Talk:History of rail transport
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
See also: WikiProject Trains to do list |
||||
 |
This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations. | ||||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments) | ||||
| Top | This article has been rated as top-importance within the Trains WikiProject. |
1990s Amtrak introduces the Acela Express on the Northeast Corridor.
Why is this significant? (Not being critical, just don't understand.) Andy G 18:21 27 Jun 2003 (UTC) (UK)
(later) OK, found Acela article. Presumably it's the premier rail service in the Americas. Created Acela Express redirect. Andy G 18:30 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- Which someone has now flipped around: main article = Acela Express, redirect = Acela. Sigh....
- Atlant 16:13, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
-
- Acela Express seems to be the official name, even after the Acela Regional was renamed. --SPUI (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
From the article
1853 Indianapolis' Union Station, the first in the world, opened by the Terre Haute & Richmond, Madison & Indianapolis, and Bellefontaine railroads.
I'm somewhat confused by this sentence, is it saying that the world's first rail station was opened in Indianapolis in 1853. If so then Its blatantly incorect.
If its not saying that then what does it mean? G-Man 22:47 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I had meant the first UNION Station, i.e. where a single large station serves a city, rather than several smaller stations each operated by, and serving the ines of, a different railroad. chuljin
Why has the timeline been moved it was perfectly OK here G-Man 00:31, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- In longish articles, long timelines are typically moved to their own page so that they can be easily accessed from other pages. There is a List of themed timelines which indexes all of the timelines in wikipedia. That way there is only one timeline to maintain per subject, rather than parallel endeavors dml 14:24, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Redirect
Does anyone else think this should be a redirect to Timeline of railway history seem as its rather silly having two articles about the same subject. This article is a mess anyway -its a cut and paste job from several earlier articles. If no-one disagrees I'll do that. G-Man 23:26, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I think this article should be improved, not redirected. dml 02:15, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
A history article and a timeline are not the same thing. I've undid the redirect, as history article seems to have content not yet duplicated elsewhere. Article should either be left and improved or have all relevent content included elsewhere. -- Infrogmation 20:55, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think the article needs more labor history in the US and worldwide. In particular, I changed the Diesel entry to reflect that part of the motivation for introducing Diesel power was the complex and specialized skills needed for steam power and the resultant power of labor unions in the US and elsewhere. I think this maintains NPOV while opening a new dimension. Let me know what you think.
Edward G. Nilges (spinoza1111@yahoo.com)
[edit] Early History
I have altered some of the views expressed considerably. I hope that I have not gone against accepted wisdom, by misunderstanding what hadfield and Skempton wrote about Jessop. If I have, no dount some one will correct it. However before doing so, I would ask that the person who doies so should check the primary published sources, not secondary works based on them. If what I found (and altered) does reflect what is in print, there must be a difference of academic opinion, which ought to be explained.
I have not altered the statements about Germany, but I suspect that they are not quite right. The system used in German mines was differnet from the earliest used in England, according to Lewis. Peterkingiron 22:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I have started to add and redit this section, though I have not deleted anything.
--Train guard 16:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Purpose and scope of this page
The table "RAILROAD MILEAGE BY REGION" seems to be an isolated block of information and completely out of place here. Would it not be much more appropriate and useful in the US rail history page ? (which doesn't yet exist but will be extracted from the US rail page shortly ;-).
Given that there are rail history pages for many parts of the world, I assume the role of this page is to give a general overview and a comparision of the progress of rail developments around the world. --AGoon 05:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] James Watt
I am wondering why, if James Watt's engines were stationary, he is cited at the top of the section on early train's: could some one please tell me when his engines were first put into trains as this would be more useful and relevant. {unsigned comment added by 217.42.233.125 on 18 December 2006) (sorry, I don't know how to add that "the preceding unsigned comment" bit automatically).
- James Watt's engines were never put into locomotives, and if they had been he would have thrown a fit. He objected to trains altogether. The reason he's in the article is because his work improved steam engines conceptually and practically to a point where they were powerful enough to make putting on in a locomotive became feasible. Which is more or less what the article says. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 23:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] United States
Some history of rail in the US would be nice; at least a paragraph or two, as an introduction to the table of US rail mileage growth, which now appears to burst out of the middle of a paragraph about the birth of the London tube. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 23:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Photos
Please seee here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Merlin-UK#York for some photos from York Museum... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.255.157 (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] US rail growth...
The section 'Railroad growth in the United States 1830-1890' starts in an ambiguous way:
- "In 1830, there were only 23 miles of railroad track laid in America"
Does this mean that only 23 miles were laid during 1830, or that by 1830 only 23 miles had been laid, or something else?
I tried to corroborate the sentence with other articles, such as Rail transport in the United States, Timeline of United States railway history, Oldest railroads in North America and even Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, but I still couldn't be certain what was intended. (Which suggests that these articles might be lacking too.)
Could someone attend to this please? EdJogg (talk) 13:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
