Talk:Passenger car (rail)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Passenger car (rail) was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
WikiProject Trains / Passenger trains (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon
P train.svg
Trains Portal
Sel week 27, 2005
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. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
edit·history·watch·refresh 25 railtransportation.svg To-do list for Passenger car (rail):
  • Add images for each of the car types mentioned. (I've got a combine and a heavyweight obs, I'm looking through the rest of my photos for other types now.) (only really need a lounge car image now) slambo 18:06, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC))
  • Add any car types that are missing. (I think I've got all the major types. slambo 12:08, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC))
  • Expand to include car types and practices from outside the US. (Is there really any difference here? slambo 18:06, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC))
  • Describe the differences between heavyweight and lightweight car types
  • Objections from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates page:
    1. The lead section should be expanded to at least two paragraphs, and provide a summary of the entire article. See Wikipedia:Lead section.
    2. History section stops in the early 20th century. Should be expanded to modern day. (but it could still be improved with details on other modern technology advances)
    3. References are inadequate. The only reference doesn't seem to cover most of the content, and certainly not the more recent content.
      • However, as many of the articles going through FAC now are being objected to due to a lack of inline citations, this part of the references problem will need to be addressed.
    4. Units should be presented in at least metric units, or both imperial and metric, but not in imperial measures only.
    5. A lot of potential information is missing. <a>Who manufactures passenger cars? How many passengers fit in the average passenger car? What are the dimensions (length, weight, height)? How many are pulled by a train? How do they compare with passenger cars in for example metro systems or trams?
  • Add information on military uses of passenger cars and specialized passenger cars used by the military (i.e. troop cars, troop sleepers, hospital cars).
  • Discuss how newer technology (e.g. talgo tilting technology) and different design elements (e.g. lower center of gravity for faster trains) have been applied to passenger cars
  • Provide the range of weight for US heavyweights (75-100 metric tonnes ?) and streamliners (45-75 metric tonnes ?) and for cars in other countries mentioned in the article

Types[edit]

I'm planning on moving the "variations" sections back into the main car types section. Many of the cars in the main types section do not even exist anymore, while the "variations" are common today. Why separate out the new from the old? Don't understand at all. Fourdee 07:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

References? There aren't any (yet)[edit]

In case you're wondering where the references are on this article, there aren't any. This article is built from my own experience of twenty years of building models of American trains and railroads. As I find references that should be included, I will add them. slambo 17:21, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, there's a reference. Now that I'm adding more information on railroading practices outside North America, I need the references to look up the data. slambo 01:55, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

2005 copyright? Yes.[edit]

The Classic Trains reference is one that I just picked up today at my local hobby shop. As it's a periodical, the cover date (and therefore the copyright date) is a little bit in the future. The copyright date all over this publication is 2005, so that's what I put in the references. slambo 03:28, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Infantry cars[edit]

What about armoured trains and their infantry cars? I think the article should have a mention of those. Also it should be noted that sometimes various totalitarism regimes used freight cars to transport people, especially prisoners. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:39, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, military hospital trains as well. But, my original intent was to write about commercial and not military applications. I guess I could add a section on military uses... B-) slambo 02:08, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
Please do that. I think if this article is to be featured, we need at least a brief section on various military uses involving human transportation. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:35, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There's a start with a couple photos from WWI of hospital trains. Now I need to find some more information and photos of other troop cars, like the cars that were converted from box cars. slambo 19:28, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Manufacturers...[edit]

I hate to leave this section so slim, but I've got to stop now to have dinner. I will be adding more to those listed as well as finding information on others. slambo 02:43, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Featured article status[edit]

Okay, so there were a few objections, I'm working on them. Unfortunately, the entire discussion was removed from the WP:FAC and archives page, so it's a good thing that I copied them into the todolist here. Once I resolve these objections, I'll likely renominate the article. slambo 16:12, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

The discussion was restored to the nominations page in time for one more objection that I haven't included everything that I now intend to include in the article. Yes, I'm still adding to it; right now I'm reading through some additional source materials to determine what needs to be added. Now that we're past Thanksgiving, I should have some more time in the evenings to work on it. The FAC discussion is now archived at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations#Passenger car (at least for the next month or so). slambo 16:18, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
It's now at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/Index/November_2004#Passenger_car Petersam 19:45, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Could someone also add recent prices for a typical car? How much does one of these things cost?

I'd still like to see a mention of the smaller (mostly deep south) railroads that offer mixed service occasionally. Amtrak is not the only game in town when it comes to passenger trains in the US (aside from excursion/tourist) User:Pzg Ratzinger

Removed text[edit]

I removed the following text from the article:

==Seating plans==
The predominant floor plans are comprised of vis-a-vis resp. face to face seats, seating rows resp. face to back with split orientation (half in each direction) for trains operated in both directions and a combination of those principles. In regional transport we can find seats aligned with the tracks to give more room to the standing passengers. In scenic trains seats are beeing orientied some degrees to the window are used. Some design variants have curved banks of seats to form a lounge. Flip flop seats that can be changed from face to face to face to back orientation are not used much due to its weights and consequences of the additional mechanism.

While this information could still be valuable, I don't think it's worded very well here. Besides, the seating arrangements are different for each car type, and this text deals more with coaches than other types. It seems to me that seating arrangements are better described on the car type pages themselves and not here. slambo 20:48, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations[edit]

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. LuciferMorgan 00:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I moved the Talgo references to inline footnote style. The other references I'm not familiar with so I'll leave it to someone else to work them inline. n2xjk 14:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review[edit]

This article is currently at Good Article Review. LuciferMorgan 09:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Has now been delisted by 3-0. LuciferMorgan 11:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

  • This article is a substantial crap, because:
    • it's been written by somebody knowing rails only in the US and (which are far backwards than Europe in railway technology since decades) and Britain
    • when dealing of "modern" years, it gives much attention to "tilting" trains, which are dealt extensively in separate articles here, and little to technology of standard passenger cars used today
    • it has pictures placed so that they create much blank lines
    • it's bad written (sometimes using contracted forms such as "wasn't" which are not worthy in any encyclopedia). --Attilios (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The regional bias is an issue though all of the rail related articles - most people only known the trains they see every day, and since the UK and USA are big English speaking countries there will be more editors from those places. I'm Australian BTW. Wongm (talk) 01:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:OP-14522.jpg[edit]

The image Image:OP-14522.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

merge with coach (rail)[edit]

It's a no brainer - they are the same thing. I'll merge into this article since it's bigger, (and more people live in the US than UK? what do other english speaking peoples call them), also there is a presedent eg "railroad tie" over "sleeper", "switch" over "point" etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talkcontribs) 20:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

done that merge..

"More people live in the US than the UK" - arrrrggghhh!!! Give me something to bite on! As someone based in the US, this makes me ashamed of my fellow-countrymen because this is a typical arrogant American-centric viewpoint. There are MANY times more "International English" speakers (based more closely on English-English) than speakers of American-English. American-English, for example, is the only form of English that saw a unilateral change in spellings (thanks to Noah Webster for that particularly confusion).

As for this particular page, as a rail enthusiast of many years, I can confirm that American rail terminology is in the minority worldwide, compared with the terms used by rail experts who speak international forms of English. Please also remember that the American rail system is much smaller (on a per-head-of-population-basis than in many other countries - partly because America decimated its rail systems following the advent of cheap air travel). So this arrogant decision to merge pages in order to make "carriage" or "coach" subservient to the predominantly American term, "car" (which most of the rest of the English-speaking world reserve to describe an automobile) - is indefensible. "Car" WAS used occasionally in British steam-era rail terminology but is virtually unknown in modern UK rail parlance.

A generic world-view page should be written in International-English, majoring on international terminology, not American terminology. It is then perfectly correct - under Wikipedia guidelines - to have an American "local-view" page written in American-English and giving more detail using American terms (such as car) and using American spellings (z instead of s, for example).

It is virtually impossible to accomplish this level of detail within one page because the rail terminology in America is so different in almost every respect to the rest of the world. Besides car/coach/carriage, some other examples based on comparisons with UK terminology: switch (US) v points (UK); railroad (US) v railway (UK); consist (US) v rake (UK); switcher (US) v shunter (UK) ... I could go on, but you get the point.

--621PWC (talk) 06:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Help[edit]

I deleted the subsection 'parlour car' because it's duplicated in the section Passenger_car_(rail)#Coach .. however that section calls them 'compartment cars', and I though parlour cars were of the 'open' type. Can someone (from North America) check this so it makes sense both in UK and USA English (Canadians, Indians, Barbadians too etc..)

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talkcontribs) 21:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Also I've got to ask is Passenger_car_(rail)#Horse_car really a type of passenger car? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talkcontribs) 21:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)