Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains

The Trains WikiProject
General information
Main project page	(WP:TWP)	talk
Portal	(P:Trains)	talk
Project navigation bar		talk
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
Daily new article search	search criteria	talk
Task forces
Article maintenance		talk
Assessment backlog elim. drive		talk
By country series		talk
Categories		talk
Images		talk
Locomotives		talk
Maps		talk
Rail transport in Germany		talk
Monorails		talk
Operations		talk
Passenger trains		talk
Portal		talk
Rail transport modelling		talk
Timelines		talk

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:36, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Pacific Surfliner template

Hello, WikiProject Trains. You have new messages at Template talk:Pacific Surfliner.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Toronto streetcar system line articles

Resolved

 – Infoboxes have been fixed --DanTD (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Some of the articles for individual lines in the Toronto streetcar system have gigantic infoboxes that overwhelm the text and I can't see what the issue is in order to fix it. YSSYguy (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I've seen them all and can't see a problem with any of them--you'll need to be more specific. --RFBailey (talk) 06:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it is a User preference issue; I never bothered to have anything other than the default viewing preferences and when I open the 509 Harbourfront article the infobox is almost the width of the whole article; the 501 Queen article is better but also very wide; it cramps the text and looks very odd compared to other articles. I checked one other article (502 Downtowner) and it has what I would consider to be the normal infobox width. Bear in mind also that different screen sizes compress the articles but not the infoboxes. YSSYguy (talk) 07:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The usual reason for this is a misunderstanding of the |image_width= (or equivalent) parameter, which is found in most infoboxes (although variously spelled, such as |imagewidth=, |image size= etc.). In many cases they can only handle a bare integer, so |image_width=275 works whilst |image_width=275px gives unpredictable results (including either very wide infobox or very small image); use of the form with "px" can also put the page into hidden category Category:ParserFunction errors and sometimes even show error messages in red. See, for example, this old version of Nigel Gresley. No error message, but the image (and hence the infobox) are overlarge, and if you have (my preferences → Appearance → Show hidden categories) set, you will see that the page is in Category:ParserFunction errors. Try the current version: the image and infobox are of normal size, and the page is not in that cat. However, {{Infobox rail line}} (the infobox used in 509 Harbourfront) uses a special template {{px}}, which I believe fixes things to make the presence or absence of "px" immaterial. 509 Harbourfront has |image_width=275px, and not only does it display OK for me, but it also doesn't show in Category:ParserFunction errors either.

Another case I have seen is where a long image caption is used. Some infoboxes will word-wrap; others won't. One case of not wrapping concerns the very infobox under discussion. See, for example, this old version of Greenford Branch Line. No error message, but the infobox is overlarge, because of the long caption which doesn't wrap. Unlike the Gresley case, this will not throw any errors, so won't show in Category:ParserFunction errors either. Try the current version: the caption now has a forced line break (by using <br />) and the infobox is of normal size.

It so happens that 509 Harbourfront has a very long caption. For me, it wraps to three lines with breaks as follows:

CLRV #4152 and PCC 4500 rest at Exhibition Loop. PCC

4500 is operating on the TTC's 509 Harbourfront Line on

May 17th, 2009.

Why this wraps for me, but Greenford Branch Line didn't, is a puzzle. Do you see the 509 Harbourfront infobox image caption on one row, or three? --Redrose64 (talk) 12:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I tried to fix the images and that failed. Then I fixed the image captions, and it worked, although I didn't fix the 509 Harbourfront Line infobox the way you described. Any others that need work? ----DanTD (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

RFC: High Speed rail speed internal definition

I think it would be a good idea for Wikipedia to have an internal definition for High Speed trains, see the High Speed rail talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

PS currently I'm suggesting 200 km/h.-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Should station articles (the Services section) include trains-per-hour figures?

Following some debate on our talk pages where a fellow editor and I agreed to disagree, we agreed to put the question to the project group for a consensus. We agree to abide by the outcome. In summary, here are the major arguments:

Pro

• It is of value to enthusiasts interested in the services, not just for travelers.
• It already appears on many station articles: eg Marylebone station, Euston station and Manchester Piccadilly station

Con

• WP:Directory
• The timetables change typically twice a year and it will be nearly impossible to ensure consistent and trustworthy maintenance for every station at every timetable change. For example, few if any of the present records give a date of application of the timetable being used.

Discussion

Comments? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Its useful to know these things when you travel to places and it helps you judge how serious a train service is between two places. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• In some areas, trains-per-day may be more useful. This includes areas with few trains (northern Scotland, western Wales) - say, anywhere with fewer than one per hour. In some places there may well be more than one per hour on average, but with such an irregular frequency that to say 1 tph or 2 tph might be misleading. At an extreme case: the infamous Reddish South and Denton (1 tpw) - I note that in Michael Portaloo's recent TV series, in order to get to Denton (a hat for to buy) he got off a different service at Fairfield. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Perhaps a template could be devised, with an "effective until" parameter. Then some date test could be incorporated so that if the current date exceeds the "effective until", the page could put itself into a category automatically, something like "articles with expired information". --Redrose64 (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think they should have train-per-hour on station articals at off peak hours, also it is very possiable to have correct info as the timetable dates change twice a year, but the actual times will change rarely maybe a min of every few years, (well for UK trains anyway). Pth apper on alot of pages like Clapham Junction with 100s of trains a day, Wellingborough and St Pancras, it is useful for the reader.Likelife (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Replying to Redrose a "effective until" is a good idea at least people would know if this info is up to date.Likelife (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Mostly because Wikipedia is not a timetable, but also because tph is a weak metric from a practical standpoint. It's a planner's metric, largely used to decide capacity while planning construction or schedules, not practical information of use in actually determining the level and nature of the service. Do we calculate it by averaging over a day? Do we make a distinction between peak and off-peak travel periods? What about stations that only have "rush hour" commuter service? How do we deal with a station in Montana that sees 1 train every 2 days? Does calculating the numbers ourselves run afoul of WP:OR? In short, it's just not a practical measure for many stations, nor do I see it as being of interest to a general audience. oknazevad (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The thing is if I want to find the train times from London Paddington to Oxford I can look those up in the timetable trivially. However if I want to see where the trains from London Paddington go and what level of service is offered from that station is offered to a variety of destinations you can see that with this metric. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

http://www.nationalrail.co.uk is the website for you to consult timetables, you wanting to trivialy consult timetables does not mean Wikipedia exist to provide that service. Wikipedia is not a timetable, as an encyclopaedia, frequency information is already unnecessary information, let alone timetabling. Use the appropriate website to do what you want to do. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 18:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia should be a timetable like that. IMO there is a difference between knowing that there are two trains an hour from Paddington to Bristol and knowing that one of them leaves at 10:15. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Eraserhead1 really. Oknazevad I can only speak for the UK stations like Lakenheath only has a few trains per week, this is mentioned by saying "Services at Lakenheath comprise one train in each direction on Saturdays and three trains in each direction on Sundays. There are no services on Mondays to Fridays" (with timing afterwards) and yes we do mostly only show typical off peak frequences, and no we don't average anything. The typical off peak service is mostly only on stations which are served at least hourly, which yes is not that common for alot US rail stations. I don't want stations to have xx02 but just to say 2tph to Caterham for example. For worldwide stations this could be different as all UK stations have articles while some countries don't. I think a station page should be on just that - the station, but not just the building and platforms but how many trains do serve the station. Yes Wikipedia is not a timetable, but having the number of trains serving is not a timetable as it doesn't show times, but the frequency.Likelife (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If its less than hourly (assuming there is at least a daily train) you can mention the number of trains a day to a given place, which is still useful. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Likelife. To clarify my position, I say include tph figures as they are interesting and useful, and presented in a unique way. Do not upload entire timetables, I'm not sure who got the idea that was even suggested, as it would be ludicrous. Basically, here's what I think station articles should have something like:

• 1tph to Crewe via Stafford.
• 2tph to Birmingham New Street via Rugby.
• 3tph to London Euston, two semi-fast, one stopping.

That would be for Northampton railway station. Peripheral information could be added where appropriate, such as Northampton's lack of a non-stop London service, as could information about rare trains, such as the one-a-day Virgin Trains service there. Tom walker (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose -- but where do you stop? I agree that such usage information is relevant, and gives an indication of how busy a station is, but how do you cope with the changing patterns from year to year? How far back in history do you go? To be worthwhile you would need to show both peak and off-peak information, and for a number of years -- possibly since the station opened. Is the current pattern of operations any more notable than those of previous years? Who is going to update the n-thousand station articles on each timetable change?

Aside from if it changed notably I'm not really sure why anyone would be interested where you used to be able to go from a station rather than where you go now. And while timetables do change slightly every 6 months, usually those changes aren't significant. For example from Oxford they last changed the frequency of services several years ago - and if there are a couple of extra trains a day in the summer rather than the winter both sets of figures can be displayed. e.g. you say 4 tpd summer/3 tpd winter. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

For a station that only sees a handful of trains in a day, or month, the tph figure is significant, as it is for major junctions (eg Reading/Clapham) but for these a break down per-route is overkill. -- EdJogg (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm definitely interested in where you can go by train from a station. For example from Oxford there are 4 tph south and 4tph north - even though there is only 1 line south and 3 lines north, and that is interesting. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I've typed a couple of long discussions here only to abandon them. I really can't see the difference between the trains per hour that call at a station and where they go (not a timetable), and the number of platforms at the station. They tell the reader about the structure and function of the railway station. Without an objective measure (such as train-per-hour or trains-per-day), we will end up with probably unreferenced subjective measures such 'frequent', 'busy', or 'limited'. Of course the information does need to be referenced and dated. Edgepedia (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that is the best justification I've heard, and is enough to make me change my mind and accept that we should have tph. Though I'm still worried about the calculation basis. Is it max rate, weekday 24 hour average, or 7-day average? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Most the stations I'm involved with trains run on a regular 'clockface', so calculation is easy. Some published timetables even had a thick line, a hour's sequence of trains and then the words 'and the same minutes past each hour until' (I'll find you an example if I can), although that seems to have gone out of favour. A local station Ashford International railway station#Services shows the off-peak service, and with the irregular service to Paris and Brussels by Eurostar shown by the number of trains per day. Anyone got an example of a station without a 'clockface' timetable? Edgepedia (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hanoi :p. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Same mins past each hour - how about UK National Rail Table 1? Not clockface - how about UK National Rail Table 109? Want any more? --Redrose64 (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Every station should have a description of its services; in some systems this is done my mentioning the systems or companies that serve the station, while others will have a more extensive coverage. Any station article aiming for GA should at least contain a mention of all routes and companies (along the line used in airport articles). Once this has been presented, I can see two areas where presenting a per-hour figure is encyclopedic. First, a typical commuter rail stations, which has a fixed-interval services (e.g. one train per direction per hour, with additional rush-hour services). The other is where the trains per hour is the limiting factor (e.g. the line/station has a capacity of 24 trains per direction per hour, which is fully utilized during the morning and afternoon peaks). Otherwise I think the exact nature of figures like this should be dealt on a case-by-case basis, and include the calculation basis. The peak-hour information is important because it says a lot about the dimensioned capacity of a station. For instance, and article could state the peak-hour frequency and any other defining metrics that are verifiable over time. Of course, the more volatile the information, the less we should consider including it. In my experience, timetables (and particularly frequency) are for the matter we are discussing now almost entirely stable, sometimes over the course of decades. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll

Could we have a quick poll please, to see if there is a significant majority for one or the other. Just add * Yes or * No and your sig. I'll tally. If you want to comment, put it in the Comment section --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• No --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• No oknazevad (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• Yes -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, however wp:voting is evil Edgepedia (talk) 13:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • But this is a straw poll, not a ballot. However wp:voting is not evil. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Maynard Friedman (talk • contribs) 12 49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• Yes --Likelife (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, but only for the major terminals. Inactive stations: No. --Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 13:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

What's an inactive station? One that's closed completely? In which case I agree. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Stations like Mount Tabor (NJT station), Garwood (NJT station), Breakneck Ridge (Metro-North station) and Appalachian Trail (Metro-North station) are definitely what I mean by inactive. Closed counts too.Mitch32^{(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.)} 11:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Yes --Tom walker (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, where the article authors consider it significant, but not a mandatory requirement for all station articles. But dated using "as of xx, 2010" phrasing so as to make it useful, and cited to a reliable source. ++Lar: t/c 14:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, looks like the consensus is YES. I think we should also approve the provisos suggested by ++Lar and with an indication of time if peak and off-peak are notably different. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

3 Northeast US commuter rail related items

Well, these are fairly disconnected items, but I figured I'd save the bandwith and cover them in one post.

Firstly, I changed the colors at Template:MARC color for a few reasons. The big thing that bothered me was that the shades of orange used for the Brunswick Line and the Camden Line were too close, and could cause confusion, or present WP:ACCESS issues.

I don't think we need to be beholden to those colors anyway, as MARC/MTA Maryland has never been particularly consistent with them, unlike, say Metro-North, LIRR, NJT or SEPTA (though that's supposed to change, see my third item). The colors that were there were based on the map currently at the MARC website, but other recent maps have given separate colors to all three, or given them all the same color (as in the 2006 brochure I'm looking at as I type this). Schedules aren't printed with specific colors either.

With this change, our templates are now in line with the map at the main MARC Train article, which allows us a level of consistency.

Second item is also MARC related. While checking out the results of the change at Union Station (Washington, D.C.), the only station all three lines have in common, I noticed that the station succession box for the Brunswick Line has the terminus entry on the opposite side as the other two lines. Presumably this is to allow for stations that are to the east of the station to appear on the right, and on the Brunswick Line, WUS is the eastern-most station, while on the Camden and Penn lines, it's actually the western-most. All makes sense to someone who knows these things, but asthetically, it looks awful.

For MARC, a service where all its lines share a single, common terminal, an "inbound-outbound" dichotomy is a better choice. Just as all the lines converge at Union Station, all 3 succession boxes should converge on the same side.

Lastly, a heads-up for everyone. For those that don't already know, the Delaware Valley Association of Railroad Passengers is reporting that SEPTA is going to ditch the R# designations for it's Regional Rail lines in a few month. This is largely on the grounds that they don't reflect the operational reality of through-running of trains through the Center City Commuter Tunnel, which ever-increasingly does not stick to the R# pairing decided in the early 1980s.

I mention this because it just popped into my head while contemplating the MARC color situation, as, according to the reports, the colors currently shared by each half of the R# routes will be done away with as well. Generally, though, this is going to require a major overhaul of the SEPTA line articles, as essentially each one will have to be split in two. Associated things like the color templates for succession boxes will also need overhauls. It seems that we may have our work cut out for us, and we may need to start planning the changes now.

Anyway, just wanted to cover a few things.oknazevad (talk) 06:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The MARC Brunswick Line is in that position, because it heads east and west, and runs parallel to Amtrak's Capitol Limited. It should be left in the same position it's in now. ----DanTD (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand that, but my point is a MARC routes position compared to an Amtrak route, even one it shares rails with, is insignificant compared to its position relative to the othe MARC routes. In short, compare apples to apples.oknazevad (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not insignificant, because it's a question of direction. The Brunswick Line is still going outbound, it just goes east and west, compared to the Penn and Camden Lines which go northeast and southwest. ----DanTD (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's put it another way; If the Virginia Railway Express were to open up a third line leading from Union Station, and running southeast along the coast, the next station at Union Station would have to be on the right, regardless of where the Manassas and Fredericksburg Lines are placed. Or if you want a non-hypothetical example, you can just consider South Station, and even North Station in Boston. ----DanTD (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

When is non-standard gauge, standard gauge?

In the case of early historical locos, such as the Stourbridge Lion and the The Salamanca, what's the boundary between "standard" and "narrow" gauge?

Both of these examples were a few inches below "Stephenson gauge", but not significantly so. They had the same haulage capacity and curve radius as 4'8½" did. As they were also very early railways, these were the de facto standard gauge of that time and location anyway.

My concern is that clearly GF edits such as this are literally accurate, but misleading in the broader context of an encyclopedia. This wasn't a "narrowed-gauge" railway, where some standard gauge had been deliberately rejected in favour of a system trading lower capacity for easier routing or cheaper rolling stock, it was just a "standard-sized" railway pre-dating a firm consensus on the precision of the standard. While it's clearly necessary to explain this in the railway article, categorizing the locos in this way reduces their apparanet significance. With apologies to the WHR's humungous Garratts, "narrow-gauge" still has some connotations of the Skarloey Railway about it.

In the case of early lines where a "near-standard" gauge was used because there just wasn't a clear standard yet, I'd suggest we take a broad interpretation and treat them as being standard gauge, not narrow gauge, at least in the "soft" aspects such as categorization. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The edit was correct. Standard gauge is 4ft 8½in, no more or less. Any railway of less than Standard gauge is by definition Narrow gauge. Any railway of more than Standard gauge is by definition Broad gauge. Mjroots (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Task Forces

{{helpme}} I am proposing to create a task force called miniature railways for wikitrains project. this task force will improve pages about miniature railways and or create miniature railway pages.Manor 7812^☎ 15:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Please commonet on whether this is a good idea. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manor 7812 (talk • contribs) 15:05 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Task forces are generally a good idea. If a small group of editor wish to collaborate on a specific area covered by a WikiProject then a task force is a good place to start. A child WikiProject is a possibility if the task force grows big enough, or it may remain as a task force, as the members of that task force wish. Mjroots (talk) 10:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Canada should convert from 1435 to 1676

Currently in Canada, trains cannot run as fast as either in India or Russia due to standard gauge and non-electrified and single-track and wind, snow and grade. Canadian National Railways, Canadian Pacific Railways, VIA Rail and BC Rail should convert from 1435 to 1676 and double-track and electrification 25kV AC 60Hz. 121.102.47.215 (talk) 06:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The Chinese, Japanese and Europeans all use Standard gauge for their high speed rail lines which run trains at speeds of over 300 km/h (190 mph). Its only worth upgrading track from metre gauge (or similar) to standard gauge for high-speed running - which is why the Shinkansen uses standard gauge. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

But wasn't the Shinkansen built as standard-gauge from the outset? I don't think it was converted, even though older lines in Japan are 3'6". --Redrose64 (talk) 10:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right that the Shinkansen was standard gauge from the outset. I meant that it is different from the older railways in Japan and according to the railway museum in Japan it was built as standard gauge as it wasn't possible to build a high speed line with 3.6" gauge. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I have just reverted, as have other editors, the same silly edit by user 121.102.47.215 who does not see to want to cooperate with other editors. In the absence of cited references, this looks like an extremely silly piece of original research and I am of the opinion that an administrator may wish to have a look at some of the other edits by this editor, which are probably equally devoid of any factual base. - Zzrbiker (talk) 12:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Standard gauge is too narrow for Canada due to wind, snow and grade. 121.102.47.215 (talk) 12:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Any evidence for this? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

For high-speed running Its only worth upgrading track from metre gauge (or similar) to standard gauge or broad gauge, or upgrading track from standard gauge to broad gauge for high-speed running 121.102.47.215 (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

So any sources? Or do we just have your word for it? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Phooey, Brunel had the right idea, long ago!

It's only worth upgrading track from one gauge to another if there's a strong business case for it, and that's only likely to be true if there is an existing mismatch of gauges. Much more significant for increasing line speeds is the easing of gradients and curves, by which time you're really talking about a new line rather than an upgrade.

EdJogg (talk) 13:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

In addition: electrification for high-speed running 121.102.47.215 (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Rinkai Main Line

Template:Rinkai Main Line, which is a navigation template for stations of the Keiyō Rinkai Railway Rinkai Main Line (a freight-only line), is not currently used in any articles and contains numerous red links (in fact, only two of the stations are blue-linked). I have no prior experience dealing with these types of templates, so I thought I would ask here: Should the template be deleted or kept and added to existing articles? Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Add the template to existing linked articles if not already done. Redlinks are not a problem per se, see {{Dutch Windmills}} - Drenthe is all blue, Friesland about half blue, half red, the rest of it is nearly all red. Red links encourage article creation. Mjroots (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added it to the Keiyō Rinkai Railway Rinkai Main Line article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I added it to the two existing station articles. Thanks for the help! Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

52nd Street Penn Station(Philadelphia) coordinates

I've been having nothing but trouble adding the coordinates for 52nd Street (Pennsylvania Railroad station), because GoogleMaps won't let me focus the specific coordinates on it, and stupid WikiMapia won't let me make an outline of where it used to be! ----DanTD (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

There there was any failure. I had errors with coordinates today too.--Andrey! 21:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Old image for Chicago Railfans

I've tried to ask some people on the Ogilvie Transportation Center page, but nobody will answer me. So is this image from Ogilvie, or is it from Wells Street Station (Chicago), the other C&NW station? ----DanTD (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe I'll send it in an e-mail to Metra and ask them. ----DanTD (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

List of Shanghai Metro stations

FYI, List of Shanghai Metro stations has been prodded for deletion.

70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)