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.

Vancouver SkyTrain station renaming

After my recent renaming spree of DART Light Rail stations, and Trinity Railway Express stations, I think the same thing should happen to ****(Vancouver SkyTrain station), such as King George (Vancouver SkyTrain station). Honestly, I just looked at the list of recent changes, and when I saw it, I thought of King Street (WMATA station). Then I realized I thought of the wrong name, but renaming them is still a good idea. ----DanTD (talk) 00:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Your best route would be to go to WP:RM, tag all articles (that is quite a job!) and leave notes at the relevant projects. Simply south (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep this in mind, and I agree this will be quite a job. ----DanTD (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

One other H10-44

There is also a Milwaukee Road H10-44 in excellent cosmetic condition at the Brodhead, Wisconsin Museum. It sports number 781 and was built in 1950. I have no indication of operational condition but it sits on an isolated track with Milwaukee Road Caboose 01900.

Separate articles for historical and current stations and lines?

With the current revitalization of rail transport in the NYC metro area, many formerly used lines are restoring passenger service. One such line receiving recent attention on Wikipedia is the Lackawanna Cut-Off, from Scranton, PA through New Jersey to NYC. With the newly coming service, I have 2 questions regarding appropriate placement of content.

First, should there be a separate article for the new service (to be provided by New Jersey Transit) be created - leaving the current article, Lackawanna Cut-Off as a historical artice; or should information about the new service be incorporated in to the existing article. I prefer having just 1 article, as the proposed line completely encompasses the historical line, and all of the historical contents of the article could be indented under a "History" heading.

My second question is regarding articles for stations. Many historical stations are now privately-owned and have commercial uses; however new stations are being proposed/built in the immediate vicinity of the old buildings. For example, the former station in Scranton is now the Radisson Lackawanna Station Hotel, and the proposed new station is a few blocks from the old. Do there need to be separate articles for Scranton (NJT station) and Radisson Lackawanna Station Hotel? If this distance would warrant separate articles, what if the new station was less than a block from the old? Or what if the new station was in the same place as the old, but did not utilize the old station building? Or if the old station has been demolished and a new station is built on the old site. I ask all these possibilities because all are occurring on varying passenger rail restoration projects in the NYC area. --Scott Alter (talk) 00:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no expertise in this topic at all, but just as a reader who might come to it to get informed, here are my thoughts:

It's already a lengthy (though very well-written and well-sourced) article. Personally, I would rather see a separate article created on the new service - because in the course of time, no doubt that will grow into a lengthy article all by itself. I notice that separate articles have already been created for the other rail and light rail lines that NJT operates, so why not do the same for the new line when it gets cranked up?

As to the various stations and structures, I think it would depend on how notable each one is in its own right, and how much there is to be said about each one. As a reader, if I wanted to something about a particular building I wouldn't want to have to wade through a long article about other stuff just to learn about that one particular place; the beauty of wikilinks is, we can make it easy for readers to jump from one article to another closely related one, without making them climb a mountain of words and pictures to get to where they want to go, right?

In the case of a building that once was a railroad station and is now occupied by a totally different kind of business, again how notable is/was each one, and how much is there really to say about each? And what name would a reader typically be typing in the search box to find an article about each one? If Bloomingdale's turned Grand Central into a branch department store tomorrow, I'd still expect to see a separate article on the building's extensive history as a railroad terminal. In the case of a small suburban or rural station, it might be better to leave past and present uses combined in one article - depends.

Since we don't have to worry about "killing trees" to make new articles, I think reader-friendliness should be a focus of your attention here, if you see what I mean. Just my 2c. Textorus (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Separate articles, with a linked mention or a "See also" link are the way to go, especially for well documented articles like Radisson Lackawanna Station Hotel. Perhaps both the historic station and the new station can be in the same article, especially if the old one is demolished and replaced. Getting photos and information about the old station before demolition is a worthy goal. There may be small stations in small towns where combination is more appropriate than in larger places. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool "front door" - WikiProject Arkansas

Howdy guys, it's always been a puzzlement to me why there doesn't seem to be as much activity on the Trains WikiProject as there is on some others, when I know there are thousands of railfans out there. I thought as one means of maybe encouraging a little more participation and interaction, we might consider imitating the very neat, easy-to-read way the Arkansas folks have got their front page set up: check it out. Just a thought. Textorus (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Railway stations

I mentioned this to User:Markussep who is diligentally working through creating articles on French railway stations. Shouldn't it be Castres Railway Station rather than Gare de Castres per WP:ENGLISH? Gare isn't actually the name of the building, its just the French word for railway station isn't it? I propose that they are renamed to ..... Railway Station. Any thoughts? Dr. Blofeld 16:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd say "Castres railway station"; as you say, "Gare" is just the French for "station". I'd make exceptions for those stations where the foreign-language word for "station" is part of the name in common English use (Gare du Nord, Berlin Hauptbahnhof, maybe Praha hlavní nádraží, etc). – iridescent 19:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

English title with redirect from the French title would seem to be a reasonable solution, with some exceptions as noted above. Mjroots (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I see there was some discussion about naming conventions for stations: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (stations), but it seems inactive at the moment. I continued using "Gare de X" titles because most of the existing articles had that, I assumed that was the consensus. Obviously I don't think "Gare de X" is bad, I wouldn't have used it then. "X railway station" or "X station" makes sense to me too. Markussep ^Talk 21:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

WP Trains in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Trains for a Signpost article to be published this month. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

And it looks as though it is in the next issue. Simply south (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Narrow gauge categories

Currently narrow gauge railways are categorised by imperial units e.g. the Category:Two foot gauge railways "...contains articles about narrow gauge railways with a track gauge between 1 ft 10 3⁄4 in (578 mm) and 2 ft (610 mm)." This is very confusing for the many lines around the world that are measured primarily in mm. For example, there are dozens of 600mm gauge lines that, under the present system, should be categorised as "Two foot gauge", but this is not obvious when creating an article, so the vast majority go uncategorised by gauge. It is also not clear why this type of category is useful: if we are looking for all 600 mm lines; it is not clear from the category which they are. Also if we start adding all the 600 mm etc lines to the category, it will eventually become very large and unwieldy - the 2' category already has over a 100 articles and this would more than double if we start adding all 600 mm lines. I would therefore like to propose the categorisation of mm-gauge lines by size (600, 750, 900, etc - noting that a metre gauge category already exists). Whether we keep the present imperial unit categories as they are (with a range of gauges) or split them into separate imperial sizes (2', 2'6", etc) is a separate debate. I appreciate this will result in a number of additional categories, but it will aid clarity and keep category sizes both meaningful and manageable. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK, the alleged "1 ft 11+1⁄2 in" and "1 ft 11+5⁄8 in" railways in Britain were, in fact, all 600 mm - an early engineer having borrowed European designs for his line, and the rest simply copied that line. Metric units were routinely converted to imperial by some engineers right down to the 1970s. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The creation of mm-gauge categories is a good idea. Countries whose railways used metric measurements should be categorised in metric (except standard gauge, of course). Countries whose railways used imperial measurements shoud be categorised in imperial. Mjroots (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is general consensus against this, I will crack on and begin creating the new categories. I will only create those where they predominate in countries using metric and were clearly designed in metric units from the outset, starting with the 600, 750 and 900 mm categories mentioned above. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I am against this change. The so-called 600mm in Britain comes from the time when wheels were double flanged and the gauge was measured between the centre of the rail. This is especially true with the North Wales lines. I do not believe putting 2 foot gauge lines into 600mm is a good idea. With this I am with Mjroots --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 06:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

But the North Wales lines would remain firmly in the Two foot gauge railways category, as the UK used Imperial measurements. On the other hand, the Chemins de Fer du Calvados in France was built to 60 cm (or 600 mm) gauge, and should therefore be categorised in a metric category. I've made a clarification to Category:Two foot six inch gauge railways, other Imperial gauge categories will need similarly clarifying. Mjroots (talk) 07:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Wrong the north Wales lines were not 2' they were 1'11.5" (597mm) gauge, so you will need another category.... --Michael Johnson (talk) 07:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

From the lede of Category:Two foot gauge railways - This category contains articles about narrow gauge railways with a track gauge between 1 ft 10 3⁄4 in (578 mm) and 2 ft (610 mm). Therefore we don't need a new category for 1' 11½" gauge railways, such as the Festiniog. Mjroots (talk) 07:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You want to abandon the principle of grouping gauges for metric lines but not for imperial lines? That strikes me as totally inconsistent. What about the many lines built in Australia to metric gauges but in an imperial country? Are we to see two railways of precisely the same gauge in two different gauges because of the historical measurements that existed in each country? What about railways that were built to the Swedish measurement system? Are we to have another group of categories for them? --Michael Johnson (talk) 07:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not say that I wanted to abandon the principle of grouping gauges for metric lines. Three Swedish Feet is as near as dammit 891 mm. A railway built to that gauge could be listed as a 900 mm gauge railway. There may be some justification in merging the 750 and 760 mm gauge railway categories, but that is another discussion. Mjroots (talk) 07:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If it is justified to bring together railways that are 891mm and 900mm, why not railways that are 760mm and 762mm gauge? --Michael Johnson (talk) 07:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

For the reason I have already stated below. Mjroots (talk) 07:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry I don't understand what the unit of measurement used by the builders of the railway have to do with anything. --Michael Johnson (talk) 08:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

So I see it is here that there the "consensus" to overturn practice of 4 years standing. The reason the "grouping" of close gauges was adopted is that there is almost no engineering difference between, say, a 750mm, 760mm and 762mm (2'6") gauge railways. In fact the equipment as far as gauge goes is normally interchangeable. The idea was to allow comparison between like, so that the curious reader could compare the different approaches taken towards the same engineering problems. I mean trying to split 760mm and 762mm gauges into different camps strikes me as just silly. In practical terms there was no difference. If you must go ahead with these "micro-categories" please leave the broad categories in place. --Michael Johnson (talk) 07:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

760mm is a metric railway. 762 mm is a metric conversion of 2' 6". Mjroots (talk) 07:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that there is something intrinsic in a "metric" railway. --Michael Johnson (talk) 07:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I see no consensus here - two editors in favour, two against, and one making a comment on fact. Please desist in trying to ramrod these changes through. --Michael Johnson (talk) 07:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoa! Let's cool it folks! The reason I raised the issue is that I translate lots of articles on German railways. They always refer to the gauge in metric - perhaps because they were designed in metric units - the round numbers (600, 750, 900, 1000) tend to suggest that. However the current system of categories is imperial and each cat covers a range of gauges, something not obvious from its name e.g. Category:Two foot six inch gauge railways covers all gauges from 2'4" to 2'7". That is not intuitive. To categorise a 750 mm railway an editor must somehow know that it measures 2'5½" in imperial units and that it fits into Wikipedia's 2'6" category because it falls in the zone from 2'4" to 2'7". And the reader of a 750 mm railway article clicks on its category (assuming wrongly that 2'6" is the imperial equivalent) to look for other 750 mm railways, only to find out that he is looking at a range of articles of different gauges. I can sort of understand the logic of grouping railways by 'broad' categories when we started Wikipedia up, but as the number of articles burgeons, I sense we need to expand the categorisation to cope and to be more precise and less confusing.

So the proposal is to group railways by their actual gauge. This gets rid of all confusion, making it easy to categorise and to find articles on the same gauge. There are various options including:

1. Categorise all by their correct imperial gauge
2. Categorise all by their correct metric gauge
3. Categorise all by their correct gauge, metric or imperial, the choice depending e.g. on the country of origin
4. Categorise all continental lines by their correct metric gauge; leave all imperial gauge lines in the current 'broad' categories for now

Having had no kickback (see above), I had started following the first part of option 3 in good faith - recategorising all continental lines to their correct metric gauge, but then noticed Michael adding back the current imperial cats. I don't have a major issue with this - keep them for the imperial gauge lines if you will. However, for now, I would just like support to continue adding the metric categories for continental lines.--Bermicourt (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Option 3 is my preferred choice. However, you may want to consider merging the 750 and 760 mm gauge lines into Category 750 and 760 mm gauge railways. The metric cats could be made into sub-cats of the Imperial cats. The issue of non-English feet gauge railways will probably also need to be addressed, per the 3 Swedish Feet gauge railways I mentioned above. Mjroots (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks that's helpful. I will proceed with caution! --Bermicourt (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pulling back and letting us all discuss this. First up let me disclose that I was involve in setting up the cats 4 years ago. Actually my preference was for the use of metric measurements, and that remains my preference. I get the feeling here, and I could be wrong, that part of the problem is an Eurocentric approach. That is the Germans had one type of narrow gauge railway, the British had another, and so on. My personal interest is in narrow gauge railways outside Europe, and the position there is much more variable. You can find railways with British, US, German, Swiss, Belgium, French, even Japanese built equipment operating side by side. But lets examine the main issue that concern me in the current proposals, the artificial division of gauges into "metric" and 'imperial". This is artificial and counter productive, as well as raising problems. Artificial because the adoption of, say 750mm and 762mm, was made for the same engineering reasons, even if the gauges are slightly different to each other because of the "rounding off" to the closest "whole" gauge in the measuring system that happened to be in force at the time. Counter productive because the reader is unable to make comparisons between the various systems with closely related gauges. And of course problematic, and here are a number of examples:

• The British constructed both 750mm and metre gauge railways, but in the engineering texts of the time described them in the imperial gauge equivalents. Do you put them under imperial or metric cats? Don't think this is a trivial issue, a majority of the worlds route kilometres of metre gauge was constructed in British colonies in East Africa, India, and Southeast Asia.
• Australia has been a metric country for almost 40 years. Are the constructions since then in 1600mm, 1067mm, 720mm and 610mm gauges (as they would have been described in permits and engineering documents) to be classified on the imperial or metric side?
• Metric countries often constructed in imperial gauges, for instance the Dutch in Indonesia.
• The gauge difference in each gauge "group" was so minimal that equipment could be transferred between railways, for instance the 750mm Egyptian Delta Light Railway and 762mm Indian lines, where locomotives destined for one sometimes ended up on the other.
• And how do you intend handling the Matadi–Kinshasa Railway which was nominally constructed to a gauge of 750mm but the line was built in its entirety to a gauge of 763mm because local labour couldn't get around the concept of gauge widening on curves.

Let's not forget there were definite trends in "gauge choice", for instance the swing towards 750mm/762mm at the end of the 19thC. It would be hard to observe that if the two gauges were split along this arbitary "metric/imperial divide. My proposal is simple, leave the groups as they are, and rename the categories to include the metric gauges, for instance 710-790mm (2'6") gauge railways. --Michael Johnson (talk) 09:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

These are all well-made points which need to be acknowledged. Fundamentally I'd like to see a more direct connexion between the gauge of the railway (presumably as stated in the infobox/text) and the category. It's about clarity and accuracy, especially for the reader. A 600 mm railway should be in a category for 600 mm railways. How we arrive at the gauge is preceding step. It would be neat if e.g. all English/US/Commonwealth railways had been designed to imperial gauges and all the rest to metric. The split would simply be by country of origin - some imperial, others metric. But reality is more complicated. I still think we come back to one of the 4 options above if we want to move forward. I personally favour no. 3: imperial and metric depending on country of origin, noting that although UK has nowadays gone metric, the railways were designed and referred to in imperial units when built. And where e.g. Britain 'borrowed' a metric gauge, we could categorise by it's British designation (presumably imperial) and explain in the category notes that e.g. 1'11½" is the imperial size used by countries that imported the 600 mm gauge. In essence what I am saying is why don't we use the terminology of the country of origin. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we should look at the categories for metric gauges. I'm putting the following up for discussion -

Category

400 mm gauge railways

500 mm gauge railways

600 mm gauge railways

700 mm gauge railways

750 and 760 mm gauge railways

800 mm gauge railways - covering 785 mm and 800 mm gauge railways

900 mm gauge railways - covering 900 and 950 mm gauge railways

Metre gauge railways - covering metre, 1,009 and 1050 mm gauge railways.

Other categories may be needed. Those railways with gauges measured in non-imperial feet should stay in the equivalent Imperial category. Mjroots (talk) 09:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I am with Mjroots here, and would suggest that North Wales is an area where an Imperial category is required. AKAIK North Wales did not 'borrow' a metric gauge, rather previously used an imperial gauge for double flange wheels of 2 foot between rail centres. As waggons got bigger, rails got bigger and single flanged wheels were introduced the (just under) two foot guage emerged. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 20:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

EMD SD40-2 loco article merge

A thread has been raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Locomotives task force#SD40-2 Merge, a talk page which doesn't seem to have much activity, probably few watchers. Could any GM/EMD specialists please take a look? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Copy of the LTF post. "Can you take a look at my merge of the articles, EMD SD40-2(main article), EMD SD40-2W, EMD SD40-2S. The merged article is in here. Thanks" --intelati1^(Call) 19:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll merge the articles in one day, If nobody has an objection.--intelati^(Call) 23:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

 DoneRedirected SD40-2W and SD40-2S to the respective sections. Please review.--intelati^(Call) 15:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

EMD FP7 images

I guess it's EMD day at TWP ;). I've raised a question about images at Talk:EMD FP7; it's something I'd rather not do off my own bat. Comments appreciated. Mackensen (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:S-rail/lines

I have proposed the icons be removed from this template per WP:ICONDECORATION . Please discuss Gnevin (talk) 11:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyone care if I remove these icons? Gnevin (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you should. If you're wondering why I haven't replied to this, it's because I can't find the discussion you were talking about. ----DanTD (talk) 22:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There was an edit request at Template_talk:S-rail/lines which lead to this discussion. Why do you oppose Gnevin (talk) 23:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The logos help to make the infoboxes unique, and a little more pleasing to the eye. ----DanTD (talk) 01:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:ICONDECORATION say we shouldn't add icons just to make thing look good as one man's pleasing icon is a other man's eye sore Gnevin (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:ICONDECORATION is a moderately contentious guideline (as opposed to policy) that is ignored in practice (by consensus) in many articles. I tend to believe its development suffered from limited consensus among a few contributors, those who tend to see icons as eyesores. After all, if one has no problem with them, why would they contribute to a guideline calling for their removal. I don't favor using it, as the broad consensus of practice tells me the broader community doesn't see their removal as necessary. oknazevad (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:ICONDECORATION is a widely accepted guideline with a wide consensus across the community. It is also a highly stable guideline which would indicate its not contentious . The number of articles and wikiproject choosing to ignore this MOS is decreasing day by day. Typically people can't counter the arguments put forward by WP:ICONDECORATION and so instead attempt to muddy the waters by claiming limited con etc. This is simply not true Gnevin (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:ICONDECORATION permits purely decorative icons that "have a useful purpose in providing navigational or layout cues outside of article prose".

In the UK we have something over two dozen passenger train operators. Some of them have logos that are more easily recognised than others, partly because of the geographic area covered, partly due to the length of time each has been in use. But icons need not be present in order to distinguish between different operators - they may indicate the type of service. See, for example, Ealing Broadway station#External links where the s-rail box has three different icons. Of these, the first is for "London Underground" services, a single operator but with two completely separate lines (this logo has been around since 1913 but with periodic changes); the second is for "National Rail" services, provided in this case by two different operators (this logo has been in common use since 1966 without alteration, apart from colour); the third represents a new route presently under construction, which will be partly underground, partly surface. The first two of these are, I believe, recognisable enough to provide a "navigational cue outside of article prose"; and whilst the third is not yet in everyday use, it may well become as well known (in the London area at least) as the other two. In such cases, if the icons are small, and free-use (ie they are not subject to the restrictions of WP:NFCC), I don't have a problem with them. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"have a useful purpose in providing navigational or layout cues outside of article prose" only applies when your are navigating. In the cases you highlighted have no navigation. The words beside the pointless icons do a far better job of distinguishing which operator is which. All that being said. I've found it is pointless to discuss icons with people who are so set in there position so I will leave it be. Gnevin (talk) 12:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:ICONDECORATION as written is open to a degree of interpretation, perhaps deliberately so. I can imagine situations where icons just become irritating, although I haven't seen any. In this case I think the icons reinforce the words - one of the benefits of images - and they are not unduly intrusive IMHO. --Bermicourt (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Marshall (Amtrak station) & T&P Depot revisited

This issue has been on and off my mind for the past three years, but I still think that there should be a merger between the Marshall (Amtrak station) and T&P Depot articles. More specifically, I think the T&P Depot should be a chapter of the Marshall Amtrak station article. Let's face it; they even have the same address. ----DanTD (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE I just tried it with this edit. Reverse it if you must, but let me know of your opinion of it. ----DanTD (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. The same station, completely. I say merge away. Though, the name should likely not be under Marshall (Amtrak station), as it has a proper name. The Amtrak station name can be a redirect. 15:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I almost got ready to do it, but there are some conflicting coordinates involving both articles. ----DanTD (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I personally agree that the merge should go in the opposite direction, especially considering the relative impermanence of Amtrak stops. But shouldn't "T&P Depot' (a) be spelled out, and (b) be disambiguated according to place? I find it hard to believe that there is only one surviving Texas & Pacific station. Mangoe (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the person who wrote the article must not count the station in Fort Worth. Unfortunatley, he left along time ago. ----DanTD (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: I just found three other Texas and Pacific Railroad Depots, and added the one in Marshall. Maybe there are more, I don't know. You'd have to ask an expert about this. RI-Bill, if you're reading this, I'm looking in your direction. ----DanTD (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE #2: DONE. But before I merged them, I found that the coordinates given for the station in the Amtrak article were way off, and the one for the T&P article were right on target. ----DanTD (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Coal tipple

A coal tipple is a structure used to load coal into railroad hopper cars, or sometimes barges or trucks, but there is no article on it. I did not find much from a Google search, but I hope some other editor will follow up on this. The tipple article is a disambiguation page. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Is coal drop what you're looking for? --Bermicourt (talk) 22:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

No. A tippler holds the wagon and turns it over to empty it. I think they were used for materials other than coal too. Some of the coaling towers in Britain were effectively tipplers, since the wagon was lifted on a platform up the side of the tower, and then tipped over at the top, the coal falling into dispensing hoppers beneath. British Rail(ways) made a variant of its 16T mineral wagon specifically for tippling: it had no doors (usually they had a combination of side/end and bottom doors) and was marked 'Ore Tippler' on the side.

OK, that was from memory. Looking at David Larkin's book "Working Wagons (Volume 1 1968-73)", Section 9 covers the BR 27T Iron Ore Tippler wagons, of which some 9000 were built, mostly for iron ore, but some for chalk traffic. And they were based on the 16T mineral, with heavier-duty running gear (iron ore is heavy, compared to coal!) and marked "Iron Ore Tippler". Larkin notes that despite the fact that tipplers had been around for some time, few purpose-built wagons were built before Nationalisation. No pictures of the tippler equipment though.

EdJogg (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Based on a quick internet scan, "coal tipple" seems to be purely a US term. Not sure if it's the equivalent of what you're describing though - it seems to have a range of meanings: a structure for (sorting and) loading coal, a place where "mine cars" were tipped and emptied... Needs some research. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Notification of AN discussion regarding Template:Trainweb

There is a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard regarding {{trainweb}}. Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs) is starting to tag files to be deleted in a week and some have been removed from articles. What should we do here? — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 18:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• This is probably as good a time as any to revisit the use of those images and see about replacing them when possible. Mackensen (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Replacing images, if possible is always a good idea. But if they're not available, they should be kept. ----DanTD (talk) 20:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
    • In the latter case we need to write up proper fair use rationales. I've done a half-dozen already. On the other hand, some are replaceable. I think we've got a far better image on California Zephyr now, for example. Mackensen (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I've done plenty of those, but the images have been tagged and deleted anyway. ----DanTD (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Well, we recently saved the Pioneer Zephyr image, so there's hope. Bottom line, if there's a free equivalent the non-free image is doomed. Mackensen (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
          • Yes, this is true. I recently checked out a Trainweb image of Santa Fe 3751 that's threeatened with deletion, and I tried to scope Wikipedia for more images that were not only free, but just as good as the one Lordkinbote uploaded, before he got fed up with the whole bureaucracy and split. I think in this case we can let this one go. This may not be the case with a lot of others. Perhaps we should bring a lot of this thread to the discussion that Train2104 has showed us, though. ----DanTD (talk) 10:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Rail tracks

This is under discussion of being moved. See Talk:Rail tracks#Requested move. Simply south (talk) 23:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Formatting issue in rail transport timeline articles

Hi, I came here via The Signpost's article on this Wikiproject, and because I've been gnoming through some articles that need their date formats fixed. All of the articles in this timeline seem to have been given clunky date-range titles. Here's an example: "May 1 - May 9".

I've been fixing this to, for example, "May 1–9", which looks a lot neater and uses the correct punctuation (an en dash). Please see WP:MOSDASH and WP:MOSDATE.

Please let me know if there's a problem with this. And could editors who maintain these articles use this format in the future? (I don't watchlist this page, so responses on my talk page, if there are any, please.)

Thank you. Tony (talk) 08:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course the format "1–9 May" is also acceptable per WP:MOSDATE. --Bermicourt (talk) 11:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

SW900RS model correction needed

Hi. I have been researching the British Columbia Electric Railway (BCER) / BC Hydro (BCH), now Southern Railway of BC (SRY). I have dug deep into its diesel motive power and have learned that all 12 of the EMD / GMD SW-type switchers they purchased are model SW900, not SW900RS, and that, in fact, there was never a SW900RS model produced by EMD / GMD. My sources for this info are Doug Cummings, a former BCER/BCH employee and retired locomotive broker, and EMD itself. I received an official corporate response recently, from two employees in their Service Parts Engineering Group, Jim Rusin and Yuk Mui.

The main SW900 article is correct, because it does not mention an RS designation anywhere and it also correctly lists the infor for BCER. However, a page linked to from that page, List of GMD Locomotives does have an RS category. What is the proper way to fix this issue? I am not sure, for example, if the 11 supposed-SW900RS total should be added to the 86 SW900 total immediately above it. Kent Sullivan (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Kent Sullivan

I did a bit of research, and found this edit, adding the disputed info on 4/1/2009 to the General Motors Diesel Division article. The locomotive section of this article was later spun off into it's own article at List of GMD Locomotives. Perhaps you could ask the editor who made the change what his sources were? WuhWuzDat 18:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

F40-PH

There needs to be some information on the fact that the F40-PH has become an internet meme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.75.149.94 (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Considering how ephemeral and non-notable Internet meme's usually are, and the need to avoid trivial pop culture references in serious articles, not really, no. Plus what reliable sources for this would there be? At most, a mention at the list of Internet memes article is all that's warranted. oknazevad (talk) 03:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Korea Train Express

There's a debate/slow-motion edit war in progress at Korea Train Express, additional comments from third parties would be most welcome. Jpatokal (talk) 12:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Infobox sizes

I just did some minor edits on the CP and CN pages and noticing how large their infoboxes (=logos) were I had a look at BNSF's - also really really huge in comparison to other wikipedia articles. What's with this? The effect is to make a really really big logo, and to push text off to a narrow column; there are too many factors within the table - the logo size, the map size - for me to know how to reduce them; but they're clearly - clearly - too large. Would someone please reduce these, and keep and eye on advertising-promotional scale use of logos? Wikipedia articles are not the sides of boxcars....Skookum1 (talk) 11:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

300px is plenty large enough for any image in an infobox. Mjroots (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Britannia Locomotive Class - the "Unnamed" Britannia 70047

My Uncle worked for many years at Stratford and told me that all the "Britannia" crews from whichever Region were a little "club" and used to meet up socially.

70047 was a London Midland loco and some names were actually suggested for her. One was "Tempest" to complete a series of World War II aircraft, another was "Princess Anne" to replace 46202 lost at Harrow & Wealdstone in 1952.

Another suggestion was to name her after the Chief Locomotive Engineer of British Railways 'Robin' Riddles. Mr. Riddles modestly declined the accolade but thereafter 70047 was known unofficially as "Riddles". 86.133.122.207 (talk) 09:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC) John Walden —Preceding Signatures comment added by 86.133.122.207 (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou, but (a) this comment does not belong here but at Talk:BR Standard Class 7; (b) we cannot incorporate information based on hearsay (see the policy on original research) - we need a reliable published source (see the policy on verifiability). --Redrose64 (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gartsherrie East Junction

The article Gartsherrie East Junction has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
Gartsherrie East Junction – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Official Name of "Yangon Circular Railway"

I just visited Yangon, Myanmar, in mid-September and also went to see the railway station there. Inside the tourist office, there is a route map of "Yangon Circular Railway" hanged on the wall. But the wordings "Yangon Circular Railline" was printed on the route map. So I wonder which is the official name, Yangon Circular "Railway" or Yangon Circular "Railline"?