Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Trains (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This page 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
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
 
TWP discussion archives
20042005January–June 2006March–September 2006June–December 2006December 2006–March 2007March–August 2007August–October 2007October 2007–January 2008January–May 2008May–September 2008September–December 2008January–July 2009August–December 2009January–August 2010August–November 2010December 2010–March 2011April–May 2011June–December 2011January–August 2012September–December 2012January–December 2013January 2014–
Three rail tracks 350.jpg The Trains WikiProject
General information
Main project page (WP:TWP)  talk
Portal (P:Trains) talk
Project navigation bar talk
Freenode IRC: #wikipedia-trains-en.
Project participants talk
Project banner (doc) {{TWP}} talk
Project category talk
Manual of style (WP:TWP/MOS) talk
Welcome message talk
Departments
Assessments (WP:TWP/A) talk
Peer review (WP:TWP/PR) talk
To do list talk
New article notes talk
Task forces
Article maintenance talk
Assessment backlog elim. drive talk
By country series talk
Categories talk
Images talk
Locomotives talk
Maps talk
Models talk
Rail transport in Germany talk
Monorails talk
Operations talk
Passenger trains talk
Portal talk
Rail transport modelling talk
Timelines talk
Shortcut:

List of EuroCity services[edit]

I've created this article, based on the list that was on the EuroCity pages, to try and make it more informative and current. It's a work in progress, so it's still incomplete and a bit messy - any contributions to completing the page would be welcome. I noticed that a number of people are creating new articles for specific TEE/EC services, so this ties neatly into that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtVandelay13 (talkcontribs) 16:58, 6 March 2013

Photo opportunity in Philadelphia[edit]

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

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

South Africa streetcars: double-decked and on tracks?[edit]

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

Double-deck tramcars were quite normal for Great Britain back in the days before everybody except Blackpool got rid of them. Blackpool still run a few of their old double-deckers - the "Balloon" cars of 1934/35 (pic). --Redrose64 (talk) 23:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh yes. Have a look at the article for the National Tramway Museum. Britmax (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
From what I've seen, Hong Kong seems to have more of them. In fact I was always under the impression they got most of them from their former colonizers. As for South Africa, didn't they use the second deck to segregate non-white commuters? I remember reading "Horsecars, Cable Cars and Omnibuses," by John H. White Jr. or something similar, and it had a picture of a double-decker horsecar with racially segregated decks. I would think the same policies applied to the streetcars. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Double-deck tramcars appear to have been the norm in South Africa. I have created a number of articles about them. They can be found in Category:Tram transport in South Africa. All of the articles have an image, and also a commonscat link to more images on commons, many of which I uploaded myself. Bahnfrend (talk) 07:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for telling me. I just added the WikiProject Streetcars tag to that category. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Station disambiguation (June 2014)[edit]

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

Subterranea Britannica discussion[edit]

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

Nomination for deletion of Template:Disused-stations[edit]

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

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

Leaflet For Wikiproject Trains At Wikimania 2014 (updated version)[edit]

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

Project Leaflet WikiProject Medicine back and front v1.png

Hi all,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

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

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

OHLE Heights[edit]

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

It's not constant. The maximum height of the contact wire is limited by the maximum extension of the pantograph. The wire is raised at level crossings, to a minimum of 18 ft 6 in above rail level for 25 kV AC; and the wire dips down below bridges where clearance is tight: there is a minimum clearance of 8 inches between wire and structure, and 6 inches between wire and train, for 25 kV AC. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Is that 6 inches above the load gauge top. Is there a maximum. I'm trying to work out if there is an overlap between current WCML and HS2, I suspect that at a height which gives a small clearance for an HS2 would still be reachable with the standard WCML W10 Pantographs. If not then bigger pantos can be got for WCML trains See FAQ. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I've dug out my little booklet, known, I believe, as the "Blue Book" (it has a blue cover):
  • Department of Transport (November 1977) [1947]. Railway Construction and Operation Requirements: Structural and Electrical Clearances (Third ed.). London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. pp. 6-10 and Annexure 'B'. ISBN 0 11 550443 5. 
85 pence for 16 pages and three fold-out diagrams. I think it's available online as a scan, although I don't know where: it shouldn't be, because it's Crown Copyright, which will expire in 2027. I'm sure that there have been updates, but the essentials will be the same since the dielectric constant of air won't have changed much.
Anyway, the 8 inches (actually 200 mm) is the Static Clearance, defined as "the minimum distance required between the live parts of the overhead equipment (under any permissible conditions of maintenance and when not subject to uplift from a pantograph) and a structure or the earthed parts of the overhead equipment"; the 6 inches (actually 150 mm) is the Passing Clearance, defined as "the minimum distance required between live parts of the overhead equipment and any earthed material or rail vehicle, or between the pantograph and any earthed material, under any permissible conditions of operation and maintenance of vehicles, track, and overhead equipment". The only indication of a "maximum" that I can find is the 18 ft 6 in (actually 5600 mm) minimum headroom at level crossings. If we assume that the rail vehicle is 4 metres high, the pantograph needs to extend to at least 1.6 metres above that. I expect that all pantographs in current use can extend somewhat further: in depots, for instance, where people might be working at high level, the conductor wire needs to be raised quite a lot. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Available online here. It is still subject to Crown copyright but may be reproduced subject to certain conditions. Lamberhurst (talk) 11:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
The max vehicle height for GC is 4.65m add the 15cm, comes to a nice round 4.8m giving a 800mm overlap between GC minimum and W10 minimum at crossing. As the smallest panto go up to 1.8 meters. It means that it should be possible to set OHLE height so that both could run on the same section of GC track on approaches to say stations, without modification. The rason I'm asking is that if the center 2 lines from DItton Junction to Edge hill where expanded to GC gauge to allow entrance to the Victoria tunnel, then the lines would still be usable by standard WCML trains, for BLOG HS2 Phase 2 Liverpool . --Kitchen Knife (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
What is GC? To me, that's the Great Central Railway. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
It is the loading gauge for High Speed rail see here Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
The answer seems to be that the rail top needs to be atleast 1.62m below the current floor. So using slab track it's is about 2.10 that needs to be dug out. WOuld have though it cheaper than building a new tunnel.Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Image removal[edit]

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

The articles are about the locomotives rather than the models. How do we know that the "livery and detail" are accurate? bobrayner (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Bob, thank you. That is just the kind of intelligent question that I hoped to have from the editor have before he deleted the images twice in succession without discussion. As someone who has researched Bavarian locomotives, I can confirm the models are pretty accurate and the livery corresponds e.g. to that in the Nuremberg Transport Museum where they have both originals and models on display. In any case, unless there is sufficient material on the model(s) to create a separate article, the locomotive articles are a reasonable place to display the images. Not dissimilar to artist's reconstructions of historic objects which we already use quite freely. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
We then need a WP:RS to verify that the models are indeed accurate to the originals. I think it's reasonable to use images of reconstructions when no image of the original exists, it does not seem the case here. AadaamS (talk) 12:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I think images of special livery belong in the article of the train company and not the article of the locomotive. There were probably many kinds of locmotives painted in that livery so it's probably easier to have a good image of a real locomotive in that livery and then state which other locomotives used the same livery. AadaamS (talk) 07:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
In hindsight the point about livery may be a red herring. The simple question is: is it reasonable to have a good quality image of a model locomotive in an article about that locomotive, especially where the real images are poor quality black and white photographs around 100 years old? My sense is that this is reasonable as long as they don't dominate. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I would rather be content with a poor quality image of a real locomotive than a perfect image of a model. In fact it is not necessary to have any image at all and I would prefer to have no image to having a model train image, unless it be an image of some kind of replica in a museum somewhere. An alternative to add detail would be to have an image of the blueprints for the locomotive, provided they are in the public domain. AadaamS (talk) 12:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
A greater issue with both those articles are that they completely lack reliable sources, I have tagged both articles as unsourced. AadaamS (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
And I think the images in those articles are of sufficient quality. AadaamS (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Mass creation of possibly problematic articles[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just to be clear, this was created June 28, 2014 and contains a timetable. It seems to be a timetable because it says when and where the train leaves and when and where it arrives. That's a timetable, right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
That looks like a timetable to me.
If we had infinite resources, then I wouldn't mind including timetable information in articles which are otherwise quite small, because we don't have the size constraints of a paper encyclopædia. However, in reality, timetable information can change frequently; enthusiastic editors often add ephemeral information which later goes stale, and we don't have a horde of editors waiting to fix errors in last year's articles; so allowing timetables guarantees that we present readers with masses of factual errors. Running frequencies are less detailed and less volatile than timetables, so I'd be OK including running frequencies as a compromise. bobrayner (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Superfast1111 certainly does require a bit of guidance. He's been on a creating spree as I've noticed this week on AlexNewArtBot's India logs. My only message to him is calm down. Last time he was on a spree, he was repeatedly adding a plethora of images onto articles of Indian railway stations and messing them up inspite of repeated warnings not to do so. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Anna Frodesiak, bobrayner, Rsrikanth05 - Firstly pls accept my sincerest apologies for my mistake. I seem to have mis - interpreted the consensus but no more. Marudhar Express was a tough article to create given that the train has three different routes for each day of the week but i'll go with bobrayner suggestions. Thank you for your help & concern.

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

No need to apologize. I'm happy it is all working out and that you are being so nice about it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
All of us make mistakes. Few of us accept and fix mistakes so quickly. (I'm still in denial). bobrayner (talk) 01:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Archive naming at this talk page is breaking the search function[edit]

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

right-of-way[edit]

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

Derailment in Montana[edit]

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

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

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

If the load had to do with the derailment, then more likely so. Are these exceptional transports (maybe an adjusted load gauge for the route)? -DePiep (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
These are everyday production aircraft subassemblies and components, not complete aircraft or parts of significant prototypes or anything like that. As such, from the aviation perspective they are not notable in their own right. Notability might arise if the accident has a notable knock-on effect, say to Boeing's ability to do business. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Let me advise Boeing that they add wings to their planes. Let me advise BNSF they stay away from air transport. Let me advise they push the "duck" button. -DePiep (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Seems like a footnote to the rail line article or BNSF article; while certainly interesting, it was just a derailment. Doesn't seem to have killed anyone, or caused any more disruption than any other derailment. I suppose it's only the monetary value of the lost goods is higher than usual. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I suggest writing an article on wikinews: in lieu of an article on Wikipedia. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks all, looks like consensus is against an article. It is mentioned in the List of rail accidents (2010-present). If you think that there are other articles that this should be mentioned in, please add the info there. Mjroots (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Convert hundredweight changes[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Move proposal: template {RailGauge} into {Track gauge}[edit]

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

Countries[edit]

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

Yes, country should always be mentioned unless obvious. English Wikipedia simply means that this Wikipedia is in English, not that every subject has a connection to England or any other English-speaking realm. Let's assume that it's a result of negligence rather than arrogance. AadaamS (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
So long as we put just one country (don't really mind which): whenever I see "England, United Kingdom" I am reminded of certain primary-school children who would continue that with "Europe, Earth, the Solar System, the Milky Way". --Redrose64 (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that there really is anywhere in the UK so obvious that a country name would be unnecessary. Take London, for example. There's also London, Ontario, isn't there? A more pertinent question is whether the name of the relevant county or equivalent should be included (as per London, Ontario, Canada). I note, eg, that the York railway station article says that the station is in North Yorkshire as well as England. Although I wouldn't suggest that stations in London, England, should always say that the station is also in Greater London, I would think that as a general rule county names should be included. Bahnfrend (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
For a non-native English speaker (such as myself) it's not easy to know whether North Yorkshire is in England, Canada or Australia. Do we expect readers to click through? For instance there also many settlements named York. So should we list county rather than country? As for London, regular use seems to be that whenever "London" is written, it's the capital of the UK that is meant, all other Londons are qualified with "London, Ontario" etc. AadaamS (talk) 08:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikilinks are your friend, see where [[York]]York or [[London]]London go to.
In {{Infobox GB station}} there are two parameters |locale= and |borough=. The former is for the place (town, village, suburb) that the station is in; the latter is documented as being "the lowest level of local government for the place where the station is situated". Both are usually wikilinked, so we might have e.g. |locale=[[York]] |borough=[[City of York]] or |locale=[[Kings Cross, London]] |borough=[[London Borough of Camden|Camden]] --Redrose64 (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Content of interest on Commons from National Library of Scotland?[edit]

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

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

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

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

AfC submission - 09/07[edit]

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

LT fractions[edit]

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

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

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

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

I think that the 5.95+1/2 may have been an attempt to represent 5 tons 19 12 hundredweight. This is just speculation. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. That must be right now I think about it. When convert supports it (soon), I'll switch 19.2 LT to 19 LT 4 cwt and 5.95+1/2 LT to 5 LT 19 12 cwt. Johnuniq (talk) 11:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)