale to the template yet; that will be the next major task once the quality assessments are under control. Slambo (Speak) 11:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I am curious about the assessments process. What criterion is used to attribute an article to one or another sub project of WikiProject Trains as, as far as I've witnessed, articles have been tagged as maintained by one or another subproject when they are not. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 18:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Railway station v Train station

There has been some debate recently about which term to use for the Train station article. The debate has largely centred on the British v American argument - yet it appears to me more one of simple common sense. The main and sub-categories are Railway station. In the article itself the term Railway station appears 3 times as frequently as Train station. Train station in this instance looks rather odd, lonely and somehow perverse. An argument that the use of Train station is older is possibly wrong because there is evidence that Railway station has been in use for longer than initially appears and might have been corrupted or deleted. Due to the awkward behaviour of RichardHarrold people may have got themselves into an entrenched situation which has blinded them to the simple common sense use of Railway station over train station. A glance at Category:Railway stations shows how at this stage changing all the cats into Train stations would be more difficult than simply changing the name of the main category article. Lets have some plain and simple consistency here. SilkTork 20:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of style#National_varieties_of_English for how this should be handled. Since this article isn't particular to either American or British stations, and since the first author of the page used the term "train station", then the term "train station" should be used. It's okay to use the term "train station" in some articles/categories and "railway station" in other articles/categories. JYolkowski // talk 20:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • My point is that Wikipedia is overwhelmingly dominated by Railway station usage. The main and subcategories are all railway station. There are over 2,000 articles with the title Railway station, and something less than 20 with the title Train station. Take a look through the Category:Railway stations and have a count up yourself. After about 10 minutes you'll see my point! SilkTork 20:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • True, but my point is that it's perfectly okay to be inconsistent across articles. JYolkowski // talk 00:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I take your point. But mine is not that we have sometimes Train station and sometimes Railway station, but that we have massive and almost consistent use of Railway station on Wiki apart from the main article on the subject, which perversely uses the title Train station. The situation seems a little odd. Other than an argument that it's OK for there to be inconsistency, there seems no genuine reason to keep this inconsistency. For the pleasure of saying that we accept inconsistency, and here's a good example of one, we deliberately keep this example? SilkTork 08:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
      • In fact "Train Station" is a recent coinage in the US, where "Railroad Station" or "Depot" was used instead - see any movie made before or set before the 1960s.

Exile 20:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Existing Railroads Not Defunct in List of New York railroads

This is in regards to the Wallkill Valley Railroad, a corporation formed and existing in the State of New York by Act of the State Legislature in 1866. WVRR's charter predates the formation of the ICC and it is perpetual in nature. However Wikipedia lists WVRR as "defunct" on the page titled List of New York railroads which is technically incorrect. There is a general misconception concerning the word "abandoned" in railroad parlance: it refers to the abandonment of service (to the customer), not the extinguishment of the charter. WVRR was quitclaimed by Conrail to John E. Rahl in 1986, many of the documents regarding its existence are on file with the NY Sec.of State, also reproduced at http://www.wvrr.biz .

The issue raised here is how WVRR should be re-categorized at List of New York railroads without causing a wiki war against the wikitocracy. I am the current corporate secretary for the Wallkill Valley Railroad Company. We will be creating an article in Wikipedia for the title "Wallkill Valley Railroad," but respectfully request advice on this discussion page for how to handle our improper "defunct" classification on the aforementioned List of New York railroads .

--Shakewell 17:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it will depend of the current status of the WVRR. Is it intended to be a tourist railroad? If so, just move it up to that section of the page. If the company is simply a holding company, we may need to add another category to the list to hold the WVRR. Once you've written the proposed article it should be easy enough to figure out the correct course of action and implement it. Indeed you can be bold and make the change yourself.
On a side note, your edit summary mentioned that the current page was a "slander". Its clearly a simple mistake and to accuse someone of slander is a serious charge. Please assume good faith on the part of other editors. I'd also like to warn you that a charge of slander sails close to Wikiepdia's policy of no legal threats which is taken very seriously around here. Thanks, Gwernol 17:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Gwernol appears correct in regards to the "slander of title" allegation since there does not seem to be any malice evident here on the Wikipedia. It looks like the edit summary has already been changed by someone else. Therefore we apologize for the mischaracterization.
As for WVRR's future intentions, the story gets somewhat complicated. In a nutshell our railroad corporation claims the right to operate a high-speed train from NYC to Albany, passing thru Stewart Airport in Newburgh. Any competing plans for high speed rail, by New York State and/or public authorities like the NYS Thruway, constitute usurpation of franchise in our opinion. Numerous bureaucrats, including politicians and at least one judge, have issued spurious assertions that WVRR "is not a railroad." However the NY Railroad Law of 1872 is quite explicit as to how a railroad corporation's existence shall be challenged. Any changes to that rule, including abridgements within the Consolidated Laws of 1910, are ex post facto.
There are also lucrative telecommunications rights tied in with this franchise. These rights differ from the similar cases involving AT&T in the midwest, because New York Railroads operate in fee simple. Today WVRR is a "rail trail" but still collects line crossing fees from utility companies. All these utility companies have signed contracts with WVRR, acknowledging corporate existence. Yet, curiously, several have since reneged on those contracts and now claim we're "not a railroad."
During the nineteenth century, whenever the railroad law became more restrictive, franchises such as WVRR were classified as "Existing Railroads." Later in the twentieth century, the same franchises were classified as "Surviving Railroads." In summary, the proper classification of WVRR on the Wikipedia List of New York railroads may not be simple. Other railroads listed on the same page probably also enjoy perpetual charters and fall into the same situation. --Shakewell 16:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
These are all interesting points regarding the company. I look forward to reading a complete article on the subject. Shakewell, looking at your contribution history, it appears that you are still new to Wikipedia (unless you've been editing under a different username or under your IP address before now). If you haven't already, please take some time to familiarize yourself with the following policies: Neutral point of view, No original research and Citing sources. Be aware that any text that you submit for an article is released under GFDL and may be mercilessly edited by others. I've assembled a few guidelines (these are not yet policy or in any way official in this WikiProject, but the points here encompass some of the things that I try to do in my own writing) for railroad-related articles, and I encourage you to review some of the existing articles about other US railroads (for example, the Canadian Pacific Railway article has undergone an extensive peer review and is currently a Wikipedia Featured Article; the Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad article has not achieved this status yet, but it has gone through the peer review process). Slambo (Speak) 17:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Slambo this has been some helpful feedback. My general impression is that many people, especially train buffs, equate the word "railroad" with having an operating choo-choo train. However the reality of a railroad's coprorate existence has more to do with laws and legal title. This weekend we uploaded a law reference book from 1882 regarding the subject matter raised in this discussion. It's short title is "Colby on the Law of Railroads," and can be downloaded (in PDF format) off the main page at http://www.wvrr.biz . We broke this 800 page book down into several parts to make it more manageable. People might find the work interesting for its own sake, but we use it to back up legal arguments. --Shakewell 21:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Can't we simply define an existing railroad as a presently operating railroad? --SPUI (T - C) 12:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Such a definition might be a matter of opinion, not a matter of factual definition. Citing Colby 1882, "Table of existing railroads," together with the material contained in Chapter 1 (Corporate Existence), I could make a good case that WVRR "exists." But we don't have a choo-choo train operating at this time. As far as the real property is concerned, both laying down track, and also tearing up the track, is "railroad use." Furthermore, allowing people to hike, bike, and horseback ride down the remaining rail trail, constitutes "transportation use," furthermore rail trail use serves to preserve the corridor for future railroad operation.
So there's some degree of dispute: the NYS Thruway Authority says that WVRR doesn't exist. Elements within the NY Attorney General's Real Property Division make the same claim. Then again, we have an Affidavit of Title signed and notorized by the Commissioner of the NYS DOT (which you can read at http://www.wvrr.biz ) showing a perfect chain of title. Dunn & Bradstreet says we exist, also the Internal Revenue Service. The 1899 Perpetual Lease is cited in the 1952 Merger Agreement, indicating a special freehold estate which cannot be "merged into oblivion." The NY Sec. of State still has our 1866 Charter and 1877 Reorganization Certificates on file; but they have removed the corresponding computer records, sua sponte, on their own without any judicial decree or legislative act. --Shakewell 21:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Every name on a timetable

In a side trip from the train station/railway station discussion, I've noticed the profusion of enumerative articles. I suppose there's very possibly some reason for this in the locomotives; but when every pair of platforms and every flag stop on every rail line has a page, things have gotten out of hand.

By my quick survey, almost none of these passes any kind of notability test. And I note that most of the MARC train stations in Maryland link to the placename, even though the station building at Point of Rocks, Maryland is certainly notable. This frankly seems to me to be more reasonable. Mangoe 12:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree with Mangoe. There are so many stops on Wiki that it is difficult to know where to start in weeding out the non-notable ones, but Category:Amtrak stations is one suggestion. Tyrone (Amtrak station) is a typical example of the entries for a number of these stops. Note the similarity with Coatesville (Amtrak station) and Greensburg (Amtrak station). These were just random choices, I haven't been through the list. Following Mangoe's suggestion: the Amtrak stops listed on the Pennsylvanian (Amtrak) page should be changed to go to the towns - so clicking on Tyrone in that article would lead to Tyrone, Pennsylvania. An addition could be made in the Tyrone article mentioning the Amtrak station. A redirect could be put in place on Tyrone (Amtrak station) to lead people to the town article. If the principle is acceptable, then I suggest a list be drawn up of the stations in the Amtrak station cat that should be redirected. SilkTork 09:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
My voice would be, that even the less notable stations or stops should have their articles. I created myself over 200 articles on Railway stations in Pomeranian Voivodeship. Most of them are stubs, but after looking for sources to expand them I found a lot of info, historical facts etc. See Babi Dół (PKP station) as an examle. Many of those articles refer to the station placed in the town or a village ehich do not have it's own article on Wiki yet. CCMichalZ 10:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't mean to sound too critical of your sense of industry, but when I look at Gdynia Wielki Kack (PKP station) I see an article that boils down to a single sentence in the article on Gdynia-- which, as it happens, doesn't mention that there is a station.
Don't be afraid to be bold and create the town article. For example, someone created St. Denis, Maryland even though about all that can be said about it is that it's on the B&O mainline, it has a MARC train stop, and it used to have a station building. Babi Dół appears to be a place that could be said to be notable for having some interesting railroad buildings. It could then be attached to a list of places in Poland of raillfanning interest. But I suspect that in many places all that could really be said is that it has a station building much like that in the next town-- or that there's nothing there but a platform or two.
Mind you, I know next to nothing about trains in Poland. But for comparison, the station at Point of Rocks, Maryland is one of the most famous small town stations in the United States. Mangoe 11:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Please consider, that I am willing to expand each station info into a normal article. Believe me - I am able to find enough information to build an article of lets say Gdańsk Główny (PKP station) size. There are about 15 railway stations in Gdańsk. If I wanted to include all the information about them into the city article, it would at least double it.
One of things I do is linking in See also section: From station to town, and from town to station(s).CCMichalZ 11:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I've just looked at Gdańsk Główny (PKP station). It's an attractive looking article with information in it saying there is another station in Gdańsk with platforms and shops. It is non-notable. You could equally have an article on every McDonalds in the world. Nice picture. Details of when it was built, what street it is on. Decoration inside. Number of seats and toilets. Etc. But those articles would be equally non-notable. As for the main Gdańsk article. Well, there is a section for transportation. I would suggest a few lines in that section saying there are 15 railway stations, and naming the most interesting and important ones. The most notable one (if it is notable enough) could be linked to. I doubt if Gdańsk Główny (PKP station) is the most notable. SilkTork 12:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • And I've just looked at Category:Railway stations in Pomeranian Voivodeship. Wow, yes. You have been busy - I can see why you object to Mangoe's proposal. But it is exactly to prevent such things happening that Mangoe made the proposal. When editors see examples of that they get encouraged to enter even more train stations. Wikipedia will end up listing every station on the planet. Then every bus stop, shop, toilet and person..... I'm sure that in your heart of hearts you know that's not what Wiki is about. This Category:Non operational railway stations in Pomeranian Voivodeship is clearly a work of love. I sympathise with your position. But that information doesn't belong here. I hope there is a way we can use the information you have in a meaningful and interesting manner. And I do hope you don't get too upset about this proposal. SilkTork 12:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not getting upset as our debate is conducted in civilised manner. I (as a Railfan Wikipedian) would like to see an article on each railway station on the planet. I think it is just a matter of correct categorising if do not want to get confused in those tousands of articles. As a support to my voice I can give you an example of music records. We have few times more albums released in history than we have railway stations, yet each record deserves it's own article.
I think it is rather a matter of common sense what to devote separate articles to. You see, a Mc Donald's restauration seldom is 100 years old, had three names in two different languages, was a place of WWII battle, and so on.CCMichalZ 12:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • There's a part of me that likes the idea of listing all the railway stations as well. I like it. I'm a collector and I like trains and stations. But I don't think a separate article on each is the way to go. The articles are trivial in the extreme. A well researched and well written article on the railway system in Pomeranian Voivodeship would be worth reading. But 364 different articles on the railway stations, non operational railway stations and Category:SKM stops is not the best way to go about it. This article: Szybka Kolej Miejska is great. Either a section of that article or a sub-article from that on the routes of the SKM which mentioned or listed the SKM stops might be the best approach. SilkTork 15:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I've picked a few at random. See for example Kołczygłówki (PKP station), which again lacks a corresponding town name article. And I suspect that all anyone will ever be able to tell us about the facilities here is that there is a station building that is unused, and that it lies on such-and-such a line, and the date the station was opened/closed. It seems to me that all of this would be more useful as part of a table listing the stations on the line and giving a few essential data on each. Looking at how the articles are referenced, they appear to only reference each other, and through the category of course, except that there seems to be no external reference to the category. There seems to be no way to find these articles unless one already knows they are there.
I think there's a way to prepare this information that is useful to a foreigner like myself who will probably never visit Poland (not that I have anything against it). But it seems to me that a larger context is needed-- say a list of towns with stations in them, discussion of the history of closed lines, etc.
And lest I be accused of picking on these, the article on the Route 128 (MBTA station) tells me how much it costs to park there! Er, how much it cost two years ago. My feeling is, I'll trust the transit company's website for this kind of info, thank you. Mangoe 15:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Notability is not a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia, so verifiable information on any station can be included regardless of the "notability" of the station. Having said that, having dozens of tiny stubs for each station on a line is probably not the best way of organising things. If you have a lot of stubs for stations on the same line, for example, it might make sense to merge them into a Railway stations on x line or whatever article. If a station accumulates a few paragraphs of information, then spin it out into its own article. JYolkowski // talk 21:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • What seems to happen is that most "X Station" articles appear at first glance to have a lot of content, but almost none of it derives from the station itself. For example, on Gdynia Wielki Kack (PKP station) the only information that is about the station itself is the presence/absence of water tower/depot/building, the number of platforms, and the dates opened/closed. All the other information is derived either from the line it is on or the town it is in. Route 128 (MBTA station) consists almost entirely of timetable information as well.
Notability is a guideline for exclusion of certain types of articles, and for me, very few station stops pass that test. The vast majority of all train stations are only meaningful within the context of the line that they are on or the town that they are in. A limited few are of particular historical or architectural interest.
Also, I think there has to be some thought towards maintainability here. Lists of station stops are subject to change by railroads and commuter services, and it is perhaps not too much work to keep a list up-to-date. But when the list is a complex web of articles, the question of who is going to do the housekeeping has to be confronted. We are not, contrary to opinion, an infinite number of monkeys.
Finally, look at it this way. Nobody had more interest in railroads than, well, railroads. And while railroads did keep track diagrams and the like, for most people their ready reference was a slim booklet folded up and shoved in a back pocket. Mangoe 22:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, I think we've said everything that was to say (from our sides) on this toppic (it gre really large). My proposal is to wait for other Wikipedians voices on the issue.
The misunderstanding is maybe caused by the fact, that in Poland there are many people who care about railways far more than Polish railway companies :-) CCMichalZ 09:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • We could take some of these cats to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion to invite wider discussion. SilkTork 17:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    • For those that haven't already, I would suggest reading Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Masts, especially User:Tony Sidaway's comments under the heading Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Masts#What.27s_the_point.3F. JYolkowski // talk 23:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't think masts are quite the same sort of thing, and from what I can tell the writers of the station stop articles don't either. It's the proliferation of infoboxes on them that I find particularly striking; they're cluttery, and the analogy with "predecessor/successor" doesn't apply. I guess that my root feeling is that Wikipedia is not a timetable. Railroads and transit systems have websites, and the information about train service is best found in them, not here. Mangoe 23:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't like the infoboxes much either, so I wouldn't object if you or someone else removed them. I guess my point is this: At least where I live (maybe things are different elsewhere), even the most mundane stations are probably a lot more interesting than guyed masts (-: in that they have quite a lot that could be said about their history, architecture, etc. Sure, right now there are a lot of station articles that don't say anything really interesting, such as Amsterdam (Amtrak station), Highland (SEPTA station), and Lewistown (Amtrak station), but most of these articles have only been around for a few months or less. As the months pass, it becomes more and more likely that someone who is interested in these stations will write something interesting about them, if the articles already exist. JYolkowski // talk 00:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
          • It's not articles on station buildings that have got me going here; it's articles that are clearly about station stops. Articles on station buildings are great; but it seems that for very many of these articles the existence of a building at the stop is more or less unimportant. As far as American commuter rail is concerned, probably half the stations out there, if not more, have no significant building. And the other thing is that most of the information that can be written about them as station stops isn't really a good idea to have here, because at best it can only be as good as the timetable information people are using to write these articles. Mangoe 04:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks JYolkowski, I found Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Masts interesting and useful. User:Tony Sidaway makes some intelligent and persuasive comments. However, he seems to miss the points about: a) encouraging and leading by example. If we create serious and brilliant articles then more editors will be encouraged to create more and more such articles. If we create trivia then more and more editors will be encouraged to create more and more trivia. And b) the credibility of Wikipedia. Wiki occasionally comes under criticism from academics and the media for inaccurate articles, vandalism of the articles, and the trivial and poor quality of much of the content. Editors who argue that Wiki is capable of containing information on everything in the world, appear to mistake Wiki for the World Wide Web. Wiki is an encyclopedia, as such the articles are more aimed at helping people understand topics rather than merely listing them. Certain individual items on a list - like certain train stations - are worthy of an encyclopedia entry because the item is notable, and an article is needed to help people understand why that train station is notable. If a train station is not notable, it is simply an item on a list. It may be that the list of stations in itself is not even notable. But certainly, in this case, we are simply talking about individual non-notable train stops. That the train stops have some information about them is indisputable. But so have pubs, shops and people. That an item has individuality is not in dispute - it's the notability that is. SilkTork 21:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please discuss: "Wikipedia is not a timetable"

SilkTork and I are working on a guideline proposal for station stops and buildings over at User:Mangoe/Wikipedia is not a timetable. Please join us there for further discussion. Mangoe 18:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Good work, I fully agree with this proposal after one addition that I left on the talk page there. Slambo (Speak) 18:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I've moved on to a different version: Railroad line and station articles to present the issue from a different angle. Mangoe 21:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Looks quite good for the most part. The only suggestion I'd make is to remove the section on "notability". People's definitions of "notability" can vary quite a lot, and asking people to accept a certain definition of notability increases the chance that people will reject your idea. As well, once we start labelling things as "not notable" you have people nominating them for deletion, which I think is definitely not something we want to do here. JYolkowski // talk 15:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think some of the articles ought to be deleted, not to remove information, but in the interest of better organization. And I think without some notability guide railfans are going to implement the "every name on a timetable needs an article" policy. While in the long run a lot of time and effort can be put into taking the information about a line and putting each place in its own article, there's also an encouragement to do it because in another sense it's easy: specifically, it requires no searching to get information. I say that because I see it in myself: works I wanted to use as sources aren't at hand at the moment, nor is the time needed to write a good article from scratch; therefore I'm largely devoting myself to housekeeping on existing articles, such as making sure that all the articles listed in the Class I box have an infobox. I like to think this is worthwhile. I've also added a "successor line" section to the infobox because I at least would like to be able to see at a glance what happened to a railroad. Nobody has objected or even commented, but if someone thought it should go away, I'd stop and consider.
I don't think that the notability standards about stations as buildings/structures are especially high. I do think they should be high enough to discourage a separate article about a platform with a ticket booth. Mangoe 16:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
This discussion has moved to a new version at User:Mangoe/Railroad line and station articles. A consensus seems to be forming and I'd like people to consider moving this into formal guidelines for these types of articles. Note that notability and other deletion criteria have been specifically excluded. Mangoe 19:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Looks good, good job. JYolkowski // talk 02:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I have created Wikipedia:Places of local interest to encompass these and other places of local interest. The previous discussion had some good ideas that I've borrowed for my proposal. I'd invite anyone to comment there. Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 15:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mumbai bombings

The 11 July 2006 Mumbai train bombings article has been listed as part of WikiProject Trains. However the, 7 July 2005 London bombings and the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings are not. I don't know much about Wikiproject trains so I'll let you all decide whether Mumbai should be removed or Madrid and maybe London should be added. Nil Einne 17:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The latter is the case, and they are now. Thanks for the heads-up. Slambo (Speak) 17:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are railroad bridges part of this project?

I've created and/or expanded several articles about railroad bridges, as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Bridges (and as part of an interest in the List of historic civil engineering landmarks). I noticed that Starrucca Viaduct was recently evaluated as part of WikiProject Trains. I don't mind or anything like that, but I was wondering if it's intentional to include railroad bridges in WikiProject Trains. If so, I have a number of bridges that could be added from List of crossings of the Upper Mississippi River, as well as one of my personal favorite bridge articles, Seventh Street Improvement Arches. Should these bridges be added and evaluated?

Also, does anyone have any suggestions for expanding the bridge articles past start-class? (Or, for that matter, Minneapolis, Northfield and Southern Railway, a local short line?) --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 20:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I think it makes sense to include railway bridges as part of the project. Of course, it probably makes sense to write separate articles only on bridges that have enough verifiable information on them to write about. As for suggestions, it probably depends based on the bridge, but old local newspapers might have lots of interesting tidbits. JYolkowski // talk 15:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
My own rule of thumb is that if the structure is or was used primarily for rail transport, then it should get the {{TrainsWikiProject}} banner. Railroad bridges are part of the railroad's infrastructure, therefore they are a part of the WikiProject. I'm still going through the various subcategories of Category:Rail transport to find articles that should have the project banner. I haven't yet significantly started into the station articles, but there are a few thousand more there that should still be tagged.
The most common (but not the only) reason why I've been going with Start class versus B class for articles is a lack of references. Also, when I look at an article title, I make a quick mental list of the subtopics that should appear as section headers, and if some are missing, I'll often default to Start class. The full description of the differences between the classes was developed (I think) by Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. I am definitely not perfect in my assessments of articles, and if another editor believes that my assessment of a specific article missed the mark, then it should by all means be updated with the Grading scheme as the guiding principle. For specific articles that I've assessed, a quick comment on my talk page is usually enough to request a more thorough assessment with suggestions for improvement. Basically, look at the article and determine what it needs to get up to Good article quality, then add whatever's missing. After that, work on getting it up to Featured article quality. Slambo (Speak) 16:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Locomotive engineers

Looking at Category:Locomotive engineers, I find that it actually lists locomotive designers. Could we consider renaming this to something internationally intelligible? "Locomotive engineer" has an extremely specific meaning in the USA and of course utterly in conflict with this (why isn't Casey Jones on the list?). Mangoe 20:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm changing this to Category:Locomotive designers starting tonight unless someone objects very soon. Mangoe 14:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
No you're not. — Dunc|☺ 21:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Off we go to a request for a category name change. Mangoe 22:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree Mangoe, it cannot stay as "locomotive engineer" as that's misleading in several countries. I like the "locomotive designer" alternative you proposed and have said so at the CfD. Gwernol 22:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request mediators or anybody really on a VERY silly conflict

Talk:Moscow Metro it seems that Moscow Metro is (un)fortunate enought to have one line that is officially denoted not by number but by a symbol. One user managed to keep a conflict and an edit war going on that has resulted in being the order in which the column with numbers appear in. Also helpful is his exreame stubborn approach. Can I ask that some more people come and help put a 100% FA article article out of misery. --Kuban Cossack 17:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: WP Trains task forces

There have been some comments about a task force structure for WikiProject Trains made in various talk pages. I've collected some of the ideas presented into a central location. Personally, I think it would be helpful for us to adopt a task force structure for further rail transport subtopic specialties. Please take a moment to review and discuss these thoughts. Thanks. Slambo (Speak) 22:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added a suggested list of seven possible task forces to start with. If you haven't already, please take a moment to review the discussion and add your comments. So far, I haven't heard any objections, so I hope to start implementing these ideas this weekend. Slambo (Speak) 18:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Hearing no objections, I've created two of the suggested task force pages. Now it's getting a little late around chez Slambo, so I'll come back to this in the morning to finish up where I left off. Slambo (Speak) 01:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
It's been two weeks since I started adding the task force tags into {{TrainsWikiProject}}, and I haven't seen anyone complaining, so I'm assuming a tacit acceptance of this proposal. I'll add in the other proposed task forces this week. Slambo (Speak) 17:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm a little late to the party here, but I just wanted to chime in that I think the task force structure is a great idea. --CComMack (t•c) 22:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal page for deletion

As part of an attempt to clean up links to impossible dates, I've nominated Portal:Trains/Anniversaries/February 30 for deletion, since it's unlikely ever to be used. — sjorford++ 09:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Result: the subpage was speedy deleted. Slambo (Speak) 15:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese Passenger Rail Service

Anyone has interest in Chinese passenger rail service? It is now the largest passenger rail service in the world, and it is still quickly expanding. However, the articles about it in wikipedia now are nothing better than a doodle. I wish more people can share their information about it and help improve the quality and coverage of this topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Changeup (talk • contribs) . 07:56, August 3, 2006

That's how much of the US coverage here was about two years ago when I joined in. I've noticed many more news items coming from that corner of the world, and I'd love to read more about it; I just don't have as many references for Chinese rail service as for other areas. Slambo (Speak) 14:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ghost Station

The article, Ghost Station has just been created. Can it be moved, deleted, redirecting so it may be Wikified an a bit more to the point. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 14:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Tagged with {{mergeto|Ghost station}}. Slambo (Speak) 15:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks like another editor did the merge today. Slambo (Speak) 19:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Nicely done. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 19:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ghost bridge?

Nothing to do with railways, I'm afraid, but this item did remind me of a ghost motorway! As a youngster, I vaguely remember a photo of a partially-built autobahn flyover in West Berlin, that stopped in mid-air, as it approached the wall. Did this really exist? Where was it? Has it now been completed?

Some years later, in 1982, I did briefly visit West Berlin, but didn't see it then, and forgot to ask.

regards, Lynbarn 19:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Betacommandbot

Does this bot only cover "rapid transit" as well as "trains" WPs? Many of the metro articles around th UK are "UK rail" articles as well. On, for example the LU, the DLR and the Glasgow Subway (not sure what shorthand is for this) Simply south 10:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I just spotted it on my morning look through my watchlist. It's re-tagging a great many articles that are already tagged, so I've begun looking through the logs for those that are listed as moved from X to Unassessed. The template supports listing several projects in each instance, so for these I'm just combining them into the one that is already there with a rating. I won't have a lot of time today since I'll be riding the Cumbres and Toltec Scenic Railroad (photos will come later, maybe Monday). It looks like the bot is still running since the Unassessed category is only up to the Ds now. Slambo (Speak) 12:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Is it okay that i have been addung "UK rail" to some of the metro articles in the UK? Simply south 15:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I will almost always include UK=yes if the subject of the article is in the UK. For example, Talk:Paddington station shows both Stations=yes and UK=yes since it applies to both. Slambo (Speak) 13:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
The bot has now removed many of the tags, including the parent project's on many of the tube and DLR pages. Simply south 20:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Potential rename to Category:People in rail transport

The related Category:Important people in rail transport has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for Discussion page.

This is just an FYI as I assume that members of the project may be interested in participating in the discussion. --After Midnight 0001 17:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New project

Hi, I am starting a new project called Underground. It helps bring all London Underground related articles to its best. Trains, depots, people, stations and lines. Hope you find this an interesting break-of of your project. Lenny 14:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whyte types - should we differentiate between tank & tender loco?

In reading some of the articles concerning locomotives types (eg 4-6-2, 2-8-2) I feel the combination of both tender and tank locomotive examples into the same article on wheel arrangement creates a degree of misinformation. For example, the articles on 4-6-2 and 2-8-2 discuss the purpose of the trailing axle to support a large firebox that is positioned behind the driving wheels. This is not true of a 4-6-2T or 2-8-2T tank locomotive, where the the firebox is either above the driving wheels or between the frames, and the trailing axle is there to support the weight of the coal bunker. If anything, a 4-6-2T has a more similar design to a 4-6-0 than a 4-6-2 (indeed, I can name locomotive classes where a 4-6-2T variant was directly derived from a 4-6-0 tender locomotive).

Could we consider revising the organisation of these topics such that we provide a separate page for any tank locomotive variants (eg the current 4-6-2 is split into 4-6-2 and 4-6-2T?) I appreciate this would probably represent quite a lot of work, both in restructuring existing articles, and also knowing all of the various tank engine types to add to the Whyte type category box.

Hmm, an interesting thought, and one that I'll need to sleep on. My first thought is that it might not be such a bad idea as long as enough new information could be added to the tank locomotive articles that is different from the tender locomotive articles.
On the {{Whyte types}} template itself, I'd been thinking about ways to reduce its overall size since it is already quite large. While it's easy to link to two different articles in one string (such as 0-4-0T), the resulting display on selected pages might not be optimal (to continue the example, it would display 0-4-0T on 0-4-0 and it would display 0-4-0T on 0-4-0T; that might prove confusing to new readers). If we're going to write separate articles for each tank locomotive type, it seems to make more sense to create a second, smaller navigation template for tank locomotives. Slambo (Speak) 02:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subsidiaries, branches and paper railroads

I'd appreciate thoughts on a question of article organization and nomenclature in major railroad systems. Many parts of the Pennsylvania Railroad, for instance, were owned by separate corporations entirely controlled by the PRR: for instance, the Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington Railroad owned the PRR main line south of Philadelphia and remained a separate corporation, selling most of its properties to Conrail in 1976 and being dissolved some time later. However, the patterns of subsidiary ownership don't always correspond to the "patterns of operation"; that is, the portions of line designated as various branches by the operating corporation. For instance, the Trenton Cutoff of the PRR was built partly by the Trenton Cut-off Railroad and partly under the PRR charter as a branch in Chester County, but was always operated as a unit. I'd like to hear people's opinions on how to structure collections of articles on these large systems so as to address both corporate history and actual operating patterns as branches. Choess 06:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Since you asked me to reply directly on my talk page, I replied on your talk page. HTH. Slambo (Speak)

[edit] Main page anniversaries

John Bull (locomotive) is listed on the main page today in the selected anniversaries section, so it may see some increased activity, including vandalism, today. Taking a quick look through the rest of the September anniversaries, Stockton and Darlington Railway will appear on Sept 27. Slambo (Speak) 10:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drums please

WikiProject Underground needs some more members to make the project usable. So I hope you dont mind me added a note next to the link to the project, after all we are still part of your project. Thanks Lenny 19:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC) Project Founder.

[edit] Good articles and GA requirements

It seems that a new consensus is being made on the Good article guidelines to bring it more in line with current Featured article guidelines. Specifically, inline citations may become a requirement very soon. That means that many of the articles that we currently have listed as Good trains articles will be delisted because their references are not inlined. While many of the current list use inline citations (such as on California Southern Railroad or Bay Area Rapid Transit) others list the references only at the end of the article (like CF7 or Grand Central Terminal).

What does this mean to us? It means we need to work through the GA list and get them up to snuff pretty quickly if we want to keep the majority of articles on the list. It also means that we need to get into the habit of using inline citations on future work to make the path to FA easier for those articles. Slambo (Speak) 20:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've been slowly converting some of the British narrow gauge articles to use inline citations, this will give me even more incentive to work on this. Gwernol 21:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've got a work list going on this task at Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Article maintenance task force/GA updates. Please take a look at the list and help update articles to use inline citations. A few of the articles are also severely underreferenced and need other improvements (all as noted on the list from my quick scan this morning), so any help would be greatly appreciated. If the cutoff date was today, our Good article list would shrink from 85 to 11! Slambo (Speak) 14:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

What's the correct protocol for correcting these articles with regard to inline references? Is the onus on the original writer (particularly those articles that have made heavy use of books or other non-online content in their references) to correct them? Or could someone else simply pick a topic, find a reputable source for each key point that needs referencing, and then update the article with inline references? Zzrbiker 02:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oregon Railway and Navigation Company

Hi, I'm a member of WikiProject Oregon and I keep running across references to the Oregon Railway and Navigation Company aka Oregon Railroad and Navigation Company, and I just wanted to see if any of you fine train people wanted to work up a short article on it. Thanks and happy editing! P.S. please move this request if there is a better place for it. Katr67 18:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New project task: Peer review

I've just added the pages and template changes for Trains project-specific peer reviews. Follow the instructions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Peer review to participate. These instructions are modeled after similar structures in other WikiProjects. Slambo (Speak) 12:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

And I've started it off with one as an example. Slambo (Speak) 12:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Station naming scheme

Hello all. Is there any all-wiki rule on how to name articles on particular train/railway stations? In most European countries for the sake of simplicity the local rail operators use local names in international planning. Thus the German DB informs of trains to Praha Hlavni Nadrazi rather than "Prager Hauptbahnhof" or "Prague Main Station", Belgian trains run through Warszawa to Moskva rather than through Varsovie to Moscu and so on. At the same time the naming scheme for cities is pretty clear that we should name the articles on cities with the English name where available. What solution should we adopt here? The question is by no means academic as my recent example of Warszawa Gdańska shows.

Another issue is whether we should include the descriptive of "station" to the name of the article when there is none in the real life. For instance, should the article on Berlin Hauptbahnhof be moved to Berlin Hauptbahnhof Station or not? What do you think? //Halibutt 10:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

'Hauptbahnhof is German for main station, so to include station would perhaps be redundant. Having said that, In UK-based station articles, the article is normally Placename railway station to distinguish from other types of station. regards, Lynbarn 13:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, frankly speaking we don't have any problem with stations located in English speaking countries, do we. //Halibutt 06:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I usually attach railway station to articles where it isn't perfectly clear that a railway station is the subject of the article. For example, Hannover Hauptbahnhof and Berlin Ostbahnhof would not need anything attached, same with Praha hlavní nádraží, as it is obvious they are railway stations. Fröttstädt railway station, on the other hand, is explicitly marked with railway station.

There's borderline cases of course, but my suggestion would be to omit the "railway station" at the end whenever it is a well-known large station (either some sort of Hauptbahnhof or other large station) and the risk of having a name collide with another entity is comparably low. (Hamburg-Altona railway station would be sensible since there could be a Hamburg-Altona article at some point, whilst Warszawa Centralna has a pretty low risk of colliding with a Warsaw-related article. As I said, it's borderline.) --doco (☏) 08:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

And this is another issue: should we stick with the WP:UE at all cost and move Gare de L'Est to Paris East Station, or should we rather stick with the naming convention used by the railways? I'd say the latter is the way to go, but perhaps I'm alone on this one. In the case of Paris it's not that important as the name of the city is the same in French and in English, but let's take Warsaw for instance. The name of the city is Warsaw in English, but the railways (both Polish and foreign) stick with the name of Warszawa Centralna and not Warsaw Central Station, Warschau Hauptbahnhof or Varsava Hl.n.... //Halibutt 08:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User reverting train edits

A user is reverting edits to train articles. Please look at Rebecca's contributions list at least back to 23 September. I believe the original edits improve the articles and the reverts make the articles worse. I do not want to undo the reverts myself but other editors may wish to do so. bobblewik 10:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I've wasted enough of my precious hours on earth reviewing the changes involved to wish, frankly, that both of you would keep your mitts off the railroading articles. But I would have to oppose the way you went through and systematically changed "tractive effort" units from "lb" to "lbf". The correct English units measure is "pounds". Period. I've looked at some of the other changes you've made (and some of the argument about them) and frankly I think Wikipedia would be a better place if you applied yourself to substantive copyediting and writing and eschewed your program of computer-amplified nitpicks. Mangoe 11:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
A few of them were on my watchlist and I've taken care of those that I agree with (and added {{TrainsWikiProject}} as appropriate). Some of the changes that were reverted were only whether or not solitary years were linked. Since I have no substantive opinion in that debate, I have left those specific changes alone. It looks to me like Rebecca doesn't like any of your units edits (I see a lot of edits to ship articles, for example), and this dispute is better suited to another location. Slambo (Speak) 12:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for undoing the reverts. As far as the other comments ('lb' v 'lbf' and formatting 'nitpicks') are concerned, I will copy the comments to wp:mosnum. That is probably the best place. See you there. bobblewik 18:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criteria for deletion?

The stub article Godavari Express, about a named passenger train service in India is nominated for deletion on the grounds (?) that it is "Non-notable listcruft". The article is labelled as being in WikiProject Trains, so what's notable in this field? Mereda 11:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Since it wasn't linked directly yet, here is the deletion discussion.
I would say that any passenger train service that has an official name given to it is notable enough to warrant an article. These names are printed in advertising materials; they are the identification of the specific service and provide a way to uniquely identify a service regardless of its timetable schedule or specific route. Unofficial names, however, do not necessarily connote notability unless the names have entered into popular culture ("Wabash Cannonball", for example, although I seem to remember reading somewhere that this name was officially conferred to at least one train service). Slambo (Speak) 12:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Aside -- I found the article on Wabash Cannonball after typing the above note. The train service was named as a result of the song. Slambo (Speak) 12:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that the small stub Bainbridge Northern Railway was nominated for deletion - see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bainbridge Northern Railway. I already voted "keep", but am still wondering if nominating this for AfD was reasonable. It's obscure, but that in itself is not reason for deletion. So far I can't find an AAR designation on the web for it, but I'm not sure where to look (I've tried the "B"s at the Railserve AAR listings [1], but so far haven't come accross it. They've got to update their serch function). Any thoughts about warrenting an article for such an obscure railroad? --Marriedtofilm 18:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not likely that you'll find a reporting mark for it as the railroad was no longer a separate entity when the AAR came into existence. I also voted keep on this AFD discussion; with the large number of edits from the nominator that have been reverted, I wonder if this was really another attempt at vandalism by this editor. Slambo (Speak) 19:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeouinaru Station

In case anyone is interested, there's an AfD for a subway station in Seoul, Korea, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yeouinaru Station. It's only a stub, but as with all these things, there's room for improvement. Anyway, I voted keep citing WP:AFDP about train/subway stations, but I'd be interested in what others from our project weighing in on this would think. --Oakshade 07:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ENSCO Inc. AfD

There's a railroad company called ENSCO Inc.. They appear, among other things, to make high-tech railroad signaling and monitoring systems. It is up for AfD (AfD page here). I don't know much about this company and if what it does is worthy of an article so I haven't voted yet. Maybe someone here can give their wisdom on this. --Oakshade 05:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've voted delete, as I can't see anything in the article that makes them notable. Someone from the US might know something more though. Thryduulf 07:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Locomotive articles and comparison of types

Right now User:Attilios and I are on the verge of another edit war over locomotive and the various related type articles, particularly electric locomotive. The latter has a section on "advantages and disadvantages". The problem, it appears, is that electrification in Europe (particularly on the continent) and in North America took very different paths. It is proving difficult to write this in a way that is acceptable to him and also preserves an accurate picture of the NA situation. You can visit the articles for a better picture of the dispute, but suffice to say that he has dropped this into the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias open tasks hopper.

What I would like to do is the following:

  • Move all the comparison of type material into the main locomotive article, with particular emphasis on how one type spuerseded (or did not supersede) another, and with particular attention to regional variation.
  • Possibly amplify the steam locomotive article with material on continental differences in the primary pattern. Also discuss phaseout of steam on the continent.
  • Add material on European development to diesel locomotive (right now it's pretty much all USA).
  • Add material on spread of electrification to electric locomotive (a chart of route-mi/km by year would be very nice).

We have a similar problem with railcar and the various multiple unit articles, except in this case the problem runs the other direction (the articles are very Eurocentric).

If people could comment, or better still, update the articles accordingly... Mangoe 21:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I thank Mangoe for having brought the dispute here. However, just a note: he wrote "write this in a way that is acceptable to him and also preserves an accurate picture of the NA situation". I want to say that I've never deleted material regarding US stuff (often added things to clarify that the view of the article conncerned mainly US situation), while He always reverted back my edits (I tried several version, all deleted.) I've recently added some material about electric locomotive history in Europe. Anyway, all articles lack stuff all around the world. The poorest is Steam locomotive: it should be renamed Steam locomotive in the US, as it is now. And all railway articles here are extremely sketchy from the technical point of view. Good work!! Attilios 22:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology list move proposed

Beland (talk • contribs) has tagged a large number of glossary pages with {{Move to Wiktionary}} today. Looking at his contributions list, I don't think it'll be too long before it pops up on WP:AN/I or similar discussion areas. In a quick search around the wiki, I don't see any further discussion on this matter, so I've removed the tag from the article. Slambo (Speak) 13:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added importance assessments to {{TrainsWikiProject}}

I've just added the importance parameter to {{TrainsWikiProject}} and created the associated categories. I marked all the articles linked from {{Train topics}}, this project's core topics, as Top importance. I've added some basic information on grading by importance to the assessment department page, but there's easily more that could be said on this topic. Tomorrow, the importance assessment counts should start showing up in the statistics as well as on the work list.

This importance parameter is to identify an article's importance to the Trains WikiProject and not to any subproject or task force. I plan to add subproject and task force importance parameters to the template as they are needed, probably starting with Underground since there are quality assessments there now too. Slambo (Speak) 14:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I've gone through the FA and GA articles and tagged them with importance=FOO depending on the subject's historical or industry significance. Subjects that are vital to understanding the history of rail transport worldwide and how it works (such as articles about the most basic topics in rail transport like rolling stock types, the largest railroad companies and the most historically and culturally significant topics) are marked as High importance. Subjects that are well known but not necessarily vital to understand rail transport (such as main stations in secondary travel markets, former Class I railroads and more specialized types of equipment) are marked as Mid importance. Subjects that are only well known by researchers in specific areas of rail transport or that are on strictly local topics (such as subway stations, one-off constructions of equipment or facilities that otherwise had no significant impact on the rail industry and short line railroad companies) are marked as Low importance. Only the topics identified in {{Train topics}} are marked as Top importance.
For those subprojects that want them, we can set up additional importance parameters that are specific to those subtopics to display in the infobox something like the following abbreviated example (using NYCS as an example):
Portal:Trains
 Trains Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale
Low This article has been rated as Low importance within WikiProject Trains
This article is maintained by WikiProject New York City Subway
High This article has been rated High-importance within WikiProject New York City Subway
Why would this be necessary? Articles could be more important to subprojects than they would be to TWP itself. For example, New York City Subway nomenclature is currently rated as Low importance within TWP, but the NYCS subproject would probably rate it as High importance within their scope. Adding the subproject importance rating would add the article to the appropriate subproject's importance category. Since the quality rating is consistent across projects, we don't need to split out parameters for class. What do you think? Slambo (Speak) 19:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me. What about importance criteria for biographies of railroad executives, like Henry Villard, James J. Hill, E.H. Harriman, and others in Category:American railroad executives of the 19th century and Category:American railroad executives of the 20th century? There should probably be criteria for those biographies, based on how important their railroads were and how much they contributed. James J. Hill, for example, would most likely rate a High within the Trains WikiProject. The others that are common names (like Villard and Harriman) would probably rank as high, I think. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 20:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
So far, I've been using the "critical to understanding the history of rail transport" rule of thumb in rating articles, and it's a rule that can easily be extended to biographies. If the subject is critical in the history of rail transport (such as Richard Trevithick, Matthias W. Baldwin or James J. Hill), the article should be High importance. If the subject is important and may be failry well known outside the rail transport industry but is not necessarily critical to rail transport (e.g. Cyrus K. Holliday, Leland Stanford or Nigel Gresley), the article should be Mid importance. If the subject is mainly known only within the rail transport industry (e.g. Webb C. Ball, John Axon or J. Elfreth Watkins), the article should be Low importance. Most executives will fall into the Mid importance category under this criteria. Slambo (Speak) 14:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I tried adding a sub-line like the example shown for LUL-importance since those categories now exist, but it didn't quite work like I wanted. I probably missed something simple, but just couldn't see it. I'll take another look at this update soon (unless someone else wants to jump in and get the sub-lines working). Slambo (Speak) 20:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now I've got subproject importance ratings integrated for both WP:LUL and WP:NYCS (although the latter project has not yet created the assessment tasks or categories). The LUL-importance parameter can be used to set the importance within WP:LUL, while NYCS-importance can be used for WP:NYCS. If you have any questions, please ask. Slambo (Speak) 15:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Passenger Trains

I just got done making pages for all of the Passenger trains in both Arizona and Virginia. I still have to go over them and make some minor corrections. I made two categories one for Passenger train stations in Virginia and one for Passenger train stations in Arizona. Im not sure which state I will work on next. John R G 05:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to delete Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Todo/Improve

A proposal has been made to delete Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Todo/Improve. I originally created this page as a place to list articles that need improvement. With the updates to {{TrainsWikiProject}} and the automatically generated lists based on parameters to it, the Improve page has become superfluous. Since this is a project-specific page, rather than going through WP:MFD, please join the talk page discussion there. AdThanksVance. Slambo (Speak) 12:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Last call!

Unless I hear otherwise, I will delete Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Todo/Improve tomorrow. Slambo (Speak) 13:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan to me. I don't see the necessity of maintaining two project pages when everything can be addressed on one. Erzahler 18:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The deed is done. I'm updating links now... Slambo (Speak) 17:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

With the Improve page now deleted, I've put some more time into the main project todolist page. This page is now much more useful, pointing to other categories and lists of tasks within the project. This morning, for example, I just added the unref=yes parameter to {{TrainsWikiProject}} to highlight articles that lack references, and added a link on the todolist page to its associated category: Unreferenced rail transport articles. When you've got some time, please peruse the todolist and work on items that are listed. Slambo (Speak) 13:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Slambo, could you take a look at a page like Northern Pacific Railway, which has an extensive list of references without citations. What I'm getting at is, maybe the "This article lacks references" should read "This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate citations", or something to that effect...? Gws57 13:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
The more I think about it, and after looking at a few more articles, the more I agree with your suggestion... standby... Slambo (Speak) 15:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Updated to "This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations." I was originally going to suggest a second parameter for underreferenced, as opposed to unreferenced, articles, but this solution is much simpler. Slambo (Speak) 15:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the stuff. Thanks! Gws57 15:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Limit size

Hi all. Do someone have a scheme of the limit size for railway vehicles in Germany and Russia? Those nations use a bigger encumbrance limit than most of Europe, but I can't find anything about them. I need these data for a new article for it.wiki. --Jollyroger 09:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Translation fix

Please, someone give a look HERE. If a native speaker can fix my poor translation, I will later move that to en.wiki and call for the Polski translation. This is part of a joint project to write articles on machines used both in Italy and in Poland. If someone speak Italian and wants to do a little translation works, on it.wiki we completed almost all the articles about the actual electric locomotives and coaches. Ask me if you want to bring some of them to en.wiki and find any trouble. --Jollyroger 21:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CfD help

Can someone drop in on WP:CFD#Category:Loop_lines CfD for a discussion on a rename of Category:Loop lines. I'm not sure what the right rename should be and would like an expert to point the discussion in the correct direction. Vegaswikian 06:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US rail stubs large, sub type ideas floated

The stub category Cat:United States rail stubs is rather large now: I've proposed some possible new sub-categories here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2006/October#US_rail_subtypes. If anyone has any thoughts, suggestions, offers of help, please wade in. Alai 06:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Update: {{US-rail-museum-stub}} has been created. Slambo (Speak) 11:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newsletter Proposal

Hey there. I've got a proposal: why don't we set up a Wikiproject:Trains newsletter, similar to the Wikipedia Signpost. Perhaps if we had this and filled it with a list of articles on the to-do list that are in need of work. As well as requests for editors to work on the to-do lists, we could have the latest rail news and Wikiproject:Trains news.

I would be willing to be the editor for the newsletter, although I would be looking for 1 or 2 willing Wikiproject:Trains memebers to help.

What do you think?

--Anthonycfc (talk • c • ama) Sunday, 22/Oct/2006 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing an example. If I can manage the time, I may be able to contribute as well. Slambo (Speak) 11:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the interest. Unfortunately, no-one else seems to be showing interest so perhaps we should back-shelve the newsletter proposition for now. Cheers anyway. --Anthonycfc (talk • c • ama) Sunday, 22/Oct/2006 (UTC)

[edit] Call for help!

Please can someone give a look at FS ALn 772? It will need some major tranlsation fixes. Moreover:

  1. the Littorina page redirects to a shell. Littorine were the italian motor rail car in Fascist years, and remained as a name for three class of italian motorcars FS ALn 56, FS ALn 556 and FS ALn 772.
  2. I don't know how the train box template works on en.wiki. I have hidden the italian one, but it is still there, with some data not present in text. Can someone fix that too?

thanks pals --Jollyroger 21:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added the first bits of {{Infobox Locomotive}} to it, but I'm not sure about the translations. All of the parameters for this infobox are described with two examples on the template's talk page. Slambo (Speak) 11:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I did what I could. Some data are still hidden, but I have added a line to explain what they are. I don't know if they could fit in your template. Please give a look, else we could add them to text. Is translation from italian ok? C'mon, I can't believe I got so good at it! --Jollyroger 14:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Reworked the article and polished it somehow. Is that enough to remove the cleanup tag and re-assess? --BrokenArrow 21:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New User - First Edit

I just corrected a small error on the Challenger (passenger train) page--all dome cars were not removed in 1970, only the dome diners and I have the relevant Official Guides as a reference. However, when I attempted to cite my source using the citation template, I couldn't get it to work. What am I doing wrong? Ehbowen 05:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. The problem was that you were using parenthesis (()) instead of curly braces {{}}. Slambo (Speak) 11:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matthias W. Baldwin vs. Matthias William Baldwin

Another editor has decided to move Baldwin's article so the title has his middle name spelled out rather than as an initial. I moved it back this morning seeing no consensus or policy for the original move, but the other editor has moved it back to the spelled out name again. All of the reference material on a quick check through my library refers to him with a middle initial, if it's included at all. I've asked the editor for his reasoning on the move, but I'd like to hear what other TWP members think of the page title. Is there a consensus for the move or should it stay at its original title? AdThanksVance. Slambo (Speak) 17:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

There is ample precedent for either scenario, so if Matthias W. Baldwin is what is in "common" usage, then that's what the article title should be with other name forms entered as redirects (no Matthias Baldwin?).--Lord Kinbote 17:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I've only seen it with W. and not William. I got a message from the other editor on agreement for the page name, and it will remain at W. for now, so we're back to Defcon 5 on this issue. B-) I'm still curious if William is spelled out in other references that I don't have access to. The ones that I've got all say W. if they specify anything for a middle name. Slambo (Speak) 17:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
on The Encyclopedia of Trains and Locomotives (by David Ross et al.), a very complete and reliable text (IMHO), it is stated as Matthias W. Baldwin (page 17, Lancaster 4-2-0) and later (page 23 Atlas 0-8-0) as Matthias Baldwin, but here the author seems to assume that the reader knows him. I would stick to the "W." version. --Jollyroger 23:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cincinnati, Hamilton and Dayton Railroad

Though I'm sure this is fairly far down the list of important train articles, the "Acquisitions" section said it was acquired by another company in 2063, which must be wrong. --GeoffreyVS 05:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC).

That was a vandalism from an IP, fixed --Jollyroger 07:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] New Resource (Timetables)

Just wanted to let everyone know that I am in the process of setting up a new website devoted to North American passenger train timetables as published in the Official Guide of the Railways. While it's not much to look at now, I'm hoping to add four to five timetables a week on a consistent basis. I do take special requests (as time permits); email me at the address on the main page of the site. Currently I have at least one Official Guide from every year from 1954 through 1971 except 1955; I also have one each from 1889, 1916, 1938, 1941, 1947, and 1950. I hope that I can be of some help to everyone in the future. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ehbowen (talk • contribs) 02:14, October 27, 2006.

Way cool, thanks for the heads up. Looks like a good start over there. I look forward to seeing a more densely populated database in the future. B-) Slambo (Speak) 10:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Divisions of major railroads

Is there a list or database online of the divisions of the major U.S. railroads? For instance, I found out that the Interstate Railroad is now part of the NS Pocahontas Division, but I'd like to know all the lines that form that division. --NE2 02:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I found [2], which is pretty useful but has some errors (for instance it lists one crossing as being B&O). --NE2 18:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that's pretty hard to deal with. Does anyone know if it's possible to view the data in a GIS viewer? It includes latitude and longitude fields. --NE2 18:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm still trying to figure out the names of the Norfolk Southern lines. The milepost prefixes seem to be used often, but are ambiguous: there are separate SA Lines in South Carolina (Branchville to Augusta) and Georgia (Savannah to Augusta). Can someone offer advice? --NE2 19:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about organization

The Clinchfield Railroad is now CSX's Kingsport and Blue Ridge Subdivisions. Would it be better to let Clinchfield Railroad cover the history and write articles about the subdivisions, or to put everything in the former name? --NE2 02:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I normally write articles on fallen flags as histories of those specific railroads and leave the bulk of discussion about what happened later to the successor line articles. For example, Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway covers the history while the Santa Fe was a separate entity, and BNSF Railway picks up the history from the 1995 merger forward. Slambo (Speak) 15:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two items of project matters

There are two items of importance that you might not have noticed with this WikiProject.

First, I've been working with another editor to get a bot that will automatically update the list of articles within the scope of the project for the Recent changes link on the main project page. On a weekly interval, the bot will build a list of all articles with {{TrainsWikiProject}} on their talk pages and store it on the recent changes list.

The second items regards a new entry in the project navigation box (which is now at the top of many of the project pages, like on this page). The Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Manual of style (MOS) link is the newest addition. Hearing no objections to anything on the MOS page that I mentioned many months ago (see previous discussions above), I made a bold move and moved my proposed page to the live address. The guidelines there are based on what I've seen in looking at almost 8,000 articles while doing the assessments. If there's something in there that needs to change, please speak up.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled editing, already in progress. B-) Slambo (Speak) 18:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image task force

I think there would be much value in this, there is certainly a great need to add proper images (photos) to rail-related articles and to replace fair use with free images wherever possible. Any interest?--Lord Kinbote 19:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, Category:Rail transport articles needing images is quite large (sure, it's still under 1000, but it's over 800 already). And that's just the articles that don't have any images at all. Slambo (Speak) 20:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Hearing no objections, I've created the task force page. Slambo (Speak) 15:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Railroad pictures

Hello all, I just wanted to put a link here to my collection of railroad-related photos: http://lensovet.rrpicturearchives.net; please look through the photos there and let me know which ones you would like me to upload. I will then upload the photos to the Commons using my license. Also, there might be some photos on http://lensovet.byethost12.com/photos/gallery2/; if there are any photos you would like to see on wiki that are there, let me know as well.

Thanks! —lensovet–talk – 05:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whyte type detail articles

There is a discussion at Talk:Whyte notation about the need for separate articles on each of the types listed on {{Whyte types}}. Please join the discussion there. AdThanksVance. Slambo (Speak) 11:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corridor Cities Transitway and Red Line (Baltimore)

FYI, I have two articles that you may wish to incorporate into your works. In both cases, light rail is among the options being considered. The CCT is in need of more information and the Red Line is in need of a cleanup. I added relevant tags to the discussion pages and have added a bit to the CCT, but do not know much more about either project nor too much about trains in general to provide much further information -- so I'm just passing on the work to you folks. Enjoy! --Thisisbossi 01:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CN article merge proposed

Another editor added the {{mergeinto}} template on Canadian National Railway suggesting that the content there should be merged into Canadian National Railway Company. Please join the discussion on the proposed destination's talk page. Slambo (Speak) 11:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed change to UK stations infobox

See Template talk:Infobox UK station#Bilingual station names for my proposed way to standardise the formatting of stations that have names in more than one language (e.g. English and Welsh names). Thryduulf 22:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assessing list articles

There are two list articles in the TWP "Requests for assessment" queue, but I'm unsure how list articles fit into the current grading scheme. Please join the discussion. Slambo (Speak) 14:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for anyone familiar with CSX operations

I'm working on an SVG map of the CSX network from the BTS data and other sources, and have a few questions about what they own:

  • Baldwinsville Subdivsion: the data shows the part from Fulton, NY to Oswego, NY as "NM" with CSX trackage rights
  • CL&W Subdivision: part of it at Lorain, OH is shown as "LT" (Lorain Terminal?) with CSX and NS trackage rights
  • Harrisburg Subdivision (high line in Philadelphia): does CSX or Conrail own this?
  • Landover Subdivision, Pope's Creek Subdivision, and Herbert Subdivision: does CSX still operate over the Northeast Corridor from DC to Bowie, MD and then south over the Pope's Creek and Herbert Subdivisions? The data shows the Pope's Creek as NS only and the Herbert as "USG" with CSK trackage rights.
  • Lurgan Subdivision: the data shows the line north af Chambersburg as "PSCC" - what is this?
  • Memphis Terminal Subdivision: is the north-south piece parallel to Scott Street owned by CSX or UP?
  • Niagara Subdivision: the data shows NS ownership with CSX trackage rights on most of the line between downtown and the Belt Subdivision
  • Toledo Terminal Subdivision: how far west from Hallett, OH does CSX own (jointly with NS?)?
  • Trenton Subdivision: are any parts of this owned by SEPTA?
  • Does CSX have overhead trackage rights over the Buckingham Branch Railroad from Clifton Forge to Richmond or only to Doswell?
  • Does CSX have trackage rights along the NS Guyandotte River Branch between Gilbert, WV and Gulf Junction, WV?

If anyone can clarify any of these issues, it would be most appreciated. Thank you. --NE2 23:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I currently have:

If someone can help me, I can complete this. --NE2 18:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Somewhat to my surprise, it appears that CSX owns the High Line. This is probably related to the pre-Conrail-breakup plan where the City of Philadelphia wanted to have the East Side Line pulled up entirely and reroute all CSX traffic over the High Line...nowadays, both lines are in fairly active service. The Trenton Sub runs over SEPTA Nice Jct. to Cheltenham Jct. and Neshaminy to CP Wood; north of CP Wood is owned by CSX, but SEPTA maintains the catenary and has dispatching control to West Trenton. Choess 04:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure about Neshaminy to Wood? [3] shows a separate CSX track there. Also, how sure are you about Nice Junction being the limit? It looks like the tracks are separate until Newton Junction. --NE2 09:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Also see [4], which doesn't appear to show any trackage rights. --NE2 09:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
If you aren't already using them I found the CSX state pages at http://www.csx.com/?fuseaction=general.state_facts to be useful for fact checking. Thanks for doing this, I think it's a definite improvement over the one I did. Kmusser 15:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion about disambiguators again!

There is yet another discussion on using "(U.S.)", "(United States)", or even ("United States of America)" as disambiguators instead of "(US)" as in current practice. Please join the discussion. Slambo (Speak) 16:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ashorne Hall Railway tagged for deletion

I don't know anything about the subject, but others here may be interested. --NE2 01:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like an interestng little narrow gauge railway. Did some Wikifying, added WikiProject Trains stamp and external links/refs. I'll do some more work in the next day and then contest the prod. Others are encouraged to make more improvements. --Oakshade 02:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is Rowlee Steiner notable?

The article reads like he's just a random historian. --NE2 01:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Renaming Debate

The article titled 'Railroad engineer' is subject to some discussion on it's talk page. Perhaps others with an interest in trains would like to put their input.

You can read the talk page but in summary, the debate so far seems to be:

  • any term without the use of 'engineer' in the title is preferable (e.g. train operator or train driver) as 'engineer' is misleading and confusing - they are not professional engineers, as is suggested by the use of the word.
  • 'train driver' does not describe in full such a persons role (they do not only drive trains)
  • 'railroad engineer' is misleading as such persons do not engineer railways.
  • 'train operator' is confusing as it is a similar phrase to 'train operating company'

There are some other comments there such as "some US regulations say it's called an engineer", but the US government does not determine Wikipedia naming policy and has no oversight over what terms are called in the English language as a whole (at least outside of the USA).

Anyway - get stuck in.--jrleighton 00:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The British train drivers' union is called the "Association of Locomotive ENGINEERS and Firemen". So it looks like the term originated in the UK and then went out of use there.

Exile 20:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of rail accidents

There is currently a discussion about whether we should set criteria for inlcusion of accients on the List of rail accidents page, and if so what the criteria should be.

The discussion is located at Talk:List of rail accidents/Criteria for inclusion, where your input would be most welcome. Thryduulf 00:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afd forKey of the Gulf Railroad and many others

This is an AfD grouping that might be of interest here. There are 33 railroads up for deletion (yes, 33). These are either of defunct railroads or ones that were just proposed. All the articles seem to only be excerpts from old Florida law archives and are not exaclty helpful and are frequently confusing as to indicate if the railroads were actually built/operated or not. --Oakshade 22:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Structure of categories

I've been thinking about the structure of categories for major railroads, like Category:Pennsylvania Railroad or Category:New York Central Railroad. Can I get some comments on whether the following is a good idea:

  • Only major subsidiaries get their own subcategories, which follow the same rules as the main category. For instance, NYC has the Big Four and B&A, both of which were known as those names after being absorbed into the NYC. The Nickel Plate category would not be a subcategory of NYC, since it was split off.
  • A single subcategory (maybe "railroads related to the New York Central Railroad") is made to contain every railroad company that the main railroad "had dealings" with - leases, mergers, ownership, but not trackage rights - so the Nickel Plate article would be in this category for NYC. These articles also go in the "state railroads" categories.
  • Another subcategory ("New York Central Railroad lines") is made for articles about lines - for the NYC, this would include articles like Niagara Subdivision and Dayton District.
  • Other subcategories, such as stations, bridges/tunnels, and passenger trains, can also be created. The names should be standardized.

Thank you. --NE2 07:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Since there has been no response, I'm going to start doing this for the NYC. Hopefully I'll find any flaws early on. --NE2 09:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I've completed the reorganizaton of Category:New York Central Railroad; what do you think? --NE2 11:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I give it thumbs up. n2xjk 15:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] London Underground

London Underground is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 02:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image for HSR-350x

HSR-350x is a recent Korean High-speed rail, developped by KRRI. I'm working on this article called Korean G-7, which talks about HSR 350x. You can help developing this article, if you like. Nevertheless, I need help uploading image for HSR-350x. --User: Jamesshin92 23:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lines vs. companies

I've been concentrating on articles about lines (Category:CSX Transportation lines, Category:Norfolk Southern Railway lines, etc.) rather than the railroad companies that built and operated them. I believe that they should be mostly separate, even where the extents are the same, since the railroad company usually had some operating history before the line became part of a bigger system. However, in cases where the bigger company leased the smaller one from opening day, there's usually almost nothing to say about the smaller company. In these cases, like Bergen County Line and Bergen County Railroad, should the railroad redirect to the line? (This probably isn't the best example, since the Bergen County Line has been extended.) --NE2 10:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a fundamental issue no one has resolved. This side of the pond, we have a long list of train companies operating on a particular stretch of track. But the stretch of track has a designation (eg SO400) but also a service name (eg Channel Tunnel Rail Link). But generally speaking only the latter has the article and the detail of the track itself (stations, tunnels, bridges, etc). Problems then come in when many services run over the same line (in urban areas approaching the main stations). I don't think there is an answer out there so bodge it but be consistent! Pickle 15:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Luckily in the U.S. there always seems to be a name rather than an alphanumeric code for a line, at least with one of the big companies. --NE2 17:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Towns in categories?

Category:Baltimore and Ohio Railroad includes a number of towns along the line. Is this a good idea? --NE2 20:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

While tending to the Indian station Kodai road due to an AfD, I noticed a similar issue with List of railway stations in India where almost all of the links are to the cities and towns and not the stations. I don't think it's a good idea and a bit of a time waster for both the eidtors and readers. --Oakshade 21:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge editor needed

There was an AFD discussion that affects a number of articles within this project's scope. The result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Key of the Gulf Railroad was to merge the associated articles into List of defunct Florida railroads. We need a volunteer to perform the merge on the articles listed in the AFD. Slambo (Speak) 20:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. station categories consistency

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 10#Category:Passenger train stations in Arizona is a proposition to have consistent names for the subcategories of Category:Railway stations in the United States. Posting here to alert members of this project. Tinlinkin 13:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: There is a large consensus (including myself) already to rename them into a consistent naming scheme. So far, it looks like "Category:Railway stations in region" is the preferred scheme. Slambo (Speak) 12:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Potentially many current rail transport GAs to be delisted from GA

After discussion over the summer about requiring inline citations and some time of very little activity on current GA listed rail transport articles, several articles within this project's scope are now likely to be delisted from GA status. I've tried to solicit assistance (see above) in September on improving these articles to current GA standards.

I made a list at that time of some tasks that need to be completed. Please take some time as soon as possible to "adopt" an article and help to get it up to current GA requirements. Slambo (Speak) 19:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

About 35 of the 46 articles have now been tagged on their talk pages with a polite warning of pending delisting. Slambo (Speak) 12:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Succession boxes

Beg pardon if this is the wrong fora. I've designed a set of generic succession boxes modelled on the Template:S-start system with the idea that they could replace the limited single-use boxes. I'm experimenting with this system at Union Station (New Haven). Is this something worth pursuing? Mackensen (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you looked at the New Jersey Transit boxes? They seem to have a nice system where the colors and terminals are automatically generated by the line name, and the template compares the terminal to the next station and removes the terminal line if they are equal. See Mount Olive (NJT station) for an example. If you can integrate this into your system (like most of the individual state highway infoboxes have become part of template:infobox road), that would be useful. --NE2 10:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that won't be a problem. It does mean a more involved system of templates, but we gain flexibility in the process. Mackensen (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Hang on, let me actually read the whole comment. That's an extremely complex system and might be difficult to imitate. I'll need to investigate further. Mackensen (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure we'd want to imitate that functionality in a general system. It would be difficult to modify and if it ever becomes necessary to move an article it could break in unexpected ways. Mackensen (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the problem - use an optional "system" parameter and subtemplates like "s-rail/NJ Transit color" with switch functions. For instance, State Route 76 (Virginia) calls Template:Infobox road/VA shield, which tells it where to get the shield image. If the state changed their highway shields, and new ones were uploaded with different names, only that would have to be edited to match the new naming. --NE2 18:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I do like a challenge. I'll see what I can come up with. Mackensen (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
If you'd like me to give you a hand, let me know. I've been successful in adding functionality to infobox road. --NE2 19:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

One minor thing to keep in mind is that there might be multiple stations with the same name on a system. An optional "prev_disambig" could take care of this - if prev_disambig exists, use prev_station (prev_disambig), otherwise prev_station (s-rail/system disambig). --NE2 19:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've got a working example up at Niles, Michigan. For reference, it calls the following templates:

--Mackensen (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I don't like how Template:Amtrak stations specifies links to the towns rather than the stations, which might redirect to the towns. Someone splitting an article about a station from the town could easily forget to change that template. There's also the possibility of two stations along a line sharing the same name; that could be solved by making the switch substitution "Union Station (Chicago)|Chicago" rather than "Union Station (Chicago)". --NE2 22:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't seem that likely to me that there would be two stations (cities, really) with the same name on the same line. If there were, it would be easy to disambiguate just by adding the state (i.e. Michigan City, Indiana or Michigan City, IN). The benefit of the table lookup in Amtrak stations is that it also ties into Amtrak line and Amtrak line2 for the terminus lookup. Mackensen (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
That's probably a good point. I still think it's a good idea to make it piped - if Footown changes its name to Barville, we can temporarily only change the one template from "Footown (Amtrak station)|Footown" to "Barville (Amtrak station)|Barville" while keeping Footown as an acceptable argument. Multiple arguments could cause issues with the elimination of identical termini (see below), unless we also run it through the stations switch before comparing.
I changed the template so if the previous or next station is identical to the terminus, the terminus line is eliminated. Niles, Michigan demonstrates this.
Another issue is with multiple termini; many NJ Transit lines do that (see Broad Street Station (Newark)). We need to decide what the most termini we'll have is (will two be sufficient?) and how to deal with the identical terminus elimination. We also need to either set a different line code for each branch or make optional terminus fields (NJ Transit's setup uses the latter). --NE2 23:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


This probably isn't related to the design of the templates, but how do we want to handle branches? On a system with many trains along a single line (like commuter systems, but not most of Amtrak), the succession is for lines rather than individual trains. But how do we handle situations where a branch service merges with the main line? I would suggest only including the branch on the main line stations at the last station before the split, but then we don't show all the possible destinations on the "to" line at other main line stations. There is also a possibility that no main line trains, only some branch trains, stop at some stations on the main line; the whole situation can become pretty complicated when we try to reconcile the divide between lines and services. And if we go by services, what happens in a "skip-stop" situation, if trains in the A-B-C-D order can go from A to B or skip B to stop at C, but trains that serve B always skip C on their way to D (or maybe only Foo Branch trains serve both B and C)? But if we go by lines, we need to decide where to draw the line and say "ok, these services coincide for long enough that we should choose the more major one and only list it" - because it's pretty clear that at Secaucus Junction we should keep at least most of the lines separate, since most of them split at Secaucus or Newark Penn, but what about the North Jersey Coast Line or Bergen County Line? --NE2 23:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

My thinking was to specify an optional "id" parameter in S-line which would be recognized by the backend as a different branch without affecting the overall line. Regarding the services issue, this comes up with the Michigan Services, because the Wolverine and to a lesser extend the Blue Water vary their stops. However, they still run over the same contiguous line, and we aren't providing a timetable service here. Mackensen (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
One specific issue that brought this to mind was the Long Island Rail Road. The Main Line travels from New York east to Greenport, but service-wise it is considered to be several different services. Most "Ronkonkoma Branch" (which is not the name for a stretch of track, since Ronkonkoma is on the Main Line) trains run express between Hicksville and Jamaica, so, with respect to services, stations like Westbury are on the Port Jefferson Branch. But line-wise they are on the Main Line, which is not even named as a service. So at Westbury, should we have succession boxes for the Main Line only, Port Jefferson Branch only, Port Jefferson Branch and Main Line, or Port Jefferson Branch and Ronkonkoma Branch? (We also might include the Babylon Branch, whose timetable includes the trains that use the Central Branch between Bethpage and Babylon. And at Babylon, what station do we use as "next" for the Central Branch? Bethpage, despite the fact that no trains from Babylon stop there? Or Hicksville, the first place they do stop?) --NE2 00:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I think I've got the handler working now. If you go to Union Station (Chicago) you can see it in action (sort of) with the Lake Shore Limited. Mackensen (talk) 01:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

We have a small problem: the single-terminus ends need to be linked in the switch statement or they will not be linked in the box. But then the check to see whether this is equal to the next station fails:

Terminus
   Lake Shore Limited  
whatever's next
To: [[ (Amtrak station)|]]
[[Chicago (Amtrak station)|Chicago]]
   Lake Shore Limited  
whatever's next
To: [[ (Amtrak station)|]]
  Lake Shore Limited  
who knows?

I'm not sure how to fix this. --NE2 02:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you're getting at. This could only happen where the junction occurs directly before one (or both) of the endpoints. Thing is, we wouldn't want to remove mention to either one in that instance, or the split isn't obvious. Mackensen (talk) 02:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually the problem happens wherever the junction is. If we don't link Chicago in Template:Amtrak line, we get the desired effect, but no link in the box for other stations (such as "whatever's next"). But if we do link Chicago there, it's no longer eliminated at the final station. (See the new second line in the table above for what would have to be done for the desired effect.) --NE2 02:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
One possible solution would be to make a new template that takes as arguments system, line, type, and which side it's on (line or line2) and outputs whether it's a single station. That seems very kludgy though. --NE2 02:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I admit it, I'm dense. I'm just not seeing the problem here. The first row appears to produce the desired result. Mackensen (talk) 02:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
But now, with your change to Template:Amtrak line, Chicago is not linked on the second line. --NE2 02:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
And the light suddenly goes off. Moment. Mackensen (talk) 02:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've added a third row. I think it's at least half-fixed. Mackensen (talk) 03:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Something I pled for in the NJ Transit succession boxes (and couldn't get consensus for or against) was making sure succession boxes are transparent and easily editable. While I like the uniformity that comes from the use of Template:Amtrak line and Template:Amtrak line2, it was very unclear to me, when trying to edit Union Station (Chicago), how to add a new line, especially one that was identical in route to an existing line and therefore (depending on style judgement) collapsible into one line (I speak of Illini (Amtrak) and Saluki (Amtrak), and Illinois Zephyr and Carl Sandburg (Amtrak)). It is also unclear to me how Template:Amtrak stations saves any time or effort over just using wikicode, because of the very high number of exceptions that will eventually have to be included in the template (including just about every station on the Northeast Corridor that I can think of off the top of my head. I beg you to reconsider, and allow wikicoded station links (minimally) in station succession boxes. Thank you, —CComMack (t–c) 04:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

As a proponent for the reverse of this, here's what I think: there's absolutely no need to have a single template for all agencies. Each agency can create its own template. There are really not that many stations on the NEC – there are a lot of commuter stations, but not that many Amtrak ones. I also want to point out that using a template such as this makes it much easier to go along a line and create station stubs for all the stops along the route. Wikicoded station links might be "easier" (though I don't think that piped links are easier or more manageable than simple template parameters), but they result in inconsistent naming and formatting, which is quite annoying to then go back and fix by hand. —lensovet–talk – 04:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify my point on station article titles on the NEC, of the 29 stations serving Amtrak, only one (Providence) is of the form "Name (Amtrak Station)". 5 more are redlinks. The other 23 exist at locations other than the one assumed as the default. I don't suppose List of union stations is shrinking either, and almost all of those are also "exceptions".
The property of template parameters that makes them more difficult than piped links, especially in context, is that you then need to wade through to the transcluded templates and figure out how they interact with each other, possibly requiring understanding knowledge of arcane wikicode (and yes, it is arcane, even if all of us here can understand it, because the average editor can't.) This is way more effort than should be necessary for a simple update like a station being closed or a train being added, which ought to be a task that we can distribute among our casual editors! Piped links, OTOH, are everywhere, and are usually a skill picked up by editors at the same time or immediately after learning to link with double brackets. Problems have already arisen on Union Station (Chicago); we can expect more there and elsewhere in the future. I'd just like the code to be robust enough to do what editors are going to ask it to do. —CComMack (t–c) 06:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
It would be easier in that way if we used a lot of sub-templates instead of the switch statement, since then a non-existent case would give a red link rather than a blank. --NE2 06:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time to respond to all of this, but I'll try. There are several benefits of the new system:

  1. Updating the system is done centrally, which reduces the likelihood of articles linking to the wrong locations, or articles having the wrong links.
  2. It does not require the user to know where the line ends, or where the exact station is located. In many cases, someone need only enter {{s-line|system=Name|line=Name|previous=City1|next=City2{{ and they get a line of markup with all the links pointing to the correct locations. Branches are a problem but a note of explanation in the right place can take care of that.
  3. These are stackable not only with each other but also for multiple systems. The manual of style has long favoured placing succession templates at the bottom of the article and when possible grouping them together as well. For Union Station in Chicago, for example, the Amtrak boxes can be grouped with the METRA boxes.
  4. The use of one common template system eliminates most opportunities for forking and guarantees a common presentation with minimal effort on the part of the end-user. It shouldn't be and is indeed not necessary to create separate boxes for individual systems.
  5. It helps enforce a common naming scheme. The {{{{{System}}} stations}} template suggests a user-defined default name format when no exception has been noted above. This could be tweaked easily to allow a different default naming scheme on a line by line basis, as is down with the NJ Transit boxes. Again, this reduces the need for end users to figure out where the piped links go, and also makes it easier to eliminate redirects (not necessarily a selling point, but not a bad thing either).
  6. Problems may develop, but we can fix them. Union Station (Chicago) looks fine to me at the moment; there's a slight problem with the other end of the Lake Shore Limited that I thought I had fixed last night, and which I'll look again this morning. Some actual substitution within the wiki is necessary if we're going to identify and address these problems.
  7. One more note. The exceptions on the Northeast Corridor need only be entered once, and then never again. Furthermore, if many of them have the City (Amtrak station) link as a redirect, then they'll still work until they can be identified and changed.

--Mackensen (talk) 11:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

On a different matter, I think I've finally fixed that nagging problem with multiple stops. Mackensen (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

And on yet another matter, I've created Template:S-jnct to deal with junctions. There's an example of it at Union Station (New Haven). Mackensen (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Would it be possible, like I've seen with person succession boxes, to combine the "Boston South - Terminus" lines - at least in groups of 3 and 4 - on Back Bay (MBTA station)? --NE2 21:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I've been thinking about that. We have to balance usability and complexity. I've got an idea about how to do it cheaply, though it's a bit of a hack. Mackensen (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, go look at Back Bay now. This will only work when the final destination is the same. Mackensen (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I haven't looked at how you did this, but take a look at {{BART lines}} for some ideas. —lensovet–talk – 05:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additional lines

Union Station has an additional line that could be documented... CDOT's Shore Line East. just adding s-rail and s-line invocations failed horribly so I am guessing there is more you have to do? Does CDOT need to be set up like MetroNorth and Amtrak are? ++Lar: t/c 16:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The short answer is yes it does. We (I) really need to document how this is done, although it's reasonably straightforward once you wrap your head around it. You need five templates to make the system work. Let's start with the New Haven example. You add two boxes:

{{s-rail|title=CDOT}}
{{s-line|system=CDOT|line=Shore Line|previous=Bridgeport|next=State Street}}

Now, that gives this:

Previous station CDOT Next station
Bridgeport
To: [[Template:S-line/CDOT left/Shore Line (Shore Line East station)|Template:S-line/CDOT left/Shore Line]]
   Shore Line  
State Street
To: [[Template:S-line/CDOT right/Shore Line (Shore Line East station)|Template:S-line/CDOT right/Shore Line]]

Which is pretty ugly and broken. However, it does link you to most of the templates that you need to create. I've paired each one with the equivalent example from the MBTA (since it's simpler than Amtrak).

When you've created those three you'll be prompted for two more tables, which define the left- and right-hand terminals for the particular line. Mackensen (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I actually had gotten the page to the point of displaying the red links in your example, but abandoned it. I should have done it in a sandbox instead, and will, when I get a chance. Ultimately, would this set of setups be done for every commuter authority? (METRA, SEPTA, MBTA, etc etc...) There are a lot. Who decides on the colors to use? (MBTA probably ought to be purple for example) ++Lar: t/c 08:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Some authorities like Metra use different colors for each route. For the others I guess we can choose a color from their logo, or a color that they use (like purple for MBTA). --NE2 12:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PRR Centennial History is out of copyright

The book was published in 1946. Any works published first in the U.S. and published before 1964 are out of copyright unless their copyright was renewed with the U.S. Copyright Office. There is a database of copyright renewals at [5], and the PRR Centennial History's copyright was not renewed.

Would anyone be interested in helping to OCR it for Wikisource? Someone has scanned it and uploaded it to [6]. --NE2 10:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming conventions - and vs. &

I have noted that most articles use "and" rather than "&", and I agree with this. I was hoping to cite something either at this WikiProject or at the manual of style that says that for an uncontroversial move of Wilmington & Western Railroad, but it doesn't seem to be stated anywhere. Shall I add it to the WikiProject page, or is it hiding somewhere? --NE2 10:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The Manual of Style, Section 4.2 Wording covers this -
Avoid special characters in headings, such as an ampersand (&), a plus sign (+), curly braces ({}), or square braces ([]). In place of the ampersand, use the word and unless the ampersand is part of a formal name.
Hope this helps. regards, Lynbarn 11:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, if you look back through this talk page's archives, there's discussion there on using the word "and" instead of an ampersand in article titles. Being such a longstanding practice, it's also on Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Manual of style. Slambo (Speak) 12:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks; that's what I was looking for. --NE2 14:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grafton and Upton Railroad

Hi. Long time ago I put a question on the talk page of this article which isn't answered yet. Does anyone know (or can find out) which gauge the narrow gauge line of the Grafton Centre Railroad had? Grtx, --Thogo (Talk) 12:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Since the book is sitting right next to my chair right now, I took a look in American Narrow Gauge Railroads (George W. Hilton, Stanford University Press). The Grafton Centre Railroad is discussed on page 418, but there is no mention of what gauge it used. Perhaps an inquiry to the Kalmbach Memorial Library would find the answer? Slambo (Speak) 12:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of cities that no longer have trolleybuses on AFD

This list has been nominated for deletion. While it is not strictly a rail subject, it is closely related. --NE2 15:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New patent search resource

I just read about a patent issued to Google for the look of the search results. What interested me more in the story and what we can use here is the Google Patent Search. The about page lists some helpful searching tips too. Slambo (Speak) 15:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I bet they planned that, so anyone that read about their patent would also see that they were doing good. :| --NE2 13:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:infobox rail line freight

I created this template for use on individual freight lines (rather than companies): see it in use on Fort Wayne Line. --NE2 13:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Algoma Central Railway nominated to lose Good Article status

On December 10th, Algoma Central Railway was nominated for delisting from Good Article status due to its lack of citations. Today I added seven citations from four sources to the article, however if anyone else has contributions that could help the article keep its Good Article status, please feel free to lend a hand! --Kralizec! (talk) 00:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Trains_045c.html"